I have no idea if this is a fair book review but it does at least explain where the claim comes from.
And, FWIW, it does chime with the blindspots of late Chomsky, and a particular flavour of 'left' anti-imperialism which has developed over the last 30 years. His political writing is valuable but the man is not infallible and, of late, he has been very much the man with a hammer who only sees nails.
My computer gives me notification pop-ups but it doesn't do it when I'm sharing my screen because context matters.
Some things are easy to standardise. But walking into a wall, or a lamp post, or into the road or a parked car, or barging into someone else, or going a long way around because there's a big group of them mostly on the side you've decided to robotically choose, or any number of other complications, really aren't worth it for the almost non-existent computational expense involved in choosing the best path forwards, like we all do all the time almost every single day of our lives.
The article is fine. Blame the sub-editor for picking up one of the two metaphors in this quote:
Marohn suggests that what’s happened in places such as Ferguson and Penn Hills is the equivalent of a Ponzi scheme. It’s “the development version of slash-and-burn agriculture,” he tells the author. “We build a place, we use up the resources, and when the returns start diminishing, we move on, leaving a geographic time bomb in our wake!”
You should probably read the article. They have not been charged with a crime. And if this story does not go viral enough, they will likely never be charged with a crime.
The question is about the law and the enforcement of the law. Not whether you think it is criminal, sadly.
But how are they connected? My country drives on the left, so should I move left to avoid oncoming traffic and to the right to overtake? If the connection was so strong then we should have different instincts depending on the context, not one single direction we always choose.
I am not convinced by this argument at all. For me, anyway, it depends on the the space available, where they are, which way I'm headed, which way they're headed, etc.
Buying designer gear from outlets is something you should definitely cheap out on. 'Fast fashion' prices with designer quality. I'm not at all convinced the designer gear was ever worth the official price tag but I am very sure that it'll last longer because you can't sell a pair of leggings for £75 if they're going to fall apart or bag out instantly (or at least, you won't get away with it for very long). Getting those same leggings for a tenner is the way to go.
Sad to say, they still use the same sweatshops as fast fashion brands, they just pay more for the quality control. So you still need to care about how the brands conduct themselves.
OK, so I did read this in a bored moment, and what the actual fuck?
a book of essays written almost 50 years ago
Are you somehow under the impression that liberalism is a new concept that could not possibly have been understood by scholars 50 years ago? Do you know anything about its origins or the philosophical works it draws from? Or do you just believe that people should pull definitions straight out of their arse rather than use authoritative sources?
You do have a substantial disadvantage, being from the US where the word is so badly misused. But come the fuck on, do some reading. The link is another excellent esssay, by an actual liberal. Read it.
He is not as smart as he thinks or would like everyone else to believe but he does know exactly what he is doing here. Truth does not matter to the right and right-wing authoritarians (who are the people who follow narcissistic fascists) just love this schtick.
This was written in 2006 and every time I read it, I have to check the date wasn't actually 2016:
So (to foreshadow later chapters a little) suppose you are a completely
unethical, dishonest, power-hungry, dirt-bag, scum-bucket politician who will say
whatever he has to say to get elected. (I apologize for putting you in this role, but it
will only last for one more sentence.) Whom are you going to try to lead, high RWAs
or low RWAs? Isn’t it obvious? The easy-sell high RWAs will open up their arms and
wallets to you if you just sing their song, however poor your credibility. Those crabby
low RWAs, on the other hand, will eye you warily when your credibility is suspect
because you sing their song? So the scum-bucket politicians will usually head for the
right-wing authoritarians, because the RWAs hunger for social endorsement of their
beliefs so much they’re apt to trust anyone who tells them they’re right.
Trans women who are using gender-affirming hormones are not "biologically male". It takes about two years on hormones for their performance to equalise with cis women. The only advantage that remains is greater speed, due to the greater height gained from undergoing a male puberty. There are plenty of tall cis women, especially in sport, so this doesn't really count as an unfair advantage. And, of course, trans kids who were lucky enough to get puberty blockers in time will fall in the same height range as their chosen gender.
I'm not going to pretend that it's an easy question. It isn't, and it's not unreasonable for cis women athletes to be concerned. But the proportion of athletes who are trans is tiny and the proportion who are champions in their sport is even tinier. I do think that hormonal transition is a pre-requisite (because otherwise they would be "biologically male" with respect to the physical characteristics which matter in sport) but I don't think anyone should be getting their knickers in a twist beyond that, and they should definitely not be using it as an opportunity to be cruel.
Most of the 'discourse' is pure transmisogyny, based on lies and fantasy demons. Most top professional athletes are biologically extraordinary, that's why they are at the top.
Working-class lads and lasses make far more effort to look good when they're out because no one is going to want them for their pay cheque; wealthy people can afford to look effortlessly casual.
Working-class nightclubs ban trainers and demand shirts with collars; posh nightclubs have no such rules.
Working class lads who earn a decent wedge in areas which still have affordable rents will quite likely be spending more on their car than their rent.
Struggling salesmen go out and buy a new car because projecting success is part of their means to be successful. (No, I do not understand why you wouldn't look at a rep in a Porsche and think "they're overcharging, I'll go elsewhere" but, apparently,this is what they do.)
It's easy to sneer at the wealthy indulging in these behaviours (and we should, of course, sneer). But there's nothing strange or startling. They're just doing it from a much wealthier base with a much stronger safety net because daddy will always be there to pay off the credit card.
Here's some more reading for you. Excellent writing, if you can be bothered to apply yourself. If you do, you'll discover that you (currently) have no clue what a liberal is, or why they're very fucking bad.
Italian fascism was the first right-wing dictatorship that took over a European country, and all similar movements later found a sort of archetype in Mussolini’s regime. Italian fascism was the first to establish a military liturgy, a folklore, even a way of dressing — far more influential, with its black shirts, than Armani, Benetton, or Versace would ever be. It was only in the Thirties that fascist movements appeared, with Mosley, in Great Britain, and in Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Yugoslavia, Spain, Portugal, Norway, and even in South America. It was Italian fascism that convinced many European liberal leaders that the new regime was carrying out interesting social reform, and that it was providing a mildly revolutionary alternative to the Communist threat.
I said page 181. You will need to look at page 181.
And no, I am not going to pretend to have the skills of Raymond Williams, nor the time to rewrite his perfect words just for you. Sorry 'bout that but, do some reading, yeah?
Chomsky ignores lessons of wars on Kosovo
I have no idea if this is a fair book review but it does at least explain where the claim comes from.
And, FWIW, it does chime with the blindspots of late Chomsky, and a particular flavour of 'left' anti-imperialism which has developed over the last 30 years. His political writing is valuable but the man is not infallible and, of late, he has been very much the man with a hammer who only sees nails.