snackbugs

Hey HN slow down let me chime in here, i used to work in the lying profession and i just need you to know that lying is not ok, and that lying is not the same thing as lying

You're better off just not posting if the first infantile misfiring of your brain is what you decide is fit to type into the comment box.

How do do you shut down a town in an orderly fashion?

More to the point, how do you avoid putting the people you displaced from their homes on a high-rent, low-wage treadmill?

The people who lived in towns which thrived long before the economy failed them don't need to justify their existence in economic terms. The question you should be asking is whether or not this economy has any benefit to those people.

What an absolutely inhuman comment this is.

Testimony of lived experiences is evidence. It's enough to convict.

When you serve jury duty and the case involves domestic violence, you are explicitly reminded of this because most people will assume it is not.

Still, we end up with cases like Brock Turner where he does get convicted not with the victim's testimony but a mountain of corroborating evidence and national media scrutiny. And then receives what is essentially a non-punishment.

With such disproportionately high rates of domestic abuse in law enforcement professions, you really can't say they are competent to investigate them either. So whose responsibility is it?

https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Police-domestic-viole...

The US also didn't have a national highway system and other social services for much of its history. Interesting.

I have this nagging belief that advertisers know well that nobody in this generation wants to be advertised to, and that ads generally don't work as a direct call to action. Something that allowing podcasters to loosely do ad reads achieves is a small sense of authenticity.

This seems to fit in nicely with the assertion that they know people dislike ads; when a podcaster stiffly or sarcastically reads an ad and throws in a side comment, the ad-averse listener reads this as an irreverence to commercial advertising that both the podcaster and the advertiser are both acknowledging.

I truly think that the advertiser sneaks into the podcast listener's authenticity dome this way, and I feel like this must be a well-understood phenomenon for advertisers who buy ad reads on podcasts known for having a primarily gen z and millennial audience.

Incidentally there's a podcast episode by New Models that briefly discusses this idea, which they call the "authenticity dungeon". https://www.librarystack.org/new-models-podcast-episode-07-a...

Work culture in general is harsher, but a lot of professional jobs include benefits like housing (usually not too far from full rent) and full commute expenses in their compensation. These are perks usually added to your base salary, which is one of the things foreigners ignore when bringing up stories of lower salaries and harsh work culture. You take your pick which is more important to you when thinking about whether or not to live in Japan.

There's a stronger social contract in place than in other places. Work culture is harsher in terms of hours expected in the office than elsewhere, but there is a stronger respect for workers' material conditions as well.

Correct. For the strict purpose of protecting private property, something which slaves were considered to be. Thank you for agreeing with the historical facts.

>Police serve themselves and the state

Just a minor nitpick about this, forgive me. Overall this post is perfectly agreeable.

Police primarily serve private property owners, with private property being different from personal property.

Private property refers to property which earns their owners accumulated wealth: think landlords, business owners and such. Personal property, such as your smartphone or house are intuitively different from this even though things like this are called private property in vernacular.

I think it's a distinction worth posting about since policing as an institution got its start in union busting and slave catching.

No, it just means your boss likes you.

Whatever you have to tell yourself to keep believing what you do.

>For everyone. Efficient markets raise per capita productivity, which raises quality of life for the vast majority of the population.

The majority of the US can't financially bear an emergency $1000 expense without going into debt, joblessness, or homelessness.

Productivity isn't connected positively individual quality of life, otherwise this wouldn't be the case.

A free market depends on an entire class of people maintained in poverty. That is not efficient except for a minor plurality.

As I said in your parent comment, the base assumptions that markets efficiently distribute resources is a lie.

>The conclusion that free markets work better is empirically supported

Better for whom?

To take this critique to an even lower order of problems, economics as a field is strictly centered on capitalism and the base assumption that markets are the only efficient distribution of resources. By this nature professionals researching economics will be captured by corporate interests at every level.

I've never seen a clear explanation of the right's grievances regarding Soros, but what I can put together contextually is that he is a wealthy source of finance or power brokerage for political action involving anything left of far-right. There is also a deep, non-explicit anti-semitic tinge to it all as well.

However everything I have heard him about his didn't come from credible sources. I've honestly wondered for a long time as well.

I'm asking because when someone says they are offended by someone else's words, it's because the use of that word makes their daily normal life more difficult to live in a direct material sense. That's the measure being defined when someone says "I'm offended". It's a matter of material conditions.

Slurs are used by people who have structural power in society, directed at those who do not. It's punching down, not punching across or up. That's what is meant by taking offense to someone's words.

Forgive me If I question whether or not a man, which is quite a privileged identity, is truly being punched down upon from someone more powerful by the word "creepshot".

I don't know how to ask this without it seeming dismissive, but how much more difficult is it to live your normal life by someone's use of this word?

Remove it or not based on your company's rules and values.

I don't know how to make this any more explicit. Hate speech having a clear and defined concept (which both you and that other commenter can research on your own) gives us a way to define whether or not the comment and context is harmful or not. I'm not going to hold your hand here, you need to read about it.

Unfortunately, politics directly affects the safety, health, and livelihood of everyone.

People get sick die because of political decisions, and people gain great amounts of wealth because of political decisions.

People maintain comfortable places in society or remain in fully employed poverty because of political decisions.

There is very little in peoples' lives that aren't affected by politics.

If you're in a position for politics to not affect you because it's just an abstract topic of conversation, you're part of a privileged class of people who aren't being scrutinized and blamed because of your inherent, born qualities. Congratulations.

Hate speech specifically comes from a position and perspective of power. Stop making up your own terms.

In order to make your points, you keep skating over the first principle: there is a clear definition.

In a vacuum, I would not say that's hate speech. But there are complexities in the advocacy for capital punishment in the current context of the US's criminal justice system.

Our carceral system is widely recognized to be deeply racist in practice and in philosophy. This being the case, it's not an unbelievable stretch to say that when someone holds a belief in capital punishment, there is a good chance they also have parallel beliefs that rationalize capital punishment as a functional part of that racist system.

In that case, such advocacy is part of their rhetorical framework of hate speech. The clarity of the definition of hate speech gives us to see the context of that.

That's terrific. I'm sincerely happy for you that you're fortunate enough to be in a comfortable enough place in society that hate speech isn't an obstacle in your life.

However it seems as though your idea of a free society doesn't extend freedom to people for whom hate speech is a much greater obstacle.

There is. Many people use it. Have you ever gone out of your way to examine it? Or do you just infer it based on your internal beliefs and limited experiences?

Every reply of yours so far has hinged on my definition of terms being arbitrary.

I'm strictly talking about well-defined terms.

Maybe you have never examined them because you never needed to interface with them in practice, or maybe you do understand them and are just arguing in bad faith to defend a more abstract belief. I won't make any assumptions about that.

We're discussing the clear and defined understanding of what hate speech is.

You lost the thread of the conversation the moment someone confronted your belief that it doesn't have a clear definition.

The reason you lost the thread is because you're struggling with the internal contradiction of your belief.

Ben Shapiro has said, quite proudly, that Middle Eastern people inherently prefer living in open sewers and therefore violently destroying their means to have a functioning society is perfectly rational. This is unambiguously advocacy for violence.

Since you predictably brought up loosely organized anti-fascist groups taking direct action to de-platform explicitly white supremacist demonstrations, I'll point out that their actions are in defense of minorities from fascist groups who go well out of their way to make the elimination of people of color a topic of popular debate. Advocating for the elimination of a plurality of people is explicitly violence.

If this isn't a rational response to specific points you've made, you've already made up your mind about _first principles_. First principles are not up for debate.

>Rather, violations are based on arbitrary criteria of "dominance" - which is popular with certain ideologues but has very little support in showing that this is actually a good metaphor for understanding our society.

I'm fascinated with why people don't acknowledge power structures as having any influence in how one part of society views another; that there is currently no hierarchy in society.

You just haven't ever needed to interface with this idea and therefore believe it's not a defined concept.