The funniest part of DPRK is how we got bombed with propaganda about how the "supreme leader" was a madman that shouldn't be allowed to have nukes because he would immediately use them and then suddenly the propaganda stopped as soon as there was evidence that they had actual nukes. I suspect the same thing would have happened with Iran if they had gotten them.
This is definitely true. You are getting cheap educated labor, boosting your country's economy and crippling competition. Self interest, not savior behavior.
Now, that's irrelevant to the argument you are replying, that shows the holes in the wage depression argument.
> but most users didn’t notice the bias — unless they were in the negatively portrayed group.
I don't think this is anything surprising. I mean, this is one of the most important reasons behind DEI; that a more diverse team can perform better than a less diverse one because the team is more capable of identifying their blind spots.
I find funny but unsurprising, that at the end, it was made a boogie man and killed by individuals with no so hidden biases
> I mean, this is one of the most important reasons behind DEI; that a more diverse team can perform better than a less diverse one because the team is more capable of identifying their blind spots.
That was oversold though: 1) DEI, in practice, meant attending to a few narrow identity groups; 2) the blind spots of a particular team that need to be covered (more often than not) do not map to the unique perspective of those groups; and 3) it's not practical to represent all helpful perspectives on every team, so representation can't really solve the blind spot problem.
Thought provoking critiques of recent implantations. Number 2 seems like a catch-22 though — how does the group with agency identify their own blind spots?
I would recommend if anything a life-experiences checklist of the team collectively. Did any of them hail from rural poverty? Urban poverty? Did they attend a fancy dinner party? Were or are they disabled in some way? Can they read? Did they do factory work? Customer service work? Did any not go to colllege? Did they go to college?
All those questions build a picture of perspectives they may have missed. The real hard part is figuring out which ones are germane to the circumstances involved. Books not being accessible to the illiterate should have gaps and even collectively you should expect a career bias.
An auto engineering team may or may not have anybody with factory floor experience but all will have worked in the auto industry. They would be expected to be more familiar with the terms by necessity. Thus they may need external focus groups to jusge ledgibility to outsiders.
> I would recommend if anything a life-experiences checklist of the team collectively. Did any of them hail from rural poverty? Urban poverty? Did they attend a fancy dinner party? Were or are they disabled in some way? Can they read? Did they do factory work? Customer service work? Did any not go to colllege [sic]? Did they go to college?
I think such a wide-ranging exercise is likely to waste time and not help the team's performance. It might serve some other purpose, but improving team performance is not it.
> An auto engineering team may or may not have anybody with factory floor experience but all will have worked in the auto industry.
An auto engineering team with some guy who used to work on the factory floor is exactly the kind of diversity that I think would actually improve team performance.
I'll be honest, these, like the equivalent "cancel culture" statements, can only come from the politically naive or from someone accessory to the oppressive systems. "Normalizing removing services because the tenant does something disagreeable"? What the hell do you mean?, that is already normal. The only difference is that is usually the disadvantaged side that gets hit; when it's the regularly protected entity, and then and only then, we get these statements about "What if it happens to someone you support?".
Well, groyper thought leader Nick Fuentes uploaded a video long time ago where he goes into what was basically a date with a another white nationalist dressed like a catboy. Also there's a common meme about the twink -> white nationalist pipeline Gryoper lore is hard to follow even for terminally online people.
Leaving personal feelings about the person. What exactly does 2nd amendment guys think using guns to fight "tyranny" looks like? People rising up to a group of people clad on black clothes and an eerily fascist reminiscent symbol ala rickandmorty?
Some people using guns to defend themselves against who they believe are the harbingers of this authoritarian State is 2nd amendment working as intended. Not a "tragic but necessary sacrifice" as some will put school shootings, but actually what right to bear arms is supposed to be about.
And it's immaterial if you ultimately disagree to whether this administration is authoritarian, but these things will keep happening as long as enough people believe that to be the case. It's a feature, not a bug.
You're talking about the murder of a media personality, not a tyrant or even someone who has any say in how the government is run. You don't fight tyranny by eliminating people just because they have different opinions.
>You're talking about the murder of a media personality, not a tyrant or even someone who has any say in how the government is run. You don't fight tyranny by eliminating people just because they have different opinions.
You mean people like Mohammed Khalil or Rumeysa Ozturk?
They weren't shot, but they were arrested, imprisoned without trial and threatened with expulsion for their opinions.
This isn't a "when did you stop beating your wife?" gotcha attempt. Rather, it's an attempt to point up that many of the folks (I'm emphatically not saying that you are one of those folks) who are making the same argument were all in favor of silencing Mr. Khalil, Ms. Ozturk and even argued for stripping Zohran Mamdani of his citizenship because he had the temerity to run a successful primary campaign for mayor of NYC.
If we're (the general 'we') going to make the argument that free expression is important and that we should see differing opinions as a normal part of the process of society, we need to do so for everyone. Even (especially) those whose opinions are objectionable.
And so, as long as we're willing to make the same statements for everyone, I'm in 100% agreement with you.
Those who are only willing to make that argument WRT opinions with which they agree, and again I am emphatically not accusing you personally account42, are not acting in good faith or with intellectual honesty.
Unfortunately, there are far too many folks who fit that description. And more's the pity.
Everyone invoking Godwin's law. This is exactly what Charlie was about, having an open discussion with someone, listening to each other, even those you disagree with. Free speech was attacked today and for that we all lost something important. Any comparison to Goebbels is absurd.
Can we at least start with the facts about Goebbels? He was:
- Pro–killing “undesirable” children (look up T4 or Tiergartenstraße 14)
- Virulently anti-Jewish
For starters, Charlie Kirk, for all his flaws, is the opposite on those two points.
I’m not pretending Charlie Kirk was a saint or planning to livestream the funeral but it does puzzle me how people who share far more political DNA with the Nazis keep declaring that others are the "modern Nazis" or Goebbels equivalents.
The guy who said “Jewish communities have been pushing the exact kind of hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them”? That Charlie Kirk?
> I’m not pretending Charlie Kirk was a saint or planning to livestream the funeral but it does puzzle me how people who share far more political DNA with the Nazis keep declaring that others are the "modern Nazis" or Goebbels equivalents.
Other than Fuentes and his farther-right faction that historically has attacked Kirk for being too wishy-washy and soft in his White nationalism, who do you think this “share far more political DNA with the Nazis” description concretely applies to?
> it does puzzle me how people who share far more political DNA with the Nazis keep declaring that others are the "modern Nazis" or Goebbels equivalents
This is a very strong claim to make without support, especially given the history TPUSA had with people who were at best pushing the boundaries of the right. No historical comparison is going match perfectly but it’s hard not to see parallels in the attempts to subvert a democratic political system, demonize minorities, or the justifications they use. TPUSA frequently provided a place for fringe right people to circulate with the larger Republican sphere so while there were worse groups, they certainly weren’t trying to fight that trend.
I think there are many differences and I certainly wouldn't say that the two are perfectly analogous at all, but I think the comparison mainly refers to their similarities as propagandists for their respective leaders which has some validity to it.
I'm curious though: In what way do Democrats (or "the left") share far more political DNA with Nazis?
Propagandist for their respective leaders. Was Chester Cheetah the Goebbels of Frito-Lay? Or any other spokesperson for their respective beliefs or organization. Like the other poster stated, one stark difference is that Charlie was strongly in favor of Israel something that diametrically opposes him to Nazi ideology. Secondly, Goebbels and the Nazis were in favor of total control of information. Charlie again was the opposite of that. Anyone could come and challenge him, and actually that did not always go well for Charlie, but he welcomed the open dialogue up until the moment someone murdered him for that.
For me personally, the through line is that chester cheetah, along with most other spokespeople, was not advancing a political organization that demonized and persecuted outgroups, or that tried to subvert and consolidate power.
I believe those things are true of both the MAGA movement and of Nazis, albeit in different amounts of severity.
> anyone could be ejected for asking the wrong questions
According to what policy, cited where? What are "the wrong questions", and how did they apparently not include the ones Kirk was addressing when he was shot?
First of all, it is important to not generalize an entire side of the spectrum based on the actions of an individual. Secondly, if you are going to do that you should apply the same logic to both sides, and we know that there have been assassinations as well as other forms of political violence from the right as well.
I think that their argument is that this is the only concrete realization possible of the abstract Second Amendment fantasy.
The Second Amendment fantasy is that you should own guns, so that you can kill people in the government and who are adjacent to the government. That means shooting real people with real bullets to kill them.
I think their reply is a criticism of the Second Amendment fantasy, rather than a remark that this is a worthwhile avenue for fighting fascism.
As others have pointed out, Charlie Kirk built a career on the Second Amendment fantasy, even explicitly delineating Democrats as targets he believes are acceptable to shoot and kill.
That said, I do disagree with the assumption that the shooter is necessarily opposed to the Trump administration or even to Charlie Kirk's rhetoric.
Apropos, you can listen to Charlie Kirk answering that precise question, during the Biden presidency in 2021. (I assume Kirk is fairly a representative voice of the far-right movement?)
He was asked this question: "When do we get to use the guns?" "How many elections are they going to steal before we kill these people?" [sic]
I think it's best to watch his answer in full, and decide the nuances for yourself.
From my PoV, he agrees with the spirit of that comment. His response to "When to do we get to use the guns?" is to concede: "We *are* living under fascism. We *are* living under this tyranny" [sic]. In the context of that 2nd Amendment question about shooting tyrants, he identifies President Joseph Biden as a tyrant.
It's not ambiguous who these people think deserve to be shot.
I think it's highly remarkable that in that answer, Kirk actually never once condemns political violence. Listen to it and hear: not a word breathed to say killing political opponents is wrong, or immoral, or abhorrent to civics or American democracy, or, well: murder. His non-response is in a qualitatively different direction: he explains to the "When do we shoot them?" guy that murdering leftists would instigate a draconian law-enforcement response (by that same US government he had identified as "fascist" and "tyrannical"), and that that would set back far-right causes. That is, beginning to end, the entire substance of his response to "Why not shoot them?": fear of consequences.
I guess that makes it better, mental health was great at the time and they probably would not be subject to torture. I would advocate someone with a similar view or belief to be treated like JFK's sister.
They probably would not have been subjected to torture, no. If you're thinking of lobotomy, I believe that was phased out around 1951 or so, and it wasn't intended as a form of torture.
