Print

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

[birdy51]

Eh. A man must hope. I have more in common with basic Republican values, but am far too moderate to match the current 'bluh bluh, rip it all down' mood.

[smjjames]

Huh, just as a reminder, we are all susceptible to propaganda. I formerly believed that vaccine-autism conspiracy theories were predominantly a liberal phenomenon. In fact, it is approximately equally present in both sides.

I thought it was a mostly conservative thing, then again, anti-vaxxers and 'Oh noes, Autism!' doesn't really lend itself to being polarized ideologically.

[Reelya]

It's not that wierd. The anti-science / radical people on both sides often have overlapping beliefs or goals, which create some unusually alliances sometimes. e.g. both anti-sex feminists and hardline christians often support the same policies on pornography or similar. TERFs and the hardline christian right both equally attack transgender people, and so on and so on.

I read one leading radical feminist in the UK was "surprised" that her policies were in line with the hard right's on transgender people. Let's stop being "surprised" in this fashion, because to anyone who's been keeping up with events and trends it's not fucking surprising in the least. There are intolerant and irrational people on both sides of the fence. It's actually quite childish to make a claim such as that science is always on the liberal-side of the fence on all possible questions, and that liberals are always the rational and scientific ones.

EDIT: And I say this as a pretty hardline liberal. The fact is that reality itself doesn't give two shits for our political goals or opinions.

[Neonivek]

I am hoping that one day I can hear "Feminist" and instead of being rightfully pessimistic, I can expect something of value.

They got the same issues that animal rights have... PETA keeps talking for them.

[Reelya]

This has reminded me about Arielle Schlesinger, the humanities / comp. sci crossover who wanted to make a feminist programming language that didn't adhere to patriarchal ideas such as binary logic (because that's enforcing a binary, as in gender binary) and objects because of "normative subject/object theory". i.e. doesn't like code objects because they sound like "objectifying" and normalization is like "heteronormative".

She wanted to create a programming language where all assertions can be both true and false at the same time, because apparently this was more in line with the feminist way of being.

Yeah, there was a parody (C+=), but it was a real project that sparked the idea off. Trust me, the humanities departments of universities are completely stuffed with anti-science loons, who even have an issue with basic logical assertions such as the Law Of The Excluded Middle, let alone Occam's Razor. A ton of these people will even tell you that science is a huge conspiracy and DNA is a myth. I've met people like this, and they definitely were not conservatives.

[smjjames]

I am hoping that one day I can hear "Feminist" and instead of being rightfully pessimistic, I can expect something of value.

They got the same issues that animal rights have... PETA keeps talking for them.

Except that animals CAN'T speak for themselves, while women can, so, I don't see the issues as being the same.

@reelya: I bet she wasn't real successful with that. Having assertations be true and false at the same time may work for philosophy, but computers rely entirely on true/false 1s and 0s.

[Neonivek]

I am hoping that one day I can hear "Feminist" and instead of being rightfully pessimistic, I can expect something of value.

They got the same issues that animal rights have... PETA keeps talking for them.

Except that animals CAN'T speak for themselves, while women can, so, I don't see the issues as being the same.

People who believe strongly in animal rights can speak for themselves.

Though I am saying a joke to myself that if I spoke about how gun rights are represented by the NRA you would tell me how guns can't speak for themselves

[smjjames]

I am hoping that one day I can hear "Feminist" and instead of being rightfully pessimistic, I can expect something of value.

They got the same issues that animal rights have... PETA keeps talking for them.

Except that animals CAN'T speak for themselves, while women can, so, I don't see the issues as being the same.

People who believe strongly in animal rights can speak for themselves.

Though I am saying a joke to myself that if I spoke about how gun rights are represented by the NRA you would tell me how guns can't speak for themselves

Lol, that's one way to say it I guess. I was just trying to say that I didn't think the situation was equivalent.

[Neonivek]

To expand on what I am saying.

Lets say there is a new pig farm that is implementing some sort of new way to slaughter their pigs and the newspaper wants to get the animal rights perspective.

Now there are many credible people on that subject, scientists, farms, and what have you... But they will always get PETA as if they were the voice of animal rights. So the article will make it seem like animal rights means making vegetarianism a requirement by law or something along those lines (or that... a country should invade a sovereign nation... Thanks PETA).

So... there is a new movie coming out and it is targeted towards young girls basically being a "DIVA STARS" sort of thing but it has somehow attracted a strong male following. They want a feminist perspective on this, so who do they get?

The Loudest craziest one they can find!

---

It is just weird because outside some VERY notable exceptions (Hey... Guy who thinks women only work because they are deluded)... Many other topics and political issues do not get the same treatment.

I mean I might be completely wrong... but even the news didn't get an insane raving lunatic as the representative of the "Pro-Trump" Movement... Mind you sometimes he did come off that way, but only so much that he wasn't REALLY allowed to criticize Trump, so whenever the topic came to an outright stupid thing he did... he kind of had to defend it in a wishy washy way.

Yet Gun Rights? HOLY COW! It is like they found every secret serial killer in America.

I seriously want to know why some subjects are drowned out by certain people... Yeah Glenn Beck was FLIPPIN INSANE!!! But he wasn't the voice of conservatism... kind of...

---

But more realistically it is because... The Liberals and Conservatives are a big enough political group that they can self-police... they know who is credible enough to speak for them and if you want a conservative of merit they will supply one for you, provide a metric, or criticize you for doing otherwise.

Animal rights is smaller and thus is dominating by singular special interest groups... It is a war of who is the loudest and most extreme to get air time. Who are typically loud and extreme? Crazy people!

Yes most people believe in animal rights to some degree... But there is no centralized voice of animal rights.

Yet want a centralized voice for Liberalism in the USA? Well we have a political party!

[Sheb]

I am hoping that one day I can hear "Feminist" and instead of being rightfully pessimistic, I can expect something of value.

They got the same issues that animal rights have... PETA keeps talking for them.

You should try hearing from feminists themselves rather than from people talking about what they see as extremists.

[Neonivek]

I am hoping that one day I can hear "Feminist" and instead of being rightfully pessimistic, I can expect something of value.

They got the same issues that animal rights have... PETA keeps talking for them.

You should try hearing from feminists themselves rather than from people talking about what they see as extremists.

I have.

Ignoring that I used to be a feminist and barely aren't one now... I also have feminist studies to go back on... and have been taught and lectured by many good and credible feminists.

So these "Extremists" you state, these imaginary people who are projecting onto me that "must not exist... You probably got it from television or criticism"... No, I definitely have experienced them...

Or shall I forget the article that basically calls trans-female a imposition on femininity and how they should be excluded? I guess that MUUUST have been credible.

Or the feminist who spoke out at length about the sheer amount of fact checking she had to do due to the myths that are intentionally perpetrated in the name of feminism and how it sort of deprives her of validity because of it. She must have been an evil Anti-feminist! Rule of Thumb

And on and on... I am not talking about Feminism itself... and I don't want to.

I am saying how for some reason in the contest for attention... Credible feminists get drowned out...

---

Anyhow the insistence that there isn't a problem is kind of hilarious... given it is a hot topic in feminism. (though I know why it is... it is a knee jerk reaction due to its constant derision as well as the fact that credible feminists are often called extremists as a way to invalidate them.)

I will be fair also to Sheb further.

A lot of the perceived slights perpetrated by Feminism are... completely made up. "Feminazi" comes to mind.

[Reelya]

The political science professor at my local university until very recently (2015) was a radical lesbian separatist who wrote books about how transgender people are mentally ill deviants.

I think "head honcho of all the feminists at the university of Melbourne" should count as someone representing feminism. It's not ok to just hand-wave that away as one extreme person's opinions - she was enshrined as the "pope" of the movement here basically.

If an arch-bishop was anti-transgender then we'd hear about it constantly about how the whole religion is rotten because they won't get rid of that guy. It's no different if the top academic of feminist studies program at the university is like that. And they usually are.

BTW she's not the only loon who has a high-profile position in Women's Studies at a major university. Christina Sommers mentions that in one of the leading textbooks on domestic violence law, there are a raft of factual and historical errors - such as saying the first pro-wifebeating law was passed by Romulus of Rome in 753 BC  (you can look this up), which is clearly bullshit to any moderately intelligent person, but is apparently lapped up by those specializing in women's studies as profound knowledge.

... the counter argument to Sommer's "Romulus didn't exist" point was "Romulus sure did exist! Feminist textbook says so! Na Na!" So to this day you get feminist apologists claiming Romulus was a real person of whom we have specific knowledge of the precise dates he ruled, and what domestic violence laws he passed, purely so they can back up a silly fake textbook from criticism. So they are exactly like creationist religious fuckwads defending silly points in the bible.

[LoSboccacc]

in a loudest takes all contest only the most extremist gather views. that's why social media + advertisement + outraged viewers drove everything to the utmost polarization.

[Neonivek]

The political science professor at my local university until very recently (2015) was a radical lesbian separatist who wrote books about how transgender people are mentally ill deviants.

I think "head honcho of all the feminists at the university of Melbourne" should count as someone representing feminism. It's not ok to just hand-wave that away as one extreme person's opinions - she was enshrined as the "pope" of the movement here basically.

If an arch-bishop was anti-transgender then we'd hear about it constantly about how the whole religion is rotten because they won't get rid of that guy. It's no different if the top academic of feminist studies program at the university is like that. And they usually are.

Well if I remember how it is handled. We would probably also talk about how the Religion somehow CREATES anti-transgender people and that they should start accepting transgender priests.

In the same way that when there was... uhh... well ok darkness time... Priests victimizing people (I an censoring this is dark!)... The typical reaction is that the Church is causing it because of the whole celibacy thing and they should let priests have sex like mad.

Which one reason I always kind of found that assessment odd is that... well... It is like horror movies where a burglar goes into a house to steal some things... gets caught so he decides to just murder everyone.

The jump from stealing to murdering is a pretty large one... it doesn't naturally flow as much as people make it seem.

THEN AGAIN! people also say the whole contraceptives are evil thing from Catholic schools make them not use condoms... which to me was always nuts... It would MORE likely be that their lack of education on the matter and lack of access to condoms means they would likely not have one. I mean they are already having premarital sex which is a HUUUUUUGE No-no... I don't think they are going to go "Whoa! I thought we were just having sex... but a condom!?! What am I a monster?"

----

HOLY COW I am all over the place... what is going wrong with me? Then again the fact that I can't sleep... might be related.

[PTTG??]

This has reminded me about Arielle Schlesinger, the humanities / comp. sci crossover who wanted to make a feminist programming language that didn't adhere to patriarchal ideas such as binary logic (because that's enforcing a binary, as in gender binary) and objects because of "normative subject/object theory". i.e. doesn't like code objects because they sound like "objectifying" and normalization is like "heteronormative".

She wanted to create a programming language where all assertions can be both true and false at the same time, because apparently this was more in line with the feminist way of being.

Yeah, there was a parody (C+=), but it was a real project that sparked the idea off. Trust me, the humanities departments of universities are completely stuffed with anti-science loons, who even have an issue with basic logical assertions such as the Law Of The Excluded Middle, let alone Occam's Razor. A ton of these people will even tell you that science is a huge conspiracy and DNA is a myth. I've met people like this, and they definitely were not conservatives.

You're reading a lot into the existence of one person. If you speak for the rationalist, scientific worldview, then apply it to your own assertions; what evidence have you that humanities departments are "completely stuffed with" people of that type?