Style over substance. The people "rebuilding" the city aren't construction workers, they're cool kids with tattoos. The "See Detroit" article (which for whatever reason, Meet Detroit is redirected to as well) is even titled Tough, Cheap, and Real, Detroit Is Cool Again. As I replied to your sibling comment, cool means not Republican.
And that's not to say it's not okay for a majority not Republican city to be the obvious, not Republican. I live in such a city myself, probably publicly derided just about as much as Detroit.
> FROM HIS STUDIO a few blocks from MyLocker, Antonio “Shades” Agee, the graffiti artist who’s painting it, isn’t surprised that Hake only recently discovered Detroit’s gloom. It’s easiest to stay on the city’s bright side.
> Agee grew up in Detroit. His Hispanic mother still lives in his childhood home, now one of the few on the block, in a neighborhood he doesn’t like to visit. It’s not “the new Detroit.” Nor was Black Bottom, Detroit’s vibrant Harlem, where his father played jazz. It was bulldozed in the 1950s for redevelopment and a freeway.
> At 44, he is trim from biking; he rarely drives. His right arm—“my painting arm”—is densely tattooed. From the multi-tinted panes of his loft in a former paintbrush factory, Agee has watched Corktown change. He’s a regular at the Detroit Institute of Bagels, just below his window, built for a cool half million dollars. “It still blows my mind to see a girl running down the street and she’s not being chased,” he says.
> “You can’t save Detroit. You gotta be Detroit.”
Wow, very cool.
The underlying case being made is something about what makes a city worth living in. Some people think it's safety. Some people think it's roads (yuck). Walkability. Small businesses. Good schools. Etc. Etc. Etc. And all of these things are argued over and over again by citizens. This National Geographic article stakes a claim that the single most noteworthy aspect of a city is its coolness. The city has to be cool. Your neighbor should be a "graffiti artist." And, I'll admit, there could be a point here. Culture and community are important to a lot of, perhaps even most, people.
You may not see this as political, but I do. I don't hate it, but I wouldn't pay for it as it wasn't at all what I remember from poring over National Geographic magazines in my childhood. I wanted a window into parts of the natural world that I cannot see myself, not Detroit. The frame itself is a political statement: Detroit is a city worth discussing.
Why do you go directly to the extreme implementation? No one said anything about "enforcement". There are ways to push society towards a better paradigm without enforcement. We also shouldn't let the lowest common denominator have a say in the direction of society. People that "would go to war" over the fact that they should eat less red meat are not exactly of sound mind.
I'm not sure your question has enough context. But yes, not allowing the most illogically angry people (defined by me as the lowest common denominator in this Context) to start wars (aka crime and violence) over their hurt feelings is most definitely a way to defend democracy.
So your answer is "we'll just manipulate people without them noticing"?
How will that not backfire?
> People that "would go to war" over the fact that they should eat less red meat are not exactly of sound mind.
I see nothing in their position that indicates they aren't of sound mind. They're inconvenient to your own position, and you're willing to manipulate them if you can manage the trick.
Maybe you're worried that they will choose to "go to war" as manipulated people do so often once aware of the ruse?
Who said anything about "manipulation"? Do you know that influence is not tantamount to manipulation? Do you know that many of your own behaviors are most likely subsidized by government and therefore you are being economically influenced (or in your perspective "manipulated")? Have you ever heard of a Sin Tax? Have you ever realized that Expansionary Policy is often put into place in order to influence (your perspective is "Manipulate"). I would encourage you to learn a little about economics before trying to hypothesize why and what makes people go to war.
> In particular, simply receiving a particular iMessage – without opening it or interacting with it in any way – can allow an iPhone to be compromised, with personal data exposed.
So does this mean it is wise to turn off iMessage so that all messages come through as text message?
If he makes an insurance claim, that sounds like insurance fraud. That is a very real crime with a victim. Did that happen and why isn't that the headline?
Depends why you think those regulations were enacted, but once school of thought is those megacorps made food in dirty disgusting factories and only cleaned up due to government regulation, but that family friendly small businesses would not have cut those same corners and we'd not need those regulations without megacorps.
There's another school of thought that believes in regulatory capture and says those regulations are there to make it harder for someone to compete in the market, and that safety is further down the list than making money is.
Agreed. This reads as an advertisement for why the middle-class just needs to acquiesce to the wealthy ruling class because they know what's best for us better than we do.
Edit: I'm assuming this is the article and I still don't see the agenda here. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/taking-back-detroit/see-d...