"Slaves do not dream of freedom. When their eyes sadden at the gleam of gold, they are not pining to be free. They want slaves of their own."
"'Xoros is the greatest bullfighter in the world,' may be an obvious lie, but you are still tricked to believe Xoros fights bulls, or that he even exists at all."
Birondelle
So, it's his usual strategy then. Make all sorts of conflicting statements with conflicting messages so that each supporter can believe that he's genuinely speaking for their interests but that trump is simply lying to all the other supporters that have conflicting interests.
If banks hold 100% of the money and lend it all out x10 (fractional reserve) and earn 1% interest, the money supply is growing by 10% per year.
You've got it backwards.
Banks hold other people's money and use it to issue loan. It's the issuance of loans that creates money. The fractional reserve doesn't magically multiply the money. It just (in a roundabout way) allows banks to loan up to that multiplier of money to people. But that only works if there's people who want to borrow that money.
If a bank earns 1% interest, that doesn't grow the money supply. It transfers money from the people that borrowed the money to the bank which then uses it to pay executives, shareholders and employees (in that order of priority).
The higher the interest rates, the less money people can afford the borrow, the more the money supply shrinks.
Banks HATE high federal reserve rates, because that means people don't borrow as much which means they don't make as much money.
When business and the wealthy class get richer, they want to get even RICHER. Prices rise. Which drives record profit, which makes rich people wealthier, which causes the cycle to repeat.
This can only happen in a poorly regulated environment where the rich setup monopolies or oligopolies. Otherwise they'd lose all their customers if they raise prices.
We just need proper incentive structures and regulation. But seeing as nobody has the guts to start figuring that out, the only lever we have is interest rates.
I think you're just speaking for yourself here. Before you start spreading misinformation on the internet, maybe you should find the guts to actually figure out what you're talking about.
High federal reserve rates can make things difficult for banks and that might be why the CEO of JP Morgan is butt hurt right now.
Want to deal with inflation? Raise interest rates.
Want to really improve the population's purchasing power? Break up the monopolies and oligopolies.
Isn't the Gaza hospital at the very least confirmed to have been a relatively minor explosion in the parking lot?
I'm not claiming this is right or wrong. But here's the justification.
The criminal justice system is there to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a crime occurred. When it comes to distinguishing consensual sex from rape, it's nearly impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt, because it ends up being just she said, he said. One tactic is to show a pattern of multiple victims. So if multiple victims independently come forward with a similar story of sexually predatory behavior, then you have compelling evidence that might be enough for "beyond reasonable doubt".
What this means is that, in principle, rapists can just start raping left and right and keep getting away with it. At least for a while. I don't claim here anything about how frequent or rare these rapists may be.
This can make life untenable for rape victims on university campus, in that they will not be able to keep going to class in the same room as the person that raped them. This creates even more injustice beyond just that of being victim of a crime that you can't prove, because they'll be forced to forego their studies.
So that's the justification given for why, morally, we need something that's a bit easier than "prove beyond reasonable doubt" that will make it possible for the victim to continue their studies. Legally, Title IX, along with a lot of acrobatics, provides the legal framework to force universities to do something about it.
In practice, it seems that at least in some universities you end up with a complete joke of a system. Universities are completely ill equipped to adjudicate such a complex situations. The whole thing is extremely politicized. The outcome of the investigation seems to be heavily based on the gender of the accuser and accused as well as political connections to the people involved in the process.
Regardless of if the previous is true or not. Not being allowed to cross-examine the accuser in a she-said he-said situation seems completely insane.
Personally, I think one party consent for legal recordings (recordings that can only be used for legal purposes in criminal proceedings) should become the norm world-wide. Then catching these rapists is going to be so easy that there won't be any need to even think about these kinds of kangaroo courts.
I just don't understand the logic here. Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of abolishing the Duluth Model and the requirement to incarcerate someone on a domestic violence call.
But neither this situation, nor the story you linked to seems to have much to do with that policy.
In both situations, the police acted completely out of bounds. It is a completely different problem.
The story on the website was written in 2014 about an incident that happened in 1999, that's almost 25 years ago. It can't be considered relevant today. If there's a real systemic problem of this kind, you should have at least a dozen cases like this every single year.
Hopefully, in this most recent case we'll get some body cam footage released so we find out what really happened.
And also hopefully, the body cams is what will put this guy off the force forever. It's the second time he seems to have done something like this, but I'd bet that the first time, body cams were not standard practice yet.
Seems to me that the solution to stop this kind of thing from being a common problem is body cams, and that's what we have.
Make it do they have to have it, to be able to loan it
The banks do have to have it to be able to loan it.
Fractional reserve says that they're not allowed to loan all of it.
So if you deposit 100k at the bank and there's a 10% fractional reserve. Then they're only allowed to loan 90k.
Now you might ask, so if the bank can only loan 90% of the money they have where does the money multiplier come from?
If person A comes and deposits 100k, and the bank loans 90k to person B. Then there's still only 100k in cash, but now there's 190k in bank accounts.
So every time someone comes in to deposit 100k, they loan out 90k. Once they've got 1,000k, they've loaned out 900k and keep 100k cash in reserve.
The important difference here is that loan only happen when there's a borrow. And there are strict regulations about how reliable those loans can be. Which is why they tend to require collateral.
So, really when a bank has 1,000k in people's account, it only has 100k in cash. But it also has 900k in houses, cars and furniture.
The whole system ends up stabilizing the value of money because it is backed by real tangible things through the loaning and collateral system.
I also think it helps to keep money at a stable but small rate of inflation (1-2%). Otherwise people will just hoard the cash instead of growing the economy in the form of investments. But I don't know what the literature says on that topic, or how reliable that literature is, in practice.
My point is, getting rid of the whole system just because it looks complicated to you seems like a terrible idea.
Like our focus should be on breaking up monopolies, progressive taxation and a solid well funded social support system. I think it's safe to leave the management of the money supply to the bean counters for now. It's clearly not perfect but it's not bad either.
Honestly, 2024 seems more like an attempt to return to sanity while the elites are trying to learn how to use their new toys. 2026 midterms will be the beta test and 2028 is going to be the real shit show.
If executive unions could enforced a max amount of hours worked for executives and other similar quality of life requirements. Maybe there would be fewer sociopaths and more humans in executive positions.
Fully decentralized, no censorship at the core of the system.
You pay a moderator to send you a filtered feed that filters out illegal content.
Then you upvote/downvote what you like and don't like. A local system looks at what other people upvoted and downvoted. People who upvoted/downvoted like you gain credibility people who upvoted/downvoted opposite you gain negative credibility. Then you get shown the content with the most credibility. And a little like pagerank, the credibility propagates, so people upvoted by others with high credibility will also have high credibility.
So, anyone can post anything to any subforum.
But in principle if you upvote/downvote posts based on whether they are appropriate to that subforum, then you'll only see posts that are appropriate for every subforum, because other users who upvote/downvote like you will also downvote off topic posts.
So you end up with the internet you vote for. If you downvote everyone that disagrees with you, you'll be in an echochamber. If you upvote does who disagree with you while making a good faith effort to bring up solid points, and you'll find yourself in an internet full of interesting and varied viewpoints.
You could also create different profile depending on what mood you're in.
Maybe you feel like reading meme so you use your memes profile where you only upvote funny memes and downvote everything else.
Or you're more feeling like serious discussions and you don't want to see meme so you use your serious discussions profile.
Right, but telling Republicans that their representative wants to make America great again while thinking it's an insult. That's dialing the stupid up to 1000.
If you're in a swing state. You vote for Biden.
If you're not in a swing state, you vote third party.
Don't not vote, by voting you make your intention and commitment very clear. Even if your third party candidate never has a chance, mainstream politicians may notice the interest in that third party candidates platform and adopt some of his/her policies.
Participate in your state's primary elections. There's a lot more diversity of policies there and you can make your voice heard there as well.
Participate in your city and state elections, the amount of money effort and attention placed on federal elections (especially presidential) is completely outsized compared to local elections. Which means the amount of influence that you can have as an individual relative to amount of power the offices that you have influence over is huge compared to the same calculation at the federal level.
Many politicians start at the state and municipal level. So your influence there can be very helpful. Also if Trumps gets some success at creating a authoritarian dystopia at the federal level, it can be mitigated at the state and municipal level. Just like how each state can make sure to protect the right of abortion despite the supreme court flip on the subject.
If what you're looking for is a decentralized pseudonymous system. Then this is absolutely possible with today's cryptography.
It's called public-private keys. You create a private key that you can use to "sign" your messages. And people can verify that is was you that wrote the message by using the public key.
No one can pretend to be you because only you have access to your private key and the public key can't be used to find out what the private key is.
It's still anonymous because you don't have to say who you are when you create the private key.
It's not perfect because the same person can create as many different keys as they want. So you can't really "ban" someone. They'll just create a new key and pretend to be someone new.
Why take sides at all.
Because they've wandered into an echo chamber and are now hyper aware of all the real bad things on side did plus a few false bad things. While all of the bad things the other side did have been downplayed or justified.
I sadly don't know enough on the topic to say more on this. And the amount of research needed to get even an idea of "who is worse" is massive due to all the misinformation (or misleading information) on the topic everywhere.
I do know that neither side is taking a sensible approach to the problem because right wing nutbags are in charge of both sides.
You're describing profit, not money supply.
Bank profits don't cause inflation in the way you seem to say and bank profits are no different than any other company's profits in terms of how they affect inflation.
I'm not well connected to law culture to know for sure. But it does seem like there is a fair amount of politics involved as well as guilt related.
If you're a man accused of raping a woman, whether you're guilty or not. You're not going to pick a lawyer with a track record of ending her tweets with hashtag KAM.
If you've looked at the Johny Depp trial. Even expert witnesses will differ along an ideological divide (typically gender oriented ideological divide).
So if you're representing a man, you'll want to use one set of expert witnesses. Whereas a if you're representing a woman you'll want to use a completely different set of expert witnesses. It might stand to reason that a lawyer will just pick one side of the ideological aisle and become an expert at it (and likely acquire the corresponding professional deformation and echo chamber ideology of that particular side of the ideological debate).
So there's plenty of reason to pick a lawyer based on their ideological association in this kind of case. Regardless of your own level of guilt.
But at the same time, maybe there are lawyers who specialize in defending guilty people whereas others specialize in defending innocent people.
I wouldn't read to much into the choice of lawyers, but it can certainly be a red-ish flag.
If I learned anything from playing Civilzation, even when you win a neighoring city over to your side with culture or trade alone, they’re always going to be a problem. It’s better to just raze the whole damn thing to the ground and start over in the same spot.
That's genocide.
There a ton of different ways to get laid. And depending on what your looking for, there are different requirements.
Most commonly people who don't get laid are looking for some level of intimacy with someone that actually finds them attractive. Which means that hookers are not an option.
Commonly people in this category have two issues (I'm probably projecting :P, but I don't have much to work on):
Standards too high. Just like poor people try to become billionaires. Sexless people wish for a harem of super models. Practice flirting with less attractive women until you learn to connect with women on a deeper level which will make lowering your standards to reasonable levels easier.
You're unattractive. A bit similarly to #1, influencers and your own expectations for a partner are warping your perception of how attractive you need to be. Seeing as the level of attractiveness you wish you had is completely unattainable, you give up or you look for ineffective shortcuts.
Don't worry so much, work on the basics: good hygiene, not terrible clothes, some level of social competence, a minimal amount of confidence. The minimum requirements are far lower than what you'd expect or what most people would think.
(Note being financially stable also helps in terms of minimum requirements for attractiveness, but it's not like you need the incentive of getting laid to want to be financially stable).
Keep working on both #1 and #2 and eventually they meet and you get laid and have a good time!
Now, do the calculation again, but by gender.
And then do it again, and this time use race AND gender.
That’s a point about being unable to strike a balance between two groups who do not see eye to eye.
Yes, it's a fundamental problem of life. Some people suggest compromise. Some people suggest a different kind of solution. A "final" solution so to speak.
Now you read this quote again and you tell me: Which of these solution does he suggest is best?
If I learned anything from playing Civilzation, even when you win a neighoring city over to your side with culture or trade alone, they’re always going to be a problem. It’s better to just raze the whole damn thing to the ground and start over in the same spot.
TLDR: If you find yourself defending the person hyperbolically calling for genocide against the person condemning it. It might be time to ask yourself "Are we the baddies?"
I can't bring myself to give an actual example. But imagine this scenario, I'm hanging out with a couple of work colleagues. Let's call them fixtionalJake and BroBroBro. Now were just chatting something comes up about all the vandalism that black people did during the BLM protest and fixtionalJake makes an obviously hyperbolic comment proposing that all black people should get murdered or that their ancestors should have. But the comment is a little bit indirect, and clearly absurdly impossible to implement. BroBroBro is laughing along.
I'm standing there thinking, that is some seriously messed up racist stuff right there. For sure fixtionalJake is a least a little bit racist, but maybe he didn't quite understand how it came across.
So I say dude that was f'ed up that the most racist thing I ever heard, what the hell is wrong with you? His response is: "I'm not gonna get caught by this dumb rhetoric, if someone commits a crime, you put them in jail don't you?"
Everyone in the company up to the vice precident smile, and agrees. BroBroBro, knows which the tide is turning and he wants to fit in, so he adds: "Yeah dufus, that thing he said is obviously impossible to do, what are you, 'stupid'?"
I suspect that if you were in my place you would just conclude that both those guys and pretty much the entire company are at the very list raging racist assholes.
But not me, I have faith in humanity. Yes, every single thing they've done is consistent with raging racist assholes. It's even consistent with the behavior of people who are genuinely hoping to find a way to genocide every black person.
But BroBroBRo's behavior is also consistent with that of someone who's just a little bit clueless and just a little bit too desperate to fit in. It's probably consistent with many other kinds of behavior.
fixtionalJake is 99% chance a raging racist asshole, but maybe not really a genocidal one though. I mean he could, but it's also possible that he's not.
Either way, I'm quitting my job, working triple time for the competition at half pay. Just in case. just to make sure they don't get the to snowball the funds to actually do it.
And that's how I justify my behavior of posting all over this thread. Just in case. I want everyone to understand that indiscriminately killing all far right wingers is an abhorrent and evil thing to do. And I don't want this to be a place where you can dog-whistle-advocate for such killings without getting called out on it.
It literally cannot get any more ironic.
You missed the part where this particle gripe is how someone is refusing to apologize for wrongdoing. And they be out here doubling down on their stances that calling for genocide is perfectly fine if you label the people you want to genocide as Nazis.
The levels of irony here are shooting through the roof. And they seem to be doing it all with a straight face too.
I'm searching so hard for the slightest whiff of sanity and I've found absolutely nothing yet.
First of all, I'm not talking about what is. I'm talking about what should be.
But the way the law treats speech in the United States, I think is correct.
If you're trying to immorally cause direct harm with your speech (e.g. calling Fire in a crowded theater, or organizing an insurrection) then that should be illegal.
If you're only talking about the idea related to these, like how you think it should be legal to punch Nazis. Then that should be allowed by allow. But the people around you should call you out for being full of hate and spreading hate and that you're really not being the good person you think you are when you're doing this and you should stop.
The opponents were not the ones coughing. Don’t gaslight.
How can you be this dense? Where did I say that the opponents were coughing? Nowhere. So try again to understand what I'm saying because you clearly didn't understand and I don't know how to make it any more clear. Read what I said again and I recommend you try to use your brain this time.
And their quote was in big letters in a box by itself with no context
There was context: the content of the article calling for increased ability for individual parents to have control over what their kids are taught. This opposes the concept of centralized control over what children are taught which is what the Hitler quote was promoting.
The weird thing is that I'm still fairly confident that the Moms of Liberty do have as their end goal to gain control over education curriculum and make it heavily ideologically based on their own anti-lgbtq+, pro religious and eventually racist ideology. But all this "evidence" you're giving me is starting to make me wonder if I've been bamboozled.
None of this changes the fact that you still have failed to condemn a comment on this very thread that is part of your community, supported by your community and is calling for genocide. Which is IMO still far worse than anything I've seen you (possibly falsely) accused the Moms of Liberty of doing.
It's not a random message board. It's THIS message board, THIS thread. The one that you're contributing to right now. The one where you've decided to argue against the person condemning genocide instead of arguing against the person calling for genocide.
I can see that very little is ever clear to you except your preconceived notions.
Obviously, I meant that it was the opponents of the Moms for Liberty that were attempting to humiliate the Moms for Liberty by calling for a moment of silence.
And you keep saying "quoting Hitler" as if that was an indictment on their (the Moms of Liberty) character. They were quoting Hitler in condemnation to his statement, not in support of it.
Just from a couple of passing references in the passed, I already basically assumed they were far right anti lgbtq+ pieces of shit.
It's just now when I see all the "evidence" you're giving in support of that I'm almost reconsidering my original position... Ok, but not really.
They coughed during a moment of silent purportedly to be in recognition of the victims of the holocausts but the context is clear that the intent was just to humiliate this particular political group.
That's not evidence of anything. It's just another nothing burger.
I'm not disputing any of that. I haven't looked into it, but it seems very believable that an extreme right wing group hates lgbt+ and is at least low-key racist.
What I'm disputing is the characterization of their use of a Hitler quote as being clearly in support of Nazism. When the context clearly indicates that they were comparing their political opponents to nazis, aka they condemning the quote.
But that's not my main point of contention with the community here. My main point of contention with the community here is that in this thread there is currently a comment jokingly calling for genocide with 27 upvotes and no condemnations.
At the very least Moms for Liberty had the goods sense to publish a correction to make the intent behind their Hitler was that they were condemning. Meanwhile, you guys seem to be doubling down on promoting genocide.
I accidently replied as a top comment here: https://kbin.social/m/politics@lemmy.world/t/133199/-/comment/522700
Now I'm doing a triple reply but I think it needs to be said.
There's a huge difference between tolerating intolerance and tolerating the intolerant.
Right now I'm doing the best I can to be tolerant of you. But I will not tolerate your intolerance. It is utterly unacceptable.
But a group is composed of individuals. If you treat the misguided members of that group the same as their disingenuous leaders, especially if you're playing fast and loose with the facts, then you'll be pushing them towards their leaders and towards extremism.
That said, I also understand the value of discrediting an entire group as a whole. From a strategic and deterrence perspective where you're trying to reduce the effectiveness and power of the group and you're trying to cause people to second guess lending their support to that group by attacking their reputation. But also from a moral perspective if you're going to lend support to a group that has nefarious objectives and produces harmful results, you have some responsibility for that regardless of your intentions.
But again, I'm most upset about seeing so much support and no pushback to someone sorta kinda jokingly advocating for genocide.
But also the irony of a person B grandstanding about how it's not ok to derail a conversation. When really they're trying to keep it on the derailed topic of the group's original topic.
It's like "oh nos what bad faiths piece of shits these Moms for Liberty are! We derailed the conversation fair and square to this Hitler quote that we may or may not have intentionally misinterpreted and now they want to derail it back to talking about your original grievance, we can't let them get away with this kind of sneaky debate tactics"
I'm obviously exaggerating and paraphrasing here.
At the very least downvote it. There's now EIGHTEEN upvotes, 2 boosts, and I'm still the only downvote on that comment. And I know people can find the downvote button because I can see how many downvotes I'm getting.
Moderators here don't have a rule against calls for violence. I already reported it, but technically it's not against the rules. Which I can understand in a politics magazine where war can be a topic of discussion, you don't want to be banning people when for example the government is actively engaging in mass murder (e.g. like the Rwanda genocide) and a commenter is saying that the people should defend themselves with lethal force if necessary.
"But guess who it is that I see acting in bad faith right now? You."
Yeah, can you explain this a bit more?
Yes I can. But also, I have to apologize, saying "bad faith" was definitely going a bit too far. What you're doing is being exceedingly and ironically uncharitable.
I'm guessing that the Moms of Liberty have quite a lot of statements to make the but the one in the newsletter that contained the quote was about giving parents more control over their children's education. THAT is the topic of discussion (or at least what they present as their side of the discussion, their true agenda may differ).
Opponents to Moms of Liberty are derailing the topic of discussion by making it about quoting Hitler. This particular article quotes a member of Moms of Liberty advocating for not apologizing, because if they apologize that will become the story instead of the actual thing she wanted to talk about.
Then you come on here and say, don't let them derail the conversation by bringing it back to the thing they actually want to talk about.
In contrast, you’re associating me with some quote about killing “far-right shitbirds” because…why? I’m not seeing the logic of the association between me and that quote or about how I’m acting in bad faith.
Because it is a quote by someone on this very thread with 14 upvotes. This is a member of your community and they're popularly supported and you've done nothing to reign them in.
The quality of my comments have been so abysmal I see. And jokingly calling for genocide is one of the best quality comments on this thread.
Ok, here's a source for that. Weird that so few articles are mentioning the specifics.
This is starting to make a whole lot more sense.
I can see how those buoys can actually be effective. But I wonder how expensive it would be to setup full coverage.
Also putting these on a river that serves as an international border without federal approval is some nonsense. It's like, what's next? Texas starts to unilaterally make trade agreements with mexico because they're the ones at the border?
I'm not a big fan of the pulling on the hearstrings. These people are dying with or without the border fences. And presumably if they're willing to take these risks, it's because the situation where they come from is even worse. You can't just simply point at the location where they end up dying and say that's where all the evil is. If they survive the river, they can die in the desert, if they survive the desert, they can die as a vagrant. If they get picked up, they can get sent back to mexico right back where they were in at least as much danger. If they get accepted as a refugee then they become the government's responsibility, which is not a solution that scales to the number of people that need it. That's before you even ask the question of whether the US government should accept responsibility (which I think it should, I suspect that the US's mismanaged war on drug is in large part to blame for the unrest in Mexico).
But the whole thing gets even more complicated because Mexican cartels are responsible for these illegal border crossing attempts. And they're likely lying to the immigrants about the benefits of crossing illegally. People may be risking their lives not knowing that what they're doing could kill them and that what they get in the end may not even be that much better than where they come from.
What you don't want is a situation where people are incentivized to risk their lives in illegal boarder crossings so that they can skip the line to obtain refugee status, taking spots away from people doing it the legal and safe way. That increases the overall misery and death. And if putting evil buoys that stink of death is going to get the job done, then it might be worth it.
Except it's not going to get the job done. And it's on an international river. And it's terrible optics. And they're illegal.
Replying to your edit:
edit: I also won’t fall victim to the paradox of tolerance. Punching Nazis is a net good. Superman does it, after all.
You're literally "jokingly" advocating for GENOCIDE!! What is wrong with you? Can't you tell the difference between punching someone in the face, and murdering an entire population over a political disagreement?
And instead of at the very least qualifying your statement saying "It's a joke, obviously I don't mean this should be taken literally and I'm just venting without really noticing the full ramifications of what I'm saying". Or something to that effect. You just double down on defending your statement.
At least when the Moms of Liberty were accused of supporting the Hitler quote, the modified their news letter to be double extra clear that they were condemning the Hitler quote. You can't even do that much...
From the very few references to them I've seen, that's exactly what I assumed them to be.
That doesn't excuse the behavior I see in this thread. By not addressing their points from a charitable perspective, you're playing right into the astroturfer's hands.
If you have real evidence to present of their true agenda, then present it. Otherwise, fight their presented agenda directly and advocate against their hidden agenda indirectly.
But most importantly there's a comment on here jokingly kinda calling for armed genocide with as of writing SEVETEEN upvotes. There's something deeply wrong with this community and that's what I object to the most.
Wtf is this unhinged gaslighting that wouldn't even trick a two year old? You literally said:
All Republicans are Nazis.
All Nazis must hang.
Therefore, should all Republicans be hanged?
And now you're accusing them of being Nazi's. But THEY know they're not Nazis (well those of them that aren't nazis think they're not nazis). So who are you trying to convince? Yourselves? Now they're worried because people are lying about them and what they want and then they'll just donate to the astroturfing organization that's protecting them from the unhinged lunatics accusing them of being nazis.
You need to fight on both fronts, you have to use a charitable approach to slow down grass roots recruiting. AND you attack the values and falsehoods behind the hidden agenda.
They have their public claims and they have their behind closed doors claims. You combat their public claims directly and proactively promote the counterarguments to their behind closed doors claims.
You also indict them for ACTUAL poor behavior that they've done.
This is the best source I could find for the original context for the Hitler quote. Sticking strictly to the context of that image, it's classic: Hitler did this thing that the government is doing, that's why we have to fight against it.
I don't have the actual original before the yellow box was added, so I can't say if the yellow box was the only change. But now all you're doing by attacking them on this nothingburger of a Hitler quote, is you've given them ammunition to talk about how irrational and unreasonable the people opposing them are.
The accusation of ambitions similar to that of Hitler could be true, but your evidence doesn't support it at all. All you're doing is whipping up your side to an irrational fervor which will get noticed by the other side and then they'll do the same thing.
You're making things worse, not better.
I don't know. That's how I do advocacy, maybe it's ineffective. I think it works on the people where something can work and doesn't work on the people where nothing worse. This more unhinged kinda of advocacy is pushing away the people on whom it can work, helps turn the people on your side into lunatics and helps to turn people on the other side into even worse lunatics.
I get this is hyperbolae. But this hyperbolae is advocating for mass murder.
You do understand that you're one of the badies right?
It's a monday. So that's already more like 1 in 52. There's been like 5-20 news worthy "return to work" announcements in the past year, I'm guessing half othem have mandatory 2 days, the other half have mandatory 3 days.
Multiply that by the number of things that happen in your life where a coincidence of this level could happen and you should be seeing this kind of coincidence a many times each year.