I believe it's because in many cases, the unspoken follow on to "inequality is the norm" is "and so it's useless (or actively harmful) to try to defy that norm."
Not that above commentator is meaning that.
But many "thought leaders" i.e. Jordan Petersen play around with similar motte-and-bailey - "hierarchies are natural" (examples with lobsters, apes, whatever) --> "existing hierarchies should be preserved" (not defended in the argument but implied).
Probably some downvoters are reacting to the structural similarity, although taken in good faith i think above commenter makes a fine point about the historical pattern of periods of equality being short lived and brought about by great intentional effort while sliding back to inequality seems to occur all of the time.
I do see how your comment is similar to AI writing (a couple other comments explain) but it did NOT set off my AI trigger. I think it's just clear writing.
You can use this argument to support literally anything:
> claim: these people have Chinese names, are they REALLY Americans??
> response: suspecting "true allegiance" based on peoples names is racist and was used to justify atrocities like Japanese internment in our country's history
> rebuttal to response: "art of being a Good Person these days, is never admitting that you know or suspect this, even if you've seen & heard it yourself."
Instead of defending the claim you're just claiming you're being censored.
The difference is, of course, the claim that blood is thicker than water has been a relatively reliable way of guessing where someone's loyalties lie for millenia; while the "response" is a cosmopolitan universalist tic common only to the past 70 years or so, and flying in the face of so much experience & common-sense requires shaming anyone who thinks otherwise.
I think you could make a better argument for nativism than "its been that way for millenia" and "it's common sense". Warring tribes were also around for millenia and were probably quite common sense.
Most people consider the modern state, society, etc, to be an improvement. Many people also consider not questioning people's loyalties by their surnames, to be an improvement, even though I'm sure it was common sense for a long time.
For sane readers: "noticing" is a fascist dog whistle. They can't make developed argument, else their bigotry would be self-evident. Instead, they just say "I notice" next to asian-looking names, as if every asian-American was a DPRK operative.
This is also how I see it, and honestly it is hard to understand it any other way. In the current year, it seems very clear that governments can get away with incredible debt spending, as long as it's mostly in the right direction.
> I sometimes wonder what the consequences would be of stipulating that patents had to be uniformly licensed to all interested parties without exception.
Isn't this the definition of FRAND which nearly the entire interview with the lawyer from the article is about?
Yes but I wonder what the result of applying something substantially similar to that to the entire patent system without exception might be. Also I had in mind "uniform" in addition to "reasonable", ie holders would be permitted only a single set of license terms at a single rate with zero difference regardless of size, volume, etc. Maybe being permitted to change the terms on offer at the end of every 5 year period or so. Or something vaguely like that anyway.
It's really just a thought experiment about how you might kill patent trolls as well as the asymmetric advantages that large corporations enjoy while still maintaining the spirit of funding the R&D done by participants of all sizes.
Not that above commentator is meaning that.
But many "thought leaders" i.e. Jordan Petersen play around with similar motte-and-bailey - "hierarchies are natural" (examples with lobsters, apes, whatever) --> "existing hierarchies should be preserved" (not defended in the argument but implied).
Probably some downvoters are reacting to the structural similarity, although taken in good faith i think above commenter makes a fine point about the historical pattern of periods of equality being short lived and brought about by great intentional effort while sliding back to inequality seems to occur all of the time.
reply