Wouldn’t the combo of the first amendment and the supremacy clause pretty neatly dismantle the new Louisiana law?
Wouldn’t the combo of the first amendment and the supremacy clause pretty neatly dismantle the new Louisiana law?
Right.
Honestly for as much “woe is me” that they crammed into this piece, my takeaway was mostly just, “Hmmm…good.”
Like…I love rural PA, I’m just not wild about a lot of the people who live there. They vote against my own interests (and theirs), disproportionately influence state government, and welcome corporations that proudly destroy the environment while taking a hostile stance toward anyone not like them.
This isn’t down to every last person, of course, but broadly speaking, the ones who aren’t fitting that template are also not the ones doing most of the dying.
So the piece is reading, to me, more as, “the people most responsible for keeping the shitty aspects of Pennsylvania shitty are dying faster than they’re breeding”…which is good news for the more reasonable residents of the state.
Are you from rural PA?
So you just don’t work at all?
Knocked it out of the park with this comment.
Sincerely,
Someone originally from the same town as you, basically.
Hell, in the inter-war period, mainstream America was even generally pretty comfortable with…uh…if not actual fascism, at least things that looked and sounded a lot like fascism.
Because they’ve also got the lie-a-beetus.
The Great Basilisk is displeased by your repeated misspelling of the word “falter”.
Prepare your simulated ass.
They call it McConnelling.
Sitting here at 5 months out from election day…when will we finally get some good quality pandering?
I was so, so hyped for Squadrons, even had a HOTAS setup on my list…then the game came out.
Everything I heard, even from people who loved it, totally turned my view of it sour, and I was so glad I didn’t sink any money into it.
Maybe someday we’ll get a SW fighter sim that delivers.
It’s not like he’s got credibility consequences for lack of follow through at this point.
Implying there was ever a point where this wasn’t true.
But you’re working in that scenario because you’re being paid.
If you had that job where your employer only had a say in what you deliver (ignoring the obvious pitfalls of that arrangement), and they suddenly stopped paying you, or started only paying you half…would you still be okay with it?
If not, then you’re working because you like being paid, not because you want to work.
On the flip side: if you had some sort of situation where you got paid a comfortable living that allowed you to cover all your expenses, indulge some luxury, and save…and you got this money no matter what, just for waking up…would you still work every day? Or work until your employer was satisfied with your output each day/week/pay period?
Some might…most specifically (I would think) people whose jobs provide some sort of personal fulfillment like teachers, caregivers, etc. but I think the vast majority of people would take the money and live lives that offered personal enjoyment and fulfillment, doing what they wanted to do, not what an employer (who at that point isn’t their source of pay) would like them to do.
But let’s say you could also make that living wage just by existing. In a world where you wake up each day and a day’s worth of your living wage was automatically deposited into your account whether you worked a job you liked or even if you went out for a walk in the park…would you still choose to work every day?
Of all the reasons to not want Hillary to be president, this has got to be one of the most absurd takes I’ve encountered.
Right?
“Nobody wants to work anymore!”
Like no shit man.
News Flash: nobody has wanted to work ever. They work because the compensation lets them live the lives they want outside of work. If nobody wants to work for you, it’s because you either aren’t willing to compensate them enough to do that, or your job makes them so miserable that it’s not worth it for them to trade away that much happiness for the compensation.
Or both. In lots of cases it’s both.
The more the old lies are proven as lies, the closer we get to the truth:
Just as important as “getting the job done” is the notion among many employers that they truly believe that with their payroll they are buying human lives and happiness. That if they are paying a worker for their time and labor that they are entitled to also dictate how that person feels about it…and if that worker is not sufficiently miserable, then they can be squeezed further.
I used to think that it was purely about money…that the idea was that if a worker ever got “all caught up” and had free time, then they should be generating more wealth for their employer in some other way…but then we had the pandemic.
The pandemic where lots and lots of workers had to suddenly do the whole work from home thing. And in that time, these employers were thrilled to go along with it, since it meant continuing to make money. And in that time, most office workers eventually turned out to be happier and even more productive.
…yet in the wake of the pandemic, many of these employers have chosen less productivity in exchange for bringing their employees back to offices. The only explanation for bringing employees back in who were happier and more productive from home is that these employers value the image of control and the ability to make their workers unhappy more than they value productivity and money.
And he’s got 3 members of the Supreme Court to back him up.
Thomas and Alito: “Are we a joke to you?!”
I went from IE to Firefox back in that same timeframe, then by the time Chrome came out, my Firefox just had too much clutter and Chrome was way faster.
Within the past year, Chrome managed to enshittify itself enough that I’ve gone back to Firefox on PC (still using chrome on mobile) and it’s the same sort of “lighter, faster” feel that I got years ago when I left it for Chrome.
There’s also the whole ad blocker bullshit too, of course. YouTube ads were the last straw for me.
You’re getting downvoted because Lemmy, but that’s more or less how I read the ruling as well. They ruled very specifically in a way that let them punt on all the other questions these trials have created.
I’d hoped for better, but not realistically.