The only cost to them, other than the electricity to power the box and the cost of square footage to house it, is the cost of upgrading the infrastructure from the central office to the customer, which is usually a matter of upgrading the equipment at both ends.
An ISP should pay Netflix's rack-space and electricity bill because ??? Netflix should decide when and where an ISP upgrade its infrastructure because ???
Meanwhile, your solution seems to be the government force ISP's to eat those costs because Netflix and Comcast are fighting.
Netflix throttled it's customers and blamed ISPs and from your comment it's apparent why. They want free rack-space, free electricity and the ability to decide an ISP upgrade rollout forced by the government.
Why is competition not the answer and how will NN promote competition?
Do you have any evidence that A, B, C, D and will happen when before these rules came to be none of those things were true?
The murder is thing is ridiculous and you know it. Even if the worst examples that advocates of NN claim come true, it would still not be in the same realm of murder. I can't take you or the issue seriously if you cannot act like an adult. Screeching about murder in the same discussion makes it seem like you are a child brainwashed by hippy parents. Stop it.
The hoax is spreading to an international level. The Chinese were duped into thinking their government landed on the far side of the moon! When really it was made in a Beijing basement (Perhaps, some Hong Kong outsourcing too). They learned that its best to confuse the masses with dreams of grandeur than to directly confront the truth of the Flat Earth.
I wonder if we will get the same pseudo-science wooo-tastic crap we get in medicine.
I am a doctor**. Trust me and buy my hydrogen peroxide for your anus. Remember, if it hurt it works. **not licensed in any state but I paid $15 from a website that gave me a doctorate in hydrogen nutritional supplement.
"I am a engineer*. Trust me and buy my enterprise vaporware bridge. *not certified professional but I did beat that mobile game called bridge construction on my phone.
Are you saying that you would side with the slave owning states by counting slaves equally? Or would you just not ratify the Constitution because you can judge history with modern standards?
I am really curious what you would do about that particular compromise. Hint, the compromise was to limit slave owning States power but it was, what for it, a compromise.
were wealthy, powerful figures. Not being fools, they wrote the constitution so that they would maintain power and influence
From above:" laid the foundation for those that were not "male property owners" franchise. The laws they wrote ensured that their power wasn't guaranteed, empowered more citizens than ever before, and created a historical legacy of expanding franchise and rights to more people. "
Poor women without land have franchise. That point is flippant.
social mobility
Social mobility is better addressed by economics. All citizens have franchise.
They also don't talk at all about the responsibilities of citizens. Hell, the bill of rights was even an afterthought.
Now you're trolling. The Bill of Rights wasn't an "afterthought". It was debated on whether it should have it or not because it would used by the government as the only rights people have (Jefferson was right on the money). It was a compromise on the initial draft to be added immediately after.
. Then there's the outdated notion of electoral college and bicameral legislature
I disagree. I think those two things are some of the reasons why the union is still around. People in Wyoming have different needs than people in New York. The executive needs to have the interests of all the union and not just the populated areas. If those areas of the country get ignored those people get dis-enfranchised and angry.
The Senate was such an important issues that the only way to remove it is if each State consents to losing it. Article 5 " that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. ". The electoral college is an extension of the idea of the Senate. Yes, the electoral college is designed not to be a national election for good reasons.
It sounds like you want more democracy. We are a Republic for good reasons.
I would really suggest you read the Federalist papers. I am open to have my opinion changed but it requires some understanding of the initial reasons why certain things were done and then good reasons why it needs to change. Bemoaning the electoral college because people in Wyoming has more "political influence" than people in New York is saying nothing.
The past is a different world. Everyone has 20/20 hindsight. Too often moral judgment is used to ignore context and critical thinking about the issues then and now. Your first comment is a prime example. When talking about the efficacy of a legal document that 200+ years old and still in use today. Pivoting the conversation to "was written by wealthy white men" is dismissive and stupid. It adds nothing to the conversation. Great, it was written by white men. So what? That is what the past was like. How does that help us understand why it has survived this long? Or why it had an influence on governance around the world.
If the conversation is about issues that those things are relevant then ok. But when I hear it as a dismissive "But they were white men!". I think that person cannot think for themselves and just recently learned about it in history 101. Obviously there must be a conspiracy keeping people from knowing the evil white man truth or else we would begone with that trash!/s
on the constitution as the ultimate arbiter of our current situations
It's the ultimate arbiter on law because it is the law of the land. What is the point of law if you can ignore it? If it is wrong then you change it. Many of checks and balances are still applicable to current situations. Only a fool would believe that they are immune from past mistakes.
"we've done it this way for XX years, so it must be great."
I never said this or made that argument. Just because it is old doesn't mean it is obsolete. New doesn't always mean better. Saying "it's old and made by white men" isn't a good argument. It's an ad hominem. Instead of attacking the ideas you are attacking the authors.
Judging the past with modern morals is disingenuous. What they created laid the foundation for those that were not "male property owners" franchise. The laws they wrote ensured that their power wasn't guaranteed, empowered more citizens than ever before, and created a historical legacy of expanding franchise and rights to more people. All the while, stepping down from power when proper and sometimes noble (Washington). At the end of the day, that speaks more volumes than pointing out historical gotcha points.
What is the point of your comment besides being frivolous?
That is fine, there is a method to change the Constitution. I would only say that it's common for people to think they are "different" than their fore-bearers for a variety of reasons and from that make faulty assumptions.
It is the ultimate guide to everything legal in the US. It is the framework of government and law. Being able to change it destroys any semblance of "religious text". If you want to change it then you will need more than outright dismissal or ignorant disregard.
Claiming that harsh drug laws represent "the will of the people" is absurd.
Hardly. Using marijuana as an example, you can see that as it became more favorable it became more decriminalized and legal in more places.
When those laws were put in place there was a general approval for them (88% thinking marijuana should be illegal in 1969). It's changing and so are the laws. What is the problem here?
The constitution is not the fucking ultimate ethical guide to everything.
It was written by some of the best educated and intelligent men of the day who had an incredible understanding in political science, sociology, and economics. They had insight into our bickering and partisanship that persists to this day. The Constitution has been the standard bearer of governance around the world.
Forgive me if I think your opinion is rather empty.
Freedom of religion amounts to freedom of thought. Outlawing thoughts, ideas, and expression is very different than balancing individual liberty to harm yourself and the collateral damage individual choices may have.
All have a major part of whether justice is being served or not.
I agree that all are important. The question is not whether these are important but how to determine which society is more "free". The one that will arrest you for ideas and thoughts. Or the one that arrests you for breaking drug laws that were democratically enacted.
No, representatives that people voted for voted for these laws, and now many of those same representatives are openly against their constituents desire to legalize marijuana.
Many States are using ballot initiatives to legalize marijuana. IOW, people voting to legalize it. Yes, through representatives we enact laws through the mechanism of democracy. The People have a voice, not just the Party members.
China functions on a different sort of consent of the governed
I understand China's function of "consent of the governed" but a benevolent dictator is still a dictator. China's government has zero restriction on what it can do to it's own citizens. It's a question of when and not if that benevolence will turn malevolent.
Show me a country that self defense is not something you have to worry about,
I don't understand this. Self defense is as important as shelter. I don't worry about shelter over my head but that doesn't mean I don't need it. I don't need shelter on a sunny day but that doesn't mean it won't rain.
Recently, a family member didn't think or worry about a mountain lion when camping but that didn't change the fact that one came along. A gun saved his and his families life. I don't worry because I would rather be warrior in a garden than a gardener in a war. It's delusional to ignore the danger and reality of the world. Danger comes in many difference forms.
"People" voted for laws in China too, and they have the power to repeal those laws too. Just join the Communist party,
I am glad I don't have to register for a party to vote on laws or run for office. Maybe you don't see the difference but I do.
there's something wrong.
Sure, no one said the US is perfect but as compared to China? Yes, the US is a paragon of freedom and expression or a "Shining City on the Hill".
America doesn't have moral standing to pontificate.
The moral standing is consent of the governed through free and open elections with laws limited by the Constitution. What you are arrested for and how that law was put in place is far more important than how a law is enforced. What you and others are saying, with regards to drugs, is that the US should not enforce it's own laws because too many people break that law. Even though most countries have similar laws.
Good propaganda uses truth and fact to obscure and confuse. It should be taken with a grain of salt because what he is talking about is entirely in his and China's benefit. Weaker US military means less intervention for Chinese territorial claims and resources. Job outsourcing corners various manufacturing industries in China who are willing to undercut everyone with poor environment and worker protections.
It's easy to criticize the US because even Americans will criticize the US right a long with you.
For the most part I think he is wrong. I think it should be obvious why he is wrong on the internet talking about military spending. Not all military dollars are for bullets.
Per capita, America imprisons far more people than China.... I don't think America is a good counter-example of a
Being arrested for drugs versus being arrested for the wrong religion. Seems comparable. What people are arrested for is far more important than total quantity and per capita.
Most of the incarcerations in the US are for drug offenses. People voted for those laws and have the power to repeal those laws, as many are doing. Enforcing laws with the consent of the governed via elections is a good thing. Even if the laws are bad. As long as it doesn't violate the Constitution the States can outlaw things, like drugs, incandescent light bulbs, and walking your giraffe down main street (is a law in a city I know).
Show me a country that cannot outlaw hate speech that allows unrestricted self defense and I will show you a more free country even with vigorously enforced drugs laws.
I also forgot to ask about " Christian bedrock of Western European cultures."
Was that the words of the Italian socialist Antonio Gramsci or the words of the DailyCaller and Jordan Peterson? The DailyCaller article says: "Italian socialist Antonio Gramsci wrote that the problem was the Christian bedrock of Western European cultures."
If I am to understand this correctly, you're calling Peterson and the DailyCaller article alt-right for being against what an Italian socialist said.
By reading your article and asking a few questions based on it and the article it references means I fargone. Bygolly, piety on the left is a thing. Even if it is all true I still don't see the calls for a white ethno-state. Culture != race. It's not alt right and being against a form of Marxism is hardly "right wing". If it's not true then it's against some historical Marxist figures and their ideas. So what? You haven't addressed anything about the claims that Peterson is alt right, how the left is blind to their own bigotry, and how PewDiePie is alt right for linking to people like Peterson that is apparently against Marxism in all its forms.
But I noticed you have changed your tune from "alt right" to "right wing". It's a start.
I think you have good personal reasons to dislike Antifa.
I said the left is blind to leftist bigotry. It took two years to out the racism and anti-semitism in the Women's March even when a known anti-semite was given center stage in DC. Meanwhile, invisible dog whistles and invisible innuendo from anything not left is called out as racism. Is my point.
Racist jokes actually ARE a secret nazi recruitment method, accept it, it's a tried and tested method they've used successfully.
Monty python promoted racism. Got it. Anyone that has ever made a nazi joke is promoting racism. Thanks for clarifying.
The article you linked says:
“Cultural Marxism” is a conspiracy theory holding that an international cabal of Marxist academics, realizing that traditional Marxism is unlikely to triumph any time soon, is out to destroy Western civilization by undermining its cultural values.
Is that a fair and accurate description of the below quote? Is the below wrong? What is wrong about it. Why is it wrong. What is the conspiracy? It looks like there could be truth but good propaganda and good lies have truth. Who is telling the "truth" and who should I believe?
The most insidious part of the "conspiracy" being "out to destroy Western Civilization by undermining cultural values" seems best represented by "Italian socialist Antonio Gramsci wrote that the problem was the Christian bedrock of Western European cultures. He encouraged Marxists to develop a fifth column inside these countries to destroy the foundations of Western cultures. Only then would international socialism be achieveable."
Looking at his wikipedia: "To counter the notion that bourgeois values represented "natural" or "normal" values for society, the working class needed to develop a culture of its own.... it must exert intellectual and moral leadership, and make alliances and compromises with a variety of forces.... This bloc forms the basis of consent to a certain social order, which produces and re-produces the hegemony of the dominant class through a nexus of institutions, social relations, and ideas."
Honestly, it looks like the DailyCaller got it right (about that specific piece). What is the lie? What is the conspiracy? Peterson is in academia and maybe he found some truth to it. Is the mere linking of that article demonstration of being 'alt right'? Why? What is promoting white ethno-nationalism?
'Cultural Marxism" is the Marxist dialectic fused with Freudian theory and applied to identity and culture. Like all forms of Marxism, it is based upon categorizing people into abstract groups and then creating a narrative of historical oppression between them. The strategy of Marxists is always to cultivate a victimized group and then convince its members that solidarity is required against the oppressors. This creates resentment and hatred and is how Marxist ideologies fulfill their revolutionary objectives.
The cultural Marxism that our societies are infected with is a particularly Western phenomenon. After the Russian Revolution of 1917, Marxists in Europe believed that the dictatorship of the proletariat was at hand. They were wrong. The revolution failed to spread. In despair, and in one of Mussolini’s prisons, a young Italian socialist Antonio Gramsci wrote that the problem was the Christian bedrock of Western European cultures. He encouraged Marxists to develop a fifth column inside these countries to destroy the foundations of Western cultures. Only then would international socialism be achievable.
This call to subversion was picked up by Marxist scholars based around the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt, Germany. In the tumultuous milieu of Weimar Germany, theorists such as Max Horkheimer, Herbert Marcuse, Erich Fromm, Theodor Adorno and Georg Lukacs integrated the theories of Sigmund Freud with classical Marxism to develop the foundations
No, I said: "The next issue is can they better their lot in life. If confidence in the job market is an indicator, then people can if they want.".
I agree working minimum wage is better than living off the dole But I disagree with a national minimum wage increase. Minimum wage implies the minimum. It isn't comfortable and the biggest concern should be whether those people can improve their lot in life or not. It isn't punishment. It's being at the bottom. So long as they can move up it isn't bad or wrong. It's difficult to imagine that people feel they cannot improve their lot and still have such a strong confidence in the job market. If people choose not to improve their life when they could have then there is nothing society can do to "improve" those decisions.
Increasing the national minimum wage doesn't make sense because in places like Montana or Wyoming, $15 an hour is not the minimum. In fact, it is far and away from the minimum. A lot of good paying skilled jobs do not pay that much in some places. In places like LA or NYC or SV I understand raising a minimum wage. Just not nationally.
Did he make a poor choice becoming a burger flipper and staying there?
Slashdot Mirror
The only cost to them, other than the electricity to power the box and the cost of square footage to house it, is the cost of upgrading the infrastructure from the central office to the customer, which is usually a matter of upgrading the equipment at both ends.
An ISP should pay Netflix's rack-space and electricity bill because ???
Netflix should decide when and where an ISP upgrade its infrastructure because ???
Meanwhile, your solution seems to be the government force ISP's to eat those costs because Netflix and Comcast are fighting.
Netflix throttled it's customers and blamed ISPs and from your comment it's apparent why. They want free rack-space, free electricity and the ability to decide an ISP upgrade rollout forced by the government.
Why is competition not the answer and how will NN promote competition?
Do you have any evidence that A, B, C, D and will happen when before these rules came to be none of those things were true?
The murder is thing is ridiculous and you know it. Even if the worst examples that advocates of NN claim come true, it would still not be in the same realm of murder. I can't take you or the issue seriously if you cannot act like an adult. Screeching about murder in the same discussion makes it seem like you are a child brainwashed by hippy parents. Stop it.
Clearly Frosty is a midget.
The hoax is spreading to an international level. The Chinese were duped into thinking their government landed on the far side of the moon! When really it was made in a Beijing basement (Perhaps, some Hong Kong outsourcing too). They learned that its best to confuse the masses with dreams of grandeur than to directly confront the truth of the Flat Earth.
Not even adblock can stop the madness.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I wonder if we will get the same pseudo-science wooo-tastic crap we get in medicine.
I am a doctor**. Trust me and buy my hydrogen peroxide for your anus. Remember, if it hurt it works.
**not licensed in any state but I paid $15 from a website that gave me a doctorate in hydrogen nutritional supplement.
"I am a engineer*. Trust me and buy my enterprise vaporware bridge.
*not certified professional but I did beat that mobile game called bridge construction on my phone.
Who am I kidding we have that already.
three fifths
Are you saying that you would side with the slave owning states by counting slaves equally? Or would you just not ratify the Constitution because you can judge history with modern standards?
I am really curious what you would do about that particular compromise. Hint, the compromise was to limit slave owning States power but it was, what for it, a compromise.
were wealthy, powerful figures. Not being fools, they wrote the constitution so that they would maintain power and influence
From above:" laid the foundation for those that were not "male property owners" franchise. The laws they wrote ensured that their power wasn't guaranteed, empowered more citizens than ever before, and created a historical legacy of expanding franchise and rights to more people. "
Poor women without land have franchise. That point is flippant.
social mobility
Social mobility is better addressed by economics. All citizens have franchise.
They also don't talk at all about the responsibilities of citizens. Hell, the bill of rights was even an afterthought.
Now you're trolling. The Bill of Rights wasn't an "afterthought". It was debated on whether it should have it or not because it would used by the government as the only rights people have (Jefferson was right on the money). It was a compromise on the initial draft to be added immediately after.
. Then there's the outdated notion of electoral college and bicameral legislature
I disagree. I think those two things are some of the reasons why the union is still around. People in Wyoming have different needs than people in New York. The executive needs to have the interests of all the union and not just the populated areas. If those areas of the country get ignored those people get dis-enfranchised and angry.
The Senate was such an important issues that the only way to remove it is if each State consents to losing it. Article 5 " that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. ". The electoral college is an extension of the idea of the Senate. Yes, the electoral college is designed not to be a national election for good reasons.
It sounds like you want more democracy. We are a Republic for good reasons.
I would really suggest you read the Federalist papers. I am open to have my opinion changed but it requires some understanding of the initial reasons why certain things were done and then good reasons why it needs to change. Bemoaning the electoral college because people in Wyoming has more "political influence" than people in New York is saying nothing.
Why?
The past is a different world. Everyone has 20/20 hindsight. Too often moral judgment is used to ignore context and critical thinking about the issues then and now. Your first comment is a prime example. When talking about the efficacy of a legal document that 200+ years old and still in use today. Pivoting the conversation to "was written by wealthy white men" is dismissive and stupid. It adds nothing to the conversation. Great, it was written by white men. So what? That is what the past was like. How does that help us understand why it has survived this long? Or why it had an influence on governance around the world.
If the conversation is about issues that those things are relevant then ok. But when I hear it as a dismissive "But they were white men!". I think that person cannot think for themselves and just recently learned about it in history 101. Obviously there must be a conspiracy keeping people from knowing the evil white man truth or else we would begone with that trash! /s
on the constitution as the ultimate arbiter of our current situations
It's the ultimate arbiter on law because it is the law of the land. What is the point of law if you can ignore it? If it is wrong then you change it. Many of checks and balances are still applicable to current situations. Only a fool would believe that they are immune from past mistakes.
"we've done it this way for XX years, so it must be great."
I never said this or made that argument. Just because it is old doesn't mean it is obsolete. New doesn't always mean better. Saying "it's old and made by white men" isn't a good argument. It's an ad hominem. Instead of attacking the ideas you are attacking the authors.
Judging the past with modern morals is disingenuous. What they created laid the foundation for those that were not "male property owners" franchise. The laws they wrote ensured that their power wasn't guaranteed, empowered more citizens than ever before, and created a historical legacy of expanding franchise and rights to more people. All the while, stepping down from power when proper and sometimes noble (Washington). At the end of the day, that speaks more volumes than pointing out historical gotcha points.
What is the point of your comment besides being frivolous?
That is fine, there is a method to change the Constitution. I would only say that it's common for people to think they are "different" than their fore-bearers for a variety of reasons and from that make faulty assumptions.
It is the ultimate guide to everything legal in the US. It is the framework of government and law. Being able to change it destroys any semblance of "religious text". If you want to change it then you will need more than outright dismissal or ignorant disregard.
Claiming that harsh drug laws represent "the will of the people" is absurd.
Hardly. Using marijuana as an example, you can see that as it became more favorable it became more decriminalized and legal in more places.
When those laws were put in place there was a general approval for them (88% thinking marijuana should be illegal in 1969). It's changing and so are the laws. What is the problem here?
The constitution is not the fucking ultimate ethical guide to everything.
It was written by some of the best educated and intelligent men of the day who had an incredible understanding in political science, sociology, and economics. They had insight into our bickering and partisanship that persists to this day. The Constitution has been the standard bearer of governance around the world.
Forgive me if I think your opinion is rather empty.
I would tend to take it to be comparable.
Freedom of religion amounts to freedom of thought. Outlawing thoughts, ideas, and expression is very different than balancing individual liberty to harm yourself and the collateral damage individual choices may have.
All have a major part of whether justice is being served or not.
I agree that all are important. The question is not whether these are important but how to determine which society is more "free". The one that will arrest you for ideas and thoughts. Or the one that arrests you for breaking drug laws that were democratically enacted.
No, representatives that people voted for voted for these laws, and now many of those same representatives are openly against their constituents desire to legalize marijuana.
Many States are using ballot initiatives to legalize marijuana. IOW, people voting to legalize it. Yes, through representatives we enact laws through the mechanism of democracy. The People have a voice, not just the Party members.
China functions on a different sort of consent of the governed
I understand China's function of "consent of the governed" but a benevolent dictator is still a dictator. China's government has zero restriction on what it can do to it's own citizens. It's a question of when and not if that benevolence will turn malevolent.
Show me a country that self defense is not something you have to worry about,
I don't understand this. Self defense is as important as shelter. I don't worry about shelter over my head but that doesn't mean I don't need it. I don't need shelter on a sunny day but that doesn't mean it won't rain.
Recently, a family member didn't think or worry about a mountain lion when camping but that didn't change the fact that one came along. A gun saved his and his families life. I don't worry because I would rather be warrior in a garden than a gardener in a war. It's delusional to ignore the danger and reality of the world. Danger comes in many difference forms.
"People" voted for laws in China too, and they have the power to repeal those laws too. Just join the Communist party,
I am glad I don't have to register for a party to vote on laws or run for office. Maybe you don't see the difference but I do.
there's something wrong.
Sure, no one said the US is perfect but as compared to China? Yes, the US is a paragon of freedom and expression or a "Shining City on the Hill".
America doesn't have moral standing to pontificate.
The moral standing is consent of the governed through free and open elections with laws limited by the Constitution. What you are arrested for and how that law was put in place is far more important than how a law is enforced. What you and others are saying, with regards to drugs, is that the US should not enforce it's own laws because too many people break that law. Even though most countries have similar laws.
Good propaganda uses truth and fact to obscure and confuse. It should be taken with a grain of salt because what he is talking about is entirely in his and China's benefit. Weaker US military means less intervention for Chinese territorial claims and resources. Job outsourcing corners various manufacturing industries in China who are willing to undercut everyone with poor environment and worker protections.
It's easy to criticize the US because even Americans will criticize the US right a long with you.
For the most part I think he is wrong. I think it should be obvious why he is wrong on the internet talking about military spending. Not all military dollars are for bullets.
Per capita, America imprisons far more people than China. ... I don't think America is a good counter-example of a
Being arrested for drugs versus being arrested for the wrong religion. Seems comparable. What people are arrested for is far more important than total quantity and per capita.
Most of the incarcerations in the US are for drug offenses. People voted for those laws and have the power to repeal those laws, as many are doing. Enforcing laws with the consent of the governed via elections is a good thing. Even if the laws are bad. As long as it doesn't violate the Constitution the States can outlaw things, like drugs, incandescent light bulbs, and walking your giraffe down main street (is a law in a city I know).
Show me a country that cannot outlaw hate speech that allows unrestricted self defense and I will show you a more free country even with vigorously enforced drugs laws.
I mean that there is not enough material in Staturn's ring because they're disappearing. :)
Not enough?
Hmmm.
Now class this brings me to my next point. Don't. Smoke. Crack.
I also forgot to ask about " Christian bedrock of Western European cultures."
Was that the words of the Italian socialist Antonio Gramsci or the words of the DailyCaller and Jordan Peterson? The DailyCaller article says: "Italian socialist Antonio Gramsci wrote that the problem was the Christian bedrock of Western European cultures."
If I am to understand this correctly, you're calling Peterson and the DailyCaller article alt-right for being against what an Italian socialist said.
By reading your article and asking a few questions based on it and the article it references means I fargone. Bygolly, piety on the left is a thing. Even if it is all true I still don't see the calls for a white ethno-state. Culture != race. It's not alt right and being against a form of Marxism is hardly "right wing". If it's not true then it's against some historical Marxist figures and their ideas. So what? You haven't addressed anything about the claims that Peterson is alt right, how the left is blind to their own bigotry, and how PewDiePie is alt right for linking to people like Peterson that is apparently against Marxism in all its forms.
But I noticed you have changed your tune from "alt right" to "right wing". It's a start.
I think you have good personal reasons to dislike Antifa.
Yes, I don't like people that dress up in black and masks shouting racial slurs and beating up people for no reason.
difference between jokes about nazis and joking endorsement
Sure. Can you give me examples?
I said the left is blind to leftist bigotry. It took two years to out the racism and anti-semitism in the Women's March even when a known anti-semite was given center stage in DC. Meanwhile, invisible dog whistles and invisible innuendo from anything not left is called out as racism. Is my point.
Racist jokes actually ARE a secret nazi recruitment method, accept it, it's a tried and tested method they've used successfully.
Monty python promoted racism. Got it. Anyone that has ever made a nazi joke is promoting racism. Thanks for clarifying.
The article you linked says:
“Cultural Marxism” is a conspiracy theory holding that an international cabal of Marxist academics, realizing that traditional Marxism is unlikely to triumph any time soon, is out to destroy
Western civilization by undermining its cultural values.
Is that a fair and accurate description of the below quote? Is the below wrong? What is wrong about it. Why is it wrong. What is the conspiracy? It looks like there could be truth but good propaganda and good lies have truth. Who is telling the "truth" and who should I believe?
The most insidious part of the "conspiracy" being "out to destroy Western Civilization by undermining cultural values" seems best represented by "Italian socialist Antonio Gramsci wrote that the problem was the Christian bedrock of Western European cultures. He encouraged Marxists to develop a fifth column inside these countries to destroy the foundations of Western cultures. Only then would international socialism be achieveable."
Looking at his wikipedia: "To counter the notion that bourgeois values represented "natural" or "normal" values for society, the working class needed to develop a culture of its own. ... it must exert intellectual and moral leadership, and make alliances and compromises with a variety of forces. ... This bloc forms the basis of consent to a certain social order, which produces and re-produces the hegemony of the dominant class through a nexus of institutions, social relations, and ideas."
Honestly, it looks like the DailyCaller got it right (about that specific piece). What is the lie? What is the conspiracy? Peterson is in academia and maybe he found some truth to it. Is the mere linking of that article demonstration of being 'alt right'? Why? What is promoting white ethno-nationalism?
'Cultural Marxism" is the Marxist dialectic fused with Freudian theory and applied to identity and culture. Like all forms of Marxism, it is based upon categorizing people into abstract groups and then creating a narrative of historical oppression between them. The strategy of Marxists is always to cultivate a victimized group and then convince its members that solidarity is required against the oppressors. This creates resentment and hatred and is how Marxist ideologies fulfill their revolutionary objectives.
The cultural Marxism that our societies are infected with is a particularly Western phenomenon. After the Russian Revolution of 1917, Marxists in Europe believed that the dictatorship of the proletariat was at hand. They were wrong. The revolution failed to spread. In despair, and in one of Mussolini’s prisons, a young Italian socialist Antonio Gramsci wrote that the problem was the Christian bedrock of Western European cultures. He encouraged Marxists to develop a fifth column inside these countries to destroy the foundations of Western cultures. Only then would international socialism be achievable.
This call to subversion was picked up by Marxist scholars based around the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt, Germany. In the tumultuous milieu of Weimar Germany, theorists such as Max Horkheimer, Herbert Marcuse, Erich Fromm, Theodor Adorno and Georg Lukacs integrated the theories of Sigmund Freud with classical Marxism to develop the foundations
No, I said: "The next issue is can they better their lot in life. If confidence in the job market is an indicator, then people can if they want.".
I agree working minimum wage is better than living off the dole But I disagree with a national minimum wage increase. Minimum wage implies the minimum. It isn't comfortable and the biggest concern should be whether those people can improve their lot in life or not. It isn't punishment. It's being at the bottom. So long as they can move up it isn't bad or wrong. It's difficult to imagine that people feel they cannot improve their lot and still have such a strong confidence in the job market. If people choose not to improve their life when they could have then there is nothing society can do to "improve" those decisions.
Increasing the national minimum wage doesn't make sense because in places like Montana or Wyoming, $15 an hour is not the minimum. In fact, it is far and away from the minimum. A lot of good paying skilled jobs do not pay that much in some places. In places like LA or NYC or SV I understand raising a minimum wage. Just not nationally.
Did he make a poor choice becoming a burger flipper and staying there?
That is for him to decide. Ask him not me.