I am a fan of a UBI (Universal Basic Income) but these limited CBI (Conditional Basic Income) trials are not really comparable to a long-term implementation of either version.

Taking a specific number of people and giving them cash is certainly going to improve their lives. Giving cash to everyone in a city or state, including new arrival, is asking for local inflation and a population explosion. If the area is empty and has abundant natural resources that can be converted into jobs it will probably work out, at least for a while. If it is a major city with most of the resources and land already in use, and there is not much demand for workers, then the program’s budget is likely to be overrun fairly quickly.

This is not a UBI Universal Basic Income; this is a CBI Conditional Basic Income. The conditions are currently being selected and being homeless.

Also this program basically already exists. It is just TANF selected for homelessness instead low-income families with children.

Edit: Universal not Unconditional

Poaching endangered species is abhorrent and I have little sympathy for whatever happens to those who drive those species towards extinction for personal gain.

That said, nothing in this article (or another one I read) makes it sound like this guy is a US citizen, ever visited the US, or even shipped illegal products into the US. Shouldn’t Thailand or some world court be prosecuting him? This makes us sound like we think the US has jurisdiction over anyone in the world who would break our laws.

Yeah, I tried that line on my youth pastor when I young zealous member of a church. His response didn’t make me happy, but did give me the opportunity to look at how others saw my actions.

If you have to wear a BLM patch for people to realize that you believe black lives matter, then are you showing it with your actions?

Of course his version was about my cross necklace that wasn’t allowed at work (no jewelry at all) and Christ’s love.

The simple fact is that more often than not, you will have a bigger impact on those around you when you show them that black lives matter with your actions, rather than by wearing a BLM patch. The people around you have seen a BLM patch and already formed an opinion about what it means. Many people that need to see and hear the message the most will turn their brains off as soon as they see the logo.

I assume you mean “doing paid PR”, since they are at work and getting paid for it?

Believe it or not it is possible to fully support a political ideal while still thinking corporations should stay out of politics.

For example, I think that cops taking money from people (Civil Asset Forfeiture) without charging them with a crime is amoral, unconstitutional (4th amendment), and un-American.

If, however, I saw a sign about it in my local McDonald’s I would definitely be like WTF?!?

Political - adj - Of, relating to, or dealing with the structure or affairs of government, politics, or the state.

I don’t know if you really don’t know the difference between being black and supporting the BLM movement, but there is a definite difference. A good quick measure is would a politician hold an opinion on it? For a specific example do you think Tim Scott (one of the black Republican Presidential Candidates) would wear a BLM face mask?

I will assume that you are arguing and good faith and genuinely don’t see the difference, so here are a few contrasting examples:

Wearing a hat that says Veteran is a statement of fact, like wearing a hat with your college’s logo. It is not inherently political or supporting any particular political ideal.

Wearing a VFW hat on the other hand, would be political. The VFW seeks to educated and change the opinions of legislators regarding veterans.

If a black person was wearing a hat that said I am Black. That would be a statement of fact and not inherently political or supporting any particular political ideal.

Wearing a BLM hat on the other hand would be political. The BLM organization and supporters of the BLM ideals seek to educate and change the opinions of legislators and the public regarding black people.

Without typing out the same comparisons again, cancer awareness and most charities would fall under political ideals also. They almost always seek to influence government legislation or funding.

dress code is also completely made up bullshit that has no reason to exist in the modern world

This is a ridiculous notion.

There are plenty of people that would show up to work without bathing while wearing sweatpants and teddy bear slippers if they were allowed. Source: I worked in a low-end call center fresh out of school and a good quarter of the people actually did dress like this most days.

Without a dress code a business has no grounds to address the situation.

If I walked into a new grocery chain or restaurant and everyone was dressed in dirty house clothes the best reaction I would have is to ask someone if this was a joke day. The more likely reaction would be just turning around and walking out.

I am getting tired of being surprised that out of 77 comments not one mentions that the SCOTUS did NOT allow “Christian business owners to refuse same-sex couples.” This was and is against the law. SCOTUS said they don’t have to create pro-same-sex materials. It should be a straightforward and obvious conclusion that only went to SCOTUS because of the current anti-religious sentiment.

Would a liberal sign maker be required to create pro-life materials? Of course not. Should a conservative sign maker be required to make pro-choice materials? Of course not.

The law cannot force you to make materials or statements that you do not agree with.

I had to re-read it a few times, but I think they are trying to say if the other 97% is divided into 30 categories they will all be about 3% also. The implication being that every percent counts.

It doesn’t seem that conservative ideology is particularly popular among whatever demographic reddit serves, based on the distribution of subs and comments.

At one point reddit was a very diverse community.

After one of the migrations to the site, some of the new users couldn’t tolerate the idea that there were extremists hiding in certain dark corners of reddit. Those users started finding those subs and doing things like taking a screenshot of an ad next to a post that company would never support and spreading it around the internet. It didn’t take long after that until reddit started cleaning out those dark corners.

Sunk Cost Fallacy - A lot of mods just can’t bear to give up all the time and effort they have put into Reddit.

Of course, there are better and worse reasons than that too. Just like in any group of people there are the good, the bad, and the other.

As I remember it, the Rexit that caused Voat to become so large was primarily composed disenfranchised conservatives, trolls, and those with extreme views. Even moderately conservative users were likely to feel out of place on Voat.

This Rexit seems primarily composed of disenfranchised mods, app users, and content producers. In my opinion, the much larger variety of people swapping to the Fediverse give it a much more stable base.