The age of minorities

[Fragony]

I see. The surefire recipe for being left alone is putting flamingo-feathers in your ass.

Not exactly no, that's why I said most probably want to be left alone. They think that one out of ten males is gay or bisexual, there are about 7,5 males in the Netherlands so about. A few thousands go to these prides to stick flamingo-feathers in their ass. Majority of gays must really apreciate these exhibitionists who make a liestyle out of it and really look like the worst stereotype one could make up. I know I forget the lesbians here.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I've finally found a relevant article after I previously didn't know what terms to look for, but here we go:

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jan.../op-schermer13



I recommend reading the entire thing, it's not too long.

Seen a number of research pieces with this theme. I teach it in principles of conflict management. It is one of the things that exacerbates conflict to no end. because this emotional response tends to make conflict/no conflict decisions even more irrational.

In some ways this is the "best" argument against 'trickle-down' economics. Too many folks simply get angrier that others' lots in life is improving faster than theirs does even if they are experiencing substantial improvement themselves.

[Shaka_Khan]

In the United States, every ethnicity has been a minority for a long time.

[Husar]

Seen a number of research pieces with this theme. I teach it in principles of conflict management. It is one of the things that exacerbates conflict to no end. because this emotional response tends to make conflict/no conflict decisions even more irrational.

In some ways this is the "best" argument against 'trickle-down' economics. Too many folks simply get angrier that others' lots in life is improving faster than theirs does even if they are experiencing substantial improvement themselves.

Yes and no. I agree that it is important and can be irrational. What I'm not sure about it whether it is entirely irrational behavior.
First of all, I would think the root could be in Darwinism. Every organism could be inherently inclined to try and get an edge over others in order to ensure survival of its own line. The kind of affluence we have today hasn't existed nearly long enough to have any affect on this potentially ages-old genetic predisposition, even if it's not in every organism.

And secondly, one could argue that in today's economy, the wealth accumulated at the top is illogical itself according to the principles as taught by the elites themselves. It is practically impossible for one man to actually earn this wealth through his own work. I'm not aware of any one-man company where the owner is a billionaire. The argument that all the workers agreed to work for their wages and so on usually ignores the price elasticity or whatever elasticity else there is. A worker with a family is far less flexible in choosing a place to work than a billionaire investor who chooses where to invest. There is an inherent power imbalance that can explain seemingly bad choices by poor people via game theory (prisoner dilemma).

Basically two people apply for a job, there are four potential outcomes:
1) Both agree, one gets the job - 50% chance to win, lowest wage since the employer can negotiate
2) You agree, other guy declines - you win, get mediocre wage since you can negotiate a little
3) You decline, other guy agrees - you lose, get nothing, live under bridge, other guy gets low wage
4) both decline - the employer needs to offer more money (good wage) to one of them

Now option 4 would be the logical one to take for job applicants, but chances are that both are afraid of scenario 3 and would rather have a scenario 2 for themselves. This makes them most likely to end up in scenario 1.

A billionaire on the other hand does not risk anything by withholding an investment. If a billionaire refuses to give money to a project that does not seem lucrative enough, he does not have to live under a bridge after two months because he has so much padding that he could live just fine until the end of his life.
This obviously makesa trickle up effect of relative wealth far more likely than any trickle down. At best, "trickle down" delays the poverization of the lower levels of society. And due to rising prices aka inflation, it is not even given that the lower levels of society do see an absolute rise in wealth. Maybe in "things" that are bought with debt...
In the 50s it may have been different, but since then a lot has changed. In the 50s the relative income of a CEO was something like 20 times that of the average employee, nowadays it's 100 times that and more (don't have the exact statistic at hand).

Plus, the system of high wealth differences undermines democracy, since money provides more power and influence in the state and in elections, in the US more so than here. In that sense it is also logical to want to reduce wealth inequality, since democracy becomes oligarchy when 1% of the population gets to decide about 90% of the laws.

I could go on but that shall do for now.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Yes and no. I agree that it is important and can be irrational. What I'm not sure about it whether it is entirely irrational behavior.
First of all, I would think the root could be in Darwinism. Every organism could be inherently inclined to try and get an edge over others in order to ensure survival of its own line. The kind of affluence we have today hasn't existed nearly long enough to have any affect on this potentially ages-old genetic predisposition, even if it's not in every organism.

And secondly, one could argue that in today's economy, the wealth accumulated at the top is illogical itself according to the principles as taught by the elites themselves. It is practically impossible for one man to actually earn this wealth through his own work. I'm not aware of any one-man company where the owner is a billionaire. The argument that all the workers agreed to work for their wages and so on usually ignores the price elasticity or whatever elasticity else there is. A worker with a family is far less flexible in choosing a place to work than a billionaire investor who chooses where to invest. There is an inherent power imbalance that can explain seemingly bad choices by poor people via game theory (prisoner dilemma).

Basically two people apply for a job, there are four potential outcomes:
1) Both agree, one gets the job - 50% chance to win, lowest wage since the employer can negotiate
2) You agree, other guy declines - you win, get mediocre wage since you can negotiate a little
3) You decline, other guy agrees - you lose, get nothing, live under bridge, other guy gets low wage
4) both decline - the employer needs to offer more money (good wage) to one of them

Now option 4 would be the logical one to take for job applicants, but chances are that both are afraid of scenario 3 and would rather have a scenario 2 for themselves. This makes them most likely to end up in scenario 1.

A billionaire on the other hand does not risk anything by withholding an investment. If a billionaire refuses to give money to a project that does not seem lucrative enough, he does not have to live under a bridge after two months because he has so much padding that he could live just fine until the end of his life.
This obviously makesa trickle up effect of relative wealth far more likely than any trickle down. At best, "trickle down" delays the poverization of the lower levels of society. And due to rising prices aka inflation, it is not even given that the lower levels of society do see an absolute rise in wealth. Maybe in "things" that are bought with debt...
In the 50s it may have been different, but since then a lot has changed. In the 50s the relative income of a CEO was something like 20 times that of the average employee, nowadays it's 100 times that and more (don't have the exact statistic at hand).

Plus, the system of high wealth differences undermines democracy, since money provides more power and influence in the state and in elections, in the US more so than here. In that sense it is also logical to want to reduce wealth inequality, since democracy becomes oligarchy when 1% of the population gets to decide about 90% of the laws.

I could go on but that shall do for now.

You are over-simplifying the hiring process with this form of prisoner dilemma. I do acknowledge that fear of being unemployed DOES generate poor offer acceptance decisions in a number of instances. Yet the choice is seldom irrevocable. Things can change and the employer who puts one over on the employee now will probably be incurring turnover costs in the near future. The 'market' does have its corrective functions and the dilemma evaluation is too much of a "snapshot" of one moment in an ongoing process.

Nevertheless, you do remind us that inequalities in wealth can generate threats to democratic stability. Venezuela comes to mind. You are right that the "more equal than others" thing always grinds on those who are 'have nots' by that relative measure.


While I acknowledge these limitations to the capitalist and regulated capitalist socioeconomic systems, efforts to generate equality of outcome have fared even worse then efforts to generate equality of opportunity.


I am not sure what is to be done about it until tech and power advances yield a situation where economics is largely moot because production of goods and services is nearly cost free. And that is a goodly ways off despite the dreams of the 3d fabbers and AI whizzes.

[Husar]

You are over-simplifying the hiring process with this form of prisoner dilemma. I do acknowledge that fear of being unemployed DOES generate poor offer acceptance decisions in a number of instances. Yet the choice is seldom irrevocable. Things can change and the employer who puts one over on the employee now will probably be incurring turnover costs in the near future. The 'market' does have its corrective functions and the dilemma evaluation is too much of a "snapshot" of one moment in an ongoing process.

It was a bit simplified, yes, but it's still basically in effect in quite a lot of branches. Obviously less qualified labor is more affected than specialists. There are companies that fire employees here and then re-hire them through time-sharing comapnies that pay the same employees significantly less. And it works. The turnover costs hardly seem to be an inhibitor. They don't seem very high and they're one-time costs vs long-term savings in wages.
Of course single companies can get problems if they go way further than the rest of their branch, as happened here to Schlecker. There are still plenty of branches where this works, harvest is one of them. They re-hire people every season anyway and the re-hired people have to teach the newbies (plus it's a simple task), so turnover costs are not a concern for them.

The way the market might solve this is automation. Once even the cheapest labor cannot compete with machines anymore, they will just pile up on the unemployment pool. And unless our unhealthy food is a Machiavellian first step to thin the herd more quickly, once the unemployment pool gets really large, these people will need to get money for doing nothing or might revolt.

Nevertheless, you do remind us that inequalities in wealth can generate threats to democratic stability. Venezuela comes to mind. You are right that the "more equal than others" thing always grinds on those who are 'have nots' by that relative measure.


While I acknowledge these limitations to the capitalist and regulated capitalist socioeconomic systems, efforts to generate equality of outcome have fared even worse then efforts to generate equality of opportunity.


I am not sure what is to be done about it until tech and power advances yield a situation where economics is largely moot because production of goods and services is nearly cost free. And that is a goodly ways off despite the dreams of the 3d fabbers and AI whizzes.

I don't think equality of outcome is the solution. I'm thinking more in terms of maximum and minimum caps of sorts.
The lower cap would basically mean all the basic needs are provided for, including a bit for entertainment.
The upper cap would basically mean you won life, but don't get greedy now. One may argue that this would stifle growth, but on that one I'm not so sure, since:
a) many people are driven by more than money, there is also purpose, morality, etc.
b) as long as we can't leave the planet, endless growth is the road to hell anyway.

Now where exactly those caps should be would be a topic for fierce public debate. Too far and it would be indistinguishable from the current situation, too close and all incentive is lost. Of course this would also have to be done taking into account that automatization may soon make a whole lot of jobs superfluous. Perhaps not just the lower ones, e.g. an AI might make more rational business decisions than a human CEO etc....
One potential problem then is that rich people won't really need the poor anymore to produce anything...including weapon systems, food, etc. And that they're perfectly willing to ignore any suffering can be exemplified best by walls for example...
https://theconversation.com/limas-wa...nto-peru-53356

As for AI being way off, see e.g. this video: https://youtu.be/92tn67YDXg0?t=242
Might be closer than we'd like to think. It's not the most complicated game I guess, but entirely self-taught and not very simple either! Consider the free movement, various other actors and lots and lots of potential actions to perform.

So before the world is entirely controlled by rich folks with flexible moral codes who don't need the rest anymore, perhaps we should make sure that the AI won't kill us all. Wait, that's not what I wanted to wri....the comp.....no!....stop!.......

[Montmorency]

Seen a number of research pieces with this theme. I teach it in principles of conflict management. It is one of the things that exacerbates conflict to no end. because this emotional response tends to make conflict/no conflict decisions even more irrational.

In some ways this is the "best" argument against 'trickle-down' economics. Too many folks simply get angrier that others' lots in life is improving faster than theirs does even if they are experiencing substantial improvement themselves.

Importantly, it's not just that people get angry at "someone" (i.e. anyone) improving their lot faster than themselves; depending on who you are, specific groups receive the brunt of the resentment.

Yes and no. I agree that it is important and can be irrational. What I'm not sure about it whether it is entirely irrational behavior.
First of all, I would think the root could be in Darwinism. Every organism could be inherently inclined to try and get an edge over others in order to ensure survival of its own line. The kind of affluence we have today hasn't existed nearly long enough to have any affect on this potentially ages-old genetic predisposition, even if it's not in every organism.

...

In some sense it may be immoral to maintain disproportionate wealth, separate or not from how wealth is obtained or accumulated. But from there things get tricky: is any billionaire acting immorally if they are not investing their whole wealth into undermining the wealth and power of all other billionaires and their economic system? From an absolutist perspective a wealthy individual giving half their net worth to charity may not be much better than a rapacious individual pillaging small countries and installing dictatorships.

If you end our current framework of money and exchange, then the nature of distribution and wealth also changes, so perhaps there is no longer money to regulate but there's still pure interpersonal power and influence to account for.

Anyway, referencing the "Robot Ibn Saud" thread:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Also consider the following regarding AI:

I see this thought experiment is a bad one for "AI", but if you look at it differently it it's just another way of describing our reality of perpetual-growth capitalism. You just have to make the connection to the capitalist maxim of "maximizing revenue":

[CrossLOPER]

Why do you need to tell the world of your sexual mores? Should we expect parades from BDSM or oral sex fans? Or swingers?

I like how you equate non-traditional orientation with fetishes.

Maybe if you live in a country where it is difficult/dangerous to be homosexual. In the Netherlands the gay-pride is more about wearing leather SM-gear and putting flamingo-feathers in your ass. Thankfully it's only a minority that attends it, but that is what you see

As Rory said earlier, most probably want to be left alone

The local parade last month in Atlanta had a bunch of gay normies walking home from it. I saw one woman cosplaying Wonder Woman and some dude wearing hotpants.

Really, are you going to pick out one "extreme" example of how someone wants to express themselves and use it as a template for everyone else in a particular group? Do you think its limited to these groups? Are you going to tell me that I should think of the children?

Please. Is that gimp mask what is going to cause the downfall of the West?

I also think its somewhat disingenuous to assume that just because a country doesn't publicly behead homosexuals with a .50 cal riveted to a pickup truck, that it makes it somehow "easy" to be gay or trans.

[Fragony]

Meh, minority rule naturally in what used to be Amsterdam, no more black-pete because of a few SJW. You try explaining that black-pete is not a black slave and exists in different forms all over Europe to people of whom half of them don't even know who their father is. (or have a fatherrrrrr)

[Gilrandir]

b) as long as we can't leave the planet...

... and some creatures keep coming from other planets.

I like how you equate non-traditional orientation with fetishes.

All of those are not traditional, including polygamy, polyandry, paedophilia, zoophilia and so on. But you are missing the point: I was arguing that whatever you do in bed is your own personal business (unless it hurts others). I don't see any reason to be proud of any of the sexual preferences and sport them for others to see.

[Fragony]

^- what he says

[Montmorency]

Meh, minority rule naturally in what used to be Amsterdam, no more black-pete because of a few SJW. You try explaining that black-pete is not a black slave and exists in different forms all over Europe to people of whom half of them don't even know who their father is. (or have a fatherrrrrr)

What's wrong with "Chimney Pete"?

All of those are not traditional, including polygamy, polyandry, paedophilia, zoophilia and so on. But you are missing the point: I was arguing that whatever you do in bed is your own personal business (unless it hurts others). I don't see any reason to be proud of any of the sexual preferences and sport them for others to see.

What if it's not so much the sexual preferences as the community of people and their maintenance of recognition?

[Fragony]

What's wrong with "Chimney Pete"?

Black Pete already is Chimney Pete, that's why he's black

[Husar]

Black Pete already is Chimney Pete, that's why he's black

A simple image search would prove that wrong:

https://thetravelingmogridges.files....warte-piet.gif
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-LgImCDRE_4...warte-piet.jpg
http://www.doorbraak.eu/blog/wp-cont...loads/Piet.gif
http://www.winkelstickers.nl/media/c...00179-bl_2.png
http://www.luchas-promotions.nl/imag...rs-500x500.jpg
http://www.willembikker.nl/wp-conten...tievanpiet.jpg

Only Piet Piraat could be a caucasian chimney sweep.

[Fragony]

This isn't exactly new, it's the same each year, it's the first time black-pete was banned altogether though, naturally in the dried up that is the city of patronising, Amsterdam

History of Black Pete is very interesting by the way, goes back to pagan times

[Gilrandir]

What if it's not so much the sexual preferences as the community of people and their maintenance of recognition?

The community united by sexual preferences.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...All of those are not traditional, including polygamy, polyandry, paedophilia, zoophilia and so on. But you are missing the point: I was arguing that whatever you do in bed is your own personal business (unless it hurts others). I don't see any reason to be proud of any of the sexual preferences and sport them for others to see.

Actually, everything you named on your "non traditional" list has been part of some "traditional" cultures in divers places and times. Some of them have even been religious requirements for a traditional culture. I think necrophilia may be among the few fetishes that I have never read about being an accepted part of some culture/some when. But as you mean 'traditional' according to the definition accepted in Western Culture from the Victorian era through WW2, within that limitation you are quite correct.

Regarding your comment about "sport them for others to see," the issue is less one of sexual preference than identity. Many of those taking part in pride-parades do so to assert that they 'are who they are' and have a right to be acknowledged as being who they are publicly without recrimination. In the past, too many of those in these minority groups would have been shunned or worse simply for making public a basic aspect of their identity. Call it overcompensation if you wish, but the ability to be yourself and be so acknowledged by others is an important aspect of identity and few basic needs are more important to any of us then is our sense of our own identity.

Those of us who more or less conform to the classic Western tradition simply assume that our identity is acceptable and that we need not even 'declare' who we are because it is the norm. Should someone who does not conform to that tradition really feel the need for public (and sometimes over-the-top) efforts to declare their identity as normal and equal? No, they should not. However, I have never (following high school when I was unformed) had to repress my expression of self identity from fear of harassment and abuse. Any number of those 'pride parade' folks have. So I just roll my eyes a bit at the excesses of a few of them and move on.

[Montmorency]

Black Pete already is Chimney Pete, that's why he's black

This isn't exactly new, it's the same each year, it's the first time black-pete was banned altogether though, naturally in the dried up that is the city of patronising, Amsterdam

History of Black Pete is very interesting by the way, goes back to pagan times

So does Black Pete have to be "zwarte" because he visits chimneys, or does he have to be "zwarte" because he is a neger?

The community united by sexual preferences.

Yes.

[Hooahguy]

Just a quick reminder about the language rule, due to the sensitive nature of this discussion.

[CrossLOPER]

All of those are not traditional, including polygamy, polyandry, paedophilia, zoophilia and so on.

I wouldn't class child rape and animal abuse in the same group as a group of consenting adults, but when you compound upon this with:

But you are missing the point: I was arguing that whatever you do in bed is your own personal business (unless it hurts others). I don't see any reason to be proud of any of the sexual preferences and sport them for others to see.

As I have posted, repeatedly, those pride parades generally include marginalized groups that were, until fairly recently, deprived of basic rights because "they ain't right". The pride parade allows people to come out into the open and rejoice that things are improving.

I wish you would finally understand this. Just let them have it.

[Fragony]

So does Black Pete have to be "zwarte" because he visits chimneys, or does he have to be "zwarte" because he is a neger?

He's no negroe, that's what SJW's make out of it. It's a completely harmless children party. SJW's need racism like a junkie needs heroin, and there just isn't anything to get out of this. Except in Amsterdam where the leftist church reigns surpreme and the mere suggesion that they might not be 100% OK makes gutmensch fear excommunication so they compete over who has the biggest correct.

@CrossLOPER, how would you see yourself, as a gay or as a person? Would it be being gay that defines you or is that just who you are attracted to? Of course they can have it don't get me wrong on that it's perfectly fine with me but they do look like idiots, looking like an idiot makes me see you as an idiot.

[Greyblades]

I do wish they would rejoice without including public nudity, fetish gear, sex toys and an often proximity to children by the aformentioned.

I havent seem much of that in britain but the pictures of canadian rallys are somewhat disturbing.

[Fragony]

I do wish they would rejoice without including public nudity, fetish gear, sex toys and an often proximity to children by the aformentioned.

'normal'gays probably as well

[Gilrandir]

Regarding your comment about "sport them for others to see," the issue is less one of sexual preference than identity.

I pity people whose identity is based solely on sexual preferences.

Many of those taking part in pride-parades do so to assert that they 'are who they are' and have a right to be acknowledged as being who they are publicly without recrimination.

Being a linguist I pay much attention to words. The word "pride" used to name the manifestation of identity is quite telling. For me.

I wouldn't class child rape and animal abuse in the same group as a group of consenting adults

Paedophilia =/= child rape. A child may be willing to engage in sexual intercourse with an adult. The same with animals. Which of course doesn't make either a norm. Although, looking at the attitude to homosexualism which has undergone a pivotal change recently one may never be sure.

The pride parade allows people to come out into the open and rejoice that things are improving.
I wish you would finally understand this. Just let them have it.

Where did you see me expressing a wish to abolish them? Let them have it as long as it doesn't impinge on others. What I argued, repeatedly, is that there is no sense to be proud of your sexual orientation. It is like being proud that you have two ears, square chin, curly hair or that you are a woman or an adult.

[Montmorency]

He's no negroe, that's what SJW's make out of it. It's a completely harmless children party.

The character first appeared in an 1850 book by Amsterdam schoolteacher Jan Schenkman, and is commonly depicted as a blackamoor. Traditionally, Zwarte Piet is said to be black because he is a Moor from Spain

Then there should be no problem replacing the aesthetic with one of simple black markings smeared over the face.

I pity people whose identity is based solely on sexual preferences.

[...]

Where did you see me expressing a wish to abolish them? Let them have it as long as it doesn't impinge on others. What I argued, repeatedly, is that there is no sense to be proud of your sexual orientation. It is like being proud that you have two ears, square chin, curly hair or that you are a woman or an adult.

Have you ever heard of "Black is beautiful"? Pride is beside the point.

[Strike For The South]

Paedophilia =/= child rape. A child may be willing to engage in sexual intercourse with an adult. The same with animals. Which of course doesn't make either a norm. Although, looking at the attitude to homosexualism which has undergone a pivotal change recently one may never be sure.

A child can not consent therefore its rape. S T A T U T O R Y.

I like how this thread is titled "Age of Minorities" like they haven't been here the whole time.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...Paedophilia =/= child rape. A child may be willing to engage in sexual intercourse with an adult. The same with animals. Which of course doesn't make either a norm. Although, looking at the attitude to homosexualism which has undergone a pivotal change recently one may never be sure....

I noted them as fetishes that had been accepted in some traditional cultures or even required as part of religious practice. That was not an endorsement. As Strike noted, it is by our definition rape. In neither of those fetishes can the other participant provide informed consent.

[Fragony]

Then there should be no problem replacing the aesthetic with one of simple black markings smeared over the facet.

It's much older wiki is wrong, the christian version is based on Sint Nikolaas from Turkey. But it goes back much further really, sone think they are the ravens of Wodan, it exists all over Europe, in England it's a fertality rite forbexample. Black markets have a practical problem, Black Pete cannot be recognisable, kids won't believe into Sinterklaas anymore, it's a really nice memory for children. But most of all it's simply not needed to change how black pete looks, it's a beloved tradition that's fine as it is. Certain people cannot be pleased anyway so why bother

[Montmorency]

It's much older wiki is wrong, the christian version is based on Sint Nikolaas from Turkey. But it goes back much further really, sone think they are the ravens of Wodan, it exists all over Europe, in England it's a fertality rite forbexample. Black markets have a practical problem, Black Pete cannot be recognisable, kids won't believe into Sinterklaas anymore, it's a really nice memory for children. But most of all it's simply not needed to change how black pete looks, it's a beloved tradition

Why don't you accept that this tradition has been modified over time - for example in the 1800s - and that it can be modified again while retaining the essence of the character?

[Fragony]

Why don't you accept that this tradition has been modified over time - for example in the 1800s - and that it can be modified again while retaining the essence of the character?

Frankly because it's never enough, I would be more compromising if not so much was demanded from me, never asked, I can't do any good anyway to these people, I am a racist to them anyway. If they go as far as trying to ruin a perfectly innocent children's party well what to say. And it doesn't stay just to complaining, shopkeepers get deaththreats, stuff is vandalised, they scream to children that sinterklaas doesn't exist, etc. Each year there is a new low, all small things but small things add up. I got nice memories of Sinterklaas, can I please have these without all that negativity. As if kids think about all these things.