when did people forget that we must allow everyone to speak, including Marxists and Nazis, in order to explain to them why they are wrong (or to realize why we are wrong)?
The people in question never believed that. That stuff was just a sales pitch -- a pretend argument for use only when it was beneficial. They have power now, so shut up.
When did people forget that if people can't speak, their only solution will be to use violence?
Violence is their goal. Look what it got them this week.
If you're not diverse, or if you believe in examining research results irrespective of bias or groupthink, then Google prefers not to associate with you.
Ok. I'm going to continue to doubt you have a good understanding of any foreign country's internal politics. Consider yourself knowledgeable if you like -- but that seems unwise.
Shorter version: "I'm ignorant of some other country's politics and have trouble capturing the totality of political thought there on an ultra-simplistic linear scale."
They cheerlead for lies and many times reluctantly acknowledge the facts days or weeks or sometimes years later.
And then change the subject (to Trump or WTF-ever), because the agenda comes first, last, and always.
(Trump says dumb stuff. He's also bad. So what? We would have Romney as Predident now if the media wanted someone good. They clearly don't -- agenda first, last, and always.)
You must be rich if you think you're above it. Or perhaps you think you have a specific racial heritage that won't make you a target of the anti-white haters or the pro-white haters? Or the anti-religious haters?
Lots of people don't want a war and would just like the haters off the stage. But that's going to take more people saying no to haters and bullies on all sides, not just one side or the other.
Also, Obama gets to tell all the lies he wants. And if you want to complain about it, you're a crazy unhinged person. That's what we learned in 2012. The facts don't matter, especially not to the media.
It was the final shovel of dirt on the grave of truth in US public discourse.
It's also that he got a prison term. It was politically convenient to put him in prison. There are enough laws to put almost anyone in prison if the government really wants to and spends enough time and money trying to trip a person up.
Yeah. Put another way: who wants to spend an hour looking at fat people?
Seriously, this is not difficult unless you're a complete tool. Hollywood makes a visual product to appeal to viewers. Viewers like looking at good looking people. Ergo, Hollywood doesn't normally put fattys on the screen.
How many social justice cult meetings do you have to go to before you can't add 1 + 1 and get 2 any more? How far up your own ass do you have to be to miss something that's 10 times more obvious than obvious?
Why do we need to redefine systems? Treat people as individuals instead of parts of a defined system. Keep the systems loose and flexible.
That's one advantage startups have over established companies: roles can change to accommodate the capabilities of individuals and the changing needs of the company.
Open discussion of taboo subjects makes some people emotionally uncomfortable. They're the people who matter, in case you couldn't tell.
Their emotional comfort is required and must be protected and actively solicited at all times because their discomfort is opportunistically called a "hostile work environment" and can result in legal liability.
So you're agreeing that he was fired for reactions to things he didn't write, but that people are pretending he meant to write, without actually writing them.
And no one without 10 PhDs in every subject involved should even postulate a question on the topic. Because it's wrongthink, pure and simple, regardless of facts or knowledge or data.
Please keep us apprised of which investors want what management changes at all the non-public startup companies. News with this level of relevance really clears the mind in an almost zen-like way.
Then the headline would be about how the communications scientists on the board worked for, or with, or received grants from communications companies. Or they collaborated on projects with those who did.
Slashdot Mirror
They haven't announced the new censorship in Chrome yet.
when did people forget that we must allow everyone to speak, including Marxists and Nazis, in order to explain to them why they are wrong (or to realize why we are wrong)?
The people in question never believed that. That stuff was just a sales pitch -- a pretend argument for use only when it was beneficial. They have power now, so shut up.
When did people forget that if people can't speak, their only solution will be to use violence?
Violence is their goal. Look what it got them this week.
If you're not diverse, or if you believe in examining research results irrespective of bias or groupthink, then Google prefers not to associate with you.
Ok. I'm going to continue to doubt you have a good understanding of any foreign country's internal politics. Consider yourself knowledgeable if you like -- but that seems unwise.
Shorter version: "I'm ignorant of some other country's politics and have trouble capturing the totality of political thought there on an ultra-simplistic linear scale."
They cheerlead for lies and many times reluctantly acknowledge the facts days or weeks or sometimes years later.
And then change the subject (to Trump or WTF-ever), because the agenda comes first, last, and always.
(Trump says dumb stuff. He's also bad. So what? We would have Romney as Predident now if the media wanted someone good. They clearly don't -- agenda first, last, and always.)
You must be rich if you think you're above it. Or perhaps you think you have a specific racial heritage that won't make you a target of the anti-white haters or the pro-white haters? Or the anti-religious haters?
Lots of people don't want a war and would just like the haters off the stage. But that's going to take more people saying no to haters and bullies on all sides, not just one side or the other.
Also, Obama gets to tell all the lies he wants. And if you want to complain about it, you're a crazy unhinged person. That's what we learned in 2012. The facts don't matter, especially not to the media.
It was the final shovel of dirt on the grave of truth in US public discourse.
It's also that he got a prison term. It was politically convenient to put him in prison. There are enough laws to put almost anyone in prison if the government really wants to and spends enough time and money trying to trip a person up.
Some of us want it to be. But evil people keep opposing us.
Man Behind Anti-Islam Video Gets Prison Term
Yeah, censorship is in. The Thai government and the totalitarian majority in Silicon Valley have much in common.
If he were at Google, he might only have been doxxed, fired and blacklisted.
Yeah. Put another way: who wants to spend an hour looking at fat people?
Seriously, this is not difficult unless you're a complete tool. Hollywood makes a visual product to appeal to viewers. Viewers like looking at good looking people. Ergo, Hollywood doesn't normally put fattys on the screen.
How many social justice cult meetings do you have to go to before you can't add 1 + 1 and get 2 any more? How far up your own ass do you have to be to miss something that's 10 times more obvious than obvious?
If you were an AI, you'd understand
Why do we need to redefine systems? Treat people as individuals instead of parts of a defined system. Keep the systems loose and flexible.
That's one advantage startups have over established companies: roles can change to accommodate the capabilities of individuals and the changing needs of the company.
So you didn't read the summary of this Slashdot post either.
That's not what happened. He showed the memo to people at Google and no one gave a shit until the witch hunt started.
Open discussion of taboo subjects makes some people emotionally uncomfortable. They're the people who matter, in case you couldn't tell.
Their emotional comfort is required and must be protected and actively solicited at all times because their discomfort is opportunistically called a "hostile work environment" and can result in legal liability.
You just said the same thing I did, except you decided to blame the victim.
He didn't say it out right, he wink-winked it
So you're agreeing that he was fired for reactions to things he didn't write, but that people are pretending he meant to write, without actually writing them.
Google needs always-on Newspeak autocorrect ASAP.
And no one without 10 PhDs in every subject involved should even postulate a question on the topic. Because it's wrongthink, pure and simple, regardless of facts or knowledge or data.
If you can community-organize a "drama" about something, you can get anyone at Google fired, regardless of facts.
Please keep us apprised of which investors want what management changes at all the non-public startup companies. News with this level of relevance really clears the mind in an almost zen-like way.
Then the headline would be about how the communications scientists on the board worked for, or with, or received grants from communications companies. Or they collaborated on projects with those who did.