You have to admit, Elon claiming he’s the king of free speech and filing a lawsuit to silence a media company is pretty fukcing hilarious. Especially since it will implode.
“Free speech absolutist” means absolutely no accountability for what I say. “I just want people to think for themselves” means “I just want people to think exactly like me.”
I thought I saw another Newsweek headline earlier about how he ‘might not lose his businesses afterall’ and am now about 50/50 on whether all the edging is just setting up to a big ruin.
For real, this article is just ‘someone on a podcast said…’
This NY court doesn’t have jurisdiction over his Florida property. It’s like if there’s a massive fine and if he can’t pay it some other way then he might have to sell Mar-a-Lago to pay it.
Don’t get me wrong, I hope the trial ruins him and his turd kids, but that’s a lot of ifs and a weird thing to write an article about.
Damned sad. When I was a teen, and into my early 20s, I had a Newsweek subscription. Ya know, when they would send a sort of large, thin, glossy book full of the latest news. And it was considered top-notch journalism. Crazy times back then.
I’ve been reading “Trump is gonna be done any day now” articles since he started gaining steam in the 2016 GOP primaries. Fucker’s still free and currently leading the incumbent president in presidential polls.
This shit moves slowly, especially considering the political ramifications.
In other news, I’m getting my kids for Thanksgiving week. 4-years after my ex took them. When we finally got to trial, the judge stomped a mud hole in her ass. 4-years for justice.
Perhaps their understanding of feminism has come from the violently extreme “kill all men” types of feminists or the opposing “get back in the kitchen” type of conservative shitbags making up all sorts of scary and mean things about them.
They absolutely do. They are by no means the majority, but extremes exist in any movement. There are “feminists” who think it’s all about sticking it to the man (literally) or proving feminine superiority. It’s like Christians who don’t read the Bible and think it’s all about damning the gross icky people to hell. That doesn’t mean they’re common (they aren’t), but I’ve seen a few crazies on Tumblr and Twitter.
Thank you. I hate that some people just cannot accept that extremists exist on “their team”. I had another post downvoted to hell when I made a similar claim and provided plenty of tweets (or whatever the fuck they’re called nowadays) and other evidence. It was met with the same “that’s not real” or worse “it’s just satire”.
who don’t read the Bible and think it’s all about damning the gross icky people to hell
Not all but that is a pretty decent description of most of the NT. The OT god(s) would kill you because you annoyed them but they wouldn’t send you to hell.
I don’t consider myself a Christian anymore, but based on what I was taught as a kid, I’d personally take anything that wasn’t explicitly stated to be spoken by God or Jesus with a grain of salt, especially when it comes to books that weren’t written by Jesus’ disciples (excluding Saul/Paul, who never actually met Jesus).
As a kid, I was taught to read the Bible and use my brain (god gave you one, use it) to figure out what it was trying to say, not blindly follow it without question. The reason for that is because I was taught that the Bible is inspired by God, not written by him (unless explicitly stated that the passage came directly from God or Jesus’ mouth). As such, you have humans attempting to understand God’s (and later Jesus’) commands, which means they aren’t always going to be 100% correct and/or there may be historical context that is missing when you take it literally and at face value.
You’re supposed to not just read, but also think about the Bible and decide what parts make sense when taken in context with what is said to be explicitly said by God (it’s part of the reason why some Bibles mark anything said by God/Jesus in red).
For an example, the passage you’ve quoted could be interpreted as a warning about pagans larping as Christians to take advantage of christian kindness and distort the word of God into something else (similar to the merchants in the temple, or like what is happening in Christianity now). You could also read it as an almost complete reversal to what Jesus taught in the early NT.
Which one of these makes more sense?
A) Jesus comes to earth, teaches people about kindness and goodness, hang out with prostitutes and untouchables, dies on the cross for everyone’s sins, becomes a zombie, and declares that the laws of the Old testament had been fulfilled through him so all could be saved. Then a few years later, he changes his mind and inspires Jude to write a letter about how the gays should be cast out and are going to hell.
B) Jude was writing the letter as a warning to keep your guard up around non-christians in case they might persuade you to distort the teachings of Jesus and/or hijack Christianity to turn it into a money-making scheme. It wouldn’t be the first time it happened (the merchants in the temple immediately springs to mind again).
Or C) Jude didn’t really know what he was talking about and the book/letter is included because it’s referenced in other places of the Bible and theologians would rather err on the side of caution and allow a non-canon book to be included in the Bible than delete something that might be important (iirc the Bible states that you’re not supposed to remove, change or add to anything said in scripture, so from a Christian perspective, I’d imagine if you’re not sure about something then it’s probably better to include something than exclude it).
Imo, B) seems the most likely. If you believe the Christian God is real, then A) is absurd, and C) seems unlikely due to Jude’s proximity to James. It seems like if C) were true, then there would be records of Jude being refuted or rebuked.
…right, I think you might have misunderstood what I meant by, “gross, icky people”. I usually see the phrase used to mock “”“Christians”“” who yell and scream about people who are LGBT; effectively saying the “”“Christians”“” are just upset because they view the LGBT community as being gross and icky and use the Bible to justify their bigotry.
You’re correct that there’s a lot in the Bible about hellfire and damnation, but I think God doesn’t really care if you’re straight or gay (I know there’s a passage in the old testament that people, especially evangelicals, like to use as a smoking gun, but afaik the English translation is controversial among theologians and it may have intended to refer to pederasty, since that was common at the time), I think he’s more concerned with pedophilia, bestiality, greed, manipulation, etc.
To put it another way, I kinda doubt he gives a fuck about Freddy Mercury being bi or Elton John being gay, and more about how people like Joel Osteen use the Bible to enrich themselves or how people like Mark Zuckerberg or Elon Musk use their wealth and power to strip people’s rights and encourage bigotry. You know, truly evil people.
If (a big “if”) the Bible is true, I think there are a lot of gay, trans, bi and enby people who’ll be pleasantly surprised to find themselves at the pearly gates, while a lot of supposed “”“Christians”“” will get a rude awakening in hell.
I know at least 2 Republicans that when you actually talk about individual policy preferences it comes across as moderate democrat. One of them was a virulent PRO masker because of their job.
I think people just don’t pay attention to actual policies, it’s all just the soundbites and controversy.
because the word feminism has different meanings for different people. for some it means equality and a way to get there. for others it means men are bad and women should get priority treatment. communication is hard when there is no objective meaning for any of the words we are using.
No one? There are 8 billion people screaming out whatever random ideas occurs to them for hours a day across the planet. You can’t make that statement about anything anymore.
Also there is also just plain misinformation campaigns. People creating strawman arguments pretending to be on the other side.
The No True Scotsman fallacy isn’t about people who claim to be something arbitrarily. Its about gatekeeping to preserve some kind of integrity or quality for the sake of an argument.
If I say “I’m a communist” but then espouse only fascist beliefs and display an ignorance of primary tenets of communism, am I really a communist just because I say I am?
The reality of the situation is that a movement is full of factions. People aren’t a monolith and they think differently and feel differently. Jk Rowling considers herself a feminist, and she is an iteration of what a feminist can look like sadly.
Think of religious sects, they all fall under the same umbrella of Christianity or Judaism or what have you, but have radically different beliefs and feelings.
They get involved in protests and push their agendas just like any other group of people.
Or tankies! They fucking suuuuuuck and they are communist! I like communism by the way, but tankies can eat and then shit out some Lego blocks.
But the right has been convinced they do. Just like how they think CRT means “teaching white kindergartners that they should feel bad for being white and are inferior to Black kindergartners.”
Because a lot of modern (so-called 3rd wave) “feminists” are just greedy people demanding things that will advantage them but doing so behind the cover of the group so that it doesn’t look like all the other greedy bastards - it’s rightwing thinking disguised as “for the group”, which is why they worry way more about “the glass ceiling” (which disadvantages high middle class people who aren’t in an “old boys network”, which includes almost all women from thst social strata) rathar than, say, the very low salaries for women who are blue collar workers.
The previous waves of Feminism were of the “we want to be treated like everybody else” (or as I like to think of it: “get out of my way and let me be all that I can be”).
People react very differently to the “gimme shit” crowd than they do the “stop hindering me” one, and sadly the former are a lot louder (as usual for people driven by greed) and have come to dominate the image of Feminism in Anglo-Saxon countries.
With “a lot” you mean the handful of loud obnoxious people who only do that to get attention?
Because that isn’t even close to the majority.
There still are differences in treatment between the sexes, even if you yourself don’t notice them.
For example, just look up what the Bechdel test is and the difference between the reverse Bechdel test. There is still a huge difference how women get treated compared to men in media.
But the other way around also happens. Mothers still get more custody over kids than the Father. Which is ALSO something Feminists fight to fix.
For starters, I’m keenly aware of the disgustingly discrimination against women, especially in the old days - for example, in my home country of Portugal back in the 60s women weren’t allowed to leave the country without authorization from their husbands, very much a “we own you” disgusting level of discrimination - but also in modern days the cultural, legal and economic factors that transform childbirth into a massive torpedo to women’s careers and the main reason in modern days for the clear chasm in income that appears at around the mid-30s between highly educated men and women.
Further, I’m involved in a leftwing party in my country and the “gimme shit” discourse imported from Anglo-Saxon countries is sadly quite common amongst self-identified “Feminists” (mind you, that’s far from the only self-defined group demanding to be given things not given to others - “greed is good” seems to have been interiorised by a whole generation that grew up in the last 4 decades and who think personal upside maximization disguised as “compensation for a group of people identified by things they were born with were otherwise completelly different people than me were discriminated against” is being “Leftwing” because they’re not directly demanding it for themselves), though it’s not the dominant one.
Having lived in that country for over a decade and having also been involved in Politics there, I’ve also seen a lot of that amongst the upper middle classes in Britain around the ages of 30 and below, were it comes from the various flavour of liberals (who are invariably neoliberals, as Britain currently has no real leftwing beyond the Green Party) who again think they’re Leftwing so long as their “gimme” is voice as “give us”.
Meanwhile I’ve met older Feminists and they’re a whole different breed, not to mention women that fought for a better life for all, their whole lives, without ever holding the “Feminist” flag (my country has quite the Leftwing tradition and that was as much women as men).
Sadly it’s got to a point were somebody loudly claiming to be Feminist is almost invariably a “gimme shit” person that’s probably doing more to damage the broader cause of Equality that the much larger mass of Women out there fighting for equal treatment: as I said, what I believe is genuine Feminism is the “get out of the way and let me be all that I can be” kind - capable people who are discriminated against for being women rather than social players who are not against the system being gamed, they just want it to be gamed in their favour.
Mind you, the subversion of the Fight for Equality into competing groups defined by characteristics people were born with (the very same kind of way of reducing people to categories and then generalizing that anchors far right thinking) dominated by people driven by personal upside maximization is not at all specific of the fight for Equality for Women but a far broader phenomenon of subversion of the Modern Left through Divide et Impera techniques.
Unfortunately for Hershey, they only have license to use the Cadbury brand name in the USA and for specific products only. In fact, Cadbury Creme Eggs sold in the USA are made in Canada by Mondelez, who actually owns Cadbury. Second in fact, if you read past the headline of the AI written article you supplied you’ll also find that Mondelez owns Cadbury. Then Hershey, then Cadbury, then Mondelez, but holy shit I don’t think you could have picked a worse article to try and prove you are right in an internet argument. I’m not even sure AI wrote this shit.
This is nothing but a distraction from lecterngate. Sarah Huckabee Sanders used taxpayer funds to pay for a personal trip, then had the Republican party expense a $20k podium from a company that has never sold a podium before to try to hide the embezzlement.
I think that’s the standard fine for the first offense. Plus, the violation was not removing something from his website that existed before the gag order, not something he did after.
The judges are following standard procedure so he can’t appeal things when he is sent to jail.
Just how many laws does this man have to break before he faces any real consequences??
It really is a divide of the rich and the poor, cause if any of us did just one of the things he's done there'd be no question, and we'd be behind bars already.
Unfortunately, to have a squeaky clean trial the prosecutor and judge need to go above and beyond so there’s zero chance trump can come back and claim bias, and ask for a mistrial.
and incidentally, this fear of accusation causes an inherent bias in the opposite direction. Slap him in jail already. Communication only through his lawyers. or maybe only through court appointed lawyers. Because, you know, his lawyers are also likely to be criminals.
He has appeals judges partly in his pocket. If they are handed a case with zero objectionable actions by prosecution or the judge, they’re not going to go full-MAGA and say “we’re letting him out anyway”. If they have even the dumbest little technicality, they’re “just doing their job” in freeing him.
I had a one on one with my boss today. He told me he was very happy that sometimes he doesn’t even know what I’m doing, but he doesn’t get any complaints and all my deliverables are on time. I am for help when I need it and before everything is urgent
Meanwhile he needs to babysit the two most senior employees and have daily meetings with them because they don’t deliver anything on time and is going to force them to go to the office twice per week. I guess not everyone knows how to be responsible, but at least my boss knows he can trust some people
Last meeting with my boss he told me “I don’t know what you’re doing but keep doing it because you’re the most productive employee we’ve got.” Having a job where it’s easy to see what people accomplish day to day clearly helps though…
I think this is what a lot of people here miss. Yes many people can be productive from home, but a few are not and I could see them ruining it for everyone on some teams. If you say ‘just fire them’ you either work for a terrible company or have never been a manager. It doesn’t work like that, for good reason.
The other one I think a lot of people miss is training. I’m not worried about my senior engineers, I’m worried about my junior engineers. The juniors specifically complain about seniors not being around to train them and I worry about their career development. Obviously it depends on the role/type of work/etc, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect some time in the office for senior positions that are responsible for training others. My junior staff shows up to the office voluntarily every day because they see a lot of value in it in terms of technical growth.
And before you say they can just call/message. Sure, but they won’t. Even in the office I have to go up to junior staff and only then do I get the ‘well while you’re here’. I know there’s a lot of shit managers and shit companies out there but I think blanket saying ’ any form of any level of in office work is tyranny!!!1!’ is really oversimplifying things. Also, not everyone writes code for a living, you’re in a bubble. I’ll now accept all your hate
And before you say they can just call/message. Sure, but they won’t. Even in the office I have to go up to junior staff and only then do I get the ‘well while you’re here’.
Honestly, this is where I’d put the onus on you as a manager. The senior staff may not need as much interaction, but the junior staff are the ones that will require more if your time. Daily check-ins with the junior staff can ensure the necessary “face time” and interactions that would spur additional questions from the “while I’ve got you” perspective.
Remote work requires a full paradigm shift, especially from managers. I’m in constant contact with my manager, my peers, and other related teams throughout the day. My manager “comes up to me” by pinging me on WebEx to ask for clarification or to request a task. Sometimes, he’ll ping me and we’ll jump on a call. The interaction is the same as when I was in an office, and a senior manager would come to me and ask questions.
Working remotely does not mean working in a vacuum. Instead of walking across a room to ask Lisa a question, you ping her on instant message instead, and honestly, in my last position, we worked with so many people across the country and across the world that pinging “Lisa” was the only option because she’s in Manila while I’m in Ohio.
Outside of work that requires physical labor like running a forklift or operating a physical machine, a lot of positions simply need to reconsider how they interact with employees rather than making blanket statements about how “we work better together in the office”.
This is what the problem is. If you trust your team, you don’t need middle management whose sole purpose is to hover around. They’re the ones complaining to uppers about wanting in-person time. If everyone’s at home checking off their milestones, what do you need all these managers around for?
I could write a long-ass reply to this, but I’ll get to the point, I rock at multi-tasking and juggling all my priorities. It makes absolutely no sense to me that some random dude should get to what I can and can’t be working on, for the only benefit of meeting made-up deadlines and not mixing “points” up in some burn chart. I am good at this because I know how to exploit my brain to fill my entire days with relevant work. If you assign me stuff at random because of office politic it is gonna be shit.
Oh, man. Can you imagine the misery of being appointed to this post? Literally half of the government would hate and despise you and would look for ways to undercut you just to have an extra talking point while they stand in the hall talking to Fox News. And to top it off, what could you actually do to affect change? I sympathize with the poor workers of this office.
People saying Nazis were just doing they’re job are doing that to alleviate them of any responsibility of their work.
I’m saying it’s just a job to highlight how these people probably don’t care about what they’re doing so long as they’re getting paid. As in, who cares if a bunch of strangers hate you so long as you’re getting paid. That’s actually par for the course for a lot of work.
Your response to someone noting that working for this office has inherent risks due to gun nuts existing and someone responding with “it’s just a job” is to compare gun regulations to the Holocaust. You just followed up a sentence where you said this isn’t about guns with two questions about guns. I think you either don’t understand what the Nazis did or you’re arguing in bad faith. My guess is both.
Also, I don’t have to have a solution to gun violence to point out you’re making a stupid and dangerous argument. Calling people who work on gun safety Nazis in response to someone noting that gun nuts make their job dangerous proves the point.
I don’t know if it was a California thing or not, but back in the day they used to pay you $5 a day for jury duty. The aerospace company I worked at paid full salary for jury duty days, but for a while they required your to reimburse the company for the $5/day. It sort of makes sense philosophically because you don’t need the court compensation if you’re getting guilt paid, but it always seemed kind of cheap. I think they stopped that because they realized it was costing them more to process the reimbursement than they were getting from it.
I know in some states it’s law that if the employer agrees to pay your salary the jury duty wages may(must?) be claimed by the company as income, so they are selling your time at a loss basically. It’s meant to be an incentive for companies to do it, but at $5/day yeah that’s not worth the paper work.
Agreed. Like I said it makes sense philosophically, it’s just the amount is so low it seems miserly.
On the other hand, the company pays full salary for unlimited jury days, which I think is unusual, so I don’t think they’re being cheap at all in reality.
They are just being efficient with their accountant and tax preparers time. The state policy to incentivize employers just isn’t working since there’s not enough value there. I’m a business owner with hourly employees, and as long as the program was optional and paid, oh, half the employee wages I’d be totally on board with it.
The problem. The problem is there aren’t enough restrooms in the courthouse to accommodate that number of witnesses. The cost of sewage maintenance alone necessitates a delay for the trial.
If there is a limit, I haven’t found it yet. A judge ruled today that Cheesebro and Powell will be tried together. Explain that. Can the witness stand hold 2 chairs?
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.