"We tell people they can't discriminate on the basis..."... in certain commercial spheres of life. That's philosophically arguable either way, but at least is some way from the notion of stereotype thought-crime.
Regardless, I'd take governments' lecturing about non-discrimination more seriously if they stopped their own actual overt race/gender/etc.-favoritism.
"There are far too many people in the world who are obsessed with work and money."... including a certain slashdot commenter who's been on a hobby-horse about how much women work and earn.
"... your employer just wants to discriminate against you for whatever reason... And every other employer you look at wants to discriminate against you by the same amount..."
If I were stuck in your dystopia, I'd look into earning a living outside those conspiring employers (I hear it is possible to open one's own business), or I'd grit my teeth and accept the best offer I can get, or I'd work my heart out, and get beyond those dystopian averages.
Whereas you'd rather interfere with the media, education, toys, like a bull in a china shop, in a vain search for root causes.
"Why shouldn't women have more pension - or at least the same pension as men?"
Why shouldn't women have more cars - or at least the same cars as men? Why shouldn't women have more heart attacks - or at least the same number of heart attacks as men? Why shouldn't women have more happiness - or at least the same happiness as men? Why shouldn't women have more lifespan - or at least the same life as men?
People "have" things because they made or earned it. I am not going to pretend to be omnipotent and omniscient and ends-justifies-the-meansient, and force some people to give more of their stuff to other people, just so they all "have" more similar quantities.
Even if it were true that "for the same work" one group was paid less than another group, it nowhere near follows that the right solution is to undertake a massive social engineering project, twenty thousand links away in the causal chain. It rather seems like an admission that they cannot actually address the differential-pay problem (perhaps because it's not a real problem), so instead they use it as a hobby-horse to ride, to fuel their totalitarian tendencies. "It's for the children... if it saves just one life... if it gives women more pension..."
"They are concerned about the uneven usage of sexuality to sell products, and the message that sends."
They do much more than that.
"... In order to tackle the problem of the lack of women at the higher levels of economic and political decision-making, the persistence of gender stereotypes in all levels of society need to be addressed...."
IOW, affirmative action at the "decision-making" level, accomplished by thorough social engineering, by e.g. deliberate suppression of traditional ideas. That's pretty drastic stuff, not just about commercial speech - i.e., advertising with attractive models.
"Basically, emails do have a cost"... none of which is borne by government, so imposed tax money that goes to it merely serves to punish rather than pay for the cost.
"Find it early enough, and you can do this with high-efficiency ion thrusters"
That means travelling far enough to catch it when it's far enough, and carrying enough extra fuel to pull on it ("hover") long enough (years?). Is there anything like that close to existence?
Slashdot Mirror
That meal turns out to be brief and ultimately self-defeating.
NP, it happens!
The grandparent AC claimed the US was doing those things in Guantanamo.
The number of political parties in Cuba is similar to the number of political parties in any other communist dictatorship ... one.
"torture", "murder" ? Citation needed.
Potemkin indicators.
It's not so far-fetched. Dictatorship of the proletariat on one hand, dictatorship by the National Socialist party on the other hand.
If it saves just one life, isn't it worth it? Just one small smiling cherub?
Aren't civil rights obsolete, when tiny little children's lives are at stake?
That is an interesting way to put it.
"Europe has managed it for decades..."
That's confusing ... wasn't it a European institution that bemoaned upon some disparity ... in Europe?
"just equal pay and equal rights ... not difficult"
I love the "just" part, as if even just the statement-of-the-problem were uncontroversial, never mind the hypothetical cure.
"We tell people they can't discriminate on the basis ..." ... in certain commercial spheres of life. That's philosophically arguable either way, but at least is some way from the notion of stereotype thought-crime.
Regardless, I'd take governments' lecturing about non-discrimination more seriously if they stopped their own actual overt race/gender/etc.-favoritism.
"There are far too many people in the world who are obsessed with work and money." ... including a certain slashdot commenter who's been on a hobby-horse about how much women work and earn.
"you are wasting a lot of good people's talents"
Those who waste talent will be outdone by those who don't, if you'd only let natural selection take its course.
"You, like all right wingers, start from the position that "traditional ideas" are correct."
No. I am worried about the state intruding into spheres so private that such efforts used to be the stuff of tragic fiction ("thought police").
"... your employer just wants to discriminate against you for whatever reason ... And every other employer you look at wants to discriminate against you by the same amount ..."
If I were stuck in your dystopia, I'd look into earning a living outside those conspiring employers (I hear it is possible to open one's own business), or I'd grit my teeth and accept the best offer I can get, or I'd work my heart out, and get beyond those dystopian averages.
Whereas you'd rather interfere with the media, education, toys, like a bull in a china shop, in a vain search for root causes.
For a different value of "earn".
It's telling that you decided to focus on this issue, even though I granted it for sake of argument, and ignored the consequent.
"Why shouldn't women have more pension - or at least the same pension as men?"
Why shouldn't women have more cars - or at least the same cars as men?
Why shouldn't women have more heart attacks - or at least the same number of heart attacks as men?
Why shouldn't women have more happiness - or at least the same happiness as men?
Why shouldn't women have more lifespan - or at least the same life as men?
People "have" things because they made or earned it. I am not going to pretend to be omnipotent and omniscient and ends-justifies-the-meansient, and force some people to give more of their stuff to other people, just so they all "have" more similar quantities.
Non sequitor with a dollop of citation needed.
Even if it were true that "for the same work" one group was paid less than another group, it nowhere near follows that the right solution is to undertake a massive social engineering project, twenty thousand links away in the causal chain. It rather seems like an admission that they cannot actually address the differential-pay problem (perhaps because it's not a real problem), so instead they use it as a hobby-horse to ride, to fuel their totalitarian tendencies. "It's for the children ... if it saves just one life ... if it gives women more pension ..."
"They are concerned about the uneven usage of sexuality to sell products, and the message that sends."
They do much more than that.
"... In order to tackle the problem of the lack of women at the higher levels of economic and political decision-making, the persistence of gender stereotypes in all levels of society need to be addressed. ..."
IOW, affirmative action at the "decision-making" level, accomplished by thorough social engineering, by e.g. deliberate suppression of traditional ideas. That's pretty drastic stuff, not just about commercial speech - i.e., advertising with attractive models.
"The proposal, titled 'Eliminating gender stereotypes in the EU'..."
What an Orwellian purpose.
"Basically, emails do have a cost" ... none of which is borne by government, so imposed tax money that goes to it merely serves to punish rather than pay for the cost.
"Find it early enough, and you can do this with high-efficiency ion thrusters"
That means travelling far enough to catch it when it's far enough, and carrying enough extra fuel to pull on it ("hover") long enough (years?). Is there anything like that close to existence?
Luckily, unicorns were not being proposed as evidence of anything.
"Well it's more sponsored speech than free speech isn't it."
A delightfully ironic example of libre vs. gratis, n'est ce pas?