• 19 Posts
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: June 16th, 2023


  • People often decry accelerationism, but the reality is that the slow-boiled frog is the one that sits and dies. Chipping away at freedoms, consumer protections, product benefits, etc is all less likely to spark backlash than when they drop sharply in a short time.

    That doesn’t mean you should help to make things worse, but it does mean that you may want to reconsider constantly mitigating every bad thing that others are doing, rather than letting them shoot themselves in the foot. When people are being hurt, help them. When people are being inconvenienced, let them get angry.

  • The EFF’s response is right on the money, as usual:

    Communications platforms are not comparable to unsafe food, unsafe cars, or cigarettes, all of which are physical products—rather than communications platforms—that can cause physical injury. Government warnings on speech implicate our fundamental rights to speak, to receive information, and to think.

    There is no scientific consensus that social media is harmful to children’s mental health. Social science shows that social media can help children overcome feelings of isolation and anxiety. This is particularly true for LBGTQ+ teens.

    We agree that social media is not perfect, and can have negative impacts on some users, regardless of age. But if Congress is serious about protecting children online, it should enact policies that promote choice in the marketplace and digital literacy. Most importantly, we need comprehensive privacy laws that protect all internet users from predatory data gathering and sales that target us for advertising and abuse.

    This warning label announcement just feeds into the right-wing “tech platforms bad, full of librul thought, must protect the kids by surveilling everyone and blocking the harmful (minority-focused) content” agenda.

    Keep in mind that this is not happening in a vacuum; many states have already put in place age-verification for sites they deem ‘harmful’ (and California is considering one as well, so it’s not just braindead red states getting in on the surveillance action), and this directly makes the argument that social media spaces (and the speech on them) are harmful, and should be subject to government approval.

  • This survey is about people who do not engage with news at all, not just syndicated, local news stations. People in the comments here are likewise also talking about how they don’t read any news. What part of my comment did you take to imply I was encouraging people to be uncritical in their choice of news?

    Advocating that people distinguish news from propaganda is only something you can do, if you actually read news. If you step away from news altogether, you have by definition lumped actual news and propaganda together as “things you don’t engage with”.

    And if you’re not engaging with any (non-propaganda) news, how exactly are you planning to remain informed?

    News is:

    newly received or noteworthy information, especially about recent or important events.

    If you get it from another person, who is monitoring news sources, then you’re still engaging with news, just second-hand, and without the ability to verify information or choose sources for yourself. If you don’t get news, you are by definition ‘without noteworthy information especially about recent or important events’, i.e. “uninformed”.

  • I’m confused. Are Feiglin, Ben-Gvir, and Smotrich not Israeli?

    Him quoting Hitler isn’t even the main issue in this case (to me), it’s really what he’s using the quote to justify, which is the expulsion of Palestinians from Palestine/ Gaza, which is, as the article demonstrates, a much more broadly-held viewpoint among Israelis, including ones who unarguably do have a lot of political power.

    Lastly, if there are not a lot of public quotes condemning this coming out of Israel, for them to quote, isn’t that itself kind of a problem?

  • Wait, are “times tough”, or are we in a “great” position, economically? I can’t keep up.

    But in all seriousness, this all boils down to a simple truth:

    Low and middle-class workers today are in far worse positions than our parents’ generation(s).

    We can’t afford homes. We can’t afford childcare. We can’t afford healthcare. Many of us can’t even afford food consistently.

    That is where we are at, bottom-line.

    Arguing about percentage gains among certain groups belies the fact that this is a shitty economic system, that funnels money upwards.

    Do we sometimes claw back a few steps? Sure. But praising the 2 steps forward, while ignoring the previous 10 steps back, just comes across as caping for it.

    One particularly depressing graph is home ownership among Millennials. As of 2019, that number sits at 43.3%. But in the year 2000, that number was 20%. The oldest millennials were born in 1981, which means they were 19 years old in 2000.

    So at minimum, HALF of the Millennials who own homes now, were rich kids who had their homes bought for them as highschool grads. And that was just the ones literally born in 1981-82. How many of the new millennial home owners are just rich kids who were younger millennials?

    This economy is fucked.

    I’m sure boiling frogs appreciate when you reduce the heat by a couple degrees, but it doesn’t mean they’re in a good position.

  • My disagreement with the post’s article is that it is conflating the stock market with the economy, and the financial news sector is pushing this narrative very hard, or even saying it openly.

    My issues with the article you linked about wages, in the comments, is that you’re omissively citing bits and pieces to different people in order to support the idea that the economy is doing well, as the post article claims, when the post article is really about the stock market, not wages or living standards.

    If the wage growth at the bottom 10th percentile doesn’t mean they’re not fucked, why would you even cite it?

  • This is an extreme acceleration of what is happening in the US as well. Any time employment or compensation is based on research outcomes, it is by definition a monetary incentive to doctor your outcomes.

    In China this was down to their ranking system and grant eligibility. In the US this usually happens inside companies (see literally the entire history of DuPont and the research they did, or all the research that is funded by Nestle or Petrochemical companies), or in order to secure or keep tenured positions, or retain grants.

    Good research needs to be publicly-funded, and devoid (as much as possible , from a methodological standpoint) of desired outcomes.

  • I understand the difference between nominal wages and inflation-adjusted just fine. That you keep using the nominal wage increase of 35% is dishonest, without providing any context, which you keep not doing, or even directly claiming it was Biden’s doing, which it was not:

    wages have gone up hugely…, which was Biden’s doing

    Wage growth at the bottom happened because low-wage workers realized during the pandemic that they could survive without their bottom-wage jobs, which gave them the leverage to demand higher wages when bottom-wage jobs opened back up.