bullying
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 14364
- Joined: Mar 26, 2015
Re: bullying
Pecy is right of course. What I'm more interested in is who ever said there was zero toxicity at all.
Re: bullying
This is a very interesting topic and we've survive 9 pages without it getting locked. This community is not very toxic at all but without toxicity things would get boring.
- Riotcoke
- Retired Contributor
- Posts: 4088
- Joined: May 7, 2019
- ESO: Riotcoke
- Location: Dorsetshire
- Clan: UwU
Re: bullying
VooDoo_BoSs wrote:pecelot wrote:to say that the community is toxic is a stretch
to say that the community is not toxic at all is also a stretch
Have you seen the rest of the internet? Sir Musket was probably the only toxic part of the community, and he is shunned by most people.
SirMusket was just cooler than everyone else you mean?
twitch.tv/stangoesdeepTV
- fightinfrenchman
- Ninja
- Posts: 23508
- Joined: Oct 17, 2015
- Location: Pennsylvania
Re: bullying
deleted_user wrote:Pecy is right of course. What I'm more interested in is who ever said there was zero toxicity at all.
I think I heard Jerom say that once
Dromedary Scone Mix is not Alone Mix
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 13004
- Joined: Apr 28, 2020
Re: bullying
UrvyZnapy wrote:fightinfrenchman wrote:Show hidden quotes
This seems ironic but is actually a good thing to think
Humans are very good at adapting and adapt all the time. It can be good and bad but if you adapt to fix a problem it's good right? It's called improvement/development/learning/experience and it's very important as long as the problem is not too strong to break you (why we protect small kids).
And who's the judge of that? Surely the person in question? Too often people judge for others, to the point where we expect others to magically know our limits (which is what spanky is asking for), but too often people also say, well it happened to me and i'm fine (just look at pecelot and humman). Neither are indicative of anything.
The best would be for Garja to speak up, but perhaps in his way he has done so and we havent heard it, people prefer to voice their frustration in an indirect manner. But maybe he didn't. However, it's definitely a valid point, raised byothers already, that it's not really accepted for a man to complain about such things as its a show of weakness, and a man can't be seen as weak. So even if he didnt like it, or was worse affected by it, chances are big he wouldnt say anything.
In any case, it's for each of us to decide whether or not you want to respect someones boundaries as long as you dont break any laws. You might be a giant douchebag if you don't respect others, but it's not illegal.
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 14364
- Joined: Mar 26, 2015
Re: bullying
What astonishes me is that this thread is not about who it should be about more. Or that we haven't had threads about some others before.
To make an anti-bullying post about a person a person has to like that person first. That's a nice consolation.
I'm complicit.
To make an anti-bullying post about a person a person has to like that person first. That's a nice consolation.
I'm complicit.
- Riotcoke
- Retired Contributor
- Posts: 4088
- Joined: May 7, 2019
- ESO: Riotcoke
- Location: Dorsetshire
- Clan: UwU
Re: bullying
deleted_user wrote:What astonishes me is that this thread is not about who it should be more.
Does any long thread not get derailed?
twitch.tv/stangoesdeepTV
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 13004
- Joined: Apr 28, 2020
Re: bullying
Dolan wrote:TheZeroEmpires wrote:Show hidden quotes
I don’t think gender is very important on the internet. After all, if you want real equality on a message board then a lack of gender would be optimal.
I think the way anyone experiences life is through the lens of their particular, gendered experience of the world. There's a lot of research that shows men and women process things differently, both on an emotional and cognitive level.
So trying to somehow separate gender from the way someone experience life is a bit misguided and unrealistic, I think. And it's not likely to really solve anything, since men and women will continue to display those differences in how they relate to the world.
I know where such a call is coming from, though. It's part of the current zeitgeist to focus on equality as a general theme in everything, from rights to economic issues. But if you think about it, about what makes people even interested in communicating or making economic transactions, it's actually differences that make things work. People seek to buy products that they can't make on their own and watch content that they couldn't produce themselves. Because they perceive that differences are interesting and are a useful resource.
By trying to obscure differences, we're trying to accredit the notion that it's equality that makes the world turn and that the current imbalances are just a temporary issue that needs to be streamlined.
Yet you're the one to claim that if people are different, aka from a different ethnicity or "race", religion or culture, they shouldn't live together. Why's that?
In any case, yes people mistake equality for egality, but true equality (which isn't about denying difference, but about not taking the difference out of context into a context where it doesn't or shouldn't matter) is a necessary component of freedom. And freedom actually protects plurality, it doesn't eliminate it. Inequality also doesn't necessarily means differences or plurality, as failing to protect or failing to allow differences obviously can lead to their "extinction".
Yet again you show that you are unable to understand the basic concepts of prejudice, stereotype and discrimination. The problem isn't in saying that certain truths apply to certain groups, the problem is in assuming this truth applies to an individual solely because that person is from said group (often without having given any cause to elicit that assumption). It's not unfair to the majority that conforms but to the minority that doesn't. Because, sure perhaps some research claims to show difference between male and female cognition (a statement which doesnt say anything about the rootcause of said difference, it could be genetic, or cultural or a mix of both or something completely unconceived until now. Bt you conveniently ignore this...), other research claims its negligent, but wherever the truth lies, we can be sure that the differences along rigid identity lines pale in comparison to the differences that exist between individuals. And so we should ask ourself the question, why has the former been made so much more important in the past, and why do we continue to do so.
Re: bullying
I don't think we're talking about the same thing. There are people who don't want to have kids, regardless of what kind of politics or ideas on sex they support.gibson wrote:No, by not focusing on differences people are trying to make it so that a little girl isnt raised to feel like shes a failure if shes not a mother and a homemaker
I think the reason you're assuming I believe in stuff like that it's because that's how American society is. I know things are a lot more polarised there than in Europe. But most women in Europe are pretty much free to decide whether they want to have kids or not. The notion that someone will be shamed into having kids here is unheard of. Maybe that works in the USA, though, I've no idea, I don't live there.
Re: bullying
Where did I claim that? You're making a lot of assumptions on what I believe. It's probably because, in the current political climate, when all debates are polarised, if I criticise leftwing positions, then I must be enrolled in the opposite team and support their views. I'm not really.umeu wrote:Yet you're the one to claim that if people are different, aka from a different ethnicity or "race", religion or culture, they shouldn't live together. Why's that?
I have talked in the past about the need to limit mass migration, but that was for practical purposes. Mass migration is likely to cause significant social disruption in the years ahead. Historical experience shows that lots of past empires went through such a phase on their last legs. It's a question of cultural cohesion and how that is reflected in how politics work too. And yeah, generally speaking, it is preferable for cultures to not dissolve into some kind of global, undifferentiated soup, and go extinct. And the way in which you make sure this doesn't happen is by not encouraging mass migration. We don't need a situation in which every country becomes like the USA. The reason why American society is so polarised right now is precisely their lack of cultural cohesion. As I've explained before, the USA is a country that didn't follow a typical pattern of development, from ethnogenesis to statehood. They first established the country, then tried to build a people, but managed to only get a collection of global populations that identify with the "American" moniker. And now they're paying a price for this, which is reflected in the state of their highly polarised politics and society and the level of violence they project both internally and externally. It's by no coincidence that the expression "culture war" and the phenomenon too appeared in the USA first...
I'm not sure what the bolded statement means: does it mean that people who were born with varying degrees of physical endowment, which is based in varying genetics, are equal in their chances to become professional basketball players? They are legally and equally free to pursue such a career, but this kind of freedom is meaningless when practically most of them won't be able to compete with professional players. The term you are looking for is probably equity, I haven't heard of "egality" in English, it might be an older, obsolete form of equality, which shows its French borrowing roots. Equity refers to fairness of treatment, which is the foundation of the rule of law. And this is already the case, all citizens of free states are equal before the law, do they also need to have their sex differences erased and obscured to secure some kind of ideal playground for social competition? What else needs to be equalised to make things equitable? Is nature a source of inequality that must be fought by stifling any kind of sexually dimorphic behaviours?In any case, yes people mistake equality for egality, but true equality (which isn't about denying difference, but about not taking the difference out of context into a context where it doesn't or shouldn't matter) is a necessary component of freedom. And freedom actually protects plurality, it doesn't eliminate it. Inequality also doesn't necessarily means differences or plurality, as failing to protect or failing to allow differences obviously can lead to their "extinction".
Yet again you show that you are unable to understand the basic concepts of prejudice, stereotype and discrimination. The problem isn't in saying that certain truths apply to certain groups, the problem is in assuming this truth applies to an individual solely because that person is from said group (often without having given any cause to elicit that assumption). It's not unfair to the majority that conforms but to the minority that doesn't. Because, sure perhaps some research claims to show difference between male and female cognition (a statement which doesnt say anything about the rootcause of said difference, it could be genetic, or cultural or a mix of both or something completely unconceived until now. Bt you conveniently ignore this...), other research claims its negligent, but wherever the truth lies, we can be sure that the differences along rigid identity lines pale in comparison to the differences that exist between individuals. And so we should ask ourself the question, why has the former been made so much more important in the past, and why do we continue to do so.
These differences hold on averages. Statistical laws or inferences don't apply to individuals, you can't use them to predict individual behaviour, though they can provide a basis for estimating individual behaviour.
And what does that imply? That categories like sex are irrelevant, because it happens that some men are shorter than some women? Does such a fact make statistical average differences irrelevant? Does it invalidate the existence of categories like sex? There are also sexual characteristics that don't vary uniformly within and between groups, such as whether or not they have a penis or a vagina. In 99.99% of cases, things are quite clear and provide clear "rigid identity lines". Same for sexual identity, most men and women don't report that they are unsure which sex they belong to. So what's the purpose of this idea of "ignoring someone's gender", as someone proposed? I think it's significant information.differences along rigid identity lines pale in comparison to the differences that exist between individuals
Re: bullying
Men and Women are different but does that make one gender better/worse than the other? You need both for a civilization to thrive and without one there wouldn't be a civilization.
Re: bullying
I think no one denies that
Re: bullying
Men and women are biologically different in many ways but the real question is about relevance. How is it relevant to this conversation about bullying? I think what triggered people, for good reason, is someone dismissing spankyou's legitimate and important question as "just female sensitivity". I don't remember who it was, but what started the discussion is their ridiculous implication that differences between the genders are somehow relevant to this thread, that only women would be sensitive enough to be offended by bullying.
- Vickyxxx5528
- Skirmisher
- Posts: 112
- Joined: Jun 1, 2016
- ESO: Kikk
Re: bullying
Goodspeed wrote:Men and women are biologically different in many ways but the real question is about relevance. How is it relevant to this conversation about bullying? I think what triggered people, for good reason, is someone dismissing spankyou's legitimate and important question as "just female sensitivity". I don't remember who it was, but what started the discussion is their ridiculous implication that differences between the genders are somehow relevant to this thread, that only women would be sensitive enough to be offended by bullying.
Thankyou. Well said.
The Otto Lamer Girl
“Yes yes I Otto lame!
Cos when I win with another civ, it’s not the same!
When the TC’s down, vills runin-round,
It will make you so mad to change game!”
“Yes yes I Otto lame!
Cos when I win with another civ, it’s not the same!
When the TC’s down, vills runin-round,
It will make you so mad to change game!”
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 13004
- Joined: Apr 28, 2020
Re: bullying
Dolan wrote:Where did I claim that? You're making a lot of assumptions on what I believe. It's probably because, in the current political climate, when all debates are polarised, if I criticise leftwing positions, then I must be enrolled in the opposite team and support their views. I'm not really.
I have talked in the past about the need to limit mass migration, but that was for practical purposes. Mass migration is likely to cause significant social disruption in the years ahead. Historical experience shows that lots of past empires went through such a phase on their last legs. It's a question of cultural cohesion and how that is reflected in how politics work too. And yeah, generally speaking, it is preferable for cultures to not dissolve into some kind of global, undifferentiated soup, and go extinct. And the way in which you make sure this doesn't happen is by not encouraging mass migration. We don't need a situation in which every country becomes like the USA. The reason why American society is so polarised right now is precisely their lack of cultural cohesion. As I've explained before, the USA is a country that didn't follow a typical pattern of development, from ethnogenesis to statehood. They first established the country, then tried to build a people, but managed to only get a collection of global populations that identify with the "American" moniker. And now they're paying a price for this, which is reflected in the state of their highly polarised politics and society and the level of violence they project both internally and externally. It's by no coincidence that the expression "culture war" and the phenomenon too appeared in the USA first...
Lol... you say I make that assumption on what you believe, and then you proceed to say more or less exactly what I said you have said in the past. How is that an assumption?
I based my statement on your own words in previous posts such as these
https://eso-community.net/viewtopic.php ... re#p149214
https://eso-community.net/viewtopic.php ... re#p365170
https://eso-community.net/viewtopic.php ... re#p365190
https://eso-community.net/viewtopic.php ... 62#p372068
https://eso-community.net/viewtopic.php ... re#p287026
https://eso-community.net/viewtopic.php ... re#p274152
https://eso-community.net/viewtopic.php ... re#p240236
It's actually you who is assuming that I say that only because of what you assume I think is your political orientation. I don't give 2 cents about whether you identify as right, left, horizontal or vertical, and neither do I feel a need to defend leftwing positions or any position because they are leftwing, rightwing or any other kind of wing. I only defend a position if I feel it has merit or truth. So rather than assuming that other people assume so much about you, perhaps just read (I didn't even use the word believe, I mentioned that you said something, which you did, for example below, as well as in the past).
You know your credibility goes down by 80% when you dismiss a post based on the most trifling reasons, without tackling its arguments.
I also came across this gem of yours, perhaps if you should take your own advice more often.
I'm not sure what the bolded statement means: does it mean that people who were born with varying degrees of physical endowment, which is based in varying genetics, are equal in their chances to become professional basketball players? They are legally and equally free to pursue such a career, but this kind of freedom is meaningless when practically most of them won't be able to compete with professional players.
The meaning of true equality is in the brackets. I called it true in order to distinguish it from certain more extreme definitions of equality, such as egality.
About half the words in English have French roots, that doesn't mean they're obsolete (which ironically also has french roots, and as most french words, it has latin roots). https://www.thefreedictionary.com/egality. egality is very much an actual term with contemporary meaning. What you're talking about, eliminating every difference, that is egality, not equity or equality. I agree that some people talk about equality when they actually mean egality, but they are usually poorly informed or extremists.The term you are looking for is probably equity, I haven't heard of "egality" in English, it might be an older, obsolete form of equality, which shows its French borrowing roots.
Erasing every difference is egality. As I said, most people aren't bother with that, and so focusing on that as an argument to counter emancipatory movement is dishonest. As I said, equality is not about eliminating difference, rather it's about eliminating situations in which people are focusing on a difference that doesn't matter for that context. And in any case, like the example you gave of the basketball players, just having legal freedom, equality or protection doesn't always mean something. If you are equal before the law, but those laws aren't upheld in practice, or if these laws don't cover important practical situations, you may as well have no protection or rights.Equity refers to fairness of treatment, which is the foundation of the rule of law. And this is already the case, all citizens of free states are equal before the law, do they also need to have their sex differences erased and obscured to secure some kind of ideal playground for social competition? What else needs to be equalised to make things equitable? Is nature a source of inequality that must be fought by stifling any kind of sexually dimorphic behaviours?
No, it doesn't mean that, and nothing I've said indicates that it should mean that. So why are you asking such redundant questions? I'm also talking about cognition, not so much about physique.And what does that imply? That categories like sex are irrelevant, because it happens that some men are shorter than some women? Does such a fact make statistical average differences irrelevant? Does it invalidate the existence of categories like sex?
What it means is what it says, there are more and more extreme differences between individuals than between groups when it comes to character and expressions of character. And these differences can't be explained by male or female differences. Yet they're far more influential. You and people like you make difference between groups far more important and decisive than they actually are outside very specific contexts.
There are also sexual characteristics that don't vary uniformly within and between groups, such as whether or not they have a penis or a vagina. In 99.99% of cases, things are quite clear and provide clear "rigid identity lines".
again you're talking about physical traits. I wasn't talking about that. having a penis or a vagina is really only relevant in very few situations.
Same for sexual identity, most men and women don't report that they are unsure which sex they belong to. So what's the purpose of this idea of "ignoring someone's gender", as someone proposed? I think it's significant information.
It provides significant information only in certain specific contexts. Usually ones that are about physical traits or sexuality. It won't tell you anything about what job they do, what hobbies they have, what color of hair, how tall or short they are, what their political orientation is, whether you two will get along or not etc. So, in many cases, knowing someones gender is completely irrelevant. Obviously I'm disputing the basis of the belief which you hold that it's otherwise.
Re: bullying
Dolan wrote:TheZeroEmpires wrote:Show hidden quotes
I don’t think gender is very important on the internet. After all, if you want real equality on a message board then a lack of gender would be optimal.
I think the way anyone experiences life is through the lens of their particular, gendered experience of the world. There's a lot of research that shows men and women process things differently, both on an emotional and cognitive level.
So trying to somehow separate gender from the way someone experience life is a bit misguided and unrealistic, I think. And it's not likely to really solve anything, since men and women will continue to display those differences in how they relate to the world.
I know where such a call is coming from, though. It's part of the current zeitgeist to focus on equality as a general theme in everything, from rights to economic issues. But if you think about it, about what makes people even interested in communicating or making economic transactions, it's actually differences that make things work. People seek to buy products that they can't make on their own and watch content that they couldn't produce themselves. Because they perceive that differences are interesting and are a useful resource.
By trying to obscure differences, we're trying to accredit the notion that it's equality that makes the world turn and that the current imbalances are just a temporary issue that needs to be streamlined.
there are Things like wolfe Children and Transsexualismus. I think the difference between man and Woman in there later lifes are more due to social roles
Re: bullying
it was pecelot, unsurprisinglyGoodspeed wrote:Men and women are biologically different in many ways but the real question is about relevance. How is it relevant to this conversation about bullying? I think what triggered people, for good reason, is someone dismissing spankyou's legitimate and important question as "just female sensitivity". I don't remember who it was, but what started the discussion is their ridiculous implication that differences between the genders are somehow relevant to this thread, that only women would be sensitive enough to be offended by bullying.
Re: bullying
And what am I actually saying in those posts? Where am I saying how things should be? I'm actually explaining why things are the way they are right now and that there are good reasons for why they are the way they are.umeu wrote:Lol... you say I make that assumption on what you believe, and then you proceed to say more or less exactly what I said you have said in the past. How is that an assumption?
I based my statement on your own words in previous posts such as these
https://eso-community.net/viewtopic.php ... re#p149214
https://eso-community.net/viewtopic.php ... re#p365170
https://eso-community.net/viewtopic.php ... re#p365190
https://eso-community.net/viewtopic.php ... 62#p372068
https://eso-community.net/viewtopic.php ... re#p287026
https://eso-community.net/viewtopic.php ... re#p274152
https://eso-community.net/viewtopic.php ... re#p240236
I'm explaining that multicultural societies are not a thing at all, except maybe for the USA and maybe there's a reason for why this is the case.
Nowhere am I saying that humans should not establish a multicultural country on Mars and that it won't be a Marxist utopia. I'm pretty much talking about how things are right now and providing explanations for why they are this way and why there are issues, where there are issues.
Each group from each part of the world has a small minority of people who is culturally flexible, people who are willing to integrate in another culture and to learn and adopt their norms. But this says more about their particular kind of personality, rather than some kind of universal ability to be culturally flexible. This kind of person will integrate given any conditions. Experience shows that's not the case for the majority of people from cultures that are completely wide apart. They tend to live in their own closed-in communities. In the first case, when you have a small number of culturally flexible individuals who are eager to adopt your cultural norms, society doesn't even become multicultural. Again, experience shows that. We don't have any historical experience of a true multicultural society that managed to integrate people from completely different cultures en masse, in large numbers. The American melting pot is actually not a success story, in this respect.
That word doesn't mean what you think it does, even in the dictionary definition you linked. It refers to social and political equality, ie equality of status, not equality in economic terms or in other measures. You're probably taking egalitarianism as a term and ascribing that connotation to egality, which doesn't really exist as a documented meaning. In fact, if you search for the origins of this term in English, you find that it used to be used as just another spelling of equality.The meaning of true equality is in the brackets. I called it true in order to distinguish it from certain more extreme definitions of equality, such as egality.
Again, this meaning of egality does not exist as such. You're probably thinking of egalitarianism, especially that kind which preaches equality of outcome in all respects (like income), not just equality in status (legal, political, social).Erasing every difference is egality. As I said, most people aren't bother with that, and so focusing on that as an argument to counter emancipatory movement is dishonest. As I said, equality is not about eliminating difference, rather it's about eliminating situations in which people are focusing on a difference that doesn't matter for that context. And in any case, like the example you gave of the basketball players, just having legal freedom, equality or protection doesn't always mean something. If you are equal before the law, but those laws aren't upheld in practice, or if these laws don't cover important practical situations, you may as well have no protection or rights.
There really is no other kind of equality in a rule of law order than equality of status before the law. Which means everyone, rich or poor, male or female, have a right to a fair trial and to having their basic rights respected.
If those laws aren't followed in practice, then there is no rule of law. Or it's a flawed one.
Such as? What kind of differences? Maybe you should stop talking about this subject only in abstract terms, because it just sounds like you're weaseling your way out of arguments. Provide some examples.What it means is what it says, there are more and more extreme differences between individuals than between groups when it comes to character and expressions of character. And these differences can't be explained by male or female differences. Yet they're far more influential. You and people like you make difference between groups far more important and decisive than they actually are outside very specific contexts.
Not really. There's a lot of research that shows men and women tend to pick different occupations and I'm sure you're going to dismiss it as socially constructed, but no amount of gender quotas has managed to make women more likely to be interested in engineering degrees, for example. Yeah, it's already been tried and there still are very few takers.It provides significant information only in certain specific contexts. Usually ones that are about physical traits or sexuality. It won't tell you anything about what job they do, what hobbies they have, what color of hair, how tall or short they are, what their political orientation is, whether you two will get along or not etc. So, in many cases, knowing someones gender is completely irrelevant. Obviously I'm disputing the basis of the belief which you hold that it's otherwise.
Re: bullying
Goodspeed wrote:Men and women are biologically different in many ways but the real question is about relevance. How is it relevant to this conversation about bullying? I think what triggered people, for good reason, is someone dismissing spankyou's legitimate and important question as "just female sensitivity". I don't remember who it was, but what started the discussion is their ridiculous implication that differences between the genders are somehow relevant to this thread, that only women would be sensitive enough to be offended by bullying.
That's not what was said, if you don't remember, you might as well read it again instead of stating false claims. I had a questionable privilege to be bullied myself in the primary and it's not like it didn't affect me at all. My point was that from my point of view it seemed uncalled for to raise the flag as the seriousness of all of this Garja bullying is pretty much missing. If anything, people call him god and the best in the game, and I saw on multiple occasions he embraced it.
I didn't dismiss allegedly legitimate concerns, but just attributed it to the sensitive part of the OP, which she and other females here seem to show quite regularly.
If such a personality difference is present, then it doesn't have to, but might be due to iwillspankyou being female and me being male. Therefore, it's relevant.
Re: bullying
It was at least inferred by many. But sure, it wasn't said. The classic pecelot defense. It might help you and others to take into account the way people would likely interpret your words.pecelot wrote:Goodspeed wrote:Men and women are biologically different in many ways but the real question is about relevance. How is it relevant to this conversation about bullying? I think what triggered people, for good reason, is someone dismissing spankyou's legitimate and important question as "just female sensitivity". I don't remember who it was, but what started the discussion is their ridiculous implication that differences between the genders are somehow relevant to this thread, that only women would be sensitive enough to be offended by bullying.
That's not what was said,
But who are we kidding? Your words were interpreted in exactly the way you intended.
Re: bullying
You’re completely missing the point. The sex of the poster isn’t relevant. Just like we don’t bring up that men have a higher tendency of being thick skulled every time you make a post, because it’s not relevant. Or if we’re following your logic we’ll just dismiss every post you make because men have a higher tendency of being idiots online than women, just like you want to dismiss ops point because of her sex regardless of the validity of the post.
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 13004
- Joined: Apr 28, 2020
Re: bullying
Dolan wrote:And what am I actually saying in those posts? Where am I saying how things should be? I'm actually explaining why things are the way they are right now and that there are good reasons for why they are the way they are.umeu wrote:Lol... you say I make that assumption on what you believe, and then you proceed to say more or less exactly what I said you have said in the past. How is that an assumption?
I based my statement on your own words in previous posts such as these
https://eso-community.net/viewtopic.php ... re#p149214
https://eso-community.net/viewtopic.php ... re#p365170
https://eso-community.net/viewtopic.php ... re#p365190
https://eso-community.net/viewtopic.php ... 62#p372068
https://eso-community.net/viewtopic.php ... re#p287026
https://eso-community.net/viewtopic.php ... re#p274152
https://eso-community.net/viewtopic.php ... re#p240236
I'm explaining that multicultural societies are not a thing at all, except maybe for the USA and maybe there's a reason for why this is the case.
Nowhere am I saying that humans should not establish a multicultural country on Mars and that it won't be a Marxist utopia. I'm pretty much talking about how things are right now and providing explanations for why they are this way and why there are issues, where there are issues.
Each group from each part of the world has a small minority of people who is culturally flexible, people who are willing to integrate in another culture and to learn and adopt their norms. But this says more about their particular kind of personality, rather than some kind of universal ability to be culturally flexible. This kind of person will integrate given any conditions. Experience shows that's not the case for the majority of people from cultures that are completely wide apart. They tend to live in their own closed-in communities. In the first case, when you have a small number of culturally flexible individuals who are eager to adopt your cultural norms, society doesn't even become multicultural. Again, experience shows that. We don't have any historical experience of a true multicultural society that managed to integrate people from completely different cultures en masse, in large numbers. The American melting pot is actually not a success story, in this respect.That word doesn't mean what you think it does, even in the dictionary definition you linked. It refers to social and political equality, ie equality of status, not equality in economic terms or in other measures. You're probably taking egalitarianism as a term and ascribing that connotation to egality, which doesn't really exist as a documented meaning. In fact, if you search for the origins of this term in English, you find that it used to be used as just another spelling of equality.The meaning of true equality is in the brackets. I called it true in order to distinguish it from certain more extreme definitions of equality, such as egality.Again, this meaning of egality does not exist as such. You're probably thinking of egalitarianism, especially that kind which preaches equality of outcome in all respects (like income), not just equality in status (legal, political, social).Erasing every difference is egality. As I said, most people aren't bother with that, and so focusing on that as an argument to counter emancipatory movement is dishonest. As I said, equality is not about eliminating difference, rather it's about eliminating situations in which people are focusing on a difference that doesn't matter for that context. And in any case, like the example you gave of the basketball players, just having legal freedom, equality or protection doesn't always mean something. If you are equal before the law, but those laws aren't upheld in practice, or if these laws don't cover important practical situations, you may as well have no protection or rights.
There really is no other kind of equality in a rule of law order than equality of status before the law. Which means everyone, rich or poor, male or female, have a right to a fair trial and to having their basic rights respected.
If those laws aren't followed in practice, then there is no rule of law. Or it's a flawed one.Such as? What kind of differences? Maybe you should stop talking about this subject only in abstract terms, because it just sounds like you're weaseling your way out of arguments. Provide some examples.What it means is what it says, there are more and more extreme differences between individuals than between groups when it comes to character and expressions of character. And these differences can't be explained by male or female differences. Yet they're far more influential. You and people like you make difference between groups far more important and decisive than they actually are outside very specific contexts.Not really. There's a lot of research that shows men and women tend to pick different occupations and I'm sure you're going to dismiss it as socially constructed, but no amount of gender quotas has managed to make women more likely to be interested in engineering degrees, for example. Yeah, it's already been tried and there still are very few takers.It provides significant information only in certain specific contexts. Usually ones that are about physical traits or sexuality. It won't tell you anything about what job they do, what hobbies they have, what color of hair, how tall or short they are, what their political orientation is, whether you two will get along or not etc. So, in many cases, knowing someones gender is completely irrelevant. Obviously I'm disputing the basis of the belief which you hold that it's otherwise.
In some cases you explain why you think certain things are as they are. In others you say more than that. As in the post before. Stop trying to pretend I've said something which isn't true, as you basically said what i said already. Whether it comes from a practical or ideological source is irrelevant.
The dictionary i linked gives the definition as extreme levelling of society, what else is removing all difference? In any case, whether it's egality, egalitarian, extreme equality or elifent is completely irrelevant. The point is about the concept conveyed. They're not the same. You're chasing phantoms. Nobody wants to eliminate every possible difference, literally nobody. So stop pretending it's a valid argument.
Do you want me to give you examples of differences between individual people? Seriously? Otherwise I'm not sure what you're asking me to explain lol. You say men and women choose different occupations. Men and men choose different occupations too. Men and women have different hobbies. So have women and women. Whooptiedoo.
M show me that research and then show me how it proves this is necessarily caused by genes. Then tell me how this makes it relevant for you to know the sex of any one individual. Then i'll take your point seriously.
Gender quotas won't really fix any socially engineered problem in the short run, if it fixes anything at all. So if that's your proof, you may as well leave it at home.
- princeofcarthage
- Retired Contributor
- Posts: 8861
- Joined: Aug 28, 2015
- Location: Milky Way!
Re: bullying
Goodspeed wrote:It was at least inferred by many. But sure, it wasn't said. The classic pecelot defense. It might help you and others to take into account the way people would likely interpret your words.pecelot wrote:Goodspeed wrote:Men and women are biologically different in many ways but the real question is about relevance. How is it relevant to this conversation about bullying? I think what triggered people, for good reason, is someone dismissing spankyou's legitimate and important question as "just female sensitivity". I don't remember who it was, but what started the discussion is their ridiculous implication that differences between the genders are somehow relevant to this thread, that only women would be sensitive enough to be offended by bullying.
That's not what was said,
But who are we kidding? Your words were interpreted in exactly the way you intended.
I do notice that certain users keep looking for any excuse to dismiss my posts as sexist. I don't think I'm gonna act on that. And it shouldn't mean you're allowed to mix my quotes with your imaginations of me.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests