I think this is too harsh a take, at least without knowing more. There are some managers and shops where "find something useful to do" is encouraged, or at least accepted. I was shocked to discover later in my career that there are plenty of shops that are _not_ like that. High-paying shops, even, or perhaps especially.
Why? For starters, some companies are rich, and they can afford to waste a lot of money. Think of all of those interviews you've been on that waste your time and that of the interview loop, even though it's clear that they have never intended to hire. Or maybe just 1 in 500. (One company I was hired at boasted to me about the "500". Ugh.)
Or, at least in the trading world, things can be very secretive. You might have the skills to contribute, but no one will even talk to you, for fear that you'll steal the secret sauce.
Mostly it's just simple managerial incompetence.
The employer/employee match is sort of like a key and lock. In order for it to work, _all_ of the pins have to align. It's not enough to be a skilled, team-player, etc., employee. Your employer also has to bring several things to the table. Sometimes they just don't.
I'm watching this now, and it's worthwhile, at least if you want to profess an opinion. The section starts in minute thirteen, but if (like me) you don't really watch his podcast, it's probably worth it to start from the beginning, just to get a flavor of it.
Adams is definitely a modern satirist. And he is one in a time when edgy humor is absolutely radioactive. He has his FU money, though, and is obviously somewhat aspy (again, like me).
As to the survey question, which is the first in their survey, it's literally worded, "It's OK to be white." (agree, disagree, not sure, etc).
Those of us here are "with it" enough to realize that this incantation was born from a 4chan op (presumably meant to help uptight people look stupid). But, the survey respondents would generally be unaware of that context.
Rasmussen itself was pretty fearless in going there. Not fearless enough to add, "It's OK to be black.". But still, props given.
Adams is smart enough to know that this would be the end of Dilbert distribution in mainstream newspapers.
What's his motivation? Not sure. But puncturing the current bubble of awful isn't the worst start.
What would be better? He mentions education. Okay, start with that. What would it take to ensure that every child in America got an excellent education? Hell, even what would it take to ensure that every _black_ child in America got an excellent education? Everything we're doing right now is awful and counterproductive. We need to reset and follow the guidance of those who could plausibly improve the situation. That's not the cancel crowd.
This has been flagged, but for anyone still following, Adams' follow-on interview with Hotep Jesus is worth a listen. It's two hours of mostly Adams talking and fielding questions. (Jesus is a black podcaster, and I think it would be fair to call him conservative and occasionally a bit out there.)
One thing that's become obvious to me in recent years is that it's important to go to the source material if you really want to know what's going on. Media summaries (not to mention the Twitterati) are often misleading or incomplete.
What you mean by go to the source material in this situation is that you want me to hear him make an obvious racist statement like "Black America is a hate group" then have him justify his racism.
As detail, I live in one of the most bike-friendly cities in the world. Lots of infrastructure, markings and signals set up to favor cyclists, and so on. Before moving here, I would have thought that that would lead to an excellent and safe environment for all.
It's not. Bicyclists regularly terrorize pedestrians on sidewalks, even when there are excellent purpose-built bike paths mere meters away. At intersections, they regularly flip back and forth between being "like bicycles" and "like pedestrians", making them dangerously unpredictable. They pound on cars when they feel they should have the right of way (they don't). Even when they are in the bike lane, a quarter of the time they're riding against the flow of traffic. No lights, no reflectors, dressed in black at night. The most bicycle-sympathetic drivers struggle to avoid hitting these knuckleheads.
Or that they're a jerk? Can I drive my car on the sidewalk if the road isn't meeting my needs? It's exactly this self centric view that makes so many people not like cyclists.
> Or that they're a jerk? Can I drive my car on the sidewalk if the road isn't meeting my needs? It's exactly this self centric view that makes so many people not like cyclists.
Yes self centric view that staying alive is preferable to being dead. If only they were more altruistic and gave their lives, more people would like them. But no, their selfish desire to stay alive yet again destroyed everything.
That's exactly what is happening, though. See [0] for example, many drivers treat cycle lanes as a parking zone. And cars driving down dedicated bike lanes because they feel like it aren't exactly hard to find either.[1]
Your second link is not an example of purposeful bad driving. It's an example of terrible design. And more generally, a demonstration of how well-intended bicycle infrastructure can actually make things _more_ dangerous for bicyclists.
I've ridden thousands of miles, and the only bit of infrastructure that ever helped was wide shoulders, preferably with a bright white line demarcating.
And that is why when I'm forced to ride on the sidewalk due to lack of any bike lanes or other safety related issues (ridiculously dangerous car / truck drivers in some areas where I've lived, etc) I always go out of my way to give pedestrians all the right of way and respect possible, even to the point of getting off my bike and walking it when there's no other available way to respect the pedestrians and allow them to feel safe walking on the sidewalk. In my mind, the sidewalks are for pedestrians first and foremost, so I make whatever necessary efforts to give them their space and not put them at risk. Is only fair…
If there were anything like 6k dead pedestrians who got run down by cyclists every year, this would be good commentary. Perversely, there are many perceived "near-collisions" between bikes and peds, while there generally aren't these between cars and peds. Cars generally just kill their victim without missing. This leads to an overabundance of those who live to say that a bicyclist almost killed them once. As a Finnish study concludes, "Near accidents appear to occur often, while actual collisions are rare."
You know, I've never felt the urge to bike down the sidewalk, and I don't think I ever see anyone else do so.
But that's probably because my area has decent cycling infrastructure, so that means I have a place to cycle without fearing for my life besides the sidewalk.
Then you've never lived in Salt Lake City, Utah, where drivers seems to consider bikers (even in bike lanes) as targets to harass and scare off the road (and even to throw 7-11 full "Big Gulp"s at), and crosswalks as "pedestrian target zones"…
I live in a city where it’s legal and it’s never bothered me. People don’t ride fast on the sidewalk. It’s mostly old people who just wouldn’t be riding at all if it wasn’t legal.
Not OP, but consider illegal immigration. It is apparently leading to a surge in child sex trafficking, among other ills.
But, being against illegal immigration is currently considered "right wing", and in a lot of contexts will get you fired, vilified, and perhaps beaten.
There's your example.
(I'm a child of immigrants, and don't particularly have an opinion of how much immigration is good. I do, though, believe this amount should be determined by legislative process and then tightly enforced.)
Being against legal immigration and implementing policies to make it more difficult to become legal (as the right has done) has lead to the enslavement of immigrant women and other sex trafficking. Being against sane and fair immigration policies is what people react to.
Everyone is against illegal immigration and child sex trafficking, but vary vastly on the solutions.
Re "Everyone is against illegal immigration", I don't think that that is close to true at present. You will search in vain to find a left-leaning Congressional Representative that will pronounce that they are against illegal immigration.
A dirty secret of many Republicans is that they're pretty okay with illegal immigration as it's been in the 80s and 90s. Pseudo slave labor, deport as needed, etc. Needless to say, this seems unethical (even if the immigrants in question might be okay with it).
We have no better solution than to let our legislature fight this out. But, whatever laws they come up with need to be followed and strictly enforced. Failure to do so has led to abject misery, and it will only get worse.
You might not agree with the law, but the alternative is leading to far worse suffering. Ironically, the fentanyl crisis will probably turn the tide, rather than pedestrian ethical concerns.
(I'm quite old, so don't really have a dog in this fight, aside from a general well wish for the young.
Beyond that, I was a "far-left" Green for most of my years.
I've not changed much, but the world sure has.)
Okay, but that doesn't change the fact that you mixed up the terms here. If the right wanted to really stop immigrant sex trafficking or child abuse, they would be promoting for fairer and easier immigration laws.
we need to return to the very high levels of immigration we had in the 19th century, it would really help our population and economy to grow. it will help the country a lot in the long term
> we need to return to the very high levels of immigration we had in the 19th century
As a percentage of the total population, now is the highest level of immigration the US has ever experienced going back to the founding of the country.
The previous maximum was prior to the 1924 immigration act which effectively banned the practice for 40 years.
Where I currently work (academia), it's a litmus test. At least for faculty and management staff, if you don't submit an appropriately florid DEI statement, you won't get hired. This makes me a bit sad.
Hmm. So, try to get more men to enroll in mainly female courses? Might work, but I doubt it. And no university anywhere frets about disciplines where males are underrepresented. Males in general are underrepresented overall at university. Oh well.
Note that OP stipulated that there were "no unwanted advances". Is this even a real problem?
1. An object that serves as a focal point of attention and admiration.
2. Something that serves to guide.
[French, Ursa Minor (which contains the guiding star Polaris), from Latin cynosūra, from Greek kunosoura, dog's tail, Ursa Minor : kunos, genitive of kuōn, dog; see kwon- in Indo-European roots + ourā, tail; see ors- in Indo-European roots.]
(from thefreedictionary.com)
Personally, I love learning the occasional new word. "sinecure" is useful, as is "copacetic".
Don't move away from family. There's no there there.
If your mate doesn't have your back, leave. Give them a heads-up and 90 days. That's it.
Consider going to church. I'm considering it. I've been wrapped around the axle my whole life about whether it's "true". I'm starting to think that that's missing the point. If nothing else, watch the South Park Mormon episode--that really turned my head around.
That seriously sucks. During periods of my life, my "family" has sometimes included in-laws, friends, and maybe church. Even a shrink occasionally. Work with what you have. Everyone deserves people that support them.
Why? For starters, some companies are rich, and they can afford to waste a lot of money. Think of all of those interviews you've been on that waste your time and that of the interview loop, even though it's clear that they have never intended to hire. Or maybe just 1 in 500. (One company I was hired at boasted to me about the "500". Ugh.)
Or, at least in the trading world, things can be very secretive. You might have the skills to contribute, but no one will even talk to you, for fear that you'll steal the secret sauce.
Mostly it's just simple managerial incompetence.
The employer/employee match is sort of like a key and lock. In order for it to work, _all_ of the pins have to align. It's not enough to be a skilled, team-player, etc., employee. Your employer also has to bring several things to the table. Sometimes they just don't.