I assumed it was to sarcastically “twist” there idols. Kind of like the “Jesus being a dick” memes.

I live in Florida, surrounded by red and I’m from a red state/area. To be clear, I think it’s PERFECTLY VALID to hold the thought “my money and stuff are mine and I should have a say who gets to use it”. And to your point about democrats: yeah that’s effectively what I mean. Universal health care and paying for college are publicly funded from…other people’s money. Most Republicans I’ve talked to wish we had either or both, but balk when taxes are raised. They would rather be the ones to decide who gets a portion of their paycheck from an understandable hesitancy to have the government be the one to decide who gets the money. Republicans see that prudence as necessary, and most democrats I know see that as an unwillingness to contribute to the “greater good”.

I think the defining difference is whether that sharing extends to just friends and family, or if it becomes more egalitarian and extends to everyone. From my experience, Republicans tend to stop at the former, and Democrats tend to stop at the latter. There is also usually differences in what they’re willing to share to both parties, namely money.

I think that comment is saying the opposite of what you’re saying

Buo-y

Apparently we have the Dutch to blame for that one, as the verb form is apparently descended from Spanish.

It’s obtuse because it’s not like another one is going to crop up in the same town in the same day to give the workers jobs, nor is it going to solve the issue of regulating the industry properly. The people enforcing the policies need teeth, and those teeth should be able to bite at the people causing these conditions. Places get like this because 3rd party inspection is underfunded and underpowered. Shutting a place down means it cuts into profits while potentially cutting off workers’ incomes. It doesn’t mean the owners or board get significantly impacted.

Assuming you aren’t being purposefully obtuse, the answer is to make them safe and suitable environments for people to work in. You can figure out a way to punish the company who is creating these conditions, but for the time being, the answer is to make them reasonable to work in.

No. They’re saying that slaughter houses don’t appear to be going away in the near future since there is a still a fervent demand for meat, so the answer of “just shut them down” isn’t a valid solution yet. They should be removed of human cruelty until we can fully remove them.

The link is to a piped video. The link is named after whatever the original hyperlink used. If it was labeled “butt penis” the piped bot would have a link “butt penis” as well.

I didn’t even know they tested for DHMO. I thought it was something they noticed was so prevalent at autopsy, they just assumed it was naturally present. It’s nice to see the awareness efforts have not been all for not.

8.49’!~=116699.97’

I am a human, hear me rar.

Which is not what the original video is talking about; almost the exact opposite to the study. I’m not confusing the mechanics of how capitalism works, nor am I misunderstanding the way in which the wealthy few use their wealth to manipulate the media to get voters to side with them just enough to not revolt. What you are confusing is the study effectively points out that the will of the populace is inconsequential compared to the will of the ultra wealthy. They don’t have to sway the people. They have a much smaller pool to sway, which are the actual people who vote on these policies. Why go through 8 iterations of of policy when you can purchase enough of the actual voters (senators and representatives) to where the populace is irrelevant to sway. The video is how to do it in a “fair” manner. The study implies how it’s actually done: purchased and paid for. That’s a flaw in any form of government; not some exclusive exploit towards democracy.

That study doesn’t conclude that at all. That study says that the policy will follow interest groups and generally what the “elite” want. It’s like saying “hey, if you use this strategy in Monopoly, you can generally win out against the other players in the long run. This study show if you’re a banker, you can literally just decide the dice rolls whenever you want”. That’s two entirely different things. Continuing the analogy, it’d be like if the banker decided another player land on one of your properties. Yes it benefits you, but the only thing the banker cares about is bankrupting that player. It just so happened to benefit you. It wasn’t some way to “slowly move the policy”.

I think the video is an interesting thought experiment, but I don’t know that is holds weight within the scale of the political spectrum. I think while a more progressive viewpoint of the world is by using a 2D map of economical and political leanings, that isn’t really the case in real life. People will usually vote along a 1D political line, wherein the entire point of the video falls apart. The choice isn’t between 4 quadrants, the choice usually is how left or right something is in a linear scale. On a linear scale, you can’t really gamify the policy to work like they describe in the video.

Yes good example. I will say, apprently the rice in the OP does serve a purpose beyond “plant free rice”, but the label seems to hit off the mark. I feel like the actual marketing opportunity would be low calorie or digestive aide rice based on several other comments.

Yeast are eukayotes part of the fungal kingdom you dolt. Although looking at the rest of your comments in this thread, it’s clear you’re just acting in bad faith for some reason.

It is most likely real, and it falls in line with gluten free vodka. What people are unwilling to look up, marketers are able to exploit as an “edge”.

I’m assuming Jason Aldean - Try That in a Small Town, but I’m going off of context.

These changes go against Apple’s business model and practices. Forcing USB C will mean they will probably try to add some bullshit software check to their plug in devices so 3rd party hardware makers will once again be shut out. These practices allow Apple to tell their current consumers “don’t buy 3rd party stuff. It isn’t made well and won’t work on our incredible phones”. Will that get struck down in the EU again? Probably. Will they make a few billion dollars before it does? Absolutely.

Apple has purposefully avoided moving towards industry standards so they can keep everything in their control. For better or worse, it’s actually one if the biggest strengths of Apple products. I know if I buy an iPhone, it’s going to work great (until the battery goes), and any of their add on parts are also going to work great because they don’t have to design drivers for the 400 different options out there. But that same practice inherently leads to these sort of anti-consumer decisions. Where a decision goes from keeping-in-their-wheelhouse to have-them-by-the-balls.

Why is there an alligator in the passenger seat?