Kainsley @ Kainsley @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

30

Joined

2 yr. ago

Almost all management contracts have a fraternisation clause. If any of these leaks are true (I don't see how they are going to prove it at this point and it all seems a bit funky to me) then it would almost definitely be a fireable offence.

That's some very aggressive spin. All I get from you is anger towards anyone with a different opinion, you don't seem open to conversation, you attempt to spin what other people have said, so why should anyone take what you're saying at face value?

Re the first point, that's an issue with your system of democracy, (I agree that it's stupid and outdated) again not an issue with Hilary herself.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with your second point, I think we fundamentally disagree on what democracy is. Electees are there to serve the people who vote them in, if the minority of those people want change then they need to convince the electorate, not the candidates.

For context, I think we probably align quite closely politically, I just feel your expectations are misplaced.

Not at all correct, I'm trying to establish whether you believe Hilary deliberately got trump elected, or whether she screwed up. You seem to be avoiding the answer because it doesn't fit your narrative, made even clearer by your choice to cut out the key part of my question when paraphrasing. If you aren't open to a legitimate discussion then there isn't much point in continuing.

(Paraphrasing, ignoring questions to make your own point etc see the exact traits I see and hate in the right, usually I can have proper honest conversations with fellow lefties so I have to admit I was surprised by your tactics here)

You've deliberately avoided answering the question. Promoting one other candidate because you think it's better for you is a very legitimate strategy, the fact that it backfired is another thing. You seem to be implying that she somehow intentionally screwed everyone over when her intention was clearly to win, other factors had a far greater influence (ie the meddling of other countries)

Candidates are trying to earn the majority vote, not your vote specifically. Democracy is largely about compromise. It's not about convincing people that you're right, but about serving the majority. Your issue here is with the majority of voters, not the people seeking their votes.

Do you believe that she actively helped trump over herself, or that she messed up? It's so much easier with hindsight...in essence you're making the "the west is responsible for ww2" argument, sure they messed up with the restrictions put on Germany after WW1, but WW2 wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for a bunch of tyrants...

So many people seem to think they have a right to the perfect candidate for them, but democracy is about the best compromise for the masses. (In reply to some of your other comments on this thread)

That's an absurd take. Fyi I'm from the UK and don't have any skin in the game, but blaming the opposition instead of the people who are actually causing the issues is just bizarre and kind of self destructive. Yes the DRC made mistakes, but they aren't responsible for what the GOP have done since.

Declaring that the sitting president can essentially act as a dictator is most definitely bad for them right now lol

Yep, this is 100% about getting ahead of all of the delays that trumps team will seek to drag this out past the election.

To clarify, it's the publisher not the Devs. They are also likely victims here.

It's not exactly scientifically accurate and the headline is clickbaity, buuuut, they'll be comparing daily peaks. usually the peaks decrease slowly over time but this was pretty dramatic.

It's not an anything anymore. Devs just went under and the servers will be down once they don't get paid. What a farce!!

No. Feel free to read my previous comments back, there isn't anything else to add at this point.

Re the cultural differences, I'm not sure why you think that's relevant, but no. Stop being insulting (and slightly Xenophobic)

You got a negative response from me because you asked me a question, I gave a fair response and you got shitty. It's not that hard to understand, if you're rude to people then eventually they'll be rude back.

Re cultural or generational issue, oh come off it mate, if you ask for feedback and then attack people who give it to you, then what do you expect? For reference I'm also 30's, UK. Nope it's not that, you're just needlessly rude.

Yea, everyone down voting you is wrong, you're the only person who is right. Do you not see the irony?

As for your question, what is the point of coming to a social website if people are not being social? In my opinion (and I'd assume a fair chunk of the people down voting you) everyone else is being social, you're coming across as being anti social.

What are you defending yourself from? No one's attacking you... you asked me why I felt your comments came across that way and I replied. The misquote changes nothing, you still wouldn't ask someone if English is their first language and ignore the comment, to suggest so is clearly ingenuous.

Like I said, you come across as someone who sees the negatives. It looks to me like you think everyone is attacking you and are therefore responding defensively, which then comes across as aggressive.

To answer your question, how would I ask someone? I wouldn't, it's obviously irrelevant, as is this discussion at this point.

As I said, have a good day.

Perfect encapsulation of my point.

Apologies for misquoting you, but the correct quote is equally disingenuous and your attempt to turn my reply into an attack on character instead of answering the question is exactly why you're being downvoted.

You come across as a person who looks for the negative in everything and doesn't actually want to engage but rather make yourself feel superior, but that generally doesn't work outside of traditional social media. I bet you're a joy to work with /s. Have a good day.

But that's the point, you aren't actually engaging in the discussion, your questions aren't on topic but are more rhetorical attacks on personality.

If someone at work speaks to you in broken English and your response is "is English even your first language" instead of responding to their comment, then your next conversation would be with HR.

Break it down what are you trying to achieve with that question and how does that add value to the discussion?

Sure,

Lots of replies which don't actually address or respond to comments but rather attempt to put the other person down, example:

Attacking people's replies but then suggesting they replied to the wrong person (which one is it?)

Attacking someone's language/typing skills instead of responding.

Suggesting anyone who disagreed with you are "behaving like redditors"

These little put downs come across as attempting to belittle the person you're replying to and is a common way to "win a debate" by discouraging the other person from replying, in the absence of actually having a discussion.