FYI, I edited my comment a bit while you were replying, I'm still not wrong (imo haha) but you should be aware

You should definitely take the NY Post's summary of Democratic Majority for Israel's factual claim at face value, those are both highly reputable and trustworthy organizations /s

I don't find it that hard to believe, they're responding anonymously so they know it won't hurt their specific company's image, and the general message of "there's a lot of untrustworthy bullshit out there for job seekers (so if we do make an offer you better take it because your fallback plan might be a mirage) (and, y'know what, just in general - we have all the power here and we are going to lie to you and not feel bad about it because thats normal for us, so don't even think about complaining to anyone about it)" is one that serves all their interests

I think your "On the other hand etc." is a pretty accurate guess at specifically how they do this, tho

Their board has Microsoft and marketing execs and a venture capitalist and their advisory council has someone from the RNC at the top, hard pass

e;

I feel like most people can find something to agree on here

Do you think a political organization might misrepresent what they're about as a means to gain more power? Because that's happened, like, several times in human history

It should be because, like a lot of Biden policies, the on paper win is actually shoveling tons of taxpayer money to the individuals and institutions who have caused the underlying problem he claims to be solving (see also; basically everything Biden has done with police accountability), money fossil fuel companies are going to plow right into lobbying and PR work to further ensure nobody can have a rational conversation about what our country is doing, but, yeah, you're probably right that for the vast majority of voters it's just that they don't see it in their daily lives at all

It'd be great if it was a critique of our intellectual property laws and culture of paywalls and platform-anchored content, but I doubt the NYT would publish anything like that

Has there ever been this big of a decision dump at the end of a term before? And how does what decision get put out when get decided anyway?

Nice, thank you!

I'm shocked the Institute for Justice thinks the Supreme Court ruling in favor of their client is a "VICTORY," shocked

Like, it might be a good ruling if only because Thomas is dissenting, but I wouldn't take this website's word for it alone

That sounds like a good principle in the abstract, and that Nieves v Bartlett case was a pile of turds that basically made it impossible to argue an arrest was ever retaliatory, but I don't look forward to how our judges are going to actually interpret and apply this. The difference between intending to prosecute legitimate criminal behavior and intending to punish someone for political behavior is fuzzy as hell and gives judges all sorts of room to shield their friends from consequences while ensuring people they don't like can still be punished for their speech.

Like, it's no coincidence that it took a libertarian law firm representing a couple of seventy year old women who were trying to get a younger city manager fired to get the justices to take a second look at retaliation doctrines.

If your boss ordered you to stay late at work but said "oh, if there's an emergency you can leave," I'd say you were stuck at work