Hey HN slow down let me chime in here, i used to work in the lying profession and i just need you to know that lying is not ok, and that lying is not the same thing as lying
The people who lived in towns which thrived long before the economy failed them don't need to justify their existence in economic terms. The question you should be asking is whether or not this economy has any benefit to those people.
Testimony of lived experiences is evidence. It's enough to convict.
When you serve jury duty and the case involves domestic violence, you are explicitly reminded of this because most people will assume it is not.
Still, we end up with cases like Brock Turner where he does get convicted not with the victim's testimony but a mountain of corroborating evidence and national media scrutiny. And then receives what is essentially a non-punishment.
With such disproportionately high rates of domestic abuse in law enforcement professions, you really can't say they are competent to investigate them either. So whose responsibility is it?
I have this nagging belief that advertisers know well that nobody in this generation wants to be advertised to, and that ads generally don't work as a direct call to action. Something that allowing podcasters to loosely do ad reads achieves is a small sense of authenticity.
This seems to fit in nicely with the assertion that they know people dislike ads; when a podcaster stiffly or sarcastically reads an ad and throws in a side comment, the ad-averse listener reads this as an irreverence to commercial advertising that both the podcaster and the advertiser are both acknowledging.
I truly think that the advertiser sneaks into the podcast listener's authenticity dome this way, and I feel like this must be a well-understood phenomenon for advertisers who buy ad reads on podcasts known for having a primarily gen z and millennial audience.
Work culture in general is harsher, but a lot of professional jobs include benefits like housing (usually not too far from full rent) and full commute expenses in their compensation. These are perks usually added to your base salary, which is one of the things foreigners ignore when bringing up stories of lower salaries and harsh work culture. You take your pick which is more important to you when thinking about whether or not to live in Japan.
There's a stronger social contract in place than in other places. Work culture is harsher in terms of hours expected in the office than elsewhere, but there is a stronger respect for workers' material conditions as well.
Correct. For the strict purpose of protecting private property, something which slaves were considered to be. Thank you for agreeing with the historical facts.
Just a minor nitpick about this, forgive me. Overall this post is perfectly agreeable.
Police primarily serve private property owners, with private property being different from personal property.
Private property refers to property which earns their owners accumulated wealth: think landlords, business owners and such. Personal property, such as your smartphone or house are intuitively different from this even though things like this are called private property in vernacular.
I think it's a distinction worth posting about since policing as an institution got its start in union busting and slave catching.
To take this critique to an even lower order of problems, economics as a field is strictly centered on capitalism and the base assumption that markets are the only efficient distribution of resources. By this nature professionals researching economics will be captured by corporate interests at every level.
I've never seen a clear explanation of the right's grievances regarding Soros, but what I can put together contextually is that he is a wealthy source of finance or power brokerage for political action involving anything left of far-right. There is also a deep, non-explicit anti-semitic tinge to it all as well.
However everything I have heard him about his didn't come from credible sources. I've honestly wondered for a long time as well.
I'm asking because when someone says they are offended by someone else's words, it's because the use of that word makes their daily normal life more difficult to live in a direct material sense. That's the measure being defined when someone says "I'm offended". It's a matter of material conditions.
Slurs are used by people who have structural power in society, directed at those who do not. It's punching down, not punching across or up. That's what is meant by taking offense to someone's words.
Forgive me If I question whether or not a man, which is quite a privileged identity, is truly being punched down upon from someone more powerful by the word "creepshot".
Remove it or not based on your company's rules and values.
I don't know how to make this any more explicit. Hate speech having a clear and defined concept (which both you and that other commenter can research on your own) gives us a way to define whether or not the comment and context is harmful or not. I'm not going to hold your hand here, you need to read about it.