UsernameHere @ UsernameHere @lemmings.world

Posts

0

Comments

148

Joined

2 yr. ago

The only perspective was a wishlist of responsibilities for a software developer.

It seems delusional to pretend one developer “should” do the job of a whole team.

What is this trash? It reads like an AI hallucination.

Congress can’t be trusted anymore than Trump when it comes to national security secrets.

some things are buried beneath mountains of different security designations

You say this but then claim it’s embezzlement.

It’s much more likely that the Pentagon keeps this info guarded so it doesn’t end up in a bathroom in Mar-a-Lago.

You’re trying to pretend that the deals city officials make to bring in business that leads to more jobs and revenue is the same as tax cuts for the rich that conservatives campaign for.

Those two things aren’t the same and this is an obvious attempt to portray it that way to claim both sides are the same.

_ If you're so insistent that liberal has a special American™ definition, then what is it? _

I’m not insistent on anything. Just pointing out what you acknowledge in your first paragraph, that Liberal in American politics doesn’t fit your definition.

_ How is it different from neoliberalism?_

Well, neoliberalism promotes income inequality and those that American Conservatives call Liberals campaign against income inequality.

_ Is it useful in the broader conversation?_

Is what useful? In what broader conversation?

_ Is there an already existing word that would fit the American version of liberal?_

Probably.

_ If there is, shouldn't that word be used instead to avoid miscommunication_

In a perfect world, yes. But American Conservatives misuse titles like “liberals”, “communist” and “socialists” to push their agenda. It happens so much that the meanings of these words have changed in American politics. They do it so they can paint liberals as neoliberals and say ‘hey look! Democrats support trickle down economics too! Both sides are the same!’

Or to pretend like helping Americans in need is socialism and will result in the same outcome as socialist nations that have failed, etc.

So to ignore what they are trying to do and stick to the original definitions of these words will just reinforce their base’s views of those ideologies.

It’s easier to reach their base by saying ‘If it’s socialism to make sure that American’s have affordable healthcare then I guess I’m a socialist’. Thus changing what those ideologies are in the eyes of American conservatives.

You’re trying to claim that the article is using the definition of neoliberalism when referring to liberals in American politics? That’s observably false. Just look at the context.

The article tries to spin this as a “gotcha” because those who American Conservatives call “liberals” in American politics campaign against trickle down economics.

Do neoliberals campaign against trickle down economics? Nope.

Reaganomics pushed trickle down economics in the 80s and was neoliberal to the core.

American Conservative’s use of “Liberal” ≠ neoliberalism

If that’s true then explain why you think so.

Those are all examples of him donating to charity and helping people which is the opposite of pretending.

And why are you referring to him as a neoliberal? The article mentioned liberals in the American politics context. Which has nothing to do with neoliberalism.

Just because he chose to donate to charity doesn’t mean he ‘chose it over supporting public programs’.

I’ve donated to charity before. Does that mean I am I neoliberal that is deeply conservative etc, etc? Nope. I just wanted to help and if that wasn’t the most effective way to help then I just didn’t know of a better way.

This is the first I’ve heard of him “pretending” that he’s lifting up black people of Atlanta. I’ve read the article and didn’t see anything that supports that claim. Where is it coming from?

The article basically says: ‘Tyler Perry bought property in a low income area of Atlanta and it hasn’t single-handedly fixed income inequality. See! Liberals support trickle down economics too!’

This seems like it’s written in bad faith.

It’s not some crazy conspiracy to say this doesn’t look like an accident

“Apple didn't know De Niro hadn't signed off on that one as the final version”

Then they are at fault for not verifying they are putting the right words on the teleprompter

“If you're going to attribute an action to a company as a whole, then it at least needs to be a decision made by a high-level employee and not some peon.”

I’ve had many experiences with companies that fire “peons” for bad PR or misrepresenting the views of the company or however HR wants to word it to avoid legal problems.

It is very easy for CEOs or upper management or middle management to pass down orders that are worded in a way that imply what they want workers to do without saying it in a legally binding way.

“The idea that Apple decided to just unilaterally delete portions of his speech at the last minute, without his consent, is among the least plausible scenarios.”

Then why is it the first conclusion that De Niro and many others came to?

“Anybody with any actual authority at the company is smart enough to know how stupid that would be.”

Because it looks like they are censoring his speech.

CODA is irrelevant here.

Apple admitted they made a mistake with the teleprompter.

We can only speculate why it happened.

Considering the context of what was removed I doubt it was a coincidence.

If Apple wanted him to only talk about certain things during his speech they could’ve communicated that before he accepted their request for him to give a speech.

He probably would’ve turned down the request.

You acknowledge that it is common for actors to do what he did so it is safe to say Apple knew also.

So Apple takes the “it’s easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission” approach and plays dumb.

So.. the kind of situation where Apple would want more viewers.

But the word shit is ok? Classic lemmyshitpornpost

I don’t buy it. Those decisions always include the actor for obvious reasons.

“Oops! We aCciDeNtLy cut out the part that might cause insurrection supporters to not watch our award show! Aww shucks our mistake increased our ratings.”

If they didn’t want to hear what HE had to say then why give him an award and a mic?

It is very common for actors to use their speeches as a chance to speak about issues important to them. From Joaquin Phoenix all the way back to Marlon Brando.

This is an obvious attempt from Apple to censor a speech they asked for.

Uranibaba did not postulate an opinion. He stated a fact:

“a child is the responsibility of the parents, and the parents alone”

Parents created the child. So they are the ones responsible. It’s the same reason parents can be held legally accountable for the actions of their children. Just because parents can force someone else to raise their children doesn’t mean it’s ok.