That's an interesting perspective. I think that, to most people, conformist doesn't merely mean that one conforms to something, but that someone does something purely to conform to others' expectations.
For example: I eat, you eat, we all conform to that rule, but that's not necessarily conformist. I eat because I like to eat, and because I need the calories, vitamins, etc. Now, if I eat only Burger King, or only haute cuisine, because I worry about what others will think of me if I eat something else, that would be conformist, to me.
I fully agree that most people form their definition of "pretty girl" based on what others think, not on the merits of the girls. (e.g. there are cultures that prefer women with facial hair, and other that prefer without)
Considering Slashdot as representative of geeks in general, however, I'd say the recognition of the stereotype here all but proves the point.
If it weren't for the vast amount of comformism* represented among the geeks that post on slashdot, I might agree with you.
This is not to say that there aren't plenty of non-conformists in one way or another, but there doesn't seem (to me) to be a different proportion than in the non-slashdot population that I'm acquainted with.
Knowing how poorly this medium conveys tone, I'd lie to apologise in case you feel attacked or criticized. I am honestly merely trying to get a sense for why you believe as you do, and figure out what I believe about it.
The one thing that would lead me to believe that non-conformism might be more common on slashdot than in the general population is that non-conformism seems to be held in high esteem here. (Which may, more or less, be similar to what you just said.)
*By "comformism" I mean believeing something that others around you believe, without figuring out why you believe it. I refer both to belief in things that I agree with, and things that I disagree with. Also, I don't actually think that I'm immune to this.
This country was built by immigrants and welcoming the best and the brightest from the rest of the world seems to be a pretty obvious way to keep us properous.
I would disagree. Note these lines from famous poem ("The New Collossus") on the Statue of Liberty:
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
The idea (as it seems to me) was that the people that the rest of the world sees as worthless trash, we will welcome and give opportunity and freedom, and they will grow to greatness.
In our masses of immigration to this country we've had a lot of imported genius, but FAR more important has been the imported desire to work and grow.
They should know how to study before they get out of high school. If they don't it's (systemically, not necessarily individually) their parents' fault, not the colleges' fault. Expecting the college to fix the problem will (IMO) make it worse, not better. Designing high school classes in such a way that studying is required would be a MUCH better solution than easing up on college classes.
If you pay attention, you'll probably notice that local schools generally DO reflect the prevailing philosophy of the parents of the students.
We interrupt your regularly scheduled/. rants to bring you this special rant.
I hate the buzzword "methodology."
If you want to discuss a method, you CAN use the word method, it hasn't changed to mean something else in the past couple of decades.
Now, if you want to use a pretentions buzzword that describes an entire way of thinking about something, what's wrong with the old standby "paradigm?" Is that too old-fashioned for the new generation of buzzword users?
We now return you to your regularly scheduled/. rants.
The main reason I don't go to the movies, is the ourageous prices. Still, I'd probably find a way to come up with the money if the movies were worthwhile.
If you have surrendered your capacity to take decisions, to think for yourself, and to control your own destiny, then you are oppressed (according to Marx and others). Religion is, by this definition, oppression.
While I would agree that there are some (many) religions that strive to eliminate capacity to make decisions and thinking for oneself in their adherents, this is not even approximately universal. I think that the idea that we can control our own destiny has so many shades of agreement/disagreement among different religions it's not worth using to describe general religion at all.
Paradoxically, Marxism DOES fit your above definition of oppression.
Still, it all comes down to the industry being a very competitive one. It is. If they were ALL such inefficient bureaucracies, someone would start an efficient one, or streamline an existing one, and make buckets of cash.
I've never seen anybody move his house over public roads...
I have, many times. Usually the house is cut in half (or more pieces) to fit the roads better. I think I was probably about 10 the first time I noticed a house travelling down the road. Some of the wonder has worn off, but I still think it's cool.
There is an intersection in Orem, Utah (not a very big city) that has 6 or 7 lanes for each of 4 directions.
FYI, 3 straight, 2 left, and 1 or 2 right for each side.
Google maps "S State St & E University Pky, Orem, UT 84097"
I think that most of us have seen bigger roads and bigger highways, but that intersection does handle a lot of cars/minute without using on/offramps and under/overpasses.
Thanks! You've opened my eyes! I'm going to invest all my money in insurance companies! Because many of them are publicly traded, and you've convinced me that they're making an obscene amount of money, and I want a part of it.
Of course, that's just the short-term method of making money off your secret information. You've convinced me that the industry isn't competetive, because if it were, the companies that overcharged would quickly go out of business. (We know how hard individuals and employers are looking to find cheaper medical insurance, it must be that the insurance companies are all in cahoots.)
For the long-term money machine, I'll save the money I'll get from investing in insurance companies (it won't take long, if they're really as profitable as you suggest) and use it to start my own insurance company, and price my insurance reasonably, and people will FLOCK to my company and I'll RAKE in the dough.
I'm just glad that no one with money has noticed what you've just pointed out to us priveliged people here on slashdot, or they'd have alreasy started a low cost insurance company, and I wouldn't get a chance. Let's hope that no rich people/companies read slashdot.
I would say that you're not an "inept" troll. You've got at least 7 replies so far (not including mine) and have yet to post anything substantive. Definitely not inept at Trolling.
And the next week, his hand was caught in some machinery by his ring, and they couldn't cut the ring to get his hand out (because it was too hard), and he died?
So, funding an industry (by buying heroin) which agressively markets brain damaging substances to minors doesn't appear to you to be integral to shooting up your eyeballs? (I freely admit that the tobacco and alcohol industries are also guilty.)
It appears that we do have a fundamentally different view on how the universe functions, so I'll be done.
Non sequitor. Murder, theft, and disruptive public behavior are not examples of controlling one's own body.
But, they are, unless one murders, steals, etc. with someone else's body. My point, which you've declared agreement with, to some extent, is that my right to control my own body shouldn't extent to the point where it interferes with the rights of others.
Where I think we disagree is the extent that each person's actions affect other people. You seem to think that basically nothing you do in your own home affects me if I don't know about it. If you think about that a little more, I think that you'll find it isn't true. If you can't see that, then we have a fundamental disagreement about the way societies and the universe function.
Do you also disagree with the ridiculously higy taxes on cigarettes and alcohol? Because making them out to be a "sin tax" is essentially how the government rationalizes these taxes to the people.
Yes. I also disagree with "sin" taxes on alcohol, cigarettes, gambling, etc. I think making them sources of revenue is additional security for the continued existence of those industries.
Don't forget that prohibition also results in the creation of a black market...etc.
I'm aware that prohibition results in a black market, but that doesn't mean that prohibition is impractical, just imperfect. I still think it's better than the alternative.
No, it doesn't. A person's right to control their own body is absolute.
Not only is that not true, it shouldn't be true, because all our lives intersect. I would accept that a person generally has a right to control their own body, until they show that they are incapable (murder, theft, public intoxication?, etc.) of self-control.
If you want to use drugs in a dangerous way, like injecting heroin into your eyeballs, it's just and reasonable for the state to dissuade you with (accurate) anti-drug education...
I would agree with that.
...to put a reasonable "sin tax" on heroin...
I strongly disagree with that.
...to regulate heroin for purity and strength, and to ban you from driving under its influence.
Both of these seem to contradict the word "absolute" in your initial statement of faith.
Not only is drug probibition immoral...
I disagree, but you're entitled to your own belief system.
...it's also impractical. It doesn't work.
I submit that the truth of that depends on: 1-Is it true, in spite of extensive experience with banning other products and pretty solid economic theory, that legal prohibition doesn't decrease drug use? 2-If there is any illegal drug use, does that mean that drug prohibition has failed, or is only partially successful?
Or, conversely, talk to a bunch of former (tobacco) smokers and see that most still get cravings more than two months after quitting. Learning the non-physiological triggers of those cravings might also be instructive.
I have noticed, however, that for some people, smoking pot makes them flat stupid. I don't understand why it happens to some and not others, but it seems to attack those who weren't that bright to begin with, and as far as I can tell is permanent.
When I think of pot-smoking and stupidity I tend to believe the correlation, but question the cause/effect. Your experience doesn't help me resolve the question.
Slashdot Mirror
That's an interesting perspective.
I think that, to most people, conformist doesn't merely mean that one conforms to something, but that someone does something purely to conform to others' expectations.
For example: I eat, you eat, we all conform to that rule, but that's not necessarily conformist. I eat because I like to eat, and because I need the calories, vitamins, etc. Now, if I eat only Burger King, or only haute cuisine, because I worry about what others will think of me if I eat something else, that would be conformist, to me.
I fully agree that most people form their definition of "pretty girl" based on what others think, not on the merits of the girls. (e.g. there are cultures that prefer women with facial hair, and other that prefer without)
This is not to say that there aren't plenty of non-conformists in one way or another, but there doesn't seem (to me) to be a different proportion than in the non-slashdot population that I'm acquainted with.
Knowing how poorly this medium conveys tone, I'd lie to apologise in case you feel attacked or criticized. I am honestly merely trying to get a sense for why you believe as you do, and figure out what I believe about it.
The one thing that would lead me to believe that non-conformism might be more common on slashdot than in the general population is that non-conformism seems to be held in high esteem here. (Which may, more or less, be similar to what you just said.)
*By "comformism" I mean believeing something that others around you believe, without figuring out why you believe it. I refer both to belief in things that I agree with, and things that I disagree with. Also, I don't actually think that I'm immune to this.
Of course, I realize this depends on the extremely subjective definitions of "geek" and "nonconformist."
The idea (as it seems to me) was that the people that the rest of the world sees as worthless trash, we will welcome and give opportunity and freedom, and they will grow to greatness.
In our masses of immigration to this country we've had a lot of imported genius, but FAR more important has been the imported desire to work and grow.
They should know how to study before they get out of high school. If they don't it's (systemically, not necessarily individually) their parents' fault, not the colleges' fault. Expecting the college to fix the problem will (IMO) make it worse, not better. Designing high school classes in such a way that studying is required would be a MUCH better solution than easing up on college classes.
If you pay attention, you'll probably notice that local schools generally DO reflect the prevailing philosophy of the parents of the students.
We interrupt your regularly scheduled /. rants to bring you this special rant.
/. rants.
I hate the buzzword "methodology."
If you want to discuss a method, you CAN use the word method, it hasn't changed to mean something else in the past couple of decades.
Now, if you want to use a pretentions buzzword that describes an entire way of thinking about something, what's wrong with the old standby "paradigm?" Is that too old-fashioned for the new generation of buzzword users?
We now return you to your regularly scheduled
The main reason I don't go to the movies, is the ourageous prices.
Still, I'd probably find a way to come up with the money if the movies were worthwhile.
Paradoxically, Marxism DOES fit your above definition of oppression.
Also:
Sorry about the extra sarcasm. I got carried away.
Still, it all comes down to the industry being a very competitive one. It is. If they were ALL such inefficient bureaucracies, someone would start an efficient one, or streamline an existing one, and make buckets of cash.
There is an intersection in Orem, Utah (not a very big city) that has 6 or 7 lanes for each of 4 directions.
FYI, 3 straight, 2 left, and 1 or 2 right for each side.
Google maps "S State St & E University Pky, Orem, UT 84097"
I think that most of us have seen bigger roads and bigger highways, but that intersection does handle a lot of cars/minute without using on/offramps and under/overpasses.
Thanks!
You've opened my eyes!
I'm going to invest all my money in insurance companies! Because many of them are publicly traded, and you've convinced me that they're making an obscene amount of money, and I want a part of it.
Of course, that's just the short-term method of making money off your secret information. You've convinced me that the industry isn't competetive, because if it were, the companies that overcharged would quickly go out of business. (We know how hard individuals and employers are looking to find cheaper medical insurance, it must be that the insurance companies are all in cahoots.)
For the long-term money machine, I'll save the money I'll get from investing in insurance companies (it won't take long, if they're really as profitable as you suggest) and use it to start my own insurance company, and price my insurance reasonably, and people will FLOCK to my company and I'll RAKE in the dough.
I'm just glad that no one with money has noticed what you've just pointed out to us priveliged people here on slashdot, or they'd have alreasy started a low cost insurance company, and I wouldn't get a chance. Let's hope that no rich people/companies read slashdot.
I would say that you're not an "inept" troll.
You've got at least 7 replies so far (not including mine) and have yet to post anything substantive.
Definitely not inept at Trolling.
And the next week, his hand was caught in some machinery by his ring, and they couldn't cut the ring to get his hand out (because it was too hard), and he died?
Or was that someone with a titanium ring?
So, funding an industry (by buying heroin) which agressively markets brain damaging substances to minors doesn't appear to you to be integral to shooting up your eyeballs? (I freely admit that the tobacco and alcohol industries are also guilty.)
It appears that we do have a fundamentally different view on how the universe functions, so I'll be done.
-End of Line
Mr C, I'm sorry to have to tell you this.
You misunderstood my post.
Don't worry. The Moderators (at this writing, just +1 Interesting) didn't seem to understand either.
(but I don't mind the karma boost)
Where I think we disagree is the extent that each person's actions affect other people. You seem to think that basically nothing you do in your own home affects me if I don't know about it. If you think about that a little more, I think that you'll find it isn't true. If you can't see that, then we have a fundamental disagreement about the way societies and the universe function.
I'm aware that prohibition results in a black market, but that doesn't mean that prohibition is impractical, just imperfect. I still think it's better than the alternative.
I would agree with that.
I strongly disagree with that.
Both of these seem to contradict the word "absolute" in your initial statement of faith.
I disagree, but you're entitled to your own belief system.
I submit that the truth of that depends on: 1-Is it true, in spite of extensive experience with banning other products and pretty solid economic theory, that legal prohibition doesn't decrease drug use? 2-If there is any illegal drug use, does that mean that drug prohibition has failed, or is only partially successful?
Or, conversely, talk to a bunch of former (tobacco) smokers and see that most still get cravings more than two months after quitting. Learning the non-physiological triggers of those cravings might also be instructive.
Did you know that referencing mises.org decreases the credibility of your post. (On second thought, maybe that was your intention.)