The news thread

[Guybrush]

right consequences

Then who decides that it's right?

[Toy Revolver]

right consequences

Then who decides that it's right?

me

[Marie Monday]

I think in this case, the two of you renewing an argument you had on MB - and due to which, apparently, one of you left - is somewhat pointless. If you want to reference, shall we say, bad blood spilled on MB, I personally think MB is a better place to take it up. I'm not saying you can't do it, I just don't see how it helps anything. But you're not prohibited from doing it or anything. It just seems like the two of you are opening up old wounds and the blood is spilling out here, and there will be people here who have not got a clue what you're referencing.

that's an exaggerated view of it, I think. I certainly don't have old wounds about this and I brought the thing up because I thought it would be a quick example of the point I was making. I never intended or expected to have the whole discussion again, my posts make that clear I think.

@Hawk I didn't promise any such thing, I just wasn't going over the explanation again. That doesn't include funny realisations. I'm not looking for tedious arguments though

[Toy Revolver]

I think in this case, the two of you renewing an argument you had on MB - and due to which, apparently, one of you left - is somewhat pointless. If you want to reference, shall we say, bad blood spilled on MB, I personally think MB is a better place to take it up. I'm not saying you can't do it, I just don't see how it helps anything. But you're not prohibited from doing it or anything. It just seems like the two of you are opening up old wounds and the blood is spilling out here, and there will be people here who have not got a clue what you're referencing.

that's an exaggerated view of it, I think. I certainly don't have old wounds about this and I brought the thing up because I thought it would be a quick example of the point I was making. I never intended or expected to have the whole discussion again, my posts make that clear I think.

@Hawk I didn't promise any such thing, I just wasn't going over the explanation again. That doesn't include funny realisations. I'm not looking for tedious arguments though

you didn't want to talk about the thing you brought up and you do want to talk about the thing you don't want to talk about - got it

[Toy Revolver]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/asbury-university-revival-potential-measles-exposure-20000-people/

CDC says 20,000 people may have been exposed to measles at Asbury University religious revival

i don't understand why people can't understand that spreading a deadly disease is far worse than a single incident mass shooting

no tolerance for antivaxxism should exist at all

just hold them down and vaccinate them - if the struggle is too difficult just drone strike their house or whatever

a bullet can only kill one person- a pathogen can spread indefinitely and kill countless people and even mutate into something worse

i have no idea why people think it's ok to kill an active shooter but not a disease spreader - it doesn't make any sense

[Guybrush]

right consequences

Then who decides that it's right?

me

Okay, I had the impression you were religious, which is why I asked.

I hope my probing isn't too annoying, but why is it right? Like if someone moves into a neighborhood where most residents have similar ethnicity and the people moving in have a different ethnicity, it's okay that they are targeted for violence or murder. Why would that be?

[Marie Monday]

you didn't want to talk about the thing you brought up and you do want to talk about the thing you don't want to talk about - got it

as usual, you don't get it at all but decide to get confrontational nonetheless

[Toy Revolver]

right consequences

Then who decides that it's right?

me

Okay, I had the impression you were religious, which is why I asked.

I hope my probing isn't too annoying, but why is it right? Like if someone moves into a neighborhood where most residents have similar ethnicity and the people moving in have a different ethnicity, it's okay that they are targeted for violence or murder. Why would that be?

because gentrification is a form of systematic state sponsored violence when the original occupants are priced out of their dwellings and forced to assimilate into a culture that they are not rooted in

self-defense is the most desirable kind of violence- in the case of the hawaiians gentrification has become nearly genocidal so rejecting it violently is completely reasonable

the pricing minorities out of manhattan and sf is the most successful segregation effort in american history since the original genocide

white racists in alabama don't even come close to the complete exclusion rich liberals who likely preach diversity have in place - they have their properties gated walled guarded gated again walled again and layered with an extra set of guards - they exclude the minorities without even having to acknowledge that they're doing it because they have so many barriers between themselves and the ones they're afraid of that it surpasses the physical so completely the other isn't even registered in their thoughts as real

[Toy Revolver]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/florida-bill-require-bloggers-write-governor-legislators-register-stat-rcna73191

Florida bill would require bloggers who write about the governor and legislators to register with the state

[Rubber Soul]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/florida-bill-require-bloggers-write-governor-legislators-register-stat-rcna73191

Florida bill would require bloggers who write about the governor and legislators to register with the state

Does that include out of state residents? How would they enforce it, by invading Illinois?

[Nimbly9]

The bill defines a blog as "a website or webpage that hosts any blogger and is frequently updated with opinion, commentary, or business content," but it says the "term does not include the website of a newspaper or other similar publication."

Way too vague to get passed into law tbh. Every opinion piece I see out there being pushed on Facebook and other platform feeds look like they come from major news sites like NBC, The Daily Beast, The Daily Wire, CNN, Fox, etc. They're essentially saying "Well if your organization has a physical newspaper component that you send out to people / subscribers , your basically above this law."

While I think it would be worth exploring to have more transparency in the journalism world overall, such as who is paid what to write X hit piece and if they were paid by like, say, dark money left or right wing organizations for example, a bill like this isn't going to achieve that kind of outcome. It is ineffectual at best, and that's fairly charitable coming from me lol.

[Guybrush]

because gentrification is a form of systematic state sponsored violence when the original occupants are priced out of their dwellings and forced to assimilate into a culture that they are not rooted in

Gentrification isn't a big topic here and I'm not well versed in it, but isn't it more or less just driven by the regular greed / capitalism? Housing in an area that has lower standards will generally be cheaper and that creates incentives for buying.

There's an interesting difference between the US and Norway which I expect really super charges the US' problems with gentification. There seems to be a lot of renting going on in the US? Here, most people by far buy their houses. There's little renting going on and renting a place to live is generally considered to be a waste of money. After all, if you can loan money from the bank, buy a house and pay back that loan every month, the amount of money you pay may not be that different from renting, but it of course has the significant upside that for every down payment on the loan, you own a little more of the house you're in.

This means that if gentrification improves your area and drives the value of your property up, that's something you gain. But I'm just gonna assume that gentrification, if you're renting, is more likely to drive the rent up and leave you poorer than you were. You might not afford to live there anymore. So this little detail (owning vs. renting) could become really significant.

The way the system's set up making it harder for poorer people to get loans is such a classic example of how it can ironically be expensive to be poor. It just feeds into a negative feedback loop.

because gentrification is a form of systematic state sponsored violence when the original occupants are priced out of their dwellings and forced to assimilate into a culture that they are not rooted in

If you separate culture from other things like knowledge, I generally don't think culture has much intrinsic value. Its value mainly comes from the way it affects us so if it adds to our quality of life, it's good. If not, then it's neutral or even bad. Culture changes rapidly, adapting to our modern lives and changing influences and so any expectation that it can remain static is kinda naive, I think. It is fleeting and holding on to it might not always make sense.

It also seems simple to say that if your environment changes, you're forced to also change. You don't really have to change / adapt if you don't want to, do you?

self-defense is the most desirable kind of violence- in the case of the hawaiians gentrification has become nearly genocidal so rejecting it violently is completely reasonable

I don't know much about Hawaiian gentrification, but I can't see much point in murder and violence. It just begets more murder, violence and segregation and there's going to be lots of collateral damage. F.ex. someone's parent gets murdered because they moved into a neighborhood dominated by a culture they don't belong to. Did the kid deserve that?

Supporting that sort of thing, you could easily argue that white norwegians in a white neighborhood should be allowed to beat up and kill darker skinned muslims moving in. The mind reels. Obviously, if a nation is going to have more than one culture in it, those cultures will mix. If people interact, it can't be avoided. Hopefully, something lovely can come out of it.

If you have a problem with gentrification changing culture, I just imagine that there's a plan A, B, C and murder and violence should probably be plan Z.

the pricing minorities out of manhattan and sf is the most successful segregation effort in american history since the original genocide

white racists in alabama don't even come close to the complete exclusion rich liberals who likely preach diversity have in place - they have their properties gated walled guarded gated again walled again and layered with an extra set of guards - they exclude the minorities without even having to acknowledge that they're doing it because they have so many barriers between themselves and the ones they're afraid of that it surpasses the physical so completely the other isn't even registered in their thoughts as real

I can't comment too much on the specifics here because it's too USA specific and I don't know much about that. But from a very simple standpoint, this reminds me of a basic problem of capitalism. If you generate a lot of money, that money could be spent improving the education of the children in the area you live, the library, safe drinking water, better health care for the people around you, better roads etc. Or you could do none of that and you could instead spend it on improving your house, your private health care, your kids private tuition. The latter option would serve to create a world in which everything inside your gates is better while the stuff outside is worse.

So this is just an unwarranted aside, but that level of wealth where people put up walls and hire people to guard it from the hungry masses just seems perverse to me. To relate it just a little bit to your comment, this distance between rich and poor will of course also help super charge problems related to gentrification.

[Toy Revolver]

more likely to drive the rent up and leave you poorer than you were

leaves more and more homeless and in america a homeless person has as little hope as jews is auschwitz - people who think that's hyperbolic don't understand the hellish cycle of homelessness and incarceration and the permanent and ultimately deadly impact it has (people don't like to see what's right under their noses)

I don't know much about Hawaiian gentrification, but I can't see much point in murder and violence.

well if norway suddenly becomes a russian state and you were taught that it's liberation in school and russian billionaires buy up all the pristine real estate and ethnic norwegians were left unable to afford basic necessities you'd probably get that

If you have a problem with gentrification, I just imagine that there's a plan A, B, C and murder and violence should probably be plan Z.

the gentrifiers resort to murder and violence from day one but their hands appear clean from the blood from most people because they don't understand how private properties laws are used to oppress people by theft then false imprisonment for trying to take back what's rightfully theirs

that money could be spent improving the education of the children in the area you live, the library, safe drinking water, better health care for the people around you, better roads

well that's reform minded but imo the wealth gap has to be completely eliminated - but yeah

wealth where people put up walls and hire people to guard it from the hungry masses just seems perverse to me

it's disgusting

You don't really have to change / adapt if you don't want to, do you?

No. You can choose to starve instead.

Finally, it's horribly arrogant to think it's ok to push the religion secular humanism on the entire planet.

[Guybrush]

Finally, it's horribly arrogant to think it's ok to push the religion secular humanism on the entire planet.

I don't think you have to. Just promote critical thinking, the value of truth and empirical research. If there is one or more gods, we should be able to discover that. If we can't find any, it's likely because they don't exist or are of no consequence to us.

[Toy Revolver]

Finally, it's horribly arrogant to think it's ok to push the religion secular humanism on the entire planet.

I don't think you have to. Just promote critical thinking, the value of truth and empirical research. If there is one or more gods, we should be able to discover that. If we can't find any, it's likely because they don't exist or are of no consequence to us.

that's fine for you and me but the western idea that we should push secular humanism (atheist or theistic), democracy, and, capitalism or socialism or anything on any other culture is the problem. The idea that no culture on earth should be racist is, ironically, racist af. That's something that became clear to me living in Japan. The ones who hated me and all other foreigners were on solid moral ground. They have their own reasons for their framework. To pronounce their racism as immoral would be to claim I understand their culture and know better than they do. And frankly, being American would make that a laughable position.