Patriarchy with chotkin

+ chotkin 09:58:14
1. social justice
anyone want to try that one?
here is two more
+ CaveGuy 09:58:41
what's it taste like?
+ chotkin 09:58:45
2. cultural appropriation
3. micro-aggression
+ innit 10:02:35
I don't accept cultural appropriation as a valid concept, for the most part.
→ ogrom has joined
ⓘ Raven`X gives voice to ogrom
→ Forest` has joined
ⓘ ChanServ gives ops to Forest`
ⓘ Raven`X gives voice to Forest`
@ Forest` 10:07:47
hello
→ CozmoBozo has joined
ⓘ Raven`X gives voice to CozmoBozo
+ CaveGuy 10:08:18
wb Forest`
+ chotkin 10:08:24
innit  every one of these words is bogus nonesense :)
@ Forest` 10:08:26
thanks CaveGuy
+ chotkin 10:08:48
But one should "know"  these words and phrases to navigate hostile political discussions in 2019
+ innit 10:08:49
I disagree they're "bogus nonsense".
It's extremely rare for a concept to have no value whatsoever.
+ chotkin 10:09:01
4. patriarchy
5. body shaming
6. safe space
+ innit 10:09:52
Patriarchy is a highly valid concept.
→ MadCatX has joined
ⓘ Raven`X gives voice to MadCatX
+ innit 10:09:59
I'm less keen on body shaming, but it's a thing.
+ CozmoBozo 10:10:05
unless you do yoga
+ innit 10:10:05
Safe space is an important concept.
@ Forest` 10:10:34
who is saying those are "bogus nonsense"?
+ chotkin 10:11:59
"patriarchies" certainly existed in say,  the 10th century europe
No doubt there
But today we have feminists saying that they must place a woman into the oval office to "Fight the patriarchy"
+ innit 10:12:37
Given 100% of presidents have been men, that doesn't sound unreasonable.
How would you feel if not most, but 100% of presidents had been women.
+ chotkin 10:12:51
innit:   So you want quotas
+ innit 10:12:59
That is a fallacy.
Strawman.
Do you want to try again?
+ chotkin 10:14:04
I think Saudi Arabia may qualify as a modern-day "patriarchy"
But the USA?    Sufferage in 1920... legal abortion.. and  2 waves of feminism?
+ innit 10:14:44
Concepts aren't binary.
That's a classic error.
Clearly, our society is complicated, but it has patriarchal elements.
And, if you remember, you were critical of the concept of "patriarchy"
You said, "4. patriarchy".
+ CozmoBozo 10:15:51
its not a concept
+ innit 10:15:53
You did not say "4. patriarchy in America in 2019".
It is a concept.
+ CozmoBozo 10:16:01
hey
+ innit 10:16:04
It is also other other things.
+ Hedrin 10:16:17
Another member of Trump's admin quit.
+ CozmoBozo 10:16:26
dont talk against patriatchy if you dont carry your mothers last name
pffffft
+ innit 10:16:58
That's a good example of patriarchy.
+ CozmoBozo 10:16:59
yeah what?
+ innit 10:18:00
concept: "an abstract idea; a general notion."
+ chotkin 10:18:10
innit:    Here's the problem.  We want a woman in the oval office *because* she is qualified.  NOt  *because* we must even the scales in our efforts to  "dismantle teh patriarchy"
+ innit 10:18:25
chotkin: That is a non sequitur to your previous posts.
I also largely agree with it.
+ chotkin 10:18:54
innit:    No it's not a non sequitur.   This ideas is quite overtly expressed by many on the far left
+ innit 10:19:03
If two candidates were roughly equal, though, it would make sense to vote for the woman, given the history.
It is a non sequitur.
I will show you.
But today we have feminists saying that they must place a woman into the oval office to "Fight the patriarchy"
innit:    Here's the problem.  We want a woman in the oval office *because* she is qualified.  NOt  *because* we must even the scales in our efforts to  "dismantle teh patriarchy"
+ chotkin 10:19:41
innit:    Radical feminist on campus wrote that they must eliminate the traditional "nuclear family" because it was a "tool of the patriarchy".  yes they said it. yes they wrote it
+ innit 10:19:44
There is an implication that women want a woman president *only* because she's a woman.
I don't see evidence for that.
chotkin: That is a different point.
We can discuss that next.
+ chotkin 10:20:29
innit:   But those radical feminists are teh SPEARHEADS for how that word is used today
+ innit 10:20:32
Hillary Clinton was, in my regards, highly qualified.
She was also a woman.
We cannot Gish gallop.
This is a known fallacy.
It's designed to invoke an emotional state in the listeners, rather than prompt a good analysis of data.
I dislike Clinton a lot, and thought she was unqualified.
+ chotkin 10:21:20
innit ,   If it is any consolation : I try to tell more fundie-leaning chrsitians that the Old Testament depicts a  racist tribal patriarchy.     (here I'm using the actual dictionary defn).
+ innit 10:21:28
For multiple reasons, but her usage of a private email server, for example.
But, she was also highly qualified in many other regards.
+ chotkin 10:21:44
innit:    Even using the _dictionary defn_  some christians will argue and try to "debate" me about this.
+ innit 10:23:12
Again, you're alluding to a binary notion.
That is obsolete analysis.
+ chotkin 10:23:22
I don't know how or why people would _disagree_ that tribes and litlte  cultural enclaves of  2 thousand 3 hundred years ago were patriarchies.   Why does this surprise people?
+ innit 10:23:50
They were patriarchies, and we have patriarchal elements.
CozmoBozo provided one example.
100% of presidents being men is another example.
SCOTUS being 100% men until the 1980s would be another example.
+ chotkin 10:24:35
innit:   The rad-fems  are not stating "patriarchical elements" in this  weakened, softened qualified way you are speaking
+ innit 10:24:46
That's often true.
+ chotkin 10:24:57
THey have literally written :  THere is a patriarchy. IT must be dismantled.
+ innit 10:25:08
They may be wrong, to some extent, in degree.
As are you.
But, I can complicate the matter for you.
I can present two didactic approaches to you:
+ chotkin 10:25:54
5. body shaming
6. safe space
+ innit 10:26:04
I am not ready to move on from this topic.
+ chotkin 10:26:06
let ms give some context for these two
+ innit 10:26:29
Imagine you have a variable whose value must be between 0 and 1. The true value is 0.4.
The population largely believe these value is 0.1.
+ chotkin 10:26:48
Despite the regular circuit here on IRC,  the rest of social media began this "Beautiful at all sizes"  sometimes called the "Body acceptance movement".  It started gaining steam around 2011 or so
+ innit 10:26:57
I will not move on with you at this time.
This topic is not closed.
You have presented a very shallow analysis.
+ chotkin 10:27:30
innit   Saudi Arabia is patriarchy.     Do you not agree with that sentence?
+ innit 10:27:35
We already covered that.
I'm in the middle of giving you complexity in regards to teaching approaches.
It's critically important for 'errors of degree'.
+ chotkin 10:28:11
innit:   This is not as complex as you make it out.  Either you openly ally yourself with rad-fems, or you identify the logical elements of Suadi Arabian law to see how it literally makes women there 2nd class
← MadCatX has left (#debates)
+ innit 10:28:25
1) do you teach that the true value is 0.4, which will slowly begin to move some of the population from their false view of 0.1 towards 0.4, at a given rate
+ chotkin 10:28:45
innit:    THEN I will watch as you squirm to find LAWS ON TEH BOOKS in the  United States that make women second-class citizens.
+ innit 10:28:45
2) do you teach a value above 0.4, with the goal of moving the communities understanding to 0.4 as fast as possible?
+ chotkin 10:29:00
Not this garbango about  "pay gaps" and  "Not enough female presidents" quota thinkk
+ innit 10:29:28
Will you example my theory of teaching point?
I don't think you're ready for this level of philosophy.
+ chotkin 10:29:47
innit:   Women outnumber men in american university campuses. ok
+ innit 10:29:56
I'm going to need you to engage my example for me to continue.
As I've engaged multiple examples from you.
+ chotkin 10:30:08
Barely 80 years ago,  a woman would not be allowed ot be a professor BECASE she is a woman.
Your examaples of  "patriarchy" in the United Stattes is what?  Wage gaps?  Too many male presidents?  Anything else?
* 10:31:17
Ignoring chotkin
+ innit 10:31:26
chotkin: I ignored you as a result of your last post
One, it's a blatant strawman. Two, you refuse to engage my points, even though I have done so for you. This is a violation of conversational turn taking.
Conversational turn taking is essential to good relationships and group intelligence.
Thank you for the conversation.
I am open to trying against in the near future.
again*