Rand0m her0

Billionaire is questionable. Trump has taken more trips to Margo Largo to golf than he has kept promises

Let us know when that happens then

Well either it's another example of a well known, long record behaviour of such firms using or manufacturing flimsy excuses to fire "out" employees, or it's a moral panic you say you have no first hand experience of, and most of your information about seems to come from media sources that have a vested political interest in convincing you there's a moral panic. Take your pick there.

I'd be willing to bet actual money that either never happened, did not happen as described, happened after a long chain of previous events that were not relayed to you or your friend, or some combination thereof. They may also have independently fallen victim of a firm with an up or out policy, and having been passed over promotion to partner multiple times was told to get out. Here's a more likely set of events: It was decided that this senior associate was not going to make partner, and therefore was going to go. The law firm, being run by asshats, saw the first flimsiest excuse to fire them for cause, because "you know, being fired for harassment is one of the things that guarantees EI doesn't pay out!" and then did so. This has literally nothing to do with the metoo movement or any other such thing. Exactly that sort of shit has been a favoured tactic of shitty employers for longer than any of us have been alive and is a product of the USA's pathetic to non existent protection for workers against such behaviour. You can go back to the 80s and find similar stories.

I mean, just look at the reaction terry crew got. forced out of the expendables, endless amounts of harassment online, had venit using his connections with producers and his clients to threaten Terry, etc. If that's the kind of shit kicking terry crews takes, just imagine how it goes down for some mid 20s nobody. Hell it doesn't even take active threats. Shitty mc shitface in a senior position gets their jollies by cornering people and flashing them. You report that shit to HR and what happens next? In a good world HR starts investigating, pulls camera footage, talks to other people who's worked with them, finds a pattern of behaviour and takes action. But we don't give in a good world, and HR isn't there for your benefit so it's entirely possible they "investigate" and decide that the best way to protect the company is to fire your ass. Or god forbid your dealing with some actively malacious fuckwhits who pull out shit fuckery with "performance improvement plans" in order to dismiss you with cause, cause hey now they have a defense against a retaliation suit and can put up a fight over EI. So worst case you get fired, and when your new employer calls up your previous employer they say "So and so was dismissed and is not eligible for rehire" If you've got a family to feed, you wanna roll those dice? Hell jfc just take a look at how some parts of society will leap up to defend convicted rapists. Remember convicted rapist Brock Turner who got off with a slap on his wrist for raping someone. Remember who we had all sort of people giving his victim shit because his being a convicted rapist would "ruin his life" and it's just not fair to do that to him.

I am!! I'm asking why are you giving into blackmail and extortion? There is no way out from that cycle. Once you give into blackmailing you're stuck there. Then the person who's abusing holds all cards. Well it's absolutely fantastic that your in a position in your life where either you're not at risk being suddenly dismissed from your job for speaking out against your boss, or that you're financially secure enough to be able to handle the fallout from this. Not everyone has this luxury, and these assholes tend to not target people they're incapable of threatening. For many people the choice may be between shutting up or not making next month's rent, especially in the wonderful world that is at will employment.

If something bad happened to me I'd report it at once. You were a victim so go to police/courts. If you're being quiet then you are accepting that nothing bad happened. And these "celebrities" ruin their lives themselves with their addictions and high speed lifestyle. So wait, i'm not even sure where to do here. Are you not familiar with what blackmail and extortion are? Do you think that because some prominent celebrities are addicts, that random interns deserve to be raped?

Exactly. But the thing I was trying to point out is that people who accept having sex for a getting something in return are equally as responsible as those wanting it for this culture. Thanks. And now we're back to "and they deserve it anyways" When someone's thousands of dollars in debt and years in the whole in an attempt to build a career, giving into extortion, or even simply pressure to keep quiet in order to not have their life or career ruined is totes the same as sexually assaulting a person. When someone locks some 20 year old intern in a room with them and forces them to watch them masterbate, and then threatens them about saying anything, the intern is totally equally culpable

Gonna wanna sauce that second point cc if you expect anyone to eat it. Because when you run down the list of people who've had their employment terminated as a result of this, they're pretty much universtial accused by multiple unrelated people, who gain nothing from making that accusation public and are spread out across lengthy periods of time. And quite a lot of them admit to the conduct. Cirrincione, Lubin, Hazen, Stein, Lauer, Goodman, Spacey etc. Many of the rest are known shitheels anyways (Andy Dick), or are trying to deny what's been a known, if not publicly acknowledged pattern of behaviour for decades now (Bryan Singer). No one has had their career destroyed by "one awkward date". It's not a witch hunt. It's been a couple dozen rapey bastards in an industry that employs hundreds of thousands. Oh and as for your #3? Yea you bascily just quoted Tarana Burke there. ".....it will continue to be jarring when we hear the names of some of our faves connected to sexual violence unless we shift from talking about individuals and begin to talk about power. Sexual violence is about power and privilege. That doesn’t change if the perpetrator is your favorite actress, activist or professor of any gender. And we won’t shift the culture unless we get serious about shifting these false narratives." I mean, I can only speak for myself, but i can't say i've ever experienced an uncontrollable urge to exploit a position of authority to coerce someone into performing sexual favors. Also do you really think those incidents with Weinstein and similar were some actress going "Hey anything you can do to help me get this role, wink wink" and have now suddenly decided they want to shit on Weinstein for literally no reason or Weinstein going "You're going to let me do this or I'll make sure you're fired". Besides, something being commonplace doesn't make it acceptable, and there's jack shit that is OK about a culture where there is the expectation or unspoken requirement to perform sexual favours.

yea yea, they're actresses, so they could be faking it we don't know, and even if they weren't faking it they totally deserved it anyways. You keep saying the same thing lys.

Lys, when someone uses their position to threaten someone with the destruction of their career or the loss of employment in order to obtain sexual favours that is not someone "who has used their position to gain favour". That's called "extortion" and "rape" . But yea no, go on imganignge there some "feminist conspiracy" to discredit weinstein. A bunch of unrelated people all independently decided to ruin him for shits and giggles. Couldn't possibly just be a rapist. Hey wait, we're back to things people said about the whole "The Catholic church is protecting pedophiles" thing. And shit that was said about Larry Nassar. Also seriously, "They're actors therefore they must be lying about being assulted" jfc.

Ya see, repeating it in different words doesn't mean you're not saying that they deserved to be assaulted, and doesn't make what you're saying any less messed up or repellent.

Jfc you people. "This movement has become a parody" "It's petty and hypocritical" Because, what, everything can only exist in a binary state of good or bad? Dozens of people come out with evidence that they were assaulted, and with half a dozen others who experienced the same treatment from the same person backing them up, but one of those persons turns out to be an asshole, so clearly every single person even tangentially related is also an asshole? Know the last time I heard that "Well now it's petty and hypocritical" stuff thrown around like that? It was back when people were finally catching on to to the catholic church's fuckwittery "Oh this person speaking out about the church was accused of abuse themselves? See what hypocrites they are!". This shit is sure starting stink the same. Large institutions with a power imbalance tend to have a problem with sexual assault and rape, because sexual violence is about power and privilege, and how people with them are often in a position to abuse it. People confronting that is not "petty", sunshine is and remains the best disinfectant for corruption in all its forms. Also lys, your reaching new levels of fuckitude in this thread. Are you kidding me. "Those women deserved to be molested by Harvey Weinstein, they had to know what would happen". You really are a goddamn piece of work sometimes you know that.

Oh for the love of. No that is exactly what a restriction on speech looks like lys. What you are describing is the *rationale* for that restriction. If you can be held criminally responsible for your speech, that is a restriction on your speech. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech"What part of "Shall make no law abridging" do you think is compatible with "congress has passed a law such that you will be imprisoned for saying this specific thing". Either you think the first amendment is entirely toothless (sure congress can't make a law restricting your speech, but they can punish you for the consequences of it.) or the firstadmentment has value, but limitations on how far it extends. Have a bunch of quotes from the US surpeme court detailing acceptable restrictions freedom of speech. Emphasis mine Schenck v. United States Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc We begin with the common ground. Under the First Amendment, there is no such thing as a false idea. However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries, but on the competition of other ideas. But there is no constitutional value in false statements of fact. Neither the intentional lie nor the careless error materially advances society's interest in "uninhibited, robust? and wide-open" debate on public issues. Miller v. Californa New York v. Ferber. When a definable class of material, such as that covered by the New York statute, bears so heavily and pervasively on the welfare of children engaged in its production, the balance of competing interests is clearly struck, and it is permissible to consider these materials as without the First Amendment's protection. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire I could go on for a while, the supreme court has consistently ruled that there are exceptions and limitations to the first amendment (and to every other amendment within the bill of rights) for centuries. Some forms of speech are not protected under the first amendment, full stop.

I mean, he totally has, but twitter is apparently chill with littreal nazis so uh... yea

Sorry, but it doesn't stop short of defamation and libel. We have courts that sort out if anyone says something that actually harms anyone, but their absolute right to say it remains the same. If everyone that defames and libels is not protected by the 1st Amendment, then I'm still waiting for all these media people to lose their jobs, and my compensation checks to arrive, from all these morons that have called me, and 60 million other Trump supporters, Nazis, Racists, and White Supremacists. Alex Jones is not the only one who says really stupid things. The very fact that the courts are able to penalize someone for libel means it's not protected under the first amendment Lys. There are multiple limitations to the first amendment; specifically it does not protect speech that is defamatory, it does not protect speech that leads to illegal activity, it does not protect speech that incites violence, and it does not protect obscenity (defined currently as anything that falls within the scope of the Miller test) WHen you lose a libel case and the court orders you to pay restitution that is literally the government enforcing a penalty upon you for something that you have said. If you refuse to pay, the person you now owe money to can file a lien against your assets, and the government can literally do shit like take your house away. If during that court case you decide to call the judge a monkey fucking asshole for ruling against you, the judge can find you in contempt of court and the government will literally send you to prison for something that you said. All of those are necessary powers for the government to have: If the courts can't enforce a judgement, then the courts have no power and the law is worthless. If you can't be peanizled for disrupting a trial or otherwise defying or undermining the authority of the court, then the court has no authority. I don't think we're going to disagree that you should be able to seek restitution if someone claims you're a kiddie diddler. But there is no possible way for "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" and "It's legal for the government to force you to pay restitution to someone whom you have defamed or libeled" to coexist if the freedom of speech acknowledged in the first amendment is unlimited. And that's because there is no right in the US constitution that is unlimited. Scalia had a pretty solid quote on the topic, although the case was in reference to the second amendment (The Heller decision) The first amendment does not prevent the US government from penalizing some member of a cult who thinks prayer alone is a perfectly fine way to treat their diabetic child or from enforcing a libel verdict, or ordering the press to not release information about military movements in war time, or breaking up a riot, any more than the second amendment prevents the government from restricting the ownership of weapons to felons, or preventing you from carrying firearms into establishments serving alcohol. It also does not protect you from experiencing consequences for your speech. Alex Jones has no first amendment right to a channel on Youtube

I mean asking for perfection is a bit much. the dude is by far one of the single best directors and producers in the business ever, and he's done very few objectively bad movies (I don't like E.T. very much myself, but broken down into its parts, it's a great film). A bad Spielberg movie still gets 3 out of 5 stars most times. Seriously if you ever decide you hate yourself, go read Ready Player One. It'll give you an appreciation for the absolute dreck Spielberg managed to spin into the 50 cent a foot tin thread that is this movie.

Sure, but it ain't the government ordering him off the sites. It's those companies going "We don't want to do business with you, kay bye", And even then it's not like freedom is unlimited. Like your freedom of speech deafinitely stops short of defamation and libel. Saying that the family of children killed at sandy hook are paid actors and encouraging people to harass them isn't protected speech. Which is sorta the issue here. Alex jones can say and think what he wants, but he and his supporters seem to think that other people not wanting to pay to give him a megaphone and a platform is "Censorship™" Which is made hilarious by Infowars enshrining "we do not owe you a platform and booting you for violating our basic standards is not censorship" right into their ToS. Kinda underscores how their brand of Censorship™ is bascily pure crocodile tears and hypocrisy. While hopefully no one here has to deal with the more...lunatic Alex Jones supporters, I've had the displeasure of dealing with a couple over the last couple days, and quoting that bit of the infowars ToS at them seems to make their brains explode.

Apple, facebook, youtube and a few others have been pulling the plug on Alex Jones' and Infowars profiles, channels, etc due to his long history of using them to publish libel and kick off harassment campaigns (see, hillary and child porn, see 9/11 was an inside job, see "crisis actors" after every mass shooting"). Presumably since people are now suing his ass, the legal departments there have woken up and gone "uhhhhhh maybe we shouldn't be hosting this shit..."

Honestly there's not really a whole lot to say here. Alex Jones is a shitheel who deserves everything coming to him and it's kinda pathetic it took this long for youtube and apple to finally boot infowars off their respective sites. but naturally people are now whining about sensor sheep and frozen peaches because apparently ultra wackadoodle conspiracy theories and targeted harassment campaigns make a "reasonable conservative news source" in some people's minds, I feel the need to share a nice little quote right out of the infowars ToS https://web.archive.org/web/20180808074952/https://www.infowars.com/terms-of-service/ So yea. Not sure what else to say after that? Fuck Alex Jones, because you can't really say that too many times? Fuck Alex Jones.

Nah. I mean the target audience has about that level of emotional maturity, and the source material is maybe cracks into the kind of quality you'd expect from the YA genre, but the target audience for it was in their 30s. Specifically it's geared to the "I am self defined purely by the commercial media I consume" capital G Gamers subset. The whole "and now we fellate saturday morning cartoons" and other such sections of the film aren't ironic or cheeky references, but dead serious. The movie is better about it than the book, but it's kinda a testament to spilberge that he managed to turn out something watchable. That's from the book. That goes on for 10 pages. It's not the only time something like that happens.

brewersallaince Coin

jfc lys. Ok so let's try to break this down. I don't have time top sit here and write the full thing at once, so you'll get it in parts. Let's start with the sensationalized apocalyptic scenario. It can happen, and in fact it caused the single greatest extinction event in earth's history so we should consider it a really big gun held to humanity head, but at the moment we're a long ways off from it being an issue. So CO2 isn't the strongest greenhouse gas. Of the "common" atmospheric gases, methane is about the worst of them, we just produce so much less of it than CO2 that it's a minor issue (and the release of it into the atmosphere of it has leveled off since the late 90's anyways). However the earth has a massive amount (somewhere in the neighbourhood of a Tera Tonne trapped in metastable reservoirs in deep ocean ice. tl;dr version, methane and water can combine to produce methane hydrate, which can freeze. As methane hydrate cycles through the ocean, some of it gets into the ocean sediments and freezes there, where it remains trapped. If you had the cool chemistry teacher in high school, you might have got to light some methane ice on fire as a demonstration. Same Stuff. The key issue here is that this stuff is *frozen*. Which of course carries the implication of "can melt". As the oceans warm, this stuff can melt, causing the methane to be released. IF this happens on a large scale it is a run away event, with the release of that much methane providing significant positive feedback to the warming effect. We're pretty sure this has happened at least twice in the earth's history and damn sure of one of those. This is bad in it's own right since it significantly accelerates the warming of the earth, however if the runaway goes on long enough, it also comes with a couple major side effects for the ocean, namely significant increase in ocean acidity and a significant decrease in available oxygen in the ocean. I don't know if you've kept fish, but you may have noticed they're temperamental little bastards who need a fairly narrow range of environmental conditions. A severe case can and will result in the extinction of upwards of 90% of marine life. And if fish don't like those conditions anaerobic bacteria do, most relevant to us are sulfate-reducing and methanogenic bacteria. The former releases hydrogen sulfide into the atmosphere (which is pretty bad for terrestrial life) and the later release more methane. This itself kicks off another feedback loop, as marine life dies off, their corpses sink into the deep ocean waters, where decomposition pulls more oxygen out of the water, leading to greater anoxia. In the worst case scenario those anaerobic bacteria begin to dominate the chemistry of the oceans and the oceans begin emitting massive amounts of poisonous gas. At this point, we've probably already started to see a feedback effect between the atmosphere and the biosphere. North America in particular is vulnerable to this, the 1930s and the dust bowl provided a fairly minor example. The american and canadian prairies were, not that long ago a littreal desert. If this hasn't happened already, that release of hydrogen sulfide will be more than enough to start choking life out on the continents. It's possible enough gas is released to bascily fumigate the continents. More likely it just starts to kill off plant life, which reduces biomass available as food to herbivores and insects, and the food chain collapses in on itself. This is not hypothetical. This has happened, and it resulted in the single greatest mass extinction in the earth's history, and even life that was effectively immune to past extinction events (namely plants and insects) or more weakly effected (sea life) was massively reduced. At the Permian–Triassic transition, what is now Siberia saw the single largest volcanic event we know of thus far. By the time it ended area only slightly smaller than the contiguous united states (or about the size of australia if you prefer) covered with volcanic rock averaging about half a kilometer deep. This would have been rough enough, but unfortunately for life Siberia has of the richest and most easily accessible coal and gas fields in the world, and 250 million years ago they were vastly richer still. Were, because this volcanic activity was more than sufficient to light those coal and gas fields on fire. By time they burned themselves out somewhere between 10000 and 100000 billion tons of CO2 was released into the atmosphere, kicking off a cycle of global warming and climate change leading to the P–T)extinction event, or more colloquially The Great Dying. Upwards of 90% of all species went extinct. 97% of all ocean life died. 70% of terrestrial life, including insects died. It ended the synapsid and the other proto mammals and lead to the dominance of Archosaurs (ie dinosaurs and a few other things) for the next 200 million years. Plant life died off to such an extent that there are no coal beds worth talking about dating to the early triassic period. The extinction event that did in the dinosaurs 200 million years later despite itself being one of the worst in history was minor in comparison. Fortunately, this at least is not an immediate concern. While exactly what level of CO2 release was needed to set the earth on that course, the general consensus is that humanity is a good couple orders of magnitude of having released that much. This isn't to say that we're not capable of it, our release of CO2 into the atmosphere has thus far followed an exponential growth pattern, and if we don't check that then over the next couple centuries it will become a much more prominent threat. If we do reach that tipping point, we'll no more be able to avoid the consequences than if you put a gun to your head and pulled the trigger. It's a threat to be taken seriously, and we don't solve the issue humanity goes the way of the dinosaurs. But we have time to disarm that particular time bomb and if it does go off we'll have absolutely earned it. Of more disastrous consequences will be much lower levels of warming leading to the melting of the antarctic ice sheets and that mentioned atmosphere-biosphere feedback effect leading to megadroughts in North America. But this is quite enough typing for now.

You know, I'm not even gonna with this any more. This shit is literally my field (There's a reason I know about the project you linked) and while I don't recall what besty does, I remember it being chem eng/chem sci related and this is a big damn topic for that in general. You are *extremely* misinformed on this topic. Wherever you're getting your information from is either equally misinformed or outright lying to you. Also betsy, your analogy is flawed. This isn't cheap screwdriver vs expensive. This is having "Discount Dan" do the electrical in your house at for his slumlord special rate, vs actually spending the time and money to have it done to code. One costs you more, but also doesn't involve having your house burn down because a metal paperclip shorting the breaker box is cheaper than a breaker, and set it up so you're putting 90 amps through substandard aluminum wire. Naturally certain people whined about government overreach and suppressing competition when folks decided "maybe houses burning down in preventable fires is bad".

Sad, but talent isn't a limited resources. there's always more if you go looking. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iCwGQXJqu5s# Have what I was originally gonna post. You may not have heard of it, but I'd take odds that you *have* heard it, since it's the anthem of life ok at how sophisticated we are for commercials.