reccanti
reccanti on Hacker News
> Burnout's root cause is a mutually-reinforcing school/work/personal environment known as "total work
Personally, I would think the solution to this type of millennial burnout is having the economic stability and workplace protections to _not_ have to always be worrying about school and work.
Also, it’s baffling to me that this is treated like a choice everyone is making? Like, what if you need multiple incomes to afford rent, or what if you’re single???
Has this been the way households have been organized for centuries, or is this just the way a particular upper-middle class or aristocratic families have organized?
He also claimed hate speech was down, so I’m not sure he’s the most reliable source
Why do these numbers represent moral decline? What do church attendance, premarital sex, and marijuana usage have to do with morality? How is morality even defined?
I think the problem is that we lump all these things together as "politics." This way, it's easy to bring up the specter of "we're too partisan these days," but if you look at the individual issues, it's a lot more rational.
* If you're a woman who's pro-choice, would you want to date someone who might try and stop you from getting an abortion?
* If you have LGBT friends or family, would you want to date someone who might be a jerk to them?
* If you, a family member, or a friend is an immigrant, would you want to date someone who might try to deport them?
In the past, I think a lot of people didn't interact with people who weren't like them, so it was easier to put aside these differences. Being exposed to more diversity makes ignoring these things less of a possiblity.
Twitter can be hard to parse, but it's not impossible to understand. If you're having trouble understanding it, you could ask or just not comment? This feels like the equivalent of replying to an argument with "you're"
Those episodes were fantastic. It really shows how commentators latch on to the optics of the situation rather than the actual substance of what's trying to be addressed.
"We agree date rape is bad, but someone threw together a kinda-cringy powerpoint when trying to address it, so I guess we should do nothing"
You can do that and also not date people who are against LGBT rights?
These all seem like things that should be dealbreakers
I’d argue that the injustice in this situation is the lack of housing that’s causing people to squat in the first place.
These people want to sound like their just “hard men taking justice into their own hands” but they’re really just a bunch of low-level goons being hired to enforce the existing power structure (property and capital owners at the top and everyone else at the bottom)
A labor shortage = an increased demand for labor. If that labor can’t be purchased at the current market rate, then they’ll need to spend more on labor (increase wages), which in theory would come out of the salaries and benefits of the higher ups.
We’ll see if that actually happens though. Articles like this are designed to stir up fears of inflation so that they can get people on board with policies to keep wages lower.
EDIT: Saw the author’s reply higher up. It sounds like this isn’t their intent, but when the sound bite is “higher wages means more inflation”, it collectively feeds into the “be afraid of inflation” narrative that’s been building
I think the view that we “just need more market-rate housing” is simplistic. Blindly building lots of housing doesn’t necessarily mean that people are going to move there. In Boston, for example, many of the luxury condos that have been built are being used as investment properties:
https://ips-dc.org/report-towering-excess/
I think the 61% of people who want affordable housing and homeless housing recognize these failures, which is why they want a more direct solution.
Not used to hacker news commenters being quite so mask-off, but I suppose it was only a matter of time
Good. Now they should start deplatforming the other world leaders who are encouraging genocide in countries the US media doesn't pay as much attention to.
It’s true that these numbers do matter when it comes to _implementing_ these laws, my argument is that it isn’t a useful barometer for the quality of the ideas.
In your example, 60% of people didn’t support gay marriage in 2005. I would argue that gay marriage didn’t become a “better” idea between 2005 and 2015. It was always a good idea that provided tangible benefits to gay people, public opinion didn’t just reflect this.
This is sort of aimed at other comments in this discussion, which seemed to be lamenting that the “polarizing” ideas were being pushed in people. I don’t really care if something like, say, a “bathroom bill” is considered a polarizing culture war issue or how many people support it. It has an effect on me and the other trans people in my life, and I don’t feel any inclination to compromise on my position
From my perspective, it doesn't really matter to me what percentage of the population holds what beliefs, or how many different political stances they're balancing. What matters is the beliefs they have and the outcomes of these beliefs.
For example, if you think about support gay marriage and LGBT nondiscrimination protections, these are things that would have been framed as fringe progressive ideas a few decades ago, and in the US it's still framed as a "culture war" issue. However, if you are in the LGBT community, these things DO have an impact and will affect your life. It doesn't really matter whether 30% of the population supports these things or 60%.
How efficient would the spending need to be before it's considered "effective"? Personally, I would rather the government spend "ineffectively" and cover everyone than the current situation
On the other hand, statistics can be arranged and presented in ways that can be misleading. At some point, if enough people are saying something, you may need to take a step back and say “what am I missing here that isn’t represented in the data?”
I see this expressed a lot, but from my personal experience growing up in a small rural community, I always wished I lived in the city.
Maybe it’s just a “grass is always greener” thing, but I always wonder why people assume kids really want the suburban life.
I think it’s always good to be wary of relying uncritically on experts. Nobody’s infallible, but there’s valuable perspective that comes from “person actively involved in the process” vs. “Armchair Hacker News expert”
I think I’d still prefer living in a city on the East or West coast. I’m in the LGBT community, and I like living in a state with explicit legal protections against housing, healthcare, and employment discrimination. On top of that, the LGBT community has a lot of history in these cities, and lots of social groups to connect with. I also just enjoy city activities more!
I don’t want to discount any of your points because it can be difficult to navigate social situations. I just also want to mention that there are also trans people who are on the spectrum, and they have to navigate situations where they need to correct others about their pronouns and assert their identity. It’s not a simple “one or the other” situation.
Some of the responses to this article showcase opinions that I see a lot on Hacker News and which make it really hard to be on this site as a trans person sometimes. There’s a lot of attention being paid to the people who resigned, or whose moderator status was revoked—and how accommodating they may or may not have been—but it seems like very little of them are focusing on the people who this preferred pronoun policy was designed to help in the first place.
I know lots of people in my life who are genderfluid, or who use nonstandard pronouns. They aren’t the caricatures that some of the people in this thread are making them out to be, they’re real people who are out there doing their best and live as themselves, and it’s really difficult seeing this thing they struggle with every day be labeled a “political” issue.
> In normal companies, people get moved around, demoted or ignored all the time and they don’t always blame it on retaliation for political beliefs or for reporting abuse. They blame it on some asshole manager or decide the company isn’t for them and move on.
Even if what you’re describing is normal corporate behavior, it’s still not great. Maybe we shouldn’t be so quick to accept the idea of “asshole managers” or toxic corporate cultures, and we should be reporting on this sort of thing more? As a single individual, it’s difficult to change a culture that spans across different companies, and sometimes you’ll need to pick your battles, but I don’t think we should tear down people who are trying to change the status quo for the better. Google employees are in a good position to do this too, since their protests will draw more attention than from someone in a small, unknown company and can shed a light on these practices in other places as well.
> No, you're the one conflating the two. The end result is different. For imperialism, the result is a country under the political control of a different country, or giving up its resources to another country. The end result with U.S. policy is that maybe you end up with a different (often more democratic) regime. The means is similar: foreign military excursions and direct interventions into other countries.
The end result with U.S. policy is that you end up with a different regime that's more likely to trade with and have friendly relations with the U.S. There's definitely an economic reason for U.S. intervention
If anything, it seems like more of a reason to get more active and involved with Wikipedia. Otherwise, people like this will get more and more control over the site