419 karma · joined August 28, 2020
This feels like businesses are trying to force everyone in the debt trap that keeps the poor where they are. Having to pay a monthly subscription for basic functionality isn't _that_ different from being in debt. But instead of floating consumers a loan, these companies are selling an item that selectively breaks if they miss a payment.
The mutability is the part that bothers me. Remotely disabling features and the option to hike prices for monthly subscriptions to have functionality in the car serve to erode the concept of ownership. I'm not a Tesla owner but I believe they also allow paid upgrades that neither stick with the owner nor with the car during a sale. How is that not exploitative?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate#Replaceme...
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2022/10/05/opec-thumbs-...
But, what are the UUUGE tailwinds benefiting India? India, even more so than China, seems likely to "get old before it gets rich." Its TFR is already below replacement and falling rapidly.
The problem is that people make statements like this but apply them selectively. E.g., platforms like major news networks are happy to give airtime to the claim that people alive today, who never owned slaves and are very likely not descended from anyone who did, must pay reparations to others alive today who were never enslaved and may well not be descended from slaves. These same platforms also give airtime to those claiming all societal ills stem from one ethnic group or another (as long as it's the "right" ethnic group being blamed).
This incredibly skewed double standard isn't fooling anyone.
https://www.chronicle.com/article/patriotism-and-the-puritan... is an essay on a related topic.
Interestingly, many descendants of these Puritans are still just as willing to impose their own religious beliefs on the rest of humanity. Although some details of the religion are vastly different, its rough shape is still the same (humanity can be remade and perfected, everyone must join in this endeavor or we're all lost, rejection of hierarchy, etc.) I'd wager this is even the source of many of the moral conceipts we see in America's foreign policy. Every farflung tribe on Earth must organize a government the way we organize ours. Every society must tolerate the same beliefs that we do, and also not tolerate the same things that we do not.
It's a strange thing about today: many people want it to be some other time and place and try hard to pretend that it is. It's kind of understandable that much of this centers on WW2, given that a lot of the patriotic mythos in the US comes from that time. Maybe because it's the last time the USA won a major war and got to feel heroic, write history, etc.
For example, what Zunger labels point 05.17 "[When the Nazis came to power in Germany], They held angry public rallies which often included violence." This is true. But there's a lie of omission here. These sorts of intense street demonstrations were incredibly common in Weimar Germany (and before that, even), with a lot of street clashing between left-wind and right-wing groups, including paramilitaries. These didn't begin when the Nazis came to power and are not indicative of Nazism per se. Filtering one's view of history through that bias misses many important points that one could apply to the world today.
Nazism was an ideology tied to its particular time and place in history. Redefining it to mean "socialism for members of the nation. And they decide who's in and who's out." is wrongheaded. This definition would seem to apply to any modern nation with social welfare programs and citizenship requirements tied to nationality like Israel or the PRC. Are these countries practicing Nazism or is this definition wrong?
There are some important lessons to learn from that period though. For example: power vacuums get filled quickly. Governments that are derelict in their duty to keep order get challenged by upstart "governments." It's right to ask if one's government is turning a blind eye to "angry public rallies which often included violence" and get worried if that's happening. Sadly I think this has been happening in the USA.
It sounds like this is occurring everywhere.
Companies trying to make trademark, patent and copyright claims seems like an entirely different matter from people complaining about cultural appropriation. The former is typically by people who may have a legal basis for claiming ownership over an idea (the merits of which is a different conversation, in my opinion).
I don't get the sense that the article's author is attempting to make a copyright claim on Buddhism here. This is just ethnic turf staking.
Rome violently occupied most of Europe and forced its culture on to those peoples. Therefore, most Europeans may eat as much pizza as they like. But if an Italian so much as looks at a croissant or wears pants, they've done A Cultural Appropriation.
Seems sensible to me!