The Century of the Self is a great introduction to this. Modern advertising literally uses techniques originally developed for wartime (WWII) propaganda. Commercial advertising is literally brainwashing applied for economic purposes rather than political (though often both, too).
p.s. if you like the Century of the Self, watch Hypernormalization as well. Amazing documentaries.
Totally unrelated but is this correct grammar? I realize I've never seen "woken" without "up", as in "woken up". To avoid using "up" I would've leaned towards some form of awoke, but am not sure I've ever seen something like "she will be awoke" either. Always fun to encounter grammatical edge cases you're unfamiliar with in your native language.
-- getting into some cumbersome and annoying English - tenses and principal are often confusing - awoken is the most correctly - woken is fine - awoke is first person past principal - so you're right "she will be awoke" is grammatically incorrect - https://www.englishgrammar101.com/module-3/verbs-types-tense... --
I thought of "awoken" initially, but if I hadn't seen the other wordings before, I don't recall ever seeing the word "awoken" at all! Or if I have seen it before, I second-guessed myself after reading variations of "woke/wake" so much in a short period of time. Thanks for your response
I think it's simpler: if you're able to get a degree, you're already intelligent to some extent. That intelligence is then trained by having education in general. The difference is if you chose a major without good career prospects, you basically just have to do additional work to get the idealism out of your system and come around to a practical field. All these philosophy, sociology, literature, etc majors didn't need the major to switch into STEM etc, they were always ready for it. They just had to accept that the humanities weren't going to give them the life they wanted.
> Maybe X should relax the legal requirements of Y
That's a slippery slope. Lots of legal requirements exist to protect someone. Legal requirements for windows are pretty reasonable to ensure people have at least some bare minimum of access to natural light in their home, rather than just living in a box.
Because that's how you get the haves taking even greater advantage of the have-nots, to the point of injury, illness, and death in the name of slightly greater profits.
By lowering acceptable living standards, the haves, aka the landlords, would be able to cheaply produce bottom of the barrel, barely acceptable living spaces and then since there is a housing crisis they could charge a premium for the have nots, aka the renters, in order to live in those shitty, barely acceptable homes.
Presumably an office space would still cost more than a homeless person could afford, so it's not economical to convert an office to ultra-cheap housing.
> Presumably an office space would still cost more than a homeless person could afford, so it's not economical to convert an office to ultra-cheap housing
It may be something a marginally housed person could afford, though. Maybe that makes room in their budget for healthier food, addiction counseling or after-school tutoring. Or maybe they're already strained and would otherwise be on the street.
As would we all, but we have to be cognizant that enforcing a high quality of life also means ignoring people who can't afford the raised minimum.
By and large, I'm a fan of American-style freedom-to-succeed-or-fail, but in the context of NIMBY anti-density housing supply crunches, it feels exceptionally cruel.
'We're going to have policies that limit supply and increase the cost of housing' + 'We're going to prevent you from finding other housing by making it illegal' is a heavy one-two punch.
Sure, but if the choice is this in the immediate term vs "a government that enforces a high quality of life" in the maybe-but-not-for-certain long term, I'd much rather take steps in that direction instead of waiting for some mythical perfect situation to present itself.
Or maybe it's government involvement that has caused the whole issue in the first place and more government involvement would lead to an even bigger problem.
I can't say for certain, but I think most regulations about windows are about having an escape in case of disaster.
Specifically, there was house we were looking at, and one of the previous owners covered up the back porch.
However, one of the bedrooms used to overlook that back porch, and had a window on that wall.
They were not allowed to remove that window because "bedrooms have windows", even though the window was an interior window.
Similarly, we considered replacing our bedroom window with a bay window, but the code would not allow it because the windows were too small to allow egress.
I completely forgot about the fire thing, and that only strengthens my argument/stance. The Triangle fire was a terrible tragedy in American history during which a lot of women died not even because of lack of windows, but because doors and windows were barred. Now imagine how many people would be at risk if they didn't even have windows in the first place.
This is SF (and a major US city) we are talking about.. A whole shitload of those "requirements" are meant to keep prop values up and exert total control over who and what gets built and when.
>Lots of legal requirements exist to protect someone.
SF is the poster child for what happens when a bunch of people incapable or unmotivated to engage in planning more than 5min into the future write a law about everyone's pet issue.
Clearly there's a balance to be struck and it's to be struck somewhere on the less regulatory side than it is now.
In general, that may sometimes be true, but in the SF Bay Area, those restrictions on residential development have always been excessive and about protecting property values for existing home owners.
You just don't want to. It's very simple: they let you have a burger that mimics meat burgers, and they taste reasonably close for some of us. I love burgers and love some of the fake meat patties since I don't usually eat meat. Simple as that.
Not a judgment on your wife, but sharing for general awareness: I would eat land animals before eating fish again. You can read Outlaw Ocean for a quick look at how awful the seafood industry is. The seafood industry has everything from slavery, abuse, animal population decimation, and more, which is directly supported by anyone who eats seafood:
> Do you know if the fish on your plate is legal? A new study estimates that 20 to 32 percent of wild-caught seafood imported into the U.S. comes from illegal or "pirate" fishing
Yeah, I'm a firm believer in moderation and not allowing perfection to get in the way of progress. So many decisions can be seen as immoral once examined under heavy scrutiny and choosing to be "vegetarian" instead of just "eating meat on special occasions" has a profoundly different impact on relationships and daily life.
My entire argument above was basically that an invisible hand removing meat from everyday products will be a greater win for the environment than expecting a segment of consumers to go completely vegan.
> whole grains and legumes covering most of my protein requirements.
What are your protein/calorie goals, and how are you meeting them with grains and legumes? I have to take pea protein and on top of that eat a lot of eggs because otherwise I can't imagine getting enough protein just from beans and oats. If you avoid oxalates, it becomes even more difficult.
> We'd all be happier if everyone was politically correct
That's objectively false. I would not be happier if everyone were politically correct, because I'm a strong believer in free speech, even if it's offensive. You can say whatever heinous, horrendous things you want about me and my loved ones as long as I'm able to walk away and disengage (if you pursue and target me, it changes from free speech to harassment/assault IMO). I'm also a strong believer in the ideal of objectivity, so I hate the idea of white lies or convenient falsehoods.
No. If you bought into the new age pro noun thing the SAME way you already buy into the pointless formalities we use like "please" and "thank you" there would be no argument. Everyone would be happier. This is objectively true. You just misinterpreted what I mean here.
>I'm a strong believer in free speech, even if it's offensive.
This is off topic. Free speech is part of the battle but it's not what I'm referring to. I'm referring to something much deeper then that. Proponents of political correctness are attempting to redefine reality. They want to change the concept of gender as "fluid" and non-binary and they are trying to change this from a scientific aka "objective" standpoint. Compelled speech is just a tool to push this agenda, and while I don't support it, the arguments behind free speech aren't interesting to me.
It's this entire idea of attempting to categorize this new interpretation of gender as the objective truth that interests me.
> If you bought into the new age pro noun thing the SAME way you already buy into the pointless formalities we use like "please" and "thank you" there would be no argument.
"If you met the conditions that proved me right, then I'd be right". Well I don't, hence you're wrong, as I said
I said this: We'd all be happier if everyone was politically correct.
Which is saying if you "met the conditions" of being politically correct.
I did not say if you were forced to act politically correct. Two different things.
So literally I did say: "If you met the conditions that proved me right, then I'd be right" and you responded by completely ignoring that and introducing your own conditions.
> We'd all be happier if everyone was politically correct
Me 'being' politically correct doesn't mean me 'supporting' or 'enjoying' being politically correct. I don't, and 'being' politically correct makes me unhappy. I don't know how I can simplify further, but it does seem to be a semantic point.
I never said this. I don't know how you can keep misinterpreting it. You can't simplify further because your off on a tangent trying to simplify something that is not the point.
You are already being "politically correct" in your own way. You don't refer to me as an idiot, that's a rule you follow. Thus you are already obeying your own "political rules." If your rules were identical to everyone else's, they they wouldn't be be pissed off and neither would you.
That is what I mean when I'm saying "everyone is politically correct" that's it.
You can lie all you want as long as it doesn't impact others; that's why we have things like slander and libel. If you want to say your favorite color is blue when in fact it's red, I'd support you every day of the week. If you want to force me to say you're blond when in fact you're a redhead, then I would expect a civilized society to protect my freedom to not repeat your lie. Similarly I would expect a civilized society to protect you from me if I start saying something negative about you that actually impacts you negatively.
It's basically the reason idealism/utopianism is never practical. Having an ideal and working towards it is a great way to make progress, but setting expectations based on ideals is a recipe for disaster
> It's basically the reason idealism/utopianism is never practical.
It is interesting how people can follow the same path and reach different conclusions. To me, UBI makes sense BECAUSE of decreased production. I do not want people who do not want to work a particular job to have to work at that job. I think we have enough food that nobody in this country has to go hungry, even if they choose to not work. Having these people at work does not help productivity (even though it might help production) where I define productivity as production per worker. In fact, I'd say if you reduce the worker base by a lot and only decrease production by a little, you have raised productivity.
Now we're right back to the exercise where we give everyone in class the average grade and see what happens. This punishes work.
Worse, economically speaking, UBI would get swallowed by the inflation it causes, and we have the worse problem of running out of other people's money to pay for UBI.
> Now we're right back to the exercise where we give everyone in class the average grade and see what happens. This punishes work.
Giving everyone an average grade isn't wrong because it hurts the kids who worked harder to learn. Those kids already have their reward. It's wrong because it hurts the kids who need extra help but now won't get it because their understanding is seen as equal to everyone else's and adequate when it isn't. We could eliminate grades entirely and it wouldn't matter at all so long as we ensured everyone actually had a solid grasp of the material.
If UBI is well implemented it actually would raise everyone to an acceptable minimum standard of living set by society. That would mean that everyone has shelter, food, clean water, and enough money to comfortably live, improve themselves, and pursue their own passions.
It doesn't punish work. There are always rewards for doing work that you find meaningful and so the people who work will still obtain those rewards.
> and we have the worse problem of running out of other people's money to pay for UBI.
That will never happen. Money is just a proxy. It's not even tied to anything meaningful anymore, it's just a ledger of credits and we all just put our faith in the ability to exchange those credits for actual goods and services.
The real fear with UBI is that we will run out of material goods. Right now, we have the resources to meet everyone's basic needs, but that will not always be the case. Clean water, healthy food, and even clean air are becoming harder and harder to obtain.
UBI is still a good idea while we can set and provide a decent standard of living, but it can't be sustained forever while the most basic resources we need for survival are being destroyed.
Sci-fi gets away with utopian societies because they are post-scarcity, but for us even drinking water is becoming increasingly scarce. UBI could help us to more efficiently manage what resources we have left until we are able to either reach a state of post-scarcity or push the timeline back by exploiting new reserves of resources by doing things expanding to other planets.
Post-scarcity doesn't exist in the real universe. It will always come down to energy, whether it is bound up into matter or not.
Providing actual necessities, instead of money, would be far better. Money is a proxy, and just giving it away makes it worth less... So you get inflation. Meanwhile, the people working are also drowned in the ever rising costs of funding UBI, and the ever rising prices from inflation. The government has financialized everything, and the bottom falls out when growth stops, which it always does, even if temporarily.
UBI may be a wealth transfer to the poor, who'd get first crack at the cash (unlike QE), but the overall economy is still devastated either way.
> Post-scarcity doesn't exist in the real universe.
It could... at least for the things that matter to our survival. There will always be scarcity for some things, like works of art, time, etc. Those things will always have a value and people will always work to obtain those kinds of things.
> Providing actual necessities, instead of money, would be far better.
Some amount of money will always be needed since people couldn't pursue their own interests or better themselves without it, but we could just give people houses and set up stores that didn't accept money for things food and medicine and household products. One nice thing about giving people money though is that it eliminates the problem of hording. If I can go into the store and take whatever I want without paying for it, what's to stop me from taking everything? Giving a set amount of money means people will have to budget it according to their needs and wants.
> Money is a proxy, and just giving it away makes it worth less... So you get inflation.
When people's basic needs are met, money can be worth less and it won't matter. The entire valuation of money will shift, but ultimately people will still set their own prices for the goods and services they provide. It doesn't matter if a loaf of bread cost $5 or $500. If you were a great architect and I asked you to design my new house you'd set your asking price accordingly. If owning a home designed by you were my goal, I'd look for work and set my asking rate accordingly. The economy would continue chugging along regardless.
> UBI may be a wealth transfer to the poor
That wealth is already being spent. We already know that it's much cheaper for taxpayers to give homeless people houses. That's not a wealth transfer to the poor though, it's putting money back into the pocket of taxpayers instead of burning it on problems we don't bother to take the time to solve. UBI could (in theory) save wealthy people a lot of money and more importantly, the money we aren't throwing away on dealing with the costs inherent to abject poverty can be put into making more wealth and improving things for everyone.
You see the problem here. As money continues to be worth less, UBI would have to increase to meet "people's basic needs." As UBI increases, inflation gets worse, until everyone is worse off, and UBI collapses.
If you want to destroy the middle class (which we've been doing a darn good job of), this would pour cement over the coffin.
UBI doesn’t stop people making more money. What it will do is help people be more mobile so they can find a job they like. The downside is people won’t spend 12 hours a day as an Amazon slave unless there is a financial reward commensurate to the employers demands.
Some people will participate simply because it is the only paying work available, some will participate because they need structure to their time.
Earning a wage is not comparable to earning a B in school. That B doesn’t put apples or oranges on the tables, earning a wage gives you both.
I was going to respond with the standard argument that UBI doesn't necessarily increase inflation. A sane UBI plan is revenue neutral -- you increase taxes so that the average taxpayer has taxes increase by exactly the UBI amount. Since the median taxpayer makes less money than the average taxpayer, the majority of taxpayers benefit, yet the UBI does not increase the money supply.
But the author advocates for printing money, so it's not a sane UBI plan.
No, it does not. I wouldn't call it a punishment. It forces people to rethink their priorities. Something about extrinsic motivation vs intrinsic motivation. What motivates you to get out of bed in the morning and do something?
I think UBI will open up a lot of vacancies and will do wonders in improving quality of life for workers who do want to do the job. Sure, the economy might contract a little but I don't think ordinary people like me need to worry about that.
> Sure, the economy might contract a little but I don't think ordinary people like me need to worry about that
Sure it would be just those “un-ordinary” people who have to to deal with the resulting stagflation and don’t really have the elite income generating job skills to be able to afford how much it costs to feed their family.
But I am sure they will continue to provide the manual labor needed to run our society…or they can just learn to code.
> I think we have enough food that nobody in this country has to go hungry
I think we have already solved the problem of food distribution in the US - hardly anyone dies of hunger these days. Happy to be corrected on that one, if you have contrary data.
I think we have also have cheap abundant housing as long as one doesn't want to live in highly desirable locations like Manhattan. And introducing UBI is not going to solve homelessness problem in Manhattan anyway.
