|
Lemming posted:Most people think being "woke" is good, it's only commonly understood as meaning "bad liberal" if you're conservative because it's their new shibboleth. It's probably partially because they use it against everything (including banks which is what started this tangent lol) that it doesn't have a widespread negative connotation This ignores its deployment by the left (read: left of the democrats), and I'm going to presume of course that this occlusion was accidental rather than intentional; diversity-washing imperialism, class warfare, and police brutality are all real and ongoing things and are part of the "corporate social responsibility" scam.
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 17:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 22:53 |
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:The Bureau of Labor Statistics is going to release first pass February CPI figures tomorrow morning. I suspect it's going to cause a lot of chaos. Oh no, how terrible, we might not be able to do this thing that doesn't work because we are in a different situation that only looks like the situation this tool solves. Guess someone else will have to try something. *Death stare at Congress*
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 18:01
|
|
Here's the likely basis for the Willow project, same as the earlier drilling, from the BBC article:quote:Oil company ConocoPhillips have held the lease since 1999 and would have had a strong case to appeal if their plans had been turned down. It's the same legal context as the prior drilling; the administration would have been overturned.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 18:03
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:No, I think people understand that the same group who spent four years lecturing about a pro-rape party and that black lives actually matter turned around and voted for a rapist/cop presidential ticket. As I said, when actual power is up for grabs, progressive dogma becomes fluid. Conservatives have been pretty good at recognising liberal hypocrisy along those lines for a long time. To be fair, it's not hard. Though they don't typically have the understanding to actually usefully deploy it much, since they're generally completely incapable of actually acknowledging any distinction between liberals and the left, or any opposition at all, hence why all Democrats are wealthy silicon valley latte sipping millennial hippie welfare queen illegal immigrant... yadda yadda, you get the idea. It mostly just serves to provide ablative shields to deflect any criticism and convince credulous fence-sitters with ready examples of said hypocrisy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 18:05
|
|
|
Lib and let die posted:This ignores its deployment by the left (read: left of the democrats), and I'm going to presume of course that this occlusion was accidental rather than intentional; diversity-washing imperialism, class warfare, and police brutality are all real and ongoing things and are part of the "corporate social responsibility" scam. Corporations trying to co-opt movements is obviously bad but has nothing to do with whether the underlying things are good or not. I just meant that the attempts by conservatives to make it a pejorative have failed in a way some of their other efforts haven't (I'm pretty sure "CRT" is viewed negatively by most, for example)
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 18:06
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:Signature was pretty shocking, I wonder if there was nonpublic information the feds became aware of. I worked with Signature pretty closely in my old job, they held a pretty unique role in the crypto space. Basically they helped automate burning and minting of USDC as well as helping exchanges and traders settle the fiat leg of crypto trades. To get a banking charter you effectively have permanently open books to banking regulators (federal and/or state). There is uh, a whole lot of nonpublic info the feds have access to: almost literally all of it!
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 18:09
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:No, I think people understand that the same group who spent four years lecturing about a pro-rape party and that black lives actually matter turned around and voted for a rapist/cop presidential ticket. As I said, when actual power is up for grabs, progressive dogma becomes fluid. Right! Because not voting for the rapist/cop ticket and letting the OTHER rapist and the far-right Christian Dominionist win and serve for another term would definitely have shown Strong Progressive Principles. What?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 18:28
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Corporations trying to co-opt movements is obviously bad but has nothing to do with whether the underlying things are good or not. I just meant that the attempts by conservatives to make it a pejorative have failed in a way some of their other efforts haven't (I'm pretty sure "CRT" is viewed negatively by most, for example) Yes, and anti-racism not being bad is what makes CSR and other forms of co-opting movements so difficult to tear down and incredibly easy to dismiss criticisms of being based in bad faith. If you'll indulge me in a hypothetical a bit here, what is the image formed in your mind of a person who says "Corporations have to obligation to social responsibility?" For me, that brings a duality of images to mind - one a hardline libertarian who just wants nothing more than their tail wrapped securely around their mountain of hoarded gold and the other a hardline communist arguing for the nationalization of the grocery distribution chain. The rub is of course that both of those criticisms will express the same ideas but often point them towards mutually incompatible goals and where I think a lot of otherwise intelligent (I mean this earnestly!) people fall for the rhetorical trick of "well the bad guys want to use it to this end, therefore the foundation of the idea must be wrong!"
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 18:36
|
|
|
Stabbey_the_Clown posted:Right! Because not voting for the rapist/cop ticket and letting the OTHER rapist and the far-right Christian Dominionist win and serve for another term would definitely have shown Strong Progressive Principles. What? The entirety of the word exists in a state of binary moral purity. Either something is pure, and therefore support of it is good, or something is impure and therefore supporting it is taboo. Because you are breaking taboo with either choice and becoming morally impure the only correct choice is to do nothing, and ensure moral purity of others by also asking them to do nothing. This is consequentialism for moral absolutists. And the question of the day is do you apply this to things like acquiring food, where cruelty to animals and workers is inherent in the present system and so by applying the same logic it's only ethical to simply starve yourself or do you admit you have to make real outcome based value judgements and abstract your decisions to account for a broad acceptance of your moral framework? Barrel Cactaur fucked around with this message at 18:48 on Mar 13, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 18:44
|
|
|
Lib and let die posted:Yes, and anti-racism not being bad is what makes CSR and other forms of co-opting movements so difficult to tear down and incredibly easy to dismiss criticisms of being based in bad faith. Maybe it's just early for me but I have no idea what point you're trying to make and I don't think I'm disagreeing with whatever underlying argument you're making
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 18:46
|
|
|
Rightwingers absolutely and correctly understand that (for example) Pelosi kneeling in an kente is a hollow, performative gesture, they just interpret it through their priors as "everybody else aligned with this is also a liar".
Byzantine fucked around with this message at 18:56 on Mar 13, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 18:49
|
|
|
Stabbey_the_Clown posted:Right! Because not voting for the rapist/cop ticket and letting the OTHER rapist and the far-right Christian Dominionist win and serve for another term would definitely have shown Strong Progressive Principles. What? This is a bad attempt at false equivalence.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 18:50
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:Rightwingers absolutely and correctly understand that (for example) Pelosi kneeling in an kente is a hollow, performative gesture, they just interpret it through their priors as "everybody else aligned with this is also a liar". Wasn't this at the request of the CBC?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 18:59
|
|
|
Dick Trauma posted:I feel like my little 401k is never going to recover from our never-ending string of bullshit financial crises. I try not to even look at it anymore because it's more of an experiment than something that will provide meaningful support. By the time I'm too old to work it will probably be just as worthless as social security will be. Even with all the huge losses in the last two years, the S&P500 is still up over 40% in just the last 5 years. If you are not retiring soon, then declining stock prices are actually good for you long-term (assuming they don't decline forever and hit 0, but that means you have bigger things to worry about) because you are accumulating stock while it is cheaper. Huge gains while you are early in your investing timeline just means that stocks became relatively more expensive before you've owned any. Also, the "Social Security won't exist" meme is not accurate either. If nothing is done, then it drop payouts down to about 77% of what they should be for a long while, but it will eventually become solvent again after a few decades and the low birth rate generations become the people collecting. A 23% cut in benefits for a few decades is pretty bad, but that is a worst-case scenario and Social Security still exists. It's not going "bankrupt" in the sense that it has no money.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 19:10
|
|
|
It's ok I have a new hot stock tip!  https://twitter.com/jimcramer/status/1634197816359747585?s=20 EDIT:  https://twitter.com/Ian_Gay_briel/status/1635299493187837953?s=20
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 19:15
|
|
|
Dick Trauma posted:It's ok I have a new hot stock tip! So what you're saying is that now is the best time to buy in! Lowest it's been at in monthes!
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 19:17
|
|
|
Dick Trauma posted:It's ok I have a new hot stock tip! Jim Cramer being so bad at stock picks is such a widely known thing that there is an "Inverse Cramer ETF" that you can invest in that will short anything he recommends and buy anything he says to sell. It's only been around for about two weeks, but it is currently beating Cramer by 2.6%. https://www.google.com/finance/quote/SJIM:BATS?window=MAX The Inverse Cramer ETF (SJIM) https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/inverse-cramer-etf-is-coming-to-the-real-w
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 19:19
|
|
|
IMHO one of the big things about calling banks and corporations "woke" is that it's a way for right-wingers to redirect justified populist anger against those institutions into something unrelated that doesn't require addressing any actual material issues. A hundred years ago they'd be saying that the failure was because it was a Jewish bank.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 19:24
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/bcmerchant/status/1635331043216736256 According to the WSJ, SVB failed because of the "1 Black," the "1 LGBTQ+" and the two veterans.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 19:25
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:https://twitter.com/bcmerchant/status/1635331043216736256 holy poo poo
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 19:28
|
|
|
Lib and let die posted:Yes, and anti-racism not being bad is what makes CSR and other forms of co-opting movements so difficult to tear down and incredibly easy to dismiss criticisms of being based in bad faith. You can also see this phenomena with the IRS happening right now since it's tax season. The right: taxes are theft/bad for the economy! The IRS is criminal! The left: the IRS only audits poor people and lets the rich get away with anything! The IRS is criminal!
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 19:29
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:No, I think people understand that the same group who spent four years lecturing about a pro-rape party and that black lives actually matter turned around and voted for a rapist/cop presidential ticket. As I said, when actual power is up for grabs, progressive dogma becomes fluid. Most people understand that the party who is performatively racist doesn't remotely give a poo poo about performative anti-racism. That's simply the explanation that the more articulate racists give for why they're mad at objectively good things like being woke because they can't just come out and say they want to vote for the racist party. "woke" is the same as "PC police", "SJW", "cancel culture", "CRT", etc. It's conservative bigots being mad that people are calling out their bigotry. Nothing more or less than that. PC haters in the 90's used the same "no it's about the people who are hypocrites and take it too far" and it was bullshit then. And here you with it 3 decades later, acting like it's some new take.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 19:29
|
|
|
According to an opinion column by Andy Kessler in WSJ.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 19:30
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:https://twitter.com/BBCBreaking/status/1635291796627660801 nice green new deal you got there (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 19:31
|
|
|
Dick Trauma posted:It's ok I have a new hot stock tip! I'm convinced this guy exists to get rubes to pump money into failing stocks to keep the price up long enough for his rich buddies to get out before the stock explodes. As someone said above, the anti Cramer index does very well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 19:31
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:According to an opinion column by Andy Kessler in WSJ. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 19:33
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:https://twitter.com/BBCBreaking/status/1635291796627660801 Hell yeah major investments in green energy and renewables in this past 2 years and this will cut foreign reliance on oil in the mean time as we transition
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 19:39
|
|
cat botherer posted:Thank you for defending the honor of the Wall Street Journal. I forgot that publishing a column doesn't confer any kind of implicit endorsement or reflect on the publication, because it is an opinion. There's a massive gulf between the opinion sections of a newspaper and the other parts, yes. The mediating tweet misrepresented the opinion column as "the WSJ," which is false.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 19:43
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:Thank you for defending the honor of the Wall Street Journal. I forgot that publishing a column doesn't confer any kind of implicit endorsement or reflect on the publication, because it is an opinion. My mind is blown by this revelation. Before this, I never realized how pro-socialist the NYT is. But now I can point towards this opinion piece to show how much they hate capitalism. They even believe great points such as quote:Under capitalism, we’re forced to submit to the boss. Terrified of getting on his bad side, we bow and scrape, flatter and flirt, or worse — just to get that raise or make sure we don’t get fired. Kalit fucked around with this message at 20:10 on Mar 13, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 19:44
|
|
|
Stabbey_the_Clown posted:Right! Because not voting for the rapist/cop ticket and letting the OTHER rapist and the far-right Christian Dominionist win and serve for another term would definitely have shown Strong Progressive Principles. What?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 19:49
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:There's a massive gulf between the opinion sections of a newspaper and the other parts, yes. The mediating tweet misrepresented the opinion column as "the WSJ," which is false. This does not seem in the slightest bit accurate, not least because it is the people who print the rest of the paper who chose which opinions to commission and put in the opinion section.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 19:51
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:Thank you for defending the honor of the Wall Street Journal. I forgot that publishing a column doesn't confer any kind of implicit endorsement or reflect on the publication, because it is an opinion. Josef bugman posted:This does not seem in the slightest bit accurate, not least because it is the people who print the rest of the paper who chose which opinions to commission and put in the opinion section. Papers publish opinion pieces that they don't agree with all the time. The Editorial is the "official" opinion of the Newspaper's staff and opinion pieces frequently disagree with the editorial stance. The phrase "Op-Ed" literally comes from "Opposite the Editorial" and was originally where they published exclusively opinion pieces that disagreed with the Editorial stance of the paper to provide "balance" to the Editorial section.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 19:54
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Papers publish opinion pieces that they don't agree with all the time. The Editorial is the "official" opinion of the Newspaper's staff and opinion pieces frequently disagree with the editorial stance. The editorial stance of the WSJ is exactly in line with this though
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 19:56
|
|
|
Yeah, I don't think anybody is "defending the honor" of * As Kalit implied this would be a impossible paradox anyway since papers publish op-eds arguing opposite viewpoints. Piell posted:The editorial stance of the WSJ is exactly in line with this though Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 20:04 on Mar 13, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 19:58
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:There's a massive gulf between the opinion sections of a newspaper and the other parts, yes. The mediating tweet misrepresented the opinion column as "the WSJ," which is false. You're trying to frame this as a "Family Guy FOX vs FOX News FOX" issue and it clearly isn't. Having an editorial published by WSJ, in the WSJ editorial section, is gate kept by an entire establishment of people with the power to say "no, we don't want this associated with our name" - but they don't. The editorial pages of WSJ are not blogspot or Tumblr, and to argue as though they have the same non-existent barrier to entry is a complete and utter distortion of reality.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 19:58
|
|
|
Again "it was an op ed by a guest writer" is just something that's worth knowing and understanding, and you don't have to forgive the paper for anything if you don't want to. You can think the whole system of adversarial op-eds is stupid, since can it implicitly lend legitimacy to something that may not deserve it. But it's still a distinction worth making.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 20:01
|
|
|
Piell posted:The editorial stance of the WSJ is exactly in line with this though It's actually not. The Editorial Board also released a piece today about SVB. They think it was (surprise) due to nefarious Dodd-Frank regulations and the "Elizabeth Warren acolyte" Biden appointed to the FDIC board being hostile to smaller bank mergers on ideological grounds that resulted in SVB not being able to merge with another bank to shore up its deposits. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-silicon-valley-bank-bailout-chorus-yellen-treasury-fed-fdic-deposit-limit-dodd-frank-run-cc80761e Even in situations where the editorial board may agree with an opinion piece, I was referring specifically to the two people who were arguing that allowing an opinion in the Op-Ed section was a de-facto endorsement by the editorial board because they would not allow an opinion piece that they disagreed with.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 20:03
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Jim Cramer being so bad at stock picks is such a widely known thing that there is an "Inverse Cramer ETF" that you can invest in that will short anything he recommends and buy anything he says to sell. isnt the reverse picker effect also largely disproven because you can't logic illogical things?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 20:12
|
|
|
PhazonLink posted:isnt the reverse picker effect also largely disproven because you can't logic illogical things? Yeah, you shouldn't be investing in it if you actually need the money. It was just made because Cramer was so infamously bad at stock picking (including several recommended buys weeks or days before they collapsed like Bear Sterns and FRC) that an investment group put it together as a joke and it is currently outperforming Cramer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 20:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 22:53 |
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Papers publish opinion pieces that they don't agree with all the time. The Editorial is the "official" opinion of the Newspaper's staff and opinion pieces frequently disagree with the editorial stance. Yes, you will note that the Opinion section is still selected within a narrow band of ideas that can be technically opposed to the masthead, but not to the fundamental ideals of the owners. For instance, the Guardian is a transphobic paper and occasionally publishes pro-trans opinions, but it still only accepts that within a narrow idea of that and does not accept the idea that it is transphobic. Also it's pretty funny that the only real difference between the WSJ editorial line and the "op-ed" is simply that one blames perfidious wokeness and the other blames the perfidious "attempts at restraining banks". They are both in agreement on the fact that the banks should not be restrained and that it should not have failed, merely the reason why is disputed. Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Mar 13, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 20:16
|
|