https://www.reddit.com/r/short/comments/76m8g7/im_personally_offended/dofu1g1/
😂😂
Again: https://www.reddit.com/r/short/comments/8osx9z/im_confused_about_the_definition_of_systemic_do/e05ubxz/
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
American Politics
While I'm not a U.S. citizen, I still like to laugh at how their politics have devolved into a "who's bigger" competition. Truly amazing how these are their candidates:
Click to enlarge.
Here's more talk about height in American politics.
On a Canadian note, I wonder if Trudeau would've been elected had he been 5'2 instead of 6'2. Personally, Trudeau reminds me of Spenny from Kenny vs. Spenny, but I'm sure his height makes him seem like an "alpha male leader" for some. Either way, still doesn't stop the U.S. from randomly mentioning his height. If you want to see a real height complex, look no further than America.
Examples of Heightism as an Institutional Form of Prejudice
Sources were copy/pasted from here.
Height restrictions in Ivy League Schools
FDA rules that healthy short kids have a disease called "idiopathic short stature"
Boys committing suicide due to height bullying
Wage gap due to height discrimination greater than gender
Short people less likely to win elections
From: Malcolm Gladwell:
In the U.S. population, about 14.5 percent of all men are six feet or over. Among CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, that number is 58 percent. Even more strikingly, in the general American population, 3.9 percent of adult men are 6’2″ or taller. Among my CEO sample, 30 percent were 6’2″ or taller. . Of the tens of millions of American men below 5’6″, a grand total of ten–in my sample–have reached the level of CEO, which says that being short is probably as much, or more, of a handicap to corporate success as being a woman or an African-American.
....that means 2% of Fortune 500 CEOs are men under 5'6", while 4% are women and 7% are African-American. (African-American women make up less than 2%.)
...when corrected for variables like age and gender and weight, an inch of height is worth $789 a year in salary. That means that a person who is six feet tall, but who is otherwise identical to someone who is five foot five, will make on average $5,525 more per year.
Height restrictions in Ivy League Schools
Sperm Bank height requirements
FDA rules that healthy short kids have a disease called "idiopathic short stature"
Boys committing suicide due to height bullying
http://thesocialcomplex.tumblr.com/post/98522110949/14-year-old-bullied-to-death-for-being-short
http://thesocialcomplex.tumblr.com/post/98520339484/the-truth
http://thesocialcomplex.tumblr.com/post/98520339484/the-truth
Wage gap due to height discrimination greater than gender
http://www.livescience.com/5552-taller-people-earn-money.html ("Height was found to be more important than gender in determining
income.")
Shorter candidates less likely to be hired or promoted
http://epubs.utah.edu/index.php/ulr/article/viewFile/246/218
("One business expert has suggested that an additional four inches in
height “makes much more difference in terms of success in a business
career than any paper qualifications you have” and that
it would be better to be “5 ft. 10 and a graduate of N.Y.U.’s business
school than 5 ft. 6 and a Harvard Business School graduate.” Another
commentator concluded that “being short is probably as
much, or more, of a handicap to corporate success as being a woman or an
African American.”") and http://www.jonathanrauch.com/jrauch_articles/height_discrimination_short_guys_finish_last/
Short people less likely to win elections
The Importance of (Literally) Looking Down On Someone
This article was from the end of 2014:
Roven added that Affleck’s height was also a factor.
"We
also wanted a guy with big stature. Ben is 6’ 4". Henry [Cavill] is a
6’1". We wanted Batman to tower over Superman. Not hugely, not like a
basketball player. Superman needed to ‘look up’ to Batman. We wanted
that dynamic and Ben could do that, easily," he said.
Aside from how Batman is shorter than Superman in the comics, I find it silly how Superman has to be towered over even though he can melt people with his eyes.
Here are some more comments on the Superman vs. Batman height dynamic:
"Superman is the superior, stronger hero, so he should be taller."
"I completely agree. A mere mortal, looking down upon a God, is ironic and artsy at the same time."
This mentality extends to politics as well:
It's no wonder why taller candidates tend to win elections. In fact, ever since elections went from radio to television, you'd have to look outside of North America to find a recent short leader. As tolerant as many Trump haters may proclaim themselves to be, they have one thing in common with him: "The bias towards tallness and against shortness is one of society's most blatant and forgiven prejudices." - John Kenneth Galbraith.
Speaking of politics, height discrimination has now been noticed by the mainstream media, in this article about Donald Trump's size obsession. I wonder how Donald Trump's haters would react to this, as discriminating based on size is now considered a trait synonymous with Trump himself.
What's interesting is how many women preach this "looking up to" mentality, despite the fact that women are shorter on average, and many complain about not being taken as seriously as men. Remember, this society tells us to ignore "evolutionary instinct" when a film has a female leader that's 5'3 and 110 lbs. If you don't take her as seriously as a tall and broad-shouldered male hero, you're considered prejudiced, and any "instinctive" excuse is shut down. When it comes to male height however, everyone loves this stuff. I guess we're all conveniently size blind when it comes to political correctness.
People always talk about how much of a barrier it is to be a leader as a racial minority or a woman. When it comes to stature:
Related: "The Johnson Treatment."
This article and the comments section also sums up politics nowadays: https://www.mediaite.com/online/is-marco-rubio-too-short-for-the-presidency-mediaite-examines-this-growing-concern/
It's no wonder why taller candidates tend to win elections. In fact, ever since elections went from radio to television, you'd have to look outside of North America to find a recent short leader. As tolerant as many Trump haters may proclaim themselves to be, they have one thing in common with him: "The bias towards tallness and against shortness is one of society's most blatant and forgiven prejudices." - John Kenneth Galbraith.
Speaking of politics, height discrimination has now been noticed by the mainstream media, in this article about Donald Trump's size obsession. I wonder how Donald Trump's haters would react to this, as discriminating based on size is now considered a trait synonymous with Trump himself.
What's interesting is how many women preach this "looking up to" mentality, despite the fact that women are shorter on average, and many complain about not being taken as seriously as men. Remember, this society tells us to ignore "evolutionary instinct" when a film has a female leader that's 5'3 and 110 lbs. If you don't take her as seriously as a tall and broad-shouldered male hero, you're considered prejudiced, and any "instinctive" excuse is shut down. When it comes to male height however, everyone loves this stuff. I guess we're all conveniently size blind when it comes to political correctness.
People always talk about how much of a barrier it is to be a leader as a racial minority or a woman. When it comes to stature:
http://epubs.utah.edu/index.php/ulr/article/viewFile/246/218 ("One business expert has suggested that an additional four inches in height “makes much more difference in terms of success in a business career than any paper qualifications you have” and that it would be better to be “5 ft. 10 and a graduate of N.Y.U.’s business school than 5 ft. 6 and a Harvard Business School graduate.” Another commentator concluded that “being short is probably as much, or more, of a handicap to corporate success as being a woman or an African American.”") and http://www.jonathanrauch.com/jrauch_articles/height_discrimination_short_guys_finish_last/
Related: "The Johnson Treatment."
This article and the comments section also sums up politics nowadays: https://www.mediaite.com/online/is-marco-rubio-too-short-for-the-presidency-mediaite-examines-this-growing-concern/
Anti-Terrorism Bill (AKA We Can Jail You Whenever We Want)
I somehow missed Canada's "anti-terrorism" bill last year. Isn't it funny how we only hear about these bills after they pass? Almost like we don't even get a chance to protest.
Anyway, this part is hilarious:
"An individual can be forced to appear at a secret hearing without any charges being laid if authorities believe he or she has knowledge of a terrorist activity. The individual must appear and answer questions or risk being jailed for up to 12 months."
This is a fucking joke. Why? For one simple reason: "terrorist activity" can be defined however the government wants to define it, like the Patriot Act:
"There are fears that the Patriot Act reduces or removes many of the civil liberties enjoyed in the United States and guaranteed by the Constitution. The right to privacy (not specifically mentioned in the Constitution but supported by numerous Supreme Court decisions) and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures are the most notable infringements due to the expansion of the government’s ability to conduct wiretaps, obtain NSLs and perform searches without notification. The detainment of material witnesses and terrorist suspects without access to lawyers, hearings or any formal charges are seen as erosions of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, rights of due process and trial by jury, respectively... There are also fears that the law will be inappropriately used against non-terrorist criminals. In fact, it’s been used to remove homeless people from train stations, to pursue drug rings and to collect financial data on random visitors to Las Vegas."
"The detainment of material witnesses and terrorist suspects without access to lawyers, hearings or any formal charges..."
Unless I missed something, the new Canadian bill sounds eerily similar to the Patriot Act. Even if you didn't do anything, you can be dragged away by the great authority. If you refuse, they'll jail you for up to 12 months. Either way, have fun going to a "secret hearing" without being officially charged. Never mind the "vote 666" either, a "secret hearing" is an ominous phrase if I've ever heard one.
I love when US citizens think there's more freedom up North. Sometimes, I'm too engrossed by corrupt US antics to remember that Canada is also going down the shitter.
Anyway, this part is hilarious:
"An individual can be forced to appear at a secret hearing without any charges being laid if authorities believe he or she has knowledge of a terrorist activity. The individual must appear and answer questions or risk being jailed for up to 12 months."
This is a fucking joke. Why? For one simple reason: "terrorist activity" can be defined however the government wants to define it, like the Patriot Act:
"There are fears that the Patriot Act reduces or removes many of the civil liberties enjoyed in the United States and guaranteed by the Constitution. The right to privacy (not specifically mentioned in the Constitution but supported by numerous Supreme Court decisions) and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures are the most notable infringements due to the expansion of the government’s ability to conduct wiretaps, obtain NSLs and perform searches without notification. The detainment of material witnesses and terrorist suspects without access to lawyers, hearings or any formal charges are seen as erosions of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, rights of due process and trial by jury, respectively... There are also fears that the law will be inappropriately used against non-terrorist criminals. In fact, it’s been used to remove homeless people from train stations, to pursue drug rings and to collect financial data on random visitors to Las Vegas."
"The detainment of material witnesses and terrorist suspects without access to lawyers, hearings or any formal charges..."
Unless I missed something, the new Canadian bill sounds eerily similar to the Patriot Act. Even if you didn't do anything, you can be dragged away by the great authority. If you refuse, they'll jail you for up to 12 months. Either way, have fun going to a "secret hearing" without being officially charged. Never mind the "vote 666" either, a "secret hearing" is an ominous phrase if I've ever heard one.
I love when US citizens think there's more freedom up North. Sometimes, I'm too engrossed by corrupt US antics to remember that Canada is also going down the shitter.
Society's Coercion and Mental Health
Unengaging employment and schooling require all kinds of coercions
for participation, and human beings pay a psychological price for this.
In nearly three decades of clinical practice, I have found that coercion
is often the source of suffering.
Here’s one situation that I’ve seen hundreds of times. An intelligent young child or teenager has been underachieving in standard school, and has begun to have emotional and/or behavioral problems. Such a child often feels coerced by standard schooling to pay attention to that which is boring for them, to do homework for which they see no value, and to stay inside a building that feels sterile and suffocating. Depending on the child’s temperament, this coercion results in different outcomes—none of them good.
Some of these kids get depressed and anxious. They worry that their lack of attention and interest will result in dire life consequences. They believe authorities’ admonitions that if they do poorly in school, they will be “flipping burgers for the rest of their lives.” It is increasingly routine for doctors to medicate these anxious and depressed kids with antidepressants and other psychiatric drugs.
Other inattentive kids are unworried. They don’t take seriously either their schooling or admonitions from authorities, and they feel justified in resisting coercion. Their rebellion is routinely labeled by mental health professionals as “acting out,” and they are diagnosed with oppositional defiant disorder or conduct disorder. Their parents often attempt punishments, which rarely work to break these kids’ resistance. Parents become frustrated and resentful that their child is causing them stress. Their child feels this parental frustration and resentment, and often experiences it as their parents not liking them. And so these kids stop liking their parents, stop caring about their parents’ feelings, and seek peers whom they believe do like them, even if these peers are engaged in criminal behaviors.
In all societies, there are coercions to behave in culturally agreed upon ways. For example, in many indigenous cultures, there is peer pressure to be courageous and honest. However, in modernity, we have institutional coercions that compel us to behave in ways that we do not respect or value. Parents, afraid their children will lack credentials necessary for employment, routinely coerce their children to comply with coercive schooling that was unpleasant for these parents as children. And though 70% of us hate or are disengaged from our jobs, we are coerced by the fear of poverty and homelessness to seek and maintain employment.
In our society, we are taught that accepting institutional coercion is required for survival. We discover a variety of ways—including drugs and alcohol—to deny resentment. We spend much energy denying the lethal effects of coercion on relationships. And, unlike many indigenous cultures, we spend little energy creating a society with minimal amount of coercion.
Accepting coercion as “a fact of life,” we often have little restraint in coercing others when given the opportunity. This opportunity can present itself when we find ourselves above others in an employment hierarchy and feel the safety of power; or after we have seduced our mate by being as noncoercive as possible and feel the safety of marriage. Marriages and other relationships go south in a hurry when one person becomes a coercive control freak; resentment quickly occurs in the other person, who then uses counter-coercive measures.
In the 1970s, prior to the domination of the biopsychiatry-Big Pharma partnership, many mental health professionals took seriously the impact of coercion and resentful relationships on mental health. And in a cultural climate more favorable than our current one for critical reflection of society, authors such as Erich Fromm, who addressed the relationship between society and mental health, were taken seriously even within popular culture. But then psychiatry went to bed with Big Pharma and its Big Money, and their partnership has helped bury the commonsense reality that an extremely coercive society creates enormous fear and resentment, which results in miserable marriages, unhappy families, and severe emotional and behavioral problems.
(Original article)
Here’s one situation that I’ve seen hundreds of times. An intelligent young child or teenager has been underachieving in standard school, and has begun to have emotional and/or behavioral problems. Such a child often feels coerced by standard schooling to pay attention to that which is boring for them, to do homework for which they see no value, and to stay inside a building that feels sterile and suffocating. Depending on the child’s temperament, this coercion results in different outcomes—none of them good.
Some of these kids get depressed and anxious. They worry that their lack of attention and interest will result in dire life consequences. They believe authorities’ admonitions that if they do poorly in school, they will be “flipping burgers for the rest of their lives.” It is increasingly routine for doctors to medicate these anxious and depressed kids with antidepressants and other psychiatric drugs.
Other inattentive kids are unworried. They don’t take seriously either their schooling or admonitions from authorities, and they feel justified in resisting coercion. Their rebellion is routinely labeled by mental health professionals as “acting out,” and they are diagnosed with oppositional defiant disorder or conduct disorder. Their parents often attempt punishments, which rarely work to break these kids’ resistance. Parents become frustrated and resentful that their child is causing them stress. Their child feels this parental frustration and resentment, and often experiences it as their parents not liking them. And so these kids stop liking their parents, stop caring about their parents’ feelings, and seek peers whom they believe do like them, even if these peers are engaged in criminal behaviors.
In all societies, there are coercions to behave in culturally agreed upon ways. For example, in many indigenous cultures, there is peer pressure to be courageous and honest. However, in modernity, we have institutional coercions that compel us to behave in ways that we do not respect or value. Parents, afraid their children will lack credentials necessary for employment, routinely coerce their children to comply with coercive schooling that was unpleasant for these parents as children. And though 70% of us hate or are disengaged from our jobs, we are coerced by the fear of poverty and homelessness to seek and maintain employment.
In our society, we are taught that accepting institutional coercion is required for survival. We discover a variety of ways—including drugs and alcohol—to deny resentment. We spend much energy denying the lethal effects of coercion on relationships. And, unlike many indigenous cultures, we spend little energy creating a society with minimal amount of coercion.
Accepting coercion as “a fact of life,” we often have little restraint in coercing others when given the opportunity. This opportunity can present itself when we find ourselves above others in an employment hierarchy and feel the safety of power; or after we have seduced our mate by being as noncoercive as possible and feel the safety of marriage. Marriages and other relationships go south in a hurry when one person becomes a coercive control freak; resentment quickly occurs in the other person, who then uses counter-coercive measures.
In the 1970s, prior to the domination of the biopsychiatry-Big Pharma partnership, many mental health professionals took seriously the impact of coercion and resentful relationships on mental health. And in a cultural climate more favorable than our current one for critical reflection of society, authors such as Erich Fromm, who addressed the relationship between society and mental health, were taken seriously even within popular culture. But then psychiatry went to bed with Big Pharma and its Big Money, and their partnership has helped bury the commonsense reality that an extremely coercive society creates enormous fear and resentment, which results in miserable marriages, unhappy families, and severe emotional and behavioral problems.
(Original article)
The “Nothing to Hide” Argument and Government Spying
This article is quoted from that one gore site.
When people started to question the government’s data mining practices, they were quickly shut down by the complacent ones who struck back with “when the government engages in surveillance, it is no threat to privacy unless you are involved in unlawful activity, in which case you have no legitimate justification to claim that it remain private.”
This type of thinking was beaten into people’s heads by the governments who used it to justify the installation of millions of CCTV cameras. The program in Britain was launched with a campaign based on the slogan declaring that: “If you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear.”
That you’ve got nothing to fear if you’ve got nothing to hide is however a ridiculous argument, as it’s based on the underlying assumption that privacy is about hiding bad things. Even if you truly have “nothing to hide’ legally, you’re still a private person with the right to the sovereignty of your individualism, personhood or autonomy. Everyone has thoughts and emotions they don’t want the society to intrude upon.
Surveillance can create chilling effects on many freedoms, including freedom of speech, freedom of association, etc. Even if people only engage in legal activities, sole knowledge that all these activities are under active surveillance can inhibit these people from engaging in them. Chilling effects can reduce the range of viewpoints expressed and the degree of freedom with which the people engage their activities.
An even more frightening concept of data mining is the fact that none of us knows how all this data is used. None of us has access to the data that’s been collected about us, nor what the system has profiled us as based on the data collected. The sole fact that the very existence of data mining was kept secret for years is telling. And even now, we are told little about how long the data will be stored, how it will be used, and what it could be used for in the future. From that standpoint, it is impossible to assess the dangers of the data being in the government’s control.
When people started to question the government’s data mining practices, they were quickly shut down by the complacent ones who struck back with “when the government engages in surveillance, it is no threat to privacy unless you are involved in unlawful activity, in which case you have no legitimate justification to claim that it remain private.”
This type of thinking was beaten into people’s heads by the governments who used it to justify the installation of millions of CCTV cameras. The program in Britain was launched with a campaign based on the slogan declaring that: “If you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear.”
That you’ve got nothing to fear if you’ve got nothing to hide is however a ridiculous argument, as it’s based on the underlying assumption that privacy is about hiding bad things. Even if you truly have “nothing to hide’ legally, you’re still a private person with the right to the sovereignty of your individualism, personhood or autonomy. Everyone has thoughts and emotions they don’t want the society to intrude upon.
Surveillance can create chilling effects on many freedoms, including freedom of speech, freedom of association, etc. Even if people only engage in legal activities, sole knowledge that all these activities are under active surveillance can inhibit these people from engaging in them. Chilling effects can reduce the range of viewpoints expressed and the degree of freedom with which the people engage their activities.
An even more frightening concept of data mining is the fact that none of us knows how all this data is used. None of us has access to the data that’s been collected about us, nor what the system has profiled us as based on the data collected. The sole fact that the very existence of data mining was kept secret for years is telling. And even now, we are told little about how long the data will be stored, how it will be used, and what it could be used for in the future. From that standpoint, it is impossible to assess the dangers of the data being in the government’s control.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)