Boeing moved 87 production to South Carolina because we're unionized in Everett. We got a bunch of empty lines in the factory. It's cheaper to build fewer planes than guarantee sick pay.
Also, if everyone is not working constantly, then we will all starve...
...because of, well, because of... scarcity!
I read Flying Blind and am sorry for what must have been a long, painful, soul-crushing journey for you folks.
I think when one small group holds power, the effects for everyone else are usually shitty.
The issue may be more related to power itself, rather than to those who hold it.
True, except a system that explicitly rewards negative character traits such as greed, ruthlessness, and selfish opportunism will inevitably lead to inherently shitty people gaining and retaining power.
How would you explain, as an example, a system in which certain individuals would acquire and would hold power, other than by presenting the negative traits such as the ones you mention?
The motive of my comment was to prompt critical reflection on the more basic essence of power, not just particular expressions of power.
That's a disingenuous way to frame it.
Under almost any system, those traits are somewhat advantageous when it comes to power, but few if any countries reward them as thoroughly or do as little to rein them in as the US.
Very few if any other democracies have systems written by and for the already rich and powerful to anywhere near the degree of the US.
None other that I have heard of explicitly allows bribery by law (as long as you're not stupid enough to say "I'm bribing you right now to do this specific thing"), even going so far as considering it a necessity to gain and retain public office.
CERTAINLY not while loudly pretending to be one of the least corrupt and most democratic countries in the world. Even going so far as to claim absolute social mobility when there's almost none for those at the bottom.
That’s a disingenuous way to frame it.
Regardless of your position, the question I asked seems entirely natural and fitting, and also straightforward, given the preceding context.
Your response reveals you have innaccurately extrapolated one particular motive for the question.
You have hinted toward a favorable solution to an agreed problem, yet you now antagonize someone, and return an evasion, simply for suggesting politely that you might elucidate your own position.
There remains an unresolved tension in your argumentation thus far.
You have agreed that problems for those who are disempowered are exacerbated by the conditions of one small group holding power.
Yet, you have also tacitly defended, as the form of system you most prefer, a system in which one small group holds power.
More, you have avoided offering any conception of how power itself may be reproduced by activity you regard as favorable.
Under almost any system , those traits are somewhat advantageous when it comes to power
I agree.
For such reasons, as well as others, I would defend the assertion that problems for those who are disempowered are exacerbated by the conditions of one small group holding power.
Very few if any other democracies...
...when there’s almost none for those at the bottom.
I can reach no understanding of how any of it is related to assuaging problems that have been exacerbated by conditions of one small group holding power.
Yet, you have also tacitly defended, as the form of system you most prefer, a system in which one small group holds power.
I've done no such thing. Which small group are you imagining I'm advocating for being in charge of everything?
issues identified as consequent of one small group holding power.
Identified by your own faulty logic. It's extremely reductive to pretend that how many people have power is in itself the only problem rather than for example how that power is (ab)used and how little is done to hold those people accountable.
The lack of social mobility for poor and otherwise marginalised people is one of the main reasons for the concentration of power. That and people like you ignoring any part of the problem that isn't directly related to a tiny portion of the causality.
I can reach no understanding of how any of it is
Seems about true.
I’ve done no such thing. Which small group are you imagining I’m advocating for being in charge of everything?
You clarified the various kinds of processes you consider as more versus less favorable for how individuals would enter into positions of power.
If processes exist for how individuals may enter into positions of power, then the individuals who have entered into positions of power, by such processes, constitute a group who holds power over society, and that, compared to the whole mass of society, is small.
Therefore, you have tacitly defended a system in which one small group holds power over the rest of society.
It’s extremely reductive to pretend that how many...
You are distorting my language, simply to make it assert what you feel inclined to negate.
The challenge, which you have avoided, is to consider critically the benefit, if any, that one group having power over another confers to the group that is disempowered.
There may be a more direct path toward identifying the essence of disagreement.
Let's make it simple.
Considered abstractly, a system may take any one of three forms...
You seem to have implied two assertions...
Would you please justify one or both of the assertions that you seem to have insinuated?
Let's make it simple.
No, let's not. Oversimplification was your mistake from the start.
A system may take one of three forms
Ridiculous.
Would you please justify one or both assertions?
Nope, because I never claimed either thing. I'm not going to validate your strawman argument by acting as if it's logically sound.
cries in Titan A.E.
If only the studio didn’t meddle with the project and watered it down from a pg-13 rating
In the end, it was a movie for no one
I really enjoyed it as it was. It's too bad it couldn't have been better, but I still liked it a lot.
You take that last sentence back. I love that movie, cheesy music and all.
I am a Cosmic Castaway!
I loved that movie! It represented what American animation could be if they took their heads out of their asses.
While I love Atlantis and Treasure Planet, they also flopped massively. The thing about unions is a valid point and does suck a lot, but sadly I don't think Disney would have made another film like these anyways.
Take this with a grain of salt because my memory is fuzzy and I just read it in a comment somewhere.
The reason Treasure Plant flopped was because Disney wanted it to fail to use it as an excuse to shift to 3D. They barely marketed the film and released it in November, which meant it would be competing with the Christmas films. And when the movie had won an award, no one was there to receive it cause they weren't expecting it to win anything.
The movie actually used a lot of 3D animation in combination with its traditional 2D animation. I don't think they made a movie fail intentionally to excuse a shift to the very technology said movie employed a lot more than their prior ones. If anything, the knowledge gained during the production helped them for sure.
Damn what are these from? I don't recognize any of these frames but it looks pretty cool
+1 for Treasure Planet, best Disney movie by far and away
Also shout out to Prince of Egypt because I'm pretty sure it's made me question my sexuality more than any other animated media
Looking at it now, the characters aren't really hot, but when I was younger I thought Moses was fine af
