Your talking about it historically though. Historical abuse and mistreatment of Aboriginal people in Canada has been acceptable to discuss for at least a generation or two now, up to formal apologies and enormous numbers of court cases and cash settlements around the myriad past injustices.

The trouble is, even while addressing all the historical problems, there still exist new ones right now.

Typical conditions on Aboriginal reserves in Canada are unacceptably awful. You can have a thriving municipality right neighbouring an aboriginal reserve that is a mess of dilapidated homes, boiled water and grossly increased rates of unemployment, substance abuse and suicide. Small wonder then that increased crime rates also come along with all that.

Even that you can talk about, though the increased crime rate will get you in trouble for flirting with being racist against aboriginals.

What you can't talk about is many of the causes of the disparity.

Aboriginal reserves operate under a different legal framework than the neighbouring municipality. They operate under a different framework of governance. They operate under a different system of taxation. Organisation of all related government services like education, healthcare, policing and civil works like roads, water and sanitation are ALL different if you're on a reserve.

Talking about all that you need to be very careful how you say it, because if your not careful my above observations are a statement that coloniser systems are superior to aboriginal ones.

Private property rights are IMO an even hotter topic. The dilapidated housing on a reserve 10 minutes away from the municipality with everything in order is a direct result of who is responsible for maintaining them. In the municipality if a roof is missing shingles, the owner replaces them. If a window is broken, the owner replaces it. On the reserve though, the community is the owner. Unsurprisingly, that abstraction means maintenance on the homes is worse. If the mayor was responsible for using tax dollars to maintain all the homes in the neighbouring municipality it'd be a mess too. This leads to the poor aboriginal family stuck in a destroyed and overcrowded home and a chief saying sorry, the Canadian colonisers didn't give us enough money to fix your place, go yell at them. This just stirs up the Winnipeg citizens I mentioned earlier to respond with wonderment at why you don't fix your own home up yourself instead of protesting hopelessly for the government to hand out the money to do it for you.

The differential treatment still in place now, today is a cancer and needs to be fixed but calling it out like that would get me in trouble.

I didn't think there was any formal convention? Sometimes the numbers are reversed, sometimes they don't use numbers at all. It's from a while back, but listen to these calls for example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l19F2YPVey0

Perhaps now the whole 1 to 6 convention is more formalised, idk.

I take all that to heart.

In my native language and for me any woman under my age is a girl AND any man or woman taking part in sports and games is a boy or girl. They would be greeted and befriended in a much less formal manner than, for example during an opera performance intermission in the theatre hallway or in a workplace setting. For me girls running around on skis with guns are girls, I dont think of them as world class athletes but as ordinary people doing something enjoyable and rewarding.

I have trouble being entirely serene in the face of political correctness, so do feel free to correct my errors if I am found wanting in this area, even if I sometimes may appear to not take things seriously. Just a disclaimer.

"Edit this video" is now hidden in a menu that appears when you hover over your name above your video (Eric told me). Thanks.

From what I’ve read, he always “asked permission” (his words), but it seems like that was a formality and it was gonna happen anyway.

Either way, if someone is clearly uncomfortable with what you’re doing.. ok, it’s technically legal, but it’s still pretty fucked up.

The original test I did way back was on a different site that looks shutdown now. On there though it mentioned that it's very similar set of questions was basically pre-screening they would normally do to see if they bother testing you further or not. AKA, if you test 'normal' on this, they stop there. If your result is other than that they would do further tests to confirm a diagnosis.

Technically no matter how high you test on something like this, it's not a diagnosis and I've never done anything further myself. The fact I tested way out on the high end on the test though left me pretty sure further testing would conclude I fall somewhere high functioning, and all the activities done in my youth to help me be more outgoing and less shy all strongly resemble most of the formal treatment methods you see now anyways:
How to cope with x, y, z.
In this social scenario, this is what's going on.
Etc.

@kir_mokum

what makes the irony even more grotesque is that:

1.look at who projectveritas actually IS.it was founded by that slug james o'keefe..yes..THAT james o'keefe,and due to CNN being such an absolute failure of journalistic integrity,they just made that repulsive man actually credible again.

2.CNN had to post a massive retraction,a formal editors note and a at least three correspondents had to fall on the sword.

3.the projectveritas video has a CNN producer openly admitting that it is about the ratings,and nothing more.the russia story makes CNN money....period.

4.there is STILL no evidence of the trump administration "colluding" with russian intelligence,but there IS evidence that the russia story is being pushed by the american "deep state" to discredit,and/or control trump.

*of course this is from independent media who are not part of the corporate media tentacled network of obfuscation,propaganda and gaslighting.

5.the only media still giving the russia story any credence is american media.the rest of the world has moved on.why? no evidence.

this whole situation stinks to high fucking heaven.

That's not "my" definition. That is from Merriam-Webster. I even provided you with a link.

Newsflash: the meanings of words change.

The original meaning of "decimate" was "reduce by 10%", but these days it means "kill or destroy a large portion of".

"Marriage" used to mean "a man paying someone else to take his daughter off his hands", but these days it means a "formally recognised union of two people as partners in a personal relationship".

And "president" used to imply a degree of competence or leadership, these days it means "orange buffoon".

Also, who the fuck hates hot dogs? What the hell is wrong with you? Hating hot dogs is unamerican! Why do you hate America, Bob?

I understand where you're coming from, but I stand by my previous posts.

Full disclosure, I never got professionally employed as a programmer / coder / software engineer. However, my Bachelors Degree was in CS, and I have many friends working in the field.

In the show Silicon Valley, Richard Hendriks is working for a large corporate entity but has an idea / personal project that he ends up spinning into a new company. He is trained as a software engineer (CS), NOT with any business or management background (MIS), yet he becomes sort of the de-facto boss / CEO (at least early in the show). He hires a small team to help him develop his product.

Given that scenario, I think the show portrays things very accurately or at least completely plausibly. He's a coder, not a manager. Programmers may understand the importance of formatting and style standards, but at least tend to not have the correct personality type to be comfortable with formally dictating those standards to a team (an activity which would generally be more in line with an MIS background).

Also, his company is small -- just a few other programmers. They are all specializing on different components of the product. So they generally aren't working on each other's code. Standards for function arguments / helper functions / etc. would have to be agreed upon to get their individual components to interact, but that is a separate issue from tabs vs spaces. It would be wise to set a style and naming convention standard and have everyone conform to it, I agree completely. But Richard isn't built for the manager / CEO position, so he either fails to recognize that or doesn't feel comfortable dictating standards to his team.

One more thing to consider is that he (Richard) essentially is the product. He's the keystone piece, the central figure. He's John Carmack, Linus Torvalds, or Steve Wozniak. Even in a very large team / corporate environment, I'd wager that more often than not the style standards that end up getting set tend to fall in line with whatever those key guys want them to be. Don't touch an id Software graphics engine without conforming to Carmack's way, or the Linux kernel without conforming to Torvald's standards. Especially if they are building something new from scratch -- which is again true in the Silicon Valley show scenario.

The show isn't a documentary on how to properly run a startup company in the real Silicon Valley, but it is generally accurate enough that it has a lot of nuances that people with a programming background can pick up on and be entertained by (even people that don't actually work professionally in the field like me). And more important, the general feel of the show can be entertaining even for people that know absolutely nothing about programming.

A comment from Youtube:
"So, this horrible and blatant act of racism happened to occur to a former ACLU civil liberties counselor who majored in Critical Race Studies -- described as a major aimed at "naming one's own reality" by "using narrative to illuminate and explore experiences of racial oppression." Isn't it ironic and unfortunate that this would happen to her of all people?

What's also a little ironic is that Ms. Suh not only received these texts from a "Tami," but also happens to have a Facebook friend named "Tami" who posts on Facebook about "Tiny House Listings" -- a house rental service.

Speaking of which, it's kind of interesting that Tami showed up as "Tami" on Ms. Suh's phone, rather than as a phone number, isn't it? And there's a photo for Tami too. That means Tami is saved as a contact. It's a little odd for some random Airbnb host that Ms. Suh never met in-person to be a contact with a photo on her phone, isn't it?

Interestingly, if you look at Facebook-friend "Tami's" photos, they're all sort of artistic, colorful photos of inanimate objects -- just like Tami's photo in the texts.

If I didn't know better, I would almost, almost think that this stilted, formal, perfect little racist exchange between house-renter Tami and critical race studies major Ms. Suh, and the passionately tearful speech in the rain that followed -- why was she making speeches in the rain anyway? -- was, in fact, a carefully constructed "narrative" that Ms. Suh conspired to create with her Facebook-friend Tami.

But hey, that couldn't be right, could it?"

Hmmmm...

She brings up the controversy...by correctly answering the man's silly question?

If you have children, you absolutely have a dog in the fight. By homeschooling them, you, statistically (and the few statistics available are heavily biased FOR home schooled children, comparing volunteered home school test scores with the entire public school population), are giving them a better grasp of English, but worse understanding of math, and certainly aren't doing well teaching science. You also leave them with absolutely no real life education on interpersonal relationships, which are almost as important, since you can't use your knowledge if no one will work with you because you are a spoiled narcissist incapable of listening to others.

After 25+ years of education at 13+ different schools, I've NEVER heard the lesson, that you can ONLY learn through formal schooling, taught in any school, and I know of no one who thinks that way, from pre-school teachers to the many Stanford professors I know. Based on my excessive experience, this is absolutely NOT a lesson taught in average schools. You are simply mistaken about that.

For those who don't wish to ignore the sacred honor of teaching one's own child how to work in a group, how to have a reasoned discussion with others, about subjects the parent is not an expert in, or how to delegate responsibility, all without being the sole focus of all attention, school is a great institution. If you wish to relegate them to a life of having problems dealing with others and (statistically) having even worse math and science skills than average, home school works great.

I still have a dog in this fight, even though I have no children, because I live in a society where I have to deal with others. Those I've dealt with that have a home schooling background have been far more difficult to work with than others, being both less competent and less congenial on top of having a misplaced sense of superiority, both moral and educational.

Quoting Sniper007:

" A child is put at a tremendous disadvantage when they are taught that they can not learn anything except through formal schooling."

-- I completely and 100% agree with this, except . . .

" This is the inevitable life lesson all children are taught in schools (public or private)."

-- Reeeeealllly? Can I get some kind of cite on this? FWIW, I attended public schools -- good and bad -- and never came away with this lesson at all. Nor do I know anyone else who has. In fact, I'd say my view is the polar opposite of your own: as a self-made man, the most valuable lessons I've learned have come from experience (better known as The School of Hard Knocks).

"But for those who do wish to so delegate the sacred honor of teaching one's own child to a third party government agent(...)"

-- So you can't do both? You can't have trained educators teaching your child important fundamentals like math, science, languages and arts while you teach them social skills and whatever form of ethics and mores you want to instill them? To do the first is the cede the second?

Here's a little anecdote on my experience with home schooling:

My sister, now 30, was home-schooled by my parents. Her entire work history, up until now, has been a disaster. Lost jobs, conflicts with managers and co-workers, absenteeism -- everything shy of stealing from her employer. Why? Because she expected the world to revolve around her once she had her GED. She thought she was smarter than everyone else because she never had the social experience of encountering different levels of competence. Because home schooling catered to her needs and wants, she figured employers should do the same. Because she never had to learn classroom structure, she never learned to play nice with authority and know her place and work within it.

This is an anecdote and therefor does not equal data. But I think had my parents decided to send my sister to a public school, she'd be a lot farther ahead in her work-life than she is now and she would have had an easier road getting there.

Your mileage may vary, and hopefully will.

The teacher herself brings up the controversy in the video.

I don't have a dog in the fight, as all our children are home-schooled. A child is put at a tremendous disadvantage when they are taught that they can not learn anything except through formal schooling. This is the inevitable life lesson all children are taught in schools (public or private).

But for those who do wish to so delegate the sacred honor of teaching one's own child to a third party government agent, she seems like a good spokesperson. I wish her all the best in her endeavors - it is a never ending battle to raise up children apart from their parents. Many parents in the US see this act of delegation as a cultural norm and their fundamental right, so her role is not likely to be dissolved any time soon. She needs all the help she can get.

Franklin, as an ELECTED public servant, has consistently represented his constituents well enough to be re-elected.
Betsy Devos has never held office, never run a loan organization, never run an educational business, been hyper critical of the department she is tapped to run, and doesn't understand the issues this office entails at all, much less have a grasp of the details involved in the life changing decisions she'll be in charge of making, AND she refuses to answer questions when she knows her answers look terrible AND she has not yet finished her application (they've conveniently ignored the ethics forms nominees fill out BEFORE they get a hearing, so she shouldn't receive a hearing at all yet, like the rest of the nominees, which clearly indicates they have something to hide that would disqualify them all). In fact, it's obvious that she's only been nominated because her family bought the post with $200,000,000 in donations to Republicans and her vocal push to privatize education (but not it's funding, leaving us with something like our quasi-privatized prison system), meaning the Republicans plan to hand her the post with no real hearings and no matter how incompetent and unprepared she is....she already bought it, the hearings are just a formality.
...so no, not at all the same.

Ok, if we are talking formal boolean logic, then yes, that's a valid response, but human language is not a formal boolean logical system. This is why applying rigid logic to discussion of human beliefs and experiences is such a bad idea.

Most people are able to use life experience and simple human intuition to understand that the statement "Catholics don't believe in hell" does not mean "there are absolutely no Catholics that believe in hell" and instead is closer to "most Catholics (as a general rule) don't believe in hell".

A sweeping generalisation like "catholics don't believe in hell" is a pretty stupid statement to make in the first place.

I think it's not so much not being able to tell them apart but not being willing to investigate them beyond their labels. I spend some time in other online communities with people from the US and the sense I get is Clinton is generally seen as corrupt and criminal and Trump as perhaps sexist / racist but a good businessman. I would argue both labels are to some extent misleading and false.

I don't see much discussion that goes beyond those labels. In both cases from the snippets I've seen of US TV and of some online tabloids, that's about as deep as the discussion goes. To really understand the problem with both candidates you need to read good editorial work from more reputable / long form media (weekly publications, newspapers that aren't tabloids) and frankly I think very few have been willing to do that.

Much of it comes down to politics being treated as entertainment and reading long written articles simply isn't entertaining. Unfortunately it's going the same way here in Australia. Everyone is obsessed about opinion polls. We might have short periods of formal election campaigning (unlike the epic US election process), but because of only 3 years between elections for our Prime Minister (and the fact that he or she can and does get replaced within those 3 years by Parliament, unlike the US President), we have constant personal political battles and recrimination rather than deliberation over policy.

I mean right now, we have a prime minister (Turnbull, re-elected earlier this year), who unseated a previously elected prime minister (Abbott, in the previous term) by a vote of no confidence. Abbott himself (several parliamentary terms before) had successfully unseated Turnbull as minority leader (when another party held the prime minister-ship). Now there are rumors that Abbott wants to challenge Turnbull. And that's just one of our political parties.