@Tyche said:
@Misadventure said:
Though determining a fair share is difficult.
It's easy. Everyone pays the same amount. Sounds fair to me.
The purpose of taxes is to pay for government programs. Those programs do not distribute benefits equally by purpose or design. Fair tax is only fair if you haven't an education or understanding of basic capitalist principles.
@Misadventure said:
Look up how much each income bracket/population chunk pays into the federal tax system. It gives some interesting insight into the idea that everyone is paying, and the rich are definitely paying a lot more, though perhaps not a true fair share. Though determining a fair share is difficult.
It may very well be that the poor pay less because they earn less than their exemption, and actually receive income from our tax system in the form of a tax refund.
Tax refunds are silly.
@Luna said:
Yes, the fewer rich could give a lot. But what if the many gave just a little?
The numbers suggest that the many have given so much that it hurts.
@Tempest said:
The longer I play WoD MU*s, the happier I am that there are games where the political positions either don't exist, or just aren't open to PCs. Such a huge source of drama.
That's horseshit. I've seen the same bickering on BSG games.
Look, lots of people want to be Mary Sues or the bestest or some shit. WoD games are hardly an exception.
I will admit that I'm having a boatload of fun on a WoD game where politics must be played, but it's a game where there's shit to do with your political status. So, I may be biased, but that game shows me that it can be done right. Or, at least, not so badly that I want to pull my hair out.
@Coin said:
The scenarios you posit are absolutely true, and they can push you immediately to poverty in a way that is devastating, though, yes. It doesn't mean you are poor, but the potential is there, which is often terrifying in its own right. But there is a difference between, "could" and "did", is all I was saying.
I understand. What I'm saying is that your definition is too narrow. I mean, not as narrow as the current, federal definition of poverty, but it's still narrow.
What salts me is that some of the problems are not difficult to overcome.
@Coin said:
And anyone who has the above things and says that they are poor, without being in immediate danger of losing those things (and who are able to apply said things to their kids), is lying.
Define "immediate danger."
Do you have health insurance? A single personal injury accident could destroy your life through debt. Do you have auto insurance? A single accident could destroy your life through incapacity to work due to lack of transport. Do you depend on relatives? Their untimely demise could destroy your life. Are all of these things that can and do happen to people, and push them into what "experts" would call "poverty"? Absolutely.
One problem in the United States is that people convince themselves that they are not in poverty. If they came to realize how precarious their situation really is, maybe they would mobilize to create effective and affective change politically and economically. But they do not, because it's easier to convince themselves that they are not shit on, and have not been shitted on, by other classes.
@Luna said:
Along this line, I hate 'poor' people who don't know what actual 'poor' is. Yes, I know some upper middle class who are disconnected from reality but they're not trying to be mouthpieces for a class they are not actually part of but claim to be part of.
Poverty defies a single label, so I give people a pass on this issue.
@spasticgoat said:
I included quotes around the word "hero" for a reason. They're often self-appointed class guardians and I see a lot of their class-based ideology spewed on my Facebook feed.
Okay, so what you're describing is a working-class asshole, then, that buys into the same shit that upper-class assholes do.
I've always thought of a working class hero as someone that was born into the working class, but succeeded in rising into the leisure class. I never thought it connoted having no knowledge or appreciation of other classes.
@spasticgoat said:
My pet peeve: working class "heroes".
I'm confused by this term. What do you consider a "working class hero"?
@VulgarKitten said:
silent, angry treatment that only moms know how to do, for weeks
My mother learned long ago that her cuntitude stopped working on me when I hit fourteen.
@Misadventure said:
Yep, we purposefully stress and terrorize one another socially, and physically, as a tool. It's part of the competition.
At some point, the absurdity erodes the polemic. Mirbeau's The Torture Garden was a far better and more meaningful read.
@VulgarKitten said:
@Roz How about to a person who will get super defensive at any hint of criticism?
"Hey, would you mind not chewing gum with your mouth open?"
"Hey, why don't you mind your own business?
"Because your chewing is so bloody noisy, it is getting into my business. So, I am minding it."
"Well, I'm not going to stop."
"Fine. I'd continue this conversation, but you're being a total bitch."
@Corruption said:
I'm going to go sulk in my corner since @Sunny turned me down. Friendzoned! MUSHzoned? Something!
Do you have a sense of self-awareness?
I thought that Safe Haven was set up as a response to the growing, obvious corruption on The Reach. And then I learned it was set up as a sandbox, with the people involved treating it like one. I'm okay with that.
Now that it is re-opening itself for new blood -- limited new blood -- when players express their opinion on the perceived and enforced exclusivity of the sandbox, we are presented with the same message as before, which is "come play with us." It's the same message as before, just cloaked in a way that can be construed as insulting to intelligence.
The difference in my mind between Fallcoast and Safe Haven is that Safe Haven is filled with dinosaurs. They still strike me as sandbox games that I'd rather not be involved with.
@Shebakoby said:
I think there should have been a probationary period for such people.
Bullshit. This is always, always bullshit.
If you hire a creeper as a staffer, take responsibility. Fire them.
If you knowingly allow bad players onto your game, get rid of them. Ban them.
If you don't, admit your mistakes, and move on.
It's really that simple.
None of this has any relation to the question originally posted. If you're tired of running a game, stop running it. Your decision to do so is no one else's business. You do no one favors by flogging the dead beast until it crumbles.
@surreality said:
Also, if there is a real problem here -- I don't know if there is and I'm not going to guess -- and there was evidence that was ignored for whatever reason, that is really not something that is OK. No amount of sticking your head in the sand will fix it, and I say that as someone who is pretty impressively avoidant and isn't super comfortable raising issues I think will be difficult, especially with friends or people I rely on for some reason. Avoiding it only lets those problems grow larger and mutate until they demand a resolution of some kind, after all.
Shutting the place down sounds like a solution, if only for the game operator.
The staff there are just fine. I was invited to play there a couple of weeks ago, set up my PC within a day or two, and hit the Grid.
@whirlyturd said:
I played on JaySherman's game and I loved it except for one of the staffers who would privately message me sexually harassing comments.
At the risk of being told that I'm promoting rape culture, I would have recommended leaving the game a long time ago.
@BetterJudgment said:
I guess I'm going to have to bite the bullet, get up 45 minutes earlier each morning (which means 5:15 AM some mornings), and go speedwalking. I'm not running because I don't think my knees will take it. Too bad doing this stuff is so freaking boring, but if I can get rid of my gut it will be worth it.
Don't bite the bullet.
I don't know how long you've been working out prior to your current regimen, but when people say "you'll see results in 6 weeks!", they often over-look the fact that people who are not obese or in fair shape to begin with won't see appreciable weight loss while their fat burns and muscle builds. Your body is probably going through the process of rebuilding muscle.
Push yourself a bit harder, but keep the time. Do timed sets, rather that sets by repetitions. Try to keep to 30 minutes, but do more and rest less. You'll get results.
No shit, but try DailyBurn as a program. It's cheaper than a gym membership, and if you can get through their advanced programs, you're in very good shape.
@HelloRaptor said:
Leaving aside the issue of lazy writing, this gets passed around as true, but isn't. The biological component of Force use, and midi-chlorians in particular, are part of Lucas' original expanded universe notes for authors who were going to write EU stuff.
That doesn't make them any less stupid or poor as an idea.