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

/townhall/ - Townhall

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


File: 1666931059964.jpg (143.12 KB, 1400x1050, 4:3, this-is-fine.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

ITT: State and respond to hot takes here!

Hot takes! Get your hot takes!

Fresh off the press!:


I believe that the only solution to our current world-wide economic problem is to let it collapse.

It's better if it's a slow one so that we have time to prepare for it before we hit the ground, but I still think we need one.

We've been thinking the wrong way about work, finance, and what a normal quality of life is for far too long, and a collapse is the inevitable result of that.

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
29 posts and 5 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


That sounds like a maximum of passive misanthropy.


File: 1671348617232.png (244.51 KB, 1280x621, 1280:621, large.png) ImgOps Google

I think I understand how this works.

>Hot takes!
It should be OK to not go to college and still do important...even, dare I say, academical or smart...things in life.

Or college should be more accessible, affordable, and not give me a feeling of having something to do with class division (although I'm sure people will tell me how wrong that feeling is, I still feel it.)


My hottest take might be that we need full blown anarchy, which I wonder about sometimes.

Not just the elimination of government but the destruction of every form of interpersonal authority by which one person enslaves another. No organized religion. No business structures that aren't flatly democratic. No military or paramilitary groups. No parental """"rights"""" on determining the beliefs and identities of their children. No... nothing.

People are just people. Everything is open. Everything is free. Everyone is free.


File: 1664607623442.jpg (68.36 KB, 1200x900, 4:3, topic-statue-of-liberty-ge….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Observing the trends in politics recently, I feel like the battle between left and right is unhelpful and destructive.

The real battle is between libertarian principles and authoritarian principles.

What are your thoughts on libertarianism vs authoritarianism?


I personally lean far more libertarian. And honestly I think most people do.

I believe, in general, libertarianism is good, and authoritarianism is evil. But I also understand that for liberty to be protected, some government and restrictions are required.

My general principle is that individual liberty is the ultimate goal, but not necessarily the highest priority.

In my experience, individual liberty cannot be protected if it is the highest priority. You need to first and foremost protect the right to life. What worth is liberty if you're dead?
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
48 posts and 5 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>Does it make a difference if your master wears a state uniform or a business suit?

My opinion is, yes.  I grant it might not in material effect, but much of life is in our heads, and it's easier to mentally resist private tyranny than official tyranny.  Clerical robes are more complicated, if you believe in the associated deity.  And science has no theory of domination, you must add something to it, in my view, to create oppression.

I guess it's the bigger question, do ideas matter?  Or just material condition?


Indeed. Not having any state power is terribly dangerous. But having too much is equally so.

My preference is a severely limited state whose primary purpose is to limit the accumulation and abuse of power, including its own.


This is key, I think. Power corrupts, and whether that power is corporate, government, or some other form is largely meaningless, with the same result. The key is to minimize the accumulation of power as much as possible. It is in the nature of power to both accumulate and corrupt, and the only thing that can meaningfully respond to power is power. That's the paradox we find ourselves in.


File: 1669062571198.jpg (35.13 KB, 767x512, 767:512, EDXN24YDTNHTFMTYOEYL6AXGPM.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google


What should one make of the idea of individual sheriffs in different American locations refusing to enforce city law, county law, state law, or national law? What about law enforcement more generally acting like this? How does this relate to gun politics?

Personally, I view this as equally moral and equally immoral at the same time. This trend is rarely seen in action. What if it spreads?

Many sheriffs and other types will feel motivated by higher principles to make choices such as refusing to enforce hate crime laws and tolerating violence against minority groups that they disdain. Maybe they'll shut down public demonstrations despite free speech law and its guarantees for the same reasons. Maybe they'll work to ban certain books and video games similarly. Other actions will be claimed on behalf of freedom that involve defending 'good people' from 'bad people' (such as the claimed freedom of religious individuals to live cleanly amidst sinners and their liberties to protect their children from sinners).

At the same time, however, other sheriffs will act against the law to actively defend individuals from the government. This case appears to be such a thing to me. A law-abiding citizen should be able to buy, own, and sell a standard magazine. Big brother should not be watching. I've read other cases that also seem to genuinely involve law enforcement flouting the law to support actual freedom such as refusing to enforce anti-drug rules.

Am I being too pessimistic? Too optimistic? Is it unethical for me to so casually argue that gun control laws not be enforced just because I find them stupid? Maybe?
25 posts and 9 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Police activism?

I generally take that no state owes their subjects/citizens consistency.  But if states did, I would be mostly against police taking the liberty of deciding things without overt consent of the governed.


Thinking about it more, I suppose you could assert police need only be loyal to the government when properly in line with the constitution, therefore they have the right to not enforce unconstitutional laws.  Government is only legitimate when appropriately upholding the formational social contract citizens consented to.

But I gather the actual role of the state is to apply correcting force to subjects who might follow such logic toward dissidence.


I feel like the idea that cops can choose which laws to enforce is fundamentally contradictory to the idea that judges shouldn't legislate from the bench.


File: 1669635555682.jpg (115.05 KB, 1948x1408, 487:352, MV5BNTM1YjhkZDYtODY5Zi00OT….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

This year, I have seen a lot of stuff on the "Manosphere" and people like Andrew Tate.

Now I can't help but think on the dubbed Loverboys in some European countries, long before the entire Manosphere thing.
Those are guys making their business by picking up young girls, often from a broken background, alienating them further from any sort of support network they have and then putting them out for sale in prostitution or using them as mules for drug trafficking.
The way of working often involves showering girls with attention and gifts and having them come with them later willingly.
Then it goes often into emotional blackmail, actual blackmail and even human trafficking style coercion to trap the girls into doing prostitution or other illegal activities.

And, unfortunately, in certain places being a Loverboy is something young people look up to.

And I feel, when I hear about Andrew Tate talking about employing so many willing girlfriends to build an empire on sexual services and the guys talking about how bad monogamy is and the position of girls in the world, that it's just this questionable Loverboy Culture gone viral with plenty of young boys taking notes from their heroes.

Now, maybe I'm just an old guy and people will argue that this is actually a nice hack to become successful in life that the left-wing squares don't get. Maybe, some people may argue that this sort of stuff is really okay as long as the girls willingly consent.

But I personally do feel worried about the way this thing keeps evolving.
Flexing on pimping out your girlfriend may not be as good an evolution as you'd hope it to be.
2 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1669696164702.jpg (368.05 KB, 1200x1512, 50:63, QM.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

I can dislike the generalizations, sure. But fundamentally that's not all that different from certain types of BDSM lifestyles.

If the investigations turn up enough evidence to bring Tate to trial and convict him, that's kind of another matter. Him engaging in explicitly illegal activity is still different than if he were engaging in consensual relationships. He could have easily been doing both.

He's still pushing misogynistic ideas, absolutely. However if there are women who want to engage with him even knowing that, I can't really justify wanting to interfere in that. It's their business at that point and all I can really do is dislike that as a dynamic. If it does slip into outright abuse the authorities can get involved as they seem to be with the investigation. Before that threshold though, it's not really anyone else's business.


This shit is just what happens when we lack cultural scripts. For a long time, the script was parable for most. Men spent time, money, and resources courting women, training them to be breadwinners, which allowed them freedom in choosing who they wanted, and a certain degree of power and influence over women in a general sense. Women spent time, money, and effort making themselves appealing, learning how to apply makeup and act in a demure way to prepare to be housewives, which allowed them to largely set the rules and pace of the courtship. That system has it's flaws, but it was functional. It's largely been abolished now, which is only good or bad in the context of what replaces it, which right now seems to be essentially pimping cabals. Match group as a whole, onlyfans, traditional pimps, Andrew Tate and loverboy stuff, it's all fundamentally the same. It operates by perpetuating, exploiting, and profiting off a general confusion and discomfort around dating now that there are no rules.

The fact that women largely set the rules without overtly declaring what the rules are doesn't help. Not that it's really their fault, it's just cultural baggage from generations of expected demureness, but it leaves a power vacuum for how courtship should be done, and naturally, there are those that would exploit it. It doesn't help that, naturally, women don't all agree about how they'd like to be courted; Some, for example, use an initial rejection as a "shit test", various soft or hard rejections they expect men to ignore and push past to see if a man wants her enough, while other women see a man continuing to push after a no has been given as a consent violation. They will not communicate these in any reasonable way, and even if women in general had the inclination communicate, which they generally do not, there is no socially smooth way to accomplish this.

Essentially, when it comes to courtship, women aren't typically attracted to most men, while most men are attracted to most women, leaving women as, essentially, the game designers, and men, essentially, as the players, funnily enough. Women dictate the rules and structure of the process, and men do their best to pair-bond, or simply have sex with, the women they're attracted to under these circumstances.

A good step would be picking one of these to be the social standard and then to very harshly punish those who go against it. I would choose the pro-consent camp myself, seems to be a Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


I honestly feel like what we see culturally as the super masculine kind of 'jock' aggressive 'type A personality' and rationalize as just being a relationship driven thing is just a paper thin mask over the real problem. We're talking about sadism, socipathy, and narcissism. That what it boils down to. People with severe mental illnesses they refuse to see as an issue to work on at all let alone treat.

And this isn't really a gender identity thing or a sexual orientation thing. The Karen calling the police because a black teenager is feeding the ducks on a park bench in what she believes is 'her park' in order to 'ruin her day' is ethically exactly the same as the Chadbro at a club mouthing off homophobic and transphobic slurs as he attempts to psychologically manipulate a stranger with the aims of using her as a nonhuman pleasure object with no actual emotion involved whatsoever. It's the same mentality. The sadist one. The sociopathic one. The narcissistic one. Viewing your fellow human beings as mere resources to benefit yourself (comedian Lewis Black aptly called this belief seeing others as "meat with eyes").

I wish I had a clearer idea of what to do other than just pleading that Americans in general become nicer and happier. But that seems to be that. Just be better.


File: 1667869566867.png (19.69 KB, 600x450, 4:3, credit-score-ranges-600x45….png) ImgOps Google

I know people who have gotten apartments without going through a credit check, but I gather there's a growing trend to filter out applicants with poor credit score.  I have to guess there are similar filters for home buyers.

So, are you in favor of this trend, perhaps in that it will encourage people in general to be more responsible with the features that go into the credit score model, or are you not in favor?
6 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


People have the God-given right of not being murdered, and as a part of that they've got the innate right to adequate shelter.

If the argument is made that this mindset is supposedly wrong because it is claimed positive rights for goods and services doesn't exist, which is a take I don't agree with inherently because homelessness exists due to state violence interpreting property rules and the state otherwise organizing wealth distrubution in an oppressive way, then therefore people in the process of being murdered through lack of shelter should be able to exercise the right of self-defense and claim currently existing shelter. Taking over state controlled property or property otherwise maintained by the business interests tied to the state.

Communist oppression in which the many are forced into homelessness is ethically identical to corporatist oppression in which the many are forced into homelessness. Fight the power. Fight for the people.


The premise ignores the real issue, I think, which is just a severe lack of affordable new housing, and really, a lack of new housing in general. Piece of shit ""people"" in HOAs and special interest groups prevent this from happening, for greedy, evil, ignorant, self-serving reasons.

Credit scores would be a moot point of supply was allowed to match demand.


Of course they do.


File: 1668072964004.jpg (140.92 KB, 1169x1660, 1169:1660, pwut5ejk30z91.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Do you vote third party?
15 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


I wonder what position Rand Paul still has in regards to libertarianism.

In regards to the political discourse of late, he does seem from a cursory glance to lean heavily into the MAGA crowd.

Maybe he's fallen from grace in the last few years, though.


Rand is a politician and made clear he'd sell ideals for convenience and efficacy.
It's why I didn't vote for him.
He is not his father.


I always vote strategically so I don't think I'd ever vote for the spoiler candidate if I were in the US, unless it were as a protest vote. Except I guess if I lived in an IRV state like Alaska. Then sure, my first choice would probably always go to a third party. I don't expect that system to spread over the rest of the States though. The people who have the power to change the voting system away from first-past-the-post are the very same people who benefit from keeping it in place. And by that I don't mean The Bad Party (whichever you think that is), but both of the big ones.


>Russian missiles stike Poland with multiple deaths confirrmed

It's been an honour shitposting with you guys. See you in the bunker


...it's true. do you really think poland will invoke article 5?

it could happen... the United States certainly wouldn't be happy with that, but it would not be in a position to reject an invocation of article 5. :c


File: 1668599175834.png (868.48 KB, 601x887, 601:887, ukrain1611.PNG) ImgOps Google


File: 1666481138146.png (324.04 KB, 1280x960, 4:3, large.png) ImgOps Google

So, my policy online is not to share my in-real-life face or voice.  Mostly this is because I don't have interest in the politics of which faces, voices, and presentations are appropriate and valid and which, if any, are not.

A secondary benefit is that I'm slightly more difficult to assault or harass IRL.  I've made some people very upset on the internet -- I like to think because those people were crazy, but obviously opinions vary on which party is crazy.  In any case, I want to make choices that keep people safe.

Now, some people don't care for my policy.  Perhaps they have shared an image of their face and feel it is rude not to reciprocate.  I've had job applications ask for a portrait (I think on principle I'm not doing those applications anymore).

Anyway, my question is: are people entitled to samples of your face and/or voice online?  And if so, what useful information should we expect them to extract from this image and/or sound data?
12 posts and 6 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>Yeah. Though there is a difference between no privacy at work and "we can post employees faces and names on social media and in marketing materials". Though any company that would do the latter usually has you sign a waver for it.

Ok.  So it's perfectly fine to say -- "here's a picture of our employees."  Maybe even to put the names, but it seems gray area.

You need permission to say "Here's John Doe, who is never without our ABC brand Whatzit."



But if permission is boilerplate for every employment contract, then it's all effectively moot for employees.


File: 1666673287023.png (313.81 KB, 881x575, 881:575, 2022-03-25 04_22_51-Settin….png) ImgOps Google

Well yeah I assumed you need permission for either one.


File: 1665805348607.png (245.84 KB, 1080x964, 270:241, snapshot_1649362471256_2.png) ImgOps Google

What do you think of this argument?
7 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


Certainly possible.
I will say there's a lot of naivety involved in regards to why someone would pay for something they know is real, or something they know suffered.
But outside of that, the industry wouldn't have, let's say, outsiders if this was how it was done.

This said, though, I'm not sure how much of the lot is outsiders to begin with.


I think the question ends up being if the increased supply fulfilling the demand ends up reducing harm, or if bringing it to the mainstream just brings more people into it. Personally, I'm pessimistic about the potential results.


The argument is that simulated sexual material of children functions as a kind of promotional advertisement that normalizes and strengthens the underlying attitudes.

So, watching a Honda commercial with animated guys driving an animated sedan has nothing specifically to do with actual cars. Watching it doesn't magically give you a car. It doesn't feel the same as driving one. However, the advertisement is designed inherently to make you want to be associated with something in real-life. Most won't watch it and buy a Honda. Some will.

That's the argument to why lolicon and other such media should be banned, even if it not only doesn't hurt actual people but helps to an extent significantly by channeling what could otherwise develop into real habits into fantasy.

I don't buy the argument personally because I believe it's factually wrong. Being saturated with violent video games, movies, television shows, and more haven't been shown like ever to make anybody more actually violent. Fantasy material that's divorced from reality... it's a difference that's simple to get. This is true in general and true in this case. Objectively speaking, evidence doesn't seem to exist that the audience who seeks out lolicon or whatever else are any more likely to be criminals than the general population. It doesn't work as advertisment.

Still, the opposing argument ought to be considered seriously.


File: 1666270547025.png (125.44 KB, 765x688, 765:688, BRUH LOOK AT THIS DUDE.png) ImgOps Google

>Becomes Prime Minister
>Tells everyone the Queen has died


I present a heartfelt congratulations to the lettuce.


Ya know?
I feel like society's polarized enough that politics is getting hard.

We're gonna see this impasse happen way more often in the coming years.


There needs to be a way to fundamentally change American politics so that if a national leader is widely despised and is actively hurting the citizens then they can just be kicked out.

Instead of the American people suffering under four whole years of pain, hatred, and misery just because the design of federal government demands it.


File: 1657236705048.jpg (45.95 KB, 694x600, 347:300, medium.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

I'm sure I've created a thread like this before, but how much of politics is really debatable?

If you are a capitalist, you take a limited liability corporation and that corporate person's capacity to control private property as most needing honor.  Although people might tell others this system more efficiently manages resources than any other, implying perhaps that honor belongs to corporations only by deduction, politics feels in general to be something of a religious debate.  And it is impolite to denigrate another's religion.  (I don't mean to pick on free market folks in particular.)

I guess in order for a political matter to be debatable (in a productive way), there must be generally agreed upon values and people's political assertions should not be something like religious faith.  How often would you say that's the case, or what might indicate this is or is not the case?  What's the best strategy when you can't debate politics?
8 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Imagine you want to play a game of tennis, and two strangers offer that they'd like to play with you, separately.

The first comes to you as you're waiting, racket in hand, totally naked. He then holds out a cement brick and refers to it as his 'tennis ball'. He asks if you want to serve first. He then states that he will use his psychic powers to hit the 'ball' back at you if you go first.

The second similarly comes out to you as you wait. Everything seems normal other than how he's accompanied by a spectator not previously announced. You shake hands, and the spector holds out a submachine gun. You're now informed that whomever loses the game is to be immediately executed for their failure.

This is what debating politics amount to.

First, we have entirely different views of what factual reality exists in the world to the point where we might as well be literal space aliens to each other.

Second, the punishment for failing to properly achieve a political cause is literally either direct physical harm or death (not always, but often enough and especially on the biggest issues such as abortion and gun rights).


I've seen politics where people have what I would consider strange ideas, and if people are quite happy with their ideas, even if they are not my ideas, I can accept them.

For the second case, I feel people have a right to self-defense that goes beyond politics.  If the political folks try to shoot you, you should tell them you don't care for that.


File: 1665400383220.png (253.63 KB, 1068x738, 178:123, enpol_watermark.png) ImgOps Google

words are illusions of power
that are exploited in the world that is also an illusion
we don't live in the world, we live in hell.
that is truth of politics.


File: 1665013640479.png (7.25 KB, 200x200, 1:1, circle.png) ImgOps Google

Let's try a thread where you answer the question: "How are you?"  Your answer need not contain detail.  Your state will be grouped into at least three categories based on how good you seem.  Sympathy will be offered if you seem mostly bad.  Gladness will be shared if you seem mostly good.  If uncertain, a part of your answer may be repeated with a phrase such as "I see that you are" added.  If you do not welcome this process you may specify that you opt out and request no response to your post.  This preference must be clearly specified, welcoming response will be considered the default.

Other unspecified discourse may occur based on the discretion of users.  If you do not care for this thread, for whatever reason, you must create a new thread to discuss your issue.  This thread is not for existential discussions of this thread.


File: 1665057878212.png (7.25 KB, 200x200, 1:1, circle.png) ImgOps Google

Probably one has to prime the pump, as a metaphor.

>How are you?
I've been better.


File: 1665096622278.png (7.25 KB, 200x200, 1:1, circle.png) ImgOps Google

>I've been better.
I see that you've been better, Magnificent Octopus.


Perhaps I am asking for too much information.  I'll create another social thread without the status request.


File: 1661189996805.jpg (978.35 KB, 2122x1412, 1061:706, sub-buzz-1450-1637280411-7….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

I've heard people say that because of tipping culture, the service worker will do better trying to serve the customer to get as high as a tip as possible.

But is this actually true?

Do you know if the service in say an average American bar is way better than in an average European or Asian bar?

Also, feel free to share your thoughts on tipping culture in general.
6 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1663236227723.jpg (1.75 MB, 980x1415, 196:283, 9b77cb53d54bb89645ca0868b3….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

So the concept of "quiet quitting" has been coming up lately, and I'm thinking of it together with the idea of "better tips better service". I'm going to consider "refusing to do your job well without a little something on the side from the end client" a more toxic but less cringeworthy version of "quiet quitting". And my question is this:

Don't these people have managers or supervisors? Isn't there somebody whose job it is to make sure the required work gets done to a satisfactory quality?

I'm not faulting the workers here but rather a rash of passive management that I've noticed has become more prevalent. Of course workers aren't going to go above and beyond if you just shove them in a box half trained with a rough idea of what they're supposed to do and then go home. If you don't give a crap then why should they? You're the one here who is actually invested in this operation going well, they're just punching a clock. Instead everybody is laser focused on some spreadsheet that came from on high with some arbitrary metrics that are ambiguations of how somebody else did something else so we must meet these same metrics too.

Walk the floor. See how the staff treat the customers, and if there is a problem either fix them or fire them. Stop expecting your customers and your employees to do your job for you.


I feel the problem with quiet quitting is just that companies are just constantly downsizing and squeezing every penny out of their workforce while work schedules and demands are getting more and more eggregious.

I feel every worker should have the drive to perform their work properly, but it's necessary the workers can work in a proper environment, no expenses are spared to give people the tools to do their job and there is plenty enough organisation that people can find time to close off the work for the day.

But companies are downsizing, taking up new obligations, but refusing to expand the workforce or provide the proper tools. And there are working spaces where there is no more room for respect and kindness.
And then people are surprised when the workers refuse to take on all that extra workload for free?

Quiet quitting to me doesn't sound like unsupervised workers loafing around and not doing their work. It sounds like the bosses want their workers to work 18 hours per day and do it with a smile, while their pay gets cut in half again.


My work promotes the notion of tipping to workers, yet few people actually tip.  Those who do tip generally tip so little as to be a negligible supplement to income.  Those few people who tip well are so few and far between as to be an anomaly yet drive up the averages from ~2% tip rate to ~5% tip rate.  I make zero additional effort for tips because I know that my effort has almost no bearing on tip rates.  Also, people who outright say they will tip generally don't, and are in fact just looking for additional unpaid effort or special favors out of the worker.  After their service ends, they will simply "forget" to tip, and the extra effort/favors will be for nothing.  Tipping is simply used as a hypothetical benefit to equivalent employment and as a substitute for real income paid by the employer.  As such, I accept tips, but I do not "work for tips."


File: 1664090089415.jpg (294.24 KB, 1265x1692, 1265:1692, 2473257.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

I'm reading books about the Chinese use of surveillance technology.  The Chinese state-truth is that these technologies are helping prevent terrorism, separatism, and religious extremism.  While I'm sure the books I'm reading would be condemned by the Chinese state as western propaganda, and I suppose we are to be as respectful as possible, some believe instead surveillance is being used by the state to oppress, torture, and eradicate Uyghurs in China, and sometimes outside China.

I used to have a job in electronics security about 15 years ago [in the USA], and I didn't see anything too worrying.  Camera systems were buggy, somewhat analog, and required authorities to physically transfer files when something of interest happened.  But everything has improved since then.

Do you worry about the increase in surveillance technology, or do you think some groups should worry?  Or do you instead think this technology is making the world safer -- for everyone?


File: 1664153409027.jpeg (216.49 KB, 840x1200, 7:10, 08023cffc06e1ef3e0c6eb040….jpeg) ImgOps Google

Like all technology, surveillance cameras can be used both for good and for evil.


I guess we are moving into the abstract, so how are good and evil summed?  That is, if tech is used for 1/2 good and 1/2 evil, should we worry about the evil, or consider it a net neutral and of no concern?


I don't trust states with it.
Helps that governments have historically done more damage than terrorists, separatists, and your typical criminals.

Ultimately cameras can do significant good.
But the downside to them is whoever controls them can omit the parts that don't like.
Bodycams are the most obvious example


File: 1663701692910.gif (479.05 KB, 704x591, 704:591, 889389__safe_screencap_flu….gif) ImgOps Google

Lately I have following a bit more than usual news coming the USA, specially those about an specific ex-president and his careless management of documents.

However, lately Youtube has been suggesting me news from both right and left leaning media about how some governors in that country are playing hot potato with people coming from my country, I mean people that I could actually walk by while doing errands downtown but for some reason they decided to enter the USA.

Does anyone could tell me what is going on?

Left media seems to be blaming Texas governor for sending those people to a very fancy place called Martha's Vineyard and other locations around the country.

Right media is calling out the alleged hypocrisy of people living in those places for not offering accommodation in a place that supposedly can due to its status as touristic hotspot.

Regardless, quite sad all of this if you ask me...    
4 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


The long and short of it goes; People who aren't affected in the slightest by things are suddenly affected, and they don't like it.

People calling it "human trafficking" is funny to me, given the state's been relocating people with little to no say like this for ages.
And not even non-citizens, as memory serves New York got in big trouble a while back for doing it with their homeless.


Does that make it ok to do?


It makes me uninclined to care.
As others have said, it's a publicity stunt to demonstrate hypocrisy.
The harm done seems quite mild, and again, because of hypocrisy, ignored on the other side.

Ultimately I find no cause to care for the moral outrage of those who lack principle.

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