|
Meatball posted:Libs of tiktok has named herself a stochastic terrorist on Twitter. Yet everyone - media, democrats, everyone - refuses to call it out. They're coordinating bomb threats and violence, and apparently nobody is able to do anything about it. I feel like this shouldn't have to be said on a site like SA, but Libs of TikTok doesn't actually think they're a "stochastic terrorist". They're putting in their bio ironically, to make fun of the people who actually accuse their tweets of being terrorism.
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2022 14:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 20:04 |
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I feel like this shouldn't have to be said on a site like SA, but Libs of TikTok doesn't actually think they're a "stochastic terrorist". They're putting in their bio ironically, to make fun of the people who actually accuse their tweets of being terrorism. They may subjectively believe that they are not a stochastic terrorist, but a reasonable observer would call them one. You don't get a pass from existing in society just because your speech is only negligently dangerous.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2022 14:54
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I feel like this shouldn't have to be said on a site like SA, but Libs of TikTok doesn't actually think they're a "stochastic terrorist". They're putting in their bio ironically, to make fun of the people who actually accuse their tweets of being terrorism. That's like trying to explain that a klan member is calling themselves a racist ironically. Like yeah, they are, but also it's true.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2022 15:02
|
|
|
I forget who but there was a speaker+religious leader who was vehemently anti-abortion calling it murder, genocide and stopping it a holy war which, along with everything else, spurred people who believed it to commit murder and terrorist acts. Eventually they realized that, yes, in fact they contributed to these things happening and came out against it. Pundits, propagandists, whatever essentially calling for violence or other threatening actions, without explicitly calling for them will abrogate their responsibility in any way they can- denying any connection, people have their own free will, claiming that because they were never explicit they couldn't see how someone might interpret their words in such a an extreme way, claiming they are just entertainers, or just putting information out there- even if they know they are actively contributing, even hoping what they say and do will result in those actions. Other people committing those violent actions, anyway. The more mainstream pundits might decry violence but they know their ideological and economic position benefits from extremists.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2022 15:11
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I feel like this shouldn't have to be said on a site like SA, but Libs of TikTok doesn't actually think they're a "stochastic terrorist". They're putting in their bio ironically, to make fun of the people who actually accuse their tweets of being terrorism. Pretty sure everyone here is aware of this. Regardless, I see no reason to give her the benefit of the doubt over what she truly believes that she is. If you call yourself a nazi "ironically", you're a loving nazi.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2022 16:22
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I feel like this shouldn't have to be said on a site like SA, but Libs of TikTok doesn't actually think they're a "stochastic terrorist". They're putting in their bio ironically, to make fun of the people who actually accuse their tweets of being terrorism.  They are fully aware of what they're doing, they just build their persona out of so many layers that whenever someone points out one of them they can just peel it back and say "ha, wrong, owned much lib?"
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2022 16:24
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I feel like this shouldn't have to be said on a site like SA, but Libs of TikTok doesn't actually think they're a "stochastic terrorist". They're putting in their bio ironically, to make fun of the people who actually accuse their tweets of being terrorism. When someone tells you who they are, believe them. She knows exactly what she's doing and worse, Musk is perfectly okay with it being on his platform.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2022 16:43
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1594718383479873536 The establishment wing of the GOP leaning on Politico here to help set the tone for internal discussions. In addition to being additional evidence of Republican desires to investigate the corruption side of Hunter Biden rumors, it shows further That said, it's surprisingly early for them to be pushing Tiger Beat to calm down the Freedom Caucus. Worth watching.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2022 16:51
|
|
|
Bellmaker posted:When someone tells you who they are, believe them. She knows exactly what she's doing and worse, Musk is perfectly okay with it being on his platform. I mean to be fair so was everyone before Elon too. They've been involved in a campaign of bomb threats against Boston Children's for over a year now but because everything is done in that internet cult fashion where nothing is every directly said no one gives a gently caress. Oh actually people did get really mad when they got "doxxed".
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2022 16:52
|
|
|
McCarthy says he is sticking with his promise to remove Eric Swalwell, Adam Schiff, and Ilhan Omar from their committee assignments in retaliation for Democrats kicking Steve King and Marjorie Taylor Greene from their committee assignments. https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1594429377710018560 quote:House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) reiterated his pledge to remove Democratic Reps. Eric Swalwell (Calif.), Adam Schiff (Calif.) and Ilhan Omar (Minn.) from their committee posts if he becomes Speaker in the next Congress. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 17:06 on Nov 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2022 16:57
|
|
|
Oh good, we've come to the "My opponents don't get a say because they slighted me" phase of a crumbling republic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2022 17:05
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:McCarthy says he is sticking with his promise to remove Eric Swalwell, Adam Schiff, and Ilhan Omar from their committee assignments in retalian for Democrats kicking Steve King and Marjorie Taylor Greene from their committee assignments. I'd just skip to the end of the road here and just not seat any of the opposition in any committee when in control. Make them form that 'shadow foreign affairs committee' carnival act.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2022 17:05
|
|
|
What good is a windfall profit tax if public companies can reduce their profit via stock buybacks? I worked at a place that did that the year before they sold to another company and even though we hit our profit goals they halved our bonuses and told us to be glad we got anything since we were unprofitable that year. gently caress stock buybacks first then address the rest. They’re probably easier to explain to anyone with a 10 second attention span too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2022 17:20
|
|
|
Mizaq posted:What good is a windfall profit tax if public companies can reduce their profit via stock buybacks? I worked at a place that did that the year before they sold to another company and even though we hit our profit goals they halved our bonuses and told us to be glad we got anything since we were unprofitable that year. gently caress stock buybacks first then address the rest. They’re probably easier to explain to anyone with a 10 second attention span too. Stock buybacks don't reduce profits and don't count as "expenses" for tax purposes. You'd still be taxed on your total profit line items.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2022 17:26
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Stock buybacks don't reduce profits and don't count as "expenses" for tax purposes. You'd still be taxed on your total profit line items. Are they good or bad? why do companies do them?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2022 17:26
|
|
|
A hypothetical bill applying a windfall profit tax would presumably close as many loopholes the writer is aware of as possible
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2022 17:28
|
|
|
selec posted:Are they good or bad? why do companies do them? https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/042015/why-would-company-buyback-its-own-shares.asp quote:A company repurchases its shares when it wants to consolidate ownership, preserve stock prices, return stock prices to real value, boost financial ratios, or reduce the cost of capital. Oracle fucked around with this message at 17:43 on Nov 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2022 17:32
|
|
|
Oracle posted:https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/042015/why-would-company-buyback-its-own-shares.asp None of these words make sense: “Companies do buybacks for various reasons, including company consolidation, equity value increase, and looking more financially attractive.” I’m reading these as “centralize control/become less responsive to shareholders or other market forces, ???, and ???” Can I get those second two incentives put into Normal Person?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2022 17:34
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I feel like this shouldn't have to be said on a site like SA, but Libs of TikTok doesn't actually think they're a "stochastic terrorist". They're putting in their bio ironically, to make fun of the people who actually accuse their tweets of being terrorism. In addition to what others have mentioned, this is a classic instance of that Sartre quote about fascists playing with language to make future accusations against them sound absurd and meaningless.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2022 17:35
|
|
|
Buying stock pushes the stock price up and gives some ability in the future to sell those shares to generate money to spend instead of taking on debt. Generally, higher growth companies will prefer buybacks to dividends if the stock is likely to continue going up or the company plans to invest money in the future on new projects. On their own they're not inherently good or bad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2022 17:36
|
|
|
selec posted:Are they good or bad? why do companies do them? They usually do them as a way to pay back shareholders without paying out dividends or raise money for the company without having to resort to taking on debt from a loan. Companies do them because it makes their stock more attractive to investors and if they can't find somewhere else to spend the money that will return a large profit, then it is an easy and fast way to improve payouts for your shareholders. Some companies also do them to remove a lot of stock from the public to make executives who get paid in stock "more accountable" to the company because there are far fewer shares and the management/executives now own a larger part of them, so they have an incentive to improve the share prices because there are fewer outside investors, so they will be taking the majority of the pain if the stock price falls long-term. This also is essentially tax-free for the company (although, there is now a stock buyback tax in 2023 from the Inflation Reduction Act), whereas increasing management's salaries or paying out more dividends to shareholders requires them to pay capital gains or payroll taxes on the money. They are good for shareholders because it is a quick way to transfer money to them. They are good for the company because it (used) to be a tax-free way to pay out shareholders and executives. They are generally neutral for everyone else on a personal level. But, they are bad on a public policy level because it can result in the federal government collecting less taxes or can result in companies taking less risks/investments to just make very safe decisions/less investment and just transfer that saved money to shareholders via buybacks instead of expanding the business/creating jobs/investing/researching, etc.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2022 17:38
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:In addition to what others have mentioned, this is a classic instance of that Sartre quote about fascists playing with language to make future accusations against them sound absurd and meaningless. Her response to the shooting was to link another LGBT event that morning. She knows who she is and what she's doing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2022 17:38
|
|
|
Oracle posted:https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/042015/why-would-company-buyback-its-own-shares.asp Please try to put some kind of description or quote from links and not just reply with a single context-less link.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2022 17:41
|
|
|
Why are stock dividends a thing? Wouldn’t it work better/more transparently if the only way to make money off stock was selling it? What’s the justification for dividends?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2022 17:51
|
|
|
selec posted:Why are stock dividends a thing? Wouldn’t it work better/more transparently if the only way to make money off stock was selling it? What’s the justification for dividends? It's your share of the corporate profits. If you own 10% of the stock of a company you get 10% of the profits. Stock is the "substance" of the company you own, are purchasing, or selling.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2022 17:53
|
|
|
selec posted:Why are stock dividends a thing? Wouldn’t it work better/more transparently if the only way to make money off stock was selling it? What’s the justification for dividends? Some companies are large, but have very little room to grow - like Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart isn't going to increase their value by 30% over the next few years like a startup or small company might be able to do. In order to keep people invested/give people a reason for holding a stock that likely won't see explosive growth, they just pay people a small amount per share as their "share" of the profits. Judgy Fucker posted:It's your share of the corporate profits. If you own 10% of the stock of a company you get 10% of the profits. Stock is the "substance" of the company you own, are purchasing, or selling. Pretty much this, except there are many companies that don't pay dividends at all because they expect to be worth a lot more in the future and don't have the consistent profit stream to pay them off every year. If you decide to issue dividends, then you have to keep doing it every year and it is a long financial commitment. That is why it is generally the larger companies with less room to grow that offer dividends.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2022 17:56
|
|
|
Judgy Fucker posted:It's your share of the corporate profits. If you own 10% of the stock of a company you get 10% of the profits. Stock is the "substance" of the company you own, are purchasing, or selling. Still not clicking why this translates to a company being able to own or sell or buy shares in itself, don’t think that’s a good idea. Seems very shady! Every time capitalism is explained to me or I try to learn what a particular thing about it is it’s like opening up a bag of moldy bread and then reading the label and it says 100% MOLDY! THE MOLDIEST YOU CAN FIND!
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2022 17:56
|
|
|
selec posted:Still not clicking why this translates to a company being able to own or sell or buy shares in itself, don’t think that’s a good idea. Seems very shady! No argument there, just trying to explain what dividends are versus stock.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2022 17:58
|
|
|
It’s smart to buy back if the stock is undervalued and can be very bad to do so otherwise, like with all stock purchases.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2022 18:02
|
|
|
selec posted:Still not clicking why this translates to a company being able to own or sell or buy shares in itself, don’t think that’s a good idea. Seems very shady! Stock buybacks and dividends are not the same thing, that might be the source of your confusion. The post you were responding to was about dividends, a company buying shares of itself like you're talking about is a buyback.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2022 18:03
|
|
|
selec posted:Still not clicking why this translates to a company being able to own or sell or buy shares in itself, don’t think that’s a good idea. Seems very shady! Remember that private stockholders are not FORCED to sell their stocks. Now, companies will usually offer up a premium to persuade people to sell back to the corporation. That's buyback.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2022 18:12
|
|
|
Chieves posted:Remember that private stockholders are not FORCED to sell their stocks. Now, companies will usually offer up a premium to persuade people to sell back to the corporation. That's buyback. I know, but I feel like we allow companies to do way too much, there’s a lot of internal controls available to balance what are essentially market forces that shouldn’t be allowed. This is how you end up with stock companies that also have a side biz making electric cars.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2022 18:14
|
|
|
Stock buybacks also allow managers to manipulate the earnings per share of the company as it reduces the number of shares outstanding in contrast to returning capital via dividends.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2022 18:17
|
|
|
selec posted:I know, but I feel like we allow companies to do way too much, there’s a lot of internal controls available to balance what are essentially market forces that shouldn’t be allowed. This is how you end up with stock companies that also have a side biz making electric cars. That's an argument in favor of dividends + buybacks. If a company is incentivized to re-invest the money, they're going to eventually re-invest it into areas that are tangential or completely unrelated to their core business. This also will tend to result in larger megacorps that have a vast array of different businesses. Giving the money away via buybacks or dividends means shareholders can choose to invest in Mark's lovely Metaverse Company instead of being forced to invest into it via Facebook.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2022 18:17
|
|
|
Automata 10 Pack posted:Yes. Absolutely. The shooting is the desired end and she and her ilk will employ any tools they can get away with using to push ever increasing amounts of violence and terror upon their Other of the moment (currently LGBT+ and likely to continue being so, but not limited strictly to them), until and unless they feel real world consequences for doing so.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2022 18:20
|
|
|
koolkal posted:That's an argument in favor of dividends + buybacks. If a company is incentivized to re-invest the money, they're going to eventually re-invest it into areas that are tangential or completely unrelated to their core business. This also will tend to result in larger megacorps that have a vast array of different businesses. I don’t see it as axiomatic that all internal investment eventually becomes useless, but I can see that as being common due to the tendency of profits to fall. Growth or death being the only two conceivable outcomes to American capitalists seems like the root issue, or one of them at least. Why not just pay people more if you’re doing good, that’s investing in the company too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2022 18:22
|
|
|
The conversation about stock buybacks has been misleading over the past few years. They're another form of dividends, to be honest. When a dividend gets payed out, there's a drop in stock price commensurate with the dividend. Stock buybacks prop the price up. They both take company money away from investing back into the business and give it to the shareholder instead.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2022 18:26
|
|
|
small butter posted:The conversation about stock buybacks has been misleading over the past few years. They're another form of dividends, to be honest. When a dividend gets payed out, there's a drop in stock price commensurate with the dividend. Stock buybacks prop the price up. They both take company money away from investing back into the business and give it to the shareholder instead. Seems bad! Seems like you have too much money not being applied to the core business purpose if that’s what you’re spending it on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2022 18:27
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:McCarthy says he is sticking with his promise to remove Eric Swalwell, Adam Schiff, and Ilhan Omar from their committee assignments in retaliation for Democrats kicking Steve King and Marjorie Taylor Greene from their committee assignments. Wouldn't this require a vote by the entire House, basically to create a "no Ilhan Omars" rule? My understanding is that the partisan balance of a committee is set in the rules that a House passes at the start of its session, but who exactly represents the Dems and GOP is a matter for the relevant caucus unless the entire chamber intercedes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2022 18:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 20:04 |
|
|
small butter posted:The conversation about stock buybacks has been misleading over the past few years. They're another form of dividends, to be honest. When a dividend gets payed out, there's a drop in stock price commensurate with the dividend. Stock buybacks prop the price up. They both take company money away from investing back into the business and give it to the shareholder instead. If they’re another form of dividends, why are they different and why is there a debate on the issue? Some things like how is the tax structure different, is there a difference in how rapidly the stock price goes up and down, can you fund dividends with debt? Can you show how they are the same form of thing?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2022 18:33
|
|
