Every time I bring this up, someone says "oh, they'll ruin your credit rating!"
No, actually they don't, unless you do something fraudulent. If you cancel your subscription legitimately and then kill the credit card, you've just made sure there aren't any "accidental" charges.
Most people want to use privacy.com so you don’t have to cancel the subscription because websites like to put up artificial barriers like having to call a phone number and wait on hold to cancel a subscription. So what happens in that situation where you technically never officially canceled the subscription and so the company continues to bill you and when the payments don’t succeed, they send it to collections?
In my experience, they say "your credit card is failing, please give us another one." Because credit cards fail all the time. It's not Red Alert.
You go to the page to change your credit card, and THEN you usually can find the "cancel my account" link. As long as you're not still using their service, you don't owe anything. They cancel you, and that's that. No collections agency.
If someone has an actual event, not a hypothetical, speak up.
I'd never heard of this, despite growing up in Chicago. It makes you wonder how many other archeological treasures are underwater and undiscovered, given how water levels used to be lower.
Lake Michigan is BIG. The location of this thing isn't public but Chicago is closer to Cleveland than the middle of Grand Traverse Bay. Washington DC and NYC are closer together than Chicago and G.T.B.
I'm no expert in the Great Lakes but I'm surprised they found something that far north that old. From a little reading the glaciers were retreating from that area around the same time frame. I guess +/- 1,000 years is a big deal.
There are a bunch of cool signs of the precursor to Lake Michigan around Chicago from the time when the lake was "capped" in the north and drained to the south. Blue Island and Stony Island were real islands. Ridge road to the north marks where the shore once stood. Pretty cool to imagine.
Also the Mount Forest Island [0] in the Palos area of Chicago! This used to be an ancient island. It's also not far from Site A/Plot M Disposal Site [1] which contains buried radioactive waste from Chicago Pile 1/2/3 nuclear reactors and first home of Argonne National Laboratory [2].
Interesting. I grew up in Roseland, and there was a hill east of Michigan Ave. going down. I always thought that was from Lake Calumet which used to be a lot bigger.
Where I live in Oak Park, there is a ridge on the appropriately-named Ridgeland Avenue, which marks the shore of the ancient Lake Chicago. I think my current home would have been in marshy shoreland.
Edit: Just looked at the article, and see that Ridgeland avenue is listed as one of the shoreline areas in the article.
I was about to pan this as yet another shallow "all great art gets criticized" take (ignoring that a lot of things that get criticized actually ARE crap). But then I got to the last paragraph.
Yes, it's been rejected now, but maybe someday people will reevaluate it. Maybe they'll still think it's crap; maybe not.
I use DDG most of the time. Sometimes I try Google, and then I'm disgusted by all the non-result garbage they put at the top nowadays. Once in a while they do have something valuable that DDG misses.
No, the difference is whether they try to be unbiased or not. Wikipedia used to try, somewhat, occasionally. Now they are indeed "merely left-wing advocacy essays.”
Hardly any news outlets are trying anymore, so I can see why you think that.
Trying to be unbiased is a futile effort, and most journalists know that. What good journalists do is take their inherit bias into account and adjust for it. The reporting should be truthful, and people should know the facts after reading it. Biased media often editorializes the truth so it conveys one message rather then another. This can be bad, or it can be good, it depends on the message. When the message is “a genocidal army is doing a bad thing”, I lean towards this editorializing being good actually.
That seems to be the conventional wisdom. I sometimes get on newspapers.com (not free, unfortunately) for my articles, and for the Pullman Strike series I used the NYT for excerpts. This was 1894-95.
So no, it's not futile; it's just difficult. They were doing it, and that's part of what made them the "newspaper of record" (a rep which they're busy squandering now).
I'll refrain from the shameless self-promotion for a change and not include links, but I posted all of them to HN. Or of course you could use the 7-day free trial on newspapers.com.
As for your last, sentence: no, the adjective "genocidal" is not OK. "Unbiased" would be a description of what the army is doing, with another story "Does this qualify as genocide?" Or quotes from organizations calling it genocide.
Presenting both sides is not the same as being unbiased. The bias materializes in e.g.
a) Giving one side a favorable treatment
b) not presenting the full argument of the other
c) missing the viewpoint of a third, fourth, etc. side
d) when one side is just plain wrong, not presenting it as wrong, but of equal merit.
e) etc.
The bias can be as simple as who you present as the subject in your headline.
As for the Pullman strikes, I don‘t know much about the subject but when the New York Times called it: a struggle between the greatest and most important labor organization and the entire railroad capital. (quote I got from Wikipedia) they were definitely showing a bias, theirs just happened be judged better by history than the rest of the journalistic world at the time who had a different and much worse bias (and as such much more obvious in hindsight).
I would think that unbiased would mean presenting all the pertinent facts.
Nowadays, "bothsideism" is considered a mortal sin in journalism and only the facts that support a particular viewpoint should be transmitted. Any other facts are d/misinformation and should be censored.
Thats not what journalists do (or at least not good ones). Journalists’ job is to contextualize the facts and interpret them in a wider sense.
I’m also not sure this is actually an Edward R. Murrow quote. I went looking but couldn’t find the source. The closes I found was:
> American traditions and the American ethic require us to be truthful, but the most important reason is that truth is the best propaganda and lies are the worst. To be persuasive we must be believable; to be believable we must be credible; to be credible we must be truthful. It is as simple as that.
Which actually place more into what I’m saying, that a good journalist will tell a truthful story with the aim of persuading people of their viewpoint (which hopefully is a worthy one; not e.g. denying a genocide)
The quote you presented I only found one instance of on the web which was here:
> I learned from my first daily newspaper editor, when I was pitching a story about improper personal favors dispensed by local government to a prominent landowner, that my suspicions meant nothing until I could prove it. “Don’t tell me what you think, tell me what you know,” the late Joe Ellis, editor and publisher of the Clarksdale (Mississippi) Press-Register, admonished me.
And even here the context around the quote is advocating for using true stories to persuade the readers of a certain viewpoint, that corrupt politicians are bad actually.
The context here of Mintpress News being a heavily biased journal—which they undoubtedly are—presenting a true story while trying to persuade readers that a genocidal army is doing other bad things. This is good journalism actually.
> Rather, my experience is that young readers are eminently capable of critically engaging in long form content, but they’re rightfully demanding a seat at the table where decisions about texts are being made.
There's never been a time when kids didn't demand things that are "relevant" to them. Soul on Ice and The Teachings of Don Juan certainly seemed more relevant than Macbeth 50 years ago.
The fact is, they're not capable of deciding that. That's why they're in school.
The teacher's job, which this person refuses to do, is to make the classics relevant.
If you're one of the people repeating the facile, shallow, and dumb cliche that "the older generation has always been critical of the younger generation" then you are, ironically, part of the problem. You have no insights that younger people value, so of course they're going to ignore you.
There are lots of other opinions in this thread that it's a false thing to say. It implies that the theory is respectable just by listing it. The fact that someone said something ridiculous is not worth mentioning.
I don't know what other arguments would make an impression on you, so why don't we just drop it?
Ok - I was hoping to get you to engage with the actual content of the article, but I'll just get to the point:
* Mentioning that a belief exists is not the same thing as endorsing it. And arguing that they are the same is an affront to open and rational discourse.
* A major point of the article is that many historical claims are fiction that are based more on speculation, and political, cultural, or national agendas than hard evidence. So it goes double that mentioning a historical claim in this context is not an endorsement of its accuracy.
* The fact that people are so hung up that they would call the author a weasel based on the mere mention that "a black African discovery of America, it has been argued, took place around 3,000 years ago" - regardless of the context in which it is used - says a whole lot more about their own beliefs and biases than the author's. They are basically reinforcing the whole point of the article.
Or, to quote the article one last time:
> To hear Americus in the name; to hear the Amerrique Mountains and their perpetual wind; to hear the African in the Mayan iq' amaq'el; to hear the Scandinavian Ommerike, as well as Amteric, and the Algonquin Em-erika; to hear Saint Emeric of Hungary; to hear Amalrich, the Gothic lord of the work ethic; to hear Armorica, the ancient Gaulish name meaning place by the sea; and to hear the English official, Amerike — to hear such echoes in the name of our hemisphere is to hear ourselves.
That’s not the case. It happens, for sure. I know some hair raising army jokes, but plenty of military people recognise their opponents as people just the same.
No, actually they don't, unless you do something fraudulent. If you cancel your subscription legitimately and then kill the credit card, you've just made sure there aren't any "accidental" charges.