TheVat

Could we stipulate that personal taste, if not shared callously or translating to prejudicial action, is what it is and best left alone? As for the topic, it seems reasonable to say homophobia is learned. The strongest prima facie case for that has been touched on here: those who aren't raised with anti-LGBT biases in their culture do not seem to be homophobic. (while they may have personal tastes and things they prefer not to do or watch, as is characteristic of all humans) I would speculate that language, in many modern nations, still serves to transmit homophobic memes. C___s___er is still a common term of insult towards men, where I live. Many political forums had posts disparaging male Trump toadies as "s__ing on Trump's d___." Language tends to be a repository of cultural biases.

I've forgotten the original topic, but perhaps this is relevant: Q. What is the difference between a chickpea and a garbanzo bean? A. Donald Trump never had a garbanzo bean on his face. Stupid joke, right? It's funny partly for the wordplay, partly because it references Trump's alleged activity at a Moscow hotel, and partly because there are cultural stereotypes about the decadence of the rich. It's partly driven by the same notion of excess that informs the classic joke that's been around since the seventeenth century usually called "The Aristocrats." I won't tell it (it's filthy), and you've all probably heard it. Both jokes, and others like them, assume that certain sexual acts between people that are less "proper" or "normal" than others are a sort of degradation. The ordinary person, bound by middle-class morality, is invited to look down on this degradation and enjoy a laugh. Maybe some homophobia (and this would definitely be in the category of learned) is a result of social stratification - there's a sort of middling mainstream where you don't have much power, so historically the options for feeling okay with your lot were to look up at the powerful and see their excess and corruption, and look down on groups that have been downtrodden, judged as lazier or deviant or just stupid (or various combinations of those). Classes of people in the middle were in the least secure position, so there developed ways to punch up AND punch down. I don't know, just playing around with this, and dinner beckons (would you believe chickpeas are involved?)

The examples are just used to underscore that some things some people enjoy are gross to others. No one is saying "X is equally gross as Z" in some disparaging way AFAICT. Indeed that's why I posted the example earlier about heterosexual fondling on the Quad, specifically to point out there are many behaviors, including hetero, where I think "getting a room" is a great idea. You are extracting something prejudicial that is not (for my posts anyway) at all there. And I would caution against confidence regarding your knowledge of what's in my head or anyone else's. I think @zapatos has just further clarified the distinction between distaste and prejudice.

Haha! With the preparation I described, perhaps "into the compost pile." (weird nutritional science aside: for Caesarean babies, there is now an emerging line of evidence that such a salad, if the fecal donor is a parent with good digestive health, might have healthful benefit to their developing intestinal microflora colony)

I think the distinction between prejudice and taste has been pretty clear here. If I judge someone taking a shit on a tossed salad with distaste, I don't have to try a bite to make certain of my judgment. Someone may find any act distasteful for them personally on whatever basis they wish, e.g. an extrapolation from their own aesthetic preference. If I don't care for body parts shoved up my asshole, that's not a prejudice against others, just my personal preference. Why would someone who is into that care what my preferences are, when I don't care what theirs are? This just seems like a fairly simple ethical concept to grasp. Everyone just minds their own business in the boudoir. Easy peasy.

This being a philosophy thread, I feel it's worth asking if there is much mileage to be had in determining if distaste (i.e. aesthetic preference) should be grounded in reason. The chat still veers into conflating tastes and prejudices, which are not the same thing. I don't want my face peed on. Not my taste. But I have no prejudicial attitude towards those who do. Nor is there a compelling reason to remedy my distaste or determine if it has a rational basis. Why does @Intoscience have to remedy what seems to be a personal taste that has no adverse effect on society? If this is an ethics thread, that potential effect on others, or lack of, would be the relevant matter.

Bioinformatics is one whose meaning changed quite a bit. In the early 70s it was the study of information processes in biotic systems. Now it's a broad interdisciplinary field that combines biology, chemistry, physics, computer sci, IT, and math/stats to analyze and interpret biological, medical, and health data. IOW, it started out mainly about sequencing then broadened vastly.

Well, yes, it's bad behavior that is noticed. And this points to a real demarcation between homophobia and aesthetic aversion. To silently harbor distaste (because you know it's just your own squeamish quirk or whatever) is what tolerant people do. To express it is to move towards intolerance and inviting others to join in with condemnation (or passive-aggressive variants). Unfortunately a lot of people's morality is little more than an aesthetic leaning (derived from a jumble of childhood impressions) which then someone with an intolerant agenda plays upon and steers towards harsh judgement. In my own aesthetics, I am an equal-opportunity eye-averter. I'm just as averse to see some dude clutching his GF's boobs in the Quad as I am to two dudes tongue kissing. Neither seems wrong to me, I just prefer humans pursue foreplay in rooms or shrubbery. I cannot imagine turning this preference into an ideology or a doctrine. In the words of Groucho Marx: Let joy be unconfined. Let there be dancing in the streets, drinking in the saloons and necking in the parlor.

Licking at a dried residue, perhaps. Bolton is a superhawk, who doesn't believe in international law, the UN, treaties, or much of anything that doesn't involve America annihilating any nation that might get in our way. He is dangerously stupid. And a rabidly anti-Muslim bigot. No wonder Trump appointed him as National Security Advisor. And maybe running for president. LoL!

Doesn't seem weird to me. I find people chewing gum distasteful. I don't think it's wrong or that they shouldn't enjoy. That something may not appeal to my own aesthetics is not a judgment on its moral legitimacy. I think that's where many straight males are, re gay sex. You can find some activity distasteful (golden showers, anyone?) without minding in the least that others enjoy it.

Indeed. Or Sex with Ducks.

Also like some of their raunchier songs, which I will warn may be NSFW.

There will be a Quiz, no?

Too many whiskeys may cause you to miss keys.

The Friday and Saturday objects were around 40,000 ft, an altitude that gets a lot of monitoring due to being in commercial airspace. And heightens risk of an accident that would potentially spark war. I would imagine any intelligence service that deserves the name would terminate that part of the experiment. Female geese are so self-serving.

Delicious! Adding pb to oats is one of my standard foods from youth and student days. The natural kind (no palm oil or other hydrogenated fats) you have to stir, but it's better for you.

Single food thinking is problematic for a healthy diet. Foods operate synergistically. Arterial plaque formation is far more affected by overall intake of soluble fiber, antiinflammatory foods (e.g. omega3 rich oils, berries, avocado, green tea, oranges, almonds, walnuts, olive oil, etc), and moderation on fried foods and animal-based saturated fats (which raise those LDLs @exchemist mentioned). Eat well, in this way, and a couple eggs won't matter. How about for breakfast: an egg, oatmeal with berries and walnuts, and an orange? And go easy on whole milk, or substitute a plant milk.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/09/asia/japan-zoo-gibbon-pregnancy-mystery-intl-hnk/index.html Japanese zookeepers believe they have solved the mystery of how a gibbon became pregnant despite living alone in her cage. Momo, a 12-year-old white-handed gibbon, shocked her keepers at the Kujukushima Zoo and Botanical Garden in Nagasaki in February 2021 when she gave birth despite having no known male companionship. Now two years later, following a DNA test on her baby, the zoo has worked out who the father is – and even has a theory about how the gibbons mated....

The question of genetic predispositions towards personality traits, sociopathy, etc is another thread, right? Most people are not antisocial, and will assume duties of care presented as that society's ethos. Some have an "overachiever" personality trait and may extend their active care beyond what's required, other are "slackers," and will see if they can get away with some neglect (often with justifications along the lines of "I'm just one person, not much I can do" or "that's government's job.") To me, a classic contrast in the US attends the nuisance task of recycling. Some, if their city only has a few centers with dumpsters to take your recyclables to, will be happy to sort their stuff, pack it into the car, and haul it there. They feel good, doing something good for the larger community and environment. Others chuck everything in regular trash, can't be bothered, and say "the city needs to give us all curbside bins, period!" (often the same people who say, "clean air, pfft! I'll get a greener car when Big Auto makes one in my price range and my precise specs. I'll get a bike when they've got their own special pathways and the boss installs showers at work and allows casual dress and blah blah blah...") Some people do seem to have a larger sense of collective action and benefit than others. And this also relates to how much one buys into the way capitalism peddles "convenience" as a commodity. Americans are subjected to pernicious levels of this, as if having everything be as easy as possible were some ultimate virtue.

I have read some speculation that the greater proximity to the surface allows the antenna array to pick up weaker signals - especially short-distance line-of-sight communications that are used by the military. Even if they can't crack the encryption, just knowing the location and duration of the squirts, and their timing, can reveal a lot. (from unidentified Pentagon source that spoke to CNN): The balloon's spyware payload, the size of a regional jetliner, had "multiple antennas to include an array likely capable of collecting and geo-locating communications." There is also this, from David DeRoches, a professor at the Near East South Asia Center for Strategic Studies at the National Defense University in Washington, DC. -- He told Al Jazeera the Chinese balloon shot down by the US could also have been used to “gather information on what kind of signals [the US is] using to track it, so it could possibly identify and classify radar hits … which could be of interest if the Chinese wanted to actually launch an attack.” Stuff you can't get from a Pine Gap + satellites type setup, IOW. And also, obviously, the relatively slow speed of a balloon v LEO satellite, and greater proximity will also yield clearer images of ground objects of interest. (and geosynchronous satellites are at an even greater distance, and so their imaging can be pretty foggy)

Not sure how you would bridge the gap between some people on the web crafting legislation and inducing any politicians (i.e. legislators) to use that as a model for actual bill proposals. We don't really have direct democracy here in the USA, and politicians tend to listen to big money donors and lobbyists because they know where their bread is buttered in our rather plutocratic system. You might get farther with, instead, promoting public awareness and GOTV (Get Out The Vote) on particular issues. For example, reproductive rights people organized pretty well and helped stymie the "Red Wave" that was originally predicted to flip over forty seats in the US House of Representatives, and several seats in the Senate. Most people don't think about legislation so much as they do "hot button" issues that they are emotionally engaged with.

I find it interesting that the balloon was spotted right away on its approach - over the Bering Sea, in fact. Was this balloon and payload larger than the previous ones, making it easier to spot, or did we just happen to get lucky this time and be looking in the right place? I don't know if all the answers are going to be declassified on this. I wonder if this was a case of the Chinese SIGINT people getting cocky, "hey, we've floated a half dozen of these over, without fuss, wooohooo!..." It could be lack of competent analysis of political ramifications, but that's true of a lot of what nations do even when there is good delegation of decision-making and chain-of-command. When humans gets cocky and besotted with cool tech, judgment often goes out the window.

You misunderstood me. I am aware Europe has such racism, and the blacks-are-subhuman thing has many ugly forms. I was aware he intended nothing along those lines, and I was rather urging awareness that in places like the US his original subtitle would, due to our notably fraught history of race relations, offend some people. (and, unfortunately, derail the innocent joke he was making) I would love to live in an America where things have resolved themselves to where such jokes bounce off harmlessly. That would be wonderful. The America I love is one that supports human rights everywhere, not just select spots. I feel like our support of Jewish people would be more credible if it were matched by our support of other displaced people. Both Britain, back in the day, and the US, have shown callous disregard of Palestinian Arabs, and it is only ideology that can warp someone's perception to where they think that's okay. I live in a Native American area of my country, and have witnessed up close the effects of theft, brutality, and displacement, (and blaming the victims when they kick back) so I am aware of the "nuances," especially the ones that Zionists seem to conveniently ignore. Could we split these posts off for a separate thread?

I appreciated @John Cuthber 's gracious response and expression of regret for the unintended implications. I myself have often made the joke that we humans are "apes with cellphones." The video itself, without interpretive remarks, is not racist. Just absurd. I laughed when I first saw it a couple years ago. (and clearly fake, for the reasons already mentioned....plus who would keep holding the camera in that situation?)

You should apologize. Instead of a condescending nonapology which ducks the issue and focuses on an issue that no one has with your post. Yes, we are hominins, related closely to the great apes, yata yata yata. Your post, however, is a gross racist slur, in many areas of the world. However unintended. In my country, the Blacks = apes comparison has been the basis for massive brutality, suffering and death. And the "science" of the comparison has not been of much comfort to those on the receiving end, I can assure you.