Jiro
1yr ago
the second is that your HR is so good that you only hire the best of the best, and you hire them perfectly such that all of them are a great fit.
That's not necessary. If you fire the X percent lowest performers, and you hire replacements, only X percent of the replacements, on the average, will be as bad as the X percent of the original company that you just fired. But you still have to fire X percent of the whole workforce next year--not fire X percent of the replacements (a much smaller number), so you have to fire good people.
That doesn't require that HR be good at all.
Jiro
1yr ago
Everyone making a positive difference is like saying "everyone can grow up to be president". There are only a few slots for presidents and there aren't enough for everyone, so some people will inevitably fail at becoming president by no fault of their own.
Jiro
1yr ago
The trans assertion is just sort of a thing I sort of think I remember.
Schizophrenic attacks are just the worst part of a class of associated antisocial behaviors. Along with X number of actual attacks go X * *Y numbers of pools of urine on the subway, X * Z incidents of verbal harassment, etc. which are on a continuum of "how bad can people behave" that has schizophrenic attacks as one of its endpoints.
Jiro
1yr ago
This is kind of why I’ve always felt “stack ranking” or regularly firing low performers, Welch style, is actually a blessing. Without it, organizations settle down after the growth phase and nobody young and smart ever gets promoted again.
And with it, you run out of poor performers and have to start firing good ones. There may be a constant influx of new people which makes the number of poor performers non-zero, but "non-zero" isn't "enough to satisfy the stack ranking percentage".
Many effects of the president are downstream. If the president pushes a trade deal, or energy policy, or whatever, you're not going to see new prices and changes in the economy the next day; it's going to take a while. Even something like picking Supreme Court justices isn't going to have an effect the next day.
Jiro
1yr ago
The comparison isn't calling someone a racist, it's saying "those leftists call people racists". Which is the right-wing version of "Trump supporters call people faggots". Except that it's acceptable for progressives to call people racists, so the accusation is useless.
Jiro
1yr ago
Not because we don't allow people to use "faggot" or other slurs, but because we don't allow namecalling and unnecessary antagonism. However, using it to represent what other (hypothetical) people think isn't going to get a warning for using "no-no words."
"I imagine my outgroup would use slurs" really should be prohibited. It at least violates "Proactively provide evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be", "Be no more antagonistic than is absolutely necessary for your argument", and "Don't be egregiously obnoxious". But since it's put in the mouth of Trump supporters, it's okay.
Because "faggot" is considered to be an extremely bad slur to use, accusing someone of using it without a direct quote is likewise extremely bad. If using it directly is so bad that you can ban people for it, using it indirectly by putting it in the mouths of your outgroup should lead to a ban too. The fact that such things are permissible is a double standard. (Which is enabled by the fact that many slurs that leftists use such as "racist" are considered acceptable, so the right can't accuse the left in the way that the left can accuse the right.)
Jiro
1yr ago
Trump (or his administration) did rescind Obama's Title IX interpretation, so it's certainly possible. Of course Biden put it back.
Jiro
1yr ago
The elite not liking Trump isn't a bare fact with no implications. The fact that the elite doesn't like Trump means that if Trump gave up all distinctively Trump positions and tried to act like an establishment Republican, it wouldn't work. So there's no chance of Trump trying to appease the Democrats by becoming a "moderate"--he'd just lose his base and he wouldn't get anything.
You can't prove whether Desantis is going to backslide, but you can know that he's able to backslide.
Jiro
1yr ago
Two things can be true here. (1) that Eps committed crimes on J6 for which he deserves to be convicted and (2) he is unfairly the target of right wing conspiracy theories of being a federal agent.
The contradiction is not between committing crimes and being unfairly accused of being a Federal agent, the connection is between the left being uniquely willing to forgive his crimes and being a Federal agent. Arguments as soldiers is done by the left too. If the left thought he was a bad guy, the left would demand that he be overcharged and would completely ignore any false accusations made about him, because that's how they behave for everyone else.
from another angle he's another entity (like Dominion) defamed by Fox News and trying to protect his reputation.
That would require that the left and the DOJ care in general about people being defamed. They don't.
Jiro
1yr ago
I'm pretty sure that if he went on public record as saying that the January 6 protestors did nothing wrong, he'd lose his job as a political operative, even though it is in Australia.
It is logically possible to hold opinions favoring the Republicans in the US while still holding leftist opinions with respect to Australian political issues. Unfortunately, politics doesn't run on logical possibility.
Jiro
1yr ago
There's an incoherence to saying "the Jan 6rs did nothing wrong, and also, the feds made them do it".
No there isn't. The feds don't need to make them do something that's actually insurrection in order to make them do something that can be easily called insurrection by a partisan judge and the media.
Jiro
1yr ago
Doesn't the law that allows this to even get to a jury come from the judiciary? And the law specifically extended the statute of limitations to get Trump.
Jiro
1yr ago
Jail is much worse if you're a typical middle class person. If you have no family, no job, and no home, jail isn't such a step down.
Jiro
1yr ago
Would you know if it does happen? How much time do you spend hanging out with trans activists
Christians saying that the Westboro Baptist Church doesn't speak for them are blatantly obvious about it almost every time it comes up at all. There's no need for me to hang out at a church or a Christian subreddit in order to find out about Christians disclaiming any association with the Westboro Baptists. Why would I have to do something like that for trans activists?
how sure are you that your media channels would promote examples of them being reasonable and moderate to your attention?
While the media likes to promote controversy, that doesn't explain it. The media reports on the Westboro Baptist Church to stir controversy, but the media also shows Christians calling them a bunch of homophobic nuts. The media doesn't report on the WBC uncritically, nor does the media treat them as just another pressure group, no different from someone calling for farm subsidies.
The media does not behave this way for trans activists. Reasonable trans activists don't appear in the media calling extremist activists nuts, and the extremist activists are treated as perfectly normal, not objects for derision like the WBC.
There's a big difference between the media signal-boosting someone for controversy and signal-boosting someone out of sympathy.
Jiro
1yr ago
But other Christians are willing to say "the Westboro Baptist Church is crazy and we don't believe what they are saying is true". This doesn't happen for trans issues.
Jiro
1yr ago
To anyone who says that my only beef with Freddie is that he won’t let me talk about this stuff in the comments of his articles about something unrelated, I would like here to reiterate: I have never complained about him forbidding people from bringing up trans issues in the comments of his articles, and completely respect his decision to ban people from doing so.
I think that's actually too charitable.
Replace "trans stuff" with some obviously negative thing like "misquoting sources". If Freddie decided "I won't let you post any comments about how I've misquoted sources", does he have a perfect right to do so? Of course. Can he be criticized for it? Sure he can. Yes, it's his blog and he decides what goes there. But it can simultaneously be something he has a right to decide, and bad judgment.
Jiro
1yr ago
If answering a question is likely to be met by an insincere gotcha, it's a bad idea to answer the question.
It doesn't matter whether you personally are planning to do that. It is sensible to take precautions against bad things even if you don't know for certain that the bad things are going to happen.
Why isn’t their bad-faith argumentation justified by yours?
Not answering a question whose answer is likely to be used out of context isn't "bad faith argumentation".
Jiro
1yr ago
Do I get to write fanfic about the various dishonest and hypocritical things you’re going to say to me and then assert my fanfic as indisputable fact, or do only you and nyb get to do that for me?
It makes sense to guard against this sort of tactic even if it's just a possibility. Nobody actually needs to be able to read your mind in order to realize "maybe I shouldn't say something that's vulnerable to tricks". If you personally weren't going to use any such tricks, blame the left-wing abusers you describe, for messing things up for honest people like you.
Jiro
1yr ago
the pointless jargon of “super weapon” thrown in.
If you start posting in a form, you should learn some of the forum's jargon. If you don't, and you encounter some, you should at least not criticize someone else's forum for using jargon that you, a newbie, don't understand, especially when you go on to ignore the point made with the jargon. A superweapon is an accusation which automatically makes the targets out to be in the wrong because of generalizations about a group.
I didn’t say you must consider racism a “super weapon”.
You didn't say he should call it one. He figured out it was one all on his own!
I said I’d like you to tell me whether you think racism in any form exists and whether you think it’s bad.
That's a trick question, because the next question will be a gotcha which takes his answer but substitutes racism as you define it for racism as he defines it. If he says that racism is bad, you can then act as though he agrees that some progressive bugaboo that's commonly called racist is bad.
I agree that a lot of left-wing people abuse the term “racism”!
Can you describe some examples of this abuse?
And assuming you do describe them, can you then understand that Nybbler might necome vulnerable to this abuse if he said "sure, racism exists and is bad"?
After seeing my post, you gave The South During Reconstruction an archive.org link. The link doesn't show most of the pages inside the book--you have to "borrow" the book. I wasn't counting those.
(Borrowing books this way is still questionable from a copyright point of view but at any rate, you can't just get the book without some effort.)
And this is the link for Fanny Hill and this is for Ars Amatoria. This is for Red Network..
Jiro
1yr ago
You could have tried a little harder to find links to some of the PD ones.
Fanny Hill and Ars Amatoria are on Project Gutenberg.
Reconstruction Political and Economic 1865-1877 (you should link to one of the better scans, Google Books has problems with images) and Red Network are on archive dot org.
This is Copenhagen ethics. Assuming you're not a weird EA utilitarian, you don't have any obligations to someone who's already starving in the streets. So if you take someone in, you can't have any obligation to not throw them back out in the streets again.
More options
Context Copy link