441–450 of 526 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody is saying that the Eastern Bloc was secularly moral.
Because there is no such thing as secular morality. And morality is mostly fiction anyway. Usually determined by who won the last major war.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> feminism isn't one set of ideas, but a diverse set of ideas Irrelevant. What matters is the people who have social currency and power today, and they're the toxic variety of feminist.
The feminists you are dismissing as irrelevant have every bit as much social currency and power as the ones who are vocal, they just aren't using it as often, which is why it's so short-sighted of you do dismiss them. The public debate on this isn't going to be won by men dismissing feminism: that's just going to radicalize more feminists. And even if it could be won that way, that is that what you want: for men to c…
Standing against feminism is becoming more and more viable. The amazing thing about these radicals is that they only have the power you give them. If you refuse to resign, refuse to apologize, and refuse to listen, they just go pound their fists uselessly, and you can get on with your life. Is your ideology beach body ready?
> for men to control the public discourse and women be trivialized? That's not what I want. I want actual equality.
Strawman, and you know it. I want equal treatment for all. Today's feminist errors in assuming that unequal outcome implies unequal treatment. That's the part where feminism diverges from reality.
It's not useful to suggest that I must either support feminism (whatever you say it means) or support male superiority.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Other data support these ratios. For example, in surveys of crime victims such as the National Crime Victimization Survey, the race reported by victims of their attacker reflects the proportion of conviction rates: "The UCR and NVCS show similar trends regarding the races of offenders. Generally, the number of minorities identified as offenders is disproportionately high compared to their overall numbers in the popul…
Those statistics are just false. More reliable numbers are: Blacks killed by blacks: 90% Blacks killed by whites: 8% Whites killed by whites: 82% Whites killed by blacks: 15% Ratio of whites killed by police to blacks killed by police: 1.857 [1] http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/... [2] https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/...
"For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it." (Thomas Jefferson)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I take it from this comment that you don't work in nursing Correct > or know anyone who does Incorrect > There is an active movement to get more men into nursing, though I don't follow nursing statistics closely enough to characterize its success. Enlighten me.
They're probably talking about "Are you man enough to be a nurse?" which briefly grabbed attention over a decade ago. Want more men in nursing? Discourage them from being competitive and choosing to become doctors. Male doctors outnumber female doctors nearly 2 to 1. Men become physicians and surgeons. Women become obstetrics and pediatrics. As a general rule of thumb, most fields that show a gender difference lean h…
Matriculation in US med schools was ~47% female this year.
This drove me out of the humanities completely when I was in college. The topic of discussion in a class freshman year was whether natural selection still or ever applied to humans. I said no, because decisions on how many kids you have tends to vary from culture to culture, and I mentioned specifically Catholicism and the 1 child law in China. And I was called racist. Never got accused of being racist in Calc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Eich's statement in that posting is indeed a valid, mitigating factor in his favor. He could have done more, by addressing the issue of the TV ads directly. By not doing so, people had reason to believe he was sidestepping that key issue (and that he may not really understand why people were offended by those ads).
What can I say, that is just not the world I want to live in. A world in which your defeated [1] political opponents must repent, wear sackcloth, and cast ashes in their hair or else be professionally destroyed. [1] Proposition 8 had been struck down by the time of Eich's appointment to CEO
People had just gotten very, very, VERY tired of the pseudo-tolerant stance he was endorsing [1], and didn't want to feel that they were lending credibility to it, by having him at the head of an organization they were a part of. The message they were trying to send was simply, "we're really tired of this shit, and we want it to stop."
[1] "Love the sinner, hate the sin". Those aren't his words, but that's the gist of the religious-based opposition to gay marriage. You have to understand that at some point, people just get sick of hearing it -- or being a party to it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The feminists you are dismissing as irrelevant have every bit as much social currency and power as the ones who are vocal, they just aren't using it as often, which is why it's so short-sighted of you do dismiss them. The public debate on this isn't going to be won by men dismissing feminism: that's just going to radicalize more feminists. And even if it could be won that way, that is that what you want: for men to c…
> It's political suicide for a man to publicly stand against radical feminism Standing against feminism is becoming more and more viable. The amazing thing about these radicals is that they only have the power you give them. If you refuse to resign, refuse to apologize, and refuse to listen, they just go pound their fists uselessly, and you can get on with your life. Is your ideology beach body ready? > for men to co…
Or, you can get fired. You don't have to look far for examples of this happening. I don't support radical feminism, but I'm also not ready to martyr myself over it if that can be avoided. Losing your job and social standing does nobody any good.
> > for men to control the public discourse and women be trivialized? That's not what I want. I want actual equality.
> Strawman, and you know it.
You literally said:
> > feminism isn't one set of ideas, but a diverse set of ideas
> Irrelevant. What matters is the people who have social currency and power today, and they're the toxic variety of feminist.
You literally said that all the feminists who are not the feminists you're railing against are irrelevant. If that's a strawman, it's a strawman that you said, and I can only respond to what you say.
> Today's feminist errors in assuming that unequal outcome implies unequal treatment. That's the part where feminism diverges from reality.
"Today's feminist" as you claim, a single entity, does not exist.
> It's not useful to suggest that I must either support feminism (whatever you say it means) or support male superiority.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that it is equally not useful to suggest that women either give up the title and role of feminism or support female superiority.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow thank you for this link. Its interesting to see where these horrible tactics come from. It certainly frightening to see things like rule 13 “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. This is horrifying to see codified, and what I assume being practiced o…
Yep once you know "the rules" you can easily analyze all these protests or incidents.
“Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ugh. The Brendan Eich issue was about freedom of association -- in particular, the right of Mozilla employees and stakeholders not to be associated with the bigoted groups (and their hateful TV ads) Eich was supporting -- rather than freedom of speech. If you're still not clear as to the distinction, please see: https://xkcd.com/1357/
I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending your actions by citing freedom of association is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for what you do is that it's not literally illegal to do so.
Just that people who think that his "freedom of speech" was in some way violated -- or that the anger directed against him was simply about his being on the wrong side of a ballot issue -- are at least very misinformed about certain things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Research has concluded that polarized opinions do affect how strongly readers react to information. Ironically enough, Jonathan Haidt, the author of this article contributed greatly to the insights on the effects of such bias. http://www.authorstream.com/Presentation/jhaidt-819710-haidt...
I love material that so profoundly affect my thinking like this one did (last time was probably being introduced to LessWrong). I can't thank you enough for linking this.
Since you enjoyed it so much, here are some more of his links:
https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind?l...
https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_humanity_s_stairway...
https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_how_common_threats_...
http://people.stern.nyu.edu/jhaidt/disgustscale.html
And, the one I consider to be the most deeply insightful (and also one upon which a lot of his other research relies):