[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Password (For file deletion.)


File: 1651591560393.png (1.5 MB, 1259x885, 1259:885, Politico.png) ImgOps Google

Have you followed the harlots losing their ability to terminate lives at will due to a leaked SCOTUS ruling indicating the impending overturning of Roe v. Wade?

Context: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473

Do you fundamentally think that people should speak out about this restriction of previously liberated sexuality among irresponsible females, pedophiles, and terrorists, when it comes to the inevitable consequences of careless promiscuity?

Should the Supreme Court receive preemptive pushback from left wing individuals in the form of "fiery but mostly peaceful protests" to force the Supreme Court to overturn its impending decision, in what would be another legitimate use of "the unlawful use of violence or threats to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or government, with the goal of furthering political, social, or ideological objectives", and thereby defend the inalienable rights of harlots, pedophiles, and terrorists?

In this specific case, what will likely happen to the harlots following these legal changes?  Is it a fight worth having for Leftist pedos?

This thread is a demonstration of how manipulative framing both poisons the well and is a ridiculous basis for debate/discussion.  If you notice, no arguments are presented.  Things are merely implied.  It is intended to be absurd and demonstrate the point that this is not useful.


File: 1651593863206.png (236.14 KB, 730x720, 73:72, 2797815.png) ImgOps Google

This thread blatantly violates rule #2 (ad hominem and straw man arguments), locking.


File: 1651367963707.jpg (197.99 KB, 1024x834, 512:417, Édouard_Manet_-_Le_Suicidé….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Under what circumstances do you feel that suicide is a moral good and/or ethical?  What are the factors that determine which cases qualify?

from https://www.mdis.edu.sg/blog/four-types-of-suicides/

According to Emile Durkheim, the term suicide is applied to all cases of death resulting directly or indirectly from a positive or negative act of the victim, which he/she knows will produce this result (Pickering & Walford, 2011). Durkheim identifies four different types of suicide which are egoistic suicide, altruistic suicide, anomic suicide and fatalistic suicide.

Egoistic suicide is seen as stemming from the absence of social integration. It is committed by individuals who are social outcast and see themselves as being alone or an outsider. These individuals are unable to find their own place in society and have problems adjusting to groups. They received little and no social care. Suicide is seen as a solution for them to free themselves from loneliness or excessive individuation.

Altruistic suicide occurs when social group involvement is too high. Individuals are so well integrated into the group that they are willing to sacrifice their own life in order to fulfil some obligation for the group. Individuals kill themselves for the collective benefit of the group or for the cause that the group believes in.

Anomic suicide is caused by the lack of social regulation and it occurs during high levels of stress and frustration. Anomic suicide stems from sudden and unexpected changes in situations. For example, when individuals suffer extreme financial loss, the disappointment and stress that individuals face may drive them towards committing suicide as a means of escape.

Fatalistic suicide occurs when individuals are kept under tight regulation. These individuals are placed under extreme rules or high expectations are set upon them, which removes a person’s sense of self or individuality. Slavery and persecution are examples of fatalistic suicide where individuals may feel that they are destined by fate to be in such conditions and choose suicide as the only means of escaping such conditions.

I expect there are substantial overlaps, and the categories are not as cut and dry as they might initially seem.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


>Under what circumstances do you feel that suicide is a moral good and/or ethical?
When the individual who is suiciding so chooses.
If you cannot determine when your life is to end, you've no autonomy.
That is solely the purview of the individual involved.


I feel like both ethically and legally individuals should have the right to end their own lives.

At the same time, though, suicide being one of the leading causes of death for young Americans is a sign right now of a fundamentally diseased culture, and it probably can't be denied if everybody started acting like Mister Rogers from Mister Rogers' Neighborhood that said suicide rate would plummet.

Ultimately, basic human niceness should be more common.


File: 1650476756361.jpg (93.43 KB, 666x666, 1:1, Border-Image-From-AP.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

The Biden administration has expressed bipartisan opposition, both in Congress and among the general public, in terms of a recent decision that would ease the ability for individuals to seek asylum in the U.S. by crossing the territorial borders.

Context: https://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/npr/1093529387/as-biden-plans-to-lift-title-42-democrats-want-details-on-how-he-ll-address-influx

My personal opinion is that the legal process of immigration for people who've "stood in line", metaphorically, ought to be streamlined and made more logical. At the same time, I'm concerned about illegal immigration, especially with the rise of organized crime in the context of drug smuggling and other issues. Sending up a "Migrants (Maybe) Welcome!" mat in rhetorical terms, even if practically what's happening is complicated, doesn't strike me as a good idea.

What do you think? Do you oppose the Biden administration on this? Do you have mixed feelings?

<Yes, I did intentionally crop this image to make it 666X666, not that it matters... I just... felt like it for a reason I don't know...>
2 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


Don't you usually seek asylum by going to an embassy? Assuming you 1st cross over to the nearest neighborhood neighboring country as is required by International law as I understand it.

I don't think I quite understand the question.
Shouldn't asylum come before entry?


A lot in the U.S. will argue that asylum seekers tend to be inherently flawed people (such as being uneducated, being susceptible to health problems, being impoverished, being unable intellectually to learn sufficient English, and so on) such that shouldn't be able to even start the process in the first place.

I don't agree personally, but I see such a belief as being kind of popular.


I should be clear that I've seen this only from social media and not from actual elected people, so I genuinely don't know how widespread this anti-refugee viewpoint is.

I would think that given circumstances right now most Republicans and Democrats in actual office are kind of generally alright with refugees? They're (the refugees) getting a lot of positive news coverage now? I guess?


File: 1650668905588.jpg (56.09 KB, 601x347, 601:347, 239668.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

This is either a big question in the books I've been reading recently, or it is an important side question.

As I always need to be precise, I will ask -- is a state where important decisions are made by the direct vote of voters and/or by representatives selected by the voters superior to other forms of state organization?  Voters here mean humans subject to state authority, generally residents of the state, and legally mature, however not restricted based on other criteria such as race, sex, formal education, wealth, or political affiliation.  Representatives, where used, are to represent a wide range of political options and be rotated frequently enough to be able to minimize the differential between their actions and what the majority wants.  Representative options should not be vetted by some minority prior to being exposed for potential selection.  The state may operate as practical, as millions of decisions have to be made by state agents, but practical administration won't be dedicated to thwarting majority rule.

The problems with majority rule can be summarized, I think:

a) politics is toxic to society
b) elites can better operate a state (each category of elite will have their own argument for why this is so)
c) the majority will oppress minorities, or in libertarian thought, will oppress themselves as well
d) the majority will make irrational reactionary decisions, perhaps making war for a trifle

Where do you stand on this fairly fundamental question in politics?
7 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


I know a better form of government, but I can assure you many would be inclined to disagree heheh.


"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time..." - Winston S. Churchill, 11 November 1947 ( https://winstonchurchill.org/resources/quotes/the-worst-form-of-government/ )

I can't agree more.


No, but it's better than most alternatives.

Either way, a raw democracy, one vote for every issue, would be terrible, which is why we have the system we do.
Especially in regards to the separation of powers. Local matters ought be controlled by the people it affects.

The biggest thing of all, and one I think is mostly overlooked these days; Democracy is not inherently right, nor does something being voted in by the people make it good.
Whether it's a dictator, a king, a president, or just a law passed by the mob, your rights are absolute. A violation of them is a violation of them. It's wrong, regardless of what created that break.


File: 1650343355038.jpeg (182.76 KB, 1249x1659, 1249:1659, 49EA0656-C9B1-4F94-993E-2….jpeg) ImgOps Google

the government has ruled if you aren't insured you have to pay for testing now


Isn't that more like the government unruling that they had to pay for testing?


File: 1650387839370.png (203.19 KB, 600x450, 4:3, derpy shy 3.png) ImgOps Google

i have, a big stack of free tests c: you can get some, in the mail!



Coronavirus testing should've been more easily available due to large-scale government action months and months ago, but I still appreciate whatever public actions are still being attempted now.


File: 1649550432325.png (16.77 KB, 90x68, 45:34, 35E84AD5-BFDE-459B-9270-49….png) ImgOps Google

I am kinda staying away from due Fedi wars abd drana


Are we

discussing the coding language?


File: 1649631965013.png (462.86 KB, 1280x791, 1280:791, large.png) ImgOps Google

Most of my projects start in Python.

When I get the data structures and algorithms sorted out, they might migrate to fit in to an existing environment or run faster.  I guess I have mixed feelings about Python as a production language.


File: 1649186645678.png (125.14 KB, 750x600, 5:4, medium.png) ImgOps Google

It's a cute picture.  So I've been reading (well, listening to) some books that talk about Charles Koch and David Koch.  These are American business people who also engage in political activism.  I *think* they desire a kind of libertarian state, but if that seems wrong to you I'll take the assertion back.  They seek a kind of government where, for example, a bill of rights would have one item: The Right to Own Private Property.

I think it's easy to create a caricature of this government, which I will try to avoid.  The basic moral idea is that people can currently be grouped into 'makers' and 'takers'.  Makers produce in excess of their government entitlements, takers get more from the government than they produce, so they are net unproductive citizens.  If we remove government entitlements, we remove the incentive to stagnate in state dependency.  If the Koch state became real, there would be a growing period for the takers, certainly, but eventually everyone would be spurred toward individual productivity, and the rising tide of economic activity would raise all to greater wellbeing.

I think through most of American history property supremacy has been either a fringe idea or one carried by people who would not today be viewed as moral authorities, but its appeal has been growing in the past decades.  

Do you think this is a good kind of state, or no?  What is good and/or bad about the idea?
10 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


I suppose what it all boils down to for me is that organizations such as the Koch Industries empire want to be able to takeover state and federal governments in a hostile manner the same way that they take over enemy companies, and this cannot be allowed in terms of basic ethics.

This is beyond mere capitalism, I think, but is about being able to live under the objective rule of law under a responsible government rather than being in an absolute dictatorship with a corporate façade.


File: 1649294341049.jpg (744.26 KB, 1536x1644, 128:137, towers.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>May I ask which book?
So far.  I tend to do sets of books to get my head around a concept.  I suppose I should read a modern Koch production, but books I mostly don't agree with are more effortful, and these are things I listen to as I walk about exploring the neighborhood and relaxing (pic: radioantenna array from my last walk).


>the Koch Industries empire want to be able to takeover state and federal governments in a hostile manner

Large swaths of the government would become private.  I suppose it's very possible that the Koch brothers would make a bid when those parts went up for sale.

>This is beyond mere capitalism,

I take it you don't trust the Koch people to stick to any objective set of rules, even rules they might write.

>an absolute dictatorship with a corporate façade.
It might not be dictatorship, but the Koch state is not a democracy.  I think it's a republic that is constitutionally restricted from collectivist action, meaning anything that restricts the power of corporations and property owners.

I'm not sure if your mistrust is more for the system or for the people.  Maybe it's all the same, I guess, you need both.


File: 1648835798319.jpg (172.72 KB, 999x535, 999:535, Authoritarianism-in-a-nuts….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

What do you think are the odds that a libertarian dictatorship takes place either in the U.S. or another major nation? A government in which you have property rights (so, for example, a regular person is free to start a small business) but no social or political rights (so, for example, a regular person handing out flyers against the state will be put in either the hospital or the morgue by government thugs)?

I'm asking because of the unusual situations that seem to keep coming about in Western nations whereby defenses of capitalism and general economic rights are powerful and widely popular yet defenses of social and political rights are weak and helpless by comparison. A lot of this appears to be the case because major corporations fight in favor of liberty in some cases (such as being against, for instance, unfair tariffs and other anti-competitive trade laws) while being completely blasé about liberty in other cases (such as being uncaring, for instance, about the principle of free speech). I'm not too sure, though.

In specific terms, I'm curious what individuals here think of this article from Reason.com (a libertarian news-magazine service) criticizing the very concept of a 'libertarian dictatorship':

> https://reason.com/2012/07/17/the-mad-dream-of-a-libertarian-dictator/

(In summary, the report basically says 'the very notion is hypocritical and inconsistent to where you can't believe in it without acting bonkers', with historical citations, but there are important details worth reading too.)
7 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


An America with no social or political rights seems disturbingly possible to me in the future, especially given how the U.S. federal administration in a lot of fields has grown ever more totalitarian over the past two decades over different Presidents in an unbroken pro-government fashion. Imagine telling somebody in 1999, say, that it would considered truly normal among political circles for 24/7 spying of every single American citizen's e-mails, phone calls, and personal letters. They'd have called you a paranoid loon. And yet, boom, Patriot Act and more.



There's plenty of aspects of the US government, like the Patriot Act, that are very pro-government, yes.  That's generally to be expected.  But it is a big leap from what we have now to having no social or political rights.  The OP mentions stuff about free speech and handing out anti-government fliers as things that might hypothetically be outlawed, but as it is almost no one would support that.  Nearly the entire country exercises its right to say the government sucks every single day.  I won't say there aren't any government thugs hospitalizing people, but it hasn't happened to anyone that actually holds any kind of influence, and for them to attempt that would only martyr their target and incite the group further.  It wasn't more than a year or so ago that there was a whole insurrection staged and they can barely even contain those guys, god forbid there was an actual cause for armed conflict.

To go back to the Patriot Act, people were pretty quick to allow it for two reasons.  The first is that the government's been spying on its own citizens since spying was feasible.  The second was sometimes there's legitimate threats within the country that are trying to make it worse, perhaps by turning it into a libertarian dictatorship or something.  The second is mostly trumped up nothingness that spooks people just long enough to pass stupid laws like the Patriot Act.  But the first is something we've gotten very used to for the sole reason that it's largely unnoticeable because the legal right to spy on your citizens doesn't make it easy to do.  I can barely read all of my emails, I can't even imagine the kind of manpower it would take to actually read every single email sent in or out of this country.  What I can imagine is what a colossal waste of time that would be.  God, even 90% of our phone calls these days are automated spam centers, and the other 10% sure isn't terrorist organization.  The only thing the Patriot Act actually did was let the state bring the spying it was already doing into court as evidence, where you're still subject to a jury of peers, at least hypothetically.

We are just so so far away from anything as fantPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


I see what you're saying, but I'm thinking more about directions and patterns longer term than tyranny happening overnight.

What concerns me is that U.S. government power has been on a trajectory of ever greater expansion to the detriment of the real economy: with more debt, more deficits, and more regulations coming about. The U.S. is like an airplane flying in a straight line that will eventually hit a gigantic mountain. Yet seemingly nobody seems to care about these socio-economic trends who's actually in office.

To me, in contrast, personal liberty has been on a trajectory of ever greater decline: with everything from book banning due to the violation of "Christian family values" to campaigns to fire individuals from their jobs both inside of government positions and out due to said "Christian family values" being at risk with certain types of people having too many rights. Every single day brings additional news about the screws being tightened on individuals who happen to be Jewish, gay, disabled, transgender, Muslim, or otherwise "offensive" in some way by their very nature to the hardline Christian principles that the mainstream U.S. populace demands everybody obey. It's suffocating.

The pandemic has been especially scary because wholesale, state-heavy measures such as outright banning large public gatherings happened relatively quickly and without much in the way of factual support. Governments just saw the chance to stamp on freedoms and took it without question. Now, of course, I'm no denialist about the coronavirus. Certain state measures made perfect sense and still do, such as massive public investment in treatments that boost the immune systems of those coming down with the disease. Pro-vaccine efforts can be reasonable; I'm fully vaccinated myself. I'm more just scared about the paradigm shift, you know? A few experts say basically "Let's put social life into the freezer for a while", and without really thinking things through that had to happen? Maybe I'm overly paranoid? Not sure. I wish more evidence could be provided in terms of a lot of the heavy-handed measures, at least.

Hopefully, though, I do see a possible turnaround in the future. Yet I worry about the recent past. And present.


File: 1649076726910.png (480.08 KB, 1024x576, 16:9, s4_e20__snake_oil_by_esuka….png) ImgOps Google

Suppose for a moment you're unemployed or you're searching for a job.
Suppose you're called with a so called lucrative job offer, but it's to help run a shady business.

* Calling people to sign up for a scam
* run code for malicious programs / designing phishing pages
* design algorhythms for bitcoin mining operations or malware to turn other systems into mining servers
* building up hype on social media for shady businesses

If they promise you good deals, would you consider going for it?
7 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


oh I have a good one for you. selling drugs.


File: 1649253168762.jpeg (82.29 KB, 1024x992, 32:31, E_u_KhRVIAcV5HG.jpeg) ImgOps Google

Probably. I dunno. Depends on the level of desperation, likely.

I mean, if the country I'm living in has a "you either work or you starve, get no health coverage, or become homeless" but also doesn't provide an easy means to have an ethical and sufficient job, then I dunno.

Ethics fall to the wayside during desperation.


I'm unlikely to do anything regardless of money that goes against my personal code.
Though there's plenty of stuff I suppose that might be outside the 'norm' of ethical conduct. Hard to say.


File: 1649095843380.jpg (170.06 KB, 1111x737, 101:67, Sacramento-Police-Chief-Ka….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Do you follow news about mass murder events in the U.S.? Or do you feel like this isn't worth it because there's not particularly that much that an average person can do, and being too focused on the negative hurts? Or maybe you've mixed opinions?

The recent situation out of the city of Sacramento in California appears to be particularly horrific because the murderers escaped the scene, being still at large: https://www.npr.org/2022/04/04/1090752765/manhunt-for-multiple-shooters-in-sacramento-still-underway

In practical terms, what really can be done to make these tragic events less frequent or not even likely to happen at all? Perhaps nothing seriously can be done? Maybe?
2 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


I haven't done much research, but on the surface this doesn't seem to fit what I would consider a mass murder.  Technically it is since multiple people died, but the modern connotation suggests something different, like the lone gunman whose primary goal is a high kill count.  This seems to have more in common with a nightclub fight that ends in someone pulling a gun than it does a mass murder.  The people who were killed seem to be bystanders rather than targets.

I don't see why this even made it past the local news.


File: 1649109648029.jpeg (5.27 KB, 245x206, 245:206, index.jpeg) ImgOps Google

Another line of thinking would be that crime's sole agent is the criminal.  So by deduction the only thing that can be done to reduce mass shootings is that you choose to abstain.


My own thought is that Americans are simply more violent and hateful in general compared to citizens of other first world nations, hence why everything from child molestation to mass shooter incidents to anti-Semitic hate crimes and the like is far common here than elsewhere, and thus no clear-cut answer exists on the matter.

In the long run, America needs to become a fundamentally nicer country with a fundamentally nicer people such that we have both less criminals and less crime.

In terms of gun control, I personally feel like strict measures need to be enforced in order to keep those with criminal records from obtaining firearms, but that's rather a can of worms, unfortunately, since so many stolen weapons as well as straw purchased weapons are floating around in the U.S. black market. Hard thing to fight in terms of law enforcement. Alas.

Would new laws solve the problem? We already have laws against stealing by itself, but the theft of firearms happens constantly. And then said guns get used for more bad things. Unsure exactly what to think.


File: 1648591328463.jpg (492.18 KB, 1771x1221, 161:111, George-H.W.-Bush-(Left)-Wi….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

It's Sam Walton's 104th birthday today. You perhaps have heard of the tycoon's family in the news, with him being the mover and shaker behind making the WalMart Corporation what it is today. He lived from March 29, 1918 to April 5, 1992, a notable event in his life including in 1998 being placed in the magazine 'Time' inside its list of the "100 most influential people of the 20th Century." WalMart remains in 2022 one of the world's most influential businesses although it's been dogged with various controversies that endure.

What do you think about the relative success of a select few billionaires in the U.S. compared to the general wellbeing of the regular populace? Do you feel like modern oligarchs generally deserve what they've gotten due to forward thinking? Do you think that, in contrast, the U.S. has a system with too much crony capitalism? What ideal reforms, if any, would you enact in terms of wealth inequality? Or are concerns overblown?
4 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


Granted, while it happens everywhere, it tends to be worse in America. America elected Donald Trump President, after all, and actively allowed Trump to enrich himself and his family personally at the direct expense of both business rivals and the average taxpayer. Other democracies have tended to not be so incredibly corrupt and immoral. Alas.

Hopefully, future laws can prevent future Trump style fleecing.


>Other democracies have tended to not be so incredibly corrupt and immoral
We are placed in the top 15% in this index [https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2021].  Somewhat, though, this depends on your definition of democracy.  Nearly every country today makes a claim to being democratic.  But I'm guessing you're comparing America to the 27 nations judged superior.  Denmark, France, Germany, etc.

>it tends to be worse in America
I suppose I should ask, what do those nations have that America lacks that allows America to be more 'business friendly,' or that made Trump attractive?


>what do those nations have that America lacks

That's a great question. It likely relates to lower social trust in the U.S. between strangers compared to other nations, which dovetails with our "culture of hatred" and "culture of violence" thereby general crimes (from carjacking to sexual assault to white collar cons and more) are more common here than other Western nations. Beyond just trust, the average person in the U.S. has less in common with a stranger and more reasons to fear a stranger in general, perhaps? I'm sure that a full analysis would be involve a full book's length in terms of intellectual study.


File: 1646946007397.jpg (117.82 KB, 949x525, 949:525, U.S.-Health-Care-Explanati….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

An interesting news report from yesterday commented that state after state in the U.S. have tried specific health care efforts only for them to fail miserably in place after place: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/more-states-are-proposing-single-payer-health-care-why-arent-they-succeeding/

Broadly speaking, medicine is a mess in America given that different people are shuffled into highly different processes under the general system. Many individuals have privately purchased insurance plans. Many get private plans through their employer. Many are covered via Medicare, which is run such that the U.S. federal government functions as the insurer and sets policies. Still more options exist.

What are your thoughts in general? Specifically, are you surprised that health care reform keeps failing? Or no?
54 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


>Just about everybody accepts
is an appeal to the majority, a logical fallacy (if we even accept it as true), and doesn't change the core concepts being discussed or their relationships in the real world.  Something doesn't become a "right" the moment 51% of people say it is, otherwise me and my buddies want our free Tesla roadsters, because 51% of us demand it.

>That's how human rights work. That's how it's worked for centuries. That's how it is."
You saying "that's just how it is bruh" doesn't make it so.  And you're conflating vastly different issues to make blanket statements don't help your case.  And here you make yet another logical fallacy, an appeal to (what is purportedly) tradition, even though it is just that - a claim.  Your arguments are built on sand here.

"Freedom of speech exists and is a right, therefore everything I claim is a right becomes an equally valid right for the same reasons."  No, that's not how it works.


I don't think Python even knows what a true "far right" argument would look like.  It might be something like "healthcare is a right for me and people who look like me, but not people who look like you."  Or if we're talking strictly economics, then "Healthcare is 100% for those who can pay for it."  (But let's be honest, this person thinks we're racists by default somehow so that rules out this version.)

My position on this issue is about as centrist as you can possibly be.  But by not drinking the Kool-Aid, instantly that makes one far right.


Pretty much. By 'far right' standards, I'm a communist for thinking state-provided heatlhcare is a good idea we can afford, that'll help significantly.
I don't think it's a 'right', sure, but that doesn't stop a whole lot of nice things.
But of course, they didn't even bother seeking that stance. Just figured on assuming it.


File: 1648082148101.png (5.3 MB, 2112x1331, 192:121, Disney-Protest-Picture.png) ImgOps Google

What's your opinion when it comes to bondholders, customers, employees, managers, and stockholders pressuring major corporations to take political stances when it comes to specific legislation and other such acts?

Today, in particular, Disney employees across the U.S. are walking out to press the company's administration to take a tougher line on anti-LGBT discrimination being pushed by the government of Florida.

Context: https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/pop-culture-news/disney-employees-us-are-walking-today-rcna20893

What are your thoughts? Do you generally believe in a separation between commerce and politics? Or is such a thing no longer possible, or even desirable, in the current environment inside the U.S.?
13 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


>But not in the sense of treating unfairly, which is how I was using the word.
Yes, that's right.
Thus my usage earlier, of saying "If you feel you're being exploited unfairly". I feel unfairly is something to add to exploitation, not something inherent.

>Ford had massive political sway due to the wealth of his company.
To an extent. But much of that wealth is tied to the company itself, and its shareholders, rather than Ford's pocket itself.

The bulk of lobbyists are financed not by individual pockets, but rather, large organizations. Especially in the case of business. Ford himself would have less resources than that.

> I only want to address that at some level there exists an inequality that people in positions of power, like Ford, would have a direct interest in upholding.
Understandable. Though I would make the case, wealth is less a determining factor as class and culture are.
Politicians, at least in the US, seem to be quite an insular group. More or less the only ones they seem to listen to are the media types, who're more in that metropolitan class than your average businessman. The connections are ones of education and lifestyle, rather than raw wealth.
I think this rather shows its form when you look at what politicians tend to focus on. At least when it comes to the public face of things.

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


Corporations, as far as I'm concerned, do not have the right to political opinions, for one very good reason. People have the right to political opinions. If a person is made to express a political opinion they don't personally hold on behalf of a corporation that's telling them to do that or they're fired, then that's infringing on that employee's first amendment rights. I'd rather people keep their rights than to give the right to a political opinion to some evil, greedy, self-serving hydra of a corporation.


Can be said that most of us agree that "corporate personhood" shouldn't exist?

A company shouldn't be legally considered the same as a private individual and thus be allowed to as a whole enforce certain speech, certain religious practices, and so on?


File: 1643079289324.jpg (545.26 KB, 1331x1881, 121:171, Russian-Bear-Image.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

U.S. troops are on high alert over the ongoing stand-off: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60118193

When I think about this, frankly, I wonder why exactly should Russia avoid rolling the tanks through Eastern Europe. Not just Ukraine. All over. Take over territories with puppet governments and exterminate all opposition.

What can the European militaries do? They're no match on the battlefield. Russia also controls Europe's energy resources to a significant extent. Their morale appears to be sky high as well.

What can the Americans do? The country is exhausted. Two decades of severe decline in both economic terms and foreign policy terms means that U.S. armed forces are an extremely weak shadow of themselves. Financially, the U.S. is also in a dicey situation, the treasury barely able to support domestic social programs let alone expansionary efforts abroad. The American people can't sacrifice any more, not that I can see, and won't support interventionism of any sort in the near future.

What are your thoughts?
18 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


In retrospect, the assumption behind the original comment appears to be weirdly identical to that in the head of Putin. That the gamble would be worth it. Declaring war.

Events in the recent past have made it clear, yeah, that gamble really wasn't worth it.

I continue to be immensely surprised at the comparative weakness of the Russian forces, day by day.


People are already fearing that the use of chemical / biological weapons may follow soon and one might wonder if we're gonna see another nuke go off in our lifetime.

I seriously wonder what would happen if Russia says F#CK it and drops a nuke on Ukraine.                


Use of chemical and biological weapons has happened in world conflict since WWII, and the response has been minimal. There doesn't appear to be any particular logical reason to avoid using such weapons given the lack of punishment. I believe.

Nuclear weapons... though... there's a huge taboo for a reason... we'll see...


Should a large-scale European international security force exist, perhaps organized specifically under the European Union's administrative umbrella?

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]