Lyft surges to the top 10 on App Store following the “DeleteUber” campaign

Post by Heliosmaster » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 7:34 AM UTC

Udik wrote: post #241

alphonsegaston wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber broke the strike by breaking the strike. This absurd focus on whether surge pricing was a multiplier or disincentive is a complete distraction. The taxi drivers reached out and asked Uber for solidarity. They dispatched drivers to break the strike. They made their bed in the court of public opinion, now they can lie in it.

The only way Uber could have participated in the strike would have been by paying its drivers for the time they didn't work if they decided not to. Uber, as a taxi drivers employer, cannot just decide on its own that its workers are striking and won't get paid.

Post by imron » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 7:38 AM UTC

NotSammyHagar wrote: post #169

WarmToaster wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Policies of hate" The destruction of 10s of millions of american jobs was an actual policy of hate and arrogance. A policy stopping immigration from countries with very established terrorist groups isn't "hate". Is a firewall hate against the internet gestalt of human cognition and computer computation?

Except they left out the countries with the most known terrorist activities in the us, that happened to be countries with major trump investments, that would be Saudia Arabia and Egypt.

Post by Consultant32452 » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 7:41 AM UTC

rosser wrote: post #167

Consultant32452 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of the people involved in the protests from top to bottom are just virtue signaling. The CIA went into Syria in 2006 and started funding and training opposition forces leading to the current civil war. The Obama administration is responsible for a quarter million deaths in Syria alone. And that doesn't include the use of cluster bombs, an act considered a war crime in most of the civilized world, on several of th…

Some of them, sure. Maybe even most, though I don't think so; all of the people I know who are involved in this stuff are very well aware of Obama's militarism. But all of them? That's just lazy. And wrong. You don't have to protest every cause to protest any cause. You can even protest things that, taken together, demonstrate you hold ideologically inconsistent views, if you want. That's on you.

Post by grzm » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 7:43 AM UTC

kentor wrote: post #233

hueving wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>nobody does an ounce of research anymore This is true of the vast majority of activists in any political cause. Most join as social signaling to their community that they are "one of them". Case in point, almost nobody interviewed for occupy Wallstreet could even agree on what the goal of the group was. Particularly in this case, showing support is literally as simple as installing an app that does almost the exact…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling

Post by rtx » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 7:45 AM UTC

tiles wrote: post #236

wyager wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This doesn't make scabbing any less vile, however... Friends don't let friends scab. "If you don't actively participate in my exact form of political activism, you're a bad person!" This is the kind of rhetoric that pushed a ton of people on the fence towards Trump. For some reason, it's a common leftist tactic right now to insist that if you aren't actively engaged in whatever form of extremism the speaker is advo…

> This is the kind of rhetoric that pushed a ton of people on the fence towards Trump. I hate to pick on this quote (I appreciate and suggest people read the rest of your post) but I don't agree with this. A common rightist tactic is to suggest either 1) I was okay with X policy when Obama did something so I have no moral authority to judge it now, or 2) I'm just a liberal whiner, too young, or too weak to appreciate…