Oh. Innuendo, obviously. But I’d just laugh because I’m not a picky eater [innuendo].

I’m sorry, the what ranch?

When I was a kid and we’d come back to the states, during sporting events one side of the family would jokingly lean into an Irish caricature about potatoes (a reason they/we came to the US a few generations prior) so in that spirit…

Not ME potatoes! They’ll cheer you up! /hands you a bottle of Luksusowa and jig-dances away singing “mash ‘em boil ‘em put ‘em in a stew…” /

Ah the heady experience of a virgin clown-sighting. We all remember. Bring on the rainbows, Little Bobby Tables.

Yeah those old heads are the ones whose stuff I’ve been reading. But general strike vets are not the ones spinning up these 1-day strikes AFAIK. Feel free to share though.

Most I’ve seen are college students sharing motivational posters Grok made them for the 1-day general strike they wanted to have the Friday before spring break. They’re hyper localized and largely meaningless campus-level social events, not adding stable nodes to the resistance network. (But I’m sure there are others more mindful than that.)

My complaint is simply that my peers don’t try harder to understand the fucking assignment, or ask the experienced, before they Leroy Jenkins.

I agree, but they should be active days, to get people plugged in, motivated, and should not be confused with general strike especially since a bunch of people already mistake general strikes as “boycotting work.” But everything I read says that’s a mistake, because those people end up scabs since they were allowed to think it was another paid holiday.

They shouldn’t call them that. It’s just a walk out. Maybe it’s OK to call it a dress rehearsal or practice run but the point would be to test community support mechanisms and get the word out, not to “put the corpos on notice” or lend virtue to someone’s extra personal day. The truth is it’s not much of a stress test if it’s just 1 day. Also it’s crying wolf. General strikes should damage the economy and an extra snow day just doesn’t. It fails that goal even if it feels nice to say they participated in a “general strike.”

But the more insidious problem is one of logistics, tactics, and reserves.

With protests, there’s often rotating participation so overall support/resource/attention burnout isn’t a brick wall issue. People generally know how many protest days they have to give up front and using them up just means they’ll need to be replaced by another protestor. The point is showing up if you can.

But “1-day general strikes” steal actual person-days from the real general strike (a protracted war of attrition between workers and the economy where the workers hurt themselves to hurt their enemy). Meaning, it actually helps corporations not just by dis-carding useable cards in our deck prematurely_and_ revealing to the opponent our possible hands, it also subtracts drawable cards from our reserves since each of those person-days eventually must be borne by mutual support networks later on.

“1-day General Strikes” are not general strikes!

Wait but… is that actually a thing in Kenya? I only have heard first hand accounts of school systems in a handful of countries in Africa (not Kenya, mostly west side) but consistently I’ve been shocked by either the severity of punishment for basically any form of failure or dishonor or for the prevalence of fear as the administrative motivator-of-choice. (One was just a few months ago I think in c/offmychest where a high schooler was describing their beatings for tardiness, bad grades, and other minor infractions. I think I commented on it.) Maybe they’re for real?

ETA: a bunch of them were from my calc I and calc III professors who were both from (different) African countries but regaled us with stories of the brutality so we knew how good we had it lol (they were good teachers, just a little unhinged, as some math educators are).

Fight club. Ever watcheD thiS movie? It’s great BRO lol

That’s already begun. Rope-a-dope is effective. We will win.

Unless fully rewritten to the form of bully pulpit, this would still have been considered explicitly dictatorial, erratic and unhinged behavior from a leader, so I assume you just mean “what if dems were more action less talk” and I’m with you.

100% on all counts. But to clarify I definitely wasn’t saying appeal to AIPAC, and I’m pretty sure you’re smart enough to know that.

Edit: which is an unsubtle way of saying “that last bit was bad faith must-win-internet-argument behavior. you know it. feel bad.”

lol these statuses always read like trembling balled up fists on a fat angry toddler

“Fuck.”

Glug. Shhhing.

“Come here you filth.”

Wow the floors are so clean.

Bah! John ya’s. All a ya’s!

I actually wasn’t considering Harris on this really at all but of course she’s the go to example usually, even though she’s now forever unelectable. I guess in my head she lost for many other reasons altogether greater in sum than Gaza.

But really I was referring to the much greater problem we’re facing right this moment not in the past. Would-be Dem politicians are right now facing battles with AIPAC supremacy.

I’ll just use Mamdani since we’re just getting things off the ground here. That took record breaking grassroots activism and was still use one upset in a long history of utter domination. AIPAC’s batting average is still ferocious.

Any blue candidate is liable to face them in some way. With Mamdani it simply wasn’t relevant to the job he was applying for and he stuck to that, bless him, and NYers believed him. Mazel. But dammit if they didn’t try to make his stance on Israel THE deciding factor of the election.

You could say Mamdani was a coward for not taking on the genocide in Gaza more fully. It’s true. But my question was specifically “is that really what we need from candidates this year?”

Because right now are tons of candidates right now being similarly put in these weird gotcha tribunals interviews and debates about allegiance to a foreign nation, albeit an ally, when IR and diplomacy is 100% irrelevant to the job they’re even running for. Is it really every candidate’s job to take a stance?

My guess was backseat of car. Parent has lab supplies back there, including a few 10-pack boxes of these, which also work as an improvised distraction/toy just like rare earth magnets or monkeys in a barrel. Unfortunately they weren’t checking rear view mirror because work it’s stressful, so kid put quite a few down without their knowledge. They didn’t even notice until day 2 migration to large intestine and rectum. This parent is overworked and under-appreciated and I’m so glad I’m not responsible for children.

My impression is that what should be simple (always “genocide no”) gets much more mealy-mouthed (e.g. “I’m totally pro Israel…but maybe let’s rein in the genocide…oh no I don’t mean Israel shouldn’t have the right to defend itself!") precisely when anyone who wishes to do good by getting elected is confronted with the reality that there’s a rampaging nationalist organization sandbagging and bullying candidates, promoting others for policy favors and effectively holding big chunks of the electorate hostage in elections.

In practice, that means when I see otherwise good candidates use their talking points or be evasive and spineless on the topic of Israel, I’m quicker to think that they might simply have chosen a different battle, than to think they actually believe that there’s nothing wrong.

More simply, if standing up to the nationalist bully will almost certainly end their career/role/office before they even had a chance to begin, how many do you think will divert from the issues they entered politics for just to be the one to take out the bully? I’m guessing it’s a small number.

So while I do see it as cowardly on a personal level, and personally I’d prefer to quit politics than to get pushed around and just hold my tongue or say their lines, I also assume that it’s a decision made under duress without further evidence to the contrary.

In short, calling candidates “pro genocide” and expecting individual candidates to take the bully head-on in any particular race feels unfair to me, or at least misguided since, if we actually want to change this situation, my generation really needs to have some frank chats with their parents about their AIPAC donations.

What am I missing?

Edit: typos swype errors missing words

I believe it’s a holdover from older oven technologies. Like gas ranges with an always-on pilot light and manual gas on off pipe valves you were supposed to close before travel. IIRC those were the origin many historic city fires in dense housing, and the reason for a lot of current gas safety like the sulfur/bad-eggs additive that makes unburned gas an lot easier to detect.

But nowadays the worst that awaits those who return after forgetting the oven is generally… just a bigger utility bill instead of losing everything and maybe killing people.