d_e_solomon

12 ms·

91.
by d_e_solomon 5y ago
Political beliefs aren't a federally protected class; and only protected in a handful of states. So yes, you can be fired over political beliefs.
92.
by d_e_solomon 5y ago
MLK wrote: "Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and establish such creative tension that a community that has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue" The ironic part is that the state tr
93.
by d_e_solomon 5y ago
What exact due process are we looking for here? If I donate to an extremist organization, and my boss finds out, is he required to still continue to employ me? Or can my boss only fire me if a government takes me to court? Is my boss allowe
94.
by d_e_solomon 5y ago
Irrelevant software chases pageclicks on HN by complaining about woke people. News at 11.
95.
by d_e_solomon 5y ago
Political groups are not a protected class. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-employers-discri...
96.
The Future Dystopic Hellscape Is Upon Us(theintercept.com)
3 points by d_e_solomon 5y ago|0 comments
97.
by d_e_solomon 5y ago
This reads like a long winded version of calling people sheeple.
98.
by d_e_solomon 6y ago
I liked this analysis. The one item that is glossed over is that if the Texas power grid was connected to the rest of the United States, then additional supply could be purchased from outside Texas. That would keep the lights on as energy u
99.
by d_e_solomon 6y ago
So Bill Cosby or Harvey Weinstein shouldn't face consequences for molesting women because it's weird and orwellian to face consequences for one's actions?
100.
by d_e_solomon 6y ago
Woah. That's a hot take. Got a source for it?
101.
by d_e_solomon 6y ago
I'm not sure that newspapers have ever been perfectly competitive. Even in my midwest, midsized city, there has really only been one or two newspapers that achieve enough circulation. Similarly, major television media has always locked
102.
by d_e_solomon 6y ago
> We're talking about tech firms that have access to the entire internet and use it. I think you're trying to say that a large enough dataset will be free of bias. I don't see how that follows. If I train a model on home m
103.
by d_e_solomon 6y ago
Sure, let's go throw everyone in prison. Because that worked well. /s Instead we should be trying to get addicts into treatments, homeless into housing, and trying to improve the quality of life for citizens.
104.
by d_e_solomon 6y ago
No, there's not. This is the point. The people driving these conspiracies are applying statistical techniques poorly and then parroting their claims on social media.
105.
by d_e_solomon 6y ago
https://reason.com/volokh/2018/01/17/the-united-states-is-bo...
106.
A Plan to Save the Power System Disappeared(theatlantic.com)
5 points by d_e_solomon 6y ago|0 comments
107.
by d_e_solomon 6y ago
I preface my comment with, I have a math degree. First, I'm not sure what politics versus math reading has to do with the topic at hand - namely, car headlights. Second, you're complaining about downvotes. Third, you're compl
108.
by d_e_solomon 6y ago
How does this article apply to SSC's fanbase working up into a lather at the NYT?
109.
by d_e_solomon 6y ago
At what point am I allowed to fight back? If someone advocates exterminating me, do I have your permission to suggest that their speech should have consequences? Or do I have to wait until I'm dead?
110.
by d_e_solomon 6y ago
Who will think of the poor racist who can't make a living because they yelled racist rhetoric?
111.
by d_e_solomon 6y ago
Ahh, so it's cool then that I advocate to employers that people who say racist things should be fired; and it's the employers responsibility to duly way that so as not be burdened or unburdened? "Cancel culture" is fine
112.
by d_e_solomon 6y ago
You don't think that speech that condones, justifies, and glorifies slavery wasn't part of the reason why it continued to exist in the United States as long as it did? I find that a very odd argument.
113.
by d_e_solomon 6y ago
I'm fighting against speech that dehumanizes Jews, LGBT, Blacks, and so on; and ensuring that people who engage in it face consequences for that speech. This gets back to Hannah Arendt's paradox of tolerance.
114.
by d_e_solomon 6y ago
Your argument is that state sponsored violence for incorrect political opinions is the same as being fired by a private corporation for hate speech. Those aren't equivalent and one doesn't lead to the other.
115.
by d_e_solomon 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
116.
by d_e_solomon 6y ago
That would be like me telling you I don't like brussel sprouts and you telling me to shut up because brussel sprouts are good. Why is your opinion about a group that you're not a part of suddenly more important?
117.
by d_e_solomon 6y ago
Yes. Because losing your job due to using hate speech is the same as losing your head for being on the wrong side of the committee of public safety. Next you'll tell me that I'm literally hitler.
118.
by d_e_solomon 6y ago
"""Admitting this is even the case (which it isn't, as people recently are being cancelled for being just moderate, or for stuff they said when they were teenagers which is ridiculous), how can you justify having someone
119.
by d_e_solomon 6y ago
I struggle to come up with examples of people who raised "objective, convient facts" that suffered undue backlash. Most of the ones that get used are usually pretty terrible. Apologies - I deleted examples that went too far
120.
by d_e_solomon 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard

More ›