So we are arguing about how we should pay for it instead of trying to figure out why it's so damned expensive.
It's so damn expensive because we've tried to force fit ideology into it.
Housing is so expensive because we've allowed uncontrolled access to credit, and allowed it to people who never should have had it. That started a megaflation of housing prices.
We have a mutant health care system where people without insurance get their basic healthcare at emergency rooms - the most expensive healthcare on the planet, then the costs, which tehy obviously don't pay are just transferred up teh line, and basic services for the insured are inflated to cover the emergency room healthcare, which is passed on to the insurance companies, who then have to raise insurance rates, which causes more people to enter teh uninsured realm, when makes those people have to go to the emergency rooms for basic healthcare which...... Makes for a perfect example of a positive feedback loop, which never works.
We've demanded that there be no increase in the minimum wage for a long enough time - long enough for all of the basic living expenses to inflate, so that now the grunts working for WalMart and all the other cheap labor giants - are eligible for supplemental benefits. Which you and I pay for in taxes. So we end up with a mutant system that has free market anti-government people who support WalMart's ideology while at the same time supporting WalMart's corporate welfare.
We have people who insist that these are all starting level jobs, never to be made a living off of. It's funny, but growing up, There were lots of people I knew working in the downtown department stores who were making a living off of it. Of course, My father paid around 12 percent of his take home pay on his mortgage. Mine sucked up 50 percent of my take home, and apparently many people were paing much much more.
We have been sold a bill of goods that tells us that if we just apply ourselves, we can be anything we decide we want to be. Which sure as Spandex is a nasty soul crushing lie. Yet trotted out as a meme for anyone who thinks that some of the folks at McDonalds are capable of being rocket scientists, and the only reason they aren't is that they are too lazy.
Then we have this case, where people are refusing to work for the wages offered, and some wag bitches about "Nobody is holding a gun to their head.
That's true, as evidenced by them doing what he says they should do, then pissing and moaning when they do what he says they should do.
When in fact, we either have to help them, or allow them to help themselves. Or just euthanize them. Some of us have a real problem with that last idea. I think there are a fair number of Americans who don't.
This is a libertarian insight that the rest of the political spectrum (me, I'm a moderate rather than a libertarian asshole, but they do occasionally have some partial insight, so you ought to at least read what they have to say and dismiss maybe 80% of it that's nonsense and assimilate the 20% nugget of truth out of the turd) could learn: costs increase the fastest in sectors that are the most regulated.
Hmm, now you have my attention. Perhaps the Bay area is so socialist bureaucracy regulated where the forms have to be filled out with a certain brand pen, but here in the Right coast, we had a different issue, based on lack of regulation.
As an example, My father's mortgage on his house was originated at the local First National Bank. Every payment was made to the local First National Bank. When it was finished, he picked up the Mortgage papers there.
Contrast that with mine. We had a "loan originator" who got paid by how many mortgages he "originated" He couldn't give a flying fig if we were agtually eligible. In fact he was surprised at how good our credit rating was. So we got really great rates. But not everyone did. And our Mortgage was sold a number of times to other banks. Anyh
Leaving the weak to die isn't something a civilized society should do.
It's one of the crazy ideas that conservatives have that just don't work.
It's similar to the concept that we have to get tough on crime yet refusing to fund prisons.
Poor people just need to be rich, and the only difference between that special needs kid next door and Elon Musk is that the kid doesn't apply himself.
In fact, th eultimate non-solution by the conservatives and libertarians is "I don't want this problem, can't thos people just go away and die?"
This is why so many ideaologies end up deciding that they have to turn on their own people and murder them for their own good.
Because after all, how else can the ideology cope.
Again, where's the gun to their head to do this contract job?
Maybe that's why they are refusing to do it for that wage? Seems like they are doing what you think they should do, and yet you're bitching about them doing what you say they should do.
Ohh, I see...... the dreaded word "strike".
Never mind. I understand your problem with them, and where you are coming from.
The Russian contingent of Slashdot is going crazy! This cannot be allowed!
Quick, to the Pizzagate truthers shield, BorisMan! It's gonna be a long night!
No time for subtlety, we have to fall back on the absolutely no evidence ever level!
And don't forget to mark me as a troll, have to earn your rubles, ya know.
I'm not going to debate if they're better or worse than men taking as a statistical whole, but there's plenty of them that are superb at it and staying out because the work environment stinks.
The problem with your hypothesis is that there should be a lot of young women who take every step of learning, then at the point they discover that the workplace "environment stinks", they leave en masse. Or do you have the citations that show that little girls are somehow passionate about STEM, but are turned off by things they don't even understand yet?
The problem is that for most people tech isn't interesting-period. That's male as well as female. There are probably more males than females however.
Other notes are that exatly none of the women who I worked that shared my job title with would do the things I would do. As in refusal. They refused any of the dangerous work, they refused work that wasn't strictly in the job description, they refused the travel, they refused dealing with the shakers and movers. They "couldn't" work overtimeThat somehow became "my" job only. I'm not complaining mind you. That is the stuff that made the job interesting, and I was paid a lot more than they were. The concept of Equal pay for equal work was brough up a few times, but the work wasn't equal.
Now, if we want to do a study of exactly what attracts women to a field, we need to do a study of fields that they are actively engaged in. Wouldn't that be an effective start?
We might look into why there are almost no men going into veterinary fields any more.
We might look into why women are very interested into going into business fields when the sexism there is sometimes tantamount to rape.
I cannot get anyone to engage in that particular discussion with me. I wonder why?
Are female veterinarians rapists who sexually assault men thereby frightening men out of the field? Probably not. Our vet has an all female operation, and they are all pretty nice.
Why? What? I hear many opinions, but they all seem to be self validation. Precious little but talk, and the narrative claims that it is always 100 percent men's fault. I would think that the math isn't there for every single issue being the fault of the male. How is it possible? Seems to me that when we get such skewed thinking, there are other agendas at work.
If this is a problem that demands an actual fix, the only solution is testing and enforced field selection and education to that field, to refuse males entry to the field until gender parity is reached, and educate and hire only females until whatever ratio of male to female that ensures the needed results is achieved, and selective firing and hireing of one or the other is needed via attrition.
Otherwise we get the way men sit, or using a playboy model's face in a image adjustment class as "reasons." Cue eye roll.
And if we do take the only effective solution for gender equity in STEM, we need to do the same in all other fields as well. Gender representation is not equal in many other fields as well, so we have to get affirmative action in those fields too. We have to start firing women and replacing them with men in fields like nursing and veterinarian. Miners and truck drivers and garbage collectors, and lumberjacks. The men must go and be replaced with women until we reach sex parity.
My main point is that if gender ratio in STEM is blatent sexism, then so is gender ratio in Nursing and gender ratio in Veterinarian fields. Talk about not adhering to the narrative, eh?
But just like looking under a street lamp for your lost car keys because the light is better, when you knew you lost them a hundred feet away, you aren't going to solve this problem if you keep insisting on a idealogical solution that isn't working.
There's nothing wrong with the memo. Writing it while employed in a nest of authoritarian leftists will obviously get you fired though.
Minor quibble - there are leftist men. They are also considered the enemy. Right now they are the left's equivalant of useful idiots.
It's Galileo wasn't wrong about physics. He would however have been very naive if he expected the church to change its views rather than crushing him like a bug.
Perfect analogy!
"the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alters their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit the views, which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering"
To me, the issue is not whether he was right or wrong. Every group has ideas that won't work. Right wingers have the silly trickle down theory. Left has some well known ones as well.
An issue is when asked to provide discussion, rather than refute Damore's statements, Google took the appeasement tactic of firing him. And that is a real problem. Suppression of opinions do not weaken them, they make them stronger. That means that what Damore had to say was so dangerous that his views had to be crushed.
Let us know how that works out for ya Google, the group that won this little battle will be back again to let you know what oyu have to do next to stay in their favor.
... because I read Damore's memo and found it to be perfectly reasonable.
James Damore was asked to provide feedback after attending a diversity event at Google; he provided feedback, and then like the crazy nutcases of the Communist Revolution in China, the "feminist" SJWs used that feedback to identify Damore as a prime candidate for destruction in their Cultural Revolution.
Here comes that narrative thing again. Those who demanded and successfully had Damore fired are in the end, not the least bit interested in equality. They want ultimate authority based upon their ideology. The problem of course is that ideologues do not stop. Ideologues, upon getting one concession granted, are emboldened and demand the next step toward whatever their utopia state is.
Today it is elimination of a person who does not agree with their ideals. Tomorrow we start to look like France, who is making it illegal for a man to talk to women. https://qz.com/1106465/a-new-f... Or making it illegal to employ slender women as models https://blog.lawinfo.com/2015/... She must take a test that proves the has a Body Mass Index of 18 or higher. If you have a woman working for you with less, you are fined and imprisoned.
The question that must be asked is that if women are equal to men in all ways, why must we have a plethora of laws to protect them?
The answer of course, is not that women are inferior to men, but that there are female ideologues who demand that women look and act as they demand and use men as the villains in all cases. In the end, if women were dominated by men, they are just trading that for being dominated by misandrist females.
Good luck Google. Today you have made a move Chamberlain would have been proud of, well done, now go back and wait for our next demand.
DERP. I jumped the gun on that reply. You were replying to serviscope_minor, not the AC above you. Damn/.'s broken nesting at this level and carry on. My apologies.
No Problem, these threads get pretty convoluted at times. All's good.
Something tells me your actual problem with me is that you do not want anyone who has a different opinion in the workplace.
Considering that the AC you're replying to just stood up to defend someone's right to voice their differing opinion in the workplace... I'd guess you probably couldn't be more off-base if you tried.
You're one of those no-freedom-after-speech totalitarian monsters. So it's unsurprising you feel having one's career ruined and one's name publicly dragged through the mud is not tantamount to silencing.
Nice dystopia you got there, broham...
I do not know about Damore, but my career was of utmost importance to me. My political or personal opinions, If a person was not a very close friend, it was emphatically none of their fucking business.
Because for me, losing my job over something as petty as expressing my opinion would be viewed by me as my ultimate failure. I was however smart enough to know that there are people who either left or right, have a totalitarian outlook, where an expression of opinion, even a non-violent one or one that is not lawbreaking in any form, is an excellent reason to fire one's ass.
Funny, the left used to be about personal freedom, now it is turning into rigid unwavering forceful conformity, masquerading as "protecting" people. Conform or lose your job. Crime and punishment FTW.
Which is never a good idea, because some day it might be the left's turn in the barrel.
The right shouldn't feel any better though, because they have shifted to unwavering support of perversion.
Goddamit Barry Goldwater, we need you, why'd you have to go and die on us?
Well, your sig is a pretty clear declaration of who the "other" is for you.
My sig is a response to someone actually making that ridiculous claim. It's such a ridiculous claim that it transcends Poe's law - or so I thought until now. I thought it was rather funny, and nothing to be taken seriously other than by nut cases like the guy that posted it.
If I were to be pigeonholed into a political position, it would be center-right, but even that is too restrictive. I'm not certain that most people can even comprehend the idea of a pragmatic these days.
Yeah, same difference, but yeah. The concept that an acceptable argument is trying to turn the other into a hypocrite because of something someone else did before, without actually answering the argument. It is a non-sequitur as well.
And example might be "Roy Moore is a pervert going after underage girls", and the reply is "Well, what about Bill Clinton?", and thinking that that wins the argument. It's a tactic all too widely used today.
Or "Global warming is real" and the response is "It snowed last night - so much for global warming".
Comparisons are not fallacies as long as they can be supported. But soundbite attempts to make the other person into a hypocrite while providing nothing but a howabout surely is.
When you have a permitted opinion, you are allowed to commit any atrocity, and you will be praised for it.
Woah, calm down on the hyperbole there, boy.
Seriously. How do you think religious wars start and have occurred throughout most of history. You simply have your gawd or ideology construct "the other" and then you destroy them.
You wouldn't trust them as a friend, or you wouldn't trust them as an employee?
Either. Most assuredly never as an employee. It's like having an affair with a married person. One thing you do know for certain is that they cheat on their spouse.
No one has anything more precious than their word.
"When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say."
That's nice and all but given we're arguing on a thread about something Mr. Damore said, it's not like he's been silenced now is it?
If you follow the way the thread has gone, it all fits into place.
Something tells me your actual problem with me is that you do not want anyone who has a different opinion in the workplace. Which happens to coincide with your opinion. And that you belive that Damore deserved firing because his opinion hurt women? That a safe space, or in other words, a bubble is needed becuse some groups cannot tolerate people like Damore. Conjecture on my part, but why tou've decided to weigh in and declare me offtopic when a cursory examination of th ethread shows where things were going.
Thir great irony is that the safe space demanded by some women and many liberals is exactly the same sort of Bubbleworld that is practiced by many Fox News listeners. Self validation.
Me? I like hearing different viewpoints. Why? Because some conservative ideas work. Because some liberal ideas work.
But both have enough bullshit in the mix that you have to separate the wheat from the chaff to find the good stuff.
Damore was a dumb asshole. He deserved firing. Not because he had a different opinion, but because he should have foreseen the results of his expressing it. He was in an environment that was an enforced safe space.
Because they all lie all the time and routinely violate paths of office.
They work for the corporations that own them. I consider them PR people. I guess the answer is no, I consider their responses as bought and paid for by their owners. It might be truth, but more likely a calculated answer that is based on pecuniary accumulation, not veracity.
people break NDAs privately to their friends all the fucking time.
Sounds like a character issue. I wouldn't trust a person who violates an NDA.
True that. The leakers who intentionally got him fired for an internal memo need to be outed and canned.
Problem is, they have a permitted opinion that fits well within the allowable narrative. When you have a permitted opinion, you are allowed to commit any atrocity, and you will be praised for it. The people who published his unpermitted opinion are praised as heroes.
This is not a right or a left issue, it is an issue that speaks to bigoted intolerance, where one is cast out if one does not adhere to dogma.
All it would have taken is a reasoned argument against him in a rational world. Firing him in an attempt to merely silence him has merely shown that he has said things that they do not want heard.
This is not classified data, this is not encouraging violence, or a call to secede, or commit crimes.
Just some words that appear to be heresy, given the reaction.
It certainly tells you what opinions you are allowed to express.
The main advantage of living in SV and other major tech hubs, was that you could find a new job the same day if you were laid off. Other parts of the world you could be unemployed between three months and a year unless you relocated elsewhere; which could require air flights or hotel stays.
My criteria for any position now is having access to "Meetup" groups in that location.
Okay, and fine, If that is your metric, you have no problems living and working there. I had no need to put up with it.
This baloney about "micro-aggressions" can be pretty hard to follow for regular un-autistic rational beings as well. You're not alone there, Damore...
In the world of micro agressions, isn't the constant whining about them a rather large micro-agression?
The batshit insane part of whining about micro-agressions is that simply invoking it is admission of maximal weakness and inability to cope with anything but 100 percent validation.
This strong but weak, equal but needing protection from anyone who disagrees with me is a pretty complicated minefield to traverse.
Slashdot Mirror
So we are arguing about how we should pay for it instead of trying to figure out why it's so damned expensive.
It's so damn expensive because we've tried to force fit ideology into it.
Housing is so expensive because we've allowed uncontrolled access to credit, and allowed it to people who never should have had it. That started a megaflation of housing prices.
We have a mutant health care system where people without insurance get their basic healthcare at emergency rooms - the most expensive healthcare on the planet, then the costs, which tehy obviously don't pay are just transferred up teh line, and basic services for the insured are inflated to cover the emergency room healthcare, which is passed on to the insurance companies, who then have to raise insurance rates, which causes more people to enter teh uninsured realm, when makes those people have to go to the emergency rooms for basic healthcare which...... Makes for a perfect example of a positive feedback loop, which never works.
We've demanded that there be no increase in the minimum wage for a long enough time - long enough for all of the basic living expenses to inflate, so that now the grunts working for WalMart and all the other cheap labor giants - are eligible for supplemental benefits. Which you and I pay for in taxes. So we end up with a mutant system that has free market anti-government people who support WalMart's ideology while at the same time supporting WalMart's corporate welfare.
We have people who insist that these are all starting level jobs, never to be made a living off of. It's funny, but growing up, There were lots of people I knew working in the downtown department stores who were making a living off of it. Of course, My father paid around 12 percent of his take home pay on his mortgage. Mine sucked up 50 percent of my take home, and apparently many people were paing much much more.
We have been sold a bill of goods that tells us that if we just apply ourselves, we can be anything we decide we want to be. Which sure as Spandex is a nasty soul crushing lie. Yet trotted out as a meme for anyone who thinks that some of the folks at McDonalds are capable of being rocket scientists, and the only reason they aren't is that they are too lazy.
Then we have this case, where people are refusing to work for the wages offered, and some wag bitches about "Nobody is holding a gun to their head.
That's true, as evidenced by them doing what he says they should do, then pissing and moaning when they do what he says they should do.
When in fact, we either have to help them, or allow them to help themselves. Or just euthanize them. Some of us have a real problem with that last idea. I think there are a fair number of Americans who don't.
This is a libertarian insight that the rest of the political spectrum (me, I'm a moderate rather than a libertarian asshole, but they do occasionally have some partial insight, so you ought to at least read what they have to say and dismiss maybe 80% of it that's nonsense and assimilate the 20% nugget of truth out of the turd) could learn: costs increase the fastest in sectors that are the most regulated.
Hmm, now you have my attention. Perhaps the Bay area is so socialist bureaucracy regulated where the forms have to be filled out with a certain brand pen, but here in the Right coast, we had a different issue, based on lack of regulation.
As an example, My father's mortgage on his house was originated at the local First National Bank. Every payment was made to the local First National Bank. When it was finished, he picked up the Mortgage papers there.
Contrast that with mine. We had a "loan originator" who got paid by how many mortgages he "originated" He couldn't give a flying fig if we were agtually eligible. In fact he was surprised at how good our credit rating was. So we got really great rates. But not everyone did. And our Mortgage was sold a number of times to other banks. Anyh
Leaving the weak to die isn't something a civilized society should do.
It's one of the crazy ideas that conservatives have that just don't work.
It's similar to the concept that we have to get tough on crime yet refusing to fund prisons.
Poor people just need to be rich, and the only difference between that special needs kid next door and Elon Musk is that the kid doesn't apply himself.
In fact, th eultimate non-solution by the conservatives and libertarians is "I don't want this problem, can't thos people just go away and die?"
This is why so many ideaologies end up deciding that they have to turn on their own people and murder them for their own good.
Because after all, how else can the ideology cope.
Again, where's the gun to their head to do this contract job?
Maybe that's why they are refusing to do it for that wage? Seems like they are doing what you think they should do, and yet you're bitching about them doing what you say they should do.
Ohh, I see...... the dreaded word "strike".
Never mind. I understand your problem with them, and where you are coming from.
Quick, to the Pizzagate truthers shield, BorisMan! It's gonna be a long night!
No time for subtlety, we have to fall back on the absolutely no evidence ever level! And don't forget to mark me as a troll, have to earn your rubles, ya know.
When? They've been looking and looking and looking. Year and half now. Still nothing.
Your rock called, says you need to get back under it.
I'm not going to debate if they're better or worse than men taking as a statistical whole, but there's plenty of them that are superb at it and staying out because the work environment stinks.
The problem with your hypothesis is that there should be a lot of young women who take every step of learning, then at the point they discover that the workplace "environment stinks", they leave en masse. Or do you have the citations that show that little girls are somehow passionate about STEM, but are turned off by things they don't even understand yet?
The problem is that for most people tech isn't interesting-period. That's male as well as female. There are probably more males than females however.
Other notes are that exatly none of the women who I worked that shared my job title with would do the things I would do. As in refusal. They refused any of the dangerous work, they refused work that wasn't strictly in the job description, they refused the travel, they refused dealing with the shakers and movers. They "couldn't" work overtimeThat somehow became "my" job only. I'm not complaining mind you. That is the stuff that made the job interesting, and I was paid a lot more than they were. The concept of Equal pay for equal work was brough up a few times, but the work wasn't equal.
Now, if we want to do a study of exactly what attracts women to a field, we need to do a study of fields that they are actively engaged in. Wouldn't that be an effective start?
We might look into why there are almost no men going into veterinary fields any more.
We might look into why women are very interested into going into business fields when the sexism there is sometimes tantamount to rape.
I cannot get anyone to engage in that particular discussion with me. I wonder why?
Are female veterinarians rapists who sexually assault men thereby frightening men out of the field? Probably not. Our vet has an all female operation, and they are all pretty nice.
Why? What? I hear many opinions, but they all seem to be self validation. Precious little but talk, and the narrative claims that it is always 100 percent men's fault. I would think that the math isn't there for every single issue being the fault of the male. How is it possible? Seems to me that when we get such skewed thinking, there are other agendas at work.
If this is a problem that demands an actual fix, the only solution is testing and enforced field selection and education to that field, to refuse males entry to the field until gender parity is reached, and educate and hire only females until whatever ratio of male to female that ensures the needed results is achieved, and selective firing and hireing of one or the other is needed via attrition.
Otherwise we get the way men sit, or using a playboy model's face in a image adjustment class as "reasons." Cue eye roll.
And if we do take the only effective solution for gender equity in STEM, we need to do the same in all other fields as well. Gender representation is not equal in many other fields as well, so we have to get affirmative action in those fields too. We have to start firing women and replacing them with men in fields like nursing and veterinarian. Miners and truck drivers and garbage collectors, and lumberjacks. The men must go and be replaced with women until we reach sex parity.
My main point is that if gender ratio in STEM is blatent sexism, then so is gender ratio in Nursing and gender ratio in Veterinarian fields. Talk about not adhering to the narrative, eh?
But just like looking under a street lamp for your lost car keys because the light is better, when you knew you lost them a hundred feet away, you aren't going to solve this problem if you keep insisting on a idealogical solution that isn't working.
Damore's memo is the only thing in this whole debacle that is explicitly based on well established research.
What is wrong with you people? Have you even read his memo, or did you just take some "properly" interpreted version from leftist rags like Salon?
Different people have different narratives that they will support no matter what.
There's nothing wrong with the memo. Writing it while employed in a nest of authoritarian leftists will obviously get you fired though.
Minor quibble - there are leftist men. They are also considered the enemy. Right now they are the left's equivalant of useful idiots.
It's Galileo wasn't wrong about physics. He would however have been very naive if he expected the church to change its views rather than crushing him like a bug.
Perfect analogy!
"the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alters their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit the views, which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering"
To me, the issue is not whether he was right or wrong. Every group has ideas that won't work. Right wingers have the silly trickle down theory. Left has some well known ones as well.
An issue is when asked to provide discussion, rather than refute Damore's statements, Google took the appeasement tactic of firing him. And that is a real problem. Suppression of opinions do not weaken them, they make them stronger. That means that what Damore had to say was so dangerous that his views had to be crushed.
Let us know how that works out for ya Google, the group that won this little battle will be back again to let you know what oyu have to do next to stay in their favor.
I hate ideologues of any stripe.
... because I read Damore's memo and found it to be perfectly reasonable.
James Damore was asked to provide feedback after attending a diversity event at Google; he provided feedback, and then like the crazy nutcases of the Communist Revolution in China, the "feminist" SJWs used that feedback to identify Damore as a prime candidate for destruction in their Cultural Revolution.
Here comes that narrative thing again. Those who demanded and successfully had Damore fired are in the end, not the least bit interested in equality. They want ultimate authority based upon their ideology. The problem of course is that ideologues do not stop. Ideologues, upon getting one concession granted, are emboldened and demand the next step toward whatever their utopia state is.
Today it is elimination of a person who does not agree with their ideals. Tomorrow we start to look like France, who is making it illegal for a man to talk to women. https://qz.com/1106465/a-new-f... Or making it illegal to employ slender women as models https://blog.lawinfo.com/2015/... She must take a test that proves the has a Body Mass Index of 18 or higher. If you have a woman working for you with less, you are fined and imprisoned.
The question that must be asked is that if women are equal to men in all ways, why must we have a plethora of laws to protect them?
The answer of course, is not that women are inferior to men, but that there are female ideologues who demand that women look and act as they demand and use men as the villains in all cases. In the end, if women were dominated by men, they are just trading that for being dominated by misandrist females.
Good luck Google. Today you have made a move Chamberlain would have been proud of, well done, now go back and wait for our next demand.
DERP. I jumped the gun on that reply. You were replying to serviscope_minor, not the AC above you. Damn /.'s broken nesting at this level and carry on. My apologies.
No Problem, these threads get pretty convoluted at times. All's good.
Something tells me your actual problem with me is that you do not want anyone who has a different opinion in the workplace.
Considering that the AC you're replying to just stood up to defend someone's right to voice their differing opinion in the workplace... I'd guess you probably couldn't be more off-base if you tried.
You know who all AC's are right?
You're one of those no-freedom-after-speech totalitarian monsters. So it's unsurprising you feel having one's career ruined and one's name publicly dragged through the mud is not tantamount to silencing.
Nice dystopia you got there, broham...
I do not know about Damore, but my career was of utmost importance to me. My political or personal opinions, If a person was not a very close friend, it was emphatically none of their fucking business.
Because for me, losing my job over something as petty as expressing my opinion would be viewed by me as my ultimate failure. I was however smart enough to know that there are people who either left or right, have a totalitarian outlook, where an expression of opinion, even a non-violent one or one that is not lawbreaking in any form, is an excellent reason to fire one's ass.
Funny, the left used to be about personal freedom, now it is turning into rigid unwavering forceful conformity, masquerading as "protecting" people. Conform or lose your job. Crime and punishment FTW.
Which is never a good idea, because some day it might be the left's turn in the barrel.
The right shouldn't feel any better though, because they have shifted to unwavering support of perversion.
Goddamit Barry Goldwater, we need you, why'd you have to go and die on us?
And again!
Cute, Boring as squash soup, but cute.
Thanks for the laugh!
I aways aim to please.
Well, your sig is a pretty clear declaration of who the "other" is for you.
My sig is a response to someone actually making that ridiculous claim. It's such a ridiculous claim that it transcends Poe's law - or so I thought until now. I thought it was rather funny, and nothing to be taken seriously other than by nut cases like the guy that posted it.
If I were to be pigeonholed into a political position, it would be center-right, but even that is too restrictive. I'm not certain that most people can even comprehend the idea of a pragmatic these days.
Says one of the least-trustworthy regular posters on Slashdot.
Elucidate.
Do you mean 'whataboutism'?
Yeah, same difference, but yeah. The concept that an acceptable argument is trying to turn the other into a hypocrite because of something someone else did before, without actually answering the argument. It is a non-sequitur as well.
And example might be "Roy Moore is a pervert going after underage girls", and the reply is "Well, what about Bill Clinton?", and thinking that that wins the argument. It's a tactic all too widely used today.
Or "Global warming is real" and the response is "It snowed last night - so much for global warming". Comparisons are not fallacies as long as they can be supported. But soundbite attempts to make the other person into a hypocrite while providing nothing but a howabout surely is.
When you have a permitted opinion, you are allowed to commit any atrocity, and you will be praised for it.
Woah, calm down on the hyperbole there, boy.
Seriously. How do you think religious wars start and have occurred throughout most of history. You simply have your gawd or ideology construct "the other" and then you destroy them.
You wouldn't trust them as a friend, or you wouldn't trust them as an employee?
Either. Most assuredly never as an employee. It's like having an affair with a married person. One thing you do know for certain is that they cheat on their spouse.
No one has anything more precious than their word.
"When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say."
That's nice and all but given we're arguing on a thread about something Mr. Damore said, it's not like he's been silenced now is it?
If you follow the way the thread has gone, it all fits into place.
Something tells me your actual problem with me is that you do not want anyone who has a different opinion in the workplace. Which happens to coincide with your opinion. And that you belive that Damore deserved firing because his opinion hurt women? That a safe space, or in other words, a bubble is needed becuse some groups cannot tolerate people like Damore. Conjecture on my part, but why tou've decided to weigh in and declare me offtopic when a cursory examination of th ethread shows where things were going.
Thir great irony is that the safe space demanded by some women and many liberals is exactly the same sort of Bubbleworld that is practiced by many Fox News listeners. Self validation.
Me? I like hearing different viewpoints. Why? Because some conservative ideas work. Because some liberal ideas work.
But both have enough bullshit in the mix that you have to separate the wheat from the chaff to find the good stuff.
Damore was a dumb asshole. He deserved firing. Not because he had a different opinion, but because he should have foreseen the results of his expressing it. He was in an environment that was an enforced safe space.
Because they all lie all the time and routinely violate paths of office.
They work for the corporations that own them. I consider them PR people. I guess the answer is no, I consider their responses as bought and paid for by their owners. It might be truth, but more likely a calculated answer that is based on pecuniary accumulation, not veracity.
people break NDAs privately to their friends all the fucking time.
Sounds like a character issue. I wouldn't trust a person who violates an NDA.
True that. The leakers who intentionally got him fired for an internal memo need to be outed and canned.
Problem is, they have a permitted opinion that fits well within the allowable narrative. When you have a permitted opinion, you are allowed to commit any atrocity, and you will be praised for it. The people who published his unpermitted opinion are praised as heroes.
This is not a right or a left issue, it is an issue that speaks to bigoted intolerance, where one is cast out if one does not adhere to dogma.
All it would have taken is a reasoned argument against him in a rational world. Firing him in an attempt to merely silence him has merely shown that he has said things that they do not want heard.
This is not classified data, this is not encouraging violence, or a call to secede, or commit crimes.
Just some words that appear to be heresy, given the reaction.
It certainly tells you what opinions you are allowed to express.
He wrote forbidden words. Some people didn't like those forbidden words.
He who dares not offend cannot be honest.
-Thomas Paine
“When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.”
George R.R. Martin
The main advantage of living in SV and other major tech hubs, was that you could find a new job the same day if you were laid off. Other parts of the world you could be unemployed between three months and a year unless you relocated elsewhere; which could require air flights or hotel stays. My criteria for any position now is having access to "Meetup" groups in that location.
Okay, and fine, If that is your metric, you have no problems living and working there. I had no need to put up with it.
This baloney about "micro-aggressions" can be pretty hard to follow for regular un-autistic rational beings as well. You're not alone there, Damore...
In the world of micro agressions, isn't the constant whining about them a rather large micro-agression?
The batshit insane part of whining about micro-agressions is that simply invoking it is admission of maximal weakness and inability to cope with anything but 100 percent validation.
This strong but weak, equal but needing protection from anyone who disagrees with me is a pretty complicated minefield to traverse.