I am not sure why everyone should feel comfortable with everyone else's choices. Do people think everyone should like the movie that most people are going for ?
I am unable to understand what is misogynist about renting strippers. Strippers are professionals like many of us here and also get paid hourly like some of us for their skills.
Actually I see what might be the source of those allegations.
My office has a sleeping space and we have all sort of names for it including 'man cave', 'room where bad things happen' etc. etc. I can totally see how a disgruntled employee can convert it into "kink room" where people have sex.
On various office parties we had hired strippers and escorts and while none of them were prostitutes I can totally see how it can be reconstructed. We have gone to clubs to pick up women and discussed strategies.
All this in my opinion is perfectly normal and yet can be represented in a negative way.
EDIT: Strippers were not hired by employer but everyone contributed their own money for team event.
A kink room in office ? I will not be surprised this might actually be a positive for UploadVR.
Honestly I am not sure why SV tech companies don't hire lot of pretty girls for no good reason but to simply keep the male employees happy. Why can't office Friday parties be at local strip clubs ?
However there are some things that seem inappropriate such as
> Male employees, including Mason and Freeman, would even speak sexually about women that worked in the office, right in front of them. For example, male employees stated how they were sexually aroused by female employees and how it was hard to concentrate and be productive when all they could think about was having sex with them.
While it might sound bad to you for millions of Indians and Chinese it is totally worth a Kidney. As long as they are making that choice themselves I do not see the problem.
Thanks for that response, I think I will use "allegedly questionable data on planetary climate and surrounding public discourse by friends on the western side of the globe". That ought to be less "provocative" while meaning the same.
> Free speech? Free speech doesn't exist so that people can make ridiculous comments like 'taking comments from the public into account when making policy is mob rule'. Free speech exists so that people can make those comments on policy and have them heard.
You are flat out WRONG.
Free speech exists for all sort of speech including mocking, ridiculing and being outright stupid and retarded too.
> Free speech exists so that people can make those comments on policy and have them heard.
Free speech has nothing to do with policy, government, state or laws. It is an independent right that exists for no specific purpose other than itself.
And in this case it appears to be "free speech for you as long as you voice your support for me".
I am the OP. I don't even bother to look at downvotes and the fact that an opinion is unpopular does not really say anything about the merits of the argument.
I am pretty sure HN crowd will hound anyone who claims to agree with FCC on this point which I do.
Sorry. I do not think people commenting on some document has anything to do with democracy that might be mob or troll rule but it isn't democracy (not that I am a fan of democracy either).
Personally I agree with FCC's stand and keeping governments and elites who want everyone else to pay more for their "fair use" out of the equation looks like a good thing for me. I don't have time to comment on that document because I agree with administration.
> What's wrong is that life and health should be a right to everybody, not just to those who can buy it out.
I am unable to see how life and health can be right without justifying force and violence. If someone needs a Kidney and if it is a right then it must be forcibly taken from someone else without that you can not call it a right.