CheezyWeezle @ CheezyWeezle @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

100

Joined

2 yr. ago

Yeah, at the very least I don't see how the US could declare someone as their enemy without declaring war on them. Declaring someone as your enemy is basically saying you are going to war with them, even if it is a cold war.

Ok wtf this is literally spot on, my work supplies breakfast and it's always different but my two staples are a monster (usually the zero ultra, too...) and stepping outside to hit my vape...

Treason in the USA is specifically giving aid or comfort to enemies of the United States. As far as I am aware there are no official enemies of the United States, so technically it is not possible to commit treason unless the United States wants to officially announce a foreign power as an official enemy of the US, which would be a possible casus belli against them. Treason is a tricky charge to try.

You do understand that your comments are incomprehensible, right? Do you need someone to call a doctor?

You can go ahead and stay wanting tho, as I'm sure you are used to.

And what is an nlbr? Or nlbl? It seriously appears that you are suffering from an aneurysm.

Did you remember to take your medications?

Oh and thanks for the support

You made up me making up stuff. I never misrepresented anything in my comments, so your claim that I have made stuff up is a lie.

And what do you think I've made up to win an argument? You are making a lot of baseless claims here, looks like you are the one making up shit

Lmao you've got nothing, that's why you aren't gonna waste your time. You tried saying I dont support workers or some shit when I'm part of the fucking union you just claimed me to be undermining. Maybe join and support a union yourself? I wouldn't stoop as low as calling you a shit human, but you are severely misguided.

Two things: for one, I work at Google and am part of the AWU, so fuck you.

And for two, please explain exactly how amazon unionization is so fundamentally different from AWU unionization? Is it because AWU seeks to represent workers from every contractor/vendor alongside actual full time Googlers? Or what?

Well you absolutely know wrong lmao the Alphabet Workers Union is not recognized by NLRB, and Amazon's Workers Union is. Apple also has some unionization, as do several video game developers and support companies.

Google has said they support them unionizing because they think it will not affect them at all. Maybe go look into the handful of people who have attempted to formally unionize at Google and see how they have all been fired. Then try and tell me Google supports unionization.

What planet are you living on? Did you read the article? Or even the headline? Google is constantly union busting, and this article explicitly states that Google is refusing to bargain with the bargaining unit, despite court rulings that they are required to.

The only reason why they say they dont care about these people unionizing is because they fully intend on ignoring the union. They believe they can appeal the decision that they are required to bargain and win.

NLRB changed their criteria for what is considered co-employment last month, widely broadening the definitions used to determine this status. Essentially, if a company has significant control (not just exclusive control) over any of a worker's employment status or conditions, then they are considered a co-employer now. It used to be that a company needed exclusive or overriding control over another company's employees to be considered a co-employer.

I'm certain we are going to see more lawsuits and legal challenges from employees because of this. I'm pretty certain there already are lawsuits from some other Google contractors over this exact thing; they are providing a case that Google is their co-employer due to the control they have over every aspect of their work.

Yeah, it literally isn't. An insult is not mutually exclusive to a good faith argument, but you wouldn't know that because you clearly dont understand the concept. Go look up what bad faith argumentation is.

Yeah, because you clearly need it. You dont even know what bad faith is. Bad faith arguing is when you aren't actually working towards the resolution of the argument, but instead just making frivolous contradictions that you yourself probably dont even believe in, just to try and keep the other side from making a point. Insulting you is not bad faith. So, yeah, go back to school and actually pay attention this time.

In short, I am proposing that dissonance, that is, the existence of nonfitting relations among cognitions, is a motivating factor in it's own right.

Need that one more time? Here ya go

In short, I am proposing that dissonance, that is, the existence of nonfitting relations among cognitions, is a motivating factor in it's own right.

Maybe if you read it ONE MORE TIME it will click for you

In short, I am proposing that dissonance, that is, the existence of nonfitting relations among cognitions, is a motivating factor in it's own right.

Cognitive dissonance is the existence of nonfitting relations among cognition, not the feeling of discomfort arising from that. It is what you are suffering from right now. You have the evidence laid clearly in front of you, but you cherry pick one TINY tidbit and interpret it incorrectly so as to suit your needs. You KNOW you are wrong, and you are arguing in bad faith.

Oh, I see, you're fucking brain dead. Now this whole conversation makes sense. You literally cannot admit you are clearly wrong. Please go touch grass, you are pathetic.

And I'm saying YOUR usage is the colloquial usage. Just look at the very source of the term, Leon Festinger's "A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance" from 1957. here is a link

Chapter 1, page 3.

In short, I am proposing that dissonance, that is, the existence of nonfitting relations among cognitions, is a motivating factor in it's own right. By the term cognition, here and in the remainder of the book, I mean any knowledge, opinion, or belief about the environment, about oneself, or about one's behavior. Cognitive dissonance can be seen as an antecedent condition which leads to activity oriented toward dissonance reduction just as hunger leads to activity oriented toward hunger reduction.

He makes it clear that cognitive dissonance is the status of holding incongruous beliefs, NOT the status of discomfort. He states that cognitive dissonance CAUSES discomfort, and that people tend to seek to resolve that discomfort, but cognitive dissonance is not the discomfort itself. It is "the existence of nonfitting relations among cognitions".

The argument against your claims? I'm informing you that cognitive dissonance refers to the simple state of holding incongruous beliefs. Read these, doofus:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cognitive%20dissonance

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/cognitive-dissonance

https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780199976720.001.0001/acref-9780199976720-e-318

Go back to grade school and learn reading comprehension again, please. Just because I said that colloquialisms are descriptive, does not mean that I said that all dictionary definitions are prescriptive. Get your red herring straw man bullshit out of here. You clearly lost the argument if you are at this point.

Where did I say that? Keep your straw men to yourself.