You're probably in the same group as me--and I've watched other Millennials who honestly do feel entitled to a job, in the sense that we're having to work hard to have any job and recognize that the current economic environment means jobs are not easily gotten...and they're complaining because the job in their (exceedingly narrow) field that pays the (nowhere near entry-level) wage they want is not magically appearing in front of them. (I've also watched them quit jobs for strange reasons--'satisfaction' is something to consider when deciding between two jobs, especially when you've debt. 'Can I afford this job?' would have been better, as too much of the money was being eaten by the travel costs and the schedule was...apparently designed for zombies.)

Given that, frankly, I knew going into college exactly what sort of careers the various majors I was considering could get me, as well as what entry-level jobs and wages existed, and I'm at the older end of the Millennial range, I don't feel terribly sympathetic. The information to make an informed choice was there, even if it wasn't as easily obtained then as it is now.

It also means you might find out that, actually, the problem is that assurance is needed that your video or photos will not land on the internet because the cop is concerned about a third party's safety and/or right to privacy--remember, there are circumstances where people have very good reason to not want it known that they talked.

This does not mean they have the right to insist you delete anything or hand over the camera, but overall it's probably polite to agree that yes, live people willing and able to talk is a good thing and if something happens to them you will of course comply with any proper warrant and provide copies of your images. Which is why you certainly won't be deleting them, they might be evidence in the future. You're just agreeing that putting them on the internet is a Bad Idea and you'd feel horrible about finding out that the pictures and/or video you took caused somebody to be murdered (correctly or not) for snitching. (But you're not getting rid of what might be useful evidence later--"See, Bob really did visit the police station on May 7th, 2015. Charlie thought he'd squealed about his drug dealing when Bob was just turning in a lost wallet, and we don't have record because Bob didn't leave his real name.")

There's actually a lot of reasons you can very politely and nicely give for why insisting you delete it would be disposing of possible evidence that you can mutually agree is useful--really, this is one of those situations where the trick often is knowing how to rig the game so that agreeing with you is best option when it comes to saving face.

This is pretty accurate, actually--the career choices women make have a huge amount to do with gender roles, which differ between cultures. (This can be pretty safely generalized to any differences between groups when it comes to this: The reason your group gave you is simply not as important as the fact it told you not to, meaning that simply doing it requires stepping out of your culturally-assigned role.) The part that's really interesting is that usually the same people complaining about the disparities show little awareness of the sociocultural forces involved, attributing it completely to bigotry--which probably goes a long way towards explaining why sometimes their efforts to raise numbers are monuments of unintentional sexism/racism...

I'm perfectly fine with it, too, except my baristas also wonder why they have so much student debt and why there are no high-paying jobs for somebody with a degree that is, even by liberal arts standards, useless. It doesn't help that sometimes I find I know more than somebody who formally studied the field--I'm fine with you getting a degree with a focus on historical erotica, but I'm going to be kind of annoyed if I find out that my casual reading of such puts me ahead of you.

That, and what got called 'grievance studies' tends to produce people who, well, won't discuss intelligently the evolution of literature, arts and what not. They're probably going to call you racial and/or sexual and/or gender epithets, possibly to your face, and in some cases not ever the right one(s), which is actually rather more annoying.

That said, I'm actually curious about why the obvious benefit to society of Sh*t That Works Safely isn't getting played up. Honestly, do people ignore the importance engineers have to such wonderful things as Buildings What Don't Fall Down, Cars What Don't Explode, Bridges That Stay Up, Stoves That Don't Catch Fire Unintentionally and the ilk? Cost matters, but history suggests that demonstrating that it can be done at all is an important & unskippable first step.

Actually, if you think detection can't come close to answering, you're probably mostly buying the antivaxxer accounts--and I'm being quite charitable there. Admittedly, a good part of it also comes from changing the diagnostic criteria, which is a Problem because as my dev psych professor brutally put it, it's the end of the goddamn bell curve--literally so, as a certain amount of autistic behavior is within the range of normal, which means that if you want to increase the number of people with autism the easiest way is to literally lower the threshold.

This folds into the fact that, frankly, the US school system has a perverse incentive to have as many students as possible diagnosed with a disability--they get money for it--and it's one of the easiest ones to game this way. (Yes, this qualifies as practicing medicine without a license and is harmful but since when did that ever stop the public schools?)

The least nasty player in all of this is that we've lost the perverse incentive to avoid diagnosis, as the stigma's decreased and, well, forced sterlizations & euthanasia is no longer anywhere near a problem as it was around 90 years ago. (Some of these court cases are still being settled though.)

Now, on the rest of it? If the clinic fails to check the health before giving the vaccine, GTFO. Vaccines should never be given to somebody not healthy. This is why I was delayed on one of mine when I had to get mine redone--I walked in and was bounced to the ER for a serious infection.

I don't know what you mean by the '17 vaccines,' but then I live in an area where the list is...about five, all of which are cheap and out of patent. I don't actually trust Gardasil, but that's because the way they did the challenge in testing it is absurd. (This is basically the gold standard, and is deliberately infecting somebody who has gotten the vaccine with what the vaccine is supposed to be against. Very few diseases are so bad as to warrant using a faux antigen--arguably, none are, as if they're dangerous enough to make it ethically doubtful to deliberately infect somebody who volunteered and knowingly consents to doing this test, it ought to be also unethical to sell it as a vaccine because it'll still get tested this way, just on people who did not knowingly volunteer to do so...and you can cover for it a lot more easily.)

That said, we actually do have some pretty strong proof that autism is probably a defect in brain development--last I checked we'd pushed back the earliest age at which we can diagnose it to before you should be getting any vaccines, namely six months. At least some cases can be traced to exposure to diseases at the prenatal stage, as the whole idea that the womb is a sterile, clean environment is hilariously wrong--let's take rubella, for example.

People exposed to it in the womb can end up with autism.

Ever asked what the R in MMR is for? I did, or rather I read the info sheet the clinic had to give me before accepting my consent to get it (again). It's rubella. Oh, and it turns out the vaccine is not for-life, regardless of what was previously thought; herd immunity just covered for a lot of people's immune systems 'forgetting,' sort of the equivalent of nobody noticing if antique computer viruses are no longer protected against by antivirus programs because there's little chance of somebody encountering an infected system anymore...

Surprisingly? Yes. Genocide's legal definition requires the government perform the whole thing itself and do so intentionally. So, standing by and watching while non-governmental forces do it for them is also not genocide.

It's important to note that governments wrote the definition...

Very often. They don't make cameras dedicated to capturing in single frames objects that are taller than they are wide, and it is absurd to suggest going for a smaller image (or fuzzier) instead of turning my camera 90 degrees.

Actually, given that I mostly do nature photography, holding my camera horizontally is actually pretty rare and I'd certainly want a tripod if I were to be forced to do so, though I think I'd be better off inserting the tripod rectally on the person who tried to insist I use it, as I have to pack everything in, sometimes over rough trails.

Shared race and/or ethnicity (depending on how much you are for correct terminology) makes it easier for a teacher to successful connect to their students--odds are, this would be a specific case of the well-studied & robust observation that people connect more easily and faster to those that they perceive as belonging to the same group.

This is used in social engineering quite successfully regularly. If you haven't noticed it yet...well, pay attention to the salescritters' approaches more. Social engineering, after all, is applied social psychology...

Corporations are legal persons because only legal persons can sign legal documents. The moment they stop being persons, every single contract they are one of the signatories upon are worth precisely as much as the paper it's on, possibly less if it's an electronic document. This is good--as long as they don't own things you need access to or owe you goods, services, and/or money...and it's safe to bet that at least one of these is true. (You thought you had a contract with your employer saying they paid you? Not anymore!)

The real question ought to be, if chimps are legally people, does this mean I can bu...I mean adopt a chimp and have the chimp be legally the owner of my shady business? Maybe even as the CEO of my shell company?

And, most importantly, do they owe taxes?

More to the point here, women make dick jokes. I've heard lesbians making dick jokes. I've seen women clear rooms of men via dick jokes. I'm not sure what the misogyny here is--is somebody insisting that only those what got dicks can make jokes about them?

More importantly, women make sexual jokes. Exactly how does banning sexual jokes make a working environment more 'women-friendly'? (I will agree that dick jokes all the time is a bit much, but more on the basis that either the quality drops or it starts getting repetitive like the production line at a dildo factory.) Are 'real women' supposed to be all neo-Victorian prudes and the feminists just didn't care to tell us because if you're a 'real woman' you know this?

Some women seem to consider 'a hostile environment' one in which their boss(es) expect them to do work in a place with coworkers who do not share their neo-Victorian woman-ness--even, oh horrors, men! Some, I suspect, would not be satisfied until their work environment was completely free of even the slighted possibility of them having to deal with even the concept of the existence of anybody whom they do not consider a 'real woman.'

Don't forget that you can be held legally responsible if you sign off on the release of a suicidal/homicidal person and they go on to kill somebody(s)--in fact, I'd be a bit surprised if there's not already quite a few cases of relatives of the deceased suing the doctors for it. As somebody farther down has observed, if you want to conduct this sort of experiment the first step is alerting those who'd be responding that you are about to do it.

The second step, I suggest, is using Facebook's mobile app to post it so they can see it, with their help writing it, and have brought them coffee and/or takeout of some kind because regardless of if it works, proper ethical procedure requires you do something as a thank-you for their cooperation.

The problem is completely divorced from the political side, unless you count "Social+Developmental Psychologists vs Education Theorists" as such...and the first group is just plain wanting the second to consider that maybe people who study dev and social psych might, y'know, know something about it. (I was part of the group who just appreciated the problem and wondered why it existed.)

As for citations and studies, since you're AC I'm just going to suggest 'any recent good-quality social psychology textbook' since that seems about the right speed to suggest as I feel safe in presuming you're at the entry level here--also consider a wikiwalk through the narcissism pages. But, you might want to consider the implications of 'good-quality recent textbook' on how little controversy there is within the field--the only arguments I saw is if the list of factors is complete.

I actually went for the social sciences and have been around for long enough to have been stuck with the mod/admin hat a couple times, so... I actually essentially agree with that rule of thumb. However, the article is talking about a non-ideal situation, where the clue-by-four needs to be liberally applied; the rule of thumb is for a more ideal situation, where gentle hints are all that is necessary.

Public censure works best as a means for teaching the n00bs the rules without them violating them via pointing out egregious violations as examples & for when it's necessary to make it clear that Random's rants do not represent the group--and like all other public punishments it ought to be used as little as possible, and always with an explanation of why. It also helps new arrivals quickly figure out if this is a group whose social mores are ones they are comfortable with.

If you're trying to run something with a large group of people, over the internet, the safe assumption is that not everybody has the same social mores--the same set of typically-unspoken, typically-implicit rules--in common. By making sure you're clear about what the 'local' social mores are, you're making adjustments easy on anybody who is not lucky enough to have been born male, white and in the US--and I've been in groups where the sole reason we were using English is because it was the one language we all had in common.

Therefore, why not work on the presumption that some people simply need a few dates with M*. Clue-by-four and provide them? Give warnings, with it said clearly what the person needs to stop doing. When we've got to get rid of somebody, make a point of saying, clearly, why. It's not necessarily for the sake of the person you're punishing, really, but rather for the sake of those people who are trying to figure out what the local rules are & for the sake of accountability of those who have the power to do so.

Besides, how much weight are you going to give to somebody's foaming-at-the-mouth rant over being kicked out when the official notice is calm, rational, and explains precisely why in a reasonable manner?

One of the things I learned early on as a tweenager within the FOSS was that if you have a good idea and can communicate well & civilly, nobody actually seems to care terribly much if you possibly are a dog that somehow learned how to type. You don't necessarily have to be good at coding, if what you bring to the table is a good ability to understand the basics and play a living 'rubber duck'--basic sanity checks, to see if what the coders are attempting to do makes sense to somebody who, if nothing else, has at least managed to sleep in the past week. (This isn't meant to be insulting: I've been on the coding side as well: Sometimes I will grab random lusers for the job, and I've learned everybody's happier sometimes when you have a volunteer handy. Less chasing people down in hallways, cornering them in bathrooms, and...I'd certainly have answered a few times the question "Did you sleep in the last week?" with "...Does passing out count?")

I honestly don't really trust communities that say they're 'welcoming' to be so, in my experience, though. What I want is one which gives me nice, clear, well-defined rules: I can deal with being told that I need to contribute things to the group that they value in order to gain status, and live with the baseline rule that if somebody is kicked out, it will be for violating clearly-defined objective rules ("Fails to brownnose correct people" should never be on the list!) and we will all know this. I'm even okay with it if leniency can be earned: If you somehow can bash your head on a keyboard and still generate code that works perfectly, I can put up with a lot of crazy--and I know how to ignore somebody.

Really, I think a basic rule of "The community decides the value of your contribution, not you" isn't unwelcoming, as long as it's clearly and openly stated from the start.