> I want a doctor who feels some blood and soil attachment to their patients.
"Blood and soil (German: Blut und Boden) is a nationalist phrase and concept of a racially defined national body ("Blood") united with a settlement area ("Soil"). Originating in the German völkisch movement, it was used extensively by Nazi Germany, ...
North American white supremacists, white nationalists, Neo-Nazis and members of the alt-right have adopted the slogan. It gained widespread public prominence as a result of the August 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, when participants carrying torches marched on the University of Virginia campus on the night of 11 August 2017 and were recorded chanting the slogan, among others."
I never said you were a Nazi. The Nazi party hasn't been active since 1945, in small part because of my grandfather's military service fighting fascism in Europe. I trust you respect his service and that of millions of other soldiers and civilians by also being against fascism.
Are you willing to define your culture?
Does your culture include Catholics? JFK famously was accused of being a papist, and Prohibition was in no small part due to xenophobia about Catholic immigrants to the US, who didn't share "our" culture.
What about Catholics who send their kids to Catholic school instead of public school? Mormons who do the same? Does it include Amish who speak their own German dialect, with their own religion, parochial schools, and culture?
What about atheists? Homosexuals? Trans people?
Does it include the children of Cuban refugees who grew up in the Little Havana part of Miami, with Spanish as their first language? Who celebrate Nochebuena and quinceañeras instead of Christmas Day and Sweet 16s?
Does it include native Spanish speaking New Mexicans whose family has lived in the state since Imperial Spain colonized Nuevo Mexico in the 1600s?
Does it include Native Americans? Would you shy away from medical care from a Native American physician? Would you prefer to not work with a Native Hawaiian?
Is your definition of "culture" simply "born in the US"? Does it include people from American Samoa? Puerto Rico? Guam?
Does it include people with US citizenship who have never lived in the US?
Does it include someone from Canada? Does it include someone from a Canadian First Nation?
I think you see how simply saying "your culture" doesn't really make sense given that the US - and I think nearly all countries - contain a multitude of cultures.
> The sit program was originally written in 1988 and posted to Usenet's comp.sources.mac newsgroup by Tom Bereiter. The program assumed that it was running on a Unix system where each input file either had no resource information at all, or was split into 3 binary files named with .data, .rsrc, and .info extensions.
"To address the growing demand for ECEC spaces as the cost of care went down, the province saw an expansion of both for-profit and unlicensed home care providers. Data from the aforementioned longitudinal study indicated that 35 % of center-based settings and 29 % of home-based settings were rated as “good” or better quality, compared to only 14 % of for-profit centers and 10 % of unlicensed home care providers. Furthermore, for-profit and unlicensed home care settings were more likely to be rated as “inadequate” than their licensed counterparts (Japel et al., 2005; Japel, 2012; Bigras et al., 2010). At the same time, Quebec experienced a decline across various child health, developmental, and behavioral outcomes, including heightened hyperactivity, inattention, and physical aggression, along with reduced motor and social development (Baker et al., 2008; Kottelenberg & Lehrer, 2013). These findings underscore the challenges of maintaining high standards in the context of expansion associated with rapid reduction in the cost of ECEC."
"Meta-analyses have, quite consistently, shown targeted preschool programs—for 3 to
4-year-old children—to be effective in promoting preschool cognitive skills in the short run, with effect sizes averaging around 20–30% of a standard deviation (Camilli et al., 2010; Duncan & Magnuson, 2013). There is also some meta-analytic evidence of persistent effects throughout adolescence and early adulthood on outcomes such as grade retention and special education placement (McCoy et al., 2017). The same is true for universal preschool programs in cases where structural quality is high (i.e., high teacher: child ratios, educational requirements for teachers), with effects evident primarily among children from families with lower income and/or parental education (van Huizen & Plantenga, 2018).
There are, however, notable exceptions. Most prominent are quasi-experimental studies of Quebec’s scale-up of universal ECEC subsidies (Baker et al., 2008; Baker et al., 2019; Kottelenberg & Lehrer, 2017), covering children aged 0–4. These studies found mixed short- and long-term effects on cognitive- and academic outcomes (for example, negative effects of about 20% of a standard deviation of program exposure on a Canadian national test in math and reading for ages 13 and 16, yet with positive effects of about 10–30% for PISA math and reading scores; Baker et al., 2019). Consistent with effects of universal ECEC being conditional on quality ..."
The van Huizen & Plantenga citation at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S02727... has bullet points "The results show that ECEC quality matters critically.", "The evidence does not indicate that effects are fading out in the long run." and "The gains of ECEC are concentrated within children from lower SES families." In more detail it also cites Baker et al 2008, with:
"In fact, the research estimating the causal effects of universal programs is far from conclusive: some studies find that participation in ECEC improves child development (Drange and Havnes, 2015, Gormley, Gayer, Phillips and Dawson, 2005), while others show that ECEC has no significant impact (Blanden, Del Bono, Hansen and Rabe, 2017, Fitzpatrick, 2008) or may produce adverse effects on children's outcomes (Baker, Gruber and Milligan, 2008, Baker, Gruber and Milligan, 2015). As societal returns depend critically on the effects on children's outcomes (e.g. van Huizen, Dumhs, & Plantenga, 2018), universal child care and preschool expansions may in some cases be considered as a promising but in other cases as a costly and ineffective policy strategy."
When I started consulting, I read a Nolo Press book about contracts for software developers. That was an excellent resource. I learned concepts that I still use when reviewing contracts.
Nolo (they've since dropped the Press), "produces do-it-yourself legal books and software that allows people to handle simple legal matters such as making wills or writing business partnership contracts" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolo_(publisher) .
One is "Nolo’s Essential Guide to Buying Your First Home", for $20, available at https://store.nolo.com/products/nolos-essential-guide-to-buy... . or about 1% of the cost of using the AI. ("Homa charges a flat rate of $1,995 for transactions with a selling agent.")
Would Business Insider accept an article titled "I trusted a book instead of agent to buy a home. I saved around $9k in fees."?
I strongly doubt it is related to intellectual ability but cultural expectations.
Some years back someone did a study about which country's US diplomats at the UN had the highest number of NYC parking tickets. Diplomats don't need to pay parking fines due to immunity. This is very similar to returning shopping carts.
> Overall, the basic pattern accords reasonably well with common perceptions of corruption across countries. The worst parking violators – the ten worst are Kuwait, Egypt, Chad, Sudan, Bulgaria, Mozambique, Albania, Angola, Senegal, and Pakistan – all rank poorly in cross-country corruption rankings. While many of the countries with zero violations accord well with intuition (e.g., the Scandinavian countries, Canada), there are a number of surprises. Some of these are countries with very
small missions (e.g., Burkina Faso and the Central African Republic), and a few others have high rates of parking violations but do pay the fines (these are Bahrain, Malaysia, Oman, and Turkey; we return to this issue below).
I've read far too many stories of people who don't clean up after themselves at a store or restaurant, justified by "no need - they pay someone to do this" or even "it's a good thing I do this otherwise you wouldn't have a job" to know it's simply intellectual ability.
> I've read far too many stories of people who don't clean up after themselves at a store or restaurant, justified by "no need - they pay someone to do this" or even "it's a good thing I do this otherwise you wouldn't have a job" to know it's simply intellectual ability.
That they can barely articulate a verbalized post-hoc rationalization* for that kind of behavior doesn't prevent them from lacking the minimum processing power needed to achieve awareness of how they are leaving ungreased the machinery of the commons. Into which they will keep being embedded, pulling levers left and right all day long.
Even a moderately zero-sum minded sociopath can be aware of the perks of investing a modicum of well-placed niceness; if for no other reason, just to avoid losing social capital.
* And probably a memetic one, hardly an original thought.
> Our college study group meets a few times a week. They’re long sessions, three or four hours each. Whenever someone runs out for food, we all chip in a little extra so the runner doesn’t have to pay. Simple deal: “If you fly, I’ll buy.”
> About an hour into one session, one of the girls stretches and says she’s heading to Dunkin’ Donuts.
> Me: “Ooh, I’ll buy if you fly.”
> She stops mid-step and gives me this horrified look.
> Girl: “I don’t bring food to other people. Servants do that.”
The articulate reason for not bringing a cart is because their station in life is above menial work.
Regarding social capital, the story goes on and finishes with:
> The room goes dead silent.
> We’ve been doing this for weeks, with everyone taking turns, no big deal. But apparently, today, we’ve got royalty in our study group. She wondered why she was left out of any group meals after that…
Now imagine someone with money, who never had to clean up after others (and hires people to clean after themselves), and has little interaction with the working class. Why do you think they'll care about what the plebes think?
Wow. Can you give some more geographical context on where this happened and where the girl is from? (Obviously, not revealing personal details)
I have known some rich snobs in my life, but I have never been someplace where a even the rich snobs would say something like that out loud (even if maybe they were thinking it)
There's a minority of people wealthy enough to grease everything with money or really powerful connections. In a conversation involving people doing their own shopping and eating at places where you are presumed to take your tray to the bin I wasn't even thinking about them.
Those who lack that surplus wealth are "leaving money on the table", so to speak, by not caring about others. That's dumb.
And her pedigree or whatever gave her those aristocratic ways didn't save her from mild ostracism at the end of the story, so... That's social capital she left on the table. That's also kinda dumb even if she had enough money/power to enable god mode. It's even dumber if she didn't have it.
A customer returns two abandoned carts. Another customer assumes the first is an employee. After learning the truth, “Stupid woke b****! Why are you trying to confuse people!”
> Like most fast food places, there are several trash cans conveniently placed with counters attached, so people can clean up their own messes.
> There are always those special folks, though, who leave their trash on the table for the employees to clean up. Usually, it’s just trash, but there is this group of four young guys who always aim to outdo themselves.
It took exceptional circumstances for them to face consequences, in this case, losing a pair of expensive sunglasses. Again, it clearly wasn't the first time.
> A mum and her young child are coming through my lane when the child spills a lot of juice all over the floor and part of my register. The mum, without hesitation, says to the child:
> Customer: “Don’t worry. It’s their job to tidy up.”
Again, there is rebuke
> My shoulders sink as I’m about to accept my fate, when my manager, who happened to be nearby, runs over with a wet mop (we keep one by the registers at all times just in case) and hands it to the mum.
> Manager: “Nope. Your monkey, your circus.”
> Customer: A bit discombobulated. “That… that’s not how it works!”
But the reason these stories make that web site is because rebuke is rare, and thus noteworthy, while showing that a lot of people - not just those who are wealthy or have really powerful connections - do this.
I fully acknowledge their existence. I'm sure I most certainly engage into equivalent antisocial behavior in some way or another wherever I most lack awareness, and my sole point is that, for most of us, when we are doing that, we dumb.
Slightly veering OT:
While I get the sore need for a place to vent after being subjected to a customer-facing workday, the website you keep linking to gives me in aggregate the rage farming vibes that are as prone to distort everyday reality as blind naïveté could be.
I don't really think you understand my point. It isn't simple antisocial behavior. It's a multi-generational learned belief in a hierarchical class structure which will persist so long as enough people reject equality and solidarity, and instead actively protect their class privilege. (In modern parlance, "anti-woke" is roughly the opposite of "check your privilege").
To give but one of many examples, when rail passengers called Black porters "George", as if the porters were owned by George Pullman, those passengers reinforced racist Jim Crow laws. There were not dumb or sociopaths, but rather gained more social capital from others of their class (or more powerful) than was lost to the Black porters.
I have duly noted your bothsiderism position. My point, however, was to give counter-examples, such as verbalized explanations which were not post hoc, to show why I disagreed with your characterizations.
The essay appears to mix two different meanings of "hole".
Holes are a topological property of the slice of cheese. It's not scale invariant, as we're talking about holes on a human visible scale, not microscopic holes. The actual number is not fixed and may depend on the person doing the measuring.
I therefore don't see the need for "perforated", much less shape-predicates like "singly-perforated", "doubly-perforated" and "triply-perforated."
> For ‘hole’ read ‘bottle;’ for ‘hole-lining’ also read ‘bottle.’
Topologically speaking, a bottle doesn't have a hole, so this uses a different definition.
I think your definition still leaves the essence of the discussion in the same place: do topological properties "exist"? That's how I tend to blanket-interpret this debate; it's whether one is wiling to define existence to include things that aren't material.
Yeah but then neither does the cheese right? There’s no actual unity to objects, even solid objects, just parts interacting circumstantially, and any part can be subdivided into more parts interacting circumstantially.
The unity of the block of cheese is circumstantial, but nonetheless we define a piece of cheese defined on the presence of actual matter. The article goes to some trouble to devise a definition of holes that's also based on matter rather than its absence. But only a strict materialist would feel the need to do that, assuming they didn't want to outright deny existence to holes.
Woman = all members of the female sex of reproductive age capable of child bearing in the context of pregnancy discussions, no need to be pedantic about the age and turn it into a girl versus woman argument, since if someone says "pregnant women", the pregnant teenage girls out there won't feel excluded and request to be addressed by "pregnant people".
Why you are so offended by the term "pregnant people" that you insist it extends to pregnant minors?
I assume you are aware that anti-gender and gender-critical people assert that "woman" means specifically "adult human female"? Where have those people said that pregnant girls are also included as women? Which law says 16 year pregnant girls and mothers are adults?
For example, Trump's Executive Order 14168 declares that women and girls refer to "adult and juvenile human females, respectively"? Following EO 14168, in the US federal bureaucracy, "pregnant woman" only refers to "pregnant adult human females". A military doctor following this EO, in the scenario you described elsewhere here, is supposed to refer to a pregnant 15 year old in ER as a pregnant girl, not a pregnant woman, even if the treatment is identical.
I don't know about you, but "pregnant people" sounds better to me than "pregnant females" as the latter seems to strip away humanity, while sounding like a bad science fiction film.
The bad faith argument is to insist that "woman" means "adult female woman" while also insisting that "pregnant woman" also somehow includes pregnant 15 year old girls.
reply