4 ms·
Obviously everybody is different. No two people are the same. No two men are the same either. But that doesn't mean that in normal social interaction, and espec
by mcv 3y ago
Obviously everybody is different. No two people are the same. No two men are the same either. But that doesn't mean that in normal social interaction, and especially professional interaction, people do deserve the same level of upfront respect and trust. At least until those are squandered by their own actual actions. But instead, it's, even now, still too common that some people get denied that respect based on prejudice about gender or race, rather than their own actions.
> Now you can force and harass people to do this or that.
You can set certain professional standards within a company, community, field or industry, but the issue in this example is that the difference in performance was caused by the prejudice from the customers, and that's not something you can control.
> I personally think it is better to to let individuals be natural and a/ allow making of mistakes and b/ allowing for the opportunity of learning from those mistakes.
But how can you do that when people are being held back from being their natural selves by unfair prejudice? And educating customers is hard to do when it might be a completely different customer every time.
> The idea that there is some known perfect state 'equal' is a nonsense
Which is why nobody is talking about that. I'm talking about obstacles that are needlessly holding people back, and about what can be done to remove those obstacles. Using fake names is an ugly fix; one that appears dishonest and doesn't really address the underlying prejudice, but it does mitigate the immediate symptoms of that prejudice.
I totally agree that forcing and indoctrinating is wrong, but what do you do if people have already been indoctrinated, and as a result are forcing other people in a way that restricts them both?
- darkwater 3y ago> but what do you do if people have already been indoctrinated, and as a result are forcing other people in a way that restricts them both? You smashed the nail on the head with this! And it's basically another way of defining what the feminist movement defines as patriarchate.
- verisimi 3y agoI can't really reply fully here, as my comment is flagged, and I'm accused of starting a flame war by even replying to this already charged story. It doesn't matter that the academic that who did the initial research is clearly an active and political academic figure - as I showed. That is fine apparently, but it is suggested that my comment here is wrong and I should simply not comment. It feels like only one side (not mine) is acceptable for a public airing. > I totally agree that forcing and indoctrinating is wrong, but what do you do if people have already been indoctrinated, and as a result are forcing other people in a way that restricts them both? Just on this point - can the right answer to dealing with indoctrinated people be even more indoctrination? Surely the answer to stop telling people what to do, live by example rather than endlessly judging and trying to change others for their own good, despite themselves.
- klyrs 3y ago> Just on this point - can the right answer to dealing with indoctrinated people be even more indoctrination? What is doctrine? Wikipedia says, > Doctrine (from Latin: doctrina, meaning "teaching, instruction") is a codification of beliefs or a body of teachings or instructions, taught principles or positions, as the essence of teachings in a given branch of knowledge or in a belief system. Can people be educated without being indoctrinated? I say no, indoctrination is synonymous with education. Much like the word "agenda," this is a word that is being used to instill fear and distrust in the reader. I keep hearing politicians saying they don't want kids to get "indoctrinated" but if you read between the lines, what they actually want is for kids to receive a different doctrine.