The irony is that treating people the same regardless of gender is exactly what some places do. They demand what the typical masculine mind will give and the typical feminine mind will have trouble with. You can get what you asked for and still not be happy. I'd rather see appropriate treatment of individuals than one-size-fits-all treatment.
The funny thing is that it's the belief that men and women think differently that should bring understanding of transgender people. If they were the same, it wouldn't matter whether your body came with a penis and testicles or boobs and vagina. If they're different, then there's the chance that they'll get mixed up sometime, and we'd have a woman's mind in a male body or a men's mind in a female body.
It's not whether we can create a utopia, it's how we can move towards one. There's a lot of disagreement on what a utopia would be, and far more on how to get there.
I first realized this when I realized that a Marxist friend was as patriotic as I was. Both of us wanted what was best for the country. We had very different ideas of what that was, and extremely different ideas of how to get there, but the desire for a better country was there.
The bottom line is to treat others with respect. Micro-aggressions are little bits of disrespect that can add up. If you make a practice of them, you're going to wind up seriously disliked, and it's your fault.
Clearly, it's harder for people on the autism spectrum to judge the effects of their behavior on others, and allowances have to be made. The big problem is that it's hard for someone with ASD to absorb social norms, so they can use more explicit training.
FWIW, I wasn't impressed with Damore's essay, but it looked like he meant well, and sure shouldn't have been fired over it when open discussion was called for.
The problem is that it leaves a known abuser in a position to commit more abuse.
That's why I really dislike the Catholic Church's old approach to child molestation. Yes, the figures for priests committing sexual abuse on minors were frightening. Then I went out and looked in other places, and it's all frightening. We really need to do something about this.
However, the Church not only covered up what the priest did, but would often shift the priest to a position with lots of contact with children. "Whatsoever you do to the least of these...." Right.
Due to certain problems in my cranial arteries, my neurologist wants my blood pressure to be higher than that new hypertension standard. I guess I'll just have to be an outlier.
I had a friend with seriously low blood pressure, who always used lots of salt. She had people coming up to her in restaurants to tell her she was using too much salt. She treated them with the courtesy they deserved.
Slashdot poster who believes any word that came out of the Nazis. *facepalm*. To repeat what I've posted many times before, there were national and socialist branches of the part until the mid-30s, when the socialists were removed from the party in a very bloody way. If you actually struggle through the prose of Mein Kampf, you will come to a part where Hitler carefully describes the relationship of propaganda to party doctrine, and why you should never change the propaganda even when the doctrine changes.
Socialism, as it was used back then, was not capitalism, but a completely different economic system (which doesn't work well). It tended to be left-wing, but appealed to some people more on the right (followers of Bellamy's "Looking Forward", which were pushing for real national socialism and calling it "Nationalism"; certain Japanese right-wingers pushing for the "Showa Restoration" something like the "Meiji Restoration", in which all property would be returned to the Emperor). People influential in Nazi Germany were often old-line industrialists. In the Soviet Union, such people either converted to Communism, and renounced their positions as industrialists, or it was execution or Gulag time. The way you worked your way up in the Soviet government was somewhat similar to how you worked your way up in Nazi Germany, but you subscribed to very different beliefs.
Sorry for the misinterpretation. I agree that the US government should avoid Kaspersky, and that no classified information should be on a computer running Kaspersky.
You misread your cite, which is unfortunate in that it tried to make itself very clear. In it, the DNC claimed that they had the right to select candidates as they saw fit, which the Court disagreed with. The Court dismissed the case. Dismissing the case requires considering the plaintiff's claims as if they were true, and then seeing if there's grounds for action. If I sued my neighbor for trespass, the courts would have to decide whether I showed a preponderance of evidence that there was trespass. If I sued my neighbor for thinking about trespassing, the courts would accept everything I said in detail, and note that it doesn't make up a case. That doesn't mean that the courts agreed that my neighbor was thinking about trespassing.
It all depends. As one who believes in democracy and somewhat limited capitalism, and believes the individual to be the important thing, they all look like collectivist dictatorships to me. If I believed in collectivism and dictatorship, I'd see the nuances.
Just like the generation before them. And the generation before that. You know what the thing about millennials is? They're young. Most of us old farts prefer to remember an idealized time when we were in child's bodies with our current judgment, and did everything right.
I wonder when millennial decide they invented this thing called sex?
That's more of an individual thing, and as far as I can tell happens with all generations. You'd think the number of children out there would give some of them a clue.
I think the ideal of universal home ownership crosses political boundaries,
Pretty much, yes. It's always been part of the American Dream, at least until recently.
, but with regard to pressure on banks to give out loans to people who really weren't fiscally qualified, that was done by liberals and progressives
Nope. That was business, pure and simple. Institutions were able to make the worst possible mortgage deals and sell what they'd done. If you're not going to keep the mortgage, why do you care if the mortgagee has no income stream and no assets aside from the marijuana? That would become somebody else's problem, presumably whoever bought the mortgage, but it got a lot more complicated.
You can't openly reward sleazy behavior and expect not to get it. (Well, you can if you're stupid.) If you'll pay me ten thousand dollars for a couple of days' work setting up something I know will fail, why shouldn't I?
This completely fails to explain the actual lending that took place. If you, as a lender, could arrange a mortgage, you could sell it to someone who'd divide the income streams up into tranches and sell them off to somebody else. There were plenty of places offering mortgages that had absolutely no intention of keeping any of them. This was all justified because the rising price of housing would mean that, when the foreclosure occurred, the mortgage holder would be left with a more valuable house, and the mortgage holder wouldn't be too bad off (not that anyone cared about the little guy).
I worked on mortgage performance modeling at that time. One of the parameters was how fast housing prices were going to go up, and some runs were done with no increase in housing prices.
Really, if someone can issue a mortgage that's mostly worthless and sell it for cash, the mortgage is going to be issued. It wasn't a matter of needing to lower standards, it was a matter of making money by lowering standards.
I don't know how the whole edifice was constructed, where everybody made money while the mortgage holder paid pretty much nothing, but I doubt it was done by liberals or the government.
We're going with the "no true Scotsman" argument and not consider those Germans you included in the mix.
When there's a group of people who share something and call themselves by some name, an outsider trying to stretch the name to include others for rhetorical purposes is being intellectually dishonest.
Look, you come up with your own dreams, because you really suck at projecting ours. US Progressives want people to be able to afford things, including better housing. We'd like workers to share more in the productivity improvements of the last few decades.
Ah, another person who doesn't know anything about what Sanders wants, but finds it more convenient to make it up. There were lots of them during the campaign.
Slashdot Mirror
The irony is that treating people the same regardless of gender is exactly what some places do. They demand what the typical masculine mind will give and the typical feminine mind will have trouble with. You can get what you asked for and still not be happy. I'd rather see appropriate treatment of individuals than one-size-fits-all treatment.
The funny thing is that it's the belief that men and women think differently that should bring understanding of transgender people. If they were the same, it wouldn't matter whether your body came with a penis and testicles or boobs and vagina. If they're different, then there's the chance that they'll get mixed up sometime, and we'd have a woman's mind in a male body or a men's mind in a female body.
It's not whether we can create a utopia, it's how we can move towards one. There's a lot of disagreement on what a utopia would be, and far more on how to get there.
I first realized this when I realized that a Marxist friend was as patriotic as I was. Both of us wanted what was best for the country. We had very different ideas of what that was, and extremely different ideas of how to get there, but the desire for a better country was there.
Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can make me feel I deserve it.
The bottom line is to treat others with respect. Micro-aggressions are little bits of disrespect that can add up. If you make a practice of them, you're going to wind up seriously disliked, and it's your fault.
Clearly, it's harder for people on the autism spectrum to judge the effects of their behavior on others, and allowances have to be made. The big problem is that it's hard for someone with ASD to absorb social norms, so they can use more explicit training.
FWIW, I wasn't impressed with Damore's essay, but it looked like he meant well, and sure shouldn't have been fired over it when open discussion was called for.
The problem is that it leaves a known abuser in a position to commit more abuse.
That's why I really dislike the Catholic Church's old approach to child molestation. Yes, the figures for priests committing sexual abuse on minors were frightening. Then I went out and looked in other places, and it's all frightening. We really need to do something about this.
However, the Church not only covered up what the priest did, but would often shift the priest to a position with lots of contact with children. "Whatsoever you do to the least of these...." Right.
Due to certain problems in my cranial arteries, my neurologist wants my blood pressure to be higher than that new hypertension standard. I guess I'll just have to be an outlier.
So why doesn't my banana habit control my blood pressure better?
I had a friend with seriously low blood pressure, who always used lots of salt. She had people coming up to her in restaurants to tell her she was using too much salt. She treated them with the courtesy they deserved.
Slashdot poster who believes any word that came out of the Nazis. *facepalm*. To repeat what I've posted many times before, there were national and socialist branches of the part until the mid-30s, when the socialists were removed from the party in a very bloody way. If you actually struggle through the prose of Mein Kampf, you will come to a part where Hitler carefully describes the relationship of propaganda to party doctrine, and why you should never change the propaganda even when the doctrine changes.
Socialism, as it was used back then, was not capitalism, but a completely different economic system (which doesn't work well). It tended to be left-wing, but appealed to some people more on the right (followers of Bellamy's "Looking Forward", which were pushing for real national socialism and calling it "Nationalism"; certain Japanese right-wingers pushing for the "Showa Restoration" something like the "Meiji Restoration", in which all property would be returned to the Emperor). People influential in Nazi Germany were often old-line industrialists. In the Soviet Union, such people either converted to Communism, and renounced their positions as industrialists, or it was execution or Gulag time. The way you worked your way up in the Soviet government was somewhat similar to how you worked your way up in Nazi Germany, but you subscribed to very different beliefs.
Sorry for the misinterpretation. I agree that the US government should avoid Kaspersky, and that no classified information should be on a computer running Kaspersky.
You misread your cite, which is unfortunate in that it tried to make itself very clear. In it, the DNC claimed that they had the right to select candidates as they saw fit, which the Court disagreed with. The Court dismissed the case. Dismissing the case requires considering the plaintiff's claims as if they were true, and then seeing if there's grounds for action. If I sued my neighbor for trespass, the courts would have to decide whether I showed a preponderance of evidence that there was trespass. If I sued my neighbor for thinking about trespassing, the courts would accept everything I said in detail, and note that it doesn't make up a case. That doesn't mean that the courts agreed that my neighbor was thinking about trespassing.
It all depends. As one who believes in democracy and somewhat limited capitalism, and believes the individual to be the important thing, they all look like collectivist dictatorships to me. If I believed in collectivism and dictatorship, I'd see the nuances.
Yes, Great-Grandpa, but things have changed over the last century. Either try to take up or take your pills and go back to bed.
Just like the generation before them. And the generation before that. You know what the thing about millennials is? They're young. Most of us old farts prefer to remember an idealized time when we were in child's bodies with our current judgment, and did everything right.
That's more of an individual thing, and as far as I can tell happens with all generations. You'd think the number of children out there would give some of them a clue.
That is typically a delusion of youth, so it's no surprise that millennials have it the most. Some people never outgrow it.
Pretty much, yes. It's always been part of the American Dream, at least until recently.
Nope. That was business, pure and simple. Institutions were able to make the worst possible mortgage deals and sell what they'd done. If you're not going to keep the mortgage, why do you care if the mortgagee has no income stream and no assets aside from the marijuana? That would become somebody else's problem, presumably whoever bought the mortgage, but it got a lot more complicated.
You can't openly reward sleazy behavior and expect not to get it. (Well, you can if you're stupid.) If you'll pay me ten thousand dollars for a couple of days' work setting up something I know will fail, why shouldn't I?
This completely fails to explain the actual lending that took place. If you, as a lender, could arrange a mortgage, you could sell it to someone who'd divide the income streams up into tranches and sell them off to somebody else. There were plenty of places offering mortgages that had absolutely no intention of keeping any of them. This was all justified because the rising price of housing would mean that, when the foreclosure occurred, the mortgage holder would be left with a more valuable house, and the mortgage holder wouldn't be too bad off (not that anyone cared about the little guy).
I worked on mortgage performance modeling at that time. One of the parameters was how fast housing prices were going to go up, and some runs were done with no increase in housing prices.
Really, if someone can issue a mortgage that's mostly worthless and sell it for cash, the mortgage is going to be issued. It wasn't a matter of needing to lower standards, it was a matter of making money by lowering standards.
I don't know how the whole edifice was constructed, where everybody made money while the mortgage holder paid pretty much nothing, but I doubt it was done by liberals or the government.
They tend to be Democrats. Since 1992, that hasn't been synonymous with "liberals".
We're going with the "no true Scotsman" argument and not consider those Germans you included in the mix.
When there's a group of people who share something and call themselves by some name, an outsider trying to stretch the name to include others for rhetorical purposes is being intellectually dishonest.
Look, you come up with your own dreams, because you really suck at projecting ours. US Progressives want people to be able to afford things, including better housing. We'd like workers to share more in the productivity improvements of the last few decades.
Not so much the Soviet Union as Fascist Italy. The Soviets wouldn't have put up with what the Republicans want.
Progressives would like you to have had a better education, so you could read and comprehend better.
Ah, another person who doesn't know anything about what Sanders wants, but finds it more convenient to make it up. There were lots of them during the campaign.