You're right, it is. But who has the power to do that? It's not usually the people who would benefit from it; violence is the last resort of people whose other forms of control over their own lives have been stripped from them.
A rat backed into a corner lashes out in desperation. You might give the alternative solution to simply move its pursuer, but that only serves to show that you don't understand how the rat has no such power.
Hmm... Man seemingly dies, goes into a small space with hard walls, comes back a little while later with the ability to fly... Is Jesus mothman?
Ah, that must be how a free book became a "bestseller."
I was thinking about it, but I can only imagine the amount of spam mail I'd get if I did.
I'm currently working the best job I've ever had by far, and I got it because I had a friend who worked there. Not even in a high position, he was just a regular employee. I'd spent months sending out resumes for positions I was qualified for, but one resume handed to my friend to be put directly into the hands of the hiring manager got me a better-paying job that I wasn't even qualified for. It was 2 weeks between printing the resume and showing up for my first shift.
It's annoying, but, these days, any resume submitted online to be added to the pile is just a waste of your time. Find a way to get it directly to the hiring person - even if it's just physically going there and handing it to the person at the front desk. If you submit it the normal way, it'll never be seen.
It's not meant to make them look like the good guy, it's meant to make them look like the guy who's willing to "do what it takes to end the woke agenda." The way you get a bunch of people to support evil isn't by convincing them it's good, but by convincing them it's necessary.
There's no reason to try any harder than this. Most people who will see this tweet won't look at the handle or the replies - they're read the tweet, then move on. And if they see enough of these tweets, they may just internalize the notion that unions aren't worth it. It's better for Amazon to make more tweets than it is for them to make better tweets. And it's not like they're going to see any repercussions for trying to maliciously influence their employees.
Yeah, but you can be sure that anyone who tells you the truth about a bad working environment will be fired shortly thereafter for "attendance issues" or any number of other bogus reasons.
Unless I know I need a lot of stuff from Costco, I never grab a cart. It forces me to make significantly fewer impulse purchases.
Yeah. I don't want a menu, I just want to walk down the street without being bothered by some restaurants' aggressive marketing plan. I'm not upset by the person handing them out, but I'm upset by the scenario I'm now forced to be in, and react accordingly.
I have no idea why they'd react so personally when it's obvious that people simply don't want a menu. It's mean to play pranks on someone just doing their job, but things like avoiding eye contact are just the socially acceptable way to avoid the awkward "Menu? No." scenario.
This person shouldn't be bothered at all by people ignoring them on the job.
Open and shut against a regular person, sure, but if we've learned anything in the last 8 years, it's that government officials who spread misinformation won't see repercussions for a long time, if ever.
GMO's trace back further than that - even when we're specifically talking about modern methods. The first Drosophila melanogaster fruit fly genetics experiments happened in 1910, though it took a while for us to begin actually creating GMO strains; the first study I know of that did so was in 1927 by Hermann J. Muller, using x-rays to purposefully induce mutations. But ultimately, it doesn't matter who was the first to purposefully modify the genetics of an organism, modern or otherwise.
The fact of the matter is that we can use, have used, and should use genetic modification for beneficial purposes. Again, GMO's are neutral; it just means an organism was purposefully modified on a genetic level by humans - it's the purpose itself that determines whether its good or bad. People will use it for bad reasons just like any technology, and we should stop them, but that doesn't mean we should shun the technology itself when genetic modifications have been used beneficially for millennia, and modern techniques are just as capable of producing incredibly beneficial changes as they are the detrimental ones everyone's scared of.