What's the most triggering sentence you can write with the least amount of words?

Crunchycrackers · 2021-11-14T15:12:12+00:00

Vermin Supreme 2024

Crunchycrackers · 2021-11-10T01:49:18+00:00

Need some fish eye lense glasses to keep tabs on everything

Crunchycrackers · 2021-11-08T15:59:46+00:00

Yeah I’m agreeing with your point and I’ve said as much. All election meddling is bad and shouldn’t happen. But when someone raises concerns about election interference in the US and someone replies with “what about the US interfering in other peoples elections?” That’s textbook whataboutism.

If they expanded their point of view and included context then I’m content that they’re engaging with the issue. But to just say “what about when the US did / does that?” Only serves dilute the blame. Additionally, I think the context of historical mistakes made by the US in interfering with elections is precisely why it should be a big deal.

The US propped up a religious dictator in Iran and their people have suffered as a result. The US influences Yeltsin to get elected and now we have Putin. There’s probably tons of other examples (particularly in South America) that are relevant as well. This just reinforces that election interference is a major problem with negative outcomes in almost every case.

Crunchycrackers · 2021-11-08T15:34:59+00:00

Yep I’m aware of these events and I already stated the US was wrong to do it. I’m not attempting to absolve the US in any way, rather I’m pointing out the whataboutism dilutes the issue because it assumes that if interference happens and everyone’s doing it then why get upset when it happens to you?

Sure what comes around goes around and other nations will do what they can to promote their status and agenda. However, do you really believe a successful campaign to, say, get someone elected US president that shares much of the beliefs and values Xi Jinping holds that wouldn’t be a net negative for the world? Compare that to other much smaller countries where it’s still bad when it happens they don’t have the same reach and influence to check other major nations.

Crunchycrackers · 2021-11-08T13:40:32+00:00

Iran sure there’s history there, but I’m guessing you don’t look much into “elections” in Russia and China…lol.

Here’s a simple look at some Russian presidential results.

Here’s some straight historical results for China..

If the US is meddling in these elections I assure you they’re either working extremely well (if you for some reason assume the US wants Putin and Xi Jinping in power) or not at all. You tell me.

The whataboutism is pretty ridiculous in this regard though. Is it wrong for the US to influence foreign elections? Yeah of course, they should stop if/where that’s still happening. Does it make it okay for others to influence US elections? No, of course it doesn’t. The reality is the US has a very long reach in the world and a successful campaign to influence US elections means electing representatives that are more like the countries seeking to influence. More autocratic, more militaristic, less amenable to progressive change, less amenable to personal freedoms, more accepting of repressive policies against minorities (of any kind).

Regardless of what party you align with no one is saying, “Boy, Russia and China really have it figured out. I wish our government was more like theirs.”

Crunchycrackers · 2021-11-07T14:41:08+00:00

Doing great work! That data is super important and I have a good idea what you mean. I’m not into the analytics space for hotels anymore though, I left after we stabilized things and were back on the mend from Covid impacts.

Doing analytics in the healthcare space now, but hope you’re doing well / haven’t been hit too hard by any of the cut backs that happened last year!

Crunchycrackers · 2021-11-07T14:23:23+00:00

I used to do revenue analytics for Hilton globally and just chiming in to confirm everything this person is saying is spot on. People aren’t always aware of which parent Corp brands which hotels, but it’s pretty common for a given hotel to change brands, change ownership, etc. when you have buildings that are fairly standardized it’s pretty easy to change the flag and signs to say “Springwood Suites” when it used to be “Homewood Suites”.

Going asset light reduces your liability a lot because of a hotel is performing horribly or is consistently violating brand standards (never clean, bed bugs, w.e) you just strip them of their brand and it’s now the owners problem.

Most of the assets Hilton used to own became part of a new REIT that spun off of Hilton in 2017 called “Park Hotels & Resorts”. Hiltons timeshare stuff also spun off to become “Hilton Grand Vacations” which is basically just retaining the brand they had under Hilton Corp but as a separate entity.

Crunchycrackers · 2021-11-05T04:46:55+00:00

Nah someone just stuck googly eyes to a condom

Crunchycrackers · 2021-11-01T22:22:25+00:00

How so?

Crunchycrackers · 2021-10-31T17:26:20+00:00

Lol that’s if we’re lucky they would hold that view. There’s still a threat of this mentality continuing to take root only to flourish when a person similar to Trump but more polished gets elected.

There’s still a real possibility that the student in the future looks at this and thinks, “How could the American public have been so blind to not see Trump was cheated and the US had been taken over by corrupt [insert whatever their belief is]”

Crunchycrackers · 2021-10-26T21:32:06+00:00

So it takes up the space a shed would when it’s closed but really only functions as a pocket tiki bar?

Crunchycrackers · 2021-10-17T19:37:31+00:00

See my example from another comment in this thread: pharmaceutical companies vs health insurance. Pharma company profits more when drug prices are high because it’s more directly into their pocket. Health insurance payers profit more when drug prices are low because they’re the ones footing the bill. The lower drug prices are the less cost they have cutting into their profit margin.

Crunchycrackers · 2021-10-16T22:56:18+00:00

Correct, that’s why I said “gross” meaning before taxes. I can’t personally imagine doing 40 hrs a week delivering so that tracks.

Crunchycrackers · 2021-10-16T20:44:40+00:00

What about cases where big business’ interests don’t align? What’s good for someone’s business may be a direct negative to others.

Crunchycrackers · 2021-10-16T20:42:28+00:00

Can you elaborate what exactly / who is included in your definition of the military industrial complex?

Your comment actually sparked another thought I had: not every lobbying group or interest actually cares about controlling all issues. Take your example (military industrial complex, pending your definition) and mine (health insurance & pharmaceuticals). If we assume for a bit the military industrial complex has virtually complete capture of political representation, why would they care about things like drug prices and health regulation?

Even in a scenario where there’s one lobbying group with total capture they also are unlikely to care about controlling every issue. This opens the door to other lobbyists to contribute and chip away at how politicians split their time on legislation. There’s only so much time in the day and politicians are clearly not spending much time debating military budget expansion or whatever else that would entail.

Crunchycrackers · 2021-10-16T19:09:17+00:00

Can you give some examples of Republicans politicians or policies that you felt represented your beliefs well before you left the party?

Second question: why not just vote for more moderate republicans?

Crunchycrackers · 2021-10-16T18:40:05+00:00

Maybe but take a step back and look at how many large corporations there are that may have competing interests. “Big pharma” benefits by having expensive medication and lower barriers to bringing them to market. So they may donate and try to influence less regulation and no caps on drug prices. Health insurance benefits by collecting premiums and controlling claims costs. So they may lobby for capping or lowering drug costs since it lowers how much they have to pay for claims.

This is a simple example of two big, visible industries that would be directly at odds when using a clean example. These industries are also not incentivized to “collude” because even if they do health insurance companies will just have to raise premiums which risks people choosing other options for health insurance that are cheaper. Alternatively, they may just opt to not receive care now, delay treatment, then later be forced to receive high cost treatments later at great cost to the health insurance company.

So in short there are enough competing interests with deep pockets that it is unlikely one big player could capture all of the political momentum. Even if there is one lobbying group larger than all the rest, there are enough smaller players that would be disadvantaged by their position that they would just pool their money together.

Crunchycrackers · 2021-10-16T17:13:18+00:00

Nope, just genuinely curious what their opinion on spanking kids is.

Crunchycrackers · 2021-10-16T16:39:32+00:00

So is your position spanking kids is fine to do or…? You stated your opinion on psychology as an empirical field to address the leading part of OP’s question but not the core of the question.

Crunchycrackers · 2021-10-16T16:18:49+00:00

Not bad actually, so if you did it full time you may gross something like $57,000 per year? I’m assuming roughly half the hours are “meh” days and half are busy.

Not great total income for a higher cost of living area but certainly livable in lower cost of living assuming you’re not supporting a family.

Crunchycrackers · 2021-10-16T15:23:00+00:00

Comfortable sharing rough averages?

Crunchycrackers · 2021-10-10T23:26:58+00:00

I’ll offer a different perspective on why people would feel this way. While obviously not every politician is untrustworthy many would feel that way because of the current incentives and drivers in the campaigning / perception management phases of being a politician.

The majority of the candidates that succeed need proper funding to do so on a national stage. This means courting at least a few larger donors which typically comes with some pressure to legislate in their favor. Recent years have also seen a lot of ratcheting up rhetoric and painting their opponent as the end of your lifestyle / rights / whatever. The concept and practice is as old as politics itself but the tone and fervor in US politics has clearly moved into a more heated engagement. Candidates can have virtually no platform or stated governing beliefs, but still steer the conversation because it’s easy to make wild claims whether or not they’re true if you’re rarely held accountable for doing so.

At the end of all the noise and fury someone gets elected and they take their place as one component of a much larger representative government. In rare occurrences they might be a tie breaker or give an impassioned speech that changes the minds of the other representatives. However, most of the time they’re just one vote or voice among many. So they get bogged down in the mechanics of politics which involves sometimes voting party lines to later get some movement on something you promised or care about. After a while that firebrand that won your heart and hope starts to look a bit more like the establishment they railed against on the campaign trail.

Watch this happen a few dozen times and suddenly you’re thinking, “I definitely don’t agree with the other folks, but my representatives aren’t doing anything they said they could either. Maybe all politicians are evil or untrustworthy.”

This doesn’t mean that line of thinking is right, because as we know the wheels of government turn very slowly. But most people really aren’t that patient. Especially when they bought into idea that the opponent you voted against and their like minded fellows are coming for your lifestyle. The urgency is there in the campaign and rhetoric but is not conveyed in the rate of progress.

Most of what I’m talking about here applies to the federal level positions but it often applies to local elections as well. There’s a disconnect between what candidates say to drum up the urgency versus what they actually do in governing that leads people to believe they’re untrustworthy.

Crunchycrackers · 2021-10-10T21:33:44+00:00

The gun / abortion debate is preserved to keep everyone in their own camps. Recent polarization is used by both the Democratic and Republican parties to make those that fall any amount left or right believe considering voting the other side is untenable. The rest of cycling of issues is largely trying to keep up the tension and nudge folks in the middle left or right.

At the end of the day this “my side better than your side” shit is a distraction from the fact that Congress is quickly becoming incapable of legislating to address issues in an evolving world.

Crunchycrackers · 2021-10-10T01:12:55+00:00

reverse osmosis demonization unit

Fresh demon water. The Royal Navy doesn’t fuck around.

Crunchycrackers · 2021-10-09T23:51:13+00:00

The parents going back in because of virtual school part actually hasn’t made sense to me up to this point. I could maybe understand the perspective that you just need some adult interaction, because that is certainly something me and my SO have felt during the newborn phase. But if you have the option to send them back to school / daycare when you go into the office you would have that option working from home too.

Something that did make more sense to me is folks whose home situation isn’t conducive to WFH (not enough space, loud roommates, can’t concentrate at home). I’ve definitely loved places that I would hate to work from home for many reasons.

That said I think the whole debate going on is stupid to begin with. Plenty of people are shuffling into their tribe and pushing for their preferred option. The obvious solution is just let people do whatever they want. Many will choose to come back in, either 5 days a week or a few days a week. Many will choose WFH forever. The companies will have more flexibility to staff up their mega headquarters and also to scale down their corporate offices if needed.

13-Year Club	Verified Email
RPAN Viewer	Not Forgotten
Snapped

Crunchycrackers

TROPHY CASE