There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one

Old subthreads
Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 12385
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one

#2101

Post by Matt Cavanaugh » Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:28 pm

InfraRedBucket wrote: Actually I think there is a point here he softened/changed his stated position in the Newman interview compared with all the other discussions he's had that I recall.
Before he's refused to answer the "would you call someone by their preferred pronoun?" and said it's a hypothetical or "depends on the circumstances/how they ask".
Newman: You have voluntarily, … You have voluntarily come into the studio and agreed to be questioned. A trans person in your class, has come to your class and said they want to be called “she”.

Peterson: That’s never happened. And I would call them “she”.

Newman: So you would? So you’ve kind of changed your tune a little bit, …

Peterson: No. No. I said that right from the beginning. What I said at the beginning, was that I was not going to cede the linguistic territory to radical leftists, regardless of whether, or not it was put in law. That’s what I said. Then the people who came after me said, “oh, you must be transphobic! And you’d mistreat a student in your class.” It’s like I never mistreated a student in my class. I’m not transphobic, and that isn’t what I said.
That's been his position all along. In the TV debate that got Lindsay Shepard gulaged, Peterson said he'd call Theryn Meyer 'she'. It's the compelled use of made-up pronouns he opposes, and the criminalization of failing to do so.

Guest_d2e60302

Re: There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one

#2102

Post by Guest_d2e60302 » Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:36 pm



https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2018/01/2 ... man-right/

Almost every understands Dan Arel is a dipshit and an asshole, but I can't get with the responses to this tweet of his, enumerated above at the twitchy, which is a collection of people celebrating how most humans, if they are lucky, have to toil away their lives in stupid jobs in order to remain alive, fed, housed, and if they are unlucky, get to die.

Arel is an asshole, but I think I'd prefer to work towards his world than to the uber libertarian, it's okay to let people die by the wayside for lack of food, or water, clothes or a roof that Twitchy endorses.

I mean, the really odd thing is that Dan Arel left out health care as a fundamental human right, making his tweet something that may have been tweeted out by FDR.

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 16644
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am
Contact:

Re: There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one

#2103

Post by Brive1987 » Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:51 pm

Of course there are significant differences between the modern alt right (even the more virulent strain) and actual Nazism.

Yes, the racial, blood/soil narrative is there. What’s missing is the central node that led to ideological war, radicalisation and the gas chamber.

Today there is no “stab in the back” to redress. No focus on redrawing national boundaries to match racial demarcations. There is no “living space” imperative demanding an eastwards march. There are no white sub humans to cleanse and while the JQ has a media and conspiracy element to it, the quantum (in Europe at least) makes the question hardly worth asking.

And of course there is no nation state Soviet/Bolshevik/Jewish nexus requiring total destruction.

The Islamic demographic could plausibly form a 1930s level ‘enemy within’. As do shrieking liberals. But without the radicalisation of war, we are unlikely, even in a worst case scenario, to get beyond Madagascar level musings.

What we do have today are National-cultural patriots on the one hand and racial fantasists on the other - each clutching for appropriate gang colours. Plus a fair overlap. What we don’t have are nex-gen National Socialists in their proper, and feared, historical form.

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 16644
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am
Contact:

Re: There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one

#2104

Post by Brive1987 » Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:58 pm

Tigzy wrote:
What's that, Fransen? 'Due to face trial' - yeah, that's right, he's not been convicted yet, you gobby slapper. Given how keen Fransen apparently is on our secular laws, as opposed to Sharia ones, perhaps she could show them some respect by not shooting her mouth off and calling people rapists until the conviction is in the bag. Stupid cow.
Maybe she was reflecting on his religion’s foundation beliefs rather than the specifics of the case?

free thoughtpolice
.
.
Posts: 10323
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm
Contact:

Re: There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one

#2105

Post by free thoughtpolice » Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:58 pm

What about the Deep State Brive? Not a big enough enemy for the alt-right to go full nazi?

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 16644
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am
Contact:

Re: There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one

#2106

Post by Brive1987 » Tue Jan 30, 2018 5:04 pm

free thoughtpolice wrote: What about the Deep State Brive? Not a big enough enemy for the alt-right to go full nazi?
They will have trouble finding the culprits for their cattle cars.

VickyCaramel
.
.
Posts: 2034
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 10:24 am
Location: Sitting with feet up
Contact:

Re: There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one

#2107

Post by VickyCaramel » Tue Jan 30, 2018 5:39 pm

Guest_d2e60302 wrote:

https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2018/01/2 ... man-right/

Almost every understands Dan Arel is a dipshit and an asshole, but I can't get with the responses to this tweet of his, enumerated above at the twitchy, which is a collection of people celebrating how most humans, if they are lucky, have to toil away their lives in stupid jobs in order to remain alive, fed, housed, and if they are unlucky, get to die.

Arel is an asshole, but I think I'd prefer to work towards his world than to the uber libertarian, it's okay to let people die by the wayside for lack of food, or water, clothes or a roof that Twitchy endorses.

I mean, the really odd thing is that Dan Arel left out health care as a fundamental human right, making his tweet something that may have been tweeted out by FDR.
Be grateful. I am glad socialists and anarchists are such pricks. Stomping their feet and demanding rights which aren't rights is completely obnoxious.

The Anarcho-Capitalists fringe libertarians are just as idiotic. Hopefully neither will get much traction.

Having said that, those who wish to live under the oak need to tend to it. We are a social animal and we live in societies, which are organized as states and nations. Two thousand years ago, backward savages (according to Sargon and Academic Agent) in the British Isles were able to care for orphans, the elderly and the infirm, and they did this while only organized into small tribes which were barely into the Iron Age. Now that we have organized into Nations and have technology they wouldn't have even dreamed of, I think it is setting the bar fairly low to expect not to have poor people dying in the street and old people freezing to death each winter.

There is always a section of society which is considered unemployable for one reason or another. In the past they would set the village idiot menial tasks like picking up sticks so they could at least make some contribution. These days there isn't much use for sticks, so the village idiots that can't be employed by Salon and Reddit really struggle to find a place in society. But surely we have progressed far enough that we can carry the weight?

I don't think that list is unobtainable. We put man on the moon once... Maybe we can put Dan Arel and the other socialist on the moon and fucking leave them there. But first I think we should aim to provide the basic necessities to everyone in society, not because anyone is demanding it as a right, but because it would be an achievement and something to be proud of. I think it is a worthy ambition for any nation.

Unfortunately that requires something like national pride.... and closed borders so you don't get every Tom, Dick and Muhammed flooding in to take advantage of it. The left pretty much put the kibosh on that.

Guest_d2e60302

Re: There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one

#2108

Post by Guest_d2e60302 » Tue Jan 30, 2018 5:47 pm

Unfortunately that requires something like national pride.... and closed borders so you don't get every Tom, Dick and Muhammed flooding in to take advantage of it. The left pretty much put the kibosh on that.
Yeah and few on the left acknowledge that even uber lefty Paul Krugman agrees that you can't have open borders and a strong safety net.

https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/ ... migration/
The Curious Politics of Immigration
APRIL 26, 2010 1:23 PM April 26, 2010 1:23 pm

Just a quick note: my take on the politics of immigration is that it divides both parties, but in different ways.

Democrats are torn individually (a state I share). On one side, they favor helping those in need, which inclines them to look sympathetically on immigrants; plus they’re relatively open to a multicultural, multiracial society. I know that when I look at today’s Mexicans and Central Americans, they seem to me fundamentally the same as my grandparents seeking a better life in America.

On the other side, however, open immigration can’t coexist with a strong social safety net; if you’re going to assure health care and a decent income to everyone, you can’t make that offer global.

MacGruberKnows
.
.
Posts: 1768
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 6:27 pm
Contact:

Re: There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one

#2109

Post by MacGruberKnows » Tue Jan 30, 2018 6:40 pm

Guest_d2e60302 wrote:
Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:36 pm


https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2018/01/2 ... man-right/

Almost every understands Dan Arel is a dipshit and an asshole, but I can't get with the responses to this tweet of his, enumerated above at the twitchy, which is a collection of people celebrating how most humans, if they are lucky, have to toil away their lives in stupid jobs in order to remain alive, fed, housed, and if they are unlucky, get to die.

Arel is an asshole, but I think I'd prefer to work towards his world than to the uber libertarian, it's okay to let people die by the wayside for lack of food, or water, clothes or a roof that Twitchy endorses.

I mean, the really odd thing is that Dan Arel left out health care as a fundamental human right, making his tweet something that may have been tweeted out by FDR.
It is also your right to sit on your ass and die of the cold, of hunger, of disease, etc. That is also your right.

I ask my lefty friends, when is enough, enough? At what point does somebody have to do something for their shelter, their heat, their food, their healthcare?

WTF does a couple who both have college degrees in difficult subjects, who both have high income salaries typically have one or two kids,usually later in life and some uneducated idiot who will never work a day in her life has 5 kids by the age of 24?

It may be some kind of a right to be given a shot at obtaining the ability and skills to pay for your shelter and heat and food and healthcare, but it is up to you to take it. If you don't, fuck you, your on your own. I did my part simply by going to work, making money for my shit, not asking you for your money to pay for it. I did my part paying taxes, keeping my nose clean and not being a drain on society. And taking responsibility for myself and my actions, and not blaming others for my state in life. What else do you want> I tell people that is the answer, the only answer. It's not perfect, but I am a human talking about human society. People with their hands out saying 'gimme free shit it's my right' are not the answer. They are the problem.

And I am not talking about people with real disabilities.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10154
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one

#2110

Post by Steersman » Tue Jan 30, 2018 6:42 pm

free thoughtpolice wrote: What about the Deep State Brive? Not a big enough enemy for the alt-right to go full nazi?
You might want to consider reining in that skepticism a bit, even if that "Deep State" frequently looks a bit more like the proverbial "Confederacy of Dunces" than the machinations of the Illuminati:
Hillary’s ‘Sure’ Victory Explains Most Everything

by VICTOR DAVIS HANSON January 30, 2018 4:00 AM @VDHANSON

Stretching or breaking the law on her behalf would have been rewarded by a President Clinton. What exactly were top officials in the FBI and DOJ doing during the election of 2016? ....

Hillary Clinton’s sure victory certainly also explains the likely warping of the FISA courts by FBI careerists seeking to use a suspect dossier to surveille Trump associates — and the apparent requests by Samantha Power, Susan Rice, and others to read surveilled transcripts of Trump associates, unmask names, and leak them to pet reporters. Again, all these insiders were playing the careerist odds. What we view as reprehensible behavior, they at the time considered wise investments that would earn rewards with an ascendant President Hillary Clinton. ....

The only mystery in these sordid scandals is how a president Hillary Clinton would have rewarded her various appendages. In short, how would a President Clinton have calibrated the many rewards for any-means-necessary help? Would Lynch’s tarmac idea have trumped Comey’s phony investigation? Would Glen Simpson now be White House press secretary, James Comey Clinton’s CIA director; would Andrew McCabe be Comey’s replacement at the FBI? ....

Sunder
.
.
Posts: 3857
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2013 1:12 pm
Contact:

Re: There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one

#2111

Post by Sunder » Tue Jan 30, 2018 6:57 pm

It gets brought up every so often but it's very probable that within the lifetimes of some of the people posting here now, we'll have a society in which a large proportion of its eligible workforce is permanently unemployable. Willing and able to work, but utterly superfluous.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10154
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one

#2112

Post by Steersman » Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:03 pm

MacGruberKnows wrote:
Guest_d2e60302 wrote:
Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:36 pm
https: //twitter.com/danarel/status/956768870991265792

https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2018/01/2 ... man-right/

Almost every understands Dan Arel is a dipshit and an asshole, but I can't get with the responses to this tweet of his, enumerated above at the twitchy, which is a collection of people celebrating how most humans, if they are lucky, have to toil away their lives in stupid jobs in order to remain alive, fed, housed, and if they are unlucky, get to die. ....
It is also your right to sit on your ass and die of the cold, of hunger, of disease, etc. That is also your right.

I ask my lefty friends, when is enough, enough? At what point does somebody have to do something for their shelter, their heat, their food, their healthcare?

WTF does a couple who both have college degrees in difficult subjects, who both have high income salaries typically have one or two kids,usually later in life and some uneducated idiot who will never work a day in her life has 5 kids by the age of 24?

It may be some kind of a right to be given a shot at obtaining the ability and skills to pay for your shelter and heat and food and healthcare, but it is up to you to take it. If you don't, fuck you, your on your own. I did my part simply by going to work, making money for my shit, not asking you for your money to pay for it. I did my part paying taxes, keeping my nose clean and not being a drain on society. And taking responsibility for myself and my actions, and not blaming others for my state in life. What else do you want> I tell people that is the answer, the only answer. It's not perfect, but I am a human talking about human society. People with their hands out saying 'gimme free shit it's my right' are not the answer. They are the problem.

And I am not talking about people with real disabilities.
Yeah. Kind of think that Jordan Peterson's claim to fame is, in part, due to his emphasis on the argument, in effect, that rights entail some responsibiliites. All fine and dandy for Arel to be claiming all sorts of rights - don't see that he's calling on people to step up to the plate and actually do something about providing those goods and services. It's all "gimme, gimme" to the Government without accepting an obligation to contribute.

Somewhat apropos of that, and of Australian aboriginals who've been under discussion recently here:



He doesn't look like he's been hard-done by the current state of affairs - rather more "corpulent" than I expect most of his ancestors had the luxury of being. Been looking over a couple of back issues of Canada's own Report Magazine [October 1999 which is, unfortunately, not available, that I can see, in any archives], a salient story being "Public outrage grows over the reverse racism of the Indian rights industry" by Paul Bunner. Something's rotten in "Denmark", and going to take some effort to clear out the dead wood. Though one might suggest that the election of DJT has, in part, precipitated something of sea-change ... ;-)

Guest_d2e60302

Re: There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one

#2113

Post by Guest_d2e60302 » Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:04 pm

It may be some kind of a right to be given a shot at obtaining the ability and skills to pay for your shelter and heat and food and healthcare, but it is up to you to take it. If you don't, fuck you, your on your own. I did my part simply by going to work, making money for my shit, not asking you for your money to pay for it. I did my part paying taxes, keeping my nose clean and not being a drain on society. And taking responsibility for myself and my actions, and not blaming others for my state in life. What else do you want> I tell people that is the answer, the only answer. It's not perfect, but I am a human talking about human society. People with their hands out saying 'gimme free shit it's my right' are not the answer. They are the problem.
Right now the US economy is almost at full employment. But full employment is not 100% employment as that would cause wage inflation. Full employment is 6% unemployment, where 6% of the people who would jobs cannot find jobs.
For the United States, economist William T. Dickens found that full-employment unemployment rate varied a lot over time but equaled about 5.5 percent of the civilian labor force during the 2000s.[4] Recently, economists have emphasized the idea that full employment represents a "range" of possible unemployment rates. For example, in 1999, in the United States, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) gives an estimate of the "full-employment unemployment rate" of 4 to 6.4%. This is the estimated unemployment rate at full employment, plus & minus the standard error of the estimate
And that 6% probably includes many so called gig workers who earn hourly and without any benefits whatsoever, including medical, vacation, etc, who are hourly workers but now taking on traditional employer costs of capital, financing, risk, etc.


Guest_d2e60302

Re: There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one

#2115

Post by Guest_d2e60302 » Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:14 pm

And that 6% probably includes many so called gig workers who earn hourly and without any benefits whatsoever, including medical, vacation, etc, who are hourly workers but now taking on traditional employer costs of capital, financing, risk, etc.
And that 6% probably does NOT include many so called gig workers who once had full time jobs but now earn hourly and without any benefits whatsoever, including medical, vacation, etc, who are hourly workers but now taking on traditional employer costs of capital, financing, risk, etc.

ftfm

CommanderTuvok
.
.
Posts: 3734
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 1:18 pm
Contact:

Re: There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one

#2116

Post by CommanderTuvok » Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:19 pm

Guest_d2e60302 wrote:
Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:36 pm


https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2018/01/2 ... man-right/

Almost every understands Dan Arel is a dipshit and an asshole, but I can't get with the responses to this tweet of his, enumerated above at the twitchy, which is a collection of people celebrating how most humans, if they are lucky, have to toil away their lives in stupid jobs in order to remain alive, fed, housed, and if they are unlucky, get to die.

Arel is an asshole, but I think I'd prefer to work towards his world than to the uber libertarian, it's okay to let people die by the wayside for lack of food, or water, clothes or a roof that Twitchy endorses.

I mean, the really odd thing is that Dan Arel left out health care as a fundamental human right, making his tweet something that may have been tweeted out by FDR.
Aren't socialism and anarchism separate and different systems of governance, or non-governance, if you see what I mean? He's completely deluded, and just throwing out Commie slogans that mean nothing. Everybody knows that anarchy is impossible, because as soon as there is anarchy, the very worst anarchists and bullies take fucking charge, and it turns nasty.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10154
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one

#2117

Post by Steersman » Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:22 pm

Sunder wrote: It gets brought up every so often but it's very probable that within the lifetimes of some of the people posting here now, we'll have a society in which a large proportion of its eligible workforce is permanently unemployable. Willing and able to work, but utterly superfluous.
Maybe. Seems a little bit suspect for any number of reasons. For one thing, it looks like there's a massive shortage of doctors & other medical professionals - those that are supposedly "permanently unemployable" should be obliged to take courses that lead to productive employment, not to "diversity officers", and academics in "Thinness Studies". Seem to recollect seeing someone argue that financial support for student's education should be prorated on the basis of employment prospects.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10154
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one

#2118

Post by Steersman » Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:25 pm

CommanderTuvok wrote: <snip>

Aren't socialism and anarchism separate and different systems of governance, or non-governance, if you see what I mean? He's completely deluded, and just throwing out Commie slogans that mean nothing. Everybody knows that anarchy is impossible, because as soon as there is anarchy, the very worst anarchists and bullies take fucking charge, and it turns nasty.
Yeah:


Really?
.
.
Posts: 6334
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 2:34 pm
Contact:

Re: There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one

#2119

Post by Really? » Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:26 pm

Guest_d2e60302 wrote:
Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:04 pm
It may be some kind of a right to be given a shot at obtaining the ability and skills to pay for your shelter and heat and food and healthcare, but it is up to you to take it. If you don't, fuck you, your on your own. I did my part simply by going to work, making money for my shit, not asking you for your money to pay for it. I did my part paying taxes, keeping my nose clean and not being a drain on society. And taking responsibility for myself and my actions, and not blaming others for my state in life. What else do you want> I tell people that is the answer, the only answer. It's not perfect, but I am a human talking about human society. People with their hands out saying 'gimme free shit it's my right' are not the answer. They are the problem.
Right now the US economy is almost at full employment. But full employment is not 100% employment as that would cause wage inflation. Full employment is 6% unemployment, where 6% of the people who would jobs cannot find jobs.
For the United States, economist William T. Dickens found that full-employment unemployment rate varied a lot over time but equaled about 5.5 percent of the civilian labor force during the 2000s.[4] Recently, economists have emphasized the idea that full employment represents a "range" of possible unemployment rates. For example, in 1999, in the United States, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) gives an estimate of the "full-employment unemployment rate" of 4 to 6.4%. This is the estimated unemployment rate at full employment, plus & minus the standard error of the estimate
And that 6% probably includes many so called gig workers who earn hourly and without any benefits whatsoever, including medical, vacation, etc, who are hourly workers but now taking on traditional employer costs of capital, financing, risk, etc.
Why should that risk be assigned to regular Americans when corproations could reap the benefits?

MacGruberKnows
.
.
Posts: 1768
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 6:27 pm
Contact:

Re: There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one

#2120

Post by MacGruberKnows » Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:35 pm

CommanderTuvok wrote:
Guest_d2e60302 wrote:
Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:36 pm


https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2018/01/2 ... man-right/

Almost every understands Dan Arel is a dipshit and an asshole, but I can't get with the responses to this tweet of his, enumerated above at the twitchy, which is a collection of people celebrating how most humans, if they are lucky, have to toil away their lives in stupid jobs in order to remain alive, fed, housed, and if they are unlucky, get to die.

Arel is an asshole, but I think I'd prefer to work towards his world than to the uber libertarian, it's okay to let people die by the wayside for lack of food, or water, clothes or a roof that Twitchy endorses.

I mean, the really odd thing is that Dan Arel left out health care as a fundamental human right, making his tweet something that may have been tweeted out by FDR.
Aren't socialism and anarchism separate and different systems of governance, or non-governance, if you see what I mean? He's completely deluded, and just throwing out Commie slogans that mean nothing. Everybody knows that anarchy is impossible, because as soon as there is anarchy, the very worst anarchists and bullies take fucking charge, and it turns nasty.
Yes. Mainline communists like Marxist-Leninists hate anarchists. I knew some commies like that and when they had their parades - well-organized events held on the weekends, because people had to work during weekdays, cause that was back in the 60's not now - they were always on the lookout for 2 things, agent-provacateurs, government agents in the parade trying to gin up the crowd to do stupid things to make the parade look bad, or anarchists who needed no provocation to do stupid shit like break windows, empty garbage cans and whatnot like antifa does nowadays.
Commies in those days - tough trade unionists for the most part - would have beat the crap out of anarchist punks like antifa. But again, that was the 60s and not now.

Guest_d2e60302

Re: There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one

#2121

Post by Guest_d2e60302 » Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:36 pm

Why should that risk be assigned to regular Americans when corproations could reap the benefits?
Lulz, and the corps do reap the benefits. Uber drivers are paid per mile and do not reimburse the drivers for supplying uber with capital, daily cash flow, etc.

Let's see Uber get that deal from a bank or VC.

So because Americans are desperate for work, all these gig companies get to offload their traditional expenses onto the workers.

Guest_d2e60302

Re: There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one

#2122

Post by Guest_d2e60302 » Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:37 pm

Aren't socialism and anarchism separate and different systems of governance, or non-governance, if you see what I mean? He's completely deluded, and just throwing out Commie slogans that mean nothing. Everybody knows that anarchy is impossible, because as soon as there is anarchy, the very worst anarchists and bullies take fucking charge, and it turns nasty.
Arel is an idiot and an asshole, but the responses to the tweet weren't about the try socialism, try anarchism, they were about how glad we should all be to live in a country where people do not have a right to water.

Shatterface
.
.
Posts: 5898
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2014 2:05 pm
Contact:

Re: There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one

#2123

Post by Shatterface » Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:38 pm

Steersman wrote:
Sunder wrote: It gets brought up every so often but it's very probable that within the lifetimes of some of the people posting here now, we'll have a society in which a large proportion of its eligible workforce is permanently unemployable. Willing and able to work, but utterly superfluous.
Maybe. Seems a little bit suspect for any number of reasons. For one thing, it looks like there's a massive shortage of doctors & other medical professionals - those that are supposedly "permanently unemployable" should be obliged to take courses that lead to productive employment, not to "diversity officers", and academics in "Thinness Studies". Seem to recollect seeing someone argue that financial support for student's education should be prorated on the basis of employment prospects.
Your cost-cutting solution to unemployment is to put them all through medical school?

Old_ones
.
.
Posts: 2135
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 3:46 pm
Location: An hour's drive from Hell.
Contact:

Re: There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one

#2124

Post by Old_ones » Tue Jan 30, 2018 8:01 pm

Guest_d2e60302 wrote:

https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2018/01/2 ... man-right/

Almost every understands Dan Arel is a dipshit and an asshole, but I can't get with the responses to this tweet of his, enumerated above at the twitchy, which is a collection of people celebrating how most humans, if they are lucky, have to toil away their lives in stupid jobs in order to remain alive, fed, housed, and if they are unlucky, get to die.

Arel is an asshole, but I think I'd prefer to work towards his world than to the uber libertarian, it's okay to let people die by the wayside for lack of food, or water, clothes or a roof that Twitchy endorses.

I mean, the really odd thing is that Dan Arel left out health care as a fundamental human right, making his tweet something that may have been tweeted out by FDR.
When I hear that some necessity is a "right" I tend to immediately think about the other side of the equation. These things that Dan Arel thinks people have a "right" to are secured by the hard work and investment of other people.

So when I hear "heath care is a human right" it translates into "if I you spent your time, effort and money on a medical degree then everyone else is entitled to your labor". If "food is a human right" then "farmers have a responsibility to feed people for free".

I don't necessarily disagree with the idea of a social safety net. I'm not anti-tax and I would like there to be mechanisms for people who aren't capable of being functional members of society to secure those kinds of needs, but calling them "rights" puts it way too strongly in my opinion. I don't think anyone has a right to anything they can't secure for themselves one way or another. Just because someone is unfortunate or sucks at life doesn't mean I have an affirmative duty to help them. The social safety net makes pragmatic sense from the standpoint of limiting suffering and minimizing some of the negative affects of poverty on society (which you could argue is a net benefit for everyone and worth paying for). It is not an ethical first principle.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10154
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one

#2125

Post by Steersman » Tue Jan 30, 2018 8:05 pm

VickyCaramel wrote:
Old_ones wrote:
Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:38 pm
VickyCaramel wrote:
Keating wrote: I thought Douglas Murray was the new Hitchens
Douglas Murray is definitely the new hitchens.
Jordan Peterson is the new Sam Harris. Somebody should get Murry and Peterson together.
We don't need a new Sam Harris. The old one isn't broken.

Jordan Peterson is his own thing. He's a proponent of religion and traditional culture, and he has very idiosyncratic ideas about what truth is when it comes to mythology. Not very Harris like at all.
Actually there is a direct comparison there. Harris is a neurologist and found something of interest and value in buddhism. While Peterson is a psychologist who has found something of interest and value in Christian mythology... which is actually rather interesting. The idea that there is truth about human nature in pagan mythology is hardly new and hardly pie in the sky. However, Christians usually use their religion to discover truths about god not man, I think that is more of a Jewish tradition. I am rather interested to see Peterson look at Christianity through this lense, although I admit I have been avoiding it until he does a long video or writes a book giving the subject a thorough going over.
Not sure if this fits the bill or not, but, ICYMI, seems that he has already written something of a magnum opus [402 pages] on the topic titled Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief. It's available, gratis, as a PDF on his website, and also here, although it's also available as a book at Amazon at least.

Of maybe particular interest from his website:
The human psyche has many levels. What is religious exists at the very deepest of those levels. What is religious is what is fundamental. People are religious, whether they know it or not, because they must have fundamental beliefs. Otherwise they cannot act. They can’t even perceive. They can be very confused about the nature of those fundamentals. Their psyches can be fractured, disjointed and incoherent. Without axiomatic beliefs, however, we cannot simplify the world enough to act within it.
Think the bit about "axiomatic beliefs" is kind of crucial as it links to my frequently quoted aphorism from Norbert Wiener, one of the progenitors of the science of cybernetics [from the Greek κυβερνήτης (cybernḗtēs) "steersman, governor, pilot, or rudder" ... ;-) ], to wit: "... without faith that nature is subject to law there can be no science". Our beliefs, our values - and even elements of our mathematics and science - are essentially axioms that we arrive at by something like inductive reasoning, by gestalts, that we kind of have to take on faith, although that doesn't or shouldn't, open the door to a completely blind faith.
VickyCaramel wrote: I would argue that Harris has always been broken, I just haven't quite put my finger on where he goes wrong beyond ignoring evidence which doesn't support his conclusions, looking at things with a very narrow view, and focusing far to much on problems instead of solutions. He has also exiled himself to his corner of the internet.
Good question, one that Anjuli Pandavar answered, in part, by arguing, with some justification, that "the slickness of Nawaz and the naïveté of Harris are key obstacles in the way of our developing a realistic perspective on and appropriate response to Islam" - their joint authorship of Islam & the Future of Tolerance apparently being the source of that perspective. I think they're both kind of fooling themselves if they think that Islam can ever be reformed, and some justification for thinking Nawaz at least is dealing off the bottom of the deck.

In any case, since I think you suggested it recently, seems Peterson & Harris are going to be going "toe to toe" here in Vancouver in June so the debate might be available shortly thereafter:
Pangburn Philosophy
Page Liked · Yesterday ·

VANCOUVER! Sam Harris and Dr Jordan B Peterson will be in conversation on June 23rd at the Orpheum Theatre!

What should they discuss?

Get your tickets now at: https://www.pangburnphilosophy.com/sam- ... n-peterson

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10154
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one

#2126

Post by Steersman » Tue Jan 30, 2018 8:13 pm

Shatterface wrote:
Steersman wrote:
Sunder wrote: It gets brought up every so often but it's very probable that within the lifetimes of some of the people posting here now, we'll have a society in which a large proportion of its eligible workforce is permanently unemployable. Willing and able to work, but utterly superfluous.
Maybe. Seems a little bit suspect for any number of reasons. For one thing, it looks like there's a massive shortage of doctors & other medical professionals - those that are supposedly "permanently unemployable" should be obliged to take courses that lead to productive employment, not to "diversity officers", and academics in "Thinness Studies". Seem to recollect seeing someone argue that financial support for student's education should be prorated on the basis of employment prospects.
Your cost-cutting solution to unemployment is to put them all through medical school?
No, of course not. Expect that there are many other jobs & professions that also have similar disparities between jobs available and those trained to do them:

https://www.indeed.com/l-United-States-jobs.html
https://www.prospects.ac.uk/jobs-and-wo ... in-the-usa
https://www.ussteel.com/work/jobs

https://www.google.ca/search?q=employme ... 11&bih=790

Etc., etc., etc.

Old_ones
.
.
Posts: 2135
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 3:46 pm
Location: An hour's drive from Hell.
Contact:

Re: There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one

#2127

Post by Old_ones » Tue Jan 30, 2018 8:17 pm

Steersman wrote:
Sunder wrote: It gets brought up every so often but it's very probable that within the lifetimes of some of the people posting here now, we'll have a society in which a large proportion of its eligible workforce is permanently unemployable. Willing and able to work, but utterly superfluous.
Maybe. Seems a little bit suspect for any number of reasons. For one thing, it looks like there's a massive shortage of doctors & other medical professionals - those that are supposedly "permanently unemployable" should be obliged to take courses that lead to productive employment, not to "diversity officers", and academics in "Thinness Studies". Seem to recollect seeing someone argue that financial support for student's education should be prorated on the basis of employment prospects.
I'm not totally convinced that anyone pursuing a career as a "diversity officer" or academic in the "studies" departments would be a good fit for the medical profession. Medicine is difficult and requires good analytical skills. They might be better suited to a position in intra-restaurant customer relations or the custodial arts.

Guest_d2e60302

Re: There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one

#2128

Post by Guest_d2e60302 » Tue Jan 30, 2018 8:24 pm



Has this video from PZ been posted?

I am not seeing any comments, but I also do not see that comments are disabled. Is this something new?

It's pretty easy to understand it at 2x speed.

MacGruberKnows
.
.
Posts: 1768
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 6:27 pm
Contact:

Re: There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one

#2129

Post by MacGruberKnows » Tue Jan 30, 2018 8:24 pm

Major scandal brewing in KangarooLand:

Ferry McFerryface unmasked: FOI reveals minister chose name, not the public
A freedom of information request has revealed that Ferry McFerryface, a controversial new name for a Sydney ferry supposedly chosen by the public, was not actually voted in by the public but chosen by the New South Wales transport minister.

Last November the NSW government announced that the name – a reference to the UK’s infamous Boaty McBoatface – had been chosen by an overwhelming number of voters as part of a $100,000 campaign to pick the names of six new ferries.

The transport minister, Andrew Constance, with the premier, Gladys Berejiklian
Facebook Twitter Pinterest The transport minister, Andrew Constance, with the premier, Gladys Berejiklian. Photograph: David Moir/AAP
At the time the transport minister, Andrew Constance, declared it had come second, after Boaty McBoatface. “Given Boaty was already taken by another vessel, we’ve gone with the next most popular name nominated by Sydneysiders,” he said.

But a Channel Nine freedom of information request revealed on Tuesday that Ferry McFerryface only received 182 votes and was not the popular choice.

The real winning response, with more than 2,000 votes, was to name the ferry after the founder of Clean Up Australia and 1994 Australian of the Year, Ian Kiernan.

Fairfax Media reported at the time that, weeks before the announcement, Kiernan had been told by the department that his name would grace the ferry. The day before the Ferry McFerryface announcement, he was informed that he had been replaced.

On Tuesday, Constance issued a statement saying that in an initial round of nominations, prior to voting, Ferry McFerryface received 229 nominations compared with 17 for Kiernan.

“The second round of voting did not include Ferry McFerryface as an option,” he said.
Blimey.

VickyCaramel
.
.
Posts: 2034
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 10:24 am
Location: Sitting with feet up
Contact:

Re: There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one

#2130

Post by VickyCaramel » Tue Jan 30, 2018 9:19 pm

Steersman wrote:
Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:22 pm
Sunder wrote: It gets brought up every so often but it's very probable that within the lifetimes of some of the people posting here now, we'll have a society in which a large proportion of its eligible workforce is permanently unemployable. Willing and able to work, but utterly superfluous.
Maybe. Seems a little bit suspect for any number of reasons. For one thing, it looks like there's a massive shortage of doctors & other medical professionals - those that are supposedly "permanently unemployable" should be obliged to take courses that lead to productive employment, not to "diversity officers", and academics in "Thinness Studies". Seem to recollect seeing someone argue that financial support for student's education should be prorated on the basis of employment prospects.
You guys have to be careful with your termanology when saying things like "unemployable". I forget the ratios, but there will always be a percentage who are between jobs. There are others who are malingerers who could be forced into some kind of work. There will be some that have reason for malingering, such as having burnt out and not ready to return to work. And then there is a percentage who are actually unemployable... they might not qualify for disability or are not technically retarded, but they are effectively retards, or undiagnosed with some illness, have swastikas tattooed on their faces, anti-social, suffer phobias, etc.

In a population of millions, you are going to get your fair share. You either look after them or let them die.

The real problems seem to be fourfold, firstly the feminist revolution after WWII caused the workforce to almost double, which is an event which is almost universal in the western world. Then there is immigration which added to the workforce. There is also technology which has made us more efficient or replaced us altogether. We have switched from agricultural and industrial to knowledge based economies which some people could never be equipped for. So in the space of three generations, we have actually undergone massive change.

My grandfather was born around the turn of the century, he worked long hours in construction, often dawn till dusk, but earned enough to feed a family of 9, and to move out of the city to the suburbs. His wife didn't need to work and didn't until the 1970s. He was in a situation that if he was not happy with his working conditions he could walk off the job and straight into another, and this was not uncommon for much of the last century.

It is a very different story now, there are huge numbers or working poor, working even longer hours in low paid jobs. Many in a poverty trap where they would be worse off earning more money. There are an awful lot of people who aren't working who would be financially worse off if they did work. we have got ourselves into some stupid situations. I think it is largely misplaced to blame the people who are in these situations.

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 16644
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am
Contact:

Re: There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one

#2131

Post by Brive1987 » Tue Jan 30, 2018 9:42 pm

Sunder wrote: It gets brought up every so often but it's very probable that within the lifetimes of some of the people posting here now, we'll have a society in which a large proportion of its eligible workforce is permanently unemployable. Willing and able to work, but utterly superfluous.
And then you have the victims of employment segment.


Kirbmarc
.
.
Posts: 10577
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:29 am
Contact:

Re: There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one

#2132

Post by Kirbmarc » Tue Jan 30, 2018 11:47 pm

Leaving aside abstract models of society and economy in practice all economies in the world are mixed economies (they have both state and private capitals and enterprises taking part in the market) and even more so in liberal democracies. All countries have a system which collects taxes and finances something. All countries have what libertarians would call "entitlements" and in all countries there are systems that are (at least allegedly) set up to provide healthcare, food, water, welfare to be used on primary necessities, housing, etc.

The differences between, say, the UK and the US aren't a matter of "socialism" vs. "libertarian capitalism", but a matter of efficiency and targeting of spending. When we discuss liberal democracies, the discussion of "socialism" or "libertarianism" is more academic or based on propaganda than about real, practical issues.

The US actually spend more money per capita than the UK on mandatory and discretionary spending on healthcare, for comparatively worse results for its citizens. Surely the real discussion should about whether there's something that can be done to restructure the US healthcare system to make it more efficient for its purposes.

For example here's a paper on the inefficiencies on US spending in healthcare. Here's the abstract:
The U.S. health system has been described as the most competitive, heterogeneous, inefficient, fragmented, and advanced system of care in the world. In this paper, we consider two questions: First, is the U.S. health care system productively efficient relative to other wealthy countries, in the sense of producing better health for a given bundle of hospital beds, physicians, nurses, and other factor inputs? Second, is the U.S. allocatively efficient relative to other countries, in the sense of providing highly valued care to consumers? For both questions, the answer is most likely no. Although no country can claim to have eliminated inefficiency, the U.S. has fragmented care, high administrative costs, and stands out with regard to heterogeneity in treatment because of race, income, and geography. The U.S. health care system is also more likely to pay for diagnostic tests, treatments, and other forms of care before effectiveness is established and with little consideration of the value they provide. A number of proposed reforms that are designed to ameliorate shortcomings of the U.S. health care system, such as quality improvement initiatives and coverage expansions, are unlikely by themselves to reduce expenditures. Addressing allocative inefficiency is a far more difficult task but central to controlling costs.
Similarly mandatory welfare programs already exist in the US, the problem is how efficient they are at accomplishing their stated goals, and if not, what exactly is wrong with them.

Also major private players receive lots of "welfare", in the form of subsidies, government contracts, bailouts, etc. In the US for example private businesses in the fields of weapon production or aeronautical or naval engineering or security or many, many others, receive a substantial boost from the massive publicly financed military spending. It's rather baffling, for example, that the same private businesses might benefit from the recent tax cuts, especially when the Trump presidency has increased military spending.

Similarly the financial sector received massive amount of "welfare" in the form of bailouts, and also benefited from tax cuts. Something seems to not add up.

The devil is always in the details, a discussion of "rights" vs. "entitlements" is fine on an academic, theoretical level but in practice it's a moot point. When it comes to reality perfect efficiency in providing food, water, housing, clothing, necessary health care to all citizens is very likely impossible, but all countries at least try to provide those things (albeit through different means). Also no country is "libertarian", and even "libertarians" encourage heavy government spending in areas they're interested about.

So the question changes from an abstract "socialism" vs. "libertarianism" to a more concrete matter of how, when and towards what goal money collected through taxes is spent, how efficient are different sources of spending at fulfilling their stated goals, who benefits from what source of spending, and which political choices cause expenses in which sector, for what state purposes, and with what kind of results.

Kirbmarc
.
.
Posts: 10577
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:29 am
Contact:

Re: There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one

#2133

Post by Kirbmarc » Wed Jan 31, 2018 12:15 am

An interesting blog post:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0hV_phCKox8/U ... tional.png

Another interesting blog post:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-IIOmCajoB3M/U ... arison.png

It's particularly interesting to read these last few paragraphs:
We concluded that a median income household pays 50.1% of their income for some social welfare services, which is far more than the 38.9% paid for many more services in the social democracies. But remember, our analysis was for a median American household--one making exactly $51,017. What if we consider a household that makes $1 million per year instead of $51,017? Let's repeat our analysis for a household making $1 million per year.

People making $1 million per year typically do not to earn wages, but capital gains. Capital gains are taxed at 20% for the 2013 tax year, and were taxed at 15% for the 2012 tax year and a decade prior. Households whose income comes exclusively from capital gains do not pay any payroll taxes (so very rich people neither contribute to nor benefit from Social Security; that contributes to their wanting to destroy it and redistribute its wealth to themselves). That's it for taxes--20% (or 15% for 2012 and the entire decade prior).

As for health insurance, let's assume boutique insurance coverage, so instead of paying $15,199, it's $25,000. $25,000 is 2.5% of $1 million. So far, we're up to 22.5% (20% + 2.5% = 22.5%) (or 17.5% for 2012 and earlier).

And, as I argued here (in the section entitled "Designed by the wealthy, for the wealthy"), 401(k) contributions by people whose money is all in the stock market aren't actually savings for retirement; the 401(k) is simply a tax free vehicle for the investor class to do with their money what they would have done with their money with or without a 401(k): invest it in the stock market. That means that our analysis is done: a household earning $1 million per year pays 22.5% (as of the 2013 tax year, or 17.5% for the decade ending 2012) of their income for the same social welfare services that a household making $51,017 per year must pay 50.1%. Actually, they get better services; their health insurance is way better, and they have far more money for their retirement.

But it's better still. Want to pay $50,000 per year for a child to go to an elite college (or elementary school)? That's a mere 5% of annual household income. $20,000 for boutique child care? That's but 2% of annual household income. No matter how you slice it, a household making $1 million per year will scarcely pay more than 25% of their annual income in social welfare services (or 20% for the entire decade ending in 2012)--and their social welfare services will be far better than everyone else's. Even long term care is not unaffordable. Why on earth would a household making $1 million per year want to pay 38.9% for the bottom 99% to have access to the same services that they do when they can pay 20-25% and get far better services than everyone else?

But what about households making even more? What if we repeat this analysis for a household making $10 million per year? Rather than 20-25%, such a household will only spend 2-2.5% of their total annual income on social welfare services. The ultra wealthy have no need for a welfare state.

So you can see that this "problem" of a shockingly inefficient, tragically ineffective welfare state isn't really a problem. If you're very rich, it's a very good system indeed. And since our political system only responds to the wishes of the wealthy, this "problem" isn't a problem that our political system has any interest in solving. If you only represent the rich, our deficient, inefficient, ineffective social welfare system isn't even a problem at all. Aside from Social Security, our welfare state functions pretty much exactly how the very wealthy want it to function--and that's why they're trying to dismantle Social Security and largely leave the rest as is.
Food for thought.

Hunt
.
.
Posts: 3060
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 5:04 am
Contact:

Re: There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one

#2134

Post by Hunt » Wed Jan 31, 2018 12:24 am

Guest_d2e60302 wrote:


Has this video from PZ been posted?

I am not seeing any comments, but I also do not see that comments are disabled. Is this something new?

It's pretty easy to understand it at 2x speed.
I have to admit, I thought the lobster angle was a bit silly too, especially since we have close ape relatives with ruthlessly hierarchical social structure as well. To say that "hierarchical social structure is a social construct" is a bit redundant, but what this means is that SJWs have to show that human social hierarchy is fundamentally different than, say, chimp social structure, and that chimp hierarchy is something of a "social construct", which is really pushing it. If they conceive that chimp social structure can be reorganized, say by some disrupting factor, the onus is on them to show how, why and when, and to show it will remain that way as easily as other means of organization. That's what it means for social structure to be purely a "social construct".

Personally, I think the unsettling lines between ape and human social structure are partly based on biology, but can be behaviorally overridden in humans.

Kirbmarc
.
.
Posts: 10577
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:29 am
Contact:

Re: There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one

#2135

Post by Kirbmarc » Wed Jan 31, 2018 12:30 am

The biggest source of confusion about "socialism" is that a lot of people, including many self-declared socialists, confuse many different things under the same blanket label of "socialism".

Many times it's just a matter of incomplete information and/or bad timing. For example American social-democrats, who wish for a more efficient system based on welfare, and thus for something more in line with Scandinavian social democracy, often have praised highly centralized, highly inefficient and corrupt bureaucratic nightmares like Venezuela, when it looked like Maduro was trying to implement the tenets of a social democracy (spoiler alert: he failed, or maybe never even really tried).

This makes it easy now for the political rivals of some social democratic movements to mock them for having been on the side of a country which is going down the drain, and to paint European-style social democratic reforms as something that "will turn the United States into Venezuela" (even though they won't).

Indeed the biggest problem that the American social-democratic left has is one of Public Relations: if they called themselves "a Newer Deal" they'd get a better reputation.

The problem with the US is that its social security, healthcare, welfare and tax systems are a highly fractured and overall inefficient hybrid of patchwork ad hoc legislation that is written in a way that highly benefits the wealthy and even more the ultra-wealthy. And this is possible largely because of the highly fractured and overall inefficient political system, which is set up to protect the interests of lobbies and pressure groups over those of the average US citizen.

The Kulturkampf on the both the left and the right ("War on Christmas!" "Cultural appropriation!") is largely a waste of precious time and effort for political activists while seasoned lobbyists and special interest groups make the really important decisions.

Guest_d2e60302

Re: There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one

#2136

Post by Guest_d2e60302 » Wed Jan 31, 2018 12:33 am

I have to admit, I thought the lobster angle was a bit silly too, especially since we have close ape relatives with ruthlessly hierarchical social structure as well. To say that "hierarchical social structure is a social construct" is a bit redundant, but what this means is that SJWs have to show that human social hierarchy is fundamentally different than, say, chimp social structure, and that chimp hierarchy is something of a "social construct", which is really pushing it. If they conceive that chimp social structure can be reorganized, say by some disrupting factor, the onus is on them to show how, why and when, and to show it will remain that way as easily as other means of organization. That's what it means for social structure to be purely a "social construct".

Personally, I think the unsettling lines between ape and human social structure are partly based on biology, but can be behaviorally overridden in humans.
I think it's reasonable to demand that if Peterson use evolution to demonstrate his ideas, he should get the facts right.

But I think PZ only told part of the story here. PZ knows what Peterson meant, and PZ may have shown that Peterson's chosen lobster species don't prove what Peterson claims.

But PZ, you're the biologist, is Peterson completely out to lunch, or are there examples, closer to us that do demonstrate Peterson's point, which is that many of our "social" behaviors are present in our evolutionary ancestors and so nature does setup a framework that nurture works around.

Feminists are quick to say "well I think men are better than that" referring to animal kingdom behaviors they dislike. And sure, humans can be taught many things, but that doesn't mean that we don't have basic drives, basic programming etc. that we shouldn't take into account to understand human behavior.

Hunt
.
.
Posts: 3060
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 5:04 am
Contact:

Re: There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one

#2137

Post by Hunt » Wed Jan 31, 2018 12:44 am

Kirbmarc wrote:
Indeed the biggest problem that the American social-democratic left has is one of Public Relations: if they called themselves "a Newer Deal" they'd get a better reputation.
Unfortunately there are plenty of ignorant Americans who think Roosevelt was a commie too. The two most forbidden words for American wealthy elite is "class war". They're terrified that eventually the rank and file will catch on to the raw deal that's been handed to them in this, the so-called greatest and richest country on earth. (That entire catchphrase is pure Orwellian propaganda.) Unfortunately, in the greatest country in the world, lots of people don't even have high speed internet. My own residential internet connection sucks. The rich know they can't make things unbearable for the hoi polloi, else there will be the unthinkable, revolution. The poor will eat the rich; so it's in their best interest to mollify them. Getting rid of soc security would be a disaster for them in the long run.

Guest_d2e60302

Re: There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one

#2138

Post by Guest_d2e60302 » Wed Jan 31, 2018 12:45 am

Bill Nye on the hot seat

oh oh oh






Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10154
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one

#2139

Post by Steersman » Wed Jan 31, 2018 12:50 am

Old_ones wrote:
Steersman wrote:
Sunder wrote: It gets brought up every so often but it's very probable that within the lifetimes of some of the people posting here now, we'll have a society in which a large proportion of its eligible workforce is permanently unemployable. Willing and able to work, but utterly superfluous.
Maybe. Seems a little bit suspect for any number of reasons. For one thing, it looks like there's a massive shortage of doctors & other medical professionals - those that are supposedly "permanently unemployable" should be obliged to take courses that lead to productive employment, not to "diversity officers", and academics in "Thinness Studies". Seem to recollect seeing someone argue that financial support for student's education should be prorated on the basis of employment prospects.
I'm not totally convinced that anyone pursuing a career as a "diversity officer" or academic in the "studies" departments would be a good fit for the medical profession. Medicine is difficult and requires good analytical skills. They might be better suited to a position in intra-restaurant customer relations or the custodial arts.
Probably not - certainly agree there are aptitudes & interests that make some people better suited for some jobs than others. And that it is probably unwise and counter-productive to try forcing square pegs into round holes - or vice versa.

However, I think that "good analytical skills" - arguably an essential part of being a good citizen - should be within the reach of many more people than currently seem to have them, and think that the "blame" for that can, in part, be laid at the feet of the educational system in general. You probably know of C.P. Snow's Two Cultures - "the sciences and the humanities" - which argued, in particular, that the lack of understanding by devotees of the latter of even the rudiments of the former was a serious hindrance to social progress.

But kind of think Snow was a bit wide of the mark in arguing that those in the humanities should know about "the Second Law of Thermodynamics and mass and acceleration" as those seem secondary, are merely the consequence of more fundamental habits of mind on which they rest. Haven't fully plumbed the depths of that issue, but it seems that that dichotomy, those two cultures, have, in general, very fundamentally different perspectives on the world - not that either of them are entirely without merit, only that they each have their limitations. But the difference seems primarily in that the sciences - and mathematics - are predicated on modelling the world as it actually is - they recognize that reality is primary and that the causal relations between the parts of it have to be reflected in the models rather than being disconnected from them - whereas the humanities tend to create "models" that are not obliged to be particularly accurate reflections of reality. The late British biologist P.B. Medawar, in his Art of the Soluble (highly recommended), described that succinctly:
Medawar wrote:Even the more sophisticated authors of “Philosophick Romances” did not seem to realize that any one set of phenomena could be explained by many hypotheses other than the one they fancied. It seems a strange blindness, but I think that Dugald Stewart in a finely reasoned passage got to the bottom of it. It was a favorite conceit in eighteenth-century philosophizing – Stewart found it in Boscovich, Le Sage, D’Alembert, Gravesande and Hartley – that natural philosophy is, in David Hartley’s words,
“… the art of deciphering the Mysteries of Nature … so that … every Theory which can explain all the Phaenomena, has all the same Evidence in its favour, that it is possible the Key of a Cypher can have from its explaining that Cypher.” [pg 147]
Bit of convoluted ye olde English there that I have a bit of difficultly deciphering, but seems the crux of the matter is the tendency, which seems to characterize the humanities and which is illustrated by many Real Peer Review tweets, to think that any hypothesis, any "Theory", is as good as any other one - which is of course only true if one doesn't actually have to test it against "reality" - which is of course the claim to fame of science.

So I think that teaching better analytical skills, teaching an understanding that theories, to be of any use at all, have to have some correspondance to reality, would go some distance in resolving some of the problems of those "two cultures" being unable to talk to each other. It is, of course, somewhat moot how readily those skills can be taught, how society can motivate people to learn them. But don't think they're necessarily something we're simply born with or not; think that they're within the reach of most people to learn, at least to a greater degree. Interesting elaboration on that theme in a book by Barbara Oakley [professor of engineering at Oakland University] titled A Mind for Numbers: How to Excel at Math and Science (Even if you Flunked Algebra) - fascinating book, highly recommended, interesting and useful perspectives on learning how to learn - which is frequently the first and biggest hurdle.

piginthecity
.
.
Posts: 1003
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 9:20 am
Contact:

Re: There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one

#2140

Post by piginthecity » Wed Jan 31, 2018 12:53 am

InfraRedBucket wrote:
Tue Jan 30, 2018 2:40 pm
Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
InfraRedBucket wrote: So what "doesnt exist"? according to Peterson, it is the "Pay Gap". He didnt say it but by implication it is the gender gap as believed by Newman et al.
So he did and didn't deny it existed.
CN: The gender pay gap stands at just over 9%. …. So it seems to a lot of women, that they still being “dominated and excluded” ….

JP: It does seem that way, but multivariate analysis [3] of the pay gap indicate that it doesn’t exist.

CN: But that is not true, is it? I mean, that nine percent pay gap! That’s a gap between median hourly earnings between men and women!

JP: Yeah, but there’s multiple reasons for that. One of them is gender, but it’s not the only reason.… Like you say, well women in aggregate are paid less than men.
This is what happens when words are used to mean anything.

Gender
Pay
Gap

First off, it should be "sex", not "gender".
Second, it is only about wages, not overall compensation or benefits.
Third, it is a difference or disparity. Calling it a "gap" passes a subjective moral judgment.

Peterson obviously was thinking no gender-bias gap exists. I admit it's hard to stay on point when a belligerent but not terribly smart ideologue is rapid-firing dogmatic talking points at you, but this was one rare instance when he was not very careful with his words.
Actually I think there is a point here he softened/changed his stated position in the Newman interview compared with all the other discussions he's had that I recall.
Before he's refused to answer the "would you call someone by their preferred pronoun?" and said it's a hypothetical or "depends on the circumstances/how they ask".
Newman: You have voluntarily, … You have voluntarily come into the studio and agreed to be questioned. A trans person in your class, has come to your class and said they want to be called “she”.

Peterson: That’s never happened. And I would call them “she”.

Newman: So you would? So you’ve kind of changed your tune a little bit, …

Peterson: No. No. I said that right from the beginning. What I said at the beginning, was that I was not going to cede the linguistic territory to radical leftists, regardless of whether, or not it was put in law. That’s what I said. Then the people who came after me said, “oh, you must be transphobic! And you’d mistreat a student in your class.” It’s like I never mistreated a student in my class. I’m not transphobic, and that isn’t what I said.
Maybe a pedantic point but i don't think JP's position has changed.

Whether he calls a trans person by their preferred pronoun depends upon the circumstance. If the circumstance is that they're a student in his class, then he will use the pronoun they want.

Kirbmarc
.
.
Posts: 10577
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:29 am
Contact:

Re: There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one

#2141

Post by Kirbmarc » Wed Jan 31, 2018 12:56 am

Hunt wrote:
Kirbmarc wrote:
Indeed the biggest problem that the American social-democratic left has is one of Public Relations: if they called themselves "a Newer Deal" they'd get a better reputation.
Unfortunately there are plenty of ignorant Americans who think Roosevelt was a commie too. The two most forbidden words for American wealthy elite is "class war". They're terrified that eventually the rank and file will catch on to the raw deal that's been handed to them in this, the so-called greatest and richest country on earth. (That entire catchphrase is pure Orwellian propaganda.) Unfortunately, in the greatest country in the world, lots of people don't even have high speed internet. My own residential internet connection sucks. The rich know they can't make things unbearable for the hoi polloi, else there will be the unthinkable, revolution. The poor will eat the rich; so it's in their best interest to mollify them. Getting rid of soc security would be a disaster for them in the long run.
Thing is that you wouldn't need a class war, you don't need a revolution, you'd get by with reforms to your political and economic system which are entirely possible within your liberal-democratic framework, and actually deliverable gradually and without tearing everything down. The biggest problem is that the wealthy US elite has too much of a firm grip over the financing process of American parties (yes, the Democrats too).

You only get half-assed reforms (some of which, like ACA, are better than others, but still) which are then taken down by the next presidency, while the political insiders craft endless sources of distraction and division of the electorate according to racial, religious and other sectarian issues.

The GOP is the party of the wealthy elite which gets by through promising the "American dream" and blaming "foreign interlopers", but the Dems are patchwork of several pressure groups which are more interested about sectarian issues than the promotion of a coherent political platform. The "culture wars" really don't help.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10154
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one

#2142

Post by Steersman » Wed Jan 31, 2018 1:11 am

Guest_d2e60302 wrote: Bill Nye on the hot seat

oh oh oh

https: //twitter.com/sciam/status/958393247658889219

https: //twitter.com/JamesHasson20/status/958399557309693953

https: //www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtJFb_P2j48
"My vagina has its own voice"? Its own answering cervix? ... :rimshot:

But not sure that it's too helpful to be talking of a "sexuality spectrum" - seems a bit of a malapropism at best as the "spectrum" of sexes consists of two possibilities.

Shatterface
.
.
Posts: 5898
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2014 2:05 pm
Contact:

Re: There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one

#2143

Post by Shatterface » Wed Jan 31, 2018 1:14 am

Steersman wrote: No, of course not. Expect that there are many other jobs & professions that also have similar disparities between jobs available and those trained to do them:

https://www.indeed.com/l-United-States-jobs.html
https://www.prospects.ac.uk/jobs-and-wo ... in-the-usa
https://www.ussteel.com/work/jobs

https://www.google.ca/search?q=employme ... 11&bih=790

Etc., etc., etc.
People aren't infinitely malleable. You can't simply retrain everyone for the jobs available. I don't believe you could survive five minutes in a job requiring people skills.

Behind the notion that everyone can simply be refitted for the jobs available lies the concept of the 'blank slate'.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10154
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one

#2144

Post by Steersman » Wed Jan 31, 2018 1:26 am

Kirbmarc wrote: An interesting blog post:

[.img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0hV_phCKox8/U ... tional.png[/img]

Another interesting blog post:

[.img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-IIOmCajoB3M/U ... arison.png[/img]

It's particularly interesting to read these last few paragraphs:
We concluded that a median income household pays 50.1% of their income for some social welfare services, which is far more than the 38.9% paid for many more services in the social democracies. But remember, our analysis was for a median American household--one making exactly $51,017. What if we consider a household that makes $1 million per year instead of $51,017? Let's repeat our analysis for a household making $1 million per year.

<snip>

And, as I argued here (in the section entitled "Designed by the wealthy, for the wealthy"), 401(k) contributions by people whose money is all in the stock market aren't actually savings for retirement; the 401(k) is simply a tax free vehicle for the investor class to do with their money what they would have done with their money with or without a 401(k): invest it in the stock market. That means that our analysis is done: a household earning $1 million per year pays 22.5% (as of the 2013 tax year, or 17.5% for the decade ending 2012) of their income for the same social welfare services that a household making $51,017 per year must pay 50.1%. Actually, they get better services; their health insurance is way better, and they have far more money for their retirement.

<snip>
Food for thought.
Indeed. But while I'll have to read it a bit closer (later), this seems to raise a flag or two:
a household earning $1 million per year pays 22.5% (as of the 2013 tax year, or 17.5% for the decade ending 2012) of their income for the same social welfare services that a household making $51,017 per year must pay 50.1%
Maybe I'm misinterpreting - it's late & past my bed-time - but is the guy [misgendering?!#?] saying the $1 million household is paying 22.5% of that - $225,000 - for the same thing that the $51,000 household is paying $25,000? One might suggest that seems a bit unfair.

Maybe there's a disparity in the effort needed to acquire the different incomes, but if not then that really does seem rather unfair. I get proportional taxation, but one might suggest that IF the $50k guy is demanding the $1000k guy should pay more then he's being a bit unreasonable.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics - easy to throw around numbers but there are frequently devils in the details that are worth elucidating.

Hunt
.
.
Posts: 3060
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 5:04 am
Contact:

Re: There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one

#2145

Post by Hunt » Wed Jan 31, 2018 1:32 am

Kirbmarc wrote: The "culture wars" really don't help.
They're modern day bread and circuses. The rich don't care if there's a "gender war". They could are less. The more distraction, the better.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10154
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one

#2146

Post by Steersman » Wed Jan 31, 2018 1:44 am

Shatterface wrote:
Steersman wrote: No, of course not. Expect that there are many other jobs & professions that also have similar disparities between jobs available and those trained to do them:

https://www.indeed.com/l-United-States-jobs.html
https://www.prospects.ac.uk/jobs-and-wo ... in-the-usa
https://www.ussteel.com/work/jobs

https://www.google.ca/search?q=employme ... 11&bih=790

Etc., etc., etc.
People aren't infinitely malleable. You can't simply retrain everyone for the jobs available. I don't believe you could survive five minutes in a job requiring people skills.
Worked some 40 years, before retiring, in a rather wide range of jobs that frequently required some extensive "people skills"; me simply as a robot is a bit of propaganda and a Pit "fancy" or conceit that, while periodically amusing, aren't particularly accurate.

Though I quite agree that people "aren't infinitely malleable", but I wasn't arguing anything of the sort. As my subsequent comments on Oakley's book (A Mind for Numbers) illustrates, I think many people, a surprising number as a matter of fact, are entirely capable of reinventing themselves, of acquiring a different set of skills that were quite foreign to their previous lives.
Shatterface wrote: Behind the notion that everyone can simply be refitted for the jobs available lies the concept of the 'blank slate'.
Again, not arguing that "everyone can simply be refitted" for different jobs. Just that many can be if they're given the opportunities and tools to do the job - and, as I've argued, knowing how to learn is one of the more important of the latter. And we don't have refit everyone to a new job to make a substantial dent in that problem.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10154
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one

#2147

Post by Steersman » Wed Jan 31, 2018 1:47 am

Hunt wrote:
Kirbmarc wrote: The "culture wars" really don't help.
They're modern day bread and circuses. The rich don't care if there's a "gender war". They could are less. The more distraction, the better.
You've polled ALL of those rich? Done a statistical and unbiased sample of them? Do tell ...

Guest_d2e60302

Re: There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one

#2148

Post by Guest_d2e60302 » Wed Jan 31, 2018 1:59 am


So, The CEOs of Google and YouTube sat down with someone and made some ungoogley public statements. They sure remind me of someone... I wonder who?!

Hunt
.
.
Posts: 3060
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 5:04 am
Contact:

Re: There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one

#2149

Post by Hunt » Wed Jan 31, 2018 2:33 am

Steersman wrote:
Hunt wrote:
Kirbmarc wrote: The "culture wars" really don't help.
They're modern day bread and circuses. The rich don't care if there's a "gender war". They could are less. The more distraction, the better.
You've polled ALL of those rich? Done a statistical and unbiased sample of them? Do tell ...
Isn't it past your bedtime Steers? I don't even individualize "the rich" when I say think that "they" are perpetuating a system that keeps others down. Hell, I take all the tax write-offs I can too. The problem is in the system, and the system doesn't care if SJWs are bashing on the alt-right, or vice versa. You can anthropomorphize that into saying "they don't see it as a threat", which is exactly the case. But if there was a mass movement to massively expand Social Security, THAT they would see as a threat. Just imagine, for a moment, something like the women's march, but ten times larger, demanding a massive expansion of social programs. Ambitious demands like that never seem to gain traction in the US.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10154
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one

#2150

Post by Steersman » Wed Jan 31, 2018 2:48 am

Hunt wrote:
Steersman wrote:
Hunt wrote:
Kirbmarc wrote: The "culture wars" really don't help.
They're modern day bread and circuses. The rich don't care if there's a "gender war". They could are less. The more distraction, the better.
You've polled ALL of those rich? Done a statistical and unbiased sample of them? Do tell ...
Isn't it past your bedtime Steers?
:-) Pretty well - late night snack and I'm gone but thought I'd check for any rejoinders ... ;-)
Hunt wrote: I don't even individualize "the rich" when I say think that "they" are perpetuating a system that keeps others down. Hell, I take all the tax write-offs I can too. The problem is in the system, and the system doesn't care if SJWs are bashing on the alt-right, or vice versa. You can anthropomorphize that into saying "they don't see it as a threat", which is exactly the case.
But the problems with that "anthropomorphizing" & not "individualizing" is kind of my point, or frequently is in any case. Groups generally don't have any agency or autonomy, only individuals do - more or less; see Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand". And losing sight of that fact is frequently the cause of no end of unnecessary grief and animosity - you might just as well have complained about "The Patriarchy!!11!!" - both kind of cases of reification, of turning, with little justification, an abstraction into a supposed reality.

Hunt wrote: But if there was a mass movement to massively expand Social Security, THAT they would see as a threat. Just imagine, for a moment, something like the women's march, but ten times larger, demanding a massive expansion of social programs. Ambitious demands like that never seem to gain traction in the US.
No doubt many would do so, and probably with some justification, particularly as that would seem to be treating a symptom rather than the cause. Printing money so that supposedly the poor would have access to more goods and services - treating the symptom - does not address the problem that there really isn't enough of those to go around in the first place. Which seems the stickier wicket by far.

Hunt
.
.
Posts: 3060
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 5:04 am
Contact:

Re: There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one

#2151

Post by Hunt » Wed Jan 31, 2018 3:41 am

Steersman wrote: But the problems with that "anthropomorphizing" & not "individualizing" is kind of my point, or frequently is in any case. Groups generally don't have any agency or autonomy, only individuals do - more or less; see Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand". And losing sight of that fact is frequently the cause of no end of unnecessary grief and animosity - you might just as well have complained about "The Patriarchy!!11!!" - both kind of cases of reification, of turning, with little justification, an abstraction into a supposed reality.
Fair enough point.
Steersman wrote: Printing money so that supposedly the poor would have access to more goods and services - treating the symptom - does not address the problem that there really isn't enough of those to go around in the first place. Which seems the stickier wicket by far.
Except if the system isn't hegemonically rigged to serve the rich, there IS enough to go around, more than enough. The Scandinavian social democracy model proves it. America is the RICHEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD, or so they tell me.

SM1957
.
.
Posts: 841
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2017 5:01 am
Contact:

Re: There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one

#2152

Post by SM1957 » Wed Jan 31, 2018 4:01 am

piginthecity wrote:
Tue Jan 30, 2018 12:03 pm
SM1957 wrote: I agree that shouting through the letterbox of somebody on trial for rape is a bad thing to do.
Oh enough with the passive-aggression SierraMike.

This case is a perfect illustration of one of the reasons why it is indeed 'bad'. The shouter don't know who is in the house or what effect it will have on them. We can also add that they don't know you've got the right house or that the target still lives there - not to mention the fact that being 'on trial' for something is not the same as being guilty.

We came in by talking about the SocJus Words/Violence false conflation. To conflate threats with legitimate speech is exactly the same thing.
Jayda Fransen shouted through the letter box of somebody found guilty of taking part in the gang-rape of a minor who had entered a restaurant to ask for directions.

SM1957
.
.
Posts: 841
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2017 5:01 am
Contact:

Re: There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one

#2153

Post by SM1957 » Wed Jan 31, 2018 4:03 am

That should be 'later found guilty' .......

VickyCaramel
.
.
Posts: 2034
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 10:24 am
Location: Sitting with feet up
Contact:

Re: There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one

#2154

Post by VickyCaramel » Wed Jan 31, 2018 4:14 am

Although it doesn't change the fact that Northern European countries have it all and Americans are going without.... I wouldn't trust those figures in the least.
We did a back-of-an-envelope comparison a few years ago. When you winkle out all the repeat taxes, stealth taxes, my Swedish friend worked out they were paying about 50% while in the UK we pay a bit more, the Germans seem to have it a bit better. The bills for things like Paid Parental leave are forced upon the employer which can be an intolerable burden on small and medium sized businesses. I think it's worth it, and there is no doubt that Americans pay more for less in terms of healthcare, but it isn't quite as rosy as those figures suggest.

MarcusAu
.
.
Posts: 7077
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2016 11:49 am
Location: Llareggub
Contact:

Re: There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one

#2155

Post by MarcusAu » Wed Jan 31, 2018 4:47 am

Well this seems appropriate...


deLurch
.
.
Posts: 8447
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:11 am

Re: There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one

#2156

Post by deLurch » Wed Jan 31, 2018 6:00 am

SM1957 wrote:
Tue Jan 30, 2018 1:04 pm
It is indeed bad to shout abuse through letterboxes. It is one reason why Britain has developed a system of ASBOs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-soci ... iour_order

But I find it hard to believe you can abort children by shouting at their pregnant mother through a letterbox.
Is "letterbox" British slang for cunt?

deLurch
.
.
Posts: 8447
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:11 am

Re: There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one

#2157

Post by deLurch » Wed Jan 31, 2018 6:07 am

Really? wrote:
Tue Jan 30, 2018 3:37 pm
So YouTube is a Google company. During an onstage talk, YouTube's woman CEO gave the same exact reasoning James Damore did when asked about gender rates at Google.

https://mashable.com/2018/01/29/google- ... town-hall/
Femsplaining. When a woman says the same exact thing that a man said, but he got fired/banned for doing so.

BoxNDox
.
.
Posts: 572
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 2:24 pm
Contact:

Re: There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one

#2158

Post by BoxNDox » Wed Jan 31, 2018 6:46 am

Kirbmarc wrote:
It's particularly interesting to read these last few paragraphs:
We concluded that a median income household pays 50.1% of their income for some social welfare services, which is far more than the 38.9% paid for many more services in the social democracies. But remember, our analysis was for a median American household--one making exactly $51,017. What if we consider a household that makes $1 million per year instead of $51,017? Let's repeat our analysis for a household making $1 million per year.

People making $1 million per year typically do not to earn wages, but capital gains. Capital gains are taxed at 20% for the 2013 tax year, and were taxed at 15% for the 2012 tax year and a decade prior. Households whose income comes exclusively from capital gains do not pay any payroll taxes (so very rich people neither contribute to nor benefit from Social Security; that contributes to their wanting to destroy it and redistribute its wealth to themselves). That's it for taxes--20% (or 15% for 2012 and the entire decade prior).

As for health insurance, let's assume boutique insurance coverage, so instead of paying $15,199, it's $25,000. $25,000 is 2.5% of $1 million. So far, we're up to 22.5% (20% + 2.5% = 22.5%) (or 17.5% for 2012 and earlier).

And, as I argued here (in the section entitled "Designed by the wealthy, for the wealthy"), 401(k) contributions by people whose money is all in the stock market aren't actually savings for retirement; the 401(k) is simply a tax free vehicle for the investor class to do with their money what they would have done with their money with or without a 401(k): invest it in the stock market. That means that our analysis is done: a household earning $1 million per year pays 22.5% (as of the 2013 tax year, or 17.5% for the decade ending 2012) of their income for the same social welfare services that a household making $51,017 per year must pay 50.1%. Actually, they get better services; their health insurance is way better, and they have far more money for their retirement.

But it's better still. Want to pay $50,000 per year for a child to go to an elite college (or elementary school)? That's a mere 5% of annual household income. $20,000 for boutique child care? That's but 2% of annual household income. No matter how you slice it, a household making $1 million per year will scarcely pay more than 25% of their annual income in social welfare services (or 20% for the entire decade ending in 2012)--and their social welfare services will be far better than everyone else's. Even long term care is not unaffordable. Why on earth would a household making $1 million per year want to pay 38.9% for the bottom 99% to have access to the same services that they do when they can pay 20-25% and get far better services than everyone else?

But what about households making even more? What if we repeat this analysis for a household making $10 million per year? Rather than 20-25%, such a household will only spend 2-2.5% of their total annual income on social welfare services. The ultra wealthy have no need for a welfare state.

So you can see that this "problem" of a shockingly inefficient, tragically ineffective welfare state isn't really a problem. If you're very rich, it's a very good system indeed. And since our political system only responds to the wishes of the wealthy, this "problem" isn't a problem that our political system has any interest in solving. If you only represent the rich, our deficient, inefficient, ineffective social welfare system isn't even a problem at all. Aside from Social Security, our welfare state functions pretty much exactly how the very wealthy want it to function--and that's why they're trying to dismantle Social Security and largely leave the rest as is.
Food for thought.
Pretty thin gruel, actually. Most of this comes under the heading of blindingly obvious, the rest is pretty disingenuous.

Let's start with the bit about 401(k) plans. Saying that 401(k) plans were "Designed by the wealthy, for the wealthy" is simply stating a fact, since that exactly how section 401(k) came to be in the tax code - it was put there so wealthy people could defer taxes on stock market investments. It was only later that a guy named Ted Benna figured out it could also be used as a retirement savings plan.

401(k) plans aren't tax free either - everything in a 401(k) plan has to be distributed at some point, and when it is, it's taxed as regular income. The advantage this offers for retirement savings is that the distribution is deferred until after retirement, when your income is likely to be lower, so it will be taxed at a lower rate.

401(k) plans are of no interest to the rich, because (a) They are employer-based and these people don't work, (b) They have maximum annual contribution limits (currently something like $18,000 pre-tax and $55,000 total), (c) They do not provide access to arbitrary investments, (d) There are deferral limits on people who receive large salaries, (e) The distribution requirements are inconvenient at best, and (f) They have access to much better forms of tax deferral. The people who use them, often to great advantage, are upper middle class workers who don't have access to other means of deferring taxes. And if their employer matches contributions to some degree, all the better.

As for the rest of it, it's a simple mathematical fact that as your income increases, the percentage of it that you need to spend on social welfare services is going to go down, since those costs can only go so high. (Past a certain point, there are no wealthier neighborhoods to move into.) There's nothing remotely insightful about saying this, let alone saying it repeatedly.

On the subject of social security, of course there are people who want do stupid shit to the social security system. But if you check you'll find that this isn't limited to the rich, nor are the rich as a group set on destroying social security. Indeed, most rich people are smart enough to understand the need for social stability, and understand how having some form of safety net helps achieve that - and that they do benefit, albeit indirectly, from having some form of welfare state.

I could go on, but I think this makes the point. This is nothing but spin, and ill-informed spin to boot. ($50K for an elite school? Not even close.)

John D
.
.
Posts: 4570
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:23 am
Location: Detroit, MI. USA
Contact:

Re: There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one

#2159

Post by John D » Wed Jan 31, 2018 6:54 am

Hunt wrote:
Guest_d2e60302 wrote:


Has this video from PZ been posted?

I am not seeing any comments, but I also do not see that comments are disabled. Is this something new?

It's pretty easy to understand it at 2x speed.
I have to admit, I thought the lobster angle was a bit silly too, especially since we have close ape relatives with ruthlessly hierarchical social structure as well. To say that "hierarchical social structure is a social construct" is a bit redundant, but what this means is that SJWs have to show that human social hierarchy is fundamentally different than, say, chimp social structure, and that chimp hierarchy is something of a "social construct", which is really pushing it. If they conceive that chimp social structure can be reorganized, say by some disrupting factor, the onus is on them to show how, why and when, and to show it will remain that way as easily as other means of organization. That's what it means for social structure to be purely a "social construct".

Personally, I think the unsettling lines between ape and human social structure are partly based on biology, but can be behaviorally overridden in humans.
PZ is actually right about the specifics of the lobster story. Chordata split from Anamalia further back in time than Peterson claims. My little study suggests this was 540 million years ago rather then 350 as Peterson claims. Also, we are not a direct descendant of lobsters. Our lineage broke off prior to true lobsters. This kind of detailed mistake does tend to take the wind out of Peterson's story. But, I forgive him here. I just finished the first chapter of "12 Rules for Life" and his main story is correct.

Peterson's main points are that lobsters and people form hierarchies, these hierarchies are very old, and the hierarchies even share some of the same brain chemistry. This is all generally true.

So, while PZ successfully picks at some details, he really does not disprove the claim. The claim is that you should face the world with your head up and your shoulders back.... like a successful lobster. This is probably something PZ cannot do.

John D
.
.
Posts: 4570
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:23 am
Location: Detroit, MI. USA
Contact:

Re: There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one

#2160

Post by John D » Wed Jan 31, 2018 6:57 am

BoxNDox wrote: Pretty thin gruel, actually. Most of this comes under the heading of blindingly obvious, the rest is pretty disingenuous.

Let's start with the bit about 401(k) plans. Saying that 401(k) plans were "Designed by the wealthy, for the wealthy" is simply stating a fact, since that exactly how section 401(k) came to be in the tax code - it was put there so wealthy people could defer taxes on stock market investments. It was only later that a guy named Ted Benna figured out it could also be used as a retirement savings plan.

401(k) plans aren't tax free either - everything in a 401(k) plan has to be distributed at some point, and when it is, it's taxed as regular income. The advantage this offers for retirement savings is that the distribution is deferred until after retirement, when your income is likely to be lower, so it will be taxed at a lower rate.

401(k) plans are of no interest to the rich, because (a) They are employer-based and these people don't work, (b) They have maximum annual contribution limits (currently something like $18,000 pre-tax and $55,000 total), (c) They do not provide access to arbitrary investments, (d) There are deferral limits on people who receive large salaries, (e) The distribution requirements are inconvenient at best, and (f) They have access to much better forms of tax deferral. The people who use them, often to great advantage, are upper middle class workers who don't have access to other means of deferring taxes. And if their employer matches contributions to some degree, all the better.

As for the rest of it, it's a simple mathematical fact that as your income increases, the percentage of it that you need to spend on social welfare services is going to go down, since those costs can only go so high. (Past a certain point, there are no wealthier neighborhoods to move into.) There's nothing remotely insightful about saying this, let alone saying it repeatedly.

On the subject of social security, of course there are people who want do stupid shit to the social security system. But if you check you'll find that this isn't limited to the rich, nor are the rich as a group set on destroying social security. Indeed, most rich people are smart enough to understand the need for social stability, and understand how having some form of safety net helps achieve that - and that they do benefit, albeit indirectly, from having some form of welfare state.

I could go on, but I think this makes the point. This is nothing but spin, and ill-informed spin to boot. ($50K for an elite school? Not even close.)
Yes BoxNDox.... I agree with you.

Locked