ahmeneeroe-v2

The quote is literally in this thread. Read upwards from your own comment. "Random lurkers" (including yourself) would have read it if they followed the thread to this point.

That's why I don't think davorak is here in good faith. Look how close he was to the quote.

What are you doing here? How did you get here without reading the quote?

>it is the moral and ethical duty of the Global North

This is also a pretty good joke

>(much of which was caused by colonialism)

I found the 10%

80 grams is a whole bunch. I agree it isn't "cartel operation" amount, but it is definitely a dealer.

No one needs davorak to understand their position. A large swath of the US is angry at Jimmy Kimmel profaning their martyr through a gross lie.

Those angry people have power right now and used their power to punish Jimmy Kimmel.

If you don't understand that, it doesn't affect those people at all.

The FCC is allowed to enforce a certain morality. You actually agree with me here, since we both cited obscenity as a clear example.

I also assert that the morality being enforced by the FCC [in a given time period] will fall in line with the morality of the rulers of [that time period]. That is a descriptive statement.

Which part am I wrong about?

insane standard. how would you ever govern with that as your standard?

It's his worst trait

Information moves too fast and government moves too slow for me to buy into this "existing procedures and rule-making" line.

Your next point about the FCC needing a major rethink is interesting. What are you thinking here? FCC also regulates internet-based communications (e.g. Youtube or podcasts)?

bad reading comprehension. here is what I said:

>As I said, the FCC is allowed to enforce a certain morality. It seems clear that the morality being enforced would fall in line with the ruling power of the day.

I agree with you but a broadcasting license isn't the same as "everyone given a loudspeaker". The FCC couldn't have done anything to a "Jimmy Kimmel Youtube".

The FCC is well enabled to make judgment calls. Yes a network can bring that judgement call in front of an actual judge in a court of law. That doesn't mean the FCC lacks the authority for such calls, only that the judge likely has higher authority.

Charlie Kirk was assassinated for his political views. Stated differently: someone with an opposing political viewpoint killed Charlie in order to stop Charlie from promoting Charlie's politics.

Jimmy Kimmel said that Charlie Kirk was killed by someone with the same political views as Charlie.

That is the lie.

I said that the FCC is allowed to enforce morality. The morality in question here is lying about someone being assassinated for their political views. The right sees Charlie Kirk as a political martyr (e.g. their MLK) and they don't want that taken away.

I assure you Trump did not invent "jimmy Kimmel isn't funny"

not a valid analogy

Tautology.

Highly cherry-picked. The next paragraph says that FCC limits broadcast of indecent and profane material.

As I said, the FCC is allowed to enforce a certain morality. It seems clear that the morality being enforced would fall in line with the ruling power of the day.

Yes please

The FCC exists (in part) to enforce a certain morality on public broadcasters. Whatever we think about that today, that was a core responsibility of the FCC when it started and that still exists today.

This is totally irrelevant, even if it's 100% true.

To put Monaco in perspective, the US could fit 4.8M Monacos

This seems accurate, yes. Do you actually not think this is true?

Use game theory for #3:

-You're a Chinese national in the US on a work visa or student visa

-CCP asks you to do something

What do you do?

A country picking high-quality immigrants ≠ a country competing for immigrants. The opposite, in fact.

This choosiness is actually a sign that immigrants are competing to enter those countries. The points based system is (in theory) a way to identify the ones we want.

That said, illegals and “refugees” outnumber H1Bs, further reinforcing that Western countries don’t care about global talent.

Great point, and since the post-graduation right to work is already a thing I believe this has already happened

Student visas in the US come with the right to work for some time after graduation. If the foreign student isn’t valuable enough to stay after a degree and multiple years of work I think it’s fine to send them home.

But me personally, I advocate many fewer student visas.

What do you think an electrician is doing?

Sure some electrical capacity goes to non-productive uses, but much of it is also spent doing things like enabling widespread computer usage.

SV labor is downstream of skilled trades.

Those countries were not competing for high skilled immigrants. They built themselves into places that high skill immigrants seek, but that is more of a side effect than a competition.

The leaders/parties supporting immigration in those countries are ambivalent to receiving high skill immigrants or refugees.

Removing demand doesn’t create more competition, the opposite in fact.

SV labor is largely not different than a skilled trade, except at the higher levels.