I was there with you until I realized how gross this approach is.
??? It's not like I am forcing anyone or being pushy. I'm having conversations. The person removed the image by their own volition; I made no reccomendations. I am helping people not become full asshole and critically think when they decided not to. I can make a significantly larger impact on irl relationships than making another online echo chamber. (Also that would take more time away from my irl relationships, not willing to do that.)
Also, yes I do give my views/clicks to what I think should be shared; including Jon Stewart, John Oliver, and many others.
I get where you are coming from, but I don't think that playing their game online with bots and money is going to work out. You play defense on the opposition's turf, and strike elsewhere. Like you already pointed out; social media empires are overrun, people get shadowbanned and worse all the time now.
Well. Go start it then. I'm over here challenging coworkers to actually talk about their beliefs and having confrontations when someone posts hateful stuff. Got someone to remove their anti-gay cover photo a few days ago and think about their messaging. I only have time for interpersonal groundwork, and as much as I'd love to throw it all away and rally behind Greta or someone more nationally active, I have a wife to put before everything else.
That is a fair point. This spurred me to do some quick research into global arms dealers and diplomatic relations. Yeah, I'd say the USA is very much enabling Israel to commit genocide. It really grinds me up how nearly anyone who could have become president would have kept the exports going. I suppose if the USA hadn't supplied them, Italy (more specifically Rome) would have been the next most likely arms dealer for Israel. They would have been a lot easier to diplomatically pressure into stopping arms-deals though. Idk whether that would be enough to prevent the genocide, but it would probably have reduced the severity at least.
Which is baked into the tax plan. 3 years and the OT tax break goes away. 3 years for companies to skimp on actually raising pay to meet living costs. Then they'll just blame the Dems if they win any seats or stay quiet if they retain majorities.
I'm cis-het and fully intend to go to the pride parade with friends in a different state. It's going to be a great time! Idk why the largest groups feel like they need extra special attention.
Yeah, reread it incase I missed something. Sure didn't
Page 2 paragraph 4 mentions a court decision from 2023. Harvard has reviewed and revised policy since then. They found that a disproportionate amount of admitted students were white due mostly to either being related to alumni or from a family that made large financial contributions. DEI policies had very little impact compared to those factors. Idk what you want them to do from here, and that is the only actual legal thing mentioned anywhere.
Yes, Harvard has no need to act like a government entity when they are not one and will survive just fine without grants. The American people and economy will be the ones suffering from this snappy decision.
And yes, socialist or communist. The research is a service being paid for. If the published results being public isn't enough for you, then neither should any other company's services. Following your logic, SpaceX and Starlink should be publicly owned by the U.S. government as well as the banks, corporations, and small businesses that get a contract, grant, or tax break. The actual allocation of funds doesn't matter to you based on your comments.
It definitely says such a thing. If the "review" had no part then why include it? The first page only spews political factoids, mentions a plagarism scandal, and something about discrimination in the past. The first page of the letter literally doesn't mention what Harvard is currently doing illegally to justify this decision about grants and funding.
More importantly, yes, Harvard is private but the grant money isn't for their operation costs. Your own source lists it as research funding.
Speaking of your own source, maybe read it first, because it says "Harvard... rejected demands from the Trump administration." Nothing about noncompliance with the law.
As a side note, I didn't think I'd find a communist or socialist out here in the wild today. How has that ideology been working for you?
It is especially bad in the deep-red states. The Tulsa race riots are still often lied about in Oklahoma depending on the school. Basically they said, "it worked on Native American history, so just do that for everything we don't agree with."
You have my thoughts so well organized. Thanks. If only that was the point and could be refuted so easily instead of being pointless doublespeak used to justify garbage decisions.
Ty for grabbing the context for me. Yeah, I think it's also fair to say there are literally criminally conservative ideals in some of the student body based on the survey. Not enough to condem the entire student body, but I think their point is that those ideals already exist within Harvard, so the point of political repression/reprogramming is moot. At least, that's how I look at it.
Ahh, how could I forget the start of every elementary school day.
Etc etc