—“Speaking truth to power when it truly matters can render someone a perceived high threat, especially if in response to someone else’s bad behaviours towards that someone.
Doing so often makes us “bad” and “aggressive” because, yes, we won’t submit to being good as you characterise it, as being someone’s mere tool. Tools are expended and dispensed of.”— Davin Eastley
Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response
-
“Speaking truth to power when it truly matters can render someone a perceived hi
—“Speaking truth to power when it truly matters can render someone a perceived high threat, especially if in response to someone else’s bad behaviours towards that someone. Doing so often makes us “bad” and “aggressive” because, yes, we won’t submit to being good as you characterise it, as being someone’s mere tool. Tools are expended and dispensed of.”— Davin Eastley -
INSULT OF THE DAY —“I don’t think you’ve ever met a female. More likely just o
INSULT OF THE DAY
—“I don’t think you’ve ever met a female. More likely just other emasculated men who you’ve mistakenly misidentified.”— Robert Hayes
Source date (UTC): 2017-11-30 13:06:00 UTC
-
Insult Of The Day
—“I don’t think you’ve ever met a female. More likely just other emasculated men who you’ve mistakenly misidentified.”— Robert Hayes -
Insult Of The Day
—“I don’t think you’ve ever met a female. More likely just other emasculated men who you’ve mistakenly misidentified.”— Robert Hayes -
1) the nyt was in the process of producing an expose. they interviewed a “substa
1) the nyt was in the process of producing an expose. they interviewed a “substantial” number of women.
2) nbc management found out from staff.
3) they had prior knowledge for years.
4) tolerance of it pierces board and officer protections ( i have had this problem with a male exec who was harmless, even cute, and none of the women wanted to prosecute, but counsel is adamant)
5) they had no choice but to act and act before outed by the nyt.
Source date (UTC): 2017-11-29 22:40:00 UTC
-
1) the nyt was in the process of producing an expose. they interviewed a “substa
1) the nyt was in the process of producing an expose. they interviewed a “substantial” number of women. 2) nbc management found out from staff. 3) they had prior knowledge for years. 4) tolerance of it pierces board and officer protections ( i have had this problem with a male exec who was harmless, even cute, and none of the women wanted to prosecute, but counsel is adamant) 5) they had no choice but to act and act before outed by the nyt. -
1) the nyt was in the process of producing an expose. they interviewed a “substa
1) the nyt was in the process of producing an expose. they interviewed a “substantial” number of women. 2) nbc management found out from staff. 3) they had prior knowledge for years. 4) tolerance of it pierces board and officer protections ( i have had this problem with a male exec who was harmless, even cute, and none of the women wanted to prosecute, but counsel is adamant) 5) they had no choice but to act and act before outed by the nyt. -
Untitled
Source date (UTC): 2017-11-29 15:34:00 UTC
-
Only Human Enough To Not Soil One’s Self In Public.
I just went through the comment and it consists of standard language from law, philosophy, social science, and economics. The fact that I am knowledgeable in many fields is uncommon, but the language is neither opaque, or difficult to research, which is – usually – what people do, rather than ascribe to terms of art common in disciplines the vulgar assumption of ‘private speech’. If you lack knowledge of social science, philosophy, law, economics, and perhaps at least the methodology of the physical sciences, then why is it one would render opinions on such matters? That comment’s bit of text is quite worthy of contemplation. If you are not yet able to contemplate it because you lack the vocabulary and knowledge to do so that’s understandable. If you can’t discern its possible value, then that’s understandable. If you can’t glean enough from the pattern of argument that you might infer there is something to be learned here, then that is Your world is simple with simple problems requiring simple answers. But your post’s question is not one of a simple world with simple answers. It is instead, the accumulated record of 10k years of the resolution of disputes between peoples from the interpersonal to the international scale. International law is constructed by testes of reciprocity. “Authority (coercion) in defense of voluntary reciprocity whether prescriptive, or proscriptive is always just, regardless of the opinion of the person coerced.” And the implication is, that people who don’t grasp that are …. let’s say … Primitive? Adolescent? Only human enough not to soil themselves in public?