:')

[:')]

[rednines]

[:')]

[teaboot]

Adult ProTip, from a security professional: If a kid tells you, "My parents are gonna kill me / kick my ass / kick me out" for something relatively minor, don't respond with shit like "Really? ;) that sounds a little extreme, don't you think sweetie?" because that shit really does happen.

Instead, respond as though whatever threat they are afraid of is fully valid, and offer whatever you can do to help- ask if they believe they are in danger of being hurt in any way, and work accordingly.

If they're overreacting, they'll usually realize and dial it back, self-correct and begin thinking a bit more rationally.

If they're not overreacting, and the danger is real, then they'll need a level-headed adult in their corner, not another condescending authority figure who doesn't believe them.

[:')]

[memeuplift]

[:')]

[scentedwonderlandpoetry]

A woman who has the confidence of a girlboss but the competence of a cringe failwoman

[70snandor]

[:')]

[wizardpostsdotorg]

all of those idiots going into STEM.. you can’t smoke that part, what you want is the bud

[:')]

[theskinniestslut]

[:')]

[capitalism-and-analytics]

Just love picturing /r/antiwork-ers hanging out with billionaires on the weekend talking about motives for public philanthropy efforts.

As for the post itself, there's definitely an argument to be made that billionaires have a strong motivation for PR related reasons to donate, but there is very little motivation for them to do it for tax breaks. They are almost always better off financially moving their money through other mediums.

[fearlessmastermind]

I’ve met exactly one billionaire. Genuinely a nice person, but wildly out of touch with reality.

[siryouarebeingmocked]

I'm pretty sure I've met precisely zero.

I also like how the redditor thinks they can mind-read motives. "Yeah, he ACTED nice, but that's only because he was on camera!"

Meanwhile, Bezos donates countless millions to causes he apparently sincerely believes in, Bloomberg personally spends more on gun control lobbying than the NRA does on all lobbying, and Musk took a soaking on Twitter X to make the world a better place, as far as anyone can tell.

These idiots really believe that the second someone's net worth ticks over to nine zeroes, they stop being anything but selfish.

[yetanotherdayofdrudgery]

I suspect that by "they don't want to help poor people" the tankie really means "they don't throw their entire fortune at something that I, an economic illiterate, think is a good idea."

[1234713]

Well, @yetanotherdayofdrudgery, if you were economically literate in the slightest, you'd know that the existence of even a single billionaire is a massive drain on any economy due to the massive amount of resources they are pulling out of the economy. Like, the money multiplier effect is literally econ 101, ie, having a billionaire dollars means said billion dollars is not in the economy at all. So, yeah, literally throwing a billion dollars at anything other than another billionaire or a government means that money is being used and circulated in the economy.

Congrats I guess on failing econ 101 tho and pointing fingers at "economic illiterates" tho, good job.

Furthermore, a billionaire cannot exist without exploitation, so I mean, the selfishness comment isn't out of pocket lmao

[mylibertarianblog]

Exactly. And as a Billionaire I know my faveorite thing to do is stare at the massive pile of a billion dollars I have. Maybe Ill go swim in my scrooge mcduck vault later. Because as a billionaire my least favorite thing to do is spend money. Thats why I live in a tent on the street

[1234713]

what are you on about lmao

[mylibertarianblog]

That a billionaires billion dollars regularly flow through the economy unlike what you think

[1234713]

Clearly not enough if they are still a billionaire lmao

[:')]

[nervousbreadpuppy]

"hurr durr gun control bad what about freedom" there have been 400+ mass shootings this year alone.

[nervousbreadpuppy]

some elaboration since people keep taking me in bad faith.

1. i never said ban all guns, im saying gun control laws are necessary. there are other gun control laws besides banning all guns.
2. there would still be ways to obtain guns illegally, but it would be significantly harder.
3. you can believe acab and still be pro gun control. fuck the system but we still need to work in the system while we live in it. in a perfect world we wouldn't need gun control laws or police, but right now, I'd prefer to live in a world where i dont have to worry about getting shot for existing in public.
4. only america has this problem. so many other countries have successfully introduced gun control laws and have had success from it.

[newplayingsmash]

1.- I bet all the “laws” you can name either are already a thing or wouldn’t do jack shit.

2.- No, it wouldn’t. Just ask Mexico.

3.- "I hate cops, but I still want them to be able to have even more arbitrary power and be the only people in this country to have access to weapons!”

4.- Except not. Australia has more guns than before the ban, Japan masks all their crime ratings and tries to hide what the Yakuza do and Europe gets nail bombs, acid attacks and trucks of peace in lieu of guns.
And that’s not getting into countries like Mexico, Honduras or Brazil, which you gun grabbers refuse to acknowledge because it’s not convenient they are poor countries and that somehow means that they are the only places where other factors need to be considered.

[1234713]

1. I bet all the laws you are referencing are not universal. If LA bans guns but Orange county doesn't, then there has been effectively no gun control in place. People love to say shit like "oh places like Detroit have the most restrictive guns laws and still have so much gun violence! Really makes you think 🤔🤔🤔" I mean, maybe if you're an idiot. If Gun control is to be effective, it needs to be universal, nationwide.

2. I love love love when people point to Central/South America to point out their gun control policies and whatnot because, lmao, where do you think they got those guns? They got them from us. The US government literally paid for a lot of militia groups to go buy guns in order to have coups against governments the US didn't like. I mean, just look at the Iran-Contra affair. Cartels? You mean the ones we created so we could keep cocaine prices down? Wonderful examples, well done.

3. Newsflash, I don't think cops should have guns either, and I'm pretty sure most people calling for gun control agree. Cops should not have the means to kill anyone "because they felt threatened," and they already don't have the authority to. Maybe a little special task force can have them, but they'd need a damn good reason to be deployed. There's actually a laundry list of things wrong with the police in the states, and that's an essay in and of itself, so I digress.

That being said, with the rise of fascism in this country, I will say gun control is needed less than ever before. I think more people should arm themselves to prevent people like Desantis from gaining more power than he has now cuz ya just know he would absolutely love to put all gay people or people he doesn't like into little camps. In fact I think people like him should be [redacted].

4. Australia is actually a great example of effective, universal gun control. Sure, there are more guns, but how many mass shootings have they had? How many shootings in general? Not very many. They had one big mass shooting, introduced elaborate gun control, and boom, mass shootings are unheard of there.

Sure, obviously there are other ways to enact violence with other implements, but guns make it incredibly easy to kill a lot of people, really quickly.

[siryouarebeingmocked]

>I bet all the laws you are referencing are not universal. If LA bans guns but Orange county doesn't, then there has been effectively no gun control in place.

Ah, yes, banning guns in a city of 4 million people is irrelevant next to not banning guns in a county of, uh, 3.1 million.

Did I mention that 9.8 million people live in LA county?

And California overall has some of the strictest gun control in the country?

This is a goalpost moving standard you made up or blindly repeated, and it is stupid.

Smash was saying "I bet" as challenge. We don't know what laws NBP was referring to, because they never specify.

You were saying it to mock Smash, but it doesn't actually make sense, because Smash didn't refer to any laws in that point. A lot of gun control supporters don't support any specific laws, just the concept of gun control.

Also, most gun crime in America (and Mexico, and my home country, which is one of those developing countries Smash alluded to) is already by illegal owners.

[1234713]

I don’t think you know what a goalpost moving standard is here buddy? Cuz that’s not moving the goalpost, that’s saying arbitrary lines in the sand with different levels of gun control make the most restrictive gun control ineffective. ie, If it’s illegal to purchase or possess a gun in California, but I can very easily drive to Nevada or Arizona, buy a gun, and come back, then it doesn’t matter that guns are banned in California. So, idk what you’re on about tbh

And I will once more reiterate my earlier point: if it’s illegal to own a gun in California, and I bring a gun from Arizona or Nevada, then I have become an illegal gun owner. And my even earlier point, the US literally is and has for the past several hundred years, been supporting coup and rebels in Latin/South America, Mexico included, which would make them all illegal gun owners.

So, idk, read maybe? Then maybe your points would hold more substance lmao

[:')]

[capitalism-and-analytics]

Just love picturing /r/antiwork-ers hanging out with billionaires on the weekend talking about motives for public philanthropy efforts.

As for the post itself, there's definitely an argument to be made that billionaires have a strong motivation for PR related reasons to donate, but there is very little motivation for them to do it for tax breaks. They are almost always better off financially moving their money through other mediums.

[fearlessmastermind]

I’ve met exactly one billionaire. Genuinely a nice person, but wildly out of touch with reality.

[siryouarebeingmocked]

I'm pretty sure I've met precisely zero.

I also like how the redditor thinks they can mind-read motives. "Yeah, he ACTED nice, but that's only because he was on camera!"

Meanwhile, Bezos donates countless millions to causes he apparently sincerely believes in, Bloomberg personally spends more on gun control lobbying than the NRA does on all lobbying, and Musk took a soaking on Twitter X to make the world a better place, as far as anyone can tell.

These idiots really believe that the second someone's net worth ticks over to nine zeroes, they stop being anything but selfish.

[yetanotherdayofdrudgery]

I suspect that by "they don't want to help poor people" the tankie really means "they don't throw their entire fortune at something that I, an economic illiterate, think is a good idea."

[1234713]

Well, @yetanotherdayofdrudgery, if you were economically literate in the slightest, you'd know that the existence of even a single billionaire is a massive drain on any economy due to the massive amount of resources they are pulling out of the economy. Like, the money multiplier effect is literally econ 101, ie, having a billionaire dollars means said billion dollars is not in the economy at all. So, yeah, literally throwing a billion dollars at anything other than another billionaire or a government means that money is being used and circulated in the economy.

Congrats I guess on failing econ 101 tho and pointing fingers at "economic illiterates" tho, good job.

Furthermore, a billionaire cannot exist without exploitation, so I mean, the selfishness comment isn't out of pocket lmao

[mylibertarianblog]

Exactly. And as a Billionaire I know my faveorite thing to do is stare at the massive pile of a billion dollars I have. Maybe Ill go swim in my scrooge mcduck vault later. Because as a billionaire my least favorite thing to do is spend money. Thats why I live in a tent on the street

[1234713]

what are you on about lmao

[:')]

[lifewithchronicpain]

If you don't need a cane, but you get one to signal disability because sometimes you get faint and need to sit, or whatever, as a cane user for years, go ahead. Please, if it makes claiming accomodations easier for you, even if you don't need it to walk, I don't care. This is your permission if you needed it.

Can I suggest that you can get a foldable one at CVS (they're great) so it's there when you need it? Shits fucked up, do what you need to do. Just beware there are assholes that won't care about the cane. But overall, it does make things easier and is easily purchased. Go for it.

[thedrugaddictgoddiedfor]

i LOVE my foldable CVS cane. it’s affordable, and easy to carry/store. I have mobility issues and POTS. As painful as it can be for me to walk, i use my mobility aids primarily for my POTS symptoms, which can cause me to faint and can make walking/standing really difficult for me, especially for long periods. I definitely recommend also investing in a walker with a built in chair. the summer is coming up and it makes being outside much less of a gamble when you always have a place with you to sit down.

you do not need to justify your accommodations to anyone. if it helps you, that’s all that matters

[1234713]

You could also get a cane sword and then pull a sword on a mfer