OrangeMonkey

It seems like you are suggesting the government can restrain speech and then, if the people disagree that the government, that they then can sue the government to allow it.

I don't want to live in the world you suggest.

This right here is why I am glad we have a constitution in the US and resist efforts to make it easier to change.

In general, when someone suggests the only solution to "too much free speech" is for people to be filtered, I say "You first."

Twitter hasn't been burdened by "extreme right" "abusing all communication platforms."

If it was, then we would have seen a left exodus years ago and not suddenly coming up now. This comment has me so confused.

I think we can agree to disagree.

People can respect you as a person, but no I don't think people have to respect different viewpoints. I can respect that you have a lived experience that differs from mine and that your viewpoint is X, but I do balance that against my own views and speak my own truth as well.

If you think that you have to respect every viewpoint that differs, think of the viewpoints of the party you dislike. Think of any of their views. Do you respect their _view_ or do you respect the person and want to allow their speech while disagreeing with it?

Me? I think the best way to deal with speech I don't like is not filtering or censorship its more speech. Anytime I see an implication that someones view needs to be filtered I think "You first."

I'm sorry but did you just say that democracy only works if we have censorship?

> Personally I don't think this acquisition is healthy for a democracy,

Only a fascist would force free speech onto people.

Courts exist to make people whole.

The court decided the executive branch didn't have the right to fire the workers. Because of that, the workers lost their jobs, insurance, and pay.

How else would you suggest the court make them whole again?

Don't be purposefully obtuse - its not helpful to anyone and just makes you look like a troll.

Germany did not want to produce oil/gas locally due to concerns about environmental impact. Instead, they decided to import it from Russia. With the Russia pipeline destroyed, they are now competing for these same 'dirty resources' on the global scale resulting in widespread suffering in the developing world.

If you are going to imply that you didn't understand this as the meaning of the statement, I think its pretty telling.

You seem to have become mistaken - I am talking about a companies fiduciary duty to shareholder and maximizing long term shareholder value. You are talking about popular sentiment.

... The 2022/2023 winter in Europe and the balkans should help solidify that in your mind. Germany lost its pipeline to Russia where it was sourcing its natural gas because they did not want to produce it locally. This directly caused them to start competing on the international scene for its gas.

Where do you think this 'surplus' of gas is coming from? Its not 'spare capacity' that was sitting around... its coming from poorer countries that can't compete for the same gas due to the price Germany is now willing to pay.

Consider Bangladesh and the political unrest because of the rising fuel prices. [1]. For gods sake, they had a nationwide power blackout that lasted 7 hours. Why? Because the gas supplies were being usurped by Europe. [2].

> Now with Russia-Ukraine war squeezing supply, the richer European nations are getting dibs on whatever is up for grabs. With winter and a cap on Russian fuel imports approaching, European buyers will look to stock up on even more LNG.

Maybe we disagree - but I would say that widespread starvation and energy blackouts impacting the populations of developing countries directly related to ESG policies is pretty damn bad. The road to hell is paved with good intentions - look down.

[1] - https://www.voanews.com/a/inflation-unrest-challenge-banglad...

[2] - https://qz.com/power-hungry-europe-is-leaving-developing-cou...

True. They are private companies, not Public. I am fine with this.

You know I never checked. I mean it seems obvious it would but I don’t recall seeing a study.

Honestly though a study like that may be banned from most research houses as it can fall into a bad spot. What happens if the study found it didn’t help. :/

I feel like the regulations here are good regardless. I don’t Want someone to be penalized specifically because of their race.

Let’s fast forward in financial regulation knowledge with a question perhaps.

Why do you think the sec had to require that directors and executives have a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders? Why are executives fined and jailed when they violate this?

Those answers should explain why there is an incentive to not allow public investable companies to fuck with their investor money in a way that isn’t necessarily in their best interest. If they want to do that, you can invest in private companies that the mom and pop investor can’t get hoodwinked into.

Arguments aside, completely unrelated to substance, that’s a scary looking link. What were you trying to link to? I enjoy conversing about the substance of arguments but I’m not clicking that. Any help?

Please follow hacker news guidelines or choose not to post. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Or, since your account is only 88 days ago, I guess create a new account.

I don't bother replying to the "substance" of troll comments.

I am happy that, in the US at least, the current legal climate does not agree with you.

In some countries, I have seen what you are saying becoming more and more pronounced. In Western Europe, specifically, you are seeing it.

I imagine the upcoming cold winter in Germany and the scramble to secure supplies at any cost for their citizens will help fix this issue.

> If it's actually true that such a loan is riskier, then the bank acted correctly.

Oh my god. We are not going to speed run racial discrimination in lending products again. Once is enough for me. This is actually specifically illegal.

> "What are the U.S. fair lending laws? Fair lending laws in the United States prohibit lenders from discriminating based on specific protected classes (such as race, color, national origin, and religion) during any aspect of a credit transaction." [1]

[1] - https://www.investopedia.com/the-history-of-lending-discrimi...

You should know that an appeal to follow ESG practices is likely to be found illegal right?

I know references and facts arn't as fun as emotional pleas and comparing investing for financial growth to cancer... but lets try it anyway?

> in May, under the banner of promoting ESG, nearly 50% of Travelers Insurance shareholders asked the company to break the law. Full stop. Specifically, about 47% of its investors backed a shareholder proposal that would have caused the company to collect and consider race when writing insurance policies, in direct violation of state law. [1]

> “Our states will not idly stand for our pensioners’ retirements to be sacrificed for BlackRock’s climate agenda. [2]

> "As fiduciaries, trustees must act in ways that financially benefit the trust and its beneficiaries. Trustees who fail to do so are liable for damages to the beneficiaries, and may face additional legal penalties. The social and environmental goals involved in ESG investing create a greater potential for violations of fiduciary law by introducing motives for investment choices outside the traditional definition. Are trustees selecting ESG-focused mutual funds because they believe they are suitable investments, or do they merely hope to make the world a better place by deploying capital under their control according to socially pressured or personally held beliefs?" [4]

Of course, that doesn't stop well meaning fools from trying to change the definition of words to make what they are doing not illegal.

> As the landscape for investment changes, so too does the notion of fiduciary duty. The processes and approaches used to guide investment decisions have evolved over time in response to changes in the generally accepted understanding of market behavior. We are again at an inflection point. As the evidence and rationale behind addressing material and business related impacts of ESG factors in the investment process further develops and is increasingly accepted, so does our understanding of these factors through a fiduciary lens. [3]

[1] - https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/oct/24/is-environm...

[2] - https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/ag-paxton...

[3] - https://www.intentionalendowments.org/fiduciary_duty_is_not_...

[4] - https://www.palisadeshudson.com/2022/07/an-esg-investing-haz...

I generally do not welcome things which make the investing landscape worst for the suburban investor. If I saw half the companies start a new youtube series called 'We snort half of our investors cash every monday!' I wouldnt laugh, I would be calling the sec.

I would like to see not the 'free market' dictate how it happens - I would like to see companies that harm their investors end with their ceo/cfos perp walked out and arrested.

I want to see companies remember they have a fiduciary duty to their investors.

The point of companies are to make money. As a shareholder in a company, I want to see increased valuations, good free cash flow metrics, and an increasing dividend.

The article is right in a way - ESG is infecting companies.

I do not want a company I invest in to "weigh in" on political issues [1]. I do not want to see banks put in racial quotas in order to get preferred rates [1]. I do not want to see a 'restorative decolonial' approach to ESG in companies [2].

For gods sake, I do not want laws to change to remove a companies requirement of a fiduciary duty so they can adopt more esg goals [3].

When did saying "I invest in a company for profit related reasons" turn into such a big boogey man.

[1] - https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2020/06/17/using-esg-tools-t...

[2] - https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/anti-racism-esg-just-might-sa...

[3] - https://www.esginvestor.net/reforms-needed-to-free-investors...

Our straws were stolen by fools crying over turtles who shipped our "recycling" to third world countries, who threw it in the gd rivers.

Its all so tiring.

ADOM - The game where understanding Conways Game of Life helps you farm herbs in a dungeon.

Since you asked, I am positive I am older than you are.

I absolutely believe an 18 year old is an adult and they have their own free will and capacity to make decisions. They are not a puppet worked by the heavens.

That said - I think we agree more than we disagree. Let students declare bankruptcy and force universities to once again have skin in the game.

By kids they mean “adults”.

By putting kids in debt the mean “allowing them to take out loans that will put them, statistically, in a higher income bracket than people who don’t go to college”

College is important - it’s why there is a cost to it.

I can argue - and I do in fact - that the federal guarantee that student loans not be dischargeable in bankruptcy led directly to the increased cost of education. This doesn’t mean someone else should pay your student loan bill. I’d be quite happy, though, taking away that provision letting students who got a raw deal discharge in bankruptcy. Let’s let lenders and colleges be required to make good investments again.

Great example - shows that government enforcement of free speech requirements work.

I wonder, if this was proposed today, if it would have passed.

Oh I simply can't wait until the current 'well actually, its not a free speech since its a corporation" group find that their telephone conversations are filtered or anytime they try to type certain words into a web browser that their isp drops packets.

We about to speedrun why freedom of speech is important!

Exactly so.

I have to unplug lab cables when flashing a machine or I don’t get a choice.

You are right.

The most likely reason almost all of hackernews wants to do nothing but make fun of crypto and the people involved is they just don't understand it.

If only they invested the 100+ hours learning it like we did then maybe they would understand its value. I mean thats the only option - either its uninformed ignorance (which we think) or actual malice. There can't be a third option.

You may be right and maybe I am just viewing things from an opposite ideological view.

@dang - any input here? Hows moderation been in 2016 vs now?