Davin @ Davin @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

67

Joined

2 yr. ago

Are your co-workers the only people on the planet that have ever tried to shut down that kind of conversation?

No. This is a conversation, the person you replied to said something and that something meant a specific thing. Since I'm the person who said it, I know what that guy meant. I was talking about conversations I had in real life.

Even if I didn't mention that specifically or clearly enough, talking about a random thing never before brought up in the discussion is your leap.

Cannot conversations be expanded upon?

They sure can. But since it's a conversation between at least two people, those two (or more) people should be on board with the expansion. Just forcing it into a conversation and ignoring what the others are telling you, is not a good way to have a conversation for a myriad of reasons.

No need to be so literal, especially when I was responding generally, and trying to make you feel better.

Talking about something that doesn't make me feel bad in the first place (astroturfing in this case), and "fixing" it, has absolutely no chance of making me feel better. It's like putting a bandaid on my knee when it was my finger that was cut.

I'm aware of astroturfing, and can usually spot it in the wild. But online comments from other people hold much less weight for me than in person or at least personal conversations. So by default, astroturfing doesn't really affect me.

Yeah, get that. I get where you went wrong as described in my last post.

I am not happy with a lot of people in my generation wanting to shut the conversation down. Astroturfing doesn't apply since the people that were doing it, were in person, face to face, coworkers. Not astroturfers.

What does make me feel better is that millennials and later seem to be more on board with me on this.

Yeah, I gathered what you were talking about. But you're responding to me talking about me talking to coworkers. I get that I didn't specifically say that, but I also don't say anything about comments on forums.

I think it ebbs and flows. My grandpa liked his job and didn't put up with shit even if that meant losing his house. But he was still able to manage. We're in the roaring twenties again, hopefully after the coming financial disaster we get another round of 40 or so years of a strong middle class before the neo boomer summer children fuck it up for everyone.

You mean like a corporation got some coworkers hired and doing actual work at the place I'm working at just to tell me I need to deal with my shit job? That seems a bit on the paranoid side.

I have a good job now.

Depends on the boss. Some can be good and actually try to manage, but most tend to be lazy and not care much about working with their staff. Figuring out how to get the most out of your employees is part of every management training course I've ever seen, but a lot of managers/bosses tend to pick the things they like and not necessarily the things that work best for their employees.

I like that more and more of the kids these days are willing to settle for shitty stuff. Most of the people in my generation (+/- a generation) just deal with it and shut down anyone that thinks things can and should be better, and that sucks.

Companies will use them before they are perfect.

I can't seem to get over that this dude looks like the lead in a bad 1970s comedy.

Beginners, in general, can't necessarily read a long list of things and figure out which one of the things applies to their question. So simply closing as a dupe without any guidance is not good.

And even simply closing and marking as a dupe is fine. But that's not what the person I'm responding to and I are talking about. Having someone come in and shame a beginner and then ban their account is not mentioned in your response, but is the shitty behavior that needs to change.

I'm trying to interpret this as a response to my post, but it doesn't make sense. I don't want to assume incorrectly or misinterpret your response so I need you to clarify what you mean.

The cowardly and terrorist attack on civilians Hamas committed on Oct 7th was short sighted and doesn't make logical sense. Fighting back against a superior force when all other options have been exhausted does make sense. There are a few historical examples of a small force overcoming a superior force, it could happen. Not likely, but again, when there aren't other options, trying the same thing that didn't work over and over again for 50 years isn't very logical either.

Unfortunately, this is how it has always been, at least for me over the last thirty+ years of programming. It has been getting better, but there are still a bunch of old school assholes who seem to think that being shamed and learning everything through personal trial and error is the best way to learn because that is how they learned.

Who said that all they wanted was the land?

And if you think that the Sinai Peninsula was in any way peaceful, you're missing a lot. It gives the impression that you don't know what you're talking about and are only using bullet points that someone else came up with. If not, go ahead and look into it and there you will find the answer.

Irrational deflections aside, Israel is taking land from peaceful people as well as people fighting back. If you were to disregard the excuses given by Israel and look at what has been going on for 80 years, you might see that their actions speak louder than their words. At about 10 times louder and getting even louder.

Edit: line breaks

The person I'm replying to seems to be missing a lot of historical context, which is why I'm asking the question and why I'm not going to answer yours without a bit of quid pro quo.

How long do you think they should try diplomacy for before they realize that it's not working?

The settlers, armed and protected by Isreal, run counter to your claim that Isreal is willing to make peace. The reality is that Isreal wants the land and they're going to take one way or another. With violence from peaceful people or with violence from people fighting against them taking their land.

Ideally yes. There are laws, sure. However, in the real world, it doesn't work that way. In my state, there is a different minimum wage for tipped workers. Back when it affected me personally, it was $2.85 when the minimum wage was $7.25. Now it's like $10 and $14.

And yes, if the tipped employee doesn't meet a minimum wage then the employer is supposed to make that up. How often that happens though, I've never seen it. And what is an underpaid employee supposed to do? Sue a chain restaurant with all the money they don't have? Get a pro bono lawyer willing to waste months of their time to help recover the difference of like $300?

I get the altruism, and the simple satisfaction from pointing to laws to try to disprove a person who experienced things in real life. But at some point in your life, you should learn that the real world doesn't work by pointing to a rule book and crying foul when someone breaks the rules.

In some states, like mine, someone working for tips is not getting paid minimum wage. So if you don't tip the waiter, then they could be worse off than a cashier at 7-11 who makes minimum wage.

Like with most things, consent and intent matter. I went out on Halloween when I was a kid and got free candy, so why is it bad if I break in and steal other people's candy?