Print

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

[Levi]

As a pedestrian almost all the times I've almost been run over(and the one time I WAS run over) by a car its been driven by the elderly.  At this point my paranoia over elderly drivers shouldn't count as ageism.   

[Leafsnail]

Also, physics is one of your "useless subjects" if compared to any sort of Engineering (theoretical vs. practical application of sciences), so I'm rather inclined to laugh at your statement.

Not really.  "Theoretical" science has an interesting tendancy to become practical when new discoveries are made (same goes for pure maths).  You'll never find anything truly new if you just work on what you already have.

[KaelGotDwarves]

There's hardly a berth of academic work out there and I won't launch into the sticky morass that is tenure and academian politics- and those jobs are also getting cut or de-funded in the US. Theoretical science is only viable when you've got enough of a name for yourself already. Again, this is merely based on the generalising trend. Feel free to buck it but those jobs are disappearing and people are getting paid less for them.

Know what is still going strong? Technician work, lab work, patent tech that hasn't been outsourced, consulting for developing countries, science + business administration/law - the kind of work that requires a practical science degree and a good head in business.

The trends are that we're outsourcing our research and mid level jobs and higher percentages of our grad level students are from abroad. Basically the middle class is being half-outsourced so that we're left with grunts or those on top or are still useful. You don't want to be one of those on the bottom.

EDIT: Also, we're failing our students with a half-assed education that hardly prepares us for "life". That's a whole other "rage". I don't actually get ragey - but yeah, things are starting to catch up to us.

[Africa]

I think some of the strongest messages are delivered by showing the audience something in its raw form.  Try to incorporate a biased perspective, and people put up their defenses.  You'll only reach those who already agree with you.  Strip down some element of reality into its basest components and/or place those components into another formula to see how things interact differently.  People are left to make their own judgments, when presented an idea that is familiar to them in a format that is unfamiliar.

The problem is that people first have to recognize something as wrong. Now, with 50's style racism you can assume that almost everyone will see the problem and you need not give it any special treatment. However, when it comes to literary maltreatment of for example women or disabled persons, that's often not the case and if people don't see it as wrong, describing it in it's raw form is only going to get people to agree with your book instead of with normal morals.

At this point, you're basically saying that anyone who writes about morally bad things and doesn't also make their story a tirade against those things, is essentially promoting them. I'd rather give some credit to the reader's intelligence and not oblige writers to turn their stories into moral lectures or else be branded pro-slavery or pro-rape or what have you.

[KaelGotDwarves]

Let's not all turn into bloody radical objectivists here. I'm pretty sure there's a middle ground between evil racist/sexist/whatever-ist enablers through cultural attitudes and judging everyone based on a children's book they read. There's much more grey area.

Open debate as to what is tolerable is why we have liberal arts majors in the first place

[Siquo]

As a pedestrian almost all the times I've almost been run over(and the one time I WAS run over) by a car its been driven by the elderly.  At this point my paranoia over elderly drivers shouldn't count as ageism.   

Now replace "elderly" with "black" or "jewish" and you see how wrong it is. Even though generalisations keep us alive longer, one should always be aware of them, and avoid them when interacting with others.

[Andir]

As a pedestrian almost all the times I've almost been run over(and the one time I WAS run over) by a car its been driven by the elderly.  At this point my paranoia over elderly drivers shouldn't count as ageism.   

Now replace "elderly" with "black" or "jewish" and you see how wrong it is. Even though generalisations keep us alive longer, one should always be aware of them, and avoid them when interacting with others.

So... don't ask, don't tell?

What really needs to happen is for people to "move on" with their lives and quit seeking vengeance for someone's freedom of speech.  They are just words.  When words become action, or (in part) teaching... then we have a problem.  I say, "in part," because I feel that kids should be aware of where words come from and why they are considered derogatory.  I do not feel that we should mask all the bad things in life from them and raise our kids in bubbles.

I read most of this thread and I believe there's one solution to solve most of these issues.  Education.

[Truean]

After yet another unproductive conversation with my father, I've decided that Glen Beck is in fact a more evil version of the Hypnotoad for conservatives:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5qc-xPNp6k&feature=related

All glory to the Hypnotoad....

[Siquo]

Even though generalisations keep us alive longer, one should always be aware of them, and avoid them when interacting with others.

So... don't ask, don't tell?

Uh, no. I mean don't act on first impressions or generalisations. Do not ever presume they are true when dealing with people.

[Interus]

Even though generalisations keep us alive longer, one should always be aware of them, and avoid them when interacting with others.

So... don't ask, don't tell?

Uh, no. I mean don't act on first impressions or generalisations. Do not ever presume they are true when dealing with people.

The point there wasn't that you do it, but that you're asking people who hold certain views to not act on them when interacting with others.  Though it's a bit of a jump between "I think black people are dumb, and I know I think that and it's wrong, so I'm going to avoid voicing that and try not to act on it when interacting with black people" and "I think other guys are way more attractive than women . . . when interacting with other guys"

At least that's what it seemed like to me.

[G-Flex]

What really needs to happen is for people to "move on" with their lives and quit seeking vengeance for someone's freedom of speech.  They are just words.  When words become action, or (in part) teaching... then we have a problem.  I say, "in part," because I feel that kids should be aware of where words come from and why they are considered derogatory.  I do not feel that we should mask all the bad things in life from them and raise our kids in bubbles.

I read most of this thread and I believe there's one solution to solve most of these issues.  Education.

There's no such thing as "just words". Words represent ideas that people hold, which affect the things they do.

There's a difference between wanting to "raise your kid in a bubble" and calling people out (or punishing them, in the case of children) for being bigoted, intolerant, and hurtful.

[Vector]

They are just words.  When words become action, or (in part) teaching... then we have a problem.

All speech is performative.

[Andir]

I don't buy it.  Someone can call me whatever they want and I don't care.  When they start acting on that is when I have a problem.

[Vector]

I don't buy it.  Someone can call me whatever they want and I don't care.  When they start acting on that is when I have a problem.

I suspect that, were you termed a dog day in and day out by much of society, you might have a different opinion.

[G-Flex]

You don't seem to understand that the way people talk reflects the way people think, affects the way other people think, and that the way people think and communicate matters in general. It's not a good thing for anyone for there to be bigoted people, or for bigoted people to encourage other people to become bigots, or to ostracize the targets of their bigotry.

Some people are thicker-skinned than others, but some people aren't in a situation where they can be expected to be immune to social pressures. Hell, children being immune to social pressures wouldn't even be a good thing, and you can hardly blame kids for being adversely affected by institutionalized and/or widespread intolerance aimed at them.