Incidentally, it was while working at Amazon years ago that I first encountered the divisive and paranoia-inspiring form of DEI training which I described above.
> My experience has led me to believe that most individuals in favor of corporate DEI initiatives are earnestly and in good faith attempting to put into practice the recommendations of critical race theory and related frameworks.
Yes, of course they are. As explained by Chomsky's model of propaganda, corporations hire true believers for these roles because they are the most effective and reliable.
> most managers and employers are not so crafty
Amazon being so crafty is a documented fact; it's naive to think they're the only ones.
Corporate DEI initiatives using divisive rhetoric designed to foster paranoia, in order to keep workers on edge around each other. ("You're all racist. Even if you think you aren't racist, asserting you have no subconscious racial biases only proves that you're overtly racist. You're constantly commit racist 'microaggression' offenses against your coworkers without even realizing it.")
Such paranoia between coworkers is a serious impediment to labor organization. The more diverse the workplace, the better this works.
Residents need jobs. Alaska is one of the most beautiful states in the country, but there are relatively few opportunities for work. If there were more jobs, more people would consider moving to Alaska.
We got a taste of this effect when remote working became common. A lot of people moved to other states and cities they wouldn't or couldn't live in before when they were expected to live near the office. But of course remote working isn't possible for many industries, particularly for blue collar labor, so if you want those people to move into your area, you need to have job opportunities to offer them.
It's at least an indication of a general preference for privacy, which sycophants for surveillance capitalists often try to claim doesn't exist ("only you nerds care about privacy, normal people don't care")
Even without tracking, virtually all advertising is a form of psychological warfare. Here's a common sort of ad: an image depicting young popular people having fun in the park, with cans of cola next to them. The message? If you drink our cola, you can have this lifestyle. This sort of advertising is designed to exploit insecurities people feel about themselves and their social life. This is psychological warfare for commercial gain, and it's standard operating practice for the advertising industry.
So you're going to give up and die because you have a broken finger. Got it. If I believed you I'd call you pathetic, but I know you're almost certainly bullshitting because you lost the context of the conversation, made a stupid argument, and are now trying to save face by doubling down.
Nobody rolls over and dies because of a broken finger. People regularly walk around with broken limbs after accidents, oblivious to their injuries because adrenaline has that effect to keep people alive. But you're here arguing that a broken thumb will render you unable or unwilling to call for help? As if you don't have two hands. As if you don't have 9 other fingers. As if you couldn't use your broken thumb to lightly touch a touchscreen if your life depended on it. Give me a break dude! If you die because of a broken thumb, your will to live must be completely nonexistent and you should go talk to a therapist because there is a real risk that you might starve to death after neglecting to eat out of apathy.
> wall of text of other irrelevant bullshit
What even was your point in posting that? I don't like touchscreens in cars either but that has nothing to do with this conversation and you know it. Stop bullshitting.
I'm not worried about some specific risk coming from Roku itself. But Roku contributes to the normalization of surveillance capitalism which I think is fundamentally corrosive to a free and democratic society. Having such a business model makes Roku a willful part of the problem, so I want nothing to do with them.