jj4211 @ jj4211 @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

1,763

Joined

2 yr. ago

I'm not exactly sure what you think the specific ask is...

It's very general, somehow he has the funds to have a maddeningly extravagant wedding, so he can afford to have a tax burden...

It's vague and doesn't invite debate over the nature and nuance of his wealth, only that he can somehow pull off a celebration no reasonable person could dream of, including closing off a whole crap ton of Venice to general public use for a whole week. That's a whole lot of spend that he can casually brush off indicating that in real terms he's got unreasonable levels of wealth.

It's not getting down in the details about unrealized gains and leveraging said gains through loopholes and the discussion about what taxable burden might should be associated with unrealized gains of that magnitude, it's showing a clear example of "he has extravagant financial power, without as high relatively of a financial burden".

The intelligence agencies contradicted that narrative. The administration hasn't made a case that it is actually happening, but have just declared it so.

Very much rhymes with declaration that Iraq had WMDs.

As far as evidence goes, it looks like Trump has dragged us into another conflict that we really shouldn't be in. Which is dissapointing as if there was one small silver lining about Trump was that his rhetoric used to be that we shouldn't be wasting military resources in middle east conflicts so much.

Time to install to OneDrive.

I'm making a note here: Huge Success

Frankly the online stuff doesn't get to me, but I could see how the generalizations could leave a person succeptible to a narrative. Online interactions tend to have some people taking the easy way and espousing simplified generalizations and on the receiving end are a lot of people that may take the online stuff too serious.

The false dichotomy works because those are the two loudest viewpoints online, that men are villains without a clear path to being accepted or to embrace horribly harmful toxic masculinity to get some screwed up sense of belonging and success. Young men online are at risk of being ill equipped to navigate the nuance That tends to be quieter over the noise of the two more passionate perspectives.

I apologize in advance if I missed some very bad0 comments by not going into the deeply down voted comments.

But at least some of the concerns are about the young men being declared the "villains" and the other side declaring them to be the victims of injustice and they will gravitate toward the more workable message.

Like bystanders seeing the people making life hard for women and being jerks, but not themselves participating and the commentary is less "that guy is a dick" and more "why are all men so terrible?"

Sure a lot of guys are terrible, but the generalizations can make it feel like you can't win.

Literally every President at every Press Conference ever.

No, this is quite rare for a president to look so weak by whining about bad questions.

Simple, you are so awesome, remember that you owe god one and even when a bunch of people are saying to be careful, listen to me because I'm the word of God, even though I'll try to assert some false humility by claiming I'm not persuading, just "encouraging" you to do the things I say god says...

The whole "my word comes from God" should be one of the biggest sins of they were at all close to reasonable.

This sounds like a whole lot of convoluted bullshit to use Plex locally and "looking local" through VPN solutions when you could just roll a Jellyfin instance and do things a more straightforward way..

I don't personally know, but as far as I could tell, people in the USA were largely ok with the Vietnam war, until they started to draft people to send to Vietnam who never wanted to be in a military.

While it might be thoughtful, it's based on like 3 events. It's crazy to even bother mention the 3.5% threshold with such a trivial sample size.

If a protest of a billion people happens, then it cannot be ignored by the media.

I know, it was hyperbole, but the point is that if 12 million people are on the street, it's not that the 12 million people need to get people's attention, they are indicative that the people already have that perspective and are showing it in the streets.

A small protest has a goal of getting attention on a problem that people may lack awareness. A multi-million person protest isn't about a need to raise awareness anymore, it's about showing the awareness and commitment that is already there. For whatever volume of people actively protest, you can be sure there's a singnificant multiple of that number of people who agree with the protestors but didn't take it to the streets for one reason or another.

Well I meant the more rhetorical "pushing", but yes, some of the activity of the claimed non-violence seems a bit violent.

I would say that I doubt you can have millions of people protest and manage to be completely non-violent. Some folks will take it to violence in the name of the cause, some will opportunisticly do it under the cover of the movement, and finally some might "false flag" to try to discredit the movement.

There are way more DGUs than there are not.

I think this is a pretty gigantic citation needed here. I couldn't find anything supporting this assertion but plenty of material showing the opposite.

…the perp taking his own life.

Well, technically, that is someone with a firearm I suppose...

On the one hand, most of those incidents cited were in the face of a regime that also didn't want to care. Just hard to ignore circumstances if 3.5% of your people are out on the streets and likely most of the people off the streets agree with them.

On the other hand, they base this on very few instances, so it's hardly a statistical slam dunk, it's vaguely supportive of some concepts, but anyone taking note of specific numbers is really overextending the research beyond what it can possibly say.

I think it's not "3.5% of people want an outcome" but "protests of significant magnitude to have 3.5% actively on the streets pushing" correlate with a very very large population that agrees, but not enough to be out on the streets.

So even if 40 million people want single payer, there are not 12 million in the streets.

But again, this is based on a scant handful of "movements", so it's pretty useless on specifics. Most I can see as a takeaway is perhaps that a violent movement may be too high stakes for people and a largely non-violent movement can attract more people and more people usually matter more than more violence.

Based on the article "no non-violent movement that has involved more than 3.5% of a population has ever failed" has the caveat of "we only look at 3 of them, and those 3 worked".

So their overall sample size is small, and the 3.5% sample size is just 3. Further, those 3 had no idea someone in the vague future would retroactively measure their participation to declare it a rock solid threshold.

I think the broader takeaway is that number of people seems to matter more than degree of violence, and violence seems to alienate people that might have otherwise participated.

can’t even do video playback on VLC.

I remember back in the day when I downloaded the first divx file my K6-400 couldn't smoothly play... I had been so used to thinking of that as a powerhouse coming from my Pentium 60, which was the first one I ran Linux on.

Way way too much stock is placed in that study.

For one, their total sample size was only 323 events, only 3 of which met the "3.5%" level. So the statement that change is inevitable based on only 3 instances is really crazy.

Further, none of those three instances had participants thinking that 3.5% was some sort of goal, it was a correlation. So now you have a lot of protestors treating 3.5% as a goal rather than some organic emergent property of the broader movement. Even if there was something inevitable about having a 3.5% participation rate when no one is aware of that metric, simply knowing of the metric can change a lot.