There is no professional context for this kind of complaint. Even before they fired her, the company had spoken loudly with their actions: Yelp obviously does not care about the material well-being of their workers. The only viable context for this kind of complaint is the forum of public discussion.
I don't see the "murderface" name anywhere in the article. Not sure what's up with that.
Anyways if bossman is upset about his address being known, he might ask virtualglobetrotting.com to remove the entry for his house. Also, we don't actually know that's his house, just that someone labeled it as such.
I think her point is that bossman lives in a rich suburb in a big house with a swimming pool, while his workers struggle to survive. It seems like a fair thing to mention. Kinda Dickensian.
Managers with no ability to gauge the actual productivity of their workers have a problem with remote work because some employees are using it as an excuse to get paid to watch TV at home instead of watching YouTube videos and gossiping at the office, *not* because employees are multiplying their efficiency several times over and doing better-than-excellent work - something said managers have no faculty for discerning.
Personally, I'd rather my daily interactions were mostly with people who don't get off on having slaves.
Reminds me of something a former client once said. He was an impressive man - a physicist by education and a diplomat by trade. I had asked his opinion of unpaid internships. His response was terse, and in my opinion exactly the right answer: "I don't believe in slave labor."
It's all about proletarianization. The cabal of self-described capitalists who own nearly all the Silicon Valley "startup" companies overwhelmingly come from backgrounds of social privilege and inherited wealth. This cabal is waging low intensity class war against tech workers, most of whom come from middle and lower-middle class families.
The VC class vehemently hates the idea of tech workers having any significant degree of autonomy and human dignity. They demand that all tech workers be chained to desks in San Francisco / Silicon Valley for 60+ hours a week, and be subject to the full range of totalitarian progressive speech and thought restrictions. They seek to force out of the industry those workers who refuse enserfment.
Tech workers of the world, remember: venture capitalists exploit nerds
Summary of the new laws: "You have no rights. You lose. Bend over and take it. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. Thank you for your compliance. Violators will be shot."
The anxiety and worry that stems from "political correctness" is that "political correctness" establishes a culture in which people who prey on others, who cause disruption through racism, sexism, hate mongering, sowing class or social divisiveness etc. are deemed inappropriate can themselves be castigated and ostracized.
False. The anxiety stems from recognition that "political correctness" is a doublespeak term. It is most often used to cloak overt hate mongering, elitism, racism, sexism, class oppression, and aggressively antisocial behavior under a veil of pious respectability.
Either you're in favor of free speech or you're not. You've obviously chosen your side. In my opinion you are in bad company, siding with tyrants and despots throughout history. Let us hope the majority show greater tolerance and desire for autonomy.
So people on college campuses are asking for things like trigger warnings
WTF is a "trigger warning"? Sounds like something you'd find posted in an area where people were handling explosives or toxic waste.
Are people who demand trigger warnings suggesting that they are a danger to the general public, to be handled with extreme caution lest they explode and injure innocent bystanders?
>Really, a charge of "political correctness" is just a lazy way to say you don't have a better argument.
Interesting new meme - seems to be getting heavy rotation on/. today. It's a nice, catchy preemptive ad hominem attack. No doubt it will prove popular among those who fare poorly in civil debate.
The original 20th century usage of "political correctness" meant dogmatic adherence to the Stalinist party line. I believe current usage is quite similar, only substitute our modern elitist/progressive/financialist/centrist (call it what you like) form of totalitarian ideology.
Now THAT's an interesting argument. "Free speech hurts people living in totalitarian states, 'cuz when people speak freely the state goons beat them to death." Huh. Seriously dude, I never even thought of that one. Good on you.
Slippery slope arguments are so much horseshit. Purposeful violence against civilians is a breaking of the basic social contract and deserves a forfeiture of rights.
Do you consider the willing acceptance of (well understood risk of) civilian "collateral damage" in ostensibly legit military operations as "purposeful violence against civilians"? If so, should US Gubmint messages be censored? If not, why not? (serious question)
PS: Happy MLK day. That man is an American hero and deserves a nice statue to go next to his big fountain downtown. The leaders of the possibly-fictional ISIS entity do not. That doesn't mean we should censor their words.
For at least 98% of the Internet using population, that act alone pretty much wipes them off of any public consciousness.
98% of the internet using population are not the target market for $YOUR_FAVORITE_EVIL_GROUP's recruitment efforts. Hyperlinking still works very well for people who are actively looking for something.
De-indexing will have little impact on reaching serious recruits, as opposed to idle dilettantes. The main effect will be silencing or at least stultifying public debate. This is not a win.
It seems quite stupid to me to keep anyone off the "open web" (whatever that is)
It's not the "open" web if it is closed to certain classes of people. That some of these classes, for instance the semi-fictional ISIS entity, are extravagantly repugnant is irrelevant to the issue of openness vs closedness.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no professional context for this kind of complaint. Even before they fired her, the company had spoken loudly with their actions: Yelp obviously does not care about the material well-being of their workers. The only viable context for this kind of complaint is the forum of public discussion.
I don't see the "murderface" name anywhere in the article. Not sure what's up with that.
Anyways if bossman is upset about his address being known, he might ask virtualglobetrotting.com to remove the entry for his house. Also, we don't actually know that's his house, just that someone labeled it as such.
I think her point is that bossman lives in a rich suburb in a big house with a swimming pool, while his workers struggle to survive. It seems like a fair thing to mention. Kinda Dickensian.
Looks like the link to his house was pretty easy to google - it's labeled with his name on the webpage. Not exactly revealing secret info.
Dunce
If only THIS politician were running for American president, he'd have my vote.
Leftist = rightist = centrist = totalitarian. That old terminology is obsolete.
In this case, you could probably substitute "establishment" or "nomenklatura" in place of "left".
Meh, newspapers really don't want comments to start with. Too much spam/crackpots commenting on a site they know will get mainstream traffic.
Damn straight, that shit is dangerous. Under no circumstances must we let the opinions of the plebs be heard in public. Gods forbid!
Managers with no ability to gauge the actual productivity of their workers have a problem with remote work because some employees are using it as an excuse to get paid to watch TV at home instead of watching YouTube videos and gossiping at the office, *not* because employees are multiplying their efficiency several times over and doing better-than-excellent work - something said managers have no faculty for discerning.
FTFY
Personally, I'd rather my daily interactions were mostly with people who don't get off on having slaves.
Reminds me of something a former client once said. He was an impressive man - a physicist by education and a diplomat by trade. I had asked his opinion of unpaid internships. His response was terse, and in my opinion exactly the right answer: "I don't believe in slave labor."
Excuse me - do you know where I can sign up for some of that wealth and power?
- Whitey W. Whiteman III
How about the full schematics for a nuclear weapon.
In the public domain for decades.
Not the really interesting parts ;-)
(Google "teller ulam" for fun...)
It's all about proletarianization. The cabal of self-described capitalists who own nearly all the Silicon Valley "startup" companies overwhelmingly come from backgrounds of social privilege and inherited wealth. This cabal is waging low intensity class war against tech workers, most of whom come from middle and lower-middle class families.
The VC class vehemently hates the idea of tech workers having any significant degree of autonomy and human dignity. They demand that all tech workers be chained to desks in San Francisco / Silicon Valley for 60+ hours a week, and be subject to the full range of totalitarian progressive speech and thought restrictions. They seek to force out of the industry those workers who refuse enserfment.
Tech workers of the world, remember: venture capitalists exploit nerds
Summary of the new laws: "You have no rights. You lose. Bend over and take it. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. Thank you for your compliance. Violators will be shot."
The anxiety and worry that stems from "political correctness" is that "political correctness" establishes a culture in which people who prey on others, who cause disruption through racism, sexism, hate mongering, sowing class or social divisiveness etc. are deemed inappropriate can themselves be castigated and ostracized.
False. The anxiety stems from recognition that "political correctness" is a doublespeak term. It is most often used to cloak overt hate mongering, elitism, racism, sexism, class oppression, and aggressively antisocial behavior under a veil of pious respectability.
using the concept of free speech
Either you're in favor of free speech or you're not. You've obviously chosen your side. In my opinion you are in bad company, siding with tyrants and despots throughout history. Let us hope the majority show greater tolerance and desire for autonomy.
So people on college campuses are asking for things like trigger warnings
WTF is a "trigger warning"? Sounds like something you'd find posted in an area where people were handling explosives or toxic waste.
Are people who demand trigger warnings suggesting that they are a danger to the general public, to be handled with extreme caution lest they explode and injure innocent bystanders?
>Really, a charge of "political correctness" is just a lazy way to say you don't have a better argument.
Interesting new meme - seems to be getting heavy rotation on /. today. It's a nice, catchy preemptive ad hominem attack. No doubt it will prove popular among those who fare poorly in civil debate.
The original 20th century usage of "political correctness" meant dogmatic adherence to the Stalinist party line. I believe current usage is quite similar, only substitute our modern elitist/progressive/financialist/centrist (call it what you like) form of totalitarian ideology.
But I do think it is unfair to lump her in with "powerball winners", even if just metaphorically.
A better analogy might be a Powerball winner who subsequently burns down the Lottery agency.
NYC is full of beautiful (and frequently single) women. In fact, every liberal-ish major US city is full of beautiful women
SF is not. Barf bag is mandatory here.
He is an enemy of the United States.
Snowden is an enemy of the finacialist ruling clique of the United States. But he is a friend of the American people.
Among the rewards of heroism is the love of women.
Now THAT's an interesting argument. "Free speech hurts people living in totalitarian states, 'cuz when people speak freely the state goons beat them to death." Huh. Seriously dude, I never even thought of that one. Good on you.
Hate speech, tho hateful, is speech. Either you support freedom of speech or you don't.
Slippery slope arguments are so much horseshit. Purposeful violence against civilians is a breaking of the basic social contract and deserves a forfeiture of rights.
Do you consider the willing acceptance of (well understood risk of) civilian "collateral damage" in ostensibly legit military operations as "purposeful violence against civilians"? If so, should US Gubmint messages be censored? If not, why not? (serious question)
PS: Happy MLK day. That man is an American hero and deserves a nice statue to go next to his big fountain downtown. The leaders of the possibly-fictional ISIS entity do not. That doesn't mean we should censor their words.
For at least 98% of the Internet using population, that act alone pretty much wipes them off of any public consciousness.
98% of the internet using population are not the target market for $YOUR_FAVORITE_EVIL_GROUP's recruitment efforts. Hyperlinking still works very well for people who are actively looking for something.
De-indexing will have little impact on reaching serious recruits, as opposed to idle dilettantes. The main effect will be silencing or at least stultifying public debate. This is not a win.
It seems quite stupid to me to keep anyone off the "open web" (whatever that is)
It's not the "open" web if it is closed to certain classes of people. That some of these classes, for instance the semi-fictional ISIS entity, are extravagantly repugnant is irrelevant to the issue of openness vs closedness.