> Threats in public are designed to make you feel fear. Even if you know that the threat is empty, it's difficult to just put it out of your mind.
Regardless of the intentions of the one making the threat, if the threatened person knew with 100% certainty there was no real danger, then they would not feel fear. For example, if we receive an anonymous threat and then we learn that the person who made it was a 3rd grader on another continent. If we feel fear after receiving some seemingly empty threat, then it's because at least subconsciously we believe there is now some non-zero chance of facing danger.
My point was that it's not hypocritical for him to be upset about receiving online threats. It's the fact that people are making threats that's scary, not whether or not moderators are removing them.
Part of it may be the mindset of "paying for something = negative" and "getting something = positive." Micropayments maximize the time we spend thinking about the negative part of the transaction. On the other hand, if we wait too long and have a $1000 bill at the end of the year, that may be even more painful than having to think about smaller payments more often. The psychological sweet spot for many things is the once a month subscription.
This was confusing. The narrator leads by saying that cities are ponzi schemes and supports this by showing a cash flow graph, but that graph doesn't seem to be grounded with any examples. I find it surprising that long term maintenance costs more than the long term tax revenue growth. I would've liked to see more evidence that these cities really are unsustainable.
What you're referring to as "gatekeepers," I would see as one of many sources of evidence. Others include direct experience, non-expert opinion, data from experiments/studies, and so on. Ideally we'd weigh each source of evidence by how trustworthy and reliable they are, and then we'd use our brain to make sense of what may be true based on that evidence.
Society does not "work better when gatekeepers decide what the truth is." That's especially the case when the "truth" is political, and people have ideological incentives to report what they see as the truth in a certain light. Instead, society works better when individuals are free to look at the evidence and think about it for themselves. This is because in this case, you're treating the members of that society with human dignity.
Interestingly it was Mussolini who said, “Fascism should more appropriate be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." And this past election cycle and especially the past week, we've seen quite an alignment of those powers: the largest market cap companies, and a soon to be ruling political party.
> For example incitement to genocide must be a red line.
I don't think this has to do with why Twitter banned Trump.
> Iran’s leader has repeatedly shared tweets calling Israel a “deadly, cancerous growth” to be “uprooted and destroyed” — all going unchecked by Twitter.
> “The long-lasting virus of Zionism will be uprooted thanks to the determination and faith of the youth,” Khamenei wrote as recently as May.
> The first period includes within it a perfectly flat period longer than shortest of the periods you chose followed by a period of equal length that is more consistently increasing than the (mostly flat) period you've held up as an increasing trend, and then a period nearly as long as your shortest that is as consistently and more sharply decreasing than the one you hold up as showing a decreasing trend.
It sounds like you're referring to the "maximum tax rate on long term gains." As I stated, I used the "effective capital gains tax rate," which is the average rate that is being taxed (long term cap gains tax is different than short term).
They are unequal periods, and that's why we annualize the growth.
The periods aren't "cherry-picked." If you'd actually look at the plotted effective capital gains rate, you'd see a clear difference in tax policy in those three periods.
The "fuzzy subjective descriptors" are totally in line with the parent poster's: "long term tax policy."
The price elasticity of higher education is 0, and healthcare is also very low. We see my more inflation in things that we're not willing to go without.
The nice thing about the median is that it's robust against outliers like the ones you've mentioned. It's over $300k, so we're definitely not talking about some hellhole in MS.
Wages and the costs of hiring/employing are a cash outflow. Losses mean that outflow is greater than inflow, so wages can be related to losses, but they are not mutually exclusive.
Cuts to jobs and reduced hours can be because of losses, or they could also be due to efficiency gains, in which they could be related to profits instead. Divisions and jobs can be cut because they make neither profit or loss.
Employee's don't share in losses or profits unless their compensation is somehow tied to profits.
> that's obviously a different order of action with explicit criterion than whether or not this deserves third-party investigation which may lead to legal action.
To my saying "plausible doesn't mean actionable," you jumped to the following conclusion:
> So no racism claims are valid without either AV recording or, in all statistical likelihood, a non-Black person vouching for her?
I thought it was necessary to find some foundation on which we both agreed before addressing your conclusion. If we didn't at least agree that the concrete example wasn't legally actionable, then our viewpoints would be too disconnected to make the effort worth it.
How about this: if there is a "he said she said" situation where the accuser believes the accused did something racially motivated, and neither the accused nor the accuser have any evidence other than their word, should the accused face a real consequence?
Regardless of the intentions of the one making the threat, if the threatened person knew with 100% certainty there was no real danger, then they would not feel fear. For example, if we receive an anonymous threat and then we learn that the person who made it was a 3rd grader on another continent. If we feel fear after receiving some seemingly empty threat, then it's because at least subconsciously we believe there is now some non-zero chance of facing danger.
My point was that it's not hypocritical for him to be upset about receiving online threats. It's the fact that people are making threats that's scary, not whether or not moderators are removing them.