It's depressing... men have changed their behavior towards me in recent years (I am female and work in a male-dominated industry). From professional yet chummy to wary and uncommunicative.
@firmlee_grasspit I usually do. And it's partly my own fault I'm seeing so much of the dissent since I'm following a story that involves these topics, but nevertheless. Sometimes all the negativity really just wears.
2
deleted
· 5 years ago
I can’t disagree with that. I feel the wear of daily life, too.
@nooneinparticular for example I watched a stream that wasn't really about any topic in particular, and a person in it basically laid out how feminism was a lie from the start, how it was almost entirely to blame for the destruction of the family unit as well as the retail apocalypse, and how, if men can find an alternate way of satisfying their sexual needs and reproduce, women are, for all intents and purposes, useless. Or at the very least useless to men.
'
This was followed by a bunch of people basically saying how much sense he was making/how accurate that was, and how the role of the housewife was so underrated and women had destroyed it. And none of this would have surprised me except, again, this wasn't a women-hating misogynistic video.
'
Meanwhile there are men saying they are literally terrified to have sex without recording it or such to make sure people won't go back and say it was rape 8 years down the road
And then there are women freaking out over the tiniest thing and equating things like maybe an out of place comment with rape, or saying how all men have been evil and oppressing them all their lives.
'
And, again, I know this isn't everyone, and it's partially my own fault I'm being exposed to so much of it, but then I keep seeing stuff in a similar vein casually thrown around on here and other sites as well.
'
As I said, it's just a bit wearing.
It’s sad the push back from so many. For people born into the world the way it has been- they see movement towards equality as a threat- as taking things away from them and instead of seeing it as restoring the rights of others stripped away in the past, they see it as someone else getting something and then getting nothing. So they “push back” against changes that they do not feel a direct benefit from but feel they pay a price for. It’s sad, and sometimes it hurts my head too and I want to unplug and ignore all the hate and negativity until I remember that all evil needs to win is for good people to do nothing.
@guest_ The pushback against what? I've always asked this question before when this topic came up, and will ask it again. What rights do women not have in developed countries? Name it. Just name it for fuck's sake.
To quote the words of one of my favourite shitlords Milo Yannopolis: "Feminism is cancer." Modern feminism at least. Because I don't see them advocating for women's rights in the countries where those rights are trampled. I don't see them fighting FOR anyone, only AGAINST men. And as @xvarnah aptly pointed out, what feminism is instead concerned with is slander campaigns such as #MeToo, which has come up with an insane number of false allegations past the inital stage. They are concerned with the wage gap, that has been disproven many times over and no economist takes it seriously. And feminism has in fact devastated the family unit, some of it justifiably, given that it would be a byproduct of increased freedom, but at this point it's gone too far.
Feminism is a lie. Because if it wasn't, it would've run its course, or moved on to the actual problematic countries. And I have tremendous respect for people like @xvarnah, who are able to see past the veil of the social fabric conditioned to see feminism as a good thing, even if they are unwilling to argue or fight back. Because I am.
How insufferably righteous it is to believe that you are the only one that can truly change something, make people see the real truth, because if you don't try to convince strangers online, "the evil will win". We all have our truth @guest_. Sometimes I want to quit as well, but then I realise people like you will win. Those with good intentions, but incapable of seeing beyond the crippled perspective of eternal victimhood. I don't consider you a bad person, only one unwilling to accept the shreds of truth spoken by others.
Women are no longer oppressed in the developed countries. They have their rights. Get over it.
@ vitklim- You’re the second person in a short period who has not only taken a discussion about a separate topic and made it about me- but also who seems to think they know me very well from snap shots of specific discussions on a meme site. While its surely flattering that y’all would rather discuss me than the topic at hand- you seem to have formed a mental image that isn’t quite realistic and also taken things off topic. You can create a chat if y’all want to really know where I come from and what I’m about- but to be honest not only am I not terribly interested in sharing a lot of that with people on the internet- but a good deal you’d probably think was just internet BS talk.
To the subject- it’s more aptly described as an “earnings gap” than a wage gap- and the department of labor features it prominently on their web site along with a host of other credible economists who agree. When the US government has not only the statistics but makes the conclusion there is a wage gap- I’m not qualified enough to disagree- but I do know that pointing out the many factors that contribute to the statistical earnings differences between men and women doesn’t prove a wage gap doesn’t exist, it merely shows the things that need worked on to help eliminate it.
As for rights- the constitution more or less made everyone equal in 1776. They had to specifically add a whole lot of people to be considered people though- but by the turn of the last century there abouts- women, men, whites and people of all colors had equal rights under the highest law in the nation. Do you think that a black man in 1940’s Alabama was able to exercise those rights freely as promised by law? Do you think the law protected and upheld those rights equally to the rights of certain others? Do you think society recognized and accepted those rights with open arms- and that the whole civil rights movement was silly since legally all those people had the same rights?
You have the right to bear arms. So go buy a handgun and open carry it around San Francisco or Chicago. No? But... you have the right to bear arms- surely no court could legally stop you, surely the fear of harassment or being shot wouldn’t stop you from walking right into a federal building with an AR15 locked and loaded? Or would it? Is it possible to legally have a right but not be able to freely exercise it because of bias and fear or discomfort and harassment? Last I checked women weren’t asking to add a rape clause to the constitution. By and large “women’s rights” you have missed the issue. It’s not all about adding rights- it’s about bringing advocacy so that society and policy makers change to allow women to make those rights.
You CHOOSE to not open carry etc. you COULD do it- it’s your right- but society and reality make it so that exercising that right isn’t a freedom but a massive commitment and hassle that most people will simply choose to not exercise a right.
Yes yes- with guns there are laws stopping you. It’s just an example because there isn’t a direct analog and in many cases the letter of the law doesn’t stop a person but social pressure and knowing they might be shot or shunned do. So women are advocating for the ability to exercise the rights they’ve been given and for society to recognize those rights and treat them as equals.
And yes- some people “take it too far” “are too sensitive” or just plain are more interested in using such platforms to punish others or exercise their own bias and hatred. That’s true. Some people are very sensitive- annoyingly at times. But you know what? I don’t break down in tears when I’m mildly annoyed the way a person breaks down in tears when someone won’t call them their preferred pronoun- so I’m going to say that it genuinely hurts them more than it hurts me and even if I don’t care one way or another I’ll respect them. The “law of the jungle” “throw them in the deep end and they’ll learn to swim” mentality has been shown to cause more harm than good in a developed society.
When faced with a “kill them or die” situation most sane people will at least try to survive- so all that choice says is you’re human. What’s telling about a person is how quickly after they are stranded without food do they start cooking the other survivors? How bad do things have to get and how long hard did they really exhaust less brutal solutions before they declared “life is hash- it’s you or me!” Sitting on my comfy couch with a full belly and all my bills paid- happy in love and with life- I’m not so quick to jump straight to the most brutal and efficient answer to all life’s problems. I’ll save that for when it comes to it and I’m backed into a corner.
So civilization is a luxury. Acceptance and understanding are all luxuries. If we all lived in the post nuclear wastes I doubt I’d be discussing wage gap as much as I would be trying to survive. For most of the developed world though- it’s harder to not survive than to survive. We don’t have to be brutal little shits and only the unhappy need stand in the way of others happiness. It costs me nothing to be considerate or accommodating. There’s no threat to me from it. I continue to live my life as I enjoy it now- the only difference is someone else can feel good about theirs. So why wouldn’t I give someone happiness of it costs me nothing of consequence? Boo boo. I can’t slap the waitress on the ass or send porno pics to the whole office. My life is ruined. I can’t get a girl drunk and then have a one night stand with her- now what will I do with my evenings?
3
deleted
· 5 years ago
i like muffins
they are very tasty and delicious and fluffy
muffins are good
argue is not
no argue pls
I'll cut straight through the chase then. You, @guest_ are trying to force a cultural change based on your personal beliefs and morals. Trying to make the world around you fit to your ideas of social perfection. It's not going to happen. Society came from interactions between individuals and evolved for as long as we did. You cannot overturn everything that came before and establish something new in place. No one will listen, no one will care. You want people to change their views at a breakneck pace and in a very particular direction. They won't listen.
What happens already anyway is that society does control what people do. Through fear. Fear of loss of social status, fear of being seen as immoral, fear of losing something. But the framework of right and wrong evolved in a free space. It's like an army of ants is trying to move a stick back to the anthill. Every single ant is scrambling around the stick, pushing it, shoving it, trying to lift it, or push ahead someone who can move it forward. Every ant is pushing the stick in a different direction, yet over time it moves towards the goal. 50 or so years ago, being gay was seen as immoral. Now? It's completely socially acceptable. You can't force change on people, you can only give them the framework for the natural selection of ideas.
Which is where we come to a confrontation. I don't want people to change to accomodate my views. I want them to be able to think and make choices for themselves, as long as what they are doing is not illegal. You want people to follow your moral logic.
I largely agree in many base principals. @vitklim- human nature likely isn’t changing anytime soon, and our base instincts and drives will likely persist for the length of the species unless some “genius” starts messing with our DNA in a dystopian attempt to “make better people.” That said- we can change society. We’ve seen drastic changes in recorded history. Much stays the same, many core inevitability’s of reality guide certain things, but we make progress. Ideologically you annoy force change. You can’t make a person do anything they don’t want, and respect via threat in an ideological sense isn’t the same as if it were offered freely, and in a practical sense it only lasts so long as the threat is there or the person cares about the threat.
However- why do we even have laws then? Most laws exist to ensure the stability of commerce and the safety of people. But Why is it illegal to hook up concert amps and speakers and blare them at 3am? Why is it illegal to shape my house like a giant photo realistic vulva and paint it blaring orange? In a larger sense these things are illegal or otherwise restricted by law because “common decency” needs to be codified when you have billions of people sharing a space. Because I may not respect my neighbors or other people but at some point society says “this isn’t acceptable” and makes it a law. In a legal sense in America- the basic right to a freedom to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness exists for all citizens. Laws which enforce the constitutional rights of people are what makes the constitution mean anything other than being a suggestion. Without total anarchy- that means ensuring the greatest freedom to the greatest number.
Laws are different from morality. They overlap, but are not the same. Things that are illegal are illegal because they are harmful to people and detrimental to society as a whole. Theft is a small crime, and only affects one person. But it also foments distrust between people, who will now be more suspicious of others trying to steal from them. Which is why things that are outlawed are based on the principle of harm. To individuals and society. This is very connected to the free speech debate. If someone was to say something that would cause demonstrable harm to society, that would be illegal. Again, inciting violence from a stage would fall under that, given you are at that moment in a position of power and have some influence over others.
However, as we outlined before, I'm not talking about laws. I'm talking about culture and society. You admitted yourself that people have the rights they need, what you are troubled with is the societal expectations and unwritten laws that don't fit you ideal of morality, of doing the right thing. And as I said before, you cannot change that, because people have different conceptions of morality. Enforcing it is not the answer, it's impossible.
Most people share the same base concepts of morality, but draw the line for different issues in different places. Which is why by common concensus, aka "common decency" as you named it, is shared between 90+% of people, and can in fact be codified into law. But once it goes beyond the basics of what can in a conceivable way cause harm, the lines get blurry and nobody can rule out a single right opinion.
People of different political leanings for instance, have wildly different concepts of fairness and equality. A socialist will tell you that it is unfair that billionaires exist, when there are people in poverty. Anyone to the right of him, will tell you that it would be unfair for someone who earned their wealth to be stripped of it for breaking no legal law.
On moral questions like these, there are many viable viewpoints, and no single one of them can be codified and enforced on all others. Because there is no overwhelming majority that would support a single position. Or, in fact there is, and the majority supports the way things have evolved over the past centuries, with ownership of private property, governments and laws, and freedom of political speech, among other things.
And same goes for societal expectations. They evolve over time, and define what is socially acceptable for people to do. Do people follow them? Sometimes yes, sometimes hell no. But it's a free market of ideas, and over time the best ones emerge. Again, it took 50 years for the collective conciousness of a culture to change and recognise that the existence of LGB people does not pose a threat to anybody. Culture evolves over time, accelerating that process is impossible and stupid.
Just in case - @guest_
Yes. But we know that discrimination causes harm in subtle and not so subtle ways. We know there is a real world economic impact when people exclude others. Your theft example- it’s the same thing. Consistency and commerce. If a certain person needs goods but the store owner refuses to serve them- how are they to know what businesses to shop at? They must structure their life around who welcomes them just to fulfill basic commerce needs. Hence it is illegal to discriminate in business based on protected class. But if I can’t outright refuse to serve a person- but I give them service less than what others would receive and have a pattern of making them uncomfortable and scared- if I intimidate them into “choosing” not to shop with me- that’s still discrimination.
The same applies where any discrimination is concerned- such as the workplace. Society and attitudes and trends can change- but society does not and never has the right to decide who does and does not get to exist. That is where the line between law and social pressures must be drawn. That in any dealings where financial or physical harm are at stake, we make sure to enforce the laws preventing discrimination. Like the speech on the constitution earlier- laws are nothing but words on paper if they aren’t somehow backed up and enforced. Discrimination in commerce and conducting of affairs is forbidden by law for a reason- it causes harm to individuals, groups, and society. So we don’t get to side step those laws and their intent by waving a banner of social zeitgeist.
If the majority of American Society decided tomorrow to take up the ideals of Nazi Germany- democracy or not, the fundamental framework upon which our country is built opposes acting on those principals. Those laws and rules can be changed through due process to reflect the “will of the people,” (I hope to never see that day or anything close..) but if and until that we’re to pass, the “majority” socially popular sentiment would still be illegal, unamerican, and wrong. Even if it were legal it would be wrong. And that’s the whole point of these things.
Social morals do inform law. They guide choices that are made- even if things like child labor or slavery could be proven advantageous- it’s likely the moral component would override the practical. The “harm” the law seeks to protect from isn’t always a social or economic harm. It is often a harm that would befall an individual or group of individuals. To not burden people inequitably and without just cause. When people fail of their own accord en masses to recognize harms they are causing and rectify them- the law steps in. Before communicable diseases were known to be spread through saliva- it was and still is assault to spit on a person. You have harmed their dignity and given human nature are likely to cause violence and further harm stability etc.
So while the law is careful about harms that are harder to quantify- precedent exists in it for such. Many crimes like murder are judged upon intent and things like circumstances with a mind to emotions. Tort, pain and suffering, these types of modifiers can effect criminal verdicts as well as civil judgments. The law recognizes a malicious crime to be more severe than one of the moments passions. So wether we look at it from a legal, moral, or social stance- discrimination can’t be justified or tolerated.
Discrimination based on what, I ask? Because we are perfectly well allowed to discriminate by skill when hiring the most appropriate person for the job. We are allowed to discriminate by sex, gender, race, etc. when we decide who to date. Discrimination is a very nebulous term, and you have to define precise situations when it is not okay to discriminate and by what metric. And even then, if for instance, someone is hiring for a job, and two applicants have the exact same qualifications, or similar enough to be considered equivalent, and the only difference between them is their sex or race, what then? The person who's hiring is left with a choice to make, and neither choice they make is immoral or wrong, because there is no difference between the applicants in skill level - the only thing that matters. Now if they were to hire someone who is not as skilled instead, then you could consider that wrong, but even then, it's their choice to do so, and you have no control over it.
And what about hiring people you know? If your friend recommends you someone they know that would fit the job, and you accept, is that sort of discrimination okay? Is hiring someone you know and who is probably more reliable, better than hiring someone who might be more qualified, but whom you are unfamiliar with? That is left up to choice, because there is no common moral ground on these things, and people decide individually per instance.
And with your example of what you could term as "moral conversion", aka the Nazis. You are acting from a viewpoint of universal morality. That is, saying that there is only one correct answer to some questions. Which I agree with, some things can be definitively ruled out as immoral, but far from all. And even then, if that were to happen, and the majority of society would be doing something you consider immoral, they would consider it moral, and would do their best to defend that position. And you wouldn't be able to change their mind at any decent pace. It would take another 50 or so years to just uncondition people from thinking that that is a definitively moral stance to take.
But getting back to my original point here. Some things can be defined as an inequivocal moral wrong. Most cannot be. And things that are defined as a moral wrong, are largely put into law where it is possible without interfering with the moral right, let's call it. And what I mean by that is that if you take the same hiring example, and say that it is immoral to discriminate against X, you would need to be very careful in formulating what discrimination here actually means and when it happens, because if you force to always choose X given the option, you restrict people's right of choice and begin to discriminate against everyon who isn't X. This is why this discussion is so duboius.
It’s not so much considered “discrimination” to hire a friend as it could be considered a conflict of interest- which many laws exist to prevent and prohibit conflicts of interest as they cause the word of the day- harm. If you were to choose a friend who is under qualified or unqualified over more qualified applicants, if you were to hire a friend and pay them at a rate substantially higher than what people in a similar position make just because they are your friend- these would be good examples of clear conflict of interest. The concepts we need to understand there are that simply hiring a friend isn’t a conflict of interest in itself, and to label it such we must show proof that the decisions made were clearly done simply out of preferential treatment and not on any other grounds.
Take also important to note that “discrimination” must be against a protected class to fit the legal definition. While we could make a circular more argument that it’s still discrimination to not hire people who wear jeans or like the color aquamarine- the morality as is you say can be subjective. It’s not as complex as we want to pick at here.
Discrimination- without due and prudent reason, sound in logic and backed by fact, is not “good.” It causes real physical, emotional, and economic harm and if left unchecked causes instability within a society. The exclusion of groups of people based on broad categories of race, gender, religion, class, etc. harms those people and society as a whole. It cannot he allowed or tolerated. A person is allowed to think and feel what they like. You can hate seat belts but it is the law that you will wear a seat belt or you will suffer consequences if caught. There is a slippery slope. But- slippery slope or not, the will of the people and the will of government has overwhelmingly agreed this far that we will not allow people to subvert or skirt laws intended to allow human beings to live their lives. Hate them or look down on them all you want- but be an adult and behave yourself.
Again, you have to properly define what discrimination actually is, and when it is actually a bad thing. And there is no such thing as "protected class". All people are subject to the same laws, and don't get to have special treatment just because they are something or identify as something. Or at least they shouldn't. Because introducing laws like these, essentially gives them more rights, or more legal weight, for no reason.
This is where you step on very shaky ground, because this is how you get to the conclusion that you can't be racist against white people, or sexist against men. When you consider minorities to be protected classes of people, and give them unjust amount of power in public discourse and policy making.
And you're not really addressing that point. Sure discrimination is bad, but discrimination against anyone is bad, not just specific groups of people.
Also, I don't know if you read it, but if not, I advise you having a read of Jonathan Haidt's "The Rigtheous Mind". He goes into a lot of detail about people's morality, and how that intersects with social norms and political leaning. A really good book if you just want more perspective on how political discussion comes to be, and why it's so complex to balance and moderate.
@vitklim- beyond ideals of noble intent though, the truth is that some people are more in danger of facing certain threats than others, not out of genetic predisposition, not out of consequence of their personal life choices in any direct sense, but simply by nature of discrimination against who they are. So we created protected classes- based on fundamental aspects of a group which have been shown to make them targets. Age, sex, race, etc. these are all legally protected classes. You are not required to give special consideration to these classes unless you consider treating them fair and evenly as special consideration.
It’s a historical imperative. When blacks became free and equal under law, they still faced many or in some places all of the restrictions they did when they were not considered human by the same definition as whites under law. Some of these battles were still being fought a generation later in places where people refused to recognize the rights of others. The “basic” human solution to such conflicts is war- the bigots of the world and the accepting could fight to the death until the issue was resolved by the eradication of all non like minded people. This has been deemed not acceptable for a society. So instead we must compel people to follow the basic humanitarian principals laid down for society. Not to control their thoughts or feelings- but to ensure their actions are as unbiased as practical with regards to the basic nature of human beings.
The simple facts we can agree on hopefully are: 1. that all humans are inherently equal. No singular quality makes any one group “better” than another. 2. All people deserve the chance to live their lives as close to how they desires as possible so long as they do not or minimally as possible infringe upon others rights to do so.
Humans are not equal. They can and should be treated equally by the law, but they are not equal. Not equal in height, weight, intelligence, skills, anything. This is a very important distinction to make. I fully agree with your second statement though.
Equality and equity. Equality is treating people the same, equity is everyone having/being the same. One is freedom, the other is slavery.
We can play word semantics all day. An X and a Y are clearly not identical and yet can be equal in value. That’s what is meant by equality. Not that all people need or want the same things. Not that all people think and feel the same or that you should French kiss your plumber or pay your spouse for their time because of some ill conceived concept that says equality means what you do in one case you must do for all cases. At its core equality means giving every single life equal value. That no life is inherently worth more than another. At a most fundamental level that means working towards a society that ensures equal opportunity for all in all aspects of life.
There will always be challenges to every life and each individual will face different challenges by virtue of personality, genetics, etc. but we can eliminate artificial blockades to people being able to live their lives. We can tear down institutions and ways of thinking which oppose the ability of others to love their lives. We can recognize the unique challenges faced by larger groups of people and take steps to eliminate those challenges so that we can move towards a society which doesn’t put undue hurdles in people’s paths.
@guest your second last comment - "equality means equal opportunities, not equal outcomes" I think that is the difference between equality and equity that @vitklim tried to point out.
,
I feel that some of both of your comments mean to advocate the same base principles, but are stated differently with different extensive applications or situational impacts - which helps to point out the absolute complexity of debates and viewpoints. It is a truly beautiful piece of work to read.
,
I am glad to see this is staying a civilised debate with very interesting and well-put/well-thought counterdebates. It's nice food for thought and very intellectually stimulating to experience your viewpoints in this manner. Thank you both.
@catfluff- thank you. We know some people will do better than others at a thing. This is natural. We know some will try harder and the heart of most systems is one which seeks to reward people based upon their abilities. However it is a logical fallacy then to assume that a persons place is dictated by their abilities alone. If a person is obstructed from leveraging their full abilities then they cannot reach the point where they OR society is benefiting from that person as much as capable. The goal of equality or whatever word a person wants to use for the concept, is to identify the barriers we are placing in front of people that stop the realization of potential and remove those obstacles. If a person is working to remove obstacles that shouldn’t be there that is work they could be using to reach their potential for the good of all instead. It doesn’t just harm them but all of us.
And to not touch those obstacles that should be in place, because everybody faces them. I feel the debate starts to fizzle out at this point because we are talking about different problems here. Your problem is with the perceived unequality in the way people are treated/perceived, however, what I don't understand is how you would go about solving this problem and measuring how severe it is in the first place. Statistics of representation of different groups of people won't tell you much, because everyone makes different life choices and calling for equal representation is equity and not equality. And you would need to prove that discrimination exists and is in fact discrimination, and the result doesn't emerge from any other factor or factors.
I would like to hear how it is that you would define harmful discrimination (because by definition of the word, discrimination is simply treating people differently based on some qualities that they possess, and we do that all the time), how would you go about identifying it, and proving that it is in fact a pattern that is propagated by a specific person or whatever number of people, and how would you solve that without ending up dicriminating against anyone else. I'm not saying that that's impossible, but it requires drawing the line in a very precise space, so I'd like to hear your suggestions on this.
The first and easiest tool is to listen. People suffering or feeling they are tend to be vocal. So first we have to listen to people. Now- just because someone FEELS treated a way doesn’t make it so. The next step is to determine if there is some sort of signal that there could be a problem. As an example- Jim is on the blue team. He claims that Malory who is serving cake is giving bigger slices to the red team. Now we need data. So we can sample how much cake each person has and see if any group has more. This alone is proof of nothing. But let’s say the red team do have bigger slices. Ok. Now we need more information. We need to talk to the members of the red team and blue team. Did some people not want cake? Did some ask for bigger slices and some not? If we find the data is showing us that some external factor is causing the reds to get more cake- we can identify it. If it’s as simple as the blues aren’t asking for more...
... or aren’t being understood, we can speak with the groups and work on building a style of communications which will allow the blues to feel comfortable or be able to ask for what they want while making sure the reds understand. Now- we may uncover that there is just a bias of some sort. Things like that happen and aren’t always malicious. Advertisers and artists use color combinations and various tricks of optics and perspectives which they know will generally effect humans a certain way. Architects and floor planners often set up spaces in a way that will “direct” people using inherent bias, and those in films and entertainment are masters of understanding how to make people like or dislike characters, suspect them or think they are innocent. So we have a pretty good guide on factors which can cause bias and how to influence bias as well as how to identify it.
So if a person is unconsciously bias they may be giving more cake to one group out of a factor they don’t realize. Once we recognize the problem or likely potential of a problem, we can be cognizant and work at avoiding the specific problem. A big part of that is honesty. A person must be honest with themselves and everyone involved must be honest as possible. Another is openness. Openness to admit that even if no malice was meant a harm was done, and an openness to change and self monitor as well as take external guidance on when one is behaving that way.
In the extreme there are computers. All sorts of businesses already use automated systems and more sophisticated ones are being developed to address issues of bias algorithms- but in short where a properly designed and implemented, externally monitored digital system is used for things like screening applicants for jobs- bias can theoretically be greatly reduced and eventually eliminated in selection processes. These are examples of individual bias of course. Social bias is a little more tricky. However the start is always the same. We listen when a person says they are in pain, investigate the situation. Now- you mention the complexities of differing lives. You’re correct. As we covered- lives are not interchangeable in equivalence. Each is unique. We can’t mathematically quantify them. HOWEVER- there is one simple fact unless one believes in eugenics or theories of racial intelligence etc...
People are people. Wether we are talking about across races and cultures or wether we are talking about across a group of “similar” people however we want to define similar- there is a simple truth of humanity- we are all very close together more or less. In a group sample of 100/10000/10000000 etc- where ages and health levels etc are in a reasonable range, the overwhelming majority of people given a measurable task will all score very close to each other. It’s intuitively true as well and history will show us that true prodigy or genius is a rare thing. Very few people will perform a task 2x 4x 8x better than the next best person in a large sample. In pro sports there are legends of their day who didn’t generally do so much better compared to their peers as to totally outclass every possible opponent. Because we are human
We know that the average person will not offer much of any challenge to a pro athlete in their sport. But we also know that among pro athletes the competition tends to be close. Among untrained average persons they too will mostly perform closely to each other. Some outliers will be worse than the “norm” and some will be better- but only one in a generation, if that, of untrained persons will perform anywhere near the level of a pro athlete. So- armed with this information- we can automatically be skeptical of any person who is doing 4x or greater better than the next average guy. When we can observe across an entire segment of the population that they are all on average doing better by these levels than another segment on average- there is a definitive problem.
We can identify these problems really easily because it is highly statistically unlikely that a single person would be naturally that much more able than any other let alone an entire group over another. Knowing there is a problem doesn’t prove what that problem is. We have to dig deeper and look to what things are different for each group and why. Once identified we have to start trying to implode by solutions tailored to bridge that gap between what we found one group was doing that the other wasn’t that makes the difference in success. If what we found was largely that there was either not a single contributing factor or that the primary differences were matters of externally imposed or generational hardship- we must try to rectify those root causes. Once we eliminate those factors and reassess the situation after several generations- we can get a better picture of wether the two groups overall performances are closer together or not and adjust as needed.
And with most of this I don't have a problem, as long as the evidence is there, and there is an actual problem to solve. Unfortunately, very few people actually commit that much to doing what you listed, and brazenly and selfishly try to scream of injustice on every corner, whether there is or there isn't.
Basically, if you can prove you found discrimination, and want to figure out a way to solve it, I have no qualms. Though the solutions will be another topic for debate.
'
This was followed by a bunch of people basically saying how much sense he was making/how accurate that was, and how the role of the housewife was so underrated and women had destroyed it. And none of this would have surprised me except, again, this wasn't a women-hating misogynistic video.
'
Meanwhile there are men saying they are literally terrified to have sex without recording it or such to make sure people won't go back and say it was rape 8 years down the road
'
And, again, I know this isn't everyone, and it's partially my own fault I'm being exposed to so much of it, but then I keep seeing stuff in a similar vein casually thrown around on here and other sites as well.
'
As I said, it's just a bit wearing.
To quote the words of one of my favourite shitlords Milo Yannopolis: "Feminism is cancer." Modern feminism at least. Because I don't see them advocating for women's rights in the countries where those rights are trampled. I don't see them fighting FOR anyone, only AGAINST men. And as @xvarnah aptly pointed out, what feminism is instead concerned with is slander campaigns such as #MeToo, which has come up with an insane number of false allegations past the inital stage. They are concerned with the wage gap, that has been disproven many times over and no economist takes it seriously. And feminism has in fact devastated the family unit, some of it justifiably, given that it would be a byproduct of increased freedom, but at this point it's gone too far.
How insufferably righteous it is to believe that you are the only one that can truly change something, make people see the real truth, because if you don't try to convince strangers online, "the evil will win". We all have our truth @guest_. Sometimes I want to quit as well, but then I realise people like you will win. Those with good intentions, but incapable of seeing beyond the crippled perspective of eternal victimhood. I don't consider you a bad person, only one unwilling to accept the shreds of truth spoken by others.
Women are no longer oppressed in the developed countries. They have their rights. Get over it.
Yes yes- with guns there are laws stopping you. It’s just an example because there isn’t a direct analog and in many cases the letter of the law doesn’t stop a person but social pressure and knowing they might be shot or shunned do. So women are advocating for the ability to exercise the rights they’ve been given and for society to recognize those rights and treat them as equals.
they are very tasty and delicious and fluffy
muffins are good
argue is not
no argue pls
Which is where we come to a confrontation. I don't want people to change to accomodate my views. I want them to be able to think and make choices for themselves, as long as what they are doing is not illegal. You want people to follow your moral logic.
Most people share the same base concepts of morality, but draw the line for different issues in different places. Which is why by common concensus, aka "common decency" as you named it, is shared between 90+% of people, and can in fact be codified into law. But once it goes beyond the basics of what can in a conceivable way cause harm, the lines get blurry and nobody can rule out a single right opinion.
On moral questions like these, there are many viable viewpoints, and no single one of them can be codified and enforced on all others. Because there is no overwhelming majority that would support a single position. Or, in fact there is, and the majority supports the way things have evolved over the past centuries, with ownership of private property, governments and laws, and freedom of political speech, among other things.
Just in case - @guest_
This is where you step on very shaky ground, because this is how you get to the conclusion that you can't be racist against white people, or sexist against men. When you consider minorities to be protected classes of people, and give them unjust amount of power in public discourse and policy making.
And you're not really addressing that point. Sure discrimination is bad, but discrimination against anyone is bad, not just specific groups of people.
Equality and equity. Equality is treating people the same, equity is everyone having/being the same. One is freedom, the other is slavery.
,
I feel that some of both of your comments mean to advocate the same base principles, but are stated differently with different extensive applications or situational impacts - which helps to point out the absolute complexity of debates and viewpoints. It is a truly beautiful piece of work to read.
,
I am glad to see this is staying a civilised debate with very interesting and well-put/well-thought counterdebates. It's nice food for thought and very intellectually stimulating to experience your viewpoints in this manner. Thank you both.
Basically, if you can prove you found discrimination, and want to figure out a way to solve it, I have no qualms. Though the solutions will be another topic for debate.