prev <-> next
[2025-10-27 18:02:14] - a: https://www.ft.com/content/af4472e0-c0a3-4dca-bb29-bab4f969b624 Sounds like Milei's reforms will continue. How are you feeling about our non-bet so far? -Paul
[2025-10-27 02:16:23] - a: Regardless, my whole point wasn't that companies aren't legally allowed to fire people for cancel culture reasons. It was more about if that's how things should work. I'm not super excited about the prospect of a future where we need to be posting voting histories on resumes and having political donations brought up on PIPs. -Paul
[2025-10-27 02:14:14] - a: Yes, he technically resigned, but does that distinction matter when it comes to cancel culture? He resigned because he saw the writing on the wall, not because he didn't want to be CEO anymore. Also, that technicality seems contradicted by your next statement: "but even if they did want to fire him they had cause" Is a political donation sufficient for cause? -Paul
[2025-10-27 02:08:56] - a: A CEO technically does represent your company too, but I think they typically are hired for other skillsets which make them harder to replace. -Paul
[2025-10-27 02:08:20] - a: "your ceo is gonna represent you in the market" That's a fair way to look at it, but I think of it a bit differently. A spokesperson's sole job is to represent the company, and in theory it can be pretty easy to replace one. I guess I was thinking of like a press secretary for a Presidential administration or maybe Jared from Subway. -Paul
[2025-10-27 00:41:40] - paul: regardless, the whole thing is atypical. ceos very rarely resign after donating to make gay marriage straight up illegal. ~a
[2025-10-27 00:19:07] - paul: he wasn't fired. he resigned. they even offered him another job in the company. but even if they did want to fire him they had cause. As you yourself said, "The appointment triggered widespread criticism": it wasn't the donation of a line-worker. it was a value-misalignment of a ceo. it was the appointment that started it all. ~a
[2025-10-27 00:15:09] - paul: you just implied that the bar for an "official spokesperson" is higher (or maybe that the bar for firing an "official spokesperson" is lower) right? who's more of an official spokesperson than a ceo? your ceo is gonna represent you in the market so usually your cut them off if they have a past that doesn't align with your (mozilla's) values as a company. that happened here, so he resigned. ~a
[2025-10-26 01:37:50] - a: And I know he wasn't a software engineer (my example was kind of a mash-up of James Damore and Brendan Eich). That's why I asked which part seemed.... untypical? -Paul
[2025-10-26 01:36:18] - a: "brendan eich didn't lose his job because of a political donation from six years earlier" Really? Why did he lose it, then? From wikipedia: "The appointment triggered widespread criticism due to Eich's past political donations – specifically, a 2008 donation of $1,000 to California Proposition 8" -Paul
[2025-10-26 00:06:54] - paul: no i didn't call it implausible. i said it was not typical or common, and brendan eich didn't lose his job because of a political donation from six years earlier, and brendan eich wasn't a software engineer. ~a
[2025-10-25 21:28:17] - a: "i don't think a software engineer will typically lose their job because 10 years ago they donated to the trump campaign" Which part seems implausible? Because Brendan Eich lost his job because of a political donation from 6 years earlier. -Paul
[2025-10-24 19:18:32] - this seems akin to a much smaller version of refusing to leave the whitehouse on inauguration day. ~a
[2025-10-24 19:17:11] - is it legal to completely refuse to seat someone? she was duly elected in . . . september? can you just wait indefinitely? why not just refuse to seat everybody who is of a different party? ~a
[2025-10-24 19:12:40] - paul: i don't think a software engineer will typically lose their job because 10 years ago they donated to the trump campaign. ~a
[2025-10-24 19:11:43] - paul: "embraces women being free to do what they want but also thinking they SHOULD be trad-wives" i'm not arguing against traditional thinking here, and i don't think his killer cares much about who is or isn't a trad-wife. ~a
[2025-10-22 15:11:44] - a: But should a software engineer lose their job because 10 years ago they donated to Trump's campaign or maybe were caught on video singing a rap song that contained a racial slur? Maybe not? -Paul
[2025-10-22 15:09:54] - a: It's a messy grey area, though, because obviously it's fine for there to be consequences for especially repugnant speech. Does a company want it's official spokesperson openly being homophobic or racist on social media? No... -Paul
[2025-10-22 15:08:08] - a: If you might lose your job for expressing a political opinion, I think that has a chilling effect on free speech. -Paul
[2025-10-22 15:07:29] - a: "cancel culture and micro-aggressions have nothing to do with the freedom of speech" I would disagree. They might have nothing to do with the first amendment, but I think they are very related to a culture of free speech. -Paul
[2025-10-22 15:06:30] - a: "i remember that trump jawbones as a standard practice." 100% The right has never been great on the issue and Trump specifically is uniquely awful. I did not intend any of this to be a defense of the right: "For the freedom of speech comment, I wasn't saying the right was necessarily better on it" -Paul
[2025-10-22 15:04:47] - a: Is it inconsistent? Maybe. Most people's views on most things are. The limited stuff I've seen indicates a fairly consistent Christian based worldview that embraces women being free to do what they want but also thinking they SHOULD be trad-wives. -Paul
[2025-10-22 15:03:19] - a: I don't know nearly enough about Kirk to give you an educated answer on his thoughts on traditional family values or whatnot. I'm literally just learning snippets based on videos I'm watching during research into points you've made. -Paul
[2025-10-12 17:03:11] - in other news this has been live for almost 24 hours and still hasn't been deleted. ~a
[2025-10-11 11:49:45] - do we? paul, do you think what carr did was bad? worse than what we saw from the Biden administration and google/twitter after trump's COVID? worse than cancel culture? worse than micro aggressions? worse than the aclu measuring harm when deciding who to defend? ~a
[2025-10-11 04:32:40] - a: bringing up kimmel at the time would not have been interesting discussion. we all agree it was bad! - mig
[2025-10-11 02:55:33] - mig/paul: jawboning isn't illegal. it sucks. but it's not illegal. the many things carr posted to twitter, though were not legal. you get upset by the legal things the ACLU does and the legal jawboning Biden does but when it comes to the illegal twitter posts carr makes related to kimmel strangely enough, it's crickets. ~a
[2025-10-10 17:23:13] - I took a quick look at the ACLU press releases to see if they had anything to say about the google jawboning but strangely enough its crickets. Plenty to say about Jimmy Kimmel though. - mig
[2025-10-10 17:16:47] - attempts to justify it (lives need to be saved!) - mig
[2025-10-10 17:16:20] - And while cancel culture, micro-aggressions, and the like are not about government restrictions on speech I do believe it did start to change the attitudes of the democratic party and progressives at large. As paul noted, the ACLU suddenly decided some free speech wasn’t worth speaking up for. And we get a revelation about the Biden admin suppressing speech and the general reaction from democrats is either crickets or …
[2025-10-10 17:11:30] - a: I would argue that in times of crisis it’s even more important that we not be tolerant of the government jawboning to suppress speech. The Covid era essentially provided a sort of blasphemy policy - Thou shall mot question our approved “experts”. - mig
[2025-10-10 15:38:48] - paul: cancel culture and micro-aggressions have nothing to do with the freedom of speech. maybe you also assume the freedom of speech grants you the freedom of consequences to your speech? i'd personally say that the supreme court uses the first amendment to go too far, but i think the first amendment is fine as written: specifically the first amendment is fucking bastardized to force tax breaks for churches. ~a
[2025-10-10 15:32:13] - paul: "do you disagree that that has changed?" yes, i do. miguel's reason link has great examples of biden jawboning, so i'm a bit on the fence at times. but then, at other times i remember that trump jawbones as a standard practice. and the intent is relevant: trump jawboning is about making his legacy seem great. and biden jawbones because seven million people were dying. ~a
[2025-10-10 15:25:01] - paul: but, i should take the time to thank you for finding those words. at least it wasn't all bullshit. ~a
[2025-10-10 15:24:28] - paul: "at the very least it's nuanced" i wouldn't use the word nuanced. i'd use the word inconsistent. his views in that moment were very nuanced: i agree 100%. not progressive, but at least nuanced. but his views in many other moments lacked nuance: in conclusion he was inconsistent. ~a
[2025-10-10 15:21:44] - paul: "Is it the most modern thinking?" dude i'm not arguing against traditional thinking here. nobody is. kirk was not killed because he thought some women should voluntarily be homemakers. do you guys seriously think that i think women shouldn't be allowed to become homemakers? ~a
[2025-10-10 12:26:39] - https://reason.com/2025/09/24/google-says-biden-admin-pressured-company-to-remove-content feels relevant. also w-e-i-r-d the lack of mainstream reporting on this revelation, given all the handwringing over Jimmy Kimmel, since this seems far more consequential. - mig
[2025-10-09 03:45:55] - https://www.thefire.org/news/poll-majority-americans-believe-first-amendment-goes-too-far-rights-it-guarantees More Democrats than Republicans believe "that the First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees" -Paul
[2025-10-09 03:44:02] - a: Hate speech and micro-aggressions started on the left. Pressure on social media companies did too. Cancel culture. Rock and roll, the cola wars, I can't take it anymore! -Paul
[2025-10-09 03:41:41] - a: But at the same time it seemed like we could count on the left to be reliably pro-freedom of speech. Do you disagree that that has changed? The ACLU now weighs the potential harm of speech in terms of whether it will defend it... -Paul
[2025-10-09 03:39:27] - a: For the freedom of speech comment, I wasn't saying the right was necessarily better on it. Traditionally, the right has been the side to want to ban Harry Potter and flag burning and whatnot... -Paul
[2025-10-09 03:33:07] - a: Again, not exactly progressive, but if anything it sounds like in his vision of the family the happiness of the family generally comes at the expense of the men. At the very least it's nuanced. -Paul
[2025-10-09 03:32:05] - And a quote from Charlie: "You do not spend a dime on video games or sports games or things for yourself until your wife does not have to worry about finances. You come last in the family when it comes to finances, period. That is your job. Your wife gets whatever she wants, whatever she wants. The kids get whatever they want..." -Paul
[2025-10-09 03:31:10] - One quote that was pulled out from his wife was: "He is the head of the house household and I am not a servant, I am not a slave to the master, I am his helpmate. I am the guardian of the home—that is my domain." -Paul
[2025-10-09 03:30:26] - a: Is it the most modern thinking? No. But it also seems pretty far from any kind of "women are inferior and should just be slaves to men" kind of thing. I asked AI this question and it directed me to a video called "The Keys to a Thriving Marriage And Meaningful Life" -Paul
[2025-10-09 03:28:38] - a: All the stuff seems to be relatively mundane "traditional family values" stuff like how men should work and provide food and shelter and whatnot and the woman should be helping raise the kids and supporting the family. -Paul
[2025-10-09 03:26:49] - a: "do you have an example of this too?" Citations needed?
For the Charlie Kirk thing, I don't have any specific video or anything in mind. When I was trying to research the context of things he had said about women, though, it never had to do with women being servants or whatever. -Paul[2025-10-06 14:58:46] - https://www.wsls.com/news/local/2025/10/03/jay-jones-faces-bipartisan-criticism-following-alleged-controversial-text-messages/ I’m unclear on what taking “full accountability” or full responsibility” would mean in this context. So far “Oh gee I’m sorry” doesn’t feel like enough, but expecting Jones to drop over this might be unreasonable also… - mig
[2025-10-04 23:31:17] - paul: "the man's whole mission was having open debate on college campuses and he was killed for it. Seems like that's worth being concerned about" here we agree. i don't like that kirk was killed. and i do respect kirk for trying to go to college campuses and having open debates there. and it does concern me he was (more or less) killed for something he was saying in those debates. ~a
[2025-10-04 23:13:23] - paul: "it's disturbed me how much the left seems to have abandoned that position" do you have an example of this too? other than robinson, most of the people i can see abandoning the pro-freedom of speech position are pro-maga (or otherwise very-pro-trump). not anti-maga. ~a
[2025-10-04 23:11:52] - paul: "he's a believer in traditional family roles" do you have a place where he talks about this i can read / hear? every place i've seen him talk about traditional family values, it seems to be at the expense of women? ~a
[2025-10-03 16:49:49] - a: Seems like that's worth being concerned about. -Paul
[2025-10-03 16:49:16] - a: "I'm pro freedom of speech" I am too, and it's disturbed me how much the left seems to have abandoned that position. Disagreeable positions or not, the man's whole mission was having open debate on college campuses and he was killed for it. -Paul
[2025-10-03 16:45:55] - a: And sure, that last one is because of her husband's death, but it sounds like she had a bunch of other endeavors beyond just submitting to her husband. -Paul
[2025-10-03 16:44:43] - a: I mean, his wife doesn't seem to fit the mold. The first line in Wikipedia calls her "an American businesswoman and podcaster who is the CEO of the conservative organization Turning Point USA (TPUSA)" -Paul
[2025-10-03 16:43:54] - a: I haven't listened through everything he's said, obviously, but the things I've seen (extremely limited) seem to indicate he's a believer in traditional family roles and not that women need to stay barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. -Paul
[2025-10-03 16:41:19] - a: "I'm a little surprised that you think that was kirks position" I'm learning on the job. I knew next to nothing of Charlie Kirk's (I almost wrote James Kirk) positions before his murder. I've been reading up on them as you mention them to me. -Paul
[2025-10-01 20:00:20] - mig: why should we leave aside abortion? ~a
[2025-10-01 19:58:51] - mig: how do you get from: women are ugly, angry and bitter, and not in charge to "Children are better off with having both parents around"? He's advocating that women are not in charge and so therefore he's not advocating that they could voluntary not use their rights. ~a
[2025-09-29 02:33:05] - I mean there’s a large difference between saying “Children are better off with having both parents around” and “Single parenthood should be outlawed.” - mig
[2025-09-29 02:31:58] - ‘s no advocacy of using force. Kirk is clearly opinionated on how people should live their lives but there’s no taking away of rights if some people decide he’s right and choose to live that way. - mig
[2025-09-29 02:30:29] - I can’t really reconcile this “no rights” argument when there
[2025-09-28 22:50:49] - a: leaving aside abortion for the moment what are these “many” situations were women have lost or have no rights? - mig
[2025-09-28 12:32:16] - xpovos: "I don't think we've ever tried to change the language on an amendment". no I think the 21st definitely had a repeal section and a new addition section. you can have both in one amendment, and that is what we did in 1933. ~a
[2025-09-28 12:28:12] - "He was suggesting emphatically that she give up some select freedoms, rights and license". he was suggesting emphatically that she didn't have the freedoms, rights, or licence. and in many situations, in the united states, he is correct. ~a
[2025-09-27 16:07:37] - Obviously, SCOTUS has gone back and forth on that. It isn't likely to change any time soon, but it could. Took us 40+ years to overturn Roe v. Wade, but it can be done. -- Xpovos
[2025-09-27 16:07:04] - a: I think the point you're working at is that "a well-regulated militia, being essential..." The purpose of well-regulated, implying some level of organization--that must inherently be by the state(?), at least one of the 13 (now 50)? Against a federal overreach; not an individual against the state (any of the 51, and more). -- Xpovos
[2025-09-27 16:05:13] - a: I don't think we've ever tried to change the language on an amendment. It would probably be a repeal, and then some kind of pinky promise to enact a new one. It's one of the reasons I was so curious, because it seems so weird and hard. I do think a straight up repeal, which you're correct, I wouldn't prefer, despite not being a gun right activist, isn't likely. -- Xpovos
[2025-09-27 14:19:03] - xpovos: you are right, sorry I'm mostly being nonspecific because I don't know what I want, or what a new 2nd amendment would look like. It would probably be bad for gun rights activists though: most gun rights activists would not like to live in a (much safer by the numbers) oecd country. the pendant in me wants to point out that the 21st amendment is indeed an amendment even though it mostly just repeals another amendment. ~a
[2025-09-27 14:16:16] - "you're not in charge." Maybe harsh, but no one is. This is the fundamental flaw of license. At the end of the day the raw violence chooses. I have the license to walk in front of a bus, but if I do, my rights are less potent than the laws of physics and momentum. We're not in charge. We live in a physical world which restricts us. We live in a society, too. -- Xpovos
[2025-09-27 14:14:33] - Kirk wasn't taking her freedoms, rights or license away. He was suggesting emphatically that she give up some select freedoms, rights and license to enjoy (in his philosophy) a better and happier life. -- Xpovos
prev <-> next