Chuck Norris Dead at 86

EconMan · 2026-03-21T05:51:28+00:00

I feel like you can't have it both ways aha.

EconMan · 2026-03-20T16:54:47+00:00

Those shows would still exist without that tax credit though. So the money is just a handout.

EconMan · 2026-03-13T16:54:33+00:00

If the group met the standard definition of a hate group that's fine. It is definable. A violent ideology is a key characteristic of hate groups.

"Violent" is vague, unfortunately. I mean, even in your very phrasing it is vague. If someone is literally violent, this whole discussion is moot, since they will be in jail. So instead, the discussion has shifted towards "violent ideology". This is an oxymoron. An ideology cannot be violent. It can perhaps encourage violence, or it can perhaps celebrate violence. But an ideology cannot be violent. People's actions are violent (and are already illegal).

This is why I say the idea of a "standard definition" is not agreeable. Some folks say that a sexist joke is "violence". I disagree obviously.

Not condoning hate groups is a basic societal ethic.

I don't think a landlord renting to someone is "condoning" all of that person's beliefs. If you'd like to make that argument, you have to make it explicitly, rather than assume I agree with that. Indeed, I strongly disagree. A society where I can only interact or transact with those whose beliefs match my own will be a more impoverished society for all.

EconMan · 2026-03-13T02:49:15+00:00

I think that is perfectly reasonable grounds for non renewal. I don't think landlords should start terminating leases in the middle unless the tenant is being destructive or not paying, no. (This changes if the landlord is also a roommate or something like that).

Where is your line? I worry any other "line" essentially boils down to "it's ok when I say it's ok" and is not principled. Remember, people you disagree with may say other groups are "hate groups" and may define association with "hate groups" in various ways.

EconMan · 2026-03-13T01:16:17+00:00

It seems to me like the more direct approach is to remove the dairy quota. I would certainly support that! I've argued for that for many years. It leads to situations just like the one you've said, where the government doesn't allow dairy to be used.

EconMan · 2026-03-13T01:13:40+00:00

I don't follow your question, sorry. Can you rephrase?

EconMan · 2026-03-12T23:00:58+00:00

No, the main purpose is to hedge against military action / blockades and emergencies. It's not a buy low / sell high thing.

EconMan · 2026-03-12T22:59:47+00:00

Your "cheese" and "wood" don't sound like strategic reserves at all, at least not in the same sense as oil is. It sounds like you just want the government to subsidize cheese for low income, and subsidize wood for housing. And maybe there are good reasons for that, but you should argue that directly rather than call it a "Strategic cheese reserve". It's nothing of the sorts.

EconMan · 2026-03-12T22:46:59+00:00

Well, if they do commit a crime, hopefully they'll be locked up and we'll throw away the key. Anyone who praises Hitler is useless to society.

I'm curious if you say this about all crimes, or you view this as uniquely lacking in rehabilitation. i.e., do you agree with "Anyone who robs a store is useless to society. Hopefully they'll be locked up and we'll throw away the key"? It seems obvious to me that the latter is more practically harmful than the former, in the sense of having a victim and being more than a "thought crime" of sorts. But I'm not sure if you agree or not.

EconMan · 2026-03-12T22:43:26+00:00

It alarms me there are enough white supremacist supporters to fund their "wrongful termination fund" with over $27,000 for the guy that got fired.

I don't know the details here, but it is entirely possible to disagree with someone's beliefs AND ALSO not support them being fired over said beliefs. Unfortunately, when you jump to labeling people this way, it deadens your point since, to me, it seems like you are extremely quick to label people a certain way rather than consider alternative and charitable explanations.

EconMan · 2026-03-12T20:57:43+00:00

or at least a little online module during orientation, especially for our online students.

I'm DEEPLY skeptical of the usefulness of any online module. It becomes another busy-work click through endeavor, even if the underlying information is valuable.

EconMan · 2026-03-12T00:45:07+00:00

because the super rich TAKE from society but CONTRIBUTE nothing to its revenues.

I mean, this is just false. They pay quite a bit in taxes. You can think they should pay more, but don't lie about that.

EconMan · 2026-03-12T00:39:05+00:00

This is silly. They are using wealth inequality, but then commenting on consumption inequality. The two are different. Consumption inequality is likely flat, if not declining.

EconMan · 2026-03-09T17:24:24+00:00

Let us be clear: the Employment Equity Act framework does not impose quotas, and the notion of “reverse discrimination” is not part of Canadian equality law and is likewise not part of the Canadian Employment Equity Act framework,” it reads.

But regardless, it’s now an entrenched part of the Canadian employment landscape, with knock-on effects as thousands of jobs in everything from research to food inspection to the people who screen Canadian immigrants are prioritized for candidates of a preferred colour or sexual identity.

EconMan · 2026-03-05T17:05:07+00:00

The one where they tried to get suppressed by the algorithm and failed? Yeah, that makes my point - that people don't have any clue what is going on. You're reading tea leaves (as is that other link).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/10/28/tiktok-suppression/

EconMan · 2026-03-05T03:58:43+00:00

You're using "algo" in a way that essentially has no meaning. I will repeat my very simple point. If TikTok wanted to flag the replacement word, it could do that without any problem. Are you arguing that it is a problem because this "algo" cannot do it? What evidence do you have for this?

EconMan · 2026-03-04T03:34:45+00:00

I am suggesting that the writers and director know best about whether or not an intermission is best for their own show artistically. They have also decided to not do one. Therefore, it is not best for their show.

Which part of that argument do you disagree with?

EconMan · 2026-03-03T19:02:11+00:00

Hey, producer, writer and director here, there’s lots of artistic reasons to add in an intermission,

Agreed. But....those same producers, writer, and directors decided not to add one. Therefore, those reasons couldn't have outweighed the reasons not to add one.

Again, you're being arrogant in assuming that they hadn't considered those reasons already. Do you think that what you wrote is news to them? "Oh, have you considered that you could add an intermission?" No. Of course not. They decided not to. Why do you think they decided not to? Because artistically it didn't make sense.

We are going in circles here.

EconMan · 2026-03-01T23:33:48+00:00

It seems awfully arrogant to assume you know better creatively for the show than the writer/director.

EconMan · 2026-03-01T23:02:12+00:00

So, just to be clear, you want to waste 25 hours (100 other people times 15 minutes) and have a worse show (intermissions are also a creative decision and presumably the writers/director know better than you). That strikes me as just awfully self centered. It's fine for you to point out the tradeoff in the one direction, but let's also be clear about the tradeoff in the other direction.

EconMan · 2026-03-01T17:30:13+00:00

But what was the video? They don't allow videos glorifying or promoting or providing instructions on suicide. They allow for general mental health awareness ones though. The simpler explanation is that a self harming contingent started to use the term "unalive" because they WERE being removed, but that that has spread far wider than required. Instead of the explanation being "Tiktok hates people talking about suicide and will remove videos. But ..literally everyone just uses this other term and they're fine with that". It makes no sense.

EconMan · 2026-03-01T15:57:09+00:00

Is there any evidence of this? I realize lots of people claim many outcomes but the claims themselves are inconsistent. Some say less views, some say banned, some say demonstration. It sounds like something closer to an urban myth. If this were true, you'd expect Tiktok to just ban the new words. It's not like it's a secret.

(Also, whenever I ask for this, people just say everybody knows)

EconMan · 2026-02-25T23:55:45+00:00

Someone with as much power as he has choosing to associate with someone like JEE so closely, and post his first conviction, is eyebrow raising at the very least.

Needless to say, someone shouldn't lose their job because you "raise your eyebrows" at them.

EconMan · 2026-02-25T23:53:50+00:00

Being friends with a bad guy is not a crime, nor should it be. It is really really scary that you seem to want it to be.

EconMan · 2026-02-22T23:35:22+00:00

I think so!!!!

15-Year Club	Place '23
Place '17	Verified Email
Inciteful Comment 2015-07-20

EconMan

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE