|
Trabisnikof posted:Would this share be transferrable? Okay, if it were you, would you sell it, and what would you be expecting to get for it? A mess of pottage? Democrazy posted:Shareholder democracy hasn't really had enough success to make this a good pitch. Does it sound better to you if it's described as a workers' coop instead of a corporation?
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 05:24 |
|
|
Yall we're doing Manning chat over in The Thunderdome come on down! If you're not yeller that is.Rockopolis posted:Good question that I didn't really think of. Hmm. I kind assumed you get stock when you're born and return it when you check out. Should it be more explicit? I feel like if it is transferable at all then it will some how end up with some fucker owning a million of them. On the other hand, if this is just some token that I never really interact with, its effectively just the same as a birth certificate now without the nationalized economy of course. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 19:45 on Oct 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
botany posted:oh look it's dead reckoning defending soldiers mowing down people driving a van to get wounded people out of a war zone! who would have seen this coming! A lovely Reporter posted:They have the same rights to those weapons that you have. So either accept that they were murdered, or shut the hell up about your precious guns. twodot posted:I don't know why you're quibbling over the definition of murder. Like obviously no one's going to trial for murder 2 in Ohio courts or whatever, everyone realizes that. Moving from "Those people were murdered" to "Those people were killed as part of an unjust war of aggression with unconscionable ROEs" doesn't shift the argument anywhere. Because there is actually a very big difference between "THIS IS A WAR CRIME THAT HAS UNJUSTLY GONE UNPUNISHED!!" and "Well OK its wasn't actually a war crime according to any formal meaning of the word but its terrible and ugly and I think the war it occurred during was wrong, and isn't all war a crime maaan?" Having a serious discussion about national security and military force and the moral obligations of combatants requires examining questions other than, "but how does this make us feel?" Also, I think the reflexive tendency of people to apply the term "war crime" to any military action that they dislike cheapens the term, and normalizes and gives cover to actual war criminals. twodot posted:Who cares?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Chelsea Manning is cool and good and if you think otherwise you are wrong and bad. Pretty much, except she should have been more careful about what she leaked. I'm glad Obama pardoned her, but she earned her criminal conviction and I'm glad she was punished (albeit her treatment in prison was unconscionable).
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:I legitimately don't know how they're expected to get staffing costs under 27%. I would assume a majority of their costs are paying their staff; there's no way overhead or ingredient sourcing can cost that much. It's because you can always squeeze more blood out of the labor stone if you're an investor or asocial business type.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Pretty much, except she should have been more careful about what she leaked. I'm glad Obama pardoned her, but she earned her criminal conviction and I'm glad she was punished (albeit her treatment in prison was unconscionable). Yeah she's basically a classic example of the sort of person the pardon power exists for.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Pretty much, except she should have been more careful about what she leaked. I'm glad Obama pardoned her, but she earned her criminal conviction and I'm glad she was punished (albeit her treatment in prison was unconscionable). I think that Obama should've pardoned her as soon as he came into office and spun it as righting a Bush wrong to give himself cover, but otherwise ok I guess. I think it would've been better if she hadn't been punished (or alternatively if we didn't commit war crimes but you know).
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 19:56
|
|
Grapplejack posted:I legitimately don't know how they're expected to get staffing costs under 27%. I would assume a majority of their costs are paying their staff; there's no way overhead or ingredient sourcing can cost that much. Ingredient sourcing for chipotle is actually kinda complicated, mainly because they go out and find local farmers to supply their stores for most stuff. It was really heartening at the store I worked at how many people came out and specifically got cheese and sour cream for their burritos because that stuff came directly from the dairy farm just outside the city and they wanted to support the local farmer. Generally, though, one farm for an ingredient can cover a really wide area, so they go back to those farms or farming communities when they open a new store to make a new contract, but it will always be a good bit more expensive to do it with only local farmers than going to the giant factory farms. IANAL and I only know the broad strokes, but organizing suppliers from all across the country vs just a few agribusinesses has to be more complicated and expensive. There is a chipotle corporate, obviously, but everything I saw from them told me they were pretty efficient and knew what they were doing, relatively. A lot of them were recruited from the stores anyway, so it wasn't rare for someone to start working at chipotle rolling burritos and end up an assistant district manager or something. It's still a loving banker's pipe dream to get under 27%, though. It's just not how restaurants work.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Because there is actually a very big difference between "THIS IS A WAR CRIME THAT HAS UNJUSTLY GONE UNPUNISHED!!" and "Well OK its wasn't actually a war crime according to any formal meaning of the word but its terrible and ugly and I think the war it occurred during was wrong, and isn't all war a crime maaan?" quote:Also, I think the reflexive tendency of people to apply the term "war crime" to any military action that they dislike cheapens the term, and normalizes and gives cover to actual war criminals. quote:People need to understand that they are defending a childish tantrum because of tribal loyalty, not some great act of conscience. edit2: If you actually cared about this, which you don't, you wouldn't be talking about Manning's motivations, you'd be talking about the failures of posters to perform any research into it. twodot fucked around with this message at 20:07 on Oct 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:I legitimately don't know how they're expected to get staffing costs under 27%. I would assume a majority of their costs are paying their staff; there's no way overhead or ingredient sourcing can cost that much. In 2015 staffing was 22.4% of sales. In 2016 it was 30.9%.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I think that Obama should've pardoned her as soon as he came into office and spun it as righting a Bush wrong to give himself cover, but otherwise ok I guess.  and this is the only defensible position to hold
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I think that Obama should've pardoned her as soon as he came into office and spun it as righting a Bush wrong to give himself cover, but otherwise ok I guess. I too wish Obama could bend spacetime and time travel
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
exploded mummy posted:I too wish Obama could bend spacetime and time travel 
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 20:01
|
|
karthun posted:In 2015 staffing was 22.4% of sales. In 2016 it was 30.9%. Couldn't possibly be because of the string of outbreaks they had to deal with hitting their sales numbers hard at all. No siree. There are no other factors to consider here. And they were already understaffed, that's how they got to 22.4%. The churn in a chipotle is loving incredible, average employee lasts 6 months at best. I've seen people walk out during their first shift and never come back multiple times.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
Condiv posted:
Only f you have no understanding of the sequence of events
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
DR are you saying Iraqis should have the rights to carry guns for self defense? that standard will not be racist the moment open carry assholes in the (much safer) streets of the US are treated the same way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Pretty much, except she should have been more careful about what she leaked. I'm glad Obama pardoned her, but she earned her criminal conviction and I'm glad she was punished (albeit her treatment in prison was unconscionable).
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Uh no the rape charges were absolutely not trumped up. Sorry you apparently love a rapist because he happens to hate the same politicians as you. I was talking about Manning, dummy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
exploded mummy posted:Only f you have no understanding of the sequence of events presidents have the power to pardon pre-emptively. yeah i know obama's admin was the one who caught her, and that's what makes it worse, but he should've immediately pardoned her
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
Condiv posted:presidents have the power to pardon pre-emptively. yeah i know obama's admin was the one who caught her, and that's what makes it worse, but he should've immediately pardoned her i too wish obama had been able to predict the future
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Her legal defense team did make that argument, although it's one she rejects now. Mental illness isn't some binary state of crazy/sane, and it's pretty plausible that all or nothing thinking associated with major depression led her to leak everything she could get her hands on--with negative results for her legal defense--rather than just the stuff she could plausibly defend as whistleblowing. The fact that it's plausible doesn't mean it isn't also malicious and hosed up to speculate about it in this way. Like, I specifically said that it's entirely possible mental illness played a role, but it isn't my place (or yours or Joy Reid's) to speculate about that, especially in a context where doing so carries with it an implicit discrediting of her actions/views. Also, it makes sense for her legal defense team to use that as a defense, since what she did was technically a crime and using her mental illness to try and lessen the consequences is a reasonable strategic decision. And, ultimately, her own views about this take precedence. You should err on the side of believing the person in question in a situation like this, because the consequences of not doing so are pretty dire (if you assume it's reasonable to doubt the actions and motivations of anyone with mental illness, you're opening the doors to a lot of really hosed up things).
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
People who leak information on governments don't have the luxury of passing their information through editorial control, especially not when the reactionary - nationalist public will find ways to annihilate them because of some pretend transgression anyway. The idea that individual whistleblowers should be held to the same level of scrutiny and conduct as organizations is just a rhetorical attempt to make whistleblowing less viable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
Condiv posted:presidents have the power to pardon pre-emptively. yeah i know obama's admin was the one who caught her, and that's what makes it worse, but he should've immediately pardoned her You are defending someone saying Obama should have pardoned someone in 2009 for actions that took place in 2010.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
I unironically thought she was caught in 2006-07. My bad then. edit: yeah I still stand by the sentiment even if my timeline is hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
exploded mummy posted:You are defending someone saying Obama should have pardoned someone in 2009 for actions that took place in 2010. This is such a stupid thing to focus on - the wording instead of the idea clearly expressed by the post.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:People who leak information on governments don't have the luxury of passing their information through editorial control, especially not when the reactionary - nationalist public will find ways to annihilate them because of some pretend transgression anyway. I mean except Manning and Snowden both passed their information through editorial control. So did Mark Felt and Daniel Ellsberg. The issue is wikileaks turned out to be lovely at editorial control.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 20:13
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:People who leak information on governments don't have the luxury of passing their information through editorial control *Takes time to stop trolling D&D long enough to make effort-post* *has never heard of the Pentagon papers*
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
exploded mummy posted:You are defending someone saying Obama should have pardoned someone in 2009 for actions that took place in 2010. because it's dumb pedantry. obama should've pardoned manning as soon as she was caught. period
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:People who leak information on governments don't have the luxury of passing their information through editorial control, especially not when the reactionary - nationalist public will find ways to annihilate them because of some pretend transgression anyway. Leakers do have the ability to pass their information to a news outlet, so they do have the ability to hand it over to people with editorial control.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure the Obama administration set the record for charges against the whistleblowers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
Haha, the last presentation at this conference I'm at is talking about how New York State is experimenting with using Amazon Alexa for first level helpdesk. First step in the path to managing New York with Cybersyn II. Of course, the next presentations is talking about major cyberattacks, so... Trabisnikof posted:I feel like if it is transferable at all then it will some how end up with some fucker owning a million of them. Keep citizens from selling their birthright for a mess of pottage. Calling it a token is fine, I was mostly going for stock to use the idea of dividends and voting in terms if the more familiar corporate concept in my elevator pitch.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
Rockopolis posted:Would this be more like shareholder democracy or regular democracy? If it's shareholder democracy, it's diluted among the population. I think it's a lot more like shareholder democracy because the overall incentive for shareholders is to maximize their profit, and making our society into something with a dividend sounds like it has some strange implications.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:*Takes time to stop trolling D&D long enough to make effort-post* And what good did his high etics do to Ellsberg, he still got dragged into trials. Manning chose the most expedient path, and good for her, because no matter which one she picked, there would have been ghouls out for her blood. Democrazy posted:Leakers do have the ability to pass their information to a news outlet, so they do have the ability to hand it over to people with editorial control. Not if they are worried about their freedom or life, because lol, eventually their collaboration with a "legitimate source" will lead to them getting locked up or at least dragged through mud. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 20:36 on Oct 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:And what good did his high etics do to Ellsberg, he still got dragged into trials. Manning chose the most expedient path, and good for her, because no matter which one she picked, there would be ghouls out for her blood. "Hmm yes that thing I posted was factually wrong but you see nothing matters"
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:"Hmm yes that thing I posted was factually wrong but you see nothing matters" What was factually wrong? Manning was by all accounts terrified of the power of government, and you are asking her to go through a path you know would have put her in direct confrontation with the same people she was concerned would eliminate her.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
twodot posted:I get that, but JeffersonClay is insisting both that 1) They can trace Manning's motivations in a way that removes the need to acknowledge her agency and 2) That's it really important users on this forum acknowledge that ability. Motivations are complex and it's entirely possible to acknowledge Manning's motivation to expose war crimes while also understanding those were not the only motivations at play. I'm also interested in the choices Manning made in response to those motivations, for instance leaking a bunch of non-war-crime documents and trusting Julian Assange to sort it out, which had the effect of undercutting Manning's defense of her actions as whistleblowing. Manning suffered from mental illness, likely brought on by the toxic culture of the US military. Manning was motivated to expose evidence of a war crime. Manning took an action that exposed a war crime, and exposed a bunch of non-war-crimes, which hurt her ability to portray herself as a whistleblower. Mental illness often makes it difficult for people to actualize their motivations and often causes self-destructive decision making. It doesn't require much speculation to think there's a causal relationship here, and one can think that relationship exists without denying Manning agency.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
Rockopolis posted:Haha, the last presentation at this conference I'm at is talking about how New York State is experimenting with using Amazon Alexa for first level helpdesk. First step in the path to managing New York with Cybersyn II. I do agree that framing things like UBI/et al as the benefit we get because our society is so awesome ala dividends is a better way to do it than to focus the discussion on how it helps others. It is an interesting premise if we say, nationalized stock but kept market and corporate structures the same initially. Obviously the people as shareholders would take the board of directors and corporate policies in quickly shifting areas, but if we left the CEOs and advertising executives in place and just bought out the stock shares.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Not if they are worried about their freedom or life, because lol, eventually their collaboration with a "legitimate source" will lead to them getting locked up or at least dragged through mud. Journalists can't be compelled to testify their sources, so Manning would have faced no more danger than doing what she did, and would have had the benefit of someone helping her make sure that information was released in the safest means possible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:And what good did his high etics do to Ellsberg, he still got dragged into trials. Manning chose the most expedient path, and good for her, because no matter which one she picked, there would have been ghouls out for her blood. Manning released the documents through an editorial control, wikileaks. Your entire premise is counterfactual. The issue is wikileaks turned out to not be so good at it. Which leaks haven't been through an editorial source? I can think of The Shadow Brokers as the only one off the top of my head.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 05:24 |
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Manning suffered from mental illness, likely brought on by the toxic culture of the US military. Manning was motivated to expose evidence of a war crime. Manning took an action that exposed a war crime, and exposed a bunch of non-war-crimes, which hurt her ability to portray herself as a whistleblower. Mental illness often makes it difficult for people to actualize their motivations and often causes self-destructive decision making. It doesn't require much speculation to think there's a causal relationship here, and one can think that relationship exists without denying Manning agency. This is a very harmful sort of logic to use, though, because you can use the same logic to basically deny agency to literally anyone with mental illness. You can always plausibly say "maybe their mental illness caused them to act in a way they otherwise wouldn't." It isn't your place as a random outsider to make this claim, especially if the person herself, many years after the fact, still stands by their stated reason for their actions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 21:21
|
|