Quiet quitting refers to a phenomenon where employees, particularly in the United States, increasingly prioritize work-life balance over excessive workplace engagement. Instead of going above and beyond their job duties, these employees simply fulfill their basic responsibilities and are often reluctant to work overtime.
I don’t know if there is objective definition on quiet quitting but this one feels off and a little gross to me. You can work your agreed upon hours with no overtime and still do an amazing job. This definition paints folks working full time jobs as slackers because they aren’t doing overtime, which in most cases is going to be free overtime.
The only time/place I’ve heard “quiet quitting” has been in articles/online. Never from a real person in real life. It’s akin to them trying to make fetch happen.
The people who work for those who call just doing what you're paid for "quiet quitting" should show them what quiet quitting really is by going to lunch one day and never coming back.
Yep it has been presented as that by the media but real people talking about it usually mean just half-assing your job like you don’t care about it.
“Not going above and beyond” has worked pretty well for me the majority of my career, I just get the job done well and try to remember to do most of what I’m supposed to.
Are you a poor CEO in need of more income? Just fire ALL of your employees and run the whole company your damn self since you think it’s so easy! Now you get 100% of the profits! GREAT SUCCESS!!!
Far-right influencer Rogan O’Handley went so far as to suggest that if the Chiefs won the Super Bowl, Swift and Kelce would trigger an apocalyptic chain of events that would kill millions. “You MUST defeat the Chiefs,” O’Handley wrote in an X post addressed to the San Francisco 49ers. “If you don’t, Mr. Pfizer and his girlfriend are going to tour the country as ‘world champions’ helping elect Joe Biden WW3 will likely follow in a 2nd Biden term and millions will die. The fate of the free world rests upon your shoulders”
Just wow. Only a tidbit of the crazy they are spouting in this article.
Travis Kelce plays for the chiefs, Taylor and Travis are dating. Taylor is present at many chiefs games and almost surely will be at the Super Bowl. Taylor is very outspoken about the need to vote, rarely if ever says who to vote for but presses the need to have your voice heard. Republicans and other fascists know that their policies are wildly unpopular, especially with the youth, and so hate the idea of anyone encouraging the youth or anyone else to vote and possibly outnumber the hateful citizens that normally vote for republicans
Absolutely. If anyone is going to stop socialism, Jewish space lasers, and the San Francisco 49ers, it’s a guy from Kansas with a mustache and his blonde country singer girlfriend.
Really feels like conservatives picked the wrong side here?
Trump sycophant Laura Loomer wrote on X that “the Democrats’ Taylor Swift election interference psyop is happening in the open… They are going to use Taylor Swift as the poster child for their pro-abortion GOTV Campaign.”
This shit sounds like deepfried AI hallucinations, but I know people are actually that dumb.
And they’ll somehow always find ways to bring you to a loss for words even when you expect the absolutely deepest level of stupidity and craziness you can imagine. These past handful of years have just been a constant shattering of expectations of how dumb and fucked up people manage to be. And 90% of it is coming from right-wing fanatics.
Why would the cabal, the super influential group secretly controlling all our actions, need a football team to win the superbowl to defeat them, and why would they, in all their Machiavellian wisdom, not have considered the 50% chance event that their football team loses?
Why would they pick Biden for another term then start WW3? Why not just start it now if that’s what they want and he’s already their puppet? They’ve had 3 years and there’s certainly enough political tinder in the world to start a fire.
You know what, I’ve thought about this some more and the reasoning is clear.
If the 49ers win, they’ll inadvertantly resurrect Harvey Milk, who will kill JFK (who faked his own death and has been lying in wait), who will then be unable to reclaim the last months of his presidency (his term was never officially ended you know) which he planned to use to restore Donald Trump to power. Harvey Milk will then become president and make heterosexuality illegal and force us to live in 15 minute neighborhoods.
Excuse my ignorance, but is there something going around about 15-minute neighborhoods? Someone pretty kooky mentioned something about that to me just today (in relation to Chattanooga, I think, but I didn't exactly follow the crazy train of thought). Something about how they're monitoring everyone and they can't take more than 100 trips outside that zone or something. I know it's all nonsense but there's also usually some tie back into reality.
The abilities of some to twist and misconstrue almost everything is almost impressive. Anytime anything might be helpful to society, they come up with conspiracies and ways it must be for evil.
I don’t have, and never planned on having, any kids but, I always vote for and push for education. It is scary what large numbers of ignorant people can accomplish.
Moreno said the posts are inaccurate and misconstrue the nature of the urban planning framework.
“The 15-minute city is the opposite of lockdown,” Moreno said. “The 15-minute city is an open and connected city, which balances the differences in access to services.”
The framework does not limit residents’ ability to leave their neighborhoods or access services in other areas of the city.
“All citizens are free to go where they want," Moreno said. "There are no constraints.”
There’s one key piece you’re missing, Joe Montana is actually resurrected Harvey Milk & has been this whole time.
This plan began back when Joe was winning Super Bowls, but Steve Young was an unexpected hiccup. The queer stopped spreading as fast when Joe got traded.
This Superbowl has been chosen specifically because Montana played for both the Chiefs & the 49ers, & because Joe Montana is also Taylor Swift.
They were going to do it 4 years ago, but Joe was still Arianna Grande back then.
It’ll all make sense when Andy Reid eats Travis Kelce during halftime.
Because they need people not to know until all the stars are aligned and then nobody can stop it anymore! Unless some hero changes the course of history by telling everyone and saves the world!
It’s because so much conspiracy theory requires the conspirators to be simultaneously all powerful but hilariously weak and stupid. And all their plans have to be announced and hinted at through pop culture and in ways that are suspiciously similar to popular movies and TV shows as remembered by people with no media literacy.
Brilliantly coded reference to Nicki Minaj (“it’s the butt have culture people“), “rapper” and illuminatiarian with 5G cheek implants controlling society via the minds of our youth. Didn’t expect to be so enlightened in this thread.
This is my response to all conspiracy theories. If this deep state cabal is so powerful, and has access to unlimited resources to achieve their agenda, wouldn’t it be easier to just declare martial law and send the deep state army in to drag us all into the streets, point a gun at our heads and say comply or die? Why the theatrics? Is the deep state the Joker? Why not just shoot Batman in the head and be done with it?
“You MUST defeat the Chiefs,” O’Handley wrote in an X post addressed to the San Francisco 49ers. “If you don’t, Mr. Pfizer and his girlfriend are going to tour the country as ‘world champions’ helping elect Joe Biden WW3 will likely follow in a 2nd Biden term and millions will die. The fate of the free world rests upon your shoulders”
Why are there people so convinced that football, or the outcome of any sporting event, matters at all? Like I know that this is just some media manipulators trying to stir people up, but I also fully believe that they will succeed and that the number of people who will find this argument compelling will be depressing (though who knows, maybe humanity will have a pleasant surprise).
Berkeleyside spoke to one landlord planning to attend the eviction moratorium party who was frustrated that they could not evict a tenant—except that they could evict the tenant, who was allegedly a danger to his roommates—but the landlord found the process of proving a health and safety violation too tedious and chose not to pursue it.
I feel like people should really read this part and fully absorb what it means.
It’s not that surprising, courts require specific hard evidence. Getting the roommates present to testify may or may not be enough, but it’s far more difficult than showing unpaid rent or a hoarding situation.
You seem to have this idea that landlords don’t work? I am a landlord and I have to work full time to help cover the cost of the mortgage. If I don’t, the tenant will get kicked out by the bank when they take back the house.
You’re a housing provider, not a landlord. If you aren’t making anything off of the houses you lease then you aren’t the subject of the ire of renters.
Ignore those goons saying you’re a bad investor. It’s noble of you to not leech off of the people who you rent to, and at the end of the day, the equity of the house is still yours.
Thanks buddy. I’m also (ironically?) a renter too. I’m grateful to have the ability to live close to work without having to take on the cost of buying a house in the city.
The issue here is that they self identified as a landlord, when they simply are renting their second/first house. it’s not the same situation, but the way they explain it sounds quite entitled and when people lack the whole context, it makes them look very bad. Furthermore, according to another comment of them it seems like they would like to be more like another commenter that is presenting as an actual, evil landlord (probably as a joke). Sooo… yeah.
Sounds like you’re not cut out for this. I’m a landlord and I take pride in never working. My tenants pay my mortgages as well as most of my living expenses (the employees at the businesses I own pay for the rest of my expenses plus my retirement savings). I hope one day you become better at being a landlord and don’t have to work any more.
This is a joke, but he legitimately does sound like a bad investor. The problem is, you can become a property owner simply by buying and being lucky. There’s no skill required.
So there are a lot of people like that who say “it’s hard to own even one property”, as if collecting rent and mailing some checks is hard. I know someone who has like 6 properties, even commercial property. It’s not a “full time job” even with that many.
Updating properties to sell or rent for more money is work, but the actual act of owning property is mostly waiting for checks to come in. Honestly there should be a test on laws in the local area to rent out property. Lawyers need a test just to read and write contracts; real estate agents have a test.
Bad property owners shouldn’t be allowed to take their stupidity out on tenants. If you don’t live in the building, you should need to pass a basic test for a license that can be revoked.
Take a another look with an advisor in whatever country you are at. Its usually much easier to get a property second time around. Im not aware of your local laws and how banks can refinance you but there should be possibilities. Its good to spread risk. I used to have one property and it brought me stress knowing one single bad tenant could financially ruin me.
No, you are an investor who assumes risk of non-payment. Maybe you are a bad investor who shouldn’t be renting? In that case, you should sell the property to someone who is a better investor, possibly the actual occupants.
Do you always live life in fantasy land? Or do you at least occasionally try to take a vacation back to reality? Because I think you could do with one.
The tenant can’t afford to because rent seekers reduce the available supply of housing. If they can afford to pay you rent then they can afford to pay a mortgage, and the profit you derive from that relationship is representative of what they could be saving for a down payment if you weren’t leaching off of them.
The average house price is now over 1 million. If you buy a house for 1 mil with a $200k deposit (unreachable for the vast majority including me) then your weekly payments are over $1200 excluding rates.
To rent a property it is very easy to find a multitude that sit at the $600 per week mark and some even lower for the same number of bedrooms.
So “If they can afford to pay you rent then they can afford to pay a mortgage” is stupid. Mortgage is literally double the cost of rent.
To rent a property it is very easy to find a multitude that sit at the $600 per week mark and some even lower for the same number of bedrooms.
Lol this is completely meaningless:
“average” home price is going to be far higher than “average” rental price, because the price distribution of houses doesn’t match the price distribution of rentals (a $500 mil home isn’t going to have a matching rental property)
a home and an apartment are priced differently, so “$600 per week … for same number of bedrooms” could mean anything, including a $5mil 4 bedroom home vs a 4 bedroom apartment in a 50 unit building.
Suffice it to say: I don’t fucking believe you. Even in NZ, straight comparisons between mortgage servicing costs of a house and rental pricing of the same house would show weekly rent is more expensive than the weekly mortgage servicing costs. There’s good reason for that, too: in a market where the home is worth more than what can be extracted in rent, you would definitionally make more money selling the property than renting it out (and nobody would be doing it)
Edit: The only exception to this would be if you purchased the house at the peak of a housing bubble, and are now renting the house out after the bubble has popped and so you are unable to sell without taking a loss.
straight comparisons between mortgage servicing costs of a house and rental pricing of the same house would show weekly rent is more expensive than the weekly mortgage servicing costs
you realize that after the mortgage is paid, you will have a fill house at your name and the tennants will still ahve nothing? Yeah you offer them a service but complaining that you have to work to pay the mortgage sounds SO entitled, to be honest. Of course you have to work to pay the mortgage, we all do! You might be a good landlord, but when people complain about landlords it’s usually about big landlords whho have several properties, not people that have a second house that they rent. People that say that “landlording” is their job.
If this is not you, this doesn’t apply to you and commenting as if you were one will only work against you,
I have a single second property that I am renting out.
Actually, I don’t even live in the first property that I co-own because prices are so high I had to buy an hours drive outside of the city where I work. I am renting in the city.
I’m not complaining that I have to contribute to the mortgage, that’s just how it is. I am fully in agreement that house-hoarders are bad, but there’s a big distinction between that and a general ‘landlord.’
I would argue that the tenants do have something, which is “not a life living on the streets because landlording was illegal and they couldn’t afford to buy construction materials and pay builders to build them a house.” I have rented all my life, I have never lived in a house that I owned despite having my name on two houses,
I get where people are coming from, but their argument is “ban all landlords” without any consideration of actual reality that involves having capital and taking financial risk to construct housing. There’s something to be said about having a system in place that incentivises those actions. Maybe it’s the system and not the actors that should be blamed? Hate the game, not the player.
You need to understand that context is important. It’s clear that they are not against people like you, and that as I stated, they are using the term Landlord more as a job title than as a status of owning a rented house. I have already agreed with your arguments, I’m just saying that if you present yourself as the term that people have coined for “house-hoarders”, then you are going to have a bad time, even if technically that term is being misrepresented in the given context.
You shouldn’t tell them that they are wrong on blaming landlords, because what landlord is for you and them is different, you should tell them to find a better term, at most. The better way to approach this would be to ask for clarification of what they mean with landlords, and while for sure there will be extremists, people in general will agree that what they hate is house-hoarders and landlords that speculate with property, not people that own 2 houses and rent 1 of them to help a bit with finances in a fair way.
It’s clear that they are not against people like you, and that as I stated, they are using the term Landlord more as a job title than as a status of owning a rented house.
Respectfully, I am one of these people and I absolutely include landlords of any size. Economic rent of all kinds are unethical and unproductive, and that includes any landlord that charges more than what a property costs to produce and maintain (still unclear if @luthis is somehow underwater with his property, i’m not sure how that’d even happen) by nature of some arbitrary notion of ownership. The rent they extract is unproductive and exploitative, on top of the problem of them hoarding homes from the housing stock and artificially inflating home prices.
still unclear if @luthis is somehow underwater with his property
what’s he’s stating is that he has to pay a part of the mortgage with his own money, which tbh to me is completely normal, giving all the mortgage cost to the tenant is exploitative.
Also,
by nature of some arbitrary notion of ownership.
Idk, but if I bought a summer house with my savings and decided to rent it to gain a small extra income, that’s not an arbitrary notion of ownership, I bought that house with my savings.
In any case, if you are against anyone owning more than 1 house, then,
there will be extremists
If I didn’t rent the summer house, it would have been unavailable to the market because I would use it maybe 2 weeks a year. We did use it a lot more when we purchased it but life changes and now we don’t. In the end we sold it but I don’t see it as unfair to rent it for a completely reasonable price (different country so prices won’t make sense to you, but it’s low, lower than 1/4 of what I earn in my actual job). In any case, I was just trying to clarify him why people were downvoting him so hard, since most people are not really against any kind of renting.
what’s he’s stating is that he has to pay a part of the mortgage with his own money, which tbh to me is completely normal, giving all the mortgage cost to the tenant is exploitative.
To be even more accurate, if anyone charged more rent than what mortgage payments would be, no one would want to rent it because it would be more than double the price of other rental properties. There is a really big gap between rent and mortgage payments.
From what I’ve seen in my own neighborhood rent is way higher than the mortgage. The only people who do it are those who can’t afford a down payment and/or closing costs, though, of course, paying the extra in rent doesn’t help them.
Very different to the situation here. I ran some numbers earlier:
The average house price is now over 1 million. If you buy a house for 1 mil with a $200k deposit (unreachable for the vast majority including me) then your weekly payments are over $1200 excluding rates.
To rent a property it is very easy to find a multitude that sit at the $600 per week mark and some even lower for the same number of bedrooms.
Nope, not underwater at all. It is normal to be paying extra on top of rent to cover the mortgage unless your deposit was like 90% or something. There is a really big gap between mortgage payments and rent payments.
This is just such an obtuse view. A person should be fairly compensated for their property, regardless of kind.
If you don’t believe in property ownership at all… then these positions are fundamentally at odds.
Rent extracted for property should be proportional to the property and the value an individual gains from the use of the property. I think we can agree to that. I also believe that reasonable profit can be expected for reasonable work / value.
To say that economic rent of all kinds is unethical and unproductive doesn’t make sense to me.
If one person invests their capital into a house and someone else wants to make use of that property, they should pay rent. How is that transaction unethical? The rent is payment for use of the other persons capital.
There are arguments about housing specifically as a basic right / need that changes the dynamic… but in cases where these needs are exploited for financial gain, it’s the exploitation that is unethical, not the basic premise of rent.
To explore the notion that rent should only be proportional to the value that the property produces, and frankly how insane that sounds… it only takes startup costs of the property to consider that those costs should also be included in the computation… again exploitation is the thing that is unethical, not the exchange for use of property fundamentally.
You think you can just renovate the bathroom and bill the tenant for the work?? That’s not how reality works.
Rent can also only be increased once per year and the tenant is able to appeal to the Tribunal if it is too much and the Tribunal can order the rent to decrease.
In terms of risk: When building: unforeseen expenses like complex earthworks, no access to building supplies and environmental issues that can blow out construction times by months or even years (this actually happened recently with gib), and all the while having to pay the mortgage when there isn’t a house to live in.
When renting: property damage from tenants, meth labs (it will be illegal to rent a property soon with a certain level of meth contamination), things requiring repairs in the house (I recently had to buy a new heat pump because the old one died), changes to laws like the recent one that requires older homes be retrofitted with insulation at cost to the owner, tenants moving out leaving you with the mortgage to cover yourself, job loss myself leaving me with no way to cover the extra…
And nowadays, simply having someone paying your mortgage isn’t enough. Landlords need to be cashflow positive.
I showed earlier that mortgage payments are more than double rent payments.
I’m not complaining that I have to contribute to the mortgage, that’s just how it is. I am fully in agreement that house-hoarders are bad, but there’s a big distinction between that and a general ‘landlord.’
There is absolutely little to none. No matter what you serve the same function, and no matter how “good” of a person you are, a landlord will always be a social parasite.
I would argue that the tenants do have something, which is “not a life living on the streets because landlording was illegal and they couldn’t afford to buy construction materials and pay builders to build them a house.”
mf lives in the confines of capitalism 🙄🙄🙄
And not just capitalism, but for you a concept of “social housing” seems to be absolutely alien. Vienna is an example of a western city that is a prime “fuck you” to this “argument”.
I get where people are coming from, but their argument is “ban all landlords” without any consideration of actual reality that involves having capital and taking financial risk to construct housing.
What fucking risk huh? What risk that any other person living in their own home don’t take?
“Oh the property might burn down.”
Mine can too fucker and you don’t see me complaining. The problem here is, your mortgage is being paid off by your tenant and who’s keeping the property at the end of the day? Not him that’s for sure!
“Oh but I pay my part!”
So If you split the payment, split the property too fucker.
If anything, the tenant takes more risk by renting because if he loses his job or sustains an injury he’s fucked because he has no property of his own he’s guaranteed to live in.
Sincerely, fuck you. I hope your tenant finds a better deal and that both of your properties burn down you entitled ass.
Oh and keep this in mind:
“The Maoist uprising against the landlords was the most comprehensive proletarian revolution in history, leading to almost totally equal redistribution of the land amongst the peasantry”
Been a landlord for almost 20 years. I've rebuilt some of these houses myself from an auctioned off unlivable disaster to a safe, clean, maintained property. To imply landlords don't work is such a narrow sighted view of reality. I got a glimpse during covid of an eviction moratorium a tenant that had quite a bit of hardship and I worked with her for 5 years pre-covid. Heating oil run out she couldn't afford I filled it out of pocket for her and her family. If she needed flexibility on rent timing I worked with her. When she snuck an untrained dog classified as an emotion support dog that chewed up the house's 70 year old woodwork stairs and balusters. I worked with her. When covid hit and the moratorium was about to go live her lease was up1 month prior. She ceased paying rent and utilities, I was informed I'd have to cover all her expenses during the moratorium. If she hadn't had that lease end right before this moratorium she would've continued staying there for free while I covered her family's entire housing and utilities. In the end my thanks for covering her and enforcing the lease end date was an entire house abandoned and full of trash and pest. Took my wife and I almost 2 months and close to $5000 to clean, repaint, repair/replace that property on top of the maintenance costs. This isn't a black and white situation..
Tldr, I guess: Evictions are a last resort for people who have had an agreement no longer be met by the other party. Should never have mad a moratorium on that legal process imo, it needed to have flexibility to help both parties not just shoulder 1 party with all the responsibility. The party is in extremely poor taste but I can understand their relief if they have similar tenants they can hopefully divest of after years of what my example held. I wouldn't have been able to do it for 3 years financially or mentally.
Good job with being a good property maintenance worker, sounds like you’re a decent person making the best of a shit situation. You’re still occupying a roll that’s exploitative, and I think the means by which you derive profit from an arbitrary notion of “ownership” is unethical and should be abolished.
The distinction is in the role of being the owner of the property versus the property manager and superintendent.
Landlords that also assume the role of property manager or superintendent for the land or buildings they lease do work.
But their role as owner and collector of rent is divorced from upkeep. The wealthier the landlord, the more removed and absentee they can be from their property. And the reality of that specific dynamic is just shining in the example of this kind of party.
My guess: This guy, and all his rich friends have a ton of money invested in commercial real estate. He’s putting his own interest before the interest of his company. The more people work from home the better for Zoom, but the worse off he and his rich friends are.
People say that way of thinking is cynical, but I have worked in the system implementation and system consulting arms of EDS, IBM, and Accenture and that assumption (that the whole thing can be maintained by junior devs one the initial build is complete) is actually how middle managers within client companies have to budget their transition from “build” into “business as usual” stage so that senior managers approve the system implementation/migration.
While the concept that it takes specialized knowledge and experience is true, not having means to retain experience means that it will be chaos some six months down the road when some manager wants to do an enhancement as none of the juniors will understand why certain design choices were made and the implications on the rest of the architecture
…Trump had transformed the political landscape in the U.S. to the point where some Christian conservatives are openly denouncing a central doctrine of their religion as being too “weak” and “liberal” for their liking.
Trump didn’t transform shit. His views are as old as conservatism. Maybe there was a lull in speaking out about them from about 1975-2001, but they didn’t go away. Trump literally just stumbled ass-first into a convenient landscape with his more plainly outspoken bigotry and hate.
To attribute all of this to the last 6-8 years is beyond stupid and misses the entire problem.
And if these people can’t see that, their blind spot to hatred is so big that they can’t see it until someone screams it in their face. Yeah, it’s great someone in the evangelical community is speaking out, but it’s too little way too late. The fascist ideology has firmly rooted its way into American life over the last 30 years. Now that that tree is bearing fruit and it’s falling on people’s heads, speaking out now is like trying to cut down that tree with pruning shears. You assholes that fostered this for so long needed to cut it off way sooner.
Many people don’t realize that the first colonies were founded by Christians that believed the churches in their home county were not being authoritarian enough. The wanted religious freedom, sure, but they wanted the freedom to be theocratic like you said.
Our correct and just way to live means that when we invade other countries, kill their civilians and take their stuff, it's for their own good because we're bringing the light of christ freedom and democracy. That's totally a crusade.
I'm quite a fan of freedom and democracy - I wish we had some in the US - but using our noblest ideals to justify bloody wars of plunder is the most christian thing I can imagine.
One of the most eye opening historical events for me as a christian was the Children's Crusade
Happened right before the 5th crusade. Basically a bunch of kids and teens got together and believed that God would part the dead sea for them, like Moses did, and allow them to take Jerusalem. Which at the time was considered a reasonable idea.
They believed in the cause so much, they only sent them with enough supplies to make it there, not a return trip.
Some of the kids made it to the dead sea, and the sea did not part.
It is said out of the thousands of kids they sent, only a few returned. With the rest suffering starvation, thirst, drowning, disease, and slavery.
I still believe in God, and I do have some faith in him, if at the very least like the idea of a Good God being in control of everything.
Kind of like Santa.
Not in the sense that I would drink a vat of Kool-aid for him. Warning: Not Safe For Work
But that I will question my religion and see what I got wrong first, before I challenge the scientific proof. Because if the moral of the story is anything, it's that God works in mysterious ways, but he doesn't part the dead sea anymore.
I've read at least three commentaries by [priests/deacons/whatever their particular church calls them but I'm using the generic "priests"] priests who 'nourished' and 'tended' to their 'kind' and 'caring' flocks for decades, who no longer agree with their flock's views and have either left voluntarily or were ousted. Tellingly, all three have relocated to liberal states from the South.
And all I can think is how "Southern charm" partially rose up after the Civil War, when they just really couldn't tell the Yankees what they actually thought of them, so they went overboard with the faux politeness ('bless your heart'). And the fact that these 'liberal' priests just either never heard or never understood exactly why people were saying their people were bigots indicates a lack of the introspection that they're supposed to have.
Picking and choosing what parts of the Bible they want to follow is nearly as old as the religion itself. The first council of Nicea was the first large attempt for Christianity to define itself and create a canon. That happened in 325 AD. Even if we talk only about protestants, denominations are all about what parts of the bible they follow and how they translate the word to doctrine.
To attribute it to one man is so disingenuous. Christians have been interpreting the Bible in whatever way suits them best for over a millenia.
But then I realized, this is the same demographic that would shoot up a drag show, simply because of men wearing dresses. Now they’re wearing diapers in public support of a convicted rapist that shits himself.
As a trans woman, the thought that they would even wear diapers to justify their hatred of me and love for their incontinent idol, it is disgusting. I’m literally nauseous right now, they think people like me are beneath an actual man baby.
These guys weren’t against wearing diapers to begin with. They were at least curious about it, or even desperate to finally try it in public. Maybe being out as their true selves will help them develop emotionally a bit. I support more MAGAs wearing their diapers in public spaces.
Well they did make chin-diapers fashionable during the whole ‘i ain’t complying with your public heath and safety mind control bullshit’ during mask mandates.
Yeah, it’s funny but in a gallows way. Like, of course these are the people putting my life at risk. It’s funny like Goebbels’s limp. Like you fuckers can’t even have the ideological purity to not be the sort of person you hate or to side with the people who don’t care and think it’s fine.
Have they never been on Wikipedia before. You can already see the edits and attribution. If their information is correct they should submit an edit and offer proof. Going to be hard for them to sweep the Palestinian genocide under the rug though.
When asked if he would make her go to a boy’s bathroom, he then allegedly backed away, saying, “You’re attacking me,” turned around, and walked off quickly.
I mean, maybe we should just yell that at conservatives?
Maybe it takes something so blunt for them to get it as hearing “you’re attacking me”.
And if it doesn’t, I’m pretty sure that’s all you need to say to use stand your ground laws in red states.
Remember, you can’t transfer modest sums of money without intense scrutiny — coz tErRoRiSM — but corporations can funnel billions of dollars through fake corporations, run by fake &/or dead people, registered at locations that have never existed, solely to commit tax evasion — a crime you would spend decades in prison for, if you did it at 1/1000th the scale.
This is from the same establishment that argues against your access to encryption — coz pEdOs and tErRoRiSM — but Epstein didn’t hill himself, and 99.99% of his pedo establishment accomplices were let off scott-free.
I mean yeah, the French Revolution had 2.5 million combatant casualties in addition to 1 million civilian casualties, which was similar in population deaths relative to World War One for France.
If estimates are correct, the French population was around 28 million at the eve of the French Revolution. 3.5 million deaths is 12.5 percent of the population of the country at that time.
So if violent revolution has any historical accuracy, the population of 330 million in the US today would mean that more than the entire population of France during the French Revolution would die (41 million people)
I’m not arguing that revolution isn’t the answer, but a casual “overthrow the government” is a significant loss of human life to achieve said goals.
Misleading. That number includes deaths in the Napoleonic Wars.
The Revolutionary Wars and the Napoleonic Wars were not a necessary consequence of the Revolution. They were largely triggered by European monarchs attempting to make the world safe for tyranny.
I think the US is the only country where a revolution might be able to happen without the other western powers themselves coming in to put it down and save capitalism (assuming it’s an anti-capitalist revolution).
But I’m not even sure that it wouldn’t happen to the US. The ruling class will pull out all of the stops to save their power (with the added incentive that it might also save their lives because of how successful revolutions tend to go for those at the top).
I didn’t say that wasn’t that case, just that to get people to agree to something that drastic normally requires more significant impact on their day to day lives. By convincing many of the current population they are “temporarily embarrassed millionaires” the upper class have done very well at ensuring that many are “just comfortable enough” to do very little while they are moved into a system built to capitalize on their labor and keep them under control
you’re almost certainly right, but if you’re wondering why people are hesitant to initiate a revolution 3.5 million deaths is a pretty good explanation
The "Epstein didn't kill himself" nonsense always bothered me. It ignores why he was arrested in the first place.
He was soliciting sex with underage girls from a local, and rich, high school. The solicitation was for himself.
So you have an old man trying (and sometimes succeeding) at picking up 14-17 year old white girls from rich families. He was super sloppy about it as well, attempting the shotgun approach of just messaging every single girl he could on various social media platforms.
This got the attention of the media, and pissed off some people with some money behind them.
He was going to prison for his own solicitation, and not for supplying anyone else.
But once the media started digging, they found a bunch of shit that said he had also been supplying girls to the rich and famous. But those weren't the charges he was facing, and his rich and famous friends could not, or would not, help him with the charges he was facing.
What they could do, was pull him off of suicide watch.
A pedo in prison either has to be in protective custody, or be otherwise protected from the other prisoners. Otherwise, the other prisoners will take out all their aggression on the pedo.
Epstein was facing prison time, and was being threatened with being placed in general population. He had already been attacked by another inmate, and had uncountable beatings to look forward to.
So the moment he was pulled from suicide watch, he killed himself. It was a selfish decision, but it also greatly helped out the people he had supplied girls to.
The main question is, did some of his powerful friends pull strings to get him off suicide watch? We also know that he met his lawyer days earlier and signed documents that made it much harder for his victims to get compensation, but only in the case of his death.
That alone points to him planning to die rather than spend the rest of his life being repeatedly beaten by other inmates.
Except for the fact that he did, in fact, kill himself.
He saw his future prospects of constantly being in and out of prison hospitals, as the other prisoners continually beat him, and chose instead to end it all.
The fact that it also screwed over his victims and made prosecuting his clients much harder is ancillary to the fact that he killed himself to get out of having his ass handed to him every day for the rest of his life.
It doesn't take a genius to see, but it does take a special kind of genius to see conspiracy and a clandestine murder in it.
Mm, I do appreciate your write up and viewpoint, however it does not address some of the details. One being the tampering of footage the night of his death, and if I recall correctly, one of the guards receiving a large payment. Among a myriad of other data points pointing towards sketch.
The footage thing is a game of telephone that the internet has played with itself.
There was no footage of the cell itself, because there are no cameras in any cells except those used for suicide watch. Epstein was pulled off suicide watch.
Internet sleuths keep demanding footage of the cell itself, which flies in the face of how prisons run.
There is footage of the cell block hallways leading to and from Epstein's cell. The footage there shows no people entering or exiting the hallway. Which leads to the next part.
The guards falsified records. They were both actually asleep on the job, but had filed statements saying they were awake and alert and watching the prison. The footage showed that neither guard did any rounds that night. They didn't do rounds the night before, or even the week before. They basically just didn't do rounds at all.
They were both prosecuted for such, but got off because law enforcement sleeping on the job is just sort of accepted...
People want shadowy conspiracies to exist because the world makes more sense that way. “The prison guards were lazy and careless” is simultaneously the most likely scenario and the one most rejected by “truthers”.
Do these people think jails are hotels run like clockwork with constant vigilance and 4K video of every corner?
Out of the $1.3 [million], half a million dollars went to the IRS [Internal Revenue Services],
Yeah, so like, don’t be so upset because it wasn’t really 1.3 million I stole. The g o v e r n m e n t stole a half million of your hard earned money you invested.
Holy men (and women) should stick to the tried-and-true grift of their profession.
Incentives for joining the military target lower income communities.
The military is continually sent into one unpopular conflict after another since at least Vietnam (right around the time the report noticed a drop in white enlistment).
Legislators pass and / or preserve policies that create barriers preventing non-whites from accumulatimg wealth.
nottheonion
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.