Since some users dislike the political discussions on the Sandbox lobby wall, I’ve decided to make a serious thread where people can discuss political issues/tangentially-related discourse.
Please keep name-calling to a minimum and remember that site rules still apply. While this “debate” is not technically “moderated,” I reserve the right to mute anyone who decides to make this thread all about Jamal or Neanderthals or whatever.
Please just try to use this space to contain conversations that are otherwise derailing in other places.
Sign this petition if
14 signed
Sign this petition if you are voting for Golbolco in the 2020 United States presidential election.
1.) Totally not like women originally got rights from men talking about their rights and vouching for them.
2.) Women can't chastise all men because not all men are terrible. Women can't chastise men for anything they believe is a societal thing because it is both men and women who are in charge of and have a say in determining how our society works. It is not a "men are out to take advantage of women" nation, because men do not have a majority of the power.
Because I am not an adult, I cannot be allowed to stay woke and actually do research other than repeating "spilled tea" from angry politicians and feminists that will shame me for simply being the cis white male scum I am.
1.) It is a very notable YouTuber who has a lot of content that will probably make you mad because it LINKS ITS SOURCES
2.) I never said it like that at all, I said as a joke because shounen said, "don't make political discussions about trans rights", and I retorted back by basically saying, "not much will happen on that subject if we don't talk about theat subject politically"
there are such thing as scholarships (which are given if you appear to be a good asset to the school). Try going for one of them instead of complaining.
deletedalmost 6 years
euthanasia should be legal everywhere for people who are brain dead or are otherwise terminally ill. i have a personal connection to the family of a brain dead child and i just think its so sad that girl is in so much pain but cant be put down
golf is a major part of being a rich and successful businessman. that is why he was elected. to stop golf means he would stop being a rich and successful businessman. therefore, golf is the only thing keeping him a great president
I also find it interesting that items with self-imposed “pink taxes” sell when self-imposed “green taxes” don’t.
There’s the "free-market" explanation: “There is value in pink tax, but there isn’t value in carbon tax.” Which is weird, because it’s supposed to be about saving the planet and all. This might suggest consumers place more value in emotionally perceptible things like self-image, self-expression and self-declarations of femininity than than on broad, invisible, imperceptible things like “fighting climate change”. So free markets, great as they are, won't fix climate change alone
Then let's look at the less charitable option: “Women are so brainwashed that they pay extra against their best interests. They think there’s value in pink products, but they’re getting screwed because they’re paying more in the long run.”
So if that’s true let’s apply that same logic to carbon tax then on a larger scale. since the stakes are evidently so much higher
“Humanity is so brainwashed that we use cars, planes, boats and large houses against our best interests. They think there’s value in getting from one place to another, but they’re getting screwed.”
If you put it that way, yes. Yes we are. In order to solve the climate change problem as defined, it requires the planet to believe that the inherent value of cars and planes and boats outweigh the planet’s future
But any politician that attempts to actually solve the problem is going to get thrown out of office faster than Kevin Spacey at a Chuck-E-Cheese, since cars and planes and boats are things EVERYBODY likes
So, order to do something about the “pink tax”, it requires convincing women there is no inherent value in femininity or self-image or self-expression that can’t be outweighed by a small amount of money
Which is what those outrage pieces are doing, and which I find incredibly demeaning
This is the a perfect illustration of I was going on about earlier about absconding agency, and it’s a wonderful counterpoint with the carbon tax thing I was talking about.
Let’s assume that 1) things like deodorants and shaving products for women cost more (this seems pretty true)
And let’s assume that 2) men’s and women’s products are nearly identical except for some slight marketing differences (seems true enough, probably not 100% but true enough to work for this thought experiment)
If both are true you’d expect a significant portion of women to simply buy the products marketed toward men. Since they don’t, that means one of two conclusions
Either women are so brainwashed by marketing that they choose products against their own best interest because of it
or
Women find some discernible, perceptible value in women’s products (whether it’s cosmetic, a form of self-expression, different products, or whatever else) and this value directly translates into something worth paying more for
I lean towards the explanation that grants women a little intelligence and agency, but the other one gets a lot more outrage clicks, and since we’re demanding Culture War 24/7 above all else that’s exactly what we get served up
Animals have the concept of economics too. The trade of goods and services exists in social groups beyond humans. Can you narrow down what this means? Are you referring to prim-com?
Wrong. We have artificially selected humans since the Agricultural Revolution to function best in agrarian societies (and recently have begun selecting for traits in industrial and post-scarcity societies.) We are self-domesticating. I can bring up examples if you want.
Humans are not the only animal with society. You are referring to a very specific idea of society, agrarian/industrial/post-scarcity. The majority of anthropologists would call this worldview ethnocentric because it excludes hunter-gatherers, which for all intents and purposes seems to have been the state of the species before the last Ice Age.
You have made two false judgments here, one being that money is the root of human expansion and the other being that our brains are the root of human expansion. Currency did not exist at 60,000 BC, which is roughly the date that Archaeologists give to the last (or wrongfully according to them, the only) exodus from Africa. Furthermore, societies with the same brain capacity as you and I have lived in healthy hunter-gatherer societies for thousands of years up to the present day.
You do not speak for me. The original purpose of the thread was to serve as a serious platform for everyone who does want to discuss politics, and a containment thread for everyone who does not. A happy medium for everyone involved. Everyone on the site is welcome, I know that Main Lobby has a lot more of political debate than we do.
This is a perfect illustration of I was going on about earlier about absconding agency, and it’s a wonderful counterpoint with the carbon tax thing I was talking about.
Let’s assume that 1) things like deodorants and shaving products for women cost more (this seems pretty true)
And let’s assume that 2) men’s and women’s products are nearly identical except for some slight marketing differences (seems true enough, probably not 100% but true enough to work for this thought experiment)
If both are true you’d expect a significant portion of women to simply buy the products marketed toward men. Since they don’t, that means one of two conclusions :
Either women are so brainwashed by marketing that they choose products against their own best interest because of it
or
Women find some discernible, perceptible value in women’s products (whether it’s cosmetic, different ingredients, or whatever else) that directly translates into something worth paying more for
I favor the explanation that grants women a modicum of intelligence and agency, but the other one gets waaay more outrage clicks, and since we’re demanding Culture War 24/7 above all else that’s exactly what we get served up
A lot of ad hominem goes on in this thread. You guys gotta learn to step up your debate game
deletedalmost 6 years
i don't have much of an opinion on whether or not it's inherently good or bad, not sure how you got that idea. some results are good, like learning about the natural world, some are obviously godawful like economics and nationalism. and i'm not sure what you even mean by natural order ? our mental capacity for these things developed naturally. some form of society is our natural way to live. there's just no use arguing about why that's good or bad when in the present people are suffering. like what are you gonna do, go back in time and prevent the development of money or just straight up our brains?
