3 ms·
Progressives always defend legacy obsolete businesses against competition. They tried to stop Uber and Lyft from replacing cabs and now they do the same with W
by terminalshort 1y ago
Progressives always defend legacy obsolete businesses against competition. They tried to stop Uber and Lyft from replacing cabs and now they do the same with Waymo.
- lysace 1y agoNon-US perspective: ”Progressive” and ”conservative” labels don’t make much sense to me these days. Perhaps you need another way of thinking about these things.
- terminalshort 1y agoOf course they don't. Political labels don't cross national boundaries easily. Even right next door in Canada "conservative" means nothing like it does in the US.
- tehjoker 1y agoYea they do when you have a firm foundation on political theory. However, parties often diverge from their name.
- Workaccount2 1y agoAnd people often have no idea what the actual principles of an ideology are, they go with whatever their friends/family/bubble says is good.
- tehjoker 1y agothat’s true, but usually there is some kind of foundational need that is being satisfied by the candidate or policies, or in the case of middle class people, some kind of postmodern spectacle as was innovated in the 1930s
- badc0ffee 1y agoAnother non-US perspective - you can't tell them how to think about their weird political camps. We saw this play out with Uber. The "progressive" side wants things to be more regulated and frames it in terms of protecting vulnerable people from unchecked corporate power. The "conservative" side does wants less regulation and more competition to keep things from stagnating economically. The same thing is happening with AI, and with self driving cars. It's sort of counterintuitive that on the surface, at least in this case, the "conservative" side is the one welcoming change and the "progressive" side rejects it. You see this federally in the US. The "conservatives" want to tear down all the institutions, but they'll frame it as a return to traditional values like self sufficiency and freedom. The "progressives" want a return to the Biden era, in the name of people depending on these programs.
- lysace 1y agoMany Canadians here, but I guess that makes sense. To the rest of the world (right or wrong) you are culturally pretty much the same as Americans. Yes. I know. Your political scene is wildly different.
- monero-xmr 1y ago[flagged]
- terminalshort 1y agoI guess I'm a bit more generous to them on this point. Ironically, what they are is actually conservatives (in the generic meaning of preserving the status quo, not the American political meaning). What they want is stability and freedom from risk. They have this idea that you should be able to get one job and work it for your entire career, and they often cite the post WWII period as an example of this. Of course technological progress is anathema to this. Progress is chaos. It causes disruption of entire industries, which TBF does disrupt people's lives. So they enact policies to defend existing industries from competition and fence off who is allowed to do what job with useless credentials and certifications. Essentially trying to preserve the status quo forever. They trade long term progress for short term comfort. The practical economic effect of this is, in fact, a handout to incumbents, and there are plenty of grifters on board for this reason, but it isn't the driving force behind it.
- monero-xmr 1y agoI agree with your take but it’s just another form of handout, which the rest of society pays for
- archagon 1y agoBegging the question. Regular cars are not "legacy" or "obsolete," and self-driving cars do not yet have a proven track record.