4 ms·
Mildly interesting, but the writer is misleading, specifically at the end. Maybe there was a scandal in Biloxi in 1951 (really?) with casinos, but more recent c
by yeetsfromhellL2 5y ago
Mildly interesting, but the writer is misleading, specifically at the end. Maybe there was a scandal in Biloxi in 1951 (really?) with casinos, but more recent cases where casinos specifically targeted gambling addicts for predatory 6-figure loans (which they gambled away 5 minutes later) came out in the casino's favor. The argument for individual agency almost always wins in America, especially when big money is behind it.
- listenallyall 5y agoMisleading? That is exactly her point. That back in 1951, casinos were seen as predatory, any individual agency defense was rejected. She's lamenting the fact that in subsequent decades, conservatism was utterly defeated by the proliferation of casinos. > People said that casinos and slot parlors took advantage of traits that every human possesses... Abstract notions of freedom of commerce were not assumed to be a defense.