6 ms·

"a variety of perspectives" was mentioned. This variety, I'm assuming, includes how the majority of people view the one topic you threw out. I'm getting the im

"a variety of perspectives" was mentioned. This variety, I'm assuming, includes how the majority of people view the one topic you threw out. I'm getting the impression that you believe that having that opinion on that topic should disqualify someone from any important role. Am I correct?

threatofrain 8y ago
No, I'm saying there are lots of people to advocate for "conservative" American perspectives. And therefore these perspectives listed here should make you ask whether you can find another candidate for a high level position. With regards to disqualifying criteria, you might find this interesting: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/20/magazine/trump-government-heritage-foundation-think-tank.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/20/magazine/trump-government... How much do you know about the Heritage Foundation? Do you like their output?
- yostrovs 8y ago
  You can always find people with the exact perspectives that you're looking for. I suggest the smaller the number, the better, and the fewer of these "boards" the better. The ultimate goal is to get as close to the one person that has a perfect set of perspectives on all topics, so that you can safely entrust that person to make the right decisions on everything. In the meantime the rest of us can go fishing.
dragontamer 8y ago
Generally speaking, bigoted speech should be disqualifying. Now, people may not recognize transphobia as bigoted, but I personally consider it bigoted. The Klans members have been removed from public office for the most part, and forced to live in the shadows. I think the social movement to become more inclusive requires us to expand beyond just shunning racism, but also expand towards shunning homophobia, transphobia, and islamaphobia. I think "ThreadOfRain" has a good point above: if one speaker is publicly and openly transphobic, perhaps that would be reason enough to disqualify them (akin to how we disqualify other public speakers for being racists). I don't know much about this particular "Kay Coles James" person however, so I dunno whether or not those tweets have a greater context. But it doesn't look good IMO. ------------ I'd like to think there are plenty of conservative speakers who aren't Transphobic, who would likely be a better rolemodel to fit on the AI Council.
- humantiy 8y ago
  >Generally speaking, bigoted speech should be disqualifying. Wouldn't that also disqualify those who who call for her removal or is that an acceptable type of bigotry?
  - dragontamer 8y ago
    Its no different than calling for the removal of an open racist from a position of power. The main difference is that transphobia is still a gray area, while racism is more or less a settled debate. Unless racism is rooted out and specifically shunned, it will continue to exist. That's the main lesson from the civil rights movement. Today's battleground is Transgender people and Homosexuality. > Wouldn't that also disqualify those who who call for her removal or is that an acceptable type of bigotry? Just from a utilitarian perspective: what are we gaining by allowing transphobia to propagate in society? In my eyes, transphobia offers nothing of benefit to our society, so we should shun it and clamp it down. Just as racism doesn't offer anything good to our society, transphobia doesn't seem to offer any real benefits. So lets get rid of it.
    - humantiy 8y ago
      You're talking two different things here and trying to equate it as one in the same. I have no idea who this lady is other than what was posted in the article. I read the tweets posted above and I see it as being a big leap to being transphobic by definition. Her concerns/points are valid and that view is shared by a lot of women. Many take those concerns not because of someone who is transgender, but those would would/might abuse the equality hospitality for their own ill reasons.
      - dragontamer 8y ago
        The first tweet is about a law I haven't researched and don't understand. So I'm going to have to reserve judgement on it. The 2nd tweet however, seems to fall into the category of transphobia to me. https://twitter.com/KayColesJames/status/1108365238779498497 https://twitter.com/KayColesJames/status/1108365238779498497 > If [The United Nations] can change the definition of women to include men, they can erase efforts to empower women economically, socially, and politically.
drugme 8y ago
I'm getting the impression that you believe that having that opinion on that topic should disqualify someone from any important role. Am I correct? The basic point seems to be that independent of her opinions (e.g. "The Equality Act is overreach because...") -- the content of what she disseminates (as exemplified in the tweets above) is plainly hysterical and disconnected from reality.

threatofrain 8y ago

No, I'm saying there are lots of people to advocate for "conservative" American perspectives. And therefore these perspectives listed here should make you ask whether you can find another candidate for a high level position. With regards to disqualifying criteria, you might find this interesting: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/20/magazine/trump-government-heritage-foundation-think-tank.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/20/magazine/trump-government... How much do you know about the Heritage Foundation? Do you like their output?

yostrovs 8y ago
You can always find people with the exact perspectives that you're looking for. I suggest the smaller the number, the better, and the fewer of these "boards" the better. The ultimate goal is to get as close to the one person that has a perfect set of perspectives on all topics, so that you can safely entrust that person to make the right decisions on everything. In the meantime the rest of us can go fishing.

dragontamer 8y ago

Generally speaking, bigoted speech should be disqualifying. Now, people may not recognize transphobia as bigoted, but I personally consider it bigoted. The Klans members have been removed from public office for the most part, and forced to live in the shadows. I think the social movement to become more inclusive requires us to expand beyond just shunning racism, but also expand towards shunning homophobia, transphobia, and islamaphobia. I think "ThreadOfRain" has a good point above: if one speaker is publicly and openly transphobic, perhaps that would be reason enough to disqualify them (akin to how we disqualify other public speakers for being racists). I don't know much about this particular "Kay Coles James" person however, so I dunno whether or not those tweets have a greater context. But it doesn't look good IMO. ------------ I'd like to think there are plenty of conservative speakers who aren't Transphobic, who would likely be a better rolemodel to fit on the AI Council.

humantiy 8y ago
>Generally speaking, bigoted speech should be disqualifying. Wouldn't that also disqualify those who who call for her removal or is that an acceptable type of bigotry?
- dragontamer 8y ago
  Its no different than calling for the removal of an open racist from a position of power. The main difference is that transphobia is still a gray area, while racism is more or less a settled debate. Unless racism is rooted out and specifically shunned, it will continue to exist. That's the main lesson from the civil rights movement. Today's battleground is Transgender people and Homosexuality. > Wouldn't that also disqualify those who who call for her removal or is that an acceptable type of bigotry? Just from a utilitarian perspective: what are we gaining by allowing transphobia to propagate in society? In my eyes, transphobia offers nothing of benefit to our society, so we should shun it and clamp it down. Just as racism doesn't offer anything good to our society, transphobia doesn't seem to offer any real benefits. So lets get rid of it.
  - humantiy 8y ago
    You're talking two different things here and trying to equate it as one in the same. I have no idea who this lady is other than what was posted in the article. I read the tweets posted above and I see it as being a big leap to being transphobic by definition. Her concerns/points are valid and that view is shared by a lot of women. Many take those concerns not because of someone who is transgender, but those would would/might abuse the equality hospitality for their own ill reasons.
    - dragontamer 8y ago
      The first tweet is about a law I haven't researched and don't understand. So I'm going to have to reserve judgement on it. The 2nd tweet however, seems to fall into the category of transphobia to me. https://twitter.com/KayColesJames/status/1108365238779498497 https://twitter.com/KayColesJames/status/1108365238779498497 > If [The United Nations] can change the definition of women to include men, they can erase efforts to empower women economically, socially, and politically.

drugme 8y ago

I'm getting the impression that you believe that having that opinion on that topic should disqualify someone from any important role. Am I correct? The basic point seems to be that independent of her opinions (e.g. "The Equality Act is overreach because...") -- the content of what she disseminates (as exemplified in the tweets above) is plainly hysterical and disconnected from reality.