Are you talking about the Gallup and Monmouth polls? I wouldn't consider polls to be journalism, maybe it fits a vague definition of news. Since polls have a methodology and are usually transparent about how they operate, I feel like they are in general more reliable than your average news article. Even if they aren't perfect, when you have many years of data to go off of like Gallup does, instead of just one poll, and when it comes from a reputable source, I feel like it can be trusted moreso than any old CNBC article.
It's a problem of bad journalism being everywhere, when you want to draw attention to something going on in the world, you have to use them because you don't have anywhere else to turn to. Right wing sources have no better credibility and fringe sources can be easily dismissed. It is either accept that you are using biased information sources, or don't use any sources of information at all, which is worse. The only thing one can do is try to see past the bias inherent to most mainstream news.
Education is bullshit. I know we already know that. But today I woke up strangely mad at the sheer number of people I know who were told to get an education, got one, and ultimately ended up in a worse position then they are now. The average young adult can't afford a house and can barely support themselves let alone a family. The entire system has failed at least a generation of people and the entire political scene is filled with nothing but distractions. Republicans wouldn't raise wages if their life depended on it and Democrats view Amazon having more diversity in their ads as a victory for the working class. I have little hope things will improve.
I think something that this conversation has taught me is that people have a real hard time differentiating between journalism and punditry. They tend to think they're the same thing, and they're not.
At this point in time, I don't think there is much distinction between the two. Separating your own opinions from the facts is apparently a lost art in all but law.
Education itself isn’t bullshit, it is how society treats young adults and their expectations.
As soon as a kid is 17 or 18, they are asked not only ‘what do you want to do for the rest of your life as a career’ but also asked to put
money down on the choice.
Two or three years in, the kid determines ‘this isn’t for them’ has to make a choice of either sticking through it so they are not perceived as a failure, or dropping out and changing direction compounding to their already financial burden as not only were those years wasted but also the money they put into it.
It also doesn’t help that for the last 12-13 years of their life, they were being forced to learn stuff that they really don’t want to learn and may not need in the future, and maybe burnt out with information overload. It’s a burn out and kids tend not to have a desire to keep learning.
Add to the fact that most kids will choose careers they recognize only to discover that the opportunities in that field are limited. Colleges and Universities are still a business and will teach as many of these kids as possible their chosen field, so even if ‘this is what you want to do with the rest of your life,’ boomers aren’t retiring fast enough (because they are selfish and pretty much squandered everything they were given - as a group, not attempting to attack any boomers here), or if they are, their positions aren’t being refilled as companies attempt to cut cost.
It is alleged that most new careers are ones that haven’t been invented yet. The easiest example is Video Game design. Look at Gaider and how he got into BioWare (IIRC, he was working at a hotel before BioWare) and look at what most video game designers are looking for now. Post secondary education isn’t teaching people to create a new field or business. They are just teaching the older jobs where markets are full.
Any kid I know, I tell them to take a year or two off after high school and just work a minimum wage part time/full time job until they 1) know what they want to do 2) actually want to learn something new and 3) can afford it. It’s a huge decision already, give them time to think about it instead of rushing.
I'm reasonably certain the reason why they considered "distrusting the news" to be an "authoritarian" thing is because every authoritarian government in existence is opposed to an independent press, from Hitler railing against the "lying press" to the Chinese Communist Party denouncing anything that paints them in a bad light as foreign propaganda.
The notion that authoritarians don't like the news is based on decades of history across the entire world. Whether it's the Soviet Union or the Third Reich or the DPRK or the CCP, all of them view journalists as their enemies.
Meanwhile, every advanced democracy in the world allows and defends an independent press, whether it's an age-old democracy like the U.K. or a relatively new democracy like Japan.
Yes, distaste for the free press is a classic mark of authoritarianism. We've known that for 90 years.
You ever listen to Rush Limbaugh when he plays his 'Mainstream News Parrot' segments? I'm going to guess not. Several times a week he'll pull out some news story that was first reported in AP and then play back a bunch of segments from various news outlets later that day. The news outlets inevitably parrot the AP story right down to each and every buzzword. It's sickening that that's what journalism has devolved to in this day and age. Parroting a bunch of bullet points and buzzwords. That's not an 'independent' media at all. Just a bunch of plagiarists paid to look good on TV...
Edit: The same can be said of the AM doofuses and Fox News parroting them, so I'm an equal opportunity eye-candy plagiarist spotter.
Other outlets "parrot" the Associated Press, because the Associated Press a wire service. Their clients *are* other news outlets. Other outlets aren't parroting them. They are running their stories. News outlets don't have the ability to have their own on-the-ground reporters all across the globe. And so rely on wire services like the AP, AFP or Reuters to produce these stories. And then they run them because they own subscriptions to these wire services.
Stop getting your information from freaking Limbaugh. This is such a monstrous display of ignorance on a subject you are pretending to have an authoritative opinion on.
I don't listen to Limbaugh anymore (he used to an informative window on behind the scenes politics, but now he's just a Trump groupie and I can't stand him), just pointing out a segment of his shows that I remember being somewhat informative. I don't mind outlets using AP, UPI or Reuters as their sources but cor God's sake don't parrot the exact language. It makes them look sloppy and lazy. Perception trumps reality in this day and age.
You still don't get it and you're refusing to closely read what I wrote.
Ditto.
I'm not talking about reality. I'm talking about perception. When it's called out that these news outlets are parroting one source, they 'appear' to be brain-dead clones. The buzzwords make it even worse. Remember when 'gravitas' was the rage and all of the mainstream outlets were using that word for the first time in probably, ever? I do and when it's noticed, it 'appears' lazy and faddish.
You're not addressing the factual errors you have made. And you're continuing to double down on spreading disinformation on this forum: "when it's called out that these news outlets are parroting one source".
I'm reasonably certain the reason why they considered "distrusting the news" to be an "authoritarian" thing is because every authoritarian government in existence is opposed to an independent press, from Hitler railing against the "lying press" to the Chinese Communist Party denouncing anything that paints them in a bad light as foreign propaganda.
The notion that authoritarians don't like the news is based on decades of history across the entire world. Whether it's the Soviet Union or the Third Reich or the DPRK or the CCP, all of them view journalists as their enemies.
Meanwhile, every advanced democracy in the world allows and defends an independent press, whether it's an age-old democracy like the U.K. or a relatively new democracy like Japan.
Yes, distaste for the free press is a classic mark of authoritarianism. We've known that for 90 years.
You ever listen to Rush Limbaugh when he plays his 'Mainstream News Parrot' segments? I'm going to guess not. Several times a week he'll pull out some news story that was first reported in AP and then play back a bunch of segments from various news outlets later that day. The news outlets inevitably parrot the AP story right down to each and every buzzword. It's sickening that that's what journalism has devolved to in this day and age. Parroting a bunch of bullet points and buzzwords. That's not an 'independent' media at all. Just a bunch of plagiarists paid to look good on TV...
Edit: The same can be said of the AM doofuses and Fox News parroting them, so I'm an equal opportunity eye-candy plagiarist spotter.
Other outlets "parrot" the Associated Press, because the Associated Press a wire service. Their clients *are* other news outlets. Other outlets aren't parroting them. They are running their stories. News outlets don't have the ability to have their own on-the-ground reporters all across the globe. And so rely on wire services like the AP, AFP or Reuters to produce these stories. And then they run them because they own subscriptions to these wire services.
Stop getting your information from freaking Limbaugh. This is such a monstrous display of ignorance on a subject you are pretending to have an authoritative opinion on.
I don't listen to Limbaugh anymore (he used to an informative window on behind the scenes politics, but now he's just a Trump groupie and I can't stand him), just pointing out a segment of his shows that I remember being somewhat informative. I don't mind outlets using AP, UPI or Reuters as their sources but cor God's sake don't parrot the exact language. It makes them look sloppy and lazy. Perception trumps reality in this day and age.
You still don't get it and you're refusing to closely read what I wrote.
Ditto.
I'm not talking about reality. I'm talking about perception. When it's called out that these news outlets are parroting one source, they 'appear' to be brain-dead clones. The buzzwords make it even worse. Remember when 'gravitas' was the rage and all of the mainstream outlets were using that word for the first time in probably, ever? I do and when it's noticed, it 'appears' lazy and faddish.
You're not addressing the factual errors you have made. And you're continuing to double down on spreading disinformation on this forum: "when it's called out that these news outlets are parroting one source".
What factual errors are you talking about? I'm talking about a segment of a show I used to listen to that made fun of how news media outlets borrow buzzwords or phrases from one initial source and repeat them ad nauseum. I guess that's factually errant for some reason or another. I somehow failed to impart the point I was trying to make sufficiently anyway so better to move on. C'est la vie...
Education is bullshit. I know we already know that. But today I woke up strangely mad at the sheer number of people I know who were told to get an education, got one, and ultimately ended up in a worse position then they are now. The average young adult can't afford a house and can barely support themselves let alone a family. The entire system has failed at least a generation of people and the entire political scene is filled with nothing but distractions. Republicans wouldn't raise wages if their life depended on it and Democrats view Amazon having more diversity in their ads as a victory for the working class. I have little hope things will improve.
I think something that this conversation has taught me is that people have a real hard time differentiating between journalism and punditry. They tend to think they're the same thing, and they're not.
At this point in time, I don't think there is much distinction between the two. Separating your own opinions from the facts is apparently a lost art in all but law.
Education itself isn’t bullshit, it is how society treats young adults and their expectations.
As soon as a kid is 17 or 18, they are asked not only ‘what do you want to do for the rest of your life as a career’ but also asked to put
money down on the choice.
Two or three years in, the kid determines ‘this isn’t for them’ has to make a choice of either sticking through it so they are not perceived as a failure, or dropping out and changing direction compounding to their already financial burden as not only were those years wasted but also the money they put into it.
It also doesn’t help that for the last 12-13 years of their life, they were being forced to learn stuff that they really don’t want to learn and may not need in the future, and maybe burnt out with information overload. It’s a burn out and kids tend not to have a desire to keep learning.
Add to the fact that most kids will choose careers they recognize only to discover that the opportunities in that field are limited. Colleges and Universities are still a business and will teach as many of these kids as possible their chosen field, so even if ‘this is what you want to do with the rest of your life,’ boomers aren’t retiring fast enough (because they are selfish and pretty much squandered everything they were given - as a group, not attempting to attack any boomers here), or if they are, their positions aren’t being refilled as companies attempt to cut cost.
It is alleged that most new careers are ones that haven’t been invented yet. The easiest example is Video Game design. Look at Gaider and how he got into BioWare (IIRC, he was working at a hotel before BioWare) and look at what most video game designers are looking for now. Post secondary education isn’t teaching people to create a new field or business. They are just teaching the older jobs where markets are full.
Any kid I know, I tell them to take a year or two off after high school and just work a minimum wage part time/full time job until they 1) know what they want to do 2) actually want to learn something new and 3) can afford it. It’s a huge decision already, give them time to think about it instead of rushing.
I think you are massively downplaying the responsibility of educational institutions in this, although you aren't wrong in anything you said. They have a financial incentive to keep this system of broken futures running as it is. It is massively profitable for them. Even with current declining revenues, they rake in billions of dollars. Nor are you safe from all sorts of predatory privatization at public universities. Taking advantage of young kids *is* the business model for them.
I thought Andrew Yang had a really sensible position on this. I hope he runs again next time around. I would definitely support him and he did surprisingly well for a first time no-name candidate.
He starts talking about it at the 3 minute mark, if you are actually interested in listening.
I'm reasonably certain the reason why they considered "distrusting the news" to be an "authoritarian" thing is because every authoritarian government in existence is opposed to an independent press, from Hitler railing against the "lying press" to the Chinese Communist Party denouncing anything that paints them in a bad light as foreign propaganda.
The notion that authoritarians don't like the news is based on decades of history across the entire world. Whether it's the Soviet Union or the Third Reich or the DPRK or the CCP, all of them view journalists as their enemies.
Meanwhile, every advanced democracy in the world allows and defends an independent press, whether it's an age-old democracy like the U.K. or a relatively new democracy like Japan.
Yes, distaste for the free press is a classic mark of authoritarianism. We've known that for 90 years.
You ever listen to Rush Limbaugh when he plays his 'Mainstream News Parrot' segments? I'm going to guess not. Several times a week he'll pull out some news story that was first reported in AP and then play back a bunch of segments from various news outlets later that day. The news outlets inevitably parrot the AP story right down to each and every buzzword. It's sickening that that's what journalism has devolved to in this day and age. Parroting a bunch of bullet points and buzzwords. That's not an 'independent' media at all. Just a bunch of plagiarists paid to look good on TV...
Edit: The same can be said of the AM doofuses and Fox News parroting them, so I'm an equal opportunity eye-candy plagiarist spotter.
Other outlets "parrot" the Associated Press, because the Associated Press a wire service. Their clients *are* other news outlets. Other outlets aren't parroting them. They are running their stories. News outlets don't have the ability to have their own on-the-ground reporters all across the globe. And so rely on wire services like the AP, AFP or Reuters to produce these stories. And then they run them because they own subscriptions to these wire services.
Stop getting your information from freaking Limbaugh. This is such a monstrous display of ignorance on a subject you are pretending to have an authoritative opinion on.
I don't listen to Limbaugh anymore (he used to an informative window on behind the scenes politics, but now he's just a Trump groupie and I can't stand him), just pointing out a segment of his shows that I remember being somewhat informative. I don't mind outlets using AP, UPI or Reuters as their sources but cor God's sake don't parrot the exact language. It makes them look sloppy and lazy. Perception trumps reality in this day and age.
You still don't get it and you're refusing to closely read what I wrote.
Ditto.
I'm not talking about reality. I'm talking about perception. When it's called out that these news outlets are parroting one source, they 'appear' to be brain-dead clones. The buzzwords make it even worse. Remember when 'gravitas' was the rage and all of the mainstream outlets were using that word for the first time in probably, ever? I do and when it's noticed, it 'appears' lazy and faddish.
You're not addressing the factual errors you have made. And you're continuing to double down on spreading disinformation on this forum: "when it's called out that these news outlets are parroting one source".
What factual errors are you talking about? I'm talking about a segment of a show I used to listen to that made fun of how news media outlets borrow buzzwords or phrases from one initial source and repeat them ad nauseum. I guess that's factually errant for some reason or another. I somehow failed to impart the point I was trying to make sufficiently anyway so better to move on. C'est la vie...
This isn't what you said.
What you said: "The news outlets inevitably parrot the AP story right down to each and every buzzword."
I attempted to explain to you what a wire service like the Associated Press is and how that fits into the news industry. Grondo also attempted to explain why news outlets would faithfully reproduce AP reporting.
You don't seem to care that your description implied an elementary of misapprehension about the press. This is why I find conservative critiques of the "mainstream media" empty. You guys profess to want a high standard of objectivity, due diligence, and impartiality. But y'all have an astoundingly cavalier attitude about your own information hygiene.
Education is bullshit. I know we already know that. But today I woke up strangely mad at the sheer number of people I know who were told to get an education, got one, and ultimately ended up in a worse position then they are now. The average young adult can't afford a house and can barely support themselves let alone a family. The entire system has failed at least a generation of people and the entire political scene is filled with nothing but distractions. Republicans wouldn't raise wages if their life depended on it and Democrats view Amazon having more diversity in their ads as a victory for the working class. I have little hope things will improve.
I think something that this conversation has taught me is that people have a real hard time differentiating between journalism and punditry. They tend to think they're the same thing, and they're not.
At this point in time, I don't think there is much distinction between the two. Separating your own opinions from the facts is apparently a lost art in all but law.
Education itself isn’t bullshit, it is how society treats young adults and their expectations.
As soon as a kid is 17 or 18, they are asked not only ‘what do you want to do for the rest of your life as a career’ but also asked to put
money down on the choice.
Two or three years in, the kid determines ‘this isn’t for them’ has to make a choice of either sticking through it so they are not perceived as a failure, or dropping out and changing direction compounding to their already financial burden as not only were those years wasted but also the money they put into it.
It also doesn’t help that for the last 12-13 years of their life, they were being forced to learn stuff that they really don’t want to learn and may not need in the future, and maybe burnt out with information overload. It’s a burn out and kids tend not to have a desire to keep learning.
Add to the fact that most kids will choose careers they recognize only to discover that the opportunities in that field are limited. Colleges and Universities are still a business and will teach as many of these kids as possible their chosen field, so even if ‘this is what you want to do with the rest of your life,’ boomers aren’t retiring fast enough (because they are selfish and pretty much squandered everything they were given - as a group, not attempting to attack any boomers here), or if they are, their positions aren’t being refilled as companies attempt to cut cost.
It is alleged that most new careers are ones that haven’t been invented yet. The easiest example is Video Game design. Look at Gaider and how he got into BioWare (IIRC, he was working at a hotel before BioWare) and look at what most video game designers are looking for now. Post secondary education isn’t teaching people to create a new field or business. They are just teaching the older jobs where markets are full.
Any kid I know, I tell them to take a year or two off after high school and just work a minimum wage part time/full time job until they 1) know what they want to do 2) actually want to learn something new and 3) can afford it. It’s a huge decision already, give them time to think about it instead of rushing.
I think you are massively downplaying the responsibility of educational institutions in this, although you aren't wrong in anything you said. They have a financial incentive to keep this system of broken futures running as it is. It is massively profitable for them. Even with current declining revenues, they rake in billions of dollars. Nor are you safe from all sorts of predatory privatization at public universities. Taking advantage of young kids *is* the business model for them.
I thought Andrew Yang had a really sensible position on this. I hope he runs again next time around. I would definitely support him and he did surprisingly well for a first time no-name candidate.
He starts talking about it at the 3 minute mark, if you are actually interested in listening.
I do like his ten in ten proposal to the point in which I’m attempting figure out if it’s feasible to actually make this the way people pay for their education.
I think the strongly gifted, you know that percentage of people who actually make a successful career out their time in post secondary, may feel slighted that they have to pay more than that kid who skirted through and used his engineering degree to improve his bong while he works at Denny’s for the next decade.
I think it is more economically viable to reach that Denny worker and as a society say, ‘hey it’s ok not to go to college in fact we need line cooks at Denny’s too so here’s affordable housing, and legalized weed and if that is as far as your ambition is going to take you, that’s ok.’
I think we also need to rein in what should constitute a degree. We, as a society, don’t need 1000s of Art History majors (sorry to any art history majors) every year. I personally believe, just like immigration, the government should be capping how many people are taught what with better incentives for jobs that are in demand (hello cheap nursing classes).
I think we need to fix the broken system before we start attempting to fix those who’ve already been broke by it. If your dryer rips your clothes to shreds, you replace it before you start sewing the clothes it ruined. You don’t keep using it and say you’ll sew those clothes once they come out after. If that makes sense.
This isn't about the current political climate, not really except on the fringes. I have many friends that are Trump supporters, we had an eight person, social distancing, picnic diner today. Four of the group were talking about immigration and how we need to lock the borders. I don't remember how they got on that rant but I am not sure I understand their position.
I worked for a long time in the corporate office of a international company. Most of the people I delt with were sales reps for europe and asia, this is the gist I got from them. The whole population boom theory seems not to be a huge concern in either of those places, from an economic standpoint anyway. Governments and people want to limit immigration but the businesses are struggling with the lack of laborers. I don't know how true this is but I have heard it from enough people that I suspect it might be close, the population boom had more to do with medicine and more children now living to be adults than any global population, or over population D-Day. The European and most definitely the Asian sales reps talked about it all of the time, the hidden fear that those companies on those continents had was not having enough laborers to compete on a global market in the years to come. It seems that the US has had enough people to keep businesses and the economy strong because of immigration. Is making America strong again and severely limiting immigration actually compatible? Just a question.
Side note, not relatable. The head of the Asian sales reps was from Japan and his family lived there, he spent most of his time in different Asian countries and lived in a hotel room when he was here. Our company had a whole floor at a very nice hotel for execs that lived elsewhere to stay when they were in the States or the east coast. Intelligent and funny, we got along well and we would talk for hours on the weekends when there weren't many people working. As I changed, he changed and it got weird. He talked one weekend about the prostitutes his friend and him would go to in the different countries, and how one country had "dirty" prostitutes that his friend wouldn't go to but he didn't mind at all. Kinda freaked me out so I avoided him for a few weeks until he went back to Asia. I didn't know he was back and had to do some extra work one Saturday, he came into my office and we talked for a while but he was getting real close to me so I said it was time for me to go home. He said that he would be going soon too then he gave me his hotel room number. I never talked him again, I crushed it every week and took work home so I would never have to be alone with him again. This is only political in that, should people be subject to that behavior at work or anywhere. I said all of this to my friends today and they said that, "Men are just like that, some just happen to be creepier than others. You'll get used to it." Am I just being a prude to think his behavior was inappropriate? Or is this as systemically wrong as racism?
Ummmm, no it's not appropriate. It's not appropriate to talk about prostitutes at work, and it's sure as shit not appropriate to be propositioning someone after basically cornering them in a room.
And I really hate this "all men are like that, it's just how they are" excuse. It's absolutely not true. As a pick-up attempt, it has all the subtlety of a frying pan to the face. But this is also why I really don't hang out with any (guys that is, despite being one, despite caring about sports, pop culture, gaming, and the like). Sure, women are attracted to good looks, but you know what works best?? Being able to hold a conversation and the ability to listen. And the problem most of these dipshits have is they don't know how to talk to women.
I can't speak for this guy's conversational skills, but doing that AT the office is a clear human resources violation if you were literally taking work home to avoid him. It doesn't matter what HE thought he was doing, the only thing that matters in a work environment is how the person on the receiving end interprets it. It's not 1955, and this isn't "Mad Men".
Yes, that's pretty blatant sexual harassment. Everything from the buildup to the reaction. I'm sorry you had to go through that, @_Nightfall_.
I've been warned that transitioning to female would eventually get me some very unpleasant kinds of attention. So far I've been safe. The closest thing so far was some guy making an offhand comment about my hair that made my clam up my mouth and scurry along. I was surprised it spooked me the way that it did.
I get comments about my pink hair from strangers every other time I go to the store, usually from women but sometimes from men, but it did hit different when it was in an unfamiliar neighborhood in the middle of the night.
This isn't about the current political climate, not really except on the fringes. I have many friends that are Trump supporters, we had an eight person, social distancing, picnic diner today. Four of the group were talking about immigration and how we need to lock the borders. I don't remember how they got on that rant but I am not sure I understand their position.
I worked for a long time in the corporate office of a international company. Most of the people I delt with were sales reps for europe and asia, this is the gist I got from them. The whole population boom theory seems not to be a huge concern in either of those places, from an economic standpoint anyway. Governments and people want to limit immigration but the businesses are struggling with the lack of laborers. I don't know how true this is but I have heard it from enough people that I suspect it might be close, the population boom had more to do with medicine and more children now living to be adults than any global population, or over population D-Day. The European and most definitely the Asian sales reps talked about it all of the time, the hidden fear that those companies on those continents had was not having enough laborers to compete on a global market in the years to come. It seems that the US has had enough people to keep businesses and the economy strong because of immigration. Is making America strong again and severely limiting immigration actually compatible? Just a question.
Side note, not relatable. The head of the Asian sales reps was from Japan and his family lived there, he spent most of his time in different Asian countries and lived in a hotel room when he was here. Our company had a whole floor at a very nice hotel for execs that lived elsewhere to stay when they were in the States or the east coast. Intelligent and funny, we got along well and we would talk for hours on the weekends when there weren't many people working. As I changed, he changed and it got weird. He talked one weekend about the prostitutes his friend and him would go to in the different countries, and how one country had "dirty" prostitutes that his friend wouldn't go to but he didn't mind at all. Kinda freaked me out so I avoided him for a few weeks until he went back to Asia. I didn't know he was back and had to do some extra work one Saturday, he came into my office and we talked for a while but he was getting real close to me so I said it was time for me to go home. He said that he would be going soon too then he gave me his hotel room number. I never talked him again, I crushed it every week and took work home so I would never have to be alone with him again. This is only political in that, should people be subject to that behavior at work or anywhere. I said all of this to my friends today and they said that, "Men are just like that, some just happen to be creepier than others. You'll get used to it." Am I just being a prude to think his behavior was inappropriate? Or is this as systemically wrong as racism?
his behavior was wrong. A person should everyone they work with professionally, which means respectfully and consistently the same regardless who the other person is.
His actions are sexual harassment. You need to bring this incident up to either him (and tell him you are uncomfortable with these types of advances in the workplace), and if you can't bring it up to him, then a supervisor or human resource person.
The 'you'll get use to it' shouldn't be an option. YOU do not need to change. He does.
This isn't about the current political climate, not really except on the fringes. I have many friends that are Trump supporters, we had an eight person, social distancing, picnic diner today. Four of the group were talking about immigration and how we need to lock the borders. I don't remember how they got on that rant but I am not sure I understand their position.
I worked for a long time in the corporate office of a international company. Most of the people I delt with were sales reps for europe and asia, this is the gist I got from them. The whole population boom theory seems not to be a huge concern in either of those places, from an economic standpoint anyway. Governments and people want to limit immigration but the businesses are struggling with the lack of laborers. I don't know how true this is but I have heard it from enough people that I suspect it might be close, the population boom had more to do with medicine and more children now living to be adults than any global population, or over population D-Day. The European and most definitely the Asian sales reps talked about it all of the time, the hidden fear that those companies on those continents had was not having enough laborers to compete on a global market in the years to come. It seems that the US has had enough people to keep businesses and the economy strong because of immigration. Is making America strong again and severely limiting immigration actually compatible? Just a question.
Side note, not relatable. The head of the Asian sales reps was from Japan and his family lived there, he spent most of his time in different Asian countries and lived in a hotel room when he was here. Our company had a whole floor at a very nice hotel for execs that lived elsewhere to stay when they were in the States or the east coast. Intelligent and funny, we got along well and we would talk for hours on the weekends when there weren't many people working. As I changed, he changed and it got weird. He talked one weekend about the prostitutes his friend and him would go to in the different countries, and how one country had "dirty" prostitutes that his friend wouldn't go to but he didn't mind at all. Kinda freaked me out so I avoided him for a few weeks until he went back to Asia. I didn't know he was back and had to do some extra work one Saturday, he came into my office and we talked for a while but he was getting real close to me so I said it was time for me to go home. He said that he would be going soon too then he gave me his hotel room number. I never talked him again, I crushed it every week and took work home so I would never have to be alone with him again. This is only political in that, should people be subject to that behavior at work or anywhere. I said all of this to my friends today and they said that, "Men are just like that, some just happen to be creepier than others. You'll get used to it." Am I just being a prude to think his behavior was inappropriate? Or is this as systemically wrong as racism?
his behavior was wrong. A person should everyone they work with professionally, which means respectfully and consistently the same regardless who the other person is.
His actions are sexual harassment. You need to bring this incident up to either him (and tell him you are uncomfortable with these types of advances in the workplace), and if you can't bring it up to him, then a supervisor or human resource person.
The 'you'll get use to it' shouldn't be an option. YOU do not need to change. He does.
I would argue that she isn't OBLIGATED to bring it up (because even though rules against retaliation exist, that isn't often how reality plays out). But she absolutely is within her rights if she chooses to do so.
This isn't about the current political climate, not really except on the fringes. I have many friends that are Trump supporters, we had an eight person, social distancing, picnic diner today. Four of the group were talking about immigration and how we need to lock the borders. I don't remember how they got on that rant but I am not sure I understand their position.
I worked for a long time in the corporate office of a international company. Most of the people I delt with were sales reps for europe and asia, this is the gist I got from them. The whole population boom theory seems not to be a huge concern in either of those places, from an economic standpoint anyway. Governments and people want to limit immigration but the businesses are struggling with the lack of laborers. I don't know how true this is but I have heard it from enough people that I suspect it might be close, the population boom had more to do with medicine and more children now living to be adults than any global population, or over population D-Day. The European and most definitely the Asian sales reps talked about it all of the time, the hidden fear that those companies on those continents had was not having enough laborers to compete on a global market in the years to come. It seems that the US has had enough people to keep businesses and the economy strong because of immigration. Is making America strong again and severely limiting immigration actually compatible? Just a question.
Side note, not relatable. The head of the Asian sales reps was from Japan and his family lived there, he spent most of his time in different Asian countries and lived in a hotel room when he was here. Our company had a whole floor at a very nice hotel for execs that lived elsewhere to stay when they were in the States or the east coast. Intelligent and funny, we got along well and we would talk for hours on the weekends when there weren't many people working. As I changed, he changed and it got weird. He talked one weekend about the prostitutes his friend and him would go to in the different countries, and how one country had "dirty" prostitutes that his friend wouldn't go to but he didn't mind at all. Kinda freaked me out so I avoided him for a few weeks until he went back to Asia. I didn't know he was back and had to do some extra work one Saturday, he came into my office and we talked for a while but he was getting real close to me so I said it was time for me to go home. He said that he would be going soon too then he gave me his hotel room number. I never talked him again, I crushed it every week and took work home so I would never have to be alone with him again. This is only political in that, should people be subject to that behavior at work or anywhere. I said all of this to my friends today and they said that, "Men are just like that, some just happen to be creepier than others. You'll get used to it." Am I just being a prude to think his behavior was inappropriate? Or is this as systemically wrong as racism?
his behavior was wrong. A person should everyone they work with professionally, which means respectfully and consistently the same regardless who the other person is.
His actions are sexual harassment. You need to bring this incident up to either him (and tell him you are uncomfortable with these types of advances in the workplace), and if you can't bring it up to him, then a supervisor or human resource person.
The 'you'll get use to it' shouldn't be an option. YOU do not need to change. He does.
I would argue that she isn't OBLIGATED to bring it up (because even though rules against retaliation exist, that isn't often how reality plays out). But she absolutely is within her rights if she chooses to do so.
I would argue she is.
How is anyone going to fix a problem, if one does not know the problem exists.
Also, if this guy (or anyone for that matter) is getting away with this type of behaviour the first time, what is stopping it from happening to the next girl that comes along.
If you don’t report assault, then it will happen again, if not to you, to someone else and when it does happen to someone else, in my opinion, you are no different than anyone else who had turned a blind eye to this type of behaviour. You knew first hand what type of person this was. Speak up. Let everyone else know it too.
This isn't about the current political climate, not really except on the fringes. I have many friends that are Trump supporters, we had an eight person, social distancing, picnic diner today. Four of the group were talking about immigration and how we need to lock the borders. I don't remember how they got on that rant but I am not sure I understand their position.
I worked for a long time in the corporate office of a international company. Most of the people I delt with were sales reps for europe and asia, this is the gist I got from them. The whole population boom theory seems not to be a huge concern in either of those places, from an economic standpoint anyway. Governments and people want to limit immigration but the businesses are struggling with the lack of laborers. I don't know how true this is but I have heard it from enough people that I suspect it might be close, the population boom had more to do with medicine and more children now living to be adults than any global population, or over population D-Day. The European and most definitely the Asian sales reps talked about it all of the time, the hidden fear that those companies on those continents had was not having enough laborers to compete on a global market in the years to come. It seems that the US has had enough people to keep businesses and the economy strong because of immigration. Is making America strong again and severely limiting immigration actually compatible? Just a question.
Side note, not relatable. The head of the Asian sales reps was from Japan and his family lived there, he spent most of his time in different Asian countries and lived in a hotel room when he was here. Our company had a whole floor at a very nice hotel for execs that lived elsewhere to stay when they were in the States or the east coast. Intelligent and funny, we got along well and we would talk for hours on the weekends when there weren't many people working. As I changed, he changed and it got weird. He talked one weekend about the prostitutes his friend and him would go to in the different countries, and how one country had "dirty" prostitutes that his friend wouldn't go to but he didn't mind at all. Kinda freaked me out so I avoided him for a few weeks until he went back to Asia. I didn't know he was back and had to do some extra work one Saturday, he came into my office and we talked for a while but he was getting real close to me so I said it was time for me to go home. He said that he would be going soon too then he gave me his hotel room number. I never talked him again, I crushed it every week and took work home so I would never have to be alone with him again. This is only political in that, should people be subject to that behavior at work or anywhere. I said all of this to my friends today and they said that, "Men are just like that, some just happen to be creepier than others. You'll get used to it." Am I just being a prude to think his behavior was inappropriate? Or is this as systemically wrong as racism?
his behavior was wrong. A person should everyone they work with professionally, which means respectfully and consistently the same regardless who the other person is.
His actions are sexual harassment. You need to bring this incident up to either him (and tell him you are uncomfortable with these types of advances in the workplace), and if you can't bring it up to him, then a supervisor or human resource person.
The 'you'll get use to it' shouldn't be an option. YOU do not need to change. He does.
I would argue that she isn't OBLIGATED to bring it up (because even though rules against retaliation exist, that isn't often how reality plays out). But she absolutely is within her rights if she chooses to do so.
I would argue she is.
How is anyone going to fix a problem, if one does not know the problem exists.
Also, if this guy (or anyone for that matter) is getting away with this type of behaviour the first time, what is stopping it from happening to the next girl that comes along.
If you don’t report assault, then it will happen again, if not to you, to someone else and when it does happen to someone else, in my opinion, you are no different than anyone else who had turned a blind eye to this type of behaviour. You knew first hand what type of person this was. Speak up. Let everyone else know it too.
I just don't trust that the "letter of the law" will protect anyone in any given situation given workplace politics. Self-preservation has to be taken into account on a case by case basis.
I am not sure I have had the same life as so many have had. I have never told on anyone about anything, ever. My older brother set my stepfather’s recliner chair on fire when I was almost four, he blamed it on me and my mom didn’t know he did it until he told her when I was in my 30s. If anyone had thought they would have known that it wasn’t possible, I was not yet home from school when the firemen arrived. He pushed me off the top bunk because, “Girls aren’t allowed” when I was four and and I broke my leg when I landed on the toy box. My father beat my stepfather outside my hospital room because he thought that he had broken my leg. Weird when your father goes to jail and stepfather is treated in the same hospital that I was in, but that was my life. Don’t cry for my stepfather, please, there was a reason that my father thought it was him. I never said a word. I took punishment after punishment growing up because I would never tell on anyone. When I was ten my brother had all of his friends for a sleepover at the back of our farm, giant tent tent that could probably sleep 12 adults. I was so much younger than all of them, 12 and up, and they had been experimenting on me for a few months, but they never included me so I was excited when I was asked to come to the sleepover by the neighbor boy. Ten boys and they all took turns at me but my brother, when my uncle came to check on us and saw what was happening they all blamed it on me. Me? How?!! But I never said anything.
No. Sometimes I hate you all but I will never tell on anyone. Obligated? I have paid and no longer feel obligated to anyone. I still can’t hurt anyone and I can’t tell on anyone, I owe no one anything though.
TMI, sorry. I wish all all of that was not 100% true, I wish that I was not so broken. I always feel bad when I inflict my life on others.
I agree with you, I can't though. It is my responsibility to protect others from that behavior but I have never been able to tell on anyone and I don't know why, I cannot. Not what my post was about though , I just threw that at the end because it surprised me how many of my friends blew it off. Like it was nothing, in a way it was nothing, I wasn't harmed after all.
Still curious about the first part if anyone has any thoughts.
Yes immigration is good for any country, especially ones with low birthrates.
The ill informed or ignorant however look at immigration as just another way that good paying jobs aren't being made available to its citizens. Except that they are, just that those citizens aren't as qualified or refuse to do actually do that sort of labour.
These are not my words, but they do echo my sentiment. The seat is gone. The only thing left is the battle over public opinion and what you do if you manage to take power. The coming nomination process is a farce. To quote my favorite TV show, "the game is rigged, but you cannot lose if you don't play":
President Trump has now, unsurprisingly, chosen to nominate the far right Amy Coney Barrett to succeed Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. The only sensible approach is for Senate Democrats neither to meet with Barrett nor participate in the confirmation process. Even to do so in a critical posture is to add legitimacy to a process that is illegitimate.
As bad as she may be as a judge or for the future of equal justice in the United States she can never be as bad as the corruption of the process itself. It is that corruption – the court-packing scheme Republicans pushed into overdrive starting in early 2016 – that justifies, indeed requires Democrats to add seats to the Court in 2021. Distracting from that reality with a gauzy-lensed look at Barrett’s personal story and judicial merits is madness. Pure madness.
Here too politics lines up neatly with principle. This will be a high profile spectacle that will dominate the final weeks of the election and be 100% under the control of the GOP and the White House. It is literally stage managed by the GOP. All the initiative is in their hands. One might as well agree to shut down one’s own campaign for the last month of the election.
Trump is the issue in the election. It is his defeat which will allow Democrats to undo the damage of this corrupt process in 2021. No matter how bad Barrett comes off in hearings – and remember, it’s a process 100% controlled by the President and Senate Republicans – she certainly will not come off worse than Donald Trump. Why allow that? Why participate? Why feed the false claim of legitimacy?
Republicans have already told us that Barrett herself is irrelevant to this process. Almost every Senate Republican agreed to vote to confirm her before they knew who Trump would nominate. They could not have made this more clear. She is irrelevant. Is she hard right? Of course. Just like the other possible choices.
You can’t insist a process is illegitimate while granting it legitimacy, while arguing within the questions the process raises. In this context, participation amounts to begging. Begging is weak. Democrats need to make clear that the only answer to Republican court-packing which will toss millions off health care, cripple voting rights, further limit reproductive rights and more important than anything be a decades-long veto over all progressive legislation is to elect Democrats and repair the damage in 2021.
Not that it will make an ounce of difference, but the NYT essentially dropped the bomb on Trump's taxes this afternoon. And the main takeaway?? It's likely you paid more in payroll taxes in the first two months of any given year than Trump paid despite being a (supposed) billionaire. Not by a percentage mind you, but in ACTUAL numbers. He paid $750 in 2016. I'm going to be spending more than that on the new XBox and an extra SSD to plug into the back of it.
Not that it will make an ounce of difference, but the NYT essentially dropped the bomb on Trump's taxes this afternoon. And the main takeaway?? It's likely you paid for in payroll taxes in the first two months of any given year than Trump paid despite being a (supposed) billionaire. Not by a percentage mind you, but in ACTUAL numbers. He paid $750 in 2016. I'm going to be spending more than that on the new XBox and an extra SSD to plug into the back of it.
There was so much information overload this weekend that his taxes are going to be a blip.
In the grand scheme of things, it's nothing that nobody hasn't speculated on.
And how did you get one of the new Xboxes? I was so annoyed when every Canadian site selling them crashed for the first hour of sales. After 20 minutes (while I was working mind you) I pretty much said f this and gave up.
Not that it will make an ounce of difference, but the NYT essentially dropped the bomb on Trump's taxes this afternoon. And the main takeaway?? It's likely you paid for in payroll taxes in the first two months of any given year than Trump paid despite being a (supposed) billionaire. Not by a percentage mind you, but in ACTUAL numbers. He paid $750 in 2016. I'm going to be spending more than that on the new XBox and an extra SSD to plug into the back of it.
There was so much information overload this weekend that his taxes are going to be a blip.
In the grand scheme of things, it's nothing that nobody hasn't speculated on.
And how did you get one of the new Xboxes? I was so annoyed when every Canadian site selling them crashed for the first hour of sales. After 20 minutes (while I was working mind you) I pretty much said f this and gave up.
Luck, essentially. Amazon didn't go live for an hour after it was supposed to and the moment I saw the page available on my phone I hit buy and confirm within 10 seconds. They were gone ten minutes later. Even so, we still all got emails saying they may not arrive on release day, but as long as it is still coming, I don't care if it's delayed five or six days.
Not that it will make an ounce of difference, but the NYT essentially dropped the bomb on Trump's taxes this afternoon. And the main takeaway?? It's likely you paid for in payroll taxes in the first two months of any given year than Trump paid despite being a (supposed) billionaire. Not by a percentage mind you, but in ACTUAL numbers. He paid $750 in 2016. I'm going to be spending more than that on the new XBox and an extra SSD to plug into the back of it.
There was so much information overload this weekend that his taxes are going to be a blip.
In the grand scheme of things, it's nothing that nobody hasn't speculated on.
And how did you get one of the new Xboxes? I was so annoyed when every Canadian site selling them crashed for the first hour of sales. After 20 minutes (while I was working mind you) I pretty much said f this and gave up.
Luck, essentially. Amazon didn't go live for an hour after it was supposed to and the moment I saw the page available on my phone I hit buy and confirm within 10 seconds. They were gone ten minutes later. Even so, we still all got emails saying they may not arrive on release day, but as long as it is still coming, I don't care if it's delayed five or six days.
Ya I had it set up on a page where as soon as it went live a quick refresh right before would have gotten me in, however, the site I was using took them off of that page right before and put them behind another link so I missed out.
Oh well, I saved a $1000 in my mind. I was humming and hawing about it right up to release date if I should preorder or not and get one for my nephew for Xmas. Glad Microsoft made up my mind for me.
In other news, Barbados is no longer a Commonwealth and has become a Republic. The queen of England is no longer their head of state.
Allegedly they have been working on this for 20 years and wanted to get it right with redoing the constitution and all and are attempting to complete it for their 55th anniversary of independence.
There has been talk about doing it here in Canada as well, however, it would be much more troublesome to do with each province having to sign off on it and then having to rework all the things indigenous treaties that the crown signed with individual tribes that’s it a mess just to even get started with to remove a tokenism head of state.
Looking closer at these Trump taxes, it is clear his only "business" model is leveraging his properties to go into more and more debt. The amount in mortgages and loans this guy hasn't even really begun to pay the principle on is staggering (well over a billion dollars). These records alone make him the biggest walking conflict of interest in the history of the United States.
In other news, Barbados is no longer a Commonwealth and has become a Republic. The queen of England is no longer their head of state.
Allegedly they have been working on this for 20 years and wanted to get it right with redoing the constitution and all and are attempting to complete it for their 55th anniversary of independence.
There has been talk about doing it here in Canada as well, however, it would be much more troublesome to do with each province having to sign off on it and then having to rework all the things indigenous treaties that the crown signed with individual tribes that’s it a mess just to even get started with to remove a tokenism head of state.
The announcement a couple of weeks ago was about an intention to change to a Republic by Nov 2021, so it hasn't happened yet. It also might be worth clarifying that the Commonwealth is made up of countries with past links to the UK, but most of those don't have the queen as head of state - only 16 of the 54 do (including the UK).
Though this is the first such announcement since 1992, I would imagine other countries will get around to it eventually. The idea has been mooted regularly in Australia for instance and would almost certainly have got a majority in a referendum in 1999 if the country had just been asked if they wanted to be a republic. Instead a particular model for a republic was put forward and some republicans, who disliked that model, voted against it.
There's a contrast to Brexit there in the sense that it's clear that there is (and never was) no majority in the country for any specific model of Brexit, but because the referendum question was asked on principle and without any detail of what was proposed it got passed. Five years later we're still dealing with the repercussions of that and it's still in the air whether any deal with the EU will be agreed prior to the current transitional period ending on 31 December. One point of interest on that is that Switzerland recently voted pretty decisively (62%:38%) to continue their existing agreements with the EU. They are not part of the EU, but have some 200 separate agreements with the EU (which took about 10 years to put together). The main function of those is to allow Switzerland access to the single market, but in return they have to abide by all the rules that underpin that (and it was a proposal to end freedom of movement that was the issue on the referendum). I imagine that part of the reason for the much stronger vote than expected for the status quo was the recent example set by the UK that trying to renegotiate existing agreements would not be easy ...
Would be interested if the UK members here can attest to channel 4's quality. I'm totally ignorant in that regard.
The basic takeaway is that the 2016 trump campaign tried to get black americans to not vote. Mainly using Facebook ads to go negative on Clinton and thus argue that there was little difference between the candidates. Interesting that a UK outlet got this leak. Likely a Cambridge Analytica employee involved.
Channel 4 is a perfectly respectable broadcaster, with similar public service, accuracy and impartiality requirements to the BBC - though it was set up in 1982 with the aim of being a bit more innovative than the latter. Although it's commercially run, it is ultimately still publicly owned.
On the tax issue Trump is proceeding in a predictable fashion. As usual the story was immediately greeted as Fake News, but (also as usual) within a day Trump has switched his line of attack to saying the information was illegally obtained. Another day or two and he can be expected to revert to something like "so what - that's just me being smart at playing the system". While his core supporters are likely to agree with that, I would expect some small impact at the margins on independents - for instance there may be a few previously left that were still under the impression Trump was a good businessman ...
U.K. dweller, in my experience Channel 4 news is excellent for investigative and questioning journalism of the kind that is sadly lacking nowadays. They are probably more trustworthy than the BBC
The BBC tend to show “balance” by having an expert arguing with a zealot or badly informed person e.g. let a climate change denier and a scientist, or a brexiter and an economist, duke it out as if both are sides are equivalent and without saying that 95% scientists or economists agree with the expert, which is an approach that assisted the road to brexit (e.g. farage was constantly invited on newsnight without fact checking and as if he had something to say that was worth listening to) and they are at risk of the (right wing) government cutting their funding which threatens their independence
U.K. dweller, in my experience Channel 4 news is excellent for investigative and questioning journalism of the kind that is sadly lacking nowadays. They are probably more trustworthy than the BBC
The BBC tend to show “balance” by having an expert arguing with a zealot or badly informed person e.g. let a climate change denier and a scientist, or a brexiter and an economist, duke it out as if both are sides are equivalent and without saying that 95% scientists or economists agree with the expert, which is an approach that assisted the road to brexit (e.g. farage was constantly invited on newsnight without fact checking and as if he had something to say that was worth listening to) and they are at risk of the (right wing) government cutting their funding which threatens their independence
Channel 4 interviewers tend to call out ********
The BBC have recognized this tendency themselves and recently clarified to its staff that impartiality does not necessarily mean balance or neutrality. The editorial guidelines for the BBC define impartiality as: "Due impartiality usually involves more than a simple matter of ‘balance’ between opposing viewpoints. We must be inclusive, considering the broad perspective and ensuring that the existence of a range of views is appropriately reflected. It does not require absolute neutrality on every issue or detachment from fundamental democratic principles, such as the right to vote, freedom of expression and the rule of law."
This guidance note is specifically about racism in the wake of the George Floyd protests and confirms that the BBC sees opposition to racism as a democratic principle that should be supported rather than trying to balance pro- and anti- positions. I'm not sure that they've adequately included the need to reflect scientific truth in those guidelines - climate change is an example of an issue where the weight of evidence is now so great that presenting arguments for and against as if they are equivalent is simply nonsensical - but we'll see in due course how the guidelines are interpreted in practice.
The issue of impartiality is also topical as the BBC is in the process of taking a firmer line with its staff working in programming to ensure they are not following a political agenda in their personal posts on social media. That becomes a particular issue with well known faces like Gary Lineker where the government has expressed concern that it is easy to confuse his personal views with those of the BBC.
Would be interested if the UK members here can attest to channel 4's quality. I'm totally ignorant in that regard.
The basic takeaway is that the 2016 trump campaign tried to get black americans to not vote. Mainly using Facebook ads to go negative on Clinton and thus argue that there was little difference between the candidates. Interesting that a UK outlet got this leak. Likely a Cambridge Analytica employee involved.
They are suppressing votes...with targeted advertisements!
Give me a break. An anti-Clinton ad is not voter suppression. It's an ad. Why does everything have to be sensationalized beyond all reason? I can answer my own question, because they have to make the facts conform to the narrative and not the other way around.
Comments
It's a problem of bad journalism being everywhere, when you want to draw attention to something going on in the world, you have to use them because you don't have anywhere else to turn to. Right wing sources have no better credibility and fringe sources can be easily dismissed. It is either accept that you are using biased information sources, or don't use any sources of information at all, which is worse. The only thing one can do is try to see past the bias inherent to most mainstream news.
Education itself isn’t bullshit, it is how society treats young adults and their expectations.
As soon as a kid is 17 or 18, they are asked not only ‘what do you want to do for the rest of your life as a career’ but also asked to put
money down on the choice.
Two or three years in, the kid determines ‘this isn’t for them’ has to make a choice of either sticking through it so they are not perceived as a failure, or dropping out and changing direction compounding to their already financial burden as not only were those years wasted but also the money they put into it.
It also doesn’t help that for the last 12-13 years of their life, they were being forced to learn stuff that they really don’t want to learn and may not need in the future, and maybe burnt out with information overload. It’s a burn out and kids tend not to have a desire to keep learning.
Add to the fact that most kids will choose careers they recognize only to discover that the opportunities in that field are limited. Colleges and Universities are still a business and will teach as many of these kids as possible their chosen field, so even if ‘this is what you want to do with the rest of your life,’ boomers aren’t retiring fast enough (because they are selfish and pretty much squandered everything they were given - as a group, not attempting to attack any boomers here), or if they are, their positions aren’t being refilled as companies attempt to cut cost.
It is alleged that most new careers are ones that haven’t been invented yet. The easiest example is Video Game design. Look at Gaider and how he got into BioWare (IIRC, he was working at a hotel before BioWare) and look at what most video game designers are looking for now. Post secondary education isn’t teaching people to create a new field or business. They are just teaching the older jobs where markets are full.
Any kid I know, I tell them to take a year or two off after high school and just work a minimum wage part time/full time job until they 1) know what they want to do 2) actually want to learn something new and 3) can afford it. It’s a huge decision already, give them time to think about it instead of rushing.
You're not addressing the factual errors you have made. And you're continuing to double down on spreading disinformation on this forum: "when it's called out that these news outlets are parroting one source".
What factual errors are you talking about? I'm talking about a segment of a show I used to listen to that made fun of how news media outlets borrow buzzwords or phrases from one initial source and repeat them ad nauseum. I guess that's factually errant for some reason or another. I somehow failed to impart the point I was trying to make sufficiently anyway so better to move on. C'est la vie...
I think you are massively downplaying the responsibility of educational institutions in this, although you aren't wrong in anything you said. They have a financial incentive to keep this system of broken futures running as it is. It is massively profitable for them. Even with current declining revenues, they rake in billions of dollars. Nor are you safe from all sorts of predatory privatization at public universities. Taking advantage of young kids *is* the business model for them.
I thought Andrew Yang had a really sensible position on this. I hope he runs again next time around. I would definitely support him and he did surprisingly well for a first time no-name candidate.
He starts talking about it at the 3 minute mark, if you are actually interested in listening.
This isn't what you said.
What you said: "The news outlets inevitably parrot the AP story right down to each and every buzzword."
I attempted to explain to you what a wire service like the Associated Press is and how that fits into the news industry. Grondo also attempted to explain why news outlets would faithfully reproduce AP reporting.
You don't seem to care that your description implied an elementary of misapprehension about the press. This is why I find conservative critiques of the "mainstream media" empty. You guys profess to want a high standard of objectivity, due diligence, and impartiality. But y'all have an astoundingly cavalier attitude about your own information hygiene.
I do like his ten in ten proposal to the point in which I’m attempting figure out if it’s feasible to actually make this the way people pay for their education.
I think the strongly gifted, you know that percentage of people who actually make a successful career out their time in post secondary, may feel slighted that they have to pay more than that kid who skirted through and used his engineering degree to improve his bong while he works at Denny’s for the next decade.
I think it is more economically viable to reach that Denny worker and as a society say, ‘hey it’s ok not to go to college in fact we need line cooks at Denny’s too so here’s affordable housing, and legalized weed and if that is as far as your ambition is going to take you, that’s ok.’
I think we also need to rein in what should constitute a degree. We, as a society, don’t need 1000s of Art History majors (sorry to any art history majors) every year. I personally believe, just like immigration, the government should be capping how many people are taught what with better incentives for jobs that are in demand (hello cheap nursing classes).
I think we need to fix the broken system before we start attempting to fix those who’ve already been broke by it. If your dryer rips your clothes to shreds, you replace it before you start sewing the clothes it ruined. You don’t keep using it and say you’ll sew those clothes once they come out after. If that makes sense.
I worked for a long time in the corporate office of a international company. Most of the people I delt with were sales reps for europe and asia, this is the gist I got from them. The whole population boom theory seems not to be a huge concern in either of those places, from an economic standpoint anyway. Governments and people want to limit immigration but the businesses are struggling with the lack of laborers. I don't know how true this is but I have heard it from enough people that I suspect it might be close, the population boom had more to do with medicine and more children now living to be adults than any global population, or over population D-Day. The European and most definitely the Asian sales reps talked about it all of the time, the hidden fear that those companies on those continents had was not having enough laborers to compete on a global market in the years to come. It seems that the US has had enough people to keep businesses and the economy strong because of immigration. Is making America strong again and severely limiting immigration actually compatible? Just a question.
Side note, not relatable. The head of the Asian sales reps was from Japan and his family lived there, he spent most of his time in different Asian countries and lived in a hotel room when he was here. Our company had a whole floor at a very nice hotel for execs that lived elsewhere to stay when they were in the States or the east coast. Intelligent and funny, we got along well and we would talk for hours on the weekends when there weren't many people working. As I changed, he changed and it got weird. He talked one weekend about the prostitutes his friend and him would go to in the different countries, and how one country had "dirty" prostitutes that his friend wouldn't go to but he didn't mind at all. Kinda freaked me out so I avoided him for a few weeks until he went back to Asia. I didn't know he was back and had to do some extra work one Saturday, he came into my office and we talked for a while but he was getting real close to me so I said it was time for me to go home. He said that he would be going soon too then he gave me his hotel room number. I never talked him again, I crushed it every week and took work home so I would never have to be alone with him again. This is only political in that, should people be subject to that behavior at work or anywhere. I said all of this to my friends today and they said that, "Men are just like that, some just happen to be creepier than others. You'll get used to it." Am I just being a prude to think his behavior was inappropriate? Or is this as systemically wrong as racism?
And I really hate this "all men are like that, it's just how they are" excuse. It's absolutely not true. As a pick-up attempt, it has all the subtlety of a frying pan to the face. But this is also why I really don't hang out with any (guys that is, despite being one, despite caring about sports, pop culture, gaming, and the like). Sure, women are attracted to good looks, but you know what works best?? Being able to hold a conversation and the ability to listen. And the problem most of these dipshits have is they don't know how to talk to women.
I can't speak for this guy's conversational skills, but doing that AT the office is a clear human resources violation if you were literally taking work home to avoid him. It doesn't matter what HE thought he was doing, the only thing that matters in a work environment is how the person on the receiving end interprets it. It's not 1955, and this isn't "Mad Men".
I've been warned that transitioning to female would eventually get me some very unpleasant kinds of attention. So far I've been safe. The closest thing so far was some guy making an offhand comment about my hair that made my clam up my mouth and scurry along. I was surprised it spooked me the way that it did.
I get comments about my pink hair from strangers every other time I go to the store, usually from women but sometimes from men, but it did hit different when it was in an unfamiliar neighborhood in the middle of the night.
his behavior was wrong. A person should everyone they work with professionally, which means respectfully and consistently the same regardless who the other person is.
His actions are sexual harassment. You need to bring this incident up to either him (and tell him you are uncomfortable with these types of advances in the workplace), and if you can't bring it up to him, then a supervisor or human resource person.
The 'you'll get use to it' shouldn't be an option. YOU do not need to change. He does.
I would argue that she isn't OBLIGATED to bring it up (because even though rules against retaliation exist, that isn't often how reality plays out). But she absolutely is within her rights if she chooses to do so.
I would argue she is.
How is anyone going to fix a problem, if one does not know the problem exists.
Also, if this guy (or anyone for that matter) is getting away with this type of behaviour the first time, what is stopping it from happening to the next girl that comes along.
If you don’t report assault, then it will happen again, if not to you, to someone else and when it does happen to someone else, in my opinion, you are no different than anyone else who had turned a blind eye to this type of behaviour. You knew first hand what type of person this was. Speak up. Let everyone else know it too.
I just don't trust that the "letter of the law" will protect anyone in any given situation given workplace politics. Self-preservation has to be taken into account on a case by case basis.
No. Sometimes I hate you all but I will never tell on anyone. Obligated? I have paid and no longer feel obligated to anyone. I still can’t hurt anyone and I can’t tell on anyone, I owe no one anything though.
TMI, sorry. I wish all all of that was not 100% true, I wish that I was not so broken. I always feel bad when I inflict my life on others.
Still curious about the first part if anyone has any thoughts.
Yes immigration is good for any country, especially ones with low birthrates.
The ill informed or ignorant however look at immigration as just another way that good paying jobs aren't being made available to its citizens. Except that they are, just that those citizens aren't as qualified or refuse to do actually do that sort of labour.
President Trump has now, unsurprisingly, chosen to nominate the far right Amy Coney Barrett to succeed Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. The only sensible approach is for Senate Democrats neither to meet with Barrett nor participate in the confirmation process. Even to do so in a critical posture is to add legitimacy to a process that is illegitimate.
As bad as she may be as a judge or for the future of equal justice in the United States she can never be as bad as the corruption of the process itself. It is that corruption – the court-packing scheme Republicans pushed into overdrive starting in early 2016 – that justifies, indeed requires Democrats to add seats to the Court in 2021. Distracting from that reality with a gauzy-lensed look at Barrett’s personal story and judicial merits is madness. Pure madness.
Here too politics lines up neatly with principle. This will be a high profile spectacle that will dominate the final weeks of the election and be 100% under the control of the GOP and the White House. It is literally stage managed by the GOP. All the initiative is in their hands. One might as well agree to shut down one’s own campaign for the last month of the election.
Trump is the issue in the election. It is his defeat which will allow Democrats to undo the damage of this corrupt process in 2021. No matter how bad Barrett comes off in hearings – and remember, it’s a process 100% controlled by the President and Senate Republicans – she certainly will not come off worse than Donald Trump. Why allow that? Why participate? Why feed the false claim of legitimacy?
Republicans have already told us that Barrett herself is irrelevant to this process. Almost every Senate Republican agreed to vote to confirm her before they knew who Trump would nominate. They could not have made this more clear. She is irrelevant. Is she hard right? Of course. Just like the other possible choices.
You can’t insist a process is illegitimate while granting it legitimacy, while arguing within the questions the process raises. In this context, participation amounts to begging. Begging is weak. Democrats need to make clear that the only answer to Republican court-packing which will toss millions off health care, cripple voting rights, further limit reproductive rights and more important than anything be a decades-long veto over all progressive legislation is to elect Democrats and repair the damage in 2021.
Don’t participate. It’s madness.
There was so much information overload this weekend that his taxes are going to be a blip.
In the grand scheme of things, it's nothing that nobody hasn't speculated on.
And how did you get one of the new Xboxes? I was so annoyed when every Canadian site selling them crashed for the first hour of sales. After 20 minutes (while I was working mind you) I pretty much said f this and gave up.
Luck, essentially. Amazon didn't go live for an hour after it was supposed to and the moment I saw the page available on my phone I hit buy and confirm within 10 seconds. They were gone ten minutes later. Even so, we still all got emails saying they may not arrive on release day, but as long as it is still coming, I don't care if it's delayed five or six days.
Ya I had it set up on a page where as soon as it went live a quick refresh right before would have gotten me in, however, the site I was using took them off of that page right before and put them behind another link so I missed out.
Oh well, I saved a $1000 in my mind. I was humming and hawing about it right up to release date if I should preorder or not and get one for my nephew for Xmas. Glad Microsoft made up my mind for me.
Allegedly they have been working on this for 20 years and wanted to get it right with redoing the constitution and all and are attempting to complete it for their 55th anniversary of independence.
There has been talk about doing it here in Canada as well, however, it would be much more troublesome to do with each province having to sign off on it and then having to rework all the things indigenous treaties that the crown signed with individual tribes that’s it a mess just to even get started with to remove a tokenism head of state.
The announcement a couple of weeks ago was about an intention to change to a Republic by Nov 2021, so it hasn't happened yet. It also might be worth clarifying that the Commonwealth is made up of countries with past links to the UK, but most of those don't have the queen as head of state - only 16 of the 54 do (including the UK).
Though this is the first such announcement since 1992, I would imagine other countries will get around to it eventually. The idea has been mooted regularly in Australia for instance and would almost certainly have got a majority in a referendum in 1999 if the country had just been asked if they wanted to be a republic. Instead a particular model for a republic was put forward and some republicans, who disliked that model, voted against it.
There's a contrast to Brexit there in the sense that it's clear that there is (and never was) no majority in the country for any specific model of Brexit, but because the referendum question was asked on principle and without any detail of what was proposed it got passed. Five years later we're still dealing with the repercussions of that and it's still in the air whether any deal with the EU will be agreed prior to the current transitional period ending on 31 December. One point of interest on that is that Switzerland recently voted pretty decisively (62%:38%) to continue their existing agreements with the EU. They are not part of the EU, but have some 200 separate agreements with the EU (which took about 10 years to put together). The main function of those is to allow Switzerland access to the single market, but in return they have to abide by all the rules that underpin that (and it was a proposal to end freedom of movement that was the issue on the referendum). I imagine that part of the reason for the much stronger vote than expected for the status quo was the recent example set by the UK that trying to renegotiate existing agreements would not be easy ...
Would be interested if the UK members here can attest to channel 4's quality. I'm totally ignorant in that regard.
The basic takeaway is that the 2016 trump campaign tried to get black americans to not vote. Mainly using Facebook ads to go negative on Clinton and thus argue that there was little difference between the candidates. Interesting that a UK outlet got this leak. Likely a Cambridge Analytica employee involved.
On the tax issue Trump is proceeding in a predictable fashion. As usual the story was immediately greeted as Fake News, but (also as usual) within a day Trump has switched his line of attack to saying the information was illegally obtained. Another day or two and he can be expected to revert to something like "so what - that's just me being smart at playing the system". While his core supporters are likely to agree with that, I would expect some small impact at the margins on independents - for instance there may be a few previously left that were still under the impression Trump was a good businessman ...
The BBC tend to show “balance” by having an expert arguing with a zealot or badly informed person e.g. let a climate change denier and a scientist, or a brexiter and an economist, duke it out as if both are sides are equivalent and without saying that 95% scientists or economists agree with the expert, which is an approach that assisted the road to brexit (e.g. farage was constantly invited on newsnight without fact checking and as if he had something to say that was worth listening to) and they are at risk of the (right wing) government cutting their funding which threatens their independence
Channel 4 interviewers tend to call out ********
The BBC have recognized this tendency themselves and recently clarified to its staff that impartiality does not necessarily mean balance or neutrality. The editorial guidelines for the BBC define impartiality as:
"Due impartiality usually involves more than a simple matter of ‘balance’ between opposing viewpoints. We must be inclusive, considering the broad perspective and ensuring that the existence of a range of views is appropriately reflected. It does not require absolute neutrality on every issue or detachment from fundamental democratic principles, such as the right to vote, freedom of expression and the rule of law."
This guidance note is specifically about racism in the wake of the George Floyd protests and confirms that the BBC sees opposition to racism as a democratic principle that should be supported rather than trying to balance pro- and anti- positions. I'm not sure that they've adequately included the need to reflect scientific truth in those guidelines - climate change is an example of an issue where the weight of evidence is now so great that presenting arguments for and against as if they are equivalent is simply nonsensical - but we'll see in due course how the guidelines are interpreted in practice.
The issue of impartiality is also topical as the BBC is in the process of taking a firmer line with its staff working in programming to ensure they are not following a political agenda in their personal posts on social media. That becomes a particular issue with well known faces like Gary Lineker where the government has expressed concern that it is easy to confuse his personal views with those of the BBC.
They are suppressing votes...with targeted advertisements!
Give me a break. An anti-Clinton ad is not voter suppression. It's an ad. Why does everything have to be sensationalized beyond all reason? I can answer my own question, because they have to make the facts conform to the narrative and not the other way around.