ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 5th October 2017, 09:09 AM   #801
Dipayan
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 606
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
This is the point I am making: 'privilege' is a loaded term, and carries a needless accusation of entitlement. Saying 'check your privilege' becomes the equivalent of 'shut up, whitey, you have so many undeserved gifts lavished upon you that your input is irrelevant'. I don't think any real progress can come from using antagonistic language.
I agree, and I am open to using any alternative term to have this discussion. Since you seem to agree to 'advantage', let's stick to that.

Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
Comparing an overwhelming majority to the very small subset, being relative to the subset is a little out of whack, would you agree? To use a previous analogy, saying that people with two legs are privileged, or even advantaged, over double amputees is kind of a pointless distinction, no?
I would actually disagree here. People with two legs do have societal advantages over double amputees. Till very recently wheelchair ramps were not mandatory in buildings. Do people like us with two healthy legs spend even a second wondering whether a building has an access point? Double amputees would, I assume, have to think through their plans to ensure that they have options of access. Isn't that an advantage we enjoy, without even realizing it?

What about the fact that we have superior choices of mobility, since double amputees cannot drive? Doesn't that mean we would be able to go for more job interviews thus ensuring that given the same percentage chance of securing a job, a double amputee will take much longer than one who is not?

Because of the first point, double amputees might feel more comfortable staying at home and not getting out much. The universal take-out from this over time could become 'Double amputees like to stay at home', and that becomes a stereotype, even though it was a result of unconscious social pressures. In the second point, if a double amputee disagrees with a bipedal human on the amount of time required to get a job, they could be correct without it having any tones of discrimination. But given that their collective experience is different bipedals would find it difficult to believe them.

In both these cases, identifying and acknowledging these unplanned advantages (for bipedals)/disadvantages (for double amputees) can help us in rectifying/assuaging them which could be in the form of legislation in ensuring all buildings have wheelchair access, or in the form of education that informs double amputees that they need to add a buffer to the common job search duration, or maybe even through innovation like self-driving cars that provide mobility to all.

Disclaimer: Please note that if the double amputee is Michael Jordan then obviously his life will be much easier than 99% of the people with both limbs. I am talking about the group and not individuals. Also, the situations I have put down are just to illustrate a point - I am not saying these are real-world everyday problems faced by the double amputee population.

Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
Except in a count-your-blessings kind of way. But is that the point of discussing white privilege, for blacks to say 'count your blessings?
'Privilege' is used in a very aggressive and confrontational manner nowadays, mostly to stop conversation. But in my head, recognizing these advantages that groups can have without design, unknowingly, is useful to understand how better to create equitable opportunity situations.

Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
Yes, the judges as you describe them show a pretty clear preferential bias, and likely outright sex discrimination. That is a problem. It is not evidence of society-wide advantage, though. More like cold-busted discrimination by a small, specialized group.
But the judges were part of society. And this did not happen in just one random location, but remained true across the globe till screen auditions became the norm. It is easier to look back at moments of inequity and say 'This happened because of outright discrimination', but the reality is that people are generally good. And they like to see themselves and show themselves as good. I am sure all the judges actually believed they were being completely fair.

Consider the debate involving women in top corporate positions. The current viewpoint is that as a group women don't want leadership positions because they are less competitive than men (biology). Compare this to 'women don't make great wind instrument players because they don't have as strong lungs as men' (biology). Just like people can debate that there are women in top spots today which pooh-poohs the 'anti-women' conspiracies, people back then could point out that there were women playing wind instruments in orchestras even before screen auditions.

Now I don't believe that we need more women in CXO positions because I think that is a stupid objective to have. I also think equal representation as a goal is extremely misguided. At the same time, I can also look at the similarities of the above arguments and ponder the possibility of a society wide advantage that can result in certain outcomes.

Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
Sure can. In different directions, too. In the context OTT: blacks claim whites have special privileges because of the actions of some stereotypical bigots. Fair?
I am sorry but I am not able to parse this. Could you please rephrase?
Dipayan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2017, 09:38 AM   #802
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,857
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
Interesting anecdotes. In 98% Muslim Iran, I would say they exist in the neutral state, and you were at a disadvantage. I would not view this as you being neutral, and 98% of the country as privileged.
I know I snipped a lot, this is the part that caught my interest most. It seems as if our disagreement is one of anchoring - where you define the point from which to measure. It seems that unless it's a specifically identifiable explicitly granted privilege, than you're defining that as the 'starting' point, then measuring disparate experiences as disadvantages. I can definitely understand that perspective - it is one of the commonly accepted definition of the word privilege:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/privilege
Quote:
the principle or condition of enjoying special rights or immunities
In this context, I'm using the term in it's sociological fashion, as a short hand for social inequalities that tend to be subconscious and unintentional, but still result in disadvantages for a group of people on the basis of a non-merit attribute, such as skin color, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privil...al_inequality)

In the example given by Dipayan, you're reading the experience of Muslims as normal, and the experience of non-Muslims as disadvantaged. Diapayan is reading the experience of Muslims as advantaged (or privileged) above the experiences of non-Muslims. The concept at play is the same - they both result in one group having a set of advantaged or disadvantages relative to the other group, on the basis of something that is predominantly outside the control of the group.

The same concept holds true in the context of this thread: On average, black people are at a disadvantage socially relative to white people. Alternatively, we could say that white people have an advantage (privilege) relative to black people in the US on average. Likewise we could say that women are at a social disadvantage relative to men... or we could say that men have a social advantage (privilege) relative to women in general.

It's the same concept, just depends on where you stand when you start measuring 5>3 is the same as 3<5.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2017, 09:39 AM   #803
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,857
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
This has been my argument all along, though I would tack on 'privilege' to the harmful phraseology list.
There's definitely some emotional loading.


Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
Yes.
Fair enough. Can you expand on why you consider it sexism?
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2017, 09:41 AM   #804
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,857
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
The difference is that being disadvantaged does not automatically mean that the majority is privileged. The majority is just neutral. Being a Bush or a Kennedy brings on the privilege.
Alright. Let's shift gears a wee bit. Do you think that in general, in US society, women are at a social disadvantage relative to men?
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2017, 10:37 AM   #805
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,857
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
Yes, I'll cop to that. That he is male nurse is novel enough in terms of my experience and upbringing that I would really notice it.

Yes, I could see that, too. It's not a big deal, but you notice it. I would be dishonest to say otherwise.
This makes a good starting point then, let's work from here.

From my perspective, the fact that it is noteworthy and/or comment-worthy is indicative of a social expectation wrapped around the job role of nurse, relative to the gender role of man. You don't have any ill will, and it's not a big deal to you, nor to most people. Because of this, I don't see it as sexism - there's no active discrimination, there's no purposeful intent. You don't really think any less of a man who is a nurse... once you finish mentally processing it. But you do take a moment longer to process it - to fit the idea of 'male' and 'nurse' into the same bucket. You have an implicit association of 'nurse' with 'woman', would you say that's true?

I'm going to continue on with the assumption that you'd agree with that last statement. If you don't then go ahead and stop here, and let's talk about what you disagree with and why.

That association creates, at least momentarily, a bit of dissonance in the mind of the observer. It's a contradiction between what we expect and what we experience. We form expectations based on experience... but it's not necessarily personal experience. Our expectations are also formed by what we're told by other people (especially as children), what we see in TV and movies, what we read in books, and what we observe around us. Most of the nurses that we see on TV are female. Most of what we hear when other people talk about their nurses are feminine pronouns. We form an expectation of nurses as female.

When we run across a male nurse, it adds a layer of interaction that is absent when confronted with a female nurse - gender. When we're being seen by a female nurse, the fact that she is female is irrelevant. It has no bearing on our interaction at all. We give it no thought. When presented with a male nurse, however, we take note of his maleness - a trait that we don't associate with nurses, a trait that is at odds with our expectation of nurses. We, as a society, are more likely to ask him why he decided to go into nursing. We don't feel that same degree of curiosity about a female - she's just a nurse, he is a male nurse. In general, he isn't seen as 'just a nurse', he's seen as something unusual, out of norm, different... and it has nothing at all to do with his knowledge, skill, or bedside manner. It has only to do with his gender. His gender makes him unusual, and it is his gender that people take note of. He can be just as skilled as his female counterpart, but the perception of his skill will have an additional layer of interpretation incorporated as we try to fit him into our mental compartment of 'nurse'.

Here's where some imagination and empathy is called for. Bear with me, and just walk through the scenarios.

Imagine that you're a nurse, and that you're male. Imagine that you're relatively new on the job, and you go in to see a patient. The patient does a short, but noticeable double take when you enter the room. Perhaps they assume you're an orderly, and are surprised when you pick up a needle. You haven't done anything that any other nurse would do - you've only done it as a man instead of as a woman. Once they've passed their double take, they relax. They don't say anything mean, they're not rude... but they're curious about you. They're curious when they wouldn't be curious about a woman. Maybe they ask you "why did you decide to become a nurse"? This results in a whole line of discussion that has nothing to do with your skill... but has only to do with why you as a man decided to become a nurse which is usually a female job. They may never say the italicized parts out loud. They may not even notice that the subtext is there... but you notice because your female counterparts almost never get asked that question. Perhaps they ask you why you didn't become a doctor instead.

Perhaps they tell you what a great job you're doing. You know that you're doing an okay job, but it's not exceptional, you know that you're about the same as any other nurse with your level of experience. But because you're an exception to the rule, your performance is remarked upon where a female's wouldn't be. You know it's not intentional, you know they're not being patronizing on purpose... but the subtext is still there "you're doing a great job for a man".

Perhaps some of your patients ask for a different nurse. It's not that you're not friendly, it's not that you're not skilled. It's that you're a man... and some parts of nursing require you to touch their bare flesh. Perhaps you have to place a lead under a breast, and your female patients shy away from that - they don't trust you to be professional because you're a man.

Perhaps your female colleagues treat you differently because you're male. They like you just fine, they think you're a great guy... but when they've had a rough day, they don't vent to you, they vent to other women. When you've had a bad day and need to vent, they don't offer you hugs or consolation - you're a guy, you're supposed to be tough, right?

Here are a few quotes:

What’s Hardest About Being A Male Nurse?
Quote:
For me, one of the hardest things I have faced as a male nurse is that people automatically think you are gay. It's not that I have a problem with being gay, it's just the expectation that I am. There seems to be a belief that I must be effeminate because I am a male nurse; yet, repeatedly, patients will say they would prefer a female nurse. There is the perception that all female nurses are more compassionate, more empathetic.
What It's Like to Be a Male Nurse
Quote:
I was always a source of curiosity; a male in a female-dominated profession. The male patients always assumed I was an orderly or a janitor. Meanwhile, the female patients would address me as “doctor,” and when I would correct them and say I was a nursing student, they would inevitably reply, “Oh, okay, doctor."

Clinical practice is where I met my first real resistance to men in nursing. Nursing students in my school were allowed to choose between a pediatric rotation or labor and delivery. I choose pediatrics, as it seemed more applicable to my ultimate goal to be an ER nurse. Jake, a fellow male nurse, choose labor and delivery and was constantly telling horror stories. As a male he was never allowed to be alone with a patient, neither pre- nor post-delivery. He was mandated to have a chaperone with him the entire time. Jake felt as if he had been convicted without a trial, or that people thought he was only in nursing to see vaginas. He was so disturbed by his clinical session, he left school the next semester.
How would this make you feel? Would it make you feel that you were at a disadvantage in your career? Would it seem that you had a harder time making headway than your female counterparts?
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2017, 10:57 AM   #806
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,857
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
Okay. Would it be fair to say you have a loving relationship with your spouse, where you may fight but ultimately 'kiss and make up'? Now, do you think the author of the article has similarly loving feelings towards white America?

Or perhaps 'Don't do unto others as those ********** ********* ****** white people do to us'. Do you get where I am coming from?
I think you're reading more vitriol into it than is necessarily there. Even so... even if he does hold some resentment toward white people... Does that invalidate his claim that in general straight black men treat black women and black GLTBQ people with the same disregard that he perceives as being a cause of resentment in black people?

Is a call to NOT treat others the way you DON'T like being treated really such a bad thing?

Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
We have been discussing implicit bias ITT. Is the author talking about implicit bias, or is he talking about a designed and 'protected' widespread racism here? I mean, 'protected'? Really? Whiteness is protecting these privileges, he says. He takes offense later to whites who dare to deny this.
I would say it's implicit, because it's very rarely actual individual white people taking explicit action to protect the privileges of white people. To me, it's more a case of recognizing that the structure of US society was developed by and for white, wealthy, men. The people who wrote the Constitution, who developed our laws and our traditions, were all wealthy white men who were designing a society that functioned the way they wanted it to, and who gave virtually no thought or consideration to how that society would work for anyone who was not like them. In many cases, they pretty blatantly considered those not like them to be unworthy of the benefits of the new society they were creating.

The interests of black people were disregarded. If the new society disadvantaged black people, that was of no concern. It wasn't given a second thought - the society they were designing wasn't for black people, after all. Black people were predominantly property. And really, who gives thought to the desires and interests of their cattle?

The interests of women were disregarded. If the new society disadvantaged women, that was of no concern. The society wasn't being designed for women; women's places were in the home, bearing children and keeping the household in order. The proper way of things in the new society was for women to trust their men to see to their needs. There was no reason to give any thought to what women wanted.

The way this new society was built disproportionately benefited white men. In the past, resistance to changes in how society worked were explicitly opposed, and the interests of white men were explicitly protected by white men. That has gradually changed over time... but there is still a layer of social expectation, social mores, and traditions that unintentionally favor and benefit white men above other groups. Most white men aren't even necessarily aware of it, it's their normal - just as you defined the normal for Muslims in a predominantly Muslim country. To them, it's not a privilege, it's just "normal".

By defining it as normal, however, it can be very difficult for the average white man to recognize that his normal is not the normal for people who aren't like him. It can be very difficult to see that other people don't have a "normal" experience as they move through society. And often, when they are told that others are disadvantaged relative to them on the basis of skin color or gender, they are resistant to that idea, because for them it's just normal.

The framing used by the author can certainly be seen as oppositional. I can understand how you view it that way. I'm asking you to look past the framing, and consider the underlying issues and dynamics that are at the root of that resentment. I'm not asking that you feel guilty for it - you've done nothing to feel guilty about. I'm not asking you to make amends - you've done nothing wrong. I'm not asking you to give up any privileges or to suffer in any way - there is no reason for you to do so. I'm asking that you consider the situation from a different perspective, and ask yourself whether the other person might experience a disadvantage with which you are not generally faced.

How might you, as an individual, help to reduce that disadvantage that others face, without giving up anything yourself?
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2017, 10:58 AM   #807
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,857
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
I'd say the issue is rather that we know that bias is pretty much always clouding our objectivity.
Okay. What do you think we should do about it?
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2017, 11:07 PM   #808
Thermal
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,908
Originally Posted by Dipayan View Post
I agree, and I am open to using any alternative term to have this discussion. Since you seem to agree to 'advantage', let's stick to that.



I would actually disagree here. People with two legs do have societal advantages over double amputees. Till very recently wheelchair ramps were not mandatory in buildings. Do people like us with two healthy legs spend even a second wondering whether a building has an access point? Double amputees would, I assume, have to think through their plans to ensure that they have options of access. Isn't that an advantage we enjoy, without even realizing it?

What about the fact that we have superior choices of mobility, since double amputees cannot drive? Doesn't that mean we would be able to go for more job interviews thus ensuring that given the same percentage chance of securing a job, a double amputee will take much longer than one who is not?

Because of the first point, double amputees might feel more comfortable staying at home and not getting out much. The universal take-out from this over time could become 'Double amputees like to stay at home', and that becomes a stereotype, even though it was a result of unconscious social pressures. In the second point, if a double amputee disagrees with a bipedal human on the amount of time required to get a job, they could be correct without it having any tones of discrimination. But given that their collective experience is different bipedals would find it difficult to believe them.

In both these cases, identifying and acknowledging these unplanned advantages (for bipedals)/disadvantages (for double amputees) can help us in rectifying/assuaging them which could be in the form of legislation in ensuring all buildings have wheelchair access, or in the form of education that informs double amputees that they need to add a buffer to the common job search duration, or maybe even through innovation like self-driving cars that provide mobility to all.

Disclaimer: Please note that if the double amputee is Michael Jordan then obviously his life will be much easier than 99% of the people with both limbs. I am talking about the group and not individuals. Also, the situations I have put down are just to illustrate a point - I am not saying these are real-world everyday problems faced by the double amputee population.
Ok, it is at least technically fair to say that people with two legs have an advantage over those who don't. No argument. My issue comes to a head when people use and abuse a perceived disadvantage to shame the neutral staters. I do not dispute you or other posters that advantages and disadvantages exist; of course they do. It is the particular presentation of these states ('privilege') that sets my teeth on edge. I think it is generally agreed here that the terms like 'privilege' and 'unearned package of benefits' are unhealthy, and will not exactly foster progression. That is my personal pet cause, to level the field as much as is practical and stop the use of divisive terminology, even when well-intended.

Quote:
'Privilege' is used in a very aggressive and confrontational manner nowadays, mostly to stop conversation.
Dig it.

Quote:
But in my head, recognizing these advantages that groups can have without design, unknowingly, is useful to understand how better to create equitable opportunity situations.
And you are right. Everyone can use a polite nudge or a smack upside the head once in a while. White guys in particular. The OP title and the presumptions behind it, IMO, are contrary to that end.

Quote:
But the judges were part of society. And this did not happen in just one random location, but remained true across the globe till screen auditions became the norm. It is easier to look back at moments of inequity and say 'This happened because of outright discrimination', but the reality is that people are generally good. And they like to see themselves and show themselves as good. I am sure all the judges actually believed they were being completely fair.

Consider the debate involving women in top corporate positions. The current viewpoint is that as a group women don't want leadership positions because they are less competitive than men (biology). Compare this to 'women don't make great wind instrument players because they don't have as strong lungs as men' (biology). Just like people can debate that there are women in top spots today which pooh-poohs the 'anti-women' conspiracies, people back then could point out that there were women playing wind instruments in orchestras even before screen auditions.

Now I don't believe that we need more women in CXO positions because I think that is a stupid objective to have. I also think equal representation as a goal is extremely misguided. At the same time, I can also look at the similarities of the above arguments and ponder the possibility of a society wide advantage that can result in certain outcomes.
That is a good point, re: the judges likely believing they were fair but being unknowingly biased. I would assume that an orchestra auditioner would be totally focused on the quality of the performance, at the expense of all else. But that would not seem to be the case.

Quote:
I am sorry but I am not able to parse this. Could you please rephrase?
*MostlyDead's face involuntarily twitches*

You ask if there are other situations in which someone may have a lower threshold of evidence because of a prior societal bias. I can, and it works both ways. For instance, a black guy may believe he was discriminated at an unsuccessful job interview with a white guy because he was discriminated against in the past by a white guy. We all need to watch out for the false alarms.
__________________

Previously known as MostlyDead. Felling better now.
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2017, 11:15 PM   #809
Thermal
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,908
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
I know I snipped a lot, this is the part that caught my interest most. It seems as if our disagreement is one of anchoring - where you define the point from which to measure. It seems that unless it's a specifically identifiable explicitly granted privilege, than you're defining that as the 'starting' point, then measuring disparate experiences as disadvantages. I can definitely understand that perspective - it is one of the commonly accepted definition of the word privilege:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/privilege


In this context, I'm using the term in it's sociological fashion, as a short hand for social inequalities that tend to be subconscious and unintentional, but still result in disadvantages for a group of people on the basis of a non-merit attribute, such as skin color, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privil...al_inequality)

In the example given by Dipayan, you're reading the experience of Muslims as normal, and the experience of non-Muslims as disadvantaged. Diapayan is reading the experience of Muslims as advantaged (or privileged) above the experiences of non-Muslims. The concept at play is the same - they both result in one group having a set of advantaged or disadvantages relative to the other group, on the basis of something that is predominantly outside the control of the group.

The same concept holds true in the context of this thread: On average, black people are at a disadvantage socially relative to white people. Alternatively, we could say that white people have an advantage (privilege) relative to black people in the US on average. Likewise we could say that women are at a social disadvantage relative to men... or we could say that men have a social advantage (privilege) relative to women in general.

It's the same concept, just depends on where you stand when you start measuring 5>3 is the same as 3<5.
I agree, with a caveat: I don't think it is productive to measure one advantage over another without establishing a neutral plateau, which is neither advantaged nor disadvantaged. This neutral state is the assumed area where there is as level a field as possible, all things being theoretically equal. From that point, relative advantages and disadvantages have actual meaning.
__________________

Previously known as MostlyDead. Felling better now.
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2017, 11:22 PM   #810
Thermal
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,908
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
There's definitely some emotional loading.
And that's what I'm bitching about. The loading hurts the otherwise noble intent, so scrap it.

Quote:
Fair enough. Can you expand on why you consider it sexism?
Because the traits project hackneyed stereotypes onto the sexes, coloring them all with the same brush. There are many personality types, but the description provided only allows for one per sex.
__________________

Previously known as MostlyDead. Felling better now.
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2017, 11:23 PM   #811
Thermal
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,908
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Alright. Let's shift gears a wee bit. Do you think that in general, in US society, women are at a social disadvantage relative to men?
Yes. I think sexism is alive and well, species-wide. Well, alive and bad. You know what i mean.
__________________

Previously known as MostlyDead. Felling better now.
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2017, 11:45 PM   #812
Thermal
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,908
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
This makes a good starting point then, let's work from here.

From my perspective, the fact that it is noteworthy and/or comment-worthy is indicative of a social expectation wrapped around the job role of nurse, relative to the gender role of man. You don't have any ill will, and it's not a big deal to you, nor to most people. Because of this, I don't see it as sexism - there's no active discrimination, there's no purposeful intent. You don't really think any less of a man who is a nurse... once you finish mentally processing it. But you do take a moment longer to process it - to fit the idea of 'male' and 'nurse' into the same bucket. You have an implicit association of 'nurse' with 'woman', would you say that's true?
Yes, I agree.

[/quote]I'm going to continue on with the assumption that you'd agree with that last statement. If you don't then go ahead and stop here, and let's talk about what you disagree with and why.

That association creates, at least momentarily, a bit of dissonance in the mind of the observer. It's a contradiction between what we expect and what we experience. We form expectations based on experience... but it's not necessarily personal experience. Our expectations are also formed by what we're told by other people (especially as children), what we see in TV and movies, what we read in books, and what we observe around us. Most of the nurses that we see on TV are female. Most of what we hear when other people talk about their nurses are feminine pronouns. We form an expectation of nurses as female.[/quote]

Still with you...

Quote:
When we run across a male nurse, it adds a layer of interaction that is absent when confronted with a female nurse - gender. When we're being seen by a female nurse, the fact that she is female is irrelevant. It has no bearing on our interaction at all. We give it no thought. When presented with a male nurse, however, we take note of his maleness - a trait that we don't associate with nurses, a trait that is at odds with our expectation of nurses. We, as a society, are more likely to ask him why he decided to go into nursing. We don't feel that same degree of curiosity about a female - she's just a nurse, he is a male nurse. In general, he isn't seen as 'just a nurse', he's seen as something unusual, out of norm, different... and it has nothing at all to do with his knowledge, skill, or bedside manner. It has only to do with his gender. His gender makes him unusual, and it is his gender that people take note of. He can be just as skilled as his female counterpart, but the perception of his skill will have an additional layer of interpretation incorporated as we try to fit him into our mental compartment of 'nurse'.
Still on board...

Quote:
Here's where some imagination and empathy is called for. Bear with me, and just walk through the scenarios.

Imagine that you're a nurse, and that you're male. Imagine that you're relatively new on the job, and you go in to see a patient. The patient does a short, but noticeable double take when you enter the room. Perhaps they assume you're an orderly, and are surprised when you pick up a needle. You haven't done anything that any other nurse would do - you've only done it as a man instead of as a woman. Once they've passed their double take, they relax. They don't say anything mean, they're not rude... but they're curious about you. They're curious when they wouldn't be curious about a woman. Maybe they ask you "why did you decide to become a nurse"? This results in a whole line of discussion that has nothing to do with your skill... but has only to do with why you as a man decided to become a nurse which is usually a female job. They may never say the italicized parts out loud. They may not even notice that the subtext is there... but you notice because your female counterparts almost never get asked that question. Perhaps they ask you why you didn't become a doctor instead.
Ok, you're starting to lose me a little. If someone asked why the nurse didn't become a doctor instead, I would think that someone is a flaming *******.

Quote:
Perhaps they tell you what a great job you're doing. You know that you're doing an okay job, but it's not exceptional, you know that you're about the same as any other nurse with your level of experience. But because you're an exception to the rule, your performance is remarked upon where a female's wouldn't be. You know it's not intentional, you know they're not being patronizing on purpose... but the subtext is still there "you're doing a great job for a man".

Perhaps some of your patients ask for a different nurse. It's not that you're not friendly, it's not that you're not skilled. It's that you're a man... and some parts of nursing require you to touch their bare flesh. Perhaps you have to place a lead under a breast, and your female patients shy away from that - they don't trust you to be professional because you're a man.

Perhaps your female colleagues treat you differently because you're male. They like you just fine, they think you're a great guy... but when they've had a rough day, they don't vent to you, they vent to other women. When you've had a bad day and need to vent, they don't offer you hugs or consolation - you're a guy, you're supposed to be tough, right?
All of these scenarios could happen. But are these people interacting with the nurse representative of society? I'm not so sure. 50 years ago, maybe.

Quote:
Here are a few quotes:

What’s Hardest About Being A Male Nurse?


What It's Like to Be a Male Nurse


How would this make you feel? Would it make you feel that you were at a disadvantage in your career? Would it seem that you had a harder time making headway than your female counterparts?
I of course agree that these nurses were having a disadvantaged time of it. I wonder how common their experience is? Anecdotally: the last time I went to UrgentCare, I had a male nurse and a female doctor (I swear I am not making this up). I was more comfortable talking with the male nurse than a female (after the initial dissidence). The doctor was just a doctor (I think we are all fully used to women doctors now).
__________________

Previously known as MostlyDead. Felling better now.
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 02:40 AM   #813
Dipayan
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 606
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
Ok, it is at least technically fair to say that people with two legs have an advantage over those who don't. No argument. My issue comes to a head when people use and abuse a perceived disadvantage to shame the neutral staters. I do not dispute you or other posters that advantages and disadvantages exist; of course they do. It is the particular presentation of these states ('privilege') that sets my teeth on edge. I think it is generally agreed here that the terms like 'privilege' and 'unearned package of benefits' are unhealthy, and will not exactly foster progression. That is my personal pet cause, to level the field as much as is practical and stop the use of divisive terminology, even when well-intended.
It seems to me that we are on the same page.

Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
*MostlyDead's face involuntarily twitches*

You ask if there are other situations in which someone may have a lower threshold of evidence because of a prior societal bias. I can, and it works both ways.
Agree, but they are not equivalent, and I will explain why. If you consider my Iran example, me and other non-Muslims could organize non-Islamic prayer services, which Muslims would not attend. Technically we would then enjoy an advantage over Muslims in terms of social interaction and networking. But realistically because we are such a small minority, it wouldn't really affect the majority group, or even if it does, it is at a very negligible level.

Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
For instance, a black guy may believe he was discriminated at an unsuccessful job interview with a white guy because he was discriminated against in the past by a white guy. We all need to watch out for the false alarms.
This would be more about a victim mentality than about 'privilege'. But I could see how arguments of reverse privilege can be made eg. with diversity being a key requirement now, being black is a big advantage when applying for college admissions and jobs. But I think the previous argument still holds - when you see the entire education and employment process as a whole, this kind of an advantage is a just a blip in the whole system.

Anyways, I think we are almost at 90% agreement on this issue, and that is good enough for me.
Dipayan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 09:43 AM   #814
Thermal
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,908
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
I think you're reading more vitriol into it than is necessarily there. Even so... even if he does hold some resentment toward white people... Does that invalidate his claim that in general straight black men treat black women and black GLTBQ people with the same disregard that he perceives as being a cause of resentment in black people?

Is a call to NOT treat others the way you DON'T like being treated really such a bad thing?


I would say it's implicit, because it's very rarely actual individual white people taking explicit action to protect the privileges of white people. To me, it's more a case of recognizing that the structure of US society was developed by and for white, wealthy, men. The people who wrote the Constitution, who developed our laws and our traditions, were all wealthy white men who were designing a society that functioned the way they wanted it to, and who gave virtually no thought or consideration to how that society would work for anyone who was not like them. In many cases, they pretty blatantly considered those not like them to be unworthy of the benefits of the new society they were creating.

The interests of black people were disregarded. If the new society disadvantaged black people, that was of no concern. It wasn't given a second thought - the society they were designing wasn't for black people, after all. Black people were predominantly property. And really, who gives thought to the desires and interests of their cattle?

The interests of women were disregarded. If the new society disadvantaged women, that was of no concern. The society wasn't being designed for women; women's places were in the home, bearing children and keeping the household in order. The proper way of things in the new society was for women to trust their men to see to their needs. There was no reason to give any thought to what women wanted.

The way this new society was built disproportionately benefited white men. In the past, resistance to changes in how society worked were explicitly opposed, and the interests of white men were explicitly protected by white men. That has gradually changed over time... but there is still a layer of social expectation, social mores, and traditions that unintentionally favor and benefit white men above other groups. Most white men aren't even necessarily aware of it, it's their normal - just as you defined the normal for Muslims in a predominantly Muslim country. To them, it's not a privilege, it's just "normal".
I have been thinking a lot about this post. What do you mean that the society was designed to benefit specifically white men? I get how it does in practical terms, but not from the design standpoint.

Quote:
By defining it as normal, however, it can be very difficult for the average white man to recognize that his normal is not the normal for people who aren't like him. It can be very difficult to see that other people don't have a "normal" experience as they move through society. And often, when they are told that others are disadvantaged relative to them on the basis of skin color or gender, they are resistant to that idea, because for them it's just normal.
This is a good point. However, I am very conscious of class advantage on the daily (I have an...unprofessional...look). The neutral state, as I am using it, may be majority white but I think it is welcoming to minorities. I really don't see the hardwired advantages being assumed here. Yes, some whites will look at other whites more favorably. I do so, from familiarity. I am still not convinced that some advantage exists that is created and maintained to give other whites an edge. Statistics and anecdotes can be trotted out, but they are correlative without demonstrating the causation.

Quote:
The framing used by the author can certainly be seen as oppositional. I can understand how you view it that way. I'm asking you to look past the framing, and consider the underlying issues and dynamics that are at the root of that resentment. I'm not asking that you feel guilty for it - you've done nothing to feel guilty about. I'm not asking you to make amends - you've done nothing wrong. I'm not asking you to give up any privileges or to suffer in any way - there is no reason for you to do so. I'm asking that you consider the situation from a different perspective, and ask yourself whether the other person might experience a disadvantage with which you are not generally faced.

How might you, as an individual, help to reduce that disadvantage that others face, without giving up anything yourself?
I do understand being at a social disadvantage (trust me, I freaking live it), and I understand that others may face obstacles that I have never considered. All well and good in the abstract. But things like someone doing a double take because you are of a different race/gender that was expected, i would not consider a disadvantage. If it extends, borrowing from your male nurse example) to patronizing comments or assumptions about homosexuality, then that is confronting bigotry and a very different issue than privilege.
__________________

Previously known as MostlyDead. Felling better now.
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 11:12 AM   #815
mgidm86
Illuminator
 
mgidm86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,689
Funny how being "the white people of black people" is considered a bad thing.
mgidm86 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 03:53 PM   #816
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,857
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
I agree, with a caveat: I don't think it is productive to measure one advantage over another without establishing a neutral plateau, which is neither advantaged nor disadvantaged. This neutral state is the assumed area where there is as level a field as possible, all things being theoretically equal. From that point, relative advantages and disadvantages have actual meaning.
First, a discussion-furthering question: How would you go about finding the neutral plateau?

Second, a bit of disagreement: Why does it matter? As long as you can measure both sides, you can tell if they're different, can't you? Why does it matter what the neutral plateau is, as long as you can measure one relative to the other? Now, if you want to refer to things based on which group is the larger group, I have no objection... but that doesn't require any identification of neutrality. I don't really understand what utility that neutral point would have.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 03:58 PM   #817
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,857
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
And that's what I'm bitching about. The loading hurts the otherwise noble intent, so scrap it.
Okay. What terminology do you propose? I'm happy to speak in terms of advantage/disadvantage if you'd prefer.

Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
Because the traits project hackneyed stereotypes onto the sexes, coloring them all with the same brush. There are many personality types, but the description provided only allows for one per sex.
That's kind of my complaint, isn't it? Joking aside, I don't think you can stop humans from making generalizations. It's kind of our thing, ties right in with the ability to form abstractions. I don't necessarily have a problem with generalizations; I have a problem with harmful generalizations, and I have a problem with generalizations that limit the opportunity of the individual.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 04:27 PM   #818
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,857
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
I have been thinking a lot about this post. What do you mean that the society was designed to benefit specifically white men? I get how it does in practical terms, but not from the design standpoint.
It's kind of abstract. I'm not talking about it being intentionally designed to benefit white men, but that by having only white men designing it, it is built-to-fit white men, and the result is that it didn't fit anyone else.

Consider an analogy. Let's say I'm designing my perfect job... and I'm not thinking about anyone else at all. I'm going to give myself about a 30 hour work week, so I have time to spend with my family, engage in pastimes, and get some good rest. I'm going to work early, take a 2 hour lunch, then finish up by early afternoon. I'm only going to do work that I find interesting. I'll select the technologies, hardware, and furniture that works for me. I'll have a desk that's at just the right height for me to sit up straight AND have my feet touch the ground (I'm quite short). I'll have a child-sized keyboard and mouse. At the end of the day, I'll have a job, complete with a working environment, that perfectly suits me. I haven't done it on purpose, but I've also managed to design a job and an environment that suits no-one other than me. Even though I didn't intend it, I've created something so custom built to my interests, that it creates a material disadvantage for whoever tries to take over this job when I've left.

When the founders drafted the constitution, they only gave the right to vote to white men. Women weren't allowed to vote, nor were any non-white men - not even if they were freedmen. The requirements of holding office were such that they were effectively limited to only the wealthy among white men - poor white men simply wouldn't have the requisite free time, nor the education, to perform the duties of a politician. For a very long time in the US, owning land was extraordinarily difficult for anyone who wasn't white, male, and wealthy. Women and black men weren't generally allowed to enter into contracts. It created a situation where the decision makers for the population (which is what politicians are, at the end of the day) were all wealthy white men, and that power was effectively forbidden to anyone else.

Even as we progressed as a nation, there were significant barriers to overcome for anyone not white and male. Even if you ignore the impact of slavery on the civil liberties of black people in general, the fact that neither women nor black men were legally allowed to vote until within the last century is pretty significant. Without being allowed to vote, there is no way for those groups to influence politics - therefore no way for them to influence the decisions being made on behalf of the country as a whole, or even their immediate region. Once we received that right to vote, there was (and is) still an uphill battle.

There are still a fair number of politicians in office who grew up in an era where the rights of women and the rights of black people were not equal to those of white men. Those people define "normal" from the perspective of what was accepted when they were younger. They don't view any of the dynamics you and I are discussing as being disadvantages at all - they view it as "normal". They're more likley to look at it and say "Look at all the changes we've made! You're nearly equal! Things have improved greatly compared to how they were! Aren't you satisfied yet?"

It's as if they were watching Sisyphus push his boulder up the hill... and when he gets near the top, they look away. He's almost at the top, right? Nothing to worry about. Those last few steps left to take simply don't register as still being uphill.

Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
This is a good point. However, I am very conscious of class advantage on the daily (I have an...unprofessional...look). The neutral state, as I am using it, may be majority white but I think it is welcoming to minorities. I really don't see the hardwired advantages being assumed here. Yes, some whites will look at other whites more favorably. I do so, from familiarity. I am still not convinced that some advantage exists that is created and maintained to give other whites an edge. Statistics and anecdotes can be trotted out, but they are correlative without demonstrating the causation.
Regarding the highlighted part... How do you think this plays out in an interview, for example? Let's say there are two equally competent, equally qualified candidates for a promotion. One is white, and one is black, but aside from that there is no difference. If many white people look on other white people more favorably, which of the candidates do you think will have the advantage in that situation? If all else is the same, but the interviewer feel slightly more favorable to one than to the other, who do you think is slightly more likely to get the job?

What happens if you add that up over millions of people? Does it begin to show a pattern in the system, even if it's a completely unintentional one? Where does that pattern leave black people, in general, when it comes to career opportunities?

Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
I do understand being at a social disadvantage (trust me, I freaking live it), and I understand that others may face obstacles that I have never considered. All well and good in the abstract. But things like someone doing a double take because you are of a different race/gender that was expected, i would not consider a disadvantage. If it extends, borrowing from your male nurse example) to patronizing comments or assumptions about homosexuality, then that is confronting bigotry and a very different issue than privilege.
When it's an obvious activity, then certainly, I agree that confronting bigotry is a different issue. But what if it's more akin to your highlighted statement above? What if the interviewer simply looks very slightly more favorably on women as nurses than men? What if the manager looks very slightly more favorably on women when it comes to promotions? How does that very slight element of favorability translate in terms of opportunity for male nurses?
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 04:52 PM   #819
Delphic Oracle
Graduate Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,876
Latest bit of stupdity I'm now seeing:

A white person using "black" phrases or gifs with black people in them to respond to social media posts are engaging in "online black-face" and this is totally unacceptable.

The example given was about "YAAAAASSSSS" which I didn't even know was "black" and honestly thought it was an LGBT/drag community thing (as in "YAAAASSSS KWEEN!")

/headdesk
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2017, 07:22 AM   #820
Thermal
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,908
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
First, a discussion-furthering question: How would you go about finding the neutral plateau?
Hopefully it would be self-evident, but it would depend on who is defining it, wouldn't it? I think in any given construct, an consensus could be reached regarding where everyone is more or less equal without a huge battle.

Quote:
Second, a bit of disagreement: Why does it matter? As long as you can measure both sides, you can tell if they're different, can't you? Why does it matter what the neutral plateau is, as long as you can measure one relative to the other? Now, if you want to refer to things based on which group is the larger group, I have no objection... but that doesn't require any identification of neutrality. I don't really understand what utility that neutral point would have.
When talking about societal advantage/disadvantage, the endgame is to reach a state of plus or minus equality, right? Then that state should be the comparison base. Otherwise, we can literally go on forever comparing dis/advantages relative to each other (or groups) somewhat pointlessly. No one will ever really be dead equal, so I think in this context it is much more productive to compare advantages and disadvantages to at least a theoretical fair-game state. Keeps things focused on an achievable result.
__________________

Previously known as MostlyDead. Felling better now.
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2017, 07:27 AM   #821
Thermal
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,908
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Okay. What terminology do you propose? I'm happy to speak in terms of advantage/disadvantage if you'd prefer.
Fine by me.

Quote:
That's kind of my complaint, isn't it? Joking aside, I don't think you can stop humans from making generalizations. It's kind of our thing, ties right in with the ability to form abstractions. I don't necessarily have a problem with generalizations; I have a problem with harmful generalizations, and I have a problem with generalizations that limit the opportunity of the individual.
I hear you. With our famed male nurse: if he just gets a double-take, no harm, no foul. If he is assumed to be gay because of his career choice, very foul.
__________________

Previously known as MostlyDead. Felling better now.
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2017, 07:47 AM   #822
Thermal
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,908
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
It's kind of abstract. I'm not talking about it being intentionally designed to benefit white men, but that by having only white men designing it, it is built-to-fit white men, and the result is that it didn't fit anyone else.

Consider an analogy. Let's say I'm designing my perfect job... and I'm not thinking about anyone else at all. I'm going to give myself about a 30 hour work week, so I have time to spend with my family, engage in pastimes, and get some good rest. I'm going to work early, take a 2 hour lunch, then finish up by early afternoon. I'm only going to do work that I find interesting. I'll select the technologies, hardware, and furniture that works for me. I'll have a desk that's at just the right height for me to sit up straight AND have my feet touch the ground (I'm quite short). I'll have a child-sized keyboard and mouse. At the end of the day, I'll have a job, complete with a working environment, that perfectly suits me. I haven't done it on purpose, but I've also managed to design a job and an environment that suits no-one other than me. Even though I didn't intend it, I've created something so custom built to my interests, that it creates a material disadvantage for whoever tries to take over this job when I've left.

When the founders drafted the constitution, they only gave the right to vote to white men. Women weren't allowed to vote, nor were any non-white men - not even if they were freedmen. The requirements of holding office were such that they were effectively limited to only the wealthy among white men - poor white men simply wouldn't have the requisite free time, nor the education, to perform the duties of a politician. For a very long time in the US, owning land was extraordinarily difficult for anyone who wasn't white, male, and wealthy. Women and black men weren't generally allowed to enter into contracts. It created a situation where the decision makers for the population (which is what politicians are, at the end of the day) were all wealthy white men, and that power was effectively forbidden to anyone else.

Even as we progressed as a nation, there were significant barriers to overcome for anyone not white and male. Even if you ignore the impact of slavery on the civil liberties of black people in general, the fact that neither women nor black men were legally allowed to vote until within the last century is pretty significant. Without being allowed to vote, there is no way for those groups to influence politics - therefore no way for them to influence the decisions being made on behalf of the country as a whole, or even their immediate region. Once we received that right to vote, there was (and is) still an uphill battle.

There are still a fair number of politicians in office who grew up in an era where the rights of women and the rights of black people were not equal to those of white men. Those people define "normal" from the perspective of what was accepted when they were younger. They don't view any of the dynamics you and I are discussing as being disadvantages at all - they view it as "normal". They're more likley to look at it and say "Look at all the changes we've made! You're nearly equal! Things have improved greatly compared to how they were! Aren't you satisfied yet?"

It's as if they were watching Sisyphus push his boulder up the hill... and when he gets near the top, they look away. He's almost at the top, right? Nothing to worry about. Those last few steps left to take simply don't register as still being uphill.
Ok, I think we are on the same page. In practical terms, it served the purposes of those who it was being designed for at the time (prior to suffrage, etc).

Quote:
Regarding the highlighted part... How do you think this plays out in an interview, for example? Let's say there are two equally competent, equally qualified candidates for a promotion. One is white, and one is black, but aside from that there is no difference. If many white people look on other white people more favorably, which of the candidates do you think will have the advantage in that situation? If all else is the same, but the interviewer feel slightly more favorable to one than to the other, who do you think is slightly more likely to get the job?

What happens if you add that up over millions of people? Does it begin to show a pattern in the system, even if it's a completely unintentional one? Where does that pattern leave black people, in general, when it comes to career opportunities?
Gets a little dicier here; how often do two candidates have dead equal qualifications? And it would rely heavily on the objectivity of the one making the call. Couldn't s/he think that diversity would benefit the company, and thus favor the minority? This might be just as common as favoring the same-race candidate (idk the stats offhand). But you do present a great example of a seemingly benign implicit bias having a practical outcome.

Quote:
When it's an obvious activity, then certainly, I agree that confronting bigotry is a different issue. But what if it's more akin to your highlighted statement above? What if the interviewer simply looks very slightly more favorably on women as nurses than men? What if the manager looks very slightly more favorably on women when it comes to promotions? How does that very slight element of favorability translate in terms of opportunity for male nurses?
But we will never get around those slight biases, unless we become robotic in our objectivity, would we? Double-blinding, as poster Dipayan noted, dials it back a lot. I guess if people are aware of their implicit bias, as you say, they can more consciously keep them in check. The employer who likes attractive people working for him/her is a PITA we'll never really get past.
__________________

Previously known as MostlyDead. Felling better now.
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2017, 12:57 PM   #823
mgidm86
Illuminator
 
mgidm86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,689
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
Latest bit of stupdity I'm now seeing:

A white person using "black" phrases or gifs with black people in them to respond to social media posts are engaging in "online black-face" and this is totally unacceptable.

The example given was about "YAAAAASSSSS" which I didn't even know was "black" and honestly thought it was an LGBT/drag community thing (as in "YAAAASSSS KWEEN!")

/headdesk
I keep telling white people to stop acting black but they just won't listen, yo. Sup wit' dat?
mgidm86 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2017, 01:33 PM   #824
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 22,739
Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
I keep telling white people to stop acting black but they just won't listen, yo. Sup wit' dat?
Slay, bitch.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2017, 02:47 PM   #825
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
It's kind of abstract. I'm not talking about it being intentionally designed to benefit white men, but that by having only white men designing it, it is built-to-fit white men, and the result is that it didn't fit anyone else.
Unless you think races have intrinsic qualities, then what can this possibly even mean?

Quote:
I haven't done it on purpose, but I've also managed to design a job and an environment that suits no-one other than me. Even though I didn't intend it, I've created something so custom built to my interests, that it creates a material disadvantage for whoever tries to take over this job when I've left.
As an individual, you have intrinsic qualities (such as small hands). You have customized things to fit your intrinsic qualities.

What intrinsic qualities do you imagine white people have that makes the society they formed customized to them?

It seems like you're starting from the same base assumptions as white nationalists, you just want a different outcome. But I don't even buy their premise. I don't buy it when you advance it either.

Quote:
When the founders drafted the constitution, they only gave the right to vote to white men.
That's not true. I don't think the constitution says anything about race other than Indians. Plenty of contemporary state laws did, but that's not what you're claiming. Furthermore, that stuff has long since been purged even at the local level.

Quote:
The requirements of holding office were such that they were effectively limited to only the wealthy among white men - poor white men simply wouldn't have the requisite free time, nor the education, to perform the duties of a politician.
That suggests wealth, rather than race, was far more important in regards to the constitution.

Quote:
Even as we progressed as a nation, there were significant barriers to overcome for anyone not white and male. Even if you ignore the impact of slavery on the civil liberties of black people in general, the fact that neither women nor black men were legally allowed to vote until within the last century is pretty significant.
That is significant... and wrong. Women's suffrage is within that period, but black suffrage is older.

Quote:
Without being allowed to vote, there is no way for those groups to influence politics
That is categorically not true. Were it not for the influence women had, they never would have gotten the vote at all. I'm not suggesting that they had as much influence as they should have, that the lack of the vote wasn't a serious impairment, but even so, the influence wasn't zero. That's why we remember figures like Susan B. Anthony: she had a significant influence. Same with blacks.

Quote:
There are still a fair number of politicians in office who grew up in an era where the rights of women and the rights of black people were not equal to those of white men. Those people define "normal" from the perspective of what was accepted when they were younger. They don't view any of the dynamics you and I are discussing as being disadvantages at all - they view it as "normal". They're more likley to look at it and say "Look at all the changes we've made! You're nearly equal! Things have improved greatly compared to how they were! Aren't you satisfied yet?"
If they're pointing to the changes already made, then it seems that it's the present that they see as normal. That may not satisfy you, but that's not the same thing as thinking conditions of 60 years ago are normal, which you haven't provided evidence for.

Quote:
It's as if they were watching Sisyphus push his boulder up the hill... and when he gets near the top, they look away. He's almost at the top, right? Nothing to worry about. Those last few steps left to take simply don't register as still being uphill.
I think you're kind of missing the point of that story.

Quote:
What happens if you add that up over millions of people? Does it begin to show a pattern in the system, even if it's a completely unintentional one? Where does that pattern leave black people, in general, when it comes to career opportunities?
At a disadvantage, if that's the consistent bias everywhere.

But there are lots of stuff that exacerbates this kind of bias, but which get overlooked or even exacerbated by the same people complaining about bias. For example, increased minimum wage hurts blacks. That, in fact, was explicitly one of its original goals. There was a recent move in NY (IIRC) to prevent employers from inquiring about criminal backgrounds of job applicants. Since blacks have a higher crime rate, and since employers couldn't access this information directly, they ended up using race as a proxy and discriminating against blacks rather than against criminals. Plenty of well-meaning interferences in the market have similar consequences: they end up lowering the cost of discrimination, and hurt blacks as a result. It would be more productive to get rid of this sort of thing than to try to peer into the hearts of everyone to root out any bad motives.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

Last edited by Ziggurat; 7th October 2017 at 02:48 PM.
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2017, 03:11 PM   #826
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,319
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Unless you think races have intrinsic qualities, then what can this possibly even mean?
Race is a construct except when it's convenient.

Quote:
Were it not for the influence women had, they never would have gotten the vote at all.
"Gotten" the vote? Careful with those words, sir. I got an earful from the suggestion that women were "given" the vote.

Quote:
For example, increased minimum wage hurts blacks.
Could you expand on that?
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2017, 03:51 PM   #827
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Could you expand on that?
First, freezes the lowest skilled workers out of the market completely. Second, since it artificially inflates demand for remaining low skill jobs, employers have a surplus of candidates. That allows them to discriminate without suffering market force consequences.

Thomas Sowell has a bunch of writing on the topic if you're interested in more.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2017, 07:27 PM   #828
Dipayan
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 606
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
First, freezes the lowest skilled workers out of the market completely. Second, since it artificially inflates demand for remaining low skill jobs, employers have a surplus of candidates. That allows them to discriminate without suffering market force consequences.

Thomas Sowell has a bunch of writing on the topic if you're interested in more.
I do not know whether to laugh or cry.

Minimum wage, when it was introduced in the early 1900s, hurt minorities, yes, but only because with the increase in wages (since earlier there was no minimum wage) people would rather hire a white person than black - this is because employers believed that a white employee was intrinsically better than a black employee.

If you feel this argument works today, then either you feel that employers today feel the same way, or because of some other reason X. I am sure you don't think it is the former (because that would suggest at least an implicit preference, something you have been arguing against), so could you please let me know what reason X is?

Also, why are you equating 'black' with 'lowest skilled workers' in 2017?
Dipayan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2017, 09:08 PM   #829
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by Dipayan View Post
I do not know whether to laugh or cry.

Minimum wage, when it was introduced in the early 1900s, hurt minorities, yes, but only because with the increase in wages (since earlier there was no minimum wage) people would rather hire a white person than black - this is because employers believed that a white employee was intrinsically better than a black employee.
Exactly. And that was the explicit goal of a lot of early support: price black workers out of the market.

Quote:
If you feel this argument works today, then either you feel that employers today feel the same way, or because of some other reason X. I am sure you don't think it is the former (because that would suggest at least an implicit preference, something you have been arguing against), so could you please let me know what reason X is?
Your presumption is wrong. I suspect that some employers DO feel that way. I suspect it's not a giant problem, and other issues (such as the institutional failings of inner city schools, the dissolution of the lower class black family, and the corrosive effects of the war on drugs) seem to me to be far more important, and generally more amenable to corrective action. But I've never claimed that there's no problem at all regarding racial discrimination.

Quote:
Also, why are you equating 'black' with 'lowest skilled workers' in 2017?
I'm not equating them. But if you don't understand that they're disproportionately represented among this group, then you simply haven't been paying attention. I figured that this would be obvious, but perhaps not.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2017, 01:18 AM   #830
Dipayan
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 606
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Your presumption is wrong. I suspect that some employers DO feel that way. I suspect it's not a giant problem, and other issues (such as the institutional failings of inner city schools, the dissolution of the lower class black family, and the corrosive effects of the war on drugs) seem to me to be far more important, and generally more amenable to corrective action. But I've never claimed that there's no problem at all regarding racial discrimination.
I apologize. I ascribed a position to you which you didn't hold.
Dipayan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2017, 03:13 AM   #831
Graham2001
Graduate Poster
 
Graham2001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,134
There is an interesting video reading/discussing the article just up on YouTube, it's about an hour long, but well worth listening to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UM-y3R5l4kA
__________________
"I need hard facts! Bring in the dowsers!"
'America Unearthed' Season 1, Episode 13: Hunt for the Holy Grail

Everybody gets it wrong sometimes...
Graham2001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2017, 03:50 AM   #832
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 36,643
Originally Posted by Graham2001 View Post
There is an interesting video reading/discussing the article just up on YouTube, it's about an hour long, but well worth listening to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UM-y3R5l4kA
Doesn't work in my country. Please summarize.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

Help! We're being attacked by sea lions!
Foolmewunz is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2017, 05:32 AM   #833
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 22,739
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
Doesn't work in my country. Please summarize.
Which country?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2017, 06:33 AM   #834
Lithrael
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,232
Dare I guess... Thailand?
Lithrael is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2017, 12:18 PM   #835
sadhatter
Philosopher
 
sadhatter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,263
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
Latest bit of stupdity I'm now seeing:

A white person using "black" phrases or gifs with black people in them to respond to social media posts are engaging in "online black-face" and this is totally unacceptable.

The example given was about "YAAAAASSSSS" which I didn't even know was "black" and honestly thought it was an LGBT/drag community thing (as in "YAAAASSSS KWEEN!")

/headdesk
Man I remember in the 90s when people said this ,odd thing was the people saying it were redneck ********. But change "stop acting black"to "stop appropriating black culture" and suddenly is a good idea.

It's stunning how much progressive folks are asking for the same things racists did but thinking they are not just *********** the concept of equality till it cries.


Honestly it seems like we should just have listened to that racist uncle 30 years ago, we would be living in an sjw utopia. Whites would separate from poc, so there would be no cultural appropriaton, we wouldn't send cops to black neighbourhoods so there wouldn't be police hassling them, we would have separate schools so poc students wouldn't feel opposed. Gay men would still be in the closet so they wouldn't be hogging all the attention from smaller queer minorities. **** it would be paradise.

The far left needs to take a long look at what they want to accomplish and what they are actually doing. From someone in the middle is retarding the progress of not only equality but the whole human race.
sadhatter is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2017, 06:42 PM   #836
Thermal
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,908
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
...For example, increased minimum wage hurts blacks. That, in fact, was explicitly one of its original goals....
I get how raising the minimum would attract higher qualified workers to positions that they would otherwise have been overqualified for, but explicitly a goal? Really?
__________________

Previously known as MostlyDead. Felling better now.
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2017, 07:46 PM   #837
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
I get how raising the minimum would attract higher qualified workers to positions that they would otherwise have been overqualified for, but explicitly a goal? Really?
Yes, really.
https://mises.org/blog/racist-history-minimum-wage-laws

"The Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen, unable to block railroad companies from hiring the non-unionized black workers, called for regulations preventing the employment of blacks. In 1909, a compromise was offered: a minimum wage, which was to be imposed equally on all races.
...
One white union member at the time celebrated the new rule for removing "the incentive for employing the Negro.""
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2017, 10:29 PM   #838
Thermal
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,908
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Yes, really.
https://mises.org/blog/racist-history-minimum-wage-laws

"The Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen, unable to block railroad companies from hiring the non-unionized black workers, called for regulations preventing the employment of blacks. In 1909, a compromise was offered: a minimum wage, which was to be imposed equally on all races.
...
One white union member at the time celebrated the new rule for removing "the incentive for employing the Negro.""
As I have always heard the argument, higher unemployment was an unintended consequence of min wage laws, not their explicit goal. From Milton Friedman, 1966 (slightly revised?) :

Quote:
I am convinced that the minimum-wage law is the most anti-Negro law on our statute books—in its effect not its intent...The rise in the legal minimum-wage rate is a monument to the power of superficial thinking.
__________________

Previously known as MostlyDead. Felling better now.
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2017, 12:58 PM   #839
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,857
I'm combining a few posts, they're all related and I don't want to overlook anything

Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
Hopefully it would be self-evident, but it would depend on who is defining it, wouldn't it? I think in any given construct, an consensus could be reached regarding where everyone is more or less equal without a huge battle.
It would be nice if it were self-evidence, but I don't think it is. For example, hop into history and take a look at the 1960s in the USA - there were a lot of people in the 60s who genuinely thought that the distribution of opportunities for white people vs black people, and for men vs women, were where they ought to be. They assumed that it was the neutral state. Women just aren't biologically predisposed to be scientists, so there's no need to discuss this, right? Maybe some day we'll get there... but I'm not sure we're there yet. We still have a large number of the relatively-advantaged people who cannot seem to see that the other group is disadvantaged.

Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
When talking about societal advantage/disadvantage, the endgame is to reach a state of plus or minus equality, right? Then that state should be the comparison base. Otherwise, we can literally go on forever comparing dis/advantages relative to each other (or groups) somewhat pointlessly. No one will ever really be dead equal, so I think in this context it is much more productive to compare advantages and disadvantages to at least a theoretical fair-game state. Keeps things focused on an achievable result.
I don't expect it to ever be dead-equal. And yes, there's going to be a point where discussing the relative dis/advantages of tiny little group A to tiny little group B becomes pointless nitpicking. I just don't think we're there yet. In fact, we're still at a point where fairly large groups of people have relative dis/advantages in opportunity.


Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
Fine by me.



Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
I hear you. With our famed male nurse: if he just gets a double-take, no harm, no foul. If he is assumed to be gay because of his career choice, very foul.
It gets tricky, admittedly, but how do you tell the difference? How do you tell what's being assumed? How do you determine if there's a foul that should be looked into?

I'd like to hear your ideas, even if they're high level and speculative I'm not looking for a polished policy on this, just how you might go about it.


Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
Ok, I think we are on the same page. In practical terms, it served the purposes of those who it was being designed for at the time (prior to suffrage, etc).

Gets a little dicier here; how often do two candidates have dead equal qualifications? And it would rely heavily on the objectivity of the one making the call. Couldn't s/he think that diversity would benefit the company, and thus favor the minority? This might be just as common as favoring the same-race candidate (idk the stats offhand). But you do present a great example of a seemingly benign implicit bias having a practical outcome.
Perfectly dead-equal? Only in research I can point you to some if you'd like.

The fact that seemingly benign implicit biases can have practical systemic outcomes is really the meat of this topic, after all .

Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
But we will never get around those slight biases, unless we become robotic in our objectivity, would we? Double-blinding, as poster Dipayan noted, dials it back a lot. I guess if people are aware of their implicit bias, as you say, they can more consciously keep them in check. The employer who likes attractive people working for him/her is a PITA we'll never really get past.
I don't expect that individual biases will ever go away - each individual person is going to have some preferences, informed by their experiences, that weight their decisions. That's how humans work, after all.

But you're right - by being aware of our implicit biases, we can at least ask ourselves whether we're being as objective as we would like to believe. And the more people who do this, the less impact those biases have. Additionally, by being aware that those biases stack up in the world, we can take steps to change those biases for younger people. Some headway is being made - we see a lot more minorities in leading roles in film that aren't stereotypes or tropes. We still see the tropes, but we see minorities cast in protagonist roles where their skin color has nothing at all to do with the role. That's a good start - it decouples the concepts from one another.

Given that you're aware that you have an implicit bias that favors white people, via familiarity, what would you do in your every day life to balance that bias? Is there anything you might consider approaching differently? Or are there situations where you might question your assumptions or reactions, just to make sure you're not unintentionally giving more weight to skin color than is warranted?
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2017, 01:04 PM   #840
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,857
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
But if you don't understand that they're disproportionately represented among this group, then you simply haven't been paying attention. I figured that this would be obvious, but perhaps not.
Why are black people disproportionately represented among the group of lowest skilled workers? I'd like to hear your view on this.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:48 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.