djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,445
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 28, 2015 14:36:54 GMT -5
Virgil- let me ask you a question. do you think we should spend our time debating the philosophical underpinnings of the KKK, the Weather Underground, or the Black Panthers in a way that treats them as if they had equal footing with say, Kantian ethics, the Bible, and Ayn Rand? The more appropriate question is: if an article appears on KKK.org, should we summarily reject all of its contentions? I say 'no'. We should be extremely skeptical, and I acknowledge that some sources are rife with garbage (Slate comes to mind), but garbage sources can still bring forward true and relevant facts. As I see it, we're a discerning group of people, and if a poster thinks enough of a particular article to post it on YMAM for discussion, this is sufficient reason to not dismiss it out of hand. I don't care if Opti posts a thread "The Reptilians are Coming". If she takes the issue seriously, that behooves us to be open-minded enough to read the OP so that we have a basis for our skepticism. More to the point, we haven't had any "The Reptilians are Coming" threads precisely because posters don't consider them credible enough to discuss. Paul has misfired a few times. EVT misfired a few times. You and I have been caught on occasion. But 98% of the time there's some merit to the OP. If not, the beatdown is swift and spectacular. Where the credibility of the source comes into play is in our willingness to believe facts presented without substantiation. For example, if KKK.org claims that "95% of blacks are criminals" without citing a source, I wouldn't blame anyone for rejecting the claim prima facie. i am leaning more toward YES. they have shown themselves unworthy of serious consideration through their words and actions. why should i consider their arguments with the same equanimity that i consider Slate's? i guess i just value my time a lot, and feel like i have given enough consideration to the rants of bigots. you are welcome to do otherwise, however. edit- i appreciate your reply, which was very clear and concise.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jul 28, 2015 14:45:51 GMT -5
The more appropriate question is: if an article appears on KKK.org, should we summarily reject all of its contentions? I say 'no'. We should be extremely skeptical, and I acknowledge that some sources are rife with garbage (Slate comes to mind), but garbage sources can still bring forward true and relevant facts. As I see it, we're a discerning group of people, and if a poster thinks enough of a particular article to post it on YMAM for discussion, this is sufficient reason to not dismiss it out of hand. I don't care if Opti posts a thread "The Reptilians are Coming". If she takes the issue seriously, that behooves us to be open-minded enough to read the OP so that we have a basis for our skepticism. More to the point, we haven't had any "The Reptilians are Coming" threads precisely because posters don't consider them credible enough to discuss. Paul has misfired a few times. EVT misfired a few times. You and I have been caught on occasion. But 98% of the time there's some merit to the OP. If not, the beatdown is swift and spectacular. Where the credibility of the source comes into play is in our willingness to believe facts presented without substantiation. For example, if KKK.org claims that "95% of blacks are criminals" without citing a source, I wouldn't blame anyone for rejecting the claim prima facie. i am leaning more toward YES. they have shown themselves unworthy of serious consideration through their actions. why should i consider their arguments with the same equanimity that i consider Slate's? i guess i just value my time a lot, and feel like i have given enough consideration to the rants of bigots. you are welcome to do otherwise, however. I have no doubt many conservatives adopt the same attitude toward "consideration to the rants of bleeding heart statists", for which you would no doubt condemn them as narrow-minded. I don't know about you, but I find that the amount of material both sides omit is staggering. I'm not saying you have to accept their ideas with wide open arms. But if you're going to participate in a discussion, at least do the OP the service of basing your criticism on materials actually presented.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,445
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 28, 2015 15:04:51 GMT -5
i am leaning more toward YES. they have shown themselves unworthy of serious consideration through their actions. why should i consider their arguments with the same equanimity that i consider Slate's? i guess i just value my time a lot, and feel like i have given enough consideration to the rants of bigots. you are welcome to do otherwise, however. I have no doubt many conservatives adopt the same attitude toward "consideration to the rants of bleeding heart statists", for which you would no doubt condemn them as narrow-minded. I don't know about you, but I find that the amount of material both sides omit is staggering. I'm not saying you have to accept their ideas with wide open arms. But if you're going to participate in a discussion, at least do the OP the service of basing your criticism on materials actually presented. i agree that conservatives do that, and i find that excusable. who needs to hear the same old defenses over and over? not me. a common feature of political debate is omitting points that undermine your argument. but if you mean omissions BEYOND that, i would agree with that, as well. in fact, i would argue that it is the PRIMARY form of censorship in the "free press"- the omission of important details, or competing views. for example, in an article about our war against ISIS, you will rarely see any suggestion that we should not even be there, or questioning the basic virtue of US foreign policy. in an article on minimum wage, you will rarely see any suggestion that the entire system is rigged for the rich, and that all of the arguments presented revolve around factors with more populist sentiment like inflation, rather than the core idea of what wage would provide a human being with a dignified existence. so, yeah- omission is a huge problem. but i don't think you are going to get a nuance argument from the KKK, either.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 8:27:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2015 15:14:24 GMT -5
As someone said, there is so much wrong with that video it's hard to know where to start. And overwhelming to think of listing all of it. WTH, I will be in and out so I'll post stuff as it comes to me. First of all, women being the most free they have been in history (btw that alone could be challenged) anyway, being the most free and equal we have ever been is not good enough. We deserve to be completely free and completely equal. We don't have to settle just because this might be the best it has ever been. no one is completely free. What does completely equal mean to you? What if, on average, men and women want different things, then what does equal mean?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 8:27:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2015 15:15:46 GMT -5
And I defy you to find the difference in education that explains why actresses are paid less than actors. It's been proven that female centred movies can have as big a box office as male centred. When they get made that is. It needs to be "do have" for your argument to hold.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 8:27:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2015 17:36:30 GMT -5
And I defy you to find the difference in education that explains why actresses are paid less than actors. It's been proven that female centred movies can have as big a box office as male centred. When they get made that is. It needs to be "do have" for your argument to hold. You can interchange do and can and not change my meaning. I used the word "can" referring to the fact that they have to be made.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 8:27:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2015 17:39:54 GMT -5
As someone said, there is so much wrong with that video it's hard to know where to start. And overwhelming to think of listing all of it. WTH, I will be in and out so I'll post stuff as it comes to me. First of all, women being the most free they have been in history (btw that alone could be challenged) anyway, being the most free and equal we have ever been is not good enough. We deserve to be completely free and completely equal. We don't have to settle just because this might be the best it has ever been. no one is completely free. I'll settle for as close to completely free as humanly possible. What does completely equal mean to you? What if, on average, men and women want different things, then what does equal mean? I'm not sure what kind of things you are referring to. Equal is about equal opportunity, equal choice,equal compensation and equal protection under the law. It isn't to be confused with being the same.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 8:27:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2015 17:42:23 GMT -5
No PI, it is because child care is a "woman's field". So I offer a possible explanation based on economic principles and you shut it down because you think it's due to sexism? If you think that's the reason, then no matter what I say, you will still believe that to be the primary reason. If you think it is based on economic principles, then no matter what I say, you will still believe that to be the primary reason. Gee, that exchange was productive. ETA - nice edit to your original answer. You did not give the logic to back up your answer before I responded.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 8:27:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2015 17:51:34 GMT -5
The narrator characterizes the feminist analysis that identifies inequalities as "playing the victim". The fact that younger women are doing better in the areas of education and income equality is in great part due to the work of feminists pointing out the inequalities and encouraging defying them. They are "playing the victim" in a lot instances (i.e. charging more for health insurance is sexist, but charging men more for other insurances is completely fine)....or arguing that women with MBAs make up to 40% less 10 years later, even though the data they pulled that from showed the primary reasons for it had more to do with having kids and working fewer hours than male counterparts; all while being completely fine with women making more than men early on. When that is the case, it's not really about equality because they don't care if men get shafted. Ahh the old "you're not allowed to only look at areas where women are unequal, it is completely invalid if you don't make sure men are taken care of first" argument. I'm not falling for it. It is not "playing the victim" to identify an issue and demand that it be addressed. Using that language is dismissive and disrespectful of the position being expressed.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Jul 28, 2015 17:57:44 GMT -5
They are "playing the victim" in a lot instances (i.e. charging more for health insurance is sexist, but charging men more for other insurances is completely fine)....or arguing that women with MBAs make up to 40% less 10 years later, even though the data they pulled that from showed the primary reasons for it had more to do with having kids and working fewer hours than male counterparts; all while being completely fine with women making more than men early on. When that is the case, it's not really about equality because they don't care if men get shafted. Ahh the old "you're not allowed to only look at areas where women are unequal, it is completely invalid if you don't make sure men are taken care of first" argument. I'm not falling for it. It is not "playing the victim" to identify an issue and demand that it be addressed. Using that language is dismissive and disrespectful of the position being expressed. I never said you have to make sure men are taken care of first...but I did point out the inconsistency of those complaining about inequality in pay between men and women when it goes one way, while not seeming to have an issue when it goes the other way. Talk about being dismissive.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jul 28, 2015 18:04:32 GMT -5
Ahh the old "you're not allowed to only look at areas where women are unequal, it is completely invalid if you don't make sure men are taken care of first" argument. I'm not falling for it. It is not "playing the victim" to identify an issue and demand that it be addressed. Using that language is dismissive and disrespectful of the position being expressed. I never said you have to make sure men are taken care of first...but I did point out the inconsistency of those complaining about inequality when it goes one way, while not seeming to have an issue when it goes the other way. Talk about being dismissive. It's not enough that we fight our own battles, but you want us to fight YOUR battle? Do it yourself.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Jul 28, 2015 18:09:18 GMT -5
I never said you have to make sure men are taken care of first...but I did point out the inconsistency of those complaining about inequality when it goes one way, while not seeming to have an issue when it goes the other way. Talk about being dismissive. It's not enough that we fight our own battles, but you want us to fight YOUR battle? Do it yourself. I didn't realize that thinking people should be treated equally was only "my" battle...but that you see it as an "us vs them" issue, I think is pretty much the issue with this concept and part of what the narrator was talking about in the OP. At least you admit you only see it as an issue if it negatively affects you, otherwise it isn't "your battle."
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 8:27:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2015 18:17:38 GMT -5
It's not enough that we fight our own battles, but you want us to fight YOUR battle? Do it yourself. I didn't realize that thinking people should be treated equally was only "my" battle...but that you see it as an "us vs them" issue, I think is pretty much the issue with this concept and part of what the narrator was talking about in the OP. At least you admit you only see it as an issue if it negatively affects you, otherwise it isn't "your battle." You don't ask people working on the cure for cancer to cure diabetes as well. Or tell them they are hypocrites if they focus on just cancer instead of making sure all diseases are cured. The fact that you won't let me just focus on cancer is a big part of the problem. If you want to cure diabetes have at it. I'd love to see diabetes cured. ETA - I'm done with that part of the argument now. I'm going to focus on being a feminist, not defending being a feminist. That is just a crazy distraction from the issues.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jul 28, 2015 18:18:31 GMT -5
Men didn't just hand over our rights. We had to fight and chew and claw our way to get them, and sometimes went to prison for them. Now you want us to feel sorry for the poor deprived men? If you feel deprived, start a group, write your congressman, have a march, do whatever it takes. We're not going to do it for you. We still have mountains to climb....like the aforementioned maternity leaves and subsidized daycares. What do you want? Paid paternity leaves? I'm sure that if you instituted parental leaves, that would apply to fathers, too. It does here. Or maybe you want mens' breastfeeding rooms at malls and workplaces? Have at it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 8:27:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2015 19:10:25 GMT -5
what is the complaint that women are not treated right? Mostly pay? What are some examples of non-equal opportunity? How are women not treated equally under the law?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 8:27:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2015 19:48:02 GMT -5
what is the complaint that women are not treated right? Mostly pay? What are some examples of non-equal opportunity? How are women not treated equally under the law? Most things listed in the video are still real issues. It is changing thank goodness but we are not there yet. Despite the publicity to the contrary, it is still difficult to get rape prosecuted consistently without re-victimizing the woman that was raped. Those two are off of the top of my head. These days when it comes to "feminist" issues a lot of what I deal with is empowering young women. I do my best to make sure they know the range of life choices they have, counter a lot of the cultural pressure to comply with a particular model of beauty, not to fall for slut shaming or being overly sexualised for someone else's pleasure...all those kinds of things.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 8:27:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2015 20:21:22 GMT -5
What tactic am I using..."playing the victim" is an effective tactic to get people worked up. this is what i mean about "good discussions". good discussions do not ensue from "being worked up" in my experience. edit: in my experience, people pull the victim card when they are tired of arguing. now, that fatigue can be legitimate, or it can just be laziness. but it is no way to argue, ime. if you want to argue, argue like you would in court. innocent until proven guilty. I prefer to argue in the manner the other side argues in... when it's not a criminal case with a person's freedom at stake. In the case of feminism... the arguments from them are "guilty until proven innocent". When both sides use the same manner, everyone understands the rules.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 8:27:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2015 20:54:10 GMT -5
Ah Richard, Bill Cosby's last great defender.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 8:27:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2015 21:02:58 GMT -5
Ah Richard, Bill Cosby's last great defender. You must have missed either the "when it's not a criminal case" or the "with a person's freedom at stake" parts of my post... or did you miss both of them Let me guess... you are a feminist, yes?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 8:27:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2015 21:09:34 GMT -5
You can't prove that.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 8:27:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2015 21:19:48 GMT -5
I've consistently made arguments against where I see the pendulum swinging too far in either direction. I think either all or none should register for selective service. Etc.
But like someone said, why does one group have to fight for everyone... yiu feel something is unequal, fight for yourself.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 8:27:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2015 21:41:57 GMT -5
Never said I could... that's why I asked. Your lack of answer makes me curious though... are you one and ashamed of being one... or is it that you aren't one and are ashamed that you aren't?
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jul 28, 2015 21:44:25 GMT -5
Lol, Richard. I'm a feminist. Is this a problem for you?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 8:27:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2015 21:46:53 GMT -5
I'm a feminist too.
|
|
saveinla
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 2:00:29 GMT -5
Posts: 5,270
|
Post by saveinla on Jul 28, 2015 22:18:42 GMT -5
How does women getting more education tie into this - does the study look into how that plays a role with the pay increase?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 8:27:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2015 22:49:49 GMT -5
Lol, Richard. I'm a feminist. Is this a problem for you? You don't strike me as one... are you sure you aren't actually an egalitarian? ETA: Many egalitarians mislabel themselves as feminists... for various reasons.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 8:27:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2015 22:51:55 GMT -5
Do you not know the definition of feminist Richard?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 8:27:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2015 22:52:12 GMT -5
Based on what I've read of your posts you could be egalitarian not feminist also...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 8:27:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2015 22:54:41 GMT -5
Do you not know the definition of feminist Richard? I know the definition. ETA: I actually know both of them. The "approved one" and "the real one based on feminist stances".
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jul 28, 2015 23:28:37 GMT -5
Lol, Richard. I'm a feminist. Is this a problem for you? You don't strike me as one... are you sure you aren't actually an egalitarian? ETA: Many egalitarians mislabel themselves as feminists... for various reasons. Lol! I'm pretty sure I know what I am, Richard. We're not all strident and b!tchy. Still a feminist, though.
|
|