DankOfAmerica

anyone and everyone of merit with be lifted to their rightful station in society.

I think that’s part of the protestant work ethic. People are predestined to a level of holiness in the material world we live in, and their predestined level of holiness grants them the ability to produce a quality and quantity of work that achieves their said level of predestined holiness. Thus, the wealthier a person is, the more holy they were predestined to be (sounds like a loophole in predestination to me). If you look at religion from a sociological lens, then the protestant work ethic is a great leadership tool to encourage the workers to produce as much as possible for several reasons: it creates a belief in social mobility that is based on work, workers are teased with being more holy if they worker, workers are threatened with being less holy if they work less hard, and leaders and wealthy individuals are seen as being the more holy. This was a revolution in Christian values at the time of the Protestant Reformation because it made wealthy people more holy, which was in contradiction to Christian dogma at the time. Roman Catholics, who were dominant before the Protestant Reformation, valued only actions directly related to the church, and anything else was irrelevant. I’m not an expert on this, so I may be wrong, but I think part of predestination to Roman Catholics was applied at the creation of a person because by being human, they were already predestined by God to be a certain level of divine. In essence, what mattered in terms of holiness were works for the church. Labor was less motivated to produce goods for the sake of creating wealth. The impact was that Roman Catholicism was a better match for a feudalistic society in which works contributed to their lord and church. Whereas, Protestant Christianity was better suited for a market economy in which individuals were encouraged to produce for the sake of becoming wealthy (ie holy). Therefore, Protestant Christianity took hold well in the developing United States of America as had a synergistic relationship with the economic model, which we continually see portrayed in media as the American Dream and that wealthy individuals are morally just and given unlimited get out of jail free cards (unless they betray other wealthy individuals).

you guys and your facebooks. it’s not 2015 anymore.

Juror 1: It wasn’t him. I know it in my heart…because I’ve had congenital heart disease my whole life, so I’m acutely aware of how my heart is feeling at all times. Like when my insurance company raised my premiums, I felt that in my heart. I feel this verdict in my heart, too.

Juror 2: At first, I thought it was him, but then I didn’t. Something about it made me change my mind. He just looks like a highly principled person. The media owes this man an apology.

Juror 3: This reminds me of the time I went to the ER with a severe migraine, and the insurance company denied payment for the visit because there was no proof that I had a migraine and said it could have been anxiety, which wasn’t covered in my plan. Maybe this wasn’t murder. Maybe this was assault. I guess we’ll never know now.

Juror 4: The prosecution made a good case, but the defense made one very good point: the victim has a long history of gaslighting vulnerable people. It made it hard to trust them.

Juror 5: I think it was a cover up. Maybe the “victim” killed himself and wanted to make it look like a murder so his family would get the insurance money. They seemed to know a lot about insurance loopholes and tactics.

Juror 6: I feel for the victim, but I think that considering the charges, they need a second opinion…Oh, the law states that someone can’t be tried for the same crime twice? If they think that is unjust, they could work with government to come up with a better system then. Though it is going to be a tough battle to repeal the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution since they will need approval from 38 states, but maybe they have the public’s sympathy.

Juror 7: I’m glad this trial is over. I need to get to the home to take care of my wife with cancer. The insurance company keeps giving me trouble, and she’s too weak to fight it.

Juror 8: Did you know that the defendant hadn’t even met the victim once. Who targets a random stranger for no reason at all? The prosecution wasn’t able to make a case defining the motive of the defendant.

Juror 9: In my experience, you have to be careful with insurance companies. You can never trust them. The prosecution was working for an insurance company, so it was hard to believe anything they presented.

Juror 10: As a family practice doctor, I have to deal with insurance companies that lie about denials all the time, so I can tell when they are lying, and I think they were lying in the trial.

Juror 11: NOT GUILTY. The defendant seemed to be defending others from death or serious bodily injury, which is legal according to New York Penal Law 35.15.

Juror 12: The defense made a good point. The victim had told his doctor that he smoked a cigarette once in college, and I heard that smoking cigarettes can lead to poor health. Maybe the victim would have survived if he hadn’t smoked before. We have to consider that.

The Cambodian Genocide

The Cambodian genocide was the systematic persecution and killing of Cambodian citizens by the Khmer Rouge under the leadership of Prime Minister of Democratic Kampuchea, Pol Pot. It resulted in the deaths of 1.5 to 2 million people from 1975 to 1979, nearly 25% of Cambodia’s population in 1975 (c. 7.8 million) reducing the nation’s life expectancy to a staggering 12 years in 1975.

It’s not an approval rating. It’s a rating of what percentage of users find the post and discussion worthy of attention.

your face is a straight line

Illinois et Arquensas

I thought the same, but an internet search says it means “late to the party”.

Elaine was part of the masturbation episode and lost, which further speaks to the progressiveness of the show because a woman was portrayed as having sexuality that was outside of acceptable limits at the time (for love only, preferably in marriage). They also presented being gay as acceptable, which was quite progressive at the time where people were calling each other “gay” and the f-word as a terrible insult.

Even at the young age of middle school watching that show, I knew George was a shitty person. Yet, I still felt sympathy for him because of his parents. Regardless, my favorite character was Frank Costanza. He was so over the top and emotional. The dude had PTSD from soldiers in Korea not liking his food in the field mess hall 😂

Maybe I’m wrong, but I think the immorality of Kramer’s racist stand-up was exaggerated. It was absolutely offensive and 100% not acceptable. There was nothing funny about it, and there was no possible current setting in which that would be okay. Especially when the audience member became upset, Kramer needed to drop the show immediately and apologize. However, it is obvious he did not mean it as real. I believe he was trying to shock the crowd by being offensive and picked the wrong thing to be offensive about. From what I can tell, the n-word and racism to Kramer are so absurd, that the bit was to make fun of racists by taking on the role of someone that would believe in it to show how stupid it is. It was a caricature. Unfortunately, our society is still racist and the victims haven’t healed yet because it’s still ongoing, so it didn’t land right at all. His white privilege made him tone deaf, so it was less about him being purposely racist and more about showing how racism is still alive. It also gave racists a possible pass at being overly racist if he were allowed to get away with it. I think in the future, society will either not care about it as much or find it makes sense because they will agree with the spirit in their time.

Again, i am not excusing his standup or saying it was okay. It was not okay. But, I also think it’s not what people make it out to be. In fact, he owned it and apologized for it a lot. He was clearly regretful and wanted to point out how much it hurt him as well. This made him a perfect target for mob justice using shame as a weapon because he believed he deserved it and would not fight back. It ended his career, and he’s been in hiding ever since. He was one of the first celebrities to be canceled by social media. The only time I remember him coming back out was on an episode of Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee and he looked like a broken person. The backlash was so intense, that even South Park made a show about it called With Apologies to Jesse Jackson (S11E1).

I understand I might be misunderstanding the situation, so I do not mean to profess my opinion as fact and am open to other interpretations.

Exactly. Seinfeld isn’t funny now because all the shows after it copied it. When Seinfeld came out, it was revolutionary. No one was doing that humor. They invented it. Now, everyone and their mother has copied them, so it’s played out. And since all these newer sitcoms had time and previous examples to improve on, they do it better, so Seinfeld looks lame by comparison. However, when I as a millennial was watching Seinfeld when it was being originally aired, I thought it was great.

Ross isn’t even a real doctor.

But please share this via in the Internet.

Maybe it was something else, like he was working on other projects, taking time off, or traveling.

I know people that do snoop. I had a friend that once asked me if I go through people’s medicine cabinets when I go to their bathroom or through all of their things when I house sit. I gave a solid no because not only do I respect people’s privacy, I don’t even want to know what’s in there. That’s too much knowledge for my limited brain space. She responded that she does every time she has a chance. People be going thru your shit, and it’s the gross ones.

what a great way to drum up support for more police funding and invasive practices