>our white collar workplaces have become highly mentally taxing and employees need judgement-free resources provided by employers to deal with them
Seeing what people in other countries go through, willingly, sacrificing for their families and persevering in relative poverty, I can't help but feel that sentiments like these come off as weak and entitled. If anything it shows that life in the first world is too comfortable, which understandably makes it hard to appreciate how easy we have it, even in the "roughest" of tech jobs.
A white collar job can become a mental torture chamber if you are surrounded by bad people. There is an abundance of exploitation, bullying, futility, and lack of fulfillment in current tech culture and very little support structure.
The response was specifically to somebody who is unsure why white collar workers can have a severe mental health crisis and that it is orthogonal to survival or financial well being or "being hard". Do you really think anyone on this site would claim blue collar workers don't confront suicide?
Or perhaps men and women are innately different after hundreds of thousands of generations of sexually dimorphic evolution, and this affects the manner in which they socialize?
It seems we've brainwashed an entire generation into believing that all differences in male and female are purely social constructs - which is total nonsense.
My experience has been that men and women have far more things in common than we have things in difference. There are of course differences between men and women, but I think that if I had a rigid belief that how men and women socialize was this large, unbreachable, genetically determined gulf, I would have lost out on a lot of really great friendships and relationships.
We don't think much about evolution or biological determinism on so many other subjects - for example, we were hunter-gatherers for most of our history, but we don't seem to discuss that very much in our post-agriculture society, or think that it limits us from building civilizations the way we do today. So why say on this subject that we are biologically limited in this specific way?
I'm not saying that there is no difference between men or women at all, you're jumping to conclusions here, way too quickly.
From my point of view, this particular social behavior doesn't seem to differ too much though, but I would agree with you that there are other behaviors/attributes that are very different between men or women.
>which I never understood the backlash against toxic masculinity" that I see from (male) friends whenever the term comes up. Who said it's supposed to be toxic only for others?
Because toxic masculinity is an exaggerated catch-all boogey man used online to shame men for their innate nature, taking for granted that society functions better if we act more like females.
Conversations around toxic masculinity typically implicitly deny thousands of years of sexually dimorphic specialization by blank slateists. What's more, it's men who get the blame for the socially reinforced aspect of this so called toxicity, with the conversation universally denying the role that female sexual selection plays in reinforcing these behaviors - women are innately drawn to masculinity, and to a large extent what is and is not culturally masculine is not limited social pressure. Men and women evolved with differently shaded psychologies. Why do you think male and female norms have so much overlap across almost all cultures? And have for thousands of years?
> The net result is you are seeing once in 1500 year floods happening every year.
This is the same kind of cherry picking that denialists have been using for decades. Locally rare events appear frequent if you gather trials from enough localities. The fact is that there has been no increase in storm intensity or frequency over the last 100 years which correlates with greenhouse emissions. There was an increase starting in the 1980s [1] but this is simply not enough data for climate prediction, which normally changes on scales of hundreds of years at the quickest - even if you assume that we are expecting catastrophic temperature increase over the span of a century.
Its worrisome that proponent hysteria is driven by the same kind of fallacious reasoning as that of denialist.
I'm not referring to frequency but the water content in each storm. There are a lot of sources, but here is a preliminary data report that was put together by NOAA[1]. There is commentary by scientists at NOAA[2].
Overall this isn't rocket science. You have warmer temperatures over the ocean, which yields more water in the air to get caught up in passing hurricanes. The net result is more rainfall when it hits land. It is what it is.
The abstract of the paper you linked begins with this sentence:
>There is no consensus on whether climate change has yet affected the statistics of tropical cyclones, owing to their large natural variability and the limited period of consistent observations.
Which is exactly what I was pointing out, and exactly what laymen have come to totally disregard in their rush to blame everything on climate change while believing that "this isn't rocket science." Just like denialists and snowy winters, only in reverse.
This is on the scale of rocket science - in fact in some ways it is more difficult than rocket science, because it is fundamentally an empirical and non-experimental science, and it takes decades, if not centuries, to collect enough evidence to refine/reject theory.
You think the archtype of the edgy, rebelious youth is fictional? If you were too far removed from those groups of kids in high school, perhaps you should spend some time on 4chan.
>No. Banning Nazi content won't suddenly make it appealing to young people.
It absolutely does, because edginess is appealing to many teenagers/young adults. Not only that, but laws to this effect against blanket "hate speech" are regularly used by white supremacists and the like as evidence of, for example, Jewish people using laws to unfairly elevate themselves with the priveleges of a protected class while simultaneously suppressing thought that can lead to dissent.
Holocaust denial laws lead to increased suspicion with the justification that scepticism is banned to preserve a false narrative and prevent the lie from being discovered. It's easy to see how preposterous this is while the atrocity is relatively fresh in our collective consciousness, but what happens in 10, 20, 30 years when all survivors have been dead for some time and people rightly start to wonder why investigation of an event is illegal?
This is a weird form of puritanical censorship and the unintented consequences to society are far worse than any imagined benefits. You have no right to control thought in your image.
Edit: also, your hyperbolic mention of incest and necrophilia doesn't quite support your claims, as sexual arousal is quite strongly linked with taboo for many people, as evidenced by the wealth of voyeur, BDSM, and even incest pornography. It seems like these kinds of authoritarian proposals tend to come from sheltered minds.
> agree that "crunchy Karen" is a dismissive sexist tropE
So we're not allowed to use labels to draw attention to the fact that the majority of people who believe in [1] and spread information about things like spirituality, crystals, anti-vax, anti-gmo, etc are women?
Often times x-ist tropes are rooted in reality. Dancing around these associations doesn't do anyone any actual good beyond cheap virtue signaling.
There are people who would put Das Kapital the same category of unacceptable speech as others would Mein Kampf.
You have no right to quarantine information like you would a virus, because there is no way to agree on which information is "bad". Further, even overall hateful or dangerous content can have meritful parts - not everything Hitler said or did, for example, was unreasonable or evil.
Another example, what about the Unabomber Manifesto? Yeah, he was a terrorist and he wrote some arguably hateful things about liberalism/leftism, but there was also a wealth of thoughtful observations regarding the human condition in his work.
All information should be free for study by anyone.
Agreed. We watched Google slowly change its search algorithms to condition certain information you receive, archive.org is the least problem in the age of "misinformation". Why is Trump mentioned in this article? Level 1 scapegoating right here. This is a vile attack on technology and your personal freedom.
And they would be wrong. Liberation literature is not in the same category as hate screeds. I don't buy the moral abdication you're selling. You know what's evil - it's the stuff full of race hate and misogyny. There is no moral equivalence.
> Liberation literature is not in the same category as hate screeds.
Just as one man's Freedom Fighter is another's Terrorist, this really depends on perspective.
Das Kapital is kinda negative about capital holders, after all.
> You know what's evil - it's the stuff full of race hate and misogyny. There is no moral equivalence.
Is it all the stuff full of racial hatred and mistreatment of women? Because you're going to have a hell of a time banning the Torah, Bible and Koran - to say nothing of other religious texts.
It’s amazing how if you try to make a progressive political point here, you tend to get criticized. But when it comes time to judge the morality of things like racism or misogyny, suddenly it’s impossible to know the morality of any idea ever.
People aren't arguing that racism and misogyny are moral, they're arguing that if you allow any censorship at all, then someone must be appointed censor, and you may not agree with that someone. The only way to be sure that your ideas can be freely expressed is to allow everyone, no matter how immoral, to freely express their ideas.
> Washing clothes without a washing machine, scrubbing dusty floors, cooking on charcoal stoves.
Your anglocentric view severely overestimates the similarly between our standards of cleanliness and theirs. I doubt these women are washing loads of clothes daily, if they even have more than a handful of items of clothing, or mopping dirt floors with any frequency.
Cooking on charcoal isn't that much worse than cooking over a modern stovetop.
You also seem to imply that men are just sitting around all day, based on the context of the message this is responding to - but I don't know enough about the culture in these remote African areas to say if that's wrong.
I don't understand this habit of bending over backwards to show that women have it harder everywhere. Aside from hauling water from long distances, the work you describe is hardly grueling - and says nothing of what the men in these areas are experiencing.
If you want to talk about gendered violence and lack of rights as second class citizens, that's one thing, but there seems to be a tendency to exaggerate as a signal of virtue or something.
Seeing what people in other countries go through, willingly, sacrificing for their families and persevering in relative poverty, I can't help but feel that sentiments like these come off as weak and entitled. If anything it shows that life in the first world is too comfortable, which understandably makes it hard to appreciate how easy we have it, even in the "roughest" of tech jobs.