I agree with the sentiment, but if we’re going to make that argument based around professionalism, I would also have to argue that it’s not very professional to use that kind of language in a work setting.
So maybe this is a situation where both sides can grow.
6% is very conservative though. Even at 7%, which is a widely accepted inflation adjusted number, it’s over 2 mil.
Recent JD Vance interview went something like this:
Lulu Garcia-Navarro: “Senator, yes or no: Did Donald Trump lose the 2020 election?”
JD Vance: “Let me ask you a question. Is it OK that big technology companies censored the Hunter Biden laptop story, which independent analysts have said cost Trump millions of votes?”
Lulu Garcia-Navarro: “Senator Vance, I’m going to ask you again, did Donald Trump lose the 2020 election?”
JD Vance: “Did big technology companies censor a story that independent studies have suggested cost Trump millions of votes? I think that’s the question.”
🤔
Exactly. Don’t reward this kind of behavior.
Unfortunately, we Americans have proven that most of us would sell our very souls for the smallest convenience…and corporations know it.
I miss Ginni! She was so much better.
Re-read the comments. No one argued that nobody uses terms of endearment. The argument is that using given names doesn’t need to be normalized because it’s already an extremely normal thing…and that the abnormal behavior would be someone actually getting upset that their SO called them by their given name.
Lol, ok buddy. Have a great day. 👍
Never using real names ≠ not using pet names.
I also have never met a couple that never calls each other by their given name. That doesn’t mean those same people never use pet names.
That is a pretty big help financially… indirectly anyway.
I think what you said is true. But you’re referring to people who have an actual handicap and are discriminated against for it.
What I’m referring to is the idea of allowing myself to believe that a people group are less intelligent than I am just because they don’t align with me politically or ideologically. There is no actual handicap for which they are being discriminated against, simply having a different life experience and different view point is enough. It’s ironically a deeply fascist mentality…and I agree it is everywhere.
I was mainly responding to the previous comment which characterized right-wingers as having “lesser cognitive ability”. Just saying that that kind of thinking sets up a “we’re superior” mentality that can too easily lead to the same kinds of consequences as thinking you’re superior based on race or social status. There are so many environmental and experiential factors that go into where a person lands politically and how effective certain forms of propaganda are on them. Blanket statements that characterize entire people groups as less intelligent are not in any way accurate or helpful.
There are definitely plenty of well educated, intelligent fascists as well. It’s pretty dangerous to start thinking that what separates two ideological groups is intelligence.
That was almost enough to make me not notice that Zuckerberg is doing the kissing.
Or aluminum
There was no accusation, but I apologize if it came across that way.
No one’s saying you didn’t experience what you say…just that it does not seem to be an experience shared by many others.
Seems the actual unpopular opinion is in the comments.
It may be more common among certain job types, but I don’t think that makes it professional behavior to do so regardless of the type of work.