I think it's a matter of degree. Prior to WW1 (Or to say, around the turn of that century), the Jewish faithed presence was quite small. Roughly ~90% of the population was non-Jewish faithed. There was very little conflict prior to WW2, because prior to that, the immigrants purchased their land from the locals. As per the nature of humanity, the only conflict-free methods for transfer of property are : inheritance, trade/sale, or gift.

The League of Nations was inconsequential. As a result of WW1 Britain captured the territory of Palestine from its previous occupiers (Turks, by one title or another, dating back to the Roman empire), and by right of conquest could do as it pleases with it.

I refer to religious insularity, not genetic.
Yes, they are quite accepting of anyone with Jewish faith. Almost the entire Jewish faithed population in Israel, regarding this last century, is either immigrant, or born of said immigrants. The Jewish faithed population rose from around ~600k to ~7 million between 1947 and today. Even taking into account the rule of thumb 'population doubles every ~40 years', that would leave the population roughly 85% immigrant or children thereof.

Which in turn elucidates many of the issues at hand in modern times. Land prices are extreme, with more people than there is room for, so expanding for living room is a necessity. Hence colonial expansion into greater Palestine is inevitable. Further, the dramatic division in income equality puts a lot of social pressure on the government, which the government can further alleviate by expansion. A, because it can relocate those that can't afford to live in more expensive areas, and gives those people a place to busy themselves taking care of, and B, because the inevitable tensions that come from displacing the previous residents causes the government to serve as a protector from those unfortunates that were offended, which serves as a good distraction from other problems that the government isn't doing well to fix. Essentially, the same formula that nations have followed throughout history (Heck, Australia can thank its current existence for similar policies in Britain).

-scheherazade

Erm...

That's kinda not the point.

Is that fair? That actions have consequences? Sure it is... When you transgress, you generally don't get to pick your punishment.

Yeah, it obviously sucks for the guy, and this is probably just going to entrench his blind hatred, but it's the only language he'll understand. Social pressure wouldn't work on him, he has no regard for his fellow American's exercising their right to free speech, right? Or the right to be a black person and not be vilified for being black?

So I say "Suck it!" to Mr. Racist. He exercised his rights and now he's become acquainted with the concept of responsibility for ones actions. One would hope that he has the consistency to refuse welfare, but somehow I doubt it... =)

I think the tide of militant veganism is changing. Not that there are fewer of them, but I think vegans are more self-aware now (some proof being in a lot of vegan videos about vegans). Every time I hear people complain about mouthy vegans, I hear many chime in to say that they aren't that way. But then again, hipsters claim they're not hipsters so that may not be a good gauge.

I, personally, don't even mention I'm vegan unless it comes up directly -- and even then I don't continue the conversation unless prodded. I also hope I keep a relatively cool head about it.

As for the religious aspect of it, can you blame them? Just like being indoctrinated with religion from birth, you're indoctrinated from birth to eat meat. And you are constantly socially pressured for your whole life to eat meat. It becomes one of the many pieces that you use to build your sense of self with. And when it's threatened, well, people do what they do with religion, food, politics, etc. They go fucking batshit.

Also, when you first become vegan, you almost always go through a period of ~1 - 3 years feeling like Neo coming out the the matrix and the rage is hard to hide. "How could they do this?!?! They're killing them all!!!" It takes a while to let that cool off and think of more productive ways to spread your views, the best way, I find, is just living the lifestyle peacefully. I like teaching by example.

I'm not intending to split hairs at all. I think it's an important distinction when in one case the corporations are individual corporations working for their own financial gain, and in the other they are all state sponsored/owned and are all working for a singular state goal of controlling the internet speech and actions of it's citizens.

I don't disagree that the tools were created by the 'west', but the impact of what they are doing is exponentially greater, as it's being done by the government, not an individual company, with real life consequences, not levels of benefits in a rewards plan.

There's little chance of someone not getting a job because they haven't posted enough pro-government (or, for example, pro Apple) statements, posts, tweets, pictures, and links in the west...only if they've posted negative things that might hurt the company image. Here, however, if they aren't pro-china enough, they just won't have enough 'points', and probably will have serious consequences. I think that's where the outrage is coming from, not about the points program itself, but about the way they intend to use it. If your >700 points only got you 5% off at Alibaba, I would not see a big problem, since <700 will likely keep you from a good job, apartment, etc., there is a big problem.
Your examples do not seem to be on topic except for the exploitation of social pressure, which have been exceedingly few and minor in the west compared to this program, which is new in it's scope, design, designers, and intent. The west only wishes it was that good at manipulation.

I feel like you're splitting hairs to promote a "discussion"...

My point is not blame the corps rather than the Chinese gov. My point is, the confected outrage about this 'disturbing turn of events' in China are ignoring the fact the corporations long since did the same thing, albeit in a far more circumspect fashion, years ago in the west.

This is not a sudden turn of events. How often do you see corps getting laws put in place in the US that actively work against the taxpayers but shelter the corps? Invasive use of personal data? Exploitation of social pressure. The death of privacy?

My point is, China learned what it's doing, no matter who you point the finger at, from the west... We should only be surprised it took them so long...

How is this different to any other social pressure pushing bullshit in other countries (US, Aus, UK).

Vocal people apply pressure to change the status quo. Look at the treatment of integrated and peaceful Muslims around the world at the moment...

It's not the Chinese gov. you have to worry about, it's Facebook, Google etc... Where the fuck do people think this evil ass data mining and social pressure started? Monetising your preferences and forcing people to bow to social (peer) pressure or face shaming. Tencent and Ali Baba are the real motivators behind this and even if China went full capitalist tomorrow, those companies would continue to promote this system and it would still work in exactly the same way.

The real horror is that we look at China and think that they are getting the short end of the stick. We need to look at ourselves. We're not free, we're consumers. We accumulate stuff and we think that equates to having choice. China is just following the sterling example set by others...

I think that's wonderful.
Social pressure---that if you drink and drive, society shuns you, even as you are in the act at the pub---seems to be a powerful social tool

It's the way the world was meant to be. Not this follow-the-leader-which-is-just-the-fuck-in-front-of-you-just-as-dumb-as-you BS. Patterning ourselves after our collective misjudgements and perpetuated fear-ignorance via meme-behavior in the form of social pressure; I see your comment of "Fuck-it", I instantly relate to you and your superior "boss" attitude. Thus agreement is unofficially created, and a thread of social structure formed.

Fuck you. Fuck everything. And love it. Good for her, indeed. Grow a beard or don't. What's the difference? I married a woman for her boobs. Does it matter if that's an acceptable attraction for a man? I'm also attracted to her large clitoris. It's like a weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee penis.

For what it's worth ChaosEngine, KnivesOut's comments are pretty frustrating to read. One bad assumption after another, seeing things that are not there.

Anyhow, I also want to know if there are any good arguments for having an even male/female ratio in any profession. Is it possible that the best scientific community consists of an unequal distribution of the sexes? If so, wouldn't forcing an equilibrium be detrimental to scientific progress?

There's no question that social pressures and stereotypes are preventing great female minds from entering scientific professions. Professions should be gender neutral. Unfortunately, campaigns towards this end have no chance against what media teaches our youth every day.

I think we have to take certain things for granted because not everything can be proven empirically. There is no way to empirically prove that the Universe is actually real. To say that it is real you have to rely on your senses and reasoning. You can't say those are valid without using viciously circular logic. "My reasoning is valid because my reasoning says so" Without assuming certain things, apriori, the world would be unintelligable. Neither could you do science. To do science you have to assume the uniformity in the nature. How do you prove it? By assuming the future will be like the past. What is the evidence that the future will be like the past? The past. It's the same vicious circularity.

As far as Gods existence goes, I never assumed either way. I knew I didn't have enough information to say either way, so I was agnostic by default. I only changed my mind when I received evidence. I wasn't under any pressure to do so, nor was I even looking to do so.

So, while science has a pitiless indifference to how you feel in regards to what is true, it is not the sole arbitor of what is true. This idea that empiricism is the only way to determine truth cannot be proven empirically, ironically. It is an assumption that materialists make with no actual evidence. The argument seems to be that since we can build a space shuttle, empiricism must the way. Yet, that isn't a logical argument. Empiricism might be useful, but it isn't the only method of inquiry that is useful. Everything has its place, and empiricism has a hard limit to what it can prove.

Yes, there certainly is material out there. Does that we can see and test material means that material causes are the only possible solution? We can't see dark matter, dark energy, other universes, other dimensions, yet scientists have no trouble postulating about what we can't see. So why not postulate that the Universe has a non-material causation? Why not an intelligent causation? I would say the evidence is a lot more convincing for intelligent design than other Universes, yet science only considers one to be plausible. Don't you think that is irrational?

I'll ask you the same question I ask messenger..how would you tell the difference between a random chance Universe and one that God designed? What test could you conduct to find out which one you were in? When you can come up with a test to determine that, then you can tell me that there is no evidence. Logically, if there is a God, the entire Universe is evidence. Isn't it possible that you are staring at something divinely ordered but don't realize it?

>> ^gwiz665:

You make a good point. In our daily life we are certain about a lot of things, or rather we accept things for granted without any thoroughly investigated evidence. We assume that we exist, because that's needed for us to assume it. We assume we have free will, because it feels like we have free will.
I also live as if there is no God, because of the "path of least resistance" - it is easier to assume there is no god, than to assume there is, and since it has no difference to me, the easiest solution is fine. I think for many theists, it least resistance to assume that there is a god, and live as if he exists, be it because of social pressure, mindset or what have you - in any case, their path of least resistance is to assume he exists. If you think about all the shit an outed atheist go through in some states, I can't really blame them for that too much.
It is a different deal when you get into the science of it, because in science we deal with what is real and what is not. The good thing about science is that it doesn't care. It doesn't care about your feelings, it doesn't care that lots of people like a thing, it only exist to show the truth and to show nature for what it really is.
Materialism is absolute in that it's really there, like Feynman says so excellent in his video about the electro-magnetic spectrum. It may not have much of an effect in your everyday life how light moves in waves and how it's similar to how water makes waves, but that doesn't make it any less true. You can assume that they are unrelated if you want, and if that makes you sleep better at night, but it's just not how nature works.
If you take the issue of God under the microscope, you find that there's not much evidence backing it up when you really look. The social pressure is there, and the cultural ramifications are there, but there's no evidence backing up the actual existence. The hypothesis "it was all made up" has equal merit, because you can find just as many traces of this than you can of it actually being real.

You make a good point. In our daily life we are certain about a lot of things, or rather we accept things for granted without any thoroughly investigated evidence. We assume that we exist, because that's needed for us to assume it. We assume we have free will, because it feels like we have free will.

I also live as if there is no God, because of the "path of least resistance" - it is easier to assume there is no god, than to assume there is, and since it has no difference to me, the easiest solution is fine. I think for many theists, it least resistance to assume that there is a god, and live as if he exists, be it because of social pressure, mindset or what have you - in any case, their path of least resistance is to assume he exists. If you think about all the shit an outed atheist go through in some states, I can't really blame them for that too much.

It is a different deal when you get into the science of it, because in science we deal with what is real and what is not. The good thing about science is that it doesn't care. It doesn't care about your feelings, it doesn't care that lots of people like a thing, it only exist to show the truth and to show nature for what it really is.

Materialism is absolute in that it's really there, like Feynman says so excellent in his video about the electro-magnetic spectrum. It may not have much of an effect in your everyday life how light moves in waves and how it's similar to how water makes waves, but that doesn't make it any less true. You can assume that they are unrelated if you want, and if that makes you sleep better at night, but it's just not how nature works.

If you take the issue of God under the microscope, you find that there's not much evidence backing it up when you really look. The social pressure is there, and the cultural ramifications are there, but there's no evidence backing up the actual existence. The hypothesis "it was all made up" has equal merit, because you can find just as many traces of this than you can of it actually being real.

>> ^shinyblurry:

It's better to know the answer than remain ignorant of it. To say you prefer uncertainty is to say you enjoy the freedom of imagining that the answer is something else, because you don't like it. We aren't uncertain about everything. We have to be certain of some things, like the fact that we exist. Do we say that those who believe they exist embrace this answer because they are afraid of not existing? Clearly, certainty is useful.
If you want say that theists embrace God because they don't want to die, you could also say that atheists reject God because they don't want Him to exist. Take these scientists, for example:
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the unitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door.
Richard Lewontin, Harvard
New York Review of Books 1/9/97
No evidence would be sufficient to create a change in mind; that it is not a commitment to evidence, but a commitment to naturalism. ...Because there are no alternatives, we would almost have to accept natural selection as the explanation of life on this planet even if there were no evidence for it.
Steven Pinker MIT
How the mind works p.182
To say God couldn't touch this world because the Universe is so big is a false argument. The Universe may be huge to us, but to God it is very small. If God is omnipresent, He is everywhere at the same time. Size and distance mean nothing in that equation.
To say God created the Universe is not the end of inquiry, it is the beginning of true inquiry and true science. How could you understand the creation without understanding the Creator?

I'm not denying the existence of misogyny, but I do wonder why, if men are paid more then women, anyone would hire a man? Why not hire a woman in a man's place, pay them 80 cents on the dollar, and make a killing?

I don't understand what you mean by accusing someone of misandry as a form of misogyny. You'll have to explain that to me.

Personally, I found Warren Farrell's book, Why Men Earn More to be fairly illuminating with regards to these issues.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Trancecoach:
Not all of the studies and census statistics are as clear cut as Rachel makes it seem in this clip. For one thing, statistically speaking, more men's "value" or "worth" is based on their income, and are therefore willing (or are socially coerced) to work in particular kinds of jobs that women are not (such as physically riskier jobs, longer commutes, more frequent travel, longer hours, for example), for a greater number hours per week and/or days per week, and/or more years over the course of their lives than women. By contrast, women's worth or value is based less on their income and are therefore more willing (or socially allowed) to work in jobs that have a greater range of flexibility in terms of experience, time, and physical impact.
I'm not seeing any data. In any case, we're talking about different pay for equal work. We're not talking about average male salary vs. average female salary in aggregate, we're talking about men and women with the same position, same education,working the same hours, producing equivalent work, under the same working conditions...and they're being paid less.
>> ^Trancecoach:

The question we should be asking is what is lost by the income disparity? If the society is complicit in a gender bias as evidenced by an income disparity, it is just as complicit in the social pressures that are imposed on what is valued on the basis of gender and why.
The confrontation with misandry is a third rail, politically speaking, but, the myth of male power only serves to further propagate both the misogyny and the misandry that are both rampant throughout the society.
A fair point, but we're not talking about the "myth of male power", we're saying "misogyny exists, and we have data that proves it, but Republicans say it's a fairytale."
From where I sit, the a big part of misogyny is the rank dismissal of all claims that misogyny is real, or failing that, that misogyny is bad. To accuse someone, even lightheartedly, of engaging in misandry by presenting hard data saying "misogyny exists, and is widespread", is itself misogyny.
Just like the whole bit where Republicans accuse people of being racist against white people for pointing out that white people discriminate against black people, and that by talking about it we're just perpetuating the problem we're trying to solve...

>> ^Trancecoach:

Not all of the studies and census statistics are as clear cut as Rachel makes it seem in this clip. For one thing, statistically speaking, more men's "value" or "worth" is based on their income, and are therefore willing (or are socially coerced) to work in particular kinds of jobs that women are not (such as physically riskier jobs, longer commutes, more frequent travel, longer hours, for example), for a greater number hours per week and/or days per week, and/or more years over the course of their lives than women. By contrast, women's worth or value is based less on their income and are therefore more willing (or socially allowed) to work in jobs that have a greater range of flexibility in terms of experience, time, and physical impact.

I'm not seeing any data. In any case, we're talking about different pay for equal work. We're not talking about average male salary vs. average female salary in aggregate, we're talking about men and women with the same position, same education,working the same hours, producing equivalent work, under the same working conditions...and they're being paid less.

>> ^Trancecoach:


The question we should be asking is what is lost by the income disparity? If the society is complicit in a gender bias as evidenced by an income disparity, it is just as complicit in the social pressures that are imposed on what is valued on the basis of gender and why.
The confrontation with misandry is a third rail, politically speaking, but, the myth of male power only serves to further propagate both the misogyny and the misandry that are both rampant throughout the society.

A fair point, but we're not talking about the "myth of male power", we're saying "misogyny exists, and we have data that proves it, but Republicans say it's a fairytale."

From where I sit, the a big part of misogyny is the rank dismissal of all claims that misogyny is real, or failing that, that misogyny is bad. To accuse someone, even lightheartedly, of engaging in misandry by presenting hard data saying "misogyny exists, and is widespread", is itself misogyny.

Just like the whole bit where Republicans accuse people of being racist against white people for pointing out that white people discriminate against black people, and that by talking about it we're just perpetuating the problem we're trying to solve...

Not all of the studies and census statistics are as clear cut as Rachel makes it seem in this clip. For one thing, statistically speaking, more men are willing (or are socially coerced) to work in particular kinds of jobs that women are not (such as physically riskier jobs, longer commutes, more frequent travel, longer hours, for example) than are women. This is likely due to the the implicit societal norms which consider men's "value" or "worth" as being based on their income. By contrast, women's worth or value is based less on their income and they are therefore more willing (or socially allowed) to work in jobs that have a greater range of flexibility in terms of experience, time, and physical impact.

The question we should be asking is what is lost by the income disparity? If the society is complicit in a gender bias as evidenced by an income disparity, it is just as complicit in the social pressures that are imposed on what is valued on the basis of gender and why.

The confrontation with misandry is a third rail, politically speaking, but, the myth of male power only serves to further propagate both the misogyny and the misandry that are both rampant throughout the society.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Trancecoach:
Men also have more expenses, more liability in divorces, more financial responsibilities, less free time, and more time away from home.

Kinda weird to see you taking up the contrary side of the argument. Having "expenses" and "financial responsibilities" are functions of lifestyle choices, not something intrinsic to your gender. Likewise, having less free time or more time traveling are functions of your job, not your gender. Having more liability in divorces is a result of the man having the higher income, not because men are being discriminated against as a group.
In any case, none of that justifies paying a women less than a man for an equivalent quantity & quality of work, which studies show is what's happening.

@renatojj

Church has high interested in religious candidates being elected. Most of the debates going on in politics are based on religious philosophy. Few off the top of my head are abortion, creationism, and women's rights. They've been going against the grain of the Constitution trying to get creationism which is a arguably religion based subject taught in schools. Which in turn possibly gets them more followers, which in turn gets them more tithing and more people in their "group" giving them more power. In fact I would argue they are specifically trying to erode the line between church and state with these arguments, injecting religion based reasons into many of the arguments.

Big media networks push for things like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996 where the reason for the bill is not actually what ends up happening. It was supposed to deregulate and open up the market for competition and instead it allowed them to reconsolidate by buying up competitors. And they largely don't fight with censorship on curse words because generally it drives off their audience, and those networks that don't have to censor curse words charge for the privilege of hearing them and seeing some nudity to boot. And they also support SOPA-like bills which are essential a blanket tool to censor the web....they also support monitoring and traffic shaping on the networks they control...which is another potential avenue for censorship.

You'll have to be more specific on what you're getting at......all these groups are eroding divisions we built through regulation and have been doing so steadily since the 80s at every opportunity across industries.

I've already shown that given the chance, they buy up competition to remain a monopoly. Look at ISPs, look at all the oil companies we USED to have. Look at the media conglomerates that own the majority of your radio stations ( I think there's two major radio networks, but they have like a million different stations under the same banners so it LOOKS like choice). How the record labels and movie industries are all tied together and often even tied into the same parent company that owns your ISP. Cell phone industry, ATT trying to buy T Mobile which would have brought it down to 3 major providers and they did it in the name of "better service" but still haven't announced plans to build out their infrastructure since the deal went through...why? Because it wasn't about better service, it was about buying up a competitor that offered plans at prices people preferred.

When people are unhappy with their ISPs they've tried to form local government run coop non-profit ISPs, and they get sued by the huge companies who refuse to service their area. It's happened multiple times. With regulation, they would have to provide internet to those places in a timely manner instead of preventing people from doing their own thing.

Did GoDaddy pay dearly for supporting SOPA? I heard they lost 30k subscribers at some point, but did they really? You'll have to show me on that. GoDaddy did lots of terrible things before it, yet they were still a huge provider and still are. They cybersquat on domain names people search for and allow you to buy them at "auction" from them when you try to look up if it's taken or not..they snatch it up to sell to you. They also give away people's domain names with no repercussions and a myriad of other things. Sounds like it needs a regulatory body with some teeth on it to make them act right or shut them down.

Unions are actually a really good way to fight monopolies and under the table deals, but they've been systematically villified. And unions aren't monopolies if they aren't mandatory, and most places are not fully unionized anymore. Often times they will have sections with union employees to do government work and non-union to do non-government work. Non-union guys make half the rate of union guys usually, and have less protections in place to keep themselves from getting shafted. But I don't really see how a union is a monopoly when there are lots of unions and lots of individuals in a union who make decisions for themselves and not as a collective like a company would. IE a company has a "head" that directs it and unions are a collective of individuals. Companies are people after all, unions are not (they are made up of people).

There are laws governing behavior usually based roughly on societal standards. Like pot being illegal is kind of against most of the societies beliefs, yet it remains illegal is an example of where it doesn't quite track. But overall we have laws that say you can't write a check that you know won't cash. Drunk driving, trespassing, vandalism, theft.....yelling fire in a crowded building.......setting off the fire alarm for fun.....etc. Giving people the finger isn't against the law....well probably not in most places so that might fall under social pressure. But we see that social pressure fails miserably at stopping bad behavior, so we have laws to enforce behavior...like not stealing and not murdering. This is society and people holding other people to standards, without the law to judge and convict them by the only thing you have left is personal interpretation and meeting out punishment by each individual or vigilante justice.

If you don't regulate business there is nothing stopping them, because nothing about our market is free. You can't have a free market without perfect information. You can't know every possible thing going on, so you will never have perfect information even if it was possible. So you will have swindlers and knock offs, pyramid schemes, etc. And without laws and regulations on these things, you will never be able to punish the company for what they did in a court of law.

Even if they were 100% above the board honest, they'd still be sourcing their materials from overseas and getting inferior materials to what you are paying for. It happens to the military all the time right now. They buy a bunch of nuts and bolts and some of them are chinese knockoffs that fail well after the installation is done and the machine is in operation. They can't catch them because china is basically lawless when it comes to producing goods for knock off purposes. It could just as easily be a US source doing it if we de-regulated everything and made no way for people to sue them into oblivion...because the damage would be done as soon as you buy a knock off and it fries the rest of your stuff.

The definition of "free market" right now means they want to be able to buy stuff cheap as shit from overseas and charge you US built prices for it. And when it comes to financial industry "free market" means they want to have speculation upon speculation to where the financial industry has 10-100x more money leveraged than what actually exists. It's a house of cards if they can just inflate it without any kind of acceptable risks being enforced.