I was a waiter in and out for a year. It's tiring and you can end up exhausted.
But the needed skills were very simple.
Maybe it depends on the type of waiter? I served on the bar and only drinks, which was fairly easy. And of course I didn't own the place or anything. We also didn't serve any special cocktails or weird drinks. I didn't think that a special skill was needed to do what I did.
I think most of those jobs are actually considered skilled jobs. Are they not?
When I think unskilled job I think picking fruit on the fields, cashier, delivering packages (though you need the driving skill so I don't know) job that does actually not take much skill, and could probably be 100% learned how to do right in a week.
Nothing bad with an unskilled job anyway. If it needs to be done it needs to be done. Not because doing it takes no special skill means that it is less important.
I'm not American so I'm here asking questions to be educated.
Because I also, from the limited amount of information that I got about it, didn't think of school shooters as specially right wing. Or as any kind of right wing organization or movement to impose their politics through means of violence against civil population.
As European when I think of right wing terrorism I think of this fascists shooters we had that literally had fascist manifestos and were part of fascista groups.
But I've heard many times this idea of American school shooters being right wing terrorists, so I'm genuinely interested in truly understanding what gives them this consideration, as from my POV (again a very limited POV) I thought of them as a failure of mental health, social integration and a bad school system in general, all united with the incredibly accessible firearms. But not specially as part of a terrorist group.
No, we do not exist. Don't let anyone know we exist. 😶
I like to consider myself leftist. But it's true that I don't agree in all that most current left wing political parties stand for.
I think all human are born equal, and should have a good life. That politics should be used to improve everyone's life.
But in the what does this mean or how to do it I feel more and more differences lately.
To give an example, I cannot really stand identity politics. I think that the best course of action is to dissolve identitarian (is that word real?) groups instead of exacerbating their differences. I feel like people should be getting rid of labels instead of having more and more labels every day.
That's just a personal opinion, based on the idea that if you define different groups the chance of conflict between groups is bigger than if you define only one group. And I do get the idea behind identity politics within the left wing spectrum. I just don't agree that's the best course of action.
I do think that we could give information without propaganda if we really mean it.
Or at least there are levels of propaganda.
My personal take is that propaganda is not true, like actual lies.
I know that "the best propaganda is true" and just excluding other information. But purposely giving just a small part of the information is a lie regardless, to me at least.
But if we were to give all the possible information on any matter I don't think it could count as propaganda.
And, this is the funny part, this is my own propaganda, because one of my political beliefs is that we could make politics in a healthier way without using the "evil" tactics for a "good" outcome.
What I think about marriage is that is not that true or logical. As it is supposed to be a "forever" thing. But it's obviously not, and it's not logical that it is.
And making the whole ceremony about how two people are going to stay together forever feels weird knowing the statistics.
At least to me.
Anyone, you are not alone. Plenty of people feel no need to make that ceremony and just enjoy life with their SO for as long as it last, or even forever.
But no heat to those who want to marry. This is just my weird personal opinion.
I take you are a mod, my app doesn't show mods of communities for some reason.
Just a fair and square question. As you quote the fallacy thing.
And please be sincere. As it would be very important for my continuity in this community even in lemmy as a whole.
Why my supposed fallacies are being judged here but not his? He made fallacies also. Are the fallacies on the question or it's the opinion?
Can anything be debated here? As in would you allow opinions that are different than yours on the slightest?
Because at no point I defended any kind of racism, not institutionalized not anything. It would be irrational, as I'm clearly against racism, I consider racism something terrible thus why I get offended when not racist people get accused of being racist.
You clearly agree with the other part. Are you giving me heat because of that? If so please I need a list of what can be said exactly in this community.
Because I would defend in from of a judge with a cristaline conscience, that migration or border policies different from completely open borders are not racism. And that I don't think the European Union have racist policies written in their law with the purpose of putting people down for their race. Quite the contrary I think the European Union have done wonders integrating races, and teaching everyone here not to be racist through incredible programs and policies with foreign countries (including the mentioned refugee programs) and forcing eu members to remove any racial law from their legislation.
If even that sentence cannot be debated here, please let me know. And put it more clear in the rules to which political party do you need to be affiliated to be allowed to post here.
Because calling the EPP or Renew Europe racist just because (and you say nothing about that) feels completely antieuropean. And I don't even vote for those parties, btw (I don't vote), but it hurts me very much when radicalization demonize normal people that may vote or belong to a party for whatever reason.
That's my two cents, from here do what you want to do.
Have a good day.
This will be my last contribution to this community at least from a while. I don't think this particular moderation action was well done or contributive to the benefit of the community or Lemmy as a whole, sorry. If you don't agree with me you could argue with me as a normal user, same as I have done with the other person, with arguments from both sides, each one giving our opinion, which are normal, either of us are defending anything bad, we just disagree on what consists a racist policy, or what European border and immigration policies should be better. I think both me and the other user (and you) agree on all humans being born equal with the same fundamental rights. But confronting a normal opinion with moderative actions from a moderator account is not great.
And just some final though. I think it's disheartening that more and more it feels like you need to have a very specific political affiliation to participate in Lemmy in general. You are free to look at my posts, here in c/europe and in many other communites, I think my political affiliation is very clear from what I write. And see what kind of policial ideas have a person that more and more feels uncomfortable here.
I'm sorry if this comment read angry or heated. But you must understand that in this space you are the authority, and it's not the same being confronted from equal to equal any difference of opinion we could have (that's why we are here to read what other people have to say) than to be confronted by moderation. If from your heart you really think that this moderation was needed because I, and only I, broke the rules and not because your own opinions made you make this action so be it. But from my opinion the authority broke the neutrality needed for good moderation here.
Every syrian got asylum not just doctors.
I think is a well known fact, given all that has been talked about Syrian refugees
All violent death is preventable, the question is what's the best way to prevent those is, and who is to made responsible. Those torturers you talk about are as human as you and me, thus respinsible for their actions.
But you are saying. Because people who come in handmade boats drown in the sea we are racist. There is no logical correlation between those two issues.
You just want to stamp a negative connotation label on us over that.
The fact that we want to control who enters our countries does not make us racist. That's just a fact, as it does not fit into the definition of racism. Race have nothing to do with it.
Wanting to control immigration is not racism.
Racisms is making policies to harm people of different colour (or race) living in our country. Our politics have nothing to so with race, but with border control. We don't care of the colour of the skin, we just care that they are coming through an unregulated migrational path, that it's actually pretty dangerous to them. We are not even actually trying to kill anybody.
And it's of maximum importance to considere the massive amount of immigrants of all races and colours that come to Europe by different migrational path and face not those issues. So it's EVIDENT that the treatment to those who come on handmade boats are caused by HOW the come, and not by what their colour or race is.
Are people of the exact same race coming by plane sinking in the sea by european policies? No, then race is not the cause.
Also, sorry, but the voices of a few politicians of two countries about Ukrainian refugees does not make EUROPE.
It's also very important to differentiate the concepts of not supporting immigration, or wanting to have control over the borders to the concept of racism. As they have nothing to do with each other, once again racism here is just used as a punitive label, a fallacy of those you like so much, to avoid talking seriously about the pros and cons on different border and immigration policies.
So if we have no comparison on what would happen with white people coming by sea why would you assume is racism.
I gave the counterexample you conveniently ignored that's black people coming by other means or from other country facing no discrimination or way different integration issues.
The life of a USA black person, a south American Black person and an African Black person is on average completely different in europe. So race is not considered here. It's not a narrow racism definition, it's no racism because race does not have any weight in the equation on how someone is valued or not in europe.
If we where racism we would be doing the same to black americans and we are not. So the issue is different. The reason some people are treated differently is other, not race. That's just evident because plenty of black people face no issues whatsoever. And plenty of black people face way different issues that those faced by africans who come by the Mediterranean.
I live in a place where most black population is not African but American. And they have the same integration issues as white Americans, despite having a completely different skin color. Because those issues have different roots that race.
This is not the USA or other countries where race it's taken into account for how people are treated, and thus we could talk about racism. In USA there's plenty of people now who where alive when racial laws where still in place, way different situation than in Europe, same rethorics could not apply.
My ps1 controler have not gotten stick drift in.. how long now? 30 years?
Is that a lost technology like in sci-fi books?