Jump to content
Baseops Forums

FLEA

Supreme User
  • Content Count

    532
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

FLEA last won the day on September 16

FLEA had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

483 Excellent

About FLEA

  • Rank
    Gray Beard

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Bro, don't be discouraged. This thread is toxic hot garbage. But for your own mental health you might be right to take a break from the thread for a bit. I find myself doing so every few nights.
  2. Because you won't ever make any head on discussions like this in an internet forum. If you want to change someone's mind you can't set out to do it in the course of a conversation. You need patience and the attitude that you will change it over the course of a decade long friendship. This needs to be done in person. Everything on the internet is just venting and sport.
  3. This specific case is not whistle blowing. There is nothing immoral, unethical or criminal on his tax returns. Embarrassing? Maybe. But embarrassing doesn't meet the threshold for whistleblower. Some of the other things we've seen leaked are also not whistleblowing. Policy decisions, etc... There needs to be a very clear violation of law. Not just "I think this is going to be a bad move for America and people should know about it."
  4. Let's talk about the leak for a minute: at what point are we going to hunt down and hold people accountable for committing federal crimes because they don't like their elected officials? This case has 0 whistle blower implications. This was likely an sworn state AG, who released a lawfully filed tax statement with 0 incriminating information on it, because he wanted to diminish the image of the sitting President. That is a big deal IMO. We can't continue to promote a government made up of people who won't obey laws when they dislike their political leadership. Democracy will never survive that.
  5. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/09/27/us/donald-trump-taxes.html So a few assessments of this: 1.) Huge dissapointment for Democrats. Nothing overtly illegal and no connections to Russia found in tax returns. Sure he moved money to avoid paying, but it was within the bounds and we all know rich people do that. (Working class too which is why we all file a standard exemption each year) 2.) FBI investigation of the NY AG office will probably start shortly as they are the only organization outside Trump's circle with the returns. Somebody committed a federal crime providing these to the times. The timing of the article lines up fairly with the surpreme court decision that made them available to NY state.
  6. So what your saying is, Trump improved the life of all Republicans without really disrupting anything for Democrats? Sounds like a huge win for Trump!
  7. The one bad thing about telework though is it creates the insidious problem of always being available to work, or at least that becomes the expectation. At least I know, and for others who have had iphones/blackberries, there comes this expectation that you are always available and always reading your email. This could turn out bad if its not steered the right direction.
  8. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-termlimits-idUSKCN26F3L3 Obviously theater as it would require an amendment to really implement this and the current POTUS would veto it. However, the concept doesn't even seem that well thought out. Would voters be aware that when they elect a President they are also electing to Surpreme Court Selects? It would completely change elections because it would swing voters to vote for judges instead who would have a much longer appointment than POTUS. How is it Congress can get on board with term limits for other offices but can't get on board with term limits for their own political machines?
  9. You can do both though and your people will love you infinitely more for it. Or you can be like every other commander that breaks their organization to make a stellar OPR.
  10. FLEA

    WTF? (**NSFW**)

    There can't be a more appropriate place for this! https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/24/asia/vietnam-condom-sold-new-scli-intl/index.html
  11. No I don't condone this. I'm trying to rationalize what other people are thinking. That's why I said its lazy.
  12. This is fucking funny, but did they nail the altitude deconfliction plan?
  13. I didn't describe racial profiling at all. You quoted a description on cognitive diversity which is a well study and established phenomenon that has nothing to do with race.
  14. I think you are 1/2 right and 1/2 wrong. For one, no-one cares about the enlightenment. It was like 300 years ago and people still thought leaches and humor letting were acceptable forms of health care. Sure they made some awesome philosophical advances but its not like they got there and said "hah! We did it, we are at the epitome of human knowledge and understanding and we can stop now." Our recognition for how humans receive and process information has gone very far. In fact, hailing the outcomes of the enlightenment as the epitome of understanding, is in of itself bandwagon bias which is the cognitive bias associated with adhering to principles because those principles are the ones you always knew. So lets recognize that bias now and recognize that people in the enlightenment could have been very wrong and we don't know that yet. I also think you confuse sympathy and empathy. Empathy is being able to feel the physical and emotional experiences as another person does. If a friend at work has a brother that died and I don't have a brother, I can't say "I know how you feel." Nothing in my life would ever help me relate to how losing a sibling would feel. A best friend is close but not as close. A parent is different. I can possess sympathy for that person, and understand they are under a great deal of grief, I can never experience true empathy for them. I think there is a great deal of assumption in the idea that you can empathize with anyone. You are correct, that you can have two white males who are more different than a white male and a black female. However, from a strategic leadership point of view, I think people are playing the margins game. Is this possible, sure? Is it likely, probably not as much. And since in reality, noone has the time to vet every applicants complete background or make a comprehensive list of experiences, they are simply going to disregard your individuality and lump you into a group to play a game of betting odds over one that values individual achievement. The going mindset here is a diverse organization of 40 different thinkers will outperform a uniform institution of 40 identical top performers. If you think about each human being as a ven diagram plot, they are trying to maximize their chances of increasing the total footprint as large as possible and minimizing areas of circular overlap. Do I necessarily agree with this? Not really. But I see the angle, and I understand from a strategic context people in charge of large organizations believe the ends are far more important than your individual feelings about feeling underappreciated because of who you are.
×
×
  • Create New...