lesstenseflow

Now you’re just making things up? Why not either link to the source of your claim? I’m willing to believe what you’re saying is true but you’ve got to link to something, not just make up “models” (using the term very loosely here) out of whole cloth.

Also: how is “restaurant has no customers and has to close” Ubers fault? I guess restaurants never closed before Uber eats existed, or is Uber to blame for those business failures as well?

There’s plenty to criticize Uber for but blaming them for the closure of a restaurant that can’t attract customers is simply ridiculous and makes clear some people simply in this thread will blame anything on Uber regardless of whether the accusation even makes sense.

I lived in a "not quite wrong, not quite right" neighborhood where there was plenty of wealthy young people but it was also close to the "wrong" part of town...and when I tried using the service, it'd be 20 minutes to get a ride and usually at least one cancellation. In the "right" part of town? A quarter of the wait, and never a canceled pickup.

Is it possible fewer people were calling Ubers from that part of town, so there were fewer drivers there? Whereas the wealthier part of town was busier? Drivers go where they are called more frequently, hence the shorter wait time in the other part of town. What do you propose Uber do differently here, force drivers to idle in less busy parts of town?

“I had to wait twenty minutes for a ride” what’s your complaint here, that Uber is evil and transphobic, or that you’re upset a livery servant doesn’t show up the moment you snap your fingers? This “I had to wait 20 minutes for a ride” complaint shows a really entitled and self centered attitude.

I’m really curious what you think Uber should do differently in that case, and why you were calling Ubers at all if they’re so evil and taxis are just as good. The last point really makes me scratch my head.

Know what else is in the docks?

No, I can’t name a single thing in “the docks” because I don’t live in your city and you haven’t said where it is, so there’s no way for me to find out.

In fact airports do not have “scary signs” at the entrance, they have signs directing you to departures and arrivals by airline or terminal.

In the end, not a single drive could navigate to you successfully, taxi or Uber, I don’t see how your takeaway here is “Uber is bad”

You couldn’t be bothered to walk outside a “restricted access” area with what you call “scary warning signs” at the entrances, and you blame the Uber drivers for not wanting to take their chances driving past that sign to pick up you and your companion? Oh and the taxi driver also failed to pick you up there, and you finally move your butts to go meet the taxi.

The Uber drivers probably thought the pickup location was a mistake- they get there and say “I can’t pickup here, this is a wrong location” and cancel the job.

So three drivers can’t find you, including a taxi, and this is Ubers fault somehow, not yours for making unreasonable demands of drivers. I suppose it was Ubers fault that the cab couldn’t find you either? It amazes me how people rationalize blaming others in situations like this.

I read the article you are referring to and it actually came to the opposite conclusion from what you’re saying: net-positive jobs, more spent and more earned.

(If you’re wondering how I am rebutting runarberg when neither he nor I cited a source, that’s a darn good question. But let the record show I offer just as much evidence as he.)

From elsewhere in this thread:

- Part of the deal with being an executive is no job security. It's part of the trade you make for gigantic compensation.

- What would be preferred, firing him the first day he's back?

https://www.benzinga.com/sec/insider-trades/twtr/kayvon-beyk...

I assure you, my guy isn't worried about COBRA.

My point is there's never a "good time" to get fired from a job you don't want to leave. GP doesn't like that this guy was fired on parental leave. OK so fire him on his first day back? There's never a time that won't "suck."

When does getting fired not suck?

Why would firing someone who's on paternity leave be an issue at all? We're talking multi-millionaires who will get multi-million dollar severance.

It's pretty hilarious to see the pearl clutching of techno-bourgeoisie over something like this, pretending other tech-lords are getting mistreated over some supposed breach of decorum. The mere fact that he gets to take parental leave puts him head and shoulders above most workers in the country.

Parental leave, high salary, severance... where do I sign up for some of this "truly awful" treatment?

The simplest answer is to segregate by sex, it's not clear why gender identity should require moving to another facility.

Regarding the supposed issue of safety of trans identifying male prisoners in male prisons (I haven't seen data around this but let's assume it's an issue), it's still not clear the answer is housing with women. If a gay man is more likely to be abused in a male prison, or a small or young man, does that mean men with any of these characteristics should be put in women's prison to improve their safety conditions? This doesn't scan.

Its notable to me that as concerned as you are about prisoner safety, I don't see you or other advocates of males in womens prisons mention the safety of the female prisoners should men be added to their cells. Does their safety not rate?

what is the term for people with penises regardless of gender? Is there a term that won’t result in someone being called a transphobe?

No, there is no universally accepted term that won't get you called a transphobe by anyone (correct me if I'm wrong). If terms of the discussion are set by the most extreme genderist views, it's becomes literally impossible to discuss things like male violence against women or sexism in the workplace, because there's no permissible language to describe the groups involved.

I just go with "male" and "female" which are objective, observable facts. If people object to these terms, they are really objecting to having a discussion at all.

“sex assigned at birth”

Sex is not "assigned" at birth it is observed, frequently well before birth via ultrasound or some other technology. Midwives and doctors don't go round flipping coins that say "boy" on one side and "girl" on the other, this whole concept of "assigned" sex is silly.

And I believe pretty strongly that putting a trans woman in a cell with a cis male is more likely to result in assault than putting a trans woman with a cis woman.

Why do you believe this?

Anyway, I believe women have a right to dignity and privacy and to set some boundaries against males in refuges & places they are especially vulnerable. Female prisoners should absolutely be allowed to refuse to share sleeping quarters with males. Frankly think it's nuts that this should be considered a controversial stance.

This is nonsense that serves only to obfuscate. Normally this sort of stuff is put forward by people trying to confuse and befuddle the reader.

We segregate prisons by sex. Primary and secondary sex characteristics are observable characteristics that indicate one's sex.

Your argument is like saying "You don't buy a Mazda. You go to the Mazda dealership and buy a car that says Mazda on the back, interior, and on the manual. You don't actually know the car is a Mazda."

Your claim appears to be that one prisoner having a penis and the other having a vagina is a strong predictor of an increased odds of sexual assault.

If you don't think this is an issue, can you explain why we should have any sex segregation in prisons at all?

It sounds like you're arguing for mixed sex prisons, even within individual cells.

One would assume surgery or hormones are required to change your gender designation in Washington State, but in fact this is not the case (neither is required). Here's the form to change gender designation on your driver's license in WA, anyone living in washington state can do it today: https://www.dol.wa.gov/forms/520043.pdf

There is no proof that transwomen are any more likely to rape ciswomen than other ciswomen are.

There is no proof males who identify as trans (transwomen) are any less likely to commit rape than males who do not identify as trans. The rape risk of being housed with a male is real regardless of how the male identifies with regards to gender. If you have data to the contrary (data indicating that trans identifying males are less likely to commit rape than other males) please share.

I'm not following you at all. From the text of the request, the petitioners want to know: "Number of inmates that have been transferred from a men’s facility to a women’s facility since January 01, 2021" This is almost identical to what I wrote.

I would appreciate it if you would explain to me and others what part of my argument you disagree with rather than simply saying "incredibly bad-faith" "transphobic" "you are trolling" "beyond bad faith" without any explanation of what you think I did wrong or would prefer I do differently.

For what it's worth, I think you are acting in bad faith by calling me names and speculating unkindly about my motives without actually explaining what assertion or argument you object to and why. What you're doing is just bullying.

I am having trouble following your line of thinking. You're saying that because rape is common in mens' prisons* we should not be concerned about putting males in women's prisons? Wouldn't it make more sense to say "men rape in mens prisons, so women's concerns about being housed with males is reasonable"?

In any event, I still don't see how any of this justifies keeping this whole topic in the shadows and making public discourse impossible by keeping the scope of the question secret from the public.

* I'm taking your word for this, haven't looked it up.

You're assuming male prisoners have a "right" to be housed with female prisoners, and that female prisoners have no right to sex-segregated facilities. Whether the former "right" exists is far from a settled question.

Assuming the former right does exist, then there is a conflict of rights (between the wishes of males who want to be housed with females, and females who want to be housed without males). Rights conflicts like this are not solved by simply telling one group (in this case, women) to shut up and stop complaining.

Where the ACLU comes in here I have no idea.

Is a woman a transphobe for not wanting to share a jail cell with a person who has a penis? I think most people would consider safeguarding female prisoners from males common sense.

I think you should take a moment to consider the (female) women in this situation. Imagine you're a woman 100% at the mercy of the state, and the state locks you in a cell with a male person. Put yourself in their shoes, and try to extend some empathy to them.

Please reread my comment, I don't use the terms "man" or "men" once. It seems you object to the idea that imprisoned female people should be allowed to have an opinion on being forced to share a jail cell with a male person.

Personally, I think female people are well within their rights to voice concerns about this. If you see it differently, I'd be grateful to hear your rationale on why the government should be able to move males into women's prisons in secret, as the ACLU asserts.

I don't think your sex is "private healthcare information." How would sharing the total number of males in various facilities violate an individuals privacy rights? (sidebar: if you think you retain your right to privacy in prison... all I can say is you've clearly never been to prison :)

Regarding the right to privacy, what's your take on the privacy rights of the (female) women who are being physically forced to house & sleep in a cell with males?

The ACLU is not above criticism. Is there something in particular you object to in this article?

I stopped giving to ACLU years ago when it became clear their mission to champion a grab-bag of lefty causes had superseded their free-speech defending goal. This pivot has lead them, at times, to actually defend the government against citizen requests for public records! I never thought I'd see the ACLU fighting on the government's behalf against FOIA/open records type requests but here it is: https://www.womensliberationfront.org/aclu-lawsuit-public-re...

In the above case, some female prisoners in Washington state wanted to know how many male prisoners had been transferred to women's prisons. The state didn't want to share that information (even in aggregate) and the ACLU defended the state's assertion that this information should be kept secret from the public, including from the imprisoned women whom this policy impacted directly.

Why the government would want to keep this secret is a good question, but the main point here is: did people donating to the ACLU realize their money is being used to fight private citizen information requests & defend government secrecy? How the mighty have fallen.

Is Astro very different from using another SSG like Hugo, then adding JavaScript in places you need it like type ahead search box or an interactive map? Given that it’s possible to add JavaScript to an SSG made site already, I don’t get what Astro does that’s different.

I haven't asked any questions, I believe I've stated my position pretty plainly, so I don't see how this "JAQ" applies here. Again: 'you have consistently expressed views I disagree with' isn't a refutation of anything. morelisp says I should be dismissed because he doesn't like my consistent expression of views he disagrees with, you seem to be saying the same.

You characterizing me as not engaging in good faith is unfair and absurd, just more ad-hominem. And regarding "harm people and erode their rights" I want to know how you regard the rights of women in prison, and whether their right to be housed safely (not with a male rapist) is a right you consider important. I suppose you'll regard me disagreeing with you and challenging your worldview as some sneaky and nefarious form of trolling rather than what it is (argument) so I don't expect an answer, but I do hope you think about it.

If I'm advancing an argument you disagree with, I encourage you to explain why you disagree. Ad hominem is lazy and doesn't typically get much traction in this forum.

My comment history on this account is mostly opinions that disagree with Silicon Valley corporate-woke hegemony precisely because these are opinions that can "get you in trouble,", which is why I have this anonymous account to discuss these topics.

I comment on plenty of other thing but I'm not going to risk angering those people who will gleefully try to destroy your career for having the wrong opinions on these topics.

I'm surprised that this case hasn't received more attention: https://www.womensliberationfront.org/aclu-lawsuit-public-re...

Here, the ACLU is suing to prevent citizens from getting public records released by the government. From ACLU: "We have filed for an emergency Temporary Restraining Order and a Motion for Preliminary Injunction to prevent the disclosure of documents you have requested from the Department of Corrections."

This really blew my mind–I never thought I'd see the day when the ACLU filed suit to protect government secrecy against FOIA sunshine. This seems to be a clear conflict between progressive causes (in this case: letting trans-identified male people access female prisons) and supporting government transparency. Here the ACLU decided transparency could and should be denied because the information was being requested by bad people, or for bad reasons, or something.

If you only support free speech (or transparency) in cases where you agree with the actors, you don't really support free speech at all.

It also took 15 seconds to find out that the Brandon Residence For Women is permanently closed.

Have you verified that TMH is female only (not self-id based)? If not, what makes you think it's female only?

It's understandable if you assumed "women only" meant "female only" (as that's what most people understood it to mean from forever go up til about 10 years ago) but you'd be mistaken if you thought it was that simple. In many (most?) cases these days, "women" = "self-identify as women" which means it is not a single sex facility.