I take issue with "the lack of large scale human rights abuses."
Are you ignorant or just deliberately ignoring the genocide of the Palestinian people with an estimated 680,000 dead (~30% of Gaza) that occurred with widespread support of almost every western democracy?
China may be an authoritarian state but I would argue their large scale human rights abuses are far tamer than what these so called western democracies have been doing for the past 2 years and the direction we're headed.
Yes, I'm not including deaths in the colonial periphery. That's a rather different dynamic to the domestic question. Your criticism of this simplified view is a valid and welcome addition to the conversation, though.
The West's post-colonial exploitation and suppression of the global south does strike me as a feature of unfettered capitalism more than the political systems "back home".
It’s not propaganda, Noam Chomsky wrote a book about how media is used to advance otherwise unpopular government policies decades ago and the NYT is mentioned in it. If anything this post is propaganda.
Even Chomsky has said that you could read the NYT from back to front to partially counteract the bias toward cozying up to power. (I.e., the stories that show bias in favor of U.S. govt are the ones at the front that are most prominently placed.)
Toplevel OP, however, is saying some things that are more radical and less studious:
* "NYT aligns itself with power at every opportunity." Because the statement is totalizing it is trivially disproved. Off the top of my head-- see the "Pentagon Pundits" story by David Barstow[1]. It won a Pulitzer and was published while Bush was still president. It was also a front-page story IIRC.
* "never ran the story to protect GW's chances at reelection." IIRC Glenn Greenwald was the most vocal/detailed critic of Keller's cowardice on spiking the domestic surveillance story in the lead up to the 2004 election. But even he didn't claim Keller did in order to help GW win the election. OP made that up out of whole cloth.
I don't think HN comments like this are propaganda, but they are low-effort and apparently impulsively written.
At least nobody has yet used the pretentious terms "Gell-Mann Amnesia" or "Overton window" in this thread, so that's progress. :)
TikTok feels pretty clear. China doesn't allow any western internet platforms to operate in the country. Why should the world allow a Chinese social media platform?
No such thing anymore. The cult that worships politics and politicians these days will turn anything and everything into a partisan issue somehow, no matter the mental contortions required to do so.
The US has never allowed unfettered foreign competition in its domestic market, and neither do most other nations (including, very notably, China).
The US has always done what every other nation seeks to do, which is to try to obtain favorable trade terms for exports while restricting imports that would harm domestic business.
This particular bill is idiotic, likely because it was spawned by an idiot. But the general concept of protecting domestic enterprises from foreign competition who are not subject to the same rules has always been part of trade policy.
Exactly, it's basically a law of nature, but significant resources were invested in brainwashing people with propaganda to the contrary. That's the problem, the hypocrisy, the irony - not how the world actually works, which may be entirely unavoidable.
Same sorts of laws are the reason why it's generally difficult to import really cheap vehicles from overseas unless they're of a certain age, Chinese or not. Classical example that gained publicity are Japanese "Kei Trucks" that can only be imported after they're 25 years old.
And yeah, they cite safety as the reason. But as a motorcycle rider, I put a tank of explosive liquid against my crotch on a vehicle that will send me flying if one tire loses traction too badly with minimal safety mechanisms against it, and in my state I technically don't even have to wear a helmet.
On the other end of the spectrum, the most popular cars in the nation are the size of a light tank, and will smash into you at center mass before throwing you underneath them if you get hit by one.
And is car dependency not a tax on the poor as well? If the government only builds car-based infrastructure that requires a car then that is a tax on everyone is it not?
Not only but also; as with a real tax from a government, all the money goes into a big pot, gets mixed around, and then the expenses come out unevenly from that pot.
I'm not at all aware of where the boundary is between "that's fine" and "that's abuse of market dominance to fund uneconomical expansion".
Does anywhere have a specific "national defence" tax and another "police fund" tax etc. for each expense, rather than "income tax" and "sales tax" for each source?
IMHO profits should be ringfenced by activity and taxed accordingly - otherwise you end up with funds from one activity being used to subsidize another without taxation, creating an unfair environment for competition. Youtube being the perfect modern example.
Why can a lower limit on age to participate in elections be constitutional but an upper limit not? You need to be 18 to vote and 35 to be president but we can’t legislate an upper age limit on running for office?
It’s because of the constitution. The most fundamental laws of the land are expressed in the constitution, and nothing else can override them. In the US, the 26th amendment establishes the minimum age of 18 for voting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-sixth_Amendment_to_the_...) and Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the constitution establishes the age of 35 for presidency. However, a constitutional amendment (which is difficult to pass with today’s political divide) could theoretically change that.
False. The message is the US government doesn’t want Americans to freely speak out against American foreign policy such as the current genocide against the Palestinians.
They want US citizens to communicate on US platforms where they do have influence and control so they can censor speech and continue the capitalist forever wars.
> They want US citizens to communicate on US platforms where they do have influence and control so they can censor speech and continue the capitalist forever wars.
No different to any other country. China does the same, as does Russia, Korea and Japan.
Owning a home is a goal because the alternative is lifetime wage slavery to fund a landlord’s lavish lifestyle.
People don’t want to be exploited and see home ownership as a way to get out of that cycle of exploitation and building enough wealth to someday retire.
Paying mortgage interest is even worse slavery in my limited experience. A mortgage really ties you down.
> building enough wealth
Our current environment looks like that if you are older. Thinking of your house as savings is weird: personally I think you need a house and retirement savings - and safe retirement savings is an oxymoron because it depends on the demographics and economy.
I'm not sure that younger people can rely on the idea that their house will be worth enough because it depends on population demographics - housing is a Ponzi scheme where the older population sells there home to younger people until at some point the youngest person risks being left with something worthless: Japan and Italy have houses for ¥0 or €1 due to aging population.
I'm in NJ so not sure if this applies but since I'm in another high tax state I thought this would be relevant. One thing that I find interesting that isn't really talked about is the difference in property tax rates between different towns. In NJ for example, my parent's home is worth $300k-400k and they pay almost $10k in property taxes per year. Meanwhile, an out of state investor could buy a $3 million property in NJ's Long Beach Island and pay just $30k in property taxes on it (1/3 the rate my parents pay).
I don't know how much this applies to California, I think they cap property tax increases there, not sure how the rates differ by town?
A single state-wide standardized marginal property tax rate would probably work best. Those with $5 million+ single family homes should be paying a higher percentage to discourage that type of housing. Additionally that tax money could be collected at a state level and distributed more equitably (to towns that aren't as wealthy).
Ultimately single family homes need to be phased out in these kinds of places and replaced with higher density along with mixed zoning. Mixed zoning should reduce the need for more car based infrastructure which is extremely expensive and allow more efficient public transit to be built. That would lower costs for regular people since they wouldn't need a car to get places.
California has prop 13, meaning your property tax increases are capped, but if property changes hands, the property tax resets to a more reasonable (and much higher rate). Which makes the property market even more illiquid in California.
Are you ignorant or just deliberately ignoring the genocide of the Palestinian people with an estimated 680,000 dead (~30% of Gaza) that occurred with widespread support of almost every western democracy?
China may be an authoritarian state but I would argue their large scale human rights abuses are far tamer than what these so called western democracies have been doing for the past 2 years and the direction we're headed.
reply