Do you think construction workers just do one job and then never work again??

I use mine a lot, but it’s even more frequent that I think “damn, my leatherman is in my backpack and I could really use it right now”

The 90s was when Republicans first began the scorched earth tactics against Clinton. It was when all the conspiracy theory shit started. They planted the first seeds of populism then.

I’d probably die in a car crash pretty quickly

Historically the most popular political idea is “all your problems are the fault of those guys over there”.

California: “way ahead of you bro”

Not so much the case anymore. 10 years ago yeah, but recently most cards won’t charge back interest. Interest going forward is horrendous though, so yes definitely have a plan to pay it off beforehand.

I would think, “the accuracy of that statement depends on your voting record”.

It’s usually 12 months or longer.

And the chicks with 3 boobs

I believe it was something like you do the check pulls against one card and use it to pay off another

This is completely legal and very common, in the US at least, I don’t know why people think it’s some shady thing. It’s called a balance transfer and credit card companies actually advertise low teaser rates for doing it. They want you to do it.

In my city they have a planning commission. They take into account local studies, population patterns, future construction, and ridership data. They plan out the bus routes and stops and then they have a period of public comment. If there’s a need for a new stop, residents can petition their local representatives and join commission meetings to make suggestions. Stops are usually eliminated or consolidated when ridership data indicates they’re not necessary during annual reviews.

Yeah, gen x is by far and away the best generation (saying this as a millenial).

Thanks for having a good, honest exchange.

I agree with the point you’re making about moneyed interests influencing the system we live in. All I take issue with is the philosophical idea that every bad thing that happens was explicitly intended to happen by some evil “them”.

Sometimes that’s true (prison industrial complex, for example) but more often it’s not. Often it’s bad actors undermining a system set up to do good, or taking advantage of a system that arose organically without anyone designing it.

Basically, I think the phrase “the purpose of a system is what it does” is both objectively wrong in almost every case, and a dangerous thought-terminating philosophy. Any time I see it, I call it out. If you can be convinced that “they” are intentionally harming you through some nebulous, nefarious means…it’s only a couple more steps to convince you who “they” are. Jews, immigrants, “terrorists”.

I disagree slightly (maybe pedantically) about our political system. That was explicitly designed by men we can name. It has since been influenced by other forces, and much of its original intent has been subverted. But it didn’t spring into being all by itself.

Economics I agree. While there are and have been forces attempting to guide and influence the economy, it’s always been generally out of the control of any person or group of people, short of command economies.

Both cases put the lie to the phrase, “the purpose of a system is what it does”.

First, I would SLEEP SO FUCKING MUCH

Well, this is a bit of a tangent, but the effectiveness of calling out disinformation actually correlates inversely with effort imo. It’s the typical sealion asymmetrical warfare thing. It’s a lot easier to say a lie than it is to disprove one. Mocking and insulting a disinfo statement is far more effective. Parity of effort.

In terms of “the purpose of a system is what it does”, I’m not quite sure how to start. Believing such a statement requires a level of disassociation with reality that makes intelligible discussion difficult. You’re flatly disallowing the entire possibility of someone setting up a system with a purpose, and the system failing to achieve that purpose.

The dangerous part of the theory though, is the implied malevolent intent. It’s like the evil inverse of religious “everything happens for a reason”. If a scientist comes up with a new strain of drought-resistant corn, and the corn develops a previously unknown mutation and crops fail and millions starve, well clearly that evil scientist intended to kill millions of innocent people. It’s absurd.

Calling out dangerously foolish rhetoric is a civic duty.

Primary elections never stopped being a thing