LibertyLizard
I keep hoping de-extinction becomes a thing but it’s taking a long time.
The New York Times Company is majority-owned by the Ochs-Sulzberger family through elevated shares in the company’s dual-class stock structure held largely in a trust, in effect since the 1950s;[118] as of 2022, the family holds ninety-five percent of The New York Times Company’s Class B shares, allowing it to elect seventy percent of the company’s board of directors.[119] Class A shareholders have restrictive voting rights.[120]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times#Organization
What you’ve written here is very misleading, bordering on incorrect, but does this distinction even matter? Both a singular billionaire and a collective of rich owners will manage the business to enhance their personal wealth, not for the common good of ordinary people. If Trump creates an incentive structure where businesses are penalized for going against his will, I think both types of management are rationally going to choose to obey him.
There needs to be a completely different type of management structure if we want leaders in the press to weigh things like the health of our democracy in their decisions.
I think perhaps you are misunderstanding what is being stated here. Billionaires everywhere are the same—they will maximum their wealth whether it helps or hurts others. The difference is that the US, with its stronger democratic elements, is much more likely to reign that power in than Mexico is. And that’s exactly what happened. In Mexico there never would have been an anti-trust case against Microsoft, or it would have been killed in the early stages.
This is double wrongthink, comrade. We’ll never achieve communism by giving workers control over the means of production and improving pay and working conditions. We must instead increase the power and wealth of capitalists by exploiting the workers even harder. This will increase the inherent contradictions in capitalism until somehow, at some unspecified future date, the perfect communist society will naturally arrive without any need to question or challenge the ruling party or wealthy business owners.
Yes, it’s exactly the same as post-war Germany… if we ignore the bombings, indiscriminate murder, lack of productive capacity, lack of free movement, evictions and land theft, lack of democratic processes and institutions, and many other factors that have been imposed on them externally.
I think a two state solution is probably the most realistic one, even if it might not be my perfect ideal solution. But a big issue with it (at least as currently conceptualized) is that Israelis already occupy a large portion of the more valuable and productive land and water resources, while Palestinians have been pushed into marginal areas. So drawing up the boundaries where people currently live perpetuates this injustice.
Additionally, creating two hostile neighboring ethnostates creates a lot of future problems. Will these nations coexist more peacefully than in the past? That’s not totally clear but at least it will make the ongoing settlements and ethnic cleansing more politically complicated for Israel and give Palestinians more official recognition at the UN and elsewhere. Furthermore, it will also be very likely to result in the expulsion of some people from their homes and lands which I oppose in almost all circumstances.
All that said I don’t see how any other solution is really possible so if the parties could agree on it I would support it, imperfect though it may be. Peace is rarely perfectly fair but it is still worthwhile nonetheless.
Depends on what you mean by condemn. All of those things were bad when they happened. But we can’t forever condemn the descendants of warlike people as tainted colonizers.
On the other hand, in the case of some of the more recent events, we still have people today who are marginalized, impoverished, and lack access to land as a result of those past atrocities. Most notably for the west, this includes native Americans and Palestinians, among others. This situation calls out for a just solution. The redistribution of land, extra services, reparations, etc. should all be on the table for the descendants of the colonized. But notably, the expulsion of the descendants of the colonizers should not be—this will just perpetuate a similar injustice into the future.
With how much squabbling and splitting and recombining and all this nonsense with Latin names lately, sometimes the common names are just more practical to use.
I’ve started wishing there was a common name authority like with birds.