Given the voting divide based on education, people in the U.S. are getting something else out of college education. I have no issue with shoehorning more liberal education into primary education, but a liberal democracy cannot survive if blue-collar workers have no historical context and vote for authoritarians who are intent on destroying democracy.
In addition to what gruez said, this is disgustingly elitist. "They're too uneducated to know how they should vote! They need to get an education, so we can tell them how to vote!"
Do you wonder why Democrats are having trouble connecting with blue-collar voters? Attitudes like this are a big part of it.
I'm not sure what's more authoritarian, the "authoritarians" that you decry, or the implication that we should educate people so they vote on the correct side of the "voting divide".
I think what GP meant to say is that educated people are more likely to bother to vote at all, which suggests that they might be putting some thinking behind their voting choices and not be totally driven by short-sighted ideological thinking.
> The duty and role of a government is to act in the best interest of their citizens which that government represents.
Truism. The point of contention is around what constitutes "best interest."
> The interests of outsiders are simply not relevant to that
If this is so simple, why did it require an additional 500ish words to qualify it?
Your point seems to boil down to this:
In cases where there is a conflict between the perceived "best interest" of citizens and those of non-citizens, if the citizens haven't specifically directed the government to do otherwise, the government should act in the perceived "best interest" of its own citizens.
But it's reductive and short-sighted to say that humanitarian aid "hurts" one side and "helps" the other. For instance, the marginal impact of a U.S. dollar on a U.S. citizen's productivity is effectively nil. But that same dollar spent in a third-world country would have much higher marginal impact. The productivity of that other citizen allows them to specialize and trade, and then everyone benefits in the long term.
The hyper-nationalism perspective that your country should take whatever it can at the expense of other countries is exactly what led to both of the world wars.
If they were going to "leap at the chance" to suspend Trump, then why haven't they already? He's been treading in the grey area of their ToS for years.
Conflicting interests between how much they disagree with him politically and how much money they directly make off of his traffic (and less directly via traffic from everyone complaining about the controversy).
Twitter's business model is totally reliant on controversy. They want to treat/control, but not cure/extinguish.
Which is a separate reason that twitter's ethically conflicted in making almost any judgment calls on what's "allowable" speech.
Additionally, the nature of mud-slinging politics requires that ones opponents "follow" his online presence in able to attack. So if Trump leaves Twitter, not only do his followers go to whatever new platform he does, but so must his adversaries.
I agree that the DDG results, especially for software development related searches, are often worse than searching Google or StackOverflow directly. So here's my workflow:
1. Search DDG. If I find a decent result, I stop here.
2. Append !so to the end of the search. This searches StackOverflow directly. If this works, I stop here.
3. Append !g to the end of the search. This searches Google directly.
This way Google becomes a last resort.
Also worth noting that you can actually navigate DDG search results using vim keybindings without the need for a plugin: something Google dropped support for a few years ago.
