Yeah, honestly I've never heard anything remotely like that in real life. I guess we've had different experiences.
Most of the expressed racism I've personally heard has been based on fear of violent crime or economic insecurity. I think that kind of racism comes from segregation and precarity. And it certainly can be addressed with calm discussion.
Of course there's also the now-popular "hate whitey" meme that's being pushed real hard by the capitalist propaganda organs. But that's a different variant of bigotry best left to a different conversation.
It's 1967, and a bunch of people don't want equal rights for black people; some of them even want to bring back lynchings, and they all want to deny them voting rights, the right to sit anywhere on the bus, the right to use the same drinking fountains and bathrooms, etc.
Are you seriously going to tell me that it's "puerile" to dismiss these people as "assholes"? That we should have a rational discussion with them?
Correct, it would be puerile to dismiss those folks as "assholes". Many of them were doubtless fairly pleasant people in their daily lives. (I am not one of those people who thinks almost everyone is a douchebag.)
The right word for the group you describe would be "racists". And yes, calm and rational discussion can be an effective way to deal with individual racists. That kind of racist is not very common anymore, but I've encountered a few. Know what in my experience reliably makes them stop and reconsider? If they're denouncing $RACE, just say to them calmly: "You know, I've met quite a few nice/smart/etc $RACE people. Have you really never met at nice $RACE person?" Maybe that sounds too simple, but it does seem to work.
Somehow I bet that shouting "FUCK YOU, YOU FUCKING ASSHOLE!!!!11!!!1!" would not work quite so well.
Otoh, if you're thinking about the macropolitical picture in the 1960s US, don't overlook the armed proto-insurgency of the Black Panthers & friends. Mao was pretty spot-on about where political power comes from.
I'm all in favor of equal rights for everyone. But this trend of dismissing those with whom one disagrees as "assholes", "shitlords", and similar puerile insults does nothing but diminish the quality of public discussion.
Chill out, dude. We all know Twatter can and do eagerly censor whomsoever they want. That's a given.
We also all know that Twatter is a de facto public forum. Thus many here and elsewhere call that company's leadershipo to account for their policies that diminish the scope of public discussion.
Also - get over the tired left/right meme. Leftist = rightist = centrist = capitalist. Bellyfeel notwithstanding, they're all the same, and all enemies of the people.
Have you noticed lately how censorship enthusiasts always resort to ad-hominem attacks against unnamed crimethinkers? Their basic argument goes like this: "oh, they're just a bunch of assholes, they don't deserve free speech like me and my goodthinking buddies do."
Years ago Twitter censored one of my first tweets - a link to a leaked copy of the (super creepy) implementing regulations for CALEA. That's why I stopped participating.
Today it does appear that Twitter - both the company and its core user base - is dominated by aggressively abusive hypocritical elitist bigots. I guess I am supposed to be outraged, but really I find it hard to care. Nothing of value has been lost.
In recent years I've met only two kinds of people:
1) affluent boot lickers who think law enforcers only brutalize working class and poor people
2) folks who are absolutely scared shitless of American law enforcers
I'm white, middle aged, clean cut, and don't hang out with crooks. Law enforcer brutality is not a race issue, no matter how hard the financialist media try to make it into one. It's an issue of cops, as a caste, holding the common people in open contempt.
Nationwide, law enforcers are rampaging out of control - almost always with the consent of their masters in the judicial oligarchy. Our once-free country is headed down a bad road. I fear things may get much worse before they get better.
Cheap, easily installed reflective stripes along the side of the trailer are another option. They are well known to reduce accidents due to human error. They would probably also have made the trailer visible to the Tesla, preventing this accident.
It's very easy and cheap to purchase homeowner's liability insurance anywhere in America. Liability insurance pays for harm to others caused by the home, for example someone falling down the stairs. What is difficult to buy in some places is insurance against natural disaster. For instance in California, one can buy affordable earthquake insurance only because of state legal mandates.
The reason nuclear station operators cannot buy liability insurance on the commercial market, is because of the incalculably large potential for harm to others from the maximal failure mode of a nuclear power plant.
A sale can almost always be made, if the price is right.:)
But yes, NIMBY runs strong in SF. Thus the Manhattanization of the few tiny areas of land where high rise development is permitted - while vast swaths of the city's land area remain a grim suburban wasteland.
There's roughly zero undeveloped land in SF. But there is fucking tons of very nice land covered with tiny, craptastic 2- and 3-story wooden houses. For example, almost all of Potrero Hill.
So yes, you would need to take down old structures to build new.
Imho, a few of those shitbox houses should be preserved for the sake of history. But it would be no loss to the city if the vast majority were torn down and replaced with larger, higher quality buildings.
Protip: Before shooting your mouth off with Libertarian talking points
Not a Libertarian. But please continue...
Santa Monica is developed to the maximum.
Have you actually been to Santa Monica? The areas directly adjacent the beach are somewhat developed, with smallish high-rises. Most of the rest of the city is shitty wooden buildings under 4 stories.
The landlord rents out unfurnished space on a long term lease. It's a passive business, a way to make money from ownership of capital.
The Airbnb host hires out a fully furnished, immediately habitable living space on a very short term. It's an active business, a way to make money from the application of labor to relatively little capital.
So if you can't afford to buy a house in one of the most expensive real estate markets in the world, then there is just no point in investing at all?
Your words, not mine.
I have relatives nearing retirement with $0 in IRA/401k, living in a trailer park, who think exactly the same way. But they can always find the money to go to Starbucks and buy the latest iPhone.
Good to know you're much far more clever and deserving than those feckless trailer-dwelling proles.
Get real, dude. Rents in Santa Monica were sky high before Airbnb. Rents there will continue to be outrageous until the city government allows enough housing to be built to meet demand. Restrictive zoning - and the macroeconomic relation between the money value of land versus labor - is the cause of high rents, not short term rentals.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, honestly I've never heard anything remotely like that in real life. I guess we've had different experiences.
Most of the expressed racism I've personally heard has been based on fear of violent crime or economic insecurity. I think that kind of racism comes from segregation and precarity. And it certainly can be addressed with calm discussion.
Of course there's also the now-popular "hate whitey" meme that's being pushed real hard by the capitalist propaganda organs. But that's a different variant of bigotry best left to a different conversation.
It's 1967, and a bunch of people don't want equal rights for black people; some of them even want to bring back lynchings, and they all want to deny them voting rights, the right to sit anywhere on the bus, the right to use the same drinking fountains and bathrooms, etc.
Are you seriously going to tell me that it's "puerile" to dismiss these people as "assholes"? That we should have a rational discussion with them?
Correct, it would be puerile to dismiss those folks as "assholes". Many of them were doubtless fairly pleasant people in their daily lives. (I am not one of those people who thinks almost everyone is a douchebag.)
The right word for the group you describe would be "racists". And yes, calm and rational discussion can be an effective way to deal with individual racists. That kind of racist is not very common anymore, but I've encountered a few. Know what in my experience reliably makes them stop and reconsider? If they're denouncing $RACE, just say to them calmly: "You know, I've met quite a few nice/smart/etc $RACE people. Have you really never met at nice $RACE person?" Maybe that sounds too simple, but it does seem to work.
Somehow I bet that shouting "FUCK YOU, YOU FUCKING ASSHOLE!!!!11!!!1!" would not work quite so well.
Otoh, if you're thinking about the macropolitical picture in the 1960s US, don't overlook the armed proto-insurgency of the Black Panthers & friends. Mao was pretty spot-on about where political power comes from.
I'm all in favor of equal rights for everyone. But this trend of dismissing those with whom one disagrees as "assholes", "shitlords", and similar puerile insults does nothing but diminish the quality of public discussion.
If you call people with differing political opinions "assholes" in online discussion, there's a good chance it's you who's the asshole in person.
The US gubmint - keeping the world safe for democracy! Or not...
I don't. =)
Chill out, dude. We all know Twatter can and do eagerly censor whomsoever they want. That's a given.
We also all know that Twatter is a de facto public forum. Thus many here and elsewhere call that company's leadershipo to account for their policies that diminish the scope of public discussion.
Also - get over the tired left/right meme. Leftist = rightist = centrist = capitalist. Bellyfeel notwithstanding, they're all the same, and all enemies of the people.
Have you noticed lately how censorship enthusiasts always resort to ad-hominem attacks against unnamed crimethinkers? Their basic argument goes like this: "oh, they're just a bunch of assholes, they don't deserve free speech like me and my goodthinking buddies do."
Years ago Twitter censored one of my first tweets - a link to a leaked copy of the (super creepy) implementing regulations for CALEA. That's why I stopped participating.
Today it does appear that Twitter - both the company and its core user base - is dominated by aggressively abusive hypocritical elitist bigots. I guess I am supposed to be outraged, but really I find it hard to care. Nothing of value has been lost.
In recent years I've met only two kinds of people:
1) affluent boot lickers who think law enforcers only brutalize working class and poor people
2) folks who are absolutely scared shitless of American law enforcers
I'm white, middle aged, clean cut, and don't hang out with crooks. Law enforcer brutality is not a race issue, no matter how hard the financialist media try to make it into one. It's an issue of cops, as a caste, holding the common people in open contempt.
Nationwide, law enforcers are rampaging out of control - almost always with the consent of their masters in the judicial oligarchy. Our once-free country is headed down a bad road. I fear things may get much worse before they get better.
Cheap, easily installed reflective stripes along the side of the trailer are another option. They are well known to reduce accidents due to human error. They would probably also have made the trailer visible to the Tesla, preventing this accident.
Facebook and Apple are notorious enemies of Free Culture, and they acted accordingly. This is not surprising.
If it's the latter, what's foolish is running an OS that's susceptible to this malware.
That's why I do all my torrenting on a PDP-11.
NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden
s/b
USA national hero Edward Snowden
FTFY
Alas, there seem to be no stock options available for Nintendo. Nor is it possible (thru Thinkorswim, at least) to sell short. Lame.....
You're comparing apples to oranges.
It's very easy and cheap to purchase homeowner's liability insurance anywhere in America. Liability insurance pays for harm to others caused by the home, for example someone falling down the stairs. What is difficult to buy in some places is insurance against natural disaster. For instance in California, one can buy affordable earthquake insurance only because of state legal mandates.
The reason nuclear station operators cannot buy liability insurance on the commercial market, is because of the incalculably large potential for harm to others from the maximal failure mode of a nuclear power plant.
Alleged signal?
A sale can almost always be made, if the price is right. :)
But yes, NIMBY runs strong in SF. Thus the Manhattanization of the few tiny areas of land where high rise development is permitted - while vast swaths of the city's land area remain a grim suburban wasteland.
There's roughly zero undeveloped land in SF. But there is fucking tons of very nice land covered with tiny, craptastic 2- and 3-story wooden houses. For example, almost all of Potrero Hill.
So yes, you would need to take down old structures to build new.
Imho, a few of those shitbox houses should be preserved for the sake of history. But it would be no loss to the city if the vast majority were torn down and replaced with larger, higher quality buildings.
A well-designed (i.e. meets current building code) high-rise building has greater earthquake resiliency than a your typical wooden house.
Please note, building safety code != zoning code. Different goals, different effects on the housing market.
Protip: Before shooting your mouth off with Libertarian talking points
Not a Libertarian. But please continue...
Santa Monica is developed to the maximum.
Have you actually been to Santa Monica? The areas directly adjacent the beach are somewhat developed, with smallish high-rises. Most of the rest of the city is shitty wooden buildings under 4 stories.
The landlord rents out unfurnished space on a long term lease. It's a passive business, a way to make money from ownership of capital.
The Airbnb host hires out a fully furnished, immediately habitable living space on a very short term. It's an active business, a way to make money from the application of labor to relatively little capital.
So if you can't afford to buy a house in one of the most expensive real estate markets in the world, then there is just no point in investing at all?
Your words, not mine.
I have relatives nearing retirement with $0 in IRA/401k, living in a trailer park, who think exactly the same way. But they can always find the money to go to Starbucks and buy the latest iPhone.
Good to know you're much far more clever and deserving than those feckless trailer-dwelling proles.
Yet they have enough money to gas up their SUV and drive to Starbucks everyday.
In my city:
Cost of a Starbucks latte: about $4
Cost of a gallon of gasoline: about $4
Cost of modest-sized house: about $4,000,000
Get real, dude. Rents in Santa Monica were sky high before Airbnb. Rents there will continue to be outrageous until the city government allows enough housing to be built to meet demand. Restrictive zoning - and the macroeconomic relation between the money value of land versus labor - is the cause of high rents, not short term rentals.