That’s on average 57 per day, or 3.5 per hour if we assume 16 hours a day awake. Seems likely he just automated the process somehow, or that multiple people were making reports under his name. Or he was just submitting a report every 17 waking minutes for the entire year. Who knows.
What if he was preemptively planning his complaints? You know, studying flight paths, departures, & arrivals, then just delivering 57 unique complaints each day with one phone call?
“Look… I know Quantus 617 leaves for Houston at 5:45, the 974 at 3, 452 goes at 4:12, & the 889 heads out at 9pm.
Yep, that’s right.
Uh huh.
Yes I fucking know it’s only 8am. Those flights WILL be too loud & I expect you to take my complaints immediately!”
This is a flawed method of thinking though, there are plenty of factors that go into what you think. If you’re aware of and trying to avoid a negative stereotype, you’re just as likely to fall into the “he doth protest too much” as someone who demonstrates that stereotype.
That’s impossible since the point was a superficial elevation of their own interests.
Unless you think the point of feminism (for example) is to make men second class citizens. That’s just not a thing. It’s a rhetoric created by assholes to get ignorant people on board with their continued grossness.
Unless you think the point of feminism (for example) is to make men second class citizens. That’s just not a thing. It’s a rhetoric created by assholes to get ignorant people on board with their continued grossness.
I think there may be some radicals who genuinely wish for that, but those don’t represent the entire movement and usually only pay lip service to the cause where it aligns with their personal beliefs. They should be ignored.
I’m not even sure the radicals want that. Anger is an appropriate response to oppression. Vengeance is an extreme form of that but I doubt anyone that isn’t truly damaged would be okay with it.
a lot of women who call themselves feminist believe theyre superior to men instead of equal. most of those are very loud about it, so feminism turns into a term that describes that, even if the “real” meaning isn’t that.
There’s also a psychological phenomenon that occurs in ‘elite classes’ where they think that someone getting more means they get less. They literally cannot fathom someone getting welfare without it affecting them negatively. It’s one of the reasons why poor people still support Republicans.
Unless you think the point of feminism (for example) is to make men second class citizens.
More people want this, than you think. These “radicals” are not a minority, and they are the ones who have ruined what feminism once stood for – equality. And the most intriguing part is this has only happened within the last decade, thanks to social media amplifying toxic voices (negativity spreads fastest). Feminism wants to recruit men, but openly says men and their rights (equality) are not their responsibility.
There is a big question mark on equality claims, which frustrates me, because neither needs to suffer.
The issue is that people generally view their situation not by how much they have, but how much more they have than others. It’s like a race to these people - who’s winning isn’t based on how close to the goal they are, it’s based on how far ahead of the competitors they are. People who have everything they need often see others getting to that same point as competitors catching up, and, seeing that they are not advancing themselves, they feel that they need to prevent that in order to maintain their lead. It’s meant to be everyone working together, but few see it that way, especially among the current “winners.”
I considered putting a “some” in there, but honestly, I feel like it’s sadly the default state, at least in the US. Even fellow politically-left people I meet rarely demand resources for underprivileged people that actually elevate them to their own station. It usually feels like “They deserve more! But still less than me.”
At the same time, privileged people will still sometimes feel a loss of something when you’re portioning out a finite resource. So if a particular group is 25% of the population and they were getting 75% of the pie before and now they’re getting 25% of the pie, that’s a loss. It’s a justified loss, but it’s still a loss.
That said, there are other things like rights that are not finite in any meaningful sense of the word. When someone is feeling a loss because an oppressed group gained rights, it’s usually because they’re an oppressive asshole.
That’s well and good, but bringing everyone up needs to be done in consideration of lasting multigenerational harm from what has come previously, and areas where we as a people and nation continue to marginalize, underserve, and sometimes actively harm some segments of our population.
Folks who think those things should be ignored are not actually interested in bringing everyone up.
That IS the point, and rarely do equality or equity initiatives “pull down” anyone.
But the Haves feel like they’ve earned their position, and that means that if you help a Have Not in any way, you are taking away from their achievement (which in this case is “not being born poor/black/female”)
My last boss told all his employees to invest in crypto, and I believe all of them put a substantial amount into it. He was a country hick who worked machine repair beside me at their shop. Thought he was hot shit because he was a member of a Facebook Q group and thought he was smarter than everyone else because he “knew secrets on a deeper level”. Okay bud.
I left before the end of the year because he stopped scheduling over a comment I made about another one of his fucking insane conspiracy theories he liked to spout instead of helping with the workload.
Then the crypto crash happened. They went out of business 8 months later. Can’t imagine why!
Eat shit, Wayne. Those gals and that kid working under you deserved better, you cunt.
According to Knopfler, he was in New York City and had visited an appliance store. At the back of the store was a wall of televisions which were all tuned to MTV. Knopfler said that standing next to him, watching the TVs, there was a male employee, dressed in a baseball cap, work boots, and a checkered shirt, who was delivering boxes. As they were watching MTV, as Knopfler recalled, the man came out with lines such as, “What are those, Hawaiian noises?.. That ain’t workin’,” etc. Knopfler then requested a pen to write some of these lines down, and eventually put them to music.
Radio be recoiling at ‘little faggot’ then drop a ‘Hawaiian Noises’ @1.2x speed with the DJ talking over any intro like it’s not the same crime! who speeds up a song!?
also, the length of the password is WAY more important than it being randomly generated as long as it’s not in a password dictionary somewhere. I use 20+ character passphrases that i can easily remember everywhere for instance
My strategy is to have a persistent short passphrase that’s within every password I use, and pair it with a silly bastardization of the service I have an account for. So, for example, if my passphrase were hunter2 (lol) and I had an account on Netflix, my password for Netflix might be something like hunter2NutFlex. Because of this, I can manage my own passwords in basic text as “code NutFlex” because the “code” portion is encrypted in my own fucking brain. If Netflix gets hacked, somebody has a password that only works with Netflix, and they’d need my text file as a Rosetta Stone to acquire my other passwords. Not impossible, but who the fuck am I and why would anybody dig that deep to do that to me?
I’m no IT expert, so somebody tell me if this is a stupid and overly vulnerable strategy. I thought I was pretty brilliant for coming up with this and rolling it out several years ago.
i am an IT person (wouldnt say expert) and i do this. password cracking time is based on the number of characters, not the type of char so you can do “abcdefghijk” and it will be more secure than “_a;” (both are still weak but my point stands)
all of this can be broken if you just use common passwords or plain english words since those are broken with dictionary attacks
It’s not the worst strategy (and is actually referred to as ‘peppering’ your password)… but if your primary use-case is websites and mobile apps, using a password manager like Bitwarden and randomly generated strong passwords is still a better strategy (and probably faster too, since you don’t need to type it out manually anymore, and/or remember which flex you used when creating your ‘peppered’ password).
This is a good approach if you have to login to services that aren’t via a web browser though - e.g. Remote desktops etc.
I’d say the approach is potentially vulnerable, but the tech isn’t quite there. The modern approach to password cracking is to take a huge dictionary, and run permutations on it, like change a’s to @'s, capitalizing first letters or adding numbers in the end. Any cracker worth their salt will have something like “add _netflix” as a permutation, too. I don’t think that anyone would have “NutFlex” in there, yet, but it’s possible if one of them stumbles on your leaked password from somewhere else.
As for “basic text”, do you mean like .txt’s? And do you store the entire password there? We do have viruses that scan for crypto wallets and it’s seed phrases already. It’s not too far fetched to imagine one that would cross-match any txt’s contents in the system with browser’s saved logins.
The most glaring issue I see is that the bastardization is effectively part of your password. With 1000+ passwords it’s going to be easy to forget (was it nutflix, sneedtflex, nyetflex or something?) and it’s going to be hard to find it if you don’t manage the codes properly. I recently had to scan over every single of my password manager entries (forgot a 100% random login, password and domain), and let me tell ya, It wasn’t fun.
You could possibly switch to a “client-side salting” approach, having a strong consistent password in you head, and storing a short but truly random suffixes for each service. e.g. text file named “Netflix” containing something like “T3M#f” and the final password would be something like “hunter2T3M#f”. At least that’s what responsible sites do to protect people who have simple/matching passwords. You could even store those suffixes somewhere semi-openly, like in a messenger as messages to yourself. But at that point, it’s probably easier to go with a password manager. Though that’s an option if you don’t trust those.
You could possibly switch to a “client-side salting” approach, having a strong consistent password in you head, and storing a short but truly random suffixes for each service. e.g. text file named “Netflix” containing something like “T3M#f” and the final password would be something like “hunter2T3M#f”.
I guess I’m not understanding how this is functionally different from what I already am doing. Why would your 12 character solution be more secure than my 14 character example? Is it just because NutFlex is two actual words, so a dictionary attack could crack that more easily? Or is it because it’s kinda close to the domain the account is associated with? Would I be significantly better off replacing those bastardizations with other random words?
Edit: and also, they’re saved as notes in my phone, and no I don’t type the whole password in. That would defeat the purpose of having a persistent master phrase as part of the password.
they’re saved as notes in my phone, and no I don’t type the whole password in
Then I must have misunderstood your approach. Is it like a single note with all the keywords only, then?
I guess I’m not understanding how this is functionally different from what I already am doing. Why would your 12 character solution be more secure than my 14 character example
Yeah, it’s because it’s close to the associated domain. The way I see it, this bastardization adds little entropy (there’s only so much possible variations) but also rather easy to forget. And a huge problem, in my opinion, is it’s using your mental capacity for per-site suffixes rather than master password.
A possible attack I see, is if I set up a site, say a forum called MyLittlePony.su with no password protection whatsoever, and lure you to register on it. If I scroll through the accounts and notice your password to be “hunter2MyLittlePenis”, I might go to paypal and give it a shot with “hunter2PenisPal”. Or, somebody whom I sold the database to, might. It’s extremely rare that anyone would even look at your password specifically unless you are some kind of celebrity, but it’s still a possibility. Maybe some future AI tech would be able to crack your strategy (I’ve tried, ChatGPT told me to fuck right off and FreedomGPT is not good enough yet)
Though you’ve said you also keep notes, which deals with the easy-to-forget part of the problem, so my first thought was to get rid of bastardization and add fuck-all amount of entropy by using a truly random suffix. That’d deal with the above problem. But, that’d mean that it’s your master password that is the suffix now, and you wouldn’t be able to access sites without the notes at all, hence it’d be easier to go with password manager at that point.
Then you look up the random string of 36 characters once, think “why did I make this one 36 characters” as you painstakingly type it in with a TV remote, then immediately forget it as soon as you’re logged in.
That sounds… even less secure, but admittedly I know nothing about it. How does it work? MAC address? Device type? OS? I think all of those can be spoofed…
If it’s a fairly inconsequential service (no payment/personal info, nothing lost if it gets hacked), you can just generate a far shorter password. Even randomly generated passwords can be remembered eventually if you have to type it enough times, and that’s still better than the same one.
If it’s not inconsequential, I’d be questioning if my money is well spent on a sadistic service that makes my life hell trying to have a minimum level of security. I would say that even if it wasn’t a generated password that you have to type over.
Some password managers support generating random passphrases like “correctbatteryhorsestaple.” They’re still a pain to punch in on a remote, but much easier to keep track of where you are in the password and avoid transcription errors.
You can’t meaningful separate these. Sure, capitalism is not mutually exclusive to say parliamentary democracy or dictatorship or monarchy, but you need a state that enforces the “will of the market”. Capitalism values property very highly. That’s a political decision. It allows a very hierarchical relation between workers and bosses by enforcing the property laws of the latter. At the end of the day, it’s the police (and therefore the state) that evicts you, not the landlord and not the market.
I see, I think there are a couple things to clarify. Causally, you can view it as the political system of decision-making determines the economic system, so keeping capitalism is a political decision made through a political system such as democracy or theocracy with downstream political consequences, e.g. property has high capital value, which affects citizens.
You may also be conflating decisions that carry a political quality with decisions made by a political system. Or conflating systems that carry political qualities such as economic systems and education systems with political systems proper, which are system for instituting decisions that govern societies. For example, the market may “decide” that asbestos is the best insulation, however, the market does not set political policy about insulation. It is up to the political system (e.g. democratic parliament or dictator) to decide whether or not to pass policy about limiting asbestos insulation, not capitalism. This distinction is also present in your own argument. Like you said, the market (capitalism) doesn’t create and enforce property law, it’s the state (political system) that creates the law and is responsible for enforcing it.
-EDIT- Okay I think I see the semantic disagreement. What others are emphasizing is that the economy is political in nature and therefore it is a political system. What I understand for the term “Political System” is more narrow to be more narrowly “system of government”. I certainly agree that the economy is political in nature. And honestly, I’m not married to my definition of political system. What I cared more about is drawing the distinction between “system of government” and “systems that are political in nature”. The only reason why I’d disagree is that by the latter definition, any system of social structure such as religions, education systems, human transportation systems, communication systems, language systems etc. Are also political systems because they’re political in nature. So the term “political system” may be too broad as to be useful.
What is politics? People spend have their waking hours in a strict top down system, instead of a democratically organized economy. Tbf that’s not only true for Capitalism but also for Soviet style socialism.
For example, the market may “decide” that asbestos is the best insulation, however, the market does not set political policy about insulation.
The market is not the only aspect of capitalism. Plutocracy is another strong one. Being rich makes you influential in capitalism in contrast to systems where your ancestry is important or systems that try to get rid of power altogether respectively try to distribute it as evenly as possible. So while I said it’s compatible with monarchy and democracy, this is true on a scale. If the monarch is listening to rich people instead of their kind, it’s less monarchical and parliamentary democracies are more prone to capitalism than more direct forms of democracy.
To put it differently: it’s not only about who makes the decision according to the constitution, it’s also about how this decision comes about. Besides: the institution at least makes capitalism possible, if not enforces it in one way or another. The existence of a state alone is something capitalism needs, a punitive justice system that enforces property rights, which often also are constitutional themselves, …
I think the argument is that economics and politics are not independent of each other. They are two sides of the same coin. Whomever controls the food supply has power over the population, which means it has political power. Whomever has power over the population, has power over the food supply. Basically, economics and politics are different perspectives on power.
For example, the political structures in the West create the rules over who gets to obtain power through the economy. From the other direction, the people with economic power get to control who gets to obtain power through the political structures.
Thanks for this, I like the pragmatic view that those with economic power select those who obtain political power. I certainly don’t think they’re independent. The economic system influences the political system for sure, but categorically/formally we’re still talking about two distinct systems, otherwise we wouldn’t be talking about a separate political structure
I would say the greater achievement of right wing grifters is the connotation that “politics” is inherently bad and shameful, as implied by your comment as well.
It’s bad but necessary. It would be great if we lived in a world where there was no need for government, therefore no need for government policy, and therefore no need to debate those policies.
But in the real world government is necessary therefore politics are necessary. The right wing confuses people with the belief that politics is bad and therefore should be eliminates. The left confuses people with the belief that politics should be good and because it isn’t people should avoid participation.
Politics is ugly, and having unrealistic expectations for it is what blocks a lot of progress from happening. The right are better able to accomplish their goals through politics (even when their goals are harmful) because they have a better understanding of the ugliness. The left is oftentimes ineffective out of a silly desire to be above the ugliness of politics.
I see what you’re saying in terms of idealism/naivete vs pragmatism. However I also get the sense that what you mean by government and politics is a bit different from what the left usually means. I’d be interested to understand what you mean by “politics” and “government”.
A couple follow-up questions that might help clarify the distinctions
does a society make choices between better and worse practice of politics/government?
what would a world that doesn’t need government look like if you were to imagine it?
The only part is disagree with is that the left encourages not participating in politics. I’m pretty sure a pillar of the left is encouraging informed participation in politics. Unless you mean punk/commie ideas of rejecting the establishment in favour of revolution? That’s still participation in politics.
I don’t think it’s the left that discourages participation in politics. The right discourages the left from participating in politics and all too often the left falls for it, hook line and sinker. The right has the “both sides” narratives down to a science, but despite promoting this kind of thinking, they always vote.
does a society make choices between better and worse practice of politics/government?
Yes. But it’s not like ordering a product from Amazon. You don’t put your desired improvements in a cart and have it delivered in two days. To accomplish the change you want in a democracy, you need to vote in many elections, sometimes over decades. If you really care you might want to join a major political party and discuss the issues important to you with them. Again this may take decades, but if the issue is important enough then you’re willing to make that effort. Note how long the Christian right worked to get abortion banned. They didn’t instantly get to have things their way it took voting in every election, attending party meetings, along with decades of apathy on the left.
what would a world that doesn’t need government look like if you were to imagine it?
Mad Max kinda shit. Do you prefer the leadership of Lord Humungus or Immorten Joe?
There will always be a government. We’re a tribal species and we will form into tribes and war against one another if there is no one that sets the laws and enforces them. Those tribes would develop into a feudalistic society which may someday develop into a democracy again.
That whole Marxist “the state will whither away” thing is just pseudo religious belief comparable to the Christian belief in a rapture followed by an eternity of paradise. Which is why it’s attractive to atheists that were formally Christians. Old habits and all that.
Well I see it as a necessary evil. If you have democracy you’re gonna have politics. Hell you still have politics even without democracy, just a different kind and usually behind closed doors.
For me the phrase “politics is stupid but politics is important” sums it up best.
Politics is like taking a shit, it’s messy and it stinks, but it’s something you gotta deal with. And it’s preferable to take a shower after it’s been dealt with.
I feel like you’re splitting hairs, like saying all the shit parts of democracy are politics and all the not shit parts are somehow not politics. Democracy IS a part of politics. How about this, if you are to play devil’s advocate for yourself, try listing 3 examples of how politics is good rather than evil.
My view is a bit different though. I see it more as an inherent property or process of society, like mass is to matter or spatial distribution of a flock of birds.
No the political aspects are also shit. Democracy is shit too. It’s just less shit than the alternatives. I think holding up democracy as some shining beacon of goodness leads to a lot of disappointment and disenfranchisement. Every system involving humans will be turned to shit, people will try to corrupt anything to gain personal advantage. But democracy is the best we’re capable of having and if we make some effort to improve it, it will be less shit. Though still shitty because because politics makes things shitty.
I think I’ve lost your meaning of shit/ty. It sounds like everything is shit. Life is shit, you’re born, you suffer, you die shitty, etc. Which sounds edgy but doesn’t really mean anything. What do you mean by shit/ty?
And at this point totally fair to call it here on this thread. It’s just my gut reaction to your response.
Yeah a lot of things are shit. It’s weird to put politics (of all things) on a pedestal and try to see the world through the shittiest of lenses. There are plenty of things the world that are actually good and trying to make everything about politics is just making things shitty that otherwise wouldn’t be.
Yeah that’s a bit of a strawman. The only people “putting politics on a pedestal” are human characatures, like people who’s whole identity is worshipping Trump are to conservatives or “alpha males” to men.
Anyway I already gave my take on politics being a property more than a lens.
Definitionally, anything that prescribes the way things are to be distributed is political. There has been a desensitization to the word politics with an ever present right using words loosely adjacent to their true meaning, but capitalism is inherently political. Now it’s a bit of a chicken and egg problem with western democracies kinda being formed around it, but that doesn’t make it any less true. I sincerely doubt anyone would argue communism or socialism aren’t political because they are economic theories.
It’s an economic system that seeks to control the political system enough to further itself with no thought or care for anything that doesn’t fit that goal, in the same way a malignant cellular mass seeks to control the host environment enough to further unrestrained and out of control growth. Both kill the host.
To see McCarthy calling for an impeachment, despite a law the republicans themselves made to stop trump from getting impeached during his term, is comical. Literally elementary school logic.
I don’t think this will certainly hurt the GOP representatives. Regardless of nationwide voters’ opinion on their stupidity and assholery, the main thing that matters to each individual representative is if their specific district will re-elect them. Since each one of them is pandering to their district, they’re fine. So no matter how much I despise McCarthy or MTG, it has almost absolutely no impact on their power.
This. To anyone who thinks this is the Republicans being hypocritical: They know. They do not care. They are lying to your face. Pointing out the hypocrisy does literally nothing because they. Do. Not. Care.
Ugh. It's time to post this Sartre quote again. I hate that it's still relevant:
“Never believe that [they] are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. [They] have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
Call them out on a lie that undermines either a core part of their case or that damages their credibility in the eyes of anyone else listening.
Your goal isn’t really to convince them to stop doing anything but to completely destroy their credibility, which takes away their ability to use rhetoric to get what they want.
Addressing their motives works too.
You have to be very, very hard-nosed about it and be willing to wield that banhammer on sight, or, in the real world, be willing to exercise power to drive them away, but if you can or if you can convince someone else in the audience with that kind of power to do so, you’ll usually be straight.
I do this shit all the time with dickheads here on Lemmy. You’d be surprised how effective calling them out on a lie is.
Not the obvious ones. You need to reveal the lies that reveal their true intentions for it is uncovering their true intentions they do everything possible to avoid.
Like with the Trump Chumps, their end goal is genocide of anyone different than them but they know no one has actual hard evidence this is what they’re trying to orchestrate. If anyone could trip them up in debate and trick them into admitting such, or uncover actual evidence and reveal it to the public, it would probably be enough of a driving force to convince the left to shake off the provocateurs and shills holding them back and to finally fight back with fists and bullets, even if only to collectively save themselves.
Granted, the people I do this to are kind of different than the Trump cult, many are on the left, so YMMV in terms of results, but I know from experience it does work.
Agreed, it's never been about ideological consistency or evidence-based governance. It's about, "hurting the right people," to appeal to the masses, and plutocracy to appeal to their donors.
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:
There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time.
For millennia, conservatism had no name, because no other model of polity had ever been proposed. “The king can do no wrong.” In practice, this immunity was always extended to the king’s friends, however fungible a group they might have been. Today, we still have the king’s friends even where there is no king (dictator, etc.). Another way to look at this is that the king is a faction, rather than an individual.
-Frank Wilhoit
This is the first thing I thought of as well. It’s never been “just use what you want”. It got better for a while as JavaScript and CSS normalized. Now it’s trash again.
If you go bigger than that the table layout falls apart.
I very delicately crafted those 743 pixel wide rectangle .gif headers to work with our futuristic rounded corners, but when you increase the browser width then gaps appear around the fixed width corner cells.
Communism =/= leftism. It’s an extreme form of socialism.
My biggest problem isn’t even the communist ideals. Have your ideas, that’s fine. I don’t care.
My problem is the amount of people coming into post comments attacking American Imperialism® on posts that aren’t even related to communist ideals or, sometimes, that don’t even mention America. It gets tiring reading how much America sucks when that’s not even the point of the post.
„1% of people hoarding 99% of wealth in the world, and most of them have the same skin color and religion like me? It has to be the fault of people with a different skin color and/or religion that I’m not getting richer!“
“Have we considered blaming the people who are reviving old religions for our society’s moral failing instead of acknowledging that the political leaders of my country share my religion
As I get older I realize how much shittier of a world we are leaving for our kids. I’m 52 and much more cognizant of my more liberal views and how much more “correct” they are now than I was was in my early 20s. My age and wisdom have taught me this.
The entire premise of conservatism is that the way things are now (or how they recently were), and the projection of this into the future, is the best possible way for things to be. How absolutely stupid do you have to be to believe that?
“Let’s just stop here, things are as good as they’re going to get. No improvements can be made.”
You can look at it too for looking at what causes people to be conservative.
Conservatism at its core psychological roots is fear of change. In a vacuum, people who are well served by the status quo are the ones least likely to want change. The historical adage of people becoming more conservative as they age was basically a result of that: when you’re young you don’t have much to lose from change. As you age you gain the opportunity to buy a house, to get married, to have kids, to get promoted at work and see your income go up significantly, to develop some meaningful job security. And so on. Thus, as people age they gained things, status, accomplishments, all the various life goals being accomplished. Even if change would probably make things better for them, they didn’t want to risk it. Things were OK.
The reason we see that adage breakdown is because we’ve seen the core causes breakdown too. Buying a home five years ago was a struggle compared to how it was historically. Buying a home today costs so much that it makes buying a home five years ago look trivial. Many couples are now intentionally delaying or forgoing becoming parents because children cost so much: just giving birth can cost tens of thousands of dollars, and that’s just to get them to day 1 of existence. Education costs keep going up. Job security is down. Wage increases are seen as something that even the “professional class” has to fight for, requiring a job hop to get a raise instead of getting one as par for the course from staying at an employer.
In light of that breakdown… far fewer people are afraid of the risk of change. The 30-something of today has a lot less at risk from change. Even much of the lower half of the upper middle class of today is far more able to stomach the risk of change.
I thought there might be some truth to it as a kid. As a 40-something, I realize it was just selfish dicks trying to rationalize their own shitty “fuck you, I got mine” worldview as maturity somehow.
This is the truth. I didn’t have the education to articulate how I could tell that the world was fucked up when I was eighteen. Now I do, and I’m fucking furious at how dumb, hurtful, and hateful this world is. It doesn’t have to be this way and never did.
memes
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.