Yeah, a LOT of Americans are treating this as business as usual, and it most certainly is not usual. Just because bad leadership has blown over in the past doesn’t mean this is the same thing.
People are not panicking anywhere near the level they should because we need to take care of this NOW. Like now, now. I can’t believe it ever got this far to begin with, but you are 100% right in saying that 4 years is far too long, and by then, it will be too late.
I think it’s more like a sibling that you grew up with who was taught the same moral code as you. They were living a healthy, normal life for a while but got offered a very high paying job that is at odds with those childhood morals. They decided to take it, and at first, they did just a few unethical things. Then, they realized that they could make more money by being more unethical and the people who were supposed to be chastising them were not very good at punishing people with money and were really easy to manipulate, so they leaned in to the lack of ethics.
They know what their doing is hurting people, and they don’t care because they want to drive their Lamborghini to family Christmas and bring an ostentatiously expensive bottle of wine so that people can praise and fawn over them. But, if you call them on their bad behavior, they become enemies because how dare you?! Now we’re the sibling who is powerful but has completely gone awry due to that same power.
I’m hoping we gave a nice family reunion someday where my country has learned the error of its ways and can once again be accepted by its lovely Canadian relatives.
Yeah, me too. I just started on that med, and I found that I have to schedule my meals with reminders and then force myself to eat some of them, or I will go the entire day not remembering/wanting to eat.
And in my hair, promptly ripping a chunk of it out of my ponytail.
You’re right; I don’t have to be offended or take it personally. As such, I am neither offended, nor am I taking any of the comments in this thread personally. This is mostly because I’m addressing the issue at hand, not the person involved, so there is nothing to be offended by or about.
My point is that, you’re attacking the person, not their ideas. I get that it’s irritating to have someone question or throw a wrench into a post that was just supposed to be a good-old offensive time. Like I said, I’m no Musk lover, and I enjoy hating on him too - above bar or otherwise. But, OP brings up a good point by saying we should focus on the issues at hand as opposed to attacking what the person looks like. Also, since this is a public thread on Lemmy, if a person is willing to comment, it is obviously assumed that said comment then becomes the business of everyone on Lemmy (and, quite honestly, the entirety of the internet). Otherwise, why post at all? Is discourse not the point of this entire platform?
I don’t think OP is a “fuck head” simply because they want to draw attention to the actual issues instead of being focused on circle-jerking about peoples’ unspecified hate for Musk. I don’t think they are offended by the post, just that we should be a bit better about the focus of our discontent. I get where you’re coming from though, it’s a shitpost community, and circle-jerk hate is very satisfying. As said, I, personally, do enjoy it, but I’m not the greatest human being, and I sometimes like to give in to that less reasonable part of myself. If that’s the kind of thing that you want to post about, that’s fine. Do it! Just don’t be surprised when other people call you out on your logical fallacy. Otherwise, if you think there is no fallacy at play, then you may not actually have any counter-arguments to the ideas and claims that Musk makes, and that is where OP’s concern lies.
You seem like an intelligent person, so I doubt your only reasons for disliking Musk are simply corporeal. I think you should continue to have fun with shitposts like this while OP should continue to draw attention to the fact that, while this feels good, it’s not the actual issue that we’re dealing with, nor does it provide a solution.
I think it’s more about the ad hominem attack. I don’t love Elon Musk by any stretch of the imagination, but I don’t like him because of his ideas, beliefs, and the impact he’s having on my country. It has little to do with how he looks or the shape of his body. It’s his ideas and their implementation that people disagree with in actuality.
Attacking how he looks is just a lazy way of attacking someone without putting in the effort to refute the beliefs and ideas he has. Sensitivity isn’t what is bothering OP. It’s that we’re missing the point by focusing on blind dislike instead of attacking the reasons that generated the dislike.
In my line of work, it’s a legal thing and a balancing the books thing. The business can’t legally keep the money because it is being held in trust for that particular person, and only that person is allowed to get those funds (unless they die, then it becomes part of their estate). We can’t just wait a certain number of years and say ha! you didn’t get your funds in time, and now they’re mine!
While we have the funds in trust, the case isn’t fully closed as far as our accounting department is concerned. Accounting doesn’t want uncashed checks out there and doesn’t like the idea of holding onto client funds indefinitely because they have to keep track of all of that, and we’ve had something like 40,000 clients in the last 30-40 years. Their goal is to get that account down to zero so there are no funds for that client left in their account.
At a certain point, if we can’t hunt that person down, we have to get this money off our books. Otherwise, if it was legally allowed, we could be stuck holding these funds for decades and having to manage them that whole time. In my particular state, businesses legally have to submit it as unclaimed property after 5 years. The goal was to have all these funds in one location so people don’t have to search at a bunch of different places to find unclaimed funds. Really, it’s a benefit to both the business and the people searching for their funds. We get to clear it off the books, and they have a one-stop shop for receiving any unclaimed funds. It sounds like different types of funds have different waiting periods. I believe the department of revenue also makes efforts to find the owner of those funds.
Lots of different businesses use this system. Say you have a savings account out there somewhere that you completely forgot about, so it’s been sitting there with no activity for years. Since then, maybe you’ve moved or gotten a new phone number. If the bank sends you letters and emails and calls you but still can’t get in contact after 5 years, they are going to close the account and send those funds to the state. It could be submitted by an insurance company who has settlement funds or reimbursement funds for ending a policy. It could be that you overpaid on something, and the business is trying to return the difference to you, but can’t find you. Basically, if some business owes you money in any way, but can’t for some reason get it to you, they have to submit it to the state. I’m assuming it works the same if the next of kin can’t be found for an estate.
I’m not sure how the business to business funds would work, but businesses here are required to have a registered agent who is responsible for receiving subpoenas or whatever else for the business, so hunting down the owner seems like it’s a bit easier, but I’ve never worked on that side, so I don’t really know.
I’m only focusing on your comment about language here, and yes I’m aware that it’s a rant, but I feel the need to add some additional info because it brings me calm when I get irritated about similar things. I’m in no way coming at you or your opinion because the changes in language, like the most recent usage of “cringe,” are irritating and bothersome to me also:
I remember when I was in college, my best friend was really irritated by everyone starting to say “real” as an intensifying adverb as opposed to “really.” For example, instead of saying “I was really bothered by that situation,” people began saying, “I was real bothered by that situation.” For the most part, this didn’t change the meaning of what was said, but it did change the connotation a bit. While both sentences mean that the person was very much bothered by the situation, one sounds like a serious confession of your feelings, and the other sounds like the situation was crazy enough that itself was the cause of the discomfort. It changes the flavor of the sentence by emphasizing something else. It also changes the formality of the language. I’m not going to use “real” like that in a formal setting, but it does fit better when telling a crazy story to my friends.
I had also been taking a linguistics/grammar class at the time this came up, so I had very recently been discussing descriptive vs prescriptive grammar and what makes a language a living language as opposed to a dead one. While my knowledge of linguistics is definitely limited, I did take away that language constantly changes and adds new variations on meanings and expressions all the time. That’s not a bad thing! Without growth, our language dies. Our language adapts and twists and develops with or without our individual consent. But the vocabulary of the many is what shapes language. As much as it drives me nuts, if the majority agrees that this is the way we say something now, it now becomes correct in terms of lexicon, grammar, and usage. Otherwise, we would still be referring to “selfies” as “photos you take of yourself.”
I now consider these situations to be simply the growing pains of language. While they can be irritating, especially to those who learned to do things in a very specific way, they are necessary for the survival of our language. As much as I don’t love the idea of saying “cringe” as an adjective, it is the younger people’s way of saying “cringeworthy.” Once that is mainstream, it has then been added to the overall language’s lexicon. We either change with the times of language or risk being left in its dust. None of our lives are long enough that people will be unable to understand our version of the “old” language, but I think it’s important to try to grow along with the language. This is, at the very least, so that we can understand it, but more importantly, so we can appreciate the newest flavor of our language, even though it may be an acquired taste.
It’s easiest for my brain to put it in the perspective that I should appreciate that things are different because the very difference that bothers me is a sign of growth, not decay. The Guardian is just keeping up with the times. Maybe they’re trying a bit too hard to be hip, but I get it. It’s a case of grow or die. Should they be better than that? Probably, but I’m not sure why you’re expecting that of The Guardian. I don’t associate them with using the most professional word choice.
Most importantly, to end the story about my best friend, I began using “real” as an adverb often which started out as a way to piss off my friend just a little bit, but ended with me wanting to change as the language changed so I could experience the beauty of its growth.
I’ve never had unclaimed funds, but I have been the person who submits funds that have been unclaimed to the state. I work at a law firm that handles a lot of settlements, and sometimes, people are issued a large portion of the settlement while we wrap up a few other things on the case. Once those are taken care of, I reach out to our client to give them whatever funds remain.
But sometimes, I can’t find that person no matter how hard I search. Sometimes, our client disagrees with the additional amount that they are receiving and refuses to cash their check. After a certain number of years, and after every possible attempt to give our client their money has been made, I have it sent to the state.
Americans tend to misunderstand what our version of “free speech” actually means and how it came to be part of our Bill of Rights. People see it as an excuse or opportunity to say whatever they want, but it was created specifically because people in Europe were often imprisoned for speaking out against a king. So it really only applies to the government. You can’t be imprisoned for speaking out against the government unless you are actively threatening imminent harm against specific government officials or spaces. People forget that there are real-world implications to their speech from groups that are not connected to the government. That said, I do see the erosion and dilution of these rights happening through the control of government enterprises and corporate decision-making.
I would also like to believe that unrestricted free speech is great no matter where or how it occurs and no matter who it is directed at. But, as you’ve said, and as I’ve experienced in my lifetime, completely unregulated speech often ends in a lot of undeserved hate toward “unwanted” groups with a lack of thoughtful discussion. I’m still not sure if this is because some groups end up being “louder” in terms of their reach, whether it’s through censorship, popularity, or monetary worth, or if people actually agree at the core of their selves. Either way, hate is a form of control. How dare you be different than the rest of the accepted group?
Truly free speech can only work in a place where the populace is fully educated to the best of their ability and are knowledgable enough to be able to appreciate the struggles of people who come from different circumstances. This is along with the understanding of objective research and its importance. So, I struggle with the concept also. I’m big on the idea that no one should be restricted from access to knowledge and learning, so it’s difficult to simultaneously agree with a lack of acceptance for full expression of the truth as you see it.
Fully free speech can only occur successfully in a place where everyone has equivalent access to opportunities for growth, education, and financial success. In an educated society, free speech should not need indoctrination, control, lies, or exploitation of any group to have an effective discourse. But, I doubt personal self-interest would allow the rise of ideals like this to occur in actuality. There’s always someone who is constantly looking out for what they can gain, control, and manipulate in order to amass as much power as possible. Power is a heady drug, and some people are more susceptible to its charms than others.
So I, too, am on the fence about this issue. I don’t know that we will ever be able to come to a consensus on how to manage it since it is incredibly difficult to weed out the self-interested players. Our solutions thus far have been too simplistic for such a nuanced issue. Atrocities or no atrocities, American concepts of free speech are based in situational history, and due to the understandable skepticism of the colonials, it is metaphorically written in stone in our country. As such, it is both amazing for giving us the ability to condemn and chastise governmental decisions and changes directly and without fear, but it is also terrible because it allows people to use this loophole to exploit their fellow man (i.e. creating said atrocities for money and hiding it under the guise of freedom). Unless the speech meets a very strict and difficult-to-reach specificity or you have little to no money, you basically can get away with whatever.
Society is often caught up in the whirlwind of others’ opinions, and those opinions come from a place with an obvious connection to personal self-interest, so I agree that it should not be the determining factor in this discussion. Inherently, society is going to pick whatever benefits are presented to them directly in the short term, especially if everyone involved is on board. What is good for all doesn’t matter at that point. I appreciate that some still believe in our concept of free speech, but in reality, we’re not reaching the goal that others may think we are. We continue to have the same struggles as we slog through figuring out what free speech truly means in practice.
Please don’t give too much credit to our concept of free speech. Is a beautiful idea that covers up exactly what you forecasted: we are headed down the very road we feared. Hopefully, our constitution can withstand the onslaught, but I don’t have a lot of hope left anymore in our ability to do what’s best for ourselves nationally, locally, or personally. I hope that someday we reach the ideal, but as you said, I’m not sure if it’ll ever be settled.
I think it looks legit. I’ve had several different cheeses that look like this, especially aged ones. Usually, I don’t buy that big of a chunk of the wheel, but it looks right to me.
I’m sure you’re aware, but some people seem confused, so I’m going to post a link here to the poem that is being referenced above.
As a woman who can’t pee while standing, or at least in a way that prevents pee from getting everywhere, I very much appreciate my winter, indoor plumbing for the everyman and all the people who make it happen. And when it’s the holidays, and I’m drinking, I appreciate it even more. Cold outhouse seats suuuuuuck.
Cheers to remembering how much worse it could be and how the little things we take for granted do matter.
At a minimum $10,000 a year. The COBRA option I was given to continue my health insurance after leaving my previous employer, was $1,500 per month, so $18,000 per year, and that was on the low cost end for relatively crappy coverage. I’ve seen them cost $2k-$3k per month. Of course, that’s just to have the insurance and doesn’t include copays, deductibles, or out of pocket costs.
I’m not disagreeing with you at all; I’m just always astounded by how much we have to pay to receive so little.
Absolutely; I agree. I appreciate your thoughtful response. There are always going to be selfish people and users in every gender, and they do give the whole group a bad rap. I’m never going to say that all women are above the description the poster I replied to gave. And, like you said, we can call these specific people out while still uplifting others who don’t engage in such behavior.
The poster that I was replying to seemed like they had been burned by a person like that, and while I understand that it must be awful to experience being with someone who uses you only for what you can provide and that it can easily make you jaded, this particular post comes off like they have extended that bitterness to the entirety of women, whether or not those women have chosen (or seek) a partner with wealth. It’s frustrating to watch so many great women be reduced to greedy users, and I don’t want to allow the continuation of someone spouting blanket assumptions toward my gender without addressing it. That’s how I ended up with a multi-paragraph response to a simple statement.
But I absolutely agree with your assessment and really appreciate the thought and effort you put into it. It’s incredibly refreshing to be able to have an actual discussion about a topic.
Okay, I’ll bite. The reason women end up choosing to be with a man of means, and I am in no way saying that all or even most women want this, is because we often don’t/didn’t have the opportunity to gain those means ourselves which thereby impacted our ability to survive and control our own lives. This is due to the oppression of the very men that you think we seek. Over the course of thousands of years, men cultivated a world where they steadily sought, gained, and ever increasingly obtained as much power as possible. In order to gain more power for yourself or your group, you have to take away power from someone else.
One of the people or groups whose power was regularly stolen is women. I’m sure this was a slow transition over a long period of time, but it ended with a world where women were rarely allowed to gain the skills or implement what skills they had in order to earn money. If you don’t have the ability to earn money yourself, you are forced to be reliant on someone else who is allowed to earn money. My point being, if you want enough money for you and your children to survive, you basically had to marry as rich as you possibly could.
Enter the modern women’s rights movement. This is where financial freedom became incredibly important to women. We collectively realized that we, much like any other human beings in existence ever, wanted to be able to have some control of our lives, our families, and our fates. This is why we entered the workforce in droves. Women who were suffering under the control of men who beat them and their children, potentially raped them, or demeaned them regularly with the full acceptance and support of society, wanted a way out. The available options were pretty bleak, so we worked in solidarity to find another way to survive with both our physical safety and dignity intact. Now, as an obligatory caveat, not every man was/is oppressive to women. But, since men as a whole created these arbitrary restrictions on women’s lives, they are the ones who have to suffer the aftermath of this system of control that was developed, especially since they are the ones who continue to experience advantages and benefits because of those exact lingering effects.
Most women would prefer to be able to support themselves and their family while having their partner contribute equally, either through earning money or doing an equivalent share of the household/family tasks. But, since something that becomes systemic is difficult to remove, we are still trying to shake the ramifications of this exertion of control. I assure you, most women would rather have less money and more autonomy when given the option.
This brings me to the point you’re trying to make. If the “primary motivator” of a woman is to choose a man who can provide adequately for her offspring, it is only because of the lingering effects of historical oppression that men created in order to exert control over women. It’s very frustrating to be in a world that constantly tells you that you should be pursuing a partner with money so you can have a stable future, but then simultaneously reprimands you for actually making that choice. Just as it’s difficult, but required, to acquiesce to the control of the man who holds your money.
I don’t think it should be presented as though this woman is shallow or terrible for making such a choice. Who wouldn’t choose a life of stability over one of chaos or continual financial stress? I know many men who would make the same choice if offered it. Like you said, I’m sure he was doing a good job of providing for their family financially, but let’s not be too reductive about her choice to have him as a partner. You say it in such a way that you are not only chastising her for her choice of husbands but are chastising all women for prioritizing their and their children’s survival and safety. That is something that comes across as offensive to the entirety of my gender because it implies that we shouldn’t consider ourselves of value or of having worth.
You may be right that this woman chose the CEO of UHC as her husband because of his wealth and ability to support their children and family lifestyle. Most likely, she knew what her husband actually did for a living and it’s effect on the lives of others and chose to ignore or not look into the deaths, horrors, and financial destruction that were created by the company her husband controlled.
But, one way or another, let’s not reduce the struggle that women go through at the hands of historical, and often modern, men to blanketly imply that we are all naturally money hungry and that we are obviously all using men for our own gain. I’m going to go ahead and assume that women, including myself, disagree with such an unfair assumption.
Yeah, I live near a state park named “Bong.” To be fair, it was named after a person. There is also a Wang Town in Minnesota.
Tired or not, you’re absolutely right.