curious-im

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

Mind to share what new ideas that was censored before you find interesting?

No, not terrible, if you don't want to be called by any word - that's okay and will be respected in any polite conversation.

But no need to call words you don't like a slur and ban them (especially if it's not a slur).

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

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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'.

> "learning how to live as a deaf person"

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.

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.

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.

Wanted some news, opened Citizen Free Press from News Aggregators. Transgender rapists, drag queen story hour, antivax, soy boys, democrats supports killing babies. Comments also delivering

"Relevanto was created to provide access to quality resources." Yep, cool...