throwaway-hn123

What ad-hominem, boy?

I really hope you're not trying to suggest the use of the word 'boy' is some kind of ad-hom attack. The irony would be too strong.

>Are you sure that I'm a guy? Or even white?

Yes. Yes.

Next question, boy?

Boy, you're wrong.

> Many women think nothing of finding the most powerful man in the organization they can and using him as a "friend" to undermine their direct manager

I feel sorry for you.

I have a dedicated server and a VPS. Both renew automatically (at least here in the UK)

You can set up recurring billing - OVH calls it automatic renewal - I've got this set up, and they collect payment for my VPS and dedicated server with this method

Who is this "we" that you're referring to?

Hardhats may be 'cheap'. Go to most construction projects in India and see how many wear them.

Then control for costs of permits and bribes to arrive at an actual cost for the labour.

We can then discuss social technology some more.

I bring all this up as my family has handled many construction projects in India, and so I am pretty familiar with it.

> India has the ability to organize men and get the job done, the US does not.

Sure, by not giving much of a shit about the conditions that labourers have to endure. You can call it social technology if you want.

I bet you've spent a lot of time in some of the estates in Tottenham, Harlesden or Haringey.

You went on a tourists' visit of poverty. Try doing the same in London, and let's see how you do there, bruv.

How much does it cost to stop being an American citizen? How many poor American people can afford that cost?

> Brave decision indeed, at least form his side, hope he doesn't catch that horrible illness too.

Why is it a brave decision? Do you actually think anxiety disorder is an infectious disease?

No, you are using the pronouns correctly.

I guess you don't feel that strongly about the matter. Why bother posting then?

Hah,. that's brilliant. I always did like Servalan.

Tiny Hands, Huge Ego

The Culture books aren't strictly a series - they're all quite independent, and you can easily read them in any order you want IMO.

It's interesting how much of a safe space some people want work to be, isn't it?

> If they are pleasant at work

I don't think being pleasant has anything to do with this. Perhaps you meant professional?

Assuming that, what if someone is professional at work, but often says at work that they believe black people should be lynched and are subhuman. Is that ok? If it isn't acceptable, why isn't it?

You're welcome to assume anything you want about the account and its nature, I simply don't care.

If it's my personal belief that I am duty bound to try and get this person fired and find legal ways to ruin their life would you be supportive of that? None of this activity would be carried out at work.

Great, and as it's a free country, it's then perfectly ok to try to get this person fired for those views, right? Or is the freedom limited?

It's just a thought experiment - not sure why you need to be talking about trolling.

So, if this person is professional at work, then you come home, and watching the news, you see a report about a neo-nazi parade, and there this person is, literally on-screen, shouting "burn the niggers*. Is that also ok?

Of course, this is an extreme example, I'm just interested in understanding where the line is, or indeed if there is one, in the minds of people who think it's ok to express any opinion without there being any consequence.

I'll do what I want, thanks. I'll also bear the consequences and not whine like a baby.

So if your co-worker believes that, for example, black people and gays are subhuman and expresses that view you think that's ok and we should all just put up with it?

I guess Brietbart is conditioning us that to see that facts and correctness aren't very important.

All I'm doing is examining the inconsistencies in your position. You seem to think the ability to reproduce is important, except for heterosexual couples, where it doesn't matter.

Ok, so single out homosexual couples, because it's easy.

Why extend marriage rights to the class of people who are infertile? I don't get why you're giving that class of people special privileges.

So, you would deny marriage rights to a heterosexual couple who are infertile and unable to have children?

> I'm going to sell my Twitter stock

You've left that a bit late, haven't you?