Yes, the thug, gangbanger, and victimhood culture rule applies to any skin color.
Sadly, blacks are more affected by thug, gangbanger and victimhood culture, especially since they have these so-called "leaders" like Jackson banging the victimhood drum day-in and day-out. I've never heard of any south-east asian "leader" demanding racial quotas for tech companies because of prior oppression.
Cultures focused on academics, hard work, and personal responsibility tend to be prominent with asian immigrants, but other notables would be your typical jewish culture, or Mormon culture, or even just plain old "geek" culture (thank you slashdot). Cultures focused on ethnic studies to revel in narratives of oppression, or those promoting ebonics, or other self-segregation from mainstream values, on the other hand, cluster around certain ethnicities simply because of their particular targeting.
Bottom line - people of any skin color can succeed, but people with self-destructive cultures only make it harder to succeed.
So, if government employees start realizing that government power is too broad, unchecked, and outsized, will they actually do the work necessary to limit the size and scope of government, even though it might mean limiting their own personal powers?
It sounds like there's an opportunity here, but I'm not sure if any government employees have the wisdom to embrace the right answer.
So, you're saying freedom is only true in third world countries?
Or are you saying that only third world countries have no responsibilities?
Or was your precatory statement just a reflexive contradiction of me, and the only point you were trying to make was that first world countries manage their resources (like say, the carrier pigeon or the malarial mosquito)?:)
After all, I thought Sotomayor was specifically chosen because she was a "wise-latina":) If she's just as sexist against other women as say, John Roberts, what's the point?:)
Let's be very clear, though - regardless of what tangential and passive social ideas about inferior/superior you want to point at, that's not the critical path here. Back in the Jim Crow days, yes, overt institutionalized oppression was the blocking factor. Today, the critical path is around a victimhood culture that eschews personal responsibility and denigrates academic success as being "too white".
I know lots of honest, hard working blacks. I know they're a tiny minority in their own communities because they resisted the culture they were raised in. I know it was hard for them to speak proper english and succeed in school while their peers denigrated them for being "too white".
And I know that many of them still feel tortured by the remnants of the victimhood culture they came from - they really are hurt by the implication that they're "too white", even if they keep up a brave face.
And frankly, if both of us would allow thousands of species to go extinct so that our yummy steak animals had more room, we'd probably manage them the same way:)
For the record, I care about yummy animals. Cute animals can go fuck themselves - if they did, they might beat the selective pressures building around them:)
Poor asian kids, fresh off the boat, in crappy neighborhoods, focus on survival but still excel in academics and escape the poverty trap.
Certain cultures of poor american kids, born and raised in a victimhood culture, in crappy neighborhoods, focus not only on survival, but denigrate any of their peers who attempt to "act white" by speaking proper english or focusing on academics. These people don't escape the poverty trap.
We've long gotten past the point in time where whitey is actually doing any oppressing - the victimhood culture *oppresses itself*, by making it anathema to actually succeed.
Problem is, racism is stereotyped. White males are assumed to be racist, women and blacks are assumed to be less racist. Ask 10 slashdotters if white male hiring managers would be racist in their ratings of resumes, or if women and black hiring managers would be racist in their ratings of resumes, and I'll bet they'll rate the white male highest in terms of racism:)
There is an echo chamber of social prejudice where the social prejudice of given groups is taken as natural and confirmed.
The fact of the matter? I've met more black racists than white ones. YMMV.
I'll assert that even more pernicious than drug and gang culture is the culture of *victimhood*. When you believe that your failings are not your personal responsibility, and instead insist that they are someone else's fault, and that you must wait and demand for reparation from that someone else before life can continue, you end up in a morass. Mr. Jackson lives in this morass full time.
My choice to exploit the natural resources I own for a more prosperous and well off humanity is my choice.
Your choice to avoid exploiting the natural resources you own, and having a less prosperous and less well off humanity is your choice.
If you want to lay claim to a resource, I'll certainly respect your private property rights, but don't expect me to save the long tailed tit-mouse on my property because you believe it to be worth more than the improvement to humanity, and evolution for that matter, that driving it extinct will accomplish. If you want to offer me some fair price to purchase my property, and preserve the tit-mouse yourself, you're welcome to, but that's *your* burden, not one that you should impose upon other citizens without their explicit consent through say, involuntary taxation and redistribution of wealth:)
I'll put it in a more freedom oriented way - given that we do not have the wisdom to decide between treading lightly, or treading heavily, we'll give individuals the choice.
You can choose to tread lightly - minimize your ecological impact, the number of children you have, and the types of animals you eat.
I will choose to tread heavily - maximize my standard of living and the standard of living of others, the number of children I have, and the types of animals I eat.
The beauty is that selective pressures will figure out which one of us is being wise, and which one of us isn't:)
*You* do. Perhaps evangelical christians who believe that every species ever to exist was created 6000 years ago, and one lost, are never replaced, believe that as well. And of course, tween girls love cute animals.
Me, I'm on nature's side:) The cruel, hard facts of natural selection is what we can thank for the advanced life on our planet thus far, and I've got no reason to believe that any human has the wisdom to decide when such cruel, hard facts should stop.
If there are programs out there that can be killed, why not just lower the tax burden on the citizens, instead of just transferring it to another government program?
Mod parent up - nature doesn't care if cute animals survive, or if large animals survive, or if *any* animals survive. Imagining that there is some non-anthropogenic aesthetic out there that is superior to anthropogenic demands and needs and desires muddies the issue.
Yes, killing the Dodo bird off may one day be the death of the human species as an alien plague comes through and destroys every other edible animal, and only the Dodo could have fed us. I suppose you could come up with fanciful scenarios for any given extinct species. But thus far, throughout the anthropocene, no matter how many species have gone endangered or extinct, humanity has *thrived*. Speculating on some hypothetical apocalyptic tipping point seems particularly faith based.
Do we really think that it would be a *good* thing to make sure that no existing species today ever goes extinct?
Do we really have any evidence that a slower rate of extinction is a good thing? Just comparing the year 1500 to 2014, I'd argue that whatever the cost in species removal, humanity has improved it's lot by leaps and bounds, even considering the graphic amount of suffering still available the world over.
I'd like to see a more quantifiable definition of "troubling". Sounds like undue alarm without some specific harm that can be linked to 320 terrestrial vertebrates disappearing...like a decline in health, wealth, or population of humans.
All of us rational folk here believe in evolution through selective pressures - you might have some disagreements on exact evolutionary paths, or whether in some cases lamarck was right (interuetero environmental effects, for example), but bottom line, the emergence of species depends on selective pressure.
So, when we talk about "mass extinction", which sounds really scary, let's realize that this kind of thing isn't only natural, it's *necessary* for evolution.
A more interesting measure might be this - what is the total biomass that existed before humanity, and what is the total biomass now? Changes in species distribution and existence might shuffle the deck a bit, but do we really believe that there is less life on the planet now than before humans? Maybe each large fauna was replaced by the equivalent mass in insects, or smaller animals, but does anyone actually think for a single moment that we have *less* life on the planet now?
The only way people are going to change their water habits is if you change what you charge them. Cheap water bills means people use lots of water. Expensive water bills means 5 minute showers and brown lawns as people pinch pennies.
I've found that while a degree can help you get entry level at a higher position, after a few years, competence catches up pretty quickly on compensation.
In a large, bureaucratic organization, it's not unheard of to take 4 weeks just getting the laptop, email, and other access to systems set up. Then, trying to drop someone into a gigantic set of infrastructure that's poorly documented means months of just figuring out who the hell you talk to to solve problems.
Now, if you jump into a small, agile organization, you can certainly be doing great stuff on day one, but in the hellish grind that is corporate america, simply navigating the paperwork means that it takes months to learn the real organizational graph of who can get what done.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, the thug, gangbanger, and victimhood culture rule applies to any skin color.
Sadly, blacks are more affected by thug, gangbanger and victimhood culture, especially since they have these so-called "leaders" like Jackson banging the victimhood drum day-in and day-out. I've never heard of any south-east asian "leader" demanding racial quotas for tech companies because of prior oppression.
Cultures focused on academics, hard work, and personal responsibility tend to be prominent with asian immigrants, but other notables would be your typical jewish culture, or Mormon culture, or even just plain old "geek" culture (thank you slashdot). Cultures focused on ethnic studies to revel in narratives of oppression, or those promoting ebonics, or other self-segregation from mainstream values, on the other hand, cluster around certain ethnicities simply because of their particular targeting.
Bottom line - people of any skin color can succeed, but people with self-destructive cultures only make it harder to succeed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q...
So, if government employees start realizing that government power is too broad, unchecked, and outsized, will they actually do the work necessary to limit the size and scope of government, even though it might mean limiting their own personal powers?
It sounds like there's an opportunity here, but I'm not sure if any government employees have the wisdom to embrace the right answer.
So, you're saying freedom is only true in third world countries?
Or are you saying that only third world countries have no responsibilities?
Or was your precatory statement just a reflexive contradiction of me, and the only point you were trying to make was that first world countries manage their resources (like say, the carrier pigeon or the malarial mosquito)? :)
Cite?
After all, I thought Sotomayor was specifically chosen because she was a "wise-latina" :) If she's just as sexist against other women as say, John Roberts, what's the point? :)
Let's be very clear, though - regardless of what tangential and passive social ideas about inferior/superior you want to point at, that's not the critical path here. Back in the Jim Crow days, yes, overt institutionalized oppression was the blocking factor. Today, the critical path is around a victimhood culture that eschews personal responsibility and denigrates academic success as being "too white".
You're right - nobody has exclusivity over any of the species. Neither does anyone have any responsibility to keep non-tasty species around.
Freedom, I love it :)
I know lots of honest, hard working blacks. I know they're a tiny minority in their own communities because they resisted the culture they were raised in. I know it was hard for them to speak proper english and succeed in school while their peers denigrated them for being "too white".
And I know that many of them still feel tortured by the remnants of the victimhood culture they came from - they really are hurt by the implication that they're "too white", even if they keep up a brave face.
You manage your resources, I'll manage mine :)
And frankly, if both of us would allow thousands of species to go extinct so that our yummy steak animals had more room, we'd probably manage them the same way :)
For the record, I care about yummy animals. Cute animals can go fuck themselves - if they did, they might beat the selective pressures building around them :)
Actually, that's the funny part - the stuff we want to eat, tends to thrive. We've got plenty of cows and chickens. Lots of deer too.
It's all the stuff nobody wants to eat that goes all threatened, like Pandas or Siberian Tigers or Snowy Owls :)
Surprisingly, being tasty to humans is a *survival* trait when it comes to selective pressures :)
Crop foods, and crop animals figured out an evolutionary trick - and I salute them for it!
Poor asian kids, fresh off the boat, in crappy neighborhoods, focus on survival but still excel in academics and escape the poverty trap.
Certain cultures of poor american kids, born and raised in a victimhood culture, in crappy neighborhoods, focus not only on survival, but denigrate any of their peers who attempt to "act white" by speaking proper english or focusing on academics. These people don't escape the poverty trap.
We've long gotten past the point in time where whitey is actually doing any oppressing - the victimhood culture *oppresses itself*, by making it anathema to actually succeed.
Problem is, racism is stereotyped. White males are assumed to be racist, women and blacks are assumed to be less racist. Ask 10 slashdotters if white male hiring managers would be racist in their ratings of resumes, or if women and black hiring managers would be racist in their ratings of resumes, and I'll bet they'll rate the white male highest in terms of racism :)
There is an echo chamber of social prejudice where the social prejudice of given groups is taken as natural and confirmed.
The fact of the matter? I've met more black racists than white ones. YMMV.
I'll assert that even more pernicious than drug and gang culture is the culture of *victimhood*. When you believe that your failings are not your personal responsibility, and instead insist that they are someone else's fault, and that you must wait and demand for reparation from that someone else before life can continue, you end up in a morass. Mr. Jackson lives in this morass full time.
My choice to exploit the natural resources I own for a more prosperous and well off humanity is my choice.
Your choice to avoid exploiting the natural resources you own, and having a less prosperous and less well off humanity is your choice.
If you want to lay claim to a resource, I'll certainly respect your private property rights, but don't expect me to save the long tailed tit-mouse on my property because you believe it to be worth more than the improvement to humanity, and evolution for that matter, that driving it extinct will accomplish. If you want to offer me some fair price to purchase my property, and preserve the tit-mouse yourself, you're welcome to, but that's *your* burden, not one that you should impose upon other citizens without their explicit consent through say, involuntary taxation and redistribution of wealth :)
...it's the content of one's culture.
If Jesse wants more people with his skin color in the tech industry, he needs to get more of them into the proper culture.
A thug mentality, and victimhood culture, does not succeed. A culture focused on academics, hard work, and personal responsibility does.
I'll put it in a more freedom oriented way - given that we do not have the wisdom to decide between treading lightly, or treading heavily, we'll give individuals the choice.
You can choose to tread lightly - minimize your ecological impact, the number of children you have, and the types of animals you eat.
I will choose to tread heavily - maximize my standard of living and the standard of living of others, the number of children I have, and the types of animals I eat.
The beauty is that selective pressures will figure out which one of us is being wise, and which one of us isn't :)
*You* do. Perhaps evangelical christians who believe that every species ever to exist was created 6000 years ago, and one lost, are never replaced, believe that as well. And of course, tween girls love cute animals.
Me, I'm on nature's side :) The cruel, hard facts of natural selection is what we can thank for the advanced life on our planet thus far, and I've got no reason to believe that any human has the wisdom to decide when such cruel, hard facts should stop.
If there are programs out there that can be killed, why not just lower the tax burden on the citizens, instead of just transferring it to another government program?
Sometimes, governments can't afford things.
If 25 billion is good, surely 250 billion is better right?
And if 250 billion is good, why not just hit 25 trillion?
We live in a world of scarce resources - sometimes that means that expensive government programs can't be funded.
Mod parent up - nature doesn't care if cute animals survive, or if large animals survive, or if *any* animals survive. Imagining that there is some non-anthropogenic aesthetic out there that is superior to anthropogenic demands and needs and desires muddies the issue.
Yes, killing the Dodo bird off may one day be the death of the human species as an alien plague comes through and destroys every other edible animal, and only the Dodo could have fed us. I suppose you could come up with fanciful scenarios for any given extinct species. But thus far, throughout the anthropocene, no matter how many species have gone endangered or extinct, humanity has *thrived*. Speculating on some hypothetical apocalyptic tipping point seems particularly faith based.
...isn't that just evolution?
Do we really think that it would be a *good* thing to make sure that no existing species today ever goes extinct?
Do we really have any evidence that a slower rate of extinction is a good thing? Just comparing the year 1500 to 2014, I'd argue that whatever the cost in species removal, humanity has improved it's lot by leaps and bounds, even considering the graphic amount of suffering still available the world over.
I'd like to see a more quantifiable definition of "troubling". Sounds like undue alarm without some specific harm that can be linked to 320 terrestrial vertebrates disappearing...like a decline in health, wealth, or population of humans.
All of us rational folk here believe in evolution through selective pressures - you might have some disagreements on exact evolutionary paths, or whether in some cases lamarck was right (interuetero environmental effects, for example), but bottom line, the emergence of species depends on selective pressure.
So, when we talk about "mass extinction", which sounds really scary, let's realize that this kind of thing isn't only natural, it's *necessary* for evolution.
A more interesting measure might be this - what is the total biomass that existed before humanity, and what is the total biomass now? Changes in species distribution and existence might shuffle the deck a bit, but do we really believe that there is less life on the planet now than before humans? Maybe each large fauna was replaced by the equivalent mass in insects, or smaller animals, but does anyone actually think for a single moment that we have *less* life on the planet now?
The only way people are going to change their water habits is if you change what you charge them. Cheap water bills means people use lots of water. Expensive water bills means 5 minute showers and brown lawns as people pinch pennies.
I've found that while a degree can help you get entry level at a higher position, after a few years, competence catches up pretty quickly on compensation.
As a hiring manager, I've been fond of the "smart, get's things done" criteria - http://www.joelonsoftware.com/...
We outsource our technology jobs to the rest of the world, and they outsource their surveillance state to us?
There's a vicious cycle here somewhere, but I can't quite put my finger on it...
Why do people feel the need to actually read crap emails people send them? Send them to the spam bin, and move on.
Just because people on the intarwebs say something, doesn't mean you have to listen.
Maybe there's a market here for a "harassment filter", that looks for offensive word keywords, and just marks them as spam?
Anonymous harassment from spammy advertisers or misogynistic trolls seems like they have the same, workable solution.
In a large, bureaucratic organization, it's not unheard of to take 4 weeks just getting the laptop, email, and other access to systems set up. Then, trying to drop someone into a gigantic set of infrastructure that's poorly documented means months of just figuring out who the hell you talk to to solve problems.
Now, if you jump into a small, agile organization, you can certainly be doing great stuff on day one, but in the hellish grind that is corporate america, simply navigating the paperwork means that it takes months to learn the real organizational graph of who can get what done.