I wish the media wasn’t so focused on stuff like this. It’s only feeding their egos and driving them to even further to out compete each other in the worlds biggest a-hole contest.
For every musk or bezos there are a hundred billionaires whom we’ve never heard of and who are just as greedy. I don’t think it necessarily changes much
Two of the major chains in my area merged a while back and they were required to close down a few of their stores to prevent having a monopoly.
So of course they closed the stores that were under-performing, which just means they closed the ones in poor neighborhoods.
They still owned or kept the leases to the buildings and sub-leased them out with the stipulation that any business taking them over could not carry groceries.
Not only are the people in those areas having to drive a lot further (or spend more time on public transit), but a lot the surrounding businesses to the stores that closed down ended up going out of business themselves.
There’s at least one nearly abandoned mini-small, shopping plaza in town due to this.
Wow never realized it but same. Clemens and Acme went under, then Superfresh. All those shopping centers are still empty or near barren and that was like well over a decade for those to go under
that seems like anti competitive behavior, I wonder if those kinds of stipulations could be made illegal. Also a commercial vacancy tax probably wouldn’t hurt.
They are legal. This is/was Walmart’s M.O. for anticompetitive behavior when one of their stores closed. Any competitors couldn’t lease, other businesses failed when they moved and didn’t have the traffic, and so you are left with both an unoccupied eye sore as well as a food / product desert…
Good idea on the vacancy and potentially changing the law to prevent anti-competitive stipulations like that.
one of my earliest clients working contract security, ran a paid parking lot. this was ages ago, i was the onsite guard for it, one of my things was walking the lots making sure everyone was paid.
There was this idiot in a Jag. parked. started walking off to the strip club next door. I see him walk by me and I warn him. he gets Entitled-Rich-Dude (with a side of Horny-College-Kid. ProTip. Minivans are better for sex in the car. more room. better seating… better suspension.) he stalks off without paying so I slap a stupid “you owe us” ticket- its not even a city ticket… and we’re not going to send it to collection (the lawyers fee costs more than it’s worth.)
Anyhow, he had this proximity alarm thing that sounds off if you get too close. “warning this car has a proximity alarm! it will sound in…”… well, I ignore it, slap the ticket on and go about my job. Turns out the ticket on the windshield is enough to set off the proximity alarm. It was sounding for a couple hours.
his battery drains because the alarm is constantly going off. When he comes out, the thing won’t start. he sees the ticket and calls the cops.
Says I vandalized my his Jag. I see the cops doing their bored questioning thing, so I walk out and basically make sure they see me. One comes over to ask what’s up. So I explained all that. “all i did was put the ticket on. His proximity alarm must have tripped.” “Proximity Alarm?” the cop asks. “yeah. You know those things from the 90’s that are like 'step away from the vehicle…” “So… those are illegal.” (because noise nuisance.) He looked rather happy at that. And up the hill, you could hear this guy making demands of the partner to arrest me. the cop is trying to be “nice” because Entitled Rich Fucks are annoying. The cops basically told him to call for a jump, but ERG “knows PeOpLe”
Any how, after a moment, I say to the cop that had been talking with me, who absolutely doesn’t want to bail his partner out “So, I couldn’t help but notice, there’s a baggie sack covered in suspicious white powder on front passenger seat.”
My cop walks up and looks in the window. They ask him to open the car. (“There’s a baggie with a suspicious white powder. We have probable cause…”)
So the other cop sees this, raises an eyebrow. when he figures out what’s going on… the guy gets a rather evil gleam in his eye.
They start that process over hostess powdered donuts. just to piss the rich fuck off. Ended up citing him for the proximity alarm and left it at that, but not before they searched his car.
(who the fuck drives a jag and then has powdered sugar donuts in it? Ew. that shit gets everywhere.)
I would argue that you don’t have to meet every cop because any cop that isn’t a bastard is driven out by all the bastard cops. Especially if they report anything inappropriate their fellow officers do.
And staying silent while other cops break the law also makes you a bastard.
Agreed. The rookies will assimilate or resign quickly, but given the thousands of departments full of cops, I imagine there may be one whose still “first day on the job” clean.
It’s an assumption i won’t argue against, let’s just put it that way.
I can understand that position, but I would also say that’s more of a technicality than something that suggests the phrase shouldn’t be applied.
I don’t really think anyone thinks, “oho! You say all cops are bastards, but my cousin Jerry was a cop for two days and he is a good person!” is what anyone actually is trying to suggest when they say ACAB.
They start that process over hostess powdered donuts. just to piss the rich fuck off. Ended up citing him for the proximity alarm and left it at that, but not before they searched his car.
(who the fuck drives a jag and then has powdered sugar donuts in it? Ew. that shit gets everywhere.)
Oh there was clear understanding that they were definitely hostess donuts of the powdered sugar variety.
It was a joke on my part and not a serious report. The cops ran with it, because these cops definitely were bastards, and because the idiot Jag owner went full on Karen over something that was ultimately his own fault. (If he had a legal alarm system, if he paid for parking, or he had a shred of self awareness and just called for a jump…)
Cops pull that kind of shit all the fucking time and get away with it because their victims don’t have the resources or contacts to get away with reporting them.
To get back to the warning that I’ve received, you might take it with however many grains of salt you wish, that the brown acid that is circulating around us is not specifically too good. It’s suggested that you do stay away from that. Of course it’s your own trip, so be my guest. But be advised that there is a warning on that, okay?
Just saw a clip on Kimmel of Hannity after the sawdust thing came out still insisting that it is cocaine. Because “it’s arranged in perfect little lines.”
He actually asks, “does that look like sawdust to you?”
If I were a prosecutor, I’d be pressing that question too – not a hard question to ask in the context of everything else on that laptop: admissions of smoking crack, videos of smoking crack while speeding etc.
According to you, they ludicrously try to suggest a picture of what is obviously sawdust on a saw is cocaine. Because that is sure to win them their case.
And that’s why you’re not a prosecutor, just like those guys are just about to not be. And that’s not a joke, a mistake like this and your career is done. Who the fuck’s gonna want the sawdust cocaine guys
A Prosecutor’s job is to find the truth. It shouldn’t be to push a narrative or instill doubt in the facts. The Prosecutor should want criminals to go to jail, not just anyone they can instill enough doubt on.
It’s the Defendant’s job to install doubt, to ensure the Prosecutor has a solid case.
On top of that, I’m pretty sure prosecutors are also expected to tell the truth and not make frivolous charges like “this obvious picture of sawdust on a saw is proof you’re using cocaine.”
Damn, as a woodworker I can’t tell you how many times we used to be talking or messing around in the shop and mindlessly making little lines of sawdust as if it was cocaine. None of us did cocaine, its just what you do when you have a large pile of dust in front of you.
I’m not even a woodworker and I did that with sawdust back in middle school industrial arts class. Like you said, it’s sort of a natural thing to do. Humans like organizing things, even if they aren’t actually able to be organized.
This probably says more about the lack of large scale, peer on peer conflicts since WWII than the capabilities of the Houthis. The Houthis are one of the first groups with the capability, positioning and willingness to directly attack US Navy assets.
This really isn’t surprising. Their market cap was larger than the whole of the rest of the auto industry combined. Had to come back to earth eventually.
I wanted to short it because it was obviously overvalued but I was absolutely not confident it would come down because I will always believe there are greater fools among the Tesla shareholders.
Exactly. Nvidia’s stock is propped up by AI hype, and that’s going to collapse at some point. That could happen tomorrow, or next year, or three years. If I try to short it, I could easily lose the whole investment before the market hits reality.
Something about how the market can stay irrational longer than you can remain solvent…
Michael Burry, who shorted the housing market in 2008 and made big upfront payments for that bet also shorted Tesla in the last couple years, but bailed because it was too risky for him.
In all honesty, 3rd wave feminism chased away a lot of male allies. Like a whole lot.
But I don’t think that’s what led to Andrew Tate, that is no failure of feminism.
Andrew Tate is the product of hyper capitalistic individualism being held up in all forms and media and real life as ‘the ideal lifestyle’, a rich, aggressive asshole that has enough clout that most people can’t back them down.
The Tates, Trumps, Elons of the world are having their day because our current generation conflates wealth with competence.
And it’s going to ruin our world.
That said, feminism as it stands now is far more welcoming and inclusive to men than it has been in 25 years and I applaud the change.
I actually things those people are the last straw of that system. They are the final product of this system and everyone hates it, sooner or later. Your average traditionalist will not recognize himself in Tates lack of manners nor will the liberal capitalist due to his authoritarian tendencies. He is the final product of a terminally ill system and the full displays of all of its flaws. I’m quite hopeful since his downfall because it likely means people will move on from that system
Oh no my friend, it’s going to get much, much worse. There is no ‘he is brutal enough as leader’, there is only 'who can be more brutal and have the power to get away with it.
I wish I could believe in your optimistic view. In my experience the first part is right, but instead of everyone hating it, they will double down because NOW it’s part of their identity and you don’t threaten someone’s identity. People will move mountains to keep their worldview intact.
TLDR: If your legs are broken and you treat one and ignore the other you’ll fall eventually. That’s women’s and men’s rights. True equality is unachievable without both being fully recovered.
Full achieving women’s rights while putting minimum input into issues men face. Rarely ends well for either. High suicide rates, homelessness, alcoholism, etc. Those who try to find hope turn to their jobs, religions, and terrible role models.
Both sides have them but most people ignore the truth. People like Andrew Tate become influential because the underlying problem is ignored. More bad role models (BRM) will pop up until you treat the cause instead of the symptoms.
It doesn’t help that theres plenty information including studies that highlight the problem and proves the points made by BRM.
This is reinforced by several instances where someone wants to bring awareness to the Men issues being harassed, facing death threats and etc. This also happened when the first and only DV shelter for was opened. The staff and everyone involved faced a huge backlash that they ended up closing it.
I know it isn’t much, but you should look up Hasanabi interviewing Tate. He gets clapped and his reactions pierce through that tough guy, strict father model persona of his, and it’s glorious. I was in Romania recently. I should’ve paid him a visit to taunt him.
The less I consider this man the better my general outlook on humanity is, and it’s pretty fuckdamn low these decades so let’s not add more erosion to that tiny bitter flake remaining.
If they’re in California, they might have gains of over a million dollars. The exemption cuts off at $500k of total gains; anything beyond that has to have taxes paid.
So they’re whining about paying taxes on a million dollar capital gain. They can go fuck themselves.
Reminds me of when I was in college in business classes and some would make arguments that raising taxes would cause people not to open a business.
We used to argue around the idea that if someone opened a business, made a million dollars and stood to keep $600k of it rather than $700k of it, then somehow that still net profit means less profit therefore they won’t do it? Genius thought process some people have.
With the exception of millennials, who were born between 1981 and 1996, Gen Z adults are notably less likely than those in other generations to identify as conservative.
Or in simpler terms, both Millennials and Gen Z are equally less likely than those in other generations to identify as conservative.
I'm starting to move up my career ladder somehow, and I feel this. It's very easy to be selfish and vote for less tax, taking advantage of the young and poor etc. Well, I mean, people other than me grab easy money, around my circle. (And when they justify themselves, I feel they show anger in order to warn me from questioning the morality further.
What's making me insist to be on the progressive (?) or socialist side (which I believe is the right thing to do) is maybe I've had enough anger towards the ruling class while I was younger. Or I read enough reddit / fediverse posts from the working class.
What’s more important than the absolute number of your taxes is what they’re being spent on.
I personally like having a nice community to live in, my shit not being stolen, my family not getting mugged, etc. And that means investing in communities so they can be better, so then the people living there will get better jobs, and we all grow our economy and have nice places to live.
If one party is promising slightly lower taxes, but they want to spend those on militarizing the police and book banning committees, you’re not really getting much in return for your tax investment.
My experience mirrors yours. Those who are after material wealth in any context tend to be conservative and define themselves by their perceived successes more than by their personalities. Such people will fill that void with religion.
Get on board GenX. We’re the future and the soon to be majority, so you might as well join the club. We promise we’ll treat you better than the boomers treated you.
The issue is that if Republicans win they will make sure they will win every election from now on. They already started doing it (vote suppression for the black and Latinos for example).
I think people are feeling more inclined to label themselves as LGBTQ when they’re heteroflexible as well as young people better recognizing things like the asexuality spectrum.
The B part of LGBTQIA+ is doing some heavy lifting in this stat. And as usual there’s probably a lot of women who are straight but think they’re Bi because “Margot Robbie could probably get it if that was an option” kinda like a lot of guys who think admitting a guy looks good makes them gay
Because people are already jumping to conclusions without reading the article. Here is the core of the survey data. Identifying as Republican went from 32% in the Boomer Generation to 21% in Gen Z. Identifying as LGBTQ+ went from 4% with Boomers to 28% with Gen Z.
The conclusion I would have jumped to is that the percentage of Gen Z who identified as LGBTQ+ would be greater than that who identified as Republican. So it seems I don’t actually need to read it. 😜
Getting to the sun is actually really, really hard since you have to decrease orbital velocity by a ton. I think guillotines are a much more economical solution.
With that being said, I’m still onboard with giving it a shot in the name of science.
Should just cap out. Like once you get to a certain point the rest of that money is a tax rate of 100% then that money goes into making things better for everyone or a ubi
“Congratulation, we have noticed that you are only earning money as a way to get a better highscore, this means that you gathering further wealth for your own sake is pointless.
This means that any further wealth you gather will be sent to the usefull projects and organizations where it can do the most good.
But don’t worry, your wealth highscore will still be recorded as normal.
By reaching this milestone you can take pride in knowing that you have done amazingly well, and as a mark of this milestone, you will get a statue of yourself in the ‘Hall of financial heroes’ to truly know that you are a great person.”
No need to waste their skills by killing them, just let them keep working doing what they love, but have their work benefit society instead of lining their own pockets.
You obviously need to stroke their ego and play them up as much as possible, but that is a small price to pay to keep the money train going into society.
This only works if your country has good social care… what you’re advocating for is an exacerbation of addiction and mental health crises across the US.
The idea that legalization or something similar would lead to more issues is completely unfounded and rests on the idea that the approach we take right now solves anything and stops people from using drugs. You legalize drugs to IMPROVE the situation, not to make it worse. The repressive approach towards drugs has made all drug issues worse, it is not some sort of dam that is holding back the tide of run-away drug problems, we already have that while they are all illegal.
People by and large do not end up with mental health issues because of drug use, they have mental health issues, or medical issues, or financial issues, which leads them towards drug use, which, with our current approach towards them, puts them into a downwards spiral. A more sane approach centered around harm reduction would be a means to help people in those situations, instead of turning people, who often ended up in that situation through nothing more than an accident or medical issue requiring pain relief medication, into criminals.
A more sane approach centered around harm reduction would be a means to help people in those situations
I’m pretty sure they’re saying the same thing. They’re just saying those means to help people need to be in place before you allow dangerously addictive substances to flow freely in the marketplace.
I do not want illegal drugs, but I also want universal healthcare so that people who do get addicted get the treatment they need.
Also, plenty of healthy, sane, rich people become addicts, so I don’t think your claim about what leads people to drug use is necessarily true.
Depression exists regardless of income. It can be caused by genetics, childhood trauma, shitty parents, etc… So that still falls under mental health issues.
Not in my opinion, because the underlying implication is that a mere change in the legality of a substance would lead to a major rise in its use that we need to counter with an improvement of social care. I’m of the opinion that we would be in a far better situation if we had never intercepted a single gram of any illegal substance or put a single person behind bars for their drug use. Of course we need better social care, but a reduction of repressive approaches to counter the drug issues alone would improve the situation and we don’t need to wait for “socialism” to take off in the US.
Portugal decriminalized all drugs. It’s not as clear-cut as you think. I am in favor of decriminalization, but to pretend there will be no major fallout is not in line with what happened there.
A newly released national survey suggests the percent of adults who have used illicit drugs increased to 12.8 percent in 2022, up from 7.8 in 2001, though still below European averages. Portugal’s prevalence of high-risk opioid use is higher than Germany’s, but lower than that of France and Italy. But even proponents of decriminalization here admit that something is going wrong.
Overdose rates have hit 12-year highs and almost doubled in Lisbon from 2019 to 2023. Sewage samples in Lisbon show cocaine and ketamine detection is now among the highest in Europe, with elevated weekend rates suggesting party-heavy usage. In Porto, the collection of drug-related debris from city streets surged 24 percent between 2021 and 2022, with this year on track to far outpace the last. Crime — including robbery in public spaces — spiked 14 percent from 2021 to 2022, a rise police blame partly on increased drug use.
It’s easy to fall in the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy though. The article goes on insinuating cause and effect, and tucks away the most likely reason at the end of the article, cutting funds of drug prevention to a quarter of what it was.
Of course, but if you cut funds to your social healthcare system towards drug prevention and then point to drug decriminalization as the cause of a worsening situation, you’re not being truthful. That’s why I mentioned the logical fallacy.
Could you give some context? I’m definitely not going to watch it based on just a “take my word for it” argument. He’s been known to toe the line and get rude when people call him out on it. At this point I have to assume he is being transphobic simply because that’s been a problem for him in the past.
Did you miss the part where you told him asking for context meant he was biased? And they’re only assumptions if this was the first time this comedian had ever done a netflix special making trans people the butt of his jokes. Once someone has form for it, and we know he’s done it again, they’re no longer assumptions, they’re a reasonable inference.
I didn’t say he is conservative, just that he drank their koolaid. He’s mirroring their talking points and rethoric, pandering to the Conservative crowd, and not in a sarcastic way at all.
What do you mean by “just read it”. Are you implying the transcript is wrong?
He basically says, as most comedians have, that you should be able to make fun of everyone.
He says (paraphrasing here) Im not making fun of trans people, they have a lot of representation, I’ll punch down on handicapped people instead
It’s not about handicapped or trans people, it’s about the fact that no matter what you joke about, someone will be offended, and you can’t live your life not offending everyone
Also, most of the special was about his dreams as a child, and how other people are dreamers too
He also goes on to give Lil Nas X a lot of props in the special, which if he hated lgbtq people, he probably wouldn’t.
The bits about trans people, which were few and far between, were mostly about how people.took and misconstrued his jokes about trans people in previous specials.
I’ve seen all of them, not once do I think he was specifically targeting and being dismissive of trans people
You can make fun of people without discriminating against them. Dave has pretty consistently made fun of everyone.
He makes fun of himself and his wife for being black and Chinese in this. I don’t see everyone screaming that he’s racist against black or Chinese people
I saw “the closer” and what you just wrote about it is full-on bullshit. Before that one maybe you could pass him off as actually joking, but not after that one.
fuck this “making jokes about everyone” defense. why do all these “I mAkE jOkEs aBoUt eVeRyOnE” Mf’ers ALWAYS make jokes about minorities and punch down? if your “comedy about everyone” is literally 90% about you asserting power and dominance over minorities, you’re just a hack. the power of comedy is so great. you can do so much with it. why use it to make people feel small who feel small all their life
But as it was happening… I was very disappointed. Because I wanted to meet Jim Carrey, and I had to pretend this n*gga was Andy Kaufman… all afternoon. It was clearly Jim Carrey. I could look at him and I could see he was Jim Carrey.
Anyway, I say all that to say… that’s how trans people make me feel.
That’s extremely transphobic and not even an attempt at being funny.
Edit:
“Give me your fruit cocktail, bitch, before I knock your motherf*cking teeth out. I’m a girl, just like you, bitch. Come here and suck this girl’s dick I got. Don’t make me explain myself. I’m a girl”
Also very transphobic, and there’s more.
Here’s the complete transcript of his new program.
I posted the complete context. I just left a bit of how much he loves Jim Carrey.
Read yourself and judge later instead of making up your mind before the fact. You’ll see it doesn’t change for the better but gets worse if you read the whole thing. The part I pasted is pretty much the opener, so you won’t have to dig deep.
A transcript can miss the tone, intonation, body language, facial expressions, and all those other cues that give an entirely different interpretation of the words being said cant it? All those other cues make a difference in what is being said. As humans we react to facial and body expressions a huge amount in order to understand the context of a situation
It does seem better to read the full transcript rather than the whole thing (I have more reading time than watching time) but still not so tasteful. He even says he doesn’t want to offend the transgender community anymore, then makes a joke about misgendering himself at a sentencing so he can be the strong man in a women’s prison.
Yeah, these aren’t jokes which are trying to push a controversial topic mainstream or create a framework for mutual understanding through humor. These are literally just narratives of hate which underpin anti-trans fear politics and actual violence against trans people
“Give me your fruit cocktail, bitch, before I knock your motherf*cking teeth out. I’m a girl, just like you, bitch. Come here and suck this girl’s dick I got. Don’t make me explain myself. I’m a girl”
Ivana Trump told her lawyer Michael Kennedy that from time to time her husband reads a book of Hitler's collected speeches, My New Order, which he keeps in a cabinet by his bed
Additionally, Trump wanted US military generals to emulate generals of the third Reich and treat him like he was Hitler:
It turned out that the generals had rules, standards, and expertise, not blind loyalty. The President’s loud complaint to John Kelly one day was typical: “You fucking generals, why can’t you be like the German generals?”
“Which generals?” Kelly asked.
“The German generals in World War II,” Trump responded.
“You do know that they tried to kill Hitler three times and almost pulled it off?” Kelly said.
But, of course, Trump did not know that. “No, no, no, they were totally loyal to him,” the President replied. In his version of history, the generals of the Third Reich had been completely subservient to Hitler; this was the model he wanted for his military. Kelly told Trump that there were no such American generals, but the President was determined to test the proposition. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/08/15/inside-the-war-between-trump-and-his-generals
Then there's this:
Donald Trump appears to take aspects of his German background seriously. John Walter works for the Trump Organization, and when he visits Donald in his office, Ivana told a friend, he clicks his heels and says, “Heil Hitler,” possibly as a family joke.
Trump seems to aspire to be Hitler-like, and he even tried to take supreme dictatorial power through populism, lies and propaganda like Hitler did.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.