WeDoTheWeirdStuff

EffectivelyHidden, 11 months ago

My first question is always going to be, what is the moderation policy for Nazi's/white supremacists/fascists?

Are you adopting a zero tolerance policy for that sort of rabble rousing trash, the iamragesparkle method, or are you going to say your hands are tied unless they blatantly violate the community guidelines?

(transcribed from a series of tweets) - @iamragesparkle

I was at a shitty crustpunk bar once getting an after-work beer. One of those shitholes where the bartenders clearly hate you. So the bartender and I were ignoring one another when someone sits next to me and he immediately says, "no. get out."

And the dude next to me says, "hey i'm not doing anything, i'm a paying customer." and the bartender reaches under the counter for a bat or something and says, "out. now." and the dude leaves, kind of yelling. And he was dressed in a punk uniform, I noticed

Anyway, I asked what that was about and the bartender was like, "you didn't see his vest but it was all nazi shit. Iron crosses and stuff. You get to recognize them."

And i was like, ohok and he continues.

"you have to nip it in the bud immediately. These guys come in and it's always a nice, polite one. And you serve them because you don't want to cause a scene. And then they become a regular and after awhile they bring a friend. And that dude is cool too.

And then THEY bring friends and the friends bring friends and they stop being cool and then you realize, oh shit, this is a Nazi bar now. And it's too late because they're entrenched and if you try to kick them out, they cause a PROBLEM. So you have to shut them down.

And i was like, 'oh damn.' and he said "yeah, you have to ignore their reasonable arguments because their end goal is to be terrible, awful people."

And then he went back to ignoring me. But I haven't forgotten that at all.

HandsHurtLoL, 11 months ago

I'm all in on the punch a Nazi approach here.

HandsHurtLoL, 11 months ago

This same article was posted on another magazine, so I'm reposting my comments from that thread here in response to comments left by @Retix @cassetti and @amberprince

Please know that the Venn diagram between me and DeSantis is razor thin, and the only thing (I think) we have in common is that we are carbon-based life forms. I also see some common sense items in what was described in the article, but I have my larger misgivings, which I'll explain much further below.

Why alimony is important and necessary

Here's why alimony is important for the rest of an ex-spouse's life. I want to be clear that I believe a spouse of any gender should have access to alimony, but the most traditional situation is a woman who forfeited having a career outside of the home to be a mother and homemaker, while a man furthered his career for - let's just say - a long enough time that once the divorce occurs, it's too late for the woman to reasonably start a career and expect to rise to the same level the man is at in his career at time of divorce. Let's use an arbitrary number like 20 years for my example. Let's assume these two people met and married no later than 25 years old for the sake of my example, as well. Alimony is not relevant for couples married for very short periods (less than 5 years), nor is it relevant if both spouses worked full-time jobs.

So in my example here, both people are about 40-45 years old. Retirement age is going to vary by industry, but roughly let's say 65 years old. By this point, the man has paid into either a 401k, pension, a Roth IRA, or some other retirement financial tool for 20+ years as well as a federal retirement program, usually Social Security. One of the stipulations of paying into these financial tools is that you have to have a job in which you're submitting W-2/I-9 documentation. A stipulation of receiving the money you paid into Social Security in specific, is that you have to make enough dollar-amount SS contributions that amount to a little more than 10 years of working a W-2/I-9 kind of job/career. And to boot, the amount of SS you get paid after retiring is based on your highest earning 35 years of your lifetime of work.

So when a woman has skipped college, not worked outside the home, hasn't gained job skills, etc. etc. for 20 years, she is now coming back to the job market with zero tools and equipment to get into a career (though obviously could enter the workforce through a paycheck-to-paycheck poverty wages kind of job), has no Social Security credits for a retirement that is just about as far away for her as it is for her ex-spouse, and has no savings or other financial resources because she was a homemaker and didn't earn money as her compensation for her labor. She is also now going into new situations at a time in life in which we have all lost neuroplasticity and may find it difficult to learn new things or go back to college. And we should also be realistic about the subtle/legal ways in which older people are discriminated against in the hiring process.

This is why alimony exists. It helps to make up for the opportunity-cost in an adult's older career years and for lack of retirement security. When the members of the First Wives Association and other ex-spouses seek lifetime alimony, it's because they either will never have access to their own Social Security benefits, or will have access to extremely scant benefits whenever they do retire.

throne_deserter, 11 months ago

Irrespective of the popular success which Bluesky / Mastodon may receive, I am simply glad that enough platforms exist for anyone to seek refuge in if the rapacity by these giants becomes the norm.

exohuman, 11 months ago

Wow, America is going down the toilet.

JayJay, 11 months ago (edited 11 months ago)

Does anybody care what The Supreme Court justices think? They are all narcissistic crooks.

• Kavanaugh yelled at his interviewers and rambled on about his love for drinking beer through his butt-hole (how do you qualify for any job after that?)
• Clarence is a soulless, political hack
• RGB was too full of herself to step down in a timely manner
• Barrett claims to be Christian, but took her position predicated on a lie and in bad faith

None of the justices want oversight, even though there is rampant bribing taking place among their ranks.

All of recent major decisions have upended legal precedent which is the entire foundation of our law. With judges who will not respect legal precedent, what's really the point in giving a shit. The rules are made up now, and the scores don't matter.

Sharpiemarker, 1 year ago

Let's not sugar-coat this: do not tolerate fascists and bigots in your spaces. Period.