Censorship? There is no censorship!

Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by cronicler, Nov 29, 2014.

  1. CthuluIsSpy

    CthuluIsSpy A Smooth-Skin

    636
    Dec 20, 2011
    Ok, so that's one. Any others? I'm drawing a blank.
     
  2. Akratus

    Akratus Bleep bloop.

    May 14, 2011
    No, I know that, but because in my mind Green Lantern was always black, I wanted to see John Stewart damnit!
     
  3. Gnidrologist

    Gnidrologist Wasted

    135
    Jul 15, 2004
     
  4. Akratus

    Akratus Bleep bloop.

    May 14, 2011

    Margaret Hamilton with her code, lead software engineer, Project Apollo (1969)


    Valentina Tereshkova, first woman in space (1963)


    Anna Lee Fisher, first mother in space (1984)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_science

    :salute:
     
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2014
    • [Like] [Like] x 2
  5. CthuluIsSpy

    CthuluIsSpy A Smooth-Skin

    636
    Dec 20, 2011
    John Stewart is also a white guy tho

    MV5BMjA0OTk5NTg4Nl5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNjMwMjMzMQ@@._V1_SX214_CR0,0,214,317_AL_.jpg
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  6. alec

    alec White heterosexual male Orderite

    May 21, 2003
    First mother in space? What kind of achievement is that? That's on par with 'first virgin in space' or 'first human with an ingrown toenail in space'. Is that an attempt to add some significance to the fact that there was simply another woman in space? Do we do that with men as well? First father in space, first grandfather in space, first man with a vasectomy in space, ...? No, we don't. A fine example of how a perfectly normal thing needs to be highlighted - just because it's a woman. Wow. I hope she feels really good about herself for having been the first mother in space. It's implying it's a heroic feat, something previously thought impossible: a mother is going to space! Fuck, who would have ever thought? It's like goddamn magic.

    :roll:

    This thread sickens me.
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 2
  7. Akratus

    Akratus Bleep bloop.

    May 14, 2011
    But the picture is so nice, you grumpus!

    She also won these awards:
    [h=2][/h]
     
  8. Sander

    Sander This ghoul has seen it all
    Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Jul 5, 2003
    Biotruth is a pejorative term used to refer to the concept of explaining social realities with a very poor understanding of biology, usually by reaching far beyond what science understands of biological truths (hence: biotruth). For instance, trying to explain that women shouldn't have the vote because biologically don't have the brains to understand politics (yes, that is a thing that has historically happened). Or saying that women are naturally less interested in money because they evolved to take care of children (something we saw in this thread). Those sorts of explanation can sound very convincing, but they're almost always based on a very poor understanding of biology, social forces and an overreach as to what we actually know of evolutionary forces.

    There's a form that's just an open conspiracy theory, peddled by the likes of Glenn Beck -- hence why it uses the oh-so-scary-Marxism-word. There's also the form as used by Akratus in this thread and others in GamerGate, which is less conspiracy theory and more just a misunderstanding of concepts conflated with a misunderstanding of other concepts. The thing that comes to closest to actually resembling the concept as a whole is Critical Theory.


    EDIT: If you think being a mother has historically not been an impediment to success outside the home, your historical knowledge is appallingly lacking.
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  9. Akratus

    Akratus Bleep bloop.

    May 14, 2011
    Getting some rads from Sander & Tagz?

     
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2015
  10. Kilus

    Kilus Not Australian Orderite

    May 3, 2003
    According to school there was only one woman in science:

    Marie Curie.
     
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2014
  11. Akratus

    Akratus Bleep bloop.

    May 14, 2011
    I guess one is better than none.
     
  12. Gnidrologist

    Gnidrologist Wasted

    135
    Jul 15, 2004
    Guess you're the one with deep understanding in biology then. So explain to us how the 'infamous' graphs with IQ curves/profession distribution are ought to be understand correctly. Because at face value they are pretty self explanatory.

    Btw, i never heard explanations for social realities like that. Women were held to be incapable of rational thought way before there were any studies on their brain abilities and women less interested in money? Holy lol. Guess the fact that they like to receive expensive shiny gifts and strive for ritch husbands has skipped your reality radar. In any case, nothing of this has anything to do with biological research, while graphs of averages and peaks of IQ has everything to do with and can't be simply denied unless you're luddite.
    That's just exercising in semantics. You can use any other term if this has somehow lost it's 'academic' credibility because of misuse (like ''patriarchy'' or ''toxic'' lel), but from purely plain language point of view it's perfectly valid. It's set of ideas having emergence tied to marxism theories and mainly focus on cultural issues, hence, cultural marxism.
    Men were just as impediment to success for the very same reasons in most traditional societies. Because people were basically assigned duties from their birth. Only mass urbanization made way for modern way of free enterprise and mass education. But the point we were arguing here wasn't about ancient history, righ. It's about current situation where mothership is hardly an issue anymore.
     
  13. Sander

    Sander This ghoul has seen it all
    Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Jul 5, 2003
    It's cultural.

    See, this is what I mean. You take a few datapoints, connect it to some inherent biological truth with no nuance, and proceed to ignore any other context. With no understanding of the underlying biology or social realities.

    Wait, is there a stipulation in NMA's rules somewhere that says "open sexism welcome"? Did we post a sign saying "please explain how you think women are inferior" here?

    This is both historically and currently completely bullshit, and it's so far removed from reality that I'm afraid I can't even begin to explain it to you.
     
  14. Akratus

    Akratus Bleep bloop.

    May 14, 2011
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2014
  15. Tagaziel

    Tagaziel Panzerkatze Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Dec 10, 2003
    Indeed. This is a constant throughout human history and remains applicable.
     
  16. Hassknecht

    Hassknecht For hate's sake. Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Aug 16, 2010
    Well, sometimes physical requirements are needed for a certain job.
    On average, women are shorter, lighter and possess less upper body strength than men. A woman needs to train harder and longer to perform the same feat of physical strength as a man, most of the time.
    I think most women could beat the fitness test, but it requires a lot more work from them than it does from men.
    Lowering the requirements is a bit of a mixed bag. I mean, some of the requirements don't make much sense I guess, but some do. Lowering those compromises a person's ability to do the job.
    Sure, it would make it more fair for women, as they wouldn't have to train as hard as before, but I'm not sure if it's good for the performance on the job.
    So no, I don't think it's good to lower the requirements. It's a tough job, and firefighters are there to save lifes. If a person can't perform a task, that person should not be on duty.
    Sadly, nature is sexist in that regard. Testosterone is powerful.
    Maybe they should offer dedicated strength training cmaps and sessions for women aspiring to be firefighters, as strength training doesn't seem to be very popular amongst women.
     
  17. alec

    alec White heterosexual male Orderite

    May 21, 2003
    You know what else has been an impediment to success outside the home? Blindness, Down syndrome, agoraphobia, lepra, poverty ... The list is endless. However, I never hear anyone say things like 'Why can't the next president be a mongoloid?' There's a list that goes on forever with traits that are an impediment to success. Having too much grey hair or being bold can be an impediment to success. Focussing solely on women and people with a different skin colour is naive.

    Sucks for you, Sander, but Gnidrologist DOES make a point - historically. Calling it bullshit will not mask your lack of knowledge. People were assigned duties from birth because if one was born poor, one did not have the time nor the money to, for instance, become a writer, an artist or a scientist. You needed a wealthy family to waste your time with such 'nonsense'. You can find exceptions to this general rule, but they are extremely rare. Sure, there were troubadours in medieval times, and you've always had maverick geniuses with little to no funds, but culture and science was something made by the rich, for the rich. This changed in the nineteenth century, but it wasn't an abrupt change at all. If you call that bullshit, I dare you to defend your standpoint with a myriad of examples. Because calling something bullshit means that not a thing about it is true. So go ahead, genius, do tell me why the history of science and culture is dominated by rich people like Huygens, Boyle, Franklin, Byron, Shelley, Thompson, Lavoisier, Sir Humphry Davy, ... the list is fucking endless.
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 2
  18. Hassknecht

    Hassknecht For hate's sake. Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Aug 16, 2010
    That's why there's ableism and a whole new world of *ism.
     
  19. Akratus

    Akratus Bleep bloop.

    May 14, 2011
    There's too many men. Too many people. Making too many -isms. And not much love to go around. Can't you see this is a land of confusion?
     
  20. Sander

    Sander This ghoul has seen it all
    Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Jul 5, 2003
    Apparently alec thinks he needs to explain to me that the world has never been meritocratic. It's like he's never read anything I've ever written.

    I wasn't objecting to that part of Gnidrologist's a-historical nonsense. More the bit about how this affected men and women equally. Or the bit about how that disappeared with urbanization. Or the bit about how mothership is "hardly an issue anymore" now. Or how his treatment of history (and yours) is amusingly euro-centric and monolithic. :kisses: