Oopsie.

>blush.< Thank you.

So a business that offers local deliveries through their own in house drivers can either use these outside contractors during “surge” tikes so that they can keep less full tike drivers on staff and pay for contractors as needed, or they can offer “hot shot” runs where their regular drivers still conduct their normal routes as though nothing had changed, but your order is placed on a contractor vehicle and sent to you instead of going into a route plan with all the other normal deliveries to reach you based on the geography of where you are and where the other orders are relative to that. A large business chain like this would likely have a contract agreement with a provider so that the rates were cheaper for them. So that is how they can offer faster delivery to a person willing to pay more, without otherwise effecting deliveries.

Here here. If you’re living in a flop house it’s usually smart to stay away from paying for expensive or nice things unless you KNOW your roommates will take care of them too. Save that for when you’re on your own. Things you keep like pots and pans potentially for life- where possible I recommend going high end. Even if it’s a pot here and a pan there adding as you go. Flatware, etc. in the long run it can actually save you money and you’ll enjoy having and using the stuff more and can keep it as an “adult adult.” You can also often get this stuff used online or at thrift stores, estate sales, etc. many higher end retailers also have outlets. Pottery barn for instance often has $300+ a chair dining chairs for as low as $30 each. You get a showy name brand and a high end quality piece for about what many thrift stores may charge.

In that view I would say that toxic masculinity is when a man gets the idea that more is better. Like perfume/cologne- and being told “this will really attract people...” So if one spritz will attract people- some say “well... then if I put on half the bottle I’ll be a super model!” After bathing in scent- any poor soul near by them is likely to gag at their presence- and they themselves will find they are likely less popular than before. But if someone should say- “hey... that’s a bit heavy don’t you think?” Ego steps in and it’s “this is what I was told is attractive- and if you don’t like it something is wrong with you!” Hence- toxic masculinity.

While there’s some subtext there that I don’t agree with- and I certainly don’t agree with the victims parts- I’d call it “direct aggression” and “passive aggression,” and I do agree with the idea there. Women traditionally weren’t allowed to be direct and aggressive in society and so had to find more subtle and passive ways to communicate and do vs men who have generally been encouraged to be directly aggressive in pursuing what they want.

It’s intended to mean a little of both. The IDEA of toxic masculinity isn’t that masculinity is toxic, but that certain ways of expressing or experiencing it can be. Using a gender neutral term- there’s a such thing as “unhealthy sexuality.” That is to say for example- it isn’t unhealthy to have a fetish or kink- but if you embrace that fetish or express it certain ways it becomes unhealthy behavior.

That’s where the room lies for people to use language subversively and claim innocence. When a headline reads “muslim bomber attacks....” and the bomber is protesting DACA laws- their vein. Muslim has nothing to do with it. They are also a “male bomber,” or a “Princeton grad bomber” or... so many things. But by choosing that one detail to highlight and conflate with “bomber” we are subconsciously setting a tone. Without reading the rest of the article a person can draw a conclusion that is not true to fact- and that’s a known thing. It’s a trick that is used to steer people.

The word “ignorant” is not an insult either. Everyone is ignorant in some areas to some degree. Some people are demonstrably more ignorant- especially on a subject at hand. But generally speaking- if you call a person ignorant- they will get offended or defensive. Language has subtleties. That’s how literally devices work, figurative language like metaphors, things like puns, and how people often can infer information that isn’t plainly stated. It’s what let’s us omit things like subjects from common speech and still be understood- because there are mechanisms to language where you can mean something other than what is explicitly said- such as with the use of sarcasm or oxymorons.

In a non charged example- many people might say something like “my husband/wife is being a real bitch...” or similar. “My mom is really dumb sometimes...” but if I were to walk up to you and say something like “your mom is real dumb sometimes...” you might take that offensively based on context. The relationship between two people also factors in.

Completely understandable @xvarnah. To be honest I’m pretty burnt out to. This may or may not make sense- but an innocuous word can be as much a slur as any other depending on context, inflection, etc. the word “gay” is one variation of homosexual. But both gay and homosexual can be used outside the clinical sense as a slur. Think of it like this- the words “black” or “Mexican” or “Asian” aren’t slurs. Saying “this band is Mexican..” is not offensive if a band is Mexican. Saying “I wish this didn’t play this Mexican sounding music...” could birder the offensive. Saying “he is a criminal with ties to a Mexican gang” isn’t offensive perse- saying “he’s a Mexican criminal...” could be offensive. It’s also in the WAY a thing is said and it’s hard to give solid examples in my present state of weariness- but the point is that context determines wether something is offensive.

Then those people can’t buy crap and.... there we go again. The military acts as a funnel to move large sums of money from taxes back into the economy. Favoring US goods, suppliers and labor helps keep the domestic economy moving and acts as a hidden rate of against foreign goods that doesn’t have the diplomatic complications of a straight anti competition clause. It’s tactically smartnin case of global conflict too- which helps justify it.

The goal is to keep people buying crap. There’s a reason when birth rates fall economies tend to fall too. You need more people to buy crap- exponentially, with the current economic system. It’s literally disguised unemployment. People would shit if you just gave 60% of America money to stay at home. So we create systems to create jobs that do t need done or could easily be done by machines. There’s almost no need for anyone at most retail stores except maybe the stock folks and janitors. Fast food could also be ordered easily via machine, paid by machine, even mostly made by machine. But that would cause a massive loss of jobs.

If you take a way a large buyer of crap- you have people maki g crap people aren’t buying. People don’t get paid, more crap doesn’t get made, people owning crap and supplying materials for crap and transporting crap don’t get paid. More people who make crap don’t get paid so can’t buy crap- people without money for crap can’t afford real estate- people who sell real estate can’t get paid, can’t buy crap- it’s a cycle.

But it might just cause an increase in accountability. However it won’t offset the loss to the civilian sector and general economy. We build shit people don’t want or need so we can buy shit people don’t want or need. The military buys a lot of shit people don’t want or need. A great deal of the crap that gets made ends up in a dump in the world. It’s primary purpose for existing was simple to move money from one place to another.

But there is a valid concern in sending people into combat with a note saying “figure it out...” or of course telling them in case of combat... have it figured out. especially with general personnel and not SOF or similar with the training or ability let alone role to POS and improvise. So I slightly disagree on the note that budget cuts would increase fiscal responsibility- war is politics and high ranking officers are career politicians who use lives as votes. Body counts often un jam things when Washington puts it foot down- and childishness that doesn’t endanger troops like claiming inability to effectively enact orders of the state due to lack of resources works well. It’s harder to replace senior staff than you’d think- so “just fire the ones that don’t deliver” only goes so far.

It’s also true that often- constraints force innovation. There’s entire debates in the philosophy of engineering about when and wether it is best to allow engineers a blank check and free reign towards a goal- and when it’s best to apply constraints even where not necessary. The schools hold in short that unlimited freedom of talented people to a goal will produce the best product- and constraints might eliminate a “best” solution- or that unlimited reign causes a loss of focus, waste and inefficiency, and doesn’t spur creative thinking as the simplest most expensive option is always on the table. Necessity is the mother of invention they say- and enemy technicals and IED’s can be in many cases as practically effective as ordinance and materiel costing thousands of times the price.

so that it’s difficult or impossible for an “outsider” to provide oversight to the cost/benefits of a thing without relying on an advisor from within the system who will often- where aligned to a course- simply say it is valid- and of course the sensitive nature and often classified details of even seemingly trivial aspects of military spending and logistics- all create an environment where accountability of funds and integrity of approvals is murky at best.

@scarmandingo- I don’t recall making any statements about wether you’d served or not? (That isn’t sarcastic or anything in tone- I just wanted to be clear that I hadn’t called into question and am not questioning any insights you may have- and I more or less said this exact thing in my posts- even specifically mentioning telecom as one of the “civilian” industries that benefits from military spending. So we largely are on the same page here. It’s also true that a combination of high cash flow, the technical nature of military operations often making it...

But it IS illegal because by and large- people don’t want their own sex tapes online- and it became a big enough thing that people noticed. So keep mocking people about being gay without breaking hate crime laws and see how long it is before you’re actually looking at censorship. And guys like this will make out well because they’ll smile and say “see! I told you!” When their self fulfilling prophecy comes true. It’s abuse of the system for personal gain and it hurts everyone not just gay people or Latinos or YouTube personalities.

Revenge porn is illegal. Not so long ago- it wasn’t. But what did they do wrong? They own the video. As an ex boyfriend I can post a video of me and my former partner at a birthday party- I can’t post a sex video? They gave it to me as a gift. I own it. I have consent and ownership to the images. What is bad about it? Just because it makes them FEEL bad or ashamed or whatever? But that’s them- I didn’t edit it. They DID do that. Why can’t I?

Guess what happens? After awhile, after so many people see that you can do so much without breaking any laws- they do it to. Hate gays? Jews? Muslims? Catholics? Asians, blacks, women? Well- this is how far you can go and get away with openly causing them mental anguish or otherwise hurting their image or reputation and not get in trouble.... and when enough people or the right people get fed up with that and people say “yeah... I don’t think that just because they cheated on you means you should be able to post sex videos of them even though it’s not illegal...” they will pass a law and MAKE IT ILLEGAL.

That’s the behavior. Because in all the hype we are overlooking the fact that he fucking instigated and mocked and demeaned a fellow human being for years and years- that’s what he’s “innocent of.” He didn’t break any rules but he did do that. And that’s just what’s on video. We have no idea what interactions they’ve had etc. I don’t know about you- but to me that’s unacceptable regardless. To me- I don’t want that to be ok, and while fiat fights and knifing are extreme- my original point stands that when people act Like cunts there should be consequences. Because if we say “well- he wasn’t breaking any laws....”