Republicans: "Let Trump finish his term."

Corporations: "We will not be donating money to your party."

Republicans: "Trump must be impeached."
Noam Choamsky was right.

There's only 1 party in the US, with 2 factions (Republican and Democrat).

And that party is the Corporatist Party.
Every government entity has tremendous checks and balances.

The White House, federal agencies, the Supreme Court, Congress, state governments, local governments, etc.

Power is distributed and under tremendous scrutiny.

And all of them are bound by oath to the Constitution.
Corporations, however, wield tremendous power and also influence in our society without corresponding oversight or regulation.

We can't even do a simple thing as taxing them properly.

For some reason, there's this weird culture of corporate worship in America.
Many think that corporations should be untouchable by the law and given carte blanche to do anything.

In fact, the most powerful entities in any civil society should be the least untouchable.

There must be 1,001 avenues for redress the moment they step out of line.
It's manifestly immoral to allow such concentrations of power in one/few entities, political or economic, in any free and fair society.

Especially when these corporations are simultaneously in bed with our elected officials and are privy to state powers.
If you disagree, I'm not saying you're wrong...

But let's just say you'd be sharing the opinion of, say, Sandy, the $14/hr Starbucks barista.

I'd be sharing the opinion of Naval Ravikant, the most successful angel investor on the planet.
PS What powers do corporations have?

To collude and simultaneously deny you an essential service, for one.

Is social media an essential service?

In the age of the smartphone, where the primary means of disseminating speech is social media, I don't know...

What do you think?
I think giving the unlimited power to regulate the airwaves to 1 or 2 tech CEOs is quite immoral; maybe that's just me.

Social media provides a voice to the voiceless, a platform for the disenfranchised.

Trump can still have his voice heard because he's the President.

Me? You?
If we can regulate housing, education, healthcare, roads, utilities, jobs, etc., I don't see why we can't regulate one of the most fundamental human rights: the right to express an opinion and speak up.
If you still believe corporations should be able to deny service to anyone based on any arbitrary reason, then by principle you also think that the 1964 Civil Rights Act is bollocks.

They should be able to wantonly discriminate against Muslims or lepers or women or whomever.
I don't want to live in a society where you can't find a job, can't find housing, can't find schools for your kids, can't find a hospital willing to treat you when you're sick, can't board a plane, can't enter buildings, can't eat at restaurants, can't open a bank account, etc.
...just because you have a different political opinion.

As a political asylee, I was granted permanent asylum by the US Department of Justice in 2018, because I have a well-founded fear of persecution in my home country based on my political opinion.
I basically said that Islam sucks (it does), and the DoJ agreed that it ought to have been protected speech.

In other words, I shouldn't have been ill-treated just because I had some dissenting thoughts and expressed them openly.
I don't see why the 1964 Civil Rights Act should not extend to political opinion.

As it stands, it extends to race, color, religion, and national origin.

Either asylum law is wrong, the Civil Rights Act is also wrong, or I'm just losing my grip on reality. 🤷‍♂️
PPS If you're interested to know, the protected grounds under the 1951 UNHCR Refugee Convention are:

-Race
-Religion
-Nationality
-Political opinion
-Membership of a social group (e.g. being gay, being trans, being Goth, being a men's rights activist, etc.)
That's what 145 countries in the world have agreed on 70 years ago as immoral and unacceptable grounds on which to discriminate people, and that they won't stand for it.
PPPS To give you an idea of how powerful some of these corporations are, Apple's revenue in 2020 was $231b, more than the GDP of 147 countries.

Walmart employs 3m people with a 2020 revenue of $482b.

They employ more people than the populations of 99 independent countries.
All that's missing is for these mega-corporations to have a "security branch" a.k.a. paramilitary arm, and they're instantly more powerful than most sovereign nations of the world.

And these mega-corporations are helmed by 1 or 2 founder-CEOs who wield absolute authority.
When critical functions of society are delegated to private corporations, e.g. the prison system, bad things happen.

There's a reason why we don't delegate things like policing and armies to private corporations.

Some things are too important to be monopolized by corporations.
You give these powers to them, they instantly become a quasi-governmental empire.

In such an environment, these private minority elites would rule without any challenge or democratic input from anyone else.

At that point, the "free market" wouldn't matter anymore.
Any contest to their domination can be squashed either by intimidation, unlimited legal resources, unlimited social capital to ruin your life, etc.

It's basically feudalism.

Except that this time, for some reason the oppressed peasants defend the feudal lords with their lives.
The turkeys do love to vote for Christmas in America.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with 𝘼𝙇𝙑𝙄𝙉 𝙏𝘼𝙉 陈杰毅

𝘼𝙇𝙑𝙄𝙉 𝙏𝘼𝙉 陈杰毅 Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @AlvinTanYOLO

14 Jan
I know it's popular wisdom that you should move on if a girl rejects you.

But I find this to be suboptimal or even wrong.

The only exception is if she starts ignoring your texts.

However, if she still responds and says she's busy when you ask her out, you still have a chance.
From my personal experience, girls might genuinely be busy with their lives, not feeling it that night/week, seeing other dudes, etc.

It's your job as a man not to overreact if she says no, gives an excuse, or even agrees yet flakes at the last minute.
In fact, I never ever reply whenever that happens.

I don't even give them a reaction.

I just wait a few more days, ask them to come over again, as if nothing happened.

I take it all in stride and stick to the game plan.

There's no room for emotions in the game.
Read 10 tweets
13 Jan
When you work for a company, you need to prove yourself by constantly making noise, or else your boss will think you don't care.

It really should be about your work, what you do, and what you deliver.

But in my experience, surviving a job requires some degree of politics.
Unfortunately, it's not enough to just work.

You need to fake your emotions to look like you care more than everyone else.

And for that, you need to constantly make noise.

In-person, in a meeting, on a Zoom meeting, etc.

Everywhere where your boss is looking.
This is definitely a big reason why corporate jobs are so ridiculous sometimes.

Instead of working, people make noise by faking interest, because they feel they have to.

Your boss is faking it for her boss, the boss of your boss is faking it, so you have to fake it too.
Read 5 tweets
11 Jan
Which Big Tech company is the hardest to boycott?
Do note that Google owns Android and YouTube, among others.

Do note that Facebook owns Instagram and WhatsApp.

Do note that Amazon owns Whole Foods and Twitch.

Do note that Apple owns of course the entire iOS ecosystem, including iTunes.
I can get rid of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp today.

I don't use Apple products as a matter of principle. Score.

Amazon is easy to look for alternatives, as I don't shop that much.

Google... Ugh. 😳
Read 4 tweets
11 Jan
One of the must-use marketing strategies these days is built-in virality.

Let your customers advertise for you indirectly as they use your product.

Hotmail used to do this with a "get your free Hotmail account" boilerplate.

Apple does this with "Sent from my iPhone."
This strategy is especially important if you're a solo entrepreneur and can't dedicate enough time to marketing without ignoring the product.

When you tie your marketing directly to product usage, all you have to focus on is making a delightful product that people want to use.
That should free you up some time.

Oh, also use your own product daily.

You have to eat your own dogfood to improve it.

Plus nobody is a better ambassador of your own product than yourself.

The founder has to fully believe and stand by the value of his product.
Read 4 tweets
11 Nov 20
Do the real thing.

Whatever your goal is, do the real thing.

Don't do fake things to prepare for the real thing, while fooling yourself that you're making progress in the real thing.

You're not.

I'll explain to you what I mean.

[THREAD] 👇
Back in high school, we had a physical fitness test called the NAPFA 2.4km run.

To prepare for it, guess what I did?

I ran 2.4km every day on a treadmill in an air-conditioned gym.

I was making excellent time on the treadmill, hitting 9-minute times consistently.

I was ready.
Well the day of the test arrived, and I was determined to get the best time in my class.

Guess what happened?

I gassed out like 5-6 minutes into it.

Despite leading the race for much of it, I saw people from the back overtaking me while I was forced to walk the final stretch.
Read 18 tweets
31 Oct 20
We don't like to acknowledge that we judge people by their looks and dish out different treatments based on it, because it's admitting that we're shallow assholes.

We'd rather blame our mistreatment of unattractive people on their "bad personalities."
That way, we're not the bad guys, it's just a defense mechanism against their so-called bad personalities.

Which is a total cop-out/rationalization.

Truth is we perceive attractive people to have good personalities, even when they actually don't.

And vice-versa, obviously.
An ugly guy who's confident will be accused of being "cocky," "uppity," "faking it," "try-hard," etc.

A hot guy who's confident will be perceived as, well, exuding true confidence.

But guess what?

It's the exact same personality trait, just expressed by different people.
Read 12 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!