No, it would eliminate the severance the workers would have gotten if they'd agreed to an organized transition. That's how these companies do things. They dangle a ransom out there for the workers and then make them sign the gag orders as well, as a term of severance. So the workers could strike, yes. But garaunteed there would be an appreciable percentage who stayed for the final payout, and trained everyone's workers.
And anyone who thinks the company is considering the output of the new employees as a critical factor in the transition has never called an Indian help desk call center.
There are over 1000 cases of classified data in Hillary's email and there are FBI agents that say they have 4 times what they need for a successful prosecution. And you don't think the DOJ is bought and paid for?
This is not an example of capitalism. In fact, we're not much of a capitalistic nation anymore. Not since government started placing artificial intensives and disincentives for various business activities, many of which are arbitrary, lack objectively provable benefits, and which inherently place one type of market, product or worker at an advantage over others.
Unions are not a solution to this. What are you going to do? Strike? You already lost the jobs.
And what do you mean by enforcing H1-B laws? That's what allowed the workers in. Unless you mean to saw, rewrite H1-B laws and increase the qualification requirements?
It's still relevant at a federal level. H1-B visa's are likely the reason the foreign workers could take the domestic jobs. So federal law and/or policy is at the root of the situation.
Jesus dude. Talk to your doc about upping your meds or something. I didnt say I like it, or defend it. But I can understand it from a business perspective. It's more groups of people testing and building code for, and attempting to hack shit you'd rather just die and go away.
While I'm right there with you in the frustration, and I fully despise the spying shit, I do understand why MS wouldnt want many flavors of their OS out in the wild. It's more things to patch, update, and support.
It's true that there are companies and aps that have gone the way of thin clients. But still the vast majority of businesses use Microsoft OS to host Microsoft office applications and mail clients. Yes, the technology exists. But it's not yet embraced. Even just the simple retraining of people to use new office aps is a painful one. I was at a well known major tech company when they were converting from Lotus to Outlook and you'd think they were retraining bartenders to be astrophysicists. Productivity was hampered for weeks and didnt fully recover for several months, just for email. Imagine that compounded with the whole Office suite.
Again, it's all entirely possible. But businesses have to weigh the pain of the transition and decide if its worth that plus the costs.
I objected to your statement that "And no business should ever be put in a position to be told what their customers can or cannot say in their establishment or on their platform." I objected to that. I.e., I believe that some businesses ought to allow certain forms of speech, not that all businesses should allow all forms of speech.
What the type of business is, is irrelevant. Either a private citizen who owns a business has a right to define what will be allowed in their establishment or on their platform, or they don't. Period. End of story. I'm saying that no one, not you or the government or an angry mob with pitchforks should be tolerated if they are bullying and intimidating a company into compliance with their particular mores. And anyone that would participate in that bullying in the name of protecting against censorship is shockingly ignorant of their own hypocrisy.
Look, this is not at all unlike other scenarios, all which I agree with.
1) A business owner who chooses to proclaim his business a gun free zone, and declines enterance to anyone carrying a firearm, regardless of the method carried, or the laws applicable in the area of the business. It's his business, and his right to deny entry to someone who's packing. I am personally less likely to go to that business, but hey, that's my call based on the rules of his establishment, and I am not about to picket him out of some petty spite.
2) A steakhouse owner confronted with a group of people chanting "meat is murder!!", and tells them to leave. Not only is he within his rights to do so, but any other reaction would be self-destructive. A restaurant full of meat eaters isn't going to enjoy this little serenade, and they aren't going to stick around for the show. Nor are they likely to come back knowing that the establishment won't react in their interests to such an invasion and disruption of an evening they paid good money to enjoy. Shall he cease selling any meat product, and become a vegan restaurant? And lose all the clientele that would have come to have a steak? No, and any suggestion otherwise is stupidity.
3) An owner of a nightclub proclaiming that the building is smoke-free and having a disruptive patron throwing a shit fit about it.
4) An owner of a pagan bead and jewelry store declining to create catholic rosaries and confronted with an irate nun yelling at everyone there they are all going to hell.
5) A baker declining to bake a cake for a gay wedding, and having people parked inside their store berating their customers.
6) A person at a western horse stable telling all the people who board horses there about how awful they are for forcing the horses into submission.
7) A community swimming pool dealing with a person in the middle of a kids' swim meet yelling about how everyone there is killing the planet by wasting water.
Sadly, these are all REAL. These owners would be within their rights to call the police if the people refused to leave, and the police would be obligated to remove the person, who at this point is trespassing because they remain without the consent of the owner. Your argument is that not only should these (mostly whacko) people be allowed their rants, but that the businesses should be picketed if they don't allow it.
Or should it only be applied the way you describe in certain cases. WHO DECIDES? Back to the earlier statement, either the business owner has a right to choose what they allow or disallow, or they don't.
It takes a hell of a lot more balls to let a person make a choice you disagree with than it does to point and yell "GET EM!". It takes a lot more self confidence to have a rational conversation and part in the end to agree to disagree rather than feel a need to change everything to match your opinion.
Twitter doesn't "have a position" and I am not trying to "silence them".
Funny thing is, you're right !!!! They didnt censor anyone! The premise of the articl
Bullshit. Customers can and do tell business how to operate, and they can put quite a bit of muscle behind it by voting with theid dollars. If you are incapable of dealing with that, don't run a business.
That's what I said; If they don't like the fact that I wont allow them to say it at my business, they can go find one that will. If enough of my customers flee, my business will fail. That does not actually equate to customers telling me me how to operate as much as it has to do with me not allowing myself to be bullied by jackasses who try to force me to live my life (and with that, run my business) exactly how they see fit.
I grasp your position. I just find it to be arrogant and counter-productive. You feel that you have a right to railroad other people into thinking exactly like you do, or you'll exact your vengeance upon them to make them suffer. There's nothing noble about that. There's nothing to praise in that behavior. You're just a petulant child throwing a temper tantrum because someone had the gall to disagree with you.
Why is it that it's perfectly find to guilt/force/bully a business into allowing any speech, and give no consideration at all to the other consumers of that service that don't want to fucking hear it? When I said I was within my rights, and I told a person disrupting my business and making my customers uncomfortable to shut the fuck up or leave, you jump to the defense of the idiot disrupting things and not to the customers that shouldn't have to deal with it. You assume that I would lose more business by ejecting the jackass who proved unwilling or unable to be civil than if I allowed the jackass to continue with the impolite, inconsiderate, disrespectful, arrogant and destructive behavior.
No business should ever be demanded to remain wholly neutral on all topics. They have a right, and a responsibility, to hold to their values. I dont have to agree with them and I dont have to put a penny in their pockets if I dislike their position. But I am not nearly so self-involved and insecure that I feel they must change their position to match mine or be damned for it.
They can do other things too, like encourage other customers not to do business with you, picket you, criticize you in the media and online reviews, and point out your hypocrisy. Which is, incidentally, what I'm doing with Twitter, after I stopped using them.
Do you get that you are quite actively and directly attempting to silence their position? Is it lost on you that you are demanding that they never censor a person with whom they disagree, while attempting to do precisely that to them?
Agreed. And ironically that means that Twitter has far LESS responsibility to ensure that every voice is heard. They make no pretense that they are a business that allows people to say things. It makes no promises that people have a right to say a particular thing. And no business should ever be put in a position to be told what their customers can or cannot say in their establishment or on their platform.
I have a business, and I've had whackjobs start preaching to and berating my customers about politics and other things. These people were within their rights to hold whatever beliefs they like. They are legally protected from ramifications by government for saying whatever it is they like. But I was well within my rights to tell them to can it, or get the fuck off of my property. And I did. As the business owner if I feel that the speech is vile, innappropriate, or even just uncomfortable, I dont have to allow it. And any of my customers that dont like that can go find another business. Likewise, if you feel strongly about Twitter's "censorship", you can find another free service to talk about that on, or start one of your own.
And make no mistake, I think Trump is a trainwreck, But I think the same of Hillary. I'd rather they be allowed to keep saying stupid shit far and wide in hopes that more people wake up and realize they are in fact trainwrecks. But like you arent required to allow a person to say a thing thru your business, you also can't be expected to make people recognize it as stupid shit spewing forth.
I'm not saying we arent all well within our rights to point out the hypocrisy and bias. I'm just saying that it's the norm, not the exception. Every one of these media outlets posts what promotes their agenda, and in the light they choose to present it. Some might actually report things that are not in their political interests, but they bury it on the proverbial page E15, or they present the counter-argument only to cloud the issue.
To me its far more valuable to the American people to recognize that all these people feeding them "facts" or bought by one group or another, and that we can't trust anything any of em say.
You cant name a "communications platform" that doesnt have a slant, and in most cases who shamelessly mislead their audience in favor of the platform's political or sociological ideals.
Honest question:
Do you know if airlines are required to use TSA security? I'm not sure that they are. It was my impression that the liability insurance to not use it made it too expensive for them to operate.
You make an interesting point about the expansion of the search. Wouldnt that become a matter of the contract? You have consented to "search". Unless the contract specifically identifies the methods and limits of the search does that make it less enforceable? ( Honest question, I dont know.)
You second argument per the inalienable right to to human dignity though, suggests that you cannot allow a body search. Period, under any circumstances. While I like the sound of it on it's surface, it raises many more questions. For instance, it would suggest that even if officers had probably cause, they could never search your person. It could never be done without a warrant, suggesting that probably cause is itself unlawful. I will agree every day of the week and twice on saturday that probably cause is abused. But I cant quite find conviction in myself that it is without value or legal standing. (Although I think I would like it to fail.)
You are right on two counts.
1) If you deny the terms of the purchase, the agreement is not made and you neither pay or get your ticket to fly.
2) The TSA is a govt agency.
You are wrong on another :
1) It is entirely possible to hire a private plane and circumvent most if not all TSA involvement. (Depending on the airport you will fly to/from.) It costs more than you or I have, but it's not denied us by law.
No, you dont have a clue where I fit. I would not forfeit my rights for convenience. And I wont be bullied by anyone to do so either. But that's not the point. The person I responded to was making a wholly false assertion, and I was merely correcting it.
Teaching isn't like a profession where you deal with simple inputs and outputs.
I'm quite sure that the parents of the kids leaving high schools (the output of the education system and the teachers within) that actually give a shit what their kids learned there would disagree.
I'm fully aware that there are many factors at play in the outcome of a student's education, and the teachers are but one. But they are a significant one. As the parent of a child that receives additional assistance in his public school I've experienced it first hand. I've known teachers able to do a great deal with very little. I've known teachers wholly incapable of helping because they cannot approach a child in any way other than the one spoon fed them in their college programs to certify them as teachers.
And while I agree that the average grade of the teacher's students is often not a meaningful statistic on which to assess the teacher's performance, unions have consistently resisted any measure by which teachers may be evaluated, arguing essentially that the outcome of education is never the teacher's fault.
Officer: "May I search your vehicle?"
Civilian: "Yes."
The civilian has consented to a search, which is entirely lawful. The officer has violated no rights of the civilian by then proceeding with the search.
Another example:
Officer: "... You have the right to remain silent. You have the right to attorney. If you cannot afford one..."
Civilian: " I wave my right to attorney and will answer your questions."
The officer is violating no rights by proceeding with the interview, and everything stated by the civilian from that point on is admissible in court. 6
As sad as it is, this is the same scenario.
Passenger: "May I have a ticket to fly?"
Airline: "Do you consent to a search?"
Passenger: "Yes."
You have the right to refuse the search at the time you try to purchase the ticket. You cannot then be searched, but you wont be getting a flight either.
There are rights that you cannot forfeit, such as your freedom. You cannot willfully enter into a contract that makes you a slave to another person, for instance.The contract is unenforceable. But that's not what we're talking about here at all.
How about if Unions are given the power to remove ineffective teachers that give their unions a bad name?
This will never happen of course. Unions have lobbied with vigor for the exact opposite, saying that it is unfair that a teacher ever be fired for being ineffective, or for even being graded. Which puts a different perspective on the "unions need more power" argument, yes?
Unless your argument is that poor kids watch more TV than rich kids, your argument is irrelevant to the conversation. And if you are arguing that poor kids do watch more TV which causes the disparity in IQ, then it's a cultural problem rather than a financial one. Their families have enough resources to access television (a luxury), so that removes income from the equation. They choose, or have learned from their parents to use their time in a less productive way, by your logic.
Wow. Just.... wow.
The article, and the links you provide discuss the fundamentalist Islamic nutjobs who hack bloggers to death. Did it occur to you for even a moment that the bloggers are being killed because they were the ones among the most vocal about keeping the Bangladesh traditions of secularism in government? Did it further occur to you that distribution of the ideas of those bloggers is heavily aided by social media?
So in order to suppress the nutjobs, you propose to suppress those in opposition to the nutjobs.
Perhaps we should have a test to approve people to communicate between one another thru any digital media. We could establish some kind of government panel that can apply the test, and maybe do a quick background investigation to make sure you're not going to stir up any kind of trouble with your comments. After all, people can say stupid shit online in many places beyond social media. You've proved that.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it would eliminate the severance the workers would have gotten if they'd agreed to an organized transition. That's how these companies do things. They dangle a ransom out there for the workers and then make them sign the gag orders as well, as a term of severance. So the workers could strike, yes. But garaunteed there would be an appreciable percentage who stayed for the final payout, and trained everyone's workers.
And anyone who thinks the company is considering the output of the new employees as a critical factor in the transition has never called an Indian help desk call center.
There are over 1000 cases of classified data in Hillary's email and there are FBI agents that say they have 4 times what they need for a successful prosecution. And you don't think the DOJ is bought and paid for?
Fascinating.
This is not an example of capitalism. In fact, we're not much of a capitalistic nation anymore. Not since government started placing artificial intensives and disincentives for various business activities, many of which are arbitrary, lack objectively provable benefits, and which inherently place one type of market, product or worker at an advantage over others.
We can discuss this again when you're training your replacement.
Unions are not a solution to this. What are you going to do? Strike? You already lost the jobs.
And what do you mean by enforcing H1-B laws? That's what allowed the workers in. Unless you mean to saw, rewrite H1-B laws and increase the qualification requirements?
It's still relevant at a federal level. H1-B visa's are likely the reason the foreign workers could take the domestic jobs. So federal law and/or policy is at the root of the situation.
Jesus dude. Talk to your doc about upping your meds or something. I didnt say I like it, or defend it. But I can understand it from a business perspective. It's more groups of people testing and building code for, and attempting to hack shit you'd rather just die and go away.
Seriously? Get a life. Christ.
While I'm right there with you in the frustration, and I fully despise the spying shit, I do understand why MS wouldnt want many flavors of their OS out in the wild. It's more things to patch, update, and support.
It's true that there are companies and aps that have gone the way of thin clients. But still the vast majority of businesses use Microsoft OS to host Microsoft office applications and mail clients. Yes, the technology exists. But it's not yet embraced. Even just the simple retraining of people to use new office aps is a painful one. I was at a well known major tech company when they were converting from Lotus to Outlook and you'd think they were retraining bartenders to be astrophysicists. Productivity was hampered for weeks and didnt fully recover for several months, just for email. Imagine that compounded with the whole Office suite.
Again, it's all entirely possible. But businesses have to weigh the pain of the transition and decide if its worth that plus the costs.
I objected to your statement that "And no business should ever be put in a position to be told what their customers can or cannot say in their establishment or on their platform." I objected to that. I.e., I believe that some businesses ought to allow certain forms of speech, not that all businesses should allow all forms of speech.
What the type of business is, is irrelevant. Either a private citizen who owns a business has a right to define what will be allowed in their establishment or on their platform, or they don't. Period. End of story. I'm saying that no one, not you or the government or an angry mob with pitchforks should be tolerated if they are bullying and intimidating a company into compliance with their particular mores. And anyone that would participate in that bullying in the name of protecting against censorship is shockingly ignorant of their own hypocrisy.
Look, this is not at all unlike other scenarios, all which I agree with.
1) A business owner who chooses to proclaim his business a gun free zone, and declines enterance to anyone carrying a firearm, regardless of the method carried, or the laws applicable in the area of the business. It's his business, and his right to deny entry to someone who's packing. I am personally less likely to go to that business, but hey, that's my call based on the rules of his establishment, and I am not about to picket him out of some petty spite.
2) A steakhouse owner confronted with a group of people chanting "meat is murder!!", and tells them to leave. Not only is he within his rights to do so, but any other reaction would be self-destructive. A restaurant full of meat eaters isn't going to enjoy this little serenade, and they aren't going to stick around for the show. Nor are they likely to come back knowing that the establishment won't react in their interests to such an invasion and disruption of an evening they paid good money to enjoy. Shall he cease selling any meat product, and become a vegan restaurant? And lose all the clientele that would have come to have a steak? No, and any suggestion otherwise is stupidity.
3) An owner of a nightclub proclaiming that the building is smoke-free and having a disruptive patron throwing a shit fit about it.
4) An owner of a pagan bead and jewelry store declining to create catholic rosaries and confronted with an irate nun yelling at everyone there they are all going to hell.
5) A baker declining to bake a cake for a gay wedding, and having people parked inside their store berating their customers.
6) A person at a western horse stable telling all the people who board horses there about how awful they are for forcing the horses into submission.
7) A community swimming pool dealing with a person in the middle of a kids' swim meet yelling about how everyone there is killing the planet by wasting water.
Sadly, these are all REAL. These owners would be within their rights to call the police if the people refused to leave, and the police would be obligated to remove the person, who at this point is trespassing because they remain without the consent of the owner. Your argument is that not only should these (mostly whacko) people be allowed their rants, but that the businesses should be picketed if they don't allow it.
Or should it only be applied the way you describe in certain cases. WHO DECIDES? Back to the earlier statement, either the business owner has a right to choose what they allow or disallow, or they don't.
It takes a hell of a lot more balls to let a person make a choice you disagree with than it does to point and yell "GET EM!". It takes a lot more self confidence to have a rational conversation and part in the end to agree to disagree rather than feel a need to change everything to match your opinion.
Twitter doesn't "have a position" and I am not trying to "silence them".
Funny thing is, you're right !!!! They didnt censor anyone! The premise of the articl
Bullshit. Customers can and do tell business how to operate, and they can put quite a bit of muscle behind it by voting with theid dollars. If you are incapable of dealing with that, don't run a business.
That's what I said; If they don't like the fact that I wont allow them to say it at my business, they can go find one that will. If enough of my customers flee, my business will fail. That does not actually equate to customers telling me me how to operate as much as it has to do with me not allowing myself to be bullied by jackasses who try to force me to live my life (and with that, run my business) exactly how they see fit.
I grasp your position. I just find it to be arrogant and counter-productive. You feel that you have a right to railroad other people into thinking exactly like you do, or you'll exact your vengeance upon them to make them suffer. There's nothing noble about that. There's nothing to praise in that behavior. You're just a petulant child throwing a temper tantrum because someone had the gall to disagree with you.
Why is it that it's perfectly find to guilt/force/bully a business into allowing any speech, and give no consideration at all to the other consumers of that service that don't want to fucking hear it? When I said I was within my rights, and I told a person disrupting my business and making my customers uncomfortable to shut the fuck up or leave, you jump to the defense of the idiot disrupting things and not to the customers that shouldn't have to deal with it. You assume that I would lose more business by ejecting the jackass who proved unwilling or unable to be civil than if I allowed the jackass to continue with the impolite, inconsiderate, disrespectful, arrogant and destructive behavior.
No business should ever be demanded to remain wholly neutral on all topics. They have a right, and a responsibility, to hold to their values. I dont have to agree with them and I dont have to put a penny in their pockets if I dislike their position. But I am not nearly so self-involved and insecure that I feel they must change their position to match mine or be damned for it.
They can do other things too, like encourage other customers not to do business with you, picket you, criticize you in the media and online reviews, and point out your hypocrisy. Which is, incidentally, what I'm doing with Twitter, after I stopped using them.
Do you get that you are quite actively and directly attempting to silence their position? Is it lost on you that you are demanding that they never censor a person with whom they disagree, while attempting to do precisely that to them?
Agreed. And ironically that means that Twitter has far LESS responsibility to ensure that every voice is heard. They make no pretense that they are a business that allows people to say things. It makes no promises that people have a right to say a particular thing. And no business should ever be put in a position to be told what their customers can or cannot say in their establishment or on their platform.
I have a business, and I've had whackjobs start preaching to and berating my customers about politics and other things. These people were within their rights to hold whatever beliefs they like. They are legally protected from ramifications by government for saying whatever it is they like. But I was well within my rights to tell them to can it, or get the fuck off of my property. And I did. As the business owner if I feel that the speech is vile, innappropriate, or even just uncomfortable, I dont have to allow it. And any of my customers that dont like that can go find another business. Likewise, if you feel strongly about Twitter's "censorship", you can find another free service to talk about that on, or start one of your own.
And make no mistake, I think Trump is a trainwreck, But I think the same of Hillary. I'd rather they be allowed to keep saying stupid shit far and wide in hopes that more people wake up and realize they are in fact trainwrecks. But like you arent required to allow a person to say a thing thru your business, you also can't be expected to make people recognize it as stupid shit spewing forth.
I'm not saying we arent all well within our rights to point out the hypocrisy and bias. I'm just saying that it's the norm, not the exception. Every one of these media outlets posts what promotes their agenda, and in the light they choose to present it. Some might actually report things that are not in their political interests, but they bury it on the proverbial page E15, or they present the counter-argument only to cloud the issue.
To me its far more valuable to the American people to recognize that all these people feeding them "facts" or bought by one group or another, and that we can't trust anything any of em say.
You cant name a "communications platform" that doesnt have a slant, and in most cases who shamelessly mislead their audience in favor of the platform's political or sociological ideals.
Honest question:
Do you know if airlines are required to use TSA security? I'm not sure that they are. It was my impression that the liability insurance to not use it made it too expensive for them to operate.
You make an interesting point about the expansion of the search. Wouldnt that become a matter of the contract? You have consented to "search". Unless the contract specifically identifies the methods and limits of the search does that make it less enforceable? ( Honest question, I dont know.)
You second argument per the inalienable right to to human dignity though, suggests that you cannot allow a body search. Period, under any circumstances. While I like the sound of it on it's surface, it raises many more questions. For instance, it would suggest that even if officers had probably cause, they could never search your person. It could never be done without a warrant, suggesting that probably cause is itself unlawful. I will agree every day of the week and twice on saturday that probably cause is abused. But I cant quite find conviction in myself that it is without value or legal standing. (Although I think I would like it to fail.)
You are right on two counts.
1) If you deny the terms of the purchase, the agreement is not made and you neither pay or get your ticket to fly.
2) The TSA is a govt agency.
You are wrong on another :
1) It is entirely possible to hire a private plane and circumvent most if not all TSA involvement. (Depending on the airport you will fly to/from.) It costs more than you or I have, but it's not denied us by law.
No, you dont have a clue where I fit. I would not forfeit my rights for convenience. And I wont be bullied by anyone to do so either. But that's not the point. The person I responded to was making a wholly false assertion, and I was merely correcting it.
Teaching isn't like a profession where you deal with simple inputs and outputs.
I'm quite sure that the parents of the kids leaving high schools (the output of the education system and the teachers within) that actually give a shit what their kids learned there would disagree.
I'm fully aware that there are many factors at play in the outcome of a student's education, and the teachers are but one. But they are a significant one. As the parent of a child that receives additional assistance in his public school I've experienced it first hand. I've known teachers able to do a great deal with very little. I've known teachers wholly incapable of helping because they cannot approach a child in any way other than the one spoon fed them in their college programs to certify them as teachers.
And while I agree that the average grade of the teacher's students is often not a meaningful statistic on which to assess the teacher's performance, unions have consistently resisted any measure by which teachers may be evaluated, arguing essentially that the outcome of education is never the teacher's fault.
No, you're flat out wrong.
Officer: "May I search your vehicle?"
Civilian: "Yes."
The civilian has consented to a search, which is entirely lawful. The officer has violated no rights of the civilian by then proceeding with the search.
Another example:
Officer: "... You have the right to remain silent. You have the right to attorney. If you cannot afford one..."
Civilian: " I wave my right to attorney and will answer your questions."
The officer is violating no rights by proceeding with the interview, and everything stated by the civilian from that point on is admissible in court. 6
As sad as it is, this is the same scenario.
Passenger: "May I have a ticket to fly?" Airline: "Do you consent to a search?" Passenger: "Yes."
You have the right to refuse the search at the time you try to purchase the ticket. You cannot then be searched, but you wont be getting a flight either.
There are rights that you cannot forfeit, such as your freedom. You cannot willfully enter into a contract that makes you a slave to another person, for instance.The contract is unenforceable. But that's not what we're talking about here at all.
How about if Unions are given the power to remove ineffective teachers that give their unions a bad name?
This will never happen of course. Unions have lobbied with vigor for the exact opposite, saying that it is unfair that a teacher ever be fired for being ineffective, or for even being graded. Which puts a different perspective on the "unions need more power" argument, yes?
Unless your argument is that poor kids watch more TV than rich kids, your argument is irrelevant to the conversation. And if you are arguing that poor kids do watch more TV which causes the disparity in IQ, then it's a cultural problem rather than a financial one. Their families have enough resources to access television (a luxury), so that removes income from the equation. They choose, or have learned from their parents to use their time in a less productive way, by your logic.
Wow. Just.... wow.
The article, and the links you provide discuss the fundamentalist Islamic nutjobs who hack bloggers to death. Did it occur to you for even a moment that the bloggers are being killed because they were the ones among the most vocal about keeping the Bangladesh traditions of secularism in government? Did it further occur to you that distribution of the ideas of those bloggers is heavily aided by social media?
So in order to suppress the nutjobs, you propose to suppress those in opposition to the nutjobs.
Who do you think wins in this equation?
You have a wonderfully apt moniker.
Perhaps we should have a test to approve people to communicate between one another thru any digital media. We could establish some kind of government panel that can apply the test, and maybe do a quick background investigation to make sure you're not going to stir up any kind of trouble with your comments. After all, people can say stupid shit online in many places beyond social media. You've proved that.