Which is why France has been in permanent decline in EU in relation to Germany ever since they both entered the same currency system, with no end in sight, even with Macron's desperate actions to halt some of it.
German engineer will work as long as is needed to get the job done. French can't even receive work related emails in off-hours. Who will win the contract when the companies hiring French vs German will compete against one another?
There's a good cause to keep work hours down for much of the population, but globalization will punish this severely.
The exact opposite. Men are horrified of women right now, because so much as an accusation from ubermensch ends untermensch's career. And many of the ubermesch have been systemically trained in education system to be hypersensitive to any attention from men they're not attracted to, meaning that just closing the door in one on one meeting in a room is grounds for a #metoo accusation and end of one's career.
Same does not apply in the other direction, hence the terror that women in workplace now inspire in any man. Especially any man that might be in an earned position that said woman might be wanting for herself. Such as any direct leadership position.
Hence, increase in discrimination against hiring women. At this point, it has little to do with bigotry, and everything to do with protecting oneself from legitimate and completely unfair threat.
That's not very hard to imagine, as that has partially happened already. One of the key reasons for rise of working class populism across the West is in the fact that globalisation made city bourgeoisie realise that they have more commonality with bourgeoisie from other cities than with working class in their own countries.
Hence the globalisation being executed the way it went.
It's interesting that Leninist ideas of internationalism went almost exactly as it was outlined in the Soviet dogma as time passed, with just one major exception. It wasn't the worker class that united internationally against the rest. It was the city bourgeoisie.
Both of these arguments are utterly irrelevant to this discussion. It's obvious that they as a pressure group get to choose what they want to do. It's also obvious that they have a long standing history of protecting rights of everyone, down to actual nazis.
Not the modern "those that are left of Marx are nazis". Actual "gas the Jews" nazis.
And they obviously have no "constitutional duty", as they are not a government agency. Constitution is the legislation that binds government, not private entities.
Problem being that this discrimination exists on both ends. Rent to blacks, white flight starts. Don't rent to blacks, that's discrimination on the face of it.
We still haven't figured out the solution, but the fact that white flight in some form exists worldwide shows that problem is culturally agnostic and very hard to solve.
In current climate, not hiring women in male dominated environment is not just right. It's mandatory. By hiring women, you open yourself to massive liability from potential "she had a meeting with a colleague with doors closed = #metoo" which can end a company's reputation, and with it, the company itself.
Unfortunate, but that's just the way it is today. Much of progress that was made in workplace gender equality was all but wiped out in last couple of years. We're back in the 90s or so.
I've listened to commentary of the people who were in the chamber when it was accepted, and apparently the pressure on the MPs was utterly insane. Mass media outlets all but openely threatened to skewer those who were expected to vote for it and would vote against in the upcoming elections.
And this is an excellent example of a religious zealot. Facts don't matter. History don't matter. Reality don't matter. All that matters is the religious dogma, and anyone who isn't espousing it is the enemy. And enemy must be labelled a heretic. Which for progressives is "nazi". Doesn't matter if the target actually committed heresy. That would be thinking in liberal terms.
It's sufficient that opponent opposes the dogma. He's not doing good. That means he's a nazi.
Google dropped the "don't be evil" for "be good" as a slogan a few years ago. This is very telling, because that's the fundamental difference between the system used in Soviet Union and other major dictatorships vs the system used in the West.
Western liberal systems dictate what you SHOULD NOT do. By default, everything that isn't expressly forbidden is allowed. This curbs the tyrannical nature of trying to establish lawful order over people and enable society to function.
"Be good" is an example of a system that tells you what you SHOULD do. This is the system favoured by illiberal tyrannical systems, because it makes anything that isn't specifically allowed forbidden by default.
Which is what we're seeing here. Conservatives do things that are not classified as "good" just by being conservatives in progressive view. Therefore, they can be purged under the google's code of conduct, while the all but the most racist, hateful progressives do not. Because they're ideologically aligned, and are "doing good".
It's the exact same mechanism that NKVD used in Soviet Union to keep the purge going until it finally reached the culmination and purged itself. You can easily narrow the definition of "good" at your discretion, and that automatically outlaws everything outside it. As opposed to Western liberal system, where to outlaw something, you must specifically codify item expressly forbidding that something, and every time you want to add something new to the list, you have to codify that exact thing.
It's the key reason why progressive movement is just as opposed to liberalism as nazis and communists are. The only difference is that nazis and communists were at the very least honest, and didn't call themselves liberals to mask their actions. Progressives do.
Actually, it's just that progressive insanity that seems to have taken over much of the institutional left. They forgot to ask the critical question: "are you a citizen and so allowed to vote?"
Because in progressive dogma, citizenship doesn't matter. In reality, it matters a whole lot. Which makes it even more funny when progressives, who like to hijack the word "liberal" when talking about themselves think that reality has "a liberal bias".
When this is just one of countless examples when opposite is true, and when it really matters.
This is poisoning the well. The demand is and should be for politically neutral public space. In modern world of smartphones and computers, public square is on youtube, facebook, twitter and so on.
The primary difference between google's current policies and USSR in 1930s is harshness of the punishment. The principle behind the punishment on the other hand is unfortunately the same. Ideological purity and fight against anyone those in power paint as "oppressor" at the time. The saddest part about it is that most people forget that NKVD purged itself in the end. And that is where this road has lead for every far left tyrant who's primary tenet was about "pointing the people at the oppressor who needs to be torn down" in the end.
They ended up being painted the oppressor and the system was used against them, all while corrupting everyone within it by encouraging targeting the most successful, using the general lack of success of the masses as a tool.
It's a road back to the tribal jungle, and a road well travelled, paved with bones and glued together with coagulated blood.
By the definition used by democratic party today, they didn't meddle.
By a reasonable definition, in which Russia didn't in fact meddle in any significant way beyond the minor "divide them and make them fight" unless you're counting the whole Bezmenov issue as "Russian meddling" and give it significant weight as the primary reason for rise of the far left forces in governing structures of US, US meddled at the very least in the second Yeltsin election. It was blatantly open on that one, because Yeltsin was utterly unpopular due to his effective surrender of the country after the collapse of USSR to the Western elites. Essentially almost all of the productive industry went for grabs for foreign investment, including even defence related technologies and oil fields (see for example how Lockheed Martin bought VTOL tech for F-35B from Yakovlev bureau and why Khodorovsky was actually nailed in the end). There were probably attempts to do the same in the following elections, but Putin got far too popular for at least 2000s and early 2010s. The next election is going to be interesting because this is clearly Putin's last presidency, judging by the fact that he's pushing through the reforms that his country genuinely needs that are deeply unpopular, like raising pension age to the level comparable to EU average.
It's going to be an interesting contest to see who comes after him, and if US didn't meddle in that election, CIA would need to be broken down and disbanded, because they'd be in dereliction of their primary duty if they didn't attempt to influence the outcome, just as they did in the second Yeltsin election. A better question is going to be, how will the meddling go? Will they go for the same strategy that was used toward the end of 1990s of just maximum damage to the target state, or will they actually have a candidate they'll support as they did in the middle of 1990s?
Problem being that that's literally how everyone defines it. You're the only one so insane as to contest this, and your statement literally concluded that US worker insurance is public.
But then, you also call yourself and expert in power generation, while making statements like that Germany can control wind. So I guess whenever you go and do your rain dance and whatever in drug addled shamanic trance, words do indeed flip 180 degrees to mean their polar opposites.
When you claim to be a "professional in the field of power generation and transmission" in one discussion and in the next post in another fail to understand the very basics of power transfer that Poles actually complain about.
Yeah, I think you should stick with controlling wind. Psychotic ramblings sound much more up your line.
What makes you think he's lying "for" them? So far, his actions are completely in line with "being" one. Lies, deceit, baseless accusations. All modus operandi for this particular crowd.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is why France has been in permanent decline in EU in relation to Germany ever since they both entered the same currency system, with no end in sight, even with Macron's desperate actions to halt some of it.
German engineer will work as long as is needed to get the job done. French can't even receive work related emails in off-hours. Who will win the contract when the companies hiring French vs German will compete against one another?
There's a good cause to keep work hours down for much of the population, but globalization will punish this severely.
The exact opposite. Men are horrified of women right now, because so much as an accusation from ubermensch ends untermensch's career. And many of the ubermesch have been systemically trained in education system to be hypersensitive to any attention from men they're not attracted to, meaning that just closing the door in one on one meeting in a room is grounds for a #metoo accusation and end of one's career.
Same does not apply in the other direction, hence the terror that women in workplace now inspire in any man. Especially any man that might be in an earned position that said woman might be wanting for herself. Such as any direct leadership position.
Hence, increase in discrimination against hiring women. At this point, it has little to do with bigotry, and everything to do with protecting oneself from legitimate and completely unfair threat.
That's not very hard to imagine, as that has partially happened already. One of the key reasons for rise of working class populism across the West is in the fact that globalisation made city bourgeoisie realise that they have more commonality with bourgeoisie from other cities than with working class in their own countries.
Hence the globalisation being executed the way it went.
It's interesting that Leninist ideas of internationalism went almost exactly as it was outlined in the Soviet dogma as time passed, with just one major exception. It wasn't the worker class that united internationally against the rest. It was the city bourgeoisie.
Well documented history vs AC whining. This is where you put some hard evidence on the table, or go back under your bridge.
Irrelevant went to mindless. Ok.
Both of these arguments are utterly irrelevant to this discussion. It's obvious that they as a pressure group get to choose what they want to do. It's also obvious that they have a long standing history of protecting rights of everyone, down to actual nazis.
Not the modern "those that are left of Marx are nazis". Actual "gas the Jews" nazis.
And they obviously have no "constitutional duty", as they are not a government agency. Constitution is the legislation that binds government, not private entities.
Problem being that this discrimination exists on both ends. Rent to blacks, white flight starts. Don't rent to blacks, that's discrimination on the face of it.
We still haven't figured out the solution, but the fact that white flight in some form exists worldwide shows that problem is culturally agnostic and very hard to solve.
In current climate, not hiring women in male dominated environment is not just right. It's mandatory. By hiring women, you open yourself to massive liability from potential "she had a meeting with a colleague with doors closed = #metoo" which can end a company's reputation, and with it, the company itself.
Unfortunate, but that's just the way it is today. Much of progress that was made in workplace gender equality was all but wiped out in last couple of years. We're back in the 90s or so.
ACLU protected free speech for nazis among other things.
I've listened to commentary of the people who were in the chamber when it was accepted, and apparently the pressure on the MPs was utterly insane. Mass media outlets all but openely threatened to skewer those who were expected to vote for it and would vote against in the upcoming elections.
Of course not. When king becomes tyrannical, the first one to get the noose is the court jester.
And this is an excellent example of a religious zealot. Facts don't matter. History don't matter. Reality don't matter. All that matters is the religious dogma, and anyone who isn't espousing it is the enemy. And enemy must be labelled a heretic. Which for progressives is "nazi". Doesn't matter if the target actually committed heresy. That would be thinking in liberal terms.
It's sufficient that opponent opposes the dogma. He's not doing good. That means he's a nazi.
You made my point quite well for me. Thanks.
Google dropped the "don't be evil" for "be good" as a slogan a few years ago. This is very telling, because that's the fundamental difference between the system used in Soviet Union and other major dictatorships vs the system used in the West.
Western liberal systems dictate what you SHOULD NOT do. By default, everything that isn't expressly forbidden is allowed. This curbs the tyrannical nature of trying to establish lawful order over people and enable society to function.
"Be good" is an example of a system that tells you what you SHOULD do. This is the system favoured by illiberal tyrannical systems, because it makes anything that isn't specifically allowed forbidden by default.
Which is what we're seeing here. Conservatives do things that are not classified as "good" just by being conservatives in progressive view. Therefore, they can be purged under the google's code of conduct, while the all but the most racist, hateful progressives do not. Because they're ideologically aligned, and are "doing good".
It's the exact same mechanism that NKVD used in Soviet Union to keep the purge going until it finally reached the culmination and purged itself. You can easily narrow the definition of "good" at your discretion, and that automatically outlaws everything outside it. As opposed to Western liberal system, where to outlaw something, you must specifically codify item expressly forbidding that something, and every time you want to add something new to the list, you have to codify that exact thing.
It's the key reason why progressive movement is just as opposed to liberalism as nazis and communists are. The only difference is that nazis and communists were at the very least honest, and didn't call themselves liberals to mask their actions. Progressives do.
Hair splitting. One is part of the other.
Actually, it's just that progressive insanity that seems to have taken over much of the institutional left. They forgot to ask the critical question: "are you a citizen and so allowed to vote?"
Because in progressive dogma, citizenship doesn't matter. In reality, it matters a whole lot. Which makes it even more funny when progressives, who like to hijack the word "liberal" when talking about themselves think that reality has "a liberal bias".
When this is just one of countless examples when opposite is true, and when it really matters.
This is poisoning the well. The demand is and should be for politically neutral public space. In modern world of smartphones and computers, public square is on youtube, facebook, twitter and so on.
The primary difference between google's current policies and USSR in 1930s is harshness of the punishment. The principle behind the punishment on the other hand is unfortunately the same. Ideological purity and fight against anyone those in power paint as "oppressor" at the time. The saddest part about it is that most people forget that NKVD purged itself in the end. And that is where this road has lead for every far left tyrant who's primary tenet was about "pointing the people at the oppressor who needs to be torn down" in the end.
They ended up being painted the oppressor and the system was used against them, all while corrupting everyone within it by encouraging targeting the most successful, using the general lack of success of the masses as a tool.
It's a road back to the tribal jungle, and a road well travelled, paved with bones and glued together with coagulated blood.
Which is why fractional banking exists. Instead of lending their reserves, they create money based on amount of reserves they hold.
Which means that reserves they hold have to be a certain fraction of total amount lent out. Hence the name.
Second Yeltsin election. Explain that away.
By the definition used by democratic party today, they didn't meddle.
By a reasonable definition, in which Russia didn't in fact meddle in any significant way beyond the minor "divide them and make them fight" unless you're counting the whole Bezmenov issue as "Russian meddling" and give it significant weight as the primary reason for rise of the far left forces in governing structures of US, US meddled at the very least in the second Yeltsin election. It was blatantly open on that one, because Yeltsin was utterly unpopular due to his effective surrender of the country after the collapse of USSR to the Western elites. Essentially almost all of the productive industry went for grabs for foreign investment, including even defence related technologies and oil fields (see for example how Lockheed Martin bought VTOL tech for F-35B from Yakovlev bureau and why Khodorovsky was actually nailed in the end). There were probably attempts to do the same in the following elections, but Putin got far too popular for at least 2000s and early 2010s. The next election is going to be interesting because this is clearly Putin's last presidency, judging by the fact that he's pushing through the reforms that his country genuinely needs that are deeply unpopular, like raising pension age to the level comparable to EU average.
It's going to be an interesting contest to see who comes after him, and if US didn't meddle in that election, CIA would need to be broken down and disbanded, because they'd be in dereliction of their primary duty if they didn't attempt to influence the outcome, just as they did in the second Yeltsin election. A better question is going to be, how will the meddling go? Will they go for the same strategy that was used toward the end of 1990s of just maximum damage to the target state, or will they actually have a candidate they'll support as they did in the middle of 1990s?
Problem being that that's literally how everyone defines it. You're the only one so insane as to contest this, and your statement literally concluded that US worker insurance is public.
But then, you also call yourself and expert in power generation, while making statements like that Germany can control wind. So I guess whenever you go and do your rain dance and whatever in drug addled shamanic trance, words do indeed flip 180 degrees to mean their polar opposites.
When you claim to be a "professional in the field of power generation and transmission" in one discussion and in the next post in another fail to understand the very basics of power transfer that Poles actually complain about.
Yeah, I think you should stick with controlling wind. Psychotic ramblings sound much more up your line.
Yes, I know that you consider yourself one. You already stated that Germany controls wind.
Your admission of defeat is duly noted.
How's that redefining of words working for you so far?
What makes you think he's lying "for" them? So far, his actions are completely in line with "being" one. Lies, deceit, baseless accusations. All modus operandi for this particular crowd.