#policy thinkers.

[empirearchives]

“What is fatality to us of today? Policy is Destiny for us.”

— Napoleon to Goethe

Source: Emil Ludwig, Goethe: The History of a Man

[wilwheaton]

I woke up yesterday morning to learn that Don Trump—the famed rapist, convicted felon, and white christian presidential candidate—had mimed performing a blowjob on his microphone stand to the clear delight of his crowd. There's a famous Christian thinker named Jesus H. Christ who you may have heard about; people will often say his full name when they see things like this. [...] It cuts against the dominant social narrative to say we need to fight the white supremacist cult, and this is for the very good reason that our society is traditionally white supremacist. If you suggest that a white supremacist cult's behavior and intentions are indecent and absolutely unacceptable, there is a general realization that this means not accepting it, which would inevitably mean the social exclusion and isolation of people committed to pursuing unacceptable behavior, and who have made indecent and unacceptable behavior a core part of their identity. And it's very unhealthy to be socially excluded and isolated. And who could be against health? In the eyes of those who control the platforms of communication, and in the halls of power, and in the minds of many comfortable and privileged people, it is a far less divisive act to hold a Nazi rally, crammed with racism and hatred and bigotry and Nazi speakers delivering Nazi slogans and Nazi intentions to enact Nazi policies, than it is to refer to such a thing as "a Nazi rally." In the eyes of those who control the platforms of communication, and in the halls of power, and in the minds of many comfortable and privileged people, saying you intend to fight a white supremacist cult is considered far more divisive and radical than being a part of a white supremacist cult who intends to force a fight with everyone else. In fact "we're still going to be sharing a nation with them and there are millions of them" is usually what's said to anybody who suggests we even oppose them. It's said as a reason to not oppose them, as a reason to not even name them for what they have chosen to be. "You can't just get rid of them," it's said. The suggestion seems to be that in so doing we are excluding them from society, isolating them, dehumanizing them, by naming what it is they have chosen to become (which, again, is a white supremacist cult), and by refusing to accept their unacceptable propositions as acceptable. It's not so popular to suggest that the answer is for white supremacists to change their behavior. It's far more popular to say we need to heal the white supremacist cult. It's far more popular to issue reminders that we need to leave paths open for the white supremacist cult to find redemption

Apology Not Accepted

Another exceptional post from Andrew Moxon that I encourage you all to make some time to read.

When all of this is over, no matter how long it takes to send Shitler to prison, I will not forget and I will not forgive the christian nationalist white supremacists who have brought us here.

This includes people I thought I knew.

We must drive these cancerous, violent, hateful people back into social isolation and societal rejection, where they have always belonged.

This includes people I thought I knew.

[centrally-unplanned]

I don't really have anything big to add to Scott's Curtis Yarvin call-out that isn't really already in the post, which is just something someone had to write "for the record". Curtis Yarvin is, of course, an absolute joke of a thinker - but Scott was the person to write this post because he likes the joke. I respect that, a lot, because writing - even nonfiction writing - is primarily entertainment, and you really shouldn't delude yourself otherwise. I don't like Curtis Yarvin, I find his prose insufferable, but there are people like Yarvin who I enjoy who bat about as well on the accuracy scoreboards - The Last Psychiatrist is my own Yarvin-like, someone with impeccable prose who never cared about proving any of their points beyond what was needed for the punchline. Reading a hater who can't see that is like listening to someone's opinion on anime who thinks finding 2D girls hot is Fake News; they aren't capable of "getting it" enough for their opinion to register.

Scott gets it, Scott likes Yarvin, he has read his duct-tape edifice on how you can do "Dictatorship - but Good This Time!" with joy and attention. Which is why he is the best-positioned to call him out for being an absolute sell-out who has contradicted virtually everything he ever wrote in his glory days. Which he obviously has, but someone making the case with citations is valuable proof for your instincts.

Tracing Woodgrains noted that the framing of "selling out" is not cynical enough, that all of Yarvin's contextual caveats and exhortations for apolitical excellence were just a smokescreen, a pretextual shield against criticisms from the liberals as he smuggled populist authoritarianism through the door. To me, this debate is a distinction without a difference because they buy into the idea that 2000's Yarvin was serious at all to begin with. You think the guy writing headlines like these:

Was trying to maximize his odds of building a new political movement? Of course not - he was writing coolboy headlines to set you up for his edgy zinger punchlines about how slavery was good. I am sure he dreamed, like all writers did, but he was far too intelligent to ever think those dreams would really go anywhere in the real. Dude was blogging on the internet. This was a hobby, for fun, and for influence amoung bloggers. And what made it fun was all the complicated rules and nth-level steps to make the system bespoke - if you just said "kill everyone who opposes you" you don't have a blog, you have a tweet. Everything was in service of making good posts.

And then reality decided to punk itself and a cultural wave of conspiracy-brained charlatans took over the American Right and were happy to smash any square peg into the gaping maw of it round, sucking void of aggrieved, performative destruction that didn't care enough to protest. Yarvin nearly missed it happening, running some fringe programming start-up for more than half a decade while the New Right cast about for slightly-less-embarrassing justifications for its illiberalism. But fate gave him a pass on that, this is his time; and now he has to, essentially, pretend he is part of a movement he is in fact tangential to.

You see how that isn't selling out or pretextual? The entire job has changed. None of this fits. Certainly, it is a form of selling out - but entertaining blog posts are not convictions one can really sell. Certainly, it is a form of latent authoritarianism - but entertaining blog posts aren't actual policy platforms one can really dog whistle. That applies far too much agency to any of this - Yarvin has no business being in the room in 2025. Mencius Moldbug isn't even here anymore.

You can really see that in his response to Scott's post, which Hanania neatly mocks. It is basic-bitch culture war anti-elite nonsense that contradicts itself on even a cursory Google check, because it is just barely-warmed-over leftovers from other New Right thinkers. There is no prose here, no effort, no joy. These tweets are 9-to-5. This is a new guy; one that just isn't nearly as fun.

[liberalsarecool]

Not all educated people are liberal, but most conservative rhetoric and failed economic/tax policies depend on highly unserious thinkers.

[psychotrenny]

Fun how the people who hue and cry the loudest about China's "Reform and Opening Up", condemning it as some sort great betrayal of socialism, so often consider themselves aligned with Lenin. Like some sort of defender of true socialism from the golden era against all those later revisionists. As though like the NEP wasn't something that Lenin himself very much supported and implemented. Our wise and tactical introduction of capitalist elements VS their revisionist selling out to the bourgeoisie, something like that

There's probably a couple of things at play here. One contributing factor likely the fetishism of defeat you see all too often among Western socialists, treating the dead and failed experiments of the past as somehow being more pure and truly communist than any still living socialist regime. Another is the excessive attachment to specific individuals you see among those who accept communist ideas without truly embracing dialectical materialist thinking; treating certain thinkers and leaders (i.e. Lenin, Trotsky, Mao) as though they were divine prophets while others (i.e. Deng) are devils sent to lead us astray. Policies are not evaluated in terms of their material effects, the prevailing conditions they were taken in or even their theoretical basis. Rather the focus is on who proposed them; similar policies are good when a good guy supports them and bad when backed by a villain. Finally there's likely an element of underlying racism to all this; these people have faith in the ability of Europeans make the right decisions and build a better society, while no such trust is extended to those "less enlightened" peoples of the world. Surely the end of Socialism in Europe meant the end of any Socialism that matters? Like any nation still calling itself Socialist must be lying or deluded; there's no way those barbarians could have anything to teach us...

[dragoneyes613]

With all the global apoplexy triggered by the idea of shipping out the Palestinians to create a Gazan Riviera, the full import of Trump’s plan has actually gone under the radar. Such is the shock that weeks later commentators are still struggling for a frame of reference.

Here’s what they’re missing: Trump’s program doesn’t just rip up the hoary two-state consensus that has reigned unchallenged since 1967 — it sets the clock back all the way to 1948.

At the heart of Trump’s plan are two assumptions: that the Palestinians can’t remain in Gaza, and that going forward, the Arab world must pick up the pieces.

Attention so far has focused on the first element, with the left foaming at the mouth about ethnic cleansing. But the second part is equally revolutionary, because for the first time in a century, it takes a blowtorch to the real source of the conflict.

The Palestinian victim narrative was born as soon as Israel’s puny forces drove out the armies of six Arab states in 1948. The Nakba — or catastrophe, as the Palestinians refer to their defeat — proved a convenient tool for the Arab world in general.

Keeping the losers and their descendants in refugee camps — as opposed to absorbing them as Israel did for the Jews forced to flee their homes in Arab countries — was great policy as far as generations of Arab leaders were concerned.

Not only were they spared the bother of looking after their supposed brethren — those selfsame leaders soon discovered that Palestinians festering in refugee camps in Jordan and Lebanon pressured Israel to make concessions. So they created the world’s only perma-refugees — a tool with which to bludgeon Israel.

What wasn’t to love about Palestinian misery? If the Arabs couldn’t win on the battlefield, they could win at the (non)-peace table.

Of course, that great con would never have worked without Western connivance. The chattering-class consensus that the only acceptable outcome was further Israeli concessions ultimately enabled Palestinian obduracy.

Along the way there were the rare pro-Israel thinkers who identified the central problem as the Arab refusal to pay the price of defeat. Daniel Pipes, president of the Middle East Forum, called the result a decades-long “war process.” In 2018, the Israel Victory Caucus was founded in Congress to push the novel idea that peace could only come about by recognition that the Palestinians had lost.

- Gedalia Guttentag, Mishpacha Magazine, February 19 2025

[astrologydray]

♍️Virgo Mc in the each of the degrees♍️

If you have a Virgo Midheaven (MC), your career and public image are shaped by Virgo’s themes of precision, analysis, service, and mastery. You likely thrive in careers requiring problem-solving, organization, and attention to detail, such as healthcare, science, writing, education, research, or business administration.

• 0° Virgo (Aries Point) – A powerful initiator in service-based or intellectual fields. May gain recognition in medicine, science, or social reform.

• 1° Virgo – A perfectionist with strong critical thinking skills. Could succeed in editing, analytics, or quality control.

• 2° Virgo – A talented communicator; could thrive in writing, journalism, or teaching.

• 3° Virgo – An analytical mind, ideal for investigative work, research, or forensics.

• 4° Virgo – A love for learning and refinement; may excel in academia, law, or technical writing.

• 5° Virgo – A meticulous worker; likely to succeed in finance, administration, or data analysis.

• 6° Virgo – Naturally inclined toward healthcare, therapy, or alternative medicine.

• 7° Virgo – A precise, creative thinker; may find success in graphic design, architecture, or craftsmanship.

• 8° Virgo – Drawn to healing professions, including nutrition, physical therapy, or holistic medicine.

• 9° Virgo – A problem-solver with innovative ideas. Could thrive in technology, engineering, or logistics.

• 10° Virgo – A strong educator; may work in teaching, coaching, or mentoring.

• 11° Virgo – A tech-savvy, analytical mind; may excel in IT, cybersecurity, or programming.

• 12° Virgo – A perfectionist in fashion, music, or fine arts. Success through precise craftsmanship.

• 13° Virgo – A highly responsible worker; may thrive in law enforcement, military, or humanitarian work.

• 14° Virgo – Health-conscious with a sharp mind. Could be drawn to dietetics, fitness, or medical research.

• 15° Virgo – A master of writing, editing, or academic research.

• 16° Virgo – Business-minded; excels in consulting, financial planning, or business strategy.

• 17° Virgo – A detail-oriented expert; could work in surgery, pharmaceuticals, or scientific research.

• 18° Virgo – A deep humanitarian drive; drawn to nonprofits, environmental work, or psychology.

• 19° Virgo – A critical thinker who excels in law, politics, or policy-making.

• 20° Virgo – A master of their craft; recognized for expertise in specialized fields.

• 21° Virgo – Exceptionally intellectual; may thrive in philosophy, academia, or technical writing.

• 22° Virgo – An innovative thinker; could work in product design, systems development, or efficiency consulting.

• 23° Virgo – A strong researcher; may specialize in history, archeology, or science.

• 24° Virgo – An excellent communicator; may succeed in broadcasting, publishing, or public relations.

• 25° Virgo – A sharp and strategic mind; could work in legal fields, investigative journalism, or intelligence.

• 26° Virgo – A healer at heart; may be drawn to nursing, surgery, or psychological counseling.

• 27° Virgo – A gifted analyst; could thrive in economics, data science, or cybersecurity.

• 28° Virgo – A precise and disciplined artist; success in sculpture, architecture, or technical art.

• 29° Virgo (Anaretic Degree) – A master strategist, perfectionist, or critic. Success comes through expertise, refinement, and precision. However, may struggle with overanalyzing or career indecision.

[whencyclopedia]

Aspasia of Miletus

Aspasia of Miletus (l. c. 470-410/400 BCE) is best known as the consort of the great Athenian statesman Pericles. Her life story has always been given in the shadow of Pericles' fame, but she was a woman of great eloquence and intelligence in her own right who influenced many of the writers, thinkers, and statesmen of her time.

She was a metic (a person not born in Athens) and, accordingly, was not allowed to marry an Athenian and had to pay a tax to live in Athens, but it is most likely because of her foreign status that she was not constrained by Athenian policies regarding women's behavior. She bore Pericles (l. 495-429 BCE) a son (Pericles the Younger, l. c. 440-406 BCE) out of wedlock, taught men and women, and seems to have lived freely however she pleased.

This much is known as well as that she lived, wrote, and worked in Athens c. 450 - c. 428 BCE and operated a salon of some sort, but little else can be said for certain. It is not even known if Aspasia (pronounced Ahs-pah-SEE-uh) was her actual name or a "professional name" as she was famous as a hetaira (a high-class courtesan), and her name means "greeting with affection" or "welcome" or "desired one" according to various translations. Scholars almost universally agree that Aspasia was not the woman's birth name.

Ancient writers from Aristophanes (l. c. 460 - c. 380 BCE) to Plato (l. 424/423-348/347 BCE) to Plutarch (l. c. 45/50 - c. 120/125 CE) reference her eloquence and power in controlling men, and this established her reputation as none of her own works, if she actually wrote any, have survived. In the 19th and 20th centuries, mainly owing to the literary works of Walter Savage Landor (l. 1775-1864) and Gertrude Atherton (l. 1857-1948), respectively, Aspasia came to be viewed as a romantic heroine of the Golden Age of Athens and she and Pericles as exemplifying the romantic couple.

She is recognized as an important figure today as she defied the restrictive policies of Athenian society regarding women (who were seen as second-class citizens) to live her life according to her own vision. In the modern era, she is understood as an intellectual and teacher of enormous ability whose influence on famous male writers and thinkers of her day was significant.

Ancient & Modern Depictions

Whoever Aspasia was, it seems clear she was a woman of impressive accomplishments; even if it remains unclear precisely what those accomplishments were. Although ancient writers allude to her influence over others (such as Socrates, for example), few details are given as to what aspects of others' works should be credited to her.

The claim that she wrote Pericles' famous Funeral Oration cannot be substantiated and, in fact, was originally made as a slur. She vanished from the history of rhetoric for this very reason: the inability of later scholars to identify her with any given extant works.

It has been noted by scholar Madeleine M. Henry that Aspasia is depicted by ancient writers according to those writers' individual biases and so a clear picture of who she was and what she accomplished is almost impossible to grasp. Henry comments:

When we need Aspasia to be a chaste muse and teacher, she is there; when we need a grand horizontal, she is there, when we need a proto feminist, she is there also. (128)

Ancient writers from Plato to Plutarch have characterized her according to their own particular need, and so a modern reader must sift and measure the various accounts in an attempt to come to terms with who Aspasia may have been. A standard depiction of her in modern times reads:

A contributor to learning in Athens, Aspasia of Miletus (c. 470-401/400 BCE) boldly surpassed the limited expectations for women by establishing a renowned girl's school and a popular salon. She lived free of female seclusion and conducted herself like a male intellectual while expounding on current events, philosophy, and rhetoric. Her fans included the philosopher Socrates and his followers, the teacher Plato, the orator Cicero, the historian Xenophon, the writer Athenaeus, and the statesman and general Pericles, her adoring common-law husband (The Oxford Classical Dictionary, 1992).

Ancient depictions, however, vary from Aristophanes' comical charge in his Acharnians that Aspasia started the Peloponnesian War over the abduction of "two whores" of hers to Plato's image of her in his Menexenus where she is Socrates' teacher in rhetoric. It should be noted that the Menexenus is a satirical dialogue and when the character of Menexenus says, "I marvel that Aspasia, who is only a woman, should be able to compose such a speech," Plato is most certainly writing tongue in cheek (Menexenus, 235e).

While Aspasia herself wrote nothing extant, her influence is thought to be apparent in the works of her contemporaries and later writers, but this claim is based on circumstantial evidence since, as noted, it is unclear what works she may have actually contributed to. Scholar Joyce E. Salisbury provides the scenario others point to in claiming Aspasia's influence:

Aspasia's house quickly became the fashionable place for gentlemen of quality to gather. Politicians, playwrights, philosophers, artists, and literary celebrities passed through her doors, and she came to know the most famous architects of the Athenian golden age. (23)

Scholar I. M. Plant contributes to this claim while qualifying how much remains unknown of Aspasia's life and work:

Aspasia is one of the most famous women of classical Greece, yet little is known of her life, and most of what was written about her in her own day is dubious. As the partner of Pericles, Athens' leading statesman in the mid-fifth century BC, Aspasia moved in the highest aristocratic circles and attracted the attention of comic and serious writers. She inspired literary personae which in turn led to the creation of pseudonymous works in her name. (41)

None of these pseudonymous works have survived but are referenced by other writers who either praise or blame Aspasia for her influence over powerful men. Plutarch consistently praises the accomplishments of Pericles and blames any of his mistakes on Aspasia. At one point, in his Life of Pericles, Plutarch seems to wonder aloud:

What great art or power this woman had, that she managed as she pleased the foremost men of the state and afforded the philosophers occasion to discuss her in exalted terms and at great length. (24.1)

Plutarch's question seems to have been asked by many of Aspasia's contemporaries and those who followed after. The philosopher Aeschines of Sphettus (l. c. 425 - c. 350 BCE) seems to answer this by presenting her as a clever speaker and an intellectual of note who made a lasting impression on those who heard her speak. Like Plato, Aeschines of Sphettus wrote philosophical dialogues, including an Aspasia, but these have been lost. All we know of his thoughts on Aspasia come from later writers who have also provided the few details of her life.

Continue reading...

[jejunecartoons]

I Stand Before You On The Convergence Of Entropy, Fate, And A Retail Inventory Assignment From Hell.

With tensions, stress, and a cosmic reckoning already rolling downhill. I present the following in complete and utter good faith, entire sincerity and three years experience under a revolving cast of coworkers, managers and corporate representatives. Not as a resignation, but as an acknowledgment of the shared absurdity we have all been asked to fulfill.

You demand 100% compliance to systems that are, by your own admission, 90% “common sense.” This is not accountability. This is abdication of definition.

You preach “best practice” while delegating chaos. You post workflows on every table, then fault us for improvising when those workflows inevitably fail.

You expect omniscience from associates but offer no clarity in return. “Tag what looks expensive” is not a policy. It is a loophole for blame.

Your security standards are aesthetic, not functional. They are not designed to protect product —they are designed to protect narrative. That someone, somewhere, “cared.”

You romanticize productivity like folklore. You invoke the 4-minute mile to justify the erosion of human labor boundaries — without ever asking what was lost in the race.

You seek innovation without deviation. Initiative without autonomy. You want thinkers who don’t think, and doers who don’t notice what’s broken.

You mistake quiet compliance for stability. It is not. It is the sound of disengagement.

You say, “If something’s wrong, speak up,” and then punish improvisation with retroactive scolding. You do not want initiative — you want insurance.

You confuse standardization with fairness. Fairness is adaptable. Standardization is lazy.

You mistake a rising college town’s labor surplus for a license to waste talent. You will cycle through dozens of good workers and never understand why they vanish.

And when —against all odds — something human stabilizes here… when trust is built, and morale flickers back to life… that is when you offer promotions. But only if we’re willing to leave, start over, and carry the weight again. Loyalty is never rewarded with rest — only relocation.

You introduce new security procedures — more tags, more checks, more hoops — but you change nothing about the time we’re given. Not one minute more. We are expected to move at the old speed while doing twice the work. This is not strategy. It is sabotage by euphemism.

These added steps are not protections. They are performances. We perform security. We simulate vigilance. Not because it works — but because it looks good on audit day.

If security tags worked, shrink would vanish. It hasn’t. Because shrink is not a moral flaw in your workers — it is the price you pay for pretending your processes are airtight while ignoring the cracks that open from the top.

We do not need more stickers. We need less denial. Fewer empty fixes. More admission that complexity without support is just delay in disguise.

You sell each new measure like a solution, but treat it like a punishment. Not because it helps — but because someone, somewhere, needs to be seen trying.

17. Markdowns Are The Perfect Lie.

The system knows what’s on sale.

It calculates it, tracks it, even prints the tags.

But instead of a list, we’re told: “Just find them.”

Every rack. Every shelf. One by one.

A company smart enough to generate the sale, Is dumb enough to make you re-scan the store by hand. This is not oversight. It’s outsourced labor through willful negligence.

You expect total compliance with markdowns, but you give no complete list. Not by item, not by category.

Only the ghost of a hint — a tone, a suggestion —

“You should be able to tell.” From what? A red sticker? A manager’s gesture? Whole categories go ignored for months — others get pulled every week.

There is no schedule. There is no rotation. Only the myth of one.

If markdowns matter, then act like they matter.

Define the cadence. Clarify the zones. Give us the map.

Or stop pretending we failed to follow it.

"You’re missing markdowns” But you can’t miss what isn’t there. The item was stolen. Perfectly. Cleanly. The system thinks it’s still on the shelf, gathering dust. In truth? It left the store weeks ago, Stuffed in a purse, Walked past a broken camera, And was never seen again.

The Computer Doesn't Know Theft. It Knows Absence Without Explanation. And It Blames You.

So now you’re on your knees scanning hangers for ghosts. Looking for a pair of jeans that do not exist, Because the system demands ritual compliance with its imagined inventory.

This is the quiet joke of retail: You Are Punished For The Precision Of A Thief.

Instead of fixing security, they fix expectations. More markdowns. More audits. More scanning.

Less trust. Less time. Less reality

18. The Triple Beep of Redundant Acknowledgment;

When an associate scans a valid markdown item, the handheld scanner emits three long, proud beeps —A theatrical confirmation of success, as if the user wouldn’t immediately notice the literal thermal label spitting out of the shoulder-mounted printer they are physically attached to.

This is not a harmless quirk. It is a nails-on-chalkboard absurdity, repeated hundreds of times per shift.

Especially when markdown lists contain thousands of SKUs, each scanned one by one — because bulk updates or system-synced lists are, apparently, out of the question.

You’re already straining to hold a scanner, item, printer, and sticker roll at once. You're dodging customers, balancing hangers, managing limited battery life.

And then comes the "BEEP-BEEP-BEEP"

To confirm what your printer already screamed in physical form: Yes, that was a markdown.

There is no toggle. There is no off-switch. Just endless affirmations of the obvious. It’s the small things that break people. Not a single moment of cruelty — but a thousand little ones, rehearsed daily, in stereo. But this isn’t just auditory clutter. You cannot scan another item until it finishes beeping.

Every markdown becomes a mini timeout, Forcing a pause, Breaking flow, Shattering efficiency, Not for safety, Not for clarity, But for ritual. In a list of hundreds, Even thousands of markdowns, This delay adds up to minutes lost per hour, Hours lost per week, And entire shifts wasted waiting For a redundant noise to finish announcing a truth you already physically received.

There is no override. No way to mute it. No option to multitask.

Just You, A Tag,

And The Machine Reminding You Who's Really In Charge.

19. And When The Truth Is Found;

When the numbers don’t add up, When the backroom is a war-zone, And the sales floor a graveyard of miscategorized product, It’s Treated Like a Divine Revelation. A mystery. Unspoken. Unknowable. As if the universe conspired overnight to create a discrepancy that no one could have seen coming. The people who asked for time? For training? For help? Now it’s their fault.

They “should have done something.” Should have sensed the collapse In the same way they’re expected to sense what’s on sale without being told. It Is Not The System’s Fault.

It never is. So the cycle continues: You suffer in silence. You stabilize the chaos. And when things finally start to make sense— They promote someone elsewhere, To go start the cycle again.

Because The System Is Sacred. Your Time Is Not.

20. And When The Work Is Done;

Not right, not reasonably, but fast— they call you a star. A leader. A natural. They write your name in dry erase marker at the top of a board no one agreed to race.

A scoreboard with no prize but the illusion of being seen.

And if you fall behind? No one asks why. No one checks the load.

They just move your name down quietly, As if you dropped it yourself.

Praise becomes currency. A tool. A leash.

"You’re one of the good ones.” “You’ve always been so reliable.” "What would we do without you?"

They hand you a badge and call it honor, when it’s just a shackle in bronze. Recognition Becomes Pressure Masquerading As Gratitude.

21. They Give Out Hearts.

Little pink paper valentines called “Heartbeat of [Insert Store Number Here].”

Printed Black & White on Plain Copy Paper, of Course.

Not in February— in June, for February efforts, filed under “we meant to.”

They pin your name on a bulletin board next to half-torn flyers, and call it legacy.

You made a "difference" Not to someone, not for something, but In Metrics. In Willingness.

In saying yes to something not your job,

At a time not your shift,

Because someone didn’t show up,

And someone else had a clipboard.

They hand you a card like communion. Small, bright, With a corporate smile, And the empty taste of compliance made sacred. “You made a difference.”

But no one tells you where. Just that it helped. Just that it counted.

Just enough that next time, You’ll Do It Again.

22. The Caring Cupboard

Has a $120 budget. Split across three weeks and forty lives. By week one: ramen, two oatmeal packets, a single can of chickpeas. By week two: hope. By week three: the sign taped crookedly reads "We see you."

And they do— leave crumbs.

The vending machine stays stocked on schedule though.

The microwaves technically work.

On the counter are the worlds smallest Keurig,

And a minimum viable toaster. Donated by staff of course,

Temporarily allowed until "safety" concerns remove them.

They Trust You To Operate A Compactor, But Not Filter Water, Or Clean Out Crumbs.

23. Lockers Are Provided, For your convenience.

Don’t decorate. Don’t forget your lock. Don’t leave it overnight.

It’s your locker, unless we need it back.

The Key To Belonging Is Not Belonging At All.

24. The Fun Calendar

Smiles from the break room wall.

Dress-Up Day! Cartoon Shirt Day! Mismatch Sock Thursday!

Themes chosen democratically by the assigned designer; When no one’s around.

All expressions pre-cleared by HR.

Festivities canceled for audit season.

Spirit punished with write-ups.

You can wear a graphic tee—

But not that one. Not that color. Not too funny. Not too much.

Try again next Fun Day when morale is less expensive.

All Permissible Self Expression Must Meet Dress Code Protocols. Not the actual ones; The Myth.

The Infinite list of what is and isn't allowed.

The one that always just so happens to align with the managers personal taste.

The one that, for some reason, is only levied at targets that happened to annoy them recently.

25. The Wall of Rights Stands Tall In The Break Room.

Posters from the Department of Labor—

Unpaid wages? Call this number.

Unsafe work? Report it here.

Harassment? You are protected. But behind it all?

A Laminated Copy Of Your Signed Arbitration Agreement.

You waived your right to sue when you clocked in.

"You can opt out" they say.

Just ask your manager for the form.

The one no one has.

The one no one mentions.

The one you had 30 days to find;

Between learning the register and restocking bras by cup and brand.

The Wall Is Required By Law. So Is The Silence Behind It.

26. This Week’s Safety Topic

Proper Lifting Technique. Bend your knees, not your back. Team lifts for heavy items. Rest when needed. Hydrate. Be your brother’s keeper. Meanwhile: The Stairs To The Trash Are Five Welded Death Plates.

Stitched by a ghost on opening weekend. Each step a folded razor. They rattle like judgment beneath your steel-toed shoes. The trash chute: five feet up. You hoist bags over your head like sacrifices, Hope they make it in without tumbling back onto your spine. The welds are cosmetic. One good kick and they rise like drawbridges. Somethings stuck in the chute? Here's two metal poles duct taped together.

You Figure It Out. They say it’s fine. No incidents reported. Because No One Bothers To Report Bruises Anymore. The trash panel swings like judgment. Outward. Over the stairs. You walk up with a bag, and if you’re not careful—

It Bites.

They added gummy foam tape. A soft, merciful bandage on the edge of a guillotine. Not to fix the danger— Just to hush the blood. It has tasted flesh. The crest of a scalp. A pink slash across a forearm. Now it’s padded. Now it’s “safe.” Now it’s your fault.

27. “We Are Committed to Sustainability.”

Says the laminated break-room poster. As you "debit" a perfectly functional suit case. As you toss another plastic-wrapped hoodie into the bin. As you watch the compactor crush cardboard, plastic, and a half-eaten lunch into one glorious cube of lies.

Overseas hands fold it neat. Plastic over silk. Tape over tags. They ship it across oceans so we can rip it apart and throw half of it away. You pull Styrofoam from wall decor, And paper shreds from soap, Bottles that leaked somewhere between Singapore and Pasadena. You strip the bubble wrap, Wipe the shattered glass off a six-dollar candle, Protected only by hope and thin cardboard.

The Candles Survive. The People Don’t.

And the trash pile rises. Not in back. Not behind the scenes*.* But right here, In the fitting room, On the stores floor, In your lungs, Under your nails.

The Only Thing Recycled Is The Lie.

28. The Customers Rob Us Daily.

But the cameras point inward. One screen for every corner of your body, and all of them watching you. Not them. Never them. “Be alert,” says the poster. “Report suspicious behavior.” And below that: “250–2500 if it leads to an impact.” Not justice. Not truth. Just “impact.”

The cashiers are our front line. Smiling through suspicion. Checking twenties for counterfeits while rushing to beat the “speedy checkout” clock, Selling store credit cards to the very people the cameras won’t catch, And asking for five-star reviews, From customers who leave with three stolen items and a free pen. And if a wallet goes missing? It must have been the new guy. It always is.

“It’s not personal,” they say, as they review your locker contents, And check your bag on the way out.

Just procedure. Just policy. Just paranoia.

But when there's a pile of censors in a shoe, or a trash bag full of tags is missing? Silence.

The Eyes Of The Store Are Wide Open. And Still, They Only Look In One Direction.

29. The Name Tag: Convenience or Crosshair?

Everyone must wear a name tag. The stated purpose? “So customers know who to thank.” But the real function is faster escalation. Faster complaints. Faster identifications when things go wrong — no matter how vague or unfair the accusation. It is not a gesture of recognition. It is a prewritten accusation template: “Some guy named Alex was rude.” “The girl in red — I think her name was Sam — didn’t help me.” “Whatever her name was, it was on her chest. She rolled her eyes.”

The name tag is the shortest possible path between a moment of stress and a manager’s office. It is instant accountability with no room for context. It turns human interaction into customer-to-agent confrontation. You are no longer just a worker. You are a label, a scapegoat, a button to push when the world disappoints.

They tell you to smile.

To engage.

To wear your name with pride.

But everyone knows the truth:

It’s Not Your Name They Care About; It’s Who To Blame When The Refund Doesn’t Go Through.

30. The Water Bottle Policy

Your hydration is now a security risk. If it’s not crystal clear, they’ll ask you to uncap it. “It’s just procedure,” As they sniff your bottle for the scent of rebellion, Or worse — soda. So bring a see-through flask, Because God forbid you bring lemonade. That’s grounds for suspicion. They say it's about theft. But we all know it’s about control. Because nothing says “trust” like being told to open your drink, In front of someone holding a checklist.

We used to joke that Big Brother watched.

Now Big Brother Thinks You’re Hiding Vodka In Your Gatorade.

Meanwhile, the real thieves walk out the front door, With carts of merchandise and a smile for the cameras that never pan that way.

31. “Hi, Welcome To [Insert Store Name Here]."

"If I could have you pause for just a moment...”

A velvet rope. A security vest. A quick glance at a camera no one is watching. It’s not protection. It’s performance.

They greet everyone like a TSA agent who lost the plane.

"We’re controlling store entry to ensure a safe and secure shopping experience.”

Unless, of course, someone’s actually in danger. Then it’s “Policy says call the manager.” And the manager? They call the cops. Then it’s writing a report. Then they call corporate. It’s All Delay.

Like hanging velvet curtains in a burning theater. The thieves know this. They walk past the rope. Past the welcome. Right through the “security experience.” Carts full. Unbothered.

Because The Only People Being Managed

Are The Ones Who Work Here.

The show’s for them. Not the guests.

32. "Loud And Proud" - Surveillance as Spectacle

Every customer who walks into the store is met with a mandatory ritual: A scripted security greeting delivered by the Shortage Control Associate. It must be done "loud and proud." That’s the instruction.

Not just clearly — projected.

Not just scripted — performed.

So loud it echoes through the racks,

through the backroom,

through your soul.

You are not greeting customers.

You are declaring fealty to surveillance.

This isn’t safety. It’s ritualized theater. A performance for the camera. A constant ping to regular customers and workers, ignored by thieves: We Are Watching. And when actual theft happens? SCAs are told not to engage. Call a manager. Let it go. Say the line again.

Security is not for protection. It’s not even for deterrence.

It’s a costume, a choreography of authority that creates no power. Only presence. Only noise. Only the illusion that someone is in control.

33. Welcome to the Shortage Highway.

A pilgrimage you must take every time you clock out for lunch, for break, for breath. Walk the perimeter. Don’t stray. Don’t stop.

Smile.

You’re not allowed to just go. You must patrol. You must engage. You must high five — Not literally, of course. No touching. Just proximity marketing.

Look them in the eye.

Make them feel seen.

Make the theft feel harder.

This is not your time. Your break is not in sight. It’s borrowed surveillance. Miss a “high five”? Too quiet in your stride?

Someone will notice. Someone is noticing. T

his is the Retail way:

You will make contact. You will be a presence.

You will be visible. Even if your joy is not.

34. The Customer is Always Right.*

When they say it’s broken, you break the price.

When they say it’s missing, you remove the tag.

When they say it’s cheaper elsewhere, you believe.

The register bends. Policy flexes. Margins vanish.

*But when their kid needs to pee?

Now they’re suspects.

The bathroom is sacred. Too sacred for codes. No writing it down. No telling. Only escorting. You, the associate, become the key.

Not metaphorically.

Literally.

You must walk them to the door. You must punch in the code in full view as if secrecy lies in muscle memory. The code never changes. It’s on your fingers. Anyone watching can crack it. Everyone watching already has. But the theater is mandatory. They must believe it’s secure. You Must Perform Control

Even as the bathroom floods; Even as it smells like failure; Even as the soap dispenser screams for mercy.

Welcome to customer care.

Where you smile as you surrender.

Where you follow them to the bathroom

But cannot follow them to reason.

35. The Janitor Closet is Locked.

Not with a latch. Not with a handle. With the same Key-Ring that opens the safe. The money room. The vault of gods. To mop the vomit, you must be blessed. The code to touch bleach is the same as the code to touch cash. Security is absolute — when it concerns filth. The mop bucket must not fall into the wrong hands. The Swiffer pads are sacred texts. The toilet brush, a relic. Guard them well.

And yet, the door is still warped. The handle loose. The light flickers like a prophecy. Inside? One ancient vacuum, Half a gallon of generic “all-purpose,” And a broom with no head. The floor is wet with effort. The air is thick with Lysol and resignation. You clean it, but you can’t fix it.

The walls rot behind their holy lock.

But still — you are not trusted with open access.

Because this is retail,

And nothing is holy except the illusion of control.

36. The Grand Hall of Mirrors is closed.

A dozen doors. A maze of z-racks. Enough space for a ballet. Sealed With A Rolling Gate.

You see, trust costs money. So does supervision. So instead of staffing it, we lock it up — like a memory of what dignity looked like. In its place: Two tiny stalls built by compromise and lit like a lie. Just off the register — so close you can smell the returns. Each stall has a glowing LED, like a traffic light, meant to say: “Someone is here.”

But who? For how long? With how much merchandise?

No one knows.

The cameras glare, but never act. They are the unblinking gods of a crumbling Olympus. They bear witness. They do not interfere. The Scheduled “Check-Ins” Are Rituals. Performed without faith, Once every 30 minutes, Unless we forget. Theft happens in the meantime. Not out of malice, but invitation.

The room says: “This Company Doesn’t Care.” So why should you? The customers know. The workers know.

Only corporate pretends this isn't a performance of collapse.

And still, we ask people to smile, To suggestive sell, To read minds,

To Offer Service Where Even Structure Has Abandoned Us.

37. Even The Trash Is Under Lock, Camera, And Suspicion.

The janitor closet is locked with the same key as the store’s secure cash room— A symbolic conflation of trash and treasure. Taking out the garbage isn't a mindless chore: it's a controlled operation. You're expected to bring a partner. If you're alone, you're breaking protocol. You're expected to wait. A lead or manager is supposed to inspect every bag. You're expected to be watched. A camera directly overlooks the trash area — not for safety, but surveillance.

The implication is clear: Garbage Is A Potential Crime Scene. Every discarded hanger, broken fixture, or plastic wrap could conceal theft. Employees are trusted to fold hundred-dollar coats, operate pallet jacks, and open the store— But not to throw out a box unsupervised.

This Isn’t Protection. It’s Paranoia By Policy.

38. Standardized Chaos — The Illusion of Corporate Structure

Every few months, the store receives “updated flow” and “floor plan” directives — glossy PDFs, hastily printed diagrams, or vague bullet lists labeled as corporate strategy. These updates are identical for every store in the region; Galleria malls, Suburban outlets, Cramped city retail units; All treated as interchangeable puzzle pieces in a boardroom fantasy. But the map has no respect for the terrain.

The new plan might call for three tables where there's a fire exit. Or for expanded shoe racks in a department that hasn’t had full inventory in six months. They might list a location for men’s coats where walls don’t even exist. This mismatch births a contradiction:

Staff Are Given Rigid Expectations,

And Total Freedom — Simultaneously.

You are told to follow the plan. You are expected to interpret the plan. You are penalized when it fails. You are praised if it works — even if it only worked because you ignored it.

Thus emerges a culture where initiative is punished until it succeeds, and failure is blamed on lack of “common sense.”

There Is No Flow; Only Illusion.

There Is No Plan; Only Plausible Deniability.

39. Backlog as Blame — The Pathologization of Labor

When tasks pile up — markdowns missed, freight unprocessed, displays unfinished— the assumption is not logistical failure.

It is moral.

The Accusation Is Not "The Plan Didn't Work."

It's "You Didn’t Follow It Closely Enough."

Every error is retroactively cast as deviation. Not from a clear instruction — but from an imagined perfection that lives only in hindsight. If you had truly followed the process (which is mostly “common sense”) Then surely the backlog wouldn’t exist.

This Is Spiritual Gaslighting, Made Bureaucratic. The laborer is asked to confess to sins never named. The manager is forced to divine where their will was insufficient. The structure remains blameless. The spreadsheet stays clean. And when it doesn’t, someone’s heart wasn’t in it.

Even Success Is Not Proof Of Competence; Only A Delay Of The Next Reckoning.

40. The 4-Minute Fallacy — When Overperformance Becomes the Floor

The company preaches optimization like gospel. The story goes: "Once One Man Ran The Four-Minute Mile, Others Followed." What they don’t mention is None of them worked freight until 11 PM, then clocked in the next day at 7 AM. Success is not met with relief — it's met with re-calibration.

Do something faster than expected? Now that’s the new standard.

There is no bonus. No structural change. No surge in pay or support.

Only a nod of appreciation, and a new silent burden to carry alone.

They say you’ve “risen to the occasion,”

But forget that the occasion was a collapsing dam of understaffing, shipment backlog, and rotating expectations— none of which changed after your effort.

And still, you're told to be proud. To wear the broken record of your performance as a badge.

All while McDonald’s across the street is offering $8 more per hour, with benefits, free food, and no inventory audit.

You’re Told: "We’re A Family."

But The Kind Of Family That Borrows Your Labor And Forgets Your Name.

41. Scheduling: A Machine With No Driver

The labor hours are algorithmic;

Generated by a system that doesn’t know the store,

the team, or the workload;

It calculates hours like a machine balancing books;

With no memory of yesterday and no awareness of tomorrow;

And Yet, Corporate Calls It “Optimized.”

It’s then handed to managers — not as a plan, but as a limitation.

A puzzle with pieces missing, where any correction becomes their responsibility, but no error was ever truly theirs to begin with.

If the freight shipment is late, If coverage is short, If three workers call out and none can be replaced Blame falls not on the system, But on the person stuck translating it into a workable week.

And of course, there’s no way to check the logic. No insight into why hours were cut, Or why full-time staff were given part-time hours While new hires get 4-hour weeks to “balance the curve.” Associates are left waiting for final schedules that arrive days late.

Sometimes after the week has already begun.

Sometimes changed after they're already clocked in.

You Don’t Get Consistency; You Get Warnings.

You Don’t Get Planning; You Get A Guess And A Prayer.

All Of It Is Justified By A Number;

A Number No One In The Building Chose;

And No One In The Building Can Change.

42. Process Hours Without Process Thinking

Once upon a time, the store received its deliveries in the early dawn; 6 A.M. to 8 A.M.

Before the doors opened, Before customers flooded the floor,

Before anyone had to apologize for blocking the aisle with a steel battering ram.

It wasn’t perfect — but it was functional.

Freight cages could roll out cleanly. Backroom processing could begin without dodging strollers and carts. And resets, pulls, and tagging all had a head start.

Then one day,

Without Warning Or Explanation,

Shipping Times Were Changed To 11 A.M. To 1 P.M. No memo, no logistics justification, no staff consensus.

Just an order.

Now, deliveries arrive in the middle of the store’s peak — when sales need floor coverage, and the aisles are most congested. Backroom space fills with carts that can’t be processed. Cages clog the customer lanes. And associates must choose: Process freight or serve guests. And somehow,

The expectations remain identical.

Same freight goals. Same floor times. Same audit deadlines. As if time didn’t change. As if the customer traffic didn’t double. As if the building had doubled in size to accommodate both. But the truckers didn’t request this.

They’re now navigating Calexico to Riverside mid-day, through urban congestion and parking chaos.

Everyone Suffers; No One Benefits; And No One Explains.

It’s Not A System; It’s Just A Shift Of Burden; From Planners To Processors; From Paper To People.

43. The Cycle of Internal Conflict

The change in delivery times didn’t just disrupt process— It Set Departments Against Each Other. Back of House is told to move fast: Unload. Scan. Roll. Hang. Push freight onto the floor before the next truck arrives. Speed is Compliance**.** Speed is Praised**.** Speed is Posted. And so they rush. Clothes hit the racks sideways. Hangers backwards. Tags missing. Sets broken. Inventory miscounted.

Front of house is left with the fallout: Customers asking where the rest of the set is. Cashiers juggling damaged goods and security tags that won’t scan. Managers scrambling to recover broken shelves while prepping markdowns. And when recovery is rushed or mistakes are made?

Front gets blamed. Back blames floor. Floor blames back. The Cycle Feeds Itself. Everyone knows the Truth; It’s Not Any One Department’s Failure. It’s that the system expects perfection from chaos. Speed with no slack. Volume with no pause. And instead of fixing the structure, they watch the conflict.

Let Them Fight. It Keeps Them Busy.

And As Long As It Gets Done, Eventually,

Corporate Says The System Works.

44. The Olive Branch Illusion

To soothe the growing divide between Front of House and Back of House, corporate prescribes "shared labor policies" — symbolic gestures meant to show unity.

BOH staff are required to "recover the floor" for the first 15 minutes of their shift — a pause before touching the freight. FOH staff are expected to manage the Queue Cages — pushing freight from the registers to the back hallway cages while also handling customers and checkouts.

In Theory, This Promotes Empathy. In Practice, It Breeds Silent Resentment.

Back of House hates the floor recovery. They’re trained for speed, for volume; not hangers on the floor. They see it as beneath their pace. A fake chore that cuts into freight timing; One More Delay On An Already Impossible Clock.

Front of House dreads the queue cages. There are always more than there is space. They pile up fast — especially during rushes. No room to maneuver. No help. Just the slow crawl of dealing with inventory labeled fragile, valuable, or absurdly heavy, while being interrupted by customers every five seconds.

Then, suddenly—The back is ready for cages. All of them. Now. And It’s A Panic. Staff scramble to clear paths, relocate stock, or “make room” where there is none.

So, Neither Side Feels Helped; Only Used. What Was Sold As A Bridge; Becomes A Bitter Trade. Not Collaboration; But Obligation. Not Unity; But Another Invisible Metric No One Agreed To.

45. The Myth of the Backroom Printer

For over three years, the designated back-of-house printers — Meant for mass, consistent, actualization of missing tags— Have Remained Inoperable. Not once; not sporadically; Nonfunctional For Over 1,000 Days. Every support ticket submitted is closed or ignored. Every mention to management is met with the same shrug: “Yeah, we’ve put in another ticket.”

And so the markdown printers— Lightweight, Mobile, And designed only for price reduction labels; Are used for everything. They Were Not Built For This. They jam, they print slowly, but they're all we have.

This Isn’t A Store That Failed To Keep Up. It’s A Store That Has Adapted To Its Own Decay.

And still, deadlines loom. Still, expectations remain. Still, corporate metrics hold everyone accountable,

Still for results, not infrastructure.

The Printer Is Broken. The System Isn’t. It’s Functioning Exactly As Intended.

46. The Illusion Of Prevention

Everyone Knows.

The Thieves Know.

The Workers Know.

Even Corporate Knows.

Every Security Tag Comes Off With A Magnet.

You can buy one online. You can use one at home. You can walk into the dressing room with it and walk out clean. So why tag everything? Why spend hundreds of hours a week attaching them by hand?Because the tag isn't security. It's theater. It’s a prop in the surveillance show.

It says: We Are Watching. It says: Someone Cares. It makes you pause, makes you wonder, makes you hesitate. But It’s Fake. No alarms. No ink explosions. Just plastic and posturing.

Even the greeting rope at the entrance; That velvet line and cheerful hostage speech; It’s Not For You; It’s For The Cameras; It’s For Liability; It’s For The Show.

Because when real theft happens, when someone actually takes a cart full of goods out the door: The SCA doesn’t stop them; The manager won’t chase; The police don’t come.

What Matters Isn’t Stopping Loss. It’s Appearing To Try.

That’s the Corporation's real security strategy, Keep The Illusion Alive.

Make workers perform compliance.

Make customers believe in consequences.

Make corporate believe the illusion is working.

Until Someone Notices The Emperor Has No Tags.

47. Policy Over Performance

In Retail, the systems don’t need to work. They just need to look like they work.

Security Tags?

Easily bypassed with magnets.

Still applied by hand to hundreds of items a day.

Still locked up for employee use.

Surveillance Posters?

Hanging in the break room and back hall.

"You’re being watched."

Yet the most common thefts go completely unrecorded.

SCA Greetings?

“Loud and proud” recitations of control and security.

Repeated for every customer, often to empty air.

A form of vocal compliance, not a deterrent.

The Dressing Room?

One gated room sits locked 90% of the year.

A smaller two-stall is left open with a camera.

Neither stops the theft — because the schedule is what gets policed, not the risk.

The Floor Plan Updates?

Generic layouts from corporate;

Untailored to the actual store;

Staff are expected to follow them blindly;

Regardless of real conditions.

The Trash Inspections?

A camera watches you throw away literal garbage.

A manager is expected to verify every bag.

The same process is circumvented daily just to function.

Markdowns?

Labeled as "common sense," not logic.

Scanners beep three times before printing — and you can't scan while they do.

Name Tags?

Marketed as customer care.

Function as surveillance anchors.

Direct lines of accountability when accusations arise.

This is the Play-Acting Of Process,

Where every role is performed, Every beat rehearsed, But no one’s actually watching the show. Because what matters isn’t Efficiency, Isn’t Outcomes, Isn’t even Truth. What matters is the Appearance:

That you’re working hard; That corporate is in control; That someone has thought this through.

And If The Show Falls Apart, It’s Not Because The System Failed;

It’s Because You Didn’t Perform It Right.

48. AXIOMS OF THEATRICAL LABOR

1. The Costume Is The System

What you wear, say, and gesture matters more than what you do. A name tag creates trust. A lanyard creates hierarchy. A shirt tucked in signifies responsibility.

None of these affect outcomes, but all of them protect the illusion of structure.

2. The Script Is The Standard

Whether it functions or not, you must read your lines. Loudly greet at the door. Say "pause for just a moment" like you believe it. Print markdowns with patience, no matter how broken the scanner is. Say the name of the loyalty program every transaction.

If it fails, say it again.

3. The Stage Is Arbitrary

Floor plans arrive from nowhere. Corporate flow maps are copy-pasted from cities that don't resemble yours. Storage space is fiction. Queues overflow. Back rooms flood.

You are not asked to fix it. You are asked to make it look like it never broke.

4. The Audience Is Management

You're not performing for customers. You're performing for auditors, regional managers, camera reviews, and abstract expectations. You don't need to succeed. You need to be seen trying.

Appear busy. Appear precise. Appear productive.

If the metrics are wrong, it means you're not acting hard enough.

5. The Show Must Go On

No matter how broken the register, how wrong the shipment, how pointless the markdowns — continue. If you ask too many questions, you're slowing the rhythm. If you adjust the system, you're going off-script. If you find peace with coworkers, expect to be reassigned.

Harmony is the enemy of control.

6. The Applause Is Hollow

"You Made a Difference" cards. "Heartbeat of Our Store" certificates. Boards listing your fastest times. Points systems for candy. Recognition is a tool, not a gift. It exists to keep you performing.

It is given late. It is given vaguely. It is given only when performance matches fantasy

7. The Props Are Broken

Scanners that beep but don't register. Printers that never received support tickets. Security tags that do nothing. Locks that mean nothing. Cameras watching the wrong thing.

The sets are cardboard and tape. The actors are tired. But the show is still on.

8. The Director Is Absent

Policy comes from nowhere. You Must Obey. Exceptions are undefined. Expectations change without notice. The managers are caught in the same performance.

They cannot speak plainly. They can only pass along the next line in the script.

9. The Audience Leaves Before the Ending

No one is measuring what actually works. No one notices the fire exits that don’t close. No one sees the trash compactor injuries. No one checks the real backlog. The managers know. The workers know.

But the show isn't for them.

10. The Play Is a Lie

You are pretending to work. They are pretending to lead. The customers are pretending to believe.

All of it could be done better, With half the theater, And double the truth.

49. The Extraction of Humanity

1. When people make things work, the system breaks them to “optimize” the magic.

Friendships, rhythms, trust — these emerge naturally among teams over time. But once a store finds its footing through human effort, it is punished. High performers are relocated, promoted with conditions, or reassigned under vague “development plans,” severing the roots of community they helped grow.

2. “Stabilization” is not seen as success, but untapped capital.

A smooth-running store is viewed not as a testament to shared humanity, but as wasted potential. The logic follows: if things are working, you don’t need as many people, or you should split the talent to “scale it.”

This isn’t reward — it’s cannibalism.

3. Moments of peace are interpreted as inefficiency.

When workers laugh, breathe, collaborate without chaos — these are not cherished. They are audited. “How did you have time to be calm?” becomes the question. Joy is seen as excess.

Humanity; a margin to be shaved.

4- Promotions are used as surgical tools, not as growth pathways.

Advancement is never just a reward. It is conditional: “Are you willing to start over somewhere new? Can you drop what you’ve built to serve the brand elsewhere?” Promotions extract individuals from functioning teams to test their loyalty — not to recognize their achievement.

5- The system depends on people caring just enough to fix it, But Not Enough To Challenge It.

Every stabilizing figure is shipped out, self-limiting, or burned out. Every organic system of trust is repurposed or discarded. Every heartbeat is spent proving that people can make even this broken machine run — before the machine crushes them for it.

50. I’ve Stopped Pretending This Is Normal.

Because we can build something real.

Because we can work on something that doesn’t eat people to make numbers.

Because you asked me to become an enforcer for policies you won’t define, uphold a system you won’t fix, and sacrifice my joy for a story that doesn’t end well for anyone.

I'm not asking for the reasons behind these decisions.

I'm asking why they remain in face of failure time and time again?

This is not an attack. This is not an insult. It is a statement of Fact.

I hope you will do something meaningful with it.

—[Name Redacted] *Former Cart Cleaner, Unpaid Morale Officer

06/05/2025

Addendum - 06/07/2025

Inventory didn’t break because the numbers were wrong. It Broke Because The Process Had No Soul.

Associates were called in as early as 5:30 AM, expected to be alert and presentable for a morning meeting, then sent directly to their assigned zones. Both teams were made of competent people. Both Teams had the work experience.

Team A — Made up of close friends and coworkers who trusted each other — cruised through their section laughing.

Team B — Mostly strangers corralled together under quiet suspicion; stumbled through the chaos as best as they could muster.

Team A would eventually be conscripted to fill in the gaps Team B Left.

Breaks and lunches had been preassigned on slips of paper, And you were expected to follow them without reminders. If You Forgot Your Time, You Missed It. But when it came time to log into the scanning devices? You were just expected to know your “user ID.” Or have the app. Or already be logged in. A login no one uses — except once a year.

For Inventory

If you were part of the unlucky audit group, You were held all the way until 3:58 PM — Nearly eleven hours on your feet with little clarity, little direction, and very little food. One coworker quit halfway through the day,

Not in Rage;

Not In Theater;

Whispering “I can’t do this anymore..” On The Stairwell.

Another nearly walked out hours later,

Tired,

Furious,

Only persuaded to stay when a peer — without any actual authority — told him to just leave. Eight people were held late not for real error — but because a flawed system claimed their zones hadn’t reached the 10% threshold. We scanned the same items again and again.

The numbers bounced around — 5%, 4%, 7% — never matching, never budging. The count was correct. The audits were done. But the machine didn’t believe us. The Section was scanned several times. By several hands. The store is bleeding money in overtime. All for a bureaucratic digital checkbox.

And then, Without ceremony,

Someone

Not a manager, Not the designated lead, Decided on scanning just one item from each blocked zone. A count even the system couldn’t misread. And Just Like That: The System Blinked. “10% Reached.”

Management Cheered. From the office. Over The Radio. That was it. We were done.

It Had Never Been About Accuracy — Just Compliance.

The promised donuts never came. But the bakery still did — six marked-down pastries brought in by someone who thought tradition was still worth something. No one asked them to. No one had to.

That was the real shape of the day:

Broken Systems. Barely Held Together. By Human Beings Choosing To Care Anyway.

And when it finally ended, There was no speech, No moment of acknowledgment, No thank-you for the ten-hour shift, The patience, The overtime, Or the restraint it took not to scream.

Just a single question, tossed over the noise like it meant something:

“Did Everyone Return The Devices?”

That was our finale.

So What Now?

Grab your torch and pitchfork? Throw the brick? Firebomb the Walmart?

No.

We’ve seen that story. Over and over. It Always Ends Right Back Where It Started. I don't accept the premise that a better world is only possible through justified murder. If you want this time to be different, it has to start with people speaking their peace — Not holding it in for the sake of comfort, or politeness, or fear.

Everyone’s waiting for Tyler Durden or Guy Fawkes to show up and give permission to resist. "Who’s gonna take the shot?" "Where’s the revolution?" They’re not coming. And you don’t need them.

How are you gonna fight for a better world if you won’t even talk politics at Thanksgiving? You don’t hate your family — you hate what you think they believe. You don’t hate your boss — you hate what they enforce. And you project that anger as intent, that structure as malice. You want a kinder world? Be Kinder. You want a more honest world? Start Speaking Up. And if you don’t believe in a rule — Don’t Enforce It. Stop mistaking silence for safety. Stop mistaking obedience for neutrality.

You are not a cog. You are not a drone. You are not exempt.

If someone has to be first, let it be you.

And if you’re sure, If you’ve looked at your truth and chosen it; Then you have nothing to fear in defending it. You have nothing to fear from saying it out loud. They can challenge you. Let them.

Because If You're Right, You Won’t Need Permission.

So that’s the sermon. No altar call. No revolution manifest. No dramatic ending. No brick. No firebomb. Just a mirror. Just a reminder: You Already Know What’s Right.

Now Act Like It.

If you want a better world: Shape it. If you're sure: Say It. And if you’re not sure: Say That Too.

Don’t enforce rules you don’t believe in. Don’t stay silent just because no one else is speaking up.

You don’t need a Revolution. You need a Backbone.

But if you’re still figuring out what that means, Here’s four silly songs that helped me get here —

one scream, one shrug, one sigh, and one sitcom, Take what you need. Leave the rest.

Start Talking. And For Your Sake,

Stop Waiting For Someone To Tell You What To Do

[reality-detective]

Are YOU on the DHS’s “Extremist” List?

The DHS has turned against the people. Critical thinkers like YOU are being labeled “extremists.” Surveillance hubs, tools like Albert Sensors, and entities like Fusion Centers are watching your every move. This is NOT about safety—it’s about CONTROL.

If you question authority, challenge mandates, or stand for your freedoms, YOU’RE ALREADY ON THEIR RADAR. And guess what? So am I. Proudly. But this isn’t just about us—it’s about dismantling a corrupt system before it’s too late.

Fusion Centers: The Orwellian Nightmare

They claim to “prevent terrorism,” but Fusion Centers have become surveillance hubs tracking YOU—the average American. These centers may even monitor real-time election data, controlling the very democracy they pretend to protect.

Albert Sensors & Cradlepoint Routers: Trojan Horses

These so-called “cybersecurity tools” funnel data straight to DHS databases. Worse, many Cradlepoint routers come from China, a nation infamous for surveillance. Why are these devices in our critical infrastructure? What backdoors exist? Who’s watching YOU?

CISA: The Silencer of Dissent

Under the guise of “cybersecurity,” CISA flags opinions, controls narratives, and labels truth-seekers as “disinformers.” This isn’t protection—it’s suppression.

DHS’s True Target: YOU

According to internal memos, DHS targets those questioning elections, mandates, and policies. By branding concerned citizens as threats, they spread fear to suppress dissent. But WE WILL NOT BE SILENCED.

The Solution: Revolution, Not Reform

The DHS is beyond repair. Here’s what must happen:

Abolish Fusion Centers, CISA, and CIS—their surveillance and overreach are cancerous.

Eliminate Albert Sensors and Cradlepoint routers—investigate their misuse and secure our systems.

Demand oversight—no program should exist without public scrutiny.

This isn’t reform—it’s a takedown.

America at a Tipping Point

Liberty cannot survive under constant surveillance. If you value freedom, if you dare to think for yourself, wear their labels as a badge of honor. But don’t stop there.

Speak out. Fight back. Take action. The DHS must be dismantled, and its power returned to the people. This is OUR country, not theirs.

The storm is here... Will you rise? 🤔

[bitchymanlet]

Is Erwin Leftist or Fascist?

I'm basically expanding on what I've already posted on twitter about this.

The fandom seems to be pretty split on whether Erwin would be a Jaegerist or not—I've even seen fans going so far as to say he'd be a Trump supporter in the modern day. These could just be trolls or ignorant teenagers (both?) spewing this bs, but let's be clear,

Overthrowing the government does not indicate leftist or right-wing policy.

One of the most common rebuttals I see to the argument that Erwin is fascist is: "But he overthrew the government!" My guess is they think of revolutions by the people, such as the French and Russian ones, which were progressive, left-wing. But fascists do hostile takeovers too, such as the Blackshirts in Italy, and the January 6th Insurrection (the latter being a failed attempt at one).

Instead of using Erwin's staged coup as evidence that he is leftist, let's look into the reasons why he's Not Fascist.

He values intellectualism. We see in the text that Erwin supports and sees the value in Hange's titan research, and he believes the people deserve to know the truth, ie freedom of press—he was kept in the dark about the truth of their world, and he spent his whole life seeking the truth so that it could be shared with everyone. Fascists don't want thinkers, they want obedience.

Erwin allows those below his station to speak and think freely. We see how Levi, his subordinate, speaks to him informally and to other high-ranking military officials right in front of Erwin, but Erwin doesn't reprimand him or even punish him for his transgressions, because he respects him (an uneducated riffraff from the underground) as an equal. He allows 15 year old fresh out of the Cadet Corps Armin to speak up about his hunches, make suggestions, and he even let Armin give more experienced Scouts orders during their most pivotal battle in the history of the Survey Corps. He encourages his Scouts to question what they're fighting for and who their true enemies are rather than flat-out telling them. Unlike Fascists, he doesn't seem to enforce social hierarchy or genetic superiority of any kind.

He doesn't demonize The Other or motivate his soldiers with fear. He's doesn't rally his soldiers by proclaiming that humans are superior to titans and that they must crush them to assert humanity's dominance and superiority—he doesn't possess a hatred for titans like Eren does. He sees them more as obstacles to finding the truth. A core belief to fascists is proving that they are the chosen ones who will beat down the inhuman degenerates beneath them. He shows no sense of innate superiority.

We can't say for sure if he would be a Jaegerist because he died before all of that, but it is extremely unlikely given his aforementioned anti-fascist qualities. Why would he ever fall for Eren and Zeke's plot? Erwin is certainly smarter than Eren, but Zeke is a competent leader and strategist himself. However, what Zeke lacks that Erwin didn't is Hope. Erwin didn't give up on humanity like Zeke did, instead he valued and sought after knowledge. He saw failures and tragedies as learning opportunities and steps to a better outcome. Suffice it to say, he's not hateful or nihilistic enough to be on either of the Jaeger brothers' side, he'd think of a better solution than revenge or no babies.

So we can deduce that he is not a Fascist.

But is he a Leftist?

Back to the coup de'tat, Erwin staged it not to subjugate civilians, execute his opposers and instate military rule (what fascists do), but to live on to find the truth. That was it. Being a Scout granted him the freedom to venture outside of the walls and to learn more about their world and about the titans. If the Survey Corps dissolved and he got hanged, then the truth would possibly never come to light. The previous government would execute people for trying to leave and seek the truth. Erwin elevating Historia as the rightful monarch and, as a result, the people learning that the former monarch was a fake and that they have been lied to was just a nice bonus. Not why he did it.

There's little evidence for his personal political beliefs, as much of his character arc revolves around him Getting Closer To The Truth. If he were a leftist, he would show support for the common man's struggle and a disdain for the ruling class (like woke class-conscious king Levi). If his coup were politically motivated (in a progressive way), he would have started a revolution to free the people from the king's tyranny, he might have even called for the eradication of the crown altogether and touted democracy and the redistribution of wealth. Instead, he showed uncertainty and remorse for his coup, not confidence that he'd done the right thing for humanity's sake.

Again, Erwin was only saving his own skin so that he could find out what was in Eren's basement. He didn't feel strongly about dismantling the system and creating a more equitable government, which would be leftist. Rather, he feels more comfortable with upholding the status quo while also maintaining individual liberty.

Ergo, based on canon events, I don't think Erwin is a leftist or a fascist, I think he's a liberal.

[the-garbanzo-annex-jr]

by David Christopher Kaufman

Once again, unlike any other minority group, Jews are being tasked with sacrificing our own best interests for the sake of others, including those who have advocated for our extermination. And we’re being told to do so by leaders, such as Rother, supposedly for our own good. It’s disgusting.  

Jews are under no obligation to advocate on behalf of Mahmoud Khalil 

Make no mistake: It’s not our job as Jews, currently the most maligned and imperiled minority group in America, to advocate on behalf of Mahmoud Khalil nor of any terror-aligned jihadi who has run afoul of established Western codes of conduct. 

Almost no one asked African-Americans during the height of the #blm protests to account for, say, the sentiments of whites who did not support their agenda. 

Oh wait, The New York Times did so when it ran an op-ed by Sen. Tom Cotton suggesting that the US National Guard be called in to quell the mayhem. The editor of the Times Opinion section was promptly terminated. 

Of course, Jews who believe that hardline administration policies threaten US civil liberties can and should make their voices heard; that’s the beauty of America. But to claim that doing so is for the sake of Jews themselves is nothing short of perverse. 

It’s also lazy, dishonest, and disingenuous. President Rother of Wesleyan said in the Times that “For Jews, a number of [Administration] agendas... pose a direct threat to the very people they purport to help; Jews who applaud the... crackdown will soon find that they do so at their peril.”

What about the peril posed by the creeping jihadi presence on college campuses or the weaponization of identity politics against Jewish professionals and students? 

Or the increasing instances of job applicants with “Jewish-sounding” names unable to find work. At least according to thinkers like Rother or Tomkin, it seems that those are problems Jews cannot solve, nor should they – unlike the fate of Khalil. 

Because just like the political pickle the Hamas supporter now finds himself in, these are not problems created by Jews in the first place. 

[centrally-unplanned]

I know, I am really on a "mocking Tyler Cowen" kick, I will move on from this soon. I just think the ways he is failing these days is very symptomatic of the zeitgeist faux-intellectualism and the ways thinkers are struggling to slot into an openly anti-intellectual movement.

He starts with "USAID is probably good", but in a very compliment-sandwich way. You taught me what a Straussian read is my dear Cowen, so when your "it is good" section is two lines of link dumps, and the rest of the piece is criticism, I am getting the message. So let us set that part aside and dig into those criticisms:

To be clear, I consider this kind of thing to be scandalous.  And I strongly suspect that some of the other outrage anecdotes are true, though they are hard to confirm, or not

The link is to the think tank The Urban Institute putting out a donation call because 1/3rd of its budget is from the Federal government. Which is scandalous...because...uh, why? It is the Urban Institute. They analyze government policy for hire. Their biggest customer is the government. What the fuck? Their latest research - just chosen randomly, top of the list - is an impact evaluation of a program to help at-risk youths graduate high school. Is that bad now?? Does Tyler Cowen no longer think impact evaluations of policy are good??

Imagine describing consulting firms this way: "Oil Well Advisors has hit significant headwinds now that Exxon Mobile is suspending all outside contractors", is that a scandal? Or just absolutely normal behavior for industries with large institutional clients? What is the alternative here? Does he want - in a post subtly praising the Trump Admin - the government to in-house all impact evaluations? I don't disagree that they should do more but, uh, read the room buddy?

I know I am harping on this point but I really wanna emphasize how much of a bad writing call this is - taking an actually insane position (orgs specializing in government contracts shouldn't exist lmao) and because it is so indefensible you instead just handwave it as obvious so the audience maybe doesn't notice. Very cringe.

Okay, moving on:

It does seem Nina Jankowicz and her work received funding, and that I find hard to justify.  It seems to be evidence for something broken in the process. 

The money went to her work with the Center for Information Resilience, which does investigative reporting on war crimes like in the Ukraine War. Maybe her project sucked, I don't even know, but come on. This is incredibly normal behavior for USAID.

 Or how about funds to the BBC?

You mean the BBC Media Action charity, which trains journalists and helps build out mobile & communication networks in developing countries? Should the US build 100% of its own orgs and never fund effective, international partners from US allies? Is that a coherent foreign policy goal I can just wave my hands about and never explain because it is so obvious?

He then goes into the "reforming USAID" angle:

The Samo piece is excellent.  For one thing he notes: “The agency primarily uses a funding model which pays by hours worked, thus incentivizing long-duration projects.”  And the very smart Samantha Power, appointed by Biden to run AID, “…is in favor of disrupting the contractor ecosystem.”  Samo also discusses all the restrictions that require American contractors to be involved. Here is a study on how to reform AID, I have not yet read it.

Which is totally fine, I agree if I ran USAID I could totally like boost efficiency by 50%. I bet a lot of spending is inefficient. But why are you pretending that the current admin is, in any way, aiming for technocratic reform?

Why bother bringing this thread up? That isn't what they are doing! It isn't relevant.

I love this classic trick:

According to the very smart, non-lunatic Charlie Robertson: "My data suggests US AID flows in 2024 were equivalent to: 93% of Somalia’s government revenues, 61% in Sudan, just over 50% in South Sudan and Yemen" While I do not take cutting off those flows lightly, that seems unsustainable and also wrong to me as a matter of USG policy.  Those do not seem like viable enterprises to me.

You can think whatever you want is wrong, your call. But unsustainable? All of USAID is half a percent of the federal government. Payments to Somalia are a rounding error. This is the definition of sustainable! You could run this forever and never even notice.

But okay, maybe you mean like it is creating a culture of dependency or somesuch, not the same thing but I will humor you. Let's look at the latest USAID impact assessment of their work in Somalia:

Oh whoops, looks like our ability to even evaluate programs has been stripped away by the current admin's mass purging of databases like impact assessment reports! Fortunately I have the Wayback Machine, so I can get around this:

"Culture of dependency" this money went to food and clean water for starving people. You can say whatever you want about priorities and all that shit. That it is "unsustainable". But if someone doesn't do this then some of these people die. I notice "let them die" does not appear in your bloodless discussion of "aid dependency". Maybe we should cut aid because they will be forced to get their state together and be better off in the long run. I understand that logic, I really do, you can make that case.

But fucking say it. Say "let them die" to my face. Man the fuck up.

Alright, last one since this is going on too long:

There are various reports of AID spending billions to help overthrow Assad. I cannot easily assess this matter, either whether the outcomes was good or whether AID mattered, but perhaps (assuming it was effective) such actions should be taken by a different agency or institution?

I love this one because it is a peak "attack of opportunity" moment. At the beginning of this very post he says this:

Here is a Samo analysis...The Samo piece is excellent. 

The linked piece, by the Samo Burja, is this:

The piece, to clarify, explains that USAID is not an aid agency, but fundamentally an extension of US foreign policy and conducts itself to achieve foreign policy goals. That this is its explicit, stated purpose. And Tyler Cowen says it is a great piece.

And then proceeds to say that pursuing those goals in Syria should maybe be at a different agency because that isn't "aid".

Bro you don't give a rat's ass about that! You just wanted to score points, you don't care about this at all. It was just on the list, you didn't even think about it, you just said something that sounded plausible. It is pathetic, you don't have to comment on every headline if you don't have a hot take. Just post a meme instead like a normal person.

But he does have to comment, because this post exists to ingratiate himself to the vibe shift. It as transparent as it is embarrassing - it is so limp-wristed, saying things like "the 'Elonsphere' on Twitter is very much exaggerating the horror anecdotes" when their most viral claims are just naked fabrications. Come on, man. You used to be better than this.

[not-terezi-pyrope]

One thing I hate about modern politics is how compulsive factional flag-planting by the right in an attempt to make everything into a wedge issue for their base leads to the near universal politicization of what are just... Straightforwardly, obviously good ideas. Politics in the US (and tbh a lot of other places) is like:

Scientists: hey so we've discovered a new type of cereal that prevents the disease that makes babies explode. if we started selling it in stores it would save the economy 2 trillion dollars in explosion damage and also it would stop babies from exploding

Liberal politician: huh, sounds neat. you guys interested in the like, uh, anti explosion cereal?

Public: yeah, sure, we like babies

Liberal politician: cool, well in that case-

Conservative thinker (dude with a YouTube podcast that at least five senators secretly watch): -WAIT! STOP! THIS IS A PROPOSAL BY THE EVIL LIBERALS! IT'S A LEFTIST PLOT TO DEPRIVE YOUR CHILDREN OF THE RIGHT TO EXPLODE!

Half the fucking public for some reason: by tarnation, he has the same prejudices as my pops so he must have a point! Can't let those fucking libs get their agenda through!

News anchor, six months later: ...and in other news, the controversial "stop babies exploding" bill, currently polling nationally at 56 points in favour, was blocked in the liberal-lead senate by the conservatives and a liberal minority leading a revolt against their own party's policy. In response, the liberal party president is said to be drafting a modified version of the bill that promises means-tested access to the cereal that stops babies exploding to a randomized subset of 1% of baby and non-baby residents in five test constituencies. The new bill is expected to fail to pass the house some time in the next five years.

[warsofasoiaf]

You're massively overthinking things. It simply boils down to Americans being sick of forever wars as the world's police, picking Trump in 16 over the Bush-party and the establishment SecState, taking-credit-for-Libya Clinton, and in 24, because they have zero interest in tax dollars (or worse) being spent on a corruptocrat bullshit country fighting one with nukes & oil. Trump is simply not smart or prudent enough to refrain from getting hyperbolic in rejecting the anti-Putin mania.

Your hard-on for Putin also has you looking at concessions as "things you don't want Putin to have" instead of "things that might cost AMERICA less than funding the Keystone Kops civil war". How many times do Trump & his supporters have to say "America first" before you get that's what they mean, not "sure, America, but also we have to solve this international issue I did my thesis on/have a consulting job lined up concerning/etc..." that every foreign policy "expert" says is a priority? Final point: "The 80s called, they want their foreign policy back" - the last 100% mentally there POTUS, campaigning for re-election, which he won despite being black, and telling Medvedev on a hot mike that he'd be able to help more in his second term. Making 3 of the last 4 elections where Americans picked the not-fighting-Russia guy. Sorry Ukraine, but maybe don't go bullying ethnic Russian citizens next time. "It does not do to leave a dragon out of your calculations if you live near him."

LOL, this is amazing. Ukraine's corruption is a relic of the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation - they actually want to be our ally.

Public polling said that inflation was a primary concern and that among Americans, they largely were supportive of Ukraine, rather than Russia. People wanted Trump in 16 because they were tired of being condescended to. And let's not forget, in a climate with >5% inflation, Trump squeaked by with 1.4%. He was given the 2024 election on a silver platter and he still managed to almost fuck it up. You're out of touch, deep in your Twitter echo chamber. Touch grass, boyo.

Forever war? Trump is openly fetishizing invading Greenland, Canada, and Panama. He's the forever war candidate butthurt that his current legacy is "the second guy that was a non-consecutive President but also got impeached because he was a little snowflake scared about losing an election that he tried to get oppo dirt."

I'll believe that Trump is "America First" when he actually starts doing policies that benefit Americans. Because right now, he's driving up inflation and driving down the stock market with tariff threats. Cost America less? Idiot wants to ram through 4.5 trillion worth of tax cuts and explode the deficit so don't tell me he cares about fiscal responsibility. Ukraine aid is spent here, in the US, spent at the Lima Plant modernizing our military. That's stuff that actually makes the US stronger. Meanwhile Trump is talking about trying to open up trade with Russia - and torpedoing trade with Europe (a larger partner) to do it. He wants the US to finance Russian reconstruction, the same Russians that tried to kill us in Khasham and that regularly arrest US citizens on flimsy charges so that they can extract concessions via hostage diplomacy. That's not caring about Americans - that's a "Russia First, America after" policy.

Ukraine bullying ethnic Russians. That's fucking rich. Boo-hoo, the ethnic Russians in Ukraine are big sad that everyone doesn't tell them that Russia is the biggest and best boy ever. Cry more, loser.

Try again, buddy! Maybe do some research instead of swallowing Russian propaganda wholesale and believing it makes you a free thinker.

-SLAL

[mariacallous]

He’s not a famous name in the wider world, but copyright lawyer Mark Lemley is equal parts revered and feared within certain tech circles. TechDirt recently described him as a “Lebron James/Michael Jordan”-level legal thinker. A professor at Stanford, counsel at an IP-focused law firm in the Bay Area, and one of the 10 most-cited legal scholars of all time, Lemley is exactly the kind of person Silicon Valley heavyweights want on their side. Meta, however, has officially lost him.

Earlier this month, Lemley announced he was no longer going to defend the tech giant in Kadrey v. Meta, a lawsuit filed by a group of authors who allege the tech giant violated copyright law by training its AI tools on their books without their permission. The fact that he quit is a big deal. I wondered if it had something to do with how the case was going—but then I checked social media.

Lemley said on LinkedIn and Bluesky that he still believes Meta should win the lawsuit, and he wasn’t bowing out because of the merits of the case. Instead, he’d “fired” Meta because of what he characterized as the company and its CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s “descent into toxic masculinity and Neo-Nazi madness.” The move came on the heels of major policy shifts at Meta, including changes to its hateful conduct rules that now allow users to call gay and trans people “mentally ill.”

In a phone conversation, Lemley explained what motivated his decision to quit, and where he sees the broader legal landscape on AI and copyright going, including his suspicion that OpenAI may settle with The New York Times.

This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

Kate Knibbs: Could you go into more detail about how you arrived at your decision to quit representing Meta? What was the deciding factor?

Mark Lemley: I am very troubled by the direction in which the country is going, and I am particularly troubled that a number of folks in the tech industry seem to be willing to go along with it, no matter how extreme it gets. A number of policy changes struck me as things that I would not personally want to be associated with, from the full-throated endorsement of Trump, to the systematic cutting-back on protections for LGBTQ people, to the elimination of DEI programs. All of this is a pattern, I think, that seems to be following what we saw with Elon Musk a couple of years ago. We've seen where that path leads, and it's not somewhere good. Mark Zuckerberg is, of course, free to do whatever he wants to do, but I decided that that wasn't something I wanted to be associated with.

Did Meta make an effort to keep you? Did Zuckerberg say anything to you?

I’ve not had any conversation with Mark Zuckerberg, ever. But any internal conversations that were had is something I probably should not talk about.

Especially right now, it’s apparent that Zuckerberg isn’t the only tech mogul aligning himself with Trump. As you mentioned, Elon Musk comes to mind. But there are a lot of very powerful people in Silicon Valley who are pivoting hard towards MAGA policies. Do you have a list, now, of people you’d say no to representing? How are you approaching this?

I did think Zuckerberg and Musk have been particularly egregious in their behavior. But one of the nice things about being in the position I'm in—having a full-time job teaching rather than practicing law—is that I have probably greater freedom than a lot of people to say I don't need to take that money. Do I have a list? No, absolutely not.

But if you decide that the thing to do with your brand is to associate it with moves towards fascism, that is a decision that ought to have consequences. One of the challenges that a lot of people have is they don't feel that they can speak up, because it's going to cost them personally. So I think it's all the more important for people who can bear that cost to do so.

What has the reaction been like?

When I made this as a personal decision, I decided I should say something about it on social media, both because I thought it was important to explain why I was doing it, and also to explain that it wasn't a function of anything in the case, or my views about the case. I had no idea what I was in for, in terms of the reaction. It's been quite remarkable and overwhelmingly positive. There are plenty of trolls who think I'm an idiot and a libtard. But so far, no death threats, which is a welcome improvement from the past.

Have you heard from people who might follow in your footsteps?

This struck such a nerve, and there are obviously a lot of people who feel that they don't have the power to tell Meta or anyone else to go away, or to stand up for things that they think, and that's unfortunate.

I know your position remains that Meta is still on the right in its AI copyright disputes. But are there any cases in which you think the plaintiffs have a stronger argument?

The strongest arguments are the ones where the output of a work ends up being substantially similar to a particular copyrighted input. Most of the time, when that happens, it happens by accident or because they didn't do a good enough job trying to fix the problems that lead to it. But sometimes, it might be unavoidable. Turns out, it’s hard to purge all references to Mickey Mouse from your AI dataset, for instance. If people want to try to generate a Mickey Mouse image, it's often possible to do something that looks like Mickey Mouse. So there are a set of issues that might create copyright problems, but they're mostly not the ones currently being litigated.

The one exception to that is the UMG v. Anthropic case, because at least early on, earlier versions of Anthropic would generate the song lyrics for songs in the output. That's a problem. The current status of that case is they've put safeguards in place to try to prevent that from happening, and the parties have sort of agreed that, pending the resolution of the case, those safeguards are sufficient, so they're no longer seeking a preliminary injunction.

At the end of the day, the harder question for the AI companies is not is it legal to engage in training? It’s what do you do when your AI generates output that is too similar to a particular work?

Do you expect the majority of these cases to go to trial, or do you see settlements on the horizon?

There may well be some settlements. Where I expect to see settlements is with big players who either have large swaths of content or content that's particularly valuable. The New York Times might end up with a settlement, and with a licensing deal, perhaps where OpenAI pays money to use New York Times content.

There's enough money at stake that we're probably going to get at least some judgments that set the parameters. The class-action plaintiffs, my sense is they have stars in their eyes. There are lots of class actions, and my guess is that the defendants are going to be resisting those and hoping to win on summary judgment. It's not obvious that they go to trial. The Supreme Court in the Google v. Oracle case nudged fair-use law very strongly in the direction of being resolved on summary judgment, not in front of a jury. I think the AI companies are going to try very hard to get those cases decided on summary judgment.

Why would it be better for them to win on summary judgment versus a jury verdict?

It's quicker and it's cheaper than going to trial. And AI companies are worried that they're not going to be viewed as popular, that a lot of people are going to think, Oh, you made a copy of the work that should be illegal and not dig into the details of the fair-use doctrine.

There have been lots of deals between AI companies and media outlets, content providers, and other rights holders. Most of the time, these deals appear to be more about search than foundational models, or at least that’s how it’s been described to me. In your opinion, is licensing content to be used in AI search engines—where answers are sourced by retrieval augmented generation or RAG—something that’s legally obligatory? Why are they doing it this way?

If you're using retrieval augmented generation on targeted, specific content, then your fair-use argument gets more challenging. It's much more likely that AI-generated search is going to generate text taken directly from one particular source in the output, and that's much less likely to be a fair use. I mean, it could be—but the risky area is that it’s much more likely to be competing with the original source material. If instead of directing people to a New York Times story, I give them my AI prompt that uses RAG to take the text straight out of that New York Times story, that does seem like a substitution that could harm the New York Times. Legal risk is greater for the AI company.

What do you want people to know about the generative AI copyright fights that they might not already know, or they might have been misinformed about?

The thing that I hear most often that's wrong as a technical matter is this concept that these are just plagiarism machines. All they're doing is taking my stuff and then grinding it back out in the form of text and responses. I hear a lot of artists say that, and I hear a lot of lay people say that, and it's just not right as a technical matter. You can decide if generative AI is good or bad. You can decide it's lawful or unlawful. But it really is a fundamentally new thing we have not experienced before. The fact that it needs to train on a bunch of content to understand how sentences work, how arguments work, and to understand various facts about the world doesn't mean it's just kind of copying and pasting things or creating a collage. It really is generating things that nobody could expect or predict, and it's giving us a lot of new content. I think that's important and valuable.