The Politics Thread (PLAY NICELY!)

You'll get an answer, when you actually listen to an answer I literally quote you with and then answer.

I said it would happen from the beginning with Trump, that his Mexico wall would be best if he were just kidding about it, and at worst he'd not get very far with it when nobody actually greenlights the suggestion. His worst, was the best case scenario of either of 2-party candidates. I called it 7 months ago, in November, and now here we are, with Trump's worst suggestions being completely blocked from action.

I predicted it since page ~80? Hard to tell anymore, hundreds of pages of oliver videos later.

Trump's too stupid to get approval for any of it, and a "real politician" would have found clever ways to swing facts behind a terrorist attack to get congress behind it (9/11), or simply do what they wanted and not ask (Benghazi, drone strikes, ect), or staple it to veterans benefits and pass it as joint legislation. I can mathematically prove it with 12 different theorems, and Gorbles will still be like "Speckulaten! Speckulaten! BWAARRRKKK!!!". Like some sort of annoying mocking spongebob meme.

The entire election is about speculation. Gorbles is basically saying, "If you have negative speculation toward liberals, keep it to yourself, it's only your opinion, you're no expert. HOWEVER, if you have negative speculation toward conservatives, tell your family, tell your friends, tell every single stranger you meet, it couldn't hurt to educate the masses."

The ENTIRE ELECTION is ABOUT speculation. You speculate, what the candidates are going to do, based on what they have done, in order to decide which one shows a better future outcome when elected.

Do you NOT speculate when you vote, Gorbles? How do you vote then? Which one looks better? Which one Oliver tells you to? I'm genuinely curious!

Btw, speculation, states that the only remaining candidate to have any functional foreign or domestic policy, was Johnson. Shame there was no way in hell people are going to elect outside of the 2-party system, until the country has fallen so far apart that they despise politicians and refuse to cooperate in voting them in any longer.

Neither of the candidates had particularly promising evidence to speculate on, but my speculation was mathematically sound. You apparently think yours is too. And that you're overwhelming evidence of self-worth superior to my own, makes my speculation an insult to your own, as if I haven't earned the right to use the same oxygen or gravity well as you use.

Well excuse me for existing, sorry it's not too terribly convenient for you. That's obviously my fault too.

The "liberals" aren't the ones in power, repealing LGBTQ protections and letting their leader make inferences of nuclear missile launches on Twitter.

The balance of attention is skewed to the people actually in power, you know?

Not the imaginary, made-up Presidency of Hillary Clinton that you seem so fixated on referencing. The actual, real, GOP-backed Trump Presidency that's happening in the real world.

I don't know if you missed it, but the voting is over? The election finished. Some time ago!

Yes, and the liberals had office leading up to and during this election, which is why the attention was skewed toward the liberal candidate. Thanks for agreeing with me, Gorbles! I too agree, that this is why the democrat party candidate had more negative publicity and poor approval ratings and ultimately lost.

Also, apparently the DNC was an imaginary thing because Trump's in office. Ever think it might be WHY Trump's in office? Not just a poor choice of candidate, not just "Russia got to vote in the election", but an actual mockery of democracy in direct opposition of the voter's representation and feelings? Voters don't show up to help laugh at themselves.

It's over, but the mistakes made then, are the source of every whiny Oliver video we have every week now, every problem and complaint that arises today, all the result of the mistakes of the election. You should be just as pissed. It shouldn't be "in the past" for you, because it's not in anyone's past, it hasn't stopped effecting each and every waking day as long as Trump continues pissing people off.

It is simply, and you know damn good and well a massive quantity of people agree on it, that Trump's presidency isn't a result of his "ignorant racist voters", it's the result of the elitist democrats having explosive diarrhea all over their working and poor class voterbase. The rich makes up 2%, and that 2% was their campaign target, which they spent some of that 2% of wealth, to target those 2% of supporters. Meanwhile, poor people were still living on streets, not receiving healthcare, and not making enough money, under the then-currently acting democrat president Obama.

Why would those voters support democrats, when democrats won't support back? Why is that a "dead topic", when every day it causes new grief, from the awful actions of last year? It's easy to "say" it's a dead topic, and keep blabbering "Trump Trump Hillary Trump Not Hillary Trump Trump You Wrong". Easy words to say, sprinkle in buzzwords, hell, you might even think you're winning at your point!

I'm amazed that videos annoy you so much. I don't see you crusading against all the terrible, low-effort, and in a lot of cases bigoted right-leaning videos on the Internet.

It's almost like you have a bias? Weird!

PS

The economic argument for voting has been debunked. Numerous times, according to voter results. Trump voters were overwhelmingly a) middle class and b) white.

Hey, facts proven by slanted angle!

Hillary got 5% less votes than Obama, Trump got MORE votes than McCain.

Either blacks didn't vote Hillary because she wasn't black, or, OR... Hillary was just a very undesirable person and most people felt unrepresented and would not benefit from her presidency.

But I'm just a unprofessional, poking holes in another professional survey, again, apparently.

It took a real republican to vote Trump irregardless to dominate the election results, and it took a real democrat to sit at home and laugh at how disappointed the politicians were going to be the next day.

I like how you're still going on about

a) the election, and
b) Hillary

The goalposts are now smouldering gently somewhere in a volcanic caldera.

Will you get it through your head, that due to the results of the election, modern day events occur? The election never ended, Hillary hasn't unf*cked everyone by dragging down her entire cuck party of elitists.

And the next time you ask "aren't you over with the election already", the answer will still be "when Hillary's DNC fiasco stops producing negative repercussions, then I'll be done". Democrats had the last presidency, the election, and their whole lives as politicians as a whole, to produce results worthy of votes. They are still why we're in this mess of a country situation, they're worthy of my unrelenting hatred for the rest of their lives. I doubt they'll ever do a single damn thing to make up what they've screwed up.

I'm playing semantics?

You're using words imprecisely in order to draw illogical emotional connections that make no sense. You're typing sentences that have no meaning. The double meaning you're actually trying to suggest is that only those evil people you disagree with can actually be violent. The violence of my tribe, or the violence that achieves my ideological aims isn't actually "violence".

That emotional whitewashing is how ideologically brainwashed people think, no offense. You should actually read 1984 before commenting on "what orwell meant".

Be precise with your language. It is how you perceive and think. Guard your sanity against insanity.

Here's another quote to think about.

Joseph Goebbels

https://techcrunch.com/2017/08/07/google-fires-memo-author/

Good thing google fired that engineer guy. How dare he question whether there are differences between men and women that lead to different occupational choices! What a bigot. I hope the government shuts him up and stops him from spewing such hateful things. We need to treat people with respect!

Yeah! but why stopping there? There is no place in this world for PC dissidents, hang him high! So they learn that you cannot question anything that hurts the feelings of even the most inestable person in the VIP groups.

By the way, so funny that what US people call "asians" are now white supremacists' best friends, sharing those juicy tech jobs. They've gone a long way since the track laying times.

again I don't think hillary is nor ever was the candidate of democrats but I think this is the craziest bit of your statement.

by what metric was Obama's presidency bad?

Well under the right metric a circle kinda looks like a square...

Firing that google guy was one of these "meh, overreacted?" situations.
I find it very understandable that Google does not want to be associated with some of the claims the guy made. But throwing him out is not exactly inviting discussion and the topic clearly needs discussion.

what claims did he make that were toxic? I read a perfectly reasonable document well sourced from established scientific literature, and then saw a media that initially refused to quote the document, and then eventually released their own heavily edited version of it.

The guy was literally just looking at it as an engineering problem and trying to solve the diversity problem google was already trying to solve. The gist of it was that if they wanted to get more women into tech, they should understand that women are more people orientated and therefore design work around that e.g. pair programming instead of illegally discriminating against people based on race or sex.

Here's the real story under it all: establishment "diversity" stakeholders in google try to protect their cashcow contracts. The guy was offering a more effective solution to the problem. It just so happens that his solution doesn't require the employment of a host of"diversity officers". I mean, his memo was circulated internally for a month without any uproar. It didn't actually go viral until"diversity" upper management became aware of it and most likely did a controlled opposition leak to control the first impression narrative.

The reaction against this guy is the exact same behavioural pattern you see when new innovative product solutions hit the market and start competing with old entrenched products. The old entrenched interests know they can't compete on the product level, so they expand the surface area and attack from unconventional angles. In this case e.g. morality, slander, misinformation, expulsion

According to what I read the author updated the text after it go so much interest with sources and stuff, which is why multiple versions of the text exist. The media article I read then linked what they described as "the most developed" version, which was a reasonably written document that did state some sources for some of the claims.

[citation needed]

Yeah he was. In general there is nothing wrong with that approach, although he made some problematic assumptions. I'll not spend the time to go over all the points, but for example I think he claimed that women can't handle stress so well, etc. Questionable claim at best.

Should be done more often either way.

[citation needed]

There was nothing innovative about that text. It's main problem was that it was this typical "here is science that shows women and men are different, here are my notions about how this job requires attributes science finds among men and not among most women, so that is why women have a hard time around this job, I solved it all" talk that I associate with people who are trying to ignore the many reports of women who face blatant sexism in men-dominated fields and are basically bullied away because of it. Basically analyzing only what could be wrong with women and ignoring that some of the most glaring problems might very well be with the unacceptable behavior of men towards women.

I agree with you, that it's unacceptable to assume women can't do a job by statistics. Some women can. They should be judged by their merits, not their gender's statistics as a tribe (as if anyone should be judged by that).

I also think how the employee was fired for an opinion is blatantly wrong. We cannot allow companies to terminate based on opinion. Think abortion is okay, then you're fired! Get the **** out of my office! Think islam is okay? You're FIRED! GET THE **** OUT MY OFFICE! See how absolutely assanine that sounds? If you terminate employment based on someone's opinions outside the job you are paying them to do for you, then you're the worst cancer. I'd rather have leukemia, than a country full of employers that terminate based on political or belief allegiance. I'd rather live for a shorter period of time, than live for a miserable long existence of tripe.

I'm a little confused by this discussion because the ability to fire someone for their opinion (or rather how their opinion effects your image) seems a very Libertarian view. Shouldn't you be defending this @elodea because it is a company's right to fire whoever they don't want working for them? Or is that only until it is something you disagree with? ;P

I'm actually not entirely sure how I feel about all of this. I think there's a certain point where when someone is vocal enough that a company can fire them because that person may be damaging their reputation, but I also understand you shouldn't just be able to fire someone simply because you have some different views than them. I think it's an issue too hard for me to make an entirely solid opinion on.

I just want to say you have a right to free speech but that only means that the government itself can not infringe on your right to speak out- This does not however protect you from a private company who disagrees with you. Being fired for your sexual orientation or religion is different from being fired because you said something publicly that your company does not agree with. Let's have an example. You can't fire a man for being a Muslim, but you can fire him for saying "All women are inferior to men, they should not be allowed to drive and should always be kept wearing burkas" in public on his social media account. The point being that while his religion may decree that and he can believe it all he wants, he can't just go around willy nilly and say that on his twitter account and not expect to be fired over it. (Extreme example)

As expected a well versed article that you interpret as on "your side" and you swoon.

He's not even on "your side" he's not on any of the sides of any of the groups that are currently ralling for or against him if you read well.


Unlike everyone's claims, this is another one of those examples that the world isn't clear-cut. That it isn't all black or all white.

The guy's a mixed bag.

I find myself enthralled by how good some of his ideas are only to see them undercut by massive leaps in logic and assumptions and ideological bias.

"Oh lack of proof on your end? you've assumed correlation? quickly let me assume my correlations based on my point about your lack of proof! it, after all constitutes absolute proof of whatever point I was making!"

What a goddamn shame. what a goddamn waste. this discussion is indeed in need and unfortunately this guy couldn't write a line he was confident in. He absolutely needed the rallying cry and support of whichever group most vehement about the ideology in each separate line to make his claims.

He couldn't find the guts or stamina to make them on his own behalf and therefore have the liberty to avoid corrupting his ideas with bad faith and most notably bogus science from unestablished literature which brings me to the second bit of your quote :

No his document was not well sourced in fact that's the one thing that's most massively agreed apon in the 1000 page reddit thread on this : link to relevant up-voted reply :https://www.reddit.com/r/technology..._fires_employee_behind_controversial/dlblexy/

(I invite everyone to read the reddit thread as far as you can as well as the memo (better link welcome this one lacks his links and charts) the reddit guys clear up in a matter of seconds null and void debates and quickly get to the heart of the matter.

Again this guy's not that bad and he comes from a place of good will. he does have certain upbringing and certain clear ideological affiliations that he would have done well to silence in his text, had he wanted better understanding and reception of his memo.

(Subtlety is not the same thing as absolute bipartisanism)

Also I'm gonna say it : even though I absolutely salute his elevated writing style and I think it's the way to go when you're going to instruct the world (it's up to them to climb up not you to climb down) it is unfortunately hurting him in this case. (but it definitely made it a fun read for me)

I'm positive a majority of people reading it can't make heads or tails of it. looks to me just like people thousands of years ago trying to interpret the bible. And in the alt-right WHOOOO boy don't get me started there's 100% of those who misinterpret his text.

oh yeah I definitely stand on the "he shouldn't have been fired" side.

By doing this google (probably unknowingly) gave validation to alot of his claims and accusations.

Such a long post to say nothing about "the claims".
You talked about the man who wrote it, you talked about his writing style and you directed us to another forum. Basically you said nothing, go claim the troll of the day price.

Claiming women can't do stuff because of reasons is extremely old. It used to be called hysteria. Thinking for themselves? Clearly hysteria. Enjoying sex? clearly hysteria. Then WWII made women do men's jobs, and it turned out that all this previous reasoning was just bullshit to keep them under control.

After centuries of screwing women out of their achievements and marginalizing their roles, do you really think people won't see this as the next bullshit? Especially since female stereotypes (good at management, good memory, tidy, precise) should make them excellent engineers.

Also, google is free to fire anyone. Free speech is guaranteed against the government, and only that.

Social Libertarian. If we accept the fact that a company can fire you because you're Christian, then they should be able to because you're atheist, because you support civil rights, because you whistleblow on illegal practices of their business.

We need some laws somewhere. If we're making them, but not protecting everyone with them, then we're Gorbles; We're deciding who to euthanize. We're just doing the "euthanization" though making them poor, starving them to death, or shooting them when they turn to shoplifting food.

Protect everyone's liberties, not just those you like. If you divide up against everyone's liberties, then divided support fails to defend liberty in legislation, and this becomes illegal and that becomes illegal and everyone ends up divided, jobless, incarcerated, and having to live their lives as hidden from police as possible because smoking is illegal or drinking is illegal or same-sex partnerships are illegal or guns are illegal. Stuff like that.

I'm not even going to argue if the guy was wrong. He can be wrong, and people can make it clear in argument, and he can still hold down a job and make rent and food expenses.

You know what the MOST DEFINING feature of a liberal fascism is? Control of food rations and employment, based on loyalty to country or ideals. Hitler, let people starve or be executed by police, by simply cutting them from the only sources of food and employment, because they were sympathizers or resistant.

I most prefer, a government be formed to protect the most basic human rights equally. If they play favoritism, then the next best kind of government, is just anarchy. I don't even like anarchy, the strong and influential are the only free ones, while they manipulate the resources to own the lifespans of everyone else, with martial force and hired muscle. I like anarchy a whole neck more than I do banana democracy and crony capitalism, where the same exploitation happens but they stage it so people think it's just divided democracy and everyone's trying to win... when really, everyone's making sure each other loses.