If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Dak]

Eric or the bro? The one where his wife came with him was solid

I was thinking of Eric but his brother is worse. Just whining about the shitty college he taught at.

 

[rms]

on that he sucks but his wife is a ev-biologist and the last one on Rogan she took over and had a good non-pc discussion for the most part...if I can trust my memory

 

[Dak]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005791618301137?via=ihub

Background and objectives
Trigger warnings notify people of the distress that written, audiovisual, or other material may evoke, and were initially used to provide for the needs of those with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Since their inception, trigger warnings have become more widely applied throughout contemporary culture, sparking intense controversy in academia and beyond. Some argue that they empower vulnerable individuals by allowing them to psychologically prepare for or avoid disturbing content, whereas others argue that such warnings undermine resilience to stress and increase vulnerability to psychopathology while constraining academic freedom. The objective of our experiment was to investigate the psychological effects of issuing trigger warnings.

Methods
We randomly assigned online participants to receive (n = 133) or not receive (n = 137) trigger warnings prior to reading literary passages that varied in potentially disturbing content.

Results
Participants in the trigger warning group believed themselves and people in general to be more emotionally vulnerable if they were to experience trauma. Participants receiving warnings reported greater anxiety in response to reading potentially distressing passages, but only if they believed that words can cause harm. Warnings did not affect participants' implicit self-identification as vulnerable, or subsequent anxiety response to less distressing content.

Limitations
The sample included only non-traumatized participants; the observed effects may differ for a traumatized population.

Conclusions
Trigger warnings may inadvertently undermine some aspects of emotional resilience. Further research is needed on the generalizability of our findings, especially to collegiate populations and to those with trauma histories.

 

[Einherjar86]

Moved from pics:

LGBT (the specific acronym on the meme) is not merely limited to those letters anymore though. The meme isn't well done, it left off a critical portion of the acronym to better make its point (aside from the priest thing); "Q+" is widely accepted at this point and the + is infinite, and all of it is encapsulating sexually non-normative populations: both in sexual practice and/or identification. This includes paedophiles by default.

re: The "paedophilia requires a victim" argument. This is an increasingly difficult argument for the left as they have been recently arguing for more autonomy of children both sexually and politically, just not specifically in the area of consenting to sex with adults. These arguments won't be difficult to turn to other purposes.

This comment invokes a bunch of contradictions within identity politics that I take issue with, but ultimately I still think there's a qualitative distinction to be made between a) individuals of all ages making choices that define themselves personally and involve how they conceptualize themselves metaphysically (regardless of the actual existence any such metaphysical substance) and express/perform themselves bodily, and b) individuals whose behavior is a compulsion toward other people that they have difficulty controlling. It's possible for individuals to express a certain identity without engaging in the sexual behaviors typically associated with that identity (where I diverge has to do with the ontology of that identity, the quality of its actual existence).

Queer identity may involve an attraction to those of a particular gender (or it may not), but it doesn't involve a compulsion to sexually assault other human beings. That's not queerness, that's just a rapist (taking the shortcut here, clearly not all sexual assault equals rape). Likewise, someone who experiences an attraction toward children isn't a problem as long as they don't act on that attraction and seek help to control it and diminish it. As soon as the compulsion is uncontrollable, then an individual needs extra care and institutionalization (hopefully in a medical prison).

Finally, I think there's a difference between granting children autonomy when it comes to personal expression and autonomy to decide their role in sexual relationships. As I said above, an eight-year-old doesn't necessarily understand all the political, cultural, and psychological implications of expressing themselves as queer; being able to do so is part of working through the process. In this case, they aren't affecting anyone else's personal choices or sense of embodiment. As soon as you enter a sexual relationship, however, you've entered into a contract involving the choices of another person. Just as the child may not fully understand their gender decision at age eight, they also don't understand the dynamics and psychological effects of sexuality. The former is at least their own personal experience; the latter is a shared experience. They're very different things.

 

[Dak]

This comment invokes a bunch of contradictions within identity politics that I take issue with, but ultimately I still think there's a qualitative distinction to be made between a) individuals of all ages making choices that define themselves personally and involve how they conceptualize themselves metaphysically (regardless of the actual existence any such metaphysical substance) and express/perform themselves bodily, and b) individuals whose behavior is a compulsion toward other people that they have difficulty controlling. It's possible for individuals to express a certain identity without engaging in the sexual behaviors typically associated with that identity (where I diverge has to do with the ontology of that identity, the quality of its actual existence).

Queer identity may involve an attraction to those of a particular gender (or it may not), but it doesn't involve a compulsion to sexually assault other human beings. That's not queerness, that's just a rapist (taking the shortcut here, clearly not all sexual assault equals rape). Likewise, someone who experiences an attraction toward children isn't a problem as long as they don't act on that attraction and seek help to control it and diminish it. As soon as the compulsion is uncontrollable, then an individual needs extra care and institutionalization (hopefully in a medical prison).

I agree that there is a difference between self-conceptualization and difficulty with managing certain compulsions. It is true that one can be sexually attracted to those younger than legal age and not act on those impulses. But I think that is missing the point. The left cannot simply just continue to assume that "sex with minors is rape" because their tactics and arguments in other areas are undermining this.

Finally, I think there's a difference between granting children autonomy when it comes to personal expression and autonomy to decide their role in sexual relationships. As I said above, an eight-year-old doesn't necessarily understand all the political, cultural, and psychological implications of expressing themselves as queer; being able to do so is part of working through the process. In this case, they aren't affecting anyone else's personal choices or sense of embodiment. As soon as you enter a sexual relationship, however, you've entered into a contract involving the choices of another person. Just as the child may not fully understand their gender decision at age eight, they also don't understand the dynamics and psychological effects of sexuality. The former is at least their own personal experience; the latter is a shared experience. They're very different things.

I wouldn't say that an 8 year old behaving queerly isn't affecting anyone, but we can assume they aren't coercing anyone to do anything, which I know is what is really meant. It is also true that there's a difference between personal individual performances and conceptualization, and those with another person. However, the vulnerability the left has exposed itself to involves arguments of degree and supporting sexual behaviors of the non-statutory kind, and voting rights for children.

What I mean by arguments of degree (and there's probably a better term that I simply am not aware of) is, for example, where one argues that two people who were dating and in a sexual relationship while both under eighteen, shouldn't have to end the sexual relationship because one of them turned 18. These are marginal cases. But then you have an opening to pry at here along with supporting non-statutory sexual behaviors in minors thrown in for further ambiguity. Is it that the 16 year old can't consent with an 18 year old or can't consent at all? Is it the age? The age gap? Are we talking about chronological age vs some estimation of maturity or pre-frontal development? Can two 8 year olds give each other consent ("playing doctor" is an old euphemism here)? And so on.

Then separately after the Parkland shooting there was this blitz of calls for child voting. This was one of the more extreme examples (most called for a drop only to 16):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...ar-olds/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.45fdc1f02dbc

Giving young people the vote isn’t just the right thing to do — it’s also the best way to ensure our democratic future is strong. Some worry that this year’s toxic election is scaring away young people from the institutions that underpin our democracy. That may seem like a good reason to shield them from politics. But the answer to our deteriorating political institutions isn’t less democracy — it’s more. Giving young people the vote is the best civics lesson imaginable. When Takoma Park became the first city in America to lower the voting age to 16 just three years ago, 16- and 17-year-olds voted at twice the rate of the rest of the voting population. And studies show that the younger you are when cast your first vote, the more likely you are to make it a regular habit.

So what’s the best way forward? Perhaps in an ideal world we would let children vote when they felt they were ready, but political exigencies won’t allow a law like that anytime soon. Even my preferred starting age — 13 — would be a stretch. But the success of Takoma Park’s historic expansion of voting rights tells us that slowly lowering the voting age could work in America. Some proposals, while imperfect, might serve as workable compromises that allow us to go even further. A popular one is Demeny voting, which allows parents and guardians to vote on behalf of their children. Germany, Hungary, and Japan have all seriously considered this. Another option, based on a 2004 amendment proposition in California: ease young Americans into voting with a fractional, escalating system, in which children amass 1/10th of a vote every year between the ages 8 and 18. This arrangement would make voting both a near-universal right and a taught skill — a habit that’s learned and expanded over time.

Whatever the method, finding a way to enfranchise more young people is the right thing to do for children, for adults, and for our democracy. “Won’t somebody think of the children?” has become a cliche of our political discourse. But maybe we should stop thinking for them, and let them think — and speak — for themselves.

Substitute "voting" with something along the lines of "engaging in consensual sex without age limitations" and it maps on pretty well. If you're old enough to make serious political decisions, why aren't you old enough to decide who you want to engage with sexually, regardless of age or age difference?

 

[CiG]

Relativism at its finest. They're not illiterate, they're bilingual!

 

[viewerfromnihil]

Meh, I code switch quite a bit. It's efficient and useful to learn. There's nothing wrong with bringing it up to students in the appropriate setting, though I'm pretty sure those situations are pretty rare. They'll figure it out or they won't, but I don't think they're necessarily any better or worse off either way. Take that relativism.

 

[Dak]

Bein' sho' bow' shi' don' do' shi' bu' be' sho' bo' shi'.

 

[Einherjar86]

View attachment 15376

Relativism at its finest. They're not illiterate, they're bilingual!

Being illiterate and being able to communicate via speech are two different things. Teaching students literacy doesn't mean teaching them language.

 

[CiG]

I have no problem with the practice (I grew up on hip hop, I get it) but she's telling teachers not to correct students when they do it in a class context because... culture?

Being illiterate and being able to communicate via speech are two different things. Teaching students literacy doesn't mean teaching them language.

I actually knew someone was going to make this point but I decided to make the comment anyway.

 

[CiG]

Eric or the bro? The one where his wife came with him was solid

on that he sucks but his wife is a ev-biologist and the last one on Rogan she took over and had a good non-pc discussion for the most part...if I can trust my memory

Have you watched this yet? I've got it queued up in my Youtube watchlist. While I do actually enjoy the Weinstein brothers, I agree that Bret's wife is at least as interesting and engaging as the brothers if not more so.

I think I prefer to listen to women talk in general, easier on the ears or something? Maybe an example of women's supposed advantage over men when it comes to communication or simply my own heterosexual bias? Note sure lmao.

 

[rms]

Rubin was so bad on the JRE I honestly don't want to support him at all

 

[CiG]

I didn't check it out because I literally do not give a shit about him as a guest.

 

[Einherjar86]

I have no problem with the practice (I grew up on hip hop, I get it) but she's telling teachers not to correct students when they do it in a class context because... culture?

Actually, she's only asking them not to call it "correcting."

I actually knew someone was going to make this point but I decided to make the comment anyway.

Fair enough.

I agree that there is a difference between self-conceptualization and difficulty with managing certain compulsions. It is true that one can be sexually attracted to those younger than legal age and not act on those impulses. But I think that is missing the point. The left cannot simply just continue to assume that "sex with minors is rape" because their tactics and arguments in other areas are undermining this.



I wouldn't say that an 8 year old behaving queerly isn't affecting anyone, but we can assume they aren't coercing anyone to do anything, which I know is what is really meant. It is also true that there's a difference between personal individual performances and conceptualization, and those with another person. However, the vulnerability the left has exposed itself to involves arguments of degree and supporting sexual behaviors of the non-statutory kind, and voting rights for children.

What I mean by arguments of degree (and there's probably a better term that I simply am not aware of) is, for example, where one argues that two people who were dating and in a sexual relationship while both under eighteen, shouldn't have to end the sexual relationship because one of them turned 18. These are marginal cases. But then you have an opening to pry at here along with supporting non-statutory sexual behaviors in minors thrown in for further ambiguity. Is it that the 16 year old can't consent with an 18 year old or can't consent at all? Is it the age? The age gap? Are we talking about chronological age vs some estimation of maturity or pre-frontal development? Can two 8 year olds give each other consent ("playing doctor" is an old euphemism here)? And so on.

Then separately after the Parkland shooting there was this blitz of calls for child voting. This was one of the more extreme examples (most called for a drop only to 16):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...ar-olds/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.45fdc1f02dbc

Substitute "voting" with something along the lines of "engaging in consensual sex without age limitations" and it maps on pretty well. If you're old enough to make serious political decisions, why aren't you old enough to decide who you want to engage with sexually, regardless of age or age difference?

A long response with lots of specifics; but all I really have to say is that I sense a conflation happening here between, as you say, "extreme examples" and "the left" in general.

 

[CiG]

Actually, she's only asking them not to call it "correcting."

She said don't correct them, tell them they're smart for being able to do it lol.

 

[Dak]

A long response with lots of specifics; but all I really have to say is that I sense a conflation happening here between, as you say, "extreme examples" and "the left" in general.

Well I'm not saying that many persons who, for the purposes of being a broad as possible, "vote Democrat", have thought through all of these arguments and/or find them difficult/have an opinion, etc. What I'm saying is that I don't see any strong basis for a potential argument coming from a leftward position currently against the "more extreme" positions. There's no ideological underpinning available to support keeping sexual consent ages, at a minimum, where they currently are.

 

[Einherjar86]

She said don't correct them, tell them they're smart for being able to do it lol.

Well, she put "correct" in quotes, and then said to commend them for being able to "code switch." But in order to code switch, they need to know the "correct" way to speak. So, she is telling instructors to correct them, just not to call it "correcting."

She's basically saying, teach your students the "proper" way to speak so they understand that different social groups/circles utilize different idioms, and are able to switch between idioms.

Well I'm not saying that many persons who, for the purposes of being a broad as possible, "vote Democrat", have thought through all of these arguments and/or find them difficult/have an opinion, etc. What I'm saying is that I don't see any strong basis for a potential argument coming from a leftward position currently against the "more extreme" positions. There's no ideological underpinning available to support keeping sexual consent ages, at a minimum, where they currently are.

But most "leftward" positions aren't advocating the extreme examples that you noted. Those are the examples that undermine potential arguments, but they're by no means the majority of arguments coming from the left--hence why they're "extreme."

Most leftists would probably make the same argument I made, which is that the image Ozz posted conflates queer sexuality and pedophilia. Queerness isn't about fucking anything you want, it's about the expression of one's personal identification. That may open onto certain attractions and practices, but those practices inevitably extend into the arena of legal consequence. The vast majority of queers don't participate in legally objectionable practices.

In short, that meme presents an extreme situation/possibility as the inevitably logical outcome of LGBTQ rights. That's my objection. Might there be people who identify as queer and who molest children? Of course; but then, we know there are plenty of people who identify as heterosexual who molest children.

That meme would be more historically accurate if it were reversed and presumed to critique "religious rights," in fact (i.e. with the priest on top--pun intended).

 

[CiG]

Well, she put "correct" in quotes, and then said to commend them for being able to "code switch." But in order to code switch, they need to know the "correct" way to speak. So, she is telling instructors to correct them, just not to call it "correcting."

She's basically saying, teach your students the "proper" way to speak so they understand that different social groups/circles utilize different idioms, and are able to switch between idioms.

lol okay. I'm sure you're "correct" in your assessment, I just thought it was funny that she's asking teachers to praise students for being able to say "aight" and "alright" in the same conversation.

 

[rms]

So, she is telling instructors to correct them, just not to call it "correcting."

would love to know if the political left has always been this happy with patronizing or is this recently new

I just thought it was funny that she's asking teachers to praise students for being able to say "aight" and "alright" in the same conversation.

well don't you know, those black folks are so poor and uneducated that they couldn't possibly know the correct way to speak and form english sentences now!

this whole god damn code switching narrative acts as if every white dude is from the Chapelle bit and would have no idea or fluidity to their speech

 

[Einherjar86]

would love to know if the political left has always been this happy with patronizing or is this recently new

For what it's worth, the teaching profession is always looking for ways to respectfully and effectively interact with students--especially when those students are in grade school and learning what Western culture has deemed the "proper" way to speak. Telling young students they're wrong is not the most effective means of educating; and technically speaking, it's not even correct. That is, they're not speaking "wrongly"--just differently.

There's nothing inherently pure or effective about "proper" grammar, syntax, etc. It's just the way that educated speech in the West has evolved. It's important for everyone to learn proper speech patterns so that they can participate without being deemed outsiders, not to mention communicate effectively. But communication doesn't demand that one use "isn't" instead of "ain't." At this point it's nothing more than cultural signalling, which is what the instructor is saying.

well don't you know, those black folks are so poor and uneducated that they couldn't possibly know the correct way to speak and form english sentences now!

Before they attend school, many don't. What's so wrong about that? Many white kids also don't, if they grow up in Appalachia. It doesn't mean they're communicating poorly, they're just communicating differently. Part of education is instructing students how to translate between different demographic groups.