It sounds like you're saying that markets should adhere to a first-year university understanding of Microeconomics 101, because that's your definition of a free market.
I'm more than happy to be corrected.
2,327 karma · joined September 18, 2010
I'm more than happy to be corrected.
* "2500watts (including heating)"
* "That may be only 25% of the time, with the lesser being the norm"
* "US electricity consumption per person = 13,246.27kwh"
* "The real number is perhaps triple."
If that's your view, I suggest owning it.
It's quick for the person to say. It says nothing about whether it's quick to answer.
Given how poorly most platforms compensate content providers, I see no inconsistency here.
Since there's no way of doing authentication signaling on it in a way that can be enforced without mutual cooperation, there's no way to limit access and/or monetize the audio experience any further than it is right now.
USB-C removes those obstacles. This only lives in the land of potentiality right now, but the path is pretty clear. Once you have accessories that can mutually authenticate, you can limit access in exchange for money. This is technically a "slippery slope" argument, but I think capitalism gives us ample evidence to show that it's neither an illogical nor improbable step.
Now, let's say that person comes to me and asks for $2000. I know you loaned them money, so I ask you, and you say 'Well, he didn't pay me back, and I don't think he's a good risk.'"
Given that, I can react in two ways.
A) "Huh. Good to know. Thanks for the heads-up."
B) "You never took him to court, and he was never found guilty. Stop accusing him."
It appears that you're requiring the evidentiary standards of a court of law that can imprison someone, when the actual punishment here is removal from a specific social and professional sphere.
Two different standards of evidence for two different spheres of influence.
Retaliation for refusing to sign a contract under duress ties back to "continued employment isn't considered compensation for signing an additional employment contract." Even if there's a restructuring a few months later, the burden of proof would be on the employer to prove that there was no retaliation.
Of all the things that he could use his money and power on, it's garden-variety petty vengeance.
Of course, it's his money and time. He can do whatever he wants with them. It just seems like poor prioritization.
If possible, avoid the words "groupthink", "mob mentality", "sheeple", and their synonyms in your answer.
Connotations matter.
The middle class has enough material wealth to have "something to lose", but not enough material wealth to individually upset the status quo too much. On top of that, there are enough resources to go around to allow a large group of people have that same approximate level of wealth.
Ergo, the middle class is a tremendous stabilizing force in a society, and they're "guillotine insurance" for the rich.
The OP has clearly explained why they think safe spaces have gone too far, but they've not said under what circumstances they believe that they are proper beyond a general acknowledgement at the beginning of the comment. In order to know what's too far, it's important to know where the line is.
I was indirectly pointing out that the OP had used the first line, not as a statement of belief, but as a token so that they could say the rest of what they actually believe.
Similarly, you say "I'm all for oppressed groups having a safe space and living their lives freely", followed by "but", followed by what you seem to actually believe. Which one of your statements is true?