@Roz Look, just because I throw out some sarcasm or outline things in bold doesn't mean I'm yelling, nor does it mean that I'm upset in any way.
To be honest, the one who's being a prick about it is @Ganymede.
So I'll more constructive: In the future, if you have any questions about whether or not I was implying something, it would be more proper to ask for a clarification.
I apologize if you are offended by my saying that you're being a prick after you referred to me as misguided due to your reactionary response to assuming that I felt the Black Lives Matter and Everyone Gets a Trophy movements are equal in necessity, despite myself never having said so.
No. I'm not.
When I mention three things in a sentence that I slant my brow at (and that's all I say), I've made no statements about my beliefs about the validity of any of them. I've simply mentioned them as all things that I slant my eyebrows at.
The way that I expressed myself isn't part of the problem.
The problem is that both you and @Ganymede chose to read it as some kind of misguided lopping them all into the same category as having the same emotional weight due to the fact that they were all separated with commas.
If you have any questions about my beliefs as to their validity or their strong/weak points, then act like a respectful person and ask.
I would respect it if you wouldn't make these kinds of rude logical assumptions without asking for clarification. We're not on the Hog Pit. Stand down.
DISCLAIMER: By not mentioning that the Holocaust was real in this statement, it does not mean that I am a Holocaust Denier.
I didn't say anything wrong here and I didn't mean to imply anything of the sort. Had I intended to say that, I would have. Had you any intention of understanding whether or not I meant that, then you would have asked.
Don't be pricks about it.
@Ganymede said in State of Things:
To be clear, my objection was to any suggestion that Black Lives Matter movement and the Everyone Gets a Trophy! group are similar. You did it here:
@Ghost said in State of Things:So with the everyone gets a trophy or black lives matter or omg white privilege people, I tend to look at it all with a slanted brow.
What is your basic attitude problem requires you to make the logical leap from them being mentioned in the same sentence to equating them? Where did I say that they were similar?
You just want to argue. Fuck off.
Edit/Clarification: There's no logical conclusion in any way that the Black Lives Matter movement and the Everyone gets a Trophy! are similar in any way. I shouldn't have to CLARIFY THE HELL OUT OF THAT to call off the dog pound simply because I dared mention them in the same sentence without some 42pt Helvetica font disclaimer that I wasn't equating them.
How, precisely, did I equate those two things, besides mentioning them in the same sentence? I mentioned them in the same sentence but did not comment as to their validity or the weight.
By slanted brow, I meant that I've got my eye on them.
Stand down.
@Ganymede said in State of Things:
You're not being nihilistic here. It appears that you are being willfully ignorant
I seriously wonder if you've been living under a rock or something
I fail to see where this sort of rude language towards me is respectful, constructive, or called for. Please tone down the pulpit.
I wasn't commenting on the validity of "black lives matter" or specific movements. As @Rook pointed out, I was commenting on the way people seem to already be cannibalizing each other. We are a competition in America, with each other, for survival in a sense. The resources? Healthcare, jobs, stability, housing, comfort, etc.
So, my rhetorical moral quandary is this: How can people strive for equality in a society where setting yourself apart from others as being more valuable is the main element of securing stability?
While I do not endorse it in any way, shape, or form, other people failing to succeed, being disqualified, imprisoned, or being branded something ugly greatly increases the chance of other people to capture those limited, unguaranteed resources.
It's a very convincing psychological reason to give no fucks about the people who are falling behind. The more they fall behind where you don't, the more reassurances you have that you won't fall behind, yourself.
I hear ya on those points. Maybe I'm slightly nihilistic about this, but even for the people who want all people to matter, there will always be a leaning towards but I should matter more than that guy.
Even in some kind of true Utopia, with the competitive nature of people, an ER Doctor would never accept some kind of true equality where he makes just as much as a bus boy in a sports bar. So with the everyone gets a trophy or black lives matter or omg white privilege people, I tend to look at it all with a slanted brow.
They're all just people in a competitive society, lobbying to the referees to apply negatives to the people they're competing against to promote positives for themselves. It's socio-political cannibalism and in the fear of not having enough, we're finding new ways to exclude people from the competition pool all of the time.
I think what we are witnessing is a struggle between two lines of thought:
Or.
The fact of the matter is, the only reason some menial jobs exist is because they can't be automated. Very few corporate entities actually pride themselves on providing jobs to people to feed their families. Many corporations will gloat about this job creator status and use it as a shield to defend other unethical practices, but it's not very genuine. My own father stated, recently, that the coal industry was completely justified in dumping waste water into rivers because it saves them money and allows them to feed more families. Bullshit. That's not why they do it. Everyone knows it.
So, in the next five years, we will see something interesting. Automation is coming, and with the removal of jobs due to automated process, it will be largely up to the ousted employee to maintain their skill set and keep themselves marketable. With the general survival mindset here in America being "if they're worth it, they'll find a way", I foresee a lot of people being left behind in the dust as their services are simply no longer needed.
In short, I think these two ideologies are already clashing, but only one side of those ideologies has the buying power to sway politicians, and that is the side that owns businesses, corporations, directs industry, and would rather the common person be treated as a temporary asset.
Are we discussing from a global perspective or an American perspective?
Being a Waterfall-based Config Mgmt/Ops person, I can agree that this is a cause for concern.
My suggestion is to get ahead of the ball and start training on information security certs like SSCP, CISSP, CEH.
The more companies rely on agile/automated methods, the more safeguards will need to be in place to maintain security. The number of operations staff may drop, but the number of security eyes will need to increase. InfoSec is not only on the rise, but but global telecommunication environment has proven that there will always be good use for an InfoSec person or a certified ethical hacker (CEH)
Edit: because typos
SIDE NOTE: We aren't making fun of the name. The title 'Kardis?' and the first post of 'Kardis?' covered the needs of the thread. Hope Kardis gets a hold of Finn. In the meantime:
NECRONOMICON EX MORTIS
@Ghost Why do I feel like your son would end up in a very special episode of Burn Notice?
Let's just say that I'm very lucky that Burn Notice is no longer making new episodes.
Once gave a kid $8 to buy me a movie ticket and he ditched me, claiming I never gave him $8. Learned that lesson then.
My kid, has learned this lesson multiple times, but continues to believe that he can leverage his pimp hand into the business agreement, which usually ends with some kind of explosion.
Aaaah parenting.
Oh, don't get me wrong, from his perspective I get it. I was a teen once and I thought I knew everything then. But, because he's an EDGELORD, he also believes that if the kid doesn't pony up with the $70 phone, that he can force the kid, through force or intimidation, to give him the cash back. This is a bad idea, but just like the bad idea of him going into a gentleman's agreement with a delinquent kid who thinks he's got street cred, it doesn't really dissuade him. EDGELORD gets stuff done
It's a lot like trying to get a rope around a runaway horse.
The money wasn't mine. It was birthday cash from my parents.
My EDGELORD son just gave a delinquent teen $100 of his birthday money for a $30 cell phone. The kid he bought the cell phone from has told him he will get back to him in a few weeks with a different $70 smartphone to match the $100 my kid paid him.
...Jesus Christ.
Love that kid, with all my heart, but he can be so dumb.
