When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
And, going back to the question I asked of Lokiel, we have plenty of evidence that, when people who are accustomed to receiving free money are suddenly required to do some form of work in exchange for that money, the result is mass claims of forced servitude.
In other words, if you take someone who has been receiving money for nothing, and then require that they do something useful in exchange for money, you are unfairly exploiting them.
So.... How do you unravel such a social dynamic? I really would like someone to explain this to me, in a step-by-step format. Remember, not only do welfare-recipients vote, but charity programs exist which are specifically targeted towards helping them register to vote, educating them as to who to vote for, and providing them with transportation to and from the polling places.
And, going back to the question I asked of Lokiel, we have plenty of evidence that, when people who are accustomed to receiving free money are suddenly required to do some form of work in exchange for that money, the result is mass claims of forced servitude.
In other words, if you take someone who has been receiving money for nothing, and then require that they do something useful in exchange for money, you are unfairly exploiting them.
I was going to say ignore them, until you mentioned the part about wanting their votes. I prefer to disenfranchise them for being "dependents of the state" and not full adult members. They obviously aren't capable of being responsible for themselves and should not be regarded as competent participants in the process.
TL;DR: Big boy pants required if we count your opinion.
I was going to say ignore them, until you mentioned the part about wanting their votes. I prefer to disenfranchise them for being "dependents of the state" and not full adult members. They obviously aren't capable of being responsible for themselves and should not be regarded as competent participants in the process.
And that's pretty much how it worked in the late 1700s, when the first voting laws were set up by the states. You had to be a land-owner or a tax-payer (and also white and male) in order to vote in Federal elections.
But times change...
Originally Posted by sixshooter
TL;DR: Big boy pants required if we count your opinion.
And therein lies the problem. Such arguments run contrary to the present socio-political stream, which has been flowing in the direction of "everyone's voice matters" since the 1950s, and accelerating even further in that direction in the past decade or two.
In a perfect world, I'd be right there with you. Most (but not all) states, for instance, disenfranchise those presently incarcerated, and some continue this prohibition after release. I see no valid technical reason why those who are "dependents of the state" ought not to be similarly disenfranchised, but then this opens up a whole other can of worms.
Posit: Are people aged 65 and up who receive Medicare and Social Security benefits "dependents of the state?" What about retired members of the armed forces, or disabled veterans?
Arguments like this tend to get rather messy at the policy-implementation level.
I have found that if I use "show first" on the feeds I'm not seeing, they sometimes show up. at least more often than not now. but I no longer see ANYTHING from Milo unless I go directly to his page.
oh he straight up may have been banned banned now, I get this now when I go to his page:
Watching that video, I kept wishing that Zuck would just say "Yes" or "No," and then leave it at that.
In my ~20 years of dealing with corporate bureaucracy, I've found that these are the best answers.
Like, someone asks you a really convoluted, nearly incoherent question, and you just look at them seriously, pause for a moment, and then assertively say "no."
It tends to establish dominance in the conversation.
Watching that video, I kept wishing that Zuck would just say "Yes" or "No," and then leave it at that.
In my ~20 years of dealing with corporate bureaucracy, I've found that these are the best answers.
Like, someone asks you a really convoluted, nearly incoherent question, and you just look at them seriously, pause for a moment, and then assertively say "no."
It tends to establish dominance in the conversation.
Living under communism makes countries poorer and less healthy for decades, according to a landmark new study.
Researchers testing historical connections between cultures found that whether a country had been under communism was the biggest factor for those with lower health, income and educational levels.
should I write the editor and have them add an asterisk next to every use of communism with the footnote "note real communisms" ?
Watching that video, I kept wishing that Zuck would just say "Yes" or "No," and then leave it at that.
In my ~20 years of dealing with corporate bureaucracy, I've found that these are the best answers.
Like, someone asks you a really convoluted, nearly incoherent question, and you just look at them seriously, pause for a moment, and then assertively say "no."
It tends to establish dominance in the conversation.
or ask them to reframe a question only to watch them squirm as they realize that they themselves have no idea what they’re trying to ask.
or ask them to reframe a question only to watch them squirm as they realize that they themselves have no idea what they’re trying to ask.
LOL! It's like a train wreck. You wanna avert your eyes but you can't and then come to realize "how the **** does someone like this get elected? The system has to be rigged and this is someone's retarded cousin that needed a job, right?"
0
