Shame on Google

[James Clark]

 

[Rob C]

http://blog.parrikar.com/2017/08/12/google-bent-out-of-shape/

Really like your second picture of the bike - the one with the pylons in the background.

Rob C

[Rand47]

I'm surprised at the naïveté of the fellow who thought his memo would provide impetus for rational discussion of his comments and suggestions.  I feel sorry for him.

When the king rides through town with no clothes, the safe bet is to comment on his resplendence and good taste in apparel.  To be the only one who makes note of his privates hanging out, and in this PC world using that as an indicator of gender, is a guarantee of "the sack" (or worse).

What a hoot.  Google (in this case) illustrates brilliantly that the left is every bit as good at the implementation of right-handed power as is the right.  Both sides are ugly and their "differences" are trivial compared to the totalitarian outcomes of either when "they reign."

The west, is toast.

Rand

[Rob C]

I'm surprised at the naïveté of the fellow who thought his memo would provide impetus for rational discussion of his comments and suggestions.  I feel sorry for him.

When the king rides through town with no clothes, the safe bet is to comment on his resplendence and good taste in apparel.  To be the only one who makes note of his privates hanging out, and in this PC world using that as an indicator of gender, is a guarantee of "the sack" (or worse).

What a hoot.  Google (in this case) illustrates brilliantly that the left is every bit as good at the implementation of right-handed power as is the right.  Both sides are ugly and their "differences" are trivial compared to the totalitarian outcomes of either when "they reign."

The west, is toast.

Rand

But hey, that means it's catching up with the rest of the world!

Rob

P.S. I've always believed that any professional politician has an absolute mastery of being able to espouse any party or policy that will further their career; it can be left, central or right - matters not a jot: it's the ticket to ride the gravy train.

Why would any big business be different? All money feels as nice.

[Rand47]

. . . any professional politician has an absolute mastery of being able to espouse any party or policy that will further their carreer; it can be left, central or right   . . . 

Too often, for certain.  And, in my experience, it is more about power, than gravy!   

Rand

[SrMi]

From The Economist:
The e-mail Larry Page should have written to James Damore
https://www.economist.com/news/21726276-last-week-paper-said-alphabets-boss-should-write-detailed-ringing-rebuttal?fsrc=gnews

[Rand47]

From The Economist:
The e-mail Larry Page should have written to James Damore
https://www.economist.com/news/21726276-last-week-paper-said-alphabets-boss-should-write-detailed-ringing-rebuttal?fsrc=gnews

Ah, the exquisite intolerance of "the tolerant" so beautifully expressed. 

Rand

[SrMi]

Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil.

Thomas Mann

[Rand47]

Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil.

Thomas Mann

I think we have to go almost all the way to Mann to find a serious use of the term, evil.  It isn't PC these days, unless you happen to step on the PC Police's toes. 

Rand

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil.

Thomas Mann

Luckily, those terms, "tolerance" and "evil," are definened here by the constitution and laws, not fiction writers.

[Rob C]

Too often, for certain.  And, in my experience, it is more about power, than gravy!   

Rand

Carreer? My eyes must be worse than I'd imagined!

Corrected - thanks! Just another problem with writing in English on a Spanish keyboard...

;-)

Rob

[Rand47]

Luckily, those terms, "tolerance" and "evil," are definened here by the constitution and laws, not fiction writers.

Slobodan,

Honest question.  Could you provide where you think "evil" and "tolerance" are defined?  I know that actions and activities are deemed either legal, or illegal (with attendant penalties), but I don't recall the concept of evil being defined and codified.  There is a lot of evil that is done that is perfectly legal in both law and constitution.  Neither do I recall a definition for tolerance.  Again, certain activities may be proscribed, but that's not a definition with aspirational aspects.

Rand

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Rand, you are right, those terms are not defined as such legally or constitutionally. That's why I put them in the quotation marks. But they are defined in a broader sense. Free speech is defined in the Constitution and in subsequent Supreme Court rulings. Thus, free speech, within those constitutional and legal boundaries shall be tolerated. "Evil" is equally defined in the laws, as a particularly heinous punishable deeds.

[Rob C]

That "Constitution" must be a pretty big book; now wonder why folks have little time left for making snaps when there's so much to read!

My personal concerns about constitution are about how rotten or less rotten I feel on any specific day. On some rare days I have moments of utter euphoria (possibly quite dangerous), so parts of the constitution make sense to me.

If anyone here knowns anything about Carine Roitfeld, they'll know she resigned as ed-in-chief of Paris Vogue after ten years in the saddle. Resigned... oh the luxury to be able to do such a thing! She now runs her own publication:

http://www.crfashionbook.com/

This is how she lives:

http://www.iwanttobearoitfeld.com/carine-roitfeld-photographs/apartment/

Other than being born with a dick, which obviously defines most of us with that appendage, where else did I apparently go wrong?

;-)

Rob

[32BT]

where else did I apparently go wrong?

Oh, that one's easy to answer: despite your educational context, you failed the kissingupsomebody's*** pretty significantly...

[Rob C]

Oh, that one's easy to answer: despite your educational context, you failed the kissingupsomebody's*** pretty significantly...

I knew I should have stayed on at photographic night school! To think that I missed the best, most important part because I left in great umbrage 'cause a lecturer decried my then hero, David Bailey!

Come to think of it, he (Bailey, not the other guy) is still some kind of hero even today, if only because we are both about exactly the same age and still love photography and women... no, his work continues to retain its place in what's left of my now almost-empty respect box.

;-)

Rob

[Rand47]

Rand, you are right, those terms are not defined as such legally or constitutionally. That's why I put them in the quotation marks. But they are defined in a broader sense. Free speech is defined in the Constitution and in subsequent Supreme Court rulings. Thus, free speech, within those constitutional and legal boundaries shall be tolerated. "Evil" is equally defined in the laws, as a particularly heinous punishable deeds.

Slobodan,

As I see it, the problem with the perspective you share above is that the definition of evil becomes "illegal."  There are levels of evil, equally heinous, that are perfectly legal.  Hence... our outrage when the big Wall Street bankers go completely unpunished for the 2008 financial collapse.  All of us know instinctively that evil was at work there, but none of it was "illegal" at the completion of investigations. In fact, I'd posit that the "cleverness" of said bankers, to thread their way though "legalities" in order to do evil without violating "the law" is an especially good example of the kind of evil that mankind does that is "especially" heinous.

The same goes with tolerance.  When what we consider "tolerant" (or not) is only what has made it into "the books" (so to speak) we gut the heart of tolerance.  I.e., my heart-attitude that says while I may disagree with you 100%, I will respect your right to your opinion.  (Even no matter how hateful your "idea" may be.  - Note that I say "idea," not action to cause harm.). These days, people are deemed intolerant because their "ideas / beliefs" don't pass muster, no matter what their actions produce in the real world.  Tolerance, in this case, has been stood on its head.

Rand

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...I.e., my heart-attitude that says while I may disagree with you 100%, I will respect your right to your opinion.  (Even no matter how hateful your "idea" may be.  - Note that I say "idea," not action to cause harm.). These days, people are deemed intolerant because their "ideas / beliefs" don't pass muster, no matter what their actions produce in the real world.  Tolerance, in this case, has been stood on its head.

Rand

Not sure if you are arguing with me or reinforcing my point, but it seems we are 100% in agreement when it comes to tolerance.

[Rand47]

Not sure if you are arguing with me or reinforcing my point, but it seems we are 100% in agreement when it comes to tolerance.

Hi Slobodan,

I don't see myself as arguing with you at all!  Just expanding your points to highlight something I think is important to the general discussion.  Since society has lost any belief in transcendent values, we seem to have defaulted to thinking that evil is "only those things that we have codified as illegal."  And, that "tolerance" is only to tolerate what some elite (or even hegemonomous) group decides is "fit to be tolerated."

I think this is a distrous development in western culture (in particular) that makes us ripe for the rise of various types of totalitarian control - all of which end up eliminating individual liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and even our rights to our possessions, rearing children, and even our ideas and beliefs.

I'm sure it sounds like histrionics, perhaps, but I'll be there were a lot of people in the early years of Hitler's rise to power that though those who opposed him on similar grounds were just being histrionic.

Same with any kind of rising "ism" regardless of whether it be left or right.  It may have seemingly good intent (and that may even be true - think of the eugenics movement in the US in the last century, only stopped by the exposed results of similar thinking in Germany) but always ends up moving toward totalarian control.  The "risk" of a real democracy, as has been the grand experiment in the US, is that true liberty leaves open the door weirdos.  Sometimes, evil, and harmful weirdos.  The democratic way of handling them has been on a case by case basis with appeal to transcendent values as the measure of "just how weird you can get without causing too much harm."  A rise of totalitarian "values" merely suppresses and eliminates the weirdos (think Jews, the mentally ill, the physically handicapped in Germany e.g.) on behalf of the "good of the masses."  Today we think that nothing like what happened in Germany could "ever happen again, or here."  Foolishness if you just look around at the last half of the 20th century "all over the world."

And this is how this ties back to the poor schlub who had the temerity to create his "weirdo memo" thinking that freedom of expression and liberty gave it a fair shot at being discussed.  He ran straight into a totalarian wall that saw his "thoughts and beliefs" as dangerous to the masses, and they killed him (metaphorically speaking).  Their tolerance did not include tolerating his right to express his opinion / research (no matter how accurate, incccurate, or misguided, or naieve, or whatever).  He was outside the limits of the totalarian hive-mind and so they killed him.


Rand

[Rob C]

Slobodan,

As I see it, the problem with the perspective you share above is that the definition of evil becomes "illegal."  There are levels of evil, equally heinous, that are perfectly legal. Hence... our outrage when the big Wall Street bankers go completely unpunished for the 2008 financial collapse.  All of us know instinctively that evil was at work there, but none of it was "illegal" at the completion of investigations. In fact, I'd posit that the "cleverness" of said bankers, to thread their way though "legalities" in order to do evil without violating "the law" is an especially good example of the kind of evil that mankind does that is "especially" heinous.

The same goes with tolerance.  When what we consider "tolerant" (or not) is only what has made it into "the books" (so to speak) we gut the heart of tolerance.  I.e., my heart-attitude that says while I may disagree with you 100%, I will respect your right to your opinion.  (Even no matter how hateful your "idea" may be.  - Note that I say "idea," not action to cause harm.). These days, people are deemed intolerant because their "ideas / beliefs" don't pass muster, no matter what their actions produce in the real world.  Tolerance, in this case, has been stood on its head.

Rand

Now that's a leap of definitions!

If anything, they were the most stupid assholes ever. It was just a few too many rounds of passing the buck, and when the music stopped... it was inevitable it would result in pear-shapes. I know one Italian mother who lost her son in NY because of that shit. Here we should be talking about stupid and greedy, and give a thought to the guys still lecturing in US universities, guys who were advising both government and money-men.

If you can find it, have a deep look at the video "Inside Job" which apart fom explaining a bit about the meltdown, interviewing some of the cast of characters, has some lovely movie images of Iceland.

Evil is another thing altogether - IMO.

Rob