|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 09 2015 21:12 farvacola wrote:
I think the George Soros angle makes a lot of sense but it's still a bit tin foiley. In any case, I now have little choice other than to regard BLM as a group of belligerents. That's too bad.
It's well known that Soros has funded a lot bad shit - especially revolutions around the world to spread dissent, chaos, and be a fertile ground for him to reap the benefits afterwards. The consciousness of America doesn't last longer than 6 months, so I doubt any of you guys remember all his crazy antics in Ukraine or Georgia. As for the tin foiley, stuff, that's hilarious coming from the Kochs are everywhere, even under your bed faction. :p
|
On August 10 2015 02:00 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2015 01:55 Slaughter wrote:On August 10 2015 01:47 cLutZ wrote:On August 10 2015 00:03 kwizach wrote:On August 09 2015 10:11 cLutZ wrote:On August 09 2015 09:34 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
So they disrupt the one candidate who marched with MLK, protested segregated housing? There were a lot of people debating "PC" earlier. The Black Lives Matter movement is a perfect example of why PC has nothing to do with respect or being an asshole. Those people are clearly assholes and/or not showing respect, but calling them on it is not PC, but what they are doing is PC. Moreover, if you point to stats/etc that don't back up their and/or contradict their movement, that is also not PC. That its a one way street is a hallmark of PC-ness. I'd contrast that with something like "Gamergate" (which I don't know much about substantively), where media basically wholeheartedly accepted the narrative of one side, and probably due to ignorance of the internet, basically smeared the whole movement due to a few Twitter threats and a doxxing. Things that happen to people like Thorin, Liquid112, etc all the time, and they take steps to avoid it (which these victims did not, and possibly intentionally did not). This has literally nothing to do with political correctness. If that it what you think, then it's clear why many people on the left don't think political correctness is a problem. PC has gone too far at times but is it really that big of a problem? Considering anyone who gets shit for saying something non-pc has about just as many supporters as critics? If you investigated, at all, its effect on deterring important social science studies from even being conducted, you would not say this.
Any examples or evidence? Or are you just going to throw that out there without any back up? You are talking to a social scientist btw (albeit one who focuses on biology).
|
Republican presidential hopeful Carly Fiorina said Sunday that she would oppose a government requirement to give workers in the private sector paid maternity or paternity leave.
"I don't think it's the role of government to dictate to the private sector how to manage their businesses," Fiorina told Jake Tapper on CNN's "State of the Union." "For the government to tell others how to do things, when the government hasn't gotten its basic house in order, is not only ineffective, it's hypocritical."
Unlike most other developed countries, the U.S. has no law guaranteeing paid leave for workers who just had a child. The Family and Medical Leave Act guarantees up to 12 weeks of unpaid time off for qualifying workers, but it's up to employers whether or not any paid time is included.
Low-income workers are significantly less likely to get paid leave than their higher-income counterparts, and many Americans -- women in particular -- support the idea of a government mandate.
Fiorina, a former chief executive of Hewlett-Packard, said the decision should be left to employers. She pointed to the recent announcement by Netflix that the company would be providing up to a year of paid parental leave to argue that businesses know what's best for themselves. (Notably, the lower-paid workers who handle Netflix DVDs are not included in the company's expanded paid leave program.)
"When I was chief executive of Hewlett-Packard, we also offered paid maternity leave and paid paternity leave," she said. "It's pretty clear that the private sector, like Netflix, is doing the right thing because they know it helps them attract the right talent."
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 39 percent of U.S. private-sector workers do not have access to any paid sick days. Among the top 10 percent of wage earners, 86 percent have paid sick leave, while among the bottom 10 percent, only 22 percent do.
Source
|
On August 10 2015 02:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Republican presidential hopeful Carly Fiorina said Sunday that she would oppose a government requirement to give workers in the private sector paid maternity or paternity leave.
"I don't think it's the role of government to dictate to the private sector how to manage their businesses," Fiorina told Jake Tapper on CNN's "State of the Union." "For the government to tell others how to do things, when the government hasn't gotten its basic house in order, is not only ineffective, it's hypocritical."
Unlike most other developed countries, the U.S. has no law guaranteeing paid leave for workers who just had a child. The Family and Medical Leave Act guarantees up to 12 weeks of unpaid time off for qualifying workers, but it's up to employers whether or not any paid time is included.
Low-income workers are significantly less likely to get paid leave than their higher-income counterparts, and many Americans -- women in particular -- support the idea of a government mandate.
Fiorina, a former chief executive of Hewlett-Packard, said the decision should be left to employers. She pointed to the recent announcement by Netflix that the company would be providing up to a year of paid parental leave to argue that businesses know what's best for themselves. (Notably, the lower-paid workers who handle Netflix DVDs are not included in the company's expanded paid leave program.)
"When I was chief executive of Hewlett-Packard, we also offered paid maternity leave and paid paternity leave," she said. "It's pretty clear that the private sector, like Netflix, is doing the right thing because they know it helps them attract the right talent."
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 39 percent of U.S. private-sector workers do not have access to any paid sick days. Among the top 10 percent of wage earners, 86 percent have paid sick leave, while among the bottom 10 percent, only 22 percent do. Source
"Netflix is clearly doing the right thing by denying paid leave to poor people, because fuck em"
Oh Republicans...
|
On August 10 2015 02:36 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2015 02:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Republican presidential hopeful Carly Fiorina said Sunday that she would oppose a government requirement to give workers in the private sector paid maternity or paternity leave.
"I don't think it's the role of government to dictate to the private sector how to manage their businesses," Fiorina told Jake Tapper on CNN's "State of the Union." "For the government to tell others how to do things, when the government hasn't gotten its basic house in order, is not only ineffective, it's hypocritical."
Unlike most other developed countries, the U.S. has no law guaranteeing paid leave for workers who just had a child. The Family and Medical Leave Act guarantees up to 12 weeks of unpaid time off for qualifying workers, but it's up to employers whether or not any paid time is included.
Low-income workers are significantly less likely to get paid leave than their higher-income counterparts, and many Americans -- women in particular -- support the idea of a government mandate.
Fiorina, a former chief executive of Hewlett-Packard, said the decision should be left to employers. She pointed to the recent announcement by Netflix that the company would be providing up to a year of paid parental leave to argue that businesses know what's best for themselves. (Notably, the lower-paid workers who handle Netflix DVDs are not included in the company's expanded paid leave program.)
"When I was chief executive of Hewlett-Packard, we also offered paid maternity leave and paid paternity leave," she said. "It's pretty clear that the private sector, like Netflix, is doing the right thing because they know it helps them attract the right talent."
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 39 percent of U.S. private-sector workers do not have access to any paid sick days. Among the top 10 percent of wage earners, 86 percent have paid sick leave, while among the bottom 10 percent, only 22 percent do. Source "Netflix is clearly doing the right thing by denying paid leave to poor people, because fuck em" Oh Republicans...
The reverse actually. Netflix offers paid maternity leave therefore there is no reason for the government to enforce it... ignoring the vast majority of companies who don't give paid sick leave.
|
Isn't the US one of something like only two countries in the world that don't have a law for paid maternity leave?
|
On August 10 2015 02:44 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2015 02:36 Gorsameth wrote:On August 10 2015 02:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Republican presidential hopeful Carly Fiorina said Sunday that she would oppose a government requirement to give workers in the private sector paid maternity or paternity leave.
"I don't think it's the role of government to dictate to the private sector how to manage their businesses," Fiorina told Jake Tapper on CNN's "State of the Union." "For the government to tell others how to do things, when the government hasn't gotten its basic house in order, is not only ineffective, it's hypocritical."
Unlike most other developed countries, the U.S. has no law guaranteeing paid leave for workers who just had a child. The Family and Medical Leave Act guarantees up to 12 weeks of unpaid time off for qualifying workers, but it's up to employers whether or not any paid time is included.
Low-income workers are significantly less likely to get paid leave than their higher-income counterparts, and many Americans -- women in particular -- support the idea of a government mandate.
Fiorina, a former chief executive of Hewlett-Packard, said the decision should be left to employers. She pointed to the recent announcement by Netflix that the company would be providing up to a year of paid parental leave to argue that businesses know what's best for themselves. (Notably, the lower-paid workers who handle Netflix DVDs are not included in the company's expanded paid leave program.)
"When I was chief executive of Hewlett-Packard, we also offered paid maternity leave and paid paternity leave," she said. "It's pretty clear that the private sector, like Netflix, is doing the right thing because they know it helps them attract the right talent."
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 39 percent of U.S. private-sector workers do not have access to any paid sick days. Among the top 10 percent of wage earners, 86 percent have paid sick leave, while among the bottom 10 percent, only 22 percent do. Source "Netflix is clearly doing the right thing by denying paid leave to poor people, because fuck em" Oh Republicans... The reverse actually. Netflix offers paid maternity leave therefore there is no reason for the government to enforce it... ignoring the vast majority of companies who don't give paid sick leave.
Except for that little extra info added (Notably, the lower-paid workers who handle Netflix DVDs are not included in the company's expanded paid leave program.)
So the well payed people who can afford to take unpaid leave get it, but those who actually need paid leave are left without.
|
On August 10 2015 02:05 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2015 02:00 cLutZ wrote:On August 10 2015 01:55 Slaughter wrote:On August 10 2015 01:47 cLutZ wrote:On August 10 2015 00:03 kwizach wrote:On August 09 2015 10:11 cLutZ wrote:On August 09 2015 09:34 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
So they disrupt the one candidate who marched with MLK, protested segregated housing? There were a lot of people debating "PC" earlier. The Black Lives Matter movement is a perfect example of why PC has nothing to do with respect or being an asshole. Those people are clearly assholes and/or not showing respect, but calling them on it is not PC, but what they are doing is PC. Moreover, if you point to stats/etc that don't back up their and/or contradict their movement, that is also not PC. That its a one way street is a hallmark of PC-ness. I'd contrast that with something like "Gamergate" (which I don't know much about substantively), where media basically wholeheartedly accepted the narrative of one side, and probably due to ignorance of the internet, basically smeared the whole movement due to a few Twitter threats and a doxxing. Things that happen to people like Thorin, Liquid112, etc all the time, and they take steps to avoid it (which these victims did not, and possibly intentionally did not). This has literally nothing to do with political correctness. If that it what you think, then it's clear why many people on the left don't think political correctness is a problem. PC has gone too far at times but is it really that big of a problem? Considering anyone who gets shit for saying something non-pc has about just as many supporters as critics? If you investigated, at all, its effect on deterring important social science studies from even being conducted, you would not say this. Any examples or evidence? Or are you just going to throw that out there without any back up? You are talking to a social scientist btw (albeit one who focuses on biology).
Sure, for a start, I'll just illustrate the general climate: In the University of California system, they openly flout the California Constitution in order to implement racial preferences. See, e.g. http://timgroseclose.wpengine.com/about-cheating-an-insiders-report/
Here is a more wide-ranging document about various related subjects.
This guys's curious case study. No comment on if he actually is an idiot or not.
A few more studies (sorry if you are paywalled). One Two Three
Once again, more generally, I find academia's answers to PC questions often lacking. 20 years since The Bell Curve came out, and very little research trying to replicate its results. Or effective treatments for transgenderism (is that the right word) other than transition (not saying I know the answer, because there is no research). Very few studies on Male-Female differences. And whenever something like that comes out, its rhetorically shouted down, and then they rarely try to replicate the results.
Edit. Also this thread, where only non-pc people are asked for sources :p
On August 10 2015 02:59 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2015 01:47 cLutZ wrote:On August 10 2015 00:03 kwizach wrote:On August 09 2015 10:11 cLutZ wrote:On August 09 2015 09:34 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
So they disrupt the one candidate who marched with MLK, protested segregated housing? There were a lot of people debating "PC" earlier. The Black Lives Matter movement is a perfect example of why PC has nothing to do with respect or being an asshole. Those people are clearly assholes and/or not showing respect, but calling them on it is not PC, but what they are doing is PC. Moreover, if you point to stats/etc that don't back up their and/or contradict their movement, that is also not PC. That its a one way street is a hallmark of PC-ness. I'd contrast that with something like "Gamergate" (which I don't know much about substantively), where media basically wholeheartedly accepted the narrative of one side, and probably due to ignorance of the internet, basically smeared the whole movement due to a few Twitter threats and a doxxing. Things that happen to people like Thorin, Liquid112, etc all the time, and they take steps to avoid it (which these victims did not, and possibly intentionally did not). This has literally nothing to do with political correctness. If that it what you think, then it's clear why many people on the left don't think political correctness is a problem. Political correctness has nothing to do with what happened with the two BLM activists at the Sanders rally. Thorin got called out for racist statements not because of political correctness but because he made racist statements.
I was talking about how Thorin has been DDOSed, Doxxed, and actively takes steps to avoid such things. And that this happens to a few female journalists means absolutely nothing (but the highly biased and ignorant press eats it up).
|
On August 10 2015 01:47 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2015 00:03 kwizach wrote:On August 09 2015 10:11 cLutZ wrote:On August 09 2015 09:34 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
So they disrupt the one candidate who marched with MLK, protested segregated housing? There were a lot of people debating "PC" earlier. The Black Lives Matter movement is a perfect example of why PC has nothing to do with respect or being an asshole. Those people are clearly assholes and/or not showing respect, but calling them on it is not PC, but what they are doing is PC. Moreover, if you point to stats/etc that don't back up their and/or contradict their movement, that is also not PC. That its a one way street is a hallmark of PC-ness. I'd contrast that with something like "Gamergate" (which I don't know much about substantively), where media basically wholeheartedly accepted the narrative of one side, and probably due to ignorance of the internet, basically smeared the whole movement due to a few Twitter threats and a doxxing. Things that happen to people like Thorin, Liquid112, etc all the time, and they take steps to avoid it (which these victims did not, and possibly intentionally did not). This has literally nothing to do with political correctness. If that it what you think, then it's clear why many people on the left don't think political correctness is a problem.
Political correctness has nothing to do with what happened with the two BLM activists at the Sanders rally. Thorin got called out for racist statements not because of political correctness but because he made racist statements.
|
United States42782 Posts
On August 10 2015 02:44 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2015 02:36 Gorsameth wrote:On August 10 2015 02:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Republican presidential hopeful Carly Fiorina said Sunday that she would oppose a government requirement to give workers in the private sector paid maternity or paternity leave.
"I don't think it's the role of government to dictate to the private sector how to manage their businesses," Fiorina told Jake Tapper on CNN's "State of the Union." "For the government to tell others how to do things, when the government hasn't gotten its basic house in order, is not only ineffective, it's hypocritical."
Unlike most other developed countries, the U.S. has no law guaranteeing paid leave for workers who just had a child. The Family and Medical Leave Act guarantees up to 12 weeks of unpaid time off for qualifying workers, but it's up to employers whether or not any paid time is included.
Low-income workers are significantly less likely to get paid leave than their higher-income counterparts, and many Americans -- women in particular -- support the idea of a government mandate.
Fiorina, a former chief executive of Hewlett-Packard, said the decision should be left to employers. She pointed to the recent announcement by Netflix that the company would be providing up to a year of paid parental leave to argue that businesses know what's best for themselves. (Notably, the lower-paid workers who handle Netflix DVDs are not included in the company's expanded paid leave program.)
"When I was chief executive of Hewlett-Packard, we also offered paid maternity leave and paid paternity leave," she said. "It's pretty clear that the private sector, like Netflix, is doing the right thing because they know it helps them attract the right talent."
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 39 percent of U.S. private-sector workers do not have access to any paid sick days. Among the top 10 percent of wage earners, 86 percent have paid sick leave, while among the bottom 10 percent, only 22 percent do. Source "Netflix is clearly doing the right thing by denying paid leave to poor people, because fuck em" Oh Republicans... The reverse actually. Netflix offers paid maternity leave therefore there is no reason for the government to enforce it... ignoring the vast majority of companies who don't give paid sick leave.
You didn't read the article. Netflix excluded its lowest paid workers from paid maternity leave.
The assumption that paid maternity leave is an optional incentive to give to highly qualified workers, rather than something that families which just had a child need to survive, is pretty crazy. She's agreeing that it's very important and that's why she hopes that the people who need it least are able to earn it as a reward.
|
On August 10 2015 02:47 Saryph wrote:
Isn't the US one of something like only two countries in the world that don't have a law for paid maternity leave?
Maternity leave isn't really the problem. Yes, it's bad. But the key thing our society needs is equal and generous paternity leave, so that there is no longer a legitimate fiscal case against hiring women. It would encourage men to participate in childcare and help reduce the wage gap. Note, I'm not talking about whatever argument people want to have about "equal pay for equal work;" I'm talking about getting men and women to do more equal amounts of paying (and high-paying) work.
|
If paid leave for maternity/paternity is a social good, why not have the government pay for it? If its not a social good then the whole issue would be moot of course, as there would be no reason to mandate it at all.
It seems to me that requiring private companies to do it creates irregular incentives, and that it would be more straightforward to have the government do it.
|
On August 10 2015 03:36 zlefin wrote:
If paid leave for maternity/paternity is a social good, why not have the government pay for it? If its not a social good then the whole issue would be moot of course, as there would be no reason to mandate it at all.
It seems to me that requiring private companies to do it creates irregular incentives, and that it would be more straightforward to have the government do it.
Yes. Its basically a tax that the government doesn't want people to be able to blame them for.
|
On August 10 2015 02:59 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2015 02:05 Slaughter wrote:On August 10 2015 02:00 cLutZ wrote:On August 10 2015 01:55 Slaughter wrote:On August 10 2015 01:47 cLutZ wrote:On August 10 2015 00:03 kwizach wrote:On August 09 2015 10:11 cLutZ wrote:On August 09 2015 09:34 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
So they disrupt the one candidate who marched with MLK, protested segregated housing? There were a lot of people debating "PC" earlier. The Black Lives Matter movement is a perfect example of why PC has nothing to do with respect or being an asshole. Those people are clearly assholes and/or not showing respect, but calling them on it is not PC, but what they are doing is PC. Moreover, if you point to stats/etc that don't back up their and/or contradict their movement, that is also not PC. That its a one way street is a hallmark of PC-ness. I'd contrast that with something like "Gamergate" (which I don't know much about substantively), where media basically wholeheartedly accepted the narrative of one side, and probably due to ignorance of the internet, basically smeared the whole movement due to a few Twitter threats and a doxxing. Things that happen to people like Thorin, Liquid112, etc all the time, and they take steps to avoid it (which these victims did not, and possibly intentionally did not). This has literally nothing to do with political correctness. If that it what you think, then it's clear why many people on the left don't think political correctness is a problem. PC has gone too far at times but is it really that big of a problem? Considering anyone who gets shit for saying something non-pc has about just as many supporters as critics? If you investigated, at all, its effect on deterring important social science studies from even being conducted, you would not say this. Any examples or evidence? Or are you just going to throw that out there without any back up? You are talking to a social scientist btw (albeit one who focuses on biology). Sure, for a start, I'll just illustrate the general climate: In the University of California system, they openly flout the California Constitution in order to implement racial preferences. See, e.g. http://timgroseclose.wpengine.com/about-cheating-an-insiders-report/Here is a more wide-ranging document about various related subjects. This guys's curious case study. No comment on if he actually is an idiot or not. A few more studies (sorry if you are paywalled). One Two ThreeOnce again, more generally, I find academia's answers to PC questions often lacking. 20 years since The Bell Curve came out, and very little research trying to replicate its results. Or effective treatments for transgenderism (is that the right word) other than transition (not saying I know the answer, because there is no research). Very few studies on Male-Female differences. And whenever something like that comes out, its rhetorically shouted down, and then they rarely try to replicate the results. Edit. Also this thread, where only non-pc people are asked for sources :p Show nested quote +On August 10 2015 02:59 kwizach wrote:On August 10 2015 01:47 cLutZ wrote:On August 10 2015 00:03 kwizach wrote:On August 09 2015 10:11 cLutZ wrote:On August 09 2015 09:34 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
So they disrupt the one candidate who marched with MLK, protested segregated housing? There were a lot of people debating "PC" earlier. The Black Lives Matter movement is a perfect example of why PC has nothing to do with respect or being an asshole. Those people are clearly assholes and/or not showing respect, but calling them on it is not PC, but what they are doing is PC. Moreover, if you point to stats/etc that don't back up their and/or contradict their movement, that is also not PC. That its a one way street is a hallmark of PC-ness. I'd contrast that with something like "Gamergate" (which I don't know much about substantively), where media basically wholeheartedly accepted the narrative of one side, and probably due to ignorance of the internet, basically smeared the whole movement due to a few Twitter threats and a doxxing. Things that happen to people like Thorin, Liquid112, etc all the time, and they take steps to avoid it (which these victims did not, and possibly intentionally did not). This has literally nothing to do with political correctness. If that it what you think, then it's clear why many people on the left don't think political correctness is a problem. Political correctness has nothing to do with what happened with the two BLM activists at the Sanders rally. Thorin got called out for racist statements not because of political correctness but because he made racist statements. I was talking about how Thorin has been DDOSed, Doxxed, and actively takes steps to avoid such things. And that this happens to a few female journalists means absolutely nothing (but the highly biased and ignorant press eats it up).
I will take a look at that book you linked so thanks for that. But I fail to see how what you posted really backs up your assertion that PC culture has greatly hindered social research to the extremely large degree that you are asserting. You open with racially biased admission policies for undergrads, that is peripherally related at best. University's doing things like that to meet some desired race quotas doesn't mean that they are also pressuring their faculty to only do "PC Science" The Bell Curve? (IE racial differences) has been done to death so I don't know what you are talking about. Race as a biological concept has had a metric shit ton of stuff done on it. The vast majority of researchers working on human diversity have dropped the race model anyway as being a terrible, overly simplistic, and flat out inaccurate way to view human variation so why you are even bringing up an old book which was found to have its fair share of flaws in both its core assumptions and some of its methodologies is strange. There are many books on human diversity out there, the most recent being "The Myth of Race: The Troubling Persistence of an Unscientific Idea".
As for men and women differences, that too is an active area of research and yea you will see some studies get roasted from time to time but for the most part those studies are the ones that get media coverage because they are trying to be bold with their assertions (like trying to show that men are more prone to violence) and often they fail to control for all the variables and over interpret their results or other such failures. There is plenty of stuff out there on various differences between the sexes. Perhaps it is an area that more people should look into? But even as someone who doesn't look directly into that literature and academic circiles I see research popping up covering that type of research fairly regularly.
I don't know about biological studies surrounding transgenderism but there is a lot of stuff from the psych and identity side of things. I am not even sure if that is something the trans community is even interested in? I really don't know that area of research so I can't even comment about it.
But the overall point is just because you don't know about them doesn't mean they don't exist. Media representation of what is going on in science is pretty shit and most people don't have endless time (and are blocked by pay walls) to search all the journals where these topics may come up. Science itself has actually dropped the ball super hard in this area of effectively communicating what it has found and what it means to the public. I just don't buy that PC culture has significantly hampered social science research. Does it have an effect? Yes of course because all humans are influenced by their personal views and scientists can never be 100% objective. But your assertion goes to far in how much influence it has had.
|
On August 10 2015 04:21 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2015 02:59 cLutZ wrote:On August 10 2015 02:05 Slaughter wrote:On August 10 2015 02:00 cLutZ wrote:On August 10 2015 01:55 Slaughter wrote:On August 10 2015 01:47 cLutZ wrote:On August 10 2015 00:03 kwizach wrote:On August 09 2015 10:11 cLutZ wrote:On August 09 2015 09:34 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
So they disrupt the one candidate who marched with MLK, protested segregated housing? There were a lot of people debating "PC" earlier. The Black Lives Matter movement is a perfect example of why PC has nothing to do with respect or being an asshole. Those people are clearly assholes and/or not showing respect, but calling them on it is not PC, but what they are doing is PC. Moreover, if you point to stats/etc that don't back up their and/or contradict their movement, that is also not PC. That its a one way street is a hallmark of PC-ness. I'd contrast that with something like "Gamergate" (which I don't know much about substantively), where media basically wholeheartedly accepted the narrative of one side, and probably due to ignorance of the internet, basically smeared the whole movement due to a few Twitter threats and a doxxing. Things that happen to people like Thorin, Liquid112, etc all the time, and they take steps to avoid it (which these victims did not, and possibly intentionally did not). This has literally nothing to do with political correctness. If that it what you think, then it's clear why many people on the left don't think political correctness is a problem. PC has gone too far at times but is it really that big of a problem? Considering anyone who gets shit for saying something non-pc has about just as many supporters as critics? If you investigated, at all, its effect on deterring important social science studies from even being conducted, you would not say this. Any examples or evidence? Or are you just going to throw that out there without any back up? You are talking to a social scientist btw (albeit one who focuses on biology). Sure, for a start, I'll just illustrate the general climate: In the University of California system, they openly flout the California Constitution in order to implement racial preferences. See, e.g. http://timgroseclose.wpengine.com/about-cheating-an-insiders-report/Here is a more wide-ranging document about various related subjects. This guys's curious case study. No comment on if he actually is an idiot or not. A few more studies (sorry if you are paywalled). One Two ThreeOnce again, more generally, I find academia's answers to PC questions often lacking. 20 years since The Bell Curve came out, and very little research trying to replicate its results. Or effective treatments for transgenderism (is that the right word) other than transition (not saying I know the answer, because there is no research). Very few studies on Male-Female differences. And whenever something like that comes out, its rhetorically shouted down, and then they rarely try to replicate the results. Edit. Also this thread, where only non-pc people are asked for sources :p On August 10 2015 02:59 kwizach wrote:On August 10 2015 01:47 cLutZ wrote:On August 10 2015 00:03 kwizach wrote:On August 09 2015 10:11 cLutZ wrote:On August 09 2015 09:34 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
So they disrupt the one candidate who marched with MLK, protested segregated housing? There were a lot of people debating "PC" earlier. The Black Lives Matter movement is a perfect example of why PC has nothing to do with respect or being an asshole. Those people are clearly assholes and/or not showing respect, but calling them on it is not PC, but what they are doing is PC. Moreover, if you point to stats/etc that don't back up their and/or contradict their movement, that is also not PC. That its a one way street is a hallmark of PC-ness. I'd contrast that with something like "Gamergate" (which I don't know much about substantively), where media basically wholeheartedly accepted the narrative of one side, and probably due to ignorance of the internet, basically smeared the whole movement due to a few Twitter threats and a doxxing. Things that happen to people like Thorin, Liquid112, etc all the time, and they take steps to avoid it (which these victims did not, and possibly intentionally did not). This has literally nothing to do with political correctness. If that it what you think, then it's clear why many people on the left don't think political correctness is a problem. Political correctness has nothing to do with what happened with the two BLM activists at the Sanders rally. Thorin got called out for racist statements not because of political correctness but because he made racist statements. I was talking about how Thorin has been DDOSed, Doxxed, and actively takes steps to avoid such things. And that this happens to a few female journalists means absolutely nothing (but the highly biased and ignorant press eats it up). I don't know about biological studies surrounding transgenderism but there is a lot of stuff from the psych and identity side of things. I am not even sure if that is something the trans community is even interested in? I really don't know that area of research so I can't even comment about it.
Depends on the results. If the studies ended by saying being transgender was a disorder of some sort, I'm sure they'd be against it. If it supported them I'm sure they'd try to bring focus to it in order to justify themselves.
Honestly, a big part of being trans seems to revolve around others accepting their identity more so than most people care. Their gender is a huge part of their identity, so any research denying it or supporting it should matter greatly to them.
|
Norway28674 Posts
Clutz, as a teacher currently looking for jobs in an extremely PC environment, I can certainly sympathize with part of your qualm. That is, that discussion is effectively silenced on some important topics because potential debaters are afraid to engage. I've felt it myself, through wanting to engage in a drug legalization debate, but it's just a topic that I can't even touch with pincers under my real name, because I know that I will be googled and I assume that a pro-legalization stance will be something that makes me more or less ineligible for a teacher job. Luckily internet discussions where I don't use my real name allow me to get my discussion-fix anyway. 
But then, I really have a problem with some of your examples. I operate under the assumption that you are opposed to political correctness within academia because you feel that society would benefit from the knowledge we could establish if not for the crutch of PC holding us back, right? The most glaring one is your mention of the Bell Curve as something that is under-researched.
Firstly, I really disagree with the notion that it's under-researched. My impression is that it's one of the most thoroughly discredited books ever written, and that spending more time doing so is extremely wasteful. But secondly, why would the establishment of different IQ's for different races and IQ being the prime determiner of future societal success be a positive? This type of thinking would, historically, be nothing but an enabler for the continued or increased discrimination based on race/ethnicity and an enabler for increased societal stratification (if social structures are the reason for societal stratification they can be changed, if IQ is the prime issue then not so much). I guess I can get the 'but if IQ is the prime issue then changing societal structures in an attempt to alleviate societal stratification is a futile endeavor' argument - however that still doesn't factor in how the (important) racial component of the book. My honest impression is that those who like this book are entirely dishonest in their reasons for doing so, and when I hear it mentioned in non-pejorative ways, it's an instant huge red flag.
Same with your 'how to treat transgenderism' - this is not considered an important subject to study because treatment is not considered desirable - acceptance and tolerance is. Same with studies of how males and females differ- they're not important to study because if findings are made, they are made with the purpose of limiting behavior favored by individuals within either gender. (Findings that showcase women as superior caretakers make it harder for men to be caring parents, just the way findings that showcase men as superior 'workers' (in whatever capacity) make it harder for women to choose favoring career over family.)
Basically, it's really hard for me to not sound annoyingly politically correct when I'm calling you out on this, because my honest impression is that you have selected these issues as under-researched because they all fit into the mold of either hindering further progress or reverting made progress within the fields of making minorities and women considered fully abled individuals rather than limited by their ethnicity or gender.
|
Norway28674 Posts
And I mean, I'm not really arguing for deliberate ignorance, even though I can see how my second to last paragraph would make it seem that way. (But I don't feel like editing that post now as someone might be in the process of answering it for all I know ) It's just that I feel like within social sciences, as they are such interpretive sciences (and for most social science subjects attempting to establish objective knowledge is futile to start with), it's possible to interpret or select data in such a way that you can back up many different points of view, and then I don't think we should actively be trying to interpret or select data in such a way that we enable more discrimination and less options for the individual.
|
On August 10 2015 05:06 Liquid`Drone wrote:And I mean, I'm not really arguing for deliberate ignorance, even though I can see how my second to last paragraph would make it seem that way. (But I don't feel like editing that post now as someone might be in the process of answering it for all I know ) It's just that I feel like within social sciences, as they are such interpretive sciences (and for most social science subjects attempting to establish objective knowledge is futile to start with), it's possible to interpret or select data in such a way that you can back up many different points of view, and then I don't think we should actively be trying to interpret or select data in such a way that we enable more discrimination and less options for the individual.
Boooooom.
One reason there have been less studies differentiating between different races/genders is that, for the vast majority of human diversity, most of the diversity happens within groups rather than between them. You can identify and differentiate certain ethnoracial characteristics, just as there are biological differences between males and females, but there's no reason to study it if the assumptions that made such information relevant no longer operate within intellectual discourse.
|
On August 10 2015 00:54 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2015 00:30 Deathstar wrote:On August 09 2015 21:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 09 2015 21:12 farvacola wrote:
I think the George Soros angle makes a lot of sense but it's still a bit tin foiley. In any case, I now have little choice other than to regard BLM as a group of belligerents. That's too bad. It's barely about Sanders. He screwed up at NN15 but that's not really what's got people so pissed. It's his supporters and many other white liberals who simply haven't done enough about some serious issues. Basically Bernie is the best person to make the case those liberals don't want to hear. It's not going to stop unless or until liberals change their behavior. The election will get submarined all together and Republicans will win and it will be liberals own fault for not catching on. That type of language is so obnoxious. It's just finger pointing and it's a sure way to make a bunch of people tune you (Bernie supporters) out. Liberals have done A LOT to help blacks raise themselves up. Blacks aren't some innocent bunch who haven't had opportunities. They're not angels who were wronged by the evil white people. I understand the language of raising capital gain taxes, expanding SS, infrastructure spending, but then the hard core progressives ruin it in with these condescending "grow up america," "we need to have an honest conversation about black people," "you just don't understand how bad black people have it," etc blah blah. And you know what? It's incredibly divisive. We could be united under the progressive platform but then shit like this is thrown around. The funny part is that I have seen this before over and over. A minority group like blacks pushes for the majority group to do more for them. The majority group gets defensive and says "this is divisive and we should be under a common banner," which is effectively dodging the request for more help and political support. It is basically saying "I don't want to listen to your concerns now, I did a lot of stuff before and that should be good enough. Now work with me." And to be very clear, I am white as the driven snow.
At least someone gets it. Now you just have to get the rest of the white liberals to get it also. Otherwise we're all buggered.
|
On August 10 2015 05:06 Liquid`Drone wrote:And I mean, I'm not really arguing for deliberate ignorance, even though I can see how my second to last paragraph would make it seem that way. (But I don't feel like editing that post now as someone might be in the process of answering it for all I know ) It's just that I feel like within social sciences, as they are such interpretive sciences (and for most social science subjects attempting to establish objective knowledge is futile to start with), it's possible to interpret or select data in such a way that you can back up many different points of view, and then I don't think we should actively be trying to interpret or select data in such a way that we enable more discrimination and less options for the individual.
I hope I'm misunderstanding you, but you what you are writing is that we shouldn't do research unless we reach the "correct" conclusions - i.e. those which does not enable more discrimination or gives less options to the individual? I find it very hard to read it any other way, but that is quite possibly because of my personal bias - I always get very nervous when people try to impose limits on scientific studies outside of protection of participants.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
