I said this mandate was illegal from the start and the court ripped the mandate to shreds. Having to back door it through OSHA was like the biggest red flag ever.
It's just how a brain operates after consuming 300h of youtube clickbait content.Why do you capitalise individual, particularly emotive words in the thread title? It's obnoxious, and it makes the thread look like a Daily Express article.
Does your super special research process require news to be put into youtube clickbait before you notice it?
I said this mandate was illegal from the start and the court ripped the mandate to shreds. Having to back door it through OSHA was like the biggest red flag ever.
"Watch HYSTERICAL feminist DESTROYED by Milo Yiannopoulos!!!!"Why do you capitalise individual, particularly emotive words in the thread title? It's obnoxious, and it makes the thread look like a Daily Express article.
Specifically because it gets you noticed by the YouTube algorithmWhy do you capitalise individual, particularly emotive words in the thread title? It's obnoxious, and it makes the thread look like a Daily Express article.
Sure, but the Youtube algorithm isn't in play here in the Escapist.Specifically because it gets you noticed by the YouTube algorithm
And the algorithm is partially based on what society in general wants
It's literally the news.That's impressive clickbait tabloid headline satire.
Just copy/pasted.Why do you capitalise individual, particularly emotive words in the thread title? It's obnoxious, and it makes the thread look like a Daily Express article.
Any video with 'DESTROYED' in the title that isn't porn shouldn't be worth anyone's time."Watch HYSTERICAL feminist DESTROYED by Milo Yiannopoulos!!!!"
Why do you think the aim is positive attention?Sure, but the Youtube algorithm isn't in play here in the Escapist.
It might make threads more likely to be noticed by other forumites... but it's not going to be a very positive attention it gets, as demonstrated by the comments thus far.
But they don't "know" that, they think it's legal, unless you have evidence otherwise.It's literally the news.
Just copy/pasted.
---
No discussion how the Biden administration keeps doing things that they know are clearly unconstitutional and illegal?
Have you considered that reporting styles like that don't inspire confidence in the reporter's objectivity or quality standards?Just copy/pasted.
She read from the court's report, which you can read yourself if you want. Also, there's literally democrats publicly saying that they can't mandate the vaccine prior to the mandate. It's not hard find those clips either. Biden did the same thing with extending the eviction moratorium, the supreme court literally told them you can't use the CDC to do that and they did it anyway. If this was something OSHA could do, do you not understand the precedent that would set? A friend on Facebook told me there's precedent for mandating vaccines in the US so it's legal and my immediate rebuttal was if there's precedent, then why are they backdooring it through OSHA.But they don't "know" that, they think it's legal, unless you have evidence otherwise.
- Seema Nanda, the chief legal officer for the Department of Labor, said in a statement that the government was confident in its legal authority to issue the mandate on vaccinations and testing.
“The Occupational Safety and Health Act explicitly gives OSHA the authority to act quickly in an emergency where the agency finds that workers are subjected to a grave danger and a new standard is necessary to protect them,” Ms. Nanda said.
- But David Michaels, a leader of OSHA during the Obama administration, described the court’s move on Saturday as a faulty ruling with political motivations. “The same activist court that refused to stay Texas’ law that permits bounty hunters to sue anyone who aids an abortion after six weeks of pregnancy has stayed an OSHA rule that is clearly within OSHA’s authority, will save lives and make workplaces safe.”
You're gonna complain about objectivity and quality standards when we just had such horrible reporting from major news networks that almost caused riots and violence over a very very simple case (Rittenhouse)? The reporting was so bad that depending on who you watched/read, it was like a completely different case was being tried. What was not objective or factual in the video?Have you considered that reporting styles like that don't inspire confidence in the reporter's objectivity or quality standards?
I'm not interested in you trying to turn this into a soapbox about another topic.You're gonna complain about objectivity and quality standards when we just had such horrible reporting from major news networks that almost caused riots and violence over a very very simple case (Rittenhouse)? The reporting was so bad that depending on who you watched/read, it was like a completely different case was being tried. What was not objective or factual in the video?
You're gonna complain about objectivity and quality standards when we just had such horrible reporting from major news networks that almost caused riots and violence over a very very simple case (Rittenhouse)? The reporting was so bad that depending on who you watched/read, it was like a completely different case was being tried. What was not objective or factual in the video?
A rule that works equally well for news and porn.If it doesn't have SLAMS or BLASTS in the title I don't click it.