"Prices, a Federal Trade Commission report found in 1968, were 2.5 times higher for identical goods in the city as they were in the suburbs. If a family couldn’t, or wouldn’t, make their payments, repo men would come to their house, take their television, and then sell it to someone else. Repossessions were public affairs that everyone in the neighborhood could see, publicly shaming the family. When rioters broke into appliance stores in the 1960s and took TVs it looked, to outsiders, like brazen theft of a sought-after big-ticket item. To rioters whose TVs had be repossessed, however, it must have felt like they were taking back property for which they had already paid for many times over. And, perhaps, it was a chance to exorcise some of the shame of repossession as well." Slate
>>><<<
How to figure out where the most racists are? Use Google search data, of course!
>>><<<
Many of these are actually kind of great
>>><<<
Hopefully this will put the poor civets out of a job
>>><<<
“You don’t measure love in time. You measure love in transformation. Sometimes the longest connections yield very little growth, while the briefest of encounters change everything." PolySinglish
>>><<<
So much yes.
"The choice to present complex conversations and decisions as simple “choice feminism” flattens womens’ lives (and the lives of femmes of other genders) into simple binaries, and seems designed to enable columnists to then patronisingly explain, “no, not every choice is feminist” (again and again and again). It also functions as a derail: sex workers often have conversations about our rights and safety dominated by people saying “choicy choice McFeminism”, or arguing over whether our “choice” is “feminist” (who cares?). The fiction that marginalised women invariably seek to focus on “choice” (rather than survival, rights, resistance) is used to as a bludgeon to caricature conversations that mainstream feminists can’t be bothered to listen to – or don’t want to happen, because those conversations might de-centre their concerns." Glasgow Sex Worker
>>><<<
"Immigration restrictions in high income countries are comparable to global apartheid." Discuss.
"So if we're talking about immigration policy, the question "Does migration substantially harm low-income countries?" is the same as the question "Does forcibly stopping people from leaving low income countries substantially help those countries?" To put it mildly, social science has absolutely no evidence of such a effect.
Would it be different in poor countries? How about in poor areas of Africa? We do not need to wonder that either. Parts of Africa that are as prosperous as parts of Europe – Johannesburg, Pretoria and Cape Town – have spent several generations actively blocking most black Africans from living and working there. Many people in those enclaves claimed that this was somehow beneficial to black Africans, encouraging them to "develop" their own lands. There is no evidence at all of such a positive effect." Vice
>>><<<
Last past: I take it as obvious that human beings have a natural right to freedom of movement. That is, we all have the natural abilities to move around using our own resources, and obtain the means of our own survival through access to the land or via voluntary cooperation with others. In general, it is possible to exercise these natural abilities without harming others in any way. To restrict the right to freedom of movement is therefore coercive, and a strong argument should be offered in its favour.
Have you ever seen such a strong argument? We tend to view the existing regime of nations and borders as natural, but it is a highly artificial system of coercion. Can you offer reasons as to why it might be defensible?
>>><<<
There are heroes among us #wrongtowork
"Some of the people ostensibly turning in those 80- or 90-hour workweeks, particularly men, may just be faking it."
>>><<<
“Many of the soldiers testified that the rules of engagement they were provided with before the ground incursion into Gaza were unclear and lenient. The soldiers were briefed by their commanders to fire at every person they identified in a combat zone, since the working assumption was that every person in the field was an enemy,” Independent
>>><<<
Hmmm. So the way to tackle "tensions and communities and foreign nationals" is... to arrest foreign nationals! Obviously. Well done SA government.
"The mandate of this [inter-ministerial committee on migration] has been broaden to deal with all the underlying causes of the tensions between communities and the foreign nationals... Government is determined to restore and maintain order within our communities. Operation Fiela – Reclaim is an operation to rid our country of illegal weapons, drug dens, prostitution rings and other illegal activities. This operation is a multidisciplinary interdepartmental operation.
Fiela is a Sesotho word for sweep/ ukushanela ngesiZulu. And that is exactly what we intend to do. We want to sweep our public places clean so that our people can be and feel safe. The focus of Operation is, amongst others, will be on the following crimes:
Illicit Drugs
Contraband
Undocumented migrants
Human Trafficking and Prostitution
Hijacked and condemned buildings
Illegal possession of firearms and ammunition
Unlicensed businesses
Management of RDP houses
Illegal occupation of land
Illegal goods and products"
>>><<<
"Because water is liquid in the physical sense, it is not at all liquid in the financial sense." Grist
>>><<<
“LSD terrifies governments; it is their ultimate fear because it changes the way people look at the world,” NY Times
>>><<<
"True beauty is a severe brow, a no-nonsense haircut, and an armful of male limbs you’re about to rip off someone’s torso. That’s what Real Women look like." The Toast
>>><<<
"business interests dislike Keynesian economics because it threatens their political bargaining power. Business leaders love the idea that the health of the economy depends on confidence, which in turn – or so they argue – requires making them happy." Guardian
>>><<<
"In 2012, a wide-ranging WIN/Gallup International poll found that 5 percent of Saudi citizens—more than a million people—self-identify as “convinced atheists,” the same percentage as in the United States. Nineteen percent of Saudis—almost six million people—think of themselves as “not a religious person.” (In Italy, the figure is 15 percent.)" New Republic
>>><<<
Wowzers, that's amazing.
"A broader solution exists in Norway, where the government makes it possible to look up anyone's tax return online, thus ensuring full transparency of all salaries. Any person at any job can go look up any of their colleagues' pay or pay received by people doing comparable work at a competing firm."
>>><<<
In light of the UK election results, just having a think about nationalism and immigration policy. I'm talking about status quo immigration policies that most people think of as basically reasonable. Policies that can result, for instance, in people being detained for months at a time (often under unhealthy and abusive conditions) and separated from their families, friends, homes and sources of income. These being consequences that can often result from filling in paperwork incorrectly, as opposed to say committing a crime or doing anything else that might actually hurt anyone.
My question: how much low-level, normalised hatred do you have to feel for foreigners to think of this sort of treatment as reasonable? As an exercise, imagine how bad a thing a friend of yours would have to do to for you to feel OK about them being treated that way. Now take the difference between how bad the thing you just imagined is and how bad it is to fill in paperwork incorrectly - this is a measure of how little humanity you vest in people with foreign nationality.
>>><<<
How to figure out where the most racists are? Use Google search data, of course!
>>><<<
Many of these are actually kind of great
>>><<<
Hopefully this will put the poor civets out of a job
>>><<<
“You don’t measure love in time. You measure love in transformation. Sometimes the longest connections yield very little growth, while the briefest of encounters change everything." PolySinglish
>>><<<
So much yes.
"The choice to present complex conversations and decisions as simple “choice feminism” flattens womens’ lives (and the lives of femmes of other genders) into simple binaries, and seems designed to enable columnists to then patronisingly explain, “no, not every choice is feminist” (again and again and again). It also functions as a derail: sex workers often have conversations about our rights and safety dominated by people saying “choicy choice McFeminism”, or arguing over whether our “choice” is “feminist” (who cares?). The fiction that marginalised women invariably seek to focus on “choice” (rather than survival, rights, resistance) is used to as a bludgeon to caricature conversations that mainstream feminists can’t be bothered to listen to – or don’t want to happen, because those conversations might de-centre their concerns." Glasgow Sex Worker
>>><<<
"Immigration restrictions in high income countries are comparable to global apartheid." Discuss.
"So if we're talking about immigration policy, the question "Does migration substantially harm low-income countries?" is the same as the question "Does forcibly stopping people from leaving low income countries substantially help those countries?" To put it mildly, social science has absolutely no evidence of such a effect.
Would it be different in poor countries? How about in poor areas of Africa? We do not need to wonder that either. Parts of Africa that are as prosperous as parts of Europe – Johannesburg, Pretoria and Cape Town – have spent several generations actively blocking most black Africans from living and working there. Many people in those enclaves claimed that this was somehow beneficial to black Africans, encouraging them to "develop" their own lands. There is no evidence at all of such a positive effect." Vice
>>><<<
Last past: I take it as obvious that human beings have a natural right to freedom of movement. That is, we all have the natural abilities to move around using our own resources, and obtain the means of our own survival through access to the land or via voluntary cooperation with others. In general, it is possible to exercise these natural abilities without harming others in any way. To restrict the right to freedom of movement is therefore coercive, and a strong argument should be offered in its favour.
Have you ever seen such a strong argument? We tend to view the existing regime of nations and borders as natural, but it is a highly artificial system of coercion. Can you offer reasons as to why it might be defensible?
>>><<<
There are heroes among us #wrongtowork
"Some of the people ostensibly turning in those 80- or 90-hour workweeks, particularly men, may just be faking it."
>>><<<
“Many of the soldiers testified that the rules of engagement they were provided with before the ground incursion into Gaza were unclear and lenient. The soldiers were briefed by their commanders to fire at every person they identified in a combat zone, since the working assumption was that every person in the field was an enemy,” Independent
>>><<<
Hmmm. So the way to tackle "tensions and communities and foreign nationals" is... to arrest foreign nationals! Obviously. Well done SA government.
"The mandate of this [inter-ministerial committee on migration] has been broaden to deal with all the underlying causes of the tensions between communities and the foreign nationals... Government is determined to restore and maintain order within our communities. Operation Fiela – Reclaim is an operation to rid our country of illegal weapons, drug dens, prostitution rings and other illegal activities. This operation is a multidisciplinary interdepartmental operation.
Fiela is a Sesotho word for sweep/ ukushanela ngesiZulu. And that is exactly what we intend to do. We want to sweep our public places clean so that our people can be and feel safe. The focus of Operation is, amongst others, will be on the following crimes:
Illicit Drugs
Contraband
Undocumented migrants
Human Trafficking and Prostitution
Hijacked and condemned buildings
Illegal possession of firearms and ammunition
Unlicensed businesses
Management of RDP houses
Illegal occupation of land
Illegal goods and products"
>>><<<
"Because water is liquid in the physical sense, it is not at all liquid in the financial sense." Grist
>>><<<
“LSD terrifies governments; it is their ultimate fear because it changes the way people look at the world,” NY Times
>>><<<
"True beauty is a severe brow, a no-nonsense haircut, and an armful of male limbs you’re about to rip off someone’s torso. That’s what Real Women look like." The Toast
>>><<<
"business interests dislike Keynesian economics because it threatens their political bargaining power. Business leaders love the idea that the health of the economy depends on confidence, which in turn – or so they argue – requires making them happy." Guardian
>>><<<
"In 2012, a wide-ranging WIN/Gallup International poll found that 5 percent of Saudi citizens—more than a million people—self-identify as “convinced atheists,” the same percentage as in the United States. Nineteen percent of Saudis—almost six million people—think of themselves as “not a religious person.” (In Italy, the figure is 15 percent.)" New Republic
>>><<<
Wowzers, that's amazing.
"A broader solution exists in Norway, where the government makes it possible to look up anyone's tax return online, thus ensuring full transparency of all salaries. Any person at any job can go look up any of their colleagues' pay or pay received by people doing comparable work at a competing firm."
>>><<<
In light of the UK election results, just having a think about nationalism and immigration policy. I'm talking about status quo immigration policies that most people think of as basically reasonable. Policies that can result, for instance, in people being detained for months at a time (often under unhealthy and abusive conditions) and separated from their families, friends, homes and sources of income. These being consequences that can often result from filling in paperwork incorrectly, as opposed to say committing a crime or doing anything else that might actually hurt anyone.
My question: how much low-level, normalised hatred do you have to feel for foreigners to think of this sort of treatment as reasonable? As an exercise, imagine how bad a thing a friend of yours would have to do to for you to feel OK about them being treated that way. Now take the difference between how bad the thing you just imagined is and how bad it is to fill in paperwork incorrectly - this is a measure of how little humanity you vest in people with foreign nationality.
No comments:
Post a Comment