The health ministry’s August 3 dispatch is being celebrated for its protection of queer Vietnamese in medical settings and as fuel for an ongoing petition for the legalisation of same-sex marriage. […] Based on this, and citing the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) removal of homosexuality and being transgender from the International Classification of Diseases, it goes on to outline five primary guidelines for the health system.
Education should be strengthened so all medical providers have correct knowledge about “lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people,” it says, and that queer people must be treated equally in medical environments. In addition, LGBTQ identity cannot be treated as a disease, while involuntary treatments are prohibited and mental health services can only be provided by experts on sexual orientation and gender identity. Lastly, supervision and inspection of medical facilities should be increased.
Faced with this dilemma, it’s quite possible the automakers will respond by simply disabling telematics and connected services for customers in the state.
So the automakers may disable a feature I neither need nor want.
I shall remember for the next conversation someone thinks anti-abortion is a good thing… I mean besides underground abortion parlors, the fostering of poverty, using it as a political tool against opposition and to persecute people for other reasons than abortion, which won’t apply to the rich because they can always fly mistresses to some permissive western country and have a painfree vacation at the same time.
Seems policies are carved out by idiots worldwide.
It doesn’t have to be nationalized, but it doesn’t make any sense for a civilian to be able to unilaterally make decisions like that while under military contract. At the very least, any decision to change or influence the contracted service while the contract is active should require some sort of review and approval. Maybe there’s a good reason it’s the way it is, I’m just a layman, but every time I hear about this it just baffles me why it was even allowable for Elon to make the call he did, or any call for that matter.
A key issue, often overlooked, is that US law imposes significant restrictions on the export and sale of military hardware.
Starlink is currently not considered military hardware. SpaceX is desperately trying to keep it that way, their ultimate goal is to sell subscriptions to civilians. Thus they get anxious when it is openly used for military purposes.
In this regard Starlink is somewhat similar to civilian GPS receivers, which automatically shut down at 1200 mph so they can’t be used in missiles.
Giving a nation the idea you may support an enemy. Is in no way a protection from that nation taking control of your assets. It is at best giving the nation the ability to rationalise the need to limit your own power.
After all dispite not seeing any reason why any corp in the US would be worried about current potential govs nationalising them. It just not something either of the main parties are fans of.
Its even less likely musk would see cooperation with russia as a way to prevent such a thing.
I mean siding with Trump, buying Twitter and the “free speech” people. This is the smoke screen so that he CAN defend Russia and make Biden wary of fighting back, because he now has the unconditional support of 30% of the country.
Not that aiding Russia is the prevention, I think it may be at least part of the goal.
While I hate to give the little shit the benifit of the doubt.
It is worth considering. That there are plenty of other people out their. Who truly think letting russia keep the ground they have taken. Is the best way to prevent the war continuing on.
I disagree because evidence is give russia an inch. And they will just wait until they build up again. And take your whole nation. They are just not trustworthy when it comes to peace treaties.
But plenty of folks are less untrusted (more stupid imho)
There is also more direct fiscal reason why he may want to discurage the US from supporting Ukraine.
If the war continues with the current US weapons spending on Ukraine support. Eventually the gov is going to have to raise money to do so. This drematically increases the risk that industries like his. Will lose some tax breaks or loopholes he uses.
I’m no economist, but I’m pretty sure what we have now is 100% capitalism. It’s exactly how many people predicted capitalism would look like if given enough time.
Many years ago, a libertarian classmate asked me how I think the world would look like if corporations were unregulated. I told him (again, without being an economist) that corporations would probably become the new countries, that they would own everything like monarchs used to, as a few corporations monopolized everything. (I still find his answer funny: “And wouldn’t that be better?”. I just told him “Of course not!” thinking “WTF?”).
My point is that this idea that the current system is “worse than capitalism” and “capitalism is dead”, stems from some kind of idealization of what capitalism is supposed to be like, and not from the realities that many people have been pointing out throughout the XX and XXI centuries about how capitalism works and what its end-goal is. This is exactly what capitalism looks like. “Technofeudalism” seems like yet another way of not addressing the issue, like when people say “the problem is not capitalism! it’s crony capitalism!”. As if there is some form of capitalism that has ever put people over money.
Also:
It might look like a market, but Varoufakis says it’s anything but. Jeff (Bezos, the owner of Amazon) doesn’t produce capital, he argues. He charges rent. Which isn’t capitalism, it’s feudalism.
Again, I’m no economist, so someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure the capitalists (i.e. the owners of the means of production) have never produced capital. The workers do. The capitalist have always taken the profits of their worker’s labour in exchange for using those means of production. You could call that “charging rent”.
There is nothing new about what’s going on right now, except on the superficial level, the specific tech that’s being used to achieve the monopolistic goals of any corporation. Given enough time, the inevitable concentration of power that capitalism leads to, will always look like feudalism.
I still find his answer funny: “And wouldn’t that be better?”
libertarians man, I swear
feels like every other one I meet just repeats what the rest of them say without even thinking about it. Reminds me of the video I saw where a leading libertarian presidential candidate said he supported driver’s licenses and the entire room booed him.
Every libertarian I’ve ever met is convinced that actors will somehow be way more rational and benevolent when laissez-faire economics allows the market to act freely, as though ‘zero regulations’ is not already the goal of every major corporation, in order to more completely fuck over everyone they touch.
Either that, or they’re convinced they’re a good enough prepper to avoid being killed or captured by the inevitable PMC armies that arise from the libertarian apocalypse.
Every libertarian I’ve ever met is convinced that actors will somehow be way more rational and benevolent when laissez-faire economics allows the market to act freely
But then they’ll use the exact opposite reason as to why forms of socialism won’t work; that people are selfish, greedy and exploitive.
Higher oil prices are motivating people to move away from oil, hopefully toward electrification & renewables. Or at the very least, motivating people to lower their fuel consumption.
Electric vehicles are better than sticking with internal combustion, but there's still so much energy wasted in designing infrastructure around everyone getting around by cars in the first place. Everything gets spread further apart to accommodate them on roads and in parking lots, which means you have to travel farther to get where you're going. Our city designs need to shift toward density way faster than they currently are.
While I genuinely feel bad for economically disadvantaged workers with long commutes in used vehicles, I can’t help but notice most of the complaints about fuel prices come from people who: A. Shout down anyone trying to improve public transportation infrastructure by saying it can’t work in rural areas (it can, and has), and B. Own outrageously large personal vehicles that guzzle gas and houses with 2+ stall garages.
I’ll listen to complaining from anyone who doesn’t fall into one or both of these two groups.
Gas should be prohibitively expensive. It’s price should reflect its impact.
Unfortunately this would crumble the entire US and possibly western economy. It works in most of the rest of the world because the commutes are smaller and the alternative transit is plentiful.
The only times I see people like me, who prefer owning a car “shouting down” people adcovating for better public transport, is when people suggest I should get rid of my car and ride a bus instead. A good public transportation system is a net-good for everyone, and in no way inconveniences me especially if I never even use it. It’s not busses and trains I have an issue with - it’s the naive city dwellers who thinks that because they get around just fine without a car then anyone would.
Yes, because that organization published a definition of antisemitism that effectively makes it almost off limits to criticize the actions of the Israeli state. And that definition is being codified into policy or even law in many cases. Even the author of this definition has objected to the way it’s being used.
Yeah, I thought that was it. The definition is clear that criticism of the Israeli government that’s comparable to criticisms aimed at other governments isn’t antisemitism. You should be able to criticise Israel in the same terms you criticise (e.g.) Russia and China, or for that matter America and the UK. But if you exclusively criticise Israel in virulent terms, or say that Israel is some sort of uniquely evil entity comparable to the Nazis, or imply that all Jews worldwide are agents of the Israeli state, or say Israel as a nation state should be wiped off the map—that’s antisemitic.
It’s “clear” in the sense that it pays lip service to the concept. In practice, as this article discusses, it is used as a cudgel to over-apply the accusation of antisemitism and shield Israel from discussion of its apartheid policies. Some allegedly antisemitic organizations, under this definition, have included Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.
The letter said the first example can be used to suppress claims that Israel is breaching international laws against apartheid and is violating conventions to end racial discrimination. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have both been accused of antisemitism under the IHRA definition over detailed reports saying that Israel practises a form of apartheid, an accusation also levelled by Israeli human rights groups.
“The example on ‘applying double standards’ opens the door to labeling as antisemitic anyone who focuses on Israeli abuses as long as worse abuses are deemed to be occurring elsewhere,” the letter said.
“By that logic, a person dedicated to defending the rights of Tibetans could be accused of anti-Chinese racism, or a group dedicated to promoting democracy and minority rights in Saudi Arabia could be accused of Islamophobia.”
Anyone who actually cares about antisemitism rather than just cheerleading for the Israeli state should oppose this because it cheapens the accusation in its overapplication, and casts doubt on the legitimacy of real incidences of antisemitism.
So your position (besides implying that I’m a cheerleader for Netanyahu) is that a good working definition of antisemitism is bad because people misuse it? What’s your take on how to counter the very real antisemitism that exists in parts of the anti-Israel movement? Also, I’m sorry, but your quotation is obviously bullshit:
applying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation
China is a democratic nation now? Saudi Arabia is a democratic nation? Come on. It’s obvious what that means, and it should be obvious why holding Israel to a uniquely high standard among democratic nations, as the definition says, is antisemitic.
My position is that it is not a good definition, and that it has been selected because it provides cover for this "mis-"use. I make no claim to know anything about you nor did I mention Netanyahu.
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.