merjet

Oops. To not examine fleeting and superficial ones is not faking reality, but focusing on more important things.

Impulsively , no. Examining every emotion, no matter how fleeting and superficial, would be a profound waste of time. To examine fleeting and superficial ones is not faking reality, but focusing on more important things.

GameStop and three other pols || Nancy Pelosi and rules

The link for the book doesn't work. This Amazon one does for now.

This assumes a narrow meaning of "force." It need not be limited to actual physical force. What about threats or even unintended force? "My parents made me eat all on my plate when I didn't want to." Laws punish attempted murder and manslaughter.

Krugman's Insult

Yeah, I didn't think to include that term.

Section 230 was passed in 1996. How the Internet was used before then -- see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230#Background_and_passage -- versus now are very different. Pre-1996: Popular content was message boards and porn. (Porn was pretty mild then compared to now.) Now: Facebook, Twitter, fake news, extremists.

I disagree. Bayer and Simpson claim that only a government can censor. "It is not a mere semantic issue nor a matter of arbitrary choice. The meaning ascribed to the word "selfishness" in popular use is not merely wrong [.]" (The Virtue of Selfishness, vii).

Aha. You speak for everybody, including me.

I do not claim or act like I have a monopoly on the meaning of any word. The question should be, what is an objective meaning of “censorship” or “censor” (qua verb) in the English language? I did not say their meaning of “censorship” or “censor” was incorrect or pointless. I do say it is confusing because it conflates censorship by government, a religious org, or even in a business. They also talk as if censorship is exclusively a government prerogative. Consider the words joint, plane, pan, and trunk. Each has several different meanings. Context matters. Many other words have multiple meanings.

Elizabeth Warren on GameStop

Here is an ARI video about the subject. I thought it was pretty good, except for what I consider a big fumble at the outset. Since when did Ayn Rand or the ARI have a monopoly on the meaning of words? Here is a typical dictionary definition: censorship - the process of removing parts of books, movies, letters, etc. that are considered inappropriate for moral, religious, or political reasons I believe it would have improved the video, and would better engage somebody not already in the "choir" if the following were the approach. Let G-censorship mean censorship by a government. Let P-censorship mean censorship by a private person and even a platform such as Facebook, Twitter, etc. It seems to me the communication would be clearer and the conversation more productive.

Regarding GameStop

Economics of Violence

"I judge candidates according to where he/she fits on my ranking scale from -10 to +10, where -10 = totalitarian and +10 = advocates equal, optimal freedoms for all, the state doing only its proper functions. The extremes being -10 = maximum coercion or bullying and +10 = minimum coercion or bullying would be a good scale, too" (link). The same scale is useful re how for others judge candidates.

Janet Yellen on cryptocurrency // Democratic bullies // Journalists and free speech // Filing income taxes for free // Coronavirus - new drug // Coronavirus - Andrew Cuomo and nursing homes deaths

I wasn't expecting anything special. It was an 'fyi' post. My follow-up was a tit-for-tat. My 'fyi' was about masks to protect against a virus, and surely not about a mask for asbestos, sanding, or painting a car.

Oh, my. So profound! Do you believe I would wear a catcher's mask to avoid infection by a virus?

"That’s why the quality of your mask is more important than ever. You can read about the latest research urging a well-fitted two- or three-layer mask. Or you can keep the masks you’ve been using and just double-mask when you go to the store or find yourself spending time with people from outside your household" (link). More about double-masking.

Biden undoes Trump Hank Aaron, RIP

Reference: The Storming Of The Capitol "The first is: I think the iron rule of autocracy is very simple. It's this message: If you challenge me, you will lose and I will win. I think that's like--that's just it. That's the rule. So, you apply that anywhere in history, anywhere in the world, at any time in history, anywhere in the world, and the successful autocrat--and the autocrat can be the leader of a drug gang in your neighborhood, or it could be the leader of a political party, you know, in a democratic country. But, if you're the leader, what you want to convey is: If you challenge me, you will lose and I will win." (Gary Shiffman, Link) I believe Gary Shiffman's quote captures Trump's autocratic character quite well.

https://www.econtalk.org/gary-shiffman-on-the-economics-of-violence/ offers a unique perspective on violence, 1 hour interview

Easy Truth, Your ideal says nil about insurance. Few people can pay the cost of medical, especially if hospitalized, out-of-pocket. Most need insurance (similar to auto or homeowners insurance), to mitigate a high claim amount. I didn't say or suggest taxation of medical expenses. I meant taxation of premiums paid for medical insurance paid by employers.

What do you consider ideal? I doubt either Republicans or Democrats would push it. Neither would want employer-paid insurance to be taxable income. Especially government and unionized employees, which have high cost plans with rich benefits! To make it more feasible, I believe making the change would need to be paired with a cut in income tax rates.