The issue I see there is the Democratic establishment is pro-corporate before anything else. So yeah, if Biden is elected, this will never have seen the light of day.
The Democratic establishment is more pro-corporate than the Republican establishment? In what reality is this. Like I don't get where this idea comes from that you have to be pro-business or anti-business. I can be both pro-worker and pro-business, it's not black and white, it's shades of gray.
> The Democratic establishment is more pro-corporate than the Republican establishment?
It depends on the company in question.
And, yes, Republicans right now are much more likely to be skeptical of Silicon Valley giants than are Democrats, who have been very cozy with Democrats since 2008.
The biggest and most powerful corporations in the world right now are tech companies, of which Republicans are increasingly skeptical and with which Democrats are increasingly cozy. So of course it's relevant to a question about how Democrats could be seen as pro-corporate.
> The biggest and most powerful corporations in the world right now are tech companies,
Not even close to true. JP Morgan, ExxonMobil, Citi, Chevron, ATT, Comcast,, Walmart, GE, GM, Berkshire Hatahway, Pfizer, Johnson & Jhonson... I could go on. Yes, Apple, MS, FB, Google are huge tech companies, but they are not the most common and not by any means "the most powerful".
The most clear and objective way to compare corporations is market capitalization, and the seven corporations with the biggest market cap in the world are all tech companies.[1]
How powerful a company is a bit harder to judge, but if anything tech companies punch above their weight when it comes to political power. Johnson & Johnson has ten times the market cap of twitter, but much less political power.
The difference is none of the companies you listed have the same amount of control over the internet. SV giants are the new gatekeepers of information.
Exactly. Those companies are more of a "you buy things from them" than the "your knowledge and view of the world is filtered through it" of Google. Google yields tremendous power over people just by what results it shows them when they search for things.
You're a libertarian, aren't you? Frankly, business's interests and worker interests are fundamentally at odds solely because labor is so expensive and having to accommodate workers' needs is expensive.
In what reality are you living in that Obama didn't give corporate America billions of dollars in hand-outs in the aftermath of 2008? Republicans aren't any better, but Democrats like to pretend they care about workers, when all they really care about is enriching the wealthy.
Not wanting to destroy your countries industries and creating a balance between workers and businesses is not the same as believing that today's large businesses are over regulated and workers have too much power.
If you are anti-capitalist, fine, but your complaint isn't the Dems are pro-business, the argument is that they are still capitalists.
Honestly, America is pro-corporate before anything else - neither party is actually a good advocate for labour or consumer protection, you only see these things on the fringes of the parties.
That has nothing to do with expanded hate speech laws, and the in fact the provincial human rights council in British Columbia ruled against the complainant in the article, and ordered her to pay restitution to the salons.
I assume the GGP is referring to the C-16 bill passed by the federal government of Canada in 2016, which added gender expression and identity to existing human rights laws on discrimination.
I have repeatedly seen a perhaps willful misinterpretation, popularly stemming from Jordan Petersen, that this bill criminalizes misgendering people when that's not the case.
>"After Bill C-16 amended the Criminal Code, Canadian law prohibited hate propaganda against groups
that can be identified based on gender identity or gender expression. The bill also allowed for more
severe sentencing if it is proved that a particular offense was motivated by a bias or prejudice
against a person's gender identity or gender expression.
>
>However, experts say misusing a pronoun would not constitute hate propaganda, nor can it be used as >sole evidence of discrimination.
>
>"If it's just the pronoun, not much is going to happen," explained Cheryl Milne, director of the Asper >Centre for Constitutional Rights at the University of Toronto told AFP."
You’re right, I was confusing the two issues. But this article from the cbc with commentary from two legal experts isn’t completely reassuring:
> Does the bill legislate the use of certain language? And could someone go to jail for using the wrong pronoun?
>In the Criminal Code, which does not reference pronouns, Cossman says misusing pronouns alone would not constitute a criminal act.
>“The misuse of gender pronouns, without more, cannot rise to the level of a crime,” she says. “It cannot rise to the level of advocating genocide, inciting hatred, hate speech or hate crimes … (it) simply cannot meet the threshold.”
>The Canadian Human Rights Act does not mention pronouns either. The act protects certain groups from discrimination.
>“Would it cover the accidental misuse of a pronoun? I would say it’s very unlikely,” Cossman says. “Would it cover a situation where an individual repeatedly, consistently refuses to use a person’s chosen pronoun? It might.”
>If someone refused to use a preferred pronoun — and it was determined to constitute discrimination or harassment — could that potentially result in jail time?
>It is possible, Brown says, through a process that would start with a complaint and progress to a proceeding before a human rights tribunal. If the tribunal rules that harassment or discrimination took place, there would typically be an order for monetary and non-monetary remedies. A non-monetary remedy may include sensitivity training, issuing an apology, or even a publication ban, he says.
>If the person refused to comply with the tribunal's order, this would result in a contempt proceeding being sent to the Divisional or Federal Court, Brown says. The court could then potentially send a person to jail “until they purge the contempt,” he says.
>“It could happen,” Brown says. “Is it likely to happen? I don’t think so. But, my opinion on whether or not that's likely has a lot to do with the particular case that you're looking at.”
>“The path to prison is not straightforward. It’s not easy. But, it’s there. It’s been used before in breach of tribunal orders.”
Hey thanks for educating me about this. I dunno why my inquiry was downvoted (was it not additive to ask for more sourcing?) but I did want to say genuinely I appreciate actual law I can point to and track over time. Has it been used to prosecute anyone that you're aware of, or how has it been applied in courts? Thanks again!
Sources certainly can add some factual, concrete evidence to someone's argument to ask for a source or two.
That being said, I think some just near-reflexively reply 'Source? Source?' as a sort of low-effort 'rebuttal' by implying it's just, like, your opinion, man when they haven't necessarily come up with a well-thought-out argument.
I won't disagree that well-sourced arguments add much to a discussion, especially if you're not well-informed about the topic at hand.
--
But don't worry about the down-votes. It happens, who can know for sure why, they don't really matter, and if you're earnest in your comments, you'll almost always going to end up in the black. :)
I'm not sure how you're having a hard time. Yes, Microsoft releases new OS versions. I'm not sure what you think that has to do with backwards compatibility. Have you not heard any of the stories about all the hacks Microsoft has had to implement over the past decades to ensure that third-party applications function correctly? A program made for Win95 will generally work seamlessly on W10. Worst-case scenario, you'll need to change compatibility settings or configure exceptions in things like exploit protection. The same can't be said for Linux, where the only thing you can count on is the kernel's ABI.
