591–600 of 734 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Generally in the pub you can air an opinion and have a quite heated debate about something then just move on and still be civil.
Keir Starmer was kicked out of a pub last week.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But then why do those careers earn less money? Why is it that it just so happens that every job that is more likely for women to work also is paid less?
I think mortality/danger is an interesting axis: https://www.statista.com/statistics/187078/occupational-inju... If, by being a man, you are 10x more likely to die from your job, and you are 10x more likely to die younger, should society compensate for your fewer hours lived? If no, why would society decide to undervalue males?
Here are the totals for occupational deaths: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cfoi.t03.htm
~25% for Transportation and material moving occupations
~20% for Construction
~10% for Installation, maintenance, and repair occupations
~1.5% for Business, Finance, Computers, Math, Engineering, and Legal
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's what I'm saying. In the US, conservatives actively worked, and still work, against personal liberties in terms of LGBT marriage rights. That was my point.
Be cautious of the definition trap. People have different definitions of marriage. One person ‘defending’ one definition looks like ‘actively working against’ another definition. E.g. in some cultures, by definition, a marriage isn’t valid without a male/female sexual act (the only kind that can lead to procreation, by definition). This axiom is held by over a billion humans for example.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe, but I still think there's an important point in there. We (society) do a lot of handwringing about CEO and engineering jobs, but these aren't even remotely the most gender-asymmetric careers out there. According to [1], "Locomotive engineers and operators" are 92.3 percent male. I'm willing to bet that if you can "fix" that problem - or even conclusively identify the cause - gender imbalance issues in other fi…
There are: 55k "Locomotive engineers and operators" (90% male) 1.7m "Chief executives" (70% male) 1.9m "Software developers" (80% male) 3.2m "Architecture and engineering occupations" (85% male) Maybe there is a lot of handwringing within the locomotive industry, but it really doesn't seem important enough for the rest of us to care about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I feel as though I am more open-minded than many others. I am always ready to be corrected if I am wrong, and I am always willing to discuss my views with people subscribing to other political ideologies. However, I fear the repercussions of offending others who do not have an open mind. This is how every open and critically minded person feels nowadays. There is a clear line between two groups: 1. People who think…
So let me get this straight: one group is rational, open, and critically minded; while the other is irrational, violent, and aggressive. And people are clearly either in group 1 or group 2. Let me guess, you see yourself as belonging to group 1? If so, what a very convenient worldview you've constructed for yourself.
1. Likes to talk and learn from talking
2. Likes to mute and preach
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Social media did a lot to foster outrage and destroy nuanced thinking. Plug as a founder: We are trying to balance things out on Polemix.co (invite code LV005) Launched 6 weeks ago, we bring together people from both sides of hot questions. The format is inspired from TikTok and consists of 30-second videos in which speakers answer YES or NO to controversial questions. The app’s goal is to break echo chambers. If y…
How does only allowing yes or no answers increase nuance?
I don't know. It says they're 30-second videos- I imagine it'll consist of people prefacing their answer with "yes" or "no" followed by 30 seconds to elaborate. However, I think this will have the same problem that makes Twitter so unpopular with HN's crowd; Twitter is far too limiting in the length of a single tweet, so all that gets shouted out into the aether is an emotionally-triggering soundbite. That's a key part of what fosters such an echo chamber. It kills discussion and all you end up with are some very loud, angry tweets with no context or nuance.
I have no idea how Polemix plans on bringing more nuance to the political scene this way, but that's probably why I'm still a lowly non-founder/non-FAANG dev. I don't like to be negative or disparaging, but in my limited vision, this sounds like the love child of Twitter and Vine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
(Someone commented that it's "insane" to say that you should be able to shoot someone if they attack you with their fists and I typed out a long reply, but they had deleted their comment before I could post it, so I'm going to post my reply here so I don't feel like I wasted my efforts) Yes, it absolutely is a valid reason to shoot someone, and anyone with training in firearms or self-defense would agree. You're not…
> if someone's attacking you with their fists, they're potentially threatening your life ... use whatever tools are at your disposal to neutralise the threat. If a sentence like that is assimilated by the most obtuse cops (not all cops are super great critical thinkers) then I am not surprised of the current situations happening in the US. What if it's an old lady trying to hit the cop because of an anxiety episode?…
Progressivism is the new Christianity, taking over the pagan landscape. It used to be that politics (in the UK) was class based. You are this or that based on your background. Two people from different classes would understand why the other did not support the same political party. That was how it was, and nobody felt the other should not exist. Everyone felt the other had a place in society. These progressive ideolo…
> No conservative in the 1970s would have thought, everyone in Britain should be a conservative
Like the points your making. I would add that by the standards of the early 20th century when progressivism started even a 1970s conservative is a progressive.
Even taking American conservatives, who are more conservative that than their British peers, conservatives are fine with social security, medicare/medicade (NHS), and fine with government run education, and fine with an unbacked U.S. dollar funding this modern welfare state. I.E. even American conservatives are mostly fine with the lasting policies of FDR; perhaps our most progressive president.
What am I getting at?
My broader point is that Progressivism is indeed the current state religion. Both parties are 'progressive' parties by historical standards. The only recent development is that we are now approaching near total domination of the cultural, political, and legal rings of influence by Progressivism and this has resulted in a new popular interest in actual reactionary politics as people wake up.
> everyone in Britain should be a conservative
This is important to understand because it is how we got here. Reactionary ideologies are not interested in global leadership, but rather local control. Progressivism is an expansionist ideology interested in global domination; which is why we are currently either all progressives or former progressives (like yourself).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
(Someone commented that it's "insane" to say that you should be able to shoot someone if they attack you with their fists and I typed out a long reply, but they had deleted their comment before I could post it, so I'm going to post my reply here so I don't feel like I wasted my efforts) Yes, it absolutely is a valid reason to shoot someone, and anyone with training in firearms or self-defense would agree. You're not…
> if someone's attacking you with their fists, they're potentially threatening your life ... use whatever tools are at your disposal to neutralise the threat. If a sentence like that is assimilated by the most obtuse cops (not all cops are super great critical thinkers) then I am not surprised of the current situations happening in the US. What if it's an old lady trying to hit the cop because of an anxiety episode?…
I can think of one very famous case of an unarmed man getting shot by police in the US where it's beyond doubt (confirmed by the forensics and all the credible eyewitnesses) that he was shot after punching the officer, trying to grab his gun then charging at him. This shooting was totally justified - but I wouldn't dare say that in the workplace if someone mentioned this guy ("say his name!") as an example of a martyr.
> I've seen a lot of videos on Reddit of cops tazing, pulling guns and acting super aggressive at mad old women probably because "cop's life potentially under threat".
Yep, American policing is fucked up in many ways, and police violence in the US is a huge problem. But I never said it wasn't.
And anyway, I'm not American.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I upvoted you because I don't think you should be downvoted for expressing your opinion. But I also think we should wonder: how many white armed men were killed?
Did I express an opinion? I'm pretty sure I just quoted a statistic. But since you asked: American police kill white men (including unarmed white men) at the same rate at which they kill black men, once you control for crime rate and poverty. But police killings of white men don't become national news. Tony Timpa died in near-identical circumstances to George Floyd. Ask yourself why you haven't heard of him. Or Ryan…
Picking which statistics/examples to cite is an opinion. Furthermore, you did express an opinion: "give a cop a good reason to shoot you".