These people should be send to Chinese concentration camp
65 karma · joined June 20, 2013
Countries with similar civilized values should not be naïve and be ready to stand up to barbarians including being aggressive when needed, and yes, EXPAND!
And certainly the West should not be ashamed for standing for its values and what is right, otherwise there is a wide range of ambitious nations who think that their way is unique and the only way to deal with others is power, while despising fundamental human values.
While power may beat everything in some cases, but for some reason citizens of those barbarian countries want to move to the West rather than enjoy their countries' glory in a concentration camp.
I'm saying this as Ukrainian.
>known people who are very smart that don’t work in such fields. True.
But the whole framing of the article is nonsense including a job title of "Gender, climate and sustainability reporter". Which makes me doubt intellectual and/or ethical capacity of people who downvoted/supported this nonsense and whole gender war agenda.
Downvotes indicate there are a lot of these people on HN.
I hit the nerve.
Corporate world and media freak out when hearing even a hint that men can have their problems too.
It feels like these myths busters are a bit left leaning.
Sames as a topic about whether Tim Cook deserves his huge pay/bonus, to which the answer to the left leaning academic is, can you find a replacement for him?
Also, most of the comments under this topic were ideological. The post itself is ideological. Ideological - where two competing ideas fight. Often ideological means moral in it's root. You don't like this? What is wrong with ideological conversations then?
I am the person who can analyse, think and articulate my conclusions, but, apparently, some positions and thoughts are not welcome here.
Apparently, everybody, you, corporations, government, society, my employer want me to be an empty headed craftsman who can talk only on technical topics and avoids social and political topics because it can be discussed by big boys only.
What I'm surprised the most is that with these complex and not obvious questions (at least to me) people without any shadow of a doubt are certain that it is right for big tech to censor Trump, shut down parler and take political sides like it happened.
Maybe Trump is bad but at least i want to see his stupidity or his wrongdoing rather than other people to chew the news and feed me like im an infant.
To me these questions require philosophical debates and dialogue (even with myself) to understand f it is right for a company to impose their political worldview on their clients - I don't feel it is right.
But if others take these positions very easily, to me that is an indication that they got these ideas from somebody else rather than thought them through.
And for the kindness to be appreciated and not considered as weakness you need to select who to give it to properly. And for that you need to be judgemental.
And bbc and current mainstream median culture will not tell you to be judgemental.
Why? Because they they want to be the teller what is right and what is wrong - not you.
1. an individual loses his power against large corporations, most importantly, GOVERNMENTS. Large structures become corrupt over time and occasionally need to be demolished partially or fully because they stop serving their purpose but start serving their self-interest. Only an individual, not groups, as ultimate indivisible units is the last resort for all values that any civilisation is built on: starting from justice, democracy etc. Thus, e-2-e encryption empowers individuals (putting aside criminals that cane be considered as a necessary evil) that doesn't make groups in power happy. So, by shifting the power from individuals to groups, the first loose an ability to use their intrinsic, built by billions of years of evolution, judgements what is good and what is now, to keep the system in check and press a red button when needed to destroy a government (like Nazi) that went out of control or a corporation.
2. Introducing these kind of anti-individualistic laws creates a bad example for already corrupted and authoritarian countries lie Russia, China and others, that would use this as an justifications to toughen already draconian laws to control their citizens. Once they do loose a good example of freedom that is meant to exist in western countries, they would become corrupted even more, causing not only troubles, but potentially military confrontations that would cost way more than those relatively small issues caused by criminals.
Even just this simple example shows that stepping aside from principles for the sake of expedience may create unforeseen consequences that left governments (because all governments in europe are large and trying to become even larger) don't want to realise because of one simple reason: they have already transformed from serving their initial idea and purpose to being self-serving.
How about Asian privilege? Why so many Asian in STEM in western universities? Is it unfair? I think it is absolutely fair as long as the administration doesn't judge them by their skin color or other irrelevant to study qualities.
But abstract administration may want to look at the skin and help those who they consider are lower on the victimhood hierarchy, but there are many many problems that arise when an administration starts doing this.
Re the 2nd - I can come up with an argument supporting my theory that it is not only a social construct as you imply, but I will invite you first to prove your theory that this is ONLY a social conditioning of a woman that makes her make these choices, and there is no biology involved into that (Or very little).
To shade a shadow on your theory (as i assume this is a social construct theory) i recall some info that female orangutans were more interested in dolls and males - in more male toys similar to humans.
Also, in Scandinavian countries that ran out their way to make their societies egalitarian, even more women were choosing "traditional female" jobs than what the "social constructionists" were trying to achieve by their "gender equality" agenda.
But i will not argue about all of this as it is all well known and documented and people just need to make a 3h research on the internet.
- women on average prefer to work with people and men - with things. Working with things scales well (like IT), working with people - doesnt scale well (nurse, teacher, doctor).
They are not only would rather think that it is better for a cow to die than to live some time, but also ..
..they would spread the idea that maybe humanity would better off going extinct..
And this idea genocidal idea can lead to things similar to what was done by different totalitarian streams of 20th century: Nazism, fascism, communism.
J.B.Peterson talks about this quite interestingly. But "woke" folks dont like him ;)
Hopefully, there will not be any new "revolution" where 'low-income' will vote for some populist who will make everyone "equal".
And by "everyone" they normally mean middle/upper middle class because ultra-wealthy people operate in a bit different world than the rest of people.
AND:
Can't low earners take those high-earners who work remotely (programmers, for example) as an example and follow their path rather than complain about inequality? I had a mate who was a good example for me at some point which allowed me to progress in life. What would happen if i metaphorically i asked the government to get part of his salary to help me to be "equal"? Is this discovered life path not a valuable resource and example?