DPUGT2
@DPUGT2@lemmy.ml
- Comment on Hating Your Job Is Cool. But Is It a Labor Movement? 2 years ago:
Right click on the page, "inspect element". Break that out into its own window, if you haven't already. Switch to the "network" tab. Reload the page. Click on the first entry in the list (antiwork-reddit.html). Click on the "response" tab on the righthand half of the dev tools window. Read it there.
This works for all paywalls where javascript immediately refreshes the page to show very little. Some/few show that from the beginning (WSJ I think?), waiting for you to log in to actually read it.
- Comment on Ohio Family Sues After Wrong Sperm Used During Fertilization Procedure 2 years ago:
I watched a video yesterday where a man removed the roe from salmon into a big bucket, then jacked off male salmon into the bucket. Finally, he used his hand to mix the jizz and roe together.
I'm imagining a similar procedure performed by this fertility specialist.
- Comment on Request to remove c/antivax 2 years ago:
No, but you can convince them by being close enough to them that your distaste for their nonsense is palpable and constant.
That can't happen if you've chased them off though.
- Comment on What should determine the pay of CEOs? 2 years ago:
I can tell it's the feelings part of you that is saying this, because the thinking part might instead realize that CEOs aren't even compensated in that way.
Bezos, for instance, only "earns" $80,000/year. That's his paycheck.
Most CEOS get the bulk of their compensation through stock, though there are many other lesser forms as well. (Cars, jets, homes, etc.)
- Comment on What should determine the pay of CEOs? 2 years ago:
So the company just hires people through an agency instead, so they can keep the current salaries?
- Comment on Do referendums in your opinion subvert parliamentary democracy? 2 years ago:
I'm not a big fan of democracy. However, I believe that referenda are a truer form of democracy than just about anything else in the world today, so if you're a support of democracy you should find it difficult to argue against them.
When used in a hybrid model (as in most of the places that allow them), where a legislature handles most legislation but that the public is occasionally allowed to introduce and vote on additional policy, you might get the best of both worlds. Parliament or whatever you call it can handle most of the boring day-to-day legislation, but anything that the public is moved to act upon and for which parliament is refusing to conform to popular opinion can be changed without politicians being able to cheat that.
This isn't a subversion, but an improvement.
That said, I think democracy is unsalvageably bad and should be abolished. Officeholders should be selected by lottery, with everyone eligible to run for office having an equal chance of winning. No more parties, no more incumbents. For those positions where there is a single point of failure (US president, for instance), these could be expanded enough (a triumvirate) that the bad luck of selecting some insane citizen need not result in nuclear armageddon.
This would eliminate all voting, and thus, all democracy. And yet it would preserve the aspects of modern democracies that people seem to like best. Quite frankly, you're all bad at voting. We all are. It's impossible to develop a voting strategy that can achieve any aims that any sane person should want to achieve. Let's just get rid of it.
- Comment on Mobilize the homeless 2 years ago:
but to my knowledge a successful mass action of homeless people, part of the lumpenproletariat
1932?
I think they rolled tanks over them. Not exactly the US government's proudest moment. The homeless can basically be murdered en masse, and no one's going to move a finger to help them. Completely on their own.
Though maybe OP has a point... maybe if the GOP organized it, maybe they'd have enough value to them that they'd prevent the worst sort of reprisals. Then again, Trump could've pardoned all of the Jan. 6th imbeciles and didn't, so if I were homeless I definitely wouldn't accept any Republican promises at face value.
They have no interest when lumpen protest,
I worked for a university a few years back. And our particular department was off-campus at the time, some donated building downtown. One day I get an email sent to the entire department, asking if anyone had seen a homeless family (with kids) living out of a car in our parking lot or nearby. The police had come by, asking our office manager, who had it forwarded to everyone. Ostensibly it was "so they could get them help".
I can't imagine living like that, don't want to. But if that life could possibly be worst, like if I were writing some mind-breaking dystopian story, I think I'd add "not only homeless, but being chased off by the police where ever they go".
So I contend that if 50,000 smelly homeless people were to march on DC, that yes, people would notice. And people would be interested (note, not the positive sort of interest... the same way you're interested when the exterminator informs you that you have the most roach-infested home he's ever seen).
What can a mass action of the lumpenprol do even if it could happen?
Why, they could get themselves murdered. By the truckload. I can't claim to have any true insight as to the false justifications given after the fact, or who might get volunteered for scapegoat duty if the public has remorse. The former is likely to be some claim that they were terrorists with a dirty bomb, but the latter... woo boy, it would've been convenient if Trump were still in office.
See, that's the thing I don't get. For people who claim to be compassionate, why are they always asking for other people to suffer? Even I don't want to see thousands of homeless people mowed down by machine gun fire, or hauled off to some desolate dungeon after being beaten half to death. Do "compassionate" people just not understand what it is they're asking for?
- Comment on 2 years ago:
Not even the scariest potential, unfortunately.
- Comment on [deleted] 2 years ago:
I am a socialist, but the CCP’s actions aren’t remotely socialist
Yes, they're certainly not true socialists.
It devolved into an imperial, hegemonic and totalitarian mess that has no boundaries. As they say, it became the thing that it swore to destroy.
I wonder how that happened. It certainly won't happen next time though.