Mashable tells students about 12 things they should never do in social media.
By now this doesn’t apply to me, as between my non-anonymous Russophilia, HBD-ing, gaming, and AGW-ing I’ve long ostracized myself from both liberals and conservatives and torpedoed myself any hopes of “respectable” employment anyway.
I do however wonder about the point of such articles even for more normal people.
(1) Of course unprovoked harassing/bullying of people is bad. Threatening violence is just idiotic. But you see, the kind of people who’d benefit from such advice aren’t really the sort who’d be reading these articles anyway.
(2) Quite aside from the inherent cowardice of gagging oneself to increase one’s attraction to corporate vultures, it is actually – objectively – useful. You read that right. From the same article:
“Whenever I evaluate a potential employee, I always take a look at what is publicly visible on their Facebook profile,” says Ryan Cohn, vice president of social/digital operations at What’s Next Marketing. “On two separate occasions, I have rejected entry level prospects (finishing their senior year of college) for featuring firearms in their profile picture. Both were qualified in terms of experience and otherwise would have been worthy of an interview.”
Would you want to work for a hoplophobic asshat like that anyway? Fact is expressing opinions in print and on the Internet doesn’t only degrade your job prospects with certain managers and companies – it allows you to screen out BS managers and companies.
In other words, it’s a two way street, in which benefits outnumber disadvantages. After all, as long as you view the job market not through a scarcity model, but an abundance model – which is what it really is – it’s not like you’re losing out on anything. Filter out the trash, I say.
I know you like guns, who doesn’t, but showing it as your profile picture shows a certain kind of immaturity (or you’re a redneck which is worse)
Mandatory drug tests, no guns, clean driving record, short hair, silk tie, shined shoes, no booze or cigarettes on debit history are likely to be just a few of the present and future requirements. Employers will want to beat down health or bonding insurance costs. I like to think of it as “Hillary’s handguns for the rich” program.
Bloody brill !
Like you, I’ve given up on making myself look commercially appealing, although with vastly lesser (fewer? lower? um …) intellectual underpinnings.
Telling the truth, much of the stuff here flies right over the head of my somewhat wide but shallow knowledge base.
Still, nice to know, or at least intuit, that my feelings are shared by a learned better. I did in fact make it all the way down to the end of your front page, and clicked on the link to add these comments, but got this:
“404 Error File Not Found: The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.”
Colon added for clarity , )
Like others I don’t share your enthusiasm for guns, but I do appreciate your rejection of western fantasies about exporting “democracy” and the incisive evaluation of the need for power from the barrel when it comes to societies who equate barbarity with progress, e.g. stoning adulterers and hand removal.
I am left wondering how those unrealised attitudes equate with the reality in the US of tens of thousands of gun deaths each year. If it’s true that prison and bayonets hold back the howling masses in less democratic countries, then doesn’t the same rationale hold true for actual barbarity in the US? And how does this correlate with your views on the Second Amendment?