US Politics/Biden Presidency (Trump-free zone)

[Romey 1878]

13 minutes ago, nyblue23 said:

That's kind of silly and dismissive, especially in a category like "Best Pop Solo Performance" (what the hell does that mean anyway), where pop is dominated by women and four women were nominated along with the one man that won. Also, Bruno Mars? Really?

That doesn't even dive into the systemic issues behind what you wrote, though Steve touches on them above, but you can continue believing women have equal opportunities if you like.

I didn’t say that women have equal opportunities, nor do I think they do, but to blame lack of awards or recognition entirely on sexism and the like is pathetic. Sometimes a person just isn’t good enough and it has nothing to do with what’s between their legs. The easy option, rather than to look at yourself, is to blame it on outside factors. 

Yeah, I’m absolutely positive that sometimes it is to do with gender inequalities, but not always. 

[Matt]

My point is that equality can not be forced, only taught, and the best way to teach is to lead by example and not by quotas, which I believe are detrimental to the whole effort 

[nyblue23]

2 hours ago, Romey 1878 said:

I didn’t say that women have equal opportunities, nor do I think they do, but to blame lack of awards or recognition entirely on sexism and the like is pathetic. Sometimes a person just isn’t good enough and it has nothing to do with what’s between their legs. The easy option, rather than to look at yourself, is to blame it on outside factors. 

Yeah, I’m absolutely positive that sometimes it is to do with gender inequalities, but not always. 

 

1 hour ago, Matt said:

My point is that equality can not be forced, only taught, and the best way to teach is to lead by example and not by quotas, which I believe are detrimental to the whole effort 

I don't think either of you are entirely wrong about the paranoia around p.c. culture, but I also am not convinced you watched the awards. I think context is extremely helpful with this particular example. The entire ceremony played out like a massive celebration of women with the extremely notable exception of who actually received almost all of the most important awards, effectively undercutting the entire effort to empower women.

Even if it were true that, as some white male executive said during the ceremony, "women need to step up" in the music industry to beat out men for these awards (which it's not), the general sense of disempowerment that I would feel watching men receive every major award while only lip service was given to my own ability would be pretty fucking strong.

[Matt]

39 minutes ago, nyblue23 said:

 

I don't think either of you are entirely wrong about the paranoia around p.c. culture, but I also am not convinced you watched the awards. I think context is extremely helpful with this particular example. The entire ceremony played out like a massive celebration of women with the extremely notable exception of who actually received almost all of the most important awards, effectively undercutting the entire effort to empower women.

Even if it were true that, as some white male executive said during the ceremony, "women need to step up" in the music industry to beat out men for these awards (which it's not), the general sense of disempowerment that I would feel watching men receive every major award while only lip service was given to my own ability would be pretty fucking strong.

I didn't and never would, I've just commented on the latest example of a long chain of over-reactions. But it sounds like it proved my point; they tried to make it one way to empower women, but then it was undermined by an artist winning lots that wasn't a women. If the ceremony had been about people and how much good we can achieve together without prejudice, no one would've given a shit about Bruno Mars walking off with a handful of trophies and people would've just been celebrating a talented individual (if you like that kinda crap)

[Sibdane]

54 minutes ago, Matt said:

I didn't and never would, I've just commented on the latest example of a long chain of over-reactions. But it sounds like it proved my point; they tried to make it one way to empower women, but then it was undermined by an artist winning lots that wasn't a women. If the ceremony had been about people and how much good we can achieve together without prejudice, no one would've given a shit about Bruno Mars walking off with a handful of trophies and people would've just been celebrating a talented individual (if you like that kinda crap)

I think people are lost on this concept, and while most people recognize that prejudice exists, I think we further the divide by focusing too much on "groups." There definitely needs to be some attention on injustices in the world, but at the end of the day the message should be about community.

[Cornish Steve]

Of course, it's easy for us to say these things: We're all men - and maybe all white, straight men (even more than Trump's administration!). I suspect we'd read some very different conclusions were women, or minorities, present on these forums, and then we'd really see some interesting discourse.

[nyblue23]

10 hours ago, tonkaroost said:

I think people are lost on this concept, and while most people recognize that prejudice exists, I think we further the divide by focusing too much on "groups." There definitely needs to be some attention on injustices in the world, but at the end of the day the message should be about community.

Sorry, downvoted that out of instant reaction to seeing the word "groups" in quotation marks, as if those groups weren't initially defined by western men in power. It is no service to the survivors of injustice for western men, likely white, to suddenly pretend that the groups they have defined, systemically subjugated, and then benefited from the subjugation thereof, suddenly no longer exist in a meaningful way, and that everyone should just somehow get along, ignoring the privilege inherent in such a statement.

At it's core, the concept of feminism is merely the belief that women should be afforded the same opportunities as men across every aspect of life. To achieve that, however, everyone must first acknowledge the history of the subjugation of women, and understand that the roots of those injustices seep into every aspect of an individual woman's being, constantly working against them in often intangible ways. I think it's often forgotten by men in the United States that women weren't allowed to vote until almost half a century after black men (technically speaking).

What you just said, tonka, while not explicitly advocating it, resembles too closely for comfort arguments for color-blindness. Unfortunately, while those in privilege get to benefit from the rest of the world typically viewing them as an individual within a group, those within subjugated minorities are lumped together and prejudice remains, conscious or unconscious, and privileges are assigned based on those prejudices. It's one thing to acknowledge the social construction of said "groups" and work to create an understanding that all people are born equal, regardless of our perceptions of their characteristics. It's entirely another, and incredibly detrimental, to pretend that those characteristics have not been justification for centuries of bigotry, enslavement and subjugation of groups imagined and created from those characteristics. The focus on community must first focus on the very success of those groups in order to understand their innate arbitrariness and acknowledge that we are all, indeed, created equal.

While we've strayed pretty far from the topic of this thread, the scariest part about these past few responses to my initial post is that they actually seem like statements Trump might agree with.

[Matt]

5 hours ago, nyblue23 said:

Sorry, downvoted that out of instant reaction to seeing the word "groups" in quotation marks, as if those groups weren't initially defined by western men in power. It is no service to the survivors of injustice for western men, likely white, to suddenly pretend that the groups they have defined, systemically subjugated, and then benefited from the subjugation thereof, suddenly no longer exist in a meaningful way, and that everyone should just somehow get along, ignoring the privilege inherent in such a statement.

At it's core, the concept of feminism is merely the belief that women should be afforded the same opportunities as men across every aspect of life. To achieve that, however, everyone must first acknowledge the history of the subjugation of women, and understand that the roots of those injustices seep into every aspect of an individual woman's being, constantly working against them in often intangible ways. I think it's often forgotten by men in the United States that women weren't allowed to vote until almost half a century after black men (technically speaking).

What you just said, tonka, while not explicitly advocating it, resembles too closely for comfort arguments for color-blindness. Unfortunately, while those in privilege get to benefit from the rest of the world typically viewing them as an individual within a group, those within subjugated minorities are lumped together and prejudice remains, conscious or unconscious, and privileges are assigned based on those prejudices. It's one thing to acknowledge the social construction of said "groups" and work to create an understanding that all people are born equal, regardless of our perceptions of their characteristics. It's entirely another, and incredibly detrimental, to pretend that those characteristics have not been justification for centuries of bigotry, enslavement and subjugation of groups imagined and created from those characteristics. The focus on community must first focus on the very success of those groups in order to understand their innate arbitrariness and acknowledge that we are all, indeed, created equal.

While we've strayed pretty far from the topic of this thread, the scariest part about these past few responses to my initial post is that they actually seem like statements Trump might agree with.

Groups is absolutely the right word; men in power are not responsible for people's gender or race definition, the "groups", in their purest form, are simply a way of helping to identify and differentiate. It's also not just a western thing. However, where privileged males come in (another generalisation, which also doesn't help) is how they abused these groups in the past, and in a lot of cases continue to do so. I prefer to refer to these people as dickheads (as I have done when referring to supposed fans of other teams who act like animals), so as to not tar the 99.9% of that group "men in power" who have no negative impact on things, and may even be leaders of positive progression

But the point is, in order to have true equality, you have to act as though everyone is equal, and move forward. That is not the same as "colour-blindness". It is not to say forget what's gone on beforehand. It is not to say ignore your fortune, or take it for granted.  On the contrary, the history and current fortunes of some should be highlighted and used as the platform to backup the pursuit for equality. However, history is being bastardized to promote extreme causes, which adds further segregation, not unity. Feminism is a great example, but I've not got time to go into it, hopefully it's clear why.

Just curious, lets say I go up or a job against someone who isn'tttt a British white male, and I'm better qualified. However, in company's rules they have to have a "balance (i.e. quota)" between "people like me" and "everyone else" (running out of time, this isn'tttt meant to be condescending), and they choose the other person to meet requirements. Is that fair? Or is that an action that creates further inequality?

Finally, please do not confuse Trumps dismissal with people who want to lead by example, or those who who want to abuse a cause to further their own agenda. That is not the case of anyone here. 

[Matt]

11 hours ago, Cornish Steve said:

Of course, it's easy for us to say these things: We're all men - and maybe all white, straight men (even more than Trump's administration!). I suspect we'd read some very different conclusions were women, or minorities, present on these forums, and then we'd really see some interesting discourse.

And I'd love to discuss it, engaging in the debate is another tool in going forward towards equality. Though preferably face to face as it's a difficult topic to discuss over an internet forum. 

[Chach]

On 1/30/2018 at 21:09, Matt said:

Using bias to influence things is just adding fuel to the fire. We today cannot be held responsible or accountable for what has happened in the past, in my opinion. What we can do, however, is try and shape the future. If equality is what we want going forward, then preach it, live it, implement it. Recompensing for the mistakes of the past will only continue to create division, which will forever inhibit the progression to equality. 

wowsers mate, check your privilege.*

 

*If you're a black muslim lesbian then apologies, your name threw me.

 

[Sibdane]

8 hours ago, nyblue23 said:

Sorry, downvoted that out of instant reaction to seeing the word "groups" in quotation marks, as if those groups weren't initially defined by western men in power. It is no service to the survivors of injustice for western men, likely white, to suddenly pretend that the groups they have defined, systemically subjugated, and then benefited from the subjugation thereof, suddenly no longer exist in a meaningful way, and that everyone should just somehow get along, ignoring the privilege inherent in such a statement.

At it's core, the concept of feminism is merely the belief that women should be afforded the same opportunities as men across every aspect of life. To achieve that, however, everyone must first acknowledge the history of the subjugation of women, and understand that the roots of those injustices seep into every aspect of an individual woman's being, constantly working against them in often intangible ways. I think it's often forgotten by men in the United States that women weren't allowed to vote until almost half a century after black men (technically speaking).

What you just said, tonka, while not explicitly advocating it, resembles too closely for comfort arguments for color-blindness. Unfortunately, while those in privilege get to benefit from the rest of the world typically viewing them as an individual within a group, those within subjugated minorities are lumped together and prejudice remains, conscious or unconscious, and privileges are assigned based on those prejudices. It's one thing to acknowledge the social construction of said "groups" and work to create an understanding that all people are born equal, regardless of our perceptions of their characteristics. It's entirely another, and incredibly detrimental, to pretend that those characteristics have not been justification for centuries of bigotry, enslavement and subjugation of groups imagined and created from those characteristics. The focus on community must first focus on the very success of those groups in order to understand their innate arbitrariness and acknowledge that we are all, indeed, created equal.

While we've strayed pretty far from the topic of this thread, the scariest part about these past few responses to my initial post is that they actually seem like statements Trump might agree with.

EDIT: Nevermind -- not worth the trouble.

[Sibdane]

2 hours ago, Matt said:

Groups is absolutely the right word; men in power are not responsible for people's gender or race definition, the "groups", in their purest form, are simply a way of helping to identify and differentiate. It's also not just a western thing. However, where privileged males come in (another generalisation, which also doesn't help) is how they abused these groups in the past, and in a lot of cases continue to do so. I prefer to refer to these people as dickheads (as I have done when referring to supposed fans of other teams who act like animals), so as to not tar the 99.9% of that group "men in power" who have no negative impact on things, and may even be leaders of positive progression

But the point is, in order to have true equality, you have to act as though everyone is equal, and move forward. That is not the same as "colour-blindness". It is not to say forget what's gone on beforehand. It is not to say ignore your fortune, or take it for granted.  On the contrary, the history and current fortunes of some should be highlighted and used as the platform to backup the pursuit for equality. However, history is being bastardized to promote extreme causes, which adds further segregation, not unity. Feminism is a great example, but I've not got time to go into it, hopefully it's clear why.

Just curious, lets say I go up or a job against someone who isn'ttttt a British white male, and I'm better qualified. However, in company's rules they have to have a "balance (i.e. quota)" between "people like me" and "everyone else" (running out of time, this isn'ttttt meant to be condescending), and they choose the other person to meet requirements. Is that fair? Or is that an action that creates further inequality?

Finally, please do not confuse Trumps dismissal with people who want to lead by example, or those who who want to abuse a cause to further their own agenda. That is not the case of anyone here. 

Exactly this.

And on the last sentence... Everyone on here seems to hate Trump. Any direct comparison to him is pretty much akin to name-calling.

[Matt]

1 hour ago, Chach said:

wowsers mate, check your privilege.*

 

*If you're a black muslim lesbian then apologies, your name threw me.

 

I know exactly how lucky I am, and that I’m luckier than most. Because of this I have the freedom to express what I think is the best way forward. I believe in leading by example, and live my life like that.

I won’t claim to truly understand other groups who have suffered / continue to suffer, any more than people could understand my situation; how could I? I’m not them. 

But don’t assume to know me, my past or my family’s past because of my white skin, my gender. You have no idea, and that kind of generalisation and ignorant segregation is part of the problem I was talking about *

* unless you’re God (in which case you should’ve done a better job) or the perfect human being, in which case apologies. 

[nyblue23]

5 hours ago, Matt said:

Groups is absolutely the right word; men in power are not responsible for people's gender or race definition, the "groups", in their purest form, are simply a way of helping to identify and differentiate. It's also not just a western thing. However, where privileged males come in (another generalisation, which also doesn't help) is how they abused these groups in the past, and in a lot of cases continue to do so. I prefer to refer to these people as dickheads (as I have done when referring to supposed fans of other teams who act like animals), so as to not tar the 99.9% of that group "men in power" who have no negative impact on things, and may even be leaders of positive progression

But the point is, in order to have true equality, you have to act as though everyone is equal, and move forward. That is not the same as "colour-blindness". It is not to say forget what's gone on beforehand. It is not to say ignore your fortune, or take it for granted.  On the contrary, the history and current fortunes of some should be highlighted and used as the platform to backup the pursuit for equality. However, history is being bastardized to promote extreme causes, which adds further segregation, not unity. Feminism is a great example, but I've not got time to go into it, hopefully it's clear why.

Just curious, lets say I go up or a job against someone who isn'ttttt a British white male, and I'm better qualified. However, in company's rules they have to have a "balance (i.e. quota)" between "people like me" and "everyone else" (running out of time, this isn'ttttt meant to be condescending), and they choose the other person to meet requirements. Is that fair? Or is that an action that creates further inequality?

Finally, please do not confuse Trumps dismissal with people who want to lead by example, or those who who want to abuse a cause to further their own agenda. That is not the case of anyone here. 

13

I wasn't objecting to the word groups - I was objecting to the quotation marks around it as they were intended to delegitimize.

Unfortunately, I think you're right that it's almost impossible to have this conversation online. Without trying to be pedantic, your basic assumption that groups are ultimately good because they help us identify, differentiate and make sense of the world is one made by structuralist anthropologists like Claude Levi Strauss over half a century ago. Nearly all modern/post-structuralist scholarship in the fields of race, gender, sexuality, etc. (see bell hooks, Judith Butler, Michel Foucault) has occupied itself by showing the ways in which the very creation of these groups (a lot of which, contrary to your assertion otherwise, were defined by white men in power*) has been a means to exert power and control over the people who are identified within them.

As nice as it would be to just act as if everyone is equal, unfortunately, in our current societal makeup, they are not. Whether under the eyes of the law, corporations, or implicit biases within social groups and regions, the structures which inform our every waking moment do not treat people equally, and as individuals, our acknowledgment that everyone is equal and treatment of them as such does absolutely nothing to change those structures.

Your example is one that is used by people in privilege over and over again. Was it fair that you statistically went to better schools, statistically had a more supportive upbringing due to a myriad of external circumstances, statistically had more time to devote to your career, etc. etc. than many of the candidates who might be slightly less qualified than you? I don't think so (and again, here, I am making statistical generalizations that may or may not be true in your case, but I think you can acknowledge at least that wealth inequality exists in real ways that impact education and career trajectory and that minorities in most of the West are more likely to be subject to that inequality) . So why should it be fair that you get the job and they don't? Life's not fair to anyone all the time, but it's pretty fair to people like us more often than not.

*White men in power obviously did not create the use of identifying groups to differentiate between one another; they've been used since people had language to differentiate. That said, a lot of the groups that exist now as identities are a relatively new phenomenon (i.e. homosexuality and other non-procreative sexual inclinations were not really considered identities but merely behaviors until the 19th century).

[markjazzbassist]

20 minutes ago, nyblue23 said:

I wasn't objecting to the word groups - I was objecting to the quotation marks around it as they were intended to delegitimize.

Unfortunately, I think you're right that it's almost impossible to have this conversation online. Without trying to be pedantic, your basic assumption that groups are ultimately good because they help us identify, differentiate and make sense of the world is one made by structuralist anthropologists like Claude Levi Strauss over half a century ago. Nearly all modern/post-structuralist scholarship in the fields of race, gender, sexuality, etc. (see bell hooks, Judith Butler, Michel Foucault) has occupied itself by showing the ways in which the very creation of these groups (a lot of which, contrary to your assertion otherwise, were defined by white men in power*) has been a means to exert power and control over the people who are identified within them.

As nice as it would be to just act as if everyone is equal, unfortunately, in our current societal makeup, they are not. Whether under the eyes of the law, corporations, or implicit biases within social groups and regions, the structures which inform our every waking moment do not treat people equally, and as individuals, our acknowledgment that everyone is equal and treatment of them as such does absolutely nothing to change those structures.

Your example is one that is used by people in privilege over and over again. Was it fair that you statistically went to better schools, statistically had a more supportive upbringing due to a myriad of external circumstances, statistically had more time to devote to your career, etc. etc. than many of the candidates who might be slightly less qualified than you? I don't think so (and again, here, I am making statistical generalizations that may or may not be true in your case, but I think you can acknowledge at least that wealth inequality exists in real ways that impact education and career trajectory and that minorities in most of the West are more likely to be subject to that inequality) . So why should it be fair that you get the job and they don't? Life's not fair to anyone all the time, but it's pretty fair to people like us more often than not.

*White men in power obviously did not create the use of identifying groups to differentiate between one another; they've been used since people had language to differentiate. That said, a lot of the groups that exist now as identities are a relatively new phenomenon (i.e. homosexuality and other non-procreative sexual inclinations were not really considered identities but merely behaviors until the 19th century).

 

am i right that you said you are a bartender?  are you a PhD student or academic by day?  

[Matt]

19 minutes ago, nyblue23 said:

I wasn't objecting to the word groups - I was objecting to the quotation marks around it as they were intended to delegitimize.

Unfortunately, I think you're right that it's almost impossible to have this conversation online. Without trying to be pedantic, your basic assumption that groups are ultimately good because they help us identify, differentiate and make sense of the world is one made by structuralist anthropologists like Claude Levi Strauss over half a century ago. Nearly all modern/post-structuralist scholarship in the fields of race, gender, sexuality, etc. (see bell hooks, Judith Butler, Michel Foucault) has occupied itself by showing the ways in which the very creation of these groups (a lot of which, contrary to your assertion otherwise, were defined by white men in power*) has been a means to exert power and control over the people who are identified within them.

As nice as it would be to just act as if everyone is equal, unfortunately, in our current societal makeup, they are not. Whether under the eyes of the law, corporations, or implicit biases within social groups and regions, the structures which inform our every waking moment do not treat people equally, and as individuals, our acknowledgment that everyone is equal and treatment of them as such does absolutely nothing to change those structures.

Your example is one that is used by people in privilege over and over again. Was it fair that you statistically went to better schools, statistically had a more supportive upbringing due to a myriad of external circumstances, statistically had more time to devote to your career, etc. etc. than many of the candidates who might be slightly less qualified than you? I don't think so (and again, here, I am making statistical generalizations that may or may not be true in your case, but I think you can acknowledge at least that wealth inequality exists in real ways that impact education and career trajectory and that minorities in most of the West are more likely to be subject to that inequality) . So why should it be fair that you get the job and they don't? Life's not fair to anyone all the time, but it's pretty fair to people like us more often than not.

*White men in power obviously did not create the use of identifying groups to differentiate between one another; they've been used since people had language to differentiate. That said, a lot of the groups that exist now as identities are a relatively new phenomenon (i.e. homosexuality and other non-procreative sexual inclinations were not really considered identities but merely behaviors until the 19th century).

My bad, I misinterpreted what you meant. A prime example of why debating something as varied and contentious as this online is a bad idea 

I don't believe I said they were good, I just said they are there, exactly because of the point you made at the end. They can be both good and bad, depending on context. I won't argue that white men in power haven't had a massive influence on the events of the world, because of course they have; for better or worse (the better part is often glossed over in my opinion, but that's a whole other clusterfuck of discussion). But it's not white men in power, it's anyone in power, regardless of colour or sex. Again, there's a clear majority, but if we're going to be accurate, address the entire spectrum. 

I already acknowledged not everyone is equal, and chances are they never will be. My point is to set that standard and lead by example to shape the future, whilst learning from the past and present. Change starts at the individual, and for most of us that's all we can ever influence. Forcing change is never successful.

The "is it fair that" argument used against the "people in privilege" drives me nuts.  Like I said to Chach, you've no idea about me etc. or how I got to where I am. But like I admit to (admit isn'tt the right word, but since it feels like I'm on trial each time this topic comes up, it's appropriate), I know I'm fortunate thanks to opportunities available to me, which I've taken for the most part. These opportunities came largely from the bloody hard work of my parents to pull us out of where they came from, which was certainly not privileged. Was I supposed to not make the most of that? Am I now supposed to lose out on jobs because companies are being encouraged to create a faux-equality because I'm a white male and statistically white males have better chances etc.?  Is that fair?

I try my best to help others where I can, someone tell me how to fix the world and I'll do it. Charity work and donations? Campaigning? I do and have done that, but what's enough? That still doesn't change the fact that trying to force change is counter-productive. 

I'd rather not continue, but only because it's too sensitive a subject online as we've agreed on, as much as I appreciate how you've constructed your posts and engaged in the topic. If you're ever in Switzerland (yes, home of the ultimate white privileged males, I know), let me know and we can carry on  

(finally, I don't know why you downvoted Tonkas post about not bothering, pretty sure my post popped up and he's just saying "not worth the trouble" because he agreed with my post, not because he's not interesting in continuing the discussion)

[MikeO]

32 minutes ago, markjazzbassist said:

am i right that you said you are a bartender?  are you a PhD student or academic by day?  

Fascinating discussion though; I largely agree with Matt but ny has given much food for thought (and at least it's taken my mind of the game tonight).

[markjazzbassist]

17 minutes ago, MikeO said:

Fascinating discussion though; I largely agree with Matt but ny has given much food for thought (and at least it's taken my mind of the game tonight).

i'm just intrigued mike because i thought he said he was a bartender but after that post i'm wonder if he's like a closet professor or something, dude is super well read and researched on this.  maybe he bartends at the library of congress ? 

[Sibdane]

20 minutes ago, Matt said:

(finally, I don't know why you downvoted Tonkas post about not bothering, pretty sure my post popped up and he's just saying "not worth the trouble" because he agreed with my post, not because he's not interesting in continuing the discussion)

Yep, but no worries, I'm not too bothered by internet forum down-votes.

[Matt]

27 minutes ago, MikeO said:

Fascinating discussion though; I largely agree with Matt but ny has given much food for thought (and at least it's taken my mind of the game tonight).

It has been, and probably the best conducted online debate I’ve had for a long time!

[Sibdane]

Just to be clear, my aim wasn't to delegitimize anyone by putting quotes around the word groups, but I can see how it was taken that way. I also noted that there should be some attention on injustices, and the injustices I'm alluding to are those occurring against said groups.

[Bailey]

I just hope that one day this is a conversation that will never be had again... I can't see it happening though unfortunately.

[pete0]

10 hours ago, Chach said:

wowsers mate, check your privilege.*

 

*If you're a black muslim lesbian then apologies, your name threw me.

 

In the UK we have a class society. Race and religion doesn't come into it as long as you were born into money and mummy and daddy paid extortionate school fees you'll be alright. We have a nepotism problem but no one seems to care to do anything about it. 

[Cornish Steve]

I don't know whether it's still the case, but, when I worked in central London, I used to smile at the researchers standing on street corners with their clipboards and pens. They'd always be looking at the ground, and I later learned that shoes are the best indicator of one's social class. The lower classes take little care of their shoes, which are usually cheap and grubby, whereas the upper classes wear expensive shoes that look like new. Apparently, researchers could tell with some accuracy to which of the five social groupings a pedestrian belonged based solely (notice what I did there?) on shoes.

[Chach]

18 hours ago, Matt said:

However, history is being bastardized to promote extreme causes, which adds further segregation, not unity. Feminism is a great example, but I've not got time to go into it, hopefully it's clear why.

You can't make comments like this and then say "but the internet is not the right place to discuss/I don't have time" its a massive cop out.

Online is arguably far superior as you can receive multiple arguments, reflect on them and take your time to respond thoughtfully, where opinions are based on ones feelings not wanting to discuss it when they are challenged is symptomatic of not having a well developed argument.

On 1/31/2018 at 00:42, Matt said:

My point is that equality can not be forced, only taught, and the best way to teach is to lead by example and not by quotas, which I believe are detrimental to the whole effort 

While I agree quotas are a terrible idea the premise that equality can't be forced is demonstrably wrong. Most civil rights/equality issues have evolved gradually as a result of increasing social pressure.

[Matt]

34 minutes ago, Chach said:

You can't make comments like this and then say "but the internet is not the right place to discuss/I don't have time" its a massive cop out.

Online is arguably far superior as you can receive multiple arguments, reflect on them and take your time to respond thoughtfully, where opinions are based on ones feelings not wanting to discuss it when they are challenged is symptomatic of not having a well developed argument.

While I agree quotas are a terrible idea the premise that equality can't be forced is demonstrably wrong. Most civil rights/equality issues have evolved gradually as a result of increasing social pressure.

I meant I don’t have time because I’m in a workshop all week, so I literally don’t have time to be on the forum for sufficient periods of time. There are benefits to online debate, but in sensitive topics it’s often hard to have the discussion as it’s not real time. 

Right, back to work  

[nyblue23]

I've got to spend some time responding to this sensibly and that's not something I have much of at this moment (opening a new restaurant/cocktail bar - yes, I am a bartender who thought strongly about entering academia, but decided against the often fraught fight for legitimacy within the academic field [my shoes all have holes in them]). That said, I appreciate the thoughtful responses as much as the next guy and will do my best to carve out a little time soon.

[nyblue23]

17 hours ago, tonkaroost said:

EDIT: Nevermind -- not worth the trouble.

I will say, if I misinterpreted the intention, which I acknowledge is easy to do in a situation like this, I apologize for the downvote. Still, it's pretty hard to interpret the phrase "not worth the trouble" as anything less than condescension, especially when the word EDIT is in all caps.

[Sibdane]

6 hours ago, nyblue23 said:

I will say, if I misinterpreted the intention, which I acknowledge is easy to do in a situation like this, I apologize for the downvote. Still, it's pretty hard to interpret the phrase "not worth the trouble" as anything less than condescension, especially when the word EDIT is in all caps.

Understandable. One of the issues with text rather than a face-to-face discussion is a lack of tone. I wasn't trying to be condescending, so sorry about that.

[Matt]

1 hour ago, tonkaroost said:

Understandable. One of the issues with text rather than a face-to-face discussion is a lack of tone. I wasn't trying to be condescending, so sorry about that.

It also takes a long time to work out someone’s character via forum discussion. The Personalities thread I started showed me how different people can be, as did the interpretations of members in the TT annual awards thread Cornish Steve started.