Wow this is even worse than I thought. Are people in these jobs unable to strike as well? Is there a meaningful difference between this and indentured servitude?

Sounds like poor management to me tbh.

I do, my comment was in response to the first sentence of the comment. It sounded like he was saying a minority group is the definition of extreme, but perhaps I misinterpreted it, as indeed the word billionaire was included and I could have been more charitable in my interpretation.

OP, I took a look at your post history to see what you’re referring to. I found one thread where, indeed, some people are hating on Albertans. Others aren’t. I also found other posts, including in the Canada community, with people celebrating the Albertans going on strike.

I’m not saying you’re misrepresenting the situation, and I’m not saying there’s not a problem. But I do think there is a selection bias going on here, and if we were to instead strive to interpret comments charitably and as obviously rhetorical in many cases, I think we’d find that there’s a lot less hatred against every single Albertan (and by sole virtue of being Albertan) than this post makes out.

Holy shit dude, being in a minority group does not.make you an extremist. Would you call people with Field’s disease extremists too? No, of course not. But you would call them extremists if they believed that everyone who doesn’t have Field’s disease should be enslaved or to donate all the Earth’s resources for their well-being. Likewise with billionaires.

(Ignore me - I’m apparently not very good at reading.)

Lol you remind me of Cartman.

Bro, you are arguing with a poorly-constructed strawman. The commenter you’re replying to said nothing about borders being real or Americans constituting a people (which, for the record, you are wrong about on both accounts - these are real, albeit non-physical, emergent phenomena). Yes, the US is an empire, but the destruction of the world does not depend exclusively on them. Do you really think that over-exploitation of Earth’s resources would stop abruptly if the American empire was destroyed tomorrow? It would help, sure, but you’re in no way addressing the clear connection between human psychology and exploitation. Greed is not exclusively American.

In Panama, that crispy rice is called concolon :)

Anyone who still has any hope in the Democratic party after reading this is fucked. I mean, their ineptitude has been clear for awhile, but how am I supposed to read this document as anything less than a capitulation to the Republican fascists? Literally, focusing less on democracy is one of your key moves??? The USA is utterly fucked.

Honestly, yes I am impressed when you compare what was possible with NLP prior to LLMs. Your question is akin to asking: are you truly impressed by a machine that can stick blocks together as well as some random person? Regardless of whether you are impressed, significant amounts of human labour can be reproduced by machines in a manner that was previously impossible. Obviously there’s still a lot of undeserved hype, but let’s not pretend that replicating human language is trivial or worthless.

911

Emily was one of several women who refused to discuss improving our mutual sex life, only for me to find her gossiping with friends or strangers about it later.

Tbh this sounds like an issue with you rather than with women in general. And what does this have to do with voting???

Let’s not forget about those who didn’t vote for Trump, not least of which the children of this town. Their suffering is tragic.

The content of their comments has been much more thoughtful than many comments I see on Lemmy, and certainly conducive to further conversation. Downvotes don’t make something good/bad or right/wrong.

Canadian here, so take this with a grain of salt. Honestly I find it a bit hard to be empathetic for people who signed up to be in the military and then don’t have the courage to stand up for the constitution which they swore an oath to. Granted, I understand the oath they swore was also to obey their president and their governor, and that the constitutionality of Trump’s orders is being actively debated, but if your own military force is occupying the land of your own citizens without their consent, you also have a responsibility to speak out. Granted, I understand national guardsmen also have restrictions in terms of their political activism, but they are not silenced. Where is the letter to the editor from the ~400k off-duty national guardsmen to denounce what effectively amounts for waging war against your own citizens?

I see no problem with this. Most countries do not have any toilet paper available for free in public.

IANAL but isn’t this issue of responsibility obviously determined based on the liability waiver that gun range attendees sign? I’d be pretty shocked if gun ranges don’t include personal injury and wrongful death clauses in their liability waiver.

That’s a fair point, and I found a source for it. It sounds like she is specifically complaining about the National Guard deployment, because of her immigrant background. That’s great. I would like her to push for things which are virtuous even if she isn’t personally connected. For example, stand up for Canada’s sovereignty and decry the threats that the federal government has made, instead of just begging Canadians to come and give her city money.

I looked up this mayor too. I can’t find much criticism of the federal admins policies. What I do find is that she is an active supporter of Israel, she voted to invade Iraq, and she has been named as one of the US’ most corrupt representatives.

So, maybe you can reflect a bit on why people aren’t very ecstatic that a politician is a Democrat. As far as I’m concerned, she has aligned herself with the leopard-eating party by begging Canadians to be complicit instead of pushing back against the federal admin.

Gotcha, that makes more sense. In any event, I don’t find your theory of distinction between speech and action very convincing. From a moral perspective, public and private speech can be viewed equivalently by those who believe in virtue ethics, by consequentialists, and by deontologists. I am struggling to see the argument for why state-associated speech is less excusable, when the impact it has on society is clearly detrimental, and when people acting on their own behalf have even more responsibility to bear than those “just taking orders” on behalf of the state or other organization.