That’s my mom. She doesn’t really think about stuff like that at all. I still get bullied by my dad whenever I date black people or any POC and I’m well into my 20’s.
My dad had an underlying hate towards others when I was little but it mostly sizzled out by the time Obama was president (2008). 2024 it’s a kerosene fire. Oddly when I was younger he went on a rant about Jews, yet now he seems fine with Jewish people and just hates everyone else.
Racism is back with a vengeance and media/news is promoting it.
I think about this sometimes I could go to school and build a career for myself, or I could make way twice the money in half the time doing shit like this.
Sometimes I hate that I have a sense of guilt. Life would be so much easier if I were a psychopath
Interestingly, a quick google didn’t really answer this. It seems pretty split as to whether they can or can’t. I don’t think there’s really a definitive answer. My guess is that it probably depends where you fall (I imagine it’s a spectrum like most things), and some can, some cant
If it makes you feel any better, it’s probably hard to figure out when to get out. You’ll always feel like you can do just one more because the last one worked out so well, but each time you cash in, more people will see the truth and might want in on it until you find yourself in a situation where you can’t stop even if you wanted to because then the others who you are propping up will turn on you.
So what if they turn on you? Once you’re rich just admit it’s a scam and walk away. The believers will continue on.
Jehovah’s Witnesses predicted the end of the world in 1914. When that didn’t happen they lost members but came back quickly enough. Then they predicted it for 1975. Same thing happened, and now they have more members than ever.
There were likely some Mormons and definitely some fellow Freemasons in the angry mob that killed Joseph Smith. He was in way too deep to just walk away, even if his brand of narcissism would have allowed him to contemplate that.
As the other commenter mentioned, things could get violent. Being wrong about a prediction means that the leaders look as dumb as the followers, but saying outright that you scammed the followers means you deliberately made them look stupid.
But even if they aren’t mysteriously angry about it, it’s still illegal. I wonder if the prosecutors going after Trump plan on going after him again from that angle once they prove his election steal claims were fraud because he used those claims to solicit donations.
It’s not the legal status (fraud is already illegal), it’s proving that it is indeed a scam rather than some dumb shit they actually believed, as well as knowing that it’s more likely to trigger a persecution complex and doubling down than improve the lives of the victims (because if it’s a plot to harm their religion, they don’t have to feel like idiots for giving the scammer money).
It’s a different story if the religious scammer openly admits that it was always a scam and just doesn’t care what anyone thought of it. Easier to prove and the victims are already angry and feeling like idiots for falling for it.
I don’t think a ‘less harmful’ con makes the con any more ethical. And I don’t want to take poor people’s money. A lot of people giving to televangelists are people living on social security and the like.
Yeah, but you’re not really conning the higher-ups, you’re conning the grannies who are going to church and giving away their social security money. And they really don’t deserve to be conned even if it would be easy to con them.
My intention wasn’t to call you an idiot (which me misusing that Latin phrase would make ME the idiot lol), it was to point out the “If I don’t do it someone else will” moral justification / fallacy that a lot of people, such as drug dealers for example, use to skirt the moral responsibility of their actions.
I long ago came to the conclusion that a slice of the American Dream is still out there to be had, as long as you don’t mind cutting it out of a bunch of suckers and rubes. Alas, my petty sense of morality is stopping me from joining the ranks of the wealthy elite, but at least I can sleep at night knowing my lifestyle isn’t directly financed by the misery of people I made a conscious choice to hurt.
That’s almost universally true at the multimillionaire and above level unless you inherited it all. You don’t get that rich without stepping on everyone you can to get there.
Elon Musk has ruined a ridiculous number of people on his way to the top and he continues to do it.
This is called Automatic Content Recognition and it can be disabled in the settings, highly recommend doing that. It should have asked you whether you wanted it enabled when you set up the TV, as it’s legally required to be opt-in in the US opposed to opt-out. Since you’re using a Roku Smart TV, it specifically is taking two full resolution “video snapshots” every second.
"To disable ACR on a Roku TV, the privacy policy says to “visit your Roku TV’s Settings menu (Settings > Privacy > Smart TV Experience) and de-select 'Use Info from TV Inputs.”
I haven’t done any research into what’s actually being transmitted, but I assume ACR feeds the snapshots into an ASIC that does something akin to perceptual hashing, then sends a chain of hashes collected over something like a 2-4sec window to an edge server for matching. So perhaps around 24kbps is actually being transmitted.
Where I live, it’s usual practice to get the vendor to send a team to your house to do the unboxing and installation of expensive TVs so it’s easier to deal with doa products and whatnot. When the guys came in to set up my LG oled, I watched in horror as they speed ran the setup wizard, checking all the boxes and giving my consent to every single tracking feature without even telling me anything. I had to go back and redo everything once they’d fucked off.
Part of me can’t believe that I’m saying this, but I really hope you filed a complaint just so the installation service provider can be informed that this is an issue and hopefully advise the installers that they should always seek customer input on that kind of thing, it shouldn’t add much time to the installation.
I get that they’re just trying to get it done quickly, but customer service is paramount.
People tend to forget that social constructs are very very real things that can have major material impacts on our lives. Those who don’t understand this use “it’s just a social construct” to dismiss the importance of certain concepts or abstract ideas. But most of human’s reality is made out of social constructs.
They’re not saying it isn’t real, just that it being made up doesn’t matter.
That suffering isn’t because of a lack of money, though. It’s because of a lack of means to secure the things you need. You would not suffer from a lack of money in a world where everything was free.
The social construct is the idea of currency: a physical (or digital) representation of value for the purpose of trading, but it has no inherent purpose or meaning if you remove it from the society that constructed it.
But what that money represents is a resource. All beings on earth need resources. Whether it’s money to pay for medicine or berries to eat in the forest or water to drink in the desert, everyone has resources they need and must manage for survival. The social construct are the layers of abstraction added between you and how you secure the resource. With no social constructs, you gotta go hunt your dinner. With them, you can buy it.
They’re not saying it isn’t real, just that it being made up doesn’t matter.
I’m on the same page as you but understand this reply because this thread is full of people who think social construct = made up, frivolous thing that isn’t important.
The made up part is true, the rest of that isn’t. Many things are made up, but their impact on people is indeed very real.
The important part, and I think what the OP seeks to illuminate, is that it matters, but it’s not some law of nature that simply must be. It’s social, and thus can be redefined.
Quite the opposite. It’s kind of a weird accident that money came to both represent wealth and currency, when money is actually meant to represent debt. It’s the mechanism of mediation for an untrusty society. An artiluge to create common ground with strangers who you don’t trust, replacing it with a concept, currency, that you know that someone you do trust will take. So create an anonymous common to bridge trade. Unfortunately most societies chose precious metals to trade with, and this conflated currency with wealth. So accumulating currency became a thing we haven’t been able to shake, but it’s not mandatory for currency to work.
Now none of that was rational or intentional, it just sort of happened that way. But in reality, money (specially fiat money) is worthless, you can come up with any number and any unit to represent resources. Valuing stuff on a monetary number is a fool’s errand, what you’re actually quantifying is collective trust on the monetary system. And we have plenty of examples in history of currencies that collapse in value even though the amount of resources in the society remains stable and sometimes even plentiful. But when trust on the institutions that uphold the currency collapses, they are barely useful as kindle to start fires.
It being made up very much matters. It being made up means it can be changed. That’s what this post is saying. Not that crime doesn’t matter and the consequences aren’t real because social construct, but that crime and the punishments therein aren’t immutable laws, they are social laws, and thus can be changed.
These constructs are often based on something concrete at their core as well.
Money, or currency in general, is a social construct that was built on top of the basic idea of trade or exchange. Reciprocity is a very basic behavior found in all kinds of animals, especially us primates.
Likewise, social constructs like “crime” tend to be tied to ethics, another social construct, but that too can be tied back to some basic ideas like harm, which, again, is something animals often form their social norms around.
So, yes, social “constructs”, but that doesn’t in anyway mean society constructs them out of thin air.
I don’t know if you completely understand the criticism. Social constructs aren’t decided entirely by laws of physics meaning they a malleable. No one is arguing social constructs aren’t real but only that they can be changed if society would let them. Especially if we all collectively agree they are wrong and unjust.
The very real use of Force - sometimes of the deadly kind - of this specific “social construct” should make it painfully clear it has real - often life changing - consequences, to even the greatest of fools, but apparently it doesn’t.
Yep! Like gender. It may be a social construct but obviously that social construct is very important.
The only reason I can think of to remind people that something is a social construct is to help them remember change is possible and entirely within our control as a society.
Your last sentence is 100% the point. None of the consequences or limitations or expectations created by our legal system are founded on some fundamental, unchangeable, thing. They’re all just what we’ve agreed on, and we can change that agreement
B) why are you following the imaginings and rules that were created out of thin air by sociopaths and psychopaths
C) why do we continue to ignore the societies set up by the other sapient species? They are millions of years older than us, and the basic rules of their societies took us till the 19th century to understand as basic principles.
The point of saying that something is a social construct isn’t to say that it doesn’t matter, it is to show that it isn’t some immutable requirement of nature. It’s something we decided to do, and most importantly, could decide to do differently if we all just pulled our heads out of our asses. It’s the reply to people who say “it’s always been that way” and look at you like you are crazy for suggesting we do something different.
I really don’t understand this. It’s all imaginary. Well, maybe not all of it, since the other sapient species definitely exhibit the abilities to communicate with each other and form extremely long lasting societies that contain their own forms of crime and punishment, but money, and status built on the hoarding of resources would be punished by every other sapient species, and yet somehow these psychopaths have managed to trick the majority of humanity into believing their delusion that artificially created tokens are worth more than society or life.
Ask Chimpanzees, Orcas, Elephants, or many other advanced natural societies that have evolved over the last few million years. They absolutely have a definition of crimes that they will punish if their members engage in those behaviors. Shunning would be the least brutal of their punishments. Capital punishment is far more prevalent.
Those animal crimes are still socially constructed among those various species! Social construct means some thing or dynamic or situation that is created through interaction between numerous actors rather than something extant in the physical world.
Which is why it’s dumb to try to negate a thing like crime by saying it’s a social construct. The language we are using to talk about it being a social construct is a social construct. Literally YOU are a social construct, but here you are, worried about “wage theft” which is also a social construct. So do things being a social construct matter or not because if not, lets stop trying to negate anything we don’t like by calling it a social construct, and if so lets apply it evenly and take it to it’s logical conclusion. I would say “reject modernity, embrace monkee” but rejection, modernity, embracement, and monkee are all social constructs.
The point of saying that something is a social construct is to show that it isn’t some immutable requirement of nature. It’s something we decided to do, and most importantly, could decide to do differently if we all just pulled our heads out of our asses. It’s the reply to people who say “it’s always been that way” and look at you like you are crazy for suggesting we do something different.
Who is trying to “negate” anything??? I am SO fucking sick of people misunderstanding social constructs. Literally EVERY TIME it’s mentioned, someone assumes that a thing being a social construct means we should erase it. That’s NOT what we’re saying. We’re saying it can be changed. It’s honestly a really trite point, duh laws can change, but whatever. It’s still a social construct and it’s frustrating seeing people argue that it’s not. People need to learn the shit you’re complaining about before you complain about it.
I’m sorry this comment is far more rude than my previous one but I just woke up and haven’t drank my patience juice yet
I think the broader point is that, if crime is a social construct, it’s not natural and unchanging, we can redefine what crime is. Change what’s punished and how.
If governments actually gave a fuck about antitrust anymore, it would be. 20-ish years ago, they dragged Microsoft to court over simply bundling IE with Windows. It didn’t even constantly nag you to set as default; just the fact that it was bundled at all was enough to make it into the sights of regulators.
At the time, you’d get a disk from a store or order it from a magazine or whatever. I don’t really know what the solution would be now since those aren’t things though. I guess get one from a friend or another device?
If the ability to block users was to be removed, X would be in violation of the policies of the App Store as well as the Google Play Store. Potentially, this could lead to X being removed from these platforms.
Pfft, good. I’m sure Musk’s response will be “wah, wah, they censor me, wah, wah”. Because out of any playbook of republicunt, is to proclaim you’re being censored when you’re breaking the rules and think free speech applies to just you and your allies.
There is a bit of truth here. Toxic culture and out of touch management will make people walk as well.
Thing is, there might just be a wad of cash big enough to make me put up with that against my health interests.
Fuck ping pong tables though. No one left a company because they didn’t have enough fucking table sports. If you think they are then you are the problem. Exit interview your own fucking arse.
I’ve seen companies install an whole-ass arcade room with skee ball machines and tout them like crazy. I was too naive at the time to think they were just masking a HORRIBLE company culture that makes people feel like absolute garbage.
Only time these make sense is in sitcoms, and solely to show the workers interacting without doing something as boring as work. Better chances for cammradire if they’re playing Brand Friendly Product Placement or Generic CGi Generated video game on the break room Xbox being played with PS2 controllers than if they’re quietly dragging and dropping files until the new networking software recognizes the drive its in and starts
In real life, if you’re playing Ping Pong on Company Time your ass is fired.
Gotta be sneaky about it, pretend your wireless earbuds are hearing aids and just pretend to mop the floor while you’re playing Pokemon Go
I think it depends on the company, I work at a software company and you’ll regularly see the big boss playing pool with staff at random times of the day. A bit of non work time during the work day can help the brain come up with solutions to problems.
Reminds me of this video of Huawei showing off its copy of Heidelberg at one of their campuses: www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGOlzkK_Bsw. The streets are almost completely empty, so relaxing. /s
Around 2012 I had a interview with a recruiter, he asked me what kind of company you’re looking for, and I replied, one without a ping pong table, he laughed at me, I am an immigrant, left home when I was 19, so around 2008 went around in my country and EU, and already understood that whenever a company had a ping pong table it had a shitty culture, so by the time of that interview I already seen more than enough shitty companies, but I remember that interview in particular because the guy started making fun of me, laughing at me
11 years after, I wish I could speak with that recruiter to see if he understood that ping pong tables are low efforts solutions adopted by shitty-environment companies and if he would laugh at me again
I think the truth is that it assuming it’s the latter may not be enough. But the first two are even less likely. Additional responsibilities WITHOUT a raise is very, very unlikely to be what anyone was waiting for to stick around.
One of the best bosses I ever had once told me that people will stay for the culture but leave for money. His philosophy was to try and ensure that money was not a factor in people’s decision, then build as good a culture as he could.
And to be clear, by making money not a factor, I mean he paid well.
I had a meeting years ago with my company’s CTO about my salary. He kicked off the meeting by saying “you care a lot more about what you make than I do” which prompted me to ask for 50% more than I had been planning to ask for. He agreed to it without argument. TBF he was a coke addict married to the daughter of the company’s owner and within six months he’d been divorced and fired, but I got to keep my salary.
“Man, my job pays horribly and the benefits barely cover anything, but they have a ping-pong table so it’s honestly a tough call.”
I struggle to understand how someone could seriously write something like that question without a lack of self-awareness so dire that a walk to the kitchen would come with a near-death experience. It just can’t be real.
The flip side is if you can’t be bothered to set aside some money for a ping pong table, as well have the sense to first ask around whether people would rather have foosball, or a proper pizza oven, or whatever the fuck, your company culture probably also sucks. A place for recreation means that you respect recreation and extend enough trust to have employees self-manage their need for it.
…of course, setting up that place only to have it be a hunting ground for micromanagers preying on unsuspecting workers is not what I’m talking about. If noone ever uses those areas, worry.
yeah, the "not necessarily pay is accurate, but the “right” answer being ping-pong table pivots things from “ok, they have some understanding” to “incredibly tone deaf”.
I’m sorry parents and doctors are legally allowed to mutilate an infants sex organs. It’s honestly fucking disgusting, and tragic that you are one of the many victims.
In a couple decades circumcision will likely be looked back on as one of the many barbaric practices that was common in the past, and I can’t wait for that day.
In the US? The same country that just overturned Roe v Wade? Yeah, somehow I have my doubts they will rid themselves of the archaic genital mutilation. I would like to believe people in 2024 are also smart enough not to crop a dog’a ears or dock its tail or hell, breed the abominations like pugs and french bulldogs. But that is not the world we live in. The world we do live in is filled to the brim with idiots.
I realize that having it done as a newborn I’ll never really know, but mutilated? As an adult iv seen and played with those flesh danglers. Listen we are all humans and beautiful, but fucking hell I’m happy with mine. They are like one of those weird deep sea critters you see on nat geo or sciencememes.
True, if I ever have a baby I’ll make the argument to the mom we SHOULD give the kid the choice… but I know that as a poor adult I would never do it now. But am happy it’s been done.
I hate to sound like a “Liberal” talking about Palestine, but this may be a somewhat nuanced situation.
I live in a country where we don’t perform this procedure out of tradition/religion, or at least not in the majority. I’m only aware of it being done for specific medical pathologies such as phimosis.
Because I kind of agree with the sentiment that performing unwarranted surgeries on someone that is unable to voice his (non-)consent is an ethical problem. Even more so with excisions, which always are drastically and usually irrevocably diminishing the body.
I’m glad because I like how it looks and feels. Also, while I understand they are the exception not the rule, I have read about some men’s experience with them (the father of the 7 yr old in this comment thread for example) that make them sound either unconvienent or sometimes unpleasant. Never read anything similar from someone who’s been cut.
And this question isn’t poised at you, but do the people who rail against it think Jewish people should stop the practice as well?
I’ll still use the opportunity to voice my opinion clearly on this: Yes, forced circumcision on infants is only a very small step above the also still common practice of female genetic mutilations at birth/infancy. It does not matter what reasons you claim, only medical necessity should matter. Society should protect its infants from any religion or tradition demanding body modifications of infants.
Leave people’s bodies alone until they can decide on their own what to do when there is zero proven medical benefit to doing it before without their informed consent.
The common “improved hygiene” argument is nonsensical. You know what improves hygiene? Washing, and teaching kids how to wash themselves.
Otherwise you could cut off ears using the same logic. No ears, no need to wash behind the ears.
The definition of mutilate is “inflict a violent and disfiguring injury on.”
Circumcision being the forced removal of the most sensitive part of the males genitals, that literally disfigures it, I feel like saying it’s mutilation is just the correct use of the word.
Disfigure means it’s left worse off. It’s literally more healthy and generally seen as more aesthetically pleasing. So no, that’s not the correct use of the word. That’s like saying cutting an umbilical cord is disfiguring lol.
No it is not considered more healthy, and being more “aesthetically pleasing” may be the general consensus among religious nuts and other men who were multilated and have trouble dealing with that reality, but it is not based in fact when assessing the topic on a global scale.
If you want to talk about healthy I hear that if you remove the penis entirely you can no longer get an STD. Maybe we should start doing that, since obviously it’s more healthy.
An umbilical cord falls off naturally, it is not meant to stay with your body forever. Your foreskin however is the most sensitive part of your penis and is a permanent part of your body, so your comparison against an umbilical cord is unintelligent.
You seem a little emotional so we can’t have an actual discussion, but I suggest you actually look at the studies that objectively prove it’s a health benefit. You won’t actually read them, but that’s what the current science determines. This is like when an anti vaxer gets too emotional when you show them actual objective evidence.
As someone who is circumcised and chose not to circumcise their son, I’m seeing that circumcision has a lot of benefits. My son’s foreskin has always been too tight and won’t still fully retract at 7 years old. We have to put cream on it every night. It needs a lot more thorough washing every day or else it gets discharge all over it. The care and maintenance on an uncircumcised penis is like 1000x that of a circumcised one. I never knew any difference, so I’m not sure what the downsides of having a circumcised one is.
If it needs washing, you can just spray water from the shower head into the opening.
But it’s also kinda like the vagina for girls. It doesn’t really need washing or special treatment unless it’s infected.
In any case, messing with the penis of your son and making them feel unhygienic or like their foreskin is a problem is likely much more damaging than a little bit of smegma.
That’s not normal. I have never had such problems. No special cleaning and cream needed. No smegma. Just pull it back and wash it like everything else. You should seek a doctor. It sounds like a medically induced circumcision would be a good idea.
We see doctors regularly and are trying to manage the problem without circumcision. You may have had problems when you were a kid too and just don’t remember it, it’s fairly common.
I’m fluent in English, and I have a PhD in chemistry, which involved a lot of complicated mathematics. I can tell you with total honesty that despite reading five wiki pages deep, I still don’t have a clue.
Slavery is still legal in the US now, they just need to be convicted of a crime first. Easy enough to find crimes to put people away for, and you can even selectively enforce laws against the people/race you don’t like
I’m sure she could put some of that $700M towards buying a private prison and then bribing the cops, the D.A., and the judge to get him sentenced there.
Wait, so if Kanye gets convinced of a crime, T-swift could buy the private prison where he’s serving his sentence and then effectively own Kanye? Is a billion dollars enough to buy a prison? They can’t be that expensive, right?
Good thing the force behind enforcing laws and charging people as criminals is famously good-natured and held to the highest of accountability standards to prevent any possible corruption!
People don’t like Rick Scott but he spent enough of his money to get elected. And Bloomberg is 50 fold wealthier. And Bloomberg seems much more personable. So I don’t know.
Wow, somebody should use this as a headline image for an article about how useless AIs have become in the process of being made safer (by whichever standard).
lemmy.world
Top