5 ms·

Will they help to relocate into Texas for those who support the law too?

TheTester 5y ago
Nah the hegemony doesn’t support the people that dissent from it so the social engineers will try to seem like they care about their employees, but at the end of the day the only will help those who abet their hatred for life
ido 5y ago
Someone outside Texas can also not get an abortion just the same, there is no corollary law everywhere else forcing people to get abortions.
- SamReidHughes 5y ago
  California forces people buying health insurance to pay for abortions.
  - kstrauser 5y ago
    Correction: California doesn’t allow health insurance to deny paying for women’s healthcare.
    - aethertron 5y ago
      This 'correction' replaces a specific statement with a rather more general one, obscuring the point of the reply. "California doesn’t allow health insurance to deny paying for abortions."
      - kstrauser 5y ago
        You and I said the same thing. But the post I replied to was disingenuous. It made it sound like the law was that insurance purchasers have to pay for abortions, but that’s misleading. Don’t think so? Consider if they’d written: “California forces people buying health insurance to pay for insulin.” That sounds silly. It’s technically true, but implies something more direct than the reality.
        aethertron 5y ago
        If the point is responding to "there is no corollary law everywhere else forcing people to get abortions", a statement that doesn't mention abortion doesn't quite suffice. Apparently there's a place, California, where health-insurance-buyers (so, ideally, everyone, and presumably all Salesforce employees) all unavoidably fund abortions, this arrangement of things being upheld by force of law. > Consider if they’d written: “California forces people buying health insurance to pay for insulin.” That sounds silly. Doesn't sound silly to me. If you're against insulin, then you have grounds to object against California's laws. "It’s technically true" So it's true. Will you bite the bullet with regard to the equivalent statement about abortion? Sure, it's an indirect arrangement of things. See my revised, hedged formulation above.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
- collegeburner 5y ago
  Better analogy: will they help me relocate from California if I don't want to deal with their bullshit gun laws?
  - ido 5y ago
    It would have been a better analogy if the gun laws in California would have been as recent/sudden as Texas' new abortion law. You seem to assume this is about identity politics but people may have been living in Texas for a long time and suddenly affected by a very recent change that may mean they are in danger of getting stuck with a pregnancy they do not wish. They may even be otherwise conservative who find themselves in a situation where they only want to get an abortion later than 6 weeks in a pregnancy (which is a very short time scale - a lot of women wouldn't even know they're pregnant until a month or more in).
  - CydeWeys 5y ago
    Why would they? Their position on guns is I'm sure quite different than their position on abortion. If the company agrees with California's takes on both issues then why would they fund relocations from there?
  - threatofrain 5y ago
    > Better analogy: will they help me relocate from California if I don't want to deal with their bullshit gun laws? I mean, in a discussion about women and unwanted pregnancies, as well as their ability to seek mainstream medical care from their local doctors, is one inclined to direct attention to how you wish to access more guns with less red tape? Does this come from a feeling of being slighted? Like, it's unfair that women are receiving relocation benefits, but not those who want better access to guns?
    - 1123581321 5y ago
      In a branching discussion thread, it isn’t a redirect. No greater point than to suggest not thinking of the conversation as linear!
rbanffy 5y ago
I’d seriously consider whether these people are a good cultural fit.
- escortedout 5y ago
  Nobody: PNW Hyperwoke: You're fired!
- escortedout 5y ago
  Cue an influx of resumes to this guy's team at Workday from litigious pro-lifers.
- escortedout 5y ago
  Holy crap, I've gotten emails from your headhunters. Temptation intensifies.
aethertron 5y ago
No, why would they? The stance of Salesforce is clearly, implicitly, in opposition to the law. The article claims the announcement was "without taking a stance on the law". But that's wrong. Salesforce hasn't proclaimed a stance, but their actions (well, statements about their intended future actions) speak sufficiently loud.

Nah the hegemony doesn’t support the people that dissent from it so the social engineers will try to seem like they care about their employees, but at the end of the day the only will help those who abet their hatred for life

ido 5y ago

Someone outside Texas can also not get an abortion just the same, there is no corollary law everywhere else forcing people to get abortions.

SamReidHughes 5y ago
California forces people buying health insurance to pay for abortions.
- kstrauser 5y ago
  Correction: California doesn’t allow health insurance to deny paying for women’s healthcare.
  - aethertron 5y ago
    This 'correction' replaces a specific statement with a rather more general one, obscuring the point of the reply. "California doesn’t allow health insurance to deny paying for abortions."
    - kstrauser 5y ago
      You and I said the same thing. But the post I replied to was disingenuous. It made it sound like the law was that insurance purchasers have to pay for abortions, but that’s misleading. Don’t think so? Consider if they’d written: “California forces people buying health insurance to pay for insulin.” That sounds silly. It’s technically true, but implies something more direct than the reality.
      - aethertron 5y ago
        If the point is responding to "there is no corollary law everywhere else forcing people to get abortions", a statement that doesn't mention abortion doesn't quite suffice. Apparently there's a place, California, where health-insurance-buyers (so, ideally, everyone, and presumably all Salesforce employees) all unavoidably fund abortions, this arrangement of things being upheld by force of law. > Consider if they’d written: “California forces people buying health insurance to pay for insulin.” That sounds silly. Doesn't sound silly to me. If you're against insulin, then you have grounds to object against California's laws. "It’s technically true" So it's true. Will you bite the bullet with regard to the equivalent statement about abortion? Sure, it's an indirect arrangement of things. See my revised, hedged formulation above.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
collegeburner 5y ago
Better analogy: will they help me relocate from California if I don't want to deal with their bullshit gun laws?
- ido 5y ago
  It would have been a better analogy if the gun laws in California would have been as recent/sudden as Texas' new abortion law. You seem to assume this is about identity politics but people may have been living in Texas for a long time and suddenly affected by a very recent change that may mean they are in danger of getting stuck with a pregnancy they do not wish. They may even be otherwise conservative who find themselves in a situation where they only want to get an abortion later than 6 weeks in a pregnancy (which is a very short time scale - a lot of women wouldn't even know they're pregnant until a month or more in).
- CydeWeys 5y ago
  Why would they? Their position on guns is I'm sure quite different than their position on abortion. If the company agrees with California's takes on both issues then why would they fund relocations from there?
- threatofrain 5y ago
  > Better analogy: will they help me relocate from California if I don't want to deal with their bullshit gun laws? I mean, in a discussion about women and unwanted pregnancies, as well as their ability to seek mainstream medical care from their local doctors, is one inclined to direct attention to how you wish to access more guns with less red tape? Does this come from a feeling of being slighted? Like, it's unfair that women are receiving relocation benefits, but not those who want better access to guns?
  - 1123581321 5y ago
    In a branching discussion thread, it isn’t a redirect. No greater point than to suggest not thinking of the conversation as linear!

rbanffy 5y ago

I’d seriously consider whether these people are a good cultural fit.

escortedout 5y ago
Nobody: PNW Hyperwoke: You're fired!
escortedout 5y ago
Cue an influx of resumes to this guy's team at Workday from litigious pro-lifers.
escortedout 5y ago
Holy crap, I've gotten emails from your headhunters. Temptation intensifies.

aethertron 5y ago

No, why would they? The stance of Salesforce is clearly, implicitly, in opposition to the law. The article claims the announcement was "without taking a stance on the law". But that's wrong. Salesforce hasn't proclaimed a stance, but their actions (well, statements about their intended future actions) speak sufficiently loud.