Trump / Musk (other than DOGE)

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 12K
  • Views: 633K
  • Politics 
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.
 
Bobfripp said:
How he, Trump, can run the executive branch, was long ago be decided by precedent (the past 250 years), and doesn't need to be relitigated.
Click to expand...
From what I've read and heard, that doesn't seem to be entirely true. Some people are required to be fired with cause, but he apparently didn't provide that cause when firing them. Others require Congressional notification before firing them, which he may not have done. Others, like those on probation there doesn't seem to be any reason that he can't terminate them.
 
superrific said:
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.
Click to expand...
I mean, to a point you are correct. Since I can't see any legit reason to discuss gangbangs and polygamy, as part of our national security, I find it very hard to believe they are using their time effectively.

If they want to spend every waking minute talking about those things outside of work, I could not possibly care less if I tried.

However, I don't think it's a coincidence that you instinctively dismissed the story, while instinctively giving the benefit of the doubt you those employees involved.
 
ChileG said:
I am wondering what this has to do with DOGE, even assuming it is all true.
Click to expand...
Misusing internal NSA message boards would seem to be ammunition for Doge.

"Look at these people, who are supposed to be protecting our national security, wasting taxpayer money talking about gangbangs on government time!"

I would agree with that sentiment. If true, the people involved don't seem to be intelligent enough to be handling national security responsibilities. I mean, how could they possibly not know that everything they do, as part of the NSA, isn't going to be tracked?
 
nycfan said:
Click to expand...

I'm happy for the ruling, but really, what is "congressional will" these days? Congressional Republicans appear to have no will whatsoever when it comes to Donald J. Trump. In fact, they're all spineless and actually fold like a House of Cards.
 
ZenMode said:
I mean, to a point you are correct. Since I can't see any legit reason to discuss gangbangs and polygamy, as part of our national security, I find it very hard to believe they are using their time effectively.

However, I don't think it's a coincidence that you instinctively dismissed the story, while instinctively giving the benefit of the doubt you those employees involved.
Click to expand...
I'm not giving the employees the benefit of the doubt. I'm just unwilling to castigate them without knowing more. And you just don't seem to be able to recognize that. Maybe it's not a case of you being silly about something; it's a personality difference, like Myers Briggs.

In court, sometimes a judge will instruct a witness that "yes, no, and I don't know" are all acceptable answers. That is to say, human logic is three valued, and you just see it as two-valued. So you interpret anything that is not critical of something as being in favor of it, which is why you characterized me as giving anyone the benefit of the doubt.

And this is what happens: you have a need to assign a judgment to whatever you read. You read this claim that employees are doing something, and you have to see it as bad or good. You don't really know anything about it, but bad seems more intuitive an option for you so you go with that. Then, when someone disagrees with you that it's bad, you automatically assume they think it's good. And that's just not how most people work, in my view. Hence the instructions in court: most people accept "I don't know" as a valid answer and indeed often the right answer.

I dismissed the story because of a long, deep experience with right-wing agitators lying and/or badly exaggerating about these topics. It's not instinct; it's definitely learned. It comes from watching falsehood and falsehood emanate from the right-wing culture warriors, for decades. It's all lies, all the time. They have earned that lack of trust a hundred times over.

By contrast, I instinctively took the position "I don't know" instead of judging the employees about whom I knew nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top