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.
As part of its "media monitoring," the DHS seeks to track more than 290,000 global news sources as well as social media in over 100 languages, including Arabic, Chinese and Russian, for instant translation into English. The successful contracting company will have "24/7 access to a password protected, media influencer database, including journalists, editors, correspondents, social media influencers, bloggers etc." in order to "identify any and all media coverage related to the Department of Homeland Security or a particular event."
"Any and all media coverage," as you might imagine, is quite broad and includes "online, print, broadcast, cable, radio, trade and industry publications, local sources, national/international outlets, traditional news sources, and social media."
The database will be browseable by "location, beat and type of influencer," and for each influencer, the chosen contractor should "present contact details and any other information that could be relevant, including publications this influencer writes for, and an overview of the previous coverage published by the media influencer."
One aspect of the media coverage to be gathered is its "sentiment."
Speaking of visas — and showing that social media activity is squarely on the radar of this Administration — earlier this week, the State Department placed two notices in the Federal Register seeking comments on its proposal to require that all visa applicants to the U.S. turn over their social media information for the previous five years.
Regarding the DHS media database, we are entering potentially dangerous territory with the government keeping track of the "sentiment" of citizens and foreign nationals. If not legal challenges from organizations that defend press freedom and freedom of speech interests, the government should expect, at the very least, backlash from the public.
And that means you. If you think the idea of the U.S. government's compiling and monitoring a list of media professionals and "top media influencers" is a potential threat to democracy, now would be the perfect time to call your local and congressional representatives to let them know how much you value a free press and the freedom of speech, just in case they've forgotten.
www.forbes.com We now have the executive branch, run by a president with a personal and extremely public hatred of a number of media outlets, wanting to collect information on media figures that would certainly allow them identify the specific political leanings of individuals.
Does this look like a significant milestone on a slide into authoritarianism to anyone else?
Feels more like a public acknowledgement of ongoing behavior, which generally means they need more budget for an even more nefarious project so they move this stuff onto the books.
But yeah, this is getting increasingly dangerous imo.
It is a heavy headed response to something that should have been handled through regulation of internet media companies. If congress required Facebook, youtube or whatever other content sharing service to confirm who the hell publishing this "news" and if they are a legit company, this wouldn't even have been floated. But because congress gave up all its powers to the DHS/NSA and lets them do whatever they want, they come up with stupid idea like this one that will be abused. Or it is just the NSA finally doing the thing they wanted to do, but couldn't really get away with doing overtly until Trump.
On April 07 2018 03:41 Kickboxer wrote: I certainly don't think a system where the masses who basically preoccupy themselves with the Kardashians, Bobby Shmurda and football to what seems like pseudo-religious extremes, and are also thoroughly brainwashed by mercantilism, belief bubbles and corporate marketing (might as well call it Pavlovian conditioning) are able to collectively decide about anything substantial on the level of running society - or who is best fit for the job - to be the theoretical optimum.
In my country every elected government is demonstrably worse than the last, we have referenda on matters even people with master's degrees don't understand on which we spend millions of € to then make blatantly wrong decisions, and our current president is mostly working on his Instagram game for the past year.
Either we need a direct democracy based on an universal income, which is in turn rooted (conditioned) in active, thoughtful participation in public matters via some kind of uber-facebook, or we need to decide who is smart enough to vote. Right now, I'm definitely anti-democracy.
ah yes, a jordan peterson fan boy who thinks that democracy is stupid and destructive and wants an enlightened depot to rule the country. someone who is persuaded by peterson's emotional appeals to common historical sense when it comes to communism ("we've tried that before and it was a catastrophe" etc etc) but self-avowedly is anti-democracy.
Why does it always loop back to Peterson? Every day his reach gets farther beyond his field of study. And how does one become a cultural critic? Is it like a movie critic, where you go to film school and study all the movies? Did he study all the cultures? All of them?
On April 07 2018 11:09 Plansix wrote: Why does it always loop back to Peterson? Every day his reach gets farther beyond his field of study. And how does one become a cultural critic? Is it like a movie critic, where you go to film school and study all the movies? Did he study all the cultures? All of them?
Based on what I've been casually reading and watching about them, I tend to link a lot of Jordan Peterson's values and mindset with Ben Shapiro's, and they seem to be championed by many conservatives because they're articulate and quick-witted in interviews, although I feel like pausing to unpack much of what they say reveals a dearth of actual substance (e.g., how Peterson says women who wear makeup at work are asking to get sexually assaulted, and how Shapiro insists that gay marriage shouldn't exist because gay couples can't have their own children). Sometimes they make some very good points (I freely admit this as a liberal), and they're pretty good debaters (the best that conservatives have to offer, I think), but I definitely agree that they often overreach into domains that are not their expertise.
On April 07 2018 14:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Based on what I've been casually reading and watching about them, I tend to link a lot of Jordan Peterson's values and mindset with Ben Shapiro's, and they seem to be championed by many conservatives because they're articulate and quick-witted in interviews, although I feel like pausing to unpack much of what they say reveals a dearth of actual substance (e.g., how Peterson says women who wear makeup at work are asking to get sexually assaulted, and how Shapiro insists that gay marriage shouldn't exist because gay couples can't have their own children). Sometimes they make some very good points (I freely admit this as a liberal), and they're pretty good debaters (the best that conservatives have to offer, I think), but I definitely agree that they often overreach into domains that are not their expertise.
When your party's two most recent presidents are Bush and Trump, even the most shallow of ideas feel well developed and thorough.
I don't like to defend Peterson but he never said that with the lipstick women ask to get sexually assaulted, he just said that with lipstick they heighten their sexual signals, which is only very true. Peterson doesn't want to understand the history of communism. There lies his bias. There is no A Marxism! Lenin's and Stalin's and Mao's communism were tyrannies as! Although Stephen Kotkin showed a different interpretation as he unveiled the private discussions of Stalin and co and they were even in private a lot more communists than we thought...
On April 07 2018 18:59 Schmobutzen wrote: I don't like to defend Peterson but he never said that with the lipstick women ask to get sexually assaulted, he just said that with lipstick they heighten their sexual signals, which is only very true. Peterson doesn't want to understand the history of communism. There lies his bias. There is no A Marxism! Lenin's and Stalin's and Mao's communism were tyrannies as! Although Stephen Kotkin showed a different interpretation as he unveiled the private discussions of Stalin and co and they were even in private a lot more communists than we thought...
I'd like to make a slight amendment to that. Lipstick might increase the perceived sexual signals. A woman might not give a shit about what others think about the lipstick. This is basically the same victim blaming you are trying to clear Peterson of.
I didn't do any of that. Lipstick heightens sexual signals. it just does. The vast majority doesn't do it because of that, of course. And even if they do it for that reason that doesn't mean that anybody can use that as a poor excuse for harassment or worse. It just heightens the signal. Nothing more and nothing less.
Nur Peterson's point is this: why prop up your sexual attractiveness in a work environment at all? Even if this is only a secondary or a tertiary effect? Some signals can have tiny but nonetheless profound effects and can be misinterpreted.
On April 07 2018 20:31 Schmobutzen wrote: I didn't do any of that. Lipstick heightens sexual signals. it just does. The vast majority doesn't do it because of that, of course. And even if they do it for that reason that doesn't mean that anybody can use that as a poor excuse for harassment or worse. It just heightens the signal. Nothing more and nothing less.
On April 07 2018 20:42 Schmobutzen wrote: Nur Peterson's point is this: why prop up your sexual attractiveness in a work environment at all? Even if this is only a secondary or a tertiary effect? Some signals can have tiny but nonetheless profound effects and can be misinterpreted.
Presuming that's what they are doing. Pretty sure the research shows it can moderately improve your success for one. It's the same reason men apply product to their hair, wear expensive watches, etc...
Appearances matter, and society places a lot of value/potential in a woman's attractiveness. So it would follow that they would enhance it in sensible ways even if subconsciously.
As to the signaling aspect of it, this is just silly. Men's suit's are designed to enhance their sexual stock by artificially altering their perceived body shape. This "it's just an innocent fact" thing is an excellent rhetorical technique, but it's mostly irrelevant to sexual misconduct.
On April 07 2018 18:59 Schmobutzen wrote: I don't like to defend Peterson but he never said that with the lipstick women ask to get sexually assaulted, he just said that with lipstick they heighten their sexual signals, which is only very true. Peterson doesn't want to understand the history of communism. There lies his bias. There is no A Marxism! Lenin's and Stalin's and Mao's communism were tyrannies as! Although Stephen Kotkin showed a different interpretation as he unveiled the private discussions of Stalin and co and they were even in private a lot more communists than we thought...
I suppose I should have used the term sexual harassment instead of sexual assault, but Peterson clearly says that using makeup and wearing high heels is "hypocritical" for women who want to end sexual harassment, and he brings up this point as a direct counterpoint when responding that he believes sexual harassment should end. I feel like the implications for victim blaming are quite clear here, in his suggestion that women should go out of their way to be seen as unattractive as possible (despite the fact that sexual attraction is subjective and often times different for different people... like how some men are less attracted to women who put on certain makeup or use certain colors):
His point was made in the context of the workplace, but it's fundamentally and pragmatically no different than saying "That girl was being catcalled (or worse) as she walked down the street, but what did she expect, given what she was wearing?"
On April 07 2018 21:21 Schmobutzen wrote: It is not as silly as you think. The problem is, that men are more predators and aggressive. Paired with signals it can lead to unwanted attentions.
I think that is a very interesting subject, but not for thus thread. Ok?
I think sexual harassment/ assault and people's views on them are a legitimate topic, and certainly Peterson (although Canadian) has been given quite a well-supported platform by conservatives and people who are very freedom of speech -oriented, especially when it comes to gender pronouns and other issues.
On April 07 2018 21:21 Schmobutzen wrote: It is not as silly as you think. The problem is, that men are more predators and aggressive. Paired with signals it can lead to unwanted attentions.
I think that is a very interesting subject, but not for thus thread. Ok?
The reason it is silly is that it is still the man's responsibility to be a reasonable human being. And that comes with extra weight in the professional work setting. The women in the situation shouldn't have to lower her chances of success to not be the victim of predatory behavior. So it is silly, as GH says, you can point it out as an "innocent fact", but in doing so you are asymmetrically drawing attention to how the woman in the situation has raised her risk for unwanted attention. Often at the expense of the discussion of the culture in which the issue emerges in the first place.
As someone discussing the issue in a public forum, particularly with Peterson's... track record... everything you say has a purpose and shapes the discussion. The choice of where you focus the point and what implications you lead people to, even if you never make them yourself, is important.
On April 07 2018 18:59 Schmobutzen wrote: I don't like to defend Peterson but he never said that with the lipstick women ask to get sexually assaulted, he just said that with lipstick they heighten their sexual signals, which is only very true. Peterson doesn't want to understand the history of communism. There lies his bias. There is no A Marxism! Lenin's and Stalin's and Mao's communism were tyrannies as! Although Stephen Kotkin showed a different interpretation as he unveiled the private discussions of Stalin and co and they were even in private a lot more communists than we thought...
I suppose I should have used the term sexual harassment instead of sexual assault, but Peterson clearly says that using makeup and wearing high heels is "hypocritical" for women who want to end sexual harassment, and he brings up this point as a direct counterpoint when responding that he believes sexual harassment should end. I feel like the implications for victim blaming are quite clear here, in his suggestion that women should go out of their way to be seen as unattractive as possible (despite the fact that sexual attraction is subjective and often times different for different people... like how some men are less attracted to women who put on certain makeup or use certain colors):
His point was made in the context of the workplace, but it's fundamentally and pragmatically no different than saying "That girl was being catcalled (or worse) as she walked down the street, but what did she expect, given what she was wearing?"
On April 07 2018 21:21 Schmobutzen wrote: It is not as silly as you think. The problem is, that men are more predators and aggressive. Paired with signals it can lead to unwanted attentions.
I think that is a very interesting subject, but not for thus thread. Ok?
I think sexual harassment/ assault and people's views on them are a legitimate topic, and certainly Peterson (although Canadian) has been given quite a well-supported platform by conservatives and people who are very freedom of speech -oriented, especially when it comes to gender pronouns and other issues.
Holy shit. He's even worse than I think he is every time I hear him speak. "We don't know what the rules are, here's a rule: no make-up in the work place."
It's not even as subtle as I was giving him "credit" for in the previous post. As soon as you start talking about rules that focus on not doing anything that might look provocative, even passively, as opposed to not being a harasser, you aren't interested in the problem being solved. You are interested in writing the social code of conduct to be easy for potential harassers to follow.
On April 07 2018 18:59 Schmobutzen wrote: I don't like to defend Peterson but he never said that with the lipstick women ask to get sexually assaulted, he just said that with lipstick they heighten their sexual signals, which is only very true. Peterson doesn't want to understand the history of communism. There lies his bias. There is no A Marxism! Lenin's and Stalin's and Mao's communism were tyrannies as! Although Stephen Kotkin showed a different interpretation as he unveiled the private discussions of Stalin and co and they were even in private a lot more communists than we thought...
I suppose I should have used the term sexual harassment instead of sexual assault, but Peterson clearly says that using makeup and wearing high heels is "hypocritical" for women who want to end sexual harassment, and he brings up this point as a direct counterpoint when responding that he believes sexual harassment should end. I feel like the implications for victim blaming are quite clear here, in his suggestion that women should go out of their way to be seen as unattractive as possible (despite the fact that sexual attraction is subjective and often times different for different people... like how some men are less attracted to women who put on certain makeup or use certain colors):
His point was made in the context of the workplace, but it's fundamentally and pragmatically no different than saying "That girl was being catcalled (or worse) as she walked down the street, but what did she expect, given what she was wearing?"
On April 07 2018 21:21 Schmobutzen wrote: It is not as silly as you think. The problem is, that men are more predators and aggressive. Paired with signals it can lead to unwanted attentions.
I think that is a very interesting subject, but not for thus thread. Ok?
I think sexual harassment/ assault and people's views on them are a legitimate topic, and certainly Peterson (although Canadian) has been given quite a well-supported platform by conservatives and people who are very freedom of speech -oriented, especially when it comes to gender pronouns and other issues.
Holy shit. He's even worse than I think he is every time I hear him speak. "We don't know what the rules are, here's a rule: no make-up in the work place."
It's not even as subtle as I was giving him "credit" for in the previous post. As soon as you start talking about rules that focus on not doing anything that might look provocative, even passively, as opposed to not being a harasser, you aren't interested in the problem being solved. You are interested in writing the social code of conduct to be easy for potential harassers to follow.
I agree. If we go down his path of assigning rules to lower the likelihood of sexual harassment, I think another stupid (but arguably better, considering it focuses on men rather than women, and in their conversation they were working off the premise that men are the harassers and women are the victims, which isn't always true but whatever) rule should be that men can only come to work in oversized shirts and pants with Cheetos stains and body odor, because if they're purposely being asked to not appear well-dressed and sharp and visually appealing and powerful, women won't have to worry about looking the part of a professional either.
On April 07 2018 18:59 Schmobutzen wrote: I don't like to defend Peterson but he never said that with the lipstick women ask to get sexually assaulted, he just said that with lipstick they heighten their sexual signals, which is only very true. Peterson doesn't want to understand the history of communism. There lies his bias. There is no A Marxism! Lenin's and Stalin's and Mao's communism were tyrannies as! Although Stephen Kotkin showed a different interpretation as he unveiled the private discussions of Stalin and co and they were even in private a lot more communists than we thought...
I suppose I should have used the term sexual harassment instead of sexual assault, but Peterson clearly says that using makeup and wearing high heels is "hypocritical" for women who want to end sexual harassment, and he brings up this point as a direct counterpoint when responding that he believes sexual harassment should end. I feel like the implications for victim blaming are quite clear here, in his suggestion that women should go out of their way to be seen as unattractive as possible (despite the fact that sexual attraction is subjective and often times different for different people... like how some men are less attracted to women who put on certain makeup or use certain colors):
His point was made in the context of the workplace, but it's fundamentally and pragmatically no different than saying "That girl was being catcalled (or worse) as she walked down the street, but what did she expect, given what she was wearing?"
On April 07 2018 21:21 Schmobutzen wrote: It is not as silly as you think. The problem is, that men are more predators and aggressive. Paired with signals it can lead to unwanted attentions.
I think that is a very interesting subject, but not for thus thread. Ok?
I think sexual harassment/ assault and people's views on them are a legitimate topic, and certainly Peterson (although Canadian) has been given quite a well-supported platform by conservatives and people who are very freedom of speech -oriented, especially when it comes to gender pronouns and other issues.
Holy shit. He's even worse than I think he is every time I hear him speak. "We don't know what the rules are, here's a rule: no make-up in the work place."
It's not even as subtle as I was giving him "credit" for in the previous post. As soon as you start talking about rules that focus on not doing anything that might look provocative, even passively, as opposed to not being a harasser, you aren't interested in the problem being solved. You are interested in writing the social code of conduct to be easy for potential harassers to follow.
I agree. If we go down his path of assigning rules to lower the likelihood of sexual harassment, I think another stupid (but arguably better, considering it focuses on men rather than women, and in their conversation they were working off the premise that men are the harassers and women are the victims, which isn't always true but whatever) rule should be that men can only come to work in oversized shirts and pants with Cheetos stains and body odor, because if they're purposely being asked to not appear well-dressed and sharp and visually appealing and powerful, women won't have to worry about looking the part of a professional either.
I'm in favour of this rule. I'll finally be on a level playing field with all my male colleagues.
In all seriousness though, the concerning conclusion that we can draw from all of this is that we have somehow built a society where looking sexually attractive and looking professional are seen as one and the same, or at least where looking professional entails the same devices that you would use to look sexually attractive.
On April 07 2018 18:59 Schmobutzen wrote: I don't like to defend Peterson but he never said that with the lipstick women ask to get sexually assaulted, he just said that with lipstick they heighten their sexual signals, which is only very true. Peterson doesn't want to understand the history of communism. There lies his bias. There is no A Marxism! Lenin's and Stalin's and Mao's communism were tyrannies as! Although Stephen Kotkin showed a different interpretation as he unveiled the private discussions of Stalin and co and they were even in private a lot more communists than we thought...
I suppose I should have used the term sexual harassment instead of sexual assault, but Peterson clearly says that using makeup and wearing high heels is "hypocritical" for women who want to end sexual harassment, and he brings up this point as a direct counterpoint when responding that he believes sexual harassment should end. I feel like the implications for victim blaming are quite clear here, in his suggestion that women should go out of their way to be seen as unattractive as possible (despite the fact that sexual attraction is subjective and often times different for different people... like how some men are less attracted to women who put on certain makeup or use certain colors):
His point was made in the context of the workplace, but it's fundamentally and pragmatically no different than saying "That girl was being catcalled (or worse) as she walked down the street, but what did she expect, given what she was wearing?"
On April 07 2018 21:21 Schmobutzen wrote: It is not as silly as you think. The problem is, that men are more predators and aggressive. Paired with signals it can lead to unwanted attentions.
I think that is a very interesting subject, but not for thus thread. Ok?
I think sexual harassment/ assault and people's views on them are a legitimate topic, and certainly Peterson (although Canadian) has been given quite a well-supported platform by conservatives and people who are very freedom of speech -oriented, especially when it comes to gender pronouns and other issues.
Holy shit. He's even worse than I think he is every time I hear him speak. "We don't know what the rules are, here's a rule: no make-up in the work place."
It's not even as subtle as I was giving him "credit" for in the previous post. As soon as you start talking about rules that focus on not doing anything that might look provocative, even passively, as opposed to not being a harasser, you aren't interested in the problem being solved. You are interested in writing the social code of conduct to be easy for potential harassers to follow.
I agree. If we go down his path of assigning rules to lower the likelihood of sexual harassment, I think another stupid (but arguably better, considering it focuses on men rather than women, and in their conversation they were working off the premise that men are the harassers and women are the victims, which isn't always true but whatever) rule should be that men can only come to work in oversized shirts and pants with Cheetos stains and body odor, because if they're purposely being asked to not appear well-dressed and sharp and visually appealing and powerful, women won't have to worry about looking the part of a professional either.
I'm in favour of this rule. I'll finally be on a level playing field with all my male colleagues.
In all seriousness though, the concerning conclusion that we can draw from all of this is that we have somehow built a society where looking sexually attractive and looking professional are seen as one and the same, or at least where looking professional entails the same devices that you would use to look sexually attractive.
Probably around the time when the common position for a woman in an office building was as secretaries.
On April 07 2018 18:59 Schmobutzen wrote: I don't like to defend Peterson but he never said that with the lipstick women ask to get sexually assaulted, he just said that with lipstick they heighten their sexual signals, which is only very true. Peterson doesn't want to understand the history of communism. There lies his bias. There is no A Marxism! Lenin's and Stalin's and Mao's communism were tyrannies as! Although Stephen Kotkin showed a different interpretation as he unveiled the private discussions of Stalin and co and they were even in private a lot more communists than we thought...
I suppose I should have used the term sexual harassment instead of sexual assault, but Peterson clearly says that using makeup and wearing high heels is "hypocritical" for women who want to end sexual harassment, and he brings up this point as a direct counterpoint when responding that he believes sexual harassment should end. I feel like the implications for victim blaming are quite clear here, in his suggestion that women should go out of their way to be seen as unattractive as possible (despite the fact that sexual attraction is subjective and often times different for different people... like how some men are less attracted to women who put on certain makeup or use certain colors):
His point was made in the context of the workplace, but it's fundamentally and pragmatically no different than saying "That girl was being catcalled (or worse) as she walked down the street, but what did she expect, given what she was wearing?"
On April 07 2018 21:21 Schmobutzen wrote: It is not as silly as you think. The problem is, that men are more predators and aggressive. Paired with signals it can lead to unwanted attentions.
I think that is a very interesting subject, but not for thus thread. Ok?
I think sexual harassment/ assault and people's views on them are a legitimate topic, and certainly Peterson (although Canadian) has been given quite a well-supported platform by conservatives and people who are very freedom of speech -oriented, especially when it comes to gender pronouns and other issues.
Holy shit. He's even worse than I think he is every time I hear him speak. "We don't know what the rules are, here's a rule: no make-up in the work place."
It's not even as subtle as I was giving him "credit" for in the previous post. As soon as you start talking about rules that focus on not doing anything that might look provocative, even passively, as opposed to not being a harasser, you aren't interested in the problem being solved. You are interested in writing the social code of conduct to be easy for potential harassers to follow.
I agree. If we go down his path of assigning rules to lower the likelihood of sexual harassment, I think another stupid (but arguably better, considering it focuses on men rather than women, and in their conversation they were working off the premise that men are the harassers and women are the victims, which isn't always true but whatever) rule should be that men can only come to work in oversized shirts and pants with Cheetos stains and body odor, because if they're purposely being asked to not appear well-dressed and sharp and visually appealing and powerful, women won't have to worry about looking the part of a professional either.
I'm in favour of this rule. I'll finally be on a level playing field with all my male colleagues.
In all seriousness though, the concerning conclusion that we can draw from all of this is that we have somehow built a society where looking sexually attractive and looking professional are seen as one and the same, or at least where looking professional entails the same devices that you would use to look sexually attractive.
Probably around the time when the common position for a woman in an office building was as secretaries.
"Professional" has been for a long time an extension of "good breeding partner". We've just shifted the visual ques over time as 'breeding partner' has become less of a woman's one and only ' acceptable profession'. More interesting question is how did this get so embedded into society when the workplace was almost exclusively male.
EPT
