Dienervent

As one insider told me (who is not me): ‘imagine an equally sexist name was given to, say, female pundits and journalists’ … what would the reaction be?’

With the amount of misandry omnipresent in mainstream media. I’m starting to question which way is up and which is down.

Deflation is bad because you can “invest” by just keeping cash around. Which means investors aren’t contributing to economic activity.

A small amount of inflation helps, because investors understand that if they’re not investing the cash they have, then they’re essentially losing money.

High levels of inflation is bad, because prices can change so fast that it makes commerce too difficult with prices changing too frequently.

But that’s for stable levels. Salaries tend to be very vulnerable to unexpected changes in inflation/deflation because they don’t change that often and they’re not pegged to inflation. Which means if the money unexpectedly devalues by 20%, then you effectively get a 20% pay cut and it might not be easy to negation a rectification with your employer and meanwhile you’re still underpaid.

The reverse is true with unexpected deflation, you get an effective 20% pay raise and your employer can’t do anything about it except fire you or go bankrupt. This is how deflation can lead to unemployment.

So deflation might help make a bit of wealth transfer from the capitalist class to the working class. But it’s very temporary and would likely come at a great cost to the overall economy.

If you want to fix wealth inequality it’s really simple: tax the rich, regulate monopolies and oligopolies.

If you’re in a swing state. You vote for Biden.

If you’re not in a swing state, you vote third party.

Don’t not vote, by voting you make your intention and commitment very clear. Even if your third party candidate never has a chance, mainstream politicians may notice the interest in that third party candidates platform and adopt some of his/her policies.

Participate in your state’s primary elections. There’s a lot more diversity of policies there and you can make your voice heard there as well.

Participate in your city and state elections, the amount of money effort and attention placed on federal elections (especially presidential) is completely outsized compared to local elections. Which means the amount of influence that you can have as an individual relative to amount of power the offices that you have influence over is huge compared to the same calculation at the federal level.

Many politicians start at the state and municipal level. So your influence there can be very helpful. Also if Trumps gets some success at creating a authoritarian dystopia at the federal level, it can be mitigated at the state and municipal level. Just like how each state can make sure to protect the right of abortion despite the supreme court flip on the subject.

Why? Why should this person have said something about both sides?

Because failing to acknowledge the major differing and valid viewpoints in a complex situation contributes to echo chambers and radicalization which can ultimately lead to or contribute to political disfunction, civil war, war and deaths.

Because of the several layers of indirections I think it’s completely unreasonable to expect people to live up to the expectation of acknowledging differing valid viewpoints, but people who fail to do so are still engaging in shitbaggery, in my opinion, because they contribute to the deterioration of the political discourse which can have catastrophic consequences.

As I said I generally think that engaging in shitbaggery in political discourse shouldn’t harm your job /career. Unless your job relies heavily on your reputation, which lawfirms seem to weirdly believe is the case for lawyers. I personally don’t get it, a lawyer’s argument should always be just as a valid regardless of which lawyer makes the argument, but I know very little about law practice.

Why take sides at all.

Because they’ve wandered into an echo chamber and are now hyper aware of all the real bad things on side did plus a few false bad things. While all of the bad things the other side did have been downplayed or justified.

I sadly don’t know enough on the topic to say more on this. And the amount of research needed to get even an idea of “who is worse” is massive due to all the misinformation (or misleading information) on the topic everywhere.

I do know that neither side is taking a sensible approach to the problem because right wing nutbags are in charge of both sides.

I was going to say that there’s a difference between opposing Israel and supporting a massacre. But if what the article say is true, the guy never outright supported Hamas’ actions. It looks like the worst you can accuse him of is to sweep it under the rug by not mentioning it.

In the current climate and context, it is an absolute shitbag move on his part for doing that. If you’re going to condemn one side doing atrocities, you have to condemn the other as well in order to not be a shitbag in my book.

I would generally think that this should still not be sufficient cause to fire an employee in general (or rescind an offer), unless your reputation and political alignement is inherent to your job function.

I don’t know enough about how the law firms work to know for sure if this is the case here. But I’ve seen many stories of law firms letting go of low level lawyers due to them failing to maintain a certain level or reputation. Either way it’s not specific to Israel.

First of all, I’m not talking about what is. I’m talking about what should be.

But the way the law treats speech in the United States, I think is correct.

If you’re trying to immorally cause direct harm with your speech (e.g. calling Fire in a crowded theater, or organizing an insurrection) then that should be illegal.

If you’re only talking about the idea related to these, like how you think it should be legal to punch Nazis. Then that should be allowed by allow. But the people around you should call you out for being full of hate and spreading hate and that you’re really not being the good person you think you are when you’re doing this and you should stop.

This is just completely wrong. If you read past the misleading headline here:

https://nypost.com/2021/09/07/facebook-reads-and-shares-whatsapp-private-messages-report/

You’ll see that Facebook cannot, in fact, give logs to law enforcement. If you choose to report a message you’ve received and send it to Facebook, then obviously then they can read it.

Also, your claim in another comment that Facebook does not have private keys to decrypt your encrypted messages is just fantasy.

That’s only because you listen to OP’s nonsense. Meanwhile the trump supporters are in their own echo chambers and thing you’re either a pedo or a pedo defender so you deserve to get punched too.

The right, especially Trump supporters are dangerous, not because of their “weird sexuality” or misogyny. But because they’re trying to dismantle democracy. Free speech is an essential component of democracy and they’ll go after it the second they get an ounce of power.

You talk about not wanting to allow hate speech, yet the speech you just read is making you want to punch people. That’s what hate speech looks like.

I’m confused as to which shit you’re referring to. OP’s rant or Trump’s speeches? Either way, if you let someone start controlling which speech is allowed and which is not based on the ideas it contains at a society-wide level, you’ll have created a tyrant. It’s not a good plan.

You’re describing profit, not money supply.

Bank profits don’t cause inflation in the way you seem to say and bank profits are no different than any other company’s profits in terms of how they affect inflation.

Honestly, 2024 seems more like an attempt to return to sanity while the elites are trying to learn how to use their new toys. 2026 midterms will be the beta test and 2028 is going to be the real shit show.

So, it’s his usual strategy then. Make all sorts of conflicting statements with conflicting messages so that each supporter can believe that he’s genuinely speaking for their interests but that trump is simply lying to all the other supporters that have conflicting interests.

There a ton of different ways to get laid. And depending on what your looking for, there are different requirements.

Most commonly people who don’t get laid are looking for some level of intimacy with someone that actually finds them attractive. Which means that hookers are not an option.

Commonly people in this category have two issues (I’m probably projecting :P, but I don’t have much to work on):

1. Standards too high. Just like poor people try to become billionaires. Sexless people wish for a harem of super models. Practice flirting with less attractive women until you learn to connect with women on a deeper level which will make lowering your standards to reasonable levels easier.

2. You’re unattractive. A bit similarly to #1, influencers and your own expectations for a partner are warping your perception of how attractive you need to be. Seeing as the level of attractiveness you wish you had is completely unattainable, you give up or you look for ineffective shortcuts.
   Don’t worry so much, work on the basics: good hygiene, not terrible clothes, some level of social competence, a minimal amount of confidence. The minimum requirements are far lower than what you’d expect or what most people would think.

(Note being financially stable also helps in terms of minimum requirements for attractiveness, but it’s not like you need the incentive of getting laid to want to be financially stable).

Keep working on both #1 and #2 and eventually they meet and you get laid and have a good time!

1. I’ll sneak in a third point here. If you’re a man, your relative attractiveness automatically goes up until your 40s vs women of the same age. But the change is most noticeable when you hit your early 30s. So, worst case scenario, after a few years, the odds shift in your favor.

Make it do they have to have it, to be able to loan it

The banks do have to have it to be able to loan it.

Fractional reserve says that they’re not allowed to loan all of it.

So if you deposit 100k at the bank and there’s a 10% fractional reserve. Then they’re only allowed to loan 90k.

Now you might ask, so if the bank can only loan 90% of the money they have where does the money multiplier come from?

If person A comes and deposits 100k, and the bank loans 90k to person B. Then there’s still only 100k in cash, but now there’s 190k in bank accounts.

So every time someone comes in to deposit 100k, they loan out 90k. Once they’ve got 1,000k, they’ve loaned out 900k and keep 100k cash in reserve.

The important difference here is that loan only happen when there’s a borrow. And there are strict regulations about how reliable those loans can be. Which is why they tend to require collateral.

So, really when a bank has 1,000k in people’s account, it only has 100k in cash. But it also has 900k in houses, cars and furniture.

The whole system ends up stabilizing the value of money because it is backed by real tangible things through the loaning and collateral system.

I also think it helps to keep money at a stable but small rate of inflation (1-2%). Otherwise people will just hoard the cash instead of growing the economy in the form of investments. But I don’t know what the literature says on that topic, or how reliable that literature is, in practice.

My point is, getting rid of the whole system just because it looks complicated to you seems like a terrible idea.

Like our focus should be on breaking up monopolies, progressive taxation and a solid well funded social support system. I think it’s safe to leave the management of the money supply to the bean counters for now. It’s clearly not perfect but it’s not bad either.

If banks hold 100% of the money and lend it all out x10 (fractional reserve) and earn 1% interest, the money supply is growing by 10% per year.

You’ve got it backwards.

Banks hold other people’s money and use it to issue loan. It’s the issuance of loans that creates money. The fractional reserve doesn’t magically multiply the money. It just (in a roundabout way) allows banks to loan up to that multiplier of money to people. But that only works if there’s people who want to borrow that money.

If a bank earns 1% interest, that doesn’t grow the money supply. It transfers money from the people that borrowed the money to the bank which then uses it to pay executives, shareholders and employees (in that order of priority).

The higher the interest rates, the less money people can afford the borrow, the more the money supply shrinks.

Banks HATE high federal reserve rates, because that means people don’t borrow as much which means they don’t make as much money.

When business and the wealthy class get richer, they want to get even RICHER. Prices rise. Which drives record profit, which makes rich people wealthier, which causes the cycle to repeat.

This can only happen in a poorly regulated environment where the rich setup monopolies or oligopolies. Otherwise they’d lose all their customers if they raise prices.

We just need proper incentive structures and regulation. But seeing as nobody has the guts to start figuring that out, the only lever we have is interest rates.

I think you’re just speaking for yourself here. Before you start spreading misinformation on the internet, maybe you should find the guts to actually figure out what you’re talking about.

High federal reserve rates can make things difficult for banks and that might be why the CEO of JP Morgan is butt hurt right now.

Want to deal with inflation? Raise interest rates.

Want to really improve the population’s purchasing power? Break up the monopolies and oligopolies.

If by “debts and obligations” you mean nukes. That makes total sense.

I’m not well connected to law culture to know for sure. But it does seem like there is a fair amount of politics involved as well as guilt related.

If you’re a man accused of raping a woman, whether you’re guilty or not. You’re not going to pick a lawyer with a track record of ending her tweets with hashtag KAM.

If you’ve looked at the Johny Depp trial. Even expert witnesses will differ along an ideological divide (typically gender oriented ideological divide).

So if you’re representing a man, you’ll want to use one set of expert witnesses. Whereas a if you’re representing a woman you’ll want to use a completely different set of expert witnesses. It might stand to reason that a lawyer will just pick one side of the ideological aisle and become an expert at it (and likely acquire the corresponding professional deformation and echo chamber ideology of that particular side of the ideological debate).

So there’s plenty of reason to pick a lawyer based on their ideological association in this kind of case. Regardless of your own level of guilt.

But at the same time, maybe there are lawyers who specialize in defending guilty people whereas others specialize in defending innocent people.

I wouldn’t read to much into the choice of lawyers, but it can certainly be a red-ish flag.

I’m not claiming this is right or wrong. But here’s the justification.

The criminal justice system is there to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a crime occurred. When it comes to distinguishing consensual sex from rape, it’s nearly impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt, because it ends up being just she said, he said. One tactic is to show a pattern of multiple victims. So if multiple victims independently come forward with a similar story of sexually predatory behavior, then you have compelling evidence that might be enough for “beyond reasonable doubt”.

What this means is that, in principle, rapists can just start raping left and right and keep getting away with it. At least for a while. I don’t claim here anything about how frequent or rare these rapists may be.

This can make life untenable for rape victims on university campus, in that they will not be able to keep going to class in the same room as the person that raped them. This creates even more injustice beyond just that of being victim of a crime that you can’t prove, because they’ll be forced to forego their studies.

So that’s the justification given for why, morally, we need something that’s a bit easier than “prove beyond reasonable doubt” that will make it possible for the victim to continue their studies. Legally, Title IX, along with a lot of acrobatics, provides the legal framework to force universities to do something about it.

In practice, it seems that at least in some universities you end up with a complete joke of a system. Universities are completely ill equipped to adjudicate such a complex situations. The whole thing is extremely politicized. The outcome of the investigation seems to be heavily based on the gender of the accuser and accused as well as political connections to the people involved in the process.

Regardless of if the previous is true or not. Not being allowed to cross-examine the accuser in a she-said he-said situation seems completely insane.

Personally, I think one party consent for legal recordings (recordings that can only be used for legal purposes in criminal proceedings) should become the norm world-wide. Then catching these rapists is going to be so easy that there won’t be any need to even think about these kinds of kangaroo courts.

It’s a monday. So that’s already more like 1 in 52. There’s been like 5-20 news worthy “return to work” announcements in the past year, I’m guessing half othem have mandatory 2 days, the other half have mandatory 3 days.

Multiply that by the number of things that happen in your life where a coincidence of this level could happen and you should be seeing this kind of coincidence a many times each year.