General US Politics

[Phoenix Wright]

white privilege isn't a universal thing. it's particular to america.

so it's silly to want to be treated equally?

[CyborgZeta]

Not at all.

But you can fight for equal rights without villainizing the majority.

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

i hate the talk of white privledge because as a poor lower class American, this has not benefited me in any way so i can not even see how the idea was made.

heck if it weren't for my autism i doubt i'd get any assistance, which i barely get.

heck i got this hobo friend, and he's white, i sure see that white privileged has gotten him a beautiful wife and the latest xbox along with a car he can drive and a hou-

oh wait, no it hasn't because it doesn't exist for every white person.

[Phoenix Wright]

i agree for poor people like us it can be a little annoying. i'm from compton, which is a poor, predominantly black and hispanic neighborhood with a high crime crate and i must say i had it just as bad if not worse as a child than many of the folks i meet.

but, generally speaking, white privilege is a thing. people don't really look at us funny, assume we steal shit, act scared when we walk by in broad daylight, etc. etc. yeah, of course exceptions exist, but chances are when you meet a white person they've generally had more opportunities than everyone else.

[Nobody]

Would you go to China and complain about "Han Chinese privilege"? How about Russia and "Russian privilege"?

well, Chechnyans and Tibetans surely do complain about that

white privilege isn't a universal thing. it's particular to america.

so it's silly to want to be treated equally?

it's not particular to the usa

i mean, i do not exactly know how i feel about it, but it's certainly discussed in my country as well

[Tryhard]

it has been a long time and I don't know the validity of these studies but here are a few that I found after a brief search:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/quickerbettertech/2015/03/16/the-real-reason-most-women-dont-go-into-tech/#7c6db4ce31c3

Were women excluded from taking technology degrees? Was there some barrier of entry? Does our college system discriminate against female engineering applicants? Quite the contrary. In fact, most college admissions teams work hard not to discriminate amongst their candidates and do their best to show the highest level of diversity among the students taking their programs

The real reason why there are so fewer women in tech isn’t because of discrimination, harassment or unequal pay (although like I said these factors do exist and need to be fixed). The real reason is that most women clearly aren’t as interested in technology-related work as men are. It’s a choice. And for whatever reasons, more women seem to choose other fields.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-health/11401344/STEM-Is-there-any-science-behind-the-lack-of-women-in-science.html (this one specifically talks about the difference between male/female brains and that males and females have equal scientific ability but females have a stronger interest in people and that may drive them away from stem fields)

https://www.aauw.org/files/2013/02/Why-So-Few-Women-in-Science-Technology-Engineering-and-Mathematics.pdf

this is an entire paper going over the question, with some recommendations. I found it quite interesting, this is one that emphasises the bias and stereotypes as more of a reason.

http://www.vocativ.com/347023/the-calculus-confidence-gap-affects-women-in-stem-more/

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/asset?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0157447.PDF

This article is very recent.

A new study finds that women are 1.5 times more likely to leave their STEM studies after their first college course in calculus, a crucial stepping stone for those pursuing a career in the field. Despite having above-average mathematical abilities and preparedness, women are more likely to both start and end the course with lower mathematical confidence than men. They report that they don’t understand the course material, meaning they leave that educational track and are diverted from STEM fields.

I'd like to look at more but I'm not really sure where best to look.

i kinda hate the word 'privilege' in this context, because it makes it seem like its our fault and our only course of action is to live in eternal self-loathing. I agree that generally white people (being the majority) receive a lot less biases against them than minorities, that much is obvious. but really, this is the product of a shit system that had a lot more to do with classism than race in my opinion.

Edited August 4, 2016 by Tryhard

[CyborgZeta]

well, Chechnyans and Tibetans surely do complain about that

There's a difference between living in someone else's country, and having your country/region forcefully taken over by another country.

Estonia and the other Baltic nations had every right to complain about Russians, considering the USSR forcefully took over their countries, deported their people, and imported ethnic Russians.

[Nobody]

There's a difference between living in someone else's country, and having your country/region forcefully taken over by another country.

Estonia and the other Baltic nations had every right to complain about Russians, considering the USSR forcefully took over their countries, deported their people, and imported ethnic Russians.

"Native americans had every right to complain about white americans, considering the Europeans forcefully took over their land, killed their people, and imported ethnic Europeans."

Now, that's not something that i agree with, but if your reasoning is valid, so is this

Edited August 4, 2016 by Nobody

[Lord Raven]

I mean, the issue of "white privilege" goes back to slavery (which led to segregation/forcing black people into ghettos), which was a result of white people forcefully taking people from Africa and enslaving them. It's a similar idea.

Edited August 4, 2016 by Lord Raven

[CyborgZeta]

Eh, that gets into another argument altogether. The Native American tribes were sporadic, the lands were largely unsettled, and there was no country when the Europeans arrived.

That's not even getting into the fact that the Native Americans were descended from Asiatic peoples that crossed over into North America from Beringia.

EDIT: Although I've recently learned that there's a theory suggesting that North America was first inhabited by people from Europe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutrean_hypothesis

Edited August 4, 2016 by CyborgZeta

[tuvarkz]

I mean, the issue of "white privilege" goes back to slavery (which led to segregation/forcing black people into ghettos), which was a result of white people forcefully taking people from Africa and enslaving them. It's a similar idea.

I've checked just to confirm, but weren't slaves majoritarily bought at African slave markets and not directly captured by the Europeans? Not that the voyage from Africa to America wasn't a quite deadly affair for the slaves, but otherwise the conditions of a slave in Africa and one taken to America (that survived the travel that is) were functionally quite similar, other than some slaves in Africa being enslaved non-inheritably while the condition of a slave being inherited to the generations afterwards in America (And that in America there weren't mass sacrificial rituals). Even if the increasing demand from Western people did cause an increase in the amount of enslavement of Africans, the system was already there before the slave buying started.

Also, the Solutrean hypothesis seems rather shaky in nature, and immigration via Bering seems far more likely.

EDIT: Also, related to the USSR occupation of Baltic Nations, it's also well known that ethnic Russians without connections to the ruling group weren't in any particularly better condition under communist rule.

Edited August 4, 2016 by tuvarkz

[Crysta]

If you continually tell women that they can't do math/science it will start to become a self-fulfilling prophecy; they will stop being interested in it. It works the same way with race - and I find this isn't limited to conservatives: there will be liberal white kids legitimately surprised that their black counterparts may be equally adept at or even more skilled in certain subjects than they are, and that in itself is pretty sad. You stifle potential by stifling self-confidence and opportunities.

We could have used more George Washington Carvers and Marie Curies, imo.

As for our brains working differently... I have no interest in people. You're all on your own!

EDIT: In all seriousness I thought science/math was interested in improving the lot of in general people too?

Edited August 4, 2016 by Crysta

[Life]

^ Would also be nice to see an article about shifting attitudes towards gender roles and whether or not the next generation will be affected by it. I know growing up we've had somewhat of a gender role focus in our education, probably much less than before, but it was still there. Because people stifling women for reasons related to gender roles could also be a contributing factor, considering I know I've met some girls who were told that their choice in being a science major wasn't "lady-like," but it could also be my experience from being from a culture who is quite far behind in gender roles stuff. You're saying that this isa) unnecessaryb) it is a perversion of the animal kingdomc) you've forfeited your right to a human beingExplain why a) is true, b) is necessary for humans to hold up, and how c) is even remotely relevant. b) may not even be true, because nobody has proven that animals cannot be transgender. If you can find the scientific literature that states that transgenderism is exclusive only to humans then go on ahead.Then you go and say this: It sounds like you just did right here, at any rate.When your only argument is an ad hominem attack that these people have forfeited their right to be a human being for an ill-defined reason. How do you define being a human being?EDIT: I'd respond to more but I gotta go to lunch with my dadEDIT 2: Oh fuck I think most people did what I was going to do for me. I'm curious why people think white privilege is a myth in the US.

Phone's stupid. Hence the bad quote

So I'm flying in 5 hours so I'll take the rest when I touchdown (I ask for people not to reply to this response so that I can tackle everything else without being ambushed due to 13.5 hours in an airplane).

So you asked about trannies and posted three questions. Let's tackle them.

A) Necessity. None whatsoever and this is in fact both detrimental to said person and deeply homophobic.

First of all, a sex change is not medically necessary in order to live. Sure, the same argument can by thrown to boob jobs and other operations but the vast majority of those operations have practical uses.

Like a boob job. I'll give two examples in my own personal life. Both my sister and my ex have had boob jobs. My sister did it to reduce the size of her breasts simply because of back pain and my ex enlarged one of her tits because they were uneven in size and also caused her back problems.

Boom.

But for cutting off your dick? Where is the medical science behind that in order to better your physical quality of life? I'll save you the trouble; there's none.

As for why it is homophobic, understand that the word -phobia means an "irrational fear of something". A person who believes that they are born in the wrong body is simply too scared to admit that they might be gay. It's very simple logic and it is a disease. If it doesn't terrify you that this is being perverted as acceptable, then I don't know what to say in addition.

B+C) This point and the next are basically identical.

Human beings are animals. As animals, our primary natural function is to reproduce. Not to write articles about how Caitlyn Jenner deserves to be Woman of the Year.

When you cut off your dick, you become a eunich. A man's body is not biologically designed to bring a child into the world. And a woman's body is not designed to impregnate another woman. All the feelings in the world will not change the fact that this is a biological absolute.

Now with regards to gays, do you honestly believe that they are happy that they cannot bring a human being into the world with their partner and have to rely on other means? Milo Yiannopoulos expounds on this excellently and much better than I can.

To wrap this up and to answer your final question ("What defines a human being"), I can point to a tranny and answer "not that". A human being is someone who has the physical ability to reproduce. Trannies forfeit this ability and therefore forfeit the right to call themselves human beings.

Feelings do not equate into this argument because biology does not give a shit about feelings. Being a homosexual does not keep you from physically being able to reproduce. Becoming a eunich does.

Once again, please wait for me to land and respond to more points before attacking me. That's the only request I have.

[Phoenix Wright]

why respond if you're just gonna give shit responses lol

Eh, that gets into another argument altogether. The Native American tribes were sporadic, the lands were largely unsettled, and there was no country when the Europeans arrived.

That's not even getting into the fact that the Native Americans were descended from Asiatic peoples that crossed over into North America from Beringia.

EDIT: Although I've recently learned that there's a theory suggesting that North America was first inhabited by people from Europe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutrean_hypothesis

why the fuck does any of this matter. the logic is the same and the hypothesis is woefully lacking in evidence. for the intents and purposes of this discussion we should assume native am. were here first.

[Crysta]

A human being is someone who has the physical ability to reproduce. Trannies forfeit this ability and therefore forfeit the right to call themselves human beings.

I mean by that definition my own mother is no longer human lmao

[Life]

why respond if you're just gonna give shit responses lol

What's shit about it? The fact that don't agree?

Then don't agree. I was asked for a defense and I laid out my argument in a very logical way. If you have a problem with proper discussion, then that is your problem, not mine.

What I asked (and if you had read my post, you would have picked up on it) was for people to wait to respond until I could tackle other points made against my stance due to getting on a flight to the other side of the world in 4 hours. That is a very reasonable request.

There was also another thing I forgot to point out. It was the "prove that transgender does not also occur in the animal kingdom".

That is absurd. We are performing medical operations to do something that is unnatural to nature. If it existed in the animal kingdom, then maybe we wouldn't need to have medical procedures that can perform these acts. It would then be organic and by all merit natural. But that's like saying "what if human beings were born with wings". We are not so flying without assistance is impossible.

Example: The banana slug is asexual. Do you want to equate yourself to a banana slug in order to argue the validity of transexuals? If you do, go ahead. Me personally, I like to think that I'm more evolved than a banana slug.

Edited August 4, 2016 by Pharoahe Monch

[Phoenix Wright]

no, the fact that it's both uninformed drivel and hate speech makes it shit.

your "logical" arguments are constructed in a similar way to how a homophobe might have phrased things 10 years ago, complete with literally dehumanizing them.

with regards to your request, i did read it. that's why i asked that question. also, i don't care that you have a flight soon, though i do sincerely hope it is a safe one.

Edited August 4, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[Time the Crestfallen]

well, Chechnyans and Tibetans surely do complain about that

it's not particular to the usa

i mean, i do not exactly know how i feel about it, but it's certainly discussed in my country as well

White privilege I find, tends to apply to the Germanic and Caucasian (North America) whites. I acknowledge that generally speaking, a white person living in North America, Western Europe and Australia will hold an advantage over ethnic minorities. Things get a bit more complicated when you start looking at Celts and Slavs though, both of which are white and have long histories of oppression. Even today, a Polish person living in Britain for example isn't going to have a fun time what with the whole Brexit thing.

There was also another thing I forgot to point out. It was the "prove that transgender does not also occur in the animal kingdom".

That is absurd. We are performing medical operations to do something that is unnatural to nature. If it existed in the animal kingdom, then maybe we wouldn't need to have medical procedures that can perform these acts. It would then be organic and by all merit natural. But that's like saying "what if human beings were born with wings". We are not so flying without assistance is impossible.

I find the fact that you don't understand why people find the fact that you are, for any reason, saying that a group of people forfeit the right to be considered human to be abhorrent is a little concerning.

There's also a problem when it comes to 'proof' of transgender/homosexual animals in that homosexuality is an easily observable trait; is a male/female animal fucking an animal of the same gender? Then it's homosexual. Transgenderism however, is not an easily identifiable trait as it's a mental condition that does not lead to a specific action and you can't ask an animal about it's gender identity. There isn't 'proof' either way that animals can be transgender or if they cannot.

Edited August 4, 2016 by Phillius

[Tryhard]

If you continually tell women that they can't do math/science it will start to become a self-fulfilling prophecy; they will stop being interested in it. It works the same way with race - and I find this isn't limited to conservatives: there will be liberal white kids legitimately surprised that their black counterparts may be equally adept at or even more skilled in certain subjects than they are, and that in itself is pretty sad. You stifle potential by stifling self-confidence and opportunities.

We could have used more George Washington Carvers and Marie Curies, imo.

As for our brains working differently... I have no interest in people. You're all on your own!

EDIT: In all seriousness I thought science/math was interested in improving the lot of in general people too?

Anecdotally, it figures that almost all the women in my class did better than me in our course lol. I feel as though the ones that do go ahead are really passionate about it, and I can be rather lazy. But wouldn't the insistence that STEM fields are oppressive and biased against women also turn women off those subjects, even if that isn't that case? That argument may in fact be hurting women who think STEM fields are terrible for women and that argument has been repeated.

It's unfortunate that Ada Lovelace isn't more appreciated. Her work was just as instrumentally foundational as Charles Babbage and set the precedent for Alan Turing who is commonly known as the father of computer science... though honestly most people just focus on Alan Turing, so it's probably a lack of previous computer science figures in general as opposed to contemporaries, since it's a very new subject.

I can remember a big majority for teachers and psychiatrists being women from something I did read before, so I feel as though that would correlate more with working with others as opposed to being a nerd CS student.

I mean, the issue of "white privilege" goes back to slavery (which led to segregation/forcing black people into ghettos), which was a result of white people forcefully taking people from Africa and enslaving them. It's a similar idea.

sure, i get that part. and it's just unfortunate that forcing black people into ghettos has been the catalyst for a lot of avoidable crime and then on top of that made it harder to make people move past their biases. but at the same time, what power or say did a white serf have? pretty much none. black slavery is the most recent, of course, but it's just common for a majority to take an advantage of this minority group of people that they can overpower and take advantage of that nobody gives a shit about - but there is still the poor whites that pretty much have no say or power. so it seems more to me about blacks (or any other minority ofc) being disadvantaged than whites being privileged, if you get my distinction.

Edited August 4, 2016 by Tryhard

[Crysta]

Would gladly be a white serf over a black serf any day of the week.

Out of curiosity, would you?

[Life]

no, the fact that it's both uninformed drivel and hate speech makes it shit.

your "logical" arguments are constructed in a similar way to how a homophobe might have phrased things 10 years ago, complete with literally dehumanizing them.

Shouting "it's uninformed drivel and hate speech" does nothing to refute it and furthermore, does not address the fact the biology doesn't care about "hate speech".

This is what we modern conservatives have to deal with. You have no way to refute my well crafted argument with facts and reason so you decide that "bigotry" is an excellent way of refuting me.

Can you simply not admit that this is not normal? Or give me a reason why it is normal for transexuals to exist?

This is the exact same answer I would get if I go out and say that the wage gap doesn't exist. You have no facts to back up your views and you have forgotten how to argue and debate properly. So clearly, I must be a bigot, racist and mysogynist when those are unfounded claims because you don't agree with me.

[Tryhard]

Would gladly be a white serf over a black serf any day of the week.

Out of curiosity, would you?

a black serf may be more disadvantaged than a white serf (assuming a white-majority state), but either way I would be a serf so that's not exactly preferable. i wouldn't say either is privileged, but the black serf might be more disadvantaged on the basis of statistics and biases not favoring them. does that make sense?

i suppose i'm ultimately debating semantics so that's kind of pointless, but if you phrase it as "minority disadvantage" rather than "white privilege", I think people would be far less likely to scoff at the idea.

Edited August 4, 2016 by Tryhard

[Crysta]

It's normal for transexuals to exist because they bloody exist. There has been studies on transexual brains to, at the very least, suggest they are different from the brains of individuals of people who do regard themselves as male or female. It's not easily recognized in nature because you can't casually ask an animal "yo, do you feel as though you're not the gender your genitalia says you are?" Would not be surprised if this is the next step in research, though.

This isn't even touching how asinine it is to suggest that the ability of producing children is what defines you as human. Transexuals have this capability just as frequently as others do; disavowing it does not make you any less human than someone who gets a vasectomy or tubal ligation.

You're not being "logical" at all.

[Crysta]

a black serf may be more disadvantaged than a white serf (assuming a white-majority state)

i wouldn't say either is privileged

Why not?

I would like the advantages. That seems to suggest one group has something beneficial that the other doesn't.

Which is kind of like, privileged.

[Life]

disavowing it does not make you any less human than someone who gets a vasectomy or tubal ligation.

Last response because I am on my way to the airport.

I absolutely think so. And I have a very similar stance on abortion that has changed over the years (because I am entitled to learn and educate myself and form views that are not "socially acceptable").

Self mutilation in order to destroy progeny is horrific. You can do it and if you do, wonderful. But that does not mean that I must agree with you to all ends.

The idea of bringing life into the world is both a biological necessity and a great ideal. Destroying that is horrendous in my eyes.

As for abortion, I am pro-life in the sense that I believe that past a certain time frame, abortion is infanticide. I'm still debating when that is. And I am pro-choice in the sense that I see no benefits to outlawing abortion (and believe that outlawing abortion is detrimental to society). And I believe that if I am the father, I get a say in whether the child should be aborted or not because its DNA came from me.

Pretty clear stance.