> And the use of the term ‘expedition’ carries orientalist associations
?
285 karma · joined December 17, 2019
?
Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient." Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies.
Amazon, Apple, Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc. are multibillion-dollar corporations that control a colossal share of online communications.
Not true.
> there's no reason to believe that the character is anything except the most common case in society
Not true.
You are simply throwing out baseless assertions.
GP is talking about representation in film. That's what this whole subthread is about.
Non sequitur.
> You don't want anyone to be able to enact change.
Non sequitur.
> If your goal is to never be critiqued because you can't stand to be wrong, and that's why you've adopted a 'centrist' standpoint
Strawman.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
1. The data is freely available and you can check the methodology yourself: https://www.heritage.org/index/pdf/2016/book/methodology.pdf
2. "We check the robustness of our results using alternative freedom indices."
https://rd.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230114319_3
> Compared to those that were less free, countries with higher economic freedom ratings during 1980–2005 had lower rates of both extreme and moderate poverty in 2005. More importantly, countries with higher levels of economic freedom in 1980 and larger increases in economic freedom during the 1980s and 1990s achieved larger poverty rate reductions than economies that were less free. These relationships were true even after adjustment for geographic and locational factors and foreign assistance as a share of income. The positive relations between the level and change in economic freedom and reductions in poverty were both statistically significant and robust across alternative specifications.
> Some fear that growth propelled by economic freedom will leave the poor behind. This was not the case during 1980–2005. During this quarter of a century, the developing countries that moved the most toward economic freedom achieved both strong economic growth and substantial reductions in poverty. This indicates that an institutional and policy environment consistent with economic freedom is an important ingredient for progress against poverty.
https://www.mohrsiebeck.com/en/article/the-relationship-betw...
> We study the relationship between economic freedom and poverty rates in 151 countries over a twenty-year period. Using the World Bank's poverty headcounts of those living on less than $1.90 per day, $3.20 per day, and $5.50 per day, we find evidence that economic freedom, measured by the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom, is associated with lower poverty rates. We also test the effect of various components of the Index of Economic Freedom. We find that a government's integrity and a country's trade freedom are associated with lower poverty rates. We check the robustness of our results using alternative freedom indices.
See also https://cei.org/blog/why-economic-freedom-is-the-best-weapon...
To start with, do you know what a tragedy of the commons is?
Second, why would "individual freedom being prized so heavily" entail "people tending to do things like call the police"? Are you familiar with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unofficial_collaborator and the like in authoritarian countries?
Third, what's the source for this bizarre claim that "those [dog owners] tend to do things like call the police on black people"?
Fourth, in what way is the latter at all relevant to the topic?
This passage doesn't make sense. It's a word salad.
Why do you think the latter is more "to the point" than the former?
Like?
Remember, indeed?
https://rd.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230114319_3
> Compared to those that were less free, countries with higher economic freedom ratings during 1980–2005 had lower rates of both extreme and moderate poverty in 2005. More importantly, countries with higher levels of economic freedom in 1980 and larger increases in economic freedom during the 1980s and 1990s achieved larger poverty rate reductions than economies that were less free. These relationships were true even after adjustment for geographic and locational factors and foreign assistance as a share of income. The positive relations between the level and change in economic freedom and reductions in poverty were both statistically significant and robust across alternative specifications.
> Some fear that growth propelled by economic freedom will leave the poor behind. This was not the case during 1980–2005. During this quarter of a century, the developing countries that moved the most toward economic freedom achieved both strong economic growth and substantial reductions in poverty. This indicates that an institutional and policy environment consistent with economic freedom is an important ingredient for progress against poverty.
https://www.mohrsiebeck.com/en/article/the-relationship-betw...
> We study the relationship between economic freedom and poverty rates in 151 countries over a twenty-year period. Using the World Bank's poverty headcounts of those living on less than $1.90 per day, $3.20 per day, and $5.50 per day, we find evidence that economic freedom, measured by the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom, is associated with lower poverty rates. We also test the effect of various components of the Index of Economic Freedom. We find that a government's integrity and a country's trade freedom are associated with lower poverty rates. We check the robustness of our results using alternative freedom indices.
See also https://cei.org/blog/why-economic-freedom-is-the-best-weapon....
If you're serious about learning, I suggest putting down outdated ideological texts and looking at the actual data.
In the meantime, you might want to look at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide
See also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_economic_reform
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiaogang,_Anhui
> In December 1978, eighteen of the local farmers, led by Yen Jingchang, met in the largest house in the village. They agreed to break the law at the time by signing a secret agreement to divide the land, a local People's Commune, into family plots. Each plot was to be worked by an individual family who would turn over some of what they grew to the government and the collective whilst at the same time agreeing that they could keep the surplus for themselves. The villagers also agreed that should one of them be caught and sentenced to death that the other villagers would raise their children until they were eighteen years old. At the time, the villagers were worried that another famine might strike the village after a particularly bad harvest and more people might die of hunger.
> After this secret capitalist reform, Xiaogang village produced a harvest that was larger than the previous five years combined. Per capita income in the village increase from 22 yuan to 400 yuan with grain output increasing to 90,000 kg in 1979. This attracted significant attention from surrounding villages and before long the government in Beijing had found out. The villagers were fortunate in that at the time China had just changed leadership after Mao Zedong had died. The new leadership under Deng Xiaoping was looking for ways to reform China's economy and the discovery of Xiaogang's innovation was held up as a model to other villages across the country. This led to the abandonment of collectivised farming across China and a large increase in agricultural production. The secret signing of the contract in Xiaogang is widely regarded as the beginning of the period of rapid economic growth and industrialisation that mainland China has experienced in the thirty years since.
It's well past time to face the facts: Capitalism raises standards of living. Socialism impoverishes.
> Poor countries are kept poor in order to exploit cheap resources and labour, which enrich a few in the rich countries.
Complete nonsense. Poor countries with liberal economies grow fastest and see the most dramatic drops in absolute poverty. No one benefits more from free trade than poor countries.
> Millions die every year due to poverty, through lack of clean water, lack of food, disease, etc.
And they die at a higher rate under socialism than capitalism.
> In many cases the two go together, like the starving of Yemen. The attacks against Iraq or Libya or Syria are also good examples. It only takes a few years to get to 100 million if you add all of that up.
What does this have to do with capitalism? Capitalism means
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_economy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalization
> The slave trade was essential to the initial accumulation of capital.
Slavery isn't capitalist. And it more aptly describes the conditions of those who live under socialist regimes.
> Later on the invasions of Korea or Vietnam, etc.
Are you referring to the Communist invasions launched by North Korea and North Vietnam against their southern counterparts?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Marxism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Left
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_studies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_long_march_through_the_ins...
BLM co-founder Patrisse Cullors (on the news recently for her luxury-home purchasing spree) openly describes herself as a trained Marxist. The other BLM co-founder, Opal Tometi, is chummy with the Maduro regime in my home country.
Compare BLM's comments on family structure to Engels' The Origin of the Family and the connection cannot be more obvious.
Do you have a reliable source for this fantastical claim?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venona_project
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_Fuchs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_and_Ethel_Rosenberg
There were also real, devastating consequences to Communist ideology. See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide
for three examples.