#politics
1 messages · Page 60 of 1
I think that trump's been the only president in the past like 20 years or something stupid who openly supported LGBT people before running for office
trump changed a lot of his values once he ran
I think that a lot of issues are pressed to be too "flat" once they get into the hands of the media
There are defo some issues in which concerns me around trump, but, I think it's pretty clear that the media had a proboner against him on one side and a proboner for him on the other
yeah definitely
probably deserved in that case however
but I don't think is something that should be used all the time as a media reporting tool
The problem is the media camps
CNN had a fucking huge boost over the past like 5 years riding the trump hate
yeah 100% most media did
Fox has some convervative presenters but all in all the network sorta like tends to grift between what seems to be the most popular opinion in their circle of knowing that they're conservative tainted
The problem now is finding how to keep that train going
Fox ain't gonna go full demmie, but, you could defo see a change in their presentation after biden was declared the winner
they fucking uni reversed faster than your spinxher closes when you jump in a freezing cold pool
I think traditional media is doing ok but this new online media kind that is now showing their clear lack of experience and basic understanding of how political systems work
idk that fox is a bunch of grifters... they just didn't go as far right as the base they radicalized lol
And it sucks because most of the are left and that fucking sucks when you have to conceed SO MUCH ground about shit that stupid leftists say while still saying your party is good and those people are a minority
I mean, as somebody who sorta like watches a few media sources here and there, there was defo a huge switch in their presentation once biden won
Like, maybe not the same day, but, there was a defo switch in the general sorta like representation, they didn't go demmie but defo cut down on the trump level politics
Yeah mainstream media is pretty well behaved now
The fucking online grifters are the ones that have gone fucking apeshit
most of them are socialist too so you can't really expect them to be rooted in reality
There's very little actual decent online leftists
Biggest issue I see is that very few are willing to call out their own party for shit
and then seemingly project that onto the other side
Like, i've seen it even in here, as somebody who leans right there was a goooood few people in here who was basically screaming as if anybody on the right supported what happened on the 6th
I think that issue lies more in republicans nowadays
and, it's like, no, not at all, fuck those who did that
yeah
Teenagers have been having fights including fights involving knives for eons. We do not need police to address these situations by showing up to the scene & using a weapon against one of the teenagers. Y’all need help. I mean that sincerely.
773
4623
Oh ok. Haven’t people been murdering each other for eons to? Do we need police to address that?
Is having a knife fight suddenly an OK thing?
Police are trained to deescalate stuff
Yea, that's correct, and they defo need better practices there
but, how the fuck you you deescalate somebody tryna shove a knife into somebody as you get out of the car
like, jesus fuck
and if the woman stabbed the other person if they tried to de-escalate the situation people would be morning the knife victim and screaming about how cops refuse to defend black people
Yeah, de-escalation is the ideal goal, but this girl was about to stab someone right in front of the cop
Like, it looks to have gone from 0-100 in about 3 seconds
their Twitter name pretty much automatically voids them from having any valid opinion on US politics at all
Girl, not woman. She was 16
And to the whole “why didn’t the cop shoot her leg or smth”, hitting a smaller part of the body isn’t as easy as movies/tv shows would say. Cops aren’t Jack Bauer where they are all literally the best marksman, especially under stress. You shoot at the largest target to ensure you actually hit the person.
From the video, after the shot, I get the feeling from the other 2 cops there that they were shocked at what had just happened.
It happened so fast, I don’t know if they just didn’t see, or if there was a better action to take to resolve the situation and it’s not clear in the video
Getting shot in the leg can be more deadly than a gut shot anyway
Old school gut shot you'd be more likely to die from infection or internal bleeding they didn't find but now you really only worry about how long you'll be stable and you can bleed out pretty fast through the leg
without ever having been shot i think i'd want to be shot in the gut rather than the leg
gut over everything really lol
there's a spot in your shoulder area where it can hit like nothing
Yeah that or a graze, otherwise you're fucking up a bone or muscle I want to use 😛
oh, yea that'd be more preferable just a graze lol
I could see on your chest between your lung and your actual shoulder blade maybe, you'd just break your collarbone
Which is still pretty bad, hurts to breathe
Looks like Lebron deleted this tweet.
Which... is probably a smart move
(That’s the cop who shot the 16 yr old in Columbus yesterday)
oh boy, so many ways you could interpret that tweet
yeah exactly
This is why you don't ragetweet
more like rather too many people don't have the ability to decipher what the truth is -- we read too much sensationalized, exaggerated sources
the internet made it so that the individual has more autonomy over what news info is taken in
but with social media algorithms tending towards feeding people into alt-left and alt-right propaganda, there's a larger proportion of people taking in radical opinions written online
the public has went from relying on more or less neutral sources like BBC and our local news stations, to modern day CNN and FOX. If you look at FOX and CNN's ads for their news stations from the 90's, boy is what they say ironic to what they stand for today.
also i didn't know tasers had to be charged before they are used. is there no way for a taser to be more quickly deployed with advanced technology?
but yeah, seriously the cop was in a lose-lose situation then, shoot the knife wielder or let the stabbing take place. but i guess people can argue the stabbing wouldn't have been lethal or that the cop didn't have to fire four shots
I believe the biggest issue in the modern media is journalistic objectivity has been pushed aside for clicks. Basically traditional news outlets have been feeling the squeeze of social media where anyone can be a journalist and are struggling to capture the attention of people unless they use similar tactics to the people getting the best results on social media. Sadly most of those people are radical.
very few people here in the UK trust the BBC
Well, I mean, by % points, a good chunk of people have cancelled their licenses
I know I'm one of them
We're talking about the company which harasses people because they can't afford a license or don't wanna pay for a service they're not using
oh damn this is news to me
yeah, with online ads being the current main revenue source it's sadly becoming a game of trying to increase user activity duration on their website
and then there's rupert murdoch lol
The BBC is really joyous
They use the defence that "as many left as right people complain about bias"
yet, their news reports in the evening generally tend to favour leftist arguments either through generally lack of reporting, allocation of air time, or just general ignorance to the issue
meanwhile their sorta like, "day time" tv politic show, questiontime I think it was, is well known for having like tory plants
then you get shit like that
and bearing in mind that we're expected to pay like £150 a year for this, while they have ex criminals harassing single mothers and OAPs and often lying to them and acting as if they have any legal capacity, and we're supposed to support this organisation while they produce stuff using our tv license money which they then hand over to their sorta like "international company" for cut rate prices and sell to the rest of the world/netflix, and we're told that it would cost like £400 if we wanted to get rid of the tv license and make it a subscription
bbc KNOWs that they've lost the credability of a good organisation, just, their reporting tends to flip flop in terms of bias through the day in a way that they can aim to pull in sorta like an equal amount of pissed off ness from both sides
Daniel James White (September 2, 1946 – October 21, 1985) was an American politician who assassinated San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk, on Monday, November 27, 1978, at City Hall. In a controversial verdict that led to the coining of the legal slang "Twinkie defense", White was convicted of manslaughter rather than ...
@mystic ermine didnt the UK government try to force their citizens to pay for the BBC?
if you don't watch TV, you don't gotta pay
the government basically makes the BBC responsible for it, and the BBC basically has a company or something called "TV licensing" who generally hire goons around, and not paying for a license and watching TV/live broadcast is a criminal offence
oh, the big companies in the US would LOVE to have that here.
The company responsible pretends they're a police force to try to coerce you in to paying
I don't think those big companies would love being owned by the government and not making their current owners money anymore 😛
Yea, they basically love to come in, lie and act as if they have like the powers of a barrister to welcome themselves onto your property and into your place
the joy is that you can literally just shut the door on them and they can basically do jack shit
ofc, if they catch you watching TV somehow, i.e. glance through the window they can report you, but, generally, they have the powers of fuck all, but, that's generally why they hire thuggish ass people as they love to be like assertive asshats
and we're supposed to have respect for them pestering grannies and single parents into paying especially with the current economy, the only people it catches and fucks over is those who are already on the weaker end of society
Whenever I see a XX-1 vote, I always cringe. It’s almost always just pure attention seeking. https://apple.news/AznB2hwyZTUaDrOI_2laWIw
94-1 vote. (Thought the embed would say that)
The most famous -1 vote is probably the US declaration of war on Japan the day after Pearl Harbor. 1 person voted no.
I think it was a woman who was a pure pacifist
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeannette_Rankin
Oh I thought you meant the other one.
Jeannette Pickering Rankin (June 11, 1880 – May 18, 1973) was an American politician and women's rights advocate, and the first woman to hold federal office in the United States. She was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives as a Republican from Montana in 1916, and again in 1940.
Each of Rankin's Congressional terms coincided with initia...
I swear I saw a headline that said chauvin could get up to 75 years
https://www.newsweek.com/chauvin-jail-time-1585199
I had always wondered this and the legal eagle guy did confirm it, you cant be punished twice for the same crime.
Which means you can only be punished for one conviction (the most severe one)
So it’s a max of 40 years, but state guidelines suggest 11-15 for someone with no prior offenses.
Imo he may be convicted but he ain't gonna get more than 5 years
And then you have people in Slovenia. Someone killed 3 people, his grandma, grandpa and uncle. They knocked his crime down from "umor" (killing) to "uboj" (murder), so limiting the max sentence to just 15 years in prison per murder. The judge decided to give him 12 years per each person he killed, but 12*3 = 30... somehow.
https://www.24ur.com/novice/crna-kronika/bo-gaspeti-dobil-prvo-dosmrtno-kazen-v-sloveniji.html
over in the UK you basically only serve 1/2 of your sentence unless they deem you a threat to society on release
Over here theres like a somewhat coloquial joke over here, in regards to marriage and sorta like a general comment of our laws is that, basically, "you'd get less for murder"
"good time" varies by state I think and federal you have to serve at least 85% of your time
Iowa is at least 50%
On a different note, remember that time Matt Gaetz was the only one who voted against a sex trafficking bill?

Yeah that's the difference between concurrent and consecutive sentencing
Consecutive sentencing is very rare.
well I dont think you can get consecutive sentencing, or even have a sentence for more than one charge per crime
chauvin only committed one act
cant be punished twice for one act
You can for a single act, as long as there are multiple crimes associated I think. But it's very rare, and the criteria for such a sentence is pretty strict.
Can someone send the link for whatever this is here please?
The Free Expression Awards supports the educational work of the Freedom Forum Institute by recognizing individuals for their courageous acts of free and fearless expression.
thanks
you're welcome
Babylon Bee, most accurate reporting! 💯
daily wire 😂
Wheres buzzfeed 
I do wonder sometimes if people realize AOC graduated near the top of her class from Boston University (and wasn't rich enough to have her parents buy a dorm or something to get her through)
The aware for dummest headline of the week goes tooooo
She gets treated like she is some poor dumb bartender in over her head
"Biden appears to be only world leader to wear a mask at virtual climate summit
Leaders who could be seen without masks included Putin, Merkel, Erdogan, and EU bigwigs von der Leyen and Michel"
Yeah that is pretty dumb 😄
Virtual
V I R T U A L
Pic of author
No further questions
I think you have the article backwards mini
I think the point is that Biden wore a mask to a virtual conference
Well, I can't read the article
not saying others should wear masks
But it's written in a way to from shade at all the others but biden?
It does seem to be talking about why he would bother rather than attacking the others
yeah, I agree with Amaranth. its not criticizing the other leaders for not wearing masks, but pointing out that biden is
Oh yay. Another celebrity governor candidate for CA. https://apple.news/Av51TOOQZSDmiEdSpnaX2yg
Won’t win cause she’s a conservative tho
Most of her takes are absolute dogshit and have no political reality
That being said I don't think she's dumb
But for someone who I think has an econ degree? She has dogshit understanding of American economy
Prime example of why a degree don't mean shit really
Doesn't Wolf have a degree too?
And that guy is a j
ke
richard wolff
Just because you disagree with his economic theories doesn't mean he is dumb
he's not respected in the real world
I sat through a 90minute debate were he was unable to give a single definition of socialism that didn't involve comparing it to something else
mf really said "you define a cat by saying at first it's not a dog"
He writes a lot of books but I'm not seeing any published papers from him
But he must have had something otherwise how could he be a professor?
teaches undergrad occasionally
Not like a full fledged guy
The man is still a probably an ok econ professor
I'm sure he's able to split his opinion from reality
Yeah, he is mostly retired
That's why he isn't a full fledged teacher 😛
Professor Emeritus, means retired
Anyway, I don't know enough about economics or this guy to say a lot about him
Pretty bad as far as socialism is concerned
I don't think how someone does in a debate says a lot about them either
chomsky is much better at talking about socialism
A lot of that is just how well you prep and how well you are at improv
And Wolff debates all the time
Well, that's dumb then, you'd think he would get better at it or stop 😛
And not being able to give a proper definition for something you claim to be your lifes work is pretty bad
me earlier:
sees Caitlyn Jenner trending on twitter
oh god, what now...
🙂
Lol I love how California governor has become the official shit post of governors
can I suggest trying to find a way to detach it from the rest of the US and just kick it out to sea?
They need Arnold back
3 cheers for accurate headlines... oh wait nvm. https://www.newsweek.com/drivers-who-run-down-rioters-will-not-prosecuted-under-oklahoma-law-1585946
Can apparently just mow down rioters whenever you want in Oklahoma... 
Sadge sensationalism
All it would take is for them to read the literal bill with more than 2 brain cells
Sadge
People cant read jroy
I’m sure they mention that in the article, but headlines are a different story
Was Reagan the first or was there someone before that?
As far as I can remember that's the first
Yeah which is how you know they're just trying to cause outrage. Not that has changed much at all.
? If the majority votes for em who cares
dude, for like two months after january 6th, every time i checked in to see what CNN was covering, it was the insurrection like 80% of the time. they really just want you to have abhorrence towards anyone who supports trump, and fails to admit there being some trump supporters who are like this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xL_hnA2u-SA
With heightened security and pandemic precautions, the streets of Washington, DC were mostly empty on the day of Joe Biden’s inauguration. Despite vowing to once again storm the Capitol, Trump supporters were nowhere to be seen. We spoke to one man in a MAGA hat who traveled from New York for a rally that never happened.
Subscribe to VICE News...
but then the politicians are a different story
hawley and mtg need to gtfo
and i hope pelosi gets voted out for 2022
with a progressive politician
I meant the news outlet
yeah news outlets relying on emotion and outrage to garner clicks and ad revenue, and many people falling for it because our school curriculum sucks and never really went over differentiating sensationalized and misleading news sources from factual ones, smh.
As I regularly said about Trump, there was plenty to be critical of him for, but news routinely misrepresented or outright lied about him.
To skip right ahead to the end of this discussion: Just because there are nice things you can think of to say about Hitler doesn't mean you have to bring them up every time someone talks about him
Who said nice things about Hitler exactly?
I heard he has choosen a nice birthday
Who has chosen a nice birthday?
Hitler 😄
you can choose your birthday?
he had some uh... neat paintings 😄
Said is a past tense thing. That means its in the past.
i.e. prior to when I asked the question.
Oh well I thought amaranth was saying it just as an analogy
If so I'd be curious what said analogy is. Generally it's pretty unwise to compare anything to the Holocaust or its mastermind.
Or to put it in other words.... just because you can think of something nice that a sucky person has done, does not mean you need to mention it whenever they're brought up, because they're still a sucky person
???
She's an amazing speaker, what's your dislike of her?
Yuukster wants a progressive in her place iirc
I think it's been mentioned that pelosi pretends to be progressive too when she really isnt
She doesn't
She's very much a liberal
Which is good considering that's most of house
Why should the speaker be a minority of the country
open biden
Wat
The cringe makes me want to drink the bleach
I mean, she seems mentally questionable and in general, so far out of touch with the rest of the public
she's mentally fine, poor public speaker if anything
the words she said around the Floyd thing was weird too
I understood what she was saying but boy she could have worded it better
I mean, that's why I say mentally questionable
It's like she was cheering that somebodies death accelerated her cause
and I'm pretty sure that that's not the only incident like that with her
She is still extremely effective
Either she leans hard on an insanely effective staff (which she does have, you have to if you want to be an effective Speaker) or she still has it where it counts: she keeps her party in line, keeps the House moving, and raises lots of money for elections
Right
A lot of the negative pelosi rhetoric actually comes from republicans
Because of how effective she is
Yep, same thing as the Clintons
Don't like either one of them but they were really effective politicians before Republicans finally managed to turn people against them
Well I mean for one I'd wonder how you guys feel about her approach to this conversation
https://youtu.be/gqPltMpWIwo
CNN's Wolf Blitzer speaks with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi about why she has not accepted President Donald Trump's roughly $1.8 trillion stimulus offer.
#CNN #News
Another would be Pelosi's purchase of Microsoft stock before the military contract deal with them
I guess I'm fine if another neoliberal takes her place as speaker, I just no longer approve her being the speaker with the many controversies she's had
Oh man especially the one where she told us to wear masks in social settings then didnt wear one when she got a haircut
Wearing a mask during a haircut just seems weird, I've avoided haircuts entirely instead
Just been hacking it off myself
Probably 1/2 to 2/3 of the time I was doing that anyway but still
If that's anywhere close to being her worst scandal though... she's doing great 😛
bearing in mind that this was when all of the hair dressers was supposed to be closed
The shop owner seems to have baited it on instead of disallowing it straight up
sounds like she shoulda said no but said "yes" in hopes of catching her out and sending it to the news
Yeah, Pelosi claims the shop owner said it was okay to do it by appointment or something
Which is what they've mostly done here, actually
different states and areas have different rules which is all confusing as shit
But, you'd hope that the politicians are capable of practicing what they're preaching towards everyone
I mean, nice places have always been by appointment but now they don't let you in the building until your appointment and have a window between appointments
then again, I don't think we've gone a month or two without some rando politician violating the rules, generally politicians I think most people forgot existed though
Please tell me you do not think the president had good intentions
These are all handled by third parties
Otherwise it would be "insider trading" and is securities fraud
It was her husband doing the stock trades
What we discussing today bois
Husband is probably fine in that case
Since she's still in office I'll take that it wasn't a big deal
He was exercising options for half the current price of the stock so I think it was something he had in the works for a while?
On a somewhat related note, I can't believe Roblox is worth more than Minecraft
Roblox is a public company with a market cap of like $50 billion
Never underestimate how much parents will spend to shut their kids up
But yeah, her husband is a venture capitalist and investor, he buys and sells stock and real estate all the time
i mean insider trading never gets taken care of in politics no? seeing for example with the two former georgia senators
id say insider trading is a considerable issue no matter the political party
The SEC loves to convict on this stuff
What probably happens is people don't understand layers of separation or they just settle with the SEC in private
You mean, like, actually, or in a sense of like, the FBI?
casual tragedy happens
how could we have stopped them
public finds out that they where already on security watch lists
last I knew that was somewhat of a, like, somewhat common thing in the scheme of things
and a few of the big attacks hare and turned out that the peeps where like, already under watch
you can't deny that these large holdings can influence any of her policy decisions
Can you give me examples because I will deny outside of any proper example
Yeah mostly a resources issue
in regards to conflicts of interest?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/sep/19/us-senators-investments-conflict-of-interest
I mean that article pretty much wants them to not have any stock market investment as they list literally every sector of the American financial market
Which sure you could propose that
But most of these people have 3rd party financial advisors managing their portfolios
When is wearing a mask not weird?
so your argument here, is that even though they have financial advisors hand-picking and curating their stock positions, that they would always pursue things that are in the interest of their constituents over losing hundreds of thousands of money with policies that can affect their financial assets?
i mean if we were to put an analogy with doctors, between those who get paid correlated to the tests/treatments they give to their patients and those who get paid for treating their patients at a flat rate no matter the costs of treatment, academic studies see a direct correlation in the average treatment costs being higher for doctors that also get paid correlated on a per-treatment basis, even when doctors go on the oath that financial interests won't influence their treatment options for their patients. there's really no way to remove conflicts of interests without banning politicans' abilities to trade individual stocks
It's tricky, with a President you can just say they'll only have the job 4 or 8 years so putting their investments in a blind trust isn't too bad
Members of Congress could potentially be there 40 years though and would you want someone else to manage all your assets for 40 years with you having zero input or even knowledge of how it's being managed?
And then you have their families too, do you want them to all do it too?
Jill Biden is the first First Lady to not treat her "position" as her job and have an actual job still but for members of Congress that's normal, some of them even still have "normal" jobs
There are also hundreds of them though so any potential conflict one of them has gets washed out because they can't decide something on their own
Ppl in office shouldn't have any stakes in anything tbh
They get paid good enough that they should be able to only focus on the mandate for a term
Because you know, that's their job now
a job is a job, they should be allowed to have stakes in stuff, like anybody else, but, there needs to be some thing to ensure that theres no conflicting interests involved
some government positions used to not be paid originally
the idea was that when the official was done working, they would go back to civilian live after a few terms
Really just meant only rich people could do it which was kind of the point
Tru
and still kind of is today considering what people earn while in the house/senate...
yes, they don't want to lose their office
If they start doing things against the will of the people then they will just lose their vote
sometimes I think representatives for government should earn the median wage of their state...
Probably a bad idea
For a variety of reasons
And would probably only hurt poorer congressmen
Living in DC is expensive
Yeah I didn't realize how many homeless people were there
I visited there this week and there are tons of homeless there
i think they already are, just that this specific issue hasn't been widely publicized yet and also since it permates as an issue on both political parties
i mean i'm fine with politicians investing in ETFs or mutual funds. what's an issue is investing in individual stocks, which is what exactly a lot of politicians do.
Can you please show me various examples of elected officials doing something against the ideals of their constituents and still getting reelected?
Well, all the Republicans voted against the last relief bill, let's see how many get reelected 😛
Exactly
(most of them will)
I've posted polls and such in here before about support for various "liberal" issues and how they don't line up with the parties
People hurt themselves economically to score points in the culture war
Although even on those cultural issues the party is not always in alignment with the people
People often just vote for D or R
Makes you question how many people are actually aware of the peoples they're electing policies
I think for the most part its more than you think
People don't generally get reelected when they enact policy the public doesn't agree with
Otherwise they'd be primaried out of existence
Primaries are worse than social media 😛
Like, you only get the loudest most extreme people out of primaries
That's why I like the jungle primary system, if one side goes too extreme they'll either be shunned and you'll have two of the other party on the ballot or if they're still popular you'll get one crazy and one more moderate from that party on the ballot
Either way you can filter out the extreme in the actual election
I'm not sure I follow, most people with extreme views don't get elected, there are exceptions obviously.
Do you mean that they just are the ones we hear about most?
It also does a better job of reflecting what the voters want although since it's a primary that's often what the most extreme voters want
Sure, sometimes a primary puts up the extreme choice and it gets rejected for the other party in the general
But I don't think that's more likely than the extreme candidate getting elected, just depends on how extreme and on what
We have almost had a white supremacist caucus in congress, with multiple members
It'll probably happen anyway if they think they can do it without being noticed
Still don't know how that fuckin Greene lady got elected
Yeah I'm not sure either.
She has an R next to her name and even worse her opponent ended up going through a messy divorce and moving in with his parents in Iowa during the election
But.. if a candidate has extreme views and it is known they have extreme views by the majority they just wont vote for those people. Extreme views are literally views the majority does not have.
People are more forgiving of fault from "their side" though, we overlook or explain away the extremes
There is only so far that can go but you still end up with some pretty extreme people being elected just because of their party
Yeah generally that permissiveness due to tribalism will allow for a few distasteful things about a person, or individual views they don't agree with.
A singular extreme view though doesn't really make a person extreme I don't think.
Though that probably depends on how extreme as you said.
Tribalism is a fairly big issue regardless I guess.
We only got rid of Steve King because he got so far out there the rest of the party shunned him
He'd probably still get elected here otherwise but instead he got primaried by someone who ran on the idea that King was good but he couldn't help Trump anymore
I dunno, maybe I'm surrounded by a bunch of far-right (white supremacist?) assholes, I don't spend a lot of time in the community 😛
TIL this exists
Lol
🤔
Elon is hosting SNL on May 8...
And cue all the people trying to get SNL to cancel him
You can expect the usual complaints about him.
Inherited wealth from his dads apartheid emerald mines in South Africa, his cars kill people, his companies take money from taxpayers, doesn’t like unions, COVID denier
spacex tho is cool. obviously the engineers do all the work, but he got them together initially and pushed them to do great things
tesla: neat cars but way too much hype. stock manipulation, union busting, and overpromising on "self driving" not cool
and obviously his work ethic is... unhealthy to say the least
what businessman does like unions?
I wouldnt say unions are inherently bad, but I dont like how some of them operate
yeah for sure, unions can be corrupt to
but we can definitely judge corporations by how far they go to subvert unions
Companies do take visionaries. Apple had Steve Jobs for a good bit. Clearly he’s not doing all the work, but you need that person to have the vision for a company. I think he does that very well.
sometimes companies go too far in controlling their workers (wasting ppls time with mandatory anti-union info sessions, promoting managers for being company yes-men instead of competence, making financial targets the most important thing) and that can have a chilling effect on the ability of workers to raise their concerns or suggest changes
like i think Boeing is a good example of this
Boeing also sucks in money from the government and produces little
true, but they also have a huge commercial aircraft division
you would think that cash surplus would benefit the worker or make projects go faster due to increased funds?
? not sure what you mean... Boeing lost a lot of orders this year because of covid
boeing also does military contracts
(they also have a space division, and spacex is eating their lunch rn)
because spacex actually has incentive to produce new types of rockets
boeing would have gave nasa some last generation rocket and get more than what spacex is asking
yep. although there is no commercial reason for spacex to work on starship
just elon being crazy as usual
He needs to drive his ego somehow
yeah
but there are also thousands of aerospace engineers who live for that stuff, so they are also driving starship development
boeing are paid to do a job
no matter how long it takes to do that job, they get paid
if it takes longer and goes over budget, they get paid
I do think there should be a limit to when the US government has said enough and stop funding projects that arent going anywhere.
reusable boosters, afaik, is only a private sector thing
but knowing government, it would take 20 years before politicians realize to stop funding some project because it hasnt gone anywhere
i will say the opposite is true for Boeing's commercial jetliner division
they get paid more if they can build them faster
oh yeah, because its private sales
yea, their jets are an entirely different matter to rockets, however
spacex has the pros of being able to build cheap and not spending 20 years on R&D before shooting it off into space
it's why SpaceX is able to send crew up to the ISS
Sure, they've had a good few dozen booms over the years, but, remember when like 5 years ago we used to wait for a RUD?
Now it's like, I don't really remmeber the last RUD we saw
well technically the launch abort test capsule RUD when they tested the abort rockets again after it landed. that was in 2019 and forced a redesign
think that there was a booster a few weeks ago or something they wanted to recover but failed to do so for some reason, but, otherwise, they had the ability to cycle their stuff over the years and the failure rate is depression for those of us who love RUDs, but, great for them
Well, yea, but they had a RUD with early tech, went back to the drawing board
Like, if this was boeing etc it would all still be computer simulations and boffins scratching their heads
i mean, they were planning on launching astronauts in that design
but that's why testing is good
Well, yea, but, SpaceX is in a muuuch better position as they actually can/do test
i mean, nothing is stopping Boeing and other space companies from testing more
they just... don't
cost
yeah i guess
but it also costs a lot to do decades of R&D, and put a ton of effort into making sure everything goes right the first time
they need a shorter development-testing cycle i think
but, that's the problem, they have 0 incentive to do that, they have 0 incentives to try to bring the cost of the final product down, etc, etc
yep
NASA isn't doing cost-plus conracts anymore
like boeings commercial crew contract (same one SpaceX also won) is objective based
they dont get more money from NASA if they need it, they fund out of pocket
Boeing got almost twice as much for commercial crew as spacex did, and spacex still got there first, but I think NASA finally convinced congress to stop doing cost-plus contracts
Congress wants NASA money spent in as many states as possible, cause reps like giving their districts federal money for jobs, etc.
Ah, yea, forgot about that, maybe boeing will step their game up
And, well, NASA wants to spend in as many states as possible as that's how they aim to keep their cash which they keep cutting
boeing will get there eventually. having dis-similar redundancy is a very good thing
shamefully, for a mission like "lets get to the moon", having to spread your shit across states is a massive money hole
Here's a good example I think
Sure, members of Congress are profiting from their positions — with nearly one in eight stock trades by congresspersons intersecting with legislation — but does that necessarily mean they are profiting at the expense of their constituents and society?
We think the answer is a clear yes. For example, one industry that has a direct impact on Americans — and gives a lot of money to elected officials — is big pharma. Prices for prescription drugs have skyrocketed, and researchers argue that this partially stems from the actions of lawmakers. The Senate recently voted on proposed legislation that would allow the importing of prescription medication from Canada, to trim costs. Although it would have benefited Americans struggling to pay for medication, the legislation didn’t pass — and according to an analysis from the Center for Responsive Politics, those who voted no received significantly more in contributions from big pharma than those who voted yes. This was true on both sides of the aisle.
https://hbr.org/2017/02/the-growing-conflict-of-interest-problem-in-the-u-s-congress
Responding to this
money + low info voters who vote among party lines = reelection unless some stupidly big scandal goes off.
kinda how some government officials who are so disliked somehow manage to get themselves reelected for 20 someodd years or more
Frick the rise of Super PACs with Citizens United ruling
@eager hawk citizens united v. FEC?
interesting how that ruling allows businesses to pile money into politicians campaigns considering how it was first about some TV advertisement and other related media
Yup
It appears the money related bullshit was in further court rulings that used citizens v. FEC as the basis.
just doing some reading up on it, the original background didnt involve anything about funding and whatnot
unless im missing something here,
The specifics were surrounding the first amendment and private corps being able to spend their money to advocate a position about a person running for federal election mostly.
NEW YORK, NY - CNN's Brian Stelter has introduced a brand new segment of his show where he will discuss all the horrible things Trump would have tweeted if he hadn't been kicked off of Twitter.'As Americans, it's important for us to remember just how bad, how mean, how divorced from the facts, how, how, how much of a stinky poopoo head&nbs ...
How very CNN of them...
I'm not convinced this is something alot of people care about, most people have healthcare
It's something many people complain about and say should be fixed for those who don't and yet don't really care to understand the why or actually take steps to help bar just saying the government should pay for it
We have a lot of issues with people not being able to afford healthcare/selling their home/going bankrupt paying for medication no? And with the stupid increase in drug prices, like insulin at like $150 per month and Epipens like 700% more expensive than a decade ago or smt. If we got big pharma out from donating to politicians I only see politicians putting pressure towards doing what's best for their constituents and winning popularity points for it instead of stuffing their wallets
Most people have healthcare and don't need to pay these crazy costs though?
It would make sense most people don't care
It's like support for M4A, most people support it initially but when they're told they'll lose their private insurance the support for it drops significantly
There's plenty of ways to reduce healthcare costs without needing to switch to a government run healthcare system
I know I'm not in favor of M4A either
I was giving an example of how the public generally doesn't care about healthcare policy because they already have healthcare
Man UK you guys are so cute at 4.6k per year per capita for healthcare
I think a lot of people care about healthcare costs, which is something the government can do without reforming the system entirely
I wasn't arguing about healthcare
You were taking about effects of lobbying
You used healthcare as an example
I said I don't think the public generally cares about healthcare since most are already covered
Yes the conversation started from talking about if politicians should be able to trade individual stocks
We're still paying quite a hefty amount already, and I think the public would care a lot if the government worked towards reducing those costs. Have the government put more pressure and accountability to executives of big pharma for stuffing money into their pockets or something. Of which this lobbying pressure is one of the many examples why many legislation doesn't get brought up in congress even though their constituents would probably be more happy than upset for...having reduced costs of living as they should be.
Did you just eat the onion?
This is something I used to agree with before I put more research into it, the pharma industry in America is actually not as bad as people think it is and most people's trouble with it just come with a misunderstanding on how drug pricing and R&D works
Private pharma is probably better than private hospitals
R&D? You mean that stuff done mostly by government universities and/or with government grants?
I think a massive improvement to the US healthcare system would be regulating hospital costs
Where do epipen and insulin price increases come from?
Research != All of R&D
There is a MASSIVE difference between doing research into drugs than ACTUALLY making them
Let alone actually bringing them to market
If you think insulin hasn't improved in the past decade you're just wrong
There has been massive improvements to the types of insulin to better regulate blood sugar levels
Yeah which is why both of these are probably true https://other98.com/taxpayers-fund-pharma-research-development/ https://www.drugcostfacts.org/public-vs-private-drug-funding
Figuring out how to make drugs faster or cheaper isn't really the kind of research that should be considered a cost sink though
Especially since they take those improvements and then raise the price instead of lowering it 😛
In the past decade, the cost of insulin has tripled in the United States. According to research from the Yale School of Medicine, the out-of-pocket cost for patients has doubled—a situation that is becoming dire. One in 4 patients say that they ration their insulin because they can't afford it, which has led to the loss of life in some cases.
So are you saying that there has been no R&D into this stuff?
And no improvements in insulin in the past decade?
This is just wrong, trials and production is extremely expensive
What improvements have been made to insulin?
You keep bringing that one up, I want sources 😛
The only things I've seen are improvements to those things that make you cyborg that do automated testing (and some even automated injection)
The drug itself has become more expensive though so what improvements have been made to the drug itself?
Does it survive in more extreme conditions? Does it have a longer shelf life? Is it more potent?
Are you kidding me?
Not at all
We've gone from literally pig insulin to something that regulates blood sugar levels in real time
No, you're talking about machines again
Instead of spiking up like it used to, the new insulins maintain smooth levels to better emulate the normal drop offs
If it's such a vast obvious difference you should have no problem finding sources
Press releases, medical journals, something
I'm not home but when I am I'll forward them
My sister sure would love to get some insulin that worked that way
I think I found what you're talking about, improvements from the 90s
That's 30 years ago, you know?
And those were cheaper when they were first released than they are today, and not just due to inflation
It should cost $35 today if inflation was the only factor, instead it's $300
So yeah, I still need you to show me what major improvements have been made in the last decade
Hell you're actually completely backwards even
The newer insulins are designed to rapidly work and rapidly drop off, it's the older animal one that is a smooth curve
Again I don't have my sources an shit on me now but let's say what you said is correct for the sake of argument
So yeah, I still need you to show me what major improvements have been made in the last decade
You will not necessarily see changes on the market, which is why r&d is so expensive. A lot of canadite drugs are pushed and fail in trials. Which is a absolute shit ton of money all down the drain
The newer insulins are designed to rapidly work and rapidly drop off, it's the older animal one that is a smooth curve
So you're telling me insulin has...changed in recent times and is not the same as it's been?
I don't know how to convey that there's been plenty of development over the past decade because you seem solely focused on just drugs brought to market which still hasn't just stagnated
I found this which I think I have on my doc at home which illustrates some of the developments https://academic.oup.com/edrv/article/41/5/733/5836295
Another question I'd like to ask you, if these companies are just hiking the price of drugs, can you tell me their ticker on the stock market so I can dump all my money into them?
Since I imagine these companies must be profiting year over year over year since they're able to hike their prices so high and just sit on that money!
They aren't hype stocks so they don't get the ridiculous P/E ratios that would make them worth day trading on
And what does some failed drug trial have to do with the price of insulin?
If they're failing so hard at new drugs they have to make insulin cost 10x what it should (or 100x what it should, depending on who you ask) maybe they should stop doing that
I don't care about other drugs, failed or not
Also drug stocks tend to pay out dividends instead of driving their stock price to the moon
They use their most popular products to subsidize the cost of other drugs????
Right, stop that
They're mostly making junk anyway
ah yes of course
And apparently a lot of it is failing since they're having to drive up the prices 10-100x what they should be to cover their failures
How much of what they make is actual new drugs or better versions and how much is just some tweak to extend patent coverage?
Regardless, it's not worth what they're telling us it costs them
right...
You think it's just fine that they charge 10x more now than they did when a drug came out (adjusted for inflation) to fund other projects?
Yeah probably
You're crazy
But I'm also in favor of covering everyone who can't afford that
Ah so make the government pay out the ass to them instead
At that point we may as well nationalize them
Other governments already do this?
Or they negotiate with drug companies to lower prices
No, other governments use their immense bargaining power to ensure they don't get charged those stupid prices
right
But you said those prices are okay
So you'd be okay with the government paying that much for everyone too, no?
the "cute" aspect of the UK system is really not all that cute
the system is underfunded and overstretched
You can break your arm and be waiting around for hours in the waiting room without being seen
Welcome to every urban hospital in the world
If the bone isn't visible and you haven't passed out you're probably fine, just don't move
I can't engage in this really, some lefties are so far gone on understanding the healthcare system in the united states to the point where it diverts time that should be spent arguing on actual worse problems in the US healthcare system
I see, so you got argued in to a corner that would result in tax dollars going to this craziness and now you want out
The thing is that our hospitals are generally designe to deal with the capacity, they just don't have the staffing, and in cases where there are blatent shortages there's no inclination to build another hospital until the situation gets so bad, and building any new hospital takes like 10 years
no, those numbers are likely just there as base prices
I doubt insurance companies even pay that much
But, I mean, the fact that a drug which is essential to life is at the point where you need some huge coglomerate company to get it for you is just crazy
And insurance companies prob get to say "look at this big number we saved for you"
I understand that bullshit, that bullshit is why half our spending goes to administration
That still doesn't explain away $300 a vial
Even if your insurance company is getting it for $100 a vial (and I doubt they're getting it that "cheap") it's too much
I'll have to ask her but I think I remember my sister having to pay $200/month out of pocket even with her insurance
Companies need to have means to gain a profit, it's how they keep stuff running, but, excessive profits when it comes to peoples lives, eeerrr...
The core medical research, the kind of stuff that leads to insulin and mRNA therapies, happens at universities anyway
Then these days with some biotech startup afterward to try to prove it in the market
I think you're vastly underestimating the cost of bringing drugs to market and how many of those fail in the process.
Only about 20% of drugs actually exit trials and make it to market
Where as the average cost of doing so is billion(s) of dollars
So if a drug fails in trials that's billions of dollars down the drain
And what do you tell people with rare diseases?
You shouldn't be allowed to subsidize the cost of those medications
Guess the gov should fund the trials since the free market does not seem like it is able to effectively produce the required product
You said most trials fail?
And that billions of dollars a year is just gone
the companies need to make a profit so that they can cover the cost of getting drugs to the market which the gov doesn't
Most trials fail because the drug isn't suitable
but, I mean, part of it that's the costs are eaten elsewhere
? That's about a billion yeah
$985m includes the cost of failed trials
Basically take R&D spending and divide it by the number of approved drugs and you get that number
Same issue in general with the health industry, excessive costs which are bargened down drastically to the point just so that insurance companies can charge you for and act like they're doing you a massive favour, and so drug companies can gain a massive profit of the backs of people who need these things to live
In 2019 Pfizer had revenues of $51.8 billion and profits of $16.2 billion
Back to the numbers, $300/vial and if you have type 1 diabetes you need 3 of them a month, if my sister is paying $200/month out of pocket the cheapest they could be is $67/vial if insurance is just getting her a discount but not paying for any of it
That's still more than twice what they should cost adjusted for inflation from when they were first introduced (and you'd expect them to get cheaper once they aren't the hot new thing and companies get better at making them)
So they cost somewhere between 2.2-10x what they should depending on what kind of discount you can get (and gain, 100x more if you compare to other countries)
Maybe she is rounding or including other costs in that or maybe I'm just misremembering and she said $100 or $300, I'll have to remember to ask
No, no. I think you misunderstood. :/
lol, token windmill
That's germanys largest surface mine and the deepest point of my state, 300m below ground or smth
It shows you everything that is wrong with humanity really
I mean, I'm not a NIMBY'der
As a kid I loved the baggers
it's the people who are which are the general issue
They are like the biggest machines you will ever see
It shows how amazing things mankind can do
But then you see what we actually do with that knowledge
I think one of those baggers actually holds the world record for biggest and most heavy land vehicle or smth dum like that
Yeah
100m high, 14.000 tons heavy
226m long
Destroys 240000m3 of land
Per day
gotta get those dinosaur squeezings
(I mean, I found out other week that dinosaurs are like, too recent to be turned into like, fossil fuels, but, still, I stand by the term because bite me)
It's mostly just trees
Oh yeah, all that wasteland was some ancient forest before we ruined it
DINOSAUR. SQUEEZINGS. FITE ME.
But, yea, am more thinking the oily stuff
Translation of Dinosaur squeezings from The AvE Dictionary - Helping the rest of the world understand Uncle Bumblefuck
13h ago @Femi_Sorry tweeted: "I genuinely assumed this was a photoshop.." - read what others are saying and join the conversation.
prior to the 2nd lockdown, he didn't wanna do it and basically said he'd rather let the bodies pile high than lockdown again
Oh so it's as bad as it sounds, lol
Yeah that toyed with the idea for ages now
I’m surprised I haven’t heard more about this. https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/550211-minnesota-ag-explains-why-floyd-death-not-charged-as-hate-crime
No evidence what Chauvin did was in any way motivated by race.
I’m gonna guess if you ask people why Chauvin killed George Floyd, like well over half are gonna say “because he was black”
AG said it was because he was black too
It's right there in the summary Discord shows or in this https://twitter.com/60Minutes/status/1386459084216573957
“In our society, there is a social norm that killing certain kinds of people is more tolerable than other kinds of people,” says Keith Ellison about the murder of George Floyd. But without evidence of explicit bias, he could not charge it as a hate crime. https://t.co/fZ6gmySBfY https://t.co/46fissA9I4
143
yeah, that's kinda my point. saying its because he was black with 0 evidence to back that up, surely doesnt help the situation
the AG in that interview tries to thread some needle that it was caused by racism, but not caused by racism, but caused by racism,
Systemic racism means the system failed Chauvin too either by not filtering him out at recruitment for his own racism or by training him to act in a way that is harsher to black men even if he isn't usually racist
but there isn't evidence here that he treated chauvin any worse than another man. there's evidence he is a horrible cop and used wayyyy too much force
if it had been a white man, under the exact same conditions, it's unknown what the outcome would have been
No, we don't know with these two in particular if it would have been different which is why that wasn't one of the charges
Systemic racism is something you can usually only point out via statistics
boo, no embed
Do we have info on the racial demographics of the individual of the 17 or so complaints Chauvin has received? If these show disproportionate black it could be a source of evidence if the motive had a racial form.
Just got my second moderna shot btw :)
You're entire message history is weak bait my dude
Havent people been saying that Trump is a hero and a selfless man for donating his.... $500k salary as president? 😂
You cannot point to a disproportionate amount of engagements with one race and say there’s evidence of a racial motive.
If there is a disproportionate figure, the sample size is not high enough I don’t think to make any assumptions
What if he was put on patrol is more black neighborhoods or something? That’s ignoring the fact that crime is not proportional to race demographics
That isn’t to say why that is or if it should be that way, just that it currently is.
Yes the claim would be controlled with that, I'm not that short-sighted lol. Sucks that it's difficult to determine if something is a hate crime if there's no verbalizations, at least we know that for this specific case justice was served.
apparently they both knew each other
you can't really do anything about small sample size tho
and I'm iffy on the whole "hate" crime thing anyways
its a crime, punishing someone more because of what's in their head just seems wrong
cant say for sure, I heard rumors that the jury was intimidated for go for all three charges
it may be appealed and the sentence may be less
One of the jurys old houses got painted up
one of the papers also apparently went crazy ex GF stalker on all of them tryna work out who they where
that is not cool
Well perhaps if even any of those single complaints show certain evidence that Chauvin somehow acted with racial motives then the "small sample size" argument wouldn't hold up as much
That's not how appeals work
You can't appeal a sentence
You appeal a crime
there isnt even a sentence yet
And they won't will appeal
the sentence could be less as a result of the appeal tho I think is what he meant
well sure, but I'm talking generically here. a sentence can be reduced because the largest crime conviction was overturned on some random case
I'm not sure if a judge would allow racial evidence from a previous crime to be brought into one that has no racial evidence
if there was "racial evidence" for chauvin and floyd, then it could be brought in as evidence of a pattern I think. Judges are really careful to ensure the jury is only trying the crime at hand
not anything in the past
wait
what were his charges, 2nd/3rd degree murder along with 2nd degree manslaughter?
correct
yeah, 2nd degree could be appealed, because that is with intent to murder
2nd degree is the felony murder rule in minnesota
that someone died while you were committing another felony
like, you could be charged with 2nd degere murder in MN if someone died as a result of a car chase away from a robbery
no intent to kill there
ah, I was looking at federal
Yeah me neither
there are some crazy felony murder charges out there. Like you let your friend use your car. They rob a bank with it and someone dies as a result. You, as the person who lent the car, can be charged with felony murder
even if you didnt know about it
If 89 more people had been counted in NY, they wouldn’t have lost a congressional seat.
eyes nursing home deaths
California lost one for the first time ever
Yea, texas +2, Montana, oregon, Colorado, NC and Florida +1
gotta add another 500 seats so its actually proportional lol
California does not have 500 times the population of any state
California has like 30x the population of Montana, and has close to 30x the number of reps
? wot no i just mean the house of reps should have an additional 500+ seats to allocate to states so that their representation is proportional between states
The number of reps has nothing to do with it being proportional. It’s all about how many each state gets
You can be more accurate with higher numbers, but why not go to 100,000 to make it more accurate
i mean it'd be better to go off the lowest populated state and go with that number
that'd decrease the variance from hundreds of thousands depending on the state, to something way less
I’m talking about the number of reps. Why not have 100k reps? So we can give each state the right amount and get a close to proportional as we can
Cali has ~10% of the pop, give them 10% of the reps
With more reps, you can make it more accurate
why are you taking the point i'm trying to make to such an extreme?
435 isn't enough, 100k is too many
i'm sure there is a nice middleground we can achieve to reduce the imbalance
Say Montana has 1 rep and everyone else gets (Montana population/their population) reps, round however you like
That'd be more or less fair without blowing out the size
Nah, you can’t go from a 1 rep state
Cause every state should have 1 regardless of pop
Montana has the lowest population, no?
No
montana is lucky they get two now, they had 1 before, they had the same representation as wyoming, which has way less people
wyoming has 500k ish
Yes. 586k for Wyoming
Wyoming is smallest, use them then
You can’t use that tho, you have to find the biggest population represented by 1 rep
Not the smallest
?
If you say the smallest state gets 1 rep and scale from there every rep should represent about the same number of people
If a state has 1 person, it would still have 1 rep. You can’t use the smallest state as the “baseline”.
If we ever end up with a state being so small it skews things that badly perhaps they shouldn't be a state 😛
Right, and I’m saying that’s a bad idea. You take the largest group represented by one rep, and go from there.
Like, you know, North Dakota shouldn't exist 😛
If you start with the largest Wyoming gets 0 reps
Either that or you're where we are now
No, because every state gets 1
Your system is what we have now
which is fine for the most part, if you want more representation, move to a different state
that's not the point of the house of reps
it's supposed to be proportional
it's not proportional
we already have the senate for unproportional representation
Yeah let me just move to the middle of nowhere with zero savings and zero job opportunities so I can actually have my voice heard in my goverment
That wont get your voice heard, you have to be elected for that
We can get in to the problems with lobbying and campaign finance later 😛
And no, it's really hard to run an independent farm
Most farmland is run by big agribusinesses
im joking of course on that part, though the amount of money going towards fucking corn is insane
Well you see you have to make people dependent on the government to control them
It's because we decided we didn't want to go through the shortages of the 30s and 40s again
EU does the same thing
Better to overproduce and cover the losses
It could almost certainly use an overhaul though
@near glen in all seriousness, wasn't there a german chancellor lady who said "We've allowed India to become a large pharma producer"
What does ALLOWED mean?
Like, do we need allowance to do something in our own country?
Idk if merkel said that and in what context
companies invest in these countries
But, generally it's more to take advantage of the cheap market vs reeaaallly doing good
I would assume it was critisism on our dependency for medical supply on asia
alright
Like, india is already the china of software development
is that good or bad
cheap labour with high churn rates
low quality, no real investment in keeping stuff long term, etc
India is known for shit their IT Outsourcing, both programming and call centers, plus scam shops for phone scamming
^^
All they need is a huge Foxconn plant.
Oh wait.
I mean india is not that bad
Isn't foxconn in the business of highering the suicide rates?
Thing is that because it's a cheap as all shit market with a high churn rate, they can pay people beans, get some low quality crapcode out of it, and run off with the profits
Bro
Foxconn had suicide nets on their buildings.
After they added the nets.. no. 
god fucking
Idk, india is modern day slavery
covid
Thanks to the caste system
No, surely that can't be it
no not the caste system
its corrupt people in gvmt taking money
but that doesn't really have the magnitude to mess up things that much anymore
I have seen indians reenact their caste system fantasies here
Shitting on lower caste coworkers
snoopa u hv to agree this is a big issue in india
yeah
it is
They got throw out faster than they could blink, that shit doesn't fly here
Well, the caste system is the fundament of your society, no?
its not
it's a mixture of things
mostly hindu religion tbh
Nonono
yk what
lemme think
I'll write a giant para on what the "fundamental" of indian society is
ok snoopa
oh god, we had some indian kid in our college who literally wouldn't even look at a female
cat those are like extremely orthodox hindus
and, well, india is literally one of those places where you can live in a total shitheap and look a mile or two down the road and see a huge big busting city
Well, explain how the caste system affects modern day india
Yeah that's here
ok I shall do this, atm i have a diagram to finish, gimme a day
Sure, I would love some insight
There is defo a huge "us and them" mentality, and the government has 100% let down many of the poor areas
Its crucial that I explain this correctly and properly
Because obviously my view is a western one, impacted by movies and documentaries
So, I'll take time
many of the poor areas also have huge familial values in a community, which is why things like covid spreads fast as all shit once it gets going
obviously
ok bai
Like recently I watched the white tiger
yeah you told me
i mean i was born in delhi, moved to the uk, still a hindu, and still stay up till ungodly hours in a discord call wit my gf (also indian too)
so you really cant say that just for few people who are like that
thats an old issue thats gradually fading away
I mean, it's mostly a regional thing as the muslims are like it too, even during covid starting up here and my mates mother basically being bed ridden, people would still run back and forth coming over even while her immune system is already fucked from surgery and such
Ramadan is happening rn, ppl here attribute that to a spike in covid infections 🤷♂️
Fuck all religions 😂
Like, it's nice that the family ties are that strong that they'll look after each other no matter what, I don't know too many white families over here who'd have that level of ties, like, my mates family would bring food over for her mother and father to eat as he'd get back from work and be too busy/forget to eat and such
Like, it's nice that they got at least that
and, yea, ramadan is crazy
Family ties in india are just too clingy imo
They fast all day and then basically as soon as night comes god do they fucking put food away
Saying that, my mates mother would always feed me when I came over which was kinda awkward, but, damn
THeir food holy fuck
casual white kid sitting there eating away, tears pouring down his face still shovelling
hmm
I had a half turkish gf once, they didn't do any of the religious bullshit, but they did the food, like when we were at here grandma, I knew to not eat all day before showing up 😂
thats like global tho
say if i went india after covid ended and met my grandparents, etc my stomach would probs burst
we were gonna go last year but then covid hit >:(
ok bois diagram done and submitted
send here
how do you write "P"
cursive p
On how the caste system affects modern-day India.
Let me start with saying in which environment I am living in, so that you can see from where these views are coming
I live in Delhi. Its the capital region of India. Very centralized. Now, I live in an apartment, rent is about INR 33k/month, so we're already earning a LOT more than the normal Indian man (yes, women are paid lesser)
DIRECTLY next to my apartments is a very large slum area, from where we get our maids and stuff
The maids are paid no less than INR 6k/month.
So, from my society, my environment, I can say this:
My mom's family side is relatively well-set
My dad on the other hand, comes from the village
Still, I can say with confidence that the caste system has not ONCE affected my day to day life. Caste system is obsolete in urban areas. Sure, there are 1 or 2 bitches that still try to enforce it, but needless to say they are immediately exempted from society.
Indians, as people, are some of the most "family" people you know, for us, family is everything.
In rural areas, sure, caste system is there, sure, but its impact has been DRASTICALLY decreased
Previously, Dalits would not be allowed to live with us, but now, few, if none people care about what caste you are.
So, as a person who lives in India, I would say that the impact of the caste system is still felt, but it is quite obsolete now. Ever since we gained independence and established equality before law, you can be sure that you will not face discrimination in government offices. Of other places, I am not so sure, but can say that the impact is considerably lesser.
Caste system is not who we are. Not anymore. It does not define us as people, it does not define what we can do. Its not the "core" of anything. Its a thing that exists, and people wish to preserve it because it has existed for centuries.
Modern day India functions on what you can make, what you can eat, and what you can provide for your family.
@near glen
pls dont destroy me .-.
tbh rent is determined by the area lol
It's just these stark differences
your justification that paying somebody who cleans your place less than it would cost to rent a home in your area says it all, really
You don't see an issue with paying somebody 6k/month while the cost of living is waaay way higher than that?
you are a higher caste, and so you take advantage of those in lower communities in order to save cash, rather than paying somebody in your community
not caste
caste is not the right word
In first world countries you can make a living from cleaning houses and still have a good flat and enough money to eat
we are not a higher caste
just have more money ig
Well, but castes are what created the situation
How else do you make these differences in lifestyle socially acceptable?
yeah
Oof
Just the existence of these slums says that something is very very wrong with your country
i know
my point is not to prove that there's nothing wrong with my country
my point is to prove that its not because of the caste system
But it is still wrong to say that castes created those differences, because they did not. What did create those stark differences? I suppose its that every country has its rich and poor, but the poor are not getting poorer. Standard of living has been steadily increasing. The maid we have earns 6-7k a month from one house
She works in 3 houses
She also has 2 daughters
Hence, they can afford to live around here
They can apply for government benefits, and they wont wont be given them just because they're a certain caste
This is my handwriting
holy shit that is awesome
I have zero ability to analyze poems, I'm jealous LMAO
xD
lol

smh
oki
Caste system is old and has a fundamental effect on India society even today. It’s the same as black in the US. The decades of economy disadvantage can still be seen today. Houses and lands are passed down from the older generations and if you look at the housing data of US as a whole, it is still overwhelming favoring white populations and it is probably the same case for India. @broken raven
nicely put, except no on favours any one because of the caste system anymore just saying ^^
It is not to discredit the effort made in the recent year in India to create equality but it will definitely be wrong to say it has no effect today.
absolutely
Oh wow my first message in pol. Probably last 
lmao
I mean thats nice and all, but metres are a pain, like this:
anapaestic tetrametre
power and conflict or love and relationships
conflict
that was mine as well
revised like 3 poems the night before the exam and got very lucky with it
luckyyy
That's the peom I had a GCSE lit on
actually came up in the test
I think mine was war photographer? I don't quite remember
I'm fine with objective analysis, subjective stuff I can't do shit and my mind goes blank beyond the most surface level analysis 😂
Lol
Over a year into this pandemic and ppl are still downplaying the effects 🤦
Spotify’s Joe Rogan encourages "healthy" young people not to get a coronavirus vaccine. His show is Spotify's most popular podcast.
“If you're like 21 years old, and you say to me, should I get vaccinated? I'll go no.” https://t.co/5dX98xUaHS
917
4481
I mean, it's conflicting, we don't know the long term effects of the vaccine and most people in that age range are not really at a huge risk of issues from covid
We also don't know the long term issues of covid, but we do know they aren't pretty
Because some ppl are already experiencing them
Even after mild symptoms
Well, yea, that's the general issue with it all
am kinda stuck wondering if I got it like, late 2019 or whatever as my BFFs mate came across from somewhere stupid
Get an antigen test
would it be effective after like a year or so?
Bit, I mean, that's when I started having the persistent tiedness issues
Like, I started on the crazy person meds and ended up getting a nasty ass flu around the same time
It's most likely unrelated and really unlikely that you actually got it so early
it seems to be sloooowly weening off, complex as I just quit smoking the green stuff
But you can get a test pretty easily for that now
So might as well
Anyways, point is, running around telling ppl to not get the vaccine cause this virus is harmless to them is really the last thing we need rn
We can't get them in the UK, which is joyous... yay for the UK
Antigen Tests?
Yea..
Kek I have 26 locations in my city where I can get the pcr or an antigen test
They're only available to like a small % of people over here, unless I wanna pay for it, which, I can't
getting out of the UK is basically like, long term goal for me 😄
Only £65 here
wooo
I ain't had a PCR test, I don't leave the place and don't go anywhere I'd be putting people at risk, so, 🤷♂️
Why are they so expensive? They aren't gov subsided here either, only the pcr ones are
only available in private, and it includes a few other things too
Oh good point idk if health insurance subsidises the antigen Tests here
But yeah most testing is private here too, unless you gov/state/city employee, that's get handled by local health inspector stuff
https://twitter.com/marcusbarnett_/status/1387084978622803970
So, Tony blair, our old PM, basically don'd a mullet, and, eer...
President Biden will deliver his first speech to a joint session of Congress on April 28, marking the conclusion of his first 100 days in office. The address will be followed by a rebuttal from Republican Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina.
The Post will offer live reporting and analysis from the newsroom, Capitol Hill and the White House. Li...

Awww no comments
Comments on things like this are always wholesome, and represent the best the internet has to offer
get those hecklers off the screen!
Paycheck fairness? I thought it’s been illegal to pay men/women different amounts for the same job since the 60s
generally when we talk about age gap it's looking at systemic issues which cause women to go into/choose lower paying jobs
which it seems to be women feel less competitive in the work place due to the way they are raised
and less competitiveness leads to not going into more competitive jobs, not seeking performance based pay, etc
nobody worth their weight in salt actually thinks/means women are getting paid less for the same job
Is less competitiveness only due to how their raised? Other than that, Im with you on pay differences
yeah with how they're rasied
generally its said that they're raised to be less competitive and thus the effects above
FUCK there was an amazing study and video explaining all that in detail but I can't find it
Agreeableness is the biggest known indicator in pay difference, and there are heavy links between that and the differences in brain activation patterns between males and females. Current multi-cultural psychological studies seems to indicate it's more nature than nurture.
Though that's a fairly difficult thing to say for certain, but the fact the studies span most modern cultures is fairly suggestive.
Also the agreeableness indicator is basically correlative, which has issues obviously.
In an order published today, the First Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court held that the provisions of the Federal Climate Change Act of 12 December 2019 (Bundes-Klimaschutzgesetz – KSG) governing national climate targets and the annual emission amounts allowed until 2030 are incompatible with fundamental rights insofar as they lack suffi...
Nice!
Some kids successful argued that the current climate change act violates their fundamental rights because it doesn't properly try to reduce emissions, and the federal constitutional court (our supreme court I guess?) followed parts of their argumentation, gov now needs to fix it by end of next year
The court explicitly mentioned that because of their young age, and the plan of the gov to shift most reductions past 2030, puts too much burden on their generation
Idrk how that’s the purview of a court, but idrk anything about the German political system.
It shouldn’t be in the purview of a court to say… oh, this doesn’t do enough, or this puts too much strain on that. That’s the legislatures job.
It's the court where you can challenge if laws violate the constitution
“Puts too much burden on their generation” has something to do with your constitution?
obama
That sounds like a political opinion
In german gov has the job to protect it's citizens, in the constitution. If you can argue that the law doesn't protect the citizens properly, you might get the court to say the law needs to be amended
The court isn't political, this isn't the US
The court isn’t political in the US either. Both parties and the media can try to frame it that way, but it’s not.
Courts don’t and shouldn’t give political opinions. Their job is to simply say, does this law go beyond the powers given to the government.
Basically, their argumentation was trying to establish a right to a future, in relation to the first paragraph of our constitution: human dignity is unimpeachable. The climate catastrophe threatens their future, the law doesn't do enough to combat that, based on facts they showed and the court evaluated.
Well, our gov works fundamentally different. We not only check that they don't overuse their power, but that they also not underuse their power to fullfil their duties
That sounds very political. The court has to decide if a law will have enough of an effect on the future of the people? That should be entirely up to the people themselves, through their legislative representatives