Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Mendrian
Jan 6, 2013

If the right wanted to frame gun violence as a mental health issue, that would be awesome. Perhaps they could advocate for access to affordable mental healthcare for everyone, rather than a luxury industry that people get to self-select for and pay for themselves. I think what makes the right even more monstrous is that not only do they not care that gun ownership is a major factor, but they clearly have no interest in addressing the mental health issues they claim are the root causes of the problem. It's a position that seems to say, 'we acknowledge that some people are disturbed enough to kill people but we are completely ambivalent about stopping that.' And implies, 'people who have mental health issues should be found and eradicated before they can strike' or perhaps a more nihilistic and lazy, 'poo poo happens.'

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Mendrian
Jan 6, 2013

One of them resembles a wheel or white cross which could be a white supremacist image but unfortunately is so ubiquitous I'd be hesitant to say so without further information.

Mendrian
Jan 6, 2013

Space Cadet Omoly posted:

He killed six people, three of which were children. Don't do that "but was he really evil?" Pontificating bullshit.

This is what I'm talking about when I say "keep there name and their motives out of the news" this shithead is now getting a ton of people fawning over him, and a ton of other shitheads will see that and want that same posthumous recognition and sympathy.

I think context is important. When you talk about the 'motives' of people who are clearly disturbed, what work is that discussion doing? There is no 'motive' someone can give for shooting a child they don't even know that is going to make sense because there is no universe where a dead child results in something these people want, perhaps other than the attention. They have undiagnosed mental problems.

So for purposes of casual discussion, 'the perpetrator was evil' is a perfectly fine and desirable place to stand because unless you're interested in addressing mental health concerns in society at large there's nothing in their manifestos that's really going to explain why they did what they did, it will never completely make sense. I'm sure there's some exception to that but I don't see what can be gained for average people.

Mendrian
Jan 6, 2013

Timeless Appeal posted:

Drag bans are pretty obviously unconstitutional, and I can't even imagine them surviving the current worst Supreme Court. It has nothing to do with gender identity or accepting trans people. Drag bans just clearly violate the 1st Amendment and 14th Amendment because they're just bans on a guy wearing a dress*. Taken to their natural extreme they pretty much give state governments the power to force women to not wear pants. Of course, if it actually gets to the Supreme Court, it'll still probably just end up being a 5-4 decision agains the bans.

*To be clear, I'm aware drag kings exist, some drag queens are cis and trans women alike along with non-binary people

This got me to thinking. I was having an argument the other day whereby somebody tried to argue that drag shows are like strip clubs in that they are an event and therefore subject to zoning laws and other kinds of local legislation; but I countered that public nudity is generally illegal and a strip club is a space where it isn't illegal, so it makes sense that you'd need to have districting for it. Wearing a wig and a dress isn't illegal anywhere - you'd have to outlaw certain kinds of theater while you're at it.

How do you outlaw a 'drag show' anyway? How do these laws define 'drag shows'? Because I have a hard time imagining a world where you pass a ban on 'drag shows' where you don't simultaneously and accidentally outlaw a bunch of other stuff on top of it. For instance, if you define a drag show as a performative and sometimes comical theater whereby the participants dress up in genders not their own*, you accidentaly outlaw mascots.

EDIT: *from the perspective of the lawmakers.

Mendrian
Jan 6, 2013

VideoGameVet posted:

Civil Rights violations.

Seriously federalize their national guard and escort the ousted legislators back into the capitol.

Seriously.

Are there any standards for state elections or is it entirely up to state constitutions? Can a state just elect a dictator?

Mendrian
Jan 6, 2013

Papercut posted:

Millennials will probably be freaking out about polyamory

I mean "Millenials" are nearing or in their 40s. They already have children. The ones who are left leaning are going to have opinions similar to ITT. The ones who don't are living in conservative enclaves and are actively freaking out about trans issues and abortion like everyone else in their cohort.

For better or worse while drag queens and trans athletes may seem like an old person problem it's probably going to be inherited by their millennial children.

Gen Z though, I got no idea.

Mendrian
Jan 6, 2013

Main Paineframe posted:

This isn't true at all, though. The core of the Satanic Panic focused heavily on daycares and preschools. It was driven by a rising awareness of child abuse, encouraged by a little industry of self-proclaimed abuse experts pushing into the relatively new and untested field of social work with extremely dubious theories and techniques, and played out against the backdrop of the new right-wing fundamentalist movement that had come together in the late 70s as a backlash against the progressivism of the era.

This is the problem with boiling things down to simple "well, each generation had a boogeyman" talk. It may seem true when you're looking at things with about as much analysis and accuracy as a Cracked Dot Com article, but each of these movements emerged in response to specific cultural trends and shifts, not just each generation looking for one and only one thing to hate.

It's also relevant that these things didn't exist in some kind of generation locked vacuum either. While the Satanic Panic pulled back hard in the 90s it continued strong in many small communities that were vulnerable to it. Fear of communist agents in our midst may not be as pitched as it once was but it definitely still exists even now.

There are teenagers, right now, who believe magic the gathering is an attempt by Satan to lure them into sin. It may not be a widespread belief but only because it is not a useful belief.

Mendrian
Jan 6, 2013

Bugsy posted:

I'm sure they will find a Great Replacement for Tucker.

I'm earnestly curious if FOX plans to go even chuddier after the recent round of firings or if they want to pull back.

Mendrian
Jan 6, 2013

Charliegrs posted:

I think it's just going to make young people even more apathetic and they'll bother not turning out even more than they already do. Which is not good because they are already the most apathetic group that turns out the least. But in recent years it looks like the youth turnout has been improving and that's what made the difference in the midterms if I'm not mistaken. So it's a really bad time to do anything that will gently caress them over.

I've been having a lot of really infuriating conversations with libs about social welfare in the last couple of months, and I don't know if it's shaped by a broader message or what. Things like, "well, it would be good to lower rents, but how can we accomplish that without crashing the real estate market?" and when pointed out that people are starving and going homeless right now and incremental change isn't going to save those people, it's met with shrugs. Same for student loans and healthcare.

The only difference between libs and conservatives at this point is the timetable on which they choose to gently caress over vulnerable people.

Mendrian
Jan 6, 2013

Weight in this country is a super complex issue and is the end result of:

* Overworked people who are too tired and depressed.
* Accessible and calorie dense foods are cheaper than foods that are rich in vital nutrients
* Not having enough time to make or prepare food for work or for dinner and get enough sleep and pursue non-work related passtimes that give life meaning.
* No mental health care; food is a coping mechanism for many Americans
* Abnormally stressful lives
* Food-as-passtime; there are almost no places to go or things to do when you're poor that don't involve eating or spending money. We lack parks, trails, or easy walks even in most major cities.
* Poor education about nutrition and inconsistent messaging (is milk good or bad for you?)
* Generational problems that persist through genetics, upbringing, and circumstance

"Just eat less and lose weight" or, "just eat better food" is an extremely privileged way to approach weight loss even when you're talking about individuals. I've gained 20 pounds in 10 years but am still a healthy-ish weight; I leave my house at 6am, get to work by 8 on many days. I get home at 6pm most days, and I have a disabled spouse that I help take care of. I have probably one or two hours per day that are not spoken for. I have definitely been guilty of skipping exercise or squeezing in an easy meal because it's all I have the energy for. Talking about this stuff on a society-wide scale and then it's just nonsense. You can't 'willpower' a demographic; you have to address the underlying issues. Some cities try to ban or tax sugary foods and that's great and all but you aren't addressing the underlying issue of why those foods are desirable.

Mendrian
Jan 6, 2013

"You can will your way through a diet, I've done it, it's just hard" is sort of the core of the problematic attitude. If you've done it, we can conclusively say that the sum total of factors in your life contributed to it being possible for you. As a human, when something feels difficult that we nonetheless achieved, it is natural (but wrong) to conclude that your own strength was the primary contributing factor and other people, if they merely exercised the same tenacity, would also succeed.

On a sociological scale that is demonstrably false, is my point.

Mendrian
Jan 6, 2013

TheDeadlyShoe posted:

That is fair and defensible, but the jan 6 rioters being united by hating democracy doesn't proceed automatically to Murder Death Kill.

I mean you're technically right that a mob without a clear agenda or a leader doesn't really have a collective objective in a tactical sense. But they were angry. They did want to overturn the election. And the point of the event (to many) was to 'force congress to declare the election results invalid' or however you want to phrase it, which is certainly an ambiguous concept that seems likely to include violence.

You're correct that ascribing a single motivation to a disorganized riot is basically impossible but we can also say that more than one person in the mob seemed likely to do violence to a member of congress and were significantly closer to doing so than some guy posting on Stormfront or whatever.

Mendrian
Jan 6, 2013

The "nothing important ever happens/nothing matters" sentiment that pervades a lot of American politics seems like it's that way because people can't afford it not to be (including me). If, for instance, you believe that Trump organized an insurrection whose goal was the overturning of an election and the declaration that he was, in fact, president, than it follows you believe he committed treason, that he tried to overturn American democracy (such as it is) and that he was performing a sort of coup. In turn, this means there is really nothing more dangerous to the continuation of American democracy than Trump and his co-conspirators. If you believe this, it stands to reason you need to be organizing, protesting, sending angry letters and verging on riot every day these people go free. I'm not doing this, I believe a lot of people aren't doing this. So you can rationalize why you're not doing it. I'm not doing it because I don't have the time or energy; and I'm sure a lot of people rationalize it by saying it wasn't that big of a deal or that nothing they do has an impact.

I feel immense guilt that I don't have the freedom to stage a walkout or a march on the capital or whatever other extreme action this scenario justified. "I didn't matter that much" is (I believe) a defense against that feeling of guilt.

Mendrian
Jan 6, 2013

Our political and financial elite feel very comfortable though, is the thing. You can see by the policies they enact that they do not believe there are any consequences for their actions. I agree that random sudden acts of violence probably cause more harm than good but it is important for politicians to at least believe that there is a huge, powerful underclass that if roused to violence, will loving kill them.

I think we've swung extremely far in the opposite direction. Remember how outraged the right was when people were bothering them at dinner for their monstrous policies? Even the Democrats believe that good things can be delayed indefinitely in light of 'political realities', when in real life the 'political reality' we live in should have them throwing rocks at their conservative counterparts and screaming at them in the hallways.

No one believes real violence will happen. It's why everybody poo poo themselves over the BLM protests with a healthy dose of racism in the mix. I'm not saying somebody needs to die but certainly people need to feel like they could.

\/

Fister Roboto posted:

For this discussion it's important to keep in mind that direct action can be radical and disruptive without being violent. The problem is that this requires a sustained mass movement of people who are willing to face violence committed against them. Most Americans' idea of a protest is showing up with a sign and yelling for an hour or two and then going home to pat themselves on the back.

And even then it would be insanely stupid to talk about specifics here, because the authorities would be just as happy to lock you up as if you were planning a violent attack.

This is a good point, but it's also important to remember capitalists have begun terming completely peaceful protests 'violent' because it disrupts capital. If I vandalize a Starbucks or help clog up a highway for a couple of days, that's a relatively peaceful form of protest, albeit a disruptive one, but because it disrupts money it's termed violent.

Mendrian fucked around with this message at 23:52 on May 4, 2023

Mendrian
Jan 6, 2013

BiggerBoat posted:

Or any money whatsoever. It's always been frustrating to me over the last couple of years that, supposedly, the problem with the economy is that poor people somehow took all the money.

Wonder how RWM is gonna frame this, assuming they cover it at all. Fake news/statistics, Trump's policies taking hold after COVID, or red states slashing UEI and aid so it forced all those lazy fuckers back to work. Can we at least put to bed this "no one wants to work anymore" bullshit?

I think economists work out their calculations with the assumption that poor people spend 100% of the money they make.

Mendrian
Jan 6, 2013

Morrow posted:

So it's actually a subject of debate because a lot of macroeconomic models assume people don't spend all the money they make but instead save and borrow to even out spending over their lifetime! And then this assumption gets thrown on its head by non-Ricardian households that in fact don't save but spend everything as it comes in and make up nearly half of the US. It wasn't as big an issue in the past but the proportion of non-saving households has grown over the past few decades.

I mean I'm a non-saving household or was until literally this year. Trying to take care of two people on like 2800$ per month is pretty hard!

Mendrian
Jan 6, 2013

Ither posted:

Why are chuds starting to push child labor?

I mean capitalists love it because it's additional labor in an existing household, so it increases productivity while requiring no additional wages because if you have three people working in a household, they combine their income. They don't need more money for housing, so if anything it reduces pressure on wages. Hell you'd think capitalists would love polyamory as a result of that thinking.

As for chuds I have no idea. I imagine it's just personal responsibility, boostraps poo poo. Most of them consider school a waste of time, so the idea of getting a 'real job' and saving money to buy your first car or whatever is downright romantic.

Mendrian
Jan 6, 2013

I think talking about 'greed' as a universally human concept is dangerous because we're going to see it through a uniquely capitalist, western perspective. It's probably silly say to older civilizations did not fall prey to similar problems but it is also somewhat naive to assume hierarchal capitalism simply evolves naturally in all societies because human nature - that's capitalism propaganda.

Capitalism succeeds because it promises people who amass the most wealth the ability to have the most power, which is largely self-sustaining outside of violent revolution. It's a resilient concept certainly but I doubt it's universal.

Mendrian
Jan 6, 2013

Peta was a fringe organization that evolved into a big tent org that houses everything from eco-terrorists to bog standard anti-cruelty types to philosophical vegans. It still does a lot of bad but the average person who loves animals signing up for their newsletter is largely ignorant of that, and the degree to which the latter outnumber the former (and steer the overall purpose of the org) sounds like it's up for debate.

Mendrian
Jan 6, 2013

If I wanted to read a nefarious purpose into it, rather than just a stupid moral panic, it would be that conservatives hate seeing queer people being happy on Tik Tok and are mortified of kids seeing them or gathering there. And give the current circumstances I don't find that terribly unlikely.

Mendrian
Jan 6, 2013

Failed Imagineer posted:

London is better than NYC and NYC is better than Paris.

All 3 are very straightforward to navigate if you have access to Google Maps and can recognize basic numbers, letters, shapes, and colours.

Some other cities are way better though (Lisbon, Barcelona, Shanghai)

Tokyo was pretty good, I had barely functional tourist level Japanese and never got lost. The only problem with Tokyo are the literal miles of subterranean tunnels you occasionally have to walk through to make a connection but otherwise it was straightforward.

Mendrian
Jan 6, 2013

All of this talk about bad metros in major cities and here I am in Seattle eyeballing a rail line that bisects the city and a bus line which seems to get smaller and shittier every year.

Like seriously before the train was built the bus lines in Seattle are basically impossible to navigate without a phone app because they're all 'optimized' to poo poo to only service certain places are certain times of days, completely undermining the point of a bus system, which is to reliably get somewhere when you need to. After, it's somehow worse, because the train is assumed to replace the need for busses, and meanwhile the train has like, 3 convenient stops on its entire line.

Mendrian
Jan 6, 2013

Shooting Blanks posted:

Seattle's rail line has the same problem as Houston - they didn't start building it until it was far too late to secure cheap real estate and get it established. It also suffers from having too many turns (due to expensive real estate and lack of willing sellers) - efficient inner city rail benefits from straight shots, as every turn reduces speed and efficiency. Houston's METRORail has been in development longer than Seattle's and still suffers from extremely limited service and only inside the city core. Rail out to either of the airports here is still a pipe dream at this point.

It doesn't help that Houston's METRO system is wildly corrupt, I don't know about Seattle.

I don't know about corrupt but it definitely doesn't serve the needs of the people that use it and nobody can raise taxes to support it so I think it's less an issue of 'corruption' and more an issue of 'openly serves the needs of capital and as an afterthought might get people to work sometimes, if they are willing to walk three miles from the rail.'

Seattle isn't 'corrupt' so much as it is working as intended. It's reputation as a liberal paradise (largely by non-liberals) has cemented its reality as a libertarian hellscape.

Mendrian
Jan 6, 2013

DiscoWitch posted:

Hello, I'm trans. You know what sucks? The entire poo poo around trans people in sport. Because every debate about men vs women and this muscle tone and that bone density that goes on from any side always seems to miss a very crucial point; most trans people don't do competitive sports, yet this is one of the key bits of propaganda being used to make my existence invalid.

People always say 'oh but there is definitely a case for argument about trans women in women's sport' but there isn't anyone actually doing research, the effects of feminising hormones on the body are little understood and in a political climate like this I'd be highly suspicious because how can you have objectivity?

But its never about that really.

When sport becomes something people are using to make your existence a problem its a loving nightmare. I'd just like people to reflect on that cause drat seeing pages and pages of argument about it and people then moving the debate to be about comparing cis people just kind of seems to miss the whole point. Trans people in sport feels like a way for people to be massively insensitive for the sake of debate.

This is why sports have become a popular wedge issue for assholes.

There is a debate to be had about trans people in sports, but we, as a society, are literally too stupid to have that discussion and we cannot afford to let the public have that discussion either, because that's exactly what conservatives want - to sew doubt and provide people with easy answers that boil down to sex and gender essentialism. Which is not the conclusion an enlightened conversation would reach but we're still in the pool where we're debating whether or not trans people have rights, so maybe it's a bit early to figure out how to handle trans pro bowlers or whatever.

Mendrian
Jan 6, 2013

Mellow Seas posted:

Yeah, I don’t see why you wouldn’t at least mention the hormone requirements that are in place, and the effect of those hormone requirements, if somebody is talking to you about trans women in sports and doesn’t seem to understand those things. We’re all incredibly familiar with it but it’s really, really not intuitive for people who don’t know or talk to trans people regularly. I don’t expect anybody to volunteer this but I would be shocked if there wasn’t somebody in this discussion who opposed trans participation before learning those things.

Maybe “polite debate” isn’t the exact way to describe the correct response, but just saying “no, you’re a bigot unless you agree with me on this, and I will not elaborate” is definitely not going to help.

By what means exactly are we supposed to “not let” people have this conversation? Conservatives are not going to stop bringing it up or passing bills about it.

That's a fair question. I suppose I'd lean on, "there aren't enough trans athletes to matter", which is true and a consequence of the way society views trans people. I'd also retort that we need more research, but also that children's sports, which is the wedge issue people seem to care about, it should not matter at all whether or not a person is trans because children are no where near the outlier group where genetics matters. Children's sports are about inclusiveness and team building, there's already so much unfairness baked into it that hormones are really not part of the equation.

EDIT: All I'm saying is that litigating which sports favor essential hormone groups, how much they favor them, and how you even test for that (given that not all trans people have gone through HRT and some have had HRT as children, which complicates things) is very advanced when the public is worried about whether or not trans girls can play soccer. We should focus our effort on the soccer if anything.

Mendrian
Jan 6, 2013

Fork of Unknown Origins posted:

I’m 35 and queer and several of its derivatives were definitely used as an insult when I was a kid.

I'm originally from the Boston area and queer was the preferred insult at several of the schools I attended, probably because it sounds very venomous when pronounced with maximum Boston. 'Gay' was also an insult but it had more of a flippant tone and was being used as an insult for everything back then, it was more of an indirect derision of the concept of gayness than a direct insult, which is the role queer filled.

I can definitely see people not being excited to relive that era.

EDIT: Maybe I'm showing my age here but (slur spoiled)fag had kind of died out by the time I was in school, at least in public forums. It was definitely uttered to me in closed environments but it wasn't shouted through the hallways at top volume. I'm an elder millennial.

Mendrian fucked around with this message at 15:02 on Jun 14, 2023

Mendrian
Jan 6, 2013

In an ideal democracy, you want your head of state to be dull as dirt. Because if people are passionate about issues, they should be promoting those issues locally and voting in representatives that represent their issues. That's logical. The president isn't king of America, so under ideal circumstances you don't really want people rallying around a single person. That person is a figurehead, and they can't possibly appeal to the myriad issues that people actually care about, so they're really more of a public servant whose job is to be the manager of the various departments your functional Congress has created and funded. In this world, the President is the High Bureaucrat. They shouldn't have a lot of strong feelings on issues because they're job is to do, not to implement their own feelings on things.

However, we passed that threshold a long time ago. Our Congress isn't issue-based, it's party-based, so now you've got these two big-tent parties that don't really represent anybody. You've got the Party of Annihilation and the Party of Drag Your Feet and Do Nothing, so you need as many people as possible to vote against Annihilation. To that end, having the president be an inspiring person that reminds people that maybe they shouldn't vote for self-destruction is pretty important. The president needs to be likable because likability is all anyone seems to care about, and the stakes are so high.

We are sorta circling the drain in that way, with each election being another existential test, with destruction on one side and status quo on the other, and each time the bad guys win they drag the country closer to destruction. The stakes are existence versus self-destruction, rather than selecting something as boring as the country's most important bureaucrat. I'm not sure it's sustainable but it's important right now.

Mendrian
Jan 6, 2013

Ron announces Trump as his vp.

Trump announces Ron as his vp.

That would be hilarious.

Mendrian
Jan 6, 2013

I mean looping back to Feinstein, "it's fine, her staff are actually running things" isn't really a sufficient response to the problem. If we assume she is not mentally fit to be in office herself (and that's a big if, I'm not a doctor but let's assume it's true), we have to unpack some things. First, she was elected to office, not her hypothetical assistant, Jeremy. Jeremy can be replaced without the public's input or concern for due process; Jeremy may or may not have Feinstein's campaign at heart when he helps her make decisions. Second, at any time, Feinstein can tell Jeremy to gently caress off and suddenly his handling is all for naught. But mostly the idea that any part of governance is being 'handled' by people who are not career politicians or worse, opportunists using an elderly human as a puppet they can use to prop up their own ambitions, is deeply worrying and unethical. I may not trust Feinstein but I trust Jeremy even less. Don't settle for Jeremy.

Mendrian
Jan 6, 2013

Heck Yes! Loam! posted:

I don't care if it is ageist, nobody above the retirement age should be in government. The fact that our country is still mostly ran by the silent generation is absurd and a huge part of the problem in general.

I think there needs to be some way to disqualify people from holding office, but I'm not sure age is the right fit for it. You can get dementia in your 30's if you're very unlucky.

At the very least getting diagnosed for certain conditions should fast-track you for retirement, and an independent body ought to screen people for that, but then we're in a screaming row about who gets to decide who is technically suffering from life-impairing mental problems.

In a sane world, people who are obviously too old to function wouldn't be able to win elections at all, that's where the problem needs to first be settled.

Mendrian
Jan 6, 2013

Sometimes I try to imagine how a no-gifting law would be implemented and enforced in the US and while it sounds nice it feels like it would be impossible.

Mendrian
Jan 6, 2013

I AM GRANDO posted:

Couldn’t you say this about any kind of regulation? Arguably, there are regulations that are bad and not in the interests of the people (right to repair being illegal, non-compete clauses being legal), but then there are libertarians demanding the right to buy raw milk and own people as property using the same justification, that people are free and shouldn’t be prevented from pursuing their own interests. I don’t know that any of it is necessarily authoritarian.

I suppose you do have things like Duterte calling drug addicts enemies of the state (unofficially) and telling people they are undesirables who should be killed, which does bridge regulation and authoritarian behavior. But I don’t know that it’s authoritarian to make things illegal, even things that we would think should be legal.

I mean there are ethical tests you can apply to regulations to determine if they are helping people or exist merely to impose the will of the state on unwilling participants. I do not believe for an instant that anti-sex crime laws are designed to protect women or other vulnerable people from trafficking or from pimps. If that were the case there would be ways to legally register as a sex worker, you could create a department to regulate it and so on. So it's not just if a regulation exists, it's why it exists and what it actually does that can determine if it's authoritarian or not. I'm not going to claim there's a universal ethical yardstick we can use but certainly whatever we're using isn't the right one.

Mendrian
Jan 6, 2013

Victar posted:

A couple months ago, progressive YouTuber Adam Something created a YouTube video titled "Why US Malls Are Dying (And Why European Malls Aren't)"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=586SO9-wWoA

It's only ten minutes long and quite fascinating. The short version is, US malls are oversaturated, not as well integrated into where people live, and not easy to reach, which is in turn caused by bad urban planning in the US.

Why drive around and spend 1-2 hours or more to buy something when you can probably get it cheaper, easier, and with a wider selection from an online store? Meanwhile, European malls can often be reached easily through walking or public transportation, and have stuff better curated to fill local needs, so it can be more convenient to just drop by and get something rather than put in a mail order and wait for delivery.

Edit: added link

This has been my observation as well. People make a lot of hay over the death of retail in the US but it's a lot more nuanced than the average observer gives it credit for. People want to buy things in person, they prefer, generally, to see what they're buying before they get it and enjoy the instant gratification that comes with an immediate purchase. The problem is that most retail stores are a pain in the rear end to reach and navigate, and malls are like the elemental example of that problem.

Mendrian
Jan 6, 2013

OneMoreTime posted:

I mean, I was literally about to post about the same mall. It's a good mall man

I mean same, I also like Crossroads.

Northgate really wants to be a Good Mall but I don't trust Simon to make... decisions. It'll be luxury apartments by 2027 with no real retail in sight.

Mendrian
Jan 6, 2013

FlamingLiberal posted:

It's a combination of factors. Online shopping definitely hasn't helped, but it's also because of people moving away from certain areas that malls serve or competition from other malls. That and brick and mortar chains not adapting well to online shopping.

It's this.

People still love shopping. If you happen to live near one of the few successful shopping zones, you can see this first hand. People are poorer and people have less time and poo poo is more expensive, all of this is true - but the irony is that if you want to do stuff out of doors in America you basically have to spend money. Shopping is one of the few activities we're allowed in suburbs because parks don't exist and libraries are underfunded or invisible.

However, the idea that people are willing to drive six to twelve (or more) miles out of their way to visit a mall is less appealing now.

The idea that people just shop Amazon for whatever is overly simplistic and based on my own analysis, is a bit of a myth. It's not that it's false people buy stuff online, it's just a lot more complicated than people make it sound.

Target still makes money hand over fist. They have less poo poo on their shelves and they would like you to believe they can't afford to hire more staff. I expect the same is true of a lot of retail chains. The failure of malls is an interesting study.

Mendrian
Jan 6, 2013

Staluigi posted:

The one for real problem i have with pitbulls its that you can raise them perfectly right, they will be gentle and sweet, but they get old and have memory and awareness issues that result in Occasional Berserking when they go through whatever the dog equivalent of sundowning is

Learned about this through a friends family that came home to find the family cat in multiple pieces compliments of a pitbull that had been going spotty and while this was plenty horrible it was better this was learned on the cat and not on the 2 year old human

This really illustrates the problem. I'm sure some dog breeds can be 'more aggressive' than others and certainly some behavioral stuff can be bred for, but I think the issue is that when a pitbull has an oops from old age or illness or just from having a lovely owner, it's going to make the news in the a way that a terrier isn't because somebody is going to get hurt.

I think the idea that pitbulls are somehow angrier than other dogs is a myth but I also am not really sure it matters. OTOH I do think if you banned pitbulls there would be a strange rise in german shepard attacks over the following ten to twenty years.

Mendrian
Jan 6, 2013

PneumonicBook posted:

They were literally bred for those traits. Like you can say 'gee whiz I just don't know if they're more aggressive' but that's a silly thing to say.

Like labs are intrinsically good at swimming and retrieving, regardless of training, because they were bred to be for hundreds of years.

Right. And deadliness is a trait you can breed for.

I'm just unsure if 'aggressiveness' is a trait you can breed for. I am not a geneticist or a dog breeder, I literally am ignorant of it. It seems obvious to a lot of people but I'm just a bit hazy if you can breed for behavior.

Mendrian
Jan 6, 2013

It is pretty interesting to watch Democrats and Republicans fight over labor by doing as little as possible.

Mendrian
Jan 6, 2013

Fork of Unknown Origins posted:

Reasonably close to half (or maybe more, a big chunk is unknown) of retail theft is done by employees, so pretty much none of the things mentioned would help.

And then the question is how much of the external theft is even organized versus just some people gaming self checkout to buy steak at potato prices, etc. The answer is we have no idea. They are throwing around “shrink” numbers but that does not only include theft. Comparing 2019 to 2022, it’s plausible that uncertainty in supply lines and consumer habits have led to more over ordering, which would also lead to inventory shrinkage.

Regarding Target, I spot checked three of the closing stores and all had another Target within five miles, and one had two within three miles. It seems probable to me that they just wanted to close some stores for profitability reasons and decided to use it to make a point.

The internal numbers people throw around in LP is generally that internal theft is a third or more of all loss, to be pedantic, not half. Which depends on the sector, market, and what you're calling 'loss' since internal shrink doesn't usually include accidental loss or big ticket loss like embezzlement.

Theft and ORT have both "increased" since the height of the pandemic but you're right that we don't really know by how much. And most companies, including mine, don't disclose total loss on a company level. Individual retail stores do know how much of their inventory is lost as a percentage of sales. 1 to 3% is considered normal in most sectors, and anything over 3% is generally considered high. A lot of stores in this area are seeing over 3% but not by like, an astronomical degree. So what is that - it could be a genuine increase in theft, or a loss of sales (probably not tho spending is still high compared to pre-pandemic) it could be due to the inflation on items people are stealing, etc. No one is genuinely interested in fixing the systemic causes of theft so nobody is going to research it sadly.

Now, that math is based on assumptions so ancient they may no longer be valid but that's what a lot of stores around here see.

Mendrian fucked around with this message at 23:50 on Sep 27, 2023

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Mendrian
Jan 6, 2013

I mean it is funny but you're also watching in real time as Republicans yet again rebel because their guy didn't want to use his frankly slim amount of procedural authority to completely upend American governance for an indeterminate amount of time. 'Don't bring a budget to the floor, slow roll all bills for weeks or years to bring the government to its knees' may not be as blatant as 'make Pence overturn the election' but it's still trying to find ways to weaponize procedure. I'm not sure what the solution to that is.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply