Spotify is a left wing activist company. Just like Airbnb and GoFundMe.
Conservatives are dropping their principles- meaning why should we give the left free speech or services from private companies when they deny that to the right. We want revenge. We want AG from GOP states to investigate these companies for fraud, theft, or discrimination.
They are no longer a neutral company. Period, and this is war.
Conservatives can no longer expect services from lefty companies.
How about truckers, who are conservative, not deliver food to lefty cities. How will they like that. So now lefty's need to start their own lefty trucker companies so they can get food. It is a private business, go start your own trucking company to get food- how do you like that?
I wish there was a way to connect law firms or attorneys in states where you can read the law or become an apprentice with those wanting to become a lawyer without law school. I know there are only a few states, CA being the big one.
From Nate Hochman on the embarrassment at Georgetown Law after a struggle session to address Shapiro’s tweet-
‘ Me
@NRO
: At the Georgetown sit-in this morning, Dean Treanor apologized profusely for "betraying" student "trust" by hiring Ilya Shapiro, and promised to "do better." Student activists demanded everything from reparations to free food to "a place to cry."’
If colleges can discriminate based on race, then everyone and every business should be afforded the same privilege.
Meaning, there should be no diversity quotas, mandates, or accusations of racism, even if there are hardly any minorities employee at a business.
It is this double standard that no one likes.
If Harvard wants to admit only blacks for 2025 let them, but stop telling companies in CA they need at least 1 non white on the board or that there aren't enough blacks in tech.
If you don't agree that everyone should be treated the same, then we have to go by race protections and colleges are discriminating.
What is next, mandating you date a minority if you a white?
At the very least, we can start with quotas in the NBA and NFL to limit the number of people who have african ancestry, since they are horrifyingly overrepresented due to racism against non-blacks.
Yep it is horrific. Where are the asians.... If blacks are going to complain they aren't at tech companies in sufficient numbers then whites and asians have a right to demand they aren't in NBA in high enough numbers.
Legacy is usually a family that donates or at least a well known family so admitting the family member for donations or clout seems to me like admitting a football player on scholarship who will win games but not good academically?
These situations are few and sort of cancel each other out- they don't matter... what matters is how the other people are let in.... and ivy league has a reputation of being very gifted minds (high IQ measured through SAT). Ultimately unis have discretion to some degree... but race happens to be protected. I think it's the large difference in scores by race that cause problems. And if you think it's unfair bc of upbringing.. how is putting them in with way more gifted students the answer--- unless ivy league is now just a signal and not a learning institution? If so it's time is limited.
I actually think these ivy leagues are just operating under woke capitalism- the more elite blacks (the best blacks with the highest SAT scores) they let in the better their clout right now- even if whites or asians have higher scores--- that is bc race is the only thing that matters right now. This transfers to hiring too- so the blacks that go to Harvard today are probably worth 100X any white or asian. At least politically... which is where power resides.
Perhaps that means that the issue is deeper. It isn't just okay to discriminate against whites and asians. Blacks are a rare commodity, at least ones that can succeed at Harvard and the ivy leagues want to make sure they get as many as they can. What though does that tell us of the importance of race and who is being worshiped just bc of their skin color?
Public vs private- I mean they both are tax exempt. One takes more in tax dollars.. so what? Do we have more control over the public school- not really.
Legacy means having a family member, usually a parent or grandparent, who graduated from that school. People benefiting from this are going to be disproportionately white.
I believe students getting in based on donations is the Dean's interest list or some similar term. Unfortunately, racist policies in the past, such as redlining, made it harder for some groups to build up generational wealth so this group is disproportionately white as well. I do agree that this group is probably small enough to be ignored if it was on its own. If it isn't, they should raise their cutoff for the amount of donations it requires until it is small enough.
As for athletics, those are very towards wealthier students. Lots of sports require expensive equipment or facilities to train in that poor students won't have access to. This impacts racial minorities for the same reasons as the above point.
> I think it's the large difference in scores by race that cause problems. And if you think it's unfair bc of upbringing.. how is putting them in with way more gifted students the answer
This assumes that differences in testing are the result of differences in ability. There are lots of reasons why someone might have lower scores on a standardized test or the SATs that aren't related to how smart they are. The children of wealthy parents are going to have access to better teachers, private tutoring in subjects they have trouble with, test prep, etc.
> Blacks are a rare commodity, at least ones that can succeed at Harvard
Just over 2/5 of the white students at Harvard at ADLC admissions. These are overwhelmingly white. To make up for that imbalance, you need very biased admissions for non-ADLC students, indeed.
>What good are security cameras if they still will not prosecute.
Prosecution is not the only punishment. Getting arrested or getting in a confrontation with security are still negative outcomes that still occur and people will want to avoid. If you allow people to just walk into the area and walk out with the stolen property more people are going to do it. Making the act of stealing more difficult (or even just appear more difficult) will reduce theft regardless of the punishment.
>We all have property rights, even businesses believe it or not.
>Theft is a violation of property rights.
What did I say that makes you think I would disagree with this.
>If you don’t believe in property rights then I’ll take the keys to your house- thanks
My point is that Union Pacific has a responsibility to lock their house. If I leave my door unlocked and my house gets burgled, I have some responsibility in contributing to that outcome.
It is a question of willful negligence. I don't think sleeping on a couch is negligent. I think leaving valuable property unattended and unprotected in an area in which you know crime to occur is willfully negligent.
What will bitcoiners do when the inevitable happens- inflation and green energy polices raise the price of electricity...
I guess they can pick up and move somewhere if it gets banned. In the meantime they can partner with green energy, raising electricity prices or cost to mine bitcoin which helps push up the price of bitcoin. All while pretending to be green- encouraging wind expansion and hoping for blackouts which they can also profit from - wild swings in prices makes them also enron energy traders.
This will encourage more POW coins... lets launch even more tokens with POW.
> raising electricity prices or cost to mine bitcoin which helps push up the price of bitcoin
The price of bitcoin is not driven by electricity prices, or more generally by the cost of mining. Bitcoin supply works at a fixed rate: one new block of 6.25 BTC is mined (on average) every ten minutes. Every four years the BTC reward per block is cut in half. More mining effort (higher hash rate) just raises the difficulty threshold so that the interval remains 10 minutes per block. Lower mining effort, of course, has the opposite effect. Higher mining costs would drive marginal miners out of business and lower the hash rate but otherwise have no impact on the supply of new bitcoins or the ability to process transactions.
Releasing stats on race of renters and which race has the most problem renters would help ease fears... if the stats show that all groups behave the same on the whole and there is no financial motivation to be biased.
Or if there is a difference then Airbnb could say if anything bad happens to your home then we got you.. then you wouldn't be afraid of anything.
Some kind of damage insurance definitely seems like the right way to solve this. It's interesting that we are okay with discrimination in some cases but not in others, for example young males pay higher car insurance premiums (because they legitimately represent more risk).
It's still pretty unfair for those young males that are very careful drivers.
It’s just true that stereotypes are pretty accurate for entire populations but unfair to individuals. If you as an Airbnb owner decided to only rent out to old grandmas, you would see a lower risk and less damage. Because as a population, grandmas are less likely to throw a party.
Two equivalent ways of approaching the problem: Risk is the same for everyone and decreases with age OR risk stays the same for every member of the population throughout their lives.
What's interesting with fatal car crashes is that they can happen only once in a driver's life (you can't die twice). So when looking at an age cohort, the young male who dies at 18 can't die again at 36 and is therefore going to be excluded from his age cohort.
Now the question is how could we predict the individual risk level (parent income? Education? Zip Code? Race?). Doing it accurately would probably be illegal, so we accept that the young careful drivers will just foot the bill for everyone.
Fatal crashes make up something like 0.27% of accidents so I doubt it even factors into the insurance cost. Almost all the insurance payouts are accidents that significantly damage the car or require expensive medical attention, but those can definitely happen more than once for a young male (or anyone).
"Or if there is a difference then Airbnb could say if anything bad happens to your home then we got you."
Wow, no.
If the data shows that 'people of certain groups are more likely to cause damage' it's 'game over' ... they could never release the data.
In fact, they probably don't want to even see the data, internally, it's explosive.
There would be a big fuss over it, and maybe even some court cases.
"if anything bad happens to your home then we got you."
AirBnB can't afford to cover you getting raped or killed by someone staying in your home.
People on this thread have misrepresented the issue by focusing on rentals as though they are commercial spaces, but a significant portion of rentals are merely places in people's home which is a giant difference.
Moreover, what sane person would trust a giant corporation to support them in the event of some kind of severe or traumatizing thing, let alone just property damage?
I almost wonder if the 'rent a room in my home' should be a completely different line of business from apartment rentals.
Conservatives are dropping their principles- meaning why should we give the left free speech or services from private companies when they deny that to the right. We want revenge. We want AG from GOP states to investigate these companies for fraud, theft, or discrimination.
They are no longer a neutral company. Period, and this is war.
Conservatives can no longer expect services from lefty companies.
How about truckers, who are conservative, not deliver food to lefty cities. How will they like that. So now lefty's need to start their own lefty trucker companies so they can get food. It is a private business, go start your own trucking company to get food- how do you like that?