I wonder if it's a fun mindset. Making demands of other people at scale you won't ever do yourself.
There's no end to it, just like there's no end to the pretend tolerance and pretend generosity by using other peoples' money for ideas they have no desire to contribute to, but are forced to at gunpoint and prison threat (taxation).
There's no need to provide "alternative" theories to clumsy pointless articles. That kind of clutter just needs to be pointed out for its foolishness and ignored, nothing more.
I'm interested in alternative theories of this kind of social movement and who signs up for it, article or not. Or rather, I would be interested in alternative theories, if I thought that the article was fundamentally wrong rather than just a bit dated in the presentation; understandably so as it was written 80 years ago.
Any thoughts? Or should we say that it's just random who signs up?
18 months ago I could get a 2070 Super for $550 and the 1080 Titan cards were $799 - 900 at launch and long after. The 2000 series was a lot of bang for the buck.
Consumerism comes after basic needs are met, and time becomes available.
Consumerism is reading articles such as these, and reading comments afterwards. It's natural, as humans are curious and want to experience things.
Though I can't quote anything I have a suspicion that this is written somewhere in the bible or by aristotle. it's human nature but also animal nature to be consumers.
Consumption has many reasons. some buy unnecessary things to build on other things. People who buy a boat or vacation envision sharing it with their friends.
People who buy the latest too envision building amazing things of high quality for people, or they see themselves doing something in less time.
People who buy things also invent other things. The world gets more complex. it's not that mysterious and has little to do with the victorian age, other than maybe it was actually documented. It's a shame to lay blame on a particular people of an era, as the sole originator of something that's subjectively called "bad" just because those people happened to be the ones who actually wrote down what they did for the future to learn from.
Consumption. Think about it. The victorian age? Tryu harder. Why do you think throughout history, kings had huge feasts and dozens concubines. Because they had the time and the opportunity.
Filming criminals hasn't stopped them either. Actually the ACLU is determined to now suppress a lot of body cam footage that they originally demanded. Maybe the public should see how terrible their peers are and take a lesson.
Instead the video is suppressesd A LOT. You've seen a handful of body cam footage, a handful of proofs of the thousands of calls in every city every day.
Jordan Peterson? So are you saying now that having a PhD in Clinical Psychology makes you a pseudo-scientist?
Hundreds of scholarly papers cited thousands of times. But it's pseudo-science. Psychology might not be an exact science but it IS a genuine scholarship meant to understand human behavior.
Feel free to make your case based on "I just don't like him" though, I'm sure it will be very interesting and will include the "R" word.
feel free to source that in a way that can be proven. The assertion is just pseudo intellectual excuse making. Society is NOT telling women to NOT be sanitation workers. Society is not telling women not to work on offshore oil rigs. Society is not telling women not to be surgeons but to in fact be veterinarians. Society and "gender role" excuses don't hold up to reality. Time to accept that the women you know, or imagine you know make their choices, largely based on their own interests.
You're welcome to try to convince women to become sanitation workers rather than paralegal interns in climate controlled offices. Good luck on that.
I don't see how you can possibly claim that society doesn't discourage women from pursuing "manly" careers. By the same token men are discouraged from pursuing "feminine" careers.
If a man says they are going to work on an offshore oil rig they are much less likely to get societal push back than a woman because it is seen as a normal thing for a man to do but not a woman.
If a woman is an elementary school teacher it is considered completely normal, whereas men are often looked down upon for doing so. The same happens with male nurses.
How can you read all the stories about sexual harassment in our industry and not think women are being discouraged from pursuing careers in tech?
You're just saying words, you've got no examples of where rubber meets the road. Just that "men are looked down upon for being elementary school teachers" What? Where? And female oil rig workers get "societal pushback" Again just words. Where? How? You've got nothing here so far.
I mean if you want to talk about cultural influence there's way more news articles celebrating women doing various things, celebrating women entrepreneurs, women soldiers, women and minority events and special recognition or conferences.
Read all the stories about sexual harassment? Anecdotally I've seen just as much sexual language coming from women in IT as men in terms of workers. Project mgrs, network admins, probably a few more. And those instances were miniscule and didn't make up anywhere near a day to day problem for people.
I have seen instances where a guy who was being a dick treated women poorly. He got a talking to and cut that out. I've seen women take their day out on men and women and never got any kind of talking to. It's really funny you're pointing to some sort of dysfunction and not demonstrating or sourcing anything but "all those stories"
There's no end to it, just like there's no end to the pretend tolerance and pretend generosity by using other peoples' money for ideas they have no desire to contribute to, but are forced to at gunpoint and prison threat (taxation).