Good, any examples of actual social media posts that utilise this?

Each of these terms carries with it a context of discussion, on social media this translates to people who talk about or use the terms. Because of the framing and the concerted efforts of the alt-right fringe to prefigure public discourse, those who use these terms are far more likely to be introduced to people on the alt-right, perspectives from the alt right, and the false science that the alt-right relies upon. They are a gateway into a dark mirror of reality, filled with hatred and entitlement, which requires vigilance of thought and kindness of deed to counteract. They are parasites on the noble enlightenment ideals of free expression and freedom of association, and their vitriol should not parroted. They see themselves as great warriors in a culture war, they are not, they are bigoted troglodytes insecure around any difference. They are opportunists preying on the disaffection and disappointments in our lives. They are the bitter creep at the seedy bar who fails to flirt then absolves their failures with misogyny, they are the factory worker who hates immigrants for the livelihood automation stole from them. — fdrake

Okay, this is now the norm on the Philosophy forum, I guess. I actually enjoyed lurking around and reading your posts, too, fdrake. This, however, is an utter display of idiocy and arrogance. Somehow after Trump's elections it has become okay to just bash ad hominem after ad hominem on anything you don't like and even supposed thinkers are trying to gain credit (while saying they aren't) because they support a mainstream opinion (albeit wrapped in different vocabulary; we didn't read all these books for nothing, did we?).

I think not. — Pattern-chaser

Go to academia and workplace in Western countries and try arguing in favour of any right wing policy.

Trump is POTUS — Pattern-chaser

So? That has nothing to do with the right wing. There was a number of people who voted Trump only because they didn't want Clinton. The so called alt-right is a minority.

Not that the current climate facilitates any form of discussion on the topic, and indeed if there was at least a grain of truth to the leftist narrative, it wouldn't have to be promoted in such a tyrannical, downright authoritarian manner. The left is the majority, after all.

I agree with the comment generally. We definitely should focus on what is in our control. However, what I personally see as an issue is the ideological part, or, to put it more gently, the fact that certain communities want to be loud about their activities and shove it into other people's faces. If we just mind our own business, why should an LGBT flag hand next to a national flag on a university campus? Who actually needs that? Sure, I could mind my own business and not be concerned about it, but then again, why? I would question the necessity of such behaviour. The said communities and groups demand to be accepted. They want to dictate the rules of behaviour and discourse in academia and news. That surely is ideological.

I would say generational differences play into this a lot, too. For example, age of an "average" Facebook user is 25 - 34. It was created only with intent, not with knowledge. Therefore, no one could predict that it would go out of proportion and then it so happens that children are growing up in an environment where this twisted form of communication exists and is taken as the norm. 30+ year old people see it often as cool and use it to "share" their views and experiences with the world without realising what kind of impact it has on the youth. I'm in my early twenties and it makes me sick to see, in this case Facebook users, being so ignorant. It goes as far, for me, as to say that it is simply unwise to listen to any advice from people who are above certain age. This is not because they are older (after all, a great amount of wisdom comes from authors of previous eras of our history), but because they comment on what young people should do while they themselves support social media and other non-sense that harms the youth. Just look at the number of discussion and articles on what millennials should do, ironically from people who are not millennials. For once, non-millenials should focus on what they themselves should do and how they should act, and so should the millenials of course. The previous generation, at least where I live, have been a disaster for our generation.

I find it highly unethical to create an unpredictable world for the next generation. That way, the previous generation completely avoids responsibility because they didn't live their young years the way the next generation does. There is no Skin in the Game, in Taleb's words. Now, if the previous generation wants to create a "better" world for the next generation, it should only be done under predictable circumstances, which, naturally, means that the changes would be very little and experimental for the most part. If human had done this from the beginning, it wouldn't have gotten to the current point, and so, this idea would not work if applied now.

I was wondering about a similar question, but in general context of internet communication. Generally, how can we see intentions in chats, forums, comment sections and the like?

And namely, how do power structures work with such a communication, even at work and so on?

Because humans are sexually dimorphic, and exhibit extremely plastic social behavior. But, I get the feeling that the sentiment of others on this forum is that this is not the case, or at least normatively doesn't matter?

So, if we assume the above, then we can either choose to reinforce the male dominant stereotype or embrace some other alternative, which surely exists. — Posty McPostface

I'm not sure what you're seeking to find out by this. Especially by choosing to reinforce or take up an alternative for male dominant stereotype. Who is to choose that?

The most important trait, in any case, is adaptability. So, even if we reach a conclusion that male/female stereotype is just a thing of our day and age, we still live in the society of those stereotypes (there is a good reason for them anyway).

If you live only for yourself, then you may simply not care about what expressing masculinity is or is not. You simply do whatever you want, which, realistically speaking, is almost impossible. If you, on the other hand, care about what others think of you and your position in our pecking order, then adapting to our current social hierarchy and stereotypes is the only valid option.

There is a fundamental conflict of interests.

Students go to colleges because they are told that that will help them get a job. The underlying notion, however, is that students think that having a college degree and getting a job leads to safety, which humans naturally seek. In reality, is it just the illusion of safety. I think everyone knows that jobs today are incredibly unsafe, especially in Western world. If you add mortgages, and consumerism culture, it is not too difficult to assuredly say that young people are simply being fooled by just about anyone, including themselves. (So are all other people, of course. It's just that everyone feels entitled to give advice to young people for one reason or another.)

On the other hand, colleges don't care about whether the students will be 'safe' in the future. As long as there are reasonable numbers in statistics of employment of their students, they are fine. Job done. Therefore, colleges don't have any interest in whatever the students will do in the future. At the same time, everyone is told to go to college, which naturally diminishes the whole value of a college as an educational institution. The problem lies in the connection between work and education. If I fantasise for a moment, wouldn't it be better to have an institution to help young people start working separately from colleges? And colleges would then be for people who really want to be educated on the topic and maybe become scientists or professors. This example is a pure fantasy, not without a flaw, but I hope it illustrates that college education and work are violently (and to an extend desperately) forced to be connected together.

Secondly, world is globalised and the competition is too big.

In short, vast majority of people cannot expect to have a secure job. Even if I'm a manager at company X, there is incredible amount of people who could easily replace me. Which means that a) I won't get paid a lot. There is no reason for the company to pay me a lot because if I do something wrong, they can get someone else for the job quite easily. And b) I will be treated accordingly with no-one-cares attitude.

Additionally, it seems foolish to compete in a world where a lot of the competition is down to luck due to the numbers of applicants. On top of that, having to compete so hardly for entry level positions isn't the best state of affairs either.

So, if anyone is looking to get 'more' as it were, they have to become producers. If you produce a lot and affect lives of many people, naturally you will gain a lot. This is just the theory of course. The main idea is the underlying principle of the fact that if I affect lives of only few people, I will be paid accordingly. Everything is large scale now.

It is a feature of our minds that we can have experiences we call spiritual, mystical, and supernatural. Our mystical mind-bending experiences are cooked up somewhere in what you call "the hidden, incoherent depths of unconsciousness". It's where we live. Imagining God, creating God, striving to fulfill divine commands and follow the paths of Buddha or Christ or... are all profound creative acts. It is human. It is one of the things we do. — Bitter Crank

Do you mean that the spiritual does not exists and that there is only our unconscious processes that we call spiritual? Wouldn't that be completely fooling ourselves into creating a construct that is fundamentally non-existent? I would argue that spiritual, mystical, and supernatural may be founded in the phenomena existing independent of us and our unconscious minds. Our unconscious minds may react to them and interpret them in various way, but the starting point is the spiritual existing outside of our experience as well.

One has to decide how much reality one's God has. — Bitter Crank

How does one go about deciding on such a thing? I think there is a tendency of some to attribute almost any external phenomena to the unconscious which can lead to a solipsism of sorts. I don't know if that is your case, but what I would like to get at is the question of why certain phenomena and possible existences are attributed purely to the unconscious independent of the external material?

I would say that the unconscious is created by ourselves, through the act of repression. — Agustino

I don't think the unconscious is 'created'. I find that in the same way that our conscious mind works as a mechanism, our unconscious mind works as a mechanism, too. It is there prior to the psychic material being put in there.

This unconscious mind retains psychic symptoms of its own and is, by definition of life, forced to react and adapt to the environment.

Anything can get repressed into the unconscious - it is a spiritual process in nature. But once something is repressed into the unconscious, it ceases to be spiritual, and becomes a mechanism. — Agustino

I think there arises a problem of how much of a spiritual is internal and external. I would say that the spiritual that is within is, at the first stage, dependent on the external circumstances. There is something to be reacted to. At the second stage, it is the question of how the unconscious mechanism grasps it and turns it into the spiritual energy within oneself. This the continuation of why I argue that the unconscious is a mechanism which exists prior to the first psychic material being repressed.

To a certain extent I agree with this, but I would say that the unconscious and the spiritual are not the same thing. If I may say so, the unconscious is the mechanisation of the spiritual, when the spiritual turns into a mere shadow of its former self, and loses its life & vitality. — Agustino

I agree that the spiritual is not the same as the unconscious and also that there is a certain 'mechanisation'. It is open to question as to how much of the raw, pure spirituality can be retained after going through the process of unconscious processing.

As Jung said, the roots of the tree must reach to the depths of hell for the trunk to reach to the heavens. It is not possible to grow spiritually without undoing the mechanism - and it is a mechanism, that's what the unconscious is - that we are subject to. — Agustino

Wouldn't undoing the mechanism lead to the crippling of our ability to experience the spiritual? I find that it is the struggle, the battle that is to be held in the unconscious which can lead to the spiritual growth if taken carefully.

For example, the commodity exchange is only possible if we act as if coins really had an intrinsic worth that is different than their physical bodies - but paradoxically, it is our acting so that makes them have such an intrinsic worth in the first place. — Agustino

Yeah, and that 'acting' hasn't changed in the slightest, which is why I am against the notion that there is any real progress.

Yes - that's why I think that mystery, miracles and the supernatural are always within life. The difference is that some sorts of language make us aware that they are mysteries, miracles and supernatural and others conceal this fact from us, and give us the false impression that we understand them. — Agustino

I agree with mysteries and miracles being always within life. After recognising that fact, it is more about working with one's own unconscious mind. Specific language use can also help with that, but generally things like dreams, visions, intuition have the possibility of uncovering what was unseen for us before. The experience is very individual, which is why it requires individual effort and insight.

To go even deeper into this, I have grown quite convinced that the important movements in history have been spiritually driven from the very beginning. Even science itself is ultimately a spiritual force - destructive as it is. And some people have historically tried to take advantage of occult powers - for example, the Nazi's connection with the occult is well-known. Many historians have argued at length that the focus on the Occult was central to the growth & decline of the Nazi regime. Communism is another example of what is ultimately a spiritual ideology - indeed, it is the spiritual roots of communism that allowed it to grow, expand and flourish. — Agustino

To use a Freudian framework, it might be that that's where the unconscious mind was directed, and so that became the centre of the spiritual. To me, unconscious and spiritual are closely linked. To relate it to the important movements in history, it could well be the case that the collective unconscious worked in that well and was directed by the spiritual. It is difficult to imagine any big movement without a 'spiritual cause'. If there was none, there wouldn't be such conviction and fervor in their acts.

I generally dislike that spiritual, mystical, and supernatural are often portrayed as some sort of medieval magic, and then dismissed right away. I also disagree with views that don't take into account the hidden, incoherent depths of unconsciousness. I'm not up for explaining anything just for the sake of seeming to have an answer.

Marx thought that capitalism is characterised by this "false consciousness" where the participants do not know what they are doing. — Agustino

It pretty much seems that way too many classes of people don't know what they're doing. Science is an example of that, too. I think this is where the 'progress' (as much as I dislike the word) doesn't exist. We - psychically - keep committing the same mistakes we were committing centuries, maybe even thousands of years ago.

As if I'm more enlightened if I use more technical jargon to describe what we observe... — Agustino

Yeah. It's the same as if it was explained in a poem using colourful language and all sorts of metaphors. It wouldn't shed any more light on the subject.

The way people talk about science these days is almost synonymous with God sometimes.
"Science will provide the answers one day"
"Look at all the things science has given us" — Mr Phil O'Sophy

Yeah, I agree. I would like to see more humbleness in that regard, too. Firstly, there is a certain limit of our understanding, and secondly, I think there needs to be a conversion in our beliefs and approach to experience sooner or later. Otherwise, we are just committing the same mistake, psychically.

I do believe in miracles and in the supernatural. For a reason that may appear a bit too prosaic.

I don't believe that just because there is science, all and everything can be explained by it. I think the modern ignorance stems precisely from the lack of humbleness in approaching our own experience of the world. If we don't understand something, we figure that there must be some scientific explanation for it. Why? That's the same as saying that there must be some mystical explanation for what has happened. We replaced our potential for wisdom for ignorance. We are led down the path of 'psychic laziness'. We do not investigate via our experience - we deconstruct, and destroy. As if we wish to 'outsource' our knowledge to someone else. This time to scientists who will baffle and mesmerise us with their explanations of the world. Do these scientists even know what they are doing? Or is it the same as with the robot?

Poor Freud. Blamed for shoveling phallic symbols to the faces of others, yet I can't help myself but to think that most of the scientists just try to manifest their neurosis and complexes in their specific field. It's not about discovery or about creating something useful for humanity. No, just sublimation of their bitterness. This is more of a reference to the book I linked before.

As per this topic though, I find myself being highly critical of communism, which for the last century I imagined this was an acceptable viewpoint, even in Canada. I don't know where or what happened though, did I hit my head while sleeping?, but I find myself being rather attacked for being resistant to progressive shifts towards communism. I feel like my views are being labelled as "alt-right", which doesn't make sense to me. — Sydasis

Countries such as Canada and US have never directly experienced socialism and communism in same forms as could be seen in other countries. Political and economic regimes in those countries could never be compared to regimes, for example, in Soviet Union, Cuba, China. Therefore, they do not seem to understand that socialism and communism entail significant restrictions of individual freedom.

And the history just repeats itself.

I feel a bit perplex by the recent pro-communism mindsets appearing on some campuses and a general shift towards more socialist leanings. Bernie Sanders, being an example.

I'm also a bit perplexed by the modern term "alt-right", as it is being used to conflate a range of political and social movements into a single word; it's becoming a powerful slur to defame a person or to dismiss an idea. In the past I feel there were attempts to link Neo-Nazism with Right-wing populism, but where that failed, it seems like the term "alt-right" is succeeding. — Sydasis

That's just a modern day propaganda. There're always individuals and groups with certain agenda that they try to promote. This time, it's about undermining the value of truth in our society, and seeking to destroy the unity. Brexit was a great example of that. Immigration crisis was inflated out of proportion in medias, which created a sense of panic, which in turn, by a low margin, got the vote for Brexit.

People who seek truth don't go on shouting and protesting in the streets.

In the U.S. and, as far as I know, the rest of the post-Industrial world we have decided that every person, regardless of his/her sex, should have the same opportunities. How could you--or anybody--doubt that that is the right thing to do, let alone oppose it? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

How do you define same opportunities? There is only so many jobs, so many opportunities, so many chances. How can you ever claim that there is a same opportunity for anyone? That has nothing to do with any characteristics of an individual. If the two of us apply for the same job, do we have the same opportunity? Absolutely not. One of us might and will be more favoured. So for one of us it might be a waste of time, and for the other one a new job. That is, if you are willing to look beyond the obvious fact that we will go through the same process of interview, tests etc.

Doubting the wisdom of, or directly opposing, equal opportunities for girls and women because of their biology makes as much sense as doubting the wisdom of or directly opposing equal opportunities for short people because of their biology. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Nonsense. Unless you define what equal opportunity really means, you're just using it as a buzzword to seemingly strengthen your argument.

By the way, who opposes opportunities for women? I've never witnessed anything like it. Media keep thrashing some incredibly evil, never-seen-by-anyone misogynist. Then the media are full of articles about women. The Guardians main page on International Women's Day was just disgusting. I am really tempted to think that in 50 years it may be displayed as propaganda of our times. There was zero objectivity and zero dialogue.

Just visit the academia - all of a sudden, loads of propaganda and advertising about women in academia, women writers, women entrepreneurs etc.

I also agree here. Democracies also have another problem - those in charge of the community (the leaders) are more worried about holding onto power, than taking care of administrative duties. Indeed, holding on to power becomes the primary concern, and sometimes the only one. — Agustino

The problem is also that the life in a society (or what's left of the society really) is often portrayed as a constant competition going to the point of an almost violent conflict of interests and ideologies. I find that everyone has a right for an opinion only if they keep it to themselves. If anyone decides to voice their opinion and use it publicly, they should take responsibility and bear the consequences. To take it further - the problem is not when someone says something, but when they propagandise it and try to sway public opinion on the other side.

To relate this back to the Gender Equality discussion, it largely seems that it is just something that has been inflated out of proportion, and now all of a sudden men are bad and women are entitled to a different treatment.

Beyond this obvious problem, I think there's something more crippling. It is the fact that some men (there's probably no formed group) retaliate by using the same rhetoric. So, they try to strike back with "No, actually, you discriminate against me!" This means they get converted to a superficially created way of confrontation. They step into the frame which makes the Gender Equality movement win in that debate because they dictate the rules of it.

It is my view that there can be a difference between self interest and social interest only in societies which are internally divided. In truth, they are not even societies, but rather conglomerates of different societies. The society of men, the society of women, the society of rich, the society of poor, etc. They are only under the illusion of being a society, because in truth, they aren't a unity but a multiplicity. — Agustino

I would agree with this. The difference in interest comes largely when there is an ideological difference among groups in a society. That'a when it becomes nuclear, and there is effectively no society, as you point out.

I think what this reveals is that it has become a norm, at least in Western countries, to think that everyone has to have an opinion, and that everyone should seek to have their problems resolved by blaming someone else - institutions, education, economic system etc. Therefore hardly anyone feels responsible for anything. "If I have a problem, it's certainly because they discriminate against me." That's the line of lazy, irresponsible thinking that sadly dominates Western society.

Secondly, there is very little if any real authority. That is a general problem of democracy. All of a sudden everyone is an expert on politics, and able to judge what the president is doing. It's not that their concerns are not justified, it's that again, in a democratic regime, the leader has no reason to take as much responsibility, it's just a few years, after all. This also provokes virtually anyone else to think that they are as smart as representatives of governmental establishment. What a ridiculous, utterly dilussional approach. Most people are not and never will be leaders. See how 'leadership' us often used so loosely that it gives the general public the illusion of control, and with it comes an abbhorrently high number of all sorts of 'movements' that seeks to lead a certain group to think differently, which only destroys the unity. Why would anyone fight against themselves? Does the liver fight against the lungs? Of course not.

Perhaps some instances of gender inequality can be explained by an irrational discrimination which has nothing to do with the actual traits of women (misogyny for instance). — Purple Pond

Perhaps some instances of women protesting against men can be explained by an irrational discrimination which has nothing to do with the actual traits of men (misandry for instance).

Enough parroting from me. The point is that it is purely an ideological battle. Do women really want an equality? Do women really want to be represented even in low-paid hard physical labour fields? No.

They, as anyone else - this goes for all people - follow their own self interest. That has nothing to do with equality or inequality in our society. As long as they gain political and economic power for themselves, they are happy. There is no reason for excluding 'women' from using such tactics that are commonly used in all sorts of ideological battles.

Check news from International Women's Day and tell me it is not a piece of propaganda.

Oh, thank you for such a nice welcome message X-)
I should put a cat as my profile picture. I tend to just stray away at times and then come back.

And even if it's not a myth, it's not something that we should actively seek to eliminate (I don't see why women should, on average, have equal pay with men - women don't do the same jobs, on average, as men, and even if they did, it's again a question of value added). By all means this equality shouldn't be centrally planned, if it arises naturally, no problem. — Agustino

I agree. It just seems to me that someone constantly tries to push women to earn same amount as men and have same goals :-} As if there weren't other important things in life for both men and women.

It's not that they won't pay them, it's simply that they have a lot of learning to do, and they're not willing to pay people to learn. Most students at that age go in a company and they don't even know what's what - you need someone to babysit them, they are expensive, they don't really know how things go, etc. etc. It's more of a hassle than anything else - that's why small businesses, for the most part, don't accept students. — Agustino

Yeah, and that's reasonable from the businesses to do so. It's not that we should organise a riot now about how we are discriminated >:O . It's just the way that business is.

Forgive me for saying so, but that's pretty arrogant and spoken with authority that you haven't earned yourself, especially if you do not share knowledge about, or the particulars of, others' experience. You also make some broad projections on whether it can or can't still happen to women even if they do "compete and try to improve their situation". — Uneducated Pleb

You can never be 100% sure about any result. The fact that they will decide to be competitive, doesn't mean they would automatically achieve desired results. There are many people who don't succeed in that environment regardless of whether they are men or women. And yes, I do call complaining just by its name.

1. policy differences. For instance, until the seventies it was common for employers to have official full-time rates of pay for a certain job (eg clerk level 4) differentiated by sex — andrewk

Society and work may have been different at those times. I would wonder if those who wanted equal pay would still agree with it if they saw the consequences - difficult family life, divorce rates, worse relationships, no work life balance, more difficult to raise children etc.

2. non-policy, employer-instigated differences. This is when there is no explicit policy, but decision-makers at the employer tend to give promotions and pay rises to men more readily than to women, given the same performance profile. I would also include in this cases where employers treat women badly with the aim of discouraging them from applying for or retaining higher-paying roles. For instance 'boys-club' cultures in senior management and on boards may make women feel too uncomfortable in those environments to be prepared to put up with it. — andrewk

Well, what is the same performance profile? They work on different projects, work is never the same, and there are more committed and less committed employees. A male employee A may get paid less than male employee B, too. It's not that they divide the company into two camps and decide to pay women less :-}

3. non-policy, non-employer-instigated differences. This is where the employee voluntarily, without coercion, makes choices that lead to lower pay - eg not applying for promotions because they don't want the stress or longer hours, or choosing occupations that have lower pay, because those occupations appeal to them more. — andrewk

Personal choice. Nothing wrong about that. As I've said before, if someone wants to enter a competitive environment, they have to be competitive. Otherwise, they can go down less stressful and competitive rout as you describe.

I think most would agree that type 2 is regrettable and we should try to remove it from workplaces. The trouble is that, being non-policy, it is undocumented and thus hard to detect. Most developed countries have anti-discrimination laws that forbid such behaviour, but there is a standard of proof that must be met in any individual case before any redress can be obtained. — andrewk

EasyJet want to increase their percentage of female pilots to 20%. The current state is allegedly 6% of female pilots. How can you justify this? Whatever reasons for women not to be pilots as much as current pressure requires doesn't mean it's discrimination. If someone perceives they are being discriminated against, that's their problem. If you wanna be a pilot, put in the work, and try to get there. It is competitive. It is sad to me that someone manages to complain their way into having a specific job. Now, if EasyJet actually goes on to do what they said they would, it means that women would be pushed to be pilots, and the standard will be lowered.

Law is not the only available measure though. Consciousness-raising campaigns are another, eg advertising against discrimination, similar to what is done for domestic violence or racism. Again there is a balancing act though, as it is taxpayers' money that funds such campaigns, and there is debate about their effectiveness. — andrewk

The effectiveness is dubious, and rightly so. It's just that because it surrounds people at work and in media, so people are just quiet because they don't want to stand up and call BS on stuff that they find ridiculous. Just attend some Discrimination and Equality workshop if you have an opportunity, and tell me anyone really takes it seriously. They will put on any sort of mask just not to seem contradictory to the popular opinion. It is still a question of how many people would welcome real discrimination as you describe in the type 1. policy differences.

Tightening anti-discrimination laws is not efficient because you're gonna discriminate against someone anyway, no matter what laws you make.

Finally, there is type 3. My impression is that most people are not motivated to try to do anything about type 3, but I think some are. — andrewk

Why would you want to do anything about it. It is their personal choice to do so.

What, exactly, does it mean for there to be a "gap", then? — Michael

A gap would exist if:

I work in a factory making an x amount of components.
You make the same amount of components in the same time.
We get paid differently.

That's is completely inapplicable to managerial, and other business roles. And as I said before, no one gives much of a thing for factory workers anyway. They only care about how to complain their way into earning more in their offices :P.

Coldlight, as a university student you are in a milieu of maximum exposure to the various ideological debates going on in society. Once you leave university and get a job in business, read the newspaper (or website) of your choice, associate mostly with people like yourself, you will hear less about all of this discrimination and pay equity stuff. — Bitter Crank

Agree. It is just the current climate that I am in, and there is undeniably a reason why that climate is the way it is.

Over the last 50 years the reason for women being in the workforce has changed as well. — Bitter Crank

This is closely tied to it, but my comment would be off topic. All I'm going to say for now is that roles have changed, and it is now okay for women to be as ambitious as men when it comes to careers, work, business etc.

All that is water over the dam at this point, but the problem of inequality still exist, even if they aren't as extreme as they were in the past. — Bitter Crank

Why is inequality a problem? Was equality in the USSR any better, for example?

It apparently takes a tremendous amount of genius to read an accessibly written government report which addresses your concerns quantitatively and then makes the opposite conclusion from the one you're drawing. — fdrake

I don't take the report seriously, so.. Will the report still be held with the same respect in 20 years? I doubt it. If all the nonsense with the "gap" vanishes, these reports will become just as worthless. So, no, I'm not going to be impressed by the amount of quantitative data anyone throws at me. Just because there is difference in numbers doesn't mean it's a gap :-} That's what I am addressing.

So now you're accepting that there is a gender pay gap? You just think it justified because men are more valuable to a company than women? — Michael

No. There is no gap. There is simply different amount of many being paid for different work that brings different value. Is it so hard to get out of: so every your statement leads to the fact that there is a gender pay gap? I've heard that one before. If we had two women working as managers and two men working as managers in the same company. Two men earn an x amount of money more than the two women because they deliver different value and work on different projects. How is that a gap?

Do you want to base your opinions on analyses done on the best data with fairly robust research methodologies? Or do you want to engage in the knee-jerk reactionary discourse you're so rightly criticising? — fdrake

Does it really take a tremendous genius to understand that companies treat their employees as investments, and have every right to do so? Does it really take so much to get that there are different values delivered to the company by each employee?

If anything else, this so-called gap is a pure nonsense because it states the obvious - ALL employees may earn differently based on the value their bring. Of course that value is assessed by the business, and of course it may appear unfair. Such is life. Rather than to complain about it, action needs to be taken to become more competitive and able in the current market. The gap is certainly not there because someone is a man or a woman. If you being a man/woman leads you to different decisions, approaches, and work in life is your own responsibility. It is not down to businesses to respect such approach.

If this explains the gender pay gap then why is it that men bring more value than women? — Michael

There are many reasons why men bring more value to the company. Oddly enough, these will not be included in your data because no one wants to talk about them, and if they do, they get fired.

Businesses treat their employees as investments. Who would you invest more in? In a guy who is aggressive, and committed to step on someone's neck to achieve the sales target for you? Or a woman who is just doing what's in her job description. Of course, the situation can be reverse, woman can be highly ambitious, and a man can be a lousy worker. Let's, however, not pretend that that is the case for the overall majority of employees out there. Oh, and women who did manage to be competitive, and entrepreneurial, also managed to make more money, so they probably don't have to complain about inequality and pay gap :P.

Since, for most people it does seem to exist as reality, let's look at the idea that it is propaganda for folks who claim that it isn't. Who would, and why would, benefit occur in the claim that it does not exist? — Uneducated Pleb

Oh, well. It exists for them as a reality so that they have something to complain about. It's easier than competing and trying to improve one's situation, no doubt.

If you want to know who would benefit from no-pay-gap propaganda, then it is quite clear that business who would get away with paying less money. Then again, businesses always find ways to pay less money to their employees, so that's not news, and has been around regardless of whether pay gap exists or not. Take as an example the fact that if a student wants to get some practice in a specific field before getting their degree, chances are, they will have to work a couple of months for free as no one will pay them for their work, and employers know they need to get experience. That's just business.

Completely inconsistent standards of evidence. If you get to speculate like this without the data, so do those feminazi libtards. — fdrake

Are you trying to say that it doesn't matter what value a person brings to the company? Does just the occupation title matter?

When directly comparing men in occupation X with women in occupation X, men tend to make more money. — fdrake

Occupation does not mean that their work brings the same value to the company, which, ultimately is what is the most important for each company.

My working hypothesis is that you've come to this from Jordan Peterson or a related video making an argument that the gender pay gap doesn't exist when including other variables. — fdrake

No, don't know who that guy is. I do agree, however, that if other variables are included, then there is no gap. The point being that if someone says that women get paid less for doing the same job, it is far from truth for the simple fact that it is close to impossible to do the identical job when it comes to management, marketing, business etc.

And let's be honest for a minute, all that most activists in this area care about is how much they make if they work in an office. I don't believe that anyone truly cares about wages of factory workers. The biggest disputes are in the areas of office hierarchies and salaries in there. To that, a simple answer, it is a competitive environment, so learn to compete. What the current climate looks like is more: you don't know how to compete, so complain and someone will get on it for you. Disgusting. Move into some non-competitive areas if you don't want to have a hassle about money and office politics.

I'm singling it out in this case because it is connected to the whole movement of victims of so-called discrimination, and current climate that can be observed at universities, in the news, at the workplace etc. You can never say anything wrong about women because they were apparently discriminated against in history, and well, there's this pay gap thing! It's easy to use something like this for purposes of propaganda, so why not question every source on it?

Otherwise, I do agree that, apart from trivial nonsense, what is in the news should not be believed.

Just to support the preset argument? Nefarious, indeed.

Any reason I should really believe it?

The Tao Te Ching has meant a lot to me and it has helped me intellectually and spiritually. It has a way of bringing me back to solid ground. It takes me to a place where I can balance. I have always been a pretty grounded person. I've always known where I fit in the world. The fact that I can feel that and still be very anxious and sometimes depressed makes it feel like two differently processes are battling it out inside me. It's like the cartoons with the devil and angel sitting on my soldier except with me it's the Buddha and Woody Allen. — T Clark

Would you mind expanding a bit on that? I've read Tao Te Ching quite a long time ago, but recently I got into reading a book on differences between Western and Eastern traditions.

It struck me that there are such notable differences in context-based and object-based thinking. That, in itself, felt very liberating to me, the realisation that there likely isn't just one right way to see things. On one hand, the Western atomism that claims that you are either right or wrong, that your argument is either correct or incorrect. On the other hand, the Eastern fluidity in which opposites co-exist, and even have to.

Anyway, was just wondering if the context, and/or object orientation played any role in how you view Tao Te Ching, and if it relates in any way to how you view depression.

I hope it's okay to ask here.

I mostly read books on psychology. Currently going through work of Sigmund Freud.

Also - Stephen Grosz - The Examined Life

I'm not well read in philosophy, so was wondering if anyone could recommend me anything on 'the philosophy of mind', and if possible at least partially related to psychology. I know there are Encyclopedias that capture the main ideas of philosophy of mind, but I was looking for something more specific, and maybe a bit more practical?

Well, the point of the quote you were responding to was that there a lot of post-hoc reasons we provide for why people need to be born, but none of them are satisfying as they create circular reasoning. Therefore, the only conclusion seems to be that more life (or more experience) itself is what is wanted. It is a desire for more for more's sake. This is not necessarily utilitarian, as there is no rational calculation here, just some underlying desire for more life/experience to be brought forth into the world. — schopenhauer1

I will link my answer with this:

I haven't decided if I really believe there is some ground of a metaphysical "Will", but certainly there seems to be a principle of striving going either in the universe at large or in the individual psyche or both. The individual is continually striving-but-for-nothing until death of the individual. The Pessimist might try to quiet the will. Schopenhuaer advocated quietism through ascetics and pointed to the similarities of Eastern thought on this approach. Antinatalism advocates a prevention of future people which would quiet the needless striving of future people. "Why create a burden when none needs to be there in the first place" might be the approach of this brand of antinatalism. — schopenhauer1

From what you say, it is reasonable to assume that life, in your view, has a meaning. If it had no meaning, then every claim about whether something is moral or immoral would be just an expression of one's mood or opinion. It wouldn't be raised above the human existence as an absolute principle.

If death is the end of it all, if we simply cease to exist, then why is it important to be moral? I'm not sure if you would argue that it is important to lead a morally fulfilling life. I assume you would, otherwise why say that it is immoral to procreate, and stand up for the morally right decision?

Consequently, if the meaning was in leading a morally fulfilling life, then by not procreating you purposefully take away a chance from a new person to lead a meaningful, morally fulfilling life.

I challenge anyone to prove a metaphysical claim using any means whatsoever: what metaphysical claim has even been "proven"? Philosophers still wrangle over Platonic and Aristotelian metaphysics, with nary a resolution in sight. — Arkady

That's because of the nature of philosophy itself. The fact that there is still discussion to this day about Ancient Greek philosophical concepts does not mean that those claims cannot be proven. It's not the same as with empirical sciences. Evolution of philosophy is in improving arguments. And metaphysical claims are to be argued for/against only by philosophers as those are by nature philosophical question.

You have simply asserted that empirical investigation cannot, in principle, provide evidence for the existence of God because they are "different topics." But from the fact that philosophy and empirical investigation are distinct areas of inquiry it does not follow that there is no overlap between them — Arkady

I haven't merely asserted that. It is truth in principle. Example question:

''What is human? What is the nature of human being?'' To elaborate a bit more on this question: ''What is the definition of a human being that defines it in its most broad and principal sense?''

I'm not going to suggest any answers to this question as this serves only as an example. So, who is the most competent to answer this question? A scientist? No, because a scientist does not define human nature and does not in fact ask any questions about human nature. That is all down to philosophy. Even if scientists came up with a claim about human nature, they would have to use philosophy. In the end, philosophers are the ones to argue for or against the validity of the argument presented.

Back to the question of God. Only philosophy is capable to look at God as a concept and define it in its broadest sense. Physicians cannot ''discover'' God without knowing before hand what the God is and even after ''discovery'' they would need a validation from philosophers in order to see whether it really is God or not.

Philosophy is therefore competent of answering metaphysical questions completely without empirical sciences as those cannot grasp metaphysical concepts in its broadest and most abstract sense.

I don't even know whether you're an atheist or a theist, but you seem to think that an answer to question of whether God exists is already in hand, and that no reasonable person could believe that God (does/does not) exist. No doubt (atheists/theists) would argue just as vociferously for their position, and would say they have "yet to hear" why the negation of their belief is correct. That's the problem with such a priori metaphysical wrangling: it just goes on and on. — Arkady

I'm implying, on a personal level, that to say that we don't know answer to such questions is more laziness than a real thing. Whether I am a theist or an atheist does not matter.