@Aella_Girl A scary thought is that men don’t tend to emphasize their partner’s thought processes because men are driven more to be psychologically controlling, trying to align their partners’ worldview to their own.
@myboybill1@jessesingal Did the article show more gray than you’d expect? It seemed pretty fluffy to me. I see there is a Wikipedia article that fills in more of the details.
@uwufjanstevens@Smithy0364@KatiKnitt@jk_rowling I know I won’t change anyone’s mind on Rowling, but people shouldn’t really be asked to change their names because other people have the same name and do bad things, even if they chose that name themselves.
@ijbailey@rasmansa There’s a thing I think we see around the corner in discussions of this kind, where people start to list inflammatory characterizations of each other. Honor seems to play a peculiar role in it, and to preclude ongoing “civil” discussion.
@SarahTheHaider Maybe it comes back to free will. Focusing on intelligence undermines the idea that we control our own destiny. It frames humans in terms of the capacity of our mental hardware, which is powerful but almost too powerful.
@SarahTheHaider Intelligence is a tricky subject. I’m thinking of the evidence that teachers should praise kids for hard work rather than intelligence. It applies to oneself as well: while “intelligence” could be tied to every success and failure, it might be healthier not to.
@mattyglesias Does @jasonintrator unblock? His is the one account I’d like to be able to read, but now can’t easily, after I said something that I did not really intend to be abrasive.
@jessesingal I get the feeling people legit don’t know how to think this through. Is it ok to imagine a culture and subcultures (and stuff not many people are into), or do we need to stamp out everything that implies cultural predominance? My anti-monolithic energy says it’s ok.
@bolt_carl @HarryTHop @NickGraves@phunkymarco@EWErickson I think it’s also reasonable to view the inside of a woman’s body as outside of government’s legitimate reach. Somewhat like we see activity in another country and accept it isn’t America’s problem to solve. Who put us in charge of that? I think it’s a good question.
@bolt_carl @HarryTHop @NickGraves@phunkymarco@EWErickson Your fact is a fact, but the “is” isn’t. You say the DNA of a human makes a human, and I say there is more to it. The loss of a set of DNA, is that what death is? We can think about DNA but it’s also reasonable to see pre-birth as still-a-woman and birth as new life.
@AreNifty@Hippomenes53@ZaidJilani Yeah it’s “good for business,” you’d have to think, to have a bigger pool of workers. Double working families probably consume more too.
@bolt_carl @HarryTHop @NickGraves@phunkymarco@EWErickson A person might be seen as designed at fertilization but not built. Is a caterpillar a butterfly? People will always disagree on when a person becomes a person, but I’d say it’s a process, maybe started at fertilization but finished with the breath of life.
@commannand@PythonsCouncil@AnishaImhasly@NRutman@dcap@BlackBelted@erinoverbey@new I’m guessing at your view, because you offer only chest puffing. Anyway, I don’t accept that view and see it as overly one-dimensional. I think the barbs are important for their own sake, not just depending on what group you are identified with.
@commannand@PythonsCouncil@AnishaImhasly@NRutman@dcap@BlackBelted@erinoverbey@new That’s one view: get a thicker skin, don’t whine, see the group dynamics, accept what you are, accept that it elevates you, push society not to elevate you for that reason. The little barbs are nothing really, unless they perpetuate group elevation, then they’re deep.