lesstenseflow
Also: how is “restaurant has no customers and has to close” Ubers fault? I guess restaurants never closed before Uber eats existed, or is Uber to blame for those business failures as well?
There’s plenty to criticize Uber for but blaming them for the closure of a restaurant that can’t attract customers is simply ridiculous and makes clear some people simply in this thread will blame anything on Uber regardless of whether the accusation even makes sense.
Is it possible fewer people were calling Ubers from that part of town, so there were fewer drivers there? Whereas the wealthier part of town was busier? Drivers go where they are called more frequently, hence the shorter wait time in the other part of town. What do you propose Uber do differently here, force drivers to idle in less busy parts of town?
“I had to wait twenty minutes for a ride” what’s your complaint here, that Uber is evil and transphobic, or that you’re upset a livery servant doesn’t show up the moment you snap your fingers? This “I had to wait 20 minutes for a ride” complaint shows a really entitled and self centered attitude.
I’m really curious what you think Uber should do differently in that case, and why you were calling Ubers at all if they’re so evil and taxis are just as good. The last point really makes me scratch my head.
No, I can’t name a single thing in “the docks” because I don’t live in your city and you haven’t said where it is, so there’s no way for me to find out.
In fact airports do not have “scary signs” at the entrance, they have signs directing you to departures and arrivals by airline or terminal.
In the end, not a single drive could navigate to you successfully, taxi or Uber, I don’t see how your takeaway here is “Uber is bad”
The Uber drivers probably thought the pickup location was a mistake- they get there and say “I can’t pickup here, this is a wrong location” and cancel the job.
So three drivers can’t find you, including a taxi, and this is Ubers fault somehow, not yours for making unreasonable demands of drivers. I suppose it was Ubers fault that the cab couldn’t find you either? It amazes me how people rationalize blaming others in situations like this.
(If you’re wondering how I am rebutting runarberg when neither he nor I cited a source, that’s a darn good question. But let the record show I offer just as much evidence as he.)
- Part of the deal with being an executive is no job security. It's part of the trade you make for gigantic compensation.
- What would be preferred, firing him the first day he's back?
I assure you, my guy isn't worried about COBRA.
It's pretty hilarious to see the pearl clutching of techno-bourgeoisie over something like this, pretending other tech-lords are getting mistreated over some supposed breach of decorum. The mere fact that he gets to take parental leave puts him head and shoulders above most workers in the country.
Parental leave, high salary, severance... where do I sign up for some of this "truly awful" treatment?
Regarding the supposed issue of safety of trans identifying male prisoners in male prisons (I haven't seen data around this but let's assume it's an issue), it's still not clear the answer is housing with women. If a gay man is more likely to be abused in a male prison, or a small or young man, does that mean men with any of these characteristics should be put in women's prison to improve their safety conditions? This doesn't scan.
Its notable to me that as concerned as you are about prisoner safety, I don't see you or other advocates of males in womens prisons mention the safety of the female prisoners should men be added to their cells. Does their safety not rate?
No, there is no universally accepted term that won't get you called a transphobe by anyone (correct me if I'm wrong). If terms of the discussion are set by the most extreme genderist views, it's becomes literally impossible to discuss things like male violence against women or sexism in the workplace, because there's no permissible language to describe the groups involved.
I just go with "male" and "female" which are objective, observable facts. If people object to these terms, they are really objecting to having a discussion at all.
> “sex assigned at birth”
Sex is not "assigned" at birth it is observed, frequently well before birth via ultrasound or some other technology. Midwives and doctors don't go round flipping coins that say "boy" on one side and "girl" on the other, this whole concept of "assigned" sex is silly.
Why do you believe this?
Anyway, I believe women have a right to dignity and privacy and to set some boundaries against males in refuges & places they are especially vulnerable. Female prisoners should absolutely be allowed to refuse to share sleeping quarters with males. Frankly think it's nuts that this should be considered a controversial stance.
We segregate prisons by sex. Primary and secondary sex characteristics are observable characteristics that indicate one's sex.
Your argument is like saying "You don't buy a Mazda. You go to the Mazda dealership and buy a car that says Mazda on the back, interior, and on the manual. You don't actually know the car is a Mazda."
If you don't think this is an issue, can you explain why we should have any sex segregation in prisons at all?
It sounds like you're arguing for mixed sex prisons, even within individual cells.
There is no proof males who identify as trans (transwomen) are any less likely to commit rape than males who do not identify as trans. The rape risk of being housed with a male is real regardless of how the male identifies with regards to gender. If you have data to the contrary (data indicating that trans identifying males are less likely to commit rape than other males) please share.
I would appreciate it if you would explain to me and others what part of my argument you disagree with rather than simply saying "incredibly bad-faith" "transphobic" "you are trolling" "beyond bad faith" without any explanation of what you think I did wrong or would prefer I do differently.
For what it's worth, I think you are acting in bad faith by calling me names and speculating unkindly about my motives without actually explaining what assertion or argument you object to and why. What you're doing is just bullying.
In any event, I still don't see how any of this justifies keeping this whole topic in the shadows and making public discourse impossible by keeping the scope of the question secret from the public.
* I'm taking your word for this, haven't looked it up.
Assuming the former right does exist, then there is a conflict of rights (between the wishes of males who want to be housed with females, and females who want to be housed without males). Rights conflicts like this are not solved by simply telling one group (in this case, women) to shut up and stop complaining.
Where the ACLU comes in here I have no idea.
I think you should take a moment to consider the (female) women in this situation. Imagine you're a woman 100% at the mercy of the state, and the state locks you in a cell with a male person. Put yourself in their shoes, and try to extend some empathy to them.
Personally, I think female people are well within their rights to voice concerns about this. If you see it differently, I'd be grateful to hear your rationale on why the government should be able to move males into women's prisons in secret, as the ACLU asserts.
Regarding the right to privacy, what's your take on the privacy rights of the (female) women who are being physically forced to house & sleep in a cell with males?
In the above case, some female prisoners in Washington state wanted to know how many male prisoners had been transferred to women's prisons. The state didn't want to share that information (even in aggregate) and the ACLU defended the state's assertion that this information should be kept secret from the public, including from the imprisoned women whom this policy impacted directly.
Why the government would want to keep this secret is a good question, but the main point here is: did people donating to the ACLU realize their money is being used to fight private citizen information requests & defend government secrecy? How the mighty have fallen.
You characterizing me as not engaging in good faith is unfair and absurd, just more ad-hominem. And regarding "harm people and erode their rights" I want to know how you regard the rights of women in prison, and whether their right to be housed safely (not with a male rapist) is a right you consider important. I suppose you'll regard me disagreeing with you and challenging your worldview as some sneaky and nefarious form of trolling rather than what it is (argument) so I don't expect an answer, but I do hope you think about it.
My comment history on this account is mostly opinions that disagree with Silicon Valley corporate-woke hegemony precisely because these are opinions that can "get you in trouble,", which is why I have this anonymous account to discuss these topics.
I comment on plenty of other thing but I'm not going to risk angering those people who will gleefully try to destroy your career for having the wrong opinions on these topics.
Here, the ACLU is suing to prevent citizens from getting public records released by the government. From ACLU: "We have filed for an emergency Temporary Restraining Order and a Motion for Preliminary Injunction to prevent the disclosure of documents you have requested from the Department of Corrections."
This really blew my mind–I never thought I'd see the day when the ACLU filed suit to protect government secrecy against FOIA sunshine. This seems to be a clear conflict between progressive causes (in this case: letting trans-identified male people access female prisons) and supporting government transparency. Here the ACLU decided transparency could and should be denied because the information was being requested by bad people, or for bad reasons, or something.
If you only support free speech (or transparency) in cases where you agree with the actors, you don't really support free speech at all.
Have you verified that TMH is female only (not self-id based)? If not, what makes you think it's female only?
It's understandable if you assumed "women only" meant "female only" (as that's what most people understood it to mean from forever go up til about 10 years ago) but you'd be mistaken if you thought it was that simple. In many (most?) cases these days, "women" = "self-identify as women" which means it is not a single sex facility.