Comment Re:"Hate Speech" you say. (Score 1) 105
Tell me you didn't read what I read without saying you didn't read it.
Hate speech can be legal, that doesn't make it not hate speech.
Tell me you didn't read what I read without saying you didn't read it.
Hate speech can be legal, that doesn't make it not hate speech.
Well, there is that I suppose, but to me it just seems like it is making it harder for people who are ethnically/culturally Jewish to separate that identity from the Jewish religion.
I'm going to quote Jay Rayner to you: "Understand that I am both Jewish and eat pork because there is no God and you understand a few very basic things about me."
There is not much separation between the two. If you know I don't worship the only permitted god, that tells you something about my Saturday morning habits (perhaps) and diet (perhaps), depending on how frum I am.
Why would I care to distinguish more? It's only going to be of interest to someone I'm having a very in depth conversation with or someone with an axe to grind.
The other issue is that we end up protecting religious beliefs that should not be protected, sometimes at the expense of other people's rights.
People's rights are always a tradeoff. Some people want to right to discriminate and oppress others, others want the opposite. There has been a long and storied history of using religion as an excuse for discrimination too, much more so than the opposite.
And let's not forget, Hamas don't actually give a crap about the Palestinian people either. They want to wipe Israel off the map (and the Jews in general) and rule the ashes. They wouldn't let Palestinian civilians shelter in their tunnels.
Oh, *I* know that, but every article that references "hate speech" in an article gives the term/concept a tiny bit more "legitimacy." I want to combat that any time I see it.
This is just dumb. Hate speech and free speech are two different things. The former may or may not be criminalized but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
It is not that bizarre. Religion, culture and race are strongly intermingled, and often inseparable. For example, Jews tend to be subject to antisemitism whether or not they attend shul and are in fact atheist.
All protests, anywhere, are now labeled antisemitic.
Oh do fuck off.
There's an old Jewish saying as it happens: a half truth is a whole lie. You're making it sound like this is a generality and "they" whoever they are are labelling them as antisemitic.
Except you're quoting Netanuahu, the right wing nutcase currently PM in Israel who's desparate to keep the distractions going to avoid going to prison over corruption charges. And he's not exactly unbiased.
But then of course after hearing strenuously how it's just about Israel and not about the Jews at all we find that we are not in fact safe around the marches in Londoner, and all that's required to "antagonize" is to be too Jewish too near the march.
Although now you're talking about BLM... no idea how that came into this.
He's off on a tangent about BLM and also, don't forget, telling you do do your own research (aka primary sources).
We're a short hop from Hunter Biden's laptop or pizza.
Also email and gsuite. Those don't seem to be going anywhere, but given gsuite is a suite, they kill off parts of it with no real replacement making the whole thing less useful.
Also the cloud computing stuff isn't new in the last 10 years, it's 16 years old now.
A company is valued by looking at its revenue, its costs (profit is revenue minus costs) and it's growth potential.
Nope.
If someone invests money in a stock they expect either the value of the company to go up due to growth or a dividend from the profit or hopefully both.
Yes.
It's not rocket science.
It very much is, and that's why you're not rich.
If a company is growing because they're plowing all their profit into expansion to fuel greater future revenue then their value and price will go up even though they're not paying a dividend.
No. That's demonstrably not how it works.
Obviously a company with a high stock price that stops growing and doesn't make any profit so doesn't pay a dividend won't have a high stock price for very long so your correlation is mostly correct.
Obviously.
Saying that dividends and profit have nothing to do with share market value is completely insane though.
They don't, because you've stared contrary evidence directly in your face and ignored it.
Stock value is largely psychologically set, as someone elsewhere in this thread lamented.
We live in a world where $44 billion dollar companies are unprofitable.
And while that's the more extreme demonstration, and we can just write it off as Musk being either a superhero, or a fucking moron, you can also just point to stocks almost anywhere in the tech sector, where even a divident payment ratio of 100% wouldn't result in a yield ratio of 3%.
New York... when civilization falls apart, remember, we were way ahead of you. - David Letterman