You've replied to this, but not to anyone mentioning that the platform is still censored, just in new and silly ways (e.g. the Tesla critic who got shafted). Perhaps we're skewed ... you're just skewed in a different way. It's useful to recognise this.
The only mentions in my replies about current censorship are about a petty beef between Elon and some Tesla critics and one about Elon not wanting cis used on the platform. I'm not a fan of Elon and I wouldn't have done either of these things, but their impact seems inconsequential compared to the number of people affected by censoring a topic like COVID. Seems more like evidence of a spoiled rich baby used to getting his way behaving exactly like I'd expect him to, which I don't think is nearly as threatening as the previous pattern of elected government officials spanning multiple administrations and parties and an entire department of people at Twitter working together (standing meetings!) to spin a yarn for us plebes. Maybe this is the skew you speak of - I tend to judge things from a utilitarian perspective of how many people are impacted.
See, and nobody bans this words. The reason it's considered a slur is because it's used to disrespect and attack a person. So the word is okay, hate is not
Report about girls experiencing sadness and violence and comment section here putting the blame on girls themself, facebook, results being affected by wokeness and so on. Kinda ironic
There is much more external reasons for young american females to feel sad right now. Culture wars, politicians becoming extremists, legislations and many other factors. I think people in general feel much less save right now, not only teen girls
> There is much more external reasons for young american females to feel sad right now.
Fully agree. A sci-fi novel from Robert Heinlein [0] was describing end of life as a discontinuity. In this sense, with the very rapid changes of society that we are currently experiencing, we could say that the society is dying to let place to a new society.
As examples of rapid changes, we have social network, climat change, artificial intelligence to cite a few.
From a child point of view it could be harder to project themself in a society changing rapidly. How do you gain recognition for you and your creations using new medias? How do you reach confort and enjoy leisures without causing pollution? Which skills should you learn that won't become obsolete with AI?
It is inevitable that societies change: our current society is very different from the society during middle-age for instance. Yet it is easier to adapt when the changes are slow and continuous than when they are sudden and discontinuous. In the first case, you can learn from your parents and other adults. In the second case, you are on your own. In the history of most countries, recovering from a revolution could take decades.
90ss Russia I grew up in wasn't pretty, it was indeed dangerous. But still less dangerous than current Russia. It was free, full of hopes, developing.
By 00ss we got to much better life.
Last 10 years, while regime got worse and worse, people started to do interesting and succesfull projects in many areas. It was not just copy west as before, something unique started to happened.
So yes, USSR before it's fall was stagnant, hopeless swamp of misery. And it's gravitating to the same direction now.
Most of the questions by themselves are not stupid, it looks like the author just used them for the wrong reasons. It's more of a HR questions and as a manager he can leave it to recruiters. Many years ago I worked in HR, here's this questions as recruiters see them:
9. Trying to understand persons motivation for the job. For culture fit, for position, etc. Not a'ways 'i love it and that's my sole interest in life' is a 'good' answer. Some companies/position are looking for cold professional approach, financial interest may be interpreted as less problematic and stable. Depends.
8, 7. To see how the candidate see himself, usually entry point for more questions and soft skills evaluation. Also gives you an idea what person in front of you sees as good and bad, and if he fits the manager/team. And people do tell their real weaknesses. Surprisingly, people tell A LOT on interviews.
6. Pretty obvious - direction of development, some want to grow to be in a managing positions, some interested in tech side only, position/company may provide support for this or no.
5. Also hate it, but used to see how motivated person is and again - how he sees his strengths.
4. Asked if person really jumps from job to job or, say, stayed in company 10 years. In first case - it's suspicious and question gives the chance for candidate to explain themselves. For people who worked in one place for a long time - let's see if we are the company that provides same benefits or not.
Last three is stupid and may be illegal.
But in general - questions are just entry points and a way to start a discussion about the things you wanna know. It's not stupid if you understand why do you ask it and not looking for just an answer.
Also his solutions for those who get this questions... Being passive aggressive rarely helps. You are in conversation with someone - speak, express your frustration, explain why. Facepalm, exhale and look deeply in the eye after being asked about why do you canned so many jobs - that's a great answer I guess, explains a lot, but just understand, that you are an asshole in this situation.
The whole how many dogs fit in to a clown car is truly a waste of time and a relic of the original Google interview questions that everyone beat off to. Value your prospect's time and ask relevant questions even if they are weird. But don't think you/they, Mr. I Just Thought of A Fun Question With No Way of Discerning If The Answer is Sufficient Or Not, are going to create some existential divide between the good candidates and the rest. Ask them how close to a fist fight have they gotten in because of a PR and did they win.
I feel the same about them. And about algorithm questions for some positions also. I understand all this "we want to see how you solve the problem" argument, but... 99% of the time I will solve a very different problems.
I learned to value good interviews. And I'm not afraid to stop and quit interviews that I don't like. If you don't like questions and don't want to participate, act like an adult - explain you are not interested and save time for both parties involved.
Not sure if it's only my family, but I would say that late 90s Moscow was better place to live compared to late 80s. I remember we had hard time buying/finding food before, many basic goods were hard to get...
Even by 94 it was already decent in big cities if you worked for one of the new businesses or pretty great if you managed to scrape up enough to start your own thing. But yeah if you stuck around in deadend job at old soviet factory it was not good
not sure what kind of Russian you were but I lived there a a foreigner around the same time and I don't buy this "hard time" buying food thing...If anything 90's was the decade where food became scarce, after the USSR collapsed.
I guess because they feel that they feel like they born to be their preferred gender. The idea that there will be a treatment that will make me feel like a gender I'm not sounds pretty f-cking terrible to me.
Try this experiment on yourself and think that there is a treatment to make you think you are woman/man. How's it make you feel? And together with that, reflect on what exactly make you be a man/woman - your body or your psyche.
There is a lot parallels between gender dysphoria and BIID, but GD is bit more than just 'this is not my body'.
All things you write - looks like you getting you data from conservative media. "assigned the wrong body at birth" - even in trans community considered huge simplification and wrong narrative. It's used only to explain the feeling to people who knows nothing about the issue.
Gender dysphoria - yes, people suffer form it. Transition is the way to lower this suffering. That's the 'cochlear implant' equivalent from your example.
> looks like you getting you data from conservative media
Not OP. But this seems unfair. Not only does the language surround trans persons vary from decade to decade, city to city, it’s also—understandably—guarded.
Someone far from knowing “nothing about the issue,” and moreover, wishes to learn more, could innocuously use language that is offensive in some circles but tolerated—even encouraged—in others.
And transition is not "the cochlear implant", the implant would be "an implant that makes you not dysphoric". Transition is "learning how to live as a deaf person".
That NHS data collection recommendation says nothing about "wrong body", though. They're trying to elicit accurate information about something potentially medically relevant (assigned biological sex). Their concern is that if you ask a trans person simply "male or female" you'll get an answer that either reflects the gender someone is living in, or the sex on their birth certificate. The former is useless if you're trying to assess the risk of chromosomal disorders, the latter if you're trying to work out how to politely address them.
This is what repression looks like. Before coming out, while you try to live as you assigned gender - that's living as a deaf person, pretty literally as derealization and depersonalization are kind of 'deafining'. As with deaf kid - you fix the body, not the mind, so with gender dysphoria you fix the body first.
Maybe it's just me, but fixing identities scares me much more than fixing the body. There was studies in which trans people were asked if they would want to be consent with their assigned sex (i.e. trans woman to be happy as a man) - most don't. After transition almost none would agree to change it for 'no dysphoria, assigned sex at birth'. 'Fixing' such people sounds like a very cruel and scary idea.
But sometimes deafness is the result of defects in the structure of the ear and sometimes it's the result of defects in the auditory nerve, or other structures in the brain.
In some instances we provide a prosthetic that overcomes the defects of the ear, like a traditional hearing aid, or surgery that corrects those defects, and in others we augment the person with a cochlear implant that bypasses the issue with the nerve. We don't yet have the ability to directly modify the brain with surgery or implants for deafness but I'm sure that we would if we could.
It's interesting that we're talking about deafness because there are many instances of deaf people with heredity causes for their deafness opposed to testing their children with new, effective treatments like cochlear implants because they view it as impinging on their deaf culture.
I think that there are many parallels between this and the developing trans culture which will result in trans people being resistant to more effective, less invasive treatments to cure them of their affliction.
Why do certain maladies develop strong identity politics while others don't? There isn't a diabetic identity, or a halitosis community, so why these ones?
I guess my problem with your view of 'transness' is that you view it as illness or dysfunction. And it's not that. Turning transwoman to a man is equivalent of turning man to opposite gender in a bad case of gynecomastia. That's not the mind that is a problem, I hope you understand my point.
Dysphoria goes deeper than just bodily dysmorphia, it's about how you see yourself, not only your body. So changing my mind to make me something I'm not (a man) sounds like a horror - some kind of upgraded lobotomy. That's much more invasive than any surgery.
And it's not about culture, it's about understanding that people identities is not a part that you can/should fix.
And speaking about data and science, there is pretty clear evidence that trans people who receive proper care (hormones) and accepted by society live normal happy life as the rest of the people.
Ive read stories from people with BIID and in many ways it's similar to gender dysphoria. The way they feel it, all the things around it, fantasies, dreams, etc.
Gender affirming surgeries have success rate of 95%+. No surprise that BIID people have no regrets after all.
Kinda crazy to read this in current context, with the wave of anti-trans and anti-LGBT legislations. We made such a big step forward, and yet...
Early 20th century Berlin sounds like a fun place. And what time to be. Around that time Otto Weininger wrote his Sex and Character, defying sex/gender as a spectrum.
Ah yes, the moral Judeo-Christian values majority, known for their (checks notes) repeated protection of sexual assault perpetrators, particularly against children. Tell me more about the "decadent society" that queer people are causing by daring to exist in public
