Of course they are. My own findings corroborate this.
My personal theory is that the reason the tech industry is so hostile towards women is that it is mostly comprised of "nerds" and "geeks" who, being lower-status in society while usually being part of the dominant group (white men), are much more likely to be aggressive towards people not part of that group, women and people of color.
I think technically you are correct but ethically you are way off base. He did the right thing. I'd like to think that if I was in his position I would have had the balls to do what he did. Not sure that I have them.
Instead of waving the traitor flag you might look at what he exposed and get pissed about that. That's the real problem.
One could make the argument that he is a patriot and a hero. He's trying to get our country to actually uphold our constitution. Seems like he made the right choice at a huge personal cost.
If the only documents he revealed were the ones that showed the communications of American citizens are being monitored and stayed in the US and defended what he did with some fortitude then maybe he would be viewed as someone who did something patriotic. Instead he fled to Hong Kong and then Russia and revealed many of the NSA's foreign ops (which makes him a traitor).
People here don't care about the future, they just want to live forever. They think they are the end-all-be-all of life, that after them nobody younger needs be born.
>"People here don't care about the future, they just want to live forever."
Living forever is caring about the future. Just not caring about the future in the way you deem "right", or "true".
Also, wanting to live forever has nothing at all do with the birth, nor does it mean that birth can't occur anymore. How about you leave your doomsday straw-man out of this, please.
Well, if we really discover a way to live indefinitely, we will surely have to care about the future way more than we do know, since we will have to live in it.
Countries like Japan have more deaths than births. The more advanced a society is, the closer the ratio of births/deaths is, so I'm not that worried.
Factors that prevent states from going totalitarian:
- small size
- decentralized/local government structure
- limited geopolitical influence
- high level of education of the population
- history/culture of democracy
Large, powerful states with a lesser educated population will inevitably drift towards totalitarianism over time. This implies the use of various means of population control, with total surveillance being first and foremost.
>>Large, powerful states with a lesser educated population will inevitably drift towards totalitarianism
How about India?
Don't treat states or societies as people, they are not people rather they are made of people. Totalitarianism isn't the outcome of a system it rather the outcome of the people oppress and the cowards who do nothing to stop it.
Singapore is centralized, has comparatively large population, especially for its size, and no history of democracy. That's where you become halfway there.
It does sound like witch hunting with a McCarthyist nationalistic vibe. Overall the brain drain from China to the US has been working to the benefit of the US, for years.
I expect we will more and more such propaganda pieces in the NYT and elsewhere, as China is being increasingly positioned as "the Adversary".
There is an inversion in politics, where the left are more anti-Asian than the right. Letting people express anti-Asian sentiment (even though equivalent sentiment against other groups would be verboten) is both a convenient escape valve for the populace (see the LA riots) and also makes the left seem less extreme.
See also the #cancelcolbert controversy[0]. Imagine if this had been any "oppressed" group instead.
While regrettable, the loss of some technology does not compensate for all of the advantages to the States of highly skilled immigrants from China. The top ranked comments on NYTimes are ignorant and do not describe the full picture.
Parents of Chinese Americans would have had to have been well-off almost by definition to afford sending their children to the U.S. It is true a lot of that wealth would have been spent or deflated due to living standard differences by the time they arrived, however the education they've previously attained as well as the mindset of trying to achieve a better future stays with them. The Chinese who bum around unemployed rorting government benefits and/or family generosity would not have come to the U.S. looking for a better future.
Not sure you are being sarcastic with this comment or not.
These women choose that lifestyle. They choose not to work, but being stay at home moms. This is not the 50s, where women had a lot less opportunities, many were discouraged go to college, etc.... Even the author mention that women make the majority of college grads, and have all kinds of opportunities today. Being a stay at home mom is not a necessity.
They got their easy mode on life, by deciding to marry rich, and not bother with working, and the stresses of work as the rest of us have to. No need to feel pity over them. I am sure in case of a divorce, many of them have multi-million dollars prenups, money that the rest of the population will not earn in a lifetime.
They are definitely not oppressed, it is not like they are forced in this role in any way. Presumably to even be in the position to marry an investment banker you need considerable education of your own, it's just that maybe they chose to study Anthropology or History of Art and so they are not as profitably exploitable as their husbands.
To deny the women in question agency and not see their situation as a direct consequence of their actions is in many ways more sexist, than to actually see their situation as the result of a concious choice that is available to them because they are women, highly valued by certain types of men.
i can't even tell if you're serious, but there is a limit to how far SJW bullshit can fly, and claiming the kept wives of hedgefund managers are somehow 'oppressed' is pretty obviously beyond that threshold.
if you want to retain any credibility for your views, you need to learn when and where to apply your reality-distortion efforts.
I know of no definition of "oppressed" that applies to these women, and calling them so does a disservice to those who truly are. Even if they were, there is no evidence of fraud or coercion, so we must conclude the exchange (marriage) is, at least, mutually beneficial.
Hunter-gatherer societies that did fit this model could be considered to be the ultimate totalitarian organizations. Extremely strict rules controlling every aspect of the life of the members, from birth to death, and no deviation ever tolerated, under pain of banishment or even death.
Yes but the power equation wasn't as bad as a modern totalitarian society. In a 100 people tribe, you are exactly 1% of it, and know in person the entire population.
Over most of human hunter-gatherer prehistory, the population was not generally resource-constrained. (Rather, it was constrained over the long term by catastrophes, which could be related to resources, diseases, genetics, culture, or some combination.) Therefore, most of the time, banishment did not lead to starvation or even necessarily isolation. One just walked for some time, until one was alone or in more accepting company, and then started hunting and gathering wherever one found oneself. This actually leads me to wonder whether "banishment" could even have been an actual threat, before the advent of agriculture. What if the tribe "banished" some people, and then a year later found itself migrating into wherever they had settled? Would it "banish" them again, if it could?
"Therefore, most of the time, banishment did not lead to starvation or even necessarily isolation."
Do you have a reference for that? It doesn't jibe with my understanding of banishment, but my readings are from agricultural traditions. More specifically, outlawry under Germanic law, where someone was judge to be outside of the protection of the law. Full outlawry on Iceland effectively meant banishment from Iceland or death. (See https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/english/documents/innervate/09-... .)
> By the end of the last ice age .... To be cast out of a band .. usually meant total banishment from the society and eventual death, either by starvation or as a result of aggression by members of another society (Salisbury, 1962).
> As in European societies, some crimes required the complete removal of the criminal from society. In most Aboriginal societies, this meant banishment. In such close, family-oriented societies, where survival depended upon communal cooperation, such sanctions were considered a humane alternative to death, no matter how traumatic they may have been to the offender.
> Exile or banishment has been described as an extremely harsh punishment and was not embraced by all Aboriginal societies.
This does not sound compatible with your conjecture that pre-agricultural era banishment was not a real threat.
Further, I do not follow the logic to "Therefore, most of the time, banishment did not lead to starvation".
Consider this non-real scenario. Humans can survive only be eating buffalo meat. There are huge numbers of buffalo compared to humans, so there is a food surplus. However, it takes 10 people to kill one buffalo. In that scenario, exiling someone leads to certain death as a lone human cannot hunt a buffalo. While the human species is not resource-constrained, a single human is.
Similarly, in Intuit cultures there were strong specializations between male and female roles. For example, it was women who were trained in how to sew the skins to make clothes against the harsh weather, while the men learned hunting skills. If a male were banished, I wonder if he might not have the skills to survive on his own.
>This does not sound compatible with your conjecture that pre-agricultural era banishment was not a real threat.
It doesn't have to be a real threat to be considered "extremely harsh".
That is, it's not just physical damage or potential danger that's "harsh". Isolation from the community you belong too could be considered just as harsh, from a social standpoint.
I do not understand your comment. I was asking for clarification as the statement did not match my understanding of banishment across several cultures, nor does the logic used to reach the conclusion make sense.
In this context I used "threat" as a short-hand for the previous poster's "Therefore, most of the time, banishment did not lead to starvation or even necessarily isolation". I did not mean it as a purely physical threat. Indeed, the link I gave to Aboriginal customary law uses 'threat' for both physical and non-physical punishments ("In addition to the threat of being killed for a breach of customary law it has been reported that in some cases the threat also involved the denial of mortuary rites"), so my broader use does not appear to be unusual.
Therefore, I agree with your comment, as it is a restatement of mine. But my experience is that comments with similar structure to yours are meant to point out incorrect or incomplete statement. Yet I don't see how that's the case here.
Would you kindly elaborate the intent behind your response?
"Therefore, most of the time, banishment did not lead to starvation or even necessarily isolation. One just walked for some time, until one was alone or in more accepting company, and then started hunting and gathering wherever one found oneself."
Where danger can be found, banishment is death. Consider this quote from Sebastian Junger:
"What all these people seem to miss isn’t danger or loss, per se, but the closeness and cooperation that danger and loss often engender. Humans evolved to survive in extremely harsh environments, and our capacity for cooperation and sharing clearly helped us do that. Structurally, a band of hunter-gatherers and a platoon in combat are almost exactly the same: in each case, the group numbers between 30 and 50 individuals, they sleep in a common area, they conduct patrols, they are completely reliant on one another for support, comfort, and defense, and they share a group identity that most would risk their lives for." [0]
There is a lot of anthropological studies that confirm this observation.
From what I read on hunter-gatherers they were very egalitarian - and there was no need for strict rules controlling every aspect of the life of the members. Unlike in pastoral and settled cultures they did not have any way to accumulate wealth and they did not need to defend it later.
> In reality, I would think that such a system would result in mob violence, sometimes triggered by good information, but often triggered by hearsay and rumors.
Basically what you see today on social media, where everyone is empowered to be an agent of "justice" (a public shaming and harassment-based justice system).
The paper was an argument demonstrating that males in academia are sexist fuckheads. Then an anonymous male reviewer comes along and writes:
"It would probably also be beneficial to find one or two male biologists to work with (or at least obtain internal peer review from, but better yet as active co-authors), in order to serve as a possible check against interpretations that may sometimes be drifting too far away from empirical evidence into ideologically biased assumptions."
Thus confirming that males in academia are sexist fuckheads. Brilliant! QED! I hope the next edition of the paper includes the review as supporting evidence :)
My personal theory is that the reason the tech industry is so hostile towards women is that it is mostly comprised of "nerds" and "geeks" who, being lower-status in society while usually being part of the dominant group (white men), are much more likely to be aggressive towards people not part of that group, women and people of color.