BoilerMaker11
u/BoilerMaker11
Screenshots of Black people being hilarious or insightful on social media, it doesn't need to just be twitter but obviously that is best.
Screenshots of Black people being hilarious or insightful on social media, it doesn't need to just be twitter but obviously that is best.
Because he didn't. The only reason he's trying to claim retroactive declassification via telepathy is to cover his ass.
The place for news articles about current events in the United States and the rest of the world. Discuss it all here.
The place for news articles about current events in the United States and the rest of the world. Discuss it all here.
Papa John has entered the chat
Screenshots of Black people being hilarious or insightful on social media, it doesn't need to just be twitter but obviously that is best.
Screenshots of Black people being hilarious or insightful on social media, it doesn't need to just be twitter but obviously that is best.
I’ve worked hella hours making a trash salary and now my currently salary is great (for me) and most days I do literally nothing. So, I know and have the “work ethic” to put time in. If I could do it for scraps, why not do it for $100k a month, right?
No. Nothing is more important than your time. That $10k/mo is more than comfortable, assuming you don’t live in like San Francisco or something. But even in a high cost of living area like San Francisco, $120k a year is at least “average” and you ain’t living paycheck to paycheck.
You sleep (or, at least, you’re supposed to) 8 hours a day. If you’re working 14, then that leaves you 2 to live your life. No amount of money is worth watching Suicide Squad and then immediately going back to work.
The place for news articles about current events in the United States and the rest of the world. Discuss it all here.
The place for news articles about current events in the United States and the rest of the world. Discuss it all here.
Their voter suppression tactics are usually covert. They don't pass laws that outright say "black people can't vote", for example. They pass laws that say "there's only going to be one voting location in this [predominantly black] area, because 'there's not enough resources', but this [predominantly white] area can have ten voting locations". The intended result of less Democratic votes (since the black population votes Democratic heavily) is achieved without them overtly saying "less people from this demographic can vote"
But mail in voting stops all of that. No tactic they can think of could dampen voters that are "undesirable" to them. Banning handing out water, reducing voting locations so that voting can take hours, strict voter ID laws that target groups with surgical precision, etc. None of that matters when you can vote from the comfort of your home and just drop the ballot into your mailbox.
That's why they're going scorched earth against mail in voting. So much so that they're hurting their own demographics. Remember when the Florida GOP had to tell their constituents that mail in voting is fine but had to doctor a Trump tweet to accomplish it? They only want their voters to vote. They don't want universally high voter participation. Because when that happens, well.....there's a reason why Republicans haven't won the popular vote for president since Bush Jr.
And you don't seem to understand that "controlling the situation" isn't what I'm referring to at all. I'm talking about other people's PERCEPTION of the event when it's happening. I literally said that before. The analogy doesn't suddenly not work because I'm not comparing what you think should be compared.
So stop talking about "control". Because it's not what my initial comment was about. It's like me saying "video games is like working a job. You have to complete a task to complete a goal" and then you turn around and say "those two are nothing alike! You have to work because it makes money to pay bills. You don't have to play video games. And playing games doesn't earn money" and paying bills and making money has nothing to do with the comparison I'm making.
You realize you're making my point, right? First off, striking is a form of protest. And secondly, you're saying "these people blocking roads are jerks because they're inconveniencing people", which is exactly my point. You think the only "right" way to protest is for people to be unbothered, but that's not how it works. You don't get to decide what is "acceptable" protest, just like you don't get to decide what is "acceptable" mental illness.
You can go to a location X and protest without causing issues to other people.
Herein lies the problem. Protests you can ignore are not successful protests. People say the "right way" to protest is that others are unbothered. But if they're unbothered and can ignore your protest, then your message won't be heard. You have to make your grievances be heard in order to be effective. And that's going to cause issues with people. When railroad workers strike, that inconveniences everybody because we can't get our goods that are transported by rail. But if they just went to the side and asked nicely for better working conditions, do you think that would be granted? No, disruption results in goals being met.
Now, I say all that to say that I know that protesting and mental health are completely different things. That's why it's called an "analogy". A comparison of two otherwise unlike things based on resemblance of a particular aspect (per Merriam Webster).
"Control" has nothing to do with the comparison. Perception is what I was comparing. Mental illness is "ok" as long as you don't bother someone. If you find out someone had a breakdown in their house and they were taken to the hospital, that's "fine". If they have that same breakdown in public, they're being an asshole in the eyes of a lot of people. Just like if those railroad workers just send a nice letter to the higher ups, that's "fine", but if they strike and make it so that something like gasoline gets more expensive, for example, then they're being assholes in the eyes of a lot of people.