Trump / Musk (other than DOGE) Omnibus Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 11K
  • Views: 321K
  • Politics 
superrific said:
1. When Trump claims something, that thing is vastly more likely to be false than true.
2. That seems to be true of Musk as well, and his whole administration. Nothing but liars up and down.
3. The whole premise is nonsensical.
4. The concept of DEI is again being misused and stretched beyond limit. Even if that discussion was occurring, it would not involve any sort of DEI rubric. So at a bare minimum, that connection is fabricated. Since that's fabricated, there's absolutely no reason to believe any of the other parts of the report.
Click to expand...
1. Trump didn't claim it:
christopherrufo.com

The NSA’s Secret Sex Chats

Intelligence officials maintained a chatroom to discuss polyamory and transgender surgeries, internal documents reveal.
christopherrufo.com christopherrufo.com

2. Musk didn't claim it.
3. Opinion noted.
4. I don't think it was under an official rubric of federal DEI. That isn't what's claimed. It's saying that the authors tried to disguise it as DEI discussions.

Do you agree, if true, those discussions have no place in an NSA internal messaging tool?
 
Probably not, but context matters. If it was related to sources or cases, then almost certainly, yes. If purely chatter ,no. Then case by case.
 
ZenMode said:
I'm just saying that, on its face, I see no issue with someone being asked to detail what they do as part of their daily/weekly activities.
Click to expand...
No one is saying federal employees shouldn't be subjected to performance reviews, you dolt.

What every rational person is criticizing is every manor in which this task is being administered.

  • Asking for only 5 bullet points from the previous week as the basis for a career-defining performance review -- dumb
  • Giving employees 48 hours notice -- dumb
  • Circumventing department heads with both the announcement and input into any subsequent evaluations -- dumb
  • Elon Musk of all people leading the effort -- dumb
  • Near total lack of transparency on how the information will be used -- dumb
  • Threats of being fired -- dumb
  • Mention of some kind of untested, unproven AI system to determine if jobs are necessary -- dumb
  • Complete chaos from the administration on whether people needed to reply or not...Trump himself said replying to the email was "somewhat voluntary but its also if you don't answer i guess you get fired" -- dumb
I could go on. Once again we have the bootlickers trying to sane wash the insane. Ridiculous but expected.
 
ZenMode said:
1. Trump didn't claim it:
christopherrufo.com

The NSA’s Secret Sex Chats

Intelligence officials maintained a chatroom to discuss polyamory and transgender surgeries, internal documents reveal.
christopherrufo.com christopherrufo.com

2. Musk didn't claim it.
3. Opinion noted.
4. I don't think it was under an official rubric of federal DEI. That isn't what's claimed. It's saying that the authors tried to disguise it as DEI discussions.

Do you agree, if true, those discussions have no place in an NSA internal messaging tool?
Click to expand...
1. OK, fine. Rufo is as big a liar. And how the fuck would Rufo know? Oh, he got chat logs from NSA. That's reliable. I had thought that the information purportedly came from DOGE.
2. Right, it wasn't under the rubric of DEI. Nobody would try to disguise it as such. It would like trying to infiltrate a gathering of Wall St analysts in a clown costume.
3. How the fuck would I know whether those discussion have no place in an NSA messaging tool? I've never used that tool. I've never been in the NSA. I've never been transgender. I don't know what those discussions were actually about. How the fuck am I supposed to answer the question? And why the fuck would I want to? Again, there is no law of nature requiring anyone to form opinions about things they know nothing about.

For instance: are there hetero people engaging in the same sort of talk? Is this a support group, like many other support groups that exist on the chat servers? Is it drawing on member knowledge for the purpose of profiling or going undercover? If there's an intercept about people talking about being trans, it would probably be helpful to know if that's how trans people really talk or think, or whether it is some sort of private code.

Did someone ask the trans person, "were you gay before the transition?" and the person replies. Whose fault is that? Are we going to come down on people for talking about their own experiences? That would surely be selective.

Generally speaking, I don't care if trans people are talking about their life experiences with other people voluntarily. If they were interjecting this sort of talk into what are otherwise purely business conversations, it might be a problem. But if someone asks a trans person, "what is sex like after reassignment surgery?" why can't the trans person answer? I mean, I'd be curious to know that, just for understanding the world.
 
ZenMode said:
You were trying to make a point. Your unnecessary, but not uncommon, comment about me made that clear.

Either way, every position, including manager, has it's official responsibilities to list that are not likely to be exciting or impressive. They're just your job.
Click to expand...
And, again, 5 bullet points will provide absolutely no information about the job or how well the person is functioning in their position. You know this but you either simply like the shit show or you support this wasteful stupid exercise in futility. Which is it?
 
ZenMode said:
I'm just saying that, on its face, I see no issue with someone being asked to detail what they do as part of their daily/weekly activities.
Click to expand...
If that's what they were doing, then i would agree. You've been given multiple examples of how five bullet points doesn't achieve this goal.

I've been key fortunate to have only had one truly bad boss.

I find it hard to believe you could keep your mouth shut and wait it out. :cool:
 
UNCatTech said:
And, again, 5 bullet points will provide absolutely no information about the job or how well the person is functioning in their position. You know this but you either simply like the shit show or you support this wasteful stupid exercise in futility. Which is it?
Click to expand...
Everyone is going to be in the same boat. They are likely to have a well-documented set of responsibilities as part of their job. If your goal is to keep your job, and wait out Trump / Elon, then you respond to the email and try and make it sound as good as you can. Not responding would be more or less waving the white flag.
 
superrific said:
1. OK, fine. Rufo is as big a liar. And how the fuck would Rufo know? Oh, he got chat logs from NSA. That's reliable. I had thought that the information purportedly came from DOGE.
2. Right, it wasn't under the rubric of DEI. Nobody would try to disguise it as such. It would like trying to infiltrate a gathering of Wall St analysts in a clown costume.
3. How the fuck would I know whether those discussion have no place in an NSA messaging tool? I've never used that tool. I've never been in the NSA. I've never been transgender. I don't know what those discussions were actually about. How the fuck am I supposed to answer the question? And why the fuck would I want to? Again, there is no law of nature requiring anyone to form opinions about things they know nothing about.

For instance: are there hetero people engaging in the same sort of talk? Is this a support group, like many other support groups that exist on the chat servers? Is it drawing on member knowledge for the purpose of profiling or going undercover? If there's an intercept about people talking about being trans, it would probably be helpful to know if that's how trans people really talk or think, or whether it is some sort of private code.

Did someone ask the trans person, "were you gay before the transition?" and the person replies. Whose fault is that? Are we going to come down on people for talking about their own experiences? That would surely be selective.

Generally speaking, I don't care if trans people are talking about their life experiences with other people voluntarily. If they were interjecting this sort of talk into what are otherwise purely business conversations, it might be a problem. But if someone asks a trans person, "what is sex like after reassignment surgery?" why can't the trans person answer? I mean, I'd be curious to know that, just for understanding the world.
Click to expand...
Okay, so it's not obviously fake, But you believe it's fake. That's fine.

As far as appropriateness goes, I guess we simply have different expectations for what is in the purview of the NSA employees.
 
UNCatTech said:
If that's what they were doing, then i would agree. You've been given multiple examples of how five bullet points doesn't achieve this goal.

I've been key fortunate to have only had one truly bad boss.

I find it hard to believe you could keep your mouth shut and wait it out. :cool:
Click to expand...
"You've been given multiple examples of how five bullet points doesn't achieve this goal."

Well, make them very elaborate bullet points with sub bullet points. Be an overachiever! That will make Elon happy.
 
ZenMode said:
As far as appropriateness goes, I guess we simply have different expectations for what is in the purview of the NSA employees.
Click to expand...
No. We have different views on whether to have expectations.

I do not have particularized expectations of NSA employees because a) I don't know what they do (neither do you); b) I don't know the culture of the agency; c) I have no idea of the context in which these alleged statements were allegedly made; d) I don't do intelligence work; and e) I can't imagine what basis I might have to form an expectation.

You, by contrast, never let your ignorance get in the way of forming an opinion. Your thought process appears to be like this: a) this sounds bad; b) I don't like it; c) I don't care to find out any actual information; d) NSA employees should not be doing this.

To me, "I don't like it" is not a valid basis for a policy opinion.
 
ZenMode said:
Okay, so it's not obviously fake, But you believe it's fake. That's fine.

As far as appropriateness goes, I guess we simply have different expectations for what is in the purview of the NSA employees.
Click to expand...
Making a first line judgement on the alleged content requires immense credulity, and every time you glom on to this agitprop you expose your hard right ideology, despite the repeated pleadings, otherwise.

Rufo lies and mis/disses as he breathes. He’s the same species as Goebbels. Rufo is a preeminent bigot and ideologue in the christofascist right. Forgive me if I wait until someone reports this matter who: doesn’t reject evolution; doesn’t court alliances with white supremacists; didn’t say public school teachers are 100x more dangerous to kids than catholic priest; and DIDNT START THE FUCKING SPRINGFIELD OHIO RACIST AS FUCK LIE.
 
ZenMode said:
You were trying to make a point. Your unnecessary, but not uncommon, comment about me made that clear.

Either way, every position, including manager, has it's official responsibilities to list that are not likely to be exciting or impressive. They're just your job.
Click to expand...
It didn’t ask for a list of responsibilities. They could look at the job descriptions for that.
Listing responsibilities and accomplishments are two different things. But this does illustrate one of the major and very many flaws in asking people for lists such as these.
 
ZenMode said:
1. Trump didn't claim it:
christopherrufo.com

The NSA’s Secret Sex Chats

Intelligence officials maintained a chatroom to discuss polyamory and transgender surgeries, internal documents reveal.
christopherrufo.com christopherrufo.com

2. Musk didn't claim it.
3. Opinion noted.
4. I don't think it was under an official rubric of federal DEI. That isn't what's claimed. It's saying that the authors tried to disguise it as DEI discussions.

Do you agree, if true, those discussions have no place in an NSA internal messaging tool?
Click to expand...
I am wondering what this has to do with DOGE, even assuming it is all true.
 
Any manager that had no idea what his people were doing and relied on self evaluations would get PIPped in a heartbeat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top