Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[rms]

best thing out of the women's march

 

[CiG]

I was at the march here in Boston. It wasn't a clusterfuck. It was a really moving experience, if I can say that and still be taken seriously.

Lesbians hollering "Allahu Akbar" into a megaphone with a Sharia-promoting Muslim feminist as a guest speaker (the one that said Ayaan Hirsi Ali doesn't deserve to have a vagina), Ashley Judd talking about how repulsive and dirty she is and then women wearing pussy hats? That's what I meant by clusterfuck. But I believe that was all from the Washington march?

 

[Einherjar86]

Yeah, she wasn't at ours. But there were definitely some intersectional signs.

By the way, I recently checked out a book from the library that you might be interested in: Between Islam and Feminism: Human Rights and Sharia Law in Morocco, by Zakia Salime. It goes into details regarding how Islamic feminists navigate the complexities of being Muslims and advocating for women's rights. Basically, these two institutions can exist side by side, it's just a matter of how they're pursued.

There is actually a huge discourse around the dilemma of women's rights and Islamic belief. It's not as though scholars brush it under the rug. The shelf was stacked with books on studies particular to certain regions/countries.

 

[rms]

you referring that book to me Ein or CIG?

 

[Einherjar86]

To CIG. But I mean, you're welcome to check it out too.

 

[CiG]

@Einherjar86 Thanks I'll try and track it down. I'm actually somewhat familiar with the ways women's movements in Islamic nations work by either working against Sharia or working with and within Sharia due to the works of Nonie Darwish for the most part, it's interesting and regardless of how they choose to move forward I hope they succeed.

I have a problem with western feminists trying to bring Sharia here though. What we have is superior to Sharia.

 

[Dak]

Give it a rest. You're trying so hard to pin faith on me, ever since I made that comment during the morality discussion.

The odds are better that scientific research not tethered to a narrow range of interests will stumble on something worthwhile. That's not to say it'll happen, I'm just invoking probability here.

What, you just wait long enough until the original comment is in the past and then act like it didn't happen?

I think you can't acknowledge your faith in a particular outcome relevant to some Gaia shit in this particular case. But tbh, it doesn't really matter to my original point about purpose and meaning other than that you wish for some. Nearly anything could potentially suffice to substitute for something meaningful or purposeful - in the short term.

I don't need to prove it. I was there, I saw it. If you don't believe it, that's your prerogative. Doesn't do much for your argument though.

Yeah, and right after they shed those tears of joy for sticking it to the patriarchy they returned to their psychoanalysis sessions.

I'm one of the most scientifically-oriented humanists you'll come across, and you know that. Don't be daft.

I haven't seen it, and I'm far more sympathetic to your theoretic tendencies than most. In fact I've found you/them incredibly informative.

You can observe something and not be able to test it. Testing/experimentation requires controlled environments. Observation is an attribute of social organization. Observation happens all the time. Testing is more specific.

I will back off this and admit you are correct in general terms. There are observable things which cannot be replicated in RCTs. However, I don't see where any modeling provides you any definitive support.

I was at the march here in Boston. It wasn't a clusterfuck. It was a really moving experience, if I can say that and still be taken seriously.

Being capable of being moving is to my point. The Communist Manifesto (which underlies feminism - don't deny it) has been superbly moving. It's also killed hundreds of millions. It's transcendent.

 

[Einherjar86]

I think you can't acknowledge your faith in a particular outcome relevant to some Gaia shit in this particular case. But tbh, it doesn't really matter to my original point about purpose and meaning other than that you wish for some. Nearly anything could potentially suffice to substitute for something meaningful or purposeful - in the short term.

So having ecological concerns automatically makes someone a Gaia-loving hippie? You're being very presumptuous.

Yeah, and right after they shed those tears of joy for sticking it to the patriarchy they returned to their psychoanalysis sessions.

Man, you're an asshole sometimes. I'll admit that anecdotal evidence isn't convincing, but seeing as I actually know people who went to the march, and you probably don't know anyone, I'll go with my anecdotal evidence over your lack thereof.

I haven't seen it, and I'm far more sympathetic to your theoretic tendencies than most. In fact I've found you/them incredibly informative.

I'm sorry, if you haven't seen it then you're just choosing not to see it. I consider science to be a cornerstone of my studies. I teach courses on "literature and science" (I'm teaching one now), and I have books on physics, cognitive science, and genetics on my bookshelf. If I'm occasionally critical of science, that's because I'm also a humanist; but that doesn't make me non-scientific. I've never privileged humanities over science, nor have I ever claimed that the humanities are more important than science.

As much as I talk about science on this forum, you saying you "haven't seen it" is a fucking joke.

I will back off this and admit you are correct in general terms. There are observable things which cannot be replicated in RCTs. However, I don't see where any modeling provides you any definitive support.

I wasn't claiming that. All I said was that I was there, and you weren't.

Being capable of being moving is to my point. The Communist Manifesto (which underlies feminism - don't deny it) has been superbly moving. It's also killed hundreds of millions. It's transcendent.

You're attributing negative qualities to a text based on the fact that people have manipulated it to violent ends. That doesn't mean the object itself has negative qualities.

 

[CiG]

I would argue that Communism fails every time because its core ideas are negative.

 

[Einherjar86]

I think that, like every set of political principles, it has elements that work and those that don't.

 

[CiG]

Which elements work?

 

[Dak]

So having ecological concerns automatically makes someone a Gaia-loving hippie? You're being very presumptuous.

Man, you're an asshole sometimes. I'll admit that anecdotal evidence isn't convincing, but seeing as I actually know people who went to the march, and you probably don't know anyone, I'll go with my anecdotal evidence over your lack thereof.

Having ecological concerns doesn't make one a happy, and a fleeting moment of belonging doesn't fill existential voids. When people volunteer to do something we can assume they derive at least some joy from it - joy they aren't getting elsewhere. Energy in search of a cause, something "bigger than themselves".

I'm at times confused what you find assholeish. My statement was based on a series of rather mundane facts.
1. Five factor personality tests have shown the northeast to be generally high on Neuroticism (which is linked to a higher prevalence of mood disorders, etc.) Some studies have also found higher incidents of reported mental health issues in the northeast, but there are some problems with that due to differences in education and treatment availability - that is, people in the northeast are more acquainted with the problems and able to access care for it.
2. Women use therapy at a higher rate than men.
3. Psychoanalysis is still popular in the northeast. There's even a graduate school of psychodynamics in Boston.

Combine all of that with my original assertion and it's a rather banal statement. It may not describe particular people you know, but happy people full of some other purpose aren't generally drawn to mass protests.

I'm sorry, if you haven't seen it then you're just choosing not to see it. I consider science to be a cornerstone of my studies. I teach courses on "literature and science" (I'm teaching one now), and I have books on physics, cognitive science, and genetics on my bookshelf. If I'm occasionally critical of science, that's because I'm also a humanist; but that doesn't make me non-scientific. I've never privileged humanities over science, nor have I ever claimed that the humanities are more important than science.

As much as I talk about science on this forum, you saying you "haven't seen it" is a fucking joke.

I've always understood your interest in science as limited to mostly theoretical aspects - AI, space travel, etc., and particularly what their implications were, rather than "nuts and bolts". That was my what I meant when I said I don't see it.

You're attributing negative qualities to a text based on the fact that people have manipulated it to violent ends. That doesn't mean the object itself has negative qualities.

Negative or not, it offers transcendence, which is why no amount of failure in various applications has been able to relegate it to the dust bins of history. Religions and transcendent secular ideologies offer meaning and give purpose (and potentially "immortality").

 

[Einherjar86]

My main problem is that you're drawing a very, very general picture of people on one side of the political spectrum (i.e. liberal, leftist, democratic, etc.) as being concerned with non-issues, because they're too comfortable in life (or some such nonsense) and so perceive problems and discomfort where there are none.

You mentioned populism somewhere along the line to cover your bases, but you're primarily accusing leftists here of making mountains out of molehills. And you've elsewhere said that Rust Belt voters actually do have legitimate things to complain about. So I know, in general, where your sympathies lie.

It may not describe particular people you know, but happy people full of some other purpose aren't generally drawn to mass protests.

You made a comment, shortly after I said that I went to the protest in Boston, saying that you don't have time to go mill about in streets. Aside from this being a condescending comment, and aside from the fact that the Boston march (several of them, in fact) was a lot more than people milling about in streets, a lot of women that I know couldn't attend the march because (*gasp*) they had to go to work. The march was on a weekend, and a lot of people who work service jobs couldn't get off.

My wife and I have jobs that keep us busy during the week, so we had the luxury of going to the march. Additionally, I think it's safe to say that we both feel a good deal of happiness in our lives. What's more, I think it's safe to say that my colleagues do as well. What's more, I think it's safe to say that a hell of a lot of people at the march, many of whom had the financial security to go to the march on a Saturday, feel fine with their lives.

You paint the group as, in general, a mass of depressed women who feel unfulfilled, and therefore go to marches because they have nothing better to do. But in fact, a lot of people took time out of their Saturday to go to something they feel strongly about, not to go do something because they have little else going for them. A lot of people took their kids. It was an event structured around respective political views and a general disdain for the politics in office. Your impression of the marchers isn't only inaccurate, it's also dripping with political bias and, on top of that, it's arrogant and condescending.

I've always understood your interest in science as limited to mostly theoretical aspects - AI, space travel, etc., and particularly what their implications were, rather than "nuts and bolts". That was my what I meant when I said I don't see it.

Even if that's true, saying I don't understand the scientific method? Come on Dak.

Negative or not, it offers transcendence, which is why no amount of failure in various applications has been able to relegate it to the dust bins of history. Religions and transcendent secular ideologies offer meaning and give purpose (and potentially "immortality").

Okay, but I object to your use of "transcendent." I obviously resist appeals to transcendence, which I realize is what you're doing too. But you don't need transcendence in order to arrive at meaning. You're using "transcendence" in an accusatory manner, and it's partially misplaced.

 

[CiG]

Speaking of political bias, would you similarly say that elements of Nazism work? How about Fascism?

 

[Dak]

My main problem is that you're drawing a very, very general picture of people on one side of the political spectrum (i.e. liberal, leftist, democratic, etc.) as being concerned with non-issues, because they're too comfortable in life (or some such nonsense) and so perceive problems and discomfort where there are none.

You mentioned populism somewhere along the line to cover your bases, but you're primarily accusing leftists here of making mountains out of molehills. And you've elsewhere said that Rust Belt voters actually do have legitimate things to complain about. So I know, in general, where your sympathies lie.

But how did the Rust Belt voters show their frustration? Voting. I'm not a big fan of democracy either, but marching to the voting both is a more direct path to change than chanting and holding signs, or listening to speakers. It doesn't have to be leftists, but that particular format ("marches") seems to be a leftist thing for whatever reason.

Women do not have it worse than men in the US, currently, as a group. They live longer, are more educated, didn't experience the same loss of jobs as men during the "Recession", have preferential treatment under the law when in disputes with men, and even make more money (if under 30). They also are not under any sort of threat of reversal of this situation.

Compare this with Rust Belters as a group: Dying earlier, less educated, having their industries hollowed out over 2-3 decades by trade deals and regulations, and increasingly poor. Yes, I sympathize with people with problems. There's nothing left-right about it.

What's more, I think it's safe to say that a hell of a lot of people at the march, many of whom had the financial security to go to the march on a Saturday, feel fine with their lives.

Your impression of the marchers isn't only inaccurate, it's also dripping with political bias and, on top of that, it's arrogant and condescending.

I would be equally disdainful of a march if Hillary was in office, so if there's political bias, it's not specifically turned at marchers because of their politics. They offer a feeling of belonging, but functionally it merely dissipates energy. I'm not sure there's a way to categorically dismiss marches without appearing condescending but if so, I apologize.

Even if that's true, saying I don't understand the scientific method? Come on Dak.

That's not what I meant but at this point I don't remember/care where this was from/going. I'll concede whatever I said was probably wrong.

Okay, but I object to your use of "transcendent." I obviously resist appeals to transcendence, which I realize is what you're doing too. But you don't need transcendence in order to arrive at meaning. You're using "transcendence" in an accusatory manner, and it's partially misplaced.

It's not accusatory. I'm saying transcendence is something that appears to be commonly desired, if not necessary, for human happiness. This is why Western institutions appear to be beginning to flounder, they lack anything remotely transcendent.

 

[Einherjar86]

But how did the Rust Belt voters show their frustration? Voting. I'm not a big fan of democracy either, but marching to the voting both is a more direct path to change than chanting and holding signs, or listening to speakers. It doesn't have to be leftists, but that particular format ("marches") seems to be a leftist thing for whatever reason.

Just let people march if that's what they want to do, why do you have to mock people for it?

Women do not have it worse than men in the US, currently, as a group. They live longer, are more educated, didn't experience the same loss of jobs as men during the "Recession", have preferential treatment under the law when in disputes with men, and even make more money (if under 30). They also are not under any sort of threat of reversal of this situation.

Compare this with Rust Belters as a group: Dying earlier, less educated, having their industries hollowed out over 2-3 decades by trade deals and regulations, and increasingly poor. Yes, I sympathize with people with problems. There's nothing left-right about it.

Women do have it worse than men, in several respects.

It's a political position either way, for me and for you. Women have made measurable strides over the past hundred years or so, but that doesn't mean they have it better off, and it doesn't mean that cultural attitudes toward women are exactly enlightened. An example would be the way that women are talked about and treated within predominantly male careers, or the way that business culture perceives women and constructs expectations regarding their behavior at work. In my opinion, this is just as important as everything you mentioned.

But I'm sure that comment will incite a backlash from you and maybe others, and I don't at all feel like having that discussion.

I would be equally disdainful of a march if Hillary was in office, so if there's political bias, it's not specifically turned at marchers because of their politics. They offer a feeling of belonging, but functionally it merely dissipates energy. I'm not sure there's a way to categorically dismiss marches without appearing condescending but if so, I apologize.

You could start by just not getting so frustrated by the fact that people are marching. I'm not sure what the problem is--especially since, as I'm saying, your characterization of people there doesn't seem accurate to me.

It's not accusatory. I'm saying transcendence is something that appears to be commonly desired, if not necessary, for human happiness. This is why Western institutions appear to be beginning to flounder, they lack anything remotely transcendent.

I don't think that's convincing, although I do of course agree that plenty of people want to believe in some kind of more profound meaning. But I think you can also argue that plenty of people do exhibit confidence in the transcendence of their beliefs, or politics, or behavior, what have you. I just think some people's transcendent motivations are in conflict with others'.

In other words, maybe we have too many people who believe too much in the transcendence of their values.

Which elements work?

Distribution of wealth works, depending on the degree and mechanism.

I'm all for welfare programs and various institutions responsible for public funding. I think they need to be combined with market practices though.

Speaking of political bias, would you similarly say that elements of Nazism work? How about Fascism?

How can I say "yes" and not be taken for a sympathizer?

But yes, all political programs succeed or fail based on a balance of principles. Nationalism works, as Dak has argued before--but you can have nationalism without racially motivated internment and genocide.

 

[rms]

Speaking of political bias, would you similarly say that elements of Nazism work? How about Fascism?

of course. Nazism and Fascism worked because of extreme nationalism, it's just that all human created systems have flaws, and those systems promoted more flaws than good IMO. Communism attempts to remove systemic economic inequality, it's just that everyone is poor except those in power, and those in power control everything

An example would be the way that women are talked about and treated within predominantly male careers, or the way that business culture perceives women and constructs expectations regarding their behavior at work.

I always wanted to act like this kind of person on Tinder or in real life and see what the hetero female's response to this is. Do they get excited, wet, eroused when they hear men speak like this? It really makes me curious

 

[CiG]

Fair enough.

 

[Dak]

Just let people march if that's what they want to do, why do you have to mock people for it?

You're acting like it's just some like, preference thing like a type of beer or something, or a hobby like geocaching or something. However, at best it's an attempt to inspire people to take action, at worst it's an attempt at intimidation of opposing politicians and/or electorate (I think it's both an attempt to inspire and to intimidate).

Women do have it worse than men, in several respects.

It's a political position either way, for me and for you. Women have made measurable strides over the past hundred years or so, but that doesn't mean they have it better off, and it doesn't mean that cultural attitudes toward women are exactly enlightened. An example would be the way that women are talked about and treated within predominantly male careers, or the way that business culture perceives women and constructs expectations regarding their behavior at work. In my opinion, this is just as important as everything you mentioned.

But I'm sure that comment will incite a backlash from you and maybe others, and I don't at all feel like having that discussion.

Individual interpersonal or single corporate issues may be important to the individual, but they are not objective econolegal issues or measures. I do think it's more important that the current socioedueconolegal structure is quite rigged against males across the lifespan as opposed to 16-30 year old women having to put up with male attention from men they consider outside their optimal mating target range.

You could start by just not getting so frustrated by the fact that people are marching. I'm not sure what the problem is--especially since, as I'm saying, your characterization of people there doesn't seem accurate to me.

I'm not "frustrated". People can march all they want. I just find it problematic from all perspectives. Any frustration I might feel is towards root ills - marching is a symptom.

I don't think that's convincing, although I do of course agree that plenty of people want to believe in some kind of more profound meaning. But I think you can also argue that plenty of people do exhibit confidence in the transcendence of their beliefs, or politics, or behavior, what have you. I just think some people's transcendent motivations are in conflict with others'.

In other words, maybe we have too many people who believe too much in the transcendence of their values.

It appears you're arguing against my is with an ought. Obviously different offerings of transcendence conflict, that's inherent in transcendence. This is why the most cohesive and effective social organizations have shared goals - the more transcendent the better.

 

[Einherjar86]

You're acting like it's just some like, preference thing like a type of beer or something, or a hobby like geocaching or something. However, at best it's an attempt to inspire people to take action, at worst it's an attempt at intimidation of opposing politicians and/or electorate (I think it's both an attempt to inspire and to intimidate).

I'm not "frustrated". People can march all they want. I just find it problematic from all perspectives. Any frustration I might feel is towards root ills - marching is a symptom.

That's the problem. You assume there are "root ills." Quite an assumption to make.

Individual interpersonal or single corporate issues may be important to the individual, but they are not objective econolegal issues or measures. I do think it's more important that the current socioedueconolegal structure is quite rigged against males across the lifespan as opposed to 16-30 year old women having to put up with male attention from men they consider outside their optimal mating target range.

Your evidence that it's "rigged against men" is based on a select number of cases in which women have levied accusations against men. The truth you don't want to acknowledge is that women suffer humiliation and discomfort from men at a much higher rate than women pursue legal action against men. They fear doing so in many cases because they don't want to lose their jobs. Saying that the system is unequivocally rigged against men is reductive and naive.

And I hope your answer isn't that that's just how men are and that women need to get over it.

In the vast majority of cases, there isn't any consummated sexual interaction between men and women. It starts with unwanted advances and ends before any kind of sexual intercourse takes place. This doesn't mean that women haven't suffered at the hands of men.

It appears you're arguing against my is with an ought. Obviously different offerings of transcendence conflict, that's inherent in transcendence. This is why the most cohesive and effective social organizations have shared goals - the more transcendent the better.

I don't think you're keeping your argument straight.

Before you suggested that there's nothing "remotely transcendent" for people to latch on to; now you're saying that there are, in fact, numerous transcendent beliefs.