right, that is what the website is. slashcode.com isn't a statement, it's consistency.

yes, i agree, slashdot did (and to a lesser extent, does) have an agenda, which is why we read the "news" here we do.

in the vein of this conversation as the GP phrased it, though, slashdot does not participate in movements at large, a la the GP's question, "What about... SLASHDOT?

What the hell guys? Do we not care about these bills to even change the color scheme?"

the answer to that is, slashdot is not a site that participates in these sort of editorial statements. i'm not saying that the editors should, or that it would be a better thing to do. i'm just saying that they don't do anything to progress the causes they believe in. if you have some links that tell me otherwise, i will be glad to read.

did they do anything to express this, besides linking to echo-chamber articles that (actual) journalists write?

i'm not saying they didn't favor linking that type of news and coverage, of course they did (still mostly do). i'm saying they didn't do anything about it.

similar to what i replied to xtracto, you're talking about users talking about things they themselves believed in, in relation to the news articles of the day. slashdot as a website, business, and editorial platform doesn't seem to take stands on topics or causes.

i think we're talking about two different things.

slashdot mods just posted echo-chamber news articles from different websites, and the users patted each other's backs with long posts and +5 scores to everything that agreed with their outrage

slashdot, as a website or a platform, hasn't done anything (i can think of) participating in any cause, like the event being held today on sites like wikipedia, reddit, etc).

i haven't been reading slashdot consistently forever, but i've never known the site at large to get behind a cause

around here, editorializing is for timothy's article summaries, only BOOM

The summary does not say this.

it might be that i didn't get the point of your comments (assuming you are also the grandparent AC) in relation to the commentary about idle reserves created by corporate tax cuts.

to recap the conversation i think we're having so far: Aighearach says "corporate tax cuts are not keynesian as they create wealth for large businesses that isn't being used."
AC says "that money isn't just sitting around doing nothing."
i say "these companies do have all this cash, and are doing nothing with it but hoarding, certainly not stimulating economy. citations provided, mothafucka."
AC says "(assumed: the money is actually in the banks) the banks don't actually have this money on hand, most is tied up in financial instruments and loans." i can't tell if your point is a semantic one (the money is not in GE's big cash room, it is being used by banks!) or an economic one (the money in use by the banks is therefore stimulating the economy).

am i on the same page as you, now? if your point was the latter...

if so, i would reply that this money is doing very little positive for the economy as a whole; financial instruments favored by banks produce nothing of actual value, though they do create bubbles which have the short-term appearance of value, until the eventual pop. loans are being given to non-major industry players even more rarely than before, and the large profitable businesses (as noted by their 1s and 0s) have little need for the leverage. this leaves national bonds, which is not unlike stuffing the cash in the mattress.

none of these would produce anywhere near the good, services, and wages that there would have been if the large companies had spent the money, by a long shot.

if your point was just the semantic "the money isn't just sitting in Microsoft's money warehouse," goddamnit for making me type all that.

except it very often doesn't, and sits still in quite large quantities.

let's be honest. no keynesian thinks the stimulus was enough, nor spent in the correct places, regardless of economic growth rate. it was certainly stimulus (and mostly ineffective), but not keynesian stimulus.

these policies are at the university or state level. most university policies of this sort are not enforced (cost:benefit prohibitive, as exemplified here), have loop-holes (cannot collect royalties on books they require for their own classes, so professors collude and require each other's book). i haven't heard of (and couldn't find) a state prosecuting a professor who broke a relevant law.

all of my classes that i felt required a textbook to get an A, the book happened to have been (co)authored by the professor.

academic instruction as an avenue for royalties hooooo

Or are not all attention spans created equal?

chinese political prisoners are already rich chinese citizens (if they weren't rich, they'd be dead instead of in prison). tax-deduction money wouldn't effect any change here.

this is about funding organizations to assist governments in disrupting human trading.

YOUR UNINFORMED PET CAUSE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS