Hey, President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Camacho was a fantastic president. He recognized his own limitations and set the man who, by objective testing, was the smartest in the country, to fix the biggest problem facing his constituents.
Great reason to get rid of the dumb archaic practice in the first place. I repeatedly told my wife she shouldn't feel any pressure to take my name. She did anyway, but I think it was just because she liked it more.
Anyway, sacrificing your ability to vote in order to take your husbands last name might have the oh so unfortunate side effect of keeping trad wives from voting.
Had this conversation with my wife early in our marriage. I got the, "fine, I'm wrong, you're right. You're always right." And I said, "I'm not always right. I'm often wrong. I just don't make a big deal out of it, apologize if I need to, and we all move on and you forget about it. You remember all the times you're wrong because it always turns into a conversation like this." Then she started noticing and started being more chill about being wrong (she grew up in a VERY shitty household with a narcissist mother where admission of wronghood was an opportunity to get absolutely shit on).
It's amazing how a simple, "oh, you're right, my bad" can improve your life and reputation.
Not exactly (from my reading). The Jewish communities tended to be fairly insular, and focused a lot of their business inward. They still dealt with outsiders, but money flow tended to move mostly in one direction, so it seemed like the Jewish people were much better off and "taking" from the rest, when the rest of the country struggled. It was really more that a marginalized community took care of their own. Shocking, right?
Plenty of other communities do the same. It's still a bunch of scapegoating.
Because it's death. The best case scenario is no or limited anticipation, with no physical pain or suffering. The alternative is taking several minutes, hours, or days to die, with each breath being agony. "At least" pretty directly says it is the least you could hope for, given the circumstances.
Oh, yeah, that's a fair addendum: "unless you live in a state that does not allow the reduced minimum wage for tipped employees." At that point I would agree that tipping is more or less optional.
I feel like "mental gymnastics" has become grossly overused, and I don't think it applies, but regardless you are involved in the shitty food joint's (read: all that have wait staffs that operate on tips) business model, by being their customer. By going to a business that you know pays their wait staff less that minimum wage, you are agreeing to their shitty business model. So then, not paying a tip is essentially taking a discount on your order at your wait staff's loss. The business owner isn't hurt by that, they still get the full rate for the food. And as long as SOME customers pay tips, they don't have to pay any more (hence the taking from other tables comment).
It is a shitty system, but you agree to participate in it if you go to those restaurants. Which, for sit-down restaurants in the US, is most. If you go to one of those restaurants and don't tip, you aren't making some protest against tipping culture, and you aren't hurting the business owner. You are only saying that the wait staff should be paid at $2.13 per hour to serve you.
Lobby against the labor laws that allow less-than-minimum for tipped employees, or don't go to restaurants that rely on that model. Anything else, you're just taking a discount from the wait staffs' paychecks by not tipping.
And I absolutely can not believe that such anti-worker, pro-business owner bullshit is happening here. I cannot stress enough, you not tipping does nothing to the business owner. Billionaires jack up prices, stifle wage increases, and we're out here complaining about having to tip a person who otherwise would get $2.13 an hour, because somehow that's legal.
That being said, starting at 30% is ri-goddamn-diculous.
Also, since I didn't get to your later point, I'm not sure of its relevance to what I was saying. You have no control (and usually no knowledge) of how tips are distributed. So not sure what you are expecting from me here.
Not for each transaction. So not tipping is like reaching over to another table and taking some of their tip for your table. They are still paid less than minimum wage for the service they provided you, but someone else's tips will still keep them out of minimum wage for the shift.
So yes, at they're worst they should get at least minimum wage for each shift. But per customer, their rate is below minimum wage without tipping, which is an awful system we need to get rid of.
I remember that being a little more "coercive and rapey" than bribing, since the nurse was the one who demanded "fuck me and I'll set you free, or you can wait for whatever they are going to do to you."
I get Riker is full of fucks to give, but he didn't seem terribly pleased with not having a choice.
I had understood it to mean, the more simple a theory is, the more likely it is to be true.
E.g. "organisms change through time to become the creatures that exist today" vs. "organisms change through time to become the creatures that exist today through the intelligent design of a creator."
The former, having fewer conditions to be true, is more likely to be true.
Excellent. I'd vote for him (over the other two, at least).