6 ms·

This is how this reads to me: first, realize that sin is everywhere even if you can't see it, you are all sinners and that is just the natural state of the worl

by Dewie3 11y ago

This is how this reads to me: first, realize that sin is everywhere even if you can't see it, you are all sinners and that is just the natural state of the world right now. But it is not OK to sin if you have been made aware of sin. (Is the Emperor wearing clothes?) I guess the analogy breaks down with the acceptance of those that are truly ignorant (not just intentionally), and that one can build a better world wherein "sin" is not the default state of affairs. The comparison with religion and science seems apt, but for the opposite reason that you seem to portray. These kinds of social questions, when you get down to the nitty gritty of them, often isn't science. And I don't mean in the sense that "it is not HARD science", I mean that the school of thought does not seem to be grounded in a (social) science. It's motivated by an ideology and a theory of how the world is/works. And it has few other competing ideologies/theories in its space. And despite being an ideology/theory which has little competition with other such things (except internally) so that people can see and compare it in different lights, they try to pass it off as gospel.

pron 11y ago
> This is how this reads to me... Right, except I think that the analogy to germs is more apt because sexism -- like germs -- has been verified, proven and measured in countless experiments and studies done by qualified researchers, whereas sin is dogma. > I mean that the school of thought does not seem to be grounded in a (social) science. No, that's just total rubbish. Sexism has been studied by hundreds if not thousands of historians, sociologists, anthropologists and psychologists for decades now. It's just as grounded in science as our understanding of the industrial revolution. It's much more scientific than cryonics, I can assure you that. > It's motivated by an ideology and a theory of how the world is/works. Like all fields of study, it's motivated by the desire to understand how the world works, possibly with the hope that understanding will help make the world a better place. If you somehow wish to portray the desire to make some people suffer less as an ideology that's somehow controversial, so be it. I'm sure everyone involved will be happy to accept your categorization. > they try to pass it off as gospel. That's the same kind of nonsense all evolution deniers say ("that's not science", "it's another belief" and so forth). There is a vast body of knowledge accumulated by meticulous researchers following as scientific a process as possible in those fields over the past four decades. It's just knowledge you don't want to learn, and there are plenty of psychological studies explaining that behavior, too. You don't want to learn even the gist of it -- that's fine, but it's you who are being motivated by dogmatism, except that I don't even understand what your ideology is: keep things as they are?
- Dewie3 11y ago
  > If you somehow wish to portray the desire to make some people suffer less as an ideology that's somehow controversial, so be it. I see it as an ideology. Full stop. Any ideology is fallible and can be misguided, even if it is well-intentioned. I wouldn't be surprised if most ideologies have been bourne out of well-intentioned ideals. But intentions don't really help if the ideology is fundamentally unsound/misguided (we have some examples of that up through history). > That's just rubbish, and you sound just like evolution deniers Of course, the go-to shaming tactic of intellectuals. Bravo. > You don't want to learn even the gist of what's in it -- that's fine, but it's you who are being motivated by dogmatism, You don't know fuck-all about my knowledge of this. But yes, I could stand to investigate and learn more about it. I could stand to try to find out if some of my beliefs on this field or whatever is misguided. But I have seen "enough" from a long and admittedly cursory glance at the field that I've found that it is not something that I am likely to find worthwhile in the end, and it would be too draining. What I really should do is to stop whining about things like this on forums like this and just lay the issue to rest. That's my bad. > you want to keep things as they are? Of course that's your default guess. It's either "our way, or the old way", as some kind of liberal/conservative dichotomy. I'm not happy with the old way or "the new way", and I think it's preposterous that people can try to reduce it to such either-or-thinking. No, the current mainstream thoughts on sexism aren't the be-all-end-all that all reasonable human beings can and should agree on. On my beliefs, suffice it to say: I don't like sexism. Any more explanation beyond that and we get into fragmented territory with regards to what opinions are acceptable on this topic, as far as the mainstream thought goes.
  - pron 11y ago
    > I see it as an ideology. Some parts of it -- sure -- but an ideology firmly based on evidence. Just like deciding that spending public funds on the design of the first computers or the internet -- or any technology -- is an ideology based on evidence. I'm not asking you to accept the ideology, though. You don't want to build computers -- fine! But sexism is as real as electrons. I am sure some CS professors have strong opinions on whether we should build self-driving cars. Their ideology doesn't make their research any less valid. In fact, I'd expect CS professors to be very much "pro-tech" because they know better than the average person what's possible. Similarly, it's only to be expected that researchers studying sexism or racism will be very much opposed to them, because they know better than the average person how harmful they are. Their ideology doesn't disqualify their research, either. > It's either "our way, or the old way" What way? I just look at the research. You have a different explanation for how species evolve or why women make less money than men, put it out there so it can be studied. We can't "teach the controversy" because there is no controversy to teach. There's the vast majority of researchers on one hand, and a small yet vocal group of deniers on the other. > the current mainstream thoughts on sexism I don't know what you mean by that; I do know what the studies tell us about how sexism spreads, what it looks like, and what its consequences are. You may have a very different understanding of what sexism is from how the academic studies define it, but to me what you said sounds just like "the current mainstream thoughts on evolution". You just arbitrarily chose to disqualify a vast body of research because it doesn't jive with your gut feelings on the subject. > On my beliefs, suffice it to say: I don't like sexism I don't think you understand. Whether or not you like sexism is irrelevant. What matters first of all -- before we get to ideology -- is to study how certain power structures perpetuate themselves in society. Once you know that -- and only then -- you can decide what to do about it if anything. I don't like that people can't fly. But I know that the reason we can't is that we don't have wings, and the reason for that is evolutionary, and the mechanism is genetic. So, to make people fly we can either change their genes -- which may be hard or easy, safe or dangerous, ethically problematic or not -- or decide on some other way of dealing with it (building airplanes, for example). Luckily, thanks to decades of research, we already know quite a bit about sexism -- just as we know quite a bit about the limits to human flight -- so there's no need to start from first principles and/or total ignorance every time we discuss it. When we discuss human flights we can talk about genes and aerodynamics -- we don't need to treat the subject so mysteriously and suspiciously. Same goes for sexism.

by Dewie3 11y ago

pron 11y ago

> This is how this reads to me... Right, except I think that the analogy to germs is more apt because sexism -- like germs -- has been verified, proven and measured in countless experiments and studies done by qualified researchers, whereas sin is dogma. > I mean that the school of thought does not seem to be grounded in a (social) science. No, that's just total rubbish. Sexism has been studied by hundreds if not thousands of historians, sociologists, anthropologists and psychologists for decades now. It's just as grounded in science as our understanding of the industrial revolution. It's much more scientific than cryonics, I can assure you that. > It's motivated by an ideology and a theory of how the world is/works. Like all fields of study, it's motivated by the desire to understand how the world works, possibly with the hope that understanding will help make the world a better place. If you somehow wish to portray the desire to make some people suffer less as an ideology that's somehow controversial, so be it. I'm sure everyone involved will be happy to accept your categorization. > they try to pass it off as gospel. That's the same kind of nonsense all evolution deniers say ("that's not science", "it's another belief" and so forth). There is a vast body of knowledge accumulated by meticulous researchers following as scientific a process as possible in those fields over the past four decades. It's just knowledge you don't want to learn, and there are plenty of psychological studies explaining that behavior, too. You don't want to learn even the gist of it -- that's fine, but it's you who are being motivated by dogmatism, except that I don't even understand what your ideology is: keep things as they are?

Dewie3 11y ago
> If you somehow wish to portray the desire to make some people suffer less as an ideology that's somehow controversial, so be it. I see it as an ideology. Full stop. Any ideology is fallible and can be misguided, even if it is well-intentioned. I wouldn't be surprised if most ideologies have been bourne out of well-intentioned ideals. But intentions don't really help if the ideology is fundamentally unsound/misguided (we have some examples of that up through history). > That's just rubbish, and you sound just like evolution deniers Of course, the go-to shaming tactic of intellectuals. Bravo. > You don't want to learn even the gist of what's in it -- that's fine, but it's you who are being motivated by dogmatism, You don't know fuck-all about my knowledge of this. But yes, I could stand to investigate and learn more about it. I could stand to try to find out if some of my beliefs on this field or whatever is misguided. But I have seen "enough" from a long and admittedly cursory glance at the field that I've found that it is not something that I am likely to find worthwhile in the end, and it would be too draining. What I really should do is to stop whining about things like this on forums like this and just lay the issue to rest. That's my bad. > you want to keep things as they are? Of course that's your default guess. It's either "our way, or the old way", as some kind of liberal/conservative dichotomy. I'm not happy with the old way or "the new way", and I think it's preposterous that people can try to reduce it to such either-or-thinking. No, the current mainstream thoughts on sexism aren't the be-all-end-all that all reasonable human beings can and should agree on. On my beliefs, suffice it to say: I don't like sexism. Any more explanation beyond that and we get into fragmented territory with regards to what opinions are acceptable on this topic, as far as the mainstream thought goes.
- pron 11y ago
  > I see it as an ideology. Some parts of it -- sure -- but an ideology firmly based on evidence. Just like deciding that spending public funds on the design of the first computers or the internet -- or any technology -- is an ideology based on evidence. I'm not asking you to accept the ideology, though. You don't want to build computers -- fine! But sexism is as real as electrons. I am sure some CS professors have strong opinions on whether we should build self-driving cars. Their ideology doesn't make their research any less valid. In fact, I'd expect CS professors to be very much "pro-tech" because they know better than the average person what's possible. Similarly, it's only to be expected that researchers studying sexism or racism will be very much opposed to them, because they know better than the average person how harmful they are. Their ideology doesn't disqualify their research, either. > It's either "our way, or the old way" What way? I just look at the research. You have a different explanation for how species evolve or why women make less money than men, put it out there so it can be studied. We can't "teach the controversy" because there is no controversy to teach. There's the vast majority of researchers on one hand, and a small yet vocal group of deniers on the other. > the current mainstream thoughts on sexism I don't know what you mean by that; I do know what the studies tell us about how sexism spreads, what it looks like, and what its consequences are. You may have a very different understanding of what sexism is from how the academic studies define it, but to me what you said sounds just like "the current mainstream thoughts on evolution". You just arbitrarily chose to disqualify a vast body of research because it doesn't jive with your gut feelings on the subject. > On my beliefs, suffice it to say: I don't like sexism I don't think you understand. Whether or not you like sexism is irrelevant. What matters first of all -- before we get to ideology -- is to study how certain power structures perpetuate themselves in society. Once you know that -- and only then -- you can decide what to do about it if anything. I don't like that people can't fly. But I know that the reason we can't is that we don't have wings, and the reason for that is evolutionary, and the mechanism is genetic. So, to make people fly we can either change their genes -- which may be hard or easy, safe or dangerous, ethically problematic or not -- or decide on some other way of dealing with it (building airplanes, for example). Luckily, thanks to decades of research, we already know quite a bit about sexism -- just as we know quite a bit about the limits to human flight -- so there's no need to start from first principles and/or total ignorance every time we discuss it. When we discuss human flights we can talk about genes and aerodynamics -- we don't need to treat the subject so mysteriously and suspiciously. Same goes for sexism.