IIRC views are just impressions, i.e. someone scrolling their for you page sees a clip and keeps scrolling. It doesn't even count unique impressions. Some poor smuck doomscrolling might scroll past it 5-10x that night and each one would be a view.
I don't think age-based inequality makes the sense you think it does. Only a minority of older people are wealthy, imo, and mostly out of a function of the fact earning power accrues over time. But plenty of elderly people are actually homeless or forced to go back to working at Dollar General and Walmart.
It would be more accurate to target wealth inequality, which will disproportionately target the old wealthy people by nature (and also younger people who are wealthy through wealthy prior generation).
Some decades are more lucky than others when it comes to the generation of wealth. That is an inequality in itself and it affects everyone not just the top
I'm arguing that it may not actually affect everyone. In america, the biggest wealth-building tools from the federal government were barred to black people in the previous generation. Banks are still getting hit with racial discrimination in mortgage lending in current year. I don't think we should address inequality by generation if only a minority of that generation got to reap the rewards. It's not like a Latina grandma alive before women were allowed to open bank accounts had a ton of options to her.
the wealth at the top is a side-effect of chronic unfair advantage. Even if that is somehow targetted, the unfair advantages like e.g. the extreme way in which housing markets in free economies evolved won't change.
And we know that wealth tax does not work because of the structure of the world financial system. We can't pretend that if we try again and again it will work.
The inequality of housing in particular is a result of generational demographic factors which led to political choices (low inflation mandate - high interest rates are being imposed on new generations to pay for housing obtained with record low interest rates). These are cases where democracy fails and cannot guarantee the fundamental right to housing (in fact it actively fights it). Bandaids cannot solve this
I agree bandaids cannot solve this. I just disagree we should be targeting a generation and not just targeting all wealthy people, because the generational opportunities you're describing were closed to subsets of people. Like I said, it's not like a Latina grandmother who wasn't allowed to open a bank is the source of the generational global wealth problem-- it's the white managerial class who got preferential federal mortgage loans.
The entirety of the baby boomer voting bloc is centered around the idea that we must do whatever is best for the wealthy, because we've thrown all of our retirement money into their stocks because of the shift from pensions to 401Ks. So it doesn't really matter how rich an individual is, you already know how they're going to react because their future livelihood depends on it.
Even my dad, who has both a 401K and a pension and Social Security and draws $70K yearly from them even though his living expenses are around $20K... he is hardcore into the idea of doing whatever makes the Dow go up, because that to him is the greatest good.
The rule of law made it so you cannot run kangaroo courts when you just personally believe someone is guilty. If the process is failing to prosecute the guilty, the process should be updated with... more laws, which themselves are passed through representative democratic governance. If one outcome is unsatisfactory to you, you can vote for someone who will tear down the system, you can become a prosecutor, you can run campaigns for people who will tear down systems for you, etc.
A party that received 32.62% of the popular vote got 160 seats in the House of Commons, while another party that received 33.74% of the vote got only 119 seats.
A party that received only 7.64% of the votes got 32 seats, while another party that received 17.82% of the vote got only 25 seats.
A party that received 2.33% of the votes got 2 seats, while another party that received 4.94% of the vote got no seats.
With a votes-to-seats situation like that, there are a lot of Canadians who don't have proper representation in the House of Commons, or in some cases, effectively none at all.
It's no surprise that the voter turnout wasn't even 63%; many Canadians are completely disillusioned with how the current system works, and don't feel that any of the parties can offer them meaningful representation.
I don't think there's many democracies that function on a purely national popular vote in allotting seats proportionally. I think maybe Israel does. Hardly disqualifies a country as democratic.
The difference with AIDS is that AIDS at the time condemned you to a slow, horrible, visible decline, in which your death was celebrated via a radio talk show host that at the time had an entire regular segment to name and mock the people who died.
Like, this doesn't apply to people who get cervical cancer from HPV or other similarly tragic outcomes of acquiring an STD. The cruelty on the scale is way above anything.
As painful a read as that was, I think it's really important to understand what the social norms were at that time. Thousands of people had died and the reaction, not just from the press secretary but from the press pool at large, was to laugh and joke. Really the only widely socially acceptable response to even the mere thought of gay male sexuality was complete and utter disgust. If you were a man, to not express disgust at this thought opened the door to "you might be a fairy too", which is why you see so many of these displays of "the banality of evil".
I agree to some extent. There's definitely weirdos that purposefully use names and pronoun mangling to antagonize or ostracize someone, or put in literally no effort to respect someone. I've definitely heard/seen "your name's too hard, I'll just call you $some_arbitrary_name" like an adopted animal or something and that always struck me as a dick move.
Yes I also think that's weirdo behavior. I'm just pointing out there may very well be a reason why someone may be insisting on pronoun/name correctness-- if the other guy's being a dick about it.
Funny, this guy protests that he wasn't asked to return after saying they needed specific metrics and measurable results, but doesn't provide any metrics or results for alternatives to Housing First-- which does actually have studies.
He also talks about how he has witnessed the rise of homelessness and scoffs at the notion that the economic system (capitalism) is squeezing people into losing their homes, but provides no alternative system-wide issue.
Singapore has very few homeless people. Most countries in Europe have almost no homeless population. It's not zero, but it's low enough that it is not a big problem compared to the US.
I'm actually really confused by this claim, as a person raised in a non-white immigrant household. I bought onto the idea of churches as community because my immigrant churches were full of apple picking, group meals in the church itself, thanksgivings at the pastor's house, etc. But someone recently told me in Catholic mass you don't even get a church-wide breakfast?? WTF? How the hell does community get formed if the actual worshipping actions isn't inherently a community building action? Someone told me the guy can bless you if you don't eat the bread, but you can't even ask for a specific blessing, like "my son needs an A, can I get the whole church to pray for him" style stuff.
I'm way more skeptical of the notion of church as a community now. If all the church community is via volunteer charity actions, just volunteer directly unaffiliated with a religion.
I think that's bizarre though. Mass is the one requirement everyone needs to do together-- obviously, that's the best time to sit with a meal and gossip. Even on important holidays, easter mass etc. are the few times limited practicing catholics will appear. This is the perfect time to ask how they've been, how're the kids, and welcome them with fresh hot food, maybe invite them to the litter picking up effort next week.
I'm extremely skeptical of church as a community building thing now, because based off of my white friends recollection there's very little actual community around worship itself. There are a bunch of volunteer actions outside of it, but just going to worship isn't itself community. This makes me question why we can't have a generic mutual aid group do this instead, like the Anarchist Soup folks.
The Catholic position would be that that isn't what the Mass is for; it's a ritual sacrifice that meets a real spiritual need. Similarly, the priest doesn't need to be especially likeable or even give a homily in order to say a valid Mass.
I think it really depends on the church, and in my case I was talking about African-American dominant churches. So there may be a stronger sense of community there than the White Catholic churches.
For me, it was sort of in-between. There wasn't a church-wide breakfast except for some small snacks during the big days (Easter Sunday and Christmas). But there was plenty of donation drives that would provide food for lower income families in the area. And you very much had a chance to worship and ask for a specific blessing, sometimes in a very public manner (This Boondocks clip is surprising accurate portrayal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtP7cbbAFLA)
> If all the church community is via volunteer charity actions, just volunteer directly unaffiliated with a religion.
That's the thing, I have tried. But in my experience, volunteer work to meet friends is fleeting. You won't be making a few deep connections even if you do your best to come every week, you'll see a revolving door of people who may only come once or twice. At least among my age group, there isn't much consistency in participation.
And that fleeting, revolving door seems to be theme of modern adult life. I don't know what in particular made the same people come to pray for some higher being every week, but it's something I haven't seen in any other attempt to meet people in my adult life.
> How the hell does community get formed if the actual worshipping actions isn't inherently a community building action?
Yep, Catholicism (American white-people Catholicism, at least) is weird like that. Maybe it's different in different places or among different ethnic-majority parishes, but I grew up in New Jersey and Maryland, and was dragged to mass weekly by my (devout) parents. There wasn't really any kind of community there; we showed up, took our seats, did the rituals, and then left and went home.
They also put me through CCD (Catholic version of "Sunday school") for 8 years, and while I want on some (more or less mandatory) retreats and activities with my fellow classmates, I don't recall any of those relationships extending outside class. I didn't end up forging any closer relationships with the other kids who went to my regular school, either. Granted, I may not be typical: I decided I didn't believe when I was in 5th or 6th grade, so I did the bare minimum just to get through it; maybe others tried harder and worked to make it more of a community.
I did work for our church's music director one summer in high school (mostly odd jobs and clerical stuff), and would play trumpet in the church's small ensemble for (rare) special events (regular mass just had a piano/organ player), but I didn't really get much out of that, aside from enjoying playing some music.
> but you can't even ask for a specific blessing, like "my son needs an A, can I get the whole church to pray for him" style stuff.
The church we went to in Maryland did have a small section of time devoted to community prayers. It wasn't specific, like they would just read a list of names (I think you had to sign up in advance to get someone on the list), and after each name, the congregation would respond "Lord, pray for them" or something like that.
> I'm way more skeptical of the notion of church as a community now.
I think it just depends on which religion/denomination, and the conditions in the local area. Some churches might do more to try to build community than others. And some churches might actually do build community, but many people who come for services just don't care to participate for whatever reason.
Personally I don't have a positive view of religion, but I do think it's a shame if some community-building has gone by the wayside due to declining church attendance.
>But someone recently told me in Catholic mass you don't even get a church-wide breakfast?? WTF?
That really depends on your individual parish in my experience. The church I grew up going to had donuts after ever 10:30am mass, and the one I go to now has free breakfast. I've also been to ones that have nothing at all.
It's also extremely common for Catholic churches to hold
a "Friday Fish Fry" every Friday during Lent
> For example I've recently seen news about parts of eastern Oregon wanting to secede and join Idaho, and the primary reason for that is that you have a minority (rural eastern Oregonians) who are permanently disenfranchised with effectively zero agency over the laws and regulations that rule over them, as a result of them being a minority in Oregon.
Isn't this also the case of blue cities in red states? I believe e.g. there's a big hullabaloo in Virginia at the moment where the bluer school district close to DC is resisting anti-transgender top-down demands from the state. If we want to argue about rural people being disenfranchised, by number, way more people in cities are disenfranchised simply because cities are more populated.
>Isn't this also the case of blue cities in red states? I believe e.g. there's a big hullabaloo in Virginia at the moment where the bluer school district close to DC is resisting anti-transgender top-down demands from the state. If we want to argue about rural people being disenfranchised, by number, way more people in cities are disenfranchised simply because cities are more populated.
Absolutely, and my point isn't about a "rural vs urban divide" at all.
It is a general argument and principle that can be applied to every action of government.
It doesn't matter if oppression is done by a dictator or by a Majority.
I don't know, let me know if this is slippery sloping or something, but I don't see why the issue is the state has too much power. You will always have a disenfranchised political minority unable to force the majority to follow whatever political position they want. There's conservatives in my city who feel disenfranchised about crime; does the city have too much power, then? What if I feel disenfranchised about no one believing me in an Among Us game?
Being enfranchised in driving the state is only important if the state has a significant impact in your life.
The lower the impact (read, the power) of the state, the lower the need to be enfranchised.
For your example: If the state didn't have law enforcing powers, the states policy on crime wouldn't matter much. You could just hire your own private police to protect your interests.
> For your example: If the state didn't have law enforcing powers,
Then its not the state [0], whatever it calls itself, in the same way that Emporer Norton, despite his claimed title, was not the head of state of the United States.
[0] though it may be part of a larger structure involving elements formally outside of its bounds that together constitutes an effective state.
>Then its not the state [0], whatever it calls itself, in the same way that Emporer Norton, despite his claimed title, was not the head of state of the United States.
Plenty of states didn't have law enforcement powers, including the early US. Police is something that only really started showing up in the later half of the 1800s and even then only in certain places.
So you agree that this is a problem then, and we should work to increase agency and reduce disenfranchisement by moving more power to local communities?
This doesn't really address the concerns of the above-- that people will not make new games in Unity. Unlike IBM, which could arguably sell to large corps subpar product, Unity's consumer base are flighty and don't have upper managers that can be bribed with nice dinners.
They have a sizable captive user base and will be milking them until they're dry, at which point those responsible for this disaster will jump ship with a massive golden parachute.
