Headline is bait. Content is just the usual marxist nonsense - claims that all problems in the world start & end with the US, the west, non-muslim imperialism, etc etc.
And I think the parallel between school shootings and dogs is actually pretty close. In both cases, the problem is government caving to people who demand the right to own dangerous objects/animals, regardless of the risk to others. Culture plays a role in both, and mental health, doubtless plays a role in both.
The vast majority of people cheering on Iranian protesters don’t know anything about Ian’s oil. The see people in the street protesting their theocratic regime and they cheer them on. To imagine that these voices are all just oil puppets is the stuff of leftist group think.
Your comment wasn’t censored, your fellow readers flagged it because they thought it was bullshit.
If all we do is regulate prices, then there’s still an incentive to despoil the environment if it lowers your costs.
What you want to do is to mandate prices on externalities – the pollution itself. That way people are still free to buy and sell TVs and to innovate new ways of manufacturing them, but the only way to avoid the cost of externalities is to generate fewer externalities - less pollution per TV – which is what we want.
The vast majority of land in the country has been owned by capitalistic profit motivated players since 1776 - individual home owner occupiers.
If you doubt they will lobby to increase their profit, try proposing anything that has a 0.1% risk of their property value going down and see how they react.
Maybe there should be a setting for hiding such short replies or something like "shadow ban", you can write "thanks" or "This." and only person posting it will see their own "thanks".
Downside is that there is still some cost to it, like writing "please" and "thank you" to LLM...
The counterargument is that, if you think a post is idiotic, you could say so but, if you don't articulate why in detail, you'll probably be downvoted or modded. So better to just downvote if you care and move on.
From an evolutionary standpoint, which circumstances should a thinking being prioritize to best ensure its safety and survival? Should it seek out "positive sentiment" and seek to avoid "negative sentiment" (even though this likely doesn't mean evading negative circumstances merely avoiding the sentiment until it is too late)?
Negative bias is probably inevitable in cognition itself.
The tv show Pluribus delves into this a bit. An event (speaking generally to avoid spoilers) causes most people to become extremely happy and positive, and also super ethical, to the point that survival of the human race is in question, and the "most miserable" person on the planet is left to save things.
Careful now - by pointing out fraud you’re inflicting a moral injury on a vulnerable population. Of all the marginalized groups, surely the criminal is the most marginalized and thus the one most worthy and valuable in the progressive stack.
reply