I don't think its reasonable to demand people pepper every comment with citaitons and links for things that can easily be found with a quick internet search.
Give me a break, I was giving the parent an opportunity to provide evidence. All evidence I have seen is to the contrary:
> In our analysis based on 490 roll calls between 2005 and 2014 in the US House of Representatives, we find strong evidence that representatives are more likely to vote with special interests and against constituency interests when the two are in conflict. Importantly, the latter effect is significantly larger when there is less attention on politics.
Speaking of quick Google searches, the quote is from the first result when you search for “Do politicians vote with people's opinion or special interests”.
They are, and the reason for this was given in the GP:
"It's as though there is a bargain"
The board and executives know who weilds the stick. If it's the left that generally wants higher corporate taxes, more regulation, more anti-trust, and they control the media, then they're the ones that you want to appease as a bargain.
Adopting wokeness is significantly cheaper than all the alternatives.
The right mostly wants to leave companies alone (aside from the "censorship" issue in social media), have little representation in mainstream media, and are not on social media as much (due to age), so companies don't see them as a threat and don't need to kowtow to them.
The right mostly wants companies to push the politics of their owners, ensuring that the payments keep flowing from the companies to the right wing leaders.
Coming up with a poll question where any answer you give will be interpreted as support for the pollster's politics is an art. I totally believe that poll. A lot of those people probably wish they could express an ANTI-work opinion at work, but we'll never know how many because the poll was designed to not reveal exactly how popular or unpopular woke politics are.
if you are under 11 this basically doesn't apply in even the slightest sooo yeah I think it's full of shit.
after that, I think the expression of these hormones is again confined to societal patterns, that keep us from understanding the real impact of these chemicals in any objective sense. it's convenient cheap & easy to convince yourself you know the impact of these chemicals, that it leads to this behavior or that, and while yes there are differences for sure, I place far more emphasis on the straightjacket of society & the limited roles it's even willing to consider than I do the impact of the hormones. I think there's many potentials for how these could be expressed that are simply denied, excluded.
that parents are so confident their kids have such strong gender biases well before the significant bio-chemical differences start to emerge, that's a huge red flag on this all. we have nearly no ability to grapple with the real impacts.
Puberty is the third surge of sex hormones. The first is prenatal, and the second
- called "minipuberty" - typically occurs before six months in boys and before two years in girls.
(and, yes, it's skeptical that hormones significantly influence behavioral differences between boys and girls - but it's clear that boys and girls have gone through different hormonal trajectories even early in life).
> Would any parent have thought that 50 years ago?
Yes, not only was parents doing that recognized as common-but-not-dominant thing 50 years ago (as a near-50 GenXer, I was aware of it existing and being perceived by adult society that way as a kid), it was even before that a popular media cliche leveraging a social trope that it was a real if eccentric recurring pattern (especially by fathers without sons toward girls) even earlier.
Videos of blurry splotches and eye witness testimony that repeats the word "technology" over and over to imply that unlike the last 6, _this_ blurry splotch is an alien spacecraft is really just annoying at this point.
EDIT: Hey judge2020 did you watch Dr Mason's analysis I linked above? It's very informative and pretty entertaining too.
I'll take your downvote as a no.
Something I haven't heard mentioned is the possibility that these might be artifacts of the sensors themselves or of the image processing software used: i.e., a bad Kalman filter that won't settle down properly or such.
The pics are too fuzzy to be useful for judgment and the objects usually too small to discern shape and/or size. I am puzzled that the images appear so unclear yet the pilots verbal descriptions sounds very clear.
Before buying into UFOs, I want what I've always wanted: some clear photos.
I do find it interesting that the artifacts of the sensors themselves seem to be very similar to the eyewitness accounts of these objects that have appeared throughout the last several hundred years of history.
> _this_ blurry splotch is an alien spacecraft is really just annoying at this point.
I don't think anyone taking themselves seriously is considering these alien spacecraft; 'UFO' simply means unidentified flying object, which very well might be some another world superpower testing their own tech or testing the U.S. military's reaction and response to these things, likely using simple drone tech with outer shells that make it easy to stay 'unknown' by keeping their distance.
I think you're taking yourself too seriously if you don't consider that it's alien. Or that it implies cooperation with aliens. I'm not saying decide that it's that, but at least open to consider it. It just seems too arrogant to consider: we're the only ones, what we know is the limit of possibility, and we're so special that even if they're out there they will never visit us. I know there are aliens, they visited us and had some tech interactions. But right now I don't know how much overlap there is between these "sightings" and aliens. I know a lot of the current narrative is disinfo and I think these tech are mostly ours, but how did we develop them? That's where the alien overlap is that I see. What you believe is valid and is up to you, but I reckon it's smart to stay open to the possibility. I don't see there is as much gained by pre-answering that question in the negative if you don't know, as there is by staying curious and open. I think that's the way to "take yourself seriously" if that's what you want to do. :)
From a outside-US perspective, most UFO reports do seem to come from the US military, but there's also scattered reports from the rest of the world. If turns out to be a top secret US/Russian/Chinese/Moon nazi research program, this could be the beginning of a new arms race. However, since nobody seem to know what the hell these are, that leaves us with aliens or an unknown terrestrial party.
I'd feel better if it turned out to be extra-terrestrial; if the aliens are out there, watching and haven't annihilated us yet, then at least there's hope they're benevolent.
I'm with you on that. Also that Arthur C Clarke quote, "Either we're alone in the universe, or we're not. Both possibilities are terrifying." I don't really agree they're "terrifying" but, yeah, it's not really easy for people to accept either way. So we end up in some sort of collective fantasies about these things, probably ;p :) xx
> It just seems too arrogant to consider: we're the only ones, what we know is the limit of possibility, and we're so special that even if they're out there they will never visit us.
I think the alternate view is the opposite of arrogant or that we’re so special; either the zoo hypothesis, or that we are so simple that communicating with us would be akin to trying to communicate with an ant for example.
I can respect that. Slaughterhouses are not pretty places. The weirdness is when you consider that the animals only exist because people raised them for their meat, is it really less cruel for these animals to never exist at all? I think we have to accept that both man and nature can and must be cruel at times.
> is it really less cruel for these animals to never exist at all?
I’ve seen this question asked time and time again, and it makes no sense to me. People commit suicide out of (often transient) emotional pain, and less frequently out of physical pain. If we who have the capability to envision a better future decide to opt out of suffering via death, why do you imagine that a chronically-suffering animal’s life is better than not facing that suffering in the first place?
I don't think most farm animals are suffering through their entire life. They seem pretty all right to me. Factory chicken farms should be banned but not all meat.
Well, i've seen pigs pens, i've seen an old sow half eaten by her children, i assure you, even the worst chicken farm is nothing compared to an average pig factory.
All factory farms should be banned. You mentioned chickens, a sibling comment mentioned pigs, and I’ll add cows. They’re all horrible places. Animals “raised” in factory farms are better off never having existed.
Small farms are a different story and a mixed bag.
And yet it's true. 2/3rds of pasture is not suitable for agriculture and would be worthless without ruminants. The corn-fed cattle industry in the US is a result of energy being cheap and labor being expensive. Less than 20% of beef is farmed that way.
That land is called marginal land, or pasture. You can't grow crops there economically r do anything else really. Removing the grazing animals from the land changes nothing and does not improve the environment at all. That land would be worthless if not for grazing animals.
I'm not sure there is enough arible land to support the human population without grazing animals. I suspect anything is possible with enough technology and money, but
matthewmorgan is correct in being concerned.
Many cattle pastures are cleared forests. In the east bay hills of northern California, there are significantly fewer trees where cows graze because they eat any small shoots, preventing new trees from growing. Forest is not worthless, it supports biodiversity and captures carbon.
> Removing grazing animals from the land can allow for reforestation and increase biodiversity and carbon sequestration
Ok. How much land could be reforested that way? Most grazing happens in places that are naturally pasture and were never forest like Texas and Argentina. Northern cali isn't exactly known for beef.
2/3rds of land used for grazing being unsuitable for farming sounds like a lot to me.
EDIT: drooly, HOW MUCH land would become forested if cattle were removed? Because if it's like 1 acre then its not really a good argument for banning all meat. Also I explicitly said I DO think we could survive on an all vegetarian diet I just don't see any reason to do it.
Again, if you read the article you'd be able to answer these questions.
Here's the math:
- 2.89 billion hectares of land is used for pasture, one third of which (870 million hectares) is suitable for growing crops.
- 538 million hectares is used for growing crops to be eaten by animals.
So, by removing meat from our diet we could free up 1.4 billion hectares of land JUST for crop land for human consumption, while allowing the other 2 billion hectares of non arable pasture to reforest - which would have significant impact on carbon sequestration and biodiversity.
Keep in mind that 1 billion hectares of land is the size of North America plus Brazil.
It is estimated that the entire human population would only need 1 billion hectares of land to survive (on an all plant-based diet). This means that ultimately 3 billion hectares of land could be reforested. The reduction in the farming and food shipping industry's carbon emissions would also have significant impact on reversing climate change.
We also grow a ton of crops to use as animal feed. If we only raised meat with natural grazing we'd produce a lot less, it would cost more and we'd heavily mitigate the climate cost. And switch all that feed production to growing human edible plants.
