Have you seen Alex Jones? You are on Lemmy, so you’re going to find a lot more demonisation of the right on here, than say Truth Social. Go over there and you’ll find plenty of posts about lefties eating babies and Biden draining the blood of the young to sustain his life
quality of life increases overall fertility rates decrease
Look at Elon Musk, Boris Johnson, or a whole host of incredibly wealthy people with stupid amounts of children. Quality of life increase is also linked to higher economic power. This is linked to higher human capital investments, meaning that it’s now disproportionately more expensive to raise a child to be successful in the new economy with the higher quality of life. Quality of life increase generally correlates to life being disproportionately more expensive.
Solve the cost of raising children and you solve fertility rates
Lemmy in particular seems to have a high percentage of reasonable people. As in people who can be reasoned with, but might just be stuck in a ideological rabbit hole. I’ve found that by dropping hostility and acknowledging common ground I can quickly turn an argument into a productive discussion, where both sides learn something. This happens with people who are on the left or right of myself. So it’d be shame to overly ban one side and lose that.
It equally must suck for the mods, because I’ve seen some very very vitriolic comments here, again, on both sides. Removing these comments helps cool people’s heads, but unequal enforcement may be an issue. I’m also generally against censorship, I just absolutely hate the platform when some stupid toxic divisive topic/meme gets posted everywhere for like a month. I really don’t know where I stand on removing comments or banning people, seems like a fine line to walk
Thank you for the calmer reply, I’ve upvoted you, and appreciate your response. I’m 100% with you on improving access to education, and the issues women and minorities face in university courses. My end goal is the same as yours, I want to see equality in the workplace and elsewhere, I’m just trying to address what I think are legitimate concerns that the previous commentator raised.
I get that senior hiring is a thing, the problem is that as you’ve mentioned, historical discrimination has made it very difficult for women and minorities to get the appropriate credentials and skills required to adequately perform in senior roles. Not saying they’re incapable, of course not, just that this is an issue we’re still suffering from.
My worry is that this historical discrimination will force companies to over hire women and minorities in starting roles, and be unable to hire women in senior roles, if we pursue short term demographic equality. This leaves young men, particularly poor young men, at a disadvantage, and does nothing to fix the historical oppression women have suffered from.
I chose law in particular, because it’s fairly even in graduates today, even in women’s favour, and there’s way more graduates than jobs, which means that if we wanted immediate demographic equality the industry as a whole could experience the same issue as the hypothetical company above, but obviously not as dramatic. Which is why I take issue with the short term goal being equal demographics. The short term goal should be equal hiring, with the long term goal being equal demographics as the older generations filter out.
In many metro areas young women already earn more than young men.
It’s not fair that women and minorities have been held back, but I’m worried that going too hard too fast is going to cause more long term problems
Firstly, I’m a different person. I’m just interested on what your solution is. No need to be so hostile. I’ve likely just misunderstood you.
My critique is specifically on the bit I quoted. You need to divide it by generation. The hiring, especially for starting roles, is heavily biased towards the young. These people are just coming out of college.
Giving your example of 50% women in the population, and a law firm is 100 people, 90 of which are men. That firm now needs to hire 90 women and 10 men to reach that 50% goal. But now you’ve also influxed a tonne of women into that workforce, meaning now you’ll need to hire disproportionately more men next generation after the original 90 men have retired. It creates a cycle of discrimination. Obviously that’s oversimplified, and there’s additional factors you could add to the example e.g. staff turnover.
I don’t disagree with setting hiring goals 50/50 men/women if that’s what your advocating for? It doesn’t immediately change workplace demographics, but it should even out over time. And there are still issues stemming from the amount of male vs female degree holders in certain subjects that are heavily gender biased, like engineering, vetinary practice, and IT.
I’m also totally for raising funding for public services and education to ensure everyone gets the best start on life they can. No disagreement there. It’d be ideal if we could encourage young men/women to more evenly participate in different subjects.
Again I’m sorry if I misunderstood your point, it wasn’t clear to me
when the imbalance is so bad, there is a point where, on a large sale, you need to hire a higher number of women / Black people / handicapped people to catch up, because you’ve shut them down the whole time; and that basically makes it your own fault if you think they’re less competent than educated competent men, because they didn’t get the opportunity, because they didn’t get the training, because… they didn’t get the opportunity.
Aren’t you also talking about diversity hires? I’m assuming you think there’s an imbalance that needs fixing, and your way of fixing it seems to be to hire minorities at a much greater proportion than how they’re represented in the population? Shouldn’t your solution be more class based?
Using Copilot as a copilot, like generating boilerplate and then code reviewing it is still “babysitting” it. It’s still significantly less effort than just doing it yourself though
Is this sarcasm? It’s lost on me
I’m just saying that accepting your definition of anxiety being tied to apprehension, anxiety about the climate is still valid.
I would say your definition is correct, but your application is extremely limited. The anxiety is about things getting worse, it’s a vague nebulous feeling that can apply 1ms in the future or several decades. Or even about finding out past information in the future (the unknown). Or just not knowing what the future holds.
So yes, being super pedantic, you can’t really be anxious about the literal state of the literal climate literally right now, but it’s instead about the possible future outcomes and events. But it’s very commonly understood that when someone says they’re anxious about climate change, they don’t mean it in the super pedantic literal way
Climate change is happening now, but the anxiety is about how bad it’ll get in the future
Same, but I also see a trope of men often being dumb or evil or both in a lot of current media. And that really doesn’t help create role models
Please could you provide some examples? I’ve legitimately never seen someone upset at the devs for not literally being fascists.
If I have to go out of my way to find this, I’m assuming it falls under the “loud” minority group. I’m sure these people exist, but it’d surprise me if they made up a significant amount of the over 12 million players.
Edit: Had a further look, there seems to be more people complaining about people taking it literally than people actually taking it literally. I did find like 3 Reddit posts, but all had 0 upvotes and like 30 comments telling them they’re wrong and stupid
It’s more that when the writing is bad something is perceived as “political”, as the insert of whatever political messaging is being used comes out of nowhere and smacks the player like a cudgel. That’s what most gamers have a problem with, obviously there’s a loud minority that rage about stupid shit like Jesse Faden being too masculine. But that’s not what most people are talking about.
Games need to tackle these issues head on and fully integrate them into the world, not just tack on preachy dialog that doesn’t make sense within the wider game world.
FF16 is blatantly about slavery and no one really complained, it’s not exactly peak fiction, but they at least had everything contained within the world. FF7 is the same but with fossil fuels and much better writing.
New Vegas is the best example, it’s simply written well and gives the player agency.
Death Stranding did a great job of both integrating it’s themes directly into the world, and also tackling them head on without any remorse.
Helldivers is so ludicrously full on and absolutely dripping with it’s pro fascist ideology that everyone knows what they’re getting into from the intro video, and then the game starts adding texture and “are we the baddies” energy straight away.
Fucking Disco Elysium is near universally praised by the wider gaming audience, and I don’t even think I need to explain how that one is political.
It’s the same reason why most ideologically driven media is cringe as fuck. Christian media being a prime example, it’s contrived slop that doesn’t make sense within its own story. Like God’s Not Dead and it’s illogical legal system built on feels and Shapiro logic.
Who remembers the weird pro-life Doctor Who episode? That was bizarre and out of place. The characters stopped acting like themselves for the sake of whatever message it wanted to get across. It just felt really out of place.
The Last of Us Part 2, to label the most controversial example, had periods of good and bad writing, but focusing in on the “violence bad” part of it’s messaging, it completely missed the mark. Giving the characters names that they shout was just hilarious, and having Ellie repeatedly kill dogs whilst Abbie pets them was just so hamfisted. Then making the gameplay violent and fun which just divorced it further.
TLDR: Gamers People love politics in video games media, they hate hamfisted preaching in video games media. Especially when it doesn’t make sense in the crafted world
centrally-planned systems are an aspect of capitalism
Isn’t that the end goal of capitalism? Winning is having control of all the capital right? How can you divorce the implied, if not explicit, end goal of a system from the system itself?
pile of decaying bones is an aspect of a family pet.
How is this not an aspect? It’s the inevitable end of any living thing, much like capitalism and the heartless exploitation of literally everything
This is however, a practice that results from the government being effectively corporate controlled. Which is the end result of allowing your free markets to run wild and allowing corporations to acquire that much power, money, and influence.
A pure capitalist system actively selects for this kind of bullshit. The most ruthless and unethical companies end up winning in the end. And those same companies are buying our politicians.
People blame capitalism when the system clearly favours the rich over the poor to such a dystopian extent that a man is allowed to be held hostage by a corporation
My bad, I can’t read 🤦
Yeah zero psychological risk is a bit of an overstatement. Zero physical maybe, but there’s definitely psychological risks, and I’m not even thinking about child support
Edit: I can’t read, it says physiological and I’m just deficient in the reading
Can you at least make the text smaller? That way people aren’t as bothered by it, but you still have your licence?
I don’t think classifying cisgender as a slur is defendable, especially on its own.
Not saying it is a slur, but I’ve seen it used like a slur before, mostly coupled with “white” and “men”/“women”. But I’m fairly sure Elon himself is against censoring language for that reason when it comes to things that don’t personally offend him. It just seems dumb and hypocritical to me
The original 20 minute video in the article makes it clear he’s talking about job roles, and mentions writers a few times (admittedly not close enough to draw an 100% certain link). I don’t think it’s enough to discredit this just based on the assumption that he’s talking about actors or that there isn’t enough context. Obviously it’s vague enough that we can’t draw any solid conclusions, so I agree with you there.
The main reason I think this is bullshit is that the guy’s testimony isn’t credible for two main reasons:
These two points, regardless of how true his story is, give him an ulterior motive for embellishing the story and exaggerating facts, which ultimately means we can’t trust this.
I’d like to see a full investigation, as with any accusation of discrimination. But we all know that when nothing turns up, it wouldn’t shut the right wingers up