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/)T
Posts
1
Comments
449
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • Sure, but if I was a betting man, I'd say there's a good 95% chance they get paid. It's bad politics to do otherwise.

    I'm not saying they'll do it because the law says so. Just that there's a lot of reasons not doing it only hurts them with no real benefits.

  • Yes, all federal employees will get back pay, regardless of whether they were working or not. That was a law passed during Trump 1, iirc.

    Not that it makes it easy to go a month without a paycheck, but you do get your money after the fact.

  • I don't think, "she deserved it, just look what she's wearing, and if you tell me that's a wrong thing to say it's because you're infantilizing women by saying they can't be wrong," is quite the defense you seem to think it is.

  • I don't think, "you don't understand, she wasn't grieving the way women are supposed to grieve, and she was dressed like a slut," is exactly the defense you seem to think it is...

    There's not a "right" way to grieve. And someone isn't "wrong" because they process trauma differently than you would. And none of that is an excuse for slut shaming.

  • Idk man, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. I think the pants were a 2/10 "scandalous" decision at best.

    And I don't feel like "if she grieved the way I think would be appropriate, then her grieving would be valid, but she's grieving wrong so I'm gonna judge her for her slutty outfit," is the defense you seem to think it is...

    And I think the fact that the huge rally that his funeral was had things being sold at it to help support the organization he dedicated his life to isn't quite as tacky as you're trying to paint it as being.

    Look, I'm not defending either one of them as a person, but I just genuinely don't believe that you'd have any of the same criticisms if Kirk was a huge left wing policy advocate who was killed, and literally everything else played out exact the same way.

  • Sure, you wouldn't, but this is someone who was already in the limelight anyway.

    And to be clear, a lot of people make public appearances after tragedy. Left and right alike. It doesn't invalidate their grief just because they don't react the exact way you would. There's no right way to grieve.

    And genuinely, if Charlie Kirk had been a great champion for the left, and his widow was doing the exact same things to continue his legacy, would you still say she was grifting? Do you really believe in your heart of hearts that would be your reaction?

  • Let me be clear, I'm not being a devil's advocate here.

    I genuinely believe it's not okay to tell a widow she's grieving wrong.

    I also genuinely believe that telling women how they should be dressed is some sexist BS.

    I also genuinely don't think those pants were particularly egregious. And I thought her hug with Vance wasn't particularly scandalous. And I also genuinely believe if it wasn't someone you were already primed to hate, you'd feel the same way.

    And I don't think the solution to any of the problems were having in this country is more dehumanization. We get plenty of that with this current administration thanks. And just because they suck doesn't make it okay to abandon your principles.

  • Idk man. Is this really meaningfully different than when the right was piling on Obama for wearing a brown suit?

    And any time the narrative is "look at what this woman decided to wear and judge her harshly for it," I think it's worth taking a moment to step back and evaluate if you might be the baddie on this one.

    And I feel like "getting to first base with the VP" is overstating it. It's a weird hug for sure, but it's not egregious. She moves her hand to his head for, like, half a second. I've known parents who kiss their kids on the lips. Is it weird? Hell yes. But I don't think they were plowing their kids. They were just weird in how they did social affection. And this is way less weird than that.

    And look back at that image again. Imagine this was about Michelle Obama. Let's say that she wore something the right found questionable to her husband's funeral, and decided to make a "lying grifter bitch" outfit about her? It would be, at best, in bad taste. And while they could always defend themselves with, "well she shouldn't have decided to dress like that if she didn't want to get mocked," I think that I'd rather not associate myself with that kind of rhetoric, personally.

  • Idk, with the way things are going, I'd be willing to take that bet.

  • Does it not feel... a bit misogynist, to say that a woman can't be grieving her husband because of what she's wearing?

    Like, idk guys. I get Charlie Kirk had abhorrent and racist politics, but that doesn't mean his wife didn't actually care about him. This hate-circlejerk just feels gross to me.

  • Plastic grocery bags Plastic single use gloves Plastic straws Packaging for electronics Packaging for dry goods like beans/pasta Packaging for short shelf life items like fruit/bread

    Honestly, there's a huge number of things we use plastic for that don't require it to sit in contact with bacteria/liquid for weeks at a time. I'd be willing to bet it's the majority even.

  • What percentage of single use plastic is used for storing liquids? I would imagine it's a minority, with things like plastic bags making up the majority.

    Plus very acidic liquids like soda may not be bio-active enough to cause this to break down, depending on what the process is.

  • Man, it's almost like allowing the criminalization speech or association is a bad idea, and puts tools directly into the hands of fascists.

    If only somebody had foreseen this when the UK started jailing people for state disapproved speech years ago.

  • They don't mention her by name, but allude to her when talking about phonics and should probably have made more mention of her. Lucy Calkins has single handedly destroyed American literacy.

    It's no shock that states that have abandoned her program and went back to phonics based learning have seen huge rebounds.

    That woman should be in jail.

  • Thanks. It's always a good reminder that 80% of the people on here are children.

  • It's not, but congrats on finding a way to dismiss what I said without having to engage with it or do any self reflection at all.

  • If Harris has won and took the exact same actions as Trump as it relates to Israel, which doesn't seem too unlikely given the way all of Washington on both sides kowtows to Israel, would you be taking the same stance that "she didn't do anything to help bring this about?"

    Look, I hate Trump as much as the next guy, but I find it unlikely people would be coming out of the woodwork to slam Harris, even if she did the exact same things.

    Just because someone is a villain, it doesn't mean that literally every single thing they do is villainous. I'm not gonna stop drinking Coke, just because Donald Trump drinks Coke. And I can recognize the the US was positively involved in this ceasefire negotiation, even if I hate the guy heading the US.

    Trump can still be evil, even if he's right sometimes, and even if he does the right thing sometimes. He's not a comic book character. He's a very real, human kind of evil. And just because he's not stomping on puppies every day doesn't mean he's not bad.

    And if you're not willing to admit when he does a good thing, your hatred isn't founded in reality, it's founded on purest tribalism.

  • 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.