I’m not very musically inclined, so I have no idea if this is B-flat minor or not, but what you described kind of sounds like “Jazz in Paris”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNLJMTRvyj8
It’s one of the songs that you can select from Google Photos when making a highlight video.
Se calhar, seja melhor a postar isso na comunidade de !healthbeauty@lemm.ee
This is a story about how someone from the Westboro Baptist Church left because of the way that people engaged with her. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVV2Zk88beY
What’s worth noting from this story, people that were hostile in their interactions with her only served to entrench her further in her ideals.
What caused her to change her mind were the people that had “friendly arguments” and made an effort to learn where she was coming from.
She listed out 4 key points when engaging in difficult conversations. I extracted/paraphrased some of what she said below:
Don’t assume bad intent (assume good or neutral intent instead) - Assuming ill motive almost instantly cuts you off from truly understanding why someone does and believes as they do. We forget that they’re a human being with a lifetime of experience that shaped their mind and we get stuck on that first wave of anger and the conversation has a very hard time ever moving beyond it.
Ask Questions - Asking questions helps us map the disconnect. We can’t present effective arguments if we don’t understand where the other side is coming from.
Stay calm - She thought that “[her] rightness justified [her] rudeness”. When things get too hostile during a conversation, tell a joke, recommend a book, change the subject, or excuse yourself from the conversation. The discussion isn’t over, but pause it for a time to let tensions dissapate.
Make the argument - One side effect of having strong beliefs is that we sometimes assume that the value of our position is, or should be, obvious and self-evident. That we shouldn’t have to defend our positions because they’re so clearly right and good. If it were that simple, we would all see things the same way.
You can’t expect others to spontaneously change their minds. If we want change, we have to make the case for it.
And replace it with what?
If we let capitalism run free without restrictions then we have major problems. As it is, most countries have found a balance between capitalism and setting restrictions on it.
When looking at economical systems, there aren’t many other options.
Previous attempts at communism have failed to the point that we either end up with dictatorships, or the country adopts a capitalist economy.
Economically, is there a system that would actually run better than what most countries today are using?
What do you mean by “allow you to kill a 3rd party”?
Like if rioters are breaking into your window and start trying to pull you out through it, then you floor it and kill someone else in the crowd who wasn’t actively breaking into your car?
This is something that’s going to vary from state to state, but ultimately it will be a case by case decision where a jury will decide if the use of deadly force was reasonable.
You will be judged based on other’s perception of the events, not based solely whether you yourself thought you were in danger or not.
So, someone trying to “drive slowly” through a group of protesters would probably be found at fault, while a car that was stuck trying to wait patiently suddenly having a Molotov cocktail thrown on it would be judged differently. Even then they will need to consider whether you could have just gotten out of your car and run.
I think the vast majority of unions out there are good, but there are definitely a select few that give the rest a bad reputation.
At one of my previous jobs, our union was one of those that gives others a bad reputation.
It was a seasonal job, we had to pay the union whether we wanted to be in it or not. If we had an out of season work meeting for training, all of the money that we earned would go straight to the union and we might end up with a $2 check (if that).
We tried working with the union reps, but they just seemed so out of touch with our group. They would give themselves a big pat on the back for getting everyone a 2% raise and then raise the monthly dues… We barely made minimum wage so a percentage increase like that meant nothing to us.
10 years later and most employees working there are still just earning minimum wage while similar jobs in other cities nearby are earning twice that (at least).
While this is definitely something people should be doing, doesn’t the attorney general only act out if they get enough complaints, or if the complaint stands out in some way?
Will they actually work with someone to resolve their specific complaint every time?
From what I’ve seen, at least the BBB will try to specifically address your issue with the company and is probably a much easier process to carry out before trying to take things further.
Or is there something about using the BBB that would prevent you from filing a complaint with the attorney general, or prevent you from going further with something like a lawsuit?
if not the BBB, then who?
When you fail the Captcha test… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UymlSE7ax1o
Woah, I wish I had known about this sooner. Thanks!
Definitely not a movie night, you don’t get much of a chance to really know the other person from that, and if either one of you decides that the other is crazy it makes it a little harder to dip out.
Ideally something simple that’s good for getting to know the other person while being able to leave at any time. Coffee, shaved ice, frozen yogurt, etc. Then a walk through a park or along a beach, or just sit down/people watch, and discuss your interests to see if either of you are interested in a second date.
What economic concept are you proposing that’s better than the current systems in place?
At least government regulations can help keep capitalism in check, but taking that too far leads to monopolies and dictatorships.
I suppose if you’re not trying to let people know that their views are not acceptable then you’re part of the problem.
Yes, but how are you approaching this discussion?
I think there are different ways to handle this. On one hand you can be hostile and “give them what they deserve”. On the other hand you can engage in friendly arguments.
This is a story about how someone from the Westboro Baptist Church left because of the way that people engaged with her. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVV2Zk88beY
What’s worth noting from this story, people that were hostile in their interactions with her only served to entrench her further in her ideals.
What caused her to change her mind were the people that had “friendly arguments” and made an effort to learn where she was coming from.
She listed out 4 key points when engaging in difficult conversations. I extracted/paraphrased some of what she said below:
Don’t assume bad intent (assume good or neutral intent instead) - Assuming ill motive almost instantly cuts you off from truly understanding why someone does and believes as they do. We forget that they’re a human being with a lifetime of experience that shaped their mind and we get stuck on that first wave of anger and the conversation has a very hard time ever moving beyond it.
Ask Questions - Asking questions helps us map the disconnect. We can’t present effective arguments if we don’t understand where the other side is coming from.
Stay calm - She though that “[her] rightness justified [her] rudeness”. When things get too hostile during a conversation, tell a joke, recommend a book, change the subject, or excuse yourself from the conversation. The discussion isn’t over, but pause it for a time to let tensions dissapate.
Make the argument - One side effect of having strong beliefs is that we sometimes assume that the value of our position is, or should be, obvious and self-evident. That we shouldn’t have to defend our positions because they’re so clearly right and good. If it were that simple, we would all see things the same way.
You can’t expect others to spontaneously change their minds. If we want change, we have to make the case for it.
Not a surprise considering Governor Hochul sabotaged the bill just before signing it:
https://odysee.com/governor-hochul-sabotages-ny-right-to
Most of those videos are also found on YouTube. I would expect that you don’t see those videos suggested to you because the algorithm has learned what you like to watch.
If you open up YouTube with a VPN and in a private tab you’ll likely get search results that include a mix from both the right and the left.
I’d rather not link to them, but from the ones you circled, these are the videos that I found on YouTube while doing a quick search:
Now please excuse me as I purge my history…
Username does not check out.
One of the major problems with Lemmy is that many posts get deleted and that nukes the comment section (which is where most of the answers will be).
I wish Lemmy deleted posts closer to how Reddit deletes posts - the post content should be deleted, but leave the comments alone.
Ah, thanks, I probably just checked the “favorites” recently and assumed the “reduces” were still visible, that or my sense of time is way off.
I’m fairly certain that I checked it out on Kbin.Social about a month or two back and it still worked then, but Kbin.Social is currently down for maintenance, so I’m not sure.
How long ago is “quite a while”?
Do you just call the owners of any company a Nazi? How are you defining Nazis here?
Judging by your upvotes I must be out of the loop on something here.
I tried to look into this claim and all I found was a CEO that’s also a software dev Jay Graber: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Graber (Nothing controversial that I could find in her posts at a cursory glance)
A software dev that worked on XMPP (Jeremy Miller): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremie_Miller
And the CEO and founder of TechDirt (Mike Masnick): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Masnick