chav--explain to a confused expatriate please

[Mr. Tea]

Lol, Godwin only got mentioned a page ago, too.

I'm not advocating for or against anything - just being realistic about what it's possible to achieve with the human organism being what it is.

Edit: and not everyone has the same utopia, don't forget. National Socialism was utopian on its own terms.

 

[john eden]

I'm not advocating for or against anything

Everyone is advocating for something. Even if it's just stifling "realism".

 

[Leo]

i work with a lot of ad agencies and in that extremely vain world, perhaps more than in other professions, good looking people definitely get the advantage in hiring and promotions. we may fancy ourselves as a progressive society, but there are still plenty of male client contacts with old-school mindsets who still love to have an attractive female account manager working on their business. ad agencies know this and often hire accordingly.

the latest and growing area of discrimination in the industry is ageism. not uncommon for those with highly-qualified experience to be brushed aside because hey, how is an old geezer going to be hip to the latest snapchat (or whatever) bullshit that the 18-25 demographic is into, right?

 

[firefinga]

also used to be that, in addition to all being white males, the top executives at fortune 500 companies were all clean shaven. you very rarely saw a CEO or chairman with mustache or beard, aside from maybe the old robber barons from the 1800s/early 1900s. perhaps there was some sense of untrustworthiness associated with facial hair. maybe the internet is changing that, although the shitworker engineers and programmers tend to be the weirdy beardy ones, not the babyfaced zuckerbergs.

carry on.

Same with politicians, after WW2 anyways. But then, a certain scepticism towards bearded politicians might have been somewhat justified, reviewing policies of bearded politicians around and shortly before WW2 like Stalin or Hitler.

As of today, I would be very sceptical about a possible "Hipster" politician as well.

 

[sadmanbarty]

Everyone is advocating for something.

That's luka level profoundness

 

[Mr. Tea]

Everyone is advocating for something.

Well if you insist, then I'm advocating not fooling ourselves that having an ideology that says "Everyone is exactly the same" is actually going to make everyone exactly the same, or that disability and disease are going vanish after The Revolution.

Even if it's just stifling "realism".

You can call it that, or you can call it not being a fantasist. It's amazing how many people persist in the belief that ours is the only species not subject to evolutionary pressures. It's a delusion of the same sort as Creationism or Flat Earth.

 

[john eden]

Where have I said that I think people are exactly the same, or should be?

Is this the bit of the conversation where you try to put words in my mouth and then get all pissy when called on it? Again?

 

[Mr. Tea]

the latest and growing area of discrimination in the industry is ageism. not uncommon for those with highly-qualified experience to be brushed aside because hey, how is an old geezer going to be hip to the latest snapchat (or whatever) bullshit that the 18-25 demographic is into, right?

I don't doubt this happens a lot in certain industries but it has to be set against the considerable employment and other economic advantages that boomers otherwise enjoy in comparison to millennials (never mind the generation who are still kids or teens).

 

[Mr. Tea]

Where have I said that I think people are exactly the same, or should be?

Is this the bit of the conversation where you try to put words in my mouth and then get all pissy when called on it? Again?

Et tu, Johnny!

Well you said earlier that being "healthy" is a "socially construct", which implies that if we could only think a bit differently about health, everyone would be healthy. If that's not what you meant, then what did you mean?

 

[john eden]

Et tu, Johnny!

Well you said earlier that being "healthy" is a "socially construct", which implies that if we could only think a bit differently about health, everyone would be healthy. If that's not what you meant, then what did you mean?

I didn't say that.

This is what happens when you listen to the voices in your head instead of directly quoting people.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Then what does 'people's ideas of what is "healthy" are social constructs' mean? Are there parts of the world where people don't value having limbs and organs that work properly?

 

[john eden]

Then what does 'people's ideas of what is "healthy" are social constructs' mean? Are there parts of the world where people don't value having limbs and organs that work properly?

That ideas of what a healthy person looks like have varied historically and geographically depending on the social norms and culture which are dominant.

There are of course other factors, like our scientific understanding of the human organism. But these are less relevant to the point I am making.

 

[john eden]

I don't doubt this happens a lot in certain industries but it has to be set against the considerable employment and other economic advantages that boomers otherwise enjoy in comparison to millennials (never mind the generation who are still kids or teens).

Do you not think millennials might eventually benefit from work which is done today to combat ageism?

 

[Mr. Tea]

Do you not think millennials might eventually benefit from work which is done today to combat ageism?

Now you're doing it - did I say ageism didn't exist or wasn't a problem?

All the same, it's surely uncontroversial to say that people born in the 50s in developed economies are in general economically advantaged over people born in the 80s. Personally I hope not to be in the position of having to compete for work with much younger people when I'm, like, well old - but maybe I'm being the fantasist by saying that. Roll on the F.A.L.C., if it can be made to work.

 

[vimothy]

The height study is interesting. I think it's intuitively a bit ridiculous that there's a direct causal relationship between height and income, although it's not hard to imagine that they could be related through another latent variable correlated with height.

OTOH a true meritocracy will feature stratification along whatever lines define the relevant variation in the population -- meaning those fortunate enough to have been born tall, or good-looking, or smart (or whatever), can expect to do well, whereas the less fortunate can eat cake (or whatever). So there's no reason to necessarily associate meritocratic and equitable outcomes.

 

[john eden]

Now you're doing it - did I say ageism didn't exist or wasn't a problem?

All the same, it's surely uncontroversial to say that people born in the 50s in developed economies are in general economically advantaged over people born in the 80s. Personally I hope not to be in the position of having to compete for work with much younger people when I'm, like, well old - but maybe I'm being the fantasist by saying that. Roll on the F.A.L.C., if it can be made to work.

I'm not "doing it" because I have simply asked you a question to help me understand you position. I have not repeatedly ascribed words to you which you haven't said.

And yes generally the post war generation look to be economically better off than more recent ones, in the west at least.

I'm not sure why you brought that up? Perhaps you can explain why (or indeed how) ageism "has to be set against the considerable employment and other economic advantages that boomers otherwise enjoy in comparison to millennials (never mind the generation who are still kids or teens)."?

Do you think this sort of offsetting should be levied against any of the other protected characteristics?

 

[john eden]

The height study is interesting. I think it's intuitively a bit ridiculous that there's a direct causal relationship between height and income, although it's not hard to imagine that they could be related through another latent variable correlated with height. .

What, like being considered more attractive or simply being a man?

OTOH a true meritocracy will feature stratification along whatever lines define the relevant variation in the population -- meaning those fortunate enough to have been born tall, or good-looking, or smart (or whatever), can expect to do well, whereas the less fortunate can eat cake (or whatever). So there's no reason to necessarily associate meritocratic and equitable outcomes.

Fair play for giving this a go, Vim, but this is pretty meaningless. Are you saying tall people get to do all the work and live in space skyscrapers while short people sit around eating cake in somewhere less pleasant or what? Who gets to decide where the bar is set?

 

[luka]

Vimothy is a proud boy

 

[Mr. Tea]

But is he proud enough to like his own posts?

 

[Mr. Tea]

BTW sitting around eating cake and not having to work sounds pretty lush to me, and I'm fairly tall, if not necessarily by Dissensian standards.