The tipped wage allows unskilled workers

It allows conventionally attractive young white unskilled workers in dense enough areas to do that.

It really just depends on where you work and your demographics.

Young black male in rural city? Lol you're fucked. Attractive young white woman in dense urban center at trendy expensive restaurant? Absolutely crazy amounts of money.

I've known people who graduate, get a job in the field they wanted and then quit and went back to serving because they fell into the right demos and location.

The tipping floor is the lowest it can possibly be but the ceiling is extremely high. And it's largely based off unfair reasons.

Lol what the fuck is that petition, there is no way 4.5k people work at Casa Bonita who would be affected by it when they don't even have 350 staff.

That means at least some part of the signatures are not employees but outsiders trying to speak for the employees.

Which also means that they might not even represent many employees to begin with! For all we know 99% of workers don't want to go back to tipping.

And going off the line at the bottom (although it is quite possible they are lying, management does lie often), it seems like that could potentially be the case. After all the article only identified two people who were upset.

Of 256 employees, 93 were a part of the shift and only two said they were unhappy about it, management said at the time.

The petition claims to have more than this but it also claims to have almost 5k signed on so it's pretty unreasonable.

Yeah I always do that if I don't know and can't reasonably ask them at the moment.

The idea that Mao had regressive views on women should not be shocking in the slightest. Modern women's rights are really really recent developments across the world.

One shocking fact I like to bring up is that women weren't even allowed to own their bank accounts till like the 70s/80s. My mom brings that one up when talking about how much things have changed since her childhood.

But it's also not particularly relevant. People don't listen to Mao for his views on women's rights. It's the same way we don't dismiss electricity just because the society back then owned slaves.

It's an opinion article, those always have takes that are much different then the mainstream. For better (like the one here) or for worse (pretty much all of NYTs).

The thing about Ughyurs is that there might be cultural repression that goes on in the area. There might even be instances of abuse and violence, one of the issues with even the best theoritical bureaucracies is that you still have to delegate tasks out and have some trust it won't be misused. There might be examples of low level officials who harassed a Ughyur family unfairly or put someone in remediation who wasn't an issue. It's more about the systems and overarching structure of the program that matters more.

This is the same logic we should be using with any nation realistically. And from what we see of Xianjang, there doesn't seem to be much actual strong evidence of systemic abuse. We don't see systemic evidence provided by the west, we don't see it in reactions by nearby nations, we don't see it by the actions of these supposed victims. So where is it beyond a bunch of claims?

There's a fun irony where when it comes to bigotry and racism it just "needs to be exposed to sunlight" and the "the free marketplace of ideas" but leftist ideas are brainwashing that need censoring.

Huh, I wonder why those double standards exist

You can tell how bad this guy's discourse is because he has to use the term "cultural appropriation" and not just the much better fitting "appropriation" on its own because he doesn't understand what the words actually mean.

Carnist Catch 22, if it hits the beans then they'll be destroyed and you'll have to eat the pig to survive.

Yeah he's rich as fuck but he's not a trillionaire

Weirdly enough I liked having the one on one aide. I was basically out of the running for friends in most of my classes anyway so having someone on my side that I could talk to and an adult that was basically guaranteed to step in when I was bullied was a positive IMO. A lot of special ed classes can get fucked though, disrespectful and treat you like an idiot who can't even remember your own name.

Glad for them, the western efforts to sanction and blockade Ughyur trade was going to harm all the people there (as sanctions are basically always guaranteed to do). The West is well aware of this of course, this is why they use sanctions to "punish" opposition so it's sure strange they're willing to use that tool against the people they claim are being genocided.

Anytime people say something like this, just read it as "when I grew up I didn't pay attention to the news and other people so it all seemed awesome"

Why would an anti LGBT group want lots of support from LGBT+ members? Seems like an easy way to fall apart once you let the mask slip and you won't have any backup because all the other anti LGBT people would have left.

You say "address" as if they were able to appropriately fix the issue, rather than addressing it as a limitation of the study. Limitations are fine, I'm just trying to explain the big one here in an easier to understand way because the reporting makes it seem like it's a consistent 12% eating a shit ton of beef.

A lot of this reporting is a big misunderstanding of statistics.

As the study says

About 45% of the population had zero beef consumption on any given day, whereas the 12% of disproportionate beef consumers accounted for 50% of the total beef consumed

Now just as a thought experiment, do you think that almost half of the US never eats any beef? No, of course not. But on any given day? Sure, quite possible. People's diets vary.

A randomly selected person might have a McDonald's hamburger for lunch and a steak for dinner and be part of the 12% on the first day but then eat mushroom ravioli for lunch and pizza for dinner on the second day and be part of the 45%.

And there might be certain demographics that are more likely to make up that 12% on a given day but that doesn't mean there's a particular nonchanging group of high consumers.

I'm not going to dig into the study here but just as an example, let's say Dog Breed X is 1.5 times more likely to bark than Dog Breed Y is. You can't hear a dog bark and say "Ah it must be Breed X then!", you can only say "Ah, it's more likely from Breed X than Breed Y".

A lot of this reporting is a big misunderstanding of statistics.

As the study says

About 45% of the population had zero beef consumption on any given day, whereas the 12% of disproportionate beef consumers accounted for 50% of the total beef consumed

Now just as a thought experiment, do you think that almost half of the US never eats any beef? No, of course not. But on any given day? Sure, quite possible. People's diets vary.

A randomly selected person might have a McDonald's hamburger for lunch and a steak for dinner and be part of the 12% on the first day but then eat mushroom ravioli for lunch and pizza for dinner on the second day and be part of the 45%.

And there might be certain demographics that are more likely to make up that 12% on a given day but that doesn't mean there's a particular nonchanging group of high consumers.

I think that way about evolution sometimes. It's blitheringly obvious when you consider the two points

1. There is a difference between parent and offspring and yet they also inherit traits
2. Differences add up

Both are easily observable in the natural world. The first one can be seen with babies "oh you have your mother's eyes" while also the baby not literally being the mom. The second one is used by walking where we cross a large distance one step at a time.

And all you need is those two principles to come to the conclusion that the small yet inheritable differences between offspring will add up over a long period of time. The question to be asked isn't if it will happen but rather just what traits it happens to.

And yet, it took humanity (and for many people still they refuse) millennial to grasp it. I'm looking at the process as so simple only from the lens of someone born after it was figured out.

I think it's a good post honestly, main critique is that it feels accusatory like "I gotta teach you all to not be anti semitic because you currently are" ya know?

But I'm not sure how to get rid of such a tone so maybe it's unavoidable. I totally agree with you though that this shit is messy and you need to be hyperspecific in criticisms.