Fredthefishlord @ Fredthefishlord @lemmy.blahaj.zone

Posts

1

Comments

757

Joined

2 yr. ago

I'm a union rep, I'm already part of the solution .... Doesn't mean I can't still talk shit . I just already boycotted consumerism years ago

Tiktok has a fuck ton of problems. Letting in run free is ridiculous. But all of the major social medias need the hammer brought down on them, they should not be solely targeting tiktok.

Letting a hostile foreign power control a social media site is dangerous. Same reason Europe should ban the American ones, we should ban tiktok

"Just an app" is a statement that ignores reality. Similar to the statement "it's just a game". Apps have real world consequences

It was publicly anti union. They never cared about social causes. They paid workers squat all--diversity in worker suppression.

Caring only that there's a diverse lower class catering to your needs is not actually caring in the first place.

The fact that you thought target was ever the opposite of Walmart in ethics demonstrates you were never paying attention in the first place

So you saw all the private linked sources doing that. And concluded government?

I wouldn't be surprised if some people take acab literally.

A ton of people do. Like it's a common viewpoint. Especially on platforms like this.

People love to ignore shades of gray.

Related to what you said. But I love when British and European people say "oh, sucks how your cops are so racist". When theirs are. Lol

Cambridge should've been when everyone was done and tossed them out. But people are too weak

The solution I personally want is a randomly selected "jury" of reps to be on to approve any pardons the president wants. Or some sort of approval board similarly made of elected officials. That way it adds an extra barrier to the corruption.

For responsibility, well, corruption charges should be what come about.

President'a own money? What, so they can just pay for their freedom? No, bail is an outdated concept.

I'm not asking you to support usa. I'm saying Don't glaze the hell out of china. Just because you don't support one country doesn't mean you should prop up their rival as somehow being good.

You have to understand that nations can do good and bad, even when they're evil

Are you talking about the bay harbor butcher

He could go buy a small country or something

Whoop tankie alert

Tf else would you you even use

Alternatively, we can make it a great anniversary. A reenactment even

I love all the stores being closed when I get off work ):

Being the bottom rung is nice because nothing is my responsibility at work., except my own job.

Add these factors together and you can see why people are forced to move to where the rich are, because that's where the business is, because they're the only people with enough money to constitute a customer,

This part specifically is the what I was referring to. Basically, I feel as though you're overemphasizing the "rich" aspect of why people live in cities. Tons of people just like being around other people.

The faster money flows, the more expensive jobs can be provided, and in the country side money moves slower. Wages being higher in cities isn't because that's where the rich are; it's because there's more places to spend money, so everything changes hands quicker and "creates" more money.(While I do think that plenty of modern econ is bunk bullshit, that's one concept that rings true).

While I do agree that the rich kills small towns, I think it's primarily a different reason---big box stores like walmart and medium boxes like dollar general using abusive price practices like undercutting using their wealth to push out the smaller competition, and make it nigh impossible for new places to get going.

Wealth inequality is quite meaningful, but I think it's far from everything. There's a lot of smaller reasons why cities tend to be better places to live, that don't have to do with the rich.

One good example is that higher density means more gov $ per sqrmile, even if the people are poorer, and more infrastructure can be shared, making it cheaper to build. That results in cities inevitably having better infrastructure than the countryside

When there's a legal method to do it, like this situation, following the high road does not create issues. Take the low road when needed, but don't do it unnecessarily. Best not to set any unsavory precedents imo