61–70 of 91 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not a comfortable discussion. The fact those lines often coincide is a symptom of a problem many people refuse to recognize.
A child argues that the reason their argument is valid is because it makes others uncomfortable.
I'm fine with it.
Ugh why bring race into this... Even if the author makes good points, he's not going to convince anyone by saying 'white people have funny words for bribes' in the first paragraph. This is coming from someone who 100% agrees with the rest of the article. Still, I won't share this with anyone I respect.
Are you really that sensitive that you can't look past a potentially poorly worded part of an otherwise amazing write up? That's some sad shit, that you can't take the positive with the negative, and look past a personal opinion which, in context, is correct as the author is specifically addresses Janet Yellen, who is white and a horrible choice for that position in my opinion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a fellow white person, I get this is uncomfortable. But they're not bringing race into this. It's been here all along. Because white people put it there. Right from the beginning America's constitution was built on white power over black people. [1] Slaves helped build the White House. [2] We fought a civil war to end slavery, but gave up on Reconstruction, [3] leading to the Nadir. [4] After the Nadir, we had Jim…
Those are all historically true, but after reading through them I see no causal or factual link between the article being discussed and the list provided.
[1]https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/11/03/us/elections/...
Calls for nuance are missing the point. Nuance is exactly what we need less of, nuance is the trees that hide the forest. Does Yellen have some professional ethics that guard against her acting in a way that overly favors businesses that have her millions of dollars? I think she does. Are those ethics effective as a guard against corruption in the same way that, well, not taking millions of dollars would be? I doubt…
If someone offered me 1 million dollars just to tell me about their religion or politics or something, I personally wouldn't have any ethical problems with that. That's really all the author is accusing Yellen of. There is nothing in this article that says "Here is exactly how Yellen is abusing her power," all the article says is "she accepted money from banks!"
But why would they do that without the implicit expectation of quid pro quo? Or more to the point, the past experience of quid pro quo, as it's obviously a one-of instance. You're attributing irrational behavior to billion-dollar CEOs.
If Lyft regularly paid the chief software engineer for Uber a million dollars for having lunch with their CEO, the commenters here wouldn't be doing this wishy-washy "it's just a completely ethical lunch" crap.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those are all historically true, but after reading through them I see no causal or factual link between the article being discussed and the list provided.
Just a month ago people stormed the capitol carrying the flag of traitors to the state who rebelled over the fear they might no longer be able to own black people as slaves. It's not historical, there are still plenty of ( white, male [1]) people in this country who would still support things like that. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/11/03/us/elections/...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A child argues that the reason their argument is valid is because it makes others uncomfortable.
Would you like to explore the reasons why it's uncomfortable to you to discuss it? I'm fine with it.
It’s literally an issue tailor made for the ruling class to divide people. The core issues here have now been weaponized and are being used to divide and control the populace.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a fellow white person, I get this is uncomfortable. But they're not bringing race into this. It's been here all along. Because white people put it there. Right from the beginning America's constitution was built on white power over black people. [1] Slaves helped build the White House. [2] We fought a civil war to end slavery, but gave up on Reconstruction, [3] leading to the Nadir. [4] After the Nadir, we had Jim…
Those are all historically true, but after reading through them I see no causal or factual link between the article being discussed and the list provided.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That’s because there isn’t another option. Voters are villified for voting third party. Voters could also choose to not reelect officials who trade in bribes.
How? Both viable candidates are guilty. We can’t elect a third party candidate. And if you don’t vote, your opinion doesn’t count.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How? Both viable candidates are guilty. We can’t elect a third party candidate. And if you don’t vote, your opinion doesn’t count.
This is only true if you think there's absolutely no difference between any candidate in their stance on, say, campaign finance reform. That seems like an extreme claim.
No, thats irrelevant. The relevant factor is which viable candidates have accepted contributions. And the answer is “all of them.” The part where one of the guys accepting bribes tells you “I’m opposed to bribes” is marketing.