I’d like to see that study, it does not match my personal experience.

Yeah but that’s from curiosity, not ignorance

It’s more like 1/3 because 1/3 of Americans don’t vote. Also, that 1/3 that votes Republican is the most politically uninformed 1/3. And many of them don’t actually know what the people they vote for believe, they just vote R because they always have.

In other words, before a change can be made in the name of Progress, it needs to be demonstrated that the change actually is Progress. To progressives, this feels like standing in the way of Progress. To a conservative, this is safeguarding Progress, the Progress previous generations achieved, from changes that, again, are more likely to be bad than good.

That’s not what we see with Conservatism with, and is much more in line with 20th century Progressivism (i.e. leveraging empirical knowledge to moderate political change).

Conservativism in practice, as I’ve seen it almost invariably, says new is always bad, traditional is always good. It’s a bicycle that’s all brakes and no pedals.

Sometimes a system that took centuries to build, like chattel slavery, should be destroyed in months or years, and inaction does more bad than good. Progressivism took off after the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution because empirical data showed that traditional structures were ill-suited for the quickly evolving world.

Conservativism in the modern era is akin to trying to fill your gas tank with oats and hay. Cars aren’t horses, and the longer you drag your feet in updating your policies, the more damage you’re going to do to your engine.

Conservatism holds that if things are pretty good, most changes are likely to make things worse and not better

The problem is that things aren’t pretty good for most people. The system is in shambles and most suggested changes probably would make things better for everyone who isn’t a millionaire.

"Okay, so, you’ve heard of fighting a war on two fronts? Well you’re not gonna believe this idea…”

Jean Pierre Polnareff for me.

Cursed stout snakebite

Just like every “2D” object has thickness, every “3D” object has a temporal duration. Without duration, it wouldn’t exist.

So everything is at least 4D, 3D doesn’t exist.

Generally I side with that loophole, though based on my knowledge of the dwarfs in question, I’d assume they would not have a mat out front that says “Welcome”.

Idk, honestly I’d suggest consulting Tumblr. They’re usually the authority on these things.

She entered the dwarves’ house without an invitation though.

We live in a post-truth world. Principles are ineffective, snappy rhetoric is all that matters.

“This rainbow commemorates God’s promise to his people after the flood”

I would prefer a mix: keep the Senate composed of actual legal experts, but stock the House by sortition (also expand it to equalize the ratio of representatives to constituents).

Self defense

Right? This is a perfect application for tactical gear. Modular, expandable, easily accessible storage is ideal for baby gear. This just looks a little dumb because it doesn’t show any attachments.

I think reasonable people can disagree on this point, on whether not tipping constitutes a secondary exploitation.

No, they cannot. Disagreement here is not reasoned, it is just another example of clever people using their cleverness to justify unreasonable prior beliefs.

You can boycott a business, and write them to express that your boycott is based on their tipping policy. That would be a reasonable strategy to support the workers.

By still giving the business owners money, knowing they pay their staff sub-minimum wages based on the convention of tipping, and then not tipping, you have not communicated any disapproval to management. You have in fact directly supported the business owner exploiting their workers, and joined that exploitation for personal benefit. That’s the opposite of supporting the worker.

The result of either choice – boycotting places that pay less than minimum wage, or not tipping at those places – doesn’t change the fact that the staff are being underpaid, which is the root exploitative practice.

Yes, but boycotting those places is justifiable. Going anyway and just not tipping is actively participating in the exploitation.

The way I see it, if the place requires tips for their staff to get by, then the staff are being financially abused and I would be propping up a system of exploitation. Prioritise places that pay their staff above the minimum wage.

Second sentence is fine, feel free to boycott places that pay below minimum wage. But if you do go to an establishment that pays based on the assumption of tips, and you don’t tip, you’re just joining in the exploitation.

Never whistle while you’re pissing