7 ms·

Why is there so much political activism inside tech companies? Shouldn't this person actually do something wrong at his job before the mob goes after him? How l

Why is there so much political activism inside tech companies? Shouldn't this person actually do something wrong at his job before the mob goes after him? How long before you can't be an executive if you hunt, or eat meat?

chrisco255 8y ago
Why is there so much rising extremism, period?
- tomcam 8y ago
  Is it extremist to support Kavanaugh?
  - Double_a_92 8y ago
    Women must always be believed! Everything else is an extremist sexist view, enforced my old white cis males in powerful positions! /s
    - dang 8y ago
      Please don't do this here.
      - Double_a_92 8y ago
        That's appearently the opinion of most high-tech companies. Why can't I criticize that here in a sarcastic manner? I thought this was about discussions... Or are you just talking about the sarcasm part? Can we not use basic rhetoric styles here?
  - chrisco255 8y ago
    No, it's a mainstream view for the conservative half of the United States.
    - RickS 8y ago
      Respectfully, and with the hope that we can keep it civil here, I put forth that these two things are not mutually exclusive.
  - RickS 8y ago
    Maybe. I would argue after watching the hearing that anyone who so blatantly ignores the obvious intent of questions asked of them, rather than attempting to pursue and convey the truth in earnest, regardless of their guilt, is unqualified to enforce justice at the highest level in America. I struggle to imagine a credible reason to look past this conduct, and would be interested in hearing a take on it. To be clear, I don't have a take on whether he's guilty, and I don't think it particularly matters. I'm operating based solely on his bad-faith responses to interview questions. It could be argued that the questions asked of him were themselves in bad faith, but that doesn't seem like it should change anything, since it's critical for a judge to be resilient to bad faith questioning, rather than sinking to that level and rolling in the mud. If a person has a different take that involves him being levelheaded, truthful, nonpartisan in the face of immense partisanship, and dedicated to the pursuit of justice, then no, it is not extremist to support him. If a person can recognize him as being at all deficient in any of those categories and yet supports his nomination out of partisan dedication, despite intellectual qualities that should disqualify him, I would classify that as extreme.
    - chrisco255 8y ago
      We have to presume Kavanaugh's innocence because no witness has come forward to corroborate any claims. In the meantime, the Democrats skewered a man for every inside joke he made in his High school yearbook with his buddies. They were picking apart his actions as a child. They weren't asking questions related to the allegations. They were trying to assassinate his character. That's fucked up I don't care who you are. Who would like to sit on trial for things you said 40 years ago? And have a mass media misinterpret everything out of context? It's fucking primitive. Who wouldn't lose their composure? Only a cool, level headed liar like Bill Clinton could pull that off.
      - RickS 8y ago
        My comment was specific and deliberate in presuming his innocence, which, to reiterate, I do. I was also deliberate in my pointing-out that many of the questions asked of him could be perceived as being in bad faith. Whether that's so is quite subjective. Your "inside joke" is other people's "description of a sex act". For the same reason we can't truly know Kav's innocence or guilt, we can't know whether the jokes are harmful or not. I want to point out a distinction that I made, that I'm not sure you're making: I don't discredit Kavanaugh because he "lost his cool". I too would most certainly be crying in that situation, without a doubt. But when Leahy pressed him, repeatedly over a span of excruciatingly long minutes, to explicitly request and comply with an investigation, and Kavanaugh dodged and bent over backwards to avoid doing such a thing, I found it difficult to understand how a person interested in the truth could behave in that way. A SCOTUS judge should be wiling to be investigated, and expected to survive such a thing.
  - exmicrosoldier 8y ago
    In the context of most supreme court nominees, combined with the amount of contoversy surrounding his appointment yes. Every tier one tech company I ever worked for would not hire someone that caused that much ill will, from a culture perspective. The brand of the supreme court is seen as a wise, impartial, authorative, servant of the people. An imperious, rabidly partisan, agressive, evasive, offended, entitled boy damages that brand. A nonpartisan, considered, empathetic, distinguished man does not.
    - chrisco255 8y ago
      Who caused the ill will? The man accused of something he didn't do? Or the Democrats who manufactured a mock trial with all the optics of one and with none of the evidence and due process of one.
      - exmicrosoldier 8y ago
        Kavanaugh has been a controversial person his entire career. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/the-judicial-jihad-against-the-regulatory-state/2012/10/12/d9eb080c-13ca-11e2-bf18-a8a596df4bee_story.html?sw_bypass=true&utm_term=.0bc6d7af386c https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/the-judicial-jihad-a... https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jul/25/amy-klobuchar/trump-brett-kavanaugh-scotus-cfpb-unconstitutional/ https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jul... https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/08/20/oral-sex-what-brett-kavanaugh-wanted-ask-bill-clinton/1042861002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/08/20/oral...
lillesvin 8y ago
People being good at their jobs isn't the only thing that matters if you're working under their direction. Especially if they're also a large part of the company's public image. If people are uncomfortable with their CEO eating meat then they should be free to ask about it and voice their opinions. If the CEO wants to change anything because of that is entirely up to him/her, just like how people are free to resign if they feel strongly enough about it.
- g8oz 8y ago
  >>If people are uncomfortable with their CEO eating meat then they should be free to ask about it and voice their opinions. But really, who would be that obnoxious?
  - Dancecity 8y ago
    Is this sarcasm or have you never met vegans?
    - throwawaymanbot 8y ago
      what an over generalization...
  - lillesvin 8y ago
    I only used the "eat meat" example because the guy I replied to did. A better one, IMO, would be "arguing against companies having to pay taxes because the employees already pay income taxes". My CEO has said something akin to that on multiple occasions and I'll keep challenging him on it because I strongly disagree. That doesn't mean I expect him to change but I do expect him to defend his standpoint. There's nothing wrong with challenging people on different topics, lots of healthy and fruitful discussions can come of that, it's just the "don't be obnoxious and entitled about it" part that seems to not resonate with some people but I think that's an entirely different issue.
- kamaal 8y ago
  >>If people are uncomfortable with their CEO eating meat then they should be free to ask about it and voice their opinions. Expecting a person A to change their way of life, for an inconsequential act, because other person B completely irrelevant to A or A action's feels 'uncomfortable', then B has way over stepped in feeling entitled to what they want from life and society. You don't get to dictate what religion some one should practice, or what kind of clothes they should wear, or economic system they should believe or what kind of politics they like. Unless they force you to do as they like, they are free to hold whatever opinions they like. Just like you do. This whole thing about people wanting to control other people's life. And then claiming to victims of 'offence' and 'discomfort', when the other person doesn't comply to their dictation is the root cause of political problems today. Nobody owes you anything, others are welcome to live their life as they like, just as you do.
archagon 8y ago
You must be thinking: this is a typical conservative appointment, so there shouldn't be this much furor over it. Bullshit. Kavanaugh has been decried by the ACLU, a number of bar associations, several law schools, countless other judges, and even his own roommates. The Republicans in power don't care in the slightest. And this has been the modus operandi of the entire party since the second half of Obama's term (and probably earlier). Meanwhile, all this is getting rapidly normalized in the public eye by the relentless parroting of the "both sides" fallacy. It's good that people are protesting. I hope they protest even louder. Authoritarians should not feel welcome.
- fareesh 8y ago
  From what I understand he is accused of some crime 30 years ago, after being a very public person for decades, with no corroborating evidence. In my personal worldview and culture that makes him an innocent man, and he should not be disrespected in this manner. My values are certainly not in need of the ACLU's approval. I don't put stock in the opinions of institutions, just in the facts as they relate to the allegations. No idea what's happening in America right now. I've always assumed my worldview was shaped by English common law, and the great principles it puts forth like presumption of innocence, individual rights, etc.
  - archagon 8y ago
    What I’m hearing is that your values are ultimately driven by your feelings, as opposed to numerous first-hand accounts testifying to this person’s character, or even the words coming from his own mouth. Sexual assault allegations aside, Kavanaugh acted—and has acted—like a partisan hack and an entitled frat boy, and has almost certainly lied under oath. He is plainly unfit for the Supreme Court, innocent or not.
    - fareesh 8y ago
      Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong - I don't live in America so my facts may be incomplete. 100+ women have come forward for Judge Kavanaugh's character. The sum total of everyone he has worked with during his time as a judge (which is much more relevant than what he did while at parties), have given him glowing endorsements. My opinion is based on evidence, and the presumption of innocence. Those are not feelings or emotions. Those are facts and principles. Justice Ginsberg said she and her husband would move to New Zealand if the Republican candidate became President. That is coming from the reigning liberal champion on the court. Honestly, I think she has set the bar as far as irresponsible partisan remarks are concerned. The Democratic party is solely to blame (factually speaking) for what has happened to Judge Kavanaugh's family over these past few months. Senator Feinstein made no effort to keep this process private and protect the personal lives of everyone involved. Dr. Ford testified that she did not share the information that she gave Senator Feinstein with anyone else. Senator Feinstein claims nobody leaked the information. One of them is lying, because it was leaked to the press, which caused a complete media trial and humiliating debacle for both parties involved. To make matters worse, Bill Clinton's legal team, who is now representing Dr. Ford, conveniently forgot to tell her that her statements could have been taken privately to the judiciary committee. It's incredibly convenient that this too has happened in light of the broad context. This entire travesty could have been avoided if the Democratic party handled this matter sensitively and appropriately, they are solely to blame. Zero Republicans were responsible for how this fiasco has transpired in the media. Were things the other way around, the Republicans would deserve an angry rant too. The bottom line is, even if none of this would have happened 0 Democrats would have voted for Justice Kavanaugh. This FBI investigation has changed none of their minds, and the most pathetic thing to come of this, is that after ruining a man's reputation and life from this political charade, the gaul to suggest that he should have watched his tone when he passionately argued his innocence. I really have no words for how horrible that is. But that's another subject. My original point stands, this man's views should not disqualify him from his job. He is perfectly capable of doing it, and having his own personal views.

chrisco255 8y ago

Why is there so much rising extremism, period?

tomcam 8y ago
Is it extremist to support Kavanaugh?
- Double_a_92 8y ago
  Women must always be believed! Everything else is an extremist sexist view, enforced my old white cis males in powerful positions! /s
  - dang 8y ago
    Please don't do this here.
    - Double_a_92 8y ago
      That's appearently the opinion of most high-tech companies. Why can't I criticize that here in a sarcastic manner? I thought this was about discussions... Or are you just talking about the sarcasm part? Can we not use basic rhetoric styles here?
- chrisco255 8y ago
  No, it's a mainstream view for the conservative half of the United States.
  - RickS 8y ago
    Respectfully, and with the hope that we can keep it civil here, I put forth that these two things are not mutually exclusive.
- RickS 8y ago
  Maybe. I would argue after watching the hearing that anyone who so blatantly ignores the obvious intent of questions asked of them, rather than attempting to pursue and convey the truth in earnest, regardless of their guilt, is unqualified to enforce justice at the highest level in America. I struggle to imagine a credible reason to look past this conduct, and would be interested in hearing a take on it. To be clear, I don't have a take on whether he's guilty, and I don't think it particularly matters. I'm operating based solely on his bad-faith responses to interview questions. It could be argued that the questions asked of him were themselves in bad faith, but that doesn't seem like it should change anything, since it's critical for a judge to be resilient to bad faith questioning, rather than sinking to that level and rolling in the mud. If a person has a different take that involves him being levelheaded, truthful, nonpartisan in the face of immense partisanship, and dedicated to the pursuit of justice, then no, it is not extremist to support him. If a person can recognize him as being at all deficient in any of those categories and yet supports his nomination out of partisan dedication, despite intellectual qualities that should disqualify him, I would classify that as extreme.
  - chrisco255 8y ago
    We have to presume Kavanaugh's innocence because no witness has come forward to corroborate any claims. In the meantime, the Democrats skewered a man for every inside joke he made in his High school yearbook with his buddies. They were picking apart his actions as a child. They weren't asking questions related to the allegations. They were trying to assassinate his character. That's fucked up I don't care who you are. Who would like to sit on trial for things you said 40 years ago? And have a mass media misinterpret everything out of context? It's fucking primitive. Who wouldn't lose their composure? Only a cool, level headed liar like Bill Clinton could pull that off.
    - RickS 8y ago
      My comment was specific and deliberate in presuming his innocence, which, to reiterate, I do. I was also deliberate in my pointing-out that many of the questions asked of him could be perceived as being in bad faith. Whether that's so is quite subjective. Your "inside joke" is other people's "description of a sex act". For the same reason we can't truly know Kav's innocence or guilt, we can't know whether the jokes are harmful or not. I want to point out a distinction that I made, that I'm not sure you're making: I don't discredit Kavanaugh because he "lost his cool". I too would most certainly be crying in that situation, without a doubt. But when Leahy pressed him, repeatedly over a span of excruciatingly long minutes, to explicitly request and comply with an investigation, and Kavanaugh dodged and bent over backwards to avoid doing such a thing, I found it difficult to understand how a person interested in the truth could behave in that way. A SCOTUS judge should be wiling to be investigated, and expected to survive such a thing.
- exmicrosoldier 8y ago
  In the context of most supreme court nominees, combined with the amount of contoversy surrounding his appointment yes. Every tier one tech company I ever worked for would not hire someone that caused that much ill will, from a culture perspective. The brand of the supreme court is seen as a wise, impartial, authorative, servant of the people. An imperious, rabidly partisan, agressive, evasive, offended, entitled boy damages that brand. A nonpartisan, considered, empathetic, distinguished man does not.
  - chrisco255 8y ago
    Who caused the ill will? The man accused of something he didn't do? Or the Democrats who manufactured a mock trial with all the optics of one and with none of the evidence and due process of one.
    - exmicrosoldier 8y ago
      Kavanaugh has been a controversial person his entire career. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/the-judicial-jihad-against-the-regulatory-state/2012/10/12/d9eb080c-13ca-11e2-bf18-a8a596df4bee_story.html?sw_bypass=true&utm_term=.0bc6d7af386c https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/the-judicial-jihad-a... https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jul/25/amy-klobuchar/trump-brett-kavanaugh-scotus-cfpb-unconstitutional/ https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jul... https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/08/20/oral-sex-what-brett-kavanaugh-wanted-ask-bill-clinton/1042861002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/08/20/oral...

lillesvin 8y ago

People being good at their jobs isn't the only thing that matters if you're working under their direction. Especially if they're also a large part of the company's public image. If people are uncomfortable with their CEO eating meat then they should be free to ask about it and voice their opinions. If the CEO wants to change anything because of that is entirely up to him/her, just like how people are free to resign if they feel strongly enough about it.

g8oz 8y ago
>>If people are uncomfortable with their CEO eating meat then they should be free to ask about it and voice their opinions. But really, who would be that obnoxious?
- Dancecity 8y ago
  Is this sarcasm or have you never met vegans?
  - throwawaymanbot 8y ago
    what an over generalization...
- lillesvin 8y ago
  I only used the "eat meat" example because the guy I replied to did. A better one, IMO, would be "arguing against companies having to pay taxes because the employees already pay income taxes". My CEO has said something akin to that on multiple occasions and I'll keep challenging him on it because I strongly disagree. That doesn't mean I expect him to change but I do expect him to defend his standpoint. There's nothing wrong with challenging people on different topics, lots of healthy and fruitful discussions can come of that, it's just the "don't be obnoxious and entitled about it" part that seems to not resonate with some people but I think that's an entirely different issue.
kamaal 8y ago
>>If people are uncomfortable with their CEO eating meat then they should be free to ask about it and voice their opinions. Expecting a person A to change their way of life, for an inconsequential act, because other person B completely irrelevant to A or A action's feels 'uncomfortable', then B has way over stepped in feeling entitled to what they want from life and society. You don't get to dictate what religion some one should practice, or what kind of clothes they should wear, or economic system they should believe or what kind of politics they like. Unless they force you to do as they like, they are free to hold whatever opinions they like. Just like you do. This whole thing about people wanting to control other people's life. And then claiming to victims of 'offence' and 'discomfort', when the other person doesn't comply to their dictation is the root cause of political problems today. Nobody owes you anything, others are welcome to live their life as they like, just as you do.

archagon 8y ago

You must be thinking: this is a typical conservative appointment, so there shouldn't be this much furor over it. Bullshit. Kavanaugh has been decried by the ACLU, a number of bar associations, several law schools, countless other judges, and even his own roommates. The Republicans in power don't care in the slightest. And this has been the modus operandi of the entire party since the second half of Obama's term (and probably earlier). Meanwhile, all this is getting rapidly normalized in the public eye by the relentless parroting of the "both sides" fallacy. It's good that people are protesting. I hope they protest even louder. Authoritarians should not feel welcome.

fareesh 8y ago
From what I understand he is accused of some crime 30 years ago, after being a very public person for decades, with no corroborating evidence. In my personal worldview and culture that makes him an innocent man, and he should not be disrespected in this manner. My values are certainly not in need of the ACLU's approval. I don't put stock in the opinions of institutions, just in the facts as they relate to the allegations. No idea what's happening in America right now. I've always assumed my worldview was shaped by English common law, and the great principles it puts forth like presumption of innocence, individual rights, etc.
- archagon 8y ago
  What I’m hearing is that your values are ultimately driven by your feelings, as opposed to numerous first-hand accounts testifying to this person’s character, or even the words coming from his own mouth. Sexual assault allegations aside, Kavanaugh acted—and has acted—like a partisan hack and an entitled frat boy, and has almost certainly lied under oath. He is plainly unfit for the Supreme Court, innocent or not.
  - fareesh 8y ago
    Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong - I don't live in America so my facts may be incomplete. 100+ women have come forward for Judge Kavanaugh's character. The sum total of everyone he has worked with during his time as a judge (which is much more relevant than what he did while at parties), have given him glowing endorsements. My opinion is based on evidence, and the presumption of innocence. Those are not feelings or emotions. Those are facts and principles. Justice Ginsberg said she and her husband would move to New Zealand if the Republican candidate became President. That is coming from the reigning liberal champion on the court. Honestly, I think she has set the bar as far as irresponsible partisan remarks are concerned. The Democratic party is solely to blame (factually speaking) for what has happened to Judge Kavanaugh's family over these past few months. Senator Feinstein made no effort to keep this process private and protect the personal lives of everyone involved. Dr. Ford testified that she did not share the information that she gave Senator Feinstein with anyone else. Senator Feinstein claims nobody leaked the information. One of them is lying, because it was leaked to the press, which caused a complete media trial and humiliating debacle for both parties involved. To make matters worse, Bill Clinton's legal team, who is now representing Dr. Ford, conveniently forgot to tell her that her statements could have been taken privately to the judiciary committee. It's incredibly convenient that this too has happened in light of the broad context. This entire travesty could have been avoided if the Democratic party handled this matter sensitively and appropriately, they are solely to blame. Zero Republicans were responsible for how this fiasco has transpired in the media. Were things the other way around, the Republicans would deserve an angry rant too. The bottom line is, even if none of this would have happened 0 Democrats would have voted for Justice Kavanaugh. This FBI investigation has changed none of their minds, and the most pathetic thing to come of this, is that after ruining a man's reputation and life from this political charade, the gaul to suggest that he should have watched his tone when he passionately argued his innocence. I really have no words for how horrible that is. But that's another subject. My original point stands, this man's views should not disqualify him from his job. He is perfectly capable of doing it, and having his own personal views.