Hard Light Productions Forums

Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Nuclear1 on October 25, 2009, 06:14:41 pm

Title: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Nuclear1 on October 25, 2009, 06:14:41 pm
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/08/arizona.sheriff.immigration/#cnnSTCVideo

Quote
Federal authorities are moving to rein in the man dubbed "America's Toughest Sheriff" after complaints that immigration raids by his deputies amounted to unconstitutional roundups of Latinos.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio and the Maricopa County, Arizona, sheriff's department have had an agreement with the Department of Homeland Security since 2007 that allows his department to enforce federal immigration laws. But Arpaio says the federal agency is moving to revise the agreement to limit that power to checking the immigration status of inmates already in his Phoenix jail.

Arpaio has cultivated his image as "America's Toughest Sheriff," a nickname earned by his treatment of Maricopa County inmates. Many of his prisoners are housed in tents and forced to wear pink underwear, and he once boasted of feeding them on less than a dollar a day.

Now he faces a Justice Department investigation into allegations of civil rights abuses, and the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona is suing the sheriff over immigration raids conducted by his department. The class-action lawsuit alleges that Arpaio has abused the power delegated to him under his agreement with Homeland Security, known as the 287(g) program.

Just...wow.  And the people of Maricopa county keep reelecting this guy?!
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: SpardaSon21 on October 25, 2009, 06:18:16 pm
How much crime do you think they have in that county?
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: FUBAR-BDHR on October 25, 2009, 06:21:35 pm
Maybe because the people who elect him don't like their town being overrun by illegals and he does the job they want?  

Besides he still has power under state law to round them up he's just not receiving federal funding to do it.  He is still getting federal money to run a facility to house illegals arrested by the feds.  The feds are the ones looking really stupid on this one.  Pull the funds for enforcing the law by arresting them but renew the funds for holding them?  
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Nuclear1 on October 25, 2009, 06:55:20 pm
He only has the authority to check suspected illegals that are currently in prison.  Meanwhile, this guy's running what can only be described as a racial profiling campaign on the streets so aggressive that legal Latinos are terrified to be out of their homes.  Plus, didn't you read about how his prisons are run essentially as a humiliation and deprivation environment that we see in POW camps?  Yeah, they broke the law, and they should be punished, but that's just unnecessary.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: FUBAR-BDHR on October 25, 2009, 07:11:56 pm
Not true he has the right to check anyone involved in any stop.  You get pulled over for running a stop sign and everyone in the car can be legally searched.  They do it for drugs all the time and it's even in the law in Ohio and other states that they don't need probably cause as it's part of the rules for having a drivers license.  Van has a burned out turn signal or broken tail light it can be pulled over and every person in it searched and questioned and they all better have ID.  May not be right but it's the law and the feds don't seem to have a problem with it being used to stop drug traffic but they do for human trafficking and illegal immigration.  Sounds like the feds have a double standard for what is and isn't a civil rights violation. 

And before you bring up the waling down the street argument where I live 3 kids walking down the street or hanging out in a group is considered a gang and is illegal.  They are also subject to question, citation and better have ID and this is a small town.  Of course it's almost never enforced unless there is some recent vandalism going on in the area. 
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: iamzack on October 25, 2009, 07:44:40 pm
Papers, please.

Carrying ID is not a legal requirement unless you're actually doing something that requires proof of something. Carrying a firearm, driving a car, etc. Walking down the street? Riding in a car? No, you do not need ID for these activities.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Mars on October 25, 2009, 08:17:42 pm
It's illegal to have a group more than 3?

That's unconstitutional.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: FUBAR-BDHR on October 25, 2009, 08:31:57 pm
Nope they consider it an unlawful assembly without a permit type of ordinance.  Been on the books for at least 25 years. 
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: iamzack on October 25, 2009, 08:46:05 pm
Chances are nobody gives a **** unless it's a couple black or hispanic kids. Plus, 25 years old? Prolly designed for ease of harrassing black/hispanic kids.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Nuclear1 on October 25, 2009, 08:47:05 pm
So three kids outside playing ball in the street is illegal.  Four kids walking home is illegal.  Wow, your town is bat**** insane.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: FUBAR-BDHR on October 25, 2009, 08:55:34 pm
Well playing ball in the street isn't a good idea to start with.  But yea 4 kids walking home from school together would technically be a violation of the ordinance. 

Some history:  Activities for kids to do in this town = 0.  Places for kids to go in this town = 0.  Kids (including me at that time) walked the streets at night and hang out a places like pizza shop parking lots etc until curfew.  Neighbors complain, cops have problems with owner of one of the pizza shops at the time because he lets kids hang out.   They enact an ordinance against 3 or more in one group. 

Result:  We all hop in cars and go out into the woods or up to the river and drink.

Never said it was a sane law or I approved of it just said it existed and you can be stopped and cited for it.  You must give your valid name and information to the police which they verify (this was recently upheld by either a federal or the supreme court). If you fail to do so it's a crime and you are arrested for falsification.  You don't give it it's obstruction of justice.  So you better have ID or be able to recite your SSN and other info from memory or your SOL.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: iamzack on October 25, 2009, 08:58:46 pm
Not everybody has ID. Requiring that everybody has ID or memorize their SSN is just wrong. Creating crimes specifically so that cops can go on their little power trips is also wrong.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Thaeris on October 25, 2009, 09:07:30 pm
Not everybody has ID. Requiring that everybody has ID or memorize their SSN is just wrong. Creating crimes specifically so that cops can go on their little power trips is also wrong.

In a rare twist of fate, I'm forced to agree with you entirely.  :yes:
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Blue Lion on October 25, 2009, 09:10:02 pm
The Feds are quite mad at Sheriff Joe and he's making up laws to pretend he can do things.

Things aren't going to end well for him. He's not used to people saying no to him.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Liberator on October 26, 2009, 01:41:16 am
How about you brighteyes tell us how to solve gang problems then, instead of ragging on someone whose solving them the only way he knows how.

And on racial profiling:
If the suspect for a crime is mid-20s, black, 6'4" and 300lbs why should I randomly check a 5'2" latina or a someone's 90 year old granny?  Answer I'm not, I'm going to stop all the mid-20, black males who are 6'4" tall and weigh around 300lbs.  It's not racism, it's looking for your suspect.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: General Battuta on October 26, 2009, 01:42:14 am
And the straw goes eveeeeeerywhere!

I thought you fetishized the Constitution. How are you going to let him get away with something unconstitutional?
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Nuclear1 on October 26, 2009, 02:06:35 am
Cruel and unusual punishment: making inmates wear pink underwear.  Keeping them in crappy Hoovervilles of tents.

Racial profiling:  assuming every single Latino or Latina is an illegal unless proven otherwise, not the opposite as it should be. Want to stop illegal immigration? Sensible border controls.  Getting the Mexican government to uphold its end of securing the border.  Not terrifying American citizens to the point where anyone with an exotic last name or darker skin complexion refuses to go outside.  

Probable cause and justified suspicions do not including investigating home-owning Latina mothers and their children.  Right now it's about the equivalent all of the Japs in camps because some may be spies.  Even the patriotic, innocent ones.

What Sheriff Asshole is doing is running his county under Draconian, fascist measures totally unnecessary in fighting illegal immigration.  Which is why the federal government told him to screw off, and why the mayor of Phoenix is threatening to have him investigated for civil rights violations. We don't need sheriffs running around pulling this crap.  You frankly don't give a damn now because it's not white Anglo-Americans they're hunting down.

And if you want to solve gang problems, fix the root problems:  keep kids in school and raise economic conditions.  Kids that come from better homes and more stable conditions are less likely to get involved in gangs. 

Or you can take the cheap way out and simply arrest any group of kids with more than three people, no matter how unconstitutional it is.  That's the way to do it!
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: General Battuta on October 26, 2009, 02:16:22 am
And if you want to solve gang problems, fix the root problems:  keep kids in school and raise economic conditions.  Kids that come from better homes and more stable conditions are less likely to get involved in gangs. 

That.

MP-Ryan once gave a great explanation as to why recidivism is so high.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Blue Lion on October 26, 2009, 02:28:16 am
The disconnect between some people with this is great. A certain someone was just arguing in another thread how singling out groups was bad.

Maybe we can come up with a Dharfur reference while we're at it
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Janos on October 26, 2009, 03:45:23 am
How about you brighteyes tell us how to solve gang problems then, instead of ragging on someone whose solving them the only way he knows how.

Hey, how about you tell me how racial profiling which is promoted under the flagship of fighting "illegal aliens" has anything to do with gang problems and how talking about nebulous gang problems you just came up with is not a blatant attempt in deflecting attention elsewhere


BRIGHTEYE
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Kosh on October 26, 2009, 04:24:17 am
Quote
How about you brighteyes tell us how to solve gang problems then, instead of ragging on someone whose solving them the only way he knows how.

The problem is prisons in America are full of gangs, and often non-gang bangers who get sent to jail for non-violent stuff end up having to join gangs and become violent because that is the environment they live in. Cramming them into Hoovervilles or overcrowded prisons isn't going to help that. For a lot of these people violence and crime is all they know, so unless they are taught differently what do you expect them to do?

In actuality most people who go to jail, end up coming back to jail. The revolving door of justice keeps turning full swing, and that is one of the biggest problems. There are more than a few who try to get a job and live straight, but they can't because their criminal record denies them access to jobs pushing them right back into crime. Our justice system is failing miserably as a deterrent. We have 5% of the total world's population and 25% of the world's PRISON population, per capita more people are in jail in the US than anywhere else in the world. What is wrong with this picture?
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Uchuujinsan on October 26, 2009, 07:47:20 am
Never said it was a sane law or I approved of it just said it existed and you can be stopped and cited for it.  You must give your valid name and information to the police which they verify (this was recently upheld by either a federal or the supreme court). If you fail to do so it's a crime and you are arrested for falsification.  You don't give it it's obstruction of justice.  So you better have ID or be able to recite your SSN and other info from memory or your SOL.
Iirc in the US, only active obstruction of justice is a criminal offense, like lying - just refusing to help (that should include refusing to give an ID) - cannot be charged that way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstruction_of_justice

I remember a one hour long lawyer course about the right to remain silent (viewable online) where it was specifically mentioned that "obstruction of justice" is often used to intimade others, while having no legal ground for that charge.
I'm no expert on that topic, but I would do some research if you can REALLY be charged for not giving out an ID.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Iss Mneur on October 26, 2009, 01:11:56 pm
Never said it was a sane law or I approved of it just said it existed and you can be stopped and cited for it.  You must give your valid name and information to the police which they verify (this was recently upheld by either a federal or the supreme court). If you fail to do so it's a crime and you are arrested for falsification.  You don't give it it's obstruction of justice.  So you better have ID or be able to recite your SSN and other info from memory or your SOL.
Iirc in the US, only active obstruction of justice is a criminal offense, like lying - just refusing to help (that should include refusing to give an ID) - cannot be charged that way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstruction_of_justice

I remember a one hour long lawyer course about the right to remain silent (viewable online) where it was specifically mentioned that "obstruction of justice" is often used to intimade others, while having no legal ground for that charge.
I'm no expert on that topic, but I would do some research if you can REALLY be charged for not giving out an ID.
Is this what you are thinking about?

Don't Talk to Cops, Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik)
Don't Talk to Cops, Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE)
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Mongoose on October 26, 2009, 01:27:08 pm
Cruel and unusual punishment: making inmates wear pink underwear.
...seriously? :p
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Uchuujinsan on October 26, 2009, 02:35:04 pm
Is this what you are thinking about?

Don't Talk to Cops, Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik)
Don't Talk to Cops, Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE)
Yep, that's it :>
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: BS403 on October 26, 2009, 04:38:02 pm
well technically aren't you supposed to have your social security card with you at all times?  I seem to remember that when I got mine, not that I carry it.  I really see no reason not to carry an ID if you have one, unless you are planning on doing something illegal.  I know I always have my ID unless I'm drinking underage, or something like that.  I see know problem with checking inmates citizenship.  I believe that police should be checking for illegal immigrants, but I'm not saying this guy is necessarily right. He shouldn't be striking fear into legal latino's.  As for the pink underwear, well as long as they are wearing clothes over it, who cares? its underwear.  I don't know if he's making just wear underwear, that would be wrong.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: iamzack on October 26, 2009, 04:50:01 pm
I don't understand the underwear thing anyway. It's just a color. If it's torture for the inmates, well, they deserve it, then. If it's pink fiberglass underwear, well, that's a problem.

No one in my family carries their SS card. Losing it would be very inconvenient, and you only need it occasionally, like when signing the papers for employment or things like that where you need to prove citizenship. People shouldn't expect to have to prove citizenship randomly in day to day life. That's ridiculous. Besides, what kid below the driving age would be allowed to carry their SS card? Usually all they have is a school ID, if that. I know I never carried most of my student IDs (bad picture).
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Thaeris on October 26, 2009, 05:03:23 pm
well technically aren't you supposed to have your social security card with you at all times?  I seem to remember that when I got mine, not that I carry it.  I really see no reason not to carry an ID if you have one, unless you are planning on doing something illegal.  I know I always have my ID unless I'm drinking underage, or something like that.  I see know problem with checking inmates citizenship.  I believe that police should be checking for illegal immigrants, but I'm not saying this guy is necessarily right. He shouldn't be striking fear into legal latino's.  As for the pink underwear, well as long as they are wearing clothes over it, who cares? its underwear.  I don't know if he's making just wear underwear, that would be wrong.

Ummm, no. I never carry that thing around. It is a security risk to yourself to carry it about, especially if your wallet, etc., is stolen.

Furthermore, a law enforcement individual is a PROFESSIONAL. Just like a soldier, especially an officer, is a professional.

A real professional, an honorable person, treats any individual, regardless of who they are, with dignity. Of course, there's a time and a place for everything; you're rough with a criminal as you want to stop him/her from engaging in whatever infraction they're participating in. Once that's over, though, you revert to honor and discipline. If that sheriff isn't up to those standards, then he's not qualified for that position. That's not necessarily easy to live up to, but that's my understanding of things after AFROTC. And I'm not wrong.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Mongoose on October 26, 2009, 07:58:13 pm
Yeah, carrying your SS card around is a rather colossally stupid idea.  Keep that thing in a secure place, preferably a fireproof safe if you have one.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: mxlm on October 28, 2009, 05:24:32 pm
I would just like to say that I completely believe our esteemed conservative boarders who are both participating in this thread and defending the sheriff in question when they say they're all about the Constitution, small government, and civil liberties.

Completely. Believe.

By which I of course mean that, actually, I think the right in this country, or rather a very significant portion of the right, is really about the authoritarianism, and I think this particular example illustrates that point beautifully.

On the subject of how to deal with 'gang problems': COIN, it's not just for foreigners.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: iamzack on October 28, 2009, 05:40:23 pm
Social conservatives tend to think like this: "I wouldn't choose that and I think it is wrong/immoral/bad for society/etc, so I think the option should be removed. People can't make good decisions without my help."
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Liberator on October 28, 2009, 09:09:55 pm
Social conservatives tend to think like this: "I wouldn't choose that and I think it is wrong/immoral/bad for society/etc, so I think the option should be removed. People can't make good decisions without my help."

Correction to remove personal bias.

Also, by the opposite token, social liberals generally think the following:"I don't think it's wrong or harmful and I know best, everyone else is to stupid and undereducated to see the wisdom of my thinking.  I'll just make a law so I'm right!  YOU CAN'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO!  WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE!!???!!??"

Which one sounds like a spoiled rotten child and which one sounds like an adult.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: General Battuta on October 28, 2009, 09:15:36 pm
Also, by the opposite token, social liberals generally think the following:"I don't think it's wrong or harmful and I know best, everyone else is to stupid and undereducated to see the wisdom of my thinking.  I'll just make a law so I'm right!  YOU CAN'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO!  WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE!!???!!??"

Wait, hang on. Doesn't a social liberal say "I don't think it's wrong or harmful, but I will let everyone decide for him or herself, and I will enshrine the right to choose in law?"

The only one who comes off as sounding like a child here is you.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Blue Lion on October 28, 2009, 09:16:48 pm
The caps are what sold me on it.

But to answer the question on who sounds like a spoiled brat, the answer is you.

Damn you GB, damn you.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: iamzack on October 28, 2009, 09:17:38 pm
You sound like the child. Social liberals are more apt to say "I wouldn't make this decision, but since it doesn't actually affect me or anyone but yourself, for that matter, it is not my place to try to pass a law preventing you from making that choice."

See, social conservatives want laws passed based on their own morals and choices, but social liberals want people to have the freedom to make choices for themselves, even destructive ones so long as the choice involves consenting parties only.

Supposing a social liberal and a social conservative who both think recreational drugs or gay sex are harmful and bad, the conservative would argue for a law against gay sex or drugs. The liberal would say "I wouldn't make that choice, and I will suggest that you don't either, but it isn't my place to dictate what you do with your own body so long as no one else is harmed."
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Nuclear1 on October 28, 2009, 09:22:19 pm
Well, since everyone has already jumped on it...

Social conservatives are honestly some of the most hypocritical retards I've ever seen.  It's depressing the number of people who scream "Fascism is bad!  Hitler/Mussolini/Stalin/Mao/Saddam was a bad guy for depriving people of freedom!"  are the same ones who vote to ban gay marriage because some 2,000 year old book that justified mass murder of people you don't like said gays are evil, and the same ones who oppose hate crime legislation on the off-chance that, God forbid, it could open the floodgates to giving more and more people they don't like freedom to do what they want.

Basically, they hate fascists, but only the ones with funny names and/or that America has gone to war with.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Liberator on October 28, 2009, 09:54:01 pm
"Fascism is bad!  Hitler/Mussolini/Stalin/Mao/Saddam was a bad guy for depriving people of freedom!"  

Hitler - responsible for the mass imprisonment and murder of something like 6 million jews and God know's how many others.
Mussolini - a thug and a fool, he was 100% with Hitler in spirit if not execution
Stalin - himself responsible for millions of deaths and disappearances of political rivals and opponents
Mao - no one is exactly sure how many millions he's responsible for murdering, the lowest credible number is 40 million
Saddam - was like a kid with a gun, he killed hundreds of thousands if not millions of his own people because he could

So, no, those weren't "bad guys" at all... :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: iamzack on October 28, 2009, 09:56:23 pm
Way to misunderstand the point of his post and skip over my response entirely. :P
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Nuclear1 on October 28, 2009, 10:03:35 pm
And the straw flies EEEEVVVVEERRRRYYYYWHHHHEEERRREEEE!

I wasn't saying they weren't bad people.  I was making a point that social conservatives point and scream "BAD GUY!" only so long as it's some foreign dictator with a funny name committing the atrocities, not the guy sitting next to him in Congress voting to keep homosexuals as second-class citizens, or the guy voting to keep a harmless drug like marijuana illegal, despite all evidence to the contrary.

There's freedoms being stripped away right in our own borders, but there's no outcry from the people who are willing to throw hundreds of billions of dollars into wars to get rid of foreign dictators;  in fact, those same people are often the ones attacking the social liberals who want to give these people freedoms.  I'm not saying social conservatives are inherently bad people, but they need to keep their lifestyles to their own damned selves.  You have no right to "define marriage" when heterosexuals have been making a joke of that institution for the past umpteen years or tell me I can't smoke marijuana when it's been medically proven to do less damage to me and those around me than alcohol and tobacco.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: MP-Ryan on October 28, 2009, 10:25:10 pm
No one in my family carries their SS card. Losing it would be very inconvenient, and you only need it occasionally, like when signing the papers for employment or things like that where you need to prove citizenship. People shouldn't expect to have to prove citizenship randomly in day to day life. That's ridiculous. Besides, what kid below the driving age would be allowed to carry their SS card? Usually all they have is a school ID, if that. I know I never carried most of my student IDs (bad picture).

A social security card is NOT proof of United States citizenship, contrary to popular myth.  Anyone legally entitled to work in the US can get one, with a few minor caveats.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: MP-Ryan on October 28, 2009, 10:30:46 pm
Basically, they hate fascists, but only the ones with funny names and/or that America has gone to war with.

Silly Nuclear1, don't you understand that facism only includes foreign fundamentalist/radical authoritarian conservatives?  Fundamentalist/radical authoritarian conservatives in the United States are "patriots."
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Turambar on October 28, 2009, 10:37:02 pm
Funny how Liberator picks one thing to respond to, picks the wrong part out of it, and responds to it incorrectly.

How about you address the part where SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES DESPISE FREEDOM?

I mean, first off you still believe in god, at your age, which is ridiculous, but you also believe that his bull**** minutiae rules should be imposed on all of society.  Not only this, you get to pick and choose which bull**** rules to implement.  Do you see how someone with a secular viewpoint can see this as restrictive on freedom?
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: High Max on October 28, 2009, 10:55:54 pm
Nothing wrong with believing in a higher power. You can't disprove it. It has nothing to do with age. It doesn't have to be the one from Christanity or one from any religion.

Freedom is good, but we need a balance and discipline or we get too much of this:

(http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/files/imagecache/news/files/20080129_lazy.jpg)

(http://terminallaughter.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/bullying3.jpg)

(http://www.psychologytoday.com/files/u15/Property_crime.gif)

(http://www.animationarchive.org/pics/crime01-big.jpg)
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: iamzack on October 28, 2009, 10:59:07 pm
There's nothing wrong with believing it as long as you don't delude yourself into thinking it's rational/logical/reasonable.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: High Max on October 28, 2009, 11:04:07 pm
Yes, it is good to not be blinded and accepting it as absolutes. Of course it's possible that maybe the reason why so many things seem illogical is because the universe is so complex that we can't comprehend certain things, and therefore only seems illogical. Like Battuta said, the universe is too complex for our limited brains to comprehend, so it makes sense to say that many things may sound illogical because it is too complex to comprehend it as logic with our minds, and only seems illogical to us as a race. It is possible.

Sorry, I'm not intending to derail the topic. So I'll stop now on that.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Turambar on October 28, 2009, 11:06:12 pm
We have laws for those already, High Max.

My parents told me the tooth fairy was real

turned out to be a lie

my parents told me santa was real

turned out to be a lie

my parents told me god was real

still waiting for some proof on that one.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Nuclear1 on October 28, 2009, 11:07:43 pm
Uh, High Max, did you just say that too much freedom leads to bullying, crime, and obesity?

Yeah, that's not true.  No one (except the damned crazy Libertarians) is proposing borderline anarchy.  
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: High Max on October 28, 2009, 11:08:49 pm
Bullying, crime, sloth, and little regard for people, is what I think. But I think we also need a certain amount. Not too little, not too much. That way we can have a balance of safety and health in a society as well. Isn't too much capitalism and freedom the reason why businesses and corporations can steal people's money and the COs get most of it? I was watching a program that was about what too much capitalism has done to American.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Blue Lion on October 28, 2009, 11:09:04 pm
What a weird comic cover
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Liberator on October 28, 2009, 11:10:58 pm
Funny how Liberator picks one thing to respond to, picks the wrong part out of it, and responds to it incorrectly.

How about you address the part where SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES DESPISE FREEDOM?

I mean, first off you still believe in god, at your age, which is ridiculous, but you also believe that his bull**** minutiae rules should be imposed on all of society.  Not only this, you get to pick and choose which bull**** rules to implement.  Do you see how someone with a secular viewpoint can see this as restrictive on freedom?

Alrighty here we go.  Nice and short.

Social Conservatism = The promotion of moral lifestyles and behaviors because these are what makes Men decent and civilized.  The degradation of these is why there is so much chaos in the world today.

Most of you are going to paint that with a ridiculously generalized brush, but you know what, I don't care.  That's what I believe.  Man can be good without a moral foundation, but society cannot.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Kosh on October 28, 2009, 11:12:10 pm
Quote
There's nothing wrong with believing it as long as you don't delude yourself into thinking it's rational/logical/reasonable.

There's plenty wrong with it because it's self delusional. What makes it 100 times worse is when people pass it off as being reasonable.

Quote
You can't disprove it.

If God exists then kill me in the next 10 seconds.

10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Time's up, God doesn't exist.

Quote
Bullying,

Actually in Japan, a society with little to no social freedoms bullying is a much bigger problem than it is in the US, and unlike in the US where it usually stops when high school is over (or earlier), in Japan it will continue even when you are 35 years old or older. Why? Because according to them if you are bullied it is YOUR fault for not conforming enough.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: High Max on October 28, 2009, 11:15:13 pm
Do you mean bullying physically? I recall my Japanese past girlfriend, who is a teacher, telling me that violent acts towards teachers from the kids is becoming a problem. Is this connected?
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: iamzack on October 28, 2009, 11:15:55 pm
Social Conservatism = The enforcement of what some people believe to be moral lifestyles and behaviors because these are what makes Men decent and civilized.  The degradation of these is why there is so much chaos in the world today.

fixed
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Turambar on October 28, 2009, 11:19:10 pm
Social Conservatism = The promotion of moral lifestyles and behaviors because these are what makes Men decent and civilized.  The degradation of these is why there is so much chaos in the world today.

Man can be good without a moral foundation, but society cannot.

And who defines the morals?

We have laws on the things that everyone can agree on, like stealing and murder and tax evasion.  The real important bases are covered.  If you feel like abortions are wrong and that gay marriage is wrong, then you are free to not have abortions or get married to a dude.  To deny dude-love to others because of your own personal beliefs though, that's authoritarian and wrong.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: High Max on October 28, 2009, 11:20:20 pm
Social Conservatism = The enforcement of what some people believe to be moral lifestyles and behaviors because these are what makes Men decent and civilized.  The degradation of these is why there is so much chaos in the world today.

fixed

And democracy is people voting for laws and enforces them when the majority agree on them and therefore are allowed to pass them as law. That makes sense. However, laws can be passed if just 51% agree on them, I believe. So a huge minority may not agree. Then you have a problem. That is the flaw in democracy, I suppose.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Turambar on October 28, 2009, 11:23:01 pm
That is the flaw in democracy, I suppose.

The other flaw is that the majority of our representatives are for sale.  That's a different discussion though.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: iamzack on October 28, 2009, 11:24:52 pm
Majority does not get to take away rights from a minority. A lamb and two wolves voting on what''s for supper, you know?

Even if 99% of people are purple and 1% of people are green, and all 99% vote to enslave the green people, that doesn't fly.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Nuclear1 on October 28, 2009, 11:25:29 pm
Bullying, crime, sloth, and little regard for people.

I wouldn't say so.  I don't understand where you're drawing these conclusions.  Could you give me something to understand?

Quote
Social Conservatism = The promotion of moral lifestyles and behaviors because these are what makes Men decent and civilized.  The degradation of these is why there is so much chaos in the world today.

Most of you are going to paint that with a ridiculously generalized brush, but you know what, I don't care.  That's what I believe.  Man can be good without a moral foundation, but society cannot.

And society can be moral without your particular lifestyle and behavior.  Atheists, Muslims, Jews, Christians, agnostics, Mormons, et al. are just as capable of morality as anyone.  Marijuana smokers are capable of morality.  They just simply choose to enjoy a plant in the same way people who smoke tobacco do.  Homosexuals are capable of morality--just because they are in love with someone of the same gender, doesn't mean society's infrastructure is going to crumble by granting them freedom.

No, I'm not for pedophiles being given free-reign to interact with children; I'm not for allowing every single American to own as many guns as they want; I'm not for allowing people to become obese to the point where they cannot contribute to society.  As long as your freedom does not infringe on mine or my neighbor's or the members of your family, I don't give a damn what you do, what you believe, or how you do it.

You're not enforcing a "moral standard"; you're enforcing your moral standard.  Social conservatives have been at the heart of opposing civil rights legislation for blacks, hate crime legislation for homosexuals, and marriage provisions for homosexuals.  They've been adamant about opposing marijuana, despite the fact that marijuana is only illegal because of a corporate attempt in the early 20th century to ban hemp as a competitor to lumber, and it being possibly the least harmful drug on the market, even less so than tobacco and alcohol.  Social conservatives have been terrified of what goes on in people's bedrooms that they don't understand; again, as long as it's consensual and not harming a child, it shouldn't matter to you.  

I don't walk into your house and tell you to stop eating salad because I can't stand it.   I don't take away your SUV because it guzzles gas.  I don't tell you who to marry just because the woman's a total *****.  So don't do it to me.  
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: High Max on October 28, 2009, 11:29:41 pm
Quote
I wouldn't say so.  I don't understand where you're drawing these conclusions.  Could you give me something to understand?

http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=2621

I just browsed it but will start reading it now. But it looks like it agrees with what I think starting in the 2nd paragragh that starts with the words "little wonder".

About homosexuality: Oriental cultures from long ago and I think even monks have practiced it for 1000's of years. If you watch Japanese anime that is subbed and not sensored for kids here, you will see that some characters have what can be interpreted as a homosexual relationship, Even in Sailor Moon, Sailor Uranus and Neptune were in a love relationship, but those parts of it were altered and filtered for broadcast in the USA, even though the Japanese version (original version) didn't show them do anything. Me and others may think homosexuality is a little strange, but I don't hate them for being homosexual and actually many of them seem to be kind. It is widely believed to be a lifestyle choice though. Is that possible at all or misinformation?
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Turambar on October 28, 2009, 11:36:30 pm
Quote
I wouldn't say so.  I don't understand where you're drawing these conclusions.  Could you give me something to understand?

http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=2621

I just browsed it but will start reading it now. But it looks like it agrees with what I think starting in the 2nd paragragh that starts with the words "little wonder".

Terrorists must absolutely love these people.  They give them exactly what they want!
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Nuclear1 on October 28, 2009, 11:52:43 pm
Quote
I wouldn't say so.  I don't understand where you're drawing these conclusions.  Could you give me something to understand?

http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=2621

I just browsed it but will start reading it now. But it looks like it agrees with what I think starting in the 2nd paragragh that starts with the words "little wonder".

Terrorists must absolutely love these people.  They give them exactly what they want!

Exactly.  The military's doing just fine without the government depriving the American people of the freedoms the military is supposed to be defending.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Turambar on October 28, 2009, 11:53:52 pm
It is widely believed to be a lifestyle choice though. Is that possible at all or misinformation?

It is caused by a variety of factors, such as genetic predisposition, hormone-affected genetic expression during development in the womb, and other biological factors.  The choice is whether to hide it and blend with the rest of society (misery), or to go with it and enjoy life.



Exactly.  The military's doing just fine without the government depriving the American people of the freedoms the military is supposed to be defending.

The military should barely be involved in dealing with terrorism.  It should be a job for small commando groups, local militaries, and intelligence agencies.  All that major military intervention does is destabilize things, damage infrastructure, kill civilians, and breed more terrorists.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: General Battuta on October 29, 2009, 02:16:01 am
Alrighty here we go.  Nice and short.

Social Conservatism = The promotion of moral lifestyles and behaviors because these are what makes Men decent and civilized.

I absolutely agree. We should promote a world where as many people as possible are free from fear, want, ignorance, and suffering. We should promote a public morality that encourages service, acceptance, and brotherhood while discouraging crime and killing. And we should enable everyone to share in the basic and inalienable liberties of mankind.

That's what you want too, right?

Oh. Wait. You want to constrain civil liberties, expand government control, and classify some citizens as deserving of only restricted rights?

Jeez. That doesn't sound like what you said at all. In fact, it sounds like nobody can agree on what 'moral lifestyles and behaviors' are. It sounds like you want to impose your own view on everyone else.

You're little better than a totalitarian.

Quote
The degradation of these is why there is so much chaos in the world today.

There is less chaos today in the world than at any point in the past.

I am sorry that you are so afraid, though.

Alrighty here we go.  Nice and short.

Social Conservatism = The promotion of moral lifestyles and behaviors because these are what makes Men decent and civilized.

Let me just hit this up one more time, using my thesaurus to point out an absurdity.

"We should promote decent lifestyles and behaviors, because these are what make Men decent and civilized."

Or, perhaps

"We should promote decent and civilized lifestyles and behaviors, because these are what make Men moral."

**** it, let's go all the way!

"We should promote decent and civilized lifestyles and behaviors, because these are what make Men decent and civilized."

It's a circle, kids.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Kosh on October 29, 2009, 02:48:44 am
Do you mean bullying physically? I recall my Japanese past girlfriend, who is a teacher, telling me that violent acts towards teachers from the kids is becoming a problem. Is this connected?


Bullying by children to other children is what I was referring to, and it has been a problem for a long time and nothing was ever done about it, and it usually continues well into adulthood, and like I said who gets blamed? The person who was on the recieving end, for not "conforming". Do you really want to live in that kind of society? Its no wonder they have by far the highest suicide rates in the OECD countries.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: High Max on October 29, 2009, 03:51:52 am
It's one reason why it is good to practice discipline and learn a lot. People are less likely to be picked on if they try, stand up for themselves, and improve themselves. If they increase their health and intelligence, they can minimize being bullied.

My past girl said that people respect those who are smarter. Of course that seems on the contrary in the west, though people who are smart here probably get bullied because people are jealous of their intellect and feel inferior knowing that those people are smarter and they envy that perhaps, so they bully them to feel above them. But Kyoko was probably talking about her society when saying that smarter people get more respect. But if a person is being slothy and not making an effort to improve themselves, do they not deserve to be picked on? I have a habit of respecting those who try harder as well and have more self respect. Half of it is in the hands of the individual to minimize being picked on. The other half is unavoidable, sadly.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Kosh on October 29, 2009, 04:30:13 am
Quote
But Kyoko was probably talking about her society when saying that smarter people get more respect.


The nail that stands up gets hammered.

Quote
It's one reason why it is good to practice discipline and learn a lot. People are less likely to be picked on if they try, stand up for themselves, and improve themselves. If they increase their health and intelligence, they can minimize being bullied.

In reality they aren't picked on for any of those reasons, and they can be some of the smartest people there. They get picked on because they aren't exactly the same. More later.

EDIT: Ok, back from lab. Anyway, the problem is being different in Japan is extremely bad, and that is what leads to bullying, it depends on nothing else. Check this  video, although it goes into many other topics section 7 discusses this issue more specifically (http://fora.tv/2007/01/30/Japan_s_Lost_Generation#fullprogram)

You're thinking in western terms, which is being independent and making yourself better will lead to less bullying, but in conformist societies that is not the case.

Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Liberator on October 29, 2009, 04:31:14 am
Oh. Wait. You want to constrain civil liberties, expand government control, and classify some citizens as deserving of only restricted rights?
Exactly what planet have you been on since I started posting here... :wtf:
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: General Battuta on October 29, 2009, 09:26:24 am
Oh. Wait. You want to constrain civil liberties, expand government control, and classify some citizens as deserving of only restricted rights?
Exactly what planet have you been on since I started posting here... :wtf:

The planet where you selectively respond to posts, ignoring most of the points made because you're unable to respond to them?

Or maybe the planet where social conservatives oppose gay marriage?
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: iamzack on October 29, 2009, 09:59:03 am
Oh. Wait. You want to constrain civil liberties, expand government control, and classify some citizens as deserving of only restricted rights?
Exactly what planet have you been on since I started posting here... :wtf:

What planet have you been on since you were born? Social conservatives have ALWAYS historically been about all that stuff.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: General Battuta on October 29, 2009, 10:12:11 am
Right. The problem with social conservatism is that in the past 100 years we've seen social conservatives arguing that:

1) Women voting would promote immorality and destroy America.
2) Equal rights for Blacks would promote immorality and destroy America.
3) Interracial marriages would promote immorality and destroy America.
4) Immigrants would promote immorality and destroy America.
5) Equal rights for women would promote immorality and destroy America.
6) Public acceptance of homosexuality would promote immorality and destroy America.

I'll be happy to go out there and hunt down more examples, if you like.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Janos on October 29, 2009, 11:52:57 am
Liberator, seeing as you didn't answer Turambar's question "who defines the morals" and I am rather interested in the answer as well - since you seem to promote a lifestyle based in morality - I'd like to raise the point again. What are these moral and decent lifestyles, who defines what they are and what to they include, and more importantly, oppose?

I would be rather interested in concrete examples!

Thank you in advance.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Liberator on October 29, 2009, 12:20:51 pm
Who defines the morals?

Hmm, well the vast majority of them haven't changed since the beginning of man.

The remainder are added as needed.  But the basics don't change or grow out of date.

Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: The E on October 29, 2009, 12:43:24 pm
And who is the arbitrator of which morals get added, or which ones get cut? I note that you didn't answer the question about who decides which morals are "good", and which ones need to be stamped out with government help?

Also, why should something as malleable as morals be enshrined in something as rigid and static as a system of laws?
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: iamzack on October 29, 2009, 01:13:22 pm
The basics change all the time, dude. Morals are a product of civilization, not the other way around.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: General Battuta on October 29, 2009, 03:04:07 pm
Who defines the morals?

Hmm, well the vast majority of them haven't changed since the beginning of man.

The remainder are added as needed.  But the basics don't change or grow out of date.

Could you name a few?

Your list, of course, won't include 'open homosexuality', since that's been frequently accepted as moral and even necessary. Nor will it include 'patriarchal power system', since that's certainly changed a lot since the beginning of man. Nor will it include anything Judaeo-Christian, since that's all relatively recent.

And, funny, wait. There's a lot of stuff that doesn't make your list.

EQUAL RIGHTS FOR WOMEN. Wasn't there originally.

INALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHTS FOR EVERYONE. Most people were slaves or subject to a king - basically subhuman.

FREEDOM FROM FEAR, BUTTRAPE, MURDER. Those are relatively recent rights. Up until recently, if you had the sword, you made the laws. You could terrorize, rape, or murder anyone in your power.

RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL. Holy **** that one's new.

FUNDAMENTAL EQUALITY OF ALL RACES. Just came along.

So we shouldn't be promoting any of those, right? Because those weren't around since the beginning of man.

Wait, wait, what rights were around since the beginning of man?

THE RIGHT TO KILL WHATEVER WAS NECESSARY TO SURVIVE: hmm, that right seems to have...vanished.

And what about our veneration for fertility goddesses? We spent most of recorded history focusing our culture on little stone idols of big-breasted women. How can we just throw away the past that made us great, Liberator? In my country, we remember the gods our ancestors worshipped!

Funny, you don't seem to have any rights left on your list. I find it hilarious how you look to the past as a 'better place', when in our recent past we (as a country!) have committed genocide, randomly invaded our neighbors, tossed people in internment camps, committed ourselves to never interfering outside our own borders, gone to civil war for the right to keep black people enslaved, and generally acted as corrupt, confused, and ambiguous as anyone else.

By the way, if you continue to respond selectively to single sentences drawn from people's posts (in the hilarious tradition of both left and right wing pundits), I imagine things will go badly for you. Just sayin': if you can't acknowledge the points other people are making, then you just look like you're throwing up your hands and conceding.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: High Max on October 29, 2009, 05:08:13 pm

Funny, you don't seem to have any rights left on your list. I find it hilarious how you look to the past as a 'better place', when in our recent past we (as a country!) have committed genocide, randomly invaded our neighbors, tossed people in internment camps, committed ourselves to never interfering outside our own borders, gone to civil war for the right to keep black people enslaved, and generally acted as corrupt, confused, and ambiguous as anyone else.


I have a question and I'm sorry if this is off topic, but I've thought about asking this before:

You have much concern for the well being of others and you can be very polite and nice, but doesn't that contradict you belief that our consciousness is an illusion, humans are accidents and nothing special, and that we are nothing but souless bodies with no true free will and that our feelings are just chemicals? If you believe that our consciouness is just an illusion and all else that I stated, then concern for others and all these human ideals don't matter because it would also be an illusional construct and perception of humans and good and bad don't exist. But your concern and kindness seems to contradict a purely materialist and physical point of view.

I'm not taking sides here. I'm just saying.

Maybe I will pm you sometime and we can have interesting conversations. I like intelligent conversations and they interest me. It will also prevent me from going off topic.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: The E on October 29, 2009, 05:14:00 pm
If nothing we do matters in the greater scheme of things, then the smallest act of kindness is the is the greatest thing in the world.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: General Battuta on October 29, 2009, 05:21:24 pm

Funny, you don't seem to have any rights left on your list. I find it hilarious how you look to the past as a 'better place', when in our recent past we (as a country!) have committed genocide, randomly invaded our neighbors, tossed people in internment camps, committed ourselves to never interfering outside our own borders, gone to civil war for the right to keep black people enslaved, and generally acted as corrupt, confused, and ambiguous as anyone else.


I have a question and I'm sorry if this is off topic, but I've thought about asking this before:

You have much concern for the well being of others and you can be very polite and nice, but doesn't that contradict you belief that our consciousness is an illusion, humans are accidents and nothing special, and that we are nothing but souless bodies with no true free will and that our feelings are just chemicals?

Au contraire. Once you realize that our minds are purely physical structures, that consciousness is a process (not an illusion, but not something dualistic either), that 'free will' means 'we process stimuli into reactions based on a set of rules peculiar to each person but shaped by genetics and environnment', that we vanish when we die, and that all our social standards - including morality - are constructs of evolution and consensus designed to help better societies -

- only then do you understand that everything is up to us. We don't need God or pixies to tell us how to act. We take charge ourselves. If someone's hurting someone else, we need to figure out how to stop them.

It's cognitive adulthood. The acceptance of responsibility. God isn't going to take care of the business of building a good world and good people, so we damn well better do it. I'd rather have a moral system that we built, experimented with, and proved to work than playing by an old book with a lot of rules about how we should stone adulteresses and prepare our meat this way rather than that.

Honestly, why would you think that understanding something diminishes it? You're afraid that once we know feelings are chemicals, then feelings will go away? Is a rainbow any less pretty because we know it's light diffracted through water?
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: mxlm on October 29, 2009, 05:34:37 pm
Hmm, well the vast majority of them haven't changed since the beginning of man

Straw poll: who thinks the American sense of morality has changed drastically over the past century?

Quote
You have much concern for the well being of others and you can be very polite and nice, but doesn't that contradict you belief that our consciousness is an illusion, humans are accidents and nothing special, and that we are nothing but souless bodies with no true free will and that our feelings are just chemicals? If you believe that our consciouness is just an illusion and all else that I stated, then concern for others and all these human ideals don't matter because it would also be an illusional construct and perception of humans and good and bad don't exist. But your concern and kindness seems to contradict a purely materialist and physical point of view.

No. It does not (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development). At a guess, and understand I'm not being insulting here, you haven't realized that there are stages past #4 (although I presume the 'law' you're concerned with is 'god's law'). There are.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Scotty on October 29, 2009, 05:49:50 pm
Can I vote for the "not drastically, but still changed" category?

If they hadn't changed at all, Women still wouldn't be able to vote, blacks would still be segregated and oppressed, and all sorts of other fun stuff because it wasn't "immoral" by the standards of the day to do stuff like that.

....

I had something that didn't quite not matter to say, but now I can't remember.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: General Battuta on October 29, 2009, 05:51:13 pm
 :yes:

Except I'd totally call it drastic, given the huge changes for more than half the population.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Rian on October 29, 2009, 05:51:46 pm
Can I vote for the "not drastically, but still changed" category?

If they hadn't changed at all, Women still wouldn't be able to vote, blacks would still be segregated and oppressed, and all sorts of other fun stuff because it wasn't "immoral" by the standards of the day to do stuff like that.

....

I had something that didn't quite not matter to say, but now I can't remember.
Looks pretty drastic from this side of the "couldn’t vote a hundred years ago" fence.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Scotty on October 29, 2009, 05:56:33 pm
Okay then.  Drastic it is :D
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Kosh on October 29, 2009, 08:52:23 pm
Quote
Who defines the morals?

It should be me. :p
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: mxlm on October 29, 2009, 11:00:35 pm
Looks pretty drastic from this side of the "couldn’t vote a hundred years ago" fence.

I couldn't vote a hundred years ago either.

...I'll go away now.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: iamzack on October 29, 2009, 11:03:50 pm
It's not like women are even equal nowadays, guys. A woman in my state who is married cannot own property in her own name. Her husband's name is ALWAYS on it, even if he didn't put a penny toward it.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Rian on October 29, 2009, 11:22:01 pm
No, I would absolutely agree with you there. But to say that popular morality hasn’t fundamentally changed in the last hundred years—hell, even the last decade—is plain ridiculous.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: High Max on October 30, 2009, 12:09:28 am
Well they usually have more rights when it comes to child support, even though it takes two to tango, and how this culture views it as ok for a woman to hit a man, but if the places are switched and a man does that, he is seen as bad. In some ways they are treated better than men in this country.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Kosh on October 30, 2009, 12:26:58 am
Quote
and how this culture views it as ok for a woman to hit a man, but if the places are switched and a man does that, he is seen as bad.

Welcome to the 21st century.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: High Max on October 30, 2009, 12:33:28 am
If a culture wants women and men to be equal, it means that it can't have contradictions like that since that contradicts equality. It also means that people can't hold back on a woman just because she's a woman and she will have to have the same responsibility and hardships that the men had traditionally. With rights come responsibility.

And no, just 21st century in certain countries like here. Actually, it sounds like 1950's USA for it to be ok for women to hit men but not vice versa, and that might be changing too since it seems like the older generation in usa thinks more like that. Both the man or woman could be in the wrong and I hate it when a person blindly defends a woman without even knowing who's in the wrong. You defend someone based on their actions, not their gender. I also don't like how in this country they also tend to call men abusive and rude when they are no different. It's hypocracy. I've witnessed someone saying that about a man when I was working recently.

Maybe I should move to a place where we aren't treated like dirt for being men and a place where I have more in common with a culture when it comes to my preferences in many things. But I'm stuck here probably. But I can probably go there to visit and meet some who have more in common with me.

By the way, why is this discussion now about gender? That tends to be an almost taboo topic on HLP with those who disagree on certain points. Just like the topic on abortion and how that can cause much fighting. Almost a no-no.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: General Battuta on October 30, 2009, 01:55:29 am
Quote
and how this culture views it as ok for a woman to hit a man, but if the places are switched and a man does that, he is seen as bad.

Welcome to the 21st century.

Okay, haven't you ever heard of a power dynamic, High Max? Or, I dunno, history?

Men beating women is kind of an established mechanism of control. Women beating men is...not a particularly widespread phenomenon.

Thus, one draws more social scorn. Of course, under the law, you're equally liable to be charged for assault no matter your gender, which just goes to show - fair play, huh?

Quote
Maybe I should move to a place where we aren't treated like dirt for being men and a place where I have more in common with a culture when it comes to my preferences in many things. But I'm stuck here probably. But I can probably go there to visit and meet some who have more in common with me.

**** you. Women make 74 cents for every dollar you make. Women get ****ed over by implicit associations and stereotypes ('strong manly leader' on one hand, '***** harpy' on the other). We're a long way from equality or a level playing field.

You get the cream of the crop, my friend. You aren't treated like dirt; you have every advantage on earth.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Nuclear1 on October 30, 2009, 01:59:37 am
Wow.  Nail on the head GB.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: General Battuta on October 30, 2009, 02:04:13 am
Thanks!

Quote
If a culture wants women and men to be equal, it means that it can't have contradictions like that since that contradicts equality. It also means that people can't hold back on a woman just because she's a woman and she will have to have the same responsibility and hardships that the men had traditionally. With rights come responsibility.

That would be the ideal world we'll hope to reach some day. But if we just all pretended the world was that way right now, you would see the status quo remain as is with women severely disadvantaged.

The reason is that we are all subconsciously infected with viral cultural elements that influence our behavior towards women. Women themselves carry these elements, just like everybody else.

Give women a math test. Have 50% of them mark their gender with a simple bubble beforehand. They perform significantly worse on the math test. Why? They've all been taught that women can't do math, and subconsciously, that stereotype (activated by that little reminder that they're a woman) impairs them.

In fact, the same thing happens with Black students. Give them 20 GRE questions. Have half of them mark their race beforehand. The number of questions they get right drops by half compared with a control group.

We can't pretend that we live in an equal-opportunity world until those associations are gone.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Kosh on October 30, 2009, 04:26:44 am
Quote
Give women a math test. Have 50% of them mark their gender with a simple bubble beforehand. They perform significantly worse on the math test. Why? They've all been taught that women can't do math, and subconsciously, that stereotype (activated by that little reminder that they're a woman) impairs them.

I've always figured that was the case. Have there been any studies about that?

Great pwnage BTW.  (http://media.bigoo.ws/content/smile/miscellaneous/smile_147.gif)
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: High Max on October 30, 2009, 05:07:26 am
Cool emoticon. I never knew HLP had that.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Kosh on October 30, 2009, 05:28:50 am
It doesn't, I got it from somewhere else.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Rian on October 30, 2009, 07:50:14 am
Quote
Give women a math test. Have 50% of them mark their gender with a simple bubble beforehand. They perform significantly worse on the math test. Why? They've all been taught that women can't do math, and subconsciously, that stereotype (activated by that little reminder that they're a woman) impairs them.

I've always figured that was the case. Have there been any studies about that?

Great pwnage BTW.  (http://media.bigoo.ws/content/smile/miscellaneous/smile_147.gif)
It’s Battuta. He wouldn’t be talking about it if there hadn’t been.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Ghostavo on October 30, 2009, 08:09:10 am
I have to agree with part of what High Max said. Perpectuation of the stereotype will exist if people are reminded of it. When people start ignoring the differences between them is when true equality will be achieved.

I'll give you an example I'm familiar with where there's discrimination against both women and men.

In chess, women can have up to twice as many prizes and twice as many titles. Elaborating, for many tournaments there are normally prizes for the first places in the classification tree, various prizes for the various age groups and... prizes for women. However, the underlying cause of giving prizes that are not grouped with the first places in the classification tree is that those players are not be strong enough to compete for the first places and so an incentive is given. Basically, they are giving women chances for more prizes (discriminating against men) while perpetuating the stereotype that women are weaker players (discriminating against women). It's even worse in championships where there are twice the number of prizes for women.

The same happens with the titles. There are twice the number of titles a women can achieve. But those only they can achieve are significantly easier to achieve than the normal titles. The underlying reason would probably be the same.

When they are treated exactly the same as any other player is when discrimination in this area stops.

Double standards suck.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: karajorma on October 30, 2009, 08:30:37 am
Women beating men is...not a particularly widespread phenomenon.


You sure of that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spousal_abuse#Violence_against_men)?

Quote
In May, 2007, researchers with the Centers for Disease Control reported on rates of self-reported violence among intimate partners using data from a 2001 study. In the study, almost one-quarter of participants reported some violence in their relationships. Half of these involved one-sided ("non-reciprocal") attacks and half involved both assaults and counter assaults ("reciprocal violence"). Women reported committing one-sided attacks more than twice as often as men (70% versus 29%). In all cases of intimate partner violence, women were more likely to be injured than men, but 25% of men in relationships with two-sided violence reported injury compared to 20% of women reporting injury in relationships with one-sided violence. Women were more likely to be injured in non-reciprocal violence.

Strauss argues that these discrepancies between the two data sets are due to several factors. For example, Strauss notes that crime statistics are compiled and analyzed differently from domestic violence statistics. Additionally, Strauss notes that most studies show that while men inflict the greater portion of injuries, women are at least as likely as men to shove, punch, slap or otherwise physically assault their partner, and that such relatively minor assaults often escalate to more serious assaults. Minor assaults perpetrated by women are also a major problem, even when they do not result in injury, because they put women in danger of much more severe retaliation by men. [...] It will be argued that in order to end 'wife beating,' it is essential for women also to end what many regard as a "harmless" pattern of slapping, kicking, or throwing something at a male partner. Strauss also notes that data confirming that women can be violent have been suppressed because the data contradicts preconceptions that men are responsible for most or all domestic violence.

Basically women are just as likely to be involved in women as men but because men are bigger and stronger on average they tend to be more likely to cause the serious injuries.

Don't ever start making the assumption that violence from women isn't common, degrading, or in many cases lethal based on the fact that they're just women or that you don't hear much about it though.

Quote
**** you. Women make 74 cents for every dollar you make.

Interestingly enough I heard a quite convincing argument once that this had bugger all to do with sexism and was simply due to the fact that men pushed things further when deciding their starting salary and in their annual salary review than women did. If the guy always insists on a 10% raise when the woman settles for 8% it doesn't take long for a man to earn significantly more money even if the person deciding on the salary isn't being sexist.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Janos on October 30, 2009, 09:20:57 am
Who defines the morals?

Hmm, well the vast majority of them haven't changed since the beginning of man.

The remainder are added as needed.  But the basics don't change or grow out of date.

If the vast majority cannot change, then how can they... wait...
Quote from: Liberator on page 3
Alrighty here we go.  Nice and short.

Social Conservatism = The promotion of moral lifestyles and behaviors because these are what makes Men decent and civilized.  The degradation of these is why there is so much chaos in the world today.

Most of you are going to paint that with a ridiculously generalized brush, but you know what, I don't care.  That's what I believe.  Man can be good without a moral foundation, but society cannot.
... degrade? I mean, you talk about moral lifestyles? They are degrading? Obviously these are some things that could be fixed somehow.

You tried to evade the question once again by escaping behind one word of yours. Do. Not. ****ing. Do. It. Anymore. Who defines the morals - as in part of the degradation of moral lifestyles behaviours. Who. The Nebulous Society? Bull**** - depending on the society the norms can vary from incest to homosexuality, and there can be hundreds of these kinds of microsocietys inside even one medium-sized city. "Everyone"?

The point is, you really don't like some things which are happening around here. You mask this with all kinds of strange posting behaviour, but for ****'s sake: you do not like something, what is it? You cannot escape behind "well dawn of man" because in the dawn of men we ran around raping each other and eating rotten tapirs.

You talk about "moral lifestyles and behaviours" and accuse people of painting with a broad brush, but when asked to name just some of those seemingle important moral lifestyles etc. you cannot name a single one.

It's really tiresome to try to "debate" with you, because your posting strategy seems to be spamming bull**** talking points one after another. I wonder how you bother.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Janos on October 30, 2009, 09:23:32 am

**** you. Women make 74 cents for every dollar you make. Women get ****ed over by implicit associations and stereotypes ('strong manly leader' on one hand, '***** harpy' on the other). We're a long way from equality or a level playing field.

You get the cream of the crop, my friend. You aren't treated like dirt; you have every advantage on earth.

Around here, it's 81 cents for one euro, and rising.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: mxlm on October 30, 2009, 09:40:51 am
Maybe I should move to a place where we aren't treated like dirt for being men
So. Do you also feel like you're treated like dirt for being a straight, white man (yes, I'm making some assumptions here, but they're informed)? Because if so, well, that feeling? Has to do with you, not the reality of your situation. Persecution complex. Seriously.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Rian on October 30, 2009, 10:08:24 am
Quote
**** you. Women make 74 cents for every dollar you make.

Interestingly enough I heard a quite convincing argument once that this had bugger all to do with sexism and was simply due to the fact that men pushed things further when deciding their starting salary and in their annual salary review than women did. If the guy always insists on a 10% raise when the woman settles for 8% it doesn't take long for a man to earn significantly more money even if the person deciding on the salary isn't being sexist.
Why do you think women don’t push for more? It’s not because we’re naturally more conciliatory or any essentialist garbage like that. It’s because the vast majority of us are socialized from birth to be non-threatening and non-confrontational and we get called *****es and harpies when we’re not. It requires a conscious effort to overcome that conditioning, which means women who succeed in male-dominated professions often have to work twice as hard to do so.

Sexism doesn’t have to be direct; and in fact it’s the systemic, internalized variety that causes most of the damage. Looking at isolated cases (whether, for example, a particular boss is sexist or just negotiating wages as usual) rather misses the point, as the causes are more fundamental and deeply ingrained than that. And until we can root out that underlying, systemic bias, the wage gap is going to be there.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: General Battuta on October 30, 2009, 10:38:52 am
I have to agree with part of what High Max said. Perpectuation of the stereotype will exist if people are reminded of it. When people start ignoring the differences between them is when true equality will be achieved.

...

Double standards suck.

I don't particularly disagree; it's one reason I'm against the double standard for physical fitness in the military. But if we all simply started pretending everybody was equal right now, sexism would remain powerful.

(The chess example is a case that's probably actually keeping the women in question down.)
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: iamzack on October 30, 2009, 10:44:43 am
Well they usually have more rights when it comes to child support, even though it takes two to tango, and how this culture views it as ok for a woman to hit a man, but if the places are switched and a man does that, he is seen as bad. In some ways they are treated better than men in this country.

Actually, in many states (like mine) there is automatic joint custody after a divorce unless one parent is proven to be hugely defective. Hugely. Like, they are currently in prison or are severely schizophrenic.

The hitting thing isn't really in my favor, dude. It's like that because women are the "weaker" sex. Culturally, women are supposed to be treated like children. Just watch any show where a male character is teaching an awkward character to interact with women. It's never "women are actually people, so you should interact with her like you would anyone else, and if she doesn't like you well, you didn't want her anyway." Instead it's "compliment her, pretend to listen to her, let her win at games, etc. She is very simple-minded and won't ever do/think anything complex." You wouldn't hit a child, would you? Of course not, not even if it hit you first.

So you know why woman on male spousal abuse is under-reported? because women are the weaker sex, and it is beyond shameful to be beaten by your own child, I mean wife.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Rian on October 30, 2009, 10:49:25 am
I don't particularly disagree; it's one reason I'm against the double standard for physical fitness in the military. But if we all simply started pretending everybody was equal right now, sexism would remain powerful.
In fact people do, and it does. How many times have you heard “post-feminist” or “feminism’s fight is over”? And yet the wage gap persists. Rape and abuse are widespread. Women still don’t have equal representation in government. And so forth.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: iamzack on October 30, 2009, 11:20:20 am
Well 'feminist' is a bit of a swear word these days.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Rian on October 30, 2009, 12:14:12 pm
Quote
I call myself a feminist. Isn’t that what you call someone who fights for women’s rights?
–The Dalai Lama. (http://www.memphisflyer.com/TheDailyBuzz/archives/2009/09/23/the-dalai-lama-is-a-feminist)
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: iamzack on October 30, 2009, 12:18:32 pm
I hear it used like the word 'racist' usually.

"I'm not a feminist, but..."
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Rian on October 30, 2009, 12:27:28 pm
That’s because of backlash, though. Stereotypically feminists are humorless, unshaven lesbians, so a lot of people don’t want to be identified with that. It’s not because of any ideological issues with the movement, or if it is it’s because of a misunderstanding of what the movement stands for.

There are some legitimate quarrels with the assumptions of manistream feminism. Mostly they come from women of color and trans people, who historically have been largely excluded from the discourse. But that’s an entirely different crowd from the "not a feminist, but..." folks.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: StarSlayer on October 30, 2009, 01:28:19 pm
I'm curious, granted we don't have a large female population on HLP to question, but do folks find that sexism is predominant in older generations, or is it still prevalent in younger age groups?  To be honest my experience is rather limited to New England insofar as making these types of observations.  The public education system I attended heavily enforced tolerance and acceptance of other races, gender, sexual preference, etc.  This continued into College, especially since the college I attended was a giant mixing pot of people from around the country and plenty from overseas.  I know from experience that their are plenty of women who are far smarter then I am, and I'll wager there are some that could throw me around the mat like a rag doll.  This isn't to say it was a perfect system or completely successful, but my education did its level best to produce a non prejudiced person.  I still cling to a few old traditions like holding open doors and refraining from cussing in their presence, but that isn't really a reflection of my opinion on their competence.  For example I think they could fly combat missions in F-16s as good as any man.

I guess my overall question is whether sexism, at least in a post industrialized nation that has also experienced a feminist movement, is slowly being erased as the generational shift continues, that the existing sexism is a hold over of those raised before feminism, or if its still a continuing phenomenon thats being passed down to the younger generations.  Granted High Max isn't helping my case but it has been my experience that most people my age(early 20s) don't seem to be holding the view that women are inferior and need to be subservient.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: General Battuta on October 30, 2009, 01:38:53 pm
Explicit sexism is definitely dropping off, at least in some areas.

The problem is that implicit sexism remains; it's transmitted by very subtle cultural forces, but it is extraordinarily powerful.

You know the old riddle where a man and his son get in a car crash? They go in to the doctor, because the boy needs surgery, and the doctor takes one look at the boy and says "I can't operate. This is my son."

People still don't do very well at that riddle - they'll get it, but not as quickly as they should in an ideal gender-blind world. In free association, people still tend to link positive traits to men (strong, assertive) and negative traits to women (dependent, emotional). It's not an explicit kind of sexism; people just say 'well, that's what everybody else thinks, but not me'.

And that's the real struggle these days. The hidden, powerful sexism in all of us. It's easy to conceal it behind rationalization and 'fair play', often without any conscious intent - which is why attitudes like those we sometimes see on HLP are problematic. The idea that women are 'separate but equal' and deserve 'respect and protection' is part of what continues to keep women down.

(Think about terms of endearment and dimunitives for women. "Honey," "chick", "kitten", "sweetie"...it's pretty much all baby animals and food!)
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Liberator on October 30, 2009, 02:59:26 pm
And that's the real struggle these days. The hidden, powerful sexism in all of us.
So, I'm a sexist cause I hold the door for women coming out of a place behind me or opening the door for them if they are behind me as we go into a place.  Or offer a woman a my chair if there's not another available.

Where I'm from that's called manners.

If I had my preference, women should be protected from occupations where the odd of mortal injury are high, IE combat postings in the military, certain industrial positions, police officers, ect.

Not because they aren't intellectually or emotionally incapable of these jobs, but because typically they are physically incapable of being as proficient at them as they're male counterparts.  I mean seriously, can you see a 5'4" female pulling a 6'4" 300lbs man with another 60lbs of gear out of a burning tank or into cover after he's been incapacitated.  Or how about a beat cop in New York City, first time she walked onto a deserted street, she'd be in threat of rape or worse.

It would be interesting to see statistics on female applicants level vs. actual female employment at the end of the contract cycle.

Intellectually, it's a fine conversation, pointy-heads are always willing to give bonus points for good intentions, but realistically, it's not sexist to be protecting the half of the species who is resposible for bearing the next generation of the species into existence.

Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: General Battuta on October 30, 2009, 03:05:18 pm
 :lol:

Quote
Not because they aren't intellectually or emotionally incapable of these jobs, but because typically they are physically incapable of being as proficient at them as they're male counterparts.  I mean seriously, can you see a 5'4" female pulling a 6'4" 300lbs man with another 60lbs of gear out of a burning tank or into cover after he's been incapacitated.  Or how about a beat cop in New York City, first time she walked onto a deserted street, she'd be in threat of rape or worse.

You tip your hand, my friend. If you weren't sexist, you'd simply say 'someone should be physically qualified for a job like the military or the police force, regardless of gender.' You'd say that the Army as is is sexist because it lets women get off with lower physical standards.

Instead, you say 'women can never be physically fit enough for these jobs'...when your average male is only 40% stronger than your average female, which leaves plenty of overlap.

Don't you agree that by your argument regarding physical ability any woman fit enough to do the job should get it?

Oh, wait. Funny thing! Looks like women do just fine. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/30/AR2008043003415.html)

Down in flames again, my friend. While you're trying to prop open doors like a nineteenth-century dandy, women are out there doing things you can't do. Welcome to the future.

Quote
Where I'm from that's called manners.

If you've got to be sexist to have manners, maybe you need new manners. How about you just hold the door for anybody? Never know if that cute surfer boy might have a crush on you, after all.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Flipside on October 30, 2009, 03:09:47 pm
I think the biggest risk of female soldiers, as I think I said in another thread like this, is mixing them with male soldiers, not because they'd be threatened, but because of the inevitable 'Peacock' effect it would have on male soldiers, which might cause them to try and show off, and put themselves at risk.

From a physical point, there's nothing stopping them, but I'd still say there will be certain barriers against an entirely mixed-sex army.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: General Battuta on October 30, 2009, 03:14:23 pm
Those were the same barriers cited against a mixed-race army and mixed-race schools. Using sexism as an argument against an integrated army is foolish; the problem will take care of itself once men get used to working alongside women.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Nuclear1 on October 30, 2009, 03:14:39 pm
Anyone who's getting *****y at you for holding the door for them is a wingnut.  They don't represent the main face of the feminist movement.  Being a nice guy shouldn't get you treated like that.  If it has happened to you, then I'm shocked.  Otherwise, it just sounds like a stupid anti-feminist talking point.  

There might be jobs females are physically less capable of then men, but I wouldn't go so far as to think they are incapable.  If you'd seen some of the females going through SERE with me, rucking around 60 lbs a day for 13 hours at least through the mountains, you'd think differently.  Women in combat is an entirely other matter though.  If she can pick up a gun, point it at an insurgent, and shoot, I'd be happy to be alongside them.  Hell, first USAF casualty in Iraq was a female enlisted security forces airman running convoy security, which is damn close to combat these days.

And now for my asshole bit...most women who want to go into dangerous professions have a pretty good understanding of the dangers they face.  The above-mentioned security forces, female Marines (not infantry obviously, but still folks on the ground in Iraq, like the interpreters I went to DLI with), and most other high-risk military positions are good examples.  It's not up to you to decide what's better for them and disallow them from a job based on its risks.  

On the same point, if a female in the military chooses to become a mother, the military gives them the option to either be discharged or continue in their job, their choice.  I know a fair amount of people like that.

EDIT:  Dammit, GB, stop it, I'm trying to post here!  Got stopped twice because of your posts :p
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: High Max on October 30, 2009, 03:17:55 pm
About Feminism: I've been reading Yahoo answers under terms like "feminism is bad" and there are women, probably from usa, on that topic that are against feminism because like me, they feel that in a marriage, it doesn't work and the woman tends to put herself, her career, and kids before her own husband, which goes against what marriage is all about. the husband gets tired of being treated like he is not important and the wife is being selfish, and he leaves her. It might explain the high divorce rates here in usa. So not all women want to be treated like men, and actually, more than people here might think, many don't want to take the role of leader of household because they look up to their love and husband for taking that role. I'm not talking about the work place and pay and all that, I'm specifically talking about relationships in this circumstance.

It appears that when the average Asian women has a baby and has a job, she quits her job to be in her baby's life. I'm not talking about temporary leave in all cases. But it is also bad for the kid if the mother puts her career first when her husband already has one. Day care is too common in this country.

Also, women can be sexist towards men and that's a two way street, but isn't there proof that men and women have biological and even mental differences as far as using different sides of the brain more often and one tending to be more emotional than the other on average? In countries like this, to combat feminism, they have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masculism.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: General Battuta on October 30, 2009, 03:19:12 pm
Sorry. Good to have you, though. The faster we enlighten people like Liberator the faster the world improves.

It was the same thing with segregated schools. The debate about whether it was right was still raging when schools were desegregated. Now, not a century later, we all think it's the most natural thing. It'll be the same way with women in the military.

If she can hack it, she should get the job. As a statistical average, women are less physically capable, but individual woman A can probably outperform men B, C, and D.

It won't be fair until it's gender-blind.

EDIT: High Max, go sit in a corner with your Asian fetish.  :p If you want submissive women, go find one. There are plenty of misogynistic women.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Nuclear1 on October 30, 2009, 03:22:27 pm
Funny, my mother's actually the breadwinner in our family.  My father was more of the stay-at-home parent, but he hasn't left her due to any feelings of emasculation or being less important in the marriage.  And it's possible for women to progress in their careers and still have time for their family...plus not all women who want to continue on instantly become distanced from their families and end up having a husband who hates her.

EDIT: Knock it off!  Third time today!
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: High Max on October 30, 2009, 03:22:43 pm
misogynistic = hate for women, and that isn't valid. If I hated them, I wouldn't have been in love with women before and still like certain ones. Submissive isn't the point. It is being loved and putting husband and kids before career and possessions and the man should be the same way to his wife. Oh, and Asian women will stand up for themselves. In the west, the stereotype is that they are submissive slaves and do all that the husband says, but that is not accurate. I have more in common with the average one and I like their traits, their feminine grace, their cute personality and their physical beauty. Who says submissivness is my reason? They also tend to be emotionally strong and stable, don't smoke and don't do things that I wouldn't do myself, and don't have a temper, and have a good attitude and be polite, etc etc, if you get one who follows her culture more (average). But I already said this in the past. No need to continue.

It isn't right to assume that I hate women just because I have my preference. I'm just saying I prefer not to be in a serious relationship with western women, but I won't refuse to talk with them.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Scotty on October 30, 2009, 03:30:04 pm
Misogynistic = unequal treatment of another gender.  Almost a synonym of sexism, but mostly used to in places more related to condescention.

Common usage of words overrules ancient roots and prefixes.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: General Battuta on October 30, 2009, 03:31:02 pm
It's expecting the woman to put the man first. Any power relationship that requires an individual to perform some task because of his or her gender is sexist.

EDIT: Yeah, Scotty's right. It's fundamentally unequal.

And the thing is that you could love and respect women and still be misogynistic. To a degree we all are. The key is recognizing it.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: High Max on October 30, 2009, 03:32:47 pm
But I will put her first as well. I won't even want to hug or look too much at other women if I had a love.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogynistic.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: iamzack on October 30, 2009, 03:44:20 pm
**** you High Max. That's all I can spit out right now.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: General Battuta on October 30, 2009, 03:47:40 pm
But I will put her first as well. I won't even want to hug or look too much at other women if I had a love.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogynistic.

I'm tremendously devoted and affectionate to my cat (or I was, back before it died.)

That does not make it an equal relationship. At all. You can't say 'give up your autonomy, in exchange for love!' and have it be fair.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Nuclear1 on October 30, 2009, 03:48:42 pm
**** you High Max. That's all I can spit out right now.
You're a very bitter person sometimes. :p
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: General Battuta on October 30, 2009, 04:07:47 pm
I actually think it's a reasonable response, to be honest. She's dealing with the equivalent of racism. We just have an unfortunate double standard as a culture where you can get off with talking down to women but not with racist speech.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Turambar on October 30, 2009, 04:12:10 pm
I beat Iamzack just like I would beat a guy.

i am not sexist! :-D
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: iamzack on October 30, 2009, 04:13:43 pm
It's a placeholder for a real response which will come later. (This is a lie. I will forget about it shortly.)

Edit: I don't date anyone who won't hit back. :)
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Nuclear1 on October 30, 2009, 04:16:45 pm
I actually think it's a reasonable response, to be honest. She's dealing with the equivalent of racism. We just have an unfortunate double standard as a culture where you can get off with talking down to women but not with racist speech.

Fair enough. 

Edit: I don't date anyone who won't hit back. :)

So as long as the fuzzy handcuffs stay out of it :p
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: NGTM-1R on October 30, 2009, 04:19:09 pm
Misogynistic = unequal treatment of another gender.  Almost a synonym of sexism, but mostly used to in places more related to condescention.

Common usage of words overrules ancient roots and prefixes.

I believe the term you're looking for in regards to unequal treatment of males is called "misandristic". As it stands, it's one mostly applied to fiction, but...
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: High Max on October 30, 2009, 04:19:59 pm
**** you High Max. That's all I can spit out right now.
You're a very bitter person sometimes. :p

And it isn't an emotionally stable way of talking and acting. That's part of my point. Most foreign women and even foreign men who I have talked to never talk like that to me :p The average person seems to be more polite and shows more self control in that part of the world, and I have respect for people who are good at staying calm.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Turambar on October 30, 2009, 04:21:43 pm
**** you High Max. That's all I can spit out right now.
You're a very bitter person sometimes. :p

And it isn't an emotionally stable way of talking and acting. That's part of my point. Most foreign women and even foreign men who I have talked to never talk like that to me The average person seems to be more polite and shows more self control in that part of the world, and I have respect for people who are good at staying calm.

eat a bag of dicks, High Max.  There's stability, and there is keeping your calm when you're insulted, but this is the internet, and you don't need to keep it to yourself when someone is poking at you with words and you want to poke back.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Nuclear1 on October 30, 2009, 04:24:27 pm
Alright, I think this is the part where we tone it down...
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: General Battuta on October 30, 2009, 04:29:06 pm
**** you High Max. That's all I can spit out right now.
You're a very bitter person sometimes. :p

And it isn't an emotionally stable way of talking and acting. That's part of my point. Most foreign women and even foreign men who I have talked to never talk like that to me :p The average person seems to be more polite and shows more self control in that part of the world, and I have respect for people who are good at staying calm.

Nobody should be expected to stay calm in the face of smug, self-justified hate and oppression. At least a good '**** you' doesn't pretend to be polite, instead of throwing out stereotypes like 'women are unstable' behind a veil.

That said, if this thread continues to go down the insult route - no matter how justified - it'll be locked. Tone it down.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: NGTM-1R on October 30, 2009, 04:29:22 pm
And it isn't an emotionally stable way of talking and acting. That's part of my point. Most foreign women and even foreign men who I have talked to never talk like that to me :p The average person seems to be more polite and shows more self control in that part of the world, and I have respect for people who are good at staying calm.

The very concept of Zack's trolling, that she loses her temper for dramatic effect, is quite lost on you I see.

Never trust the motives of someone on the Internet.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: zookeeper on October 30, 2009, 04:34:20 pm
**** you High Max. That's all I can spit out right now.
You're a very bitter person sometimes. :p

And it isn't an emotionally stable way of talking and acting. That's part of my point. Most foreign women and even foreign men who I have talked to never talk like that to me :p The average person seems to be more polite and shows more self control in that part of the world, and I have respect for people who are good at staying calm.

Nobody should be expected to stay calm in the face of smug, self-justified hate and oppression.

Quote?

And yes, everyone should be expected to stay calm in the face of calm expressions of a differing opinion, no matter what you might think the other guy might really be thinking.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: NGTM-1R on October 30, 2009, 04:35:42 pm
Some things do not deserve your consideration. The strength of ideas is that they are communicable, but some are closer to diseases than others.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: General Battuta on October 30, 2009, 04:38:18 pm
Right.

The funny thing about our world is, you can have people read an article about old people, and when they get up from the chair they will walk measurably more slowly.

Talking about how women need protection and coddling is in itself dangerous.

You should stay calm in the face of reasonably and rationally presented ideas. But High Max's sneering assertion that she was 'unstable' (unlike Asian women) was practically weaponized hate - inflaming a memetic virus that we're all infected with. Because everyone who reads a sentence like that will find his or her behavior subtly altered.

We have this crappy heuristic bug called 'mere repetition'. If you hear an opinion enough times, you will eventually believe it. It doesn't matter if you reject it each time you hear it; it worms its way in.

That's why misogynistic speech has to be shut down wherever possible.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: High Max on October 30, 2009, 04:43:23 pm
**** you High Max. That's all I can spit out right now.
You're a very bitter person sometimes. :p

And it isn't an emotionally stable way of talking and acting. That's part of my point. Most foreign women and even foreign men who I have talked to never talk like that to me The average person seems to be more polite and shows more self control in that part of the world, and I have respect for people who are good at staying calm.

eat a bag of dicks, High Max.  There's stability, and there is keeping your calm when you're insulted, but this is the internet, and you don't need to keep it to yourself when someone is poking at you with words and you want to poke back.

I don't feel upset or a desire to poke back is one reason I don't poke back. I also don't take it personally.

@Bat: I'm saying that in this culture, people, including women, are far less emotionally stable compared to the average person in that part of the world. People here in usa tend to yell too much and can't keep their cool and like to use lots of profanity, and I wouldn't want to be in that kind of marriage. Nothing to do with hate. So touchy. Don't misunderstand.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: General Battuta on October 30, 2009, 04:45:24 pm
Yeah, as a white male, you kind of have that luxury.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Turambar on October 30, 2009, 04:51:39 pm
I used to act like High Max's ideal Superman.  It's because I was taking my adderall everyday and it made me feel dead inside.

I like my way better, it's more fun.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: High Max on October 30, 2009, 04:54:03 pm
I don't take anything ;) Anyways, I should get to doing something else for now, like exercising or fixing some more entries on the Storm Front campaign, etc.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Ghostavo on October 30, 2009, 04:55:41 pm
I don't particularly disagree; it's one reason I'm against the double standard for physical fitness in the military. But if we all simply started pretending everybody was equal right now, sexism would remain powerful.
In fact people do, and it does. How many times have you heard “post-feminist” or “feminism’s fight is over”? And yet the wage gap persists. Rape and abuse are widespread. Women still don’t have equal representation in government. And so forth.

Apart from perhaps the wage gap, the other are symptoms of other things. Rape and abuse should not be lumped as feminist subjects since they are not part of discrimination against women. Rape and abuse are wrong by their very nature, not because of any sort discrimination. After all, there is rape and abuse of men as well. As for equal representation in government, that's an artifact of the generation gap. How many young people do you see involved in the government which you find there is not equal representation? Youth apathy is the issue, not discrimination.


Explicit sexism is definitely dropping off, at least in some areas.

The problem is that implicit sexism remains; it's transmitted by very subtle cultural forces, but it is extraordinarily powerful.

You know the old riddle where a man and his son get in a car crash? They go in to the doctor, because the boy needs surgery, and the doctor takes one look at the boy and says "I can't operate. This is my son."

People still don't do very well at that riddle - they'll get it, but not as quickly as they should in an ideal gender-blind world. In free association, people still tend to link positive traits to men (strong, assertive) and negative traits to women (dependent, emotional). It's not an explicit kind of sexism; people just say 'well, that's what everybody else thinks, but not me'.

That's a problem of language (which you may argue is a product of sexism) and ways of changing that will take some decades to accomplish. In many latin based languages, that riddle is not possible (or at least not likely) since most if not all nouns have a gender qualifier attached. You may start learning portuguese for example as a way to avoid this.  :p


Quote
And that's the real struggle these days. The hidden, powerful sexism in all of us. It's easy to conceal it behind rationalization and 'fair play', often without any conscious intent - which is why attitudes like those we sometimes see on HLP are problematic. The idea that women are 'separate but equal' and deserve 'respect and protection' is part of what continues to keep women down.

This I agree with you. People should completely ignore gender in a formal situation. People are just that, people.


Quote
(Think about terms of endearment and dimunitives for women. "Honey," "chick", "kitten", "sweetie"...it's pretty much all baby animals and food!)

Not really, since baby talk is used both ways.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: General Battuta on October 30, 2009, 04:58:08 pm
You are simply scientifically wrong. *shrug*

Quote
Apart from perhaps the wage gap, the other are symptoms of other things. Rape and abuse should not be lumped as feminist subjects since they are not part of discrimination against women. Rape and abuse are wrong by their very nature, not because of any sort discrimination. After all, there is rape and abuse of men as well. As for equal representation in government, that's an artifact of the generation gap. How many young people do you see involved in the government which you find there is not equal representation? Youth apathy is the issue, not discrimination.

Oh my god, you're going to get torn to shreds. Rape and abuse are very much feminist, because they are disproportionately directed at women because they are women. You think "Shut up, *****!" and a beating aren't misogynistic? You think men hunting down women and raping them is not because they're women?

Men are indeed raped and abused, but it is far less common and carries far less of a cultural stigma.

You're saying 'equal representation in government is still a problem because people used to be sexist, but now we're not?' Hopefully that's true, but it doesn't address the glass ceiling, the difficulty women have in achieving positions of authority, or the casual and acceptable sexism directed at women in authority.

Let me ask you this. If you have to walk to your car in a parking garage alone at night, how frightened are you? Right. Now imagine you're a woman. It's so very much worse. And that fear can strike walking down a street on broad daylight. If you got heckled by a carful of women, you'd be flattered. When a bunch of men start jeering at an attractive woman, though...

Quote
That's a problem of language (which you may argue is a product of sexism) and ways of changing that will take some decades to accomplish. In many latin based languages, that riddle is not possible (or at least not likely) since most if not all nouns have a gender qualifier attached. You may start learning portuguese for example as a way to avoid this.

It has little to do with language and everything to do with the implicit assumption that doctors are male. This is scientifically verified by reaction time association tests.

Quote
Not really, since baby talk is used both ways.

Oh, really? You're commonly referred to as a 'chick'? Male sex objects are 'kittens' or 'bunnies'?

Didn't think so.

Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Ghostavo on October 30, 2009, 05:01:29 pm
Could you elaborate?
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: General Battuta on October 30, 2009, 05:04:17 pm
Done.

I will happily throw papers at you all day if you want. Implicit discrimination is very real. I suffer from it; so does everyone else.

Implicit discrimination is that voice in the back of your head that says 'she's such a *****', or that suggests, when a woman screws up, 'maybe it was because she was a woman?'
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: iamzack on October 30, 2009, 05:11:25 pm
http://www.amptoons.com/blog/the-male-privilege-checklist/
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: General Battuta on October 30, 2009, 05:13:41 pm
I want to emphasize that men do indeed get raped, and that it is indeed an awful thing. It simply happens far less often, and they are far less likely to be targeted just because they are men.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Ghostavo on October 30, 2009, 05:26:07 pm
You are simply scientifically wrong. *shrug*

Quote
Apart from perhaps the wage gap, the other are symptoms of other things. Rape and abuse should not be lumped as feminist subjects since they are not part of discrimination against women. Rape and abuse are wrong by their very nature, not because of any sort discrimination. After all, there is rape and abuse of men as well. As for equal representation in government, that's an artifact of the generation gap. How many young people do you see involved in the government which you find there is not equal representation? Youth apathy is the issue, not discrimination.

Oh my god, you're going to get torn to shreds. Rape and abuse are very much feminist, because they are disproportionately directed at women because they are women. You think "Shut up, *****!" and a beating aren't misogynistic? You think men hunting down women and raping them is not because they're women?

Yes and no, it's because of a) their sexual preference, b) power fantasy. Both of which are more general that mere misogyny.

Quote
Men are indeed raped and abused, but it is far less common and carries far less of a cultural stigma.

So you are treating it as a less serious offense than rape against women? Because by emphasizing women rape you are elevating one of them in importance. Also, 16% while being less common is not far less common especially when the numbers are probably not really accurate since there is social stigma with men saying they've been raped.

Quote
You're saying 'equal representation in government is still a problem because people used to be sexist, but now we're not?' Hopefully that's true, but it doesn't address the glass ceiling, the difficulty women have in achieving positions of authority, or the casual and acceptable sexism directed at women in authority.


That's my take on it, I don't have any studies done on it. The glass ceiling I believe is part of the same problem, which I believe will dissipate as time passes. An instantaneous change is impossible, even in a perfect world. The casual and acceptable sexism directed at women in authority, I don't know where you are, but here sexism is neither casual nor acceptable in work situations, authority or otherwise.

Quote
Let me ask you this. If you have to walk to your car in a parking garage alone at night, how frightened are you? Right. Now imagine you're a woman. It's so very much worse. And that fear can strike walking down a street on broad daylight. If you got heckled by a carful of women, you'd be flattered. When a bunch of men start jeering at an attractive woman, though...

Curiously that indicates sexism by you. Why are you treating a carful of women and a bunch of men differently to the same situation? Aren't both doing the same thing for exactly the same reason?

As for walking at night, here it's far more likely to be mugged as a man than as a woman, so I'm not sure what you mean by how frightened I am. Ironically, it's probably because of sexism by part of the muggers.

Quote
Quote
That's a problem of language (which you may argue is a product of sexism) and ways of changing that will take some decades to accomplish. In many latin based languages, that riddle is not possible (or at least not likely) since most if not all nouns have a gender qualifier attached. You may start learning portuguese for example as a way to avoid this.

It has little to do with language and everything to do with the implicit assumption that doctors are male. This is scientifically verified by reaction time association tests.

That only works in english where doctor is a genderless noun and people associate a gender with it. That's what I meant. I didn't mean to deny that. I'm just saying it will probably pass with time and if you change language that riddle stops being one.  :p

Quote
Quote
Not really, since baby talk is used both ways.

Oh, really? You're commonly referred to as a 'chick'? Male sex objects are 'kittens' or 'bunnies'?

Didn't think so.

You've never heard a girl calling her boyfriend honey? Honey-bun? Baby? Cutie? Sweetie? Really?
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Rian on October 30, 2009, 05:34:10 pm
You ever been called one of those by a total stranger who outweighs you by a hundred pounds and follows you down the street?
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: General Battuta on October 30, 2009, 05:38:11 pm
Is your argument 'we're sexist now, but it'll pass with time'? Or what?

Quote
You've never heard a girl calling her boyfriend honey? Honey-bun? Baby? Cutie? Sweetie? Really?

Absolutely. And yet the language is not completely bilateral.

The rest of your points are very good ideas, and things I once believed, but in practice are simply untrue.

Quote
So you are treating it as a less serious offense than rape against women? Because by emphasizing women rape you are elevating one of them in importance. Also, 16% while being less common is not far less common especially when the numbers are probably not really accurate since there is social stigma with men saying they've been raped.

When one group is 525% more likely to be raped, by your own statistics, then the group is clearly being selectively targeted. Why do men rape so often, and women don't? It's misogyny. To say that it's because of a power fantasy is to say it's because of misogyny. Misogyny is a power dynamic.

I already made a post about how the rape of men is definitely a problem; it's simply more damaging for women. I assume you read it, so I'm unsure why you brought it up here.

If you think there isn't a huge social stigma against women saying they've been raped, go check out some court cases.

Quote
That's my take on it, I don't have any studies done on it. The glass ceiling I believe is part of the same problem, which I believe will dissipate as time passes. An instantaneous change is impossible, even in a perfect world.

Hiring studies suggest that individuals in the 20-30 age bracket still exhibit sexism in hiring. Do you see any evidence that the wage discrepancy is not present in the 20-30 age bracket?

Quote
The casual and acceptable sexism directed at women in authority, I don't know where you are, but here sexism is neither casual nor acceptable in work situations, authority or otherwise.

I'm certain it is. It is almost certainly both commonplace and accepted. Moreover, it is almost certainly not something you are aware of as sexism.

Quote
Curiously that indicates sexism by you. Why are you treating a carful of women and a bunch of men differently to the same situation? Aren't both doing the same thing for exactly the same reason?

As for walking at night, here it's far more likely to be mugged as a man than as a woman, so I'm not sure what you mean by how frightened I am. Ironically, it's probably because of sexism by part of the muggers.

I'm not a woman, so no, I'm not being sexist - I am reporting the experience of women. All of whom know that a carful of men is a threat in a way that a carful of women is no threat to you.

Step out of the ideal world and enter reality and you'll find gender power dynamics everywhere.

Quote
That only works in english where doctor is a genderless noun and people associate a gender with it. That's what I meant. I didn't mean to deny that. I'm just saying it will probably pass with time and if you change language that riddle stops being one.  

And what gender do you imagine the abstract 'doctor' is referred to as in these languages?

The fact is that you are arguing against an enormous and well-documented scientific consensus that sexism persists in tiny, subconscious behavioral changes we all exhibit. These manifest themselves as broad trends.

I am not interested in a point-by-point philosophical discussion when we can easily answer these questions empirically. We know the rates at which women are raped compared to men. We have implicit association tests, hiring studies, and EAST results. We have demographics broken down by age cohort. We can see sexism in the math.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Ghostavo on October 30, 2009, 05:38:59 pm
@Rian
Have you?

People doing dickish things should not be lumped with discrimination against women or discrimination against men. That will only perpectuate the stereotype that women need to be protected because otherwise they will suffer.

People doing dickish things should be punished BECAUSE they are doing dickish things by itself. Either man, woman, or whatever the victim is should not make any difference. Doing otherwise IS sexist.


I apologize if I address things that may have been addressed, but this thread seems to grow fast and posts are also edited for added information and corrections.

@General Battuta

Quote
Quote
Curiously that indicates sexism by you. Why are you treating a carful of women and a bunch of men differently to the same situation? Aren't both doing the same thing for exactly the same reason?

As for walking at night, here it's far more likely to be mugged as a man than as a woman, so I'm not sure what you mean by how frightened I am. Ironically, it's probably because of sexism by part of the muggers.

I'm not a woman, so no, I'm not being sexist - I am reporting the experience of women. All of whom know that a carful of men is a threat in a way that a carful of women is no threat to you.

Step out of the ideal world and enter reality and you'll find gender power dynamics everywhere.


I never said you were a woman.

Also, gender equality means reasoning the exact same things for men and women in the same situation. By saying a carful of men is a threat to a woman but the opposite is not, you are clearly attributing negative qualities to the carful of men.

If (using your example) I attribute that a woman leader is not good because she's a woman, you label me a sexist (which I would agree with the label in that case), but doing the oposite, which is what you are doing, means exactly the same thing. It's sexist for asserting it.

Quote
And what gender do you imagine the abstract 'doctor' is referred to as in these languages?

There is no abstract I'm aware of. But if you must know, medicine is a female noun.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: General Battuta on October 30, 2009, 05:41:26 pm
Is your argument that a woman should be just as afraid of a huge man following her as a man should be of a huge woman following her?

Because that exhibits a degree of inexperience that is somewhat startling.

"People doing dickish things" should be lumped with discrimination against women when the likelihood if it happening to a woman and the things she has to fear from it are so staggeringly greater.

Your argument boils down to the absurd assertion that women must live in fear simply because they are taught to.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: zookeeper on October 30, 2009, 05:45:00 pm
Right.

The funny thing about our world is, you can have people read an article about old people, and when they get up from the chair they will walk measurably more slowly.

Talking about how women need protection and coddling is in itself dangerous.

You should stay calm in the face of reasonably and rationally presented ideas. But High Max's sneering assertion that she was 'unstable' (unlike Asian women) was practically weaponized hate - inflaming a memetic virus that we're all infected with. Because everyone who reads a sentence like that will find his or her behavior subtly altered.

We have this crappy heuristic bug called 'mere repetition'. If you hear an opinion enough times, you will eventually believe it. It doesn't matter if you reject it each time you hear it; it worms its way in.

That's why misogynistic speech has to be shut down wherever possible.

You're saying that in the following exchange, it's High Max who spouts dangerous memetic viruses, and not iamzack?

Quote from: High Max
About Feminism: I've been reading Yahoo answers under terms like "feminism is bad" and there are women, probably from usa, on that topic that are against feminism because like me, they feel that in a marriage, it doesn't work and the woman tends to put herself, her career, and kids before her own husband, which goes against what marriage is all about. the husband gets tired of being treated like he is not important and the wife is being selfish, and he leaves her. It might explain the high divorce rates here in usa. So not all women want to be treated like men, and actually, more than people here might think, many don't want to take the role of leader of household because they look up to their love and husband for taking that role.
Quote from: High Max
But it is also bad for the kid if the mother puts her career first when her husband already has one.
Quote from: High Max
Submissive isn't the point. It is being loved and putting husband and kids before career and possessions and the man should be the same way to his wife.
Quote from: High Max
Submissive isn't the point. It is being loved and putting husband and kids before career and possessions and the man should be the same way to his wife.
**** you High Max. That's all I can spit out right now.
And it isn't an emotionally stable way of talking and acting. That's part of my point. Most foreign women and even foreign men who I have talked to never talk like that to me :p The average person seems to be more polite and shows more self control in that part of the world, and I have respect for people who are good at staying calm.

Yeah, he's probably pretty misogynistic, but at least he was being civil whereas she was acting like a 5-year old. Heck no it's not a reasonable reaction, it's simply stupid and childish. Saying that it's reasonable and acceptable should be, by your logic, spreading a meme that it's ok (for women?) to act stupid and childish. Condoning direct insults or other ape**** insane behaviour no matter the context sends a far more harmful message than allowing someone to express their personal distasteful opinions in a civil manner. It basically boils down to "we don't need to follow the rules because we're right".
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: General Battuta on October 30, 2009, 05:48:40 pm
iamzack was perfectly within her rights to say '**** you' in response to misogyny. Why engage with a racist or misogynist on his or her own terms? It's like arguing with a conspiracy nut. You're not going to change their mind.

I am happy to argue with fundamentally decent people like Ghostavo, but High Max has a history, and if you were one of the groups targeted by his history and behavior, I think you would empathize with this degree of anger.

Frankly, as far as I know, a healthy '**** you!' is one of the great forms of protest in American culture. There's not much childish about it.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Ghostavo on October 30, 2009, 05:59:13 pm
Is your argument that a woman should be just as afraid of a huge man following her as a man should be of a huge woman following her?

Because that exhibits a degree of inexperience that is somewhat startling.

Yes, I'm saying that. And I'd like for you to elaborate on what exactly it exhibits. Amuse me.

Quote
"People doing dickish things" should be lumped with discrimination against women when the likelihood if it happening to a woman and the things she has to fear from it are so staggeringly greater.

Your argument boils down to the absurd assertion that women must live in fear simply because they are taught to.

No, if you must know my argument is that while there was discrimination in the past, in the present most discrimination happens because there is a problem adjusting the feminist movement to the changing climate. There is still discrimination, sure. You even called it something, implicit sexism. But how do you destroy implicit sexism? By changing the way people think about genders. So to achieve true equality you have to treat both exactly the same way. By starting to react to something that happens to both genders and saying it's a form of sexism, which is rooted not in sexism but in other factors, but which the occurring rates might indicate sexism, is perpectuating the thought pattern that led to sexism in the first place. Differentiating genders.

So my argument doesn't boil down to the assertion you described, it boils down to "Crimes should be punished not because a gender was discriminated against, but because they are crimes." what remains following that CAN be argued to be true sexism.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: StarSlayer on October 30, 2009, 06:05:59 pm
But I will put her first as well. I won't even want to hug or look too much at other women if I had a love.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogynistic.

I'm tremendously devoted and affectionate to my cat (or I was, back before it died.)

That does not make it an equal relationship. At all.


Don't feel too bad Batutta; cats do that to a lot of people.  :P
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: General Battuta on October 30, 2009, 06:09:22 pm
I feel like you're missing the point we're making, here, because I couldn't agree more that a similar crime should be prosecuted equally in both genders. But I don't understand why you possibly think I should disagree. The law should be gender-blind.

Actually, strangely, I can provide experimental evidence to refute one assertion:

Quote
But how do you destroy implicit sexism? By changing the way people think about genders. So to achieve true equality you have to treat both exactly the same way.

Banaji et al. at Harvard found, in a rigorous series of studies, that the only way to remove implicit prejudice was to present positive exemplars of the minority group (strong women) and to present negative exemplars of the majority group (men.) It's ugly. But simply presenting strong women does not work.

Acting as if feminism is over is empirically the wrong strategy.

Quote
By starting to react to something that happens to both genders and saying it's a form of sexism, which is rooted not in sexism but in other factors, but which the occurring rates might indicate sexism, is perpectuating the thought pattern that led to sexism in the first place. Differentiating genders.

Let's buckle down and face it, mate.

One in six women will be raped in their lifetime. One in three in the military. 99% of all rapes are conducted by men.

Men are rapists. Women are, generally, not.

How is this not sexist? Your argument almost makes sense to me, but the factors that you claim account for rape are part of misogyny and sexism. They're fundamental components. The fact that most rapists are men and that most rapists rape women is evidence that something is very wrong.

This is clearly not a 'thought pattern'. The fact is that women are systematically targeted (91% of victims) by a specific type of crime. They are targeted because they are easy victims and because the rape of women is seen as appropriate.

Quote
So my argument doesn't boil down to the assertion you described, it boils down to "Crimes should be punished not because a gender was discriminated against, but because they are crimes." what remains following that CAN be argued to be true sexism.

I completely agree with that.

Quote
Yes, I'm saying that. And I'd like for you to elaborate on what exactly it exhibits. Amuse me.

I think I'll disappoint, because I have no problem with you. I think what you believe is that someone here believes women should have special treatment under the law. The law should be gender-blind.

However, I hope you can agree that steps have to be taken to correct the systematic biases present against women in economics, politics, criminal behavior and prosecution, day-to-day life (walking on the street), common discourse, and humor.

Your assertion that these biases are no longer present is, unfortunately, untrue. If it were, then measurable implicit prejudices would be different in the current young-persons cohort, the wage difference have started smoothing out, and rape rates would be way down. Young women would not be afraid of young men on the street.

These events have yet to occur. Women still have to be careful of many more things than men.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Rian on October 30, 2009, 06:17:46 pm
Yes.

For example: My sister and I were followed for three blocks by a group of young men who catcalled us the whole way. We were on a crowded, public street in broad daylight, and I feared for my safety.

At sixteen, I was stalked at my weekend volunteer job by a middle-aged man who cornered me and asked me if I believed in love at first sight. He continued to show up every week, even after I reported him to my boss. I eventually quit the job because I didn’t want to deal with that anymore—many women don’t have that luxury.

Every time I am alone with a man I do not know well I consciously assess the probability that he will assault me.

Oh, and every other woman I know has had similar experiences. Here are a few (http://www.hollabacknyc.blogspot.com/) more anecdotes (http://jezebel.com/390498/spring-is-the-season-for-sexual-harassment).

From the second link:
Quote
Holly Kearl, a George Washington University graduate whose master's thesis focused on street harassment, conducted an anonymous email survey of some 225 women and found that 98 percent of respondents experienced some form of street harassment at least a few times, while about 30 percent reported being harassed on a regular basis.
Really, my own experiences are relatively mild. I consider myself lucky, in fact. But the fact is that some men—not all, but certainly not an insignificant number—believe that women’s bodies are public property, and that they are entitled to comment on my appearance, sexual predilections, etc. That’s what systemic sexism does.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Ghostavo on October 30, 2009, 06:19:20 pm
I feel like you're missing the point we're making, here, because I couldn't agree more that a similar crime should be prosecuted equally in both genders. But I don't understand why you possibly think I should disagree. The law should be gender-blind.

Actually, strangely, I can provide experimental evidence to refute one assertion:

Quote
But how do you destroy implicit sexism? By changing the way people think about genders. So to achieve true equality you have to treat both exactly the same way.

Banaji et al. at Harvard found, in a rigorous series of studies, that the only way to remove implicit prejudice was to present positive exemplars of the minority group (strong women) and to present negative exemplars of the majority group (men.) It's ugly. But simply presenting strong women does not work.

Acting as if feminism is over is empirically the wrong strategy.

Curious, do you have a link to the article? I'd be very much interested.

As for the rest, I will back down, your arguments make sense, but there's something I'm not really feeling comfortable with that I can't really point out.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: iamzack on October 30, 2009, 06:23:24 pm
Right.

The funny thing about our world is, you can have people read an article about old people, and when they get up from the chair they will walk measurably more slowly.

Talking about how women need protection and coddling is in itself dangerous.

You should stay calm in the face of reasonably and rationally presented ideas. But High Max's sneering assertion that she was 'unstable' (unlike Asian women) was practically weaponized hate - inflaming a memetic virus that we're all infected with. Because everyone who reads a sentence like that will find his or her behavior subtly altered.

We have this crappy heuristic bug called 'mere repetition'. If you hear an opinion enough times, you will eventually believe it. It doesn't matter if you reject it each time you hear it; it worms its way in.

That's why misogynistic speech has to be shut down wherever possible.

You're saying that in the following exchange, it's High Max who spouts dangerous memetic viruses, and not iamzack?

Quote from: High Max
About Feminism: I've been reading Yahoo answers under terms like "feminism is bad" and there are women, probably from usa, on that topic that are against feminism because like me, they feel that in a marriage, it doesn't work and the woman tends to put herself, her career, and kids before her own husband, which goes against what marriage is all about. the husband gets tired of being treated like he is not important and the wife is being selfish, and he leaves her. It might explain the high divorce rates here in usa. So not all women want to be treated like men, and actually, more than people here might think, many don't want to take the role of leader of household because they look up to their love and husband for taking that role.
Quote from: High Max
But it is also bad for the kid if the mother puts her career first when her husband already has one.
Quote from: High Max
Submissive isn't the point. It is being loved and putting husband and kids before career and possessions and the man should be the same way to his wife.
Quote from: High Max
Submissive isn't the point. It is being loved and putting husband and kids before career and possessions and the man should be the same way to his wife.
**** you High Max. That's all I can spit out right now.
And it isn't an emotionally stable way of talking and acting. That's part of my point. Most foreign women and even foreign men who I have talked to never talk like that to me :p The average person seems to be more polite and shows more self control in that part of the world, and I have respect for people who are good at staying calm.

Yeah, he's probably pretty misogynistic, but at least he was being civil whereas she was acting like a 5-year old. Heck no it's not a reasonable reaction, it's simply stupid and childish. Saying that it's reasonable and acceptable should be, by your logic, spreading a meme that it's ok (for women?) to act stupid and childish. Condoning direct insults or other ape**** insane behaviour no matter the context sends a far more harmful message than allowing someone to express their personal distasteful opinions in a civil manner. It basically boils down to "we don't need to follow the rules because we're right".

"**** you" is the only response High Max deserves.

See, while you and Battuta and Ghostavo get to debate whether sexism is real, whether women are equal, I'm over here, actually being a woman, actually being targeted by strange men in the street or groups of dudes in cars. If I'm driving and I swerve, what do I hear, every goddamn time? "Haha, women can't drive." If I had a ****ty day, and I'm not as polite as I could be to a stranger, what do they say? "What are you, PMSing? *****." If a total stranger approaches me and demands that I pay him and his 'compliments' attention, and I don't, what do I get? "Stupid *****." And when I call people, usually guys, on their misogynistic bull****, I get called a feminazi.

And it never ****ing ends. It goes on and on and on and on.

Sort of a side note: Last time High Max and I had a large disagreement, he PMed me a huge rant about how I am a selfish, ugly, stupid whore/slut. Selfish because, if you recall, I like to have sex just to have sex. When's the last time a guy on here was attacked for being a slut, eh? Because we have plenty of slutty guys here.

High Max's posts are *not* calm and civilized. High Max's posts directly target me. They attack my abilities and my character, and I'm not going put up with his condescension and retardation.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: General Battuta on October 30, 2009, 06:25:49 pm
Dude, Rian, that was brave as hell to post.

Men have the privilege to never have to think about that kind of stuff.

Curious, do you have a link to the article? I'd be very much interested.

As for the rest, I will back down, you arguments make sense, but there's something I'm not really feeling comfortable with that I can't really point out.

I do.  I will try to dig it up. Banaji has a huge amount of research, so a cursory Web of Science search didn't bring it up right away.

And, yeah, I appreciate your consideration. I harp on this topic pretty hard.

Check out this abstract for an example of what I'm scared of:

Quote
The threat of being negatively stereotyped in math impairs performance of highly qualified females on difficult math tests, a phenomenon known as "stereotype threat"-ST. Perhaps more alarmingly, recent studies based on unselective samples of elementary-, middle-, and high-school students show that ST also operates in girls from the general population. Here we offer first evidence that ST does operate (with large effect sizes) even in middle-school girls who deny the negative gender stereotype. Children's beliefs about the two genders math ability, therefore, do not necessarily moderate their susceptibility to ST, an important issue that remained unclear so far. This new finding is also of great practical significance: School girls' counter-stereotypic beliefs cannot be taken as sufficient evidence for deciding whether the struggle against ST is or is not needed. Appropriate interventions should be the default option when aiming for true gender equality in math and science achievements. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Basically, you can take the most math-savvy middle school girl, tell her that girls can't do math, and watch her math scores drop even though she firmly rejects that opinion.

You can't do that to white guys. We don't have that weakness. It's as if everybody had a command word that could magically make you bad at something.

And a big :yes: to iamzack.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: zookeeper on October 30, 2009, 06:28:12 pm
iamzack was perfectly within her rights to say '**** you' in response to misogyny. Why engage with a racist or misogynist on his or her own terms? It's like arguing with a conspiracy nut. You're not going to change their mind.
By engaging with a racist or misogynist on his or her own terms you can change someone else's mind. Or make them less likely to be swayed by the racist or misogynist. I never go into a debate (on the internet) about these kind of subjects intending to convince the person I'm debating with. That's useless, that almost never happens.

If there's a debate between sides X and Y, then it doesn't matter jack who's really more right and who's more wrong if X acts like a tool and Y acts in a reasonable manner. The one acting like a tool will immediately lose credibility in the eyes of anyone who hasn't really entrenched on either side of the issue yet. By acting like a tool one harms whatever cause they argue for immensely. Looking at what High Max actually said on the last couple of pages and how he was subsequently attacked and how those attacks were labeled reasonable would mostly only strengthen all sorts of feminazi stereotypes in the eyes of a lot of people who aren't (yet) misogynists themselves.

I am happy to argue with fundamentally decent people like Ghostavo, but High Max has a history, and if you were one of the groups targeted by his history and behavior, I think you would empathize with this degree of anger.
Maybe. But I give the benefit of the doubt to anyone I can without unreasonable mental effort (that is, if I don't have first-hand experience that they're a full-blown idiot).
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: General Battuta on October 30, 2009, 06:31:25 pm
See, normally I'd agree, but with High Max...

Quote
Maybe. But I give the benefit of the doubt to anyone I can without unreasonable mental effort (that is, if I don't have first-hand experience that they're a full-blown idiot).

He's kind of fulfilled these criteria all over.

Quote
If there's a debate between sides X and Y, then it doesn't matter jack who's really more right and who's more wrong if X acts like a tool and Y acts in a reasonable manner. The one acting like a tool will immediately lose credibility in the eyes of anyone who hasn't really entrenched on either side of the issue yet. By acting like a tool one harms whatever cause they argue for immensely. Looking at what High Max actually said on the last couple of pages and how he was subsequently attacked and how those attacks were labeled reasonable would mostly only strengthen all sorts of feminazi stereotypes in the eyes of a lot of people who aren't (yet) misogynists themselves.

A lot of good has been done by people acting like tools. I hate to semi-Godwin this, but Rosa Parks was kind of a tool. Protesters are tools. You can't always just sit down and take it; sometimes you need to make people aware (as iamzack did rather well with that last post) that an opinion is not worth reasonable discourse.

Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: StarSlayer on October 30, 2009, 06:41:58 pm
Since its relevant and completely disgraceful:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/27/california.gang.rape.investigation/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/27/california.gang.rape.investigation/index.html)


Rian's point is completely valid.  Seriously, ask a girl what she does in preparation to walk to her car at night in a parking lot.  I'll bet it's going to sound like a SWAT team prepping to make a breach at a meth lab full of wanted criminals.   You wan't to know as a man when I've ever given a second thought about that similar situation?  Never.  I can't even imagine what it's like having to worry and plan for simple activities because some ass hat thinks there going to jump me.

Though as a bit of a philosophical question for Battuta, if you have a female friend/coworker/whatever (we are assuming your mutual trust level is at a point were both parties are comfortable with this scenario), as a man would you be acting sexist if you offered to walk her to her car?  In effect you are protecting her because of her gender.

Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: High Max on October 30, 2009, 06:49:40 pm

Men are rapists. Women are, generally, not.

How is this not sexist? Your argument almost makes sense to me, but the factors that you claim account for rape are part of misogyny and sexism. They're fundamental components. The fact that most rapists are men and that most rapists rape women is evidence that something is very wrong.
Could it be because men and women are biologically different to a certain extent and men naturally tend to be more aggressive physically from testostrone and naturally larger? Is it sexism or is it because there are physical differences? If women were naturally larger on average and naturally had more testostrone, would the situation be reversed and women be the rapists?
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: MP-Ryan on October 30, 2009, 07:04:05 pm

Men are rapists. Women are, generally, not.

How is this not sexist? Your argument almost makes sense to me, but the factors that you claim account for rape are part of misogyny and sexism. They're fundamental components. The fact that most rapists are men and that most rapists rape women is evidence that something is very wrong.
Could it be because men and women are biologically different to a certain extent and men naturally tend to be more aggressive physcially from testosterone and naturally larger? Is it sexism or is it because there are physical differences? If women were naturally larger on averege and naturally had more testosterone, would the situation be reversed and women be the rapists?

I see where you're going with this, and I'm going to head you off before this devolves.

The fact that men are physically larger, tend to be more impulsive and aggressive, and tend to have a somewhat different drive when it comes to the base sexual instincts is not a carte blanche excuse for men to abuse women.  We are thinking and mostly intelligent creatures capable of complex social behaviours and thought processes.  Blaming biology and trivializing the abhorrent treatment of a little over half of humanity by the other half does everyone a disservice.

Excuses are not what's needed.  A fundamental change in thinking is.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: MP-Ryan on October 30, 2009, 07:10:47 pm
Oh, and a study published this past week indicates that depictions of violence toward women are up 120% in North American popular media this year, with Fox being the worst offender of the big networks.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/entertainment/Violence+against+women+shows+surges/2161698/story.html

Study was conducted by a media watchdog, the Parents Television Council.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: High Max on October 30, 2009, 07:12:08 pm
@MP-Ryan: I didn't say it was right for a man to physically harm a women or rape a woman, and it is very bad to rape or beat a woman. I don't think it is acceptable at all. I am in no way justifying that it is ok. I'm saying that biology might influence it to an extent, but everyone still has a choice.

@iamzack: I think a man who goes out using people's bodies for sex is a man slut and I don't take his side either. He is also selfish and materialistic for doing so. It doesn't matter if they are men or women, if they do that, they are both bad in my eyes. I guess you don't know what I think. I assure you that gender makes no difference to me if a person does that same action. I'm not taking the man's side in this case and I don't think he is some cool dude for doing it. A long time ago, I kind of insulted Dekker for acting that way and he is not a woman, just like I insulted Anh Tri who is not part of this forum.

@Bat: Just because I'm not an extreme liberal and my views are moderate (in between) and you and many others here disagree with me does not make me idiotic. To assume I'm idiotic is idiotic, correct?
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: General Battuta on October 30, 2009, 07:24:56 pm
Though as a bit of a philosophical question for Battuta, if you have a female friend/coworker/whatever (we are assuming your mutual trust level is at a point were both parties are comfortable with this scenario), as a man would you be acting sexist if you offered to walk her to her car?  In effect you are protecting her because of her gender.

The sexism is what creates the threat. Helping a woman to her car is no more sexist than protecting an officer from a sniper is assassination.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Goober5000 on October 30, 2009, 08:08:27 pm
That's why misogynistic speech has to be shut down wherever possible.
Whoa there.  It's not possible to create a utopia by force.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: General Battuta on October 30, 2009, 08:15:22 pm
Certainly not, and I'd never suggest it.

But when such speech does tangible, statistically measurable, empirically verifiable harm, it kind of becomes necessary, doesn't it?

Not to mention you better move the demographic information section of the SAT to the back!
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Goober5000 on October 30, 2009, 08:25:07 pm
But when such speech does tangible, statistically measurable, empirically verifiable harm, it kind of becomes necessary, doesn't it?
That sounds rather like a suggestion to me...

Speech never harmed anyone.  Assault, coercion, blackmail, etc. is what hurts people.

And if you don't like someone's speech, there are perfectly acceptable alternate countermeasures.  Like counter-speech.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Blue Lion on October 30, 2009, 08:42:45 pm
But when such speech does tangible, statistically measurable, empirically verifiable harm, it kind of becomes necessary, doesn't it?
That sounds rather like a suggestion to me...

Speech never harmed anyone.  Assault, coercion, blackmail, etc. is what hurts people.

And if you don't like someone's speech, there are perfectly acceptable alternate countermeasures.  Like counter-speech.

I think he meant more along the lines of speech urging those things on others.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: General Battuta on October 30, 2009, 08:49:31 pm
But when such speech does tangible, statistically measurable, empirically verifiable harm, it kind of becomes necessary, doesn't it?
That sounds rather like a suggestion to me...

Speech never harmed anyone.  Assault, coercion, blackmail, etc. is what hurts people.

And if you don't like someone's speech, there are perfectly acceptable alternate countermeasures.  Like counter-speech.

Reread the thread. We have empirical evidence that simple speech can involuntarily lower math exam scores in women. The mechanism of stereotype threat means that a misogynistic individual can actually force women to conform to stereotypes simply by subconsciously activating those stereotypes.

Crazy, huh?
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: mxlm on October 30, 2009, 09:51:21 pm
And if you don't like someone's speech, there are perfectly acceptable alternate countermeasures.  Like counter-speech.

Which is exactly the countermeasure that's been employed by iamzack, Rian, Battuta et al in this thread. Counter-speech doesn't need to be nice.

Battuta didn't say he wanted the government to shut down misogyny, which is the only sort of 'shut down' that would require a 'woah there'.

Quote
Just because I'm not an extreme liberal and my views are moderate

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahaah

That reminds me; is it just me, or are crazy righties a lot less aware of their position on the political spectrum than far lefties? I mean, I'm pretty far to the left, but I know I'm pretty far to the left. High Max thinks he's a moderate, and he's hardly the sole far rightie to think that. See also, the various Fox talking heads.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: karajorma on October 30, 2009, 09:56:24 pm
Why do you think women don’t push for more? It’s not because we’re naturally more conciliatory or any essentialist garbage like that. It’s because the vast majority of us are socialized from birth to be non-threatening and non-confrontational and we get called *****es and harpies when we’re not. It requires a conscious effort to overcome that conditioning, which means women who succeed in male-dominated professions often have to work twice as hard to do so.

Sexism doesn’t have to be direct; and in fact it’s the systemic, internalized variety that causes most of the damage. Looking at isolated cases (whether, for example, a particular boss is sexist or just negotiating wages as usual) rather misses the point, as the causes are more fundamental and deeply ingrained than that. And until we can root out that underlying, systemic bias, the wage gap is going to be there.

I guess I should have made the point clearer that I meant it had less to do with overt sexism and more to do with the sort of bias you mention here.

Men are indeed raped and abused, but it is far less common and carries far less of a cultural stigma.

I already made a post about how the rape of men is definitely a problem; it's simply more damaging for women. I assume you read it, so I'm unsure why you brought it up here.

Sorry but what? :confused:


It's all very well being for women's rights but you shouldn't go so far down that line that you start  coming out with this kind of hypocritical nonsense to justify it.

Rape of males, just like spousal abuse of males is hugely under-reported. The cultural stigma attached to a male rape is several orders of magnitude worse than that for females. The victim will almost always face an attitude that a real man would have been able to fight off the rapist and that therefore he must have wanted it.

 I have never once heard a group of people around me respond with laughs and jeers upon reading the story of some woman who was raped by a stranger while walking home but I have heard exactly that reaction when it has been a case of male rape. The attitude towards male rape frequently includes assertions that the victim must be gay even when they are heterosexual or that if they are homosexual that after a while they'd have started to like it.

While you might hear similar things from the truly retarded about rape of women the number of people who will say that about male rape are much larger.



I've already had to post once on this thread cause you were trivialising domestic violence against men but given that the last half of this thread has consisted of you trying to say that people need to be careful of the implicit sexism in their speech it's pretty strange of you to keep doing exactly that yourself.

If you really want to make the point that we should be careful to avoid reinforcing stereotypes with what we say then you should be a hell of a lot more careful when it comes to avoiding the exact ones that prevent the reporting of violence against men.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Kosh on October 30, 2009, 10:04:37 pm
Quote
Rape of males, just like spousal abuse of males is hugely under-reported.

I was always under the assumption that male rape victims were either molested children or victims of rape in jail by other men. Maybe I'm wrong about?  :confused:
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: General Battuta on October 30, 2009, 10:05:11 pm
You're right, Kara, I'll reconsider my language. Those are good points.

I didn't mean to imply that, but nonetheless the implication was there.

The point I was trying to make is that women have to live in fear, whereas the odds for men (if not necessarily the repercussions) are extraordinarily low. It gets frustrating to hear people make the argument that 'well, men are raped too, so women don't have it any different'. While qualitatively true, there's a big quantitative difference.

Quote
Rape of males, just like spousal abuse of males is hugely under-reported.

I was always under the assumption that male rape victims were either molested children or victims of rape in jail by other men. Maybe I'm wrong about?  :confused:

Oh, jeez, dude. That's probably not very accurate.

While it's true that most rape is conducted by an acquaintance, friend, or family member, and that as a male you are comparatively unlikely to be raped except as a child or in prison, there are nonetheless plenty of exceptions worth considering.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: karajorma on October 30, 2009, 10:35:23 pm
The point I was trying to make is that women have to live in fear, whereas the odds for men (if not necessarily the repercussions) are extraordinarily low. It gets frustrating to hear people make the argument that 'well, men are raped too, so women don't have it any different'. While qualitatively true, there's a big quantitative difference.

Fair enough.

Although I will point out that while men don't have to fear being raped in the same way they do face a larger danger of getting into a fight than women do. Your example of being shouted at by a car full of guys for instance wouldn't be nice for most guys who are on their own because they'd immediately suspect that they're going to get jumped.

The fear of an attack in this manner has caused a fairly rise in the amount of knife crime in the UK for instance as more young people have started to carry knives in order to deal with the threat that they might be attacked by a gang on the way home. Women by and large do not have to worry about this.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: General Battuta on October 30, 2009, 10:39:02 pm
Quite so.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: High Max on October 30, 2009, 10:40:21 pm
I can put myself in that situation and imagine the fear of being outnumbered by other guys if you are all alone as a man. I guess all one can do is avoid certain areas to lessen the chances of getting jumped. Even being outnumbered by women is no exception, I would think, if they intended to beat you or fight you. Both male and female can be quite good fighters as well.

Quote from: mxlm
Ahahahahahahahahahahahahaah

That reminds me; is it just me, or are crazy righties a lot less aware of their position on the political spectrum than far lefties? I mean, I'm pretty far to the left, but I know I'm pretty far to the left. High Max thinks he's a moderate, and he's hardly the sole far rightie to think that. See also, the various Fox talking heads.

That's an old comeback on HLP, but you can think whatever you want. All that matters here, I suppose, is I know who I am. Oh, and it was so funny that I forgot to smile (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-rolleyes010.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Scotty on October 30, 2009, 11:56:28 pm
Quote
That's an old comeback on HLP, but you can think whatever you want. All that matters here, I suppose, is I know who I am.

Don't post stuff like that when I'm drinking soda.  Now I need to get some paper towels.

Quote
I can put myself in that situation and imagine the fear of being outnumbered by other guys if you are all alone as a man. I guess all one can do is avoid certain areas to lessen the chances of getting jumped.

Why the hell is it always the victim's fault with you?  Some MOST people can't just decide to up and move whenever the hell they want to, often because of job requirements or trivial stuff like HAVING A ROOF OVER THEIR HEADS. 
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: High Max on October 31, 2009, 12:16:26 am
I didn't say it was the victim's fault and I know you can't just get up and move away. I know people can be stuck in places. I'm talking more about avoiding dangerous areas and clubs (specific areas) or find an alternate route. If you think someone is trying to blockade your path, I would stay behind and wait for them to leave or take another route.

I've felt like I was in that situation before recently when riding my bike. Someone passed me and yelled like a crazy man, a passenger, I think (like how those idiots yell like crazy party animals out of their window at bicyclists when they pass them). Then he turned at the intersection and I turned since I was going that way, and after going down the road, I noticed this vehicle a few hundred yards ahead of me on the side of the road pulled over, and I worried they were waiting for me. So I pulled into a driveway with my bike and waited for them to leave. Instead of risking having to fight them or them running me down with their vehicle, I completely avoided the possibility of having to with cunning, attention to detail, and my lack of trust in general.

I'm the kind of person who believes that there is something I can do to prevent certain things. It least it is some optimism for a pessimistic person such as myself. I try to be a realist and not usually an optimist because a realist or pessimist isn't blinded by trust and is more prepared for disappointments or bad things, but I feel there is always at least some things a person can do to prevent certain things and I am optimistic when it comes to confidence usually.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: mxlm on October 31, 2009, 12:24:09 am
That's an old comeback on HLP, but you can think whatever you want. All that matters here, I suppose, is I know who I am. Oh, and it was so funny that I forgot to smile (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-rolleyes010.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)

A: AIUI a comeback is when one returns an insult in kind. You didn't insult me, I was simply laughing at an utterly absurd assertion you'd made regarding your political beliefs. So I'm not really sure what you're talking about.
B: I was laughing at you. It's not expected that someone who's being laughed at break out in a great big smile. Not by me, anyway. So I'm not really sure what you're talking about. Unless you think my observation on crazy righties lacking self-awareness was intended as a joke?

Oh, I should note that when I wrote that 'I'm not being insulting,' I meant it, but I have since decided that you, or more precisely your beliefs, deserve only scorn and ridicule.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: High Max on October 31, 2009, 12:29:03 am
Ok, it's an old type of comment on HLP for those who can't think in the middle and think that people have to be either this or that (black and white thinking), whatever. I really don't care what you think of me. You can't read minds and I don't know you. So I am fine with whatever things you want to assume about me. By the way, when you say laughing at me, that sounds so high school. I don't laugh at anyone here. Nice to know you are so easily entertained.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Scotty on October 31, 2009, 12:31:28 am
Ok, it's an old type of comment on HLP for those who can't think in the middle and think that people have to be either this or that (black and white thinking), whatever. I really don't care what you think of me. You can't read minds and I don't know you. So I am fine with whatever things you want to assume about me.

WARNING!  Reality Bending Zone detected!

The middle is not where you think it is.  Most of the people on HLP are liberal or moderate.  They ARE the middle.  You are so far to the right that the middle seems left to you.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: High Max on October 31, 2009, 01:28:21 am
Ok, let's say from 1 to 5 (1 being very conservative and 5 being extremely liberal) I am a 3 in most ways and most people here seem to be a 4, and even 5 in most ways. Some of my views can be considered a 2 (some sexual morals because affection should be seen as special) and some a 4 (hate war + I like foreingers and I'm not racist). But even if my views aren't agreed upon by many here, then who cares? Too bad for you. I don't want to be a robot and I am my own person. But many here seem to be the same in their points of views, like they are robots.

I wouldn't even use the term American liberal or conservative since I go by universal terms and I'm not patriotic.

If you think I'm that far to the right, then maybe you should see some religious fanatics or old people and even younger ones who are damn racist, against interracial marriage, against immigrants, believe in the barbaric electrical chair, and nuclear bombs, and all that savage stuff, and they don't even allow their wife to leave the house and the woman having arranged marriages in some places and not even being allowed to choose who she wants to marry, and sometimes not being able to show her face, and then you can see I'm a moderate universally because I'm against all that. Stop thinking you know me.

Many here also think they are always right, like Bat, for example, accepting only science as reliable data and excluding experience and common sense data and saying it is misleading, and calling so-called scientific studies as all fact with no doubt, when some things could either be forged or misinterpreted as evidence; same with statistics as discussed earlier in this thread. Saying we know this and that when in fact, scientists say "we don't know" and "we could be wrong" and many even think they have proven stuff beyond the physical. Who knows?

Truth is, they don't know for sure and no source is entirely accurate, but Bat seems to have absolute faith in what they claim as evidence (or maybe it is just what Bat claims as evidence and not them) when it could be misleading since it is human nature to misunderstand or lie. Perhaps his faith has been misplaced without taking into account that it could be misinterpreted and forged to save the scientists' careers and reputations, or even misinterpreted as evidence to Bat and refusal to believe that it might not be evidence.

Same with religious people who are blind by whatever a book says. They think they are always right and anyone who disagrees is wrong. This gets old.

Maybe both sides are wrong. Even science always changes to fix its errors. There is no "we know for sure". It is "no one knows for sure". Perhaps the agnostic point of view is the wise point of view and to admit that me and you and everyone doesn't know for sure about so many things.

And here's a wake up call to anyone believing that true equality can be obtained: To believe so is living a pipe dream because as long as there are differences, there will always be conflict and hate. And if everyone was the same, then people would whine about that. Either ways, it's a pipe dream.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Nuclear1 on October 31, 2009, 01:30:43 am
It's also different extents of liberalism.  Your typical American liberal is not the same as a typical European liberal.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: Goober5000 on October 31, 2009, 02:57:53 am
We have empirical evidence that simple speech can involuntarily lower math exam scores in women.
We do?  Citation, please.  Bear in mind that positive or negative feedback can affect behavior to a certain extent in both men and women; that's why we encourage kids.  I wouldn't be surprised to see evidence that encouragement or discouragement affects behavior.  I would be surprised to see evidence that the effect is greatly amplified in women.

Quote
The mechanism of stereotype threat means that a misogynistic individual can actually force women to conform to stereotypes simply by subconsciously activating those stereotypes.
If this is true, it means that women are a lot more psychologically fragile than I have historically given them credit for.  Does a simple verbal taunt affect their constitution to that degree? :wtf:  Are iamzack and Rian etc. psychologically at risk by reading High Max's posts in thread?

Maybe you should clarify what you mean here.  Because that statement certainly sounds like it could be used to prove High Max's case. :p
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: General Battuta on October 31, 2009, 03:14:32 am
We have empirical evidence that simple speech can involuntarily lower math exam scores in women.
We do?  Citation, please.  Bear in mind that positive or negative feedback can affect behavior to a certain extent in both men and women; that's why we encourage kids.  I wouldn't be surprised to see evidence that encouragement or discouragement affects behavior.  I would be surprised to see evidence that the effect is greatly amplified in women.

Banaji et al. have a substantial body of work on the topic. For a good overview I suggest this Wikipedia page. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype_threat) This page, however, is hardly up to date; it fails to note how extremely subtle the triggering stimuli may be, and the fact that they can be presented as subconscious primes (a female face blinked for 4 milliseconds, below the threshold of conscious detection, for instance.)

I admit to being mildly peeved that you think this has something to do with positive or negative encouragement. Research psychology is hard science. There is very good, very well-controlled research happening here, and it is well beyond the level of simple encouragement. Encouragement is a System 1 conscious process; the process we look at here is not resident in consciousness.

This is the topic I perform research on.

Quote
Quote
The mechanism of stereotype threat means that a misogynistic individual can actually force women to conform to stereotypes simply by subconsciously activating those stereotypes.
If this is true, it means that women are a lot more psychologically fragile than I have historically given them credit for.  Does a simple verbal taunt affect their constitution to that degree? :wtf:  Are iamzack and Rian etc. psychologically at risk by reading High Max's posts in thread?

Maybe you should clarify what you mean here.  Because that statement certainly sounds like it could be used to prove High Max's case. :p

It has nothing to do with being a woman. Indeed, it has nothing to do with any conscious factors, including emotional stability. The effect is entirely resident in System II automatic processes which occur far outside of the spotlight of awareness and without significant detection or interference by System I consciousness.

The effect can be induced in white men, black men, white women, black women, Asian men, Asian women - anyone. All that's required is a relevant stereotype. (The issue is, of course, that there are far more harmful stereotypes about women vis a vis men...though it is not purely in the man's favor.)

Ask white men to identify their race before playing basketball? They perform poorly compared to a control group. White men can't jump.

Ask Asian women to identify their race before a math exam? They do well at math. Asians are good at math.

Ask Asian women to identify their gender before a math exam? They do poorly. Women are poor at math.

Ask Black individuals to identify their race before taking a simple GRE test? They get about half as many questions right as a control group. Black people are stupid.

These are all controlled experiments, mind. The only difference between the experimental group and the control group is that the experimental group ticked a little box or read a little essay or heard an off-hand remark.

The stereotype activation is unconscious; it is not anything they are aware of. Staggeringly, I can have you read an article about old people, and when you stand up and walk away, you will walk more slowly than a control group. It has nothing to do with encouragement or discouragement. Simply ticking a box to identify race or sex will do it. Hell, reading an article will do it.

Isn't that nuts?

You can force people to act in accordance with stereotypes. Even if they don't want to. Even if they dislike the stereotype with all their hearts. A woman could rant at you about how men are only capable of feeling anger, and, believe it or not, you would probably be primed to exhibit greater anger. It's not something that only works on women, it works on everybody. But the problem is that the stereotypes associated with women are more broadly negative (and, yeah, I'll cite that too if I can find the papers.)

EDIT: And here's an example of the kind of conundrum women have to face all the time:

Quote
"Thus the predicament of 'stereotype vulnerability': The group members then know that anything about them or anything they do that fits the stereotype can be taken as confirming it as self-characteristic, in the eyes of others, and perhaps even in their own eyes. This vulnerability amounts to a jeopardy of double devaluation: once for whatever bad thing the stereotype-fitting behavior or feature would say about anyone, and again for its confirmation of the bad things alleged in the stereotype."

A woman going into a math exam not only has to deal (subconsciously!) with the knowledge that 'women are bad at math', but also (consciously or not) with the knowledge that if she does poorly at math, it will confirm opinions that women are bad at math! Talk about double jeopardy.

And this is why it's so important that women be allowed to speak up - because it would be tremendously easy to say 'women are *****es, they complain.' It's already part of the female stereotype. It's a powerful and effective way to dismiss the voices of women.

tl;dr version: the cognitive loophole that creates this vulnerability is present in everyone, not just in women. But it harms women and racial minorities far more often because they have so many more negative stereotypes associated with them.

A great example: you can run an experiment where you have a subject perform a really boring number-identification task for two hours. Between each set of numbers, a face is flashed for 3 or 4 milliseconds, faster than the conscious mind can adapt. The face is either Black or White. The subject is totally unaware of these subliminal flashes.

After two hours, the computer crashes, and an experimenter tells the subject that they will have to do the study over again. The participant's reaction is videotaped, and the amount of aggression and anger coded by a blind panel.

Subjects who saw Black faces exhibit far more aggression than those who were primed with White faces. They have no idea why. They have no idea they were seeing faces. At no point did this even enter their awareness.


This stuff is both fascinating and kind of terrifying. And, ironically, people are far less receptive to it than the idea that everyone carries their own personal clock and that time is not universal (see relativity.) Nobody likes to hear that their own brain has bugs in need of patching.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: The E on October 31, 2009, 07:37:44 am
*snip*

Many here also think they are always right, like Bat, for example, accepting only science as reliable data and excluding experience and common sense data and saying it is misleading, and calling so-called scientific studies as all fact with no doubt, when some things could either be forged or misinterpreted as evidence; same with statistics as discussed earlier in this thread. Saying we know this and that when in fact, scientists say "we don't know" and "we could be wrong" and many even think they have proven stuff beyond the physical. Who knows?

*snippety snip*

You really do not understand how science works, do you?

"Experience" and "Common Sense" may be starting points for scientific inquiry, but they can't be its endpoint. The scientific method works like this:
1. You make an observation (Like, for example,Things that fall seem to accelerate while falling)
2. You make a hypothesis based on 1) (For example: The rate of acceleration is related to the mass of the falling object)
3. Using that Hypothesis, you design an experiment to prove or disprove the hypothesis. (Example: You let two objects of the same shape, but with different weights, fall down in parallel, measuring the time it takes for them to fall a given distance)
4. Using data from the experiment, you can now either formulate a theory (if the experiment confirms your hypothesis), or go back to step 2 if it doesn't.

Using this methodology, we arrive at a theory. This theory may then be used as the basis for further experimentation, and can be assumed to be true for purposes of formulating other hypothesises (sp?).
Now, the tricky part about science is that any theory may (and indeed must) be challenged, using the methodology described above. If you make an observation that cannot be explained using the accepted theory, it is YOUR duty to go through the steps to see what is going on.

Now we come to "Common Sense" and "Experience". Both of these are highly subjective, and as such, subject to bias (especially the observational and confirmation variants). The scientific method is designed to eliminate these factors to arrive at conclusions that are as close to being descriptive of objective reality as possible.
But as I said, they form the starting point of any inquiry. The scientific method, however, forces you to be able to cast aside those starting points if they cannot be confirmed through experimentation.

Thus we come to the final point. You say: "Saying we know this and that when in fact, scientists say "we don't know" and "we could be wrong" and many even think they have proven stuff beyond the physical. Who knows?"
This is a common failure mode when scientists communicate with others.
As Scientists, we are trained to avoid absolute statements like "This is so", and instead say "We think it is so, based on our experimentation". This may lead people like you, who are not trained to think scientifically, to believe that there is more uncertainty than there really is.

Then there's your statement about the unreliability of data. Again, if you believe it is so, you are free to examine the experimental data, do the math yourself, and see if it works out. You are also free to conduct your own studies on the subject. True Science is always open-source, as in, all data and all results are open for anyone to see, and for everyone to examine for the purposes of proving or disproving a given statement.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: castor on October 31, 2009, 09:28:25 am
If this is true, it means that women are a lot more psychologically fragile than I have historically given them credit for.  Does a simple verbal taunt affect their constitution to that degree? :wtf:  Are iamzack and Rian etc. psychologically at risk by reading High Max's posts in thread?
By Max's posts? No. But if done habitually in the society you're part of, certainly. And not just women, but anyone subjected to such treatment (maybe counting out small minority groups where extreme training of mind is a practice, and people with certain mental conditions).

"Verbal taunts" are as dangerous as physical attacks, because they are direct attempts to reprogram the computers in our heads, those that tell us what world, and us, is all about. That is where we have the most to lose.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: MP-Ryan on October 31, 2009, 11:00:30 am
*snip*

I was a participant in one of those study designs as an undergrad, and I was all kinds of amazed at the results after the debrief.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: lostllama on October 31, 2009, 11:22:59 am
*snip*

I was a participant in one of those study designs as an undergrad, and I was all kinds of amazed at the results after the debrief.

Indeed. The findings from those triggered stereotype studies are quite interesting too, yet also disturbing.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: High Max on October 31, 2009, 03:33:11 pm

Maybe you should clarify what you mean here.  Because that statement certainly sounds like it could be used to prove High Max's case. :p

I think everyone misunderstood me. I was not saying that women in general were emotionally unstable, I was saying that in usa and even in some other western countries, the average woman is, but I think that is a cultural thing. That applies to western men too. White men and white women are generally seen as those who have more power over non-white women (Asian, for example) and blacks, but the Asians I have talked to, my past girlfriend, and even the ones who reside here, seem to have more emotional control and strength than white men and white women and blacks living here, and I know Asians on average stay calm, and thus maintain peace.

White men and white women receive the least discrimination but yet they seem one of the least stable, in a lot of cases with few groups being the exception. Though people of other races here seem so to a certain extent. So perhaps emotional instability is not a result of discrimination, but the culture, too much power and obsession with the self. It cannot make one happy in the long run. Look at Hitler. He was not happy but he was white, powerful, but emotionally unstable.

I think the reason for emotional problems being so common here is a result of this culture, and perhaps in the other culture, they realize true happiness comes from not being so possessive and obsessed with money and the self, but instead, ture lasting happiness being obtained by putting love ones, health, and morals first, as well as being much more family oriented, while here, it is on average quite the opposite and people think that having all these things and money makes them happy forever, when it evidentally does the opposite.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: iamzack on October 31, 2009, 04:00:24 pm
Have you actually been outside of the US, High Max?
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: High Max on October 31, 2009, 04:06:18 pm
No but I have experience with Asians who are native to their countries and came here temporarily, had a VN friend here who married a VN/American here, watch the travel channel, been intimate with and Asian (5 month relationship) and I know what she told me, did a lot of reading, and talk to a lot on IM (a few Vietnamese online) and ran into some here and conversed with them and them agreeing with me and saying that here people have trouble controlling their emotions, and I compare that with my experience of people who lived here all their lives, even some family members I have who seem unstable. I also ask many questions with Asians and have first hand experience with them. I'm hoping someday I can go to VN to visit. I've had a passport sitting here in my desk for a while. Hopefully it is possible to get a visa without going to an embassy. I think you can do that online these days and I researched that as well.

Note that I use the word "average" because I know that everywhere people can be unstable.


On a side note, I've talked to Italians (Mobius is on my IM list along with 2 other Italians), a Canadian (Noise), some Latinos, a British person, ect, online and have experience with Latinos in person (met a lot of foriengers at college and talked with them helping them learn better English, but many speak it good enough and very good), even had an intimate relationship with a Colombian before.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: iamzack on October 31, 2009, 04:11:09 pm
So your statements about the temperament of entire groups of people have zero credibility whatsoever. Just checking.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: High Max on October 31, 2009, 04:38:18 pm
Whatever you want to think. After matching all the evidence from what I read about their culture and other people's online comments who had experience with Asians, with the words of Americans I talked to in person who have experience with them, with my personal experience with Asians and what they said and how I witnessed their traits and behavior first hand, as well as being intimate with one and her living there all her life, that is evidence in itself that the average one is that way. I know their culture more than you do. My past love did say, however, that there are good and bad people in her country too who can be so rude, but that is common sense.

It's like me saying that your experience with certain things and comparing it to what you read and who you know has no credibility whatsoever. I'm talking about the ones who follow their culture and the average one and I'm not dumb enough to think all of them are the same or that they are all good, because they are not. But per capita, or average, or culturally, they tend to be more emotionally stable. I'm not going to argue with you because it's hopeless and it will go nowhere. I'll never convince you, But what matters is I know.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: General Battuta on October 31, 2009, 04:42:38 pm
Can we all just take the sensible route, nod and smile at High Max, and avoid turning this into another instance of the Maximum Height Show?
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: High Max on October 31, 2009, 04:43:30 pm
No need to because I'm done arguing. I'm not upset. It just gets nowhere :sigh: But please don't pretend to agree with me. I like honesty, no matter how bad the news is with what one thinks or feels about me or about other things in general that are not about me. It is good to know the truth with what a person feels and thinks. :nod: but I already know what many think of me here. No hard feelings, ok? :blah:
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: iamzack on October 31, 2009, 04:59:49 pm
Nobody's pretending to agree. You're just not worth real responses anymore since everybody knows that if your ego were a cloud of dust it would smother the sun.
Title: Re: Asshole Arizona sheriff deprived of federal authority
Post by: General Battuta on October 31, 2009, 05:01:06 pm
Kay, I think this thread has about run its course. It was a good thread, though, and I hope everybody learned something about implicit prejudice!

my homedawgs wanna GLOCK this thread

but I'm just gonna LOCK it