It’s huge in wrestling at the moment because it’s been a faction for like 3-4 years involving the actual bloodline descendents of chief Peter Maivia, which includes The Rock, Roman Reigns, the Wild Samoans, and pretty much any samoan in wrestling excluding Samoa Joe.
We’re doing ok in Europe.
Even with lower salaries than the US, most people in their 30s I know have a mortgage.
I myself bought at 31 with my wife.
It’s not affordable for everyone but it’s doable for people with actual salaries, you just might have to compromise a bit on position or size.
Neither of those people were ordinary in any way tho.
Very small font on very thin paper.
Removed by mod
They did not say “do I enjoy it?” they said “Is it worth the effort?” and if having food made exactly to your taste is not worth the effort you either have no standards and would be fine with microwave slop and fast food, or you lack the skill to make something that satisfies you.
Either way, skill issue.
The one exception would be if you’re disabled or something, and I don’t mean “I have adhd” disabled, I mean “I physically can’t stand at the stove for 20-30 minites” disabled.
Is it worth the effort?
No.
Sounds like you suck at cooking, my guy.
Of course, just because there’s an audience doesn’t mean you’re pandering to it.
Fundamentally, integrity is an internal concept.
Only you can know if you have it, because only you can truly know your motivations.
As long as your moral choices are truly based on your own principles and you would do the same regardless of observation, then you have integrity.
External factors can only give you reasons to pretend you have integrity, but they can’t prevent you genuinely having it.
Given the fact that neither side demonized him, this may be one of the few cases of actual “mentally unstable lone wolf” with no sane or reasonable motive.
And now you’ve seen it (that same one anonymous unsubstantiated source) in multiple places too!
that same person treats others differently based on their gender.
Yeah, that still needs substantiating.
I disagree with men a lot in my work, almost exclusively in fact, it just so happens the one person who agrees with my takes consistently is also the one woman in my team, does that make me a misandrist?
For all we know based on what happened after the writer was fired, and the batshit garbage they turned season 3 into, the disagreements on treatment of the source material were absolutely warranted (and the fan reaction also mirrored that).
What we have is the word of a bunch of people who fumbled the only big name in their cast because Cavill also happens to have opinions and needed them less than they needed him, versus Cavill who was subsequently recruited for the 40k tv show, another property he’s publicly very fond of where he made sure to also be a producer so he can actually steer the process.
Had his complaints and feedback been meritless I don’t imagine he’d be given a producer position immediately afterwards.
I’d like to see something more than “trust me people, he was a total gamer chud womanhater for not shutting up while we crashed and burned season 3” before I go ahead with the misogyny route, especially because all we have to that effect is vaguely gesturing at his treatment of a specific group of women, with no actual events or examples that could be refuted or proven and plenty of valid other possible reasons why this could have happened.
Also, in other posts you said he was fired from both Witcher and the DCU and neither claims to have fired him. The DCU halted a bunch of products after the Black Adam flop and he stepped down from Witcher himself, unless you have evidence that is not the official position.
Frankly, it sounds to me like you have a very specific narrative in your head and you’re all too happy to amplify it by adding unsubstantiated details to make it feel more real and worse.
I know, I was pointing out your hypocrisy and selective criticism.
You still have not acknowledged you hallucinated or lied about the “sexual” part of the accusations.
Nowhere in your sources does it mention the writer receiving sexual harassment claims, he was the subject of HR complaints, which if you worked in corporate environments you’d know are both extremely easy to weaponize and don’t necessarily have anything sexual about them.
Calling a colleague a dipshit or incompetent in a public setting would be cause for an HR complaint and neither is even remotely sexual.
Thoughts, or will you keep ignoring that?
who eventually got fired for sexual harassment stuff
The source you linked as well as the screenshot you posted of the quote both say HR complaints.
You can get complaints for all sorts of things, such as being uncooperative and that being read as disrespectful to a superior or a colleague, for instance, or going behind a superior’s or colleague’s back, which sounds like exactly what was going on, and since they could not touch the literal star of the show they canned his only ally instead.
Since you said you thought this was blown out of proportion, don’t contribute to blowing shit out of proportion.
But it does exist; preaching is persuading or guiding others to follow your own beliefs. If no distinction existed then we would be mechanically bound to preach what we believe, and we’re not, so it’s a choice.
Let me clarify: there is no such distinction where it pertains to determining the morality of an action. Preaching a value or holding it privately only impacts the perception others have of your transgression, not whether something is a transgression.
Everyone is a hypocrite to some degree.
Everyone who doesn’t reexamine their morality to match their actual values and/or does not have a spine will inevitably become a hypocrite given enough time.
If when faced with a moral quandary you actually examine why you are finding yourself in this position of wanting to do something that, by your own moral standards at that point, would be evil, and you stick to an honest self-critique (as in, if it is indeed a moral failure you own it and correct your behaviour) you’ll rarely stay a hypocrite for long.
In OP’s case, what is happening is one such moment, and they’ve got nothing on either the re-examination nor the self-critique end. They’re like looking to a crowd of strangers for moral absolution to do something they themselves consider immoral/evil.
That is the truest most cut and dry state of moral void, where the individual ignores their own conscience because they were given a pass to do so by someone else, as if anyone has such an authority.
It comes from the fundamental principle of harm minimisation
LMAO get that consequentialist bullshit outta here.
Consequentialism is a fundamentally useless moral framework, you would need to be prescient for it to be in any way useful to you and it can be used to justify literally any action regardless of held principles.
‘Thou shalt not kill’ is a biblical commandment, not a principle.
You are high if you think any human society was ever cool with murder, (the 6th commandment is more correctly translated to ‘thou shall not murder’, which tracks given how much killing happens to be not only fine but sanctioned by god himself in the old testament) given how it’s almost definitionally wrong to murder.
Also even more ludicrous that you’d think this is somehow something introduced by the torah when we have mesopotamian written laws with explicit punishments for murder and even unjust killing regardless of motive or premeditation.
Humans simply don’t want to be killed willy-nilly, this predates the written word and possibly actual coherent language.
It’s morality for babies
You’re the one who brought in consequentialism, don’t blame me for making this conversation basic.
Morality is never that simple.
Nor did I ever state it was.
You think I am claiming it’s that simple because you seem to think I’m coming from a place of disagreement with the OP and that’s why I argue they’re a moral failure.
The problem is that OP is in a place of moral failure to themselves, which is why they’re asking for moral license to break their principles instead of doing the arduous work of self correcting, whether by shedding a moral principle they don’t actually believe in and accepting their past self being wrong, or by standing firm and accepting the inconvenience that comes from sticking to their principles, and that their present self is wrong.
Regardless of your moral framework, this is the peak of amoral behaviour, as it renders any moral framework fundamentally optional and useless when faced with outside approval.
It makes you a definitionally amoral agent because not only are you susceptible to peer pressure (which is always true to some extent) but you actually seek it out whenever sticking to your principles becomes inconvenient enough, which means you are only ever going to be moral whenever it’s convenient, which is just as good as never being moral in the first place.
OP is like an alcoholic looking for enablers, when they know they should be calling their sponsor.
Holding morals and preaching them are different things.
I fundamentally disagree that this distinction exists, and even if it did this is not a situation where it would apply.
Morals regulate your own actions, there is no point in holding a moral value that you don’t abide by. That makes you a hypocrite whether you preach that value or not.
Preaching it also makes you a public hypocrite if you get caught, but you’re still hypocritical even if you are only betraying a private value, you’re just not accountable to others.
And if that’s all that matters to you then you don’t actually hold that value.
I think there’s got to be room for some grey areas in morality.
There is room when you can draw a clear line as to why a principle ought to apply in one situation but not in another, an argument that “it feels different when I do it” is no such standard.
For instance, killing is permissible in self defense, but murder is not acceptable. Easy line to draw that makes the same practical action morally distinct depending on context (aggressor/victim).
I abhor late-stage capitalism, but I would not rather die than shop at a chain supermarket.
And if that’s your only option that is a pretty straightforward line you can draw that has nothing to do with your personal gain by ignoring an otherwise inconvenient principle.
“I won’t patronise large corporations whenever I have an alternative” is a fair line to draw, as long as you don’t immediately walk back on it as soon as it becomes inconvenient by being slightly out of your way or a bit more expensive.
OP said no such thing, however. They straight up went “when I break my own moral principles it doesn’t feel as bad as when others break them against me” which is utter horseshit.
You mean to tell me that when you try to kill someone it somehow feels less bad than when someone else tries to kill you? No fucking way, what a discovery!
So yeah, unless OP can actually provide a generalized standard by which anyone can do what they’re doing and still maintain an ethical position, they’re just finding excuses to placate their own conscience, while pretending to maintain a coherent moral standard, when really they never held anything of the sort, they just don’t like to be on the receiving end of the stick.
If you truly believe investing, and especially investing in real estate, is immoral, then you shouldn’t do it, the same way you shouldn’t eat pork if you keep kosher or halal.
Anything else, especially “it feels more like buying back my own lost value” is such a gigantic cope that I’ve seen pictures of it taken from the ISS.
Either accept that your beliefs are incorrect, and participate in the market like a normal person, or stick to your beliefs when it’s inconvenient too.
This behaviour is morally no better than that of megachurch pastors who preach the immorality of gay sex and get caught paying men to fuck them in the ass.
Oh oof, it happened to a friend of mine as well, not fun.
Not fun to fix, either.
On a certain level it’s healthy that people who have ideologies we disagree with are allowed to participate in discussions, on the other hand on lemmy tankies are an endemic threat because they themselves don’t accept or tolerate opposition, and openly abuse tolerance whenever it’s extended to them.
I suggested this elsewhere but I do think the liberal side of fediverse should build some sort of moderation compact to ensure that neutrality is maintained and that subverting an instance becomes at least harder, if not impossible.
It is when you win them, something Russia still has to figure out.
If you look back at her primary in 2020, she was.
Hard to wash that off with some last minute recanting, like with fracking and other such campaign claims.
Her hand was tipped as to her ideal term in office 4 years ago, I’m surprised Trump didn’t use that shit in attack ads given how much more stereotypically progressive she was then.
Personally I called it in when a clip of hers saying “we’ve got to get woke” (not sure about the wording but the word woke was used positively) from some talk show aimed at black people from this year came out.
You need to live in a parallel dimension to think that word is not absolutely fucking nuclear waste in the political discourse rn.