Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

Trump has been very good on the financial side. The tax decreases have far exceeded what I thought they would be. And the market has done well. I worried that it would crater if he were elected.

Will things improve if Biden gets elected? I don't know. He can't raise taxes too much because that would pare economic gains he'll need. He can raise them a bit on corporations, and this would have a negative impact on the market. But I'm not sure it'd have a tremendous negative impact on the actual economy (corporations don't pay taxes anyway). I also think people would be bullish on normalization of global trade under Biden.

Will things improve if Trump gets elected again? The market could fly in anticipation of business friendly policies and sustained low taxes. But I could also see it flattening or falling based on the realization global trade will be fucked for a long time if Trump has four more years in which to engage in trade wars. There's also the enhanced volatility you get with Trump. There could be crazy riots in the streets and possible war as a result of some action like the Soleimani assassination. Trump makes it very hard to predict even the near term, let alone the long term.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

My wife and I work hard. I have a hard time voting to increase her taxes or burden the business. Ds always make it harder to run a business. They'd be great if they could get single payer passed, as that would make things a lot easier and cheaper. But the Ds aren't going to get that passed.

I can't get even 75% of what I want out of any voting option. Last election I almost stayed home, but I cared about the senate vote.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

The first thread is insightful. It examines the degradation of online discourse and makes a decent case for ignoring those acting in bad faith.

The second is juvenile. It's identity based and attempts to use "power dynamics" as the basis on which to determine matters of free speech. Free speech is free speech is free speech. The concept is abstract. That some voices have more power is immaterial.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

Its a zoom/podcast done by Benjamin Wittes and Katie Klonick - check either of their twitter threads for details, they do it several times a week at 5:00 Eastern. Basically a bunch of lawyer/policy types bsing.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

The value of the second, to me, was that it explained that a lot of the people who are unhappy with the Harper's letter were unhappy because they felt that it was being used by people who have not been committed to free speech and who have otherwise been disagreed with in order to whitewash what happened. For example, I have tried to avoid learning too much about J.K. Rowling and her opponents, both of whom seem to have some good points, but I understand the view that she should not be complaining about being silenced or disagreed with, given the platform she has. She is in no danger of being silenced.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

You really don’t care at all about the rest of your community?

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

I know you think you’ll move Sebby but you won’t, still, thanks for playing!!!


https://www.jonesawards.com/Shop/Det...CABEgJlbfD_BwE

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

I don’t, but I also don’t want him to think he’s normal.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

Always read Michael Hobbes: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/cance...b67a80bc06c95e

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

"Anecdotes are not data, free speech is not under attack." Here's an anecdote for you - https://reason.com/2020/07/10/profes...ech-code-case/

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

This author is clever. Most of the social justice movements of the day fit the definition of moral panics. So he applies the term to the Harper’s Letter.

But that’s cheap, and this editorial is childish.

The Harper’s Letter argues for more dialogue, and less shaming and punitive reaction. It argues that adults can disagree with one another, and that cancel mobs are, well, mobs. Idiots, I’d argue. Naive, angry cranks. Unserious people who are high on righteousness.

But their “counter speech,” to borrow Kara Swisher’s definition of it (in which she badly attempted to defend it against Scott Galloway in their most recent podcast, and in which dispute Galloway crushed her), is also speech. These silly overheated nuts, these low rent Robespierres, have a right to scream for the deplatforming of those they don’t like.

An as they’re going to soon learn, the majority of us have a right to ignore them.

Twitter isn’t reality. The shame mob isn’t in your yard. The best thing about their speech, like the speech they object to, is one can simply choose not to tune into it.

I see no reason to entertain the arguments of people who argue against tolerance for all reasonable free speech. We are adults. We can all ignore the trolls. We can see who is arguing in bad faith. If the children wish to throw feces on Twitter and demand their views not be challenged or alleged impolitic pundits be shamed, we can and should simply disengage. Leave them to eat each other alive, as they will.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

Have you demanded in a public forum that a conservative candidate for office put forth credible plans for justice reform? Have you worked against our private incarceration industry when you were in a position to do so, despite it being to your advantage to align with them?

You talk a lot. And you demand fealty to your cause. But it’s posturing.

If you’re so privileged, then you have the same opportunities I’ve had - to actually do something.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

Robbing from the poor to give to the rich is rarely sustainable.

https://media3.giphy.com/media/akTPa...&rid=giphy.gif

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

Spoken like a true hypocrite. I made more last week on Tesla stock than I did from my job.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

Have you read your own analysis of who to vote for and why?