Ah, they're a boomer, it's starting to make sense.
NewAcctWhoDis
Nazi
Nazi (Ukranian)
wtf is wrong with the people writing in?
random snippits
https://archive.ph/Xt18v
My grandchildren love playing Monopoly. The board game has become a great way for me to interact with them, and also a great way for them to see capitalism in all its imperfect glory. The problem: One of the cards a player may draw when landing on Community Chest is “Bank Error in Your Favor. Collect $200.” Right when we first started playing the game together, I removed that card from the set. I did so because it taught the wrong lesson. The proper thing to do when there is a bank error in your favor is to report it and return the money.
It sounds as if you’ve been part of an effort to persuade your condo association to stop using pesticides, herbicides and other chemical treatments that have become commonplace in landscape maintenance. Pesticides that are sold legally are authorized as safe for use if they are applied according to the manufacturer’s instructions and in compliance with the law, which may include a requirement to post warning signs for a defined period after application. (Specific information about pesticides can be found on the E.P.A.’s website.) You and some fellow residents have come to a different conclusion about their safety — fair enough. Your concern for how such substances could affect others and the environment is admirable.
Still, unless your condo association has made a public commitment to chemical-free landscaping, buyers will assume the use of conventional lawn-care methods, the sort of thing you’d find in any big-box-store garden aisle. If the association is violating regulations — say, by failing to post required signage — you can push for compliance or notify the relevant authorities. But the association’s practices aren’t hidden. And when it comes to selling your unit, your responsibility doesn’t extend to reshaping a buyer’s worldview.
As a White Man, Can I Date Women of Color to Advance My Antiracism?
Here’s what’s controversial among my friends: I want to prioritize dating women of color. I’m after a cross-cultural relationship. I believe very strongly that one of the main ways to combat racism is through relationships. Part of me thinks that I will always be somewhat disappointed if what ends up becoming one of the most important relationships in my life is with another white person. If someone is a woman of color, that checks a box for me in a real way. I am seeking to be antiracist in all my relationships.
Our Gardener Wants to Avoid Taxes. Should We Pay Him in Cash?
Beyond that? I get your anger, but the way to fix a flawed system is through democratic reform, not some individual act of noncompliance. Bear in mind, too, that people with truly modest incomes typically face very low effective tax rates and stand a good chance of receiving more back, through refundable credits, than they pay in.
How Do I Discourage My Remote Colleagues from Taking Secret Second Jobs?
Is It OK to Read a Newspaper Online When I’ve Stopped Paying for It?
You should still alert the newspaper. For all you know, the site routinely leaves accounts open for a period — possibly because it takes a while for the system to revoke access, or because they want to remind you of the value of what they provide, or, less honorably, because they want to maintain user-engagement stats for advertisers. But maybe it’s just a glitch which the newspaper needs to fix. Journalism is increasingly dependent on digital subscribers, and if a glitchy system causes the publication to lose out on subscription revenue, their business model could, as the Brits say, go pear-shaped. An honest person would send them a message telling them what has happened. Then, if the account remains open, you can use it in good conscience.
Even so, the fact that you’re still checking the content suggests it has value for you. Could your cancellation be worth reconsidering? These have been brutal times for news organizations, with a very few notable exceptions. While citizen journalism has its place, professional journalism — with its skilled reporters, photographers, editors, illustrators and more — requires real investment. Their work shows us worlds beyond our own and can subject our institutions and systems of governance to critical scrutiny. We’re already seeing the consequences of diminished local reporting, and if more newspapers fold, we’ll all pay the price. The fruits of journalism don’t come free, and they nourish our democracy.
archive link: https://archive.ph/NjTC8
spoiler
My husband’s family has a trust that owns rental properties. One of them is a commercial property with several tenants. One of the tenants is Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and they use it as a “short-term holding facility” (their description).
We receive income from the trust, which earns money from several other things as well; it’s all bundled together. Figuring out what portion of my rental income comes from the ICE client is not possible, as the family member who manages it declines to go to the trouble, which I understand is considerable.
I feel pretty horrible about getting money from an immigration prison, but I’m the only beneficiary of the trust who cares. I could resign from the trust, but my husband of 50 years would get my share — and anyway, our funds are completely mingled.
I’m not sure you can make me feel any better about this, but I’m curious about the ethics of receiving money from an entity you consider kind of evil. I went to a lot of Catholic schools, including a Jesuit university. I don’t know all the finer points, but it feels unethical. My husband and his family think this is ridiculous. What is your opinion? Is there a correct action? — Name Withheld
From the Ethicist: It’s understandable that you’re troubled. Court rulings, investigative reporting and firsthand accounts have shown that ICE has acted in ways that not only harm noncitizens but also erode the rights of citizens.
Even so, the existence of an immigration-enforcement agency isn’t inherently the problem. Most people accept that states have a right to control their borders and that there’s a legitimate role for authorities charged with enforcing immigration policy, especially when it comes to those who have committed serious crimes. ICE also investigates trafficking, smuggling and other transnational offenses that clearly require federal oversight.
The core issue is less the agency’s mandate than its methods. Well-documented abuses — denials of due process, inhumane conditions and politically motivated enforcement — have undermined public trust and raised serious ethical concerns. The worry is not whether immigration law should be enforced but how, and at what human cost.
The holding facilities ICE uses are part of this system: They house people awaiting deportation, court appearances or further investigation. What’s in dispute isn’t the need for such spaces; it’s the treatment of detainees within those spaces. Many facilities have drawn criticism for degrading or dangerous conditions. Still, as a beneficiary of a trust that rents a property to ICE, your leverage is minuscule. You can’t unilaterally break the lease. Even if you could, ICE would simply relocate its facility. And while moral complicity is a serious concern, receiving income from a legal tenant, however problematic, isn’t generally considered an ethical transgression on its own.
We’re all entangled in systems we don’t control. As citizens, we’re already implicated in the actions of government agencies that act in our name and that we help fund. If those actions are shameful, they cast a shadow on all of us. But that shared entanglement also opens the door to shared responsibility — and response.
You mentioned your Jesuit university. You’ll probably remember, then, the emphasis placed on “discernment” — not just abstract moral reasoning but the habit of examining one’s own position in the world, with clarity and courage, and then acting on that understanding. So here’s one constructive path: If this money feels tainted, redirect it. Use it to support organizations that advocate for the rights you believe ICE has violated — groups like the A.C.L.U., the American Immigration Council or local legal-aid nonprofits that provide support for detainees. Back candidates pushing for humane immigration reform. It’s a way to turn your sense of passive complicity into a measure of active redress. You may not be able to change the trust’s lease, but you can choose what your share of the proceeds stands for.
I really thought Greta would turn shitlib when she grew up, I'm sorry for doubting her.
Adam's TV show "Adam Ruins Everything" started with CollegeHumor before moving to TruTV. He goes back to long before the the Dropout days and appears on a bunch of their shows.
Have to get pretty far before they admit it
The reputation of draft offices is often overshadowed by accusations — at times justified — of forced conscription without compliance with fundamental civil rights, as well as ill-treatment of conscripts in recruitment centers.
But don't worry about it
"We can argue about the methods of mobilization, justice, and the human element in the enlistment offices. And there will be truth in each of these disputes. But war does not wait for us to agree," Kukharchuk added.
A little off topic but worth noting
"No real fact suggests that the hot war phase should stop somewhere. Our imagination wants it, but we are not there," Osadchuk said.
How's that working out for them?
The admins also made it the personal playground of a user who should have been outright banned.
The coward made a throwaway just to post this.
Temp bans do hurt income a bit because of recurring subscriptions, if a subscription would renew while the streamer is banned it falls off.
Edit: her ban was 24 hours, that's just 3% of subs, this is barely a slap on the wrist.
I want my donations back, Bernie