3 ms·

>The real problem is are people growing up in a society where they are being subconsciously funnelled towards a particular choice (to the point where they don't

>The real problem is are people growing up in a society where they are being subconsciously funnelled towards a particular choice (to the point where they don't see other options as valid choices due to subconscious biases). Mechanisms like this exist in large part to defeat a sort of social entropy that would arise if everybody made their own descisions. It is desirable to be able to have expectations about others behavior and a larger shared social game like 'Nuclear families and husband/wife'. Pretty much necessarily you're going to get something like a competing access need[0] where some people are going to be really hurt by these games because they don't want to play or can't play[1]. We only have a select few remedies to this which aren't 'destroy all the social rules and let anarchy reign', and while some people think that option would result in good outcomes I have a hard time finding faith that it would. A position likes yours worries me massively because it seems to be something like 'systematic coercion to maintain social norms is never okay unless it's explicitly part of the law and then it's still not okay because the intent is to maintain a social norm rather than keep the peace'. [0]: http://theunitofcaring.tumblr.com/post/100561778176/safe-spaces-and-competing-access-needs http://theunitofcaring.tumblr.com/post/100561778176/safe-spa... [1]: http://www.meltingasphalt.com/personhood-a-game-for-two-or-more-players/ http://www.meltingasphalt.com/personhood-a-game-for-two-or-m...

pyre 11y ago
So what you're saying is that parents (e.g.) punishing their children for playing with the wrong toys ("Boys can't play with Barbies") is something that is desirable in a society because the only other option would be "let anarchy reign?" Seems like a fragile argument to make. I'm not saying that we need to force people into some sort of agender roles, but the way we run society now with these ideas that there are "proper" toys for a child to play with, re-enforces the ideas that lead to people beating up their kids because "I'm not gonna raise no fag." What you seem to be saying is that we as a society throw those kids under the bus as part of some sort of "plan for stability" and because you benefit from that stability you support the plan. Am I reading that right?
- unimpressive 11y ago
  >So what you're saying is that parents (e.g.) punishing their children for playing with the wrong toys ("Boys can't play with Barbies") is something that is desirable in a society because the only other option would be "let anarchy reign?" No, and that's a strawman. (I never said the only option was to 'let anarchy reign'. I said that our options for remedy were not particularly spacious.) My understanding is that direct single-person targeted interventions like that don't seem to work particularly well. (And to the extent that they 'work' they often do so by breaking people. Broken people are not desirable.) I'm not a child psychologist, but I doubt that children need to be micromanaged in their play or that such micromanagement would avoid 'raising fags'. I don't really feel qualified to comment beyond that. EDIT: You keep silently editing your post, perhaps you should write a reply instead?
xixi77 11y ago
Just noticing this -- and the 1st link is quite nice indeed, thanks, but how does it support your argument? Jump from family structures to "safe spaces" is a bit of a stretch imo -- but if we do it, I'd say it argues for us to be accomodating of multiple arrangements depending what fits specific people, rather than forcing everyone into one convention. And the 2nd one is rather unpersuasive on multiple levels.

pyre 11y ago

So what you're saying is that parents (e.g.) punishing their children for playing with the wrong toys ("Boys can't play with Barbies") is something that is desirable in a society because the only other option would be "let anarchy reign?" Seems like a fragile argument to make. I'm not saying that we need to force people into some sort of agender roles, but the way we run society now with these ideas that there are "proper" toys for a child to play with, re-enforces the ideas that lead to people beating up their kids because "I'm not gonna raise no fag." What you seem to be saying is that we as a society throw those kids under the bus as part of some sort of "plan for stability" and because you benefit from that stability you support the plan. Am I reading that right?

unimpressive 11y ago
>So what you're saying is that parents (e.g.) punishing their children for playing with the wrong toys ("Boys can't play with Barbies") is something that is desirable in a society because the only other option would be "let anarchy reign?" No, and that's a strawman. (I never said the only option was to 'let anarchy reign'. I said that our options for remedy were not particularly spacious.) My understanding is that direct single-person targeted interventions like that don't seem to work particularly well. (And to the extent that they 'work' they often do so by breaking people. Broken people are not desirable.) I'm not a child psychologist, but I doubt that children need to be micromanaged in their play or that such micromanagement would avoid 'raising fags'. I don't really feel qualified to comment beyond that. EDIT: You keep silently editing your post, perhaps you should write a reply instead?

xixi77 11y ago

Just noticing this -- and the 1st link is quite nice indeed, thanks, but how does it support your argument? Jump from family structures to "safe spaces" is a bit of a stretch imo -- but if we do it, I'd say it argues for us to be accomodating of multiple arrangements depending what fits specific people, rather than forcing everyone into one convention. And the 2nd one is rather unpersuasive on multiple levels.