Total posts: 224
-->
@zedvictor4
I'm interested in how the $300,000 he received from his parents factors into his 'inherent ability'.
'Inherent ability' doesn't dictate social hierarchy, power dictates social hierarchy. Passing power down from one generation to the next through wealth does nothing to ensure that the most qualified or the smartest are the ones who keep that power.
'Inherent ability' doesn't dictate social hierarchy, power dictates social hierarchy. Passing power down from one generation to the next through wealth does nothing to ensure that the most qualified or the smartest are the ones who keep that power.
Created:
-->
@drlebronski
No. And as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter if he's a 'successful entrepreneur' or 'a more effective worker'. Nobody can ever spend that much money and nobody will ever need that much money. While Amazon's too busy trying to prevent unions from forming like they're the worst thing to ever exist, they don't give a damn about workers who are forced to piss in bottles so much so they'll just blatantly lie about it.
A million dollars is more than 90% of Gen Z people I know will ever aspire to have in this economy. That is an insane amount of money. That money could end centuries of poverty within a family and make them very wealthy if spent and invested correctly. A million is to a billion what $1 is to $1000. It's the difference from having half as much as you'd need to buy a candy bar to being able to afford a good PC, and Jeff isn't just a billionaire, he's worth $200 billion.
I really don't care if he 'earned' that money or not (he didn't, but that's a conversation for another day). There's no way he could spend it without basically setting money on fire or buying a medium sized country, so at the end of the day, I'd prefer if it went to someone who can't afford food or the people in America going bankrupt from medical debt.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
I have ADHD. While it is often portrayed as "Kid cannot focus/can't sit still" for me it was more along the lines of "Kid doesn't have so much as an ounce of dopamine in her brain and will play a video game for 10 hours a day because doing literally anything is so exhausting it's better to just never stand up." As you can imagine, my grades were ~bad~ from time to time, mostly before I got medicated. There were some years I did really good, like K-G5, and then there were years like G8 where, IIRC, I got mostly Cs and Ds. I tended to excel in subjects I liked, getting A's if I tried, but if I disliked a subject, I almost always got a B at best.
If we define intelligence as the ability to process and solve problems, understand concepts, and store information, among other things as well, then it would seem, in my case, my grades were/are fairly unrelated to my intelligence. I was given a significant handicap where executive dysfunction made me not want to do anything and the exhaustion made it feel like my brain was fogged every time I tried to do homework or study, and yet I still didn't fail a class.
How many students are out there that get As because they work insanely hard and how many students are out there that get Bs when they hardly do more than show up to class? I can name a few, and their existence proves well enough that grades don't prove intelligence; they loosely prove your productivity and memory at best.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
There's a large amount of overlap and the definitions are very vague (if I had to take a guess, since that's the case usually when it comes to political labels). A person like Bernie Sanders who describes himself as a democratic socialist still has a policy agenda you'd see in a social democratic country. The distinction is largely irrelevant.
Created:
Posted in:
I wanted to drop this video called "The Difference Between Socialism, Communism, and Marxism Explained by a Marxist" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyl2DeKT-Vs&t=0s . It was the first video that I can remember seeing on the topic, and I think it's helpful to actually have a framework of what these words mean in relation to each other as well as on their own.
I'm a social democrat/democratic socialist (the actual label doesn't matter), and I would say that position is fairly easy to justify based on what I personally consider to be the 'goal' of a nation in the first place. I like to think of the Nordic countries as a great example of social democracy, and their GDP, quality of life, education, healthcare, etc... all show to be highly effective, in some cases greatly more effective than any other nation on Earth.
I refuse to venture further than the label of democratic socialist because I think that, while the cause of creating the most equitable society possible and preventing completely ridiculous accumulation of wealth are necessary pursuits, if that pursuit requires removing the will of the people, the government will inevitably cease to serve the people.
However, I think the post itself is poorly worded. Social democrats are technically socialists, though socialists aren't social democrats inherently. A much better prompt would be social democrats vs Marxists/Capitalism/Communism or anything like that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I'm a social democrat/democratic socialist, just for the sake of mentioning, haha.
Created:
Posted in:
Skimmed through this post (it's very late where I live), but I just wanted to say that the argument "if you want to be paid more, then just get a higher paying job" isn't a very good one. Minimum wage jobs need to be done for society to function, if workers could be replaced with robots that are cheaper, they already would've been.
Minimum wage jobs need to be done, or else I have bad news about the trash we all hope will be picked up once a week, and if they need to be done, we can't dodge the question of "what is the bare minimum wage a worker should rightfully earn" by saying they should get another job if they want to make more.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Very well put. Personally, I see the value of debating, especially in person, as being able to put logic behind claims. In debate club or debate tournaments, you're just given a topic and a side on that topic that you might not agree with and you're forced to rationalize your position. It's too easy to make claims without thinking or not be able to properly justify our claims, and I think that the value I got out of debating was in pushing myself to justify my claims and rationalize my thoughts to other people. It was mostly not for the sake of being 'right', though I'd be lying if I said it wasn't to some degree, but it was largely about trying to make a case that's logically better than my opponents even if I absolutely disagree with the case itself.
Debating is the only real reason I ever stopped to question and justify the things I think. Beyond that, excluding aspiring lawyers, it's just a hobby at best. One that can become very toxic for sure. I forget who said it, but the point of a debate isn't to convince the people you're debating against as much as it is to plant a seed of doubt in everyone who is listening in the hopes that the arguments you presented will convince them.
Created:
Posted in:
"In pursuit of perfection we will always come up short, but perhaps we can come a little bit closer in the process." -CGP Grey
I think the United States is a great example. In my opinion, we're seeing a considerable polarization of politics to a great degree, which one only needs to look up the percentage of fascists or the capitol raid to see clearly. What I also believe we're seeing is the inability of people to remain properly informed in the presence of bad actors resulting in people turning to conspiracy theories or pseudoscience science spread through social media and the difficulty for humans to orient themselves towards long-term, difficult to comprehend goals like climate change.
However, the point of democracy is not to make it possible to have the best rule. In certain aspects, China shows quite well that the control awarded to a dictatorship allows them to act swiftly and effectively and to grow the nation. The point of a democracy is to prevent terrible rulers as much as possible, because they have to at least abide by some laws, standards, and demands to stay in power. Democracy is not to make every nation a China, but to avoid every nation becoming a North Korea, so to speak. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
(I also think that China is a terrible place and I don't support the CCP at all, it's just for the sake of example here.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
As far as I can tell, this would rely on privatization of the school system, as I don't think I've heard of anything like this in a publicly owned school.
Or the bad school could sell themselves to a good school. If School A (which is run by company A) competes with school B (run by company B), and school A sucks, they could sell themselves to company B, so company B (the better company) runs both schools, enabling the typical student to be educated by the better of 2 school options. If there are 10 schools, the 9 worse schools eventually sell themselves to the best school, and now most people have a better education.
This relies on the presumption that school B is better because company B has a better way of running the school and is capable of delivering a better education. I don't see any reason to suspect the success of a student would be related to the administration of the school. Rather, I think the success of a student is based on the quality of the teachers, the effectiveness of the curriculum (which I'm presuming is still standardized, because otherwise we would run into many other problems imo), and personal factors in the student's life.
My point is that, unless company B is simply able to hire better teachers and ensure that they perform well (which, if they could do, why wouldn't every school do that?) and would be able to get around the fact teacher's unions make it nearly impossible to fire an under-performing teacher, there is nothing that makes company B better than company A.
The only thing that differs between school A and school B is that school A (which I am using as a placeholder for all 'bad' schools) might be populated by mostly poor or marginalized students, might be in an area with a high crime rate or that is perceived as being 'unclean', might have lower scores on standardized tests, among other things. The only way I could see school B being an improvement is that they hoard the best teachers, which they would only be able to get from paying them the most money. This diverts money away from the students and forces unequal distribution of qualified teachers, forcing schools who can't afford those teachers because their student count is declining won't be able to catch up unless they divert even more money away from students.
If a school A is underperforming, the solution isn't to then have students leave school A, force school A to shutdown, bring students to school B where the same personal/socioeconomic factors would continue to exist, overburden school B, make them buy school A, place students into school A, and then be back in the exact same place. It's such a roundabout way to placate people who want their children to go to 'good' schools without changing anything and, during the transition, depriving schools that most need it of their funding. To me, it seems the logical conclusion is inequality and less money going towards actually helping students (even though I agree teachers should be paid more, a model surrounding the highest bidder is not the way to go).
If we want a better education, we need to improve the school system, not make it so that way an opinion that very well may have no basis in logic about what is a 'good' or 'bad' school determines the ability of said school to survive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
The experience of my friend (who is from a rural area somewhere around Galway) very well may not be universal, but all the things I said are relative to the Canadian education I received, of course. I'm not fully certain how it works, but I believe(?) my friend stopped taking Irish.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I'm led to believe much of the problems with school choice come from people only wanting to go to the 'good' schools. And, it would seem reasonable to me to then conclude that all the 'bad' schools (which might be mostly from areas with poor/marginalized communities) would either run out of funding or not have enough students or would be forced to stay 'bad' because any student who is able to go to a different school likely would.
I have a friend in Ireland where they do have school choice (at least for high school), and they're fairly strict with who they let in (e.g. you must know 3 or more languages for admission in some schools [English, Irish, and some other one, usually]) and the conduct they require for students in order to protect their reputation, if I am remembering correctly. For these reasons I think you'd see a lot less parents of autistic students sending their children to a school specialized for those with developmental disorders and a lot more privileged parents trying to send their child to the 'best' school (not all too different from vaccine shopping where people try to get only the 'best' vaccine), which would overburden those schools and generally be to everyone's detriment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
Good post OP. Retweet.
In reality, I support trans people's right to use bathrooms or compete in athletics of their desired gender (at a certain point in their transition), but that's a debate for another time.
In reality, I support trans people's right to use bathrooms or compete in athletics of their desired gender (at a certain point in their transition), but that's a debate for another time.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
(I assume OP means original post in this context, sorry if that's wrong). Well, I attempted to answer the question. You asked 'why are humans the most sexually sensual species if lust is a sin' and I responded that it's because lust is not inherently a sin. I apologize if I misunderstand something.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Okay? All you've done is argue for the things that I wasn't even talking about and make sweeping claims about the role of the genders/sexes in society. "Women don't decide if there will be a relationship" sounds misogynistic at best and like I should be phoning the FBI at worst.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Avoiding analyzing, well, everything else (where would I even begin?), your entire post revolves around not only the straight, cisgender female experience and nothing else, not only with regards to nothing but a woman's relationship to a man (ex: having sex with them, having kids with them, marrying them), but also around the assumption that not being able to marry is so bad that it is enough to weigh against all of the advancements in the freedoms and rights of women we have made in the modern world.
Quite frankly, anyone who would consider me 'worn out and old' and only looks to those physical attributes isn't the kind of person I would want to marry in the first place, and I don't think it should be the kind of person anyone else should want to marry either.
Quite frankly, anyone who would consider me 'worn out and old' and only looks to those physical attributes isn't the kind of person I would want to marry in the first place, and I don't think it should be the kind of person anyone else should want to marry either.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Completely ignoring the other replies to this post because the first words I saw were "genital mutilation" (and thus decided it was preferable to avoid the minefield), nonetheless I would still like to contribute my thoughts on the matter (I apologize if anything I say is redundant). I just want to note that my interpretation, Christian in origin as it may be, is often considered to be very non-standard.
'Lust' is one of the seven deadly sins. The seven deadly sins aren't mortal sins themselves, they are behaviours that may cause sinful action when they are uncontrolled[1][2]. There is nothing wrong with righteous anger or sensible lust towards one's partner in my opinion, and, to my knowledge at least, that opinion is backed up by biblical fact (this requires too comprehensive of an analysis to source completely and honestly [mostly out of laziness], but I can engage with specific examples if asked).
With that framework in mind, I'd ask why shouldn't uncontrolled lust be a sin? Our anger, our sloth, our envy, our lust can all be within reason, but we must be careful that we keep them under control. I believe that the necessity to not assault somebody from rage or to not envy the things that another owns so much that you seek to take it are self evident in the morality that exists within us all. Uncontrolled lust is the same. Engaging in sexual relations with the spouse of another or with someone who is not consenting are both obviously reprehensible examples of lust that is not being stopped or controlled.
Humans very well may be the most sexually sensual species, and that's because sex itself is not a sin. Lust is a healthy, normal thing so long as we engage with it in a healthy, safe, and consensual way. We will all exhibit some behaviours of some of the seven deadly sins at some point in our lives, but the point of those sins is to encourage moderation and control.
Created:
Posted in:
I'd be interested. Be sure to message me with the invite link if anyone decides to make a new one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I didn't say that I am comfortable with police at pride, I said my level of comfort is entirely irrelevant to the politics of pride.
What I meant to say was something more like "in support of cops participation in pride." as opposed to comfortable. I apologize for the poor wording on my part, and I agree with you when you say that a significant part of pride is in disregarding the comfort of people to provide a space people can be themselves. Even though I am LGBTQ myself, nobody has ever really put this into context or as eloquently as you go on to do in your post, so I'd like to thank you for giving me your perspective here. It's definitely one I'll be trying to remember!
Like I said, as a victim of that oppression and a witness to it I am here to tell you that it is better today than it has ever been before- why punish police for making such substantial improvements? Why punish the cops who embrace pride for the sins of the rapidly shrinking minority who don't? It is 100% counter-productive.
I am prepared to acknowledge that I am completely incapable of understanding your experiences from a time significantly less accepting of our community than today, and moreover that I have, in my semi-in-the-closet state with many accepting friends, have not experienced the brunt of oppression in the slightest. But as a victim of the oppression that still exists, I disagree.
What you view as punishing/oppressing police and forcing them back into the identity, I view as a rational response to history. The function is not to make cops ashamed of wearing a uniform, it's to acknowledge that they wear the same uniform, title, and position as shameful people of the past or the present. There is something very different from preventing participation of certain groups of people based on their sexuality or gender identity and preventing participation of a profession that historically served a great role in the oppression for the very group that the event is for. They aren't equal and equating the two is disingenuous.
I would love to debate if we should change the current system of policing we have in place, but that is for another time. For the sake of argument, even if I accept that the current system of policing and law enforcement is effective and just, I not only don't want but also would not feel safe with the participation of those who have been and continue to be the symbol of oppression, whether in the US or in Canada (where I live), to all marginalized communities who continue to get away with the murder and discrimination of either our own community or of communities who have stood by us in the long fight for equality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Those sure are words composing an argument for the necessity of police. The only problem is that I wasn't arguing the police are unnecessary.
Nothing is stopping literally anyone from going to pride already, and I assure you, the presence of police officers wasn't stopping them considering how many times homophobes march against pride parades. If they commit a crime, they will still be persecuted the same as they would be if the crime were committed anywhere else.
Question: who exactly are the people enforcing anti-LGBTQ laws in Iran?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
@Theweakeredge
In concurrence with what Theweakeredge has said, just because you are comfortable with police at pride doesn't mean that everyone is. Cops are free to participate in pride off-duty. Police have been and continue to be a symbol of oppression for the 2SLGBTQQIAAPN+ community. While I agree that police marching at pride is, in a way, a victory, and I agree not all cops are bad, your experiences as a member of the LGBTQ community are not a trump card. Just because you can move past the centuries of oppression symbolized by the uniform also worn by the enforcers of still existing laws that are discriminatory against the LGBTQ community (mostly trans people) doesn't mean everyone else can, nor should they have to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
"A healthy lifestyle and desired body shape is an assumption based upon an acquired and established social expectancy."
You put it better than I ever could've. Moreover, I would ask the rhetorical question of "Should we judge fat people for their perceived unhealthiness when we do not judge other people for having objectively unhealthy attitudes who remain skinny?" The answer is obviously no. Unhealthy or not, that is not a justification to judge an individual's body.
You put it better than I ever could've. Moreover, I would ask the rhetorical question of "Should we judge fat people for their perceived unhealthiness when we do not judge other people for having objectively unhealthy attitudes who remain skinny?" The answer is obviously no. Unhealthy or not, that is not a justification to judge an individual's body.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Absolutely. Being overweight can often be indicative of an unhealthy lifestyle as often as it can just be the way a person's genetics make them to be, I believe. While actually being fairly underweight myself, I do have a few fat friends, and I feel not many people discuss the facts I brought up.
Though one of the articles I wrote said overweight people were healthier than average weight people in terms of BMI, as far as I know, the data is inconclusive.
Though one of the articles I wrote said overweight people were healthier than average weight people in terms of BMI, as far as I know, the data is inconclusive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
After reading through the entirety of this, I think nobody has acknowledged that there is, at the very least, some reason to believe that in some cases being overweight is not intrinsically bad. Not to make a comment on anything in specific, I just think it's disingenuous to treat that as a given. Here's some articles to support my thoughts:
Created: