Phi for All

I was waiting for someone to bring this up. And the answer is, it's just as sexist when used as a compliment as it is as an insult, WHEN USED FOR NO OTHER REASON. If a woman says something intelligent, can't she just be a smart person? Why bring up gender unnecessarily anytime? When you add gender in where it doesn't belong, it's like you're saying, "What an exception to their gender this person is!"

I think it definitely goes too far. Especially the way you put it here, it makes it seem like you hate the folks on the other side. Or is this more abogado del diablo? Especially because Trump is ignorant of key foreign policies and immigration's effect on societies Especially because he's being investigated for corruption and/or treason. Especially because this administration has a history of abusing tax-funded contracts. Especially because Trump hires private contractors who physically and sexually abuse immigrant detainees. Especially because border crossings have been dropping steadily for the last 20 years. Especially because you can't secure our southern border with a wall without dispossessing some Americans of their land with protracted court battles. Especially because the Trump administration cares fuck-all about the environmental concerns of this wall, and refuses to address them adequately. And most especially because the easiest, most comprehensive fix is to overhaul our immigration system, which is something Trump isn't interested in, mostly because he's a moronic, ignorant fascist at the head of the most shambolic administration the US has EVER known.

No. As Moontanman points out, it's the null hypothesis. It's the explanation with the fewest assumptions. If I toss some chemicals together without trying to create something, is the result designed? If the chemicals come together due to random occurrence, is that any different? Frankly, the stuff you've made up is guesswork piled on guesswork. Your reasoning is subjective and doesn't match with observation. It's like you used the same process early humans used to invent religion, only you're saying it isn't religion because religion is stupid.

I know that a discussion about this topic doesn't benefit from such a childish retort. Trump's tantrums seem to be contagious.

Come on now, that's a strawman of the position. Gender only needs to be removed where it doesn't make sense to use it, and isn't that true of a LOT of things? Take the sugar out of my ketchup, please, and the pollutants from our manufacturing processes. And while you're at it, stop emphasizing negative traits by adding gender to increase the insult.

Thank you.

I worked my way through it while Jordan was still writing it. I'm a fantasy fan, and I loved his system of magic, and the concept of the Wheel and the Weave as a representation of the tapestry of life. His characters were individual and interesting, and the main ones were highly relatable. My big problem was that Jordan seemed to feel that if a supporting character didn't have a first and last name, it wouldn't mean anything to you when they got killed. If he'd given them recognizable names, that might have worked, but they were mostly made up, and many sounded alike (Alivia, Aviendha, Alviarin, etc). And there were so many of them! Every Aes Sedai and Aiel had to have a full name and background, as well as all the leaders and representatives of all the lands. If a character spoke, they had a full bio sheet, and I didn't feel it was always necessary. I think the series got away from Jordan towards the end of his life. He had so many fans, and so many awesome characters and plot lines to work with, it must have been insane trying to tie it all up and end it. I think Sanderson did a great job with the last 3 (?) books, and kept to the spirit of the story while moving it along towards a finale that made sense and satisfied rabid fans.

That's a LOT of books, congratulations. And it was Brandon Sanderson took up the series after Jordan's death.

It's probably being drowned out by all the whataboutisms being thrown around.

Then perhaps you're still of the mind that people need to be defined sexually before you can identify with them in any other way. Many men still do that. For you, it isn't a statement about women, but for too many other men it is. And the statement is ugly, brutal, and heavily prejudiced. And again, AGAIN, bear in mind we're talking about people shaping public sentiment, leaders and heads of state that are constantly in the media. I think they deserve some extra special scrutiny, adhere to their scruples more closely, seeing as how they help inform many of our own decisions. If we want things to be better, for women especially in this context, we have to be willing to change when we're shown how much our words hurt.

If you'd read what I wrote, it would be quite clear that the woman made a sexist remark. If she had a habit of making sexist remarks, I would probably label her a sexist. What is so hard about separating the person from the behavior? We do it all the time here. We attack ideas, not people. A person can make a sexist remark and not BE a sexist. Are we going to start calling you a thief because of that thing you stole? Or are we going to reserve that label for when you don't learn your lesson and steal something else? Why is it so hard to admit that Jeremy Corbyn, not generally considered a sexist, made a sexist remark that he shouldn't have? I've done sexist things before, and later realized what I did. I might have realized more quickly if someone had pointed my behavior out to me. Men rarely do, and women have been conditioned not to make waves around men. I'm glad this movement is happening in my lifetime, and I support my sisters in their quest for more respectful treatment.

Is this the problem then? Do you think making a sexist remark makes you a sexist? I think you need to practice the bad habit regularly before you're considered that as a whole. You've lied before, but I wouldn't classify you as a liar (the way I do with Trump). I actually think this is why many guys defend bad behavior. They don't want a mistake to label them, but what's really important here is that the language needs to stop being needlessly offensive.

Which instances? Which groups? Your OP made no mention of atheist groups. That's why I brought up that I'm considered a "weak atheist", since I don't say god(s) don't exist. Are you saying religious people are trolls? I don't think that's true. Are you talking about strong atheists and strong believers trolling each other ("God exists!" "No, She doesn't!")? As for the parts where you talk about nature, and detection, and "greater detail of existence", I don't understand that at all. You aren't very clear about what you mean wrt those things. Can I ask why you talk about "truth" as if it's objective?

You sure do jump around a lot! I still don't know exactly where you stand on atheism, morality, and truth, even though you just started a thread about them. I think you have a caricature version of atheism in your mind that doesn't align with reality. What about a weak atheist like me, who treats god(s) the same way I treat commemorative plate collecting (I don't mind those who do, but I prefer not to participate)? I call myself a Humanist, and I'm willing to accept a supernatural deity if one ever becomes observable in a scientific sense, but until then I'll focus on people and the natural world instead. Also, I dislike it when anyone talks about "truth" or "Truth". They always say it like it's a universal truth, but it never is, it's always subjective to the person who believes it. I especially dislike it when someone talks about others being "wrong" about the "truth". And why, WHY would you trust only your senses to tell you what it "true"? Our senses are easily fooled, and that's why we have the scientific method, to help us determine what is the best, most reasoned explanation for a specific phenomenon. I'm an atheist who isn't part of the "God Debate", because I don't think of god(s) in terms of exist/not exist. Do you think I'm immoral? Do you think I'm wrong?

And as our own lip-reading expert confirmed, the denial was an outright lie. Why lie if he was just removing the ambiguity surrounding Theresa May's gender, or to emphasize the target of his ire (even though she had just spoken) for his aide's benefit? Because men are far less likely to encounter gender discrimination such as this ("they're all stupid/inadequate/not worth as much money/overly emotional/weaker/whinier/or any other gender-based prejudice X"), I think it's necessary to be a bit more sensitive about demeaning women for being women. It's amazing there's been nine pages of pushback about something that should be so basic, HAS NEVER BEEN TREATED THAT WAY, and is obviously something that needs to be addressed more sincerely in modern times.

I think you're ignoring the fact that the people in the News are there because they're celebrities, and there is no taking someone aside to explain it to them privately. They are in a public arena, and their actions and behaviors should ALWAYS reflect that, IF they don't want this kind of magnified attention.

The moisture doesn't change the shape of the mouth, but if you look at the way your lips wrinkle when you whistle, you can see how making them moist would seal the small crevices and increase the amount of air available for the embouchure. A liquid gasket, if you will, that makes the lips more flexible as it seals the gaps. The moisture also keeps your lips from sticking to your teeth, but that's not as important in whistling as it is in speaking or singing.

The embouchure for whistling is much the same as for blowing into a brass or woodwind instrument's mouthpiece. Licking the lips is the prelude to playing through those, and I think it's to seal the lip creases that happen when you blow, so all the air is used to produce the desired note.

Sometimes misinterpretations are clear and accurate... That was my Itoero impersonation.

That's not true at all. That type of thing becomes obvious fairly quickly, especially to staff. As zapatos points out, you don't see people getting downvotes for every post. That said, if you, Itoero, get a downvote on a post where you suggest modifying definitions of accepted terms so your arguments have more strength, it's probably from me. And you do it a LOT. I'll stop if you will.

I can tell you why. The scientific method goes out of its way to remove the influences of subjectivity, guesswork, gut-feelings, intuition, and anything else that might taint information used in its conclusions. That's why it's been so successful. It's a plodding, methodical process and what you're suggesting amounts to Wild West guesswork and uninformed leaps at vague insights. Why wouldn't people of science object to the way you revere something they try so hard to remove? Uninformed intuition is about as useful as tossing a handful of seeds into your garden plot, not knowing how many will sprout weeds.

This sounds like imagination affecting physical systems. We can imagine a future situation that might make our hearts race, or allow a sense of dread to envelop us, or calm ourselves by imagining a relaxing environment with pleasing attributes. All from the imagination and the chemicals our brains can release based on it. Incredibly powerful system.

Intuition is only trustworthy when it comes from an informed source. Uneducated intuition is just guessing. You need to know the box VERY well before trying to think outside it.

I really thought the argument that Corbyn was using "woman" as a way to identify to his aide who he was talking about was very weak. I presented a better justification for it being a sexist comment, and I'm sorry you're unwilling to acknowledge that. I also thought you were too quick to dismiss SJ when he confirmed what other lip readers saw Corbyn say. In this instance, I think the evidence indicates Corbyn, like many men, need to stop generalizing their negative experiences with women and rethink how they treat and talk about this group of humans.

You and StringJunky and DrP seem to be of the opinion that women don't need to be singled out for special consideration in this context. Many people take this stance on affirmative action issues. Some feel it's unfair to the present to redress inequalities of the past. You probably feel you treat women just fine (maybe MORE than fine), so affirmative action on your part seems superfluous. That's why you mistakenly think this horse is dead, and we should stop flogging it. You're being subjective in this. Personally, I think modern attitudes about women are still heavily tainted by our past, and they need to be addressed just as much as any other sort of discrimination. I think Jeremy Corbyn used "woman" as a negative epithet in this situation, I think he was wrong to do so even if it was an aside, and I think people who try to justify his remarks aren't being objective. As a society, we need to reverse our unequal and unfair treatment of women, and we should start by not making them synonymous with negative feelings and traits. Along the way, I'd also like a word for women who like sex that's as cool as "stud" or "Romeo" or "wolf". Again, all the words for women who like sex are heavily negative.