The Right Honourable Sasquatch

Someone is shy

Edit profile

The Right Honourable hasn't completed a profile. Should we look for some other people?

Comments & conversations

Is the Internet a "US colony" Now?
The Internet as a network of networks; that is a perfectly acceptable level of abstraction. But I think the OP, and the talk (which I admittedly didn’t watch), are concerned with sociological, not technological, elements of the Internet. Including the Internet’s “lack of democratization” and the ability of the US specifically to censor or otherwise influence the Internet. So while I concede all your technical points, and I confess a bit of hyperbole, I don’t think that the distributed nature of the Internet protects it much from US influence (political, diplomatic or technological). Nor does its make-up protect other groups or nations from US interference should it choose to interfere. Nor has the US ever given any indication that it considers the Internet to be anything other than a sovereign resource, despite its global nature. So in that respect it is awfully colonial.
How can TEDx events balance the ratio of female to male speakers?
All the talks you linked are modern feminists advancing their ideology. Are you commenting that when women do give speeches it’s always about feminism? Or that there aren’t enough women giving speeches about feminism and sometimes they have be given by men? Obviously I am not quite ignorant of your complaint as my rhetoric suggests; but your comment is laced with assumptions I find counter-productive to any goal of intellect or discourse.
Are westerners biased in defining a terrorist act
I thought no one could be trained? You are right, there is bias. But that makes it difficult to infer intent.Less than 5 minutes ago: You are right, there is bias. And when both parties have biases or prejudices, they will accuse the other bias whether or not there actually is any. It is also noteworthy, by and large, that bias is an accidental action. But if you wish to educate us, you must be equally willing to be educated yourself. And you may find that one side needs more education than the other. I suspect we each believe our own side to be the one with the clearer point of view.
Why the USA isn't #1
From an academic perspective, the summary of your argument here would not be judged favorably. If you accept the idea that a nation can be “the greatest”, greater than all other, then you would have to demonstrate in the affirmative that one county met all the criteria for greatness and none other did or that a country had more greatness than all other (however you defined greatness). Identifying “the greatest” country as being America (which is a pretty big assumption) and then discussing its deficits does nothing to prove it is not still the greatest, simply that is not perfect. You could use the deficits of the supposed “greatest” country, the United States, the draw criticism to the idea that there can be a country that is “the greatest”. That is argue against the idea of one nation being superior to another in some sort of total sense. You could not argue the United States is not the greatest country without identifying an alternative nation, establishing "greatness" criteria, and arguing for that the other country had more of greatness than all others.
Is there a reason why we have so many male protagonists in movies?
Are there really more? Or is that you don’t watch to kind of movies or read the kinds of books with female protagonists and you don’t relate to their struggles? This is certainly the case for me, based on your comments it is also the case for you. Don’t be afraid to put a female character into a “male” role. But realize that there are many types of conflicts in storytelling and that the genders don’t give these conflicts equal weight nor do these conflicts lend themselves equally to each type of storytelling. If anything I would suggest picking up a chick book and giving it a read and figure out what type of conflicts those characters are experiencing. Integrating and exploring more conflict types will make your story appeal to more people than will changing a male-centered conflict character into a girl.
What should I do to improve the quality of my writing in English?
I would suggest a combination of writing and reading. Read a little bit of a book on grammar in conjunction with writing and reading other high quality English sources. English material of reliable quality will include most classical English literature (although this is the least useful), high-end newspapers like the Wall Street Journal, and anything published in association with a university press (i.e. Harvard, Yale, Oxford or Cambridge) or an academic thereof. For the latter I would target non-technical books published by professors in your field, even if wasn’t through their university press (they should still be associated with one of those school). It isn’t that other academics of presses don’t publish high quality English material, but rather those four schools are zealous in their adherence and advancement of an academic writing style which will be of interest to you as a PhD student. I would suggest writing any form of expository writing, even if it is creative in nature (such as a story). One of the common exercises I perform is to attempt to explain some modern cultural, political or technological element to a historical figure that is an expert in a field, but unfamiliar with the new concept. So I will explain the Tea Party political movement to Thomas Jefferson, or maneuver warfare to Julius Caesar. Pick up a couple of books on grammar and a couple style guides. In grammar, one of these should be one of the books in the Oxford English Grammar series. The US Government Printing Office Style Manual is free online. Basically, this is what I did: 1) Read the grammar guide and pick a rule to focus on 2) Read an expository piece; try to find that rule in use whenever it occurs. 3) Write something; don’t force the use of the grammar rule. 4) Edit one or more of the things you have written. Use all the grammar rules you have focused on, plus look up any grammar or style questions you have. 5) Repeat
Do you think Eastern countries will surpass Western countries in the future?
I would argue that culture is the single largest driving force in whether or not a country is going to be a super-power or not. There are many other factors, but I think this is the one that makes or breaks. The United States is the inheritor of a long line of super-power cultures including Egypt, Greece, Rome and Britain. I am not sure what cultural factors are specifically being passed on from one to the next, but I do notice that each nation in this line was derived from the previous one, they were all super powers and they all purposefully tried to emulate their progenitors. While Asian has had many short-term super powers, the lack the legacy of long-term superpowers of related cultures. I think it unlikely they would succeed the United States, for reason that are unclear other than cultural precedent. I don’t mean to say that these cultural elements can’t be identified. I think we have already identified some such as the concept of the rule of law, constitutional government. Some of them are almost invisible to us like standardization, the idea that a store will be open certain hours of the day and carry a certain type of good. That seems so simple doesn’t it? But that expectation in a culture has a profound impact on an economy and it is not something that is shared by all people in the world. These subtle cultural elements have been passed down in the west from one civilization to the next and grown and improved over time. If culture is indeed related to power, we can guess there is something about Western culture that lends itself to power because the West has had a lot of it and more importantly has most of the longest lasting powers. But it is difficult to identify these elements, even from within and it is near impossible for another culture to emulate, even if their academics can identify them. So will an Eastern country over take the US or EU, maybe, but I am not sure that country that did so would look like anything other than a Western nation.
Is having a social class inevitable?
I can think of no society that had no social classes. An especially important point since we have numerous recent examples of societies that tried to create a classless society and failed miserably. Many people have commented that the rich-poor gap in the Soviet Union and communist China was actually larger than the systems communism replaced. I think this is both a product of humans and economics. People want to form social groups, which are mutually exclusive with other social groups. And the nature of economics and logistics means you will always have more of one resource in one area than in another. It takes time for resources to move from the point of their creation. And we’re not just talking about money, but goods and even intangibles like education. That will mean there will always be some sort of inequality in a system. So for all practical intents and purposes, social class in humans is basically a law of humanity, and we cannot will it away any more than we can will away gravity and fly. This does not preclude socialism, especially the “weak” forms of socialism. I haven’t read a lot of socialist literature, but in the “weak” forms of socialism in practice today, the objective of socialism is wealth redistribution not wealth equality. That’s a big difference, as one is absolute and the other is relative. Wealth redistribution doesn’t mean you try to make everyone the economic class or that there aren’t rich or poor people and it doesn’t even mean there isn’t a pretty big rich and poor gap. It simply means that the amount of money is taken from the rich people is disproportionate to their representation in the population and “given” to less well to do people. Marxists probably wouldn’t describe the US as overly socialist, but none the less I think socialism is actually alive in well in the world economy today. Socialist tax systems don’t prevent the rich and the poor, but they do insulate BOTH groups from the harm of too many of the other.
Is the Internet a "US colony" Now?
I agree with your sentiment, or rather I agree that the Internet should be largely free of censorship. What I do not understand is what this has to do with the United States, a country that does not (and actually cannot) engage in Internet censorship. And beyond that I don’t understand the implication the United States is somehow engaging in aggressive actions against other countries through the abuse of Internet policies. Most countries that engage in wholesale Internet censorship do set up their own domain servers, and force all world domain server traffic through them. Effectively creating, as you say “their own Internet”. In this way these countries can easily control what comes in and goes out. Such countries include Iran, China and North Korea.