321–327 of 327 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[flagged]
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
Note: using HN as intended has nothing to do with your opinions about capitalism or any other hot topic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
We've banned this account for egregiously and repeatedly breaking the site guidelines. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html . Note: using HN as intended has nothing to do with your opinions about capitalism or any other hot topic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is a police officer like a CEO, and not like a factory line worker? It seems very clear that they are more the latter (labor) than the former (admin).
> How is a police officer like a CEO, and not like a factory line worker? Both the police and CEOs are incentivized to protect the interest of capitalists. That is a primary duty of their job. Labor, on the other hand, challenges the interests of capitalists. > It seems very clear that they are more the latter (labor) than the former (admin). Clear in what way? Where there are people there are people problems. Indeed…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How is a police officer like a CEO, and not like a factory line worker? Both the police and CEOs are incentivized to protect the interest of capitalists. That is a primary duty of their job. Labor, on the other hand, challenges the interests of capitalists. > It seems very clear that they are more the latter (labor) than the former (admin). Clear in what way? Where there are people there are people problems. Indeed…
Fair enough. We still have significant disagreements but I appreciate this response because I at least now understand your position. Apologies for pressing you on this.
I am not sure how you can disagree with the state of the world. Said state may be relayed with error, perhaps, but recognizing an error in transmission isn't disagreement. Besides, if I had a position, it would be in bad faith to share it anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fair enough. We still have significant disagreements but I appreciate this response because I at least now understand your position. Apologies for pressing you on this.
I have no position. I only take interest in relaying the state of the world. This is how labor is classified in said world. You will notice that in most jurisdictions, police, not considered labor, are not allowed to form true labor unions. In fact, where they are able to associate, the union is usually formally known as a "Police Association", or similar variant, so that it is not confused with a labor union. I am n…
Why would it be bad faith to share your position? Also
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even adjusted for family wealth, income, and adversity nonimmigrants* with these backgrounds score worse at all schooling levels; even when placed in schools with double the funding per student. It would be nice if socioeconomic factors were the whole answer here. But that does not appear to be the case. Even Hispanic and Black students adopted by White families do not score much higher than peers of their ethnic gro…
> Even Hispanic and Black students adopted by White families do not score much higher than peers of their ethnic group. Are you referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption... ? Are there other studies I'm not aware of? Because that study doesn't really conclusively demonstrate the point we're discussing in this thread re: race correlating with intelligence because of genetic factors of a…
Yes there are other studies. Critically analyzed they all point in the same direction, including this one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Top executives are alpha males This is not accurate at all and really has very little place in rational discussion. > didn't get there without lots of compulsive control-seeking, dominance-asserting, etc. behavior patterns Some executives in some company cultures are like this. Most companies I've worked at or collaborated with did not put up with this behavior at all.
>This is not accurate at all and really has very little place in rational discussion. I wouldn't phrase it that way at all, but it has been a studied phenomenon that C-level positions have disproportionately more individuals with psychopathic tendencies. https://web.archive.org/web/20240508223718/https://fortune.c...
That is not the same thing as the stereotype "alpha male".