Its pretty much impossible to have a substantial discussion because the facts (beyond the fact of the allegations) are opaque. Its a highly emotionally charged issue involving a divisive figure where pretty much no one has any access to useful facts. Discussions are destined to be all noise, no signal.
Harvey Weinstein had evidence and was convicted of rape.
Kevin Spacey had many people accuse him. But he was cleared of all charges, and no-one seems to have evidence. Honestly, I suspect he was an innocent victim of #MeToo (an overshot of the direction that rightfully convicted people like Weinstein), and may get a revival soon (the last charges were settled in March, see the vibe of https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1q45z9e/cmv_n...)
Altman has an accusation from one person with no evidence.
> Fwiw, I think making such non-disparagement clauses illegal is an interesting idea, and could be a net positive. That said, I think the slavery comparison is a stretch.
Arguably, its more like non-compete agreements but with the added fact that state enforcement of the agreements is in tension with freedom of speech.
But, you know, lots of jurisdictions sharply restrict enforceability of non-competes, too.
Both non-disparagement and non-disclosure agreements should—just as many jurisdictions have for non-compete agreements, which do not even implicate free speech the way the others do—be sharply limited as a matter of public policy (non-disparagement even moreso than non-disclosure.) Both are routinely used to inflict public harm for private gain, and government enforcement of either is in tension with freedom of speech; while there is a legitimate case to be made that non-disclosure agreements within certain bounds have a certain degree of necessity in enabling legitimate business, this is a much harder case to make for non-disparagement agreements, at least for ones that are not temporally bounded within an active business relationship.
>is that the other side will do it anyway and you end up dead.
Preemptive first strike logic[1] aside. This logic doesn't work because political violence never gets out of hand so fast that an entire political movement can be wiped out. On the other hand by starting/advocating for political violence you're almost certainly going to get the descent into sectarian violence before you can wipe out all the "fascists".
That just leads to the second problem. Do you think a few car bombs would have stopped Nazis in their tracks? Or it would just create even more antipathy towards Jews?
Remember posts like this and how they are so glib in the face of the autocracy. They will gaslight you, make you feel like you are the crazy one, and be the first to say you deserved it when you have finally have had enough and decided to push back.
It’s posts like this and how they are so glib in the face of autisitic-level lack of empathy.
You people seriously can’t even for an instant entertain that you have been misled, lied to, it’s always those other people.
There is no topic you are wrong on, wow, amazing!
You aren’t the ones parroting a narrative (that always seemingly for no reason at all favors say… China), no no, it’s the other side, they’re the cult, they are the sheep, and they’re controlled by Koch’s or Jews or whatever.
If you grew up in the life of a conservative person, you would vote and think like them. End of story. You aren't special, you’re just another cog.
You aren’t morally superior, you aren’t even actually all that different from the people you have been told to hate. You’ve been conditioned that the world is ending by a trillions of dollars media campaign your entire life and that every person in power that doesn’t play a specific game is Hilter and fascism is on its way.
Consider this… what if you are the crazy one? How would you know it? Because you’re smarter? Because you have an innate ability to align with a group but somehow also maintained the ability to see outside of it?
We’ve never had an objectively better world for all humans, and yet you been programmed to subjectively consider it never worse. Hedonic treadmill doesn’t begin to cover it.
All your claims just sound like game to me. The good people are politically homeless, and you seem to be not that.
When I am a fascist, I warrant being chucked into the sea. As far as I'm aware, I am not a fascist, even though actual fascists like to call everyone they disagree with a fascist and call for their execution.
That's the real problem: Fascists copy tactics, and most people are shallow. If you can call someone a fascist and murder them, fascists quickly learn to call everyone who isn't a fascist a fascist and murder them. There will not be a deep investigation into whether a person really is a fascist.
I'm not worried about political violence because I haven't been denying anyone's constitutional rights, stealing from The People, denying anyone's health insurance claims, or roughing up peaceful protesters and random brown people. I didn't layoff a bunch of people to make my quarterly numbers. I'm not so hated I have to live on a military base out of fear.
It seems pretty simple: Live a life where, if you get plugged, nobody's cheering and everyone's angry.
The US military is in the middle of a top-level political purge; both honesty and competence as an institution will be below normal levels for the forseeable future, and honesty about sensitive operations during wartime is never much even as a baseline.
What’s the buzz like amongst military right now? Is moral low? High?
It’s been fascinating to see my Father (Marine and Army veteran) and my brother (soon be a commissioned Air Force officer) who usually are very aligned politically start develop the first rift I’ve ever seen regarding this war.
> Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has asked Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George to step down and take immediate retirement, sources familiar with the decision told CBS News...
> Two other Army officers were removed from their roles, according to three sources familiar with the matter: Gen. David Hodne, who led the Army's Transformation and Training Command, and Maj. Gen. William Green, who headed the Army's Chaplain Corps...
> Hegseth has fired more than a dozen senior military officers, including Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. C.Q. Brown, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa Franchetti, the Air Force Vice Chief of Staff Gen. James Slife and the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Kruse.
Why this guy? Makes me speculate that it is entirely a political purge where they are trying to groom the military leadership to be entirely filled with loyalists rather than professional soldiers. As a veteran I find this very disheartening.
And of course the first thing the next administration will be obliged to do is fire this cadre and build another, which will fuel the grievances and set up the following cycle. Sigh.
I am not from the US, so I don't really care about how it does its things.
I definitely don't expect political purges on bureaucracy in my country of residence after elections, and I would consider it an extremely bad sign.
Typically the new party replaces the top levels; this is expected. Director of something, secretary of this and that, minister of something else, etc.
The actual bureacrats doing day to day work typically are not political agents. Getting rid of them for political reasons indicate loss of know-how, tacit knowledge, and competence, in the name of blind loyalty.
This was also true of the US. It’s expected to replace the Secretary of Defense and a variety of subordinate secretaries and undersecretaries like the Secretary of the Army with political leaders affiliated with the President’s party. Military officers at the highest level, such as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs or the Chiefs of Staff of the respective branches, are somewhat political, but they are expected to be professionals chosen for merit. And below that level, it has historically been very frowned upon for political leadership to directly involve itself in the selection and promotion of flag officers beyond setting criteria and expectations.
> Because you can't do the Nazi Germany thing these days. I mean... disgust aside, it kinda failed.
It failed because Nazi Germany was not militarily superior to combination of the nations that it got upset with it externally, not because of any internal failure of control. While its nice to think that Nazi Germany “failing” somehow disproves the viability of the same broad kind of one-party, massacre-the-opposition totalitarianism, it isn't really justified.
> Has there ever been a period o time where people saw a bubble coming and that we were in one, but it just inexorably refused to pop/drug out this long?
The housing bubble that peaked in 2006 was raised as an issue at least as early as 2000 and became a big topic of conversation in mid-to-late 2002, which is comparable to if we had started talking about an AI bubble roughly simultaneously with the release of GPT-3 and it had become a topic of wide concern shortly after the release of GPT-3.5.
So, in short, not only “this long”, but much longer.
> Regardless of whether this particular mission is perfectly planned, this is precisely the kind of thing that will help humanity outgrow the dark age of war, inequality and climate mismanagement.
More likely, it is precisely the kind of thing that will be managed specifically to keep people distracted, so that the people who have a near term benefit from the dark age of war, inequality, and climate mismanagement can continue realizing that benefit without interruption by people taking action right up until there is no one left to distract or benefit.
reply