the funny thing about that list of left/right biases in the Google memo is that politics is never that simple or convenient, and you could easily slice it up in very different ways.
amazingly the list of biases doesn’t even mention the most obvious one: a bias for equality vs. a bias for hierarchy, the cornerstone of the left/right divide.
compassion for the weak vs. respect for the strong? compassion has been a part of conservative thought for a long time, typically expressed as a form of noblesse oblige from the strong to the weak, that doesn’t undermine the hierarchy but in fact reinforces everyone’s place in it.
inherently cooperative vs. inherently competitive? this seems like an odd way to express it; you might idolise cooperation or competition, but if you believed that humans were inherently one or the other then there would be no need to try to encourage or suppress these behaviours.
change is good vs. change is bad? depends on whether you’re facing revolution or counter-revolution, reform or backsliding, rebellion or invasion.
idealist vs. pragmatic, I think most people like to imagine that their idealism is at least backed by pragmatism, and few things are more idealistic than the idea of a hierarchy of God, king, and country.
in truth the politics that the author refers to as right-wing are specifically just a thin slice of modern American Libertarian alt-right mish mash, without much awareness of more traditional conservative thought, and the left-wing is a similarly impoverished take on whatever talking points they saw on Reddit.
overall the list of biases are carefully arranged to look balanced and equal, such that to have too much of one would be bad, underpinning the push for ideological diversity at the company level.
but a true push for ideological diversity would include calls for unionisation, equalising salaries across different roles, and dramatically boosting the ownership of the company by the people who work there, not just minor quibbles over the exact percentage of female staff!
Okay this might sound weird but how come a woman can smack a man across the face and it all "oh yeah empowerment of woman yesss" but when a man smacks a woman it's "oh my hod what a price of shit he's going to hell" not that I'm advocating domestic violence at all but how come this double standard exists??
i don’t advocate domestic abuse of any kind in any shape or form.
the double standard arose because it used to be legal and even encouraged for men to abuse their girlfriends and wives, they were treated like property instead of an equal partner.
although personally i don’t know anyone who encourages spouse abuse i do know that people will generally be more angered by a man hitting a woman due to it’s historical context, also it has a lot to do with perceived gender roles, woman = weak vs man = strong so in that mindset women hitting men don’t even compare in harm or pain, but i don’t support that whatsoever.
Also keep in mind that way too often the only time woman on man spouse abuse is brought up is to silence women who are victims of spouse abuse from men, which is unbelievably fucked up not only because it silences one group of victims, it also trivializes another.
also keep in mind:
“if you feminists want equality does that mean you think it’s cool if men hit women?” how about 1 in 3 women experience domestic violence you giant dookie. how about men already do hit women. how about domestic violence is the no.1 cause of injury to women between ages 15 & 44. how about i switch your apple juice with piss. how about that.
Let’s not assume that ‘strong’ cannot be synonymous with ‘feminine’
Too often in the pursuit of writing a ‘strong’ female character, writers and readers alike dismiss any character who displays even a single trait that society has construed of as ‘traditionally feminine’, as if this one quality can negate the rest of who they are and what they do.
The battle-hardened warrior can wish she had a significant other to hold her at night after the grisly things she’s seen during the day. The street-wise cop can enjoy playing with make-up when she’s off-duty because it makes her feel beautiful. The brilliant research scientist with the fate of nations in her hands can be a loving mother who struggles with not having enough time for her kids.
Maybe ‘feminine’ qualities don’t work for your character, and that’s fine. That’s who they are. But when we dismiss what society considers ‘feminine’ qualities out of hand in constructing a character for fear that those qualities will somehow render her less meaningful, we potentially lose out on the opportunity to elevate that character from a two-dimensional symbol to a three-dimensional being.
Better yet, consider entirely eliminating ‘weak vs strong’ or 'masculine vs feminine’ from your vocabulary when it comes to writing a character and instead work on making a person: confusing, contradictory, and inherently beautiful in their complexity.
Why are people saying Holland can beat Argentina? They couldn't even score against Costa Rica!
We played sick against Costa Rica but they survived cuz the played the tactic called ‘Park the Bus’ if you don’t know what that is, it means the opposite team goal is to end the game as a draw and have little to no desire to attack, they get 8 players to protect the goal while 1 remains in front. That’s the same thing as parking a bus in front of the goal too hard to score. You can’t simply score especially when the keeper is also world class. Some people call it anti-football but I call it smart play especially when Costa Rica are the underdogs.