> The lame social media posts from fellow tech workers about how things "should" be regulated gets tiresome. The real solution is to simply not work for them.
If you’re calling something a “real solution” it should have at least some chance of actually happening and solving the problem. Strong regulation from the government against union busting is both possible and effective (look at what FDR did if you want an example). Wishing individuals would live up to your standards of ethical behavior when they have no reason to (and may have personal/family reasons that make them feel they need the paycheck) will not ever change anything.
I don’t think anyone denies that Israel is building settlements in internationally recognized Palestinian and Syrian land. They don’t hide it, there’s a lot of very recent news online about it e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/27/world/middleeast/israel-s...
Are you asking which country enables Israel to continue to violate international law in the longest occupation in modern history (the West Bank)? That would be the US, who gives them $4 billion dollars each year and prevents them from being sanctioned at the UN
? Israel continues to build and operate settlement colonies in the West Bank in internationally recognized Palestinian land. I’m not sure how you can get around calling it a settler colony without some impressive mental backflips
You can google settler colony. I’m not suggesting anything in this comment other than that settler colonies with apartheid policies tend to be unstable throughout history.
But since you asked, I don’t think citizens of Israel should have to leave, I would advocate for Israel to do something similar to South Africa when they ended their apartheid policies
Where did you get that from? I wrote two specific criticisms which are quite different from your characterizations, maybe you should reread the comment?
Yeah I see your point. I think what I and others are saying is that given the US’s 70+ year track record at serving their own interests at the detriment of foreign people, there is no reason for them to completely change their goals with no reason. The US defense apparatus doesn’t exist to be a moral good or improve the lives of foreigners, it exists to serve the interests of wealthy Americans. The professed moral goals are propaganda and will always be false - they’ve had these justifications for every action they’ve taken from supporting death squads to installing dictators to topple democracies
The goal of US foreign policy has never been to improve the lives of people anywhere outside the US. A sibling comment points out that one of our closest allies in the Middle East is Saudi Arabia, an absolute monarchy that publicly beheads dissidents and has incredibly sexist laws, yet the US does nothing, and we see nothing like the neo Cold War coverage that Xinjiang produces. The US will remain an ally of Saudi Arabia because that is beneficial to the interests of the US, not the people subject to the Saudi regime.
If you think I’m a cynic or conspiracy theorist, take a look at what the US has done in other countries since WW2, in many cases overthrowing democratically elected governments in favor of US friendly regimes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r.... This is what the US has always done to other countries, expecting them to care about morals or improving anyone’s lives is missing their goal completely (and taking their propaganda at face value).
Whatever the goal of confrontation with China is, improving human rights is the least likely possibility.
I can’t really tell if you’re saying it’s not possible to solve homelessness by giving people homes or if doing that is politically difficult. I would agree very much that it’s politically difficult to do, but a solution being politically difficult doesn’t make the problem unsolved. Especially considering there are governments that have acted to solve the problem in this way and seen positive results. Im not talking about what policies are easy to get passed, I’m saying there’s no reason what Finland did couldn’t be repeated in a larger country with vastly more resources other than lack of political will.
1) Cleary the policy is massively successful and the trends are pointing towards it being solved in the next few years. I don’t read Finnish so I can’t provide a better source, but you could probably find one looking online if you don’t like the Guardian
2) Low population density seems like something that would make solving homelessness harder, not easier, as you seem to suggest. I don’t see how ethnic homogeneity has anything to do with this but I’d be interested in hearing why you think it does. I agree that a strong social safety net helps a lot with this problem and we need it in the US also. Your assertion that a smaller population makes the problem easier doesn’t make sense. Less housing needs to be built but the Finnish government also has much fewer resources than the US.
> The only reason I see expenses really causing massive debt is if you choose to accept/request medical procedures you can't pay for
Have you ever been to a US hospital? They don’t have a menu where you browse treatments and prices. You get your treatment and then later on you get a massive bill
That’s all putting aside the fact that a society allowing people to suffer from treatable illnesses is completely unnecessary and cruel considering that providing free care to everyone is something many countries do successfully
If you’re calling something a “real solution” it should have at least some chance of actually happening and solving the problem. Strong regulation from the government against union busting is both possible and effective (look at what FDR did if you want an example). Wishing individuals would live up to your standards of ethical behavior when they have no reason to (and may have personal/family reasons that make them feel they need the paycheck) will not ever change anything.