Burkas, modesty rhetoric and where do we go from here

[The Nehor]

28 minutes ago, Chum said:

Sealand.

Sealand is a vanity project with delusions of grandeur.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

What conflict did the US get into that was primarily about women’s rights?

None, of course (as I know you know).  We've never gotten into a conflict that was about protecting women's rights.  

[Chum]

33 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Sealand is a vanity project with delusions of grandeur.

Antarctica wouldn't even try to be a country. That left Sealand and the Dominion of Melchizedek to answer Calm's Q and I can't spell Melchizedek.

[Chum]

48 minutes ago, Calm said:

Wiki’s description makes Sealand sound more like a guy territorial game, financial loophole kind of thing rather than a leader in women’s rights.  Maybe when they get a female prime minister or Princess Regent in charge.

It was a WWII defensive bunker before, so it may well be that women had better rights there after the Sealandia guy took it over.

[ttribe]

16 hours ago, Mike Drop said:

I understand what you’re trying to explain rodheadlee. I also understand you don’t think anyone should be assaulted, man or woman. I think many Americans forget how good we have it here. In other countries women are being stoned to death. In Yemen, women are considered half a witness. In India, road safety rules don’t apply to women. In Saudi Arabia and Morocco, rape victims can be charged with a crime. In 32 countries a woman needs her husband’s permission to apply for a passport. In Israel, a woman needs her husband’s permission to get a divorce. In Nigeria, a husband can hit his wife under section 55 of the penal code to correct her. In Guinea, Sierra Leone, Gambia, Mauritania, Mali, Burkina Faso, Sudan and Egypt, female genital mutilation is still being practiced. Hundreds of laws still exist that worldwide that discriminate against women. Western society and thankfully western men are leading the way in fighting for equality for all women. Many of our brave troops have died for that very purpose. 

This sounds suspiciously like the "People of color in the U.S. shouldn't be complaining about equal rights; things are SO much better now!" nonsense that all too many middle-aged white males like to say when they are faced with the reality that we are still far from equal in this country.

Full disclosure: I'm a middle-aged white male.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, ttribe said:

This sounds suspiciously like the "People of color in the U.S. shouldn't be complaining about equal rights; things are SO much better now!" nonsense that all too many middle-aged white males like to say when they are faced with the reality that we are still far from equal in this country.

Full disclosure: I'm a middle-aged white male.

It is this. The implication is that you should be grateful in spite of inequality because it is better here than elsewhere. It is often a tacit excuse not to work harder to end inequality.

Edited September 2, 2021 by The Nehor

[bsjkki]

This is very depressing. 

[Tacenda]

15 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

This is very depressing. 

Sometimes I hate religion. Not all, not putting them all in a box. But yes, very depressing. 

https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/see-how-afghanistan-looked-like-before-the-taliban-ever-came-to-power-1842766-2021-08-19

Edited September 3, 2021 by Tacenda

[Vanguard]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Sometimes I hate religion. Not all, not putting them all in a box. But yes, very depressing. 

https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/see-how-afghanistan-looked-like-before-the-taliban-ever-came-to-power-1842766-2021-08-19

This is more the finest example of what happens when orthodox (to put it lightly) religion wholesale takes over a country's political realm. To couch your reaction as "sometimes I hate religion" doesn't do the situation justice and misses the point. It's not even on the same continuum as the LDS religion's influence. And if you think these rules (as you illustrated) are horrific examples of what the Taliban is instituting and mandating then I say you need to get out more. Living under this type of religious dictatorship for even a few months would have you lamenting issues far greater than uniform expectations at school. The earlier comments suggesting that women are far better off (though not an excuse for bad behavior here) in the western world is a colossal understatement.   

[Stargazer]

On 9/2/2021 at 7:08 PM, The Nehor said:

It is this. The implication is that you should be grateful in spite of inequality because it is better here than elsewhere. It is often a tacit excuse not to work harder to end inequality.

And it is sometimes an admonition to count one's blessings. And in no way an excuse not to work harder to end inequality. And then we get into the question of what constitutes inequality. Some believe equality before the law and equal opportunity ought to be the standard, while others feel that all billionaires and millionaires wealth being shared equally with everyone else ought to be the standard. 

What inequality are you thinking of in particular?

 

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

And it is sometimes an admonition to count one's blessings. And in no way an excuse not to work harder to end inequality. And then we get into the question of what constitutes inequality. Some believe equality before the law and equal opportunity ought to be the standard, while others feel that all billionaires and millionaires wealth being shared equally with everyone else ought to be the standard. 

What inequality are you thinking of in particular?

 

Indeed. When the reckoning comes, I want my share. 🤑

 

 

Edited September 4, 2021 by Bernard Gui

[Chum]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

And it is sometimes an admonition to count one's blessings. And in no way an excuse not to work harder to end inequality.

We can absolutely count our blessings while we call out, stand against and work to eliminate inequality. If we find ourselves doing the former and not the latter, we've likely lost our way. 

Edited September 4, 2021 by Chum

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, Chum said:

We can absolutely count our blessings while we call out, stand against and work to eliminate inequality. If we find ourselves doing the former and not the latter, we've likely lost our way. 

Not the subject of the thread, but how do we know when we have eliminated inequality unless we can define or describe the condition we're trying to eliminate? And how do we know when we've achieved it? It sounds very noble to "eliminate inequality" as our goal, but if we cannot describe what things would look like when we achieve it, it's just words comprising glittering generalities. In short, saying it becomes nothing more than what has been called "virtue signaling," or a public expression of a perceived moral viewpoint with the intent of communicating one's own self-perceived good character.

 

 

[Chum]

2 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

but how do we know when we have eliminated inequality unless we can define or describe the condition we're trying to eliminate? 

Reducing harm isn't dependent on a vision of a society without harm. Harm reduction gets achieved without it.

4 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

And how do we know when we've achieved it?

Perhaps when people in power aren't marginalizing others - or aren't leveraging others w/o their full, willful consent. I'm sure other folks could provide additional tells.

25 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

It sounds very noble to "eliminate inequality" as our goal,

Okay.

26 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

but if we cannot describe what things would look like when we achieve it, it's just words comprising glittering generalities.

Of course not. The idea that things can't be repaired without a grand, unified vision of perfection is kind of absurd.

28 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

In short, saying it becomes nothing more than what has been called "virtue signaling," or a public expression of a perceived moral viewpoint with the intent of communicating one's own self-perceived good character.

I mean no. These assertions aren't true even if we blend them into a talking point salad. See above.

[Stargazer]

3 minutes ago, Chum said:

Reducing harm isn't dependent on a vision of a society without harm. Harm reduction gets achieved without it.

Did I intimate I was envisioning a society without harm? No, no I didn't. Can harm be completely eliminated? Of course not, not as long as humans are imperfect. 

I wasn't talking about harm, I was talking about inequality, because that was the subject of this subthread. Does inequality always involve harm? I think not. You and I are not equal, are we? So is there some harm in the inequality between us? I heartily doubt it. Does eliminating inequality necessarily mean eliminating harm? I'd say: not in all cases.

What inequality do you wish to eliminate? Pick one. 

3 minutes ago, Chum said:

Perhaps when people in power aren't marginalizing others - or aren't leveraging others w/o their full, willful consent. I'm sure other folks could provide additional tells.

Perhaps during the Millennium, then.

3 minutes ago, Chum said:

Of course not. The idea that things can't be repaired without a grand, unified vision of perfection is kind of absurd.

Straw man. I said nothing about the need for having a grand, unified vision of perfection in this regard. I used the word "things" in a general sense, like "how are things going for you, chum?" The question "How will things look when we've eliminated all inequalities" is not asking for a system of Five-year plans complete with a bureaucratic web of Equality Commissars to achieve complete equality. 

Just start here: what inequalities are you seeking to eliminate? Can you narrow the list down to a manageable size? Again: pick one.

3 minutes ago, Chum said:

I mean no. These assertions aren't true even if we blend them into a talking point salad. See above.

What salad have I written about? People talk about fixing things all the time. Are they fixed now? Some people act like nothing has been achieved, and continue to pick the wounds of the past. Does doing so result in improvements, or do they promote healing? Pick an inequality and describe what things would look like once the inequality is eliminated. One might also toss out a few possible ways to achieve equality in regards to the inequality. Try treating it as more than just a glittering generality that makes others feel good about those who express the sentiment.

Again, I am not asking for a grand, unified vision of perfection. PICK ONE.

 

 

 

[Chum]

7 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I wasn't talking about harm, I was talking about inequality

Inequality is harm.

[Chum]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Not the subject of the thread, but how do we know when we have eliminated inequality unless we can define or describe the condition we're trying to eliminate? 

 

10 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Did I intimate I was envisioning a society without harm? No, no I didn't

 You seem to be asserting this:  Knowing when we have eliminated something - that isn't at all like - knowing what that state looks like.

 

[Chum]

16 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Just start here: what inequalities are you seeking to eliminate? Can you narrow the list down to a manageable size?

I thought this question looked promising but then

17 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Again: pick one.

I am expected to pick one inequalities but I don't know how to English that.

[Stargazer]

3 minutes ago, Chum said:

Inequality is harm.

No, it isn't.

There may be harm in an inequality. But there may not be. All dogs are mammals. But not all mammals are dogs.

If you would like an example of how inequality might not be harm, try this one: There is a huge gulf of disparity between Oprah Winfrey and me. She's a successful billionaire with a wide, enthusiastic, and admiring public. Many people dote on her opinions, and even those who disagree with her constitute a smaller but still not insignificant audience. If she were to propose a television show to network executives, they would all give her idea some consideration. I am a retired computer programmer whose "public" might be measured in tens; not many people care what I think, and none of them have any more influence in the world than I do. I don't even have any ideas for a television show. The degree of inequality between Oprah and myself is deeply profound. But there isn't even the minutest of harm present in that inequality.

 

[Stargazer]

15 minutes ago, Chum said:

I am expected to pick one inequalities but I don't know how to English that.

I'm clearly wasting my time trying to get you to propose an inequality you think we might try to remedy.

My complete thought was: Just start here: what inequalities are you seeking to eliminate? Can you narrow the list down to a manageable size? Again: pick one.

One item is a manageable size, is it not?

Edited September 4, 2021 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

19 minutes ago, Chum said:

 

 You seem to be asserting this:  Knowing when we have eliminated something - that isn't at all like - knowing what that state looks like.

 

Oh.

This whole thing is just you being Chum, isn't it? OK, point taken. Very subtly done, sir.

[Chum]

8 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

No, it isn't.

There may be harm in an inequality. But there may not be. All dogs are mammals. But not all mammals are dogs.

If you would like an example of how inequality might not be harm, try this one: There is a huge gulf of disparity between Oprah Winfrey and me. She's a successful billionaire with a wide, enthusiastic, and admiring public. Many people dote on her opinions, and even those who disagree with her constitute a smaller but still not insignificant audience. If she were to propose a television show to network executives, they would all give her idea some consideration. I am a retired computer programmer whose "public" might be measured in tens; not many people care what I think, and none of them have any more influence in the world than I do. I don't even have any ideas for a television show. The degree of inequality between Oprah and myself is deeply profound. But there isn't even the minutest of harm present in that inequality.

 

This is an interesting tangent.

Anyhoo, the inequality in your OP is absolutely harmful. Otherwise we wouldn't be discussing ways to end it.

[Chum]

12 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I'm clearly wasting my time trying to get you to propose an inequality you think we might try to remedy.

My complete thought was: Just start here: what inequalities are you seeking to eliminate? Can you narrow the list down to a manageable size? Again: pick one.

One item is a manageable size, is it not?

Sure but inequalities is more than one. So is a list of them.

[Stargazer]

5 minutes ago, Chum said:

This is an interesting tangent.

Anyhoo, the inequality in your OP is absolutely harmful. Otherwise we wouldn't be discussing ways to end it.

So... Oprah is going to give me a slice of her wealth, and recommend my television ideas to the networks?

[Stargazer]

4 minutes ago, Chum said:

Sure but inequalities is more than one. So is a list of them.

But one is not more than one.