I would honestly love to see Disney show some real balls with the Star Wars franchise and do the following:
Declare that the Lucas prequels are no longer canon.
Rewrite a new prequel trilogy from the ground up. Start only with what is known from existing movies (episodes 4+, Rogue One):
Anakin Skywalker is Luke's (and Leia's) father
Anakin was trained, somewhat unsuccessfully by Obi-wan
Anakin is seduced to the dark side by Palpatine and becomes Darth Vader
Something called the clone wars happened
Is there anything else?
From that, write a new story, with believable characters, to show the downfall of Anakin Skywalker into Darth Vader. I mean, as emo as Kylo Ren is, the conflict within him is totally believable. He's an interesting character. This is what Anakin should have been in the prequels. Not "Yippee!" and "I hate sand."
They should put this guy in charge of it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgICnbC2-_Y
I think he does a decent job of re-imagining the prequels.
The employee could just quit the job if they find the conditions or compensation intolerable.
That's not true in many cases, and you know it. The employee almost always needs the job more than the employer needs that particular employee. There is always a power imbalance, which is why unions are a thing in the first place.
Yeah, but he went for an engineering degree "because he thought it would land him a job". Interviewers see right through that...his lack of skills outside general classes. If he was really into engineering, he'd be in clubs, he'd have projects outside of the class to point to.
In my classes there were engineers, and there were people trying to pass the classes. There is a difference.
If you want to succeed in STEM, it has to be your passion.
It's interesting that Armored Dragon advocated finding out where there is a shortage of labor and studying that field so as to be employable. He (I assume Armored Dragon is male, but who knows) contrasts that with just choosing something you like. Then you say that if you are not passionate about your field, you won't be successful. These are contradictory pieces of advice, though I'm not saying either of you are wrong. It just seems there are a lucky few who have a genuine interest in lucrative fields. I have sometimes wished I had a passion for investment banking; I'd be a lot richer.
TL;DR: Microsoft is under NO obligation to produce a product that doesn't incorporate advertising, spying or other "evil" things. Their obligation is to produce a product that extracts as much money as possible from Windows users. Period.
It's funny, it used to be understood that businesses and corporations existed to provide a valuable good or service for people. They traded that good or service for money. Am I now to understand that a company's only obligation is to make as much money as possible, regardless of their utility? Does the largest software company in the world, whose operating system most computer users rely on, really have no responsibility to their customers? That seems upside down to me. Who is serving whom here?
I learned long ago that I cannot prove anything on the Internet.
Then perhaps you should consider that your knowledge and opinion are not well founded. I demonstrated here that there are no right wing groups attempting to squash first amendment rights with violence, and you have not been able to refute that point. In fact you simply dropped it because you can't provide any such evidence so realize your opinion is based on delusion. I gave the correct scientific answer to gender and sex, to which you make another false claim about perception meaning more than facts.
I'd agree that I can't make you provide or listen to facts, but that has nothing to do with Internet. That is your failure to adhere to logic and reason. Those same short comings are found all over, and I have no problem pointing out those failures when I see them. I further don't bend my own opinions based on "feels" over facts.
Dude, it's just not worth my time. I'm not going to expend much energy trying to prove something to an argumentative stranger on the Internet. It would only lead to more arguing, and I would get nothing out of it. That's why I said you have your opinion and I have mine. I don't really care what you think of my opinion. You think I'm wrong and I think you're wrong, and neither of us will be able to convince the other one of that. That's what I meant by my inability to prove anything on the Internet.
I'm officially done with this conversation. You can go ahead and think what you like of me. You've vanquished another fool on the Internet!
I used to have discussions with a friend of mine about whether or not there exists an objective reality, separate or independent from people's perceptions of it. He argued that there is such a reality. I argued that there is not; or if there is, its existence is irrelevant. Perception is all we have. So it continues to be interesting to me that we are all observing this allegedly objective reality, and coming to such different conclusions about it. I suppose it has to do with one's experience, biases, and expectations interacting with the information that we come across, what we ascribe meaning to and what information we keep or discard. It's a fascinating interplay, how we make sense of this world.
I learned long ago that I cannot prove anything on the Internet. You have your perception and I have mine, and that's about as far as we can take it in this medium. I agree with you that the mainstream media are not there primarily to inform, but to manipulate and propagandize. We can agree on what is not true, but not entirely on what is true. Such is often the way of things. Cheers and have a good weekend.
Baseless allegation with no supporting facts, followed by a complete denial of science. I study the right as much as the left, so your claim is not only lacking supporting facts it has no place in reality. There are no "Right" wing platforms performing any of the actions I listed for the Left. The last bit is quite telling, since there are only 2 biological genders. If you claim that you need more, you are denying science and living in delusion.
Hey man, it's the Internet and I'm at work. I don't have the time nor inclination to buttress every point. I'm stating my opinion, nothing more.
You are confusing sex with gender. Sex is biological, gender is sociological. I know that they have been used interchangeably in the past, but the language has changed. Frankly, I don't really see what the fuss is about. I don't really care what gender people want to call themselves. And though the media make a big deal about people being offended at being called "him" or "her" it really doesn't come up in my life.
As for the rest, the right has people like James O'Keefe making shit up and misrepresenting people to make his point. A number of people on the right claim to think discrimination against white people is as much as issue as that against minorities. So there's your analog to seeing discrimination that doesn't exist.
The Republican position on Abortion is that it should be a State issue, not a Federal issue. Federal funding of abortions and birth control is not within the Federal Governments Constitutional Powers. What people rallied against recently was the Federal Government stopping the funding of Abortions overseas through planned parenthood. So your tax dollars were not simply supporting people here, but people across the world. That fiscal irresponsibility should really bother people. We are broke as a Country, with an accumulated debt of 240Trillion dollars. We have poor people of our own, poor education, and a massive amount of unemployment and underemployment.
If that's the case then why are they constantly talking about overturning Roe v. Wade? That is, after all, the case that put the question back to the states. Are you really saying that the Republicans and the right in general do not want to outlaw abortion? Really?
You invented an exclusion that I never provided, but I'll bite since your response was polite. While there are certainly liars on the right, the difference is in a platform versus individuals. The Left running around claiming 72 genders, discrimination which does not exist against women, claims of bigotry when none exists and even creating hoaxes to back the invalid claim,claims of crime which do not exist among some groups and denying crime from others, and an overall loss of using facts for all of the above. There is no dialogue on the left, it's become pure Alinsky tactics.
Fair enough, but I still think you are being a bit blind to what goes on on the right. I'll agree that the whole gender issue has been blown out of proportion. We seem to need perhaps more than two genders, but not 72.
Again, I see it as a difference in a really F'd up platform and individuals who lie. Long ago I was Democratic leaning and certainly believed in the principles of Liberal like "Live and let live". The progressive takeover of the Democratic party makes it a fascist communist movement, not "Liberal". It's no longer "Live and let live", it's "Live like we demand and the Government should punish you if you don't." Many in my family were also Democratic leaning, which should explain my early leanings. The Democrats have lost all support from everyone I know because of the fanaticism and loss of reality and facts.
Yeah, but again, I see the same on both sides. The Republican position on abortion is certainly "Live like we demand and the Government should punish you if you don't". They're even talking about restricting birth control now, which is just pants-on-head retarded to my mind.
It's a bit funny because I have you set as a Friend. I have read other comments of yours and think we are largely of like mind. I am also a "live and let live" kind of person, though I'm to the left politically. I see quite a bit of bullshit coming from the right. I mean, Donald Trump is president. He's so full of shit he has to spray tan himself to hide it. I'm not absolving the left. I agree that they have taken social issues too far. I'm neither Republican nor Democrat because I can't find enough in either party to get behind.
Anyway, thanks for the polite discussion. I'll keep you on my friends list.;-)
It indicates no such thing. Basically, use of institutional bias to fight institutional bias is blatantly hypocritical and it reenforces boundaries instead of melting them. Conveniently, this obvious criticism is labeled politically incorrect so that it is socially unacceptable to state it publicly. It's really not hard to understand why people chafe under this 'affirmative action' bullshit.
We are not talking about institutional bias here. We are talking about women being harassed in the workplace. Do you think they should have to put up with being propositioned for sex when they're just trying to work? Probably not. So I do think some sort of institutional response is warranted.
This is exactly the same kind of gross generalization that you would not tolerate if the target wasn't white and/or straight and/or male. It is no different than "There is more crime in detroit because blacks and criminality correlate." which I am sure you would consider racist. Since caucasian is a race and you are using race as the delineator, you are a racist.
Do you challenge the notion that white men, generally speaking, are still dominant in society? I think that is fairly common knowledge. Did I make an assumption based on that fact? Absolutely.
I have to say I do find it amusing how quickly some white people will complain of racism, like they have any idea what actual racism is like to live with. The defensiveness is telling.
mmhmm.. So we should feel sorry for the nazis because those jews just couldn't understand what they were doing to german society? I suggest you reevaluate your position and your politics.
Okay, I don't know what that's supposed to mean. If we're going to the Nazis, this situation is more like Nazis complaining about how mean the Jews are. No, I'm not equating white men with Nazis. What I'm saying is, this is a situation in which the powerful group is complaining about discrimination or oppression from the weaker group. It just doesn't hold much weight. Besides, it's the Internet. My original comment was supposed to be a little funny and a little poking. So I'm sorry I have offended you so. I probably should have left the "white" descriptor out, as the maleness is more the issue.
No, but good guess. It's because the poster dismissed out-of-hand the idea of sexism in the tech industry as the "SJW argument". It indicates a complete lack of understanding and denial of the issue. Further, it indicates the person has little experience with discrimination or harassment. And that indicates the person is likely white and male, because white males are still dominant in society.
I have to say I do find it amusing how quickly some white people will complain of racism, like they have any idea what actual racism is like to live with. The defensiveness is telling.
Most of the people on the right that I know have to provide evidence to debunk the claims and positions of the left. I read everything I can get my hands on so that I can argue against the leftists. Such as I did above showing wage discrimination. Leftists on the other hand simply repeat the same bogus numbers over and over and over. The 70c on the dollar fabrication is repeated not just by former President Obama but every voice in the Left (Clinton, Pelosi, Schumer). That gets repeated by most leftist media outlets (just about all print and broadcast), and executives are repeating the lies. If they don't, they get lambasted by the left for being politically incorrect (members of the patriarchy, misogynists, bigots, etc...)
Now what you may be hinting at is the RINOs, of which there are plenty. Considering your statement about Trump, I'm guessing that you perhaps are one.
My point was that there is blame to go around. I'm not going to defend everything done by people on the "left". And if you really are a rational observer, you already know there is plenty of bullshit coming from the "right" as well. I just took issue with your characterization that the left avoids all truth and distorts everything they can for division and agenda. That is over broad and makes it seem like it is exclusive to the left. That's all. I'm not a Democrat and have no need to defend what any "team" is doing.
No, Donald Trump was elected BECAUSE the left does nothing but attempt to maintain the many lies of their ideology. They don't give a fuck about anyonem, and they certainly don't give a fuck about white people. The entire religion of leftism is virtue signalling. Nothing more.
Honestly, I don't really know why Donald Trump was elected. I don't know what would motivate people to elect someone so obviously and severely unfit for the job.
You just requested proof of non-existence. No evidence was provided to support the claim, just another "claim" that it existed. Let me guess, your next move will be to use circular logic in an effort to substantiate her claims.
If you don't have basic critical thinking skills you should stay off the fucking Internet.
Critical thinking skills? You are a special kind of stupid, eh? The person I responded to said she had no evidence. If one reads the article one sees that she did keep records of her correspondence. If the OP has reason to think she is lying about said records, he needs to back it up with something other than, "I don't believe her". I'm sure that will make sense to you, considering your impressive critical thinking skills.
Sadly the left avoids all truth and distorts everything they can for division and agenda.
You would have done better to leave this part out. It is not the "left" that does this, but people in general. It's pretty easy to find examples of this on the right as well. They elected Donal Trump, after all. Neither side of the political divide has a monopoly on subordinating the truth to their agenda.
I see an allegation with no facts. Anyone working in IT understands how to make a screenshot, if not how to log a chat session. Yet no evidence is presented, and what would the easiest thing be for this person to do? Save evidence, because sexual harassment is ILLEGAL.
Your claim (repeated) that you have to be the victim to see sexual harassment on the scale she is claiming is moronic. It would be visible to at least everyone on that team. There would be more than one claim from more than one person if it was that rampant. In the event it was just her and she over-hyped the scale, she could have this thing called evidence. Yet there is no evidence, just allegations. I'll wait for the court case, and would be willing to bet a paycheck that no evidence is forthcoming.
Sorry, but there are no groups of dudes hanging around conspiring on how to fuck over, and fuck, women in the company. Quite the opposite, since the virtue signalling SJWs are rampant in SF and would have busted the boss to make a name for themselves.
You clearly didn't RTFA. She has extensive email and chat records to back up her claims. Yes, I am taking her word for it. But if you are accusing her of lying about it, it is you who need to provide evidence.
And yes, there actually are groups of dudes conspiring how to fuck women at the company. Not at every company of course. But I have seen such things at jobs I have had.
COINTELPRO sounds like an old-school coin-counting machine with a modem built in and some fancy features that set it apart from the non-"pro" version.
You'd think an agency that purports to use communication and psychology to deduce the actions of others would know how to use simple marketing tricks to make their super-fancy project names not sound pants-on-head retarded.
This incompetence is part of why I don't worry too much about US "intelligence" agencies. They may be intelligent, but they have yet to prove it.
I hope this is a joke that has gone over my head. COINTELPRO was not any kind of public name. It was the internal name for a COunter INTELligence PROgram.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry some idiot modded you to -1.
I would honestly love to see Disney show some real balls with the Star Wars franchise and do the following:
From that, write a new story, with believable characters, to show the downfall of Anakin Skywalker into Darth Vader. I mean, as emo as Kylo Ren is, the conflict within him is totally believable. He's an interesting character. This is what Anakin should have been in the prequels. Not "Yippee!" and "I hate sand."
They should put this guy in charge of it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgICnbC2-_Y
I think he does a decent job of re-imagining the prequels.
Define "evil"? Something you don't like with which other people agree?
It's sad that you think you can define ethical behavior for us by using the word "evil". More evidence that leftists are religious nuts.
In this case I'll define evil as reducing fares while increasing the cut that Uber takes from each ride. A lot of drivers are pissed about that.
The employee could just quit the job if they find the conditions or compensation intolerable.
That's not true in many cases, and you know it. The employee almost always needs the job more than the employer needs that particular employee. There is always a power imbalance, which is why unions are a thing in the first place.
I have sometimes wished I had a passion for investment banking; I'd be a lot richer.
Or broke and possibly in jail.
Nah, those guys almost never pay for their crimes!
Yeah, but he went for an engineering degree "because he thought it would land him a job". Interviewers see right through that...his lack of skills outside general classes. If he was really into engineering, he'd be in clubs, he'd have projects outside of the class to point to.
In my classes there were engineers, and there were people trying to pass the classes. There is a difference.
If you want to succeed in STEM, it has to be your passion.
It's interesting that Armored Dragon advocated finding out where there is a shortage of labor and studying that field so as to be employable. He (I assume Armored Dragon is male, but who knows) contrasts that with just choosing something you like. Then you say that if you are not passionate about your field, you won't be successful. These are contradictory pieces of advice, though I'm not saying either of you are wrong. It just seems there are a lucky few who have a genuine interest in lucrative fields. I have sometimes wished I had a passion for investment banking; I'd be a lot richer.
TL;DR: Microsoft is under NO obligation to produce a product that doesn't incorporate advertising, spying or other "evil" things. Their obligation is to produce a product that extracts as much money as possible from Windows users. Period.
It's funny, it used to be understood that businesses and corporations existed to provide a valuable good or service for people. They traded that good or service for money. Am I now to understand that a company's only obligation is to make as much money as possible, regardless of their utility? Does the largest software company in the world, whose operating system most computer users rely on, really have no responsibility to their customers? That seems upside down to me. Who is serving whom here?
Why is no one pointing out that this was on Obama's watch?
Secret assassinations? Seriously?
If you want to blame a President, blame Harry Truman. The CIA got off the leash not long after it was created.
That may be the law, but that cop was a jerk.
Said anyone who has ever gotten a ticket...
;-)
I learned long ago that I cannot prove anything on the Internet.
Then perhaps you should consider that your knowledge and opinion are not well founded. I demonstrated here that there are no right wing groups attempting to squash first amendment rights with violence, and you have not been able to refute that point. In fact you simply dropped it because you can't provide any such evidence so realize your opinion is based on delusion. I gave the correct scientific answer to gender and sex, to which you make another false claim about perception meaning more than facts.
I'd agree that I can't make you provide or listen to facts, but that has nothing to do with Internet. That is your failure to adhere to logic and reason. Those same short comings are found all over, and I have no problem pointing out those failures when I see them. I further don't bend my own opinions based on "feels" over facts.
Dude, it's just not worth my time. I'm not going to expend much energy trying to prove something to an argumentative stranger on the Internet. It would only lead to more arguing, and I would get nothing out of it. That's why I said you have your opinion and I have mine. I don't really care what you think of my opinion. You think I'm wrong and I think you're wrong, and neither of us will be able to convince the other one of that. That's what I meant by my inability to prove anything on the Internet.
I'm officially done with this conversation. You can go ahead and think what you like of me. You've vanquished another fool on the Internet!
I used to have discussions with a friend of mine about whether or not there exists an objective reality, separate or independent from people's perceptions of it. He argued that there is such a reality. I argued that there is not; or if there is, its existence is irrelevant. Perception is all we have. So it continues to be interesting to me that we are all observing this allegedly objective reality, and coming to such different conclusions about it. I suppose it has to do with one's experience, biases, and expectations interacting with the information that we come across, what we ascribe meaning to and what information we keep or discard. It's a fascinating interplay, how we make sense of this world.
I learned long ago that I cannot prove anything on the Internet. You have your perception and I have mine, and that's about as far as we can take it in this medium. I agree with you that the mainstream media are not there primarily to inform, but to manipulate and propagandize. We can agree on what is not true, but not entirely on what is true. Such is often the way of things. Cheers and have a good weekend.
Baseless allegation with no supporting facts, followed by a complete denial of science. I study the right as much as the left, so your claim is not only lacking supporting facts it has no place in reality. There are no "Right" wing platforms performing any of the actions I listed for the Left. The last bit is quite telling, since there are only 2 biological genders. If you claim that you need more, you are denying science and living in delusion.
Hey man, it's the Internet and I'm at work. I don't have the time nor inclination to buttress every point. I'm stating my opinion, nothing more.
You are confusing sex with gender. Sex is biological, gender is sociological. I know that they have been used interchangeably in the past, but the language has changed. Frankly, I don't really see what the fuss is about. I don't really care what gender people want to call themselves. And though the media make a big deal about people being offended at being called "him" or "her" it really doesn't come up in my life.
As for the rest, the right has people like James O'Keefe making shit up and misrepresenting people to make his point. A number of people on the right claim to think discrimination against white people is as much as issue as that against minorities. So there's your analog to seeing discrimination that doesn't exist.
The Republican position on Abortion is that it should be a State issue, not a Federal issue. Federal funding of abortions and birth control is not within the Federal Governments Constitutional Powers. What people rallied against recently was the Federal Government stopping the funding of Abortions overseas through planned parenthood. So your tax dollars were not simply supporting people here, but people across the world. That fiscal irresponsibility should really bother people. We are broke as a Country, with an accumulated debt of 240Trillion dollars. We have poor people of our own, poor education, and a massive amount of unemployment and underemployment.
If that's the case then why are they constantly talking about overturning Roe v. Wade? That is, after all, the case that put the question back to the states. Are you really saying that the Republicans and the right in general do not want to outlaw abortion? Really?
Business like selling drugs? Or extorting protection money?
Business like protesting government action. Or were you implying that the only people who should be worried about this are criminals?
Go for it, don't be surprised when you get arrested for stalking.
I think that was the AC's point.
You invented an exclusion that I never provided, but I'll bite since your response was polite. While there are certainly liars on the right, the difference is in a platform versus individuals. The Left running around claiming 72 genders, discrimination which does not exist against women, claims of bigotry when none exists and even creating hoaxes to back the invalid claim,claims of crime which do not exist among some groups and denying crime from others, and an overall loss of using facts for all of the above. There is no dialogue on the left, it's become pure Alinsky tactics.
Fair enough, but I still think you are being a bit blind to what goes on on the right. I'll agree that the whole gender issue has been blown out of proportion. We seem to need perhaps more than two genders, but not 72.
Again, I see it as a difference in a really F'd up platform and individuals who lie. Long ago I was Democratic leaning and certainly believed in the principles of Liberal like "Live and let live". The progressive takeover of the Democratic party makes it a fascist communist movement, not "Liberal". It's no longer "Live and let live", it's "Live like we demand and the Government should punish you if you don't." Many in my family were also Democratic leaning, which should explain my early leanings. The Democrats have lost all support from everyone I know because of the fanaticism and loss of reality and facts.
Yeah, but again, I see the same on both sides. The Republican position on abortion is certainly "Live like we demand and the Government should punish you if you don't". They're even talking about restricting birth control now, which is just pants-on-head retarded to my mind.
It's a bit funny because I have you set as a Friend. I have read other comments of yours and think we are largely of like mind. I am also a "live and let live" kind of person, though I'm to the left politically. I see quite a bit of bullshit coming from the right. I mean, Donald Trump is president. He's so full of shit he has to spray tan himself to hide it. I'm not absolving the left. I agree that they have taken social issues too far. I'm neither Republican nor Democrat because I can't find enough in either party to get behind.
Anyway, thanks for the polite discussion. I'll keep you on my friends list. ;-)
It indicates no such thing. Basically, use of institutional bias to fight institutional bias is blatantly hypocritical and it reenforces boundaries instead of melting them. Conveniently, this obvious criticism is labeled politically incorrect so that it is socially unacceptable to state it publicly. It's really not hard to understand why people chafe under this 'affirmative action' bullshit.
We are not talking about institutional bias here. We are talking about women being harassed in the workplace. Do you think they should have to put up with being propositioned for sex when they're just trying to work? Probably not. So I do think some sort of institutional response is warranted.
This is exactly the same kind of gross generalization that you would not tolerate if the target wasn't white and/or straight and/or male. It is no different than "There is more crime in detroit because blacks and criminality correlate." which I am sure you would consider racist. Since caucasian is a race and you are using race as the delineator, you are a racist.
Do you challenge the notion that white men, generally speaking, are still dominant in society? I think that is fairly common knowledge. Did I make an assumption based on that fact? Absolutely.
I have to say I do find it amusing how quickly some white people will complain of racism, like they have any idea what actual racism is like to live with. The defensiveness is telling.
mmhmm.. So we should feel sorry for the nazis because those jews just couldn't understand what they were doing to german society? I suggest you reevaluate your position and your politics.
Okay, I don't know what that's supposed to mean. If we're going to the Nazis, this situation is more like Nazis complaining about how mean the Jews are. No, I'm not equating white men with Nazis. What I'm saying is, this is a situation in which the powerful group is complaining about discrimination or oppression from the weaker group. It just doesn't hold much weight. Besides, it's the Internet. My original comment was supposed to be a little funny and a little poking. So I'm sorry I have offended you so. I probably should have left the "white" descriptor out, as the maleness is more the issue.
Racism, of course. Yours.
No, but good guess. It's because the poster dismissed out-of-hand the idea of sexism in the tech industry as the "SJW argument". It indicates a complete lack of understanding and denial of the issue. Further, it indicates the person has little experience with discrimination or harassment. And that indicates the person is likely white and male, because white males are still dominant in society.
I have to say I do find it amusing how quickly some white people will complain of racism, like they have any idea what actual racism is like to live with. The defensiveness is telling.
Most of the people on the right that I know have to provide evidence to debunk the claims and positions of the left. I read everything I can get my hands on so that I can argue against the leftists. Such as I did above showing wage discrimination. Leftists on the other hand simply repeat the same bogus numbers over and over and over. The 70c on the dollar fabrication is repeated not just by former President Obama but every voice in the Left (Clinton, Pelosi, Schumer). That gets repeated by most leftist media outlets (just about all print and broadcast), and executives are repeating the lies. If they don't, they get lambasted by the left for being politically incorrect (members of the patriarchy, misogynists, bigots, etc...)
Now what you may be hinting at is the RINOs, of which there are plenty. Considering your statement about Trump, I'm guessing that you perhaps are one.
My point was that there is blame to go around. I'm not going to defend everything done by people on the "left". And if you really are a rational observer, you already know there is plenty of bullshit coming from the "right" as well. I just took issue with your characterization that the left avoids all truth and distorts everything they can for division and agenda. That is over broad and makes it seem like it is exclusive to the left. That's all. I'm not a Democrat and have no need to defend what any "team" is doing.
No, Donald Trump was elected BECAUSE the left does nothing but attempt to maintain the many lies of their ideology. They don't give a fuck about anyonem, and they certainly don't give a fuck about white people. The entire religion of leftism is virtue signalling. Nothing more.
Honestly, I don't really know why Donald Trump was elected. I don't know what would motivate people to elect someone so obviously and severely unfit for the job.
You just requested proof of non-existence. No evidence was provided to support the claim, just another "claim" that it existed. Let me guess, your next move will be to use circular logic in an effort to substantiate her claims.
If you don't have basic critical thinking skills you should stay off the fucking Internet.
Critical thinking skills? You are a special kind of stupid, eh? The person I responded to said she had no evidence. If one reads the article one sees that she did keep records of her correspondence. If the OP has reason to think she is lying about said records, he needs to back it up with something other than, "I don't believe her". I'm sure that will make sense to you, considering your impressive critical thinking skills.
Sadly the left avoids all truth and distorts everything they can for division and agenda.
You would have done better to leave this part out. It is not the "left" that does this, but people in general. It's pretty easy to find examples of this on the right as well. They elected Donal Trump, after all. Neither side of the political divide has a monopoly on subordinating the truth to their agenda.
Thanks for the SJW argument. It hardly needed to be made, as we all knew it already.
Know how I know you're a white male?
I see an allegation with no facts. Anyone working in IT understands how to make a screenshot, if not how to log a chat session. Yet no evidence is presented, and what would the easiest thing be for this person to do? Save evidence, because sexual harassment is ILLEGAL.
Your claim (repeated) that you have to be the victim to see sexual harassment on the scale she is claiming is moronic. It would be visible to at least everyone on that team. There would be more than one claim from more than one person if it was that rampant. In the event it was just her and she over-hyped the scale, she could have this thing called evidence. Yet there is no evidence, just allegations. I'll wait for the court case, and would be willing to bet a paycheck that no evidence is forthcoming.
Sorry, but there are no groups of dudes hanging around conspiring on how to fuck over, and fuck, women in the company. Quite the opposite, since the virtue signalling SJWs are rampant in SF and would have busted the boss to make a name for themselves.
You clearly didn't RTFA. She has extensive email and chat records to back up her claims. Yes, I am taking her word for it. But if you are accusing her of lying about it, it is you who need to provide evidence.
And yes, there actually are groups of dudes conspiring how to fuck women at the company. Not at every company of course. But I have seen such things at jobs I have had.
I think it is fine as long as all other countries ask for traveling American's passwords.
Just wait for that blow-up
Americans following the same rules they expect others to follow? Not a chance!
COINTELPRO sounds like an old-school coin-counting machine with a modem built in and some fancy features that set it apart from the non-"pro" version.
You'd think an agency that purports to use communication and psychology to deduce the actions of others would know how to use simple marketing tricks to make their super-fancy project names not sound pants-on-head retarded.
This incompetence is part of why I don't worry too much about US "intelligence" agencies. They may be intelligent, but they have yet to prove it.
I hope this is a joke that has gone over my head. COINTELPRO was not any kind of public name. It was the internal name for a COunter INTELligence PROgram.
Those who did not vote for Trump, seem to think of matters too broadly, so broadly that the broad impact extends to someone else's pocket.
What's the matter? Are you unable to remain independent of and unaffected by the world around you? Or is some law preventing you from making money?