As you can see, it’s mostly gotcha quotes and unfair glosses. For example:
> NPR also called America’s interstate highways racist. I did not know our highways were racist. I thought they were concrete, but not according to NPR.
Of course, it’s a historical fact that many minority neighborhoods were bulldozed to make room for interstate highway development, among them Cincinnati, OH and St. Louis, MO.
Robert Caro details Moses' role wrt highways & suburbia in NYC, nationally, and even internationally.
IMHO, having never Moses, I'd wager he was classist. (Moses allegedly also hated poor and immigrant Jews.) As you know in the USA economy & society, classist ~= racist.
How about using terms like "pregnant people"? Or the fact that on my local NPR station I can count down from 60 and something like 80% of the time, before I reach 0, they've talked about race or ethnicity at least once.
That's my complaint. Decades ago I enjoyed NPR when I drove to work. It was always left leaning, but at least the programs discussed topics I found interesting or cared about for one reason or another.
These days the only thing they talk about are racial and sexual minorities. I can't express how little this kind of factionalism interests me. I'm not arguing that kind of content shouldn't be produced, but I don't want to pay for it.
I'm not against abortion. In fact, I actually see the legal necessity of it in an overpopulating world. But NPR's bias on the front does not align with my own bias or, I think, with most people.
Everyone has bias and that's perfectly human. The problem is when we don't own up to it. NPR tries to cover theirs with circuitous language and lies-by-omission, https://www.npr.org/sections/publiceditor/2019/05/29/7280694.... That double-talk served well in insulating them from criticism, but it ended up costing them the public trust.
It's verbal sleight of hand in the cultural tug-of-war to emphasize or de-emphasize the future human. The point is that massaged language blunts or sharpens its impact, and an org's political choices therein reflect the bias.
The baggage isn't calling fetuses what they are. The baggage and bias comes in when you lie about what a fetus is, depicting it as a human baby, which it is not. The right does that specifically to emotionally manipulate people and feed a narrative of baby killing.
Who here is doing the verbal slight of hand? The people using factual terms, or the people lying? This should be an easy one to answer.
In medical jargon, sure. In common usage, including among medical professionals, it's extremely common to just say "baby" in many contexts, especially when the baby is wanted and expected to be viable and brought to term. Nobody but a few weirdos or people trying to make some kind of a joke are gonna say to their partner "oh, did they give you any pictures of our fetus from the ultrasound? Oh look at our fetus' tiny little hands!"
(I'm pro-choice but think the "acksually they're fetuses" angle is fucking gross, both on an intellectually-honest debate level because it's semantic bullshit, and because it absolutely reads as a move toward dehumanization, and I hate to provide reasons for those kinds of accusations from pro-lifers to ring true)
I highly doubt anyone in your actual life has said this to you, or distilled the entire argument down to this point.
> because it's semantic bullshit
Obviously, semantics isn't "bullshit" because there's been a massive decades long debate over semantics, including millions and millions spent by the right to define the semantics.
I can concede that some people hear this debate and think they're under attack in a "culture war", which I'm really not sure what the solution to that is because semantics is important.
Adam Carolla was interviewed by NPR and tried to Gotcha him by saying he said racist comments against Asians, but the comments were from an Asian comedian. NPR canned the interview and never aired it, despite telling him they would air it.
Why would anyone care about A's criticism of competitor B?
--
FWIW:
"The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC."
eyeroll. Might want to look at the original article by the NPR veteran himself which was the first one posted, but has a paywall. The Washington Stand only elaborated it. Argue based on the facts and merits of the article.
Of-course, I am sure a government funded 100%-republican news and broadcasting agency with news pieces spouting right-wing talking points trotted out with regularity would be fully accepted as an excellent use of taxpayer money in the public interest by democratic politicians.
The difference is that being a republican is an ideology you choose. Republicans can stop being republicans at any time - but they don't, they continue, because they enjoy being republican.
What I mean is, republicans choose to be ideologically opposed to journalism and ideologically opposed to education. Why would they become journalists? They hate journalism, by choice.
The best Lightning audio adapter is Apple's Lightning-to-30-pin-iPod adapter. It provides line-level audio out, as the 30-pin port always did. So you don't have to dick around with two volume levels; it's fixed coming out of the phone, and you only adjust your amp.
I built one into a dock in my car that charged the phone and delivered audio to my car radio.
There’s no analogue audio over Lightning, so if the 30-pin adapter is disabling volume level on the phone, it’s just picking a fixed gain for its internal DAC—perhaps because the DAC is only good within a certain gain range. The Apple USB-C to 3.5mm adapters are widely regarded as having excellent DACs irrespective of their size and price. I’m not as familiar with the reputation of the Lightning to 3.5mm adapters, but I would consider the ability to configure the DAC volume an indicator of superior quality DAC compared to the 30-pin adapter.
The Lightning-3.5mm adapter has a quite good DAC for its size, I remember seeing a teardown article from when it was first launched, quite impressive engineering going on in a such a small piece of electronics.
I'm pretty sure it's the same DAC since the signal is digital whether over Lightning or over USB-C until it hits the DAC.
They earned their reputation when new phones came packaged with the adapter for the first few generations (circa iPhone 7/8?) after the 3.5 mm jack was removed.
It's an issue if you don't want to buy AirPods, or whatever the Pixel or Samsung equivalents are. Each realized there's money to be made this way, cause people will just buy.
Or in my case I've got an audio receiver with flaky Bluetooth. Guess it's "my fault" for not replacing it with an Apple TV, better yet Homepods.
Thank you! I'd tend to default to Expo if building a mobile app in JavaScript these days, but Capacitor, Tauri, and NativeScript are all good options too.
