12751 pts ยท October 1, 2011
If you get a screenshot of this to the front page, I will probably comment and be like, "hey cool, that's me."
Huh, would a criminal in Scotland not be subject to the same federal laws/organizations that have jurisdiction in the city of London? I guess I always figured that the Scotland/England divide was mostly cultural, but the implementations of the law don't discriminate (at least in modern day). Is that not how it works?
Yup, this is how RFK maintains his image (to some). Propose two batshit crazy things and one good one. Guess which one gets dropped as soon as the good press goes away?
There's going to be huge consequences. Just like last time, when he was found guilty of breaking the law and the judge gave... (Checks notes) Explicitly no consequences.
Might want to check again. As of Jan 20 2025, rule of law is dead. We're in full blown authoritarianism now.
I get why blue sky/twitter does this, but it looks so yucky too read a tweet + some ones response: because the response is above the original, I always read the response first
Yes, a huge chunk of Americans are racist and/or sexist and would never vote for Kamala. But those people, almost entirely, are going to vote republican anyway. What Dems needed to do was listen to what the democratic party actually wanted (money out of politics, M4A, Green New Deal, protections for abortion, etc) to get non-voting people to vote. A woman is still very electable if the party/candidate is halfway decent.
It's actually pretty effective: he knows that media will parrot everything he says, over and over for days and days. If he gets people saying "He says they broke the law, he says they broke the law", eventually the window will shift from "that's silly" to "well, let's see if he has a point."Same thing Trump does with "taking Greenland/Panama."
The way to combat is to have an opposing group that focuses on actually making those people's (and everyone's) lives better. Unfortunately, the corporate Dems agree with all of the horrible stuff both parties did before Trump. They don't actually want to help people, so they have nothing to actually offer as an alternative to Trump
I hate this trend of using ChatGPT's response to a question as 'proof'. Just look it up!! I would have accepted a wikipedia article or historical journal arrival as proof enough, both of which come up on page 1 of googling the same question. Moreover, people seem to post ChatGPT responses as some kind of 'even more solid' proof than a historical account. Why?? It's precisely the opposite. ChatGPT is a human language mimicking machine. And sometimes, the stuff it says is actually correct!
We are firmly in the post-information era, at least in America. A ton of people literally cannot distinguish between facts and lies, and cannot reason their way to an understanding. All they have is logical fallacies that feel good (in this case Appeal to Nature), and the charisma of people that claim whatever they like for whatever reason.
Don't worry, a lot of of the firefighters are actually prisoners working for hardly any wages!
There's also a really good chance this was AI generated. Chatgpt usually sounds better than this, but this language model (if it is one) would probably be trained to make very blanket statements with a patient fact in each
I don't think current college kids have ever seen powder detergent outside of a cartoon. Hell, I've been out of college for 10 years and *I* haven't seen powder detergent except at my grandparents house.(Yes, I realize you can probably still pick some up from the grocery store)
Just because evil will try again later doesn't mean someone good didn't happen this time. They may try again, but in the mean time, how many people are getting surgery they otherwise wouldn't? Or getting covered for anesthesia they otherwise wouldn't have? Those people's lives are better, and even if Anthem reinstates the policy in two months or whatever, it won't undo that.
Something good already has come of this: the murder drew crazy attention to all healthcare companies, at a time when Anthem changed their policy to limit how long you can be on anesthesia for an operation. They reversed their policy like a few days after announcing it and like 24 hours after the murder. Would there have been public backlash enough to reverse it without the murder? It's possible, but history says no.
The two methods represent a difference in power structure. A silenced pistol is attempting to hide, because the killer would be punished by the existing powers for their action. A guillotine is a fixture almost like a monument. The existing powers want the guillotine to be seen being used.
The customer to insurance companies isn't really people: it's the other companies that offer this plan to their own employees. For most of those companies, they're happy to go with 'what's the cheapest healthcare I can offer without losing employees'.People may be very dissatisfied with their employer's insurance, but the only practical recourse a lot of the time is quitting.
You say 'too lazy' but I think most people don't have the option of switching insurance because it was decided by their employer. The only options are quitting (which is a big change and the insurance at the next job might be close to as bad) or creating change through something like unionizing the workplace (a huge effort that takes tons of organization, time, and energy.)Or you could buy your own plan but that's crazy expensive.
I don't believe this is sprayed on the paint: rather, it directly coats the metal bed and paint is applied after. Say what you will about modern trucks (and they have plenty of issues), but the truck bed can take a beating.
What makes it so expensive? It looks to my ignorance eyes like a mostly standard chair, with a more comfortable cushion, some aesthetic plastic parts, and colored spokes.
Eh, rereading the tweet, I guess it's a mix. I was thinking of the top half when I said it's really not an opinion, but I think you can definitely argue that the rest of it is an opinion, so maybe I'm just wrong. *Shrug*
This might only be kinda accurate, but I'm just saying it's more accurate than calling that tweet and opinion, which is nearly the opposite of what it is.
Hearsay is a court term but it can still be a thing that's generally true about a statement even outside of a court, just like trespassing is a legal term, but we can still colloquially agree on what does/doesn't count in a regular convo.In this case I'm saying hearsay is more accurate than opinion because the tweeter is claiming validity of facts that they didn't witness. (This is implied. I think we can agree if they personally saw these things, they would have said as much)1/2
I think "hearsay" is a more accurate description than "opinion".
The new phrasing is "directionally true". Ie, it's a lie, but it lets me gish gallop the conversation into claiming another thing is true.
Whether for good or bad, this will almost certainly be a case of Trump: "Do something about your border or Tariffs!" Canada: "We allocated $1m more than last year for border security (as was always the plan)" Trump: "I have bent Canada to my will, completely fixed the border, and done what no other president could do"
Don't forget the fact that these cut services are still *needed*, so the govt and individuals will spend even more in total on the private versions of the things that were cut. So the wealthy will double dip on buying capital during the austerity + making extra from private businesses that people now have to pay for (and govt subsidies)
Regulations are just laws, for businesses. If politicians/media were honest, "deregulation" would be the same thing as "soft on crime". (Or at least, what people think they mean when they say 'soft on crime'. As it stands, 'tough on crime' really just means restricting rights of marginalized groups.)
Don't worry, when we Americans hear "I'm Scottish", we assume they're distinctly *not* British.
(Hit enter too soon.) Rearrange those a bit and you get the Project 2025 plan: Being gay/trans in public is punishable by death.
Huh, would a criminal in Scotland not be subject to the same federal laws/organizations that have jurisdiction in the city of London? I guess I always figured that the Scotland/England divide was mostly cultural, but the implementations of the law don't discriminate (at least in modern day). Is that not how it works?
Yup, this is how RFK maintains his image (to some). Propose two batshit crazy things and one good one. Guess which one gets dropped as soon as the good press goes away?
There's going to be huge consequences. Just like last time, when he was found guilty of breaking the law and the judge gave... (Checks notes) Explicitly no consequences.
Might want to check again. As of Jan 20 2025, rule of law is dead. We're in full blown authoritarianism now.
I get why blue sky/twitter does this, but it looks so yucky too read a tweet + some ones response: because the response is above the original, I always read the response first
Yes, a huge chunk of Americans are racist and/or sexist and would never vote for Kamala. But those people, almost entirely, are going to vote republican anyway. What Dems needed to do was listen to what the democratic party actually wanted (money out of politics, M4A, Green New Deal, protections for abortion, etc) to get non-voting people to vote. A woman is still very electable if the party/candidate is halfway decent.
It's actually pretty effective: he knows that media will parrot everything he says, over and over for days and days. If he gets people saying "He says they broke the law, he says they broke the law", eventually the window will shift from "that's silly" to "well, let's see if he has a point."
Same thing Trump does with "taking Greenland/Panama."
The way to combat is to have an opposing group that focuses on actually making those people's (and everyone's) lives better. Unfortunately, the corporate Dems agree with all of the horrible stuff both parties did before Trump. They don't actually want to help people, so they have nothing to actually offer as an alternative to Trump
I hate this trend of using ChatGPT's response to a question as 'proof'. Just look it up!! I would have accepted a wikipedia article or historical journal arrival as proof enough, both of which come up on page 1 of googling the same question. Moreover, people seem to post ChatGPT responses as some kind of 'even more solid' proof than a historical account. Why?? It's precisely the opposite.
ChatGPT is a human language mimicking machine. And sometimes, the stuff it says is actually correct!
We are firmly in the post-information era, at least in America. A ton of people literally cannot distinguish between facts and lies, and cannot reason their way to an understanding. All they have is logical fallacies that feel good (in this case Appeal to Nature), and the charisma of people that claim whatever they like for whatever reason.
Don't worry, a lot of of the firefighters are actually prisoners working for hardly any wages!
There's also a really good chance this was AI generated. Chatgpt usually sounds better than this, but this language model (if it is one) would probably be trained to make very blanket statements with a patient fact in each
I don't think current college kids have ever seen powder detergent outside of a cartoon. Hell, I've been out of college for 10 years and *I* haven't seen powder detergent except at my grandparents house.
(Yes, I realize you can probably still pick some up from the grocery store)
Just because evil will try again later doesn't mean someone good didn't happen this time. They may try again, but in the mean time, how many people are getting surgery they otherwise wouldn't? Or getting covered for anesthesia they otherwise wouldn't have?
Those people's lives are better, and even if Anthem reinstates the policy in two months or whatever, it won't undo that.
Something good already has come of this: the murder drew crazy attention to all healthcare companies, at a time when Anthem changed their policy to limit how long you can be on anesthesia for an operation. They reversed their policy like a few days after announcing it and like 24 hours after the murder.
Would there have been public backlash enough to reverse it without the murder? It's possible, but history says no.
The two methods represent a difference in power structure. A silenced pistol is attempting to hide, because the killer would be punished by the existing powers for their action. A guillotine is a fixture almost like a monument. The existing powers want the guillotine to be seen being used.
The customer to insurance companies isn't really people: it's the other companies that offer this plan to their own employees. For most of those companies, they're happy to go with 'what's the cheapest healthcare I can offer without losing employees'.
People may be very dissatisfied with their employer's insurance, but the only practical recourse a lot of the time is quitting.
You say 'too lazy' but I think most people don't have the option of switching insurance because it was decided by their employer. The only options are quitting (which is a big change and the insurance at the next job might be close to as bad) or creating change through something like unionizing the workplace (a huge effort that takes tons of organization, time, and energy.)
Or you could buy your own plan but that's crazy expensive.
I don't believe this is sprayed on the paint: rather, it directly coats the metal bed and paint is applied after. Say what you will about modern trucks (and they have plenty of issues), but the truck bed can take a beating.
What makes it so expensive? It looks to my ignorance eyes like a mostly standard chair, with a more comfortable cushion, some aesthetic plastic parts, and colored spokes.
Eh, rereading the tweet, I guess it's a mix. I was thinking of the top half when I said it's really not an opinion, but I think you can definitely argue that the rest of it is an opinion, so maybe I'm just wrong. *Shrug*
This might only be kinda accurate, but I'm just saying it's more accurate than calling that tweet and opinion, which is nearly the opposite of what it is.
Hearsay is a court term but it can still be a thing that's generally true about a statement even outside of a court, just like trespassing is a legal term, but we can still colloquially agree on what does/doesn't count in a regular convo.
In this case I'm saying hearsay is more accurate than opinion because the tweeter is claiming validity of facts that they didn't witness. (This is implied. I think we can agree if they personally saw these things, they would have said as much)
1/2
I think "hearsay" is a more accurate description than "opinion".
The new phrasing is "directionally true". Ie, it's a lie, but it lets me gish gallop the conversation into claiming another thing is true.
Whether for good or bad, this will almost certainly be a case of Trump: "Do something about your border or Tariffs!" Canada: "We allocated $1m more than last year for border security (as was always the plan)" Trump: "I have bent Canada to my will, completely fixed the border, and done what no other president could do"
Don't forget the fact that these cut services are still *needed*, so the govt and individuals will spend even more in total on the private versions of the things that were cut. So the wealthy will double dip on buying capital during the austerity + making extra from private businesses that people now have to pay for (and govt subsidies)
Regulations are just laws, for businesses. If politicians/media were honest, "deregulation" would be the same thing as "soft on crime". (Or at least, what people think they mean when they say 'soft on crime'. As it stands, 'tough on crime' really just means restricting rights of marginalized groups.)
Don't worry, when we Americans hear "I'm Scottish", we assume they're distinctly *not* British.
(Hit enter too soon.) Rearrange those a bit and you get the Project 2025 plan: Being gay/trans in public is punishable by death.