Seems that’s an insult to the rat.

This is the thing.

While I doubt it’ll have any actual difference being seen by anyone anywhere, if this killing were followed up by a few more, or even a dozen more in short order, you would see change.

Most of it not the kind we’d hope for (tightened security, lockdown corridors for high profile individuals, even less access and interface with these people, etc…not concessions to decency, honesty, civility, humanity, etc.) but you bet your ass that it’d be living rent free in the back of every CEO and billionaire on the planet for a long time.

I like how you missed the “our legal system” when giving examples entirely outside the legal system in which this killing took place.

I feel like this is very situation dependent.

That may be the case in your company or industry, but not everywhere.

In my experience there’s been a big difference between a general resume I’m uploading to a place like a LinkedIn or Indeed (and letting the recruiters come to me), using that uploaded resume to apply to job postings on that site, and sending resume/application to specific companies on their site.

For the first one, hell no, no cover letter. How would that even work? No cover letter is better than a generic one.

For applying for specific postings on these sites? For me it depends on just how good the opportunity is. If I feel like there’s some sort of special connection that makes me tailor made for the role, the money is great, it’s doing really interesting work, or a company I really want to work for? Absolutely I’ll include a cover letter. I’m just looking to get out of a shit job, or the role doesn’t really move the needle, but I think it might be a good fit? Nah, just hit that quick apply button and move on.

But if I’m reaching out to a company directly?

Cover letter every time (unless they specifically say not to). If they don’t want it, they won’t read it, but I’ve never felt like it hurt my chances, and in a few interviews, they’ve specifically mentioned something about it.

It would absolutely be Dr. Spaceman!

An atlatl for grenades!

A splatlatl, if you will.

It’s looking more and more like this term will be “Celebrity Apprentice: Washington”.

Which, as sad as that is, is still preferable to the alternative where he has a small inner circle of actually smart far right strategists, who he trusts completely and follows their recommendations to the last detail.

I don’t know that it holds true across the board, but for Trump at least, it appears that in the right wing you get smarts or charisma/a following…but not both.

Trump is a flashy moron who appeals to the GOP base, which is comprised largely of morons. They need a moron at the top of the ticket to speak the language of their base, but in the process they’re stuck with a moron at the top when they win.

They’ll still do damage, no doubt, but I feel like the biggest check on Trump’s power is that he’s too stupid to wield it to maximum effect.

Jokelahoma

“I want things to be worse for everyone who isn’t exactly like me.”

You’re the worst kind of person.

I feel like most people I have heard talking about them while supporting Trump seem to know that tariffs are taxes, but have no concept of how they play out in a real economic situation. Most fall into one or both of two camps:

A) Tariffs are taxes, but they’re taxes for companies not individuals, and they’re only applied to importing, so they won’t affect me.

B) Tariffs are taxes for foreign companies, to level the playing field and keep American business competitive. Since the companies that have to pay it are foreign, it won’t affect me.

Spoiler alert, guys: no matter where the tax is levied in the system, the consumer is the only person who ever pays for it, since they’re the only ones that can’t pass that cost on to anyone else.

Also, while this can make domestic competitors more competitive, it’s important to remember two things: first, if it works, it’s only working by making things more expensive for consumers, and second, this assumes that the domestic competitors want more business, have the ability and posture to increase their production to meet the new greater demand, and will operate in good faith. Much more likely is that they simply also increase their prices in reaction to the tariffs, so they’re not producing or selling any more volume and aren’t creating any jobs… they’re just padding their profit margins at the corporate/shareholder level while doing nothing for their employees, all while having the average consumer foot the bill.

That’s exactly what happened with the steel tariffs in the first Trump term and that’s exactly what will happen now…the only difference is that this time it seems like there will be significantly fewer economic buffers between the tariff and the consumer, so more people will more directly feel the sting here…and presumably the mental gymnastics from the MAGAts will be even sadder in their attempts to somehow make it not a criticism of their orange leader’s incompetence.

Aaaaand those parents of those Gen Z kids probably said what they said because when they were kids, their parents told them to follow their dreams and do whatever they wanted to do, so they believed them and they went to art school and didn’t work hard, then they got to the recession and lost their job (or never got it in the first place) because their degree was irrelevant for almost any job out there, and then they had to compete and improve in order to get a decent job to make ends meet as they tried their best to raise their little Gen Z kid.

There’s also plenty of room in there for less malicious situations as well (not that the malicious ones you speak of aren’t happening…they are…but there’s other cases as well).

I think a lot of the problems arise based on differing expectations, and ideas about what a “conversation” entails.

Too often, it seems like a conversation means “let me voice my grievances, assign blame, and explain my ideas about why it’s like that and what should be done…and didn’t you dare to disagree with me or question anything or point out flaws in my logic, because this is my space!”

And hey, you’re free to do that…but that ain’t a conversation. Conversation means you don’t get to dictate the terms completely to everyone else.

I feel like those who do this do know, deep down, that they don’t want a conversation at all… but “everyone shut up, let me say my thing, then agree with me” tends to draw in a smaller audience. You might be right, you might be wrong, but, “Listen to me and don’t say anything I don’t like.” isn’t a conversation.

Telling a person wandering through the desert “I also get thirsty” maybe deflects from the issue at hand.

Or… That may be a show of support, in sharing of a common burden, a message of, “You are not alone in this struggle.”

Rather than always seeing it as a negative, maybe allow for the possibility that it’s coming from a different place.

Honestly, I feel like this whole sentiment of, “Don’t attempt to bring any context into a conversation. Only stick strictly to what one person has decided to talk about.” is not only counterproductive in that moment, but also in the medium and long term has a marked effect in shutting down future conversations about difficult and uncomfortable topics.

I mean, how many times does a person get into a conversation that starts with, “Can we talk about X?” or “Let’s have an open, honest discussion about Y?”…only to add something to that conversation and be told, “No, you’re wrong for bringing that up. We’re only talking about X and why it’s the worst thing ever.”… before they get to the point where the next time someone says, “Can we talk about Z?” they just say, “No, sorry. Not interested.”?

For me, while I get where the post is coming from, a lot of the narrative seems to revolve around the dynamic of:

“We need to have an open dialog about XYZ. Let’s have a conversation.”

“Okay, then here’s ABC for context, as a comparison to XYZ.”

“Actually I’m here to talk about XYZ, not ABC. And you’re the problem for not strictly limiting this open conversation to the specific scope I want to consider.”

Like… you can either ask for open discussion or you can say, “Everybody shut up and listen to what I have to say, and unless you’re opening your mouth to completely agree with me in every way, don’t bother because I’m not here for anything other than letting you all know what I think.”

I’m not saying that the points are wrong or bad, just that it’s a bad look to start out with talking about an interest in having a dialogue, then as soon as there’s any expansion of the scope of discussion, suddenly being unhappy that there’s thoughts different from where it started out, and playing the victim or worse, blaming whoever took the invitation for an open dialogue at face value and engaged in good faith.

I know Lemmy isn’t the place to speak badly of anyone far to the left, but honestly?

If they aren’t going to be persuaded to vote Harris by the other side of the ticket, I’m not optimistic they’ll be persuaded by people on the Internet being sweet and polite to them.

So imo, who gives a shit about insulting them? It’s pretty clear OP wasn’t intending a post like this to win hearts and minds.

Interesting that it works the other way…I assume that in that scenario, there’s also no guarantee that the table would be anywhere close to level in whatever position eliminates wobble?

This is one of those things that works in a simulated environment but not in practice in the real world.

That’s just so wildly not true that I can’t believe you didn’t work it out for yourself in the time it took you to type that up.

To test your theory, envision a floor that is a perfectly level pane of glass. Then picture a 4 legged table where one leg is just an eighth inch shorter than the other 3.

You can spin that table all day and there’s never going to be a position where it doesn’t wobble.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Marjorie Taylor Greene looks like the second or third pic from an Animorphs cover.

As beautifully as the name fits, I feel bad for the actual muskrats of our creeks and marshes.