>A racial construct has been used to shape every facet of our society and we can't make right those wrongs with out maintaining an awareness and understanding of that construct.
This is a dangerously myopic view of the development of this country and more importantly it ignores progress over the last few decades.
The fact that blacks have not achieved representational parity or wealth equity yet does not mean that that the path of race blindness was not working. By all metrics it was working, and there must be room to discuss the internal cultural issues within the black community that account for the remaining lack of progress.
Instead by silencing any such criticism we are falsely blaming whites as a demographic for cultural change that is beyond their control, and artificially forcing transfer of power and wealth from said demographic in a misguided attempt to correct past wrongs, in a manner that is fundamentally at odds with the principles of meritocracy that are critical to a functioning society. Hiring minorities for the color of their skin is no better than hiring whites for the color of their skin.
The combination of a fundamentally racist theory/policy and vicious cancellation of anyone who publicly criticizes the movement is going to lead to severe backlash. It's immoral at its core. You can't have your cake and eat it too - either racism is acceptable and we have the freedom to discuss when and where it is acceptable, or racism is unacceptable. Wordplay with euphemisms which disguise the racist nature of CRT inspired policies is intellectually dishonest and not sustainable.
>Hey lets take a look at why people may be feeling in some manner
>Perhaps it's time to focus our inquiry on white people who may have complex emotions regarding their changing position in society
All of these are painting white people with broad strokes. More importantly if you replaced "white" with any other minority it would be socially unacceptable. There's also a problem with the framing of the argument here - any criticism is premptively dismissed with accusations of "complex emotions" which is conflated with "white fragility" and eventually racism. The CRT inspired framing is basically whites as a demographic are wrong, must step back and allow us to force them to collectively atone for the sins of past whites, and anyone who criticisms this forced transfer of power is a racist. The grand irony here is that the entire premise is fundamentally racist and falsely justifies increasingly socially acceptable anti-white sentiment.
Either racism is socially acceptable, or it isn't. Normalizing this talk about problematic whiteness is only opening a can of worms, regressing progress toward race blindness, and the backlash will be severe. It's exactly the sort of perceived disenfranchisement that CRT accuses whites of doing, except it's being done intentionally and subversively here - hidden via intellectually dishonest rhetorical technique.
There are additional examples, but posting them and discussing the normalization of anti-white racism is "flamebait" and will get your account suspended on HN for "ideological battles".
In any case the fact that he hasn't been completely cancelled speaks to the unique status that anti-white racism has over other forms.
Why not China? I always have problems with these attributions - they inevitably depend on "signatures" like timestamps and language encodings that would be trivial to deliberately fake by a competent team - and some of these hacks indicate competence.
Do these recent attacks (pipeline, meat plants, steamship) have anything in common? Do they share exploits? Are they related to or enabled by the solar winds hack? Or is this just media amplifying what are otherwise routine events now?
>If you go to a doctor with some kind of pain and she prescribes you some pills, are you hesitant to take them? Are you questioning the science behind these pills? Are you accusing companies the pills are a fraud and government for peddling them for corporate enrichment? Are you looking at list of side effects and say, because it has potential sideffects you are not going to take it?
Absolutely, yes to all of these, why wouldn't you in 2021? Are you not aware of the irresponsible over prescription which led to the opioid crisis? Are you aware that you can request alternative prescriptions?
>Are you questioning the science behind these pills?
Science is not beyond reproach, is never 100% certain, and doctors are especially fallible. It would be irresponsible not to conduct your own research, particularly when you can typically find all manner of studies, including trial results, for most medications.
It's irresponsible to blindly consume whatever a doctor prescribes without awareness for side effects.
>Just do the best job we can running the process correctly
You put far too much blind faith in bureaucracy.
>Peddling FUD is exactly what anti vaccine movement does where there is no reason to fear it.
That's just not true. The medical establishment makes mistakes all the time, both at large scale and individual scale. There are hundreds of different drugs which were discontinued after years of use permanently harmed or disabled patients who later sued. Frankly, your optimism is toxic. Further, it is not up to my doctor to decide what an acceptable level of risk is for an me.
None of this even touches upon the perverse incentives, political and financial, to get a "working" vaccine shipped ASAP. There's no reason to believe that the establishment, which has been granted legal immunity for this vaccine, will be entirely and rapidly forthcoming if there are severe negative side effects.
With all do respect, this occurs in a tiny fraction of cases and almost exclusively in the obese/elderly. The risk to a healthy person is overstated, while the potential risk of a vaccine is understated.
Why should healthy people be forced to take on risk to protect those who do not take care of their bodies? Would you feel the same if the virus affected primarily smokers?
It's dishonest to conflate people who are hesitant about covid vaccines with anti-vaxxers. No amount of "listening" will change the fact that all three vaccines are untested (it will take time for manifestation and detection of possible long term side effects), and the two primary vaccines are novel technologies.
The truth of the matter is that covid vaccination has its risks and they need to be weighed against those of the virus. And when you make an honest effort to perform such an evaluation, the choice is not quite so clear cut.
>they could be incredibly bad and debilitating for the people suffering from them
Any issue can be "incredibly bad and debilitating" for any given person; but a culture of coddling and indulging in pity and victimhood is going to amplify what otherwise would be trivial issues if it were once again socially acceptable to preach resilience and stoicism.
No, it's not about being cold and unemotional at all times, but we are collectively moving far too close to the other extreme of socially encouraged fragility.
Regardless of the design, in practice this is purely "crabs in a bucket" mentality. Achievement disproportionately occurs from those in the advanced or gifted range. In a petty quest for so called equity, we tear down the competent among us and society suffers as competence across the board is eroded.
Welcome to post revolution USSR, where illiterate peasants were put in charge of managing food stocks. The result was famine.
That page, along with the linked page to Vladimir Skulachev, who allegedly developed SkQ, gives me astroturf vibes. The hype seems too good to be true, and anything being used in the cosmetic/beauty industry is probably a scam.
I find documentation to be relatively straightforward to write. The issue for me is sitting down and slogging through the activity, which seems almost antithetical to writing code. It's like doubling the work in a far less rewarding way. And then you have to go back and update it any time the code changes. It's a sort of necessary evil I suppose...I think most of the problem is that devs just can't be fucked to take the time, and I'm often guilty.
>Siegel’s team has shown that people who live traditional lifestyles in Namibia, Tanzania, and Bolivia don’t fit with any of these common notions about pre-industrial dozing. “People like to complain that modern life is ruining sleep, but they’re just saying: Kids today!” says Siegel. “It’s a perennial complaint but you need data to know if it’s true.”
One of the unspoken consequences of the modern PC culture gripping the academic institution is a hesitation to recognize that different ethnicities evolved in radically different environments for thousands of generations. The result is poor quality work like this reference, which presume that indigenous Subsaharan African or South American peoples are an adequate surrogate for pre-industrial human behavior. The reluctance to control for the understated confounding effect effect of genetic lineage is, I believe, a significant contributor to the seemingly contradictory Brownian-like back and forth of many biological sciences.
There are consequences for greater society. It is rather unlikely, for example, that a single food pyramid would suffice as a recommended diet for peoples who originate from environments as diverse as African Savannahs or Arctic Tundras. The result would be disproportionate morbidity for some ethnic groups.
I think the situation is far more dire. The same types of political ideologues are taking over FAANG and other tech spaces, and other information outlets, like Wikipedia, where only "approved" or "authoritative" sources are typically accepted.
Corporate and social culture have been hijacked by a sort of soft, insidious, growing authoritarianism and the consequences for the future of the west are severe, especially because these newly dominant voices are increasingly openly hostile to the ≈50% of the population whom they are effectively disenfranchising. Even fundraising for controversial figures who have anything remotely in common with right of center ideology is impossible between the fundraising sites and credit card companies. Something's got to give and it won't be pretty for anyone.
>Cyclists have every legal right to be on the road as a car and if a shoulder lane isn’t safe enough to cycle on then it’s safest
How many man hours are wasted by cyclists who take up the road and drive at half or less the speed limit? Isn't that sort of selfish, asshole behavior? Why should their desire to exercise in public supercede that of everyday people trying to go about their lives? Sure, it may only be a couple of minutes of inconvenience for the driver stuck behind a bicyclist, but collectively there is a significant externalized cost and I think people have every right to be infuriated by the selfishness.
>toiling from sunup to sundown tending children, making labor-intensive meals, cleaning, doing laundry, making clothes, growing and preserving food, etc.
You are vastly overestimating the relative contributions of females. The times you're describing had men giving their bodies to dangerous labor and also working longer than modern hours.
>Did they get paid for their 12-hour workday?
Yes, they received dividends with respect to the centers of their lives, children. This is a major point that supporters of workforce gender parity simply do not understand, because the modern feminist movement all but destroyed the cultural sanctity of the family unit in a misguided quest for faux-equality. Suddenly being a housewives is menial and subservient and all women should strive for careers. In effect we doubled the workforce and made dual income a requirement for the middle class.
>but only he is seen as contributing to the economy.
Only with a deliberately uncharitable interpretation.
This interpretation is further biased by the fact that women tending to family do not need to deal with the stresses of employment, or being forced to work on someone else's schedule and at someone else's pace. Nevermind the natural sexual dimorphism with respect to child rearing which was the ultimate source of this critical specialization, not some evil patriarchal plot to keep women oppressed.
The title is a perfect illustration of the disconnect that is the problem. Opposition to third wave feminism is conflated with misogyny and used as a dishonest cudgel with which to browbeat others into either following along with political movements or staying silent. It's a Hallmark of modern progressive causes, with conveniently chosen names which lend naturally to this technique. It is reassuring that the younger generation is not standing for this nonsense.
Progressivism is mainstream now. This is the new counterculture.