MountingSuspicion @ MountingSuspicion @reddthat.com

Posts

1

Comments

397

Joined

2 yr. ago

But that's not what it looks like to you. It's what you remembered it looking like. If it looked like that to you, you'd have a completely different experience of discord than anyone else. I didn't downvote or anything, but you basically said "you're wrong", but they were correct.

Your comment could potentially have mislead others. People downvoted so it was less likely to be seen. When you noticed the downvotes, you acted like you were getting downvoted for admitting to an oversight. Even now you're acting like you were just trying to "learn something" and pretending like you were never actually suggesting they were incorrect. It's ok to just say you were mistaken. You weren't downvoted for saying you were mistaken, you were downvoted for being wrong and potentially downvoted more for then complaining about downvotes.

Also some people who bought teslas before all this happened having their rates go up. And the people who had their Tesla vandalized or totaled who didn't get a good enough payout from insurance to replace it (if you've ever dealt with insurance you know you're not getting the actual value back). I'm not saying I'm losing sleep over it, but still.

I had a friend buy a Tesla after Elon was talking about buying twitter but before one could objectively say he went full fash, and I told him he'd be embarrassed about it eventually. He went through with it because it had X features or whatnot. Do I feel bad for him? A little, but it's not like the writing wasn't on the wall. Obviously once Elon was with Trump 24/7 he said he regretted it, but it's a bit late for that.

There's no ethical consumption under capitalism, so it sucks to see consumers be targeted, but I understand. I have a phone and I'm sure somewhere child slavery was involved. Does that make me a bad person? Yes, the answer is objectively yes. We're all making shitty choices every day and if one day someone decides to draw the line and I'm on the wrong side of it, I guess I'll just have to cope. That's kinda how I feel about it. So Tesla owners are being harmed too, but I don't know that I'd call them victims of anything except their own decisions. I'm not sure they deserve it all equally, but we all kinda suck so whatever.

Walt Disney was a capitalist charging admission to a controlled capitalist environment. This is public land that we all collectively own and should care for. Trash bins add to overhead and are bad for surrounding wildlife. We can all just do our part. We owe Disney nothing. We owe the land and our society everything. Big difference.

Dont know what you mean by performative capitalism, but carry in carry out is pretty standard fare environmentalism. Though these people are not carrying in, they are making the decision to buy onsite and should then accept carry out responsibilities.

Different experiences then, because most people I've spoken to about it there and back home have talked about how clean it was despite that and commended the society for being so responsible with their waste.

Lots of corner stores and vending machines in Japan that sell basically full meals and no trash can in sight.

I don't think people realize that custodial staff are different than general park staff. If they have bins then they need to deal with that whole process and have at least one dedicated employee. I'd rather have to carry my trash and let the park use that money elsewhere.

For what it's worth, I do agree it's probably "gentrification" in the sense that the concept of carry in/carry out is more prevalent in middle class communities, mostly because they are more likely to engage in hobbies where or go to places where it's a more prevalent part of the culture. I'm not sure non-middle class people have the same experiences/lifestyle that lead to thinking this makes sense to do.

How did ICI get this data? It says it has access to thousands of databases, but are those government databases? How do they have the legal authority to sell that data?

Meh. They're just reinforcing their commitment to stand up for capital/tesla owners. If I was fash, this would be a positive story and I would feel safer. Like the government was taking my problems seriously.

Good on you for recognizing what was happening and changing your behavior because of it.

Your beliefs seem to align with what the students are saying and generally with moral realism.

You just said "I think that there are parts of morality that really are culturally relative and subjective, and parts that aren't." so you can view some morality as subjective and some as necessarily universal. That is what most people default to and what you seem to saying is wrong with the students. You state they aren't consistent, but you're also not consistent. Sometimes subjectivity is right sometimes it's not. I'm not seeing a distinction, so please elaborate on it if I'm missing it.

Agree. I think it's awesome that's she's potentially bringing in new listeners and talent to the mainstream part of the genre, but her album was imho not good. She has plenty of great songs, but unfortunately none of them were on that album. Really looking forward to the ripples we see in the genre from people inspired to break into it though. I think there is so much that a slightly more visible revival of folk/bluegrass could do.

You realize it seems like he's excited about Trump here, right?

I hope you left a review stating that. Plenty of people trying to avoid drop ship scams are still getting drop ship scams because no one is willing to write a review about it. Had a similar thing on Etsy where the person put pics up of their more expensive work and obvious derivatives from wish etc. asking you to support them, the OG artist, then they just shipped the wish version. I wrote a truthful (negative) review and they offered a full refund, but it was obviously a scam so I left the review up and got a refund anyway. If anyone else had added a lm honest review I would have steered clear, but I guess people just aren't motivated enough. I have no idea if all the positive reviews were bots, or if at some point they were actually selling a high quality product, but it really sucks trying to support independent artists and getting scammed. Just to be clear, I ALWAYS reverse image search, and they were the only one with what I thought I was buying.

I wonder how much of that is a change in who is going to college and why, and what the requirements are. More people are being funneled into colleges that previously would have gone directly into the workforce or into an apprenticeship. Is your class a gen ed? Gen Ed's have really expanded and if you listen to bleeding hearts like me it's a good thing because it exposes people to new things, but I think it's actually so poorly managed that people end up taking the classes they think will be the least rigorous regardless of their actual interest just to get them over with.

I just commented elsewhere in this thread, but isn't moral realism a thing for this exact situation? Is his post not a self report on his inability to identify a moral framework that fits his students worldview, or at least to explain the harm that arises if one has a self contradictory worldview and help them realize that and potentially arrive at a more consistent view? Seems like this comment section is filled with a lot of people that understand their moral framework more than this professor, but obviously are not in the field. Can you please elaborate on the issues here? Like I think abortions are fine, but I understand that others think it's murder. I don't think they're bad people for that, but I understand if they think I'm a bad person for my views. How we deal with it on a societal level is obviously even more complicated. I don't see how there's a problem there.

It seems like ALL is doing a lot of heavy lifting in your comment. Do they really believe ALL morality is relative and are also always insanely judgy if things contradict their beliefs?

Don't wanna just leave you hanging, so I'll respond and just say it's cool of you to say that rather than just ghost. I definitely also see where you were coming from. The rich need to stop milking the poor. Hoping the best for us all going forward.

Did you mean to reply to me or am I misunderstanding? She is in Laos and that is her final destination. Laos has citizenship tied to parental citizenship, so I conceptually understand that she has a valid claim to Laos citizenship, but she didn't even have documentation from there. What is your comment getting at?

I think anyone should have the right to opine on anything, but if you're not even from the US I don't know how you expect to understand what is and isn't normal, especially for government jobs.

Society as a whole is not what we're comparing it to. The whole point of them needing security detail should demonstrate how it's not like other jobs for other industries. But even so, your initial comment seems to indicate you think it should be provided, but means tested. Now it seems you're suggesting that the concept in general shouldn't be done because "society DOESN'T provide"? So either you think it shouldn't be provided to anyone, objectively a bad decision due to the large volume of credible death threats, or you think it should be provided to some, in which case the majority of my original comment still stands, mainly revolving around how to guarantee parity between public and private and if private security should be given the same leeway that public security is (hint: it shouldn't).

Yea, the parties make it difficult, but the ones who make it through (AOC, Cori Bush, lots of young progressives) should not have the added stress of fearing they can't afford security detail if needed. Or that their security detail has been defunded/stripped of its capabilities because rich congresspeople have to pay for theirs so they just made the government provided ones objectively useless. Again, it's such a small part of our taxes that it shouldn't even be a question. Kids should get lunches since they are legally required to be at school. Federal employees should get protection if their employment puts them at heightened risk. It's really not that complicated. We have basically the same system the UK does.

Of course you didn't answer any of the main points, but if you're pro means testing we probably disagree to the point where your answers to those questions will be unacceptable to me as well. I thought about removing that line because I knew it would be the only part to prompt a response, and of course it is. Taxpayers footing the bill is one of the only things allowing it to be remotely competitive for poorer people. If politicians had to pay for their own X then they'd just make it so that the line was somewhere prohibitive for poorer people. If we as a society deem something needed as part of the day to day of a public job, then we should supply that thing to the people doing that job. Simple as that. The reason means testing is not in favor is because it doesn't work. The system is gamed so it applies to everyone or no one depending on what's better for the wealthy. Additionally of course, it's stupid because you're basically saying "you should get this" but for X reason we won't give it to you. Whatever X reason, it's almost always bad for society to deny people something that they would otherwise be entitled to. Unless found guilty of a crime, we should all have access to the same benefits our relevant peers do.

I wonder what went down for Laos to accept her. I guess her parents are from there but she was born in Thailand. In the article they mention that Laos is generally uncooperative with accepting deportations, so I am curious to see how it was even justified. People are just going to be sent wherever now? Obviously it's disgusting no matter where they're sent, but she's not even from there!