Ultimately, libs live in a kind of crypto-econometric world where everyone is always making the best possible rational and moral choices given their circumstances and the only way to change actions is to change said circumstances.
This is why they hate "racists," "homophones," etc.: living refutations of their panglossian positivism.
*homophobes lol. Autocorrect is great.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Note how "blaming him," according to these people, never involves punishing said capitalist for being an accessory to to the violation of immigration laws. (this would be "fascism")
One of the most insidious faults encouraged by modern education is the tendency to immediately dismiss the points of authors whose train of logic isn't apparent to the reader.
1/?
We assume that "oh, he was just a diversity hire/old racist/etc." and therefore that there was no train of logic to begin with. It's transparent propaganda and, deep in the Republican party headquarters or the SPLC, that those people would freely admit that they're grifters. 2/?
Not without reason because there are, of course, a few people like Chris Rufo or Arthur Chu who openly admit they have no principles but winning. But their admission demonstrates uncommon stupidity on itself. Most genuine idiots (e.g
John Rawls) honestly believe. 3/?
Bad frame; you're conceding that education is important. The correct frame is "we've seen how many teachers fuck their students and kids in coal mines is provably less exploitative."
But seriously, legalizing child labour in this case = legalizing children working outside the home, which would become as de facto mandatory as women working outside the home and for the same reasons. Women/children's employment should be limited to the household and/or nepotism.
It's telling that all the examples that the Libertarian party retweets are things like kids who got paid five bucks a pop to wash their neighborhood cars. Self-employment is not what child labour would mean in a post-industrial age and they're being disingenuous.
"this is a general feature of American law, where the state is selective in enforcement and gives vague guidance that is subject to interpretation"
The technical term for this is literally tyranny: *arbitrary* rule without base in traditional law and legitimation mechanisms.
It the Holocaust happened unintentionally, as some historians claim, as a result of fanatics "working towards the Führer," then what's going on now in corporate America is "working toward diversity" (setting aside the inherent profitability of e.g. ⚧ treatments)
I've talked about desire production as a component of the (post?) democratic government a lot, but let me put that in concrete terms. 1/4
I grew up in the 1990's and was subjected to non-stop environmentalist propaganda in everything from PSA to cartoons. Even now, knowing that plastic recycling was a big oil psyop, I still feel physically uncomfortable *and guilty* putting plastic in the garbage. 2/4
Likewise, people feel guilt when they don't buy fiances a diamond ring, despite knowing DeBeers invented this custom.
It doesn't matter that we know. Desires are a function of learned habit, not will or inherent nature. 3/4
This must be that esoteric Straussian writing I've heard about.
At this point, who are they kidding? "Participation retards self-government" you say right after praising Robert Moses for being a old-school tyrant.... just admit that caring what plebs think is dumb and that progs' pathological desire for consent engineering MADE THEM dumb.