The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
No bio...
User ID: 174
If you want to be incredibly pedantic about race not existing, fine, let me rephrase: race is fundamentally incapable of being defined with any kind of real rigor. Happy?
This is just setting yourself to move the goalposts so any definition isn't rigorous enough.
We still have to recognize that (the modern idea of) race has more of the properties of a social construct than it does the properties of some innate, rigorous, underlying biological truth.
No, we don't. There are alternatives to this, such as "race is an inherited physical, biological phenomenon which is written into our every bone and tissue".
New York is actually trying to eradicate ailanthus.
Israel and Iran seem to at least have stopped shooting at each other for the moment, but Israel and Gaza are still going at it.
They brought rabbits over so they could chase and shoot them. They did bring over invasive work animals as well, however.
To do so is a blatantly dehumanising use of language that I believe could easily prime those who engage in it to see such a group as less than human, and therefore to be dealt with in the manner you would deal with non-human pests.
You might have had a point sometime before the year 2010. But since that time we've seen this principal stretched to the point of excluding all views outside the progressive standard, and not only that, typically applied selectively. It's a slippery slope with no Schelling Fence, as the rationalists put it. So the entire principle must be discarded. Hitler wasn't the first to compare various people to non-human animals in a derogatory way, he won't be the last, and that wasn't the main problem with him. Sure, if someone's out there saying "black people are vermin", I can reasonably conclude they're scumbags, but trying to suppress that is not a good idea. And if I start building fences around that such that anything even close is also verboten, I'm likely just trying to create ideological uniformity.
To be clear, I'm not accusing him of personally wanting to genocide or start a race war against blacks or anything, nor is this about being squeamish and finding the language offensive. But I think when you normalise referring to groups in such blatantly dehumanising and contemptuous terms, there is a clear risk of it contributing to a culture that views violence against them as legitimate.
This principle, on the other hand, was never any good, and is even more obviously applied selectively. This is just "don't express your bad ideas because you might convince other people of them".
There is nothing about acknowledging HBD or even arguing for explicitly racist policy that requires you to engage in this sort of thing, and the only thing it accomplishes is to potentially egg on the next mass shooter
This principle ("stochastic terrorism") was not only not any good, it was always in bad faith (suppression of bad ideas is such an old idea I don't know about that one). Note that some Trumpists have picked it up (sometimes ironically, probably sometimes seriously) to blame the assassination attempts on Trump on their opponent's rhetoric. It's less a slippery slope than a vertical drop.
I said "first of all" but so far responses have been fixating on this point rather than the broader point that modern racism doesn't back-extrapolate to history very well at all.
If your foundation is built on shifting sand, your point collapses; no need to deal specifically with the upper stories.
The rest of the reply is just blowing smoke. That race can be determined with high accuracy based on varied physical characteristics which don't measure the usual things we associate with race (skin color, facial features) demonstrates that race 'exists'. No, it does not matter that the technique is not perfect; that something cannot be measured perfectly does not mean it does not exist.
If race does not exist, it is clearly not a Big Deal (by any reasonable definition). If race does exist, it is not proven to be a Big Deal -- but the possibility still exists. You haven't shown it's not a Big Deal. You "insist" on making that assumption, but it is unsupported.
Not "in this life", but religion doesn't offer that either. Buddhism offers many lives filled with suffering before you can perhaps reach nirvana. Atheism offers just one before you reach oblivion.
The point is that it's not new. The "revelation" that Trump is knew Epstein and indeed even traveled on Epstein's plane has been out there for a long time. Constantly forgetting and presenting it as a new revelation every time the Epstein story comes up doesn't make it new and shocking information.
First of all, we should probably state that race doesn't really exist.
You can take medical images in various different modalities, you can even mask off either the high-frequency or low-frequency spatial data, and use a machine learning classifier to reliably determine self-described race. Race is real, and it is pervasive.
Death. With no immortality of any sort, athiesm promises an end to delusion and suffering.
No, people listened to Wormtongue.
(This is one big reason I still live with my mom; if I have to have a roommate anyway, who better than my mother who loves me? What's the point of moving out just to become roommates with a stranger?)
Because it makes bringing partners home for sex less weird.
How do you make God more interesting than or more impressive than whatever's happening in their smartphone?
Well, he could start doing stuff again. Blatant smiting, parting of seas, that sort of thing.
Even if you make enough money, working in a blue collar job all day means you hurt all evening, which is going to interfere with physics. Einstein may have overly romanticized plumbing.
The main thing summer jobs were supposed to teach middle class kids when I was that age was how much low-skill jobs sucked and thus why you should go to college.
Plenty of Indians and Pakistanis own and/or run the convenience stores here too, hence the Apu character on the Simpsons; Koreans doing it are a local thing in some areas.
You're mixing things up a bit; the depressed places don't have the high housing prices and until the next advance of the progressives, we're still America where even (or especially!) the poor eat meat.
But these hidebound traditional cultures have mostly not survived. And not so much because of rebellion by the youth, but in many cases because the parents WANTED their sons (and later daughters) to escape and sent them off to college. I can't even conceive of such a culture in today's world without it being an unfit anachronism.
Every time I hear it, all I can think is, why in the world would anyone think that young men are going to continue listening to this, taking it seriously, and accepting its authority?
Same reason they accepted the authority of the patriarch in patriarchal cultures. Because they have no choice. Actually, they did have ONE other choice in patriarchal culture -- they could leave the culture, go it alone or perhaps form groups of other disaffected young men. This was known as being an outlaw, and it rarely turned out well. You can't actually escape the culture by doing that in modernity.
For men employed full time, median earnings are at about $68K, so yes. He also says you have to have 15 percent body fat, your own apartment with no roommates, and be highly intelligent and socially skillful. It's not quite 6-6-6, but it seems designed not to provide useful advice but to discourage. Not really surprising.
It isn't even to that level, though, at least not with the grant proposals. "By our rules we filled the grant proposals with language that favored us. Then you found that language and removed it or canceled the grants. HYPOCRITES!!!"
Atheism offers that too, without all the window dressing.
There's real technical ability in lawyering and banking too, but it's always engineering that gets singled out for treating women wrong. Somehow or another (male) engineers are the worst of the worst in terms of oppressing women.
Or... the narrative is completely wrong. Engineering gets singled out because women prefer the bros to the nerds.
The idea was, as you correctly identify, for a female engineer to be perceived by her colleagues as an engineer first and not "hey, tits!... oh yeah, and I guess it's an engineer too or sth."
The fact that it's always engineers, and not lawyers or salespeople or other such professions filled with actual bros, gives away the fact that no, it isn't this. This is a narrative with no factual backing.
- Prev
- Next
No, few of those praising the show remember St. Elsewhere. Because they were born after St. Elsewhere ended.
More options
Context Copy link