No, I think the Dems need a different strategy than the GOP, rather than fruitlessly trying to emulate them.

This is basically how I see the democratic party. The “real base” is college educated people who care about things being good, but are intelligent enough to see beyond first order effects. These are the sorts of people who read think pieces in The Atlantic, and who also have a subscription to The Economist because they feel it is important to see many sides of the political spectrum. Unfortunately, these people make up a rather small minority of the voting population.

The remainder of the Democratic party’s voters are made up of diverse interest groups which are voting for their own narrow self interest - various racial minorities, sexual minorities, women, union members, etc.

The challenge of the Democratic party is convincing an ornery old black man who regularly uses homophobic slurs to complain about his nephew and a 33 year old white woman who jogs during her lunch break when working to save the dolphins that they are on the same side.

Meanwhile, the “real base” of the Republican party is made up of a not very diverse group of “real Americans” who are also voting (as they see it) for their own self interest. But there’s not really nobel intellectual class in the Republican party - there are the elites, who cynically use the plebs to enact their chosen policies, and there are the plebs who cheer for their elites even when they are told exactly how they are getting screwed.

Democrats have fretted for years about how they could gain the success the Republicans have at getting their message out and mobilizing their base, and the reality is that they just can’t. Democrats are, quite simply, not dumb enough to fall for that bullshit.

I mean, if you take “weird” to mean “abnormal”, then yes, it would be very weird. You will likely be the only person juggling in the park. But weird doesn’t mean bad - just different.

On the other hand, your coworkers probably spend their lunch breaks eating McDonalds and scrolling IG in their cars. Juggling in the park sounds like a way better use of your time.

I’m not either.

Hence the need for a higher level of licensure in order to operate one.

They are arguing about market fundamentals, which means at least one of them is actually arguing “capitalism bad”, which is political.

Unfortunately, it fails the thread, as it is political.

Get a P38.

It works.

Because banning them works better.

If the school wants to teach responsible use, they can provide school-owned phones for use during coursework.

The problem is that if you have a class of 18 students and all of them are looking at their phones during a lecture or while doing practice problems, it is impossible to police behavior by differentiating who is taking notes and who is texting friends, or who is using a calculator app and who is using Wolfram Alpha. It’s much easier to just say “no phones” so the teacher can quickly identify who is taking notes (on paper) or using a calculator (that is a TI 83) versus the students trying to sneakily use their phone under their desk.

100’ fall into the middle of an arena.

I work as a concert high rigger.

I wanna see this venture bros episode

However, when X user and stripper @botticellibimbo correctly predicted the economic decline in 2022 based on her recent profits at work, economists began to examine the Stripper Index more closely.

Reminds me of that joke statistic - economists have predicted 28 of the last 5 recessions.

Like, it’s fun to talk about “The Stripper Index” because it feels naughty. But is there anything that differentiates it from the Amusement Park Index or the Ice Cream Index? It’s all discretionary spending, and presumably should all point in the same direction. Add to this that (1) sex work is taboo - and therefore may be more likely to be influenced by any number of things, like religious or social media trends, and (2) that much of sex work occurs in black or grey markets, where reported earnings are dubious at best, and I really doubt that this is a significantly better economic indicator than the tools actual economists already use.