= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
You're right, I didn't give sufficient consideration to the benefits you might get from IRC, and I'm sorry about that. I still think what you said about trans people (especially referring to them as "monstrous abortions", even jocularly) is really bad, but if attempting to police that kind of language for yourself would seriously damage the value of IRC as a coping mechanism for you, then it is a more difficult situation than I imagined. Perhaps you could ask a trusted friend who's also a regular on the channel to give you a heads up by PM if what you say gets a little too offensive? I don't know... I do think you're underestimating the extent to which comments of the sort you made are harmful. There are very few communities on the internet (or in real life, for that matter) that are even remotely welcoming to trans people, and I'd like LW to be one of them. But I've said my piece and I'm not going to push it. Sorry for getting too fighty. I should have appreciated that you feel a little blindsided and that piling on doesn't help.
This careful reconsideration of the subject, subsequent apology, and declaration of an intent to change your behavior are admirable - and a bit ironic, in this situation.
All too often, people focus on how gender discrimination is unfair to those who are excluded or minimized, but it's also a loss to the group and its goals as a whole.
I don't see how this story has anything to do with gender discrimination, unless it's trying to reinforce some stereotype of "Women can come up with peaceful solutions to problems, but men always resort to violence immediately."
The socialization of children into gender roles of conciliation and confrontation begins very early, as can be seen in a study by Clearfield and Nelson. Accordingly, it is not surprising (and jibes with our common sense) to note that men and women tend to respond to challenges in different ways. I think it's probably too broad to say that men "always" resort to violence "immediately," which seems like a deliberately weak phrasing. Rather, I'd say that men and women find different solutions, because of their different perspectives.
Why would plowing one field make a difference to their survival or death? Especially when plowing one field is taking up time to the detriment of going after the dark elves. Indeed, if they cared about the farmers, wouldn't a cash transfer make infinitely more sense? No, this looks like the usual signaling about caring: "but they care so much, they even went and plowed a field to help them out!" (As opposed to working on the real problem, or giving them a gold coin which is probably worth several fields of food given the medieval setting and also doesn't have the minor problem of it likely failing anyway since it's going to be plowed by complete amateurs with broken equipment at the wrong time...)
I can't testify as to the actual value of the planting or whether or not this was necessarily the best plan. There are probably many more plans that would be better, including giving them a gold coin. Or perhaps the farmers in the magical world of dark elves who make armed sorties against impoverished serfs could have been better served by a political upheaval and the installation of democracy. Or maybe because the farmers plant only the magical dubbleboo bean, they would have been able to reap a harvest only if they planted before the next evening's full moon.
There are all kinds of factors or problems that might have complicated the additional idea of plowing the field, and we shouldn't forget that this is a bunch of teenagers, so it's probably not whether this idea was really the optimal emaciated-farmer-assistance program. But instead of exploring these and determining what was the best option, the entire avenue of helping the farmers in a domestic sense was blocked off. It was a set of ideas that was unknown and unwelcome, even though it might actually have been interesting to solve that problem, as well.
Yes, these eleventh-graders might not have been practicing an ideal form of aid, and if they had read some literature on rationality and gone to an agricultural program they might not have thought that plowing one field was the best decision. The point, though, is that the narrowness of focus in the adventure precluded exploration of a large set of options. It's not the perfect parable of how value can be found in diverse opinions, because that perfect parable would have the eleventh-grade girl whip out a well-researched proposal on farm aid. But I do think it helps illuminate the problem.
Plow one of their fields, and you might feed some of them for some time (if they can get some more farming done in between attacks). Kill their dark elves, and they can feed themselves just fine.
I'd call that reasoning the epitome of shortsightedness; but the DM should've been more flexible and let you plow their field and later contrive a way for your party to learn that the crop failed anyway and everyone was killed or enslaved or starved to death.
The plan was to sow one field and then kill the dark elves, as far as I can tell. I agree that it would not have been a good idea to just plow their field, since obviously that was what had already not been working, but it also seems to me like a very perceptive insight to realize that even if the elves were killed, the already-emaciated farmers might still die without help on the farm. It's also an insight that appears, within the story, to have derived from the presence of an alternative viewpoint.
Some of these anecdotes really illustrate the loss suffered when a group is insufficiently diverse. This one in particular struck me as a demonstration of the high value of a range of perspectives:
On this afternoon, our characters are venturing into the countryside and come across two emaciated farmers who tell us their fields are unplowed because dark elves from the forest keep attacking them. “They're going to starve if they don't get a crop in the ground,” I declare. “We've got to plow at least one field.” The boys go along with this plan. ...
“It's rusty too,” intones the Dungeonmaster, “and pieces of it keep breaking off. Look, you're not supposed to be farming. You're supposed to go into the forest and find the dark elves. I don't have anything else about the farmers. The elves are the adventure.” Reluctantly, I give up my agricultural rescue plan and we go into the forest to hack at elves.
All too often, people focus on how gender discrimination is unfair to those who are excluded or minimized, but it's also a loss to the group and its goals as a whole.
You might find an investigation of dramaturgical theory in sociology to be helpful.
See this for my full opinion on all of this. Anything I said that contradicts that is deprecated.
The quick version of what I mean by "race" is those things that are both heritable and clustered with visible and genetic markers. Not exactly the classic definition of "race" because it includes memetic heritage as well as genetic.
I will reply there. Thank you.
Incidentally, there is no canonical "race," just generally-agreed upon loose labels that vary from person to person.
yes, "race" as normally used is woefully underdefined.
Because of this, it is generally not useful for predicting anything, and should be avoided, I think.
Woah there. To the extent you can agree on a test for race, it will be useful for prediction. Obviously some tests (actual genetic heritage) will be more interesting that others "lol what's ur skin color". As you say:
A "white person" from Sicily and a "white person" from Iceland do not have much more in common with each other than they might with a disparate other range of people, so it's not a meaningful grouping (except perhaps when speaking of historical things). It is wiser to be more exact.
Yes, agree. Let's be specific enough so that we all agree which set of people we are talking about, and agree that that is a meaningful grouping. Then I think we will find that membership in that set will predict many things.
There's the additional danger that you will be misunderstood, and that someone will (very reasonably) think that you are advocating simple-minded racism of a common sort. Saying "race is a good predictor of things like civilization, intelligence," etc. is a fairly specific sort of social code, and if you don't actually mean that "black people are dumb" or "Asians can't drive," (and I'm not saying that you necessarily do) then you should find another sort of phrasing.
Saying that race is a good predictor of such things is roughly equivalent to saying "black people are dumb" or whatever (with suitable disclaimers of probabilisticness that really should not be needed on this site). Call that simple minded if you like; I'd rather be right than high-minded.
(and just-so it's clear, racially-based (or anything-based, really) hatred is stupid and unproductive. compassion is so much nicer.)
To the extent you can agree on a test for race, it will be useful for prediction. Obviously some tests (actual genetic heritage) will be more interesting that others "lol what's ur skin color".
I would suggest that most people do have a common test for race. It is something along the lines of, "To what extent does this person match a small set of specific physical characteristics?" For someone to be "black" in many places in modern America, it means that their skin tone is relatively dark, their lips are big, their nose is wide, and so on. But of course, this tends to fall apart under close scrutiny, and is complicated by a lot of cultural baggage, like the fact that "white" is the default, so those of mixed-race are often identified with (or themselves choose to identify with) their minority identity. A prominent example is President Obama, who has few of the physical characteristics of the stereotypical "black" person. This is why it is a very sloppy and pretty useless label, and even though most people agree on a "test," it remains so.
Saying that race is a good predictor of such things is roughly equivalent to saying "black people are dumb" or whatever (with suitable disclaimers of probabilisticness that really should not be needed on this site). Call that simple minded if you like; I'd rather be right than high-minded.
Of course, it's absolutely better to be right. But it's very difficult to determine whether you are right or wrong without rigorous definition of your terms and inquiry. You think that race correlates with other traits, and I agree - but only with strong caveats and reservations, particularly when it comes to questions of causation. That's why I began by asking: what do you mean by "race"?
EDIT: You appear to be engaged in several other discussions along these lines, so please just let me know if you consider this one is too parallel to the others to be useful. It can be difficult to explain yourself to several people all at the same time, I know.
There are lots of blind people who are independently mobile and gainfully employed and you can become one of them. I don't know where they acquire the skills you say you lack. Maybe the AFB, which you mentioned, has advice on how to go about gaining suitable employment and training yourself in the basics like mobility?
You should finish your degree. Degrees are useful for getting jobs. They let the employer know that you finished something you started and avoid having a 4-year hole in your CV. If akrasia is stopping you from "writing on demand", then I guess LW has some stuff about akrasia, but as a first approximation, just do it.
Finishing his degree is probably the best thing he can do, and so this is good advice. You get very little from having "some college," whereas a college degree (of any sort, regardless of whether he thinks it will be useful) is an indicator of social status and a proven ability to meet deadlines and requirements. I would suggest that directly contacting the school, emphasizing his disability, may make them amenable to working out some sort of distance learning to finish this final credit. The best way to achieve this would be to call them on the phone, if physical meeting is impractical; schools typically employ people to help students in just this sort of way. This might be unpleasant or even humiliating to think about, but that's an ugh field at work.
Depending on his location, there may not be very many resources for the blind in his town, but contacting AFB is probably the best way to find out what is available.
If neither of these pan out, find some sort of employment. Gainful, steady employment is surprisingly effective at improving social skills, life skills, and other diverse aspects of winning.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
I agree and wish to chime in that the current system absolutely stops me from stating what I think is reasonable and reasoned disagreement, and even stops me from asking questions. The stackoverflow.com site does NOT have this effect, at least not on me, and I think it is because downvotes cost the downvoter karma there (upvotes are free). So dowvnvotes are reserved for things that are really wrong, best deleted, and a post with a few upvotes will almost always rise to be net upvoted because haters get charged karma to counter upvotes.
This seems to me like the best way to do it. I am sure it has been proposed before that downvoting cost a point of karma; why was this alternative not taken? Technical considerations, perhaps?