that race is a social construct, makes no sense; it makes no sense in the raw numbers, and it makes no sense in everyday life
Well, actually, if you look at the average genetic diversity across everyone in Africa (ie, "black" people), you'll see a wider range of diversity than comparing "white" people to a single population group inside of Africa. (It is a well-established pattern that species show most genetic variation in the areas where they first evolved - see the 3500+ potato varieties in Peru.) Also, how does it make any sense that people from New Guinea are considered to be "black" even though their ancestry diverged from African "black" people longer than they diverged from white people?
Yes, there is a lot of genetic variation associated with ancestral patterns of migration and dispersal around the globe. The concept of "race," however, is (mostly) keyed off the single trait of skin color, which correlates most strongly to average solar intensity.
Race, as we generally understand it, is not a well-defined biological term.
This is local temperature change you are looking at and then claiming it is global warming,
Actually, the location and size of a glacier is a good indicator of the average of local temperatures over many years. We call this "climate."
You're right that this is only one spot on the earth, which neither proves or disproves *anything* about global climate. However, the same observation of glacier retreat are made all over the world.
This is exactly right - we can't quit fossil fuels cold turkey. At the same time, we are also facing a huge global crisis associated with their use (ie, climate change).
This is why we need to immediately start investing heavily into non-petroleum energy sources and solving the technical, political, and economic challenges associated with them. We can't live in the future, but we can (and will) shape what the future looks like.
I'd consider it the left trying to have their cake and eat it too. It is trying to enforce the association of a particular behaviour to a particular biological sex. Which may or may not be the case.
I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. From where I sit, the left is not trying to enforce an association between behavior and biological sex. It is quite the opposite, in fact. Trying to enforce, for example, the notion of strong, stoic men has resulted in generations of emotionally immature men with anger issues. From what I've seen, there is more of a push to break down the strict boundaries of gender roles to allow room for more personal expression. To some extant, the feminist movement has moved the goalposts for women, allowing them to express more traditionally masculine traits and to get involved in rough sports, etc. On the flip side, however, image the reaction by many if a little boy when to school wearing a pink, frilly dress. Quite frankly, in many places, this boy would be in physical danger for something as trivial as clothing choice.
What do you mean by "gender"
In the most basic sense, I mean gender as the male/female dichotomy as a social construct. See the American Psychological Associations's description for more details.
To those that push identity politics it seems to almost be like a religion, making claims about some 'innate sense of being' about a particular sex.
When did you decide to identify as a man or woman? I'm honestly not trolling here. Instead, I just want to illustrate how for the majority of people, this is a nonsense, no-brainer question. For some, however, this is a very difficult question. I have known several trans people, and one common thread that is echoed across everything that I've read is that even as a small child, they have had a sense of being the opposite gender of their biological sex.
Certainly identity politics is fraught with bad politics/power plays, etc., but please don't think that this is only something the the left is guilty of. The far-right's obsession with immigration and fear of the loss of white culture is identity politics at its worst.
It's all well and good for people to have weird and wonderful senses of spirituality, but it isn't cool to push them on others. Some clearly male person with stereo-typically feminine traits claims to be female? fine, but others don't have to agree and are entitled to think the person is deluded, that instead it's fine for guys to be how they are and it doesn't change them being guys.
If you want to think transgender people are deluded, that's fine - you can think whatever you want. At the same time, though, you should recognize that trans people have existed for a long time in different cultures.
Literally, all that most trans people want is to just live their lives as the gender of their choice. They don't want to push anything on you, only to be treated with respect, be addressed with a particular set of pronouns, and live according to how they picture themselves. Why is this such a big ask?
You have no idea what I said because you stopped reading.
I have often heard people like Rush Limbaugh talk about how the left is unable to have a discourse based upon ideas. Instead, there is a claim that there is simply a knee-jerk reaction to dismiss, shout down, or vilify the holders of those ideas.
Here, you have done exactly this, even to the point of comparing any discussion of gender identity to pedophilia.
As for Kaitlyn Jenner, I don't wax philosophical - she wants to be treated as woman, so let's treat her as a woman. It costs me nothing and makes no difference in my life. That is the heart of the issue. Whether or not you want to believe that she is "really" a man is irrelevant and depends entirely on how you define "man."
And this is why you are in a bubble. The next paragraph approached this question from a hard-science biology perspective. If you read it, you may have learned something.
"More complex" my shiny metal ass.
Apparently, that ass is also a helmet that blocks out new ideas.
"Men can be women" is established left-wing dogma these days
While you're right that support of transgender rights is a left-wing position, the issue is more complicated than simply insisting that "men can be women." In fact, all of the positions listed in the original post are gross oversimplifications of complicated positions designed to appear stupid. This is, at its heart, the very definition of caricatures.
For the sake of trying to illuminate some of this complexity, let's just try to unpack this single issue, shall we? (I assume that I'm probably wasting my time, as conversations on the internet rarely change people's opinions, but I'm bored at work.)
First off, how do you define what is even means to be "men" vs. "women"? We all have some basic common-sense ideas, but none of them work as solid definitions. If we try to define things at the chromosome level, you can try to say that XX is a woman and that XY is a man, but what about XXY or XYY or XXXY? There are more, but you get the idea. If we then say that is complicated, but we can define based upon external genitalia, things get even more complicated. For one, there are hermaphrodites - where do they go? Also, some people have the standard XX or XY genotypes yet have external genitalia consistent with the opposite sex. I work in biotech and a colleague of mine tells a story of working for a prenatal genetic testing group that found an expecting mother had an XY genotype with a pure female phenotype.
Already, just trying to define terms, we are forced to abandon any kind of simplistic binary gender identity. It turns out that things are more complicated, even if we only focus on concrete issues like genotypes and external physiology.
Next, we turn to the even more complicated issues of sexual identity. In other words, how does any given person identify their own gender? I know very little about you personally, but I'll guess (based upon/. demographics) that you think of yourself as a man. (I also am a man, FWIW) When is it that you made this decision? Have you ever considered yourself or thought of yourself as a woman? Personally, I haven't. I'm a dude, and I've always seen myself that way. In other words, my gender identity was not a choice, but rather something that is intrinsic to who I am.
Now, imagine that you have this same sense of being a particular gender, but the organs between your legs don't match your particular sense of self. Most people's identities match their genitals, but for some people, they don't.
The current "left-wing dogma" is that people should get to decide for themselves their own gender identity, based upon the same intrinsic sense that you are using to identify your own gender, regardless of their genitals.
The statement "men can be women" misses this complexity. Instead, it tries to mix up various terms and frames the whole issue in a way that tries to deny all of the complexity mentioned above. That is what makes it a caricature.
As a side note, why should anyone else even give a shit about my gender? In a great many ways, allowing a flexible gender identity should be considered the right-wing, libertarian position. After all, unless I'm trying to have sex with someone, I really don't give a rat's ass how their clothing, etc. relates to what is under the clothing.
The discrepancy is probably due to the fact that the "right wing nutjob" accurately named several left-wing dictums, while the left-wing but job just named a bunch of left-wing caricatures of what they apparently think the right wing believes.
Wow. BOTH of the posts were simple, one-dimensional caricatures of the other side. If you think that the first post "accurately named" any left-leaning policies, you need to get out of your bubble.
Seriously, I'm about as left as they come, but none of those statements was even close to something I'd claim as a valid position.
Social status is not a zero sum game. Women gaining status does not mean men lose status....
I disagree. It is unfortunate, but at this point, women gaining social status DOES mean that men are going to lose status.
Currently, a man, especially a white man (like myself) can easily been seen as an expert on anything, and the status of white male is generally taken as the default human state. In the US history, white men have reigned over most of the money and power, and giving other people access to this same money/power/status requires white men to lose some status.
Note that this is different from *individuals*. If I as an individual treat women as equals and show them respect, I have not lost anything. In fact, I may even gain advantages of different perspectives, respect, etc.
As a group though, equality does mean that men lose their special status, which is why there is so much backlash to any efforts at equality.
It's exactly why I hate Identity Politics. It raises an "us v them" mentality, mandates that any slight, or any perceived wrong (such as being passed over for promotion) has to be because you're a member of group (x). It couldn't be anything other than that.
This is a very fair criticism of identity politics, but that doesn't mean the whole concept must be discarded.
If you look at the history of the US, there are long, ugly streaks of racism and sexism that have been supported at the highest levels of power. Things are certainly better than they once were, but many systemic problems still exist.
In an ideal world, we could discard identity politics and just have an actual meritocracy, but this is not the ideal world. In fact, there is still a deep, lingering assumption that white men are qualified to speak about any and all topics, which is the whole point of TFA. A quick racism/sexism litmus test I like to do is to just swap identities in my mind and see what the reaction would be. In this case, imagine an article that is about men trying to make it in nursing where they only interviewed women.
So, yes, identity politics can be deeply flawed. At the same time, though, there are people whose demographics impact them every day (ask black men about white women "purse clutching" in elevators). Is there a practical way to talk about these kinds of issues without invoking some incarnation of identity politics?
However, don't expect skeptics to be swayed through politics when pro-AGW people claim science proves AGW exists. Scientists need to make their case, if the sky is truly falling. Many of us just don't see it.
So, what would you consider to be compelling evidence for AGW? In other words, if you are open minded, what kind of evidence would it take to change your mind?
A fair retort is to ask what I would need to hear to stop believing in AGW. As far as I'm concerned, there are two parts to this question - the warming and the human cause. The evidence of warming is widespread, from glacier patterns to ice coverage dates to rainfall pattern changes to animal and biosphere changes. I find it hard to imagine that this wide-ranging set of observations that all point to the same thing are all wrong, but go ahead and dispute all of them.
The other component of my AGW support is that the above warming is human caused. For this, we point to CO2 concentrations, basic physics, and a ruling out of all other causes. If you can show another cause for the above observations, then we can dismiss AGW.
Right now? Probably not a hell of a lot unless you live in California or the southeast US.
Actually, I live in Madison, WI, and climate change is impacting me.
As part of climate change, we are seeing increased rainfalls, including more incidents of extreme precipitation. In town, we've had 2 examples of "100-year" floods in the past 10 years.
Look; I'm all for teaching the dirty parts of history. The more kids who mistrust the government, the happier I am
There is significant history that has nothing at all to do with governments, and where governments do come into play, often the worst atrocities are done against foreigners to that government. (Eg, the US government's genocide against the indigenous populations.)
Note: that doesn't require skin color or gender to convey the point, nor should it. Both of these are irrelevant metrics.
Ideally, this would be true. In reality skin color and gender carry significant importance. Again, I urge you to seek out and learn about the lived experiences of people of these demographics.
it's wrong to imply that white males are somehow guilty for all the ills of society's past
Nobody is saying that they bear all the guilt, but when that demographic has had pretty much all the power in a particular area for centuries, there is a certain culpability. Why is it so difficult to admit this?
while, at the very same time, ignoring all the advancements made during the same time period mind you
This is a rather Panglossian view of the world. How do you define "advancement"? How do you know that we are as advanced as we could be? Does the end justify the means?
The humanities advance this victimhood narrative, which necessitates a villain. This kind of thinking is sloppy and meaningless, undermining any credibility they may have in arguing for "critical thinking". They are simply incapable of it.
And here, again, you pivot without significant argument to ad hominem attacks on the humanities.
Look, we all carry around narratives of how the world works in our heads, and EVERYBODY will ignore/distort information that doesn't fit into their own narrative. I see a great many people who carry around the narrative that the US is the land of freedom and opportunity and that anyone who is poor is that way because of their own laziness. While there is truth to that, there is also truth to the narrative that a great many people have been systematically kept in poverty and denied opportunities to advance by those in power. (Eg, Redlining)
You can find loud-mouthed idiots clinging to either of these two narratives. Reality, being complicated, is a mix of the two.
Ok, so given your position, why did you involve yourself in a discussion in opposition to a point you don't have a fault with?
I strongly disagree with you on your key points. That doesn't mean we don't agree on some things.
Suppressing free speech via any means is wrong in context of the college speakers.
Nobody had their free speech rights suppressed. Nobody is entitled to a platform. If the institution rescinds an invitation in response to feedback from students, it sucks for the person invited, and it is a potentially missed opportunity to learn. At the same time, it is not a free speech violation. The speakers are having consequences from what they have said.
Nobody is entitled to a platform, and nobody is required to listen.
The humanities in college gave rise to that behavior, it's a direct causal relationship. While their intent may line up with teaching "Critical thinking", in actuality their execution speaks directly to their unworthiness to be trusted with such responsibility.
And here, you make a huge leap of logic, claiming a clear chain of action without any justification.
My guess is that you are claiming that the teaching of the uglier parts of the past of the US and Europe has lead directly to open hostility to anyone who is a white male. I'll repeat myself - I strongly encourage you to seek out personal stories about the lived experiences of minority groups.
That ugly past is still present, and it is ongoing.
A college campus accepts public funds, and furthermore the speakers you find so distasteful are invited to speak
And they should be allowed to speak. I have never said otherwise. Furthermore, I also condemned the violent protests.
If they are speaking hateful things, however, they should expect and deserve loud protests against them.
The proper response when someone says something you disagree with is to respond in kind; advocate against their position without attempting to suppress it.
This is exactly what I am saying, especially the part about responding "in kind." I have been a bit quick and imprecise with my writing, but I have always framed the "shouting down" in response to hate speech.
"Shouting someone down" deprives people of their natural right to free speech.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "natural right to free speech", but I think that this is where the crux of the argument lies.
Too often, I think the argument of free speech is taken to mean that people can say whatever they want in all contexts without consequences. I strongly disagree with that sentiment, especially the consequence-free part. Everybody certainly has the *right* to say whatever that they want to, but actions have consequences. If you are saying things that are deeply offensive, somebody should call you out on it.
Also, I think all of this talk of free speech vs. not free speech is missing the real issue. The bigger problem is that there is no dialogue. Here, the right is just as bad as the left. I hear on right-wing radio all the time strawman caricatures instead of any genuine attempts at understanding. Likewise, conservatives are also made into caricatures on the left.
So free speech, but only for those you agree with?
This is not what I said, and not at all what I am arguing.
Free speech means one very specific thing - the government cannot censor you. I am absolutely 100% behind free speech, for everybody.
I also have free speech rights, and when someone is saying something hateful, I will exercise MY rights to assembly and to speak to shout them down.
This is what I'm advocating, and this is how it is supposed to work.
If not, are you really advocating that all viewpoints should always get equal representation? Should a meeting of planetary scientists allow a flat-earther to speak? Should a conference on evolution allow a creationist to speak?
The humanities typically include black and feminist theory courses, often with an emphasis on oppression by white male European decedents.
I strongly suggest that you read more about the lived experiences of being a woman, a black person , or a black woman in the US. These groups continue to experience real trauma due to many deeply ingrained patterns in society. Chances are (because this is/.), you are (like me) a white male, so you are likely not even aware of what life can be like for people who don't look like you.
look no further than the variety of violent protests to conservative speakers
These violent actions are inexcusable. The violent actions tend to be the acts of a relatively small section of extremist assholes that do not represent the whole.
merely that someone they disagree with was coming to speak on campus and thus they protested
Many of these protests are centered around speakers who aren't "merely" disagreeing with people. Often, these speakers are coming to advocate viewpoints that systematically deny basic humanity the large swaths of people. The analogy is deeply flawed, but it would be like if I went to a Christian college and wanted to present a talk entitled, "Jesus is an Asshole."
Not all opinions are equal and deserve equal weight in discussions. Some should be shouted down in protest.
The main point I was trying to make is that the authors of the constitution were wealthy, powerful figures. Not being fools, they wrote the constitution so that they would maintain power and influence. A fair, just society was never their intention, really. Notice that in all of the discussions around the constitution, they fail to consider issues like social mobility. They also don't talk at all about the responsibilities of citizens. Hell, the bill of rights was even an afterthought.
I had more to say, but/. has lost my comment 3 times now, and I can't be arsed to write it again. I don't suspect that it is going to change your thinking one whit anyway.
I will say, though, that I think the constitution is pretty good, but it fails in a lot of ways. For example, our current party system pretty much makes the whole checks and balances moot when everyone tows a party line. Then there's the outdated notion of electoral college and bicameral legislature, which gives people in Wyoming way more political influence than people in New York, which relates directly back to the notion that land ownership is primary when considering rights.
What is the point of your comment besides being frivolous?
Assuming that you're not just baiting me and want an honest answer:
The point is that the constitution and the founding fathers have deep, systemic flaws. Too often, especially on the political right, we see a sort of doubling down on the constitution as the ultimate arbiter of our current situations. It's the kind of bullshit nostalgia that is always lamenting how the world used to be better and that if we only go back to old, outdated ways, the world can be made great again.
Judging the past with modern morals is disingenuous.
Why?
I will certainly agree that digging around in the past and vilifying historical figures is largely a waste of time, but I also see that if we are actually interested in building a better world for the future, we must re-examine the old institutions and the assumptions underlying them. This process is, in fact, the very same thing that led to the creation of the US constitution.
Look around globally and see the vast chaos, movements of people, political crises, environmental crises, etc. In order to meet all of these challenges, we need something new. In order to be effective, it will have share a whole heckuva lot traits with the old systems that have worked well (and that are deeply entrenched), but we can't just say "we've done it this way for XX years, so it must be great."
U.S. military spending is huge simply because the U.S. economy is huge. If you look at military spending as percent of GDP [worldbank.org], the U.S. doesn't even make the top 20.
While I recognize that correcting by GDP is important for really understanding a lot of metrics, I am struggling to see why fraction of GDP really makes sense from a military perspective.
Instead, I would expect that military spending would track more more closely with land mass, population, border sizes, etc. By these metrics, the US is still huge and we would expect it to be high up on the world spending charts. Right now, though, the US spends about a third of the total cost of military in the whole fucking world and several times the amount of anyone else.
I struggle deeply to understand how this is a good way to spend money, especially when the US is facing such critical internal issues of infrastructure, poverty, etc. That is, of course, the whole point of TFA.
It was written by some of the best educated and intelligent men of the day who had an incredible understanding in political science, sociology, and economics.
Yes, this is true.
It is also true that the constitution was written by wealthy white men with the goal of allowing them and people like them to keep power. Just look at who was given the right to vote - male property owners. At the end of the day, they were writing laws for themselves, so naturally they set up the system such that it seemed fair to them.
This is how power has always worked - you write the rules to suit yourself.
I also tried a few random images from news sites, with similar, incomplete results.
The real question, though, is how is this site funded? I'm deeply suspicious of giving them any of my personal images, hence the trial with public images only.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, actually, if you look at the average genetic diversity across everyone in Africa (ie, "black" people), you'll see a wider range of diversity than comparing "white" people to a single population group inside of Africa. (It is a well-established pattern that species show most genetic variation in the areas where they first evolved - see the 3500+ potato varieties in Peru.) Also, how does it make any sense that people from New Guinea are considered to be "black" even though their ancestry diverged from African "black" people longer than they diverged from white people?
Yes, there is a lot of genetic variation associated with ancestral patterns of migration and dispersal around the globe. The concept of "race," however, is (mostly) keyed off the single trait of skin color, which correlates most strongly to average solar intensity.
Race, as we generally understand it, is not a well-defined biological term.
This is local temperature change you are looking at and then claiming it is global warming,
Actually, the location and size of a glacier is a good indicator of the average of local temperatures over many years. We call this "climate."
You're right that this is only one spot on the earth, which neither proves or disproves *anything* about global climate. However, the same observation of glacier retreat are made all over the world.
This is exactly right - we can't quit fossil fuels cold turkey. At the same time, we are also facing a huge global crisis associated with their use (ie, climate change).
This is why we need to immediately start investing heavily into non-petroleum energy sources and solving the technical, political, and economic challenges associated with them. We can't live in the future, but we can (and will) shape what the future looks like.
I'd consider it the left trying to have their cake and eat it too. It is trying to enforce the association of a particular behaviour to a particular biological sex. Which may or may not be the case.
I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. From where I sit, the left is not trying to enforce an association between behavior and biological sex. It is quite the opposite, in fact. Trying to enforce, for example, the notion of strong, stoic men has resulted in generations of emotionally immature men with anger issues. From what I've seen, there is more of a push to break down the strict boundaries of gender roles to allow room for more personal expression. To some extant, the feminist movement has moved the goalposts for women, allowing them to express more traditionally masculine traits and to get involved in rough sports, etc. On the flip side, however, image the reaction by many if a little boy when to school wearing a pink, frilly dress. Quite frankly, in many places, this boy would be in physical danger for something as trivial as clothing choice.
What do you mean by "gender"
In the most basic sense, I mean gender as the male/female dichotomy as a social construct. See the American Psychological Associations's description for more details.
To those that push identity politics it seems to almost be like a religion, making claims about some 'innate sense of being' about a particular sex.
When did you decide to identify as a man or woman? I'm honestly not trolling here. Instead, I just want to illustrate how for the majority of people, this is a nonsense, no-brainer question. For some, however, this is a very difficult question. I have known several trans people, and one common thread that is echoed across everything that I've read is that even as a small child, they have had a sense of being the opposite gender of their biological sex.
Certainly identity politics is fraught with bad politics/power plays, etc., but please don't think that this is only something the the left is guilty of. The far-right's obsession with immigration and fear of the loss of white culture is identity politics at its worst.
It's all well and good for people to have weird and wonderful senses of spirituality, but it isn't cool to push them on others. Some clearly male person with stereo-typically feminine traits claims to be female? fine, but others don't have to agree and are entitled to think the person is deluded, that instead it's fine for guys to be how they are and it doesn't change them being guys.
If you want to think transgender people are deluded, that's fine - you can think whatever you want. At the same time, though, you should recognize that trans people have existed for a long time in different cultures.
Literally, all that most trans people want is to just live their lives as the gender of their choice. They don't want to push anything on you, only to be treated with respect, be addressed with a particular set of pronouns, and live according to how they picture themselves. Why is this such a big ask?
And again, you simply refuse to engage in the realm of ideas and resort to an ad hominem attack.
Earlier, I said that I suspected that I was wasting my time having this discussion. Turns out that I was right.
You have no idea what I said because you stopped reading.
I have often heard people like Rush Limbaugh talk about how the left is unable to have a discourse based upon ideas. Instead, there is a claim that there is simply a knee-jerk reaction to dismiss, shout down, or vilify the holders of those ideas.
Here, you have done exactly this, even to the point of comparing any discussion of gender identity to pedophilia.
As for Kaitlyn Jenner, I don't wax philosophical - she wants to be treated as woman, so let's treat her as a woman. It costs me nothing and makes no difference in my life. That is the heart of the issue. Whether or not you want to believe that she is "really" a man is irrelevant and depends entirely on how you define "man."
And this is why you are in a bubble. The next paragraph approached this question from a hard-science biology perspective. If you read it, you may have learned something.
Apparently, that ass is also a helmet that blocks out new ideas.
While you're right that support of transgender rights is a left-wing position, the issue is more complicated than simply insisting that "men can be women." In fact, all of the positions listed in the original post are gross oversimplifications of complicated positions designed to appear stupid. This is, at its heart, the very definition of caricatures.
For the sake of trying to illuminate some of this complexity, let's just try to unpack this single issue, shall we? (I assume that I'm probably wasting my time, as conversations on the internet rarely change people's opinions, but I'm bored at work.)
First off, how do you define what is even means to be "men" vs. "women"? We all have some basic common-sense ideas, but none of them work as solid definitions. If we try to define things at the chromosome level, you can try to say that XX is a woman and that XY is a man, but what about XXY or XYY or XXXY? There are more, but you get the idea. If we then say that is complicated, but we can define based upon external genitalia, things get even more complicated. For one, there are hermaphrodites - where do they go? Also, some people have the standard XX or XY genotypes yet have external genitalia consistent with the opposite sex. I work in biotech and a colleague of mine tells a story of working for a prenatal genetic testing group that found an expecting mother had an XY genotype with a pure female phenotype.
Already, just trying to define terms, we are forced to abandon any kind of simplistic binary gender identity. It turns out that things are more complicated, even if we only focus on concrete issues like genotypes and external physiology.
Next, we turn to the even more complicated issues of sexual identity. In other words, how does any given person identify their own gender? I know very little about you personally, but I'll guess (based upon /. demographics) that you think of yourself as a man. (I also am a man, FWIW) When is it that you made this decision? Have you ever considered yourself or thought of yourself as a woman? Personally, I haven't. I'm a dude, and I've always seen myself that way. In other words, my gender identity was not a choice, but rather something that is intrinsic to who I am.
Now, imagine that you have this same sense of being a particular gender, but the organs between your legs don't match your particular sense of self. Most people's identities match their genitals, but for some people, they don't.
The current "left-wing dogma" is that people should get to decide for themselves their own gender identity, based upon the same intrinsic sense that you are using to identify your own gender, regardless of their genitals.
The statement "men can be women" misses this complexity. Instead, it tries to mix up various terms and frames the whole issue in a way that tries to deny all of the complexity mentioned above. That is what makes it a caricature.
As a side note, why should anyone else even give a shit about my gender? In a great many ways, allowing a flexible gender identity should be considered the right-wing, libertarian position. After all, unless I'm trying to have sex with someone, I really don't give a rat's ass how their clothing, etc. relates to what is under the clothing.
Wow. BOTH of the posts were simple, one-dimensional caricatures of the other side. If you think that the first post "accurately named" any left-leaning policies, you need to get out of your bubble.
Seriously, I'm about as left as they come, but none of those statements was even close to something I'd claim as a valid position.
Social status is not a zero sum game. Women gaining status does not mean men lose status....
I disagree. It is unfortunate, but at this point, women gaining social status DOES mean that men are going to lose status.
Currently, a man, especially a white man (like myself) can easily been seen as an expert on anything, and the status of white male is generally taken as the default human state. In the US history, white men have reigned over most of the money and power, and giving other people access to this same money/power/status requires white men to lose some status.
Note that this is different from *individuals*. If I as an individual treat women as equals and show them respect, I have not lost anything. In fact, I may even gain advantages of different perspectives, respect, etc.
As a group though, equality does mean that men lose their special status, which is why there is so much backlash to any efforts at equality.
he's telling you exactly what is happening.
Sounds more like your biases line up perfectly with his.
You are too blind to see how correct he is...
Kettle, meet pot.
This is a very fair criticism of identity politics, but that doesn't mean the whole concept must be discarded.
If you look at the history of the US, there are long, ugly streaks of racism and sexism that have been supported at the highest levels of power. Things are certainly better than they once were, but many systemic problems still exist.
In an ideal world, we could discard identity politics and just have an actual meritocracy, but this is not the ideal world. In fact, there is still a deep, lingering assumption that white men are qualified to speak about any and all topics, which is the whole point of TFA. A quick racism/sexism litmus test I like to do is to just swap identities in my mind and see what the reaction would be. In this case, imagine an article that is about men trying to make it in nursing where they only interviewed women.
So, yes, identity politics can be deeply flawed. At the same time, though, there are people whose demographics impact them every day (ask black men about white women "purse clutching" in elevators). Is there a practical way to talk about these kinds of issues without invoking some incarnation of identity politics?
So, what would you consider to be compelling evidence for AGW? In other words, if you are open minded, what kind of evidence would it take to change your mind?
A fair retort is to ask what I would need to hear to stop believing in AGW. As far as I'm concerned, there are two parts to this question - the warming and the human cause. The evidence of warming is widespread, from glacier patterns to ice coverage dates to rainfall pattern changes to animal and biosphere changes. I find it hard to imagine that this wide-ranging set of observations that all point to the same thing are all wrong, but go ahead and dispute all of them.
The other component of my AGW support is that the above warming is human caused. For this, we point to CO2 concentrations, basic physics, and a ruling out of all other causes. If you can show another cause for the above observations, then we can dismiss AGW.
Right now? Probably not a hell of a lot unless you live in California or the southeast US.
Actually, I live in Madison, WI, and climate change is impacting me.
As part of climate change, we are seeing increased rainfalls, including more incidents of extreme precipitation. In town, we've had 2 examples of "100-year" floods in the past 10 years.
Too hard to build a consensus for voting to work. Instead, just try to throw yourself at the ground and miss.
Works every time.
Look; I'm all for teaching the dirty parts of history. The more kids who mistrust the government, the happier I am
There is significant history that has nothing at all to do with governments, and where governments do come into play, often the worst atrocities are done against foreigners to that government. (Eg, the US government's genocide against the indigenous populations.)
Note: that doesn't require skin color or gender to convey the point, nor should it. Both of these are irrelevant metrics.
Ideally, this would be true. In reality skin color and gender carry significant importance. Again, I urge you to seek out and learn about the lived experiences of people of these demographics.
it's wrong to imply that white males are somehow guilty for all the ills of society's past
Nobody is saying that they bear all the guilt, but when that demographic has had pretty much all the power in a particular area for centuries, there is a certain culpability. Why is it so difficult to admit this?
while, at the very same time, ignoring all the advancements made during the same time period mind you
This is a rather Panglossian view of the world. How do you define "advancement"? How do you know that we are as advanced as we could be? Does the end justify the means?
The humanities advance this victimhood narrative, which necessitates a villain. This kind of thinking is sloppy and meaningless, undermining any credibility they may have in arguing for "critical thinking". They are simply incapable of it.
And here, again, you pivot without significant argument to ad hominem attacks on the humanities.
Look, we all carry around narratives of how the world works in our heads, and EVERYBODY will ignore/distort information that doesn't fit into their own narrative. I see a great many people who carry around the narrative that the US is the land of freedom and opportunity and that anyone who is poor is that way because of their own laziness. While there is truth to that, there is also truth to the narrative that a great many people have been systematically kept in poverty and denied opportunities to advance by those in power. (Eg, Redlining)
You can find loud-mouthed idiots clinging to either of these two narratives. Reality, being complicated, is a mix of the two.
Ok, so given your position, why did you involve yourself in a discussion in opposition to a point you don't have a fault with?
I strongly disagree with you on your key points. That doesn't mean we don't agree on some things.
Suppressing free speech via any means is wrong in context of the college speakers.
Nobody had their free speech rights suppressed. Nobody is entitled to a platform. If the institution rescinds an invitation in response to feedback from students, it sucks for the person invited, and it is a potentially missed opportunity to learn. At the same time, it is not a free speech violation. The speakers are having consequences from what they have said.
Nobody is entitled to a platform, and nobody is required to listen.
The humanities in college gave rise to that behavior, it's a direct causal relationship. While their intent may line up with teaching "Critical thinking", in actuality their execution speaks directly to their unworthiness to be trusted with such responsibility.
And here, you make a huge leap of logic, claiming a clear chain of action without any justification.
My guess is that you are claiming that the teaching of the uglier parts of the past of the US and Europe has lead directly to open hostility to anyone who is a white male. I'll repeat myself - I strongly encourage you to seek out personal stories about the lived experiences of minority groups.
That ugly past is still present, and it is ongoing.
A college campus accepts public funds, and furthermore the speakers you find so distasteful are invited to speak
And they should be allowed to speak. I have never said otherwise. Furthermore, I also condemned the violent protests.
If they are speaking hateful things, however, they should expect and deserve loud protests against them.
The proper response when someone says something you disagree with is to respond in kind; advocate against their position without attempting to suppress it.
This is exactly what I am saying, especially the part about responding "in kind." I have been a bit quick and imprecise with my writing, but I have always framed the "shouting down" in response to hate speech.
"Shouting someone down" deprives people of their natural right to free speech.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "natural right to free speech", but I think that this is where the crux of the argument lies.
Too often, I think the argument of free speech is taken to mean that people can say whatever they want in all contexts without consequences. I strongly disagree with that sentiment, especially the consequence-free part. Everybody certainly has the *right* to say whatever that they want to, but actions have consequences. If you are saying things that are deeply offensive, somebody should call you out on it.
Also, I think all of this talk of free speech vs. not free speech is missing the real issue. The bigger problem is that there is no dialogue. Here, the right is just as bad as the left. I hear on right-wing radio all the time strawman caricatures instead of any genuine attempts at understanding. Likewise, conservatives are also made into caricatures on the left.
So free speech, but only for those you agree with?
This is not what I said, and not at all what I am arguing.
Free speech means one very specific thing - the government cannot censor you. I am absolutely 100% behind free speech, for everybody.
I also have free speech rights, and when someone is saying something hateful, I will exercise MY rights to assembly and to speak to shout them down.
This is what I'm advocating, and this is how it is supposed to work.
If not, are you really advocating that all viewpoints should always get equal representation? Should a meeting of planetary scientists allow a flat-earther to speak? Should a conference on evolution allow a creationist to speak?
The humanities typically include black and feminist theory courses, often with an emphasis on oppression by white male European decedents.
I strongly suggest that you read more about the lived experiences of being a woman, a black person , or a black woman in the US. These groups continue to experience real trauma due to many deeply ingrained patterns in society. Chances are (because this is /.), you are (like me) a white male, so you are likely not even aware of what life can be like for people who don't look like you.
look no further than the variety of violent protests to conservative speakers
These violent actions are inexcusable. The violent actions tend to be the acts of a relatively small section of extremist assholes that do not represent the whole.
merely that someone they disagree with was coming to speak on campus and thus they protested
Many of these protests are centered around speakers who aren't "merely" disagreeing with people. Often, these speakers are coming to advocate viewpoints that systematically deny basic humanity the large swaths of people. The analogy is deeply flawed, but it would be like if I went to a Christian college and wanted to present a talk entitled, "Jesus is an Asshole."
Not all opinions are equal and deserve equal weight in discussions. Some should be shouted down in protest.
I never said this or made that argument.
Back at you.
The main point I was trying to make is that the authors of the constitution were wealthy, powerful figures. Not being fools, they wrote the constitution so that they would maintain power and influence. A fair, just society was never their intention, really. Notice that in all of the discussions around the constitution, they fail to consider issues like social mobility. They also don't talk at all about the responsibilities of citizens. Hell, the bill of rights was even an afterthought.
I had more to say, but /. has lost my comment 3 times now, and I can't be arsed to write it again. I don't suspect that it is going to change your thinking one whit anyway.
I will say, though, that I think the constitution is pretty good, but it fails in a lot of ways. For example, our current party system pretty much makes the whole checks and balances moot when everyone tows a party line. Then there's the outdated notion of electoral college and bicameral legislature, which gives people in Wyoming way more political influence than people in New York, which relates directly back to the notion that land ownership is primary when considering rights.
What is the point of your comment besides being frivolous?
Assuming that you're not just baiting me and want an honest answer:
The point is that the constitution and the founding fathers have deep, systemic flaws. Too often, especially on the political right, we see a sort of doubling down on the constitution as the ultimate arbiter of our current situations. It's the kind of bullshit nostalgia that is always lamenting how the world used to be better and that if we only go back to old, outdated ways, the world can be made great again.
Judging the past with modern morals is disingenuous.
Why?
I will certainly agree that digging around in the past and vilifying historical figures is largely a waste of time, but I also see that if we are actually interested in building a better world for the future, we must re-examine the old institutions and the assumptions underlying them. This process is, in fact, the very same thing that led to the creation of the US constitution.
Look around globally and see the vast chaos, movements of people, political crises, environmental crises, etc. In order to meet all of these challenges, we need something new. In order to be effective, it will have share a whole heckuva lot traits with the old systems that have worked well (and that are deeply entrenched), but we can't just say "we've done it this way for XX years, so it must be great."
While I recognize that correcting by GDP is important for really understanding a lot of metrics, I am struggling to see why fraction of GDP really makes sense from a military perspective.
Instead, I would expect that military spending would track more more closely with land mass, population, border sizes, etc. By these metrics, the US is still huge and we would expect it to be high up on the world spending charts. Right now, though, the US spends about a third of the total cost of military in the whole fucking world and several times the amount of anyone else.
I struggle deeply to understand how this is a good way to spend money, especially when the US is facing such critical internal issues of infrastructure, poverty, etc. That is, of course, the whole point of TFA.
Yes, this is true.
It is also true that the constitution was written by wealthy white men with the goal of allowing them and people like them to keep power. Just look at who was given the right to vote - male property owners. At the end of the day, they were writing laws for themselves, so naturally they set up the system such that it seemed fair to them.
This is how power has always worked - you write the rules to suit yourself.
I also tried a few random images from news sites, with similar, incomplete results.
The real question, though, is how is this site funded? I'm deeply suspicious of giving them any of my personal images, hence the trial with public images only.