Political Correctness

[Jaw]

I agree with you, and I understand the hesitation to see such a foundational change. Like I said, I believe the ideal solution would be for the Girl Scouts to be more similar to Boy Scouts. I liked the idea of them being seperate simply because boys and girls ARE different, and they each respond better to certain types of instruction. I also feel that the quest for equality has become the quest for sameness. One of my favorite authors once said " A woman who tries to be a man becomes something less than either." I believe that is true.

[thethe]

I agree with you, and I understand the hesitation to see such a foundational change. Like I said, I believe the ideal solution would be for the Girl Scouts to be more similar to Boy Scouts. I liked the idea of them being seperate simply because boys and girls ARE different, and they each respond better to certain types of instruction. I also feel that the quest for equality has become the quest for sameness. One of my favorite authors once said " A woman who tries to be a man becomes something less than either." I believe that is true.

That's for posting this. Enjoy reading all your comments.

[sturg33]

Selfish capitalist pigs

[thethe]

The world knows the truth. Capitalism is the only option to improve the everyday person. It's not for the people who don't want to work hard.

[jpx7]

Selfish capitalist pigs

Less than 1.5% of the GDP being voluntarily redistributed seems much more of a pittance when you weigh it against the greater-than-80% of the population that controls less than 10% of US wealth.

[jpx7]

I agree with you, and I understand the hesitation to see such a foundational change. Like I said, I believe the ideal solution would be for the Girl Scouts to be more similar to Boy Scouts. I liked the idea of them being seperate simply because boys and girls ARE different, and they each respond better to certain types of instruction. I also feel that the quest for equality has become the quest for sameness. One of my favorite authors once said " A woman who tries to be a man becomes something less than either." I believe that is true.

I feel like this is another strawman.

The quest is not for equality, per se, but equitable access. The reality of 2017 in the US, much less the globe, is largely governed by asymmetrical and/or inequitable access. These boogeymen of The Left, in reality, do not want to create soulless automata, grey-green drones of rarefied sameness to march orderly into a bleak future denying all individuality. We just want equal freedom from material deprivations, and—with that secured—equitable access to pursuits of happiness.

[sturg33]

Less than 1.5% of the GDP being voluntarily redistributed seems much more of a pittance when you weigh it against the greater-than-80% of the population that controls less than 10% of US wealth.

That seems like a completely unrelated and useless point.

Let's be honest here... you consistently rail against the selfishness of capitalism... yet the US is at least twice as charitable with their money as every other country... And when we compare it against the socialist dream lands, it's much more so

[sturg33]

I feel like this is another strawman.

The quest is not for equality, per se, but equitable access. The reality of 2017 in the US, much less the globe, is largely governed by asymmetrical and/or inequitable access. These boogeymen of The Left, in reality, do not want to create soulless automata, grey-green drones of rarefied sameness to march orderly into a bleak future denying all individuality. We just want equal freedom from material deprivations, and—with that secured—equitable access to pursuits of happiness.

I think this is what you say... but not what you actually want. And by you, I mean the left. Based on the constant screeching, I think the desire is for equality of outcomes

[Jaw]

I feel like this is another strawman.

The quest is not for equality, per se, but equitable access. The reality of 2017 in the US, much less the globe, is largely governed by asymmetrical and/or inequitable access. These boogeymen of The Left, in reality, do not want to create soulless automata, grey-green drones of rarefied sameness to march orderly into a bleak future denying all individuality. We just want equal freedom from material deprivations, and—with that secured—equitable access to pursuits of happiness.

I believe that statement accurately describes you, and I think it describes most rational people. I do not think it describes the average vocal feminist.

[goldfly]

why separate between boy and girl scouts anyway

as a friend who is an eagle scout said today:

As proud as I am of becoming an Eagle Scout, it was just a checklist of skills and activities; gender played no part.

and a girl i know:

Emily: THIS IS ALL I WANTED WHEN I WAS A KID. I’ll never forget the day they came to recruit Boy Scouts and I was like this all sounds awesome I wanna join and they were like nope it’s not for you, have fun with your cookies and crafts.

but i'm sure the so called freedom lover has some dumb point he is trying to make by arguing against allowing people to do something

[Jaw]

and a girl i know:

Emily: THIS IS ALL I WANTED WHEN I WAS A KID. I’ll never forget the day they came to recruit Boy Scouts and I was like this all sounds awesome I wanna join and they were like nope it’s not for you, have fun with your cookies and crafts.

My daughter used almost the exact same words as your friend Emily.

I do understand the desire to separate the genders if you are a chaperone taking 20 teens into the woods with nothing to stand between them in the night but tent fabric. My understanding is that this program will still do that.

[jpx7]

That seems like a completely unrelated and useless point.

Let's be honest here... you consistently rail against the selfishness of capitalism... yet the US is at least twice as charitable with their money as every other country... And when we compare it against the socialist dream lands, it's much more so

(a) Charity is less necessary in nations where the average quality of life is much higher and the baseline provision for each citizen is more secure.

(b) It's not my response that's "completely unrelated and useless", but—shocker!—your initial post, in the context of evaluating whether capitalism as an economic ordering engenders/promotes selfishness or not. Charitable giving—fraught as it, with all sorts of 501(c)3 organizations out there performing a host of functions, some far beyond any realistic understanding of "charity"; as a drop in the bucket compared to broader and more structural economic pressures (which is self-evident, but also evinced by your 1.44%); and with incentive structures in the US that make charitable giving profitable, up to a certain amount—is simply not some kind of direct index of selflessness. Maybe it would be in a nation of pure and unmitigated market capitalism—but you're always quick to remind we don't have that here, so I don't think your chart has a lot of evaluative utility.

(c) Speaking of those incentive structures, I'd like to see this chart broken down into "charitable giving beyond tax-writeoff thresholds".

[Jaw]

On a positive note, this lady gets it:

https://qz.com/1097425/apples-first-...st-minorities/

Denise Young Smith is Silicon Valley’s most powerful black woman. “My name was not talked about prior to maybe 5 years ago,” she says. But that quickly changed once Apple named her as their very first vice president of diversity and inclusion, just a few months ago.
....
Young Smith, a 20-year veteran at Apple, will lead a team responsible for improving Apple’s diversity figures and ensuring the company’s hiring practices and retention is open and inclusive.
....
When asked whether she would be focusing on any group of people, such as black women, in her efforts to create a more inclusive and diverse Apple, Young Smith says, “I focus on everyone.” She added: “Diversity is the human experience. I get a little bit frustrated when diversity or the term diversity is tagged to the people of color, or the women, or the LGBT.” Her answer was met with a round of applause at the session.

Young Smith went on to add that “there can be 12 white, blue-eyed, blonde men in a room and they’re going to be diverse too because they’re going to bring a different life experience and life perspective to the conversation.” The issue, Young Smith explains, “is representation and mix.” She is keen to work to bring all voices into the room that “can contribute to the outcome of any situation.”

[sturg33]

On a positive note, this lady gets it:

https://qz.com/1097425/apples-first-...st-minorities/

Denise Young Smith is Silicon Valley’s most powerful black woman. “My name was not talked about prior to maybe 5 years ago,” she says. But that quickly changed once Apple named her as their very first vice president of diversity and inclusion, just a few months ago.
....
Young Smith, a 20-year veteran at Apple, will lead a team responsible for improving Apple’s diversity figures and ensuring the company’s hiring practices and retention is open and inclusive.
....
When asked whether she would be focusing on any group of people, such as black women, in her efforts to create a more inclusive and diverse Apple, Young Smith says, “I focus on everyone.” She added: “Diversity is the human experience. I get a little bit frustrated when diversity or the term diversity is tagged to the people of color, or the women, or the LGBT.” Her answer was met with a round of applause at the session.

Young Smith went on to add that “there can be 12 white, blue-eyed, blonde men in a room and they’re going to be diverse too because they’re going to bring a different life experience and life perspective to the conversation.” The issue, Young Smith explains, “is representation and mix.” She is keen to work to bring all voices into the room that “can contribute to the outcome of any situation.”

Imagine if a white guy said this.

(she's completely right, by the way)

[jpx7]

Imagine if a white guy said this.

(she's completely right, by the way)

If a white guy said it, it would sound woefully self-interested and/or selfish—sort of like a white guy complaining on the internet about what he doesn't "get" to say anymore.

This is the power of promoting alterior and alternative voices: effecting a real diversity that is earnest and earned, not merely assumed or granted by historical structures of exclusion and privilege. As a self-professed lover of competitive, purportedly cream-to-the-top trials-by-market, I'd think you'd have no problem with white men having to re-earn their hereditary seats at the table.

[sturg33]

If a white guy said it, it would sound woefully self-interested and/or selfish—sort of like a white guy complaining on the internet about what he doesn't "get" to say anymore.

This is the power of promoting alterior and alternative voices: effecting a real diversity that is earnest and earned, not merely assumed or granted by historical structures of exclusion and privilege. As a self-professed lover of competitive, purportedly cream-to-the-top trials-by-market, I'd think you'd have no problem with white men having to re-earn their hereditary seats at the table.

Just to be clear.

1. A black women says something and it is to be applauded

2. A white man saying the exact same thing, it is to be considered woefully self-interested and selfish

Amazing.

[jpx7]

Just to be clear.

1. A black women says something and it is to be applauded

2. A white man saying the exact same thing, it is to be considered woefully self-interested and selfish

Amazing.

Just to be clear:

You don't consider the speaker and/or context of a statement in the process of evaluating its merits?

Amazing.

[sturg33]

Just to be clear:

You don't consider the speaker and/or context of a statement in the process of evaluating its merits?

Amazing.

To be clear... I do my very best to always consider only the content spoken.

But that doesn't play into the identity politics game, so I get how that doesn't work for you.

I guess I ought to check my privilege and keep my mouth shut on the matter.

[jpx7]

To be clear... I do my very best to always consider only the content spoken.

But that doesn't play into the identity politics game, so I get how that doesn't work for you.

I guess I ought to check my privilege and keep my mouth shut on the matter.

You don't need to check your privilege, but you do need to check your biases. Part of content is source, and you're deluding yourself if you don't think your mind incorporates that into its judgments. Wisdom is a constant process of self-interrogation.

As for "play[ing] into the identity politics game", that's a cheap shot, considering I've pretty consistently argued that—while I celebrate a range of identities—I don't think effective politics should be reducible to mere identity. But I see how playing that card works for you in this context.

And, lastly, to repeat for the many-dozenth time: you ought to say what you want, and feel, and think is true; but you ought not be sanctimoniously outraged when, not being well packaged, it's likewise not well received.

[sturg33]

You can't say that you don't subscribe to identity politics when you just wrote that a white man saying something would be woefully selfish that is applauded for a black woman saying the same thing.

That just doesn't fly. Sorry.

The google employ got fired because he asked a thoughtful question - basically saying the exact same thing this woman said. How can one be applauded and one be fired for the same sentence, and that be OK?