Whilst the BBC is impartial and independent and whatever etc. Key positions have been packed with Tory Party supporters/donors/friends.
It’s no surprise they toe the government line, especially for their fellow Tories
I feel like the BBC's "aura" of impartiality makes it all the more dangerous when it does occasionally engage in propaganda. A lot of regular folks put a lot of trust in the BBC.
Yup.
Similar to the “equal airtime” or “show both sides” when it comes to science.
It puts unscientific opinions alongside scientific theory as if they are equal.
The only thing I can say in favour of the BBC is that it seems like the majority of people feel it’s coverage is favourable to “the other side”.
So, while we may be saying “BBC is clearly biased” because of things like this, I guarantee there are people that we don’t agree with saying exactly the same about other topics.
So the situation is probably not as bad as it seems.
It does seem the majority of these “scandals” are about the BBC acting in favour of the Westminster UK government. But maybe that just the ones I actually see.
I'm a little hesitant to put much stock in conservatives' claims of bias, because plain factual reporting tends to strike a lot of them as biased. Reality is biased against modern conservatism.
I don't think the BBC is the worst by any means. But a couple of years ago, they did come out with one of the most egregiously misleading articles I've ever seen with regards to transgender people. Very obviously deliberate in its misinformation and even including proven lies about contacting sources. And to this day the BBC stands by it and has dismissed complaints.
Very good points.
I just wanted to temper the discussion a bit, and just check that I wasn’t getting too carried away, echo-chambered or whatever.
Having done that, I still agree with you. I don’t think the BBC is impartial or unbiased.
A Tory is the Conservative Party.
They are to the right. Although, if it’s US politics you are used to they would probably be considered center or old-school right - not this new Right bullshit that’s prevalent these days
Torys have been buying up the land that NHS hospitals are on and jacking up their rents
…then railing on and on about the ever rising costs of health care
Playing the long game until some crisis comes and then poof, welcome to the American Health* care system, you give us everything you own and we’ll give you 3 months to live. Maybe.
And forget about dental and vision. That’s for rich people.
Seriously Neoliberalism is anti-nationalist. The rich fucking despise regular people and do everything they can to, first, ensure that they are getting the government contracts, and then B, looting all that money, saying government doesn’t work and dismantling us back to fuedalism.
Pretty much.
Their whole deal is “fiscal responsibility”, which apparently means applying austerity for about a decade and cutting huge amounts of public service budgets.
Mild tinfoil hat
Things like the amazing NHS end up underfunded (and leveraged as a bargaining tool, like when Brexit would give the NHS 350m extra per week). Obviously waiting lists get longer, some people maybe start seeking private care for some things. Then the Tories can turn around and say “the NHS is broken, people are using private care, we should sell off the remaining NHS and do the American thing. Think of the tax cuts!”. /Mild tinfoil hat
They also hate immigrants, want the old Rule Britannia/British Empire thing back, think dealing with climate change is untenable, a whole bunch of fun stuff like that.
Jeremy Hunt, current Chancellor of the Exchequer, literally co-authored a book on how to dismantle the NHS and replace it with a health-insurance based system.
He was Secretary for Health at one point too, and his policies didn't exactly rule out that he might be following the game-plan of that book.
There's no tinfoil hat needed here. The Tories are all but open about what they're doing at this point.
There’s no tinfoil hat needed here. The Tories are all but open about what they’re doing at this point.
I know, but a part of me has to believe that the government is working for the benefit of all it’s citizens.
Otherwise, what the fuck am I doing here? The future is bleak enough with hyper-consumerism, class/wealth gaps and climate change.
Mostly hate and misery, with a good dash of racism.
For a more serious answer, “tory” is the nickname for a member of the Conservative party, the UK’s major centre-right party. Much like in the US, they’ve been shifting further right in the past few decades and focusing more on “culture war” BS.
The Tory are a nickname for the right-wing conservative party.
Historically it has been used in a somewhat derogatory manner. If somebody is a Tory then they tend to engage in more right wing policies than a Conservative who tends to be more center-right. Although technically there’s no actual difference and they’re all the same party.
Anyway they’ve lately started calling themselves Tory in a weird “let’s take the word back” way, so you can more or less now just use the two words interchangeably.
Internally they have a lot of infighting about this, because some of the Backbenches (politicians who are members of the party but are not actually in government, think the equivalent of senators in the US) are unhappy with the parties direction because they feel that going full on lunatic right wing nut job might harm their chances of getting reelected. And based on current polling data it would seem that they are correct.
It no longer is impartial. It just reports what it’s told.
It’s not the job of a journalist to report that someone says it’s raining. They have to stick their head out of the window and check, and then report what they find. They have forgotten this and it’s shameful.
I think it funny that there’s an assumption in this thread that these posters are aimed at U.S. tourists when visitors from the U.K. outnumber the Americans by a factor of six to one.
People in this threat also don’t seem to realize how the island of Mallorca is full of foreigners, even some just living there, but nobody speaking Spanish. In fact it’s probably easier to get around with German or English in the touristic parts of Mallorca.
This is not about some poor US tourist who wasn’t good enough in school back home to learn Spanish. It’s about huge crowds of rowdy UK and German tourists who go to “Malle” every year for partying and getting piss drunk without any consideration of the locals.
To be fair, they spent years encouraging that kind of tourism and are no annoyed that they’ve got to popular. As the article points out it represents 75% of their economic activity so they’d be buggered if everyone just said, fine we’ll go somewhere else then.
Nah, not really. They want to change from party tourism, which is concentrated on one small area to a more distributed culture tourism. Those tourist spend twice as much and not only in the big clubs but on small shops all around the island. So they have a plan and it makes sense.
Visas, residency/rental restrictions, curfews, noise ordinances, non local surcharges, resident member beaches (membership fulfilled by residency), or a hundred other things
Edit: example: in palm springs, you cannot have any outdoor music or elevated noise as a non resident.
If you do, you can be evicted from your rental same day
Visas only work for UK tourists side they aren’t in the EU; Spain and Germany are both in the Schengen Zone so there isn’t even a border to check for passports. Also, because Spain is in the EU, it may not be legal for them to provide pricing that discriminates between locals and EU tourists.
You can try to restrict the rental supply or make the area not as fun for tourists, but you can’t just put up a border unless you want to leave the EU.
Visas are the permission a government gives to non-citizens to enter their borders. This competency has been given to the EU to manage as part of the Schengen Area, which is a visa-free zone for all EU citizens.
How is a group of towns going to start restricting access to their communities without seeing up a border?
And why would a German doesn’t need a visa to visit Spain, why would a hotel ask for something they don’t have?
When I, as an American, arrive at a hotel or rental in Mexico, I must present, or at that time process a visa entry form. That and my passport are logged by the provider.
One can assume they file that form with the government.
If I try to book further stays, beyond the allowable limit, the booking would be blocked, and I would be in trouble with the government / informed I need to leave promptly.
Think more flexibly dude, other places are already handling this.
Because you are so rigid in your thinking, let’s drop the word “visa” and construct a new idea (uh oh!) And call it a “tourism allowance”
Hardly the same…the Schengen zone is not a “United States”.
Further, I’m all set here cause you clearly want to just jerk off on the idea that existing law doesn’t allow for improvements on the system, when I’m clearly discussing moderate, wellness based changes to particularly impacted areas.
If this is how everyone involved.thinks, enjoy your puking tourists in silence
That’s not how the EU works. The EU allows freedom of movement from any member state to another. You don’t need a visa, or even a passport, to go across borders in the EU; you just go. Be it for tourism or working.
One time I went to a bar in Mallorca, asked “dos cervezas, por favor” and the guy went: “Was? Zwei bier??”
It was surreal to realise that nobody there actually spoke any Spanish. Outside of the tourist traps Mallorca still has some authenticity here and there but it’s like the locals just hide in the shadows for the most part.
I’m surprised there’s that many Americans tbh, I wouldn’t have thought it would be on their radar, I think of Mallorca as a package holiday destination for Western Europeans.
In Vietnam we’re losing crop because of saltwater backflow on the Mekong. Dams have been built in several places upstream and all the reservoirs are being filled.
I absolutely would be willing to pay 4 or more for an apple, if it were local, and profits go to a local farm. I’m aware that means I eat in-season then too
I live very close to the largest continuous fruit growing area in Europe. In-season 5kg crates go for five Euros, at the end of the season as low as one euro for 5kg on clearance. Don’t expect fancy-pants new strains to go at that price, though, it’s going to be Elstar or Holstein Cox.
And, fun sidenote: Out of season it’s indeed more CO2-advantageous for us to import apples from New Zealand than to store them. Buy apple sauce.
Out of season it’s indeed more CO2-advantageous for us to import apples from New Zealand than to store them
Not necessarily true, it would depend on the how clean the energy source of the refrigeration is. The only other major CO2Eq emission from storage of perishables is refrigerant leakage, but in most commercial scale usages that’s really low.
So just drive to your local farmers market. Get a pound or two for $5 and cut out the middle man. I go occasionally, I get good deals like $1 massive sweet onions, 3 for $1 bell peppers (like softball sized ones), etc. Go early though, they usually sell before official times and are sold out within 3 hours (restaurants hit them hard)
Idk that 5% cash back is hard to beat. I mean sure, fuck amazon for being anti-union, definitely need to trust bust them to but until then I can’t get 5% cash back when buying household goods anywhere else.
The lesson I’m learning is that we should have worn masks during “flu season” all along. In crowded and poorly ventilated spaces at least. It’s a cheap and easy measure and I don’t know what the BFD is with masks.
Well, you see, I want to be able to persecute others because that’s, like, the foundation of my religion. But it doesn’t really feel right because I end up feeling like the instigator. So I go out looking for reasons I’m being persecuted against so I can sleep at night after a good long day of playing the victim and retaliatory persecuting others.
And that basically explains masks and the rest of the garbage the right yells about.
No excuse but the entitlement of being adult toddlers. Or actual toddlers but they tend to be a bit more sensible. (Unfortunately, I’m partial to acting like a toddler now and again myself, so this comment is a little self deprecating – turns out it’s really hard to try to solvee social problems as an individual when the rest of society lives like fuck-you-i-don’t-care-if-i-cough-a-deadly-virus-into-your-face.)
Reusable masks only go so far. Any mask will reduce your risk of spreading the virus to others. But a good mask will do so far better, and only a good mask will protect you from infection from others.
For reusable masks, the only good ones either are either only good for a limited number of washes or require replacing a disposable filter the provides the actual protection (and so are mostly just holders for the disposable masks. It’s possible that the extra material saved using disposable filters vs disposable masks is not equal to the additional resources required to make the mask they fit into.)
Most reusable masks people wear tend to only provide ok protection for others and none for themselves. Often the ones I see provide very little protection for others and are really just a concession to following the word but not spirit of the rules.
I’d rather encourage people to use disposables that are usually far more effective than the reusables they would otherwise use personally.
The disposable masks are reusable until they’re dirty, worn or damaged. They shouldn’t be reused if you think you’ve been in a high exposure area but if you wear it while in the corner store for 2 minutes, you can safely reuse it.
Masks just aren’t inherently a big deal. It’s just been made one by people seeking to politicise what should be a universally accepted good (trying to stop the spread and harm of a pandemic/epidemic disease.) People have reframed it as “they” are trying to control you! So vote for me/buy my tat/give me attention and I will protect “us” from “them”! and just about everyone has been influenced in their response to this simple practical health issue in some way as a result. Some entirely buying into the message and insisting there’s some insidious reason we’re being asked to take simple actions to prevent infection, others simply being a little more lax in their action than they would be if there wasn’t a fairly large vocal minority insisting that no action should be taken at all.
They are a big deal. Acting like it’s not affecting your life is just as stupid as people saying the bill gates is creating a new world order it whatever. It affects our immune systems, it affects our social life’s and it’s more than annoying in certain climate conditions, if you have a runny nose etc.
I will always wear a mask if it’s necessary but not just out of pure precaution
You’re really showing some serious ignorance with your comments. It’s really funny that people are actually stupid enough to believe the stuff you’re trying to sell LoL.
The lesson I leaned is that as long as it’s not a COVID everyone is dying, we need to save our healthcare system from collapsing situation we shouldn’t wear masks because we need to be able to fend off common colds with our body or we are artificially creating a pandemic. For example we almost had a new collapse of infant care because way to many babies for a certain flu type after everything opened up again which would normally spread out over longer periods.
That’s the damn truth lol. I wish I would’ve known and used masks more appropriately before; could have avoided a bunch of little respiratory infections. The most I would have had to deal with is people asking “are you sick?” because I’m wearing a mask
It used to be a valid question because the culture around masks was different before covid (where I live). Now people are more informed about types of masks and how to utilize them properly. If someone asks now, I just inform them; but the taboo is no longer really a thing. Some masks can protect others, some masks can protect both user and others.
Most I deal with now is someone pushing their ideologies about “not wearing one if you’re not sick”. And I’ll try and inform them if they care to listen. My wife is immunosuppressed and I work as an ICU nurse; I don’t play with fire when it could possibly end with me losing her, over something as simple as being aware. And neither of us have gotten covid yet, so we’re doing something right.
Misinformation about masking and general public hygiene is it’s own pandemic
I’d like to see more substantial consequences for consciously and deliberately sabotaging a war operation using a service the pentagon paid him to provide.
Anwar al-Awlaki. Most things that I’m seeing about him are that he is the first US citizen targeted by a drone strike but I remember it being a big deal that he was the first US citizen assassinated at all.
Although I oppose drone strikes and Obama was the king of them, this fella was in Yeman at the time which is a bit different than wigging off your citizens on home soil.
You might be thinking of how Obama was the “king of making them safer” because before him they just let it blow up Kids and crap willy-nilly, and he was tired of seeing that stuff so he made them create a less explosive more knife like drone for less casualties.
Don’t worry, I’m sure our leaders are formulating a strongly worded condemnation of their own. One might even venture to suggest they could hold a hearing about it, or assign a task force to investigate! Canceling his government contracts or charging him with anything are obviously off the table, though.
Of course that’s off the table, there’s simply no way any kind of law enforcement in our country would ever consider such violent response to actions made by a citizen.
He didn’t sabotage it though, as another user pointed out (with sources) he had already turned off starlink awhile ago and didn’t want to turn it back on for just this strike.
No, @aeharding the dev is pretty active? Only reason why things slowed down with most apps is because devs are testing or waiting for the Lemmy 0.19 release.
Lemmy does not provide it via the UI. But it does provide the info via federation. If you set up your own instance, other instances will happily share this info with you. The information is inconvenient to access, but not hidden or private.
Hey fascist lurkers: fuck everything about your fascist ideology. Stop being slaves to your overlords and fucking learn a thing.
You can think for yourselves, I promise. It may be hard and uncomfortable at first, but you’ll like yourself a lot more if you just put in a small bit of effort. You’re better than this.
It’s fine. When the migrant workers and others performing the “unsavory” jobs aren’t around to fulfill them any longer, we’ll just fill the positions with influencers who aren’t doing any real work anyway. Although I think it would be funny as hell to see Trump in an orange jumpsuit working the fields.
It’s always weird to me when I see liberals espousing the sentiment that we need foreign workers, or else who will do all the shitty work we don’t want to do?
It’s just as disturbing and racist to me as the “keep them migrants out of my country!” Take conservatives generally have. Americans are fucked right up man.
To be fair a couple of states cracked down hard on illegal immigrants and millions of dollars of crops rotted cause there was no one there to pick em. The states reversed course pretty fast.
Americans are pretty lazy at this point, and I speak as an American.
This is also true, but that true across most industry in America at this point.
If pay is even across the board than why would one person want to toil in the sun vs sit on thier bum and deal with angry customers. Most pick the angry customers…
Even when the more manual labor jobs do pay well, a ton of people quit after a day or two, granted they’re usually younger people who didn’t realize what the job would entail.
I’m not saying that either I’m saying Americans are lazy and have no sense of work ethic and immigrants regardless of what they’re paid (not that I want them to be paid anything but the fair wage anyone else should be entitled to) are a required part of our work force and I’m grateful for the work they do. We wouldn’t have roads or building, or food. Some get paid well, some get paid shit. Im not a farmer so I can’t tell you if they chose to let the whole seasons crop go to waste over paying others more to pick said crops, or if they just didn’t have anyone that wanted to do actual work. From my narrow view, I have the tendency to think that no one wanted to work.
Honestly, I think I took your comment to mean something it didn’t. I’m sorry for any misunderstanding.
Farm work is a lot different today than it was 30 or 40 years ago. Back in the '80s and '90s, it wasn’t uncommon for kids in rural communities to do farmwork like picking berries.
Fast forward to today and that would never happen. Farmers have very exacting standards and require very high productivity standards that only skilled adult laborers can meet. They’re not going to hire kids or other Americans.
This reporter did a good job capturing just how fucking difficult farmwork is:
I’m a conservative. I want immigrants to come legally. We need to provide paths for people to come here.
Honestly immigrants tend to work harder and still believe in the American dream. I have more in common with the immigrants than I do most liberals. They don’t see America as failing, they seem as the land of opportunity.
My roommate is an immigrant. Works 14 hour days, 5 days a week. He loves what America has provided for him.
He’s been here for twenty years. He made 500k last year. He’s a big advocate of pulling yourself up from your bootstraps. That’s his story as an immigrant from Mexico who had nothing and now has a good career.
More Americans could learn from immigrants and pulling themselves up instead of expecting things to come to them.
Lol, no. Been here 20 yrs, pull in great money as a sr software engineer in the valley and I still think America is the land of opportunities and call it home. I started with 0 dollars in my bank with a simple part time job that would pay me $7.25 an hour at my local community college.
Sometimes, you actually do need to pull yourself up by the bootstraps and work hard to get to where you need to be. I’ve seen a lot of entitlement around me and people complaining without doing much of anything to fix it.
Complaining and not doing anything about it isn’t unique to the US. That said, America still offers a ton of opportunities for those looking to succeed, and there’s a reason why the American economy commands ~28% of the world’s GDP. All things considered and if this admin stays in office for another term, I see the opportunities increasing even further.
And I gave you the benefit of the doubt and actually removed my insult calling you an idiot for making the dim witted comment you made.
You see the difference a decent education makes? Good job on assuming my political leanings, which btw are not conservative, so you’re wrong there as well.
Calling you a fucking moron is probably an insult to the term “fucking moron”, but let’s leave it at that so that your room temp iq can comprehend at least this much.
The entitlement is what is killing our country. People just want the nanny state to take care of them.
I grew up poor, and was told if I did X Y and Z i would be successful. I did those things. I was successful. I had liberal friends who were surviving paycheck to paycheck. I put them on the same plan and they gasp became successful.
It is why I love immigrants. They don’t listen to people who say you can’t be successful in America. They just come here and crush it.
My take is that it appears to be driven by mentality rather than whether somebody is an immigrant or not. People, immigrant or not who like putting in the work end up succeeding while those that complain or act entitled do not. It’s plain as day, nobody is going to give you a hand out so you have to work for it. Welcome to capitalism. It sucks, but get with it or you lose.
I’ve got successful immigrant and non immigrant friends and those that end up succeeding also end up being like minded. That said, I do think that, yes, immigrants more commonly have the “work hard or fail” mindset given their prior socioeconomic status typically ends up being unfavorable which serves as a catalyst for them.
I agree with entitlement becoming more and more common these days but that can also be attributed to people being generally more outspoken and having platforms to voice their concerns.
I’m not going to have off topic debate with someone because they are butt hurt that others are successful.
You don’t like conservatives. Not the first time I’ve met a bigot.
As such the conversation is wasted time as you’ve already made up you mind. You just want to be the edge lord and as such I have to respectfully decline.
Well that certainly wasn’t my intent in my statement, it was more just an observation that so many Americans are too damn entitled to do the work that others are happy to get paid for.
People would do it if they were paid properly to do it. We shouldn’t have to imperialize and impoverish other countries to the point that they have to make dangerous journeys to come to do shitty jobs (and when I say shitty I mean ridiculously underpaid) or else crops will rot. Getting mad at the people for not wanting to do these jobs is aiming your anger at entirely the wrong people.
No, but complaining about things not being done to your satisfaction when you’re not willing to do the job yourself certainly is. It’s bad enough how many people are disgusted by the idea that their food actually comes from dirt, but it’s also pretty sad that these same people consider working on farms as menial labor not worthy of minimum wage when those workers are the ones actually putting in the hard labor.
Who’s complaining about satisfactory work? The illegals do fine work. They do it for a low wage and without the protection of labor laws because they’re illegal and have to take what they can get. Americans can get jobs where they are protected by labor laws and make more money, so they do. That’s not entitlement it’s common sense.
What’s so weird about telling the truth? That you’re uncomfortable about it?
It’s not like you can be an illegal immigrant and walk into an office building and go through the corporate HR process to get hired on a white collar job. The desirable jobs will mostly require proof of citizenship or a work visa. Therefore the illegal immigrants will be looking for the under-the-table work which is usually the undesirable jobs.
Why do you think The President is beholden to congress? The separation of powers explicitly says that isn’t the case and if there is something the president is doing that the other 2 branches of government say he shouldn’t do, there is a specific process for such a thing. Otherwise he has enormous leeway to do what he feels should be done even if some dumb asses in congress or on the internet don’t want it to be the case.
I get what you’re saying, but there’s a lot more to separation of powers than this. You might be well aware of all this, but for those that aren’t, here’s a giant wall of text.
The executive branch’s powers are clearly defined and including acting as the head of the military, the head of foreign affairs, and the executor of the laws congress passes. It is quite restricted by congress in many ways. Of course, the executive branch has emergency powers and limited ways around the laws congress enacts, but that’s not the default and it is very much intended to be restricted by congress.
The executive branch also has room to make interpretations (create regulations) and to prioritize certain laws when they come into conflict.
This is what they’re doing here. They have weighed the laws (from congress) they are tasked with enforcing, which includes (a) specific immigration restrictions and (b) a variety of other ones that could impact their ability to execute the immigration restrictions (the “26” laws waived, including water and environmental protections). The DHS (an executive branch agency) has determined that (b) these 26 place an undue burden that prevents them from executing (a) the immigration restrictions, and is therefore temporarily waiving (b).
Notice that it does not say it’s randomly waiving laws of its own accord without a law that it is executing. It is clearly referencing the statues (enacted by congress) that it is acting on. It is identifying that it is failing to execute some laws, but only so it can prioritize another one it has deemed more important for this specific action. It’s also become popular for the executive branch to use emergency decrees to act unilaterally, but these are supposed to be much more limited and a functioning judiciary/congress should hold the executive accountable when this happens.
What the executive branch is NOT doing here is very important too. It is NOT deciding it doesn’t want to do what congress says. Congress could rewrite the immigration law or any of the other 26 laws to change the way the executive branch executes them, if it feels the executive is implementing them wrong. And the judicial branch could easily weigh in on this if someone affected brings the case to them.
Agreed with what you are saying. But the important thing I was getting at is that the Executive Branch isn’t paralyzed just because Congress passes a web of laws that make all actions of the executive unlawful. They are fully autonomous and able to prioritize what laws they enforce, and how they enforce them which is absolutely what they are doing here. Though obviously leftists would prefer that Biden enforce different laws with different priorities.
The controversial work, which included construction on federally designated wilderness, was permitted under the Real ID Act. Created in the wake of the September 11 attacks, the act grants DHS the authority to waive any law, including bedrock statutes meant to safeguard the environment and areas of cultural significance, to build border barriers in the name of national security
TLDR: This is a 2019 law passed by Congress during the baby hands administration. The Biden administration has been pretty careful not to overstep other branches of government(I think as a direct response to how flagrantly and harmfully baby hands used executive action), and while Biden returned wall money taken from the DoD, the rest of the wall money was explicitly designated by Congress for building the border wall in 2019 and Congress will not cancel that legislative order(wall funds), despite Biden asking Congress to cancel the 2019 wall funds law since arriving in office in 2020.
This post is misleading, the money is being legally used for a legislatively required purpose and any federal laws are being broken legislatively by Congress as a result of baby hands in 2019, not the Biden administration.
Congress is building this wall from a baby hands law in 2019 that broke those federal laws, Biden tried to stop the wall legally, Congress told him no, and to your last point he just canceled 90 billion dollars of debt for a poor people.
You could be more wrong, but it would be hard to imagine how.
Alright man enough with the “baby hands” stuff. It was slightly humerus the first time I read it but after seeing you post it for the third time it just makes you look sad now. We get it. You don’t like him. You look like a conservative who repeats “sleepy Joe” unironically.
Edit: holy shit you made the same comment 10 times. Nah, I’m good.
I completely agree that name calling should be off the table, but as long as baby hands continues to body shame and use pejorative nicknames on public forums, I have no problem with equal treatment.
I don’t see the benefits of giving special treatment to abhorrent people.
My argument is not that he started it, my argument is that donnie consistently attacks other people via body shaming and there’s no reason why he should not wear the clothes he’s fashioned.
Is diaper don okay? Cheeto, is it specifically body shaming that makes you uncomfortable?
If you just like donny and want to use that mod power to protect him, that’s your prerogative, I’m just trying to get the rules clear, because Donnie in no way has earned the respect of his proper name.
Thanks for the answer; i always found the Cheeto epithet a little tame since he likes being orange but doesn’t like people noticing his hands, but I’ll make future donny pejoratives avoid body shaming specifically.
I don’t think you’re being cynical.
High fives for trans communism, why not travel since there are so many countries and so many of them are nicer and more favorable toward at least one and often both of those lifestyles? I’m assuming you’re in the states.
why not travel since there are so many countries and so many of them are nicer and more favorable toward at least one and often both of those lifestyles? I’m assuming you’re in the states.
Because this is my home and I’m fighting for it to not be a hellscape. If/when trans genocide measures look like they’re going national, I will move.
I realized American capitalist opportunity was a sham and then realized most American ideals were hollow, and the lack of any permanent positive American ideal pretty much did away with any sense of home left for me here, but I respect and appreciate your determination and give my sincere best wishes to your campaign.
When you limit yourself to specific incidents, it’s easy to judge right and wrong. Over the course of years, though, neither side can claim the moral high ground.
Overall, this is one of the most pointless, wasteful, and inhumane conflicts in human history.
Personally, when dealing with two groups who claim the same land, I side with the one that’s been there the longest, not the one that shouldered it’s way in, demanded a room, and started shooting anyone who told them to leave.
Believing one side has the right to kill while the other must take it, is pretty gross.
“Slaughtering civilians in the streets” is precisely what the IDF does on the regular, just so you know. It’s hard to imagine any group of people would live under military occupation for 70+ years after being forced to leave their homes for refugee camps without the desire to fight for their freedom.
There is almost nothing in this world that is more human than killing other humans. History is full of it. Religious texts are full of it. It’s what humans are best at. Is it awful? Sure, but it’s an act as human as it gets.
Sorry, but I have been an advocate for Palestinian rights for years. I’m not just shilling out propaganda on the day of a massacre. As I type this, the confirmed death tolls have Israelis near 100 while Palestinian deaths are near double that. So if you want to start talking about massacres, just so far today Israel has caused more death, let alone the days, weeks, months, years and decades prior to today.
But in that consideration the power imbalance cannot be ignored. The IDF is a highly modern, most likely even nuclearly armed army, wheras the people inside Gaza are denied access to such simple things as building materials by the Israeli Apartheid.
The international community has shown to be Pro-Israeli and thus anti-Palestinian. The Palestinian Plan for Partition was a plan to peacefully split up British Palestine into a separate Jewish and Arab state, as well as Jerusalem becoming a free city. The plan gave 62% of the land to the Jewish community despite the Arabic population having twice the population. Obviously the Arab population rejected this plan on the basis that it violated the right to natuonal self-determination, and thus this perpetual conflict was born.
Especially with the US being so obviously Pro-Israel and having virtually all power on the decision-making of the West, why would you think the Arab population would ever get fair treatment under an international "peacekeeping" mission?
Stop conflating two separate issues. If you want to discuss how the Palestinians have accomplished nothing but their own suffering, while having nothing to show for it, then I’m all ears. Ukraine is separate topic that I’m more than willing to discuss but not in regards to the current terrorist attacks that have taken place today all throughout Israel
If you want to discuss how the Palestinians have accomplished nothing but their own suffering, while having nothing to show for it, then I’m all ears
If you want to defend acts of Israeli apartheid towards Palestinians, I’m not going to listen. I’m South African, I oppose apartheid everywhere. As Nelson Mandela said, our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinian people.
I will not defend the killing of civilians by any side. That is morally unjustifiable. I will be clear however, that violence begets violence, and Israel has been indiscriminately bombing civilians (a terrorist tactic), and stealing land and homes for decades. The way to end this is to stop the violence, and come to the negotiation table. A two state solution of some sort is a compromise that is desperately needed to ease tensions.
You’ve been defending terrorists the whole time. Israel has never taken hostages like the Palestinians have. There’s no end goal in these attacks. Whatever problems the Palestinians have will not be fixed by what they’re doing.
You’ve been defending terrorists the whole time. Israel has never taken hostages like the Palestinians have. There’s no end goal in these attacks. Whatever problems the Palestinians have will not be fixed by what they’re doing.
I can change the place names in your quote a bit and you sound exactly like the typical boilerplate response of a 1970s-80s South African pro-Apartheid liberal whining about how “uMkontho we Sizwe is too violent”. Just flatly admit that you support the Apartheid rule and the list of crimes perpetrated by the Israeli government.
. If you want to discuss how the Palestinians Banderites have accomplished nothing but their own suffering, while having nothing to show for it, then I’m all ears.
The illegal settlements that are condemmed by the UN? Yeah sound about right to let murderous religious fundamentalist occupiers just occupy. You say the same to the Ukrainian people fighting the Russian invasion? They should just come to terms with Crimea being occupied?
What a moving, salient political take. Good thing “Just stop it and leave us alone😡🤬” is a belief that always survives against armed militant resistance
With the establishment of a relationship of oppression, violence has already begun. Never in history has violence been initiated by the oppressed. How could they be the initiators, if they themselves are the result of violence? How could they be the sponsors of something objective whose objective inauguration called forth their existence as oppressed? There would be no oppressed had there been no prior of violence to establish their subjugation.
And it is clear that in the colonial countries the peasants alone are revolutionary, for they have nothing to lose and everything to gain. The starving peasant, outside the class system is the first among the exploited to discover that only violence pays. For him there is no compromise, no possible coming to terms; colonization and decolonization a simply a question of relative strength.
Get this into your head: if violence were only a thing of the future, if exploitation and oppression never existed on earth, perhaps displays of nonviolence might relieve the conflict. But if the entire regime, even your nonviolent thoughts, is governed by a thousand-year old oppression, your passiveness serves no other purpose but to put you on the side of the oppressors.
When I buy a new car, the car is the same as the one in the posters and built by the same people.
A team of food stylists spent at least 30 minutes to create the perfect whopper for the add image and were paid 100 times more than an actual fast food employee to do so.
Why that is allowed to represent something made in 30 seconds by someone on shit wages is beyond me.
Not to mention that the food stylists create something that isn’t even edible. They frequently use things that aren’t food to make it look more palatable onscreen.
I used to work in product photography. That is not true or legal here in Aus. The only thing they are allowed to use in the picture are ingredients used in store.
I cannot speak to the laws in other markets but that is not the case everywhere.
Of course they will go through hundreds of buns to find the perfect one etc, so it is still incredibly wasteful.
While it doesn’t have to be “food”, it does have to be edible in the US…
But that aside, burger king used to be good. It used to be decent sized and was almost worth the cost. Now on the other hand, it is so tiny and doesn’t feel remotely worth the price.
In my area, they just closed about 5 locations this year, and to be honest, I am only sad about the few people losing their job at these locations.
Man that sucks, BK in Toronto is still a nice big burger, and on Whopper Wednesday it’s cheap so it’s definitely worth it. Shame the US side has gone to shit.
They’re still an absurdly huge burger at every Burger King near me in the US. The suit is alleging they’re smaller than the advertisements. Not sure what OP is talking about but one thing I’ve noticed about BK is they are wildly inconsistent from location to location so it might be even more regional.
I heard it used to be, but isn’t anymore. Granted, this is hearsay with no source, but a buddy of mine who worked in advertising was telling me about it a while back. Could be wrong tho.
Even in places where they have to use the actual ingredients, there’s a lot of tricks to making it look different in photos. That burger might only be partially cooked to reduce shrinkage, then the burger and bun are frozen so they hold shape for the photo. Vegetables carefully picked out and arranged, tomato/pickles blotted dry, and the sauce applied with an eye dropper to provide visual balance after the rest of the burger is stacked.
I will say from my experience, that tends to apply to advertising photography for large franchises. If we’re taking about food photography associated with a high profile event or restaurant where food is actually served, there’s minimal difference between the photo plate and what’s actually served. Sometimes the photo plate is just one picked out while producing the ones being served, sometimes it’s the first/last plate and a person takes a minute to pick out the best looking of ingredients from the same container that was used to serve the rest. Sometimes it’s just an extra minute arranging the plate nicely compared to the last 150 that were done quickly to keep up with service. Often the photographer then gets to eat the plate they’ve just photographed.
That’s why a big lawsuit is a better solution. They’ve already stolen the search cost from you, and are relying on you just giving up when you see your disappointment burger.
Advertising is scum and I don’t understand why we allow it all.
It does not help the economy to distract consumers all day as much as possible, all it does is let companies compete on the basis of who can spend the most on advertising or who can hire the most manipulative advertisers rather than who can make the best product.
People see pictures of North Korea and say “wow its so eerie something is wrong and i cant figure it out.”
Its that there are no ads everywhere. People are conditioned to be comforted by disengeuous promises from ads, and are scared when there arent business signs everywhere.
Its entirely achievable to have no ads. Ads are bad for everyone.
Advertising works on everyone. Just there are those of us that don’t impuls buy and look into and research the interesting product they just seen an ad for, before buying. But billboards those annoy the shit out of me. Like I know McDonald’s exists and there is a 70% chance there is one at the next exit, why do I need 4 billboards telling my there is a McDonald’s coming up in 5 exits?
And this is why there’s a row of billboards advertising a sex store near me. I think there’s like 10 of them, and there’s always at least one with an anti-porn Jesus message in the mix. It’s kinda glorious.
But billboards should be banned. They are a distraction, they ruin otherwise pleasant scenery, and we just don’t need the ads. We get enough ads, damn.
I agree but it is a tough one to police. If your business is next to a road, can you advertise from there? What signage you allowed to put up? Only your own? What if you have two business on the same property? Both get a sign? What if you sell McDonalds a 5% stake in your land?
Not really that tough to police, they just need to put more robust and consistent regulations in place. There are already many regulations on building signage, and if billboards would be banned they would need to fully define what was banned so… I don’t see this actually being that much of a problem.
Fun fact, most car advertising uses a computer generated car. Photoreal cars bave been achievable for years now and it just makes sense for them to do it as they can keep it looking flawless throughout the ad. There’s even a “mocap” car with an adjustable body to match the length/width etc. of the car it’s supposed to be that they can just pin the model to.
At least some country has the balls to call Israel on their horse shit. I don’t care what your opinion is on any religion. If you’re for genocide on either side, you’re a piece of trash unworthy of respect.
Netantahu is pro genocide. Fuck him. Full stop. Any counter opinion is purely wrong.
There can be some significant downside to a black market though. De-regulation could pose additional health risks to users as the product may be exposed to unknown and untested chemicals. Not to mention the additional violence and related crimes that always seem to accompany a black market. Prohibition didn’t work for alcohol. Prohibition isn’t working for Weed. Why do we think it will work for nicotine?
I think a big part of the difference is that most people get addicted to cigarettes just by being around it, rather than seeking it out. Cigarettes don’t get you high/drunk (well OK, you get a small buzz early on, but nothing like weed or alcohol).
People will seek out weed even when it’s illegal because the risk is worth the reward (to them), because it comes with an intense high you can’t really get anywhere else. I don’t see nearly as many people seeking out cigarettes in the same way, unless they’re already hooked.
I don’t think it will “solve” the cigarette problem, but I do think that prohibition for cigarettes won’t go quite the same route as prohibition for weed and alcohol.
Now, whether I want the government to be able to ban recreational substances just because they think it’s bad (or use that as an excuse) is another question
In fairness, smoking tobacco is one of the few routes of administration where outlawing makes sense. The overall societal cost is very high, even for non-smokers, as in second-hand smokers and cigarette butts littering. It’s one of the few substances that health experts often recommend to make as unattractive as possible, be it through taxation or law.
I don’t really mind vaping or heating that much, I’d be fine with making cigarettes illegal while keeping the alternatives. Unfortunately, latest legislation has imposed higher burdens on the latter while doing jack about smoking.
Using the litter aspects of cigarettes as a reason to curb smoking has always been a tough one for me. Say someone quits smoking and takes up vaping. Now we have introduced plastic waste & to an extent e-waste in the form of batteries in the disposable vapes.
I don’t have an answer to it but I have at least thought about how there is no 100% environmentally friendly alternative outside of smoking straight tobacco leaf in rolling papers.
You can always ban disposable vapes? Requiring anyone that wants to vape to carry around those massive refillable batteries would do wonders to discourage people picking up the habit.
The “disposable” vapes are a different issue that needs to be tackled. I’m pretty sure that a meaningful deposit (5 or 10 euros) and the obligation for every seller to accept returns would solve the problem.
That is the most reasonable route. A “core charge” type of model where you get the addition fee waived if you bring in an old one.
Same scheme they use with car batteries and some auto parts. Although, some auto parts have a core charge as part of a dubious ploy to prevent the aftermarket from getting the headlight for duplication.
In my part of the US, we hardly ever see beer or soda containers in litter. We do see liquor bottles, wine bottles, and sports-drink bottles as litter. Guess which drink containers have a deposit and cash redemption and which don’t?
The “bottle bill” works. It creates incentives for all sorts of people, from frugal homeowners to homeless folks, to collect and return containers. Applying it to other products that show up in litter would just make sense, especially dangerous ones like vape batteries or cartridges.
I mean smoking itself isn’t environmentally friendly. You’re taking all the nicotine and smashing it with oxygen, producing lots of carbon particulates including CO2 and CO - greenhouse gases. Yes, it’s only a tiny amount, but you don’t get that with vaping. With vaping you just extract whole molecules, rather than breaking things down, at least as long as the temperature is properly controlled.
A good vape should have next to no waste. The vape itself should not be disposable, and batteries should last a year minimum even with heavy use. That just leaves whatever container you get your liquid in, which wouldn’t be hard to recycle. Alternatively you could use a dry herb vape, along with pipe tobacco - but if we’re honest if you have a dry herb vape you’re probably not putting tobacco in it. You’re going to put in things like lavender and thyme, of course.
I think a larger more unnoticed social harm is the damage it does to single payer/socialized medicine. When you only have one insurance pool every person receiving healthcare related to smoking is funding that could have gone to treating diseases that aren’t as easily preventable.
The same goes for things like diabetes, which is absolutely destroying medicare. Right now one out of every three medicare dollars are being used to treat a completely preventable disease for the vast majority of those inflicted with it.
I think that if you want to smoke or drink tons of soda, that’s fine. But we shouldn’t be lessening the scope of healthcare coverage for other people just because of your bad habits. Either the industry making the money needs to subsidize the healthcare cost of their consumers, or the consumers themselves need to do it.
For private healthcare maybe? A lot of the reasons private insurance groups are even somewhat functional is because the vast majority of healthcare cost are shifted over to medicare once people start falling apart.
Most things like cardiovascular disease and lung cancer happen in the late 50s or older. People who aren’t yet old enough for medicare will file for disability to access it earlier in the event of severe illnesses.
Smokers on average don’t die that much younger. But they do have a much less healthy end of life.
The life expectancy of male smokers, ex-smokers, and never-smokers at age 40 years was 38.5, 40.8, and 42.4 years respectively. In women, the corresponding life expectancies were 42.4, 42.1, and 46.1 years.
At least over here, taxation on cigarettes offsets the direct cost caused by smoking according to experts. That’s why I left it out, I do believe you’re allowed to be stupid and smoke. But keep the damage to yourself and make sure non-smokers aren’t paying for it one way or another.
So yeah your demand is at least partially already reality over here.
“taxation on cigarettes offsets the direct cost caused by smoking”.
By about 25 percent. I calculated it a few years back combining the total US taxes on tobacco (state, federal and local) and comparing it to the Medicare expenditures on treating the percentage of lung cancer caused by tobacco smoking. This is actually pretty skewed against my claims since tobacco isn’t always smoked so the tax from smoking is smaller than the total tobacco tax revenue, Medicare only pays for a portion of the lung cancer treatments (since not everyone uses Medicare but the private insurance data isn’t as available), and this is only one albeit expensive aliment caused by tobacco smoking. So 25 percent is a generous estimate.
Long story short “sin taxes” don’t actually pay for anything, it’s a complete myth mostly promoted by people who want to use the product.
Just like every other drug. Everyone wants to legalise marijuana, ostensibly for the tax money (but not really), and yet it has far greater social costs than tax will recover. Even the states that legalise it (and consequently becoming tourist destinations) are not actually benefiting from it even though the “Las Vegas effect” means that they should disproportionately benefit from it.
So the fact that we already have one awful policy (legal tobacco) is not sufficient to justify implementing another one. Marijuana seems to have roughly the same or slightly lower impact on lung cancer as tobacco (hard to measure since most people smoke both). Of course it has other harder to measure effects like long-term brain damage, and DUI risk, or even loss of economic productivity and workplace accidents.
The US (and most of the world) has been triumphantly marching towards banning smoking and yet we seem to be normalising the use of another substance that isn’t any better. It seems likely that we will be in the same place with marijuana in a few decades as we are with tobacco.
Edit: I realise that you may have not read my connected comment. Taxing tobacco doesn’t make the government money, lung cancer from tobacco smoking directly costs Medicare 4x the total tax revenue from all tobacco products. So that is my basis for “taxing legal tobacco is a poor policy” and by extension marijuana will be as well.
My understanding is that cig smokers actually save our NHS a fair bit of cash, as they die early & rapidly, and they’re a boon to the Exchequer due to the huge sin taxes we have
So by your logic, cigarettes shouldn’t be taxed at all?
Also, the way this is proposed kind of avoids the issue. People importing cigarettes already smoke, and they’ll be able to in the future because this only targets people born after a certain date to deter them from starting.
No, because I don’t believe a solution that captures every single black market cigarette is possible. The best solution is to heavily regulate the industry and spread accurate information about cigarettes and I’d also personally ban cigarettes in movies under a certain age rating unless essential to the character in some way such as they develop cancer later in the movie or something.
Once you spark up it’s not obvious at a glance if the cigarette is duty paid or not. There’s a marked difference between a lit cigarette and no cigarette.
Except we have cleaner alternatives in the form of vaping. This isn’t like prohibition where all alcoholic beverages were banned, or like drug prohibition where all narcotics and hallucinogens are only accessible for medical need.
If you need nicotine, you can still buy it. Just not in cigarette form.
you can make it illegal to sell and only a fine for getting caught. Major retailers won’t do it, cornershops(“/bodegas” for the US) that sell under the counter will do it until they get caught, new ones won’t bother because they want their business to be a success, and honestly, probably make more money on chewing gum than black market fags
nicotine high isn’t worth the effort to a dealer to sell if you’re used to selling fent, coke, weed, triple sod, clarky cat etc
gone within a generation. if you really want it, go to France, smuggle it. it’s probably not worth it.
Yea and the black market is one of the main reason things are harmful. 1 they r unregulated so your getting God knows what 2 they’re most likely connected to gangs or your countries version of them so ur prolly funding then and 3 it creates a stigma around the drug causing addicts to be less likely to seek out help
Drugs are a personal vice which the person can do without ever harming another person. Murder is murder. I don’t think it should be legal for drug addicts to steal for their drugs, even tho some will whether or not its legal because that involves harming another person.
Mostly just the New York City area. In the Boston area they’re “packies” (not an ethnic slur – it’s “package store”) and most of the rest of the country it’s a “convenience store” or “corner store”.
Honestly, tobaco is pretty crap as a recreational drug. It would surprise me if non-smokers would go out of their way to get black market cigarettes like they would with alcohol if it got banned.
there’s a black market in Australia, but it’s very small and penalties for suppliers are so high there’s barely any incentive to run it, with a dwindling customer base
If we want authors to survive, we’ve got to stop assuming that authors’ intellectual labour is a public commodity.
Ah yes, because it’s the fault of (internet) libraries and not greedy publishers who try to keep the royalties for their authors as low as possible. /s
How about looking where this problem starts instead of where it ends?
Piracy dies (mostly) with easy and reasonably priced ways to pay for content. Most people don’t want to do something illegal and want to support those who make content.
But when publishers like Warner Brothers are removing content from services making pirating sites the only place to find artists’ work, then little are going to pirate.
Without sites like the Internet Archive, so much stuff would risk being lost forever because of greedy copyright practices.
IA helps keep democracy alive. Documentaries that are banned by dictators, like the BBC documentary on Modi that was banned in India by Modi, would be unavailable to people without IA.
Especially fucking Wiley. If you’re a student paying hundreds for a textbook with a “supplemental code” that makes it so you can’t buy it used, then it’s probably by fucking Wiley. Fucking greedy cunts.
If we want authors to survive, we’ve got to stop assuming that authors’ intellectual labour is a public commodity.
The irony being that this is exactly what copyright was originally intended to facilitate - authors creating works to become public domain within a relatively short period of time.
There are authors starting to publish without a publisher. I think that is the right direction, not making all books free. Maybe once the publishers have less control there will be some copyright reforms to shorten the time it takes to bring works into the public domain. Right now it is 95 years from publishing, but I think the author’s life plus 30 years or something might make a bit more sense. For example, George Orwell has been dead for over 70 years, but his works are still under copyright.
worldnews
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.