CharonY

So here is an interesting spin on the persecution of gun owners. Apparently law enforcement (including the FBI) have a racially divided approach. Historically, this is a known phenomenon. Folks were suddenly for gun control when Black Panther activists decided to make use of their 2nd Amendment rights. More recently law enforcement still seems to hold that view: Now, this is not just a note without consequences: Articles 1, 2 and 3. Strangely, the voices shouting for freedom of expression and the 2nd Amendment keep quiet for certain folks.

That is not the only issue, though it is part of source evaluation. The bigger one, I think, is that with social media we get more access to all the weird stuff individuals may (or may not) believe. As such it is possible to find at least one person to say the darndest things. While that is utterly inconsequential as such the sheer emotional impact of such sillyness elevates them above information of actual relevance. It is like celebrity worship on steroids, where inconsequential things are elevated. And then some folks take it seriously and spread it even further. It is utter distraction and we see that they are eventually weaponized by folks with an agenda. It creates an alternate reality where internet memes are treated as real or of relevance. Note that this is not something new, celebrity cults have been around for some time and they have slowly eroding the power of real reporting. Yet, the scope and weaponization seems to have kicked up a notch. It leads to a lot of problems, including utter disruption of public discourse, as we now cannot even agree on the same facts. In addition it also dilutes the conversation when folks who are or could be in position power say stupid things.

Today I learned that there are folks out there who spread random stuff without any level of source analysis. Also, apparently random youtube videos are a source of learning now (which goes back to point one).

Just to make sure, it was not supposed to be a criticism, When one starts off learning something completely new, everything may seem new and weird. But usually it takes some deeper knowledge to figure out what differences are relevant and which are superficial. My comment on immersion was aimed at a priori assumptions about interpretation of cultural norms without actually understanding them. There are concepts that I feel are overrated or misunderstood (the concept of "face" for example). It does not mean that it is wrong to be sensitive (especially at the beginning). Rather, what I meant is that one should not come with strong preconceptions and use those instead of what the interaction with the folks actually tells you ("no I am pretty sure that you are offended by this, I read it in a book"), if that makes sense. As a silly example, I remember from my time in Poland ,that it was impressed upon us that stirring ones teacup loudly was offensive and we have to take great care not to do that (without further explanation). Only to find out that no one really cared about it unless you are kind of obnoxiously playing around with it. Edit: the context of the interactions are also relevant of course. Meeting someone's parents-in-law in a different country would require a different approach than interacting with co-workers or student, for example...

I would always be careful with those stereotypes, even if they are positive. These assumptions often lead to some kind of unconscious assumptions, which may not be harmful, but generally are not useful, either. Specifically one could easily argue that the Eastern area covers a wide range of diverse cultures and from that alone one can deduce that the viewpoints are likely to be vastly different. In addition, while certain philosophical viewpoints may be more dominant, their effect on the individual are going to be coloured by individual experiences. As an example, in the West it is undeniable that Christian teachings have a massive effect on Western history, philosophy and culture. But how it manifests is very diverse, ranging from literal adherence to a vague recognition. It is a lesson that I learned from teaching students from very different backgrounds, trying to be sensitive to cultures does not work well usually, since unless one is immersed in it, much will be based on these types of stereotypes. From self-observation I realized that I thereby assume the students from other backgrounds to be, well, different which did not help the teaching process at all. While one can be cognizant of differences, commonly agreeing to some ground rules based on individual preferences rather than assumed cultural ones were far more helpful in establishing a good mentor relationship. This is not to say that there are no differences, especially when one starts to discusses worldviews (or philosophy). But on most specific, narrow topics or events (as the description of a park for example) the context will be more relevant than the cultural background.

I am not sure. If existing it is at best a highly subtle difference and probably more on a linguistic than a perspective level. If you talk to Asians or Europeans regarding their observations there is generally no difference in their recounting if they explain their observation and their position in it, at least if both speak e.g. English. However, if you are talking about general philosophy, then yes, there is a difference in perspective with regard to nature. That, however, does not necessarily translate down to individual behaviour.

It is getting off-topic, so I will quickly answer to that question based on my understanding and leave it that. From what I read the convention is to have an open contest (i.e. primary) and only after the candidate is chosen do they exert control over the DNC. Yet, in Clinton's case she secured significant influence even before. Since I am not familiar with the rules the respective parties made up, it may been an actual violation. Yet, quite a few democrats saw it at least as a breach of the spirit of the process.

And perhaps the tiny issue that it would be foreign interference with elections and involve actually breaking laws rather than internal rules of an organization. Also there is this:

Yet another article. Mostly a rehash of other points, but a decent read.

Interestingly I have only ever heard two variations, one with a harder tso (in Germany) and a softer so in the US. Maybe it is area or field dependent?

That should not be the argument. Rather, one should apply means to reduce overall gun-related incidences rather than focusing on specific measures addressing i.e. mass or gun shootings (which both are relatively low incidence in relation to overall gun deaths). Because the latter leads to rather silly suggestions such as "hardening" schools (and presumably other areas such as cinemas and concerts) by adding more guns to the mix.

It is annoying that they use different scales, though. The overall studies are not strongly conclusive regarding the effect of the buyback program, it seems.

I also believe that in Canada there are stricter rules for storing and securing firearms and generally do not allow carrying guns outside of occupational reasons. This counters the mindset of using guns for split-second self-defense.

Yes, they can. The issues is that many studies rely on accurate statistics collected by agencies such as CDC to document gun deaths, for example. Without those you 'll have to try to estimate these numbers from other public sources (say, police reports) which can be difficult and less accurate.

I mentioned that earlier, there are restrictions on research in place, including preventing CDC to collect relevant information. And the lack of these data is hampering research aside from the lack of actual funding.

I have mentioned earlier that gun-related deaths and injury are an underreseached subject. The RAND corporaton (and independent think tank) has made a similar point. However, they also have collected a summary of existing studies to synthesize at least some of the findings, incomplete as they may be (link here). The strongest evidence seem to indicate that child-access prevention laws might decrease suicide as well as unintentional injuries and deaths. Background check may have a moderate impact in decreasing suicide and violent crime. Likewise, there is moderate evidence that stand-your-ground laws may increase violent crime. For other outcomes the evidence was inconclusive.

I think only part of it does. But at the same time they overlook that the idea of having militias is also connected to the fact that many of the founding fathers were suspicious of a standing army. Madison famously said : I am no constitutional scholar, but I kind of doubt that the 2nd amendment was created with also having the largest military power in mind. Rather, militias could have risen in response and/or to prevent the creation of a large military force that could be used to suppress the populace. But that ship has clearly sailed (or taken out by a laser guided missile).

So if I understand it correctly the issue is that known extraction methods would also release bound isocyanates?

Isocyanates are associated with asthma in sensitive persons. IIRC this: was generally assumed to be true, but recently more sensitive methods were used and isocyanates were detected in a wide range of cured products. However, and quite commonly in these studies, it is not quite clear whether the detectable amounts pose health hazards. As MigL mentioned, once symptoms show up (which can be skin sensitization or asthma-like symptoms) it is better to replace them. Likewise, hypersensitive individuals may be better off not having those products around.

IIRC dogs have dichromatic perception, which allows them to see more than black and white (but fewer colours than we do).

There have been many threads in which gender differences in the brain have been discussed. The real question is how big are these differences and do they justify societal differences. Most research is not conclusive in that regard. Most of the societal aspects you mention later in your post (but did not outline earlier) seem to be the result of gender roles characteristic of a patriarchic gender roles (you have only focused on a few aspects, though there are others with different ramifications). However, your anecdotes at your school specifically may be about something else entirely. As a whole I do find the posts somewhat incoherent, though.

I hoped for genuine curiosity. But judging from the outline I should have known better. The quote is from one of the early feminists, Caroline Bird. But obviously one cannot argue with a random youtube video (like, literally).

Yes and context matter if one wants to ask how to deal with it. That is not what subspecies are. How do you define sexism? Note that there is a difference between sexism and misogyny or misandry. As such, sexism exists on a spectrum. A good quote that I heard is "Sexism is judging people by their sex when sex doesn't matter".

Take a look at the atomic force microscope, which is a further development of that principle. One of my favorite toys.

Actually I would be careful with generalizations in that regard. There are studies that indicate that sexual selection often favours dissmilarities in major histocompatibility complex genes. I.e. people prefer people who are genetically dissimilar (and hence likely to look different). The reason being that a larger variety in these genes offers selective advantages to combat pathogens. A difficulty here is the large numbers of covariates and the complexity of outcomes (such as stability of relationships). For example, having a similar background can lead to more stable relationships as one shares a similar language and beliefs.Also, people with same background may also be more genetically similar. If one only considers genetics, one may assume that the basic is genetic, whereas it just coincides with the actual determining factor.