The intersectionality people talk about isn’t truly intersectional. An ugly woman, for example, is hardly living life on easy mode, whereas a rich black man navigates the world differently than a poor white man. I think a lot of these things are real, but not correctly weighted. We don’t take seriously the implications of class and beauty, either, both are dismissed completely out of hand.
For men height is extremely important and obviously so. Taller men have well-studied order-of-magnitude advantages over shorter men in dating and climbing hierarchies (how tall is your boss? his boss?). The sjw folk seem to ignore this phenomenon completely though.
But so is any advantage. You don’t need to create policies to make life easier for ugly people, just feels like we have warped ideas about what has the most impact.
"One of the first rules for a guide in polite conversation, is to avoid political or religious discussions in general society. Such discussions lead almost invariably to irritating differences of opinion, often to open quarrels, and a coolness of feeling which might have been avoided by dropping the distasteful subject as soon as marked differences of opinion arose. It is but one out of many that can discuss either political or religious differences, with candor and judgment, and yet so far control his language and temper as to avoid either giving or taking offence.
In their place, in circles which have met for such discussions, in a tête à tête conversation, in a small party of gentlemen where each is ready courteously to listen to the others, politics may be discussed with perfect propriety, but in the drawing-room, at the dinner-table, or in the society of ladies, these topics are best avoided.
If you are drawn into such a discussion without intending to be so, be careful that your individual opinion does not lead you into language and actions unbecoming a gentleman. Listen courteously to those whose opinions do not agree with yours, and keep your temper. A man in a passion ceases to be a gentleman.
Even if convinced that your opponent is utterly wrong, yield gracefully, decline further discussion, or dextrously turn the conversation, but do not obstinately defend your own opinion until you become angry, or more excited than is becoming to a gentleman."
I agree with an assertion in a previous post that women are equally competitive with men. So, I think it is unlikely that women's goals are basically sung to the tune of Kumbaya.
I was struck by a survey that was cited by Thomas Edsall in a column cited by Richard Hanania in his blog post.
The first-year students women students surveyed placed a greater priority on inclusion than heir male counterparts, but ALSO felt less protected by the First Amendment than the men. Paradoxical? No. Women probably feel like they can say anything, but feel excluded from the conversation. They can express themselves, but they cannot be heard.
Too many dopes like Hanania discount whatever a woman has to say beforehand. They believe they are hearing from some sort of alien brain that is prevented from achieving the higher rationality of the male.
“Intersectionality would imply that when you are in a room and a progressive black woman makes a comment, you had better think twice about disagreeing out loud.”
This may be why the errors in Fed nominee Lisa Cook’s famous 2014 paper are only coming to light now.
This is a very interesting angle. Avoiding politics and religion used to be a good way to have a civil conversation. Now politics is a religion and politics has been infused into sports, business, and most forms of entertainment by the corporations and/or their constituent actors who work in these spaces. I'd say - lets just talk about the weather. Climate Change! Another political religion.
The idea that language even 'could be' violence is one of the most dangerous to emerge from the cesspool of 'modern' theology in an attempt to leverage emerging taboos against violence to legitimize censorship. Unfortunately, it will take a period of sustained, widespread, physical violence to re-establish the need for the original taboo.
The strategy has been at play in the legal world for at least 60 years. In general and in tight feedback with broader culture, the law creates tests and defines lines dividing behaviors which are actionable or not, protected or not. If you want to justify state action regarding some behaviors which were formerly out of its reach, then either you need to carve out a special subcategory of distinction for an exception "speech is generally protected, but not low value 'hate speech' " or, if you can't do that, then it helps if you redefine or recharacterize them as being more properly understood as analogous to and in the same category as uncontroversially actionable behaviors. Speech is not merely potentially harmful like physical violence, when it is harmful, it *is* 'violence'. It helps even more when the category of 'harm' is expanded into vague and unfalsifiable assertions of subjective emotional mental states. Perhaps the state can't protect people from unwelcome opinions, but it can protect their safety from hostile assaults, so unwelcome opinions *are* 'hostile' threats because they made people feel 'unsafe'.
Confucius was right about the primacy of the rectification of names, but we live in an era of derectification.
Yes, the rectification of the names is the ultimate power.
As for violence, the adage about freedom stopping at my nose is the one we should uphold. I understand the attraction of your definition and having seen where it leads, will do nothing to defend it.
Is it a particularly "male" fallacy to look at some averages with lots of variance and define the essence of a standard based on the differences in averages? Is it a particularly "male" cognitive bias not to notice how often men retaliate in non-rational ways against women who have the temerity to insist on Hanania's "male" standards in discourse? Nah, but you and he don't help people understand that.
The intersectionality people talk about isn’t truly intersectional. An ugly woman, for example, is hardly living life on easy mode, whereas a rich black man navigates the world differently than a poor white man. I think a lot of these things are real, but not correctly weighted. We don’t take seriously the implications of class and beauty, either, both are dismissed completely out of hand.
For men height is extremely important and obviously so. Taller men have well-studied order-of-magnitude advantages over shorter men in dating and climbing hierarchies (how tall is your boss? his boss?). The sjw folk seem to ignore this phenomenon completely though.
Beauty is distributed unfairly. Life is unfair. Is this an injustice? Who is to blame that ugly people are much much less seen on TV?
But so is any advantage. You don’t need to create policies to make life easier for ugly people, just feels like we have warped ideas about what has the most impact.
Gentlemen’s Book of Etiquette and Manual of Politeness, 1875
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/39293/39293-h/39293-h.htm
Chapter 1
"One of the first rules for a guide in polite conversation, is to avoid political or religious discussions in general society. Such discussions lead almost invariably to irritating differences of opinion, often to open quarrels, and a coolness of feeling which might have been avoided by dropping the distasteful subject as soon as marked differences of opinion arose. It is but one out of many that can discuss either political or religious differences, with candor and judgment, and yet so far control his language and temper as to avoid either giving or taking offence.
In their place, in circles which have met for such discussions, in a tête à tête conversation, in a small party of gentlemen where each is ready courteously to listen to the others, politics may be discussed with perfect propriety, but in the drawing-room, at the dinner-table, or in the society of ladies, these topics are best avoided.
If you are drawn into such a discussion without intending to be so, be careful that your individual opinion does not lead you into language and actions unbecoming a gentleman. Listen courteously to those whose opinions do not agree with yours, and keep your temper. A man in a passion ceases to be a gentleman.
Even if convinced that your opponent is utterly wrong, yield gracefully, decline further discussion, or dextrously turn the conversation, but do not obstinately defend your own opinion until you become angry, or more excited than is becoming to a gentleman."
Excluding women from political discussions doesn't make sense unless they're also excluded from politics.
I agree with an assertion in a previous post that women are equally competitive with men. So, I think it is unlikely that women's goals are basically sung to the tune of Kumbaya.
I was struck by a survey that was cited by Thomas Edsall in a column cited by Richard Hanania in his blog post.
The first-year students women students surveyed placed a greater priority on inclusion than heir male counterparts, but ALSO felt less protected by the First Amendment than the men. Paradoxical? No. Women probably feel like they can say anything, but feel excluded from the conversation. They can express themselves, but they cannot be heard.
Too many dopes like Hanania discount whatever a woman has to say beforehand. They believe they are hearing from some sort of alien brain that is prevented from achieving the higher rationality of the male.
Women (on average) have the same *amount* of competitiveness but they express it differently.
“Intersectionality would imply that when you are in a room and a progressive black woman makes a comment, you had better think twice about disagreeing out loud.”
This may be why the errors in Fed nominee Lisa Cook’s famous 2014 paper are only coming to light now.
https://haralduhlig.blogspot.com/2022/02/lisa-cook-has-been-nominated-to-federal.html?m=1
This is a very interesting angle. Avoiding politics and religion used to be a good way to have a civil conversation. Now politics is a religion and politics has been infused into sports, business, and most forms of entertainment by the corporations and/or their constituent actors who work in these spaces. I'd say - lets just talk about the weather. Climate Change! Another political religion.
Unfortunately, Sarkissian was right. Conquest's Laws applies.
The idea that language even 'could be' violence is one of the most dangerous to emerge from the cesspool of 'modern' theology in an attempt to leverage emerging taboos against violence to legitimize censorship. Unfortunately, it will take a period of sustained, widespread, physical violence to re-establish the need for the original taboo.
The strategy has been at play in the legal world for at least 60 years. In general and in tight feedback with broader culture, the law creates tests and defines lines dividing behaviors which are actionable or not, protected or not. If you want to justify state action regarding some behaviors which were formerly out of its reach, then either you need to carve out a special subcategory of distinction for an exception "speech is generally protected, but not low value 'hate speech' " or, if you can't do that, then it helps if you redefine or recharacterize them as being more properly understood as analogous to and in the same category as uncontroversially actionable behaviors. Speech is not merely potentially harmful like physical violence, when it is harmful, it *is* 'violence'. It helps even more when the category of 'harm' is expanded into vague and unfalsifiable assertions of subjective emotional mental states. Perhaps the state can't protect people from unwelcome opinions, but it can protect their safety from hostile assaults, so unwelcome opinions *are* 'hostile' threats because they made people feel 'unsafe'.
Confucius was right about the primacy of the rectification of names, but we live in an era of derectification.
Yes, the rectification of the names is the ultimate power.
As for violence, the adage about freedom stopping at my nose is the one we should uphold. I understand the attraction of your definition and having seen where it leads, will do nothing to defend it.
Is it a particularly "male" fallacy to look at some averages with lots of variance and define the essence of a standard based on the differences in averages? Is it a particularly "male" cognitive bias not to notice how often men retaliate in non-rational ways against women who have the temerity to insist on Hanania's "male" standards in discourse? Nah, but you and he don't help people understand that.