> Heck, let me be blunt: if you cannot have a strong mutual disagreement (or even rivalry) with someone, but cooperate with him on the unrelated topic if it is mutually beneficial, it means you are a child and your opinion shouldn't be listened to anyway
As another gay person, this is such a damaging view that cis het people take. My humanity isn't the basis for a "disagreement or rivalry". I don't owe anything to people who don't believe I should have rights. It's not an interesting topic to argue about at the bar, it's my fucking life.
> It's not an interesting topic to argue about at the bar, it's my fucking life.
You see, the problem is that pretty much every political topic is someone's life. It hardly would be worth discussing otherwise. Thinking that the topic that concerns you personally is somehow universally special among the others is despicable arrogance.
Now, I suppose that you are thinking that it is easy for me to say all that stuff about same-sex marriage, because I don't care. And you are kinda right. But let me assure you that there are topics in which I am pretty heavily emotionally invested and have a very strong opinion on (I won't specify what it is to not escalate this even further). And that some people I work with, and even have pretty good friendly relationships with have not only argued against, but outright have hobbies that go directly against to what I think is right. So I'd rather wish some of these hobbies to be banned (or, let's rather say "legally restricted"), and I said that to these people on more than one occasion. We both are fine about that. People cannot agree on everything.
(There is also stuff that is currently banned that I want to be legal. Just to make it more symmetric, so that you don't think it's something about wanting things to be banned that is special.)
> Thinking that the topic that concerns you personally is somehow universally special among the others is despicable arrogance.
You can disagree about political issues if you have an alternative position - if I think we should have a robust social safety net and you think we should eliminate welfare because everyone should work, at least you've articulated an alternate position where people can still survive. You can want to privatize the post office and mail still gets delivered. The issue with arguing about people's human rights is that there is no alternative. You're just saying some class of people should have less than others with no remedy
> You see, the problem is that pretty much every political topic is someone's life. It hardly would be worth discussing otherwise. Thinking that the topic that concerns you personally is somehow universally special among the others is despicable arrogance.
I'm sorry, but no. Fuck. That.
You listen to multiple people describe to you how a certain political stance directly harms them on a fundamental human level and your response is "I don't care, and you're arrogant to think I should care"? No, fuck that.
It's good that we don't work together because I would absolutely have a problem with that attitude.
Perhaps they wouldn’t mind working with you, even though you might have a problem working with them. For what it’s worth, the point made was not “you’re arrogant to care about an issue that’s important to you”, but “you’re arrogant to think that particular issue is more special than other issues, and you likely hold views that are essentially the same from another viewpoint on another issue”.
>and you likely hold views that are essentially the same from another viewpoint on another issue
Such as? I'm pretty sure I don't oppose anyone's fundamental human rights.
Would you say the same thing about racism? I.e., I should be prepared to work with a racist coworker because I myself probably hold equally despicable views on some other topic.
I would actually say the same thing about pretty much any topic, I think, provided that it passes the test of “if I didn’t know anything about what this person does outside of work, would I think this person was a bad coworker?” I can’t speak for you of course ;)
And it’s hard to come up with something specific to you without really knowing much about you, but I’ll try my hand by randomly picking something which I haven’t made up my mind about yet (so ideally I can be more likely to come up with case for either side) and perhaps you might fall on one side and see how either way you’re infringing on some kind of human right: it’s the “right to be forgotten” topic. On one side, if you let people deleting things about them online, it’s a way to censor discussion about them, you could probably abuse this to get everything negative about you removed, and it would generally lead to an erosion of freedom of speech if people could come after you for what you said and force you to delete it. On the other hand, you have a right to privacy, it’s difficult to consent to sharing once something goes online, there’s already been huge problems with doxxing and people being permanently unemployable because of something that ended up on the Internet about them that was no longer relevant or true and they are haunted by it forever.
I think the issue probably affects fewer people than say racism might, but it’s a clear example of how you could take a viewpoint and have entirely reasonable people claim you are infringing in their rights with your opinion.
I don't follow what you are saying about the right to be forgotten, so I'll skip that part.
It seems to me that you are now defending a logically tenable position: that people who say arbitrarily awful things in public ought to be able to keep their jobs regardless of the extent to which their views are deeply offensive to their coworkers and society at large, and inconsistent with the mission of the company. But if that is where you end up, I take that as a reductio.
> people who say arbitrarily awful things in public ought to be able to keep their jobs regardless of the extent to which their views are deeply offensive to their coworkers and society at large, and inconsistent with the mission of the company
I should note that the donations here were meant to be private, I believe, but were found through some transparency law or the other; not an active public endorsement or anything, especially one officially sanctioned by putting Mozilla clout on it. But yes, to be logically consistent, I am saying that I think you should be able to keep your job even if you grab a loudspeaker the moment you step out of work and proclaim that you think we should drown babies (I am even willing to entertain this if you actually drown babies, though I believe this to be a very unpopular view). I as your coworker will certainly have some very strong opinions about your character, some of which will likely leak into my interactions with you as personal bias, but ideally if you are a normal, well-adjusted person while at work I think you should be able to remain employed.
The issue is not just the donations but the subsequent refusal to make any public statement, which for a CEO effectively constitutes a public statement in itself.
The rest of your comment confirms that you are indeed advocating an extremist position, which I don't think it would be productive to discuss further.
STEM includes hard science and mathematics - is there that much more demand for math or biology majors than for any of the social sciences? A math undergrad seems just as likely to end up in a call centre or as an office manager
Almost all math graduates at my undergrad ended up going into (a) finance as quants, (b) PhD program, (c) data or SWE-related job in tech [me], or (d) some kind of K-12 math educator job.
Probably 30% PhD, 30% SWE/data in tech, 20% quant, 20% K-12 education. The people who did K-12 wanted to do that for much of their life typically, and the people who did PhD either (50%) knew that's exactly what they wanted to or, or really didn't know what they wanted to do.
Perhaps our program doesn't reflect the story on a national level though. Unsure there.
IME the issue is that startup data modelling ends up in some ad-hoc framework that enforces a specific paradigm. When you try to adopt a standardized tool they don't ask "does this produce the right answer" but "can this do exactly what the old tool did", and usually it's not the case. Nobody can actually reason about the whole set of data from first principles anymore so they're forced to mechanically repeat the same exact process to get consistent results. Hell, the results might be wrong, or nobody uses them, but you don't have the tooling to detect that and you're too afraid to adopt it
One of my closest friend is a gender sociologist (and I'm talking with them _now_)... And don't consider Sand as trans. They cite other names as historically trans (Violette Morris, and for fun Jeanne D'Arc). Sand was definitely on the queer spectrum but I (and my friend) don't think she was trans. She had relationship with both women and men, dressed as often in men and women clothes.
Have you read about all the improprieties at the NRA under LaPierre? He hired his wife and daughter and then expensed private jets for vacations because they were "doing work". He hired a contractor to pay his credit card bill to hide the fact that he was expensing hundreds of thousands of dollars of clothing.
You'd think people dedicated to gun rights would be mad that millions of their dollars went to enriching a dozen already rich dudes, instead of whatever the charity is for.
Don't forget serving as the bag-man for foreign money being funneled to the GOP; the NRA is a straight line to GOP coffers.
The NRA hasn't represented the rights of gun owners for years, but sure is happy to push for gun manufacturers, and anyone else willing to donate money.
My money says that, while Ollie North is a hard-right former USMC officer who is willing to bend rules for the CIA -- "exitus acta probat", etc. -- he wasn't down for blatant corruption and shilling for foreign powers.
The CEO has no fiduciary duty here under any law whatsoever.
The NRA is a private organization. The morals of corporate decision making (or lack thereof) is an internal matter that should be resolved internally according to org docs in a civil court.
There is nothing criminal to hire your wife as an employee.
There is nothing criminal about using the company issued credit card for expenses.
The company is of course free to bring litigation for malfeasance of company assets, but that would be the company, referring to the contract between employer and employee that defines what is allowed and what is not. The DA is nowhere to be seen.
If either was the case, 20% of corporate managers would be in jail.
The DA has nothing to do with this. Except of course its a political overreach which is repugnant.
The problem is they don't believe it. The NRA publishes like a dozen or more political magazines that tell the members its all a lie, meant to shutdown their organization that is standing up for their rights against the evil liberals. The members have been conditioned over the last 15 years or so not to believe in the media except their own propaganda outlets. The problem is on one point they are right the NY AG campaigned on shutting them down. So now when she says she has evidence of financial impropriety and there internal propaganda arms says "see she is dong what she said she would do, she is making it up to get ride of us so she can take your guns" they ignore the evidence of wrong doing.
Of course they never heard about Oliver North trying to kick LaPierre out for this because LaPierres cronies kicked Oliver out instead then turned around and lied to their members that Oliver North was the one stealing. Its insane.
Personally when people move into the "dev tools" role they often seem to lose sight of the forest for the trees. They'll argue for an idealized workflow - everything has to have 80% test coverage, everything has to have tracing, everyone's editor needs an exact set of plugins. They start out fixing papercuts they've personally experienced and end up building tooling to solve problems nobody has.
Drowning companies with mandatory binding arbitration claims is a relatively new tactic - when the ToS was written arbitration was favored because it had better outcomes for the companies writing the ToS. It's unlikely Patreon's lawyers could have predicted this very common contract provision would backfire.
How does this compare to the zoning process in America? It sounds like OP is trying to build a factory from scratch on land that isn't zoned for factories? It's actually surprising one person can just run back and forth and get all the paperwork versus hiring a lawyer to do it.
No, I don't find the amount reasonable because of two reasons:
1) They charge so high because there are few players with so many internal contacts. So this is a monopoly or oligopoly market just taking advantage of the system. I mean it is hard because of these people. These people lobby to keep such systems in place.
2) It is unreasonable for any government, especially in a developing country to make so many demands of the illiterate and poor population. If such a situation continues, poor people will never be able to manufacture anything.
This creates a social division almost alike slaves and masters. Alike the Soviet System of the Elite Aristocrats, Their friends in rich, non-competition businesses and the government and the serfs and peasants.
The most powerful collective negotiator should be the government which represents the entire population. But the Republican stance since Reagan has been that the government should be small enough to drown in a bathtub.
As another gay person, this is such a damaging view that cis het people take. My humanity isn't the basis for a "disagreement or rivalry". I don't owe anything to people who don't believe I should have rights. It's not an interesting topic to argue about at the bar, it's my fucking life.