OK, so I can take it that I was just really confused, and this "stood-up"-ness and "real"-ness were never relevant? If so, consider that tangent closed.

Let's get back your quote from the Wikipedia article. We have two laws (or proposed laws) under discussion. These laws would have been written, sponsored, and perhaps voted upon, by some particular finite set of legislature-creatures that tend to dwell in Albany o Sacto. These legislature-creatures are our actual IRL SJWers under discussion.

How does this all tie together. Legislature-creatures are representatives in a republic. Their job is to represent their constituents interests... regardless, and even in spite of, of how deep-seated their personal convictions happen to be.

Secondly, every thing that every legislature-creature does at all times is "virtue signalling". That's their career, "virtue signalling" to grab the campaign $$$$, thn "virtue signalling" to get the votes, then "virtue signaling" to grab the $$$$ on the lecture circuit after civil society gets tired of looking at their lying pie-holes.

So.. isn't 100% of every possible law, on every possible side, an example of pitiful SJWer-ism && a shameless exercise in "virtue signaling" ??

No.

Just because there is a problem doesn't mean you have to "do" anything about it. That's the authoritarian trap.

Here's a good quote for you:

Mirror mirror on the right wing wall, are prolife trumpists the most "SJW" of them all, constantly signaling their supremacy over all our fetus-souls virtues?

In the history of the internet no intelligent person has ever posted a meme or YouTube video to make a point in a debate. You might as well have an auto signature that reads "low information, low intellect poster".

Clovis, stop jumping up on the desk. Go get a treat! Or do you need to be let outside?

Not jumping. Laughing at you.

OK, what distinguishes a SJWer Donkey -vs- a non-SJWer Donkey?

I use, and like, and actually $$$$, the products and services from google.com. But... I've never given a seconds thought to their internal factions/whatev. I actually had to google google to come up with who and how many fools own it.

I simply assume that the CEOs of every F500 company have functional command and control of said company, and that public statements, such as a policy 'manifesto', would accurately reflect said companies policies.

As such I find it astounding you claim a rogue employee at google.com inserted what you to be purported to SJWer content/whatev.

That sounds a whole hell of a lot like a conspiracy theory to me.

Dude! C'mon man, like I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here.

The Manifesto was written by a Google Employee talking about how Google lacks diversity of ideas and they're basically just a den of SJWs. Their VP of Diversity came out and said - "Google disagrees with this manifesto."

This video discusses both Google's manifesto and YouTube's (owned by Google) new content policy. If you are genuinely interested, you'll give it a listen.



If you want to say "Hey, I'm not interested." That's fine too. But then you're kind of in the wrong forum for that....

LOL. Clovis. The king of low-content.

Your own posting history is an embarrassment. Go and crawl back under your rock.

BullySushy say wHat?

Dude, I said every possible side. That includes both the yeah side ("do")... and the nay side ("don't do"). Like this...

• Speaker-creature: Next up for debate, Public Law #343445...46p
• Elephant-Creature: We should all vote yeah because roses are red !!!1! [virtue signaling re: roses are good !!!11]
• Elephant-Creature: We should all vote nay because violents are blue !!!1! [virtue signaling re: violets are good !!!11]
• Green-Turtle-Creature: We should all abstain because I love you !!!1! [virtue signaling re: love is good !!!11]
• Metallic-Statue-Creature: Screw this, we need to strip mine the National Monuments, because Jerbs, and I love you too !!!1! [virtue signaling re: love is good, Jerbs are better !!!11]

As soon as the legislature-creatures get ahold of things... it's 100% "virtue signalling" 100% of the time... because they all gotta get re-elected. That's what legislature-creatures do, all of them, all the time.

Your absolutes and misrepresentations are noted. Thanks for not contributing to the conversation.

You are calling me a bully?

This Clovis clown wishes death on other posters. That' about as big of a bully as you can get online. And it's extremely dumb.

No, I didn't catch this. When this document was described as a "google manifesto" I assumed it was something official from google.com itself. I never imagined it was just some meaningless random shiz scribbled down by a lowly and perhaps disgruntled employee.

Again... who cares? Google has like 100k employees. Why would anyone care what any one of them happen to scribble down? Since this perhaps disgruntled employee obviously has (or had ) -zero- power to change policy inside google.com... this is another example of a complete and total nothing-burger.

So far we got...

• Some complete non-entity of a non-person tweets something random at a MLB game ,
• Some congress-critter name-called some other fool who is also part of the political-entertainment-complex. and...
• Some complete non-entity of a non-person posted some random whining about their bosses.

This isn't even news, never mind the makings of a conspiracy theory.

It's pretty awesome that every time I make a claim about sushy or Jimmy their instant response is "no that's you". They have learned well from their daddy. They are both as stupid as daddy only difference is the bath of Trumps ballsac sweat running down their chin.

I also love that Jimmy thinks youtube is the same as the American Journal of Political Science (which I'm sure he has never heard of).

Not posters, just your daddy.

You wished death on me. Liar.

No. You are missing my point.

My point is that I can't imagine any scenario where the congress-critters/etc are not "virtue signalling". What I'd like you to do is either (a) agree with me, or (b) give me an example of a situation where you feel the congress-critter/etc would not be "virtue signalling", or (c) make some other attempt to explain why I am confused.

For example:

If I said "There's no way J.Robinson wasn't the first black MLB"... I'm not asking you to accept that as an absolute, that I'm stifling the conversation, and I'm not insisting on you agreeing to my blatant misrepresentation. I could just have been that ignorant.

But, the proper way to respond isn't to accuse me of speaking in absolutes/etc. The proper response is to correct my ignorance. The proper response is "Yes there is a way. J.Robinson broke the color barrier. There were black MLBers in the 1800s, before the color barrier was established."

Make sense

Shame - someone who speaks in absolutes doesn't seem to be open to ideas and nuance. Stop thinking like a programmer and start thinking like a human being. Not everything is an algorithm.

This isn't just a ****ing post-it note. Stop with your non-sense! This is a senior engineer whose 10 page writings are now being reported on by many, many journalists. The attention this is garnering cannot be understated (for today's news cycle at least).

(I agree Gizmodo isn't news, but other sites like Fortune and Business Insider have picked up on it. The story broke over the weekend, so I imagine this will be a hot topic in the blogosphere this week.)

Did you watch the video yet? Come back to me when you do.

You know, if you don't want to talk about, that's fine. No one is forcing you to be here.

But guys. The yooootubz. They are super smart. Believe the youtooobz. Not just anyone can post on the youtooobz.

You though.

Hey Clovis, get the squirrel Clovis, you can do it Clovis....

Goodboy Clovis. Sit, rollover, beg, paw.....

I just explained I'm not speaking in absolutes

In general, a congress-critter/etc will say shiz like: I voted for/against/etc bill (x) for reason (Y). My point is the reason given here, (Y), is always going to be a reason his constituents are going to feel is virtuous. The reason being that giving odious reasons like a (Z) would make their constituents less likely to shovel $$$$ at them, and less likely to ritualistically poke holes next to their namea.

So... ipso facto presto chango... congress-critters/etc are always "virtue signalling" as compared to the opposite, which is "odious signalling".

Now, I want to make three real quick points. First, I'm not talking in absolutes... I'm asking you to please comment on my comment. Second, I'd like you to comment on my comment, as I'm not talking in absolutes. And third, I'm absolutely not talking in absolutes, but I absolutely would like you to comment on my comment... absolutely.

So... ipso facto presto chango... congress-critters/etc are always "virtue signalling" as compared to the opposite, which is "odious signalling".

Care to comment on my comment?

Made my day Jimmy posted a youtooobz ins response to my comment.