This is a story about how someone from the Westboro Baptist Church left because of the way that people engaged with her. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVV2Zk88beY

What’s worth noting from this story, people that were hostile in their interactions with her only served to entrench her further in her ideals.

What caused her to change her mind were the people that had “friendly arguments” and made an effort to learn where she was coming from.

She listed out 4 key points when engaging in difficult conversations. I extracted/paraphrased some of what she said below:

1. Don’t assume bad intent (assume good or neutral intent instead) - Assuming ill motive almost instantly cuts you off from truly understanding why someone does and believes as they do. We forget that they’re a human being with a lifetime of experience that shaped their mind and we get stuck on that first wave of anger and the conversation has a very hard time ever moving beyond it.

2. Ask Questions - Asking questions helps us map the disconnect. We can’t present effective arguments if we don’t understand where the other side is coming from.

3. Stay calm - She thought that “[her] rightness justified [her] rudeness”. When things get too hostile during a conversation, tell a joke, recommend a book, change the subject, or excuse yourself from the conversation. The discussion isn’t over, but pause it for a time to let tensions dissapate.

4. Make the argument - One side effect of having strong beliefs is that we sometimes assume that the value of our position is, or should be, obvious and self-evident. That we shouldn’t have to defend our positions because they’re so clearly right and good. If it were that simple, we would all see things the same way.

You can’t expect others to spontaneously change their minds. If we want change, we have to make the case for it.

And replace it with what?

If we let capitalism run free without restrictions then we have major problems. As it is, most countries have found a balance between capitalism and setting restrictions on it.

When looking at economical systems, there aren’t many other options.

Previous attempts at communism have failed to the point that we either end up with dictatorships, or the country adopts a capitalist economy.

Economically, is there a system that would actually run better than what most countries today are using?

Nah, Cygnus beat you by about 14 min.

(On a serious note, had you already heard about someone else being convicted under the new security law? It also sounds like they’re talking about how the sentence was increased from 2 years to 7-10 years.)

To continue from the title:

the Chinese government said on Wednesday, following new legal guidelines that mandate execution in extreme cases for “diehard” separatists.

…

Some foreign companies are considering moving Taiwanese employees out of China, as a result, sources have previously told Reuters.

Why does almost every post in Technology have some comment trying to bring up the “capitalism bad” topic in some way?
Are you trying to say that Communism would have done a better job?
We’ve already seen how that has played out a few times already.

Is this the same guy that’s recorded on those robocalls who’s always asking for donations?

Personally I’m more of a fan of Approval Voting since it’s effective and the easiest to explain/implement.

Otherwise STAR voting is really good. Lastly I would take RCV since that is at least better than what we currently have.

I think you’re misunderstanding what the Forward Party is. You can be a part of any side of the political spectrum and still fall in line with the Forward Party.

The only thing that the Forward Party cares about is overhauling the voting system with something better: RCV, Star, Approval, etc.

They don’t take a stance on much of anything else.

And in terms of priority, any candidate endorsed by the Forward Party has my initial vote. If multiple candidates in the same race are backed by the forward party, then I will start digging in deeper to figure out which one I want to vote for.

My plan is to vote in candidates at all levels that are endorsed by The Forward Party.

We need to overhaul our voting system so that we’re not trapped in this downward spiral of a 2 party system that we’re currently in. Ranked Choice voting, Star voting, Approval voting… they all have pros and cons but any one of them is better than the current system that we have.

The way we get better options for Presidential candidates is to have a voting system that gives other parties a chance.

I don’t care if I have to vote for a particular Republican, Democrat, or some third party individual for this to be accomplished. Following the trend of “vote out all Republicans/Democrats” is how we got here in the first place.

Don’t forget the boots with the fur.

From the article:

The cause of his death was not immediately clear.

The confusion part:

State media maintained that rescue efforts were ongoing, but conflicting reports emerged regarding the status of the passengers. Some sources claimed contact had been established with one passenger and a crew member, while others denied this.

The incident also raised questions about the cause of the crash. While initial reports blamed bad weather, the possibility of technical malfunction or even foul play could not be ruled out. The Iranian government remained tight-lipped, further adding to the confusion.

I feel like I read news about these floods every few years.

The problem is that a lot of these homes are cheap/affordable because they are built in flood zones.

A handful of shares don’t really mean much in terms of having a say in the company.

With Mondragón, is the voting based on the number of individuals in a company, or is it based on the number of shares that an individual owns?

The article didn’t go into detail in how much of a say each employee has (or maybe I missed it?).

Even if it is votes based on the number of employees, in a company like Mondragón (with 70,000 other employees) wouldn’t you still say that a single vote doesn’t “mean much in terms of having a say in the company?”

It feels like this would work very well in companies with a smaller number of employees, but the fact that a large company like this is successful with this model is a good sign.

A model where all of the employees own shares in the company.

More than its economic success, though, Mondragón has become a beacon for the co-operative model, as a more humane and egalitarian way of doing business that puts “people over capital”. Every worker has a stake in the company’s fortunes and a say in how it is run, and receives a share of the profits. But the goal is more about creating “rich societies, not rich people”. That means looking after workers during not only the good times but the tough times, too.

Link inside this article, at least 94 people have died from sedatives when restrained by police from 2012 to 2021.

https://apnews.com/article/investigation-police-use-of-force-sedation-injections-demetrio-jackson-621909ba7491abc2af8ad2e33ba3415b

Would be interesting to note how many people have been given sedatives at all when restrained by police… averaging 9-10 deaths/year should definitely cause us to rethink the viability and even legality of this practice.