a lil bee 🐝 @ alilbee @lemmy.world

Posts

2

Comments

407

Joined

2 yr. ago

According to the wording of the ad he took out, his argument is focused on length, not style. He explicitly states that the school allows braids, locs, and rows. Then he argues that the CROWN act is very specific about not applying to length.

This whole thing is really stupid. Length of styling of hair, along with clothing and other personal appearance issues, should be considered speech and protected outside of blatant attempts to disrupt an educational atmosphere. All that said, the school may not be acting in opposition to the letter of the law, even if they definitely are in spirit.

The vote to vacate a speaker can happen pretty easily, so as long as the Freedom Caucus and company still want him out, he's not safe. He could drag it out maybe but that's about it.

Your idealistic idea of what "democracy" means has never existed in the United States, but if you want anything close to it, you're going to have to win it within the confines of the current system. The right seems to understand that, and they're close to succeeding. Throwing your hands up and not voting for the only realistic chance of not devolving into an autocracy is a choice too, regardless of the principle you're standing on to do it.

But where do you draw the line in a way that wouldn't be heavily abused for political purposes? I'm not very interested in the idea of evaluating people's morbidity as a qualification for office. There are succession procedures and chains of authority to handle these things. It's one thing to argue about age's impact on current mental or physical faculties if those are inhibiting performance, but I do not want hypothetical deaths factoring in.

Is that a pickle juice tap? :o

Haha, I do like the study on actual flies. That's fun. I still think the analogy holds true for human behavior. I hope it should be obvious I'm not condoning never taking anyone to task when it's deserved, politician or otherwise. I think making it the core of your political movement is complete folly though.

I obviously recognize that politicians are not children. That's not how analogies work. I also think embracing celebration of wins instead of immediately scolding for not going far enough is not "coddling", either in the case of children or politicians. I think viewing it as such is part of the problem.

I disagree that MLK Jr was referring to Incrementalism explicitly there, but regardless, I'm not a big fan of pulling out political "saints" to make a point. If you think my underlying point is that we should embrace tradition and stability over all progress, I think that's an unfair assumption based on what I've written here. But do I want my country and society to improve without us all killing each other or breaking every rule that gets in the way of our view? Yeah, I think that's true for me. And I don't see anything that MLK advocated for, in ends or means, that disagreed with that notion.

So yeah, I want congress to legalize weed. Hell, I smoke daily and have bought my weed illegally in sketchy parking lots. But I'm going to celebrate this, because some good people who did nothing wrong get to celebrate Christmas at home.

I completely disagree that your complaints spur a single thing. Every heard the phrase "you catch more flies with honey than vinegar"? Or how about if I get your thoughts on how to rear a child? Do you beat them, complain about their accomplishments constantly, or do you encourage and support them? Encouragement, support, and excitement do more to inspire change than any amount of complaints.

Incrementalism is the only bloodless way to achieve true progress. I embrace it, and celebrate these wins.

Purity tests all the way down and it's why populism never actually works. You can't be happy, even a little bit, about incremental progress if the "real problem" hasn't been dealt with. That problem will always be broad and impossible to truly achieve outside of theory. You end up with an ideology just centered around anger and despair.

Yeah, I love Weir's books and have read the short story before, so it's wild that I never noticed that. Really neat!

If that's true, that's definitely something that needs to be addressed. I am all in favor of users having the choice to block instances and their users, and will likely even block Threads myself. This whole shaming campaign against instances though is childish, ineffective, and against the underlying principles of federation. What's even the point if people are just going to start name and shaming every instance owner making a decision they don't like?

And for fuck's sake, I understand the core idea of embrace, extend, extinguish, don't link me the article (not you, gregorum, just random readers of this comment). I'm just not going to use that as a kneejerk way to shut down any action taken by a company I don't like.

Especially given that there was just an update allowing for individuals to block instances they don't like. Forcing this on the instance level is just nonsense, and exactly the sort of behavior most of us wanted to escape from. If I wanted my instance owner to just decide all of this random nonsense for me, I'd just go back to reddit. I'm glad my instance is leaving it up to me.

Hey, nobody would happier than me if they turn this thing around. I just think some of the systems are broken in a way I can't fix with some big mod pack. Like, sure, I can fix the repeating location layouts by adding a bunch more of those. More variety in powers, crafting, weapons, armors, ships, that's easy. Having to quick travel constantly because each planet is its own instance? That destroys the exploration gameplay, my favorite part of Bethesda games, and idk how you fix that in a patch or mod.

Oh no, now your streak is broken!

The same applies to daily intake recommendations and BMI too, but they're still helpful measures to exist. I like your suggestion, I would just add one more line (and only in cases over a certain threshold) to your example with something like "Exceeds daily recommended intake by x%, which can be a risk for those with underlying heart conditions".

I would agree with that. And maybe something more explicit about exceeding the safe intake levels by huge percentages.

I've seen this take a lot, but I would also like to bring up that a lot of people have heart conditions that they may not even be aware of. To be clear, I have no idea how you'd legislate this, but in a perfect world, I think it makes sense to limit certain ingredients based on a risk factor including the availability of the drink, the risk threshold of someone with an underlying condition consuming it, and the likelihood of someone with said health condition knowing that. And I'm not sure what the numbers look like in the end, but I do know this is a fuck ton of caffeine, sold in a drive thru, that can adversely affect people with one of the most common health conditions that is frequently invisible until a real incident. I don't even necessarily think Panera is acting in a negligent way, but this is a potentially disastrous combo.

Here ya go. The gov puts it at about 50% for about the same age group.

I think you're really underestimating how many 25-35 year olds work for large corps. And you've got it reversed. The big corp jobs are the only ones paying wll enough to escape that treadmill. Sucks, I would love to work for some local mom and pop, but FAANG can double or triple the salaries of what they can offer. Most of my peers that I have talked to are in a similar boat.

And again, we all get retirement accounts in the first couple of weeks of employment. That's been the case since I worked at comparitively much smaller companies even.

Absolutely. Any corporate employer is going to auto-enroll you into setting up and paying into a retirement account. Any post-college age group is going to have similar numbers. That would be my guess anyway.

I mean, I'm one of them. There is a pretty significant number of 25-35 years old professionals who start banking into retirement almost immediately.