Chocolate with raisins is super common though…

Yep. Doesn’t even have to be a group of armed people doing “maybe illegal” things. It can be a single person doing absolutely illegal and horrific things…like Uvalde.

Maybe not the best parallel but a good point nonetheless.

A more apt comparison might be:

“What’s the best all-beef hot dog I can buy at my local supermarket?”

“Ugh! OMG! Don’t do that to yourself! Why would you even want to bother with eating beef if that’s the shit you’re going to put in your body?! Just get some Japanese A5 Wagyu ribeye and thank me later!”

Most jobs like that, or really any pay scheme other than piece work or an hourly wage usually has the process of:

1. You can take as much PTO as you like.
2. You can take as much PTO as you like…provided you get all your work done.
3. You work like a dog, get all your work done, and take time off.
4. Since you were able to get everything done and have time left over to not work, your boss increases your workload, so now you have to work like a dog, all the time, or else you’ll never get everything done.

It’s like playing chess, and while the other player can’t change the rules as they go, but a condition for playing with them is that they get two moves every turn.

The artist has perfectly captured the feline character when being scolded here: annoyed, defeated…but utterly incapable of shame or remorse.

It was pure fan service but both Parks and Recreation as well as Schitt’s Creek can go on that list.

Also, it’s not just targeted at people perceived as “other” in many of these traditionally masculine realms.

Often, it seems like so many of these men see patronizing and second guessing as the only ways to establish and defend their own credibility on their given subject. It’s not just the “oh it’s a woman/someone who doesn’t look the part…I bet they don’t know what they’re doing” factor, it’s also that they’re a product of the culture that tells them that the most important thing is that they’re perceived as more knowledgeable than anyone else, and that the only way to establish that is to have their own opinions and views on every subject in the field, and then aggressively defend and promote those views while dismissing, undermining, and discouraging any views that conflict with theirs…or the people who hold those views.

And it’s not just big picture “world view” type stuff. It’s crap like, “which brand makes the best widget in your hobby?”. If they’re a “brand red” guy, they feel the need to not only let everyone know that they like brand red…they have to let everyone know that brand red is the best, and that it’s objective, and that if you prefer brand blue, you’re just a clueless newbie who hasn’t learned yet. If you like brand green, well you’ve just been taken in by their marketing. And if you’re one of those brand orange people, well you know what they say about those people…

My thought is more along the lines of, “Regardless of his talent level, is this really the kind of person that his country wants representing them on the world stage?”

Like, okay even if he’s the absolute best by an order of magnitude…if he were from my country, I’d rather lose every match than win on the talents of someone like that.

Not only that, but there’s a 100% chance they sell this shit to you as a forever mouse, then in a few years if it’s not making them money hand over fist, they’ll discontinue it and keep your money.

I mean, that’s logical, practical, reasonable thinking there…but I don’t want to have to hope and trust that someone who was able to think themselves into mugging me can be counted upon to think themselves out of doing anything else.

they struggle to reload a sex shooter

They make a pill for that!

The best self defense firearm is a small, dependable 9mm that you won’t be sad about losing forever, should you ever need to use it.

To throw at the snail as a last ditch defense.

You said, and I quote:

if they gave me a lump sum

That’s payment. For your work.

It doesn’t change that fact whether they are paying you before the work is done or after. It’s still a transaction. You contribute time and effort to them, they contribute compensation to you for that time and effort.

And everyone needs money, it’s just that some have more than others.

If you hit the lottery tomorrow and won 500 million dollars, maybe not immediately, but you would almost definitely not continue to work at your job volunteering your time and labor to help them make money (and if you would, you shouldn’t, because that devalues the labor of your coworkers and everyone else in your field).

Mind you, I’m not at all saying this is a bad thing. If anything, it’s a good thing. I’m not sure why you seem to feel the need to make yourself an exception, but really, the only people I’ve encountered who are an exception to this rule are people who are both working in a field where the labor itself is intrinsically rewarding (teachers, caregivers, medical professionals, artists, chefs, brewers, etc.) and would be financially supported by another when the pay stopped (usually a spouse but sometimes wealthy parents, etc.).

And in those cases, it’s really not even an exception so much as it is splitting the circumstance across two people, because even then, they’re just getting a free ride to do what they want and ignore the need for money that drives the labor market.

I’m also certainly not saying “everyone hates their job”. Lots of people enjoy their work and that’s great! But for the vast majority of people, if they were no longer to receive a paycheck from their employer, they’d do something else. Either because they needed money, or because there are things they’d enjoy even more than their job that they can do with that time. It’s not a criticism, just an observation.

That’s a very creative and roundabout way of saying you do expect to be paid for your work and would quit your job if they quit paying you.

So if your job sent you an email tomorrow that said they were going to stop paying you from here on out, indefinitely, you’d quit working for them and do something you wanted to do instead, even if it was broadly similar to what you are currently doing for them?

Thanks, that’s exactly what I’m talking about.

Thank you.

It shouldn’t (still) surprise me, but it always does…when people do drastically misunderstand or misinterpret economic information.

I feel like the only way to respond to that shit is with a simple, “Nobody has wanted to work ever.”

If either: people had the option to get paid at their current rate but not have to do their current job at all anymore…or the opposite, that they were expected to keep working at their current job but were told they’d no longer receive any pay for it ever again…how many do you think would still keep working at that job?

Way less than 1%.

Because (very nearly) nobody wants to work. They want money, and the most common way of getting money is… you guess it…to work.

The whole point of employment is that you’re performing a task that nobody is going to just do for free because they like it…so whomever wants that task to be done has to offer an incentive to get people to do it instead of literally anything else.

It also wouldn’t cover a meal from Uber Eats.

Definitely worse than nothing.

And the side that actually, verifiably tried to use fake electors to subvert the will of the people (even against the stacked deck of the electoral system that benefits their side)…is also the side that loves to spread constant (and constantly disproven) lies about their opponents’ voter fraud.

Like…even if I agreed with their platform on the issues, the GOP would still not get my vote based on the way they try to get that vote…in order to gain power…to realize their goal…of getting to a point where my vote loses its power.