--- Log opened Mon Feb 19 00:00:49 2018
02:19 -!- crashcartpro [uid29931@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-iuzpjxtbamenpgdt] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
06:55 <@Dolemite> mr0ning, be0tches and h0ez!
06:56 <@Dolemite> So I saw Dagmar say something about FreeBSD on Facebook...   what, specifically, did they fuck up in the CoC?   Are they creating safe spaces and requiring trigger words in comments?
07:12  * aestetix hugs Dolemite 
07:12 < aestetix> actually, what I just did would be banned under the freebsd coc
07:14 < aestetix> Dolemite: watch the youtube video I linked
07:22 -!- skiboy [skiboy@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/skiboy] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
07:28 <@Dolemite> aestetix: https://giphy.com/gifs/care-bears-U6b2Ine0p5vpe
07:28 < PigBot> Care Bears GIF - Find & Share on GIPHY (at giphy.com) http://tinyurl.com/yayzqxl
07:31 < aestetix> omagehrd
08:14 -!- brimstone [~brimstone@unaffiliated/brimstone] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
08:15 -!- brimstone [~brimstone@unaffiliated/brimstone] has joined #se2600
08:15 -!- mode/#se2600 [+o brimstone] by ChanServ
08:46 <@Evilpig> Dolemite: I learned this weekend that Nashville has something that Gatlinburg, Branson, etc don't have
08:47 <@Evilpig> Ray Stevens  https://raystevenscabaray.com/
08:47 < PigBot> Ray Stevens CabaRay Showroom | Ray Stevens Nashville Dinner Theater (at raystevenscabaray.com) http://tinyurl.com/ya5f38nn
08:49 <@Mirage> Yeah, I'm fine with that.
08:53 < aestetix> I don't think Branson has a Days Inn Stadium
08:59 <@Dolemite> He used to have a theater up here
09:00 <@Dolemite> But you can only make so much money as a cross dressing conservative
09:06 < aestetix> I wonder what would happen if Google tried to open a Nashville office
09:07 <@Evilpig> they have one
09:07 < aestetix> wow really?
09:07 < aestetix> After reading the filing in the Damore lawsuit, I'm kind of shocked
09:07 <@Evilpig> https://goo.gl/maps/FEUARhsDBDm
09:07 < PigBot>   Google Maps   (at goo.gl) http://tinyurl.com/yd52hu3h
09:07 < aestetix> I mean, is it filled with blue haired pansexual pagans?
09:08 < aestetix> oh that's a little different ;)
09:08 <@Evilpig> it is a google office
09:10 < aestetix> does it have bluehaired pansexual pagan staffers?
09:37 < aestetix> https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/liberalism-trump-era/553553/
09:37 < PigBot> What's Killing Liberalism? - The Atlantic (at www.theatlantic.com) http://tinyurl.com/yxcjrvj
10:15 <@Corydon76> aestetix: I've read the complaint.  Seems like the complaint itself contradicts its own argument.
10:16 <@Corydon76> Could probably be dismissed with summary judgement
10:17 < aestetix> Corydon76: which complaint?
10:17 <@Corydon76> The allegation is that they violated California Labor Law by discriminating based upon political viewpoint.  The rationale for the law is to prohibit workplace termination on the basis of conduct outside of work, i.e. political activity
10:17 < aestetix> oh
10:18 <@Corydon76> But it's clear from the complaint that this was not what they were fired for, but for activity on the job.
10:18 < aestetix> Corydon76: do you think it is unreasonable to set a workplace policy prohibiting discussion of politics?
10:18 < aestetix> actually that's not true
10:18 <@Corydon76> aestetix: depends upon the job
10:18 < aestetix> Specifically referring to Damore, he'd been promoted recently.
10:19 < aestetix> And further, his memo was written as requested feedback.
10:19 <@Corydon76> aestetix: right, so his promotion was clearly unrelated to any political activity outside of work
10:19 <@Corydon76> Just because someone requests feedback doesn't mean that you're free to write anything you like
10:20 < aestetix> Can you elaborate on that?
10:20 <@Corydon76> You're still required to abide by company policies while responding
10:21 < aestetix> And if this had been a problem, why wasn't he fired at any point when the memo was circulated inside the company, instead of right after the memo was leaked to the press?
10:22 <@Corydon76> Because sometimes, it's about how fast a complaint rises to senior levels.  In most cases, the senior managers have more important work to do, and they don't get around to handling HR complaints
10:22 < aestetix> IIUC it was circulated internally for at least a month, and went through several drafts.
10:22 <@Corydon76> Once it hit the press, senior managers couldn't ignore it
10:23 < aestetix> Do you think it's wrong to leak internal company documents that make a company look bad?
10:23 < aestetix> Also, do you think it's wrong for the press to misrepresent something in a way that makes a company look bad?
10:23 <@Corydon76> Depends upon what you mean by wrong
10:23 < aestetix> In the first case, a fireable offense.
10:23 <@Corydon76> It's certainly against company policy
10:23 < aestetix> In the second place, libel.
10:24 < aestetix> Ok. So why wasn't the person who leaked the memo to the press also fired?
10:24 <@Corydon76> Oh, the press.  Missed that part.  Yes, it's wrong for the press to misrepresent something in a way to make a company look bad
10:24 < aestetix> Ok, on that bit we agree.
10:24 <@Corydon76> Maybe they haven't figured out who the leaker was
10:25 <@Corydon76> When 80,000 people have access to a document, and you don't have information security policies like the NSA, that info may leave the building in any number of ways
10:25 < aestetix> Assuming that's the case, would you agree that the right course of action, upon learning who the leaker is, would be to immediately fire them?
10:26 <@Corydon76> Depends upon what the company's policies are and the employee's past track record
10:26 < aestetix> But you just said it's wrong to leak something that makes the company look bad.
10:26 <@Corydon76> At the very least, it should result in some disciplinary action
10:26 < aestetix> Ok, so we're agreed there at least.
10:27 < aestetix> So the person who wrote the document but kept it internal should be penalized more harshly than the person who leaked it to the press?
10:27 <@Corydon76> In the complaint, it's even cited that a manager who took on a policy of never agreeing to work with conservative employees was disciplined.
10:27 < aestetix> And what about the people who reviewed the document and didn't report it?
10:28 <@Corydon76> You're asking about a lot of things that don't matter in the context of this lawsuit
10:28 < aestetix> It's more about the principle of the matter.
10:28 < aestetix> Should a company be allowed to request feedback that might violate their policies?
10:29 <@Corydon76> I'm not interested in the principles.
10:29 <@Corydon76> The legal argument is what interests me
10:30 < aestetix> Ok. So do you think it is ok for a manager to maintain a blacklist of employees he will not work with
10:32 <@Corydon76> On the flip side, it's a list of employees who would not be treated fairly if they were assigned to that manager.  So I think it's not just fair, but advantageous to those employees not to have to work with someone who holds them in low regard.
10:32 <@Corydon76> What's unfair would be an organization-wide blacklist
10:32 < aestetix> Ok. So if I make a list of employees I won't work with, and they all happen to be jews, is that still ok?
10:33 <@Corydon76> Is that the case, or just a hypothetical?
10:33 <@Corydon76> I'm not interested in the principles, just the legal argument.
10:34 < aestetix> Ok, so you won't answer that question either.
10:34 < aestetix> What about a list of black pepole
10:34 -!- dfused [~dfused@c-24-19-29-152.hsd1.wa.comcast.net] has joined #se2600
10:35 <@Corydon76> (Meta:  I've just put aestetix on a mental blacklist of people I refuse to work with.)
10:35 < aestetix> haha
10:35 < aestetix> For badgering the witness? :p
10:35 <@Corydon76> Wait, that's wrong.  He's been on that list for years, now.
10:35 < aestetix> .... mushroom mushroom
12:06 -!- K4k [elw@unaffiliated/k4k] has joined #se2600
12:55 <@Mirage> aestetix: if they were chosen based on the fact they're jewish, then that's an issue.  If they are based on some other independent and justifiable criteria then it's not.
12:56 <@Mirage> For instance, I could make a list of all the incompetent/underqualified people I work with and the vast majority of the team members from India would immediately land on that list.
12:57 <@Mirage> Not being based on the fact that they're from India (though I do attribute some of the issues to cultural differences) wouldn't be discriminating against them because they're Indian.
12:59 <@Mirage> Like my old manager Kendra for instance, never wanting to work under her again and just generally hating her with a passion has nothing to do with the fact that she's "African American" or that she's a woman.
13:07 <@Dagmar> Being a psycho has a lot to do with it
13:08 <@Dagmar> Oh, and a liar.
13:09 <@Dagmar> All she had to do to stay in my good graces after her blowout at me was nothing, and she couldn't manage that
13:14 < aestetix> Mirage: agreed.
13:14 < aestetix> Mirage: my point was that all of those are (and should be) illegal
13:15 < aestetix> And, in the state of california, making a list against people of a specific political affiliation is *also* illegal
13:48 <@Corydon76> But that's not what they did.  As Mirage pointed out, they made a list of people who were poisonous to their team.  The fact that they were mostly conservatives is orthogonal to the reason.
13:48 <@Dagmar> It fails the sniff test if the reason they were considered poisonous was that they were conservatives
13:49 <@Dagmar> Labeling people is a lame excuse
13:50 <@Corydon76> That's not the reason they were considered poisonous.  All Google has to do in court is show that there are other conservatives on the workforce that were not similarly blacklisted.
13:52 <@Corydon76> The case has already been cited as weak, having an uphill battle in the courts.  Google could probably blow it up further.
14:23 <@Dagmar> Frankly I think he'd have been better served by going after certain media outlets for libel.
14:24 <@Dagmar> Material mischaracterizations qualify for that rather handily
14:27 <@Corydon76> Unintentional libel limits damages to actual harm, which would probably be less than such a lawsuit would cost him.
14:29 <@Corydon76> Additionally, libel only applies to statements of fact, not statements of opinion, and I suspect most of the media organizations were careful around that, per normal business practices
14:29 <@Dagmar> I didn't say anything about "unintentional" libel
14:29 <@Corydon76> Intentional libel is difficult to prove
14:29 <@Dagmar> ...and I saw plenty of misstatements of actual fact going on
14:36 <@Corydon76> What I really love is when, during an outage, Nagios shits all over my email, and after resolving the problem, I now have 30 emails to delete.
15:04 -!- crashcartpro [uid29931@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-rryvxotccpqhkzef] has joined #se2600
15:06 <@Mirage> The media should be held to a higher standard on libel/slander...epecially in regard to anyone only 'allegedly' accused of 'whatever the fuck someone wants to claim'.
15:08 <@Mirage> It's to the point now that if you're accused of just about anything and a public figure of some sort then you get absolutely crucified.  Once the media gets ahold of it and puts a nice spin to it guilt/innocence no longer matters.
15:10 <@Dagmar> When the statements are just short of calling someone a nazi, it's hard to argue that they shoudln't have known the statements would be harmful
15:40 <@Mirage> Damn Girls Scounts selling Thin Mints..
15:41 <@Mirage> /Scounts/Scouts
15:55 <@Corydon76> PA Supreme Court just released its new congressional district map
15:56 <@Corydon76> This is going to be fun shitshow, whether the federal courts recognize it's a state issue
15:58 <@Corydon76> I'm betting on yes, the federal courts will stay out of it, especially since it's the PA Supreme Court, and the only court which is plausible for an appeal is SCOTUS.
15:58 <@Corydon76> And that's a long shot, as well.
16:57 -!- HackMaster [uid45710@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-othbertejqeesrrv] has joined #se2600
20:12 -!- Irssi: #se2600: Total of 35 nicks [17 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 18 normal]
20:55 -!- brimstone [~brimstone@unaffiliated/brimstone] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
20:58 -!- brimstone [~brimstone@unaffiliated/brimstone] has joined #se2600
20:58 -!- mode/#se2600 [+o brimstone] by ChanServ
22:39 < aestetix> Corydon76: I'm torn on the issue. On the one hand, I think Google has turned into a regressive left hellhole with a very unhealth work/life balance.
22:39 < aestetix> On the other hand, nothing prevented Damore from quitting and going somewhere else.
22:40 < aestetix> Now the fact that most of the bay area has turned into a regressive left hellhole is a bigger question.
22:40 < aestetix> And if Damore wins the lawsuit, that makes the government too powerful.
22:40 < aestetix> There's basically nothing good about the situation.
22:42 < aestetix> And yeah, I'm surprised Damore hasn't filed a libel lawsuit against gizmodo or whoever it was.
22:43 < aestetix> Of course, one of the problems with these outlets, like the outlet that published the Aziz story, is that they seem to be small stringer things, and a lawsuit would put them out of business.
22:44 < aestetix> Which you'd think would give them incentive to not report drivel
22:44 < aestetix> Especially after what happened to gawker
23:16 < K`Tetch_> 16:09:59 «@Dagmar» When the statements are just short of calling someone a nazi, it's hard to argue that they shoudln't have known the statements would be harmful <-- not the standard. They have to show it's not an opinion (protected) but that it was stated as an objective fact, with intentional malice, to harm the reputation or economic wellbeing of a person. (i had to elarn all abotu it when the UK Intellectual Property office said I
23:16 -!- PigBot [~PigBot@wilpig.org] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
--- Log closed Tue Feb 20 00:00:50 2018