Sure, and that's exactly the distinction I'm drawing. This person is presenting themselves as if they've conversed with that many people and there's just no way that's possible unless you use that term very loosely.
You nailed it. I really don't understand what is complicated about this either. I tend to believe a lot of older corporate Dems are intentionally keeping popular policies out of the mainstream but there appear to be quite a few well meaning Dems that can't seem to figure this out. It is baffling to me.
I'm my experience it's pretty uncommon for a CEO to struggle finding a new position no matter what transpired at their previous company. Golden parachutes and failing upwards are way more common
I definitely don't believe that they've personally spoken with tens of thousands of people about politics. Most politicians can't even say that unless they count giving a speech in front of hundreds of people as talking to each one individually.
If private companies are so efficient then why does the government exist?
Do you see why framing the question that way doesn't help you address the actual problem? I'm guessing you don't since you seem unwilling to consider the possibility that private ownership is not the ideal solution to every service problem. I don't think you need more than a cursory glance at the state of the US to throw that idea out the window but things must seem pretty good to you if you're still stuck in that mindset.
Stocks are not a necessary piece of compensation for anyone. Besides, if you can borrow money from a bank using stocks as collateral then it is effectively a liquid asset that you absolutely should pay tax on. The simplest solution to that problem is to disallow stocks from being used as collateral.
Every loophole can be closed if we decide we want to. The ones that are still open were intentionally left open to benefit the rich.
There's tons of examples if you actually care to look. Trash pickup is an easy example. I've lived in places where it was managed by the city and places where it was run by private companies. The city always showed up on time and never raised prices without justification.
Guess what the private companies did on a regular basis? And if you want to talk about efficiency let's consider whether or not it would be better to have four different companies running four sets of trucks on four overlapping routes through the city as opposed to one entity handling the whole thing. The only thing efficient about the private companies running things is the way the money is siphoned off to some rich asshole instead of being managed by accountable local officials.
Define pay such that it includes stocks, bonuses, rebates, real estate, food, clothing, transportation, or any other item that can be exchanged, borrowed against, or otherwise converted to cash money. When they find a loophole just close it.
The problem with this isn't the concept. It's getting politicians to implement it.
You gave an actual answer after you posted three comments either doing your best to avoid saying anything substantive or calling me obtuse for asking you to engage in a meaningful fashion. I responded to your one real comment and you down voted me and didn't respond again. If that's what conversation is to you then I have no interest in pursuing it further. Enjoy the one sentence surface level replies I guess
I've been trying to ask you questions about your opinion and all you're doing is avoiding the conversation. I even said explicitly right from the beginning that I'm not asking leading questions. It feels like I'm pulling teeth just to get you to engage beyond a gut reaction to the headline. If you don't want to talk about it why the hell did you post this?
I'm asking you to clarify your answer. People seem to be calling for specific actions. What you described was a passive response. Is that all you expect of a school in a situation like this?
Hey, something more specific and without the unnecessary judgement, I knew you could do it. Thank you.
When you say teaching them that there are consequences for sexualizing peers without consent are you referring to legal consequences or social consequences?
AI generated nudes are an interesting subject from a legal perspective. Afaik the law treats them the same as pictures taken with consent and then later distributed in an unwanted fashion. I could be wrong but I don't think that is actually illegal unless the person in the image is under 18. Do you think a change in law is necessary to make sexualized images distributed without consent illegal in all cases?
So you don't expect the school to take any action at all other than a passive one? That doesn't seem to jive with the rest of the comments in this thread that appear to be calling for active intervention. I don't think that's going to help much but you're right that it is better than what this particular school did.
Sure, I'm not disputing that. I'm asking how you solve the problem. I don't see a specific suggestion in your reply aside from "don't hinder investigations". That's a pretty low bar of effort don't you think? Would you be satisfied with your child's school's response to a similar situation if that's all they did? If not, then what exactly does facilitating a healthy learning environment require of a school in a situation like this?
I asked what their job is. I didn't defend anything they did. If they have a role to play then what is it?
You said educate people. OK, what the hell does that mean in this context? Imagine you're the principal of the next school this happens at. What exactly do you do when you find out there's AI generated images of students circulating around? It sounds like your plan is to ask them nicely to stop. Do you genuinely think that's going to fix the problem? If that's not your suggestion then what is?
It's incredibly easy to say "do better" without any conception of what that would actually entail. If you don't know then just say that like I did.
You're projecting your own bullshit on me. Nothing I said is a defense of anything that was done here. I asked how you propose to fix the problem. It's a simple question directly related to the discussion that you presumably hoped to start by posting this in the first place. Or did you simply wish to say "all men are evil" and leave it at that?
Sure, and that's exactly the distinction I'm drawing. This person is presenting themselves as if they've conversed with that many people and there's just no way that's possible unless you use that term very loosely.
You nailed it. I really don't understand what is complicated about this either. I tend to believe a lot of older corporate Dems are intentionally keeping popular policies out of the mainstream but there appear to be quite a few well meaning Dems that can't seem to figure this out. It is baffling to me.
I'm my experience it's pretty uncommon for a CEO to struggle finding a new position no matter what transpired at their previous company. Golden parachutes and failing upwards are way more common
I definitely don't believe that they've personally spoken with tens of thousands of people about politics. Most politicians can't even say that unless they count giving a speech in front of hundreds of people as talking to each one individually.
If private companies are so efficient then why does the government exist?
Do you see why framing the question that way doesn't help you address the actual problem? I'm guessing you don't since you seem unwilling to consider the possibility that private ownership is not the ideal solution to every service problem. I don't think you need more than a cursory glance at the state of the US to throw that idea out the window but things must seem pretty good to you if you're still stuck in that mindset.
Stocks are not a necessary piece of compensation for anyone. Besides, if you can borrow money from a bank using stocks as collateral then it is effectively a liquid asset that you absolutely should pay tax on. The simplest solution to that problem is to disallow stocks from being used as collateral.
Every loophole can be closed if we decide we want to. The ones that are still open were intentionally left open to benefit the rich.
There's tons of examples if you actually care to look. Trash pickup is an easy example. I've lived in places where it was managed by the city and places where it was run by private companies. The city always showed up on time and never raised prices without justification.
Guess what the private companies did on a regular basis? And if you want to talk about efficiency let's consider whether or not it would be better to have four different companies running four sets of trucks on four overlapping routes through the city as opposed to one entity handling the whole thing. The only thing efficient about the private companies running things is the way the money is siphoned off to some rich asshole instead of being managed by accountable local officials.
Define pay such that it includes stocks, bonuses, rebates, real estate, food, clothing, transportation, or any other item that can be exchanged, borrowed against, or otherwise converted to cash money. When they find a loophole just close it.
The problem with this isn't the concept. It's getting politicians to implement it.
Surely it's illegal to post profanity in a community with the word shit in the title?
You gave an actual answer after you posted three comments either doing your best to avoid saying anything substantive or calling me obtuse for asking you to engage in a meaningful fashion. I responded to your one real comment and you down voted me and didn't respond again. If that's what conversation is to you then I have no interest in pursuing it further. Enjoy the one sentence surface level replies I guess
Yeah, people who try to foster discussion are real pieces of shit
I've been trying to ask you questions about your opinion and all you're doing is avoiding the conversation. I even said explicitly right from the beginning that I'm not asking leading questions. It feels like I'm pulling teeth just to get you to engage beyond a gut reaction to the headline. If you don't want to talk about it why the hell did you post this?
If you don't have an answer then why are you responding to someone asking for one?
I'm asking you to clarify your answer. People seem to be calling for specific actions. What you described was a passive response. Is that all you expect of a school in a situation like this?
Hey, something more specific and without the unnecessary judgement, I knew you could do it. Thank you.
When you say teaching them that there are consequences for sexualizing peers without consent are you referring to legal consequences or social consequences?
AI generated nudes are an interesting subject from a legal perspective. Afaik the law treats them the same as pictures taken with consent and then later distributed in an unwanted fashion. I could be wrong but I don't think that is actually illegal unless the person in the image is under 18. Do you think a change in law is necessary to make sexualized images distributed without consent illegal in all cases?
So you don't expect the school to take any action at all other than a passive one? That doesn't seem to jive with the rest of the comments in this thread that appear to be calling for active intervention. I don't think that's going to help much but you're right that it is better than what this particular school did.
Name two then. You're calling me obtuse and yet you've only said things so vague as to be functionally meaningless.
Sure, I'm not disputing that. I'm asking how you solve the problem. I don't see a specific suggestion in your reply aside from "don't hinder investigations". That's a pretty low bar of effort don't you think? Would you be satisfied with your child's school's response to a similar situation if that's all they did? If not, then what exactly does facilitating a healthy learning environment require of a school in a situation like this?
I asked what their job is. I didn't defend anything they did. If they have a role to play then what is it?
You said educate people. OK, what the hell does that mean in this context? Imagine you're the principal of the next school this happens at. What exactly do you do when you find out there's AI generated images of students circulating around? It sounds like your plan is to ask them nicely to stop. Do you genuinely think that's going to fix the problem? If that's not your suggestion then what is?
It's incredibly easy to say "do better" without any conception of what that would actually entail. If you don't know then just say that like I did.
You're projecting your own bullshit on me. Nothing I said is a defense of anything that was done here. I asked how you propose to fix the problem. It's a simple question directly related to the discussion that you presumably hoped to start by posting this in the first place. Or did you simply wish to say "all men are evil" and leave it at that?