Conservatives all over have 1 disease. They are incapable of abstract empathy. Until it personally happens to them, or someone very very close to them, they are incapable of noticing injustices or hurts.
That isn't true -- they just prioritize a different set of hurts. To be similarly reductive, leftists seem to only be able to sympathize with criminals and poor decision makers -- not crime victims, or hard workers. The leftist perspective just ignores individual agency.
Interestingly, in all my volunteering experience with the homeless and also hurricane relief in Tennessee/North Carolina, there were many conservatives there helping alongside us, in many instances most of of them - assuming so as they were from Christian churches and organizations. This is an anecdote of course, so please correct me if you have actual statistics that prove conservatives are incapable of empathy.
My theory is that there are a whole lot of really good people in the middle, with the extremes on each end having some brain issues with empathy and whatnot. To cast such a wide blanket on conservatives doesn't seem like critical thinking to me and will not help anything.
big business will always act in the interest of big business.
Only a stupid business man will confront the full-might of the executive branch of the federal government heads on, particularly when the President is showing that he is willing to use that power against anybody
Big business will always side with the oppressors, it's like we learned nothing from history about colonialism, imperialism, or the history of european fascism. I mean FFS it was corporations that financed Mussolini. As you said they don't care, they just want to make money.
The source for this [1] is more nuanced (someone can be both "not okay" with it while also blaming the victims), but it's true that survey respondents were five times more likely to blame the students than the National Guard.
same usually, i read this and see this some flawed or hackneyed tripe.
But these ones are actually true and anyone who has had a long career and led people and product will resonate with many of them.
we are human being interacting with other human beings. what you call "kissing ass" is just learning to influence and work with other humans. It is by far the most useful skill to have in workplace. But don't worry. continue your disdain of it, includeing calling it negative names, and watch your career stagnate.
> It is by far the most useful skill to have in workplace.
This might be defacto true in most workplaces, but defending "politics over competence" boils down to "I deserve the rewards from other people's work".
People oppose it because it is morally wrong, not because they think it is an inaccurate description of reality.
You say that as if politics is optional. It isn't, decisions need to be made and politics is the process of making those decisions: who decides, and why.
In academia, for example, there is less politics because the publishing system sort of becomes the decision process. You apply with your ideas in the form of papers, the referees decide if your ideas are good enough (and demonstrated well enough) for the wider audience to even get to see. Then some politics, a popularity contest. But crucially this system famously leads to a LOT of resources being wasted, good research that never goes anywhere because nobody cares about it, or bad research that does nothing but everyone cares (cold fusion).
Politics is just a name for how we decide things. And yes, it sucks, but that's because we suck.
With this understanding of academia, you are perfectly suited to doing software development for them, because if you think there is "less politics" in academia, you are being foolish.
Academia is notorious for politics, especially around tenure and grants, scholarships, etc.
Publication politics are just a small part of that, but even there, working out which name goes in what order of the authorship of the paper is political.
Academia is not more notorious for politics than a corporate job, in my opinion. I've done both. Academia tries its very best to be meritocratic if anything. There is of course some degree of politics, it is inevitable, which was the point I was trying to make.
Learn the lingo, the language, the proper way of posturing and the correct way to shirk responsibility and that's what matters in certain orgs.
I sound really bitter, but I'm not, I'm actually quite good at the game and I've proven that, I just don't really like the game because it doesn't translate into being able to take pride in what I've done. It's all about serving egos. Your own and others.
Every french multinational I've worked for is entirely built on this.
You're not wrong. You're just missing the thing people are complaining about: The existence of people who succeed in pushing for inferior solutions, and managing to leave before it becomes clear (which can take years in a large company).
My previous company is in a bad position and many such folks are finally being outed. But it takes lots and lots of screwing up before the fat is trimmed.
> The existence of people who succeed in pushing for inferior solutions, and managing to leave before it becomes clear
Guess this is just random evolution at play. Some companies will pay a bigger price than others. And not everyone even recognizes it and pinpoint it like you did.
But overall influencing people is on net good skill for the individual. And what is good for the geese is good for the gander??
> Some companies will pay a bigger price than others.
The problem is that typically a large company has one or a few golden geese. They can milk it for a long time because of an existing moat. The moat keeps shrinking, but it can sometimes take a decade or two for others to catch up.[1] That's plenty of time for such folks to make a career of playing politics well without contributing much.
Lots of people at that company left before things went bad and are poisoning other companies.
[1] Just look at Google and search. Or Microsoft and Windows. Or even Microsoft and Internet Explorer.
I've literally never had the thought of "how do I influence other people." Why is that considered a valuable skill? It just sounds like a nicer version of "manipulation".
If other people are not smart enough to see why your ideas are superior then you need to explain it to them or otherwise convince them to go along somehow.
Most of my "influencing" is just repeatedly explaining things to people and letting them think through all the bad ideas and dead ends themselves.
> I've literally never had the thought of "how do I influence other people." Why is that considered a valuable skill?
If you're a software developer you must have thought "current priorities are not right, we should do X for the users / Y to get better quality" and tried to influence your management to get those priorities moved. Maybe by starting a campaign with your users so the demands come from multiple services and not just you, or by measuring quality indicators and showing how what you want to implement would improve them etc.
That's why you want to start getting coffee with people, maybe go outside with the smokers. It can take months of "work" to get people to propose the idea you want done.
But this kind of influencing won't help your career.
trying to make a convincing argument about anything is "influencing" people. its manipulation if you are trying to convince someone of something you know benefits you more than the person.
I don't disagree with you, except that a career can stagnate. Maybe you are already working in your ideal role, solving cool problems every day. Maybe moving up the ladder nets you more money but less of what you actually want in life.
Less a comment for yourself and more for the reader by the way. It is important to know what you want and strive for that.
Nah, people say this all the time but organisations where these sorts of gratuitous social games are absent tend to BTFO of organisations where they're present/expected.
those are trends. prior to that, it was nike airforces.
A business like Nike can't build their business solely on trends. Trends are cyclical, they can bring you massive windfalls, or bankrupt you.
Nike was a sports shoe company that forgot it was a sports company and started acting like it was a pure consumer goods company, leaving itself at the whims of fashion trends.
I have been buying Brooks Adrenaline GTS shoes for 20 years.
My first pair, they were just on sale, so I bought them. When they wore out, I bought a different brand/design. And I noticed that I was wearing the completely worn out old pair of Adrenalines more than my new ones - they were just better.
And it makes it easy to buy a replacement - I've just buy another GTS shoe of the same size when the previous one wears out.
Maybe (and this is a big maybe) at the beginning. However, it really went to show how ineffective such actions are and lead to the creation of ISIS. 20 years of occupation were wholly unjustified.
The right move by the US would have been to kill osama the way they ultimately did, through intelligence gathering and a targeted strike.
reply