MikeUt

> Men’s rights groups have taken to searching for the image included in various posters and ad campaigns, in a McCarthyistic hunt [..] Major corporations have disciplined or demoted employees for advertisements that used the pinching hand, government ministries and municipalities have apologized and revamped promotional material, museums have dismantled displays and celebrities have seen their careers threatened.

Something about this seems familiar, but I can't quite put my finger on it...

I get redirected to a sign-in page. Google does not seem to allow even viewing an issue without signing in.

If you answer "no", the same logic can be used to strip you of all your rights. How much domestic violence and murder could be prevented if every home was required to have cameras and microphones installed?

There's also the issue that it takes longer to climb to a higher position (even an entire generation), and the US was much less diverse a few decades ago. The "Hidden in plain sight" study the article cites [1] says executives are 80% white. While the US is currently 63.7% non-Hispanic white, that number was 80% as recently as 1980. It seems reasonable to expect a 40-year lag between arriving to a country, and reaching the highest corporate positions.

The article is frankly deceptive. The US is 4.9% Asian and 63.7% white. The study [1] found that executives in the tech companies examined are 13.9% Asian and 80.3% white. So Asians are 2.25-times as likely to reach an executive position compared to whites. But by comparing against their over-represented numbers among tech workers, the article spins this as discrimination. Look how they phrased it:

Another study, from 2013, found that while there were nearly as many Asian professionals as white professionals working at five big tech companies [..], white men and women were 154 percent more likely to be an executive than their Asian counterparts;

There were "nearly as many Asians as whites" in a company, but there are 13-times as many whites as Asians in the US! This is presented as a completely neutral, non-problematic fact, and that this over-representation doesn't reach even further is what was cast as the problem.

[1] https://www.ascendleadershipfoundation.org/research/hidden-i...

Neither this article nor the related one it links to contain even a single one of these tweets. This kind of deliberate omission in reporting is sadly becoming a trend.

From another comment: "Deere is the worst in this, but the rest of the industry isn't anywhere near as good as it should be."

So no, the argument isn't that they don't want to make money. The argument is that they do, and realize that tacitly colluding will make them more money than undercutting each-other.

> Equipment manufacturers collect lots and lots of data about soil, weather, yields, and other factors, which they can then share with or sell to “affiliates and suppliers.”

So a company selling seeds (with a no-reselling clause in their contracts) could buy that information, make a good guess at a farmer's profit margin, and individually adjust their pricing to the maximum that each farmer would be willing to pay.

Yet another way in which big players can abuse information asymmetry.

The deaths we see directly are overwhelmingly outnumbered by those we learn about second-hand.

The question is simple but inane, and implies losing the right to speech cannot be life-threatening. Then once conditions progress and the right to life is directly under attack, there is "no one allowed to speak for you".

Ok, I'll play your game. Political enemies (in China, the USSR, other historic Eastern European states, Turkey.. maybe you'd prefer MLK as an example) are denied the right to life on the basis of their speech.

So if they fight for the right to not be sent to gulags (from which many did not return) on the basis of speech, you consider this an expression of "luxury"?

And do you think free speech might help fighting for their right to life? For example would BLM find fighting to end police killings of Black people easier, or harder, if they could be jailed for their advocacy?

Or maybe they don't have the luxury of ignoring free speech, that others take for granted.

Claiming a stance is a result of "luxury" is not the shortcut to win a debate that you imagine it to be.

How convenient. Media mostly ignore an event. When there is predictably not much outrage among people that are largely unaware of it, claim this is evidence they think it's OK.

Strong encryption and privacy is not an "alternative to the justice system" in the same way that allowing people to leave their homes without tracking collars isn't.

The difference is disclosing information voluntarily, versus being forced.

It sheds light on how warrants are insufficient protection. Very relevant to the debate around mandating encryption backdoors.

> The time where it's inappropriate is when used as a deflection from discussing one's own current situation and its historical roots.

One man's deflection is another man's context.

But not everyone gets equally favorable bargains.

> If falling birth rate upsets you, what are your concerns?

The US has had below-replacement (2.1) birthrates for at least 50 years [1], yet its population keeps increasing. A low fertility rate by itself does not seem to solve the "there are too many of us anyway" problem.

[1] https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/11/raw-data-the-...

> Kids don't see skin color the way these ideologues do.

Infants show racial bias toward members of own race and against those of other races: https://phys.org/news/2017-04-infants-racial-bias-members.ht...

Odd. You never hear about people fired/removed for anti-white statements. Nick Cannon was an interesting example, where his anti-white remarks went completely ignored: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/nick-cannon-apologizes-for...

Edit: To those saying he apologized. Yes, he did - but only to a specific subset of those he insulted: ""First and foremost I extend my deepest and most sincere apologies to my Jewish sisters and brothers for the hurtful and divisive words that came out of my mouth during my interview with Richard Griffin,''"

> Culture, however, [helps people adjust to their environment] more effectively than genes because the transfer of knowledge is faster and more flexible than the inheritance of genes, according to Waring and Wood.

But genes are the hardware upon which culture is written.

The included financial report says profit, not revenue.

Respect copyright and patents as much as Microsoft respects taxation.

> File system access

How about just subfolder access? Limit facebook.com's permissions to only the user/facebook/ folder.

> Washington developed some well-founded complaints about Chinese economic behaviour — and launched a trade war.

The trade war started by China with the basis for those "well-founded complaints". But it was only called a trade war when the US realized it and openly retaliated - after much of their industry and know-how got outsourced.

I won't dwell on the many arguable statements in this post, such as "Most of the forces in the world are willing to be our friends and partners because it is in their interest to do so."

I think the more interesting aspect is how it tries to frame the conversation as submission to the US vs. friendship with China, while diverting attention away from how countries might want to join together because they see China's growing influence within their borders (both economic and political) as a threat to their sovereignty and independence.

> the sole other example in the article wouldn't be someone from 2004 who built a career in media thanks to the supposed cancellation - exactly the kind of thing the press would point to as proof "cancel culture" isn't real if the left were the ones calling for her head.

I think we agree, but to elaborate further, here's an informative post on the topic: https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/05/23/can-things-be-both-pop...

One should also look at how the average person would see this. If after expressing an opinion, the only viable career left is that of a political commentator/provocateur (the market for which is limited), most people will stay silent.

> Google viewed the large increase [of disabled location tracking] as a problem to be solved, so it removed this setting from the Quick Settings pane of devices it manufactured, and it sought - successfully - to convince other manufacturers using Android to do the same

> We don't know who all rolled over for Google. The complaint and employees said they didn’t have much choice as the only way to have Google’s key apps was to use their preferred design of Android.

Not surprising, but not guaranteed either. It did overturn the previous ruling, and was itself only 2-1, not unanimous. The article mentions that:

a Mexican-American resident of Oregon who sued the state over the state's black-only relief fund had her case rejected

> select instead for ideology and party loyalty.

Already being done, but not yet at the student level: https://reason.com/2020/02/03/university-of-california-diver...

Not officially, at least. The kind of organization that requires a political pledge as condition of employment, was not bias-free the day before the requirement became official.