You, me and ~6-7% of the male population. It is a source of endless amusement to my family, who love to play the ‘Let’s see what color Dad/Hubby thinks this is!’ game.
1 Like
Yeah well, if you believe that all human beings are blank slates, if you want to create the huomo nuovo, best to kill those old misguided fuckers off, that so stubbornly cling to their guns and the Bible and indoctrinate their children from the ground up.
If you want to create an utopia on earth that is the way you do it, that is the way it was tried to be implemented.
If on the other hand you accept that we are all made out of crooked wood, you do not try to create an utopia, you simply try to prevent the worst.
You know what ?
I think you are avoiding the fact that you are a wageslave .
Which is wrong on so many levels that your misguided views on gender relations pale in comparison.
Now we are not talking about fleeting amusements like women, but business, which is of course very serious business.
Unless you are a pimp, then women are your business.
But of course personal and social factors play a part in the “feelings” involved in “knowing” you are X gender, AND in determining what that means. It occurs to me that the women at TN, who are somehow speaking as representative women, are far from that. This is me:
And this, from Google, looks about like the average woman where I work. I’m going to guess that she is in her thirties. PP, kpsnap, and I are all older.
We’re not really representative at all. I don’t think the “average woman” could tolerate it here, with the fat jokes and misogyny that fly around the boards. I’m going to guess that I:
Experience gender differently than this woman does:
So how can gender experience be anything BUT subjective, at the end of the day? I would think the same goes for men, doesn’t it? Stronger, leaner, smarter, taller - these make for a much pleasanter male experience, don’t they?
I’m genuinely excited that the topic has moved in this direction, as for quite a while now I’ve thought that there were some parallels between the discussion and Avicenna’s “Floating Man” thought experiment.
Would we have any sense of “being” male or female if we were born in a world that we were unable to perceive, trapped in our bodies, with only our mind to solve the situation? Would a man “know” they were a man if they had no knowledge of what a man “is”?
You speak negatively of racism and that it should be lessened and that people who believe their own races are superior to other races. Why do you think people’s opinions and beliefs should be changed at all? I live in the most diverse urban area in the world, Queens, NY, and that is not an exaggeration.
You name an ethnicity, chances are high I’ve met or worked closely with someone of that ethnicity. I know many people who think and behave as if their ethnicity is superior to some others. This is not a concern of mine so long as they don’t mistreat me or anyone else. Whether someone thinks their kind is superior or not is none of my concern. Besides, if they don’t mistreat anyone based on this belief, why the heck would I care considering the end result is the same: no mistreatment!
As a a Jew, if someone calls me a k–e, a h–b, a Y-d, I don’t care! Like, really don’t care. And let’s say upon meeting an employer, he or she decides not to hire me because during the interview, from my facial features, sees that I am Jewish and does not like my kind, there’s no damn way to prove such discrimination. The interviewer likely does not announce the racial sentiment to anyone in public.
Anyway, even though many people do not think they are superior, they make sure not to deal with others not of their kind whenever they can control the matter. They move away from towns that are being increasingly inhabited by those not of their kind. They seek employment in areas in which there are mostly people of their own kind. They participate in recreational areas where are there are people of their kind. This can be seen straight up and down in my borough, as people segregate themselves into different areas or flee for the suburbs as soon as they have children because they do not want their children attending schools with different people.
I do not say this with malice but here it is: I believe you and those of your persuasion speak fantasy when I talk reality.
And nearly all the people I speak of are, as I said, employed, civic-minded, peaceful, law- and rule-abiding, and so on, all the qualities that we give to rather functional people, or as some like to call them, “regular/normal people”. They might not think they are superior, but if you mention where they are choosing to move to, where they are going to socialize on a weekend, or where they intend to send their children to school to, they think along racial lines, and it is not, and I mean NOT uncommon for you to hear, “I can’t move there; it’s all _________ (ethnicity/race) there,” and, “I can’t send my kid to school there; he’ll be the only _________ there,” and, “I wouldn’t work there; it’s all _______ there,” and, “You’re going/went where?! Do you wanna get killed?” This goes for all races I’ve come across.
Of course, if you as a stranger grill them on why they moved, they will of course choose to remain diplomatic or neutral and vaguely respond, “for the better schools,” but that’s far from what there all is to the matter.
Do you lump these discriminating people, minding their business and harmless as they are, into the racist category too. I mean, they might not think they are racially superior, but they sure are not moving in the direction of “progress” and “change”.
And speaking of change, why must these people change their minds considering they have not done anything wrong to anyone? Who are you or anyone to determine this and how will they change? Who will be providing the dialogue and how will they do it? Are you or any lefty going to help? And can you handle the magnitude of seven billion people, most of whom do not give a damn about what some comfortable American thinks, says, or does and don’t care for change?
This is why I referred to a Bolshevik Utopia, the concept of a world in which everyone’s needs will be met and that they will have just the right amount of wealth, time, and comfort that Americans have so that they can mess around with the goofy idea of world brotherhood and not only think about it, but try to make it come to fruition, even though every such experiment in this idea has resulted in alienation, chaos, mistreatment, and massive death tolls!
Generally speaking, leftists do not care about the victims of their ideas that come into action. They just shrug it off, and your rebuttal to my comment in which I gave examples of ethnic turmoil (with hefty death tolls) that contained nothing more than a quote from someone came across with the typical Marxist’s lack of care for cracked eggs, so to speak. I might be wrong, but at this point in the current day, and from the nature of this thread, that’s what it comes across like.
3 Likes
The terrible tragedies you listed have nothing to do (so far as I can see) with a dialogue about reducing racism; in fact, all were (to one degree or another) the exact opposite–they represent ethnic cleansing. So I failed to see then, and still fail to see now, what your examples have to do with my suggestion about dialogue being a starting point for reducing racism. If your point was ‘the world contains many people willing to commit terrible acts on account of racist/ethnicity-related bigotry’–well, yeah, it certainly does. But I fail to see what other conclusion(s) you feel can or should be drawn from these events. (If you feel you made a point I missed, please state it more explicitly for me.)
You keep referring to Marxism, and I infer from this that you somehow have come to the conclusion that it underlies my attitude/belief system. Let me state categorically–it doesn’t. (Note that I suggested dialogue as a starting point for reducing racism, not re-education camps.)
And I will ask again, in expanded form, the question you seem to be ducking: It is my opinion that Americans circa 2016 are vastly less racist/sexist/homophobic than they were 100 years ago. Do you agree?
It can’t. And I suppose that was my entire point all along.
Which is what is going to lead to the vast majority of the rejection of the idea from people who don’t have "gender identity issues.
Acceptance, tolerance and celebration are three different things. You can demand tolerance, especially seeing as an individual’s gender issues aren’t harming any other individual, but the other too have to be left up to the individual, and can’t be forced.
I think the answer is yes. Mainly because gender is obviously part of who we are as individuals. I don’t think anyone on any side of this conversation would disagree…
Just because people in 10,000 B.C. couldn’t explain the chemical reactions that are fire, doesn’t mean they couldn’t start them.
I use this obvious, and 100% rational and correct logic when arguing rights with people who aren’t cool with everyone having theirs protected.
The mental gymnastics people will go through to justify forcing their morals unto others, because they are angry that the “others” are forcing a different set of morals is entertaining to say the least.
It is all Marxism, you’re correct. It’s collective guilt and responsibility for the actions of individuals.
1 Like
Without question.
But can we use bigoted or unnecessarily discriminatory instead of homophobic? I’m pretty sure there are very few people actually afraid of homosexuality in the community of people not accepting/tolerant of that lifestyle.
(If the use of lifestyle is offensive or is being read as implying it’s a choice, that isn’t the reason I used it. I’ve been up since 430am and don’t have the energy to use a better word if that one isn’t good enough.)
Not so fast…I may not agree.
But I’m at work, so can’t go further with it right now.
It’s curious to me. I wonder how one would know what it means to be a man or woman purely through existence with no perception. Or even what a man or woman is.
I’m obviously talking out of my ass and just speaking in opinion here but:
One of the best explanations of PTSD I’ve see was a video where the woman speaking explained that whether or not a trigger is actually happening or is just a memory, the brain doesn’t care. It responds the same, sending you into fight or flight. (IE: a wounded vet diving under a table because a balloon popped behind him at a child’s birthday party.)
So take someone who suffered significant trauma as, let’s say, a 5 year old, and therefore never developed appropriate skills in recognizing and working through emotions. Now as an adult, they still have feelings. They don’t’ know the names of those feelings, don’t know how to experience them, but they are still there, and they are effecting how that individual lives their life.
I just don’t think understanding something, and how it fits into the macro sense of the world is necessary for that something to effect your life.
Not to get into a religious debate, but if their is a God whether someone believes or not is moot, because that God is part of them, and part of why they act that way. If there isn’t a God, and you don’t believe, but others do, I still feel like it changes who you are to a degree.
The question becomes, why? What processes over the last 100 years lessened the degree/extent of bigotry? And are those processes still active today?
Homo-bigoted?
I agree with @T3hPwnisher. It’s difficult for me to imagine that someone would feel ‘male’ if they had no concept of ‘female.’ (Although if we amend Avicenna’s “Floating Man” thought experiment slightly so that the only sensory input available is ESPN, that might allow us to answer the question definitively.) 
Oh yeah, absolutely one who has prior experiences, even without knowing exactly what they meant, can still rely on those experiences. I’m speaking of an instance where one has NO prior experiences aside from simply those created within their mind. No outside perception, no senses, no stimulus, etc.
Far more theoretical than realistic. Just a thought exercise; but I find those fun.
EDIT: And before people get sidetracked and interpret this as some sort of argument for/against the gender discussion, keep in mind that this same thought experiment can actually extrapolate to many aspects of our identity. Would one know that they are even human without any understanding of what a human is? Would one know their race as we define it?
I don’t have the answers, but they’re fun to think of.
Well for one, government codified racism ended when democrats finally decided blacks made better voting stock than live stock. (Ignoring for now that AA is basically codified racism, but it’s more complicated than that.)
A disgusting amount of people get their cues from government. As in, what is legal is automatically right, so that eased the push.
So that coupled with younger generations wanting to rebel against their parents…
Also can’t over look music. The industry itself is rife with bullshit, but the people playing and listening have a long and wonderful track record of being color blind. Bands were integrated before schools. Muscle Shoals in Alabama is a great example. Shit without poor black Americans we wouldn’t have Jazz and Blues. Without Jazz and blues, no rock and roll. No rock, no grunge, no metal no alternative. Without Whites re-inventing Jazz and Blues, you wouldn’t have hip-hop coming form poor Black Americans. Without hip hop you have no R&B (Motown was before hiphop) no techno no… So on and so forth.
Movies, sports and other culture war successes of People of Color also ushered in a new found understanding.
Technology helps.
But mostly it’s the success of the People in general that were no longer held back by government moving forward with their lives and showing the world that skin color is irrelevant to achievement.
I think that’s much better than phobic. Because it speaks to the actual issue.
Right, experience is experience though, right?
Just because one can’t define it as male, because they don’t know the alternative, doesn’t mean the chemical and instinctual aspects aren’t there. At least in the way I understand the hypothetical.
Yeah, very much enjoying this too.
Exactly. This is why an instance of one with no experiences becomes so crucial. As you’ve noted; experience can greatly alter perception.
Just to be clear: in your hypothetical the woman in question would still be the bearer and giver of children into the world? The only difference is they have no interaction with environment to shade their perception of pregnancy etc?