If the point of the flag was to designate yourself as a member of the group that flag represents then how is displaying it a public performance in support of left-wing politics?
Supreme Court rejects affirmative action at colleges as unconstitutional
- Thread starter gorfias
- Start date
Irrelevant to what was said. Besides, not all Americans are 'fond' of the American flag, but you're not applying these standards consistently.
The group in question is left-wing political supporters. If you can't tell from the current versions, the Pride Flag has been visually altered to expand meaning way beyond LGBT. Even if it hadn't visually changed, it's meaning would have anyway, but you can actually see it morph into the flag of generalized left-wing loyalty.
Even if they aren't fond, they're still standing in America. They can disagree in other contexts, but not in that one.
LBGT is linked to left wing politics in America solely because of the actions of the right wing
As many log cabin Republicans found out, even if you try to be a Republicans, you will be excised from the party
So, yes. Money for LBGT will come from left wing groups because right wing ones are too busy doing identity politics.
Corporations aren't idiots and aren't into excluding people just based on what God says. I will also point out that you keep flip flopping between what Corporations do and whar Left wing groups do to try mash them together to make them both seem bad. May I suggest you don't do that because many Republicans are pro-Capitalists and eventually just follow what the Corporations do, even if its Pride issues
Edit: I should put "God" in quotes here. Many Christians are using God's name to hate on people and God is not interested in that nonsense. It's unfair on those Christians who don't warp the Bible to suit their needs
Why would were their standing matter?
The irony is thick in this sentence.
They are mashed together. It is bad.
Being for capitalism and against the corporations is not a contradiction. Like with any political or economic system, the people who like capitalism in the abstract want it without corruption. The corporations are corrupt. They aren't basing decisions on profit motive anymore. The nice thing here is that when capitalism is corrupted, it doesn't end in millions being starved or slaughtered, but it's still a bad thing worth opposing.
Corporate decision makers don't make money from profit, they make money from stock prices. Big finance can easily manipulate stock prices to make anyone richer. They'll make you rich if you inject Democratic political points into everything. The Democrats then funnel government money into the hands of those companies pushing their political agenda. They and all their friends get rich, those who do their bidding get to capture the regulations and the finance, and then the media celebrates to let you know that it's all for the benefit of the people. It's not even a conspiracy, it's entirely in the open, Democrats will pass bills to give handouts to whoever submits to their political agenda, and you'll look and think "oh, yes, they are funding the future!" They aren't. They are giving tax money to anyone who further propagates the wedge issues they create to give themselves the power to control the tax dollars. Corporations are the majority recipients of those handouts.
They can sit if they want to.
The position signalled by the flag is merely support for equal rights and anti-discrimination. You don't have to be "left wing" for that; you just have to be a reasonable human being. If the right wing sees equal treatment and anti-discrimination as alienating, that's a problem with them, not the flag.
Er... what? They surely are.
Er, no.
Stock prices are profits... of a sort. Shareholders, remember, are the non plus ultra of "capitalists": it's their capital. Companies operate for the benefit of shareholders, and shareholders mostly don't really give a monkeys how the money drops into their pockets as long as it does. A share price rise is just another way to make money. Imaging that this is somehow a corruption of capitalism is kind of weird. The whole point of a stock market is to move your money around to profitable enterprises.
Secondly, companies are not interested in liberalism or the Democratic Party, per se, they're interested in making money. The people who have the money and that they are most interested in are the middle classes. So if they want a selling point, they take a look at what the middle classes think.
Put it this way: for a topic like gay marriage, this is supported by about 70-80% by people with college educations compared to ~50% without college educations. (Even by party, around half of Republicans are fine with it, because plenty of Republicans are quite socially liberal.) So not only do a hefty majority of Americans believe in gay rights, but that is particularly pronounced in Americans with lots of disposable income. This makes it a no-brainer for the average corporation when currying favour with customers. You can look at other issues like the environment, and again you see about 70% of Americans who think it's a significant issue.
Therefore corporations are appealing to the public as a whole, not spouting Democratic talking points. The issue is that the Republican Party is out of step with the country as a whole because it favours its more fervent, extreme, activist half in policy positions.
It isn't just that. It is a declaration of monopoly of ideas.
Here's an easier example to understand:
This sign is not feel good everybody is happy words. This sign is picking a fight. It's saying "people who vote differently than me hate women and minorities, don't believe in science, and have no kindness." The phrase "in this house, we believe" illustrates this well, as the implication of "in other houses, people don't" is quite blatant.
Similarly, a Blue Lives Matter sign is not merely a simple statement of support for police. It is an implicit statement of aggression for those perceived not equally supportive of police.
To be more specific, they are not following the motive of profit for the corporation. The biggest companies make almost no actual profit ever. They run in a way meant to appeal to the stock market. But they're also often not actively issuing stock, so the value of that stock has no benefit to the company itself.
Do you believe companies advertising their support for these things actually brings in more customers? Do you think that was at any point beneficial to them?
Who cares? We're not talking about that sign. That sign has a whole bunch of extra stuff that isn't on the rainbow/ pride flag.
In a lot of houses, people don't believe those things. That's a fact even you wouldn't dispute.
The sign doesn't even mention voting. It makes no statement whatsoever that those ideals are exclusive to one side. If you see those statements and assume Republicans don't share the sentiments... uhrm, then that's just a poor reflection on Republicans.
'Blue lives matter' exists specifically as a retort against BLM. Rather different.
As I recall, the general guide for net profit margin is around 10% (this is dependent on sector: retail, for instance, is notorious for low profit margins). At any rate, let's just take a look at the average net profit for the S&P500, which comes out around 11%:
Alternatively, you can have a scoot through the top companies (I used revenue, because that's often a better indicator of a big company than stock market value). Retail and healthcare have relatively poor margins (<5%, although this may be typical for their sector), but everything else - pharma, tech, petroleum, etc. is doing great: the tech companies like Apple, Microsoft and Alphabet are over 20%.
So I don't think your claim is supported by available data.
I would merely point you to the evidence that these companies appear to think it's in their own best interest, simply because they do it. I'd also note that they pay a lot of people substantial sums of money to work out how to sell themselves to the public, and I doubt we can safely argue that all their marketing teams are a bunch of charlatans.
So then what does this sign do?Here's an easier example to understand:
This sign is not feel good everybody is happy words. This sign is picking a fight. It's saying "people who vote differently than me hate women and minorities, don't believe in science, and have no kindness." The phrase "in this house, we believe" illustrates this well, as the implication of "in other houses, people don't" is quite blatant.
Marketable demographics (and their capture) aren't inherently left- or right-wing, they're either profitable or unprofitable. It's rather amazing how conditional understanding of this is to those who claim to support capitalism, at least when the possibility for cognitive dissonance rears its ugly head.
Exactly the same thing. That is the context of that Bible quote, Joshua is shaming those who would worship others gods.So then what does this sign do?
You are correct, I am wrong, I oversold my case in my head. That being said, companies are, of course, acting to increase stock values as the measure of success rather than anything else.
If you ever meet a marketing person who isn't deeply, deeply incompetent, I guarantee that they are constantly frustrated by having to fulfil whatever silly whims leadership passes down to them.
Now that I agree with. Stock market value is viewed as a proxy for success and often determines the bonus of executives, who may therefore seek to make investors happy in the short-term and neglect their fundamentals or long-term growth. However, often they may please investors by ramping up (short term) profits. Also, we know investors are not always as rational as some economic theories would have us believe, and can wildly overvalue some firms and undervalue others.
I suspect marketing is a discipline to be careful of. Marketing people (and thus marketing itself) are usually figures of popular ridicule, but the risk with this is that our contempt blinds us to how effective they might be.
You gonna admit AA is racist yet? It's such a fucking easy take to be against racism yet you still won't say AA is racist. If you can't admit to such a simple thing, I don't see that point in even discussing anything with you because it's just impossible at this point. You're either for AA because you think it helps overall (and in the utilitarian camp) or you just won't like any decision this SCOTUS makes because you just hate them and anything they decide is inherently wrong. If it's the former, you don't even stick to that philosophy for other things and you're constantly inconsistent. If it's the latter, then it's an example of the exact thing wrong with America right now where nobody will listen to each other and only causes more extremism.
---
"The new study found that Black residents in counties with more Black physicians — whether or not they actually see those doctors — had lower mortality from all causes"
So it doesn't even seem to matter if black people are seeing black doctors or not. Seems like those areas then just have more income equality and that's the attributing factor. Also, it's not just on the doctors' end either, it's on the patient too. Obviously someone you have a better rapport with, you'll more likely to respect and listen to. People of the same race just on average have more shared culture and will have a better overall rapport with each other especially in rather limited interactions where you don't get to know each other well (like a patient/doctor relationship where you don't interact all that much). There's just so many factors that go into such things, it's highly reductive to claim racism constantly. Sure, there are people that are still racist (and I'm sure it's a contributing factor to many statistics) but it's rarely the main reason for such statistics.
Wait, so then safe spaces are now not OK?
Seriously though, there's no reason for someone today to feel guilty about something done well before they were born and had no control over. When I went to school we learned about all the stuff (not literally all the stuff obviously) but there's no way to frame slavery, Trail of Tears, smallpox blankets, Japanese WWII interment camps, etc (that I learned in school) as things your ancestors did that weren't bad. And not once did any classmate feel guilty about any of those things. It's not a hard concept to understand you're not responsible for something that happened before you were even born.
Wild take to see a study that says more black doctors means black people both live longer and that the disparity between the life expectancy between white people and black people shrink, *even if said patients don't actually see the black doctor*, just their presence in the area's workforce causes white doctors to be better at treating black patients, and then declaring that racism definitely isn't a factor. Hell, you even make the argument that white people can't relate to black people! And it definitely only flows the one direction, because having black doctors doesn't cause white life expectancy to go *down*. Do people turn invisible when they put their hands over their faces in your world?
In counties with more Black doctors, Black people live longer, ‘astonishing’ study finds
The study is the first to link a higher prevalence of Black doctors to longer life expectancy and lower mortality in Black populations.
www.statnews.com
Are you serious? Safe space was called bad for a long time. Usually by conservatives
Yes, there is a VERY good reason to not teach about Trail of Tears etc. It's never been about guilt. The people who pretend they are guilty aren't guilty. They want it to be acceptable tactics so they can do it again. That's the whole point
They say they feel guilt so that people fall for the persecution complex and then you yell 'cancel culture' and no one questions what they do
You know what the funniest thing is. Australia was involved with the US to take over Indonesia in the 50s. They reformed the police and targeted 'Communist', leaving 1 million dead and another million tortured in a few years. This waa seen as so successful, this incident gets scrawled on walls around the world, begging the US to do it to their country. And they did. Over and over and over again.
Hundreds of millions dead in most countries to service Capitalism. Or the US version of Capitalism
And by funny, I actually mean Capitalism is fucking horrifying and even the Catholic church hasn't killed as many people
Also, I like the concept of the market place of ideas. But America likes to murder people who disagree with them... so it's never really existed
Edit: I forgot to add. 9 Million people stave each year. Mostly in Capitalist countries. Caused by the effects of Capitalism
Last edited:
Here's the funny thing about identity politics. It's always been there, millennia before the term was even created. You're personal identity revolves around banning trans from doing certain things, abortion are illegal and stopping same sex marriage. This is your identity politics
They've always existed. These ones, that you copied off the church, have been around for a long time. But then, the problem has never actually been identity politics. It's CERTAIN identity politics thats the problem. They just throw that term around, without defining it, so people can get away with being a bigot
Like, Adam Smith wrote the Wealth of Nations AND the Theory of Moral Sentiment. In the latter, he goes on and on about different identities and how they might respond to situations from different indentities
Yes, of course. Spoken like a true Marxist
I would suggest that you only use Marx's criticism because they are generally good but his solution aren't. And the only real note I have is that you should substitute any time you use the word Dems with Congress. All of them.
And yes.... as you have proven, this indicates that the Dems are the conservatives. Always have been, always will be