Fingers crossed this stuff keeps people galvanized to vote cons the fuck out of each branch of government in 2024. My hope is that trump’s term and the Dobbs decision will push the gop to implode. They can’t back away from pandering to far right christians, the older generations are dying off, and hopefully moderate-leaning conservatives will choose to not vote, since I doubt they’ll let themselves vote for democrats.
Though this’d also likely lead to far right extremists ramping up their violence as they feel themselves losing power
Fingers crossed this stuff galvanizes people to realize that voting is, at best, a temporary stopgap and they will need to be a bit more active in the whole political process. What happened to the riots that were promised if Roe vs. Wade was overturned? When the Democrats fall in lockstep with the far right extremists how will you hold them accountable?
Though this’d also likely lead to far right extremists ramping up their violence as they feel themselves losing power.
That is what overturning Roe vs. Wade is about. The parent article is a story of far right extremists ramping up their violence as American empire loses power. Is your plan to vote that away? It hasn’t worked for the last 40+ years.
What happened to the riots that were promised if Roe vs. Wade was overturned?
Honestly I’m surprised we didn’t get George floyd/blm levels of protest after Dobbs was official, though a lot of it would’ve been moot since liberals and progressives have spent several decades disarming themselves and fostering a hatred towards guns. Christian nationalists don’t give a single fuck about peaceful protests and if things come to blows, our side is the one with far less firepower and far less zealots willing to risk personal harm for this topic (not saying the second one is good or bad morally, just pointing out that the right’s fostering of that kind of zealotry is an additional hurdle we’ll face).
That is what overturning Roe vs. Wade is about.
I was specifically referring to extra-judicial here. If/as they understand they can’t force their draconian laws on everyone through the normal channels of government, they’ll switch to embracing direct, physical violence as a first resort.
They absolutely are and pretending they’re not is stupid. They’re a last resort, but they’re still a tool that needs to be on the table if worst comes to worse. Soap box, ballot box, jury box, ammo box.
For progressives to abandon every principle they espouse and start using violence as a political tool and direct threat would mean the very last nail in the coffin.
Please, I’m engaging this conversation in good faith so don’t take my words out of context. I am not encouraging the use of violence out of hand and I think you know that. I’m encouraging a healthy respect for a tool of last resort, and a deterrent against things progressing to the point where we want to use that last resort. Armed but peaceful protests often result in less violence from the cops and alt right counter protesting, because at the end of the day they see disarmament as an invitation for violence.
There’s a reason that if you go far enough left, you start to get your guns back. Some people still understand that right wingers and the elite would prefer fascists and genocide to losing control.
This is why they leaked the decision but said “it could change it’s not the final decision” to slow roll the information and make it less likely people would take direct action.
In the 90s boomers weren’t dying off in large amounts, conservative bastions weren’t in overwhelming support of abortion rights when left to the peoples’ vote, and Texas of all places wasn’t turning purple in state-wide elections. Things have absolutely changed from a population standpoint and gop leaders have shown that they’re terrified of the millenial+Z vote, which trends significantly more liberal (and the millenial vote has not shifted conservative with age, as older generations did), now being larger than the boomer vote.
Things are absolutely changing if you pay attention to the data. That being said, it’s still something that only changes over the course of generations, and the gop’s fraternization with Christian nationalists has created a monster that they’re now losing control of. We’re at a phase where things will either start to get better because of right wing ideology losing the numbers game, or right wingers lashing out at their loss of control will lead to them taking over via less democratic means (their capture of the SCOTUS is a more tame example of what they might try).
Does teaching Holocaust make us hate modern Germany? Does teaching about Pearl Harbor makes us hate modern Japan? Why do they think that teaching black history is exclusively spreading hate?
Because they don't see the racist, slave-holding south as a past entity separate from their current reality.
If the federal government weren't stopping them, they'd re-enslave people today. In fact, they have via the prison system. So they don't want anyone closely examining it, hence banning or slowing the subject in schools if they're able.
There should definitely be consequences for Greg Abbott. He should be charged with conspiracy and manslaughter at a minimum. He’s literally killing children for a political points now.
walks into a gas station in an illegal state and buys a cannabinoid vape pen with the entire rainbow of cannabinoids available from actual weed sans delta 9
walks by the drinks and see bootleggers, six different sizes of 40 ounce, high ABV drinks infused, some infused with 25 different drugs, vitamins and snake oil
They say that they wanted people to know that she is safe. Since her disappearance was already made public, it’s possible to maintain privacy by not revealing more details in regards to the actual investigation, the missing person’s listing is also public and would have been taken down anyway.
If Southern governments didn't do things like this to their populations this country would look much different. This is why Southern governments want as few white people voting as possible and do everything they can to ensure that. Restricting public services so that only the voting class has access to basic accommodations through private means is another way of keeping oppressed people away from the political process.
Do you ever think about how if every sports team was structured like the Green Bay Packers, there would be no conflict of interest with the city funding the development or renovation of a stadium for the team? What’s even more fun is that the NFL expressly prohibits any team from joining the league which is not privately owned. Literally the only exception is the Green Bay Packers and they only got that exception because they’re so old.
That’s a strong and damning take. Also, totally apt.
It’s truly baffling to me that people who could never afford to go to their home team’s games nonetheless want endless piles of taxpayer money thrown at them.
By this logic, all country clubs should be funded by taxes yet remain exclusive.
Aint that a more recent development, ie after 2000/10. Were not sports for everyone at some point? Gen pop has not caught on that is now mostly for well off.
With that said, the point stands either way. Why is the tax payer funding this shit!
The tipping for Uber Eats/Door Dash drives me up a wall. If I’m getting one small bag of food, why would I pay the delivery driver a percentage of the cost of the food? Why should a delivery from Chez Snooty tip more than a delivery from McDonalds if they’re both the same amount of work for the delivery driver and they’re providing the exact same service?? Now the LOWEST option in the app that’s not custom is 18% and it defaults to 20%. WTF?? I already pay extra for the delivery!! You’re supposed to use that money to pay your employees. If you can’t, then your business model isn’t sustainable!
Fwiw, tipping based on price is probably intended to be a heuristic for tipping based on volume or difficulty - someone who orders 4 meals from McDonald’s should tip more than someone who orders one.
If the person is walking or biking, sure. If they're driving, then whether they get lucky with the lights should matter more for the tip cost than whether it was 1 small bag or 2 medium ones.
Not the original commenter, but the guy juggling 5 drinks deserves no tip. He deserves a fair pay and the stuff the customer buys should be priced in such a way it enables fair pay.
I am not from the US and delivery drivers here don’t even expect a tip. I order my stuff, pay exactly what the menu said (and maybe a deliver fee, which is fine to me, you then usually have the option to come and pick it up without that fee) and get my food 30 minutes later.
Tipping is an extremely bad practice that makes the pay of people unpredictable and depending on their situation can make a day with bad tipping a problem for them.
I’m glad tipping culture isn’t required for you. I agree with the cons of tipping. If you have practical advice I will consider it, but I don’t think not tipping workers who are currently depending on the tip for income is the play. I do not have a magic wand that will change payment schemes. I can lower said unpredictability by not tipping at all I suppose, but that doesn’t seem the right approach either.
If tipping was stopped all around this would force employers to be responsible for the pay of their employees.
This can only be achieved by holding the employers accountable. Buy from companies that pay fair wages. Don’t buy from those that rely on tips. Vote with your money.
This is a really bad take. If you think their business model doesn’t support its workers, don’t engage with the company. To choose to do so anyway in a country where tipping is the standard and choose not to tip, you are exploiting workers. The employer may be exploiting them as well, but taking part in that system and deciding to skip out on the part that makes the job a living wage is actively malicious.
I drive a taxi. If people don’t tip, I shrug it off, but they’re basically asking me to subsidize their ride. I do not make enough to live without tips. I’m not going to charge myself extra by getting upset about it, but it does impact me financially. And often people who don’t tip are folks who are much better off monetarily than I am.
You should not look at the customer to make up extra payment so your wage becomes bearable. This way you are pointing in the wrong direction for a fair pay.
The customer is not the one responsible for you making enough money. Your employer is.
Employers are also the only people gaining anything from tipping. The laws in the US actually allow employers to pay less than minimum wage if the worker receives tips: www.dol.gov/general/topic/wages/wagestips Since tipping is not predictable the employer wins by having to pay the worker less. The worker loses.
I understand it sounds scary when I say “Stop tipping” because it sounds like less money to you, but don’t look at me, the customer, for this. Look at the employer. Stop tipping.
Edit: I agree with your take to stop engaging with companies that rely on tipping to change this, though. I think that was not clear from my comment.
If you think that workers aren’t being paid an equitable wage and you continue to spend money on something that isn’t essential, you’re complicit. The employer may be putting the idea of underpaying their workers on the table, but you’re the one allowing him to continue to operate. He doesn’t exist in a vacuum.
The entitlement here comes both from the greedy employer and from the greedy consumer. Greed is wrong regardless of what side of the counter you stand on. No ethical consumption under capitalism, sure, but that doesn’t mean you have to participate in stiffing someone.
I think people do have a responsibility for the systems they’re complicit in, but I also think that we actually owe one another something as human beings, and most people seem not to.
That doesn’t really line up with reality though. We’re living in a world where the gap between the rich and the poor is expanding and wealth is being consolidated. Minimum wage fails to be enough to support a person, but most service-oriented companies seem to manage to get away with paying it pretty readily.
Workers can try to unionize, but that’s an uphill battle and it doesn’t immediately guarantee a living wage for their labor. In the case of a lot of service jobs, it may make a lot more sense individually to just get out of the industry rather than try to improve it.
Like, I’ve worked in places that would benefit from a stronger bargaining position for workers, but that doesn’t mean unionizing is going to be achievable in all of those contexts.
And for some jobs, tipping is literally what makes them sustainable. Outside of a metro area, tipping may well be the reason you even have a taxi company or any restaurants at all. I don’t know about you, but I like living in a world where we get the stuff that we need. To me, that means that I should participate in those systems in good faith when I use them rather than subverting them and making the margins thinner for the most vulnerable people involved.
I work as a delivery driver (NOT gig work, hired by my company directly) in a city in a state that pays me a living minimum wage plus a living mileage. What confuses me the most is how pissy my coworkers get about non-tippers. Shaking their drinks, dropping their food, getting all huffy.
I literally don’t care. Some nights have been horrific nights with 4 dollars total in tips, but I think most nights I end up with 30 to 50 anyway just because of tip culture.
If you can’t, then your business model isn’t sustainable!
It’s this. Without the tip (or a higher upcharge in delivery fee to earmark some for the driver) there’d be no incentive for drivers to take the job. If the company didn’t take the delivery fee, there’d be no structure, like apps or a unified company distributing tax papers, etc.
Beyond that, since drivers typically choose which individual jobs to pick up, there’d be no incentive to take larger or more distanced orders.
The problem is that the business model doesn’t work in the first place and is largely on life support being propped up by tipping culture.
This is exactly why I just don’t use these services at all. It’s not good for me, it’s not good for their employee, it’s not good for the place that I’m buying the stuff from, it’s only good for GrubHub or Uber eats or whatever the fuck. It’s rent seeking behavior pure and simple.
The bill defines female as “a person belonging, at birth, to the biological sex which has the specific reproductive role of producing eggs” and male as “a person belonging, at birth, to the biological sex which has the specific reproductive role of producing sperm.”
1.7% of the population is intersex, so where do they fit in?
that seems obtuse as well. why not define as if you have a y male and if you don't female. I am not endorsing this bill but their definition is horrible. I complain about "gender assigned at birth" phrase but boy it fits for this bill.
It’s probably specifically because they wanted to punt the intersex issue to the court system. Talking about chromosomes is too specific and measurable. Talking about sex in terms of being associated with gametes makes it more subjective.
yeah there are folks with medical conditions. that is true. this is one thing I fear about the ruckus we have around this nowadays. that it will essentially out them. Honestly I did not make up the cis word so im not sure if it applies. its again another recent type of thing.
Klinefelter syndrome occurs when a person who is assigned male at birth is born with an extra x chromosome. Most people with the condition are cisgender boys or men.
Being trans is not a medical condition, although many trans people have gender dysphoria, which is psychological distress a person may have due to identifying with a different gender than the one that they were assigned at birth.
Most likely any attempt at specific, verifiable definitions would be insufficient for their fascistic purpose. A biologist, Forrest Valkai, covers well the complexity involved when defining the social construct of sexual differentiation in a measurable way in the video Sex and Sensibility. Hence, the laws reliance on “reproductive role” while simply assuming some unstated definition of “biological sex”.
I have a friend with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome. She’s a woman, has always been a woman, is married to a man, and has two adopted kids (AIS means she’s sterile). She has XY chromosomes.
Is someone going to walk up to her and say, “Sorry, ma’am, you’re male now”?
Her gender assigned at birth was female. She was raised as a girl, always identified as a girl, and had no idea anything was different until she started having health problems at puberty.
Because they aren’t interested in doing so, and know that there are no good ways to define these things.
What they want is the means to impose strict gender norms, and to persecute anyone who does not fit for any reason and in any way.
So, today they want workers who aren’t super gender conforming to provide their birth certificates to use the restroom. Then they’ll escalate until workers conform or get shoved out. After that, strict gender dress codes for all employees, then gender-specific roles… sometime down the line, a ban on married women working in state organisations, women unofficially barred from most workplaces & most roles, and ideally barred from being out of the house without a male relative as chaperone, blocked from having a bank account or owning property, and in due course… welp now they are property.
Fairly confident that fascists don’t want intersex people to exist at all. They won’t say that openly yet, but they clearly find them as bothersome as trans and nonbinary people.
Nor do they want cis people wandering around thinking they can neglect to adhere to strict conservative gender norms. Indeed, this is likely what all of their deep hatred toward trans people is really about - the means to rile themselves up enough to inflict strict gender norms on the whole population. Whether they are fantasising about a world which looks like a 1950s advertisement for a refrigerator, or several levels more regressive again, they’re not intending any sort of pleasant outcome for anyone whose body or behaviour or identity does not quite fit with the fascist fantasy.
They won’t succeed in getting that far, but they absolutely will continue to ramp up their attacks.
EDIT: this is the crux of the phrase “trans rights are human rights”. Trans, NB & intersex people are the canary in the coalmine.
“Their behavior was unacceptable, extremely disruptive, and made co-workers feel threatened.”
If holding up posters is "defacing property" and you feel "threatened" by a sit in, you might be on the wrong side of history (and/or a Vault-Tec employee).
If they could do this around the entire state I’d appreciate it. I never want to accidentally wander into Texas.
But seriously, how unhinged is this dude? How do you convince everybody involved in this that it’s actually a good idea? Are the people putting up the fence just as unhinged?
The people who put this up are not paid enough to risk challenging anybody on this. They’re not crazy, they just need money to survive. Their bosses, on the other hand… Yeah, I don’t know. It’s amazing that it can make it through as many hands as it must have and nobody says “Are you sure?” Or maybe they did and they just kept being shut down.
This is absolutely horrifying to read about from so many angles. Perhaps most disgusting is the movie coming out. Props to the author for showing some insight and willingness to admit fault. So many people are seemingly unable to admit wrong doing.
OK, I get that she was driving away and it might have been at an officer hard to get all the views when one’s dead. Anyway, 1 He could have easily stepped aside and got the make, model, and tag etc so as to not escalate the situation 2 How the fuck is step 2 shoot to kill. Could’ve shot the radiator or a tire or you know not fired a gun. This is why shit’s so messed up, there’s no middle ground you’re either complying with them or you’re a deadly threat nothing in between. De-Escalation training needs to be mandatory every few months.
The question for me is, is a couple hundred Dollars of alcohol or groceries worth someone’s life? Why not let her go and pursue charges against her rather than executing her in the parking lot?
In a video statement a day after the shooting, Belford said two officers were helping someone get into a locked car when a supermarket employee told them several people were leaving with stolen items. pbs.org/…/police-fatally-shooting-a-pregnant-blac…
I have a hard time seeing a 7-months pregnant woman being part of a gang of thieves and running from a store with her arms full of bottles of alcohol.
And if she was part of the gang, you record her license plate and get the security camera pictures and call her in. What the hell are cops being taught?
7-months pregnant woman being part of a gang of thieves
That’s possibly the only part of this that I could understand: some people use the “fake pregnant” or “fake obese” strategy to fit in more stuff under their clothes… so just by seeing someone who “looks like” they’re pregnant, you can’t “rule out” them being a thief.
Shooting even a confirmed thief, still isn’t justified.
U.S. News
Top