Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

If you don't recognize the politics in science, you end up with eugenics and bias in the data.

If you separate science from politics, you get decision not anchored in reality. The biggest improvement to government process (a field rarely talk about) in the last 200 years was the cost-benefit analyses. Scientific methods are a core part of government.

> It's just that these things tend to change on their own once material conditions have changed

Lets structure this a bit, since we have two different theories: is it social values that leads to material conditions, or is it material conditions that leads to social values.

If its the first case is true, we should see signs of social values being changed while material conditions lagging behind. The opposite should be true for the second case.

I would claim that the case of the solider lacks to mention a critical third-party. Its not that the soldiers themselves that decided to integrated the units. Its an outer force, in this case the military leadership who do not share the same cultural values of the soldiers, and that outer force is what forces a material change for which later results in a cultural acceptance by the soldiers.

Take Japan after WW2. Its was not that the Japanese suddenly decided to change their cultural views about Imperial rule. The allies, who did not share the cultural views of those in Japan, imposed a material change (ie, the forced surrender and statement from the emperor). After a time, citizens of japan accepted the new reality and cultural values and norms changed.

An other case would be to look at the revolution that created the Soviet Union. People didn't just suddenly decide to create a revolution, and then after a few years have cultural values changed. The cultural values changed much earlier, primarily because of lost wars, which cause people to loose faith in the tsarist autocracy. The process was very slow, and took somewhere between 100 and 50 years, ending with the revolution. At that point, Social norms had already changed, a fact that the Tsar Nicholas II where very aware of.

To ground this into current situation with men being more pressured into taking higher paying jobs than women, the government as a third-party would need to basically go in and decide who works where and how much people should get paid, and the government would need to have a different cultural view than the rest of the population. I doubt either requirement could happen, the first because communism had already tried it, the later because a government with different cultural views than the population is unlikely to get voted in.

> But the lack of social-security-paid maternity leave and subsidy of child care, still work against women in the US.

Is that a positive decision for men? I know that where I live, Sweden, both those things exist and our work market is even more gender segregated that the US work market.

If we consider the extreme pressure that the dating site data shows, how much will a few months/year of paid leave change things. Will men start to seek women who can support a family, thus sending social pressure for women to seek higher paying jobs? Will women change their cultural values of seeking men with higher paying jobs?

Looking at Sweden, what it did is to silence the false myth that women are a bigger risk to employ than men. It did not change the cultural expectancy that society has on from female and male roles in society.

> the Republican party has been working for years to curtail the voting power of blacks

There is indeed political efforts to win at all costs and to try prevent voters from voting rather than win them over. I would not go and claim it is anything supported by white men as a group, but rather a fringe behavior by people whose income is based on being an politician. A other word for it would be corruption, buts its not commonly used word for describing such behavior.

> I can invite people to a party on the roof of my building, which has no elevator. I discriminate against handicapped people without intending to.

There will always be people who are unintentionally discriminating against if we remove intent from discrimination. Claustrophobic people can't use elevators, Acrophobes can't be on the roof, and Agoraphobia don't like open spaces. Its a meaningless term if everything everyone do is unintentionally discrimination towards someone.

>> Its only in the last 30 years that the movement changed course. > I strongly disagree with that.

I can see the effect in sex segregation. Before it, the trend where going towards less segregation. After it, to more.

> That side wants everyone to be treated in a way that recognizes that people are different

How is that different from saying that they want people to be treated different? Just because you added the word "recognizes", don't change underlying statement.

The story of Rosa Parks isn't how society failed at statistical power distribution where half the time men sat in front and women in the back of the buss, and other half of the time they should have switched places. Such system don't recognizes that people are more alike than different. Recognizing peoples similarity is more important than to recognizes the minute way people are different, and it just happen that I prefer a society that focus on similarities than a society that focus on differences.

This is the part I find hard to believe. I couldn't find any mention of such an event occurring.

> as I often see feminist group putting weight on the "fact" that those who commit sexual assault are completely healthy and "do not have a higher rate of Schizophrenia than anyone else", as if all mental conditions were linked to Schizophrenia.

I have never encountered the feminist position you're referring to.

Could be a fringe view, which would be great.

Could you be a bit more explicit. A lack of social-security-paid maternity is not technically a law, and as I mentioned, where I live it exist and is gender neutral.

A few years ago I did an experiment and made a few data searches through the Swedish law, looking at what laws explicit mention gender. Recalling right, there were six laws that explicitly mentioned women, and zero laws that mentioned men. Out of the six, four where identical written laws which guaranties that women can request a female employee in certain situation (like when arrested and searched). Personally I don't see why the law don't just grant this to everyone, which is how the medical system works (you can always request a doctor of your own gender).

Of the remaining two, one is an oddly from of insanity clause for infanticide. Not sure why pregnancy induced depression isn't just include in the practice that deals with insanity clauses, but for some reason the law writers just decided to add it under the murder section and there explicitly write that women can be given a lower punishment for infanticide in such situations.

The last law is one that I find quite sexist and lumps together women and children as incapable of contacting the victim of crime support agency after being a victim of a crime, and thus forces the police to do it for them. The effect is that statistically 7 times more funds is used when a woman is a victim of a crime then a man. I have very little understanding for why the law can't just provide this service for everyone regardless of gender, except that government funding for victim of crimes support would have to be significant increased.

> it took the south over 100 years to get over blacks' perception as subhuman

This is true, but I would assume there where a trackable trend over that time span with decreased racism. Would you say there is currently a identifiable trend in changing cultural expectancy that society has on from female and male roles? If so, where would you say it points to?

> You're using that word again: support. When talking about power we don't care what you think, feel or support. We care about the power you have.

A major issue with using a single method in analyzing the world is that simplifications tend to give the occasional wrong conclusion. If we where to use the same method for power in assessing which farm land is benefiting from global warming, it would not say anything about causes. The group that causes global warming, and the entities that would benefit from a few degree hotter climate are not connected. When assessing the cause of voter suppression, the group not being suppressed is unlikely to hold an significant insight to the cause.

> laws enacted to make public places accessible to disabled people.

Yes, laws tend to be discriminative in what group they want to protect and what solutions are considered acceptable. This was very clear during the burka controversy last summer in Europe. Everyone was busy talking how laws that dictate what to wear on beaches was discrimination, completely ignoring that the existence of nude beaches shows that such laws already exist in public beaches. Society has just agreed that discrimination against nudists are acceptable and people who disagree should just create their own beaches out of sight.

> One group has been enslaved for two centuries, and then forcibly put down for another two centuries

Trying to repay bad blood from over 400 years is a recipe for war. Those perceiving themselves as a victim for things that happen centuries before they were born have increased stress and fight-or-flight responses, if I recall right.

> We can't just say, alright, from now on we're all the same

This just might be a bit socialistic comment, but yes we can. Those that have significant material marks, be that from being born to parents that got discriminated against or who randomly happen to end up on the lower end of the social ladder, should regardless get enough tools by society to climb out of extreme poverty. The historical cause is of lesser importance than the present need. Society should recognize past wrongness, but its a poor reason to exclude people who also need help. Help to everyone is inherently equal.

After I wrote last comment about Rosa Parks, I recall the german experiment of having women only compartment on trains, segregating women and men. 50% of the time, the female compartment will be in the front, and 50% of the time it will be in the end of the train. Do you find that compatible with the successful abolishment of gender segregation in buses that the feminist movement fought for?

A lack of something is not a property. The legal system lacks infinite number of things. Its not a meaningful definition if infinity is included.

> It's OK to treat men and women differently

And there we got a key disagreement. It is not OK to treat people different based on gender. Any such treatment will cause local power disparities, like bias that cause real harm.

>> why the law can't just provide this service for everyone > my guess is that this is a "black lives matter" point

The reason why the law treat women as incapable to pick up the phone and contact the agency is rather obvious. Cultural views and values. The problem is the result of power disparities for victims, where gender has a seven time factor in dictating who gets support and who doesn't. As a group, victims of crimes is one that should also be discriminated against because of their gender.

> As recently as a few decades ago, women who put having children on hold to have careers were viewed as freaks.

One of the theories behind that "interesting phenomenon" that is gender segregation in nations like Sweden, it describe how women after world war 2 started to have more time to spend on a career rather than spending all time on raising children. Men however are still stuck with the same expectation to support the raising of children, so their role in the work market has been static. Neither is a cultural change away from women being solely valued for their ability to raise children, nor men being valued solely for their ability to support the raising of children.

> Nudists are not a social group just as chess players aren't

Unsure if you are aware, but I find that comment highly offensive. Lets just start by quoting the lead in the wikipedia article on Naturism. "Naturism, or nudism, is a cultural and political movement practising, advocating and defending personal and social nudity". There exist a long history of nudism philosophy, culture, and values. I find your comment similar to someone saying that black people are not a social group, just as people wearing glasses aren't.

People who believe that clothing is constraining their identity is equally discriminated by a law that require specific form of clothing on beaches. All the effect of discrimination, like being hurt and feeling rejected is current reality of those people. The stigma of "being the wrong kind of person" and having that discrimination not even acknowledged is very harmful.

> And where did you get 400 years? >> One group has been enslaved for two centuries, and then forcibly put down for another two centuries

Two centuries, plus two more centuries, is four centuries.

And what material marks has been created for which black people exclusively can have? Is there a reason why the solution to those problems should not be used on society as a whole for anyone with the same material situation? It sound to me like you want solution to only go to people of black people because they deserve it more because of past injustice?

> I am not familiar with that experiment or its goals.

http://www.thelocal.de/20160329/is-germany-introducing-sex-s...

My question stand: Is it compatible with the successful abolishment of gender segregation in buses that the feminist movement fought for?