[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Password (For file deletion.)


File: 1559435267262.png (905.05 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, Mayor,_Let's_get_galloping….png) ImgOps Google

Welcome to /townhall/! This is an anonymous-only board for debates, dialectics, and discussions of a serious nature.

As the topics discussed on this board may deal with sensitive or controversial subject matter, we expect a higher standard of conduct than elsewhere on the site, and will enforce the board's rules with a greater degree of strictness. Inability or unwillingness to follow the rules will result in a /townhall/-only ban.


1) All posts in a given thread must contribute constructively to the conversation, whether agreeing or disagreeing. Off-topic, contentless, inflammatory, or hostile posts will be deleted and result in a ban.

1a) Derails that occur as a natural result of discussion progressing from the original subject will generally not be interfered with; however, if these hinder discussion of the original topic, making a new thread is preferred.

1b) Part of contributing constructively is understanding and addressing the reasoning behind an opposing view. While this can be a tedious task and will generally not be officially enforced, please make an effort to at the very least avoid "talking past" someone when presented with a counterargument. Simply doubling down on your initial point does not advance a discussion.

1c) Be as willing to "lose" as you are to "win", and above all else, be willing to learn and understand. You will not get the most out of this board if your only goal is to persuade, and you will not even be effective at that unless you understand what you are arguing against.

2) Ad hominems and other uncivil behavior will not be tolerated. You may have a significant personal stake in some subjects discussed here, and it is normal to be frustrated when someone cannot relate; however, lashing out is not an effective way to engender sympathy for your position, and will not advance the conversation in a constructive way. Even if you find someone's argument morally abhorrent, there are constructive ways to express this.

2a) Attempting to deliberately provoke an uncivil reaction is prohibited, even if it is done within the letter of the law.

2b) Snark and other forms of mockery are strongly discouraged and may result in warnings or bans.

2c) "Strawmanning" an "opponent" deliberately will be regarded as uncivil conduct and will be dealt with accordingly. This will not apply to genuine misunderstandings.

3) While we do not claim to be arbiters of absolute moral or empirical truth and aim to moderate this board in a fair and even-handed, politically agnostic manner, the following extreme positions are considered "off-limits" regardless of how they are put forward, including attempts to "hint" or dogwhistle:

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


File: 1669062571198.jpg (35.13 KB, 767x512, 767:512, EDXN24YDTNHTFMTYOEYL6AXGPM.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google


What should one make of the idea of individual sheriffs in different American locations refusing to enforce city law, county law, state law, or national law? What about law enforcement more generally acting like this? How does this relate to gun politics?

Personally, I view this as equally moral and equally immoral at the same time. This trend is rarely seen in action. What if it spreads?

Many sheriffs and other types will feel motivated by higher principles to make choices such as refusing to enforce hate crime laws and tolerating violence against minority groups that they disdain. Maybe they'll shut down public demonstrations despite free speech law and its guarantees for the same reasons. Maybe they'll work to ban certain books and video games similarly. Other actions will be claimed on behalf of freedom that involve defending 'good people' from 'bad people' (such as the claimed freedom of religious individuals to live cleanly amidst sinners and their liberties to protect their children from sinners).

At the same time, however, other sheriffs will act against the law to actively defend individuals from the government. This case appears to be such a thing to me. A law-abiding citizen should be able to buy, own, and sell a standard magazine. Big brother should not be watching. I've read other cases that also seem to genuinely involve law enforcement flouting the law to support actual freedom such as refusing to enforce anti-drug rules.

Am I being too pessimistic? Too optimistic? Is it unethical for me to so casually argue that gun control laws not be enforced just because I find them stupid? Maybe?
5 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


People generally care about things that are codified into law more than things that are (supposedly anyway) mistakes.
People also ultimately care more about things that will affect them, personally, over events that happened in places they've never been miles away.

It's just the 'child in Africa' argument anyway.
I could just as easily point to the outrage, protests, and turmoil at the Supreme Court abortion decision by those on the left, and then their lack of reaction to, say, the ongoing shootings and violence in Chicago.

>so, Orwellian flip-flops banning on 'bump stocks' and such are A-OK, apparently, to libertarians and others
I've no idea what you mean about this.
Do you mean they were okay with the ban on bump stocks?

I've not seen nor heard from any libertarians I've known any flipflop on that. Though it's admittedly not one that needs a 2A argument so much.  "Its stupid and will do nothing", really is the main one I encountered.

>It's as if your next door neighbor saw a tank literally rolling over your house and going into your driveway before turning, him idly playing video games on his phone the whole time, and he then cried waterfall tears about his mailbox being smashed and screamed his lungs out.
People will naturally care more about what happens to them, yes.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


It would be nice at least if the people that we're talking about stopped lying, and thus if everyone was honest. When America has an openly tyrannical government and fascism takes over completely (seems clearly more like a matter of 'when' versus 'if' given the trends of the past two decades), the people who hypothetically should complain the most and fight back the most are going to do the least. Some will even be supportive of the regime. And all of those many years of claimed promises of supporting freedom, liberty, property, rights, and so on will flow through your hand like the empty grains of sand that they always were. Since for half the nation or such, I guess, statism is only bad if it's personally bad for you. Everybody else can rot.

Hell, you and I both know that even Nazi Germany had really permissive and deliberately libertarian gun laws. It was just the rub that you had had to be the type of person that the state liked. Which suited those activists fine, and that was that. Selective liberty being liberty that's good enough.

I really don't think that this is human nature. I'd actually argue the opposite that humans are inherently born good, free, and equal. To be empathetic, ethical, and intelligent. I personally view moral myopia and blind statism as a consequence of decades of programming, basically brainwashing, to get America to either not care about each other or actively detest each other. It could be unlearned. I really think.


>the people who hypothetically should complain the most and fight back the most are going to do the least. Some will even be supportive of the regime.
It's certainly a possibility that many will be too afraid to act, and others will support the regime through thick or thin.
But I don't know who you mean by 'should complain the most' or 'fight the most' to judge there.
Certainly the image it creates in my mind would be quite likely to resist, and certainly not be supportive.

>Since for half the nation or such, I guess, statism is only bad if it's personally bad for you
You misunderstood quite significantly.
People are well able to regard events that haven't happened to them as bad.
There is significant distinction between not regarding something as bad, and not caring about it as much as something that directly affects you.
You've conflated the two together in error. They are quite assuredly not the same.

>Hell, you and I both know that even Nazi Germany had really permissive and deliberately libertarian gun laws. It was just the rub that you had had to be the type of person that the state liked.
I certainly do not know that. I've not seen anything at all to suggest that was the case.
Though I would rather obviously regard restrictions to all but 'the type the state likes' to be quite impermissive besides.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


File: 1668072964004.jpg (140.92 KB, 1169x1660, 1169:1660, pwut5ejk30z91.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Do you vote third party?
14 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


The irony here is it isn't even my fucking ideology.
But of course, you presume it must be, because it's convenient to your narrative.
You're so clouded by your deluded hatred you presume anyone who dares disagree with you must belong to your enemy.

You really need to learn to actually engage with what others are saying, rather than these made up suppositions in your head.
You'd probably end up a happier person, instead of this throughly sad, paranoid and fearful soul who looks to so many with scorn.


I wonder what position Rand Paul still has in regards to libertarianism.

In regards to the political discourse of late, he does seem from a cursory glance to lean heavily into the MAGA crowd.

Maybe he's fallen from grace in the last few years, though.


Rand is a politician and made clear he'd sell ideals for convenience and efficacy.
It's why I didn't vote for him.
He is not his father.


File: 1666931059964.jpg (143.12 KB, 1400x1050, 4:3, this-is-fine.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

ITT: State and respond to hot takes here!

Hot takes! Get your hot takes!

Fresh off the press!:


I believe that the only solution to our current world-wide economic problem is to let it collapse.

It's better if it's a slow one so that we have time to prepare for it before we hit the ground, but I still think we need one.

We've been thinking the wrong way about work, finance, and what a normal quality of life is for far too long, and a collapse is the inevitable result of that.

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
14 posts and 4 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


It would be nice to think that total collapse would end modern corporate capitalism and the authoritarianism that it has created, but why assume so?

Why can't the elite in charge just ride out the collapse? Dust off their shoulders and live on? It makes literally zero difference to them if America goes through something like a genocide. They'll sit in their mansions. They'll have their suits dry cleaned. They'll watch their televisions. They already have near infinite ability to sustain themselves and nothing save an asteroid hitting Earth will change that fact.

You and I are as butterflies. They are as mountains. That's that.


>but why assume so?
Because the only reason the sheep accept it as it currently stands is that's how it's been, already.
They will claim "well it could be worse" to suggestion of resistance and change.
Worse still, they buy in to the presumption of morality ascribed by the state. That law is inherently just, that these institutions inherently deserve our cooperation.

A collapse removes the option of simply supporting what already exists.

>Why can't the elite in charge just ride out the collapse?
What kind of collapse are you thinking of?

Perhaps if the 'collapse' is simply something like a great depression with some balkanization, that'd happen.
But when I say 'collapse' I'm meaning far more fully.

Money is meaningless without the state that backs it.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


I don't like using the term sheep, but I guess I will temporarily. A problem is that you don't really seem to realize that the sheep have been told this since birth. Christians are better than non-Christians. Whites are better than non-whites. Cisgender heterosexuals are better than the LGBT. Wealthy people are better than poorer people. Handsome and beautiful people are better than less attractive people. And so on over and over again.

The sheep have been brainwashed basically out of the womb to worship corporate capitalism and the various other levers of power that is a part of that system. Americans will literally kill themselves out of shame and guilt due to economic hardship. And due to being transgender. And due to being percieved as ugly. And it goes on. That's how complete the indoctrination that the elite are your betters and you'd better worship them as well as try to be like them.

You can achieve a full revolution with a Thanos snaps his fingers level cleansing in terms of body count, or a collapse that has the exact same consequences, but the desire to be dominated has been carved into the hearts of the sheep. Alas. It's tough to imagine real progress there.

And when it comes to collapse in terms of the wellbeing of the elite... again, the wealthy and powerful in America literally are like our gods. Organized religion could disappear overnight. There would still be the financial system. That could vanish too. There would be the media. Ditto. There would still be the military. It goes on.

Is it really that likely that the elite can go down just from a mere collapse? Even a total collapse? When they control housing? Medical care? Foodstuffs? Even water? Every last one of those is a corporate product managed by Wall Street. I'm uncertain.


File: 1667869566867.png (19.69 KB, 600x450, 4:3, credit-score-ranges-600x45….png) ImgOps Google

I know people who have gotten apartments without going through a credit check, but I gather there's a growing trend to filter out applicants with poor credit score.  I have to guess there are similar filters for home buyers.

So, are you in favor of this trend, perhaps in that it will encourage people in general to be more responsible with the features that go into the credit score model, or are you not in favor?
4 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


Personally I'd rather not live in concrete combloc.


Nobody deserves anything but the agency of their own actions.

Though I will say I find the debtor system a horrible one.
Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I don't really like how easy it is for so little consequence until it's far too late.
And I find the general practice a little unsavory, with likely consequences on pricing for a wide range of things.

Buying a home shouldn't require a lone, is my stance.


People have the God-given right of not being murdered, and as a part of that they've got the innate right to adequate shelter.

If the argument is made that this mindset is supposedly wrong because it is claimed positive rights for goods and services doesn't exist, which is a take I don't agree with inherently because homelessness exists due to state violence interpreting property rules and the state otherwise organizing wealth distrubution in an oppressive way, then therefore people in the process of being murdered through lack of shelter should be able to exercise the right of self-defense and claim currently existing shelter. Taking over state controlled property or property otherwise maintained by the business interests tied to the state.

Communist oppression in which the many are forced into homelessness is ethically identical to corporatist oppression in which the many are forced into homelessness. Fight the power. Fight for the people.


>Russian missiles stike Poland with multiple deaths confirrmed

It's been an honour shitposting with you guys. See you in the bunker


...it's true. do you really think poland will invoke article 5?

it could happen... the United States certainly wouldn't be happy with that, but it would not be in a position to reject an invocation of article 5. :c


File: 1668599175834.png (868.48 KB, 601x887, 601:887, ukrain1611.PNG) ImgOps Google


File: 1664607623442.jpg (68.36 KB, 1200x900, 4:3, topic-statue-of-liberty-ge….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Observing the trends in politics recently, I feel like the battle between left and right is unhelpful and destructive.

The real battle is between libertarian principles and authoritarian principles.

What are your thoughts on libertarianism vs authoritarianism?


I personally lean far more libertarian. And honestly I think most people do.

I believe, in general, libertarianism is good, and authoritarianism is evil. But I also understand that for liberty to be protected, some government and restrictions are required.

My general principle is that individual liberty is the ultimate goal, but not necessarily the highest priority.

In my experience, individual liberty cannot be protected if it is the highest priority. You need to first and foremost protect the right to life. What worth is liberty if you're dead?
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
47 posts and 5 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Elite institutions run roughshod over everyone as is primarily due to the ability to coerce and pressure governments to ensure no small independent challengers can arise.
A state practically guarantees such entities will do this.

Though I won't disagree that anarchy ought challenge corporatism just as well.


>Does it make a difference if your master wears a state uniform or a business suit?

My opinion is, yes.  I grant it might not in material effect, but much of life is in our heads, and it's easier to mentally resist private tyranny than official tyranny.  Clerical robes are more complicated, if you believe in the associated deity.  And science has no theory of domination, you must add something to it, in my view, to create oppression.

I guess it's the bigger question, do ideas matter?  Or just material condition?


Indeed. Not having any state power is terribly dangerous. But having too much is equally so.

My preference is a severely limited state whose primary purpose is to limit the accumulation and abuse of power, including its own.


File: 1666481138146.png (324.04 KB, 1280x960, 4:3, large.png) ImgOps Google

So, my policy online is not to share my in-real-life face or voice.  Mostly this is because I don't have interest in the politics of which faces, voices, and presentations are appropriate and valid and which, if any, are not.

A secondary benefit is that I'm slightly more difficult to assault or harass IRL.  I've made some people very upset on the internet -- I like to think because those people were crazy, but obviously opinions vary on which party is crazy.  In any case, I want to make choices that keep people safe.

Now, some people don't care for my policy.  Perhaps they have shared an image of their face and feel it is rude not to reciprocate.  I've had job applications ask for a portrait (I think on principle I'm not doing those applications anymore).

Anyway, my question is: are people entitled to samples of your face and/or voice online?  And if so, what useful information should we expect them to extract from this image and/or sound data?
12 posts and 6 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>Yeah. Though there is a difference between no privacy at work and "we can post employees faces and names on social media and in marketing materials". Though any company that would do the latter usually has you sign a waver for it.

Ok.  So it's perfectly fine to say -- "here's a picture of our employees."  Maybe even to put the names, but it seems gray area.

You need permission to say "Here's John Doe, who is never without our ABC brand Whatzit."



But if permission is boilerplate for every employment contract, then it's all effectively moot for employees.


File: 1666673287023.png (313.81 KB, 881x575, 881:575, 2022-03-25 04_22_51-Settin….png) ImgOps Google

Well yeah I assumed you need permission for either one.


File: 1665805348607.png (245.84 KB, 1080x964, 270:241, snapshot_1649362471256_2.png) ImgOps Google

What do you think of this argument?
7 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


Certainly possible.
I will say there's a lot of naivety involved in regards to why someone would pay for something they know is real, or something they know suffered.
But outside of that, the industry wouldn't have, let's say, outsiders if this was how it was done.

This said, though, I'm not sure how much of the lot is outsiders to begin with.


I think the question ends up being if the increased supply fulfilling the demand ends up reducing harm, or if bringing it to the mainstream just brings more people into it. Personally, I'm pessimistic about the potential results.


The argument is that simulated sexual material of children functions as a kind of promotional advertisement that normalizes and strengthens the underlying attitudes.

So, watching a Honda commercial with animated guys driving an animated sedan has nothing specifically to do with actual cars. Watching it doesn't magically give you a car. It doesn't feel the same as driving one. However, the advertisement is designed inherently to make you want to be associated with something in real-life. Most won't watch it and buy a Honda. Some will.

That's the argument to why lolicon and other such media should be banned, even if it not only doesn't hurt actual people but helps to an extent significantly by channeling what could otherwise develop into real habits into fantasy.

I don't buy the argument personally because I believe it's factually wrong. Being saturated with violent video games, movies, television shows, and more haven't been shown like ever to make anybody more actually violent. Fantasy material that's divorced from reality... it's a difference that's simple to get. This is true in general and true in this case. Objectively speaking, evidence doesn't seem to exist that the audience who seeks out lolicon or whatever else are any more likely to be criminals than the general population. It doesn't work as advertisment.

Still, the opposing argument ought to be considered seriously.


File: 1666270547025.png (125.44 KB, 765x688, 765:688, BRUH LOOK AT THIS DUDE.png) ImgOps Google

>Becomes Prime Minister
>Tells everyone the Queen has died


I present a heartfelt congratulations to the lettuce.


Ya know?
I feel like society's polarized enough that politics is getting hard.

We're gonna see this impasse happen way more often in the coming years.


There needs to be a way to fundamentally change American politics so that if a national leader is widely despised and is actively hurting the citizens then they can just be kicked out.

Instead of the American people suffering under four whole years of pain, hatred, and misery just because the design of federal government demands it.


File: 1657236705048.jpg (45.95 KB, 694x600, 347:300, medium.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

I'm sure I've created a thread like this before, but how much of politics is really debatable?

If you are a capitalist, you take a limited liability corporation and that corporate person's capacity to control private property as most needing honor.  Although people might tell others this system more efficiently manages resources than any other, implying perhaps that honor belongs to corporations only by deduction, politics feels in general to be something of a religious debate.  And it is impolite to denigrate another's religion.  (I don't mean to pick on free market folks in particular.)

I guess in order for a political matter to be debatable (in a productive way), there must be generally agreed upon values and people's political assertions should not be something like religious faith.  How often would you say that's the case, or what might indicate this is or is not the case?  What's the best strategy when you can't debate politics?
8 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Imagine you want to play a game of tennis, and two strangers offer that they'd like to play with you, separately.

The first comes to you as you're waiting, racket in hand, totally naked. He then holds out a cement brick and refers to it as his 'tennis ball'. He asks if you want to serve first. He then states that he will use his psychic powers to hit the 'ball' back at you if you go first.

The second similarly comes out to you as you wait. Everything seems normal other than how he's accompanied by a spectator not previously announced. You shake hands, and the spector holds out a submachine gun. You're now informed that whomever loses the game is to be immediately executed for their failure.

This is what debating politics amount to.

First, we have entirely different views of what factual reality exists in the world to the point where we might as well be literal space aliens to each other.

Second, the punishment for failing to properly achieve a political cause is literally either direct physical harm or death (not always, but often enough and especially on the biggest issues such as abortion and gun rights).


I've seen politics where people have what I would consider strange ideas, and if people are quite happy with their ideas, even if they are not my ideas, I can accept them.

For the second case, I feel people have a right to self-defense that goes beyond politics.  If the political folks try to shoot you, you should tell them you don't care for that.


File: 1665400383220.png (253.63 KB, 1068x738, 178:123, enpol_watermark.png) ImgOps Google

words are illusions of power
that are exploited in the world that is also an illusion
we don't live in the world, we live in hell.
that is truth of politics.


File: 1665013640479.png (7.25 KB, 200x200, 1:1, circle.png) ImgOps Google

Let's try a thread where you answer the question: "How are you?"  Your answer need not contain detail.  Your state will be grouped into at least three categories based on how good you seem.  Sympathy will be offered if you seem mostly bad.  Gladness will be shared if you seem mostly good.  If uncertain, a part of your answer may be repeated with a phrase such as "I see that you are" added.  If you do not welcome this process you may specify that you opt out and request no response to your post.  This preference must be clearly specified, welcoming response will be considered the default.

Other unspecified discourse may occur based on the discretion of users.  If you do not care for this thread, for whatever reason, you must create a new thread to discuss your issue.  This thread is not for existential discussions of this thread.


File: 1665057878212.png (7.25 KB, 200x200, 1:1, circle.png) ImgOps Google

Probably one has to prime the pump, as a metaphor.

>How are you?
I've been better.


File: 1665096622278.png (7.25 KB, 200x200, 1:1, circle.png) ImgOps Google

>I've been better.
I see that you've been better, Magnificent Octopus.


Perhaps I am asking for too much information.  I'll create another social thread without the status request.

 No.10833[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

File: 1650070703590.png (441.31 KB, 1400x951, 1400:951, Moony Money.png) ImgOps Google

For discussing the other thread, in /pony/, concerning Elon Musk
74 posts and 13 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


So there is a conflict between the text of the contract Mr. Musk has agreed to and Mr. Musk's impression that his purchase of Twitter is contingent on proof that 95% of accounts are controlled by humans directly.  You assert this conflict will be resolved in Twitter's favor by the legal system.


Mr. Musk has an uphill fight. This is civil law, not criminal law, the burden of proof is different. As the plaintiff, the burden of proof still lies on Twitter Inc, but this is a contract dispute. Twitter has a baked in advantage in the form of the signatures on the contract. The contract isn't obliging Twitter to maintain a 20:1 user to bot ratio; the contract is a bill of sale. The facts going in to the court room before arguments have been made are that Musk is not carrying out a contract he signed. Mr. Musk's case depends on an interpretation of the contract which leaves a lot of his success or failure up to the skill of his lawyers and the patience of the judge, and it opens up the floor to the plaintiff's own interpretations. A judge who does not want a long trial would be justified in saying "you should have thought of that before you signed the contract." Considering that the judge scheduled 4 days in the next months, it indicates that she does not intend to look at more than the literal wording of the contract itself, which makes no mention of bots or users.

Also I looking at the contract under Article I the definition of "Company Material Adverse Effects" we have three sections that are immediately relevant in the rather long list of things that this contract does not consider Material Adverse Effects:
>(iii) general economic, regulatory or political conditions
>(viii) any changes in the market price or trading volume of the Company Common Stock, any failure by the Company or its Subsidiaries to meet internal, analysts’ or other earnings estimates or financial projections or forecasts for any period
>(ix) any matter disclosed in the Company SEC Documents filed by the Company prior to the date of this Agreement

The contract specifically defines:
>“Company Material Adverse Effect” means any change, event, effect or circumstance which, individually or in the aggregate, has resulted in or would reasonably be expected to result in a material adverse effect on the business, financial condition or results of operations of the Company and its Subsidiaries, taken as a whole
When we consider
>(vii) any action taken pursuant to the terms of this Agreement or with the Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


File: 1664991897118.jpg (144.71 KB, 1202x1525, 1202:1525, 2617464.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Anybody wanna spin me on what the heck that was about? Because I have no idea.


File: 1661189996805.jpg (978.35 KB, 2122x1412, 1061:706, sub-buzz-1450-1637280411-7….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

I've heard people say that because of tipping culture, the service worker will do better trying to serve the customer to get as high as a tip as possible.

But is this actually true?

Do you know if the service in say an average American bar is way better than in an average European or Asian bar?

Also, feel free to share your thoughts on tipping culture in general.
6 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1663236227723.jpg (1.75 MB, 980x1415, 196:283, 9b77cb53d54bb89645ca0868b3….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

So the concept of "quiet quitting" has been coming up lately, and I'm thinking of it together with the idea of "better tips better service". I'm going to consider "refusing to do your job well without a little something on the side from the end client" a more toxic but less cringeworthy version of "quiet quitting". And my question is this:

Don't these people have managers or supervisors? Isn't there somebody whose job it is to make sure the required work gets done to a satisfactory quality?

I'm not faulting the workers here but rather a rash of passive management that I've noticed has become more prevalent. Of course workers aren't going to go above and beyond if you just shove them in a box half trained with a rough idea of what they're supposed to do and then go home. If you don't give a crap then why should they? You're the one here who is actually invested in this operation going well, they're just punching a clock. Instead everybody is laser focused on some spreadsheet that came from on high with some arbitrary metrics that are ambiguations of how somebody else did something else so we must meet these same metrics too.

Walk the floor. See how the staff treat the customers, and if there is a problem either fix them or fire them. Stop expecting your customers and your employees to do your job for you.


I feel the problem with quiet quitting is just that companies are just constantly downsizing and squeezing every penny out of their workforce while work schedules and demands are getting more and more eggregious.

I feel every worker should have the drive to perform their work properly, but it's necessary the workers can work in a proper environment, no expenses are spared to give people the tools to do their job and there is plenty enough organisation that people can find time to close off the work for the day.

But companies are downsizing, taking up new obligations, but refusing to expand the workforce or provide the proper tools. And there are working spaces where there is no more room for respect and kindness.
And then people are surprised when the workers refuse to take on all that extra workload for free?

Quiet quitting to me doesn't sound like unsupervised workers loafing around and not doing their work. It sounds like the bosses want their workers to work 18 hours per day and do it with a smile, while their pay gets cut in half again.


My work promotes the notion of tipping to workers, yet few people actually tip.  Those who do tip generally tip so little as to be a negligible supplement to income.  Those few people who tip well are so few and far between as to be an anomaly yet drive up the averages from ~2% tip rate to ~5% tip rate.  I make zero additional effort for tips because I know that my effort has almost no bearing on tip rates.  Also, people who outright say they will tip generally don't, and are in fact just looking for additional unpaid effort or special favors out of the worker.  After their service ends, they will simply "forget" to tip, and the extra effort/favors will be for nothing.  Tipping is simply used as a hypothetical benefit to equivalent employment and as a substitute for real income paid by the employer.  As such, I accept tips, but I do not "work for tips."


File: 1664090089415.jpg (294.24 KB, 1265x1692, 1265:1692, 2473257.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

I'm reading books about the Chinese use of surveillance technology.  The Chinese state-truth is that these technologies are helping prevent terrorism, separatism, and religious extremism.  While I'm sure the books I'm reading would be condemned by the Chinese state as western propaganda, and I suppose we are to be as respectful as possible, some believe instead surveillance is being used by the state to oppress, torture, and eradicate Uyghurs in China, and sometimes outside China.

I used to have a job in electronics security about 15 years ago [in the USA], and I didn't see anything too worrying.  Camera systems were buggy, somewhat analog, and required authorities to physically transfer files when something of interest happened.  But everything has improved since then.

Do you worry about the increase in surveillance technology, or do you think some groups should worry?  Or do you instead think this technology is making the world safer -- for everyone?


File: 1664153409027.jpeg (216.49 KB, 840x1200, 7:10, 08023cffc06e1ef3e0c6eb040….jpeg) ImgOps Google

Like all technology, surveillance cameras can be used both for good and for evil.


I guess we are moving into the abstract, so how are good and evil summed?  That is, if tech is used for 1/2 good and 1/2 evil, should we worry about the evil, or consider it a net neutral and of no concern?


I don't trust states with it.
Helps that governments have historically done more damage than terrorists, separatists, and your typical criminals.

Ultimately cameras can do significant good.
But the downside to them is whoever controls them can omit the parts that don't like.
Bodycams are the most obvious example

Previous [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]