If anyone sees a salamander, it’s Liz’s.

Diallo.

$2.90.

Dude, if their shit is so cut-and-dry (which as we can tel by the wording on their press releases and their public quotes: he “muttered” a threat, they “became aware” he had a knife, that it’s clearly not), why wouldn’t they just release the footage?

Their story is clearly bullshit. Nothing happened that would justify this situation. They escalated unnecessarily, created a life threatening situation over $2.90, and nearly killed a bunch of people.

Let’s see the fuckin tape, you goddamn maniac cowards. We all know you’re spinning the yarn. Fire these fucking dangerous dog shits immediately.

We can only dream of things being so bad for the campaign that this would be a planted story.

You mean the one that shot the other people? Officer mental health is important! Someone think of the shooter!!

This has been an ongoing problem in the city. Fuckin Mayor Officer Landlord has been dumping millions into multiple cops sitting on platforms, on their phones, watching for people jumping the 2.90 fare. Which they just raised from 2.70. They’re more than spending what they’re hypothetically losing on fare jumpers. Neoliberal capitalist bullshit in action.

Yeah, another factor I didn’t even mention. The voluntary surveillance.

Gen Z is having less sex than previous generations, but it’s also part of a larger trend. If I remember correctly they said the same thing about millennials, so it’s just the way things are moving. And with the dating scene these days, along with every single other aspect of our interpersonal lives (and capitalism shoving itself into every single type of interaction)? It’s not looking good for Gen alpha

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-08-03/young-adults-less-sex-gen-z-millennials-generations-parents-grandparents

Well, we already experience that psychological torture. After 2002/2003, and then especially after 2012, this concept has already burdened our everyday behavior. Browsing behavior, phone calls, texts, emails…every single way we communicate, even face to face meetings with phones in our pockets are open to surveillance. And it’s been shown that it’s been used. Over a decade ago, thanks to Snowden. Now? Things have surely gotten worse and I would bet the farm on behavior very much having changed due these facts.

Hell yes. Dating in my thirties has been 10x better than my dating attempts in my twenties. Not to mention with how the trend is moving with gen z’s dating/sex lives? For them dating in their thirties is going to be…like, their main dating life.

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?

I’m a Germanphobe and you slapping me in the face with all that German was very rude

I’m very scared right now

Well they also love homophobia and transphobia but then the redder states and more outspoken critics constantly get caught looking at gay and trans porn. There is causation here, not just correlation.

You mean when a free inebriated traveler can’t operates their conveyance freely without being detained

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