The Dink Network

Reply to Re: Let's talk terrorism

If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
Username:
Password:
Subject:
Antispam: Enter Dink Smallwood's last name (surname) below.
Formatting: :) :( ;( :P ;) :D >( : :s :O evil cat blood
Bold font Italic font hyperlink Code tags
Message:
 
 
April 16th 2016, 03:15 PM
spike.gif
It's only illogical if you look at in just those stark terms. First of all, let's do away with the term *any* and replace it with something like is "enough of a difference to make a difference"? While, yes, there are statistical differences between male and female brains, the difference is both minute and varied enough that if you looked at any one brain you would very likely not be able to tell if it was from someone who was male or female.

While I agree individual variation is much more significant than variation based on sex, I don't think it's that insignificant. I believe gender influences a person's thoughts in a million subtle ways, like weighted dice. If I could look into one thought, such as whether the person liked red or blue, I couldn't tell much. But if I could look at a hundred thoughts, I'm sure I could guess their sex with a great degree of accuracy. Unless you mean literally their brain, in which case it's just a rather disgusting mass and... well, probably not.

Ah, race. The process of which we assign people to different categories based on how they look. Of course, how someone looks and how someone is genetically predisposed to thinking are two extremely different things. Add to the fact that the members of various "races" have actually traveled and interbred with each during those thousands of years and you get that DNA proliferating through the generations, influencing its decedents even if they may now look more like members of that race. Anyway, long story short: Race is an extremely poor way to look at genetic differences; it is primarily a social construct assigned by humans to differentiate.

You do still get those different groups - geneticists can tell if your heritage is geographically Asian, African or European just by analyzing DNA. Granted, it's more of a muddy gradient than the sort of clear division races appear to be on the outside.

Again, is this more due to social pressures or biology? I personally believe an enormous amount of who were are and how we act is determined by environment.

I think the environment largely stems from biology. That is, an evironment where little girls play with dolls wouldn't have come to be if girls didn't have a natural predilection towards that kind of activity. It's by no means a perfect system, and in the past, women have been discouraged from seeking important roles in society - just not anymore. No one is teaching little girls their duty is to marry and leave the education to menfolk.

As I said in my last post, discrimination in the past still has an effect on the world today. I think that's the case when it comes to blacks being poorer, and maybe, possibly even with women in leadership positions... But because of natural tendencies, a fair system is never going to be 50% women and 50% men.

Unless we had an experiment where we raised a child from birth, completely isolated from our greater culture at large and the parents' biases, this is, at best, a poor test to determine if preferences are genetic or social. Based on my own anecdotal evidence, I believe it is a mixture of both with some kids always choosing heavily with one gender or another and others who would be less differentiated, but go along with what they were assigned because it gives them a place in culture.

This kind of homogenization is always sad to see. I don't think very young children care too much if they happen to prefer otherwise, but it gets forced on them when they enter a social environment, like kindergarten or school.

As someone who has lived their entire life in North America and tries to listen to the various people here, I definitely believe him. Here's a better interview and has an excellent example of the social pressures faced by him specifically because he was black.

That was an interesting look into his beliefs, but it was, like, the most un-racist thing imaginable. =) I also realize it's been a pretty long time since Neil went to school... It sounds like he already didn't face much hard racism in the 80s, and everything's gotten a lot better since. (Except movies)

------------

They don't. There are numerous reports of sexism and sexual harassment for those who do become politicians; I'm sure that deters others from trying.

I've tried looking into this, but most of what I came across seemed very... nebulous. Like lewd remarks, which isn't cool, but you deal with that like any insult - tell the person to go duck themselves. Serious harassment, like playing grab-ass, should be reported and dealt with through legal, or public channels if necessary.

Trump, being the bully that he is, has just been explicitly insulting women in general, but specifically Fiorina (another republican candidate at the time), because as a woman all her value supposedly comes from her looks, and they weren't good enough for him.

On the other hand, the size of Trump's penis and his stupid hair get insulted all the time. I imagine this is something everyone has to deal with... your enemies attack whatever they can, and while the body parts may change, it's all the same crap.

That happens, but it is similar to the "negative power" I talked about before. The system is rigged against them. Those incentives are an attempt to give them equal opportunity. They help, but it's nowhere near enough. Until the numbers start to be balanced (or there is compelling science showing that there are good reasons blacks don't want to go to college, for example), the sum of the system plus the incentives is still to their disadvantage. It would have been worse without the incentives, but that doesn't mean it's good now. And nobody proposes to keep the incentives in place once the system is balanced. The goal is not supremacy of the minority, it's equal opportunities.

I disagree that the system is rigged. Some people have poorer starting positions, but there isn't any white cabal that's actively pushing these people down the stairs. Ultimately, every person is responsible for themselves. It's unfortunate that your parents didn't support you as well as someone else was supported, but it's up to you to rise above your origins, not up to society to lower the bar for you.

Not out of fear of appearing racist, no. But in an attempt to change the balance, yes. If more blacks are educated, their kids will have educated parents, which means they have more opportunities.

Does it hurt whites that blacks "take their places"? Yes, it does. Is it fair? Yes, totally. The system is rigged in favor of whites. Of course it hurts them when it is fixed. That doesn't mean it's unfair.


My problem with this is that it's very unfair towards individuals, and unequivocally racist. If there's a job opening, and I'm the most qualified applicant, I want them to hire ME, not some black person because supposedly I'm so much more privileged than they are (even if in this particular case, that weren't the case at all).