why_is_it_good

> What you fail to realize is that Tourists bring money to your city. They buy drinks from your favorite bar. Lunch from a struggling local cafe

They also raise prices to an international average in city centers, that become exclusion zones for the majority of the locals.

> Storage: At least 22 GB of free space on the volume that contains your Chrome profile.

That works both ways. Human chains are all that justifies your existence, having abandoned being a hunter gatherer.

You mean murder, before capital understands its critics are as moraly bankrupt as capital itself, and deploys killbots?

So you just want a larger police force than them.

The mistake is in expecting anything positive from a company, brand or celebrity. And then phrasing it as if it's a problem?

> Excuse me?

Really thoughtful comment, that shows us the core of your objection: nothing.

https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2007/09/how-dawkins...

_in which it is implied capitalizing B in black is both provocative, and that this kind of provocation is not interesting_

Some slopes are slippery and some people have the cause of their deeds in their [material] characteristics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motive_(law)

> radical feminists are socially conservatives

Bold claim.

> MW: conservative: tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions

LGBT advocates who want to keep LGBT institutions to advocate from, are then conservatives.

Please check your pre programming.

Yes, different context. But for the same idea to exist in both Adam and Freedom Georgia's peoples: self segregation.

Freedom Georgia wants a black owned town. They do it because they think of it as proxy for "safe for black people". And they think that because they see skin color as the clue to spot friend or foe.

A different context, to use the same tools (race based prejudice). Both Freedom Georgia and Adams are racists. Either being a racist is not the accusation society frames it to be, or both of them should be shunned. Neither outcome looks good...

> Adam said that black people are a hate group, based on a poll of 1000 people, and it's not safe to live close to them.

How many people would the poll need for you to find it harder to condemn Adams?

There are differences. But also things in common. Both statements get to "like me" by using skin color (or race) as proxy. And so we learn "people (un)like me" are people of the same color, and now you see they are the same statement.

Adams was condemned, fired, newspapers print his guilt, and the parent of this thread selects a bit of evidence for his guilt: he wanted to self segregate.

As for the Georgians, we condemn them in private equally as Adams. However, because they are black, society lets them be racist.

In any case, what bothers me more is the art not being separate from the artist. If there's merit in Dilbert, I hope someone picks it up.

I agree it would be a poor argument if used as argument. It wasn't. Funny you use "other people do X too". You agree those Georgians are self segregating.

I'm using it to explain the news to other people, not to argue for Adams' right to be free from blame for what he said. Here's an asymmetry:

Self segregating is racist if done to get away from black people, and indifferent (or even praise worthy) if done by black people.

> We are, as a society, I suppose more or less aware of power asymmetries.

I agree. And pointed out an asymmetry above.

And we, as a society, now condemn getting away from groups defined by their race/skin color, and flocking together to others who are less likely to hate you?

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/12/us/freedom-black-cooperat...

If people can learn from your face, so can cameras.

It's not so simple.

Now we discuss "claims of oppression by identities", yet before it was just "identities". Before identity was enough, when called out you switch to specific oppression. Almost as if you didn't care either way: before there were no individual experiences, now it's relevant. It really is a disease...

My mistake was to engage.

> Black and native trans women suffer more

Not by virtue of its blackness, indigenous or sex status, but only in relation to other people. If other people were to praise blackness, indigenousness and being non-man, it would not suffer, but thrive.

Do not essentialize.

To praise weakness and call it merit.

> As a general rule

The whole movement of correcting social wrongs is made by barking at a social hegemons. And now we come full circle as people seem to believe there are general rules again, except they are the opposite of the rules that started to be barked at.

With a caveat: it's not possible to agree that we have come full circle. The previous hegemon canonized the ones in the "down" direction. And so we get to you, babbling about everyone agrees that it's better not to attack the "down" people.

Sure.

And they better not think about it, lest they think wrong and end up in the situation OP mentioned and you chose to dismiss.

> Given the choice, some of your customers would rather interact with a machine than speak to a member of your support team.

Some do. Some don't.

Or makeup.

I am amazed at how bad this situation is.

> Something happens.

> /pol/, being /pol/, flipped the switch that generates semi-random information around a subject, seasoned with bias-of-the-day

> some posters on /pol/ decide to blame Geary Danley for the Vegas shooting

> google indexes /pol/

Given that:

> Searches for _words_ yield content related to _words_

> Searches for a name yield content related to a name

> Searches for "Geary Danley" yield content related to "Geary Danley"

This ensues:

> Media shitstorm because google is "citing 4chan to spread fake Vegas shooter news"

This only happens because:

1) We are expecting google to feed us only the truth? Otherwise we would say "someone took google seriously and arrived to the wrong conclusions"

2) We don't care the slightest what URL we follow from google? Otherwise we would say "someone who doesn't know what /pol/ is is taking it seriously"

3) We find it easier to blame some conspiracy than to take a step back and think? We ascribe blame to google.

4) All of the above?

I feel I am living in some bizarro world where everyone's feelings and expectations must be met, and any deviation from this will result in riots and name calling[0].

Few things exist to serve your purposes. Think before using any tool. You wouldn't use a blowtorch to trim your nails.

[0] https://phys.org/news/2011-11-poop-throwing-chimps-intellige...

Found another submission for this story: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14934581

> The document said that improving racial and gender diversity is less important than making sure conservatives feel comfortable expressing themselves at work.

I'm all for skill over diversity, but "making conservatives comfortable" seems like a weird thing to write. But until the document comes out it will be difficult to judge it, and hearsay and "shaking people" are not a good measure of it's content.

"now you have to buy" I fail to see why. Do they also have to "secure" a handle in every social media/service/website/platform that allows registration? An email account in every provider? Register their company in every country in the world?