Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[penguinofhonor]

.

[Neonivek]

It would be if transhumanism isn't like... "Not do distant future" technology.

I mean with flying cars, we didn't have flying cars.

With transhumanism we already have the building blocks and can do pretty dang impressive things.

[penguinofhonor]

.

[LordBucket]

The VR stuff in particular is already happening. Do a search for 'vr gender swap experiment' for example.

[Neonivek]

Ok ok...

Pills that do that is like flying cars.

But surgery that can genuinely change your gender and possibly even make you reproductive at the same time, isn't that far off.

[Urist Arrhenius]

What do you mean by surgery that can "genuinely change your gender?"

[Bauglir]

LordBucket, I'm going to need you to clarify what you mean, there. Do you object to the notion of protected classes? Do you think that Asians should be grateful for being assumed good at math? Do you mean to argue that people should stop practicing medicine because we'll eventually outgrow these meaty sacks of frailty?

EDIT: To be clear, these are all separate questions, and you can have whatever answer you want to them. It's just, if any of them are "yes", then I think our notions on the whole thing are so distant that I won't be able to convince you of anything or vice versa.

[misko27]

Any identity is becoming opressive once you're bound to it, and forced to act according to it. Actually I think the problem largely lie with how our brain process identity.

Show of hands: Who here has read Invisible Man?

Maybe we ought to focus less on having objective, universal standards in a universe that objectively defies standardization.

But let's say I don't follow some groups subjective standards. Now, they criticize me for some action (or non-action), but I feel like I'm in the right so I argue back (and let's say others who think similarly back me up). And of course, the subjectivity of standards for appropriate arguing inevitably leads to what might subjectively be termed a shit-storm. You know where that gets us? Right where we are now. That Utopia is now. Now, you might say that that subjectivity comes alongside a sort of acceptance of other's viewpoints. But what if I, subjectively, think that's wrong and judge as I please (as I am doing right now)? And I might argue that you have no right, by your own standards, to condemn me.

But the Moral Absolutism vs. Moral Relativism debate is long and hard and goes nowhere. Let's avoid it if we can.

Do you object to the notion of protected classes?

Would you mind elaborating to me a little on protected classes? I feel I may have missed the part where we covered it.

[Sergarr]

Actually I think the problem largely lie with how our brain process identity.

Clearly then the only solution is to research into how to manipulate our brains. Clearly.

[Bauglir]

The claim I was making had nothing to do with Absolutism vs Relativism. It had everything to do with humility and empiricism. I'm saying people should experience the world more, and judge it less. Let the people around you be who they are without being required to label themselves. I can argue for that all I like without running afoul of the ol' Intolerance of Intolerance malarkey. See, I'm not saying criticism ought be outlawed. As a matter of fact, I'm saying rather the opposite. Be willing to consider criticism, and to address it, as I'm doing here. I don't have to stand by and let people impose their abuses on unfortunate bystanders because "Oh, helping would only be imposing my views." You can have all the internal standards you want, provided they're not used as a crutch to absolve you of the necessity of thinking, as they become when people start promoting them to external Facts. The claim is not internally consistent because I permit everything, it's consistent because I permit things that aren't problems, and this doesn't seem to be a problem.

As for protected classes, that's any time you get social or legal protections built in to handle harm being done to some group. For example, and I apologize for bringing up race but it really is the primeval example, the United States forcibly integrated public schools some decades past. Doing so required the law to specifically address race, and to create laws that treated people differently based solely on that category.  If they'd stood by the principle that the law must treat groups absolutely equally, it would only have served to perpetuate inequality and unfairness in actual fact (and, incidentally, it's not as though the job is done, but I don't want to elaborate too much on racism here).

For what it's worth, by the way, I have read Invisible Man, although too long ago to remember much.

[LordBucket]

@Bauglir

"Do you think that Asians should be grateful for being assumed good at math?"

If you need a literal straight answer, I would say no. But "should be grateful" is missing the point. If the asian guy lamenting that everyone assumes he's good at math starts complaining that nobody can possibly understand his pain and that people who aren't asian aren't qualified to talk about it...do you think maybe a little perspective is in order?

"Do you object to the notion of protected classes?"

The question requires context. Certainly the phenomenon is abused in our society, and very often the people most loudly complaining about injustice are the ones creating problems despite others trying very hard to accommodate them. But at the same time, if somebody has a deeper emotional reaction to an 80 year old blind woman in a wheelchair being mugged than to a 20 year old male weight lifter being mugged...I'm not going to object to that greater reaction. Again, context is required.

But when somebody is a member of a protected class, I think it's reasonable to point out their status to them. And when members of a protected class are complaining more loudly than other people who are not protected and who are experiencing similar problems, I think it's reasonable to point that out too.

Imagine a guy with broken legs. He has a real problem. And imagine that people give him a wheelchair and offer to push his wheelchair so he can get around. And now imagine that he lashes out at the people pushing his wheelchair. And so the guy pushing the wheelchair says nothing because, the guy's in a wheelchair. And so the guy in the wheelchair whines about how people keep staring at him because he's in a wheelchair. So people walking around nearby avoid looking at him. So he complains that people are avoiding his gaze, which just confirms that everyone sees and treats him differently. So people go out of their way to talk to him and be nice to him. And he responds by insulting them.

Yes, his problem is real, but at what point is it ok for somebody to tell the guy in the wheelchair he's both being a jerk and creating problems for himself? I think people in the gender issues crowd frequently skirt that line. A lot of their problems would go away if they'd just stop making such a big deal out of them. Yes, the guy in the wheelchair will still have broken legs even if he stops being a jerk, and people with gender issues will still have gender issues even if they stop making such a big deal out of them...but their behavior is nevertheless counterproductive.

"Do you mean to argue that people should stop practicing medicine because we'll eventually outgrow these meaty sacks of frailty?"

This one is so off base that I don't even know how to clarify my response other than to simply say no, that's not what I meant, and I don't understand how you got there.

[Cheeetar]

The problem with analogies is tying them into the reality of the situation. I don't know if you can discuss issues like this in a forthright and understandable manner without discussing the issue itself.

[Bauglir]

Well, then all I can say is that you're conflating members of the protected class in question. You're creating a situation in which anybody who offers comment supporting people on the receiving end of abuse is in the same boat as people who're blowing their own problems out of proportion. If we build wheelchair ramps and that happens to help a guy on crutches, should we really be that upset that he could've got by with stairs? Should we suggest that disabled people of any degree are whiners because that same guy is occasionally a dick?

And if that isn't what you're saying, what are you saying? Because the only alternatives I can see are a bunch of non-statements, like "Sometimes people don't act in good faith, although gender issues are not a special example of this". I admit, it's certainly possible that you're saying nothing in a very wordy fashion in an attempt to get people to expose their own biases and projections, but here I've been assuming there was an actual exchange of ideas attempted.

[LordBucket]

what are you saying?"

In which post? Many ideas have seen an attempt to be conveyed over the past 40k or so of typing I've done in this thread.

For example, in this post the general idea I was attempting to convey was "Cheer up! It will get better! Lots of people who give you a hard time about gender issues now will mellow out once they have broader experience, and we're moving in a direction where they're probably going to get it. Not only that, for those of you whose problem is that your body disgarees with your mind, technology is probably going to solve that too, so outlook is good. Yay!"

Whereas in this post the general idea I was attempting to convey was "you don't have it as bad as you seem to think. Yes you have issues, but at least people care about them and are willing to try to make them better. Some of the problem you're having, you're creating yourselves. Don't do that."

"Gender issues" is a relatively large subject. If you're asking for a single-sentence summary, I don't think I can give you one.

[Bauglir]

Well, fair enough then. I can argue all I want about how people ought to treat others, but I don't know shit about the actual experiences that trans people (or anybody else suffering from prejudice with its roots in gender assumptions) have, except what I'm told. As much as I disagree with you, any argument I could make would have to be rooted in the nature of their experiences, not the philosophical notions I've been expounding upon this whole time. That is to say, I couldn't argue with you without putting words in their mouths about their hardships, and I ain't prepared to do that today.

I apologize for the miscommunication, because I did misunderstand the thrust of what you were getting at.