Trump implemented / tried to implement is telling of your intellectual dishonesty. — ssu
You don’t think one important reason for the rise of categories of gender identity is that individuals found themselves rejected and ostracized over their behavior, which in many cases they had no control over? A feminine-acting gay male could be the target of bullies, and their partnership with another male not legally recognized. A tight-knit gay community was necessary as long as gays felt unsafe in mainstream society. Now that mainstream attitudes have changed these ‘gay ghettos’ are fading as their residents integrate back into the wider community, while maintaining their gay identity. And with further liberalization in attitudes toward non-conforming gender behaviors among the general population, the relevance of the concept of gay identity will likely diminish. Thus we can see how the creation of identitarian communities can serve a vital, if temporary purpose. — Joshs
Are you sure? My own memory is that gender stereotypes were much more rigid back in the fifties. My mother was forced to give up work (in a bank) on marriage as a 'natural' policy and custom. The hippie men growing their hair was seriously transgressive in the sixties.
Indeed gender stereotypes go back to Samson and Heracles, at least. It seems to me that these identities are being questioned and resisted by modernity rather than exaggerated. — unenlightened
I don't know about vacuums. Isn't another way to frame this that there are just a lot more possibilities and more ways to be mainstream today? I doubt that community or family or religion are much weaker today than they were 40-50 years ago. They've been in transition a long, long time. If anything, back in the late 70's we thought religion would be gone from society by now and, if anything, it seems to be having a revival.
Community and family? Traditional forms may well have atrophied but other forms have developed - same sex parent families, for instance. I see a lot of additional inclusion in the country I live in - input from First Nations people, lived experience informing social policy in the areas of migrant communities, homelessness, mental illness, etc. There seem to be as many improvements as disappointments. — Tom Storm
The distinction isn't subtle because it gives a nod to absolutes, to right, to wrong, to immutability over fluidity. It is not just living by clear dictates that avoids the stress of chaos, it is the belief that there are clear dictates that are with certainty true that avoids those stresses and it's adherence to an actual true standard that matters.
This isn't to suggest that the way things were were the way things should have remained because not every expression at any given moment is consistent with the way things ought to be, but I do see what "ought" to be as an objective question, not just a personal expression for the moment.
It's as if we erected all these fences so long ago and we forgot why, so we tore them down and barbarians invaded we never knew existed, so we frantically try to protect ourselves until someone suggests we might wish to reconstruct some of those fences. My metaphorical point here is that we ought re-erect those fences not just because we wish to find personal peace, but because those barbarians are evil, not just an inconvenience we don't know how to accomodate. If we don't take that stance, then we're just going to keep tearing those fences down again and again, thinking he can make friends with the barbarians and all get along.
And don't misunderstand all this to mean I'm looking to force certain behaviors out of people. People get to celebrate their uniqueness and ultimately make their own decisions how they see fit, but they don't necessarily get to be saved from hearing the commentary regarding their behavior from their opponents. I do think though we've reached a point that we might be finally be relenting from where we could not even question whether every personal expression is a good one. — Hanover
Therefore the frame of atomization being an effect of individualism is unsubtantiated. — Tzeentch
But that the megarich control/have a huge influence over US policy? Ooooh, that is really not going to go away anytime soon!!! I'll make a bet on that with you anytime. — ssu
Well, not on the side Western allies, at least. But in the case of Stalin's Soviet Union, remember that Russian soldiers were fed propaganda that only the dogs and the unborn in Germany were innocent. — ssu
With torture, you'll have anybody saying anything in the end. It's not as effective as you think — ssu
Scientific evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that torture is not an effective method for obtaining reliable information or intelligence. Neuroscience, psychology, and physiology research consistently show that torture impairs cognitive functioning and memory recall, making it counterproductive for interrogation purposes[1][4].
Neurological and Psychological Effects
Torture severely disrupts brain function, impairing the ability to accurately recall and communicate information:
1. Stress, fear, and pain caused by torture lead to major disruptive changes in the brain, damaging cognitive functioning[2].
2. The brain's ability to regulate thoughts, emotions, and behaviors is compromised under torture conditions[2].
3. Extreme stress alters memory formation and recall, making recollections less accurate and increasing susceptibility to false memories[3].
Counterproductive Outcomes
Rather than eliciting truthful information, torture often produces unreliable results:
1. Torture disorients prisoners, preventing accurate recall of past events[2].
2.Individuals subjected to torture are likely to say anything to make it stop, regardless of truthfulness[1].
3. The physiological and psychological effects of torture can lead to confabulation, where the subject may be unable to distinguish fact from fantasy[3].
Scientific Consensus
The scientific community largely agrees on torture's ineffectiveness:
1. Extensive research shows that punitive behavior encourages lying rather than truth-telling[5].
2. Studies indicate that stress modifies pain perception, further complicating the reliability of information obtained through torture[5].
3. The signal-to-noise ratio in intelligence gathered through torture is extremely low, making it an indefensible practice from a scientific standpoint[4].
In conclusion, scientific evidence from various fields consistently demonstrates that torture is not only morally and legally problematic but also ineffective and counterproductive as an interrogation method[6][7][8].
Citations:
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-017-0077
[2] https://humanrightsfirst.org/library/review-why-torture-doesnt-work-the-neuroscience-of-interrogation-by-shane-omara/
[3] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5198758/
[4] https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22830471-200-torture-doesnt-work-says-science-why-are-we-still-doing-it/
[5] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5325643/
[6] https://theconversation.com/torture-isnt-necessary-our-study-suggests-an-ethical-alternative-130626
[7] https://journalistsresource.org/politics-and-government/does-torture-work-research-says-no/
[8] https://www.science.org/content/article/torture-cant-provide-good-information-argues-neuroscientist — perplexity.ai
I live in a country with nationalized healthcare and it's awful too, but perhaps that's just a question of who bears final responsibility. — Tzeentch
A condescending attitude or the view "Why bother to respond?" simply isn't fruitful to anybody. — ssu
If a philosophy forum doesn't debate the hard problems of our time and sees no value in discussion about them, what does that tell of us ourselves? — ssu
After 9/11 Bush said he'd make no distinction between terrorists and those who harbor them. Sounds like a justification for genocide, no? — BitconnectCarlos
The US spoke in similar terms about enemies in Vietnam and Japan. Yet neither were genocides. The population of Gaza has risen by ~2% since last year never has there been a genocide where the victim population actually rose. The idea is preposterous. And of course Israel could wipe them out immediately if they really wanted as Israel has heavy weaponry. The facts simply don't bare it out the charge of genocide. — BitconnectCarlos
source= https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8472275/?utm_source=perplexityIf viral strains are sufficiently similar in their immunodominant epitopes, then populations of cross-reactive T cells may be boosted by exposure to one strain and provide protection against infection by another at a later date. This type of pre-existing immunity may be important in the adaptive immune response to influenza and to coronaviruses. Patterns of recognition of epitopes by T cell clonotypes (a set of cells sharing the same T cell receptor) are represented as edges on a bipartite network. We describe different methods of constructing bipartite networks that exhibit cross-reactivity, and the dynamics of the T cell repertoire in conditions of homeostasis, infection and re-infection. Cross-reactivity may arise simply by chance, or because immunodominant epitopes of different strains are structurally similar. We introduce a circular space of epitopes, so that T cell cross-reactivity is a quantitative measure of the overlap between clonotypes that recognize similar (that is, close in epitope space) epitopes.
Even Dutch Prime Minister Dick Schoof got under the feathers of his Minister of Foreign Affairs on November 29 by talking about “scenarios” that could prevent Netanyahu’s arrest on Dutch soil. Earlier, Schoof suggested that a visit by a suspect to an international organization such as the OPCW (Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons) could perhaps serve as an escape route. This form of ‘ingenuity’ is undesirable, and would undermine the status of international law – and thus the rule of law that this cabinet claims to embrace – in any case. The relativizing words actually do that. — Ko Colijn (machine translated)