Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On June 18 2024 15:44 BlackJack wrote: Matt Taibbi made an opening statement and among other things said that Walter Cronkite was twice voted the most trusted man in America and back in the day the mainstream media used to report the story and let the chips fall where they may, whereas now they find out what their viewers want to hear and work backwards to find the story, i.e. Right wing stuff on Fox or Left wing stuff on MSNBC.
Let's bask in the absurdity for a moment. A grown adult made that claim? Out loud?
My father had a saying, "The story's the boss." In the American context, this means that if the facts tell you the Republicans were the villains in a political disaster, then you write it that way. If the facts point more to the Democrats, you write that. If they're both culpable, as was often the case for me when I investigated Wall Street for almost 10 years after the 2008 crash, you write the story that way. We're not supposed to thumb the scale. Our job is just to call things as we see them and leave the rest up to you. We don't do that now. The story is no longer the boss. Instead, we sell narrative in a dysfunctional new business model.
I mean he somewhat nails it on the bolded part anyway, albeit it’s a bit more multifaceted.
Capitalism gonna capitalism and all that.
It becomes a much harder issue to address than to prevent develop too. When there was some kind of shared centre around which most largely pivoted, you can ruffle the odd feather with balanced reportage when you have that general trust.
If you try to pivot back to doing that after years of increasing partisan media that appeals to particular views, well you’re just alienating your partisan audience, obviously not grabbing the other side in trying to appeal to some middle ground that isn’t really there anymore. Setting aside concerns that like most nostalgia it may not necessarily hold up as being something that ever really was as one reminisces.
On June 19 2024 09:31 BlackJack wrote: Remember, it’s not just female vocalist. It’s also female football commentators. Anything else? Perhaps a female general is not going to inspire her troops the way a male general does? Is there some logical difference between commanding troops and calling football plays? Perhaps it only matters to football announcers and rock music because that’s the playground where we don’t want women invading that pertain to our interests?
Not to mention female employees and female presidents!
I agree with your general point about how hard it can be to distinguish between preference and prejudice. Is there a clear distinction that someone can make? Does it have to do with how much harm is being done? How conscious the discrimination is? Does preference become serious prejudice if it's a protected class (sex, race, etc.)? Does prejudice become a mere preference if there's some sort of special justification for it? I honestly have no idea.
Random thought: Are heterosexuality and homosexuality inherently prejudicial? I'm attracted to women, but not men. Is that sexist? It's not like I can be educated out of my sexual preference, or that I have any control over it, but perhaps these definitions of prejudice and preference are too vague to pin down. Perhaps the difference is simply this: "If the perspective is socially, culturally acceptable, then it's merely preference. If it's considered taboo and unethical, then it's serious prejudice."
My point was that preference and discrimination were one in the same. Preference is just a prettier word.
I think there's a lot to your sentence about what is culturally and socially acceptable. We used to follow the MLK standard - strive for a color blind society where people don't treat people different on the color of the skin or other hereditary characteristics. Recently there's been a shift where instead we instead we should discriminate MORE so that we can equal the scales. Too many Asians at this university... let's make it a little harder for them to get in... not enough blacks over here... let's thumb the scale for them a little bit.
I don't really agree with that but whatever. The added layer of obnoxiousness for me is when the SJWs decide that unless you also want to discriminate in the arbitrary ways they see fit then you're the racist, misogynist, or any other -ist. It's madness.
I think there's a clear distinction between areas of our lives that are deeply personal, e.g. entertainment and dating, vs the non-personal ones, e.g. going to the doctor, getting food served, etc. You might prefer female metal singers over male ones, or south American commentators over Spanish ones, or you might be into men with big butts over skinny ones and I think that's perfectly okay. Preferring a male doctor over a female one is not preference, it's prejudice.
I think a clear line is crossed when people say statements like "X minority group has no place in Y because of Z(stereotypical characteristic of X group)", or "X minority group is always inferior because of Y". That's just plain racism/sexism/whatever-ism.
On June 19 2024 09:31 BlackJack wrote: Remember, it’s not just female vocalist. It’s also female football commentators. Anything else? Perhaps a female general is not going to inspire her troops the way a male general does? Is there some logical difference between commanding troops and calling football plays? Perhaps it only matters to football announcers and rock music because that’s the playground where we don’t want women invading that pertain to our interests?
Not to mention female employees and female presidents!
I agree with your general point about how hard it can be to distinguish between preference and prejudice. Is there a clear distinction that someone can make? Does it have to do with how much harm is being done? How conscious the discrimination is? Does preference become serious prejudice if it's a protected class (sex, race, etc.)? Does prejudice become a mere preference if there's some sort of special justification for it? I honestly have no idea.
Random thought: Are heterosexuality and homosexuality inherently prejudicial? I'm attracted to women, but not men. Is that sexist? It's not like I can be educated out of my sexual preference, or that I have any control over it, but perhaps these definitions of prejudice and preference are too vague to pin down. Perhaps the difference is simply this: "If the perspective is socially, culturally acceptable, then it's merely preference. If it's considered taboo and unethical, then it's serious prejudice."
My point was that preference and discrimination were one in the same. Preference is just a prettier word.
I think there's a lot to your sentence about what is culturally and socially acceptable. We used to follow the MLK standard - strive for a color blind society where people don't treat people different on the color of the skin or other hereditary characteristics. Recently there's been a shift where instead we instead we should discriminate MORE so that we can equal the scales. Too many Asians at this university... let's make it a little harder for them to get in... not enough blacks over here... let's thumb the scale for them a little bit.
I think that striving for equality and equity is noble. I also think that our society was created with systems in place that currently make such a thing impossible, and so we can't just ignore them and assume that everything will work out fairly for everyone. It's definitely possible to overcorrect, but recognizing that we have these discrimination problems (even if the solutions still need to be figured out) is the first step to making progress.
I don't really agree with that but whatever. The added layer of obnoxiousness for me is when the SJWs decide that unless you also want to discriminate in the arbitrary ways they see fit then you're the racist, misogynist, or any other -ist. It's madness.
Since the term "SJW" is usually used in regards to those on the left who push identity politics, I just want to additionally point out that the right does it just as much, although perhaps they don't throw around additional phrases like "...and you're sexist/racist if you don't agree with me". Trump keeps saying that Jews are crazy if they vote for Biden because Biden isn't a strong ally of Israel, and that more black people should support Trump because Trump was indicted on charges, and that Mexicans who come into the United States are rapists and criminals (the ultimate irony for Trump to say that), and so on. There's plenty of blame to go around on this.
It looks like Donald Trump's gag order is still in place:
New York’s highest court on Tuesday dismissed former President Donald Trump’s appeal of the gag order in his criminal hush money trial.
The New York Court of Appeals in a brief decision declined to hear Trump’s bid “upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.”
The decision means Trump’s gag order, which bars him from speaking about jurors, witnesses and other parties involved in the Manhattan Supreme Court case, remains in effect.
Trump’s attorneys have also asked Judge Juan Merchan, who presided over the trial, to terminate the gag order because the trial is over.
The Manhattan District Attorney’s office, however, urged Merchan to keep the restrictions in place, at least until after a sentencing hearing is held and certain post-trial motions are resolved.
On June 19 2024 04:08 Sadist wrote: It could be a preference? He didnt say they couldnt hit notes or they were crappy singers. He just said he didnt like the sound of their voices.
How does that work? I "prefer" a white male doctor over a black female doctor. I guess that's okay because it's just a preference?
Preferring one thing over another is what discrimination is. All you did was change the word to feel better. People do this all the time. "I only like to date Asian and White women." A lot of people consider this okay and justify with "It's not racism, it's a preference and preferences are okay." Except it is racism. Excluding someone from your dating field because of their race is racism, period. Using mental gymnastics and synonyms doesn't change that.
There's lots of discrimination all over society that we just accept as normal. Do you know how many couples would not hire a male nanny to look after their young children? Perhaps for good reason. Men are statistically far more likely to sodomize a child than women are. In light of that, hiring a female nanny over a male nanny is a rational thing to do if you want to maximize your children's safety. But that's still quite literally sexism. Just nobody really cares about that form of sexism - which is one of my main beefs with SJWs, the logical inconsistencies and double standards are so profound but they still feel so self-righteous to brow beat everyone that doesn't follow their arbitrary rules.
You are way offbase here. The question in your preference is "why" if you think its because someone is genetically inferior because of their race thats one thing. If you dont like higher/typical feminine voices on songs thats something else. People dont like every male singer.
I think this is a bad faith attempt at a gotcha.
We should also correct the base premise. Someone like Janis Joplin doesn't have a high voice. In fact, if you go with typical categories, someone like Matt Belamy who uses a LOT of falsetto probably has consistently higher pitched vocals than Janis' mezzosoprano. And Garbage singer Shirley Manson has a downright lower range (or at least, uses that part of her voice without grunting) than a LOT of male singers' rock songs. I'll grant you that if you're really into grunted vocals, there is just no way a woman is going to reach the low grunting tones of Kurt Kobain or even James Hetfield. So if you're more a fan of the metal genres with lots of grunting, I could see an argument that women's voices are too high pitched (although there's plenty of males whose grunting are also quite high-pitched, such as Chester Bennington, who is famous for screaming).
So not liking "high" voices could just mean you just don't like stuff like Evanescence, which is totally fair. I don't like that gothy stuff either, but I am not much of a fan of My Chemical Romance either... so it's a genre thing. Yes, a genre where soprano voices have found their calling in rock, but still, a genre.
On June 18 2024 15:44 BlackJack wrote: Matt Taibbi made an opening statement and among other things said that Walter Cronkite was twice voted the most trusted man in America and back in the day the mainstream media used to report the story and let the chips fall where they may, whereas now they find out what their viewers want to hear and work backwards to find the story, i.e. Right wing stuff on Fox or Left wing stuff on MSNBC.
Let's bask in the absurdity for a moment. A grown adult made that claim? Out loud?
Sorry, probably poor paraphrasing on my part. Here's more of a direct quote with some added context
My father had a saying, "The story's the boss." In the American context, this means that if the facts tell you the Republicans were the villains in a political disaster, then you write it that way. If the facts point more to the Democrats, you write that. If they're both culpable, as was often the case for me when I investigated Wall Street for almost 10 years after the 2008 crash, you write the story that way. We're not supposed to thumb the scale. Our job is just to call things as we see them and leave the rest up to you. We don't do that now. The story is no longer the boss. Instead, we sell narrative in a dysfunctional new business model.
I mean he somewhat nails it on the bolded part anyway, albeit it’s a bit more multifaceted.
Capitalism gonna capitalism and all that.
It becomes a much harder issue to address than to prevent develop too. When there was some kind of shared centre around which most largely pivoted, you can ruffle the odd feather with balanced reportage when you have that general trust.
If you try to pivot back to doing that after years of increasing partisan media that appeals to particular views, well you’re just alienating your partisan audience, obviously not grabbing the other side in trying to appeal to some middle ground that isn’t really there anymore. Setting aside concerns that like most nostalgia it may not necessarily hold up as being something that ever really was as one reminisces.
It's wild how clear it is that capitalism degrades the very concept of journalism.
Also on the not so nostalgic part, the Pulitzer is named after a famed clickbaiter that helped manipulate the US into the Spanish-American war to sell more papers. It's been obvious since the start that capitalism is contradictory to real journalism as people imagine it.
Can't reconcile any of the contradictions without first recognizing that simple reality. People will just keep chasing their tails otherwise.
On June 19 2024 09:31 BlackJack wrote: Remember, it’s not just female vocalist. It’s also female football commentators. Anything else? Perhaps a female general is not going to inspire her troops the way a male general does? Is there some logical difference between commanding troops and calling football plays? Perhaps it only matters to football announcers and rock music because that’s the playground where we don’t want women invading that pertain to our interests?
Not to mention female employees and female presidents!
I agree with your general point about how hard it can be to distinguish between preference and prejudice. Is there a clear distinction that someone can make? Does it have to do with how much harm is being done? How conscious the discrimination is? Does preference become serious prejudice if it's a protected class (sex, race, etc.)? Does prejudice become a mere preference if there's some sort of special justification for it? I honestly have no idea.
Random thought: Are heterosexuality and homosexuality inherently prejudicial? I'm attracted to women, but not men. Is that sexist? It's not like I can be educated out of my sexual preference, or that I have any control over it, but perhaps these definitions of prejudice and preference are too vague to pin down. Perhaps the difference is simply this: "If the perspective is socially, culturally acceptable, then it's merely preference. If it's considered taboo and unethical, then it's serious prejudice."
My point was that preference and discrimination were one in the same. Preference is just a prettier word.
I think there's a lot to your sentence about what is culturally and socially acceptable. We used to follow the MLK standard - strive for a color blind society where people don't treat people different on the color of the skin or other hereditary characteristics. Recently there's been a shift where instead we instead we should discriminate MORE so that we can equal the scales. Too many Asians at this university... let's make it a little harder for them to get in... not enough blacks over here... let's thumb the scale for them a little bit.
I don't really agree with that but whatever. The added layer of obnoxiousness for me is when the SJWs decide that unless you also want to discriminate in the arbitrary ways they see fit then you're the racist, misogynist, or any other -ist. It's madness.
I think there's a clear distinction between areas of our lives that are deeply personal, e.g. entertainment and dating, vs the non-personal ones, e.g. going to the doctor, getting food served, etc. You might prefer female metal singers over male ones, or south American commentators over Spanish ones, or you might be into men with big butts over skinny ones and I think that's perfectly okay. Preferring a male doctor over a female one is not preference, it's prejudice.
I think a clear line is crossed when people say statements like "X minority group has no place in Y because of Z(stereotypical characteristic of X group)", or "X minority group is always inferior because of Y". That's just plain racism/sexism/whatever-ism.
Entertainment is more personal than who your doctor is? I know plenty of women that wouldn’t want a male OB/GYN. Can you elaborate on why you think someone being up in your vagina is less personal than who is screaming GOOOOALLLL on the tele?
On June 19 2024 09:31 BlackJack wrote: Remember, it’s not just female vocalist. It’s also female football commentators. Anything else? Perhaps a female general is not going to inspire her troops the way a male general does? Is there some logical difference between commanding troops and calling football plays? Perhaps it only matters to football announcers and rock music because that’s the playground where we don’t want women invading that pertain to our interests?
Not to mention female employees and female presidents!
I agree with your general point about how hard it can be to distinguish between preference and prejudice. Is there a clear distinction that someone can make? Does it have to do with how much harm is being done? How conscious the discrimination is? Does preference become serious prejudice if it's a protected class (sex, race, etc.)? Does prejudice become a mere preference if there's some sort of special justification for it? I honestly have no idea.
Random thought: Are heterosexuality and homosexuality inherently prejudicial? I'm attracted to women, but not men. Is that sexist? It's not like I can be educated out of my sexual preference, or that I have any control over it, but perhaps these definitions of prejudice and preference are too vague to pin down. Perhaps the difference is simply this: "If the perspective is socially, culturally acceptable, then it's merely preference. If it's considered taboo and unethical, then it's serious prejudice."
My point was that preference and discrimination were one in the same. Preference is just a prettier word.
I think there's a lot to your sentence about what is culturally and socially acceptable. We used to follow the MLK standard - strive for a color blind society where people don't treat people different on the color of the skin or other hereditary characteristics. Recently there's been a shift where instead we instead we should discriminate MORE so that we can equal the scales. Too many Asians at this university... let's make it a little harder for them to get in... not enough blacks over here... let's thumb the scale for them a little bit.
I don't really agree with that but whatever. The added layer of obnoxiousness for me is when the SJWs decide that unless you also want to discriminate in the arbitrary ways they see fit then you're the racist, misogynist, or any other -ist. It's madness.
I think there's a clear distinction between areas of our lives that are deeply personal, e.g. entertainment and dating, vs the non-personal ones, e.g. going to the doctor, getting food served, etc. You might prefer female metal singers over male ones, or south American commentators over Spanish ones, or you might be into men with big butts over skinny ones and I think that's perfectly okay. Preferring a male doctor over a female one is not preference, it's prejudice.
I think a clear line is crossed when people say statements like "X minority group has no place in Y because of Z(stereotypical characteristic of X group)", or "X minority group is always inferior because of Y". That's just plain racism/sexism/whatever-ism.
Entertainment is more personal than who your doctor is? I know plenty of women that wouldn’t want a male OB/GYN. Can you elaborate on why you think someone being up in your vagina is less personal than who is screaming GOOOOALLLL on the tele?
Did I mistranslate that? Private as in it involves yourself Vs stuff that directly involves others? The most clear example I can think of is what I said, the entertainment you consume Vs going to the doctor.
In your example I'd say women that prefer female ob/gyn are doing what you said earlier, i.e. it's a different word for prejudice.
Damn, BJ you really opened my eyes here with your reasonable and logical arguments. Not only am I sexist because I prefer Rammstein to Nightwish for my workout music, but I guess I'm also deeply racist since I like cats way more than I like dogs. Someone ought to lock me up for such shameless bigotry!
On June 19 2024 09:31 BlackJack wrote: Remember, it’s not just female vocalist. It’s also female football commentators. Anything else? Perhaps a female general is not going to inspire her troops the way a male general does? Is there some logical difference between commanding troops and calling football plays? Perhaps it only matters to football announcers and rock music because that’s the playground where we don’t want women invading that pertain to our interests?
Not to mention female employees and female presidents!
I agree with your general point about how hard it can be to distinguish between preference and prejudice. Is there a clear distinction that someone can make? Does it have to do with how much harm is being done? How conscious the discrimination is? Does preference become serious prejudice if it's a protected class (sex, race, etc.)? Does prejudice become a mere preference if there's some sort of special justification for it? I honestly have no idea.
Random thought: Are heterosexuality and homosexuality inherently prejudicial? I'm attracted to women, but not men. Is that sexist? It's not like I can be educated out of my sexual preference, or that I have any control over it, but perhaps these definitions of prejudice and preference are too vague to pin down. Perhaps the difference is simply this: "If the perspective is socially, culturally acceptable, then it's merely preference. If it's considered taboo and unethical, then it's serious prejudice."
My point was that preference and discrimination were one in the same. Preference is just a prettier word.
I think there's a lot to your sentence about what is culturally and socially acceptable. We used to follow the MLK standard - strive for a color blind society where people don't treat people different on the color of the skin or other hereditary characteristics. Recently there's been a shift where instead we instead we should discriminate MORE so that we can equal the scales. Too many Asians at this university... let's make it a little harder for them to get in... not enough blacks over here... let's thumb the scale for them a little bit.
I don't really agree with that but whatever. The added layer of obnoxiousness for me is when the SJWs decide that unless you also want to discriminate in the arbitrary ways they see fit then you're the racist, misogynist, or any other -ist. It's madness.
I think there's a clear distinction between areas of our lives that are deeply personal, e.g. entertainment and dating, vs the non-personal ones, e.g. going to the doctor, getting food served, etc. You might prefer female metal singers over male ones, or south American commentators over Spanish ones, or you might be into men with big butts over skinny ones and I think that's perfectly okay. Preferring a male doctor over a female one is not preference, it's prejudice.
I think a clear line is crossed when people say statements like "X minority group has no place in Y because of Z(stereotypical characteristic of X group)", or "X minority group is always inferior because of Y". That's just plain racism/sexism/whatever-ism.
Entertainment is more personal than who your doctor is? I know plenty of women that wouldn’t want a male OB/GYN. Can you elaborate on why you think someone being up in your vagina is less personal than who is screaming GOOOOALLLL on the tele?
Did I mistranslate that? Private as in it involves yourself Vs stuff that directly involves others? The most clear example I can think of is what I said, the entertainment you consume Vs going to the doctor.
In your example I'd say women that prefer female ob/gyn are doing what you said earlier, i.e. it's a different word for prejudice.
I don't think that classifys under prejudice. The reasoning behind that feeling or idea tells what it is. Simply being uncomfortable with a doctor of the opposite sex isn't the same as being prejudiced against men or men doctors.
On June 19 2024 09:31 BlackJack wrote: Remember, it’s not just female vocalist. It’s also female football commentators. Anything else? Perhaps a female general is not going to inspire her troops the way a male general does? Is there some logical difference between commanding troops and calling football plays? Perhaps it only matters to football announcers and rock music because that’s the playground where we don’t want women invading that pertain to our interests?
Not to mention female employees and female presidents!
I agree with your general point about how hard it can be to distinguish between preference and prejudice. Is there a clear distinction that someone can make? Does it have to do with how much harm is being done? How conscious the discrimination is? Does preference become serious prejudice if it's a protected class (sex, race, etc.)? Does prejudice become a mere preference if there's some sort of special justification for it? I honestly have no idea.
Random thought: Are heterosexuality and homosexuality inherently prejudicial? I'm attracted to women, but not men. Is that sexist? It's not like I can be educated out of my sexual preference, or that I have any control over it, but perhaps these definitions of prejudice and preference are too vague to pin down. Perhaps the difference is simply this: "If the perspective is socially, culturally acceptable, then it's merely preference. If it's considered taboo and unethical, then it's serious prejudice."
My point was that preference and discrimination were one in the same. Preference is just a prettier word.
I think there's a lot to your sentence about what is culturally and socially acceptable. We used to follow the MLK standard - strive for a color blind society where people don't treat people different on the color of the skin or other hereditary characteristics. Recently there's been a shift where instead we instead we should discriminate MORE so that we can equal the scales. Too many Asians at this university... let's make it a little harder for them to get in... not enough blacks over here... let's thumb the scale for them a little bit.
I don't really agree with that but whatever. The added layer of obnoxiousness for me is when the SJWs decide that unless you also want to discriminate in the arbitrary ways they see fit then you're the racist, misogynist, or any other -ist. It's madness.
I think there's a clear distinction between areas of our lives that are deeply personal, e.g. entertainment and dating, vs the non-personal ones, e.g. going to the doctor, getting food served, etc. You might prefer female metal singers over male ones, or south American commentators over Spanish ones, or you might be into men with big butts over skinny ones and I think that's perfectly okay. Preferring a male doctor over a female one is not preference, it's prejudice.
I think a clear line is crossed when people say statements like "X minority group has no place in Y because of Z(stereotypical characteristic of X group)", or "X minority group is always inferior because of Y". That's just plain racism/sexism/whatever-ism.
Entertainment is more personal than who your doctor is? I know plenty of women that wouldn’t want a male OB/GYN. Can you elaborate on why you think someone being up in your vagina is less personal than who is screaming GOOOOALLLL on the tele?
Did I mistranslate that? Private as in it involves yourself Vs stuff that directly involves others? The most clear example I can think of is what I said, the entertainment you consume Vs going to the doctor.
In your example I'd say women that prefer female ob/gyn are doing what you said earlier, i.e. it's a different word for prejudice.
I don't think that classifys under prejudice. The reasoning behind that feeling or idea tells what it is. Simply being uncomfortable with a doctor of the opposite sex isn't the same as being prejudiced against men or men doctors.
The question is why would they be uncomfortable with a doctor of the opposite sex? Presumably male and female OB/GYN are equally competent, as in, their gender has nothing to do with whether they're good at their jobs or not.
On June 19 2024 09:31 BlackJack wrote: Remember, it’s not just female vocalist. It’s also female football commentators. Anything else? Perhaps a female general is not going to inspire her troops the way a male general does? Is there some logical difference between commanding troops and calling football plays? Perhaps it only matters to football announcers and rock music because that’s the playground where we don’t want women invading that pertain to our interests?
Not to mention female employees and female presidents!
I agree with your general point about how hard it can be to distinguish between preference and prejudice. Is there a clear distinction that someone can make? Does it have to do with how much harm is being done? How conscious the discrimination is? Does preference become serious prejudice if it's a protected class (sex, race, etc.)? Does prejudice become a mere preference if there's some sort of special justification for it? I honestly have no idea.
Random thought: Are heterosexuality and homosexuality inherently prejudicial? I'm attracted to women, but not men. Is that sexist? It's not like I can be educated out of my sexual preference, or that I have any control over it, but perhaps these definitions of prejudice and preference are too vague to pin down. Perhaps the difference is simply this: "If the perspective is socially, culturally acceptable, then it's merely preference. If it's considered taboo and unethical, then it's serious prejudice."
My point was that preference and discrimination were one in the same. Preference is just a prettier word.
I think there's a lot to your sentence about what is culturally and socially acceptable. We used to follow the MLK standard - strive for a color blind society where people don't treat people different on the color of the skin or other hereditary characteristics. Recently there's been a shift where instead we instead we should discriminate MORE so that we can equal the scales. Too many Asians at this university... let's make it a little harder for them to get in... not enough blacks over here... let's thumb the scale for them a little bit.
I don't really agree with that but whatever. The added layer of obnoxiousness for me is when the SJWs decide that unless you also want to discriminate in the arbitrary ways they see fit then you're the racist, misogynist, or any other -ist. It's madness.
I think there's a clear distinction between areas of our lives that are deeply personal, e.g. entertainment and dating, vs the non-personal ones, e.g. going to the doctor, getting food served, etc. You might prefer female metal singers over male ones, or south American commentators over Spanish ones, or you might be into men with big butts over skinny ones and I think that's perfectly okay. Preferring a male doctor over a female one is not preference, it's prejudice.
I think a clear line is crossed when people say statements like "X minority group has no place in Y because of Z(stereotypical characteristic of X group)", or "X minority group is always inferior because of Y". That's just plain racism/sexism/whatever-ism.
Entertainment is more personal than who your doctor is? I know plenty of women that wouldn’t want a male OB/GYN. Can you elaborate on why you think someone being up in your vagina is less personal than who is screaming GOOOOALLLL on the tele?
Did I mistranslate that? Private as in it involves yourself Vs stuff that directly involves others? The most clear example I can think of is what I said, the entertainment you consume Vs going to the doctor.
In your example I'd say women that prefer female ob/gyn are doing what you said earlier, i.e. it's a different word for prejudice.
I don't think that classifys under prejudice. The reasoning behind that feeling or idea tells what it is. Simply being uncomfortable with a doctor of the opposite sex isn't the same as being prejudiced against men or men doctors.
The question is why would they be uncomfortable with a doctor of the opposite sex? Presumably male and female OB/GYN are equally competent, as in, their gender has nothing to do with whether they're good at their jobs or not.
Because men are far more likely to sexually assault women.
@Salazarz I'd also prefer Rammstein to Nightwish for workout music (unless Marko is also providing vocals), I wouldn't call myself a misogynist either... I also prefer cats over dogs, but I don't know what that has to do with race.
You're missing my point. I'm not seeking to label people bigots. But preferring men over women (and vice versa) for certain jobs is sexist, period.
My point is to call out the fact that people want to make up their own rules, that are arbitrary and can change on a whim for what they think is or isn't acceptable forms of discrimination. This thread basically proves my point. People want to work backwards "Well I know I'm not a sexist and I prefer a male football commentator over a female commentator therefore there's nothing even slightly sexist about preferring a male football commentator over a female football commentator." The same logic could be applied endlessly to any other profession. People are just floundering around grasping at straws to make up these imaginary distinctions when they should instead acknowledge that they have prejudices just like everyone has prejudices. We should try having honest discussions about it instead of pretending like it's some binary thing where you're either a card carrying member of the KKK or you have no prejudices whatsoever.
On June 19 2024 09:31 BlackJack wrote: Remember, it’s not just female vocalist. It’s also female football commentators. Anything else? Perhaps a female general is not going to inspire her troops the way a male general does? Is there some logical difference between commanding troops and calling football plays? Perhaps it only matters to football announcers and rock music because that’s the playground where we don’t want women invading that pertain to our interests?
Not to mention female employees and female presidents!
I agree with your general point about how hard it can be to distinguish between preference and prejudice. Is there a clear distinction that someone can make? Does it have to do with how much harm is being done? How conscious the discrimination is? Does preference become serious prejudice if it's a protected class (sex, race, etc.)? Does prejudice become a mere preference if there's some sort of special justification for it? I honestly have no idea.
Random thought: Are heterosexuality and homosexuality inherently prejudicial? I'm attracted to women, but not men. Is that sexist? It's not like I can be educated out of my sexual preference, or that I have any control over it, but perhaps these definitions of prejudice and preference are too vague to pin down. Perhaps the difference is simply this: "If the perspective is socially, culturally acceptable, then it's merely preference. If it's considered taboo and unethical, then it's serious prejudice."
My point was that preference and discrimination were one in the same. Preference is just a prettier word.
I think there's a lot to your sentence about what is culturally and socially acceptable. We used to follow the MLK standard - strive for a color blind society where people don't treat people different on the color of the skin or other hereditary characteristics. Recently there's been a shift where instead we instead we should discriminate MORE so that we can equal the scales. Too many Asians at this university... let's make it a little harder for them to get in... not enough blacks over here... let's thumb the scale for them a little bit.
I don't really agree with that but whatever. The added layer of obnoxiousness for me is when the SJWs decide that unless you also want to discriminate in the arbitrary ways they see fit then you're the racist, misogynist, or any other -ist. It's madness.
I think there's a clear distinction between areas of our lives that are deeply personal, e.g. entertainment and dating, vs the non-personal ones, e.g. going to the doctor, getting food served, etc. You might prefer female metal singers over male ones, or south American commentators over Spanish ones, or you might be into men with big butts over skinny ones and I think that's perfectly okay. Preferring a male doctor over a female one is not preference, it's prejudice.
I think a clear line is crossed when people say statements like "X minority group has no place in Y because of Z(stereotypical characteristic of X group)", or "X minority group is always inferior because of Y". That's just plain racism/sexism/whatever-ism.
Entertainment is more personal than who your doctor is? I know plenty of women that wouldn’t want a male OB/GYN. Can you elaborate on why you think someone being up in your vagina is less personal than who is screaming GOOOOALLLL on the tele?
Did I mistranslate that? Private as in it involves yourself Vs stuff that directly involves others? The most clear example I can think of is what I said, the entertainment you consume Vs going to the doctor.
In your example I'd say women that prefer female ob/gyn are doing what you said earlier, i.e. it's a different word for prejudice.
I don't think that classifys under prejudice. The reasoning behind that feeling or idea tells what it is. Simply being uncomfortable with a doctor of the opposite sex isn't the same as being prejudiced against men or men doctors.
The question is why would they be uncomfortable with a doctor of the opposite sex? Presumably male and female OB/GYN are equally competent, as in, their gender has nothing to do with whether they're good at their jobs or not.
Because men are far more likely to sexually assault women.
@Salazarz I'd also prefer Rammstein to Nightwish for workout music (unless Marko is also providing vocals), I wouldn't call myself a misogynist either... I also prefer cats over dogs, but I don't know what that has to do with race.
You're missing my point. I'm not seeking to label people bigots. But preferring men over women (and vice versa) for certain jobs is sexist, period.
My point is to call out the fact that people want to make up their own rules, that are arbitrary and can change on a whim for what they think is or isn't acceptable forms of discrimination. This thread basically proves my point. People want to work backwards "Well I know I'm not a sexist and I prefer a male football commentator over a female commentator therefore there's nothing even slightly sexist about preferring a male football commentator over a female football commentator." The same logic could be applied endlessly to any other profession. People are just floundering around grasping at straws to make up these imaginary distinctions when they should instead acknowledge that they have prejudices just like everyone has prejudices. We should try having honest discussions about it instead of pretending like it's some binary thing where you're either a card carrying member of the KKK or you have no prejudices whatsoever.
If you're expecting your male healthcare professional to sexually assault you, then that does sound like prejudice to me.
On June 19 2024 09:31 BlackJack wrote: Remember, it’s not just female vocalist. It’s also female football commentators. Anything else? Perhaps a female general is not going to inspire her troops the way a male general does? Is there some logical difference between commanding troops and calling football plays? Perhaps it only matters to football announcers and rock music because that’s the playground where we don’t want women invading that pertain to our interests?
Not to mention female employees and female presidents!
I agree with your general point about how hard it can be to distinguish between preference and prejudice. Is there a clear distinction that someone can make? Does it have to do with how much harm is being done? How conscious the discrimination is? Does preference become serious prejudice if it's a protected class (sex, race, etc.)? Does prejudice become a mere preference if there's some sort of special justification for it? I honestly have no idea.
Random thought: Are heterosexuality and homosexuality inherently prejudicial? I'm attracted to women, but not men. Is that sexist? It's not like I can be educated out of my sexual preference, or that I have any control over it, but perhaps these definitions of prejudice and preference are too vague to pin down. Perhaps the difference is simply this: "If the perspective is socially, culturally acceptable, then it's merely preference. If it's considered taboo and unethical, then it's serious prejudice."
My point was that preference and discrimination were one in the same. Preference is just a prettier word.
I think there's a lot to your sentence about what is culturally and socially acceptable. We used to follow the MLK standard - strive for a color blind society where people don't treat people different on the color of the skin or other hereditary characteristics. Recently there's been a shift where instead we instead we should discriminate MORE so that we can equal the scales. Too many Asians at this university... let's make it a little harder for them to get in... not enough blacks over here... let's thumb the scale for them a little bit.
I don't really agree with that but whatever. The added layer of obnoxiousness for me is when the SJWs decide that unless you also want to discriminate in the arbitrary ways they see fit then you're the racist, misogynist, or any other -ist. It's madness.
I think there's a clear distinction between areas of our lives that are deeply personal, e.g. entertainment and dating, vs the non-personal ones, e.g. going to the doctor, getting food served, etc. You might prefer female metal singers over male ones, or south American commentators over Spanish ones, or you might be into men with big butts over skinny ones and I think that's perfectly okay. Preferring a male doctor over a female one is not preference, it's prejudice.
I think a clear line is crossed when people say statements like "X minority group has no place in Y because of Z(stereotypical characteristic of X group)", or "X minority group is always inferior because of Y". That's just plain racism/sexism/whatever-ism.
Entertainment is more personal than who your doctor is? I know plenty of women that wouldn’t want a male OB/GYN. Can you elaborate on why you think someone being up in your vagina is less personal than who is screaming GOOOOALLLL on the tele?
Did I mistranslate that? Private as in it involves yourself Vs stuff that directly involves others? The most clear example I can think of is what I said, the entertainment you consume Vs going to the doctor.
In your example I'd say women that prefer female ob/gyn are doing what you said earlier, i.e. it's a different word for prejudice.
I don't think that classifys under prejudice. The reasoning behind that feeling or idea tells what it is. Simply being uncomfortable with a doctor of the opposite sex isn't the same as being prejudiced against men or men doctors.
The question is why would they be uncomfortable with a doctor of the opposite sex? Presumably male and female OB/GYN are equally competent, as in, their gender has nothing to do with whether they're good at their jobs or not.
Because men are far more likely to sexually assault women.
@Salazarz I'd also prefer Rammstein to Nightwish for workout music (unless Marko is also providing vocals), I wouldn't call myself a misogynist either... I also prefer cats over dogs, but I don't know what that has to do with race.
You're missing my point. I'm not seeking to label people bigots. But preferring men over women (and vice versa) for certain jobs is sexist, period.
My point is to call out the fact that people want to make up their own rules, that are arbitrary and can change on a whim for what they think is or isn't acceptable forms of discrimination. This thread basically proves my point. People want to work backwards "Well I know I'm not a sexist and I prefer a male football commentator over a female commentator therefore there's nothing even slightly sexist about preferring a male football commentator over a female football commentator." The same logic could be applied endlessly to any other profession. People are just floundering around grasping at straws to make up these imaginary distinctions when they should instead acknowledge that they have prejudices just like everyone has prejudices. We should try having honest discussions about it instead of pretending like it's some binary thing where you're either a card carrying member of the KKK or you have no prejudices whatsoever.
If you're expecting your male healthcare professional to sexually assault you, then that does sound like prejudice to me.
It's not about "expecting it" but it does happen. Should a woman not be allowed to maximize her safety? It's not just healthcare professionals. Women have their own restrooms, their own locker rooms, etc. This is literal sex discrimination. But it's generally accepted by society. Again it would be a very arbitrary distinction to condemn women for excluding men from these things while thinking it's perfectly acceptable to not want women as football commentators.
In fact, outside of a male dominated forum and in general society the exact opposite would be true. It would be considered far more acceptable to discriminate against men in the above circumstances than it would be to discriminate against women for football commentator jobs.
On June 19 2024 09:31 BlackJack wrote: Remember, it’s not just female vocalist. It’s also female football commentators. Anything else? Perhaps a female general is not going to inspire her troops the way a male general does? Is there some logical difference between commanding troops and calling football plays? Perhaps it only matters to football announcers and rock music because that’s the playground where we don’t want women invading that pertain to our interests?
Not to mention female employees and female presidents!
I agree with your general point about how hard it can be to distinguish between preference and prejudice. Is there a clear distinction that someone can make? Does it have to do with how much harm is being done? How conscious the discrimination is? Does preference become serious prejudice if it's a protected class (sex, race, etc.)? Does prejudice become a mere preference if there's some sort of special justification for it? I honestly have no idea.
Random thought: Are heterosexuality and homosexuality inherently prejudicial? I'm attracted to women, but not men. Is that sexist? It's not like I can be educated out of my sexual preference, or that I have any control over it, but perhaps these definitions of prejudice and preference are too vague to pin down. Perhaps the difference is simply this: "If the perspective is socially, culturally acceptable, then it's merely preference. If it's considered taboo and unethical, then it's serious prejudice."
My point was that preference and discrimination were one in the same. Preference is just a prettier word.
I think there's a lot to your sentence about what is culturally and socially acceptable. We used to follow the MLK standard - strive for a color blind society where people don't treat people different on the color of the skin or other hereditary characteristics. Recently there's been a shift where instead we instead we should discriminate MORE so that we can equal the scales. Too many Asians at this university... let's make it a little harder for them to get in... not enough blacks over here... let's thumb the scale for them a little bit.
I don't really agree with that but whatever. The added layer of obnoxiousness for me is when the SJWs decide that unless you also want to discriminate in the arbitrary ways they see fit then you're the racist, misogynist, or any other -ist. It's madness.
I think there's a clear distinction between areas of our lives that are deeply personal, e.g. entertainment and dating, vs the non-personal ones, e.g. going to the doctor, getting food served, etc. You might prefer female metal singers over male ones, or south American commentators over Spanish ones, or you might be into men with big butts over skinny ones and I think that's perfectly okay. Preferring a male doctor over a female one is not preference, it's prejudice.
I think a clear line is crossed when people say statements like "X minority group has no place in Y because of Z(stereotypical characteristic of X group)", or "X minority group is always inferior because of Y". That's just plain racism/sexism/whatever-ism.
Entertainment is more personal than who your doctor is? I know plenty of women that wouldn’t want a male OB/GYN. Can you elaborate on why you think someone being up in your vagina is less personal than who is screaming GOOOOALLLL on the tele?
Did I mistranslate that? Private as in it involves yourself Vs stuff that directly involves others? The most clear example I can think of is what I said, the entertainment you consume Vs going to the doctor.
In your example I'd say women that prefer female ob/gyn are doing what you said earlier, i.e. it's a different word for prejudice.
I don't think that classifys under prejudice. The reasoning behind that feeling or idea tells what it is. Simply being uncomfortable with a doctor of the opposite sex isn't the same as being prejudiced against men or men doctors.
The question is why would they be uncomfortable with a doctor of the opposite sex? Presumably male and female OB/GYN are equally competent, as in, their gender has nothing to do with whether they're good at their jobs or not.
Because men are far more likely to sexually assault women.
@Salazarz I'd also prefer Rammstein to Nightwish for workout music (unless Marko is also providing vocals), I wouldn't call myself a misogynist either... I also prefer cats over dogs, but I don't know what that has to do with race.
You're missing my point. I'm not seeking to label people bigots. But preferring men over women (and vice versa) for certain jobs is sexist, period.
My point is to call out the fact that people want to make up their own rules, that are arbitrary and can change on a whim for what they think is or isn't acceptable forms of discrimination. This thread basically proves my point. People want to work backwards "Well I know I'm not a sexist and I prefer a male football commentator over a female commentator therefore there's nothing even slightly sexist about preferring a male football commentator over a female football commentator." The same logic could be applied endlessly to any other profession. People are just floundering around grasping at straws to make up these imaginary distinctions when they should instead acknowledge that they have prejudices just like everyone has prejudices. We should try having honest discussions about it instead of pretending like it's some binary thing where you're either a card carrying member of the KKK or you have no prejudices whatsoever.
If you're expecting your male healthcare professional to sexually assault you, then that does sound like prejudice to me.
So you think their prejudice revovles around specifically male healthcare professionals? Or is that you don't understand why they feel less comfortable around a specific gender while exposed?
Out of curiosity, would you feel more, less, or equal amount of awkward if you were getting a lap dance at a regular strip club vs homosexual one?
On June 19 2024 09:31 BlackJack wrote: Remember, it’s not just female vocalist. It’s also female football commentators. Anything else? Perhaps a female general is not going to inspire her troops the way a male general does? Is there some logical difference between commanding troops and calling football plays? Perhaps it only matters to football announcers and rock music because that’s the playground where we don’t want women invading that pertain to our interests?
Not to mention female employees and female presidents!
I agree with your general point about how hard it can be to distinguish between preference and prejudice. Is there a clear distinction that someone can make? Does it have to do with how much harm is being done? How conscious the discrimination is? Does preference become serious prejudice if it's a protected class (sex, race, etc.)? Does prejudice become a mere preference if there's some sort of special justification for it? I honestly have no idea.
Random thought: Are heterosexuality and homosexuality inherently prejudicial? I'm attracted to women, but not men. Is that sexist? It's not like I can be educated out of my sexual preference, or that I have any control over it, but perhaps these definitions of prejudice and preference are too vague to pin down. Perhaps the difference is simply this: "If the perspective is socially, culturally acceptable, then it's merely preference. If it's considered taboo and unethical, then it's serious prejudice."
My point was that preference and discrimination were one in the same. Preference is just a prettier word.
I think there's a lot to your sentence about what is culturally and socially acceptable. We used to follow the MLK standard - strive for a color blind society where people don't treat people different on the color of the skin or other hereditary characteristics. Recently there's been a shift where instead we instead we should discriminate MORE so that we can equal the scales. Too many Asians at this university... let's make it a little harder for them to get in... not enough blacks over here... let's thumb the scale for them a little bit.
I don't really agree with that but whatever. The added layer of obnoxiousness for me is when the SJWs decide that unless you also want to discriminate in the arbitrary ways they see fit then you're the racist, misogynist, or any other -ist. It's madness.
I think there's a clear distinction between areas of our lives that are deeply personal, e.g. entertainment and dating, vs the non-personal ones, e.g. going to the doctor, getting food served, etc. You might prefer female metal singers over male ones, or south American commentators over Spanish ones, or you might be into men with big butts over skinny ones and I think that's perfectly okay. Preferring a male doctor over a female one is not preference, it's prejudice.
I think a clear line is crossed when people say statements like "X minority group has no place in Y because of Z(stereotypical characteristic of X group)", or "X minority group is always inferior because of Y". That's just plain racism/sexism/whatever-ism.
Entertainment is more personal than who your doctor is? I know plenty of women that wouldn’t want a male OB/GYN. Can you elaborate on why you think someone being up in your vagina is less personal than who is screaming GOOOOALLLL on the tele?
Did I mistranslate that? Private as in it involves yourself Vs stuff that directly involves others? The most clear example I can think of is what I said, the entertainment you consume Vs going to the doctor.
In your example I'd say women that prefer female ob/gyn are doing what you said earlier, i.e. it's a different word for prejudice.
I don't think that classifys under prejudice. The reasoning behind that feeling or idea tells what it is. Simply being uncomfortable with a doctor of the opposite sex isn't the same as being prejudiced against men or men doctors.
The question is why would they be uncomfortable with a doctor of the opposite sex? Presumably male and female OB/GYN are equally competent, as in, their gender has nothing to do with whether they're good at their jobs or not.
But they're not questioning their competency based off their sex. This is about comfort and even if their discomfort to you makes no sense, it doesn't make it a prejudice. They're not saying that a specific gender isn't smart enough to or isn't capable of or shouldn't, they simply feel awkward in front of a stranger of a different sex.
On June 19 2024 10:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: [quote]
Not to mention female employees and female presidents!
I agree with your general point about how hard it can be to distinguish between preference and prejudice. Is there a clear distinction that someone can make? Does it have to do with how much harm is being done? How conscious the discrimination is? Does preference become serious prejudice if it's a protected class (sex, race, etc.)? Does prejudice become a mere preference if there's some sort of special justification for it? I honestly have no idea.
Random thought: Are heterosexuality and homosexuality inherently prejudicial? I'm attracted to women, but not men. Is that sexist? It's not like I can be educated out of my sexual preference, or that I have any control over it, but perhaps these definitions of prejudice and preference are too vague to pin down. Perhaps the difference is simply this: "If the perspective is socially, culturally acceptable, then it's merely preference. If it's considered taboo and unethical, then it's serious prejudice."
My point was that preference and discrimination were one in the same. Preference is just a prettier word.
I think there's a lot to your sentence about what is culturally and socially acceptable. We used to follow the MLK standard - strive for a color blind society where people don't treat people different on the color of the skin or other hereditary characteristics. Recently there's been a shift where instead we instead we should discriminate MORE so that we can equal the scales. Too many Asians at this university... let's make it a little harder for them to get in... not enough blacks over here... let's thumb the scale for them a little bit.
I don't really agree with that but whatever. The added layer of obnoxiousness for me is when the SJWs decide that unless you also want to discriminate in the arbitrary ways they see fit then you're the racist, misogynist, or any other -ist. It's madness.
I think there's a clear distinction between areas of our lives that are deeply personal, e.g. entertainment and dating, vs the non-personal ones, e.g. going to the doctor, getting food served, etc. You might prefer female metal singers over male ones, or south American commentators over Spanish ones, or you might be into men with big butts over skinny ones and I think that's perfectly okay. Preferring a male doctor over a female one is not preference, it's prejudice.
I think a clear line is crossed when people say statements like "X minority group has no place in Y because of Z(stereotypical characteristic of X group)", or "X minority group is always inferior because of Y". That's just plain racism/sexism/whatever-ism.
Entertainment is more personal than who your doctor is? I know plenty of women that wouldn’t want a male OB/GYN. Can you elaborate on why you think someone being up in your vagina is less personal than who is screaming GOOOOALLLL on the tele?
Did I mistranslate that? Private as in it involves yourself Vs stuff that directly involves others? The most clear example I can think of is what I said, the entertainment you consume Vs going to the doctor.
In your example I'd say women that prefer female ob/gyn are doing what you said earlier, i.e. it's a different word for prejudice.
I don't think that classifys under prejudice. The reasoning behind that feeling or idea tells what it is. Simply being uncomfortable with a doctor of the opposite sex isn't the same as being prejudiced against men or men doctors.
The question is why would they be uncomfortable with a doctor of the opposite sex? Presumably male and female OB/GYN are equally competent, as in, their gender has nothing to do with whether they're good at their jobs or not.
Because men are far more likely to sexually assault women.
@Salazarz I'd also prefer Rammstein to Nightwish for workout music (unless Marko is also providing vocals), I wouldn't call myself a misogynist either... I also prefer cats over dogs, but I don't know what that has to do with race.
You're missing my point. I'm not seeking to label people bigots. But preferring men over women (and vice versa) for certain jobs is sexist, period.
My point is to call out the fact that people want to make up their own rules, that are arbitrary and can change on a whim for what they think is or isn't acceptable forms of discrimination. This thread basically proves my point. People want to work backwards "Well I know I'm not a sexist and I prefer a male football commentator over a female commentator therefore there's nothing even slightly sexist about preferring a male football commentator over a female football commentator." The same logic could be applied endlessly to any other profession. People are just floundering around grasping at straws to make up these imaginary distinctions when they should instead acknowledge that they have prejudices just like everyone has prejudices. We should try having honest discussions about it instead of pretending like it's some binary thing where you're either a card carrying member of the KKK or you have no prejudices whatsoever.
If you're expecting your male healthcare professional to sexually assault you, then that does sound like prejudice to me.
It's not about "expecting it" but it does happen. Should a woman not be allowed to maximize her safety? It's not just healthcare professionals. Women have their own restrooms, their own locker rooms, etc. This is literal sex discrimination. But it's generally accepted by society. Again it would be a very arbitrary distinction to condemn women for excluding men from these things while thinking it's perfectly acceptable to not want women as football commentators.
In fact, outside of a male dominated forum and in general society the exact opposite would be true. It would be considered far more acceptable to discriminate against men in the above circumstances than it would be to discriminate against women for football commentator jobs.
Out of curiosity, is there any data comparing the rate of violence in sex-separated bathrooms vs. the rate of violence in bathrooms that allow all sexes? Or locker room variations? I'm wondering if it really is safer to separate men and women when they go to the bathroom / change in locker rooms, or if that's just a myth.
Remember when conservatives incorrectly thought that trans-women... or cis-men pretending to be trans-women... would suddenly start entering women's bathrooms just to attack tons of cis-women, if trans-people were suddenly allowed to use the bathroom that corresponded with their gender identity? As if an assailant was previously foiled by the bathroom sign, or was previously incapable of dressing in drag, but now has tacit permission to hurt others? We know that Republicans fear-mongering about this trans issue was completely misguided and wrong (and almost certainly bad-faith), and so I'm wondering if the idea that men and women should be in separate bathrooms and locker rooms for safety reasons (however well-intentioned that idea might be) is similarly incorrect.
From the study's abstract about trans-inclusive bathrooms: "Data come from public record requests of criminal incident reports related to assault, sex crimes, and voyeurism in public restrooms, locker rooms, and dressing rooms to measure safety and privacy violations in these spaces. This study finds that the passage of such laws is not related to the number or frequency of criminal incidents in these spaces. Additionally, the study finds that reports of privacy and safety violations in public restrooms, locker rooms, and changing rooms are exceedingly rare. This study provides evidence that fears of increased safety and privacy violations as a result of nondiscrimination laws are not empirically grounded." https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13178-018-0335-z
It basically just seems like people go into a bathroom because they need to go to the bathroom, and they go into a changing room because they need to get changed.
On June 19 2024 10:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: [quote]
Not to mention female employees and female presidents!
I agree with your general point about how hard it can be to distinguish between preference and prejudice. Is there a clear distinction that someone can make? Does it have to do with how much harm is being done? How conscious the discrimination is? Does preference become serious prejudice if it's a protected class (sex, race, etc.)? Does prejudice become a mere preference if there's some sort of special justification for it? I honestly have no idea.
Random thought: Are heterosexuality and homosexuality inherently prejudicial? I'm attracted to women, but not men. Is that sexist? It's not like I can be educated out of my sexual preference, or that I have any control over it, but perhaps these definitions of prejudice and preference are too vague to pin down. Perhaps the difference is simply this: "If the perspective is socially, culturally acceptable, then it's merely preference. If it's considered taboo and unethical, then it's serious prejudice."
My point was that preference and discrimination were one in the same. Preference is just a prettier word.
I think there's a lot to your sentence about what is culturally and socially acceptable. We used to follow the MLK standard - strive for a color blind society where people don't treat people different on the color of the skin or other hereditary characteristics. Recently there's been a shift where instead we instead we should discriminate MORE so that we can equal the scales. Too many Asians at this university... let's make it a little harder for them to get in... not enough blacks over here... let's thumb the scale for them a little bit.
I don't really agree with that but whatever. The added layer of obnoxiousness for me is when the SJWs decide that unless you also want to discriminate in the arbitrary ways they see fit then you're the racist, misogynist, or any other -ist. It's madness.
I think there's a clear distinction between areas of our lives that are deeply personal, e.g. entertainment and dating, vs the non-personal ones, e.g. going to the doctor, getting food served, etc. You might prefer female metal singers over male ones, or south American commentators over Spanish ones, or you might be into men with big butts over skinny ones and I think that's perfectly okay. Preferring a male doctor over a female one is not preference, it's prejudice.
I think a clear line is crossed when people say statements like "X minority group has no place in Y because of Z(stereotypical characteristic of X group)", or "X minority group is always inferior because of Y". That's just plain racism/sexism/whatever-ism.
Entertainment is more personal than who your doctor is? I know plenty of women that wouldn’t want a male OB/GYN. Can you elaborate on why you think someone being up in your vagina is less personal than who is screaming GOOOOALLLL on the tele?
Did I mistranslate that? Private as in it involves yourself Vs stuff that directly involves others? The most clear example I can think of is what I said, the entertainment you consume Vs going to the doctor.
In your example I'd say women that prefer female ob/gyn are doing what you said earlier, i.e. it's a different word for prejudice.
I don't think that classifys under prejudice. The reasoning behind that feeling or idea tells what it is. Simply being uncomfortable with a doctor of the opposite sex isn't the same as being prejudiced against men or men doctors.
The question is why would they be uncomfortable with a doctor of the opposite sex? Presumably male and female OB/GYN are equally competent, as in, their gender has nothing to do with whether they're good at their jobs or not.
Because men are far more likely to sexually assault women.
@Salazarz I'd also prefer Rammstein to Nightwish for workout music (unless Marko is also providing vocals), I wouldn't call myself a misogynist either... I also prefer cats over dogs, but I don't know what that has to do with race.
You're missing my point. I'm not seeking to label people bigots. But preferring men over women (and vice versa) for certain jobs is sexist, period.
My point is to call out the fact that people want to make up their own rules, that are arbitrary and can change on a whim for what they think is or isn't acceptable forms of discrimination. This thread basically proves my point. People want to work backwards "Well I know I'm not a sexist and I prefer a male football commentator over a female commentator therefore there's nothing even slightly sexist about preferring a male football commentator over a female football commentator." The same logic could be applied endlessly to any other profession. People are just floundering around grasping at straws to make up these imaginary distinctions when they should instead acknowledge that they have prejudices just like everyone has prejudices. We should try having honest discussions about it instead of pretending like it's some binary thing where you're either a card carrying member of the KKK or you have no prejudices whatsoever.
If you're expecting your male healthcare professional to sexually assault you, then that does sound like prejudice to me.
So you think their prejudice revovles around specifically male healthcare professionals? Or is that you don't understand why they feel less comfortable around a specific gender while exposed?
Out of curiosity, would you feel more, less, or equal amount of awkward if you were getting a lap dance at a regular strip club vs homosexual one?
On June 19 2024 09:31 BlackJack wrote: Remember, it’s not just female vocalist. It’s also female football commentators. Anything else? Perhaps a female general is not going to inspire her troops the way a male general does? Is there some logical difference between commanding troops and calling football plays? Perhaps it only matters to football announcers and rock music because that’s the playground where we don’t want women invading that pertain to our interests?
Not to mention female employees and female presidents!
I agree with your general point about how hard it can be to distinguish between preference and prejudice. Is there a clear distinction that someone can make? Does it have to do with how much harm is being done? How conscious the discrimination is? Does preference become serious prejudice if it's a protected class (sex, race, etc.)? Does prejudice become a mere preference if there's some sort of special justification for it? I honestly have no idea.
Random thought: Are heterosexuality and homosexuality inherently prejudicial? I'm attracted to women, but not men. Is that sexist? It's not like I can be educated out of my sexual preference, or that I have any control over it, but perhaps these definitions of prejudice and preference are too vague to pin down. Perhaps the difference is simply this: "If the perspective is socially, culturally acceptable, then it's merely preference. If it's considered taboo and unethical, then it's serious prejudice."
My point was that preference and discrimination were one in the same. Preference is just a prettier word.
I think there's a lot to your sentence about what is culturally and socially acceptable. We used to follow the MLK standard - strive for a color blind society where people don't treat people different on the color of the skin or other hereditary characteristics. Recently there's been a shift where instead we instead we should discriminate MORE so that we can equal the scales. Too many Asians at this university... let's make it a little harder for them to get in... not enough blacks over here... let's thumb the scale for them a little bit.
I don't really agree with that but whatever. The added layer of obnoxiousness for me is when the SJWs decide that unless you also want to discriminate in the arbitrary ways they see fit then you're the racist, misogynist, or any other -ist. It's madness.
I think there's a clear distinction between areas of our lives that are deeply personal, e.g. entertainment and dating, vs the non-personal ones, e.g. going to the doctor, getting food served, etc. You might prefer female metal singers over male ones, or south American commentators over Spanish ones, or you might be into men with big butts over skinny ones and I think that's perfectly okay. Preferring a male doctor over a female one is not preference, it's prejudice.
I think a clear line is crossed when people say statements like "X minority group has no place in Y because of Z(stereotypical characteristic of X group)", or "X minority group is always inferior because of Y". That's just plain racism/sexism/whatever-ism.
Entertainment is more personal than who your doctor is? I know plenty of women that wouldn’t want a male OB/GYN. Can you elaborate on why you think someone being up in your vagina is less personal than who is screaming GOOOOALLLL on the tele?
Did I mistranslate that? Private as in it involves yourself Vs stuff that directly involves others? The most clear example I can think of is what I said, the entertainment you consume Vs going to the doctor.
In your example I'd say women that prefer female ob/gyn are doing what you said earlier, i.e. it's a different word for prejudice.
I don't think that classifys under prejudice. The reasoning behind that feeling or idea tells what it is. Simply being uncomfortable with a doctor of the opposite sex isn't the same as being prejudiced against men or men doctors.
The question is why would they be uncomfortable with a doctor of the opposite sex? Presumably male and female OB/GYN are equally competent, as in, their gender has nothing to do with whether they're good at their jobs or not.
But they're not questioning their competency based off their sex. This is about comfort and even if their discomfort to you makes no sense, it doesn't make it a prejudice. They're not saying that a specific gender isn't smart enough to or isn't capable of or shouldn't, they simply feel awkward in front of a stranger of a different sex.
Some people feel uncomfortable in front of a person of a different race. Some people maximise their safety by not being around people of other races. I am sure you would have no qualms about calling that prejudice. Why make the exception for male doctors/female patients?
On June 21 2024 06:00 micronesia wrote: One of the hottest women I ever met was the one giving my junk a sonogram and at the time I was wishing they were a man.
*double checks thread title* oh ok. not the one i was thinking it was.
On June 21 2024 06:00 micronesia wrote: One of the hottest women I ever met was the one giving my junk a sonogram and at the time I was wishing they were a man.
*double checks thread title* oh ok. not the one i was thinking it was.
EPT
