4 ms·

But GP is incredulous about that, because a no-poach agreement would imply that they're sitting behind a desk and stroking a cat. That's an absurd thing to pic

But GP is incredulous about that, because a no-poach agreement would imply that they're sitting behind a desk and stroking a cat. That's an absurd thing to picture, so by the GP's logic, those no-poach agreements didn't exist. QED.

mjburgess 4y ago
Conclusive evidence of a conspiracy does, indeed, strongly evidence a conspiracy. Alas, this hasn't much to do with the "no evidence of a conspiracy" case. All no evidence evidences is no evidence. A point which seems widely misunderstood.
- SantalBlush 4y ago
  I agree, which is why "no evidence" would have been a stronger argument. The presence of evidence of a conspiracy doesn't suggest that CEOs are, in fact, petting cats from their desks. Even so, there is some evidence, though certainly not conclusive.
theptip 4y ago
I'll clarify by saying I'm aware of the no-poach collusion, and I'm not claiming it didn't happen. I used the absurd image to highlight and undermine the conspiratorial tone of the OP. I don't think the no-poach case was, as the OP claims, about "cultivating an insecure workforce". It simply started with Jobs getting pissed off at Google (legally!) poaching his people, and other companies he emailed getting on board with a general "don't piss off Steve" policy that grew. While it's conspiratorial in that a bunch of execs were coordinating, I don't think it represents cultivation of insecurity or any explicitly anti-union intent.
- SantalBlush 4y ago
  >I used the absurd image to highlight and undermine the conspiratorial tone of the OP. The absurd image doesn't undermine their assertion, because you just made it up. The logic in your rebuttal was nonsensical: "This conspiracy theory evokes an image of a villain petting a cat, and that is an absurd image, therefore the conspiracy theory is absurd."

4 ms·

But GP is incredulous about that, because a no-poach agreement would imply that they're sitting behind a desk and stroking a cat. That's an absurd thing to pic

by SantalBlush 4y ago

mjburgess 4y ago
Conclusive evidence of a conspiracy does, indeed, strongly evidence a conspiracy. Alas, this hasn't much to do with the "no evidence of a conspiracy" case. All no evidence evidences is no evidence. A point which seems widely misunderstood.
- SantalBlush 4y ago
  I agree, which is why "no evidence" would have been a stronger argument. The presence of evidence of a conspiracy doesn't suggest that CEOs are, in fact, petting cats from their desks. Even so, there is some evidence, though certainly not conclusive.
theptip 4y ago
I'll clarify by saying I'm aware of the no-poach collusion, and I'm not claiming it didn't happen. I used the absurd image to highlight and undermine the conspiratorial tone of the OP. I don't think the no-poach case was, as the OP claims, about "cultivating an insecure workforce". It simply started with Jobs getting pissed off at Google (legally!) poaching his people, and other companies he emailed getting on board with a general "don't piss off Steve" policy that grew. While it's conspiratorial in that a bunch of execs were coordinating, I don't think it represents cultivation of insecurity or any explicitly anti-union intent.
- SantalBlush 4y ago
  >I used the absurd image to highlight and undermine the conspiratorial tone of the OP. The absurd image doesn't undermine their assertion, because you just made it up. The logic in your rebuttal was nonsensical: "This conspiracy theory evokes an image of a villain petting a cat, and that is an absurd image, therefore the conspiracy theory is absurd."