Step 1: Establish disciplines that ridicule radical criticism.
Step 2: Hire undergraduate math/stats students who took criticism courses at gun point and hated them.
Step 3: ...
Step 4: "OMG Ponies and revolution"
Sir, you do not need a revolution, because it has already occured. You simply need employees who have read critical approaches to statistics AS AN INTEGRAL PART of their stats education. Those people are usually in
- feminist studies (did the requested stats revolution)
- gender studies (ibid, different name)
- women's studies (ibid, different name)
- lgbt studies (exploded feminist studies ftw)
- african american studies (ibid)
- critical studies (sociology, know of mainstream criticism only)
- american studies (good with convoluted language)
> Why do you want to move out of academia? Get a tenure and you'll be doing your research plus you'll secure a job for the rest of your life.
In short, the privatization (education for profit) and adjunct (severe labor exploitation) issues are horrible in that sector and I want no part in these.
These are the same issues both the non-profit and private non-academic sectors deal with too, but the private and non-profit sectors do not have the same amount of hypocrisy and blindness as academia when it comes to sticking a ten-feet pole on fire up one's ass.
(I'm the OP, was on my phone so ended up with a diff account.)
Unfortunately, I am trying to move from academia to the private / non-profit sector's 'research associate' etc roles. Finding it to be truly difficult.
> An acre and a half of Amazon rainforest disappears every hour, and this is the deforestation you get upset about.
According to this logic, I ought to not get upset, nor criticize any policy, perspective, or activity that causes less deaths than a previous or current one did.
Assuming that for you, trees < animals < humans,
since the European colonization of Americas killed off about 100 million human beings,
I will have to wait for a catastrophe that kills off 101 million people to criticize anything that happens on earth.
> They directly processed the trees to firewood, which they were intended for. :)
I honestly do not understand why you take video and pictures of a planet you do not care about. To try out your RPi toy, I guess? Or for some kind of publicity I do not quite understand?
A tree's function is not to "get processed." It is the terms you use that are failing you. By "get processed" you mean "to be killed." And by "function" you mean "the value humans commonly attribute to it." Politics is indeed the art of using this kind of language-bending. You follow these by coming up with a bunch of excuses to legitimize the unnecessary damage you caused to the flora of that region out of sheer arrogance.
> It's also very dangerous without climbing experience and without any climbing equipment to climb up such trees.
You either try, or accept defeat and design a better vehicle.
(1) I don't kill your partner just because s/he has parked her/his car at the spot where I wanted to park. (This is an exaggeration solely because we attribute more value to ourselves, out of arrogance, than to anything that we deem "other.")
(2) You don't burn the computer because your software has a bug. (This example is for those readers who persist on not shedding the aforementioned arrogance.)
> The police officer is 100% at fault here. The paramedic has medical equipment. The cop has weapons.
This is not a zero-sum game. They can be (and, I think, are) 100% at fault.
The paramedic has a medical responsibility to ensure the medical safety of the patient. He abandoned his job because he got afraid / didn't know better. These are not valid excuses.
The patient was almost taken to jail. The EMS left him there to be transported to jail.
> There was a 10 minute delay in care, until the patient became unresponsive and was transported to the hospital.
Please don't be apologetic for other people's screw ups. We have enough of that everywhere already.
"Oh it was just 10 minutes more of stroking and stuff. No biggie." It's a stroke, you die in that 10 minutes.
> Do you really see no difference in culpability between someone standing by and allowing torture to happen, vs someone who attempts to argue with, but eventually concedes to a guy carrying a gun?
No.
We are talking about the legal system, where such cases can be used as precedents.
When you are an EMS or physician otherwise, you were at fault, and it is pardoned because "I was so very much intimidated oh my," it will be pardoned as long as you can prove you were "intimidated."
"Oh judge it was a CIA agent, I was intimidated so I stayed and supervised it."
I find it disturbing and disgusting that (1) the defense attorney is using that as an excuse, and (2) the EMS allows his defense attorney to do that.
And where is the lawsuit against the cop for intimidation (civil) and misconduct (criminal)?
> After a long and complicated trial, the jury agreed that my client was not at fault.
The client EMS is as much at fault as the police officer.
He let someone whom he knew in his medical opinion to be having a serious medical problem go to jail because he was intimidated.
If he's not at fault, no medic ever is at fault for anything, even those who are present and supervise torture and police brutality, because "oh I'm sorry I was intimidated."
Step 2: Hire undergraduate math/stats students who took criticism courses at gun point and hated them.
Step 3: ...
Step 4: "OMG Ponies and revolution"
Sir, you do not need a revolution, because it has already occured. You simply need employees who have read critical approaches to statistics AS AN INTEGRAL PART of their stats education. Those people are usually in
- feminist studies (did the requested stats revolution)
- gender studies (ibid, different name)
- women's studies (ibid, different name)
- lgbt studies (exploded feminist studies ftw)
- african american studies (ibid)
- critical studies (sociology, know of mainstream criticism only)
- american studies (good with convoluted language)