kuraudo

I'm ready for the guillotines to make a come back at this point. I've lost friends to this; it's personal.

Demanding anything of a representative that goes contra to their donors, who grace both sides with their money, is a quick exercise in failure.

Even if it exists, it's not something the public has true access to. These laws are not made for the benefit of the masses.

Ultimately, it will be less about what is 'right' and more about 'well it happened so long ago in the past and there is nothing we can do about it now'

See the current plight of the Native Americans for what I fear will be the template for decades to come with other minorities.

Thank you for pointing that final point out: as I read the article, I was feeling that something was off with the labelling of the imposter.

> One Gallup client that focused on propelling organic growth through effective workplace culture found that engagement reduces turnover in critical high-turnover roles by 36 percentage points and reduces the 100-day attrition rate by nine points.

I think fair pay and better working hours have a lot more to do with employee retention than so-called engagement. I manage a team that is well compensated and has excellent work life; we work on some really boring stuff, but this team hasn't lost a single employee to more interesting work over the years.

I don't think it's an issue of getting the same amount done in fewer hours, I think that those hours are likely the actual productive hours anyway so we might as well adopt that schedule as you advocate.

I think the animus is against overworking people for low pay with virtual monopoly protection against labor unions or alternatives, although I'm sure there are those who also advocate for universal basic income. I'm not sure that I believe cut-throat capitalism is the only answer, but I feel your sentiment that the alternative solutions are not well presented at the moment.

How can we determine what the percentage is? I'm also in your boat in feeling well compensated and not overworked, but I anecdotally feel like I'm very fortunate in this regard despite what I thought was the norm.

I do find it odd that, given the reported reduction in carbon emissions from covid, that governments are not outright mandating work from home for compatible jobs as an easy win to this problem.

I don't think strawmanning political parties is particularly helpful here.

Disclaimer: I'm not defending their point of you, just reasoning through it.

My naive take is that it calls into question if the supposed catastrophe (from the 40%'s point of view) is real if the leaders aren't taking it seriously themselves. "objectively true" only works if you understand the problem without, from your point of view, suspicious people explaining it to you. In this case, the suspicious people would be the primary ones telling you that you have to pay this tax while they are mysteriously exempt.

For now; new laws should be created to take away that right.

Very interesting; I wonder if the reported viewership dropoff is because the numbers come from cable viewership numbers only, drop in interest in the Olympics in general, or what this article is talking about regarding making it so hard to actually watch.

For myself, the only reason I was reminded the Olympics were a thing was because of articles like this.

This is what I do as well; I would add the caveat that foreign news sites written in english are absolutely pushing propaganda on you regardless of whether it's about internal politics or foreign politics. Russia Today is even up front about this; the point is the propaganda itself is useful in order to detect what the actual arguments are. You do not get this by reading only one opinion as the only other viewpoints you will receive will be strawmans.

I'm not sure that's actually the case here; anecdotally, but a lot of the criticism of the former president at the time came from his bold statements that he never bothered to correct. Though, to be fair, that's probably not the only reason his former supporters did not come out to vote for him in round 2.

The problem is that the people admitting these mistakes were not necessarily the political figures advocating them to the populace at large. I imagine a fair bit of opposition to the safe vaccines we are able to enjoy is due to skepticism of political figures not owning up to their initial false statements. For example, I distinctly remember the former president stating loudly and repeatedly that Coronavirus was no big deal (paraphrasing), that it would disappear overnight, that the United States was well prepared for it, and so on. I do not recall any mea culpa's being issue: just one new bold statement after the next.

To be fair to our conservative friends, I'm sure this behavior is not limited to only one political party.

Your point is well taken: I want to argue with you that Camp 2 will never be seen as correct, but as I see restrictions lifted despite the large number of unvaccinated individuals which remain, I can't help but wonder if it will actually play out as you say.

I think part of the problem people are having with the vaccines which have proven to be well-tested and safe is that there is already a non-insignificant portion of the populace that thinks most vaccines are unsafe by nature.

Yes, currently they can. The argument is that this is not desirable given how much sway these companies have over politics. For example, I have read that Donald Trump was elected as a result of Twitter; I wonder if he can win re-election when all of his support inevitably gets banned? It will be interesting to watch.

If the public square has become the internet, it behooves the government to regulate it for political speech in the same way they do sex,race,religion, .etc.

Any chance of that working went out the window now that they demonstrated the willingness to kick people off of the service altogether.

Who gets to decide which state is hostile? We should be friends with Russia, not blaming them for all of our woes.

I had no idea; most history taught in the states appears to focus on non-european events until, suddenly, holocaust.

The problem there is that pre-european American wars aren't as interesting as, say, any era of China's blood-soaked history.

Not all conflicts are created equal I guess.

I think you hit the nail on the head. The fact that you're also tested on useless tidbits like the kind of pottery some tribe used is soul crushing as a child.

That or they don't care. I'd be very interested to know what kind of positions the friends & families of these judges hold related to the mergers they approve.

In a perfect world, what you said would be how things are actually decided.

I get what you're saying, but that shouldn't matter in a sane world. This merger is bad news for the citizenry.

I don't think it's possible to deny it at this point; you'd have to be blind not to see the hatred directed towards white people. This behavior is both encouraged and protected by the culture & institutions running the western world at the moment. The opposite is cracked down upon swiftly.

This isn't exactly the best time to be a white male. There is a lot of hatred, both institutional and cultural, directed their way.