Phi for All

But if someone asked you not to use it....

Here's a more down-to-Earth example I'd like you to consider regarding the gender terms issue. Some people are uncomfortable when anyone around their same age or work status calls them "sir" or "ma'am", because equals shouldn't use such terms of respect with each other. How do you feel about those terms? Are they really that different than he/him she/her etc? I have a bad habit of calling everybody I don't know sir/ma'am when I deal with them, and I never thought about how it might be misconstrued since many of these folks are younger than I am. I never intended it to be sarcastic or insulting, but others don't know that. I remember one guy who told me, "Don't call me sir, my dad's still alive!" I laughed, but that might really have made the guy uncomfortable and old.

! Moderator Note So, you're saying that mainstream explanations aren't "honest"? I'm not sure that worldview will work out on a science discussion forum. Since you're only going to get replies you're only going to ignore, I'm not leaving this open in Physics. Since you reject mainstream explanations overall wrt relativity, it's pointless to move this to Speculations, so I'm just going to close it. Two pages should be enough to show others where the trustworthy reasoning is.

! Moderator Note OK, help me out here. You're not asking questions anymore, you're claiming "relativity has failed in X" without supplying any science to support yourself. You know you can't just wave your hands or appeal to incredulity. This should be moved to Speculations, but that won't help if you aren't willing to offer more support. You're soapboxing pretty much here, and ignoring replies that you've asked for. If you want to stay in mainstream, listen to the mainstream replies you're getting and respond accordingly. If you want to defend your beliefs in Speculations, then please provide some science to support the stances.

"Undeserving" plays well with the average confirmation bias too. "I know I'm a good person who works hard, so I deserve whatever good thing comes my way, but when I hear about something good happening to others, I'm not so sure they deserve it." We do seem to worship the concept of rich, ruthless, shrewd businesspeople who will trample over everybody (except you & me, obviously) to get what they want. That kind of wealth seems to buy MUCH more than its dollar value; our ethics, our honor, our compassion, and our sympathy are for sale because of this jealous outlook.

I feel this way too! And to me, some of Jordan Peterson's arguments seem just as intolerant. And the fact that he claims to be a liberal pointing out the absurdity of the liberal position on these specific minorities doesn't pass the stink test for me. I think JP is more like me, and is choosing when to apply his conservative/liberal stances rather than paint himself with a wider brush. And I think he's tricking "conservatives" who think the gender terms issue is silly into thinking a "liberal" is siding with them. I think JP is helping right wing thinkers marginalize a group they don't approve of, for whatever reason, and you can bet it will be taught that way in schools if they have anything to say about it.

I think it means, "Are you lazy? ---> Blame those less fortunate than you because it's easier than actually addressing the problem..."

Actually, I'm hoping you can identify a specific part of this overall discussion that you'd like to focus on, and then I can split your post (and any replies) off to its own thread where we can have a better signal to noise ratio. Some of the issues have overlap, but talking about them all at once hasn't been very productive for anyone.

If this were true, I don't think the wealthy would have as many problems paying their taxes. What they forget is that paying their fair share of their success within the system allows those who aren't as successful to prosper and bring their gifts and skills to the economy, which often don't revolve around making a profit or accumulating wealth. When the wealthy get it in their heads that they shouldn't be subsidizing those who don't have their skills, that's when the common folks start talking about revolution. This is a recurring cycle, but in modern times, the density of the wealth coupled with technology that spreads their spin on society to the masses probably makes them feel like they can finally force the middle and working classes to pay ALL the taxes from now on.

Very good point. I rather like walking on the sidewalks for a few dollars a year in taxes, as opposed to the monthly fee I'd be charged if they were privately owned. And don't forget, when a group wants to reduce taxation for social spending, they're usually also aiming to reduce funding for regulation as well. Our taxes pay to keep our goods and services free from contamination and bad practices. I would venture to say that these groups cost taxpayers several times what the OP's "lazy" citizens cost us. These "greedy" folks waste far more taxes, and don't contribute as much to the economy overall. And when they use their wealth to lobby for less taxes for themselves, they compound the problem for the rest of us.

True market capitalism requires those who are more successful within that system to subsidize those who are less successful within that system through taxation. Everyone is needed, but not all are good at accumulating wealth, so we need taxes for programs that fill the gaps in a system of private ownership. The wealthy don't need libraries and museums and swimming pools and parks because their homes have all these things and more, so taxes are required to build facilities the rest of us can share. I also think the depiction of social programs as free handouts for the lazy to be naive and small-minded, but to be fair, the right has been pushing this myth forever, or at least since Reagan and his Black Welfare Queen. FOX News famously pushes these myths and has since their beginning. More misinformation aimed at reducing much needed social spending, and a very sad perspective on modern life in large societies.

I used to feel the same way about threads where people focused mostly on ridicule and making the other person's arguments look silly rather than making their own look strong, but all we can ever do is voice our concerns and see if they're shared, and hopefully the reasoning gets the spotlight instead of the drama.

This makes it sound like reason and sound arguments can only be made by "regulars", or that "regulars" get special treatment that amplifies their voice, or that "regulars" with lesser arguments can gang up on a better argument to overwhelm it. Or is it something else? Because after all the dust settles from a fractious conversation here, I can still go back and re-read to tell the good arguments from the bad, and adjust my worldview accordingly. Perhaps the subject of a thread in Comments & Suggestions if you're concerned about it?

"I have no problems with you working in the cannabis industry, Sid, but why is there glitter and macaroni glued to your cover letter?"

! Moderator Note We seem to have multiple issues going on here. Gender terms, transphobia, legal ramifications, celebrity support, and misinformation are just a few. These are all discussion-worthy by themselves, but when we talk about them all simultaneously, we end up going around in circles, trying to apply each argument to many issues. Staff has been wanting to split these topics into separate discussions, hoping for some focus, but it hasn't been easy to figure what needs its own topic. We're on page 25 of this thread, and it feels like 5 pages have just been repeated 5 times. Weirdly, just like politics and voters in general, most folks are displaying a lack of long-term memory and just keep rehashing the same points and ignoring what others have replied to them. We'd like to float the idea of talking about Jordan Peterson's ideas on gender terms vs the law, and also talk about Dave Chappelle and his issues with transgenders, and also about misinformation on mental health issues, and also about perspectives on the arguments applied to sensitive issues in this age of extremist views, but NOT ALL AT ONCE. We're going to leave this open for suggestions on how to proceed, but please don't add to the chaos here. Would you like to discuss these issues separately, or should we close this and go fume in our respective corners?

! Moderator Note Oh, we're not doing another six pages of this! Either you have enough to help you overcome this stumbling block and you just need to go back and reread the thread, or you're purposely misunderstanding the replies you've been given (either because you don't know enough to understand them, or you're trolling to waste the time of people who've studied this). In any case, this thread needs closing so bad!

It's probably only a "ding" rather than a full red flag. Perhaps you aren't going to get the job if they have other similarly qualified candidates who don't have cannabis experience, but I doubt it's going to automatically make them roundfile your resume.

The paper seems to suggest this may be more common in birds than previously thought. I get the genetic stability benefits, and it's always advantageous to lay more eggs, but doesn't this create a lack of genetic diversity if it happens more often?

! Moderator Note We've been doing this for a while, and know it's detrimental to the learning process to have more than one thread on the same subject. Learning through discussion is our focus, not on catering to individual wishes. We work for the owners, not you. I recommend you start your own site and develop the rules you and your membership want. Thread closed for lack of engagement.

I remember the debates staff had here regarding whether to allow creationist discussions, since the tactics used were more or less the same: misrepresent, misinform, keep repeating previously refuted statements, and make claims supported by nothing but personal incredulity or fallacious reasoning. This subject seems to elicit the same types of arguments designed to wear away at critical thinking.

Probably something I'm not talking about. Yeah, I'm going to go with that.

You shouldn't, because even though she's not a scientist, she embodies the idea of not being capable of dealing with a natural world event without filtering it through her religious beliefs first, possibly to the detriment of others. Have you met my country, the USofA? We have many of these, many of them in leadership positions.

This is how I define the word. It's ALL indoctrination when you're teaching a certain methodology or curriculum or coursework that benefits from everyone being on the same page. Intent is the key, whether you're trying to get all the welders to follow best practices when building a bridge, or trying to weed out independent thought from the folks you want to control so you can use them to take over the world.

On the contrary, I think "lack of belief" is an excellent claim, and is basically the null hypothesis between "I believe god(s) exist" and "I don't believe god(s) exist. I can assume that a lack of belief is appropriate until evidence shows otherwise.

For me, it most closely aligns with my stance on the matter. In science, it's better to say "We don't know" rather than conclude something there's no evidence for. Since science deals with the natural world, and the concept of deities is a supernatural one, I think the scientific stance is to withhold any judgement until there's some evidence to analyze. Science doesn't have the tools to measure god(s) until they agree to become observable, predictable, and consistent.