Zuckerberg quote from article:
>I think you need to have all kinds of diversity if you want to make progress together as a society
While I do think there are benifits to idealogical diversity, I think this statement is hamfisted. Do climate deniers aid the progress of climate science? Do flat earthers contribute meaningfully to cosmology, geography or cartography? No. I believe the actual benifits of idealogical diversity stem from scepticism and falsifiability within a community (science). A flat earther physicist would add idealogical deversity to the physics community but they wouldn't contribute to the progress of the field.
In softer, less objective spheres such as social issues and politics, the same idea applies. Does giving racsim a platform in the name of diversity really progress society? Maybe it could by reinforcing the beliefs of anti-racist people and thus diminishing racism. However it could also propagate racsim regressing society, which I think is a more likely outcome.
These problems and questions do not have a simple, computable solutions. The matters of progress are entirely subjective making fair solutions nuanced and difficult to come by. That's why I think statements like the one Zuckerberg made are hamfisted because they offer a one-size-fits-all solution to these nuanced complicated problems.
DISCLAIMER: I am not taking a stance on Peter Theil and Facebook, I am just responding to rhetoric that I have seen frequently since The Election™
"Globalist media monopoly" is a line often repeated by nationalist propaganda chanels and, unfortunately, most consumers of opinion are in a rush to disagree with anything that challenges their world view.
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the parent comment about sinking ships. I'm simply pointing out how easy it is to form this type of meaningless rhetoric
I look into it every few months actually. It always turns out to be substantially more expensive. The disk performance in vms also either arent there, or are just too pricey.
Another part of the story is that if you roam the local sell forums, you'll find an older Xeon servers for cheap.
So, that leaves electricity, which is not that bad.
With the electoral college al you have to do is appeal to the mob in the swing states. Then you give that select group of voting Americans the ability to suppress the rest of the population.
How is that any better?
These things aren't static- the South (and the major religions) used to be solidly Democrat, California gave us Reagan, etc. This changed in my lifetime and I'm not that old. You start taking your base for granted,you end up wondering how you lost.
They are bennies with cat ears called pussy hats, not "clit hats". They were made in response to the "grab me by the pussy" remark The Donald made.
Also AFAB people have a right to destigmatize their reproductive organs. (Think about how many times a day middle school boys draw penises on things)
Now that being said, I think the pussy hats are problematic because they are trans exclusionary, which is totally unrelated to your imagined feminist hypocrisy.
Intersectionality is intellectually lazy and divisive. It separates people into broad groups and then makes assumptions about the identities of people purported to be in those groups, rather than treating people as individuals.
Third wave feminists are also being divisive when they label and villify those who challenge their dogma.
First off some context for this rant: a lot of people don't realize it but we are a lot closer to a post-scarcity world than the world would have you think. Check out this chart which shows GDP per capita since the 1950's. The productivity gains since the 1950's have been absolutely incredible, and the quality of life back then was pretty good.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A939RX0Q048SBEA
So, have you ever noticed there's never any dialogue about encouraging men to be stay at home dads, or reducing the overall household number of hours worked per week? Never. The dialogue is always about the "wage gap" and "women have value too" and "rape culture" and "microaggressions". Men who are stay at home dads still get shamed just as much as they did during the 1950's. This is how you know it's a sham - there is never any serious dialogue about actual equality. Income has in no way, shape, or form, kept up the with the GDP per capita shown in the chart above. There's never any explorations of policies that would actually increase equality, like restricting the number of "investment properties" a man or woman can own, behavior which is clearly parasitic. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_productivity_and_...
It's not in corporate interests to have people have actual equality. Increasing the labor pool without discussions of actual equality makes it so that people can be kept in debt, wages go down and the nexus of power moves away from the family and towards the corporation, which is what is happening.
There's also the constant screaming of "women have value too". The implication here is that if you are not working for money you have no value. Despite common belief, in fact it IS possible to generate value outside of a money context. Many of the world's greatest achievements have occured outside a money context, eg. the discovery of calculus, wikipedia, linux, countless famous works of art, literature, and philosophy. By saying that you only have value if you earn money is throwing many of the world's most accomplished people under a bus. The reason why "money is the only form of value" is such a horrible mentality is that it leads to people like Mozart dying in poverty and being thrown into a ditch, which actually happened.
Check out charts of combined household numbers of hours worked, you'll see it's going way UP not down, despite the GDP per capita chart shown above. There is clearly something dark in that picture.
http://www.bls.gov/opub/working/chart17.pdf
I don't think these are idle complaints - feminism in its current form (money above all) is an ideology that's on a direct collision course with the whole 'robots are about to take all the jobs' reality, which I think is going to come a lot sooner than we realize, and when these two phenoma collide, what's going to happen is that it's not going to be equality (sorry folks) it's going to be Brave New World, an immensely stratified society.
What's incredible to me is that someone predicted this nearly 100 years ago. Aldous Huxley, you are a genius.
Industries have cultures. Cultural issues and issues within an industry's culture are not mutually exclusive by definition.
>Fix your culture
That's the point of this blog post and conversation. We aren't going to fix anything by skirting blame onto greater societal forces and continue on business as normal
Please keep your transphobic layman interpretation of old school medicine to your self.
gross