On 09/25/2018 04:02 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 06:06:45PM -0700, Mirimir wrote:
On 09/24/2018 03:49 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 02:48:44PM -0700, Mirimir wrote:
<SNIP>
You on the other hand, I never know for sure when you're kidding, or just kidding about kidding, with a wink (which I can't see) to let us know that it's all for the lulz.
And you know, not that I'm a Nazi or whatever, but I am often greatly amused by your Daily Stormer etc posts :)
Commonly, debates become acrimonious, positions harden, and participants seem to focus on winning.
U must be readin a different list to the one I'm reading...
We just have different perspectives, I think.
How -dare- you have a different perspective to me - you will NOT take my safe space away from me!
Memes or ELSE dude!!!¡¡‼‼§№∙∞π♯πµ¿¿
Yeah, this is the meat. This fucking "safe space" crap just bugs the shit out of me. I guess that it's just part of getting old. My values of freedom (academic, political, social, sexual, etc) and self expression got established in the 60's. For example, the freedom to discuss and teach the theory of evolution. But now, it's become difficult to objectively research possible differences among protected categories, such as genders, races or sexual orientations. There are exceptions, for sure, such as differences in response to diet recommendations, medical treatment, or drug therapy. But otherwise, it can be a minefield. Student protests. Difficulty with funding. Tenure blocks. Difficulty publishing. So just how is that different from fundamentalist Christians blocking the theory of evolution from school curricula? Or, I admit, from academic discrimination against climate-change skeptics? Anyway, there's failure to make a key distinction. Sexism or racism involve judging people on the basis of their gender or race. They're classic examples of faulty generalization and universal instantiation. Because people are just way too fucking complicated to analyze with such simplistic reasoning. In particular, distributions are far too wide for that stuff to be useful. Or, for that matter, fair. But that's not the case for experimental studies of differences. You're just collecting and analyzing data. There are, of course, confounding issues that complicate interpretation of results. Humans are so readily programmable that it's very difficult, and perhaps impossible, to attribute any observed differences to biological hardware vs cultural influences. But that's just something for the discussion. It's not a valid reason to block the work. However, the very idea of such research seems to violate "safe space" for some. And the idea that some work shouldn't be done, because it upsets or discourages some protected group, is very dangerous. It's contrary to the overall concept of the scientific endeavor. And yes, it is arguable that some research just shouldn't be done. Nuclear research, for example. And now, machine-learning and AI. But even there, refusing to look seems ultimately pointless. Because somebody else will, and then maybe you're screwed. <SNIP>