I considered ‘Twatless’ because the angry young libertarians in question are invariably male, and invariably not getting any. However the humour was too obsure and marginal to justify the additional risk of insult to women. Furthermore, there’s bound to be some wise-ass misogynibertarian that would leap on it as some kind of metaphor that the weight of the world lies on male shoulders (a kind of ‘male man’s burden’ if you like) and conveniently ignore the fact that Ayn Rand was a woman. I don’t want to give birth to that particular monster - it appears that the right wing is reversing the usual process and going for ‘first as farce, then as tragedy’ these days.
And also, knew the larger community. Political things were done in person, so you spent time with people who weren’t your neighbors, friends, work associates, or like-minded hobbyists. If you needed something out of the ordinary, you couldn’t just hit a couple of keys on a keyboard and have it shipped to you; you had to figure out where it was (which entailed talking to people), how to get it, and how to pay for it (50 years ago, there was Diners Club, store “credit” cards, and not much else, and paying by out-of-state check was a big deal). Or – more likely – you had to figure out how to make it yourself, which again usually meant talking with other people. Entertainment in the evening was socializing with other people, not sitting directly in front of a screen.
The idea that a mere 50 years ago people were dumb serfs who only knew a handful of people and had no sense of “public self” is so ridiculous it’s way past wrong.
Is there an example of a site with a large community where the trolls aren’t winning? There are lots of small forums where it isn’t a problem and even on Reddit, the small subs are very congenial. The problem seems to be that any service with a large audience attracts trolls.
I don’t really have a problem with Reddit changing the rules late in the game. If the rule change doesn’t work, roll it back, or modify it. But they should definitely try something.
Maybe Reddit should change their default subs policy. Make it a rule that if a sub becomes a default, they must adhere to certain community guidelines including strict moderation. If none of the current default subs agree to that, make new, Reddit-owned default subs.
No, they’re not. Fairness, that is, a lack of sexism or gender-specificity in making workplace promotions, does not change when people reach higher echelons of corporate employment.
And that link isn’t useful in the least as it simply recounts corporations that have changed leadership for reason X. How is that relevant to show that being a CEO means your right not to be judged on anything other than performance has been removed? In fact, the inclusion of Larry Ellison on that list would seem to indicate that you feel he didn’t have the chops to be a CEO, which, I’m guessing, is not the point you were trying to make.
Doesn’t matter. Rich people and poor people alike have the same right to not be discriminated against in the workplace (or anywhere else, for that matter).
Given that you feel Pao is a smart person, what’s the chance she was telling the truth about what happened and felt strongly enough about it to pursue it in court? I suppose that’s not allowable in the scenario you’ve concocted?
You are just FULL of excellent portmanteaus today!
They like Ayn Rand, I suspect, because she acts likes they think a man should act, but she has a vagina… They confirm their own sense of superiority… plus, everyone knows she fucked at least one of her proteges and I’m sure they imagine themselves as that guy…
It has been a gradual process. Of course the factors I mentioned were more apparent 500 years ago. But it has continued through 50 years ago and to present day. I am not suggesting that a switch is flipped and people become suddenly cosmopolitan. But yes, I think that in many ways, how westerners lived 50 years ago was rather primitive and disconnected - and this is still largely the case today. And no, I do not mean this as a value judgement. I can appreciate these qualities in many respects. Even if attitudes are often still rather provincial, communication has generally become deeper and more frequent.
My quote above is a factual statement. And there is research regarding the premise. But no, there is no way to directly test modern models with people who existed 50 or 500 years ago.
Why do you assume that I (not a “he” - an IT, if you please) am not interested, when you have chosen to neglect the questions I had responded with? I read what you say, and think about it. Instead of repeating yourself, you could go into more detail.
[quote=“popobawa4u, post:175, topic:61918”]
My quote above is a factual statement. And there is research regarding the premise.[/quote]
“Unless they were one of the few who travelled much, even knowing hundreds of people would typically involve those who had lived within the same ten miles as one’s self for their whole lives.”
is a falsifiable statement, so
But no, there is no way to directly test modern models with people who existed 50 or 500 years ago.
O, also…record players… Also, 50 years ago was 1965, and by then TV was firmly entrenched in American society. Numerous video of TV, film, movies, etc from that time are available to be studied and understood…
