From a technical standpoint. Web 2.0. Until 2010ish most services and websites were server operated. Ie 1 website was ran by 1 server and it was either ran from the businesses own computer/s or a self managed server blade in a warehouse. The websites and info were primarily stored and owned by the creators.
"Cloud computing" took off properly, starting in the domain of music and file sharing services (Spotify, Dropbox).
So companies started moving to that style of website service. You'd no longer have your own server or blade. It would be shared with several others, using premade templates. ALL your data would be kept server host side. Which meant that when SJWism rose you effectively gave all that power over to your service hosts to permit, deny or modify your own damned websites.
This is what we call the Internet now. Web 2.0. The old style servers and websites still exist, but they are prone to dox ing, domain name takedown and are easy targets for hostile action. Causing them to either shutdown or migrate to Web 2.0 for safety among others.
There's other reasons too. Some men are just weaker in their own resolve naturally and In the current climate an easy power grab can be made by "changing gender".
A fat, unfit man in their 30s has no power, sexual draw, self confidence or pride. Get a genderswap however...
Now you're in the untouchable fat, unfit woman in their 30s category, with power to shout isms over other people, false sense confidence from that and a prebuilt "pride" Cult to follow.
Lazy and effort free and all it takes is swallowing some drugs and self mutilation. So ofc some weak willed men are going to make the change.
No. Straight white Men are the sanction target or scapegoat accordingly to needs. You can still criticise others outside those bounds, but only when approved. There remains THREE groups who are never allowed to HR criticised however.
Came here to say this. Sure the video bargain basement budget (down to the incoming message), but showing is better than saying and like you said it shows the state of labour.
Labour were expecting an easy win back from the Cons due to brexit, covid depression and the US election being anti "right".
Unfortunately for them Corbyn did irreparable damage to them, Keir Starmer has made a shambles of the last year and his covid measures (everyone blames mophead but mophead was following Starkers advice) and to make it really obvious labour is done, there's a youtube video interview of Starkers admitting labor had no policy or voting platform because of in fighting. He even said on TV that he doesn't know how to progress and gave no indication of improving other than "we need to fix labour".
Labour might hold a few True Red states but they're done... Which leads me to. One final. Concern.
Are they going to mimic the USA and claim an election steal?
Already the BBC are saying turnouts were in record numbers over 2019, but most polling stations have been seen to be empty or dead.
Three types of sunscreen. One for the sea, one for sand, one for underclothing. All in their varying SPF values. Just so they can justify selling each at different prices ng prices points for "fashion" when all you need is 50 and done.
If Labour gets back in, we're going to have a Fake Golden Age through misattributed euphoria. Then they're going to go democrat style regards elections, governance and control underneath it all.
The lower class/working class will ignore it as they get their £15 an hour (ignoring that costs have gone up), the middle class will bemoan being squeezed still even though they voted against the Conservatives and wanted change and the upper class will just shift tact along with the current leadership.
Same here. Only time I masked up ever is building entry because I NEED access to that building (work, food). The second I'm over that threshold, mask is off. I've had several Karen's give me dirty looks but shut up cause they know they can't do shit about it outside.
If I had fuck you money, I wouldn't have even done that.
Personally I don't see that as being an important investment in one's country. Especially when you're compelled to do so by law. I think the problem. Is the required methods have all been implied fascist, such as Minimum Service.
Personally, I'd say birth in a country is not a right to vote. You still get all your other rights based on human health and wellbeing but a citizenry test should be given and passed at a certain level for the right to vote. During possession of a right to vote, citizens should also then have criteria to meet to keep it. For example as you said, maintaining a net tax payment or in lieu of, proving work effort (ie volunteering).
However that isn't to say that there aren't problems with that as it brings us back towards hierarchical systems akin to feudalism (serfs weren't slaves, but couldn't vote thing).
The problem is, like most thi ngs it takes common sense to know when a system is being abused and the will to not abuse it in the first place.
It could even be much simpler I guess and instead of blind jury, we acknowledge opposing jurors and take people on specifically who think one way or another about the case at hand. In this case, three pro chauvin, three negative, three ambivalent and an elder who has seen/voted in a prior similar case (if not similar they're the tiebreak).
"anyone who doesn't adhere to these new corporate policies and confirms agreement, is by default confirming they accept notice of termination of employment" - sent by email, on iPad