XPKBandMaidCzun

Don't know about the politics, but we beat up each other too much:

People end up in groups based on their journey to find someone who validates their hardship.

In 201x, the process goes something like this:

When we struggle, we reach out for help, and rather than finding articles that are soothing chicken soup, they're news articles that we are worthy of contempt based on characteristics we have. The reader may get angered, as preposterously, some how, a specified group of people's needs and niche circumstance eclipses everything else. The algorithms leads to a string of sensational articles about how society needs to be restructured honor the whims of people based on a trait and exceptional edgecase circumstances.

Respect is conditional based on tribal loyalty and repeating generalized tropes with religious zeal - if you dare to dissect it as a social construction - you're out of the club. You're not enlightened, don't get it, and generally what's wrong with society, somehow.

I think general miserliness and insensitivity create the conditions for people to resort to unifying over absurd polarizing generalizations above all else. If our feelings and worth are based on preconditions, I'd assume it'd be pretty hard to build consensus, cooperate and make everyone feel loved and cared for.

That said, when people squabble over rhetorical devices instead of unifying to improve the conditions of legal persons universally, it's great for the stock market.

> Marriage equality isn't a particularly ridiculous reason.

I believe you're trying to do what's right and care about the issue.

It appears some disagree that Mozilla was an appropriate venue to bring the matter up, though.

People use Mozilla for a web browser. Eich isn't making laws and Mozilla isn't ordained to marry. Mozilla is subject to the laws of the state of California and USA, regardless.

People are trying to say (if I may be so bold): it turned a technical, meritocratic culture into an organization that makes choices based on support of a political ballot.

It seems you feel very strongly about this, I believe you're trying to do the right thing. Management and cultures can be bad at workplaces.

I view situations on an individualized basis - full stop. I am not a fan of being placed to judge situations I don't know based on vague allegations. I prefer view group dynamics as cooperative rather than competitive as much as I can.

My issue is the communication style. The labeling and categorization that leaves people out, and even implies wrongdoing and malice by totally unrelated parties.

Just to take this comment as an example:

Gaslighting implies an intent to psychologically manipulate, as mentioned above, I view things on a case by case basis, and didn't witness the person in the reviews situation (to the affirmative or negative, what if there's actually shades of gray or they are actually at fault in the end?). Ivory tower denotes some semblance of power and advantage.

What if I were to say, the way this is coming across creates a difficult environment for someone who disagrees to express their observations?

I'm not a manager. I'm not part of an ivory tower. I'm not part of the aforementioned aggrieved categories. It doesn't mean my emotions and needs are less important. Disagreeing doesn't imply advantage or malice.

I think the main thing culture needs in SV is better communication. There's other employees who'd potentially be sympathetic, but are probably fearful to offer insights due to belief they'd be belittled.

That term, "ol' boys club" is a pretty offensive generalization. It's sad to see this person didn't jive with management at their workplace, and maybe it wasn't a comfortable environment, but it's not like employees have their hands on the knob of who gets hired.

It's incredibly hurtful to see someone draw such sweeping, negative inferences without specificity.

Whenever the word toxic gets brought up, I brace, because it feels the one making the claim is either projecting, or trying to use insults to incite others (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projective_identification)

Who is the person being abrasive and creating a negative culture here? It's a serious claim, inducing social pressure on onlookers, if they don't support the vague accusation, they feel a party to it.

That post makes it sound like everyone's character at that company is subpar and being done personal favors because of characteristics of how they look? It's a stereotype I keep hearing - as if there aren't good, fair-minded onlookers absorbing the brunt of that. It hurts.

I just wished their was fairer representation online of impact on people's lives when drugs get brought up. I never done drugs. But still, I suffered thanks to people who chose drugs as a way cope - and it's soul sucking.

The problem with decriminalizing/legalizing recreational drugs is its interpreted as officials of the state validating drugs as a coping skill.

In almost all cases, getting high is maladaptive coping style.

My anecdote from being raised by substance abusers: Makes you think you're smart, maybe even makes you look competent to other people. Until you don't have the drug anymore, in which case you're left with an anxious person who can't cope with difficult circumstances.

It's excruciating to have to endure loved ones who become dependent on substances. It saps the energy out of you to deal with. Their brain is rewired to get high - at the expense of their social connections, family, reputation, and so on.

Suffering and enduring a drug abuser is a silent pain. The incentive for users to get high and for rehab clinics to make money show why the conversation is so lopsided.

That's a lot of generalizations and stereotypes to make.

If someone aspires to develop positive relationships - I know I do - casting such hurtful and negative inferences about potential attachments isn't a good foot to start on.

Because frankly, if someone spoke so negatively of having a characteristic - which frankly - I didn't bring up, the author did, and acted as if I somehow deserved to be a target of such vitriol, as this author does, I'd be very far away from them.

That leaves you in a situation where the only ones left to speak to are the ones you seem to not want to be around. Because no self-respecting person wants be a punching bag.

Maybe people such as this author would be best served by forming some personal and professional friendships with men, rather than viewing them as adversaries. They may be surprised to see kind people were in front of them all along.

It may involve a temporary hiatus in writing posts on the internet insulting people.

I see the term radicalization is being brought up, do we serve ourselves by focusing on superficial presentations that won't be the same in 10 years rather than how similar everyone is: Feeling enlightened, competitive and lack consideration that their perceived "ideological adversary" is every bit vulnerable, needy, and scared as themselves?

How is this different from couple's therapy, just at long distances w/ groups?

None of them want to have a picnic and cooperate with each other. And who could blame them? They both fail to recognize each others hardships, yet "get" the human condition better than the other so much better. They begin by insinuating there's another group that has a character flaw, and is so angry. Yet - all the while, they're angry and accusing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projective_identification)

I have a hypothesis: It's all acting out, cathartic, to blow off steam. They're not at the soup kitchen or volunteering. They have a dysfunctional coping mechanism stemming from earlier traumas, and it's more profitable to captivate lonely, bored people by stir up people's anxiety existentially than help them find common ground.

Because if people realized the common ground they shared and cooperated, people would start to pass laws and regulations to make healthcare, employment, housing, education for more fair for legal persons. The whole concept of political sides is a sham: They are legal persons and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs.

If common sense stuff isn't being fixed and people are bikeshedding: the fix is in, people in suits are giving each other high fives and laughing at you. You're being suckered into squandering your political rights (you voted, or can!) to take worthless, symbolic digs at people rather than get what you need, better laws for the practical issues everyone shares. Hint: they tend to be boring.

Advise against school loans. That should go toward your first home.

Enshrine attachment and family systems as basic learning, just like speech class. Give a lay of the land in that love matters to people and family structure / relational decisions have generational implications.

Teach how it's dysfunctional to spurn and shame the concept of love and break the cycle we have in schadenfreude when courtship fails.

I wonder how not discussing this in our curriculum (some how) is already detrimental to our generation (millenium, gen z?). People spend decades of their life locked up in offices afraid to form the most valuable and meaningful connection.

In their offices, they often even mime relationships. It's amazing how we pride ourselves in intellect on the one hand, yet silently observe these obvious and eerie pseudo-relations play out, against the grain of their true intentions.

If deep down, you're secretly yearning for love, even if you pretend to be this stoic, that's not happiness. That's going against the intuition you feel but dare not say. I worry very deeply that it may lead to despair in later stages of life when there is less options, cascading internalized conflicts from the loneliness of those decades of bottled up feelings, and I want to make sure people don't suffer because of it while they could have done something about it.

How many of us (men and women) have given up on finding a partner to resolve solely to being in a career, where we have a perception of control. Well, is that someone caring for you? Is that feeling the maternal / paternal bond that you long to have?

Career by itself isn't enough to meet our needs. I wish we did something to emphasize finding a partner and valuing sincerity and dignifying the courtship process and relationship life cycle.

> Poor kids who don't get a crack at high performing programs before college end up floundering.

The number one factor I look at in a kids future is parental relationship. How attuned is it? Is it stable, or are they on the brink of foreclosure and moving place to place? Does the child have emotional support? Are their parents substance abusers? Do they fight each other and scream every night? (It can be hard to do homework!)

When we bring "poor" and other characteristics into this - man, I feel we're missing an iceberg. We're just getting further from "fixing" anything, we don't even acknowledge the most impactful thing that effects people regardless of some characteristic that's so often a facade masking the family system.

Home life can be a matter of maternal / paternal deprivation or abandonment, or over-controlling, or abuse. On the other hand, it could be the gift of having chill parents, a stable base.

When college comes up, I worry. Commenters speak of colleges as if they're an annuity that pays out. Financial outcomes are almost always implied, if not explicitly mentioned.

If you're not getting a license in some way, maybe it's just not needed. I see names at prestigious law firms, hospitals, business, gov at all levels that have gone to schools I never heard of. I've read academic papers and I have to tell you, very seldom do I ever see an "elite school" (whatever that means?) behind it.

I'm not against any of these, it's more important for certain people's goals than others, but man does having a supportive family mean a lot.

> I will say that it takes a certain level of privilege to say one shouldn’t discuss politics at work.

Having a discussion is hard. While you come to this well-intended, participants bring their own life experiences and hardships. They may not agree on the starting point of the conversation:

How is "marginalized' and "privileged" is defined? Some may not take that perspective on the above issues, and people with these characteristics may not consider themselves part of the "group", they may believe overcoming hardship by the way of grit and merit being the ideal.

People with these characteristics who don't consider themselves part of the "groups" may find the rhetoric being used patronizing, they don't want to be treated special or different, they want to be recognized for their contribution to the collective. That's where role models come from, to some.

They may disagree on what "empathy" means. Casting a group as marginalized draws broad strokes about others, because who isn't marginalized? How could someone know how someone else feels or what they have faced in life? If you don't like having your hardship belittled, why potentially do the same thing to others? We all have feelings and bring our unique stories and experiences to the table.

The definition of "inclusiveness". To some, the qualm isn't the subject, it's how some people who cite these groups disregard the larger collective or group they're apart of (e.g. their team, their workplace).

The definition of "discussion". There are stories of people being fired for merely citing agreed upon academic social/psychological research. Some sense viewpoint discrimination - fear of being sanctioned for stating their perspective - or to even say they're hurt by the topic's inferences.

Protesters, upset the demands still aren't met, are pointing laser pointers at the PLA military barracks: https://www.scmp.com/video/hong-kong/3031833/china-military-...

Carrie Lam and the HK Cabinet should propose meeting the 5 demands. To reiterate:

1 Full withdrawal of the extradition bill (format withdrawal almost completed)

2 A commission of inquiry into alleged police brutality

3 Retracting the classification of protesters as “rioters”

4 Amnesty for arrested protesters

5 Dual universal suffrage, meaning for both the Legislative Council and the Chief Executive

Apparently, some protesters feel they have no other outlet left than to surround the barracks in Kowloon. Nothing will come of it hopefully, the momentum toward universal suffrage feels so intense, I wonder if Macau will be swept in too before long.

You are right in regards to the current movement. In the 5 demands it says, "...implementation of universal suffrage for Legislative Council and Chief Executive elections"

Which could feasibly be done within the confines of the basic law. It is true many pro-democratic HKers don't want independence.

For some more context for those reading into it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_independence vs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Hong_Kong_protests

But I should also be complete and let you know there is a fledgling and growing movement, the so-called "Republic of Cantonia", who believe all Guangdong should be break into its own nation. You can see the flag here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_active_autonomis...

Hong Kong is definitely heading in the direction of complete independence. Thankfully.

I agree completely that the angst in HK is caused by outsiders. It has to feel terrible for HK people having their representation grabbed by agents of Beijing. They should apologize and grant universal suffrage to all people born in HK.

Most important in this is HK establishing its own military service, intel service, constitution (not just the Basic law oath of fealty to PRC), and UN representation. These are the remaining things HK needs to be treated like any other nation.

Since the rule of law is what matters, it will be important that judges and lawyers have adequate time to adapt to the any changes in the legal process after transition is complete.

The thing that has yet to be decided is how the legislature in HK will be structured though. Maybe in /r/hongkong they can bring it up.

But most important will be China staying out of meddling in Hong Kong's internal affairs. This is about Hong Kong people planning new system separate from PRC. After that is complete PRC has the same right to establish treaties the same way as Japan, USA, etc.

I have a WIP theory about this type of person on social media.

This isn't about validation or inclusion, if it was, it'd have been over years ago. We're deep in malingering territory now.

1. Creating a divisive persona / Integration

Their bio may mention their membership in an off topic, but sensitive, divisive and prickly issue. The goal is to draw attention to the sensitive issue in the next phases.

They join the group, sometimes not even in the actual working parts of it, but after party social/meta scenes.

2. Exposure and Hijacking

They will tend to put themselves into conversation, conferences, etc. in preparation and in compulsion recreate the issue. The goal is to shift people focused diligently to shift their attention to being a caregiver not for their project or teammates, but to them.

3. Special VIP treatment

Then they get a big smirk when people when management get tongue tied trying to navigate it gracefully. We've seen many surprising public concessions to these types, sometimes based off very flimsy reasons. Which tends to really annoy people who just want to work.

Passerbys also unwittingly aid their endeavors, mistakenly believing they're helping someone disenfranchised and in need.

4. Consolidating (destruction)

When they get the thumbs up on being VIP, they can now consolidate their gains and show what the world is like when only their feelings are cared for.

Cancel culture, trying to ruin people's careers, get them banned, getting in fights with their bosses and chain of command etc. This way they can solidify their need for special treatment.

It's a continual loop of positive reinforcement for them. Since people in power and passerby always cave to them, unwittingly creating more division in an already annoyed community.

5. Preservation / Preemption

To draw the sting of critics, they beat them to the punch by calling them entitled and privileged. Further accuse critics can't grasp and judge their unique plight and never can. Demonstrating evidence of hypocrisy simply validates their presupposition they're underdogs being hounded. So they can repeat and get more concessions and attention.

Other facets: My original theory is it was validation based. It maybe play a role, it's a multi-faceted thing, such as feeling ashamed of their activity some how and want to "come out" in public. But if it was just that, wouldn't they get it off their chest and just over it?

Since this is quasi-political, using a throwaway

But I noticed StackOverflow in 2016 made a really good choice: Having their code snippets in MIT: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/271080/the-mit-lice...

But based on this drama: I'd consider SO a platform to stay away from.

Let me be clear: Acting like a professional and an adult is an essential when communicating with me. Regardless of what the subject is or how dear it is to you. If someone had an opinion on mere speech - they could take a walk and understand other people have feelings and lives to live, not just them.

I wish we began to make a standard for people to keep their composure and communicate better. I see two sides: People who are willing to spoil relationships and burn bridges over political nuance of the week, and a voiceless majority who have the same exact problems, but are willing to take a breath and work it out.