I don't know if the hl actually influenced the development of the hsr, but that project itself wasn't enough. The USA sorely needs extensive and affordable passenger rail if we want to cut down on airline emissions
I took an ethics class on this. Basically some quotas should be necessary because of unconscious biases (e.g. the resume of a white person being preferred to one of a black person with the exact same qualifications), but it's not enough to fix disparities, mostly because the current structure of the economy benefits from the existence of a precarious underclass
a course on a topic does not dictate what policies in a society should or should not subscribe to.
Given that scientific discourse and outcomes fluctuate, we can assume the same is true social science.
Furthermore, social science is much more dependent on current fashionable political trends. This can be seen in the example of the American Psychological Association accepting recent political topics such as "toxic masculinity" [1] as new definitions in psychological phenomena.
Check out this PhD's work to show how usage of bombastic identity politics terminology increased in mainstream journalism in a non-organic way. It seems driven by top-down institution-based entryism. [2] & [3]
[2] "Many trends develop over decades but I’ve never seen change so rapid as the breathtaking success of what one might call social justice concerns. Beginning around 2010-2014 there appears to have been a inflection point. Here from Zach Goldberg on twitter are various words drawn from Lexis-Nexis."
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2019/06/th...
[3] "1/n Spent some time on LexisNexis over the weekend. Depending on your political orientation, what follows will either disturb or encourage you. But regardless of political orientation, I'm sure we can all say 'holy f*** s**'"
Are you allowing for the possibility that you may be incorrect, as in, these ideas are not new, are based on empirically-derived data, and their application results in positive outcomes?
From [1]:
> "Thirteen years in the making, they draw on more than 40 years of research showing that traditional masculinity is psychologically harmful and that socializing boys to suppress their emotions causes damage that echoes both inwardly and outwardly."
I'm afraid I can't give any credence to a politically divisive & politically-fashionable concept as "toxic masculinity". Especially if "toxic femininity" isn't commonly referenced in the same context-- because without it, a concept targeting only masculinity is biased in my view.
Masculinity kept humanity alive in the face of various dangerous precipices facing a group of social animals seeking to survive during the course of their evolution.
Just because it has become recently politically fashionable to discount it, does not mean it is harmful.
Nor do I believe any absolute-ist interpretation that boys suppress emotions, or that society forces them to suppress emotions. It varies across time & space-- relative to culture, which fluctuates.
To make a blanket statement on the concept is just plain silly, in my view. Human emotions, cultures, and societies are not static.
Therefore any sort of claim by any institution that their <some number> of years of study results in <some outcome> which speaks for <some absolute phenomena> in my opinion, again, is just plain silly.
And it attempts to gatekeep healthy masculinity-- again, pure silliness which demonstrates the nanny mentality of those who attempt such gatekeeping.
> Especially if "toxic femininity" isn't commonly referenced in the same context- because without it, a concept targeting only masculinity is biased in my view.
Why is that? To me, it seems like you're saying masculinity diametrically opposes femininity.
> Just because it has become recently politically fashionable to discount it, does not mean it is harmful.
I agree that masculinity in itself is not harmful. I believe you are conflating the specific term "toxic masculinity" with masculinity in general, though. I also believe that there are toxic aspects to masculinity that absolutely cause harm in many facets of life; for example, educational barriers, suicide rate, mental illness, and incarceration are all much higher in the male population. I don't think that these are aspects of masculinity that one must accept hand-in-hand with the benefits (earnings potential, proportion of leadership positions, etc). I would call these aspects of masculinity toxic.
> To make a blanket statement on the concept is just plain silly, in my view. Human emotions, cultures, and societies are not static.
To the extreme, this means nothing concrete can be said about human emotions, culture, and societies. I know you don't believe that.
But you raise an interesting possibility; did the modern notion of masculinity always exist? If, say, a past society (or modern, non-Western culture) achieved lower suicide rates in teenage boys, would it not be worth studying how those societies treated masculinity?
> Therefore any sort of claim by any institution that their <some number> of years of study results in <some outcome> which speaks for <some absolute phenomena> in my opinion, again, is just plain silly.
Would it help to point out that these studies have scientific methodologies; for example, they measure different treatment outcomes among a large and diverse enough population such that a statistical conclusion can be made?
> And it attempts to gatekeep healthy masculinity- again, pure silliness which demonstrates the nanny mentality of those who attempt such gatekeeping.
That's certainly a take I didn't get from reading the publication. The APA doesn't seem to be under the delusion that they can control how masculinity is viewed in society, anyway. To me, they have identified evidentiary harms caused to society as a whole through the negative conditioning of boys, given that conditioning a name that you disagree with, and have measured successful results by directly addressing that conditioning in psychological assessments. I am struggling to see a downside here.
> Would it help to point out that these studies have scientific methodologies; for example, they measure different treatment outcomes among a large and diverse enough population such that a statistical conclusion can be made?
What statistical conclusion is being made here? How does one quantify what is “toxic masculinity” and what isn’t?
" The APA doesn't seem to be under the delusion that they can control how masculinity is viewed in society, anyway."
The APA-- the professional org. which represents the field of psychology in the USA--[1] literally instituted a definition of "toxic masculinity".
If that isn't an attempt to control masculinity in society, I don't know what is.
[1] "APA is the leading scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States, with more than 133,000 researchers, educators, clinicians, consultants, and students as its members." https://www.apa.org/about
It was about representation in positions of influence (politics, corporate boards, laboratories), which I think we agree should attempt to reflect the distribution of the populations
3% of the population is mentally ill. Should that be represented? 2% are senile. That too?
I don’t want “someone like me” in positions of power over me. I have no idea what that’s such a popular phrase in America. I want someone vastly better than me in positions of power.
That's a terrible outlook. Mentally ill people (and in general the weakest in our society) still deserve representation, and there are no "vastly better" individuals. You're confusing education/health for inherent worth
Please consider that “ I took an ethics class on this” is not a great indicator.
The “structure” of the economy doesn’t benefit at all from a precarious underclass. It would be better if people had savings! Welfare and unemployment insurance is a drag on the economy.
You need to ask yourself if these statements you’re making are facts. Are they? How did you come to believe them? (They’re not, and there’s a ton of evidence on this matter.)
Any commodization of a necessary resource for living is inherently unethical. I know this isn't a popular opinion on HN, but I need you to think about this not as the property owner but as the tenant
With food the question is less about the individual stocks of produce and more about the land occupied to generate it and who owns it, which in a distressing amount of cases is single large landowners
If you own the building and live in one of the units the, in my opinion, most ethical course of action that still benefitted you would be to sell the remaining units to the current tenants or even better, if they've been living there long enough, treat their total rent paid as payment for the unit
The lot is zoned for 14 units, has 4 currently. If we give the 2 other families that live here a few hundred thousand dollar entitlement it will never be developed.
Your proposal is insane. They've paid 600 dollars (rent control) a month for (let's say) 10 years. 60k buy in for a quarter of a 1.2m dollar property? I'd take that deal as a renter.
That's why I said if the tenant has been there for a sufficient time. If they have covered the unit's cost, plus maintenance, they have effectively paid for all the owner's expenses. Shouldn't it be enough to effectively own the property they actually live in?
No, they took on zero risk to be in that position.
If my tenants lose their jobs they get six months free rent while I go through the eviction process. If I lose my job and can't get another I have to sell my property for a six figure loss.
I can make this property a single family home or I can make it available to other people as housing that they can't afford to buy outright. I don't understand the landlord hate. They can pool money, form an LLC, and buy a property if they want a tennant in commons situation. They can take on the risk and do the work.
There's no sense in arguing about it if you're a landlord, you have a monetary interest in the housing market staying this way and your relationship with your tenants is inherently adversarial
I have an interest in relaxing zoning so I can build. You can't even listen to someone deeply involved in a system telling you how it is broken, or what the incentives you are suggesting will lead to.
* Rent control privatizes the cost of a social problem (poor housing policy)
* Restrictive zoning and other barriers to building are why housing is expensive, this includes historic preservation and permitting too
* Parking minimums are a scourge
If your entire policy is some nimby reach around for single family home owners, I'm not sure anything I say will help you. I literally want to use my money to build more housing. I would also love to unwind all the distortions that currently exist (rent control).
If TiC collectives were a good solution we would see them more in the market. Your solution is just to ruin a market to make it work the way you want, but honestly, people are broke and cannot afford to buy. That also creates so many weird externalities that you seem to be unwilling to discuss.
Goodluck creating a single family home parking lot filled hellscape. I'll be adding units to the market (reducing rents) while you are complaining in la la land.
It's still inconceivable to me that we've allowed companies to put drm on video files and ebooks so they can snatch anything you bought legally from your hands
