“If you don’t wear Special Clothes around me I’m going to lose it.”
When are we going to move past costuming for work?
The only costume I wanna wear for work is a mascot costume for a sports team that named themselves after an animal.
It’s ok to admit you’re a furry on the Internet. We run the damn thing, after all
Look at the instance that user is from
This comment chain is a yiffit party
👋 fellow furry freaks.
Hello from pawb
flufflewiggles greetily! ^.^
deleted by creator
Classic lemmy
Best I can do is racist caricature
I still think instead of changing their name, the Red Skins should have changed their mascot to a potato.
Nonsense ideology that dates back to medieval times. I subscribed to it for years until I realized it had no bearing on my work. I tell my interns and staff “dress appropriately,” meaning be comfortable - unless we’re meeting with clients, whose expectations may not align.
Dress codes serve as class signifiers. Like most rules of decorum, they’re cultural artifacts used to delineate the haves from the have-nots. They don’t dislike the fact that Fetterman refuses to wear a suit. They dislike the fact that he dresses like the common people he actually represents. Whereas they dress like the people they represent - capitalist oligarchs. They’re wanting to close ranks and keep people from realizing that not everyone in the senate serves the same masters.
Isn’t the logic that it’s an easy thing to use as a sign of conformance? A check to see if you’re willing to compromise your personal choices for the groups mandate?
Is that good here?
People with their little collars and jackets and ties to make them feel important
Probably never. People will always judge others based on how they are dressed. We subconsciously attach a certain image of what people should look like. And these dress codes are often enforced by society indirectly. 99% of people would not want to have a lawyer dressed casually to court and will pick someone else even if the alternative is by all accounts not as good as the casually dressed lawyer.
I’d be happy to have a lawyer in casual attire if it wouldn’t bias the judge and jury against him (or me).
Idk about that one. How a person maintains their suit, tie, shirt, and shoes, says a lot about how meticulous they are as people, and I want an absolutely anal attorney.
That may be usually true, but I don’t know if it’s as good an indicator as you might think it is. I’m extremely pedantic, anal, stubborn and meticulous when it comes to arguing but I rarely dress meticulously - in fact quite the opposite. I’ve also met plenty of people who dress and groom themselves extremely well but couldn’t argue their way into a root in a brothel.
but couldn’t argue their way into a root in a brothel.
Almost afraid to ask, but, ‘root’?
Aussie slang; root = fuck.
Aussie slang; root = fuck.
Thanks, learned something new.
A misspelling of “room,” perhaps?
A misspelling of “room,” perhaps?
I’ll buy that for $1.
Thats right. I judge them by how they are dressed. Fetterman is a working class american, and the others are my enemy.
sounds like you have fully absorbed the narrative his PR team has pushed.
My knee jerk reaction to seeing anyone in a suit is “Asshole”.
I feel like there some that do and most that don’t but the some that do are such cunts they try to force the most of us to do what they want
For most people it’s subconscious. Society presents the image of a lawyer that constantly wears a suit. Most lawyers do wear a suit. So when they see a lawyer without a suit it puts them off because it clashes with the image of what a lawyer is suppose to be. But like I said it’s subconscious no one just thinks to themselves “all lawyers should wear suits or else they are untrustworthy”.
Time to dress up like it’s 1799.
I never got what the tie (leash) is for. Probably a reminder of a dog leash, to remind themself that they are dogs.
Once the Miserables found themselves outvoted in the Estates General of 1789 by about 3% of the population (the ones with money), it became very uncomfortable in France for aristocrats.
Just saying,
American’s don’t have the drive or the energy to care. We willingly lost 40 years ago.
Not willingly. What can I do I got work tomorrow
Yeah, I hear ya. 😬
And we’ll continue to lose, willingly. Even in an era where our favorite junk food prices are rising, we’re being nickel and dimed over subscription services and everything. As long as they aren’t coming to rip us away from our comfy beds or couches, we’re fine. Oh wait, they’ve been doing that with escalating prices of rent.
I guess we’ll all just go and die then because at least in the afterlife, no corporate or governmental finger can touch death to influence capitalism on.
You see, this impacts them. Never mind that there’s no actual impact, they only want those among them who behave as expected. Also, he got excessive attention due to his attire, which gave him a bigger audience for his political views.
So youre saying that things need to impact these people?
Only very small things though. A few millimetres at most.
Do you think about 5.56 milimeters would be enough, or should we splurge on 7.62 milimeters?
Nah youll want way thicker rope than that
9mm?
Also, he got excessive attention due to his attire, which gave him a bigger audience for his political views.
Not necessarily.
People who disagree with his dress attire may not care to pay attention to his message/opinions (ex.: “This guy’s a joke, I’m not listening to him”).
Those who dismiss him because of his attire would, most likely, not listen to him, regardless. It’s the others, who otherwise would know nothing of this man or his policies, who may be swayed in some way.
As someone who agrees with his dress style It shows that he’s young and different And the uproar against his style made me interested in him as a person
*Btw this is the first time I’ve heard about it and strictly on first impressions
You think they listen to Bernie Sanders?
You think they listen to Bernie Sanders?
I have no idea. I was just speaking towards some people’s prejudices of wanting people in authority to be well dressed and ignoring them if not.
I personally don’t agree with it, just bringing up the point. I’m definitely a substance over style type of person.
They don’t. He wears a suit. These acorns are gatekeeping.
These acorns are gatekeeping.
Not necessarily.
They just may be creatures of habit, and trying to uphold the ‘institution’ philosophy of Congress (in their minds)
Sometimes you can just take someone at face value, you don’t always have to look for ulterior motives.
Removed by mod
They just don’t want to govern.
Yes. They want paychecks without work, responsibility, or blame.
They don’t want there to be a government.
No. I see no evidence of that. Every chance people get to raise military or police spending or make up new laws to restrict people’s choices, they take it.
The problem with that train of thought is that they were already rich when they got the job. Many of them actually spend more to get the job than the job even pays. They aren’t there for the pay, they are there for the power plays. Once you get in you know people, people mainly help those they are close to. Money is a means to an end (and integral to the storage process ) but it’s all about power and connections. Why else would someone pay $1M of their own money for a 50/50 shot at a job that pays $1.2M over 4 years?
“It’s called consolidation. Strengthen governments and corporations, weaken individuals.”
If you get the reference, you are a champ in my book.
Would love to see some bipartisan support for banning congress members from trading stocks. Both sides are doing it to such a degree that they are more likely to be replaced before any legislation regarding this gets passed. Obligatory Nancy Pelosi Stock Tracker link: https://twitter.com/PelosiTracker_/
Nancy Pelosi gets a bad rap, but she’s actually not one of the most successful traders in congress. Of the 26 traders in Congress who beat the S&P 500 in 2022, Nancy was not one of them.
She also doesn’t actually trade any stocks. She married a man in college who now owns a brokerage. To ban her from owning stock trades would be the same as asking her to divorce her husband or be removed from office.
One of the biggest controversies she’s ever been in was when VISA lobbied her and made meetings with her before an influential vote, at which point her husband bought large shares in VISA, and then she…
voted against VISA’s interests anyways…
The best part of all this is Paul Pelosi still made money selling the shares because society as a whole has duped itself into thinking following Pelosi is the ultimate grift for decades now. The fact is that we only even know about their trades because of legislature that Pelosi helped pass in the first place.
Of the 26 traders in Congress who beat the S&P 500 in 2022, Nancy was not one of them.
We only started tracking trades in 2021. Pelosi has been in office since the 1987 and her husband’s venture capital firm Financial Leasing Services, Inc. is the primary reason for the family’s $115M household valuation. A big part of the FLS holdings is sports venue real estate. And a big part of the profitability of that real estate stems from city, state, and federal grant money. So… shrug
But no, this isn’t just Nancy Pelosi personally getting in on the ground floor of Facebook, Google, or Amazon, back before they were major recipients of NSA money for data collections and warehousing.
We’ve been tracking trades since the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 which was expanded upon by the STOCK act of 2012.
So… shrug
We’ve been tracking trades
Can you show me what stocks Pelosi owned in 1987, when she took office? I’m unable to find anyone hosting this data.
Given EIGA predates the internet, the archives are probably stored as papers somewhere in the library of congress or the SEC, let me know if you find anything online.
or be removed from office
I wouldn’t complain if this happened without needing this kind of legislation.
That said I do agree that people like her would be in a pickle and I don’t think it should necessarily be straight banned, but instead politicians in her situation and their closest associated people should have their trades regularly audited for insider trading.
That’s just the system we have now, then. We have the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, the STOCK Act of 2012. Clearly I think more should be done, but I also don’t agree with forcing people to divorce their loved ones and leave their families while in office. Maybe something that makes future members of congress ineligible for office if their spouse trades stocks as an income source?
Formal dress codes are upper class by aesthetics. Its just another little bite of compliance that one is expected to take before joining those in power.
It is funny and sad how many ways of getting ahead in society can be interpreted as testing your tolerance for bullshit.
Okay. All those fat old men (on both sides) wearing ill fitting suits should be expelled from houses of government until they wear a fitted suit. Same with the women.
Their priorities are “fuck you got mine”
need a retirement age for all public employees. I mean let them get paid to do nothing where we don’t have to listen to them pretending to do serious stuff.
I’m old enough to remember when China raised the mandatory retirement cap from 70 to 75 and American journalists lost their fucking minds, insisting that President Xi (who turned 71 in the '23 election cycle) had committed some kind of unconstitutional legislative coup de tat.
A few months later, Dianne Feinstein died in office at age 90 and we were all told to celebrate how democratically her final two terms in office had shaken out.
wonder what chinese get per month at retirement. I’m guessing I’ll end up w/ about $3k/month before deductions, from SS.
Whatever they get, they start earning it when they turn 60. Chinese retirement is crazy low, and the cost of living there is incredibly cheap.
died in office big can o’worms that https://www.google.com/search?q=died+in+office
Epic hoodie man calls for full-blown genocide of Palestinians, crowd goes wild
Source?
Now is not the time to talk about a ceasefire. We must support Israel in efforts to eliminate the Hamas terrorists who slaughtered innocent men, women, and children. … We can talk about a ceasefire after Hamas is neutralized.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/10/john-fetterman-israel-position-explained.html
So basically, Fetterman believes that Israel can keep killing thousands of children as long as Hamas continues to exist.
Removed by mod
The problem is that Israel doesn’t seem to give a fuck about civilian casualties. I’m all on board for wiping Hamas off the face of the earth, but shelling Gaza is not the way they should be going about it. There are way, way too many innocent people getting killed. If it was just Israel vs Hamas in a vacuum, no civilians, I’d support Israel. But this isn’t happening in a vacuum and a lot of civilians on both sides of this conflict are getting hurt or killed. You could even argue that this conflict was started by Israel as a result of the hand they had in the creation of Hamas.
How would you destroy Hamas? Are you saying that Hamas can do what it did, and Israel just can’t try to destroy it because Hamas uses civilians as a shield?
That’s a little disingenuous. It’s a call for the destruction of Hamas through the means of repeatedly bombing a small, impoverished nation with no regard for who or what is destroyed.
Israel is using airstrikes on hospitals, mosques, and schools. Fetterman is supporting the country that is responsible for 5,000 civilian deaths, tens of thousands of people injured, and 600,000 displaced people. That doesn’t sound like genocide to you? We should support bombing a country to rubble because of some terrorists that they created through their cruelty? They ration their food, their water, deny them access to shipments, deny aid, andn break agreements. Of course they created extremists.
When you support Israel’s wanton destruction of an entire nation, you are supporting genocide.
It is entirely possible to oppose Hamas without supporting Israel.
Not when he literally says that we have to support Israel’s destruction of Hamas.
I wasn’t referring to Fetterman.
Absolutely not, only one thing can be true at once, we have no room for nuance here.
(/s)
I only saw the first part of your comment in notifications, and I was about to go ham.
Standing down.
Why are you saying “with no regards”? If Israel wanted to destroy civilians , as oppose to Hamas militants, the casualties would be way, way higher. Hamas uses civilians as shield, makes military hardware storages in those mosques, and other civilian buildings. Where is your outrage for that? And are you saying that Hamas can do, what it did, purposely target and cruelly kill 1400+ civilians, continue shooting rockets trying to hit civilians, and Israel should do nothing, because Hamas uses its own civilians as human shields?
They’ve literally leveled entire city blocks and neighborhoods, wtf are you talking about?
EDIT: And obviously I don’t support what Hamas is doing, come on. Just that killing thousands of people via bombs is fucked up and not the best way to kill militants.
Honestly, do you think that Israeli deference force sees a civilian building and says “let’s down that building, because it looks like civilian and we can kill lots of people there!” or “we detected rocket launch from this location, let’s destroy the point, while minimizing civilian casualties”?
Seriously?
And then consider what Hamas is doing/has done for comparison. Answer the same questions for Hamas.
Yes, IDF knows that casualties are possible, and even likely, but they simply cannot stop just because Hamas uses human shields. Because then nothing would prevent Hamas to kill as many civilians as they want without ANY punishments, because they would always use human shields.
I’m surprised you got upvotes even with facts. The blind love and devotion for feterman here is kinda culty. The guy is a wealthy, silver spoon, nepo baby. But he puts on a hoodie so everyone here can get fooled into thinking he’s an every man.
Yeah it’s annoying to see him championed as a blue collar guy when he grew up in an affluent neigborhood and his dad was partner at an insurance firm.
I’ve from the city that fetterman is from. His position on Israel is a long-standing one and he believes in unequivocal and relentless support of the occupation, armament, and apartheid Zionist policies.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/10/john-fetterman-israel-position-explained.html
I disagree with his apparent unwavering support for the Israeli government, as it seems many other people also disagree.
Characterizing it as “calls for full-blown genocide of Palestinians” is disingenuous.
Call it whatever you want I guess but Israel is the one starving millions and cutting off fuel resulting in children drinking sea water and getting bombed to shit
They’re wiping out entire neighborhoods via bombing for fuck’s sake and the ground invasion hasn’t even happened yet
If true, every left leaning epic Twitter master American politicians i hear about end up pro-genocide lol. Very progressive.
I mean they kinda always had it out for hoodies.
Ever since that one congressman wore one to protest the treatment of black kids by the police for wearing them.
Oligarchy at it’s finest
deleted by creator
They put up a dress code, then one of their own rocks up wearing denim dungarees.
Fuck that.
Denim three piece suit
That dude looks like he exclusively fucks other people’s wives and husbands.
Based.
He fucks republicans wives and boyfriends
And where is the public uproar about this? I only hear crickets.
There are laws against insider trading not only in general but also specifically for Congressmen. Also, there have been (failed) bills to raise the federal minimum wage, including an attempt to add it into the stimulus bill in 2021 as a $15 Minimum Wage.
People like to ask “WhY iS noBOdY DoInG SoMEtHInG?!” while completely ignoring that one party consistently is trying but we never give them enough seats in the senate to actually do it.
there are two houses of congress.
And both are required to write and pass legislature, in many cases a 2/3rds majority votes depending on precedence of the legislature. Our system is built to make change difficult and progress slow.
The subject of the post is a direct example that action can be taken quickly and you can’t just blame ‘the ststem’.
We have to hold the legislators accountable and don’t believe anyone trying to deflect their ineffectiveness.
Action that can be taken quickly on clearly partisan legislature with control of both house and senate, as well as cooperation from the POTUS and Courts so as to not be struck down after the vote like the Student Debt Relief was, is not easy.
You wanna know why freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are legal and encouraged? Because it does nothing. The American revolution wasn’t a sit-in.
Yup.
Hence why I acknowledge the power of the Marsha P. Johnson brickthrowing wing of social advocacy.
Nah, revolution is what happens when protests are prohibited
And where is the public uproar about this?
We’ve had crowds in the street protesting social injustice practically every year since the Seattle WTO riots of the 1990s. If you haven’t seen a public outcry, you haven’t been paying attention.
The problem is that the outcries are fractured, the movements regularly subverted by a combination of con-artists and police, and a lot of the mass media ideology poisons people against one another by ethnicity, religion, gender, and locale. Folks who can all agree that the Sacklers deserve a long drop from a short rope will scream invective at one another because one of them showed up wearing a BLM t-shirt and the other finds it offensive. Folks who all agree de-industrialization was a nightmare for the midwest will tear each others eyes out over the abortion debate.
That’s even before you get to the intense bombardment of mass media, fixating on everything from Ukraine to Crime Wave to razor blades in candy to whatever the hotbutton gaff of the evening happens to be.
I don’t think anyone is hearing crickets. More that we’re trying to hear a finely tuned orchestra under the sound of exploding bombs.
The uproar is… we’re powerless.
Look, I’m all for raising the minimum wage, and if it ever comes across the ballot I would always vote yes. But this is such a shit take, of fucking course dress code is easier to deal with than the economics of the whole country. If you’re going to critique the government, make sense at least.
I see your point and still agree with the OP. All this dress code did was make them look like fools and children.
Honestly, that is all dress codes other than the ones only covering common sense choices (e.g. no bikinis in the restaurant or no loose clothing around machinery) ever do.
Fuck’s sake, we don’t pay these cunts for theatrics and the resolution of trivial matters that they deem to be problems. They could all wear fucking jeans and a t-shirt for all I give a shit. These assholes are OUR EMPLOYEES, and they’ve been fucking us over since time immemorial. Yeah, no fucking problem - it’s $1M+ for any old shitbox in much of the country; half of the fucking cunts are authoritarians who are nakedly trying to take away our rights; economic stratification is worse than ever; 2nd in line to the Prez believes in fucking fairy tales and wants to subjugate everyone who doesn’t; I could go on ad infinitum, but no, let’s fucking worry about the clothes these fucking cunts have on, yeah?
It was easy because nobody added any other bullshit to it. Do you think it would have passed that easy if the democrats insisted it include funding for planned parenthood? Or if the republicans would only allow it to come to a vote if it included a ban on funding Ukrainians? The minimum wage hasn’t changed this millennium, this isn’t hard until they make it hard. You want to make it easy? Here it is, make the minimum wage match the minimum cost to live in in each jurisdiction, updated every 10 years with ( and by) the national census. If you can impose a fine you are a jurisdiction and it is your responsibility to implement. Done, next issue.
That solution isn’t really a solution.
The minimum cost to live in each jurisdiction
There is no clear objective way to measure that. The absolute minimum to stay alive would technically be just enough for the single cheapest available food, and just enough water to avoid death (maybe not even that, if it’s legal to just drink out of a river). I’m sure that’s not what you meant. But anything beyond that has to consider the incredibly subjective quality of life question. So what you propose is really just a goal, not an actionable policy.
If you can impose a fine you are a jurisdiction and it is your responsibility to implement
That’s a way bigger headache than I think you realize. At any location in the country, you could be fined by the federal gov, state gov, other states if you do business there, multiple levels of local gov (county, city, etc.), even your HOA might be able to fine you. But that all depends on thousands of existing laws and precedents.
Yeah, I hate how normalized these shit comparisons are for arguments.
One effects a few hundred people and doesn’t really have much depth to it and is relatively inconsequential . One is extremely complicated involve a large percentage of Americans lives.
It’s like saying “Oh look, Biden had time to make a Truth Social account but not stop the war in Gaza. Wtf”
I am not putting any opinions on anything besides how disparate comparisons have become…but the fact that these type comparisons are constantly repeated online does reflect a lot on Internet culture.
