booly @ booly @sh.itjust.works

Posts

2

Comments

490

Joined

2 yr. ago

Unions are legal in all occupations.

One caveat: the legal protections of the right to unionize apply to non-supervisors. If you have people who report to you, your power to unionize is pretty limited.

There are also some specialized jobs that aren't allowed to unionize by either federal or state law: actual soldiers in the Army, certain political jobs, etc.

But for the most part, if you are employed, you're probably allowed to unionize (and protected against retaliation even in an unsuccessful union drive).

More specifically, the more recent studies analyze non-drinkers in two categories: those who just choose not to drink (generally healthier than even light drinkers), and those who don't drink because they have serious health conditions incompatible with drinking or people recovering from substance/alcohol abuse issues who (generally much less healthy than light drinkers). By separating those who don't drink versus those who can't drink, the studies reverse earlier findings that non-drinkers are less healthy than light drinkers.

What in the name of waluigi is this

Oh and Best Buy owes its survival to investing heavily into cell phone plans and contracts. They would've folded without it.

Radio Shack limped along for maybe a decade after their core business stopped making sense, because of their cell phone deals. This Onion article from 2007 captures the cultural place that RadioShack operated in at the time, and they didn't file bankruptcy until 2015 (and then reorganized and filed bankruptcy again in 2017).

It feels so real in how disappointing the experience becomes for the straight characters.

This hits the nail on the head. It's funny because of the point of view of the actual participants.

The funny thing about this thread is that there are so many comments essentially agreeing with the central premise of the sketch, that it's relatable and disorienting when you stumble onto some kind of established fandom and can't seem to keep up with why it's popular or what is or isn't "part of it." The popularity is confusing in itself, and the need to dissect the lore (as OP is doing, perhaps even unintentionally following the sketch itself) distracts from the original purpose of going there to be entertained.

In other words, the sketch is funny and relatable exactly for the same reasons why much of the audience doesn't find it funny and relatable.

If Republicans are that scared of turnout, they could legislatively overturn their own abortion ban.

The filibuster makes a big difference when the president, the speaker of the house, a majority of the House, and between 50-59 senators all support something.

If you don't have all of those others lined up, the filibuster isn't the only hurdle.

For example, Biden hasn't been president during a Democratic-controlled House, so everything he's accomplished legislatively has been with the support of either Kevin McCarthy or Mike Johnson, who have been the critical veto point while he has been president.

Plus with only 51 Senators in the Democratic caucus (and 50 in the last Congress), getting 50 votes through Manchin and Sinema has been a challenge sometimes, too.

The last time the filibuster has mattered for a Democratic president in actual legislation was the 111th Congress, when Democrats last held a trifecta. The Democrats did abolish the filibuster for presidential appointments, which don't go through the House, during the 113th Congress, when they controlled the White House and the Senate.

I think it's pretty obvious that the filibuster is gone the next time it matters, the next time there's same party control of all 3. It's just that it's better if it's Democrats in control.

Yeah, you can think of it as a simple transaction fee for debit transactions, and a full blown credit and risk shifting system for credit transactions. The banks charge high fees for credit transactions because they're actually lending money and bearing some credit risk for them, whereas the debit transactions are just moving money from one account to another.

This stuff takes a while to get going.

The FTC sued to stop Microsoft from acquiring Activision in December 2022, but lost.

DOJ sued Google in January 2023, and won their trial last month.

The FTC and DOJ started rulemaking on new merger disclosure and review requirements in June 2023.

The FTC sued Amazon in September 2023.

DOJ sued Ticketmaster/Live Nation in May 2024.

The last two years have shown aggressive antitrust enforcement for the first time in about 50 years, when Robert Bork basically convinced the Supreme Court and all Republicans to impose almost impossible standards for antitrust regulations.

I think this article misleadingly states what the stats show.

Each American generation is less religious than the older generations, and Gen Z is no different. It's just that Gen Z women are far less religious than previous generations, a bigger gap than the men. From the study that provides the underlying stats:

What’s remarkable is how much larger the generational differences are among women than men. Gen Z men are only 11-points more religiously unaffiliated than Baby Boomer men, but the gap among women is almost two and a half times as large. Thirty-nine percent of Gen Z women are unaffiliated compared to only 14 percent of Baby Boomer women. 

In other words, Gen Z men are less religious than Boomer men. This basic conclusion doesn't seem to come through in the original article, which almost suggests that young men are more religious than older generations.

The kinetic energy in that stardust, and the gravitational potential energy of stardust pulling itself into tighter balls, doesn't necessarily come from fusion. There's all sorts of cosmological forces and energy out there, and I don't think they all trace back to nucleii smushing together.

So is biomass. And wind. And fossil fuels. And hydro.

In fact, I think only geothermal and fission aren't fusion-based.

Nader 2004: 465,650

Nader wasn't even the Green candidate in 2004. Nader ran as an independent in 2004.

That year the Green Party ran David Cobb, who got 119,859 votes, putting him behind the Constitution Party, the Libertarian Party, and the independent Ralph Nader.

In 2008, Nader ran again as an independent and beat the Green Party once again, with 739,034 votes, versus McKinney's 162k. In between were the Libertarians in fourth place, and the Constitution Party in fifth place.

The Green Party has never even come in third place, and several times hasn't even come in fifth place, in our two party system.

I love the way you weave in the cultural context, including the culture war parts of modern political and policy debates, the business/corporate trends in entertainment, in your telling of this history. It's clear you know your stuff, and you've helped me understand something new (the influences these slasher films drew from, from Agatha Christie), grounded in stuff I might have already known (the actual movies themselves and the cultural context they were released into, including how people looked at boobs before the internet).

So thank you. This comment is awesome, and you make this place better.

This is a counter to the Democratic party supporters you see everywhere who always get irrationally upset at third party voters, not about Republicans.

Plenty of us Democrats are very much in support of a ranked choice voting schemes, or similar structural rules like non-partisan blanket primaries (aka jungle primaries). The most solidly Democratic state, California, has implemented top-2 primaries that give independents and third parties a solid shot for anyone who can get close to a plurality of votes as the top choice.

Alaska's top four primary, with RCV deciding between those four on election day, is probably the best system we can realistically achieve in a relatively short amount of time.

Plenty of states have ballot initiatives that bypass elected officials, so people should be putting energy into those campaigns.

But by the time it comes down to a plurality-take-all election between a Republican who won the primary, a Democrat who won the primary, and various third party or independents who have no chance of winning, the responsible thing to make your views represented is to vote for the person who represents the best option among people who can win.

Partisan affiliation is open. If a person really wants to run on their own platform, they can go and try to win a primary for a major party, and change it from within.

TL;DR: I'll fight for structural changes to make it easier for third parties and independents to win. But under the current rules, voting for a spoiler is throwing the election and owning the results.

Racists would pay quite a bit of money to be able to target certain ethnic groups.

Why do you care if the person you voted for wins?

Because it's an election with consequences, not an online fandom.

"Feminism" is like philosophy in that over time it makes certain wins, and the discussion around that topic gradually sheds the label.

In the same way that ancient philosophers were establishing the disciplines we now call mathematics, geometry, and physics, or early modern philosophers were establishing what we now call economics and political science, and mid-century/postwar philosophers were establishing what is now called computer science and information theory, the history of feminism is notching wins and making them normal:

• In Anglo American law, women were able to own their own property beginning in the early 19th century, starting in the American South (somewhat ironically driven by southern concerns about preserving the institution of slavery).
• Women were allowed to be considered for credit and banking services, equal to men, beginning in the 1970's.
• Women earned the legal right to equal pay for equal work in the 70's, even as cultural attitudes in many circles still considered that to be government overreach (even today).
• Marital rape and other forms of domestic violence were outlawed pretty recently. The last state to criminalize marital rape did so in 1993, the same year that Jurassic Park came out in theaters.
• Liberalized divorce rules throughout the 80's allowed women to leave abusive husbands more easily.
• Most gender segregation in official government institutions were dismantled in the 1980's and the 1990's, including the abolition of male-only universities, and laws imposing different legal drinking ages between men and women.

Today, many of us who were alive when these rules were in effect think of them as totally backwards. Nobody is seriously advocating for a return to denying women the right to have their own bank accounts, or giving husbands the right to rape their wives without consequences.

But the cultural understanding of the meaning of feminism rarely considers preserving past wins, even recent wins. People only think of it as fighting for something in the future.

Most men have experienced the stifling gender norms that force them into a box: they're not allowed to cry or show any feeling other than anger, there's no such thing as non-sexual touch or romance, women don't like sex so trying to get close to them is inherently rapey and goes against their desires.

Feminism fights against that trap, that men are only men if they check certain boxes. That's what's toxic: telling men they're not allowed to be certain ways.

So yeah, feminism does have a lot to offer men. Toxic societal expectations are bad for everyone.