Oh I'm so grateful they are expending resources to catch this non-lethal drug before it hits the hands of groovy people. Meanwhile opioids have killed how many this year alone?
Or are they bribing politicians so that their competition isn’t allowed and framing the conversation to entirely avoid the question about whether their shit should be allowed.
Of course he could have done that step first but instead another damaged and armed asshole imposes his demons on others and inflicts grievous pain on dozens of families before offing themself.
Yet another in a long list of isolated incidents because after trying nothing we’ve run out of ideas.
It’s not like we’ve tried nothing; he should have been dealt with when he made threats, but the police don’t want to act on the laws we have in place. They want to wait until a tragedy happens so they can feel like they’re being heroes, apparently.
There are no metics to support any drop in productivity. There are lots of metrics to support making people go back to the office is bad for the environment. The traffic were I live is pretty much back to what it was before. It’s gross just watching the haze of fumes knowing it is there so these dickheads can maintain their property portfolio.
I work a job where our metrics are extremely easy to analyse, since switching to 100% remote work instead of 60% max at will remote work our productivity has increased by 15%… How much are companies willing to spend to increase productivity by 15%? Imagine being able to get that boost by saving money instead!
The company I work for experienced significant growth during COVID and has more employees at the corporate office than they have desks. They’re literally saving craploads of money on building a new office by maintaining a hybrid and remote workforce
Anecdotally, I clock more hours WFH than I ever did going into the office- the matter of having to catch the last train out of town put a hard limit on how long I could crank code.
Without those extra 4 uncompensated hours in my day (plus the overhead time and mental energy monitoring the timeline of my day vs. just doing what I do), I get more done and I have more time to do it. Being autistic, I appreciate having uninterrupted time-blocks I can use to hyperfocus and get things done- and having to be aware of when to tie things up and GTFO in time to catch that train interrupts that.
Schwarzman isn’t really concerned with my well-being or with my productivity at work- he’s concerned with maintaining high demand for commercial real estate like my company’s office. He can pound sand.
I still go in every once in a while just to show my face and get some IRL time with co-workers, but my employers aren’t pushing the ‘get back to work and do real work’ line, they’re aware that working in the office (we’re mostly coders and such) will cost us productivity if anything and they’re just encouraging us to get in a few times a year and do some face to face social stuff.
Yeah, but notice that his whole point was about “working hard” which is not at all the same as “being productive” and about employees “saving money”, which something that’s not up to an employer to decide on.
It’s not at all about the kind of metrics a competent manager would be worrying about.
And, when you notice that he’s one of the biggest commercial landlords, you realize that by “employees working hard,” he means “employees sitting in offices I’ve rented out and thus making companies give me money.”
The more companies that allow employees to work from home, the less his properties are worth. You might as well ask Exxon-Mobil whether electric cars are good or not. Or ask a political candidate whether you should vote for their opponent or not.
Leading financial figures on Wall Street made a show of saying they would not employ Harvard students who signed the statement blaming Israel for the Hamas attack. A billboard truck drove around Harvard campus displaying the pictures and names of the students, and their addresses and other details were published on websites.
I think they believed people would jump on with the hate, rather than seeing how messed up it is.
Israel is paying for the success of Iron Dome - rocket attacks never really stopped, but the international perspective shows only Palestinians displaced and abused, while a few rockets get shot down over Israel. If Israel wades into Gaza and occupies it, the attack got what it wants, a new South Africa, with millions of un-enfranchised citizens. This outcome was warned about in the early 2000’s.
On the one hand, it’s a favorite conspiracy among the right-wing to scream about the “internationalist cabal of Jewish globalist bankerswho control the world!”
But then you read something like that, and it does seem suspicious. Like why would “leading financial figures” care who Harvard students support? And who would think putting their personal info on a fucking truck is acceptable?
Note: I am absolutely not saying or espousing any theory that the Jews control the world or anything. But I think that in a vacuum, absent any outside context, it seems weirdly coincidental for Wall Street to care if a bunch of college students blame Israel or for their information to be publicly broadcast.
If it’s black it’s called a gang, If it’s Italian it’s the mob, if it’s Latino it’s the cartel, BUT if it’s jewish, it’s a coincidence and should never be talked about.
That’s the problem with the right wing conspiracy theories. They all just blame the “Jews” for being elite and evil. If a group of people who happen to be Jewish are conspiring to control money and politics, it doesn’t mean the whole ethnicity is in on it. Their ethnicity and religion are irrelevant to the fact that they are just power hungry assholes.
That’s like blaming all of the Italians for everything the mafia does.
Yeah you are right, but we have to acknowledge that there’s a red of wealthy men bounded by familiar and ethnic ties, who use that money to influence events. All Jews? Off course not, it would be the same as you point out, all Latinos or all Italians or all black people.
The key here is that accountability should exist for these groups, who are practically outside the law in virtue of their wealth, and they escape any criticism, covering themselves behind their people, any valid criticism gets shut down as antisemitism, and that is by design.
The problem with conspiracy theories is how unsure one must be of another’s motives: from where you’re sitting you think I’m sealioning; from my perspective you’re painting with a really broad brush.
Perhaps my point wasn’t clear enough so let me try to rephrase it: this is the exact kind of activity that adds fuel to right-wing anti-Semitism. I fully expect to hear on next week’s Knowledge Fight Alex Jones using this to fuel his “Jews Globalists control the world!” narrative.
It’s not really that Israel is Jewish, it’s that Israel is a strategic and financial asset to Western liberalism. And students at Ivy League schools are going to face more pressure to kowtow as they will eventually participate in executive political and financial institutions. Power doesn’t demand a grand conspiracy to maintain itself.
Social consequences for an unpopular opinion are not the same as someone paying for you to be proscribed like the fucking massacres of the second triumvirate.
The government isn’t stopping anyone from saying their piece, industry gets to make their own decisions based on your words and actions.
These university students aren’t a protected class, if Wall Street wants to say ‘get fucked, we want nothing to do with your position on this topic’, that’s entirely their choice to make… and the thing people don’t seem to want to accept, is there’s absolutely nothing you can do about it. You’re not taking on Wall Street, anymore than these protestors are going to make a difference. They must feel real special about the impact they’re making!!!
Any time a loser wants to feel like less of a loser they need only look at this loser and realize that they are, comparatively speaking, not a loser at all
Not defending the nazi loser, and I know it's uncomfortable to admit, but he's not wrong, they are everywhere - in the police and other agencies, working in prisons, in the "justice" system, in government..
They're not all as loud as him, but if you think they're not in and around every point of power in society, you haven't been paying attention. White supremacy is not the shark, it's the water
Sorry, didn't mean to downplay that; my point is more that if you're a gigantic loser and you have to get up and yell about how there are actually lots of other gigantic losers just like you, that's not exactly coming from a position of strength.
(but yes, the classic Onion article on the subject of Nazi cops is not inaccurate)
Shouldn’t be since it’s literally “us vs the whole other human race”, but the dog whistles from our politicians and media (mostly funded by a few select rich folk) have shifted down into normal human hearing range lately and now they’re just shouting stochastic terrorism from the highest platform they can find.
Rosa Parks with a rifle scares the shit out of them all
That’s also the troublesome bit of WW2 history the books* don’t show so much, the reich had a lot of support in America, Henry Ford and Walt Disney being notable leaders. Our history is packed full of racist and authoritarian shit of all flavors.
Still though, we rallied and put enough lead downrange to make them stop last time, as a white dude, my type need to be doing more to shame and turn out these roaches to be stomped out for good this time. Enough is enough and eugenics never ends well for anyone. Trek showed us how to be better, just gotta bulldoze this two tone chucklefuck first
*the average school curriculum, several books have been published detailing the rich history of almost but not quite overt support of the rich to the other rich/potentially useful to get more rich
Our history is packed full of racist and authoritarian shit of all flavors.
Watching movies like Mississippi Burning as a South African teenager it was astonishing to realise that the USA was easily at or over the line we were at. It’s just that our government made it officially systemic.
The US has been trying its best to put a good face on for the rest of the world, but it’s been a clusterfuck of waring political factions since forever. Some of those factions happen to be very dangerous.
Making you personally uncomfortable doesn't make something wrong.
It's also incredible that you managed to get through that article (x doubt) without learning a single thing from it other than to defend your own feelings (actively being part of the "water"). That takes some real effort.
I was jogging between Queens and Brooklyn a few years back. Two assholes, shirtless and with shaved heads, didn’t move out of the way and took up the full width of the bridge. Only when I got within a few feet did I see that at least one had tattoos all over, including a swatzika over his heart. I felt sick. Both my grandparents fought overseas in World War 2 and now here we are, with idiots in our own country emboldened by the GOP and Trump.
Well he campaigned on “lock her up” and despite nearly a dozen investigations and her testifying in front of Congress for 10 hours, guess what happened? Zippity doo daa
Which is exactly how she beat those 91 felony indictments, right? Oh wait, it’s TRUMP that’s going to prison. Maybe Hillary will bring him some cookies in the slammer when he becomes someone’s butt buddy.
Initially, maybe, but I suspect they’ll soon get over their infatuation with him, since I doubt he’ll be able to hide the fact that he considers them beneath him. People only worship Trump from a distance.
Sure, 39 times, yet no evidence was found of wrongdoing other than business as usual when sensitive into was involved iirc. I’ve never liked her but you gotta give it to her that she’s not exactly the evil that people made her out to be, and in contrast to the rest of these terrible fuckers running the country to the ground
That’s not accurate. You’re thinking of Trump, I guess. Clinton answered the questions asked of her. You can even watch the hearings and educate yourself if you want.
You’re thinking of Reagan testifying before Congress about Iran Contra.
It worked for Karl Rove and Dick Cheney when they talked about vote manipulation in 2004.
It was also the only way Spiro Agnew got through his corruption hearing in front of Congress while Nixon tried to do the same for Watergate until the taped conversations were released.
It’s a time tested conservative play when confronted by a request to tell the truth: don’t lie but deny the allegations. Weirdly, I can’t find any time a democrat, Hilary or otherwise, repeated “I don’t recall” for their entire testimony. It just seems to be a conservative play.
Him showing up to a Valorant tournament is some next level “how do you do fellow kids”. Like, what’s his business being there? I mean, if you told me that he secretly just spends his days playing Valorant and shitposting on twitter, it would make a lot of sense.
Like when he got booed at a Dave Chaplle show. The guy thinks he’s loved and adored everywhere he goes because there’s still a few pathetic worshipers on the internet.
why the fuck is a schoolboard voting “along party lines.” I know it’s been this way for a while, but it doesn’t make it any less stupid that your godamn political party decides your EVERY attitude in life.
It’s a republican strategy decades in the making to “fix” the phenomenon of liberal schools. School board members now campaign on national right wing outlets.
“I’m a Republican because I want small government! Government so small it fits in my head and determines literally everything I do! I’m also a free-thinker by the way, or at least that’s what Sean Hannity says I should call myself.”
You’d also love to know that some hospitals boards are public and therefore elected positions are available to the community.
In Sarasota County in Florida they tried to get enough votes to take over the board to change the hospital policy from following CDC policy and best practices to the sole discretion of the doctor. This would of allowed the hospital to prescribe ivermectin to treat COVID.
It ultimately failed so they are now opening a clinic in Venice Florida that follows no guidelines. The other half of the building is a podcast studio.
I don’t get any money from the systems I setup at work as an IT worker years ago, even if they are used every day in perpetuity and make the company billions.
Where’s my income in perpetuity for creative problem solving?
Ok… but then why would they pay to have it done in the first place?
I’ve solved issues that have saved transit riders hundreds of thousands of hours of time… but so have other people. I don’t know how such an accounting of the return for investment I made would work.
When my solutions stop working as well, due to misc design/need drift, how do we decide how much I lose and the next me gets?.
If investors do 0 work and generate 0 value, why are they included at all?
Writers and actors should cut out investors and make their content independently. If they need money, they could borrow some under the condition that they share the profits if their content makes money. Wait a second…
Did you not get paid hourly or salary for the work? Your compensation package was different. Did you not have a steady job? Did you not know you were going in there next week?
I think the latent question here is - how we’re expectations and/or contracts for writers any different from hourly workers who have never expected royalties?
The previous comment did most of the work for you. Writers, actors, crew, and generally everyone involved in the entertainment industry does not have a salary gig like office workers. They aren’t working consistently–which has only gotten worse in the streaming era–and thus rely on royalties as part of their total compensation.
So, in summary, they are completely different situations that cannot be directly compared.
I don’t think I’m ignorant of these things - I am, by choice, a contractor, but in a different field (engineering services). My contracts specify that the deliverables are “works for hire” and that the client owns all IP, and I am not entitled to residuals or royalties or any other income from the work I’ve done under such contracts.
I just genuinely don’t know if writers thought that they should be getting more. And if so, why?Because there are plenty of analogous (i.e. IP-generating) jobs that don’t have such arrangements.
It’s different with writers, because if their contracts worked like ours did they would have no hope of retiring. So when a fat fish like Suits comes along everyone who has a hand in making it is hoping to swing that either into money or more lucrative work.
That’s the way I’ve come to see it. Actual writers may disagree
This is about who holds the IP. Sometimes, depending on the employer and contract, an engineer will get to share in a patent created in the course of the job. Or might have incentives such as Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) or options.
So it’s not true that the IT folks are exclusively paid salary. Many share in the risk as well as the returns of their firms.
Let’s unpack that.
Yes, there are ‘writers for hire’ in licenced tie-in fiction and comics. These authors get a flat advance BUT they still get royalties based on the number of books or comics sold. That is - base payment and then returns based on success if the product.
Film and television writers are compensated by residuals in addition to salary. The studio owns the IP but the creators have a stake. It’s a risk and return sharing relationship with the studio. That’s the standard arrangement.
How is this different from an ESOP or options as an incentive remuneration?
How would an IT employee feel if a firm licenced the IP and then excluded its value from the calculation of ESOPs and options due, or the dividends on the nonvoting shares issued to employees?
I just genuinely don’t know if writers thought that they should be getting more. And if so, why?
What do you mean by “more”, and relative to what? The main complaint from writers are that in recent years the trend has been them all getting paid significantly less. Not just a few percentage points, more like 1-10% of what they used to get.
So, they want to get paid the same as they used to, which is more than currently but not “more” when looked at from a longer time frame.
There are freelance/gig workers in other industries. Programming has had a massive freelance market for ages. It’s practically unheard of for them to receive royalties, so it seems like you don’t need to rely on royalties.
And writers do have a salary gig in the vast majority of cases. It’s just usually not a long term position. They are hired for the duration of the project, and then need to find something new.
That’s not unique to writers or Hollywood at all. Many people are hired for the duration of a project, including managers, engineers, construction workers and so on. None of them receive royalties.
Did you not get paid hourly or salary for the work?
Writing as a profession gets this too in many scenarios.
Your compensation package was different.
Almost everyone’s is. It’s all based on what you can convince people to pay you and the real winners are the ones who are friends and family of the ownership and/or executives, always.
Did you not have a steady job?
Can good writers not land steady jobs? Of course they can! Have I always had a steady job? Of course not!
Did you not know you were going in there next week?
I have had many roles in IT that you never know when something can or would happen to terminate employment. I’ve had an entire department let go so they could shift the work to another group. I’ve had acquisitions happen where getting a pitiful severance is commonplace. I’ve seen MANY contract roles where a hiring manager on a whim can choose to terminate employment and you’re left holding the bag. As an employee you NEVER know if you’re going in there next week, you just hope that you are. After all, you are an employee at-will. This is most roles as very few have duration contracts overall.
I wish IT workers would unionize and demand better pay - but then outsourcing would be even more prevalent than it is. Show business isn’t known for meritocracy in high paying roles anyway.
Paying people in perpetuity for doing one role for a small period of time is aligned with permanent ownership and dividends of something. Why writers wouldn’t just ask for stock or buy stock with earnings like everybody else is puzzling. There are so many stories about abuse with contract negotiation by people at all levels of showbusiness that i’d argue the whole thing should be overhauled but any disruption causes some to win and some to lose… and we couldn’t have anyone brought down to the same level of anyone else, could we? Let’s just keep those executive pay and bonus structures the same as they’ve always been too while we’re at it, wouldn’t want to stop their meteoric rise in wage y/y while the rest of us get boned.
This just in: different payment structures are different. Different valuation of output is different. Unfair under-valuations are unfair. What a discovery.
I don’t understand why people are so up in arms around artists and the entertainment industry. Flat payment is commonplace in most industries. These people agreed to the payment they were given.
You basically agree to it with a knife in your back because it is the only deal available and they’re using the money and power against your desire to be heard or seen.
And now they’re put here trying to get a better agreement because the last one has resulted in not paying a living wage for many of them, and you’re here bitching about them doing this for crab-bucket reasons.
Explain why you think people shouldn’t fight for a liveable wage.
I think I can see where you are coming from here. The difference between your creativity and writers, actors, musicians is that while your work is used by the company you built the system for that company isn’t selling it to someone else. You built infrastructure.
Writers, actors, and musicians work is being sold by the companies they work for as a revenue stream.
The platform that IT Engineers created for netflix is being sold by the companies they work for as a revenue stream.
See what I did there? Your argument is that they are more important but in reality they are replaceable like everyone is. Most of the writers out there aren’t in high paying GRRMartin level roles, they’re writing episodes of sitcoms and reality TV. The quality is all over the place.
so you saying, if a book are publish and sold, a writer only paid for writing the book and all the profit should go to the publisher only?
or song writer should be paid one off for writing a song and all the profit should go to music label only?
and no, netflix not selling the platform. it is like saying Grocery store sold their store everyday. it make no sense. the engineer is a builder, they build a platform. netflix pay them for the platform, netflix sell stuff on said platform.
So, as an engineer in the oil industry, should I be paid a % of all the sales in projects I’ve been a part of? These weiters are paid a salary for their work (I assume), a book author is usually not.
How about if one person should make money in perpetuity for doing a job, everyone should?
You want to keep paying the architect, plumbers, electricians, carpenters and all the other construction crew that worked on your house right?
Oh wait… not that…
Maybe payment in perpetuity is a bad idea because it just funnels wealth to the few at the expense of the many… I mean it’s ok to charge people a billion times for something done a single time right?
There’s a huge philosophical discussion here, but instead you want to throw names. Things are the way they are overwhelmingly because of arbitrary bullshit.
Intellectual Property is a construct enabling monopolies and generating billions of dollars off the trivial reproduction of work done by others. All this perpetual money making bullshit is just piggybacking off of something that never should have been.
Intellectual Property is abused by monopolies, sure, but it’s not a construct made by those monopolies. If you write a book you should have rights to how that book is distributed. That’s the idea behind copyright.
If you write a book you should have rights to how that book is distributed. That’s the idea behind copyright.
Copyright is all about preventing anyone else from profiting off of your work by simply copying your work. Thanks to Mickey Mouse that duration is now life+70 years which is absurd.
Distilling the concept down and removing the nuance: As of today if you produce a written work you have monopoly control over that work for life+70 years unless you sign contracts stating otherwise.
Today, copyright as a construct creates monopolies that survive the creator.
In the case of Drug copyright, the duration is 20 years from the invention, which generally ends up being about 10 years after clinical trials to make money before anyone can make a copy. I struggle to see why the rules do not evenly apply, but the rationale behind drugs seems to be that humans benefit from them being available for as cheap as possible. If we had 20 year durations on TV and Movie copyrights it would be better for the masses and would give creators decades to earn profits on their work.
Drug makers try everything possible to extend copyrights on their drugs by doing things like creating medical devices with superior delivery methods in the case of injectable drugs. Since the new delivery method is more effective the old one is generally not used and so generics have to then wait for the delivery method to be out of copyright… This is just one example though. There’s no promises a generic drug ever comes to market if the drug is not widely used. The same shenanigans would be used by the entertainment industry to re-package their content with remastered versions or re-scanned original films like they have done with DVD, Blu-Ray and Streaming versions. Extended editions would also be an option… but the original copy would be free for all to enjoy after 20 years.
Why anyone is able to profit off of the original edition of Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings for another hundred years is beyond me, it should just be free and available to everyone imo. The money has been made.
That’s my opinion anyway. Monopolies and income in perpetuity are horrible concepts generally only abused by the few at the detriment of the many. In the real world many just pirate content anyway. If it were up to rights’ holders NO copies even for personal use would be allowed. They would just have us pay per view even for copies we purchased.
I can agree with most of what you wrote. I’m not entirely convinced the life +70 protections for some things is wrong. An artist should have control over their work, but once they pass things need to become public domain. I’ll go one step further and say that no one should be able to own things they didn’t create or commission. The Happy Birthday story is a prime example.
My argument wasn’t that they are more important. My observation was that the things writers, actors, and musicians produce is being sold over and over and over for other people’s profit.
Apparently my mistake was in thinking that the IT infrastructure created was purely infrastructure in the same vein as electrical, plumbing, or even physical buildings. I didn’t know that the IT systems created to provide streaming services was being sold to other streaming platforms without credit to the designers.
And before anyone thinks I am saying electricians, plumbers, carpenters and the like aren’t creative I am NOT saying that. A family member is a plumber and the stuff he has to dream up to get stuff to work is incredible.
Did you take your job at a rate of pay based on getting paid residuals in perpetuity?
This is like you taking a contract where they continue to pay you a licence fee for each server that they use your product on, then they move the product to a cloud system so they can get the output of 100 servers with only a single server licence.
Wait writers normally get royalties for their work? What the fuck that’s amazing, so Netflix is just in violation of a contract then? Why doesn’t the WGA just sue them?
I don’t understand how streaming isn’t just considered syndication. It seems like a dictionary definition of what it was, even if it didn’t exist when syndication agreements were made.
It’s a rerun of a show on a separate channel/platform. And the writers/actors should get the agreed revenue for it the same as if it were on TMC, nick at night or Netflix b
Indeed. an impartial judge wouldn’t let studios split hairs over words like this but as long as they’re appointed by politicians, they will side with whoever has the deeper pockets, because that’s what’s required for a continuing bright career.
Can confirm, they are laughed at in law schools. They clique up. None of the actual smart kids like them. The smartest federalist society members are just smart enough to be dangerous. Mostly religious types. Not very diverse.
They basically believe that the law can only be understood in the original sense that it was written in, yes? Instead of the law being living it is dead.
This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what a dictionary is, a snapshot of a language in time. The meaning of words change over time. “Nice” used to mean stupid in English.
They believe they can divine the intentions of the dead, that they hear the voices of dead people, and can know what they mean.
They also believe that from the writings of a collective, enacted in the form of statutes, they can discern a single, unified intention. This is of course completely ridiculous, but to hear them tell it, they figured out a way to interpret law “objectively,” which is also of course ridiculous.
Thanks. I know very little about this stuff. My understanding is that there is an order to understand the law. Canons of construction, right? So wouldn’t that mean that the intent behind the law can only be invoked if the text as written is open to multiple understanding? If that is the case how can they invoke that if the text can never be ambiguous?
If the text must only be looked at exactly as written you can’t claim it could be ambiguous. If you can’t claim it is ambiguous then you can’t worry about what they really meant to say. Guess I am lost. It seems like they are arguing for a method that if fully applied would mean the method can’t be applied.
You’re looking for logical consistency where there isn’t any. It’s all made up.
There is no one right or wrong way to interpret law. For every canon of statutory construction, there is an equal and opposite canon. My textbook called them thrusts and parries.
Conservatives believe in a plain meaning approach: follow the literal text no matter what because the cold hard text is the best evidence of the legislative intent. If the result is obviously absurd and offensive to justice, too bad, it’s the legislature’s job to fix the statute, not the court’s. Conservatives hate they idea of any power to do affirmative justice resting with the courts, they want it in Congress where their rich benefactors and buy congresspersons.
The problem with that is that legislatures are messy and words are imprecise. The words represent individual understandings and compromises of single members and caucuses, not the whole body. Even when Conservatives say they are following the original text / plain meaning, they are still doing subjective interpretation, just without admitting it.
Purposivism is the idea that statutes should be interpreted and applied by courts with reference to the purpose of the law and common sense.
But a constitution is not a dictionary. It is designed to restrict the current majority, if the majority redefines what the words in the constitution mean it is no restriction.
My wife and I left our company when they clawed us back to the office. It’s been 3 years now and there is 0 chance we’ll go back at this point. For all the big companies complaining about their empty buildings there are medium size players happy to poach top talent and let them work remote
Im currently complying with RTO because my office is close to my house and it is convenient, but there are talks of forcing employees to relocate to where the majority of their team is which would be halfway across the country for me. Needless to say we’re losing people in droves and many medium/small companies are picking up tons of talent.
In order to win a libel suit it is my understanding they must prove the claims to be false. So if this goes to court they could end up proving in court that it is a matter of fact provable that Twitter has become more toxic since Musk took over. And then they would win. That would be brilliant.
That would require the researchers to be able to afford a lengthy trial, which I’m guessing they can’t. Rich people do this shit to scare people out of going to trial.
Good thing there are plenty of good lawyers that would cream their pants to take up a high profile slam dunk case like this pro bono or on contingency.
Can Twitter afford it? They don’t have any accountants anymore and they may be the ones who will go in the shitter against a lengthy trial. Their ad incentive program had like only 5 mil available and Musk became neutered the moment he had to pay 100 million to the disabled guy he was about to fire.
Undocumented workers must be valuable to the economy. The people who employ them tend to be business owners who vote Republican, so they know the people they’re employing are creating profits, because those workers are creating profits for them.
In the early 2000s I had long conversations with a Republican-voting business owners who railed against ‘illegal immigration’, while employing them and therefore producing the conditions which incentivised them to become undocumented workers. His intellectual response was simply one of denial. He denied that his actions were hypocritical, or that he was creating the problem that he hated.
That was one of many important events that has led to me not assuming that compassion or moral integrity are commonly shown by humans.
I’m not sure that’s true, a lot of the undocumented workers I’ve met have worked in restaurants, and MANY of the owners there are absolutely champagne socialists that push Democratic rhetoric.
Would love to see data on it, but that’s got to be hard to gather, undocumented and all.
Like with everything it’s a spectrum. I’ve known republican restaurant owners who also hire undocumented people, as well as warehouse, construction and field jobs. The difference at least usually is that the left leaning owners vote in a way that would help those undocumented people vs Republicans that vote in a way that would hurt everyone that isn’t exactly like them and in plenty of cases even hurt people who are exactly like them.
What he couldn’t articulate, is that his individual actions don’t have any effect the larger systemic problem.
He can’t fix anything by not hiring a dozen undocumented people.
He’s taking advantage of the problem he complains about. Which might make him a hypocrite. But nothing about the problem would change if he stopped doing either.
“It doesn’t matter whether I do or do not beat my wife and children. It would still happen anyway.”
Society is all the individuals within it. Its output is the sum of all those individuals. If Republican business owners stuck to their principles and did not hire undocumented workers to make more profits, the amount of undocumented workers they are unhappy about would go down.
They are, quite literally, profiting from something they like, but then saying they don’t like it and it’s a reason to vote for shitty politicians. It’s not just hypocrisy, it’s wilfully making the world worse for other humans. Which is quite popular.
I agree that there’s a systemic problem at the root cause of this and, of course, I agree they’re a fraction of a fraction in size.
However, I don’t think we take that attribute with any other crimes, big or small, right or wrong.
I hope we can agree that a lot of theft is a symptom of the problems caused by systemicpoverty. However, it wouldn’t excuse theft, simply because you wanted a bit more, despite already having enough.
Not just you, by any stretch of the imagination, but we’re so quick to minimise the wrong doing of wealthy people doing illegal stuff to make just a little bit more money for themselves, purely out of greed. I feel like we’ve been almost groomed into some kind of “Well that’s just good business” mentality, for this ne specific kind of law breaking.
Even if it was a starving person, we would say “I understand they’re starving. However, we also can’t have them stealing everything they want to eat from one small, family owned mini mart, all the time. Yeah, yeah, no I still think that even though doing something about it might not contribute that much to the wider, systemic issues leading to poverty.”
I think you’re looking at my argument too specifically.
It applies the same to climate change, and people buying cheep junkfood instead of more expensive healthy options.
Blameing people for doing what’s better for them in the moment, instead of what’s immediately difficult but ultimately better for everyone, is always wrong.
Personally, I would say its not something that applies to those things in the same way. It isn’t illegal to have a hight carbon footprint or eat junk food but it is illegal to employ undocumented workers. The problem is, they choose to employ non documented workers because they can force them to accept appalling and unlawful work conditions as well as massively underpaying them for the value of their work.
If always then it would apply to someone who found robbing and killing you better for them in the moment. The harder thing would be for them to get a job and earn that money.
Would blaming somone for robbing and killing you be wrong?
I wouldn’t blame them for robbing me. That makes sense in a world where they aren’t mentally stable enough to keep a job. If they asked nicely I’d have just given them the money. Their being an asshole about it isn’t enough reason to let them starve.
I also wouldn’t blame them for killing me, because I’d be dead. I wouldn’t be able to blame them.
Legality has nothing to do with right and wrong, or hypocracy and consistancy anyway.
I mean, I made a point not to use legality as a moral argument but you went ahead and said that anyway…
Sorry but it wasn’t someone starving or mentally ill. Its anyone who just feels like robbing you because its “whats better for them in the moment” per the below:
Blameing people for doing what’s better for them in the moment, instead of what’s immediately difficult but ultimately better for everyone, is always wrong.
Its not like the people hiring undocumented people are doing so because they’re starving or mentally ill either. So, its a bizzare caveat to throw in, out of no where.
I mean, if you’re going to claim you wouldn’t blame somone for robbing you when they could have just asked you, as you even say yourself, in order to not have to admit that people are actually culpable for their own actions then I don’t know what to say to that.
The people who employ them tend to be business owners who vote Republican
It’s funny how Republicans absolutely never mention the most obvious solution to the “problem” of undocumented workers: pursuing and prosecuting the American citizens who hire them. It’s always useless walls and deportations and bullshit like that.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.