|
|
Post by Komori on Jun 27, 2013 13:52:47 GMT -5
Why, because a guy writes an openly hostile article about women? We know there are misogynists out there, it's not exactly news.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Jun 27, 2013 13:53:00 GMT -5
And do you quantify the Dawkins articles when you recommend them to others, or just kinda slap them out there like you did with that link? If the later, you might want to work on that. Edit: and there is the matter of a known Christian recommending Dawkins to other known Christians vs someone who admittedly thinks little of feminism recommending that. Like, if I linked that Lone Psychiatrist article to my sister she'd think I was taking the tinkle for sure. I just honestly didn't think about giving any commentary about it, much like i didn't give commentary on the other ones. It was there, "add a link to it!" And yes, quite often the links I share I don't always quantify unless I think ahead of time about it. This was a time I didn't think ahead of it. (This would probably be one of those ones where on further reflection I would've edited out as A Mistake caused by my impulsive nature) |
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Jun 27, 2013 13:57:03 GMT -5
Now see, that is some grade-A butt covering. If that was your intention with the link in the first place it would have been easy to say so. I have to assume it was entirely your intent to antagonize. And if you think being talked down to like that in regards to feminism is anything new or that a hostile delivery is atypical. Well. "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." I consolidate relevant links I'd been meaning to post all week. I didn't find it necessary to give commentary or warnings. That was my stupidity, yes, but being antagonistic and a troll? No, then I would've put commentary and been snide about it. |
|
|
|
Post by M is for Morphine on Jun 27, 2013 13:57:05 GMT -5
I just honestly didn't think about giving any commentary about it, much like i didn't give commentary on the other ones. Justice Thomas didn't call anyone a Fleshlight, as I recall. Why, because a guy writes an openly hostile article about women? We know there are misogynists out there, it's not exactly news. See the comments on any article about sexism in relation to videogames like, ever. |
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Jun 27, 2013 14:01:06 GMT -5
I just honestly didn't think about giving any commentary about it, much like i didn't give commentary on the other ones. Justice Thomas didn't call anyone a Fleshlight, as I recall. Yes, and I also didn't think much of sending a curse-filled rant to my mother regarding a topic we both had interest in until hours after the fact. All I thought was "huh, this is relevant, I'll share with interested parties." (In that case, my mother) It's what we call impulsiveness. It happens. You can try to get more out of it than there is, but all my intention was it was relevant to discussion (for many reasons), it had come back across my radar this morning, and I recommended it. |
|
|
|
Post by Komori on Jun 27, 2013 14:07:19 GMT -5
Why, because a guy writes an openly hostile article about women? We know there are misogynists out there, it's not exactly news. See the comments on any article about sexism in relation to videogames like, ever. Mm, no, that post was directed towards Stal (my fault for not using the quotes button). Your post was just faster than mine. What I meant to direct to Stal: there's no reason to post an aggressive article. The fact that that article exists isn't exactly a good reason to post it, because hostile comments are everywhere. It doesn't raise any new points, just takes reasonable arguments and insults the people who make them. I mean, clearly there was a reason that article couldn't be directly linked on the NTWF. If someone had said things remotely like that directly ON the forum, the mods would have more than a few choice words. That's because the NTWF is holding people to a higher standard. Hopefully a more respectful one. Directing people to hostility is almost as bad as posting it directly. |
|
|
|
Post by M is for Morphine on Jun 27, 2013 14:09:09 GMT -5
See the comments on any article about sexism in relation to videogames like, ever. Mm, no, that post was directed towards Stal (my fault for not using the quotes button). Your post was just faster than mine. I was agreeing with you. XD I just meant, if someone does think that's news I know where they can look to learn otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by Joker on Jun 27, 2013 17:06:02 GMT -5
Not that I have much of a stake in the whole discussion, but I have to say there are posts on here that seem much more antagonistic and aggressive than Stal's. 0:-)
I skimmed the article myself out of curiosity, and found it quite interesting despite disagreeing with pretty much everything in it. It's written quite poorly - the main impression I walked away with was that the author is not terribly intelligent and probably doesn't have a whole lot of friends - but I can't say I see what's so offensive about sharing various points of view on a controversial issue. It reminds me of what some of my favorite professors have done in the past. If you're interested in a certain subject, anything related to it is worth reading on some level, however apparently ridiculous or disagreeable it may be.
|
|
|
|
Post by Komori on Jun 27, 2013 17:28:59 GMT -5
Sorry if I change the topic back to the main point of reverse discrimination, because I found this really fascinating article on the NYTimes. There are a number of states who've actually banned affirmative action, and they've got graphs charting its effect on minority enrollment in the state's main colleges. Some of these colleges seem to enroll a lot fewer minorities, once they were no longer required to... www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/24/us/affirmative-action-bans.html?_r=0 |
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Jun 27, 2013 18:12:54 GMT -5
Sorry if I change the topic back to the main point of reverse discrimination, because I found this really fascinating article on the NYTimes. There are a number of states who've actually banned affirmative action, and they've got graphs charting its effect on minority enrollment in the state's main colleges. Some of these colleges seem to enroll a lot fewer minorities, once they were no longer required to... www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/24/us/affirmative-action-bans.html?_r=0Looks like picking and choosing certain universities to me. I would like to see state-wide details and data. That would be the most telling. Not one or two major universities. That's not an appropriate sample population. But I'm not surprised. Without being able to compete using race as a factor, let's be honest, admissions at prestigious and major schools would tend to decline as the competition changed to reflect education and achievements. I'm not trying to be rude when I say that--it's a known factor that minority populations are usually adversely impacted on educational means due to public school and family situations that are strongly correlated to minorities. But would their enrollment at other universities have gone up? Remain unchanged? Isn't that the important factor to determine? Also, the podcast I mentioned earlier: How Much Does Your Name Matter?(And Transcript ) Super Duper Commentary Deluxxe Edition: It deals mostly with the concepts of names and fate/destiny, but also a lot of discussion on whether minority sounding names impact people's lives or not. It's a good complement to both the book chapter that dealt with the similar topic and the movie segment. |
|
|
|
Post by Thorn on Jun 27, 2013 19:04:50 GMT -5
My gosh this board is moving fast! =0
I was going to reply to the previous topic, but I doubt I need to now. xD
EDIT: Why do we hate freethoughtpedia? I haven't found why it's offensive yet, though I've only just started on it.
EDIT 2: Right, the bias. Carry on. xD
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2013 20:04:19 GMT -5
Goodness, the thread has exploded! Before I do any serious catching up, I would like to address one thing that particularly ticks me: I also strongly recommend a post on The Last Psychiatrist blog. An article titled "No Self-Respecting Woman Would Go Without Makeup" (written back in Jan, but still on the first page). I'd link to it, but for certain rules I cannot. I do not wear makeup because I find it unnecessary. I find applying makeup every day to be a hassle. I only wear it on special occasions, and even then it's usually only a little lip gloss. I'm sure many people have already said this (I don't know how many, since I have so much to catch up on) but linking (or recommending) something with a title like that is offensive. Real people on this FORUM do not wear makeup. I have plenty of self-respect, thank you very much. In fact, if I told you my perception of myself you would probably think me really egotistical (which is why I'm not saying). Implying that anyone who makes a safe lifestyle choice has no self-respect is insulting. |
|
|
|
Post by Komori on Jun 27, 2013 20:24:50 GMT -5
Sorry if I change the topic back to the main point of reverse discrimination, because I found this really fascinating article on the NYTimes. There are a number of states who've actually banned affirmative action, and they've got graphs charting its effect on minority enrollment in the state's main colleges. Some of these colleges seem to enroll a lot fewer minorities, once they were no longer required to... www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/24/us/affirmative-action-bans.html?_r=0Looks like picking and choosing certain universities to me. I would like to see state-wide details and data. That would be the most telling. Not one or two major universities. That's not an appropriate sample population. *shrug* I guess if by "picking and choosing certain universities" you mean just picking the top two biggest ones, I guess. Only in the California sampling do they pick Berkley, which is only 7th largest in that state. But I'm not surprised. Without being able to compete using race as a factor, let's be honest, admissions at prestigious and major schools would tend to decline as the competition changed to reflect education and achievements. I'm not trying to be rude when I say that--it's a known factor that minority populations are usually adversely impacted on educational means due to public school and family situations that are strongly correlated to minorities. And that doesn't ever strike you as a problem, then? That their public schools are obviously crappier, and it's too impossible for the state to bring those up to snuff with the other better public schools, and then the state can't even partially compensate for that problem by adjusting the admission requirements for its colleges? I'm sorry, that just doesn't strike me as an okay situation. |
|
|
|
Post by Crystal on Jun 28, 2013 9:11:59 GMT -5
I'm amused how the men are, "sexism isn't as big of a deal as people make it out to be" while the women are, "yes, yes it is." Guess who is on the receiving end of sexism more often.  I'm a woman in a computer science field, and I've never felt discriminated against for reasons of my gender. It was actually the opposite - people treasured me because I was rare. It got me a lot of opportunities at university, because I was Asian, female, and well-spoken (all three of which were hard to come by in my CS class.) I didn't read the Last Psychiatrist article. From what everyone's said about it, it would just send me into a fit of rage, and it's too early in the morning to be upset for the rest of the day. EDIT: Why do we hate freethoughtpedia? I haven't found why it's offensive yet, though I've only just started on it. I think Freethoughtpedia has biased me against freethinkers for forever. xD Well, that and the freethinker community down the road from my house that wants to demolish a building to build a dorm called "Freedom From Religion" or something, and sent out flyers advertising it. I think at that moment, if I could have named a building "Freedom from Freethinkers", I might have. :< I feel rather bad about it, because I want to be more impartial and I should know more about their culture and philosophy before I make judgements... but just, arrg. |
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Jun 28, 2013 9:35:32 GMT -5
Goodness, the thread has exploded! Before I do any serious catching up, I would like to address one thing that particularly ticks me: I also strongly recommend a post on The Last Psychiatrist blog. An article titled "No Self-Respecting Woman Would Go Without Makeup" (written back in Jan, but still on the first page). I'd link to it, but for certain rules I cannot. I do not wear makeup because I find it unnecessary. I find applying makeup every day to be a hassle. I only wear it on special occasions, and even then it's usually only a little lip gloss. I'm sure many people have already said this (I don't know how many, since I have so much to catch up on) but linking (or recommending) something with a title like that is offensive. Real people on this FORUM do not wear makeup. I have plenty of self-respect, thank you very much. In fact, if I told you my perception of myself you would probably think me really egotistical (which is why I'm not saying). Implying that anyone who makes a safe lifestyle choice has no self-respect is insulting. The article itself is offensive and rude, but I stand by my right to have posted a recommendation for it because I find it very relevant to the discussion. You can choose to get upset about it or use it to actually discuss things. Your call. I already went through this earlier. Looks like picking and choosing certain universities to me. I would like to see state-wide details and data. That would be the most telling. Not one or two major universities. That's not an appropriate sample population. *shrug* I guess if by "picking and choosing certain universities" you mean just picking the top two biggest ones, I guess. Only in the California sampling do they pick Berkley, which is only 7th largest in that state. How odd, though, that they would change their methodology in that case, isn't it? That should raise questions enough. There is a definite point to the article and it's showing the data in ways to make it skewed. And why not show data for the state college enrollments in aggregate? This is an aggregate policy but they specifically focus on two examples each (and not all those examples even show significant changes, but rather a lot seem to be in the normal variation) But I'm not surprised. Without being able to compete using race as a factor, let's be honest, admissions at prestigious and major schools would tend to decline as the competition changed to reflect education and achievements. I'm not trying to be rude when I say that--it's a known factor that minority populations are usually adversely impacted on educational means due to public school and family situations that are strongly correlated to minorities. And that doesn't ever strike you as a problem, then? That their public schools are obviously crappier, and it's too impossible for the state to bring those up to snuff with the other better public schools, and then the state can't even partially compensate for that problem by adjusting the admission requirements for its colleges? I'm sorry, that just doesn't strike me as an okay situation. These graphs are not showing the total number of minorities going to college out of those that are eligible. These are showing the total number going to two examples of schools in each state (and as a percentage of incoming freshmen, not raw numbers). How many colleges, community colleges, trade schools, et al are in each state? That data doesn't show total enrollment dropping. It shows that the minority percentage at a couple examples drops when they can't take race into consideration. And yes, that is completely fine with me. Secondary education is a wonderful thing, but a guaranteed spot at large or prestigious universities because of your race, or lowering the bar because of those situations is ridiculous. Being poor and disadvantaged is not a race specific thing. Happens to white people too. So no, getting a leg up because of race isn't anything other than getting special treatment for something that really doesn't matter. Some people get dealt a bad hand. It happens. If two people have the same bad hand, I find it abhorrent to give special treatment to one and not the other for something as arbitrary as race and skin color. No matter who it is getting that special treatment. Education is education. There was a great study done by Alan Krueger and Stacy Berg Dale that showed that, holding constant for ability, ethic, etc, where you go to college doesn't matter. Those that got accepted to more prestigious universities but attended less prestigious made comparable incomes to those who went to the prestigious. The conclusion of the research was that getting the education was what mattered, not the school. So does it matter if less qualified minority candidates can't attend the more prestigious school names if they lack the ability to do so? Or does it matter that they can still go to college, even if it doesn't have the fancy-pants name attached to it? Data says it's the latter. That's more than fine with me. |
|
