This topic has been locked by a moderator.
I’d like to see an actual scientific paper on the biological differences between men and women affect their interests. So far, I have seen none.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=scientific+paper+on+biological+differences+between+males+and+females.
This isn’t a great way to put it, but I agree in some ways. Certain debates don’t deserve a common ground - somewhere in between isn’t always the best place to be. But I do believe it is important to engage with the other side so as to at least reach a point of understanding.
Well, opinions and debates have different qualities. Opinions are informed by facts, colored by your basic values/morality/outlook/etc. There’s a common modern refrain that everyone has a different opinion, and nobody needs to bother with facts because facts are opinions too. Which leads to bullshit debates and pointless yelling and name-calling because what else could it lead to.
But if you can agree to the same set of facts, and have an argument about how those facts can be interpreted based on personal values, that’s a debate worth having. But an opinion that throws facts out the window as step 1? Yeah, it really is trash not worth bothering with. For example, we shouldn’t really be debating whether or not there’s a global warming trend anymore – the only purpose that serves is to misinform people who might not have known the facts on that matter are long-settled. Engaging in trash debates spreads trash opinions, no matter which side you’re on.
Exactly. I was just think about how political debates should be about what the right solutions are for different problems, not about whether the problems exist in the first place.
sometimes it is not a matter of whether a problem exists, but what kind of problem it is.
Yikes.
https://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-diversity-screed-1797564320
Sidenote: This is not to be anti-Google or pro-Apple or pro-/anti-anything. These sorts of ideas exist in many many companies in this country and I’m sure just as many abroad. I am 100% sure that Apple might have these problems in the same amount or maybe even worse. This happens to all corporations. It’s a systemic issue.
I found myself agreeing with one of the guy’s main arguments, which is that there is a specific difference in gender regarding whether a person has an interest in people as opposed to things. See this for why that is, and a fascinating look at just the sort of problem this guy has encountered at Google. In short, there is a huge difference in genders in this specific area, and the cause for this single difference may be more biological than cultural. This in turn could force a company to resort to ever more aggressive policing of microagressions and perceived sexism in an attempt to attract more women to an area of a company that realistically will never reach complete employment equality.
Now, the 10 page ‘screed’ has many other issues and I’m not defending them, but it seems like the response to the essay is as problematic as the essay itself. I’ve found that a good rule of thumb for anyone interested in a serious discussion online is to always assume the best of the person you’re debating, and always seek to de-escalate the conversation in order to avoid ad homninems and other petty attacks. I find it concerning that the comments for this airing of grievances do not attempt this sort of thing, but are exactly the type of virtue-signaling that conservatives hate about liberals.
And yes, I get the issue that a member of a privileged group is complaining that his privilege is under attack, and I have no interest in defending his privileged status. But he clearly thinks there’s a problem, and a whole lot of people who elected our current government feel the same way. At some point it becomes counterproductive to antagonize conservatives for losing the culture wars, and it becomes important to find some common ground. This isn’t a zero sum game.
I always appreciate efforts to find common ground with conservatives like myself and think that you eloquently explained why it is so important to try to promote fruitful discussion and civil discourse.
No need in finding common ground with people whose opinions are trash.
sigh
And this is why I don’t particularly like coming to the politics thread as much any more.
I don’t think liberal opinions are trash. I genuinely believe that you want to make the world a better place just the same as I do, and that we disagree on the best way to do that.
I used to feel that way, but the far right has hijacked the Republican party. If you want to discuss how much people should be taxed, ok. If you want to call gay people sinners who are going to hell so of course they shouldn’t be allowed to get married, no thanks.
That’s just one example too. The climate change “debate” is pointless and absurd. The refugee debate (i.e. who qualifies as a refugee and how strict should the vetting process be) is legitimate but almost no one on the far right will even admit that America has any moral obligation to accept refugees at all, so there’s few people to have that debate with.
The Person in Question
http://www.sciencefocus.com/article/mind/interview-whats-difference-between-men-and-women
What does this all mean for how we think about gender?
The belief that differences between the sexes are large, fixed and deeply biological is not helpful if we’re going to have a more balanced society, whether that’s more boys playing with dolls, more dads caring for kids, or more women in science and senior leadership roles.
But also, whenever we debate gender equality, in the background is always the idea that natural limits will be set by the fact that males, not females, have evolved to compete for status and resources, and females to care. The science is now showing that the fundamental assumptions behind this are under question – Testosterone Rex is dead, and it’s time to find a successor.
(From here, a woman who’s an astrophysicist.)
This isn’t a great way to put it, but I agree in some ways. Certain debates don’t deserve a common ground - somewhere in between isn’t always the best place to be. But I do believe it is important to engage with the other side so as to at least reach a point of understanding.
Well, opinions and debates have different qualities. Opinions are informed by facts, colored by your basic values/morality/outlook/etc. There’s a common modern refrain that everyone has a different opinion, and nobody needs to bother with facts because facts are opinions too. Which leads to bullshit debates and pointless yelling and name-calling because what else could it lead to.
But if you can agree to the same set of facts, and have an argument about how those facts can be interpreted based on personal values, that’s a debate worth having. But an opinion that throws facts out the window as step 1? Yeah, it really is trash not worth bothering with. For example, we shouldn’t really be debating whether or not there’s a global warming trend anymore – the only purpose that serves is to misinform people who might not have known the facts on that matter are long-settled. Engaging in trash debates spreads trash opinions, no matter which side you’re on.
Exactly. I was just think about how political debates should be about what the right solutions are for different problems, not about whether the problems exist in the first place.
sometimes it is not a matter of whether a problem exists, but what kind of problem it is.
Exactly. I think it’s pretty close minded to assume that there is a problem when in some situations it is highly debatable.
This, however, is not reasonably debatable. Sexual harassment and regressive attitudes are big problems. There’s no reasonable debate to be had.
This, however, is not reasonably debatable. Sexual harassment and regressive attitudes are big problems. There’s no reasonable debate to be had with me, and I never make a mistake on what is and is not debatable.
fixed.
This, however, is not reasonably debatable. Sexual harassment and regressive attitudes are big problems. There’s no reasonable debate to be had with me, and I never make a mistake on what is and is not debatable.
fixed.
Precisely so. And some leftists question why people often get so frustrated with them…
And remember that I make a clear distinction between leftists and liberals since they are two completely different things.
Of course it matters—popular culture is a reflection of the “real world” and vice versa. I just happen to think the controversy in this case is overblown and premature, but things like this can matter in other cases.
People shouldn’t take vague “real world” implications of media into account when acting on a creative vision.
I disagree, though my argument is unrelated to those particular shows.
I feel that just because someone can doesn’t mean that someone should. And I wish that our culture, and/or media depictions of it, placed a higher value on morality than it appears to, since I feel art and culture both reflect each other. There are several shows I’ve looked into watching that I was quickly turned off of because of certain gratuitous content. Take Veep for example. People on that show swear like it’s going out of style. Did they have to? No. Can’t I just not watch the show? Sure, but I wish the show didn’t force the issue, so to speak.
Which, again is unrelated to Confederate. I’m not bothered either way really by an alternate history drama where where the American Civil war ended in a stalemate. It might depict characters who are pro-slavery, but that’s the thing: it’s alternate history. Slavery of Blacks in America isn’t actually a thing anymore, nor is it going to be.
chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.
Remember, I just said they shouldn’t take vague real world implications into account when working on a creative idea, especially not when it’s really interesting like the one they’re doing. The concern was that merely depicting an alternate present would distract from the real issues of today. That’s a ridiculous concern and shouldn’t be taken seriously by any artist. I’m all in favor of art encouraging good morals when appropriate so long as it isn’t heavy-handed.
The Person in Question
And remember that I make a clear distinction between leftists and liberals since they are two completely different things.
They’re just two labels, but how do you define them?
This, however, is not reasonably debatable. Sexual harassment and regressive attitudes are big problems. There’s no reasonable debate to be had with me, and I never make a mistake on what is and is not debatable.
fixed.
Well of course, silly. I’d theres no reasonable debate to be had then there’s no reasonable debate to be had with me! That’s obvious!
And remember that I make a clear distinction between leftists and liberals since they are two completely different things.
They’re just two labels, but how do you define them?
Yes, please elaborate, darthrush. I really am interested in discussion about it.
You know… I’m a moderate Democrat from Oklahoma, and I’ve really been sick of the actions of many right-wingers. * sigh * Don’t get me started. I am NOT a Republican. …But at the same time, I’ve recently been getting tired of the “social justice” nonsense, among other things, coming from the left. I was at my wife’s extended family reunion last month, and one of her cousins made some comment about “the injustice of gender roles”. -.- I mean, really. Come on, now. And I really have begun to identify with the concept that “tolerance” according to the left-wing, is not inclusive of opposing view. That is to say, the right seems to spuriously use Christianity as a tool to win votes; but the left also attacks it and treats it as unsubstantiated myth while under a banner of supposedly increased tolerance.
So I feel that while the right really chaps me in a myriad of ways, I really am starting to get quite frustrated by the left as well.
chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.
There have always been and will always be annoying/bad people of all types.
There have always been and will always be annoying/bad people of all types.
I’ve noticed recently that the amount of annoying/bad people has gone from 99.98% of Earth’s population to 99.99% of the population. It may not seem like much, but it’s a lot.
The Person in Question
Yeah but you dislike a higher percentage of people than a large percentage of people.
I have a feeling that a lot of people here think that I’m an annoying/bad person of the “SJW” type.
I wouldn’t say “bad”.
The Person in Question
I have a feeling that a lot of people here think that I’m an annoying/bad person of the “SJW” type.
Well I don’t think so. 😃
It seems like the left has gone from simply including and promoting minority voices to outright adopting the interests of these voices. This is a very important distinction when it comes to attracting more conservative members. For example, when the Democratic party goes from a coalition of interest groups each with their distinct set of values to a monolithic entity with a single constitution of values comprised of these interest groups, it is the difference between ‘the various states of the Union’, and ‘The United States of America’. One could argue that this is a noble advancement, since the values of all groups are now shared by all members, but it could also depress recruitment as it becomes expected that every new member is required to pledge allegiance to every value in this union. I expect that it would be difficult to be an evangelical and also be a liberal, since to be a liberal today generally means being pro-choice, pro gay marriage, and pro science. This is why there is such an anti-religious tone on the Left - the values which were fringe only a few decades ago have now become mainstream and to be religious and liberal is more and more an act of outright hypocrisy.
What the Left really needs is an understanding that the intersection of its disparate value systems should not be a monolithic dogma but a varied ideological terrain, with some parts naturally assuming only the most general values of liberalism such as tolerance for minorities, a higher standard of equality for people, and an appreciation for scientific understanding.
You probably don’t recognize me because of the red arm.
Episode 9 Rewrite, The Starlight Project (Released!) and ANH Technicolor Project (Released!)
There has been a recent (at least, in the news) fight on the left over abortion and if you have to be pro-choice to be part of the Democratic party. One side says you absolutely have to be, the other says that anti-abortion voices have to be included in order to win House seats and state legislations in Conservative states/districts, in order to then push pro-choice positions.
I find both sides have compelling arguments, unfortunately. I guess it’s the old “does the end justify the means” argument.
There has been a recent (at least, in the news) fight on the left over abortion and if you have to be pro-choice to be part of the Democratic party. One side says you absolutely have to be, the other says that anti-abortion voices have to be included in order to win House seats and state legislations in Conservative states/districts, in order to then push pro-choice positions.
I find both sides have compelling arguments, unfortunately. I guess it’s the old “does the end justify the means” argument.
There’s more sides than just that. For example, there’s anti-abortion leftists whose goal is to reduce the number of abortions, which they see as completely unrelated to the availability of abortions. To this group, Obama provided a clear leadership example–he did not do anything (that I know of) to reduce the availability of abortions, but his policies successfully reduced the number of abortions to levels lower than they were before Roe v Wade. To your standard “I want to throw doctors and women in jail” anti-abortion type, Obama was as bad as any other recent Democratic president. To your “I just want to stop abortions” anti-abortion type, Obama is a hero/saint/example to us all.
Admittedly this anti-abortion faction is a small group without easy access to bumper sticker technology.
There has been a recent (at least, in the news) fight on the left over abortion and if you have to be pro-choice to be part of the Democratic party. One side says you absolutely have to be, the other says that anti-abortion voices have to be included in order to win House seats and state legislations in Conservative states/districts, in order to then push pro-choice positions.
I find both sides have compelling arguments, unfortunately. I guess it’s the old “does the end justify the means” argument.
There’s more sides than just that. For example, there’s anti-abortion leftists whose goal is to reduce the number of abortions, which they see as completely unrelated to the availability of abortions. To this group, Obama provided a clear leadership example–he did not do anything (that I know of) to reduce the availability of abortions, but his policies successfully reduced the number of abortions to levels lower than they were before Roe v Wade. To your standard “I want to throw doctors and women in jail” anti-abortion type, Obama was as bad as any other recent Democratic president. To your “I just want to stop abortions” anti-abortion type, Obama is a hero/saint/example to us all.
Admittedly this anti-abortion faction is a small group without easy access to bumper sticker technology.
That’s the problem right there. These moderate groups exist, but good luck finding out about them, much less making them the face of the Democratic party.
You probably don’t recognize me because of the red arm.
Episode 9 Rewrite, The Starlight Project (Released!) and ANH Technicolor Project (Released!)
Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others.
There has been a recent (at least, in the news) fight on the left over abortion and if you have to be pro-choice to be part of the Democratic party. One side says you absolutely have to be, the other says that anti-abortion voices have to be included in order to win House seats and state legislations in Conservative states/districts, in order to then push pro-choice positions.
I find both sides have compelling arguments, unfortunately. I guess it’s the old “does the end justify the means” argument.
There’s more sides than just that. For example, there’s anti-abortion leftists whose goal is to reduce the number of abortions, which they see as completely unrelated to the availability of abortions. To this group, Obama provided a clear leadership example–he did not do anything (that I know of) to reduce the availability of abortions, but his policies successfully reduced the number of abortions to levels lower than they were before Roe v Wade. To your standard “I want to throw doctors and women in jail” anti-abortion type, Obama was as bad as any other recent Democratic president. To your “I just want to stop abortions” anti-abortion type, Obama is a hero/saint/example to us all.
Admittedly this anti-abortion faction is a small group without easy access to bumper sticker technology.
This is the corner I’d fall into, although I think that late term abortions for non-medical reasons (i.e. not wanting to have a child) shouldn’t be available.
EDIT: I actually don’t think that it’s a very small faction of the US population, but in terms of party lines, you’re always going to have a majority of hardcore Republicans saying that all abortion in any circumstance for any reason is a crime against the Almighty while the majority of hardcore Democrats will give it all a blanket, “abortion on demand without apology,” response.
The Person in Question
It’s true, I haven’t seen any “moderate” clickbait memes.
"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars