151–160 of 283 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A taxi strike is intended to inconvenience people. Uber reducing prices for riders directly contradicts that. (But if I had to guess, I would guess that they were just trying to avoid stories like "Uber profits from Muslim Ban", not making any kind of political statement about it.)
No it doesn't. Uber reducing prices means that less drivers will be available, making it harder to get a ride.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Should the company decide on behalf of the workers whether they must join a strike? Shouldn't Uber drivers be the ones to make that decision?
Drivers are only allowed to turn down a limited number of rides before they are no longer allowed to be uber drivers for the day.
I agree that Uber should have participated in the strike. You said "welcome to post-truth politics" and "clearly and unambiguously untrue." Please demonstrate that I am a liar.
I agree that Uber should have participated in the strike. You said "welcome to post-truth politics" and "clearly and unambiguously untrue." Please demonstrate that I am a liar.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No it doesn't. Uber reducing prices means that less drivers will be available, making it harder to get a ride.
There's supposed to be zero drivers available during a strike
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your comment is nothing but alarmist rhetoric. I mean, each sentence is specifically engineered to be as negative-sounding as you can make it. People don't usually do that, even with actual dictators. > being powered by Donald Trump needs a supernatural explanation, presumably because you think he's incompetent. At the least, you're saying he can't do what he's doing by himself. > conspiracy theorist Steve Bannon The…
His comment is rhetorically partisan, but you haven't come close to establishing with evidence that it's "alarmist". I'd direct your attention to Eliot Cohen's essay in The Atlantic from this morning: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/a-clari... Cohen is no liberal; he cofounded PNAC and served as a deputy under Rice in the Bush administration. And his take on Trump's last week is even more urgent…
This is a good argument. Many of these White House roles need to be confirmed; even if they are mostly advisory, because the law assumes that the President's advisors influence his decisions. If people want to say "Steve Bannon needs to be confirmed by the Senate", that's something I could probably be convinced of.
To be clear, there are probably some good arguments against the executive order. In particular:
* It affects green card holders, who are legally allowed to travel to the US.
* There are rumors of people being asked to voluntarily renounce their green cards, which if not illegal is at least immoral.
* The order probably shouldn't include Iran. I think the list of countries was based on one that's already in law?
* Maybe they should've given people a week or a couple days to get back into the US, rather than immediately banning them.
It's only saving grace is that it only lasts for 90 days, so it was intended to be temporary while they write up some actual reform. And I know of at least one other case where the court has allowed something unconstitutional because it was temporary to solve a specific problem(Affirmative Action).
It'd be nice if there was a "Stefan Molyneux of the left". As it is, it's hard to read through all the fear to find the arguments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"A strikebreaker (sometimes derogatorily called a scab, blackleg, or knobstick) is a person who works despite an ongoing strike."
Things were moving so fast at the time, I guess I had my doubts that Uber was even aware of the strike, but I suppose that may be naive and that the taxi association probably contacted Uber about this. I'm definitely coming around to the idea that Uber is simply playing both sides of this, and that it gives them too much credit to assume good intentions of them removing surge pricing.
If you're talking about moral basis, why would you support the immigration from these radical muslim countries? Huge percentages of them hold truly un-American, anti-liberal, anti-women, anti-gay beliefs. Listen to what these muslims say themselves: 13% percent of Syrian refugees support ISIS, another 10% have mixed feelings about it. Source: Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies http://english.dohainstitute.or…
We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13515321 and marked it off-topic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think there's a pro-Uber case to be made here. Uber suspended surge pricing at a time when many people were trying to get to the protest at the airport, and while the airtrain was shut down which is what connects the subway system to the airport. Furthermore Uber offered to compensate its drivers who are affected by the ban, if they get stuck outside of the country. Edit: Maybe Uber mis-stepped by honoring requests…
Travis Kalanick, Uber's CEO, made public statements indicating that Uber must work with the Trump administration. Four days later Uber stepped up as scrubs while the rest of the New York's taxi service protested Trump's deplorable racist actions. It's hard to pretend this is a coincidence.
Creating abusive policy targeted at people from certain countries seems xenophobic, isolationist, draconian, cruel, stupid.
Racism is a far more evil concept than any of those.
Abusing and rationalizing the abuse of people because you have made a generalization based on their geography, ideology or culture is certainly wrong.
Abusing and rationalizing the abuse of people because you believe they are genetically inferior is on a different level of depravity.
When we use "racism" as a catchall term for all bigotry and bias, we do it at the peril of diluting its power when that particular flavor of shitheaded thinking needs to be classified.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't get it. How about other people that were not part of the protest and were trying to get home/get to the airport? How about the Uber drivers trying to make a living? Just because they were not part of your protest you'll give them hate?
Question: during the Civil Rights movement, people of all sorts disrupted white people just trying to eat breakfast; just trying to get an education; just trying to get to work. Is that "giving them hate"? Should MLK have made fastidiously sure to go to cordoned off areas where no one would have been inconvenienced in the slightest?