The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
No bio...
User ID: 174
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
19hr ago
The progressives did NOT dismantle the house; they skin-suited it. This may be almost as good or even better politically, but it's not the same as bringing on their postmodern utopia.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
19hr ago
U.S. Patent #3258500
That's a patent for a particular manufacturing process. The chemicals were in use before that patent (as the patent's text states).
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
19hr ago
Because it rings true. The contents of Lourde's essay "The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle The Master's House" are largely postmodern garbage, but the title is clearly getting at something. The methods those in power used to construct the institutions they use to exercise power can only build those institutions. You can't build a hereditary monarchy by voting, and the divine right of kings will never get you a democracy.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
21hr ago
Going to the Eames chair is going pretty far afield. There's another cane-backed-and-bottomed cantilever chair that is ubiquitous; you've almost certainly sat in it, you might well have owned a few on the same pattern, if not from the licensed maker. But the name isn't as well-known; it appears it's a version of the "Cesca" by Marcel Breuer. It's comfortable, IMO, with the main problem being that the cane bottom isn't very durable.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
21hr ago
The CFC patent expired in 1978.
I don't know what patent you refer to, but R-12 was invented in 1928 and in general the classic CFC refrigerants go back no later than the 1930s. They were not just out of patent but long out of patent. That the environmentalists now find something wrong with every replacement between the time of mandate and the time of adoption, so we're on a treadmill, is certainly an opportunity for the chemical companies but they're not driving the bus.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
1d ago
"the BDSM community" is some sort of authority to which BDSM practitioners must submit
Yeah, they wish. (well, some of them do)
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
1d ago
Allowing the in-between state just gives cover for treating women as having agency when it it helps them but not when it harms them.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
1d ago
I don’t want to treat women as having agency. They have far less than men.
Fine, repeal the 19th and otherwise change the system so women no longer get the benefits of being assumed to have agency, and then maybe it will be reasonable to penalize men for acting as if they have it.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
1d ago
People used to like to go into Starbucks and hang out and read or study.
They're banning that now too though.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
1d ago
Having celebrity may be a form of power in the broad sense, but not in the sense of curtailing agency.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
1d ago
If you want to treat women as having agency, you have to assign blame for the consequences of their decisions to them. There was no power imbalance tantamount to force here; Gaiman was rich, famous, and (apparently) charming but he had no authority over them. Writing books read by the public is not "grooming"; calling it such casts doubt on the concept of grooming. A woman's later regret does not make a man's actions any sort of offense against her. If you don't think women have agency, you may as well join the "Fight for 25".
Certainly there are conservative-morality reasons that it's wrong for an old celebrity to have sex with starstruck young women. But either such moral systems treat women as being lacking in agency, or the offenses aren't against the woman (or both).
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
2d ago
So perhaps someone can answer: are they TRULY captured, true believers in the cause, or are they engaged in a social signalling game, everyone hiding their power level in public for fear of social sanction.
There are plenty of true believers in the tech world, and they sound like that.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
2d ago
Wokeness isn't productive. Unless you are counting the favor it gets you with certain powerful people
And aside from that, Mrs Lincoln? Pretty much everything people do, unless it is somehow directly nailed to physical reality (or sometimes bits will do) is all about monkey dominance games. When reality intrudes there's a carveout for it, but only as large as necessary (or a bit smaller).
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
2d ago
It has not been stopped. There is merely a pause. Perhaps a legit one, possibly a false one to draw out the remaining opposition so they can be crushed in the next push.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
2d ago
In the past, those who prostrated themselves in this way would have been shamed “Be a man and say no fuck off when you mean no.
If you opposed woke in that way, you would be fired and/or ostracized. It's not that nobody did it; it's that they were canceled for doing so.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
2d ago
This ignores that wokeness was only possible because high ranking white men drank the kool-aid. They weren't forced to join the social justice movement. It was a choice.
I've heard (but cannot confirm) in some cases they drank the kool-aid because it was the only way to avoid being taken down for sexual harassment allegations. But even if not, social justice remains a viable way for high-ranking white men to keep the competition from other white men down.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
2d ago
They'll either play ball (at least in so far as they keep their mouth shut) or get fired, just as they did in 2014-2019.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
2d ago
Why couldn't wokeness do the same?
It still can. What we have now is likely not backlash but eddy. Or a receding wave in an advancing tide. Nearly all those woke people in high-ranking positions are still there. A few of the commissars got fired but a lot did not, and many just got shuffled around. Once the Trump train runs into a roadblock, they'll be ready to capitalize.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
3d ago
They will agree that the underrepresented minorities hate their oppressors, members of the majority. They will sometimes admit that they're less competent, though they will typically blame members of the majority for this. They will not typically agree to these things at the same time in the context of hiring, but it's a lot stronger than merely "My logic says that your beliefs imply this".
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
3d ago
Such a rule merely provides cover for those engaged in doublespeak or doublethink.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
3d ago
The most likely reason for that is they came up with ways around the ban.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
3d ago
"Your job under DEI is to hire and promote incompetent people who hate you" follows from the DEI-pushers stated reasoning, actions, and claims. The part about hate follows from the whole oppressor-oppressed thing; if white people are oppressors and the under-represented minorities are the oppressed, not only do the URMs hate the white, but the whites deserve the hate for being oppressors. The part about incompetence falls out from the fact that they insist on representation above competence; they will tend to switch between claiming the URMs really are competent but you're measuring it wrong and that competence doesn't actually matter depending on the situation. Generally you can get them to agree to various bits of this but if you put it together they'll claim it's false. That doesn't make putting it together boo-outgroup.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
4d ago
That is --- unless the law. I imagine that thousands of white male tech workers will have good cases for suing FAANG companies for a decade of bigotry.
No. The rule is you don't have standing to sue unless you can demonstrate "but-for" discrimination. That is, you have to demonstrate that you, personally, would have been hired if it weren't for the discriminatory practice. This is a very high bar and the courts tend to require it before discovery. Both right-leaning and lefty courts apply this to discrimination against white males. Lefty courts are in effect far laxer when it comes to discrimination against minorities and women, and often the EEOC will help there as well.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
4d ago
Furthermore, Facebook's employees could fairly be classified as far-left.
Pissing them off maybe a feature rather than a bug. Why do more layoffs when you can get some of your most troublesome employees reason to quit in anger or do something that gives you cause to fire then?
What they are forgetting is not the offense, but how badly they got whipped last time they tried "avenging" it.
More options
Context Copy link