Anyone who spends a few afternoons in the shady parts of San Francisco can tell you that the issue is not a lack of housing. There are some people who cannot live unsupervised in any kind of housing because they are a danger to themselves, others, and property.
Newsom is one of my least favorite politicians, but credit where credit is due this is one of the best things that has been accomplished under his administration.
California has been losing a ground war to hordes of homeless drug addicts for a long time. If Newsom can win a battle it'll be turning the tide even slightly...
I would like to add that "free market" is a bad description of the state of markets with the United States in general. The government has directly affected the price and legality of many goods including cheese, magnets, corn, houses, education, and more. That's all before we can even start to discuss the systematic effects of fiat money. The idea that we are collectively operating in a free market is a fairly tale.
At this juncture, claims of 2020 election theft are akin to being a Flat Earther. Do you, dear reader, desire to get advice, a hot take on sugar babies, or have anything to do with such a person?
It's at least nice to be aware and have the information.
Its absurd to take someone's opinion on an a completely unrelated issue and then apply it as a blanket denunciation of all their opinions or speech. Having an unorthodox opinion, even being a flat earther, says next to nothing about your expertise or knowledge in other areas. Bobby Fischer held many opinions that many would denounce: but if he was recorded speaking about the best chess openers then there is no reason to factor in his opinions on Semitic people groups. The two topics simply aren't related and it's unlikely that one is affected by the other. Likewise it's unlikely that this opinion piece on "sugar babies" is affected by the author's opinions regarding the legitimacy of the 2020 US presidential election. You cannot simply hop from one conclusion to another with no explanation and expect others to agree that you are making a cogent argument.
Further, claiming there may have been issues with or that you personally take issue with the logistics of the last United States presidential election is hardly akin to being a flat earther. The former represents a broad range of perspectives some of which are contrary to the facts and some of which are of a more philosophical or pragmatic nature and are worthy of discussion. The latter is a school of thought which hasn't held any real ground for hundreds or perhaps thousands of years. This kind of tattletale rhetoric is contrary to the spirit of serious discussion and debate which HN is known for. If it had not become so common, I would simply write it off as trolling or perhaps your confusion as to the purpose of this site. At this point, however, I think I speak for many when I say that you ought to save that kind of foolishness for either Reddit or Twitter where it will be applauded.
Are you intending to convey that the author somehow deserves to be considered an expert in sugar babies? ..wow.. I'm truly speechless.
Unsolicited feedback for you, sir, madame, or they @powerslacker: Characterizing things as "absurd" is detrimental to discussion quality in every case across the board. The label is arbitrary and uncurious, making it a poor choice of starting place if your goal is to inform and persuade.
I'm not calling the author an expert on sugar babies. I was providing an example to show that it is illogical to dismiss everything a person says, even if they have said something outrageous in the past.
Absurd: wildly unreasonable, illogical, or inappropriate.
It's not detrimental to discussion to point out an absurd statement. I'm not saying absurd in order to be rude, but pointing out that it's a logical error. It's not a poor starting place if my goal is to inform others that the addressed statement is in fact absurd. Since that is exactly what I was attempting to do I'd call it a very reasonable starting place.
They would at worse be arguing in bad faith. But their argument is right or wrong because of its bases and assumptions, not based on who's saying the words
Their argument is based on opinions of morality and soft-truths, but they're casting it like an objective problem (which it is not). The author even feels the need to admit as much at the end, simply acknowledging that the cycle of sexualization will always continue, regardless of our opinion on it.
So, with that being said, I'd say it absolutely compromises their argument here. If the author is gullible enough to fall for garden-variety conspiracy theories, why should I trust their authority on morality? Their rhetorical triangle is broken. They have no credibility, they make no appeals to logic (and contradict themselves) which leaves them only with pathos - the ability to outrage and incense their audience based on emotional appeals.
You are equating the happiness of the individuals involved as the basis for determining whether or not the action is moral. Its inherently a hedonistic perspective. Of course you can't make a moral claim that prostitution is wrong if you consider the "happiness" of the pimp, prostitute, and john as the highest good involved. Frankly, I'm not sure how you could make many moral claims considered reasonable based on that kind of criteria. Using the same measure you could justify all sorts of abusive situations so long as the exploited is "happy" with their circumstances.
I make no moral claim because I don't see a moral axis here. It's equivalent to arguing about the morality of cigarette companies or breweries; our societal precedent for freedom overrides whatever personal harm it might cause. Same goes for selling knives, guns, porno films or sex toys. We can obviously regulate the obscene and dangerous conduct surrounding these things (and we do), but the right to having them is what drives our free market. It's no more exploitative than Apple teasing you with an iPhone 14 event, getting you tech-horny enough to open your wallet come October.
You are making many moral claims. Your standard for what is moral are all over the place but you just made one:
> "...our societal precedent for freedom overrides whatever personal harm it might cause"
You've just appealed to a relativistic moral standard. Essentially, because we have a precedent for "freedom" in regards to possession of certain substances or items we as a society are justified in ignoring the detrimental effects of the mentioned items.
By that same train of logic, societal reform of any kind is actually a bad thing because you are overturning the existing precedent 0f that society. Its absurd.
Jlawson is responding to the argument being made about whether or not patch notes are an appropriate place for political, philosophical, or moral perspectives NOT whether or not the ToS was violated.
If life is ultimately meaningless then why not? The world you are talking about where people work to better the future for themselves and their progeny is reliant on life having some kind of purpose or meaning. If the universe is the result of random chance and life itself is the result of accidental chemical processes then life doesn't have inherent meaning.
Why SHOULD someone who believes the things I've mentioned do anything except attempt to maximize personal pleasure?
California has 44 million people and is the 6th largest economy in the world. The 9 counties in the Bay Area where I live have a larger GDP than most countries, a little bigger than Saudi Arabia. Silicon Valley is home to cutting edge technology companies that have changed the world so much that people want to rein in "Big Tech." When Vladimir Putin complains about American cultural hegemony he's talking about California. Are you saying California and Kansas are the same? What I said was that some parts of America are more futuristic than others, which is obvious to anyone who has travelled around America. There are other parts of the country which are on the cutting edge such as Seattle, Portland, Chicago, etc... I suspect you haven't been to Kansas. To me it felt like going back in time, but that's subjective. It's not a criticism. There's nothing wrong with it. I like Kansas. I said that. Go to Wichita. Go to Fargo. Go to Paris Texas. Tell me how I'm wrong. I've done the road trips because I wanted to see for myself what the rest of the country was like. Jackson Mississippi currently doesn't have a working water supply. Downtown Flint Michigan is all boarded up. What kind of attitude should I have?
Edit: I'd say the city that is most improved as far as moving into the future is Salt Lake City. I was there in 2004 and then 2020. There's been a remarkable transformation, which I guess is understandable because the Mormon Church has 100 Billion dollars, and is the richest religious organization, right behind the Catholic Church.
I have and parts of it are a hellscape due to a local political system that is paralyzed by this idea that we can't forcibly lock up and treat the mentally ill. I wonder if it's just a matter of having so many, but I bet if a person was ranting and raving with no pants on in downtown Wichita they would be locked up. I am not blind to the problems in California. All I'm trying to say is that California is different from other states, some ways better, some ways worse, and speaking about California as different is not arrogant. I understand that it comes off that way if all I did was go on about how great it is. I'm not. California has big problems. Problems that may be coming to your state soon.
It's incredible that tax dollars go to funding the publication of this kind of material with a government seal of approval on it! Certainly much of history is a matter of interpretation, certain historical works are more trustworthy than others, and of course there are disagreements. But what I take as the thesis is essentially that truth about the past is not really something we can know.
Take this statement from the article:
"The results have been profound. Historians now take it for granted that it’s impossible to understand any part of the past without taking into account the realities of all, and all kinds of, people."
No source cited, no names listed. A "fact" floating freely in midair. Pure propaganda.
Newsom is one of my least favorite politicians, but credit where credit is due this is one of the best things that has been accomplished under his administration.