Is that a thing you have to apply to some formal committee for?

Or do we have to ask you specifically whether or not it qualifies?

Ooh maybe there’s ASCII symbol for it like ® or © ?

Oh i see where my confusion is coming from, you’re the personification of a county.

That is entirely my bad for thinking you were talking about either voting population or actual population, neither of which has a vast majority of anything.

You were just talking about how you and your swing state county personification buddies won out by a narrow margin.

What were there, like 10 of you, 12? i suppose 7 or 8 out of ~12 could be considered a vast change.

You have defeated me sir (or whatever the pronoun for a county is) , with unassailable logic, facts and a true understanding of statistics and the word “vast”.

I concede.

Just realised that if you are struggling with “vast” you might not understand what a personification of something is, if so , disregard all of the above it isn’t going to make any sense.

Dammit forgot the rating.

Repeating of a factually incorrect statement, self-proclaimed victory over a position not claimed or proven.

1/10 - lacks originality, no personal attacks, no strawmen, no fallacies at all as far as i can tell, not even a single slur.

A single easily provable mis-truth and then a self proclaimed victory over an imaginary battle, what is this amateur hour?

If a gambit doesn’t land, you switch tactics or double down, come on now, it’s like you aren’t even trying.

Moving goalposts again? you’ve already used that twice, le sigh

“vast majority” and “majority” aren’t the same, i specifically called out the vast part…but you do you.

yes, finally an lgbt dig i was losing hope at this point but i get it now, you were keeping it in reserve, i can’t wait to see what you do with the immigrants, perhaps even we can hope for some drag queen action?..wait no, don’t tell me, i want it to be a surprise.

a bit weak after that though

provable unlikelihood presented as fact x2 , then lie that is easily provable and contradicts your own stance ( and still fundamentally misunderstands the difference between regular and voting population )

You did get the slogan in though so some extra points for that, weird capitalisation, but close enough.

hmm, a tough call this one…i’ll give it a 6/10, a couple new bingo entries but repetition and self contradiction are fairly weak.

Easily provable lie, hope stated as fact, victory claimed on position never stated.

Come on guy it’s like you aren’t even trying anymore.

Still no immigrants, not even an LGBT ? Really?

lacklustre 2/10 shitpost, must try harder.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-set-office-razor-thin-house-gop-majority/story?id=116274023

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/the-size-of-donald-trumps-2024-election-victory-explained-in-5-charts

https://www.wusf.org/2024-12-03/trump-falls-just-below-50-in-popular-vote-but-gets-more-than-in-past-elections

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/dec/03/donald-trump-historic-landslide-win-lie

https://www.npr.org/2024/12/03/nx-s1-5213810/2024-presidential-election-popular-vote-trump-kamala-harris

https://www.politifact.com/article/2024/nov/22/how-big-was-donald-trumps-victory-8-charts-provide/

in fairness that last one did use the phrase “vast majority” to describe the number of counties that shifted to red, not the actual number of votes

I know i highlighted the difference between the two statements but i’m not expecting you to understand how statistics works or acknowledge the difference so don’t strain yourself.

Moving goalpoats, unrelated, more goalpost moving, claiming victory without any actual rebuttal, semi-truth, hope stated as fact, implication of stance not actually taken.

Hmm, a bit derivative but overall a solid entry, not as good as the last, still no immigrant references, i’ll give this a 7/10 shitpost.

Hey, if you want to reinterpret what “vast majority” in the context of a political win means, you do you.

Small bit of relative truth mixed with hypocrisy, dog-whistle, complaint, misunderstanding of word, misunderstanding of concept of voting population.

You hit all the highlights, personally i’d have gone with more dogwhistles, maybe something to do with immigrants ?

A solid 8/10 shitpost.

Vast means large btw, as in big.

It’s interesting as a subject but I dislike this as a presentation format.

This is the video equivalent of “this meeting could have been an email”.

Also his voice and cadence are irritating, but I recognise that that’s a personal gripe. Certainly an “old man shouts at cloud” moment but coked up youtuber energy isn’t my jam.

As an organisation they have historically been and continue to be, truly shitty.

But what are you using for sources here ?

Your missing the part in the middle where you spend 6 months telling them in no uncertain terms that the thing they are asking is stupid and will not work properly/safely.

Various back and forth emails, a completely “justified” performance review program because of your “falling standards” and several meetings with various managers at different levels of “importance”.

Also the “You’re absolutely correct, ENJOY” is written at the bottom of your resignation letter or told to them directly in your “redundancy” exit interview.

I mean, yes? That’s a good summation.

The part where you get to call something “open source” by OSI standards (which I’m pretty sure is the accepted standard set) but only if you adhere to those standards.

Don’t want to adhere, no problem, but nobody who does accept that standard will agree with you if you try and assign that label to something that doesn’t adhere, because that’s how commonly accepted standards work, socially.

Want to make an “open source 2 : electric boogaloo” licence , still no problem.

Want to try and get the existing open source standards changed, still good, difficult, but doable.

Relevant to this discussion, trying to convince people that someone claiming something doesn’t adhere to the current, socially accepted open source standards, when anybody can go look those standards up and check, is the longest of shots.

To address the bible example, plenty of variations exist, with smaller or larger deviations from each other, and they each have their own set of believers, some are even compatible with each other.

Much like the “true” ¹ open source licences and the other, “closely related, but not quite legit” ² variations.

¹ As defined by the existing, community accepted standards set forth by the OSI

² Any other set of standards that isn’t compatible with ¹

edit: clarified that last sentence, it was borderline unparseable

“It’s not libre / free as in freedom so it’s wrong”.

I think it’s more “It’s not libre / free as in freedom so it’s not open source, don’t pretend it is”.

The “wrong” part would be derived from claiming its something that it isn’t to gain some advantage. I’m this case community contributions.

There’s not a handwaving distinction between open source and not, there are pretty clear guidelines.

That’s reasonable

it’s Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes

I don’t know about the fairness of this particular company but by that rationale nothing can ever be fair, just by existing we increase the suffering. Its how the world is.

Think headphones jacks don’t cause suffering at some point in the chain?

Not that I’m disagreeing, just not sure how things would get named under this specific scheme.

Does it assume that it’s generally understood that everything is a little harmful in some way, so as long as you don’t claim otherwise, it’s cool or would everything need to be measured on some sort of average harmfulness scale and then include the rating in the title.

Like “Horrendously harmful Apple” or “Mildly harmful Colgate”

A bit hyperbolic perhaps.

Genuinely not trying to start a fight, actually interested in what you think would be a good way of doing this, as I’ve occasionally pondered it myself and never come up with a good answer.

Incidentally, this is one of the core plotlines to later seasons of “The good place”

Are you genuinely struggling to understand why people who think he’s actively saying hateful shit about trans people wouldn’t necessarily want to increase his presence in the general Zeitgeist?

Or did you just want to slip in the “stereotypical white guy” dog whistle?

If you are actually struggling, i can probably help.

imagine a person saying horrible shit about you, specifically.

Now imagine they have a platform where they say this hateful shit to lots of people, enough that you sometimes run across these people and they also say hateful shit to you, perhaps worse.

Now imagine an unrelated meme is made with this persons face on it and you see it 5,10,15 times a week.

Now imagine that the comments on most of these memes feature a whole bunch of people defending this person and agreeing with the hateful shit they said about you.

I’d imagine that’s why some people care.

Genuine question though, what would be the right thing to give the energy/importance to in this scenario?

i’d imagine a part of the problem is that at least some of them do in fact see those things as “traditional american values” so from their perspective they are conserving their version of reality.

Genuine question as i don’t actually know the answer, is conservatism considered to be the conservation specifically of “traditional” values. Like, is there an agreed upon timeframe in which these traditional values were held or is it more of a moving target sort of thing ?

I’m talking anecdotally and from my experience here, not as an absolute.

I will upfront admit i am somewhat biased against authority in general, especially what i perceived to be unearned authority (if you wish to be a respected authority, earn it and continue to do so) In this case however I’m talking about “authority” in a professional sense somewhat measured against the success or failure of particular projects or initiatives.

For the most part i agree with you but it seems like you are using the term “anti-authoritarian” as an absolute, as in being against authority is bad in all cases.

At a lot of companies “Critical thinking and standing up for your ideas” is considered anti-authoritarian because the company culture doesn’t allow for that kind of autonomy of thought (by design or long term evolution usually).

Your example works in the context of a company that works in a manner that promotes/encourage that kind of person, not all of them do. My personal experience and that of my circle of colleagues and acquaintances, I’d guess that percentage is around 30/70 with the 70% being companies that either actively or passively punish/discourage both of those types of employees.

Which i’d imagine is what @bouh meant when they said “But good employees will hate your company, because you consider them like bad ones”

Anti-authoritarianism is a bad trait. when the authority in question is doing the correct things (for whatever definition of correct you wish to use). “Anti-authoritarianism” and “Critical thinking and standing up for your ideas” are not mutually exclusive.

As with most things it’s contextual.