Seems like it's deliberately using "committee" as a pejorative to make a political point. Flip it to "you'll find no statues of groups of people" and it's patently false.
Cancel culture is not primarily anywhere. For as long as humans have existed we have wanted to persuade our peers to avoid some things and embrace others; we have wanted some voices amplified and some quieted; we have wanted people to face the consequences of their actions and to reap what they've sown.
That's all cancel culture is at its root. It's been rebranded in America's asinine culture wars so we can pretend there's some insidious new threat to free speech while the real threats go perpetually unchallenged.
Well exactly, so we get the concept of "swing states." For 2020, there's likely to really be just 5-6 of them. The fact remains a candidate has to focus on winning electoral votes, and candidates would campaign drastically differently if they had to win the popular vote.
You absolutely don't need to appeal to them (unfortunately). You win over the 11 most populous states and the presidency is yours even if not a single person in the other 39 voted for you.
"We will not curb violent speech if the speaker is a notable public figure" is already political. That's a political stance, not an apolitical one, and it's very naive to believe otherwise.
Besides, Facebook has a PAC! In what way is this attempting to be apolitical? Although their donations are split, since 2012 they've given 14% more to Republicans.
Amazing to me that so many people in these comments believe Facebook is or can be apolitical. This is a very childish stance, and Zuck is not standing up for their right to remain out of politics: they're deeply political, and Facebook is just asserting which political viewpoints they subscribe to as an organization.
If you're not being given the benefit of the doubt, it's because your employer has 16 years of lying about this and related issues. Zuck long ago torched whatever shred of trust ever existed, so no, we are not going to be impressed by an extra 0.003% of annual revenue thrown to problems you've created.
I'm interested in Amsterdam too, but $345 is essentially 34.5% of the price of my direct flight. For many US folks $345 is going to be more than 50% of the ticket... Just way too hard to justify, even to an employer.
And frankly, the 5% discount they're throwing out is more insulting than offering no discounts at all.
Edit: I think to further clarify, the problem is that this seems most useful to casual/recreational travelers, but at business traveler pricing. E.g. if I fly to Amsterdam frequently for business, I'm not likely to need help navigating Schiphol AND you're competing with Privium (cheaper, more benefits). If I fly to Amsterdam as a tourist, I need the help but am unlikely to find the price appealing. IMO Solve is better off targeting casual travelers at a much cheaper cost and leave the business travelers to the clubs & memberships they already belong to.
"In fact, Utah still has a substantial homeless problem. The overall homeless population is around 14,000.
The chronically homeless, on the other hand, are a subset of the homeless population that is often the most vulnerable. These are people who have been living on the streets for more than a year, or four times in the past three years, and who have a "disabling condition" that might include serious mental illness, an addiction or a physical disability or illness."
Hi there, saw your profile online and was very impressed. I see you're looking for brunettes in their thirties in Metro Boston. I have a blonde in St. Louis who is just a bit over 50 but who I think would be PERFECT for you. Call me ASAP.
I would agree. I've been on since day 1 of streaming and I'm skeptical the movie catalog has gotten significantly better or worse. Movies come and go, but overall my queue has consistently had hundreds of unwatched movies in it at any given time.