> Race correlates strongly with socioeconomic background.
If it correlates strongly, then why not just ignore race and look at socioeconomic background instead?
> disadvantaged people in this country
They are helping only a specific subset of "disadvantaged people in this country".
> Heart disease kills more people than lung cancer, but there's nothing wrong with raising money to research lung cancer.
A better analogy would be: smoking increases your chance for cancer, instead of saying smoking is bad in general you say that certain cigarette brands are bad.
I'm a guy in tech(not that it matters), do you think that harassment and bullying is a problem unique to women? Do you think that men don't have issues? Do you think that women don't treat each other like crap sometimes?
> What is toxic tech culture? Toxic tech cultures are those that demean and devalue you as holistic, multifaceted human beings. Toxic tech cultures are those that prioritize profits and growth over human and societal well being. Toxic tech cultures are those that treat you as replaceable cogs within a system of constant churn and burnout.
Isn't that the whole point of a for profit organisation in a capitalist system? (minus the churn)
The workplace is a place you go to get work done and get paid for it. If she thinks differently, she is free to create her own company where they hire you based on "holistic, multifaceted human beings" instead of skill.
These people have the opportunity to prove their worldview, yet they never do, they just complain about it online.
> - Conservative media does a very good job at keeping at least 50% of the country comically uninformed
And liberal media keeps the other 50% uninformed.
> - Religion is not focussed on empathy at all anymore, if it ever was
Citation needed.
> The billionare .0001% will probably do their utmost to keep the status quo, as evidently, they are the ones that are profiting from the current situation and they are the ones calling the shots for the next 3 years.
Can you elaborate on this? What makes you think all billionaires are worried about making more billions? If I look at Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg, they don't seem to be worried about earning more money.
> The US is doing very good in a lot of areas, but I think collective egotism is preventing it from reaching its true potential.
What if what you have right now is your true potential?
> This statistic is not sufficient evidence to draw the conclusion that women make up domestic abuse charges with regularity. Its far more likely that women are more likely to divorce their spouse if they are abusive.
It is, you have 100 men, 25 of them are accused, while 12 actually engage in abuse, which means, half of the accused men are innocent. If this is not enough to convince you, then simply nothing will.
> The UBI debate is fundamental to how we perceive society and what kind of society we want to build into the future.
Right now it's only fundamental to the minority of HNers who can't stop talking about it.
> If one's idea of human society is people working to earn money. Fullstop.
We don't work for money, we work for value, I do my part and in return, I'll get food shelter, protection by the police, roads etc.
> This seems to be a pretty impoverished view of humanity.
Requiring people to do their part for the group as a whole is an impoverished view of humanity?
> Then words like lazy
Yes, that is what you call a person who refuses to work, yet probably expects the fruit of other people's labour and yes, that's UBI in a nutshell.
> But one that our current capitalist system necessitates,
And by capitalist you mean all systems that we have tried so far.
> The other way is thinking of the billions of brains wasted every generation just trying to survive, exactly what humans did 2000 years ago.
Survival is just as important to us now as it was 2000 years ago, you are also overlooking the fact that we are getting better and better at it.
> Now imagine if all these brains could be freed and god knows how much innovation, progress and intellectual output can be unlocked into a completely different kind of society. That's a vision.
It's not a vision, it's just ignorance about the huge progress that we made as a species.
> But the reality is many will stick doggedly to the personal wealth and achievement mantra and because of the disproportionate influence of wealth and entrenched interests in our societies right from feudalism to now, and UBI or any such fanciful idea will be sabotaged and blocked.
The reality is: we want stuff. The more value we provide to society, the more stuff we get in return. For you to be able to give me free stuff means that somebody was happy to produce that stuff without getting anything in return, I believe the term for that is slavery.
Do you believe it's good to have people bring their personal dramas into a company that you own?
Do you also believe that the company you work for should replace the police or the court?
Do you think it's good to have your company take mob rage for something that happened between your employees and neither you nor your company had anything to do with?
If victims would report their allegations to the police instead of reporting it on Twitter, maybe we wouldn't consider it a political manoeuvre.
Sexism is victim culture, and victim culture is politics nowadays, it's almost a religion at this point. Just compare the behaviour of today's self identified victims to that of a cult, you would find the resemblance striking.
The irony of this is that the real losers here are the actual victims, because their credibility is being tarnished by the Twitter warriors.
> Pichai says he’s also considering promoting vetted news sources in Google’s News search results—elevating, say, articles in the Las Vegas Review-Journal over posts on the anything-goes bulletin boards 4chan or Reddit Inc. “We want to be balanced in making sure a range of perspectives are available, but I think a flight to quality is important,”
This is coming from a company that fires people who have different opinions. Even if Google's track record was spotless I still wouldn't trust a single company with my news.
They already shown that they have no problems taking down content, that does not violate the law. I would not rely on a service that has it's own arbitrary rules, that can change without a moments notice.
I hate nazis and fascists and any group that uses violence(and yeah that includes antifa and anarchists).
I'm still not fine with private companies being judge jury and executioner. If they realise they can freely go after people, they might start doing it to further their advantage.
I am not familiar with the content on the Daily Stormer.
Speech is free speech until it incites violence, if the Daily Stormer incited violence then they should have banned them for that reason instead of invoking a vague ToC.
If all the Daily Stormer had is some crap about <insert your favourite race here> is genetically superior or similar crap like that, then they shouldn't have been banned imho.
You can find many made up content and pseudoscience on left leaning sites, Google has yet to ban them.
These sites should have clear rules instead of vague ToCs and maybe the state should get involved to ensure that the USA won't become the next China.
You agree with that until you get labelled a Nazi, then you will find that maybe having private individuals and companies arbitrarily labelling nazis is not a good idea.
I'm fine with the court and the police punishing them, it's not cool to see private companies take matters into their own hands.
I don't like extremist on either side, the issue is with what you are describing is kind of what China and the Soviet Union did/does. Just think about how would you feel if the radical right would adopt this tactic.
If you are cool with companies policing you, you just think about what will happen if some of them become right leaning, would you still agree with them taking a political stance?
In my opinion we have the law and we have legislators, private companies should not try to do their job.
> That's a historically ignorant characterization. De jure discrimination existed long after slavery ended. Had Bill Gates been born a black kid in the south, he likely would've gone to a segregated school.
This is an ignorant reply that overlooks what I have said in my full comment. I was referring to slavery explicitly and I did say at the end of my comment that education is still the biggest problem.
> The idea that the harms caused by federal and state governments' laws protecting slavery and segregation will go away simply because you get rid of those laws is like believing that a paperclip will unbend itself. Fantastically naive.
They don't, they just need to learn a highly valued skill like everybody else.