You know, I'm gonna say you're correct.

I think it really is about time we lump the US South in with third world countries.

Maybe we can work with some friendly militias there or something to install a humanitarian government.

I don't know if kudzu can glow in the dark, but we're going to find out!

Never been to Oak Ridge before, huh?

Downmodding due to my hedonistic liberal elitist sheeple tendencies.

I can't help it. I'm sorry.

I kinda feel like you guys are downmodding the poster here, not the post. Dude might have some unpopular opinions and a history of trolling, but at least now he's actually posting stuff and hasn't called anyone an idiot for disagreeing with him. Those are good things, right?

Just to be clear, my downmod is
a) for the Washington Times,
b) their disingenuous emphasis on the 'hypocrisy' of the companies cited as a red-herring to the actual issue at hand,
c) editorial content disguised as journalism

Also, countering an upmod based on an apparent misinterpretation of the point of this so-called article (see my exchange with 5th Earth above).

Being a little short on the aforementioned "hedonistic liberal elitist sheeple tendencies" I can't help but think that the difference between not setting up shop in NC, yet staying in Dubai, etc. is pretty simple to parse: The NC decision isn't going cost anything. "Principles" that actually impact the bottom line are off the table, virtue-signaling that accrues a free brand bump with SJW's is savvy business. What isn't in dispute this that the stated rationale, that their teams have to "live without fear of discrimination", is utter horseshoe. We are, after all, talking about the death penalty - not washrooms.






.

Why do you hate capitalism?

I’m quite fond of capitalism, but it can only work if people are considerably less gullible about the motivations of large corporations then is in evidence here.

Why do you hate people?

We are also after all talking about a private corporation making decisions in the free market for whatever reasons they choose- solid conservative values. So what exactly is the problem?
PayPal is in fact giving up millions in grants and incentives that NC was offering for them setting up shop there, not to mention relatively cheap southern labor. No doubt they can find similarly attractive deals elsewhere, perhaps in Georgia where the Gov just wisely vetoed similar 'religious freedom' legislation. As for the NC law just being about 'washrooms', that's bullshit. Not only does the law specifically omit LGBT as a basis for non-discrimination, it very deliberately overrides and prohibits any local attempts to pass such protections, as Charlotte had just done.

More than that. This bill contained provisions that prevent people who have been discriminated against at work from taking their case to the state courts. They have to go federal, which is expensive and involved. This is a huge boon for employers, so this bill should be pulling in the new businesses.

Actually there is currently no federal protection for LGBTQ people facing workplace discrimination (unless they're federal employees or employed by federal contractors), or discrimination by businesses. If there was than states couldn't pass laws like this. The only such protections exist at the state or local level.

No, this isn't' restricted to LGBT. It's all forms of discrimination. Race, religion, gender, etc. Those people can now only take a case to federal court.

OK, I just discovered what you're talking about. Holy fuck.
'Bathroom bill' indeed. Those sneaky fuckers.

Yeah, it's a diversion. Get the base riled up about the gays and sneak in some bullshit.

I actually don't know why the US makes legislation like this - adding in unrelated things to the same Bill. In New Zealand a Bill can only be about the thing it is about. to draft a bill you need to put a paper through Cabinet and you can only make a law that does what Cabinet says you can do. (Member's bills are slightly different, but they really only set out on to do one thing). You can't just add in riders and extras and this that and the other thing. It's madness. How can you legislate like that?

When you've got a legislative majority and an executive all in agreement, all too easily I'm afraid.

Well, the Cabinet is all from the one party. And the party with the parliamentary majority can pretty much do what they want. But we don't do this.

OK, now you're just being smug. ;)

I am.

But I'm also genuinely confused about this. It seems really odd. It must make the law very confusing.

Honestly I have no explanation for why things work this way here*. It's not so much confusing as frustrating. One detail worth noting is that most state governors have a 'line item' veto power- in other words they can strike useless or unrelated add-ons from a bill (NC is one of only six states that don't grant this power, but I'm guessing Governor McCrory was fine leaving this stuff in). POTUS btw does not have this power, it's veto or sign the whole mess, so naturally Congress is always trying to sneak stuff into bills.

*on thinking about it, I'd venture that this quirk is probably the unfortunate product of our attempt to balance powers between branches of government. Gives legislators some leeway in passing legislation that otherwise might never see the light of day.

I think that might be the reason. With no line-veto you can leverage a necessary bill to get through all sorts of nonsense.

It seems very undemocratic to me. And I suspect the states that gave the governor line-veto might think the same. But I doubt it would be extended to the President at this stage. Given how useful it is to Senators.

Bill Clinton demanded a line-item veto when he was President. Congress said no, emphatically.

Several presidents have (of both parties).

No, congress passed the law and the supreme court stuck it down as unconstitutional.

Just wait until they start to read about Canadian Omnibus bills. So much easier when you have a majority in parliamentary system to vote through one big bill than the individual measures...

In the US they append pork typically, in order to secure votes on the bill. Even though it might be there is a party Whip, sometime the quid pro quo is needed to get members to support the bill from same party.

You use that "SJW" term as if it's supposed to be insulting. Do you use "cuck" as well? I'd almost think someone was awarding points based on how often it's typed, since everyone but wingnuts thinks its silly.

Oop, i think you are projecting again.

Have you considered being Sheeple? You might love it.

https://vimeo.com/24550780

You are correct but missing the point - Leverage. These tech companies have leverage within the US because states all want to have the jobs and get the tax revenue, so the power to influence is on the side of the companies. It indeed does not "cost them" to set up shop elsewhere in the US, aside from the already expended funds on seeking permits, working with state and local agents to get the deal in place, etc.

When setting up the offices or doing business in other countries, you lose that leverage (particularly on sales side) because they can just ban your product from import. The case in Malaysia might be mixed, because those countries of course also want tax revenue and jobs, and so they may be willing to offer incentives to get those jobs - but rewriting existing laws just to get Apple to set up shop is unlikely.

So we should let the policies of other countries set the bar for American laws?

Also:

"When choosing words, keep in mind that the average person in the United States has a high school, not a college, education. For certain respondent groups, the education level is even lower." - Market Research: An Applied Orientation

I'm looking at you North Carolina/Mississippi.

The long view is we spread western values to these nations through commercialization and enjoyment of material goods, thereby lessening the grip of religion (including communism). A comfortable middle class unburdened by dependency (both physical and emotional) on religion will be in a better position to demand more freedom from their governments.

Also, both companies listed promote increased internet usage, which will expose more of their people to differing points of view thus further lessening religion's absolutist tendencies.

The US South is already well into this program, so PayPal and Apple can exert more aggressive influence than in those more repressive countries.

You speak as if America is not caught in the grip of religion.

All the more reason for them to take a stand here in the US, where we should be held to a higher human rights standard than Malaysia or Singapore. "Land of the Free" y'know.

I fear for the safety of my precious bodily fluids. World for of Preeverts

I am going to go ahead and say it.

Maybe it is high time the US allow the southern states to secede. They can take all of their racist rhetoric, poverty, low education level and go. Maybe they will stop being a drag on the US economy and the rest of the nation can get ahead finally


Edit: fuck cellphones.

Well, we're allowing Florida to recede.

I think you mean 'secede'. They've already receded.

Bruce Springsteen Cancels Show in North Carolina To Protest 'Bathroom Bill'
Of course this is the guy who wrote the subversive protest song 'Born in the USA' that right-wing morons still think is a patriotic anthem.

They should switch to "Fortunate Son."

I like to bash 1234 as much as anyone, but even a racist clock is right twice a day.

I don't think the SC decision is a hollow gesture made only for PR reasons, but if a corporation really wanted to effect societal change, they could do a lot more good putting pressure on other nations than they could by acting only within the USA. It's a good gesture made for the right reasons, but it also highlights missed opportunities.

Perhaps, but none of this diminishes the fact that the NC bill is bigoted and regressive, and easily worthy of all manner of boycott and condemnation. In this context it is completely irrelevant that Paypal or any other company acting on this might also be doing business with more regressive foreign regimes. This is simply a lame attempt by the right wing noise machine (well represented here by the agitprop-spewing Washington Times) to distract from the real issue- the bill itself.

That's an awfully cynical interpretation. The article on several occasions pointed out the counter-argument that the presence of these companies in foreign nations can itself act as a positive social pressure. There was a definite bias against that idea, but it was pretty reasonable, just a basic editorial.

The original bill is abhorrent, but I for one am capable of knowing that a company can do good in one way without doing good in another. This is about missed opportunities, not a failure in one area invalidating success in another. You can congratulate a first step and still recommend they go further.

You're taking this 'article' (it's really more of an editorial) at face value. It's nice that they get a little input from someone from the human rights campaign, but who's front and center here, acting all righteous and indignant here about Paypal's not standing up for gay rights abroad? Matt Sharp, legal counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom- an American conservative Christian nonprofit organization with the stated goal of "defending the right to hear and speak the Truth through strategy, training, funding, and litigation." (Wikipedia).
In other words, the most prominent source for this piece is a guy representing the group that was one of the main sponsors and supporters of this abhorrent bill. That's why it's a big steaming pile of bullshit.

You know, I actually called it an editorial myself, so you don't need to make that point to me.

re: Matt Sharp and the groups he represents, okay, he's a toolbag. That still doesn't mean anything he's saying in this particular instance is wrong. He may be trying to distract from the issue at hand, but he's doing it by pointing out a legitimate problem elsewhere. I'm willing to accept that someone can be right for the wrong reasons. Right for the wrong reason is still useful. Hitler was a vegan, etc.

Maybe most people are dumb enough to be distracted by the distraction that it arguably is. Maybe other people see that it's a distraction and look no further. I'm willing to look at the point he's making, determine what relevance if any it has to the original issue, consider it (yes, at its face value, giving the benefit of a doubt is a virtue in my book), and let it inform my attitudes without forgetting the original problem.

I see a lot of indignation from you that this is all a right-wing plot, but you haven't actually refuted anything he's saying. As far as I can tell we don't really disagree on what the piece actually says. You just aren't willing to overlook their motives to consider the actual content.

Of course it's all about the motives. You think the Washington Times and the Alliance Defending Freedom give a rat's ass about the rights of LGBT people in Malaysia or anywhere? There's really no need to refute anything they're saying because what they're saying, true or not, is irrelevant and self-serving. The actual content is built solely on ulterior motives.
You want another analogy? It's the same as pointing to Al Gore's personal carbon footprint as an argument to refute climate change. Hey, never mind about rising sea levels, look at hypocritical Al Gore's big house and limo (another infamous tactic of the Washington Times)! This is the same bullshit.

Have you noticed how the natural course of progress in our society has seemingly started to weed out inferior specimens like yourself?

This is not an accident. It is deliberate.

I understand that your response is one born out of ignorance and fear. Ignorance of a "new way" that is slowly encroaching on an outdated way of life which you cling to. Fear that people such as yourself will be rounded up and not allowed to continue.

Well I am here to assauge your fears 1234. Your people wont be rounded up and put into camps. Your guns wont be taken away. You and your ilk will be allowed to slowly inbreed out the last of these dying views, clinging to a worldview that never truly worked.

So you can come here and do your dance of insults and bullshit posturing, it really does nothing more than make yourself look like a fucking tool.

So let each of the threads graced by your participation be a reminder. A reminder that you and your kind is in fact, on its way out. A reminder that there are more of us than of you.

You fight the battles you have a chance of winning. Paypal is never going to be able to influence domestic policy in a foreign country, so the comparison you're making is ludicrous as you well know. But hey, whatever makes you feel good, kid.

Paypal's rationale for not going into NC as planned is quoted in the original post. It is clear and specific, and I have reqouted it elsewhere for emphasis.

According to Paypal’s own statement, the decision was based on the following:

“Becoming an employer in North Carolina, where members of our teams will not have equal rights under the law, is simply untenable.”

Nowhere there did they say they made the decision to, “change NC Policy” as you erroneously imply. Perhaps that was part of their motivation, perhaps it wasn’t. I don’t know, and you don’t know. What we do know, is that their own public statement, implies that they would not be employers in places where their employees do not have “equal rights”. This is demonstrably false. It's a bald-faced misrepresentation of their business practices intended to mislead the public about them having "principles" they do not have. Paypal has zero problem being employers where their employees do not have equal rights, in fact, they are to happy to turn a buck in places where their workers face execution by the state.

So there you go.

Consider yourself corrected.

Kid.

If you are going to pick one quote from that source material, you might want to have it in context:
“The new law perpetuates discrimination and it violates the values and principles that are at the core of PayPal’s mission and culture,” Dan Schulman, PayPal’s president and chief executive, wrote in a statement on Tuesday. “As a result, PayPal will not move forward with our planned expansion into Charlotte.”

So yes, they are opting not to move because of the law, and because this does not offer equal rights as other states, which is clear given the context, but since you're focused only on what was stated verbose, I understand how you could miss this.

They do not, hlwever, publicly state that they would consider completing the move if the law was revoked. To that end you are also correct that they are generating some good PR without having to actually enforce a change to the law. They do make plain that the law is the issue, and others who may follow suit will certainly impact the state where it matters most: their wallets.

This was a rallying cry in support of the bill.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article64943682.html

When the local Charlotte LGBT guy who fought for the passing of Charlotte's ordinance ends up being on the sexual offenders list then people take that and run with it.