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
I think not. — 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.Trump is POTUS — Pattern-chaser
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
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
One has to decide how much reality one's God has. — Bitter Crank
I would say that the unconscious is created by ourselves, through the act of repression. — Agustino
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
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
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
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
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
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
Marx thought that capitalism is characterised by this "false consciousness" where the participants do not know what they are doing. — Agustino
As if I'm more enlightened if I use more technical jargon to describe what we observe... — Agustino
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
What, exactly, does it mean for there to be a "gap", then? — Michael
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
Over the last 50 years the reason for women being in the workforce has changed as well. — Bitter Crank
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
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
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
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
If this explains the gender pay gap then why is it that men bring more value than women? — Michael
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
Completely inconsistent standards of evidence. If you get to speculate like this without the data, so do those feminazi libtards. — fdrake
When directly comparing men in occupation X with women in occupation X, men tend to make more money. — fdrake
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
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
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 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
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
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 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