What we're Nietzsche's opinions on politics/women? I'm not surprised based on the bit of his work that I read that he has some unappealing thoughts on women, but am surprised to here his politics may be problematic as well(aside from the whole nazi affiliation thing - which as I understand is a misrepresentation of his work by his sister and her Nazi husband).
Nietzsche was ultimately pro authoritarianism and anti liberalism. His view on women is fairly standard nineteenth century misogyny, like how he "compliments" them by saying they are more clever and wicked than men.
again, I got the vaccine and I'm not anti-vax, but why are people getting downvoted for making valid points just because they aren't following the popular narrative. Did this website become reddit?
You can acknowledge someone made a decent point and incorporate it into your own views while still getting & encouraging vaccines - engaging in honest discussion will do more to prevent creating more anti-vaxxers than ignoring any points that you don't want to deal with. Disregarding valid points only reinforces the narrative that everyone is brainwashed by big pharma and we can't trust vaccines or whatever the narrative is - almost starting to agree with them on the first point.
I imagine folks are taking issue with calling anti-vaxxers a scapegoat when in reality the anti-vaxx ideology is the main driver of hospitalizations and deaths from COVID-19 in the USA today.
Comorbidities aren't driving deaths/hospitalizations as much as vaccinated/unvaccinated are. Pre-vaccine availability they and age were the largest factors.
Reddit was just a bellwether. Honest and curious discussion no longer exists. You either repeat party lines or are labeled a deplorable and should be banned from society.
I know most reasonable people disagree with this persons views, but why are they getting downvoted? They made a reasonable point and provided a source from the CDC. I'd much rather see a rebuttal than downvotes and no response.
Definitely gave me something to think about - not about to become anti-vax or anything but not worth instantly writing off either. For me the bottom line is that the vaccine is proven to prevent a disease that's killing millions, and not getting it will literally translate to more deaths, but that doesn't mean I'm going to disregard opposing views - if I still disagree then it doesn't matter, and if I don't disagree then I'm glad I listened because it'd have to be something massively significant to make me change my mind. And I fully believe mocking or ignoring anyone who goes against the grain on vaccines is causing more 'real' anti-vaxxers and making the ones who are just wary about the Covid vaccine more extreme. I highly doubt anyone is being mocked into abandoning their beliefs on this.
I'm just happy we can post a plurality of ideas and get called out when they aren't valid here. Unfortunately this format is a dying one on many other platforms.
yeah, I'm very far from being right-wing or anti-vaccine or anything like that, but I've been unsettled by this whole thing. I don't think there are microchips in the vaccine, and it's probably a good idea to get the vaccine, but this level of control + lack of responsibility is a perfect recipe for negligence-caused disaster. Or even intentional disaster. Plus it seems quite a bit like it could be one of those slippery-slope situations.
Ideally, companies would create a vaccine as fast as possible(but safely, without being immune from lawsuits - especially if negligence or malice can be 'proven', why make someone immune from consequence then?) because that's always going to a profitable endeavor anyway. And people would be smart enough to get the vaccine and take precautions about spreading dangerous diseases. I don't know what the right solution is, given that we don't live in such a reasonable world
I have to assume there's a decent chance that the designer started this suit to gain some attention and attract homophobic customers, and contribute to their christian marriage web dev companies brand. Could be wrong, they could just really want a fight, but with how common and easy it is to grift bigots these days it's always my first guess
You lept straight from "Sometimes these mental tools produce correct results" (which is true) to "These tools are the only way to produce correct results" (a ridiculous distortion).
Those aren't mutually exclusive. Something can do something only sometimes, and also be the only way to do that thing. If he/she is wrong, It should be easy to prove that their claim is incorrect though by thinking of a counterexample
This is just my own speculation, equally as invalid as the authors, but at most I'd say Bezos thinks his goals are entirely genuine, but it's entirely based on narcissism and wanting to be the only one smart/powerful enough to save us.
If it came to the point where he had to sacrifice things he actually cares about to help others with no benefit to himself or his ego I would bet Bezos net worth that he wouldn't lift a finger. Maybe convincing himself he's working to save humanity is how he justifies not doing something really useful with his wealth, like saving tens of thousands of people from suffering and dieing of starvation, instead of playing billionaire space games.
He could start by treating his own employees like humans. There's a great mass of "humanity" whose lives need improving and they're called Amazon workers.
Just curious, has Bezos engaged in behavior indicative of an actual narcissist. Or have there been reports from people close to him? Or is your assessment mostly a projection of Amazon back onto him? I know a few people who actually have narcissistic personality disorder but I don't know Bezos at all.
I think people can have narcissistic goals without having narcissistic personality disorder. It is tempting to see our passions as deriving from an objectively correct view of how the world should improve. Jeff likes space and, what do you know, it turns out Jeff's way of exploring space is at the center of a larger plan to save the world that Jeff feels pretty confident about.
Those of us who aren't billionaires just have to satisfy more people with our arguments about why our ideas are worth doing. When you're funding everything, it's a lot easier to attribute pushback to personal preference rather than your overall worldview being flawed. After all, if your worldview was flawed, why are all these people working at your space company? How did you make all this money? Etc.
I don't actually if Jeff has drunk his own cool-aid, but I think people in his position have fewer people to push back against their worldview than most.
I'm guessing based on his business practices and attitude in interviews/statements. I don't claim to be an expert though, that's why I qualified my post stating that's it's purely my speculation, just like the authors post
Fair. Do you have any examples or links to the offending remarks or practices? I’m trying to build up my own profile in order to understand the negative responses to the blue origin flight.
It was reported that Bezos himself was behind the failed pushback online by Amazon "ambassadors" to the peeing in bottles story. Replying "You don't really think people are peeing in bottles, do you?" and then finding internal Amazon documents proving management awareness of people peeing in bottles was certainly a poor decision, and seemingly influenced by Bezos' pride and ego more than reason.
And it's not as attributable to Bezos, but Amazon is famous in journalism for asking for numerous "corrections" to articles about them, when those supposed corrections are actually just unrelated talking points and PR spin.
maybe I'll write a short story about Bezos and Musk both wanting to become the savior of earth and competing to save humanity first/better to feed their own egos, to the point where they start sabotaging each others efforts to gain an advantage. Then neither of them are able to save us because they were more worried about being seen as the one to save the planet than actual saving the planet, and we all die
