|
I thought it was a lot stronger than the segment on how psychics are lame, which I thought was just kinda regurgitating info we've known for years and years. I'm surprised he didn't get more topical with automation, though, and linked it to some of the GND proposals like basic income and free education. It is hard for people to get their heads around the idea that not only will we eventually not have enough jobs to go around, but eventually their unskilled labor might not be worth anything anymore.
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2019 18:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 11:46 |
|
|
Woden posted:https://www.fcc.gov/political-campaign-robocalls-robotexts I wondered if it's an example of rich people/corporation privilege, where you can break all the laws you want since they're only penalized with a fine, so you just have to factor paying the fine into your budget. For all the money John blows on this show, I can easily imagine a $20k line item on the budget for "Pay Robocall Fines."
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2019 13:44
|
|
|
That's honestly what I thought Trump would do. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2019 02:07
|
|
|
That clip they played of that interview was really telling. The interviewer is saying "They worked for you 200 nights a year..." and trails off, and there's a second of silence where Vince looks down for a sec like he might actually be thinking about it, then you can see his face change and he does his mock-crying bit and swipes at the interviewer's notes. It's like he might have had actually feelings for a second, but just shut it all down because gently caress this, gently caress that guy, I'm not gonna feel bad. It's not like he was directly inflamed by something the interviewer said, he had dead silence for a second and took the time to decide the best way to respond was to blow up. Seems like a real, real rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2019 19:01
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:How is "Drumpf", which just looks kind of German I guess, a dumber-sounding name than "Trump", which literally means "elephant noise", "trumpet noise", and "fart"? I'm not sure if this is a joke or what, but "trump" has been used for basically hundreds of years to mean the high-ranking suit in card games. Or as a verb, to beat someone by pulling those high cards out. I mean, I don't like the guy any more than you do, but the word's a pretty good pick for a name over "drumpf" for positive meanings associated with it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2019 18:31
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:It means those things as well, sure. But outside the context of either card games or surnames its a funny-sounding onomatopoeia. Wheras "Drumpf" is just vaguely German-sounding. The whole "call him Drumpf because it sounds dumb" thing just comes across as really weird, because, you know his actual name is "Trump", right? "Trump" sounds way dumber than "Drumpf", unless you think there's just something inherently funny about German-sounding words, I guess. My entire point was that "Trump" sounds better than "Drumpf" because of the positive associations with card games. No one thinks onomatopoeia trumpet sound when they hear "trump", they think trump cards, getting trumped, etc. Outside the context they're intended for, EVERY word is just a funny-sounding collection of syllables, when it comes right down to it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2019 23:24
|
|
|
Wow, this one was illuminating for me. I wouldn't think they'd be quite so shameless about how their plan is to squeeze the poor til they're dry, even in their ghoulish little seminars, but here we are. It's a measure of how good their wordplay game is that I didn't immediately establish "manufactured home" = "mobile home" -- John only described it as "a home that's put together elsewhere and moved to the site" versus a home built onsite, and the title graphic for the story showed what looked like a small home surrounded by grass, and I kept thinking "what's so bad about that?" until I realized they were talking about trailer parks. Why do they only ever decrease in value? Are they just made from much shittier materials than real homes? Good lord, why would you ever want to do this? What on earth is the benefit over just renting an apartment or condo? It doesn't even look like it's really much cheaper -- apparently the price of the home itself is around $50k or ($100k for a double) and the lot rent can range from $300-600 monthly depending on where you live. I suppose after you pay off the trailer itself, you own THAT and just have to pay lot rent for the rest of your life, sure hope that doesn't ever go up...
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2019 14:39
|
|
|
tarlibone posted:Most modern prefab homes are of this type now. They're often, if not usually, at least double-wide. My cousin bought some land in Florida several years ago, cleared it, had a slab poured, and had one of these homes moved in. If I didn't know that it was prefab, I probably wouldn't have known that it was anything but a regular single-story house on a slab. Due to local regulations, it can't remain mobile; the axles were removed and it was permanently strapped down to supports embedded in the slab so that it wouldn't blow away in a hurricane. Yeah, that's the reason it took a bit for me to realize "manufactured homes" were just mobile homes. When I was a kid, I had a couple friends that lived in one that actually looked like a trailer, with metal sides and I think there were even wheels. When you see the new ones IN a trailer park surrounded by other trailers in tiny little lots, it's a lot more obvious. But in this image all by itself, it just kinda looks like a tiny house.  Surrounded by tons of land, I wouldn't think to attach the stigma of "mobile home" because well, the homes themselves are fine, it's just the ridiculous permanent land-rental that comes along with them, and the poorer neighborhoods that they become. Come to think of it, when I was in school I looked up a couple trailer parks when we were looking for a new apartment, and the prices WERE deceptively cheap, to the point where I was thinking "why would we ever bother renting a place instead of just buying a trailer?" Except the rates left out the actual lot rental fees (or possibly the trailer cost, it's been a long time) and just advertised their prices at 2/3 the actual cost. It took some hunting to figure out it would be quite a bit more than some of the apartments we were looking at for the privilege of acquiring some dubious equity in a mobile home and a promise to keep paying lot rental fees forever.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2019 13:55
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:I'd imagine that yeah, this would be perfectly legal, but of course the Broadway producers would never agree to it because it would tank the value of those tickets. Would it? I'd think it was cool to have been at the production that they broadcast and distribute.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2019 03:54
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:Counterpoint: The state should not be allowed to decide that someone deserves to die. That doesn't seem like a counterpoint at all.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2019 21:44
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:His post said that he was a firm believer in the death penalty. Did you read the second sentence of that post? The one that says, essentially, that the state should not be allowed to decide whether someone deserves to die?
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2019 13:12
|
|
|
The loudest voice for impeachment is the homeless guy who panhandles near the freeway onramp by my house. Dude just screaming at the top of his lungs every time I drive by.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2019 13:34
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:The problem with nationalizing internet access is that it probably lowers the bar significantly for law enforcement to spy on people. Current ISPs don’t have to turn over customer data to any copyright attorney who asks and can tell police to come back with a warrant. This is a tradeoff I wouldn't even blink at, though. I already assume that if I'm ever a person of interest, my entire internet history is going to be visible to anyone who really wants to see it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2019 03:08
|
|
|
Yeah, if we're talking about nationalizing big corporations Amazon is way down the list. Comcast and ATT are the two big targets there.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2019 21:59
|
|
|
This poo poo was a living nightmare for me back when I was in college. I have an illness that can cause debilitating and random pain flare-ups, and it's been documented for years, and I go for regular check-ups and treatments from a legitimate doctor from an award-winning hospital. This didn't stop the nearby emergency room from deciding that I was a drug-seeker, after I'd been to the ER a half dozen times in a couple months during a particularly bad period. After one or two visits where the only thing that stopped the pain was Dilaudid and Zofran, I made the mistake of telling the triage nurse "I was here with this a couple weeks ago and the only thing that stopped the pain was Dilaudid and Zofran." The doctor KNEW I was a drug seeker, refused to give me narcotics, and told me my disease doesn't cause pain like that (sure). I told him to give me a drug screen, the only thing they'd find was weed. Drug screen came back "inconclusive", according to him, because he couldn't admit the evidence didn't bear out his hypothesis. Left me writhing in agony for upwards of four hours before it went away on its own. Stupid me went back there the next time and they didn't even admit me, just left me vomiting and moaning in the waiting room until I was too annoying, then they moved me to another tiny private waiting room so I could get on with it without bothering them. My mother eventually showed up and tried to advocate on my behalf, and they told her I was a druggie and other people in the waiting room saw me stick my fingers down my throat to throw up (sure). I have never been more disillusioned with a practice I'd been taught to respect. At least when politicians gently caress you over they didn't claim to be devoting their lives to healing the sick.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2019 05:22
|
|
|
Atomizer posted:What happened to you is an unfortunate reaction to the period of liberal opiate/opioid prescription that resulted in the mess we're in now; now all healthcare professionals are hyper-sensitive to potential drug-seekers. However, it would've been illegal for any ED to refuse service to you, and it sounds like you ran into some shockingly unprofessional providers. (It wouldn't have been out of the question, however, to make you wait if you were triaged and they had to attend to more serious cases - yours wasn't life-threatening, after all.) It's Crohn's Disease, not to be mysterious about it, and yeah, the Zofran wasn't the issue, but the fact that I came in and specifically asked for Dilaudid was solid conclusive proof that I was drug seeking, no matter my medical history, drug screen, or the fact that that was exactly how they treated my symptoms before. And this was a good ten years ago, before the opioid crisis was so visible. John Oliver did an episode about that a couple years ago actually, and it made me so angry that I almost sent them a nasty email. He made a joke out of some professional that was on TV trying to explain it: "Some of these people are not drug-seeking, they're relief-seeking" but of course it looks like the exact same thing, and Oliver mocked him. But no, that's a real drat thing. My specialists are treating the root cause of my symptoms, but when I have debilitating pain and uncontrollable vomiting, I should be able to seek relief at a hospital without going through that kind of poo poo. And I shouldn't be conclusively tagged as a druggie for the crime of knowing what they used to control my symptoms before.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2019 12:56
|
|
|
Oh my god these people just piss me off so much I can't stand it. These arrogant shitbags with their LiBeRtY. This moron walking around talking about how we're under conditions like Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia because there's a loving pandemic and he has to sneak to his hairdresser's house because he's not supposed to go out during the lockdown. Like you dumb gently caress context is important here, your right to walk around on pointless errands is not the ultimate most important thing in the world when we're trying to prevent a million people from dying. And the reporter lobbing Trump the softest of softballs as she compares all the other reporters in the room to Chinese propaganda. All of these people should be hit in the face. What was the word from that website?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2020 18:40
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Does this not-news station air its dicksucking "questions" on its own programs, or is their purpose just to give an ego boost to the one man that needs it the least? I think the purpose is that their reporters get to come to the briefings as a guest of the White House even when they've been banned for attending more than their share of briefings. I've never watched these things but I imagine they use some of the resulting footage for Trump sound bites, or just start the clip with the reporter's final question without all the cocksucking preamble.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2020 02:10
|
|
|
It makes me sound like a stupid rear end in a top hat but I miss hearing everyone laugh at the jokes. I think I get some kind of satisfaction from knowing other people are also cracking up at whatever I'm laughing at.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2020 01:00
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:I feel like even people who always disliked him still underestimated how lovely of a person he is because they simply could not imagine a person being so terrible in so many different ways. Like of course he must keep up with the news, how could he not? He must have read something in his life, right? The bar cannot possibly be this low, right? I remember the first couple days after the election I was saying this kind of thing. My cousin works in Ann Arbor and he said there were people literally crying about him and planning a protest, and asking him honestly "do you think the protest will work?" like sure, he spent hundreds of millions of dollars and won the election, but since some hippies in Ann Arbor marched down the street of course he'll let Clinton take it instead. And we laughed about it, because what's done is done, and we should at least give him a chance, maybe the gravity of his situation will sober him up a little bit and he won't be a ridiculous clown. I think the very next day the media called him out for discussing matters of national security around the table at a diner.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2020 16:22
|
|
|
I'm surprised he didn't mention the NASCAR races that were held online in iRacing, a racing simulator video game. Not that I'm a fan, I just know about it because I saw one of the NASCAR drivers dropped an N-bomb on stream and got suspended. 
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2020 16:31
|
|
|
I think he's done a deep dive on for-profit prisons before, hasn't he?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2020 21:26
|
|
|
muscles like this! posted:Except that when the author got to the section about 9/11 truthers he starts talking about how they actually have some reasonable ideas, thus undercutting the entire concept of the book. Okay, so one thing I never understood though. Why can't you see any debris from the plane in the pictures of the Pentagon?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2020 06:52
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:You can. Are you sure that debris isn't just photoshopped in* to convince people it wasn't a false flag and an opportunity for the deep state to destroy incriminating data held at the Pentagon? *by hackers funded by George Soros
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2020 18:40
|
|
|
I was gonna post that haha. There's something special about chuds wrapped in Thin Blue Line flags dancing to "for wearing the badge they're the chosen whites." e: I think lady chud on the left is singing "those who died were justified" but isn't sure what to do about the next line.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2020 21:13
|
|
|
Pisses me off when John refuses to acknowledge the actual problem. Like: We're very obviously missing something here. How do we get all the way from Cost of Labor Rises to Cost of Living Rises? For some reason we don't feel the need to explain that when the cost of labor rises, the wealthy owners get upset that they won't make quite as much as they did before, and raise their prices so they don't have to postpone buying their new boat. It's capitalism, John. The problem is always capitalism.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2022 14:23
|
|
|
cant cook creole bream posted:You could just as well argue that a rising cost of living should not automatically lead to workers demanding more wages. It does automatically lead to demands for higher wages, because the workers need to be able to afford the cost of living to, y'know, continue living. Businesses, however, aren't typically facing existential crises in the face of slightly lower profit margins, so intellectual honesty demands some explanation as to why rising wages "automatically" leads to higher cost of living.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2022 17:24
|
|
|
cant cook creole bream posted:I am not a chill for big business, but the idea that inflation would just stop when the companies wouldn't rise prices is laughably short sighted. Okay, I'm into unfamiliar waters that go beyond criticizing a graphic here. But...how is this true? If I magically deposited $10,000 into everyone's bank account and also magically stopped companies from raising prices, then how would the money become less valuable? It seems like that only happens when businesses raise prices to take advantage of everyone being slightly more willing to spend money. If companies raise wages and then just accept slightly lower profit margins rather than raise prices, how does that not stop the cost of living from going up?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2022 18:40
|
|
|
cant cook creole bream posted:But price changes aren't just a decision by the supply side to earn more money. If the demand is way higher than the supply allows and it's not feasible to upscale, an increase in price to lower the demand is a reasonable decision for both sides. I see how this works in theory and at scale, but I don't understand how it would affect the day-to-day life of any specific person. Okay, we've all got more money in our pockets, but afaik we have enough food to feed everyone, so in your example they're not actually going to sell out of bread. I'm trying to think of the things I typically spend money on day-to-day -- gas, electricity, food, clothes, cleaning supplies, pet stuff, video games -- and I can't think of many examples where demand would be exhausting the supply if it wasn't for poverty holding it back. Okay, maybe when I go to buy a new computer it's more expensive because there are so many more people willing to pay $800 for a video card, but all the examples I can come up with seem to be one-time luxury purchases like that, not the things people actually need to keep going.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2022 19:26
|
|
|
Hakkesshu posted:Who thinks this No one sane. Azhais posted:Kitkats are my favorite candy, narrowly beating out those keebler sugar wafers that I'm reasonably sure are mostly styrofoam I rest my case.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2022 15:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 11:46 |
|
|
tarlibone posted:If I woke up and I was Thomas, I would immediately take the deal. There would be no hesitation. You can't just wake up and become Clarence Thomas, though, you only get there with a lifetime of hypocrisy and equivocation, and so you've convinced yourself that what you're doing is Right and more important than money (but you're certainly not going to turn DOWN money if it comes your way)
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2024 07:05
|
|