They don't have to. The singular monotone reaction from the top echelon is message enough. I'm no fan of Trump or his policies, but neither am I a fan of an environment where it is assumed we all have the same political views. For a company of over 100k employees, an event like that can't be seen as inclusive.
I probably wouldn't feel welcome at Fox News. Can I force them to become more liberal in the name of "diversity of thought"? Or does that meme only work when it's trying to promote people on the right?
Google can do whatever they want as long as they are honest about it. If they want to call themselves “The progressive search engine” then at least they are being upfront about it.
It certainly wasn't scientific, so it's hard to argue it was some sort of decrying of the fall of rationality. He had a singular reason to write it, I argue a sexist one.
Seeing as he didn't have science to back up his claims.
I find it increasingly fascinating that in the response to Damore's memo people continually provide evidence that this echo chamber does indeed exist, and that people actually are reading different things from the same text.
It's not? Where do you think rights come from? The question of who has rights to do what is the central question of politics. Pretending that questions of rights are not questions of politics is a sleight-of-hand move that is designed to put your opponents on the defensive and reverse the burden of proof.
Politics is the debate of honest ideas and philosophies regarding governing. Arguing whether a given right should be granted to certain groups of people based on race, sex, creed, or sexual orientation is not about governing.
> Arguing whether a given right should be granted to certain groups of people based on race, sex, creed or sexual orientation is not about governing
It's not? What is it then? Where do you think rights come from? Rights only exist insofar as government guarantees those rights. I only have the right to life because the are police and armed forces who guarantee that right to me. I only have the right to liberty because the Constitution, via the fourth, fifth, eighth and fourteenth amendments, restricts what the government can do to me.
The question of who does or does not get rights, and how those rights are adjudicated when they conflict is an inherently political question. It is the root of a philosophical debate that goes back to Ancient Greece. To claim it is not political is to remove the all questions of ethics from politics. It is to reduce politics to a mere math problem, solvable by technocrats.
If I'm stuck on a deserted island, dying of thirst, will my right to life grant me a rainstorm? If I'm stranded in the Alaskan wilderness, dying of hypothermia, is my right to life going to magically conjure a fire? If a warlord invades my village, and puts a sword at my throat, will my right to life stay his hand? Every right is an obligation insofar as there has to be an enforcement mechanism to guarantee that right. That enforcement mechanism is government, governments are controlled by politics, and thus the question of who has which rights is inherently political.
> Throughout history, farmers haven't really fucked with each other
The actual history of the world begs to differ. The inception of agriculture is contemporaneous with the inception of large scale wars for a reason. Hunter gatherer bands may fight, but their fights are usually small scale, both because the bands themselves are small (not very many resources to fight with) and because they have the option of moving (nothing worth fighting for). Farming communities, with their higher population densities, both have the resources to fight larger scale battles, and reason to fight.
Saying gay people shouldn't get married isn't a political opinion, it is you said it first, just hating arbitrarily a randomly assigned group of people.
Are you suggesting it's the same ballpark as saying "I don't like the current elected official?"
And people wonder why politics is so divisive now. It’s not longer about disagreeing with someone, it’s about painting them as immoral and not worth engaging.
Have concerns about immigration levels? You hate immigrants and that’s wrong.
Worried about crime? You hate minorities and that’s wrong.
Worried about government spending on welfare? You hate the poor and that’s wrong.
For many who have facial deformities, depending on how severe, every day can be a challenge as they are continually reminded by the condition they live with - and potentially the inherent limitations (actual or self-imposed) of that condition. This can be a very negative space to be in - day in and day out.
I urge all of you with children, to please foster empathy in your little people for other people less fortunate. Children can at times say the most brutal and hurtful things - and these hurtful words or even laughter - especially for children with deformities - can be very painful.
While shocking to see the pictures in this article, I hope many (most? all?) of us feel great empathy for her or others with facial or other deformities.
Thank you for being so open about your reactions to the article.
"less fortunate" is a strange way to describe the victim of a condition that isn't bad luck, it's a moral crime perpetrated against her by all the pet around her.
Geez you don't seem to be able to scrape up any sympathy for someone that felt suicide was their only way out.
I believe the converse - if there was a way for people to end their lives painlessly and surely (with the proper safeguards, blah blah blah) it might have served her better.
But in our reality I'm pleased society has stepped up for her.
It is important and valuable to take time to reflect on how your behavior may have led to the negative outcome and think about how you could better yourself for the future - but take care not to be too self critical!
Many people spend too much time in self pity and sadness over this kind of loss (I'm certainly guilty of this). Once you've done the necessary self-reflection - please start to move on. Hanging on to idealized memories of "we" takes you down a road of pain and not towards the future. Let it go. If "negative reappraisal" helps you let go - when you are ready - so much the better.
Life is short, and your best "dating years" are an even shorter span of time - use them wisely - find someone worthy of you and enjoy your time together.
If you follow the numbers of who is regularly accepting money from Comcast - both Democrats and Republicans are happy to take their money.
"Politico reports that 15 of the 18 members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will hold a hearing on the Comcast deal on March 26th, have taken some form of contribution from Comcast."
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2014/3/10/5491908/comcast-buys-cong...
"...Comcast has canvassed the two congressional panels that chiefly regulate cable, broadband and other telecom issues, donating to practically every lawmaker there — including Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) and Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.)."
[2] https://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/comcast-cash-spread-w...
While Republicans have passed some egregious regulations of late, if you believe that money buys influence and favors - it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that representatives from both parties are responsible for the incredible lack of competition in broadband.
It certainly is nothing of the kind. You dragged that Sanders-shaped strawman in with you. Since you appear to harbor the common delusion that mainstream Democrats are, in fact, on the left side of the political spectrum here's some light reading. You'll note that the overwhelming majority of the entire range of opinions detailed here bear little to no resemblance to the standard Democratic party platform: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics
Since you appear to harbor the common delusion that mainstream Democrats are, in fact, on the left side of the political spectrum
Here is another example of the re-labeling of everyone to the right of Bernie Sanders! Sorry, but I distinctly remember that the Democrats were the Left and the Republicans were the Right. You seem to be clearly interested in a dramatic shift to the Left. Thanks for being open about it.
(For what you are saying to make sense, you'd have to have Bernie Sanders smack dab in the center. Sorry, but what weird alternative universe do you live in?)
American politics occupies a postage stamp on a continent of political possibility. It is bizarre to argue about left and right when it takes a microscope to differentiate the two. If you don't like "leftward shifts", when did you decide to vote Democrat? When George Wallace was running?
American politics occupies a postage stamp on a continent of political possibility.
Perhaps this is true for "mainstream" politics for most of the past 100 years. I'm not so sure it applies to political activism on campus (i.e. Evergreen), the Alt-Right, Antifa, explicitly White Supremacist fringes, Redneck Revolution, &c.
It is bizarre to argue about left and right when it takes a microscope to differentiate the two.
Agreed, but as I point out above, the small difference between the traditional Democrat and Republican parties isn't the issue in 2018.
If you don't like "leftward shifts", when did you decide to vote Democrat?
As a child of immigrants, I was basically raised to vote Democrat. I showed up for the first primaries for Obama, noting the ham-fisted attempt of the local democratic secretary to get us all to incorrectly fill in the forms to disenfranchise us. I remember distinctly when basically no one would ever use the term "White Supremacist" north of the Mason Dixon line without being considered a conspiracy nutcase. I remember when the dismantling of due process and the wholesale labeling of the rural population as "deplorables" would've been considered stupidity from the mouth of a Democratic candidate. I remember when "safe spaces" on campus would've been immediately rejected as infantile nonsense by Democrats.
I remember when the kind of toxicity, fact-free imputation, and leaning on emotional images in we see in today's politics would have been called out by Democrats as an intellectually dishonest mode of operation. Not to say that politics were free of such nonsense and pollution, but back then, it was widely recognized as nonsense and pollution and not thought of as an intellectually and morally worthy activity.
I wish these funds were being spent on improving the speed and quality of travel within the largest urban areas in California: SF Bay Area and Los Angeles.
Broader reach and faster travel times within those urban areas would go much farther to improve the quality of life of Californians than this high speed train project in the middle of nowhere.
I would really like California to have a high speed travel network from north to south at some point in the future - but I just don't think it's the right priority at this time - as air travel is good enough for now - and most people have to commute within their urban area every day. How often do you need to commute between SF and Los Angeles?
Air travel serves SF and LA well but the central valley is underserved. They could be better served by the hsr. Not sure if that warrants the cost or not.
I'm assuming you are being sarcastic but the comments above were mostly about low cost southwest flights that are likely cheaper than the HSR tickets will be. Other than the subsidized flights to Merced from OAK the central valley airports are very expensive to fly in and out of.
I'm not sure if you're just trolling here, but will address some issues.
The assumption that a set maximum speed is the safest for all drivers is erroneous. There are many factors at play and a proper safe speed depends in part on the driver, the driving conditions, and the car they are driving (and much more).
Unless you are in very heavy traffic, forcing people to go slow or worse to pass you on the right is causing a much larger safety issue.
If we are interested in improving safety imo we should be focused on things like vastly improving driver education and requiring any driver to show knowledge, understanding and skills related to driving - including and especially on high speed highways. In California, you can get a license without ever actually driving on a highway (or "freeway") - which is absurd.
I am most certainly not trolling, I was merely pointing out that the parent's characterization that "its maddening that all 3 lanes seem to travel within 3-5 mph of each other, usually right at the speed limit" sounds to me a lot better than 3 lanes with large speed differentials between them.
I don't understand the desire for people to want to exceed the speed limit, even if as you maintain, they are capable drivers in suitable conditions with a suitable vehicle. The speed limit should just not be exceeded, except when needed to expedite an overtake. Whether you believe you are capable of safely driving 85 is irrelevant if the speed limit is 65.
> forcing people to go slow or worse to pass you on the right is causing a much larger safety issue
You are pinning an argument that I never made. I was never defending left-lane bandits. If someone is driving 10 under in the left lane, yes that's bad they should stop that. But if all 3 lanes are moving steadily at the speed limit, you have no right to insist that people move to accomodate your desire to exceed the limit.
You are bringing up Germany to suggest that it's safe to have faster speed limits, but then mention that licensing requirements are much more stringent in Germany. I wish the US had such requirements, we might then have a safer culture of driving! You can't take Autobahn rules and try to make them work in the US because the level of driving ability is so poor.
Please do not misquote me to make your point. The full quote reads:
> Unless you are in very heavy traffic, forcing people to go slow or worse to pass you on the right is causing a much larger safety issue
If traffic is heavy in all lanes, I think most people would agree you just need to relax and go with the flow on a highway. That applies just as much here as it does on the Autobahn in Germany.
However, if traffic is not heavy - Oregon like California is a "keep right" state - so if you are in the left lane and someone is coming up behind you, you need to yield - regardless of the speed limit.
It's not just the law, it's also the safer thing to do.
I think we are in agreement here. The scenario I was envisioning assumed heavy traffic. I completely agree that failure to keep right is as dangerous and unlawful as excessive speeding.
I would definitely be in support of higher posted speed limits if, as in Germany, it also came with stricter driver training. Sadly I don't see that happening in the US.
Still I don't think it was fair to call me a troll.
I think it's clear now you weren't "trolling". Your original response seemed to me so against the tide here that I thought you might be intentionally antagonizing. My apologies.
The flip side of that is what I sincerely have believed for many many years: I don't understand why people flaunt their read counts.
I read all the email from people on my team.
I also receive a lot of email from various sources in the organization as well as external sources - and sometimes all I'm looking for is the subject to decide if it's worth my time to open it and read it.
I feel that not all of that non-team based email is worth my time opening, reading/scanning, then archiving or deleting - time that adds up over the years: How many days of your life have you spent organizing your inbox so that your number is 0?
A stack is a beautiful thing :)
If I don't care about it, it goes away with minimal effort after a little time.
I don't want to be a slave to my email inbox - and at the same time I value the sources of the incoming emails that I don't always read - I read some just not all - and that's ok with me and I do that when it's socially acceptable (not trying to be a jerk about it).
