They would be richer, but by “allowing” working class people to have a thriving life means the power gap between us and them wouldn’t be as big. People could organize and overthrow them, so they have to keep us fighting amongst ourselves for scraps.
The cruelty is the point.
With the name “RageAgainstTheRich”, one would think you’d be more into class solidarity. 🙄
Do you mean by asking for a universal minimum wage instead of making each company’s workers fight for a living wage at each company individually?
Because yes. Obviously.
In the meantime though, protesting the current system by not tipping directly harms the person who is doing work you could have easily done at home yourself.
I agree that we should have livable wages as the minimum wage, but your anger is misplaced. I’m mad at the government, and have solidarity with my fellow working-class citizens. If I can’t afford to tip somewhere, I can’t afford to be a patron there, and THAT directly impacts the company instead of the workers.
Because by patronizing the business and not tipping, you agree that the company paying an unfair wage is fine with you.
That’s worse.
The company should, but they don’t.
Again, if you are concerned about money, you can get cheap coffee at home. If you want someone to make it for you, you should understand the actual cost in US capitalistic society.
Until the company pays a living wage, buying coffee without tipping is agreeing that the business paying less than a living wage is acceptable.
If you don’t want to tip, don’t go there.
I know this isn’t the point of the comic, but the barista isn’t just handing you a cup of coffee. They’re brewing it and making specialty drinks too.
The not-tipping argument really only works if you’re ordering a black coffee, but if you’re getting black coffee from Starbucks, you’re already paying way more than you should, so just tip.
Coffee makers are hella cheap if black coffee is all you want.
Potentially. If you know an attack is coming and use a blanket or pillow, yes.
It’s only legal to sleep in public without any bedding and without a cache of personal objects nearby, because that “implies the intent to establish a temporary residence”.
Modern-Day Jesus:
So the beggar at the red light began shouting, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!”
“Be quiet!” the people in the vehicle behind yelled at him.
But he only shouted louder, “Son of David, have mercy on me!”
When Jesus heard him, he rolled down his window and ordered that the man come near. Jesus asked him, “What do you want me to do for you?”
“Lord,” he said, “My only want is for enough coin to eat for today!”
And Jesus said, “If I were to give you coin, surely you would instead use it instead for drugs and alcohol. I shall not grant you this desire. Instead I shall speak unto the land that all shall know of your wicked ways and none will grant you coin again.”
Instantly the man cried out, “If you were not to grant me this, Lord, please allow me to pass on from this world onto hell, for truly I am already living there.”
And Jesus said, “I do not know the ways of my Father, but surely I know this: Your fate would not have fallen upon you had you followed Jesus, praising God. You have made this bed, and now it is time for you to lay in it.”
And the light changed to green, and Jesus sped away. In the din, the beggar could not explain that he was born a disciple and had praised God since taking his first breath. And the people in the vehicle behind who saw it drove past and said, “Get a job”, and praised God this fate would surely never befall them.
I’m furious. I just read through as much as I could and asked GPT for a summary so I didn’t miss anything. It’s just about as bad as I thought.
The court is literally arguing that they’re not criminalizing homelessness, they’re just criminalizing ‘sleeping in public’ but makes no attempt to justify that with the fact that there literally aren’t places to go. When Sotomayor tries to argue that cities should be responsible for providing adequate housing, they just hem and haw at ‘What even IS adequate? We may never know. Plus, if we give them BEDS, they’ll probably want something to keep them WARM too! That’s just too much!’
It’s abhorrent and inhumane.
The initial lawsuit was in a town with ~600 fewer available beds than residents. These people literally did not have anywhere else to go, and our highest court just said ‘tough shit’.
Holy fuck, y’all.
If they’re anything like my mother, they automatically assume anyone speaking in any language other than English within earshot of her is shit-talking her, specifically. The thought that someone might be saying something mean-spirited about her is just too much for her tiny brain to handle. If you think she’s a bitch, she needs to know. It reeks of desperation and the need to be liked by all people at all times while also doing nothing to bridge that gap yourself.
The two things that I think of when I think of India are that it’s way too overpopulated and also way too hot.
Aside from that, there are a lot of academics I’ve seen from India that are genuinely helpful on YouTube but also a lot of scams. Speaking English with an Indian accent almost instantly creates a sense of distrust in Americans simply with how many times we each personally have received scam calls or talked to someone in an Indian call center who swears their name is ‘Derek Johnston’ or other similarly fabricated name.
About a year after it came out, I was singing along with it during a depressive episode and realized ‘seven’ wasn’t accurate anymore. It freaked me out, but I realized that part of the nature of the song is the impending doom, and I have to change the lyrics when I get to that part.
…Four more to go.
You misunderstand my point. Let me explain again.
I don’t care if they’re being genuine or not and don’t feel a need to prove it one way or the other. I will treat anyone who is defending Nazis as if they are genuinely Nazis themselves because at the end of the day, that’s what they’re pushing for, intentionally or not.
The damage this can cause does not change if it was intentional or not, so our reaction to it should not change either.
Their initial comment was complete nonsense, and sarcastic derision is one of the few things that actually upsets people like that who ignore the content of the conversation while also pretending to have the moral high ground. Their point is often to get people arguing amongst themselves instead of realizing they just shifted the conversation from “Here is a Nazi in Indiana” to “You can’t prove that Chinese speakers aren’t Nazis.” (Like we’re doing now.)
What would you have called them out for that fits better than moving goalposts or a strawman argument?
You admit that they were running interference for a nazi, but also want to give them the benefit of the doubt? Historians have a word for people who didn’t agree fully with, but still defended nazis. Want to know what they were called?
Nazis.
If you’re aligning yourself with them, running interference for them, I’m going to treat you as if it is intentional because the effect is the exact same. If it was an accident, there were plenty of opportunities to change opinions and apologize. That hasn’t happened, so all evidence we have points to the person defending Nazis being disingenuous here.
You have to make assumptions on people’s motivations either way. I’m just more willing to base my assumptions on how genuine someone is being whether or not they are running interference for Nazis.
I think you should be cautious of just how much faith you’re putting into this person.
They said they’d agree
They didn’t. They only gave reasons to not agree. They implied that they would agree if that condition was met, but that’s not what they said.
they accepted that the person who owns the car is a Nazi
Again, they didn’t. They said, “I missed that,.my bad.” They didn’t change anything about their argument from this information (that was always available to them), just acknowledged that they didn’t use it.
Maybe I should’ve called their argument a strawman argument instead, but the discrepancy between what they say OP can call a Nazi and what they can call a Nazi feels wide enough to change the rules of the debate for each side.
The goalposts to being a nazi got moved farther back because “we can’t know their intent from just this license plate” and then 2 seconds later, the goalposts for being a nazi was moved way forward because “everyone who says good luck in Chinese is a Nazi.”
Yes, that’s literally moving the goalposts on what defines a Nazi.
Why? You ignore content anyway.
I remember reading that when national parks tried to make a ‘bear-proof’ trashcan, they found that there was a larger overlap between the smartest bear and the stupidest human to make a viable product.
I feel like it’s a similar situation here. The smartest kid and the stupidest adult are far more similar than we’d like to admit.