immuredanchorite [he/him, any]

No, I think the expression it plays off of is “nothing-burger” which is more common. Like, when everyone is expecting a very bad or very good thing to happen and nothing comes of it: “Well, that was a big nothing-burger” … that and leftist online discourse calling the US “burgerland” or the burger-reich

if you are really thinking about quitting, then you should be frank and professional and make sure as shit you are using email to create some evidence as the the conversation. You should try CC’ing her boss if you don’t mind making them potentially more angry. If you have HR you could CC them. As for your email, I would phrase it in a more innocent sounding way: Boss, I would really like some clarity on what you have been asking me to do. I understand what you told me a few days ago, that you do not want me to work any extra hours, and I am fine with that if that is what is being asked of me. However, when I am assigned a new job at 16:45, this becomes impossible to complete safely or legally, along with my other duties, before clocking out at 17:00. It takes at least 15 minutes to return the forklift and return to the clock. I would really like to respect what you are asking of me, but it seems like the two things you are asking are contradictory. Last evening, you sent several jobs to me and then canceled them, and you sounded upset with me over the phone. If you could provide me with some clarity on which ask to prioritize (clocking out at 5pm or finishing jobs I have been assigned at the end of my shift) I will be sure to do whichever is asked of me.

edit: forgot to add: the point is to create some level of evidence either for an unemployment claim or wrongful termination claim. If they are asking you to break labor laws in email its an open and shut case for your as long as you save the emails

You are already mistaken that you have any agency in the trolly problem. You also don’t even seem to understand what the choice was.

“ding don purity tests” like… not committing genocide… got it

edit: also wanted to point out that you served up two more thought-terminating cliches in your response… the democrats aren’t good, they are actually also doing bad things. They murdered something like half a million Palestinians— we all watched it happen— and then they told us, “who are you going to believe? me or your lying eyes?” … All of this was after they dramatically and intentionally created more childhood poverty in their own country. They aren’t “good” at all, they don’t want to be good. They want to serve their own faction of billionaires donors who have a vested interest in things not changing for the better at all.

Is this a bit? Nobody here is happy with Trump winning, but you are exemplifying the very reason the Democrats lost so badly. This sort of intellectual dishonesty and over reliance on thought terminating cliches makes everyone who gives a shit about the real world annoyed and off-put. This is the sort of bullshit that makes people happy to see the Democrats lose, regardless of who wins.

The truth is that Harris didn’t give a shit about winning. They would rather lose than do the right thing. The DNC doesn’t care about you or me, they actually have a tremendous amount of contempt for their voters. They would rather “win over” Republicans than do anything remotely helpful to working class people. They don’t want to bother lying that they are for universal healthcare. They don’t want to be in a position where they might have to expand access to abortion. They want to demand your vote in exchange for nothing. They probably won’t reverse anything Trump does in the next 4 years, because we saw for ourselves that they didn’t reverse most of his policies 4 years ago. Except for maybe the child tax credit, which increased childhood poverty by like 50%. The Democrats suck just as bad as Republicans because they are just representing another clique within the same class of billionaires, any “progressive” talk from them is and has always just been performative

I have been looking into cryptpad, but I don’t know if it is really secure/private, but it appears to be a privacy-oriented, self-host able google doc alternative: https://cryptpad.org

When the US was founded it excluded about 94% of the people from within its borders from participating. Slavery existed on a mass scale throughout the world’s early, liberal (so-called) democracies, or often their economy was subsidized by slave labor abroad in their colonies. So if slavery didn’t exist within their immediate borders, it existed for the people their political & economic system subjugated. The idea that industrialization or “democracy” (not even sure how you are defining it, really) came into existence suddenly isn’t accurate, although there are revolutionary periods where social change came suddenly or breakthroughs in technology that occurred that reshaped social production. Those didn’t ever occur in a vacuum, and those discoveries were only able to affect the social system in so far as the social system was developed in such a way that they could be utilized… Often those big revolutionary changes in the social system were due to contradictions (compounding antagonistic relationships) within the social system itself becoming untenable. Trying to shoe-horn a somewhat obscure military “law” isn’t really going to explain how those changes occurred in a realistic way, because human society is much more complicated than that. You seem to want to reinvent the wheel here, you should try reading Marx, you might find it quite satisfying.

On your last point, the French Revolution was crushed ultimately, although the new social order retained changes that were beneficial to its new ruling class. But weapons themselves aren’t necessarily going to singularly shape the way in which social conflict resolves. Military technology is important to these developments, but ultimately a part of the larger social system that is always changing to either maintain itself or undergoing revolutionary change.

It is so interesting because I was engaging with you in a good faith, laying out an argument about why this might be more straightforward then you are letting on. But you called my argument imaginary and then called the instance I am a part of a garbage heap? Who is being uncivil?

I don’t understand how this was an issue of “lack of nuance” or “black and white” thinking… Either the term is racist or it is not? … Is it disparaging a group of people based on racial/cultural/ethnic stereotypes? Yeah. Is it reinforcing and normalizing those stereotypes and upholding an ideal “normal” that is associated with being part of the dominant group? Yeah. Does it seem petty and pedantic? Racism generally does take on a petty and pedantic character… When you go out of your way to deny these things, you are only doing it in service of upholding racist norms. You don’t have to continue to defend it, you can acknowledge that it could cause a community harm and move on with your life by avoiding the harmful behavior. Changing the way you speak might seem annoying or like an imposition, but if you think that racism is harmful and want to challenge it by being anti-racist, ultimately people have to change the way they think, speak, and behave… but it is a good change. Embrace it.

there is no such thing as “brigading” in federation. it is just people commenting you don’t agree with

i am pretty sure kids die every year because of that shit