PaintedSnail

I tip when there is actual service. Deliver my pizza so I don’t have to drive out to get it? Sure, I’ll tip. Making sure I have enough napkins and my coffee is kept topped up? Absolutely there’s a tip. Making the food and handing it to me at the counter? That’s not service, that’s just giving me what I paid for, so no tip.

It would be nice if tipping went away for the service jobs at well and they were paid a proper wage, but that isn’t happening any time soon. Long term changes can’t sacrifice short term needs to the point where there is no long term left to change, and waiters need to eat.

Lucky. I have my PS3, and I’m having a horrible time finding decent replacement controllers. You can’t use the new DualShocks, and compatible controllers you can buy are built so cheaply they don’t work very well.

Nah. That would piss off the mailroom employees, but they don’t control who gets sent mail. The weight costing money does hurt the people who make the marketing decisions, though.

Blame Kellogg

You speak to them of how they aren’t an island. You speak to them of how even a recession-proof job is still subject to the rising costs felt by everyone. You speak to them of how these rising costs have over time reduced the actual value of what they’ve been paid, even with regular cost of living increases. You speak to them of how they have to work harder now for the same results. You speak to them of how much less stress having a good safety net provides, since a recession is not the only way one can fall on hard times. You speak to them of how a small decrease in take-home pay results in a much larger decrease in living expenses, resulting in a net gain.

You speak to them of how they need not be the sacrificial lamb, that they deserve to travel and learn and have a good life as well; and that their family should not have to give that up either to protect their health and well being.

You speak to them of how helping everyone is good for everyone, including themselves. The goal is to raise the standard of living across the board.

deleted by creator

That does come with the unavoidable side effect that the majority of the people will simply not participate. It then follows that sites like Reddit will continue to be the place where the majority of the people will go.

If your goal is to participate in small communities and you are okay with the slow pace of those communities, then that’s fine. If your goal is to move people away from corporate-sponsored media for whatever reason, then this won’t work.

Well, how does it feel to wnt?

And can be properly gutted and de-veined.

I believe the intent is to use appdata for user-specific configs and programdata for system-wide configs.

My response would be that if you cannot explain your position, then you cannot defend it, and therefore you do not understand it yourself. This implies that you are simply feeling you way into your position using gut instincts, which are easily created and manipulated without a reasonably sound argument. An ad on TV, a op-ed piece only half heard, a slew of biased headlines, and more all contribute to these gut feelings without providing a rational base.

In short, I reject your claim that complicated positions cannot be explained. Yes, many can’t be easily explained, but you should still be able to explain and defend them.

So when the position is challenged and you can’t defend it because you have only these gut feelings at the core, you fall back on the belief that anyone would have the same feelings eventually. This is, of course, not true.

I hate that phrase so much.

It sole purpose is to belittle and dismiss the person you are talking to.

It tells the person that they are obviously unable to understand because of some unrelated trait. It’s an ad-hominim that just shuts down the conversation.

It’s only used by people that cannot actually defend their position, but rather than continue to discuss it, they would rather just shut out the other person.

It’s them telling the other person “you are less than me which is why you are wrong, and you must simply accept that because you cannot possibly understand how I am right.”

Not standing up to worse makes it more difficult to move away from less bad because now you have to deal with worse before to can get back to dealing with less bad.

Around me, Domino’s is good enough emergency pizza, and cheap enough if you use one of their coupon deals and pick it up yourself.

On a scale of 0 being a cockroach pit and 10 being a mom and pop shop in Chicago, they’re about a 5.5. It would be better if they cut down on the salt.

Slippery soap all over the floor would complicate matters.

OP: posts example of Republicans taking credit for things they opposed

ITT: “Roads are bad!”

Kinda missing the point, here.

This is why you can never disprove creationism sufficiently to convince a young Earth creationist. The hypothesis is unfalsifiable.

It also has built-in Facebook Container to isolate Facebook links.

https://newrepublic.com/post/187332/trump-biden-tough-netanyahu

When Trump says that Biden should not be holding Netanyahu back (regardless of whether or not he is) and that Netanyahu is doing a good job, then it can’t be much more clear that Trump is going to enable even more.

You know, at first I was thinking that this is a really bad take. But then I realized something: this is a classic trolley problem.

Sparing the details because you probably already know them, it comes down to a choice: you can do nothing and five people will die, or you can actively perform an action and only one person will die. The only choice you have is to do nothing or do something.

So the problem becomes: which is the morally correct choice? On one hand, does doing nothing absolve you of the five deaths you could have avoided? On the other, does actively participating make you responsible for the one death even if it was to save five?

Back in the real world, you have the same choice. Since voting for a third party that has no chance of winning is functionally equivalent to not voting, it plays out the same way. You can do nothing and the genocide gets worse, or you can actively participate and try to reduce the damage. Which is the moral choice? Which will help you sleep at night?

That is a question philosophers have struggled with for centuries, and there’s no good answer. From my personal perspective, doing nothing IS a choice, so no matter what I do I’m still an active participant. Therefore I will choose to minimize the damage.

Yes, it’s bullshit that the current administration hasn’t takes a tougher stance on the conflict. But it will be worse under Trump, as demonstrated by both his words and his actions when he was last in office. So the question is: which will help you sleep at night: doing nothing and telling yourself that you are not responsible when Trump wins, or doing something even though you know it won’t be enough?

As powerless members of the masses, it’s the best we can do.