Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
CA renter
ParticipantNot talking about the “intelligent” reasons for voting they way they do. I’m talking about the intelligent reasons for believing what they do…which leads to them voting the way they do.
Let me explain it a bit better. Many conservatives know that the game is rigged, know that the elite are rigging it, and know that there is massive collusion and corruption where public (government) and private (corporate/financial elite) interests collide.
Liberals blame it on the private interests, with the assumption that the private interests are really the ones in charge, and the government puppets just do what they’re directed to do. They see the private interests as having all the power, and believe that the concentration of wealth and power in the private sector is the problem.
Conservatives, OTOH, believe that the government has more power, and the private interests, while corrupting the government, simply push politicians in one direction or another. They see the government as the tool for this corruption, so they believe the government is the problem.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]So the black dude living in the hood, who’s been beat by the police knows more about police brutality than the experts?[/quote]
Yes, that would seem rather logical, especially if the “experts” hadn’t ever been beaten by police.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]
A young teen man enters a prison and is terrified of being raped. He is not an expert in sexism or the culture that produces it. He is one scared person who may have an interesting tale to tell, but it is just one tale, one set of feelings.
Feelings aren’t knowledge and personal narrative is not wisdom. It will by its nature likely miss important connections and contexts.
[/quote]Again, you’re assuming that the kid who went to prison doesn’t read about, talk about, or study what he’s experienced. It’s unlikely that something so profound would go relatively unnoticed or ignored by a person who experiences it. Chances are, they are studying it, too. Maybe not by reading books…maybe just by talking to other people who’ve experienced it. Maybe by listening to those who are the perpetrators or who commit similar crimes.
There’s a tendency to assume that “official experts” know more than people who might study something in a different way.
I’ll use the recent example of Robert Reich, who traveled across the country, focusing on conservative states, to get a better understanding of why conservatives consistently vote against their own interests. He had an epiphany…conservative voters actually agree with progressive voters on most issues, especially as it relates to jobs and the economy, and the corruption of our government by corporations and the financial elite. Now, this is a man who studies these things, he’s been involved with politics for decades, and has studied economics, law, and social sciences for most of his life, but he didn’t know this! Meanwhile, some of us “non-experts” have been saying this for years. We’ve known that there are more points of agreement than disagreement. We’ve known that most conservatives aren’t just a bunch of stupid, hateful, ignorant, xenophobic racists (what he and other liberals have claimed in the past)…they have genuine concerns and intelligent reasons for believing what they do.
But it’s the people “on the ground” who knew this before the “experts” caught on. As a matter of fact, it was the Joe Sixpacks who spotted the housing bubble, and the internet/stock bubble, long before the “experts” did. Needless to say, I don’t hold most “experts” in very high regard, especially regarding issues that are more subjective.
ParticipantThis has nothing to do with “feelings.” We’re talking about real-life experiences, real-life actions, words, and behaviors.
And a person who experiences these things doesn’t just know a “bit” more, they know a lot more than someone who has never experienced something.
While those of us who’ve studied the mortgage crisis for many years might know more about what led up to the crisis, and we might even be able to name the major players who facilitated the events, we don’t necessarily know more about the actual process of being foreclosed on than someone who has gone through it themselves. I can tell you that, after reading about and talking to some of the individuals involved in the process, there are different perspectives and different experiences with the foreclosure process and the larger credit bubble. We might know a lot about it, and we might have studied it, but there is no doubt that our knowledge would grow and our perspectives would be changed by listening to the people who actually experienced it.
Again, original sources matter. There isn’t a single credible social scientist out there who would claim that you can understand a social concept without getting the information directly from the people who’ve experienced it.
But, again, we’re talking about people who have studied AND experienced something rather than someone who has simply experienced it (without any attempt to further educate him/herself). That is not the case with ZK and myself — he is obviously not an expert on sexism, and I’m definitely not a half-wit nor a person with an IQ of 70. There is no question that I have spent far more time researching, reading about, and thinking about sexism and misogyny than ZK. Add to that the fact that I have lived with sexism and misogyny my entire life, and the claim that he would know more than I do is laughable on its face.
And while I cite specific examples of sexism and misogyny, ZK has only stated his *opinion* that my perspective is too biased to be valid because of my personal experience with sexism. He has made no other points, he has not brought any original perspectives to the table; he has only made ad hominem attacks without addressing the issues I’ve brought up (just says that I must have “imagined” them). If anyone is arguing based on feelings, it is ZK.
Participant[quote=CA renter]
They do not know more. A Holocaust survivor doesn’t just know his or her own perspective, as there were many other people, but [both] during the war and after, who shared stories and experiences with them.
[/quote]
ParticipantTell me, scaredy, do you think that you would know more about homophobia, for example, than someone who is gay and has experienced it all their lives? Do you think that the average gay person spends less time studying, or thinking about, or talking about homophobia than an “expert” does? Would you honestly say that you, as a 100% straight person, know more than a gay person does about homophobia and the experience of being gay in a homophobic society? Would you dare to declare this on the internet?
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]They know more.
They get info from many different people, different perspectives and lots of varied sources. Their accounts are far more interesting, informed and meaningful than any individual participant.
It would be rude to tell a holocaust survivor ao, perhaps but, it’s true.[/quote]
They do not know more. A Holocaust survivor doesn’t just know his or her own perspective, as there were many other people, but during the war and after, who shared stories and experiences with them.
A historian can’t even begin to comprehend the sights, sounds, smells…the cold and the hunger. Sure, they can read about it, but they will never know it. They will never truly understand the fear of the unknown, or the known. They might be able to rattle off names and dates, but they will never know more than the survivors, I can assure you.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]a person may experience something directly and yet know way less about the phenomenon than someone who did not, or a person froma completely different era
this is why novelists and historians can virtually always explain and make more real an event than someone who has lived through it.
Someone in the middle of or directly experiencing an event may actually be in the worst possible position to be able to understand an event, due to emotions, lack of research, overview, emotional intelligence, etc.
a jew getting shipped off to the death camps has direct experience of antisemitism, yet may also be lacking in a big picture overview, may not even have seen certain signs of impending disaster for many psychological reasons.
so, no, living through an event qualifies one to only give a personal narrative, which may or may not be more widely applicable. it might inform further research, but it cannot replace it.[/quote]
Do the historians really know more, or do they just think that they know more?
I’ve studied certain subjects, and have a particular perspective based on that research, but when I talk to people who have direct experience with the subject, I always learn more from them…far more, and my perspective is almost always changed. I would *never in a million years* tell a Jew who lived through WWII in Europe, that I knew more than they did about the Holocaust. It doesn’t matter how many books I read, there is NO WAY that I would know more about it than they did.
And guess where all those novelists and historians got their information from, assuming that it’s accurate? In all likelihood, they got their information from books or other sources that cite those who actually lived through it.
But we aren’t even talking about an expert vs. an “average” person. We’re talking about ZK and me. There is no way in hell that he knows more about sexism and misogyny than I do.
Participant[quote=zk][quote=zk]
I notice sexism all the time. I notice misogyny when I see it, too. I have a daughter. And when she was born, I was quite concerned with how society would treat her. I still am. I think the objectification of women is rampant. My first facebook post was about a feminist champion doing great things for the cause of women. (In fact, other than pix of vacations that my wife posted, and a few posts about my favorite baseball team, that’s my only facebook post.) So I’m actually on your side in general. I’m a feminist who is pretty sensitive to how women are treated. [/quote]You followed my posting of the above with your posting of the below:
[quote=CA renter]ZK, we can go around and around on this because it’s unlikely we will ever see eye to eye if you believe that misogyny and sexism are things of the past. They are not.
Of course, it’s like a white person telling a black person that racism doesn’t exist. We’ll just have to agree to disagree on this.[/quote]
Your reading skills leave quite a bit to be desired.
You ignore the points I make that counter your weak arguments. And then, when it’s obvious that your arguments can’t stand up to mine, you imply that I hold a position that I clearly (to anyone who’s paying attention to what I’m actually saying) don’t, and run away. Weak.
Have you ever known a black person who sees racism in every corner? Even when it’s not there? Constantly crying, “racism!!” even if whatever happened that he’s crying racism about was clearly due to other factors, and not racism? Sure there’s racism out there. Lots of it. Just not everywhere that person sees it. If you try to tell that person that a particular incident wasn’t racism, they get angry and think you’re a fool for not seeing it. It’s pretty obvious to everyone that that person has a very large chip on his shoulder, and that he sees racism everywhere he turns his eyes, rather than only where it actually is. It’s pretty obvious to everyone that he’s angry, bitter, and irrational. Obvious to everyone except that person, of course.
That’s you with misogyny.[/quote]
Finally have time to deal with this precious nugget of yours, ZK. The only “point” you’ve made is that my experiences with sexism/misogyny are “imagined” because I’ve experienced sexism/misogyny at an early age. You claim that you know more than I do about whether or not a behavior or action is sexist or misogynistic, even though you (presumably) haven’t spent a single day of your life as a female.
And wasn’t it you who shared a personal tidbit which BG grabbed with both hands and started to use against you throughout a thread? I believe she contorted your words and said you had “issues” in a lame attempt to discredit what you were saying, just like you’ve done here. As I recall, you weren’t very happy about it, yet you’re doing precisely the same thing on this thread via your ad hominem attack on me instead of discussing the **very real** issues I bring up (no, nothing has been “made up” or “imagined”). Incidentally, I defended you in that thread, which is why I remembered it…I despise the use of ad hominem attacks when one is trying to have an intelligent discussion about important issues.
http://piggington.com/ot_life_changing_magic_tidying_japanese_art_decluttering?page=2
Based on your logic, if a gay man experienced homophobia during childhood, even from his parents, he is rendered less capable of accurately identifying homophobic beliefs, behaviors, and remarks than someone who is not gay. Does this make any sense to you? Would you really dare to say that to a gay man?
Let’s take an example of a mixed-race man (black-white) whose white mother told him throughout his childhood that she would have preferred that he were white. Would he be less capable of accurately identifying racist beliefs, behaviors, and remarks than someone who is 100% white? Would you dare to announce your superior “racism-spotting” skills to him?
Please answer honestly and explain why you think you would know more about racism or homophobia than they would.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]male power and dominance reaches its apotheosis in current policing techniques and power. this article about officer holtzclaw and his getting away with raping vulnerable female arrestees/drug addicts kinda sums up the carte blance cops get:
http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a49050/daniel-holtzclaw-trial-oklahoma/
I think your feeling that the police are our friends, and get a lot of leeway to exercise their testosterone filled rages on alleged perps, is simply buying into, perhaps unconsciously, the dominant male hold on control of women in our society. cops = male power = sexism at its very worst.[/quote]
I had spent some time reading about that case in the past, but didn’t know that he was acquitted. It doesn’t mention that in the piece that you’ve linked, either.
Clearly, this man is a violent criminal. As with any other violent criminal, he belongs behind bars, possibly for life, IMHO. He is a criminal in character, not a cop — just speaking of character here, not official designation. I do know how to distinguish between the two, while admitting that there are also some grey areas.
In a discussion of this case, this blogger, and some of the excellent commenters, do a good job of showing how sexism is often considered subordinate to racism.
http://www.forharriet.com/2014/09/a-painful-silence-what-daniel-holtzclaw.html
————
But I’m sure that the opinions of these bloggers and commenters won’t count since they’ve actually experienced sexism and racism, thus whatever they see as sexist or racist is clearly just “imagined.” People who have never personally experienced sexism or racism are far more capable of opining about it, as ZK has repeatedly pointed out to us.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]Feminist sup CT j. Sotomayor rails against police culture of violence.
Question…what percent of cops are men?
Why do you think men will protect you? Just because they have a badge and a cool uniform? Accepting police brutality in the name of community safety sounds a lot like buying into males as protectors, when about 90 perc. Of cops are mrn. And I’m pretty sure the vast majority of cop brutality is perpetrated by msles.[/quote]
I’m strongly opposed to police brutality and abuse of power, but I’m even more strongly opposed to criminals who commit crimes against innocent people (yes, even property crimes). My stance on crime comes from personal interactions with criminals — of note, 100% of the offenders were males. If you want to talk about a culture of violence, you need to address the fact that ~90% of serious violent crimes (rape, homicide, etc.) are committed by males. My own personal bias is to lock up every violent criminal for life, particularly those who commit crimes against innocent or unknown victims.
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2221
Why do women want men to protect them? Because men are generally more capable of providing protection due to their generally larger size, greater strength, and more aggressive personality. This is especially true if women are not allowed to arm themselves.
I cannot express enough how differently people behave around a woman who is escorted by a man (especially a larger man) vs. a woman who is alone. I’m sure that most women will attest to having been catcalled by large groups of men (at a minimum), groped, aggressively cornered, molested, raped, etc. at some point in their lives, often by men who are decades older than the victims. Some females have been exposed to many violent/sexually violent situations by the time she is twenty years old. These offenses very rarely occur when women are being escorted by men (this assumes that the escort is a trustworthy male since it’s not terribly uncommon for the escort to become the perpetrator).
All too often, these offenses occur at a very young age (<18 years old), and these exposures to sexually violent men tend to cluster in a girl's youth, when they are ~13-20 years old -- and the younger ones are most definitely understated in official statistics, for obvious reasons. These exposures to violent/sexually violent men at an early age make females feel physically vulnerable where violent men are concerned, and certainly cause women to seek out men who are capable of protecting them from these threats. The age/size differential for young girls who are victimized by older/larger males adds to the perception that men are more powerful, both as a potential threat and as a potential protector.
This is why men who are tall, muscular, and selectively aggressive are sought out by many women. It’s also why so many women end up in abusive situations, because they have a difficult time discerning between those who can protect them from danger and those who are a danger…because these different types of males often share the same traits.
This is why cops and criminals often share the same traits, too. Those who are in charge of selecting law enforcement recruits sometimes have a difficult time discerning between the strong, unafraid, aggressive “good guy” and the strong, unafraid, aggressive “bad guy.” Cops and criminals often share the very same traits, by default.
————————-
“Children
15% of sexual assault and rape victims are under age 12.3
29% are age 12-17.
44% are under age 18.3
80% are under age 30.3
12-34 are the highest risk years.
Girls ages 16-19 are 4 times more likely than the general population to be victims of rape, attempted rape, or sexual assault.”https://rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims
Participant[quote=njtosd][quote=scaredyclassic]Microrwaves. A quick pass with a swiffer. I see minivans with families scaring McDonald’s in temecula. Day care. I’m not sure it’s worth much in general, just to the right buyer. Limited market.
Men also a net loss.
We aren’t selecting for attributes actively. Just letting the market work. If people have no value, womens,work has no value. If you can afford children by all means, have thrm.
It’s just most people really barely csn.[/quote]
You all need to study evolutionary biology. For instance, if we assume a stock market to which two groups by definition contribute equally, would you ever say one or the other groups is more powerful? Now assume the stock market is the next generation – half the genes come from men and half from women. For every one Ghengis Khan (who had <10,000 offspring), there are all kinds of guys who got none. Women are much more constant in terms of their contribution (hence the relative lack of worry about being a "real woman" etc.). Each gender has evolved different strategies to maximize their representation in future generations. But neither (as a group) can be more powerful.[/quote]
But there's a difference between contributing equally, and extracting the profits equally. Even if both groups contributed equally, it's entirely possible that one group extracts a greater portion of the benefits. Credit isn't always given where it's due (one could argue that credit is often misattributed).
As to power, in our global society, those who control resources, currencies, and the benefits and capital derived from those resources have the ultimate power. Laws and traditions, going back thousands of years (often justified by religious dogma), were specifically designed to ensure that one group would benefit disproportionately from our social, political, and economic structures. One might wonder whether or not this was the sole original purpose of established religion.
ParticipantGood poem.
There is certainly an optimum level of loving/caring, but it probably differs from one parent to another, and one child to another.
Some children thrive, even in the absence of parental love. But some grow cold and become evil psychopaths because of the lack of parental love.
Of course, the opposite can be said, too.
Should we all just throw them out into the world at the age of two and expect them to figure it all out for themselves?
I think we both tend to lean toward the unschooling philosophy; you’re just a bit more extreme about it than I am.
ParticipantIf we’re talking about value, what’s the value of someone who creates a new social media app? Angry Birds? Is there value in electronic games, or isn’t that really a destructive innovation that should have negative value?
How do we value things, and why? Is it rational? Do we value things more highly if they give us temporary pleasure, or do we value things more highly if the provide a greater benefit to society? Capitalism has some major drawbacks in this respect, but how else should we value things?
-
AuthorPosts
