As far as I can tell, nowhere does the article argue that being "terrorist symphathizer" and being a successful business person are mutually exculsive, so you seem to be arguing against a point no one made.
What is obvious is that people should be outraged if a successful businessperson is actually a "terrorist sympathizer", because most people, whatever their ideology, would simply consider it to be an outrageous and ridiculous state of affairs if a successful businessperson was allowed to function unimpeded in western society and its business world if they themselves considered the businessperson to be an unapologetic "terrorist sympathizer".
The title is clearly an enagement ploy by the editor because it forces the reader to decide whether they themselves believe the founder is actually a terrorist sympathizer or not. If they don't think so, then it's outrageous that he's been libelled in a such a manner. If they think he is a terrorist sympathizer then it would be outrageous to them that he is allowed to operate unimpeded in western society and its economic realm.
That's why this comment sounds disingenously pedantic and your follow-up comment's detached tone doesn't feel sincere frankly. The article does list specific reasons why he was called a "terrorist sympathizer" and forces the reader to decide whether they themselves would consider the founder a "terrorist sympathizer" given the context in order to come to a conclusion about him in general.
Not really. The poster you're agreeing with specifically stated that "nothing has fundamentally changed" and that the US has been "using human rights as an excuse". I don't know if you're completely unaware but Trump is definitely not using human rights as an excuse when sanctioning the ICC judges or whoever fits his fancy. In fact, he's not even using international law as an excuse as the term "human rights" actually means something under the UN. That is the change. And it's just as likely he'd do it if it was in his interest but not American interest. That also would be a rather fundamental change.
Sanctions are an economic tool to punish opposition to and advance geopolitical aims of the sanctioning country.
The original poster is absolutely correct in this. Whether the excuse is human rights or something else, the key point being made is that its intention is to advance a geopolitical cause behind an excuse. It doesn’t matter what the excuse is.
I think you and the original poster are being a tad careless in your reading. This article is specifically about sanctioned individuals not countries-- a sanctioned ICC judge who concurred with a very specific ruling. If you want to discuss sanctioning countries you should state explicitly that you're taking a slight tangent because though these topics are very related they are definitly not the same, and vastly different with respect to the magnitude of the practical consequences.
The article specifically states that there are some 15,000 sanctioned individuals, many of which are IS and Al Quaeda members. These actors are often considered non-state terrorists. If you wish to dispute the article's claim that these actors represent the majority of sanctioned individuals feel free to do so, otherwise please explain how much practical pressure sanctioning the rest of the lot-- those compromised mainly from the top brass of authoritarian regimes -- could have effects remotely comparable to sanctioning an entire country composed of millions of people. Those sanctioned individual are also the people least affected by sanctions, since they have direct access to their countrie's financial and natural resources and could care less whether their daughter's visa or mastercard works at that fancy ski resort in the Austrian Alps.
Trump is sanctioning ICC judges because their rulings are complicating his blatant direct personal enchrichment and his family
business's real estate dealings for the "Gazan Riveria", which he wants implemented unopposed. It is just silly to say that this amount of in-your-face direct personal enrichment angle having an oversized impact on American foreign policy is just your regular American geopolitical machinations, as you would have to argue that the USA has always been a banana republic no different than any other.
I think you should probably read a bit more on the history of sanctions, their effect and incentives before calling someone “tad careless”. Your argument basically devolves to semantics about the labelling of who is being sanctioned, vs the impacts.
Look up who the US has sanctioned historically, and what the geopolitical objective was. Someone is always being enriched, question is who.
>it is less famous than the "happier" nocturne that follows it
Funny, despite the youtube numbers to me it always seemed to me like Op.1 b-flat minor was the one that would be overplayed left and right (movies and whatnot), maybe because people thought they fit be a moody scene or piece of art better.
>give them an attentive listen and play them on a high-quality audio system
I have no music background and I would like tips on this because I'm partial to the preludes (raindrop etc) for example and they have softer key and louder key parts and I want to blast the softer side without overblasting and distortion occuring when it gets to the louder end of the piece and I wish somebody would remaster a normalized version of the recordings. I don't know if this is idiotic since I have no idea how worse it would make the pieces...
> seemed to me like Op.1 b-flat minor was the one that would be overplayed
I don't watch much movies, but haven't seen Op. 9 No. 1 often in many places. I hope it remains that way! No 2 is wildly popular for its lovely long opening melody.
> preludes (raindrop etc) for example and they have softer key and louder key parts and I want to blast the softer side without overblasting and distortion
Yes, the preludes are lovely. But please -- you don't need to "blast" this music. This is not rock :-) Yes, there are a lot of "dynamics" (soft and loud and some gradations: pianissimo, forte, etc), but don't overthink it.
Just use a reasonably high-end speaker (e.g. I use an old, Bose "SoundTouch 20") and pick one of the recent recordings from Deutsche Grammophon. I'm currently listening to the nocturne interpretations by Kun-Woo Paik.
>But please -- you don't need to "blast" this music. This is not rock :-)
:) I guess I should have been more specific. My scenario is listening to the music on the balcony when the speakers are inside. I turn it up to hear the soft notes in the beginning to my liking, only to have go back inside to turn it down when the louder sections begin as it gets too loud. The only thing that comes to mind is doing some sort of normalization.
>I often paused reading and put on the track on a given page
I wonder if this is done in the audiobook version of these types of books by default. It would seem like a missed opportunity not to.
Yes, argue against unsubstantiated bias with more unsubstantiated bias. Anyone who knows about the high percentage of educated immigrants in the tech sector and who knows the historical importance of immigrants to American innovation could easily find this highly relevant, especially the historical high ratio of successful immigrant founders in SV itself including a couple of white South Africans that come to mind -- at least one of which who seems to have had a less than by-the-book immigrant status and could have been deported in today's climate if someone wished it to be so.
The UK leaving the EU is one
of the highest ranked stories on this site for similar reasons no doubt.
fyi: You headline with "cross-industry", lead with fancy engineering productivity graphics, then caption it with small print saying its from your internal team data. Unless I'm completely missing something, it comes of as a little misleading and disingenuous. Maybe intro with what your company does and your data collection approach.
Apologies, that is poor wording on our part. It's internal data from engineers that use Greptile, which are tens of thousands of people from a variety of industries. As opposed to external, public data, which is where some of the charts are from.
What is obvious is that people should be outraged if a successful businessperson is actually a "terrorist sympathizer", because most people, whatever their ideology, would simply consider it to be an outrageous and ridiculous state of affairs if a successful businessperson was allowed to function unimpeded in western society and its business world if they themselves considered the businessperson to be an unapologetic "terrorist sympathizer".
The title is clearly an enagement ploy by the editor because it forces the reader to decide whether they themselves believe the founder is actually a terrorist sympathizer or not. If they don't think so, then it's outrageous that he's been libelled in a such a manner. If they think he is a terrorist sympathizer then it would be outrageous to them that he is allowed to operate unimpeded in western society and its economic realm.
That's why this comment sounds disingenously pedantic and your follow-up comment's detached tone doesn't feel sincere frankly. The article does list specific reasons why he was called a "terrorist sympathizer" and forces the reader to decide whether they themselves would consider the founder a "terrorist sympathizer" given the context in order to come to a conclusion about him in general.
reply