Americans, in particular, younger Americans, own less stuff because they are poorer. And they are poorer because half a century of progressive politics has transferred the wealth they should have been earning into the hands of crony capitalists, political elites, and government employees.
Unfortunately, many younger Americans still believe that the answer to the government destroying their futures is to vote for more government and more taxes. Fortunately, more and more seem to be figuring out what's actually going on.
I'm frankly a little confused about the social commentary that Black Panther is supposed to make.
On the one hand, it seems to cater to the myth that wealth is the result of natural resources and that if only white men hadn't taken Africa's resources, then Africans would be wealthy.
On the other hand, Wakanda seems to be racially exclusionary and have draconian closed border policy.
Much as I enjoy seeing well-muscled hunks of any race strut their stuff on screen, the premise of Black Panther just seemed too stupid to me to bother seeing it.
It's probably due to trolling. IMDB is the same, certain movies are heavily trolled, e.g. Black Panther.
Has it occurred to you that Black Panther and movies like it might simply be viewed as a bad movie by a large part of the population and hence receive highly critical reviews from many people?
You probably aren't aware of much either. The Act includes marketing and advertisements, not just the advertisement itself.
The act makes it illegal to state a preference for or against a protected class. It does not make targeted advertising illegal as far as I can tell.
You claimed that "For example you cannot distribute advertising pamphlets for housing only to white people." I'm asking you where in the law that is based and whether it has ever been enforced. I mean, there are regulations like that, for example, for job postings when hiring foreign workers.
Hence the lawsuit. Did you think HUD didn't think this through?
I'm sure they did think it through: HUD employs a large number of people with a social justice agenda, and such people have a long history of pushing legislation way beyond what it says or was originally intended to accomplish.
I am always amazed at how dumb the commenters are here.
Oh, me too! Just look at you, for example: obviously unfamiliar with the history of the expansion of the regulatory state, and incapable of pointing to the text of the law that shows that what you claim is illegal is actually illegal.
Turning off targeted advertising means you still don't get the targeted advertising. Not a solution.
Read the whole sentence: or you can give false demographic information. If you want to see what kinds of ads are targeted to transgender Asian midget billionaires, just enter that as your demographic information.
But actually, for your original mention of papers, that is why the various regulations require taking action to ensure your advertisements are reaching a sufficient audience.
What "various regulations"? I'm not aware of any regulations that force me to make sure my listing reaches a "sufficient audience". Many rental listings appear just on Craigslist, or among Facebook friends, or on college mailing lists.
It is a societal goal to make sure that harmony and opportunity are available to people who live in a country. Government is responsible for the 2nd goal, because people's individual desires tend to compete with societal desires.
The idea that government is responsible for binding together people into a harmonious whole is one particular view of government, and one that only a minority of people share.
The classically liberal view of government is that it should provide protection of life, liberty, and property against aggression, nothing more. It isn't there to make people like each other, or give them opportunities, or anything else.
Furthermore, the "competition" you see is non-existent. In fact, combining individual desires through a free market is the best way ever found of "making sure that harmony and opportunity are available to people who live in a country".
And frankly, government is failing in its job / losing ground in the fight for its purpose in this technology age. Either because our state / federal governments are paralyzed by anger from everyone in a post-boom economy, or that simply technology companies move too fast and are trying to displace the functions of government in its absence.
If you look at history, government has never been any good at achieving these goals. If you want prosperity, opportunity, and peaceful coexistence, minimal government is the best choice.
Perhaps for subscriptions. But a person actively searching for an apartment, a house, a job, etc may make an anonymous purchase of a paper at vending machine, newsstand, grocery store, convenience store, etc.
And likewise, you can make a free Facebook account with any demographic information you like.
Note that Facebook lets you opt out of targeting and nobody forces you to give correct demographic information. So, if you want to receive ads targeted to geriatric transgender Asian billionaire midgets, set up your profile accordingly and enjoy!
False equivalence: you can buy a high end magazine if you're a lower class person. On fpthe internet, once you've been profiled, you can't get out ofthe bubble crafted for you by others.
Sure you can: you can turn off targeted advertising, or you can give false demographic information.
The WaPo and NYT readership is overwhelmingly white and wealthy. If you advertise there, you are making a choice to exclude minorities and poor people. So, if the new principle is that advertising needs to target people equally, we need to impose the same rules on WaPo and NYT.
In case you need a translation, "safety and trust" means "censoring viewpoints that don't agree with those of Silicon Valley's progressive billionaire class".
I do hope they get on with it, though: the more they censor, the more irrelevant and disliked they make themselves.
If the ecahhhhhhnammmmy is based on destroying the Earth and changing it to be more hostile to humans, let it burn to the ground.
Fortunately, it isn't. Free market capitalism has been the best economic system from the point of view of protecting the environment. The worst? Progressivism, fascism, and socialism.
The bigger problem is that we CAN'T simply move things like FORESTS. And now all of California is too damn dry to support the forests they have and they're all on fire.
Why would we have to move them? Climate change generally increases precipitation (due to increased evaporation) and it primarily increases temperatures at high latitudes. And California's destructive forest fires are the result of mismanagement, not climate change.
So really, what's the point of all this?
For me? I like to see what points people come up with, including people who are wildly wrong.
Problem is that it isn't just a matter of water slowly rising like in a bathtub. Rather, it's a matter of an increased risk of a storm causing a water incursion, so it will happen suddenly, as with Sandy and Katrina.
That is true. Now you need to work out what the causes of that suddenness are, and you will discover that it's much simpler and cheaper to deal with them than limiting CO2 output.
Also, I like my cold climate. A few degrees C of warming is the difference between being comfortable and feeling ill/sweating like a pig.
And that's why we need to destroy the global economy and free markets!
Frankly, if I could just fill out a few lines on a tax return and sign on the line, I'd be happy to do so. It's a national shame how complicated the US government has made taxes.
The government saddles us with a complex, crony capitalist, special interest laden tax system and your response to it is "here, just take more of my money already and manage other parts of my life too"?
Financial management? Same. If I could enroll in a public pension plan that I didn't have to manage, I'd do so in a moment.
Why not enroll in a private pension plan that you don't have to manage? Many companies offer target retirement funds; all you need to do is pay in, they take care of the rest, efficiently and reliably.
"A few feet", especially combined with more severe storms, is enough to flood industrial and former industrial areas and spread massive amounts of pollution.
If it happened overnight, sure. Not over the span of centuries, where people can build dikes or simply move. After all, most of that stuff didn't use to be there. And even if "industrial areas" flooded, it would be at most a minor nuisance.
Even the IPCC has been unable to make a compelling argument for preventing climate change.
There are more productive things people can do with their lives than spending time on worrying about college funds, private schools, and health insurance plans.
There are indeed. Nobody likes dealing with that shit. Why not go a step further and hand over all financial management, tax accounting, home buying, etc. to government as well? Why not have the government pick your perfect marriage partner for you? After all, it's all a colossal waste of time!
In fact, the last couple of centuries of European history has shown that it's better for individual to deal with this shit themselves than to hand over responsibility for it to government.
I have family in Europe who had opportunity to come to the US. They chose not to.
Of course not: they are Europeans. The thought of actually taking responsibility for their own lives scares them to death. That's why Europe is slowly spiraling down the drain.
If you don't fear something that can result in coastal areas being flooded, then you're just ignorant. We're not only talking about nice beaches, but about industrial plants laden with toxic chemicals.
Sea level rise due to climate change is a few feet per century. Explain to me how that is something to be feared.
Note that the Netherlands seem to be doing just fine with 1/4 of their country and population below sea level.
Slashdot Mirror
Americans, in particular, younger Americans, own less stuff because they are poorer. And they are poorer because half a century of progressive politics has transferred the wealth they should have been earning into the hands of crony capitalists, political elites, and government employees.
Unfortunately, many younger Americans still believe that the answer to the government destroying their futures is to vote for more government and more taxes. Fortunately, more and more seem to be figuring out what's actually going on.
It probably doesn't help that their "self-produced content" often involved various has-been celebrities.
I'm frankly a little confused about the social commentary that Black Panther is supposed to make.
On the one hand, it seems to cater to the myth that wealth is the result of natural resources and that if only white men hadn't taken Africa's resources, then Africans would be wealthy.
On the other hand, Wakanda seems to be racially exclusionary and have draconian closed border policy.
Much as I enjoy seeing well-muscled hunks of any race strut their stuff on screen, the premise of Black Panther just seemed too stupid to me to bother seeing it.
Has it occurred to you that Black Panther and movies like it might simply be viewed as a bad movie by a large part of the population and hence receive highly critical reviews from many people?
The act makes it illegal to state a preference for or against a protected class. It does not make targeted advertising illegal as far as I can tell.
You claimed that "For example you cannot distribute advertising pamphlets for housing only to white people." I'm asking you where in the law that is based and whether it has ever been enforced. I mean, there are regulations like that, for example, for job postings when hiring foreign workers.
I'm sure they did think it through: HUD employs a large number of people with a social justice agenda, and such people have a long history of pushing legislation way beyond what it says or was originally intended to accomplish.
Oh, me too! Just look at you, for example: obviously unfamiliar with the history of the expansion of the regulatory state, and incapable of pointing to the text of the law that shows that what you claim is illegal is actually illegal.
Read the whole sentence: or you can give false demographic information. If you want to see what kinds of ads are targeted to transgender Asian midget billionaires, just enter that as your demographic information.
What "various regulations"? I'm not aware of any regulations that force me to make sure my listing reaches a "sufficient audience". Many rental listings appear just on Craigslist, or among Facebook friends, or on college mailing lists.
The idea that government is responsible for binding together people into a harmonious whole is one particular view of government, and one that only a minority of people share.
The classically liberal view of government is that it should provide protection of life, liberty, and property against aggression, nothing more. It isn't there to make people like each other, or give them opportunities, or anything else.
Furthermore, the "competition" you see is non-existent. In fact, combining individual desires through a free market is the best way ever found of "making sure that harmony and opportunity are available to people who live in a country".
If you look at history, government has never been any good at achieving these goals. If you want prosperity, opportunity, and peaceful coexistence, minimal government is the best choice.
Yes, in the sense that you cannot state discriminatory terms in your ad.
I am aware of no precedent for this claim, nor does the law say that. So where does your belief that this is the law come from?
And likewise, you can make a free Facebook account with any demographic information you like.
Note that Facebook lets you opt out of targeting and nobody forces you to give correct demographic information. So, if you want to receive ads targeted to geriatric transgender Asian billionaire midgets, set up your profile accordingly and enjoy!
Sure you can: you can turn off targeted advertising, or you can give false demographic information.
The WaPo and NYT readership is overwhelmingly white and wealthy. If you advertise there, you are making a choice to exclude minorities and poor people. So, if the new principle is that advertising needs to target people equally, we need to impose the same rules on WaPo and NYT.
Newspaper readers have a highly skewed demographic.
In case you need a translation, "safety and trust" means "censoring viewpoints that don't agree with those of Silicon Valley's progressive billionaire class".
I do hope they get on with it, though: the more they censor, the more irrelevant and disliked they make themselves.
"F*ck this, I've been running errands for earthlings for far too long, I'm going to find myself a pub!"
Fortunately, it isn't. Free market capitalism has been the best economic system from the point of view of protecting the environment. The worst? Progressivism, fascism, and socialism.
Why would we have to move them? Climate change generally increases precipitation (due to increased evaporation) and it primarily increases temperatures at high latitudes. And California's destructive forest fires are the result of mismanagement, not climate change.
For me? I like to see what points people come up with, including people who are wildly wrong.
If they are not passed on to consumers, they primarily make share holders richers. You know, like everybody who has money in 401(k)'s.
Then why do you try to put government in charge of innovation? Innovation courtesy of the government is a miserable failure, except perhaps for WMDs.
I can't tell whether you're trying to be funny or actually serious. Social security is unsustainable.
You mean like Venezuela? Or 1933's Germany? They too promised government pension plans and free education.
That is true. Now you need to work out what the causes of that suddenness are, and you will discover that it's much simpler and cheaper to deal with them than limiting CO2 output.
And that's why we need to destroy the global economy and free markets!
The government saddles us with a complex, crony capitalist, special interest laden tax system and your response to it is "here, just take more of my money already and manage other parts of my life too"?
Why not enroll in a private pension plan that you don't have to manage? Many companies offer target retirement funds; all you need to do is pay in, they take care of the rest, efficiently and reliably.
If it happened overnight, sure. Not over the span of centuries, where people can build dikes or simply move. After all, most of that stuff didn't use to be there. And even if "industrial areas" flooded, it would be at most a minor nuisance.
Even the IPCC has been unable to make a compelling argument for preventing climate change.
The irony of that statement is delicious.
There are indeed. Nobody likes dealing with that shit. Why not go a step further and hand over all financial management, tax accounting, home buying, etc. to government as well? Why not have the government pick your perfect marriage partner for you? After all, it's all a colossal waste of time!
In fact, the last couple of centuries of European history has shown that it's better for individual to deal with this shit themselves than to hand over responsibility for it to government.
Of course not: they are Europeans. The thought of actually taking responsibility for their own lives scares them to death. That's why Europe is slowly spiraling down the drain.
Sea level rise due to climate change is a few feet per century. Explain to me how that is something to be feared.
Note that the Netherlands seem to be doing just fine with 1/4 of their country and population below sea level.