Well, using the stereotype is to reinforce their point. It’s a argumentative tactic. Like if someone said “eating greasy McDonald’s or whatever”, they could have just said “eating unhealthy food” but using specific imagery that plays into stereotypes gives a more emotional reaction.
Maybe, I’m not sure where I fall on that. I view it basically the same as like the “fat American” stereotype- so is that xenophobic? Actually I would say that is worse, because being dainty isn’t necessarily a negative trait to many people.
It was an analogy? I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I wasn’t saying its not xenophobic, I was asking if you thought it was, and saying if you think it is then I agree it is consistent for you to then say that OP’s statement was sexist. Not every discussion is an argument, don’t be so defensive.
Yeah and we’re not talking about pilots or flying here so I don’t know what your point is.
Their claim is that having a gun to defend yourself from someone with a gun works (more guns reducing gun crime), but that facts clearly show that gun control is the way to reduce gun crimes and having a personal defence gun is a liability and increases your risk of being a victim of gun crime.
You’re unable to come up with a response to my argument so you try to discredit me by claiming I used AI to write it?
Can you respond to something without a strawman?
That is not what I said. I told you to ask ChatGPT to rephrase the initial point for you. Y’know so you could understand it instead of strawmanning it.
Why would I spend the time having a discussion with you when you accuse me of using ChatGPT then don’t even have the balls to stand behind your claim?
Yeah, I thought this was just bad faith, but now it’s clearly entirely malicious. I’m not a pro at phrasing, but I clearly said rephrase it FOR YOU.
You maliciously interpreted what OP said, where they never said anything about crime rates, just about ability to defend oneself. You maliciously interpreted the analogy about how a pilots license increases your risk of dying in a plane crash not because riding on a plane is more dangerous when you have pilots license but because of other behaviors that a pilots license correlates with.
God brought us different, but Colt made us equal, blah-blah-blah.
The difference between trained criminal who started and dictate the situation and an unprepared civilian is just too big. Not to say about how seeing a gun or a sudden movement would trigger an instant attack. You overestimate reflexes of a regular person and their ability to use firearms. Self-defence gun in a bag is more of a risk for an owner and others rather than an affective detterent.
Guns should be. Under the lock. People who casually carry them around just in case aren’t a solution but a problem themselves.
People who everyday carry guns, open or concealed, are either paranoid chicken-shit cowards or trigger-happy wannabe vigilante heroes. Neither is a desirable state of mind.
While I don’t blame them and it’s the last group I’d go after, the contention still holds true: a frightened untrained person with a deadly weapon is more likely to cause another problem than to solve the first one
Gun supporter here: you make a very good point and it’s why I think people should have to go through extensive training before being allowed to own one. Way more so than for a drivers license.
Or women defending themselves from stalkers or absuive exes. Or LGBTQ people defending themselves from much, much higher rates of assault than average. I know it’s easy to get sucked into the us-vs-them mentality, but please remember there are plenty of people out there who have damn good reasons to carry.
Sir, this is Lemmy. All we do here is call gun owners small-wienered piss baby cowards. Nuanced discussion is allowed for everything else, but the moment you imply that guns aren’t evil machines only used for crime, you’re a brain dead Christian devout who gets off to school shootings and cowboy fantasies.
It’s not even just guns, in the UK people who carry knives around are more likely to be stabbed than people who don’t carry them. That’s why there are so many laws about when you’re allowed to have one with you even if you need it for work.
Makes perfect sense. Pass laws forcing law abiding citizens to go unarmed while criminals who don’t abide by those same laws can freely ignore them and continue to use firearms on their law abiding victims. Make sure you include some carve outs so politicians and elites can carry or have access to firearms in case the poors get uppity and BOOM problem solved!
Ho ho, buddy! I don’t agree, but I won’t keep kicking ya. The mob has spoken. In this particular instance, they’re right. But don’t take it personally, it could be any one of us tomorrow!
Didn’t the richest person in the world try to do this exact same thing? I’m still convinced it’s the reason he bought Twitter. Those flight logs are public information because they prevent mid air collisions, your not going to change that. No one is going to be putting military grade radar equipment on a Boeing 757 if they can’t even stop the doors from opening mid flight.
Those flight logs are public information because they prevent mid air collisions, your not going to change that.
One way to prevent being personally identified is to not fly around in your own personal jet and use one of the many other available options that aren’t trackable this way.
Lots of information is public, such as your address. That doesn’t mean somebody explicitly publishing your address for the purpose of harassing you isn’t committing an offence.
Some celebrities can’t fly on passenger planes for their own safety and even that of others or the proper functioning of infrastructure. Can you imagine Taylor Swift trying to fly on a public carrier? She would get mobbed at the very least. At worst she might be putting her health or even her life in danger. Especially now that the MAGA morons are attacking her.
I find Taylor Swift bland as beige, I don’t get the appeal at all, and I think Musk is a rabid twatwaffle. I also don’t believe anyone should really get to be so wealthy. Still, there are good reasons why one might need to travel by private means without their movements being broadcast.
Bland as beige; as entertaining as watching paint dry; as creative as rocks. All subjectively true, but if per rabid base of zombie fans come through and sink Trump’s election, I will buy one of her CDs and display it, and pretend to have listened to the whole thing.
Note that isn’t the only option. They can charter private planes. Still not publicly trackable as it isn’t public knowledge that a given tail number equals that celebrity.
Still, if it’s about environment, abstracting the flight to an odometer would suffice without stalkery implications. However I presume it’s not hard to get the tail number for a rando, and then they don’t need any help tracking her in particular, public flight tracking resources would do it. So while she might be able to fight a targeted tracker, probably the worst she has to fear would still be able to track her.
If I were anywhere vaguely in those shoes, I’d always use chartered private planes, limo services, etc. I would not move about in easily recognized and tracked personally owned transportation. Of course I’m not and definitely wouldn’t want to be flying much at all, but if I were in a position where I needed to fly, but couldn’t reasonably risk sitting among random folks, then chartering a flight seems a logical strategy.
Why wouldnt celebrities be able to fly on passenger planes?
If there was some security risk to consider, it would still be cheaper by a factor of 100 or more to just buy a business class ticket and buy some tickets for the security guards too. I am sure, there is also options to organize not going through the public check-in of the airport and to be able to board the plane discreetly before the normal boarding.
Also it is very easy to defend someone on a public plane. the aisles don’t allow for more than one attacker at once, and i am sure there is enough tall muscular men for hire to block all aisles.
Musk is an idiot but that’s not why he bought Twitter, especially when he balked at the idea of paying $10k instead of his offered $5k to do the same thing.
No, Musk bought twitter for a much, much more stupid reason.
Why would anyone want to fight for a country that is so callously disinterested in the welfare of it’s citizens?
In the last quarter-century it has become extremely apparent that the US Military is not the “global force for good” that it wants to portray itself as. Most young people probably aren’t interested in joining up to commit war crimes in the name of making money for the military industrial complex.
After Germany declared war on them? They didn’t defeat them out of good will, in fact, I’d say America and South Africa were the closest things to Nazi Germany outside of the Reich
There’s a difference between being a good country and being a global force for good. In helping to defeat the Nazis, the U.S. was a global force for good regardless of what else they did, had done or will do. The same with Stalinist Russia.
And then they took all the top scientists from Germany and Japan, who were guilty of crimes against humanity, and made them high ups in the American government
The Russians did nothing on the Western Front or North Africa.
But yes, they lost the most lives. I’m not sure why that means it wasn’t a collaborative effort. Are you claiming that if the U.S. and Britain had sat by and done nothing, Russia would have defeated Hitler singlehandedly and liberated Western Europe? Because I find that to be a very spurious claim if so.
Suffering more losses does equate to contributing more to towards the victory. For example America’s Lend Lease Act didn’t cost American soldiers but contributed towards the allied victory.
Not really, no. And let’s ignore the part where the only reason they even fought is because Russia wanted to conquer some of the same land as Germany 😂
The west constantly uses the memory of appeasement to justify its killings today but back when it was happening Stalin tried to start the war when Hitler could be easily crushed. It’s only after the west decided they would rather use the nazis to kill the communists than prevent the holocaust that deal was made.
What are you even talking about? Hitler attacked the Soviets, not the other way around. And it was because they broke their agreement and took territory that they said they wouldn’t.
Appeasement isn’t even relevant in this context, so not sure what you mean by that.
In the context of WW2 appeasement refers to Britain and the rest of Europe giving pieces of Czechoslovakia to Germany. Not a deal between the Soviets and Germany to carve up Eastern Europe.
Every branch of the military has become increasingly toxic, cutting things like training and cleaning up black mold in favor of new uniforms every 2 years
@kvasir476@throws_lemy Suggested edit: After "In the last quarter-century" insert "I've finally noticed".
Butler saw the scam first-hand, 100 years ago. Every generation seems it must relearn the lessons of our grandparents.
As for young people not enlisting for wars of convenience - exactly. That's partially why a draft was around, and why it was so unpopular. And why the money each service pays for college benefits goes way up when there's a shooting war and goes down in peacetime.
My time in the Navy overlapped with the VEAP program, which would give me a 2-to-1 match for college - up to the maximum contribution of $2700. What a joke.
Compare that to the current GI Bill plus extra money each service pays directly.
They stopped offering student loan repayment as a benefit.
What really? That was the biggest reason anyone joined when I was in. Wow. So the headline should be “Military reduces benefits of service, less people willing to serve”
Working class people have to do this all the time and they can’t just pay someone to take care of their kids for a bit and need to work to pay rent. If she gets special treatment for this, I’m going to be pissed.
I work in this industry. The biggest problem with the software is it gave the management companies instant access to everyone else’s current prices. The industry has used “market surveys” for years but you had to actually call around and gather those prices yourself. It’s a very time consuming process so many only did their surveys sporadically.
With the software you had instant access to current price data and everyone pretty much raised their prices to match the market average. Then the newer/fancier properties saw the new higher average and thought “We’re a better property so we can raise our prices above the competition.” Which then led to a higher average that the rest then met again. Rinse and repeat and you have a de facto price fixing cartel.
This is why ‘competition lowers prices’ is a load of bullshit.
Ya’ll ever seen Walgreens and CVS? Same prices, right next to each other.
What about 2 gas station on opposite sides of the street, charging the exact same price for their fuel?
It’s a gentleman’s agreement at best, and a cartel at worst. Either way, no business is going to start an ‘undercut war’ because they don’t want their opponents to do the same thing.
Here’s another fine example: Nvidia and AMD. AMD releases worse GPUs, then just piggybacks off of Nvidia’s ridiculous prices.
It’s all a game to funnel as much money as possible to as few people as possible.
While true, there are some markets where these properties are fighting for a very finite supply of tenants. If they see they are lagging behind in their leasing, they really don’t have any other choice than to lower their prices to make sure they don’t have any vacant units. The industry term is called “vacancy loss” and it’s the one thing the upper management money men actually fear. A unit without someone inside it is literally bleeding money from them so they’ll do nearly anything to fill it.
Hopefully soon they won’t be able to share their prices as easily and they’ll have to fight for their lives by lowering prices to fill vacancies before another property snaps them up.
It’s the reason so many large corporations a talking about RTO, office real estate prices are set to plummet if everyone’s keeping to WFH.
Sadly, that’s only tangentially related to housing (although I believe to have read something about new subsidies for landlords converting office space into appartments).
You’re right, except in 99.9% of these situations they don’t ACTUALLY lower prices. They just offer a “signing bonus” like 1 month free rent, then charge just as much as everyone else for the other 11 months.
That signing bonus doesn’t appear in this tool, so prices don’t actually go down.
I had one landlord offer me $200 off my security deposit if I would clean the two-foot-high mound of actual dogshit from the kitchen before moving in. Like, not even a break on the actual rent, just a lowering of the deposit and she thought I’d be too stupid to know the difference. TBF she probably never returned anybody’s deposit so in a sense she really would have been saving me money.
“It’s a gentleman’s agreement at best, and a cartel at worst. Either way, no business is going to start an ‘undercut war’ because they don’t want their opponents to do the same thing.”
Play any MMO and you’ll see the fallout from that. When it doesn’t actually matter in the real world and people go do that everything plummets in value to near 0 and makes it not even worth your time to attempt even in a damn video game. They’ll never drop prices to compete in reality because of that reality.
Of course not 100%, but it’s supporting what you said because it’s a facet of human nature and how people act. Not sure what your issue is with me agreeing with you?
I’ve been out of it the industry for over 10 years, but we always just looked at online rental ads to set our prices. I don’t see how comparing prices to the average and/or your competitors is a “cartel” or “collusion”.
No, that’s normal and how it should operate. The problem arises when everyone is using the same software suite so everyone has immediate access to current prices, and the software essentially tells you what you should price your units at to maximize your income.
Maybe cartel was the wrong word as it wasn’t an intentional agreement between companies, just an outcome of the system and accelerated by instant access to information. A runaway feedback loop may be more appropriate.
It’s a more efficient use of time, I get that, but you are still operating month to month, on vacancies, and year to year on contracts. The end result each month is going to remain the same.
Of note, RealPage also advised on leaving units vacant to artificially reduce supply. It did this across entire metro areas. This is very much illegal collusion.
Besides being a stupid business model, what is illegal about hiring a consultant to advise you how to run your business? There can’t be a law saying all landlords MUST lease out all their properties is there?
There isn’t a vacancy law in the US yet afaik. But businesses talking to each other specifically to manipulate the market is very illegal. And that’s what RealPage’s entire business model is, pay to share information with your competition and everyone gets to raise rent together.
I think you’re misunderstanding the cause and effect here.
“They did something wrong which is why they’re getting sued” is not the same thing as “they are getting sued, therefore they must have done something wrong.”
I’m just stating a fact. You can sue someone for anything, it doesn’t mean you’ll win. Just because someone sues you it doesn’t mean you actually did anything wrong.
I’m just saying that saying that Tesla is getting sued for doing the same thing doesn’t actually mean anything. It can be said that Tesla did the same thing, but the fact that they’re getting sued for it doesn’t really mean anything until they win or lose (and maybe a little if they settle) the lawsuit.
they can’t change your job in order to get you to quit, though. You don’t have to agree to new requirements, and can get unemployment because they fire you for not doing so.
In this case, this might still qualify as constructive dismissal. Even if it for sure would, not everyone will apply for unemployment, and they can still challenge it, causing delays and getting more people to not pursue it, ultimately resulting in a layoff that’s cheaper than it’s ought to be.
Maybe. If both parties agreed to the change to become remote full time, then they’d both have to agree to change back. Though having a previous non-remote work agreement changed by an international state of emergency does give some weight to the employer side.
Yeah - I’m not a lawyer, but my casual understanding is you can get out of that gotcha if you apply the rule equally to everyone at the company. No legal action against these RTO mandates has been successful so far.
That being said, I didn’t fully read the article. Roblox is offering severance to those who don’t want to RTO - that’s less shitty than a lot of the other tech companies.
If people were hired (say, in 2020) under the condition that they’re allowed to work from home, this might be considered constructive dismissal - that is, forcing an employee to quit in a way that is equivalent to firing them. The employees are then entitled to the normal rules for unemployment, and potentially severance pay, unused vacation cashout, and so on.
I think Musk is facing several lawsuits along those lines, but might be moving to settle because the cost of arbitration would potentially bankrupt the company.
Constructive dismissal only applies when it is used to terminate someone who is otherwise protected, for example a whistleblower. Companies can change work location requirements more or less at will.
Constructive dismissal was advised as a suit by an employment lawyer representing Twitter employees in California in a published article when Musk ordered employees whose employment offers specified work from home needed to work in the office. It’s a hostile change to the work environment that is alleged to encourage employees to quit, as indicated by the messages saying that people who do not return to office will be considered to have quit.
I mean, you’re not necessarily wrong, and I’m sure Elon hopes you’re right. But we will have to see how it plays out. The fun part is that CA law specifies that some types of employee cases have to be tried individually rather than collectively.
They are actually not able to follow up. They are saying resign… not get canned. They actually cannot afford severance. Best way to fight back is not comply, not resign.
Anyone with basic critical thinking skills would have known this whole scandal was bullshit in the first place. Did it not occur to any of these TERFs and transphobes that Algeria (a Muslim nation known for persecuting the LGBTQ community as a whole) is one of the least-likely nations to field a trans candidate?
Yes, it did not occur to them. They simply don’t care. Facts and reason can’t matter to the misogynistic anti-trans crowd. Their whole approach is built on hate and bullshit, and they know it.
They are just so desperate for an Olympic level “gotcha” in their cultural crusade that they just singled out a woman boxer for being “too butch” and just ran with their assumptions.
Then every try-hard wannabe right wing influencer type just gloms onto it hoping to be chosen by the algorithm for ten hot seconds of vainglorious right wing attention/validation.
In order to sell a new vehicle in the U.S., manufacturers must provide information from their own company crash tests to NHTSA to ensure compliance with federal standards.
You’re getting downvoted but people REALLY don’t understand the field of regulation. How many regulators do people think exist? Compare that with the number of engineers and technicians designing building and testing cars at the OEMs? Do you think these people can get 100% validation? Do you think there is budget or appetite to achieve this level of regulation?
It’s not even a desirable goal. Do you think every batch of food and agricultural goods that is manufactured or imported is 100% inspected? How feasible do you think that is?
The point is regulators are generally able to use sound statistical methods to obtain excellent levels of public safety with TINY budgets. Sure, more would be better, but it will never be necessary to get close 100% coverage simply because most humans WANT to make a quality product and most manufacturers… at least have a brand to protect in terms of not killing anyone.
Nobody is asking for 100% coverage, that’s a strawperson argument. We just want someone in the process to have two things 1) the public interest 2) authority to do something.
Engineers and technicians are servants. Capitalists are in charge and they’d poor mercury down and infant’s throat for a dollar. This idea that we should rely on good actors in the system is just another version of “trust us bro”.
I get your sentiment, certainly. When regulations work well they protect engineers and technicians from the pressure to cut corners to save money. That’s hard work that can only be done by well funded and fully empowered regulatory bodies something that’s unfortunately become a political issue and is being actively undermined.
That being said I’ve been on both sides of the engineer-regulator relationship and I’ve rarely been in a “trust us bro” situation. Both sides want a safe, high quality product. When regulators work well, they can definitely protect engineers from capitalist pressure. Being able to say “sorry, I know it’s expensive, but we have to do it or we won’t get certified” is worth its weight in gold when you’re trying to design a good, safe product!
So we do what conservatives keep telling us works for everything, privatize it.
Regulations should be made to require all models be tested by a 3rd party that is not a government agency or government funded. If some schmuck wants to sell something potentially dangerous, it’s on them to foot the bill proving it’s not dangerous. They stand to benefit from the sales, it shouldn’t be on the public anyway to be paying for that.
Public safety should be managed by public entities, not private. That’s a blatant conflict of interest and I’m not a fan whatsoever.
Some things can sometimes work well, like when the regulation is publicly managed but privately tested using straightforward methods. UL does decent work here, but the profit incentive on both sides creates a nasty conflict of interest and puts pressure on engineers and technicians that compromises their work and integrity.
There is nothing fundamentally broken about our regulatory system except politics. If the funding stops getting cut and politicians stop gutting regulatory bodies’ ability to interpret and enforce regulations there won’t be a problem.
Regulators in general care about their work, care about public safety, and use sound statistical approaches to getting the best bang for the taxpayer and corporate dollar. Keeping private profit out of the equation means costs are low and companies aren’t at a competitive disadvantage internationally.
I don’t know about Cybertruck but other Teslas rank high up in the safest cars ever tested. Would be surprising if this wouldn’t apply to cybertruck too though who knows.
Edit: also, 15 to 20k units sold and this is the first fatal crash involving one
Two of the men were introduced to the group as “prayer warriors,” who are part of a group that believes the battle against human trafficking is a battle against “demons.”
Frightening that we have so many of these lunatics in the country right now, pushing and pulling one another further into psychotic delusions.
“And start whacking some — you know, not to make it political — but whole leftist, corrupt, pedophile, this evil thing that’s taken over Nashville,” Sawyer said.
The inability to see the difference between pedophiles and your political opponents suggests to me that you aren’t of sound mind to vote, posses firearms, or be around children.
This shit should be investigated by the FBI. This police chief should be suspended during the investigation, as well as any officers who participated. This kind of bat-shit crazy thinking must not be tolerated in positions of great power over others. This is truly terrifying.
The FBI already investigate LEO across the country more than a decade ago and found that white supremacists were actively infiltrating our police force. Nothing has been done about this finding.
I’m not sure about that. It sure feels like if they had a “normal” CEO, the stock price would tank. The crazies who believe in him are the only thing keeping that stock price up. Voting him out (not voting for his pay package) would, I bet, result in a big stock price correction downward.
Instead they just voted for massive stock dilution in order to hand a greater share of the company to Elon. That will definitely also affect the price.
Ranked Choice Voting! Find your local RCV group and find ways to help get RCV implemented in your city! It’s something that sees opposition from republicans and democrats so you know it’s good.
Ranked choice doesn’t really help here. Generally right-wing/conservative/wannabe-gilead voters aggregate around the republican candidate. Libertarians get stupid but there are very few of them and they start off stupid.
On the left? We have a LOT more infighting but the only viable candidates at the Presidential level (and most, but not all, states) are the Democrat.
So what does ranked choice get us? Okay, everyone picks their favorite third party first. They all get eliminated. So who voted for the Democrat and who voted for the republican?
It also becomes a question of what variation of ranked choice voting is used. Because, depending on the elimination model, you are just normalizing spoiler candidates.
And… there is the very good argument that we already have ranked choice voting in a sense. Primaries. it happens less when there is an incumbent but everyone picks their absolute favorite candidate who most closely represents them. The majority of that then becomes the candidate we vote for come November.
Nah, I think the real answer is to just get rid of the electorcal college at the presidential level and just do popular votes. We have the technology.
I’ll also add on that there is a lot of theory (and even demonstrable-ish evidence) that you tend to consolidate around two-ish candidates even in the models that are fairly amenable to third parties. There are a LOT of question marks because this isn’t the kind of study you can really isolate, but even the third party heavy models (most parliamentary governments, for example) tend to have two dominating parties with a third or fourth that are “just strong enough to get concessions”.
Of course it helps. Sure, the first election wouldn’t see much change, but RCV emboldens third parties to exist and would give them a viable path towards displacing the establishment. Right now there is NO path.
Reforming the electoral college is definitely needed as well, but a much longer runway since it likely requires a constitutional amendment. You can implement RCV without forgoing electoral college reform or abolition. No single change will fix it all, but RCV is beneficial in moving towards democracy and has a lot of momentum already.
I think after people learn and get used to RCV (and when older generations die), their voting styles will change. No more voting solely out of fear. It also requires the major (wealthy) candidates to align more to the smaller (less wealthy) candidates. There’s really no reason to be against it. In some states they offer both styles of ballots so you can just vote for one person if you’d like. The only downside is that it can be confusing to new people.
None of that addresses the points I made outside of a nebulous “wouldn’t it be great if all the boomers died” which… no arguments.
Again, it all depends on what criteria are used to handle the rankings. Because a LOT of models will inherently favor the “side” that can rally behind a single candidate. Which is what we see under a lot of parliamentary models.
I am ALL for election reform. But “it can’t hurt” is not a reason to enact a heavy change. Especially when… it CAN hurt and discriminate against different demographics.
As for “the only downside is that it can be confusing to new people”: You should HANG with my buddy CHAD. Still hurting from that debacle.
Wasn’t trying to address your points because they’re just speculation. We’ve never had RCV nationwide for federal elections so can’t say how it would affect the way people vote. I don’t think the 2 party ruling system goes away with RCV, but it’s a step towards making politics more equitable. There are only benefits to giving voters more options. It’s not that “it can’t hurt”. It’s that it will benefit voters.
How does RCV discriminate? Which demographics?
Any voting system is prone to errors and any change will have growing pains. Doesn’t mean you don’t move forward. People need a way to vote for who they want, not who they don’t want. RCV is one solution. Doesn’t impede on any others.
If we “can’t say how it would affect the way people vote” then what is the point? There are a lot of different voting systems and if you are going to put the effort in to cause a mass upheaval… you need to have a reason. Like I said, I very much favor just getting rid of the electoral college as a good solution because it is the same procedure we currently have but now it means EVERY vote matters at every level (rather than just at every level except POTUS…)
And, again, we can just look at the current election. Basically every republican is fine with trumpian politics and refuse to even acknowledge they would vote against the orange fuckstain when they are “condemning” his behavior. Whereas the left? We can’t stop shitting on Biden. That translates to third party spoilers. Which is kind of the underlying issue of why we see right wing fascism on the rise globally. Because it is a lot easier to rally behind “We all hate this demographic” rather than “Well, I want UBI” “No, I want health care” “Fuck you all, the biggest issue we have is foreign policy”.
Any voting system is prone to errors and any change will have growing pains. Doesn’t mean you don’t move forward. People need a way to vote for who they want, not who they don’t want. RCV is one solution. Doesn’t impede on any others.
Moving forward is something you do with thought. Rather than “Well, I’m bored. Let’s redo everything because it might be better”.
To assume that all of the progress people are making towards RCV is without thought is incredibly ignorant. Lots of resources you can research to understand the benefits, how it works, and case studies for where it’s working now.
If you don’t support RCV for some reason, just say that. You have to criticize those who are working towards something that’s actually benefiting voters.
You can sit around and wait for electoral reform, but change happens in baby steps. You don’t just jump to a constitutional amendment if nobody can get behind something like RCV.
Yeah. This happens with basically every “political movement”. You have some people who actually have put the thought in. And then you have hordes of people who can’t even explain simple things like “how does this not just embolden spoilers” or how does this meaningfully solve the two party problem" (a problem which, again, is prevalent even in more praised election systems).
Let alone “Oh, the only problem is people might get a bit confused”
People just see “oh, it is different so it must be better” and ignore all other aspects of it. It is what led to the rise of libertarianism in the 90s and tankie dumbasses in the 10s.
Sanders was crushed by Clinton in the 2016 primary elections. It was clear pretty much from the start that she was going to win. You take away all the super delegates, she still demolishes him. Did they show some favoritism towards her? Sure. Did they call him some bad names in private emails? Yes. Did she get a few questions before a debate? Yes. Is there any evidence that the election was rigged and stolen from Sanders? No, none at all.
This insistence that the Sanders was somehow robbed of the 2016 nomination (or 2020 nomination at that) is equivalent to Trump’s claim that he was robbed in 2020.
Can we please not continue to relitigate this until the end of time? We will be in line at the republican death camps and people will still be arguing that sanders won in 2016. It serves no purpose other than supporting the idiots who would rather a republican win than a democrat who isn’t Sanders.
When they start screaming stop the count or restart the count or whatever: Smile, nod, and ignore.
I don’t really think I’m going to convince that poster. I know, like Trump supporters, they are probably long gone and no amount of pointing out that they have no evidence is going to convince them that the DNC not screwed him, Sanders would have won. I just watch young people shifting towards the right, and it’s probably partially because of these dopes spreading this lie about the democrats, so I’m speaking to anyone who might come after them.
I doubt being grumpy about Sanders is going to shift folk to be right-wing. A lot of them probably HAVE become tankies but… the Sanders campaign was already very heavily buoyed by tankies online. Because it would have been shooting fish in a barrel for the candidate most known for “fun nicknames” to be up against a guy who used to be a meme about how c-span was boring and actively refused to even say “While I think the socioeconomic model had a lot of benefits, I oppose the fascist communist regimes of olde”.
But also? I know a few of the dumbest “Bernie or bust” morons you will ever see who focused that anger toward working with the Democrats to get considerably less shitty downballot candidates. And that is what the lesson should have been.
I doubt being grumpy about Sanders is going to shift folk to be right-wing.
It certainly turns them off of the Democrats. So maybe not a shift to the right, but certainly conditions where it increases the chance that the right is going to win. If Bernie bros had just accepted the outcome and then coalesced around Clinton, she likely would have won and we wouldn’t be in the same mess we’re in now.
So you’re saying the DNC’s actions undermining the primary election had real consequences?
No. I made my argument was clear from the start, you even initially argued against my actual point, and I just restated here. And now you are dishonestly trying to spin the argument into something else.
I guess you realize that you’ve got nothing, which is why you are so desperate to make it about something else now.
Your initial statement was clear but your subsequent comments across threads have not been.
It went from the primary was clear and upstanding, to there’s good reason to doubt the results, to it having no real effect other than some nasty words spoken, to it costing Hilary the election.
The people who are dumb enough to have a life long grudge because one candidate they liked didn’t get the nomination were never going to support the party to begin with. The moment ANY candidate was not exactly what they wanted they were going to throw a hissy and run away.
Because… they are not leftists or even left leaning. They are just spoiled children who decided they wanted something and are now mad they didn’t get it. If they actually cared about politics or social issues, rather than what the hasans of the world say on stream, they would be angrily voting for Biden anyway.
The people who are dumb enough to have a life long grudge because one candidate they liked didn’t get the nomination were never going to support the party to begin with.
The poster is claiming that the DNC rigged the election against Sanders, or at least were so unfair that it’s fair to say he might have won otherwise. If people believe they are actually this corrupt, it will turn people off from the party. I’ve already stated that this is not about the dopes who have convinced themselves, with no evidence, that he actually got screwed. This is about stopping other people from falling for the lie.
Again, if they are dumb enough to believe that the DNC actively sabotaged the party because Reasons then they would otherwise be dumb enough to consider themselves “moderate” or “apolitical” under any other context.
At which point… it doesn’t matter. Someone who is going to refuse to vote because 12 years ago jet fuel didn’t melt steel beams or whatever are going to refuse to vote because “my vote doesn’t matter” or “this candidate is too old” or whatever. And they are the kind of voters who are swayed by the strongman bullshit anyway.
Anyone who ACTUALLY cares about politics and social issues are going to vote along those lines. We won’t like it but we will. And the rest? They are just as easily won over by one snazzy commercial before a pewdiepie video. And then they still won’t bother to vote because they are angry that they were asked to pick a political party when they renewed their driver’s license ten years ago.
The DNC heavily undermined and consistently sabotaged Bernie’s campaign the point that the DNC chair stepped down and the DNC then apologized “for the inexcusable remarks made over email” that did not reflect the DNC’s “steadfast commitment to neutrality during the nominating process.” (From the wikipedia link below).
From the 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak: In the emails, DNC staffers derided the Sanders campaign. The Washington Post reported: “Many of the most damaging emails suggest the committee was actively trying to undermine Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign.”
Bernie was absolutely robbed of a fair primary election.
The DNC heavily undermined and consistently sabotaged Bernie’s campaign the point that the DNC chair stepped down and the DNC then apologized “for the inexcusable remarks made over email” that did not reflect the DNC’s “steadfast commitment to neutrality during the nominating process.”
We all know and agree that they said bad things about him, but do you really think making “inexcusable remarks” in private actually supports the claim that he was “heavily undermined and consistently sabotaged”?
Bernie was absolutely robbed of a fair primary election.
The only “concrete” thing you cite is that “they said nasty things about him in private.” No actual evidence of them doing anything to undermine his chances. The worst concrete thing that came out is that Clinton got some debate questions early, but do we really think that is going to lead to a 12 point swing? No way.
Convenient you skip over the undermine his campaign portion of my previous comment. But the fact that the Chair of the DNC resigned over it shows it was more than just saying “nasty things about him in private”.
It should also be noted that their actions “caused significant harm to the Clinton campaign, and have been cited as a potential contributing factor to her loss in the general election”. It is not as inconsequential as you present it.
Because it offered nothing concrete. It just says the emails “suggest” this, but doesn’t actually offer up anything of substance as to how it was done.
But the fact that the Chair of the DNC resigned over it shows it was more than just saying “nasty things about him in private”.
And yet, all you can point to is them saying nasty things in private.
It should also be noted that their actions “caused significant harm to the Clinton campaign, and have been cited as a potential contributing factor to her loss in the general election”. It is not as inconsequential as you present it.
I’m challenging the belief that Sanders had some chance in the 2016 primary against Clinton, and that there is good reason to believe it was stolen from him. I understand that the leaked emails were massively consequential.
Is there any evidence that the election was rigged and stolen from Sanders? No, none at all.
This insistence that the Sanders was somehow robbed of the 2016 nomination (or 2020 nomination at that) is equivalent to Trump’s claim that he was robbed in 2020.
It was literally the central theme of my initial post to you, and explicitly stated.
From the 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak:
From the Kremlin hacking operation that passed both true and false info to Assange who said in a memo that they wanted Treason Trump to win which was documented in the Mueller report.
Why did Putin NOT leak RNC memos? Because he has been blackmailing the Republican Party ever since.
As you should be as this is part of the reason why Ttump got elected in the first place.
Yep the same Kremlin propaganda operation that elected Convicted Felon and Sex Offender Treason Trump also “supported” Bernie to help get Treason Trump elected.
It’d also be nice if they couldn’t just override the primary election results because it’s not a “real election”
That is some Trumpian level of bullshit. They cannot do that because it is against the Charter since the 1950’s. And yes legally the DNC could change their own charter but so can the RNC. Changing party charters to nullify primaries would spell certain doom for that party.
Yes, I’m still a bit bitter about how the DNC treated Bernie in the 2016 election
You and the Kremlin are bitter about how the Dem primary voters treated us Bernie supporters in the 2016 election. Got it.
They did not override that one. Sanders did not even win the non superdelegates. That’s not to say the 2016 Democratic primary was not fucked. Party officials clearly had a preference and were obviously pushing Clinton. Showing the super delegates planned counts before they actually voted made it seem like Sanders had no chance. They need to minimize the number of super delegates so that they can only decide really close primaries.
I was curious about this. Since political parties run their own primaries, then they can decide to use whatever voting system they want. I suspect that RCV primaries would produce a candidate that is more competitive in the general election (though I don’t know enough about electoral math or demographics to be sure). I’m certain that RCV has a tendency to discourage scorched earth campaign tactics, so party candidates would be less prone to trying to destroy one another.
Could you give a quick primer on what STAR voting is? I got a star from my teacher some 30 years ago, but somehow I doubt the system is based on those…
STAR, or Score Then Automatic Runoff, differs from RCV in that instead of ranking the candidates in order of preference, you can assign a rating to each, out of five stars. All of the stars are added for each candidate (score), and the ones with the fewest stars are eliminated (automatic runoff), then the scores are added again, another runoff, etc.
So say you love candidate C, you dislike candidate B, and you hate candidate A.
In an RCV system, you’d rank C,B,A, and if C is eliminated, your full support goes behind B, but in the initial scoring round, only your top ranked candidate gets your full vote.
In a STAR system, you’d maybe give C five stars, B two stars, and A zero stars. You’re still giving some support to B for the initial scoring round, but most of your support goes to C.
So the biggest difference is that in the initial scoring round, your preference for candidates other than your first choice are considered. Check out this video, which gives a good breakdown of voting systems and how they account for spoilage: youtu.be/oFqV2OtJOOg?si=8sLYiYpA7EnOt94i
You gotta consider how many viable candidates aren’t throwing the hat in the ring because there is no chance for them to get even close thanks to the current system, plus they’d be labeled as spoilers.
Honestly my knowledge of ranked choice voting is that it works better for reps other than the president, and that our basically one guy wins it all form for presidential elections feels like ranked choice would work less. I’m willing to be wrong. I’m not sure if I actually like systems where the majority party picks the head of state, but it does feel like ra ked choice voting makes it matter more there.
Yeah. Nobody wants to acknowledge it because they watched a youtube and define themselves by “ranked choice” (and most don’t even know the specifics of the criteria they are supporting…)
Ranked Choice makes a LOT of sense at the county and state level. Because that is where third party candidates already have good odds if they actually represent the will of the people.
At the presidential? And with electoral college nonsense? The amount of money required to run a campaign and the tendency for certain chuddy demographics to rally behind one shitstain mean that you only really have two viable parties and ranked choice, at best, is a noop. At worst it enables spoilers.
Which… is also why a lot of parliament based governments still tend to have two major parties. They just have more splitting but… we already do when you realize that AOC and Hakeem Jeffries are in the same party.
San Francisco has had ranked choice voting since 2004. IIRC they called it “instant run-off voting” and it would save from having a run off election for the mayor and other elected officials.
If he left, the stock would bounce up 20%. Put an engineer at the head and start producing decent model 3, Y. Work on reaching 25k MSRP. I’m sure there’s bottlenecks and inefficiencies that could get them there.
Tesla stock is worth more than most other car companies combined. Musk’s genius is knowing how to pump stock. The company would do much better without Musk, but the stock would tank. No one else is willing to lie, cheat and sacrifice safety like Musk to keep the stock high.
I can certainly see that argument, but I’d counter that eventually the Musk bubble will pop and that day is coming like a freight train. Better to ditch him now while they can than suffer the cost of keeping him.
Tesla is in the sp500. Investors in that area tend to want long term results. It’s sold on the basis that you stick your money there and ride it for the next 20-30 years.
They could also abandon the cybertruck and focus on building cheap easy to repair shit boxes. Theyd corner the market by simply being affordable. Especially if they abandoned the BS futurism crap.
Sometimes, a “reasonable accommodation” is to let them quit.
It cracks me up though. they accomodated him. Put him at a station that didn’t have a flag. then he went and removed the 3 other flags that were simply in view…
13 I set My rainbow in the cloud, and it shall be for the sign of the covenant between Me and the earth. 14 It shall be, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the rainbow shall be seen in the cloud; 15 and I will remember My covenant which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. 16 The rainbow shall be in the cloud, and I will look on it to remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.” 17 And God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant which I have established between Me and all flesh that is on the earth.”
What I hate the most is that his whole excuse is bullshit. The Bible dosen’t even know what being gay is, it’s only against bronze age booty thief power displays, it knows absolutely nothing about being trans, these people really need to start specifying that they are against ‘loving thy neighbor’ because they interpret out of context verses written in old English they don’t understand to mean they can hate people they don’t like or are currently pretending not to be one of.
There have always been gay people, and in every culture, though. While trans is a relatively modern concept, there have definitely been gender-variant people across cultures too.
The fact that it’s been vaguely mentioned at all in the Bible suggests it was a non-issue. Romans, for example, social advancement revolved around patronage… which involved gay sex.
The only modern part of things are the hormone medicines and surgeries we have now. And the language and terms we use. But people being trans, intersex, both sexes, neither, etc, etc is as old as humanity as far as we can tell. There are ancient examples of things like I think it was a grave of a person born female, but was buried with armor and honors of an exclusively male role, like a warrior something. Like a “Mulan” type thing. Which means either nobody knew they were born female or it didn’t matter.
I didn’t mean these groups didn’t exist, but no legitimate scholar has found any evidence of ancient Hebrews having any concept of sexual orientation or trans identity as we have today. They DID have 6-9 genders, and Jesus himself mentions 5 genders, so it’s not clear how people we call homosexual or trans today fit into that culture. Jesus mentions Men, Women, Eunichs by birth, Eunichs by choice, and Eunichs by force, and there were other designations by his culture, the Bible very specifically forbids one sexual act, a man penitrating a man. No mention of sex with eunichs of any variety, no mention of non penatrative sex, no mention of women having sex with women, it does forbid men dressing as women and women dressing as men, but it is forbidding only the deception of the act, where did men who decided they were in fact women fit in? Is that a deception? We don’t know, and we know rabbis of the day we’re capable of very nuanced application of law, there’s records of entire arguments going on for hours worth of legal analysis, like how to treat a man who’s testicles are crushed, or if his penis is damaged to prevent typical ejaculation, what the law requires, what common sense requires, we also know the law section of the Bible was never in fact a legal system used by ancient Hebrews, it was literally propaganda, and it’s largely draconian, and the legal system used in fact, wasn’t. Rabbis rarely if ever sentanced anyone to death, they viewed human life as sacred to God, so the risk of falsely executing anyone was considered too high a risk in almost every case.
My whole point is, if you honestly study the text, there’s clearly no stance on homosexual orientation, and no stance on trans identity, what isn’t ambiguous or lacking a mention on, is what ‘‘love thy neighbor’’ means and how to apply it to your life, and how high a priority it must be. It’s very clear. Treat others beyond baseline humanely, do all you can to help others, do more than is expected, and never fail to forgive even highly repeated sin, or face the judgment of God, as any negative effect you put on others, God will act as if you did that directly to him.
To throw that all out for the opportunity to act as if hate and abuse are validated by their religion is the definition of evil.
The number of outspoken atheists who started out diligently learning all they could about their faith, often to become a leader in their religion, is high. You don’t have to know much to find out a very old collection of mythology, propaganda, sermons, prophecy, and history is NOT a magical intruction manual from God.
Here’s John 3:16 in Old English: “God lufede middan-eard swa þæt he sealde hys akennedan sune þæt nan ne for-wurðe þe on hine ge-lefð. Ac habbe þt eche lyf.”
Fair enough, but it’s still not modern English and it’s easy to read a verse in the KJV Bible and think it means exactly the opposite of what it says due to language changes
Considering it said “[Don’t share with candidates]” and allegedly the Indian employee is the one who shared it with candidates, I think I can guess what he was righteously “disgruntled” about!
Even if the guy happily posted the ad, that is the most tone-deaf way they could have responded to this. Even just coming out and saying, “yep, we meant whites only when we said whites only” would have been less tone-deaf.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.