s73ver

68 ms·

721.
by s73ver 10y ago
Or, I consider time with my family worth more than the context switch I'd have.
722.
by s73ver 10y ago
Why should you be at an advantage? Why should the negotiations have anything to do with your current salary?
723.
by s73ver 10y ago
No. Why should the negotiation have anything to do with the prospective employee's current salary? Not to mention, you're saying that prospective employees shouldn't answer the question anyway. However, that only protects tho
724.
by s73ver 10y ago
Working more isn't progress.
725.
by s73ver 10y ago
How on earth is this a free market problem? Someone who does not feel they have a strong bargaining position will not be able to fend off this question. That's about as anti-free market as you can get.
726.
by s73ver 10y ago
A Trump supporter decided that those things, things which would have disqualified someone from running not long ago, were not deal breakers. Thus, they were fine with them.
727.
by s73ver 10y ago
Not really. Someone who is not in a strong bargaining position is not going to be able to push back and say no. The company will say, "Answer or we don't hire you." And while you might say "You don't want to work th
728.
by s73ver 10y ago
If we want to prevent discrimination based on the answer, then why should we allow the question to be asked? In that case, those that either are new and lack experience, or don't feel they have a strong enough position to say no to ans
729.
by s73ver 10y ago
I cannot agree with the way you've set up those groups. Mainly because I don't think it's that difficult to ban the harassment and hate speech without erroneously silencing someone who shouldn't be silenced. I don't
730.
by s73ver 10y ago
No, it didn't.
731.
by s73ver 10y ago
Or, he did break the ToS, and that was that. Richard Spencer is still on Twitter, despite being an actual, self identified Nazi.
732.
by s73ver 10y ago
"But if someone criticises a feminist or other "liberal" group, they are likely to get banned." For you to say this, you have clearly never been on Twitter.
733.
by s73ver 10y ago
The story of Milo and the terms he broke has been widely publicized. He broke those terms, and that is not in question. Other people's behavior has absolutely nothing to do with Milo being banned for his behavior.
734.
by s73ver 10y ago
I don't think so. They have the right to not be arrested for spouting their trash. They are not entitled to a platform to shove that in everyone else's face.
735.
by s73ver 10y ago
"Well maybe you'd like the first amendment to be removed?" See, this is what I'm talking about. I said I see no moral value in racists harassing people. And make no mistake, the topic we were discussing is exactly that.
736.
by s73ver 10y ago
He denies doing a lot of things that he has done. As for BLM, you're gonna have to show proof of that.
737.
by s73ver 10y ago
Remember, though, Milo wasn't banned for his views. He was banned for repeatedly violating the ToS.
738.
by s73ver 10y ago
Unfortunately it's a circular problem. Nobody is using those platforms because no one is using them. There is not a lot of benefit for me to switch to one of those platforms if no one I wish to follow or talk to is on them.
739.
by s73ver 10y ago
I disagree. I think it's more disturbing how normalized it is to frame hate-speech and harassment as simply criticism.
740.
by s73ver 10y ago
No, we're talking about the Twitter that shut down his account for repeatedly breaking the ToS.
741.
by s73ver 10y ago
If they're only "letting you do it" because they know that they have no choice, and that even if they were to say something or speak out, they'd not get justice, but instead be negatively affected themselves, that is ver
742.
by s73ver 10y ago
I'm sorry, but I see no moral courage in defending racists harassing someone. Quite the opposite, in fact.
743.
by s73ver 10y ago
Name a prominent left wing celebrity who did the same thing as Milo.
744.
by s73ver 10y ago
No. Because there is a world of difference between speech and harassment. Not to mention, Twitter is a business. Their business depends on having users. If too many of their users leave the platform because they are constantly being assault
745.
by s73ver 10y ago
In that the government should not punish you for espousing either one, sure. However, we're talking about Twitter.
746.
by s73ver 10y ago
I believe the opposite, that so many who deliberately conflate the two do so to make it easier to do the second by trying to frame discussions in terms of the first.
747.
by s73ver 10y ago
Considering everything that Trump said on the campaign, supporting Trump doesn't automatically make you a white nationalist, but it shows that, along with sexual assault, you're not bothered by it.
748.
by s73ver 10y ago
Not at all. I'm not calling for the government to arrest white supremacists just for spouting their garbage. However, I am stating my support for Twitter and everyone else to be able to exercise their free speech rights to not associat
749.
by s73ver 10y ago
Neither is Twitter. They are free to ban people who violate the ToS.
750.
by s73ver 10y ago
Free speech also includes calling other who are being assholes out on being an asshole, and choosing not to associate with them. One is entitled to say what they want. One is not entitled to a platform to say it on, nor are they entitled to

More ›