searabbit

I think this back and forth about what it means, by what I assume are well-educated people, goes to the argument that it is basically written in confusing lawyer jargon and not easily digestible to the average person.

You initially said “a pension fund to offset taxes.” What I would take issue with there is using pension and endowment interchangeably when they’re not at all interchangeable, and the use of the word “offset” when it’s supposed to eliminate and replace, not simply offset, taxes (unless it becomes insolvent, in which case they would have to get voter approval to bring taxes back. Yikes!).

But I agree with your point that the taxpayers shouldn’t be deciding this in the first place because even if it were written clearly, there’s not enough information you can fit in the space to let anyone make an informed decision. You’d have to understand what an endowment is, what incentives have historically been created by them, and most importantly (what critics have been asking), where would the money be coming from?

My interpretation of where the money is coming from is bribes. That’s a detail in the word “donations” I didn’t get from the wall of text that is that amendment, but from further reading.

My main source was this article.

Have you ever heard of soft power? Countries like the US, China, and Russia, even Thailand from what I know, engage in these deliberate propaganda campaigns. It’s like the only reason they keep the Olympics around when it’s such a money drain. It’s also why Hollywood has gotten so much funding from the US government over the decades.

The UAE doesn’t have to sit in a room and explicitly plan it out when they can just pay hundreds of influencers to do the work for them. You’re not meant to notice that it subtly normalizes and legitimizes the country in the world stage.

It was an article but yes

I think the enshittification problem is partially to blame. For example, I’d like to buy (womens) clothes that last more than a year. But these days you can’t even rely on buying more expensive items to get higher quality, you have to become a fucking fabric detective to find anything that lasts. So I understand the urge to say fuck it, it’s going to disintegrate anyway, so might as well buy the cheapest items every couple of months so I’m not bleeding money replacing clothes.

This attitude of taking pleasure in calling people who fall for false advertising stupid or illiterate is why we’re in the golden age of scams. Intellectually disabled and illiterate people do exist, yes, and they deserve to be protected by society not mocked. It’s not ironic that they wouldn’t notice the wrong spelling; it’s the whole point of doing it. That’s exactly why the regulation is necessary.

Yes exactly. When people say “cruelty is the point” it’s for the people who think efficiency is the point and cruelty is the method. Efficiency is just the smokescreen to get you to accept the cruelty.