Maybe it's more like not putting up a statue of Erwin Rommel in a Jewish neighborhood? You know, Lee didn't just fight on the losing side, he fought to enslave the ancestors of people who walk past that statue every day.
The irony is, Lee opposed any statues of himself whilst he was alive.
Most of the Confederate statues were erected decades after the war, the 1920's was very popular for it (far right extremism was just popular then).
Lee wanted the US to heal after the war, which is why he didn't want anyone glorifying his actions.
White nationalists: we have a clear message of nationalism and family unity... and a hidden message of hate, outdated ideas, censorship of our opposition and control over your lives to ensure our unpopular and destructive dogma is followed without question. Internet: nobody cared 70 years ago, and you're about to find out no one cares now.
You've confused 'being PC' with 'being thoughtful' and 'being civil'. The latter two are not ruining anything.
Being PC is being polite and civil.
"PC" has become a meaningless phrase used to try to shut down discussion when one side cannot rationally rebut the other and is unwilling to reconsider their position.
Ironically, they're using bullying to try to enforce their political dogma. Same with SJW.
I think it is very legitimately arguable that Trump's Twitter account is more official than a White House press briefing. As such, blocking Americans from it is probably not allowed.
Trump's account should be using the mute feature rather than the block feature (though the Twitter mute function seems pretty weak nearly to the point of ineffectiveness), or Trump should stop using Twitter as a presidential communications platform.
Right-wingers are bitterly complaining that private companies are "censoring" Nazis (censoring in sarcastic quotations) however I haven't seen those same people complain about the president of the US, shutting down opponents to his announcement mention anything about censorship. No-sireee... those same people are presenting conspiracy theories to justify what is actually an act of political censorship. Censorship == OK for far right government, not OK for profit seeking corporations (whom they disagree with).
How's this flamebait? Nazis were nationalist-socialists. The one who modded this needs to take up some history books and learn some basic knowledge that still highly influences our world today.
How was this not modded flamebait. The Nazi's were far-right. Don't let the name fool you, unless you believe that the Democratic Republic of (North) Korea is a functioning democracy.
The closest thing that the Nazi's ever did to a social program was Action T4, which was where the Nazi's euthanized anyone who was a burden to the state. Anyone who modded that up needs to read a lot about history. The emphasis in "national socialist" was "national" as in nationalism, because that's what the Nazi's were, extremist nationalists.
Is Hate Speech very specifically called out as an exception to freedom of speech?
Here's the thing, Hate speech is not actually codified in law, unlike freedom of expression.
I live in the UK, you'll never be charged with "hate speech", hate speech and hate crimes are a catch all label used by the media, if you're charged with what the Daily Mail would call a "hate crime" you'll be given a specific charge by the court which is usually less offensive to the type of mouth breather that reads the Daily Mail. Usually its a crime like assault, vandalism or harassment that specifically and maliciously targets a protected class (I.E. race, gender, political affiliation, religion, et al.). The "hate" isn't a crime, you can be as hateful and bitter as you like. The crime is the crime, a hateful motivation is a modifier for a harsher penalty.
However this explanation makes too much sense and is not likely to get the knickers of the Daily Mail/Fox News crowd into a knot.
I dislike the idea of posting hate speech online just as much as the next, and in principle I agree with what GoDaddy and Google did here, however if you can cancel someone's domain over unapproved speech
Who is "approving" speech?
Google is simply distancing itself from a group it finds distasteful.
This isn't a free speech issue, no law states that you have to do business with everyone. In fact being able to choose who you do business or associate with within reason is a freedom that is at serious risk being trampled by the mistaken belief that you can say anything with no consequences.
Freedom of speech does not protect you from the consequences of your speech. This isn't people being censored, its people being told their arseholes and they don't want anything to do with them.
Beyond this, falling back on the free speech defence is pretty much handing the argument to your opponent on a silver platter. It says the best reason you have for saying what you are saying is that it is literally not illegal for you to say it.
Think of it this way, you are able to walk into a restaurant and demand to call everyone who works there Mr or Mrs Cunt... This is not illegal but don't at all be surprised when you're asked to leave. Keep it up and you'll find yourself banned from every restaurant in town. Just because its not illegal to say something does not mean everyone else has to silently put up with you. Free speech has never protected you from criticism.
I cannot imagine what it would be like to own a real gas guzzler or a European car or sports car with higher maintenance costs.
I own a BMW M240i, I can tell you exactly what it's like owning a car like that is.
Fun.
I live outside of London, London has one of the worlds best public transport systems. If I were to live in Lonodn and use public transportation from zone 6 (I.E. somewhere affordable to live) I'd be paying £2,408 just for taking the tube. I'd then have to give up the benefits of owning a car, being able to go to the shops and carry home heavy items, being able to go somewhere when or where public transport doesn't operate.
Now I live outside of London, if I were to take the reasonable public transport system, which is a bus and a train I'd end up paying £2,392, this does not include the cost of taxis or delivery. The running costs of my M240i are less than £3,000 (fuel, tax, insurance, maint) and given the fact that driving to work takes half as long as public transport, when you consider gaining an hour 5 days a week, 48 weeks a year I'm actually ahead by using my car. This is to say nothing of the freedom or joy it provides.
The government is bound to allow free speech. A corporation doesn't have to put up with things they find objectionable. There are other options for those pushing hate and GoDaddy is certainly in the right here.
This, free speech at it's core is being able to criticise your government. Additional provisions are that, additional (although, IMHO, a good thing).
However nowhere does Free Speech entail being given a platform to speak. This you must provide yourself and it is well within the rights of others and other companies to refuse this platform to you if they find what you say objectionable. Put simply, free speech lets you say what you like, it does not force anyone else to have to listen to it. If your hosting provider takes down your extremist website, you're not being censored, you're being told you're not welcome there any more. Its the same as if you went into a restaurant and insisted that you address all the staff as Mr or Mrs Cunt, you can, strictly speaking it's not illegal but don't be surprised when you get asked to leave. Free speech also does not protect you from criticism, no where is speech protected to the point where everyone has to listen and silently agree with you. If that were the case, free speech would be useless as you cant have freedom without responsibility.
This is of course, within reason. There are protected classes, even then you're not explicitly banned for being racist, xenophobic, sexist et al... but you're not protected and dont get to use free speech as a defence.
Besides this, if the situation was reversed and we were talking about extremist left organisations (I.E. Bolsheviks, Stalinists, abortion clinic bombers) who advocated and attempted to organise violence, I'm sure go-daddy would do the same to them. It just happens that western societies tend to be more tolerant of the extreme right, allowing them to fester and grow much better than the far left.
Nazis, aka National -Socialists-, are NOT far right. They are of the Left. Perhaps right of communism
That's one of the greatest cons ever. They adopted socialist policies to gain popularity - typical demagogue stuff, promise to bring all the jobs back, blame all the problems on some identifiable group (the Jews) etc. Once they got into power they forgot all that stuff and enacted far right policies, which was their intention all along, and forgot about the socialist stuff.
Not really, Hitler never promised to implement social programs, they were always far right and unashamed of it. Before Jews, the major enemy of the Nazi's and the preceding German Workers Party were the Bolsheviks (AKA, proper communists). Far-right nationalism was always the platform they campaigned on, things like increasing the military, reducing foreign influence, making Germany strong again. They never promised to introduce welfare, look after the sick and infirm. In fact the closest thing that the Nazi's ever did to what we would consider a social program was Action T4, the forced euthanasia of people considered burdens to the state (old, infirm, cripples, hell they even killed you for being "feeble minded"). Far-right wingers see the English words "National Socialist" and think its left wing without realising the emphasis on "Nationalsozialistische" is far-right nationalism, a better (albeit slightly inaccurate) translation in today's vernacular would be "nationalist society" as that is what the Nazi's really were.
In the 20's, the Nazi's were openly attacking socialists (communists and Bolsheviks), they weren't trying to win them over by pandering to them, they were trying to make them too scared to vote against the Nazis and it worked quite well for them. The rise of Nazism is really the story of how a democracy is subverted.
I simply can't divorce Hollywood from it's politics. I can't just go and enjoy a movie anymore. They insist on injecting their dogmas on to me
That's your problem, I suggest seeing a therapist about these kinds of paranoid delusions. Your white privilege is as safe as it ever was.
Hollywood only has one dogma, that is to make money. The problem Hollywood has is that movies are no longer the only game in town. I'm not just talking about TV and Netflix, video games are now a significant form of entertainment amongst most people. Hollywood for so many decades never had any competition, they were able to keep a stranglehold on the production and distribution of the majority of entertainment, the internet has largely ruined this for them with games and streaming services taking over the production and piracy dealing with the distribution. Hollywood has simply not changed with new technologies. They're still stuck in the 80's when we had no other choice but to buy their crap (and I remember the 80's... they made some shit movies).
I jokingly said to my wife the other night that there wasn't even anything I wanted to pirate anymore, it's just gotten that bad.
Could she hear you from the kitchen, or was this when you put her shoes back in the drawer.
Your problem isn't the imaginary "dogmas", your problem is they aren't pandering to you, ironically its because you're even further behind the times than Hollywood.
The difference is it's easy to be fluid and switch back and forth.Right now, I can pay $15/mo for a couple of months and watch everything new (shows, movies) in the HBO catalog on HBO Now. Then, I can discontinue my subscription and get a subscription to Netflix for a few months and do the same for new programming that I haven't seen there. Then repeat for Hulu, CBS, etc, until there are new items on HBO and start the process all over.
That is until they negotiate exclusivity deals. When the re-seller generates 60%+ of their business, they can simply say to HBO, go through us or we'll make your package too expensive.
You've got to think about how lazy the average person is and remember that half of them are lazier than that. They aren't going to maintain 28 different subscriptions, they aren't even going to think about looking to see if they can purchase an axed channel separately. This laziness gives the package re-seller power.
Disney makes great movies but there's no way I'm going to buy another subscription and install another app just to watch a couple Disney movies. I guess that means I'll just have to pirate Disney movies again.
The sad thing is, I think we may be heading back into the same situation that Amazon and Netflix are trying to free us from... Cable/Pay TV companies.
There are now so many different streaming services that its starting to make sense to combine them and sell them as a package. The problem is that this will bring back the old rot of trying to force people to buy packages they dont want just to get one damn show.
At some point late in Steve Job's reign, Apple seemed to have purged all the UX expertise, instead allowing graphic designers and developers to do what thy will. In the past, actual usability testing had been used to defined documented user interface standards, and Apple's user interface group was top notch. I've been a Mac user since 1984, an UX designer in the '90-'00's , and have disappointedly watched this roller coaster going from "insanely great" to the "one sheet of glass" designer bullshit of late.
UX is a bollocks field developed by Apple. They did this to hide the fact that they didn't abide by well proven and tested HCI philosophies.
This is going to upset the fanboys, but Apple has never had a good user interface because it was designed to please one person and one person only, the designer (Steve Jobs/Jony Ives), obviously as the person they're trying to please changes, the design changes. This is an issue because people are different, what works for someone may not necessarily work for another. Apple's inflexibility doomed them to have a poor user interface, to counter this they developed a very powerful marketing machine. Despite what fancy words Apple comes up with, every time I have to use an iDevice, I feel like I've gone back in time. This is not an issue I experience with Linux (Mint 18), Windows or Windows phone (great keyboard... crap everything else).
It is also possible Blizzard concluded their customers would boycott the products unless there are more women and ethnic minorities among the employees
It's not their customers. It's gaming "journalists". They're some of the most hardcore SJWs around and they run campaign after campaign against anyone who doesn't pledge allegiance to their cause. Are you not diverse enough? Well, here's a bad review! Does your game make me feel icky? Bad reviews! Did you not hire my friend? Bad review!
They've got a great protection racket going.
And who exactly are these great and powerful journalists that can threaten the 800 pound gorilla of gaming. WoW and SCII are printing money for Blizzard, they can effectively ignore some outspoken journalist.
Your entire consipiracy theory falls apart when you used "SJW" instead of levelling a specific accusation at a specific person. People who use "SJW" are almost always full of shit. Its a meaningless term used to try and oppose a person who you cant rationally find a problem with.
Blizzard are big enough that they can simply ignore bad reviews... Not that any organisation who values any readership would give them a bad review because of their hiring policies.
Sorry, but you conspiracy theory doesn't pass the 5 year old test (meaning a 5 year old can tell its bollocks).
"Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males"
I've been able to survive this long as a software engineer without discussing castration in any email or company blog posts. It's really not very difficult.
Here is a simple rule of thumb, If your CEO has to cancel a vacation because of your actions, which inexplicably involve discussing castrated males, you should prepare your resume...
Given the memo was dated July, then opened for discussion internally, I highly doubt he was fired over the memo as he was fired on the 7th of August. This gives a minimum of 1 week between release and dismissal. What happened within this time?
I've read the memo, whilst it draws some long bows, however it is not phrased to be offensive (it does give off an "I'm not racist because Islam is not a race" vibe but that is just a vibe). This kind of thing at worse, gets you a stern talking to by HR, in a Fortune 500 company they carry too much risk not to follow procedure to the letter in minor cases. If he was fired for the memo, it would have taken months of warnings and counselling before he was sent on his way with a nice reference letter to tick all the "we cant be sued for this" boxes.
Given that a CEO was called back from holiday, something else must have happened. The fact he keeps going to Alt-Right youtube presenters does not help his case. Chances are, he didn't like his views being questioned and it got out of hand. Ironic, but people with extreme views never seem to see the irony in what they say.
Here we go again. Instead of accusing you of not reading the memo, I'd like to ask: did you read it?
Yes I've read it.
It tries to sound authoritative by adding in references without proper citations. Fair enough it was an internal memo, not a scientific paper but that means it shouldn't be treated as a scientific paper. He doesn't properly link the citations to his assertions and in many cases, the differences are not actually large enough to be significant. I.E. he quotes that women are less competitive than men, whilst its technically true on the whole, it fails to account for individual variations, some women are quite competitive, some men are very passive. Peaks and valleys.
The problem I have with the way a lot of people are reading the memo is that they're using it as validation, not critically evaluating it. He uses a lot of generalisations that cant be simply applied to every sample size, ironically I might add.
You may have read it, but you didn't think critically about it. This is as bad, if not worse than someone who has only read soundbites about it. In both cases, you're just trying to justify beliefs you already hold, not challenge them.
Secondly, it was dated July 2017, if he was fired over the memo alone... why was he not fired until the 7th of August? The memo is a smoke screen for what he actually did to get fired. I'll put money on that.
Maybe Mr. Damore isn't quite the champion of the victimized male that people want to believe. But way to go with trying to make him into an expert in cognitive studies, because he went part way through a biology PhD. In my part of the world that's called a fallacious appeal to authority. So tell me, are you genetically predisposed to such faulty logic, or was that a cultural artifact?
This. Something else went on that he's deliberately not telling us. His own memo opens with "Reply to public response and misrepresentation". Reply to what I have to ask?
CEO's don't get called back from holiday to deal with a politely worded memo that goes against the groupthink. That's what HR deals with no matter how "Lib-rle" the alt-right thinks the organisation is, as others have said Google is a Fortune 100 company, this means HR is done properly. Given that the memo is dated July 2017 and he was not fired until the 7th of August... What happened between that time?
Meanwhile, Damore has been crying foul all over alt-right media but ignoring major publications without an obvious bias. What was he saying about Google's ideological echo chamber? Even the WSJ only counts as semi-legitimate having become yet another Murdoch mouthpiece.
Reading between the lines, his actual philosophies are much harsher than the memo eludes to and likely got into an argument with other employees. Something was said or done that was harsh enough for a lot of employees to make a complaint about, harsh enough that a CEO had to be called back from holiday. If this is true, trying to create a media circus will eventually backfire, especially the way he's currently doing it. The only thing saving him would be that it is illegal for Google to release the actual details on why he was fired, if he sues, this comes out.
We've heard Damore's side of it, I'd like to hear Google's, which is probably being parsed by some very high priced IR lawyers as we speak. As always there's three sides to the argument, your side, their side and the truth.
There's a rule of thumb about voter feedback to Congresscritters. A hand-written letter is worth about 10 phone calls. A phone call is worth about 10 faxes. And a fax is worth about 10 emails.
For most of my complaints, I prefer to make them in person. This is because I'd like the issue to be fixed and the best way to do that is to put a human face onto it. It shows that I'm a friendly and reasonable person with a bit of a problem, a problem they can help me with. The best way to get what you want out of a complaint is to make it seem like the other party is helping you and being appreciated for it. This would seem to fit with your principle of ease vs seriousness but I've found complaining in person is actually the fastest route to a resolution.
Sadly you cant always do complaints face to face.
I think I've written maybe half a dozen complaint letters in my life, most of the time it's to inform a business of why I have left them. At this point, I no longer care for a response. When it comes to complaining, I think a lot of people don't want a resolution as much as they just want to rant. There isn't really much an airline can do when you're waiting for 45 mins for another airline to move their equipment out of the gate.
Hawaiian is one of the better airlines. Wake me when I can text United about how much they suck.
I'm certain United already know how much they suck, they just don't care.
People are thinking exclusively about negative feedback here, but channels like this are best for positive feedback. I know most Americans dont have many positive things to say about American based airlines, but there are some airlines out there that are an absolute pleasure to fly such as Singapore airlines.
The thing about complaining is that most people do it in the worst possible way. Most people only tell you what was wrong with a complaint, few actually say what they wanted. Put simply, people give problems when they should be giving solutions. If you only provide the problem, no-one know what you actually wanted, people then have to guess what it is that actually went wrong and how you wanted it fixed.
Of course there is an art form to complaining successfully, the first rule is be realistic. If you're whinging to whinge then everyone will ignore you, if you make outlandish claims, people will ignore you and think you're a bit of a prat. If you have unreasonable demands, they'll tell you to naff off because you are a prat.
The second rule is to make them think they're helping you. People like helping other people, it makes them feel good. Its why most of us drag ourselves out of bed each morning and face the living hell that is other people. People like it when their efforts are appreciated.
The thrid rule is to state a resolution. A resolution should not be a demand, demands just gets people's backs up and makes them less willing to help. However you should provide a direction to go to resolve the complaint. Phrasing things as questions can help.
"Googlers are writing in, concerned about their safety and worried they may be 'outed' publicly for asking a question in the Town Hall...
Given that the original manifesto was originally published to a supposedly anonymous internal forum, I think being "outed" publicly is a valid concern for someone who dares to have a different perspective.
Assuming of course, Damore didn't leak it himself. He seems to be very much bent on becoming a martyr.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe it's more like not putting up a statue of Erwin Rommel in a Jewish neighborhood? You know, Lee didn't just fight on the losing side, he fought to enslave the ancestors of people who walk past that statue every day.
The irony is, Lee opposed any statues of himself whilst he was alive.
Most of the Confederate statues were erected decades after the war, the 1920's was very popular for it (far right extremism was just popular then).
Lee wanted the US to heal after the war, which is why he didn't want anyone glorifying his actions.
White nationalists: we have a clear message of nationalism and family unity... and a hidden message of hate, outdated ideas, censorship of our opposition and control over your lives to ensure our unpopular and destructive dogma is followed without question.
Internet: nobody cared 70 years ago, and you're about to find out no one cares now.
Fixed that for you.
Of course they won't. We'll all be dead in the middle of Australia.
Bloody hell, not again.
Bruce, start digging another hole.
You've confused 'being PC' with 'being thoughtful' and 'being civil'. The latter two are not ruining anything.
Being PC is being polite and civil.
"PC" has become a meaningless phrase used to try to shut down discussion when one side cannot rationally rebut the other and is unwilling to reconsider their position.
Ironically, they're using bullying to try to enforce their political dogma. Same with SJW.
I think it is very legitimately arguable that Trump's Twitter account is more official than a White House press briefing. As such, blocking Americans from it is probably not allowed.
Trump's account should be using the mute feature rather than the block feature (though the Twitter mute function seems pretty weak nearly to the point of ineffectiveness), or Trump should stop using Twitter as a presidential communications platform.
Right-wingers are bitterly complaining that private companies are "censoring" Nazis (censoring in sarcastic quotations) however I haven't seen those same people complain about the president of the US, shutting down opponents to his announcement mention anything about censorship. No-sireee... those same people are presenting conspiracy theories to justify what is actually an act of political censorship. Censorship == OK for far right government, not OK for profit seeking corporations (whom they disagree with).
How's this flamebait? Nazis were nationalist-socialists.
The one who modded this needs to take up some history books and learn some basic knowledge that still highly influences our world today.
How was this not modded flamebait. The Nazi's were far-right. Don't let the name fool you, unless you believe that the Democratic Republic of (North) Korea is a functioning democracy.
The closest thing that the Nazi's ever did to a social program was Action T4, which was where the Nazi's euthanized anyone who was a burden to the state. Anyone who modded that up needs to read a lot about history. The emphasis in "national socialist" was "national" as in nationalism, because that's what the Nazi's were, extremist nationalists.
Is Hate Speech very specifically called out as an exception to freedom of speech?
Here's the thing, Hate speech is not actually codified in law, unlike freedom of expression.
I live in the UK, you'll never be charged with "hate speech", hate speech and hate crimes are a catch all label used by the media, if you're charged with what the Daily Mail would call a "hate crime" you'll be given a specific charge by the court which is usually less offensive to the type of mouth breather that reads the Daily Mail. Usually its a crime like assault, vandalism or harassment that specifically and maliciously targets a protected class (I.E. race, gender, political affiliation, religion, et al.). The "hate" isn't a crime, you can be as hateful and bitter as you like. The crime is the crime, a hateful motivation is a modifier for a harsher penalty.
However this explanation makes too much sense and is not likely to get the knickers of the Daily Mail/Fox News crowd into a knot.
Who is "approving" speech?
Google is simply distancing itself from a group it finds distasteful.
This isn't a free speech issue, no law states that you have to do business with everyone. In fact being able to choose who you do business or associate with within reason is a freedom that is at serious risk being trampled by the mistaken belief that you can say anything with no consequences.
Freedom of speech does not protect you from the consequences of your speech. This isn't people being censored, its people being told their arseholes and they don't want anything to do with them.
Beyond this, falling back on the free speech defence is pretty much handing the argument to your opponent on a silver platter. It says the best reason you have for saying what you are saying is that it is literally not illegal for you to say it.
Think of it this way, you are able to walk into a restaurant and demand to call everyone who works there Mr or Mrs Cunt... This is not illegal but don't at all be surprised when you're asked to leave. Keep it up and you'll find yourself banned from every restaurant in town. Just because its not illegal to say something does not mean everyone else has to silently put up with you. Free speech has never protected you from criticism.
I cannot imagine what it would be like to own a real gas guzzler or a European car or sports car with higher maintenance costs.
I own a BMW M240i, I can tell you exactly what it's like owning a car like that is.
Fun.
I live outside of London, London has one of the worlds best public transport systems. If I were to live in Lonodn and use public transportation from zone 6 (I.E. somewhere affordable to live) I'd be paying £2,408 just for taking the tube. I'd then have to give up the benefits of owning a car, being able to go to the shops and carry home heavy items, being able to go somewhere when or where public transport doesn't operate.
Now I live outside of London, if I were to take the reasonable public transport system, which is a bus and a train I'd end up paying £2,392, this does not include the cost of taxis or delivery. The running costs of my M240i are less than £3,000 (fuel, tax, insurance, maint) and given the fact that driving to work takes half as long as public transport, when you consider gaining an hour 5 days a week, 48 weeks a year I'm actually ahead by using my car. This is to say nothing of the freedom or joy it provides.
The government is bound to allow free speech. A corporation doesn't have to put up with things they find objectionable. There are other options for those pushing hate and GoDaddy is certainly in the right here.
This, free speech at it's core is being able to criticise your government. Additional provisions are that, additional (although, IMHO, a good thing).
However nowhere does Free Speech entail being given a platform to speak. This you must provide yourself and it is well within the rights of others and other companies to refuse this platform to you if they find what you say objectionable. Put simply, free speech lets you say what you like, it does not force anyone else to have to listen to it. If your hosting provider takes down your extremist website, you're not being censored, you're being told you're not welcome there any more. Its the same as if you went into a restaurant and insisted that you address all the staff as Mr or Mrs Cunt, you can, strictly speaking it's not illegal but don't be surprised when you get asked to leave. Free speech also does not protect you from criticism, no where is speech protected to the point where everyone has to listen and silently agree with you. If that were the case, free speech would be useless as you cant have freedom without responsibility.
This is of course, within reason. There are protected classes, even then you're not explicitly banned for being racist, xenophobic, sexist et al... but you're not protected and dont get to use free speech as a defence.
Besides this, if the situation was reversed and we were talking about extremist left organisations (I.E. Bolsheviks, Stalinists, abortion clinic bombers) who advocated and attempted to organise violence, I'm sure go-daddy would do the same to them. It just happens that western societies tend to be more tolerant of the extreme right, allowing them to fester and grow much better than the far left.
Nazis, aka National -Socialists-, are NOT far right.
They are of the Left. Perhaps right of communism
That's one of the greatest cons ever. They adopted socialist policies to gain popularity - typical demagogue stuff, promise to bring all the jobs back, blame all the problems on some identifiable group (the Jews) etc. Once they got into power they forgot all that stuff and enacted far right policies, which was their intention all along, and forgot about the socialist stuff.
Not really, Hitler never promised to implement social programs, they were always far right and unashamed of it. Before Jews, the major enemy of the Nazi's and the preceding German Workers Party were the Bolsheviks (AKA, proper communists). Far-right nationalism was always the platform they campaigned on, things like increasing the military, reducing foreign influence, making Germany strong again. They never promised to introduce welfare, look after the sick and infirm. In fact the closest thing that the Nazi's ever did to what we would consider a social program was Action T4, the forced euthanasia of people considered burdens to the state (old, infirm, cripples, hell they even killed you for being "feeble minded"). Far-right wingers see the English words "National Socialist" and think its left wing without realising the emphasis on "Nationalsozialistische" is far-right nationalism, a better (albeit slightly inaccurate) translation in today's vernacular would be "nationalist society" as that is what the Nazi's really were.
In the 20's, the Nazi's were openly attacking socialists (communists and Bolsheviks), they weren't trying to win them over by pandering to them, they were trying to make them too scared to vote against the Nazis and it worked quite well for them. The rise of Nazism is really the story of how a democracy is subverted.
I simply can't divorce Hollywood from it's politics. I can't just go and enjoy a movie anymore. They insist on injecting their dogmas on to me
That's your problem, I suggest seeing a therapist about these kinds of paranoid delusions. Your white privilege is as safe as it ever was. Hollywood only has one dogma, that is to make money. The problem Hollywood has is that movies are no longer the only game in town. I'm not just talking about TV and Netflix, video games are now a significant form of entertainment amongst most people. Hollywood for so many decades never had any competition, they were able to keep a stranglehold on the production and distribution of the majority of entertainment, the internet has largely ruined this for them with games and streaming services taking over the production and piracy dealing with the distribution. Hollywood has simply not changed with new technologies. They're still stuck in the 80's when we had no other choice but to buy their crap (and I remember the 80's... they made some shit movies).
I jokingly said to my wife the other night that there wasn't even anything I wanted to pirate anymore, it's just gotten that bad.
Could she hear you from the kitchen, or was this when you put her shoes back in the drawer.
Your problem isn't the imaginary "dogmas", your problem is they aren't pandering to you, ironically its because you're even further behind the times than Hollywood.
Anyone who's had to deal with MREs knows that nothing good will come of this... (nor will anything come out of you, but that's a different problem).
Or the alternative, Amazon is now literally selling Spam.
The difference is it's easy to be fluid and switch back and forth.Right now, I can pay $15/mo for a couple of months and watch everything new (shows, movies) in the HBO catalog on HBO Now. Then, I can discontinue my subscription and get a subscription to Netflix for a few months and do the same for new programming that I haven't seen there. Then repeat for Hulu, CBS, etc, until there are new items on HBO and start the process all over.
That is until they negotiate exclusivity deals. When the re-seller generates 60%+ of their business, they can simply say to HBO, go through us or we'll make your package too expensive.
You've got to think about how lazy the average person is and remember that half of them are lazier than that. They aren't going to maintain 28 different subscriptions, they aren't even going to think about looking to see if they can purchase an axed channel separately. This laziness gives the package re-seller power.
Disney makes great movies but there's no way I'm going to buy another subscription and install another app just to watch a couple Disney movies. I guess that means I'll just have to pirate Disney movies again.
The sad thing is, I think we may be heading back into the same situation that Amazon and Netflix are trying to free us from... Cable/Pay TV companies.
There are now so many different streaming services that its starting to make sense to combine them and sell them as a package. The problem is that this will bring back the old rot of trying to force people to buy packages they dont want just to get one damn show.
At some point late in Steve Job's reign, Apple seemed to have purged all the UX expertise, instead allowing graphic designers and developers to do what thy will. In the past, actual usability testing had been used to defined documented user interface standards, and Apple's user interface group was top notch. I've been a Mac user since 1984, an UX designer in the '90-'00's , and have disappointedly watched this roller coaster going from "insanely great" to the "one sheet of glass" designer bullshit of late.
UX is a bollocks field developed by Apple. They did this to hide the fact that they didn't abide by well proven and tested HCI philosophies.
This is going to upset the fanboys, but Apple has never had a good user interface because it was designed to please one person and one person only, the designer (Steve Jobs/Jony Ives), obviously as the person they're trying to please changes, the design changes. This is an issue because people are different, what works for someone may not necessarily work for another. Apple's inflexibility doomed them to have a poor user interface, to counter this they developed a very powerful marketing machine. Despite what fancy words Apple comes up with, every time I have to use an iDevice, I feel like I've gone back in time. This is not an issue I experience with Linux (Mint 18), Windows or Windows phone (great keyboard... crap everything else).
It is also possible Blizzard concluded their customers would boycott the products unless there are more women and ethnic minorities among the employees
It's not their customers. It's gaming "journalists". They're some of the most hardcore SJWs around and they run campaign after campaign against anyone who doesn't pledge allegiance to their cause. Are you not diverse enough? Well, here's a bad review! Does your game make me feel icky? Bad reviews! Did you not hire my friend? Bad review!
They've got a great protection racket going.
And who exactly are these great and powerful journalists that can threaten the 800 pound gorilla of gaming. WoW and SCII are printing money for Blizzard, they can effectively ignore some outspoken journalist.
Your entire consipiracy theory falls apart when you used "SJW" instead of levelling a specific accusation at a specific person. People who use "SJW" are almost always full of shit. Its a meaningless term used to try and oppose a person who you cant rationally find a problem with.
Blizzard are big enough that they can simply ignore bad reviews... Not that any organisation who values any readership would give them a bad review because of their hiring policies.
Sorry, but you conspiracy theory doesn't pass the 5 year old test (meaning a 5 year old can tell its bollocks).
why, because they are better programmers? If that's not the reason, your shareholders may want to have a word with you.
Because everyone who works at Blizzard is a programmer.
This is just a PR box ticking exercise. Don't get your panties in a bunch over it.
My favorite quote from the manifesto:
"Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males"
I've been able to survive this long as a software engineer without discussing castration in any email or company blog posts. It's really not very difficult.
Here is a simple rule of thumb, If your CEO has to cancel a vacation because of your actions, which inexplicably involve discussing castrated males, you should prepare your resume...
Given the memo was dated July, then opened for discussion internally, I highly doubt he was fired over the memo as he was fired on the 7th of August. This gives a minimum of 1 week between release and dismissal. What happened within this time?
I've read the memo, whilst it draws some long bows, however it is not phrased to be offensive (it does give off an "I'm not racist because Islam is not a race" vibe but that is just a vibe). This kind of thing at worse, gets you a stern talking to by HR, in a Fortune 500 company they carry too much risk not to follow procedure to the letter in minor cases. If he was fired for the memo, it would have taken months of warnings and counselling before he was sent on his way with a nice reference letter to tick all the "we cant be sued for this" boxes.
Given that a CEO was called back from holiday, something else must have happened. The fact he keeps going to Alt-Right youtube presenters does not help his case. Chances are, he didn't like his views being questioned and it got out of hand. Ironic, but people with extreme views never seem to see the irony in what they say.
Here we go again. Instead of accusing you of not reading the memo, I'd like to ask: did you read it?
Yes I've read it.
It tries to sound authoritative by adding in references without proper citations. Fair enough it was an internal memo, not a scientific paper but that means it shouldn't be treated as a scientific paper. He doesn't properly link the citations to his assertions and in many cases, the differences are not actually large enough to be significant. I.E. he quotes that women are less competitive than men, whilst its technically true on the whole, it fails to account for individual variations, some women are quite competitive, some men are very passive. Peaks and valleys.
The problem I have with the way a lot of people are reading the memo is that they're using it as validation, not critically evaluating it. He uses a lot of generalisations that cant be simply applied to every sample size, ironically I might add.
You may have read it, but you didn't think critically about it. This is as bad, if not worse than someone who has only read soundbites about it. In both cases, you're just trying to justify beliefs you already hold, not challenge them.
Secondly, it was dated July 2017, if he was fired over the memo alone... why was he not fired until the 7th of August? The memo is a smoke screen for what he actually did to get fired. I'll put money on that.
No, he does not have a PhD in biology. He apparently abandoned that before completion.
http://www.businessinsider.com...
Maybe Mr. Damore isn't quite the champion of the victimized male that people want to believe. But way to go with trying to make him into an expert in cognitive studies, because he went part way through a biology PhD. In my part of the world that's called a fallacious appeal to authority. So tell me, are you genetically predisposed to such faulty logic, or was that a cultural artifact?
This. Something else went on that he's deliberately not telling us. His own memo opens with "Reply to public response and misrepresentation". Reply to what I have to ask?
CEO's don't get called back from holiday to deal with a politely worded memo that goes against the groupthink. That's what HR deals with no matter how "Lib-rle" the alt-right thinks the organisation is, as others have said Google is a Fortune 100 company, this means HR is done properly. Given that the memo is dated July 2017 and he was not fired until the 7th of August... What happened between that time?
Meanwhile, Damore has been crying foul all over alt-right media but ignoring major publications without an obvious bias. What was he saying about Google's ideological echo chamber? Even the WSJ only counts as semi-legitimate having become yet another Murdoch mouthpiece.
Reading between the lines, his actual philosophies are much harsher than the memo eludes to and likely got into an argument with other employees. Something was said or done that was harsh enough for a lot of employees to make a complaint about, harsh enough that a CEO had to be called back from holiday. If this is true, trying to create a media circus will eventually backfire, especially the way he's currently doing it. The only thing saving him would be that it is illegal for Google to release the actual details on why he was fired, if he sues, this comes out.
We've heard Damore's side of it, I'd like to hear Google's, which is probably being parsed by some very high priced IR lawyers as we speak. As always there's three sides to the argument, your side, their side and the truth.
Didn't take long for the hypocrites to arrive.
It seems you want ideas you agree with to be permitted, but when someone uses the same argument against you, you want silenced and hidden.
There's a rule of thumb about voter feedback to Congresscritters. A hand-written letter is worth about 10 phone calls. A phone call is worth about 10 faxes. And a fax is worth about 10 emails.
How many hand written letters is a song worth?
For most of my complaints, I prefer to make them in person. This is because I'd like the issue to be fixed and the best way to do that is to put a human face onto it. It shows that I'm a friendly and reasonable person with a bit of a problem, a problem they can help me with. The best way to get what you want out of a complaint is to make it seem like the other party is helping you and being appreciated for it. This would seem to fit with your principle of ease vs seriousness but I've found complaining in person is actually the fastest route to a resolution.
Sadly you cant always do complaints face to face.
I think I've written maybe half a dozen complaint letters in my life, most of the time it's to inform a business of why I have left them. At this point, I no longer care for a response. When it comes to complaining, I think a lot of people don't want a resolution as much as they just want to rant. There isn't really much an airline can do when you're waiting for 45 mins for another airline to move their equipment out of the gate.
Hawaiian is one of the better airlines. Wake me when I can text United about how much they suck.
I'm certain United already know how much they suck, they just don't care.
People are thinking exclusively about negative feedback here, but channels like this are best for positive feedback. I know most Americans dont have many positive things to say about American based airlines, but there are some airlines out there that are an absolute pleasure to fly such as Singapore airlines.
The thing about complaining is that most people do it in the worst possible way. Most people only tell you what was wrong with a complaint, few actually say what they wanted. Put simply, people give problems when they should be giving solutions. If you only provide the problem, no-one know what you actually wanted, people then have to guess what it is that actually went wrong and how you wanted it fixed.
Of course there is an art form to complaining successfully, the first rule is be realistic. If you're whinging to whinge then everyone will ignore you, if you make outlandish claims, people will ignore you and think you're a bit of a prat. If you have unreasonable demands, they'll tell you to naff off because you are a prat.
The second rule is to make them think they're helping you. People like helping other people, it makes them feel good. Its why most of us drag ourselves out of bed each morning and face the living hell that is other people. People like it when their efforts are appreciated.
The thrid rule is to state a resolution. A resolution should not be a demand, demands just gets people's backs up and makes them less willing to help. However you should provide a direction to go to resolve the complaint. Phrasing things as questions can help.
Given that the original manifesto was originally published to a supposedly anonymous internal forum, I think being "outed" publicly is a valid concern for someone who dares to have a different perspective.
Assuming of course, Damore didn't leak it himself. He seems to be very much bent on becoming a martyr.