In Jan 1919, 50,000 Spartacists rebelled in Berlin, led by the Communists Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Leibknecht. In 1919, communist workers' councils seized power all over Germany, and a Communist People's Government took power in Bavaria.
Even before the constitution had been drawn up there was a serious challenge from the left. Many hoped to see a Russian style revolution in Germany. The left wing Spartacus movement led by Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg began a revolt in Berlin in January 1919. They seized building throughout the city. The government fled the city.
they are now forced to find ways to diversify their income base
I think you may have it backward: their business model does not work, which is why they turned toward SJW/PC as an audience. Ads have failed as the basis for funding large internet companies, although they could be enough to keep internet infrastructure going. Search engine technology has not been mysterious for some years, and so people expect it to be like a utility, always there.
For Google to survive, it would need to cut back to a handful of engineers and run its search engine as a service and charge actually realistic prices for its ads, which would be a tenth or less of what it is charging now. Internet ads are not as effective as television ads or even print ads. The industry has been attempting to hide this knowledge but it is slowly becoming common knowledge.
The same is true of social media. On paper, they have a huge audience and so they should be doing great; inside the companies, people realize that they are in real trouble.
If I were these companies, I would fire most of their staff, close the expensive headquarters, and focus on becoming a hedge fund.
If it has teams, it’s a panacea for instinctual tribalism.
This placebo effect allows people to engage in sports tribalism instead of pursuing their own interests as a group (religion, ethnicity, class, race). In theory, this keeps us all unified so that we can pursue the ideology that Government lays out for us.
Sports is a bunch of trained monkeys entertaining the masses so they will remain in a state which allows those in power to control them.
The herd is generally inert, but sports/entertainment/beer keep them unlikely to do anything but keep going to work and complaining on the weekends. Mentally disorganized people are harmless.
No, because the market regulates who can be in a neighborhood more effectively than that.
Most cities have nice northwestern suburbs and a toxic, cheap southeastern area. The worry is that proles from the cheap areas will be easily able to go to the suburbs and raid them. After all, suburbs were formed when people fled the prole infestation of the inner city.
You missed the fact that if there are reasons for conservative ideals, they are not solely a question of egalitarianism. Remember, we are not ideologues like the Left.
Next, you seem to have further missed the point that my criticism of mainstream conservatives was that they were egalitarian at all. Egalitarianism is a Leftist trope, not a Rightist one.
Further, American was founded and pioneered by Western Europeans, so of course we favor the founding group.
Far right AND far left governments both have a tendency to wreck countries.
This is why the Right generally opposes the state. You will find that the "far Right" usually consists of Leftist hybrids like Fascism or National Socialism.
It's funny that most of the comments in this thread so far seem to be... upset about people going to sports events.
Many of us have come to realize how dangerous it is to have a massive sports industry centered around what is essentially an opiate for the masses to keep the surly proles from revolting.
People get very interested in mathematics and physics when those can be used to justify belief in things they wish were true. If you can use physics to prove a crowd favorite like climate change, equality, transgenderism, consumerism, drinking being good for you, etc., there will be quite an audience.
Most "civilized" countries consider yours already on that level... except for places like most of California and some selected city centers.
Huge parts of the USA are third world, I agree. There are whole areas in Los Angeles, Detroit, Houston, New Orleans, and even Chicago that look like Mexican suburbs and are appropriately bullet-pocked.
Europe is following our policy example and is quickly achieving the same. Then again, this is not new history; remember the Arab quarter in Paris from the turn of the century. Or even the Turkish slums of Berlin.
Do multiple loads, legislation lawyered energy use and not I have to manage two loads of clothes instead of one.
Do government, lawyers, and regulations ever do anything but make the situation worse?
We were better off under the rule that if someone did something wrong to you, you sued them and won big.
Regulations mostly protect companies, especially from competition by raising the proportionate cost to the little guys. For a big firm, $500k in legal fees is no big deal, but it prevents smaller guys from entering the marketplace and competing with them.
That ultimately means fewer options and higher prices for the consumer, plus no competition for quality. Thus we get a society of disposable junk that goes straight into the landfill because the cost of recycling this stuff is higher than the value received.
Stop overloading your dryer. They work fine if you don't overload them.
Not correct, in my experience and that of others I know.
Fridges from then had non-encapsulated compressors and were loud AF. You could cheaply replace the compressor, but they didn't necessarily last a long time. You can still replace compressors, but nobody bothers any more. They just buy a new fridge.
Gotta keep that landfill healthy somehow.
Washers from then were not even slightly better than the ones we have now.
The 1980s Kenmore I used to use did a much better job than the last few post-1990s fancypants "green" washers.
Toilets used more than twice as much water, so even if you have to flush twice sometimes you're still coming out ahead.
They also worked well and seemed to avoid clogs, even without the dreaded Taco Bell + ate a whole brick of cheese bowel movement.
You know what uses more water? Making new refrigerators, washers, dryers, and washing machines because they only last a few years.
Go to a showroom, ask about quality, and you'll get an interesting report. Then do the same with someone who maintains the machines. Quality has fallen along with cost, but disposable machines are more expensive in the long run, both in terms of energy and money.
This is my experience, too. The energy efficiency of a washing machine in laundering white towels in a laboratory has little bearing on how it will be used in daily life.
The real problem here is the equation population times resource use equals impact.
It is politically correct to focus on resource use, not population. We like to pretend that if we all use EnergyStar dishwashers, a world of seven billion will not end in ecocide and Mad Max style conditions.
If your modern appliance only lasts 1/4 as long it's still substantialy cheaper over all and probably does a much better job as well.
Do we want to be creating a bunch of landfill? In addition, the greatest energy expenditure and environmental damage is caused by manufacture, so if you make something that lasts for fifty years it has a lesser impact than a whole bunch of cheaper disposable gadgets that get pitched out after only 12.25 years.
They're saying free markets create equality based on ability and skill, and they're against using the state to force equality. I.e. gender quota's, race quota's, and so on.
America was founded on a natural rights ideal, i.e. "all men are created equal" means you are born as equal as you are going to get, and it is not the job of government to enforce equality or equity.
Starting in the 1870s, but really picking up after WW2, the American government dedicated itself to Civil Rights, a regime in which government enforces equality on all people as an ideological platform.
Except for gay marriage, voting rights, felon disenfranchisement, prayer in school, mandatory standing for the national anthem, etc. And, depending on where the line is drawn for "most conservatives", active and vocal parts are significantly against equality with regard to gender, race and religion.
And yet they can be egalitarian in other areas. How many will talk openly about the bell curve or the IQ/wealth of nations?
Conservatives are not in favor of equality; to us, it is a mistaken value. We like what works, and that requires studying a bit of history instead of airy theory made up in a laboratory setting.
I've never heard of anyone serious wanting enforced equality.
I see you are unfamiliar with Civil Rights law, affirmative action, and of course the long history of the Left from the French Revolution onward. Those are some interesting areas for future reading.
Compelling an artist to create something that is fundamentally against their ethos is a 1st amendment violation. On the other hand, social media has become a "public space" because of the large number of people that go there to exchange ideas, politics, points of view, and so on.
In both cases, free speech is preserved. The artist is not made to state something as if it were his opinion, but neither is social media, because there is no expectation that users will represent the company.
I think you may be misreading the law there. Since the bakery is forced to issue the cake as a statement, there is a one-to-one correspondence between the bakery and the message.
The point is that if a space is open to all, and people transact things there which are not directly related to the output of the owner, it is a public space. The analogue would be going into the bakery and holding up a sign demanding gay marriage or transgender preschool teachers.
Conservatives are spearheading voter suppression efforts at the activist level (targeted mailings to minorities with misinformation) at the local level (purging voter rolls that affect 99% minorities) and the state level (explicit gerrymandering along racial lines). Explicit immigration policies that aim to let in 99% white people.
The Hart-Celler act changed American immigration to be mostly third-world in origin because third-world origin people vote consistently Leftist, even when it backfires on them multiple times, as in Venezuela. The American Left wanted a permanent majority; the American public Right is attempting to counteract that.
The Old Right simply opposes diversity. We would have sent the Indians back to Mongolia and the Africans back to Africa, never allowed in the Southern, Eastern, or Irish Europeans, and would have repatriated German Jews to Israel. That is workable policy; diversity and genocide are not workable policies.
Significantly large groups of conservatives are explicitly anti-woman. Let's not discuss abortion, just talk about the hostility to women's reproductive health and even birth control.
Conservatives oppose abortion because it trivializes life by making it socially acceptable to kill for sexual convenience. We also recognize that sexual liberation leads to broken families.
If your definition held in today's society, I'd probably identify as one.
I do not think so, based on your statements above. You are most likely a "classical liberal" who holds Leftist social views.
People do not realize this, but information forms a type of market. Whatever is rare will be more valuable, and whatever is easily accessed will be less so.
In the same way The Anarchist's Cookbook was much-sought during the 1980s, if you make terrorism documents illegal, they will become valuable and people will pass them along more.
The only real way to fight terrorism is to reveal the incompetence of terrorists at achieving anything but terror. Sort of like how the Soviets went out, and now no one but American college students likes Communism.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's keep the discourse useful. That usually means congenial and informative. Your message was neither.
Only if you zone everything else around it in the same category, which in the age of the car would mean many miles.
I think you may have it backward: their business model does not work, which is why they turned toward SJW/PC as an audience. Ads have failed as the basis for funding large internet companies, although they could be enough to keep internet infrastructure going. Search engine technology has not been mysterious for some years, and so people expect it to be like a utility, always there.
For Google to survive, it would need to cut back to a handful of engineers and run its search engine as a service and charge actually realistic prices for its ads, which would be a tenth or less of what it is charging now. Internet ads are not as effective as television ads or even print ads. The industry has been attempting to hide this knowledge but it is slowly becoming common knowledge.
The same is true of social media. On paper, they have a huge audience and so they should be doing great; inside the companies, people realize that they are in real trouble.
If I were these companies, I would fire most of their staff, close the expensive headquarters, and focus on becoming a hedge fund.
This placebo effect allows people to engage in sports tribalism instead of pursuing their own interests as a group (religion, ethnicity, class, race). In theory, this keeps us all unified so that we can pursue the ideology that Government lays out for us.
The herd is generally inert, but sports/entertainment/beer keep them unlikely to do anything but keep going to work and complaining on the weekends. Mentally disorganized people are harmless.
No, because the market regulates who can be in a neighborhood more effectively than that.
Most cities have nice northwestern suburbs and a toxic, cheap southeastern area. The worry is that proles from the cheap areas will be easily able to go to the suburbs and raid them. After all, suburbs were formed when people fled the prole infestation of the inner city.
You missed the fact that if there are reasons for conservative ideals, they are not solely a question of egalitarianism. Remember, we are not ideologues like the Left.
Next, you seem to have further missed the point that my criticism of mainstream conservatives was that they were egalitarian at all. Egalitarianism is a Leftist trope, not a Rightist one.
Further, American was founded and pioneered by Western Europeans, so of course we favor the founding group.
This is why the Right generally opposes the state. You will find that the "far Right" usually consists of Leftist hybrids like Fascism or National Socialism.
Many of us have come to realize how dangerous it is to have a massive sports industry centered around what is essentially an opiate for the masses to keep the surly proles from revolting.
People get very interested in mathematics and physics when those can be used to justify belief in things they wish were true. If you can use physics to prove a crowd favorite like climate change, equality, transgenderism, consumerism, drinking being good for you, etc., there will be quite an audience.
Bread and circuses, technocracy version.
Americans oppose public transportation for a single reason: they do not want poor people coming into middle class neighborhoods.
Fix that, and this whole problem gets a lot easier.
Human incompetence is simply so vast that the US provides a better quality of life than everyone else.
We could be a lot better, and that really is the target. Competition blinds us to what we could have instead.
Huge parts of the USA are third world, I agree. There are whole areas in Los Angeles, Detroit, Houston, New Orleans, and even Chicago that look like Mexican suburbs and are appropriately bullet-pocked.
Europe is following our policy example and is quickly achieving the same. Then again, this is not new history; remember the Arab quarter in Paris from the turn of the century. Or even the Turkish slums of Berlin.
Do government, lawyers, and regulations ever do anything but make the situation worse?
We were better off under the rule that if someone did something wrong to you, you sued them and won big.
Regulations mostly protect companies, especially from competition by raising the proportionate cost to the little guys. For a big firm, $500k in legal fees is no big deal, but it prevents smaller guys from entering the marketplace and competing with them.
That ultimately means fewer options and higher prices for the consumer, plus no competition for quality. Thus we get a society of disposable junk that goes straight into the landfill because the cost of recycling this stuff is higher than the value received.
Not correct, in my experience and that of others I know.
Gotta keep that landfill healthy somehow.
The 1980s Kenmore I used to use did a much better job than the last few post-1990s fancypants "green" washers.
They also worked well and seemed to avoid clogs, even without the dreaded Taco Bell + ate a whole brick of cheese bowel movement.
You know what uses more water? Making new refrigerators, washers, dryers, and washing machines because they only last a few years.
Go to a showroom, ask about quality, and you'll get an interesting report. Then do the same with someone who maintains the machines. Quality has fallen along with cost, but disposable machines are more expensive in the long run, both in terms of energy and money.
This is my experience, too. The energy efficiency of a washing machine in laundering white towels in a laboratory has little bearing on how it will be used in daily life.
The real problem here is the equation population times resource use equals impact.
It is politically correct to focus on resource use, not population. We like to pretend that if we all use EnergyStar dishwashers, a world of seven billion will not end in ecocide and Mad Max style conditions.
Do we want to be creating a bunch of landfill? In addition, the greatest energy expenditure and environmental damage is caused by manufacture, so if you make something that lasts for fifty years it has a lesser impact than a whole bunch of cheaper disposable gadgets that get pitched out after only 12.25 years.
The "anti-fascists" seem to have authoritarian tendencies.
Then again, Antifa was a project of the Communist Party, so it is not entirely surprising that they endorse Utopia by violence and suppression.
In the meantime, American voters cannot distinguish between:
They randomly call the above "fascist," and lump them in together, despite their being some crucial differences.
America was founded on a natural rights ideal, i.e. "all men are created equal" means you are born as equal as you are going to get, and it is not the job of government to enforce equality or equity.
Starting in the 1870s, but really picking up after WW2, the American government dedicated itself to Civil Rights, a regime in which government enforces equality on all people as an ideological platform.
It helps for people to know the difference between Right and Left when interpreting this distinction. Left = egalitarianism; Right = realism + transcendentalism.
And yet they can be egalitarian in other areas. How many will talk openly about the bell curve or the IQ/wealth of nations?
Conservatives are not in favor of equality; to us, it is a mistaken value. We like what works, and that requires studying a bit of history instead of airy theory made up in a laboratory setting.
I see you are unfamiliar with Civil Rights law, affirmative action, and of course the long history of the Left from the French Revolution onward. Those are some interesting areas for future reading.
In both cases, free speech is preserved. The artist is not made to state something as if it were his opinion, but neither is social media, because there is no expectation that users will represent the company.
I think you may be misreading the law there. Since the bakery is forced to issue the cake as a statement, there is a one-to-one correspondence between the bakery and the message.
The point is that if a space is open to all, and people transact things there which are not directly related to the output of the owner, it is a public space. The analogue would be going into the bakery and holding up a sign demanding gay marriage or transgender preschool teachers.
The Hart-Celler act changed American immigration to be mostly third-world in origin because third-world origin people vote consistently Leftist, even when it backfires on them multiple times, as in Venezuela. The American Left wanted a permanent majority; the American public Right is attempting to counteract that.
The Old Right simply opposes diversity. We would have sent the Indians back to Mongolia and the Africans back to Africa, never allowed in the Southern, Eastern, or Irish Europeans, and would have repatriated German Jews to Israel. That is workable policy; diversity and genocide are not workable policies.
Conservatives oppose abortion because it trivializes life by making it socially acceptable to kill for sexual convenience. We also recognize that sexual liberation leads to broken families.
I do not think so, based on your statements above. You are most likely a "classical liberal" who holds Leftist social views.
People do not realize this, but information forms a type of market. Whatever is rare will be more valuable, and whatever is easily accessed will be less so.
In the same way The Anarchist's Cookbook was much-sought during the 1980s, if you make terrorism documents illegal, they will become valuable and people will pass them along more.
The only real way to fight terrorism is to reveal the incompetence of terrorists at achieving anything but terror. Sort of like how the Soviets went out, and now no one but American college students likes Communism.
You can read all about it at Amerika.org.
Daily rants about the fall of Rome 2.0 and the denialists who empower it...