That much spin got me dizzy. But this journalism thing seems awfully convenient to excuse any hack into corporate or government systems for your own profit and/or to elevate your profile. Not at all like that nasty espionage or theft thing.
After exploiting a hack, you just need to eventually leak the info and claim it was all in the name of journalism. Nevermind if you happen to be on the payroll of the DPRK, PRC, Iran, Russia, or other highly ethical world peace ambassadors. After all not all “journalists” are freelance…
In the message to employees, Toyota reportedly said while it will continue to “encourage an inclusive environment where diversity of thought can flourish,” the company will be primarily focusing on activities that promote the quality of the business.
The industry was sold the extremely weakly-supported information that DEI actually improved business performance and profits. Since the weak link between DEI and profits was both highlighted scientifically and in their own empirical implementations, it made sense to scale these programs back and switch from affirmative-action like behavior to a more neutral one.
And mind you, this is all on the backdrop of relatively good economy, when the SHTF at the next recession, I imagine the fluff like DEI will be top priority on the chopping block.
Some dissension in the business of college sports. Good for the players. There’s also a lawsuit against San Jose State that was joined by one of their volleyball players.
The University of Nevada women’s volleyball team is at odds with their own school after voting to forfeit a game against a rival with a transgender player.
The college volleyball season has been plunged into the debate over trans athletes in recent weeks because of San Jose State University’s Blaire Fleming.
Fleming, a redshirt senior, has been cited as the reason four schools have forfeited matches against San Jose State so far this season because of safety concerns.
Those concerns were raised again last week when Fleming sent a ferocious spike off a female opponent’s face during their game against the San Diego State Aztecs.
On Monday, players on Nevada’s women’s volleyball team announced they had voted to forfeit their game against San Jose State on October 26.
However, the University of Nevada later refused to acknowledge their decision and hit back in a statement of their own.
The school said the volleyball team’s decision ‘does not represent’ the views of the school and that it still ‘intends’ to play the game.
Their reply read: ‘The players’ decision and statement were made independently, and without consultation with the University or the athletic department. The players’ decision also does not represent the position of the University.
Not really as much social credits as online gambling but definitely politics directly invading personal finance: Robinhood trading election contracts
Can’t say I like the idea but I guess some could use this to hedge their bets. Gamble on the candidate you’re NOT voting for so that you win some either way…
I’m more than a little concerned though how it could affect voting behavior. Would it be legal for a PAC to hand out money or other rewards to those who’ve purchased a contract for one candidate to hopefully increase voter participation for that candidate or would it count as vote buying?
How this kind of stuff can be legal is beyond my understanding. We look in contempt at other countries elections calling them corrupt but it’s hard to look at the money being thrown by PACs in efforts to circumvent the law as anything but organized corruption.
What’s illegal about it? I don’t think they’re buying votes, or even promising to buy votes. I find this kind of behaviour better than that exhibited by the media. This website is perfectly forthright and transparent. They’re not claiming that they are something they’re not.
While I’m not a fan of PACs, their tactics, or their millions of repetitive and less than accurate ads, I understand their importance now more than ever.
PAC money and transparent never belong in the same sentence by definition.
But I agree it is crystal clear what this is attempting to do. They’re offering guaranteed money to registered voters.
The petition itself is extremely vague so as to be completely devoid of actual action purpose. It doesn’t support any ballot issue. Might as well be an offer to pay registered voters to take a shower at least once a week. So why restrict the petition to registered voters? And why only offer to pay for those registered voters located in swing states? If it were to raise support for an issue, why not open it to as many people as possible?
All this amounts to a clear intent to incentivize people who are not registered to vote to register in these swing states, hoping that statistically those who got paid will be partial to whoever paid them (GOP). That’s exploiting the psychological reciprocity bias - which would also apply to previously and new registered voters alike - who are statistically very likely to be favorably influenced by the payout towards whoever paid them.
In short, to me this looks like both direct statistical vote-buying and incentivizing people to register to vote. Both of which are illegal.
What about those “I voted” stickers handed out at the poles? A gift is a gift, and those actually require that you cast a vote before you can receive it.
I’m not trying to be facetious, but if you want to call it out, there’s a pretty big berth to what you’re calling out.
So, not in a sentence, but it’s okay to put them in back to back paragraphs?
The First and Second Amendments guarantee freedom of speech and the right to bear arms. By signing below, I am pledging my support for the First and Second Amendments.
It seems pretty specific to me.
Yes, you are observant!
I consider supporting the first and second amendments of the Bill of Rights to be significantly more meaningful than taking a shower once a week. If you were trying to be humorous, I missed it.
Do you want to include the Border Czar’s illegal immigrant “blue wave”?
A logical presumption would be to energize registered voters to actually vote, much like those 1984 style threatening ads apparently aimed at neighborhood voters.
Yikes! I won’t say I can’t be bought, but how many people can be bought for $50? If you think that’s what it takes to buy somebody’s vote, I think it says more about you than them.
They don’t have to forcefully change all votes, just some of them. If you don’t feel strongly about either candidate, or even whether to make it to the polls, virtually any gift or favor may be good enough.
In influence, look up reciprocity principle (Robert Cialdini has some decent ones but the examples are ubiquitous). Offering a couple of mints after a meal, raised waiter tips by 23%. Look at the number of people being swayed by timeshare presentation freebies. Or investor opportunities provided at a free dinner.
Bottom line, it takes much less than you think to nudge people who are not strongly against your offering. That’s why it’s illegal to offer voters a free ride to the polls, or to help them with their mail in ballots in any way. By reciprocity, they’d see you slightly more favorably and thus be influenced to vote for you. It won’t change the vote of registered Dems or GOP but it could be enough to nudge some independents (the split of which decides most elections in the US).
I was being serious. My suggestion would actually be more impactful than this petition since it could boost personal hygiene of some who desperately need it. Back to this actual petition, in what form does it help support these amendments? There is no action or effect for this petition. Is it going to be presented to some authority to pressure them to not repeal these amendments? How would it energize anyone and what would it make them do? Or did you mean the money may be enough to motivate someone to get to the polls with a stronger feeling towards the 1st/2nd amendments or more specifically the ones who just gave out the money to you?
But what about kids who are not yet of age to vote? Or legal permanent residents who contribute to this country, pay their taxes, etc. Surely they all care about the 1st and 2nd amendments too. But more importantly, why only those in swing states. If it’s truly this important to get everyone energized in a totally not vote-influencing way, why not offer it in all state to all registered voters? Surely it’s important to energize everyone about these amendments, no?
In my opinion, all of clues points to a barely-veiled pretext to get around the law’s limitation on influencing voters by money handouts.
What about “Rock the vote” events? Their entire stated pupose is to inspire people to register.
And they’ll include sponsors and celebrity supporters who’s political leanings are pretty clear.
.