I’d rather maintain a conscientious minority than abandon the world entirely to assholes.

I would prefer a mix: keep the Senate composed of actual legal experts, but stock the House by sortition (also expand it to equalize the ratio of representatives to constituents).

this just increases the ratio of parents in the next generation that are shitty people, effectively strengthening fascist movements by increasing the proportionment of lil hitlers vs everyone else in the kindergarten class.

This is one of the reasons I want children despite everything. If all the conscientious people stop reproducing, the future population will be composed entirely of people raised by selfish assholes.

I saw this at a club called The Closet

I use needle nose pliers, grab the brad as close to the hinge as possible and flat against the board. Then, grab tight and use the tip of the pliers as a fulcrum.

For me, I would pick supervision.

A finger of the monkey’s paw curls, you are now supervised at all times.

I don’t interact with many wild animals on the average day, but I do go to great lengths to catch and release bugs and such when killing them would be much easier.

Right? This is a perfect application for tactical gear. Modular, expandable, easily accessible storage is ideal for baby gear. This just looks a little dumb because it doesn’t show any attachments.

I think reasonable people can disagree on this point, on whether not tipping constitutes a secondary exploitation.

No, they cannot. Disagreement here is not reasoned, it is just another example of clever people using their cleverness to justify unreasonable prior beliefs.

You can boycott a business, and write them to express that your boycott is based on their tipping policy. That would be a reasonable strategy to support the workers.

By still giving the business owners money, knowing they pay their staff sub-minimum wages based on the convention of tipping, and then not tipping, you have not communicated any disapproval to management. You have in fact directly supported the business owner exploiting their workers, and joined that exploitation for personal benefit. That’s the opposite of supporting the worker.

The result of either choice – boycotting places that pay less than minimum wage, or not tipping at those places – doesn’t change the fact that the staff are being underpaid, which is the root exploitative practice.

Yes, but boycotting those places is justifiable. Going anyway and just not tipping is actively participating in the exploitation.

The way I see it, if the place requires tips for their staff to get by, then the staff are being financially abused and I would be propping up a system of exploitation. Prioritise places that pay their staff above the minimum wage.

Second sentence is fine, feel free to boycott places that pay below minimum wage. But if you do go to an establishment that pays based on the assumption of tips, and you don’t tip, you’re just joining in the exploitation.

I mean, I like Turkish delight, but I’m not sure I’d betray my family to an evil witch for it.

I could probably honestly convince at least one of my parents of the situation, they were both big woo woo sci-fi nerds.

After that, I have a pretty good memory and could take advantage of strategic stock purchases and entering technologies.

Used to love him as a teenager rocking out to Tenacious D. Recent activity is pretty cringey though.

correcting is necessary, it should be done in such a way that actually strengthens the foundation of the point

Which is what I did when I suggested replacing “ability” with “potential”.

And frankly, I don’t think that point needs to be strengthened right now. I don’t think abandoning money is a valuable goal at this point in time. Once again, money is not the problem, greed and corruption are the problem. Getting rid of money doesn’t solve the problem, it just shuffles and transforms it.

Abandoning money is a goal for the road from socialism to communism, not the road from fascism to socialism. Flooding the dialogue with ill-timed calls to action is more dilutive to building change than critical analysis.

Women face different inequality than men. Where women are treated as valuable property, men are treated as disposable tools or dangerous threats. Feminism has done much to elevate women above valuable property, but men are still treated as disposable or dangerous.

More like correct those who enunciate point so imperfectly that it becomes a different, harmful point.

Egalitarianism is a better term.

I didn’t know how many more ways I can say the same thing Even the PSL website outlines solutions which still involve money.

Don’t say things that may lead to swaths of people jumping off metaphorical roofs. Take responsibility for your message, and refine it when problematic. Be precise.

I find it extremely ironic that you worry about scaring people off with practical details, but see no conflict in promoting a party which liberally uses poisoned leftist language. McCarthyism happened, the Cold War happened. Accurate terminology has been turned into boogeyman words.

The average American hears “socialism”, and they think of gulags and breadlines and authoritarianism. I’m not saying that’s an accurate conception, I’m just saying that’s the consequence of a century of anti-left propaganda.

If you’re worried about alienating people, start with your messaging. I fully believe that a socialist party will be substantially more successful if they embrace patriotic, market based, Christian language.

It’s not socialism in the workplace, it’s making every worker a stakeholder. It’s not UBI, it’s an investment in Americans. We’re not sissy bleeding heart libcucks obsessed with handouts, we’re spreading Jesus’ message of feeding the hungry, healing the sick, and embracing immigrants as we were immigrants in Egypt.

If you care about the persuasive content of the message, then care about it. Don’t clutch your pearls when people want their plans to be actual plans because that might scare people off, then push a party using poisoned language.

I don’t oppose the stated goals of the PSL, but you have to realize that, in America at least, socialist vocabulary is more divisive and alienating than sober, pragmatic tactics.