Crustacean Jung vs Cocaine Hegel

"

Boem wrote:

don't forget that the perverse result of equity is attaining as many victim statusses as one can manage in order to bend the rules and game the system.
Which again, is part of human nature.

Right.

This is why we have a whole lot of people pretending to be trans. I'm curious - have you tried that yet? Have you put on a dress and demanded that "victim status"? Or is this just something you suspect others would do, that you'd never do because you're too virtuous? C'mon, don't you want the advantages that come with being trans, like...

...um...

...

...Shit, I got nothing.

This whole framing is wrong and stupid.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

"

Xavderion wrote:

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

Why can a company afford to pay its CEO millions of dollars, but can't afford to pay its workers a living wage?

The market determines the wages of CEOs and workers.

LOL sure it fucking does

If you're too lazy or unable to make a point, don't respond.

I wrote up a post responding to a lot of this and it got eaten, shoutouts to the draft system here being good but not good enough to overcome drastic user stupidity, so let's just say that if I leave something out here I either mostly agree with you or don't really have a convincing answer, 'k?

"

Boem wrote:

1) Does this aknowledge the fundamental risk somebody takes that invest's(at the expense of risking all of his own previous 4 hours of extra currency earned in a previous point in time) in the means of labour and then provides those to other people so that they in turn can also climb up in the system.

I honestly don't know how Marx views investment, and it's something I should figure out if I wanted to call myself anything but a semi-informed forum rando on the subject. If anyone here does know, I'd love to hear it, because google ain't helping me much.

"

Im obviously not stating the system is perfect or is not corrupt.

But corruption is in my view preferable to ideology. Self-interest is allowed to every human being untill it reaches a point of moral fraud.

But where is that point? I think that's where our main disagreement comes from. I think self-interest, at this point is actively killing the planet, destroying our political systems, and isn't even good for the economy in anything but the short term or for anyone but the super-rich. The degree of control exercised by those at the top has grown to the point where they are spending massive amounts of money to control our politics just so that they can hold on to their ever-increasing piece of the pie. I don't think that's tenable, long-term.

"

If a company doesn't pay it's workers a living wage, then those workers wouldn't be working there, it's a contradiction in statements. Maybe they aspire higher wages, but that is not the same as saying they have no means of survival by working at a company.(their self-interest obviously competes with the company leaders self-interest)

Something is better than nothing, and often you need "something" to qualify for food stamps. Did you know that your taxes are subsidizing Wal-Mart's HR department?

"

3)I don't understand how you can make the statement the current system doesn't operate on this function.

Entrepeneurs, investors and big funds all aim to preserve the wealth they have. Their self-interest directly aligns with attracting the most brightest future people into their ranks to sustain the wealth and make it in return available again to the future most brightest among us.

It's obviously a result of self-interest but that doesn't make it moraly corrupt for society as a whole.

Why do you think billionairs invest in schools and funds to educate people who show great promise/potential? What exactly do you think institutions like Yale and Harvard are? They divide populations on purpose so that the best rise to the top and can be scouted by big company's.(worth the investment of wealth)

Iq research has been done extensively, so not sure why you feel the need to point at environmental factors. The results are controversial(averages) but that doesn't take the function out of the institutions which is currently being undermined.

My main problem here is that environmental factors are incredibly important. You seem to have bought into a lot of the myths of meritocracy. Like, looking at this, you do know that if you grow up poor, your odds of getting into Harvard or Yale are pretty slim, right? The starting line is nowhere near even. Oh, and who's a lot more likely to be poor (as a result of racial discrimination both past and present)? Not white people.

You have all these different layers of advantages that pile up on each other, demographically, but because they all are minor or easy to miss when you're the beneficiary, people don't notice. So it's easy to end up with a system where a certain demographic is vastly overrepresented, and it looks fair, it looks like that's just the result of meritocratic processes. And hey, look - individual black people still make it if they try really really hard, so clearly it's not a racism thing!

I find the whole framing problematic. In many cases, the person with the "lower IQ" had fewer opportunities throughout their life to do anything with it. They didn't have the help the entrepreneurs who helped shape the world had.

"

I'm sure the colleges who where using diversity quota's are going to be receiving a whole slew of prosecution and rightfully so by students who's academic career was undermined because some twat wanted to ideologically enforce diversity to fit a narative not condusive with how the world operates.

Y'know, I have this tingling suspicion in the back of my mind.

Could you describe, in your own words, how these diversity quotas work?

"

One would think people in the 21th century would be well past dividing people into melanine and gonads to judge them.

I see a concrete difference between "discriminating against someone because of their skin color" and "instituting policies to counteract known discrimination". Like, a really big difference.

"

Xavderion wrote:

If you're too lazy or unable to make a point, don't respond.

I don't want to put more effort into my responses to you than you did. Given your recent posting history this might be the most hypocritical statement since the last time Donald Trump called someone a liar.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

"

Xavderion wrote:

If you're too lazy or unable to make a point, don't respond.

I don't want to put more effort into my responses to you than you did. Given your recent posting history this might be the most hypocritical statement since the last time Donald Trump called someone a liar.

I explained my point, you linked some nonsense. I assume you're simply unable to make a point.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

I'mma just leave this here...

https://twitter.com/rclivermore/status/1120724071317110791

Just one of countless examples easily found if you want to look for them. Institutional sexism is absolutely a thing.

If you thought a twitter message was going to prove something, your sadly mistaken. One bigot not an institutional problem make.

Two reasons why this doesn't appeal to me.

1) no mention of name of transgressor.(i would be the first to write a complaint mail to the school if it was actually backed up)
2) not standing up in the moment to it and then later on using it as a victim card for people to pile on.

So if a real bigot was teaching he was not removed from office/function allowing the same fate to fall over other women.

I think we can all agree misogyny is a real thing and should be handled on a one by one case and trialed if deemed appropriate?

Anecdotal unsubstantiated claims don't make for a solid case to convince me.

Give me some objective data-graphs if you wanna make a case for "institutional sexism" because as far as i know most fields follow the logical projections of biological preferences when given freedom to do so.(which is the case with objective enforcement)

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

Okay.

Let's grant that the actions of Boko Haram are worse than any sexism faced here in the US/Europe. (They are, there's no denying that, these people are fucking monsters.)

What have you done about Boko Haram?

You apparently think we should stop worrying about fixing things here in our home countries and worry about (admittedly worse) injustices elsewhere in the world. So what have you done about those injustices?

From my experience, 99% of the time, the answer is "nothing". Because this isn't really about "we should do something about X". It's "X (something we cannot do anything about) exists, X is worse than Y (something we can theoretically do something about), therefore we shouldn't care about Y". It's usually just a smokescreen; a useful excuse to not have to deal with discrimination here, but instead to worry about it in a distant land none of us have much contact to and ultimately do nothing. It's a weak, pathetic rationalization to hide the fact that you're not interested in doing anything about the racism and sexism in your own country.

Is that what this is about for you?

If not, what have you done about Boko Haram?

I can't do much about Boko Haram with the means available to me. I can, however, standup to sexism and racism within my own workplace. I can clean up my own backyard. And even if the person down the street has a flaming tire fire in theirs, I can't do anything about that, and it's a lousy excuse for not putting my own house in order.

What do i do about boko haram? I'm talking about it with people.
I visited the church in my city and was directed towards the abby which had a missionary pater(is that the english translation?) active in Africa and requested if he could use my help in any way shape or form.(he has my number but declined the offer at the time)

When i met one of the people in the neighbourhood and we started discussing about nationalism he went all "islam" on my ass, so i tried to nuance his vision with current stats around the issue.(what i didn't do was call him an islamophoob and run away as if i did something good)

We discussed the contradiction of sharia and our governing law, sharia and the contradiction with the human rights charter etc but i told him that recent figures show only 3% of all muslims are extremist activists etc and that a lot of people just practice the religious side and not the hatred side.

Like you said, your own backyard kind of deal, though i attempted to provide active help.(if you read my previous post's you know i don't posses anything and neither do i have money so i only have my body to support the cause)

I read your other post and i'll write a response to it later on, i have something else to do first and i don't wanna glance over it and response unthoughtfully.

Peace,

-Boem-

Ugh, y'know what? That was unwarranted pigeonholing on my part, and I apologize. I should have given you more credit.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

But where is that point? I think that's where our main disagreement comes from. I think self-interest, at this point is actively killing the planet, destroying our political systems, and isn't even good for the economy in anything but the short term or for anyone but the super-rich. The degree of control exercised by those at the top has grown to the point where they are spending massive amounts of money to control our politics just so that they can hold on to their ever-increasing piece of the pie. I don't think that's tenable, long-term.

You should have a look at the link i posted i think on the previous page to erd about the capital system. I think jonathan haidt would consider himself a clasical liberal at this point and he makes a very good attempt at discussing the system from both political angle points.

You will understand afterwards why i both disagree and agree with your statements because i tend to view systems in a similar way as he approuches them. That is to say, i see value in both viewpoints because i concede that both angles are representing "a truth".

My biggest gripe in current public debate is the lack of nuance and the "all or nothing" attitude.

It strives to throw away the baby with the bathwater without ever considering what's packaged inside the tub and what secondary effects the system instantiated and keeps active.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

Something is better than nothing, and often you need "something" to qualify for food stamps. Did you know that your taxes are subsidizing Wal-Mart's HR department?

My taxes don't :), i'm from the EU and my taxes have literally been 0 for the past 12 years.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

My main problem here is that environmental factors are incredibly important. You seem to have bought into a lot of the myths of meritocracy. Like, looking at this, you do know that if you grow up poor, your odds of getting into Harvard or Yale are pretty slim, right? The starting line is nowhere near even. Oh, and who's a lot more likely to be poor (as a result of racial discrimination both past and present)? Not white people.

You have all these different layers of advantages that pile up on each other, demographically, but because they all are minor or easy to miss when you're the beneficiary, people don't notice. So it's easy to end up with a system where a certain demographic is vastly overrepresented, and it looks fair, it looks like that's just the result of meritocratic processes. And hey, look - individual black people still make it if they try really really hard, so clearly it's not a racism thing!

I find the whole framing problematic. In many cases, the person with the "lower IQ" had fewer opportunities throughout their life to do anything with it. They didn't have the help the entrepreneurs who helped shape the world had.

One question before i dig into this subject. Do you subscribe to the notion that iq and race are correlated?

As for the benefits and layers upon layers of advantages, asians are the best students currently and have the highest iq. So much that they institutionalized racism to keep them out of high-end schools.(if my recollection is correct asians have to score 20% higher on their SAT's in comparison to black people to even be considered)

I'm sure you can push a question towards Charan to get his thoughts on why asians are performing so highly in the educational system.

Asians are a minority, it sounds stupid to mention this, but it sort of makes the whole "institutionalized racism" point moot. Surely if we where doing a propper job we would push white people forward.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

Y'know, I have this tingling suspicion in the back of my mind.

Could you describe, in your own words, how these diversity quotas work?

Institutionalized diversity are utilized to give preference to a different background when both competitors for a position have the same objective claim.

Affirmative action on the other hand doesn't do anything objectively.

One brings view-point diversity, a strength in my book if the search for the truth is the main goal, the other brings racism into institutions.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

I see a concrete difference between "discriminating against someone because of their skin color" and "instituting policies to counteract known discrimination". Like, a really big difference.

Give me one law that singles out a specific race and reduces their humanity in comparison to another.

Give me an application entry level example that excludes based on race.

Find me some massive amount of Americans or Europeans that would not start a riot on the notion of discrimination upon entry to any institution.

"known discrimination", please provide me some examples so we can get into nuanced territory, because currently it's just a blancket hollow statement to me.

For example a commonly utilized one is "the IT sector and women", when we look at the data roughly 20% of the programmers are women and 80% are men.
But then we look at the entire company and find out the reverse is happening in the service area like pr/hr client helping etc

So all i see is biological preference (men like things, women like relations) playing out in real time like one would expect.

Another popular one on gender is the whole stem-field educational degree's where we see a very low amount of women. To then conclude discrimination exist's and what they don't say is that the exact reverse happens on health oriented fields.(again, things vs relations paradigm nothing unusual about it)

So to me it appears that most of those cases single out a snippet of the information to then distort the full picture and proclaim "active discrimination is occuring!"

And current data from i think Sweden which is a leader on gender-equality norms only seems to enforce this natural paradigm.(with the perverse effect that professions are more heavily polarized making the outliers within the data even more uncomfortable, sux to be you if your among that 3% of women that wants to go into IT in Sweden or in that 2% of men who want to become caretakers)

In my view, things were going extremely well for women and minority's and the data reflected that.
And i am not convinced that pushing the issue with heightened fervor will have the effect some people are thinking it will have, i think there is a real threat that it can backfire and end up being a negative to those groups.

Peace,

-Boem-

edit : added url.

"

Boem wrote:

And current data from i think Sweden which is a leader on gender-equality norms only seems to enforce this natural paradigm.(with the perverse effect that professions are more heavily polarized making the outliers within the data even more uncomfortable, sux to be you if your among that 3% of women that wants to go into IT in Sweden or in that 2% of men who want to become caretakers)

My sister is one of them. She wanted the career, she pursued it and she got it by her own merit. Anectodal evidence is anecdotal, but nothing sucks in that story.

I haven't yet felt the drive to get into caretaking, but I'm reasonably certain that lack of drive is a bigger hindrance than my gender (beyond what influences my biological makeup has on my interests).

"

Upandatem wrote:

"

Boem wrote:

And current data from i think Sweden which is a leader on gender-equality norms only seems to enforce this natural paradigm.(with the perverse effect that professions are more heavily polarized making the outliers within the data even more uncomfortable, sux to be you if your among that 3% of women that wants to go into IT in Sweden or in that 2% of men who want to become caretakers)

My sister is one of them. She wanted the career, she pursued it and she got it by her own merit. Anectodal evidence is anecdotal, but nothing sucks in that story.

I haven't yet felt the drive to get into caretaking, but I'm reasonably certain that lack of drive is a bigger hindrance than my gender (beyond what influences my biological makeup has on my interests).

My point was that the norms fostered more polarization.

The sux part i only added, because without the norms she would have more female co-workers on average. Not sure if that's a pro or a con, i will let a women make that judgement call so maybe i should have used another word, granted.

Glad she's doing what she loves, good for her.

Peace,

-Boem-