I’m speaking from within a fictional situation that was presented. If I were someone else would I fire someone…the answer is probably. My principled take as myself, I wouldn’t for the reasons I’ve been talking about throughout this thread. Everyone has different reasons for what they do. OP put their opinion and I put mine. I don’t know what else to say…
I don’t have to like it, That’s literally my point. Let’s try this, rather than try to find my line, which I’ve already said was somewhere around causing bodily harm to uninvolved people, what do YOU think is an appropriate form of protest? It seems like that’s what you’re trying to get off your chest in a round about way.
Yeah, a phone company is never never never going to alienate customers like that. And the power dynamics in that situation are quite different. If you’re looking to suss out the limits of what I think about this than you’ve done it. I 100% agree people shouldn’t come to physical harm. Again, that’s quite a different situation than the one described in the article though.
Absolutely, because that makes my life more difficult, as a restaurant owner. I don’t feel like that says anything about it tactically or morally though.
Yes I do think that. Protest tactics change but they seem to gravitate toward noncompliance and, yes, disruption. I honestly can’t think of a successful protest that was all roses and hugs. Could be missing something.
Isn’t the point of protest to not let people forget about things? How easy would it be in the west to not notice, the media certainly isn’t keeping up on it. Every time I see one of these I think, that’s a braver person than me, and thank fucking god for the Streisand effect. No downvote, but strong disagree.
Can you elaborate on this? I’ve always thought that housing is an absolutely terrible “store of value”. Given the fact that appreciation at a population level, by definition means housing will be less affordable for the next generation. How is value for one generation balanced against subsequent ones. Also, it’s an incredibly inefficient way to build a nest egg or whatever. If you pay a mortgage like most people do, over 15-30 yrs, you’re paying something on the level of 150%-200% of its value over time. It seems to me a more rational way to build value is to keep housing costs low, allowing people to invest that difference (mortgage interest) into either investments or savings, rather than paying it to a bank.
I get that the US doesn’t really have a culture of saving, but I feel like this is rationalized by the “my house will be more valuable when I retire” crowd. It’s so easy to save now, with efficient investment products broadly available to individuals. Maybe it’s time to let the house as the bulk of your wealth go, and make housing affordable again.
Yeah maybe the problem is no one is describing what “work” means in this case. The goal is to reduce Chinese market share in the US EV market, protection of US industry ( lets be honest, probably the owners’ income stream). I don’t see that goal failing being likely.
See this makes sense to me. In good faith I don’t understand how tariffs couldn’t work. I mean, even if it doesn’t STOP import of Chinese EV’s, the uptake would be so much less than if they were 50% off…right?
History is rife with examples of countries developing their own industries by making imports more expensive.
Takin’ it back! ❤️
Haha! Over my head. Sorry
Cricket shill here. I’ve had cricket for years, it’s affordable and has good perks like free roaming in Mexico and Canada. It’s just an MVNO of ATT last I checked, so if ATT went down cricket would too.
I don’t believe Minke whales are endangered either.
It isn’t really profitable. The meat isn’t really in demand and they harvest far fewer than the limit that’s set by the government. This interview with a wailer from freakenomics was interesting and touched on a lot of these issues.
If people internalized that last line of yours we could get shit done. …
Oh, the IOF said it? Must be true 😂. The only thing they say concretely and sourced in the article is that he worked at a “pro Hamas” media outlet (can’t speak to this claim, but remember all the other things the IOF has claimed are Hamas), and that he wrote a piece for Al Jazeera.
Disregarding all that. Assuming that this guy was a journalist who was also a gun carrying member of Hamas and held actual hostages in his house, does that say anything about the record number of journalists that have been assasinated by the IOF?
I think it pretty clearly doesn’t.