i am skeptical of these notions.
same
oh wait no i thought you replied to the last comment
Environmental destruction isn't a personal responsibility problem (eg. Remember to recycle! Don't leave the lights on when you leave the house!) it is a regulatory & incentives problem with a small handful of very large companies (eg. Remember to not spill 4.9mil barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico!)
more efficient cars is nice and all but i highly suspect the idea of it causes people to become complacent and stop thinking about the issue.
in the bluntest way possible, its an easy idea to make you feel good and think you are solving the problem when youve actually barely done anything.
yes thats exactly it. people psychologically want to believe in things like "remember to recycle" and "turn off the lights" in order to have satisfaction. token solutions impede progress. we should objectively find the critical solution before presenting it in order to not confuse people.
e.g. everyone arguing about gun regulations when potentially its a pointless concept. not sure if necessarily true, the point is you have to be sure it will actually solve the problem before convincing people to spend energy on it.
Mind posting some data that shows I'm wrong about HFs being minimal risk with moderate return investments that are used to diversify a portfolio? Cause I linked tons of data that shows that's true. You're just a complete fucking moron that won't look at the citations, then when you post your own they contradict your point.
- Buck v. Bell: eugenics is okay
- Castle Rock v. Gonzales: Police don't have to enforce restraining orders even when there is an imminent, credible threat.
- Janus v. AFSCME: Gutted labor unions.
- Citizens United v. FEC: Unlimited campaign spending by corporate entities. Just buy the election!
- Terry v. Ohio: Yeah, stop and frisk is fine. Don't look at the fact that it's used almost solely to incarcerate black people.
- Pierson v. Ray: created qualified immunity
- Hernandez v. Mesa: border patrol agents can shoot and kill literal kids on the other side of the border with no repercussions no matter what evidence there is that there was no reason to shoot the kid
- Tison v. Arizona: you can get the death penalty for felony murder. Felony murder is when anyone dies adjacent to you committing a felony. It doesn't matter if you had intent or participated at all. Felony murder is primarily used to lock-up kids and the cases are used a ton of the time to lock-up people who engaged in a felony where a cop killed someone.
-
- Blake Layman was 16. He and his friends decided to try to rob a house when they thought the neighbor was on vacation. He was home, shot Blake and his friend, killing the latter. Blake was charged as an adult and convicted, getting 55 years.
-
- Lakeith Smith was 15. He and his 16 year old friend were car-hopping. A cop shot and killed his friend. Lakeith got 30 years for felony murder.
-
- Masonique Saunders was 16 years old. She and her boyfriend did an armed robbery. The person they tried to rob was an undercover cop. He shot and killed her boyfriend. She was convicted of murder (luckily she wasn't tried as an adult so she only got three years).
Do you need more examples of why you're a complete fucking moron?
He really isn't. He refuses to actually respond to any argument that destroys his viewpoint because he doesn't know how to respond. Instead he uses dumbass quips and fails to have any reading comprehension.
Shut the fuck up. You realize that no protests got violent until the police started shooting us with rubber bullets, teargassing us, throwing flashbangs at us, mass arresting us, etc, right? Go back and watch any of the livestream footage for any city and you can see this shit. I experienced it over and over again in DC.
Pacifists must know, at least subconsciously, that nonviolence is an absurdly privileged position, so they make frequent usage of race by taking activists of color out of their contexts and selectively using them as spokespersons for nonviolence. Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. are turned into representatives for all people of color. Nelson Mandela was too, until it dawned on white pacifists that Mandela used nonviolence selectively, and that he actually was involved in liberation activities such as bombings and preparation for armed uprising.[48] Even Gandhi and King agreed it was necessary to support armed liberation movements (citing two examples, those in Palestine and Vietnam, respectively) where there was no nonviolent alternative, clearly prioritizing goals over particular tactics. But the mostly white pacifists of today erase this part of the history and re-create nonviolence to fit their comfort level, even while “claiming the mantle” of Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi.[49] One gets the impression that if Martin Luther King Jr. were to come in disguise to one of these pacifist vigils, he would not be allowed to speak.
Shut the fuck up. You realize that no protests got violent until the police started shooting us with rubber bullets, teargassing us, throwing flashbangs at us, mass arresting us, etc, right? Go back and watch any of the livestream footage for any city and you can see this shit. I experienced it over and over again in DC.
Pacifists must know, at least subconsciously, that nonviolence is an absurdly privileged position, so they make frequent usage of race by taking activists of color out of their contexts and selectively using them as spokespersons for nonviolence. Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. are turned into representatives for all people of color. Nelson Mandela was too, until it dawned on white pacifists that Mandela used nonviolence selectively, and that he actually was involved in liberation activities such as bombings and preparation for armed uprising.[48] Even Gandhi and King agreed it was necessary to support armed liberation movements (citing two examples, those in Palestine and Vietnam, respectively) where there was no nonviolent alternative, clearly prioritizing goals over particular tactics. But the mostly white pacifists of today erase this part of the history and re-create nonviolence to fit their comfort level, even while “claiming the mantle” of Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi.[49] One gets the impression that if Martin Luther King Jr. were to come in disguise to one of these pacifist vigils, he would not be allowed to speak.
i wish for a world where nonviolence is not a privilege
It was the grassroots out there in the street. It scared the white man to death, scared the white power structure in Washington, DC, to death; I was there. When they found out this black steamroller was going to come down on the capital, they called in...these national Negro leaders that you respect and told them, “Call it off.” Kennedy said, “Look, you all are letting this thing go too far.” And Old Tom said, “Boss, I can’t stop it because I didn’t start it.” I’m telling you what they said. They said, “I’m not even in it, much less at the head of it.” They said, “These Negroes are doing things on their own. They’re running ahead of us.” And that old shrewd fox, he said, “If you all aren’t in it, I’ll put you in it. I’ll put you at the head of it. I’ll endorse it. I’ll welcome it....
This is what they did at the march on Washington. They joined it...became part of it, took it over. And as they took it over, it lost its militancy. It ceased to be angry, it ceased to be hot, it ceased to be uncompromising. Why, it even ceased to be a march. It became a picnic, a circus. Nothing but a circus, with clowns and all....
No, it was a sellout. It was a takeover....They controlled it so tight, they told those Negroes what time to hit town, where to stop, what signs to carry, what song to sing, what speech they could make, and what speech they couldn’t make, and then told them to get out of town by sundown.[51]
Your actual words were "incredibly lucrative and immune to risk" and at risk of wasting time yet again writing a post that you won't read or understand I will elaborate -
It's reductive because there are a wide variety of strategies, some of which you have very little visibility of due to relaxed regulatory requirements, and as a whole making any broad statement is missing the point that "hedge fund" is not a strategy, it is an investment vehicle
"immune to risk" (and even "minimize risk") are nonsense statements (the first being outright ■■■■■■■■ and the latter being fairly obvious while also being meaningless, reductive, and in some cases outright wrong) A) refer to point 1, "hedge fund" is not a strategy B) risk is complex and can't be summed up with some statement like "immune to risk" / "minimize risk," I already typed several paragraphs about this C) due to the wide variety of strategies, the decreased transparency, and the focus on short-term gains if any broad statement is made about HF it would have to be that they are more risky, not less
"incredibly lucrative" returning 13% while the market returns 16% and charging 2 and 20 on it isn't lucrative unless you're talking to a bunch of internet ■■■■■■■ inclined to be cowed by your grandstanding and moralizing about "incredibly lucrative and risk-immune assets of the super-rich"
If anything this is an industry that has sprouted up to leech off the super-rich and charge them fees while delivering subpar results and occasionally taking risks that result in firms shutting down due to massive losses, fraud, and risk of global financial crises resulting in bailouts
Is this what risk immunity looks like?
What are they teaching in school that ewiz can show up on the internet and type this bullshit day after day and genuinely believe he's right - even throw in some "fucking moron" comments for good measure?
Bzzt, wrongo:
Brown v. Board 2 nearly killed school desgregation. Brown v. Board actually had two decisions, each a year apart. You know the first one. You probably don't know the second one that said the states could come up with their own methods of tackling desegregation, gave no guidance, no requirements, and no deadlines. Y'know, made desegregation almost impossible.
Then Milliken v. Bradley put the final nail in the coffin. It effectively said schools didn't have to attempt to desegregate a school if the racial composition of the school isn't proven to be driven by racist intent. Proving that is nearly impossible. It ended bussing and let school districts draw their boundaries in such a way that there are nice, white schools and poor black schools.
Desegregation by the court was a farce.
what is bzzt wrongo is it a reference to a tv show
Hey, the book I linked earlier talks about all of these lmao. The Civil Rights movement wasn't successful.
I know these are not your words but honestly MLK would be called a Nazi and a reactionary by people who don't understand history
Sorry to say it but we don't live in a society where "there is no nonviolent alternative"
And you further miss the point that the violence and extremist/anarchist tactics have alienated people who supported this movement and will ultimately result in the rise of anti-antifa and anti-blm sentiment in the mainstream