For silly reasons this would get a huge amount of play on /c/[email protected]
Nah, real “people who can’t afford [blank] are just lazy” energy here. You have no idea what others have to do in their day to day lives. To some, working 50 hours a week would be a luxury, let alone time to go to school.
He’s scratching his asshole.
Not to mention hell for your blender. Bones…aren’t exactly “puréeable.” Any blade would get dull pretty fast when going through human body parts.
Some people.
Just saying. That specific framing at this specific time? I know it’s a fairly common way of referencing the admin—for an NYT story. But it was just very, very telling for some random internet comment to call it that in reference to this situation at this time. It just seemed very much like showing the commenter’s hand. Subtle, but painfully apparent.
You think the cost of eggs has something to do with defense spending?
Also, when one country just straight up invades another, it can be pretty easy to choose which side is the aggressor and thus less worthy of support. But that’s just me.
I just want to point out how interesting it is that this comment called it the “Biden-Harris administration.” Interesting.
When you don’t wanna wake up? Everything is fucked up and everybody sucks?
I don’t think those are the ones you need to worry about—or, should I say, that are the more professional ones. The real ones are the ones who act like people, not businesses. You get random messages that say “hey! I lost my work phone and transferred the numbers, but I don’t remember whose number this is.” Or find a way to send a picture of a pretty girl and say, “remember me? We exchanged numbers a while ago!” Or some shit like that. I think those are the more effective and dangerous ones. I get a lot of those.
You say it’s assuming based on personal belief. I say it’s applying the innate human ability to recognize patterns.
I could make the argument that you’re carrying water for Amazon by ever thinking they deserve the benefit of the doubt. I believe the worker. That’s it. You don’t. You’re calling it irresponsible basically, and to some degree I get that. But the benefit of the doubt is a benefit they’ve squandered too many times. It’s less responsible to apply an illogical rule after it’s proven false.
But no matter what fuck them. If I find out later the story was false—which happens plenty with more verified stories from larger outlets—my opinion of them won’t change for the better. It hasn’t changed for the worse believing it. It’s just to be expected at this point. You can call that irresponsible , I say it’s just believing what we’ve been shown over and over and over. And not just from Amazon, but from the increasingly invasive late stage surveillance capitalist world we live in and nearly all of its corporate representatives.
Say wha-
Are you just shilling for corpos or something? What exactly are you talking about.
That’s exactly what this is. Trying to seek the truth while they spin false narratives. And you’re siding with the people who are literally just professional false narrators. Sowing doubt about unflattering stories is literally a PR person’s main job. And you’re saying “well, they denied it! Why is this a story?” It just makes no sense. Unfortunately, right now it’s just the word of an employee vs the word of the PR person. Which is exactly—I might add—the way the no bathroom breaks thing started. You’re just deciding to give the corp the benefit of the doubt. I’m choosing to believe the believable story about them being awful (as the company has proven to be over and over and over.)
How exactly does my just happening to believe the employee over the PR person “confuse people about the real issues” and “actively discredit” myself and “create a false reality.” Like, for real, it seems like you’re spinning PR right now. But you’re just bad at it.
You mean when a free inebriated traveler can’t operates their conveyance freely without being detained