Yes the economic rigging is the billionaire class. But at 150k assuming. Single and not joint income, this is interesting. At that point you are 78th percentile of income. How is the top 25 percentile not able to cover expenses? I think that is a question worth asking.
Also read the article. It talks about paycheck to paycheck as not being able to cover full credit card expenses monthly.
I think a more apt question is: what is it about our economic system that creates a situation where the people in the top 25 percentile of earners are incapable of supporting themselves financially?
That said, with a few lifestyle changes, I believe someone making $150k per year could make it work in most, if not all, major US cities. It might be a small one bedroom apartment, and you might need to walk or take a subway to work, but it can probably be done.
I think a lot of people who grew up in the 90s and early 00s working class kind of saw $100k/year something to aspire to (at least where I grew up). Like, if you could make that much, then that would mean you’d be more than set. These days, not so much. It’s hard (for me at least) to remember sometimes that it’s really not that much money anymore.
I think a lot of people who grew up in the 90s and early 00s working class kind of saw $100k/year something to aspire to
Oh absolutely. Looking at median home prices by state and even then choosing a lowball estimate for a mortgage ($275k, 0 down) at today’s rates (7-8%) you’re looking at nearly a $3k/mo house payment. So, like 30-40% of your income. This doesn’t include taxes/insurance, so that $3k is probably $3500 being again extremely generous, so that’s just about half of your income. And that’s for a house with no heat, water, electric…
I have a family of 6-8, and make just over this amount between our incomes, and it’s tricky. Absolutely wouldn’t be possible for us if we hadn’t bought our home 6-8 years ago.
Exactly. People need to remember that $100k in 2023 is different than $100k in 2003.
They don’t realize that they’re falling right into the trap of class infighting. You can absolutely make $150k and still be a “working class family” in certain areas of the US in 2023. These aren’t the people we should be focusing on.
I mean by all standards they should be completely fine.
I make less than $30k/year and make it work without credit. I honestly want to see their bills and what their living situation looks like because if you can’t manage $150k/year comfortably you’re definitely doing something wrong.
I make a lot less than $150k in CAD and live in one of the most expensive cities in the world and I’m doing fine. But yeah obviously billionaires are the problem.
I’m a software developer, a couple years outta college. My girlfriend and I are living together, and make about $120k/yr combined. We have no problem, I save a lot of my income and still have a bunch left over for hobbies. She has maybe a couple grand in student debt left and I’ve never been in debt in my life. I’d be willing to bet that a large portion of the issue is car payments and payments on a house that’s fancier than they need.
It’s also wild that roughly the same percentage (36%) of people making $50k-$150k are also living paycheck to paycheck. Live within you means. It isn’t hard.
Now live in San Francisco, have 2 kids and a house.
Probably not even possible on 120k
Edit: im not in San Francisco, but I don’t think you could own where i am with a dual income of 120k and have a place that would work for 2 kids. At least moving here today. 5-10 years ago it’d work no problem. Cheapest 3 bedroom condo is 525k with $620 monthly fees, but almost all of them are 700k+ (in CAD)
If I had kids, I wouldn’t live there. If I lived there I wouldn’t have kids until I was able to move.
It obviously isn’t as simple as that, and it’s a personal choice, but that’s how I see it. Kids isn’t just an emotional choice, you’ve gotta be able to raise them within your means.
Where I live, we could own a house and have a couple kids, but it makes more sense to rent right now. Where we currently live, we could have a couple kids, and they’d each have their own room, but it’d be a bit tight.
That’s part of the problem though. We should all be able to have a house and kids. Those are not luxuries. The fact that you’re arguing that income is fine if you forego those means the corporations and billionaires have successfully convinced you to fight against your own class and self interests.
I’m not arguing that it isn’t bullshit, I’m just arguing that it’s possible, considering the situation. Just because it’s bullshit that I can’t afford kids doesn’t mean I’m going to accumulate credit debt by having kids.
I mean by all standards they should be completely fine.
I read it as whether it’s fine (moral) that they make that much money, not whether they could live off it. Else, what context for billionaires being mentioned?
I don’t disagree, but $150k is just not that much money any more for a household. My wife and I make probably around $110 or so. I got lucky and bought a house 6-8 years ago (I’d never be able to afford interest rates or what that house appraises at now) we have a couple of <$20k used cars with good rates, and a household of 6-8 depending on which of my kid’s friends basically live with us this week.
if I were buying my house today, we’d need to make much closer to the 150 just to maintain our current middle class lifestyle, and trust me, it’s not like we’re eating steak every night (or probably even every month.) I mean, sure, there are things we can do to make that money go further, and we will likely have to do as my kids get older/more expensive.
That’s my experience too. I read the whole article to find out what countries have actually tried helping with the expenses of raising a child. The most financial help mentioned was a 30,000 LOAN that would be given to newly weds and only forgiven if they had 3 kids… 30k isn’t enough for one kid…
The only other financial help I saw was $7000 per kid in Russia.
And money is only one part of the problem. It takes time to raise kids. If both parents have to work full time there isn’t any time left to raise your kids even if you’re rich while working.
20th cenrury’s policies put a lot of effort into distancing us from our means and our families. Paying peanuts for a newborn wouldn’t help poor who are most likely to want it, only to dig themselves deeper. It’s, true, a systemic problem that can’t be solved with a mere donation.
Even if you choose not to have kids, the sad thing is that you’ll spend the same money taking care of your parents when we stop taking care of our elderly in 20 years so the rich can have more tax breaks. The really sad part is you’ll spend all your money on both if you do have kids anyways
I feel like I have been seeing the same article once a month since 2007.
A. Unemployment numbers are basically a lie at this point. The only number that comes even close to representating the situation is the workforce participation rate. Question: what percent of people are employed? Answer: what percent of people are employed. It is simple as that. If you look at pretty much every month the US hits a new low. Over a third of the adult population did not earn $20 dollars last week. There was a slight trending down right before 2007 crash but not significant. A deep dive into the numbers shows that this is not the result of retirement, it is the result of prime working age males dropping out.
B. Who cares if inflation is low at this moment? That is like arguing that everything is fine the previous 5 minutes when a car crash happened 6 minutes ago.
Peices of garbage keep telling us that everything is fine when it fucking isnt
I really like that car crash analogy or whatever you want to call it. It isn’t like sudden positive changes in inflation or job numbers magically fixes QOL for people overnight. It can take weeks…months, maybe even years (maybe even never?)
This is it exactly. Positive changes in inflation mean prices aren’t going up as fast. They’re still going up. They’re never going to go down because businesses don’t charge less when the alternative is making more money. They only ever charge more with inflation.
The idea that ‘males hunted because they were stronger, etc’ was cope to rationalize the fact they are less reproductively valuable than females. Four males don’t come back from a hunt, village mourns- Four females don’t come the village dies.
I’m willing to believe that men hunted more frequently for this reason alone. Women are simply too valuable. I wonder if this is the origin of a dowry as well. Compensation for the tribe or family losing the ability to expand.
Not always. In Islamic tradition, the man pays the dowry (know in Arabic as mahr مهر) to the bride, who would then own the money herseöf (so not her family or tribe). It can be anything with monetary value, including lifestock or gold.
Men were more expendable but the more important issue at hand was continued survival of the tribe. If we don’t have children we die out in 20-40 years. If we don’t have food, we die out in 2-4 weeks. If a woman was physically capable, she was likely going to be sent out on a hunt, more so if her family were hunters too.
Why would anyone need to cope with the value of individuals in pre-civilization society? These things are not relevant anymore, an individual’s value to society is mostly determined through productivity and wealth now.
Never met an incel huh? If you aren’t wealthy or productive then you need to make up a reason for why you have value to society, assuming you buy into the idea of assigning value to life in the first place - which lots of people do.
Yeah. If even only one comes back, he might be the strongest or whatever, but he might also be weak. You’d probably also want to keep weaker men back at the village rather than on the hunt because they have the lowest chances of survival (thought I think that might be kind of overstated, I think it’s kind of unlikely that everyone randomly dying on a hunt was some sort of common enough occurrence, I think individual instances of tragedies or freak accidents are more likely). If you’re keeping back the weakest men, you’re also going to have weaker men going forward, which then leads to the village dying out in the long term. You also see less genetic variance if all the strong men die and the weak men are left reproducing, which is also bad, yadda yadda.
So I’m not sure I buy the whole like, men are expendable, which is why they’re stronger, or why they’re hunters more commonly, or both. That kind of at face value reads as a kind of macho posturing sort of idealism.
Yeah but it could just be that the weaker men don’t have “weaker genes” but simply got injured beyond what medicine could do, in this example. It wouldn’t necessarily mean the whole village becomes made up of weaker men. After all, the weaker ones are less likely to survive to start with.
So I’m not sure I buy the whole like, men are expendable, which is why they’re stronger, or why they’re hunters more commonly, or both.
Eh, putting aside that parts of the article were not supported by citations, I would say the view in it for me is much more balanced. It would also fit better in the idea of brains evolving (to hunt, we would need more than just physical power, like focus, agility, being smart enough to trap animals, etc). I would be surprised if women, who are still capable of hunting, and maybe hunting some types of animals more efficiently than others, were just kept in the village when the reality is that they all live “in the wild”, and where starvation is a big threat. That would be mismanagement. If you want a good survival rate for a village, you would probably need to send a mixed group to hunt.
Women didn’t just “sit there and evolve alongside the men”, I don’t think we’d have the same intellectual abilities if this was the case. Reminds me of a good book that I need to finish called The Mating Mind, which goes through the evolution of the human brain as a sexual trait.
Yeah. I think the only way someone would sway my mind one way or the other would be on the basis of serious historical evidence, which is somewhat unlikely to come up, since you can sort of speculate any direction as being the correct one. I think it’s also kind of stupid how people like, use this sort of historical anecdote as evidence for structuring society in one way or another, which is kind of some 1800’s style bullshit. We’d be much better off just using modern medicine to make the distinctions, if that was the case, but the vote’s still pretty split as far as that goes and it’s pretty hard to structure those studies in a way where they actually prove anything comprehensively, so I think it’s probably just in the best interest to occupy whichever position is the least dickish.
This is an incredibly simplistic take. Yes, if all the men die and none of the women are pregnant and they don’t survive until some of the children reach sexual maturity (why would there be no children before the men went out to hunt?) then yes, the tribe would die. Doubtless small groups died out this way on occasion, among others. None of that has any bearing on fewer men being needed to keep a population growing because it does, in fact, take only two to tango, and both men and women can tango with multiple partners.
Yeah well, I was replying to someone who also wrote an incredibly simplistic take
Four males don’t come back from a hunt, village mourns- Four females don’t come the village dies.
Thanks for the serious answer but this comment was meant sarcastically, so sorry if you took it too seriously because I can see you wrote a serious answer.
Edit: okay looks like this is turning into a longass discussion. Next time, I’ll /s.
The tribe was certainly larger than 8 people, but the tribe would also require regular births to growing. And in prehistoric times there was a very high mortality rate for children. And the only two ways to combat that is a)provide safer environments for the children or b)have more kids.
A) wasn’t an option since they didnt have the means to, but b) was so long as you had enough fertile women. So losing 4 men is a serious blow into the productivity of the tribe, losing 4 women to a tribe struggling already means 4 less potential births next year. You have 20 men and 1 woman, you only have 1 potential birth in the next 9 months. 20 women and 1 man, you have 20 potential births over.
Child rearing was the only thing women could do, but it was easily the most important thing to the future of the tribe. All other things being equal, the men were more expendable than the women.
You have to eat, so if a woman was your best hunter you’re sending her out. Young men were almost certainly encouraged if not pushed into being hunters if they showed any aptitude for it, but before agriculture became common, most of the tribe had to dedicate a lot of time to gathering food.
My problem with these comments is that while it’s rational, it’s also just speculation. We have no actual idea beyond best guesses around found artifacts.
I think this might be the reason for the strength disparity. Tasks that require strong people tend to be more dangerous but a sensible tribe leader would send the strongest to do these tasks whether they are male or female. A tribe where the strength balance leans female will grow slower than a tribe where there is equal distribution which will grow slower than one with male balance. This selection effect would cause evolution in that direction.
Male/female size differences would have evolved prior to humans as a recognizable species evolving - and the fossil record of pre-humans supports this.
Humans have never self-selected for physical fitness with any regularity, throughout the historical record. We primarily mate for social reasons.
The stock market has been decoupled from the real economy for years. There are interests who want all of us to make sacrifices when the stock market goes down, but I don’t agree with them.
The amount of figures within OWS and BLM that died under strange circumstances is pretty not comforting knowing the organizations who do things like that have near impunity and control of information.
OWS Demonstrator, Author and powerful community force here, seems less suspicious than the others but also the person is more critical to the movement and had a sizeable reach in his capacity as an author and anthropologist.
I’d have to ignore a lot of history to consider it impossible for the same people who thought they could control minds with LSD and did put microphones inside Russian street cats to have a hand in this.
There an even older gentleman deeply affiliated with OWS who also passed but again that looks even less suspicious that David Graeber, like the scene is inherently less ‘manipulatable’ which is not to say its impossible. This is the pattern that a lot of people saw and discussed.
So 6 people in a span of 3 years in an area with a life expectancy of 56.
The two in the burned cars were the likeliest related to the protests and murdered, but it’s much more likely to be some gang bullshit and not targeted at all.
Wikipedia says this about it:
As of March 2019, Ferguson protesters have continued to receive threats to their lives or wellbeing
The articles you posted mention this
The 2010 U.S. census showed that while people who live in wealthy and mostly white western St. Louis County can expect to live well into their 80s, life expectancy in parts of mostly black north St. Louis County reaches only into the 60s. Life expectancy in Kinloch, a few miles from Ferguson, is 56.
Forty-five of the county’s 60 homicide victims last year were black in a county where less than a quarter of the population is black, according to police statistics.
I don’t think it’s any conspiracy shenanigans going on and not government members that killed them suspiciously…long after the protests were over. It looks like a horrible place to live, especially for black people without any perspective for a future.
It smells like “I want to believe”, not some deep state revenge after the fact.
It doesn’t even look like a statistical anomaly that much if you take everything into account.
I don’t want to believe it, in fact if someone where to claim ALL of these were not accidents or had something to do with their protest involvement I would wholeheartedly find that ridiculously unlikely, but I remain open to the idea that one or more could be. I remember in an auto-bio from a black panther i read he said something along the lines of him not blaming the cops for breaking up his chapter, that would be giving them too much credit. I like that, I hope they’re not some all powerful org that can just disappear who they want.
But then they do things like summary execution of a murder suspect without clearly announcing themselves, say they saw a gun flashed but they found the gun in his pocket. All because he shot (I guess technically allegedly) someone reported to be attacking protestors who happened to be part of a far right group that the police had deals with (they agreed to not execute a warrant on the groups leader). theguardian.com/…/exclusive-video-shows-portland-…
So I fully believe that when the circumstances present themselves, sometimes, someone with the capacity to do something will take that opportunity. Didn’t initially include this case because this is something that happened during an arrest, but if this particular instance wasn’t a federal hit, nothing short of when they bombed a philly neighborhood block in 85 is. They have the means and unless we believe these federal organizations have changed without any real external pressure to do so, history says they have the will as well.
I’d have to ignore a lot of history to consider it impossible for the same people who thought they could control minds with LSD and did put microphones inside Russian street cats to have a hand in this.
How are these stupid agency projects of the past in any way related to supposed murders of rather random protestors that didnt have much influence anymore?
It just doesn’t make any sense.
The protest leaders would just vanish during the protests without a trace, and maybe come back siding the government, and not die of suicide years later when they’ve long stopped being relevant.
An average life Expectancy of 56 years is some 3rd world country in civil war numbers. Burkina Faso is at 62 years for example. Somalia at 58, Chad 55.
You started spreading that killing of protestors conspiracy with confidence. You later saying you don’t consider it impossible isn’t getting you off the hook.
The media had their role in it too by setting a ‘tone’ for the whole thing by treating it like a joke from the start and being sure to always interview the kookiest of people whenever they’d visit one of the encampments. Alternatively, conservative outlets like Fox would paint the protestors like a bunch of entitled freeloaders who just wanted to cause problems.
Because, even though that specific photo wasn’t about rich people laughing at the protests, you damn well know they all did just that. We just don’t have pictures.
And then the Democrat Party co-opted it and destroyed the value but making Occupy a meme factory that says things like trump sucks ass! Biden gives the best handies! LIKE AND SHARE IF YOU AGREE!!!"
Occupy had no central leadership and nobody on earth seems to be able to accept orgs like that. Seems we’ve been conditioned to believe that everything must be run in a hierarchy.
The other side of that “hero” coin is whistleblowers in movies/TV who, in rl, are vilified beyond even the real criminals who tank the world’s economy selling banded, illegally-authorized mortgages as good investments.
There’s no organization that can take on the US police. They are backed up by the national guard. The national guard, historically, has demonstrated a willingness to shoot protesters.
No, you’d have one dead cop and every protestor dead or in jail. One cop dying is all they need to throw away what little restraint they might have had up to that point. They will kill the people who resist and arrest the ones who don’t. If they arrest you they’ll drag the trial out for years, by the time you get found guilty and sentenced to a year of probation you’ll have spent a decade behind bars.
The problem is that this is not a fair fight, it is a suicide mission for whoever decides to take on the police.
You’re either trolling or dillusional if you think that. We live in a police state, if you’re out in the open they will just kill you and if you take shelter they will literally lay seige to you and burn your house down.
Yeah they are always warning about the stock market and what we need to do to make it go up but most people don’t even own stock. Maybe in their 401k if they have one. Other than that the average person probably doesn’t care. I hardly even look at my 401k either. Let it tank I don’t care. I’ll probably work until I die anyways.
As someone who works in healthcare, I’m not sure how the system is still standing at all. And most of all no one cares about the ER—especially other specialties. It’s life draining.
I dare say that anyone working in healthcare knows a coworker who’s committed suicide because of the job. I know I do and it still haunts me even though I managed to get out.
Yep. I think we all do. The state of modern society is making nearly every essential job unworkable. My wife quit teaching a few years back, and I almost feel like her profession had become more malignant than medicine.
2 suicides, 5 COVID deaths, 2 of car accidents from sleep deprivation after getting off. Not to mention the miles long list of those suffering from mental illness, burn out, drug abuse, severe stress, and injuries from work
Luckily, I don’t know of anyone for certain, though I know of some medical providers that openly shared their suicidality. It was A LOT of providers, way more than most would expect. They looked like defeated remnants of previously joyful people with aspirations and hope. Many of them said that they continued to work just to pay off their loans and help their kids avoid the situation they were in.
When I quit, I left the medical system entirely. For unrelated matters, I happen to learn a lot about the patterns that abusers use on their victims, and I saw a lot of overlap with that and how the medical system I worked in treated the employees, especially the use of fear, obligation, and guilt (ie FOG). I’m convinced that healthcare managers/administrators are soulless robots without empathy that find positions of power in medical settings because they can manipulate the system, especially the providers’ innate desire to care for patients and the patients’ desperate medical situation and lack of knowledge. It really is troubling.
Just had a call with member services at my insurance asking how I can get weekly therapy because 2-5 weeks in between that they’ve been giving me is absolutely ineffective. They replied that their therapy is stretched so thin. It’s awful.
They (hospital bosses or whatever controls the cost-cutting stuff) are hurting everyone. Patients can’t get quality or timely care. Healthcare workers have to help so many traumatic cases alongside the boo-boos. But the workers are expected to treat it like a regular job and just come in like it’s normal.
A patient dies because of a tired surgeon’s mistake. The surgeon might lose everything. The big-wigs take no responsibility for their staffing cuts to the surgery department.
If the previous few dozen ethics violations have had literally no consequences whatsoever and there’s absolutely no sign that anything is about to change on that front, I feel like the only purpose of these stories is to desensitize us to it and make it feel normal.
IMO, enjoying things come at being a millionaire; a certain je nais se quois gets lost with being a billionaire, no matter how much they chase it down.
Counterpoint, if you’re a Billionaire you probably subscribe to the idea of class warfare and that it’s your civic duty to fuck the poors. Keep donating money to causes that keep the poor eating themselves and not the wealthy.
eh, you have to spend money to make money. money just by itself is sort of meaningless if you dont make it work for you. this is just an example of making money work - its not really “secret” if news sites comment on it though.
“I consumed libertarian content, mainstream conservative content,” he said on the stand. “Then I slowly started looking at some alt-right content on YouTube, and then stumbled across some of the more fringe.”
The content he described focused on the Great Replacement—a popular conspiracy theory among the far-right focused on minorities taking over white majority countries—and the idea that Muslim violence is under-covered by mainstream media. He said that he consumed conspiratorial content like Alex Jones’ Infowars where he found “conspiracies that Middle Eastern wars were a conspiracy to try to bring Muslim immigration into Europe.” This then led him to white nationalist content.
Oh wow, that last part about wars in the middle east being a conspiracy is totally new to me. I suppose it’s no less unbelievable than the planet being a flat disc or moon landing hoaxes.
Check out way back machine to look at early YouTube and you’ll find so many videos with this crap and all of them had images of crusaders because those were the groups making these videos. They were organized racist Nazi fucks who built up this imagery of a new holy war. But it was too obvious the following waves racist social media posting just hid that it was coming from these fucking losers.
He said that he consumed conspiratorial content like Alex Jones’ Infowars where he found “conspiracies that Middle Eastern wars were a conspiracy to try to bring Muslim immigration into Europe.” This then led him to white nationalist content.
I’m not surprised he said that. Alex Jones is a stepping stone toward radicalization but I consider it a distinction without a difference. Alex Jones has been a white nationalist his entire career despite his shallow denials and subterfuge. The ‘Knowledge Fight’ podcast has done an excellent job of documenting the fact that Alex Jones has never been a “harmless crank” by examining and debunking his own contemporary claims and those going back to the earliest days of his career. The only difference between Alex Jones and blatant white nationalist content is his conscious use of dog whistles. But even those have mostly been abandoned now that he’s seemingly drunk every time he records a show.
It's funny because at the beginning of that show Dan does think Alex is just some kind of a grandstanding/ridiculous pill, gold and water filter huckster. He was listening and watching ironically, largely for cheap laughs, and as kind of a game to peel back the layers of the "turn the frogs gay" onion.
It took a decent amount of time for them to get a handle on how awful he truly was, but more importantly, the intent. When you look at it through the lens of the current episodes you can see that the beliefs were always there but that there was way more effort to maintain the mask and disguise the true sources. Pretty much like you said.
Part of what makes the show interesting, in hindsight, is how long he was given the benefit of the doubt. And I say that as more of a testament to who Dan and Jordan are and the difference of the times from then and now. His fascination morphs into disgust and the novelty becomes more of an accidental chronicle of right white radicalization. I wonder who Alex will say was really behind this.
I’ve listened to episodes here and there, but your explanation about how Dan changed over time is interesting.
A few questions :
When did Dan start to realize this wasn’t a joke (~ how long after the show started), and was it just Alex being Alex or was there a major moment where it finally hit him?
After the show started, how long did it take them to get caught up to current broadcasts? When did the podcast and Alex “sync up”? Did his hardcore alt right turn begin around the 2016 election? I know he was spouting all the racist fear mongering things during Obama’s term.
Thanks! I love the concept of the show, but I cannot take that much Alex at one time. They’re doing good work though.
So that is hard for me to pinpoint, just because there's close to 900 episodes now and I think I started listening in like 2019ish? The show started in 2017 and I remember after I listened for a few weeks I decided to start from the beginning and was surprised by how different the feeling of their approach was. I would say by 2019 they we're much less willing to write off gross stuff and were more concerned with Alex providing cover for extremist patriot guests. Post election and J6 they are pretty on the nose about calling out what they perceive as Alex's more deep seeded motives. With the final form of just general disgust and every info wars episode being a new low probably arising around the 2022 sandy hook defamation trial in Texas. Maybe a little before that. I'd say that the change in perception very much follows the arch and evolution of not only Alex, but much of the country letting the mask slip. So yeah, I'd say it's gradual.
As I recall the show was always a mixture of both current info wars episodes and past ones that Dan found interesting or silly. Sometimes what they covered would be dictated by how interesting (or not) the current info wars episodes were and then over the last maybe 2 years they would go to older episodes when Alex was in "time out." Which is basically when hes on such a horrible rip of racist, xenophobic, homophobic, incendiary garbage that Dan doesn't want to listen or give it air on their show. More recently though they cover that stuff when it comes out. So I'd say he's put mental health aside and feels more of a need to document some of these things to the audience. It's really horrible stuff and you can see pieces of the through line that led this guys mental state and the murders.
Alex's shtick of being "beyond the left right paradigm" and masquerading around as some libertarian with secret truths probably mostly ended around 2019-2020 where he got increasingly dependent upon drawing in more audience solely do to his support of Trump. He also has Stuart Rhodes, Roger Stone and Michael Flynn on a bunch in that time frame. So tying those worlds together was very lucrative for him with the level of access he was getting to people Trump was pardoning and putting reliance on. I think that's the best way to look at his increasing influence and role from 2016 on. It always mirrors where the right is going because he wants a cut of the cultist grift and then will amplify deceptions to create new market space and solidify his position as someone with secret knowledge. This ebb and flow cycle creates a feedback loop and this guy who is just making up shit to sell garbage supplements is eventually selling insurrection. Recently it shows itself even more clearly. Alex goes on 5 minute tantrums saying REAL gross stuff, and it's just him trying to get a racist or homophobic clip to go viral out of desperation for money.
Go listen to the Project Camelot episodes about space raptors if you want some more zany fun stuff. It's also absolutely worth listening to their episodes covering the Sandy Hook cases (especially the ones called formulaic objections) and the debriefs they do with Mark Bankston (who is the prosecuting attorney and a listener.) It gives excellent perspective to hear Alex in front of a court and how he turns on and off without control.
It just hit Dan that what Alex is doing isn’t funny but dangerous. It was episode 174 where Dan has his realization that Alex has always been super racist and how that affects the things Alex says and does.
When the show started they covered current broadcasts. Soon after they started doing regular time travel episodes where they would put Alex in ‘time out’ and cover a past episode. Episode 174 is one of those episodes. It’s the juxtaposition between the two times that put it all in focus for Dan. If you are looking for best episodes to go back and listen to, 174 is near the top and really addresses your questions.
I am South African. Considering a move to another country so we were watching expat videos from that country. Fuck me if YT didn’t take two searches to start serving up content about white slums and the impact of Affirmative Action on the whites of SA.
To be clear I want to move for an adventure and to further my career. I’m mixed race and have no beef with AA, YouTube wants name to be a frustrated white person who wants to leave due to politics. Get fucked.
Actually, it’s more of an anecdote. But mainly a comment or a reply, which is kind of the point of a forum-style social media site like Lemmy or Reddit.
In other words, unlike yours (and mine), they’re actually *contributing to the discussion.
Yours may not be contributing to the immediate discussion, but I would say that taking the time out to politely educate someone on etiquette is still contributing to the overall discussion on the forums.
Oh if I were to contribute you little shirt bird commies would just do what you do and downvote and get nasty, because you feel you’re superior on lemmy with majority far leftists.
So really you need not look far to find your own blatant “etiquette” violations all over the fucking place.
So do, please come off your high horse. I’ll get a ladder.
What exactly is confusing about this? About two weeks ago I watched an episode of a show about atheism and within minutes I started getting ads for prayer and Bible apps. I played a math help vid for my 4th grader and started getting ads from Epoch Times about the globalist trans conspiracy. I started watching the Young Turks (liberal), and got Prager-U
YouTube ad program is targeted people with content that they don’t want.
The door, meagerly, opened and he saw within the apartment a fragmented and misaligned shrinking figure, a girl who cringed and slunk away and yet held onto the door, as if for physical support. Fear made her seem ill; it distorted her body lines, made her appear as if someone had broken her and then, with malice patched her together badly.
Drawing attention to people’s appearances distracts from things that are truly worth criticizing, like shitty decision making. Also, it doesn’t actually make them look bad. It makes you look bad.
No, even on WiFi your phone maintains its cellular signal, even data depending on your settings (it’s just not actively used as wifi will be considered superior).
To expand on the abusive relationship aspect, say your partner, parents, etc. want to keep you from contacting people, maybe your family/friends, maybe the police, maybe your doctor (for example to seek abortion services, or maybe treatment for a health issue they’ve been trying to withhold medication from you for) they may check your phone to see who you’ve been contacting or even take your phone from you to prevent you from using it.
There’s also of course less savory reasons, cheating, dealing drugs, or other illegal activities.
And somewhat less likely, undercover officers, FBI agents, investigative journalists, etc. whose cover could potentially be compromised if the wrong people are around and that second phone goes off.
Aren’t the early models the only ones that can actually be modified and repaired using consumer available parts? Seems kind of fishy to me that those are the only ones that are being binned.
Someone discovered they can gain repeat customers if they issued a “recall” and offered a money tree seed to those who have been the longest holdouts on updating.
Summary: There is a normal percentage of theft compared to previous years, but because of inflation the estimated dollar amounts are “unprecedented.” Please don’t ask about the unprecedented profits.
Clickbait headline articles need to be shocking sounding. Bonus points if they push the narrative that companies are good and us horrible peasant thieves stealing from them are bad.
Biden was perfect for 2020. An experienced, responsible, and evolving adult that isn’t radical to scare off centrists or some republicans who actually is pushing us forward.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.