So does "Latin", but the point is to publicly signal virtue, hence the eye-catching and bizarre "x".
804 karma · joined May 4, 2017
Yes. Grades reflect what the student did, which is a distinct question from why they were able to do it.
Cooperation is definitely a popular strategy for survival, and our instinct for altruism benefits the survival of human families and small groups. Consider though, that in each of your examples, the collective entities formed then grow to the greatest extent, limited only by resource constraints and competition from other entities.
Nature's balance is found as each organism struggles with all its might and ability to expand, but not by any organism voluntarily refraining from maximizing its production.
It's interesting that calling CRT "Marxist" gives the Fox News watchers a familiar enemy to fulminate against, and it gives the CRT peddlers themselves unearned credibility as dangerous dissidents, so it's a misidentification that serves everyone but the dwindling number of actual Marxists, and pedants bent on accuracy.
I see profit-seeking behavior when I watch a squirrel hoard nuts, or a dog snap at a scrap of meat on the ground. I see the entire biosphere as a profit-seeking process, and I don't want to set my morality against the very biosphere that created everything I value, and my very ability to value.
Correct, and in fact, many Marxists are virulently against CRT/wokeness, because it distracts from class as the central conflict in society.
Critics crudely call CRT/wokeness "Marxist" because it's a conflict perspective.
Most of us are fungible.
> Illustrating this grotesque point further, Meta, Alphabet, Amazon, and Microsoft saw their collective valuations rise by $800bn after announcing steep job cuts
So the market felt very strongly that the layoffs were a good business decision. Is that because Wall Street is mean, too? Or isn't that somewhat objective evidence that the layoffs were good for the companies?
A very interesting article could have been written in its place.
What do you mean?
Arguments like this neglect the relative inscrutability of even human motivations, with which we ought to be intimately familiar, yet can nevertheless perplex us.
Humans undertake spectacular projects as jokes, religious activities, and as art. There's really no speculating about equivalent, befuddling alien motivations, and certainly nothing to rule out autonomous devices that travel unfathomable distances, and then play hide and seek when approached directly.
That has not been my experience at all, whatsoever, and my involvement in tech communities, both online and in the flesh, dates back to the 1980s.
> There's also the fact that most (read: all) of the computing pioneers are white. I respect all of those people, but it does help to have someone to look up to.
I don't need people with whom I share superficial characteristics to look up to. I can look up to brilliant white men, men from all over the globe, or even women, believe it or not.
Culture is what's uncontroversially and fearlessly blasted on front pages, and on mainstream TV.
> They could, but their agenda fits white people better, for reasons that are evident to anyone with critical thinking skills.
Evidently the millions of non-white Republicans, and the millions of white Democrats, all lack these critical thinking skills, then.
But why? If this is really the majority sentiment, why on earth leave any room for plausible deniability?
> their agenda and campaigning for the most part is so overwhelmingly targeted toward white voters that they have horrible reach into other demographics.
Not really, though. Voting levels are low enough that they could conceivably focus their energies simply on getting more non-voting whites to vote.
Because why do they have to dog whistle about it? Why do they have to resort to subtlety at all?
It's forbidden from public discourse to such an extent that can only be found between the lines, hidden in vague allusions, or more likely, asserted as baseless accusations slandering conservative politicians, while the GOP explicitly tries everything it can to promote their non-white figures.
And yet, it's remarkably unpopular to announce the simple truism that "white lives matter", or that "it's ok to be white", and our top universities interrogate "whiteness" as problematic, so evidently much further nuance is required between numerical size and cultural sway.
History is written by the winners.
Comments like this seem to ignore the fact that a good number of law enforcement officers are black. I guess one could ask one of them?
How could this be due to the expansion of space, which should expand our galaxy, and my foot-long ruler, to the same extent that it expands the empty space between our galaxy and the next?