Ashelyn

The problem, like with many things in life, is that there's a desire for people to place clear delineations on things for purpose of clarity and peace of mind, when it actually exists on a very fuzzy spectrum. I'd argue you do gamble a tiny percent chance of getting in a wreck every time you drive in exchange for getting places much faster. Likewise, were you to walk instead, there are unique risks and payoffs associated with that choice too.

Whether or not the risks are well known or there's a decision to increase the level of risk is a little beside the point. There are plenty of people addicted to gambling who genuinely believe they'll hit it big and retire one day, and that the reward payout is inevitable even when it's clearly not.

Risk management is at the core of both investment and gambling. The riskier your investment, the closer it comes to just putting the money on a roulette position in practice. There are plenty of portfolios that slowly hemorrhage money and/or eat up any would-be growth via fees: those are your 51-49 splits. Also it doesn't matter if there's such a split if you decide to go all in and it goes belly up, however you slice that.

If you do risky shit with money, it's a gamble whether it pays off. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the point you're trying to make?

Most normal person at the Costco food court

The cars themselves are but a symptom of the issue. The real predators are those who push street design that prioritizes vehicle throughput over safety. The real predators are those who push vehicle designs more deadly for pedestrians but "safer" for passengers who feel like they're in a tank. The real predators are those who believe there is a non-zero number of avoidable innocent deaths that's an acceptable trade-off for the bottom line.

Kevin McMansion in his suburban house with a lifted F-250 is victim to a parasitic infection. It's the car lobby primarily responsible for those memetic brainworms, but their playbook is endemic to our way of life. When Kevin kills a toddler backing out of his driveway because the backup camera is 3ft off the ground, that child, Kevin, and their community pay the price (death, trauma, pain, guilt), but the industry has successfully turned this scenario into nothing more than one of many externalized costs of doing business.

That's why you push the stick further in until you get to the spot you hollowed before pulling it out

if my pizza looks like this the grease is getting blotted off with a napkin

...Nintendo has removed online support for pretty much every other platform other than the switch. I get that this comes sooner for China than expected, but it was an inevitable outcome either way.

3.5 Their lawyer successfully argues that, while the AI is the product, the company shouldn't be held accountable for their product ~~lying~~ hallucinating because it would set a bad precedent for the industry

Get your Trump "I did that" stickers ready

I got the impression that it's fine for a man to "feel like a man" but that that needs to be something he finds on his own terms, and needs to come from within. It's not something he gets to impose upon others, such that it demands their cooperation or subordination. If to anyone, masculinity requires them being superior to others... maybe they need to do some soul searching.

Perhaps the user's name does contribute to a theme. I don't see anything specifically wrong with what was mentioned in this post, but we would need more context to determine who's in the wrong, Reddit AITA style.

Of course both men and women can be toxic. The point of toxic masculinity as a term is to draw attention to the fact that there's a certain brand of toxicity that has much more harmful outcomes in male-dominated spaces, for a variety of social and cultural reasons. It tends to be a rather controversial term mostly because it gets conflated with the idea that masculinity itself is toxic (which is not what it's supposed to mean).

The discussion should be about the magnitude of the problem, not hand-waving it away because women do it too but in different ways. The "different ways" is kind of the whole point of the argument.

Also, that's a lot of extrapolation you did simply from a username in a screenshot. Would you describe any of their actual words in the post as misandrist?

We should be punishing companies for paying illegal wages under the table no matter who's the recipient (documented or not), but instead the undocumented status of the workers is used as pretext to deny them any negotiating power for a raise or better conditions. Until we hold the companies accountable in these situations, they'll continue to do whatever they can to keep their labor costs down. Unfortunately, farm owners have the money in this situation, so their wishes for cheap labor trump any need for unemployed citizens to have a job :)

These farm jobs aren't going to be opened up to Americans for minimum wage. They're going to be done by the same undocumented people, but as part of immigrant detention labor camps as an extension of the prison industrial complex.

The reality is that we should be paying a lot more for groceries than we currently are, given that the current system depends on horrendously underpaid and exploitative labor. Good luck making that case to people struggling to pay for groceries.

edit: slight wording because I suck at proofreading before hitting submit