Reading MSM newspapers is definitely indoctrination. With Europeans getting more and more hawkish on Russia (and other things), this seems like a great way to get everyone thinking "right".
How about making teenagers seek out independent media? We've seen the results of people being raised reading MSM newspapers and it's not pretty. Propaganda packaged as "serious news", is some of the most dangerous media that exists.
> Finally, we show that both free news access and media education improve media literacy skills (+0.08 to 0.26 sd), with larger effects among students taught by teachers with prior experience in media education.
They taught the teenagers how to question and interrogate the claims presented in the newspapers, which is far more effective than blindly branding 'MSM newspapers' as propaganda. (The study was conducted in France; are you sure that conventional French newspapers are propaganda of any inclination?)
Who decides who we're sanctioning and who is a "terrorist"? Not me, that's for sure! My money is my business and I don't need the state nanny watching who I send it to.
> Government should require regular, mandatory reporting by technology service providers to document abuse of their systems including financial support of violence, harassment, and terrorism.This includes implementation of mandatory financial abuse reporting requirements for internet services operating in the United States, including social media services, infrastructure providers, banking institutions, cryptocurrency exchanges, crowdfunding sites, video streaming platforms, and the like.
> [These companies] should be required to investigate and report the details of harms and abuse of their service. There should be … penalties applied to services that refuse these tracking and reporting responsibilities.
I think you're misinterpreting a very specific messaging mission the neo-liberals went on. They promoted a particular brand of "feminism" to get Hillary Clinton elected. This is no longer part of their platform, and it's no longer needed as it turns out Islamaphobia, Epstein and AIPAC (and similar endeavours) were better control levers that transcend party lines. Gaza is destroyed and we're at war with Iran, mission accomplished, if not delayed a bit.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say the institutional paper that lied to get us into the Iraq war isn't "turbowoke". The NYT is a propaganda outlet for the military industrial complex, not some sort of leftist activism.
It’s an outlet for elite American opinion, for the American ruling class. The particular opinions change over time but it’s fundamentally progressive because that is the ideology of the American elite and has been since the founding (the American Revolution was by definition revolutionary/leftist/progressive).
The Iraq war was predicated on the idea that you could or should “bring democracy” to Iraqis, this is fundamentally progressive view of the world.
An actual conservative approach would be something like 18th and 19th century European colonialism.
There is zero progressive representation among the elite. The American Revolution wasn't "progressive", it was one of many steps that led to the genocide of Indigenous Americans. Using the military to murder Muslims isn't "progressive" either.
You should talk to actual lefists, they hate neo-liberalism even more than the right.
This is a prole leftist take and proles by definition are very ignorant and don’t understand elites or what they’re seeing (if someone could they would be an elite). A prole leftist is basically just a sad walking disaster that is angry and wants free stuff and wants others to suffer. They’re not engaging with leftism on an intellectual level, they’re not romantically captivated by it.
As far as mass murder goes, generally speaking the purpose of the Great Leap Forward, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution and other types of leftist movements isn’t to kill massive amounts of people but that is a very common result of putting progressive ideas into action.
You're incorrect and historically inaccurate. Using the US military is not a leftist position, it's imperialism.
> don’t understand elites or what they’re seeing (if someone could they would be an elite
You can't become and elite through observation. You have to be born into it, or successfully do the bidding of those who are. Even then, you'd only be "new money".
> Great Leap Forward, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution
None of these extend beyond the borders of the nation in question. That's my point, imperialism is not and never has been leftist.
I'm not a prole nor an elite, I am however a leftist and I assure you that neither the Democrats or The New York Times are even remotely leftist. They're right wing neo-liberals.
Leftism and “imperialism” are orthogonal concepts. “Imperialism” isn’t even a thing, it just basically means “conquering other land” or “imposing your views/culture”.
Imperialism is definitely a thing and it indeed means conquering other land. It's not orthogonal to leftism at all. Lenin literally called it the "highest stage of capitalism".
The USSR practiced “imperialism” by definition, forced deportations, annexations of territories.
Again, “imperialism” is just conquering territory + negative valence. It’s not actually a thing itself, it’s some other actual thing + It feels bad/it’s against my interests. There are lots of words used in political discourse that are like this. It’s just juvenile nonsense.
Capitalism only functions when you have people willing and able to buy your stuff, a state that protects fair dealings, and maintains a peaceful public order. It a luxury maintained by having a safe, stable society. Imagine trying to run a business in a world where the workers can just decide to cut you out of your investments, and then you have to hire PMCs to retake your factory, but then the PMCs renege on your contract and decide to run the business themselves. A society where you need to build your own roads, spread your own pro-business propaganda, and lack any recourse when your suppliers decide to take your money and run.
That's capitalism: owning capital attracts more capital, until eventually an all-powerful oligarchical class emerges that is then emboldened to dismantle the liberal democracy that built them, in order to secure their position at the top.
Hitler was sponsored by the industrialists of its nation. So was Mussolini. So is Putin. So is Trump.
"Capitalism is incompatible with democracy" is the one lesson I hope people finally learn by the end of this century.
Conservatives have many forms of "cancel culture". They want to deport people from places they don't like (or from a race they don't like), they want to enforce Christianity in public places, they want to make being "antifa" illegal...
And the ultimate form of cancel culture, conservatives (including the neo-liberal variety) will straight up murder you if you're Muslim and live in the Middle East.
That costs money though (or takes time, which is money). When you need to eat and put a roof over your head, you realize our system is not setup to allow you to do this.
Bit of a strawman here, particularly the last one. Find a single US administration in recent history that hasn't killed thousands in the middle east? I'll wait.
reply