It sounds like you were insecure about certain things like dating and got over it via psychedelics
I mean if that works, sure. But what happens in the future if you latch onto some other insecurity? Will you just take a psychedelic again? Is that going to actually fix the problem?
I don’t know if it’s accurate to describe what I was going through as “latching on to an insecurity”. I had literally forgotten that I am cool and sexy and this led to insecurity around other cool and sexy people I liked. Once I remembered that I am also cool and sexy, I was able to see myself on an even playing field with the people I like and there was simply no cause for insecurity.
I will certainly do psychedelics again tho. When done with intention and maturity they’re fun, harmless, and have generally always been positive and emotionally productive for me. Some years ago I had a mushroom trip that was emotionally challenging, but reminded me of the mortality of my aging parents. This led me to make more of an effort to see them and spend time with them. That’s a wonderful outcome.
The thing about psychedelics is that they basically work by loosening up your brain’s “default mode network” which is the set of pathways you use to make decisions. By loosening up this network you can find adjacent connections that were almost there but had not quite clicked. So they are a tool to help you find things you have been missing. This is something I will continue to explore. On a more basic level, I found that a small dose of LSD at a dance party is very enjoyable and way better for me personally than drinking alcohol or consuming marijuana. Not that I need substances to have fun, but sometimes that’s a fun way to spend an evening.
>I mean if that works, sure. But what happens in the future if you latch onto some other insecurity? Will you just take a psychedelic again? Is that going to actually fix the problem?
If taking a psychedelic on occasion is effective in combating people's insecurities that is almost certainly one of the most massive wins in the history of mental health.
I don't think it's nearly that simple but I am baffled by the idea of "taking a psychedelic cured you of this issue so what are you gonna do if you have another issue, cure it with another psychedelic, huh?" being some sort of negative thing.
> We’ve been marketed to that we should be happy and that buying <thing|experience> will make us happy.
Seems like the entirely idea of happiness has been semiotically highjacked by marketing, morality, other things
When I mentally picture "happiness", all I really see is a bunch of behaviors that are frequently depicted as desirable in the aggregate by media and others
The Buddhists are a lot more sane about this than we are. Imo there's so much residue around the word "happiness", in order to achieve a sense of peace it's better to just throw it out and take each day at a time
Remember the Supreme Court upheld the legality of affirmative action in 2016 in Fisher v. UT-Austin, and two lower courts upheld the legality of affirmative action in this particular decision.
What changed is the make-up of the court; otherwise, apparently affirmative action's unconstitutionality was just realized like a revelation from God and every previous court (federal and Supreme) was wrong.
Racial rancor, and racism in general -- anti black racism in particular -- has probably increased since 2003; at least in the public sphere - hopefully this ruling is not a part of that milieu.
Adcoms (admission committees) have learned their hard lessons. Williams R. Fitzsimmons and Rakesh Khurana of Harvard might have told everyone to not put everything in writing, just as CEOs tell underlings to not put in writing in order to not be found in the discovery process. And these professors and deans we ordinary mortals should emulate for ethical exemplars. Maybe, they should follow what they preach to students.
Considering the failure and timing of prop 16 and overall makeup of the California electorate compared to rest of country, official discrimination on the basis of race likely won't return in higher ed. Also consider that prop 16 failed by double digits with the pro-discrimination crowd outspending the opposition 19x
What I'm curious about is this: the Harvard decision is wrt a private entity, the court ruled that they discriminated against whites and asians
Could racially discriminatory hiring strategies be next? Could this trigger a wave of litigation?
> Could racially discriminatory hiring strategies be next?
I'm no fan of regulation and government intervention in private business, but its gotten out of control in tech and the corporate world. I've flat out heard hiring managers say they'll only hire a woman, lgbtq, or [certain minority] for certain roles. I've sat in hiring committees where candidates preform horribly, esp compared to others being reviewed at the same time, and get pushed through to offer stage just because of their inalienable characteristics. If these meetings were recorded and leaked to the press, there'd be outrage. These managers talk of human beings like people collect coins or action figures. And HR/Recruiting/C-suite is super complicit in all this, if not actively encouraging it.
My employer has stated on company-wide broadcasts that they will use race as a factor for raises and promotions. This blatant racism has to come to an end.
While I agree with your assessment of the situation, even then I wouldn't have a government policy which forces the DEI policies out. If the management, board, and ultimately shareholders of business want to run the most "progressive"/"woke" hiring and HR policies imaginable: they have the right to do so. Mind you I probably wouldn't want to even be a customer of such a company let alone work for it, but a private entity should be able to act as they see their best interest dictates.
> If the management, board, and ultimately shareholders of business want to run the most "progressive"/"woke" hiring and HR policies imaginable: they have the right to do so
What about title VII banning discrimination on the basis of race (among other factors)? That's outright illegal
There's likely enough ammunition on social media rn for plenty of litigation wrt this
Sorry, I had thought I'd established context better than I had. My broader point was about what what I would prefer the law to be rather than the way it is.
So I meant "moral right" rather than "legal right". The substance of morals and laws coincide much less frequently than the language used by both pursuits.
The decision affects private entities that accept some form of federal financial assistance (this is language from Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act), not private entities writ large. Granted, that is still a big bucket.
There's apparently a bit of overlap between Title VI and Title VII. But will likely have a separate case
> “many of the thought processes and the basic legal principles” are the same, says Daniel Pyne III, an employment specialist at law firm Hopkins & Carley. If the court strikes down race-conscious admissions in education, “that is a strong hint that the same decision might be made” in employment cases
Oh yeah, it surely will. Time to say goodbye to DIE statements when applying to jobs and forced indoctrination in the workplace. This junk is on borrowed time.
Companies are not allowed to discriminate in their hiring. In other words, it is not legal to have affirmative action in a hiring decision (e.g. only hiring female candidates or only hiring black candidates).
To get around this, companies do a couple things to increase the likelihood of hiring an underrepresented person into a role:
1) They will quietly try to fill up their candidate pipelines with people who match the criteria they are looking for to increase the likelihood they wind up hiring a candidate who matches.
2) They will apply the "Rooney Rule" which says at least one person from an underrepresented minority group must be interviewed for a position before a hiring decision can be made.
> 2) They will apply the "Rooney Rule" which says at least one person from an underrepresented minority group must be interviewed for a position before a hiring decision can be made.
>Could racially discriminatory hiring strategies be next?
As someone who is white, and got 100% job offers from every interview, I wonder if I got it out of discrimination, or I'm so elite and they picked me despite being white.
> In the younger circles, it seems like there's a very brief period of telegraphing your "tribe", and once you detect the matching cues you can assume you know pretty much everything about the other's point of view
This is just a sign of a lack of sophistication, afaik it isn't purely generational
A couple weeks ago someone said to me that lying was a "violation of the first amendment" and I asked them "what's in the first amendment?" just to hear some dumbfounded response
A bunch of voters in this country are only functionally literate and it's depressing
> When I say masculinity, or masculine values, what do you think of? When you think of someone who values their masculinity, who do you perceive? Now do the same for femininity. Which model is healthier?
I don't think of anything aside from obvious physiological differences
> but there are right questions that boys dealing with a burst of testosterone should ask themselves
I mean, everyone's different, different personalities, different trials and tribulations of life. I have no idea how you can generalize across all teenage boys without making a bunch of stuff up
The author of that article grew up in China and likely has familial ties there, one could argue that those factors discourage them from honest criticism
I mean if that works, sure. But what happens in the future if you latch onto some other insecurity? Will you just take a psychedelic again? Is that going to actually fix the problem?