The Left ... Need Some Thoughts ...
-
@paekakboyz I was using the backhanded complimentary version of fluffybunny 😀
-
Another good wad of replies overnight. Thanks to all.
In a nutshell, she think it's not worth debating me as my position is firmly entrenched. And vice versa. And the only way to move forward is to step back, listen to her and ask questions without offering prejudice and then try and explain things. Well ...
@rancid-schnitzel said in The Left ... Need Some Thoughts ...:
It's tribalism and a knee-jerk instinct to defend one's side no matter what. Can happen on the other side as well. I'm sure there are people who will defend whatever Trump says and then slander the person calling it out as "out of touch" or something. Ultimately if you've invested so much time and energy in your own side and have become convinced of the total righteousness of that position, not even a slide show identifying every single error in minute detail will make any difference to your stance. In other words, you're dealing with fanatics and have to view them as such. Just accept that people like this exist and just move on with your life.
Maybe this wins post of the thread for me ... probably just easier. Accept that I'll never know why I'm wrong and move forwards. Reality is that she will take a position of extreme upset at any argument of her views, and it's simply not worth it.
Apparently the Don Brash incident ended up in a stand up and walk out with tears. It is her holiday here and I don't want to be the one to ruin it.
-
@jc said in The Left ... Need Some Thoughts ...:
@majorrage what does your sister do for a living? Is she surrounded all day by people who would be offended by your politics? Did she qualify in an area dominated by people who believe in progressivism (teaching being the obvious example)?
Works for the government as a policy analyst in the social services sector. So in answer to you other questions massively yes and yes.
-
@antipodean said in The Left ... Need Some Thoughts ...:
@gt12 I might look for that. I've read a few things in the last couple of years that caused me to revisit how I discussed topics with people. I used to rely on facts, obliterating their argument, walk them step by step through the logic, confirming it with them at each stage that we agreed and after delivery the coup de grâce I'd smugly sit back and await the acclamation.
Then I'd be stunned to find at the last hurdle, they'd simply ignore everything that had been said previously and go back to their original position. As if the discussion had never taken place. I'd never dealt with why they chose to believe what they believed, just what they believed.
Really good points there.
-
@antipodean said in The Left ... Need Some Thoughts ...:
@gt12 I might look for that. I've read a few things in the last couple of years that caused me to revisit how I discussed topics with people. I used to rely on facts, obliterating their argument, walk them step by step through the logic, confirming it with them at each stage that we agreed and after delivery the coup de grâce I'd smugly sit back and await the acclamation.
Then I'd be stunned to find at the last hurdle, they'd simply ignore everything that had been said previously and go back to their original position. As if the discussion had never taken place. I'd never dealt with why they chose to believe what they believed, just what they believed.
Thats interesting actually. I know exactly why my sister believes what she believes. It's her job to deal with the "downtrodden" everyday and understand why they are where they are, and what the government should be doing about it. I fully get it.
What I don't get at all is why somebody who I know is extremely smart (smashed me all the way through school (including in logical subjects such as maths / physics) and got a PhD from a reputable uni) can call me flat out wrong when I'm just talking what I view as basic logic.
-
Well I'm just on my way to watch Cornell West go head-to-head in debate against Douglas Murray. Maybe I'll get an insight, or maybe it'll just devolve into a screaming match. Either way it'll be fun..unless antifa show up and then it'll just be unbearable
-
@antipodean said in The Left ... Need Some Thoughts ...:
@gt12 I might look for that. I've read a few things in the last couple of years that caused me to revisit how I discussed topics with people. I used to rely on facts, obliterating their argument, walk them step by step through the logic, confirming it with them at each stage that we agreed and after delivery the coup de grâce I'd smugly sit back and await the acclamation.
Mansplaining
-
@gt12 said in The Left ... Need Some Thoughts ...:
There is an interesting critique of Ben Shapiro on Quillette which makes almost the same points as yours. Although I wanted to disagree with the thesis, it does seem very true that confronting the emotional ideas that underly people’s interpretation of facts, is sometimes more important than straight up refuting them factually.
Agree, although it is much more difficult to change 'feelings'
-
Read it here.
This observation echoes the main thesis of Jonathan Haidt’s The Righteous Mind, in which he argues that our faculty for reason labors to validate our intuitions (including our moral impulses), not vice versa. In Haidt’s analogy of the Rider and the Elephant (elaborated in the clip below), the Rider represents ‘strategic reasoning,’ whose direction is determined by the much larger and more powerful Elephant, which represents intuition and emotion. Haidt explains why so many debates fail to persuade, writing, “You can’t change people’s minds by utterly refuting their arguments…If you want to change people’s minds, you’ve got to talk to their elephants.”
Ben Shapiro’s tendency has not been to talk to elephants so much as make them stampede. Take, for instance, the now-infamous tweet he sent in September 2010 which read: “Israelis like to build. Arabs like to bomb crap and live in open sewage.” A fair-minded look at the tweets sent immediately after this one reveals that Shapiro’s assertion was made in reference to the Israeli and Arab political leaderships—not to these populations as a whole. Shapiro reiterated this explanation in a recent defense of the tweet at the Daily Wire, in which he describes the Left as “idiotic” for its collective failure to appreciate context.
But what Shapiro is really criticizing in his article is the willingness of people to be led by their elephants, even though this is inevitable and therefore entirely predictable. Regardless of any technical defense of the tweet disqualifying it as racist, if Shapiro’s objective as a good faith interlocutor is to invite people to consider new perspectives, then it is strategically unjustifiable. If, on the other hand, his intention is solely to enrage his opponents and electrify his supporters, then he is engaging in demagoguery and should not complain when people react exactly as intended.
-
Worth a watch on the subject of persuasion and from a difference of opinion potentially more extreme than your sisters views on Anika tattoo complaints.... a black jazz musician whose hobby is making friends with KKK members.
Full doco is on Netflix "Accidental Courtesy"
-
jegga said:
Btw if you ever stray into the gender pay gap debate with her simply ask why unemployment amongst men isn’t absolutely massive if you can employ a woman with the same experience and qualifications as a man and pay her 25% less . Every business would lay off all their male staff and save a fortune in wages .
The gender pay gap doesn't mean that women get magically payed 25% less. It means that women have less access to job opportunities, get promoted less often, and in general work at jobs that aren't seen as important, meaning that on average they get payed less.
I would advise that you actually try to evaluate your opponent's position rather than going for the interpretation that makes you feel smart.
-
Admiral Bradley said:
jegga said:
Btw if you ever stray into the gender pay gap debate with her simply ask why unemployment amongst men isn’t absolutely massive if you can employ a woman with the same experience and qualifications as a man and pay her 25% less . Every business would lay off all their male staff and save a fortune in wages .
The gender pay gap doesn't mean that women get magically payed 25% less. It means that women have less access to job opportunities, get promoted less often, and in general work at jobs that aren't seen as important, meaning that on average they get payed less.
I would advise that you actually try to evaluate your opponent's position rather than going for the interpretation that makes you feel smart.
Welcome aboard Admiral.
With regard to your post above are you able to:
-
Substantiate that "women have less access to job opportunities, get promoted less often, and in general work at jobs that aren't seen as important"
-
Suggest why "women have less access to job opportunities, get promoted less often, and in general work at jobs that aren't seen as important"?
-
-
Admiral Bradley said:
jegga said:
Btw if you ever stray into the gender pay gap debate with her simply ask why unemployment amongst men isn’t absolutely massive if you can employ a woman with the same experience and qualifications as a man and pay her 25% less . Every business would lay off all their male staff and save a fortune in wages .
The gender pay gap doesn't mean that women get magically payed 25% less. It means that women have less access to job opportunities, get promoted less often, and in general work at jobs that aren't seen as important, meaning that on average they get payed less.
I would advise that you actually try to evaluate your opponent's position rather than going for the interpretation that makes you feel smart.
How do you know I haven’t evaluated my “opponents “ position? Bit of a assumption on your part , I guess it makes you feel smart.
-
This post is deleted!
-
booboo said:
Admiral Bradley said:
jegga said:
Btw if you ever stray into the gender pay gap debate with her simply ask why unemployment amongst men isn’t absolutely massive if you can employ a woman with the same experience and qualifications as a man and pay her 25% less . Every business would lay off all their male staff and save a fortune in wages .
The gender pay gap doesn't mean that women get magically payed 25% less. It means that women have less access to job opportunities, get promoted less often, and in general work at jobs that aren't seen as important, meaning that on average they get payed less.
I would advise that you actually try to evaluate your opponent's position rather than going for the interpretation that makes you feel smart.
Welcome aboard Admiral.
With regard to your post above are you able to:
-
Substantiate that "women have less access to job opportunities, get promoted less often, and in general work at jobs that aren't seen as important"
-
Suggest why "women have less access to job opportunities, get promoted less often, and in general work at jobs that aren't seen as important"?
It's not my argument, and I'm not in NZ (although neither are you), but I still find it hard that people can't make the assertion that some of the reason for the pay gap is due to straight up sexist attitudes.
Three examples from here in Japan that I've discussed before - surprisingly its the third that fucks me off the most - many of my best female students just don't get offered good roles - despite wanting them and despite being better qualified (on university performance at least):
- Regarding opportunities, see Tokyo Medical school:
- Regarding Promotion, see, well, pretty much everywhere. We are living this right now as my wife will not be eligible for consideration of promotion for a number of years, because baby:
"When I asked the boss to send me to a professional programme as a step towards a future promotion, her reaction was: 'You took maternity leave and worked shorter hours. How many more favours do you want'?"
"I have been told the same thing by three bosses over the past five years," she said.
The 42-year-old mother-of-three took advantage of a Japanese law that allows parents to work shorter hours, taking a commensurate paycut to do so.
She only worked one hour less a day, but nonetheless found the decision was "a trigger that ruined the plan I had for my career".
She feared that if she complained about what she considered discrimination, she might be penalised by her superiors or transferred to a remote clinic.
- Regarding working at jobs that aren't seen as important, see the employment system here:
Two paths are open to new hires at many big Japanese firms: the career and non-career tracks -- sogo-shoku and ippan-shoku in Japanese. They're often referred to as the "management" and "mommy" tracks.
That's because women typically end up in the non-career roles, which involve administrative jobs with hardly any upward mobility that ambitious people find very frustrating.
The goods news (from CNN source above):
Women account for 9.1% of all senior managers at automaker Nissan (NSANF). That's above the 8.3% average for Japanese firms with more than 100 employees, according to Catalyst, a non-profit group that promotes women in the workplace.
Chie Kobayashi, 48, who leads Nissan's diversity development office, says the company was attractive to her straight out of university because it bucks the trend by not using separate career tracks. In 2005, she became the first Japanese working mother to be posted overseas for Nissan.
Other major Japanese companies, including Calbee and Shiseido (SSDOF), have also been singled out for their progressive policies on women employees. But experts point out that such firms typically have foreigners in senior management, often crediting Nissan's Brazilian-born CEO, Carlos Ghosn, with helping to improve the automaker's approach.
-
-
As far as I know, Booboo isn't in NZ and didn't specify that evidence had to be from there.
My point is only that there seems to be an aversion here on the board to even considering that part of the wage gap may be due to structural sexism within society and workplace culture.
I'm pretty happy to accept that - I think even Jordan Peterson accepts it too, btw - and after seeing the news about [how law firms in NZ and the way young female lawyers are treated, which matches very well with my (much deeper) understanding about how they work here in japan, I'm comfortable considering that there may be some aspects that operate cross-culturally, without also feeling that all men are the enemy.
-
@gt12 for what it's worth, I absolutely accept that sexism plays a role. How bigger role is difficult to judge as there are so many factors at play, but I would not discount it just like I don't discount other very obvious factors that have been discussed on here before.
I just really despise the way so many people, including many mainstream media outlets, push the idea that discrimination is the main factor. It's pretty obvious in NZ that it is not - particularly when we are talking about the reasons for male dominated industries. I also hate politicians like those in government right now justifying awful policies while sighting discrimination without even considering the multitude of other factors at play. They use it to push their really shitty anti-capitalist agenda.
We seem to be in an age where the majority of people just cannot get their heads around a bit of bloody nuance.