Honestly, you just become more protective of your stuff and things you consider yours as you get older.
Isn’t that plainly false? When I was in college, and just after that, I had almost no money, so I was incredibly protective of my stuff and things I considered mine. Later my income went up, so I didn’t need to worry about it as much. Surely many other people have had similar experiences.
You’re bringing up a good point. People who say we’ll become more “conservative” are usually equivocating on the meaning of the word. It’s not like we’re going to wake up tomorrow and decide that global warming is a hoax, or that we should stop eating cats and dogs. Of course we’ll keep doing those things.
What you wrote is true in systems that use the popular vote. It’s not true for states that use winner take all under the electoral college.
What’s the difference? If you are a minority voter in a non-swing state, your vote is worth zero. That’s slightly, but importantly, less than 1/300,000,000.
What if we change your question. What if we ask about asylum seekers? Does that make it any clearer?
If you spend about 20 minutes online, you will find out that many people are fleeing their home countries because they don’t want to be killed, forced into slave-like conditions, or forced into occupations such as prostitution. Or they want to prevent that from happening to their children.
If you were to ask people in situations like this what country they’d like to go to, in the abstract, they might not say the United States. But their options are limited. So, what country are you suggesting as an alternative? If someone is starting in El Salvador, to pick a random country in Central America, where do you think they should go?
There are books written about this exact topic. The most famous in recent years is Factfulness.
I think other people covered the main points, but when I haven’t seen mentioned yet here is the fact that, for the news to catch your attention, it has to be something exceptional. That shouldn’t be true, but many publishers believe it. They compete to have what’s new or different or exciting.
I blame this mostly on the big media companies, and also partly on consumers who believe that consuming news is a passive activity when in reality it’s an active choice. They could go find online websites and create their own RSS feed, for example, and then they wouldn’t be stuck listening to drivel. But it does take some work and some awareness.
For example, and I don’t want to go into details about specific political parties, think about all of the polls about the election. Those are mostly meaningless. We’ll find out exactly what public opinion is on Election Day. It’s not that you couldn’t have a poll, but if you’re posting new polling data every day it’s because you’re desperate to cover up for the fact that you don’t have anything new to say.
Challenge presented. Who has courage to accept? We shall see.
Are there books in libraries? Yes, and the publishers don’t have to do a thing. And it is good for society. Similarly, can you fix an old car, even if the manufacturer went bankrupt? Of course you can.
We have precedent, my friend.
There are two different problems. One is easier to solve.
Lol they’ll charge customers more if they get regulated. But that means they think customers would pay it, which means they think customers could be paying it now but aren’t, which means they aren’t generating as much revenue now for their shareholders as possible, which makes them a Bad Corporation.
And from a casual perspective, telling people their vote is pointless is (a) a way to show them you’re an asshole, (b) mostly pointless, and © quite possibly true regardless of how they vote.
You blame someone else. It’s definitely not your fault, it definitely cannot be that.
Your counterexample, “purchase a subscription”, actually undercuts the point you’re trying to make. The goal is honesty here. If you are renting or subscribing, you want to know that up front, in big text, using the simplest possible word. That word is “RENT”.
The issue about the lease business model being bad for society and consumers is also important, but it’s complicated and different from basic truth in advertising.
In the last six months, yes. It suggests short cuts that can create long delays. Shorter by miles, but often worse in the end.
Well yeah. They’re selling snake oil, and they better get as much money as they can now. That cash is going to dry up in a couple of years, and then where will they be. They’ll have to do real work again.
This should have been done decades ago, and I think law was strong enough decades ago to make it happen, it’s just that district attorneys didn’t want to piss off large businesses.
If a company shows on their website that they are selling you something, you as a buyer have the reasonable expectation that you’ve actually purchased it, and through that purchase, you can do all the things that you would with anything you own. When that’s not true, they haven’t actually sold you something. They’ve rented you something, and they know it, and that’s a deceptive business practice.
Which is to say, I’m happy to see some improvement on potential enforcement for false advertising, but the reality is I’m not too optimistic that people will seriously follow up on it because they already had a couple decades to do so.
He already got suspended. His weapon was suspended there, on this outside of the MRI machine.
The question, as always, is enforcement. It’s a great idea, and good for them for making it happen, and then we’ll find out if they were serious.
Many of us realized that the simplistic labels don’t apply. We have views on issues, some of those views are quite clear and others less so, but you can’t capture our positions in a few words.