"And many Sinclair employees say they're frustrated by the company's policies as well, but note that noncompete and other contract language makes quitting financially untenable:"
This is nearly a perfect answer to the question: "What is crowdfunding for?"
These media anchors and employees are uniquely suited to banding together, raising a stink about what Sinclair is doing, soliciting financial backing from more than half the country so that they can leave their jobs, tell their collective story, and drain Sinclair of the trusted talent it has sucked up and co-opted.
Why is this not already happening? Why are we instead seeing the Nuremberg defense trotted out WHEN THERE ARE WAYS AROUND IT?
Sorry, I'll check with you next time before writing a headline.
In all seriousness, for anyone that is over the age of 40 or so, it's a very famous place. For example, it was the subject of one of the more famous skits on SNL in the 80s.
Here's the funny part of the pushback on this specific article: I, the author of the post, lean more right than left, and I'm probably one of, or THE, most conservative member of our writing team here.
And, yet, that doesn't keep me from calling out factual occurrences of idiocy by other members of the right. It's amazing what you can get done when you're not a member of a "team"....
It wasn't troll baiting at all. The whole point of the comment was to illustrate that this prior restraint attempt by Trump is doubly idiotic because IT'S NOT NECESSARY. His supporters won't care, even those supporters that claim moral superiority in the form of their religion. If anyone were to care, it would be them, but they haven't in the past and won't in this case.
In other words, Trump is trying an unconstitutional move without any real reward.
The really obscene part of this attempt is how wholly unnecessary it is. The evangelical right in this country already sold their souls on the matter of Donald Trump. A less appealing candidate on paper one could not find for the type of American that espouses Christian dogma, yet they voted for him in swaths, a man who is on his third marriage with multiple children, who engaged in beauty pageants and regularly walked in on young candidates for them, who not only cheated on his wives but created a fake persona through which to brag about that infidelity to tabloid papers in New York. This, over a woman married once, who stuck by her marriage in the face of incredible strife, and who has one child by one man and has shown nothing other than at least a competent interest in the well being of her family.
In the face of all that, what is one tawdry affair with an adult film star long before he entered into office? The religious right cannot logically even bat an eye at this story. It won't matter, except as a story about a cover up.
Re: Strong words from clown mis-using: "whipping post = a post to which offenders are tied to be whipped as a legal punishment".
"Strong words from clown mis-using: "whipping post = a post to which offenders are tied to be whipped as a legal punishment"."
Are you really this dumb? The whipping post analogy is one in which someone of authority brings out their favorite target for a public flogging, attaching them to the whipping post. This one isn't really that hard, even for you....
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
God, I love that my merely quoting Barack Obama as a non-sequitur SEVEN YEARS AGO has stuck with you so much that you're still misundertandingly linking to it as evidence of name-calling against you.
To quote an idiot, "shows what kind of power I have" over you, no?
Let me make sure I understand you correctly. Your basic thesis above can be boiled down to: generally speaking, in the age of Western Democracy, Russia and its predecessor, the USSR, were no better or worse on the matter of free speech than Western Democracy?
If that's REALLY your thesis then we've arrived at a whole new level of false equivalencies....
I'd worry much less about the hollywood nonsense that ocmes out of this, and much more about the unanticipated problems that result from the instrumental convergence issue not being solved. Once we have a GIAI, general intelligence AI, we need to realize that it won't be contained, it will be smarter than us, and we need to make sure we have its goal and ethical alignment exactly right or the consequences will be as disastrous as they are hilarious.
The paperclip maximizer AI is a good example of this. You can build an AI with the seemingly harmless goal of making the most amount of paperclips possible. As it grows and learns, that AI may take over our metal resources completely to complete its goal, leaving us without a valuable resource.
Obviously this is a farcical exmaple, but the point is it's those less flashy ways that AI is likely to do us harm.
"Atheism is not a lack of religious belief. It is the belief that there is no God or other similar being. Trying to twist that into being a "lack of religious belief" is disingenuous at best. You have chosen to take up a belief on a religious subject. That by definition is a religious belief."
This simply could not be more wrong. For someone to take a stance on a topic (i.e. a religious stance) there must be a proposition on the table for which the stance is taken. For the religious, that proposition is "There is a God" and, more commonly and importantly, "There is a personal God that cares about what I do, who I sleep with and in what position, how I prepare my food and what I eat, and how many times a day I pray. The religious, therefore, are basing their religious stance on that proposition.
The atheist position is that there is no evidence that such a proposition is necessary or valid. There's simply nothing on the table about which to argue or side. The atheist position is that one ought not found a belief for something that lacks evidence for existence.
It is NOT a religious stance in the argument over religion at all, it's the position that no such argument ought to exist to begin with.
You REALLY need to understand the viewpoint of the atheist before you go around ascribing your own game-rules to their positions, or else you'll never get anywhere with them.
Re: Whatever ever value there is to the name, Atari owns it, NOT Nestle.
My use of "megalith" is what's called, among the learned, a "metaphor". No, I don't actually think that Nestle is a large rock serving as an ancient monument, but they are analogous to such in the confections industry.
On the post: How Twitter Suspended The Account Of One Of Our Commenters... For Offending Himself?
Re: the coddled "safe space" crybaby generation
HAVE YOU EVEN TWITTERED, BRO?!?!?!?
On the post: How Twitter Suspended The Account Of One Of Our Commenters... For Offending Himself?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: FCC Commissioner Says Her Agency Is Now Just A Giant Rubber Stamp For Sinclair Broadcasting
Partial solution
This is nearly a perfect answer to the question: "What is crowdfunding for?"
These media anchors and employees are uniquely suited to banding together, raising a stink about what Sinclair is doing, soliciting financial backing from more than half the country so that they can leave their jobs, tell their collective story, and drain Sinclair of the trusted talent it has sucked up and co-opted.
Why is this not already happening? Why are we instead seeing the Nuremberg defense trotted out WHEN THERE ARE WAYS AROUND IT?
On the post: Famous Billy Goat Tavern Initiates Risky Trademark Dispute With Billy Goat Chip Co.
Re:
In all seriousness, for anyone that is over the age of 40 or so, it's a very famous place. For example, it was the subject of one of the more famous skits on SNL in the 80s.
On the post: YouTube Shows Dennis Prager's Claim Of Discrimination Against Conservatives Is Laughable
Re: Re: Re:
And, yet, that doesn't keep me from calling out factual occurrences of idiocy by other members of the right. It's amazing what you can get done when you're not a member of a "team"....
On the post: Trump's Lawyers Apparently Unfamiliar With Streisand Effect Or 1st Amendment's Limits On Prior Restraint
Re: Re: Trump's usefulness
In other words, Trump is trying an unconstitutional move without any real reward.
On the post: Trump's Lawyers Apparently Unfamiliar With Streisand Effect Or 1st Amendment's Limits On Prior Restraint
Trump's usefulness
In the face of all that, what is one tawdry affair with an adult film star long before he entered into office? The religious right cannot logically even bat an eye at this story. It won't matter, except as a story about a cover up.
Yet, here we are.
On the post: Trump Announces One-Sided Plan To Meet With Video Game Makers Over Gun Violence
Re: Strong words from clown mis-using: "whipping post = a post to which offenders are tied to be whipped as a legal punishment".
Are you really this dumb? The whipping post analogy is one in which someone of authority brings out their favorite target for a public flogging, attaching them to the whipping post. This one isn't really that hard, even for you....
On the post: MPAA Opposes Several Filmmaker Associations Request For Expanded Circumvention Exemptions
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Economics of movie creation
This is sophistry at a level so high that it's nearly beautiful....
On the post: Everyone Creates: New Empirical Data Shows Just How Much The Internet Has Enabled A New Creative Economy
Re: It's not all about money
Creativify: the best D&D spell ever....
On the post: US Piracy Lawsuits Shoot Out Of The 2018 Gates As The Malibu Media 'Coaching Tree' Spreads Its Seeds
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
To quote an idiot, "shows what kind of power I have" over you, no?
On the post: Instagram, YouTube Face Full Block In Russia After Billionaire Wins A Privacy Lawsuit Over Pictures With An Alleged Escort
Re: History
If that's REALLY your thesis then we've arrived at a whole new level of false equivalencies....
On the post: Confluence Brewing Sues Confluence On 3rd, An Apartment Complex, For Trademark Infringement
Re: It's "BESIDE the point"
On the post: Washington's Growing AI Anxiety
Re:
The paperclip maximizer AI is a good example of this. You can build an AI with the seemingly harmless goal of making the most amount of paperclips possible. As it grows and learns, that AI may take over our metal resources completely to complete its goal, leaving us without a valuable resource.
Obviously this is a farcical exmaple, but the point is it's those less flashy ways that AI is likely to do us harm.
On the post: Blizzard Still Trying To Take Down WoW Vanilla Fan Servers While Refusing To Offer A Competing Product
Re: The 2017 Blizzcon
Regardless, they could have simply brought these fan groups on board and worked WITH them to make this all official rather than going on the attack.
On the post: BrewDog Beats Back Trademark Action From The Elvis Presley Estate
Re: Are there no non-alcohol-related trademark disputes, then?
On the post: Virginia Politicians Looks To Tax Speech In The Form Of Porn In The Name Of Stemming Human Trafficking
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Virginia Politicians Looks To Tax Speech In The Form Of Porn In The Name Of Stemming Human Trafficking
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This simply could not be more wrong. For someone to take a stance on a topic (i.e. a religious stance) there must be a proposition on the table for which the stance is taken. For the religious, that proposition is "There is a God" and, more commonly and importantly, "There is a personal God that cares about what I do, who I sleep with and in what position, how I prepare my food and what I eat, and how many times a day I pray. The religious, therefore, are basing their religious stance on that proposition.
The atheist position is that there is no evidence that such a proposition is necessary or valid. There's simply nothing on the table about which to argue or side. The atheist position is that one ought not found a belief for something that lacks evidence for existence.
It is NOT a religious stance in the argument over religion at all, it's the position that no such argument ought to exist to begin with.
You REALLY need to understand the viewpoint of the atheist before you go around ascribing your own game-rules to their positions, or else you'll never get anywhere with them.
On the post: Atari Gets The Settlement It Was Surely Fishing For Over An Homage To 'Breakout' In KitKat Commercial
Re: Whatever ever value there is to the name, Atari owns it, NOT Nestle.
......you big boob.
See how metaphors work?
On the post: Portland Surrenders To Old Town Brewing Over Stag Sign Trademark
Re: Portland "has a local connection" to Portland too.
Reading, it's a skill.
Next >>