He's polling worse than fucking RFK jr, he stands no chance. YoUr'Re AlL JuSt SiTtInG tHeRe! We're more than a year away from the general election, which he will never make it to because there are months of primaries before where Trump will assuredly win.
Training and prepping. Historically, there's only been one way to stop fascist conservatism, and it's not something we are allowed to talk openly about until we're doing it.
Did the 6th of January insurrectionists do the right thing, given they believed they were fighting against an authoritarian government? Or should they have accepted the result of the democratic process even though they disagreed with it?
I agree in the event of a genocidal government, you throw them out, but obviously there needs to be a very high bar and a lot of safeguards to prevent partisan misuse. A losing Republican could claim a winning Democrat wants to conduct a genocide against unborn babies or something and the Jan6 insurrectionists would feel they were justified because of it.
What are the most damning pieces of evidence that Desantis will conduct a genocide if elected?
Should the 2016 election result have been overturned?
Making sure that all of the subhuman republicans around you are as uncomfortable as humanly possible. They live among us and far too many people tolerate them.
Not much can be done as of yet. The election season will really kick off in January, and short of hiring a hit squad, marching around with signs and getting screamed at/assaulted by rednecks doesn't really seem too effective. What would you propose?
Do the Florida sewer and septic sucking service workers have a union? Might be able to convince them to use their, ah “waste” from yet another school’s clogged septic tanks to, uh “fertilize” desantis’ yard.
You're probably since those that preach about free speech are politically driven, hence biased to protect their stance. Rest of us have realized speech isn't free of consequence and the last third just doesn't give a fuck.
Defamation, fraud, hate speech, harassment, collusion, confidentiality, incitement...
No reasonable person actually thinks that free speech is an unlimited right. Plenty of kinds of speech are viewed as too harmful to be legal. The right is well understood to be about political speech only, and even then the edge cases can be hard to pin.
Anyone who claims to be an absolutist on free speech is insane or absolutely full of shit.
The original advocates of free speech weren't defending their right to say slurs. They were defending people's right to speak against government figures (people in control) without fear of retribution. "Free speech absolutists" today fight for the exact opposite.
Didn’t he also give in to block a few accounts of political opponents in Turkey instead of risking being banned there completely, because he said it would be better to lose a few accounts instead of losing the whole country?
I see three users in this thread not getting it. And the OP is replying to one of 'em. Not sure if you're blind or just want to be a prick mate, but if its the latter leave that attitude on Reddit yeh?
There are cases where sarcasm doesn’t come through, because it’s only clear that it’s either sarcastic or crazy. And there’s a lot of crazy in the internet.
Tipping is messed up on both ends for both the delivery person and the customer when you think about it.
Tipping is basically a way for a corporation that could actually pay a livable wage to instead not do that, and then criminally underpay their employees - after all, the customers will just pay extra to make up for the literal below minimum wage pay the corporation is paying the delivery person.
the question is how to kill it. anytime someone suggests that they just won't tip anymore, they're deluged by a torrent of hate because "that's not how it works!" yeah, they know and they want to change it.
seems like the only acceptable answer is for business owners to recognize that tipping culture is wrong and voluntarily, through the goodness of their hearts, abolish tips in their establishment and pay a living wage. this is super admirable for the very few businesses that do this, but its wildly unrealistic to think it will happen. so the default is accepting that businesses will continue to exploit their workers and their customers kind-heartedness.
would be cool. but one political party will throw a shitfit if you try. theyd rather burn the country to the ground than force our corporate overlords sacrifice a single percent of their record profits.
maybe we could include a union info card with every tip.
employment is at will (if they can find a better paying job, they should.)(for that matter, so is my patronage- which is why I don’t use door dash or whatever. Totally unethical)
many tips aren’t going to the driver/waitstaff/other staff at all.
(Door dash for example, if you tip less than or the same as the delivery fee they pay the driver, they pay the same fee regardless and keep the extra tip. If you pay more than, they take the delivery fee. Many of the point of sales kiosks that are asking for a tip never go to the people bejng the counter- especially at place last that you wouldn’t normally tip at. Or some of it goes there, but then management gets a cut, square gets also gets their cut, and visa etc also get their cut)
Ultimately in a democracy I want my representation to feel like a representation of folks like me. If you want to wear a suit to work that’s great, but maybe us rust belt democrats want someone who’d rather dress like a union steward to go represent our interests. Senator Fetterman in his hoodie looks exactly like the sort of person you’d expect to represent Pennsylvanians.
Also maybe just maybe, I care more about the quality of their work than what they wear doing it.
Stan, Chotchkie’s Manager : We need to talk about your flair.
Joanna : Really? I… I have fifteen pieces on. I, also…
Stan, Chotchkie’s Manager : Well, okay. Fifteen is the minimum, okay?
Joanna : Okay.
Stan, Chotchkie’s Manager : Now, you know it’s up to you whether or not you want to just do the bare minimum. Or… well, like Brian, for example, has thirty seven pieces of flair, okay. And a terrific smile.
Joanna : Okay. So you… you want me to wear more?
Stan, Chotchkie’s Manager : Look. Joanna.
Joanna : Yeah.
Stan, Chotchkie’s Manager : People can get a cheeseburger anywhere, okay? They come to Chotchkie’s for the atmosphere and the attitude. Okay? That’s what the flair’s about. It’s about fun.
Joanna : Yeah. Okay. So more then, yeah?
Stan, Chotchkie’s Manager : Look, we want you to express yourself, okay? Now if you feel that the bare minimum is enough, then okay. But some people choose to wear more and we encourage that, okay? You do want to express yourself, don’t you?
Joanna : Yeah, yeah.
Stan, Chotchkie’s Manager : Okay. Great. Great. That’s all I ask.
Also maybe just maybe, I care more about the quality of their work than what they wear doing it.
I wish I could get someone to explain this to my boss. Me wearing a collared shirt on camera isn't going to make me do a better job, and if you think that then you don't know what the hell I'm doing all day.
As a pizza deliver driver once (in the era before GPS when it was usually cash or a check), the nice houses often were the worse for paying a tip, if anything. The apartments and run down areas seemed to get the point of you doing them a service, and would find change they probably needed to make a tip. That being said, tipping in the US is yet another example of corporate power shifting responsibility and blame onto the consumer rather than take direct action on a problem. The modern example is putting in more and more systems to encourage higher tipping, rather than raise wages.
Yes! I never know how to feel about being prompted for a tip when I get carry out. Normally the tip is for table or delivery service. I don't think I should be obligated to compensate someone's wage for running my credit card and handing me a bag.
It is is 100% the case that establishments know customers will feel obligated to tip in any scenario they are prompted.
Hell, how do I even know that such a tip goes to the service staff who are paid less than minimum wage?
Frequently, it doesn’t. Or more frequently, not all of it. It’s acruelly illegal (a form of wage theft.) but because there’s a sense that the person working the shit job needs that shit job… complaining about it doesn’t help.
In any case… I’m of the opinion that I shouldn’t have to tip. If that pisses of service workers, they can (and should,) go find another job. That said I do tip for typical things- I just do t think I should have to. And if the service is terrible….
In any case, there are waitstaff that make relatively large paychecks from tipping as well. (Particularly in bars.)
I’m definitely pro library. Public libraries are awesome.
Ours has a living- seed bank of heirloom veggies, 3d printers, they do community events- including a Mongolian acrobatic circus (Friday-),sewing/quilting stuff. Oh and they have a lot of books … and that’s just off the top of my head.
I wonder if you asked him which departments oversee that if he wouldn't be able to answer, akin to Rick Perry forgetting what departments he would get rid of...
The protests are that much more notable because the pharmacists don’t have a union and aren’t asking for better pay. They primarily want their employers to hire more staff to alleviate the workload and to eliminate policies that push them to work faster. They say those conditions are making it more likely they will make a mistake that could harm a patient.
Highlighting because people don’t read articles - they are protesting to ensure patients are safe from the speed of greed. I for one would like my medication properly compounded and dosed. Good for these workers, get them more hands.
Tying his name to it seems like a bad idea. People opposed Obamacare because of the name; half the country gets off on hating Democrats mostly because of the color of the ticket. Calling it Bidenomics will only make it easier for the talking heads to shit on it.
I don't know if he started it, but he was quoted as saying "Bidenomics is working", so he, at worst, is endorsing the name openly.
And yeah, but that sorta proves the point. Tying a Dems name to something is all it takes to mob it down; ignoring that it was incredibly similar to "Romneycare"
To the contrary, if you embrace the name your opposition is going to try saddling it with anyway, you can focus on fighting for the substance of it, rather than what it's called.
Don't disagree, but we can be realistic about about a large portion of the voting populace. Saying they're a waste of breath doesn't prevent that bloc from voting
And dems will shit on reps. Its just the way our stupid two party system works, if ya ain’t one, you’re the other and there’s no middle ground. Either an ally or enemy.
Sadly everything I know about implicit racism suggests that we're ALL influenced by it to some degree. You can't live in the ocean without getting wet.
But I figure you mean the people that embrace it, in which case, agreed.
Republicans are actually responsible for calling the Affordable Care Act "Obamacare" so that they could blame healthcare issues on him. Obama ended up actually liking that name despite the Republican attempt to use it negatively.
If there were a singular Bidenomics bill, I would agree. In this case, running for reelection, he needs to anchor discussion around his accomplishments. Historically, name-onomics has been a successful positive campaign pitch for presidential reelections. The risk is having the name tied to a downturn, which is (thankfully) not entirely under the president's control.
I can see that. Plus by doing it himself, he has more control over the narrative. If it was bad, he wouldn't be openly touting it as his own.
Idk, tho. I have no faith that people can rationalize information on their own. Whatever Tucker or Alex Jones says is gospel, because only their chosen media doesn't lie.
Regardless of whether you believe the economy is good or bad right now, saying it’s the “worst it’s ever been” is blatantly hyperbolic and untrue. The Great Depression and the 2008 Recession are two incidents we all still talk about. Today’s economic situation can’t hold a flame to how bad those periods of time were. I hope you’re using exaggerated language without ill intent, but it certainly comes off as disingeuous and manipulatively partisan to use language like that when it’s so clearly untrue.
I would say what we have now in 2023 is worse than 2008. I didn't live through the great depression so can't comment there. The older I get, the worse things become in both an economic and social sense. My comment indeed was a bit hyperbolic but the point stands. In 2008 we had large movements clearly pushing against the 1%. Nowadays such a thing really doesn't exist. Similarly there were far more mom&pops back in 2008 than today.
I think one thing is that people talking about "recessions" or "gdp" and other such nonsense are really only looking at the rich. Which for them? yeah things are probably better than ever. But for regular people? No.
Why would anyone want to move to another functionally similar microblogging site if Twitter still has more users?
Perhaps because the quality of the experience is better, even if the number of users is lower. As Twitter appeals more and more to the far right, those might not be the users people want to be hanging around with.
Anyone who is still on Twitter has, in my opinion, fewer issues with being a corporate puppet and being associated with all the hatred there than they have with losing views.
I don't agree with that logic because that means whenever horrible people buy off a platform, even if you do not pay for it, you are obligated to leave rather than push back. There are people who spent decades cultivating their community before Elon Musk had any interest in it. There are people who are right now pushing back against the rise of hate in it. It seems like a Catch-22 where the person either gives up their platform or they are discredited. The end result either way is that Musk's crowd wins.
This is to my eyes the core problem with centralized corporate social networks. Ultimately, where you intend it or not, your presence is in support to the core mission of the corporate entity holding the platform. Twitter has 16 years of history at this point, and I think can be viewed in three periods. First was the tech experiment to bring online interactions more into the real world. This was Twitter's shortest period. It lasted a month or so at most. In this phase, the mission was to create a bridge between online interactions and real world experiences using cell phone technology. Second was the venture capital chasing profits period. This was the longest and least successful period of Twitters history. In this phase, the mission was to make some money. I don't think Twitter had a mission beyond that, and that ultimately they tried to curate an environment that would appease advertisers and drive engagement (even if it was mostly through outrage). In this phase, I don't hold all that much against anyone who engaged with the platform. I don't think Twitter was doing anything egregiously unethical (beyond the usual bullshit every tech company does). I lost interest in Twitter in this timeframe because the outrage engagement model bummed me out. All this brings us to now...
At this point. Twitter is Elon Musk's personal messaging platform. Its purpose is to inflate and normalize Elon Musk's world view, and those of his cronies. Anyone who remains on the platform his helping him and his shift right mission, preferring to respect the requests of authoritarian right wing governments vs common sense consumer protections requested by more free governments. There are people on Twitter who disagree with this, but their presence still supports Musk in his mission. Whether you were there before Musk or not is immaterial. Its his personal platform, and it's for his mission
This is definitely an example of the risks of privately owned social media.
But to say that remaining on the platform is helping him just seems like oversimplifying the matter. What is more likely to advance the spread of his views? If the platform is left solely to his supporters and people oblivious or indifferent to the changes of the platform, or if there are still people denouncing and criticizing it? Seems naive to assume all it takes is for everyone against hate to leave one of the most influential media platforms of these times and its radicalization will have no further effects at all.
All that seems to accomplish is the peace of mind that you are not involved and experiencing the direct effects of it.
This is to my eyes the core problem with centralized corporate social networks. Ultimately, where you intend it or not, your presence is in support to the core mission of the corporate entity holding the platform. Twitter has 16 years of history at this point, and I think can be viewed in three periods. First was the tech experiment to bring online interactions more into the real world. This was Twitter's shortest period. It lasted a month or so at most. In this phase, the mission was to create a bridge between online interactions and real world experiences using cell phone technology. Second was the venture capital chasing profits period. This was the longest and least successful period of Twitters history. In this phase, the mission was to make some money. I don't think Twitter had a mission beyond that, and that ultimately they tried to curate an environment that would appease advertisers and drive engagement (even if it was mostly through outrage). In this phase, I don't hold all that much against anyone who engaged with the platform. I don't think Twitter was doing anything egregiously unethical (beyond the usual bullshit every tech company does). I lost interest in Twitter in this timeframe because the outrage engagement model bummed me out. All this brings us to now...
At this point. Twitter is Elon Musk's personal messaging platform. Its purpose is to inflate and normalize Elon Musk's world view, and those of his cronies. Anyone who remains on the platform his helping him and his shift right mission, preferring to respect the requests of authoritarian right wing governments vs common sense consumer protections requested by more free governments. There are people on Twitter who disagree with this, but their presence still supports Musk in his mission. Whether you were there before Musk or not is immaterial. Its his personal platform, and it's for his mission
This is to my eyes the core problem with centralized corporate social networks. Ultimately, where you intend it or not, your presence is in support to the core mission of the corporate entity holding the platform. Twitter has 16 years of history at this point, and I think can be viewed in three periods. First was the tech experiment to bring online interactions more into the real world. This was Twitter's shortest period. It lasted a month or so at most. In this phase, the mission was to create a bridge between online interactions and real world experiences using cell phone technology. Second was the venture capital chasing profits period. This was the longest and least successful period of Twitters history. In this phase, the mission was to make some money. I don't think Twitter had a mission beyond that, and that ultimately they tried to curate an environment that would appease advertisers and drive engagement (even if it was mostly through outrage). In this phase, I don't hold all that much against anyone who engaged with the platform. I don't think Twitter was doing anything egregiously unethical (beyond the usual bullshit every tech company does). I lost interest in Twitter in this timeframe because the outrage engagement model bummed me out. All this brings us to now...
At this point. Twitter is Elon Musk's personal messaging platform. Its purpose is to inflate and normalize Elon Musk's world view, and those of his cronies. Anyone who remains on the platform his helping him and his shift right mission, preferring to respect the requests of authoritarian right wing governments vs common sense consumer protections requested by more free governments. There are people on Twitter who disagree with this, but their presence still supports Musk in his mission. Whether you were there before Musk or not is immaterial. Its his personal platform, and it's for his mission
Well, given how saddled with debt the place was it wouldn't be hard to argue that more activity in fact only burdens him more. It's not a sustainable or profitable place. I also don't think advertisers will be to thrilled by the activity of shit constantly being flung everywhere.
But more than that, it is a social media platform, not a shop. I think there is inherent value in the people who stay there and highlight the issues going on regarding hate speech and political manipulation, rather than they all leave. That would allow hateful people to mold the platform around a whole lot of clueless people who don't realize what is going on, and might just go along with it because they are immersed in this environment. Twitter is not made exclusively of bigots, but it could become more like that over time.
Sure there is no amount of tweets that will stop Elon Musk's mad spiral. But his reputation definitely took some hits.
As far as it compares with JK Rowling, I also think it's not the same. Say, if we were to compare, as far as engagement and community goes, I wouldn't expect anyone to drop all their friends and groups they make through their shared love of Harry Potter just because the author is awful.
If anything I'm a bit suspicious from where first came this call for complete disengagement. Because if there are no voices calling for inclusivity and respect in social media platforms and fandoms, they just become breeding grounds for hate.
I think you’re overthinking this. Twitter used to be a place where I could keep up with my friends. Now, it’s a place filled with many forms of hate. Because of this, I no longer wish to use it, so I left.
I personally have no care in the world for what happens with Twitter. Why should I? It becomes overrun with bigots? So what?
Remaining on a platform filled with hate is an indicator that you’re ok with that. I am not, so I left. end of story.
This is not someone randomly joining Parler. Not only minorities don't always have the luxury to only exist where they are welcomed, they had been accepted and that was taken away from them. They already had built their following and that's being ruined. To say that trying to hold onto what they've built and resist is "being okay with hate" doesn't sound right to me.
Twitter as a place does not matter to me, but I still have friends and creators that I like that use it, and especially for artists, they need a platform with wide reach for their careers. I can preach the Fediverse and Mastodon as much as I want, but until it's widely adopted, it's not going to help them.
I'm also on Kbin so you can guess what's my stance on remaining in bad platforms.
But these are two different arguments: Whether it's sensible for people to leave, or whether they are obligated out of moral consistency to leave.
Absolutely people have plenty of reasons not want to wallow there and I wouldn't in a million years say anything bad to anyone who wants to leave. But I also wouldn't shame those who want to push back against hate, who want to protect the following they gathered, or who want to support the creators who didn't find an adequate place to rebuild their online presence yet.
What I am suspicious of is from whoever came up with this argument "if you are so opposed to bigots, how about you leave this platform" when the end result is that many of these same marginalized people targeted by hate speech might have less reach because of it.
Yeah, I'm still there. I'm not letting the right-wing trolls win. I'm there until it implodes.
Much like Reddit, if you curate your feed, stay away from the big accounts and avoid the Trending Topics and don't talk politics then it's still a decent place to be.
Yeah, I do still have my twitter account but I try to avoid going on it and only still have it because there are a few niche times where it's still unfortunately the best place to get current information on local issues (last Sunday for example there was a power outage in my area and the power company's twitter is a bit better at giving updates than their official site so I was checking both).
I really wish I could just delete my account and maybe I still will (and just create an empty dummy account for those rare cases so twitter doesn't harass me to log in). But to be honest I'm less stressed about social media in general ever since I left twitter and I suspect over time a similar thing will happen with being off Reddit.
Man who defied a congressional subpoena sends congressional subpoena in a small government bid to illegally impose oversight of a court he does not have jurisdiction over to interfere with the upcoming election by attempting to deprive the voters of the knowledge of the criminality of one of the candidates.
nbcnews.com
Hot