5 ms·

In most professions, there's a feeling of unity. Taxi companies and drivers will either stand with striking drivers, or be respectful enough to not disrupt thei

by pikzen 10y ago

In most professions, there's a feeling of unity. Taxi companies and drivers will either stand with striking drivers, or be respectful enough to not disrupt their action. Then comes Uber, the vulture that swoops in all in the name of disrupting the market. They're allowed to do it, sure. Whether it's morally right is another thing.

benchaney 10y ago
It is definitely morally right. Calling Uber a vulture ignores the reality that the world doesn't stop just because some protesters are unhappy.
- eropple 10y ago
  "Some protestors are unhappy" is a really interesting way of phrasing "the federal government is embarking on a concerted attack on 1.7% of the population for reasons at best murky." Be better, please.
  - benchaney 10y ago
    Come on. Trump is doing lots of bad things, but if he weren't people would still be striking. The largest protest in American history happened before he even took office. Let's not pretend that people's emotions are less of a driving factor than the facts. Get over yourself.
    - couchand 10y ago
      Or maybe you should "get over yourself". If you care so much for the facts perhaps you should make sure to get them right. I suppose you're referring to the Women's March, which took place the day after Trump assumed office. And it's remarkable if your claim is that without Trump's Muslim Ban there would still be protests at JFK this weekend. Are you really arguing that?
      - benchaney 10y ago
        It is interesting that you say that, because I read about that protest in the Friday paper (from the 20th). The paper of course became available many hours before Trump was sworn in. Stop pretending that it was a reaction to anything he did in office. I don't know exactly how different protests would have played out if Trump took different actions in office, but it is overwhelmingly obvious that the protests are the result of emotion, not facts. Also, you seem to be confused about the phrase "get over yourself" means. It targets self importance such as "be better please", it makes no sense whatsoever as a response to my comment.
        couchand 10y ago
        That's a skillful evasion of facts you just executed, going from your previous claim that the protest occurred before the inauguration to just that it was planned before then. Well played. Your dubious claim about the motivations of large groups of individuals is not at all "overwhelmingly obvious." Get over yourself.
        benchaney 10y ago
        Is it an evasion of facts to focus on facts that are relevant? If a protest was planned before Trump took office, that logically excludes actions taken by Trump as motivation for the protest. That is "overwhelmingly obvious" to anyone who isn't confused by the concept of causality.
        couchand 10y ago
        I don't think anyone claimed that the Women's March wasn't planned before January 20th, that would be absurd. However it was still clearly a reaction to Trump's words and actions, and that doesn't require him being a sitting president first. But it's worth noting the difference between that protest and the one at JFK, which I think it's pretty clear was a direct reaction to a specific policy created by President Trump. Using the Women's March as some sort of catch-all "haters gonna hate" dismissal of the valid concerns that many Americans have about the sitting president's actions is, to put it simply, a remarkable argument.

by pikzen 10y ago

benchaney 10y ago

It is definitely morally right. Calling Uber a vulture ignores the reality that the world doesn't stop just because some protesters are unhappy.

eropple 10y ago
"Some protestors are unhappy" is a really interesting way of phrasing "the federal government is embarking on a concerted attack on 1.7% of the population for reasons at best murky." Be better, please.
- benchaney 10y ago
  Come on. Trump is doing lots of bad things, but if he weren't people would still be striking. The largest protest in American history happened before he even took office. Let's not pretend that people's emotions are less of a driving factor than the facts. Get over yourself.
  - couchand 10y ago
    Or maybe you should "get over yourself". If you care so much for the facts perhaps you should make sure to get them right. I suppose you're referring to the Women's March, which took place the day after Trump assumed office. And it's remarkable if your claim is that without Trump's Muslim Ban there would still be protests at JFK this weekend. Are you really arguing that?
    - benchaney 10y ago
      It is interesting that you say that, because I read about that protest in the Friday paper (from the 20th). The paper of course became available many hours before Trump was sworn in. Stop pretending that it was a reaction to anything he did in office. I don't know exactly how different protests would have played out if Trump took different actions in office, but it is overwhelmingly obvious that the protests are the result of emotion, not facts. Also, you seem to be confused about the phrase "get over yourself" means. It targets self importance such as "be better please", it makes no sense whatsoever as a response to my comment.
      - couchand 10y ago
        That's a skillful evasion of facts you just executed, going from your previous claim that the protest occurred before the inauguration to just that it was planned before then. Well played. Your dubious claim about the motivations of large groups of individuals is not at all "overwhelmingly obvious." Get over yourself.
        benchaney 10y ago
        Is it an evasion of facts to focus on facts that are relevant? If a protest was planned before Trump took office, that logically excludes actions taken by Trump as motivation for the protest. That is "overwhelmingly obvious" to anyone who isn't confused by the concept of causality.
        couchand 10y ago
        I don't think anyone claimed that the Women's March wasn't planned before January 20th, that would be absurd. However it was still clearly a reaction to Trump's words and actions, and that doesn't require him being a sitting president first. But it's worth noting the difference between that protest and the one at JFK, which I think it's pretty clear was a direct reaction to a specific policy created by President Trump. Using the Women's March as some sort of catch-all "haters gonna hate" dismissal of the valid concerns that many Americans have about the sitting president's actions is, to put it simply, a remarkable argument.