Sententia

The Spectacle seems like a vague definition for modern culture, sort of like a traditional old guy looking down his nose at how much things have changed, lumping all of it into "bleh". Near the end of Part 1 she was talking about people 'avoiding the environment, poverty, and war' but to the contrary I think humanity is the most engaged we've ever been historically with global issues, and it's precisely because of technology. I really dislike the personification of social constructs. We have a celebrity culture because there are a whole bunch of us who make bad choices with our time, not because all the way at the beginning of it some schemer put together a plan to fool us. We've created this culture by our desires, and it isn't going to change by being angry at the culture, it's going to change by changing the people who together make up the culture. There are also issues with the consumer culture, which came about basically because of increased efficiency in food production cutting down prices allowing people to do other things, rise out of poverty, and have money to spend. It only exists because we have money, and yes there are abusers of the system specifically in the food industry, but that isn't solved by being angry at the consumer culture. We have to spread awareness of the specific abuses that are happening to create specific solutions through legislation. The whole "sheep" or "dream" thing seems like just another conspiracy theorist self-aggrandizing, another way for someone to pat themselves on the back and go "I'm so smart now, I figured it out while all those guys are still sheep". The reference to theology was random, I'm not sure what she meant with that.

Plus we could achieve eternal life by putting each other in these perfect storage containers until cyborg technology enables us to become Big Dogs.

Reminded me of again. Oops, meant to be posted in Space. Oh well, have maps Life.

That's perfect, and I might have suggested assassinating him if he hadn't died on his own. It seems to me advantageous to keep a long rulership, it allows you to spend less time in the negative Short Rule and more time in the Long Rule which is why I prefer the voting system, so you can vote into power a young guy with good stats instead of whoever your son happens to be.

Came across this recent article: http://www.buzzfeed.com/connorkemuo/why-i-stay-closeted-in-asia Interesting read, cultures deal with deviant sexuality/identity in different ways. I don't happen to speak, dress, or act in a feminine way so I avoided much of this categorical discrimination by being invisible. I grew up with basically liberal and secular parents in a very forward/accepting neighborhood so learning about this sort of thing is as new to me as it is to most conventionally straight folks.

You seem to think men have a rights issue not related to patriarchy.

Well, yes.

I can imagine some Dishonored past-america where the south was a black-hating hatefest while the north was a white-hating hatefest. In that fantasy america, then MLK would probably have been adamant about equality for both races. Similarly, if we lived in a world where some societies were harmfully patriarchal and some were harmfully matriarchal, we might have a broader gender equality movement. However because that is a false picture of the world, because as far as I know all human societies are patriarchal to varying degrees of harm, we don't have a broad gender equality movement; one gender is already way more equal than the other. This is why the movement is called feminism, and focuses on women.

I know exactly what you mean. I lack any personal goals whatsoever and I think that's actually very common and normal. The thing is there are activities I really enjoy doing, and if I can manage some way of producing enough currency based off those activities to survive then that's called a career. I think I understand your situation in that you don't need money for anything and don't have a natural inclination to turn your passions into money some way, so you have no motivation. If you currently provide for yourself it doesn't matter what other people think you should do, their opinion has no weight, but if you're being provided for and feel bad about it then you need to find motivation for a career. I posted earlier in this thread about the change of direction in my life but even that isn't a goal, there's nothing specific I want to achieve, it's a motivation. If philanthropy does it for you then great, but in the end you'll have to figure out some sort of motivation, it won't just come on its own.

TSH I don't think you're suffering from an inability to describe your position correctly, you're suffering from a poorly founded position. Feminism necessarily has to focus on female empowerment because they're the ones who are on uneven ground. I don't see where the confusion is. Equality in this case means empowering women, and although breaking down the patriarchy will be beneficial to men in some ways as well, we will necessarily be less powerful relative to women than we are now.

It's like dowsing for good social-welfare with douches. I don't know if it's science, but it's sure as butts weird.

TychoCity

Well I assume we'd get a reasonable and consistent distinction between what qualifies as coercion and what just goes under the umbrella of persuasion, which would be useful in all the same situations it's useful currently, plus some that our current definition doesn't seem to cover well. I guess I chose that word because it seems the most similar to the concept I'm describing, of being persuaded alongside some means of negative or harmful action. Let's say you're right though and it doesn't fit as well as I think it does, it doesn't cover all the gaps of current coercion and actually ends up with its own inconsistincies. What word do you think is more appropriate for it?

Clint Hawking has been perfecting the most incredible sunset you'll ever see. It'll appear once at the very end, and that year will be the Year of Tears.

I see your point, and maybe it's true that modern methods of direct brain interpretation aren't capable of differentiating the relevant thought processes. I'd still present my intuition (evidence-less, as you and I both stated) that coercion is an effect on the brain of the person being coerced, and that you could find it even in the cases you presented that seem counter-intuitive to our current definition. Assuming it's untestable it's not useful though, so it's irrelevant to the current discussion. When I'm 80 years old and this comes to light I'll be all "I totes called it yo!"

That would be true if I claimed not to have an independent definition of coercion but that's not what I'm saying, I'm talking about redefining. You pointed out with the slave example there's a problem, we think that situation is coercive but by our current definition it isn't, ergo something must be wrong. This provides a solution to that issue, by basing it on what's happening in a brain instead of the actions of a person.

If you protest non-violently you will not be justifiably arrested, and if you do wind up arrested it actually helps your cause by painting the aggressors as oppressive. I disagree that protests are ineffective, but aside from that you can present your desire for change to the people who are capable of enacting it. You can talk to your boss, write your state representative, talk to your friends about it, basically any way you bring it up to another human is enacting progress to some degree.

It's true that there are difficulties in our current definitions, but I don't think that applies to what I'm saying. If there is such a neurological difference as I've suggested, then it seems logical to label the one without fear/pain as persuasion and the one including those things as coercion. That new definition would solve the issue you presented with the slave: she's still being driven by fear of the beatings, ergo still coercion. Thinking about it a bit I believe my exact wording will prove to be off because I'm not an expert on neurology, however I think the answer to separating coercion and persuasion will be found in the brain of the affected persons.

I don't know if there's any evidence for or against this, but my intuition is that there's a neurological difference in the brain of someone who's being coerced versus someone who's being persuaded. I assume persuasion will activate the logical and emotional and maybe memory or stress or other parts, while coercion will be specifically causing pain and/or fear.

He's not questioning their validity, he's questioning their relevance. The issue can be more powerfully answered by morality than personal health. Random thought: http://www.kongregate.com/games/chiefwakamakamu/socrates-jones-pro-philosopher fucking awesome game. Not much to say about it really, but it's kind of hilarious and great.

I'm completely in over my head as well, just making assumptions based on the way substantive equality sounds . It's entirely possible that it's only concerned with those exclusive differences and I'm just giving dirty looks to a strawman. On that topic though, I do vaguely recall some state in the US making father's leave allowable.

The thing is I'm not sure where gender discrimination would be appropriate, because there's enough variation that even the statistically significant differences between men and women are not consistent enough to legislate by, or for example plan teaching lessons around. Some women and men learn differently, and from the macro view there is a significant enough difference to consider, but each individual person is capable of such a broad spread that it doesn't make sense for us to differentiate by gender.

Sure, but the difference is that humanism has a broader definition which happens to include the sentence "men and women are to be regarded equally". Feminism is a word that means literally only that one sentence, no more and no less. If a person fits into that description they are a feminist, regardless of whether they even know the term or if they're an alien from another planet which also happens to have two genders or whatever.

Because that's literally the entire definition of feminism. It's literally a word that means that exact sentence and nothing more or less.

I agree that it's about perspective, but I don't think mine is the illusory one. It seems to me that people who haven't encountered feminism feel that because feminists are saying not being a feminist is a bad thing, that they're under attack, when in reality the situation hasn't been fully grasped; feminism hasn't been fully understood by them. Feminists are going to have to keep saying not being a feminist is a bad thing because that's how change happens, and people who are not feminists are just going to have to get over their offended perspective. It's a necessity in this argument for us feminists to continue saying not being a feminist is a bad thing. I mean we can word that mission statement differently so it's not as direct but it will always remain the core point of any feminist perspective, which may be uncomfortable for some people to internalize.