←back to thread

Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney

(www.washingtonpost.com)
754 points coloneltcb | 8 comments | 25 Apr 25 23:03 UTC | HN request time: 1.209s | source | bottom
Show context
tzs ◴[26 Apr 25 00:00 UTC] No.43799641[source]▶
> Before being named U.S. attorney, Martin appeared on Russia-backed media networks more than 150 times, The Washington Post reported last week. In one appearance on RT in 2022, he said there was no evidence of military buildup on Ukraine’s boarders only nine days before Russia invaded the country. He further criticized U.S. officials as warmongering and ignoring Russia security concerns.

This is getting ridiculous. Is there anyone associated with this administration who does not have a record of promoting Russia's positions?

replies(5): >>43799655 #>>43799885 #>>43800099 #>>43800704 #>>43801144 #
r053bud ◴[26 Apr 25 00:43 UTC] No.43799885[source]▶
We voted for this! This is “democracy” at work
replies(10): >>43799926 #>>43800052 #>>43800056 #>>43800515 #>>43800646 #>>43801002 #>>43801436 #>>43801899 #>>43802403 #>>43802632 #
ty6853 ◴[26 Apr 25 00:50 UTC] No.43799926[source]▶
I mean yes? Democracy is a pretty poor model for governance. IMO peak enlightenment happened circa the 17th or 18th century when classical liberalism decided government should be based on individual liberties and anything outside of that is decided democratically not because it is a good system but because votes are roughly a tally of who would win if we all pull knives on each other because we didn't like the vote.
replies(7): >>43800033 #>>43800563 #>>43800678 #>>43800803 #>>43801006 #>>43801356 #>>43802416 #
1. tsimionescu ◴[26 Apr 25 04:43 UTC] No.43801006[source]▶
Ah yes, the wonderful time of enlightenment when all straight white Christian land-owning men's rights became recognized, not just the nobility's. Just a few short centuries from there, the rights of poorer white men, children, women, people of any other skin color, non-Christian, and LGBT people would be recognized too.
replies(1): >>43802292 #
2. A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 ◴[26 Apr 25 10:05 UTC] No.43802292[source]▶
You jest, but skin in the game is argument is not irrelevant. It is called a franchise for a reason after all. You want a slice of the pie, you should be able to prove that you know what you are doing. Owning land was a good enough proxy then. We can argue what would be a good proxy now.
replies(2): >>43802644 #>>43803655 #
3. keybored ◴[26 Apr 25 11:22 UTC] No.43802644[source]▶
You’re saying that people who owned land (and humans) as property had skin in the game while everyone else did not. Just stop.
replies(1): >>43803073 #
4. A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 ◴[26 Apr 25 12:38 UTC] No.43803073{3}[source]▶
There is no reason to conflate the two. To be frank, I explicitly stated land ( and not property as a more generic term ), which makes me question how much of a good faith of a conversation this is. My point stands on its own merits, but you seem to want to rely on cheap rhetorical theatrics a good chunk of the audience here can see through.
replies(1): >>43803536 #
5. keybored ◴[26 Apr 25 13:40 UTC] No.43803536{4}[source]▶
Okay, owning land then. My bad. All humans existing in the nation have skin in the game by the fact that they exist there. How do landowners have more of a stake?
replies(1): >>43804055 #
6. tsimionescu ◴[26 Apr 25 13:55 UTC] No.43803655[source]▶
Having the laws of the nation apply to you means you have skin in the game when it comes to deciding what those laws are. Owning something, land or whatever else, doesn't give you even one iota more "skin the game" than those that don't.
replies(1): >>43804848 #
7. ty6853 ◴[26 Apr 25 14:40 UTC] No.43804055{5}[source]▶
They have land that can be taken or voted away. I don't think only land owners should be able to vote, but it's worth noting worldwide having significant property is one of the most common ways for immigrants to qualify for a resident visa (other two common ways is job or business investment). Right or not it signifies enough skin in the game to many if not most societies to reflect reciprocated integration the community.

Remember in the early days there was almost no immigration control as well, so finding proxies for skin in the game might have been more challenging than today, when emigrating is almost impossible for the poor so they are stuck with their skin in America whether they like it or not.

8. A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 ◴[26 Apr 25 16:09 UTC] No.43804848{3}[source]▶
I disagree, but lets for the sake of argument assume that I buy into your premise. In terms of degrees, do people who own land and have the laws of the nation apply to you ( which is a fascinating distinction by the way, which you may have not fully thought through, but I will leave it as a tangent unless you want to explore it further here ) have more skin in the game than those who only have laws of the nation apply to them?