People that are prone to be sensitive and have increased leverage for political correctness reasons are themselves frequently bullies. Anyone that has been 6 years old will remember the child that cried to get another child in trouble. Anyone that watches sports will be aware that on occasion someone will pretend to be injured to encourage a referee to punish the opposing team.
We all know this because I assume we've all been 6 before and are aware of professional sports to some extent.
This plays out in the work place in much the same manner in that some people will pretend offense or emotional injury for personal gain or to spite someone they don't like.
There is a movement to discourage awareness of this element of the work place. And while some feel this creates a more welcoming environment for people to express problems... it also encourages abuse by those that don't mind pretending to manipulate their coworkers and employers.
One must be skeptical and reasonable either way. If you get a report... use your best judgement and try to appreciate what is possible and what you know. Naturally you don't want a hostile work environment. But you also don't want a hair trigger whine fest environment because that is also quite hostile.
In the one case you have some bully beating people up for their lunch money... in the other case you have your little sister Susie pretending some imaginary offense to get your mom to punish you... yes... I am intentionally using childish analogies here to get the point across.
Include multiple perspectives on every issue. Don't remove them. Leave them there but make it clear that there is controversy on some things. Let people say why they think something is or is not true.
A lot of the debate that happens under the skin of a wikipedia page is interesting and should be more prominently displayed.
Here someone might say that would make an "article" very long because instead of just telling one story about an issue it would basically tell all of them from a lot of different perspectives. You'd also get conspiracy theorists and trolls flooding the thing to say X or Y about everything.
But so what? Its a website so space isn't an issue. And you just organize it so that things are sorted by whether or not a given fact or element of a story is controversial. So basic information like "the names of people"... probably not controversial in most cases. So that would be shared data between all the scenarios. Then you'd have bits of information that were poorly sourced or inferred conclusions based on known information... that people felt were controversial.
Maybe have a summary of the article based on the most prominent/popular interpretation of the information and then alternative interpretations based on different filtering metrics... such as... excluding everyone's opinions accept a given factions.
many places in the country are eager to have amazon because they know the value of what is being invested in their local economy... because they don't have it. Some areas take this sort of thing for granted. They forget that the paint can chip and the new houses can turn into crack houses.
Took your soul? Like the Auto industry took Detroit's soul or the finance industry took Manhattan's soul. Sure... and what do you have when they're gone. Tell me how happy you are when the money is gone.
Sure, because absent the US selling guns, your argument is the cartels wouldn't have guns.
Don't be silly.
Criminals in Belgium have guns. Did you know that? Capital of the EU is actually one of the hearts of european illegal gun trafficking.
Also, cocaine is I believe as of last test... more common on the waters of Antwerp than any other major city in the world.
You have about a hundred years of really good statistics showing how completely ineffective bans are in these matters.
It didn't stop people getting alcohol
It didn't stop people getting drugs... Including heroin, cocaine, meth, etc.
And guess what? It doesn't stop people getting guns.
the ignorance on the issue is that people don't look at the gun statistics before and after these bans. They merely compare country X with country Y.
This is about as rational as comparing Japanese obesity statistics with the US for example and then interjecting some irrelevant nutritional guideline... and pretending like that has any result in the matter.
Look at UK or Australian gun homicides BEFORE their bans and compare them to what they are now. You'll see that the bans didn't actually move the needle.
Mexico has the bans and you can see what they have to deal with.
And as I said, we're entering the world of the 3d Printer...
The bans only stop people that obey the law. There is a misunderstanding as to how you control criminal behavior. And it isn't a law.
This man did nothing before his rampage to flag him as criminal. Attacking everyone that is law abiding because you lack any way of separating the sheep from the goats is counter productive.
You're also dealing with smart and methodical psychopaths. There's nothing in any proposed law change that is going to stop a man like this... these are the sorts of guys that always get through the checks. The only way you're going to protect yourself from people like this is by walling yourself off from everyone.
Short of a total police state... this guy will have been unchecked.
actually you can compare data on gun deaths in those countries before and after the guns were removed and you'll see they didn't change much statistically...
England has less gun deaths now than the US does now... but they also had less before they banned guns.
Thus there is no correlative relationship.
What is more there are many countries with very restrictive gun laws that have very high gun deaths.
Thus the argument is with due respect... ignorant of the facts.
The problem is that there is an assumption somehow in your argument that criminals obey laws.
This is contradicted by the very definition and yet people seem to not get it.
We also have examples of other bans and prohibitions not being effective.
Again... drugs... notice how the drug bans don't stop anything.
So... why would you think the gun bans would?
Here you'll forget what I said at the start about England etc... which is too bad. You can look at lots of countries where they have guns and there is relatively little gun violence.
Switzerland is an extreme example where most of the population is issued machine guns and bullets which they keep in their homes.
See?
It isn't guns that are the issue. Its the "people". And some people are an issue and some people are not. If you're swiss for example... apparently you're not inclined to be an issue. Different groups are an issue. If you want to restrict gun ownership on that basis... have fun.
Exactly. You're not going to stop people like that by going after law abiding common people. The methodical psychos get off in part on getting around the laws. its in part a game for these people. People have gone on rampages pretty much in every country except literal police states. And even then, people might go on rampages but who would know given that there isn't a free press to report on it.
Remember that huge explosion in china that took out like four city blocks? Anyone know exactly what happened there? You never will know. You've got official government reports that can't really be totally trusted... period full stop.
Look, the occasional maniac can't be stopped. Its impossible. Ban all the guns and these people will just drive a gasoline semi truck into a TGI Fridays and detonate it while masturbating from the other side of the road.
If you want to save lives, do something about the urban drug and gang violence. Or maybe look at the suicides which make up about 60 percent of all gun deaths.
Instead what does everyone focus on? Cops killing people which makes up less than a percent of homicides... and the maniac shooters which makes up less than a percent of a percent of a percent of homicides.
Its dumb. If we care about saving lives, we'll focus on something else. If we're trying to use a a tragedy to fuel a divergent agenda then we'll talk about this vegas bullshit as if getting rid of bump stocks will do anything.
We're in the age of the 3d printer, kids. It won't be long before everyone has any gun they want in their garage.
Think.
They didn't stop booze by banning it. They didn't stop drugs by banning them. You haven't made any progress at doing anything with guns by banning them. And very soon things are going to hilarious with the advent of increasingly sophisticated 3d printers.
And for people to not get this on slashdot... silly.
If you think banning bump stocks would have stopped that guy... then I don't think you've been paying attention.
The guy set up a whole video surveillance system around his hotel room. He planned everything out for months.
Let us say we outright banned guns entirely... do you think criminals wouldn't have guns?
Naturally they would. The Mexican Cartels have them and guns are actually pretty hard to legally own in mexico. And yet the cartels have machine guns and whatever else they want.
Most gun homocides are committed with ILLEGAL guns already. Its mostly inner city drug and gang violence. And gangbangers do not go through background checks to buy guns. They buy black market guns off the street often with the serial numbers filed off. They're not hard to find or buy.
Look at the war on drugs for another example of how utterly pointless this idea is... have you been able to get crack off the streets? Heroin? Nope. Why? Because there is a market for it and you can't fight the market. The Soviet Union couldn't fight the market. There is a black market in maximum security prison. You can buy drugs and get cell phones and other stuff in SUPER MAX PRISON. So.... you think you can control the market on the streets of the USA? Ha. Ha. Ha.
Passing laws will effect LAW ABIDING americans. However, Criminals are going to break laws because... they're "criminals". And guess what, methodical mass murderers that plan out their rampages years in advance are going to go on a rampage no matter what thing you ban. They'll just kill you with something else.
We have seen mass murders done with all sorts of weapons... Cars, fires, air planes, bombs, knives, poison gas, and even that whole anthrax thing.
We've seen people blow up buildings with fertilizer. Exactly where do you think this ends?
Look... you ban what you want. I don't really care about bump stocks. Ban em'. But it won't make any difference.
And while you're doing that, keep in mind that in the urban heart of every major city in the USA there are HUNDREDS of murders in EACH city every year. Urban drug and gang violence... mostly black and Hispanic men killing other black and Hispanic men... Assuming anyone wants to go all BLM on this issue.
Anyone care about that? Someone dies in those neighborhoods almost every day in every city in this country.
They kill each other with illegal guns, knives, or just beat each other to death. My city has about 600 murders per year... most of the death comes out of those neighborhoods... roughly 80 percent. Tiny fraction of the total population. Its a war zone.
But you care about that, right?
Why don't you pass law to actually ENFORCE existing gun laws by going after illegal guns? Take some of the illegal guns off the streets. Going after the millions of law abiding and overwhelmingly peaceful people that own guns simply because some random psycho goes on a rampage every so often is irrational. You're not going to stop men like this by attacking law abiding people. We're not the ones that go on rampages. And all things being equal, you want us armed rather than not. Because the criminals and psychos will be armed. Wouldn't it be nice if people that weren't criminals and psychos were also armed?
You can already nail people for lying about things. All you have to do is prove in a court of law that they knowingly lied about something and those lies led to material damages to other people.
If you can't prove that, then you literally have no case.
Either because you can't prove someone knew they were lying.
Or because whatever they were lying about didn't actually matter because you can't show that the lies lead to any kind of actual damages in the "material universe".. aka... nothing fucking happened.
But sure... we'll just remove the freedom of speech even though you can't prove someone is lying and/or can't show that there were any damaging effects.
This is a call for tyranny. Here some complete fuckwit is going to say something along the lines of "but I saw something I disagreed with on the internet!"... I disagree with you... so can I silence you? I wouldn't because I believe in freedom, but apparently some people think they're entitled to act like thugs.
Listen children, this goes where you think you want it and its as likely to end with you getting dropped out of helicopters as it is me getting muzzled.
Kindly act like civil citizens and argue out your position in the market place of ideas like everyone else. If you can't compete... consider that you might just be wrong, have bad ideas, or be too socially inept to make a coherent argument. Which ever way it goes... if you fail there, then politics isn't your game. Here you might think "then I have to get violent"... Please help me rid my society of people like you by going violent. I'm tired of listening to this totalitarian fan fiction.
If you want to live in a tyrannical society then move to one. Why do you idiots have to fuck up every society that is half way decent? We have a first amendment.
If you want to change it, then you're going to need a 75 percent majority vote to change the constitution. It isn't going to happen.
This has always been a dog eat dog world. Survival of the fittest and all that... I'll care about elements of the ecology I care about... but I'm not going to care about elements that don't matter to me. Here people will say its all connected and a package deal. Well, species have died since always and yet here we are. So clearly the level of connection is not total. There are lots of species I'll try to save. Intestinal worms are not one of them.
Look, I don't know anything... no claim to expertise... I'm just genuinely baffled as to how you collide with a ship at sea in these circumstances.
Is the visibility poor? If you couldn't see the other ship that is an issue... though, I would think a naval craft would have optics that could see at night and through fog.
As to notions of "well maybe they were hacked"... if that matters at all, then the system is badly designed because a ship like that should be manned at all times when underway. You don't just put it on automatic and then space out.
I can see a ship being taken off course by a hack... maybe being run into a reef or something that wasn't seen below the water line. But a collusion between surface ships at sea? It just seems like incompetence is the only answer. I say this acknowledging that I really don't know what is going on here... just some guy:)
There were a series of allegations by the Bernie campaign... one is information was being leaked by the DNC from the Bernie Campaign to Hillary. I could go get a list of these things if you want. There was a lot of shady shit about the Hillary campaign.
As to her qualifications, her popularity figures, ability to speak publicly, her charisma which is relevant to people wanting to win an election, etc... none of it was very good. But whatever... run her again... maybe third time is the charm!
As to republicans restricting voting, justify that please. As to election reform, no it would not be about candidates... it is about ensuring the integrity of the ballot box. The allegation is that people are fiddling with the votes. Apparently the Dems like the "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" approach to investigation. Which is naturally the best way to accomplish nothing on reform, find nothing, and frankly facilitate any existing corruption.
But that's okay... Even if you do nothing to reform the process, some kind of light is being shown on this at least privately and there is an increasing probability that corruption will be discovered eventually... and whoever is doing it will pay an embarrassing price in elections to come. All of which could be avoided by being serious about reform... but we might get much the same simply by catching people's hand in the cookie jar.
That's an amazing link you posted. Thank you very much for sharing it. Do you have any other sources that you'd recommend I look at on this issue or any other? Just an amazing link. Thank you again.
Really this is all a cover up for the real scandal which is that the Hillary camp stole the nomination from Bernie. That act got the Bernie people to leak DNC emails which they had access to... and now the DNC is blaming the consequences of their own corruption on Russia... which has lead to sanctions on Russia and all sorts of diplomatic consequences. The impact of Russia or any hack on the election is at best dubious.
Fact is that the Dems got split by a corrupt primary followed by a serially weak candidate that failed last time around and shocker failed again. Dems are mad at Trump... they did this to themselves. The Obama presidency was relatively popular... just like the end of the Clinton administration. They could have rolled that into another Dem presidency. But they decided to blow it.
And just like with the Gore campaign, rather than own up to serious errors in judgment and misteps... the Dems have claimed that the election was stolen from them.
Guess any time Dems don't win it must be a rigged election, right guys?
Of course, despite saying that, the dems seem very resistant to the idea of Voter ID reform or Election inspections or anything that would address the thing they allege is taking elections from them. Its almost as if they don't really believe it. Its almost as if its just a dumb excuse they tell rubes to keep them angry and protesting. If the dems actually thought they were getting elections stolen from them, they'd be the ones pushing election reform. That they're the ones resisting reform makes it very clear their assertions are insincere.
We'll see who prevails here, cupcake. Me thinks you're going to get lots of sticky egg on your face over these statements. Google looks like they're fucked.
But we'll see. Maybe you're right. Its looking like a wipe out for google and your position here... but that's just my impression. Time will tell.
The company got political first. Rather than focusing on what was relevant to the bottom line they have been doing social experiments. They do these political diversity seminars... they invite employees to comment.
Its going to court. And that will be that. If the court agrees with you then so be it. But if you are familiar with US labor laws... then you have to be aware that google has some liability and vulnerability here. The firing can easily be argued as retribution for complaining about labor conditions. Which I believe is a violation of US labor law.
All of this is very ironic because the people defending google are members of the same broad ideological faction that put these rules into place in the first place. And it could easily lead to an issue where the labor unions have to side against their presumptive ideological allies out of self defense... because the precedence set by google winning this would put those entities in threat.
There is a lot of tough talk coming from the SJW dude bros... they want everyone to know that anyone that has a problem with this is a pussy and a whiner. The hypocrisy of this is obvious and won't be explored beyond this sentence. However, the "everyone who complains is a pussy" or a snowflake or whatever argument doesn't really work in a labor dispute in a court room. So... Looking at US labor law... Google looks like they're in trouble.
But the courts are unpredictable sometimes. We'll see what happens.
What is evident from this is something that has been known for a long time. A lot of people that profess given believes only pretend to do so and frequently have either different beliefs or completely antithetical beliefs to their professed beliefs.
Tolerance, diversity, openness to ideas, empathy to people's feelings, etc are not actually genuinely held beliefs of the "social justice" community. Its confirmed again and again... man or woman comes to a college campus to say something some of them don't like... result is a riot. Fire, vandalism, threats, and screeching.
Some AC says "at will employees" have no right to say X or Y in chat... and its hypocritical because if an at will employee were fired for saying what he wants he'd probably want to burn the building to the ground.
We're going to see some interesting things with this stuff. First, this atmosphere is going to drive talented people away from these companies. The money is good but it will take a toll. The irony of them building these monuments in San Jose... massive corporate compounds... just in time for them go into decline. Second, they're running afoul of labor department rules. This is amusing because it was people like this that put a lot of these rules in place precisely to stop behavior like this... and that its going to be needed to restrain them speaks to the insincerity of the movement. Next we have secrets, a lot of this stuff is done off the record and in as an opaque method as possible precisely because they know their actions wouldn't survive in the light of day. All of this is for power and money... people that can't compete on the basis of merit instead gang together to bias outcomes. They want control over things they don't deserve to have control over and they want to be paid more than they deserve to be paid.
Ultimately, I think the root cause of the problem is google's corporate culture which seems to be this anti-hierarchical we're all big happy family system. And that's fine for smaller companies or smaller teams but I don't think it works for 10s of thousands of people. A good middle ground solution I would try here is to break the company down organizationally into much smaller units which can transfer employees and collaborate but which don't march to the same social drum. A lot of what creates this Lord of the Flies type chaos is a sense that all the adults are dead and the children have to start over in the wilderness. That is sort of the message that gets sent when there is so little regimentation of what is going on. You get people breaking into tribes and then trying to dominate each other. That it is the tribe of tolerance and diversity doing it is just pathetic... but ultimately this is all on Google's senior management which appears to be asleep at the switch.
So unless google wants to degenerate into a lot of non-productive non-stop shitshows... I'd suggest they break the community up a bit and get middle management to refocus employees on their jobs rather than on whatever the hell all this is supposed to be about.
Slashdot Mirror
Very aggressive statement you made there. I'm frankly feeling a little bullied by you right now... this is not feeling like a safe environment.
Please watch your tone. You words scare me.
And if you don't find that credible... consider that you're arguing against yourself.
Its heads I'm right or tales you've contradicted yourself.
People that are prone to be sensitive and have increased leverage for political correctness reasons are themselves frequently bullies. Anyone that has been 6 years old will remember the child that cried to get another child in trouble. Anyone that watches sports will be aware that on occasion someone will pretend to be injured to encourage a referee to punish the opposing team.
We all know this because I assume we've all been 6 before and are aware of professional sports to some extent.
This plays out in the work place in much the same manner in that some people will pretend offense or emotional injury for personal gain or to spite someone they don't like.
There is a movement to discourage awareness of this element of the work place. And while some feel this creates a more welcoming environment for people to express problems... it also encourages abuse by those that don't mind pretending to manipulate their coworkers and employers.
One must be skeptical and reasonable either way. If you get a report... use your best judgement and try to appreciate what is possible and what you know. Naturally you don't want a hostile work environment. But you also don't want a hair trigger whine fest environment because that is also quite hostile.
In the one case you have some bully beating people up for their lunch money... in the other case you have your little sister Susie pretending some imaginary offense to get your mom to punish you... yes... I am intentionally using childish analogies here to get the point across.
Glad that's over. Next issue?
Include multiple perspectives on every issue. Don't remove them. Leave them there but make it clear that there is controversy on some things. Let people say why they think something is or is not true.
A lot of the debate that happens under the skin of a wikipedia page is interesting and should be more prominently displayed.
Here someone might say that would make an "article" very long because instead of just telling one story about an issue it would basically tell all of them from a lot of different perspectives. You'd also get conspiracy theorists and trolls flooding the thing to say X or Y about everything.
But so what? Its a website so space isn't an issue. And you just organize it so that things are sorted by whether or not a given fact or element of a story is controversial. So basic information like "the names of people"... probably not controversial in most cases. So that would be shared data between all the scenarios. Then you'd have bits of information that were poorly sourced or inferred conclusions based on known information... that people felt were controversial.
Maybe have a summary of the article based on the most prominent/popular interpretation of the information and then alternative interpretations based on different filtering metrics... such as... excluding everyone's opinions accept a given factions.
many places in the country are eager to have amazon because they know the value of what is being invested in their local economy... because they don't have it. Some areas take this sort of thing for granted. They forget that the paint can chip and the new houses can turn into crack houses.
Took your soul? Like the Auto industry took Detroit's soul or the finance industry took Manhattan's soul. Sure... and what do you have when they're gone. Tell me how happy you are when the money is gone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
This or something like it... fin.
Sure, because absent the US selling guns, your argument is the cartels wouldn't have guns.
Don't be silly.
Criminals in Belgium have guns. Did you know that? Capital of the EU is actually one of the hearts of european illegal gun trafficking.
Also, cocaine is I believe as of last test... more common on the waters of Antwerp than any other major city in the world.
You have about a hundred years of really good statistics showing how completely ineffective bans are in these matters.
It didn't stop people getting alcohol
It didn't stop people getting drugs... Including heroin, cocaine, meth, etc.
And guess what? It doesn't stop people getting guns.
the ignorance on the issue is that people don't look at the gun statistics before and after these bans. They merely compare country X with country Y.
This is about as rational as comparing Japanese obesity statistics with the US for example and then interjecting some irrelevant nutritional guideline... and pretending like that has any result in the matter.
Look at UK or Australian gun homicides BEFORE their bans and compare them to what they are now. You'll see that the bans didn't actually move the needle.
Mexico has the bans and you can see what they have to deal with.
And as I said, we're entering the world of the 3d Printer...
The bans only stop people that obey the law. There is a misunderstanding as to how you control criminal behavior. And it isn't a law.
This man did nothing before his rampage to flag him as criminal. Attacking everyone that is law abiding because you lack any way of separating the sheep from the goats is counter productive.
You're also dealing with smart and methodical psychopaths. There's nothing in any proposed law change that is going to stop a man like this... these are the sorts of guys that always get through the checks. The only way you're going to protect yourself from people like this is by walling yourself off from everyone.
Short of a total police state... this guy will have been unchecked.
I'm talking to myself...
actually you can compare data on gun deaths in those countries before and after the guns were removed and you'll see they didn't change much statistically...
England has less gun deaths now than the US does now... but they also had less before they banned guns.
Thus there is no correlative relationship.
What is more there are many countries with very restrictive gun laws that have very high gun deaths.
Thus the argument is with due respect... ignorant of the facts.
The problem is that there is an assumption somehow in your argument that criminals obey laws.
This is contradicted by the very definition and yet people seem to not get it.
We also have examples of other bans and prohibitions not being effective.
Again... drugs... notice how the drug bans don't stop anything.
So... why would you think the gun bans would?
Here you'll forget what I said at the start about England etc... which is too bad. You can look at lots of countries where they have guns and there is relatively little gun violence.
Switzerland is an extreme example where most of the population is issued machine guns and bullets which they keep in their homes.
See?
It isn't guns that are the issue. Its the "people". And some people are an issue and some people are not. If you're swiss for example... apparently you're not inclined to be an issue. Different groups are an issue. If you want to restrict gun ownership on that basis... have fun.
Exactly. You're not going to stop people like that by going after law abiding common people. The methodical psychos get off in part on getting around the laws. its in part a game for these people. People have gone on rampages pretty much in every country except literal police states. And even then, people might go on rampages but who would know given that there isn't a free press to report on it.
Remember that huge explosion in china that took out like four city blocks? Anyone know exactly what happened there? You never will know. You've got official government reports that can't really be totally trusted... period full stop.
Look, the occasional maniac can't be stopped. Its impossible. Ban all the guns and these people will just drive a gasoline semi truck into a TGI Fridays and detonate it while masturbating from the other side of the road.
If you want to save lives, do something about the urban drug and gang violence. Or maybe look at the suicides which make up about 60 percent of all gun deaths.
Instead what does everyone focus on? Cops killing people which makes up less than a percent of homicides... and the maniac shooters which makes up less than a percent of a percent of a percent of homicides.
Its dumb. If we care about saving lives, we'll focus on something else. If we're trying to use a a tragedy to fuel a divergent agenda then we'll talk about this vegas bullshit as if getting rid of bump stocks will do anything.
We're in the age of the 3d printer, kids. It won't be long before everyone has any gun they want in their garage.
Think.
They didn't stop booze by banning it. They didn't stop drugs by banning them. You haven't made any progress at doing anything with guns by banning them. And very soon things are going to hilarious with the advent of increasingly sophisticated 3d printers.
And for people to not get this on slashdot... silly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
3d printed full metal 1911 pistol.
If you think banning bump stocks would have stopped that guy... then I don't think you've been paying attention.
The guy set up a whole video surveillance system around his hotel room. He planned everything out for months.
Let us say we outright banned guns entirely... do you think criminals wouldn't have guns?
Naturally they would. The Mexican Cartels have them and guns are actually pretty hard to legally own in mexico. And yet the cartels have machine guns and whatever else they want.
Most gun homocides are committed with ILLEGAL guns already. Its mostly inner city drug and gang violence. And gangbangers do not go through background checks to buy guns. They buy black market guns off the street often with the serial numbers filed off. They're not hard to find or buy.
Look at the war on drugs for another example of how utterly pointless this idea is... have you been able to get crack off the streets? Heroin? Nope. Why? Because there is a market for it and you can't fight the market. The Soviet Union couldn't fight the market. There is a black market in maximum security prison. You can buy drugs and get cell phones and other stuff in SUPER MAX PRISON. So.... you think you can control the market on the streets of the USA? Ha. Ha. Ha.
Passing laws will effect LAW ABIDING americans. However, Criminals are going to break laws because... they're "criminals". And guess what, methodical mass murderers that plan out their rampages years in advance are going to go on a rampage no matter what thing you ban. They'll just kill you with something else.
We have seen mass murders done with all sorts of weapons... Cars, fires, air planes, bombs, knives, poison gas, and even that whole anthrax thing.
We've seen people blow up buildings with fertilizer. Exactly where do you think this ends?
Look... you ban what you want. I don't really care about bump stocks. Ban em'. But it won't make any difference.
And while you're doing that, keep in mind that in the urban heart of every major city in the USA there are HUNDREDS of murders in EACH city every year. Urban drug and gang violence... mostly black and Hispanic men killing other black and Hispanic men... Assuming anyone wants to go all BLM on this issue.
Anyone care about that? Someone dies in those neighborhoods almost every day in every city in this country.
They kill each other with illegal guns, knives, or just beat each other to death. My city has about 600 murders per year... most of the death comes out of those neighborhoods... roughly 80 percent. Tiny fraction of the total population. Its a war zone.
But you care about that, right?
Why don't you pass law to actually ENFORCE existing gun laws by going after illegal guns? Take some of the illegal guns off the streets. Going after the millions of law abiding and overwhelmingly peaceful people that own guns simply because some random psycho goes on a rampage every so often is irrational. You're not going to stop men like this by attacking law abiding people. We're not the ones that go on rampages. And all things being equal, you want us armed rather than not. Because the criminals and psychos will be armed. Wouldn't it be nice if people that weren't criminals and psychos were also armed?
You can already nail people for lying about things. All you have to do is prove in a court of law that they knowingly lied about something and those lies led to material damages to other people.
If you can't prove that, then you literally have no case.
Either because you can't prove someone knew they were lying.
Or because whatever they were lying about didn't actually matter because you can't show that the lies lead to any kind of actual damages in the "material universe".. aka... nothing fucking happened.
But sure... we'll just remove the freedom of speech even though you can't prove someone is lying and/or can't show that there were any damaging effects.
This is a call for tyranny. Here some complete fuckwit is going to say something along the lines of "but I saw something I disagreed with on the internet!"... I disagree with you... so can I silence you? I wouldn't because I believe in freedom, but apparently some people think they're entitled to act like thugs.
Listen children, this goes where you think you want it and its as likely to end with you getting dropped out of helicopters as it is me getting muzzled.
Kindly act like civil citizens and argue out your position in the market place of ideas like everyone else. If you can't compete... consider that you might just be wrong, have bad ideas, or be too socially inept to make a coherent argument. Which ever way it goes... if you fail there, then politics isn't your game. Here you might think "then I have to get violent"... Please help me rid my society of people like you by going violent. I'm tired of listening to this totalitarian fan fiction.
If you want to live in a tyrannical society then move to one. Why do you idiots have to fuck up every society that is half way decent? We have a first amendment.
If you want to change it, then you're going to need a 75 percent majority vote to change the constitution. It isn't going to happen.
Get over it.
This has always been a dog eat dog world. Survival of the fittest and all that... I'll care about elements of the ecology I care about... but I'm not going to care about elements that don't matter to me. Here people will say its all connected and a package deal. Well, species have died since always and yet here we are. So clearly the level of connection is not total. There are lots of species I'll try to save. Intestinal worms are not one of them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
If you're curious.
There are many other options. Never touched Chrome... Google has been too big for a long time and I didn't want to feed it.
Look, I don't know anything... no claim to expertise... I'm just genuinely baffled as to how you collide with a ship at sea in these circumstances.
Is the visibility poor? If you couldn't see the other ship that is an issue... though, I would think a naval craft would have optics that could see at night and through fog.
As to notions of "well maybe they were hacked"... if that matters at all, then the system is badly designed because a ship like that should be manned at all times when underway. You don't just put it on automatic and then space out.
I can see a ship being taken off course by a hack... maybe being run into a reef or something that wasn't seen below the water line. But a collusion between surface ships at sea? It just seems like incompetence is the only answer. I say this acknowledging that I really don't know what is going on here... just some guy :)
So your argument is that only the GOP gerrymanders?
You clearly didn't work on that integrity thing... tragic.
So your argument is that the republicans are trying to gerrrymander with Voter ID laws?...
Integrity. Think about it.
Quite sincere, thanks for your link. :)
There were a series of allegations by the Bernie campaign... one is information was being leaked by the DNC from the Bernie Campaign to Hillary. I could go get a list of these things if you want. There was a lot of shady shit about the Hillary campaign.
Stuff in this for example:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
As to her qualifications, her popularity figures, ability to speak publicly, her charisma which is relevant to people wanting to win an election, etc... none of it was very good. But whatever... run her again... maybe third time is the charm!
As to republicans restricting voting, justify that please. As to election reform, no it would not be about candidates... it is about ensuring the integrity of the ballot box. The allegation is that people are fiddling with the votes. Apparently the Dems like the "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" approach to investigation. Which is naturally the best way to accomplish nothing on reform, find nothing, and frankly facilitate any existing corruption.
But that's okay... Even if you do nothing to reform the process, some kind of light is being shown on this at least privately and there is an increasing probability that corruption will be discovered eventually... and whoever is doing it will pay an embarrassing price in elections to come. All of which could be avoided by being serious about reform... but we might get much the same simply by catching people's hand in the cookie jar.
That's an amazing link you posted. Thank you very much for sharing it. Do you have any other sources that you'd recommend I look at on this issue or any other? Just an amazing link. Thank you again.
https://www.thenation.com/arti...
Really this is all a cover up for the real scandal which is that the Hillary camp stole the nomination from Bernie. That act got the Bernie people to leak DNC emails which they had access to... and now the DNC is blaming the consequences of their own corruption on Russia... which has lead to sanctions on Russia and all sorts of diplomatic consequences. The impact of Russia or any hack on the election is at best dubious.
Fact is that the Dems got split by a corrupt primary followed by a serially weak candidate that failed last time around and shocker failed again. Dems are mad at Trump... they did this to themselves. The Obama presidency was relatively popular... just like the end of the Clinton administration. They could have rolled that into another Dem presidency. But they decided to blow it.
And just like with the Gore campaign, rather than own up to serious errors in judgment and misteps... the Dems have claimed that the election was stolen from them.
Guess any time Dems don't win it must be a rigged election, right guys?
Of course, despite saying that, the dems seem very resistant to the idea of Voter ID reform or Election inspections or anything that would address the thing they allege is taking elections from them. Its almost as if they don't really believe it. Its almost as if its just a dumb excuse they tell rubes to keep them angry and protesting. If the dems actually thought they were getting elections stolen from them, they'd be the ones pushing election reform. That they're the ones resisting reform makes it very clear their assertions are insincere.
We'll see who prevails here, cupcake. Me thinks you're going to get lots of sticky egg on your face over these statements. Google looks like they're fucked.
But we'll see. Maybe you're right. Its looking like a wipe out for google and your position here... but that's just my impression. Time will tell.
The company got political first. Rather than focusing on what was relevant to the bottom line they have been doing social experiments. They do these political diversity seminars... they invite employees to comment.
Its going to court. And that will be that. If the court agrees with you then so be it. But if you are familiar with US labor laws... then you have to be aware that google has some liability and vulnerability here. The firing can easily be argued as retribution for complaining about labor conditions. Which I believe is a violation of US labor law.
All of this is very ironic because the people defending google are members of the same broad ideological faction that put these rules into place in the first place. And it could easily lead to an issue where the labor unions have to side against their presumptive ideological allies out of self defense... because the precedence set by google winning this would put those entities in threat.
There is a lot of tough talk coming from the SJW dude bros... they want everyone to know that anyone that has a problem with this is a pussy and a whiner. The hypocrisy of this is obvious and won't be explored beyond this sentence. However, the "everyone who complains is a pussy" or a snowflake or whatever argument doesn't really work in a labor dispute in a court room. So... Looking at US labor law... Google looks like they're in trouble.
But the courts are unpredictable sometimes. We'll see what happens.
What is evident from this is something that has been known for a long time. A lot of people that profess given believes only pretend to do so and frequently have either different beliefs or completely antithetical beliefs to their professed beliefs.
Tolerance, diversity, openness to ideas, empathy to people's feelings, etc are not actually genuinely held beliefs of the "social justice" community. Its confirmed again and again... man or woman comes to a college campus to say something some of them don't like... result is a riot. Fire, vandalism, threats, and screeching.
Some AC says "at will employees" have no right to say X or Y in chat... and its hypocritical because if an at will employee were fired for saying what he wants he'd probably want to burn the building to the ground.
We're going to see some interesting things with this stuff. First, this atmosphere is going to drive talented people away from these companies. The money is good but it will take a toll. The irony of them building these monuments in San Jose... massive corporate compounds... just in time for them go into decline. Second, they're running afoul of labor department rules. This is amusing because it was people like this that put a lot of these rules in place precisely to stop behavior like this... and that its going to be needed to restrain them speaks to the insincerity of the movement. Next we have secrets, a lot of this stuff is done off the record and in as an opaque method as possible precisely because they know their actions wouldn't survive in the light of day. All of this is for power and money... people that can't compete on the basis of merit instead gang together to bias outcomes. They want control over things they don't deserve to have control over and they want to be paid more than they deserve to be paid.
Ultimately, I think the root cause of the problem is google's corporate culture which seems to be this anti-hierarchical we're all big happy family system. And that's fine for smaller companies or smaller teams but I don't think it works for 10s of thousands of people. A good middle ground solution I would try here is to break the company down organizationally into much smaller units which can transfer employees and collaborate but which don't march to the same social drum. A lot of what creates this Lord of the Flies type chaos is a sense that all the adults are dead and the children have to start over in the wilderness. That is sort of the message that gets sent when there is so little regimentation of what is going on. You get people breaking into tribes and then trying to dominate each other. That it is the tribe of tolerance and diversity doing it is just pathetic... but ultimately this is all on Google's senior management which appears to be asleep at the switch.
So unless google wants to degenerate into a lot of non-productive non-stop shitshows... I'd suggest they break the community up a bit and get middle management to refocus employees on their jobs rather than on whatever the hell all this is supposed to be about.