Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)N
Posts
14
Comments
2588
Joined
1 yr. ago

  • There's probably less "worship sky man" than you might think, or maybe it's different to what you'd expect, never having experienced it.

    Some churches have very little "woo". There's no miracles or weird stuff. Other churches have all the woo. Like faith healing and talking in tongues and whatever.

    A sunday service is usually 30 minutes of singing and housekeeping type notices and whatever, then a 30 minute talk from someone.

    Other social things are kind of special interest meetings. So a church might have several friday evening groups for kids, then teenagers, then 18 to early 20s. These are usually activities like bowling, or fishing, or parlour games, or whatever fun activity the leader can dream up.

    There's also bible study groups, music groups or bands, community outreach groups like catering for elderly people or young families, there's one here with a community garden.

    I went to church with my parents until I was about 18. When I stopped I said it was an ideological thing (as in I no longer believed in fairy tales). That remains true but I think the reason I stopped going was because I just didn't fit in socially. I just wasn't equipped for that type of social community with no drugs or alcohol or special interest to lubricate the wheels.

  • If someone offered you half a million a year you'd take it.

    If other people with similar skills, experience, and attributes to yours were making more than you, you would want more.

    It's not really that much money. Your local family doctor can make that much. Surgeons and medical specialists certainly can.

  • there is no justification for paying a manager five to ten times as much as an engineer

    The justification is, the market is competitive. If you want someone with the right skills, you need to provide them similar benefits to what they could receive elsewhere.

    Suppose you only paid CEO's and other management the same rate as engineers. Do you think wikipedia's performance would be equal to what it presently is ?

  • immediately after writing Everyone lies in interviews).

    As I explained in that comment, everyone lies in interviews, but you can still select the best candidates because some don't understand what makes someone desirable.

    You made this thread asking how to lie to c-suite.

  • Sure. It's also what anyone who's ever hired anyone would say.

  • ... or they just don't have elections.

    He's already spoken about it. If there's a "war" they don't need elections.

  • Reddit users and now lemmy users seem to have a riotous distaste for non-profits generally.

    Wikipedia is one of the last, good parts of the internet, and it's under increasing threat.

  • Sorry, what is the actual thinking here? Anyone who earns more than you shouldn't exist?

    Without a highly paid CEO, wikipedia wouldn't exist.

    Without donations, wikipedia wouldn't exist.

    Therefore, if you want wikipedia to exist, you should donate.

  • Every organisation appears wasteful. Whether it's a non-profit, local club, or government organisation.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • Who knows what this guy really meant but we can probably infer some things.

    He did not take the opportunity to say "You're really amazing and interesting and smart and funny" or anything similar.

    It's also a weird thing to say.

  • Me_irl

    Jump
  • I guess I genuinely don't know.

    There's certainly people in my life that just don't seem to have any self awareness at all.

    I guess I always just thought that those people probably have some awareness but they just never acknowledge it.

  • Ok so churches collect 10% of members income. It's a biblical concept called tithe. In some churches it's a recommendation but in others it's monitored.

    The majority of the money is spent constructing and maintaining the churches facilities, salaries for staff, and the regular services for members.

    Far beyond sunday morning, churches hold gatherings for social groups every day of the year.

    If by "charity" you mean "using church money to help those in need", there's very, very little of that in most churches.

    The control structure will vary between churches but basically yes, representatives are elected who form a board. For a church I audited for several years the board members were called elders and the board was called the eldership. Yes, they were all male, pale and stale.

    I'm sure sometimes some form of direct democracy is used but generally there aren't many contentious decisions.

  • there isn't much experimental data

    Ok so there may not be "data" in a form like... 100 groups tried this in 100 cities and this was the outcome.

    However, all kinds of small groups are analogous to what you're describing. For example, if you set aside the singing, clapping, and sky fairies you're pretty much describing a church. I provided several other examples in my first answer.

    In my experience, which is not overwhelming but not nothing, a group like you're describing wouldn't be able to stay cohesive for very long.

  • Sorry chief, it won't work.

    There's a variety of reasons but I'll give you the most compelling 2.

    Firstly, I just don't see the benefits.

    • To your first advantage - everyone helps everyone make more money - you don't need to pool money and form a commune to do this. There are many different kinds of groups already doing this. There are business groups that refer customers to each other, and online communities sharing investment information, et cetera.
    • To your second advantage - collective bargaining power - there just isn't enough sorry. You need a much larger collective. Also, for purchases where it makes sense, you can join group buys online, and in some areas there are "co-op stores" which are the same idea.
    • To your third advantage - social gatherings - again you can do this without pooling your money.

    Secondly, it's extraordinarily difficult to take a vote in order to select from a range of options. In a democracy you vote for representatives. Very occasionally you may vote on a more or less binary decision (in a referendum). In meetings of small community groups or shareholder meetings you can vote on "motions", but this is pretty seldom, everyone has a shared interest, and probably minimal personal direct benefits. If you're talking about a situation where people could vote on beer or bitcoin or groceries, people will naturally become disenfranchised.

    I admire your enthusiasm, and I wish you well, but sadly I don't think this is the right way.

  • Telling on myself ? Oh no, some kid on Lemmy thinks I'm too bourgeois.

  • You seem to be laboring under several misconceptions.

    Firstly, that being a parasitic middle manager is somehow undesirable. It's natural to dislike the people who are supervising you (but building some kind of ideology around that to justify your dislike is a bit cringe). However, as they progress through their lives most people want more money, more responsibility, more challenge, and with those things comes more authority.

    Secondly, that anyone complaining about "parasitic middle managers" would actually refuse the opportunity to take such a role if they were able to do so.

    I'm sure that "parasitic middle managers" do exist, but one feature of capitalism (which I'm sure you also despise) is that it's very good at weeding out people that don't produce any value. In the vast majority of cases, the parasitic middle managers you're talking about are in fact well experienced and highly skilled professionals, who earned the role on merit because they can produce lots of value.

    It's the same way everyone that doesn't own a home complains about landlords, but ultimately aspires to be one.

  • Imagine arresting 470 humanitarians because they dared to attempt to deliver food and medical supplies to an oppressed people, but still somehow retain the moral high-ground with most of the western world.

    It's just fucking bonkers. WTF is wrong with people.

  • I say this without a shred of insincerity

    Then you're a fool. The collateral damage and suffering from a nuke is inconceivable.

    It's cool to hate Israeli's but find a better hyperbole.

  • Lol walk more dogs.