Also ear spoons.

It’s for directly consuming the mug o’ ranch we traditionally serve with a small plate of garnish weeds in the US.

Idk, I never had problems getting the business part of the spoon into my mouth.

Never could get the whole handle too though…

Ohh THATS why we keep reading about R gerrymandered districts being struck down, then delayed, redrawn, struck down, and delayed until they are used again for the next election because no time for with literally zero recourse after consolidation of power. Pretty sure that list now includes in the last 5 years NC, OH, and VA minimally.

Where teeth?

Read the comments and see how many supercilious shitbirds claim to be democrats: “if they don’t take the high road, I will stay home and cry with my fellow lawful good otherkin because two wrongs!” Dems don’t want to lose them or the mythical center leaning conservative that would just vote D if they were a LITTLE further right.

Cut bait, be the dick, fuck the assholes, fuck the pussies. Time to get busy living or get busy dying, instead of getting busy sucking each other’s super noble wing wangs while fascism takes over.

Spoiler alert: if you are the only one with principles and you have no teeth you don’t have anything either.

Game theory: tit for tat

Cool, this thread is about gerrymandering though.

Yes. Play as absolutely dirty as possible.

That’s the only way to get laws to outlaw loopholes. There’s no incentive for cheat-to-win to stop cheating because the losing side gets really noble about it.

I don’t fundamentally disagree with you. I would contend that the problem is not that billionaires exist, it’s that there is a legal path to becoming a billionaire.

This post is a combo shame of other poors like us who like a product generated by a billionaire and a yell at the sky because TS (and whoever the other person was) aren’t reading it anyway. You can be mad at billionaires who sit on their hoard and don’t give it to society for free, or we can all say enough is enough and make it a call to action to DO something. Like vote and participate in government for example.

Ok fair enough. That wasn’t my read of it.

Ok so what, posts like this are to shame billionaires into giving their money away because if they don’t you will call them pieces of shit?

I’m sure that will definitely work.

Maybe instead of that we can work on being involved and elect people from the ground up who will prioritize people, and consider a tax code with some teeth. It’s not nearly as glamorous as meming though. Pointing your finger at billionaires for existing even though they will never see it is a bold strategy. Probably better to be pointing your finger at your lazy ass friends for not participating in even one day a year of contributing to society by voting.

So… The endgame here is that billionaires CAN exist, but any of them who don’t give away their wealth are assholes? So are we all here on these posts just to peer pressure billionaires to give away money?

That’s certainly going to be a helpful approach.

You also can’t snap your fingers and take everyone off the street. Sure, you can pay for places and help, but people aren’t obliged to take it. Unless you’re arguing for forcing that situation?

I understand the argument is simply “billionaires shouldn’t exist”, but that’s a job for the government by way of taxation. There’s no reason to point fingers at TS, she sells something people want really bad for some reason. Instead, point your finger at any of your asshole friends who don’t vote or show up to help the cause.

Otherwise what? TS sucks because she’s disgustingly rich, and the only way out is to give it all away? And then of course all other billionaires will follow suit?

These posts really seem like nothing more than “it’s cathartic to yell at the sky, and it’s even better if some people like the sky”.

I don’t think anyone is deluded enough to think for-profit insurance does anything altruistic. There is comparison at all between UHC and a charity.

In a purely ideological way I see and understand what you’re saying. In practice what I read from your message is “Charities should pay less and take who they can get”. Maybe there’s a competent altruist, and then maybe charities and nonprofits that don’t get competent staff at a “charity appropriate salary point” can just… dissolve or something? And they should do that whether they have the money to pay more or not, because charities paying more money is just flat distasteful.

Or at least they have released nothing.

If an exec can work two places and one pays an exorbitant amount but the other is a good cause, it would be altruistic to go to the good cause. If in the same situation the two places pay the same, I’m not sure it’s greed if you don’t give some back. The problem is that c suite folks in general are chronically overpaid. So the argument is that people who are very competent but don’t care about a cause should… take less money on principle I guess?

I mean sure I agree it seems ridiculous for charities to pay 8 figure salaries, but from a micro economics standpoint it doesn’t really make sense to walk away from an 8 figure salary to work for a charity either. Maybe it makes sense if you are already retired or it is your life passion, but that pool of people may be pretty small and maybe not hugely competitive.

So why don’t you go work for a charity for 25k american a year? I’m sure you can do a much better job than overpaid C staff and pass all the rest of the money on to the actual cause, right? After all, you went to one of the best unis in the WHOLE world.

Best not give them your money then based on your principles.

Is a phone really legendary if every person you kill drops one? 🤔

The wheel weaves as the wheel wills.