Is the original article not a major journalistic misstep then? Nowhere does it clarify that this only applies to online gaming.
175 karma · joined February 7, 2017
- Julius Nyerere
Freedom House is a non-profit that is almost entirely funded by the US government. The only ones who would find it "unexpected" that US allies rank high on the "freedom index" but practically have problems with freedom of speech would probably buy a bridge in Brooklyn.
[1] https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/20...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_programs_in_the_United_...
China votes with wallet
Americans: "This is 'authoritarianism'"
If you're referring to the Uyghurs in Xinjiang, there is a lot of outcry, but little evidence to back up statements made by Western press. Google doc amalgamating sources: https://tinyurl.com/xinjiangmyths
There are some differences as you said. If you're an auto factory that goes on strike, the management is likely still making money—they have all the cars made yesterday and the day before to sell. Of course, the pressure would rise much quicker in a factory vs a tech company; where the latter could presumably float itself for a few weeks, the former would start losing money within days.
One is that everyone, like the author, is starting from a 'clean slate'. This is an extremely privileged position. Almost no one in this country is completely out of debt AND mentally/physically healthy AND able to 'choose' to not commute to work.
Another is that everyone has, or can afford, an appropriate 'makerspace' in their place of residence.
Finally, this article simply takes the 8 hour workday for granted, rather than asking the extremely obvious question: Yes, Robert Owen did coin the phrase "Eight hours labour, Eight hours recreation, Eight hours rest", in 1817. With labor productivity skyrocketing since then, why have we not reduced this, even to 6 hours?
Not sure whether it is better to signal before or after looking, but that was what my partner's driving instructor taught.
I understand this is hyperbole, but this is the perfect case of how legitimate grievances are derailed by bad actors. Emphasis on the word "entirely".
We don't and can't think in absolutes as a society. Everyone and everything is imperfect to some degree. Women sometimes falsely accuse men of sexual assault. Police officers sometimes kill unarmed black men for good reason. The problem is that these sorts of arguments strip context entirely away—"sometimes" in each case is well under 10%. No one was talking about "entirely" in the first place, so this just morphs a discussion about equality into a much less serious one about human fallibility.
So, sure, those are issues, but let's focus on the 90% of the actual problem at hand. No one is saying sexism and racism are absolutely 100% responsible for everything. But they are extremely significant factors and, more importantly, factors entirely within our control and of our own making.
"Where does it stop?" is the same slippery slope garbage peddled by #HimToo and #BlueLivesMatter acolytes. But even engaging with the question at face value, the answer is very simple, and the author of this piece didn't try very hard if he couldn't find someone who is able to answer it. In fact, the best answer was given by Karl Popper in 1945.
> In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance.
That's it. Platforms like Gab are themselves intolerant, and we must continue to be intolerant of them.
Free dental & medical (Medicare for All or similar) would go a long way to alleviating the pressure on parents and allow them the space and time to care. As would stronger labor laws to ensure all workers have access to a reasonably flexible working environment.