I very much doubt the Trump administrations cares about Uighur Muslims any more than the CCP. Also funny how they need to wait until Trump's last day in office before lobbying any real criticism.
> The difference is how likely you are to assume possible racism is actual racism. The "glass half full/empty" metaphor expresses that difference quite well.
I addressed this quite clearly:
If you're not generally at risk of experiencing racism (ie. you are of the majority ethnic group), of course it is easy to rule out. It's hardly a glass half empty/half full type of problem.
A glass half empty/half full metaphor implies that the perception is simply down to personal optimism, which as I said, is clearly a gross oversimplification.
Terrible oversimplification. It's extremely difficult to determine what negative action is motivated by racism and which isn't.
If you're not generally at risk of experiencing racism (ie. you are of the majority ethnic group), of course it is easy to rule out. It's hardly a glass half empty/half full type of problem.
> No, all jobs don't disappear. Some, however, do. Some are no longer profitable, more are replaced by capital investments. Economics denialism is quite strong in your circles, as I noted.
Ok, now we're getting to the root of the problem. This is argument is based off of your misunderstanding of economics. What you're missing here is this:
- Jobs are a function of demand.
- Demand is driven by consumers.
- Consumers need capital to drive demand
- The poor spend proportionately to their income much more than the wealthy.
That's the circle you need to be thinking about when you're asking yourself what the impact will be on jobs. The more you drive down living standards of the poor and middle class, the fewer jobs you will have, not the other way around.
The point that you're ignoring is that most people working these "entry-level" jobs in fact DO depend on them to cover their living expenses.
What you're suggesting is to set those people in a race to the bottom along with the high school kid and retiree looking for "a little extra money". The point of setting a living wage is to set a bare minimum standard for employment.
You'd also find that the same politicians pushing a for a minimum wage are the ones trying to address broken housing policies, but you'd have to do research instead of just complaining.
"The free market will fix it!" - If we're assuming invoking the Defence Production Act wouldn't work because the machines are too complex to prepare in time, why on earth do you believe the free market would succeed?
> We can still say theft is bad regardless of the legal enforcement around theft. Some things are just morally wrong.
I have to assume that your perspective is being coloured by personal experience. At this point, your argument is simply: "Building pokie machines is bad because I think it's bad". Sorry, but I disagree with that, as stated before, they should be available to those who can use them responsibly.
Absolutely not, suggesting that the government should regulate gambling and responsible gaming has nothing to do with building the machines outright.
As I said, these machines should be available if you can use them responsibly, the government should dictate policy that gambling operators should adhere by to ensure that users don't take things overboard.
Blaming the engineer who built the machine makes for an easy scapegoat, of course, but if the issue isn't addressed on a societal scale, there will always be another engineer to replace him.