I just want to add that autism does not automatically limit these.
I am diagnosed ASD and ADD with high IQ and altruism, empathy and collaboration are core principles of mine - because they are optimizing efficiency and quality of life on a societal level thus affecting the individual as well.
You could argue that I am an exception but all ASD / ADD friends of mine also tend to at least view empathy and collaboration as important / useful and necessary, more so than many of my neurotypical acquaintances (which tend to be more conservative and focus on their small ingroup / family instead of a more societal / communal perspective).
I know someone autistic who also describes herself this way and was banished from multiple teams for being politically machevialian while also being incompetent - so YMMV
Yeah, on an individual level there will be a lot of variance including people misinterpreting their own principles / beliefs (leading to the situation you described).
Therapy helps a lot with that + how to communicate them.
They are. Sometimes the managers are smart and voluntarily listen to the workers, but that isn't the same as workers having power. What should happen is that better run companies both get more value out of their employees and attract employees from the less well-run companies. But that doesn't seem to happen as much anymore with increasing consolidation and decreasing competition. At least that's how USA looks like from the outside. And this is across all sectors.
Do you think it would be better to have a democracy during war? (I mean in individual military units, not in a country overall - note that military is controlled by a civilian democratically elected president)
"The enemy's forces are shelling us. Do we want to attack back? Who votes for/against?"
Interestingly I read a history of the French Army mutinies in WWI. One thing that came out of that is lower commanders had a duty to question orders from superiors if they didn't think the goals were achievable. Previously any hint at not following an order was considered "cowardice" and millions of men were led into insane situations with impossible objectives because nobody thought orders from the top could be challenged.
US military doctrine does often play out like this in the field. We prefer maneuver warfare strategies and tactics to positional and attrition ones as a general rule, and a key element of maneuver warfare is the units doing the work having the unilateral ability to maneuver or retreat regardless of some greater plan.
The battlefield is not a democracy, nor a top down dictatorship. In proper combined arms maneuver warfare its more akin to a network of syndicates working towards a common goal.
If we're making odd analogies to politics I think most high performing teams tend to end up in the Marxist "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". Or instead of the military, think of a basketball team. How do five excellent athletes work together. The coach is not a "dictator", nor is anyone on the team, but they also don't vote on plays. They know what each other is good at and, based on the situation given to them, execute in a way that is most likely to succeed.
Communism is not theft (that only computes if you have a neoliberal viewpoint of taxes = theft) and the second point is just a polemic (also: capitalism is directly and indirectly the cause of hundreds of millions of deaths, all the US led color revolutions, anti-communist killings like in Jakarta or Vietnam etc., all the shock doctrine countries that still are not sprawling hubs of capitalist paradise).
Also, the purpose or end of a country is not to produce some widget at high efficiency for a client, or to rapidly respond to the whims of a despot. It is just a structure around the essential activity of humans simply living their lives.
The article says in many more words, "pick your battles". You can't manage when you aren't the manager. Getting fired/laid off won't get you the results.
Pressure is being exerted from above, you bend (lax enforcement) and bounce back (suggest to higher ups better policies) when the time is appropriate.
The American model of hierarchical with input which combines the top down structure of many societies with the flatter get input until agreement model of others has been pretty effective all in all.
I think shareholders get a say (in private companies that's the owner), you get a salary and benefits (maybe some shares giving you some say) (and hopefully some workers protections and unionization opportunities) and the issue right now is that the wealthy control a staggering number of the shares giving them huge, outsized impacts on regular people's lives.
There is a tine to speak up. at meals with close family. At meetings with your boss. The right question at company meetings - though there are wrong question here: think long and hard before ask.
You can speak up it meetings with your team but be careful of the tone. You need to come off as overall having the companies back but this one thing you can't support. Or maybe things will change again. There are lots of options.
There have been recessions before. There will be a recovery. Leave when things get better (or you retire) and cite working conditions in the bad times in your exit interview.
unions can work, but they can force you into situation you don't want to be in.
As a collective we would have done well to have organized long ago. Unions or professional associations with teeth (e.g. like the Bar for lawyers, CPA boards for accountants etc) seem to be the only realistic options
There are lots of places that treat their employees well, work for them. There are a lot of complainers who yell about little things but are unreasonable. We have other options.
255. The Commission concludes that the State of Israel bears responsibility for the failure to prevent genocide, the commission of genocide and the failure to punish genocide against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
I see that the person we replied to edited their comment. It originally said something along the lines of "that just says they failed to prevent genocide."
"
251. The Commission’s analysis in this report relates solely to the determination
of genocide under the Genocide Convention as it relates to the responsibility of the
State of Israel both for the failure to prevent genocide, for committing genocide
against the Palestinians in Gaza since October 2023 and for the failure to punish
genocide. The Commission also notes that, while its analysis is limited to the
Palestinians specifically in Gaza during the period since 7 October 2023, it
nevertheless raises the serious concern that the specific intent to destroy the
Palestinians as a whole has extended to the rest of the occupied Palestinian territory,
that is, the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, based on Israeli authorities’ and
Israeli security forces’ actions therein, and to the period before 7 October 2023. The
events in Gaza since 7 October 2023 have not occurred in isolation, as the
Commission has noted. They were preceded by decades of unlawful occupation and
repression under an ideology requiring the removal of the Palestinian population
from their lands and its replacement.
252. The Commission concludes on reasonable grounds that the Israeli
authorities and Israeli security forces have committed and are continuing to
commit the following actus reus of genocide against the Palestinians in the Gaza
Strip, namely (i) killing members of the group; (ii) causing serious bodily or
mental harm to members of the group; (iii) deliberately inflicting on the group
conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or
in part; and (iv) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group.
253. On incitement to genocide, the Commission concludes that Israeli
President Isaac Herzog, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and then Defence
Minister Yoav Gallant, have incited the commission of genocide and that Israeli
authorities have failed to take action against them to punish this incitement.
The Commission has not fully assessed statements by other Israeli political and
military leaders, including Minister for National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir and
Minister for Finance Bezalel Smotrich, and considers that they too should be
assessed to determine whether they constitute incitement to commit genocide.
254. On the mens rea of genocide, the Commission concludes that statements
made by Israeli authorities are direct evidence of genocidal intent. In addition,
the Commission concludes that the pattern of conduct is circumstantial evidence
of genocidal intent and that genocidal intent was the only reasonable inference
that could be drawn from the totality of the evidence. Thus, the Commission
concludes that the Israeli authorities and Israeli security forces have had and
continue to have the genocidal intent to destroy, in whole or in part, the
Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
255. The Commission concludes that the State of Israel bears responsibility
for the failure to prevent genocide, the commission of genocide and the failure
to punish genocide against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip."
Which is completely based on trying to analyze the reactions of politicians to an attack that included mass killings of civilians, intense brutality and mass rape. surprise surprise these are filled with anger and do not read like a swedish minister reaction to migrant birds. These are not different than the USA post 9/11.
Even if you take these statements, and add everything that happened on the ground for the last two years, comparing it to the Armenian, Rawandian or Jewish genocides is a joke of epic proportions.
It's a very minor war even in Middle Eastern terms, compared to the recent Syrian or Yemen civil wars or the American involvement in Iraq
That is a straw man. The criterion is deliberate targeting of civilian populations. The US is known for having occasionally bombed a wedding party, but in Gaza, 80% of the victims were civilians. That’s a war crime and closer to WWII extermination campaigns than any modern military conflict involving western militaries. We are not talking about collateral damage from a drone strike, that’s systematic levelling of entire cities. You have to go back to things like Dresden and the Tokyo firebombings to find western equivalents.
Hospitals and journalists were deliberately bombed. That’s a war crime and the closest example of a western military doing it is Russia in Ukraine.
Emergency shelters and food distribution centres were deliberately targeted. That’s a war crime and again, there is no western equivalent.
Then there’s the pogroms on the West Bank.
When your argument is that a country’s behaviour is not as bad as ethnically cleansing in some African countries or WWII, your argument is really desperate.
That's incorrect, at best you may have been quoting an organization that had abducted babies for political advantage and you assume won't lie for a political advantage, even though it was caught lying before. However, I don't believe even they are claiming that, as they are intentionally not publishing militant death statistics to inflate the notion of civilian deaths
It's not a straw man, and you are incorrect on a number of factual points. For example, there are circumstances under which targeting hospitals is not a war crime. I think that "not as bad as WWII" is the opposite of desperate! WWII is a war that all decent people acknowledge that the allies absolutely had to win, and the human toll, whilst tragic, was necessary.
The definition used here is so broad, any killing of any member of a group, without any relation to number ("part") or tactics can qualify as a genocide.
I am diagnosed ASD and ADD with high IQ and altruism, empathy and collaboration are core principles of mine - because they are optimizing efficiency and quality of life on a societal level thus affecting the individual as well.
You could argue that I am an exception but all ASD / ADD friends of mine also tend to at least view empathy and collaboration as important / useful and necessary, more so than many of my neurotypical acquaintances (which tend to be more conservative and focus on their small ingroup / family instead of a more societal / communal perspective).
reply