What are you doing, Disney?
Milk_Sheikh @ Milk_Sheikh @lemm.ee Posts 2Comments 739Joined 2 yr. ago
Milk_Sheikh @ Milk_Sheikh @lemm.ee
Posts
2
Comments
739
Joined
2 yr. ago
Yeah. I understood the (good faith) arguments that the presidency is a high tempo, stressful, 24/7 job and that Biden was wiped out in interviews or public appearances - but that’s an excuse not an exoneration.
If he couldn’t make it through the work each day without being cooked, every single day, then he should have stood aside for someone younger/sharper who could. I voted for Jimmy Carter 2.0 in 2020, not for Biden - the downslope was apparent even before then if you cared to look beyond the news headlines. He never should have ran again in 2024.
A DB plan at least locked in your retirement payout, allowing much more security of income than being left to the wolves in the stock market.
I’ve seen multiple workers who need to retire, it was past their planned date to retire despite saving for their entire lives, because ‘the market’ wiped out a chunk of their retirement package.
Undoing the vestiges of colonialism is bloody work, but the current system of dictatorship/oil-cartel is hardly sunshine and roses for the locals.
I truly hope the people living there get to decide their future and the Kurds carve out a real state, not just autonomous zones that Turkey bombs at will. The way we abandoned them was disgusting after they led the fight on the ground against IS/Daesh.
Seriously. Why the fuck else would your “top investigators” release these kind of details of an ongoing investigation when the normal comment is “we don’t discuss active investigations”?
- They have no good leads and are hoping for more tips from the public (lol good luck with that $60k snitch line bounty you stiff people on).
- They hope to rattle this purported individual to do something stupid like grant a media interview or send an email/letter
- They are throwing a massive digital dragnet around this and are hoping this purported individual is manically F5’ing any and all stories for counterintelligence of their case.
It’s hard to truly know what went on behind the scenes, but there was a large amount of common disdain for Biden staying in the race after “we beat Medicare” - anyone who hadn’t already been clued into his cognitive decline was suddenly confronted with that reality, and people knew he was a clear loser at that point.
For Biden the floor only fell out beneath him after Nancy Pelosi and the donor class publicly announced they wanted Joe out NOW that the DNC/Biden camp realized the gig was up.
Market linked retirement funds, imo rank among one of the worst regressions in American governance/society.
It broke the employer:employee relationship where your work provides a pension, and you are secured in your old age for loyalty and time worked.
It directly enabled an emboldened a new group of parasites, who run hedge funds to gamble with other people’s money whilst skimming fees up and down the transaction flows. You win, I win - you loose, I win.
And those ‘smart people’ crash the economy every 10-15 years due to their collective greed and over leveraging in order to take the maximum profit they can - or society as a whole “lands softy” due to central banks fiscal policy via inflation, and we all see where that’s landed us.
Jk on them, my most regular receipt is just that hotdog. Walk right through the registers, eat food, leave with nothing else.
It’s a damn good hot dog at an absurd price - on the scale of processed meats, let’s be real.
You know when NCD has actual writeups and citations shit is getting real. Getting Wagner coup vibes, what a time to be alive where we can glimpse into the sausage of geopolitics being made in real time.
I feel like you’re lost, and don’t understand NCD lol
I don't understand where or how or why vigilante murder is even brought up here? Who said or implied anything about murder.
The original post is literally about a vigilante murdering the UHC CEO and another company seemingly changing policy afterwards, with OP attaching a comment about ‘not saying it’s good, but maybe violence does work’. You brought solidarity in out of nowhere, and implied it was parallel to sectarianism/tribalism.
That is why I called you out as being obtuse, a vigilante murder is the only reason this comment thread exists - it was there from the very beginning.
I'm merely specifying the easily missed core of solidarity which is that a background of legitimacy is required to have these soup kitchens and co-op farms. The state and it's "violence" of set rules and consequences must exist as a background before the space can be opened up for these examples you use.
You never mentioned legitimacy - I inferred it. That’s called reading comprehension, not strawmaning. Which is why I posted that legal is not inherently moral. Because enforcing laws, not persuasion or incentives to prompt compliance, ultimately requires a state actor to force that law on another person. And if that person still says “no” then that state actor is empowered to use violence to either make that person submit and follow that law, be arrested, or ultimately killed if they continue to resist. A law prohibiting rape or murder is different than anti-vagrancy laws or occupational licensing - but the enforcement is facsimile if met with resistance.
Quite hilarious to call me the obtuse and myopic one here, when my whole cornerstone from the start has basically been a suggestion to step back and think about what Solidarity means and how it is effectively sustained before we rush in to believing we can so easily make such harsh distinctions between legality and morality or state vs tribalist violence.
This is a good explanation. Your initial comment was half-baked and didn’t expound on what you were trying to say, which is why challenged what I inferred your thrust to be. I’m not foolish enough to believe that we can all live in 100% peaceful coexistence, nightly drum circles, and unlimited cooperation and mutual respect. Because there’s always some asshole who doesn’t want to help or respect autonomy, and becomes the aggressor in order to steal/subjugate/dominate/etc. But my thrust was that the social contract is broken, when a company can essentially renege on a financial contract (heath insurance) arbitrarily and capriciously, and faces no legal repercussions. Because lobbying. Because “business friendly” legal environment where the one with the most money almost wins by default, if there even is a legal challenge.
Please don't triple strawman me here
I genuinely don’t think you understand what that means, or are confusing presumptive argument for it. It you feel misrepresented and I am straw manning - explain in further detail. Like you just did now, instead of a snarky “u iz strawman winnar”. We never got to that part of the debate initially because you got huffy and left a drive-by comment at the first challenge.
A lot of racist/white supremacist intent underlined much of early gun control. Before concealed gun carry permits existed in a widespread manner in the late 80s, it was known that if you were the right skin color and weren’t carrying a shitty gun without said permit, cops looked the other way.
White guy with a H&K or Sig Sauer? “Have a nice day day sir”
Minority with a Jennings or Lorcin? Dangerous criminal lying in wait for their next victim
the original Act of 1893 ... was passed for the purpose of disarming the negro laborers ... and to give the white citizens in sparsely settled areas a better feeling of security. The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied. It is a safe guess to assume that more than 80% of the white men living in the rural sections of Florida have violated this statute… and there has never been, within my knowledge, any effort to enforce the provisions of this statute as to white people
Rivers H. Buford, associate justice of the Florida Supreme Court, Watson v Stone - 1941
You’re trying hard to be obtuse, or super myopic if you don’t see the through line from state violence, to consent of the governed to accept laws (and the violence required to enforce them) - hence my comment that legality is not morality, and the inference that lobbying has broken that trust and consent by legalizing policies like UHC’s that are not unique to that one company.
You brought solidarity into this, which is distinct from tribalist/sectarian violence like you’re alluding to. Soup kitchens, community legal defense funds, or cooperative farms are examples of solidarity. Not vigilante murder.
And like I said, your average normie does not exist in the circles and spaces where those stories are highlighted and shared. Their biggest exposure may very well be a literature teacher years ago at school, broadcast news’ puddle deep coverage of the topic, or workplace sensitivity pamphlets.
You can scold them to do better, to do your own work, just like you did to the prior commenter who was asking a genuine question from a place of well meaning ignorance, and wanted to do better and requested help with a starting point. And you basically told them to gtfo - great message, screw them for exposing their lock of understanding and trying (humble as it may be) to be better.
I have a bigoted uncle, and despite knowing and being in a circle with a trans woman, he still deadnamed her regularly behind her back and openly confessed astounded bewilderment as to “why anyone does that”. Until I shared a personal anecdote of my lightbulb moment that took me from (admittedly) privileged indifference and ignorance, to understanding why people transition and how living your life wearing the mask society assigned you whilst grappling of gender dysphoria destroys you slowly from the inside. I had no personal struggle to share beyond that understanding, I could have also smugly told him to “do your own reading” - but guess what? He no longer deadnames her, and more and more frequently mentions her positively without the follow-up commentary. THAT is the kind of change that can exist if you try to meet people where they are at.
Nobody says you owe them emotional/mental labor to be seen or deemed worthy of human rights, but snapping at potential allies turns away people who might come onside. I was one of those people, who could have very easily continued to do nothing.
Seriously. Imagine the state prosecutor trying to weed out that jury pool.
Even if a potential juror doesn’t mouth off online, there is a massive list of names that UHC has fucked over directly, let alone people with ill feelings toward health insurance in general.
Why?
You, your boss, the executive board, hell the country and the planet even, is completely irrelevant to the ghouls who only see profit. Everyone is replaceable.
Externalities are not a cost feature of capitalism, and when the government fails to prevent the most egregious excesses of the ‘line must go up, forever exponentially’ money chasers, everyone pays the price for their greed.
Communities poisoned because freight trains “need to be umpteen cars long to be profitable” whilst demanding priority treatment on taxpayer funded infrastructure.
Over $60 billion in taxpayer handouts to corporations in the last ten years alone, often with no or weak strings attached, and a legislature that refuses to enforce the clauses and responsibilities that secured those subsidies. Collect payout, ‘restructure and reincorporate’ and poof - there isn’t a company by that name anymore, our contract is void but they keep the money.
Public sector employees driven to destitution by crippling low pay, while Congress voted themselves $174,000 per year rocketing themselves into the top 9% of all earners, whilst we pay for 72% of their healthcare insurance premiums.
I’m no lawyer, but the legal system calls this “reasonable doubt” and if you are on a jury, you are duty bound to do your best to judge the case on the facts, not vibes.
And the fact is, a grainy photo of two people who may have somewhat similar clothing is not proof, nor mens rea required for a possible murder conviction - who are we to claim to understand the mind of this individual?
The state has a high bar to clear that this anonymous shopper, is the same person they claim, the photo was taken on the same day, that this photo isn’t a forgery/deepfake, that only one set of that particular clothing was ever sold- otherwise it’s hearsay and conjecture.
Yeah, because nobody else speaks up for those who’d be railroaded through court otherwise. You don’t ’see them speak up’ because those same people’s voice get lost in the crowd of everyone else’s outrage/support.
It’s trite but true, failure to defend the fringes leaves a smaller and smaller pool of resistance/solidarity:
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
\ Because I was not a socialist.Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out—
\ Because I was not a trade unionist.Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
\ Because I was not a Jew.Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
So just because it’s sprinkled with the magic fairy dust of ‘government’ it’s immediately moral and good violence?
Here’s a freebie thought experiment I had to pay a PoliSci professor for; if tomorrow the democratically elected government passed a law that from today forward, all babies with blue eyes will be euthanized at birth, is that legal?
Yes. 100% legal. And 100% morally bankrupt.
Consent of the governed is the bedrock of civil society - the ghouls that run big business seem to have forgotten/don’t care that legality does not equal morality.
Despite a fairly obvious motive in general before this news broke, and now confirmation it was because of their policies, they are doing zero soul searching or reexamination of why their policies became a motive
Thompson’s killing quickly sent shockwaves through the corporate world, with corporate security heads gathering in a conference call to Wednesday.
“Many of my colleagues today are sitting down with their executive protection team leaders, their security leadership teams, and re-evaluating what they are doing and not doing,” Dave Komendat, president of Seattle-based Komendat Risk Management Services
Who had neo-Pinkertons on their 2020s bingo?
We can thank Steve for the leaps and bounds that happened in the early 90’s with CGI - tl;dr he was a brilliant animator who snuck in under the radar at ILM and was given run of the animation department because he/his working partner literally invented many of the cutting edge animation techniques, from scratch.
Dude has a tragic story (personality disorder & alcoholism) that led to him being uncredited and blacklisted, pretty well captured in a biopic, worth the hour-ish watch imo.