Physical Revue says "Whiteboards are Racist"

[CharonY]

Though in is case folks had to misinterpret a perhaps suboptimal study and create a fake title to make it extremely woke, no?

There are issues with case studies in general (medical case studies share some of them) but the title of the article illustrates how to make folks focus on the wrong thing. The refusal of the commentary is, if anything, an issue, though I would have liked to see the reviews.

[Phi for All]

8 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I think, though tongue in cheek, J.C in this instance makes a valid point. This is where we may find the "extreme" side of woke creating more issues than it solves. 

Can you give me some examples of "the 'extreme' side of woke" that aren't overreactions or misinterpretations or pure whataboutism? Because this is a pretty straightforward fascist tactic, trying to argue obliquely that examples of extremism invalidate any attempts to solve problems like this reasonably. And "creating more problems than it solves" also needs to be supported and clarified. Who is it creating more problems for? Whose problems are being solved at a lesser rate because there are extreme ends to the spectrum of solutions to discriminatory behavior?

10 hours ago, CharonY said:

These structures are often invisible and it is a bit what the paper (if clumsily) seems to want to address.

I.e. they claim that in their observational mini-cohort, due to the cultural background in which it happens, the different folks (Hispanic, White, Middle Eastern, men and women) behave differently within that structure. Again, the case study does not allow conclusion in itself, but it is something that they want to try to observe.

Lately I'm struck by the pervasiveness of the white European perspective in the US, and how much I've ignored it most of my life. I've been learning about Native American culture in general and in my area, and I'm astonished by the inaccuracies in what I was taught. I was told they were primitives who followed the buffalo, but the truth is they nurtured the land and created abundance without plows and European methods. The buffalo followed the natives, because the natives created seas of grasses for them to crop. They were far from primitive. Australia's natives did the same thing, and after almost ruining parts of Oz with European farming methods, indigenous farming is making a comeback.

I don't think I'm being extreme or over-sensitive when it comes to correcting some of the bad information I've received in my life. And thanks to those helping me work on it through discussion.

 

[StringJunky]

36 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Can you give me some examples of "the 'extreme' side of woke" that aren't overreactions or misinterpretations or pure whataboutism? Because this is a pretty straightforward fascist tactic, trying to argue obliquely that examples of extremism invalidate any attempts to solve problems like this reasonably. And "creating more problems than it solves" also needs to be supported and clarified. Who is it creating more problems for? Whose problems are being solved at a lesser rate because there are extreme ends to the spectrum of solutions to discriminatory behavior?

Lately I'm struck by the pervasiveness of the white European perspective in the US, and how much I've ignored it most of my life. I've been learning about Native American culture in general and in my area, and I'm astonished by the inaccuracies in what I was taught. I was told they were primitives who followed the buffalo, but the truth is they nurtured the land and created abundance without plows and European methods. The buffalo followed the natives, because the natives created seas of grasses for them to crop. They were far from primitive. Australia's natives did the same thing, and after almost ruining parts of Oz with European farming methods, indigenous farming is making a comeback.

I don't think I'm being extreme or over-sensitive when it comes to correcting some of the bad information I've received in my life. And thanks to those helping me work on it through discussion.

 

it seems, if they don't do things our Western way, they are primitive. Even Ursula Von Der Leyen complimented Israel and at the same time swiped at the Palestinians the other day.

Quote

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has come under attack from Palestine, after praising Israeli democracy in comments to mark the 75th anniversary of Israel’s foundation.

In a video message posted by the EU embassy in Israel, von der Leyen paid tribute to Israel as “a vibrant democracy in the heart of the Middle East.”

“You have literally made the desert bloom,” she added — a comment that was denounced by the Palestinian foreign ministry.

Is Nomadic not a legitimate way to live?

[MigL]

4 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Australia's natives did the same thing, and after almost ruining parts of Oz with European farming methods, indigenous farming is making a comeback.

Except for the fact that 'European' style farming allows the World to feed its 8 Billion people.
Indigenous farmng may work for small populations, or where the population is small compared to available land resources, but it is not capable of sustaining today's world population.

Although I'd like to see you keep a buffalo or two in your back yard 😄 .
( they make great mozzarella cheese )

[TheVat]

23 minutes ago, MigL said:

Except for the fact that 'European' style farming allows the World to feed its 8 Billion people.
Indigenous farmng may work for small populations, or where the population is small compared to available land resources, but it is not capable of sustaining today's world population.

As someone familiar with farming methods I would note that some current trends like no-till, controlled burns, "green manure," regionally-adapted strains, heritage varieties, drip irrigation, etc, all hearken back to ancient indigenous peoples and their cropping methods.  European style farming has often been a disaster in drier regions (I have a parent who lived much of childhood through such a disaster), and will not sustain those 8-plus billion without incorporating some "primitive" indigenous methods.  

[Phi for All]

4 hours ago, MigL said:

Except for the fact that 'European' style farming allows the World to feed its 8 Billion people.
Indigenous farmng may work for small populations, or where the population is small compared to available land resources, but it is not capable of sustaining today's world population.

I don't agree. In its present state indigenous farming can't feed the whole world, but can you state with authority that it can't "grow" to sustain today's world population? In fact, with global warming and water scarcity threatening the monocrop European fields that need to be rotated and pesticided and whatnot in order to produce big, bland vegetables, indigenous farming could hold the key to keeping us fed.

https://www.iied.org/indigenous-peoples-food-systems-hold-key-feeding-humanity

Quote

 

Modern food and farming systems are fundamentally unsustainable. They contribute around a third of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions and are responsible for almost 60% of global biodiversity loss. They are degrading the natural resources – water, soils, genetic resources – needed to sustain agricultural production.

Modern food systems (PDF) are also highly inequitable, with power and wealth concentrated in the hands of a few corporations.

Despite increased yields, food insecurity has been rising in recent years – more than 820 million people are hungry and 2 billion people are food insecure, underscoring the immense challenge of achieving the second Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) of zero hunger by 2030.

White male Europeans set up the present system to make it easier to harvest, where most indigenous farming is aimed at producing superior products. MigL, they've used indigenous farming in Italy to raise the feed for the special cows they milk to get the aged Parmigiano Reggiano that gets the Protected Designation of Origin stamp on every round. It's a centuries old process, and the cheese is flat-out amazing.

[iNow]

7 hours ago, MigL said:

Although I'd like to see you keep a buffalo or two in your back yard 😄 .
( they make great mozzarella cheese )

I wonder who taught them how.

Also, do avoid the stuff made from inputs any bulls provided.

[Intoscience]

On 5/23/2023 at 4:11 PM, Phi for All said:

Can you give me some examples of "the 'extreme' side of woke" that aren't overreactions or misinterpretations or pure whataboutism? Because this is a pretty straightforward fascist tactic, trying to argue obliquely that examples of extremism invalidate any attempts to solve problems like this reasonably. And "creating more problems than it solves" also needs to be supported and clarified. Who is it creating more problems for? Whose problems are being solved at a lesser rate because there are extreme ends to the spectrum of solutions to discriminatory behavior?

Transgender, especially in women's athletics, as one example though. There is another thread on that topic already heavily debated. 

Anything taken to extremes, either way, is going to present issues, no matter what subject we discuss. Would you not agree that in general solving issues tends to come from the middle grounds, where things can be more easily balanced? 

[StringJunky]

2 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Anything taken to extremes, either way, is going to present issues, no matter what subject we discuss. Would you not agree that in general solving issues tends to come from the middle grounds, where things can be more easily balanced? 

We seek a controllable equilibrium in our individual  life activities , but everbody else in our sphere has other ideas.

Edited May 25, 2023 by StringJunky

[TheVat]

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Would you not agree that in general solving issues tends to come from the middle grounds, where things can be more easily balanced? 

 

Most extreme ideologies require maintenance of a narrative that distorts some aspects of reality and ignores others.  Often to negate some valid observation their perceived opponents may have.  Or to take credit for economic trends that were in fact driven by forces outside of partisan lever-pulling.  Or to exaggerate a social problem in order to make it seem like only their draconian fix will work.  Meanwhile, centrists quietly work to get something done.

OTOH, miners not working themselves to death in dangerous conditions for long hours while getting poverty wages  used to be considered a radical and extreme idea that required brutal represssion.  Thanks to that "extremist" movement, we have sane labor laws now and unions that protect workers.  So sometimes what the PTB frame as extreme is actually rational and necessary social policy.

(Parmesan rules.  The aging process, done properly, breaks down the lactose well enough that it's been about the only cheese I can indulge in for the past decade. ) 

[zapatos]

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Transgender, especially in women's athletics, as one example though.

Unfortunately we cannot even agree on what is 'extreme'.

I remember the teacher who got in trouble for using the word 'niggardly', which I found to be extreme.

However I don't feel that trying to find a place in sports for a subset of my fellow humans any more extreme than trying to accommodate those who are confined to wheelchairs.

Trying to find the middle ground is tough when I feel I'm already in the middle and you feel I am at the extreme.

[Phi for All]

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Transgender, especially in women's athletics, as one example though. There is another thread on that topic already heavily debated. 

We have an extremely small subset of humans who feel non-typical enough about their gender at birth to change it, and go through all that entails (definitely not a "whim" event). Once they've done it, they just want some acceptance, but instead their lives are threatened regularly, and they're blocked from participating in many aspects of life, and one aspect they particularly enjoy. My morals won't let me come down on the side that wants to persecute these humans for the temerity of wanting to sport. I'm not a sports fan any more, but, to me, this fuss about transgenders really makes sports fans seem weak and fearful and hateful. It just reinforces the big bully jock stereotype for me.

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Would you not agree that in general solving issues tends to come from the middle grounds, where things can be more easily balanced? 

Systemic problems often seem to get solved by overcorrection and radical action. We've been off course for quite a while, so just steering a bit left isn't going to work. We may need to go hard a-port for a ways to get where we want to go. That's if y'all want to go to the same place, where our equal rights are guaranteed and actually in writing, and humans are respected more for themselves than how well they fit our expectations.

[CharonY]

I will also say that it is hard to find a middle ground if one starts from a muddle foundation. Look at this thread. The paper that started it off, argued, perhaps poorly that systemic issues including (but not exclusively) racism manifests itself in ways that are invisible if part of a system.

That is not even controversial and what critical race theory posits: normalization of thing that can lead to unequal race (or other trait)-based outcomes are perpetuating racial injustice, but they may not be perceived as such, as whatever it is considered the norm. The case study (or all case studies, for the most part) are weak in conclusion and are more a collection of observations that are more or less useful.

The two main aspects one might have discussed is how useful that line of thinking is or isn't for educational purposes (as opposed to a social science study that wants to actually elucidate and/or quantify such effects) as well as whether the editorial board handled things well (which is more a procedural discussion).

Instead, it is interpreted as that the authors are randomly calling things, including whiteboards racist (they don't they spend a lot of time in the intro outlining what systemic racism is) and then we spend rest of the time talking about overreach. I don't think these things are necessarily productive as we really just lament how we perceive the world to be but do not anchor them to actually facts or data. It is not that perceptions are not valid, but the issue is that we tend to treat them the same. Everyone sees themselves as centred and reasonable, but there is often not a real way to calibrate that.

[J.C.MacSwell]

14 hours ago, zapatos said:

Unfortunately we cannot even agree on what is 'extreme'.

I remember the teacher who got in trouble for using the word 'niggardly', which I found to be extreme.

However I don't feel that trying to find a place in sports for a subset of my fellow humans any more extreme than trying to accommodate those who are confined to wheelchairs.

Trying to find the middle ground is tough when I feel I'm already in the middle and you feel I am at the extreme.

Frankly, unless you are advocating for a system to allow those in wheelchairs to compete with a "fair and reasonable" chance of winning against elite athletes at the highest level in any sport of their choice, including allowing and encouraging drug use whether healthy or not, you are falling short of the extreme advocates for transgenders.

10 hours ago, Phi for All said:

We have an extremely small subset of humans who feel non-typical enough about their gender at birth to change it, and go through all that entails (definitely not a "whim" event). Once they've done it, they just want some acceptance, but instead their lives are threatened regularly, and they're blocked from participating in many aspects of life, and one aspect they particularly enjoy. My morals won't let me come down on the side that wants to persecute these humans for the temerity of wanting to sport. I'm not a sports fan any more, but, to me, this fuss about transgenders really makes sports fans seem weak and fearful and hateful. It just reinforces the big bully jock stereotype for me.

Systemic problems often seem to get solved by overcorrection and radical action. We've been off course for quite a while, so just steering a bit left isn't going to work. We may need to go hard a-port for a ways to get where we want to go. That's if y'all want to go to the same place, where our equal rights are guaranteed and actually in writing, and humans are respected more for themselves than how well they fit our expectations.

So you pick a side, and you overcorrect. 

Sports fans include most all of transgender athletes. Do you look down on them as well, or just those on the side of the argument you didn't pick?

The extremely small subset of humans may not be as small as you think. Without restrictions the female (born male) versions would dominate most female sports. Many XX chromosome individuals have the temerity of wanting to sport at elite levels as well. They need a separate division to do so, unless you exclude or place unhealthy restrictions on XY individuals that want to compete directly with them. 

 

 

 

Edited May 26, 2023 by J.C.MacSwell

[Intoscience]

15 hours ago, zapatos said:

However I don't feel that trying to find a place in sports for a subset of my fellow humans any more extreme than trying to accommodate those who are confined to wheelchairs

 

11 hours ago, Phi for All said:

small subset of humans

This is where things get muddled

Rather than attempting to find a fair solution, by fair I'm referring to a solution which accommodates all, allowing an equal opportunity. Some subsets get shoe horned into categories which then in turn discriminates against others within that category. This is why the Para athletic events works, people at a physical disadvantage are pitted against each other rather than against people who do not share the same disadvantages. 

But the attitude is shoe horn the small subset into a category that they are then going on to dominate and everyone else (the vast majority) should suck it up. This is damaging to all parties involved, all it does is promote further un-acceptance and separative attitudes, rather than encourage equality and acceptance. 

I for one would much rather see subset categories to allow people of similar calibre to compete against each other than watch one group dominate all. 

The attitude that its about the taking part that counts not the winning, well that's a cop out. What is the point of "competition" if there is no goal to aim for? Competition is healthy, in most it promotes progress. We as humans have the advantage that we have the intelligence to subset competition to make it an equal playing field so all can participate, all have the chance of being winners.   

11 hours ago, Phi for All said:

My morals won't let me come down on the side that wants to persecute these humans for the temerity of wanting to sport.

But don't you see that the persecution is encouraged more so from allowing the "small subset" a clear advantage over their fellow competitors? 

Don't you think that these people feel less valued when they are singled out for all the wrong reasons? 

I want to encourage people to be able to be who they want to be without the fear of persecution. 

Anyhow, this thread is going off track now, so I'll leave it at that. 

Edited May 26, 2023 by Intoscience
spelling

[zapatos]

8 hours ago, Intoscience said:

But the attitude is shoe horn the small subset into a category that they are then going on to dominate and everyone else (the vast majority) should suck it up.

Sorry but I have to call BS on this one. Can you provide a citation that shows this is "the attitude"? In the olympics for example they have very specific rules to ensure that the small subset does NOT dominate. It feels as if the "extreme" position you accuse others of having only exists in YOUR mind, not in theirs.

8 hours ago, Intoscience said:

The attitude that its about the taking part that counts not the winning, well that's a cop out.

Taking part IS what counts in some situations, and is not 'the part that counts' in others. You cannot simply lump all sports together into one big pool. What IS a cop out is implying that at elite levels of sports that there is an 'attitude' that 'taking part' is what counts. Again, that is an attitude you are simply attributing to others.

And assuming you can find the occasional person with such an extreme position, as I said in my first post, this is much ado about nothing. ALL situations when there are differences of opinion will bring out some with an extreme position even though most do not have extreme positions, and those extremists can generally be dismissed. But with trans people in sports now (and previously inter racial marriage, gay marriage, women being allowed to vote), some opponents  attribute extreme positions to ALL those who want to see trans people in sports.

On a science site we should be able to discern between extremist views meant to get a reaction, and those aspects of a problem that are germane to reasonable debate.

I don't think you'd find it fair if I acted as if those who don't want trans in sports have "the attitude" that such trans people are getting their dicks cut off only because it will help them win a competition.

9 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Frankly, unless you are advocating for a system to allow those in wheelchairs to compete with a "fair and reasonable" chance of winning against elite athletes at the highest level in any sport of their choice, including allowing and encouraging drug use whether healthy or not, you are falling short of the extreme advocates for transgenders.

I'm advocation for humans who want to do anything.

People in wheelchairs did not used to eat at many restaurants or go to other public facilities because we made no attempt to accommodate their special situation. But even though some objected we looked for a solution to the problem and implemented it.

People with physical disabilities couldn't play sports, but even though some objected we looked for a solution and found one.

People with Down Syndrome could not attend schools but even though some objected we looked for a solution and found one.

People who are trans cannot complete at different levels of sports and while many are looking for solutions (e.g. Olympics), others have decided it is impossible and that there is no need to look for a solution.

I choose to be on the side of those looking for a solution and feel comfortable that one will eventually be found.

 

[zapatos]

On re-reading my post I feel as if I was a bit snarky in parts and too late to edit. Apologies.

[iNow]

9 hours ago, zapatos said:

Apologies

I’m tired of all this extremism trying to make things better and not be snarky while doing it. When will this madness end!?!

[J.C.MacSwell]

Noone has come up with a demonstrably fair and safe way to include trans females in the vast majority of elite female sport. (even in principle without insistence on and allowing harmful use of drugs to do so, arbitrary targets set for them and their doctors notwithstanding)

The would be true of trans males, if for some reason they weren't allowed in female sports. They can't compete at elite level against males, in the vast majority of male sports.

When it can be demonstrably done fairly and safely is the time to include them at elite level (unless they want to compete without a fair chance to win). To do otherwise is inviting a disaster for female sports, even if you think few trans athletes will take up the invitation. It wouldn't be, and wasn't, a healthy situation for anyone, trans athletes included.

Again note that wheelchair athletes have their own divisions. Their inclusion in sports is not analogous to trans females wanting inclusion in elite female sports.

Edited May 27, 2023 by J.C.MacSwell

[CharonY]

Note that paralympics and similar divisions are not as straightforward as wheelchair or not. Rather they do have measures to scale impairment and either form divisions or alter scoring systems based on them. Wheelchair basketball teams need to fulfill certain handicap requirements. Members are scored based on their mobility and the team must stay within a certain level. I.e. it is not binary and allows participation of folks with limited upper body movements.

Arguably something like that would be a way forward rather than outright exclusion.

As per the other discussion it would be beneficial to quantify advantages (rather than using assumptions and extrapolations) assess ways to categorize these advantages and figure out a way to incorporate those findings (e.g. scoring or otherwise). And, as also previously discussed, if we find decent measures, one can form divisions based on them without even needing to figure out if or when someone transitioned.

The worst way to deal with it is probably getting lawmakers involved.

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Note that paralympics and similar divisions are not as straightforward as wheelchair or not. Rather they do have measures to scale impairment and either form divisions or alter scoring systems base d on them Arguably something like that would be a way forward rather than outright exclusion.

As per the other discussion it would be beneficial to quantify advantages (rather than using assumptions and extrapolations) assess ways to categorize these advantages and figure out a way to incorporate those findings (e.g. scoring or otherwise). And, as also previously discussed, if we find decent measures, one can form divisions based on them without even needing to figure out if or when someone transitioned.

The worst way to deal with it is probably getting lawmakers involved.

 

Some (certainly not all) trans athletes would consider what I think you are suggesting to be outright exclusion.

But I would agree that it's a reasonable way forward.

(But would the US Women's Soccer Team share their gate receipt driven pay with them? They would be doing the same job...or better)

[CharonY]

4 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Some (certainly not all) trans athletes would consider what I think you are suggesting to be outright exclusion.

I don't think that this is true, if it is applied evenly. The issue many have is that they a) there are exclusionary criteria (not allowed to compete) that don't apply to cis peers or b) are excluded entirely. Rather than saying your are transgender, and you are only allowed in this space, you are basing it off certain performance criteria. Results could in theory be similar, but the process is also important.

[iNow]

4 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Noone has come up with a demonstrably fair and safe way to include trans females in the vast majority of elite female sport

Fair and safe are subjective.

In something like 17 other threads, one proposal was to eliminate gender criteria altogether and have merit based qualification thresholds for competitive divisions and call it done.

Plus, let us recall that this has nothing to do with racist whiteboards (tho the fear and panic about it does seem similar).

3 hours ago, CharonY said:

basing it off certain performance criteria

Yes, this. I guess we’re up to 18 threads now. 

[dimreepr]

On 5/26/2023 at 7:05 AM, Intoscience said:

This is where things get muddled

Well, it's certainly muddied the warters, to the point where it's difficult to tell them apart; so, let's try a post hoc system... 

[dimreepr]

But know this, if a certified woman beats a certified man, we have rules that clearly state, that that can't happen, sorry 🙏.