No, I’m not laughing at the strategy. I’m laughing at the idea that the democrats will implement the strategy correctly.

But hey, crazier things have happened.

if democrats play the manipulation game right.

lol.

…immigrant working the fields…

…slave worker in Myanmar…

If you care about those things, and if you consider those necessary to produce crops, then they are also 30-80% necessary to produce a corresponding amount of milk protein.

10-20% of cattle diets are soybeans, corn, or another industrial crop. 25-35% of their protein intake gets converted to milk protein.

Factor in the additional slave labor and worker exploitation involved in all of the other dairy ranching workflows, and it likely makes up the rest of the difference.

Again, if you care about those things.

Liberals getting completely bent out of shape if you don’t use the right words or terms to refer to them

I dub thee: Little removed removed removed, Lady of removed snowflake removed.

And if you don’t like it, that’s your fault for having a personal identify that doesn’t align with how I perceive you.

If I go out into the woods and kill a person to eat, it is better than if I enslave a family, force them to breed, and then eat them one by one in perpetuity.

Similarly, hunting is better than factory farming, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good thing to do, outside of some niche conservation projects.

If [things], you can do better than the market more often than not.

This is not true for 90+% of people who attempt it.

If you were born with an extra luck-bone, go for it. If not, $VOO and turning your brain off is a superior strategy.

…VGT…

I said 50+ years.

This is the best, most consistent strategy for the past 50+ years:

Step 1: Open an account. If you have a 401k, you already have a retirement account, probably with Fidelity. If you don’t have a 401k, Fidelity is still a fine choice. You could also choose Schwab or Vanguard. Don’t overthink it, though, because it doesn’t really matter.

Step 2: Put everything into $VOO.* Every time you get a paycheck, put some of it into your account and buy more $VOO.

Step 3: Don’t touch it. Don’t. I know you want to. I know you want to look at that number. Don’t. Don’t do it. I know you heard about trading options somewhere and you saw the posts of people who turned $10k into $10 million. That’s not going to happen. Don’t touch the money. Leave it alone.

Step 4: When you have enough money to live comfortably for the rest of your life, start selling it to buy bonds.

*Everything else you do might get more money, but it is worse on average. For example, you might be feeling smart, and decide that all these big tech stocks are overvalued. So you’ll buy $RWL instead. That might get more money, but it probably won’t. If you insist on doing something fancy, at least put most of your money in $VOO.

I’m still confused. I thought the Snack situation was,

1. You’re hungry,

2. The chips are ready to eat,

3. You eat the chips.

So if there are no chips, you have to make something to eat instead, which becomes de facto Dinner. So the No Snack situation is

1. You’re hungry,

2a. There is no food ready to eat,

2b. You make food to eat,

3. You eat the food.

I might be off base here, but I don’t snack, and I actually don’t understand.

I understand that I’m not the target audience of this meme, but I’m confused. Isn’t it an option to simply eat dinner?

Alternatively… to simply be hungry for an hour or three?

Ah Cannae put ma weigh’ on tha roof, Ah cannae put me weigh’ on that gutter; Where’s it meant ta go???

This does not apply to bread.

If you’re just vibe-roasting some vegetables or a casserole or something, sure. But for bread and bread-based stuff like pizza, it does make a difference. Scientifically.

You’re leading with two questions, here… and it kind of looks like an attempt to frame this as though I’m the one making assumptions. But I want to backtrack to how we got here, real quick:

Someone: Airbnb makes sense for a lot of people under one roof, like for a family reunion.

You: It’s cheaper to rent an event space.

Yeah, sure, your commentary about sharing hotel rooms and amenities and group packages and blah blah might be relevant, but that’s not what you said. You just said to get an event space. That doesn’t have any information in it about where people are actually supposed to stay and sleep, which is what an Airbnb is for.

The comparison of Airbnb to Event Space doesn’t make sense without all of that other stuff, at which point it all very much depends on all of these other factors like headcounts and group rates, so unless you’re making a bunch of extra assumptions, you don’t actually know which solution is cheaper.

Are you saying that they shouldn’t mark it NSFW?

If not, you can always choose to say nothing.

Calling the police on someone for smoking on their own balcony isn’t wrong?

That’s a wild mindset.

And, the plan for sleeping…?

Reunions often involve travel.

Oh shit.

That’s a good guess, actually.

That’s the French public. They’re already doing this, without this article’s influence.

Ask a random English-speaking person (because this article is in English) about austerity measures, and half of the time, their first response will be to look up the definition. What will they find?

After they look up the definition, ask if they would support austerity measures, without being specific. What will they say?

If you instead ask them if they would support slashing the education budget, do you think they would say something different?

We don’t have to play this game where they slash the education budget and then dress it up with flowery language to make it more marketable, or to avoid accountability.

Stupidity is colorblind.

In practice, stripping funding from education and healthcare and poverty prevention is irresponsible, I agree. Those specific austerity measures are irresponsible.

And yet, people still use the term on purpose. Why? Because it’s easy to sell to the public by saying, “It’s just responsible money management,” with the followup benefit that “Anyone opposed to this austerity measure is opposed to responsible money management.”

They’re bullshitting the public by covering up their intentions with language that is marketable. That’s my point. If you agree that this is a “rebellion against austerity”, you’re giving the propagandists what they need to turn public opinion against the thing that these protesters stand for.

We both know that the word is used by liberals in government to justify cutting very SPECIFIC things.

That’s true. Why do they do that? Why do they use a very general word, which could mean a variety of good or bad things, and then exclusively do bad things with it?

… is it because it’s in their best interest to cover up their evil intentions with a term that might convince the general public that it’s a good idea?

And… if that were the case… should we be playing along with it by framing our opposition to a very specific budget cut, as an opposition to a very general thing that the general public might believe is a good thing?

My position is that framing education budget cuts as “austerity measures” is giving them the benefit of the doubt, and allowing them to strip away even the crumbs allocated to the poor, while maintaining plausible deniability that it was all in the name of saving the budget. I reject that framing. I reject the headline.