Better example might be 100 warlike states compared with 10 peaceful states. The peaceful states very well could have been cleverer, excellent defenders, etc., but as a matter of pure numbers they were killed out. It's not necessarily the case that warlike always wins -- for our species it seems to, but perhaps that's an inherent weakness of our species, and the fact that we prevailed over neanderthals was a function of some other variable such as higher reproductive capacity or geographical luck. I'm not saying this is NECESSARILY the case, but it's no less plausible than "we survived, therefore we're better" -- indeed, making that assumption is a little bit arrogant and unscientific.
Congratulations. This comment has managed to creep me out quite possibly more than anything I've ever read on the internet, and I'm sure I don't need to emphasize to you how much of an accomplishment this is.
"Evolution," despite cultural connotations, isn't synonymous with "betterment." "Fitness," perhaps, to some extent, but fitness only given a certain set of geographical, cultural, and temporal conditions. Fitness for the world as it was 2,000 years ago is not fitness for the world as it is today, yet evolution doesn't necessarily happen quickly enough for modern humans to reflect meaningful adaptation to that context. The result is either that humans are decimated due to lack of fitness, or humans alter something about the structure of the world around them to make it such that they are more fit for it.
Unfortunately, neither of these results is too likely to translate into "we stop being racist and sexist and finally embrace the best aspects of humanity."
I'm guessing you don't practice law in a state dealing with budget struggles. Here in California, they've been closing courthouses and laying off staff (including judges, but even for the judges lucky enough to keep their jobs, they're now expected to pick up the slack for those who've been let go AND for the support staff they no longer have) left and right to make up for budget shortfalls. Even though the court system takes in about enough through fees and the like to be mostly self-sustaining, the legislature apportions the budget in such a way that the court system is funding other parts of the budget, and no one cares because lawyers, judges, and the court system aren't the kind of thing people rally around like they rally around teachers and firefighters. The only time you notice the court system is when it ISN'T working, making litgators, judges, and court staff among those professions that are routinely hated and rarely appreciated. And then you have ignorant comments like this one assuming that being a judge is some cushy position you just waltz into and you're set for life. Federal judges in some parts of the country, maybe -- but that's politics for you. But state judges? You've got to be kidding me. Also, as noted by another commenter, there are plenty of states where judges can be voted out.
So we just wait for your wife to be alone, you gotta work..
Why would you assume that his wife is defenseless because he's at work? Dunno if you noticed, but here in 2012 (almost 2013), they let women learn how to fight and use guns and everything.
For that matter, we don't know that rmdingler is male, and/or that s/he is heterosexual...
Isn't one of the primary defenses of gun ownership that it's supposedly a deterrent against crimes? Like if a potential burglar thinks you might have a gun, s/he is less likely to rob you. Shouldn't gun owners be in favor of this then? Or do they perhaps not believe their own arguments...?
As someone who loathes guns and wishes there were a way to irreversibly destroy all guns and gun specifications into perpetuity, I appreciate your sensible post (except for the silly "maybe the NRA has a point" part, because the fact that the NRA may sometimes acknowledge obvious facts like "the sky is blue" doesn't count as something they get to take credit for). What's missing on all sides of this debate is facts, which means that the arguments usually come down to people who like guns versus people who are scared by them, which then devolves into childish, reason-impervious dick-swinging by the former and ineffectual shaming and emotional blackmail by the latter. Add to that the fact that it's borderline impossible to get good information about guns' effectiveness as a deterrent thanks in part to lobbying by gun manufacturers (by the way, I don't take this as proof positive that the information is there and it's unequivocally bad for them -- I think it's more that right now they know they're ahead, and information has the potential to rock the boat, and they don't want to risk rocking the boat). There's nothing wrong with looking at a tragedy like this and noting that guns are instruments of violence that allow human beings to detach themselves from the emotional impact of taking life -- that's true, and that's why guns are bad, period. But acknowledging that a hypothetically better world would be better doesn't magically mean that gun control laws (at least gun control laws like the ones we've used in the past and use now) are the most effective way to bring us closer to a better world. The real world is ugly and imperfect and it gives us shitty choices, and the only smart way to go about making choices is to arm ourselves with facts and not start denying them just because they lead us to conclusions we don't like. To be clear, again, this goes for all sides of the debate.
Talking about cheese is ALWAYS appropriate, in ANY context, and EATING cheese is even more appropriate. Anyone who says otherwise is an unrepetant philistine utterly lacking in taste and sophistication.
Let's yell at each other some more, then. That'll definitely solve the problem. And let's make sure to really drive home the most important point here: the clear moral superiority of people who vote third party. Which I did, by the way. Because VOTING DOESN'T MATTER, which is my entire point.
Exactly. The notion that placing an ideological vote that doesn't make any more of a difference than any other vote (or just not voting) somehow gives one the moral high ground is adolescent and tiring. Anyone who thinks that the choice of whom to vote for is a choice that has any real-world impact at all has no further than themselves to look for an explanation for their own political impotence.
I went with Jill Stein. I can say it went great. My vote did not contribute to evil. My vote registered as a protest to both the New GOP (aka Democrats) and the Old GOP (aka Parody-of-Itself). If Obama had lost, my vote may have triggered some New GOP soul searching. Obviously, I'll have to wait another election for any soul searching by the New GOP, but one can always hope.
Not to be a dick about it, but give me a break. Your vote didn't register a damn thing. When you vote, all you've done is vote. It doesn't tell anyone why you voted the way you did, and it doesn't empower you to suddenly control the party narrative. In fact, you're now a voter they've already LOST, so they care even less about you than they did the last time you voted Dem (if you ever did). If you want to send DC a message, try literally writing them one. Like on paper. I know, crazy idea.
By the way, I voted for Jill Stein too, primarily because I live in Los Angeles so voting for president is basically pointless anyway, and I'd never voted third party before, so hey, why not. The only other legitimate reason to vote third party (and the other reason I did so, in addition to "for shits and giggles") is to help them get over the threshold for federal funds. But you're fooling yourself if you think that your vote for the Greens is going to make the Democrats do any soul-searching. I don't know how old you are, but my first election was in 2000 -- if there were EVER an election to induce the Dems to do some soul-searching, 2000 would have been it. Those of us who know our recent history know how well that worked out.
In fact, I voted a straight "neither GOP nor New GOP" ticket this year and that is my plan till they change their ways. If they never do change their ways, nothing is lost. If they do, much is gained. But by just following the herd, there is absolutely no chance anything will ever get better and an absolute certainty things will get worse. Being a sheep is the worst option.
Generally agreed, but voting is never, ever going to be a good way to make a difference. If you want to make a difference, get involved in local politics. Start a blog and create an audience. DO THINGS AND SAY THINGS that get other people to pay attention. But voting? Voting is a joke.
I consider myself Liberal and Progressive. I did not support the center-right Obama. He is yet another staunchly pro-establishment political operator like so many before him.
Wake up, folks. We have been living in an authoritarian military oligarchy since World War I, when the finance-military-industrial-congressional complex got started in earnest. The rest is history, and Amazon is filled to the brim with its documentation.
I know that you're trolling, but I get sick of this idiotic meme. I don't think there are too many people who voted for Obama both caring about civil liberties issues and being wholly unaware of Obama's awful track record on this count such that this is news that's going to make them think OH GOD WHAT HAVE I DONE. The liberals who care about civil liberties/surveillance issues and still voted for Obama almost certainly did so out of resigned pragmatism (given that Republicans are the ones who opened the floodgates to an overpowered executive, there's zero reason to think they'd try to close Pandora's Box if one of their guys got back into the White House). Believe it or not, here in the Real Grown-Up World, sometimes there is no good choice -- and if you bring up third parties, I'll be forced to conclude you haven't yet gotten to the part of school where you learn about collective action problems.
The government should need a warrant or due process to access its own records?
I take it that the issue is less the government accessing info that it has and more the government marking the info for a certain purpose with no oversight or due process guarantees. I imagine the problem isn't access per se but rather the potential for abuse and possible chilling effects. It sounds possibly a bit McCarthyistic.
Of course, I did not RTFA
Neither did I, because I don't care to have my money used to help the WSJ churn out neo-conservative drivel. Be nice if there had been a link to a non-paywalled source...
As I think about it, there could also be the fact that higher-ups at law firms are counter-intuitively less likely to be called out on their bs than higher-ups in a lot of other fields. Generally speaking, if you work at a law firm, you fall into one of two categories: attorney or support (which is, yes, very broad and covers a lot of different areas). If you're an attorney, the consequences of suing for harassment and the like are, as you note, significantly higher than if you're a low-level clerical worker -- partly because of a combination of higher opportunity cost (losing a career future in the law means turning your back on a lot more money than losing a career future in reception work) and the emotional attachment to sunk cost -- and your job mobility is likewise probably generally going to be better than it is for your average victim of workplace harassment (or, hell, your average employee). Plus, a pretty significant chunk of support staff at a law firm are better-educated and better paid than your average white-collar desk monkey. Yes, there are some receptionists and data-entry types, but there are also paralegals, legal secretaries, forensic data analysts, law librarians, and higher-level tech support -- all of these roles tend to be filled by people who, like lawyers, are better-educated than average, more skilled than average, better-paid than average, etc. In other words, people who have invested in their careers and have a lot to lose by pissing off anyone powerful in their sector.
The net effect is that I think it's probably the case that, at least in the large law firms where such stories tend to be generated (just as at big financial companies and moneyed startups/tech companies), there's paradoxically a disincentive to put up a strong fight against illegal and/or dickish behavior, because (1) you have better access than most to alternatives and (2) you're more "trapped" in your career field than most and also have more to lose by leaving it. Because there's a disincentive, the behavior is given an environment in which to flourish.
If they do the stuff above, sure. The lavish expenditures don't bother me so much - the latter two do. The drinking only concerns me insofar as it results in senior employees making demands of junior ones to accommodate their irresponsibility. Stuff like driving them around, ignoring assaults, not minding the groping, and so on. But hey, they're team players, right?
I agree with you on all counts (though the lavish expenditures do legitimately make me uncomfortable -- at least insofar as you'll see partners making upwards of a couple million a year who get stingy with staff bonuses but think nothing of throwing money at recruitment and parties, as though a 25-year-old kid from Harvard is worth so much more of your time than the secretary who's saved your ass from a malpractice suit more times than you've ever bothered to thank her for). My point wasn't that they aren't problems; it's that I don't see why it's fair to tar the entire profession for the acts of the bad actors within it. As a female attorney who's been the victim of some pretty disgusting sexual harassment by various bosses, for instance, I don't see why it's fair to say to me "you lawyers suck," when I'm a lawyer and I'm also a victim of the very behavior you (rightly) find so reprehensible. So my only point is that sweeping generalizations are unfair. "Lawyers" aren't the problem; assholes are, and I'd posit that the only reason there is a larger proportion of assholes in my profession than in the general public is because there's so much money in the profession (which is also why these kinds of things happen in Silicon Valley and Wall Street as well). Irresponsible behavior is bad, and the fact that you're a rich bastard doesn't magically change that fact.
Slashdot Mirror
Better example might be 100 warlike states compared with 10 peaceful states. The peaceful states very well could have been cleverer, excellent defenders, etc., but as a matter of pure numbers they were killed out. It's not necessarily the case that warlike always wins -- for our species it seems to, but perhaps that's an inherent weakness of our species, and the fact that we prevailed over neanderthals was a function of some other variable such as higher reproductive capacity or geographical luck. I'm not saying this is NECESSARILY the case, but it's no less plausible than "we survived, therefore we're better" -- indeed, making that assumption is a little bit arrogant and unscientific.
Congratulations. This comment has managed to creep me out quite possibly more than anything I've ever read on the internet, and I'm sure I don't need to emphasize to you how much of an accomplishment this is.
"Evolution," despite cultural connotations, isn't synonymous with "betterment." "Fitness," perhaps, to some extent, but fitness only given a certain set of geographical, cultural, and temporal conditions. Fitness for the world as it was 2,000 years ago is not fitness for the world as it is today, yet evolution doesn't necessarily happen quickly enough for modern humans to reflect meaningful adaptation to that context. The result is either that humans are decimated due to lack of fitness, or humans alter something about the structure of the world around them to make it such that they are more fit for it.
Unfortunately, neither of these results is too likely to translate into "we stop being racist and sexist and finally embrace the best aspects of humanity."
I'm guessing you don't practice law in a state dealing with budget struggles. Here in California, they've been closing courthouses and laying off staff (including judges, but even for the judges lucky enough to keep their jobs, they're now expected to pick up the slack for those who've been let go AND for the support staff they no longer have) left and right to make up for budget shortfalls. Even though the court system takes in about enough through fees and the like to be mostly self-sustaining, the legislature apportions the budget in such a way that the court system is funding other parts of the budget, and no one cares because lawyers, judges, and the court system aren't the kind of thing people rally around like they rally around teachers and firefighters. The only time you notice the court system is when it ISN'T working, making litgators, judges, and court staff among those professions that are routinely hated and rarely appreciated. And then you have ignorant comments like this one assuming that being a judge is some cushy position you just waltz into and you're set for life. Federal judges in some parts of the country, maybe -- but that's politics for you. But state judges? You've got to be kidding me. Also, as noted by another commenter, there are plenty of states where judges can be voted out.
So we just wait for your wife to be alone, you gotta work..
Why would you assume that his wife is defenseless because he's at work? Dunno if you noticed, but here in 2012 (almost 2013), they let women learn how to fight and use guns and everything.
For that matter, we don't know that rmdingler is male, and/or that s/he is heterosexual...
Isn't one of the primary defenses of gun ownership that it's supposedly a deterrent against crimes? Like if a potential burglar thinks you might have a gun, s/he is less likely to rob you. Shouldn't gun owners be in favor of this then? Or do they perhaps not believe their own arguments...?
As someone who loathes guns and wishes there were a way to irreversibly destroy all guns and gun specifications into perpetuity, I appreciate your sensible post (except for the silly "maybe the NRA has a point" part, because the fact that the NRA may sometimes acknowledge obvious facts like "the sky is blue" doesn't count as something they get to take credit for). What's missing on all sides of this debate is facts, which means that the arguments usually come down to people who like guns versus people who are scared by them, which then devolves into childish, reason-impervious dick-swinging by the former and ineffectual shaming and emotional blackmail by the latter. Add to that the fact that it's borderline impossible to get good information about guns' effectiveness as a deterrent thanks in part to lobbying by gun manufacturers (by the way, I don't take this as proof positive that the information is there and it's unequivocally bad for them -- I think it's more that right now they know they're ahead, and information has the potential to rock the boat, and they don't want to risk rocking the boat). There's nothing wrong with looking at a tragedy like this and noting that guns are instruments of violence that allow human beings to detach themselves from the emotional impact of taking life -- that's true, and that's why guns are bad, period. But acknowledging that a hypothetically better world would be better doesn't magically mean that gun control laws (at least gun control laws like the ones we've used in the past and use now) are the most effective way to bring us closer to a better world. The real world is ugly and imperfect and it gives us shitty choices, and the only smart way to go about making choices is to arm ourselves with facts and not start denying them just because they lead us to conclusions we don't like. To be clear, again, this goes for all sides of the debate.
Sounds like a clever way to put that stillborn baby carcass to good use! Must've been one of Martha Stewart's ancestors who came up with it.
(PS: if any modern cultures exist that don't eat cheese, beer, or bread, I don't mean to imply that they're not fully human.
Maybe not, but with no cheese, no bread, and no beer, WHAT IS THE DAMN POINT.
No, but spoiling is probably how they learned about fermentation.
OK, so they have evidence of humans making cheese back then. But where is the evidence that they were eating that cheese? :-)
1. They were alive, capable of eating, and in possession of taste buds.
2. THEREFORE THEY ATE THE CHEESE.
Boom, easiest proof ever.
Hey! See that thing over there with the legs? Let's make stuff from the stuff that comes out of it.
This is technically descriptive of the male contribution to sexual reproduction.
People must have looked on and though, "What they heck is he/she doing there?!? Oh my!"
Oh, come on, that was a cheesy joke.
Are you intolerant of lactose humor?
Stop it. Stop it right this instant, before I moorder you all.
What are you, some kind of anti-cheesite?
Talking about cheese is ALWAYS appropriate, in ANY context, and EATING cheese is even more appropriate. Anyone who says otherwise is an unrepetant philistine utterly lacking in taste and sophistication.
Good DAY.
I honestly don't understand what you're saying. You think your vote matters? That's almost adorable.
Let's yell at each other some more, then. That'll definitely solve the problem. And let's make sure to really drive home the most important point here: the clear moral superiority of people who vote third party. Which I did, by the way. Because VOTING DOESN'T MATTER, which is my entire point.
Exactly. The notion that placing an ideological vote that doesn't make any more of a difference than any other vote (or just not voting) somehow gives one the moral high ground is adolescent and tiring. Anyone who thinks that the choice of whom to vote for is a choice that has any real-world impact at all has no further than themselves to look for an explanation for their own political impotence.
There's more than one third party, dude. The Libertarians have plenty of their own problems.
I went with Jill Stein. I can say it went great. My vote did not contribute to evil. My vote registered as a protest to both the New GOP (aka Democrats) and the Old GOP (aka Parody-of-Itself). If Obama had lost, my vote may have triggered some New GOP soul searching. Obviously, I'll have to wait another election for any soul searching by the New GOP, but one can always hope.
Not to be a dick about it, but give me a break. Your vote didn't register a damn thing. When you vote, all you've done is vote. It doesn't tell anyone why you voted the way you did, and it doesn't empower you to suddenly control the party narrative. In fact, you're now a voter they've already LOST, so they care even less about you than they did the last time you voted Dem (if you ever did). If you want to send DC a message, try literally writing them one. Like on paper. I know, crazy idea.
By the way, I voted for Jill Stein too, primarily because I live in Los Angeles so voting for president is basically pointless anyway, and I'd never voted third party before, so hey, why not. The only other legitimate reason to vote third party (and the other reason I did so, in addition to "for shits and giggles") is to help them get over the threshold for federal funds. But you're fooling yourself if you think that your vote for the Greens is going to make the Democrats do any soul-searching. I don't know how old you are, but my first election was in 2000 -- if there were EVER an election to induce the Dems to do some soul-searching, 2000 would have been it. Those of us who know our recent history know how well that worked out.
In fact, I voted a straight "neither GOP nor New GOP" ticket this year and that is my plan till they change their ways. If they never do change their ways, nothing is lost. If they do, much is gained. But by just following the herd, there is absolutely no chance anything will ever get better and an absolute certainty things will get worse. Being a sheep is the worst option.
Generally agreed, but voting is never, ever going to be a good way to make a difference. If you want to make a difference, get involved in local politics. Start a blog and create an audience. DO THINGS AND SAY THINGS that get other people to pay attention. But voting? Voting is a joke.
I consider myself Liberal and Progressive. I did not support the center-right Obama. He is yet another staunchly pro-establishment political operator like so many before him.
Wake up, folks. We have been living in an authoritarian military oligarchy since World War I, when the finance-military-industrial-congressional complex got started in earnest. The rest is history, and Amazon is filled to the brim with its documentation.
But... but...
We have iPhones!
I know that you're trolling, but I get sick of this idiotic meme. I don't think there are too many people who voted for Obama both caring about civil liberties issues and being wholly unaware of Obama's awful track record on this count such that this is news that's going to make them think OH GOD WHAT HAVE I DONE. The liberals who care about civil liberties/surveillance issues and still voted for Obama almost certainly did so out of resigned pragmatism (given that Republicans are the ones who opened the floodgates to an overpowered executive, there's zero reason to think they'd try to close Pandora's Box if one of their guys got back into the White House). Believe it or not, here in the Real Grown-Up World, sometimes there is no good choice -- and if you bring up third parties, I'll be forced to conclude you haven't yet gotten to the part of school where you learn about collective action problems.
The government should need a warrant or due process to access its own records?
I take it that the issue is less the government accessing info that it has and more the government marking the info for a certain purpose with no oversight or due process guarantees. I imagine the problem isn't access per se but rather the potential for abuse and possible chilling effects. It sounds possibly a bit McCarthyistic.
Of course, I did not RTFA
Neither did I, because I don't care to have my money used to help the WSJ churn out neo-conservative drivel. Be nice if there had been a link to a non-paywalled source...
I would love to tell you how little I care about how you would like to have modded something.
So little that you took the time to write two whole sentences about it!
As I think about it, there could also be the fact that higher-ups at law firms are counter-intuitively less likely to be called out on their bs than higher-ups in a lot of other fields. Generally speaking, if you work at a law firm, you fall into one of two categories: attorney or support (which is, yes, very broad and covers a lot of different areas). If you're an attorney, the consequences of suing for harassment and the like are, as you note, significantly higher than if you're a low-level clerical worker -- partly because of a combination of higher opportunity cost (losing a career future in the law means turning your back on a lot more money than losing a career future in reception work) and the emotional attachment to sunk cost -- and your job mobility is likewise probably generally going to be better than it is for your average victim of workplace harassment (or, hell, your average employee). Plus, a pretty significant chunk of support staff at a law firm are better-educated and better paid than your average white-collar desk monkey. Yes, there are some receptionists and data-entry types, but there are also paralegals, legal secretaries, forensic data analysts, law librarians, and higher-level tech support -- all of these roles tend to be filled by people who, like lawyers, are better-educated than average, more skilled than average, better-paid than average, etc. In other words, people who have invested in their careers and have a lot to lose by pissing off anyone powerful in their sector.
The net effect is that I think it's probably the case that, at least in the large law firms where such stories tend to be generated (just as at big financial companies and moneyed startups/tech companies), there's paradoxically a disincentive to put up a strong fight against illegal and/or dickish behavior, because (1) you have better access than most to alternatives and (2) you're more "trapped" in your career field than most and also have more to lose by leaving it. Because there's a disincentive, the behavior is given an environment in which to flourish.
If they do the stuff above, sure. The lavish expenditures don't bother me so much - the latter two do. The drinking only concerns me insofar as it results in senior employees making demands of junior ones to accommodate their irresponsibility. Stuff like driving them around, ignoring assaults, not minding the groping, and so on. But hey, they're team players, right?
I agree with you on all counts (though the lavish expenditures do legitimately make me uncomfortable -- at least insofar as you'll see partners making upwards of a couple million a year who get stingy with staff bonuses but think nothing of throwing money at recruitment and parties, as though a 25-year-old kid from Harvard is worth so much more of your time than the secretary who's saved your ass from a malpractice suit more times than you've ever bothered to thank her for). My point wasn't that they aren't problems; it's that I don't see why it's fair to tar the entire profession for the acts of the bad actors within it. As a female attorney who's been the victim of some pretty disgusting sexual harassment by various bosses, for instance, I don't see why it's fair to say to me "you lawyers suck," when I'm a lawyer and I'm also a victim of the very behavior you (rightly) find so reprehensible. So my only point is that sweeping generalizations are unfair. "Lawyers" aren't the problem; assholes are, and I'd posit that the only reason there is a larger proportion of assholes in my profession than in the general public is because there's so much money in the profession (which is also why these kinds of things happen in Silicon Valley and Wall Street as well). Irresponsible behavior is bad, and the fact that you're a rich bastard doesn't magically change that fact.