Dante would not agree with you. Standing up to power IS betrayal--betrayal of your sovereign lord, which is one of the categories of betrayal Dante specifically listed.
You may disagree with that equivalence, but your parent is right. Standing up to power lands you in the deepest circle of hell, according to Dante.
. If you invented such a church, it would not be a legitimate church
Try telling that to Scientologists. Or Mormons. Or Seventh Day Adventists. Or, for that matter, Catholics. All of them were invented at one point in the recent (or not so recent as the case may be) past.
The only thing that makes a church "legitimate" is that it has enough "followers" to be politically influential. Anything else is just post-facto rationalization.
For Cheeky Sarcasm goto 10. For Argument goto 20. For Abuse goto 30. For Mouthbreathing goto 40.
10 I knew Denmark had been going downhill, but I didn't know it was that bad over there. 20 [Citation Needed] 30 Stupid git. 40 *pant* *pant* *pant* *drool*
The point is that it isn't retaliation. Calling it that is disingenuous. Refusing to work for someone is not retaliation. Torching their car is retaliation. Harassing them at home is retaliation. Refusing to work for them is not retaliation.
What I take personally is the constant, unending, pig-headed suggestion that because I hate (and I mean hate) Obama, I wasn't complaining about Bush when he did similar things.
I was.
And I actually voted for Obama, once.
But the constant parade of water-brained team players who come out to claim 'BUT THE OTHER GUY" every time another one of Obama's constitution-shredding sprees comes to light destroys productive conversation and helps ensure that nothing is done about the problem.
And I find it utterly infuriating when people like my parent post assume that if I criticize Obama (for being a lying, murdering, totalitarian prick) that it must mean I used to support Bush. I actually voted for Obama, once. I never voted for Bush. The auto-response that I "wasn't complaining about the same things when Bush was in office" is offensive, pig-headed, and only serves to derail productive discussion of the problem--hence the proposed addendum
Something that was acceptable 8 or so years ago became unacceptable and was used to retaliate against him
No. The people who consider it unacceptable now considered it unacceptable then. They just didn't know about it then.
Nothing was used against him. People decided they did not want to work for or do business with someone whose beliefs they find distasteful. They have that right. He was not fired--the board knew about his beliefs and hired him anyway. He chose to resign because he would have been unable to run the organization anyway--because so many people refused to work with him. Again, they have that right. Suggesting they don't is to suggest that his free speech trumps their right of free association.
To use the good ol' reductio ad absurdum, if I found out tomorrow that my boss was making sizeable donations to the Klan, I would in fact start looking for new employment too. I don't want to associate with someone like that, and I don't want someone like that in the position of recommending or not recommending me in the future.
In other words, shunning is a perfectly legitimate response to bigotry. Which is all that happened in this case.
If anything the current administration should face criticism for continuing some practices that fly in the face of the rule of law and it makes no sense to apply a cutoff date to a continuing situation. Don't let tribalism and cheering for your team cloud judgement
Congratulations on entirely missing the point. Kudos though for being able to talk over that whooshing noise. I'm amazed you can hear anything at all.
My entire point is that "BUT THE OTHER GUY" IS NOT A VALID RESPONSE to criticism of a douche-in-chief--NO MATTER WHICH DOUCHE WE'RE DISCUSSING. It doesn't matter what the last or the next or the second to last or the guy two hundred years ago did--the current guy is still a criminal.
Somehow you managed to take that as me cheering for "my team". Bravo. It takes serious talent to miss the mark that badly. The only team I'm on is the one that's left the country because the country I believed in never existed.
(Yes/., CAPS are like yelling. That's because I am YELLING.)
They canned a new CEO (who had been working for them in other offices since their inception) for something he did 8 years ago that had the majority support of his community at the time
They didn't can him. He resigned because the people under him weren't willing to work for someone whose judgement they did not respect.
Moreover, saying Prop 8
had the majority support of his community a the time
really depends on how you define "his community." If you define it only as "All people who answered Y/N on the 2008 California Ballot," then yes by a narrow majority that is true. If you define it as "The people who live and work in Mountain View California," then no. His community was against it (see county by county results: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., Mountain View is in Santa Clara County). If you further restrict his community to "Employees and Major Stockholders of the Mozilla Corporation" then they were obviously strongly against it.
I think we need an addendum to Godwin's law: Anyone who responds to criticism of a sitting US president by raising the ghost of a prior one automatically loses the argument.
No, it doesn't. It means they do not operate with profit-seeking as a goal and all left over revenue will be employed in providing services at some point. In any given year there will very likely (in fact, MUST) be money left over (cash reserves).
This problem did not exist until corporations were made people by our fucked up supreme court.
A curious choice of phrase for something that happened nearly 150 years ago. I mean, yeah, this problem didn't exist before that, but it's a silly point of comparison.
Slashdot Mirror
You overestimate the moral integrity and underestimate the greed of the average American.
Dante would not agree with you. Standing up to power IS betrayal--betrayal of your sovereign lord, which is one of the categories of betrayal Dante specifically listed.
You may disagree with that equivalence, but your parent is right. Standing up to power lands you in the deepest circle of hell, according to Dante.
. If you invented such a church, it would not be a legitimate church
Try telling that to Scientologists. Or Mormons. Or Seventh Day Adventists. Or, for that matter, Catholics. All of them were invented at one point in the recent (or not so recent as the case may be) past.
The only thing that makes a church "legitimate" is that it has enough "followers" to be politically influential. Anything else is just post-facto rationalization.
What's wrong with a question mark? OR DID YOU WANT TO SHOUT?
This Post is a Choose-Your-Own-Post Post!
For Cheeky Sarcasm goto 10.
For Argument goto 20.
For Abuse goto 30.
For Mouthbreathing goto 40.
10 I knew Denmark had been going downhill, but I didn't know it was that bad over there.
20 [Citation Needed]
30 Stupid git.
40 *pant* *pant* *pant* *drool*
But who is going to bribe the politicians to pass employment laws?
...sometimes you have to start as the bottom.
Well! How many cigars did he smoke!
Where did you learn to punctuate!
The point is that it isn't retaliation. Calling it that is disingenuous. Refusing to work for someone is not retaliation. Torching their car is retaliation. Harassing them at home is retaliation. Refusing to work for them is not retaliation.
Why is that so complicated to understand?
Says the guy with the anger management problem.
Because he wasn't the boss. If my colleague was a Klan member, I would just avoid them personally. It becomes very different if they're my boss.
Or are you really suggesting that people don't have the right of free association?
What I take personally is the constant, unending, pig-headed suggestion that because I hate (and I mean hate) Obama, I wasn't complaining about Bush when he did similar things.
I was.
And I actually voted for Obama, once.
But the constant parade of water-brained team players who come out to claim 'BUT THE OTHER GUY" every time another one of Obama's constitution-shredding sprees comes to light destroys productive conversation and helps ensure that nothing is done about the problem.
And I'm fucking sick and tired of it.
And I find it utterly infuriating when people like my parent post assume that if I criticize Obama (for being a lying, murdering, totalitarian prick) that it must mean I used to support Bush. I actually voted for Obama, once. I never voted for Bush. The auto-response that I "wasn't complaining about the same things when Bush was in office" is offensive, pig-headed, and only serves to derail productive discussion of the problem--hence the proposed addendum
Something that was acceptable 8 or so years ago became unacceptable and was used to retaliate against him
No. The people who consider it unacceptable now considered it unacceptable then. They just didn't know about it then.
Nothing was used against him. People decided they did not want to work for or do business with someone whose beliefs they find distasteful. They have that right. He was not fired--the board knew about his beliefs and hired him anyway. He chose to resign because he would have been unable to run the organization anyway--because so many people refused to work with him. Again, they have that right. Suggesting they don't is to suggest that his free speech trumps their right of free association.
To use the good ol' reductio ad absurdum, if I found out tomorrow that my boss was making sizeable donations to the Klan, I would in fact start looking for new employment too. I don't want to associate with someone like that, and I don't want someone like that in the position of recommending or not recommending me in the future.
In other words, shunning is a perfectly legitimate response to bigotry. Which is all that happened in this case.
The fact that some "Non-profits" are corrupt doesn't change the meaning of the term.
Later on in that movie they abandon such realism in favor of store surveillance cameras that can see the opposite side of a person too. In 3D no less@
If anything the current administration should face criticism for continuing some practices that fly in the face of the rule of law and it makes no sense to apply a cutoff date to a continuing situation. Don't let tribalism and cheering for your team cloud judgement
Congratulations on entirely missing the point. Kudos though for being able to talk over that whooshing noise. I'm amazed you can hear anything at all.
My entire point is that "BUT THE OTHER GUY" IS NOT A VALID RESPONSE to criticism of a douche-in-chief--NO MATTER WHICH DOUCHE WE'RE DISCUSSING. It doesn't matter what the last or the next or the second to last or the guy two hundred years ago did--the current guy is still a criminal.
Somehow you managed to take that as me cheering for "my team". Bravo. It takes serious talent to miss the mark that badly. The only team I'm on is the one that's left the country because the country I believed in never existed.
(Yes /., CAPS are like yelling. That's because I am YELLING.)
They canned a new CEO (who had been working for them in other offices since their inception) for something he did 8 years ago that had the majority support of his community at the time
They didn't can him. He resigned because the people under him weren't willing to work for someone whose judgement they did not respect.
Moreover, saying Prop 8
had the majority support of his community a the time
really depends on how you define "his community." If you define it only as "All people who answered Y/N on the 2008 California Ballot," then yes by a narrow majority that is true. If you define it as "The people who live and work in Mountain View California," then no. His community was against it (see county by county results: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., Mountain View is in Santa Clara County). If you further restrict his community to "Employees and Major Stockholders of the Mozilla Corporation" then they were obviously strongly against it.
I think we need an addendum to Godwin's law: Anyone who responds to criticism of a sitting US president by raising the ghost of a prior one automatically loses the argument.
No, it doesn't. It means they do not operate with profit-seeking as a goal and all left over revenue will be employed in providing services at some point. In any given year there will very likely (in fact, MUST) be money left over (cash reserves).
This problem did not exist until corporations were made people by our fucked up supreme court.
A curious choice of phrase for something that happened nearly 150 years ago. I mean, yeah, this problem didn't exist before that, but it's a silly point of comparison.
If mercury prevents cancer, anything is possible...
No. No it's not. David Bowie won't sing at your birthday party either because, no, not everything is possible.
The next generation of satellites has a high enough resolution to use facial detection algorithms on the images
No matter how good your resolution that's not gonna happen from a vertical angle.
Trollin, trollin, trollin
Keep those doggies trollin
Rawhide!
It doesn't seem to exist. Summary has no link, and the linked articles have no list (including the actual arXiv pre-print).