x
Click to expand

krasnogvardiech

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Consoles Owned: PC, PS2, Xbox 360.
Video Games Played: Too fucking many
X-box Gamertag: see profile name, capitalize fir
Interests: numerous
Date Signed Up:8/30/2012
Location:New Zealand
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Ranking:#2547
Comment Ranking:#373
Highest Content Rank:#433
Highest Comment Rank:#111
Content Thumbs: 13883 total,  15782 ,  1899
Comment Thumbs: 53695 total,  58047 ,  4352
Content Level Progress: 5.2% (26/500)
Level 211 Content: Comedic Genius → Level 212 Content: Comedic Genius
Comment Level Progress: 46.9% (469/1000)
Level 346 Comments: Sold Soul → Level 347 Comments: Sold Soul
Subscribers:11
Content Views:858667
Times Content Favorited:1893 times
Total Comments Made:14754
FJ Points:18595
Favorite Tags: the (10) | warhammer (9) | of (7) | Not (6) | OC (6) | it (5) | to (5) | 40k (4) | emperor (4) | for (4) | a (3) | do (3) | gaming (3) | God (3) | in (3) | Life (3) | man (3) | You (3) | 4Chan (2) | and (2)
I agree, keeping with logic and common sense is normally a priority. The hills have eyes, y'know?
On the other hand, there is a point where reason is to be thrown to the curb. We have gone past that point and that is why I am here.

latest user's comments

#203 - From the creation of any privileged class the impact on the 'l…  [+] (2 new replies) 11/19/2014 on golly 0
User avatar #204 - krasnogvardiech (11/19/2014) [-]
To sum it all up.

There should be no special privileges.
If you give special privilege to any group within the workforce, it skews the spread of the recruitment and thus lowers productivity.
Solution: Recruit based solely off individual productive endeavour. Many forget that a machine is made up of many, many parts.

Circumstantial factors are irrelevant when recruiting individuals.
To say otherwise is discrimination, by the very definition of the term.
Solution: Recruit based solely off individual productive-mindedness. If such a system had X group as the majority of their employees, then it just shows that X group are the harder workers, excluding individuals.

External influences have no place in the workforce.
Those that are directly dealing and are directly involved in the matter should be the ones addressing a problem. This is due to a better knowledge of the assets available at any given point to deal with any given issue.
Solution: Keep the operation (industry) free of political influence or outside pressure.

Now please, afghanautopilot, leave me the hell alone. I need to sleep, get up, and think about work and solely work, and resolving this issue is not going to help me in that.
#206 - afghanautopilot (11/19/2014) [-]
Hi again, I have a few questions for you if you find the time for further discussion.

For your second paragraph: Does tradition makes those norms fair? After all, isn’t fairness what we’re discussing?
In your third paragraph, what makes you think that anything you ever do is entirely your choice? Are we not to some extent products of the society we live in? Think about people’s favourite food for example. That is one thing which varies tremendously from culture to culture.
In your fourth paragraph, are you suggesting that we by giving unemployed people money are making them a privileged higher class? Would you say that inherited capital is an unfair handout?

What makes you think that employers recruitment is solely productivity based?

I agree with your idea that circumstantial factors should be irrelevant in recruiting I just don’t think that that’s the case today. Here in Sweden for example it’s especially difficult for immigrants from the Middle East to find a job because they are continuously judged by their name and looks before their skills are even taken into account. I couldn’t find a sciencepaper on it but there have been multiple tests where they have sent out the same job applications with different names to a series of companys and consistently the traditional Swedish named applicants are favoured.

Regarding your last paragraph I also would very much like for politics to not be a part of the economy at all, but I’m afraid that’s not the case and to not see that is a dangerous mistake if you ask me.

I hope you find time to answer
#198 - Picture 11/19/2014 on Magic the Bathering +1
#202 - I'm back. And while I am tired as balls and do still need to g…  [+] (3 new replies) 11/19/2014 on golly 0
User avatar #203 - krasnogvardiech (11/19/2014) [-]
From the creation of any privileged class the impact on the 'lesser' classes is that they're outed from opportunities to acquire work - in the worst case scenario, all the money might go towards paying off rent, and when they show up to an interview the boss will look down on the individual and would rather pick the one who had some money to spare.

The effect of this, of free handouts to X group within society, is that they're allowed higher status and given an in to any industry they so choose. And then the screening process loses a step - less productive individuals make it within any given industry. If you shorten or skew the base from which the industry intakes workers, then you change the industry; if the individual is less productive, the industry suffers.

From this, based on simple rationality and observation of cause and effect, the conclusion is as follows, from my perspective.

If members of X class are given special privilege, while being less productive than the whole, then if said privilege allows special ins to the industry, said industry will suffer; members of X class have the preference of intake.

Following this reason - and true productivity-based recruitment - you can indeed have a perfectly even distribution of race, religion, gender, et cetera within the workforce. I think you underestimate just how many people are out there. Note that I say 'can' because while it's possible, for the most part it's not exactly reachable. It may take a long, long time, but such a thing is possible. Just not practical - in such a time, you may have found many individuals more competent than employee A, but you decide to hire another based simply on his skin color. That is not reasonable. That is not efficient. That is not productivity-oriented thinking, the type of thinking that you need.

Continued, again.
User avatar #204 - krasnogvardiech (11/19/2014) [-]
To sum it all up.

There should be no special privileges.
If you give special privilege to any group within the workforce, it skews the spread of the recruitment and thus lowers productivity.
Solution: Recruit based solely off individual productive endeavour. Many forget that a machine is made up of many, many parts.

Circumstantial factors are irrelevant when recruiting individuals.
To say otherwise is discrimination, by the very definition of the term.
Solution: Recruit based solely off individual productive-mindedness. If such a system had X group as the majority of their employees, then it just shows that X group are the harder workers, excluding individuals.

External influences have no place in the workforce.
Those that are directly dealing and are directly involved in the matter should be the ones addressing a problem. This is due to a better knowledge of the assets available at any given point to deal with any given issue.
Solution: Keep the operation (industry) free of political influence or outside pressure.

Now please, afghanautopilot, leave me the hell alone. I need to sleep, get up, and think about work and solely work, and resolving this issue is not going to help me in that.
#206 - afghanautopilot (11/19/2014) [-]
Hi again, I have a few questions for you if you find the time for further discussion.

For your second paragraph: Does tradition makes those norms fair? After all, isn’t fairness what we’re discussing?
In your third paragraph, what makes you think that anything you ever do is entirely your choice? Are we not to some extent products of the society we live in? Think about people’s favourite food for example. That is one thing which varies tremendously from culture to culture.
In your fourth paragraph, are you suggesting that we by giving unemployed people money are making them a privileged higher class? Would you say that inherited capital is an unfair handout?

What makes you think that employers recruitment is solely productivity based?

I agree with your idea that circumstantial factors should be irrelevant in recruiting I just don’t think that that’s the case today. Here in Sweden for example it’s especially difficult for immigrants from the Middle East to find a job because they are continuously judged by their name and looks before their skills are even taken into account. I couldn’t find a sciencepaper on it but there have been multiple tests where they have sent out the same job applications with different names to a series of companys and consistently the traditional Swedish named applicants are favoured.

Regarding your last paragraph I also would very much like for politics to not be a part of the economy at all, but I’m afraid that’s not the case and to not see that is a dangerous mistake if you ask me.

I hope you find time to answer
#200 - I don't know and frankly don't care. While steel isn't at all …  [+] (1 new reply) 11/19/2014 on golly 0
User avatar #201 - silverzepher (11/19/2014) [-]
that is why you make it a report in the sky, a get away from all if your problems in land, don't market it as a way Tu mine his, the problem is the building if the duo's, plus ask if the goods to run it. and the air rights you would have to negotiate writing countries
#198 - **** you and your insinuations. If you're going to cons…  [+] (3 new replies) 11/19/2014 on golly 0
User avatar #199 - silverzepher (11/19/2014) [-]
but how will we get the large sums of money to cover the initial overhead if we do not deal with the cartels? we are very few who would like to make this work
User avatar #200 - krasnogvardiech (11/19/2014) [-]
I don't know and frankly don't care. While steel isn't at all that expensive (in fact, pure iron is actually more expensive than finished-process steel) it will be expensive indeed to hire the facilities and equipment necessary.

Besides, zeppelins are slow. They're called airships for a reason. A modern cargo-hauler jet could get half the load there three times as fast and twice as cheaply, and that's a thing most trade/courier companies would prefer.
User avatar #201 - silverzepher (11/19/2014) [-]
that is why you make it a report in the sky, a get away from all if your problems in land, don't market it as a way Tu mine his, the problem is the building if the duo's, plus ask if the goods to run it. and the air rights you would have to negotiate writing countries
#196 - Rats, dust, oil and perpetual damn creaking. While it's an att…  [+] (5 new replies) 11/19/2014 on golly 0
User avatar #197 - silverzepher (11/19/2014) [-]
we can make this work, i just need you, and a large sum of money, and maybe some assistance from the cartels in Mexico
User avatar #198 - krasnogvardiech (11/19/2014) [-]
Fuck you and your insinuations. If you're going to construct a zeppelin, which is supposed to be quite a damn bit more long-lasting than an aeroplane, then you need to do it properly. This means no untrained immigrants and no faulty equipment.

Do it once, do it properly.
User avatar #199 - silverzepher (11/19/2014) [-]
but how will we get the large sums of money to cover the initial overhead if we do not deal with the cartels? we are very few who would like to make this work
User avatar #200 - krasnogvardiech (11/19/2014) [-]
I don't know and frankly don't care. While steel isn't at all that expensive (in fact, pure iron is actually more expensive than finished-process steel) it will be expensive indeed to hire the facilities and equipment necessary.

Besides, zeppelins are slow. They're called airships for a reason. A modern cargo-hauler jet could get half the load there three times as fast and twice as cheaply, and that's a thing most trade/courier companies would prefer.
User avatar #201 - silverzepher (11/19/2014) [-]
that is why you make it a report in the sky, a get away from all if your problems in land, don't market it as a way Tu mine his, the problem is the building if the duo's, plus ask if the goods to run it. and the air rights you would have to negotiate writing countries
#5 - Picture  [+] (1 new reply) 11/18/2014 on Ikea is not customer friendly 0
#7 - orionthegreat (11/18/2014) [-]
It looks like someone didn't put glïngöbörgen into the glübéstéhån in step six
#4 - SO NICE ITS SO NICE HERE IN IKEA 11/18/2014 on Ikea is not customer friendly 0
#186 - Thus, the conversation comes to an end. I could write theses o…  [+] (5 new replies) 11/18/2014 on golly 0
#187 - afghanautopilot (11/18/2014) [-]
As far as I can tell you have yet to bring forward evidence that supports your stand on this except for our rational thinking and a very strict application of homo economicus, which I feel I have demonstrated - at least to some extent - that we cannot trust. I would very much like to continue the discussion - which have been remarkably civilized considering it's on the internet - so feel free to PM me or just reply here in the future. Sweet dreams!
User avatar #202 - krasnogvardiech (11/19/2014) [-]
I'm back. And while I am tired as balls and do still need to get up at 6 in the morning, I'll very carefully and easily break it down. And before you get on my ass about details, keep in mind that I am a broke-ass college grad working at a factory, I speak only my thoughts and my views, and while I could become infuriated, it would ultimately achieve nothing.

Your statement takes it for granted that X-gender people want to do work in Y area, based on Z social norms. What you overlook is that social norms aren't things formed quickly, or easily. The ones in place about within an individual in the modern Western-world society are the result of recurring choices throughout history, all originally started by a group of individuals. To put it simply, our ancestors began the trend, it was followed, and then we continue to do so and see the norm as acceptable because of familiarity and settledness. It is the norm because it's effective - it works. So we keep doing it.

But the recursive point, and the reason your stance is incorrect is that ultimately it is entirely the choice of the individual whether or not to take work in X subject. Speaking from an engineering perspective (and taking heed of the lack of engineers in the modern world, respective to the progress, development and the growth of our population) that if we could do anything to double the number of engineers then that would be fantastic. More hands on deck means more work can be done, and work done properly doesn't care what gender you are. One may equate this to agriculture, social work... basically all kinds of work, done anywhere.

The ultimate choice is one's individual right - the peoples' freedom of choice being a caveat of any democratic nation. If you are to give people of any sort free handouts, then you are creating a privileged higher class which automatically are allowed more freedom to operate economically based only on their being of that higher class.

Continued.
User avatar #203 - krasnogvardiech (11/19/2014) [-]
From the creation of any privileged class the impact on the 'lesser' classes is that they're outed from opportunities to acquire work - in the worst case scenario, all the money might go towards paying off rent, and when they show up to an interview the boss will look down on the individual and would rather pick the one who had some money to spare.

The effect of this, of free handouts to X group within society, is that they're allowed higher status and given an in to any industry they so choose. And then the screening process loses a step - less productive individuals make it within any given industry. If you shorten or skew the base from which the industry intakes workers, then you change the industry; if the individual is less productive, the industry suffers.

From this, based on simple rationality and observation of cause and effect, the conclusion is as follows, from my perspective.

If members of X class are given special privilege, while being less productive than the whole, then if said privilege allows special ins to the industry, said industry will suffer; members of X class have the preference of intake.

Following this reason - and true productivity-based recruitment - you can indeed have a perfectly even distribution of race, religion, gender, et cetera within the workforce. I think you underestimate just how many people are out there. Note that I say 'can' because while it's possible, for the most part it's not exactly reachable. It may take a long, long time, but such a thing is possible. Just not practical - in such a time, you may have found many individuals more competent than employee A, but you decide to hire another based simply on his skin color. That is not reasonable. That is not efficient. That is not productivity-oriented thinking, the type of thinking that you need.

Continued, again.
User avatar #204 - krasnogvardiech (11/19/2014) [-]
To sum it all up.

There should be no special privileges.
If you give special privilege to any group within the workforce, it skews the spread of the recruitment and thus lowers productivity.
Solution: Recruit based solely off individual productive endeavour. Many forget that a machine is made up of many, many parts.

Circumstantial factors are irrelevant when recruiting individuals.
To say otherwise is discrimination, by the very definition of the term.
Solution: Recruit based solely off individual productive-mindedness. If such a system had X group as the majority of their employees, then it just shows that X group are the harder workers, excluding individuals.

External influences have no place in the workforce.
Those that are directly dealing and are directly involved in the matter should be the ones addressing a problem. This is due to a better knowledge of the assets available at any given point to deal with any given issue.
Solution: Keep the operation (industry) free of political influence or outside pressure.

Now please, afghanautopilot, leave me the hell alone. I need to sleep, get up, and think about work and solely work, and resolving this issue is not going to help me in that.
#206 - afghanautopilot (11/19/2014) [-]
Hi again, I have a few questions for you if you find the time for further discussion.

For your second paragraph: Does tradition makes those norms fair? After all, isn’t fairness what we’re discussing?
In your third paragraph, what makes you think that anything you ever do is entirely your choice? Are we not to some extent products of the society we live in? Think about people’s favourite food for example. That is one thing which varies tremendously from culture to culture.
In your fourth paragraph, are you suggesting that we by giving unemployed people money are making them a privileged higher class? Would you say that inherited capital is an unfair handout?

What makes you think that employers recruitment is solely productivity based?

I agree with your idea that circumstantial factors should be irrelevant in recruiting I just don’t think that that’s the case today. Here in Sweden for example it’s especially difficult for immigrants from the Middle East to find a job because they are continuously judged by their name and looks before their skills are even taken into account. I couldn’t find a sciencepaper on it but there have been multiple tests where they have sent out the same job applications with different names to a series of companys and consistently the traditional Swedish named applicants are favoured.

Regarding your last paragraph I also would very much like for politics to not be a part of the economy at all, but I’m afraid that’s not the case and to not see that is a dangerous mistake if you ask me.

I hope you find time to answer
#49 - You take me to be the block bitch?  [+] (1 new reply) 11/18/2014 on Chocolate 0
User avatar #50 - konradkurze (11/18/2014) [-]
**konradkurze rolled user miscarriage ** will make Krasnogvardiech their bitch
#52 - All the old souls are being reincarnated... 11/18/2014 on What do you do with your life? 0
#47 - Das ghey mang  [+] (3 new replies) 11/18/2014 on Chocolate 0
User avatar #48 - konradkurze (11/18/2014) [-]
not if its prison rules....

cell block bitch is 'the woman"

sad thing...in russian prisons...noones allowed to speak to the prison bitch
#49 - krasnogvardiech (11/18/2014) [-]
You take me to be the block bitch?
User avatar #50 - konradkurze (11/18/2014) [-]
**konradkurze rolled user miscarriage ** will make Krasnogvardiech their bitch
#45 - Since when was I a woman?!  [+] (5 new replies) 11/18/2014 on Chocolate 0
User avatar #46 - konradkurze (11/18/2014) [-]
MOTHERLAND made Kras her daughter
User avatar #47 - krasnogvardiech (11/18/2014) [-]
Das ghey mang
User avatar #48 - konradkurze (11/18/2014) [-]
not if its prison rules....

cell block bitch is 'the woman"

sad thing...in russian prisons...noones allowed to speak to the prison bitch
#49 - krasnogvardiech (11/18/2014) [-]
You take me to be the block bitch?
User avatar #50 - konradkurze (11/18/2014) [-]
**konradkurze rolled user miscarriage ** will make Krasnogvardiech their bitch
#184 - And I'm saying any employer who works professionally does not …  [+] (7 new replies) 11/18/2014 on golly 0
#185 - afghanautopilot (11/18/2014) [-]
But they evidently do not. Employers are also human beings and highly fallible. They may very well think that they don't give a flying fuck, but that's just not the case. As I have described we all give an army of flying fucks subconciously and then trick ourselves into believing that we've made a rational decision. This is why recruiters should ask job applicants to put their names last or on a separate sheet so that their name wouldn't affect their decision. Because trust me it does. And thats not just employers. I think it was Freakonomics Radio who did an episode on some sort of racist database ads.
User avatar #186 - krasnogvardiech (11/18/2014) [-]
Thus, the conversation comes to an end. I could write theses on why you're incorrect, or leave it to philosophy majors to do so. But I need to wake up at 6am to go to work, so I'll be seeing you.
#187 - afghanautopilot (11/18/2014) [-]
As far as I can tell you have yet to bring forward evidence that supports your stand on this except for our rational thinking and a very strict application of homo economicus, which I feel I have demonstrated - at least to some extent - that we cannot trust. I would very much like to continue the discussion - which have been remarkably civilized considering it's on the internet - so feel free to PM me or just reply here in the future. Sweet dreams!
User avatar #202 - krasnogvardiech (11/19/2014) [-]
I'm back. And while I am tired as balls and do still need to get up at 6 in the morning, I'll very carefully and easily break it down. And before you get on my ass about details, keep in mind that I am a broke-ass college grad working at a factory, I speak only my thoughts and my views, and while I could become infuriated, it would ultimately achieve nothing.

Your statement takes it for granted that X-gender people want to do work in Y area, based on Z social norms. What you overlook is that social norms aren't things formed quickly, or easily. The ones in place about within an individual in the modern Western-world society are the result of recurring choices throughout history, all originally started by a group of individuals. To put it simply, our ancestors began the trend, it was followed, and then we continue to do so and see the norm as acceptable because of familiarity and settledness. It is the norm because it's effective - it works. So we keep doing it.

But the recursive point, and the reason your stance is incorrect is that ultimately it is entirely the choice of the individual whether or not to take work in X subject. Speaking from an engineering perspective (and taking heed of the lack of engineers in the modern world, respective to the progress, development and the growth of our population) that if we could do anything to double the number of engineers then that would be fantastic. More hands on deck means more work can be done, and work done properly doesn't care what gender you are. One may equate this to agriculture, social work... basically all kinds of work, done anywhere.

The ultimate choice is one's individual right - the peoples' freedom of choice being a caveat of any democratic nation. If you are to give people of any sort free handouts, then you are creating a privileged higher class which automatically are allowed more freedom to operate economically based only on their being of that higher class.

Continued.
User avatar #203 - krasnogvardiech (11/19/2014) [-]
From the creation of any privileged class the impact on the 'lesser' classes is that they're outed from opportunities to acquire work - in the worst case scenario, all the money might go towards paying off rent, and when they show up to an interview the boss will look down on the individual and would rather pick the one who had some money to spare.

The effect of this, of free handouts to X group within society, is that they're allowed higher status and given an in to any industry they so choose. And then the screening process loses a step - less productive individuals make it within any given industry. If you shorten or skew the base from which the industry intakes workers, then you change the industry; if the individual is less productive, the industry suffers.

From this, based on simple rationality and observation of cause and effect, the conclusion is as follows, from my perspective.

If members of X class are given special privilege, while being less productive than the whole, then if said privilege allows special ins to the industry, said industry will suffer; members of X class have the preference of intake.

Following this reason - and true productivity-based recruitment - you can indeed have a perfectly even distribution of race, religion, gender, et cetera within the workforce. I think you underestimate just how many people are out there. Note that I say 'can' because while it's possible, for the most part it's not exactly reachable. It may take a long, long time, but such a thing is possible. Just not practical - in such a time, you may have found many individuals more competent than employee A, but you decide to hire another based simply on his skin color. That is not reasonable. That is not efficient. That is not productivity-oriented thinking, the type of thinking that you need.

Continued, again.
User avatar #204 - krasnogvardiech (11/19/2014) [-]
To sum it all up.

There should be no special privileges.
If you give special privilege to any group within the workforce, it skews the spread of the recruitment and thus lowers productivity.
Solution: Recruit based solely off individual productive endeavour. Many forget that a machine is made up of many, many parts.

Circumstantial factors are irrelevant when recruiting individuals.
To say otherwise is discrimination, by the very definition of the term.
Solution: Recruit based solely off individual productive-mindedness. If such a system had X group as the majority of their employees, then it just shows that X group are the harder workers, excluding individuals.

External influences have no place in the workforce.
Those that are directly dealing and are directly involved in the matter should be the ones addressing a problem. This is due to a better knowledge of the assets available at any given point to deal with any given issue.
Solution: Keep the operation (industry) free of political influence or outside pressure.

Now please, afghanautopilot, leave me the hell alone. I need to sleep, get up, and think about work and solely work, and resolving this issue is not going to help me in that.
#206 - afghanautopilot (11/19/2014) [-]
Hi again, I have a few questions for you if you find the time for further discussion.

For your second paragraph: Does tradition makes those norms fair? After all, isn’t fairness what we’re discussing?
In your third paragraph, what makes you think that anything you ever do is entirely your choice? Are we not to some extent products of the society we live in? Think about people’s favourite food for example. That is one thing which varies tremendously from culture to culture.
In your fourth paragraph, are you suggesting that we by giving unemployed people money are making them a privileged higher class? Would you say that inherited capital is an unfair handout?

What makes you think that employers recruitment is solely productivity based?

I agree with your idea that circumstantial factors should be irrelevant in recruiting I just don’t think that that’s the case today. Here in Sweden for example it’s especially difficult for immigrants from the Middle East to find a job because they are continuously judged by their name and looks before their skills are even taken into account. I couldn’t find a sciencepaper on it but there have been multiple tests where they have sent out the same job applications with different names to a series of companys and consistently the traditional Swedish named applicants are favoured.

Regarding your last paragraph I also would very much like for politics to not be a part of the economy at all, but I’m afraid that’s not the case and to not see that is a dangerous mistake if you ask me.

I hope you find time to answer
#43 - **** , forgot the milk.  [+] (7 new replies) 11/18/2014 on Chocolate 0
User avatar #44 - konradkurze (11/18/2014) [-]
*puts pumps on Kra's boobs and drains milk out for her chocolate*
User avatar #45 - krasnogvardiech (11/18/2014) [-]
Since when was I a woman?!
User avatar #46 - konradkurze (11/18/2014) [-]
MOTHERLAND made Kras her daughter
User avatar #47 - krasnogvardiech (11/18/2014) [-]
Das ghey mang
User avatar #48 - konradkurze (11/18/2014) [-]
not if its prison rules....

cell block bitch is 'the woman"

sad thing...in russian prisons...noones allowed to speak to the prison bitch
#49 - krasnogvardiech (11/18/2014) [-]
You take me to be the block bitch?
User avatar #50 - konradkurze (11/18/2014) [-]
**konradkurze rolled user miscarriage ** will make Krasnogvardiech their bitch
#42 - Cocoa, sugar, water, heat. All you need to make chocolate.  [+] (9 new replies) 11/18/2014 on Chocolate 0
User avatar #53 - sketchysketchist (11/18/2014) [-]
Cocoa is running low since cocoa beans take forever to grow.
Hence, chocolate is going to made out of a cheap substitute soon enough.
User avatar #43 - krasnogvardiech (11/18/2014) [-]
Fuck, forgot the milk.
User avatar #44 - konradkurze (11/18/2014) [-]
*puts pumps on Kra's boobs and drains milk out for her chocolate*
User avatar #45 - krasnogvardiech (11/18/2014) [-]
Since when was I a woman?!
User avatar #46 - konradkurze (11/18/2014) [-]
MOTHERLAND made Kras her daughter
User avatar #47 - krasnogvardiech (11/18/2014) [-]
Das ghey mang
User avatar #48 - konradkurze (11/18/2014) [-]
not if its prison rules....

cell block bitch is 'the woman"

sad thing...in russian prisons...noones allowed to speak to the prison bitch
#49 - krasnogvardiech (11/18/2014) [-]
You take me to be the block bitch?
User avatar #50 - konradkurze (11/18/2014) [-]
**konradkurze rolled user miscarriage ** will make Krasnogvardiech their bitch
#26 - *Laugh out loud* lol lel kek 11/18/2014 on [kek intensifies] 0
#182 - Yes, and it's because of that that I disagree. We're …  [+] (9 new replies) 11/18/2014 on golly 0
#183 - afghanautopilot (11/18/2014) [-]
But what you think should count and what acutally does happens to be opposites. Priming is well described in the psychological litterature and does not only apply to jobs and salaries but everyday- and lifedefining decisions across the board. You are sort of right to say that we are born as blank slates (there are studies which seems to show evidence of quite extensive prenatal priming) but th very essence of what I argue is that we in fact do not grow up to be "whatever" we do very much grow up to be what is expected of us by others which we in turn rationalize internally. That is of course a good thing because people are horrible and if we didn't take other peoples opinions into account civilazation would probably crash and burn, but the medal has it's backside - as we say in Sweden and Norway - and that backside is manifested through various social inequalities like the fact that it's not until recently that it has become acceptable for men to talk about their mental wellbeing or the fact that women are defined professionaly first by their gender and second by their abilities. you almost never hear someone say "Wow, you're good at math for a guy" because we expect guys to be good at math. If your bad at it you're just bad at math. No one will say "Oh well, boys shouldn't get involved in that anyway". Important fields have long been reserved for men, not through law but societal norms and we have to accept that and actively work to change that.
User avatar #184 - krasnogvardiech (11/18/2014) [-]
And I'm saying any employer who works professionally does not give a single fuck about norms and social garbage, and instead hires based solely off competence.
#185 - afghanautopilot (11/18/2014) [-]
But they evidently do not. Employers are also human beings and highly fallible. They may very well think that they don't give a flying fuck, but that's just not the case. As I have described we all give an army of flying fucks subconciously and then trick ourselves into believing that we've made a rational decision. This is why recruiters should ask job applicants to put their names last or on a separate sheet so that their name wouldn't affect their decision. Because trust me it does. And thats not just employers. I think it was Freakonomics Radio who did an episode on some sort of racist database ads.
User avatar #186 - krasnogvardiech (11/18/2014) [-]
Thus, the conversation comes to an end. I could write theses on why you're incorrect, or leave it to philosophy majors to do so. But I need to wake up at 6am to go to work, so I'll be seeing you.
#187 - afghanautopilot (11/18/2014) [-]
As far as I can tell you have yet to bring forward evidence that supports your stand on this except for our rational thinking and a very strict application of homo economicus, which I feel I have demonstrated - at least to some extent - that we cannot trust. I would very much like to continue the discussion - which have been remarkably civilized considering it's on the internet - so feel free to PM me or just reply here in the future. Sweet dreams!
User avatar #202 - krasnogvardiech (11/19/2014) [-]
I'm back. And while I am tired as balls and do still need to get up at 6 in the morning, I'll very carefully and easily break it down. And before you get on my ass about details, keep in mind that I am a broke-ass college grad working at a factory, I speak only my thoughts and my views, and while I could become infuriated, it would ultimately achieve nothing.

Your statement takes it for granted that X-gender people want to do work in Y area, based on Z social norms. What you overlook is that social norms aren't things formed quickly, or easily. The ones in place about within an individual in the modern Western-world society are the result of recurring choices throughout history, all originally started by a group of individuals. To put it simply, our ancestors began the trend, it was followed, and then we continue to do so and see the norm as acceptable because of familiarity and settledness. It is the norm because it's effective - it works. So we keep doing it.

But the recursive point, and the reason your stance is incorrect is that ultimately it is entirely the choice of the individual whether or not to take work in X subject. Speaking from an engineering perspective (and taking heed of the lack of engineers in the modern world, respective to the progress, development and the growth of our population) that if we could do anything to double the number of engineers then that would be fantastic. More hands on deck means more work can be done, and work done properly doesn't care what gender you are. One may equate this to agriculture, social work... basically all kinds of work, done anywhere.

The ultimate choice is one's individual right - the peoples' freedom of choice being a caveat of any democratic nation. If you are to give people of any sort free handouts, then you are creating a privileged higher class which automatically are allowed more freedom to operate economically based only on their being of that higher class.

Continued.
User avatar #203 - krasnogvardiech (11/19/2014) [-]
From the creation of any privileged class the impact on the 'lesser' classes is that they're outed from opportunities to acquire work - in the worst case scenario, all the money might go towards paying off rent, and when they show up to an interview the boss will look down on the individual and would rather pick the one who had some money to spare.

The effect of this, of free handouts to X group within society, is that they're allowed higher status and given an in to any industry they so choose. And then the screening process loses a step - less productive individuals make it within any given industry. If you shorten or skew the base from which the industry intakes workers, then you change the industry; if the individual is less productive, the industry suffers.

From this, based on simple rationality and observation of cause and effect, the conclusion is as follows, from my perspective.

If members of X class are given special privilege, while being less productive than the whole, then if said privilege allows special ins to the industry, said industry will suffer; members of X class have the preference of intake.

Following this reason - and true productivity-based recruitment - you can indeed have a perfectly even distribution of race, religion, gender, et cetera within the workforce. I think you underestimate just how many people are out there. Note that I say 'can' because while it's possible, for the most part it's not exactly reachable. It may take a long, long time, but such a thing is possible. Just not practical - in such a time, you may have found many individuals more competent than employee A, but you decide to hire another based simply on his skin color. That is not reasonable. That is not efficient. That is not productivity-oriented thinking, the type of thinking that you need.

Continued, again.
User avatar #204 - krasnogvardiech (11/19/2014) [-]
To sum it all up.

There should be no special privileges.
If you give special privilege to any group within the workforce, it skews the spread of the recruitment and thus lowers productivity.
Solution: Recruit based solely off individual productive endeavour. Many forget that a machine is made up of many, many parts.

Circumstantial factors are irrelevant when recruiting individuals.
To say otherwise is discrimination, by the very definition of the term.
Solution: Recruit based solely off individual productive-mindedness. If such a system had X group as the majority of their employees, then it just shows that X group are the harder workers, excluding individuals.

External influences have no place in the workforce.
Those that are directly dealing and are directly involved in the matter should be the ones addressing a problem. This is due to a better knowledge of the assets available at any given point to deal with any given issue.
Solution: Keep the operation (industry) free of political influence or outside pressure.

Now please, afghanautopilot, leave me the hell alone. I need to sleep, get up, and think about work and solely work, and resolving this issue is not going to help me in that.
#206 - afghanautopilot (11/19/2014) [-]
Hi again, I have a few questions for you if you find the time for further discussion.

For your second paragraph: Does tradition makes those norms fair? After all, isn’t fairness what we’re discussing?
In your third paragraph, what makes you think that anything you ever do is entirely your choice? Are we not to some extent products of the society we live in? Think about people’s favourite food for example. That is one thing which varies tremendously from culture to culture.
In your fourth paragraph, are you suggesting that we by giving unemployed people money are making them a privileged higher class? Would you say that inherited capital is an unfair handout?

What makes you think that employers recruitment is solely productivity based?

I agree with your idea that circumstantial factors should be irrelevant in recruiting I just don’t think that that’s the case today. Here in Sweden for example it’s especially difficult for immigrants from the Middle East to find a job because they are continuously judged by their name and looks before their skills are even taken into account. I couldn’t find a sciencepaper on it but there have been multiple tests where they have sent out the same job applications with different names to a series of companys and consistently the traditional Swedish named applicants are favoured.

Regarding your last paragraph I also would very much like for politics to not be a part of the economy at all, but I’m afraid that’s not the case and to not see that is a dangerous mistake if you ask me.

I hope you find time to answer
#180 - If I knew, don't you think I'd have stated it? I've …  [+] (18 new replies) 11/18/2014 on golly 0
User avatar #189 - silverzepher (11/18/2014) [-]
i say we bring back zeplins, we are a smarter people now, we can make it work. imagine being able to take a month long holiday inn the air.
User avatar #196 - krasnogvardiech (11/19/2014) [-]
Rats, dust, oil and perpetual damn creaking. While it's an attractive idea, no thanks.

Plus, it'll be a damn nightmare for air traffic controllers to get over.
User avatar #197 - silverzepher (11/19/2014) [-]
we can make this work, i just need you, and a large sum of money, and maybe some assistance from the cartels in Mexico
User avatar #198 - krasnogvardiech (11/19/2014) [-]
Fuck you and your insinuations. If you're going to construct a zeppelin, which is supposed to be quite a damn bit more long-lasting than an aeroplane, then you need to do it properly. This means no untrained immigrants and no faulty equipment.

Do it once, do it properly.
User avatar #199 - silverzepher (11/19/2014) [-]
but how will we get the large sums of money to cover the initial overhead if we do not deal with the cartels? we are very few who would like to make this work
User avatar #200 - krasnogvardiech (11/19/2014) [-]
I don't know and frankly don't care. While steel isn't at all that expensive (in fact, pure iron is actually more expensive than finished-process steel) it will be expensive indeed to hire the facilities and equipment necessary.

Besides, zeppelins are slow. They're called airships for a reason. A modern cargo-hauler jet could get half the load there three times as fast and twice as cheaply, and that's a thing most trade/courier companies would prefer.
User avatar #201 - silverzepher (11/19/2014) [-]
that is why you make it a report in the sky, a get away from all if your problems in land, don't market it as a way Tu mine his, the problem is the building if the duo's, plus ask if the goods to run it. and the air rights you would have to negotiate writing countries
#181 - afghanautopilot (11/18/2014) [-]
My point is that certain people, situations and societal norms have probably affected your interests and passions in some way and some of those norms and situations are different depending on your gender. While growing up we constantly hear that some things are for girls and some are for guys. It can be as simple as colours or favourite foods. Those experiences are a part of what makes you to be you and we're making a mistake if we think that our previous experiences doesn't affect our decisions. We are not rational beings to that extent. Great book on the subject of subconcious thinking is Daniel Kahneman's "Thinking Fast and Slow" or just read about some cognitive biases like the Fundamental Attribution Error or the Hindsight Bias. That's shit is awesome. A lot of the time we think we make rational decisions but what we're really doing is rationalizing an instinctive decision as we're making it. I would also like to recommend Dan Ariely's Predictably Irrational. Just skip the self help part of it. Do you see what I'm trying to say?
User avatar #182 - krasnogvardiech (11/18/2014) [-]
Yes, and it's because of that that I disagree.

We're all born blank slates, and we grow to be whatever. Back to my point, though, that circumstances do not and by all rights should not interfere with one's place within the workforce. Only effort and merit, supported by knowledge and wisdom, ought to decide those.
#183 - afghanautopilot (11/18/2014) [-]
But what you think should count and what acutally does happens to be opposites. Priming is well described in the psychological litterature and does not only apply to jobs and salaries but everyday- and lifedefining decisions across the board. You are sort of right to say that we are born as blank slates (there are studies which seems to show evidence of quite extensive prenatal priming) but th very essence of what I argue is that we in fact do not grow up to be "whatever" we do very much grow up to be what is expected of us by others which we in turn rationalize internally. That is of course a good thing because people are horrible and if we didn't take other peoples opinions into account civilazation would probably crash and burn, but the medal has it's backside - as we say in Sweden and Norway - and that backside is manifested through various social inequalities like the fact that it's not until recently that it has become acceptable for men to talk about their mental wellbeing or the fact that women are defined professionaly first by their gender and second by their abilities. you almost never hear someone say "Wow, you're good at math for a guy" because we expect guys to be good at math. If your bad at it you're just bad at math. No one will say "Oh well, boys shouldn't get involved in that anyway". Important fields have long been reserved for men, not through law but societal norms and we have to accept that and actively work to change that.
User avatar #184 - krasnogvardiech (11/18/2014) [-]
And I'm saying any employer who works professionally does not give a single fuck about norms and social garbage, and instead hires based solely off competence.
#185 - afghanautopilot (11/18/2014) [-]
But they evidently do not. Employers are also human beings and highly fallible. They may very well think that they don't give a flying fuck, but that's just not the case. As I have described we all give an army of flying fucks subconciously and then trick ourselves into believing that we've made a rational decision. This is why recruiters should ask job applicants to put their names last or on a separate sheet so that their name wouldn't affect their decision. Because trust me it does. And thats not just employers. I think it was Freakonomics Radio who did an episode on some sort of racist database ads.
User avatar #186 - krasnogvardiech (11/18/2014) [-]
Thus, the conversation comes to an end. I could write theses on why you're incorrect, or leave it to philosophy majors to do so. But I need to wake up at 6am to go to work, so I'll be seeing you.
#187 - afghanautopilot (11/18/2014) [-]
As far as I can tell you have yet to bring forward evidence that supports your stand on this except for our rational thinking and a very strict application of homo economicus, which I feel I have demonstrated - at least to some extent - that we cannot trust. I would very much like to continue the discussion - which have been remarkably civilized considering it's on the internet - so feel free to PM me or just reply here in the future. Sweet dreams!
User avatar #202 - krasnogvardiech (11/19/2014) [-]
I'm back. And while I am tired as balls and do still need to get up at 6 in the morning, I'll very carefully and easily break it down. And before you get on my ass about details, keep in mind that I am a broke-ass college grad working at a factory, I speak only my thoughts and my views, and while I could become infuriated, it would ultimately achieve nothing.

Your statement takes it for granted that X-gender people want to do work in Y area, based on Z social norms. What you overlook is that social norms aren't things formed quickly, or easily. The ones in place about within an individual in the modern Western-world society are the result of recurring choices throughout history, all originally started by a group of individuals. To put it simply, our ancestors began the trend, it was followed, and then we continue to do so and see the norm as acceptable because of familiarity and settledness. It is the norm because it's effective - it works. So we keep doing it.

But the recursive point, and the reason your stance is incorrect is that ultimately it is entirely the choice of the individual whether or not to take work in X subject. Speaking from an engineering perspective (and taking heed of the lack of engineers in the modern world, respective to the progress, development and the growth of our population) that if we could do anything to double the number of engineers then that would be fantastic. More hands on deck means more work can be done, and work done properly doesn't care what gender you are. One may equate this to agriculture, social work... basically all kinds of work, done anywhere.

The ultimate choice is one's individual right - the peoples' freedom of choice being a caveat of any democratic nation. If you are to give people of any sort free handouts, then you are creating a privileged higher class which automatically are allowed more freedom to operate economically based only on their being of that higher class.

Continued.
User avatar #203 - krasnogvardiech (11/19/2014) [-]
From the creation of any privileged class the impact on the 'lesser' classes is that they're outed from opportunities to acquire work - in the worst case scenario, all the money might go towards paying off rent, and when they show up to an interview the boss will look down on the individual and would rather pick the one who had some money to spare.

The effect of this, of free handouts to X group within society, is that they're allowed higher status and given an in to any industry they so choose. And then the screening process loses a step - less productive individuals make it within any given industry. If you shorten or skew the base from which the industry intakes workers, then you change the industry; if the individual is less productive, the industry suffers.

From this, based on simple rationality and observation of cause and effect, the conclusion is as follows, from my perspective.

If members of X class are given special privilege, while being less productive than the whole, then if said privilege allows special ins to the industry, said industry will suffer; members of X class have the preference of intake.

Following this reason - and true productivity-based recruitment - you can indeed have a perfectly even distribution of race, religion, gender, et cetera within the workforce. I think you underestimate just how many people are out there. Note that I say 'can' because while it's possible, for the most part it's not exactly reachable. It may take a long, long time, but such a thing is possible. Just not practical - in such a time, you may have found many individuals more competent than employee A, but you decide to hire another based simply on his skin color. That is not reasonable. That is not efficient. That is not productivity-oriented thinking, the type of thinking that you need.

Continued, again.
User avatar #204 - krasnogvardiech (11/19/2014) [-]
To sum it all up.

There should be no special privileges.
If you give special privilege to any group within the workforce, it skews the spread of the recruitment and thus lowers productivity.
Solution: Recruit based solely off individual productive endeavour. Many forget that a machine is made up of many, many parts.

Circumstantial factors are irrelevant when recruiting individuals.
To say otherwise is discrimination, by the very definition of the term.
Solution: Recruit based solely off individual productive-mindedness. If such a system had X group as the majority of their employees, then it just shows that X group are the harder workers, excluding individuals.

External influences have no place in the workforce.
Those that are directly dealing and are directly involved in the matter should be the ones addressing a problem. This is due to a better knowledge of the assets available at any given point to deal with any given issue.
Solution: Keep the operation (industry) free of political influence or outside pressure.

Now please, afghanautopilot, leave me the hell alone. I need to sleep, get up, and think about work and solely work, and resolving this issue is not going to help me in that.
#206 - afghanautopilot (11/19/2014) [-]
Hi again, I have a few questions for you if you find the time for further discussion.

For your second paragraph: Does tradition makes those norms fair? After all, isn’t fairness what we’re discussing?
In your third paragraph, what makes you think that anything you ever do is entirely your choice? Are we not to some extent products of the society we live in? Think about people’s favourite food for example. That is one thing which varies tremendously from culture to culture.
In your fourth paragraph, are you suggesting that we by giving unemployed people money are making them a privileged higher class? Would you say that inherited capital is an unfair handout?

What makes you think that employers recruitment is solely productivity based?

I agree with your idea that circumstantial factors should be irrelevant in recruiting I just don’t think that that’s the case today. Here in Sweden for example it’s especially difficult for immigrants from the Middle East to find a job because they are continuously judged by their name and looks before their skills are even taken into account. I couldn’t find a sciencepaper on it but there have been multiple tests where they have sent out the same job applications with different names to a series of companys and consistently the traditional Swedish named applicants are favoured.

Regarding your last paragraph I also would very much like for politics to not be a part of the economy at all, but I’m afraid that’s not the case and to not see that is a dangerous mistake if you ask me.

I hope you find time to answer
#52 - Shuckle wanna ****** . 11/18/2014 on Has Mega-Evolution gone too... +3
#178 - I have no idea what I'm supposed to be. I state naught but my …  [+] (20 new replies) 11/18/2014 on golly 0
#179 - afghanautopilot (11/18/2014) [-]
Great! Now, where does your love for messy, dirty hands-on things come from? What I'm trying to get at is the underlying cause for why you are as you put it "drawn to it like a moth to a candle flame".
User avatar #180 - krasnogvardiech (11/18/2014) [-]
If I knew, don't you think I'd have stated it?

I've been drawn to the skies and the air since I moved halfway across the world, that's all I can say. Paragliding and parachuting's too short, nobody builds zeppelins anymore. Hence, aviation via piloting. And it's economically unsound to do that, thus I acquire funds and a backup via engineering. Therefore, I do work.
User avatar #189 - silverzepher (11/18/2014) [-]
i say we bring back zeplins, we are a smarter people now, we can make it work. imagine being able to take a month long holiday inn the air.
User avatar #196 - krasnogvardiech (11/19/2014) [-]
Rats, dust, oil and perpetual damn creaking. While it's an attractive idea, no thanks.

Plus, it'll be a damn nightmare for air traffic controllers to get over.
User avatar #197 - silverzepher (11/19/2014) [-]
we can make this work, i just need you, and a large sum of money, and maybe some assistance from the cartels in Mexico
User avatar #198 - krasnogvardiech (11/19/2014) [-]
Fuck you and your insinuations. If you're going to construct a zeppelin, which is supposed to be quite a damn bit more long-lasting than an aeroplane, then you need to do it properly. This means no untrained immigrants and no faulty equipment.

Do it once, do it properly.
User avatar #199 - silverzepher (11/19/2014) [-]
but how will we get the large sums of money to cover the initial overhead if we do not deal with the cartels? we are very few who would like to make this work
User avatar #200 - krasnogvardiech (11/19/2014) [-]
I don't know and frankly don't care. While steel isn't at all that expensive (in fact, pure iron is actually more expensive than finished-process steel) it will be expensive indeed to hire the facilities and equipment necessary.

Besides, zeppelins are slow. They're called airships for a reason. A modern cargo-hauler jet could get half the load there three times as fast and twice as cheaply, and that's a thing most trade/courier companies would prefer.
User avatar #201 - silverzepher (11/19/2014) [-]
that is why you make it a report in the sky, a get away from all if your problems in land, don't market it as a way Tu mine his, the problem is the building if the duo's, plus ask if the goods to run it. and the air rights you would have to negotiate writing countries
#181 - afghanautopilot (11/18/2014) [-]
My point is that certain people, situations and societal norms have probably affected your interests and passions in some way and some of those norms and situations are different depending on your gender. While growing up we constantly hear that some things are for girls and some are for guys. It can be as simple as colours or favourite foods. Those experiences are a part of what makes you to be you and we're making a mistake if we think that our previous experiences doesn't affect our decisions. We are not rational beings to that extent. Great book on the subject of subconcious thinking is Daniel Kahneman's "Thinking Fast and Slow" or just read about some cognitive biases like the Fundamental Attribution Error or the Hindsight Bias. That's shit is awesome. A lot of the time we think we make rational decisions but what we're really doing is rationalizing an instinctive decision as we're making it. I would also like to recommend Dan Ariely's Predictably Irrational. Just skip the self help part of it. Do you see what I'm trying to say?
User avatar #182 - krasnogvardiech (11/18/2014) [-]
Yes, and it's because of that that I disagree.

We're all born blank slates, and we grow to be whatever. Back to my point, though, that circumstances do not and by all rights should not interfere with one's place within the workforce. Only effort and merit, supported by knowledge and wisdom, ought to decide those.
#183 - afghanautopilot (11/18/2014) [-]
But what you think should count and what acutally does happens to be opposites. Priming is well described in the psychological litterature and does not only apply to jobs and salaries but everyday- and lifedefining decisions across the board. You are sort of right to say that we are born as blank slates (there are studies which seems to show evidence of quite extensive prenatal priming) but th very essence of what I argue is that we in fact do not grow up to be "whatever" we do very much grow up to be what is expected of us by others which we in turn rationalize internally. That is of course a good thing because people are horrible and if we didn't take other peoples opinions into account civilazation would probably crash and burn, but the medal has it's backside - as we say in Sweden and Norway - and that backside is manifested through various social inequalities like the fact that it's not until recently that it has become acceptable for men to talk about their mental wellbeing or the fact that women are defined professionaly first by their gender and second by their abilities. you almost never hear someone say "Wow, you're good at math for a guy" because we expect guys to be good at math. If your bad at it you're just bad at math. No one will say "Oh well, boys shouldn't get involved in that anyway". Important fields have long been reserved for men, not through law but societal norms and we have to accept that and actively work to change that.
User avatar #184 - krasnogvardiech (11/18/2014) [-]
And I'm saying any employer who works professionally does not give a single fuck about norms and social garbage, and instead hires based solely off competence.
#185 - afghanautopilot (11/18/2014) [-]
But they evidently do not. Employers are also human beings and highly fallible. They may very well think that they don't give a flying fuck, but that's just not the case. As I have described we all give an army of flying fucks subconciously and then trick ourselves into believing that we've made a rational decision. This is why recruiters should ask job applicants to put their names last or on a separate sheet so that their name wouldn't affect their decision. Because trust me it does. And thats not just employers. I think it was Freakonomics Radio who did an episode on some sort of racist database ads.
User avatar #186 - krasnogvardiech (11/18/2014) [-]
Thus, the conversation comes to an end. I could write theses on why you're incorrect, or leave it to philosophy majors to do so. But I need to wake up at 6am to go to work, so I'll be seeing you.
#187 - afghanautopilot (11/18/2014) [-]
As far as I can tell you have yet to bring forward evidence that supports your stand on this except for our rational thinking and a very strict application of homo economicus, which I feel I have demonstrated - at least to some extent - that we cannot trust. I would very much like to continue the discussion - which have been remarkably civilized considering it's on the internet - so feel free to PM me or just reply here in the future. Sweet dreams!
User avatar #202 - krasnogvardiech (11/19/2014) [-]
I'm back. And while I am tired as balls and do still need to get up at 6 in the morning, I'll very carefully and easily break it down. And before you get on my ass about details, keep in mind that I am a broke-ass college grad working at a factory, I speak only my thoughts and my views, and while I could become infuriated, it would ultimately achieve nothing.

Your statement takes it for granted that X-gender people want to do work in Y area, based on Z social norms. What you overlook is that social norms aren't things formed quickly, or easily. The ones in place about within an individual in the modern Western-world society are the result of recurring choices throughout history, all originally started by a group of individuals. To put it simply, our ancestors began the trend, it was followed, and then we continue to do so and see the norm as acceptable because of familiarity and settledness. It is the norm because it's effective - it works. So we keep doing it.

But the recursive point, and the reason your stance is incorrect is that ultimately it is entirely the choice of the individual whether or not to take work in X subject. Speaking from an engineering perspective (and taking heed of the lack of engineers in the modern world, respective to the progress, development and the growth of our population) that if we could do anything to double the number of engineers then that would be fantastic. More hands on deck means more work can be done, and work done properly doesn't care what gender you are. One may equate this to agriculture, social work... basically all kinds of work, done anywhere.

The ultimate choice is one's individual right - the peoples' freedom of choice being a caveat of any democratic nation. If you are to give people of any sort free handouts, then you are creating a privileged higher class which automatically are allowed more freedom to operate economically based only on their being of that higher class.

Continued.
User avatar #203 - krasnogvardiech (11/19/2014) [-]
From the creation of any privileged class the impact on the 'lesser' classes is that they're outed from opportunities to acquire work - in the worst case scenario, all the money might go towards paying off rent, and when they show up to an interview the boss will look down on the individual and would rather pick the one who had some money to spare.

The effect of this, of free handouts to X group within society, is that they're allowed higher status and given an in to any industry they so choose. And then the screening process loses a step - less productive individuals make it within any given industry. If you shorten or skew the base from which the industry intakes workers, then you change the industry; if the individual is less productive, the industry suffers.

From this, based on simple rationality and observation of cause and effect, the conclusion is as follows, from my perspective.

If members of X class are given special privilege, while being less productive than the whole, then if said privilege allows special ins to the industry, said industry will suffer; members of X class have the preference of intake.

Following this reason - and true productivity-based recruitment - you can indeed have a perfectly even distribution of race, religion, gender, et cetera within the workforce. I think you underestimate just how many people are out there. Note that I say 'can' because while it's possible, for the most part it's not exactly reachable. It may take a long, long time, but such a thing is possible. Just not practical - in such a time, you may have found many individuals more competent than employee A, but you decide to hire another based simply on his skin color. That is not reasonable. That is not efficient. That is not productivity-oriented thinking, the type of thinking that you need.

Continued, again.
User avatar #204 - krasnogvardiech (11/19/2014) [-]
To sum it all up.

There should be no special privileges.
If you give special privilege to any group within the workforce, it skews the spread of the recruitment and thus lowers productivity.
Solution: Recruit based solely off individual productive endeavour. Many forget that a machine is made up of many, many parts.

Circumstantial factors are irrelevant when recruiting individuals.
To say otherwise is discrimination, by the very definition of the term.
Solution: Recruit based solely off individual productive-mindedness. If such a system had X group as the majority of their employees, then it just shows that X group are the harder workers, excluding individuals.

External influences have no place in the workforce.
Those that are directly dealing and are directly involved in the matter should be the ones addressing a problem. This is due to a better knowledge of the assets available at any given point to deal with any given issue.
Solution: Keep the operation (industry) free of political influence or outside pressure.

Now please, afghanautopilot, leave me the hell alone. I need to sleep, get up, and think about work and solely work, and resolving this issue is not going to help me in that.
#206 - afghanautopilot (11/19/2014) [-]
Hi again, I have a few questions for you if you find the time for further discussion.

For your second paragraph: Does tradition makes those norms fair? After all, isn’t fairness what we’re discussing?
In your third paragraph, what makes you think that anything you ever do is entirely your choice? Are we not to some extent products of the society we live in? Think about people’s favourite food for example. That is one thing which varies tremendously from culture to culture.
In your fourth paragraph, are you suggesting that we by giving unemployed people money are making them a privileged higher class? Would you say that inherited capital is an unfair handout?

What makes you think that employers recruitment is solely productivity based?

I agree with your idea that circumstantial factors should be irrelevant in recruiting I just don’t think that that’s the case today. Here in Sweden for example it’s especially difficult for immigrants from the Middle East to find a job because they are continuously judged by their name and looks before their skills are even taken into account. I couldn’t find a sciencepaper on it but there have been multiple tests where they have sent out the same job applications with different names to a series of companys and consistently the traditional Swedish named applicants are favoured.

Regarding your last paragraph I also would very much like for politics to not be a part of the economy at all, but I’m afraid that’s not the case and to not see that is a dangerous mistake if you ask me.

I hope you find time to answer
#176 - You're correct, that is ******** . However, the fields a…  [+] (22 new replies) 11/18/2014 on golly 0
#177 - afghanautopilot (11/18/2014) [-]
I take it you are a philosophic libertarian? If we start in this end instead: Why did you choose to do whatever you are doing with your life?
User avatar #178 - krasnogvardiech (11/18/2014) [-]
I have no idea what I'm supposed to be. I state naught but my own thoughts.

I chose to get into engineering because it's a damn well-paying field. It's dirty, messy, hands-on and I personally love it. Hence why I haven't quit. But the underlying reason for it is to establish a career which I can then get into aviation via the engineering side of things. Because it's all well and good if I can fly a plane, better yet if I can fix it. But pilots are basically glorified truck drivers in terms of pay unless you're with a big airline. Engineers, on the other hand, are practically rolling in dosh in exchange for having a shit job sometimes. There's a whole lot of things I can list as to why I'm in my field, but in the end I can't really pick one. I'm just drawn to it, like a moth to a candle flame.
#179 - afghanautopilot (11/18/2014) [-]
Great! Now, where does your love for messy, dirty hands-on things come from? What I'm trying to get at is the underlying cause for why you are as you put it "drawn to it like a moth to a candle flame".
User avatar #180 - krasnogvardiech (11/18/2014) [-]
If I knew, don't you think I'd have stated it?

I've been drawn to the skies and the air since I moved halfway across the world, that's all I can say. Paragliding and parachuting's too short, nobody builds zeppelins anymore. Hence, aviation via piloting. And it's economically unsound to do that, thus I acquire funds and a backup via engineering. Therefore, I do work.
User avatar #189 - silverzepher (11/18/2014) [-]
i say we bring back zeplins, we are a smarter people now, we can make it work. imagine being able to take a month long holiday inn the air.
User avatar #196 - krasnogvardiech (11/19/2014) [-]
Rats, dust, oil and perpetual damn creaking. While it's an attractive idea, no thanks.

Plus, it'll be a damn nightmare for air traffic controllers to get over.
User avatar #197 - silverzepher (11/19/2014) [-]
we can make this work, i just need you, and a large sum of money, and maybe some assistance from the cartels in Mexico
User avatar #198 - krasnogvardiech (11/19/2014) [-]
Fuck you and your insinuations. If you're going to construct a zeppelin, which is supposed to be quite a damn bit more long-lasting than an aeroplane, then you need to do it properly. This means no untrained immigrants and no faulty equipment.

Do it once, do it properly.
User avatar #199 - silverzepher (11/19/2014) [-]
but how will we get the large sums of money to cover the initial overhead if we do not deal with the cartels? we are very few who would like to make this work
User avatar #200 - krasnogvardiech (11/19/2014) [-]
I don't know and frankly don't care. While steel isn't at all that expensive (in fact, pure iron is actually more expensive than finished-process steel) it will be expensive indeed to hire the facilities and equipment necessary.

Besides, zeppelins are slow. They're called airships for a reason. A modern cargo-hauler jet could get half the load there three times as fast and twice as cheaply, and that's a thing most trade/courier companies would prefer.
User avatar #201 - silverzepher (11/19/2014) [-]
that is why you make it a report in the sky, a get away from all if your problems in land, don't market it as a way Tu mine his, the problem is the building if the duo's, plus ask if the goods to run it. and the air rights you would have to negotiate writing countries
#181 - afghanautopilot (11/18/2014) [-]
My point is that certain people, situations and societal norms have probably affected your interests and passions in some way and some of those norms and situations are different depending on your gender. While growing up we constantly hear that some things are for girls and some are for guys. It can be as simple as colours or favourite foods. Those experiences are a part of what makes you to be you and we're making a mistake if we think that our previous experiences doesn't affect our decisions. We are not rational beings to that extent. Great book on the subject of subconcious thinking is Daniel Kahneman's "Thinking Fast and Slow" or just read about some cognitive biases like the Fundamental Attribution Error or the Hindsight Bias. That's shit is awesome. A lot of the time we think we make rational decisions but what we're really doing is rationalizing an instinctive decision as we're making it. I would also like to recommend Dan Ariely's Predictably Irrational. Just skip the self help part of it. Do you see what I'm trying to say?
User avatar #182 - krasnogvardiech (11/18/2014) [-]
Yes, and it's because of that that I disagree.

We're all born blank slates, and we grow to be whatever. Back to my point, though, that circumstances do not and by all rights should not interfere with one's place within the workforce. Only effort and merit, supported by knowledge and wisdom, ought to decide those.
#183 - afghanautopilot (11/18/2014) [-]
But what you think should count and what acutally does happens to be opposites. Priming is well described in the psychological litterature and does not only apply to jobs and salaries but everyday- and lifedefining decisions across the board. You are sort of right to say that we are born as blank slates (there are studies which seems to show evidence of quite extensive prenatal priming) but th very essence of what I argue is that we in fact do not grow up to be "whatever" we do very much grow up to be what is expected of us by others which we in turn rationalize internally. That is of course a good thing because people are horrible and if we didn't take other peoples opinions into account civilazation would probably crash and burn, but the medal has it's backside - as we say in Sweden and Norway - and that backside is manifested through various social inequalities like the fact that it's not until recently that it has become acceptable for men to talk about their mental wellbeing or the fact that women are defined professionaly first by their gender and second by their abilities. you almost never hear someone say "Wow, you're good at math for a guy" because we expect guys to be good at math. If your bad at it you're just bad at math. No one will say "Oh well, boys shouldn't get involved in that anyway". Important fields have long been reserved for men, not through law but societal norms and we have to accept that and actively work to change that.
User avatar #184 - krasnogvardiech (11/18/2014) [-]
And I'm saying any employer who works professionally does not give a single fuck about norms and social garbage, and instead hires based solely off competence.
#185 - afghanautopilot (11/18/2014) [-]
But they evidently do not. Employers are also human beings and highly fallible. They may very well think that they don't give a flying fuck, but that's just not the case. As I have described we all give an army of flying fucks subconciously and then trick ourselves into believing that we've made a rational decision. This is why recruiters should ask job applicants to put their names last or on a separate sheet so that their name wouldn't affect their decision. Because trust me it does. And thats not just employers. I think it was Freakonomics Radio who did an episode on some sort of racist database ads.
User avatar #186 - krasnogvardiech (11/18/2014) [-]
Thus, the conversation comes to an end. I could write theses on why you're incorrect, or leave it to philosophy majors to do so. But I need to wake up at 6am to go to work, so I'll be seeing you.
#187 - afghanautopilot (11/18/2014) [-]
As far as I can tell you have yet to bring forward evidence that supports your stand on this except for our rational thinking and a very strict application of homo economicus, which I feel I have demonstrated - at least to some extent - that we cannot trust. I would very much like to continue the discussion - which have been remarkably civilized considering it's on the internet - so feel free to PM me or just reply here in the future. Sweet dreams!
User avatar #202 - krasnogvardiech (11/19/2014) [-]
I'm back. And while I am tired as balls and do still need to get up at 6 in the morning, I'll very carefully and easily break it down. And before you get on my ass about details, keep in mind that I am a broke-ass college grad working at a factory, I speak only my thoughts and my views, and while I could become infuriated, it would ultimately achieve nothing.

Your statement takes it for granted that X-gender people want to do work in Y area, based on Z social norms. What you overlook is that social norms aren't things formed quickly, or easily. The ones in place about within an individual in the modern Western-world society are the result of recurring choices throughout history, all originally started by a group of individuals. To put it simply, our ancestors began the trend, it was followed, and then we continue to do so and see the norm as acceptable because of familiarity and settledness. It is the norm because it's effective - it works. So we keep doing it.

But the recursive point, and the reason your stance is incorrect is that ultimately it is entirely the choice of the individual whether or not to take work in X subject. Speaking from an engineering perspective (and taking heed of the lack of engineers in the modern world, respective to the progress, development and the growth of our population) that if we could do anything to double the number of engineers then that would be fantastic. More hands on deck means more work can be done, and work done properly doesn't care what gender you are. One may equate this to agriculture, social work... basically all kinds of work, done anywhere.

The ultimate choice is one's individual right - the peoples' freedom of choice being a caveat of any democratic nation. If you are to give people of any sort free handouts, then you are creating a privileged higher class which automatically are allowed more freedom to operate economically based only on their being of that higher class.

Continued.
User avatar #203 - krasnogvardiech (11/19/2014) [-]
From the creation of any privileged class the impact on the 'lesser' classes is that they're outed from opportunities to acquire work - in the worst case scenario, all the money might go towards paying off rent, and when they show up to an interview the boss will look down on the individual and would rather pick the one who had some money to spare.

The effect of this, of free handouts to X group within society, is that they're allowed higher status and given an in to any industry they so choose. And then the screening process loses a step - less productive individuals make it within any given industry. If you shorten or skew the base from which the industry intakes workers, then you change the industry; if the individual is less productive, the industry suffers.

From this, based on simple rationality and observation of cause and effect, the conclusion is as follows, from my perspective.

If members of X class are given special privilege, while being less productive than the whole, then if said privilege allows special ins to the industry, said industry will suffer; members of X class have the preference of intake.

Following this reason - and true productivity-based recruitment - you can indeed have a perfectly even distribution of race, religion, gender, et cetera within the workforce. I think you underestimate just how many people are out there. Note that I say 'can' because while it's possible, for the most part it's not exactly reachable. It may take a long, long time, but such a thing is possible. Just not practical - in such a time, you may have found many individuals more competent than employee A, but you decide to hire another based simply on his skin color. That is not reasonable. That is not efficient. That is not productivity-oriented thinking, the type of thinking that you need.

Continued, again.
User avatar #204 - krasnogvardiech (11/19/2014) [-]
To sum it all up.

There should be no special privileges.
If you give special privilege to any group within the workforce, it skews the spread of the recruitment and thus lowers productivity.
Solution: Recruit based solely off individual productive endeavour. Many forget that a machine is made up of many, many parts.

Circumstantial factors are irrelevant when recruiting individuals.
To say otherwise is discrimination, by the very definition of the term.
Solution: Recruit based solely off individual productive-mindedness. If such a system had X group as the majority of their employees, then it just shows that X group are the harder workers, excluding individuals.

External influences have no place in the workforce.
Those that are directly dealing and are directly involved in the matter should be the ones addressing a problem. This is due to a better knowledge of the assets available at any given point to deal with any given issue.
Solution: Keep the operation (industry) free of political influence or outside pressure.

Now please, afghanautopilot, leave me the hell alone. I need to sleep, get up, and think about work and solely work, and resolving this issue is not going to help me in that.
#206 - afghanautopilot (11/19/2014) [-]
Hi again, I have a few questions for you if you find the time for further discussion.

For your second paragraph: Does tradition makes those norms fair? After all, isn’t fairness what we’re discussing?
In your third paragraph, what makes you think that anything you ever do is entirely your choice? Are we not to some extent products of the society we live in? Think about people’s favourite food for example. That is one thing which varies tremendously from culture to culture.
In your fourth paragraph, are you suggesting that we by giving unemployed people money are making them a privileged higher class? Would you say that inherited capital is an unfair handout?

What makes you think that employers recruitment is solely productivity based?

I agree with your idea that circumstantial factors should be irrelevant in recruiting I just don’t think that that’s the case today. Here in Sweden for example it’s especially difficult for immigrants from the Middle East to find a job because they are continuously judged by their name and looks before their skills are even taken into account. I couldn’t find a sciencepaper on it but there have been multiple tests where they have sent out the same job applications with different names to a series of companys and consistently the traditional Swedish named applicants are favoured.

Regarding your last paragraph I also would very much like for politics to not be a part of the economy at all, but I’m afraid that’s not the case and to not see that is a dangerous mistake if you ask me.

I hope you find time to answer
#174 - ... I thought you were referring to the list of **** in… 11/18/2014 on golly 0
#172 - Point, but your comment is still incorrect for the most part. …  [+] (24 new replies) 11/18/2014 on golly 0
#175 - afghanautopilot (11/18/2014) [-]
well are we talking about specific examples or just society in general. Because if we're talking about society as a whole I would argue that gender as a social construct - not biological sex except for cases of manual labour - has huge effects not so much on your productivity but the expectations strangers have to you and how that pushes you to a behavioural pattern that separates you from the other gender. I don't have the statistics hera right now and it's 4 a.m. in Gothenburg but at least here women have for a really long time been alienated from the academic world and are just now starting to get their share. There are still fields dominated by males like economics and engineering which often give high paid jobs. the reason women don't go to those subjects isn't because it's illegal, it's because the second they escape their mothers vagina they are told that those subjects are for guys. Tinkering with dirty shit is for men. Little girls should be clean and wear pink. that's where I think the real problem lies.
User avatar #176 - krasnogvardiech (11/18/2014) [-]
You're correct, that is bullshit. However, the fields are only dominated by men because very few women decide to go into them. The choice to enter said fields is still completely down to the individual.
Again, gender and behaviour patterns and social constructs have no place in the workforce. You need to work and do your job, and if you do so well then you're doing it right. Go above and beyond and you may get a raise. Do poorly and you will be inquired upon.

It boils down to the choice of the individual. And whether or not one would say "Fuck it, I'm doing this" or not.
#177 - afghanautopilot (11/18/2014) [-]
I take it you are a philosophic libertarian? If we start in this end instead: Why did you choose to do whatever you are doing with your life?
User avatar #178 - krasnogvardiech (11/18/2014) [-]
I have no idea what I'm supposed to be. I state naught but my own thoughts.

I chose to get into engineering because it's a damn well-paying field. It's dirty, messy, hands-on and I personally love it. Hence why I haven't quit. But the underlying reason for it is to establish a career which I can then get into aviation via the engineering side of things. Because it's all well and good if I can fly a plane, better yet if I can fix it. But pilots are basically glorified truck drivers in terms of pay unless you're with a big airline. Engineers, on the other hand, are practically rolling in dosh in exchange for having a shit job sometimes. There's a whole lot of things I can list as to why I'm in my field, but in the end I can't really pick one. I'm just drawn to it, like a moth to a candle flame.
#179 - afghanautopilot (11/18/2014) [-]
Great! Now, where does your love for messy, dirty hands-on things come from? What I'm trying to get at is the underlying cause for why you are as you put it "drawn to it like a moth to a candle flame".
User avatar #180 - krasnogvardiech (11/18/2014) [-]
If I knew, don't you think I'd have stated it?

I've been drawn to the skies and the air since I moved halfway across the world, that's all I can say. Paragliding and parachuting's too short, nobody builds zeppelins anymore. Hence, aviation via piloting. And it's economically unsound to do that, thus I acquire funds and a backup via engineering. Therefore, I do work.
User avatar #189 - silverzepher (11/18/2014) [-]
i say we bring back zeplins, we are a smarter people now, we can make it work. imagine being able to take a month long holiday inn the air.
User avatar #196 - krasnogvardiech (11/19/2014) [-]
Rats, dust, oil and perpetual damn creaking. While it's an attractive idea, no thanks.

Plus, it'll be a damn nightmare for air traffic controllers to get over.
User avatar #197 - silverzepher (11/19/2014) [-]
we can make this work, i just need you, and a large sum of money, and maybe some assistance from the cartels in Mexico
User avatar #198 - krasnogvardiech (11/19/2014) [-]
Fuck you and your insinuations. If you're going to construct a zeppelin, which is supposed to be quite a damn bit more long-lasting than an aeroplane, then you need to do it properly. This means no untrained immigrants and no faulty equipment.

Do it once, do it properly.
User avatar #199 - silverzepher (11/19/2014) [-]
but how will we get the large sums of money to cover the initial overhead if we do not deal with the cartels? we are very few who would like to make this work
User avatar #200 - krasnogvardiech (11/19/2014) [-]
I don't know and frankly don't care. While steel isn't at all that expensive (in fact, pure iron is actually more expensive than finished-process steel) it will be expensive indeed to hire the facilities and equipment necessary.

Besides, zeppelins are slow. They're called airships for a reason. A modern cargo-hauler jet could get half the load there three times as fast and twice as cheaply, and that's a thing most trade/courier companies would prefer.
User avatar #201 - silverzepher (11/19/2014) [-]
that is why you make it a report in the sky, a get away from all if your problems in land, don't market it as a way Tu mine his, the problem is the building if the duo's, plus ask if the goods to run it. and the air rights you would have to negotiate writing countries
#181 - afghanautopilot (11/18/2014) [-]
My point is that certain people, situations and societal norms have probably affected your interests and passions in some way and some of those norms and situations are different depending on your gender. While growing up we constantly hear that some things are for girls and some are for guys. It can be as simple as colours or favourite foods. Those experiences are a part of what makes you to be you and we're making a mistake if we think that our previous experiences doesn't affect our decisions. We are not rational beings to that extent. Great book on the subject of subconcious thinking is Daniel Kahneman's "Thinking Fast and Slow" or just read about some cognitive biases like the Fundamental Attribution Error or the Hindsight Bias. That's shit is awesome. A lot of the time we think we make rational decisions but what we're really doing is rationalizing an instinctive decision as we're making it. I would also like to recommend Dan Ariely's Predictably Irrational. Just skip the self help part of it. Do you see what I'm trying to say?
User avatar #182 - krasnogvardiech (11/18/2014) [-]
Yes, and it's because of that that I disagree.

We're all born blank slates, and we grow to be whatever. Back to my point, though, that circumstances do not and by all rights should not interfere with one's place within the workforce. Only effort and merit, supported by knowledge and wisdom, ought to decide those.
#183 - afghanautopilot (11/18/2014) [-]
But what you think should count and what acutally does happens to be opposites. Priming is well described in the psychological litterature and does not only apply to jobs and salaries but everyday- and lifedefining decisions across the board. You are sort of right to say that we are born as blank slates (there are studies which seems to show evidence of quite extensive prenatal priming) but th very essence of what I argue is that we in fact do not grow up to be "whatever" we do very much grow up to be what is expected of us by others which we in turn rationalize internally. That is of course a good thing because people are horrible and if we didn't take other peoples opinions into account civilazation would probably crash and burn, but the medal has it's backside - as we say in Sweden and Norway - and that backside is manifested through various social inequalities like the fact that it's not until recently that it has become acceptable for men to talk about their mental wellbeing or the fact that women are defined professionaly first by their gender and second by their abilities. you almost never hear someone say "Wow, you're good at math for a guy" because we expect guys to be good at math. If your bad at it you're just bad at math. No one will say "Oh well, boys shouldn't get involved in that anyway". Important fields have long been reserved for men, not through law but societal norms and we have to accept that and actively work to change that.
User avatar #184 - krasnogvardiech (11/18/2014) [-]
And I'm saying any employer who works professionally does not give a single fuck about norms and social garbage, and instead hires based solely off competence.
#185 - afghanautopilot (11/18/2014) [-]
But they evidently do not. Employers are also human beings and highly fallible. They may very well think that they don't give a flying fuck, but that's just not the case. As I have described we all give an army of flying fucks subconciously and then trick ourselves into believing that we've made a rational decision. This is why recruiters should ask job applicants to put their names last or on a separate sheet so that their name wouldn't affect their decision. Because trust me it does. And thats not just employers. I think it was Freakonomics Radio who did an episode on some sort of racist database ads.
User avatar #186 - krasnogvardiech (11/18/2014) [-]
Thus, the conversation comes to an end. I could write theses on why you're incorrect, or leave it to philosophy majors to do so. But I need to wake up at 6am to go to work, so I'll be seeing you.
#187 - afghanautopilot (11/18/2014) [-]
As far as I can tell you have yet to bring forward evidence that supports your stand on this except for our rational thinking and a very strict application of homo economicus, which I feel I have demonstrated - at least to some extent - that we cannot trust. I would very much like to continue the discussion - which have been remarkably civilized considering it's on the internet - so feel free to PM me or just reply here in the future. Sweet dreams!
User avatar #202 - krasnogvardiech (11/19/2014) [-]
I'm back. And while I am tired as balls and do still need to get up at 6 in the morning, I'll very carefully and easily break it down. And before you get on my ass about details, keep in mind that I am a broke-ass college grad working at a factory, I speak only my thoughts and my views, and while I could become infuriated, it would ultimately achieve nothing.

Your statement takes it for granted that X-gender people want to do work in Y area, based on Z social norms. What you overlook is that social norms aren't things formed quickly, or easily. The ones in place about within an individual in the modern Western-world society are the result of recurring choices throughout history, all originally started by a group of individuals. To put it simply, our ancestors began the trend, it was followed, and then we continue to do so and see the norm as acceptable because of familiarity and settledness. It is the norm because it's effective - it works. So we keep doing it.

But the recursive point, and the reason your stance is incorrect is that ultimately it is entirely the choice of the individual whether or not to take work in X subject. Speaking from an engineering perspective (and taking heed of the lack of engineers in the modern world, respective to the progress, development and the growth of our population) that if we could do anything to double the number of engineers then that would be fantastic. More hands on deck means more work can be done, and work done properly doesn't care what gender you are. One may equate this to agriculture, social work... basically all kinds of work, done anywhere.

The ultimate choice is one's individual right - the peoples' freedom of choice being a caveat of any democratic nation. If you are to give people of any sort free handouts, then you are creating a privileged higher class which automatically are allowed more freedom to operate economically based only on their being of that higher class.

Continued.
User avatar #203 - krasnogvardiech (11/19/2014) [-]
From the creation of any privileged class the impact on the 'lesser' classes is that they're outed from opportunities to acquire work - in the worst case scenario, all the money might go towards paying off rent, and when they show up to an interview the boss will look down on the individual and would rather pick the one who had some money to spare.

The effect of this, of free handouts to X group within society, is that they're allowed higher status and given an in to any industry they so choose. And then the screening process loses a step - less productive individuals make it within any given industry. If you shorten or skew the base from which the industry intakes workers, then you change the industry; if the individual is less productive, the industry suffers.

From this, based on simple rationality and observation of cause and effect, the conclusion is as follows, from my perspective.

If members of X class are given special privilege, while being less productive than the whole, then if said privilege allows special ins to the industry, said industry will suffer; members of X class have the preference of intake.

Following this reason - and true productivity-based recruitment - you can indeed have a perfectly even distribution of race, religion, gender, et cetera within the workforce. I think you underestimate just how many people are out there. Note that I say 'can' because while it's possible, for the most part it's not exactly reachable. It may take a long, long time, but such a thing is possible. Just not practical - in such a time, you may have found many individuals more competent than employee A, but you decide to hire another based simply on his skin color. That is not reasonable. That is not efficient. That is not productivity-oriented thinking, the type of thinking that you need.

Continued, again.
User avatar #204 - krasnogvardiech (11/19/2014) [-]
To sum it all up.

There should be no special privileges.
If you give special privilege to any group within the workforce, it skews the spread of the recruitment and thus lowers productivity.
Solution: Recruit based solely off individual productive endeavour. Many forget that a machine is made up of many, many parts.

Circumstantial factors are irrelevant when recruiting individuals.
To say otherwise is discrimination, by the very definition of the term.
Solution: Recruit based solely off individual productive-mindedness. If such a system had X group as the majority of their employees, then it just shows that X group are the harder workers, excluding individuals.

External influences have no place in the workforce.
Those that are directly dealing and are directly involved in the matter should be the ones addressing a problem. This is due to a better knowledge of the assets available at any given point to deal with any given issue.
Solution: Keep the operation (industry) free of political influence or outside pressure.

Now please, afghanautopilot, leave me the hell alone. I need to sleep, get up, and think about work and solely work, and resolving this issue is not going to help me in that.
#206 - afghanautopilot (11/19/2014) [-]
Hi again, I have a few questions for you if you find the time for further discussion.

For your second paragraph: Does tradition makes those norms fair? After all, isn’t fairness what we’re discussing?
In your third paragraph, what makes you think that anything you ever do is entirely your choice? Are we not to some extent products of the society we live in? Think about people’s favourite food for example. That is one thing which varies tremendously from culture to culture.
In your fourth paragraph, are you suggesting that we by giving unemployed people money are making them a privileged higher class? Would you say that inherited capital is an unfair handout?

What makes you think that employers recruitment is solely productivity based?

I agree with your idea that circumstantial factors should be irrelevant in recruiting I just don’t think that that’s the case today. Here in Sweden for example it’s especially difficult for immigrants from the Middle East to find a job because they are continuously judged by their name and looks before their skills are even taken into account. I couldn’t find a sciencepaper on it but there have been multiple tests where they have sent out the same job applications with different names to a series of companys and consistently the traditional Swedish named applicants are favoured.

Regarding your last paragraph I also would very much like for politics to not be a part of the economy at all, but I’m afraid that’s not the case and to not see that is a dangerous mistake if you ask me.

I hope you find time to answer
#170 - Sadly, some are. Personally I don't give two ***** , but… 11/18/2014 on golly 0

items

Total unique items point value: 170 / Total items point value: 790

Comments(2183):

krasnogvardiech has disabled anonymous comments.
[ 2183 comments ]
#2205 - falloutsurvivor (04/26/2015) [-]
im sad now

i think i have Krasno liver

i drank a bottle of wine and felt nothing
#2204 - rageblade (04/20/2015) [-]
ahhh motherland

High-Speed Russian VDV Airborne: Air-Mech Paras Jump with Drogues
User avatar #2200 - krasnogvardiech (04/16/2015) [-]
>>404
#2198 - rageblade (04/16/2015) [-]
**rageblade used "*roll Magic 8-Ball*"**
**rageblade rolls Cannot predict now**
will Kras be the next tsar of the motherland
User avatar #2199 to #2198 - krasnogvardiech (04/16/2015) [-]
It cannot predict because I decided it would not.
#2191 - rageblade (04/15/2015) [-]
**rageblade used "*roll cah answer*"**
**rageblade rolls A monkey smoking a cigar.**
what makes Kras cringe
User avatar #2192 to #2191 - krasnogvardiech (04/15/2015) [-]
noooooooo
#2193 to #2192 - rageblade (04/15/2015) [-]
cigar monkey time
User avatar #2194 to #2193 - krasnogvardiech (04/15/2015) [-]
remove ****** remove ******
#2195 to #2194 - rageblade (04/15/2015) [-]
****** already in motherland
User avatar #2196 to #2195 - krasnogvardiech (04/15/2015) [-]
will die

******* cannot live rape kill steal in cold weather
#2197 to #2196 - rageblade (04/15/2015) [-]
these ******* look okay to me
maybe they learned to handle snow
#2176 - rageblade (04/14/2015) [-]
здравствуйте
User avatar #2177 to #2176 - krasnogvardiech (04/14/2015) [-]
Guten tag.
#2178 to #2177 - rageblade (04/14/2015) [-]
wie gehts kamerad Kras
User avatar #2179 to #2178 - krasnogvardiech (04/14/2015) [-]
Ничего важности
#2180 to #2179 - rageblade (04/14/2015) [-]
> in NZ
> doing nothing important

so relevant
User avatar #2181 to #2180 - krasnogvardiech (04/14/2015) [-]
I'm going to go shooting in about two hours. And I intend to get above 100 points this time.

I swear upon the Emperor, the Murderkube and Ireland.
#2182 to #2181 - rageblade (04/14/2015) [-]
> russian
> giving a **** about accuracy

lel
User avatar #2183 to #2182 - krasnogvardiech (04/14/2015) [-]
My ancestors and heroes are looking down upon me. I must cheeki the breeki and ooga the chaka.
#2184 to #2183 - rageblade (04/14/2015) [-]
your ancestors would say "the **** are you using a gun you pussy....charge in with swords drawn like a real ruski warrior"
User avatar #2185 to #2184 - krasnogvardiech (04/14/2015) [-]
*like a Cossack

And i say **** them, I fight the way that is effective.
#2186 to #2185 - rageblade (04/14/2015) [-]
go to war as 100% russian
#2187 to #2186 - krasnogvardiech (04/14/2015) [-]
DA

And bears are very intelligent animals, thinking on it.
#2188 to #2187 - rageblade (04/14/2015) [-]
unless youre in Belarus

the hairy gay men 'bears' are very dumb
User avatar #2189 to #2188 - krasnogvardiech (04/14/2015) [-]
And just about anywhere else.
#2190 to #2189 - rageblade (04/15/2015) [-]
**rageblade used "*roll Magic 8-Ball*"**
**rageblade rolls My sources say no** is Kras a gay bear
User avatar #2150 - murrlogic ONLINE (04/12/2015) [-]
boop
User avatar #2174 to #2151 - murrlogic ONLINE (04/12/2015) [-]
>Implying they can't be mutual business partners

The thing about being a selfish corportized sociopath is you have a tendency to demand more because there is no such thing as "enough"

>No more room for stripmalls
>No more oil to drill
>No more diamonds to mine
>No more animals to slaughter

Asami is a very VERY greedy woman. She could offer to find hostile planets for the Emperor to wage war with since his ego revolves around feeding the itchy trigger fingers of angry marines.

Meanwhile he would offer to find peaceful, heavily resourced planets for her to destroy. Think Avatar only this time the Megacorporation wins.
#2175 to #2174 - krasnogvardiech (04/12/2015) [-]
Dude

Dude

Doooood

Bruh

Broski

You're not thinking long-term enough.

Emperor dictates that the Imperium must expand in X galactic arm. Asami Goto, High Lord of Terra and (for the purposes of this conversation) Mistress of the Rogue Traders, spies a nice cluster of sectors not yet under Imperial Law. Said sectors are populated by a nice assortment of humans, xenos, assets and valuables. Asami Goto 'advises' a few of her Rogue Traders to go there. Her lieutenants fund shadow and civil wars alike, leaving the sectors in desperate want. Goto herself extends a token effort which is calculated and placed for maximum efficiency - the sectors end up serving her.

Once mercantile dependancy is placed under Goto's rule - calculated so that maximum output whilst providing wealth and decent standard for operation of the assets, by miss Goto - the Emperor would order in his Liberation fleets, after which it would be very simple and normal Imperial life.

Basically, it's not so much a matter of being mutual business partners. The Emperor would likely very astutely recognize her business capability and hand over all of his Imperium's commercial authority in exchange for her working for him. After which he'll basically leave her to her own functioning, and the Imperial war machine will only profit.

And in the long term, not a lick of difference will be made to canon because you know **** could've happened this way and nobody would be able to tell the difference.

Come on, you know she wouldn't say no to having this and thousands many times more things like it. Small price to pay in exchange for putting up with the rest of the Imperium.

-

The (slight) heresy against the Emperor is in your assumption of ego. It's all an act until he needs it otherwise. Should there be a threat the Imperial Army cannot handle, a tactical assessment is done. The solutions are simple. If the threat afflicts the Imperium, such as a xenos invasion or suchlike, send a Liberation Fleet. If even a Crusade-level Liberation fleet spearheaded by the Astartes can't handle it, then and only then is Exterminatus a viable option.
User avatar #2161 to #2151 - murrlogic ONLINE (04/12/2015) [-]
Absolutely none of those

Rich Girl with desire to become richer and powerful best fetish.
User avatar #2163 to #2161 - krasnogvardiech (04/12/2015) [-]
Logical. Man and woman have to complement each other in status, right?
User avatar #2164 to #2163 - murrlogic ONLINE (04/12/2015) [-]
Nah man I want a Shallow Materialistic Bitch who takes her lavish lifestyle to an extreme

We're not talking acctress rich

or even "I'm pro right wing everything" rich

We're talking "I have transcended the realm of mortal peasantry" rich.
#2165 to #2164 - krasnogvardiech (04/12/2015) [-]
So rich you measure your wealth not by numbers, but by which order of magnitude you are wealthier than the person next to you.

Niiiiice.
#2166 to #2165 - murrlogic ONLINE (04/12/2015) [-]
Asami would look at a billionaire and laugh   
   
>I'm sorry. Unemployment line is over there   
   
Trillionaire would be like a kid with a shiny new quarter   
   
It would boggle the mind.
Asami would look at a billionaire and laugh

>I'm sorry. Unemployment line is over there

Trillionaire would be like a kid with a shiny new quarter

It would boggle the mind.
#2167 to #2166 - krasnogvardiech (04/12/2015) [-]
Quadrillionaire. Like, Bill Gates rich. A Rogue Trader in the making.

her fw
User avatar #2168 to #2167 - murrlogic ONLINE (04/12/2015) [-]
KEK

Sounds about right. The kind of spoiled rich girl who lives in a 2000 ft tall mansion and complains that the decor is all wrong and we need to start over from scratch

>Bulldoze the entire house down. One wall is not the color I want we need to start over.
#2169 to #2168 - krasnogvardiech (04/12/2015) [-]
Concrete and steel is cheap anyway. And hiring the woman who designed Saddam Hussein's bunker (who herself is descended from the man who designed Adolf Hitler's bunker) is a pittance, right?

her fw people come asking for money
User avatar #2170 to #2169 - murrlogic ONLINE (04/12/2015) [-]
Well she is a Weapon's developer among other things. Monopolists don't like it where there is something or someone they don't own yet

Private Mercenaries? **** that I'll take an entire army, navy, marine force, air force, ALL OF IT

My life is worth more than 6 billion people I have ever right to be a teensy bit paranoid so die for your queen.
#2171 to #2170 - krasnogvardiech (04/12/2015) [-]
Ah, Rogue Trader-funded colonies in a nutshell. Or the megacorporations of Borderlands.
User avatar #2172 to #2171 - murrlogic ONLINE (04/12/2015) [-]
Megacorporation is an understatement

Remember when Mitt Romney said on live TV "Corporations are like people?"

Asami takes that to an extreme. A corporation is like a new born baby you need to love and nurture it and show it no harm. So keep your taxes and laws away from her baby.
#2173 to #2172 - krasnogvardiech (04/12/2015) [-]
Not even Rogue Traders are beyond the law of the Imperium, though. Big Boss says jump, she still asks how high. That's just what you do when the guy who mandated just everything you do tells you to.

And besides, just look at this magnificent superhuman demigod. He is twenty-one feet tall, at minimum. And he still managed to find time to hand-make all that **** . You bow to that kind of guy.
User avatar #2152 to #2151 - murrlogic ONLINE (04/12/2015) [-]
Morning Draken its midnight

sup.
#2153 to #2152 - krasnogvardiech (04/12/2015) [-]
The ceiling is up, despite all my efforts.

I have the day off tomorrow in exchange for having to work on a saturday. Good thing I'm contracted.

Give me three random words and I'll try to include them in my novel I'm currently writing.
#2154 to #2153 - murrlogic ONLINE (04/12/2015) [-]
3 random words? OK

Asami

Best

Waifu.
#2155 to #2154 - krasnogvardiech (04/12/2015) [-]
Those words were most decidedly not random, but I'll include them in this work anyway.

The name will be the wife of a skyport repair-dock worker that he'll be phoning home to, 'Best' is fairly common so I'll use it as a colloquialization for 'Bestie', a type of propeller engine for airships that fell out of production (though the repair-dock at which the main character works's stationed wizard will retell tale after tale of those reliable little things) and I'll have a shored mercenary that doesn't know a lick of English try to pronounce 'Rifle' and fail horrendously.

Pic only slightly related.
#2156 to #2155 - murrlogic has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #2157 to #2156 - krasnogvardiech (04/12/2015) [-]
I don't really care, to be honest. I posted it because it seemed relevant.

How have things been happening and how have you been attempting to milk them for all their worth in this great ******** we call life?
User avatar #2158 to #2157 - murrlogic ONLINE (04/12/2015) [-]
Man **** you then I care greatly I love my art projects

Its like 12:30 AM where I am right now thinking of new porn ideas to fap to.
User avatar #2162 to #2158 - krasnogvardiech (04/12/2015) [-]
Wait a sec. You aren't seriously one of the dudes who works on LoK, are you?
#2159 to #2158 - krasnogvardiech (04/12/2015) [-]
*roll fetish*

Spin the wheel!
#2139 - rageblade (04/09/2015) [-]
*puts a bowl of borscht in the middle of a minefield and waits for Kras*
#2140 to #2139 - krasnogvardiech (04/09/2015) [-]
I equip Soyuzkoptr and retrieve the borsht
I equip Soyuzkoptr and retrieve the borsht
#2141 to #2140 - rageblade (04/09/2015) [-]
allahu akbar
#2143 to #2142 - rageblade (04/09/2015) [-]
you remember the scene from 9 Rota where the plane gets shot down

allahu akbar
#2145 to #2144 - rageblade (04/09/2015) [-]
**rageblade used "*roll Magic 8-Ball*"**
**rageblade rolls Outlook good**
will syrianassassin fly a plane into the kremlin
#2146 to #2145 - krasnogvardiech (04/09/2015) [-]
Never   
   
Russia give even less of a 			****		 than America   
   
SAMs will shoot down before he descends past 10,000 feet.
Never

Russia give even less of a **** than America

SAMs will shoot down before he descends past 10,000 feet.
#2147 to #2146 - rageblade (04/09/2015) [-]
what is kebab comes down from space and just drops like a meteor

AA wont have time to track him
User avatar #2148 to #2147 - krasnogvardiech (04/09/2015) [-]
********

radar is quick

missile is quick

kebab b gon
#2149 to #2148 - rageblade (04/09/2015) [-]
then you have burning debris of kebab fall out you


ans what if kebab packs plane with bombs and scatters them before missiles hit him...then you have bombs rain down
#2136 - rageblade (04/08/2015) [-]
Krasno admits south siders are ******* idiots

same rule no mater where you go
User avatar #2137 to #2136 - krasnogvardiech (04/08/2015) [-]
Oi. Inverz ain't that bad.
#2138 to #2137 - rageblade (04/08/2015) [-]
yeah but are people on the south side of town idiots
#2126 - matexius (04/05/2015) [-]
Kras... I think I found your great, great, great, great... *1.5 hour later*... great grandson...
#2127 to #2126 - krasnogvardiech (04/05/2015) [-]
Well, there is a resemblance.
User avatar #2128 to #2127 - matexius (04/05/2015) [-]
Seriously though... I just found the Vostroyans'... and kind of a '' ********** thing right here they're Space Russians... That makes me think... Are there Space Germans, Americans, Slovenes and Brits, too?
User avatar #2129 to #2128 - krasnogvardiech (04/05/2015) [-]
Specifically, they are Tsarist Cossacks IN SPAAACE!.

Now, in order:

Armageddon Steel Legion is Wehrmacht Armoured Divisions (Heer, not SS) IN SPAAACE!.
Death Korps of Krieg is WWI Prussian/German Trench Fighters IN SPAAACE!.
Elysian Drop Troops are a mix between the French Foreign Legion and American Airborne Infantry IN SPAAACE!.
Cadian Shock Troops are WWII Allied forces IN SPAAACE!, which counts as American, I'd say.
Mordian Iron Guard alternate between the USMC Dress Uniform and Zulu/Boer War British Colonial Infantry IN SPAAACE!.
No idea about Slovenes.
User avatar #2131 to #2129 - matexius (04/05/2015) [-]
Also... What is ''CREEEEEEEEEDDD'' supposed to mean?
#2132 to #2131 - krasnogvardiech (04/05/2015) [-]
It's part cry of frustration and the rest the lament of the defeated. Most often sounded when the enemy has been the victim of a commander that bore tactical genius on Lord Castellan Creed's level.
User avatar #2133 to #2132 - matexius (04/05/2015) [-]
Oh...now that picture makes sense...
I saw a picture in the comments that was a Greater Daemon of Tzeench, who's essentially an overgrown bird with anger issues that played...I think Chess or something with a Guardsman with a big cloak and a cigar; the bird thing was screaming ''CREEEEEEEED'' and flipping the table...
I asked what it meant, but nobody answered... Now I feel like the guy who never heard of Marneus Calgar...
User avatar #2130 to #2129 - matexius (04/05/2015) [-]
You think they still remember the old Terra Dance?

Cadians are the 'Muricans, kinda makes sense... only that they don't bomb your ass with artilerry...
How did I not see the Krieg guys... I need to think before I think out loud...

Eh, just asking about Slovenes, since I'm one...
I'll be completely frank with you... we probably wouldn't survive the next 38 milleniums, well, maybe; we've survived under near constant assault since the 4. century from the Germanics, Italians (Romans), Turks, Hungarians, the Spaniards, even our neighbours from the Balkans, etc. and we're still here. I don't know why I'm telling you this... we just might have a chance...
#2124 - falloutsurvivor (04/03/2015) [-]
just another day in the land of Krasnogvardiech

Russian Security Guards Group Fight 4 on 1.avi
#2125 to #2124 - krasnogvardiech (04/03/2015) [-]
No **** is given for traitor to motherland.
#2123 - rageblade (04/03/2015) [-]
Call o Duty 5 : World at War    Soviet song
User avatar #2115 to #2114 - krasnogvardiech (04/03/2015) [-]
you know it
#2116 to #2115 - rageblade (04/03/2015) [-]
you gotta make more soviet OC krassle
User avatar #2117 to #2116 - krasnogvardiech (04/03/2015) [-]
i don't wanna
#2120 to #2119 - rageblade (04/03/2015) [-]
do it you lazy chechen
#2121 to #2120 - krasnogvardiech (04/03/2015) [-]
but if I am of chechen how is chechen of me?
#2122 to #2121 - rageblade (04/03/2015) [-]
Krasno is cheeki breeki
#2105 - rageblade (04/03/2015) [-]
*prods Kras fat belly*
too many easter chocolates
User avatar #2106 to #2105 - krasnogvardiech (04/03/2015) [-]
nig I ate them months back
#2104 - rageblade (03/31/2015) [-]
baby Schnizel versus baby Krasnogvardiech   
   
round 1   
FIGHT
baby Schnizel versus baby Krasnogvardiech

round 1
FIGHT
User avatar #2105 to #2104 - krasnogvardiech (03/31/2015) [-]
We agree on a whole lot of things, actually.

#2107 to #2105 - rageblade (04/03/2015) [-]
time to put kras through red army fitness to work the flab off
User avatar #2108 to #2107 - krasnogvardiech (04/03/2015) [-]
Gone through that already

Siberian gulag is cold. need spare tire of fat.
#2109 to #2108 - rageblade (04/03/2015) [-]
youre in new zealand
kras bear should be strong enough to handle the weather
#2110 to #2109 - krasnogvardiech (04/03/2015) [-]
Exchange student program.
#2111 to #2110 - rageblade (04/03/2015) [-]
youre in motherland now?
#2113 to #2112 - rageblade (04/03/2015) [-]
< how kras feels back in russian cold

Terminator 2 (The Best Scenes) - "Hasta La Vista, Baby"
#2103 - matexius (03/26/2015) [-]
You see Ivan, when fire mortar like me, the enemy will be of bombed by both artillery and air-strike...   
   
 I tried...
You see Ivan, when fire mortar like me, the enemy will be of bombed by both artillery and air-strike...

I tried...
#2101 - rageblade (03/26/2015) [-]
holy ****

they were your people?
User avatar #2099 to #2098 - krasnogvardiech (03/25/2015) [-]
Thank you.
#2097 - rageblade (03/18/2015) [-]
mother of god
i found the Krasnogvardiech swim club

Swimming in the pool after using a bottle of vodka
#2091 - rageblade (03/16/2015) [-]
Kras
dont be antisocial
talk to me comrade
User avatar #2092 to #2091 - krasnogvardiech (03/16/2015) [-]
This you kurzy?

I barely keep up with **** as it is, don't be cutting my ballsack off
#2093 to #2092 - rageblade (03/16/2015) [-]
who else makes soviet taunts about you?

yes it is Konrad

whatcha been up to comrade
User avatar #2094 to #2093 - krasnogvardiech (03/16/2015) [-]
Work, Study, eating, gaming, ******** , lifting, sleeping. Repeat.

That's about it. Tired as balls most of the time now.
#2095 to #2094 - rageblade (03/16/2015) [-]
efficient soviet man
but you forgot drinking....

comrade....i am disappoint
User avatar #2096 to #2095 - krasnogvardiech (03/16/2015) [-]
That happens in every single ******* stage, you fukn casul

step it up fag
[ 2183 comments ]
 Friends (0)