Random Politics Thread

This forum is the place to have more serious discussions about politics and religion, and your opinions thereof. Be courteous!

Moderators: Global Moderators, Forum Administrators

Forum rules
When a registered user insults another person (user or not), nation, political group or religious group, s/he will be deprived of her/his permission to post in the forum. That user has the right to re-register one week after s/he has lost the permission. Further violations will result in longer prohibitions.

By default, you are automatically registered to post in this forum. However, users cannot post in the politics forum during the first week after registration. Users can also not make their very first post in the politics forum.
User avatar
mōdgethanc
Posts: 10370
Joined: 2010-03-20, 5:27
Real Name: Μέγας Αλέξανδρος
Gender: male
Location: Toronto
Country: CA Canada (Canada)

Re: Random Politics Thread

Postby mōdgethanc » 2017-08-13, 11:43

vijayjohn wrote:I forgot who this was, so I looked up his name, then tried to look for that post where you mentioned him to make sure this was the person I thought it was.


Have I mentioned him before? Probably. He's a shit-disturber at U of T. I find him obnoxious and his fanboys even moreso.

Yesterday, at dinner, my dad brought up this thing with Google but said nothing about that except "you know, that guy is a molecular biologist." Then I said, "No, he isn't!" (this is pretty much a reflexive reaction for me whenever my dad says anything about the world that surprises me), and he said, "Yeah, he is." Now I'm wondering whether that was why he said that. :? I also have no clue where he got the idea that he was specifically a molecular biologist.

EDIT: I guess his brain made it up. If he forgot Czechoslovakia doesn't exist anymore, I guess he could forget whether someone is a systems biologist or a molecular biologist.


Well:

a) as I said "systems biology" is vague, meaning it can be any aspect of biology as long as it focuses on systems, so molecular biology could count

b) nevertheless I think it's misleading to call someone who works for Google and not in a lab a biologist

c) this is the first I've heard of him being a molecular biologist but if he is, that proves my point about his expertise being irrelevant to his arguments, unless he studies molecular neuroscience maybe

md0 wrote:On the flip side, when my views departed from what I believed around 2010~2012, in many occasions I was called homophobic and was shown the door out of forums for saying that we shouldn't use "biological destiny" arguments to support legalization and acceptance of gender and sexual identities, because those arguments also enable people who we do not want to enable and normalise, such as pedophiles (the subset of pedophiles who actually believe that pursuing their urges should be acceptable to be precise - not all pedophiles believe that).


The only reason I find myself arguing routinely about the biology of gender and sexuality (these days mostly gender though a decade ago it was still au courant to argue about homosexuality) is because the people who call it unnatural and an aberration won't accept any other kind of argument. It's stupid and fallacious to argue about that when our treatment of LGBT people (and pedophiles) is a moral issue and has nothing to do with the origins of gender and sexuality and to what extent they're "biotruths". As interesting a topic as that is, I would prefer to discuss it with people who have no political agenda and know what the fuck they're talking about, ie. not reactionary bigots. Anyway, banning you over it is obviously unfair.

I think 5 years ago I had a terrible argument with him among other users (terrible as in, my points where terrible and my tone was unreasonable) where I supported some kind of draconian hate speech law that doesn't even make sense to me anymore. And while it's true that I was going through some very difficult times back then, which explains my tone and temper, the views I held at that point were truly incoherent and I promoted them mostly through personal attacks, which was both unfair to the participants and ineffective in general.


I have only the vaguest memory of that. I wouldn't worry about it. I said so much cringey shit here back then that I don't remember at all and is best left in the past. Everyone else has probably forgotten about it too.

User avatar
linguoboy
Posts: 20470
Joined: 2009-08-25, 15:11
Real Name: Da
Location: Chicago
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Random Politics Thread

Postby linguoboy » 2017-08-14, 2:53

md0 wrote:[This is the third time I have to state that I am not commenting on that case, because I haven't read the memo, or any other article on the topic.

But you started your post by invoking it, so I'm explaining why it's not an instance of the thing you suggest it is--with the implication that maybe the larger problem is different than you're making it out to be.

This article is longish and focused on a subject you may not be very interested in (the debate of criticism of young adult literature), but it's the best summary I've read recently about how we got where we are.

https://fozmeadows.wordpress.com/2017/08/10/ya-discourse-witch-vs-vulture/

Particularly this bit:
But then – and this is getting slightly away from The Black Witch, but bear with me – I also feel like this used to be what happened. The pace of internet discourse and the evolution of its various subcommunities moves so fast that the passage of a year is practically an epoch, such that patterns and behaviours which feel set in stone are objectively quite recent. Once upon a time, as memory serves, the etiquette was to respond politely to newbie queries about feminism, diversity and whathaveyou until or unless the questioner proved themselves hostile, the better to catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Less than a decade ago, it was still new and exciting to be building social media communities online, discussing books and politics and shared interests with people around the world. But what absolutely ruined that optimistic approach – the tactic that was developed and perpetuated with the direct intention of emotionally exhausting the opposition – was the nascent alt-right, MRA, 4-chan-and-reddit-sanctioned rise in trolling.

...

Almost every person I know who spends any time arguing about diversity and feminism on the internet, myself included, has experienced burnout at the hands of trolls who mimic sincere engagement with the express purpose of draining their interlocutor. The cumulative effect has been a bit like the Boy Who Cried Wolf: we’ve all encountered so many terrible assholes masquerading as Polite Bigots Who Are Genuinely Curious About Your Arguments that now, whenever an actual Diversity 101 student wanders in asking beginner-level questions or failing to recognise the higher-level ingroup shorthand or jargon for what it is, the default response is to either laugh or tear them a new one. And if I were a cynical person, I might be given to wonder if that was the real end-goal all along, the better to drive rebuffed fence-sitters back towards MRA forums. (But that’s another essay.)

This is why we're not debating this asshole or the thousands of other assholes like him. It's a lose-lose situation for us: We expend precious energy arguing in good faith and end up with nothing to show for it. There was never a possibility that we would.

On the Internet, I have a one-strike rule for politics: You get one good-faith response. If I see what looks to my Usenet-weathered eyes like a good-faith attempt to engage my points, I'll continue. If not, I will either step away or--if I feel the need for some release--commence with mockery. Maybe I've alienated a few potential allies that way. I no longer care. There are a lot more sympathisers who could be made into actual allies out there and the less energy I waste on trolls and sealions, the more I have to direct to them.

I still have the same ability to debate I've always had. I just much more targeted about when I deploy it.
"Richmond is a real scholar; Owen just learns languages because he can't bear not to know what other people are saying."--Margaret Lattimore on her two sons

User avatar
Yasna
Posts: 1768
Joined: 2011-09-12, 1:17
Gender: male
Location: Boston
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Random Politics Thread

Postby Yasna » 2017-08-14, 8:07

linguoboy wrote:No, fuck this guy. This is every entitled white man on the Internet demanding that his ignorant hateful views be given the same careful consideration as the work of experts.

This demonizing of anyone who doesn't subscribe to leftist dogma is profoundly unhelpful. Here's a video of University of Toronto psychology professor Jordan Peterson working through the memo with its author and another Google employee. In the video description you can find links to scientific literature backing up each of the author's main assertions. Carefully considered views based on scientific literature can be wrong, but to dismiss them as "ignorant hateful views" is misguided.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEDuVF7kiPU
Ein Buch muß die Axt sein für das gefrorene Meer in uns. - Kafka

User avatar
linguoboy
Posts: 20470
Joined: 2009-08-25, 15:11
Real Name: Da
Location: Chicago
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Random Politics Thread

Postby linguoboy » 2017-08-14, 15:08

Yasna wrote:
linguoboy wrote:No, fuck this guy. This is every entitled white man on the Internet demanding that his ignorant hateful views be given the same careful consideration as the work of experts.

This demonizing of anyone who doesn't subscribe to leftist dogma is profoundly unhelpful.

What "leftist dogma" are you referring to? The radical idea that women might be qualified to hold jobs in the field that only exists due to their early contributions?

Yasna wrote:Here's a video of University of Toronto psychology professor Jordan Peterson working through the memo with its author and another Google employee.

Jordan Peterson, that hero of MRAs and red pillers who vocally opposed adding protections for trans folk to the Canadian Human Rights Act? As I predicted the moment I heard of the firing:
The world is going to give him a platform to air them anyway--he'll be the new darling of MRA circuit.


I've got one question on this video before I agree to watch it: Does either Peterson or the unnnamed Google employee engage critically with Damore's claims about what it takes to be a successful software engineer? Because every response I've read by a senior employee in the tech industry (such as the piece I've linked to above) says he's gotten the requirements exactly wrong. (Hence my characterisation of his views as "ignorant".) And, if that's the case, then all the links supposedly proving the unfitness of women for these jobs (some of which Damore linked to himself and have already been refuted) are moot.

Yasna wrote:In the video description you can find links to scientific literature backing up each of the author's main assertions. Carefully considered views based on scientific literature can be wrong, but to dismiss them as "ignorant hateful views" is misguided.

Publicly declaring a third of your fellow employees unqualified for their jobs by making the completely unfounded claim that they only have them due to an ideological conspiracy? I'm totally comfortable with calling that "hateful".
"Richmond is a real scholar; Owen just learns languages because he can't bear not to know what other people are saying."--Margaret Lattimore on her two sons

User avatar
Yasna
Posts: 1768
Joined: 2011-09-12, 1:17
Gender: male
Location: Boston
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Random Politics Thread

Postby Yasna » 2017-08-14, 20:58

Let me get straight to the point. The memo speaks about population level differences in distributions, which you and much of the left have predictably misconstrued as blanket statements that apply to individuals. Here's a key passage:

"Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions."

(Emphasis is mine)

linguoboy wrote:What "leftist dogma" are you referring to? The radical idea that women might be qualified to hold jobs in the field that only exists due to their early contributions?

That the distribution of preferences and abilities in men and women is socially constructed, and has no basis in biology.

I've got one question on this video before I agree to watch it: Does either Peterson or the unnnamed Google employee critical engage with Damore's claims about what it takes to be a successful software engineer? Because every response I've read by a senior employee in the tech industry (such as the piece I've linked to above) says he's gotten the requirements exactly wrong. (Hence my characterisation of his views as "ignorant".)

I looked at the article you linked to. There's a lot of virtue signalling going on in response to this memo, but talk is cheap. Let's look at actions, at the type of (male and female) software engineers leading tech companies actually hire. The common denominator in those hires are strong technical skills, and people skills are plainly of secondary and tertiary importance. A typical example is James Damore himself. I think you'll agree with me after listening to him speak for two minutes that he obviously doesn't have strong people skills. Yet he was hired as a software engineer by one of the world's premiere tech companies, was promoted twice in four years, and received excellent performance reviews. That said, people skills do become more significant as you get into more senior SWE positions, and no one is suggesting that people skills are irrelevant at any level.

I can't check Youtube at the moment, but I don't recall any significant time being devoted to this question.

Publicly declaring a third of your fellow employees unqualified for their jobs and by making the completely unfounded claim that they only have them due to an ideological conspiracy?

A complete and utter strawman.
Ein Buch muß die Axt sein für das gefrorene Meer in uns. - Kafka

User avatar
md0
Posts: 7039
Joined: 2010-08-08, 19:56
Country: CY Cyprus (Κύπρος / Kıbrıs)

Re: Random Politics Thread

Postby md0 » 2017-08-14, 21:21

The only reason I find myself arguing routinely about the biology of gender and sexuality (...) is because the people who call it unnatural and an aberration won't accept any other kind of argument.

But does it help?
People are very comfortable thinking that homosexuality is biological and a disease and/or mistake of nature at the same time. If anything, by telling them that homosexuality is biological, you open up a whole new can of worms, conversion therapies. For example, in Cyprus a lot of people who don't like homosexuality think it's a hormonal issue and it can be "fixed" that way.

Especially considering that the people (over here) who are putting forth the biology argument, also do it in terms like "who would ever choose to be gay, we just can't help it", which is one of the most terrible things a person can feel about themselves.

Instead, the libertarian approach to this shuts down any interference with the person's self-determination: it doesn't hurt you, therefore you have no say.



But you started your post by invoking it, so I'm explaining why it's not an instance of the thing you suggest it is--with the implication that maybe the larger problem is different than you're making it out to be.

I think I was reasonably clear that there's a significant chance I would actually agree that the guy what no idea what he was talking about and that deplatforming might have been the right choice. I just didn't want to say anything before reading past the headlines.
It was my jumping point to a general background worry I have though, and I guess the link is the fact that the ex-Google guy immediately found a cheering audience in the neonazi circles (because that's the core instigators who either create or take over reactionary movements like the MRAs), the same way a lot of people we don't debate on other issues do.


On the Internet, I have a one-strike rule for politics: You get one good-faith response. If I see what looks to my Usenet-weathered eyes like a good-faith attempt to engage my points, I'll continue. If not, I will either step away or--if I feel the need for some release--commence with mockery. Maybe I've alienated a few potential allies that way. I no longer care. There are a lot more sympathisers who could be made into actual allies out there and the less energy I waste on trolls and sealions, the more I have to direct to them.

In general I don't disagree with your strategy. I think that you need more than one response though. I've seen breakthroughs happen a thread page in, or an hour after.

I don't agree with the quote's defeatism though. Accepting that fence-sitters might be sacrificed to avoid wasting time identifying trolls is not good news. The goal should be for a society to live as much as possible in the same reality (assuming that subjective perception is reality, and that objective reality is only ideal, unreachable in practice).
"If you like your clause structure, you can keep your clause structure"

User avatar
linguoboy
Posts: 20470
Joined: 2009-08-25, 15:11
Real Name: Da
Location: Chicago
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Random Politics Thread

Postby linguoboy » 2017-08-14, 21:26

Yasna wrote:I looked at the article you linked to. There's a lot of virtue signalling going on in response to this memo

"Virtue signalling" is one of those words where I don't know what people mean with they say it except that it is pejorative.

Yasna wrote:Let's look at actions, at the type of (male and female) software engineers leading tech companies actually hire.

Because we're assuming tech companies are already making perfect hiring decisions? This argument is completely circular.

Yasna wrote:
Publicly declaring a third of your fellow employees unqualified for their jobs and by making the completely unfounded claim that they only have them due to an ideological conspiracy?

A complete and utter strawman.

He gives "lower[ing] the bar for 'diversity' candidates" as one of his explicit examples of Google's ideological biases. I'm not sure how you read this in a way which doesn't lead to him calling some substantial proportion of his former colleagues unqualified or at least underqualified.
"Richmond is a real scholar; Owen just learns languages because he can't bear not to know what other people are saying."--Margaret Lattimore on her two sons

User avatar
mōdgethanc
Posts: 10370
Joined: 2010-03-20, 5:27
Real Name: Μέγας Αλέξανδρος
Gender: male
Location: Toronto
Country: CA Canada (Canada)

Re: Random Politics Thread

Postby mōdgethanc » 2017-08-15, 0:53

linguoboy wrote:This article is longish and focused on a subject you may not be very interested in (the debate of criticism of young adult literature), but it's the best summary I've read recently about how we got where we are.

https://fozmeadows.wordpress.com/2017/08/10/ya-discourse-witch-vs-vulture/

Particularly this bit:


Oh g-d, that is exactly what Reddit is like these days. Hence why I've been curtailing my time there.

This is why we're not debating this asshole or the thousands of other assholes like him. It's a lose-lose situation for us: We expend precious energy arguing in good faith and end up with nothing to show for it. There was never a possibility that we would.

On the Internet, I have a one-strike rule for politics: You get one good-faith response. If I see what looks to my Usenet-weathered eyes like a good-faith attempt to engage my points, I'll continue. If not, I will either step away or--if I feel the need for some release--commence with mockery. Maybe I've alienated a few potential allies that way. I no longer care. There are a lot more sympathisers who could be made into actual allies out there and the less energy I waste on trolls and sealions, the more I have to direct to them.

I still have the same ability to debate I've always had. I just much more targeted about when I deploy it.


Same. These reactionary angry white males don't want to listen to what you have to say: they just want an excuse to spew hateful bile. I've found the ignore function useful for this.

"Virtue signalling" is one of those words where I don't know what people mean with they say it except that it is pejorative.


AKA "snarl word".

md0 wrote:But does it help?
People are very comfortable thinking that homosexuality is biological and a disease and/or mistake of nature at the same time. If anything, by telling them that homosexuality is biological, you open up a whole new can of worms, conversion therapies. For example, in Cyprus a lot of people who don't like homosexuality think it's a hormonal issue and it can be "fixed" that way.


That is at odds with the scientific findings then. We know prenatal hormones have a role in sexual orientation but administering hormones to an adult will not change it. It is only useful for gender transitioning.

In the North American context, conversion therapy was spurred by a belief that sexuality and gender are 100% socialized and developmental trajectories were reversible. The finding that this view is wrong helped to hasten the rejection of it. So it's quite different from what you describe in Cyprus.

Especially considering that the people (over here) who are putting forth the biology argument, also do it in terms like "who would ever choose to be gay, we just can't help it", which is one of the most terrible things a person can feel about themselves.


You could frame it as "why would anyone chose to be gay [or trans] if they get persecuted for it by people like you". I find that shuts them up.

Instead, the libertarian approach to this shuts down any interference with the person's self-determination: it doesn't hurt you, therefore you have no say.


That is the most important argument, but first it's sometimes necessary to shut down the "it's not natural" talking point so we can get away from that red herring entirely.

User avatar
md0
Posts: 7039
Joined: 2010-08-08, 19:56
Country: CY Cyprus (Κύπρος / Kıbrıs)

Re: Random Politics Thread

Postby md0 » 2017-08-15, 8:55

That is at odds with the scientific findings then.

Yes, but it doesn't matter to the people who hold those beliefs.

In the North American context, conversion therapy was spurred by a belief that sexuality and gender are 100% socialized and developmental trajectories were reversible. The finding that this view is wrong helped to hasten the rejection of it. So it's quite different from what you describe in Cyprus.

Yep, I had that in mind. It unfolded in different ways in different places.

In Cyprus, I never felt like people believed homosexuality is socialised. It was more thought of as some sort of disease, maybe due to the chemicals in the water or those chemtrails, maybe because of a deficiency from birth, not a "bad choice" or "influence". So telling people they are effectively right about the general biological basis for sexuality (even though the science is not conclusive anyway), it emboldens them.

I always found it problematic that we import arguments from LGBT movements from the west, without adopting them to what we actually have to deal with on the ground.

You could frame it as "why would anyone chose to be gay [or trans] if they get persecuted for it by people like you". I find that shuts them up.

I don't think is any better. It's still disempowering, and at the very best a white lie just to make them shut up.


That is the most important argument, but first it's sometimes necessary to shut down the "it's not natural" talking point so we can get away from that red herring entirely.

I think that the legacy of the previous stages builds up and it makes our work harder. And sure, we can't go back a couple hundred years and tell them not to focus on medicalisation of homosexuality, but we know more now, and we can make more valid arguments.
"If you like your clause structure, you can keep your clause structure"

User avatar
linguoboy
Posts: 20470
Joined: 2009-08-25, 15:11
Real Name: Da
Location: Chicago
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Random Politics Thread

Postby linguoboy » 2017-08-16, 20:10

"Richmond is a real scholar; Owen just learns languages because he can't bear not to know what other people are saying."--Margaret Lattimore on her two sons

User avatar
md0
Posts: 7039
Joined: 2010-08-08, 19:56
Country: CY Cyprus (Κύπρος / Kıbrıs)

Re: Random Politics Thread

Postby md0 » 2017-08-17, 8:17

Well I'm glad they took the time to write that :)

* * *

In other US news, your Nazis aren't so brave when they are on the wrong side of a doxxing campaign.
"If you like your clause structure, you can keep your clause structure"

User avatar
linguoboy
Posts: 20470
Joined: 2009-08-25, 15:11
Real Name: Da
Location: Chicago
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Random Politics Thread

Postby linguoboy » 2017-08-17, 13:28


Antifa FOAFs have pointed out that this is a recruitment video. Still gives me schadenfreude to watch it, though.
"Richmond is a real scholar; Owen just learns languages because he can't bear not to know what other people are saying."--Margaret Lattimore on her two sons

User avatar
Babbsagg
Posts: 225
Joined: 2017-02-26, 8:54
Gender: male
Country: DE Germany (Deutschland)

Re: Random Politics Thread

Postby Babbsagg » 2017-08-21, 18:13

md0 wrote:But does it help?
People are very comfortable thinking that homosexuality is biological and a disease and/or mistake of nature at the same time. If anything, by telling them that homosexuality is biological, you open up a whole new can of worms, conversion therapies. For example, in Cyprus a lot of people who don't like homosexuality think it's a hormonal issue and it can be "fixed" that way.

Especially considering that the people (over here) who are putting forth the biology argument, also do it in terms like "who would ever choose to be gay, we just can't help it", which is one of the most terrible things a person can feel about themselves.

Instead, the libertarian approach to this shuts down any interference with the person's self-determination: it doesn't hurt you, therefore you have no say.

I think my heterosexuality is biological, and I would not welcome a can of worms that involves conversion therapies. If people told me that my sexuality was wrong in whatever way, I'd tell them to fuck off. I believe all heterosexuals would.

The very notion of homosexuality being "fixed" is a problem. If you like to suck dick, well that's none of my fucking business. If it makes you happy, I'll support your right to suck dick. If some self-important twat tried to deny me my right to eat pussy I'd punch his useless face.

I've got a big problem with people telling others what is right and what isn't when it doesn't even concern them. If they are sad, if they are sore, well let them be, but don't let them dictate what other people should do or not.
Thank you for correcting mistakes!

vijayjohn
Language Forum Moderator
Posts: 17580
Joined: 2013-01-10, 8:49
Real Name: Vijay John
Gender: male
Location: Austin
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Random Politics Thread

Postby vijayjohn » 2017-08-21, 18:33

Babbsagg wrote:If people told me that my sexuality was wrong in whatever way, I'd tell them to fuck off.

What if people told you it's okay for you to explore your sexuality, though? I agree that sexuality isn't wrong as long as it doesn't involve rape or something, but it's possible for people to be wrong about their own sexuality (that's not to imply that you're wrong about yours, though). This is how some of us find out we're gay, or at least not as straight as we thought we were.

User avatar
md0
Posts: 7039
Joined: 2010-08-08, 19:56
Country: CY Cyprus (Κύπρος / Kıbrıs)

Re: Random Politics Thread

Postby md0 » 2017-08-21, 18:45

We don't even have to describe it as "wrong". Sometimes tastes just change. That doesn't make the previous position "wrong", and the new position "your real self". Tastes can change more than once even.

This is why I will be extremely surprised if we ever find proof that sexuality is biologically determined. What we know so far just doesn't support the "sexuality from birth" hypothesis that most LGB associations, and even more allies seem to be in favour of.
"If you like your clause structure, you can keep your clause structure"

User avatar
Babbsagg
Posts: 225
Joined: 2017-02-26, 8:54
Gender: male
Country: DE Germany (Deutschland)

Re: Random Politics Thread

Postby Babbsagg » 2017-08-21, 18:47

vijayjohn wrote:
Babbsagg wrote:If people told me that my sexuality was wrong in whatever way, I'd tell them to fuck off.

What if people told you it's okay for you to explore your sexuality, though? I agree that sexuality isn't wrong as long as it doesn't involve rape or something, but it's possible for people to be wrong about their own sexuality (that's not to imply that you're wrong about yours, though). This is how some of us find out we're gay, or at least not as straight as we thought we were.

I'm all for that. I think exploring your sexuality is a central way of exploring yourself.
Thank you for correcting mistakes!

User avatar
Babbsagg
Posts: 225
Joined: 2017-02-26, 8:54
Gender: male
Country: DE Germany (Deutschland)

Re: Random Politics Thread

Postby Babbsagg » 2017-08-21, 19:01

md0 wrote:This is why I will be extremely surprised if we ever find proof that sexuality is biologically determined. What we know so far just doesn't support the "sexuality from birth" hypothesis that most LGB associations, and even more allies seem to be in favour of.

But what is the evidence? What evidence is there that suggests that gay people aren't born gay? And in extension, what does it mean? Does it mean homosexuality is a sickness? Is it an anomaly? Can homosexuals be "healed"?

And, more interestingly: why should it be healed? What is the disadvantage of letting homosexuals be? What harm does homosexuality?
Thank you for correcting mistakes!

vijayjohn
Language Forum Moderator
Posts: 17580
Joined: 2013-01-10, 8:49
Real Name: Vijay John
Gender: male
Location: Austin
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Random Politics Thread

Postby vijayjohn » 2017-08-21, 19:10

md0 wrote:We don't even have to describe it as "wrong". Sometimes tastes just change. That doesn't make the previous position "wrong", and the new position "your real self".

But you can also come out as gay or whatever without any change in tastes being involved, unless perhaps you count the change from "not being sexually interested in anyone because you don't know what sex is yet" to "being sexually interested in [you fill in the blank, but 'no one' is still a valid option]," which I would think (almost?) everyone went through. There was never any time when I was exclusively attracted to women, but there was quite a long period of time when I assumed by default that I was straight anyway, in large part because I was always very uncomfortable with the particular set of circumstances that led to me exploring my sexuality.
Babbsagg wrote:
md0 wrote:This is why I will be extremely surprised if we ever find proof that sexuality is biologically determined. What we know so far just doesn't support the "sexuality from birth" hypothesis that most LGB associations, and even more allies seem to be in favour of.

But what is the evidence? What evidence is there that suggests that gay people aren't born gay?

The fact that people's sexual preferences can change over time?
And in extension, what does it mean?

I don't think it really means anything except for definitions; as far as I can tell, it's just an issue of being accurate and inclusive. So it doesn't make it any worse to be gay (or whatever else), but it does call into question the way we talk about these things and how helpful our framing of sexuality is in reality, however well intentioned it may be.

User avatar
Yasna
Posts: 1768
Joined: 2011-09-12, 1:17
Gender: male
Location: Boston
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Random Politics Thread

Postby Yasna » 2017-08-21, 19:41

linguoboy wrote:Because we're assuming tech companies are already making perfect hiring decisions? This argument is completely circular.

Not perfect, but we can assume that a knowledge-based company which is one of the best performing in the history of mankind makes some excellent hiring decisions, or at least that it did until recently. This goes back to the virtue signalling (lots of talk about diversity, little action). Back to Yonatan Zunger's argument:

"This is where the response from Yonatan Zunger (a former senior Googler) went wrong. His first paragraph suggests that the memo says “we should stop trying to make it possible for women to be engineers, it’s just not worth it.” And then later, he says the memo argues that “some large fraction of [the author’s] colleagues are at root not good enough to do their jobs.” Not only does the memo not make either of these points, but the memo goes directly against Zunger’s mischaracterization, since the whole point of the memo is to suggest a more effective approach towards diversity.

Characterizing the arguments in this way only makes the echo-chamber problem worse. By misrepresenting the arguments and not trying to effectively refute them, Zunger has provided evidence that Google executives truly are intolerant of views that they disagree with. If you can’t accurately interpret an argument before trying to refute it, and instead misinterpret it in the most offensive way possible, all you’ve done is provide rage-bait to people who already agree with you."

And boy are people having a ball with their rage-bait.

link

Yasna wrote:He gives "lower[ing] the bar for 'diversity' candidates" as one of his explicit examples of Google's ideological biases. I'm not sure how you read this in a way which doesn't lead to him calling some substantial proportion of his former colleagues unqualified or at least underqualified.

He didn't give any numbers, so it could be just a tiny percentage of current employees who benefited from the lowered bar. In any case, nothing like "publicly declaring a third of your fellow employees unqualified for their jobs". Not to mention Damore didn't do it publicly, but internally.

This memo is really making the run for most mischaracterized document in history.
Ein Buch muß die Axt sein für das gefrorene Meer in uns. - Kafka

User avatar
md0
Posts: 7039
Joined: 2010-08-08, 19:56
Country: CY Cyprus (Κύπρος / Kıbrıs)

Re: Random Politics Thread

Postby md0 » 2017-08-21, 20:02

Babbsagg wrote:But what is the evidence? What evidence is there that suggests that gay people aren't born gay?

First, I want to emphasise the word determined, and in from first mention of the topic, "biological destiny".

I never claimed that biology plays absolutely no role in sexuality, just that I'm extremely skeptical about the assertion that our sexualities are determined from birth (or before birth even, some people claim that), because there's no scientific evidence backing that assertion up. So even if we lack an alternative hypothesis at the moment, the biological determinism hypothesis has no merit.

Then, we know it is the experience of many people (including myself) to see their sexual attraction go into various directions at various times, and not necessarily as a one-way journey. So whatever an alternative hypothesis might be, it must account for this observation, that sexuality is not necessarily static. A determinist hypothesis cannot account for that, by definition.

Babbsagg wrote:And in extension, what does it mean? Does it mean homosexuality is a sickness? Is it an anomaly? Can homosexuals be "healed"?

I posed the same question about the support for the "born this way" explanation.
People are very comfortable thinking that homosexuality is biological and a disease and/or mistake of nature at the same time. If anything, by telling them that homosexuality is biological, you open up a whole new can of worms, conversion therapies. For example, in Cyprus a lot of people who don't like homosexuality think it's a hormonal issue and it can be "fixed" that way.


If you claim that sexuality is biological, people who don't like your sexuality feel like it's their place to propose a cure. After all, congenital diseases are biological too. People want to cure those.

Babbsagg wrote:And, more interestingly: why should it be healed? What is the disadvantage of letting homosexuals be? What harm does homosexuality?


See, that's my point :)
That's the best argument: personal liberty.

You don't need a scientific explanation of the origin of homosexuality to apply the harm principle.

A scientific explanation of sexuality is definitely something good to have, but not for LGB advocacy. LGB advocacy doesn't really need it.

* * *

But you can also come out as gay or whatever without any change in tastes being involved

Yeah, that's valid too.

I don't think it really means anything except for definitions; as far as I can tell, it's just an issue of being accurate and inclusive.

Well, my position is that it matters. Not only because I oppose bad science in principle, but also because the biological determinism hypothesis (a) harms us and throws us under the bus, (b) enables people who want to frame homosexuality as a medical condition, and (c) enables abusers to excuse their crimes as biological urges that they can't help.
"If you like your clause structure, you can keep your clause structure"


Return to “Politics and Religion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest