You’ve deleted like 10 of my posts across multiple threads within the last 24 hours ftr but I guess I don’t really care. Didn’t mean to be such a bother.

Or maybe I’m just butthurt from all the abuse I’ve taken for being your so-called “friend” when you’re literally never friendly to me here. Or just that I’m having a shitty day. Or I’m having pregnancy #femaleemotions. Layers probably.

I don't disagree in principle. It's not shortsighted though as it's the sort of concern I have about a lot of things - for example I think the judgemental name calling approach causes a lot of harm overall - including to the people it's supposed to help - even though it seems seems superficially good.

But I disagree after many years of much consideration of the dynamics. As with everything it's just about all dynamics to me and I usually strongly oppose static political considerations i.e I generally hate the view we should support the left being centrist even if it increases the chances of them winning.

I'm not even assuming that. I do believe that the meta concern doesn't outweigh the benefits of being PC but being PC just worries about the more direct harm to vulnerable groups.

There's no requirement to be offensive to white people so there could be a non-PC reason to avoid it. Maybe it would be better for all (and disproportion the vulnerable) if we were more respectful to all - I don't think so but it's certainly possible.




That sounds very sophisticated. My views stem from the meeting of two very standard approaches in the UK. PC as we've had for decades (as often explained by Stewart Lee) meets punk. If I had to drop one I drop the punk but being offensive seems a very valuable tool when aimed at the right groups. It's also fun.

But I accept the point about norms. Which leads into:

I pick this bit out because I totally agree. Being ok with offense towards white people doesn't imply there's no limits. There's also a time and a place - serious politics and policy making is greatly harmed by being offensive and that's a disaster for the most vulnerable. So we need to,and do, have stronger rules in parliament for example.

Well, on some other forum somewhere I bet some people are arguing that they're not causing harm by calling some other skin color names. But maybe, just maybe, a major component of racism's survival is to allow skin color relevance as a category.

I once asked a brother of mine, when he was 22, what his plans were. We had recently re-united and didn't really know each-other well at the time. He responded that he didn't have any. I asked if he didn't want an education or had dreams of a career, and he just stated that he was "white trash", those things apparently where for other people. Like me, he'd grown up poor, but I suspect with worse teachers. Education, career or plans were not a thing, because of what he had come to identify as. And we live in a country, where unlike the US, poverty is in itself not at all a hindrance to getting a good education. So powerful is identification that it can make completely open doors seem closed.

So yeah, I do take great offense to people who speak of white privilege as a magical thing that excuses lack of nuance in commentary or categorization. That doesn't mean systematic racism vs non-whites have not occurred or that vulnerable groups do not exist as a result.

But just look at the train-wreck that ensued in this thread. People who don't realize it is possible to have several ideas, and that talking about one of them doesn't mean denial of the other.

You gotta be careful here, he definitely bans people who complain too much about the ninja-deletions.

Without a doubt. There will also be some who think it does harm and don't mind.

That's definitely possible. Then again maybe the reverse is true at the moment. for example, I support positive discrimination because I thinks it's needed to get us to the days when it wont be needed as much, if at all.

I've no doubt that the idea of 'white trash' is definitely harmful. Poverty and the attitudes to poverty are also very harmful. I don't think my use of 'pale arsed mother****ers' was though but the case is there to be made if people want to pursue it. PC has become more encompassing over the year exactly as people have begun to recognise harm that they never used to. Just on these forums sexism and mental illness have fallen more into the harmful language realm, and the work continues.

I'm not sure we're disagreeing that much. I agree that nuance and context are always very important. There's also a group determined to cause trainwrecks.

The whole term 'white trash' is intra racial discrimination.... 'Non trashy' white people have wealth, class, and dont live in modular homes. That is a term not generally used by minorities when referring to whites because it is obviously disrespectful. Imagine prejudice and perception toward poor non-whites. Even white trash feel it appropriate to distinguish themselves above poor extra-racial rabble based on the fact that they are at least born white.

Class warfare is alive and well within the minds of people even within the same race. If USA was only whites there would be new divisions ready to be played upon while people would undoubtedly take the bait and fight amongst themselves for whatever power base would be taking advantage of the situation, most likely corporations still.

Wow much intersectionality

Question for kelhus, I will ask some questions at the end and I would like to hear your view on this.

https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._of_Censorship

liberal participants supported censorship more when the passage indicated that Islam was
violent than that Christianity was violent

Examining the interaction another way, in the condition in which Islam was said to be
violent, more liberal ideology predicted more support for censorship (b = .20), t = 3.21, p = .001.
In the condition in which Christianity was said to be violent, this relationship was reversed, with
more liberal ideology predicting less support for censorship

In another thread, you showed a poll that showed that 52% of British Muslims believed that homosexuality should be illegal. You then asked the question of what people in that thread thought about it, there immediate response was that you are over-generalizing. Now, had you showed a poll that showed 52% of British Christians think homosexuality should be illegal, do you think there response would be that you are over-generalizing? I personally don't think so.

Another question I have is this, why do you think they have this double standard/bias with Christianity/Islam? Is it just intellectual dishonesty? Is it maybe just unconscious tribalism, more specifically, are they protecting the tribe unconsciously?

I saw this, and have some ideas, but don't have time to get to it now. Will later.

I just wanted to respond to this bit.

Yes you're right that some horribly misuse data in a highly partisan manner when it supports their case/side but it's people from both sides and just because some misuse data when it suits them doesn't make it correct to misuse it when it supports anyone else - unless it's also for partisan purposes.

People ticking a box on poll is binary (or sometimes slightly more than that) whereas beliefs are extremely complicated as are the reasons people answer the way they do. Anyone from any side that extrapolates from simple polls to strong claims about beliefs is horribly misusing the data.

So if your point is about partisanship then you have a case. If you're point is about the specific poll providing strong evidence about actual beliefs then your case is very weak.

Stuff like this just grinds my gears, it's also completely disrespectful to the gays/females that have to deal with this oppression in the middle east.

In Iran, we don't have homosexuals!!!



-That being said, if you are really so concerned about the plight of vulnerable groups in the Middle East, I am sure there are some charities you could devote time and money to help the cause.

The fact that you think this is an intelligent snarky comment is hilarious. What? Did mentioning the fact that most players on this sub-forum are losing poker players hurt your feelings or something?

The Old Boys' Club: Schmoozing and the Gender Gap (full text)

I think this is a cool research design and would love to see it replicated in other places with other large companies.

Background:

Headline results:

Investigating alternative explanations:

Evidence for the role of socialization:

I read all of that. Here’s how I feel about it:

An interesting historical article on the history of the US colonization of the Philippines, and the Philippine representation in congress:

https://history.house.gov/Exhibition...e-Philippines/

The language was refreshingly frank, not just puff. Given where it was published, that was nice to see. A look back at the "manifest destiny" movement is interesting in itself, even though this article does not go into specific detail on that, it certainly tells a tale of its consequences. The US imperial dreams might have died out, but "manifest destiny" still hides between the lines of various modern US policy.

I would hypothesize that in female dominated industry/businesses where the management and the majority of workers were female the exact reverse would tend to happen for the same reasons. But maybe not. Female socialization might have different dynamics, that don't lead to similar outcomes.

Yeah, someone should really study a company that is majority female with a majority of female managers. Oh wait:

and
It is possible things might be different in other industries but this study shows that it is not simply a result of a male dominated workplace.

I think kelhus' hypothesis is at least plausible if we're talking about a majority of senior management being female. And I think it may be more plausible in a counterfactual where that was true across most companies and not just the one in question. These effects probably depend on cultural norms that are established on a larger scale than a single company.

Obviously that's conjecture, but the reason I think that conjecture is plausible is because it fits with an idea that I've repeatedly emphasized in discussions about inequality, which is the tendency for social configurations to be self-reproducing in subtle ways. In this case, the effects of within-gender socialization (dependent on larger cultural context) act to reinforce gender disparities in management, but it follows that if you broke the cycle somehow then the effects would diminish, because it's a feedback loop. That is the important political implication, I think.

You can draw similar conclusions from research on the effects of neighborhood on economic mobility, particularly with regard to the social effects of concentrated poverty which can't be explained by appealing only to the attributes of individuals.

And that, I think, gets to an important larger point. When we see stable social configurations, it's intuitive to think that they are stable purely because of underlying attributes of the participants. This is grasping at the "nature" side of the supposed nature/nurture dichotomy. But kelhus' hypothesis, and the results of this study, the Chetty study, and others, show the importance of the other side as well, that social configurations can be self-reproducing in part because of the social structures and dynamics involved. I say in part because the study does not find that 100% of the gap can be accounted for in this way, but it's highly significant.

I'm sure that cowboys fans are used to that feeling though

What would be interesting is, what has been the impact of feminism on socialization of opposites in the work place. I don't think the impact would be all positive.

----


I'm in a training class today, and the trainer (a female) asked which was harder to raise, boys or girls, then talked about girls were harder, and they were hell raisers, and other derogatory stuff (in a playful way). Some of the ladies pushed back, rightfully so, but not a single guy said one ****ing word.

Well, in large part due to feminism, you actually have socialization between the genders at the workplace.

If that is a positive impact or not is up for you to decide. Personally I think keeping about half the populace out of most workplaces was a pretty damn stupid idea.

I'm curious why you would go straight to a dichotomy, as if everything about it is either positive, or negative.

Besides, you are talking about participation, not socialization, and there is more to feminism than women's right to work.

You poor pitiful thing