241–250 of 290 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The usual list. He clearly isn't a leftist and it angers a lot of people very much that he doesn't automatically follow the leftist commands. Doesn't make him evil or a liar. And for example making a prediction that turns out wrong also isn't a lie. It is just an opinion.
The lies make him a liar, not his political-spectrum position. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/02/tesla-shareholde...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your argument was that "so and so did break the law". I answered that just because something is a law, it isn't good or correct. If you don't see the relevancy, I don't know what else to tell you. I don't think people should pay other users because of their comments. On the contrary, my argument was that they shouldn't have to pay. As for hostile work environments, my opinion is that people should simply quit their j…
It would be easier if you simply wrote "we need to get rid of all employee rights laws." > Your argument was that No, my argument was that the two situations are not meaningfully comparable. I then explained why. Even if the law isn't good or correct, the two situations are still not meaningfully comparable, because the awarded damages requires that the law exist. > simply quit their jobs if they are unhappy with the…
> As you correctly point out, it means allowing racial and sexual discrimination in the workplace, with people like Oncale quitting his job with Sundowner because "I felt that if I didn't leave my job, that I would be raped or forced to have sex.
Why would you want to continue working for somebody who wants to force you to have sex?
>Those were not good times to be an lowly employee. I suppose they were great times to be a manager and business owner, if you didn't care much about others.
In a good economy, you can find another job. In a bad economy, as socialism is notorious to bring about, you can't. So congrats, you are entitled to keep your job with the boss who wants to rape you.
> While I haven't read much about the case, it's clear you've read far less
"He believed he would be in another location" - so he didn't believe Tesla was racist at heart?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having been to Hawai'i a few times, and having seen how the native population, versus the settlers are doing, I must say, if being a settler in Hawai'i is what life under Jim Crow was, it must have all been rainbows and unicorns and sunshine. It obviously wasn't, but it's always good to see someone point to the stipulations of an indigenous treaty, while closing both eyes to the context in which it was drafted[1]...…
> [4] Unless you mean to tell us that there was some self-sustaining, secret isolated enclave of Europeans that have lived on Hawai'i prior to 1788, that only intermarried between eachother, I would expect that after a century and a half of intermarriage with native Hawai'ians, nobody either in 1920, or today would ever be able to tell the difference between that 'European' and a native. Race-based laws are nonsense,…
What bearing does 'race' have that on anything I said? The law in question solely speaks of 50% pre-1778 Hawai'ian ancestry. It doesn't say anything about 'race' genetics, skin color, hair color, or any other hereditary characteristics. It's a pretty simple question, that does not require unscientific hair-splitting - simply trace up your family tree, and count where your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents lived in 1778.
But since you've asked, Obama does not meet that criteria. His maternal grandparents are from Kansas, and his paternal grandparents are from Africa. Growing up in Hawai'i does not entitle him to those particular reparations settlers chose to grant to Hawai'ian natives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The explanation is simple: freedom. People forget that when they curb the freedom of their employers, they also curb their own freedoms at the same time. They make sure that they can never escape from the hamster wheel. Of course most people are happy as long as other people are not better off than they themselves, so being stuck in the hamster wheel doesn't bother them that much. More freedom also means more potenti…
> People forget that when they curb the freedom of their employers, they also curb their own freedoms at the same time. Freedom to what, in this context? > If businesses have to compete, they'll try to make things as nice as possible for the workers. This is the "capitalism will solve it" argument which proved so untrue we passed the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Employment Act. It turns out that, no, even when it's…
The freedom to work in the way they want. To escape the hamster wheel, for example by starting their own company with the conditions they prefer.
> This is the "capitalism will solve it" argument which proved so untrue we passed the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Employment Act.
It didn't prove untrue. The early days of capitalism where marked by a previous population explosion and abandonment of the feudal system, with lots of people pouring into cities looking for work. That is why there was a lot of poverty.
> That creates entire regions of the country that are no-go zones if your skin color is wrong, and we decided that's not acceptable.
Pretty sure there are lots of No-Go zones for people with the wrong skin color today. At least if your skin color is white.
> I'm concerned about whether it would be harder to keep a job free of daily torment if you're the wrong skin color than it is now.
So you think there wouldn't be any businesses run by black owners? Why not?
> But I'm pretty sure to explain why that changed, you're looking for Reagan-era deregulation
So the economy was better in the past, but your argument was that it was worse?
> Interesting and unsupported hypothesis.
Well everybody who HAS heard explanations knows they exist, so the reason you have not heard of them must be that you wilfully denied their exoistence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The explanation is simple: freedom. People forget that when they curb the freedom of their employers, they also curb their own freedoms at the same time. They make sure that they can never escape from the hamster wheel. Of course most people are happy as long as other people are not better off than they themselves, so being stuck in the hamster wheel doesn't bother them that much. More freedom also means more potenti…
Freedom only for the owners of companies? Or do you also respect the freedom of employees to engage in collective bargaining, the freedom of employees to negotiate a closed shop with the company, the freedom to engage in solidarity and political strikes, the freedom to carry out secondary boycotts, and so on. Most of those are prohibited by law, where 100 years ago they were legal. And they didn't require a special l…
Everybody can start a company - or should be allowed to, that is the point. Socialist rules making it difficult prevent people from becoming independent.
> Or do you also respect the freedom of employees to engage in collective bargaining, the freedom of employees to negotiate a closed shop with the company, the freedom to engage in solidarity and political strikes, the freedom to carry out secondary boycotts, and so on.
People should be free to do that, but "employers" should also be free to fire them if they do.
> Which is why businesses don't like to compete, and will form cartels and informal agreements to prevent competition.
That works by government intervention and freedom would prevent it.
> We also had a lot higher tax rate on the wealth. And stronger union power. If you're going to lazily cherry pick history, then there are a lot of cherries to pick from.
I am not the person who claimed things were so bad in the past that we must not go back.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Freedom only for the owners of companies? Or do you also respect the freedom of employees to engage in collective bargaining, the freedom of employees to negotiate a closed shop with the company, the freedom to engage in solidarity and political strikes, the freedom to carry out secondary boycotts, and so on. Most of those are prohibited by law, where 100 years ago they were legal. And they didn't require a special l…
> Freedom only for the owners of companies? Everybody can start a company - or should be allowed to, that is the point. Socialist rules making it difficult prevent people from becoming independent. > Or do you also respect the freedom of employees to engage in collective bargaining, the freedom of employees to negotiate a closed shop with the company, the freedom to engage in solidarity and political strikes, the fre…
I recommend if you don't like the rules and are too lazy (as you've self-described) to do the hard work to change them, you should consider changing countries. After all, your remedy for employees who don't like working for employers who break the Equal Employment Act is they should change companies.
If that solution seems unpalatable, meditate upon why it is inappropriate to suggest that employees who don't like being discriminated against should just use the remedy of changing employers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> [4] Unless you mean to tell us that there was some self-sustaining, secret isolated enclave of Europeans that have lived on Hawai'i prior to 1788, that only intermarried between eachother, I would expect that after a century and a half of intermarriage with native Hawai'ians, nobody either in 1920, or today would ever be able to tell the difference between that 'European' and a native. Race-based laws are nonsense,…
> What race was he? What bearing does 'race' have that on anything I said? The law in question solely speaks of 50% pre-1778 Hawai'ian ancestry . It doesn't say anything about 'race' genetics, skin color, hair color, or any other hereditary characteristics. It's a pretty simple question, that does not require unscientific hair-splitting - simply trace up your family tree, and count where your great-great-great-great-…
any descendant of not less than one-half part of the blood of the races inhabiting the Hawaiian Islands previous to 1778
Other groups oppressed by plantation owners like the Filipinos and Samoans just get the boot and even less land available to them due to racist policies. Samoan descendants are now even worse off than native Hawiians and have to contend with racially/segregation projected rarefication of land.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay: the actual proximate cause of the burn was the heat of the liquid. As far as I know, they were not required to, nor did they, reduce the temperature. Nor should they have; to reduce the temperature of the coffee to a level low enough where she would not have received third-degree burns would require brewing and/or holding at a temperature low enough to negatively impact the quality. That case is a study in how…
As I mentioned in another comment, keeping coffee at a high temperature actually reduces the quality by speeding up chemical reactions that make it more bitter. Keeping it at a low temperature (around 50C) prevents this so your interpretation of how the temperature relates to quality is entirely backwards
Also, you would likely be hard-pressed to tell the difference in bitterness given the relatively short maximum holding times (two hours in the steel urn, half an hour in the glass pot) and how much coffee the average breakfast goes through (it will be hanging out a lot less time than the maximum). Remember, this is McDonald's. The coffee being a bit more bitter won't result in complaints. The coffee being not hot enough will.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When you facetiously equate my comment with the harm perpetuated by someone actively racially discriminating against someone, do you expect me to take your argument in good faith? I'm not going to argue you with you.
The only reason you think it's facetious is because you disagree with his specific point
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The lies make him a liar, not his political-spectrum position. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/02/tesla-shareholde...
Lawsuits don't prove he lied.
https://twitter.com/parismarx/status/1596118994565894145?lan...
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4020362-who-you-gonna-belie...
You can keep defending him if you want, but the preponderance of evidence is not on his side. On average, I would no longer consider Elon Musk a reliable source.