Leaderboard

If we go back to the topic of C-16, it seems to me - and correct me if I'm wrong, his objection is that by disallowing discrimination of people based on gender identity or expression, that would prevent him from refusing to use a person's preferred pronoun, thus limiting his free speech. 1) There is a non-trivial proportion of humans who are actually born biologically intersexed, or conditions such as androgen insensitivity that will cause an individual's genitals to change from female to male during puberty. Not to mention the significant body of research demonstrating the neurological basis of transsexuality. He is basically asking that his delusional denial of biological reality be protected, which to me, seems pretty fragile and snowflakey. 2) Based on 1), how would he know an individual's sex at birth, or current physiological state? If someone says they are he/her/they, how is he to know the phenotypic or neurological reality of that? Even if it changes mid semester? If you tell me you're a Christian, and I deliberately call you a Muslim and presume you follow the tenets of Islam - that would currently be discrimination and he doesn't seem to have a problem with that. It would appear that applying it to gender identity is cherry picking. 3) No one is forcing him to believe in gender dysphoria, or accept the biological fact that gender is not fixed at birth. They are compelling him not to discriminate against those who do. As such, his right to question the validity of gender fluidity remains protected. The only thing being taken away is his "right" to discriminate against specific individuals based on their identity. Which brings the argument down to "You are denying my "right" to treat people differently based on their gender identity" which, yes - is the intent of the law. Watch me play this tiny violin.

I don't need to ask them: they express their sentiments from large and well-funded podia, in mass communications, governor's mansions and senate chambers. Nobody muzzled them. They, too, make their objections known, and make their position on the issue count. Nobody muzzled them. That right is exercised by anyone, with any views, who has the clout to to do so without repercussions. It does not extend to the marginalized and vulnerable who have no public voice. As I don't make any of the legal or policy decisions, who agrees or disagrees with me is very far removed from the allocation of rights. Why? Unarmed foot-soldiers would be rather stupid to stand up against sword-wielding cavalry if they have an option. Peterson has an option to use all the power of white male tradition, academic credentials, money, mass media, free publicity through controversy, right-wing supporters and a credulously adoring, crowd-funding book-buying public - and he makes clever use of those resources. Why shouldn't his opponents make use of the resources available to them? I'm not clear on what "new" ideas have been presented.

Entanglement means the particles can’t be described by separate wave functions. There is a wave function that describes the composite system.

There is no such thing as classical entanglement. Entanglement is a purely quantum phenomenon. There are several ways to talk about it. The one I prefer is the most general one. There is entanglement whenever you have two particles in a pure quantum state (maximally determined) and you cannot factor out the common state as a product of one state (for one particle) times another (for the other). The probabilities do not check with those of independent statistical collectivities. Some people call entanglement what really is maximal entanglement (maximum maximal confusion, or equal probabilities between the 1-2 and the 2-1 --exchanged-- states), which is peculiar in and of itself. I see no end to the confusion of terminologies. But as Swansont and Markus have stated before, it's not the hallmark of a distant interaction, but of a past one. Another way people like to characterise it is by saying that the state of both particles is more determined (or exhaustive) than the state of just one of them. It's It checks with what I know. This you cannot do with classical fields, because, eg., the electromagnetic field at one point is just one entity that's built up from the contributions of all the sources in the universe, making one big vector thing at that point. In QM, on the contrary, you have a phase space of "thingies" (1)x(2)x(3)... etc., so it's nothing like the classical case. You can have things like (1)x(2)+(1)'x(2)'. "Identity", so to speak, can be "scrambled". This is very peculiar. Some people talk about "classical entanglement" simply because they confuse the principle of superposition for classical fields with the principle of superposition for quantum states (that only when combined with composite states being so-called "tensor products" produces this situation. Entanglement is a consequence of the fact that the simplest physical systems are particles (the 1-thing, the 2-thing, the 3-thing,...) and fields (their values everywhere) at the same time. I'm not being very clear, and I know it, but I'm ready to be corrected/clarified/completed by other users, including you, of course. I apologise, @studiot, for my handwavy and cursory way to put it, but I find your topic fascinating and I hope to be able to contribute more significantly later --hopefully. One last thing before I say something stupid on account of being too tired today: There is no such thing as the quantum numbers. Quantum systems have incompatible sets of those. None is better than the other. That's why Pauli's definition: doesn't really cut it. Particularly severely for spin. Really looking forward to continuing this discussion.

Name-calling with an agenda. It's a dog-whistle to others to insult and categorize you, and also, by doing so, the implication is that nobody needs to engage you on the substance of any topic. It is or at least is a close cousin to an ad hominem argument - "you are wrong because you are <belittling description>"

I have similar objections to the recent sarcastic usage of "woke" or "woke brigade" which people on the conservative Right are using. PC, woke, illiberal, social justice warriors -- all terms used to avoid actually addressing the issue raised. It's really just name-calling. I had "woke brigade" used on me recently for making the outrageous suggestion that schoolchildren would survive learning about Jim Crow laws and events like the Greenwood massacre. My interlocutor felt that school history classes should focus entirely on noble men astride magical horses that pooped rainbows.

One big problem with this stance is that you become the sole arbiter of what "unnecessarily", "over sensitive", "perfectly clear", "accepted", "alleged", "offending", and "intention" actually mean for all those you interact with. It's far too easy to confirm your own biases in these circumstances, yet want others to take everything YOU do in context. If you're into science, you should be trying to remove subjectivity where you can. And I'm sorry, but I've seen FAR too many folks flat out insult someone else and then claim I didn't know you were so sensitive/I'm just poking fun/I'm just being honest/don't make such a big deal/I call them like I see them/you're taking this wrong. You can't hold yourself blameless when your words cause offense if you aren't trying to maintain objectivity.

Evident to whom? Does the person you are claiming took things out of context agree with you? It looks to me as if society is having one of their many debates/conversations where we work out the new rules on a topic that had previously been ignored. These conversations tend to go better when we address each concern rather than saying "that is totally unfounded". If someone posts in the science forum about some crazy idea, the response they typically get is to point out flaws in their idea, or to ask pointed questions meant to allow the poster to recognize the flaws of their idea on their own. It is not considered good form to simply say 'we won't discuss your idea as it is evident to me that your idea is totally unfounded'. Sounds similar to how PC people are treated.

When you say "PC Brigade" that sounds like you are referring to a group of people who you believe are making unreasonable requests with respect to things they find objectionable, and that you are not taking them seriously. Did I misinterpret that? Because it certainly doesn't sound like you are grouping them together due to their outstanding work in shedding light on inappropriate language and behavior. Of course. No one is suggesting otherwise. The questions are 'who decides what the limit is', and 'how do you respond if you disagree with them'.

I've seen his analogies to chimpanzee troupes and lion prides to explain dominance behavior. What these simplistic, "alpha" "beta" scenarios get wrong is that humans are not pack animals. Social hierarchy is dependent vastly more on social cooperation than the threat of force. If you've ever been unfortunate enough to be at a social gathering with an adherent to the "alpha male" philosophy, where they come in and start "negging" and "dominating" everyone, is that they just come across as massive jerks. I had a guy in in my grad school expanded circle who would routinely come to gatherings. The aggressive handshakes, forced eye contact, domineering posturing just made him look like an asshole. We ended up manipulating his own behavior - when someone was grilling, or mixing drinks, etc he would insist they were doing it wrong and take over. We'd let him, then go somewhere else, leaving him cooking our food while we socialized. Once the food/whatever was done he'd come in all puffed out having "alpha'ed" by providing all the resources to us "betas", showing all the womenfolk he was the leader of the pack. In reality, we'd kept him occupied like a toddler so we didn't have to put up with his behavior. Human communities don't have pack leaders who maintain dominance of a harem through threat of force, generally speaking. Our leaders tend to be the best negotiators and diplomats - people who can generate cooperation and influence/convince people. Emotional intelligence, active listening and generating likeability are going to place you at the center of a social dynamic, rather than dominance, in most cases. The analogies are simply too simplistic as to be wrong.

Nice condescending style. I always forget to avoid issues of racism and feminism here. It always ends the same. Sorry guys, I'll stay out.

Asking someone if they believe in God seems way more than a yes or no question. For example, if I had responded "pantheist" in a more serious vein, that would not exactly be a yes or a no, and take further clarification. I am, BTW, agnostic, due to what I see as uncertainty inherent in any metaphysical knowledge. Especially where a universal consciousness is concerned. Questioning the form of a question is fair play, IMO.

I find it perplexing that some/many black folk refer to themselves as "Nigga"; they aren't helping themselves if they want words like that to disappear from the 21st century lexicon. Many blacks have straight blond hair and yet call out white folk for 'blackfishing' (cultural appropriation) when they braid theirs. I read thiis morning Nicki Minaj had to defend a white co-singer for blackfishing. First thing to do is to check for hypocrisy.

I am deeply offended by the two neg reps, without explanation. There should be a law against those who don't share my subjective viewpoint on such matters 😄 😄 . You don't seem to be clear on many things ... It is not the fact that they don't have a venue to present their dissenting views, but the fact that laws are enacted to prevent them from doing so. Do you actually not see the difference, 'Napoleon'. ( reference to Orwell's Animal Farm ) Anyway, I'm out. You guys carry on your 'virtue signaling' and patting each other on the back as to how 'woke' you are, all the while, enacting laws which diminish people's rights. Good uck with that.

Any new ideas are offensive to some people, all of the time.* Just ask the millions of Republicans, and MAGAs, in the US about J Biden's agenda, and whether they find it offensive. Do you think 'right-to-lifers' are not offended by the on-going 'murder' that 'pro-choicers' call abortion ? Do they have a right not to be offended ? Does that right only extend to people you agree with ? Or, do you think we should pass laws that forbid new ideas, as they might be offensive to some ? Social justice is a valid ideal to strive for, but you guys need to get off your hypocritical high horse. *( that is also J Peterson )

We are not talking about the usefulness of a thing 1st world citizen poses and why it is a must have for you. I am certain that even Queen or King of the UK or a billionaire would give us some good reasons why they have dozen of cars in the garage and/or jet planes (how they could get fresh French buns in rural house for breakfast after all?!).. We are talking about how to reduce our carbon footprint.. You firstly do actions which 10x increase your carbon footprint and then wonderfully taking step back (or talking about) actions with 1x influence giving overall 9x.. To me, some of you here, are simply mocking from it, or from me, or from global warming and ecology.. Statistical double or triple the usage of energy by average US citizen per capita, than in EU, and much more than the rest of world, didn't come from nowhere..