You don't solve the problem by "humbling the workers".
The solution is rewarding people when a company is successful and more importantly not punishing hard workers. Right now people are under the impression that slacking and working hard will be equally rewarded, because that is the truth. Hard workers also get laid off so that CEOs can make a few extra bucks.
A grocery store I worked at tracked finances and they were available to all employees. The grocery store made $270 per worker per hour. New hires were paid less than 1/10 of the value they provided.
I can only imagine how much more exploitative tech is
You implied that 1/3 of muslims would be willing to kill someone over a drawing of Muhammad.
The study doesn't say 1/3 of muslims say "it's ok to kill someone who draws images of Muhammad". It says "acts of violence". A vague and immeasurable term. Does that mean a punch? does it mean a stab? Jihad? The poll doesn't care.
> Any person who seizes or detains and threatens to kill, to injure or to continue to detain another person (hereinafter referred to as “hostage”) in order to compel a third party, namely, a State, an international intergovernmental organisation, a natural or juridical person, or a group of persons to do or to abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the hostage, commits the offence of taking of hostages
> Is violence an appropriate response to hate speech? The Cato 2017 Free Speech and Tolernace Survey finds most Americans say no. More than two-thirds (68%) of Americans say it is not morally acceptable to punch a Nazi in the face. About a third (32%), however, say it is morally acceptable.
Your implication that Muslims are more accepting of political violence doesn't seem to bear out in the facts.
> Maybe you’re right and it’s repeated publication of muhammad images that deserves violence.
Thats not what I said.
> Or maybe you meant that violence against anyone who does anything may be justified (?) because of some other thing that they may be doing.
This is clearly the least charitable take one could take in response to my comment. "It's ok to punch Nazis" is not a take that usually gets this much pushback.
Edit: Actually, technically, I guess it does usually get this much push back (68%) but still the slippery slope argument is trash
> only if you're straight. if you're gay, the Palestinians will throw you off a building.
This is such a gross statement.
First of all, Palestinians are not all religious fundamentalists. Hamas is not Daesh. There is no sharia law in Palestine. Your statement is textbook islamophobia.
Second, are you really invoking gay rights in the context of a genocide? I'm sorry can you please send me the news article you must have read stating Israel is using LGBTQ-avoiding bombs? Because to argue that the LGBT community would have it worse under Palestinian statehood than the current genocide is truely mind-boggling.
Would you make the same claim about gay Jews in Germany? In the concentration camps?
> Asked if acts of violence against those who publish images of the Prophet Muhammad can "never be justified", 68% agreed that such violence was never justifiable.
> But 24% disagreed with the statement, while the rest replied "don't know" or refused to answer.
> Of those polled, 95% felt a loyalty to Britain, while 93% believed that Muslims in Britain should always obey British laws.
24%. 24% = 1/3. You seem like the kind of person who caused the McDonalds 1/3 pounder flop.
> How is the right of return has anything to do with Arabs IN Israel? The right of return is only for immigration rights, which is relevant only for non citizens.
Lets break this down.
> How is the right of return has anything to do with Arabs IN Israel?
The original claim was that "arabs are more free under Israeli rule". Denying 750,000 people the right to return to the house they were forced out of under threat of death doesn't sound like "freedom" to me.
> The right of return is only for immigration rights, which is relevant only for non citizens.
Yeah the people kicked out in the Nakba are not citizens of Israel, so what is your point? I'm talking about the freedom of people terrorized out of their houses who are not recognized as citizens of the state of Israel. You nailed it bud. What are you misunderstanding?
The dynamics of how they unfold is that I am dropping links from well respected (and frequently Jewish Israeli) institutions and getting bombarded by whataboutisim, misinformation and semantic arguments that interest no one but the commenter.
The dynamics is that one side cares about history and the truth and the other side is a whitewashing campaign for genocide.
"Hamas surely deserves some credit for the deaths" This is literally equivalent to saying the Jews deserved [some credit for causing] the holocaust.
There are people in this thread breaking down the history from literally 139 BC to the current day (although hardly anything before 1920 is actually relevant to the current conflict).
To handwave all the complexity away when it's presented to you in a form that would take only a few hours to fully digest and say "both sides"... it's definitely a choice.
Is Hamas technically at fault for giving Israel an excuse for committing genocide?
I guess, if you think such a thing is even possible.
This isn't true. Where, for instance, is the Arab right of return?
It also heavily reeks of the insinuation that Hamas imposes sharia law which is not the case.
But really, how can you claim "arabs are more free" while Israeli settlers evict arabs from their homes at gunpoint with the aid of the IOF? While the IOF kidnaps and kills children indiscriminately?
It's not even true to say all Jews enjoy the same freedom under Israel. Ask the Beta Israelis.
> A hidden camera in a local health clinic recorded a Ethiopian woman being told by a nurse that this shot is given “primarily to Ethiopian women because they forget, they don’t understand, and it’s hard to explain to them, so it’s best that they receive a shot once every three months… basically they don’t understand anything.”
1) I gave you hard data, I don't count "You don't remember the holocaust" as hard data.
2) Prove it. Give me data not just your opinion.
3) Not really and I fail to see how this is even important. The US is not engaging in active colonization, it has fully colonized the US. You could even argue we've moved in the direction of decolonization by giving back some land to the indigenous population.
Can we agree an American-Israel dual citizen stealing the house someone is currently living in is different than someone fleeing ethnic cleansing?
Like if the US invades Greenland and that Palestinian fled to America and then participated in the colonization then yes they would be a colonizer.
The flip side of this double hypothetical is that Israel is actively building illegal settlements on Palestinian land so anyone who immigrates and isn't under legitimate duress to do so is a colonizer.
It's the pay.
> People get bored working on one domain, one product and one codebase.
Yeah bullshit. It's the pay.