Having read this article, to be honest the only thing I'm taking away from it is a reinvigorated distaste for people who tack political commentary onto otherwise non-political issues. This one,...
Having read this article, to be honest the only thing I'm taking away from it is a reinvigorated distaste for people who tack political commentary onto otherwise non-political issues. This one, for example, seems less like a "wealthy liberals" issue and more like a "wealthy" issue. Rich people are all like this, regardless of their political stance. It's part of the reason they're rich; behaviors and habits that protect their investments.
That doesn't excuse the shitty behavior, as always. It's just the reality of the situation.
at least with respect to housing, NIMBYism and politics of this sort don't help the matter, but ultimately i have to take the leftist line that even without all of this, housing will probably...
at least with respect to housing, NIMBYism and politics of this sort don't help the matter, but ultimately i have to take the leftist line that even without all of this, housing will probably continue to be an issue until it's not a commodity. like, if you subtract NIMBYs and politicking from the equation here, you still probably have tons of things that make housing increasingly unaffordable for people such as outside investments and shit like that. it's a multifaceted issue, and at least personally it's one that i'm pretty skeptical we can really solve by just trying to knock down every little thing that contributes to it.
Part of the reason is that there's a huge market that caters to foreign (read: Chinese) investors. I can almost guarantee you that if you set up shop in Texas and hired some Chinese interpreters...
Part of the reason is that there's a huge market that caters to foreign (read: Chinese) investors. I can almost guarantee you that if you set up shop in Texas and hired some Chinese interpreters and tossed up a website with Chinese translation you'd find foreign investment really easy to secure.
I think it's rather unfair to blame the voters for a single issue item which just got gutted. If the people who voted them into office feel this doesn't represent their wishes, said representative...
I think it's rather unfair to blame the voters for a single issue item which just got gutted. If the people who voted them into office feel this doesn't represent their wishes, said representative will be gone soon enough.
Also, I can't help but wonder how much of this is just the usual politics playing itself out - procedure being abused by a minority of representatives in order to quash something for a bit longer. We saw something similar happen with net neutrality and a single state representative.
It's the state of online journalism, unfortunately. Titles are getting worse, because most people don't even read articles before deciding whether to upvote/retweet/share/etc., they do it entirely...
It's the state of online journalism, unfortunately. Titles are getting worse, because most people don't even read articles before deciding whether to upvote/retweet/share/etc., they do it entirely based on the title.
I edit titles sometimes to try and reduce the clickbait/outrage level, but some people get upset about that being done too. It's possible I should just be more strict and do it more often anyway.
You could just add the lede "The demise of a California housing measure shows how progressives abandon progressive values in their own backyards." to the main title. The lede often has a...
You could just add the lede "The demise of a California housing measure shows how progressives abandon progressive values in their own backyards." to the main title. The lede often has a less-outragey and more informative take on the article's message. There are times when I've used the lede as the title of my Tildes post for this very reason.
And, if you add/replace the lede in the Tildes title, there's less basis to complain about the title being changed, because you're just adding more material from the article itself, rather than editorialising.
I've been actively avoiding any political posts on tildes because I don't believe it leads to honest or interesting discussion. These hyperbolic headlines are used to generate engagement so that...
I've been actively avoiding any political posts on tildes because I don't believe it leads to honest or interesting discussion. These hyperbolic headlines are used to generate engagement so that the websites that host them have nice metrics to show their advertisers.
Having read this article, to be honest the only thing I'm taking away from it is a reinvigorated distaste for people who tack political commentary onto otherwise non-political issues. This one, for example, seems less like a "wealthy liberals" issue and more like a "wealthy" issue. Rich people are all like this, regardless of their political stance. It's part of the reason they're rich; behaviors and habits that protect their investments.
That doesn't excuse the shitty behavior, as always. It's just the reality of the situation.
at least with respect to housing, NIMBYism and politics of this sort don't help the matter, but ultimately i have to take the leftist line that even without all of this, housing will probably continue to be an issue until it's not a commodity. like, if you subtract NIMBYs and politicking from the equation here, you still probably have tons of things that make housing increasingly unaffordable for people such as outside investments and shit like that. it's a multifaceted issue, and at least personally it's one that i'm pretty skeptical we can really solve by just trying to knock down every little thing that contributes to it.
Part of the reason is that there's a huge market that caters to foreign (read: Chinese) investors. I can almost guarantee you that if you set up shop in Texas and hired some Chinese interpreters and tossed up a website with Chinese translation you'd find foreign investment really easy to secure.
I think it's rather unfair to blame the voters for a single issue item which just got gutted. If the people who voted them into office feel this doesn't represent their wishes, said representative will be gone soon enough.
Also, I can't help but wonder how much of this is just the usual politics playing itself out - procedure being abused by a minority of representatives in order to quash something for a bit longer. We saw something similar happen with net neutrality and a single state representative.
Has anyone else noticed in the last few weeks tildes has been filled with links with clickbait/outrage titles recently?
It's the state of online journalism, unfortunately. Titles are getting worse, because most people don't even read articles before deciding whether to upvote/retweet/share/etc., they do it entirely based on the title.
I edit titles sometimes to try and reduce the clickbait/outrage level, but some people get upset about that being done too. It's possible I should just be more strict and do it more often anyway.
You could just add the lede "The demise of a California housing measure shows how progressives abandon progressive values in their own backyards." to the main title. The lede often has a less-outragey and more informative take on the article's message. There are times when I've used the lede as the title of my Tildes post for this very reason.
And, if you add/replace the lede in the Tildes title, there's less basis to complain about the title being changed, because you're just adding more material from the article itself, rather than editorialising.
There should be some way to negatively mark posts like you can with comments.
I've been actively avoiding any political posts on tildes because I don't believe it leads to honest or interesting discussion. These hyperbolic headlines are used to generate engagement so that the websites that host them have nice metrics to show their advertisers.