And yet Parlor is being de-platformed specifically because it refuses to police the portion of the conservative conversation that is so. It's not because they believe in smaller government or lower taxes.
Conservatism plays this game where it uses this violent rhetoric casually and then acts all surprised when its own members act on that rhetoric. They tell each other that anyone who disagrees with them is an anti-american who want to make this a communist/socialist/fascist state. That voter fraud is rampant and that they will need to overthrow the government with violence. They do this is, in much more graphic detail than I'm using here.
Then, when something violent occurs, we're all just supposed to sit here and pretend like it's just some happenstance and we shouldn't judge them by their own inaction in stamping out the rhetoric from their midst.
No they stormed the capitol because they refused to accept the outcome of an election after their candidate availed himself of every legal avenue of challenge. Fuck those people. The rhetoric that drove them was Trump himself and his stooges in conservative media.
Part of the challenge is that most people won't like coffee's actual taste. Good coffee is best drank black. Once you start adding milk and sweetener the coffee taste itself goes to the background.
People do a similar thing with tea. In the US tea is mostly drank iced with a crap load of sugar.
So if you're trying to sell as much coffee as possible, you'll be serving it mostly with cream and tons of sweetener anyways so its pointless to worry so much about quality coffee. With volume you also have to worry about getting people in an out as quickly as possible. Most of the boutique coffee shops will be making single pour brews that take forever to make. You simply can't dedicate that much time per cup if you have a line of people inside and a drive thru to manage.
You have a really low bar for freedom if the destruction of property is all it takes for you to start justifying unmarked federal agents grabbing people off the street. Further the leadership in these states already have sufficient resources available to handle these protests if they decide it's gotten out of hand. People not from these neighborhoods are proclaiming these protests out of hand summarily.
The people protesting have been exceeding clear about what they are arguing for precisely. Holding police accountable is not some fringe political opinion and in fact the right, according to its own professed beliefs, should be natural allies in this movement. The further this continues the more evidence we have that these concerns about police in the United States acting with impunity are legitimate.
What is clear however, is that a significant portion of the people who have claimed themselves champions of freedom and states' rights always held the caveat that it be in the service of a particular group of people. It is interesting how people who in every other circumstance hold individual liberty as central to their beliefs now place law and order at the center of their arguments at the expense of individual liberty. Where in the Constitution are our rights subject to conditions on behavior? Fucking nowhere. The second amendment itself grants the people the right to violence against a tyrannical government so why then would "not destroying statues" in any way be considered some kind of pre-requisite for legitimite protest?
No it would not necessarily be better, on balance. A critique of a system is not meant to be an attack on it nor an argument that there is necessarily some other better system. In fact, I would argue that the difficulty with having these conversations nowadays is precisely your response.
In the American context at least, most of the time when people point out the failures in Capitalism people mean it more in the way that you might point out edge cases that need to be accounted for. The problem in having these conversations is people take it as some rhetorical device meant to actually promote Communism or some other philosophy.
The point OP is making here, as I understand it, is that there is a paradox in a Capitalist system in that if self-interest and profit are at it's core, then by definition that self-interest will override any other consideration to the point that any company will be more than willing to sacrifice any other concern for the possibility of making money.
We have known for the past 30 years at least that China is on a trajectory to surpass or challenge American supremacy and yet corp after corp was willing to send them technical knowledge and jobs that grew their economy to the point that they can build artificial islands in the South China Sea. Let me remind you that we won WW2 primarily on the strength of being able to outproduce our adversaries, not on technological superiority.
So now though, we're super concerned about Chinese influence in the tech industry, specifically. I am worried too, of course you have to be. But it's tremendously silly to act like now it's suddenly a concern and single out one sector or company (e.g. NBA) as if the sacrifice of values in order to make money is not an inherent characteristic of Capitalism.
It's hilarious to me how hard people keep pimping this notion of people abandoning the SF Bay Area. As long as I've visited this site there's been a constant rotation of here's why people are leaving..
Feels like a good portion of the population is forever waiting for California's comeuppance for whatever reason.
No I know how you meant it but I was indeed precise in how I meant it. I meant specifically that for many of the Libertarian set it is a belief in the theological sense.
The free market theory, if we want to call it that, has always also carried the implicit 'in the long run' and this is what we're quibbling about. Natural disasters, pandemics etc are short term conditions that don't allow enough time for the normal market mechanics to come into play. This is the argument essentially.
Your belief in the markets is such that you cannot even allow for any instance where the free market is an imperfect solution and any kind of critique means that the person is anti market. I am not anti market. I simply do not consider the free markets some infallible system that works in every context.
This is not some rhetorical device meant to sneak in Socialism. It is in fact possible to recognize the efficacy of the markets, over the long run, but still recognize that there are contexts that require some amount of intervention.
I want to also comment on the following:
"even if you don't believe in it"
I don't consider this something to believe in or not believe in. It's just a system, a tool, it has strengths and it has weaknesses. Sometimes it's the right approach, sometimes it's not.
How does that line of thinking work with something like baby formula? If I have a hungry baby now, what good does it do me if I have to wait two weeks because I'm priced out of baby formula today?
In emergency situations we pretty much already know what peoples needs generally are. We don't need price as a market mechanism to know people need access to food water etc.
Additionally, price gouging is sending artificial pricing signals. The rise in price is not the result of organic demand but people taking advantage of a short term supply constraint, so if I'm a manufacturer/distributor I can't react to this rise in prices the same way I would in a normally functioning economy. I may not even be able to.
This is fundamentally the problem though isn't it? Belief is a matter of faith, and so regardless of how much experience we have with these situations no amount of evidence is going to sway them.
Unfortunately, it's pretty much a religious belief for many people where they can't acknowledge any kind of edge case where the market mechanism breaks down.
It's so interesting how these surveillance/data-gathering companies (Palantir, Banjo, Anduril) are founded by right-wing types. Professed small government libertarians building that very same government's intelligence apparatus for profit. It's exactly this double-speak on government and individual liberty that makes minorities distrustful of conservatives.
No, it depends you see, when minorities claim police misconduct, those claims require evidence before we accept them. In the case of a 'former' Neo-Nazi claiming Jewish heritage we accept the claim without evidence.
I think they mean to say that sometimes you might want the visual structure of a table but you don't necessarily want it announced as a table via screen readers since it isn't data that's being represented.
It's occurred to me for some time now that design has suffered from globalization in that while surely there is some good in the more rapid exchange of ideas, there has also been this hyper convergence in design where it all just kind of looks the same. Consider that in this particular domain, automobiles, you used to be able to clearly delineate design along national lines. There was a clear distinction in Italian design vs American, German, British, Swedish etc. But now?
The thing that bothers me the most about this minimalist trend is how pervasive it is. I quite like minimalism myself, but I feel like 40 years ago even within minimalism you would have expected to see some difference in execution across the globe.
Which brings me to how trendy the design field is in general. I don't think I've seen a field so uniformly go from one trend to the other and then defend it with such dogged bullshit. Who in God's name is fooled by the poetry? You're using the same design language and aesthetic as everyone else, the only thing creative is the nonsense you're writing to defend it. Why is a field full of 'creatives' so uniform in thought and expression? How many trends have we witnessed so far in web/graphic design? We've built all these powerful creative tools just so they can end up all making logos that look exactly the fucking same. Surely machine learning models can create a good percentage of the design we see today.
And yet Parlor is being de-platformed specifically because it refuses to police the portion of the conservative conversation that is so. It's not because they believe in smaller government or lower taxes.
Conservatism plays this game where it uses this violent rhetoric casually and then acts all surprised when its own members act on that rhetoric. They tell each other that anyone who disagrees with them is an anti-american who want to make this a communist/socialist/fascist state. That voter fraud is rampant and that they will need to overthrow the government with violence. They do this is, in much more graphic detail than I'm using here.
Then, when something violent occurs, we're all just supposed to sit here and pretend like it's just some happenstance and we shouldn't judge them by their own inaction in stamping out the rhetoric from their midst.