This is really neat, although it does not look slick enough to replace my own hacky word-around:
What I have been doing is creating a separate Chrome application launcher for my different life contexts -- http://lifehacker.com/5611711/create-application-shortcuts-i... I have one for anonymous browsing, one for work, one for personal-real-name, and one for pseudonymous browsing. I renamed the application so I can launch by typing "WorkChrome" or "PersonalChrome" in spotlight search. Each Chrome app then runs with a separate profile, separate cookies, etc. I have a different icon and colored theme for each one, so that I never make a mistake with regards to which I am browsing in. I can have multiple open at the same time and tab switch between them.
There is a problem with how parents are involved with their kids education.
This is being too harsh on parents. My parents were very much involved with my own brother's education. They tutored him, got him extra help, set up incentives, etc, etc. But he still did far worse than me. Meanwhile they had to pull me away from the books. I never got help with math homework because I never had any trouble with it. School just came naturally to me. I was just born much smarter than my brother. My parents never had to pressure me to learn programming, I picked it up because it was fun and I was good at it. Heck, I taught myself calculus because I found the problem solving fun.
And I see this observation over and over again. If a person is naturally good at cognitive work, sooner or later they will go whole hog on learning some economically useful cognitive skills. If a person is just naturally a bit slower, it will always be an uphill battle.
The existence of people like Jessica is not just something the mainstream media needs to learn to acknowledge, but something feminists need to learn to acknowledge as well. There are successful women who don't like to fight.
There is another lesson here for feminists that PG does not fully articulate. In my experience, most women are similar to Jessica in that they do not fit naturally into an alphadog founder type role. The time-honored tradition for such women to be part of accomplishing great things, is to partner with an alphadog mate. Unfortunately, modern feminism is all about turning women into men, rather than guiding women to fit in as complements and partners to a strong man.
If Jessica was so important to YC, why don't more people realize it? Partly because I'm a writer, and writers always get disproportionate attention.
There is a saying that every generation is invaded by a horde of savages -- they're called children. Humans are savage by default, civilization is not natural. It took generations to build the institutions, the social mores, the web of reinforcing family and peer influences, the culture, the churches/schools, etc, that make civilization possible. The existence of these elements vary by people, vary by ethnicity (ethnicity being a combination of tribe and culture and institutions). If you look at the worst inner-city, ethnically African-American neighborhoods, those elements are all missing. Kids are raised from the cradle to the jail-cell without civilizing influences of parental discipline, good peer influences, and peer role models. Again, read American Millstone, or The Corner or Ghettoside. That is what I mean by a void of civilization.
Honest question: how familiar are you with the actual history of these problems, and the actual situation on the ground? Have you read anything beyond standard zeitgeist sources (sociology classes, NYTimes, Economist), etc?
The dominant social policy of the last 65 years has been that crime and disorder can be cured by addressing "root causes" which means material deprivation, lack of school funding, lack of housing, a school curriculum that was not culturally attuned, etc.
So first in the 50s, 60s and 70s they built public housing, upped welfare spending, eliminated corporal punishment in the schools, and greatly reduced punishment and police enforcement. Here is a poster from the time: http://www.newyork.com/articles/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/a...
This was a disaster. The welfare spending incentivized women to not get married and to stay on the dole, because you would lose benefits if you got married or got a job. The public housing was not policed at all and was destroyed by the rougher element in the population. Crime skyrocketed. Youths would commit muggings at gun point and end up back on the streets with nothing more than probation.
Then there was a ham-fisted backlash starting in the mid-1970s but really coming into effect in the 80s and 90s. Unfortunately, rather than emphasis consistent discipline and enforcement from the get go, the backlash was more about "three strikes" and using drug offenses as proxy crimes. Even in schools, getting tough meant suspensions, which is not much of a punishment to a roguish street urchin.
So if you look at the situation now, you have kids growing up in homes which are violent and where they don't get punished if they roam the streets and bully other kids. Then you have those kids go to schools that are full of disorder, and where if they cause trouble they just sent to the principals office and then go right back into the classroom. Or maybe they get suspended for a few days. Big whoop, that is only a punishment if you care about school. Gangs are allowed to openly sell drugs on the street. So by age 15 your role models are gang members, you have never been subject to real discipline, you have been fighting others or being assaulted your whole life. And then they commit some heinous crime. At that point, the 15-year-old cannot be permitted to coexist in normal society. Giving them money or something is not going to magically make them civilized when they have spent their live growing up in a barbarous environment. It's not the 15-year-old-murderers fault in the cosmic sense that he was born into such a wild environment. But the fact remains that he his too dangerous to be permitted to roam the streets freely.
But of course I absolutely agree that the problem needs to be addressed earlier. We need to figure out a way that these kids are an environment with order, that is with safety, security, and discipline from the day they are born.
Um, from taking walks a few blocks from my apartment and doing volunteering in such communities. Also just reading the local news. Also reading lots of ethnographies. Go read American Millstone (http://www.amazon.com/American-Millstone-Examination-Permane...) or Ghettoside and maybe you will rethink those scare quotes. I'm not sure how "void of civilization" is an unfair label for what is described in those books.
There were white (mostly Irish) inner city areas with a complete void of civilization, such as old southie, but those areas are less prevalent these days. That said there is lots of degeneracy among the white population in some areas too. I'd call those areas more of a partial void of civilization rather than an utter void of civilization.
Only .7% of those in prison are there for marijuana possession as their only crime - https://www.ncjrs.gov/ondcppubs/publications/pdf/whos_in_pri... And among those possession could mean as much as 100 pounds. The idea that our prisons are full of people who were just smoking pot in their own homes is ludicrous. Whatever our views on whether it is sane to make marijuana illegal, locking up pot smokers is not the cause of mass incarceration.
I don't understand how no one talks about the systemic, generational poverty that a large proportion of the US black population lives in. It's just incomprehensible to me how people can't see how this leads to crime.
Because there are lots of instances of people living in deep poverty without killing each other at ridiculously high rates. Most people in China or India are more materially deprived than those living in the American inner-city, yet the neighborhoods there are much, much safer. Philadelphia in 1890 was much poorer, and much more unequal, yet the homicide rates were 10X lower. Also Edwardian England is a compelling counter-example. Read "The Classic Slum" by Robert Roberts. British society around 1900 was massively unequal and lots of people were desperately poor. But their homicide rates were 100X lower than the rates seen in the contemporary ghetto. The poor working class areas of England during that period had intact families, schools that provided discipline, strict policing, and strong institutions.
We are a savage species and crime is the default. What prevents crime is civilization. What you see in the black inner-cities is an utter void of civilization.
I feel like you're ignoring a whole host of variables with a reductionist statement like "they commit more crimes proportionally". First of all, how do you compare what "more crimes" is proportionally? Different countries have vastly different definitions of what constitutes a crime, and further, different penalties for those crimes.
Robbery and homicide are the two most clearly defined and well reported crimes. Robbery because the victim can see the offender, and has an incentive to report it to get the goods back. Homicide because it is very hard for the police to ignore a body.
* A kid at a local school was gang beaten by other students, had teeth knocked out, and was concussed. He was beaten because of a "mistaken identity" Here is a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjC7yd1OaAk
So what should be done in the case of these offenders? If not jail, then what? Clearly these perpetrators are too dangerous to coexist in civilized society. So there has to be some form of punishment, and some form of separation. I would be ok with sending them to work on a farm instead of prison, but I'm pretty sure that others would describe that as being "forced labor camps" and would rail against that too.
In the world we actually live in, sexism is true. Men and women are different.
Now obviously, there is great variation among human beings. While men are generally physically strong than women, obviously a very small percentage of women can bench press more than the median man.
But when the number of exceptions in a general pattern is small, say less than 5%, then I drop the qualifiers because qualifiers make for lousy writing. It is better English and still fully truthful to make a statement like, "men are stronger than woman" rather than the statement "on average men are stronger than woman" because the number of exceptions to the generalization is quite small.
I feel quite confident in saying that >95% of women will experience an increase in romantic attraction to a man who shows strength and command, and will be less attracted to a man who cries because his boss chewed him out. I base this on hundreds, possibly thousands of data points from my own experience and the shared experience of others.
"But saying "women are" attracted to one thing or another is just as stupid as describing all men as slobbering idiots who only like blondes or all italians as plumbers obsessed with hopping on goombas."
This analogy is so bad that can I only surmise that you are actively arguing in bad faith. Again, every woman I know is more attracted to a man when he performs feats of strength and command. No Italians I know are plumbers obsessed with jumping on goombas. So no, your analogy is terrible. Meta question -- why did you make such a willfully stupid analogy?
I thought those movies were "sweet nerd girl gets the hot guy by being secretly hot"?
There were those too, there were both types of movies.
You seem to have some very absolute beliefs (eg. Women are attracted to strength and command; crying is in fact a symtom of weakness, etc. etc). How do you justify them?
A bunch of life experience; trading stories and confessions with male and female friends over drinks; reading lots of books, ranging from bios and famous literature to books by dating coaches to books on the science of genes and evolution. My statements were slightly blunt and simplified. But I think that as broad generalizations, they are pretty bloody obvious if you just pay attention in life.
should have never been a male/female differentiator.
Sorry, you'll have to take up that one with the big guy upstairs. The truth is, if you cry, women will be less attracted to you. They will think you are nice and sweet and they will laud your ability to show your emotions. But they will not want to f--k you. Women are attracted to strength and command.
Crying is in fact a symptom of weakness. Your brain only sends you the crying signal for things that are outside your control - a death, a failed harvest, getting fired, getting dumped, etc. Crying is the programmed tactic for woman and children who can only get what they want by convincing someone stronger than them to help them out.
I agree that TV/Movies are a terrible way to learn how to be a man. The worst for me were the sweet-nerd-guy-gets-the-hot-girl-by-being-sweet movies of the 90's (Can't Hardly Wait, Ten Things I Hate About You, etc). That never happens in real life and messed me up. The genetics of attraction have not changed in the past few hundred years, so it makes no sense to keep changing the messaging.
As an American, I've sometimes been bothered by the use of thank you. It is fine as a pleasantry at a restaurant. But it always felt odd coming from a boss or from the company CEO. I think to myself, "I didn't do this piece of work as a favor to you, I didn't because you are paying me and you told me to do it." It is interesting to read that this view is more common in other cultures. I also dislike putting "thank you" in an email, before they have agreed to do the favor or task. It feels very presumptuous. Am I crazy or do other people feel the same way.
What makes a white neighborhood more "nice" than black neighborhoods, outside of the crime rate or the people that live there? Why is Roxbury/Dorchester in Boston "less nice" than Saugus? Dorchester has great homes, near a nice park, has great access to the subway that goes downtown. Why is 50th and Baltimore in Philadelphia "less nice" than Norristown? 50th and Baltimore has great parks, great homes, great public transit access to downtown. If it is the people that live there that make a neighborhood good or bad, than to blame segregation or red lining for bad neighborhoods is to beg the question.
Also Edwardian England is a compelling counter-example. Read "The Classic Slum" by Robert Roberts. British society around 1900 was massively unequal and lots of people were desperately poor. But their homicide rates were 100X lower than the rates seen in the contemporary ghetto. The poor working class areas of England during that period had intact families, schools that provided discipline, strict policing, and strong institutions.
They used to have a lot more control, now barely any. Hence the rising illegitimacy rates across the board, for all races.
Shared environment still matters a lot. One father has a limited impact on his own daughter. But if the community has lots of fathers, all telling their daughters the same thing, and so your daughter has friends who all view it as low-status to have children at 16, then she will be a lot more likely to wait on having kids until marriage.
"To argue that what culture they have is simply handed to them by the "blue tribe" liberals is shockingly ignorant and condescending."
I will not deny the charges of being condescending and privileged, though personally I would describe myself as being in advantaged position and having a sense of Noblesse Oblige. I do not appreciate the name calling on your part.
I will not admit to being ignorant, as I am both well-read on this issue and have considerable personal experience. To think is to generalize; to think is to take the raw data from the world and frame it in patterns that make sense. There will always be imprecision in so doing. There will be mistakes around the edges, or places where the point was not phrased perfectly correctly. If you start calling me names every time I make an imperfect generalization, while I am trying in good faith to explain the core dynamics the best that I can, then we cannot have a productive conservation and this will be my last comment.
Well, you are underestimating the role of white (liberal voting) producers and merchants of cool in the creation of hip-hop culture, but that is beside the point. Music is only one tiny part of culture.
More important aspects of culture include: messaging about what makes a good life, norms, mores, institutions, messaging and narratives about how to be successful, narratives explaining the way things are and how to deal with problems, etc, are the important part that I am talking about. And yes, there is some indigenous norms that have arisen, and hip-hop culture is more than music. But this culture is very, very recent, and it takes a long time for a culture to evolve to be pro-social and pro-civilization. Hip-hop culture is similar in some way to the honor culture and feuding culture of the old Scotch-Irish, medieval Europe, Homeric Greece, or many other primitive cultures. But the culture messaging and narratives coming down from blue tribe controlled schools and from ministers are very, very real and give a very flawed view of how the world actually works. And that messaging matters a lot when there is the absence of positive role models in the form of people building their own businesses and making it on their own.
I am quite aware of the history of segregation, red-lining, etc. But these do not explain what is going on. Every ethnic group is segregated. That is the definition of an ethnic group. Segregation doesn't explain why black ghettos have so much more crime than the Jewish or Chinese ghettos of old.
"The theft of wealth accumulation via property values and rent is far greater than the petty crimes of burglary and mugging that justify the police state."
You are going to explain yourself, because this is quite backwards.
There were indeed attempts by the WASP's in charge of the American cities to do slum clearance and move blacks out of their existing neighborhoods into the neighborhoods of working class ethnic poles, Irish, and Jews, who did not have the political clout to defend their turf. This has been written about extensively in books like "The Slaughter of the Cities" or "Canarsie".
However, the WASP's plans did not work out at all like intended. In some cases, blacks were pushed out of great real estate to slightly worse real estate. For instance, in Boston, some blacks who lived where the Prudential now is were pushed out toward Roxbury and Dorchester. But the bulk of the action was in blacks moving up from the south, who pushed out working class whites in neighborhoods like Roxbury and Dorchester. If you look at most cities, blacks live in great real estate from a location point of view - it is an easy commute to the central city, often near parks like Fairmount park in Philadelphia or Franklin Park in Boston. I don't know by what metric you can blacks in the Philadelphia area have the worst real estate. Now, the property values are very low. But that is because of the crime. By definition, any real estate occupied by a high-crime tribe is going to have low values, since people don't want to live near crime. This hardly constitutes left by white people.
Your formulation of blue tribe welfare-for-votes versus red tribe police state is entertaining to read, but it is simplistic to the point of being seriously wrong. Look at the deeper issues.
I have read dozens of books and hundreds of articles on the subject, ranging from the very liberal like the "New Jim Crow" or "When Work Disappears" to the more reactionary like "Slaughter of the City." I have spent years living near ghetto neighborhoods, and doing on-and-off volunteering in these neighborhoods. To think is to simplify, thinking is the act of condensing the raw data of the world into patterns and models that we can use. If you have a better model of what is happening, or can make improvements to my model, then make the argument. But I once believed the conventional segregation/red lining/de-industrialization caused all the problems hypothesis, and I now believe that hypothesis to be seriously wrong.
Lack of basic financial literacy is endemic among the poor, and contributes to the ongoing poverty. It's also endemic among black entrepreneurs. He is also working on a side business as a financial advisor and investment counselor for wealthy black individuals. They often invest very poorly, because they distrust the white-dominated financial industry - and for good reason, given the century-long tradition of outright theft and victimization.
While I wish your friend luck, this goes back to the question of intelligence. The deep problem is that someone of 130IQ will always be able to steal from the person of 80IQ. The stealing can take many forms - unfair financial contracts, convincing that buying Nike shoes will make them awesome at basketball, convincing them to vote for politician X, where politician X then funnels money to his own cronies. I'm not sure what can be done about this. It is a very hard problem. I don't know if history has an example of systematic, long-standing, altruism between ethnic groups.
It's a structural issue and is very hard to fix. Men, everywhere, do what is needed to get sex. If women and the institutions of society do not require a commitment from the man in order to have children, then men will not give such a commitment. Why would they? But traditionally it is the father who restricts access to his daughter, or trains his daughter not to open up so easily. So fatherlessness begets fatherlessness.
What I have been doing is creating a separate Chrome application launcher for my different life contexts -- http://lifehacker.com/5611711/create-application-shortcuts-i... I have one for anonymous browsing, one for work, one for personal-real-name, and one for pseudonymous browsing. I renamed the application so I can launch by typing "WorkChrome" or "PersonalChrome" in spotlight search. Each Chrome app then runs with a separate profile, separate cookies, etc. I have a different icon and colored theme for each one, so that I never make a mistake with regards to which I am browsing in. I can have multiple open at the same time and tab switch between them.