iNow

It’s called tuning. Like music. When the President speaks, it’s akin to dropping a very large rock into the water. There will be waves outward in all directions, sound waves and others… waves amplified along the way by transmission hubs who then toss their own new (though decidedly smaller) rocks into their own newer / local waters. It’s musical when any one of us speaks, but it’s downright orchestral when people who have enormous reach speak… especially US Presidents… including the less benevolent ones. It’s a wave they’re creating when dropping that rock. A tidal wave. A pressure wave pushing outward into everyone’s own inward pressure points. So, yes. They “tuned” the speech. Like a guitar or violin, or a piano in a grand hall. The speech was “tuned” … thankfully… BEFORE it was broadcast out into space through the largest megaphone the world had ever seen until recent years… a US President speaking (I temper this since recent years are different with new attention shifting power centers forming, like influencers on social media, but even bigger than that and more algorithmic). Thankfully… the speech WAS tuned before it was played through speakers large and small, mechanical and humanical, to people with minds both large and small… below every curve of the atmosphere itself and across every corner and cranny of earth herself. Anyway, if it’s not called tuning then it should be, and I’m glad they tuned it before delivering it. IMO, that shows they respect their audience, whoever that may be.

Looks your browser hadn’t refreshed prior to posting this. Saw it myself and corrected via edit

Thank you, but we’re not talking about buyers and sellers vs the employer. We’re talking about employees vs their employers. Do you still in this context think the employer has LESS power than their employees? If so, why?

First you said, “the employee/employer relationship is NOT unequal in favor of employers.” Now here you said, “it’s a bleeding obvious part of normal reality that the employer has an unequal power in the relationship.” As you can see, these two positions… both posted by you… are inconsistent and mutually exclusive of one another. Which is YOUR position? It can’t be both. For clarity, my position has consistently been the one you just acknowledged was “bleedin’ obvious.” Nobody is exploring the abolition of money. This is a red herring and totally unrelated to our exchange.

No disagreement here. There are small exceptions at the margins, but I have no quarrel with this core point. That’s not what I think. How about instead of pretending I think something that I don’t… then expressing your moral outrage toward me for thinking those things I don’t think… how about you try instead addressing my request for clarity. I’m asking for you to elaborate on your view that there is no additional power weighted toward the employer in the employee/employer relationship. Individual employees can leave. That’s it, but the employer still retains almost all of the power while that employee is there working for them, and this is why people sometimes group together to achieve improved negotiating leverage. Of course the employer is more powerful. Suggesting otherwise comes across as either disingenuous or deluded, and I’m asking for your help showing me why your view here (that the employer is NOT, in fact, more powerful than an isolated employee standing lonely and isolated) is something other than one of those two things. You're not a deluded person, IMO, which means you are more likely being disingenuous here… unless, of course, you can explain your thinking since I obviously may be misunderstanding it? That part is obvious, but why do you think this?

I notice this comment has been ignored. Is it possible Mistermack realizes his position that “there isn’t an inequality of power in the employee/employer relationship” or that the employer doesn’t benefit from that asymmetry is nonsensical? Nah… of course not. Lol.

I reject your premise. What reason do I have to replace my own which suspects you have a sampling bias in your book list and it doesn’t adequately represent the population under investigation.

A fair point, but not terribly applicable given a presidents direction and involvement with their writers on these, and how they redline everything themselves up to the moment of delivery. To the thread more broadly… Does anyone think this reached those who most needed to hear it?

This is not correct. It’s paid while they are working and saved for future expenditure. You clearly don’t support the practice of paid sick leave, which is fine, but let’s not misrepresent the mechanism by which it’s offered solely to bolster a weak unpopular argument. What is the greatest point of leverage an individual has against their company, in your opinion? Where is this great strength you see? The employee either does what they’re told or they get fired and possibly replaced. It’s strange to me how anyone could say this doesn’t represent an obvious inequality of power and I’d like to better understand your position.

By what metric are you defining success in context of anarchism?

“Barr Dismisses Trump’s Request for a Special Master The former attorney general, who chose not to indict Mr. Trump in the Russia inquiry, said the Justice Department was justified in investigating his handling of government materials.” https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/02/us/politics/barr-trump-special-master.html

Yeah. I could quibble and pick nits or comment on optics, but I felt the content and the delivery met the moment.

Great points on the money. I’d go even farther and suggest the audience was more than moderates and maga, but was also the whole WORLD more broadly right now, in this moment. There are people fighting for democracy in the Middle East. People fighting for democracy inside of the Russia… inside of China… In Ukraine and Hong Kong, Taiwan and Tibet… all across the African continent… and throughout South America where failing petrostates propped up by commercialized cartels… people are fighting for democracy. We’re at an inflection point. The attack on democracy is being waged on many fronts. Biden was asking us to unify against that attack regardless of ideology or party. He was warning us that the attack is here. It is at our doorstep. Physical violence is no longer uncommon. It’s also no longer localized within only certain countries.

Of course, but not if ones goal is to ignore the results of free and fair elections.

Biden’s speech tonight was good. He was the right president in the moment. I wasn’t ashamed to have him be my elected representative. He asked us to defend democracy together. He even defended the hecklers taunting him (they were in Philly, after all), but spoke to the broader moment. Hopefully enough people are still listening.

Is reverse emulsifier a poetic name for increasing entropy, in context of time here?

It’s weird how many people conflate PII with open posts on public fora. Your posts here aren’t PII

It's not personal information. It's public information. And I'm confident that if someone accidentally shared their social security number or mothers bank account information that the staff would be happy to help them remove THAT ONE post.

Came here to say the same thing. Just finished rereading it again a few weeks ago.

Your idea here reminds me of my daughters fear that she's going to overflow the pool she's swimming in by dropping just one of her ice cubes into it.

My pleasure. Thank you also for being so understanding. ✌️

Thankfully, the transparent and open presentation of facts and evidence has a long history of arresting conspiratorial thinking. Oh, wait…

It's totally fair (and I believe often times important) to push back sometimes on some rules. That's okay. Here, though... It's like we're co-authors on a book. You write some chapters. I write some chapters. Our friends write some other chapters, and we stitch them all together and send them off for publication. The book goes out. People read it. Reference it. Share it. Come back and read it again later, sometimes. Now, if several years later you say, "I want my sections of the book removed," then all of that goes away... and since you mentioned fairness earlier in another post, one might argue that THIS is truly the unfair approach.... to take your part the story away and subtract your previous contributions to the book and all while countless others are still reading it.

And soon perhaps more apropos... "do you know who my father is?!?"

These forums rely on a threaded discussion structure. When you start arbitrarily pulling out threads, the entire garment falls apart. Or, in this case, the discussion stops making sense. Conversation has PersonA, then PersonB responds, and PersonA replies, and PersonC jumps in, then PersonB posts, and PersonA replies. This keeps going on and on for days, often weeks or even months. Deleting PersonA leaves that "conversation" looking like "PersonB no context, PersonC no context, PersonB no context." Why does this need explaining? When creating a membership, you agree to certain rules. Also, you post voluntarily. If you're bothered by inability to delete later, then don't post. Problem solved. The volunteer staff here are not in place to help you try to revise your post history because at some point later on you suddenly decide you don't like it.