Author Topic: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?  (Read 64563 times)

RetiredAt63

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13310
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #200 on: March 01, 2019, 09:02:10 AM »
What bugs me about evangelists is that a big chunk of their time seems to be spent taking the word to people who are already Christians, just not the same variety of Christian.  I'm at the point that when people ring my doorbell, I am super upfront about being Anglican, and then I say, I won't waste their time, goodbye.

I grew up in a technically secular society that was heavily dominated by the Church (let me translate that, I grew up in Québec before la Révolution tranquille) and the Catholic church influenced/dominated everything.

There is still a crucifix in the National Assembly (cultural heritage, don't you know - and look at the French version of O Canada). I don't want to ever live in a society that is dominated by a religion, irregardless of the religion.

Davnasty

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2503
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #201 on: March 01, 2019, 09:07:34 AM »

I like this story.  It leaves a nice warm feeling in the cockles of my heart.  Or maybe in the subcockle region.  Generally, this kinda explains my reasoning for treating religious people who are only being mildly obnoxious about "spreading the good news" with respect as well.  I get where they're coming from, so I bite my tongue and politely tolerate what's happening.

Maybe I'm crazy, but it's not often reciprocated from what I've seen.  When an atheist sees a religious person wasting his life on meaningless ritual, prayer, and a search for morality in two thousand year old words written by serial slave owners, wife beaters, fans of capital punishment, polygamists sometimes they do speak up as well.  For the atheist you're not going to hell . . . it's something much more important.  You're wasting the only time you'll ever have on Earth kowtowing to the rough equivalent of old timey Harry Potter books, and making important life choices based on the same.

As mentioned, it's natural to want to try to push someone out of the way of that bus.  I rarely see tolerance for an atheist using logic to do so though.  It would be nice for people to remember that folks like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, etc. are doing what they do for the same reasons that the Gideons hand out bibles.  They're trying to make the world a better place too.

I don't have anything meaningful to add...I just love this post so much I had to comment.

Good points, and I would add that Penn's scenario looks at only one of many possibilities, that of a Christian proselytizing to a non-believer. How would a Christian feel about a Muslim informing them that they're headed for eternal damnation? How often would that exchange be met with a respectful "thank you for caring enough about me to share"?

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5501
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #202 on: March 01, 2019, 09:25:53 AM »

I like this story.  It leaves a nice warm feeling in the cockles of my heart.  Or maybe in the subcockle region.  Generally, this kinda explains my reasoning for treating religious people who are only being mildly obnoxious about "spreading the good news" with respect as well.  I get where they're coming from, so I bite my tongue and politely tolerate what's happening.

Maybe I'm crazy, but it's not often reciprocated from what I've seen.  When an atheist sees a religious person wasting his life on meaningless ritual, prayer, and a search for morality in two thousand year old words written by serial slave owners, wife beaters, fans of capital punishment, polygamists sometimes they do speak up as well.  For the atheist you're not going to hell . . . it's something much more important.  You're wasting the only time you'll ever have on Earth kowtowing to the rough equivalent of old timey Harry Potter books, and making important life choices based on the same.

As mentioned, it's natural to want to try to push someone out of the way of that bus.  I rarely see tolerance for an atheist using logic to do so though.  It would be nice for people to remember that folks like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, etc. are doing what they do for the same reasons that the Gideons hand out bibles.  They're trying to make the world a better place too.

Agreed. This is pretty much my reaction, as well. But I generally don't say it.

Tyson

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2512
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #203 on: March 01, 2019, 11:02:44 AM »
And to bring things back to the original posters problems with racism - I'm from the south (Texas) and I've lived a couple other places in the south - Louisiana and Florida.  I'm sorry but those people are racist as hell.  I cannot tell you how many times I was told by "nice white people" that "The neighborhood is getting ruined because the goddamn n@@@@@S are moving in!" or, from my mom "Son, you don't want to wear that, it makes you look like a n@@@@r".  This type of thinking is rampant.  And here's the funny thing - if you ask my mom (or dad or grandparents or cousins or neighbors or good church people) "hey, do you think you're racist", they will emphatically say NO!  Haha. 

Yeah, Faulkner was right, there is a sickness in the soul of the South.  And because it's been ingrained for generations, nobody can even see it.  If you point it out or call them on it, they get mad at YOU for pointing it out and making them feel uncomfortable. 

I can echo this 100%. I was born and raised in rural middle Tennessee. After serving my country and spending some time abroad, I eventually found myself back here. When I was reading this post, it resonated so much and mirrored many of my experiences here growing up. Luckily, my parents didn't teach me to hate other people...but the culture in the south is completely intertwined with racism. It's just so ingrained here and displayed on an almost daily basis...but like Tyort1 said, if you ever asked any of these people if they are racists, after telling you to go to hell, they would loudly and emphatically deny it. Racism is everywhere down here and has been for generations. It gets passed down from one generation to the next. Some (like my parents) don't explicitly teach their children to be racists, but it's such a way of life here and so institutional that it seems to perpetuate itself.

Thanks Brandon!  And here's the thing - most of these people ARE nice people.  It just so happens that they are nice people who are also very racist.  Or, as it was put to me on more than one occasion, "well, we just don't like their kind". 

I was a military brat, so I got to get around a bit more and see the world a bit, just like you.  It's amazing the perspective it gives you when you come back home.

mm1970

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8004
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #204 on: March 01, 2019, 11:47:23 AM »
Hey @steveo, I actually want to thank you for the posts you make. I'm in the military, and have been for my entire adult life. I love it, I actually served when it was technically illegal, but the military is not necessarily a bastion of academic discourse. The rise of identity politics happened, and suddenly there was a new vocabulary I did NOT understand. What the fuck was microagression? What did woke mean? What the ever loving fuck was gaslighting?

I've slowly been expanding my understanding of these new themes, but one definition has always remained a struggle because I'd never experienced it personally. Thanks to you, and to the departed Orange guy, I finally, finally understand what gaslighting means. I'm actually quite delighted to finally get it.

I love this post.

I also love Toque.

ETA:
I found this article to be very informative.  I haven't really had the displeasure of dealing with either kind of person IRL.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/communication-success/201707/6-common-traits-narcissists-and-gaslighters
« Last Edit: March 01, 2019, 02:14:46 PM by mm1970 »

Malloy

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 398
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #205 on: March 01, 2019, 12:26:50 PM »

ericrugiero, it DOESNT have to be this way. Beneath the vicious malintent of those who seek to fan the flames of disagreement in this nation, lies fundamental differences in philospohy and morality. That will NEVER change. But what CAN change is that we, as people become tolerant and respectful of those that have different moral and philosophical convictions. I may despise the values many of my leftist family and friends have, but I am respectful and tolerant of them. I do not despise them as people. I'm atheist and disagree with much of the central tenets of Christianity. Yet I respect these people and tolerate their belief system. We (my social circle) all seem to get along pretty well, that is, except for the rabblerousers that are intolerant and disrespectful. You know who you are.

I don't know if this is the solution to partisanship.  If you find yourself despising the values of your friends, that doesn't sound like much of a friendship to me.  Being respectful and tolerant of values you despise is the solution to how you handle working with or living in a neighborhood with people you don't have much to do with otherwise.  But I wouldn't let people whose values I despised into my life voluntarily.  I can be friends with someone I disagree with, but despise their values?  Nah. 


Watchmaker

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 728
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #206 on: March 01, 2019, 01:24:50 PM »
1983 - 90% of US media controlled by 50 companies, 2017 90% of US media controlled by 6 companies (per NY Times and Wiki, though apparently Free Press claims not that high)
...
You asked a time when media wasn't as concentrated, 1983.

Happily, I don't think we're actually in much disagreement here. What I actually said was:

I'm doubtful you could point to a time outside our lifetimes when the situation was any better.

And I was alive in 1983 (though I understand you may not have been). I used the language I did intentionally because I agree the last few years have seen, at best, some regression in terms of the quality and robustness of news. Even with those setbacks, the overall trend has been clearly positive over a long time scale.

Your right things are getting better for everyone, this is very true I'm glad to be alive now compared to 1215, or 1915 or 1955. Compared to the 50's our society is far more egalitarian, with greater luxuries, the world is getting better.

So lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater is all I'm saying. Let us realize that so much of what we have done has worked. The job isn't done (not even close), but lets build on our successes rather than tear down our institutions. 


MasterStache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2532
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #207 on: March 01, 2019, 04:51:56 PM »
liberals are anti religious. Most people I know are liberal. Some go to church, some go to a synagogue. I had my kids go to a preschool at a Methodist church where they did talk about God. Overall I find liberal people pretty tolerant (heck, that's what makes them liberals!).

There are two exceptions. Many liberal people, including myself, are intolerant of evangelicalism. This is the kind of religion that yes tries to shove their version of Christianity down everyone's throat including remaking the government in their image. It's what got us in NC the bathroom law (transgenders cannot use the bathroom of the gender they identify with, but only the sex that is on their birth certificate), along with a bunch of other depressing stuff I don't want to get into. It's why people like Roy Moore get elected again, and again, even though he got disbarred for not following state and Federal laws, and advising others not to do so, under the guise of "religious freedom". I don't see being intolerance of evangelicals, as being anti-religious. They are two different things. If I wanted to live in a theocracy, I'd move to Saudi Arabia.

2nd, I admit there is a small subset of people, who are almost evangelical atheists. That not only do they have to tell you they are atheists, but that anyone who believes in God or goes to Church is stupid, idiot, irrational, what have you. Those people are not respectful. Most people I know who are like this do NOT identify with being Liberals, but identify as being libertarians (not always, assholes come in all forms and they could be from almost any part of the political spectrum, including Republican. They are almost always white males...) I would NOT lump libertarians in with Liberals. two different things.  Next time you see someone virilently atheistic, before you assume they are a "liberal" ask them what their political stance is.

I understand where you are coming from.  Some Christians don't do a good job of showing love and being respectful to others.  It's hard to have other people's beliefs shoved down your throat.  But, there is a balance.  Penn Jillette (from Penn & Teller) who is an atheist, had this to say about a Christian who witnessed to him.  I'm quoting him because he says it much better than I could. 

Jillette, moved by the man’s gesture, recalled: “He was kind, and nice, and sane, and looked me in the eyes, and talked to me, and then gave me this Bible.”
“I’ve always said,” Jillette explained, “I don’t respect people who don’t proselytize. I don’t respect that at all. If you believe there is a heaven and hell, and people could be going to hell or not getting eternal life or whatever, and you think it’s not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward.
“How much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to hate someone to believe everlasting life is possible and not tell them that?”
Jillette then offered this example to illustrate his point: “If I believed, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that a truck was coming at you, and you didn’t believe it, that that truck was bearing down on you, there’s a certain point that I tackle you, and this is more important than that.”
“This guy was a really good guy. He was polite, honest, and sane, and he cared enough about me to proselytize and give me a Bible.”

As a Christian, I want you to know about Jesus because I don't want you to go to hell.  It's not about judging you or forcing you to live a certain way.  Sin is wrong and the Bible is very clear that certain behaviors are sin.  But, I believe we are ALL sinners so I don't have room to look down on anyone else.  If I truly love you, I should be looking for opportunities to witness, but I should do it in a manner like Penn described.

Man, being told I am going to hell if I don't behave/believe a certain way and being shoved to the ground to avoid a hypothetical "truck." That's some hard core proselytizing. (-;

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #208 on: March 01, 2019, 07:41:39 PM »
Hey @steveo, I actually want to thank you for the posts you make. I'm in the military, and have been for my entire adult life. I love it, I actually served when it was technically illegal, but the military is not necessarily a bastion of academic discourse. The rise of identity politics happened, and suddenly there was a new vocabulary I did NOT understand. What the fuck was microagression? What did woke mean? What the ever loving fuck was gaslighting?

I've slowly been expanding my understanding of these new themes, but one definition has always remained a struggle because I'd never experienced it personally. Thanks to you, and to the departed Orange guy, I finally, finally understand what gaslighting means. I'm actually quite delighted to finally get it.

I love this post.

I also love Toque.

ETA:
I found this article to be very informative.  I haven't really had the displeasure of dealing with either kind of person IRL.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/communication-success/201707/6-common-traits-narcissists-and-gaslighters

I find this really really bizarre. These seem like pretty strong comments and I wonder why you would imply that I am like that. I guess it comes back to my point and the reason for this thread being started. It appears that leftists today cannot accept that people can have different opinions.

I'm not sexist or a narcissist or a gaslighter or anything at all like that. I'm a normal average middle aged man who gets along with basically everyone in my life and who doesn't have problems in society.

I don't believe that the western world is a repressive patriarchy. I don't believe that racism is somehow institutionalised within society. I don't buy that line. I'm all for helping out people who have tougher upbringings. I'm all for better education and health care. My beliefs are for some bizarre reason considered extreme and if I don't agree with extremist leftists than I'm the one with the problem.

Maybe it's not me with the problem. Maybe it's the leftists who can't seem to discuss issues calmly, rationally and with respect for differences of opinion.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5501
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #209 on: March 01, 2019, 07:58:06 PM »
Hey @steveo, I actually want to thank you for the posts you make. I'm in the military, and have been for my entire adult life. I love it, I actually served when it was technically illegal, but the military is not necessarily a bastion of academic discourse. The rise of identity politics happened, and suddenly there was a new vocabulary I did NOT understand. What the fuck was microagression? What did woke mean? What the ever loving fuck was gaslighting?

I've slowly been expanding my understanding of these new themes, but one definition has always remained a struggle because I'd never experienced it personally. Thanks to you, and to the departed Orange guy, I finally, finally understand what gaslighting means. I'm actually quite delighted to finally get it.

I love this post.

I also love Toque.

ETA:
I found this article to be very informative.  I haven't really had the displeasure of dealing with either kind of person IRL.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/communication-success/201707/6-common-traits-narcissists-and-gaslighters

I find this really really bizarre. These seem like pretty strong comments and I wonder why you would imply that I am like that. I guess it comes back to my point and the reason for this thread being started. It appears that leftists today cannot accept that people can have different opinions.

I'm not sexist or a narcissist or a gaslighter or anything at all like that. I'm a normal average middle aged man who gets along with basically everyone in my life and who doesn't have problems in society.

I don't believe that the western world is a repressive patriarchy. I don't believe that racism is somehow institutionalised within society. I don't buy that line. I'm all for helping out people who have tougher upbringings. I'm all for better education and health care. My beliefs are for some bizarre reason considered extreme and if I don't agree with extremist leftists than I'm the one with the problem.

Maybe it's not me with the problem. Maybe it's the leftists who can't seem to discuss issues calmly, rationally and with respect for differences of opinion.

Or...

Maybe you are the one who struggles to see the problem.

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #210 on: March 01, 2019, 08:52:39 PM »
Hey @steveo, I actually want to thank you for the posts you make. I'm in the military, and have been for my entire adult life. I love it, I actually served when it was technically illegal, but the military is not necessarily a bastion of academic discourse. The rise of identity politics happened, and suddenly there was a new vocabulary I did NOT understand. What the fuck was microagression? What did woke mean? What the ever loving fuck was gaslighting?

I've slowly been expanding my understanding of these new themes, but one definition has always remained a struggle because I'd never experienced it personally. Thanks to you, and to the departed Orange guy, I finally, finally understand what gaslighting means. I'm actually quite delighted to finally get it.

I love this post.

I also love Toque.

ETA:
I found this article to be very informative.  I haven't really had the displeasure of dealing with either kind of person IRL.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/communication-success/201707/6-common-traits-narcissists-and-gaslighters

I find this really really bizarre. These seem like pretty strong comments and I wonder why you would imply that I am like that. I guess it comes back to my point and the reason for this thread being started. It appears that leftists today cannot accept that people can have different opinions.

I'm not sexist or a narcissist or a gaslighter or anything at all like that. I'm a normal average middle aged man who gets along with basically everyone in my life and who doesn't have problems in society.

I don't believe that the western world is a repressive patriarchy. I don't believe that racism is somehow institutionalised within society. I don't buy that line. I'm all for helping out people who have tougher upbringings. I'm all for better education and health care. My beliefs are for some bizarre reason considered extreme and if I don't agree with extremist leftists than I'm the one with the problem.

Maybe it's not me with the problem. Maybe it's the leftists who can't seem to discuss issues calmly, rationally and with respect for differences of opinion.

Or...

Maybe you are the one who struggles to see the problem.

There are two issues here:-

1. A disagreement of a belief system. That is fine. You are allowed to disagree. I have no problems with this.
2. The over the top reaction towards people (like myself) who aren't buying the Kool Aid. I think that this thread is about this reaction and stating it is wrong.

Sailor Sam

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4371
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Steel Beach
  • Semper...something
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #211 on: March 01, 2019, 08:57:24 PM »
e.
ETA:
I found this article to be very informative.  I haven't really had the displeasure of dealing with either kind of person IRL.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/communication-success/201707/6-common-traits-narcissists-and-gaslighters

That link was really helpful. Thank you!

ixtap

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2217
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #212 on: March 01, 2019, 09:18:41 PM »
Hey @steveo, I actually want to thank you for the posts you make. I'm in the military, and have been for my entire adult life. I love it, I actually served when it was technically illegal, but the military is not necessarily a bastion of academic discourse. The rise of identity politics happened, and suddenly there was a new vocabulary I did NOT understand. What the fuck was microagression? What did woke mean? What the ever loving fuck was gaslighting?

I've slowly been expanding my understanding of these new themes, but one definition has always remained a struggle because I'd never experienced it personally. Thanks to you, and to the departed Orange guy, I finally, finally understand what gaslighting means. I'm actually quite delighted to finally get it.

I love this post.

I also love Toque.

ETA:
I found this article to be very informative.  I haven't really had the displeasure of dealing with either kind of person IRL.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/communication-success/201707/6-common-traits-narcissists-and-gaslighters

I find this really really bizarre. These seem like pretty strong comments and I wonder why you would imply that I am like that. I guess it comes back to my point and the reason for this thread being started. It appears that leftists today cannot accept that people can have different opinions.

I'm not sexist or a narcissist or a gaslighter or anything at all like that. I'm a normal average middle aged man who gets along with basically everyone in my life and who doesn't have problems in society.

I don't believe that the western world is a repressive patriarchy. I don't believe that racism is somehow institutionalised within society. I don't buy that line. I'm all for helping out people who have tougher upbringings. I'm all for better education and health care. My beliefs are for some bizarre reason considered extreme and if I don't agree with extremist leftists than I'm the one with the problem.

Maybe it's not me with the problem. Maybe it's the leftists who can't seem to discuss issues calmly, rationally and with respect for differences of opinion.

The problem is that leftists tend to recognize the difference between opinions and facts. The patriarchy is a fact. Institutional racism is a fact

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #213 on: March 01, 2019, 09:58:08 PM »
The problem is that leftists tend to recognize the difference between opinions and facts. The patriarchy is a fact. Institutional racism is a fact

No. This is another example of why this thread was started. The patriarchy and it's influence is a subjective assessment of different cultures. Institutionalised racism is another subjective assessment. Another problem that extreme leftists have is clearly an inability to differentiate between facts and theories. Even within that theory you need to be rational - how bad is the racism for instance.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2019, 11:45:57 PM by steveo »

Sailor Sam

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4371
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Steel Beach
  • Semper...something
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #214 on: March 02, 2019, 06:27:30 AM »
Hey @steveo, I actually want to thank you for the posts you make. I'm in the military, and have been for my entire adult life. I love it, I actually served when it was technically illegal, but the military is not necessarily a bastion of academic discourse. The rise of identity politics happened, and suddenly there was a new vocabulary I did NOT understand. What the fuck was microagression? What did woke mean? What the ever loving fuck was gaslighting?

I've slowly been expanding my understanding of these new themes, but one definition has always remained a struggle because I'd never experienced it personally. Thanks to you, and to the departed Orange guy, I finally, finally understand what gaslighting means. I'm actually quite delighted to finally get it.

I love this post.

I also love Toque.

ETA:
I found this article to be very informative.  I haven't really had the displeasure of dealing with either kind of person IRL.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/communication-success/201707/6-common-traits-narcissists-and-gaslighters

I find this really really bizarre. These seem like pretty strong comments and I wonder why you would imply that I am like that. I guess it comes back to my point and the reason for this thread being started. It appears that leftists today cannot accept that people can have different opinions.

I'm not sexist or a narcissist or a gaslighter or anything at all like that. I'm a normal average middle aged man who gets along with basically everyone in my life and who doesn't have problems in society.

I don't believe that the western world is a repressive patriarchy. I don't believe that racism is somehow institutionalised within society. I don't buy that line. I'm all for helping out people who have tougher upbringings. I'm all for better education and health care. My beliefs are for some bizarre reason considered extreme and if I don't agree with extremist leftists than I'm the one with the problem.

Maybe it's not me with the problem. Maybe it's the leftists who can't seem to discuss issues calmly, rationally and with respect for differences of opinion.

Look @steveo, let's have a little détente, because I do understand some of what you're expressing here. I'm not particularly liberal. I grew up in deep red rural environment, I'm a practicing Christian, I'm almost 40 years old, and I'm a commissioned officer for the U.S. military. I was being very factual when I said that the true surge of identity politics broke around, rather than over me. I found it all really fucking confusing, but I did try to understand. And right when I was finally getting a grasp on what exactly this 'privilege' thing was, everyone else had moved onto intersectionality.

Do I, in my heart of hearts find some of the modern conversation about race and gender and intersectionality and safe spaces and being woke ridiculous? Yes, I do. Sometimes I really, really have to control myself to avoid rolling my eyes over some of the sound and fury. I totally understand wanting to push back against the pressure.

But to push back so hard that you flat out do not believe there is any institutionalized racism, or any institutionalized gender discrimination inside western society is very extreme. I urge you not to use the ridiculousness of the fringe to reject what the central part of the movement is saying. What's the harm in taking a moment and considering what people are saying? I did it, and it good for my soul.

FrugalToque

  • Global Moderator
  • Pencil Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 649
  • Location: Canada
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #215 on: March 02, 2019, 06:45:30 AM »
The problem is that leftists tend to recognize the difference between opinions and facts. The patriarchy is a fact. Institutional racism is a fact

No. This is another example of why this thread was started. The patriarchy and it's influence is a subjective assessment of different cultures. Institutionalised racism is another subjective assessment. Another problem that extreme leftists have is clearly an inability to differentiate between facts and theories. Even within that theory you need to be rational - how bad is the racism for instance.

Okay.  Let's make sure we're looking at objective facts and not "subjective" "theories".

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4984780/
Life expectancy of a black man in America: 72.2 years
Life expectancy of a white man in America: 76.6 years

And you can see it's always been lagging for black men.  So what's the deal there?  Is there a problem in American society of treating black people badly, even since the ages of slavery, that's leading to their shortened life spans?  Or is there a genetic tendency among people with more melanin to die sooner?

Or does it correlate almost perfectly with poverty levels, and black people tend to be limited to the lower income levels that lead to this disparity?

What is your answer, when presented with facts like this, that does not involve a society with is systematically racist in its presumptions about health, education, poverty, access to work and everything else?

Toque.

MDM

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10147
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #216 on: March 02, 2019, 07:40:54 AM »
Okay.  Let's make sure we're looking at objective facts and not "subjective" "theories".
If one is to use life expectancy as a measure of discrimination, then one must consider Why is life expectancy longer for women than it is for men? - Scientific American.

Just to be clear: this is not an argument that discrimination does not exist.  It is an opinion that the use of life expectancy as a measure of discrimination may not be a good idea.

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1578
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #217 on: March 02, 2019, 08:04:49 AM »
steveo, here, you make the argument that "extreme leftists" reacted poorly to your factual statement.

The interesting point is that I have been shouted down on here for stating what I think are clearly factual points. I heard Jordan Peterson state recently words to the effect that the idea of the western world being a repressive patriarchy is abhorrent. I completely agree with this comment.

But in recent posts, it now seems to be about a difference in opinion.

Maybe it's not me with the problem. Maybe it's the leftists who can't seem to discuss issues calmly, rationally and with respect for differences of opinion.

The patriarchy and it's influence is a subjective assessment of different cultures. Institutionalised racism is another subjective assessment.

Differences in opinion, subjective assessments. But interestingly enough, you also immediatley flip back to us having a problem identifying objective facts:

Another problem that extreme leftists have is clearly an inability to differentiate between facts and theories. Even within that theory you need to be rational - how bad is the racism for instance.

It's hard to argue against why you think our discourse is so bad because I can't tell whether you genuinely think your beliefs are fact supported while ours are not (I obviously disagree), or whether you think we're just not tolerant enough of differing opinions (which we of course see as denial of objective reality).

So I'm just going argue against the statement below, if you'll allow me. I am a calm person and I'm a rational person, and I think you'll find that reflected in my counterargument.

I don't believe that the western world is a repressive patriarchy. I don't believe that racism is somehow institutionalised within society.

I really want to tackle both issues, but I recognize that it's probably best to stay focused. We've talked more about the patriarchy thing in the last several posts, and I consider institutional racism a virtual slam-dunk anyway, so I'll focus on the patriarchy for now.

The Western World as a Repressive Patriarchy


I'm going to use the following definition of the word patriarchy,

Quote
a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.

and I'm going to use the United States as a proxy for the Western World.

Just 5% of Fortune 500 CEOs are women. 1 Just 21% of congress is female. 2 Every US President and Vice President has been male. For the first time in 2019, more than 10% (18%) of wide release studio films will have a female director at the helm.  3

Personally, I think it should be incumbent on you to explain why such disparities exist, rather than incumbent on me to show that the disparities are driven by a patriarchal society, but I'll do the latter anyway. The first and most obvious reason is simple consequence: The "boy's club" effect. Man have the power and make the rules, so it's impossible for there not to be some level of gate keeping.

Women's suffrage in the United States is only 99 years old. Much of the country was built while explicitly leaving women out of the process. Though it was Federal law, some states didn't ratify the amendment until decades later, which points to lingering hostility towards the idea of women voting even after it became legal.

Title IX, which ended legal discrimination by sex in education, is less than 50 years old. Women have just now reached parity with men when it comes to the attainment of 4 year degrees. 4 Finding more representation in prestige professions and executive leadership is clearly more difficult when you have faced legal or cultural discrimination on your path to higher education.

In addition to explicit, and legislatively permitted gate keeping, there is a large cultural element at play that elevates men at the expense of women. 6 in 10 women report having been sexually harassed, with more than half of them saying that it happened in the workplace. 5 Even pointing out that this is a problem is starting to face a growing backlash in society.

Consider how women of consequence are covered by the media. Everyone knows who Buzz Aldrin is. The world's most famous second place finisher. Comparatively fewer people have heard of Margaret Hamilton, the computer scientist whose software helped put Aldrin and Armstrong on the moon. Watch closely how the news media covers Kirsten Gillibrand, Amy Klobuchar, Kamala Harris, and the other female presidential candidates as the 2020 race heats up. Try and observe how much attention is given to things like emotional temperament, and then compare this to how the same or similar behavior is covered, not covered, or just considered permissible by men. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh had an absolute meltdown in his confirmation hearing, during which he was flippant with Senators, refused to answer questions, and unless you're gullible enough to think that "Devil's Triangle" refers to a drinking game, almost certainly lied. None of this was disqualifying to make him one of the most powerful people in the country. I strongly believe that the public and the media has a blind spot for men when it comes to behavior that would be considered non-permissible for women.

Women struggle for adequate representation in popular media as well. An overwhelming majority of on screen speaking roles in Hollywood are held by men. 6 Male speaking lines dominate Oscar winning films. It's not even close. 7 The popular culture that we make and that we elevate sends a pretty clear message. Most people of consequence are men, while women are relegated to supporting roles. These attitudes are found up and down every facet of our society, and they contribute to the empirical fact that women are underrepresented in positions of power.

---

I'm interested to hear why you either don't think the facts support my conclusion, or in what way I'm irrational or disrespectful. T.I.A.

References:

1https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_women_CEOs_of_Fortune_500_companies

2https://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/women-us-congress-2018

3https://www.thewrap.com/female-director-woman-hollywood-studio-progress-five-times-more-history/

4https://www.statista.com/statistics/184272/educational-attainment-of-college-diploma-or-higher-by-gender/

5http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2018/04/04/sexual-harassment-at-work-in-the-era-of-metoo/

6https://pudding.cool/2017/03/film-dialogue/

7https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXeensjU0AAG5uH.jpg:large

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1578
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #218 on: March 02, 2019, 08:15:04 AM »
Because I can't help myself, here's a post I once made on systemic racism and FIRE. Most of it works for institutionalized racism at large.

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/why-this-fire-concept-as-it-exists-is-so-difficult-for-minorities-to-achieve/msg2010910/#msg2010910

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16041
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #219 on: March 02, 2019, 10:05:24 AM »
Thanks for posting that so I didn't need to mathlete.

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1931
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #220 on: March 02, 2019, 04:06:33 PM »
I'm socially very left wing (pro-abortion, anti-religion, pro-refugee, pro-immigration etc) but financially I support low taxes. I also support people taking care of their own shit and not relying on progressive taxation to make society more "equal"

I live in a very economically progressive country (Australia) and it's hard to find anyone who agrees with me on economic issues. Seems like everyone just wants a society that's more equal in outcome, even if that means hand outs.

I could understand some handouts for people who are mentally or physically infirm or who are old and lost their jobs, but it seems to me most Australians have very little work ethic other than to do the bare minimum.

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #221 on: March 03, 2019, 05:49:54 AM »
But to push back so hard that you flat out do not believe there is any institutionalized racism, or any institutionalized gender discrimination inside western society is very extreme. I urge you not to use the ridiculousness of the fringe to reject what the central part of the movement is saying. What's the harm in taking a moment and considering what people are saying? I did it, and it good for my soul.

I don't really believe in institutionalized racism today. It sounds over the top. If anything I see the opposite now but maybe there is a reason for that. These issues are complex. Sure there was institutionalized racism in the past and maybe now due to positive discrimination people that were discriminated against now actually receive positive discrimination and maybe that is okay.

I am in the middle or at least I think I am. My problem is with the extreme leftists. They have labelled me as sexist or racist which is farcical. I'm not pushing back hard as well. Institutionalized racism is a difficult topic. To justify that I'd only really be comfortable if you could prove to me that there were laws against people because of the colour of their skin or their background which now occurs (maybe for a good reason) but in a positive way for minorities.

My opinion is that we have to be rational and be willing to look at the complexity of the situation right now. The comments from the extreme left sound way over the top.

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #222 on: March 03, 2019, 05:55:19 AM »
The problem is that leftists tend to recognize the difference between opinions and facts. The patriarchy is a fact. Institutional racism is a fact

No. This is another example of why this thread was started. The patriarchy and it's influence is a subjective assessment of different cultures. Institutionalised racism is another subjective assessment. Another problem that extreme leftists have is clearly an inability to differentiate between facts and theories. Even within that theory you need to be rational - how bad is the racism for instance.

Okay.  Let's make sure we're looking at objective facts and not "subjective" "theories".

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4984780/
Life expectancy of a black man in America: 72.2 years
Life expectancy of a white man in America: 76.6 years

And you can see it's always been lagging for black men.  So what's the deal there?  Is there a problem in American society of treating black people badly, even since the ages of slavery, that's leading to their shortened life spans?  Or is there a genetic tendency among people with more melanin to die sooner?

Or does it correlate almost perfectly with poverty levels, and black people tend to be limited to the lower income levels that lead to this disparity?

What is your answer, when presented with facts like this, that does not involve a society with is systematically racist in its presumptions about health, education, poverty, access to work and everything else?

Toque.

For your main point maybe they eat more meat as a cultural bias. I'm serious as well. Your strong opinion is honestly to me ridiculous. You have to be able to take a step back and view an issue rationally without filling your head with a pre-programmed spiel.

My response to this is two fold. Firstly is it a big difference in is it significant and if it is why is it occurring and let's work out details. If the details state it's because of overt racism then let's fix that problem. If the reality is because they eat too much meat then let's educate that demographic on that.

I noticed you didn't highlight Mexicans in your statistics and maybe that is because Mexicans eat more beans.

I don't know the answer but I'm not jumping to a conclusion that racism is the cause.

fuzzy math

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1034
  • Age: 38
  • Location: PNW ---> Midwest (for now)
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #223 on: March 03, 2019, 07:27:23 AM »
O_o

For the record Steveo, none of the issues here that everyone seems to have with you are "extreme leftist" points. It seems really that you want to be able to hide under the umbrella of being liberal "hey look at me I'm not racist" when in reality your viewpoints highlight that you consider us all 'other' or different from you. I would challenge you labeling yourself as liberal, in the same way that the conservatives ate Tomi Lerhen for lunch when she espoused pro-choice views. There are a view essential  viewpoints to the Democratic Party and you aren't really passing the entrance exam. Everything you've said here is antithetical to being liberal. You might not see racism, your wife might not see it, but you are assuming that your children of color never will, and that's a pretty bold assumption. Why not fight to make the world a better place for their sake.

If 50 people are telling you the sky is grey, you ought to consider that the sky might actually be that color, even if you can't see it yourself.

Sailor Sam

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4371
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Steel Beach
  • Semper...something
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #224 on: March 03, 2019, 07:40:52 AM »

I am in the middle or at least I think I am. My problem is with the extreme leftists. They have labelled me as sexist or racist which is farcical. I'm not pushing back hard as well. Institutionalized racism is a difficult topic. To justify that I'd only really be comfortable if you could prove to me that there were laws against people because of the colour of their skin or their background which now occurs (maybe for a good reason) but in a positive way for minorities.

I don't quite understand the gist of this paragraph, and I'd like to understand your view point better. Can you elaborate, or restate?


runbikerun

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 539
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #225 on: March 03, 2019, 10:53:21 AM »
"I am in the middle or at least I think I am."

You're not. Not even close.

ericrugiero

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 265
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #226 on: March 03, 2019, 11:37:41 AM »
steveo, here, you make the argument that "extreme leftists" reacted poorly to your factual statement.

The interesting point is that I have been shouted down on here for stating what I think are clearly factual points. I heard Jordan Peterson state recently words to the effect that the idea of the western world being a repressive patriarchy is abhorrent. I completely agree with this comment.

But in recent posts, it now seems to be about a difference in opinion.

Maybe it's not me with the problem. Maybe it's the leftists who can't seem to discuss issues calmly, rationally and with respect for differences of opinion.

The patriarchy and it's influence is a subjective assessment of different cultures. Institutionalised racism is another subjective assessment.

Differences in opinion, subjective assessments. But interestingly enough, you also immediatley flip back to us having a problem identifying objective facts:

Another problem that extreme leftists have is clearly an inability to differentiate between facts and theories. Even within that theory you need to be rational - how bad is the racism for instance.

It's hard to argue against why you think our discourse is so bad because I can't tell whether you genuinely think your beliefs are fact supported while ours are not (I obviously disagree), or whether you think we're just not tolerant enough of differing opinions (which we of course see as denial of objective reality).

So I'm just going argue against the statement below, if you'll allow me. I am a calm person and I'm a rational person, and I think you'll find that reflected in my counterargument.

I don't believe that the western world is a repressive patriarchy. I don't believe that racism is somehow institutionalised within society.

I really want to tackle both issues, but I recognize that it's probably best to stay focused. We've talked more about the patriarchy thing in the last several posts, and I consider institutional racism a virtual slam-dunk anyway, so I'll focus on the patriarchy for now.

The Western World as a Repressive Patriarchy


I'm going to use the following definition of the word patriarchy,

Quote
a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.

and I'm going to use the United States as a proxy for the Western World.

Just 5% of Fortune 500 CEOs are women. 1 Just 21% of congress is female. 2 Every US President and Vice President has been male. For the first time in 2019, more than 10% (18%) of wide release studio films will have a female director at the helm.  3

Personally, I think it should be incumbent on you to explain why such disparities exist, rather than incumbent on me to show that the disparities are driven by a patriarchal society, but I'll do the latter anyway. The first and most obvious reason is simple consequence: The "boy's club" effect. Man have the power and make the rules, so it's impossible for there not to be some level of gate keeping.

Women's suffrage in the United States is only 99 years old. Much of the country was built while explicitly leaving women out of the process. Though it was Federal law, some states didn't ratify the amendment until decades later, which points to lingering hostility towards the idea of women voting even after it became legal.

Title IX, which ended legal discrimination by sex in education, is less than 50 years old. Women have just now reached parity with men when it comes to the attainment of 4 year degrees. 4 Finding more representation in prestige professions and executive leadership is clearly more difficult when you have faced legal or cultural discrimination on your path to higher education.

In addition to explicit, and legislatively permitted gate keeping, there is a large cultural element at play that elevates men at the expense of women. 6 in 10 women report having been sexually harassed, with more than half of them saying that it happened in the workplace. 5 Even pointing out that this is a problem is starting to face a growing backlash in society.

Consider how women of consequence are covered by the media. Everyone knows who Buzz Aldrin is. The world's most famous second place finisher. Comparatively fewer people have heard of Margaret Hamilton, the computer scientist whose software helped put Aldrin and Armstrong on the moon. Watch closely how the news media covers Kirsten Gillibrand, Amy Klobuchar, Kamala Harris, and the other female presidential candidates as the 2020 race heats up. Try and observe how much attention is given to things like emotional temperament, and then compare this to how the same or similar behavior is covered, not covered, or just considered permissible by men. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh had an absolute meltdown in his confirmation hearing, during which he was flippant with Senators, refused to answer questions, and unless you're gullible enough to think that "Devil's Triangle" refers to a drinking game, almost certainly lied. None of this was disqualifying to make him one of the most powerful people in the country. I strongly believe that the public and the media has a blind spot for men when it comes to behavior that would be considered non-permissible for women.

Women struggle for adequate representation in popular media as well. An overwhelming majority of on screen speaking roles in Hollywood are held by men. 6 Male speaking lines dominate Oscar winning films. It's not even close. 7 The popular culture that we make and that we elevate sends a pretty clear message. Most people of consequence are men, while women are relegated to supporting roles. These attitudes are found up and down every facet of our society, and they contribute to the empirical fact that women are underrepresented in positions of power.

---

I'm interested to hear why you either don't think the facts support my conclusion, or in what way I'm irrational or disrespectful. T.I.A.

References:

1https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_women_CEOs_of_Fortune_500_companies

2https://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/women-us-congress-2018

3https://www.thewrap.com/female-director-woman-hollywood-studio-progress-five-times-more-history/

4https://www.statista.com/statistics/184272/educational-attainment-of-college-diploma-or-higher-by-gender/

5http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2018/04/04/sexual-harassment-at-work-in-the-era-of-metoo/

6https://pudding.cool/2017/03/film-dialogue/

7https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXeensjU0AAG5uH.jpg:large

You defined patriarchy above but you didn't define "institutional".  If you mean something that's an official rule I will disagree with you.  If you mean something that happens regularly, I agree that institutional patriarchy (and racism) is an issue.  I have seen women be treated differently because they are women.  This seems to be a much larger effect the higher they rise. 

At the lower levels in my company, they are treated fairly or even given preference.  For example, we were interviewing for an open job and there was an impressive female candidate along with several impressive male candidates.  My boss told me "She was pretty impressive, if she ends up being pretty even with the others we should probably hire her because she is woman." 

On the other hand, our plant manager is woman.  She does a fairly good job overall but she struggles to gain the respect of many of the men who work for her.  I believe this is largely because she is a woman and that reflects very poorly on the men who hold that against her.  It's not something she couldn't overcome but it's also not fair to her.

So, I guess I agree with you that racism and patriarchy both happen in our country on a regular basis and they are both bad.  (The caveat I would add is that sometimes both terms are applied when they are not accurate.) 

The question becomes, what do we do about it?  I don't like the idea of forcing companies to hire a certain percentage or giving an unfair advantage to minorities/women.  The reason is, that is unfair to both the qualified minorities/women and to the people who didn't get the job.  This can make racism/sexism worse rather than better.  For example, if the most qualified candidate is a black woman, people wonder if she got the job because she is a black woman.  This isn't fair to her if she really was the most qualified.  If a white man is the most qualified but doesn't get the job, this can be a tough pill for him to swallow and can lead to hard feelings. 

To me, the only true long term solution is to treat everyone the same regardless of race or sex.  When there is real racism or sexism we all must be willing to speak up.  But, I think that treating someone better just because of their race or sex is also racist and will breed resentment making things worse in the long run. 

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3987
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #227 on: March 03, 2019, 12:10:02 PM »
"To me, the only true long term solution is to treat everyone the same regardless of race or sex.  When there is real racism or sexism we all must be willing to speak up.  But, I think that treating someone better just because of their race or sex is also racist and will breed resentment making things worse in the long run." 

In an ideal world that would be great. That was what MLK spoke about in his speech, imagining a day "that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."  Are we there yet? Not by a long shot. Because say now that black people can vote for example means that there is no other discrimination going on? No. In my state alone, there was a huge amount of gerrymandering done to make it so any individual black vote didn't matter. To the extent the largest African American University in the state, literally had the university cut in half, so half the university voted in one county, half in another, so to reduce the impact of their votes. There are so many examples out there like this.

I see telling black people, yeah yeah, you and your parents and your parents before you (and before that they were slaves) you were discriminated against. And due to that past discrimination you and your children are much less likely to have college educations, home ownership, and equal job opportunities.  And yeah there still is lots of informal discrimination going on, including what kind of name is on your resume, what kind of medical care you get and even whether you are stopped by the police. But, it's against the law now. And we did the bare minimum since it's against the law, so you should be cool with everything.

Kind of like seeing someone standing in a hole that your ancestors dug, and not offering to help them out of the hole because hey, you yourself didn't dig the hole and you don't plan on digging future holes.

I have no problem with colleges and universities wanting to have a more diverse student population, one from multiple backgrounds, and using that as one of many factors to decide who they admit to their college or university.

 

ericrugiero

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 265
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #228 on: March 03, 2019, 01:17:26 PM »
I see your point and I'm not at all opposed to programs to give minorities additional training, scholarships for minorities, or other things like that.  But, if we take it to far it will be counter productive in the long run. 

Tyson

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2512
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #229 on: March 03, 2019, 03:32:56 PM »
I see your point and I'm not at all opposed to programs to give minorities additional training, scholarships for minorities, or other things like that.  But, if we take it to far it will be counter productive in the long run.

We have so far to go before we even get to ‘far enough’ that we really don’t have to worry about ‘too far’ anytime soon. 

Re: steveo, he seems to think that if there are no explicitly racist laws, that systemic racism doesn’t exist.  And, as I predicted, when presented with evidence that racism does exit he simply ignores it and digs his heels in.  Typical of his kind.  He’s the type of person that thinks “hey, I’M not racist, so therefore no one else is either.”  Or “Since I don’t see people in my immediate vicinity engage explicitly racist behavior, racism doesn’t exist.”  He should take a trip to Texas or Georgia or Mississippi and he’d quickly learn how very wrong he is.

FrugalToque

  • Global Moderator
  • Pencil Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 649
  • Location: Canada
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #230 on: March 03, 2019, 08:02:53 PM »
Okay.  Let's make sure we're looking at objective facts and not "subjective" "theories".

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4984780/
Life expectancy of a black man in America: 72.2 years
Life expectancy of a white man in America: 76.6 years

And you can see it's always been lagging for black men.  So what's the deal there?  Is there a problem in American society of treating black people badly, even since the ages of slavery, that's leading to their shortened life spans?  Or is there a genetic tendency among people with more melanin to die sooner?

Or does it correlate almost perfectly with poverty levels, and black people tend to be limited to the lower income levels that lead to this disparity?

What is your answer, when presented with facts like this, that does not involve a society with is systematically racist in its presumptions about health, education, poverty, access to work and everything else?

Toque.

For your main point maybe they eat more meat as a cultural bias. I'm serious as well. Your strong opinion is honestly to me ridiculous. You have to be able to take a step back and view an issue rationally without filling your head with a pre-programmed spiel.

My response to this is two fold. Firstly is it a big difference in is it significant and if it is why is it occurring and let's work out details. If the details state it's because of overt racism then let's fix that problem. If the reality is because they eat too much meat then let's educate that demographic on that.

I noticed you didn't highlight Mexicans in your statistics and maybe that is because Mexicans eat more beans.

I don't know the answer but I'm not jumping to a conclusion that racism is the cause.

I gave you facts.  You made up a story about meat.

Here's another fact: when black children and white children come into the ER, regardless of their reporting of pain levels, the black children are less likely to be given pain medication, and are less likely to be given strong pain medication?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26366984
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:
Appendicitis pain is undertreated in pediatrics, and racial disparities with respect to analgesia administration exist. Black children are less likely to receive any pain medication for moderate pain and less likely to receive opioids for severe pain, suggesting a different threshold for treatment.

Might this obvious fact of racism indicate to you that doctors generally treat black people poorly?  Generally ignore their pain? Wouldn't that be a more likely cause of their shortened life expectancy than "they eat more meat"?

You somehow have tricked yourself into thinking you have some kind of superior, objective point of view, yet you reply to objective facts with stories to support your biases.

Toque.

middo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1095
  • Location: Country Western Australia
  • Learning.
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #231 on: March 03, 2019, 08:48:06 PM »
Okay.  Let's make sure we're looking at objective facts and not "subjective" "theories".

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4984780/
Life expectancy of a black man in America: 72.2 years
Life expectancy of a white man in America: 76.6 years

And you can see it's always been lagging for black men.  So what's the deal there?  Is there a problem in American society of treating black people badly, even since the ages of slavery, that's leading to their shortened life spans?  Or is there a genetic tendency among people with more melanin to die sooner?

Or does it correlate almost perfectly with poverty levels, and black people tend to be limited to the lower income levels that lead to this disparity?

What is your answer, when presented with facts like this, that does not involve a society with is systematically racist in its presumptions about health, education, poverty, access to work and everything else?

Toque.

For your main point maybe they eat more meat as a cultural bias. I'm serious as well. Your strong opinion is honestly to me ridiculous. You have to be able to take a step back and view an issue rationally without filling your head with a pre-programmed spiel.

My response to this is two fold. Firstly is it a big difference in is it significant and if it is why is it occurring and let's work out details. If the details state it's because of overt racism then let's fix that problem. If the reality is because they eat too much meat then let's educate that demographic on that.

I noticed you didn't highlight Mexicans in your statistics and maybe that is because Mexicans eat more beans.

I don't know the answer but I'm not jumping to a conclusion that racism is the cause.

I gave you facts.  You made up a story about meat.

Here's another fact: when black children and white children come into the ER, regardless of their reporting of pain levels, the black children are less likely to be given pain medication, and are less likely to be given strong pain medication?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26366984
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:
Appendicitis pain is undertreated in pediatrics, and racial disparities with respect to analgesia administration exist. Black children are less likely to receive any pain medication for moderate pain and less likely to receive opioids for severe pain, suggesting a different threshold for treatment.

Might this obvious fact of racism indicate to you that doctors generally treat black people poorly?  Generally ignore their pain? Wouldn't that be a more likely cause of their shortened life expectancy than "they eat more meat"?

You somehow have tricked yourself into thinking you have some kind of superior, objective point of view, yet you reply to objective facts with stories to support your biases.

Toque.

Racism and Sexism go a lot further than this.  People who think they are not racist or sexist still make decisions when hiring to hire someone who is most like them, as they see themselves as competent.  This causes difficulties for minorities (in the field of employment) to get employment and to get promotions.

Source: http://gap.hks.harvard.edu/orchestrating-impartiality-impact-%E2%80%9Cblind%E2%80%9D-auditions-female-musicians


steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #232 on: March 03, 2019, 11:30:02 PM »
steveo, here, you make the argument that "extreme leftists" reacted poorly to your factual statement.
...
But in recent posts, it now seems to be about a difference in opinion.

I hope this makes sense to you but I'll rephrase it to try and clarify. There is a difference in opinion and because I have a difference in opinion to leftists (I think extreme is a fair word) then I get personally attacked. You just have to read some of the comments here to see that. If you can't see it that is cool but I definitely feel that comments like misogynist and narcissist are over the top.

I have no problems with your post here because I don't see the personal attacks.

you also immediatley flip back to us having a problem identifying objective facts:

An objective fact is something that is clearly defined and proven. Some of the statistics used in this thread are not objective facts. If I was going to play that game it's really simple. I just state men commit suicide more than women and that is proof of the matriarchy and that men are discriminated against. I don't believe this but it is the exact same argument being used throughout this thread. The issue of male suicide is complex just like other societal issues.

It's hard to argue against why you think our discourse is so bad because I can't tell whether you genuinely think your beliefs are fact supported while ours are not (I obviously disagree), or whether you think we're just not tolerant enough of differing opinions (which we of course see as denial of objective reality).

This is tough. I don't believe either of our beliefs can be proven with statistical analyses.

So I'm just going argue against the statement below, if you'll allow me. I am a calm person and I'm a rational person, and I think you'll find that reflected in my counterargument.

I like calm.

Just 5% of Fortune 500 CEOs are women. 1 Just 21% of congress is female. 2 Every US President and Vice President has been male. For the first time in 2019, more than 10% (18%) of wide release studio films will have a female director at the helm.  3

I get it. It appears as if women are discriminated against if you use the right statistics. I believe though the issue is much more complex than what you state. A good example is your comment that the number of female directors in charge has increased. The world has changed a lot. At some point women couldn't vote. Up until very recently gay people couldn't get legally married. These instances of institutionalized racism/sexism/bigotry are only slowly being amended. The problem is that it takes time to turn the ship around in these instances. You don't just go out and change a law and then everything changes. There are cultural factors involved as well. My example of black people eating more meat is a good one. Beans are one of the healthiest foods in the planet and Mexicans tend to eat them whereas I don't believe black people do but black people may eat more meat.

https://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-hispanic-paradox-why-do-latinos-live-longer/

Quote
Hispanics living in the United States tend to have less education, a higher poverty rate, and worse access to health care. They represent, like, the ultimate paradigm of health care disparities. The highest rate of uninsured, the lowest rates of health screening and counseling, and the poorest levels of blood pressure and blood sugar control, and other measures of deficient quality of care. So, wow, Hispanics living in the U.S. must just have dismal public health statistics, right?

According to the latest national data, the life expectancy of white men and women was 76 and 81. The lives of black men and women, cut short by years. How do Hispanics do? Amazingly, they beat out everyone. Hispanics live the longest.

This has been called the Hispanic Paradox. Hispanics have a 24% lower risk of premature death, and lower risks of 9 out of the leading 15 causes of death—notably less cancer and heart disease. This was first noticed 30 years ago, but understandably met with great criticism.

More men than women may want the big job. More men may do a better job than women. People get to vote and if they don't vote for a female maybe that is just societies call on how they view the candidate. Maybe better female candidates will come along over time. The point is trying to simplify complex issues into a simple statement about the patriarchy and racism etc is not in my opinion good enough.

Personally, I think it should be incumbent on you to explain why such disparities exist, rather than incumbent on me to show that the disparities are driven by a patriarchal society, but I'll do the latter anyway. The first and most obvious reason is simple consequence: The "boy's club" effect. Man have the power and make the rules, so it's impossible for there not to be some level of gate keeping.

I read the rest of this and you are stating similar facts to myself.

Consider how women of consequence are covered by the media.

You are right but it's not a patriarchal decision. It's you and me and everyone else voting with their actions. For some reason LeBron James sells more tickets/media attention etc than do women working as computer scientists.

My mum's friend (a female) is a fantastic scientist. She is a gun in her field. Unfortunately the vast mass of society don't care.

These attitudes are found up and down every facet of our society, and they contribute to the empirical fact that women are underrepresented in positions of power.

I get it. The difference in our thinking is that you blame the patriarchy whereas I state well that is what society currently chooses. It's people making their own little decisions over time and it's really tough to turn things around quickly.

I'm interested to hear why you either don't think the facts support my conclusion, or in what way I'm irrational or disrespectful. T.I.A.

I hope I answered your comments fairly enough within a post on an Internet forum. I definitely don't view you as irrational or disrespectful.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2019, 03:29:05 AM by steveo »

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #233 on: March 03, 2019, 11:42:39 PM »
O_o

For the record Steveo, none of the issues here that everyone seems to have with you are "extreme leftist" points. It seems really that you want to be able to hide under the umbrella of being liberal "hey look at me I'm not racist" when in reality your viewpoints highlight that you consider us all 'other' or different from you. I would challenge you labeling yourself as liberal, in the same way that the conservatives ate Tomi Lerhen for lunch when she espoused pro-choice views. There are a view essential  viewpoints to the Democratic Party and you aren't really passing the entrance exam. Everything you've said here is antithetical to being liberal. You might not see racism, your wife might not see it, but you are assuming that your children of color never will, and that's a pretty bold assumption. Why not fight to make the world a better place for their sake.

If 50 people are telling you the sky is grey, you ought to consider that the sky might actually be that color, even if you can't see it yourself.

I think we should just drop the labels. It'd make things a whole bunch easier. If 1000 people told me the sun was black it wouldn't make it true. Another point I'd make is that I've never said racism and sexism and all sorts of hateful crap exists. I accept it exists. One other problem I've noticed is you guys trying to put words into my mouth.

I'd state another couple of points:-

1. Western society today is pretty darn good compared to the past. If you don't believe this go and read the book Sapiens. You could also compare western society to for instance a society that the Taliban wants to implement.
2. Western society is not a repressive patriarchy. People get to vote, get married if they want too, watch what they want on TV, read what they want and basically live their lives on their own terms. If this is repression well it's better than in lots of other parts of the world.
3. Western society has changed a lot and further changes will occur in the future.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2019, 12:20:05 AM by steveo »

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #234 on: March 03, 2019, 11:46:06 PM »
To me, the only true long term solution is to treat everyone the same regardless of race or sex.  When there is real racism or sexism we all must be willing to speak up.  But, I think that treating someone better just because of their race or sex is also racist and will breed resentment making things worse in the long run.

The problem that extreme leftists have is that want to rule by quota. All of the statistics utilised above are based on the assumption that a fair and equitable society would have no differences.

There will of course be issues and changing society is hard. I agree that we can all stand up and act without being hate filled bigots. I am okay with some form of positive discrimination but I think it can make things worse as well. It's a very very tough situation and I'm not sure it even works.

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #235 on: March 03, 2019, 11:48:36 PM »
I see your point and I'm not at all opposed to programs to give minorities additional training, scholarships for minorities, or other things like that.  But, if we take it to far it will be counter productive in the long run.

We have so far to go before we even get to ‘far enough’ that we really don’t have to worry about ‘too far’ anytime soon. 

Re: steveo, he seems to think that if there are no explicitly racist laws, that systemic racism doesn’t exist.  And, as I predicted, when presented with evidence that racism does exit he simply ignores it and digs his heels in.  Typical of his kind.  He’s the type of person that thinks “hey, I’M not racist, so therefore no one else is either.”  Or “Since I don’t see people in my immediate vicinity engage explicitly racist behavior, racism doesn’t exist.”  He should take a trip to Texas or Georgia or Mississippi and he’d quickly learn how very wrong he is.

This is really weird and it's exactly what I am talking about. The proof that was provided is really poor proof and I can simply state men die younger than women on average hence insert your buzzword here.

I have never said racism and sexism doesn't exist. I accept that it does. There are some weird people out there.

Maybe you should try and not put words into my mouth and get so worked up when we should be discussing an issue rationally and sanely. Let me talk for me and you can talk for you.

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #236 on: March 03, 2019, 11:54:24 PM »
I gave you facts.  You made up a story about meat.

Which may actually be true. Read the post above regarding hispanics. It has facts in it as well.

Here's another fact: when black children and white children come into the ER, regardless of their reporting of pain levels, the black children are less likely to be given pain medication, and are less likely to be given strong pain medication?

I read these links. To me they aren't helping your case one little bit. It just seems like you are grasping for anything and it's not working.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:
Appendicitis pain is undertreated in pediatrics, and racial disparities with respect to analgesia administration exist. Black children are less likely to receive any pain medication for moderate pain and less likely to receive opioids for severe pain, suggesting a different threshold for treatment.

Might this obvious fact of racism indicate to you that doctors generally treat black people poorly?  Generally ignore their pain? Wouldn't that be a more likely cause of their shortened life expectancy than "they eat more meat"?

Maybe but I don't think so. Your links are pretty poor statements of proof to back up your opinions. Would anyone really look at this and state well racism is institutionalised in medical care and we live in a repressive patriarchy. Honestly I think you need to set the bar a little higher than that.

You somehow have tricked yourself into thinking you have some kind of superior, objective point of view, yet you reply to objective facts with stories to support your biases.

Really. I think that you should be looking at yourself here. I see these terrible studies that even disprove your argument but you sound so confident. I'll give you a hint - men die on average younger than women. That is part of your study and it doesn't support the viewpoint that we live in a repressive patriarchy. I honestly don't think that you can do better because I think you've set yourself up for failure. Your viewpoint is too simplistic and black and white and western society (and other societies) are complex. You may have a point to a degree and I'm more than willing to get on board with a less extreme viewpoint.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_differences_in_suicide
https://www.statista.com/statistics/274513/life-expectancy-in-north-america/

You can judge the facts that I've provided but I think they are a lot better than your facts because they are much more clearly defined on specific broader issues. Trying to extrapolate out your broad theories based on less pain medicine being given out to me just doesn't cut it. I'll also state that I'm not stating that men are discriminated against but of course some men will be discriminated against.

My point is that the world is complex and there are lots of reasons why certain situations have evolved today.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2019, 12:02:38 AM by steveo »

mjr

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 418
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Brisbane, Qld
  • Retired at 52
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #237 on: March 04, 2019, 12:36:32 AM »
I just want to give @steveo my 100% support for his reasoned arguments instead of statistics wars by people who use stats as weapons without conducting  extensive multi-variant analysis to back up their conclusion.

The modern western world is a great place and getting better.  I don't know why the perpetually outraged are perpetually outraged.

runbikerun

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 539
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #238 on: March 04, 2019, 01:55:05 AM »
I just want to give @steveo my 100% support for his reasoned arguments instead of statistics wars by people who use stats as weapons without conducting  extensive multi-variant analysis to back up their conclusion.

The modern western world is a great place and getting better.  I don't know why the perpetually outraged are perpetually outraged.

10/10, excellent trolling.

FrugalToque

  • Global Moderator
  • Pencil Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 649
  • Location: Canada
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #239 on: March 04, 2019, 06:43:11 AM »
Here's another fact: when black children and white children come into the ER, regardless of their reporting of pain levels, the black children are less likely to be given pain medication, and are less likely to be given strong pain medication?

I read these links. To me they aren't helping your case one little bit. It just seems like you are grasping for anything and it's not working.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:
Appendicitis pain is undertreated in pediatrics, and racial disparities with respect to analgesia administration exist. Black children are less likely to receive any pain medication for moderate pain and less likely to receive opioids for severe pain, suggesting a different threshold for treatment.

Might this obvious fact of racism indicate to you that doctors generally treat black people poorly?  Generally ignore their pain? Wouldn't that be a more likely cause of their shortened life expectancy than "they eat more meat"?

Maybe but I don't think so. Your links are pretty poor statements of proof to back up your opinions. Would anyone really look at this and state well racism is institutionalised in medical care and we live in a repressive patriarchy. Honestly I think you need to set the bar a little higher than that.

I'm ignoring everything else you posted because it's unrelated to the question.

Does the fact that, across the board, the institution of health care has a statistically significant disregard for the pain of black people indicate an institutional, possibly subconscious, bias against black people?

That's the question.  Nothing else matters here except that you admit that black people face an institutional barrier in this particular situation.  If you are unable to do that, despite clear evidence that it is the case, there is no point discussing anything related to this matter with you.

Toque.

sherr

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1074
  • Age: 35
  • Location: North Carolina, USA
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #240 on: March 04, 2019, 07:45:58 AM »
liberals are anti religious. Most people I know are liberal. Some go to church, some go to a synagogue. I had my kids go to a preschool at a Methodist church where they did talk about God. Overall I find liberal people pretty tolerant (heck, that's what makes them liberals!).

There are two exceptions. Many liberal people, including myself, are intolerant of evangelicalism. This is the kind of religion that yes tries to shove their version of Christianity down everyone's throat including remaking the government in their image. It's what got us in NC the bathroom law (transgenders cannot use the bathroom of the gender they identify with, but only the sex that is on their birth certificate), along with a bunch of other depressing stuff I don't want to get into. It's why people like Roy Moore get elected again, and again, even though he got disbarred for not following state and Federal laws, and advising others not to do so, under the guise of "religious freedom". I don't see being intolerance of evangelicals, as being anti-religious. They are two different things. If I wanted to live in a theocracy, I'd move to Saudi Arabia.

2nd, I admit there is a small subset of people, who are almost evangelical atheists. That not only do they have to tell you they are atheists, but that anyone who believes in God or goes to Church is stupid, idiot, irrational, what have you. Those people are not respectful. Most people I know who are like this do NOT identify with being Liberals, but identify as being libertarians (not always, assholes come in all forms and they could be from almost any part of the political spectrum, including Republican. They are almost always white males...) I would NOT lump libertarians in with Liberals. two different things.  Next time you see someone virilently atheistic, before you assume they are a "liberal" ask them what their political stance is.

I understand where you are coming from.  Some Christians don't do a good job of showing love and being respectful to others.  It's hard to have other people's beliefs shoved down your throat.  But, there is a balance.  Penn Jillette (from Penn & Teller) who is an atheist, had this to say about a Christian who witnessed to him.  I'm quoting him because he says it much better than I could. 

Jillette, moved by the man’s gesture, recalled: “He was kind, and nice, and sane, and looked me in the eyes, and talked to me, and then gave me this Bible.”
“I’ve always said,” Jillette explained, “I don’t respect people who don’t proselytize. I don’t respect that at all. If you believe there is a heaven and hell, and people could be going to hell or not getting eternal life or whatever, and you think it’s not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward.
“How much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to hate someone to believe everlasting life is possible and not tell them that?”
Jillette then offered this example to illustrate his point: “If I believed, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that a truck was coming at you, and you didn’t believe it, that that truck was bearing down on you, there’s a certain point that I tackle you, and this is more important than that.”
“This guy was a really good guy. He was polite, honest, and sane, and he cared enough about me to proselytize and give me a Bible.”

As a Christian, I want you to know about Jesus because I don't want you to go to hell.  It's not about judging you or forcing you to live a certain way.  Sin is wrong and the Bible is very clear that certain behaviors are sin.  But, I believe we are ALL sinners so I don't have room to look down on anyone else.  If I truly love you, I should be looking for opportunities to witness, but I should do it in a manner like Penn described.

I just wanted to point out that this post entirely missed the point. There is an obvious difference between proselytizing and "legislating your religion." No one was complaining about proselytizing. "Other people's beliefs shoved down your throat" was referring to the Evangelicals' habit of legislating "Christian Sharia Law" (to use a term that might resonate with Evangelicals) to force everyone else to act like they want them to.

OurTown

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1246
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Tennessee
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #241 on: March 04, 2019, 08:03:20 AM »
Leaving aside the racist propaganda component of modern conservatism for a moment, I would like to observe that most of us in the FIRE movement are actually quite "conservative" in how we live our own lives in the sense that we take responsibility for our own outcomes and we make proactive choices to better our lot in life.  E.G., live below your means, choose things that make you happy rather than following the herd, invest instead of spend, etc.

Where we run into trouble, I think, is insisting that everyone else also adpot a "conservative" mindset, or at least that everyone else be judged by a "conservative" standard.  To put it in simplistic terms, "I worked hard, got a job, made my income, and saved my pennies, and if you squandered your life it's your own damn fault so no food-stamps for you!" 

Maybe the right answer is to apply a mindset of conservatism to ourselves and liberalism to others.  That sounds pretty well-adjusted.  Thoughts?       

Watchmaker

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 728
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #242 on: March 04, 2019, 08:05:41 AM »
I'd state another couple of points:-

1. Western society today is pretty darn good compared to the past. If you don't believe this go and read the book Sapiens. You could also compare western society to for instance a society that the Taliban wants to implement.
2. Western society is not a repressive patriarchy. People get to vote, get married if they want too, watch what they want on TV, read what they want and basically live their lives on their own terms. If this is repression well it's better than in lots of other parts of the world.
3. Western society has changed a lot and further changes will occur in the future.

1. I agree. And I think everyone involved in this conversation would agree with at least the first sentence.
2. I disagree, but I don't think we're actually that far apart. (I'll explain in a second.)
3. I also agree, and again I think everyone here would.

Back to point 2. You said:
You are right but it's not a patriarchal decision. It's you and me and everyone else voting with their actions. For some reason LeBron James sells more tickets/media attention etc than do women working as computer scientists.
...
I get it. The difference in our thinking is that you blame the patriarchy whereas I state well that is what society currently chooses. It's people making their own little decisions over time and it's really tough to turn things around quickly.

To me, it sounds like we are actually all talking about the same thing.

When you hear that society is a repressive patriarchy, you are thinking that what is being said is that there is some outside entity trying to force or manipulate people to behave a certain way (e.g. be sexist).

But that's not what people are trying to say. No one thinks the problem is some cabal of evil men who actively and intentionally prevent women from being CEOs at large companies and trick people into watching LeBron James.

"You and me and everyone else" are Western society and our "own little decisions" add up to what we're describing as a repressive patriarchy. Men/women/liberals/conservatives--everyone in our society is a participant or victim (oftentimes both) of this subtle accumulation of individual behaviors.

You and I agree sexism and racism exist. And you and I agree that the individual choices people make contribute to those problems existing. Patriarchy is just a word used to describe exactly what we agree the problem is. So what exactly do we disagree on?

ixtap

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2217
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #243 on: March 04, 2019, 08:13:30 AM »
Here's another fact: when black children and white children come into the ER, regardless of their reporting of pain levels, the black children are less likely to be given pain medication, and are less likely to be given strong pain medication?

I read these links. To me they aren't helping your case one little bit. It just seems like you are grasping for anything and it's not working.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:
Appendicitis pain is undertreated in pediatrics, and racial disparities with respect to analgesia administration exist. Black children are less likely to receive any pain medication for moderate pain and less likely to receive opioids for severe pain, suggesting a different threshold for treatment.

Might this obvious fact of racism indicate to you that doctors generally treat black people poorly?  Generally ignore their pain? Wouldn't that be a more likely cause of their shortened life expectancy than "they eat more meat"?

Maybe but I don't think so. Your links are pretty poor statements of proof to back up your opinions. Would anyone really look at this and state well racism is institutionalised in medical care and we live in a repressive patriarchy. Honestly I think you need to set the bar a little higher than that.

I'm ignoring everything else you posted because it's unrelated to the question.

Does the fact that, across the board, the institution of health care has a statistically significant disregard for the pain of black people indicate an institutional, possibly subconscious, bias against black people?

That's the question.  Nothing else matters here except that you admit that black people face an institutional barrier in this particular situation.  If you are unable to do that, despite clear evidence that it is the case, there is no point discussing anything related to this matter with you.

Toque.

Part of the problem is in recognizing that institutional racism refers to ingrained processes that are inherently racist; it has nothing to do with be explicitly racist. This is a good case in point. The end result is racist even though their is no policy stating not to give the same treatment to certain minorities.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16041
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #244 on: March 04, 2019, 08:19:59 AM »
We also have discussed the racist voter id laws in this thread pretty thoroughly.  They fall into a similar category - not explicitly written to disadvantage people of colour, but designed entirely to disadvantage people of colour.

sherr

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1074
  • Age: 35
  • Location: North Carolina, USA
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #245 on: March 04, 2019, 08:39:49 AM »
Leaving aside the racist propaganda component of modern conservatism for a moment, I would like to observe that most of us in the FIRE movement are actually quite "conservative" in how we live our own lives in the sense that we take responsibility for our own outcomes and we make proactive choices to better our lot in life.  E.G., live below your means, choose things that make you happy rather than following the herd, invest instead of spend, etc.

Where we run into trouble, I think, is insisting that everyone else also adpot a "conservative" mindset, or at least that everyone else be judged by a "conservative" standard.  To put it in simplistic terms, "I worked hard, got a job, made my income, and saved my pennies, and if you squandered your life it's your own damn fault so no food-stamps for you!" 

Maybe the right answer is to apply a mindset of conservatism to ourselves and liberalism to others.  That sounds pretty well-adjusted.  Thoughts?       

I disagree that exercising self-control and being good with money are "conservative" traits. Conservatives / liberals disagree on what standard to demand of other people and/or how best to help those who need it. Everyone is in favor of such generic concepts as making yourself personally disciplined and fiscally responsible.

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1578
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #246 on: March 04, 2019, 08:50:47 AM »
More men than women may want the big job. More men may do a better job than women. People get to vote and if they don't vote for a female maybe that is just societies call on how they view the candidate. Maybe better female candidates will come along over time. The point is trying to simplify complex issues into a simple statement about the patriarchy and racism etc is not in my opinion good enough.

At the risk of sounding immodest, I've made probably the most full and complete post in this entire thread. The charge that I am trying to over-simply a complicated seems unfounded to me.

I pointed at a result (let's do "few female congresspeople, no female presidents") and gave two, super concrete factors that help explain that result. Women being denied the franchise until early last century, and women facing legal discrimination in education until the 1970s are strong barriers to women entering public office. And the fact that both of these have existed for more than half the country's lifetime probably contributed to male-favored institutions.

The biggest issue that I take though, is that your alternative explanations don't pass the smell test.

Quote
Maybe better female candidates will come along over time.

This doesn't explain 45 straight male presidents (and almost not female major candidates) unless you think women are orders of magnitude less capable than men.

Quote
People get to vote and if they don't vote for a female maybe that is just societies call on how they view the candidate.

Yes. And a society that views male candidates as preferable on such a consistent, historical basis might just be described as patriarchal.

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1578
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #247 on: March 04, 2019, 08:57:48 AM »
I am more than willing to concede that the natural equilibrium we reach in a perfectly egalitarian society may not be 50/50. Men and women are different. Some women give birth to babies whereas men do not. This probably makes career advancement a little more difficult. Personally I think we should try to accommodate this better, but either way, maybe that's enough to explain why we won't get to 50/50 in many careers.

But to look at 95/5 (Fortune 500 CEOs) or 77/23 and deny that there is anything systemic or institutionalized going on here seems silly to me.


GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16041
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #248 on: March 04, 2019, 09:02:28 AM »
Quote
Maybe better female candidates will come along over time.

This doesn't explain 45 straight male presidents (and almost not female major candidates) unless you think women are orders of magnitude less capable than men.

To be fair, it has only been 16 men in a row elected since women were given the right to vote.

Tyson

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2512
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #249 on: March 04, 2019, 09:03:22 AM »
Leaving aside the racist propaganda component of modern conservatism for a moment, I would like to observe that most of us in the FIRE movement are actually quite "conservative" in how we live our own lives in the sense that we take responsibility for our own outcomes and we make proactive choices to better our lot in life.  E.G., live below your means, choose things that make you happy rather than following the herd, invest instead of spend, etc.

Where we run into trouble, I think, is insisting that everyone else also adopt a "conservative" mindset, or at least that everyone else be judged by a "conservative" standard.  To put it in simplistic terms, "I worked hard, got a job, made my income, and saved my pennies, and if you squandered your life it's your own damn fault so no food-stamps for you!" 

Maybe the right answer is to apply a mindset of conservatism to ourselves and liberalism to others.  That sounds pretty well-adjusted.  Thoughts?       

I agree with you.  20 years ago, I had the same mindset - ie, "I am the one that worked hard, got a good education and got a good job, so screw you if you didn't make it like I did."

What I didn't realize at the time, but I do now, is that both of these statements are true:

1. It's VERY HARD to make it in America
2. It's EVEN HARDER for a minority to make it than it is a white person

Now I understand that both are true because the playing field is tilted against minorities (and women).  And if we're truly concerned with justice or fairness, we should address the fact that the playing field i tilted.   
« Last Edit: March 04, 2019, 09:42:36 AM by tyort1 »