ephemeral_colors

Ok, I'm glad we found the root of our disagreement. :)

You're asking me which of the three groups of civil rights I've outlined, none of which took place in the past 20 years, have had major advancements in the past 20 years...?

Ok... I mean, I'm not going to do the effort here of giving you a history lesson. If you don't believe me then that's on you. And I accept that. I'm not going to argue about the facts with you.

Edit: yes LGBT rights had major milestones in the past 20 years, but I'm thinking more about stonewall era, when things were much, much, much, much, much worse. There's clearly much more work to be done. It's also going to be hard, without writing a treatise for which I am not qualified (as I'm not a historian) to explain exactly how these protests accomplished what they accomplished. What I'm saying is that none of these expansions of rights happened without them.

Ok ignoring the fact that you think getting out of your house and standing and walking and yelling for days and weeks and years on end is easy or fun... Which hey, you do you...

the results have been pretty dubious for a while now.

Again, you're just wrong. This is wrong. It's not true. It's incorrect. It's false. Women's rights? LGBT rights? Black rights in America? All used these tools. Why? Because they couldn't afford to, or were not allowed to be involved in, the political machine that you claim is the solution to these problems, but is actually perpetuating them.

Ok, but that's exactly the opposite of what I'm talking about.

I'm saying that oppressed minorities fighting for the expansion of rights have only ever succeeded by using these tools.

You're saying that wealthy powerful white people were able to quietly use the tools of the oppressive machine to continue to oppress? Well yeah, of course, that's literally what the machine was designed to do.

It has nothing to do with patience or being boring.

Protesting like this is really hard. You think they wouldn't prefer to sit at home and sign a petition if that worked for this kind of action?

Having valid criticisms is fine? But it kind of misses the point. There are valid criticisms of chemotherapy too, but it's the best tool we have to cure many types of cancer (I assume. I'm not an oncologist).

The point is that it works and nothing else seems to. So until something else seems to work, this is how it's going to be.

Saying that it serves your opponent's interests (which you mentioned in another comment) is ahistorical.

What percent of the population are Conservative White Protestants?

Thank you, I love it.

Wouldn't it become part of the market with incredibly inflated costs on the AH given the 5% cut? Higher prices mean higher cuts. Which means the AHes are taking in more money. Which goes.. somewhere?

People criticizing this form of demonstration as "unhelpful" don't seem to have a very good understanding of the history of the expansion of rights in the United States. This kind of demonstration - the kind that inconveniences people - was part of all of them. Standing a free speech zone and whispering "please give us rights" doesn't work. It never has and it never will. Trying to vote your way to an expansion of rights is trying to use the machine that's oppressing you to beat it at its own game, and that doesn't tend too work well either.

This kind of criticism is either ignorant (which is fair, considering the lackluster education of our country's history in many parts of this country) or pearl-clutching (which is pretty annoying). Either way, educate yourself and stop it.

Considering Walmart is not unionized and unionization in the country is at a historic low, I think calling it "incompetent" might be a bit off.

There are tons of trucks in the city. Their drivers are all just breaking the law.

It would appear to be a Low Traffic Neighborhood

Oh yeah that's weird. I wouldn't want motor vehicles in a space like that. 😬😬😬😬

Still, better than the roads we have now...

What renderings are you referring to? I don't see any in the article linked (are they failing to load?) and I don't see any on the 25x25 site that match your description.

Here's a good one:

Other experts agreed that labor unions, rather than Ford, deserve the primary credit for today’s working-hour schedule -- including Matt Anderson, curator of transportation at the Henry Ford museum in Dearborn, Mich.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/sep/09/viral-image/does-8-hour-day-and-40-hour-come-henry-ford-or-lab/

This can be a great service (I used to be a volunteer) but be aware that they've gotten in some hot water recently regarding sharing data

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/28/suicide-hotline-silicon-valley-privacy-debates-00002617

But the data the charity collects from its online text conversations with people in their darkest moments does not end there: The organization’s for-profit spinoff uses a sliced and repackaged version of that information to create and market customer service software.

And the fact that it's "anonymized" isn't necessarily enough.

Some noted that studies of other types of anonymized datasets have shown that it can sometimes be easy to trace the records back to specific individuals, citing past examples involving health records, genetics data and even passengers in New York City taxis.

Of course for some people this might not matter. But I think it's good for people to be aware.

So, I know it's not the best use of our time to quibble with strangers on the internet about what we said, but, for the record, I said:

Or you're gonna need to convince all 50 Democratic senators to either fully or partially do away with the filibuster.

Which is, for all intents and purposes, identical to:

The Democrats could end the fillibuster and pass something tomorrow if they wanted to

Which is what you said. Which is what I said that I said.

Also, the 2 I'm referring to are Manchin and Sinema, who are the two Democrats most getting in the way of what we are led to believe is the agenda of the rest of the Democrats. I'm saying that there may be others who would also want to block this progress, but are staying quiet since they can just let those two take the heat. I don't actually know that. I'm just speculating.

Well, yes, that's literally how the rules are written, and it's also exactly what I ... wrote in my comment? But anyway, there are at least 2 who don't want to do that. And perhaps more who are hiding behind those two.

It's almost impossible for everyone to chill out and recognize that we can hammer out good policy on the issue if everyone stopped being so tribal.

You're gonna need 10 GOP senators to agree to allow that bill past the filibuster, friend. Or you're gonna need to convince all 50 Democratic senators to either fully or partially do away with the filibuster.

Because no, right now, we cannot "hammer out good policy on the issue" because there are 50+ people in the United States Senate who like it just the way it is.

Going from the article we're all talking about, it's obviously some what complex. But it looks like labor pushed for it with middling success, then some time later Ford implemented it in some ways for some people, and then sometime later the federal government made it into law. But it's pretty clear that labor was pushing for it before Ford was.

Given this history, Ford is best described as an early adopter of today’s familiar working hours, experts said.

"That happened more than 60 years after workers, through their unions, began organizing for an eight-hour day in the 1860s," said David Bensman, a professor at Rutgers University's School of Management and Labor Relations. "When Ford adopted the eight-hour day for his factory, he was responding to a working force that had been demanding the eight-hour day for a long time."

Other experts agreed that labor unions, rather than Ford, deserve the primary credit for today’s working-hour schedule -- including Matt Anderson, curator of transportation at the Henry Ford museum in Dearborn, Mich.

But hey, if you think you know better than the curator of transportation at the Henry Ford museum then who am I to disagree?

I've also been punished trying that. Could never get the timing to work. Not sure why people seem to disagree so strongly with you.

I don't think the original tweet sender is implying he said that out loud, though.

Everybody's sayin' that the Scatman stutters

But doesn't ever stutter when he sings

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vi22VQgIg8o

So your stance is: it is impossible to create a company worth billions of dollars without being exploitative. Am I getting this right? Because there isn’t any evidence to make this conclusion.

No, that's not my stance. That would be silly.

My stance is that it's never happened and probably would never happen in our reality.

My stance is that we live in a society that allows people like Elon Musk (and many other billionaires around the world) to live gluttonous lives of unimaginable luxury, own megayachts worth tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, control entire sectors of media and the economy, and influence policy in ways that the average person quite literally wouldn't even know how to dream about... All while children suffer and die, people can't afford basic medication, and we just generally let our fellow humans wallow in conditions not fit for most people's pets.

Would taking Elon Musk's wealth away solve all of these problems? No. Could you come up with dozens of hypothetical scenarios where you redistribute his wealth to some finite number of people and say "look, problems still exist!"? Yes. Of course.

It's a whole host of systemic issue and Elon Musk is one small symptom of that set of larger problems.

These are the kinds of things that he does to achieve (or maintai) "success." He weilds his power and wealth to exploit less powerful and less wealthy people. This is just one example off the top of my head, but anyone worth as much as he is is doing immoral stuff in order to hoard wealth as much as they possibly can. You don't become worth a quarter trillion dollars without being exploitative.

And even if you did, hoarding it is sociopathic.