Conservative Americans are building a parallel economy?
economist.com
economist.com
I guess the argument is supposed to be that even if corporations are being dishonest, it's okay if their dishonesty is progressive. Well, it doesn't seem to be working, to me. Seems like things are at best still a frustrating game of give and take, and at worst, people are as divided and unhappy as they have been in a while.
"neoliberalism" is a right-wing philosophy.
To me the biggest wtf is “party of Reagan” Republicans rooting for Russia
EDIT - While writing this comment the article story got flagged. Who is trying to make sure you can't see stories like this? Eventually a "side" must be taken because one of those sides is determined to not allow you to decide for yourself.
I also don't really understand why this article is flagged; I think a lot of articles where the discussion is bound to go sideways get flagged just in anticipation.
"one of those sides is determined to not allow you to decide for yourself." Is this the side where elected officials block construction projects of a company because they don't like the speech expressed through their publications or is this the side where some students prevent non-conforming speakers to speak on campus and teachers get fired for reading a quote in a historical context that includes the N-word?
The side that has read the HN guidelines (linked at the bottom of the page) and knows that politics stories are explicitly declared to be off topic for HN.
What has actually changed is that the right wing has anchored their viewpoints to the social mores of the 1950's, making them no longer conservative but rather reactionary (as laid out by Moldbug himself). From that perspective, every day regular society ends up seeming increasingly hostile. What has happened is that they've moved into the position of activists. And like many newly minted activists, rather than doing the slow work of convincing others of the value of their beliefs, they're merely asserting things should be a certain way and then playing the victim when they aren't.
The underlying open question remains how successful will media (social and otherwise) continue to be at keeping so many people's perspectives so focused on identity politics (both flavors).
[0] term from their radio ad.
If I want global or at least local societal change then I need money to fund campaigns; rather than spend money on certain products.
I can get money by making something novel or by investing in learning how to make someone else more money.
If I don't want to give my money to businesses that use it in a way I disagree with then I invest more time into researching businesses and where their products come from.
The biggest hurtle for me was to lose my emotional attachments to commercial products. A thing has value to me because it serves a purpose, it is a tool. I've been taught in general you ought to buy the best tool that you can afford. "Best" may include attributes like 'aesthetics' and 'moral supply chain' along with 'quality' and 'bang-for-your-buck', etc.
What’s old is new again?
Just be aware that some people can't tune it out. If one of your children were trans, for example, the culture war would come for you, whether you want it to or not.
Like I said, it's best avoided as much as humanly possible. Just spare a thought for those who can't, and remember that it hurts. Not something you necessarily have to be aware of all the time, but there are times when it matters. Such as at voting time. The political positions in the culture war may not affect your family, but there are many others for whom it does.
The guy who ran the joint was the most stereotypical Jewish guy I have ever met (he actually joked about this), and he insisted on only hiring outwardly-gay-appearing graphics people (which admittedly could just mean a slim good-looking guy with a lisp, which . .eh. . did result in some confusion).
I've never seen such scorn for a customer base outside of working in the Defense industry, where "scorn for the customer base" is more or less where profit comes from.
Having said all that, it was sort of a lot of fun, but it was also sort of soul-destroying. Making a living off of scorn does that, I guess.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/glorifi-how-new-anti-woke-bank-...
Meanwhile, despite a noisy "backlash", ESG investing stays strong.
The anti-woke do not have the numbers on their side when it comes to either population or economic power. Lots of sizzle, no steak.
Because that's the only game in town, mind-share wise.
> The anti-woke do not have the numbers on their side
for now. but as you move to digital currencies and when banks start to punish you by kicking you out of your account for having non-mainstream discourse online, things may change. Those days are not too far.
Anti-woke options are there, they failed due to their unpopularity, not because ESG investing anlready exists.
Which demand? I can't imagine that suddenly shareholders woke up and considered that "we don't care about making money anymore, now we are going to add metrics that have nothing to do with making profits"
They have political power though, and gained quite a lot of it since the radicalization of the GOP in the post-Obama years.
DeSantis and Trump are just the tip of the iceberg, they are backed by an insane amount of not just Senators and Representatives (MT Greene and friends), but also a host of locally elected officials ranging from school board members all the way up to sheriffs (Joe Arpaio). On top of that comes their voter base, fanaticized by years of Fox News, OANN, Newsmax, Alex Jones and the other far-right figureheads: a lot of old people with a distinct demographic advantage over young people.
Besides: economic power is one thing, but deeming it relevant for political discussion raises other very serious questions. Let's for once assume Disney were the "anti-woke" company. Would we accept that a large company could simply trample over the law or buy themselves special treatment? Don't get me wrong, I'm glad they are standing up for those with no widespread voice - but it's nonetheless dangerous.
The thing is, most Republican (and also most Democrat) voters will vote for whomever has the R or D next to their name. All that matters is who wins the primary - and there, the far-right has the clear advantage, with Trump polling at 50% and DeSantis at 20% [1].
It's no longer about "who makes better politics", it's "doing anything just to not let the other side win". Honestly a wonder that the debt ceiling got raised.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/24/us/politics/desantis-trum...
In particular, banks make extremely political decisions in how they evaluate risk of loans and who they choose to loan money to and on what terms. Which is one of the reasons that the fall of SVB will have such long lasting implications for startups! Good luck getting the traditional banks to understand your startup enough to loan you something now.
Decisions are made on the estimations before the bottom line is realized. And reevaluating counterfactual outcomes from investing in something else is also not a quantitative decision, but one that is highly subjective.
My point is where there's right wing themed or supporting businesses the will also be left wing, albeit the left is more ideological, so the right might get further faster because they used old school capitalism where the left will be more pragmatic and focusing on how to create a more balanced equitable co-op structure that's merges aspects of socialism and capitalism.
The first is when you say "left wing" you probably mean something more like liberal democrats, which are not meaningfully leftist in a global context and not as far left as the american right is far right. Something like the black panther party or sandinistas is left wing, and more or less necessarily incompatible with the sort of engaged business-centric capitalism you're expecting. You can have a thin blue line bank but not a redistributionist one you see what I'm saying? To the extent something like that exists it is just left-themed, which definitely do already exist, and will eventually collapse under its commitment to capitalism and become functionally like any other agency in its domain.
The second is that it's probably not true that the left is more ideological than the right. Both groups will believe this about the other probably, and I certainly have my opinion. But for example undermining a high-value public good merely to deny access to an opposed group is a classic right-wing tactic that is deeply ideologically motivated.
The right's ideology especially around economics & money tends to be a lot closer to the mainstream of american culture. This is a distinct advantage in business! Again, a thin blue line bank has no ideological inconsistency and may thrive in the right environment.
The market works. It will follow the buyers.
Or it's just a result of the polarization of the political landscape
The premise of these apps looks like a cult
Or maybe just "Warning may contain traces of woke."
However, the article describes consumers gravitating to companies that match their political beliefs. This implies that they aren't annoyed by companies who push political topics, just by companies that push politics they disagree with.
I can only imagine these were omitted because they are unimpressive. Still, I've often wondered if beating the conservative/republican drum loudly could be leveraged into wealth.
I don’t buy the narrative that companies like Google are “leftist”… sure you can find stories about some progressive decision being made, but there are just as many regressive decisions being made (union busting, protecting sexual harassers in high levels, etc).
If these companies began being subtle ("normal") about their policies, even if they're more conservative than the YouTubes or Metas of the world, the conservative parallel economy might gain some traction.
In addition, I've been under the impression that conservatives just can't do tech - the vast majority of people who create beautiful user experiences and interfaces fall on the left. Perhaps its an empathy thing (not to say conservatives aren't empathetic, but perhaps the left is overly-so). The one exception being, strangely, Truth Social, which I thought had a pretty good UI/UX given the space they occupy.
How ironic that each of these brands are collapsing shortly afterwards.
Most recent big one was 'bed bath and beyond' wherein they marketed #grabyourwallet to boycott trump family products. But then less a year later, they even extended it so many other conservative brands.
So, I certainly cant fault them for trying to build up a parallel economy.
Thanks for challenging me to write it out.
According to everything I've seen and read, affirmation is very important in preventing suicides. I'm assuming you're talking about "affirming too early", or in other words "convincing" somebody of being trans, correct? If that's the case, wouldn't we expect a relatively high regret rate, compared to the real regret rate which is already way lower than almost any other medical intervention?
> Unrestricted abortion rights (Up to birth)
Can you show me where you get this? Sure, part of the Democrat party has this as a goal, but definitely not the whole party.
> no voter ID
Is the agenda "no voter ID", or is it "no disadvantaging minorities"? If it were the earlier, it should be very easy for republicans to say "we hear your fears, here is what we'll do to alleviate the problems" - but somehow they never call the democrat bluff, and they keep insisting on voter ID without ensuring equal access, right?
you realize conservatives did it first, right? First with segregation, no black people in my bar, then that wasn't allowed any more, but a bakery could deny baking a cake for a gay wedding. I mean, you could take it back to slavery even, which itself was an alternative economy of sorts. People being used as currency, etc...