Yes, I meant they are relatives and a lot of D’s are often similar between relatives. RFK Jr’s ideas, but JFK’s sister getting lobotomized for behavior that might come with ASD too.

But I can tell you my uncles and ancestors who were farmers, engineers, etc (extremely conservative men too) - dont like how ASD is a disorder. “Back in our day we called that an engineer.”

Yes, that’s a bit like my aunts resist putting ASD and my grandpa into one sentence.

Also they are too somewhat conservative, and the reaction to a single F-word in a good article was textbook autistic. Similarly to how I buy a bottle of some soda, not seeing the “pieces of something” small text (pieces themselves are almost invisible), and then try to drink it and spit it out.

but given that JFKs sister was lobotomized for being too promiscuous and California had a mass eugenics program until the 50s we won’t know.

I’ll dare suggest that RFK himself seems autistic a lot. With the absolute idiocy my father believed about ASD, I think RFK’s ideas might be a result of some childhood trauma connected to that diagnosis.

If you’re not capable of taking proper care of your pet, don’t get a pet in the first place. Picking up the shit your dog left in a public place is part of owning a dog.

So you never ever think you took 3 waste bags when you took 1? Nothing ever falls out of your pocket? Forgetting something is “not being capable of taking proper care”?

Or maybe you are simply not capable of reading before answering. That’s typical for people without ASD.

If your kid has a baseball game the next day, don’t go drinking today. That’s the selfish part. Although I would argue if you do get drunk, you kind of just have to deal with it and go to your kids game regardless.

I don’t drink.

or pick up your dog’s shit, then that’s selfish

If you didn’t notice that you have only one waste bag, and your dog had a need in more than one place, and you’ll be late for something, and in addition to that generally have a bad sense of time and place (ASD definitely, BAD or ADHD probably), then it’s not.

It’s not anywhere near the same category as being too burnt out to do the dishes after a double shift

Imagine that sometimes people wake up this tired. Someone left an electric light on outside and you can’t force yourself to cover the window - bad sleep. Forgot to drink some water before falling asleep - bad sleep. Ate something salty in addition to that - horrible sleep.

If you have roommates and you left dishes in the sink, you are being selfish.

Suppose so.

If your kids have an early baseball game, and you are too hungover to show up, then you’re being selfish.

Hangover is a bad feeling.

Not returning a cart should be punished with crucifixion though.

That’s not what their roots are, that’s the branches that became prevalent in every one mentioned (Judaism least of all, but with the state of Israel existing there are attempts to make Jewish religion suck just as badly as others).

Say, gnostic sects of Christianity and Judaism had this sometimes inverted, sometimes different from how you describe it. Natural world was considered wonderful, but bigger than our existence, in some, and the way to divine was to take off your mortal existence, like clothes, and embrace it in full. In Judaism it’s almost mainstream that natural sexuality is good and actually sacred when in marriage, and only outside of marriage is it bad, but not on the degree of murder or theft.

I’m not very knowledgeable on Islam, but I think even Shia Islam is not so cruel on that part, though since Iran is Shia, I guess nobody will believe me. Alawis being massacred right now have a pretty tolerant to life religion, and Druze too, though they have that weird relationship with death similar to Latin American Catholics. Smaller branches like Nizari-Ismaili are very tolerant. It’s just that Islamic mainstream of today is barbaric genocidal Wahhabism or Salafism, and generally Sunni Islam is not nice.

My point was - restrictive rules correlate somehow with strong organization, so such branches win the struggle for power.

I think at some point they were on the same level, then something happened and murder became less important, maybe with justification that it’s not shown directly, or that it’s aimed at bad guys somewhere far away, or I dunno. Outright gore like in Total Recall subway shootout scene became what’s equal to pair of tits.

Especially in a country that’s known worldwide for its hyper sexuality

After all the hentai in the interwebs and some Shaman King and Naruto characters, I’m not sure.

Where does this prudishness come from?

Christianity, I’d guess.

Same, except they don’t just disagree, they are extremely pissed. For whatever reason idiots tend to assume superior status to me in particular.

Before computing got poisoned.

Because Signal surely isn’t based on works from 80s, yes.

What Obama did should be judged by what he really did, not promised, not described, not was close to do.

You can say whatever you want if it depends on majority which won’t ever support you, and then claim that was your real intention.

This is simpler than average intrigue between friends or at workplace, or even of deciding whose turn it is to go for groceries, and politics are not simpler.

Yes, surely people capable of denying someone popular are soft pussies. It’s the opposite, they impose their will upon the party. Evil, not pussies.

All the non sequiturs and irrelevant historical quotes are just burying this very clear statement that you’re racist.

Using Latin words doesn’t make you intelligent, and saying something is irrelevant doesn’t make it so.

Anyway, you haven’t even started noticing what I actually wrote. I have executive function problems and argue in the interwebs too much, so - fool blocked.

Well, you might spend an hour or two thinking on what I wrote instead of being rude to people better than you.

like where? according to Cook they do not have quotas.

That was about the anecdote about Napoleon and French newspapers in 1815.

no, it literally is not.

You said it’s “promotion” in pre-hiring process, but not in the hiring process. Logically this means multiplication, that is, that this works as a quota. Mathematically it does, and, of course, I can’t for the life of me care what they call it in socialspeak.

Hiring processes have ALWAYS used sex/race/etc in hiring, it is not a new thing invented by woke lefties. DEI policies are there to REDUCE it.

Yes, I understand both these statements.

The former is present when needed for business, policies or not, and the latter can help or not. Or it may help one problem and hurt another. Say, if some mechanism for “promotion” exists, the border between “eligible” and “not eligible” for it becomes a corruption (not necessarily bribes, also acquaintances, personal sympathies, ideological alignment of those hiring and those applying) opening, and also the priority between those eligible is a bit easier to use as such than outside of that mechanism.

Anyway, half of my previous comment in this thread described it so much better than I’m trying to do now that I’ll stop. Read that please first.

I’ll also add that the hardest part in building any mechanism is designing it properly, not voting for it and not being so proud how you voted once for the right party, voting doesn’t involve thinking, it involves putting a mark on a paper. And the reason various freaks and jerks are now in charge of your country is because of poorly designed mechanisms aimed at various noble goals failing again and again.

It’s not that it’s an issue, it’s that they are doing what’s profitable for them. They never were inclusive and supportive, I think there were mechanisms making DEI stuff a factor in their tax cuts or something.

Reminiscent of that historical anecdote about Napoleon (which appears to not be historical in content, but definitely historical due to being very old), of that progression from “Corsican monster lands …” to “… the Emperor enters his faithful Paris”.

May not always work like this, but sometimes it does.

but it is NOT demographic quotas that override hiring based on merit.

That claim would imply that you know exactly the amount of initial bias and how to correct it.

But you don’t, you have a set of protected groups, some suggested bias by very approximate aggregated stats (obviously more general than the specific situation), and you “correct it” when choosing among specific people with names and personalities.

Your set of protected groups likely doesn’t include neurodivergence, for example ; even if it formally does, it might not in practice - a lot of people sincerely think masking is normal for autistics and not a torture completely unnecessary other than protection from their ape instincts, also called “people skills”.

Your level of bias and the needed correction, as I’ve already said, might be taken from a larger area and applied to a smaller area with a different situation.

Also yes, what you described is similar to quotas, unless HR’s and people doing tech interviews don’t have endless time resources.

I’m talking about my feeling from watching them and about the design of the aliens, this might have been unintentional initially in the first movie.

First, I don’t think I can find anything not perfect about Alien or Aliens, but the “female-led” context there is emotionally strong in very primal sense, liking those movies doesn’t prove anything because both movies (especially the second one) just give a new spin to pretty traditional perception of women.

Xena is nice, but uses some stereotypes as well, just more lesbian than traditional, ahem.

Anyway, I wanted to say I’ve been accused of being such a whiner and screecher about Disney fake Star Wars, and Rey there is just a shitty character.

Star Wars outside of movies has plenty of very cool female characters, and the “conservative fans” Disney accused of being racist and misogynist are supposed to know most of them.

So let’s please remember that companies are sometimes trying to do damage control with things that are just bad, by accusing people not liking those of racism or misogyny.

It’s a huge difference when you hear just that some movie is not cool and when you also hear that those calling it not cool are very bad people. If you didn’t like the movie in question yourself, you might stop telling others it’s bad, and even try to reconsider your opinion, probably buying another ticket.

From the outside it seems that your progressive movements were a pretty good tool to spread thin the effort that could have gone someplace right, and also to weaken movements which were targeted at the real problems (for example, in the small world of FOSS it’s how FSF and GNU were slowly marginalized into something perceived as unreasonable and Stallman specifically pressed out, and no, his logically correct defense of some kinds of pedophilia and him being generally cringe were not the reason).

Also let’s please remember that everyone flocking to centralized platforms was welcomed by those progressive movements, their activists for whichever reason thought that the scale and the censorship will work in their favor and not those calling to fell the tall trees.

So - this is the logical outcome of what various movements have been doing. This part should make you optimist. And the feeling that you can’t certainly show at something at say that it will succeed should be liberating, not depressing.