Am I the only one that thought that walking animation looked…terrible? And for a cinematic trailer. So jittery and stiff. Or am I just trippin?

Gary, indiana

Nah, real “people who can’t afford [blank] are just lazy” energy here. You have no idea what others have to do in their day to day lives. To some, working 50 hours a week would be a luxury, let alone time to go to school.

You say it’s assuming based on personal belief. I say it’s applying the innate human ability to recognize patterns.

I could make the argument that you’re carrying water for Amazon by ever thinking they deserve the benefit of the doubt. I believe the worker. That’s it. You don’t. You’re calling it irresponsible basically, and to some degree I get that. But the benefit of the doubt is a benefit they’ve squandered too many times. It’s less responsible to apply an illogical rule after it’s proven false.

But no matter what fuck them. If I find out later the story was false—which happens plenty with more verified stories from larger outlets—my opinion of them won’t change for the better. It hasn’t changed for the worse believing it. It’s just to be expected at this point. You can call that irresponsible , I say it’s just believing what we’ve been shown over and over and over. And not just from Amazon, but from the increasingly invasive late stage surveillance capitalist world we live in and nearly all of its corporate representatives.

Say wha-

Are you just shilling for corpos or something? What exactly are you talking about.

That’s exactly what this is. Trying to seek the truth while they spin false narratives. And you’re siding with the people who are literally just professional false narrators. Sowing doubt about unflattering stories is literally a PR person’s main job. And you’re saying “well, they denied it! Why is this a story?” It just makes no sense. Unfortunately, right now it’s just the word of an employee vs the word of the PR person. Which is exactly—I might add—the way the no bathroom breaks thing started. You’re just deciding to give the corp the benefit of the doubt. I’m choosing to believe the believable story about them being awful (as the company has proven to be over and over and over.)

How exactly does my just happening to believe the employee over the PR person “confuse people about the real issues” and “actively discredit” myself and “create a false reality.” Like, for real, it seems like you’re spinning PR right now. But you’re just bad at it.

Who does it serve? It serves the workers when articles like this come out and an outcry prompts an investigation or more interest in the story so further reporting is done to find the truth. I’d say spreading rumors about vampiric, abusive companies is a-ok in my book. They still have a stranglehold on shopping. If we have to play dirty to take them down a few pegs, so be it.

But this is also kinda besides the point. Because I don’t even think that’s what’s happening here. A reporter got info saying one thing, and the person whose job it is to protect the company from their own misdeeds and to professionally cast doubt in favor of their bottom line says exactly what they’re paid to say. So I’m more inclined to believe the person who found evidence enough to post a story, rather than the person whose job it is to protect and lie for the company. Yeah, it’s a person who claims to have worked there and quit, but this is the first report. I think it says way more about the veracity that the company had to send out their PR team to start denying a worker’s story online.

They’re literally the spin team. They deny true reporting in order to protect the company’s image—they just say it in specific ways to obscure the truth. Their presence almost means the exact opposite of the words coming out of their mouth. If they weren’t doing this, they wouldn’t just send out some stern words saying “we would never!” They would give info to show they’re monitoring for X and Y, and that wouldn’t cover singing in the car.

“PR spokesperson said he company is great and would never do something ghoulish. Why aren’t we believing them?”

I get that skepticism is good and healthy. But at what point does a person or organization lose the benefit of the doubt? I’m more liable to believe some story about Amazon abusing its employees than I would be to assume they’re innocent.

They denied the peeing in bottles thing too. And denying their warehouse employees bathroom breaks. Turns out they weren’t “denying” the, bathroom breaks, but building a structure that basically eliminates employees’ time to do so. The rule probably isn’t “no singing in the car.” It’s probably “we are monitoring you to make sure you aren’t talking on the phone or performing other work while we pay you. Bonus side effect: employees can’t sing along to music. Look at what he spokesperson said. “We have never Prohibited singing in vehicles.” Subtext: we never explicitly said that. Doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.

Thought the same thing

People were less educated back then. They didn’t realize that you were supposed to dig your heels in and the more opposition you get—from experts, humanists, caring volunteers who dedicate their lives to helping the disenfranchised people you hate—means you should only think what you think harder, louder, and more in everyone’s face. Crazy to see how far we’ve come.

Not to mention some other country would’ve been doing this instead. Other countries do, the US has just been the most notorious and the king of colonialism

North Korea

Woah, woah, woah! My great-great-great-great ¹⁰⁰ ancestor was a monkey! Primitive is such an offensive word

They’re in he air, the water, the food, your brain, apparently. Your reproductive fluids…there’s literally no escape. We signed this pact with satan when capitalism determined that profit is the only thing that matters.

The first step we could take? Bringing the exploitative and murderous system of capitalism to its knees. So we can promptly shoot it in the back of the head. Then, maaaybe our children’s children’s children would have an option to avoid microplastics.

Seeing as we don’t know the same people, I can’t. And you know that, so it’s a pretty Jordan Peterson-y way of trying to win an argument.

Hey, man. If you got something positive out of his mumbo jumbo, great. But his stuff is kinda like horoscopes in that way. You can…kinda take whatever you want from it. Because it’s mostly overly verbose, purposefully complicated nonsense. And the mindset you’re in when exposed to it can change its effect. So, when shared among right wing incels and “alpha male” circles, it very much has the effect of fostering hatred toward women and trans people.

He spouts pseudo science and fills it with buzzwords on hot button issues. He cloaks his nonsense in the favorite topics of those who do harbor hatred towards women, transgender people, etc. He gets to remain an arm’s length away from the far right while catering to them by pretending to be a “neutral” “academic.” But those people are his bread and butter. While you may or may not be a part of that, like I said, he caters to them and uses vague enough bullshit to let those kinds of people justify their hatred. You can’t deny that he’s positioned himself as “going against the status quo”—hell, you basically said so yourself. And hat is the exact type of persona that attracts the ironically “anti establishment” right wingers. A truly stupid hypocritical group of people. They claim anti establishment, while actually harboring authoritarian beliefs.

My point is, his schtick is to appear “neutral” while spouting exactly the kind of shit bigots need so they can feel justified in their hatred. You may have not fallen prey to that, but plenty of his fans do. And anyone who opens up to that stream of pseudoscientific “information” from him is flirting with the far right pipeline.

I don’t know. Because there is definitely an overlap in the venn diagram of Jordan Peterson fans and people who are inordinately angry at women, trans people, “liberals,” etc. If “going against the crowd” is a driving force behind you finding your philosophy, I don’t think you’re in it for the right reasons. And that kind of toxic mentality does not lead to happiness.

lol

Weeelllll….

At the end of your bottle, if you’re taking them as prescribed, which is usually every 4-6hrs? Do that for a week and your body would be addicted. A full bottle + a refill, even two? It’s not about taking them recreationally. Your body and brain get addicted when they’re in your system regularly. I would know, got hit by a car, I think I only had one refill, and I was going through withdrawals at the end. I wasn’t even taking them as often as prescribed, mostly “as needed.” That was still regular enough.

Also, CBD.

The neighbors across the street would learn the hard way that other people need to chock the wheels on their unattended trailers

Well said.