“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.
My knee jerk reaction to seeing anyone in a suit is “Asshole”.
Removed by mod
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.
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.
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.
Oligarchy at it’s finest
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
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
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.
Removed by mod
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.
any publicity is good publicity and maybe he can use this platform to get his messages across
Isn’t insider trading literally illegal tho?
Technically, yes, per the STOCK Act. But there’s a loophole for Congress.
It doesn’t count as “insider trading” for them if the information they use is based on bills they are passing as a part of their job.
Democrats have repeatedly tried to pass a law to ban this loophole as well, such as Adam Schiff from January of this year, but Republicans always vote such bills down or have them die in committee.
That sounds like we should follow Congress’ stock trades for our own benefit. I bet there’s a tracker out there since all that is supposed to be public information.
There is but the data is delayed by (I think) 30-ish days.
To be clear, the TRUST Act was bipartisan. Sizeable majority Democrat, for sure, but it’s not like it was all Ds for, all Rs against or anything.
Not if you’re a member of Congress.
Not for congresspeople. Just normal citizens.
Mel Brooks said it best.
