541–550 of 558 posts
You'd never guess that this was a Tupac quote by the media coverage and wave after wave of forced outrage. The whole thing is so embarassing.
If Tan's enemies had quoted Tupac's death-wish songs with his name in it, would Tan not have pointed to it as evidence of their vitriol and toxicity?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>What are our collective priorities? Human leaders capable of leading humans? Or perfection which effectively translates to no edges, risk adverse, and ultimately flacid and unfollowable? Sure, I'd take humans leading humans. Probably is we're in an era of humans trying to exploit other humans to appeal to semi-human stock market dynamics (likely funded by rich humans who have much better financial security). I want…
Collective is to say this isn't Left or Right issue. We elected the electable. That is, those who campaign best. That doesn't mean they'll be great representatives. That doesn't mean they're capable of leading. If fact, we've normalized a bastardized definition of leader and apply that label without shame. We see this time and again. And yet every election cycle we go back for - and/or are only given - more of the sa…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it unfairly punishes property owners in soft rental markets like the one we have now. i’ve seen an unusual number of multifamily properties listed all over SF last few months.
There's no such thing as a property that can't find a renter, only a property whose rent is too high. Many landlords are bad at math from what I've found. If you're asking for $2400 and no one is biting, it makes more sense to drop to $2200 than hold out for a month to try and get $2400, because at $2400 it will take a year to catch up.
Rent control incentivizes empty housing during bear markets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are you talking about? Political effigies are a whole thing, and not just in America: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/giant-trump-e...
This is the UK - do you have a US example? Because I know that doing this with current POTUS will get you a visit from Secret Service.
Funny. That makes it sound like USA is the USSR from the childhood jokes about the difference between USA and the USSR.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's immature and poor judgement Which is enough to make him unfit for the position at YC and justifies his resignation. Walmart cashiers are being fired everyday for things like immaturity and poor judgment, why should YC CEO be held under lower behavior standards than blue collar workers?!
Note: This is a general comment and not intended forgive or incriminate anyone. Perhaps. The thing is, if we only look for leaders who have never erred (read: never fallen and gotten up) we end up with (for example) our "representatives" in Washington DC. That is, generally spineless, middle of the road, etc. The word beige comes to mind. That is, we end up with "leaders" without the toolbox of experiences necessary…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you’re trying to learn about California and San Francisco from Solnit, you are far down the wrong path. My favorite part of that incoherent article was how Solnit takes credit for social movements that ended decades before she moved to San Francisco. Pure clout chasing by a clueless white feminist.
Was there something you particularly disagreed with, other than the gender and skin colour of the author?
Solnit has no clue what she’s talking about. She writes as if San Francisco was a bohemian paradise in 1980 when she moved there when in fact it was already considered very expensive (the NYT would write that it was a city for childless yuppies a few years after she arrived), the gays were displacing blacks and Latinos in the Filmore and elsewhere (it was losing more of black residents then than anytime in the 21st century), and it was the financial capital of the west coast.
Most importantly: all the so-called billionaires that clueless progressives think live in San Francisco and influence its politics actually live in Atherton and couldn’t care less. You wouldn’t get clowns like Hallinan and Daly winning elections if there was any meaningful moderate faction in local politics. Which is why they so greatly fear the establishment of one in recent years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
educate yourself https://quinnanlaw.com/criminal-defense/elements-of-criminal... It isn't polite speech that needs to be protected and the tests for whether something is an actual threat or not is well understood, there's no excuse for you not knowing them unless you don't live in the US.
Okay, and a lawyer can easily argue 4/5 of those points if he did indeed "I'll kill you". He's a person in power with the means to find the subjects listed. I'm not a lawyer but I'm just saying that I can see it being argued based on the phrasing and how far the subjects wanted to escalate this. Whether or not it would be effective or viable is another question.
One of the reasons for this precedent is to prevent exactly what you're attempting to do here, which is to curb someone's freedom of expression using the law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay, and a lawyer can easily argue 4/5 of those points if he did indeed "I'll kill you". He's a person in power with the means to find the subjects listed. I'm not a lawyer but I'm just saying that I can see it being argued based on the phrasing and how far the subjects wanted to escalate this. Whether or not it would be effective or viable is another question.
sure, a lawyer can argue anything they want, the issue is that our court system has precedent going back 100+ years. One of the reasons for this precedent is to prevent exactly what you're attempting to do here, which is to curb someone's freedom of expression using the law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
sure, a lawyer can argue anything they want, the issue is that our court system has precedent going back 100+ years. One of the reasons for this precedent is to prevent exactly what you're attempting to do here, which is to curb someone's freedom of expression using the law.
I'm not a lawyer so I won't say if they could win. I'm just saying that not all speech is covered under freedom of expression. Threats are not covered. Slander/libel is not covered.
The answer is they wouldn't because there's nothing immediately actionable.
"Someone standing in front of you with a knife who says they're going to stab you would be considered a threat! therefore ... something something something ... a tweat by a politician should be punished!".
As I said before, you're not the first to try and curb someone's freedom of expression using the law.