#nonopinionative

[onewomancitadel]

I'm struggling to think of any R/WBY characters I genuinely dislike or don't hold a small measure of enthusiasm for (which makes writing fic much easier). I might not be initiated into their cult worship or know all of the fanon, but I don't think I gloss over them.

I just post about Jaune/Cinder because they are my favourite of favourites

I was mildly afraid of posting about Ruby or Oscar before because there's all of that established RG analysis (and again I assume I am an idiot who doesn't know shit about fuck) but I think I am more comfortable nowadays.

Certainly there's fanon I dislike, but that's not the same thing as the characters themselves... there were definitely points where I found some characters less interesting than others (e.g. Ren and Nora became interesting to me in V7/V8), but yeah.

Now the fanon is a whole different story, but I like my little playground lol.

There are characters that are meant to be unlikable or far, far more minor than fandom gives them credit for, or their role is only supposed to be foiling, so that's one caveat I suppose. But again it's more the fandom in that instance which is annoying.

[justyvettethings]

Libra rising and its Venusian beauty

I find Libra ascendant as one of the most misunderstood of the rising signs. There are a couple reasons regarding this statement, coming from the nature of the Libra archetype as an individual astrological component.

As a Libra rising, I'll explain them from my own perspective and my interactions with people with this position.

Often times people label Libra as a fake, nonopinionated person, who likes everything and everyone. Libra sun (if it's prominent in the chart/strong Libra energy) and even more Libra rising (due to its role of the social mask we're all putting on when communicating with others in the social cycle) are described as one layered and insincere, which probably comes from their tendencies to please the people around them or to not let their thoughts out in most situations, letting other people's opinion get over theirs, which I call the unhealthy compromise. It's very easy to misunderstand the Libra energy. I don't judge the people who think this position makes a person appear as someone, who is constantly radiating fakeness, because that's simply what Libra rising does in the eyes of the society. They're not wrong. But all of that is only on the surface. It has it's reasons.

The Venusian desire for peace and harmony

Venus, as Libra's ruler, makes its energy really refined. Libra will always seek balance in any aspect - mind, home, carrier, relationships. When this sign is standing in the 1st house, there's one most common scenario happening - Libra risings, due to their airy self, will be depending on the people around them to present themselves. They become one with people and need them in order to feel safe, because that's what air energy represents, among other things (that's why I think Libra is not the best Sun sign). This, however, doesn't mean Libra risings are some naive people with no personal beliefs and opinions on various topics. They just prefer to draw back from conflicts in the name of keeping the peace, because that's their core identity - to be the balancer. Sometimes this can be a weakness, but if such people didn't exist, imagine what the world would be like. Of course, there will always be manipulative people, who will take advantage of this venerian trait, and in those cases, it becomes a weakness, but something else as well - the lesson, that needs to be learned. In this context, we need to explain another really important part of every person's chart ->

The Ascendant - Descendant axis

The sign, positioned in the 7th house, is called the Descendant. In the Libra rising's case, this sign is the fiery Aries. Aries' energy will be unconsciously suppressed by the Libra's, because the Descendant stays in the dark. The battle between the two opposite energies becomes a constant struggle for the person, if not understood. The strong willed, always seeking attention energy of the Aries will try to take a piece of the Libra's light, it will try to shine. That's why the lifetime lesson of the Libra rising is to occasionally let the Aries out, then gradually learn to balance the energies and to use them depending on the situation. Otherwise the lesson of their lifetime will become their lifetime struggle and we don't want that to happen. They need to learn that there's no need to be silent everytime an unpleasant situation occurs in order to achieve peace, because this peace will be toxic and unhealthy for their inner self. They might not even feel their behavior being harmful to their own selves.

Libras have huge problem when people don't like them

The harsh truth in one sentence. Libra as an archetype represents the social butterfly. The influence of Venus over these people is, in my humble opinion, really impressive. I love having Libra as my rising, because it gives you great diplomatic and communicating skills, amazing physical features and a gentle, sophisticated appearance and character. For a woman, this ascendant could be one of the best positions in the chart and it's very favourable. However, it is taking toll in two aspects - it makes a person very dependent on their appearance (you're so attached to it that it makes you feel bad and worthless if it's not how you want it to be) and if someone doesn't like you, you feel it more than other people, because Libra needs to be liked and appreciated in order to function normally. This is not a concern for some other signs, like capricorn for example.

Libra rising is ready to bend it's behavior and speech to adapt to a certain situation in order to get the best out of it for itself. Sometimes they make it unconsciously, sometimes - purposely. There's nothing wrong with this, because the modern society is not fairly arranged system. You do whatever you can in order to survive and get the positives from it. Everyone is, to a certain extent, fake when presenting themselves in the society. Libra ascendant has great social skills, so why not using them when they have this opportunity? They have the admirable ability to make themselves look the best.

The ascendant itself is the social part of our personality. We wear its mask everyday and I think this mask is connected to our true selves. Why? Because even the best actor can't act everyday for an entire life. If we represent ourselves as something, we need to have it deeply in us. Libra archetype is the social one in the zodiac. So when we put them together, it makes amazing result.

I have to say that most of the people with this rising sign don't even understand their own appeal. They are just naturals. People tend to gravitate around them and search for their company. Amazing faces, amazing smiles, amazing energy - all thanks to Her Majesty the Libra in the 1st house.

[mulderfx]

if you’re a junior in college, esp a liberal arts major, and you haven’t learned that bias is inherent in every single action or thought we do/have and that bias is not inherently negative—you just have to be mindful and conscious of it to learn and grow—then !! please learn it now. saying you have a nonopinion because you can’t be strictly objective is stupid, straight up.

[thewallpaperzone]

The Witcher 3 DLC. shared by NonOpinionated via /r/wallpapers https://ift.tt/2PZjg24

[ericfruits]

Iowa Allows Inquiry Notwithstanding Privilege

The Iowa Supreme Court has allowed discovery into otherwise privileged information in a matter involving a former employee who complained about racial discrimination only after departing from the employment. 

The attorney had investigated the allegations as counsel to the employer.

Fenceroy stopped working for Gelita in March 2013. He filed a complaint with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission (ICRC) a short time later. The complaint charged Gelita with race discrimination. Upon receipt of Fenceroy’s ICRC charge, Gelita retained attorney Ruth Horvatich and tasked her with developing a strategy to defend the company during administrative proceedings.

Pursuant to this representation, Horvatich interviewed several Gelita employees to ascertain the merits of Fenceroy’s complaint. Tolsma was present for and participated in each interview. A union representative, John Hoswald, was also present during the employee interviews. At the end of each interview, Horvatich drafted a witness statement that summarized the employee’s account and instructed the employee to sign the document.

Horvatich’s investigation revealed some Gelita employees had made racially disparaging comments in the workplace. Gelita subsequently terminated one employee, Bob Kersbergen, and disciplined others, including Kent Cosgrove, Tom Haire, and Lewis Bergenske. Horvatich did not participate in any of the disciplinary decisions.

The court

This review presents a significant issue regarding the boundaries of attorney–client privilege and work-product protection. We must decide whether plaintiff’s counsel may depose defense counsel and obtain counsel’s prelawsuit work product. After leaving his job, plaintiff filed an administrative complaint charging his former employer with race discrimination. In response to the charge, the employer hired an attorney to defend the company and investigate the merits of the charge. The employer filed an administrative position statement wherein it relied upon the attorney’s investigation to support its Faragher–Ellerth affirmative defense. In the subsequent civil action, the employer retained the same attorney and again raised the affirmative defense. The employer claimed attorney–client privilege and work-product protection over the investigation and moved for a protective order to prevent plaintiff from deposing defense counsel and obtaining her investigation notes. Yet, in its motion for summary judgment, the employer again relied upon the investigation to support its defense. The district court denied the protective order, and we granted the employer’s interlocutory appeal.

We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the defendants’ protective order. When an employer raises a Faragher–Ellerth affirmative defense and relies upon an internal investigation to support that defense, the employer waives attorney–client privilege and nonopinion work-product protection over testimony and documents relating to the investigation. On remand, the employer is permitted to amend its answer and brief to limit the affirmative defense to only the period of plaintiff’s employment. If the employer declines to so amend, it may not claim attorney–client privilege or work-product protection over the 2013 investigation, and plaintiff may depose defense counsel as well as obtain counsel’s investigation notes. 

Justice Waterman dissented

I respectfully dissent and would hold the district court abused it discretion by compelling the deposition of Gelita’s trial counsel Ruth Horvatich and production of her notes prepared in anticipation of litigation.

First, Gelita never waived its attorney–client privilege or work product protection by pleading or arguing the Faragher–Ellerth defense in district court. That defense was based solely on Mr. Fenceroy’s failure to use Gelita’s reporting procedures during his employment, before he retired and filed his discrimination complaint. The majority, contrary to precedent, finds that Gelita impliedly waived the confidentiality of its lawyer’s private notes and client communications by including this sentence in its lengthy brief supporting its motion for summary judgment: “Even though Plaintiff was no longer with Gelita at the time of his Complaint, in response to his charge, the Company investigated his allegations, discharged one employee, and disciplined three others.” I disagree that sentence constitutes an implied waiver. Gelita never relied on confidential attorney–client communications in asserting its defenses. Gelita was not using the attorney–client privilege as both a sword and shield and never blocked proper discovery into a matter it placed at issue.

Second, even if it was a waiver, Gelita clearly has retracted it. The majority questions that a retraction has occurred but allows Gelita the opportunity to retract the waiver on remand. I think this is unnecessary based on a fair reading of the record and Gelita’s appellate briefs.

Third, the majority also misses the opportunity to adopt the showing required under Shelton v. American Motors Corp., 805 F.2d 1323, 1327 (8th Cir. 1986), and confirm that compelling depositions of opposing trial counsel during litigation should be a rare last resort, even when information might be obtained that is not subject to a privilege. This aspect of the court’s ruling could lead to a flurry of depositions of opposing counsel and a corresponding decline in civility in the Iowa bar. Frequently, both plaintiff’s counsel and defendant’s counsel have various nonprivileged interactions with others in the course of working on a case. The majority leaves the door open to each side deposing the other on these interactions. I would not do this. Fenceroy is not entitled to depose Gelita’s trial attorney Horvatich under Shelton...

Going forward, I also fear today’s decision will have a chilling effect on the routine practice of retaining outside counsel to investigate discrimination claims. If the employer’s lawyer can be deposed by plaintiff merely because the employer pleads a Faragher–Ellerth defense, will two different law firms have to be retained—one to investigate and the other to try the case? Will employers limit what they tell their lawyer who may be compelled to testify by the litigation adversary? Or will some employers be reluctant to retain a lawyer who might be compelled to provide adverse testimony? Will such employers lose the benefit of sound legal advice that would otherwise help them improve compliance with employment laws?

Two justices joined the dissent.

As noted, enjoy the improved transparency of the Iowa Supreme Court. (Mike Frisch)

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/legal_profession/2018/02/the-iowa-supreme-court-this-review-presents-a-significant-issue-regarding-the-boundaries-of-attorneyclient-privilege-and.html

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/legal_profession/2018/02/the-iowa-supreme-court-this-review-presents-a-significant-issue-regarding-the-boundaries-of-attorneyclient-privilege-and.html

[journalgen]

Advances in Phonocomputer Science, Nonopinion, and Cryptopsychology

[lfk74]

Il segreto della felicità? È essere felici. Monaco tibetano ci svela come

Il segreto della felicità? È essere felici. Monaco tibetano ci svela come

Arriva secondo allo Zecchino d’Oro, Ultimo insiste.

Un monaco tibetano, contattato dalla redaZZione di notiZZie, ci svela la sua opinione non opinabile, e pertanto la sua nonopinione, sulla felicità. Tempo fa ci disse che conosceva il segreto della felicità e noi siamo corsi a intervistarlo. Per l’occasione abbiamo mandato Famal Lodolor Mepassà, cronista di Ajaccio.

Alla domanda: “Qual è il…

[furynewsnetwork]

LISTEN TO TLR’S LATEST PODCAST:

By Rachel Stoltzfoos

Wall Street Journal editor in chief Gerard Baker told his reporters Monday the paper would not abandon objectivity in its coverage of President Donald Trump, and directed them to find work somewhere else if they want to adopt a more oppositional tone.

“It’s a little irritating when I read that we have been soft on Donald Trump,” he told his reporters and editors, a source at the newsroom meeting told The New York Times. Baker held the meeting ostensibly to have a casual conversation on the editorial direction of the paper, but it was held on the heels of reports the newsroom is in turmoil over the Trump coverage.

The Trump coverage is “neutral to the point of being absurd,” one source inside the newsroom recently told Politico. Criticism peaked when Baker sent a memo to staff instructing reporters and editors to tone down the use of “loaded” language in coverage of Trump’s immigration ban. (RELATED: WSJ Reporters Complain The Paper Won’t Join In Trump Circus)

Baker strongly defended his paper’s coverage as objective in the meeting, going so far as to read from a list of past WSJ headlines compiled to refute the criticism. He suggested it is other outlets such as The New York Times that have abandoned fair reporting standards and objectivity — not The Wall Street Journal — and that those standards aren’t going anywhere.

Reporters who don’t like that, he said, might want to find work somewhere else.

Some journalists at other outlets have openly criticized the idea of treating Trump and his former Democrat opponent Hillary Clinton equally in the press. In an amazing justification of this kind of blatant bias, New York Times columnist Jim Rutenberg described the thinking behind this new “norm” of objectivity.

“If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that,” he wrote. “You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional. That’s uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, nonopinion journalist I’ve ever known, and by normal standards, untenable.”

Follow Rachel on Twitter

Send tips to rachel@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Click here for reuse options!

Copyright 2017 Daily Caller News Foundation

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

WATCH TLR’S LATEST VIDEO:

  The post WSJ Editor Tells Reporters Who Don’t Like Objective Trump Coverage To Leave The Paper appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

via Headline News – The Libertarian Republic

[furynewsnetwork]

Rachel Stoltzfoos

The New York Times doesn’t have much standing to complain about being labeled the “opposition” by the Trump administration, given a column the paper featured on its front page that actually used the word to describe the editorial direction of the Times.

Reporters and editors at the paper were indignant Wednesday when White House chief strategist Steve Bannon labeled mainstream outlets including The New York Times as the “opposition party,” and said the media should “keep its mouth shut.”

“I want you to quote this,” Bannon told TheNYT. “The media here is the opposition party. They don’t understand this country. They still do not understand why Donald Trump is the president of the United States.”

The reporter who wrote up the interview barely contained his anger over the label in their report, and at least one editor took to Twitter to defend the paper’s “objective” coverage of the election. “To call journalists the opposition misunderstands our role,” editor Patrick LaForge tweeted. “We are not here to help anyone win or lose.”

Any objective observer of the Times’ coverage of the election would at least question LaForge’s assertion. But the paper itself was stunningly revealing regarding its editorial direction when it featured a Jim Rutenberg column on the front page in August headlined, “Trump is Testing the Norms of Objectivity in Journalism.” Rutenberg indicated he and his reporter friends were ready to “throw out the textbook” of standard fair journalism practices and pursue an “oppositional” tact in the column.

Here’s the relevant excerpt:

“If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalistic tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?

Because if you believe all of those things, you have to throw out the textbook American journalism has been using for the better part of the past half-century, if not longer, and approach it in a way you’ve never approached anything in your career. If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional. That’s uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, nonopinion journalist I’ve ever known, and by normal standards, untenable.

But the question that everyone is grappling with is: Do normal standards apply? And if they don’t, what should take their place?”

Rutenberg wasn’t the only one talking about ditching even the pretense of objectivity during the campaign, either. Former NPR CEO Ken Stern, not only acknowledged the major media organizations have “abandoned all semblance of objectivity” in an interview, he went so far as to say that it was the right call.

“Trump is an affront to American democracy and common decency, and if this is the price to pay for keeping him out of the White House, so be it,” he told Vanity Fair. “But here is most certainly a price to pay. The next time Fox News or Breitbart caterwaul about media bias, the claim will have substantially more bite to it.”

Follow Rachel on Twitter

Send tips to rachel@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Click here for reuse options!

Copyright 2017 Daily Caller News Foundation

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

The post This NYT Column Backs Up Trump’s Newest Label For The Media appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

via Headline News – The Libertarian Republic