Yes, I believe that’s the point. This other guy is acting like she walked up to him and kicked him square in the nuts. He’s pissed about an exhibit he will never visit, in a country he has probably never been to.

Art is a visual, audio, or performance medium that is intended to make you feel an emotion. This art works really well at eliciting the correct emotions: anger and exclusion because of sexism. Lots of people actually have their bodies forcing the emotion on them.

This reminds me of another piece of art: a crank that you turn on a machine so pennies pop out. It’s tuned so that it releases pennies at the rate of minimum wage (one penny every 5 seconds). You can keep the pennies.

When people first encounter it, they experience a little bit of joy at the free money. They crank out a few pennies. Then they experience dissatisfaction when they realize how long you have to crank it to get any real money. It’s a great way to teach people who have never worked for minimum wage how crappy it is.

Sexism exists whether or not it’s illegal. The US House of Representatives is 29% women. The Senate is 25% women. There has never been a female US President.

Australia, where the exhibit happened has had one female PM for 3 years relatively recently. They have a greater percentage of female Representatives and Senators, just recently.

Also, it is legal in the English speaking world: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/mar/18/garrick-club-men-only-members-list-roll-call-british-establishment

It is sexist. That’s the point of the exhibit. The exclusion is the point.

I believe the artist explained it in court by saying that it allows men to feel the exclusion that women feel regularly. Many professions, clubs, and networking spaces were closed to women until very recently.

If men feel excluded from the exhibit, they are understanding how women feel being excluded from other spaces. The men are experiencing the art exactly how the artist intends.

And no you can’t just replace a word with “jew” as a good litmus test. If I replace “hamburgers” in the sentence “put some hamburgers on the barbecue”, it would sound insane. But it’s actually a normal sentence.

Actually, you could make a good copy of this exhibition by making it “Jewish people only”. Then everyone else would understand that exclusion.

Probably will. I don’t think this is a good idea for liability reasons, but people who threaten retail workers are usually cowards. Or crazy, but mostly cowards.

Something more legal would say “this place protected by security and cameras”, with a live video feed on a TV visible to patrons.

Yeah, that’s because Trump’s image is being rich and successful. He didn’t build his brand on being president. He’s loud, crude, and gets away with it because he has money. Take away any of those things and no one will care.

Like imagine if he lost his voice. Or suddenly became less crude. People would lose interest. Remember when he got Covid and had no energy? He looked a shell of his former self. People stopped listening to him.

Him losing money is just like that. His fans would stop caring about him.

The NYC Library is a huge organization. They deserve that money.

Blame Mayor Adams for the budget. He paid millions for new radios for his police buddies. The old ones work fine, also… radios? That’s top priority?

The State of New York is not going to take locked up very volatile stock as payment. Neither is any insurance company. They can just refuse it. It’s just an IOU.

Any company could just create whatever shares they needed to pay any fines. Like “oh here is an IOU due in 50 years”. “I promise the money will be available.”

Believe me, someone has tried that before. It’s New York State. They deal with complex financial crimes all the time.

And the State Department can just break the rule if they want to. What is Congress going to do? Sue them over buying a flag?

Buy a few of them and put them up. Then dare Republicans to sue over it. The Justice Department is going to be on the State Department’s side. The House will have… who?

You don’t understand. We’re not talking about just any people here. Republicans want to win. They don’t want to lose.

Martyrs gain support for ideas. Republicans don’t have ideas or policies. They like and support hierarchy. Remember, the original conservatives were monarchists and helped the British against George Washington.

It’s like a sports team. If you win, people like you more. It doesn’t matter if everyone is against you. Winners are liked more than losers. No one buys someone’s jersey because they’re a martyr.

Yes, this is what all the evidence showed in court. He owes the State of New York $460 million because he should have paid them taxes for years.

This is just reality catching up to him. He really was just lying. It’s not some brilliant scheme. It’s just lying.

It’s very simple. “Authoritarian Communists”

Tankie is a pejorative label generally applied to authoritarian communists, especially those who support acts of repression by such regimes or their allies.

The term “tankie” was originally used by dissident Marxist–Leninists to describe members of the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) who followed the party line of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU). Specifically, it was used to distinguish party members who spoke out in defense of the Soviet use of tanks to crush the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and the 1968 Prague Spring uprising, or who more broadly adhered to pro-Soviet positions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tankie

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

But the idea itself should feel incorrect. A raise is more money, not less. There’s lots of people who make slightly more. Why would they accept working for less money overall? It makes no sense.

Secondly, why would they believe their boss when it comes to money? Do they not count their change at a store or examine the receipt at a restaurant? This is the level of naivete that’s required.

So, what you’re saying is, Americans whitewashed literal Hitler because they thought “maybe both sides are the same?”

Who are these people who don’t understand the basics of living? Have they never been cheated by someone? Don’t they realize their boss is trying to cut costs?

Did they go back to their boss and ask them about it? Tell them you cheated me and I think it was intentional? Tell HR?

I’m going to guess the answer is “no”. I do not advocate for this, but this is the kind of thing that would get you beaten up before. At least tell them to report it to HR.

boring “this is what happened and what didn’t happen” land.

Lol. It’s funny because people literally say “Biden didn’t do anything”. No, it’s Trump that didn’t do anything (except cut taxes on the rich).

Trump literally stopped spending on a plan to fight a pandemic, right before it actually happened. He’s so broke and stupid (and fat).

Same thing with brands. Do you know how much it costs to make a shirt or pair of pants? It’s a few dollars for a quality item. There’s no “clothes shortage” that would keep prices high. People want brands so they pay extra for them.

Don’t fool yourself into thinking Trump has no money. He does have money, he’s just lying about the amount.

The answer is probably very simple. He probably has enough assets to pledge them as collateral for a loan, but he doesn’t want to. He wants other people to pay instead. That’s how he always works and why no one in NYC will do business with him.

You’re right, that guy doesn’t know much about liquidity. Trump could have parked his money in T-Bills and made 4.8% annually on them, risk free. And no state taxes.

Sounds like a smart thing to do if you’re going to pay a fat judgement. Trump is bad at planning and shouldn’t get the benefit of the doubt. He just didn’t plan on losing at all.

Since no one reads the article, the deadline is Monday. Trump is just stalling. Nothing will be seized.

He could either:

1. Give some of these properties to the Supreme Court of NY as potential sales (not sell them yet)
2. Go bankrupt to stall the judgement and payment
3. Get a loan on his properties to pay the judgement
4. Divide up the bond between different insurance companies

He has lots of options. Don’t listen to him when he says he has none. It’s a lie. He will probably do a combination of things: get a loan for half and find a few insurance companies to give him bonds for the rest. He will have to pay a lot of money, so he’s just looking for someone else to pay it for him.