An excellently described personal and subjective approach to determining good vs bad.
Im not saying you're wrong, im saying your chosen usage and/or perception of metrics isn't universal.
It's useful to me, ymmv.
And again, your perception of good is just that, yours.
I happen to agree with the sentiment in general terms but I fully understand it's just my subjective experience and i wouldn't use it as a baseline for others.
There are people I would consider "good" , but it's very contextual, people are mercurial.
People are people, peoples perception of "good" and "bad" is relative and contextual.
Take that in to account when building your expectations of people.
I personally try to take the approach that everyone is inherently selfish and will do what's best/convenient for themselves (and perhaps the people closest to them).
and i mean selfish as a neutral descriptor, not a derogatory term.
No expectations, no disappointment, but i know that's not a viable approach for a lot of people (and i'm not immune to the occasional hope of someone pleasantly surprising me).
I'm not saying i don't expect good things/behaviours to happen, i just try not to build expectations on that eventuality.
It is directly relevant if you're making a claim against that ability.
since you said you can’t comprehend a post longer than a Tweet or a TikTok video.
It isn't what they said, at all
No way you can expect anyone to read that after the first sentence.
Is what they actually said.
The person you’re telling the world you aren’t listening to isn’t obligated to take you seriously at all.
Fair.
You’re stating that you’re ignorant — whether or not this is true is not relevant, because you’re presenting that about yourself. Who am I to dispute your claims about you? I don’t know you IRL. I’m just going to take your word that you’re a pigeon on a chessboard — rather than make an intelligent move, you’re just going to knock over all the pieces and make a big show of it.
I'm not the person same person from that reply.
While that imagery is vivid and amusing, it's a lot to read from a two line reply that doesn't mention intelligence at all.
That's an opinion, sure.
There's a great deal of modern day interactions that are similar in nature, where each person draws their line is up to them.
How people view other peoples line is also up to them.
What i was getting at here wasn't the subjective morality or ethics, that is an interesting subject though.
It's entirely possible to have the ability but not the desire to read a wall of text.
Not reading a wall of text doesn't reasonably preclude someone from disputing a claim unrelated to the content of that text, it's odd that you'd think that.
Complicit probably isn't the right word, but to claim there's no link at all is factually incorrect.
The fact that a proportion of the money in rowling's hands goes directly into funding anti-trans efforts isn't in dispute.
She's the first in line to back up that claim.
If your enjoyment of the media isn't soured by that, thats your call, everybody does what they can live with.
They have not.
They have provided an IOU from the bank of "trust me bro, this shit's gonna moon" same as everyone else in that circlejerk of stockmarket destruction.
and the other side has said :
"sure bro, we'll set you aside a 100 million future rams" *wink*
while announcing this big "sale" they have completed to boost their stock price.
It's fucking monopoly money to them and it's going fuck everybody
No, you define it.
If im asking you it's because I don't understand your viewpoint , how would me defining it help with that?
Im seeing a wall of text here so I'm going to split them up into something more coherent.
Should an employee who advocates for abortion rights be able to be fired because their employer doesn’t like the optics of their statement?
Should an employee who vouches for a particular political candidate be able to be fired for it?
The answer to both is that it's a legal issue, my personal beliefs don't really factor in to the legal outcome.
I think freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences so consider the (sometimes legally viable, if not morally) consequences of your actions and act accordingly.
I think we can both agree that a person who advocates for the genocide of a people should be punished, but where do you draw the line?
Thats a very rigid position to take on something that has significant subjective nuance.
I'd evaluate on a case by case basis and make a decision based on what I can live with.
As much as I don’t really care for corporate interests, there are real consequences for companies that continue to employ people with controversial views; why would they want to continue to employ those people when they could win back public favor by firing them?
No idea, not sure how it's relevant but I don't generally care enough to have an opinion I'd be willing to defend.
Im not being dismissive, I genuinely don't give corporate PR tactics that much of my headspace unless I have no choice.
I don’t think I could define a line between what’s “accepted” political speech that’s protected against employer reprisal and what’s not. Unless we go old stand-bys, such as calls for violence, which are easy to evade. I’m not suggesting this is an easy or even a possible problem to solve; all I meant was that think employees should be protected from firing for reasonable political statements. What “reasonable” is defined as is a much more complicated question, and I concede I don’t have an answer for it.
Agreed
I wasnt looking for what "acceptable" political opinions consist of, i was wondering how you defined that category in general.
I ask a variation of this question a lot (check my history for examples).
Im not looking for a fight im just bad at understanding ambiguity in some contexts.
I think people should be allowed to make political statements outside of a work context without risking their jobs—but with our current societal norms siding with corporate image concerns, this does seem in-line with the norms of that approach.
Define "political statement".
Because it looks like you're putting "this is just like beginning of the holocaust", "non-whites don't deserve human rights" and "let's seriously consider not having a secret police" in the same bracket here.
A statement being a political position doesn't (or rather shouldn't) automatically shield you from the other meanings of that statement and writing that off as all being "corporate image concerns" is insidious.
I didn’t say i didn’t like it, i said it wasn't mandatory to use it.
Your comment (and the context of this post) implied active usage, which is what i was responding to.
If you want to come at it from a "there is no ethical consumerism" point of view, you might be right that it is, or will be, everywhere.
There is still a distinction between the choice to actively use it and the pseudo-passive background knowledge that it might have been used as part of something in your daily life..
Like the knowledge that modern consumer electronics supply chains have a prominent core of slavery and exploitation doesn't make buying a phone the same as owning a slave.
"It's already everywhere, so you might as well use it" isn't a good catch-all policy and i don't think it's a good approach to this specific scenario.
But you do you.
AI is here to stay. It’ll never go away, unless there is no more electricity on the planet. So, we should all come to terms with it and use it the best way we can.
Or choose not to, just because it's there doesn't make it mandatory or even a good idea.