[dead]
Re:A Dark Consensus About Screens and Kids Begins to Emerge ...
by manfredo on Friday October 26, 2018 @11:49AM
(#18310346)
This does not hold to to scrutiny. The case that was appealed to the supreme Court that establishes that video games are protected by the First Amendment was challenging a law championed by a California Democrat, but was mostly overturned by liberal justices.
What video games have to do with "white idntity politics" is beyond me.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merch...
Re:A Dark Consensus About Screens and Kids Begins to Emerge ...
by scarmig on Friday October 26, 2018 @11:46AM
(#18310316)
That's generic and not really convincing except to the already converted.
Getting into the concrete example of casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, on the other hand...
Re:A Dark Consensus About Screens and Kids Begins to Emerge ...
by briandear on Friday October 26, 2018 @12:05PM
(#18310494)
And yet the tech industry overwhelmingly supports Democrats? Partisan politics has nothing to do with the topic at hand. But, if you want to go there, I might suggest that Cato is a libertarian organization and libertarianism is about the rights of the individual to make their own choices rather than having the state dictate those choices. Bringing the Koch brothers into a debate over addictive screens is just silly.
[dead]
Re:A Dark Consensus About Screens and Kids Begins to Emerge ...
by Pfhreak on Friday October 26, 2018 @03:53PM
(#18312256)
Your "translation" is clearly out of tone for Hacker News.
Both sides play identity politics, they just focus on different identities. Most people are blind to the identity politics of their own party because those identities feel natural or correct to them, making the identities less obviously visible. (Or, inversely, the identities of the 'other' party feel obviously wrong, making them more jarring and stand out as 'playing identity politics'.)
Re:A Dark Consensus About Screens and Kids Begins to Emerge ...
by doctorless on Friday October 26, 2018 @08:39PM
(#18313686)
Tone is relative. Although the words individually are not incindiary, the post being replied to was equally incindiary in nature. Subtlety in verbal attacks does not have true distinction, other than one having (weak) deniability of malevolence. Arguably, it’s because of this it is more dishonest.