Page 6 of 6

Re: Article of the Moment

Unread postPosted: 3 November 2014, 20:14
by aceasarsalad
Image

omg that article again. It lives to haunt me! LOL

Re: Article of the Moment

Unread postPosted: 22 January 2015, 21:21
by Muspelli

Re: Article of the Moment

Unread postPosted: 10 April 2018, 10:55
by Brenden
Incivility at Work: Is 'Queen Bee Syndrome' Getting Worse?
Women report more incivility experiences at work than men, but who is at fault for instigating these mildly deviant behaviors? One UA researcher set out to answer that question, with surprising results.
Participants also were asked to complete trait inventories of their personalities and behaviors to determine if there were any factors that contributed to women being treated uncivilly. The research showed that women who defied gender norms by being more assertive and dominant at work were more likely to be targeted by their female counterparts, compared to women who exhibited fewer of those traits.

The researchers also found that when men acted assertive and warm — in general, not considered the norm for male behavior — they reported lower incivility from their male counterparts. This suggests men actually get a social credit for partially deviating from their gender stereotypes, a benefit that women are not afforded.


Repeat it with me: Women police gender roles.

Re: Article of the Moment

Unread postPosted: 10 April 2018, 11:43
by PopTart
Brenden wrote:Incivility at Work: Is 'Queen Bee Syndrome' Getting Worse?
Women report more incivility experiences at work than men, but who is at fault for instigating these mildly deviant behaviors? One UA researcher set out to answer that question, with surprising results.
Participants also were asked to complete trait inventories of their personalities and behaviors to determine if there were any factors that contributed to women being treated uncivilly. The research showed that women who defied gender norms by being more assertive and dominant at work were more likely to be targeted by their female counterparts, compared to women who exhibited fewer of those traits.

The researchers also found that when men acted assertive and warm — in general, not considered the norm for male behavior — they reported lower incivility from their male counterparts. This suggests men actually get a social credit for partially deviating from their gender stereotypes, a benefit that women are not afforded.


Repeat it with me: Women police gender roles.

This doesn't surprise me, I listened to a conversation at the coffee shop the other day, betweena group of women, one of whom expressed that she wanted to quit work and be a stay at home wife and mother when her baby was born. The other women had nothing kind to say on the matter and honestly, were brutally judgemental and horrible towards her, because, as they put it, she was re-inforcing a negative sterotype of women as domsticated house wives, a choice they felt was invalid and didn't support the narrative of women being empowered and equal or better than men (one woman actually stated her belief that this was true) They called her names and pretty much bullied her.

The irony being, that true feminists, who went on marches and burned bra's to give women the right to choose their direction in life, would likely be appaled to hear that other women now dictate what choices other women make with that hard won liberty.

I'd commend the woman if she stuck to her desire to be a stay at home mum, regardless of what her peers said. It is the right to make ones own choices that women of hte past fought for, modern day feminists believe that women, all women, should make the same choices they would and any other is invalid or unacceptable :confused: I've watched women at work pour hatred on other women who dare to succeed or have better figures or make choices they wouldn't or couldn't, it can often come out of nowhere and it puts to shame the same kind of sentiment some men feel towards other men or even women.

Re: Article of the Moment

Unread postPosted: 25 June 2018, 11:45
by Mod
Stop Trying to Sell the Humanities
Arguments that they’re useful are wrong, anti-humanistic, and sure to backfire


Extremely long link to dodge a paywall.

Now I'd say that this article buries it's major points but two things stand out.

I hate to be the one to tell you, but there is no generalizable benefit to having led a life centered on great texts. It is sometimes thought that those whose careers are spent engaging with beautiful and stringent works of literature and philosophy will become, perhaps by osmosis, better persons than they otherwise would have been. Anyone who believes that hasn’t spent much time in English and philosophy departments.


A less suspect version of the "democracy needs us" argument involves the claim that students who spend four years engaging with complex, nuanced texts will emerge as potentially better citizens than those who have not had that experience. This is really the same specious argument, made less obviously silly by the fact that it is students and not arrogant faculty members who are at its center. But good citizenship and the knowledge required both to achieve and implement it are not taught exclusively by colleges and universities; those who end their formal education at the 12th grade can still manage to acquire and act on an understanding of civic duty. Moreover, and this is the central point, good citizenship is an occasional byproduct of what happens in a college classroom; it is not — or should not be — the chief aim of those who preside over that classroom, and it is at least curious to defend an enterprise by pointing to one of its unintentional effects.

So is there anything left once the justifications I have surveyed prove to be at best partial and at worse delusional? Well, what’s left is the position articulated by Oakeshott, a position I have always held, a position Small names the "intrinsic value" or "for its own sake" position. This position has the great advantage not of providing a justification but of making a virtue of the unavailability of one. Justification is always a mug’s game, for it involves a surrender to some measure or criterion external to the humanities. The person or persons who ask us as academic humanists to justify what we do is asking us to justify what we do in his terms, not ours. Once we pick up that challenge, we have lost the game, because we are playing on the other guy’s court, where all the advantage and all of the relevant arguments and standards of evidence are his. The justification of the humanities is not only an impossible task but an unworthy one, because to engage in it is to acknowledge, if only implicitly, that the humanities cannot stand on their own and do not on their own have an independent value. Of course the assertion of an independent value and the refusal to attach that value to any external good bring us back to the public-relations question: How are we going to sell this? The answer is. again, that we can’t.

Re: Article of the Moment

Unread postPosted: 10 April 2019, 20:47
by René
NewsThump wrote:Scientists release first ever image of Brexit

A clear-ish image of Brexit has been captured for the first time – and the massive shit storm, measuring 40 billion km across (three million times bigger than Earth), has been described by scientists as “a monster”.

The picture shows a halo of hot air and lost jobs and traces the outline of a massive financial black hole.

Brexit itself – a toxic hell from which neither truth nor the Conservative party can escape – is itself, unseeable. But the newly released picture at least takes us to its insane threshold for the first time, showing the cosmic cliff edge beyond which all known political, economic and social rules break down.

Said professor Simon Williams: “Brexit is one the most mysterious objects in the known universe. We have now seen what we thought was unthinkable. And frankly, I am now crapping myself.”

The picture gives us the first direct look at Brexit’s ‘accretion disk’ – a fuzzy doughnut-shaped ring of gas and crap from the ERG that “feeds” the lurking monster.

At Brexit’s event horizon, light bends in a perfect loop, meaning if you stood there you would literally be able to see the back of your head – and the back of the whole country.

Time is also said to move differently around it, which may explain why so many Brexiters are fixated on a war that ended over seventy years ago. To them, it might seem like only yesterday.

When asked why the image of Brexit looked so fuzzy, Professor Williams said: “I’m baffled frankly. It’s not what we were told to expect at all.”

Re: Article of the Moment

Unread postPosted: 15 February 2020, 23:37
by Brenden
Psychiatric Comorbidity of Gender Identity Disorders: A Survey Among Dutch Psychiatrists
OBJECTIVE: In the Netherlands, it is considered good medical practice to offer patients with gender identity disorder the option to undergo hormonal and surgical sex reassignment therapy. A liberalization of treatment guidelines now allows for such treatment to be started at puberty or prepuberty. The question arises as to what extent gender identity disorder can be reliably distinguished from a cross-gender identification that is secondary to other psychiatric disorders. METHOD: The authors sent survey questionnaires to 382 board-certified Dutch psychiatrists regarding their experiences with diagnosing and treating patients with gender identity disorder. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-six psychiatrists responded to the survey. These respondents reported on 584 patients with cross-gender identification. In 225 patients (39%), gender identity disorder was regarded as the primary diagnosis. For the remaining 359 patients (61%), cross-gender identification was comorbid with other psychiatric disorders. In 270 (75%) of these 359 patients, cross-gender identification was interpreted as an epiphenomenon of other psychiatric illnesses, notably personality, mood, dissociative, and psychotic disorders. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that there is little consensus, at least among Dutch psychiatrists, about diagnostic features of gender identity disorder or about the minimum age at which sex reassignment therapy is a safe option. Therapy options proposed to patients with gender identity disorder appear to depend on personal preferences of psychiatrists. These results underline the need for more specific diagnostic rules in this area.

Re: Article of the Moment

Unread postPosted: 22 February 2020, 15:50
by poolerboy0077
The radical moral implications of luck in human life

[...]

How much moral credit are we due for where we end up in life, and for who we end up? Conversely, how much responsibility or blame do we deserve? I don’t just mean Kylie Jenner or Donald Trump — all of us. Anyone.

How you answer these questions reveals a great deal about your moral worldview. To a first approximation, the more credit/responsibility you believe we are due, the more you will be inclined to accept default (often cruel and inequitable) social and economic outcomes. People basically get what they deserve.

The less credit/responsibility you believe we are due, the more you believe our trajectories are shaped by forces outside our control (and sheer chance), the more compassionate you will be toward failure and the more you will expect back from the fortunate. When luck is recognized, softening its harsh effects becomes the basic moral project.

[...]

So, then, here you are. You turn 18. You are no longer a child; you are an adult, a moral agent, responsible for who you are and what you do.

By that time, your inheritance is enormous. You’ve not only been granted a genetic makeup, an ethnicity and appearance, by accidents of nature and parentage. You’ve also had your latent genetic traits “activated” in a very specific way through a specific upbringing, in a specific environment, with a specific set of experiences.

Your basic mental and emotional wiring is in place; you have certain instincts, predilections, fears, and cravings. You have a certain amount of money, certain social connections and opportunities, a certain family lineage. You’ve had a certain amount and quality of education. You’re a certain kind of person.

You are not responsible for any of that stuff; you weren’t yet capable of being responsible. You were just a kid (or worse, a teen). You didn’t choose your genes or your experiences. Both nature and the vast bulk of the nurture that matters happened to you.

[...]

Acknowledging luck — or, more broadly, the pervasive influence on our lives of factors we did not choose and for which we deserve no credit or blame — does not mean denying all agency. It doesn’t mean people are nothing more than the sum of their inheritances, or that merit has no role in outcomes. It doesn’t mean people shouldn’t be held responsible for bad things they do or rewarded for good things. Nor does it necessarily mean going full socialist. These are all familiar straw men in this debate.

No, it just means that no one “deserves” hunger, homelessness, ill health, or subjugation — and ultimately, no one “deserves” giant fortunes either. All such outcomes involve a large portion of luck.

[....]


I’m sure this is bound to trigger mxguy01 into a fit of Boomer rage and further entitlement.

Re: Article of the Moment

Unread postPosted: 22 April 2020, 22:27
by James M
Coronavirus pandemic 'will cause famine of biblical proportions'

According to a report produced by the UN and other organisations on Thursday, at least 265 million people are being pushed to the brink of starvation by the Covid-19 crisis, double the number under threat before the pandemic.

This one certainly made for an interesting read, albeit massively disconcerting. I would urge anyone to read it, at the very least to raise awareness of the massive implications Covid-19 is going to have in terms of starvation, as in my experience I haven't seen this subject get much media coverage.

Re: Article of the Moment

Unread postPosted: 23 April 2020, 01:11
by Brenden
^ This black swan is just getting blacker and swan-ier.

Re: Article of the Moment

Unread postPosted: 23 April 2020, 01:25
by James M
Brenden wrote:^ This black swan is just getting blacker and swan-ier.

It does pose the question though, as to how much any of this could have been predicted. Perhaps not the pandemic itself, but there has been plenty of studies into global and national preparedness for such a turn of events. Unfortunately, despite this I think we'd have found ourselves in dire circumstances even if we were somewhat better equipped to deal with this.

Also, I've never seen the film.

Re: Article of the Moment

Unread postPosted: 23 April 2020, 08:22
by Brenden
James M wrote:
Brenden wrote:^ This black swan is just getting blacker and swan-ier.

It does pose the question though, as to how much any of this could have been predicted. Perhaps not the pandemic itself, but there has been plenty of studies into global and national preparedness for such a turn of events. Unfortunately, despite this I think we'd have found ourselves in dire circumstances even if we were somewhat better equipped to deal with this.

Also, I've never seen the film.

Oh, it’s not really a reference to the movie, the term is older than the ballet Swan Lake.

Re: Article of the Moment

Unread postPosted: 23 April 2020, 08:30
by James M
Brenden wrote:
James M wrote:
Brenden wrote:^ This black swan is just getting blacker and swan-ier.

It does pose the question though, as to how much any of this could have been predicted. Perhaps not the pandemic itself, but there has been plenty of studies into global and national preparedness for such a turn of events. Unfortunately, despite this I think we'd have found ourselves in dire circumstances even if we were somewhat better equipped to deal with this.

Also, I've never seen the film.

Oh, it’s not really a reference to the movie, the term is older than the ballet Swan Lake.

Haha I got that, poor attempt at humour on my part :facepalm2:

Re: Article of the Moment

Unread postPosted: 27 April 2020, 00:44
by Magic J
https://www.wonkette.com/qanon-idiots-v ... ildren-now

Leaving this here. Yeah yeah, easy target and all that, whatever.

Mole children... Honestly. Fucking idiots. It's the Illuminati they should really be worried about. :facepalm2: