Yep. Most of the time online you won't convince the person you're arguing against, BUT to convince people reading the thread. For the most part, arguing online is performative, for the purpose of the audience rather than the participants.
rumckle
joined 1 year ago
No, not everything in that list applies to every industry. The car market isn't a monopoly, but it definitely has issues with government and regulatory capture (and perhaps others, I'm not expert in auto manufacturing). But even without those issues the nature of car making today gives it a high barrier of entry for new comers.
And as others pointed out, the fact it's not a monopoly leads to more unpopular ideas being scrapped.
Under capitalism it's always been the case of"what is this worth to you". The difference is in the past if a company overcharges then a competitor could come along and undercut them (so long as the gap was big enough that it made financial sense).
Unfortunately, monopolies, regulatory/government capture, vertical integration, marketing and cartels have gotten so far out of control that consumers are left with little choice but to suck it up. And most governments in the Anglosphere don't really care.
Yes, the health secretary, it literally says so in the headline.
This is what annoys me, a lot of these replies act like there's a hidden agenda to everything. Saying things like, "They must support white supremacy! It's a racist dog whistle! They're a Trump supporter". Their assessments never have any nuance whatsoever: if you put that on your car, you're all of the above.
That's the whole point of a dog whistle, to hide the true meaning behind innocuous symbols and phrases. And if you're someone who would be targeted by the hate groups using these dog whistles, it pays to be aware of them.
You're right, there should be nuance, because there are people who use these symbols without it being a dog whistle. But to dismiss any concerns is dangerous, and exactly what the hate groups want.
That's why they don't get fired specifically for that, they just get fired.
honestly i've delt with more people who refuse to change anything because "what's the point" than I deal with outright deniers anymore.
But most of the people who express that opinion aren't saying it because they think that climate change is unstoppable.
They are saying it because the changes that we know can help fight climate change, that we've known about for years, that international leaders can implement, aren't being done.
And this statement, from someone with a lot influence on global carbon emissions than the average person, seems very out of touch. He is telling off the people whose house is burning down, while ignoring the arsonists.
Some of you haven't read the Wasp v Weird Al comic event and it shows ๐ค