A big driver in increasing entrepreneurs in the US has been DEI and H1-B driven racism against white men. For example in 2021 only 6% of all the people hired by major US companies were white. An entire generation was locked out of traditional corporate career paths, and turned to startups and crypto.
Plenty of Americans are ready and able to do the work if the conditions and wages are at the market rate. We're addicted to abusing the illegal immigrant underclass. Returning undocumented people to their homes is the moral issue of our time; Trump is ending a system of neo-slavery.
Trump denigrates immigrants daily and stuffs them in squalid camps or prisons. Wouldn't you say that undermines the idea that he's actually acting on a moral obligation to protect immigrants from exploitative labor?
See also his brief hesitation only when his farming and hospitality CEO buddies ask him to leave some illegals for their business needs.
I call bullshit. China's software industry boomed when they blocked/hobbled western big tech companies that would have strangled them. Slater kicked of America's textile industrialization. Every country that I know that has implemented a quota system in the arts has resulted in the domestic industry blossoming and getting over the self-sustaining hump.
It is self-evident that limiting competition is beneficial to the protected parties.
>> EV have far more tire wear because they are heavier
Is this true?
If an EV were 30% heavier than an ICE, would it produce 30% more tyre wear emissions? Or would it produce more or less than 30%? Is the primary factor in tyre wear weight and is the relationship linear?
The types of tyres appear to be quite different, the EVs seem to have smaller contact patches (narrower wheels) and they're made of different "less grippy" compounds that drag less. Does this change the equation at all?
I agree but the argument is better framed as Mary Beard is a modern scholar with a rigid intersectional world view that is highly moralistic and highly judgmental from the perspective of modern norms around violence, feminism and racism. She sneers down on Roman notions of virtue and patriarchy.
I'm not acquainted with her work, but after reading the transcript your comment seems... highly moralistic and highly judgmental?
The whole interview reads as very sober, she mentions elements that are at odds with the pop culture understanding. She very explicitly takes head on this type of criticisms.
>I think the question of how you judge these people is very tricky. People often write in to me and say, "I don't like the way that you do sometimes make judgments about X as a mass murderer, when they're 2000 years in the past. Surely, it's often said, "You should be judging them on their own terms, not on your terms."
> I've got two responses to that. One is, quite often, these people were hostilely judged in antiquity itself, but we rather brush that under the carpet. Julius Caesar, for example, it's reckoned now that he may well have killed about a million Gauls in his campaign against Gaul, and there were people in Rome who said he was committing crimes against humanity. This is not a new invention that Caesar was a war criminal, there were people in Rome who said that. So I think we have to be very careful always to listen out for the discordant voices in antiquity itself. But I think perhaps more important is that the job of the historian, and this kind of explains I think why we sometimes find there's a flip flop here between one sort of judgment of Alexander the Great and another, you know, favorable or not favorable, same with Caesar, whatever, is that the job of the historian I think is to have stereoscopic vision. I think it is important to understand these characters in their own context, and in their own terms, and how people, by the standards of their time, yes, I think you should do that. But I think that the modern historian can't just leave their own moral values, you know, at the library door. I do at a certain point have to say I find the conquests of Alexander the Great, very, very uncomfortable, and I think what I particularly dislike in terms of our modern appropriation of them is the way we somehow seem to go along with approving of what they did. I might not want to disapprove of it, I might want to say, in part, that by the standards of their own time was okay, but I do have to say it's not the standards of ours, and we have to realize that there are moral issues and questions about what happened in antiquity that we shouldn't be afraid of bringing to the surface. I'm very happy to do that. I mean, I think it's quite interesting, I've chosen a group of men for my most influential Rome, I think I had no choice but to do that. I can also say, but I think there is something about the misogyny of the Roman Empire that I deplore. And you have to be able to hold those two views at the same time, I think.
That's not sneering, it's just not falling in to the trap that whitewashes the brutality of the past. Should future historians only consider our proclaimed ideals? Our notions of virtue? Will the War on Terror be seen just as a "cool" period, morally-neutral?
>>But I think that the modern historian can't just leave their own moral values, you know, at the library door.
But everyone knows what those values are, because largely (with a few nuances) we all share them. We don't need an historian to remind us that war or slavery is bad. I want to know what Romans think of slavery. I can probably guess what a modern historian thinks of it.
I think much of our modern day conflicts are about disagreements over those values though.
> We don't need an historian to remind us that war or slavery is bad. I want to know what Romans think of slavery. I can probably guess what a modern historian thinks of it.
But she isn't just saying "it's bad" for no reason, she depicts the problems and the triumphs. It's not about how Romans thought about slavery, it's about providing a full and complete picture of a historical period or person, warts and all.
As a great example: most of the current political movement in America emphasizes that in the 1950s or so one man's average salary afforded him a better station in society than it does now. But that same observation leaves out that... Well, this wasn't true for any woman, or many minorities. If we just never mention that last part because "duh, I don't need a historian to tell me that" we end up with flawed rosy glasses by which we view such worlds and the policies and people who created them.
Ironically, the rhetoric you cited actually demonstrates the GP’s point, in part. Beard gave a weak answer: a shallow deflection that suggests credibility but glosses over her own bias.
> violence, feminism and racism. She sneers down on Roman notions of virtue and patriarchy.
Which is a very anachronistic way of looking at things and very unscholarly, too bad, I really wanted to get into her books. I guess the Protestant moralism and virtue-signalling got to her (there are exceptions to this, especially in the German world, but it is my impression that the Anglos never really fully adopted the Romans and the Roman worldview, and I'm including Gibbon in here).
The US military physically occupied and restructured the governments of Japan and Germany. A better example might be Vietnam, which has become a US partner but it took a couple generations.
Hirohito spoke in a very very rare way that very few humans speak. It took years of a friend who got a masters in 'Peace and conflict studies' to get me to understand, and in the decade since, and after reading Hirohito's book it still takes a significant intellectual effort to distinguish the listening.
https://cbsaustin.com/news/nation-world/major-us-companies-g...
reply