|
On the one hand we have a law firm with a non-existent vacation policy which, in spite of being a law firm, didn't actually codify their no-vacations policy anywhere, they just implicitly expect you to always work. On the other hand we have an employee who would like to take a long weekend or a holiday every now and again. Which one was the sociopath again?
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 15:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 17:37 |
|
|
I think they're insisting that she was taking really, really long vacations whenever she freaking felt like it and was taking long weekends on most weekends. As in, "they didn't say that I was REQUIRED to work five days a week so I only worked 3. But they can't fire me for being a lazy sack of poo poo because nyah nyah nyah that isn't policy."
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 15:32
|
|
|
Phone posted:So The Economist is now doubling as How to be an Authoritarian? Lemme tell you about holding my hand 2" from my sister's face while chanting "I'm not touching you" is following the rules. A month or so ago they actually had an article on How to be an Authoritarian. Or at least how to get away with stripping your country bare and getting out before you end up like Qaddaffi. E: here it is. A memo to the world’s dictators Subject: Asset protection and regime change quote:IT IS bad enough to be kicked out of power by an ungrateful mob or a jumped-up colonel. Imagine, though, that after years of public service you and the presidential family are condemned not just to exile in fun-loving Saudi Arabia but also to penury. Unfortunately, the latest reports (see article) are all too true: do-gooding lawyers, interfering officials and vengeful successors pose a growing threat to your savings. XyloJW fucked around with this message at 15:36 on Aug 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 15:33
|
|
|
The way I read that was that the law firm (like most biglaw firms) had a generous written vacation policy but in practice expected most young attorneys to never take vacations and chase billable hours. She ignored that and apparently doesn't work there any more. Big surprise. I'd also like to point out that being represented by a sociopath would be a terrifying prospect because you couldn't rely on your attorney to take any of their duties to you seriously. Imagine a negotiation where the other side offered to pay ten grand more in attorney's fees if your attorney could get you to withdraw your damages claim.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 15:35
|
|
|
That's quite impressive, attempting to make a connection between asserting your rights at work and sociopathy. As if your law firm was a baby and the hours you put in were food. How dare you not quail before its unspoken pleas! Good job Economist!
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 15:38
|
|
|
Reminder: the US doesn't have mandatory vacation time. (whatever the emote is for Let's Run This poo poo Into The Ground, where poo poo=People)
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 15:41
|
|
|
The only way that article KIND OF makes sense is if it were only for the hunch-shouldered people who go through life kind of apologizing for existing (and even then, ignoring suggested donations? putting your seat back? how much do these things buy you?). And I agree that a totally amoral lawyer only seems good on paper for most applications.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 15:46
|
|
|
Modern Day Hercules posted:There's like literally no reason to visit any city in the Midwest unless you happen to live near it. I say this as a resident of the Midwest who has also lived on the East coast. There is nothing in Midwestern cities that you can't find elsewhere. That's what flyover country means. It's not that you fly over because it sucks, it's that you fly over because there's no compelling reason to stop. Chicago is a great place and has everything any coastal city does. Plus the world's best pizza period. And they'll deliver anywhere in the nation! When I was living outside of the midwest, pizza from home was the best gift ever of all time. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 15:55
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:On the one hand we have a law firm with a non-existent vacation policy which, in spite of being a law firm, didn't actually codify their no-vacations policy anywhere, they just implicitly expect you to always work. My friend who is a lawyer apparently used to have a vacation policy at a firm which was unlimited vacation days but you had to get your work done. It sounds great in theory but with the work load it apparently didn't result in a huge amount and also had the hidden benefit in the firm not having to pay employees for days they didn't use when they left or retired since they didn't actually accrue vacation time (or something along those lines). It's still better than what most people get and I could see how such a policy could be abused by someone that didn't care about their job performance. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 16:05 on Aug 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 16:02
|
|
|
Warchicken posted:But you see, this gigantic group of people can be marginalized and ignored because The flyover states are by definition not a gigantic group of people. While obviously some people say anything east of the Cascades-Sierra Nevadas and west of the Appalachians is the flyover territory; the core areas everyone would agree on tends to be like the stack of states from North Dakota down to Oklahoma, with most of the western, underpopulated parts of Minnesota, Iowa and Missouri as well. When it's full states, they tend to be ones that are rather disproportionate in the Senate compared to the national population. Stuff like the rest of Missouri and so on tend to get derided primarily for being in the South. Ohio/Indiana/Michigan tend to get mocked for being a rust belt. And so it goes. Interesting electoral thing: if you were to make an electoral college map and give one candidate only the states that are "not flyover" by the maximal definition of flyover (in other words, only states containing lands in or east of the Appalachians or in or west of the Cascades/Sierra Nevadas)  And with giving one candidate all states touching a sea coast:  Obviously you can reverse the parties if you want. As anyone can see from them though, it becomes apparent that linking together the "same" regions doesn't match how actual elections happen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 17:42
|
|
|
The electoral college is indeed a cool way to marginalize votes, the system is pretty broken and was created entirely because our founders thought the average people too stupid to be trusted to vote right.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 17:59
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:The electoral college is indeed a cool way to marginalize votes, the system is pretty broken and was created entirely because our founders thought the average people too stupid to be trusted to vote right. Well yeah, it is under-representing the full population balance between them, somewhat undervaluing the "definitely not flyover" and the "definitely sea coasts".
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 18:05
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:The electoral college is indeed a cool way to marginalize votes, the system is pretty broken and was created entirely because our founders thought the average people too stupid to be trusted to vote right. The electoral college system is about as close to not-broken as you can get aside from just counting up the popular vote (which is obviously the better thing to do but basically impossible to implement with our constitution). In more than 40 elections it's been wrong 2 times and they were both in the 1800's. 2000 doesn't really count because it was the Supreme Court who hosed that poo poo. Gore almost definitely won the electoral vote as well as the popular.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 18:22
|
|
|
Was this the thread with all the Jennifer Rubin links? The WaPo's former ombubsman doesn't seem to think she should stick around. http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/former-wapo-ombudsman-to-bezos-fire-jennifer-rubin?ref=fpa quote:Rubin was the No. 1 source of complaint mail about any single Post staffer while I was ombudsman...Dump her like a dull tome on the Amazon Bargain Books page. edit Modern Day Hercules posted:The electoral college system is about as close to not-broken as you can get aside from just counting up the popular vote (which is obviously the better thing to do but basically impossible to implement with our constitution). In more than 40 elections it's been wrong 2 times and they were both in the 1800's. 2000 doesn't really count because it was the Supreme Court who hosed that poo poo. Gore almost definitely won the electoral vote as well as the popular. I think the argument is that since the states are winner-take-all with electoral votes, candidates focus on the swing states and ignore the rest of the country. Kind of like how a handful of states pick the candidate for each party, given the primary system and how the media treats frontrunners. Sir Tonk fucked around with this message at 19:50 on Aug 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 19:45
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:The electoral college is indeed a cool way to marginalize votes, the system is pretty broken and was created entirely because our founders thought the average people too stupid to be trusted to vote right. If we switched to pure popular vote, wouldn't campaigns focus purely on population-dense urban centers and marginalize rural votes even more?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 19:55
|
|
|
Emron posted:If we switched to pure popular vote, wouldn't campaigns focus purely on population-dense urban centers and marginalize rural votes even more? Nope https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k&t=197s
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 20:01
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:I think the argument is that since the states are winner-take-all with electoral votes, candidates focus on the swing states and ignore the rest of the country. Kind of like how a handful of states pick the candidate for each party, given the primary system and how the media treats frontrunners. That wouldn't change if we went to popular vote. Well, it would change but only slightly. Candidates would basically stick to the few high population areas that don't solidly vote one way or another, which happen to mostly be in swing states anyway. They'd also hit key areas like NYC or where ever the gently caress has an appreciable amount of Republican voters in one place to run up the total as much as possible. They would still ignore a vast majority of the country, it would just be a slightly different makeup of people. EDIT: It's a relatively modern thing for candidates to even tour the country on campaign. Used to be physically impossible, nowadays I think it's technologically unnecessary. Candidates are going to end up ignoring most people anyway because most people don't vote and half the ones that do will be voting for the other guy. Modern Day Hercules fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Aug 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 20:19
|
|
|
Emron posted:If we switched to pure popular vote, wouldn't campaigns focus purely on population-dense urban centers and marginalize rural votes even more? Seeing as how rural areas are 20% f the population and shrinking, a fair system would indeed "marginalize" them in comparison to the current system, due to the fact that there's a lot less of them and in order to get in touch with them you have to get around a good 96% of the area of the country versus the 4% where the other 80% live. But that's only marginalization that would exist due to ending the marginalization of the rest of the country's interests in their favor! They don't deserve to have more attention paid for them because they're rural. There's also the fact that in the current system, the most rural states tend to be utterly solid one way or the other. Barring an act of god, Maine and Vermont are probably gonna keep sending in Democrat electors to the Electoral College, while North and South Dakota are gonna be sending in Republican electors. Again - what's wrong with listening more to the population centers? Especially considering that minorities of all kinds (except Native Americans) are more likely to reside in them then in the outlying rural areas. For example: rural areas are 78% non-Hispanic white, but the country as a whole is only 63.7% non-Hispanic white and the urban areas are just 60% non-Hispanic white. Rural areas are 8.2% black, country is 12.2%, urban areas are 13%. Biggest disparity is Asians, where it's only 1% in rural areas, 4.7% nation, and 5.6% in urban. Native Americans represent 1.9% of rural areas, 0.7% of total population, and 0.4% of urban areas; however; most of them are in situations where they don't have a voice in the local community let alone the state, so increased focus on rural demands doesn't help them any.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 21:12
|
|
|
When the electoral system of the U.S. was put in place I don't think they envisioned what would happen when it got this far along. How could they? Even so, the world, and the States, is dramatically different now. Ignoring "only landowning white people get to vote" for a moment, the thing is, in those times, the majority of the population WAS rural given that most people were farmers. Which is also why the right-wing salt of the earth farmer image is kind of dumb. As iconic an image as that is very few people are farmers these days. It's mostly agribusiness, factory farms, and machines at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 21:26
|
|
|
I need a bunch of rowdy media boys to get to the bottom of which dumb rear end PACs are starting these hashtags that trend every day, like today's is "#WhySomePeopleAreDemocrats" and it's been others like "#MockObamaDay" and "#ThingsThatUpsetLiberals." They reek of astroturf and we need to see their creators named and shamed
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 21:37
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Seeing as how rural areas are 20% f the population and shrinking, a fair system would indeed "marginalize" them in comparison to the current system, due to the fact that there's a lot less of them and in order to get in touch with them you have to get around a good 96% of the area of the country versus the 4% where the other 80% live. But that's only marginalization that would exist due to ending the marginalization of the rest of the country's interests in their favor! I largely agree with you, I was just poorly attempting to be snarky toward TG.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 21:41
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:It's just small minded and ignorant, people like to talk about how North Carolina is awful and gently caress everyone in it for it's new policies but our Republican Congress/Senate did not get a majority of the votes in the the state so a majority of the state does not support what they are doing and should not be rolled into some huge insult it doesn't help anyone and diminishes the real problems. Sorry, if we started treating people as people instead of intangible things that support leaders we might actually have to rethink most opinions and issues.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 22:00
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:When the electoral system of the U.S. was put in place I don't think they envisioned what would happen when it got this far along. How could they? Even so, the world, and the States, is dramatically different now. Ignoring "only landowning white people get to vote" for a moment, the thing is, in those times, the majority of the population WAS rural given that most people were farmers. When the electoral system and specifically the Senate were envisioned the exact intent was to not have fully proportional representation compared to population. The Senate was explicitly designed to put the smallest state and the largest state on the same footing, the Electoral College was designed to include that imbalance, partially checked by also awarding elector seats on basis of the proportional House. It is working as intended, and while that happens to mean an unfair extra representation for rural states now, that's just kind of coincidental. It was always intended to give unfair extra representation to someone. Emron posted:I largely agree with you, I was just poorly attempting to be snarky toward TG. I just wanted an opening to reinforce again just how much the "but the rural areas wouldn't get as much attention" translates to "but white people won't get as much attention".  Not that people don't already understand that when conservative media plays up the virtues of rural areas versus the rest of the country, they're blowing a big ol' dogwhistle about non-whites. But it's important to see the degree.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 22:16
|
|
|
XyloJW posted:A month or so ago they actually had an article on How to be an Authoritarian. Or at least how to get away with stripping your country bare and getting out before you end up like Qaddaffi. This is satire right? No one could honestly write that sentence and mean it
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 10:02
|
|
|
Modern Day Hercules posted:2000 doesn't really count because it was the Supreme Court who hosed that poo poo. Gore almost definitely won the electoral vote as well as the popular. No it still counts because without the electoral college there would be no doubt that Al Gore won. There is no doubt period that Al Gore won the popular vote by over half a million, it's whether or not he won one particular state.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 15:25
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:This is satire right? No one could honestly write that sentence and mean it Yeah, mirkwood capital doesn't exist and is possibly named after an evil forest in lord of the rings.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 15:48
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:This is satire right? No one could honestly write that sentence and mean it It's tongue in cheek.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 15:49
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:This is satire right? No one could honestly write that sentence and mean it It's just a joke, like on Larry Summers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 15:50
|
|
|
Trevor Weedheart posted:I need a bunch of rowdy media boys to get to the bottom of which dumb rear end PACs are starting these hashtags that trend every day, like today's is "#WhySomePeopleAreDemocrats" and it's been others like "#MockObamaDay" and "#ThingsThatUpsetLiberals." They reek of astroturf and we need to see their creators named and shamed If you follow any of the ~*weird twitter*~ folks you will regularly see these things utterly derailed and mocked ruthlessly to the point at which the top results when you click the tag or search for it are a bunch of FYADs and the like ripping into the Republican shills who start them up or filling the results with pigpoopballs.jpg. It's amazing when it happens and I can imagine it infuriates the poor conservative saps who thought they were going to make some stupid twitter trend into a movement.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 21:59
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:I just wanted an opening to reinforce again just how much the "but the rural areas wouldn't get as much attention" translates to "but white people won't get as much attention". I still remember my high school history teacher, who was the biggest shill. He would show us maps like this:  And loudly explain how the current system is so unfair. Look at all of that red! Yet democrats still win! How can democrats win when almost the whole country is red? This was not some attempt to get us to think about this issue, no, he really did not understand it. A student pointed out that maybe only letting landowners vote would fix the problem, and he had the self awareness to realize he should probably stop.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 23:58
|
|
|
ohgodwhat posted:I still remember my high school history teacher, who was the biggest shill. He would show us maps like this: I see this sort of map also trotted out a lot as an argument in favor of letting the EC be counted on a county level instead of a state one. Though I'm pretty sure that would still play out pretty close to the same way overall.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 00:11
|
|
|
Kalos posted:I see this sort of map also trotted out a lot as an argument in favor of letting the EC be counted on a county level instead of a state one. It's tough, when the majority of the people don't want to vote for the same candidates and policies that you do. This forces you to create an elaborate web of vote suppression and gerrymandering to obtain the results that you know to be best for everyone.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 00:32
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:It's tongue in cheek. Not that far though. Remember that The Economist was in full support of letting the Irish suffer the effects of the Great Famine, and lambasted policies of public aid or land reform on the idea that 1 million dead Irish was better than the greater number that would surly die if the rule of law was changed. quote:… the people, rapidly increasing, have been reduced, by acts for which they are chiefly to blame, to a sole reliance on the precarious crop of potatoes. It would be unjust to Ireland – it would be a neglect of a great duty which is imposed on us at this time – if we did not point to this calamity, assuming as it does this aggravated form, as in a great measure the natural result of that crime which has precluded the people from other available resources. That the innocent suffer with the guilty, is a melancholy truth, but it is one of the great conditions on which all society exists. Every breach of the laws of morality and social order brings its own punishment and inconvenience. Where there is not perfect security, there cannot be prosperity. This is the first law of civilization. The "crime" here is public aid, the "security" being "laws don't change"
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 00:39
|
|
|
Cenk goes all broheim on the dumbest guy I know, Orson Scott Card. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZcpJXVBftE
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 00:42
|
|
|
I legit can't listen to Cenk's smug poo poo anymore, what's he say?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 00:45
|
|
|
This was actually one of the few times when Cenk didn't get on my nerves. Orson Scott Card said that Michelle Obama will be the next president, and will equip "urban gangs" with military weapons to create a national police force to exterminate anyone who tries to escape from The People's Republic of Ameristania (slight embellishment on my part, but only slight). Who's up for watching Ender's Game?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 00:48
|
|
|
Kalos posted:I see this sort of map also trotted out a lot as an argument in favor of letting the EC be counted on a county level instead of a state one. Though I'm pretty sure that would still play out pretty close to the same way overall. Illinois already has more units of local government than any other state. Ain't no thing to draw up a few more county lines. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 00:58
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Not that far though. Remember that The Economist was in full support of letting the Irish suffer the effects of the Great Famine, and lambasted policies of public aid or land reform on the idea that 1 million dead Irish was better than the greater number that would surly die if the rule of law was changed. Are you actually saying with a straight face that the Economist of 2013 is equivalent to the Economist of 1847? I mean, c'mon, the Economist's neo-liberalism bugs me sometimes too but that reference is about as useful as when right-wingers point out that John C. Calhoun was a Democrat who supported slavery to try to prove that the Democrats of 2013 are the party that opposes civil rights.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 01:06
|
|
|
The Economist was started to support the repeal of the Corn Laws, and the organization takes still great pride in this defense of the ~*free market*~
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 01:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 17:37 |
|
|
ohgodwhat posted:I still remember my high school history teacher, who was the biggest shill. He would show us maps like this: Did he coach basketball or football?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 01:19
|
|