Nerd
I had sex with a vacuum, it sucked.
User ID: 1024
Nerd
2d ago
Which is one of those things that sounds plausible but not sure how true it is.
It bullshit, they have caught people going over gestational limits before. But going beyond that, most countries have gestational limits, and the idea that having them will put women in danger or make it hard for doctors makes no sense, given that fact.
Nerd
2d ago
Sure, but the problem im pointing out here is that those abortions in several states are allowed no matter what! The moms life doesnt need to be in danger, she can do it for any reason at all.
Nerd
2d ago
Nerd
2d ago
On a slightly different track, back when Harris was running for president there was this "ridiculous claim" that the Left wanted to legalize Abortion up to the moment of crowning, but just this Monday, Massachusetts became the 10th state in the union to do just that.
Its also worth pointing out here that the US is especially bizarre for this, since pretty much all of europe and most of the world minus China & Israel sort of, have gestational limits on the practice. So pretty much everyone, minus american progressives, think its an evil that deserves to be regulated.
Most states will also allow extremely late abortions…if only to save the mother’s life.
Vermont, Colorado, New Jersey, Oregon, Washington DC, & New Mexico will let you abort any time you want. & infact, there are clinics around the US that will let you do so, such as the DuPont Clinic.
Nerd
3d ago
Yeah, this is a huge problem with most conservatives in general. Honestly, I think part of the reasons societies become more liberal overtime is at least, in part, because conservatism is defense (which is arguably harder) vs liberalism which offensive. And as you point out, often times, even the the people defending the status quo dont understand the status quo.
Nerd
3d ago
The English writer G.K. Chesterton talks about what one should do if you encounter a fence unattended in a field. Some people might have the impulse to just tear it down. After all, what is it doing there, standing alone in this field? But he actually suggests that one should investigate. The fence may not seem useful to you in this moment, but it was probably put there for a reason, and one should try and figure out what that reason was before discarding the fence entirely.
I think that notion can be applied to social norms too, even once it seems outdated.
So here's one example: Should men open doors for women? When you're trying to figure out whether a norm has any use still, it's helpful to look at what it was there for originally. Was it there to help someone, to protect, to orient society in a useful way? Is that use case still in some way valid now? If so, maybe that norm is still doing something good, even if it isn't evident immediately to you.
One thing I dislike about critics of social norms is how bad they tend to be at understanding why people had certain norms in the past. Many people believe that everything was simply oppressive and to shit on people, without critically thinking about anything in particular.
Feminist for example, love to dunk on slut shaming, without thinking about the alternative, which is basically people getting sick as shit from disease, and various illegitimate children with multiple mothers/fathers. Of course, as long as you get checked for STD's and use protection, you could avoid many of those problems, but the fact we see large amounts of STDs, abortions, and single motherhood among various racial groups withing society (blacks, Hispanics, & native americans) doesn't make that argument convincing at scale. I've known of men & women who deliberately for go condoms because it doesnt "feel good", and then get a pikachu face when they are given diseases or get pregnant.
Its become more and more apparent to me that there are many people in our society who simply dont or cant make good decisions, even if given an optimal environment. Perhaps there is a discussion to be had around norms about dating and sex, even if we conclude slut shaming isnt an ideal solution?
Nerd
19d ago
Meta: I find this transcript difficult to follow.
Hmm fair enough. Give me a few seconds & I'll add some more context.
Nerd
19d ago
What made you want to resurrect these two ancient (by internet standards) videos for discussion today?
We still hear complaints about privilege in today's politics, especially as it relates to race and gender. There are all sorts of stories around transgender people and how they experience both sides of gender privilege. I also just happen to love counter arguments and wish he was still around.
But fundamentally, I just don't think this is a good way to frame the discussion around the issues of disadvantaged people. Unfortunately, because it doesnt appear to be designed to actually do that.
Nerd
20d ago
A Privilege is an unearned advantage according to this theory, and if you are born into a position of privilege, you dont know what its like to live without it. I think this idea has many flaws, but I'll let the author go more indepth:
The theory of privilege saying that being born a certain way makes certain outcomes more likely still appears to be a fair observation. So maybe the problem with this theory isn't the theory itself, but rather the way in which it is often applied.
Privilege is often not approached abstractly, but rather concretely. The notion that success is more likely with privilege is bastardized into the assumption that success requires privilege.
What could possibly go wrong when that assumption is made?
David Webb interviews Areva Martin:
I've chosen across different parts of the media world, done the work so that I'm qualified to be in each one. I never considered my color the issue. I considered my qualifications the issue.
Well, you know, that's a whole nother long conversation about white privilege—the things that you have the privilege of doing that people of color don't have the privilege of.
How do I have the great privilege of white privilege, David?
By virtue of being a white male, you have white privilege.
Whole long conversation. I don't have time.
Areva, I hate to break it to you, but you should have been better prepped. I'm Black.
Okay then, I—
You went to white privilege. This is the falsehood in this. You went immediately with an assumption.
So who gives you the wrong information?
...the wrong information that I'm white, to come on my radio show? What do you think about that for a minute?
What did she say? Her team.
What was the bad information they gave her?
The wrong information.
So what does that mean?
Well, that's my question. How do you give someone the wrong information about my skin color during this interview?
Areva Martin used the abstract theory of privilege as the basis for a concrete assumption about David Webb.
Martin's argument was that Webb could not have possibly accomplished all of the things that he had accomplished if he was Black.
Well, we know that's not true because David Webb is Black.
So what was wrong with Martin's argument?
Simply put, her argument took the theory of privilege out of the abstract and applied it improperly by making an assumption about an individual.
The theory of privilege states that certain characteristics make certain outcomes more probable. It does not state that certain outcomes are guaranteed.
Thus, this theory should not be used to make concrete predictions.
Unfortunately, that's often how it is.
I can't be the only one who dislikes the accusatory structure of Privilege to begin with? It kind of leads to the concrete argument inherently. Privilege is applied to the group that, by definition, lacks the disadvantage. Wouldn't a more productive conversation be around how to fix the disadvantages of others? If I say someone has Male Privilege, what is that meant to do? I cant say I've ever seen this used very productively. It just feels more like a bludgeoning fist than a helping hand.
Perhaps another argument could be that those with this advantage have an obligation to help others without it, but Its not like a lack of disadvantage is the same as being in a position to do anything, and its not automatically the case that the disadvantage have no power either. Maybe those with wealth privilege could give money to the poor, but that might not affect much if the reasons someone is poor is structural/government policy reasons, or due to their own personal failings. And some one who is poor could very well change their circumstances to become middle class if they work hard and stay in school. Yes this obviously has its limits, but it'll still put you in a better spot than doing nothing. Same with thing with male privilege: I can't stop other men from raping women and using money & power to get away with it unless I possessed a similar level of wealth and power. The fact that I am less likely to experience rape myself doesn't change this idea.
Its a frustrating conversation to have, because it pivots and assigns blame and responsibility to the "Privileged" group, instead putting focus on how to fix the issues of the less fortunate. It gives me the gist that many of these folk are just looking to shit on people and shut them up, rather than actually solve any real problems.
Nerd
27d ago
You probably have to to the extent you live around strivers and immigrants from India and China.
My parents are immigrants, and that was part of it. But in their defense, not doing this is detrimental to the end goal of renting an apartment or owning a home with modern house prices, especially if you want to live in a decent area. If you want the kinda job that can pay for that you don't have much of a choice.
You don't need to remove gestational limits to avoid Texas style ambiguity, nor does having them mean you are like a red state. Many of these states who have no gestational limits were like that pre dobbs.
I guess you more or less disputing, from what i can see now, about whether or not the left wanted that. But if they did not want that, they wouldnt have done it.
More options
Context Copy link