Why change it at the consumer level when we can change it at the governmental level?
Personally I think trade with China should be banned until the CCP is gone and democracy installed. I think trade with China is wrong, we are helping prop up an unelected, oppressive and illegitimate government which massacres its own people every time they call for democracy.
Japan is going pretty well last I checked. It's one of the few places that is successfully transitioning to a lower birth rate via population shrinkage rather than mass immigration, enabling them to maintain their own culture and people.
That's partially true but I think it's partially a recasting of right-wing thought into a left-wing mould.
The main driving factor is third-world immigration, and in particular the perception that mass immigration from the third world has had deleterious effects on the West, both economically and culturally.
What we're seeing right now is, I think, a preference cascade. For years people have been told that opposition to mass immigration is "racist" and have kept quiet about it, but now it's become more socially acceptable to talk about it.
Hell no, i don't think religions should be allowed to push their agenda on children. If we banned that we could eradicate religion within a generation.
If I had a teenage daughter I'm sure I'd have little control over what she read anyway.
Helping them make up their own minds about the issues? That's a pretty good service. But reprinting propaganda from one side only does not serve that purpose.
Are you sure you think that biased substance is better than nothing? Are you sure it's not just that you happen to agree with the bias in this case? If Teen Vogue were suddenly full of pro-Trump propaganda would you be so enthusiastic? Or would you think that was pretty weird?
Maybe it's too much to expect, but I rather think that any publication which doesn't have an overt and honest political bias ought to be politically neutral.
The trouble with "affirmative action" is that in situations like this, nobody can really tell whether she earned it on her own merits or not.
It's possible she would have got the job if she were a man, I don't know. But what I am fairly sure of is that if she were a man then I wouldn't be hearing about it.
If you tried to start the Amish now it'd never last, it's too large a leap. But the Amish society evolved slowly over time much like others. If you went back to the early days then the Amish wouldn't be that different to others around them. It's just that there was a bit of a split and our societies have evolved in parallel since then under the influence of different values.
A good book on this theme is Matt Ridley's "The Evolution of Everything", which argues that social institutions are generally a lot more evolved and a lot less designed than people realise, and that we forget this at our peril.
I dunno. Go anywhere in the world and look at how billionaires and Presidents get around. Do they catch buses or do they choose to get around in private, possibly chauffeured, vehicles?
(Let me just pre-empt someone's example of some billionaire somewhere who loves catching buses, I'm sure there's one out there somewhere.)
I'd say it matters a great deal what it is -- for instance if your cause is the pro-life movement or the expulsion of illegal aliens then you might have difficulties getting social approval in San Francisco.
I find it a hilarious instance of California insularity that the grandparent post thinks it "doesn't matter what it is" -- I'm guessing that he'd failed to consider the fact that non-left causes even exist.
Huge transfer of wealth from low-margin businesses to high-margin businesses.
Supermarkets, for instance, have margins of about 3%. With a revenue tax they'd be completely boned. They could raise their prices, of course. But the bigger supermarket chains would be better off buying out their own supply chain.