gatlin

You phrase this as if this were a physical necessity, and not a situation purposefully engineered by human beings to be so.

You are assuming that the institutions offering the protection will follow through for when you need them to. I don't mind people who do believe these promises made to them, but I certainly understand those who don't.

I fail to see what exactly this improves about the situation. It's the same aquifer whether it's underneath a cow pasture or a metropolis.

The budgets were not actually going to the F-35 or the mythical $50 hammers etc. They were going to projects that work.

People weren't necessarily buying in a fair market, hence the secret lobbying operation.

It protects nothing important. That people must participate in selling their creativity and creative labors to eat is a more fundamental bug in society and as someone who makes a living off "IP" only I can't wait for the day that my life is secured by something other than armed threats of violence against people sharing ideas and information.

Do Tesla PR disasters seem to be holding it back? It might simply be a calculated risk.

I would be interested in reading more of what you are reading.

Non-christians and Christians alike seem to think the existence of multiple stories about a particular person written down after all first parties were dead means a historical Jesus is a certainty. I actually like Christianity and many of the teachings, but for some reason people will accept the worst evidence for this one specific claim.

> In fact, it is so obviously implausible that no-one would dare use this situation as an excuse, and if they did, the only possible conclusion is that they were lying. The Talmud does not condone this as an excuse.

Unless you have a source for this I missed, you don't know this is true either.

Is the fluoride in the room with you right now? Are you okay?

It isn't a misdirected accusation, and the reason why is in the comment you're replying to.

I don't want or expect you to do a book report for me :) but would you mind linking a thread or two here that an enthusiastic moron could pull at for more detail?

Zero-sum profit certainly requires taking from someone else to succeed. This doesn't make it immoral as such but it creates malevolent incentives.

None, this is astroturfing from the reverse extreme.

Other than as a substitute for bird watching I don't have much use for logical fallacies: https://maartenboudry.be/2017/06/the-fallacy-fork-why-its-ti...

Yes, the one bordering Russia, that was contemplating joining an organization which aims missiles at Russia. This doesn't excuse the invasion but your reasoning is self-defeating.

Who were the founders, again? Why do Palestinians have to care what those founders think of anything?

Meant to reply with this here and not on the child comment, but either way here is something truly bad you can start with that may meet some of your needs: https://github.com/gatlin/valet

If you make it less bad I will accept any PRs!

This is really bad code that I encourage you to fix (and maybe submit a PR? :): https://github.com/gatlin/valet

That's the entire point: to force you to see a problem they feel is ignored. Go tell them your feelings on free speech, I'm sure they'll listen.

Because no market has ever been free in any meaningful sense.

What's disappointing is that even if (sticking with your example) "high school boy" isn't a distinct gender in the way you mean, there is still potential for anthropological investigation into the phenomenon of a person's different roles as they age and change, as with these other "roles" more broadly-speaking. But instead of just having that discussion it is first warped to fit into a very narrow framework of American gender discourse.

A communication misfire I see frequently across perceived ideological boundaries may be summarized as such:

Person A: "social phenomenon XYZ is being abused / misappropriated / spun in a way by people with power"

Everyone else: "you are a bigot who opposes XYZ!"

Person A: reasons that if honest self-expression and concern expressed with nuance yields nothing but insults in response that maybe their original position was too cautious...

The "lazy black person" trope is Jim Crowe propaganda, plain and simple. This study has good intentions but I'm inclined to say the trope didn't need to be dignified with such a high-effort response.

The company could let employees in on key decision making and thus not create the environment of distrust and paranoia. Why is it ever a surprise how the company is doing? Solely, solely to keep employees ignorant of matters concerning their livelihoods. A company has the choices it cultivates for itself.

Sobriety, ritual, and purpose for me. No particular order.

Sincerely, much respect.

Yes that would mean managers have to do something, and while some are incidentally useful and productive, there are few external incentives for them to be so. Yet there are many incentives to let you burn out after hitting a wall a hundred times.

To keep the parent comment honest, the word "Mao" doesn't appear once in this article; and in fact, near the top they use McCarthyism as an example of the type of "indignity" spoken of. Why a phenomenon identified in western society in the article needs to be made into some jab at maoists is beyond me though.