Truth Discussion Time - Page 90

On January 20 2019 02:41 Spitfiree wrote: I used to think corporations are some massive overlords that cannot ever be taken down and that they could abuse the people without any opposition, but the thing is, the market crushes corporations. If they do dumb choices like the GIlette ad, they open themselves to a snowball effect which could make them disappear no matter how big they are. Also, people are getting annoyed by the ad because its so blatantly fake that it makes you wanna gather the whole management of Gilette and punch them all in the face....not because the ad is telling them do be decent... what? People are angry cause they realize that it's not "toxic masculinity" thats the problem, nor other dumbass shit the media tries to feed down our throats. People are tired of the division. It's not men's fault, it's not fucking women's fault, its indecency and weak people. They are just tired of this crap, and no wonder people get pissed off from this ad when Gilette tries to do what media does, except this time it was through the usage of an anecdote from which they want to monetize. You are falling for a fallacy here, thinking that just because an entity that works in the system of capitalism has done something wrong, then the whole system is wrong ... .cmon... I do agree that capitalism will eventually fall but not because of those reasons P.S. sad part is if i wasn't using an electrical razor I'd still be using Gilette since they are the only decent razors out there, everything else is a total crap

People are getting annoyed because they are clueless about the world they live in. There are no "not fake" ads. Gillette didn't do this to raise awareness about a social issue and to risk hurting themselves, it was a calculated move. A company that is owned by a multinational corporation is intrinsically anti social justice. It's one big spectacle. The only thing a lucid person can do is laugh.

The push back against the concept of toxic masculinity has nothing to do with people being tired of division. They are in fact addicted to it. It has a lot more to do with a refusal to think historically and the belief that traditional Western cultural norms are what keeps a society stable.

I'm kind of stunned by the contrast between your first sentence and your last. They kind of contradict each other? "Corporations [like Gillette] are very vulnerable" and " no one can compete with Gillette in terms of quality which has the last word, so I'd still purchase their products (even tho I want to punch them in the face)". wat.

On January 20 2019 05:46 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On January 20 2019 02:41 Spitfiree wrote: I do agree that capitalism will eventually fall but not because of those reasons If the trend of wealth accumulating on the top continues for long it will force a change, so far taxation is supposed to solve this, but in reality it doesn't because the very top has the tools to evade this system through many methods that people slighly lower on dont have, so its the middle-up that tends to get redistributed harder ironically agraviating the trend. I think Bill Gates and Buffet are paving the road to voluntarism, altruism in people who amassed money beyond its utilitarian value should be one of the main focus of our entire society, it sounds to me like a much more viable system than simply try to erase hierachies through collective force.

PHILANTHROPY

It is interesting how the term philanthropy, defined as “the desire to promote the welfare of others,” has become associated almost exclusively with the wealthy; a badge worn to show how they “give back” to the community. Yet, rarely is the question of why there is the need to give back considered from the standpoint of market dynamics itself. While there is indeed growing global concern about increasing inequality, existing poverty, and so on, little real effort is being made to counter the problem from the standpoint of altering the social structure to correct what are clearly systemic problems inherent in our society. In fact, philanthropy appears to be the only practice to redistribute wealth that isn’t met head-on with great disdain by the prevailing intelligentsia, especially in America. Even quite basic traditional platforms, such as increased taxation of the rich, are routinely met with contempt by gatekeepers of the capitalist religion.

In the words of conservative Forbes contributor Jeffrey Dorfman, “once you admit that income redistribution is fair, there is no logical stopping point short of communism.” By this, Dorfman essentially implies that there is no stopping point short of everyone’s simply getting “the exact same” distribution of income regardless of what job they perform. From there, of course, the gesture suggests this path can only lead to gulags, indifferent central planners, and the loss of individuality and liberty itself. This kind of anti-socialist dogma is nothing new, prominently set in motion in the early to mid-twentieth century when the threat of communism was putting capitalist hegemony at risk. The long-term consequence has been a reactionary Western culture that sees any direct government action toward economic equality, especially if it inconveniences the wealthy, as little more than a move toward bureaucratic tyranny.

Not only does this bias vindicate the idea of philanthropy as the only acceptable solution to inequality and its consequences, but it also ignores the simple fact that the market economy is a process of wealth redistribution in and of itself. That is what the market does. It redistributes, literally, existing wealth and materials, whether raw, produced, recycled, financial, intellectual, or otherwise. As such, market dynamics cannot be merely assumed to be untouchable simply because its mechanics are seen as an “objective” process. In other words, it is deemed sacrilegious to impose equality-targeting taxation since the market faith rests on the “invisible hand” of the market god to make everything OK. If this god is fallible, then the whole belief system becomes suspect. But there is nothing but evidence, formal and empirical, that the market god is horribly incompetent at best.

Thomas Piketty, a French economist who became famous in 2014 for his treatment Capital in the Twenty-First Century, makes a strong case, concluding that there is no way the growing global class divide can subside given the way capitalism is unfolding in its natural, “financially liberalized” state. The amount of money being made off existing wealth itself will continue to far exceed what normal people make through labor income. High-level capital investment in the form of financial instruments such as stocks and other means are producing returns far exceeding anything the public can generate without such existing levels of wealth to invest. The technical term is the “wealth to income ratio” and the higher it is, the worse off the general population. A 2015 Oxfam study found that by 2016, 1 percent of the global population will own more than the other 99 percent combined, with dire implications for related social problems.

Piketty’s proposal to stop this trend is the most expected one—a large progressive annual tax on wealth. Yet, even with this practical, commonplace attempt at a solution, the wealthy community quickly and expectedly condemned the idea. Most notable was the response by Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft, who is worth almost $80 billion and the richest person in the world as of 2015. He partly contested the idea of capital taxation since, in his view, philanthropy by the rich should be considered a viable institution in itself. He argues that those who choose to be philanthropic with their wealth should not be treated the same as wealthy folks who simply buy yachts and sports cars. While the gesture of this is respectable, given how Gates and his famous Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation have indeed performed positive charitable acts, we need to step back and examine what he, along with an entire culture of high-level, “big money” charities, are actually saying.

Naturally, the main focus of society should be to solve problems directly, addressing root origins. In fact, I would argue that a true philanthropic “desire to promote the welfare of others” could only seek to alter the preconditions creating social problems to begin with. The ongoing need for social-welfare charities is really a response to an inefficient economic system. It is a supplemental action to help those who are not as “fortunate.” The idea of turning this supplemental act of charity into an established social institution, deemed inclusive to the system of capitalism itself, implies the society is no longer to view outcomes such as poverty and other interests common to philanthropy as a real problem. Rather, it is a tacit admission that the resulting deprivation must be necessary, expected, and effectively accepted as “just the way it is.” Forget trying to change the preconditions leading to these problems—let’s just focus on “giving back” after the fact. That is the message—and it is a terrible one, as it avoids examining the structure of the economy itself.

So, neither Piketty nor Gates offers actual solutions. Taxation, as suggested by Piketty, is only a “patch,” as it doesn’t address the structural and systemic mechanisms that converge to create inequality. As with a car engine constantly leaking oil, you do not cover up the problem by continuing to refill the oil tank, pretending everything is fine. You fix the engine or replace it to stop the leaking. Gates, however, takes things to a new level by arguing he and other people of great wealth should simply use their charitable foundations to affect the disadvantaged world directly. Forget government, public policy, democracy, transparency, or even accountability—private foundations built by billionaires will now save the world.

While all charity is admirable, once it becomes institutionalized and funded to the extent seen by organizations such as the Gates Foundation, it turns into something different, with extended social ramifications. These elite charities are true, large-scale institutions with power, engaging in lobbying, transnational partnerships, political policy alignments, and so on. Where and how the George Soroses and Bill Gateses of the world mobilize money can have powerful effects on industry, politics, culture, academia, scientific research, national policy, and the like. In the case of Gates, his foundation is “undeniably, the most powerful and influential global health charity in history,” in the words of health-law professor Lawrence Gostin. What critics rightfully point out is that, regardless of good intentions, unaccountable, singular private power in global health affairs poses serious problems, in the same way autocratic dictatorships pose serious problems for democracy and liberty. Any organization with the power to actually affect the lives of millions of people needs transparency, accountability, and a democratic presence. These private institutions have little to none.

So, what we have is the rise of a new breed of pseudo-egalitarian capitalists. They generate their great wealth by way of often ruthless competitive behavior in the private sector, arguably promoting the very mechanisms that have led to the vast structural violence and extensive poverty existing on Earth to begin with. They then turn around and offer their charity as the solution to the problems created by the very system that rewards them. Once again, this has nothing to do with intent. It is about an underlying hypocrisy that bypasses and obscures the real problem-solving focus desperately needed to further human-rights justice. That focus can only be structural.

At the same time, this institutionalization of philanthropy also serves to placate the public, giving a caring face to those who have often extracted such great wealth at the cost of others’ well-being. In the words of activist Slavoj Žižek, “Charity is the humanitarian mask hiding the face of economic exploitation.” As shown before with the research regarding how people tend to change as they gain more wealth and advantage, there is a deep psychological need in those of great wealth to feel that their exceptionalism is justified. They naturally wish not only to ensure everyone believes they deserve what they have, but also to justify it to themselves. An example of this is the “Giving Pledge,” wherein a group of more than130 people, mostly billionaires, have promised to give half or more of their wealth to charity before or after their death. This now globally recognized project has been met with great humanitarian accolades in the media, especially given its timely creation as public outcry against inequality grows. Yet it’s very difficult not to view the entire project as a PR stunt for the upper 0.1 percent. As the organization states: “The pledge is a moral commitment to give, not a legal contract. It does not involve pooling money or supporting a particular set of causes or organizations.” In other words, it is first and foremost a gesture and no one signing the prestigious pledge has any obligation to do anything. There is also no transparency, so the public might never know whether a person gave or not.

For those who do follow through, there are prominent tax incentives, specifically in the United States. Since donations to charity and philanthropic foundations allow for reduced tax liability for the rich, giving money away often becomes an act of strategic self-interest. Very often, the rich simply set up their own foundations and move money through them via tax loopholes. For example, the infamous Walton family, five people with a combined net wealth of over $139 billion as of 2014, more than what the bottom 40 percent of Americans have combined, do some fantastic tax gymnastics through their foundation. An independent audit of the Walton Family Foundation found that not only did only .04 percent of its wealth make it to charity in its generation’s lifetime, but it also stated, “The Walmart heirs have built one of the largest and most powerful private foundations in the country—at almost no cost to themselves . . . In addition, the Waltons are exploiting complex loopholes in the tax code in order to avoid billions of dollars in estate taxes by funding their Foundation with special trusts.”

Estate taxes are interesting as they relate to the rich only. In the US when people with more than $5.43 million die, the tax is 40 percent as of 2015. The rich work around this tax in various ways, with charitable foundations forming the most common means. Billionaire Albert Ueltschi signed the Giving Pledge in 2012, and died later that year. It was reported that in his will, he made the condition that nothing would go to charity if there was no US estate tax. Since there was one, he followed through, moving that money to his own charities.This is also interesting as a general correlation. A study done by the Tax Policy Center in 2003 found that “the estate tax encourages charitable giving at death by allowing a deduction for charitable bequests” and “also encourages giving during life.” The center calculated that if the estate tax was removed, there would be a reduction of charitable giving upon death of up to 37 percent, while the Congressional Budget Office corroborated this finding and added that during life, this same class would also reduce giving by up to 11 percent.

What this means first of all is that the giving doesn’t appear to be entirely genuine. We can understand a poor family donating to a charity, knowing they can write the donation off their taxes if the deduction is itemized. They might not be able to afford the donation otherwise. The wealthy have no such excuse and sociologically that is quite interesting. What they are really doing is bypassing state funding in favor of their own interests. Moving money to charity foundations, effectively consolidating wealth in the hands of private interests rather than government, is a logical method to better keep things “in the club” of private business power. Keep in mind the state is deeply flawed, as noted previously. But at least the state has some basic formal responsibility to the public, regardless of how corrupted it may be by vested interests. The Giving Pledge is partly just another avenue for this anti-government and hence antisocial behavior.

In the words of German multimillionaire Peter Krämer, an open critic of the Giving Pledge, “It is all just a bad transfer of power from the state to billionaires. So it’s not the state that determines what is good for the people, but rather the rich want to decide. That’s a development that I find really bad. What legitimacy do these people have to decide where massive sums of money will flow? . . . That runs counter to the democratically legitimate state.” Pablo Eisenberg, a senior fellow at the Center for Public and Nonprofit Leadership, said regarding the pledge: “What concerns me is that no one has said what the pledge is going to do, who it will serve and how it will be accountable . . . it will increase the number of mega-foundations, and I worry that will hurt our democracy because of the influence these institutions will exert.” These are legitimate social concerns given how such high-level, unaccountable private power is similar in effect to that of regulatory dictatorship.

This is something deeply obscured in prevailing views of capitalism. While the world still seems to associate markets with freedom and democracy, the very structure of private business is actually in direct opposition to both. In the words of political economist Robert Brady: “Within the corporation . . . all policies emanate from the control above. In the union of this power to determine policy with the execution thereof, all authority necessarily proceeds from the top to the bottom and all responsibility from the bottom to the top. This is, of course, the inverse of ‘democratic’ control; it follows the structural conditions of dictatorial power.” The accelerating rise of private charity foundations have the same flaw, as they can set their own public health and social standards, bypassing public participation in areas that require it.

(Peter Joseph)

if you could adress the gender double standard and racism we pointed out now for the 4th time in the ad instead of quoting walls of test that would be nice.

Loco the thing you find controversial is in no way controversial...

On January 21 2019 12:09 Spitfiree wrote: Loco the thing you find controversial is in no way controversial...

I have no clue what you're talking about, could you be any more vague...?

On January 21 2019 04:18 Baalim wrote: if you could adress the gender double standard and racism we pointed out now for the 4th time in the ad instead of quoting walls of test that would be nice.

Why would I do that? I don't owe you my time. I don't agree that it is either of those things (racism, really? there's one black guy and one brown guy saying "boys will be boys"...), but I have no reason to defend my views to you. Maybe if I was really insecure about them or I thought you could learn something from me, I would pick yet another fight, but I'm fairly confident I got it right and as such, this is just another 'someone is wrong on the internet, wait let me spend 10 hours correcting them' thing, and I'm done with that on here (hopefully). Let's be real, you have no interest in my 'generic leftist' views and you won't have a good faith discussion with me on this issue.

Masculinity and capitalism are your two sacred cows and we both know we're better off disengaging on these topics. I'm not going to engage in culture war stuff on here anymore, but I'd be happy to reengage on political economy/political philosophy when you've shown that you can actually take counter-arguments seriously. Being in the habit of spending 10 times more effort in my responses to you than you only to always hit myself against the confirmation bias wall and lazy dismissals has made me reach my limit.

If you can give me a good faith critique of the "wall of text" (<5 minutes read) philanthropy chapter, or a good faith critique of this critique of Voluntaryism (<5 minutes read) at some point in the future, we can go at it again. They should be two of the least triggering and most relevant things to address to get somewhere.

On January 21 2019 15:47 Loco wrote: I don't owe you my time. I don't agree that it is either of those things (racism, really? there's one black guy and one brown guy saying "boys will be boys"...)

intellectually dishonest again, every direct villian (cat caller, stalker etc) is white, and all of the guys who stop them are black, the odds of this happen by random with the race distribution the US has are in the hundreds to one, also you are very aware that this suits the SJW narrative.

Also you disagree there would be no outrage if they asked women to be better?


Next time I say some stupid stuff and I get called out I'm gonna be all like "I dont owe you my time" lol

Masculinity and capitalism are your two sacred cows

What on earth are you talking about, masculinity? When have I ever talked about it lol.

In the words of conservative Forbes contributor Jeffrey Dorfman, “once you admit that income redistribution is fair, there is no logical stopping point short of communism.”

If only the world was indeed black and white with no grey... There are plenty of logical stopping point in the path to communism, has he learned nothing? Even now Venezuela is in the brink of a military coup ...

p.s. I meant to say "contradictive" not "controversial" in my previous post, my bad on the confusion - was pointing to the fact that Gilette opened themselves up to a negative snowball effect, and admitting that If I had used razor I would probably still use theirs. The thing is that you shouldn't view my statement as an absolute truth, nor the opinion which would be taken by the market, its just an opinion driven by laziness

On January 22 2019 04:15 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On January 21 2019 15:47 Loco wrote: I don't owe you my time. I don't agree that it is either of those things (racism, really? there's one black guy and one brown guy saying "boys will be boys"...) intellectually dishonest again, every direct villian (cat caller, stalker etc) is white, and all of the guys who stop them are black, the odds of this happen by random with the race distribution the US has are in the hundreds to one, also you are very aware that this suits the SJW narrative. Also you disagree there would be no outrage if they asked women to be better? Next time I say some stupid stuff and I get called out I'm gonna be all like "I dont owe you my time" lol

A disproportionate amount of white men engaging in unconscious harmful acts doesn't equal racism in any commonly or academically understood definition of the word. It seems to only qualify as racism for a small subset of people who have grown up on an intellectual diet of shitty YouTube videos and who think whites are just as oppressed as people of color in 2019, if not more, but that's pretty much it. Gillette's marketing research team went for the intersectionality dollar, i.e. they are making the implicit statement that white men are more likely to not be intersectionalists, since it benefits them the least, and therefore they are least likely to be sensitive to global issues of social justice, which is empirically factual. They're not making a statement about the superiority of people of color, just that they have a better awareness of cultural and historical issues relating to privilege and oppression at this point in time. If they wanted to be racist they certainly wouldn't have included people of color among the people who push the stereotypes they are denouncing.

It's funny because if I had asked you "Do you think a leading brand will release a vile, racist commercial in the near future?" one month ago, I'm sure you would have said "that would make no sense". Because it really doesn't. They have creative teams that can come up with all sorts of ideas that are going to be uncontroversial or slightly controversial but will no doubt boost their sales -- which is the only reason they exist for -- but somehow they ended up deciding being racist is the most profitable thing to do... lol. 2019, the year that racism became hip. But then again, maybe you are among those who think the white man is the most oppressed minority now and there is a lot of good money to be made going after him based on nothing but prejudice. That would be even more disconnected from reality as your previous conservative talking point that the Nazis were actually socialists. (Which I was reminded of because I watched a terrible Stefan Molyneux video on anarchism yesterday, and oh wow, it's amazing how much his arguments and yours overlap on everything still. It really opened my eyes.)

You disagree with social justice and think it's all just garbage, so when you ask me to comment on something related to it it's only because you're eager to make me waste my time and try to show how wrong I am because you find it entertaining. You're like Crowder now, he doesn't host his "change my mind" things on good faith, he does it very clearly to try to make himself look dominant. It's boring and vulgar. I can either stoop to your level and put almost zero effort in my posts, or I have to actually try to explain to you how these people that you think are idiots conceive of the world and educate you about things that you have zero interest learning about. Either choices are bad so I'd rather disengage. And if that wasn't enough, you now think I am being repeatedly dishonest. There is literally nothing I can do to make a conversation productive once my motives are already decided by the other person.

You can call me out on whatever you want, but that doesn't mean you should be expecting a response or asking me to provide one to satisfy you.

What on earth are you talking about, masculinity? When have I ever talked about it lol.

Every single time that gender differences, feminism, and toxic masculinity were brought up, including now? I don't understand. Because you didn't write the word 'masculinity' suddenly this commercial has absolutely nothing to do with your views on masculinity and the way you feel that it is under attack? Don't answer, it's a rhetorical question. By the way, the The American Psychological Association has approved its first set of official guidelines for working with boys and men, saying that, "males who are socialized to conform to "traditional masculinity ideology" are often negatively affected in terms of mental and physical health." Apparently there is enough empirical evidence in the favor of those crazed feminists. Whether you want it or not, this is happening. Let's see if purchasing power is going to change it, shall we?

On January 22 2019 13:49 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + In the words of conservative Forbes contributor Jeffrey Dorfman, “once you admit that income redistribution is fair, there is no logical stopping point short of communism.” If only the world was indeed black and white with no grey... There are plenty of logical stopping point in the path to communism, has he learned nothing? Even now Venezuela is in the brink of a military coup ... p.s. I meant to say "contradictive" not "controversial" in my previous post, my bad on the confusion - was pointing to the fact that Gilette opened themselves up to a negative snowball effect, and admitting that If I had used razor I would probably still use theirs. The thing is that you shouldn't view my statement as an absolute truth, nor the opinion which would be taken by the market, its just an opinion driven by laziness

But there is surely good reason to believe that you are not an outlier. According to Henry Assael, professor of marketing at NYU Stern School of Business, most people don't follow through on threats of ditching a brand over things like this. He cites the Nike ad with Colin Kaepernick last year: While there were vocal calls for boycotting the company at the time, it wound up reporting stronger than expected growth in its most recent earnings report.

I just thought it was an interesting contrast. I also think that if BP survived the deepwater spill and is thriving now 9 years later, it's hard to believe in your point that big multinationals are more vulnerable than we think. I'd like to see some examples.

the intersectionality dollar... these would be the intersectionalists that complained about gillette's pink tax before? billions of dollars corporations moralizing should be really creepy to anyone

did you see how people reacted to this image?

+ Show Spoiler +

the funniest thing, a white guy smiled while wearing a hat and leftists completely lost it. if you can't see how psychologically unstable leftists are about race you might be in the bubble

traditionally making fun of white men has been tolerated because with white men being so successful, it was always transparent that it was kidding to the general public, or clearly satire say 20 years ago when political correctness was in a phase, whites and men and christians are the groups it's always been acceptable and even fashionable to hate, now Loco your problem is not realizing - or pretending not to realize - that the revolutionaries actually take it very seriously and after years of being educated by radicals in higher education, are now seeping into important positions in the media, in campus administration, in government, in HR departments

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/arc.../the-utility-of-white-bashing/566846/

On January 22 2019 13:49 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + In the words of conservative Forbes contributor Jeffrey Dorfman, “once you admit that income redistribution is fair, there is no logical stopping point short of communism.” If only the world was indeed black and white with no grey... There are plenty of logical stopping point in the path to communism, has he learned nothing? Even now Venezuela is in the brink of a military coup ...

Sanction country into oblivion. Ignite unrest through professional marketing. Strategic Neo-Liberal Insurgency 101. I feel like Guatemala could have worked. Not with the C.I.A., U.S.A. Military, and Edward Bernays on the job. Chile is really the one that is the most heart breaking. With where we are at in complexity science, data science, automation and also out of the sheer NECESSITY to find a better system it's frustrating that we aren't closer. There are so many countries that have so many things right or are experimenting and finding success. Portugal wildly improving their drug crisis, the German prison system, Finland's universal basic income, et al.

On January 22 2019 16:12 Santafairy wrote: the intersectionality dollar... these would be the intersectionalists that complained about gillette's pink tax before? billions of dollars corporations moralizing should be really creepy to anyone did you see how people reacted to this image? + Show Spoiler + the funniest thing, a white guy smiled while wearing a hat and leftists completely lost it. if you can't see how psychologically unstable leftists are about race you might be in the bubble traditionally making fun of white men has been tolerated because with white men being so successful, it was always transparent that it was kidding to the general public, or clearly satire say 20 years ago when political correctness was in a phase, whites and men and christians are the groups it's always been acceptable and even fashionable to hate, now Loco your problem is not realizing - or pretending not to realize - that the revolutionaries actually take it very seriously and after years of being educated by radicals in higher education, are now seeping into important positions in the media, in campus administration, in government, in HR departments https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/arc.../the-utility-of-white-bashing/566846/

It's a very smug, domineering smile directed at an older Native American plus the white male is wearing a MAGA hat surrounded by white Trump supporters. Of course, it is going to trigger some people.

They are not moralizing; they cannot have morals when their main focus is making money. That's why they're involved in child labor. Again, this is the system "working as it should". Don't complain if you favor capitalism when marketing teams figure out how to exploit majority trends that you don't like.

As for the MAGA kid, I'd rather not discuss this with someone who shamelessly frames the context in a way that Breitbart and Fox & Friends did. Just because we're on opposite sites of the political spectrum doesn't mean we have to use the most extreme and most illegitimate sources of information to oppose one another.

Rikd you're being sarcastic right?

On January 22 2019 16:31 Loco wrote: They are not moralizing; they cannot have morals when their main focus is making money. That's why they're involved in child labor. Again, this is the system "working as it should". Don't complain if you favor capitalism when marketing teams figure out how to exploit majority trends that you don't like.

so they're not making a moral appeal to the intersectionalists you mentioned? does that mean those intersectionalists can't have morals because obviously the ad isn't targeting them on a moral dimension if it's just money. I guess the intersectionalists justs want to perpetuate their own ideology for economic self-interest then. Nice point and great reason to dismiss intersectionalism

As for the MAGA kid, I'd rather not discuss this with someone who shamelessly frames the context in a way that Breitbart and Fox & Friends did. Just because we're on opposite sites of the political spectrum doesn't mean we have to use the most extreme and most illegitimate sources of information to oppose one another.

I don't think anyone mentioned Fox or Breitbart, buddy

thought process of average Loco:
I'm talking to a guy who disagrees with me -> he's conservative -> he's a free market absolutist -> i'll strawman him as saying he wants to take away the legal right for a corporation to make an ass of itself -> i don't have to ever actually confront how dumb the corporation's actual actions or speech were

that's good keep defending those poor helpless corporations pro bono

I just clicked the link you posted which led to an embarrassing site, it's like you with your huge background in philosophy and actual diligence at reading books you thought, I need to stick it to this guy, let me google Breitbart is poopy and find a source to post because that'll prove it

The Columbia Journalism Review describes Media Bias/Fact Check as an amateur attempt at categorizing media bias and the owner of the site, Dave Van Zandt, as an "armchair media analyst."3] Van Zandt describes himself as someone with "more than 20 years as an arm chair researcher on media bias and its role in political influence."4] The Poynter Institute notes, "Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even studies about misinformation, despite the fact that its method is in no way scientific."

"a white guy smiled while wearing a hat and leftists completely lost it. if you can't see how psychologically unstable leftists are about race"

The only sites that I could find that defend this version of events are those two. Everywhere else seems to think there is a reason to be upset about kids protesting a basic human right, likely blocking the way of these indigenous protesters, and telling them that they stole their land because "that's just the way the world works". Leftist hysteria? Whatever.

so they're not making a moral appeal to the intersectionalists you mentioned?

On a superficial level, as a means to an end, they are dealing with morality and trying to encourage people to behave in a certain way. But you have to be naive to think it's for the sake of anyone's well-being and be upset over something that is a business decision. What's genuinely creepy is how people can be manipulated into buying things because they think companies represent their values. The changing content of ads is just a distraction from the fact that the nature of advertising and marketing is always going to be morally problematic.

On January 22 2019 16:37 Santafairy wrote: Rikd you're being sarcastic right? Show nested quote + On January 22 2019 16:31 Loco wrote: They are not moralizing; they cannot have morals when their main focus is making money. That's why they're involved in child labor. Again, this is the system "working as it should". Don't complain if you favor capitalism when marketing teams figure out how to exploit majority trends that you don't like. so they're not making a moral appeal to the intersectionalists you mentioned? does that mean those intersectionalists can't have morals because obviously the ad isn't targeting them on a moral dimension if it's just money. I guess the intersectionalists justs want to perpetuate their own ideology for economic self-interest then. Nice point and great reason to dismiss intersectionalism   As for the MAGA kid, I'd rather not discuss this with someone who shamelessly frames the context in a way that Breitbart and Fox & Friends did. Just because we're on opposite sites of the political spectrum doesn't mean we have to use the most extreme and most illegitimate sources of information to oppose one another. I don't think anyone mentioned Fox or Breitbart, buddy

No. I am not being sarcastic. I played poker professionally for 6 years and then was a professional salesmen for 3. My job was to read people. Every image is a Rorschach to some degree but that kid either has a very strange smile but more likely it portrays a smug, domineering moment. I mean shit. I was a professional marketer too and it is a perfect subtle picture to piss off a bunch of leftist, SJWs on edge.

I got my opinion by simply watching and reading the completely unhinged reactions of people based on no facts. The talking heads, blue checkmark Twitter, Hollywood, and outrage mobs all over SNS. the resentment in these people is palpable

Recode editor and New York Times contributing op-ed writer Kara Swisher, for instance, deleted one tweet saying she was thinking of “finding every one of these shitty kids and giving them a very large piece of my mind,” and other tweets throwing slurs like “Nazi” and “nationalist.” Sinclair chief political correspondent Scott Thurman deleted a tweet alleging students in MAGA hats were “mocking” and “taunting” a Native American in front of the Lincoln Memorial in D.C., asking in a new tweet if the new video changed minds about the kids. CNN’s Ana Navarro deleted a tweet calling out the “Asswipe” parents of the students for teaching them “bigotry” and “racism.” She tweeted an additional post with the full, unedited video of the teens, maintaining her support for Native American vet Nathan Phillips.

straight from the horse's mouth, NYT, Sinclair, CNN

I don't understand why you, an otherwise educated person, has a knee-jerk tribal response in situations like this. It's like a kind of insecurity

It doesn't affect the truth value of your actual beliefs not to side with or defend childish, unprofessional, vitriolic behavior anytime it happens like this

https://medium.com/@johnmonaco/coving...zing-effect-of-fake-news-9258a648286d

walk up to people, oh god I'm surrounded, the whole leftosphere sticks up for me being aggressively smiled at... give me a break, and maybe the guy was stolen valor according to that article

You're assuming that I spend way more time than I do on social media or reading "outrage" news. I was barely aware of this event when you posted it and I wasn't taking into account any of the behavior of people on social media, I paid no attention to it and you cannot hold me responsible for what other people said. I was just saying that you didn't present any facts about the event, just framed it in a way that made it look like there was no discussion to be had, there were no issues there other than the fact that "Leftists are unhinged", which is what is seen and expected from far-right media. I also tend to think you conflate leftism and liberalism like Baal and it loses me every time. If we're going to discuss an event that just happened and which is clearly extremely polarizing we should begin with a fairly trustworthy source of information, not a simple airing of opinions and cherry-picked articles from medium from a Catholic fundamentalist or whatever else.

now you've lost the thread and you are feigning ignorance of the context I would bring this up even though it's on this page, from today, even though you were the main participant and what I was responding to when you talked about racism against whites

if you want to know what happened in the incident watch the video, if you want to dispute something from medium do it and stop pontificating about muh reliable sources when pretty much anyone who ran this story without asking questions got it wrong

they were doxxing the kids and posting their photos and school information so it gets flooded with calls from other slacktivists and they can get expelled or something, and not accepted to colleges, and they're calling them nazis and threatening violence and cursing them out in all kinds of ways

is that hinged? don't be obtuse. there is a serious resentment against whites and men which is evident in people's reactions in this case, and cases like it

what have I conflated, you want me to say liberals are unhinged instead?

On January 22 2019 16:54 RiKD wrote: Show nested quote + On January 22 2019 16:37 Santafairy wrote: Rikd you're being sarcastic right?   On January 22 2019 16:31 Loco wrote: They are not moralizing; they cannot have morals when their main focus is making money. That's why they're involved in child labor. Again, this is the system "working as it should". Don't complain if you favor capitalism when marketing teams figure out how to exploit majority trends that you don't like. so they're not making a moral appeal to the intersectionalists you mentioned? does that mean those intersectionalists can't have morals because obviously the ad isn't targeting them on a moral dimension if it's just money. I guess the intersectionalists justs want to perpetuate their own ideology for economic self-interest then. Nice point and great reason to dismiss intersectionalism   As for the MAGA kid, I'd rather not discuss this with someone who shamelessly frames the context in a way that Breitbart and Fox & Friends did. Just because we're on opposite sites of the political spectrum doesn't mean we have to use the most extreme and most illegitimate sources of information to oppose one another. I don't think anyone mentioned Fox or Breitbart, buddy No. I am not being sarcastic. I played poker professionally for 6 years and then was a professional salesmen for 3. My job was to read people. Every image is a Rorschach to some degree but that kid either has a very strange smile but more likely it portrays a smug, domineering moment. I mean shit. I was a professional marketer too and it is a perfect subtle picture to piss off a bunch of leftist, SJWs on edge.

then it would be quite a coincidence for the perfect frame to be the one that gets picked up right? maybe you're obviously being led to believe something on purpose. by the way, you're a young man and some old guy shorter than you walks up to you and your friends being emotional and trying to start something, how do you react? get on your knees and apologize for being white, beat him, smile as a nervous instinct because you're in an unexpected and unclear situation and want to defuse tension, or something else? seriously can you remember and think what you would have done? I'm curious

didn't you ever have a case where you thought you knew someone and you found out later you were totally wrong? or something you never expected? then what about all the cases where that was true but you never found out? like if I were a CIA asset you'd never be able to tell

Twitter even suspended the account that helped it go viral https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ended-twitter-after-helping-covingto/

On January 22 2019 17:10 Loco wrote: from a Catholic fundamentalist or whatever else.

if you read the article or had the capacity to understand nuance you would've seen one of the points was Catholics also abandoned the kids

also, now if you ever post anything written by a Muslim we can put it straight into the trash, thanks