Then they let this happen. Hypocrites.

Reminds me of that time when the commies built that fence in Berlin. The Dems were all for that too.

So, this is going about as well as expected.

No, among other unsubstantiated claims, you said the Dems support "open borders". Sources/evidence? (Except you can't because it's not true).

how did the Dems get from the Secure Fence Act accompanied by strong anti-illegal immigrant rhetoric, to the present stance of abolishing ICE and having open borders? — fishfry

[My bolding]

I believe the worst the right says about the left... — fishfry

Instead of repeating those lies here, try doing some actual research.

and the worst the left says about the right. — fishfry

Same deal. Do your own research and quote it, and your posts might have some substance instead of sounding like partisan screeds.

(It wouldn't surprise me if the Dems were hypocritical in some way (I agree they are not to be trusted), but they didn't want a "wall" before and they don't want "open borders" now.)

The wall is pretty much stupid, but I prefer it to another war. To those who think that's a false choice, like maybe we could choose something other than war or a wall, I say you're wrong. — Hanover

Well, you're not getting a wall with the Dems in power in the house. So, what kind of war are you predicting and when?

...to the present stance of abolishing ICE and having open borders? — fishfry

So, your claim now is that the Dems went from supporting a wall and gassing and caging immigrants just as much as (or more than) Trump did, to being in favour of no border security at all, i.e. just opening the border and letting everyone in. Because they don't like Trump...

Again, interesting theory. So, sources, evidence? You can start with the Democrat policy platform and show where it calls for an open border.

So, the argument now is not that Dems want open borders (the usual right-wing line), but actually that they are just as strong on border security as Trump and really want a wall, but covered it up in advance by pretending they only wanted a fence, so they could prevent a wall when Trump came to power because they knew he'd want one and that would give them a great opportunity to not get what they really wanted all along.

Interesting theory. :chin:

Harry insists gender is no more than biological sex. The NHS definition is within the general boundaries of the other definitions in recognizing it's more than that. Whether you use the NHS definition or the WHO one or Oxford, you recognize that:

While biological sex and gender identity are the same for most people, this isn't the case for everyone. — NHS

Harry doesn't and so is wasting time here. And that's the end of the definition discussion now as it really is too much of a tangent.

That's a reasonable and nuanced criticism.

My issue with Hanover concerned what kind of system the relatively poor are better off in and where therefore their interests lie in promoting. And that's a system where those with more wealth than them pay high taxes and the income from those taxes is redistributed into social programs in the way I previously outlined, as is the case in Denmark (or as some left-wing Democrats advocate). That was the context that I raised at least.

How far that can be taken in practice is another question. A unilateral sudden jump to 92% tax rates and a ban on billionaires in an advanced democracy entwined in the global financial system is likely to lead to huge capital flight and may very well hurt everyone including the less well off (to that extent I'd agree with Hanover, but that's probably as far as our agreement goes). So, moves to reverse the increasing concentration of wealth in fewer hands need to be carefully managed, obviously.

Because high tax, low inequality i.e. controlling wealth and redistributing downwards.





Amazingly, the poor are not better off when you redistribute money away from them to the rich, but are when you redistribute money from the rich to them. But you're illustrating my point very well re the prevailing ideology if against all the evidence, you actually believe what you are saying.

The poor just realize they'd be poorer under a different system. — Hanover

So, you're laughably empirically wrong.



https://www.demos.org/blog/10/20/15/united-states-vs-denmark-17-charts

You've gone off on a few different tangents there, but it should be clear my moral perspective on economic issues is utilitarian-based. If redistributing wealth back away from the super-rich (as was done in the US from the forties to the seventies before the flow reversed again) into social programs that benefit the less well-off in terms of healthcare, education, opportunity etc. results in greater wealth and well-being for more people than not doing so, then I am for it. If it were the case that doing so resulted in less overall well-being, I would be against it. I believe the former and therefore am for it.

What always amazes me is that billionaires and the super-rich in general have managed to create not only a system that funnels more and more money to them, but a prevailing ideology whereby a significant proportion of those who have relatively no wealth in comparison feel obliged to protect them and their billions on the basis that somehow nothing could possibly work properly without them. Now that's social engineering.

:clap:

Just sounded fly to me... :grimace:

Sorry frank, but you don't get any brownie points here for fronting that you know stuff.

Here's a basic overview from wiki:

"Social engineering is a discipline in social science that refers to efforts to influence particular attitudes and social behaviors on a large scale, whether by governments, media or private groups in order to produce desired characteristics in a target population. Social engineering can also be understood philosophically as a deterministic phenomenon where the intentions and goals of the architects of the new social construct are realized...

As a result of abuse by authoritarian regimes and other non-inclusive attempts at social engineering, the term has in cases been imbued with a negative connotation. In British and Canadian jurisprudence, changing public attitudes about a behaviour is accepted as one of the key functions of laws prohibiting the behaviour. Governments also influence behavior more subtly through incentives and disincentives built into economic policy and tax policy, for instance, and have done so for centuries."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_engineering_(political_science)

There's a lot more to it than that, but instead of running away, maybe start by telling me what part you think is not going on all the time in the public sphere.

Is there even one opponent of gender-neutral education that is not so overcome by their own ideological context that they realize they actually operate in one? That is not so socially engineered that they are able to realize that social engineering is happening all around them all the time?

Maybe it's just the word "social" that's making you all break out in hives. How about we call it public policy application? Because it's essentially the same thing in this context.

protecting students — frank

From what?

In that case what you're telling me is that you don't understand what social engineering is. As I already explained and as I wouldn't need to explain if you'd read the actual discussion, public education is inseparable from social engineering. It's not some neutral space where nothing ideological happens. If you're against all forms of social engineering then you're against public education, period.

I guess you're less interested in someone else's experiences and views than in finding someone to bitch at. Try Hanover. I'm not interested. — frank

I didn't bitch at you. I said it's a knee jerk reaction, and that's what strong language like "over my dead body" sounds like. Fair or no? The rest was just a few questions.

I'm not speaking as Heidegger, I'm giving my own take. Das man is interchangeable with a lot of other terms we could use as far as I'm concerned.

The point has already been made earlier in the thread that the teacher is a social engineer one way or the other. Getting kids to say the pledge of allegiance (or whatever) is social engineering. Reinforcing current gender stereotypes is social engineering. Whatever you think about the language used in the quote, education just is social engineering. You can embrace it or deny it. And whether you embrace it or not should depend on the outcome you want. So, for example, if you want less racial discrimination, you actively counteract racial stereotypes, which has been being done for the last few generations. If you want less sexism then you may need to actively counteract sexual stereotypes.

Or I should say, over my dead body it will. — frank

Knee jerk reaction. Why? What do you fear from the counteraction of traditional gender roles? What exactly do you think the negative outcome is?

I'd just add from my own experience that even though we won't ever get all the way, it's crucial to try, and that most institutions and systems will do their damndest to offer us stuff that will make us not want to bother. Put it this way, nobody is ever going to get very far along the road to authenticity by being a good employee during the day and blowing off steam in front of the TV/internet at night. More likely an embrace of relative financial poverty and low social status will be necessary. Which is fine because neither are actually necessary for confidence unless we're already too diseased to matter. (Of course, if there's another way, let me know 'cos I'd love to hear it.)

The moves, or some of them at least, are outlined in the gender-neutral education article in the OP. By the opposition, I mean those who were opposed to the idea in this thread. and also those who wrote in opposition to the APA guidelines. The latter representing one side of what un was referring to as the "politicised gender war".

I don't know what else to say about it. I think you did the right thing. And sometimes that's hard. But I expect you'll eventually get through it and not regret it.

An individual is a bunch of social forces that have their tendrils around a follicly challenged ape. Das man is us from the root up. There is no individuation out of das man short of insanity. However, there is definitely getting lost in das man, which is dangerous, and there is a positive struggling with das man in the way a rider struggles to break in a horse. Only the rider has no legs and can't ever dismount. Wrestle, use creatively, all good, but there's no true graduation in my view. The romantic myth of the free individual who is above it all is just that, a myth. We're grounded in the other, and a part of us will always think as "they" do.

There's space between it being a non-issue and so critical as to merit vitriolic opposition. And of course, there are shades of gender-neutrality to be considered. Doing things like abolishing differences in dress codes between boys and girls and not laying any emphasis on their biological differences in classroom content or practice seem reasonable to me, and I can't see how they would interfere with individual parenting choices. Whether or not that should be taken further and children should be actively encouraged to challenge gender roles (as in girls being taught to be more assertive/aggressive etc) is more debatable. But again, it seems even the most extreme gender-neutral public schooling that's been tried in Sweden doesn't result in anything earth-shattering.

So, what's been reflected here is that:

the politicised gender war taking place in America does seem more poisonous. — unenlightened

Why? Why is it so poisonous? Why are moves towards gender neutrality considered so threatening when the only research done on it suggests only minor effects? Are the opposition even interested in the results? Or is it just a knee-jerk reaction to anything perceived as liberal/feminist/left-wing etc?

Respect to you. You did the honourable thing. It would be nice if that always resulted in a reward, but if it did, it would no longer be honourable. All you can do now is let law enforcement take care of any harassment that goes over the line. Or move.

Authoritarian Socialist Note: The definition of 'gender' for the purposes of this thread is the normal definition as used in the social sciences and dictionaries etc. Anyone who disrupts the discussion with side-debates about other definitions or refusing to recognize what everyone else is talking about will have their posts deleted.

I never said it was a left-wing definition. — Harry Hindu

For you and the left (I should let everyone know that I'm not on the right. I consider myself as a-political), it is the characteristic of a society... — Harry Hindu

...

If it's not your definition then why are you using it? — Harry Hindu

Because I don't make up my own definitions of words, but rely on authorities such as dictionaries, social institutions etc.

I mean if you think gender is exclusively biological sex, then what could 'gender-neutral' even mean? Cutting little boys dangly bits off and giving half of them to girls? This is how absurd your position is.

Listen, please. It's not my definition. It's not a left-wing definition. It's the standard definition. It's what the word means and how it's used in every discussion in the area on which the OP is focused. If you don't want to recognize it, fine, but in that case, you won't be able to communicate on this topic.

For those like the above for whom the WHO definition is just too complicated to understand:

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/gender

Either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female.

Please tell me if this sort of thing is considered spam and I'll take the post down. — Ben92

Just removed the link from the OP. Anyone who wants to know what it is can PM you, or you can stick it up on your profile if you like (under 'Update bio' option). Good luck with the magazine. :up:

Another reason the outrage is misplaced, of course, is that gender non-neutral vs gender neutral is not an absolute binary. Education has been trending towards gender neutrality in the West for generations in line with social changes empowering women. So, it's more a matter of following that trend a bit further rather than making some massive jump. Plus, as mentioned early on, according to the research, it seems to have fairly mild effects which are heavily mitigated by the culture as a whole.

Before I get strawmanned again, I'll reiterate I'm not yet a supporter of the move, not to mind some kind of rabid liberal social engineer of the kind dreamed up by some of the less constructive posters on this thread, but consider it worthy of exploration. I mean, why not? Where's all the fear and loathing coming from?

Sorry, you can't post links to your blogs for review here. You can post links on your profile though, and if you want to start a discussion on a topic you've covered in an essay of yours, that's fine. For further info, feel free to PM me.

Sure, it's relevant to the forum and fine to post it. But yes, the lounge is the best place for it if there's no philosophical point to debate.

I must add my authoritarian socialist point that marketing execs who write that kind of drivel should be hunted down and dismembered with large hungry dogs.