YSK too that not everything that’s said has equal value or merit.

This is important for both expressing and hearing/reading opinions.

Downvotes mean pretty much nothing

It’d be interesting if cultural standards were upheld unanimously amongst all members of said culture…

Or, conversely, if a culture could be judged by the actions of a few outlying individuals…

un-abashedly trying to defend ghouls.

No, I’m not.

If the CEO makes the big bucks then they share the most of the blame. You can’t have one without the other.

This will definitely depend on the particulars of an organization, but usually it’s not just one singular CEO who’s getting rich by making these decisions.

Also don’t deliberately ignore the fact that for a brief moment in time after the CEO’s death, there was a drastic reduction in the number of claims being denied.

I wasn’t aware of this, and I’m not sure why you would describe that as “deliberately ignoring” it…lol

There’s a question of where the line would be drawn.

But do you kill everyone responsible for a joint decision?

Do you kill everyone who benefitted from it? Shareholders, indirect investors, spouses and children…?

I think the difference with cops is that they don’t need the self-defense argument, because the “oopsie” argument gets them out of jail too

True but this was self defense.

Is this a misuse of legal terms, or is there some sort of evidence behind this?

He was a CEO, not a king. He doesn’t single-handedly come up with and implement these decisions.

• The policies are probably brainstormed in meetings with several people.
• The policies are probably voted on by an even greater number of people
• The policies are implemented by another set of people
• The policies are enforced by another set of people
• The profit of the company, which these policies likely aim to improve, is almost the single main goal of all of the shareholders.
• Many other people have likely invested indirectly (e.g., in funds that contain that company’s stock) and were also benefitting from the implementation of these policies.

The CEO may have been a big part of the problem, but he’s not the only part. He may have even been a symptom of the problem. Was he elected, appointed? Who brought him into that position? Who didn’t make the decision to remove him from that position if the opportunity arose?

EDIT: I’m not really sure why people are downvoting this. I’m not saying the CEO was innocent, I’m saying he’s not the only one who holds the guilt for the decision.

I think it’s a good question that everyone should be asking regularly

Most capitalist societies draw the line somewhere before “Gaining capital through the Sexual exploitation of children is ok”

Aren’t you concerned at all with the large number of people that are under represented by their choices in the voting booth?

Yes, but they should still vote. Anyone who didn’t vote decided that they’re okay with Trump. Generally, anyone not okay with Trump who didn’t vote is either stupid, ignorant, or lying about not being okay with Trump being elected.

State level electoral reform will give more political parties the chance to be involved in future elections with no chance of a spoiler effect.

Yeah, I agree. But you don’t have that. So we work with the system we have.

Who could say no to more democracy? Who could possibly be against ensuring their fellow country men/women/and more are fully represented to the best of our ability? Republicans? Yes, of course they are against democracy. How about the democratic party? Do they support democracy?

If you think that Trump is worse than the Democrat candidate, then you vote Democrat. Deciding not to vote doesn’t give you more democracy, it gives you less.

More political parties means more chances to beat the Republicans. More political parties means more people are involved in politics. More people being involved in politics statistically means more votes for the democratic party.

Not with FPTP. I’m in Canada, where we realistically have a 3-party system. What happens in some parts of the country (including Federally) is the Left vote gets split and the Right vote often ends up winning.

Why is the DNC saying no to these easy extra votes? Why wouldn’t democrats use every tool at their disposal to defeat the republicans?

If it were that simple and easy, they’d do it. But it’s not. If the Right doesn’t split too, and if FPTP isn’t replaced with something better, then the Left has just screwed itself out of ever being elected again.

“but I couldn’t vote for the Democrats in good faith!!!”

Well now you’ve helped elect Trump. Hope that aligns with your morals!

(General “you”, not you specifically)

The title of the article says “How”, not “Why”.

But if I were to take a guess before reading the article (and therefore not having the specific context), the answer to “Why” is probably “Because they have more money”.

EDIT: After looking through the webpage, I’m going to change my guess to “It might’ve been less money than other studies that had better findings”.

$500 per month means you can quit that second job you took. It means you can focus on saving, and maybe you’ve got some more time to be able to cook dinner (rather than order fast food). So you’re spending less.

It’s not enough money to reskill/go back to school. It’s not enough money to risk losing your shitty job by spending the time looking for a better one.

They gave enough money to help, but not enough to see the major benefits.

This is still an important study because it can help determine the “right amount” that people need to get the optimal benefit for society.

Is it illegal to ask if Musk is a pedophile?

Big words from the button holding up Canada’s pants

Being bad is one thing, but a lot of people say “Well of course people think it’s bad. It’s not handing out money to people willy-nilly, so people hate it”. Some people would rather have bad things that are efficient with money (because if you have a lot of money, you can solve the problem).

Being financially inefficient may get some people to look into it and change their tune.

Going from…

I spend more money and get what I want, poor people just need to work harder and be smarter with their money.

To…

Why am I paying more money for bureaucracy when I could be paying less money for less bureaucracy? I don’t care if more people get help…I just want to be paying less.

Of course, some people would rather pay more for more red tape because they really hate the idea of poorer people having access to the things they have. But some people are not that bad.

Poverty and greed on one side, and fucked up people on both. Someone spending $130,000 over 10 years on this shit is insane from two perspectives…how can you consume this content for one, and secondly, how can you afford all that much money for this?

It doesn’t seem like the consumers are messed up by poverty. And I have no idea what’s causing them to be messed up, and therefore, I have no idea how we stop the consumers from wanting to consume.

Because like you said, as long as there’s a market, this is likely to continue due to the greed and poverty aspects on the “seller’s” side…

Hell, I’m barely on the right culturally, yet I’m often treated as if I’m far-right - especially online

If you’re barely right wing in the US, then you’re pretty far right on the scale of the developed world.

I’m Canadian, and I consider the Democrats to be a fairly right-wing party on the whole.

When you’re online, you’re working with a different scale than if you’re just in a US environment.

There are plenty of animals that have killed in cold blood. Some animals are evil assholes.

Lmao as if the Bible were an accurate source for who land should belong to. Even back when it was written, it wouldn’t have been a reliable source.