Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Texas Is Coming for 'Woke' Insurance Companies Next

gizmodo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 63 posts

Re: Texas Is Coming for 'Woke' Insurance Companies Next

#51

Post by claytongulick »

dragonwriter wrote: post #33
LatteLazy wrote: post #32

[flagged]

> The south has never gotten over losing the civil war. And the north won't either force them to or let them leave. "The South" and "The North" of the civil war era are even less distinct geographical units than they were at the time of the civil war (and, to an extent, the impression caused by factional control of state governments at the time of the war was misleading even then, many states had substantial factions…

Good point.

I grew up south of the Mason-Dixson line, very common to see confederate flags, and occasionally burning crosses in people's yards.

Where in "the south" did I grow up?

About a 35 minute drive down I95 from Philadelphia.

Re: Texas Is Coming for 'Woke' Insurance Companies Next

#52

Post by fallingfrog »

Vt71fcAqt7 wrote: post #48
fallingfrog wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I can hypothesize: I think what is going on is that conservatism posits that the world is ordered according to a strict hierarchy and order, and rules given by an authority. There is a purpose for everything and a plan for everyone, and that plan is simple and laid out according to specific rules that are easy to understand. And the promise is that if you follow those rules, then you are by definition virtuous, an…

>if you understood why that rule is good in terms of more abstract concepts Can you explain what good is in your abstract concepts?

That’s a question that philosophers have been writing about for centuries! There is no simple answer.

I suppose the best answer I could give is: try to think about the downstream effects of the choice you face, and think about what the world would be like if everyone made a particular decision.

Politically speaking, I think the best answer is: decisions should be made by the people affected by those decisions. People more affected should have greater say.

Re: Texas Is Coming for 'Woke' Insurance Companies Next

#53

Post by rhaway84773 »

vuln wrote: post #39
badwolf wrote: post #5

Texas Republicans sure do love their "free market" and just hate regulations...

Okay, do California and Walgreens next.

They canceled a single contract based on a fairly simple principle that Walgreens is not providing medical service equitably.

The Walgreens situation is actually completely ridiculous on Walgreen’s part because they are not just not providing service where that service is disallowed by state law, but also where it might be disallowed by state law and a handful of lawmakers complained.

Also, there is literally no equivalence between ESG (which unlike what Elon Musk and Republican Senators who have no clue, is not about investing to improve the environment, for example, but instead is about investing in a way that considers environmental, social, and Governance risks to the business, so, for example, when investing in a new ski lodge, factoring the fact that the number of snow days have dropped and will continue to drop over the next few years when doing their projections) considering investment firms, which have tons of competition, and pharmacies, which sometimes are the only pharmacies in a region, refusing to provide essential medicine.

In reality, because they don’t have an understanding of what ESG actually is in the investment world (it’s not about making the planet better, unfortunately), what this will mean is that Texas will end up having to invest its money in tiny bespoke investment funds created just for Texas which are not allowed to factor a whole universe of risks, and will therefore almost certainly have much poorer performance relative to their ESG counterparts.

Which kind of raises why this bill is actually being put in place besides performative politics. It’s so their small time donors who would otherwise not be able to compete against the larger well run funds can get a slice of that Texas donation pie.

I guarantee when these contracts are rewritten they will go to mid sized hucksters who have donated individually to Texas State representatives.

Re: Texas Is Coming for 'Woke' Insurance Companies Next

#54

Post by Vt71fcAqt7 »

norwalkbear wrote: post #45
Vt71fcAqt7 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The next political party gets in power and does the same thing, except for the other half. Can you give some examples? I'd say centralization of power has been mostly one sided for the past century or so. (FDR, JFK, LBJ)

George Bush and the Patriot act

I was actually thinking that, but I also think the Patriot Act was largely bipartisan. From wikipedia[0]

>Passed the House on October 24, 2001 (Yeas: 357; Nays: 66)

>Passed the Senate on October 25, 2001 (Yeas: 98; Nays: 1)

62 nays from democrats in the house[1], and only one nay in the senate and one not voting[2]. I'd say its more like Bush just happened to be president at the time. He didn't run with Patriot Act as his "platform" either (obviously). It also isn't directly about taking away state power in the first place so from that alone it isn't a great argument. That said, Patriot Act to me really seems like a turning point (for the worse) in US history.

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act

[1]https://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll398.xml

[2]https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1...

Re: Texas Is Coming for 'Woke' Insurance Companies Next

#55

Post by Jeema101 »

LatteLazy wrote: post #32

[flagged]

It's true that there was never a true reconciliation after the war.

But that being said, I don't agree that giving in to sectionalism is the answer.

We have more in common most of the time than the news entertainment industry would lead us to believe.

Re: Texas Is Coming for 'Woke' Insurance Companies Next

#56

Post by luckylion »

fallingfrog wrote: post #28
fallingfrog wrote: post #24

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.

If I can hypothesize: I think what is going on is that conservatism posits that the world is ordered according to a strict hierarchy and order, and rules given by an authority. There is a purpose for everything and a plan for everyone, and that plan is simple and laid out according to specific rules that are easy to understand. And the promise is that if you follow those rules, then you are by definition virtuous, an…

> And the promise is that if you follow those rules, then you are by definition virtuous, and if everyone follows the rules, then everything will be OK.

Is this not the promise of every ideological movement that isn't pure nihilism and wants to see the world burn (though I guess it would be for them too for some definition of "OK")?

Though I'd associate it more in an abstract way with organized religion ("if everyone follows these rules, we shall have paradise on earth") and progressive politics. Conservatives usually recognize that not everything will be OK for everyone, they just believe that you have some/more influence on whether it will be OK for you.

> which is why you see the right wing making otherwise baffling political connections between things like climate change and transgender identity

I don't think that's a connection they'd make outside of political tribalism. These days, you'll have progressives typically arguing both for gender-fluidity and climate change (and lots of other things), and conservatives take the opposing role on principle. Similarly, conservatives aren't fond of Islam, so in response progressives embrace Islam. They'll often switch sides with regards to specific issues as the larger front is moving this way and that and power shifts.

It makes a lot more sense to consider these things in a tribal way first and not try to wrap your head around how on earth someone's ideology drives them to do X. There's a lot of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and "the friend of my enemy is my enemy" going on all the time.

Re: Texas Is Coming for 'Woke' Insurance Companies Next

#57

Post by Clubber »

UncleMeat wrote: post #49
claytongulick wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you describe this more, or link to some materials? I'm not familiar with it. Are we talking about temporary war powers, or was this the long term government structure that would have been powerfully centralized? If accurate, it would certainly change my understanding of the ideals of the confederacy.

Many people claim that the civil war was over state vs federal authority. They are wrong and have, at best, been duped by lost causers and white supremacists. For example, it was written into the constitution of the confederacy that no state could ban slavery. The confederacy also had strong centralized control over things like money. These were not temporary powers.

>Many people claim that the civil war was over state vs federal authority.

It was; the state vs federal authority to regulate / abolish slavery. Both points of view are right but ignore the other half of the equation.

>The confederacy also had strong centralized control over things like money. These were not temporary powers.

Can you expound on this? One of the issues with the confederacy is their ability to fund the war through taxation, because many states didn't feel they were obligated to pay it, because state's rights (of course). It's pretty ironic that they seceded over the federal authority over slavery, and the lack of that authority in their own government to fund the war was a major contributing factor in them losing the war, and no longer existing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_war_finance

It's crazy, the plantation class was unwilling to fund the war for their own economic survival, that they were winning at the time. Absolutely mind blowing.

Re: Texas Is Coming for 'Woke' Insurance Companies Next

#58

Post by giraffe_lady »

norwalkbear wrote: post #42
giraffe_lady wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know but "the interests of the people" is just as vague as "the greater good." When you get to the point of actually defining those interests and deciding what will further them, you're at political agenda.

Seems a bit pedantic here. But partisan political agendas like in CA and TX are clearly not the same as a neutral political agenda. I think most people here understood political agenda as partisan term here.

What I'm workings towards is that that just isn't a useful distinction. You can't form any kind of useful framework for evaluation or action out of "political and therefor bad" vs "non-political and therefor good."

Some of these things are bad because they are bad, and you have to take a side opposing them on those grounds rather than invent these justifications that allow keeping your neutral purity intact.

Re: Texas Is Coming for 'Woke' Insurance Companies Next

#59

Post by Clubber »

Vt71fcAqt7 wrote: post #54
norwalkbear wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

George Bush and the Patriot act

I was actually thinking that, but I also think the Patriot Act was largely bipartisan. From wikipedia[0] >Passed the House on October 24, 2001 (Yeas: 357; Nays: 66) >Passed the Senate on October 25, 2001 (Yeas: 98; Nays: 1) 62 nays from democrats in the house[1], and only one nay in the senate and one not voting[2]. I'd say its more like Bush just happened to be president at the time. He didn't run with Patriot Act a…

I agree, I think on many aspects for the last 40 years, we have a uni-party disguised as a dual party. National security is one of those aspects. Having said that, the Patriot Act was proposed / championed by the GOP, but the Democrats were also culpable. I would add the drug war and militarization of police to the more-GOP side, but again, both sides are largely culpable.

Re: Texas Is Coming for 'Woke' Insurance Companies Next

#60

Post by claytongulick »

UncleMeat wrote: post #49
claytongulick wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you describe this more, or link to some materials? I'm not familiar with it. Are we talking about temporary war powers, or was this the long term government structure that would have been powerfully centralized? If accurate, it would certainly change my understanding of the ideals of the confederacy.

Many people claim that the civil war was over state vs federal authority. They are wrong and have, at best, been duped by lost causers and white supremacists. For example, it was written into the constitution of the confederacy that no state could ban slavery. The confederacy also had strong centralized control over things like money. These were not temporary powers.

> They are wrong and have, at best, been duped by lost causers and white supremacists.

Yeah, I'm sort of over absolutism.

Everything has nuance.

Authoritarianism's favorite tool is to reduce complex issues to "us" vs "them" absolutes.

Post reply on HN