Haha wow you have so much of this wrong. Not just confused wrong, but blatant misrepresentation that amounts to libel. The description of Bret Weinstein, what he did and did not say, and the sequence of events, is a straight up lie. Nothing he said even approached dishonesty, that study wasn’t ’foundational’ in the least, and hasn’t really changed the situation. Completely misrepresented Rogan and Lex as well. And you’re clearly wrong about nobody being censored. That’s not even in question. This whole post reads like you read some ideologically motivated hit piece and believed it was accurate.
Governments pressuring private companies and keeping lists of people they want censored and deplatformed based on what they say should offend everyone. That is fundamentally anti-free speech. It doesn’t matter what it’s about. Preserving this is worth more than silencing these 12 people.
Speaking as an anti-growther who has been in this situation, this almost never the case. Inflated housing doesn’t help them at all, it just drives up all ancillary costs of living and causes property taxes to rise. They are anti-growth because they bought a specific location for a specific reason. If you go through all that to find and invest in your ideal community, you don’t want it to be bulldozed and changed into high density shit with bad traffic, long lines, crowded attractions, higher crime, more noise, etc.
It’s not a zoning issue, it’s a WFH issue. If they build more housing, more tech workers will just buy it. The pool of people who earn more than local service industry folks and have location flexibility is extremely deep now, and it will only continue to grow. Pre-COVID had a proximity requirement to the high paying jobs that prevented this sort of arbitrage.
It happens in every market where the wealth is generated outside of the local economy. That’s the
Econ 101 that zoning activists misunderstand. For a more prominent example, see New Zealand.
> Some estimates suggest up to 30% of inmates are innocent. And when plenty are in there for marijuana, that’s a bit more petty than a billionaire disrupting an entire society.
It seems like you haven’t actually done much research before forming your opinions. This isn’t the most outlandish claim you’ve made, but it’s the easiest to falsify. This entire narrative is ignorant and fantastical.
It would be of immense value to engage with folks of different backgrounds and upbringing to understand differences like this, but unfortunately the cancel culture HN downvote mob decided that you can’t have that discussion with him.
No, you’re like a year behind on that rebuttal. Go look at the doses they are recommending. They are talking around 25mg, and it’s demonstrably safer already. Efficacy is less clear, but very compelling. The issue is the refusal to do an RCT, probably because it would wipe out billions of dollars of it succeeds.
Merck announced a $3000/dose drug with billions in preorders just a few days ago. They aren’t interested in seeing if $3 ivermectin, which they also make, works.
There is no reason whatsoever to even consider race. The justification is often that it’s a proxy for income, but that doesn’t make it any more logical. You can just evaluate it by income, profession, whatever, directly. By accusing white people of doing this, you’re still being completely racist. Say “wealthy people from other zip codes” if you want, but we got rid of segregation for a good reason.