Hiring standards are dropping

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's a pretty formal process here. You empty your pockets, go into the bathroom and squirt into a cup, and tell the person when you are done. You leave the sample and do not flush the toilet. You wash your hands outside of the bathroom while the other person inspects the area and puts the sample into a small window in the bathroom wall.

In the Air Force, we had to do it in front of a witness, which turned out to be very difficult for some of the men.
I can see the military being a little more "involved", but I think anyone's right to privacy and personal space went out the window the minute they got off the bus at basic training lol.
 
Hiring standards haven't come down far enough. I still don't have a job making $200k/year flying multimillion dollar jets. (Mind you, I've never been in anything but a steam gauge single engine piston, but still, they need to bring the standards down to my level).

And THIS^ is a brief summation of how our society tends to approach its problems.......
 
Time to post my seemingly bi-monthly post with links to a collection of quotes showing old people have always complained that the youth are lazy, entitled, stupid, wasteful, and immoral.



 
which, of course, doesn't prove anything wrt to the current generation.
 
Nope but it shows that these complaints have been made of the same generations that now hold themselves up as the paragon of hard-working, moral, upstanding citizens.

With respect to data on millennial and Gen z vs those before them:




 
Time to post my seemingly bi-monthly post with links to a collection of quotes showing old people have always complained that the youth are lazy, entitled, stupid, wasteful, and immoral.




I never said they were immoral. :) Will check back in 10 years.
 
I never said they were immoral. :) Will check back in 10 years.
I never did either. The 2 generations before me generally seem to be more “moral”. And they generally seem to care about current events and world issues at a younger age.

I worked hard and partied hard. A few of us are glad there were no phone pics back then.

As for peeing, lol, no one ever watched us. Toilet with colored water and no water at the sink. Pee in the cup in private and leave it there.
 
Time to post my seemingly bi-monthly post with links to a collection of quotes showing old people have always complained that the youth are lazy, entitled, stupid, wasteful, and immoral.





That doesn’t mean that each previous generation hasn’t been right; it just means that the downward slide has been going on for a long, long time.
 
I don't think my generation is facing a unique moral challenge. I do think that the propaganda is coming from a source that didn't exist twenty years ago. If the older generation doesn't see the propaganda, it's harder for them to correct against it. I think it's important to be aware of the source of today's propaganda, which is social media (I'm not talking about ultimate source, just the location where it is found by its target).
 
I don't think my generation is facing a unique moral challenge. I do think that the propaganda is coming from a source that didn't exist twenty years ago. If the older generation doesn't see the propaganda, it's harder for them to correct against it. I think it's important to be aware of the source of today's propaganda, which is social media (I'm not talking about ultimate source, just the location where it is found by its target).
Absolutely true.
 
I don't think my generation is facing a unique moral challenge. I do think that the propaganda is coming from a source that didn't exist twenty years ago. If the older generation doesn't see the propaganda, it's harder for them to correct against it. I think it's important to be aware of the source of today's propaganda, which is social media (I'm not talking about ultimate source, just the location where it is found by its target).
You think the previous generation acts to correct any form of propaganda? Look at who owns the most insidious of media conglomerates, who controls the government, who shares the most false information (fake news if you will) on social media. Hint: it isn't Gen Y or Z. Previous generations aren't fighting propaganda, they are slinging it as much as anyone, if not more so.


 
You think the previous generation acts to correct any form of propaganda?

I think PARENTS (and grandparents) act to correct propaganda. I think mentors, teachers, and pastors act to correct propaganda.
 
I think PARENTS (and grandparents) act to correct propaganda. I think mentors, teachers, and pastors act to correct propaganda.
considering that some 85% of people become parents by old age, those same parents are the ones represented in the stats. Becoming a parent or a grandparent or a pastor doesn’t magically make you immune to misinformation or imbue you with some infallible capability to separate fact from fiction. Plenty of parents and grandparents who are sitting at the thanksgiving table talking about how they’re making the frogs gay or whatever and pushing that re-tweet (re-X? Whatever it’s called today) button.
 
considering that some 85% of people become parents by old age, those same parents are the ones represented in the stats. Becoming a parent or a grandparent or a pastor doesn’t magically make you immune to misinformation or imbue you with some infallible capability to separate fact from fiction. Plenty of parents and grandparents who are sitting at the thanksgiving table talking about how they’re making the frogs gay or whatever and pushing that re-tweet (re-X? Whatever it’s called today) button.
I suppose you don't believe in propaganda from anyone except conservatively-minded people? I would argue that the amount of outright lying going on with mainstream media is proof that there is more mainstream propaganda from the liberally-minded at the moment.
 
I suppose you don't believe in propaganda from anyone except conservatively-minded people? I would argue that the amount of outright lying going on with mainstream media is proof that there is more mainstream propaganda from the liberally-minded at the moment.
Objectively false, but nice try.
 
"I would argue that the amount of outright lying going on with mainstream media is proof that there is more mainstream propaganda from the liberally-minded at the moment."
Last attempt to make this make sense - mainstream media is considered mainstream because most people are getting their news from that source. That source has been proven multiple times to have been controlled and coerced to publish false information as "facts" to sway the general public...generally considered to be equivalent to at least one definition of "propaganda".

Please explain how that is not exactly what I just said. Or don't. Make up any story you like! That's the way the mainstream media does it!
 
Last attempt to make this make sense - mainstream media is considered mainstream because most people are getting their news from that source. That source has been proven multiple times to have been controlled and coerced to publish false information as "facts" to sway the general public...generally considered to be equivalent to at least one definition of "propaganda".

Please explain how that is not exactly what I just said. Or don't. Make up any story you like! That's the way the mainstream media does it!
Honest question - what are the most reputable news sources for you?
 
I never did either. The 2 generations before me generally seem to be more “moral”. And they generally seem to care about current events and world issues at a younger age.

I worked hard and partied hard. A few of us are glad there were no phone pics back then.

As for peeing, lol, no one ever watched us. Toilet with colored water and no water at the sink. Pee in the cup in private and leave it there.
Guess it depends on whose morals were being used. Jim Crow Laws and women's rights weren't exactly bastions of moral superiority by earlier generations. However, I'm a firm believer that you have to judge the people against what was accepted/normal in that period. Trying to apply current morality to previous eras generally results in nothing but unfavorable comparisons.
 
However, I'm a firm believer that you have to judge the people against what was accepted/normal in that period. Trying to apply current morality to previous eras generally results in nothing but unfavorable comparisons.
Amen to that! Underappreciated by the angry mobs of today who wish to rewrite history, usually to amplify some traits that we view as negative in today's standards.

There's probably a lot of habits and viewpoints, views that even the best among us hold today that we don't think much about because they're just norms, which by some future measuring stick would make us backwards savages.
Plus factor in that most people have a hard time with gray areas - they need people/viewpoints to be either entirely right or entirely wrong.
Combine those two together and it makes for one hell of a hard time in coming up with a good working model of the current world, much less historical figures that we can't retroactively evaluate with today's standards.
 
Last attempt to make this make sense - mainstream media is considered mainstream because most people are getting their news from that source. T
1705428756799.png
So your position is that that mainstream, Fox by your definition, is liberal?
 
Honest question - what are the most reputable news sources for you?

Honest answer - I haven't found one yet. Every single news source I've ever seen has so much ...stuff to wade through to get to the facts. I don't want the news to tell me what to believe about it or attempt to influence me into feeling one way or the other about something. I want facts so I can make my own value judgments about it. I have yet to find a "just the facts, ma'am" news agency. Every single one seems to have an agenda.

View attachment 124428
So your position is that that mainstream, Fox by your definition, is liberal?
Yes, actually. Fox is not what I would consider a reputable news source nor is it a shining beacon or even a nightlight of conservative ideals. In fact, if Fox is what you think of when you think "conservative", I totally understand your contempt for such ideals.
 
Honest answer - I haven't found one yet. Every single news source I've ever seen has so much ...stuff to wade through to get to the facts. I don't want the news to tell me what to believe about it or attempt to influence me into feeling one way or the other about something. I want facts so I can make my own value judgments about it. I have yet to find a "just the facts, ma'am" news agency. Every single one seems to have an agenda.
Where do you get your news from them, primarily?
(Note that not reading the news is also a valid answer).

I am just curious about the complete rejection of any source that is perceived as "mainstream" just because of their popularity, especially when I am not sure what the reputable alternative may be. Every newsroom maintains their own set of journalistic standards, and certainly they vary widely. But my take on where many Americans get their news from now are likely places that don't have any journalistic standards whatsoever. There is a huge difference between something like the Associated Press or BBC vs something like Fox, which is really just a source of entertainment.
 
Where do you get your news from them, primarily?
(Note that not reading the news is also a valid answer).

I am just curious about the complete rejection of any source that is perceived as "mainstream" just because of their popularity, especially when I am not sure what the reputable alternative may be. Every newsroom maintains their own set of journalistic standards, and certainly they vary widely. But my take on where many Americans get their news from now are likely places that don't have any journalistic standards whatsoever. There is a huge difference between something like the Associated Press or BBC vs something like Fox, which is really just a source of entertainment.

I'm hoping to learn of some new and interesting sources from this exchange. :)

My own daily scan of news comes from https://brutalist.report/?limit=50 which is very tech-centric, but diverges as you scroll down, and you can curate it to your liking. It's also devoid of BS. The little animated red arrow is recent, and I'll probably add it to ublock when it annoys me enough. :D

For my part, I pay less and less attention to "news" lately. Mainstream stuff like economy and (ugh) politics, I get mostly from my aviation haunts. Which means it's a conservative christian cesspit. :D If I actively research some current event, more and more I end up abroad -- averaging the "takes" from BBC/Economist and Al-Jazeera for example.

I am increasingly of the opinion that politics urine-soaks everything. I notice it more and more and more lately and I despise it.
 
Where do you get your news from them, primarily?
(Note that not reading the news is also a valid answer).

I am just curious about the complete rejection of any source that is perceived as "mainstream" just because of their popularity, especially when I am not sure what the reputable alternative may be. Every newsroom maintains their own set of journalistic standards, and certainly they vary widely. But my take on where many Americans get their news from now are likely places that don't have any journalistic standards whatsoever. There is a huge difference between something like the Associated Press or BBC vs something like Fox, which is really just a source of entertainment.

"News" is such a nebulous term. News about what? I'm still trying to find a good source for random traffic backups in my area, but since I'm nowhere near a major metro area? The reporting is limited, and google doesn't help. Weather? I can at least drag the map (roughly) to my house and see what the weather radar is picking up.

Once had an entire exit shut down and I had to turn around and drive almost back to the coast before I could detour back to my house. Still no clue about what happened.
 
Reuters is about as good as it gets for "mainstream" news sources. At least as far as I have been able to find consistently.
 
Where do you get your news from them, primarily?
(Note that not reading the news is also a valid answer).

I am just curious about the complete rejection of any source that is perceived as "mainstream" just because of their popularity, especially when I am not sure what the reputable alternative may be. Every newsroom maintains their own set of journalistic standards, and certainly they vary widely. But my take on where many Americans get their news from now are likely places that don't have any journalistic standards whatsoever. There is a huge difference between something like the Associated Press or BBC vs something like Fox, which is really just a source of entertainment.
I try to avoid the news cycle when possible. When I do need to read the news, I tend to treat it like a research project, especially if it's in any way related to politics. I read at least one article or watch at least one video from as many news agencies as possible, both left and right leaning, and then figure out where all the stories match. The stuff that doesn't match is treated as historical fiction - it could be right, it could be wrong, but I'm not basing any opinions on it. It's not perfect, but it's the best method that I've come up with so far.
 
Honest answer - I haven't found one yet. Every single news source I've ever seen has so much ...stuff to wade through to get to the facts. I don't want the news to tell me what to believe about it or attempt to influence me into feeling one way or the other about something. I want facts so I can make my own value judgments about it. I have yet to find a "just the facts, ma'am" news agency. Every single one seems to have an agenda.


Yes, actually. Fox is not what I would consider a reputable news source nor is it a shining beacon or even a nightlight of conservative ideals. In fact, if Fox is what you think of when you think "conservative", I totally understand your contempt for such ideals.
Never forget that the core business of modern media outlets is to SELL ADVERTISING. If they can deliver some extra factoids about current events, that's nice, but the main thing is they want to sell ads. They're not necessarily malicious, they're just a business doing business things. We'd all do the same thing if were the CEO (or we'd be fired).

And it turns out the best way to sell ads is to pander to your audience and give them what they want (duh!), even if what they want isn't actually "accurate". In some cases they can tell you stuff they know is downright bad, but they know you want to hear it. Or they may omit important stories because their demographic doesn't want to hear it. So, it's a product crafted to your average liking. All of the MSM (all sides of the political spectrum) are guilty of packaging this crap product and giving it to us.

Personally the only ones I read that consistently give low bias (as long as you avoid the opeds) are WSJ, FT and Bloomberg. Always the text versions, NO VIDEO. And again, no OpEd's or the like.
The downside is that they're very expensive subscriptions. But that income significantly reduces their need to sell advertising. It turns out when people are buying financial news and money is on the line -- they want facts, not bull**** stuff with spin.
 
Isn't that just an aggregator, though?
Meaning that they're still relying on actual journalists to do the work for them?

Yes. I am unqualified to figure out who is "putting in the work", and caring less and less -- so all I can do is average a bunch of BS and see if any outlying insight nuggets stay in the sieve. :/
 
My initial response was going to make a joke about how bad the others must be for a weather site to be the most reliable news station.

Then I actually thought about it. Yeah... I'm going to have to join you on that vote. Understanding that they cannot decide about rain until after it has/hasn't happened.

But +1 for the weather channel!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top