Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Yes, his voice and his opinions are so marginalized that he gets a chance to tell his sad story across, like, 5 different major media platforms.
Political Correctness
- Thread starter sturg33
- Start date
Yes, his voice and his opinions are so marginalized that he gets a chance to tell his sad story across, like, 5 different major media platforms.
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
I actually agree with you here (I think)—though I’m certain we have very different takeaways for how to redress that “end game”.
sturg33
I
He got fired.
The end game I think is desired by these 'power brokers' would be much more agreeable for you IMO.
The denial of what is happening is sad. For someone as bright as Julio to completely ignore the truth makes me lose hope for the rest of the world.
Have you listened to Jordan peterson?
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
You’ll have to explicate what you think that “end game” is, then. I included the hedging parenthetical because I imagined you might have non-law-of-parsimony idea of why “power brokers hide behind the auspices of special interests when in reality they don’t care at all.”
Consolidation of power to the state but in reality a state run by a select group of the wealthy. Elimination of our God given rights in the name if protection.
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
So yea, I half agree. I don’t think the state, per se, is the problem; nor do I think protection from the rapacity of capital is impossible, or possible in name only. But I do agree the “end game” of such perfidious patronage of “special interests” is consolidation of capital to the hands of capital, and power to the powers-that-be. But that’s the “end game” of capitalism itself, so it’s hardly surprising—as I said, lex parsimoniae.
So no, if you think the “end game [...] desired by these 'power brokers' would be much more agreeable for” me, then you’ve misunderstood what I find agreeable.
sturg33
I
lol
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
So the accumulation of capital is not the end game of capitalism?
When the power is with the state (sponsored by the rich) that's a socialist system. Always has been.
When freedom is given to the citizens to make their decisions both economically and socially then that is a blend which leans heavily capitalist.
This push to regulate speech and what is acceptable thought is beginning of the end.
sturg33
I
The end game of capitalism is the free exchange of goods and services between consenting parties.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Uhh...
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Because of something he wrote and said. Is he owed employment by the outlet of his choice?
To my point, how marginalized is his voice if he's publishing multiple op-eds, etc, in other outlets?
sturg33
I
sturg33
I
He has a voice because he was fired for a ridiculous reason. Same reason the Google dude was invited on news shows.
Maybe I'm not looking in the right place but I never see leftists getting fired for holding leftist opinions
This is the key issue. When was the last time a leftist was fired for this?
Consenting parties whose end game is each the accumulation of capital?
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
I never see leftists getting hired by this kind of outlet.
I agree with you that there is a too-narrow band of discourse deemed appropriate by the gatekeepers here.
He got fired because the Atlantic decided that his upside was not worth defending his repeated take that women who've had abortions should be hanged. You've assiduously declined to address what he actually wrote, which I think is an important component here.
I mean, if ideological diversity is what you're after here, why aren't you similarly het up that center-right publications don't hire socialists to write for them?