except fatpeoplehate got shut down for brigading and doxxing, not simple hate. there is still plenty of repugnant and hateful subs on reddit that are not shut down
if voat is going to accept brigading and doxxing, then voat is going to get sued and shut down when, not if, someone gets hurt in real life because of ignorant internet hate
reddit did the right thing, as a matter of simple morality, and as a matter of self preservation in the face of legal standards. if you harass and threaten someone specifically, you're not engaging in free speech anymore, and you, and the forum you are doing it on, are culpable for any harm stemming from that. freedom of speech is not limitless. it is no longer free speech when you threaten specific people
also, this situation is not at remotely analogous to what led to digg's downfall. completely different issues. your comment is incoherent
it's not that complicated. there's still plenty of repugnant and hateful content on reddit, but those subs are not doxxing or harassing individuals
the subs banned yesterday is a function of them targeting specific individuals. that's the problem
go ahead and express as much hate as you want, in general. but isolate one specific person for harassment, and you're censored. i accept that, that's a good policy, it makes sense. it's also in line with generally understood freedom of speech laws in the usa and elsewhere. for example: i can be a fundamentalist douchebag and preach destroying western civilization. that's fine. but if i say "we should go after {XYZ} location or {ABC} person," then the authorities have reason to act against you. as they should: you're issuing threats. that's not free speech
likewise, targeting real people online with doxxing and harassment means genuine harm can come to someone. reddit might be in jeopardy legally if a lawyer in a courtroom can say "it was on reddit that the transgressor acquired the person's name and address as a target for this form of hate"
it's repugnant, but it's ok to be amorphously hateful. it's not ok to specifically target individuals. that is a valid threshold and cut off point for a truly free society
no freedom exists that is not in tension with the freedoms and rights of others. naturally, logically, not as a function of government or laws
my right to listen to loud music at 3 AM is limited by your right to get a good night sleep. my right to speed my car as fast as possible is limited by your right to not die in car crash
and my right to hate a group of people is limited by your right to not be harassed and attacked by dimwitted hateful douchebags
so you have no natural right to doxx, stalk, harass, or otherwise target individuals. only amorphous groups. this is a natural logical limit on your freedoms
where you've gone from harmless loser justifiably engaging in free speech, to malicious asshole gunning for a specific person, you should be censored, you should be charged, you should lose your rights. because you are using your rights to threaten the rights of others
the stereotype of a freedom destroying fascist authoritarian government abusing your rights because "evil" is not really the whole story of freedom destruction in this world. the reality is threats to your rights and freedoms comes more often from other citizens around you. the immature shitbag thinks freedom means "i can do anything i want." the mature responsible truly freedom loving individual thinks freedom means "i can do anything i want as long as i don't harm anyone else"
unfortunately, there is no shortage of moronic douchebags in this world who think freedom means they can hurt other people. and so they shall be censored. arrested. prosecuted. imprisoned. as is right in a freedom loving country
abuse your responsibility to not harm others? lose your freedom. face valid censorship for threats (not free speech) or worse. rightfully and 100% compatible with the concept of maximizing freedom
there is nothing about the concept of freedom that says those who destroy freedom deserve to be free
But the problem is the actual reality, the strength of our economy, suffers because of what these morons believe.
I don't want to convince them of anything in some rational discussion, I know that's impossible. But, for the sake of my own economic health, at least, I want to figure out a way to get enough of them to either shut the fuck up or realize how fucking stupid they are, just enough so we can get a sound non-corrupt non-plutocracy in this country.
so why do we have to deal with so many conservative morons bloviating on the ways america is so great when it simply isn't? they believe in lies that underly an ideology which keeps us dumb and poor. we CAN have it better in this country. it begins by adopting socialist systems like universal healthcare and supplemented higher education that fucking works, and it's cheaper, and it's fair. but by simply saying that word, socialism, which is not communism. but i have now turned off every american moron, kneejerk prejudice intact, who imagine gulags in their stupidity about that that means, instead of tiny hospital bills, what it really means
can't tell if you're being sarcastic or if you are actually that stupid
you believe a handful of ultrarich buying some toys is anything more than a tiny drop compared to an ocean of the spending power of a healthy middle class?
then we should limit major choices, not bury young people in debt, unable to contribute to the economy (buy a house, car, etc.: manufacturing, construction, etc.) and instead it all goes into some bank ceo's pocket. how does that help anyone, besides ones plutocrat class sucking up so much and more and more each day. that doesn't trickle down morons, it just stays in a bank, while a middle class flush with cash spends most of it, actually generating jobs and a healthy economy
i don't really understand people who view life choices as a one sided thing. the range of choices available to you also reflect your society's values
some of you idiots will say if a guy only had a choice between walking off a cliff and walking into a furnace he should be blamed for wrongly choosing to commit suicide, poor characters, etc. what choices a person has before them is a reflection of the values of a society. and obviously, our society sucks, and is getting worse. cue the morons who bark "american exceptionalism" without fucking noticing that on all of the measures of what they consider american excpetional about, the usa is actually falling behind and slipping further
for example, you have greater social mobility as a poor immigrant in a nordic countries, than you do in the usa. you know, those countries with evil socialist universal healthcare and free/ low cost higher education
the usa has much better free speech protections than russia
free speech leads to a populace that has a healthier critical eye than citizens in countries where few alternative narratives are allowed
russian government, by controlling media, is breeding flabby, uncritical russian minds
of course there are still critical russian minds. of course there are flabby propagandized americans. but on average, the usa does better than russia on this measure, because russian government's hostile attitude to alternative perspectives
furthermore, it trains critical minds to be exposed to everything. in this world, there is only one guarantor of truth: you. and you only get a good mind that can smell out bullshit by being exposed to all the different bullshit
although, there are minds that would have been great, in less free countries, but those minds are weak and flabby: hopelessly cynical
it is just as dangerous to reject everything as it is to be naive and believe everything. and such once-great minds get that way by being in an environment they see is all lies, but offered nothing valid as an alternative, anywhere. so they become hopeless cynics
such minds in the west can find other sources, and find out the truth, before they become blind kneejerk cynics. by seeing all the different perspectives
all perspectives have an agenda, but by seeing many agendas and perspectives, the depiction of an event can be seen for what it is by comparing the differences. in a controlled environment, with only one perspective, you either are a hopelessly trusting moron, or a hopelessly distrusting cynic, both equally hobbling
only with a plethora of sources and choices is the critical mind trained and maintained
1. the naive, who believe what the official channels say
2. the genuinely critical and intellectually honest
3. the hopelessly cynical. too much automatic distrust is not intelligent, it's actually a personality disorder hobbling in the same way naivete is, to automatically reject all info, even something that might be true
the point is, in the west, those who are genuinely critical have more information sources to peruse, and therefore are better able to find out the truth. in controlled environments, places where fear dominates, the critically minded have less chance to find the truth and, as you say, often wind of hopelessly jaded and cynical and don't believe anything
there is propaganda and there always will be. but in a more free speech environment, you breed more critical minds, because you expose the minds to more bullshit. as opposed to walled gardens in countries with less free speech, which breeds weak minds
that's all i'm saying. the west is not perfect and never will be. it's just *better*
and people like you seem to think because you can't get perfection, then everything is the same. but it's not the same. therefore your criticisms are useless
more free speech means more critical minds. that actually means something. if you rejec tthat as useless, you only announce yourself as naive
it's a continuum. the west falls for plenty of bullshit. it's just that, on the average, the west falls for less
every single example of the west falling for shit you just gave me, can also be shown in countries with less free speech. and they fall for *more*
the perfect is not the enemy of the good. if you gauge all countries against an ideal perfection of a populace of everyone being perfectly rational critical minds, which does not exist and never will, then your criticisms are useless
the west simply edges out countries with less free speech because they train more critical minds. the west is not perfect and never will be. it's just that, until countries that now have very little free speech get more, the west will simply do better than them, not perfect
there are no absolutes anywhere. it would be easy to find a person more level headed in russia and china than some people in the usa. but i'm talking about trends and averages
i'm talking about the media environment and what it does to a critical mind. an environment where anything goes means that critical mind is exercised more, exposed to more bullshit and gets more sophisticated and powerful
but a walled garden, where a government controls more of what is officially (and unofficially, as the existence of government troll brigades shows) said, you breed uncritical minds. that muscle is simply less developed because it is worked less
it's a continuum. the west simply edges out other countries on the continuum
i'm not denying that the usa has plenty of hysterical, propagandized morons, and plenty of uncritical minds. it does. a lot of them self-select and out of prideful ignorance choose to live in an ideological bubble where only ideas that support their prejudices is allowed.. *by them*, not by their government. they self-select to remain ignorant. if they hear something that challenges their beliefs, they immediately reject it
but the existence of such losers is an unchanging baseline across all countries: the propagandized fool. you can't do anything about such uncritical minds, and every country has them
we're talking about another population here
there will always be a regular crop of some people who are still intellectually honest and will seek out alternative narratives and alternative sources of news. such people in the west will simply find that a lot easier, and so there will be more critical minds in the west than in countries with less free speech protections. because such intellectually honest minds in more authoritarian countries will not find it as easy to find alternative views, they are trapped. and so they will not develop, and they will fall back into fear and propaganda. their government is purposefully creating a general population of uncritical, weak minds. it's a colossal weakness. the effort is just too hard (and sometimes dangerous) for those *initially* intellectually honest to see more critical views, more alternative views, because their government makes it hard, in countries with few free speech protections. and so such people, who would be the best minds in those countries, fall back into fear and propaganda, and never develop. not so in the west
in the west, the self-selecting propagandized morons will never seek out views that challenge them, yes, but we're not talking about such useless people, and such people exist in all countries
on the average, amongst all minds, not just closed ones, more free speech protections means you are breeding more critical minds, simply because such minds exist in a media environment in the west where they can be challenged more and better develop that muscle
the USA has better free speech protections. therefore, nonsense on the internet has less power
i am certain there is organized political trolling in the USA as well, by the government and by organizations with agendas, but it is less effective in the west
countries with less free speech protection (like china and their 50 cent bullshit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5... ) will rely on this sort of organized trolling as a means of persuasion and control, domestically and internationally. more than the west, simply because the west has less need to manipulate these whisper campaigns because nonsense on the internet has less power because are exposed to it more in a free speech environment and are more resistant to it. they simply have better trained more critical minds
the governments of authoritarian countries fear provocative opinions more, therefore they engage in this sort of nonsense more, because they view controlling people's opinions as important. their people wind of living in a walled garden of controlled opinion with less options to consider, and a state that officially endorses and pushes weak minded opinions and fear. the west simply doesn't give a fuck. the opinions and lies of random morons on the internet is exactly that, and most people can see that for what it is. you have to live in a paranoid insecure state to give much credence to inflammatory bullshit from random whispers on the internet
in the end, it weakens these countries, because you are breeding people with weak, easily manipulated minds. people in the west simply have better and more healthy bullshit meters. simply because when you can say anything, people do
expose a socially and psychologically normal person to 4chan for a month, and what do you get? a crackpot? no, a jaded experienced mind that can see bullshit coming from a mile away
exposure to the kind of thinking and commentary that resembles mental illness, amongst the more rational choices of speech, gives one a more critical eye and healthy skepticism. the ability to see the difference between credible words and manipulated words
but in countries where paranoid schizophrenic theories are actually supported and endorsed by the government's official media agencies as a means of control, you breed people to live in panic and fear. weak minds. it's a shame to weaken people's minds like this. russia, china, iran, etc., reap a side effect of their manipulations: a general population more susceptible to idiocies most westerners (not all) would easily reject, simply because westerners (even though some choose to stay within ideological bubbles and never consider other sides out of prideful ignorance, some personality types are universal, but limited) can, and do, see other sources of narrative, good or bad
A leaders job is to lead the group to as good an outcome as possible (i.e. it is the task that the leader was chosen to do)
the guy who is focusing his effort on getting a good outcome for society has no time to maintain his leadership. so someone else leads
A leader who is only good at remaining the leader... he/she is a good Narcissist.
i agree. and? so what. yes, absolutely: leading societies is the work of truly gifted and screwed up people. demagogues. this is a problem about human nature, but that doesn't make the problem magically. the problem is baked into how we function as social groups, there is no avoiding it
you seem to live in this insulated ivory tower that doesn't know, understand, nor accept certain unfortunate but unavoidably true aspects of human behavior. your concept of an ideal leader will always, always, wind up being some guy who works for the actual leaders. the actual leaders are the guys who spend most of their tiem acquiring and maintaining their leadership. playing a game that you dislike, but who cares if you like it. the game is part of your reality. that you don't like it doesn't make it go away
you don't bother acknowledging that the game of jockeying for control and keeping it is the real subject called leadership, and the entire domain you call leadership is actually a separate sideshow that comes after and is subservient to the real topic at hand: the ugly ways leadership is acquired and maintained
welcome to reality. acknowledge it. then form your opinions
Q. Other insights from the data you’ve gathered about Google employees?
A. One of the things we’ve seen from all our data crunching is that G.P.A.’s are worthless as a criteria for hiring, and test scores are worthless — no correlation at all except for brand-new college grads, where there’s a slight correlation. Google famously used to ask everyone for a transcript and G.P.A.’s and test scores, but we don’t anymore, unless you’re just a few years out of school. We found that they don’t predict anything.
What’s interesting is the proportion of people without any college education at Google has increased over time as well. So we have teams where you have 14 percent of the team made up of people who’ve never gone to college.
Q. Can you elaborate a bit more on the lack of correlation?
A. After two or three years, your ability to perform at Google is completely unrelated to how you performed when you were in school, because the skills you required in college are very different. You’re also fundamentally a different person. You learn and grow, you think about things differently.
Another reason is that I think academic environments are artificial environments. People who succeed there are sort of finely trained, they’re conditioned to succeed in that environment. One of my own frustrations when I was in college and grad school is that you knew the professor was looking for a specific answer. You could figure that out, but it’s much more interesting to solve problems where there isn’t an obvious answer. You want people who like figuring out stuff where there is no obvious answer.
this is about GPA, not SAT, but they take home is that scores on academic tests are shit, because the "academic environment is an artificial environment". it focuses on skills that don't really help in the job. colleges need to change what they value, because what they value does not adequately prepare people for life
also:
Q. Other insights from the studies you’ve already done?
A. On the hiring side, we found that brainteasers are a complete waste of time. How many golf balls can you fit into an airplane? How many gas stations in Manhattan? A complete waste of time. They don’t predict anything. They serve primarily to make the interviewer feel smart.
Instead, what works well are structured behavioral interviews, where you have a consistent rubric for how you assess people, rather than having each interviewer just make stuff up.
Behavioral interviewing also works — where you’re not giving someone a hypothetical, but you’re starting with a question like, “Give me an example of a time when you solved an analytically difficult problem.” The interesting thing about the behavioral interview is that when you ask somebody to speak to their own experience, and you drill into that, you get two kinds of information. One is you get to see how they actually interacted in a real-world situation, and the valuable “meta” information you get about the candidate is a sense of what they consider to be difficult.
On the leadership side, we’ve found that leadership is a more ambiguous and amorphous set of characteristics than the work we did on the attributes of good management, which are more of a checklist and actionable.
We found that, for leaders, it’s important that people know you are consistent and fair in how you think about making decisions and that there’s an element of predictability. If a leader is consistent, people on their teams experience tremendous freedom, because then they know that within certain parameters, they can do whatever they want. If your manager is all over the plac
there are people of great social skill and malicious intent, and people of great social skill and good intent. you confuse intent and ability. if you can't tell the difference you're only announcing your own lack of social skills
you've just condemned the society the person is in, not the person's intelligence or character. indeed, there are people of great intelligence stuck in shitty jobs the world over. only because their society is so shit there is no path for them to improve themselves, through no fault of their own. people of truly exceptional social intelligence then probably quit anyway and start a revolution
whether or not a leader obtains and retains leadership does
you are talking about subject matter that has nothing to do with the topic of being a good leader or not
what is the value of a guy with good ideas for society who has no power?
get the power. then we can talk. if you can't do that, you are not a good leader nor a bad leader. you're simply not a leader. you simply don't matter on the topic
stop injecting an unrelated judgment on an unrelated parameter into the subject at hand
There's plenty of socially intelligent people with shitty jobs. There's plenty of people with crap social skills who are very successful at their jobs.
if you're socially intelligent, you know you don't need to stay in a shitty job. therefore, your example is incoherent
likewise, show me someone who is not socially intelligent and successful, and i'll show you someone operating in the same domain who is socially intelligent and yet even more successful, due to being more socially intelligent
for example, programming is in demand so programmers can be very successful, even the ones with shitty social skills. but within that domain, those programmers who are also socially intelligent are yet even more successful
Slashdot Mirror
and yet here your comment stands, uncensored
i also think slashdot did have a top level story on this topic a few days ago
except fatpeoplehate got shut down for brigading and doxxing, not simple hate. there is still plenty of repugnant and hateful subs on reddit that are not shut down
if voat is going to accept brigading and doxxing, then voat is going to get sued and shut down when, not if, someone gets hurt in real life because of ignorant internet hate
reddit did the right thing, as a matter of simple morality, and as a matter of self preservation in the face of legal standards. if you harass and threaten someone specifically, you're not engaging in free speech anymore, and you, and the forum you are doing it on, are culpable for any harm stemming from that. freedom of speech is not limitless. it is no longer free speech when you threaten specific people
also, this situation is not at remotely analogous to what led to digg's downfall. completely different issues. your comment is incoherent
it's not that complicated. there's still plenty of repugnant and hateful content on reddit, but those subs are not doxxing or harassing individuals
the subs banned yesterday is a function of them targeting specific individuals. that's the problem
go ahead and express as much hate as you want, in general. but isolate one specific person for harassment, and you're censored. i accept that, that's a good policy, it makes sense. it's also in line with generally understood freedom of speech laws in the usa and elsewhere. for example: i can be a fundamentalist douchebag and preach destroying western civilization. that's fine. but if i say "we should go after {XYZ} location or {ABC} person," then the authorities have reason to act against you. as they should: you're issuing threats. that's not free speech
likewise, targeting real people online with doxxing and harassment means genuine harm can come to someone. reddit might be in jeopardy legally if a lawyer in a courtroom can say "it was on reddit that the transgressor acquired the person's name and address as a target for this form of hate"
it's repugnant, but it's ok to be amorphously hateful. it's not ok to specifically target individuals. that is a valid threshold and cut off point for a truly free society
no freedom exists that is not in tension with the freedoms and rights of others. naturally, logically, not as a function of government or laws
my right to listen to loud music at 3 AM is limited by your right to get a good night sleep. my right to speed my car as fast as possible is limited by your right to not die in car crash
and my right to hate a group of people is limited by your right to not be harassed and attacked by dimwitted hateful douchebags
so you have no natural right to doxx, stalk, harass, or otherwise target individuals. only amorphous groups. this is a natural logical limit on your freedoms
where you've gone from harmless loser justifiably engaging in free speech, to malicious asshole gunning for a specific person, you should be censored, you should be charged, you should lose your rights. because you are using your rights to threaten the rights of others
the stereotype of a freedom destroying fascist authoritarian government abusing your rights because "evil" is not really the whole story of freedom destruction in this world. the reality is threats to your rights and freedoms comes more often from other citizens around you. the immature shitbag thinks freedom means "i can do anything i want." the mature responsible truly freedom loving individual thinks freedom means "i can do anything i want as long as i don't harm anyone else"
unfortunately, there is no shortage of moronic douchebags in this world who think freedom means they can hurt other people. and so they shall be censored. arrested. prosecuted. imprisoned. as is right in a freedom loving country
abuse your responsibility to not harm others? lose your freedom. face valid censorship for threats (not free speech) or worse. rightfully and 100% compatible with the concept of maximizing freedom
there is nothing about the concept of freedom that says those who destroy freedom deserve to be free
Well said.
But the problem is the actual reality, the strength of our economy, suffers because of what these morons believe.
I don't want to convince them of anything in some rational discussion, I know that's impossible. But, for the sake of my own economic health, at least, I want to figure out a way to get enough of them to either shut the fuck up or realize how fucking stupid they are, just enough so we can get a sound non-corrupt non-plutocracy in this country.
so why do we have to deal with so many conservative morons bloviating on the ways america is so great when it simply isn't? they believe in lies that underly an ideology which keeps us dumb and poor. we CAN have it better in this country. it begins by adopting socialist systems like universal healthcare and supplemented higher education that fucking works, and it's cheaper, and it's fair. but by simply saying that word, socialism, which is not communism. but i have now turned off every american moron, kneejerk prejudice intact, who imagine gulags in their stupidity about that that means, instead of tiny hospital bills, what it really means
can't tell if you're being sarcastic or if you are actually that stupid
you believe a handful of ultrarich buying some toys is anything more than a tiny drop compared to an ocean of the spending power of a healthy middle class?
then we should limit major choices, not bury young people in debt, unable to contribute to the economy (buy a house, car, etc.: manufacturing, construction, etc.) and instead it all goes into some bank ceo's pocket. how does that help anyone, besides ones plutocrat class sucking up so much and more and more each day. that doesn't trickle down morons, it just stays in a bank, while a middle class flush with cash spends most of it, actually generating jobs and a healthy economy
i don't really understand people who view life choices as a one sided thing. the range of choices available to you also reflect your society's values
some of you idiots will say if a guy only had a choice between walking off a cliff and walking into a furnace he should be blamed for wrongly choosing to commit suicide, poor characters, etc. what choices a person has before them is a reflection of the values of a society. and obviously, our society sucks, and is getting worse. cue the morons who bark "american exceptionalism" without fucking noticing that on all of the measures of what they consider american excpetional about, the usa is actually falling behind and slipping further
for example, you have greater social mobility as a poor immigrant in a nordic countries, than you do in the usa. you know, those countries with evil socialist universal healthcare and free/ low cost higher education
the usa has much better free speech protections than russia
free speech leads to a populace that has a healthier critical eye than citizens in countries where few alternative narratives are allowed
russian government, by controlling media, is breeding flabby, uncritical russian minds
of course there are still critical russian minds. of course there are flabby propagandized americans. but on average, the usa does better than russia on this measure, because russian government's hostile attitude to alternative perspectives
is fox news a product of the us govt? are competing news outlets shut down, harassed, or absorbed?
and you are an authority because...
well said and absolutely correct
furthermore, it trains critical minds to be exposed to everything. in this world, there is only one guarantor of truth: you. and you only get a good mind that can smell out bullshit by being exposed to all the different bullshit
although, there are minds that would have been great, in less free countries, but those minds are weak and flabby: hopelessly cynical
it is just as dangerous to reject everything as it is to be naive and believe everything. and such once-great minds get that way by being in an environment they see is all lies, but offered nothing valid as an alternative, anywhere. so they become hopeless cynics
such minds in the west can find other sources, and find out the truth, before they become blind kneejerk cynics. by seeing all the different perspectives
all perspectives have an agenda, but by seeing many agendas and perspectives, the depiction of an event can be seen for what it is by comparing the differences. in a controlled environment, with only one perspective, you either are a hopelessly trusting moron, or a hopelessly distrusting cynic, both equally hobbling
only with a plethora of sources and choices is the critical mind trained and maintained
it's a continuum in all countries
1. the naive, who believe what the official channels say
2. the genuinely critical and intellectually honest
3. the hopelessly cynical. too much automatic distrust is not intelligent, it's actually a personality disorder hobbling in the same way naivete is, to automatically reject all info, even something that might be true
the point is, in the west, those who are genuinely critical have more information sources to peruse, and therefore are better able to find out the truth. in controlled environments, places where fear dominates, the critically minded have less chance to find the truth and, as you say, often wind of hopelessly jaded and cynical and don't believe anything
this is weakness, not strength
you're not kidding
there is propaganda and there always will be. but in a more free speech environment, you breed more critical minds, because you expose the minds to more bullshit. as opposed to walled gardens in countries with less free speech, which breeds weak minds
that's all i'm saying. the west is not perfect and never will be. it's just *better*
and people like you seem to think because you can't get perfection, then everything is the same. but it's not the same. therefore your criticisms are useless
more free speech means more critical minds. that actually means something. if you rejec tthat as useless, you only announce yourself as naive
it's a continuum. the west falls for plenty of bullshit. it's just that, on the average, the west falls for less
every single example of the west falling for shit you just gave me, can also be shown in countries with less free speech. and they fall for *more*
the perfect is not the enemy of the good. if you gauge all countries against an ideal perfection of a populace of everyone being perfectly rational critical minds, which does not exist and never will, then your criticisms are useless
the west simply edges out countries with less free speech because they train more critical minds. the west is not perfect and never will be. it's just that, until countries that now have very little free speech get more, the west will simply do better than them, not perfect
there are no absolutes anywhere. it would be easy to find a person more level headed in russia and china than some people in the usa. but i'm talking about trends and averages
i'm talking about the media environment and what it does to a critical mind. an environment where anything goes means that critical mind is exercised more, exposed to more bullshit and gets more sophisticated and powerful
but a walled garden, where a government controls more of what is officially (and unofficially, as the existence of government troll brigades shows) said, you breed uncritical minds. that muscle is simply less developed because it is worked less
it's a continuum. the west simply edges out other countries on the continuum
i'm not denying that the usa has plenty of hysterical, propagandized morons, and plenty of uncritical minds. it does. a lot of them self-select and out of prideful ignorance choose to live in an ideological bubble where only ideas that support their prejudices is allowed.. *by them*, not by their government. they self-select to remain ignorant. if they hear something that challenges their beliefs, they immediately reject it
but the existence of such losers is an unchanging baseline across all countries: the propagandized fool. you can't do anything about such uncritical minds, and every country has them
we're talking about another population here
there will always be a regular crop of some people who are still intellectually honest and will seek out alternative narratives and alternative sources of news. such people in the west will simply find that a lot easier, and so there will be more critical minds in the west than in countries with less free speech protections. because such intellectually honest minds in more authoritarian countries will not find it as easy to find alternative views, they are trapped. and so they will not develop, and they will fall back into fear and propaganda. their government is purposefully creating a general population of uncritical, weak minds. it's a colossal weakness. the effort is just too hard (and sometimes dangerous) for those *initially* intellectually honest to see more critical views, more alternative views, because their government makes it hard, in countries with few free speech protections. and so such people, who would be the best minds in those countries, fall back into fear and propaganda, and never develop. not so in the west
in the west, the self-selecting propagandized morons will never seek out views that challenge them, yes, but we're not talking about such useless people, and such people exist in all countries
on the average, amongst all minds, not just closed ones, more free speech protections means you are breeding more critical minds, simply because such minds exist in a media environment in the west where they can be challenged more and better develop that muscle
the USA has better free speech protections. therefore, nonsense on the internet has less power
i am certain there is organized political trolling in the USA as well, by the government and by organizations with agendas, but it is less effective in the west
countries with less free speech protection (like china and their 50 cent bullshit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5... ) will rely on this sort of organized trolling as a means of persuasion and control, domestically and internationally. more than the west, simply because the west has less need to manipulate these whisper campaigns because nonsense on the internet has less power because are exposed to it more in a free speech environment and are more resistant to it. they simply have better trained more critical minds
the governments of authoritarian countries fear provocative opinions more, therefore they engage in this sort of nonsense more, because they view controlling people's opinions as important. their people wind of living in a walled garden of controlled opinion with less options to consider, and a state that officially endorses and pushes weak minded opinions and fear. the west simply doesn't give a fuck. the opinions and lies of random morons on the internet is exactly that, and most people can see that for what it is. you have to live in a paranoid insecure state to give much credence to inflammatory bullshit from random whispers on the internet
in the end, it weakens these countries, because you are breeding people with weak, easily manipulated minds. people in the west simply have better and more healthy bullshit meters. simply because when you can say anything, people do
expose a socially and psychologically normal person to 4chan for a month, and what do you get? a crackpot? no, a jaded experienced mind that can see bullshit coming from a mile away
exposure to the kind of thinking and commentary that resembles mental illness, amongst the more rational choices of speech, gives one a more critical eye and healthy skepticism. the ability to see the difference between credible words and manipulated words
but in countries where paranoid schizophrenic theories are actually supported and endorsed by the government's official media agencies as a means of control, you breed people to live in panic and fear. weak minds. it's a shame to weaken people's minds like this. russia, china, iran, etc., reap a side effect of their manipulations: a general population more susceptible to idiocies most westerners (not all) would easily reject, simply because westerners (even though some choose to stay within ideological bubbles and never consider other sides out of prideful ignorance, some personality types are universal, but limited) can, and do, see other sources of narrative, good or bad
you're changing the goalposts
we were talking about leaders of nations, and now you are talking about the unrelated honorific applied to sports stars
so if you're changing the subject, i'll take that as your intellectually dishonest way of conceding my point here
i'm glad i've been able to show you something about your world. it's ugly. it's unfortunate. but it's reality we have to deal with
okay, you don't like that stalin was a leader, he didn't deserve it
i agree with you
but how are you going to change that?
welcome to an ugly aspect of your reality
the guy who is focusing his effort on getting a good outcome for society has no time to maintain his leadership. so someone else leads
i agree. and? so what. yes, absolutely: leading societies is the work of truly gifted and screwed up people. demagogues. this is a problem about human nature, but that doesn't make the problem magically. the problem is baked into how we function as social groups, there is no avoiding it
you seem to live in this insulated ivory tower that doesn't know, understand, nor accept certain unfortunate but unavoidably true aspects of human behavior. your concept of an ideal leader will always, always, wind up being some guy who works for the actual leaders. the actual leaders are the guys who spend most of their tiem acquiring and maintaining their leadership. playing a game that you dislike, but who cares if you like it. the game is part of your reality. that you don't like it doesn't make it go away
you don't bother acknowledging that the game of jockeying for control and keeping it is the real subject called leadership, and the entire domain you call leadership is actually a separate sideshow that comes after and is subservient to the real topic at hand: the ugly ways leadership is acquired and maintained
welcome to reality. acknowledge it. then form your opinions
that may be the status quo, but the status quo is a failed concept
http://www.businessinsider.com...
this is about GPA, not SAT, but they take home is that scores on academic tests are shit, because the "academic environment is an artificial environment". it focuses on skills that don't really help in the job. colleges need to change what they value, because what they value does not adequately prepare people for life
also:
there are people of great social skill and malicious intent, and people of great social skill and good intent. you confuse intent and ability. if you can't tell the difference you're only announcing your own lack of social skills
you've just condemned the society the person is in, not the person's intelligence or character. indeed, there are people of great intelligence stuck in shitty jobs the world over. only because their society is so shit there is no path for them to improve themselves, through no fault of their own. people of truly exceptional social intelligence then probably quit anyway and start a revolution
where a leader takes society has no meaning
whether or not a leader obtains and retains leadership does
you are talking about subject matter that has nothing to do with the topic of being a good leader or not
what is the value of a guy with good ideas for society who has no power?
get the power. then we can talk. if you can't do that, you are not a good leader nor a bad leader. you're simply not a leader. you simply don't matter on the topic
stop injecting an unrelated judgment on an unrelated parameter into the subject at hand
if you're socially intelligent, you know you don't need to stay in a shitty job. therefore, your example is incoherent
likewise, show me someone who is not socially intelligent and successful, and i'll show you someone operating in the same domain who is socially intelligent and yet even more successful, due to being more socially intelligent
for example, programming is in demand so programmers can be very successful, even the ones with shitty social skills. but within that domain, those programmers who are also socially intelligent are yet even more successful