Peterkin

I'm not sure. Common people have always accepted that their betters have the power of life and death over them. Historically, however egregious the injustices and cruelties imposed upon them by the ruling elite, people have not revolted except when they were literally starving and when their religious or national identity was at stake. Even then, it takes at least one charismatic leader, a lot of agitation and a lot more repression, for a showdown to take place. (Mostly, the rebels lose anyway.) Under capitalism, we have long learned to accept the parties on the yacht, the gold toilets, the joyrides in space, even while people freeze to death in the street. We already know that some people can buy vital organs, as well as cosmetic surgery and high-tech implants, while many can't afford emergency care when they've been in an accident. We have raised the super-rich up to Olympus; we expect them to take advantage of all its amenities.

Protection of one's own genetic investment from outsiders is a far older instinct than humans. OTOH, the same parent, as soon as the other child is gone, may take their own child to task for his part in the conflict, and very possibly impose some penalty. When arbitrating a dispute between two of their own offspring, parents can be impartial, fair, biased toward one or the other child, punitive or lenient, micro-managing or hands-off. Generally, their aim is to teach their children values and social skills that will serve them well in adult life. The philosophies, cultural norms, styles and levels of competence vary widely, but the intent is generally the same as for an elephant or stoat. Maybe so, but I don't believe this is happening in the same way in all societies. In the example of the child being sent home from school, there are very many factors, which have also changed over the decades: school policy, the reasons a child might be sent home, the parents' level of confidence in the system and in the teacher - and how much upheaval this kind of incident causes in a household. Your example would certainly have been true of the majority of people in European-derived cultures up to the middle of the last century or slightly beyond: trust in the system was high; there was an expectation of permanence, so that children were required to conform to existing norms. (Even so, my grandfather, in 1930, had a teacher removed from his children's school for cruelty - not to them, but to their classmates of a different religion. He listened to his kids, believed them and investigated the situation. He also never, on principle, hit a woman, a subordinate, a child, a dog or a horse. What's usual is not universal; it's the exceptions that inspire change.) An atmosphere of uncertainty and distrust began to manifest (in North America; I think Europe was already on a different path) in the 1970's. There followed a drawing-in, a circling of wagons around kin, congregation, community, world-view and growing suspicion of - if not outright hostility toward - outsiders. For most people, that's far too self-reflexive a question ever to ask. I do not see such a world on any horizon.

And it was worth the wait! This theme of extreme longevity is far from unexplored. It's a constant preoccupation of a species intensely aware of its mortality - and yet so arbitrary in assigning value to life. One of the older races in Babylon 5 threw a collective tantrum when one of their number was killed: they were so unused to death - as applied to themselves. They were happy to apply it with a lavish hand to the the younger races. It's partly a question of numbers: few are precious; many are expendable. A very human concept.

I wonder how the queen is feeling tonight. (Strangely, and for no reason, I've been humming her song the last couple of days. I wish her well, btw; I think she's done a better job as monarch than the vast majority of her predecessors. But every era must end.) I'm not so sure about the patience of age. So many elder parts are bad at waiting for things, and so many of us have a tougher time every year, suffering fools and wastrels. I do see the need for rejuvenation. What if you had alternate bodies? Clones would do in a pinch, but I'd prefer a real change: five years as an iguana, perhaps, then back to my regular self for ten; five years as a Laplander, then back to my regular self for ten.... A change of scenery and perspective, different sensory equipment. I've always envied Granny Weatherwax her ability to 'borrow' other creatures. It wouldn't need to be actual bodies; it could be a virtual vacation in a computer simulation.* But even if you didn't regenerate the physical brain, at least you could take on some long-term projects. Of course, none of this is practicable with the current level of population or anything near it. It could only ever be available to a few. In SF mode: how this story would end is: Yes, they invent the anti-aging drug: people who take it stay the same age as when they begin treatment.... for the exact number of heartbeats they would normally have had left. Some good-looking corpses for the embalmer. (* Yes, I'm aware that a computer doesn't understand the first thing about how being an iguana feels. But it could recreate the environment, locomotion, POV as well as it could for magic adventure games. I'm sure some bright young-ish coders would be happy to get on that project.)

He said that's what he would do. And has he actually done it in real life? If this was addressed to the person on the panel who looked very feminine, it simply fits his his usual form: What I perceive trumps what you feel. i don't now who the other panelists were and couldn't understand much of what they said. This is not what I "claimed". What I observed was:

I wonder why you included this. Yes, he makes easy claims. No, he does not prove them. Nothing new there.

What difference does it make whether the word is French, English or Urdu. It is no more or less meaningful, no more or less difficult to say than he or she. It is certainly easier to remember and pronounce that most proper names.

Each one of those categories was a separate and hard-fought issue. First, religion was legally protected (though it might be hard to convince some north American Jews and Muslims that it's been altogether successful, but at least they're admitted into university). Then racial discrimination became the contested issue, then sex, then age (though each of those recently enfranchised groups are still finding more snakes than ladders). Sexual orientation was a taboo subject and criminal offense until 50 years ago, but the jeers, rejections and beatings continued on. This may be the last frontier of universal acceptance - but it hasn't been won yet! Peterson comes within an inch of saying that in one of his 'debates'.

So does the professor on the podium. Jordan Peterson has been forcefully and very publicly making the point that he shouldn't be required to respect the stated identity of anyone he considers unworthy. When someone has noticeably different different pigmentation, their racial identity is not questioned - though their 'hypersensitivity' is often cited as the reason for complaint, rather than the disrespectful speech itself. But if the intentional discrimination is on the basis of gender identity, which is not outwardly visible, their claim to it can be denied. If the student complains, it's the student who is called delusional, a nutbar, and worse. Who are these extreme activists? What, specifically, have they done and to whom?

If a boss, commanding officer or president - is a delusional nutbar [it happens] who makes a ridiculous petty demand that he be addressed as "sir", most people just do it, whatever they privately think of him. Why is it okay to indulge the whim of a superior, but not a peer or subordinate? It's quite commonly accepted to humour a child. What is so unthinkable about humouring an adult with a harmless delusion? Dr. Peterson's 'argument' [sounds like, from what I've heard of it] : I won't speak respectfully to people I despise [for reasons he delineates, but does not demonstrate as valid] and the law that tries me to force me to [It doesn't.] is wrong [It isn't.] His 'debate' with minority and only recently enfranchised people is: I refuse to engage with your issues, because I don't recognize your collective identity. IOW: I get to assign identity to others and reject their right to identify themselves. If his attitude, widely accepted, will result in a 'better' society - by some definition other than the one with which I'm familiar, which FAIK may be described Dr. Peterson's literary opus - nobody here has made the case for it.

Because, in the US and Canada, these protest actions did not succeed without conflict and the participants did not all come through it unharmed. In fact, the process is still ongoing; people are still protesting and demanding fair treatment, and they're still getting hurt, even killed. If they so much as want the basic human respect of having their declared identity recognized in school or workplace, they're derided and excoriated by highly paid, highly visible media celebrities. If none of that happens in Australia, you are a very enlightened nation and I salute you. Anyway, I wasn't casting aspersions on your character; mere defending the old farts you said would have to die off before civil discourse can become the norm. That was the only statement with which I disagreed, and it's been more than adequately discussed by now.

😃Thank you. We're not ready for the cart.

What makes you think I would consider your propensities relevant? In what capacity did you stand beside them? At a formal protest, sit-in, parade, public hearing? Maybe Australia made inclusion of minorities easier than Canada and such protests were not required to bring about the necessary change. Maybe Australian society just changes through the process of evolution. If so, I wish all nations could take Australia's lead. In any case, I believe having us old farts die off won't make very much difference to progress.

Lots of us old farts were heavily invested in making changes happen. Lots of us old farts absorbed a great many insults and much worse, simply for standing beside a person from one of the despised minorities - and for befriending, supporting or dating such a person... Thing is, society doesn't change. People change some aspect of society, one battle at a time.

And getting even that much accomplished was a long, hard slog. In Canada, as in the US, immigrants routinely had their names altered or shortened on legal documents, because a customs officer found it too much effort to spell or pronounce those weird names "you people" all have. It seems "you people" are chronically ungrateful and far too touchy. I do believe the hardest thing for entrenched privilege to understand is that these cumulative slights and dismissals are felt as a burden of "group identity" - because those persons are identified as a group, rather than as individuals. "Who, me? All I did was put one little straw on a camel - whyn't he just man up? "

The knob is no problem. It's the female part that makes it mysterious. If it doesn't attach to something, it must clutch something or squeeze two things together. Very small things.... I like the string theory: you could tighten it to increase tension or immobilize the string. But then the little cufflink thingies are just hanging there.... Unless... that tiny slanted groove on the button part runs in a rail, pulled by the loop of string. Confounding! (Oh, my @md65536 , that's a beautiful piece of machinery!)

I don't think that guy is very popular with Dr. Peterson's audience. But if our concern is with building sustainable societies, the law-makers need to don that veil, and the left-behind need it lifted.

Peterson's position seems to be that, since life is unfair, people shouldn't be fair or expected to obey laws that force them to be fair. Me, I don't consider that a good political idea. I think that, once humans came up with the concept of fairness, they should try to apply it, to make up for some of nature's injustices. After all, we try to make up for nature's lapses in medicine and technology.

What I actually wrote was: And if you will note the efforts currently, and for some time now, under way in various countries, they are not altogether successful. Meanwhile, in some other places, including part of the US, laws have recently been passed that make family planning, access to birth control and sex education more difficult. In fact, the efforts of people far more powerful and influential than you are have fallen short of their aspiration, for all the reasons that I've previously outlined. Changing attitudes is not fast or easy; when there is powerful opposition, it becomes even more difficult. "The will" does not materialize on demand, or uniformly, or globally. The reasons you deny do exist and won't disappear because you have this "idea".

Why do you think nobody tried? You really are not the very first person ever to think of this!

IF. And that's the whole thing in a nutshell. IF the will, then economic prosperity. IF the will, then no more tribal wars or colonial oppression. IF the will, then liberation of minorities, empowerment of women, birth control, universal literacy, comprehensive vaccination and perinatal health-care.... IF

They look as if the two parts go either side of a wall with a tiny hole in it. Securing clamps for a glass lampshade on a brass base? Only, there should be three.

Please present the ones that have not yet been discussed.

Which people talk this way? Expand You do. Over and over. I have shown, with numerous citations, what does affect the birth rate. There is nothing 'inhuman' about raising the standard of living or giving women social and economic autonomy. You don't have to follow the links or read the reports, but denying their existence is .... unproductive. I think it's impossible for you to change other people's - particularly heads of state and religious bodies - attitudes and persuade them to implement the measures you propose. Show us.

There are several reasons, both political and religious. Who makes these demands on whom? On what basis? How is the edict enforced?