Look, I don't think anybody has an obligation towards constructive optimism.
I do ask that those who don't at least take care to not be destructive in their pessimism, or at least not to let those who are deliberately destructive to get in a position where they can be more destructive out of being despondent.
That's the thing, right? It may not be your turn to make things better, but if you are mmindful in how you get out of the way somebody else may take things to the place where you can be. The part that worries me is how many people in that same spiral end up doing nothing when they get the chance, or so mad that they just want to tear things down without caring about what gets put in their place.
Sure, but "bunch" is the operative word here. People in government don't agree with each other, kinda by design.
In this particular case this is a thing any one member of Congress can do unilaterally and a democrat senator from California just decided to do it. That particular fucking loser probably doesn't agree with a bunch of the other fucking losers on a bunch of stuff, including this one.
How so? As far as I can tell all this means is they're added to a list of official places storing public documents. Beyond the slight bragging rights, slightly increased sense of legitimacy in upcoming lawsuits and... I guess the server costs? this seems pretty neutral. I don't even think you need the official designation to actually store the documents in question.
Well, if noone cares, then your issue maybe just isn't that important.
I don't think that's the case, but we have to account for the possibility that your priorities just aren't particularly good priorities that other people care about.
I say I don't think that's the case because plenty of people do care about some of this stuff at least to some degree, or at least agree with it when asked.
People tend to be very down on the system or on politicians or on the ability or willingness to do anything in the common interest, and that's mostly part of the liberal lie as well. There's plenty to be done and plenty of people willing to do it. Those people need the power to do it, though. Sure, getting those people to where they need to be is hard, particularly with leftie types who will immediately get discouraged the moment their politicians aren't paragons of justice with a magic wand to fix every issue, but that's not the same as saying nobody cares.
I'd much rather have people get motivated than discouraged, and I don't need to win every fight, especially not right away. It'd rather move in the right direction than pout about it, even if the short term practical outcome is the same.
I can see that for a security role... maybe. It would have been a massive waste of time and money for what we were doing, though. Plus, this was during the good old times when people weren't being fired left and right. If anything it was hard to find people with the right qualifications that were still available. People in the field were getting hired directly out of school. If you could pass the tests, do the job and not act like a psychopath during interviews there were very few things that would have disqualified you.
I'll also say that I'm pretty sure some of what you describe would have been illegal over here, at least for most jobs.
I have hired dozens, maybe hundreds of people in corpo jobs. I can't vouch for any other employer, but I've never called anybody for anything. We had tests to verify skills and the CV was mostly a tool to know what steps to cover during an interview.
I can confirm that I didn't care about the summer you spent flipping burgers for the much more specific, entirely unrelated jobs I hired for. It mostly only let me know it was probably somebody young and relatively inexperienced padding things out.
But then, we were hiring for a very specific type of industry and... well, we weren't assholes. I have to imagine this sort of CV micromanagement is a thing somewhere or there wouldn't be a cottage industry around this nonsense.
Welcome to the past three hundred years of labor movements, friend. It sucks in here, but it sure is better than the alternative.
I'll say that your proposed alternatives have all the soul crushing artificiality of a customer service call center. I would much rather say nothing at all. I'm not anybody's parent or marketing representative.
I can tell you what I do for each of those things if you want to hear it, but I won't pitch somebody else's product at you and I sure as hell won't take your pitch unless I asked for it. I find people who try to sell you stuff on the street obnoxious and I'm not gonna do that same thing online.
I mean, I know what you're saying because... you know, but if we're going to do this dick measuring thing you're going to at least have to approximate language.
You can caveat it with their perspective all you want, that's an aditional statement that has nothing to do with the original perfectly valid, perfectly understandable statement that you understood.
You absolutely can decide whether something someone else does is "normal" and do all the time. "I can't believe how often people in Finland go to the sauna, man, it's just not normal" is a perfectly acceptable statement nobody would have an issue with unless they were deliberately pretending to misunderstand it to be obnoxious and trolly on the Internet.
Oh, we're back to copy pasting and out of the "calling out the real conversation that's happening" tangent? Cool.
I mean, if you take your definition of normal, surely the person speaking determines what's normal, right? That's not a good thing, because your working definition of normalcy is bad and nonsensical and only determined by your desire to antagonize somebody online on a nitpick, so you probably don't like it much yourself beyond that. But if we take it, then I get to say what's normal when I speak because normal is "the state of being usual, typical, or expected" and I'm the one having the expectations here.
The surroundings are my surroundings because it is my post.
It's not general cocaine, but it approximates the behavior of one for some applications. People are still worried about how many resources are going to making this cocaine now, though.
You have context to define normalcy. I'm the speaker and I'm from a place where it's not normal, so it's not normal.
But of course that's not the point and has never been, because the line isn't about whether the practice is standard in some regions, which it obviously is, it's about whether it makes sense to the general principles of general mores on gender for modern society, which it doesn't.
Which you understand fully and always have. Because this is one of these dumb ones, so we're now on loop two.
Oh, cool, this is the easy part of these dumb things where we get to just copy paste the original conversation and go down the loop. Hold on:
You added "a lot of places". It's not typical or expected here, so it's not normal here.
So "normalcy" on this is geographically bound. So is it normal if my normal and your normal are different and the Internet is making us rub our normals together?
So nothing good can come from this.
Why?
Donald Trump.
How does that follow? Again I ask, you are aware that the US government has more than one person in it, right?