People claiming on HN they won't call the cops might be all talk, I can't possibly know, but if you don't know anyone who won't call the police, you don't know people low on the socioeconomic ladder. And that's fine, there's no shame in that. But people who are frequent harassed by police - yeah, they don't call the police.
Ask a homeless person how they're treated by police and whether they would call 911.
Yes, I do. Not only that, but those people organize and write position statements, and those statements are: "we can't get the police to come fast enough when we call".
If I have to go all the way to "unhoused person" on the SES spectrum to see the evidence for your argument, I'll consider my point made.
Consider that the people who feel most disenfranchised might not be coming to the meetings and such you're drawing from.
I don't really understand your second statement, it would only make sense to me if you didn't consider the homeless to exist as people. But I take the impression that you don't feel that way. So I don't really see why you feel you can discard them and conclude not calling the police is a "message board phenomenon" rather than a "very low on the ladder" phenomenon.
I've met people offline who tell me they don't call the police in a way I find credible, I don't know what else to tell you. I suppose the reason I responded to your comment was because it felt like a "message board phenomenon" to me, it didn't match my experience interacting with people offline.
Their reputation is being friendly to shareholders.
Shareholders brought a suit alleging Musk's pay package was inappropriate. It came out in the lawsuit that the people charged with negotiating with Musk were actually taking direction from him.
However you feel about that, I think it's easy to acknowledge that if the people negotiating on your behalf were being instructed by the counterparty, you probably didn't get the best deal you could. The court's decision was reasonable and probably would've been similar in any jurisdiction.
This exodus appears to me to be part petty feud and part cargo cult.
Not the same shareholders. If the new vote had been on a new package, that would have been unambiguous.
The bottom line is Musk and Mark don’t want Boards. That’s honestly fine if everyone agrees ex ante those are the rules they’re playing by. Delaware law requires independent Boards. Sort of like a quorum requirement, the company can’t do certain things if it’s deficient in this respect. Texas law apparently doesn’t.
That's like saying, "you can't tell me what your name is, or whether you'd like to be called Mr., Ms. or Mrs. That's not self expression, that's controlling my speech, and so that's censorship."
The same logic is employed in both cases. The difference is that telling someone your name has no political charge to it.
You can dislike the practice of listing your pronouns, but it's perfectly ordinary to tell people how you'd like them to refer to you.
>That's like saying, "you can't tell me what your name is,
No, it's the opposite of that. Third-person pronouns are the ones people use to discuss third persons among themselves. The person who "wants their pronouns used" isn't party to the conversation. They're attempting to put their own non-name words into other people's mouths. One might make a case that you could choose your own second-person pronouns, but at least in the English language that's egalitarian, everyone's just a "you".
>or whether you'd like to be called Mr., Ms. or Mrs.
I call men "mister" out of respect. My other word for people who don't merit respect is "asshole". If you don't like the first, I'll use the second one. I don't even use "sir" if I can help it... no English lords in this country.
>You can dislike the practice of listing your pronouns,
I can do more than that now. I think I can ignore it without getting fired.
>but it's perfectly ordinary to tell people how you'd like them to refer to you.
It's not ordinary. At no point in human history, in any human language I am aware of, has anyone ever gotten to choose their own third-person pronouns. It's absurd and bizarre. I'm not required to acknowledge the existence of imaginary friends to anyone over the age of 7, I'm not required to play into other people's schizophrenic hallucinations, and I don't have to try to overcome my 50 years of habit in how English is spoken.
> No, it's the opposite of that. Third-person pronouns are the ones people use to discuss third persons among themselves. The person who "wants their pronouns used" isn't party to the conversation.
That's also how names work, though. As in, "Are you coming to Billy's barbeque?" when Billy is not in the conversation.
> At no point in human history, in any human language I am aware of, has anyone ever gotten to choose their own third-person pronouns. It's absurd and bizarre.
What's the realistic difference between pronouns and nicknames? Like a "Richard" going by a "Rich", or "Rick"? That's their decision, right? Or someone choosing to go by their middle name rather than their first name?
When I say I use they/them pronouns, I am telling you I am non-binary and am not a man or a woman. If you go around saying he or she, you're telling me you don't care enough to treat me respectfully. Just the same as if I said my name is X and you called me a diminutive form of X that I don't use. I'm not talking about accidental references here. I'm talking about whatever principled stand you think you're taking. So, it's not about forcing you to do anything. It's asking you to be a decent human who acknowledges another human as they are, rather than as you think they should be.
> I call men "mister" out of respect. My other word for people who don't merit respect is "asshole".
I believe this to be the actual root of the issue. You have decided some people aren't worthy of your respect (I presume because you feel they are your adversaries in a political struggle). Anything they ask of you from that point, you take issue with and blow out of proportion. They aren't people to you, they're "assholes."
You don't have to like people to respect them. You don't have to agree with them either.
> I don't have to try to overcome my 50 years of habit in how English is spoken.
Language changes. Culture changes. They don't change because people are "schizophrenic," they change because they're part of an ongoing conversation.
You don't have to like it. You don't have to change. But if you choose to resist it, you'll come off as out of touch and you'll upset or offend people. And consequently they may not want to work with you or spend time with you. You've every right to do that. But those are the consequences. And they always have been. You can accept those consequences or you can make room for the way the world has evolved, but those are your options; time waits for nobody.
Take a step back and look at how patronizing your language is. Comparing people to children. Implying they're delusional. Insisting you've got it right and refusing to budge. Doesn't that sound like the way older people have always patronized younger people? Don't you remember being younger and people talking that way about your generation?
> You don't have to like people to respect them. You don't have to agree with them either.
This is where conversations about pronouns or gender always go off the tracks… If I don’t agree with someone’s concept of gender, you’re saying I don’t respect them. How do you respectfully disagree with and not use someone’s preferred pronouns? You can disagree, but not out loud?
I think you need to double check your assumptions. This isn’t a younger generation vs older generation issue. It’s mostly US (w/ Canada) and mostly a side note in politics.
"I call people mister or asshole" is absolutely about respect. "I'm not going to change my habits of 50 years" is absolutely a generational thing.
How do you respect someone you disagree with? You find a way to live and let live. I'm not going to be more specific, because thinking through how that would work and coming to a decision is part of the process.
And to be clear, it goes both ways. Eg, if you look at my comments in this thread, you'll find my language is respectful if firm and that I don't make insults. That's not because of a lack of frustration. It's because I refuse to respond if my response would be disrespectful.
And to be explicit: if someone wants to call you by a different name or pronoun, they're absolutely within their First Amendment rights to do so, ergo someone just listing their preferred pronouns doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights.
>they're absolutely within their First Amendment rights to do so,
Unless someone can rile up a mob into trying to embarass a large corporation or a small business into canceling you. You have a right to free speech, but you don't have a right to be sane when there's a low-intensity riot of unhinged individuals threatening you with destitution and terror.
It's not clear that this is a protected first amendment right. You're not allowed to commit fraud just because the mode of fraud is one of communication. The words you speak may be protected, but not the outcome (fraud). Why would harassing people and ruining their lives be any more protected?
>Sounds snowflakey
Sure, if that helps with your butthurt. Call me names. You think people haven't been doing that my whole life? It's been 30 or 40 years since that hurt my feelings.
> It's not clear that this is a protected first amendment right
Yes it is, actually
This is how the marketplace of ideas actually works. You have bad ideas and say stupid shit, people stop listening to you, associating with you, doing business with you, enjoying your company, inviting you over, and so on. They'll sometimes even call you mean names!
Feel free to provide evidence that harassment is occuring, it sounds like people are stating how they'd like to be treated (clearly free speech), other people are disregarding it (again, free speech), and they're being told that's rude (still free speech). None of that is harassment.
If someone sets expectations or boundaries at work, and you disregard them, sure, you could be fired. Working at a particular place is a privilege, not a right. Professionalism necessitates going along to get along with people who may be from different cultures or subcultures, who may have different expectations of how they should be treated, different political views or values, who you may find annoying or frustrating. That's life.
> Sure, if that helps with your butthurt.
I think you should take a step back and reflect on this remark. You are the one who came to this conversation with complaints.
Ask a homeless person how they're treated by police and whether they would call 911.