My job has a “scrum master”. She’s nice, I guess, but as far as I can tell her entire job is sharing her screen so we can look at tickets. Then people tell her what to click on and what text to change. It’s excruciating because it would just be faster for the person talking to change it, instead of being like “remove the second bullet point. No, not that one”

On top of that they have all these tasks for “unit testing” but they don’t actually do unit testing. Someone just said, in the distant past, we should do testing so it’s there.

. I will never understand how he got these people so duped

They are stupid. So, kind of tautologically, they reason poorly and make bad decisions.

How would you prevent the cognitive test from being used to remove candidates for political reasons?

“Sorry, he failed the test because he couldn’t sing the texas anthem”

You could maybe have the questions and answers public, but the voting public is poorly informed and educated.

You could have some sort of third party do it, but then the conservatives would spend decades corrupting that.

It’s not enough to just remove them from power. They shouldn’t go on to live a life of luxury giving talks on Fox News or whatever.

And if they stay, they get hung because “following orders is not an excuse”

I think ideally they’d stay and subtly fuck up the administration’s plans. Like how prosecutors routinely fail to indict cops. But that’s asking a lot

Honestly, probably yes. People are emotional and a face to face conversation can be a big impact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_canvassing is one take on it

Zohran had many volunteers knocking on doors and talking to people. He’s also charismatic, and focused on concrete actionable things.

It’s hard to get people mad about “let’s run buses on time”.

Thank you. I really hate this trend of a video when a few paragraphs would do it.

One time I saw NK Jemisen , author of the broken earth trilogy give a talk. Someone asked about climate change and she said something like “there’s only a small number of people responsible for most of this problem, and we know where they live”

The audience cheered and clapped. The guy moderating the talk got real flustered.

Not the building super, nor my friend when she came by with a drain snake that one time.

Or, to use an example that’s not trying so hard to be a pun: you go down to the local rec center to find a pickup game of basketball or whatever. No one’s paying anyone. You go, find a game, have a good time, and leave. Maybe see each other again. Maybe not. Is that sociopathy?

There’s a wide range of options between utterly repulsive and loved. That’s a huge excluded middle. Do you think people don’t fuck on the first date?

You deleted your other reply I already replied to, so I’m pasting what I wrote here:

You’re shifting the topic. You said,

No, I’m pretty sure that people who use each other for solely selfish purposes is a primary symptom of sociopathy

Note this claim isn’t about sex. It’s a broad claim that any circumstances where one party uses another for selfish purpose is sociopathy.

Since getting someone to fix a clogged toilet is using someone for selfish purposes, your claim would make that sociopathy. I think that’s absurd, and thus your claim is false.

I hate to break it to you but people who like to have sex with each other on a regular basis without exchanging money or other favors, they probably love each other but they’re so scared of the word love because for some reason in recent decades the word love has been become taboo.

Citations needed. You just made this up and I see no reason to take your word for it that people are scared of the word love, nor that love has become taboo. Furthermore, many people have regular sex without feeling love.

You’re taking your world view and beliefs and claiming they’re far more universal than they are.

You’re shifting the topic. You said,

No, I’m pretty sure that people who use each other for solely selfish purposes is a primary symptom of sociopathy

Note this claim isn’t about sex. It’s a broad claim that any circumstances where one party uses another for selfish purpose is sociopathy.

Since getting someone to fix a clogged toilet is using someone for selfish purposes, your claim would make that sociopathy. I think that’s absurd, and thus your claim is false.

Edit: person I replied to deleted their message, so I reposted this where they reposted.

I don’t let the problem get that bad in the first place.

On my computer, I close the browser end of day and all the tabs go away. On my phone, it auto archives tabs I haven’t looked at in a week. I close those periodically, but a few I use as off brand bookmarks (eg: a recipe I like)

Thus hiring someone to fix your plumbing or do your yard work is sociopathy?

Also two people can have mutually enjoyable sex without “love”.

You’ve got a weird take.

If you call it out before it happens, they call you alarmist. If you point it out afterwards, they’ve already normalized it

They’re not engaging with facts. That’s a whole other plane that doesn’t intersect. It’s just feelings and in-group.

When you point it out early, you’re disparaging the in-group so that must be rejected. When you point it out after… You’re still disparaging the in-group so that must be rejected.

That’s all there is to it.

Yeah some mods on some instances give real pearl clutching vibes.

Yeah, true. Too much jury nullification of any sort means you’re systems are failing. Not good for a society.

Ehh kind of. But, you know, nullification is when the laws say they’re guilty but the jury says no. Typically because the laws are unjust. But there’s an opposite where the laws might say they’re innocent, but the jury says guilty because the laws are also unjust.

What’s the opposite of jury nullification?