Hodad

You seem to live in some kind of MAGA fantasy land. Babbitt was NOT killed for trespassing. She was a certified loon at the vanguard of a howling mob that was *literally* breaking through barricaded doors to get to the legislators on the other side. Those officers were, again, literally, the last line of defense between our elected officials and the mob. It's difficult to imagine a more justified shooting, and indeed multiple investigations determined the that the officer acted appropriately. It's a shame when metal health issues and/or extreme stupidity lead to violence and death, but Babbitt absolutely earned her fate and her death may have saved many other lives.

J. K. Rowling is making a nuanced point, and that often doesn't go well on social media. "Trans women are women" is, however very social friendly and a manageable hashtag. So right now it's just people talking--or shouting--past each other. Like most of you, I'm finding myself falling more on the Rowling side of things. "Trans women are women" is well meaning in terms of how society should treat/respect/tolerate trans people, but it also discounts or diminishes the lived experience of people born as women. To illustrate that nuance I sometimes bring up the curious case of Rachel Dolezal. You may remember some years ago she made national news. At the time she was a Black and civil rights activist and the local (Spokane, WA) head of the NAACP chapter. The twist is that she grew up as a blue-eyed, blonde-haired white daughter of white parents. She only identified as Black and had taken some steps to change her appearance to match. She was "passing" as Black. So, is/was she Black? Her everyday life at that time might have resembled the Black experience in many ways (just as a trans person's might) she certainly doesn't have the full lived experience of a person born Black. I don't think anyone would hashtag "Black transracial women are Black." Frankly, there was not a lot of sympathy for her. There was anger. People viewed her as an impostor and appropriator. And perhaps there should have been more of an attempt to understand and to tolerate. And that makes it easier to see Rowling's point. Trans women, no matter how completely they identify as women--and deserve to be treated as women--they don't have the full lived experience of a person born female--whether that means a trip to the nurse's office because you got your period at school or the social pressure of developing breasts early or late or whatever it might be. We have to find a way to recognize both truths with tolerance and the hashtag isn't going to cut it.

There's not a line. It's a marketplace of ideas. Chapelle can say whatever he wants and what happens to his marketability is whatever happens to his marketability.

No. Banning is a government action, and while free speech isn't unlimited it's hard to think of a scenario in which a comedian telling a joke crosses any of the legal lines. But absolutely people, including comedians, who exercise their speech in socially unacceptable ways can and should bear the consequences of those actions. Venues and platforms will disassociate. Protests may be mounted. Etc. This is how societies have always policed themselves and is distinct from "banning."

People used to read papers like the NYT to get smarter (well, more educated). FOX discovered that you could make a lot more money making stupid people feel that they were already smart enough. Journalism isn't supposed to represent. It's supposed to challenge and improve. That's the job.

Yes, it's unbelievable--in every sense of the word. I cannot understand it. No matter how much one buys into the culture war bullshit, you'd think they have the self respect to at least reject the phonies at FOX who have been laughing at them and manipulating them. I would honestly respect them more if they wandered off to find some even shittier network like OAN or Newsmax where everything is wrong, but at least there's the possibility that the garbage peddlers sincerely believe their own nonsense. But nope, they can see the man behind the curtain at FOX and still go back for more and more and more. It's nauseating.

Holy shite, dude. Tucker and his buddies are on record as having lied to you for the last 6 years. Not slant, or bias or selective coverage, but just plain outright and deliberately lying to you, telling you the exact opposite of what they knew to be true for the sake of ratings, money and influence. Why and how, with any conscience, are you still parroting his bullshit? Instead of crawling back for more, can't you at least muster up the self respect to be pissed off about being explicitly and deliberate manipulated? That is a whole new level of submissive. SMH.

Whaaaaaaat? You have to be joking. History is replete with examples of self-styled "patriots" attempting to protest against--or outright end--their existing form of government through violence.

Tucker Carlson is a seething mound of human garbage, and anyone who believes him at this point is a hopeless fool. And this thread is exactly what was expected. 1. He shows "peaceful" footage as if that will erase the footage of chaos and violence. Again, like showing footage of the 99.9% of the time Jeffrey Dahmer wasn't killing and eating people. He must be peaceful! Forget about the other stuff! 2. He says there is dispute about how Chansley got into the Capitol, but Chansley is on video with a throng of window smashing a-holes as they break in. Do we see him specifically smash his way in from that camera angle? Nope, but there is no mystery about how he got in and whether he thought he was allowed. He didn't leave when police told him to and he didn't "accidentally" leave a threatening note to Mike Pence. 3. He shows footage of officers in proximity to Chansley and implies that they are essentially tour guides. You don't think their "escort" has any other purpose? Jeebus. 4. He asks why the police didn't stop or arrest these people? Because they were already farking overrun and vastly outnumbered. After the initial violence what officer is going to escalate against a mob like that? They were literally beaten and threatened and warned against impeding the mob. There's footage of that too. There's sworn testimony from the officers who actually lived through it. 5. AND THIS IS THE WORST. He has the unmitigated gall to say that the rioters were there "Because they thought the election was stolen" when what he SHOULD be saying is "They were there because my colleagues and I lied to them for months about the election being stolen. Sorry!"

Except that didn't happen. It's not signed and will be vetoed. And indeed we live in a very strange world when would-be conservatives deride the notion of free market economics simply to spite a Democratic president. They say, "Free market economics are the one true answer, unless the market values something differently than I do, then we shouldn't allow that choice!"

Okay. Hypothetical people of future America, let it be known that President Joe Biden has not, at any time, dictated the company mix in your investment portfolios, nor the process by which fund managers evaluate and project value. Job done! In case people were REALLY farking confused about the role of the POTUS in investment funds that should set them straight. Nice of you to look out for those folks. ?

@Contrarianit's a funny bit, but take note of how farked up a network would have to get to become the equivalent of FNC. As I've said over and over again, it's not a news network and was never intended to be.

Ah, no. Your claim was that Biden was forcing ESG investment. That's complete bullshit. Fund managers buy what they buy. They are allowed to consider ESG as a facet of their decision making. They might buy petroleum. They might buy tech stocks. They might buy agriculture. The fund participants don't get to choose. If you want to say that Biden is "forcing" people to invest in ESG companies, then by the same function you'd have to say he's forcing people to buy petroleum and tech and agriculture. In fact, you'd have to agree that absolutely any factor that fund managers might consider or any feature of a company in the portfolio is actually a case of Biden "forcing" people to buy that factor or feature. Which is an indefensibly stupid position. You really want to claim it?

There's nothing specific to pensions. If fund managers see value in ESG they'll consider it when composing their funds. If they don't, they won't. In no way, shape or form is that being forced. The Trump administration decided to restrict this free market choice in 2020. All the DoL change does is restore this option to the market. And no, people under pension plans have little or no control over how the plans are managed. This doesn't change that.

And the key word, once again, is "allow." Which is in no way the same as "force." So stop spreading lies.

So, again, per your cite. "noted that the Labor Department rule was voluntary, so it didn’t require fund managers to actually do anything." So it's 100% disingenuous to say that Biden is forcing anyone to invest in ESG. Individual investors have NEVER had a voice in how fund managers assess value. Drop the lies and get real.

This is starting to feel like a VERY remedial vocabulary lesson. From your quote: "permits fiduciary retirement fund managers to consider" Are you using some kind of special conservative dictionary in which "permit" means "force"? Fund managers are permitted to invest in all kinds of companies with all kinds of considerations. They are permitted to invest in petroleum companies. Does that mean that Biden is forcing people to invest in petroleum? They are permitted to invest in companies with active boards of directors. Does that mean Biden is forcing people to do so? Of course not. It's an utterly absurd premise. But you're turning yourself inside out for the sake of partisan hackery. Get real. ETA: It used to be that conservatives said that we didn't need regulations, that if some issue is important it will be priced into the market and the market will sort it out. But you hacks that have hijacked the banner of conservatism are entirely without principle, fueled purely by antagonism and spite. You'll actively exclude choice from the marketplace if it feels politically convenient.

So are you conceding that you misunderstood the topic? That, indeed, Biden is not forcing retirement funds to do anything related to ESG? Because you definitely didn't provide a link or address that issue.

Link? I don't think that's accurate. I believe the DoL rule ALLOWS funds to consider ESG. I'm not aware of any forcing. It actually give market decision makers more freedom, not less.

I don't think that addresses any of my questions. How is it government meddling? How is this investment strategy fundamentally different from other strategies? How will the market not sort this out? Etc.

Can I ask how this is an example of the government meddling? ESG-focused funds aren't a government creation or product. It's just an option in the marketplace. About half of consumers are willing to pay a premium to do business with companies that have positive ESG programs and that number is going to continue to go up. Employees--top talent--increasingly factor ESG into their career decisions. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that there is a market for investing that takes ESG into account. And it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to allow fund managers to factor in that value and future market value. Now I realize that it gets less clear cut when fund managers are working with other people's money, but It's also true that fund management styles and approaches have always been differentiators between funds. Organizations that don't want to be involved with these funds can make the market decision to choose others. It seems to me that legally prohibiting fund managers from considering ESG (rather than letting the market do the work) would actually the government interference.

The implication in this question is "no," but that seems incredibly short sighted. Corporate environmental impact is one of the classic externalities. Ex: A tannery dumps waste into a creek and destroys business and residential downstream. Voluntary or involuntary (legally imposed) prohibition of such dumping is good for the economy. Short-term inconveniences in exchange for long-term sustainability are very often good for the economy. And though less "smack you in the face" obvious, the S and G components work the same way. Workers rights-> living wages->building of the middle class is very good for the economy. Not that the economy is the end-all-be-all of life anyway.

Good thing I posted more than that line. As I went on to say at some length, systemic racism shows up in just about any analysis you can find. And I'm not talking about raw numbers, but well controlled analyses of the highest quality. And it's not random or accidental. The end of slavery didn't bring freedom. The right to vote didn't bring full representation. The end of Jim Crow didn't mean equal treatment for all. It's all progress, but it's an unfinished project. Hundreds of years of oppression have left an indelible stain on every institution in the country. Poverty isn't the cause of systemic racism, but rather a symptom. Poverty is a tough cycle to break, and America forced an entire race into poverty and contrived every foot-dragging tactic imaginable to keep them there.

That fact isn't racist, but it is typically deployed for racist(ish) purposes by those who are trying to deny the very real race problems in policing--or by those who aren't statistically literate. A smart, honest take on the stats is that while yes, numerically more whites are killed by police, Blacks are killed at a MUCH higher rate. This is true, study after study, year after year. I think it's great that your mom's amazing nature kept you from becoming a Black statistic, but one should not NEED an amazing mom to have a decent shot in life. A totally average mom should be just fine to have an average shot. Of all the ills that plague society, none of them are exclusive to Blacks. People of all races experience poverty, police violence, racism, drugs,discrimination, fractured families etc. But most of the ills of society disproportionately affect Blacks. You can pick just about any statistic and discover numerical evidence of systemic racism. Crime and punishment are among the most obvious. The simple fact of being Black is a disadvantage at every level of our justice system. Ceteris paribus, they are more likely to be stopped by police, more likely to be arrested, more likely to be charged, more likely to be convicted and more likely to receive harsher sentences for the exact same crimes.