gaur

A key point that I was making (and a point which your rewriting of my comment completely erases) is that parenthood can be planned ahead for (or avoided) to a much greater degree than other situations that require family leave. I could have made some anodyne choice of words that obscures this fact, but I didn't because I wanted to make the point that if we are giving people support for voluntarily taking on extra family burdens, then it's absolutely inexcusable that we don't extend the same support to people who have had similar burdens thrust upon them involuntarily.

Policies that encompass parental leave as well as more general family leave situations, obviously.

> I'm not sure why the solution should be to discontinue offering parental leave.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I'm suggesting that solution. In fact, I explicitly said "I'm not saying parental leave is bad".

Yet again, people who have family responsibilities through no fault of their own (e.g., taking care of a sick parent or sibling) are ignored while companies fawn over people who (largely) choose to pop out more mouths to feed. I'm not saying parental leave is bad, but it's entirely eclipsed the other reasons why someone might need to take time off work to help family.

Saying "I want 20 weeks paid leave and $35,000 to provide hospice care for my brother" would probably result in derision and maybe a pink slip at many companies, even ones that have generous parental leave.

The Silicon Valley empathy vacuum strikes again.

How many of the lost hundred cantatas do you think contained new (unknown to us) music, as opposed to music that was parodied in a surviving cantata?

The creation of Maine from Massachusetts shows that there is a way to redraw the borders of a state already admitted to the union. It may not be an efficient or repeatable process, but evidently it can happen regardless of how many times you say "states, not provinces!".

> They don't actually care to collect any info about you beyond what you do during the test.

Allegedly.

A comment amounting to "that's how capitalism works, so tough shit!" is such a perfect example of the SV empathy vacuum that I almost think it must be satire.

You've explicitly rewritten it as "if X, then maybe Y", exactly as I said.

"If corporations write the laws, then maybe they will restrict or mistreat their users." That's not a law.

No, you can't just take a statement and call it a "law", even in a facetious sense.

Murphy's law, Betteridge's law, or other facetious laws are at least roughly formulated as "if X, then Y" (or sometimes "Y happens"), which mimics the structure of actual scientific laws. Stallman's statement is formulated as "if X, then maybe Y" (or "Y could happen").

The post you replied to was talking about white supremacists, with no mention of Trump voters.

You are the one who brought up Trump voters at the first mention of alt-right white nationalists, which is ironic since you insist that the former has nothing to do with the latter.