Changetheview

joined 2 years ago
[–] Changetheview 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yeah, the wealthy “giving it all away” is always a bullshit scheme in some way. If they really felt that way, they would have shared the profits with those who helped create them. This sort of wealth only happens in literally one situation: greed overcomes compassion for others.

These schemes usually fall into one of three categories:

  1. I fucking hate my kids and don’t have anyone I think actually deserves this money, so I’m giving it to some random charities of my choosing when I die because I know damn well I can’t spend it all and I have to do something with it

  2. I’m just putting it all into a charitable trust that I still have full control over and likely won’t spend much out of it, unless it benefits me personally

  3. Straight up bullshit PR campaign about a future promise that is not binding

Quite often, it’s a combination of 1 and 2, locking up the money for a loooong time and only to be used for a specific purpose.

[–] Changetheview 43 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Dude, just go to a private district. It’s really not that hard in the US to enjoy your religious fantasies. No reason to become a traitor over it. Hell, there’s usually more money for those schools and leaders too!

Separation of church and state is what allows you to go do whatever the hell you want in the name of your beliefs. The only catch is that you can’t force it on others. Not a bad deal.

Yet these nuts can’t comprehend how lucky they are to have this ability. And they’ll likely scream and yell about how some heathen society is trying to take over their kids.

[–] Changetheview 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I know your comment isn’t truly asking, but I want to answer just because there was a time when I used to put a lot of pressure on myself to generate something truly insightful, creative, deep, etc. before voicing my thoughts or opinion. Then I realized you don’t need to do that. I still have a tendency to - and I’m not saying everyone should just voice their loud-ass bullshit without thinking.

You likely have an insight that someone would find interesting, even if it seems entirely obvious to you. Great conversation can sometimes be a very simple volley back and forth of extremely basic observations.

Run with whatever logic this makes your mind go to... even if it’s something like “crazy that people vote to give rich people more money” or another basic interpretation of this. It gets the ball rolling for other people, let’s them put a new spin on it, and may be that little spark needed to create something more impactful.

[–] Changetheview 68 points 1 year ago (4 children)

The worst part is that many of those who fall for this lie are some of the worst off, financially speaking. And they’re often surrounded by people in similar positions.

They know they’re fucked. They’ll watch neighbors lose homes, avoid doctors, go through times when they can’t pay bills, etc.

Then they’ll turn around and vote against their own interests. Against the interests of those they’re close to.

Fucking wild that the propoganda machines are that powerful.

[–] Changetheview 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Although it’s somewhat inconceivable to some people that the US can have more than 50 states (and that DC isn’t what it once was), don’t forget about representation for DC and Puerto Rico.

Both which operate very much like state entities now, making a pretty good argument for true federal representation with proper voting power.

[–] Changetheview 10 points 1 year ago

Good point. It’ll likely take three words to get a lot of those people to flip: own the libs.

Sometimes I forget how little value some people place in consistency of beliefs. Small government! Except ____. Ad nauseam.

[–] Changetheview 59 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

Part of this piece has an excellent insight into the dichotomy of the Republican Party. Of those highly engaged with politics, only 27% want to ditch the electoral college! These people understand the party is unpopular and the tactics used to hold power are a necessary way to get their policies.

The rest of the group feels otherwise, probably NOT because they don’t care if their candidate gets elected, but rather that they don’t understand how crucial it is to their party (along with gerrymandering). And their first gut instinct is that popular vote is justified/rational/logical whatever.

Now for a little thought experiment: What would happen if this became an actual campaign issue? I’d put my money on those 27% being able to convince the rest of the party how important it is, flipping their view. Maybe I’m wrong, but since many R voters tent to put self interests above all else, it logically follows that they’re just not understanding how critical the electoral college is. If their talking heads went on air/TV each day and stopped talking about how immigrants are stealing jobs or poor people are taking their hard earned money, and instead focused on the importance of the electoral college, they’d flip. Not because they think it’s right or justified. Because they think it’s best for themselves and their party. And it’s the current rallying cry.

Now apply this across an entire party, with those highly engaged telling the others how to vote, what to think about policy, and what the outcomes will be. Bring together uneducated people already susceptible to misinformation, and pair them with intelligent and extremely vocal/active groups who can sell snake oil like the best of them. Take that minority vote and put some real numbers behind it… likely not enough to get a majority, but enough to win a sophisticated electoral college or gerrymandered district.

[–] Changetheview 6 points 1 year ago

I can’t say for certain where it’s from either, but the longer version is now very popular in certain outdoor groups and at US National Parks:

“Take nothing but pictures, leave nothing but footprints.”

Apparently one researcher was able to trace it back to a newspaper article from 1954 about Bandelier National Monument (an amazing spot in Utah).

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2023/05/30/footprints/

And I agree that it has many crucial implications today. We should doing more to live in harmony with nature. We are part of it, no matter how much our concrete jungles try to seem otherwise.

[–] Changetheview 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It’s extremely challenging for many right now due to insanely depressed wages. No doubt about that.

But for those lucky enough to have savings and their very basic needs covered, there are quite a few people deciding to live with less instead of constantly gunning for more. The FIRE movement is a pretty decent example. But even things like vanlife and rural homesteading are also along the same lines.

Others spend like crazy, barely staying within their means even when incomes skyrocket. Of course, this is what capitalism allows/causes/benefits from the most. And it’s easy to get sucked into. But it’s not the only way.

[–] Changetheview 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It’s an extremely common strategy now across many industries. Reduces responsibilities (costs and liabilities) and increases profit margins.

Good to see these workers putting up a fight. There are standards to determine employee vs contractor status, but they’re rarely enforced. And one major reason why is the lack of bargaining power. Many “contractors” have to work together and make a strong case that they are under employee-like control.

[–] Changetheview 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

There are a lot of good, helpful people in the world that want to work together to create progress and a better society for all. And positive change is possible. Don’t get too caught up in the loud voices to the contrary.

[–] Changetheview 9 points 1 year ago

I get the point of this article, but I really dislike the presentation. Nothing about the Clean Air Act’s policies or other steps toward improvements have been “reversed.” It’s just that large fires have caused worsening air quality. These are two entirely separate items that both happen to impact the same thing.

If we had not been taking those other actions to reduce pollutants, the air quality would likely be even worse when the fires were added in. I’d love to see a slightly modified presentation, something like, “Fires raised pollutants by X amount. If it weren’t for the Clean Air Act, the pollution level probably would have reached X+Y! But thankfully we took steps to reduce it before/during the fires.”

To use the term “reversed” feels like it’s trying to minimize the impact of the progress that we have made. And that’s throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It also sounds like the perfect, illogical excuse to stop trying. Nonsense.

view more: ‹ prev next ›