mfioretti: emotional discomfort*

Bookmarks on this page are managed by an admin user.

19 bookmark(s) - Sort by: Date ↓ / Title / Voting / - Bookmarks from other users for this tag

  1. Nothing should be absolute and without reasonable boundaries, not even freedom. In light of this, there are three observable, identifiable ways in which this latest fad of intersectionality is taking advantage of and destroying the rational enlightenment roots of Western academia from within. The approaches are, namely, infiltration, subversion, and coercion.


    The dilution of academic fields is not where it ends however. The promotion of transgenderism as settled science and arbitrary pronouns like them/theirs being used in schools and universities are further examples of subversion. In every Western university (including where I research), the casual usage of made up pronouns is being promoted by a small minority of academics and students. One risks being marked as a bigot if one chooses to question or debate such arbitrary policies. Every university has Marxist and feminist reading groups and departments that essentially control events, doctoral training modules that include methods that prefer non-positivist research, and journal publications wherein the chances of one being censored are higher if he or she dares to question groupthink.

    The third approach involves coercion, or simply the tyranny of minority. A handful of students, instigated by a handful of academics, especially from intersectional disciplines and Marxist-feminist-post-colonial and gender studies backgrounds and departments, now attempt to dictate what can or cannot be taught, discussed, or even debated at a university.
    http://quillette.com/2017/11/06/intersectionality-poppers-paradox
    Voting 0
  2. "I see a risk at the moment that men, at least in the world of work, are going to carefully weigh up every word before they talk to a woman," she said.
    Schröder also added she would rather "pay the price of people making stupid displays of courtship than to work in a completely sterile place where men and women walk on eggshells."
    https://sputniknews.com/europe/201712...65278-metoo-campaign-german-workplace
    Voting 0
  3. "I can think of no better way to subjugate women than to convince us that assault is around every corner.”

    as this unexpected revolution unfolds, we should also keep in mind the dangers of creating new injustices in the service of correcting old ones.

    For that, it’s useful to look at how reforms played out on campus, where, unfortunately, many of the Obama administration’s good intentions went awry. Among the principles and polices that have become entrenched at schools—and are now spilling out into the wider world—are the beliefs that accusers are virtually always telling the truth; that the urgency to take action is more important than fair procedures; that we shouldn’t make distinctions between criminal acts and boorishness; and that predatory male behavior is ubiquitous. These beliefs have resulted in many campus cases in which the accused was treated with fundamental unfairness, spawning a legal subspecialty of suing schools on behalf of these young men. Examining what happened on campuses shows where the politics and social rules of interaction between the sexes might be headed—and how to avoid making the same mistakes on a larger scale.

    In 2011, the Department of Education sent a bombshell letter with the bland greeting, “Dear Colleague” to the country’s 4,600 institutions of higher education laying out new rules for how campuses were to root out and punish sexual assault.

    It was the beginning of a concerted effort that radically remade how students could interact sexually, with severe penalties for violating increasingly stringent codes of conduct. Title IX is the federal law that prohibits discrimination in education on the basis of sex. Under the Obama pronouncements, college Title IX offices became vast bureaucracies, and students were encouraged to report any perceived violation. The Dear Colleague letter forbade “unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal, nonverbal, or physical conduct of a sexual nature.” To stay on the right side of federal regulators, many school codes expanded to turn even unwanted flirtation or sexual jokes between students into actionable offenses. New rules known as “affirmative consent” were put in place on many campuses, requiring that partners engaging in any sexual contact get explicit permission, preferably verbal, for each touch, each time. (Affirmative consent on campus has become law in California, Connecticut and New York.)

    "As a much-needed reckoning happens in the workplace, look to college campuses for a note of caution"

    In the final five years of his presidency, Barack Obama’s administration undertook a worthy and bold challenge: the elimination of sexual assault on campuses. In fact, Obama’s team had a much more ambitious goal in mind. Vice President Joe Biden, the point person for the campus initiative, said at the end of his term that the administration was seeking “to fundamentally change the culture around sexual assault”—everywhere. New rules of sexual engagement between college students were written at the directive of the administration, but top Obama officials said they wanted these to be applied in the workplace and beyond. “You’re going to change the workplaces you work in,” Tina Tchen, director of the White House Council on Women and Girls, said at a 2016 event honoring campus sexual assault activists. “You’re going to raise your sons and daughters differently.”

    They expected this transformation to take years. But with the daily toppling of powerful men who have committed sexual violations in Hollywood, the media, Congress and more, these changes have become seismic. The silenced have been given voice, and their testimony has resulted in the swift professional demise of perpetrators. Shocking descriptions of the behavior of powerful men have shown that it’s not universally understood that it’s unacceptable to display one’s genitals at work or to sexually abuse colleagues.

    We now have an opportunity for profound reform, for women and men to join together to treat each other with dignity and respect. But as this unexpected revolution unfolds, we should also keep in mind the dangers of creating new injustices in the service of correcting old ones.

    For that, it’s useful to look at how reforms played out on campus, where, unfortunately, many of the Obama administration’s good intentions went awry. Among the principles and polices that have become entrenched at schools—and are now spilling out into the wider world—are the beliefs that accusers are virtually always telling the truth; that the urgency to take action is more important than fair procedures; that we shouldn’t make distinctions between criminal acts and boorishness; and that predatory male behavior is ubiquitous. These beliefs have resulted in many campus cases in which the accused was treated with fundamental unfairness, spawning a legal subspecialty of suing schools on behalf of these young men. Examining what happened on campuses shows where the politics and social rules of interaction between the sexes might be headed—and how to avoid making the same mistakes on a larger scale.

    ***

    Much of the Obama administration’s policy was at the initiative of Biden, for whom the issue of violence against women was career-defining. In 1994, as a senator, he oversaw the passage of the Violence Against Women Act, what he calls his “proudest legislative accomplishment.” When he became vice president, a new position was created under his aegis, White House adviser on violence against women, and he appointed Lynn Rosenthal, a national leader on domestic abuse, to fill it. The administration then decided to focus its efforts on what it said was an epidemic of sexual violence against female students by their male classmates. In 2011, the Department of Education sent a bombshell letter with the bland greeting, “Dear Colleague” to the country’s 4,600 institutions of higher education laying out new rules for how campuses were to root out and punish sexual assault.

    It was the beginning of a concerted effort that radically remade how students could interact sexually, with severe penalties for violating increasingly stringent codes of conduct. Title IX is the federal law that prohibits discrimination in education on the basis of sex. Under the Obama pronouncements, college Title IX offices became vast bureaucracies, and students were encouraged to report any perceived violation. The Dear Colleague letter forbade “unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal, nonverbal, or physical conduct of a sexual nature.” To stay on the right side of federal regulators, many school codes expanded to turn even unwanted flirtation or sexual jokes between students into actionable offenses. New rules known as “affirmative consent” were put in place on many campuses, requiring that partners engaging in any sexual contact get explicit permission, preferably verbal, for each touch, each time. (Affirmative consent on campus has become law in California, Connecticut and New York.)

    Rosenthal later explained why the administration put such focus on the sexual encounters of college students: “We felt it was a problem we could identify, evaluate, study and develop targeted interventions for,” she said at a seminar on sexual assault in January 2015, a few days after leaving the administration. “We also believed that what happens on our college campuses affects our nation. If we get this right on college campuses, we can influence an entire generation.”

    Now, it’s not just an entire generation—it’s the entire nation. No matter whether an accusation is made about violations on campus, in the workplace or on the streets, it is essential that the accounts be taken seriously and the accusers be treated respectfully. But in the debate over campus sexual assault, believing accusers, especially female ones, has become a virtual article of faith. Many Democratic politicians have expressed an opinion similar to the one recently tweeted by California Senator Kamala Harris, regarding college campuses: “Survivors of sexual assault deserve to be believed, not blamed.” As Harvard Law professor Jeannie Suk Gersen wrote in the New Yorker, wanting to examine the evidence before coming to a conclusion has come to mean being perceived on campus as being “biased in favor of perpetrators.”

    In this national “just believe” the accuser moment, it’s important to remember that part of the power of the recent accusations against movie producer Harvey Weinstein and so many others is that they are backed up by meticulous reporting that has provided contemporaneous corroboration and other evidence. Presented with these revelations, the accused themselves in many cases have provided confirmation by acknowledging at least some of their violations. A failed attempt by the right-wing group Project Veritas to persuade the Washington Post to publish the account of a fake accuser of U.S. Senate candidate Roy Moore demonstrated the power of verifying before believing.

    The complications of “just believe” are illustrated by the saga of Al Franken, who, on Thursday announced his upcoming resignation as a Democratic U.S. senator from Minnesota. In the past few weeks, he has been accused by several women of unwanted attempted kissing, or touching them on the buttocks or breast while having photographs taken with them. Franken started by issuing a series of tortured apologies, which neither acknowledged that he did the touching, nor categorically denied it. In responding to Leeann Tweeden, a fellow performer who says Franken aggressively kissed her during a rehearsal for a United Service Organizations show more than a decade ago, he said, “While I don’t remember the rehearsal for the skit as Leeann does, I understand why we need to listen to and believe women’s experiences.” He added, “And the truth is, what people think of me in light of this is far less important than what people think of women who continue to come forward to tell their stories. They deserve to be heard, and believed.”

    This made it sound as if either Franken knew he had done inappropriate things and wouldn’t admit it, or he believed he hadn’t but couldn’t say so—proclaiming his innocence would mean casting aspersions on his accusers’ truthfulness. Franken sounded as if he had taken last year’s mandatory Title IX training for freshman at the University of Southern California, where the first piece of advice given to USC students accused of sexual assault is to acknowledge the likelihood that they are guilty, as documented in an article in the conservative outlet Campus Reform: “Admit to yourself that even if you don’t remember the event, or don’t believe yourself capable of hurting someone, that it’s possible that you may have crossed a boundary.”

    In the announcement of his resignation, Franken took a more defiant tone, backing off the admonition to believe his accusers’ version of events. He said he had “wanted to be respectful of that broader conversation, because all women deserve to be heard and their experiences taken seriously,” but that his statements “gave some people the false impression that I was admitting to doing things that in fact I haven’t done. Some of the allegations against me are simply not true. Others I remember very differently.” So we are left knowing Franken was forced out by his Democratic colleagues, but not knowing exactly what to believe about the charges against him.

    Ironically, Franken has been an ardent supporter of the Obama-era policies on campus sexual assault, policies that have required the creation of an industry to train, adjudicate and litigate Title IX matters. In August, four feminist Harvard Law professors—Gersen, Elizabeth Bartholet, Nancy Gertner and Janet Halley—released a paper, titled “Fairness for All,” writing that the procedures on campus today “are frequently so unfair as to be truly shocking.” For example, “some colleges and universities fail even to give students the complaint against them, or notice of the factual basis of the charges, the evidence gathered, or the identities of witnesses.”

    The Obama administration Dear Colleague letter also required that “interim measures” be taken against the accused, before any adjudication. These can be harshly punitive, resulting in students being removed from certain classes, their movements on campus limited; sometimes they are even banned from school. The case of veteran New York public radio host Leonard Lopate illustrates what such “interim measures” look like in the workplace. On Wednesday, just before he was about to go on the air, Lopate was told he was being suspended because an investigation of “many” sexual harassment complaints against him was underway. He told the New York Times that he was “shocked” and “baffled” and that WNYC “didn’t even give me a clue” about the nature of the allegations. He added, “I am sure any honest investigation will completely clear me.” Indeed, both Lopate and the public are entitled to hear the results of a fair investigation. But surely before being publicly shamed, Lopate was entitled to know what the accusations against him were.

    Statistics on the scale of the sexual assault problem on campuses nationally are controversial. And there are no good numbers about the breadth and nature of schools’ responses. But we do know that since the Dear Colleague letter was issued in 2011, more than 200 civil lawsuits have been filed by the accused, almost all males, against their universities, according to one advocacy group that tracks such suits. And these plaintiffs are getting an increasingly positive response from judges, who often express astonishment at the campus procedures that have been promulgated. In a scathing rebuke of today’s investigation and adjudication processes on campus, the National Center for Higher Education Risk Management, a leading Title IX consulting firm, released a white paper in April accusing many Title IX officers of “victim-favoring” and putting students’ “sexual decisions under a microscope.” The paper warned that unless campus processes were reformed, a backlash could “set back the entire consent movement.”

    Democratic politicians in particular have acted with disdain for the rights of accused male students, and with disregard for ending their education and professional prospects. At a 2015 congressional hearing on campus sexual assault, Representative Jared Polis of Colorado suggested that anyone accused of sexual misconduct should be dismissed without any fact-finding at all. “If there are 10 people who have been accused, and under a reasonable likelihood standard maybe one or two did it, it seems better to get rid of all 10 people,” he said. “We’re not talking about depriving them of life or liberty. We’re talking about them being transferred to another university, for crying out loud.” (Polis was heavily criticized and walked back his remarks.)

    Now, Franken and his colleagues seem to have absorbed at least some of that thinking. In his forced farewell, he noted that he was now forgoing his once-promised Senate Ethics Committee investigation: “I said at the outset that the ethics committee was the right venue for these allegations to be heard and investigated and evaluated on their merits. That I was prepared to cooperate fully and that I was confident in the outcome.” Senators had praised the idea of a proceeding that would provide, in the words of Senator Dick Durbin at the end of November, “due process. ” But last week, Durbin called for Franken’s resignation, along with 31 other Democratic senators. Now the public, and Franken’s soon-to-be former constituents, are left to draw their own conclusions.

    In the past few weeks, a number of accused men have disappeared Soviet-style from public life, with the work of some—Louis C.K. and Garrison Keillor, for example—withdrawn from distribution. There has been discussion about whether everyone accused deserves a professional death penalty, or whether there should be a scale of punishment. After all, the violations run the gamut from multiple allegations of rape to unwanted touching. But in a statement on Facebook calling for Franken’s resignation, New York Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand came out against making such distinctions. “While it’s true that his behavior is not the same as the criminal conduct alleged against Alabama Senate candidate » Roy Moore, or Harvey Weinstein, or President Trump, it is still unquestionably wrong,” she wrote. “We should not have to be explaining the gradations between sexual assault, harassment and unwelcome groping.”

    In a New York Times op-ed, actress Amber Tamblyn wrote that making distinctions will mean the cultural change that is happening will stall and bad behavior will win out. So, she wrote, “The punishment for harassment is you disappear. The punishment for rape is you disappear. The punishment for masturbation in front of us is you disappear. The punishment for coercion is you disappear.” (She conceded that some men may be allowed to come back professionally after a period of contrition.)

    This erasing of distinctions between the criminal and the loutish was a central feature of the campus initiatives of the Obama administration and led to many unjustified punishments. “Definitions of sexual wrongdoing on college campuses are now seriously overbroad,” the feminist Harvard Law professors wrote. “They are so broad as to put students engaged in behavior that is overwhelmingly common in the context of romantic relationships to be accused of sexual misconduct.”
    https://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...ual-harassment-college-franken-216057
    Voting 0
  4. Why are pro-conservative answers collapsed?
    William Lawyer
    William Lawyer, Conservative leaning Libertarian who writes about politics
    Updated Oct 26

    Because Conservative sympathizers are targeted.

    Our answers often get mass downvoted until they are collapsed, and I hardly ever even find out unless I get comments like this:

    We get our answers collapsed or deleted by Quora moderation on trumped up charges, often, I believe, due to mass reporting.

    William Lawyer's answer to My abortion is scheduled tomorrow, but I'm freaking out, what should I do?

    We get our profiles plastered on blogs for mass downvoting, reporting, and harassment. Same thing often ends up happening in people’s profiles:

    You have prominent left wing Quora users promoting and supporting these blogs and giving these groups a a lot of publicity, as detailed by Jon Davis:

    Normally, this wouldn’t even show up on my radar and I probably would have ignored it, if I didn’t see a friend specifically called out who I’ve never seen communicate white supremacist tendencies. This is clearly just meant to attack people who disagree with her as sexists and white supremacists, and whatever else. That said, at this point, it was small fry stuff compared to some of the organized behavior I’ve reported before. I wouldn’t give this sort of nonsense the time of day, but the reason I saw it in the first place was that another Top Writer, well known for creating a following that is hostile to Conservatives answered effectively “Yes”, to the question Should Quora ban the accounts of the users listed on the Quora blog "White Supremacists Exposed"? . That answer led me to see see the blog. At the point when another very popular Top Writer advocated support for this behavior, and seeing that the blog had suddenly had a spike of 10 times the viewership since that writer’s post, I knew that this place had the potential to be exactly the sort of hate groups I’ve advocated against for the last two years on Quora and have the potential of driving actually good Quora conservatives off the site through harassment tactics just like I talk about happening to me. (The War Elephant)

    I am surrounded by the love and praise of many on Quora, but there is no shortage of hateful and angry responses to my comments and answers from individuals who disagree with my opinions:

    You try not to let it get to you, but when you get such a tremendous negative response for so long, it is easy to become discouraged. On several occasions I have even had many Quora users who have been so intent on creating a toxic environment for me on Quora that they have commented with things like pornographic images on my answers in an effort to drive me away.

    (While I have begun to document harassment contemporaneously for my own protection, I will not be subjecting myself to that kind of content, so don’t even ask.)

    I’m not that popular of a writer, I only have 286 followers here on Quora, but if this is what I can expect when nobody knows about me, I’m not eager to join any of the bigger names out there.

    Having seen similar things happen to many other right wing writers on Quora, I must conclude that my experience is not unusual, and having spoken with many of my fellow conservatives about this, I can assure you that the situation for many of them is… equally undesirable.

    Edit: There’s a certain level of irony here:

    Dang blockquotes.
    6.7k Views
    · 712 Upvotes
    Downvote
    Share

    Hoang Nghiem (严黄)
    Hoang Nghiem (严黄)

    i’m very sorry to see that you’ve become the victim of systematic Quora witch hunts....
    3 more comments from Jonathan Roberts, Justin Busch, Lisa Kinsler
    View 5 Other Answers to this Question
    About the Author
    William Lawyer
    William Lawyer
    264.9k answer views41.9k this month
    Turn On Notifications

    More Answers from William Lawyer
    View More
    Is this profile actually Donald Trump?
    61.5k Views
    How do you turn a banana into a weapon?
    13.4k Views
    In President Obama's Dallas speech he claims that it is easier for children to obtain a Glock than it is a computer or a book. Is this true?
    3.4k Views
    If Republicans want to give military soldiers stuff like free health care, paid leave, and free college, why don't they want that for the rest of America?
    1.2k Views
    The last person you Googled is now dead. How will the world change?
    2.1k Views
    https://www.quora.com/Why-are-pro-con...ers-collapsed/answer/William-Lawyer-1
    Voting 0
  5. La maschera del film è un simbolo indossabile da chiunque, non serve farsi carico di una tradizione ideologica per usarla, non bisogna fare i conti con i gulag o con le bombe piazzate per l’ideale, non ci sono noiosi volumoni da studiare, non ci sono grandi dilemmi morali da risolvere. Nel fumetto, invece, V non è un anarchico all’acqua di rose, è perfettamente disposto a usare la violenza terroristica come insegnato da Bakunin. Il grande conflitto tra V ed Evey nel fumetto è proprio sull’accettazione che non basta volere ribellarsi, ma bisogna anche essere disposti a usare la violenza. Nel film invece gli attacchi di V sembrano essere senza vittime e anche quando ci sono, la violenza è mostrata in maniera anestetizzata. Inoltre, nel fumetto l’azione di V è contro un governo esplicitamente fascista (neanche troppo velatamente metafora del governo Thatcher) in nome della libertà anarchica, mentre nel film agisce contro un generico “potere totalitario” (che assume sia caratteristiche fasciste sia socialiste) in nome di una generica “libertà”.
    La varie interpretazioni della parola "libertà"...

    La varie interpretazioni della parola “libertà”…

    L’altra grande differenza tra il film e il fumetto è il risultato della rivolta. Nell’opera originale di Moore l’insurrezione è un salto nel vuoto, dalle macerie potrà sorgere tanto l’anarchia consapevole sognata da V quanto il caos dove chi vince schiaccia i più deboli. Un salto nel vuoto che per Moore vale la pena di provare, ma solo essendo pienamente consapevoli del prezzo da pagare.

    Il finale del film non potrebbe essere più diverso. Quando Evey completa il piano di V per far saltare in aria Downing Street, tutta Londra insorge pacificamente indossando la maschera di Guy Fawkes. Di fronte alle masse pacificamente determinate l’esercito non spara un colpo e si unisce alla protesta. L’obiettivo è raggiunto senza dover fare praticamente nulla se non un paio di atti dimostrativi, senza dover mettere in conto l’uso della violenza, senza dover affrontare la repressione.

    e poi l’esercito non sparerà sulla folla, basta essere in tanti…

    A questo punto non è difficile capire la popolarità di cui gode oggi la maschera di Guy Fawkes, sono gli stessi motivi per cui oggi si scende in piazza illudendosi di poter ignorare qualsiasi questione storica e teorica, di poter creare proteste in cui tutti agiscono insieme contro un potere talmente distante da avere solo simboli e non rapporti materiali con la realtà. E, soprattutto, l’illusione di poter ignorare qualsiasi questione organizzativa, di poter risolvere tutto quanto attraverso azioni dimostrative che, quando risveglieranno abbastanza persone, porteranno la gente a vincere automaticamente la rivoluzione.

    Certo, meglio scendere in piazza così che non farlo per niente, ma, alla lunga, rompe i coglioni.
    https://kowapaolo.wordpress.com/2013/...quanto-ma-alla-lunga-rompe-i-coglioni
    Voting 0
  6. Perhaps this student would have stressed about violating social norms in any era. But in bygone years, the social norms at her school would’ve been clear and static; whatever upset people there would’ve been easy to avoid doing. Today, so many people are declaring so many things problematic on college campuses that the next controversy is almost impossible to predict; it is increasingly common to have done something without any fear of giving offense (say, urging a sushi night in the dining hall) only to subsequently read that the thing you’re on record having done is the object of a huge controversy elsewhere. Does the faraway story portend a future where you’ll be the one in the hot seat?

    No wonder so many students are stressed out by this. And the risk-averse have it especially hard. “I probably hold back 90 percent of the things that I want to say due to fear of being called out,” another student wrote. “People won’t call you out because your opinion is wrong. People will call you out for literally anything.
    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...stressing-out-college-students/524679
    Voting 0
  7. Chi ha un’allergia alle noccioline non può mangiare prodotti che siano entrati in contatto con arachidi, ma chi non ha questa allergia può tranquillamente mangiare cibi senza traccia di arachidi.

    Il che spiega perché sia così difficile trovare noccioline in aereo e perché le noccioline siano vietate nelle scuole (contribuendo così ad aumentare il numero di persone con allergie da noccioline, dato che una delle cause di queste allergie è la ridotta esposizione).



    Applichiamo ora la regola in ambiti in cui la cosa diventa divertente:



    Una persona onesta non commetterà mai atti criminali, ma un criminale può sempre agire legalmente.



    Chiamiamo la minoranza il gruppo intransigente, e la maggioranza quello flessibile. E la regola è quella della asimmetria nelle scelte.



    Una volta ho fatto uno scherzo ad un amico. Anni fa, quando i produttori di tabacco nascondevano e minimizzavano le prove dei danni causati da fumo passivo, i ristoranti di New York avevano aree fumatori e non-fumatori (persino gli aerei, incredibilmente, avevano un’area fumatori). Un giorno andai a pranzo con un amico che era in visita dall’Europa: il ristorante aveva tavoli liberi solo nella zona fumatori. Io riuscii a convincere il mio amico che dovevamo comprare delle sigarette perché per stare nella zona fumatori si doveva fumare. E lui si conformò.



    E ancora. Innanzi tutto conta parecchio la geografia del territorio, la sua organizzazione dello spazio; è molto diverso se gli intransigenti vivono tutti insieme o se sono distribuiti in mezzo al resto della popolazione. Se i seguaci della regola di minoranza vivessero in un ghetto, con la loro piccola economia separata, la regola della minoranza non si applicherebbe. Ma se la popolazione è distribuita nello spazio, se ad esempio la percentuale di tale minoranza in un quartiere equivale a quella nel villaggio, quella nel villaggio equivale a quella della provincia, quella della provincia a quella della regione, e quella della regione è la stessa che in tutto il paese, allora la maggioranza (flessibile) dovrà sottostare alla regola della minoranza. Inoltre, anche la struttura dei costi ha la sua importanza. Nel nostro primo esempio, si dà il caso che produrre limonata conforme alle regole Kosher non cambi molto il prezzo, almeno non abbastanza da giustificare inventari separati. Ma se la produzione di limonata Kosher costasse molto di più, la regola si indebolirebbe in una qualche proporzione non-lineare con la differenza di prezzo. Se produrre cibi Kosher costasse 10 volte tanto, la regola della minoranza non si applicherebbe, tranne forse in qualche quartiere molto ricco.



    Anche i musulmani hanno il loro tipo di regole Kosher, ma queste sono più limitate e si applicano solo alla carne. Musulmani ed ebrei hanno infatti le stesse regole di macellazione (tutto ciò che è Kosher è anche Halal per i musulmani, o almeno così era nei secoli scorsi, ma non è sempre vero il contrario). Si noti come queste regole di macellazione siano motivate dalla posta in gioco, e tramandate da pratiche greche e semitiche del Mediterraneo Orientale, in base alle quali le divinità erano venerate solo investendoci qualcosa, come sacrificare animali alla divinità per poi mangiarne i resti. Gli dei non amano le cerimonie a buon mercato.



    Ora si consideri questa manifestazione della dittatura della minoranza. Nel Regno Unito, dove la popolazione musulmana (praticante) è solo il tre o quattro per cento, gran parte della carne è Halal. Quasi il settanta per cento delle importazioni di agnello dalla Nuova Zelanda sono Halal. Circa il dieci per cento dei negozi della catena Subway sono Halal (cioè, non servono carne di maiale), nonostante le significative perdite commerciali derivanti dal non poter servire prosciutto. Lo stesso vale in Sudafrica, dove, con la stessa proporzione di musulmani, una quantità sproporzionata di polli sono certificati come Halal. Tuttavia, in UK e in altri paesi cristiani, Halal non è un concetto abbastanza neutro da diffondersi molto, poiché la gente potrebbe ribellarsi se costretta a seguire regole religiose estranee. Ad esempio Al-Akhtal, poeta arabo cristiano del VII secolo, ribadì la scelta di non consumare mai carne Halal in un noto poema provocatorio in cui si vantava del suo Cristianesimo: “Io non mangio carne sacrificale”. (Al-Akhtal si riferiva alla tipica reazione cristiana di tre o quattro secoli prima — i cristiani in epoca pagana venivano torturati obbligandoli a mangiare carne sacrificale, che per loro era sacrilegio. Diversi martiri cristiani morivano di fame.)



    Ci si può attendere lo stesso rifiuto delle regole religiose in Occidente, man mano che la popolazione musulmana va crescendo.



    Quindi la regola della minoranza potrebbe portare a una maggiore proporzione di alimenti Halal nei negozi rispetto a quanto giustificato dalla proporzione dei consumatori Halal nella popolazione, ma solo fino ad un certo punto, perché alcuni potrebbero sviluppare un’avversione al cibo musulmano. Per certe regole Kashrut (concernenti i cibi Kosher, N.d.T.) senza connotazioni religiose, la percentuale può tranquillamente avvicinarsi al 100%. Negli USA e in Europa i produttori di cibo “biologico” vendono sempre di più proprio grazie ad un’applicazione della regola della minoranza, e perché i prodotti ordinari non etichettati come tali sono spesso percepiti come contenenti pesticidi, erbicidi ed organismi transgenici geneticamente modificati, “OGM”, che secondo alcuni presentano rischi sconosciuti. (In questo contesto OGM si riferisce al cibo transgenico, ottenuto trasferendo geni da un organismo o una specie estranea). Oppure la preferenza può essere dettata da motivi esistenziali, da un atteggiamento di prudenza, o da un’inclinazione (in stile Burke) verso i valori della tradizione – c’è chi preferisce non discostarsi troppo e troppo velocemente da ciò che mangiavano i nonni. L’etichettatura “biologico” è un modo per indicare che quell’alimento non contiene OGM.



    Spingendo per gli alimenti geneticamente modificati con mezzi che andavano dalle lobby, alle mazzette ai politici, fino alla palese propaganda scientifica (con campagne diffamatorie contro individui come il sottoscritto), le grandi aziende agricole si illudevano ingenuamente che bastasse avere la maggioranza dalla loro parte. Niente di più sbagliato. Come dicevo, il tipico ragionamento aridamente “scientifico” è troppo poco sofisticato per questo genere di decisioni. Teniamo presente che chi mangia OGM transgenici può mangiare anche non-OGM, ma non il contrario. Quindi basta che ci sia una piccola parte, non più del 5%, di popolazione che non mangia gli OGM, distribuita uniformemente nello spazio, per far sì che l’intera popolazione finisca con il consumare non-OGM. In che modo? Supponiamo che si debba organizzare un evento aziendale, un matrimonio, o una grande festa per celebrare la caduta del regime saudita, o il fallimento della banca di investimenti speculativi Goldman Sachs, o la pubblica umiliazione di Ray Kotcher, il presidente di Ketchum, l’agenzia di pubbliche relazioni specializzata nel diffamare scienziati e informatori scientifici in nome e per conto delle grandi multinazionali. C’è forse bisogno di mandare questionari per chiedere agli invitati se mangiano o no OGM transgenici e prenotare se è il caso pasti speciali? No. Basta ordinare tutto non-OGM, a meno che la differenza di prezzo non sia significativa. E la differenza di prezzo sembra essere irrilevante, perché il prezzo degli alimentari (freschi) in America è determinato in gran parte (fino all’80 o 90%) dalla distribuzione e stoccaggio, non dal costo di produzione agricola. E dato che la domanda di alimenti biologici (o designati come “naturali”) da parte della minoranza è in continua crescita, i costi di distribuzione diminuiscono e la regola della minoranza finisce con l’accelerare anche questo effetto.



    Le grandi imprese agricole industriali non hanno capito che, in questo gioco, per vincere non basta avere più punti dell’avversario, ma bisogna avere il 97% dei punti totali. Ancora una volta, stupisce che a queste grandi aziende, capaci di spendere milioni di dollari in campagne di ricerca e diffamazione, con centinaia di scienziati convinti di essere più intelligenti del resto della popolazione, sia potuto sfuggire un concetto talmente elementare come le scelte asimmetriche.



    Un altro esempio: non si pensi che la diffusione di auto con il cambio automatico negli USA, N.d.T. » sia dovuta necessariamente al fatto che la maggioranza preferisce guidare automatico; potrebbe essere semplicemente il caso che chi sa guidare con il cambio manuale può sempre guidare con quello automatico, ma non il contrario 1 » .

    Il metodo di analisi qui utilizzato è noto come gruppo di rinormalizzazione, un potente apparato matematico che in fisica teorica permette di studiare i cambiamenti nel tempo. Vediamo di che si tratta – senza usare le formule.

    Religioni puramente monoteistiche come il Protestantesimo, il Salafismo o l’ateismo fondamentalista, riescono a soddisfare solo le menti capaci di ragionamenti letterali e mediocri, incapaci di tollerare le ambiguità

    Non illudiamoci che la formazione dei valori morali di una società avvenga come evoluzione del consenso. No, sono i più intolleranti ad imporre la virtù agli altri, proprio in base alla loro intolleranza. Lo stesso vale per i diritti civili.
    http://vocidallestero.it/2017/08/18/n...-sempre-il-dispotismo-della-minoranza
    Voting 0
  8. Without going into the details (which you can Google or simply read on the wall of this professor, Bret Weinstein, who happens to be a friend of mine), I want to share a perspective based on my research into the psychological dynamics of political behavior among people who claim to promote social justice, yet are so deeply broken down by the larger pathologies of Western culture that they have lost the ability to tell friend from foe.

    In the last year, I had a similarly dramatic experience where social justice activism was blindly pursued in a manner that caused otherwise good-hearted people to turn on one of their own. Blindly in their fear, these people lashed out and hurt me with cruel and empirically incorrect judgments about my behavior in their group.

    At a deeper level, there is an information war being waged against our societies that is designed to create this kind of anguish and confusion. Divide and conquer is the age-old strategy here. Get us to fight amongst ourselves and it is easy to keep status quo systems in place. This is a natural outcome of what Jordan Greenhall describes in his excellent (yet disturbing) article, The War on Sensemaking.

    What I am seeing in these patterns is a profound inability to discern what is really going on in the world. When student protestors accuse a person who has consistently stood up for racial equality and cultural diversity of being a racist (as is happening now at Evergreen), there is call for taking pause to reflect on just how deeply confused so many among us have become.

    Millions among us fear Trump supporters when they don’t realize that the real danger comes when social unrest grows to the point that ANY group begins expressing emotionally intense rage without critical inquiry at another group.
    https://medium.com/rally-point-perspe...ghting-against-ourselves-ea8d06d53e96
    Voting 0
  9. “Stop telling people of color they’re fucking useless,” a female student demands of Weinstein at one point.

    “You’re useless, get the fuck out of here,” she adds, saying “fuck you, you piece of shit” as her peers ask Weinstein for an explanation of his email.

    Weinstein attempts to answer–asking “may I answer that question?”–butthe student protesters suddenly decide that they no longer want his explanation, and respond with a resounding “no!”

    They drove him off campus out of fear for his own safety:

    As a biology professor for 15 years at Olympia’s The Evergreen State College, Bret Weinstein has seen his share of protests, but he’s never been afraid of being on campus until this week.

    “I have been told by the Chief of Police it’s not safe for me to be on campus,” said Weinstein, who held his Thursday class in a downtown Olympia park.

    An administrator confirmed the police department advised Weinstein it “might be best to stay off campus for a day or so.”

    Demonstrations involving as many as 200 students filled classrooms and the President’s office on campus on Tuesday and Wednesday. Protesters are upset over what they believe are racist policies at the college, and some called for Weinstein to resign.

    Every one of those students who intimidated that professor should be disciplined, and probably expelled. Every one. Including this nitwit:

    But when student Marissa Parker, one of the protesters, heard Weinstein was advised to stay off campus, she responded, “If he feels unsafe or frightened for two days, he can only imagine what black and brown bodies have feared for years.”

    According to the report from Seattle’s KING television station that I linked to above, Evergreen State officials are considering changing the school’s racial policies in response to the protesters. And look at this — the administration is gutless:
    https://www.theamericanconservative.c...ing-of-bret-weinstein-evergreen-state
    Voting 0
  10. Students at Evergreen State College in Olympia, who filmed their exploits and posted the videos on social media, have occupied and barricaded the library, shouting down anyone who disagrees with them or shows insufficient passion for racial justice.

    Biology professor Bret Weinstein was berated by dozens of students outside of his classroom Tuesday morning for refusing to participate in an event in which white people were invited to leave campus for a day. Now, he says police have told him to hold his classes off campus due to safety concerns.

    Things are “out of control at Evergreen,” he said.

    “Police told me protesters stopped cars yesterday, demanding information about occupants,” Mr. Weinstein told The Washington Times. “They believe I was being sought. It appears that the campus has been under the effective control of protesters since 9:30 a.m. Tuesday. Police are on lockdown, hamstrung by the college administration. Students, staff and faculty are not safe.”

    A spokesman for the Evergreen Department of Police Services confirmed the agency had been in contact with Mr. Weinstein. He said officers would be in touch with The Times, but three subsequent phone calls during business hours were not answered.

    A college spokesman declined to comment on Mr. Weinstein’s situation or any of the other activity on campus.

    Evergreen student Blake Vincent said he was participating in the protests and was unaware of any searches for Mr. Weinstein’s whereabouts.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2...te-students-demand-professor-resign-f
    Voting 0

Top of the page

First / Previous / Next / Last / Page 1 of 2 Online Bookmarks of M. Fioretti: Tags: emotional discomfort

About - Propulsed by SemanticScuttle