people who interpret “no ethical consumption under capitalism” as a license to do whatever they want, because it’s all unethical.
Have you actually encountered someone who did this? Everyone I’ve ever known of who was in the ‘do whatever they want’ mindset, certainly wasn’t because of how they interpreted that ‘slogan’, it was just because they don’t give a shit to begin with—they almost certainly had never even heard it before.
I remember the joke that Microsoft called it that deliberately so that if people wrote “I hate ME” it wouldn’t sound like they were trashing the OS.
You thought that because the headline is pretty deliberately misleading. Clickbait trash.
The article is clear the broken update effects a specific subset of enterprise users, on a specific mix of base versions and cumulative updates.
So you admit the headline is lying, then? The headline doesn’t even try to use weasel words to say “some users”, it just straight-up says that the update removes things, heavily implying both that it’s a global change, and that it’s deliberate.
You mean the same Beneficial Ownership Information (BOI) that Trump and Musk killed the enforcement of after a tweet? (Both billionaires, btw.)
Goalpost move, you said billionaires prevent those laws from passing. They passed. You lied. The end.
Are you arguing that a 1% excise tax limited to stock buybacks (even lower than the 2 and 3% I already argued won’t change the status quo) in any way counters [anything]?
Nope. A new tax that applies only to the wealthiest demographic successfully passing is just another refutation of your assertion that billionaires prevent legislation that affects them negatively from passing, and that’s the only reason I mentioned it. More desperate goalpost moves.
For every legal loophole that is closed
So you admit they do get closed. I thought billionaires never let detrimental legislation pass?
It would be convenient for you, if I were to suggest that, or any other argument you try to put in my mouth.
Behold, your words, verbatim:
When those policies conflict with the interests of billionaires, the billionaires stop them from passing.
That headline works whether or not that C is capitalized, heh…
The only reason it was ever that high is because the tax code at that time was so full of loopholes/deductions/etc. (that are closed today) that you could have that be the rate with practically no one actually paying it.
What I’m trying to say is, don’t hold your breath for that to ever return in present day.
Working class Americans (and not just those at or below the federal poverty line) support policy changes that would materially improve their lives. When those policies conflict with the interests of billionaires, the billionaires stop them from passing.
Are you seriously suggesting that legislation that is detrimental to billionaires never becomes law?
The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, among other things, imposed an excise tax on stock buybacks, something that will literally never impact anyone who isn’t significantly wealthy, and that passed. A year before, the Corporate Transparency Act passed, and basically struck the death knell for shell company schemes, (not a whole lot of that happening among the working class, lol) by requiring “Beneficial Owners” to be reported to FinCEN, so they know who the actual human beings who own them are. Billionaires lost the ability to hide assets and real estate within anonymous LLCs.
It’s ridiculous to think that billionaires are all just smiting any and all legislation that would negatively impact them at will. You are clearly deep in some echo chambers.
Its very easy to make an incorrect correlation
I think you don’t understand what “correlation” means. The correlation is clearly and inarguably what I showed it to be: billionaires per capita went up as poverty went down. That’s a plain fact.
43% of the US living in poverty
I’m not going to bother examining how legitimate this stat is, because even if I just take this at face value, what is that compared to the 40-60% I cited? It still does nothing to support the point that billionaires are ‘holding the working class down’ to any statistically-significant degree. If we take the bottom of the range of the estimate I got, 40%, and took your figure as-is, 43%, then a 7x increase in billionaires per capita increased poverty by 3% total over 100 years! That stat takes “nothingburger” to a whole new level.
That doesn’t do much of anything to support the assertion that billionaires are ‘capping the lives of the working class’, when there being seven times more of them makes no statistically-significant difference in the poverty rate.
Not to mention that 1925 is in the midst of the roaring twenties, before the Great Depression, and your article was written a few years after a global pandemic that wreaked havoc on the world’s economy—two facts that both skew things in favor of your claim.
Edit: That argument is just “trickle down economics” with extra steps.
Trickle down economics is the argument that financial benefits given to the wealthiest will naturally make their way down to the rest, so there is no need to aid the impoverished directly.
There is literally nothing in what I said that suggests that course of action, at all. My talking about how taking direct action to eradicate poverty ought to be the top priority is literally the opposite of that. You’re full of it.
the existence of billionaires is a cap on the lives of the working class.
Billionaires (inflation-adjusted, of course) per capita in the US increased by about 7x compared to 100 years ago, while the percentage of the population living in poverty is 4-6x lower today than it was 100 years ago, compared to what it is today.
The correlation is in literally the opposite direction as what you claim. How do you reconcile these facts with your assertion?
The finish line should not be “raise money to fund public programs.”
The finish line should be “billionaires don’t exist.”
Financially speaking, helping the poor and hurting the rich are not the same thing, and it’s honestly concerning when I see people prioritize the latter over the former. Eradicating poverty matters infinitely more than keeping people’s net worth (which as a reminder, is just a guessed (there is no billionaire whose net worth is precisely known), hypothetical, fluctuating price tag on the stuff they own, should they decide to sell it) under some arbitrary maximum.
And that’s without even mentioning how much tax revenue is wasted on things that don’t actually serve the population at large. What good is an extra $X billion in tax revenue if it’s all pissed away anyway? As one example, the US government spends more per capita on healthcare than any other country, and yet we’re far from #1 in most healthcare categories. How does that make sense? We’re already not getting what we’re paying for, fixing things like that is more important than simply increasing the amount of money going down the same wasteful hole, I think.
Pinata candy has never been equally distributed among all of the children, that I’ve ever seen. Sure, parents will often intervene to make sure everyone gets some, but the one who succeeds in breaking it always gets the most.
And that’s my point.
So, an economy where the most violent and best-armed are the most wealthy? lol
That’s not the number of people using Amazon, that’s the number of people paying for a premium subscription service on top of their Amazon usage. No one, whether they buy things on Amazon or not, needs Prime.
That is the point they’re making.
Is there another more ‘generic’ German term that would fit when talking about this period of time in retrospect? So you could have one line that says the German equivalent of ‘he was the leader in Germany during this time period, commonly referred to by the title Fuhrer’, and then no need to keep using “Fuhrer” anymore in the rest of the article.
Combine that with some rape cases that get swept under the rug with phrases like, “boys will be boys,” “she was asking for it,” or even something as outright cruel as “it’s the only way she’d get laid anyways,” and yeah, where OP is coming from isn’t too hard to understand.
And yet, cases of male victims of female rapists get “swept under the rug” basically 100% of the time, but the outrage toward that is non-existent, even though the also-swept-under-the-rug fact is that women rape men just as often as men rape women:
And now the real surprise: when asked about experiences in the last 12 months, men reported being “made to penetrate”—either by physical force or due to intoxication—at virtually the same rates as women reported rape (both 1.1 percent in 2010, and 1.7 and 1.6 respectively in 2011).
In other words, if being made to penetrate someone was counted as rape—and why shouldn’t it be?—then the headlines could have focused on a truly sensational CDC finding: that women rape men as often as men rape women.
The whole reason a woman raping a man isn’t simply called “rape” in these statistics is because of successful explicitly anti-male lobbying by feminists like Mary Koss, and NOW, who don’t think it “counts” as rape when the man is the victim of a woman.
As one of these male victims of a female rapist, it’s always extremely frustrating to see women complaining to men about things like under-reporting, or men who get away with it, when it’s so much worse for men and boys, that the average person believes that a female raping a male is something that is literally impossible.
A boy got molested by his female teacher, and she won child support from him! Could you in a million years imagine a male rapist achieving such a legal judgment from a girl he molested?
replaces the ghillie suit model with a suit made of traffic cones
lol
No, there is a difference in motivation between doing whatever you want because you believe it’s hopeless re ‘consuming ethically’, and doing whatever you want because you’ve never given a single thought to the matter of ‘ethical consumption’ at all.
My contention is simply that the vast majority of people who ‘do whatever’ are in the latter category, that’s all.