hakobo

They (the investment/owner class) make their money work for them by investing and by playing the banks. Generally, they want to invest the vast majority of their money, and never cash out of their portfolio. When they need "cash" to buy something, they do it with loans and there's lots of tricks (that I'm not super familiar with) to make loans as cheap as possible, and potentially even profitable if their investments are doing better than the cost of the loan.

Now, why would they spend money pushing propaganda when instead they could be investing that money? Well, when you are that rich, you don't actually have to spend that much to push propaganda. People are already clamoring for your opinion, because they see you as successful and think, if I copy you then I too can be successful. And when you do need to buy an article, it's pocket change compared to your vast wealth. And if instead you need to buy a TV news network, a newspaper, or a website, that itself can be an investment. As long as you don't run it into the ground, it may make you money at the same time as allowing you to push propaganda.

And why do they want to push propaganda in the first place? Because if the working class (those that live off paychecks instead of investments) has the time, energy, and knowledge to do something about wealth inequality, then the investment class will start to have to pay their fair share and lose a bit of their wealth. The investment class doesn't want that to happen so they need to rob the working class of those 3 things. Manufacturing a culture war is one way to steal time and energy from the working class, because they now have to spend that time and energy on defending personal rights. Busting unions is another way to rob time and energy, as the fewer rights workers have, and the less they are paid, the more time and energy they have to spend to stay out of poverty.

It's all a ploy to get people to pay less attention to how the investment class gets their money so that they can keep racking up the score without interference.

That said, some of the investment class actually truly holds hateful views, as does some of the working class, but the working class has nothing to gain by acting on that hatred except a sense of personal fulfillment. The investment class benefits financially, so they may act out the hatred even if they don't feel it.

Yes, voting reform is extremely important. The problem is Trump's view of voting reform is to restrict who can vote. The dems idea of voting reform is to make voting easier, and at the local levels, push for ranked choice or approval voting making 3rd parties actually viable. Voting for Trump is pushing us further from good voting reform. Harris may not be platforming voting reform, but at least she's not going to interfere with state level reforms like Trump will.

I've ordered the ring because I have the watch, but I don't like wearing the watch at home. Sometimes I put it on at home, but instinctively I find myself taking it off within a few hours. I especially don't like wearing the watch while I sleep. However I have no problem wearing a ring all day. The form factor itself is more advantageous for me, because it's the difference between wearing it or not. When I leave the house, I have no problem putting my watch on and keeping it on. Same way I don't have a problem putting on shoes and keeping them on. But like the watch, I don't like wearing shoes at home.

I'm from the US and "better than a kick in the teeth" and "better than a poke in the eye" are both common around my area. Never heard the tree ones though.

Those aren't film, they're tape. Film is what's in the camera or shown through a projector and are visible to the naked eye. VHS, Betamax, and video2000 are magnetic tape formats that aren't viewable with the naked eye. Regardless, "on film" is still a universally acceptable term for "on the recorded video" no matter the format because terms stick around in industries

Yeah, that's fair. I think the main reasoning is that shooting something out of the air can cause it to crash on people or light stuff on fire. I also don't like the "stand your ground" and "castle doctrine" laws, so I think both shooting people and shooting drones should be illegal.

New drones being sold in the USA are equipped with something called remote ID. In theory, it enables law enforcement to wirelessly identity the drone, who it's registered with, and where the pilot is standing. This is very new though, and very few, if any, police departments have the tools needed to make use of it. It's also possible to read remote ID from phones, but without the database, it only gives you so much info. Owners of older drones are supposed to attach a remote ID module to them in order to maintain legal flying, but someone being voyeuristic with their older drone probably isn't following the rules.

Not in the US. You can report it to the police and the FAA, but it's a federal felony offense to shoot down any aircraft, regardless of whether it's a $100 drone or multi-million dollar full on airplane. But like the other poster said, voyeurism and harassment laws still apply. And also, if the pilot is out of sight of the drone, that's a hefty FAA violation (assuming they don't have a specific FAA waiver that's hard to get) and something you can report.

FAA Certified drone pilot in the USA here. That's wild. In the US it's illegal to shoot down an aircraft of any sort no matter the type or who is flying it. And also, the Federal Aviation Administration is the only authority in the US when it comes to airspace, and as long as you have authorization from the FAA or are in uncontrolled space, you can fly over anyone's property. However, that doesn't give you the right to voyeurism or harassment. If you are intentionally spying on things that are normally considered private (peeking in a window, for instance) or repeatedly or specifically bugging a specific individual or family, then you can still be charged with those crimes. Also, unless you have a specific waiver that's rather hard to get, you have to be within line of sight of your drone. If the drone pilot is not following the rules, they can be hit with hefty fines. Even though drones can be bought easily, there's still strict rules that the FAA has for both recreational and professional flying, and anyone operating a drone outside those can and should be reported.

In your first examples, you are using female as an adjective. A female troop, a female Sargent, a male soldier. That's usually fine. Even "that female cashier over there" is probably fine. However if you say "that female over there" or like you pointed out, "get over here right now, female" or really any other instance where female is used as a noun instead of an adjective, that's where it becomes gross. It's all about adjective vs noun. Adjective: usually fine. Noun: usually not.

I want to start by saying this is an attempt at an explanation not just for you, but anyone who stumbles upon this thread, and is not making any assumptions of anyone's character.

The answer to why it's offensive or gross is twofold.

First is that using it as a noun like saying "I went on a date with a female" sounds clinical or sterile. Female as a noun is mostly used in science and medicine, and women don't want to feel like test subjects. They get objectified enough as it is. Is it technically incorrect? No. But it feels that way to the person being called it.

Which leads to the second, more important reason. They've asked. Again, to emphasize the importance: They've asked. In general (yes there are exceptions), women have asked people to stop referring to them as females (the noun), and if you respect people, then you call them what they ask. You hopefully don't call Asians Orientals anymore. And when your friend Stephen says he goes by Steve, hopefully you say Steve the majority of the time. Or if Richard really hates being called Dick, then hopefully you don't call him Dick. Language is fluid and cultural, and if you want to get along with people (Asians, Steve, Richard, women) then you should learn to use language their way.

I think that is really the more important reason, because it's totally fair if you don't understand why someone else finds something offensive. Everyone has had different life experiences and not everything offends everyone. But when a large swath of society says they find it offensive and you continue to do so, then you are being offensive regardless of whether or not you understand why. And in the end, if you choose to continue to be offensive just because you don't buy the reasoning, then you shouldn't be surprised when you get bad reactions and find it hard to bond.

Tips for a better life: Call people what they want to be called. Be nice for no reason. If in doubt, ask for advice from someone who doesn't look like you.

Hope this makes at least some sense.

In general, female is an adjective. It can be used as a noun, but generally shouldn't be, at least when talking about humans. So you can say "my female colleague" or "a woman I work with". You can say "the female mind" or "a woman's brain." You can say "a panel of female postal workers" or "a panel of women who work for the post office." If you stick to the adjective/noun rule, you'll come off far less offensive/gross sounding. Hope this helps.