141–150 of 177 posts
The concerns are real, but the underlying issue is that having foreign firms succeed over local ones upsets people. One needs only listen to how often the politicians mention that the companies are American.
I am not sure I agree with the specifics but I think generally it's healthy for the world to keep multi-national companies in check. So even if it's a stupid law that blocks multinationals the effect will be positive in my view if it fosters a local tech scene. The big Silicon Valley companies are already killing a lot of innovation so it's better to stop them from reaching more dominance.
How are they killing innovation?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you list a number of hyper-extremist radical points, many of which even HAVE happened (vouchers and charter schools are everywhere, immigration is open to wealthy foreigners, unions have been devastated and barely exist, gun control barely exists, the welfare state has been cut enormously, by Bill Clinton in fact! because the left has shifted so far to the right the Democrats are accomplishing your radical tasks f…
>"So you list a number of hyper-extremist radical points [...] then you complain the country is leftist?" No. I listed a bunch of things which were not extreme positions 50 years ago to show that politics is indeed becoming more leftist. The fact that you see these as very extreme positions is exactly my point -- the center has moved left, not right.
The only items on your list you have NOT gotten because of our extreme rightward shift in the last 60 years have been the points about removing pieces of the government wholesale (and removing government-recognized marriage, which near zero percent of the population has ever wanted, which isn't even a conservative position). Because government agencies were created for a reason, to meet a need and those needs have not ceased to exist.
Gun and religious laws have not really changed much. Deregulation has happened massively and destroyed huge sectors of the economy. The only point there that withstands even casual scrutiny is judicial activism.
You could have just replied "Yes".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Broadcast television can and has been catering to minority tastes for many, many years as we all know. It just can't bankroll itself by doing this, so it requires public funds or regulations to prop it up. But sometimes making room for minority viewpoints/culture/attitudes is worth interrupting the all-consuming capitalist neoliberal worldview for a moment, if just long enough to allow someone to point out its many f…
Since you seem to have missed the sarcasm, I'll make it explicit. There's this thing called the internet. It allows minority producers and minority consumers to connect with each other. For example, if you wish to read fiction about the Death Star's project manager, or My Little Pony characters living in the world of Fallout, or a rationalist-themed fanfic rewrite of Harry Potter, you can do so. There is even erotic…
It doesn't help a well-respected cultural tradition of art continue and give it the tools it needs to continue to exist.
And plenty of people like it. The whole point of art is that often, if it's worth anything, the majority of people don't like it. Comparing art to erotic fanfics really quite makes my point for me -- the character of your argument is laid bare, you aren't willing or capable of making the distinction, it's all mindless entertainment and nothing more. The fight the French are fighting against is the lowest common denominator which replaces art -- valueless trash which is entertaining and nothing more. It is seductive and destructive and valuable monetarily but valueless otherwise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Policies maybe, but not necessarily xenophobia. Xenophobia starts where multiculturalism fails. IMHO European multiculturalism has failed not in its idea, but in its implementation.
Xenophobia starts where multiculturalism fails. IMHO European multiculturalism has failed not in its idea, but in its implementation. Then implementation of multiculturalism is always in a state of partial failure. I guess it always has "bugs?" Intolerance always seems to seep in, even from the most vocal proponents of tolerance. In fact, there seems to be a correlation between how stridently one advocates tolerance…
Even xenophobia, as an extreme form of intolerance, has its roots, often far in the past, when it was somehow relevant for that particular society.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course not being able to access a website you want (and censorship in general) is not good, but comparing that to slavery is absolutely ridiculous.
> Of course not being able to access a website you want (and censorship in general) is not good Which is the same that the west does (they just call it "copyright laws").
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not being able to make choices for yourself is slavery. Slavery is not about hard work or poor conditions. There were plenty free men who had it harder and some slaves that led cushy life. Slavery is about not being a master for yourself.
By your definition, i am pretty sure that you are a slave.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since you seem to have missed the sarcasm, I'll make it explicit. There's this thing called the internet. It allows minority producers and minority consumers to connect with each other. For example, if you wish to read fiction about the Death Star's project manager, or My Little Pony characters living in the world of Fallout, or a rationalist-themed fanfic rewrite of Harry Potter, you can do so. There is even erotic…
Yes, it lets hobbyists and amateurs connect with each other. It doesn't help a well-respected cultural tradition of art continue and give it the tools it needs to continue to exist. And plenty of people like it. The whole point of art is that often, if it's worth anything, the majority of people don't like it. Comparing art to erotic fanfics really quite makes my point for me -- the character of your argument is laid…
Discussing the "lowest common denominator" is an outdated argument from the broadcast television era. "Lowest common denominator" doesn't exist anymore due to entertainment becoming fragmented. When it premiered, Seinfeld's ratings were 8.0, making it #14 on TV. Today, the #1 show (Big Bang Theory) has ratings of 8.8.
http://www.thewrap.com/seinfeld-no-14-in-its-debut-season-wo...
http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/top10s.html
Lets face it - the problem with the stuff that you are defending is that it's enjoyed by fewer people than erotic meta-fanfic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>"So you list a number of hyper-extremist radical points [...] then you complain the country is leftist?" No. I listed a bunch of things which were not extreme positions 50 years ago to show that politics is indeed becoming more leftist. The fact that you see these as very extreme positions is exactly my point -- the center has moved left, not right.
Removing the minimum wage is so extreme it's barely even under consideration anywhere outside libertarian-only econ conferences. And it always has been. Your positions (the few that have not already been enacted, because of how far right our system has shifted) are hyper extreme, they have always been hyper extreme, they always will be hyper extreme, even in conservative circles because the vast majority of people si…
Then you disagree with Eleanor Roosevelt on history, who, speaking of the Republican party's desire to end the minimum wage in 1959 gave the congressional testimony: "The arguments raised against establishing any legal minimum wage were the same as those which have been used by employers over the past 50 years."
And liberal think-tank The National Employment Law Project, who writes: "The criticisms raised by minimum wage opponents display a remarkable consistency over the past 100 years" Source: "100 Years of Broken-Record Opposition to the Minimum Wage"
You can disagree with these positions, but at least have your facts right about basic points of history. Points of history that your party doesn't even disagree with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>"The individual mandate for purchase of private insurance + subsidy system adopted as "Obamacare" was first proposed by the Republicans and insurance industry lobbyists in opposition to healthcare reform efforts under the Clinton administration. [...] I don’t recognize this new brand of Republicanism that is afoot now, which I consider to be very reactionary, not conservative in many respects. " That's exactly right…
> That law limited religious freedom. Well, sure, in that it allowed powerful private entities to engage in religious discrimination adversely affecting the practical religious freedom of less powerful entities and individuals, but in terms of government power, it limited government action more than it was prior to the law (which is why the right pushed it). > It says that if you can prove a compelling interest, and…
--------
"b. Government may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest;
and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."
--------
This is much less binding than the first amendment: "Congress _shall make no law_ respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
The constitution provided no exceptions whatsoever. By definition, a law which adds exceptions has moved the bar textually. It is, by definition, unconstitutional.
Again, it was a bad move by conservatives using liberal laws to protect themselves, rather than just pushing for conservative laws.