1202: "Girls and Boys"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
mathmannix
Posts: 1446
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: 1202: "Girls and Boys"

Postby mathmannix » Tue Apr 23, 2013 6:33 pm UTC

eSOANEM wrote: this


Hey, I'm a feminist! Cool.

...

Actually, I've always thought so. I support females and males having the same rights. I'm just not an anti-masculinist, which some "feminists" seem to be. (Actually, I DID get the test wrong from the start, because the question "Do you think all human beings are equal?" is quite loaded.)
I hear velociraptor tastes like chicken.

Fire Brns
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:25 pm UTC

Re: 1202: "Girls and Boys"

Postby Fire Brns » Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:20 pm UTC

mathmannix wrote:
eSOANEM wrote: this


Hey, I'm a feminist! Cool.

...

Actually, I've always thought so. I support females and males having the same rights. I'm just not an anti-masculinist, which some "feminists" seem to be. (Actually, I DID get the test wrong from the start, because the question "Do you think all human beings are equal?" is quite loaded.)

I vaguely remember a quote from a french feminist accusing american feminism of being hijacked by man hating lesbians.
And on a fundamental level, no two people are the same. "Deserve equal treatment" would have been better.
Pfhorrest wrote:As someone who is not easily offended, I don't really mind anything in this conversation.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:It was the Renaissance. Everyone was Italian.

User avatar
histrion
Posts: 183
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 8:34 pm UTC

Re: 1202: "Girls and Boys"

Postby histrion » Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:44 pm UTC

bigchiefbc wrote:
pbnjstowell wrote:The rhyme I remember from when I was a kid goes "Girls go to college to get more knowledge. Boys go to Jupiter to get more stupider."


I guess I'm one of the 10,000 today, because I had absolutely no idea what this comic was referring to, and I have never heard this rhyme or any of its apparent variants before. :oops:


Ditto.
histrion, a.k.a. Sir Water of Ten, OKT, Archimandrite of Amicable Apostasy. Cheering on Blitzgirl, just because!

Time is a molecular acid.

User avatar
bmonk
Posts: 662
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:14 pm UTC
Location: Schitzoed in the OTT between the 2100s and the late 900s. Hoping for singularity.

Re: 1202: "Girls and Boys"

Postby bmonk » Tue Apr 23, 2013 9:00 pm UTC

PsiSquared wrote:
endolith wrote:C'mon, humans will never colonize space. We're evolved for too specific an environment.


Who said anything about "colonization"? Visiting a planet, or even setting-up a base there, has absolutely nothing to do with colonization. And nobody here is proposing that we start building cities on Mars (which I agree with you, isn't going to happen in the forseeable future).

endolith wrote:We can't even thrive on most parts of our own planet's surface


True.

Yet, many people climb Mt. Everest every year, and we have a permanently manned station in Antarctica. And nobody thinks that these things are prelude to "colonization" of the Himalayas or the South Pole.

And the only reason space doesn't get a similar amount of visitors, is that IT IS SO FUCKING HARD TO GET THERE with our current technology. The harsh environment of space isn't the main problem. The main problem is, that we currently need a billion dollar rocket and 3000 tons of fuel in order to send a tin can with 3 people towards the moon. Once we develop better methods of propulsion, you'll see lots of people going to space every day.


Yes, and then develop other uses, such as exotic manufacturing techniques, which may or may not require periodic human presences, and so on. We may decide at some point to make an environment for people to live--if it's sufficiently economic to do so.
Having become a Wizard on n.p. 2183, the Yellow Piggy retroactively appointed his honorable self a Temporal Wizardly Piggy on n.p.1488, not to be effective until n.p. 2183, thereby avoiding a partial temporal paradox. Since he couldn't afford two philosophical PhDs to rule on the title.

User avatar
W3ird_N3rd
Posts: 69
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:43 am UTC

Re: 1202: "Girls and Boys"

Postby W3ird_N3rd » Tue Apr 23, 2013 9:22 pm UTC

slaufer wrote:jupiter is a gas giant, it has no surface to go to.

boys and girls have made a poor decision

On earth, you can put some sulfur hexafluoride, a very dense colorless gas, in a container and make a tinfoil boat float on it (like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzLX96VWTkc).

So given the right materials and design, I see no reason why you couldn't theoretically land a boat on Jupiter. Perhaps the boys and girls are just really really clever.

Problem?

User avatar
Wnderer
Posts: 640
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 9:10 pm UTC

Re: 1202: "Girls and Boys"

Postby Wnderer » Tue Apr 23, 2013 9:33 pm UTC

Human colonization of space is just much harder to do and will take much longer than people think but I think it will happen. I believe a reasonable pace is that we will double the number of humans in space every 50 years. Science Fiction is just a little optimistic.

Year : People in Space
2050 : 6
2100 : 12
2150 : 24
2200 : 48
2250 : 96 -- Star Trek
2300 : 192
2350 : 384
2400 : 768 -- Buck Rogers
2450 : 1536
2500 : 3072
2550 : 6144
2600 : 12288
2650 : 24576
2700 : 49152
2750 : 98304
2800 : 196608
2850 : 393216
2900 : 786432
2950 : 1572864
3000 : 3145728 -- Futurama
3050 : 6291456
3100 : 12582912
3150 : 25165824
3200 : 50331648
3250 : 100663296
3300 : 201326592
3350 : 402653184
3400 : 805306368
3450 : 1610612736
3500 : 3221225472
3550 : 6442450944
----------Current population of Earth
3600 : 12884901888
3650 : 25769803776
3700 : 51539607552
3750 : 103079215104
3800 : 206158430208
3850 : 412316860416
3900 : 824633720832
3950 : 1649267441664
4000 : 3298534883328

brenok
Needs Directions
Posts: 507
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:35 pm UTC
Location: Brazil

Re: 1202: "Girls and Boys"

Postby brenok » Tue Apr 23, 2013 10:02 pm UTC

Since the permanent crew of the ISS is already 6, shouldn't the list be shifted up by one place?

User avatar
Wnderer
Posts: 640
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 9:10 pm UTC

Re: 1202: "Girls and Boys"

Postby Wnderer » Tue Apr 23, 2013 10:23 pm UTC

brenok wrote:Since the permanent crew of the ISS is already 6, shouldn't the list be shifted up by one place?


Maybe. I used the ISS as my start at 2050. I guess that is where our generation stands. Can we get 12 people in space by 2050.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1202: "Girls and Boys"

Postby Klear » Wed Apr 24, 2013 8:25 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
eSOANEM wrote:Most -isms are named after a group they discriminate against (or the grounds on which they discriminate).
Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, patriotism,...


Impressionism, functionalism, post-modernism, rationalism, imperialism, empiricism, alcoholism...

You're definition is way off.

Kit.
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1202: "Girls and Boys"

Postby Kit. » Wed Apr 24, 2013 12:02 pm UTC

mathmannix wrote:
eSOANEM wrote: this

Hey, I'm a feminist! Cool.

I'm probably not.

mathmannix wrote:Actually, I've always thought so. I support females and males having the same rights. I'm just not an anti-masculinist, which some "feminists" seem to be. (Actually, I DID get the test wrong from the start, because the question "Do you think all human beings are equal?" is quite loaded.)

Actually, I suspect, you did it right from the start. You shouldn't bow to people that try to make your think that "are equal" and "are born equal in <something>" is the same thing.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3082
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1202: "Girls and Boys"

Postby orthogon » Wed Apr 24, 2013 12:28 pm UTC

Klear wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
eSOANEM wrote:Most -isms are named after a group they discriminate against (or the grounds on which they discriminate).
Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, patriotism,...


Impressionism, functionalism, post-modernism, rationalism, imperialism, empiricism, alcoholism...

You're definition is way off.

So we have different meanings for the suffix -ism, including:
x-ism: discrimination on grounds of x (sexism, racism)
y-ism: an ideology based on, or favourable to, y (Marxism, rationalism, feminism)
z-ism: noun form generated from a verb in -ise (or -ize; let's not go there) (baptism,...)

Not sure which category alcoholism fits into. An ideology?

I've never liked the word homophobia, since it ought to mean an irrational fear of the similar. That would be a weird phobia to have. Chain stores, restaurants and pubs would be no-go areas. People in uniform would inspire terror. Actually it makes a certain amount of sense, now I think about it...
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

PsiSquared
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 6:02 pm UTC

Re: 1202: "Girls and Boys"

Postby PsiSquared » Wed Apr 24, 2013 1:41 pm UTC

Wnderer wrote:Human colonization of space is just much harder to do and will take much longer than people think but I think it will happen. I believe a reasonable pace is that we will double the number of humans in space every 50 years. Science Fiction is just a little optimistic.

Year : People in Space
2050 : 6
2100 : 12
2150 : 24
2200 : 48
2250 : 96
.
.
.


I think that's a very conservative estimate. I also highly doubt that the population curve will be even close to a smooth exponential one.

Think about it this way:

We are currently at a population of 6 (at the ISS). Doubling it to 12 would probably take decades, because we are fairly new in this business. There is little point in building a second international space station. And projects which are of interest (such as a moon base) are completely new endeavors which will take time to plan and master.

On the other hand, if we already had 48 people living in space, this would mean that we've gone a long way towards mastering and streamlining the art of building stations, outposts and bases. So doubling from 48 to 96 doesn't require anything beyond building more of the stuff we already know how to build. Once we reach that point, I won't be surprised to see the population double every two years or so.

Then, once we reach a population of a few thousands (or a few ten-thousands) I believe things will slow down again. Because the difference between a small research base and a full-fledged settlement isn't just in the numbers. Actual space colonization requires a completely different mindset. And the simple fact is, that building an actual city in such a harsh environment, is something that humans were never willing to do. We don't even do this here no earth (no cities underwater, no cities in Antarctica) even though it is technologically feasible.

IOW true space colonization, which is the only thing which could raise the numbers of space population into the millions, would require a huge leap in human psychology. Alternatively, it could be accomplished by an equally fundamental leap in technology (like terraforming). Either way, it would probably take at least a century or two.

Still, I'm pretty certain we'll hit the 1 million mark long before 2950. My guess is that we'll reach this benchmark in about 300 years.

User avatar
Wnderer
Posts: 640
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 9:10 pm UTC

Re: 1202: "Girls and Boys"

Postby Wnderer » Wed Apr 24, 2013 2:48 pm UTC

PsiSquared wrote:I think that's a very conservative estimate. I also highly doubt that the population curve will be even close to a smooth exponential one.

Think about it this way:

We are currently at a population of 6 (at the ISS). Doubling it to 12 would probably take decades, because we are fairly new in this business. There is little point in building a second international space station. And projects which are of interest (such as a moon base) are completely new endeavors which will take time to plan and master.

On the other hand, if we already had 48 people living in space, this would mean that we've gone a long way towards mastering and streamlining the art of building stations, outposts and bases. So doubling from 48 to 96 doesn't require anything beyond building more of the stuff we already know how to build. Once we reach that point, I won't be surprised to see the population double every two years or so.

Every two years? So in 20 years we go from 48 people to 24 thousand people? I think there is some major paradigm shifts in there from Earth supported science missions to self sustaining colonies. It won't be an exactly smooth curve. Each paradigm will max out and new one will be developed. We'll go from government science missions to adventure vacation resorts to industrial installations to self sustaining planetary cities to self-sustaining space stations and onward. Each shift will take time and deal with a larger number of people.


PsiSquared wrote:
Then, once we reach a population of a few thousands (or a few ten-thousands) I believe things will slow down again. Because the difference between a small research base and a full-fledged settlement isn't just in the numbers. Actual space colonization requires a completely different mindset. And the simple fact is, that building an actual city in such a harsh environment, is something that humans were never willing to do. We don't even do this here no earth (no cities underwater, no cities in Antarctica) even though it is technologically feasible.


We'll go because space is a blank page and we're scribblers. Antarctica and the ocean are not. Look at the protests we get for oil drilling and mining there. More and more the untouched spaces of the Earth are something that we should leave alone. Not something to be tamed. That's why there is more science fiction about space than about the ocean or Antarctica.

PsiSquared wrote:
IOW true space colonization, which is the only thing which could raise the numbers of space population into the millions, would require a huge leap in human psychology. Alternatively, it could be accomplished by an equally fundamental leap in technology (like terraforming). Either way, it would probably take at least a century or two.


I think terraforming will take millions of years, but I don't think it is necessary. Do I really need to be here on Earth to sit in my cubicle and stare at a computer monitor. Outside I walk to work through planted, fertilized and manicured parks. I get my genetically modified food from factory farms. People don't need to live in a biosphere. We need to get people out of the biosphere.
PsiSquared wrote:Still, I'm pretty certain we'll hit the 1 million mark long before 2950. My guess is that we'll reach this benchmark in about 300 years.


Bet you a dollar we don't. :wink:

scotty2haughty
Posts: 96
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 5:53 am UTC
Location: 3 feet from gold

Re: 1202: "Girls and Boys"

Postby scotty2haughty » Wed Apr 24, 2013 3:07 pm UTC

I doubt the earth will be around in the year 3000 in the first place, so we'd better get moving.

Also, all people are born inequal, which is why everyone is equal.
/s/

User avatar
EpicanicusStrikes
Random Boners = True Attraction
Posts: 130
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 11:36 am UTC

Re: 1202: "Girls and Boys"

Postby EpicanicusStrikes » Wed Apr 24, 2013 3:10 pm UTC

mathmannix wrote:(Actually, I DID get the test wrong from the start, because the question "Do you think all human beings are equal?" is quite loaded.)

Yes. That had to be the dumbest test I've ever seen.

Some humans run faster than others. Some are taller. Some are tougher. Some are more eloquent, some are more educated. Some have a higher tolerance for alcohol and some have better access to quality pharmaceuticals.

I don't see what any of that has to do with a political construct such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1202: "Girls and Boys"

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Apr 24, 2013 3:37 pm UTC

Yeah, even I am apparently not a feminist, which I'm sure would come as quite a surprise to all the people with whom I've argued about feminism on these very forums.

If they'd asked whether all humans are equal in dignity and rights, then not only could I have honestly answered in the affirmative, but the link to the UDHR would have been relevant.

scotty2haughty wrote:I doubt the earth will be around in the year 3000 in the first place, so we'd better get moving.
How do you propose the earth will have been destroyed by the year 3000?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1202: "Girls and Boys"

Postby Klear » Wed Apr 24, 2013 3:50 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:So we have different meanings for the suffix -ism, including:
x-ism: discrimination on grounds of x (sexism, racism)
y-ism: an ideology based on, or favourable to, y (Marxism, rationalism, feminism)
z-ism: noun form generated from a verb in -ise (or -ize; let's not go there) (baptism,...)

Not sure which category alcoholism fits into. An ideology?


You're missing art movements. Cubism can hardly be fitted into either of the three categories. That doesn't help with alcoholism (like I need help, I can quit anytime I want) Are there other words that can be grouped with it? How about narcissism? Or egoism for that matter.

So...

v-ism: art movements taking their name from v (impressionism, futurism, cubism)
w-ism: (generally negative?) human qualities related to w

Also, I could swear there is a philosophical -ism which can't be described as an ideology, but I can't remember which.

Kit.
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1202: "Girls and Boys"

Postby Kit. » Wed Apr 24, 2013 3:55 pm UTC

Klear wrote:
orthogon wrote:So we have different meanings for the suffix -ism, including:
x-ism: discrimination on grounds of x (sexism, racism)
y-ism: an ideology based on, or favourable to, y (Marxism, rationalism, feminism)
z-ism: noun form generated from a verb in -ise (or -ize; let's not go there) (baptism,...)

Not sure which category alcoholism fits into. An ideology?


You're missing art movements. Cubism can hardly be fitted into either of the three categories. That doesn't help with alcoholism (like I need help, I can quit anytime I want) Are there other words that can be grouped with it? How about narcissism? Or egoism for that matter.

So...

v-ism: art movements taking their name from v (impressionism, futurism, cubism)
w-ism: (generally negative?) human qualities related to w

Also, I could swear there is a philosophical -ism which can't be described as an ideology, but I can't remember which.

How about "truism"?

rmsgrey
Posts: 3634
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1202: "Girls and Boys"

Postby rmsgrey » Wed Apr 24, 2013 4:28 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
scotty2haughty wrote:I doubt the earth will be around in the year 3000 in the first place, so we'd better get moving.
How do you propose the earth will have been destroyed by the year 3000?


Even rendered totally uninhabitable would be quite an achievement - sure, you could make things seriously uncomfortable for the survivors, but actually taking out every survivalist enclave, remote Amazonian tribe, Antarctic research base, deep-sea oil rig and long-haul nuclear submarine (or at least cutting them off from all possible sources of resupply for longer than their supplies could last, and quickly enough to prevent them converting to something self-sustaining) would be a major challenge... Of course, that pales in comparison with finding something to actually destroy the Earth...

User avatar
W3ird_N3rd
Posts: 69
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:43 am UTC

Re: 1202: "Girls and Boys"

Postby W3ird_N3rd » Wed Apr 24, 2013 4:36 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:If they'd asked whether all humans are equal in dignity and rights, then not only could I have honestly answered in the affirmative, but the link to the UDHR would have been relevant.

I agree. If you assemble a bunch of airconditioners and one of them is missing a bunch of screws, it may not be worthless, but you certainly can't sell it at the same price.

If you have a litter of puppies and they are all very similar, but one of them has an aggressive form of cancer, tell me they are all equal.

Humans are not different. Evolution is not "smart", evolution if bruteforce. "it" tries an immense number of combinations and whatever survives and breeds is "good" (and kept), whatever dies or failed to breed disappears. This is why some people have hypertrichosis (abnormal amount of hair growth), down syndrome, are idiot savants or name your favorite disorder/disease. Some people are born with rather limited muscle growth by default and some are born just plain ugly.

But that's all just for our world and our society, for almost any condition there is a situation or world thinkable where it would be beneficial.

If we burn all fossil fuels and fail to find an alternative energy source, and the world gets struck by a new ice age, and we preferably forget how to create clothing, it's the hypertrichosisists (?) that will have better odds at survival. Obviously in today's climate they simply overheat and have more trouble finding a mate, but it's all about being in the right place at the right time.

If you have down syndrome, in today's world, you'd have some trouble. But what if everyone had it? A single normal person would possibly be either killed in that situation for being a smartass, or commit suicide because nobody would understand a normal person.

If you're a guy and born without lots of mucles, that would always be a downside, right? Well, if you want to be attractive to the ladies, yes. But what if we didn't have as much food as we do? Less mucles could be an advantage because you won't need as much food/energy to survive. The dinosaurs had plenty of mucles. Didn't do them much good in the end, now did it?

And if you're ugly.. It's all a matter of taste. But again evolution plays it's role. It's attractive if someone looks healthy and can use both eyes to look in the same direction. If you have rotting wounds and/or your eyes are all over the place, there's probably something wrong with your DNA. Unfortunate as that may be, it makes it less likely you reproduce which may result in more unattractive children. And hey, what may be considered ugly today, like being fat, was pretty attractive in the middle ages. Right place, right time..

Humans just aren't equal. Almost everyone has some kind of disease or disorder. Some are easier to cope with than others and that's part of evolution. But equal, no. Should everyone be given equal chances? Sure. But if a kid has down syndrome and can't make it through high school, we're not going to give you your diploma for free just because everyone else was also able to get it. You're given a shot to make something out of your life. Whether or not you are capable of making your dreams come true, that's not something society can decide. Or you. It's just a roll of the dice. You may be given the same chance, but you may not have the same odds.
Last edited by W3ird_N3rd on Wed Apr 24, 2013 11:16 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3082
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1202: "Girls and Boys"

Postby orthogon » Wed Apr 24, 2013 5:40 pm UTC

Klear wrote:
orthogon wrote:So we have different meanings for the suffix -ism, including:
x-ism: discrimination on grounds of x (sexism, racism)
y-ism: an ideology based on, or favourable to, y (Marxism, rationalism, feminism)
z-ism: noun form generated from a verb in -ise (or -ize; let's not go there) (baptism,...)

Not sure which category alcoholism fits into. An ideology?


You're missing art movements. Cubism can hardly be fitted into either of the three categories. That doesn't help with alcoholism (like I need help, I can quit anytime I want) Are there other words that can be grouped with it? How about narcissism? Or egoism for that matter.

So...

v-ism: art movements taking their name from v (impressionism, futurism, cubism)
w-ism: (generally negative?) human qualities related to w

Also, I could swear there is a philosophical -ism which can't be described as an ideology, but I can't remember which.

It occurred to me that alcoholism might be loosely speaking a medical diagnosis like autism.
A truism (thanks, kit) is a countable ism that belongs with witticism.
I'm hoping for someone to come along with a Grand Simplification of the categories.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

scotty2haughty
Posts: 96
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 5:53 am UTC
Location: 3 feet from gold

Re: 1202: "Girls and Boys"

Postby scotty2haughty » Wed Apr 24, 2013 5:43 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
scotty2haughty wrote:I doubt the earth will be around in the year 3000 in the first place, so we'd better get moving.
How do you propose the earth will have been destroyed by the year 3000?


Even rendered totally uninhabitable would be quite an achievement - sure, you could make things seriously uncomfortable for the survivors, but actually taking out every survivalist enclave, remote Amazonian tribe, Antarctic research base, deep-sea oil rig and long-haul nuclear submarine (or at least cutting them off from all possible sources of resupply for longer than their supplies could last, and quickly enough to prevent them converting to something self-sustaining) would be a major challenge... Of course, that pales in comparison with finding something to actually destroy the Earth...


I doubt it will be "destroyed" as in turned to dust particles or non-existent, but more along the lines of utterly inhabitable...at least for a while. Something along the lines of nuclear war or a pestilence of super-bugs, maybe even a simple (but big) meteor would do the trick.
/s/

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10273
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1202: "Girls and Boys"

Postby addams » Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:43 pm UTC

W3ird_N3rd wrote:
slaufer wrote:jupiter is a gas giant, it has no surface to go to.

boys and girls have made a poor decision

On earth, you can put some sulfur hexafluoride, a very dense colorless gas, in a container and make a tinfoil boat float on it (like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzLX96VWTkc).

So given the right materials and design, I see no reason why you couldn't theoretically land a boat on Jupiter. Perhaps the boys and girls are just really really clever.

Problem?

What a Great! youtube!
He sank the boat!

The basic design of The Boat was good.
Can it be a little more fancy?

How much work was it to get that gas inside that tank?
The Boat was only to Prove The Point.

Well Proven! Well Proven!
What was The Point?

Spoiler:
Boys and Girls? Together or Separate?
College for Knowledge.
Jupiter? Video Games about Jupiter?

A flick of his wrist and Worlds Explode.
She's doing Algebra.

For The Common People,
I thank God for Earbuds.

Can you imagine attempting to learn Algebra
while your brother is Killing Shit loudly on a Screen?

College? There are quiet places on Some College Campuses.
I've heard. What do you think?

I heard a Rumor; Some College Campuses block all unauthorized signals.
No phone. Only e-mail.

Did you hear that? It reminds me of Linda Ronstadt.
She sang a song. It was a Children's Blues.

The words were,
"There are no Tortillas; ohhh woe is meeee.
There is only bread. oh woe is meee."

She could do it in Spanish and English.
It was funny both ways.

Some people like tortillas.
Some people like bread.

Some people like it quiet.
Some people like to pretend to Blow Up JUPITER!

Because, It's Stupider.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1202: "Girls and Boys"

Postby Klear » Wed Apr 24, 2013 11:00 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:
Klear wrote:
orthogon wrote:So we have different meanings for the suffix -ism, including:
x-ism: discrimination on grounds of x (sexism, racism)
y-ism: an ideology based on, or favourable to, y (Marxism, rationalism, feminism)
z-ism: noun form generated from a verb in -ise (or -ize; let's not go there) (baptism,...)

Not sure which category alcoholism fits into. An ideology?


You're missing art movements. Cubism can hardly be fitted into either of the three categories. That doesn't help with alcoholism (like I need help, I can quit anytime I want) Are there other words that can be grouped with it? How about narcissism? Or egoism for that matter.

So...

v-ism: art movements taking their name from v (impressionism, futurism, cubism)
w-ism: (generally negative?) human qualities related to w

Also, I could swear there is a philosophical -ism which can't be described as an ideology, but I can't remember which.

It occurred to me that alcoholism might be loosely speaking a medical diagnosis like autism.
A truism (thanks, kit) is a countable ism that belongs with witticism.
I'm hoping for someone to come along with a Grand Simplification of the categories.


OK, time for a different approach - etymology:

-ism
suffix forming nouns of action, state, condition, doctrine, from French -isme or directly from Latin -isma, -ismus, from Greek -isma, from stem of verbs in -izein. Used as an independent word, chiefly disparagingly, from 1670s.


I don't have the time to dig deeper right now, but I'd wager some of the different "kinds" of -isms we've identified may have slightly different etymological origins. For example, alcoholism is derived from alcoholic, which is alcohol + -ic.

Hmm.. this will make a fine procrastination fuel tomorrow at work.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5450
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1202: "Girls and Boys"

Postby Pfhorrest » Thu Apr 25, 2013 2:13 am UTC

eSOANEM wrote:Well, feminism is a bit of a misnomer.

It's quite a big misnomer if what's meant by it is "gender egalitarianism". I don't like calling myself a feminist for the same reason I don't like calling myself a masculinist: I'm not interested in supporting movements that appear to favor one sex over another, because I'm a gender egalitarian and want all sexes treated equally. Frankly, it's a bit sexist to claim that a movement to support equality between the sexes should be named after one sex in particular. Similarly, it frustrates me to see aspects of gender warfare that are harmful to men attributed to "patriarchy". Patriarchy is only one aspect of the gender wars, it is not the whole of them, and feminism is only one aspect of gender egalitarianism, it is not the whole of it.

And yes, of course women are the more disadvantaged party in this conflict, that's not in question. But I'm not upset about the fact per se that women are losing that fight; I'm upset about the fact that a fight is happening in the first place. Much like, as an American, I'm not so much upset about the fact that the various opponents in the various wars my country has fought over the past century have largely lost -- it wouldn't make me feel much better if they had won instead -- I'm upset that we're fighting those wars in the first place. I want peace, not just for the sake of those "my side" are victimizing (though certainly that too), but because "my side" being in conflict with someone else in the first place is harmful to me as well.

Just as opposing the US invasion of Iraq didn't make me an "Iraqiist" -- and suggesting that sounds like something one of those "with us or against us" warmonger types would like to pin on peace supporters, to call them "anti-American" and "supporting the enemy" -- so too opposing male domination of women shouldn't make me a "feminist". I don't particularly favor Iraq in any way, I just wanted us to not be invading it, or anyone; and likewise, I don't particularly favor women in any way, I just don't want anyone dominating anyone. Calling the latter position "feminism" is just as absurd as calling a peace movement "[invaded country]ism".
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10273
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1202: "Girls and Boys"

Postby addams » Thu Apr 25, 2013 6:37 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:
eSOANEM wrote:Well, feminism is a bit of a misnomer.

It's quite a big misnomer if what's meant by it is "gender egalitarianism". I don't like calling myself a feminist for the same reason I don't like calling myself a masculinist: I'm not interested in supporting movements that appear to favor one sex over another, because I'm a gender egalitarian and want all sexes treated equally. Frankly, it's a bit sexist to claim that a movement to support equality between the sexes should be named after one sex in particular. Similarly, it frustrates me to see aspects of gender warfare that are harmful to men attributed to "patriarchy". Patriarchy is only one aspect of the gender wars, it is not the whole of them, and feminism is only one aspect of gender egalitarianism, it is not the whole of it.

And yes, of course women are the more disadvantaged party in this conflict, that's not in question. But I'm not upset about the fact per se that women are losing that fight; I'm upset about the fact that a fight is happening in the first place. Much like, as an American, I'm not so much upset about the fact that the various opponents in the various wars my country has fought over the past century have largely lost -- it wouldn't make me feel much better if they had won instead -- I'm upset that we're fighting those wars in the first place. I want peace, not just for the sake of those "my side" are victimizing (though certainly that too), but because "my side" being in conflict with someone else in the first place is harmful to me as well.

Just as opposing the US invasion of Iraq didn't make me an "Iraqiist" -- and suggesting that sounds like something one of those "with us or against us" warmonger types would like to pin on peace supporters, to call them "anti-American" and "supporting the enemy" -- so too opposing male domination of women shouldn't make me a "feminist". I don't particularly favor Iraq in any way, I just wanted us to not be invading it, or anyone; and likewise, I don't particularly favor women in any way, I just don't want anyone dominating anyone. Calling the latter position "feminism" is just as absurd as calling a peace movement "[invaded country]ism".

You make sense, Grasshopper.
It is the conflict that is Offensive.
Spoiler:
It will Never be all Sunshine and Blow-jobs.

People are going to disagree.
Those disagreements are usually about ideas. Right?
Any body can have a bad Idea!

Every once in a great while, Someone has a Good Idea.
Some people have more good ideas than bad.
Some people have more bad ideas than good.

Those good ideas tend to cluster up.
There is an Equation for that.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3652
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: 1202: "Girls and Boys"

Postby eSOANEM » Thu Apr 25, 2013 9:56 am UTC

Klear wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
eSOANEM wrote:Most -isms are named after a group they discriminate against (or the grounds on which they discriminate).
Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, patriotism,...


Impressionism, functionalism, post-modernism, rationalism, imperialism, empiricism, alcoholism...

You're definition is way off.


As I said to gmalivuk:

Read my original post. I made a distinction between -isms and things ending in "ism".

orthogon wrote:
Klear wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
eSOANEM wrote:Most -isms are named after a group they discriminate against (or the grounds on which they discriminate).
Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, patriotism,...


Impressionism, functionalism, post-modernism, rationalism, imperialism, empiricism, alcoholism...

You're definition is way off.

So we have different meanings for the suffix -ism, including:
x-ism: discrimination on grounds of x (sexism, racism)
y-ism: an ideology based on, or favourable to, y (Marxism, rationalism, feminism)
z-ism: noun form generated from a verb in -ise (or -ize; let's not go there) (baptism,...)


And whenever I've heard anyone talk about -isms as a thing, they've always meant to the first of those definitions. And, in my original post about isms, I pretty much said.

gmalivuk wrote:Yeah, even I am apparently not a feminist, which I'm sure would come as quite a surprise to all the people with whom I've argued about feminism on these very forums.

If they'd asked whether all humans are equal in dignity and rights, then not only could I have honestly answered in the affirmative, but the link to the UDHR would have been relevant.


The questions are not worded perfectly to be sure. It's clear how that question is intended (by which I mean that it's intended to refer to equality (in the sense the term is used in all political discussion) rather than equivalence).

Pfhorrest wrote:
eSOANEM wrote:Well, feminism is a bit of a misnomer.

It's quite a big misnomer if what's meant by it is "gender egalitarianism". I don't like calling myself a feminist for the same reason I don't like calling myself a masculinist: I'm not interested in supporting movements that appear to favor one sex over another, because I'm a gender egalitarian and want all sexes treated equally. Frankly, it's a bit sexist to claim that a movement to support equality between the sexes should be named after one sex in particular. Similarly, it frustrates me to see aspects of gender warfare that are harmful to men attributed to "patriarchy". Patriarchy is only one aspect of the gender wars, it is not the whole of them, and feminism is only one aspect of gender egalitarianism, it is not the whole of it.

And yes, of course women are the more disadvantaged party in this conflict, that's not in question. But I'm not upset about the fact per se that women are losing that fight; I'm upset about the fact that a fight is happening in the first place. Much like, as an American, I'm not so much upset about the fact that the various opponents in the various wars my country has fought over the past century have largely lost -- it wouldn't make me feel much better if they had won instead -- I'm upset that we're fighting those wars in the first place. I want peace, not just for the sake of those "my side" are victimizing (though certainly that too), but because "my side" being in conflict with someone else in the first place is harmful to me as well.

Just as opposing the US invasion of Iraq didn't make me an "Iraqiist" -- and suggesting that sounds like something one of those "with us or against us" warmonger types would like to pin on peace supporters, to call them "anti-American" and "supporting the enemy" -- so too opposing male domination of women shouldn't make me a "feminist". I don't particularly favor Iraq in any way, I just wanted us to not be invading it, or anyone; and likewise, I don't particularly favor women in any way, I just don't want anyone dominating anyone. Calling the latter position "feminism" is just as absurd as calling a peace movement "[invaded country]ism".


And the movement now is (again, apart from the few misandrists) one of gender egalitarianism. It's just that the movement has evolved and, when it first appeared and was named, there women were vastly more oppressed than they are now and so the almost exclusive goal of any gender-egalitarian movement must necessarily have been protection of women's rights. The name is an accident of history rather than a statement of current purpose.
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1202: "Girls and Boys"

Postby Klear » Thu Apr 25, 2013 11:15 am UTC

eSOANEM wrote:
orthogon wrote:So we have different meanings for the suffix -ism, including:
x-ism: discrimination on grounds of x (sexism, racism)
y-ism: an ideology based on, or favourable to, y (Marxism, rationalism, feminism)
z-ism: noun form generated from a verb in -ise (or -ize; let's not go there) (baptism,...)


And whenever I've heard anyone talk about -isms as a thing, they've always meant to the first of those definitions. And, in my original post about isms, I pretty much said.


I understand that. That's why I wrote that your definition is off. In my experience "-isms" refer mostly to the second group here (ideologies), sometimes to the first group, and in some context to the "art movement" kind.

Kit.
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1202: "Girls and Boys"

Postby Kit. » Thu Apr 25, 2013 2:33 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:and likewise, I don't particularly favor women in any way

Well, I do. Ironically, some feminists might be offended by it.

eSOANEM wrote:
Klear wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
eSOANEM wrote:Most -isms are named after a group they discriminate against (or the grounds on which they discriminate).
Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, patriotism,...


Impressionism, functionalism, post-modernism, rationalism, imperialism, empiricism, alcoholism...

You're definition is way off.


As I said to gmalivuk:

Read my original post. I made a distinction between -isms and things ending in "ism".

All of the stuff above are -isms. A thing that just ends in "ism" is, say, "schism".

But of course you can always argue that they aren't true Scotsmen...

eSOANEM wrote:The questions are not worded perfectly to be sure. It's clear how that question is intended (by which I mean that it's intended to refer to equality (in the sense the term is used in all political discussion) rather than equivalence).

It's pretty clear - for this particular question - that it was intended to be manipulatory. I didn't bother to check the rest, it was asking me to lie in order to do that, and I don't like to lie.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1202: "Girls and Boys"

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Apr 25, 2013 3:57 pm UTC

Kit. wrote:All of the stuff above are -isms. A thing that just ends in "ism" is, say, "schism".

But of course you can always argue that they aren't true Scotsmen...
Given that eSOANEM clarified the specific meaning being used in this discussion, those other things stopped being -isms in the sense under consideration.

Please don't pretend you missed the part where terms were defined just so you can play the fallacy card.

You could potentially argue that this word choice is confusing because people might misunderstand it as referring to all words that end with the suffix <ism>, but even that would be fairly disingenuous, I think, since it actually turns out to be not at all difficult to understand the distinction being made.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3082
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1202: "Girls and Boys"

Postby orthogon » Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:10 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Given that eSOANEM clarified the specific meaning being used in this discussion, those other things stopped being -isms in the sense under consideration.

My point, though I didn't bother to actually make it explicitly, was that feminism is a "y-ism", i.e. an ideology/philosophy etc ., not an x-ism, i.e. a type of discrimination. eSOANEM's definition constrains "-ism" to the "x-ism" sense, but I don't accept that that his/her definition has been established by consensus. Like klear, I generally use and understand "isms" as referring to the class of y-isms.
[Edit: addition of an auxiliary verb] [and a subject pronoun]
Last edited by orthogon on Thu Apr 25, 2013 5:06 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1202: "Girls and Boys"

Postby Klear » Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:49 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Kit. wrote:All of the stuff above are -isms. A thing that just ends in "ism" is, say, "schism".

But of course you can always argue that they aren't true Scotsmen...
Given that eSOANEM clarified the specific meaning being used in this discussion, those other things stopped being -isms in the sense under consideration.

Please don't pretend you missed the part where terms were defined just so you can play the fallacy card.

You could potentially argue that this word choice is confusing because people might misunderstand it as referring to all words that end with the suffix <ism>, but even that would be fairly disingenuous, I think, since it actually turns out to be not at all difficult to understand the distinction being made.


Is that what he did? If so, I apologise, but my interpretation of the discussion is that it's about what "-isms" are generally thought to mean. He didn't say that for the purpose of this discussion he considers "-isms" to be X and not Y as usual, he said that in his opinion only X are ture "-isms" and excluded Y altogether.

Kit.
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1202: "Girls and Boys"

Postby Kit. » Thu Apr 25, 2013 5:56 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Kit. wrote:All of the stuff above are -isms. A thing that just ends in "ism" is, say, "schism".

But of course you can always argue that they aren't true Scotsmen...
Given that eSOANEM clarified the specific meaning being used in this discussion, those other things stopped being -isms in the sense under consideration.

Please don't pretend you missed the part where terms were defined just so you can play the fallacy card.

You will be surprised. After I've re-read the topic, I'm still missing the "definition by eSOANEM".

Just bear in mind that I don't generally accept statements that start with "Most..." as definitions. And there are plenty of good reasons for this.

gmalivuk wrote:You could potentially argue that this word choice is confusing because people might misunderstand it as referring to all words that end with the suffix <ism>, but even that would be fairly disingenuous, I think, since it actually turns out to be not at all difficult to understand the distinction being made.

No, I would argue that this word choice was deliberately employed to frame feminism as an "exceptional" "anti-antism" - instead of a "generic" "proism" (which it possibly is).

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5450
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1202: "Girls and Boys"

Postby Pfhorrest » Thu Apr 25, 2013 6:19 pm UTC

eSOANEM wrote:And the movement now is (again, apart from the few misandrists) one of gender egalitarianism.

I'm not arguing against that, I'm just arguing that "feminism" is a bad name for that movement, historical reasons for it be damned. I've been told before that I should call myself a feminist, given my beliefs, because feminism is the proper name for what I call gender egalitarianism. What I've been saying here is my argument against that kind of claim: my argument that feminism is a bad name for that movement, so even if I agree with a lot of people who apply that label to themselves about a lot of substantial things, I don't support giving those things that label.

And not just as a matter of linguistic pedantry, but as a matter of making clear that any kind of misandristic or even more subtle women-vs-men attitudes are no more OK within the kind of so-called "feminism" I support than misogynistic or other men-vs-women attitudes are. Because I often see, among a lot of women who I would not outright call misandrists and otherwise get along with very much, subtler shades of antagonistic attitudes toward men in their feminism, even while when questioned they will unambiguously agree about the ways men are harmed by so-called "patriarchy" too, and of course deny any aims to favor women over men in any way. Good people with good explicit beliefs and intentions exhibiting signs of not-so-good attitudes just below the surface.

"Feminism" is big on the power of language to both reflect and shape people's attitudes, is it not? That's what I'm going on about here. Naming a movement for equality between the sexes something that sounds like it's favoring one sex both obscures the true egalitarian nature of that movement to people outside of it and invites people with non-egalitarian attitudes to identify themselves as such, and in doing so colors the movement and the attitudes of its adherent in a way counter to its ostensible goals. Truly egalitarian "feminists" want to distance themselves from misandrists, rightly so, and I'm suggesting that ditching the sexist name might be a good way of doing that.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3082
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1202: "Girls and Boys"

Postby orthogon » Thu Apr 25, 2013 6:37 pm UTC

Yeah. What Pfhorrest said, and so eloquently.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
Angelastic
Posts: 700
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 8:36 am UTC
Location: .at (let's see what's through here!)
Contact:

Re: 1202: "Girls and Boys"

Postby Angelastic » Thu Apr 25, 2013 8:50 pm UTC

Klear wrote:Is that what he did? If so, I apologise, but my interpretation of the discussion is that it's about what "-isms" are generally thought to mean. He didn't say that for the purpose of this discussion he considers "-isms" to be X and not Y as usual, he said that in his opinion only X are ture "-isms" and excluded Y altogether.

This almost makes sense if you put an X before each variable read them as chromosomes.

Feminism attempting to reach gender egalitarianism assuming a male-dominated culture: Let's consider XX, not only think about XY as usual.
Anti-male attitude people sometimes think of and are annoyed by when they think of feminism: Only XX are the true people; let's exclude XY altogether.
Knight Temporal, and Archdeacon of buttermongery and ham and cheese sandwiches. Nobody sells butter except through me.
Image Smiley by yappobiscuits. Avatar by GLR, buffygirl, BlitzGirl & mscha, with cari.j.elliot's idea.
Haiku Detector
starts a trend to make way for
my robot army.

MisterCheif
Posts: 253
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 1:24 am UTC

Re: 1202: "Girls and Boys"

Postby MisterCheif » Thu Apr 25, 2013 10:03 pm UTC

cellocgw wrote:
Wooloomooloo wrote:
BAReFOOt wrote:Nope. I didn’t. I'm an autodidact and didn't need college to get more knowledge. Nor any other bad outdated and primitive form of "education"

Like most people, I went there, to meet friends, girls, and ultimately to fuck my brains out. Which is the ignorantly neglected main point of college anyway. And the only natural form of education you'll ever see there.

Sad but true. All the knowledge I professionally make any use of I did learn outside it on my own because I was interested, and so did those of my colleagues who know anything worth a damn - those who arrived there knowing nothing about engineering left the exact same way. Everything else they tried to teach us turned out to be 100% unused in private or professional life, and was 100% promptly forgotten in a mere few months / years / the very day following the exam. Sad, but it is what it is...


Guess you shoulda gone to a liberal arts college instead. Or tried understanding the concepts as well as the mechanics of the stuff you sorta-learned.

Signed, An Old Grump w/ a double-BA in Physics and Math (who also remembers the stuff he learned in Music Theory, Ancient Greek History, and French, thank you very much).


Or you could go to a very group project-centric tech school, that still has a high focus on the humanities and arts.

Signed, A Freshman Robotics Engineering/Computer Science double major with 3 days left in the year, who has learned more in each 7-week term than in all classes in high school, and who is going to London for the next 7 weeks to complete my humanities requirement in bass clarinet performance.

And whoever said we should be back on the moon in 2019, nope. That was nixed a couple of years ago.
I can haz people?
lulzfish wrote:Exactly. Playing God is a good, old-fashioned American tradition. And you wouldn't want to ruin tradition. Unless you hate America. And that would make you a Communist.

User avatar
eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3652
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: 1202: "Girls and Boys"

Postby eSOANEM » Thu Apr 25, 2013 11:13 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Kit. wrote:All of the stuff above are -isms. A thing that just ends in "ism" is, say, "schism".

But of course you can always argue that they aren't true Scotsmen...
Given that eSOANEM clarified the specific meaning being used in this discussion, those other things stopped being -isms in the sense under consideration.

Please don't pretend you missed the part where terms were defined just so you can play the fallacy card.

You could potentially argue that this word choice is confusing because people might misunderstand it as referring to all words that end with the suffix <ism>, but even that would be fairly disingenuous, I think, since it actually turns out to be not at all difficult to understand the distinction being made.


Also, that I clarified it in the very same post being responded to.

My post was not worded clearly however, as I have acknowledged. This is because I initially intended to post a stronger statement but thought that it wasn't properly valid. I didn't rework my post thoroughly enough once I'd decided to make that change however.




To everyone asking where/if I clarified my definition, here is my clarification (taking it for granted that I base my usage of terms on that that I see around me):

eSOANEM wrote:
orthogon wrote:
Klear wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
eSOANEM wrote:Most -isms are named after a group they discriminate against (or the grounds on which they discriminate).
Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, patriotism,...


Impressionism, functionalism, post-modernism, rationalism, imperialism, empiricism, alcoholism...

You're definition is way off.

So we have different meanings for the suffix -ism, including:
x-ism: discrimination on grounds of x (sexism, racism)
y-ism: an ideology based on, or favourable to, y (Marxism, rationalism, feminism)
z-ism: noun form generated from a verb in -ise (or -ize; let's not go there) (baptism,...)


And whenever I've heard anyone talk about -isms as a thing, they've always meant to the first of those definitions. And, in my original post about isms, I pretty much said.


Here is why I initially clarified that I was making a distinction (hoping, naively that you guys would work out what distinction I was making):

eSOANEM wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
eSOANEM wrote:Most -isms are named after a group they discriminate against (or the grounds on which they discriminate).
Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, patriotism,...


See my distinction later in that post about -isms vs things that end in "ism" (I rephrased my post midway through, I thought I'd changed all the wordings early on so it gave the right impression, apparently I didn't do so well enough. For a more accurate reading, stick that paragraph after the distinction between -isms and things that end in "ism", remove "most" and stick a generally before named).


Referring to here where I imply, in my very first post, that I am making a distinction:

eSOANEM wrote:Feminism, whilst it does end in "ism", is not an -ism (just as there are things which don't end in "ism" which arguably are (e.g. homophobia, transphobia etc.)).


I have consistently been using this definition and, as soon as I realised that it was being confusing to people, I clarified what I meant. If you could actually read my posts, that would make things a lot easier. I have not been doing this to deliberately confuse you because, like I say, I have clarified my point whenever it has been confusing to you, all I have done is use a term differently from how you use it and then you have ignored my attempts to meet in the middle.

So please, stop pretending either that you read my posts or that I was deliberately unclear. If you want a response to cmyk's post framed in terms of the more general definition of "isms" you seem to prefer, one is provided below:

cmyk wrote:
eSOANEM wrote:My university is doing a campaign at the moment where they get people to write "I need feminism because..." along with a reason on a whiteboard, they take a photo and put it on their website. I've already done one, but I'm very tempted to do another with today's comic drawn on it.


I fail to come up with any reason why anyone, anywhere, needs any kind of "-ism".


While proisms and antiisms are not needed (and they are generally unhelpful), feminism (at least as I, and almost all non-misandrist feminists use the term) is not a proism in favour of women any more, but a movement against the antiism that is sexism. Feminism is still needed because sexism still exists. Feminism is needed precisely because people shouldn't hold to their "isms". The argument you give is an argument for feminism. There is no reason anyone, anywhere, needs sexism and yet it still exists and damages people's lives. This is another reason why we need feminism.






Kit. wrote:No, I would argue that this word choice was deliberately employed to frame feminism as an "exceptional" "anti-antism" - instead of a "generic" "proism" (which it possibly is).


See the above point and you will see how, if this was used deliberately in such a way, I'm doing it incredibly badly (what I'm actually trying to do is clarify my terms so you understand what I'm saying).

Whilst feminism did start as a proism, it is not any more. Feminism is not a movement for women any more; it is (as I've said before on this thread) a movement for gender equality. Because society is primarily patriarchal, that means it tackles more women's rights issues than men's, but feminism is no longer inherently a movement for women alone.

Pfhorrest wrote:
eSOANEM wrote:And the movement now is (again, apart from the few misandrists) one of gender egalitarianism.

I'm not arguing against that, I'm just arguing that "feminism" is a bad name for that movement, historical reasons for it be damned. I've been told before that I should call myself a feminist, given my beliefs, because feminism is the proper name for what I call gender egalitarianism. What I've been saying here is my argument against that kind of claim: my argument that feminism is a bad name for that movement, so even if I agree with a lot of people who apply that label to themselves about a lot of substantial things, I don't support giving those things that label.

And not just as a matter of linguistic pedantry, but as a matter of making clear that any kind of misandristic or even more subtle women-vs-men attitudes are no more OK within the kind of so-called "feminism" I support than misogynistic or other men-vs-women attitudes are. Because I often see, among a lot of women who I would not outright call misandrists and otherwise get along with very much, subtler shades of antagonistic attitudes toward men in their feminism, even while when questioned they will unambiguously agree about the ways men are harmed by so-called "patriarchy" too, and of course deny any aims to favor women over men in any way. Good people with good explicit beliefs and intentions exhibiting signs of not-so-good attitudes just below the surface.

"Feminism" is big on the power of language to both reflect and shape people's attitudes, is it not? That's what I'm going on about here. Naming a movement for equality between the sexes something that sounds like it's favoring one sex both obscures the true egalitarian nature of that movement to people outside of it and invites people with non-egalitarian attitudes to identify themselves as such, and in doing so colors the movement and the attitudes of its adherent in a way counter to its ostensible goals. Truly egalitarian "feminists" want to distance themselves from misandrists, rightly so, and I'm suggesting that ditching the sexist name might be a good way of doing that.


I agree with this entirely. Feminist is not a good name for the movement. I use it because I feel like, at the moment, society is still imbalanced enough against women that the good done focussing it on women (and therefore distancing it from the MRAs who don't get what egalitarianism is (not, I'm distinguishing MRAs (the jackasses who describe themselves as such, talk about being friendzoned, complain more about false allegations of rape than that women are afraid to report rapes etc. etc.) from people who care about gender equality and are interested in men's issues stemming from that) outweighs the bad of making the movement appear misandrist.

At the moment, my preferred approach to dealing with misandrist calling themselves feminists is to call them out on it. Sadly, as a man they're likely to ignore me or just shout back angrily. Maybe in a decade or two's time when gender equality is more of a reality I might consider it worthwhile to start identifying as a gender egalitarian instead but, in my mind, that time has not yet come.
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5450
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1202: "Girls and Boys"

Postby Pfhorrest » Fri Apr 26, 2013 12:53 am UTC

eSOANEM wrote:I'm distinguishing MRAs (the jackasses who describe themselves as such, talk about being friendzoned, complain more about false allegations of rape than that women are afraid to report rapes etc. etc.) from people who care about gender equality and are interested in men's issues stemming from that

I think I agree with what you're explicitly saying, but some of that part in parentheses seems like the kind of unnecessary antagonism that I'm concerned about curbing. Specifically, pitting concerns about false rape accusation against concerns about women being afraid to report rape, as though these were causes in conflict with each other. Both of those are bad things, and someone fighting against one problem isn't necessarily dismissing or perpetuating the other problem. Someone can focus their energy on fighting one in particular and not the other, without becoming an enemy of those focusing their energy fighting the other.

I'm reminded of a video I recently saw, just some raw footage of some conflict between a self-described feminist group and a self-described MRA group protesting on opposite sides of the street somewhere. Both sides had some very angry people shouting at the other side, and I noticed that the message was basically the same from both sides: "If you're so concerned about gender equality, why do you oppose our cause? Why are we your enemies? Shouldn't you support us? We're not advocating any of the things you're fighting against!" This from both the feminists to the MRAs and the MRAs to the feminists. And I just couldn't help but wondering why people in either group can't just be "good work fighting against that problem there, I'm over here fighting against this problem here, our causes are complementary but separable, I wish you luck in that endeavor but I'm focusing my energy on this one".

That seems to me a specific example of a wider problem I notice with many social justice movements: there is often a very strong us-vs-them mentality where if you're not actively part of the solution you are seen by default as part of the problem. Any time there is some form of aggression, violence, or exploitation, you've got four groups of people with respect to that: the perpetrators, the victims, the defenders, and the bystanders. It seems like many victims and defenders want to divide the world into them together on one half, and the perpetrators and bystanders together on the other half. The conflict between the truly egalitarian parts of both feminist and "MRA"/"masculist" movements looks to me like it's a side-effect of this: each side sees the other as standing by and not joining their fight, and therefore as part of the enemy camp along with the perpetrators of the aggression they're fighting against. If everyone could just stop thinking of bystanders as "more enemy than ally" but just completely neutral and potentially friendly parties instead, I think a lot of these different movements could get along much better.

And of course it could help if everyone would accept a neutral umbrella term like anti-sexism or gender egalitarianism and frame feminist and masculist issues as complementary subtopics within that broader movement, too.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

PsiSquared
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 6:02 pm UTC

Re: 1202: "Girls and Boys"

Postby PsiSquared » Fri Apr 26, 2013 9:29 am UTC

scotty2haughty wrote:I doubt the earth will be around in the year 3000 in the first place, so we'd better get moving.


Quite frankly, I never understood this argument in favor of space exploration.

If we can't even maintain our own planet properly, going to other planets isn't going to solve anything. We'll just screw them up just like we screwed the earth.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Feedfetcher and 51 guests