|
okay now do one with steve job's family walking on steve jobs dying
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 03:52
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
|
| # ? May 1, 2024 19:31 |
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:For many people, yes, gender identity is an emergent property of their neuroanatomy. To others, not so much. This is irrelevant, because even if the source of gender identity were the same for everybody it would have no bearing on whether we should or should not tear down gender-based norms, which are what cause people to have hassles with their identity. Hypothetically this happens and like some people who advocate for it theorize, a large portion of the population develops a fluid nongender specific sexuality. Do you think such a society would be able to keep itself from dieing out? I don't. Societys with merely greater liberation for women seem to be enough to put the majority of them on a death spiral. While I agree with you that it is ultimately a greater moral good to do so and would definitely help keep children from developing painful gender dysphoria, ultimately you have to weigh the costs. A more just society Isn't worth it if it's going to die out in five generations.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
afeelgoodpoop posted:Hypothetically this happens and like some people who advocate for it theorize, a large portion of the population develops a fluid nongender specific sexuality. Do you think such a society would be able to keep itself from dieing out? I don't. Societys with merely greater liberation for women seem to be enough to put the majority of them on a death spiral. While I agree with you that it is ultimately a greater moral good to do so and would definitely help keep children from developing painful gender dysphoria, ultimately you have to weigh the costs. A more just society Isn't worth it if it's going to die out in five generations. The desire to have children is not related to sexuality or gender identity, so unless a huge number of people choose to go on hormone treatments that render them infertile (which is really, really far-fetched), there will still be procreation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
afeelgoodpoop posted:Hypothetically this happens and like some people who advocate for it theorize, a large portion of the population develops a fluid nongender specific sexuality. Do you think such a society would be able to keep itself from dieing out? I don't. Societys with merely greater liberation for women seem to be enough to put the majority of them on a death spiral. While I agree with you that it is ultimately a greater moral good to do so and would definitely help keep children from developing painful gender dysphoria, ultimately you have to weigh the costs. A more just society Isn't worth it if it's going to die out in five generations. Population decrease would go a long way towards resolving many worldwide problems so that sounds like a bonus? People can reproduce regardless of their gender identity.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 04:29
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Population decrease would go a long way towards resolving many worldwide problems so that sounds like a bonus? It will be a world population decrease, but it will be the hypothetical gender equal societys elimination. That doesn't seem very fare for any trans people born after it ends.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 04:33
|
|
|
afeelgoodpoop posted:It will be a world population decrease, but it will be the hypothetical gender equal societys elimination. That doesn't seem very fare for any trans people born after it ends. Generally we resolve that sort of problem by creating an immigrant-heavy underclass to service the needs of a declining and ageing population  Also if society wipes itself out, we presumably wouldn't have any trans people born? Or any other people? So that seems moot? Besides, you haven't really demonstrated why gender roles are required for procreation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
afeelgoodpoop posted:Hypothetically this happens and like some people who advocate for it theorize, a large portion of the population develops a fluid nongender specific sexuality. Do you think such a society would be able to keep itself from dieing out? I don't. Societys with merely greater liberation for women seem to be enough to put the majority of them on a death spiral. While I agree with you that it is ultimately a greater moral good to do so and would definitely help keep children from developing painful gender dysphoria, ultimately you have to weigh the costs. A more just society Isn't worth it if it's going to die out in five generations. 1) Yes, I do think the human race will keep itself from dying out; 2) Even if I didn't, what future generations do or don't do as regards reproduction is none of my business and I don't particularly care; 3) Just lol at the idea that reproductive capacity is in any way going to be contingent on sex organs five generations from now; 4) This is a loving absurd concern.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Generally we resolve that sort of problem by creating an immigrant-heavy underclass to service the needs of a declining and ageing population Well, most children are created accidentally in youth based on heterosexual trysts. If you create this vacuum where up to half of these trysts are going to be samesex, you will ultimately be removing half of the children created in this manner. Which, again, are the majority.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
If the human race requires teen pregnancy to be sustainable then possibly threatening it with extinction may be considered a merited stern reprimand?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 04:40
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If the human race requires teen pregnancy to be sustainable then possibly threatening it with extinction may be considered a merited stern reprimand? This reminds me of some evangelicals reasoning for why AIDS was a gift from god.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
Why would anybody living today care whether or not the species is going to fail adequately to breed in a hundred years' time? Either we'll have integrated ourselves with an artificial superintelligence and it'll be a totally moot point or we'll all be dead. What kind of a loving maniac worries about whether or not their great-great-great-great-grandkids will be too tumblr-y to breed?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
Not entirely sure that people voluntarily not having children because they don't want them is quite the same as an AIDS epidemic?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:Why would anybody living today care whether or not the species is going to fail adequately to breed in a hundred years' time? Either we'll have integrated ourselves with an artificial superintelligence and it'll be a totally moot point or we'll all be dead. What kind of a loving maniac worries about whether or not their great-great-great-great-grandkids will be too tumblr-y to breed? I care for individuals who are yet to be born, and would rather they be born in a functional supportive society and not some repressive hellhole. is that really so maniacal?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 04:48
|
|
|
afeelgoodpoop posted:I care for individuals who are yet to be born, and would rather they be born in a functional supportive society and not some repressive hellhole. is that really so maniacal? And you're arguing for the status quo?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 04:49
|
|
|
afeelgoodpoop posted:I care for individuals who are yet to be born, and would rather they be born in a functional supportive society and not some repressive hellhole. is that really so maniacal? ...ergo gender norms are good?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 04:53
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:...ergo gender norms are good? If the removal of them caused the masses to have fluid sexuality , and it lead to a very quick death spiral for that society, then I can't see how you'd say that some form of gender norms aren't good.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 05:00
|
|
|
afeelgoodpoop posted:If the removal of them caused the masses to have fluid sexuality , and it lead to a very quick death spiral for that society, then I can't see how you'd say that some form of gender norms aren't good. 1) Why would it lead to a 'death spiral'? 2) What are you afraid this 'death spiral' would look like, aside from there being fewer humans? 3) Why don't you gently caress off and let my asexual great-great-great-grandkids do what the gently caress they like?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 05:04
|
|
|
afeelgoodpoop posted:If the removal of them caused the masses to have fluid sexuality , and it lead to a very quick death spiral for that society, then I can't see how you'd say that some form of gender norms aren't good. If the removal of gender norms would destabilise the moon's orbit and send it crashing into the earth that would also be bad. And I think that's a compelling argument.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 05:06
|
|
|
Men who have sex with men, and women who have sex with women, and transgender/genderfluid people all manage to have children and/or care for children, so this is a ridiculous argument. Further, there's still going to be loads and loads of people who are cis, straight and loving each other without protection. Do you think the sole reason that people aren't coming out as gay, bi, trans or genderfluid is because it's not socially acceptable? Why in god's name would you assume that a loosening or elimination of gender roles would lead people to stop trying to get it on with each other? It's ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 05:13
|
|
|
I use King of the Hill to determine what emotions are permissible to express as a man, and it's worked out surprisingly well so far.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 05:25
|
|
|
Adventure Pigeon posted:I use King of the Hill to determine what emotions are permissible to express as a man, and it's worked out surprisingly well so far. I use "sadness because I eat spaghetti over the kitchen sink" quite a bit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 05:28
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:1) Why would it lead to a 'death spiral'? when everyone is 'genderfluid', there won't be any men or women left to have children. its simple physics  you guys are arguing with one of the more insane gamergate posters btw.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 05:34
|
|
|
Tokamak posted:you guys are arguing with one of the more insane gamergate posters btw. It's a mirror.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 05:36
|
|
|
Personal emotions are dead weight, emotions are only useful to 1. express solitude with a group or 2. to fuel an ambition that serves a greater purpose to society.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 05:39
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I use "sadness because I eat spaghetti over the kitchen sink" quite a bit. It's Boomhauer that speaks to my soul.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 05:41
|
|
|
Emotions are good actually.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 05:42
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Emotions are good actually. I would argue that many men avoid emotions because they often find them to be annoying or obstacles. Emotions that do not help bring you where you want to be in life are useless; I see nothing disagreeable with that assertion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 06:13
|
|
|
afeelgoodpoop posted:Hypothetically this happens and like some people who advocate for it theorize, a large portion of the population develops a fluid nongender specific sexuality. Do you think such a society would be able to keep itself from dieing out? Duckbag posted:Also there's been a long and contentious debate over the role testosterone plays in male aggression and violence. Poor socialization and "boys don't cry" bullshit definitely has its role to play as well, but it's hardly the whole story. The ages at which men are most likely to commit violent crime have a startlingly close correlation with peak testosterone levels and I really don't think it's a coincidence. The phrase "testosterone poisoning" is still stupid and sexist, but the way we tend to ignore hormones and underlying genetic factors when comparing the sexes is somewhat bizarre. http://www.alternet.org/gender/masculinity-killing-men-roots-men-and-trauma posted:Yet both mothers and fathers imagine inherent sex-related differences between baby girls and boys. Even when researchers controlled for babies’ “weight, length, alertness, and strength,” parents overwhelmingly reported that baby girls were more delicate and “softer” than baby boys; they imagined baby boys to be bigger and generally “stronger.” When a group of 204 adults was shown video of the same baby crying and given differing information about the baby’s sex, they judged the “female” baby to be scared, while the “male” baby was described as “angry.” I mean think about it this way: if difference is totally innate, then why would it ever be possible to call a man 'unmanly' or a woman 'unladylike'? Wouldn't any behavior they express already be within the spectrum of behaviors correlated with their gender, by the fact that is innate? rudatron fucked around with this message at 06:26 on Jul 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 06:21
|
|
|
If someone thinks that the only thing stopping everyone from turning into gay transsexual heathens are codified gender roles that may say more about the individual making the assertion than any supposed truths about society.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 06:53
|
|
|
rudatron posted:People in the developed world aren't having kids because they actually have a choice in the matter now, and having kids is super loving expensive. If you want population growth or population stability, that is what you attack, through subsidies or what not. It's not a breakdown in gender roles that's leading to pop-decline, it's a society where both parents have to work, or the transition of jobs from full-time to part-time (and the destruction of job/income stability that brings), or the expense of childcare. This seems like some what of an obvious reading to me. It is obvious that this is a major contributor. Their are also academics who push for gender norm elimination theorizing that it could cause fluid sexuality in the masses. Now your proposition is that these developed countries who are mostly influenced by their economys would then subsidize child rearing to encourage a stable population. Why do you think they would do this rather than use cheaper, less socially equal immigrants to supplement the host societys losses?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 06:53
|
|
|
LookingGodIntheEye posted:If someone thinks that the only thing stopping everyone from turning into gay transsexual heathens are codified gender roles that may say more about the individual making the assertion than any supposed truths about society.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 06:58
|
|
|
rudatron posted:It's not a breakdown in gender roles that's leading to pop-decline, it's a society where both parents have to work, or the transition of jobs from full-time to part-time (and the destruction of job/income stability that brings), or the expense of childcare. That's exactly the kind of society feminists wanted, though- a world where white upper class women could pay working class minorities to raise their kids for them while they went to work and participate as consumers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 07:02
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:That's exactly the kind of society feminists wanted, though- a world where white upper class women could pay working class minorities to raise their kids for them while they went to work and participate as consumers. Yeah feminism is an ideology renowned for its racism. What the gently caress are you babbling about? afeelgoodpoop posted:I care for individuals who are yet to be born, and would rather they be born in a functional supportive society and not some repressive hellhole. is that really so maniacal? Just going back to this for a second, it absolutely is maniacal, because what you're saying is that you don't trust Future People with their own future, one in which either a) you won't be present; or b) will be far beyond wringing its hands over everybody being too genderfluid to procreate because people are living for well in excess of a hundred years and have very plausibly transcended flesh altogether. Get help. Smudgie Buggler fucked around with this message at 07:29 on Jul 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 07:22
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:That's exactly the kind of society feminists wanted, though- a world where white upper class women could pay working class minorities to raise their kids for them while they went to work and participate as consumers. Stop talking to the voices in your head.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 08:01
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:Yeah feminism is an ideology renowned for its racism. Oh, I dunno, the intersectionality feminism arguments didn't occur in a vacuum.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 08:12
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:Yeah feminism is an ideology renowned for its racism. This isn't the same thing as the social reforms that the Soviets attempted to institute with the NEP. Modern feminism has a distinctly western and distinctly capitalist in thought and ideology, and that's why it managed to cement itself into western society. How would the US even function now without a huge pool of day cares, nannies, and lower income individuals that are always present to take care of the kids of the middle and upper classes?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 08:17
|
|
|
Claverjoe posted:Oh, I dunno, the intersectionality feminism arguments didn't occur in a vacuum. Many feminists, being people who existed from the late 1800s to the present, were racist. That does not make it acceptable to generalise that "what feminists want" is white supremacy. Job Truniht posted:This isn't the same thing as the social reforms that the Soviets attempted to institute with the NEP. Modern feminism has a distinctly western and distinctly capitalist in thought and ideology, and that's why it managed to cement itself into western society. How would the US even function now without a huge pool of day cares, nannies, and lower income individuals that are always present to take care of the kids of the middle and upper classes? Why are you equating feminism with the white privilege of the most prominent ideologues of the Second Wave, though? It sounds like you're saying feminism bad because white people bad. Smudgie Buggler fucked around with this message at 08:20 on Jul 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 08:17
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:Why are you equating feminism with the white privilege of the most prominent ideologues of the Second Wave, though? It sounds like you're saying feminism bad because white people bad. Because I think it is an ideology wholly owned and subsidized by the bourgeoise. Rarely does it permeate into where it is needed the most: households with high birth rates and huge amounts of poverty- both only possible because of traditional gender roles. Post gender equality will only happen after it does reach the proletariat. e: and yeah, white people owning an ideology tends to make it suck Job Truniht fucked around with this message at 08:52 on Jul 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 08:36
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:Because I think it is an ideology wholly owned and subsidized by the bourgeoise. Rarely does it permeate into where it is needed the most: households with high birth rates and huge amounts of poverty- both only possible because of traditional gender roles. Post gender equality will only happen after it does reach the proletariat. idk dude, I think feminism is a pretty good thing if it stops people from cutting their girl baby's vaginas because they believe that would make them less likely to be slutty later on in life.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 08:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 1, 2024 19:31 |
|
|
Job Truniht posted:Because I think it is an ideology wholly owned and subsidized by the bourgeoise. Rarely does it permeate into where it is needed the most: households with high birth rates and huge amounts of poverty- both only possible because of traditional gender roles. Post gender equality will only happen after it does reach the proletariat. Way not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. quote:e: and yeah, white people owning an ideology tends to make it suck Firstly, I don't think feminism in 2015 is predominantly a white people thing, and secondly, even if it were that wouldn't be an argument for it being bad, it'd be an argument for taking it off them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 09:42
|
|