misslibby

The principle is that nobody should be forced to employ somebody they don't want to employ.

Right to be one's own boss: it is called freedom. It doesn't have to be written in the constitution with those exact words. I don't think the US is a socialist country just yet.

And your narrative of letting people self-organize seems wrong. There were laws mandating segregation. That is not self-organization, but government interference.

Obviously murdering people and burning down businesses is and should be illegal.

What does it have to do with the law of averages?

It certainly has nothing to do with American history. It is a fundamental principle.

American firms mostly simply did not hire black people until the law forced them to (especially to skilled-labor jobs). And the evidence that this restriction was primarily based on racial prejudice is overwhelming.

Even if that was the case, which I don't think was universally true, either, it doesn't mean companies should be forced to hire people based on race. It seems more likely black people simply took a longer time to work their way up, as a lot of them started from a "lower" starting point in terms of education and resources.

You shouldn't trust your school education too much, btw. It is obvious that many schools and teachers also push an agenda.

In any case, there were laws mandating segregation (admittedly I only just learned that those Jim Crow laws were actually only in place in the South), which were eventually abandoned. Blaming free markets for that seems completely misguided.

And why do you think of companies as white run businesses that would discriminate against black people? For sure there were also black run businesses, or they gradually emerged once they became legal.

Even today we see a lot of businesses who are racist against white people, and businesses that advertise with being "black owned" - so discrimination based on skin color still seems to be pretty normal and accepted.

Hey, you're right! Although as of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, borrowers are entitled to have their skin color ignored when they request a loan.

How would that even work? It's a bullshit law that leads to bullshit lawsuits, would be my expectation. And probably also to loans that should not have been handed out, because people fear the lawsuits.

And no, owning a business does not make you exempt from the law. But laws are debatable. Pouring toxic waste into the environment impacts other people. Your hiring decisions do not. It is not nearly in the same category of regulations. People should not be forced to hire people they don't want to hire, period. If you don't like some hiring decisions, you are free to start your own business and hire the people that you think should be hired.

I can't bridge the gap if we're not working from the same collection of facts, sorry.

I wonder what your sources are? For sure black people were able to work throughout history.

Yes. That's literally what happened. Entire towns and states that would loan zero money to a black person. And we have no evidence that but for the law we wouldn't go right back to that.

Towns and states are not in the business of giving out loans, and nobody is entitled to a loan. But good people like you would have been able to give loans to black people. I don't think your idea of history is accurate at all.

This is an odd sentiment and I don't know what to make of it. I'm assuming you don't think only non-liberals can create a hostile work environment, so what do you mean?

You claimed it would be easy to create non-toxic workspaces. So I assume you think you only have to fire the non-liberal people. How else do you imagine things to go down? It is also usually the liberals who complain loudly about allegeddly toxic workplaces (while somehow never creating any workplaces themselves - why are all business owners evil, when there seem to be so many good people around?).

Racism - yes I know you had all sorts of struggles. But I think you are lying when you claim black people could not hold jobs. In the beginning, black people were deported to the US to work. Also I don't think racism is at the core of your country, that is just the modern "Critical Race Theory" bullshit. It is not built around racism. People would rather be left alone.

Here is how you are REALLY wrong, though:

No one is owed the right to be a company owner

Exactly the opposite: everybody should have that right. That means freedom. Nobody is owed a job, though - who should be obligated to provide that job?

If everybody can be a company owner, so can black people. Are you sure even black company owners would discriminate against black employees? There are many places with predominantly black population in the US, are there really no black owned businesses there?

And you know bloody well that most companies and organisations discriminate in favor of black people these days. You are really overly dramatic in your retelling of the story of racism. The sad thing is that in that way, the real issues are also not being addressed.

because this country already tried solving it with the market.

I'm sure you misrepresent the actual history very badly here. "The market" would allow black people and also liberals who only love people to create companies and create all the non-toxic work environments they can dream of.

What would be stopping them? Would EVERY bank deny them a credit? Even good people like you, who want to help black people. Aren't there hundreds of millions like you - what would stop you from giving money to black businesses (for example via Kickstarter)?

You just follow up on reports. That's what you do.

And then you simply fire the non-liberals involved? Hostile work environment is usually people not getting along. I don't think that is usually easy to solve. You probably have some bias thinking about racists and what not. But even if you just choose to believe all liberal complaints, that enables people to exploit the system. An example would be female execs who seem to always file for "sexism" when they are fired, because why not.

Point blank: do you think the goal it is trying to achieve is correct but the method is flawed, or do you think the goal (changing, by law, the environment so that an entire demographic of Americans have any hope of having a job without harassment based on unchangeable characteristics they have) is wrong?

I think nobody should be forced to employ somebody they don't want to employ (with their own money - for tax payer money, different rules are necessary). And I don't trust governments to know better how to run companies than the people owning the companies.

Iirc there was one event that might qualify as deception, when he claimed he already had funding secured from some entity and that made some other entity (the government?) also give him funding. That first entity ended up also giving him funding.

Can't say I rank that very high in terms of deceptions, as it doesn't involve the actual product, and also, in the end it was true that entity 1 also gave them funding. And entity 2 could have given funding under the condition that entity 1 gives funding, to be safe.

As for FSD, as far as I know it is still officially in beta and they officially say you can't rely on it just yet. I don't share his optimism for its development, but it seems conceivable that he legitimately thought it was doable in the timeframe he imagined. I don't think missing delivery dates really counts as lie. Companies do it all the time, even companies like Apple. They announce they are working on product x and expect to have it ready at time y, and frequently they miss the date y by years of sometimes even scrap the product completely.

I also haven't heard of an increase in accidents because of Tesla FSD. The accidents that happens seem to all make the news and on close scrutiny turn out to be nothingburgers.

Edit: this seems to suggest that Teslas with autopilot have far fewer accidents than normal cars https://www.notateslaapp.com/news/1144/teslas-using-autopilo... - I supposer you can find all sorts of other statistics, though. I haven't really looked into them. Googling, one finds many headlines of the sort "most vehicles involved in automated driving accidents are Teslas" which are of course misleading bullshit, as presumably that is just an artefact of the much higher number of Teslas on the road.

Most companies don't need lots of people. And setting their own work conditions is exactly what is at stake - which also impacts workers, as it also limits their choice of companies to work for. I also doubt wanting to make a lot of money is as common as you think - you can do that more easily in some corporate jobs these days, without the risk.

I don't know the extent of socialism in the US, but it certainly isn't a socialist country yet. Yes, we have run the experiment in the past, and all socialist countries failed spectacularly.

There is no such thing as free health care. Whether companies pay directly or via taxes doesn't really make a difference. The system in the US seems weird in various ways. All the "free health care" systems in other countries seem to be struggling a lot, by the way. None of them is really a proven solution as of now.

You are incredible.

1.) he doesn't have to justify reinstating Trump at all. People who banned a sitting president have to justify their actions 2.) Seriously, what the fuck - you want to hold his dying child against him? This is ridiculous nitpicking, you can say "it died in his arms" even if he wasn't holding his child all the time. You should take a long hard look into the mirror and ponder what your irrational hatred does to your personality. 3.) A couple of cars with a tiny discount proves what? A list of 30 cars, with a generously calculated average discount of 3%, out of probably thousands sold?

Keep hating, though. Your hatred is irrelevant.

I don't live in the US.

What socialist like you keep forgetting is that somebody has to provide the jobs that you claim the rights to. If nobody provides the jobs, you can make laws all you want, people still won't have jobs.

Freedom only for the owners of companies?

Everybody can start a company - or should be allowed to, that is the point. Socialist rules making it difficult prevent people from becoming independent.

Or do you also respect the freedom of employees to engage in collective bargaining, the freedom of employees to negotiate a closed shop with the company, the freedom to engage in solidarity and political strikes, the freedom to carry out secondary boycotts, and so on.

People should be free to do that, but "employers" should also be free to fire them if they do.

Which is why businesses don't like to compete, and will form cartels and informal agreements to prevent competition.

That works by government intervention and freedom would prevent it.

We also had a lot higher tax rate on the wealth. And stronger union power. If you're going to lazily cherry pick history, then there are a lot of cherries to pick from.

I am not the person who claimed things were so bad in the past that we must not go back.

Freedom to what, in this context?

The freedom to work in the way they want. To escape the hamster wheel, for example by starting their own company with the conditions they prefer.

This is the "capitalism will solve it" argument which proved so untrue we passed the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Employment Act.

It didn't prove untrue. The early days of capitalism where marked by a previous population explosion and abandonment of the feudal system, with lots of people pouring into cities looking for work. That is why there was a lot of poverty.

That creates entire regions of the country that are no-go zones if your skin color is wrong, and we decided that's not acceptable.

Pretty sure there are lots of No-Go zones for people with the wrong skin color today. At least if your skin color is white.

I'm concerned about whether it would be harder to keep a job free of daily torment if you're the wrong skin color than it is now.

So you think there wouldn't be any businesses run by black owners? Why not?

But I'm pretty sure to explain why that changed, you're looking for Reagan-era deregulation

So the economy was better in the past, but your argument was that it was worse?

Interesting and unsupported hypothesis.

Well everybody who HAS heard explanations knows they exist, so the reason you have not heard of them must be that you wilfully denied their exoistence.

Of course the situations are comparable. Your only explanation was that there is a law for the one situation but (allegedly) not the other. Which probably isn't even true, as you may be able to sue people over insults (ianal).

As you correctly point out, it means allowing racial and sexual discrimination in the workplace, with people like Oncale quitting his job with Sundowner because "I felt that if I didn't leave my job, that I would be raped or forced to have sex.

Why would you want to continue working for somebody who wants to force you to have sex?

Those were not good times to be an lowly employee. I suppose they were great times to be a manager and business owner, if you didn't care much about others.

In a good economy, you can find another job. In a bad economy, as socialism is notorious to bring about, you can't. So congrats, you are entitled to keep your job with the boss who wants to rape you.

While I haven't read much about the case, it's clear you've read far less

"He believed he would be in another location" - so he didn't believe Tesla was racist at heart?

Lawsuits don't prove he lied.

People fret about the programming languages they use all the time...

The explanation is simple: freedom. People forget that when they curb the freedom of their employers, they also curb their own freedoms at the same time. They make sure that they can never escape from the hamster wheel. Of course most people are happy as long as other people are not better off than they themselves, so being stuck in the hamster wheel doesn't bother them that much.

More freedom also means more potential businesses who have to compete for workers, which is good for the workers. If businesses have to compete, they'll try to make things as nice as possible for the workers.

The argument that things would become what they "were before" doesn't make that much sense. In a poor economy, things are poorly, no matter what socialist laws try to prevent it (worker protection only helps you if you have a job, for example). There is no reason that by abandoning some law from the 50 years ago, the economy would fall back to the state of the 80ies. Also maybe the 80ies weren't actually so bad. I'm too lazy to look it up, but I keep hearing that in the old days, people could afford to buy houses and feed a family on a single salary.

I'm sure you can get better explanations and economic theories. You have never heard an explanation because you have never looked for it or listened to one, not because none exist.

The usual list. He clearly isn't a leftist and it angers a lot of people very much that he doesn't automatically follow the leftist commands. Doesn't make him evil or a liar. And for example making a prediction that turns out wrong also isn't a lie. It is just an opinion.

Doesn't sound like such a clear cut case. Has the court decided yet?

That's your opinion as a probably left leaning person. Other people may think differently. That such laws were passed 50 years ago does not prove that they were a net positive.

Your argument was that "so and so did break the law". I answered that just because something is a law, it isn't good or correct. If you don't see the relevancy, I don't know what else to tell you.

I don't think people should pay other users because of their comments. On the contrary, my argument was that they shouldn't have to pay.

As for hostile work environments, my opinion is that people should simply quit their jobs if they are unhappy with their work environment. I don't think governments should interfere with how companies conduct their business.

I even think racism should be legal. Don't get me wrong - I don't like racism. But the government shouldn't be allowed to tell people who they have to like or dislike. If somebody doesn't want to work with somebody else because they don't like their nose or whatever, it should be in their rights to refuse to work with them. In general, people should be allowed to do with their money as they please, so also to pay for work who they want.

One thing I heard is that the guy in question here even tried to get a relative a position at Tesla, which seems odd if he thought the work environment was so bad. Not sure if that is true, though.

Maybe his colleagues didn't like Diaz much. I don't approve of such slurs, on the other hand, I am in favor of free speech and people being in charge of their own companies.

Lousy lawyers - ianal, Musk said they were not allowed to present new evidence. No idea what was going on. Certainly there are judgements in the US legal system that seem wrong. It is not a perfect system.

Such as?

Just because something is a law, doesn't imply it is good or justified.

Musk has claimed on Twitter that Tesla wasn't allowed to present new evidence, and that the fine would have been 0 with the new evidence. But he says the jury did the best with the given evidence and he respects their decision.

I think there is more to the story than CNN reports, also, just because something has been made into a law, it isn't beyond discussion or criticism. There are many bad laws in existence.

I've never been awarded any money because somebody said something to me I didn't like.

Yes words can have consequences. Let's take politics, some parties get elected based on their words, and then implement policies that are harmful to me. I still never got any kind of compensation for that kind of thing.

How much money should ehticalsmacker be awarded from you, because you not thinking much of his comment hurt his feelings?

Yeah but they can also live with a computer that costs 500$.

I would also not trust that number of 0.3% population growth. Were did you get it from? There are a lot of refugees from Ukraine, for example, which may have given prices another boost in the last year.

Is there a calculation as to how many hours would be lost spent on the road because of a speed limit? Like I don't know, say every day people spend a million hours driving on the highway, and a speed limit would bump it to 1.2 million hours (no idea, just made up numbers)?

Haven't looked into the Twitter API in a long time, but this might just be badly implemented. They should have every user user their own API access code and their own rate limiting, not post everything via one account.

At least it sounds as if this is just an issue of generic rate limiting, not specific to Mastodon.

In that sense, this is fake news, as it falsely suggests Twitter has special rules in place to shut out Mastodon.

You can back up your data from Huawei phones, too. Apple had plans to scan the photos on your phone and automatically report you to the police if the algorithm thinks something is off. I wouldn't trust them at all.