> Is anyone else noticing that for several 5 year blocks (pentad) the world just seems to get markedly worse? It's like no body seems to give a shit about anyone except themselves anymore. Whats the cause of this? What's the solution?
I used to think that random people on the internet could be trusted, now my attitude is (essentially) "if I don't know you, then fuck off and fuck your opinion too"
I'm not saying this directed at you OP, I've felt the same thing you've felt about the world becoming worse off
In 2018-19 I'd think about making a blog connected to my IRL credentials. Now, this isn't really something I'd consider doing. I used to want to write an autobiography, now I'd rather not say anything
And with respect to this:
> And at the same time, we get these cases where a dude like Tyre,
That whole thing makes me feel physically ill. If people are capable of that kind of cruelty, what does that say about our society?
> Similarly, strength is really just about how much you work out.
Some people can get shredded really easily because of genetics. Some people are just naturally more fit than others
> but I'm mighty suspicious of where you're hoping this conversation will go.
My point is your initial point is an oversimplification. If you throw the same resources at the same group of people from a similar socioeconomic status, there will still be a difference of ability. Some people will move faster than others
So the crux of my argument is this: just because there's an inequality of outcome does not imply that the cause is purely socioeconomic. Given constitutional differences, striving for equality of outcome is a sub-optimal use of resources
Should there be standards or some kind of baseline? Yes. But striving for absolute equality of outcome at the expense of everything else is a net negative for society
> that while of course various aspects of intelligence can be affected by genetics
Yep this is what I was looking for. Given this, the original claim isn't right
> Can you demonstrate that genetic factors play a stronger part in how our society defines "intelligence" than the things I mentioned?
Claim above was that intelligence "is really just" access to education, but now the goalpost has shifted
Now it's that access to education is "the most significant part". Is it? How could we know either way? By churning out a bunch of studies? The claim still isn't falsifiable
> Aligning society along a hierarchy of "intelligence" is really just aligning it on a hierarchy of access to education, which is just a function of economic class privilege (or racial class privilege really, these are tightly integrated even today in many societies for historical or otherwise reasons).
This is the claim: intelligence is just some combination of education, class, and race
Let's state the obvious here: genetics. Why did you conveniently leave that one out? Are you in denial about (inherently) stupid people existing or something? Can you prove that they don't exist?
Also, before you assume I'm being more specific: I'm not saying equal access to education is a wasted endeavor. Sure, make the public school system good in rich and poor areas
But we're talking about intelligence in general here, so leaving genetics out is just avoiding the obvious because it isn't politically satisfying
> The investors and the engineers and all the workers at Reddit will become rich, but the people who do the most important work, as outlined by the brief, are the anonymous moderators that create the culture of every subreddit.
Weird that some companies have a dedicated role for that. My current gig doesn't talk about agile at all... we still have two week sprints and self directing teams and all of that, just none of the annoying buzzwords
Also I see a lot of people trying to defend apple in this thread. Imo life is too short to defend a corporation this large (unless you have a financial incentive to maintain trust in it, obviously)
> Also: arguments like this (which tend to be extremely persuasive, and often account for a non-trivial amount of arguments) could be easily eliminated with a simple rule.
I wasn't really trying to make an argument, it's more of a heuristic if anything
> How do you account for...
> a) the unknown?
just do whatever habit says to do (and don't call it the truth)
> b) the known delusional nature of the mind?
this is a fun one. give the delusional mind a pen, paper, and 20 years and maybe they'll write the next phenomenology of spirit and trigger world war III
> Actually, "woke" opinions do reflect those of the general population
If woke here means thinking that racism is bad, sure. If it means supporting gay marriage or first trimester abortion, sure. If it means not being heteronormative, thinking that gender identity should be taught in public schools, thinking that affirmative action is good... you're starting to drift into fringe territory. Not saying I don't agree with fringe, but claiming these beliefs are majority doesn't agree with experience. For the record, most people I know are democrat voters
If woke here means thinking that social justice and "systematic overhaul" (whatever that happens to mean) are a good idea, then from my own personal experience that's just corporate noise to people. The only place where I really saw a lot of this was in college where most of it was from administrators and a loud but small group of the student body
There's a reason why Obama avoided a lot of these topics while campaigning
This article just makes me more reluctant to ever use it for anything
But if Google wants to ruin their own lang, sure by all means