FYI, most non-US citizens of Lemmy wants US citizens to fight and die to secure the marginally better rights they have but didn't have to fight for because it was won by their ancestors who were weighting them against must grimer fates. They know they wouldn't risk death in the same situation. However, they think we are stupid enough to get bullied into it by them.

They will also do exactly nothing to help and will provide no useful suggestions. If it is any consolation, the US is large and influencial enough that we will all go down together.

I'm not defending it, but I can explain it, since it was the same strategy used in drug development in the early to mid 2000's.

Essentially, you have labor costs on your financial reports.

• If you have a blockbuster product, layoffs improve your financials even more.
• Poor product? Layoffs make your financials not look terrible.
• Work productivity goes up too much (unit of work measured / hours of labor)? Well, that means you can do layoffs because you don't need productivity that high. Plus, at least initially it will look even better since you lowered the denominator.
• Terrible productivity? Layoffs make it look better quickly.

Why the fuck would anyone do this? Because individuals are held accountable to quarterly financials instead of long term success. You can only "hold off the wolves" so long before the leader either gets forced to do layouts, quits, or is fires. Companies that are privately owned don't have the same pressure though. Of interest, employee owned companies are also much better, but often take on a terrible work life balance culture due to massive peer pressure without oversight. So even though the "easy" solution is to have employee owned work environments with no management, even that can lead to toxicity.

Just... Just don't walk in the center of every walkway.

I find it funny that you cite that the company is publicly traded as the reason it is following these dangerous paths, but also call it "rigged against shareholders." I think you mean that it is the company and CEOs job to generate real sustainable growth rather than burn credibility for temporary add ad revenue. However, it is still funny given that most shareholders don't understand or care why this is a bad move and would be pushing for the ads if they are not already.

Because at one point in US history hunting black people was an accepted institutional practice. While their are scenarios where it occured with other groups, the implied threat is a return to slavery like conditions for "democrats."

But if it makes you feel better, I'm sure racist white people will try to reintegrate those other groups as less than human too.

I thought the reason people side with Depp is because there are recordings of Heard mocking him for reporting abuse and admitting to hitting him, that he initiated the split, and that she gave an op-ed that suggested he was the sole abuser.

Typically there is a primary abuser and often a retaliatory abuser. What is in question is which is which. The concern is that people who side with Depp often do so because of their own beliefs in women being toxic. However, people who side with Heard do essentially the same. I don't believe a clear picture of Depp being primarily abuser has been established, but would be interested if you had that information.

Edit: also, I'm not on either of their sides. That's one of those situations where I look at it and slowly back away. I'll leave it to people who actually know them/have more information.

"You may have defeated me in the womb brother, but I impregnated your wife. I win."

This is always the question, and there is never an answer.

Dead curious if anyone can provide a legit rebuttal to this comment rather than down voting.

This would be more like cancer treatment being made free for all after a certain date, I can def see someone who went bankrupt paying for their treatment being a bit salty. Hell, Tesla and Apple buyers get mad when there is a steep discount after they buy, and this is factored into costumer relation decisions. Ultimately, people can tell individuals making this posters argument to "get fucked," but it just alienates more people.

They are trying to go back to a system where the rules are universal but selectively enforced against people they consider to be "other." Their shock and confusion is when the rules they create also apply to them.

They can't comprehend a world where laws are applied equally. In this situation, she is arguing that the law was only applied equally because the "left" spread information that the law would need to be applied equally, and would have negative consequences for everyone.

Basically, she wanted white privilege and got the oppression she was trying to force on others.

No, protests could (and should) have happened earlier. They also have.

The No Kings protests occurred but caused little social changes. Given that the US doesn't have the same social support system of other countries, it is difficult for most people to protest for an extended time without essentially destroying their own life.

Due to rampant racism, the Black Lives Matter protests simply resulted in most white people taking personal offense instead of actually comprehending the systematic bias US society has against blacks and minorities.

Occupy Wallstreet lasted pretty long, but was co-opted by fringe social movement groups and homeless plants by police. And that happened during the presidency of everyone's favorite Dep president darling, Obama.

My point is that protesting right now, during an election period, instead of just fucking voting doesn't make much sense given that US society has very clearly marched to this point with everyone aware.

Afterwards, when the system clearly doesn't work, and/if we are still fascist, sure let's fucking riot.

With regard to the "coward" comment. If you aren't in the US, you likely don't have the same social political, economic, or societal factors in place so you can't really judge.

Also, more crudely, if other countries had got off sucking US dick decades ago, it would have removed US soft power, wealth, and resources, and allowed internal social movements to have more weight. As example, we wouldn't be able to amass such a large military if other countries hadn't allowed the US to be their police. So, kindly fuck off and fix you own damn problems so we can do the same, though probably slower because of you cowardly enabling fucks.

Your comment countering their statement literally supports it.

Yes, letting the guy who actively supports the genocide win was a much better option. I'm sure she learned her lesson.

I'm not a Harris fan by any means, but what did she do to "fuck us?"

I mean, her stance on Israel and Palestine wasn't great, but it was massively better than Trump.

Strokes are brain attacks. While the clots that (can) cause them can be cardiac in nature, they can be caused by many other issues as well.

Compassion and empathy are higher level cognitive functions typically achieved after base needs are met. So l, brain damage caused by a stroke is unlikely to make someone have higher level function. Basically, strokes = brain damage, and brain damage = less recognition of humanity in others.

Clicking on posts can switch back to the www version though. I'm honestly over it.

I ... Don't believe you are correct here. The US has the most destructive military (non-nuclear) on the planet. The country simply does not have the appetite to actually commit blood, sweat, and money to this war. If they start striking the US, the US people will see it as an existential threat and be far more willing to dedicate as many resources as nessesary to eliminating the threat regardless of the fact that the US started it. That would be bad for everyone, but especially Iran.

It is far better to have the US population largely split in their support for the war effort.

Which part is allegedly?

I'm fine with this idea. But just so I understand, doesn't not going to the restaurant also hurt the staff? Is the idea to hurt the owner and the staff at the same time?

I ask because during COVID restaurant staff were definitely calling for people to go to restaurants more to "keep them alive." At least they were in my area.

I know this is just a joke, but art should have a difficulty slider when possible if it will require active participation by the audience. Otherwise, it is just excluding people and essentially gatekeeping. Even art house movies and have subtitles, and music is often translated to text or sign.