I mean, I think it's pretty tightly bounded by when airports shut down. If all planes are grounded for any length of time, that's an economic collapse kinda no matter what you do.
Plus with the holidays coming up? No, I think they are gonna panic when the air traffic controllers start walking out en masse cause they're not getting paid.
Agreed. There's clearly a 90+% chance there will be back pay.
I get that the Trump administration is loathsome, but it's really disheartening the number of people on here who will throw all logic and reason out the window if it means they can doom-jerk over how evil the administration is.
Once the back pay inevitably happens, everyone who said otherwise on here will just ignore they were wrong, and move on to the next thing that's obviously false.
To be clear, I'm not defending the Trump administration. It's been a dumpster fire, and they obviously aren't above completely violating the law to get their way.
But denying back pay doesn't make sense on its face. It's a nonsense position. And the fact that people can't see that just feels like backwards QAnon to me.
Encouraging to see that the Palestinian people rejecting Hamas.
While certainly not the villain in this whole conflict, Hamas is definitely a villain.
Both these groups are Palestinian.
Did Sun Tzu say that? Not to be a dick, but I'm pretty sure you don't have a source for that beyond, "because I want to kill right wing propagandists."
In which major conflict was killing propagandists a high priority and doing so led to good outcomes?
Did I say anywhere in that that I liked Charlie Kirk? No.
But I don't hate dogs just because Hitler liked them. Just because someone was bad doesn't mean they are 100% wrong on every single thing and you must always disagree with them on every single issue.
In fact, you can even come to the same end solution using completely different reasoning. It doesn't mean the final conclusion is wrong, even if the other person had evil motivations for how they got there.
Grinding the meat leads to a substantively different product. One people often don't want for a particular application.
There's no human based QC system on earth that will have zero failures out of 5.5 billion attempts. It is quite literally impossible.
We're splitting hairs on the definitional point. What I intended to say was that you don't have to support that boneless chicken nuggets are required to be bone free to find that a reasonable person would not expect to find a bone in boneless wings as a matter of course. While a reasonable person shouldn't be surprised to find a bone in a boneless wing, anymore than they should be surprised to find a seed in a seedless watermelon, should that bone cause damage the company should be at fault because the bone was not intended to be there, and was included due to a mishap in their manufacturing process. An unavoidable mishap, but a mishap nonetheless.
It's like how someone will die in a dangerous line of work, even if you take every possible precaution. Eventually, even if it takes 100yrs, something bad will happen because people are people. Even though the company did everything right, they should still have to pay out workman's compensation for the death/injury.
Tyson produces over 5.5 billion (with a B) chicken wings per year. Let's assume it's a similar number of boneless chicken wings.
Can you propose a process that is so flawless that it won't fail a single time out of 5.5 Billion?
If you had ten people checking every single nugget by hand, you still might miss one out of every 5.5 BILLION.
No process is flawless, and it's impossible to expect it to be.
Now, when a problem happens, I'd agree that Tyson should be on the hook to cover medical costs, etc. This shouldn't hinge on the definition of "boneless." Regardless of whether the customer should have known there was the chance of bone or not, their product caused harm in an unexpected way, and they should be liable for that.
But to expect them to have a literal perfect record of 0/5,500,000,000 is asinine.
Satellites would like to have a word, lol. GPS, weather tracking and modeling, telecommunication to remote areas, and detailed topographical mapping, just to name a few, all seem like pretty worthwhile sectors which are all directly tied to the space industry.
I think we would have to define "no victim," as a lot of things have second or third order victims that need to be considered.
Smoking is, in and of itself, only self-victimizing, but a lot of people (especially children) have been harmed by second hand smoke.
PCP is only self-victimizing, but it does increase your propensity to freak out and kill somebody. Should you be allowed to take PCP with the knowledge you are potentially putting the people around you at an elevated risk of you murdering them in a drug induced delusional rage?
I agreed in broad strokes, but I think we have to consider what it means for something to have "no victims," as most actions victimize someone to some greater or lesser extent.
I mean, where something is coming from isn't necessarily tied to its reasonableness.
If I was a huge advocate for government funding for health initiatives, that's still reasonable, even if it's driven from a place of hating fat people.
It might make me a bad person if I believed that, but it doesn't mean I'm pushing for bad policy.
Whatever kid did this messed up. Should have just added a way to bypass payment, then only told their buddies about it. Keep it on the DL and no one would have noticed.
There's a lot of reasons to dislike Charlie Kirk, but that quote is kinda reasonable?
We should take better care of people with severe mental illnesses. Sometimes that means they should be compelled into treatment. It's not a good thing that someone struggling with severe mental illness is just left out on the street, and many will not seek help due to those self-same illnesses. A person with schizophrenia is extremely likely to flee from help due to the intense paranoia.
It is the humane thing to do to get them off the streets and into a place where they can be taken care of. And while asylums have a pretty grotesque history, it's one of the worst legacies of the Reagan administration that they were done away with. Massive reform was needed, and a better structure for making sure people weren't just locked away indefinitely. More oversight and regulation, no question. But the solution we went with of just turning them all out on the street to live in tents is a huge injustice to them.
No worries. I don't put an immense stock in the karma system or whatever. It all kinda balances out in the end. :)
But I do think saying the only difference is authority, while true, misses the point a bit. If I give a baby a sword and he wants to murder someone but can't because he's too weak to swing it, is he less culpable than the man who murders someone with a sword, even though they have the same intent? Absolutely. If Hitler had been a street urchin with no influence and never risen to power, he probably would still have been a loathsome person, but he wouldn't have been deserving of being out to death, as he would never have taken any actions deserving of that, even if he really wanted to. The fact Kirk didn't have authority does in fact matter.
I do see your point about soft power and don't wholly disagree. He did advocate for a lot of extremely harmful policies, and likely pushed a few people over the edge into extremist action. I certainly am not defending that. Again, I can't say it enough, I did not care for or support Charlie Kirk or anything he stood for.
But I do still believe that the freedom of speech is important if for no other reason than if it wasn't, this current administration would make talking about LGBT issues or immigration a felony and start throwing people in jail for it. It seems they're trying anyway, and things like the first amendment are one of the only remaining bulwarks against that.
The correct way to deal with rhetoric like Kirks (imo) is through community driven things like lobbying companies to deplatform him. His rhetoric should be heinous enough that places refuse to amplify him, and the fact it's not is a black mark on where the nation is at as a whole. But that doesn't mean that having the government limit his speech or murdering him outright is the correct call.
It may be harder to do things the right way and win things in the public sphere of ideas, but it's important to do things in the right way, even when they're hard. Which doesn't mean "do nothing" to be clear. I'm advocating for an MLKj version of civil disobedience and protest. Change can and will happen without banning speech or murdering people.
I mean, in this exact thread, lol: https://lemmy.world/comment/19339137
Plenty of people are saying it was correct and good to shoot him.
And I'm not whitewashing his history. He was the worst kind of asshole. I'm not sad he's dead. But there are in fact a lot of people on this site arguing that it was the absolutely correct thing to do to extrajudicially murder him, and that's where I disagree.
He wasn't a member of "the state" any more than you or I.
I mean, perhaps you're right, but I bet if we took a poll here we'd get a majority of people sounding off that it was a good thing he was murdered.
But maybe you're right and everyone agrees it was bad he was murdered. I wouldn't bet on it though.
Look, Hitler and Goebbels both directly ordered the deaths of civilians. It's intellectually dishonest to say Charlie Kirk was doing anything equivalent. There's a difference between hateful and violent rhetoric generally and actively managing and overseeing death camps.
I agree theres a limit, but I would put it at when you're rhetoric becomes action. Both Hitler and Goebbels took active actions that lead to peoples deaths. Actions that were more than simple rhetoric in the public sphere.
Look, I fully agree Kirk was trash. You're preaching to the choir here.
But I shy away from saying "any extrajudicial killing is fine when it's against someone I think is trash."
If he'd died a natural death the world would be a better place for it, but that doesn't make it okay that he was murdered.
It's a dangerous game when we just start saying it's okay to murder bad people without due process.
I very much don't think this is from an actual children's book. It's pretty clearly satire.