3 ms·

I don't think that the way you're phrasing this is as tactful as it could be, given that it's going to be a really divisive thing to say no matter the efficacy,

I don't think that the way you're phrasing this is as tactful as it could be, given that it's going to be a really divisive thing to say no matter the efficacy, but I don't necessarily think you're trying to be an ass. I think it's better to assume that two groups of people are less different than one would initially think, because of the natural tendency to create in and out groups. When there has been a history of systemic oppression between those groups, I'd lean toward requiring more rigorous proof of the differences before accepting it, and I'd be very careful as to what I accepted as rigorous proof. This is my quick thought on the subject. Please don't consider it my philosophical magnum opus on discrimination.

jheriko 13y ago
thanks. i am not exactly trying to be an ass. it may be surprising but the lack of tact is intentional (and more muted than i feel i should feel free to use without lashback). > I think it's better to assume that two groups of people are less different than one would initially think, because of the natural tendency to create in and out groups. this is a very valid point and one i've never really considered before. i've never really fallen into that kind of behaviour but have observed it plenty (with some mystification tbh). thanks. you are probably right that the problems caused by discrimination against women in e.g. strongly patriarchal society in recent times (Saudi Arabia or something) massively outweighs the trouble caused by the reverse situation - botched gender reassignments and dubious equality policies, but nothing on a large scale directed against the whole of a portion of society. :)
- doorhammer 13y ago
  I'm ambivalent about having to consider blowback from conversations like this. For me it's less about the content or the topic, though and more about the emotional content. I don't think you should get flayed for expressing an unpopular viewpoint, but I don't want someone's emotional content, or outrage. I want information, conversation, and counterpoints. I don't think being purposefully evocative leads towards changing minds. I think it tends toward polarization. I'm in it to figure things out and learn, if I can, and to help other people figure things out, if I can do that. Mostly I just want productive dialogue where I get to pat myself on the back for trying to be a better person ;). And yeah, I definitely think it would be disingenuous for someone to say or imply that we haven't made a lot of progress in the last hundred years. That being said, I'm on the side of the gender and ethnic fence that has largely benefited from discrimination in the past, so I try to be relatively sensitive to it, especially since it can be so subtle and hard to spot. One example: http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/press/press_releases_media_advisories/2013/HUDNo.13-091 http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/press/press_release... (this is ethnic, not gender discrimination)

jheriko 13y ago

thanks. i am not exactly trying to be an ass. it may be surprising but the lack of tact is intentional (and more muted than i feel i should feel free to use without lashback). > I think it's better to assume that two groups of people are less different than one would initially think, because of the natural tendency to create in and out groups. this is a very valid point and one i've never really considered before. i've never really fallen into that kind of behaviour but have observed it plenty (with some mystification tbh). thanks. you are probably right that the problems caused by discrimination against women in e.g. strongly patriarchal society in recent times (Saudi Arabia or something) massively outweighs the trouble caused by the reverse situation - botched gender reassignments and dubious equality policies, but nothing on a large scale directed against the whole of a portion of society. :)

doorhammer 13y ago
I'm ambivalent about having to consider blowback from conversations like this. For me it's less about the content or the topic, though and more about the emotional content. I don't think you should get flayed for expressing an unpopular viewpoint, but I don't want someone's emotional content, or outrage. I want information, conversation, and counterpoints. I don't think being purposefully evocative leads towards changing minds. I think it tends toward polarization. I'm in it to figure things out and learn, if I can, and to help other people figure things out, if I can do that. Mostly I just want productive dialogue where I get to pat myself on the back for trying to be a better person ;). And yeah, I definitely think it would be disingenuous for someone to say or imply that we haven't made a lot of progress in the last hundred years. That being said, I'm on the side of the gender and ethnic fence that has largely benefited from discrimination in the past, so I try to be relatively sensitive to it, especially since it can be so subtle and hard to spot. One example: http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/press/press_releases_media_advisories/2013/HUDNo.13-091 http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/press/press_release... (this is ethnic, not gender discrimination)