I mean, I like debating. Don't you?

We need to abandon fascism, neoliberalism, capitalism, and minority rule democracy. What we need is social democracy and we need it in every country, because it is currently the best system we have. We can have a global economy, but the rules we play by can't allow some groups to exploit others or fail to redistribute wealth when there are economic winners.

I also blame Business Schools for not showing independent thought and propagating Jack Welch creative accounting shit

Scanning his wiki page he seems awful.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Welch

Welch's practices and legacy were criticized as ultimately self-destructive and a bad influence on corporate America by author David Gelles in his 2022 book The Man Who Broke Capitalism: How Jack Welch Gutted the Heartland and Crushed the Soul of Corporate America―and How to Undo His Legacy.

The only way to know that for sure is to read what we both wrote. I did so I know. It's entertaining and enlightening so I don't mind.

Ok, I'll bite, what.

I recommend you read how my argument refuted your argument's central point. An efficient argument is useless if it is incorrect.

No, what?

The only rich argument here is yours, trying to call journalists lazy for doing their jobs.

It's a common tactic on the right. Trump says some nonsense. Then the left makes fun of it for being nonsense. Then the right pretends there is a reasonable explanation besides Trump's mind deteriorating. They use this made up explanation to attack the left's intelligence for not getting the made up explanation. When in fact they are in engaging in bad-faith gas lighting to cover for Trump's incoherence and incompetence.

It would be useful to ask them why they feel the need to make stuff up to cover for Trump's failings. Since the justification they made up isn't real, Trump just rambles incoherently, there is nothing to get. It's summarized by the saying the emperor has no clothes. edit: typo

Apparently it is what is known as a rigged rental which is the equivalent of a quarter muncher. The game was so difficult that it would be to hard for new players to beat during the rental period to force them to buy it. It doesn't seem like there was an actual arcade version, just a case of mixed metaphors. edit: typo

That's the reader's job. There are other articles that cover Concord and Concord's flop in detail. Those topics have their place and it's not in the meta discussion about the meta topic, by definition. Having to do the reader's job of staying informed on a topic in articles about the meta discussion would prevent the discussion of the meta topic. Which is the goal of your argument.

In other words, your argument is intended to silence criticism of the mainstream media under the guise of imposing a moral value, incorrectly as it stands. If we followed your argument we would be unable to discuss anything because every discussion would have to have the context of what came before. What your argument calls for is lazy. If a reader wants to participate in discussions they have to take the time to get informed.

What's surprising about it is that two attributes outweighs all of the upsides of being a full-time employee and the downsides of an enshittified business model that makes you pay for your own gas. It speaks to how important and valuable work-life balance and coworker interactions are. edit: typo

Companies should seek to provide at least the first and higher wages. I'm not sure what companies can do about generational differences, maybe different shifts, but that seems like it wouldn't be feasible in every case. Maybe more training. He made it sound like an attitude problem though. =/

People simply don’t care. The amount of times people talk about fleeing the country vs even changing their local government is completely out of whack. People don’t try,

People have an instinctual flight or fight response to danger. And it's rational for an individual to consider flight in the face of the most powerful military in the world. Discussions about safety are important. Most discussions I've seen qualify the need to flee based on Trump taking power. Most of the people who participate in them are explicit in their intentions to vote for Kamala and the Democratic Party in general.

I for one would like to see more discussion about changing governments. However the issue is less a lack of caring or lack of trying.

expect to move somewhere else and not try and not have their problems follow them.

It's more as this gets to, a lack of perspective. People are thinking in terms of their own self-interest. Specifically themselves and the people they care about in their immediate social spheres. This is human behavior in a nut shell. People are not considering the broader context, in part because we've never had fascism at a global scale before. Even in WWII there were limits to the reach of fascist nation states, some continents saw little to no direct conflict at home.

What we are seeing now is unprecedented in history. If the US becomes a christo-fascist dictatorship we are going to see the world completely divided into sphere's of influence. Dictatorships will become completely unchecked as the US switches from maintaining the world order to expanding it's sphere of influence in the western hemisphere. A war with Mexico is not out of the question in this scenario. Neither is Canada falling to it's own far right.

The rise of the far-right isn't unique to the US, it's been happening in India with Modi, Milei in Argentina, and in the Philippines with Bongbong Marcos. The far right is taking power and entrenching themselves all over the world. Modi and friends in India are buying news outlets to keep them toeing the party line and spewing propaganda. But unless a person is a political news junkie they can easily miss all of this broader context. People aren't being informed about the global rise of fascism, so they aren't discussing strategies that reflect that.

That's what an actual Door Dash driver has told me, and I would think he would be aware of the downsides of the business. He has told me his war stories and despite all of the cons he thinks it is better for him then working in his old job sector. It seems pretty telling. edit: typos

It's not the article's job to give the reader that context. It's a reader responsibility to be informed so that reader can engage in the meta discussion. What your argument is proposing is actual laziness. All your argument's criticism amounts to is an attempt to shut down discussion. Your argument depends on ignorance to make effective journalism seem morally wrong, in this case lazy. When in fact the lack of context provided by the mainstream media on this topic is what the article is actually about.

Despite how fun, cool, and numerous their plethora of eyes are, beholders are xenophobic against everyone especially other beholders. This leaves them incapable of forming a consensus around anything let alone beauty.

The idea has also drawn skepticism on logistical grounds, with some analysts saying its costs would be “astronomical.”

This is like being skeptical that Nazi Germany would send people to death camps because it would be too expensive.

Bryan Dunn, an-Arizona based senior vice president at Big-D Construction, a major Southwest firm, called “the idea that they could actually move that many people” out of the country “almost laughable.”

Societies have been able to move millions of people around since they developed railway systems.

What's almost laughable is the state of denial people are in.

Last year, the state’s Republican governor, Ron DeSantis, enacted a series of restrictions and penalties to deter the employment of undocumented workers. Many immigrant workers hastily left the state even before the policies took effect, with social media videos showing some construction sites sitting empty.

This is the best case scenario in theory. Immigrants would flee to safety before the US government could harm them. However, in practice, where can they go? Many people already come here because their home countries are too dangerous for them.

This gets to a broader point. I've seen a lot of discussion in the past about trying to flee the country if things go wrong. There isn't going to be anywhere to flee to that's any safer if the US becomes a christo-fascist dictatorship. The EU is going to have to fend for itself against Russia. Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan will be on their own. Unrest in North America, South America, Africa and Asia will only get worse. We are seeing a global rise of fascism along with dictatorships becoming bolder and more willing to challenge the international order. Anyway we slice it, the only good outcomes involve fascists staying out of power.

I know I guy who does Door Dash. He says it let's him be his own boss where he can work as much or as little as he wants to. And he said he got tired of dealing with the new generation of workers at his old job.

The article is not about Concord's flop. The article is about the mainstream media not covering video games.

Discussing off topic details is off topic. One example being the main example does not make everything related to that example relevant to the discussion. Video games news media outlets have been discussing Concord's flop in detail. The mainstream news media has not. It's not a valid to criticism to point out that the article didn't discuss Concord's flop in the meta discussion about video game coverage. Kotaku isn't being lazy or hypocritical. The author wrote a rhetorically effective article. Everything in the article relates back to their central point. Which again is that mainstream media doesn't take video games seriously.

It's important to drive this home. Relating back to the thesis in a persuasive essay is a core aspect of that genre.

Sony's Concord might be the biggest entertainment failure of all time, so why wasn't it news?

This is the question that the article attempts to answer. Everything in the article should relate back to a thesis that answers this question. The details of Concord's flop do not relate back to the thesis to answer this question in anyway. edit: typos

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. And this is the beholder so stop worrying about what the beholder thinks.

Because it's not about sexualizing adolescents. It's about aging and still finding older people attractive.

https://www.healthline.com/health/second-puberty#when-it-happens