3 ms·

> they share in humanity, and differ in application You think women have one "application" and men have another. I disagree. We have what application we choose

> they share in humanity, and differ in application You think women have one "application" and men have another. I disagree. We have what application we choose, that's real freedom. > I think it is reasonable to say that someone's background might play a role in how they wind up, but it is by no means conclusive What is the purpose of that kind of speculation? All it does is cast doubt on other members of that group. "Oh that's an Asian who's bad at math." "Oh that black guy is surprisingly successful." "Oh this woman is surprisingly unemotional." << These kinds of things perpetuate harmful stereotypes. These are not helpful in society. It's not reasonable to assume / "say" anything about a person based on their physical characteristics. They don't capture nuances like: black people make up of less of our GDP because, I dunno, the _legacy of slavery_? Women have less scientific achievements than men in history because, I dunno, _society didn't give them career opportunities and forced other responsibilities on them_? Instead of giving people the freedom to define themselves, you do the injustice of pre-defining them. > These points, as well as the progressive income tax, ultimately lead to the tax dodges and loopholes that rich people slip into the system to get around them. They punish people who honestly work hard and reward the crooked. You think progressive income tax leads to tax dodges that rich people slip into? Think again. It's the fact that rich people earn lots of money from capital gains and capital gains isn't progressive. Progressive income tax as an algorithm does not cause inequity. > And how precisely can you ensure their "safety"? I'm a huge fan of individual empowerment, but not of infantilization. You ensure the safety of members in your society by making it socially unacceptable to harass and assault people, and punishing people who violate these basic requirements. You hold individuals responsible for individual behavior. For example, allowing men to get away with harassment is the real infantalization; "boys will be boys" takes responsibility away from them and puts it on the people they hurt. > IMHO is one of the major factors that has lead to the mess of "safe space" nonsense on college campuses to begin with. Crash course on safe spaces: speech is free so we can say stuff. But society is free and we can organize into groups and run those groups. For educated society there is a wide consensus that intolerant speech has chilling effects and silences others, and is ultimately at odds with free exchange of ideas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance So the rational response is: create safe spaces. Reject intolerance. Those voices have been heard enough, they have other platforms and groups, they have no place on college campuses which need to allow free exchange of ideas. > I have more opinions on this topic, but I defer to Camille Paglia, who is far more eloquent than me. Thanks for citing this woman. I disagree with her views and web comments are probably not going to solve our disagreements here. > This sounds like a reasoning that we need more laws to fix injustices, which implies that laws are reactions to said injustices. Shouldn't laws be elaborations of first principles upon which a society has agreed? American society originally agreed that slaves were not human. And then 3/5 human. You said it yourself; laws are loose reflection of societal norms, but norms change and laws need to be pushed. Therefore yes, laws ARE reactions to injustices, because injustices are addressed by changing norms, and then laws.

aestetix 9y ago
> You think women have one "application" and men have another. I disagree. We have what application we choose, that's real freedom. I wasn't actually referring to sex here, I was using this to explain why everyone is different. Some are tall, some are short, etc. > What is the purpose of that kind of speculation? All it does is cast doubt on other members of that group. "Oh that's an Asian who's bad at math." "Oh that black guy is surprisingly successful." "Oh this woman is surprisingly unemotional." << These kinds of things perpetuate harmful stereotypes. These are not helpful in society. It's not reasonable to assume / "say" anything about a person based on their physical characteristics. They don't capture nuances like: black people make up of less of our GDP because, I dunno, the _legacy of slavery_? Women have less scientific achievements than men in history because, I dunno, _society didn't give them career opportunities and forced other responsibilities on them_? I focus on individuals and individual circumstances rather than groups and group identities. Identity is complex and multifacted, and while we are indeed influenced by our upbringing, I also believe that individuals with drive to succeed can surpass things that might hold other back. Thomas Sowell is probably my favorite example of this, but there are many others. > Crash course on safe spaces: speech is free so we can say stuff. But society is free and we can organize into groups and run those groups. For educated society there is a wide consensus that intolerant speech has chilling effects and silences others, and is ultimately at odds with free exchange of ideas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance I generally answer this reference (and have elsewhere on this page) with that of "On Liberty" from John Stuart Mill. This goes back to one of my original questions which I don't think you answered, which was about arbitration. If you consider limits of tolerance, who do we trust to judge where those limits are, and why do we trust them with this? > So the rational response is: create safe spaces. Reject intolerance. Those voices have been heard enough, they have other platforms and groups, they have no place on college campuses which need to allow free exchange of ideas. This is actually not true for publicly funded universities, which is one of the reasons the deplatforming that UC Berkley did has drawn so much ire. I'm still impressed that they managed to get both Bill Maher and Bernie Sanders defending Ann Coulter. > Thanks for citing this woman. I disagree with her views and web comments are probably not going to solve our disagreements here. Yep, we can agree to disagree. But thankfully we're able to do so with civility, through our use of free speech. It's a pity there aren't more such discussions these days, so thank you! > American society originally agreed that slaves were not human. And then 3/5 human. You said it yourself; laws are loose reflection of societal norms, but norms change and laws need to be pushed. Therefore yes, laws ARE reactions to injustices, because injustices are addressed by changing norms, and then laws. Which is why I push back and suggest that the laws need to also be based on first principles of some sort. One of the reasons the 1957 Civil Rights Act was passed is because the only thing it actually did was reaffirm the right for blacks to vote, which was a first principle the South couldn't argue against. On a side note, it sounds like you believe the purpose of laws is to enable freedoms, something with which I could not disagree more. I argue the purpose of laws is to restrain government from infringing on our freedoms. Notice how in the US Bill of Rights, the statements are all "Congress shall make no law..."

aestetix 9y ago

> You think women have one "application" and men have another. I disagree. We have what application we choose, that's real freedom. I wasn't actually referring to sex here, I was using this to explain why everyone is different. Some are tall, some are short, etc. > What is the purpose of that kind of speculation? All it does is cast doubt on other members of that group. "Oh that's an Asian who's bad at math." "Oh that black guy is surprisingly successful." "Oh this woman is surprisingly unemotional." << These kinds of things perpetuate harmful stereotypes. These are not helpful in society. It's not reasonable to assume / "say" anything about a person based on their physical characteristics. They don't capture nuances like: black people make up of less of our GDP because, I dunno, the _legacy of slavery_? Women have less scientific achievements than men in history because, I dunno, _society didn't give them career opportunities and forced other responsibilities on them_? I focus on individuals and individual circumstances rather than groups and group identities. Identity is complex and multifacted, and while we are indeed influenced by our upbringing, I also believe that individuals with drive to succeed can surpass things that might hold other back. Thomas Sowell is probably my favorite example of this, but there are many others. > Crash course on safe spaces: speech is free so we can say stuff. But society is free and we can organize into groups and run those groups. For educated society there is a wide consensus that intolerant speech has chilling effects and silences others, and is ultimately at odds with free exchange of ideas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance I generally answer this reference (and have elsewhere on this page) with that of "On Liberty" from John Stuart Mill. This goes back to one of my original questions which I don't think you answered, which was about arbitration. If you consider limits of tolerance, who do we trust to judge where those limits are, and why do we trust them with this? > So the rational response is: create safe spaces. Reject intolerance. Those voices have been heard enough, they have other platforms and groups, they have no place on college campuses which need to allow free exchange of ideas. This is actually not true for publicly funded universities, which is one of the reasons the deplatforming that UC Berkley did has drawn so much ire. I'm still impressed that they managed to get both Bill Maher and Bernie Sanders defending Ann Coulter. > Thanks for citing this woman. I disagree with her views and web comments are probably not going to solve our disagreements here. Yep, we can agree to disagree. But thankfully we're able to do so with civility, through our use of free speech. It's a pity there aren't more such discussions these days, so thank you! > American society originally agreed that slaves were not human. And then 3/5 human. You said it yourself; laws are loose reflection of societal norms, but norms change and laws need to be pushed. Therefore yes, laws ARE reactions to injustices, because injustices are addressed by changing norms, and then laws. Which is why I push back and suggest that the laws need to also be based on first principles of some sort. One of the reasons the 1957 Civil Rights Act was passed is because the only thing it actually did was reaffirm the right for blacks to vote, which was a first principle the South couldn't argue against. On a side note, it sounds like you believe the purpose of laws is to enable freedoms, something with which I could not disagree more. I argue the purpose of laws is to restrain government from infringing on our freedoms. Notice how in the US Bill of Rights, the statements are all "Congress shall make no law..."