21–30 of 63 posts
By bundling S and G together with E, we've doomed E. It's almost like that's what the oil companies wanted. Even if you agree with some/all of the "ESG" goals though, it almost doesn't matter, because when you look at the ETFs that've been marked with that word, you see they're full of Exxon and Philip Morris like all the others -- just with a larger fee on top, for all the suckers.
[flagged]
I'm genuinely kinda curious what you think state power is for if not to serve political agendas. And outside of some abstract unactionable thing like "for the greater good" or "freedom" or whatever. Eventually you have to actually form policies and implement them, a political process driven by political motivations.
When state power is used to serve political agendas, it can be easily abused for personal or party gain. This can lead to corruption, nepotism, and favoritism, which undermines the integrity of the government and erodes public trust in the system. Something we already see in many states, California's project to build a bullet train failed after millions and millons of dollars.
Using state power to serve political agendas can have serious negative consequences for democracy, governance, and society as a whole. It is essential that political leaders prioritize the interests of the people and use state power for the greater good rather than for their own personal or party gain. The "greater good" isn't a ironic or strange concept either just like the "noblesse oblige", these represent the contract between the governed and rulers. The disintegration of these concepts in a nation lead to civil war or separation.
[flagged]
It's a good thing that I can move out of a state that's turning into something I don't like. It's expensive and uprooting, but at least I have the option. When the federal government passes a law I don't like, I'm stuck with it.
> insurance companies: the Texas Legislature is here to protect you... > ...rolling out legislation this year to punish insurance companies I get you want to have a compelling lead but seriously did anyone proof read this? It's contradictory in the same breath.
I read the "the Texas Legislature is here to protect you" as a sarcastic joke rather than a statemement. If that was the author's intention then it would make the article consistent.
[flagged]
So they are expanding the definition of "woke" to include caring about the climate now? It's almost like they're trying to create a blanket phrase for "everything we don't like" regardless of whether those things have anything to do with each other.
So they are expanding the definition of "woke" to include caring about the climate now? It's almost like they're trying to create a blanket phrase for "everything we don't like" regardless of whether those things have anything to do with each other.
Now it might actually be psychologically healthy to believe that everything is going to be ok, even if it's not necessarily true. But the problem is that if you think that if you follow the rules of society then everything will be ok, then if things are not ok, it has to be because someone is breaking society's rules- by being gay for example. This leads to a bizarre conflation of social categories and norms with macroeconomic forces and scientific facts, which is why you see the right wing making otherwise baffling political connections between things like climate change and transgender identity. There's no logical reason those should be connected, but in the mind of the right, they are, because a) the existence of climate change contradicts the promise that if everyone adheres to the social order, nothing bad can happen and b) any non-traditional identity is crossing social boundaries. This also explains why you see things like monks flagellating themselves to repent in order to make the bubonic plague go away. It's the same logic.
I think that's what is going on. And despite the tendency of academics to try to frame this in value neutral language, I really do think that this is an inferior way to see the world. A worldview built on simple rules is really the worldview of a person who has not built layers of abstraction beyond the immediate and obvious. You might follow the rule "thou shalt not kill", and that's good- but if you understood why that rule is good in terms of more abstract concepts, you might also be able to predict other similar rules. And when there is a new situation that nobody has faced before, you can make good choices where there are no rules to follow that apply. Abstraction is flexible. Conservatism is not, because it is a shallow understanding of the world. It is more like the moral understanding of a child than an adult, in which the parent is always right and it is the duty of the child to obey without understanding.
[flagged]
I think with a country as diverse as the US, balkanization is preferred. It's really by design, states have autonomy over citizens and the federal government presides over national issues. Unfortunately, the federal government has gained more and more power and tries to pass laws that half the country doesn't want. The next political party gets in power and does the same thing, except for the other half. It's a good…
[flagged]
I think with a country as diverse as the US, balkanization is preferred. It's really by design, states have autonomy over citizens and the federal government presides over national issues. Unfortunately, the federal government has gained more and more power and tries to pass laws that half the country doesn't want. The next political party gets in power and does the same thing, except for the other half. It's a good…
On the other hand, due to mechanisms favoring minority obstructionism left over from the slavery era, the federal government also hasn't passed laws that most of the country does want.
- Nationalizing healthcare[1]
- Getting money out of politics[2]
- Stricter laws about gun purchases[3]
Rather than having powerful state governments, what I'd prefer is that the states were dissolved in all but name, and their powers were ceded to county governments instead. The multiple tiers of government at the national/state/county/municipality made sense in a time when information could only travel as fast as your fastest horse, but that was nearly two centuries ago. Ceding state powers to counties would give you your options for moving away from policies you don't like, and would even make it more convenient since you wouldn't have to move as far.
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/09/29/increasing-...
[2] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/08/most-americ...