More backlog on PC ideology, in response to the study showing NBA 'racism':


A: I'm not sure Gabriel actually thinks any unfair descrimination ever occurs in a manner worth mentioning, except against straight, male, majority race (on a local scale) atheists. The only time to my recollection he's indicated to the contrary was where he felt an Australian Muslim was wrongly attacked for misogyny. Strange how it's always the people who were actually historically violently, systematically oppressed who are being oversensitive and imagining things...


B: Not to mention, of course, that women who wear skimpy clothes bring
rape, molestation and all sort of sexual crime upon themselves. TAKE THAT, YOU WHORE! Go pre-enlightenment pre-feminist pre-school thinking!!!!


Me:

> I'm not sure Gabriel actually thinks any unfair descrimination ever
> occurs *snip*

If there's a whole row of Chinese takeouts along the street and I do not open another Chinese takeout, this does not mean that I dislike Chinese food.

If you don't understand that, too bad - I'm still on the road.

> The only time to my recollection he's indicated to the contrary was
>where he felt an Australian Muslim was wrongly attacked for misogyny.

Ah yes. That was a repellent case of homophobia. Cultural imperialists were trying to impose ethnocentric values on some Muslim imam who called women pieces of meat for dressing provocatively.

In any case, you suffer from serious selection bias. There are many times when I have 'indicated to the contrary'.

>Strange how it's always the people who were actually historically
>violently, systematically oppressed who are being oversensitive and
>imagining things...

Strange how people who have historically been oppressed must inevitably be oppressed now, and people who have historically been oppressors must inevitably be the ones oppressing now and cannot be oppressed in any way.

Really, this just shows the ideological biases inherent in PC/left wing discourse.

>Not to mention, of course, that women who wear skimpy clothes bring
>rape, molestation and all sort of sexual crime upon themselves. TAKE
>THAT, YOU WHORE! Go pre-enlightenment pre-feminist pre-school
>thinking!!!!

Drivers who leave their cars unlocked bring car theft upon themselves. Whoo!

(Short exposition: Victimology looks at the role of the victim in the commiting of a crime, and it is essential to study both the criminal and the victim. Unfortunately, in car theft, the victim is always blamed for the crime. Unfortunately too, in sexual crimes against women perpetrated by men, the role of the victim is never looked at,
and anyone who does that risks being called misogynistic, saying women deserve it blah blah)


B: Gabriel,

We have been through this whole "I am not racist, I am merely saying that I will
get raped in South Africa" (or whatever nonsense that you are on about) thing millions of times. If you are racist, just say you are racist. If you are sexist, just say you are sexist. Don't try to mask it under a veneer of progressive, iconoclastic but ultimately logical thinking. Because when you do that, you're no better than Yvonne C L Lee. Which, of course, I don't give you credit for.


D: In the sociological literature, we generally accept that culture changes slowly, and in fact pointing out this fact is one of the most common ways to challenge a cultural-type explanation. For example, Landes argues that late C19 British entrepreneurial failure was caused by the cultural conservatism of British industrialists, which led them not to profit maximise, etc etc. But then this explanation is flawed since it is then impossible to explain why Britain was at the forefront of the industrial revolution just half a century earlier.

My point is: cultures don't change easily. This means that racial attitudes do not change quickly. Segregation was only legally defeated in the 50s, and only really took effect after the Supreme Court mandated positive action to desegregate schools in the late 60s. That's about 50 years ago. If 50 years ago a black man could be lynched (i.e. beaten to death then hung on a tree to rot) for talking to a white woman, or a black WWII veteran who dared to join a victory parade could have his eyes gouged out by white supremacists, I think you'd forgive black people today for not exactly believing that they have been welcomed with open arms and hearts all over the place.

This analysis would extend to Jews, gays and other minorities.


Me: I am reminded of a poster on employment law in California which I saw
earlier today which proclaimed that discriminating against people because of language ability is illegal. Which presumably means that if you can't speak English, that is still not a good enough reason for someone to not hire you.

I recall too how Larry Summers was called sexist and ousted as President of Harvard for trying to address the reasons why women were underrepresented in the Sciences and Engineering (he said that, horror, fewer women than men might be extremely talented in mathematics - I hope that in the future we fire basketball coaches not for being pedophiles but for saying that girls are less physically endowed than boys).

I welcome the day when discrimination against the lazy and the stupid is outlawed as bigotry.

>My point is: cultures don't change easily... I think you'd forgive
>black people today for not exactly believing that they have been
>welcomed with open arms and hearts all over the place.

Sure, discrimination does exist today but I object to how discrimination is automatically jumped to as an explanation to explain inequality between historically oppressed and historically oppressing groups.

For example, blacks earn less than whites. The instinctive reaction in some circles is to cry discrimination and accuse society of being racist. But when you correct for education, it has been found that blacks actually earn *more* than whites, if they have the same educational level.

Also, female doctors earn less than male doctors. This is not because the medical profession is sexist, but because female doctors do not specialise, or if they specialise they choose less well-paying fields like paediatrics and obs/gynae. They also work fewer hours, choose flexi-time arrangements (which decreases the possibility of being on call) etc.

Furthermore, if oppressed groups keep thinking they are victimised and marginalised, regardless of whether this is the case, it's just going to generate a persecution complex and hinder them in daily life, to say nothing of the effects on the rest of society. For example, this black researcher at MIT failed to get tenure and went
on a 12 day hunger strike, claiming that he was being discriminated against. Some scientists looking on noted that he had not done much useful work in his field and so shouldn't get tenure. Nonetheless, Noam Chomsky and 10 other professors (only 2 of whom were scientists and in the field) wrote a letter in his support alleging discrimination.

For those who are not enamored of appealing to veracity as a criterion for judging arguments' worths, it might be borne in mind that self-righteously barking up the wrong tree, though making us feel better about ourselves, is going to perpetuate suffering rather than addressing its real causes.

>>(Short exposition: Victimology looks at the role of the victim in
>
> What was the point of this?

The point is that going into automatic "you are misogynistic and think women deserve to be raped" mode anytime someone mentions victim precipitation in relation to sexual crimes perpetuated by men on women is not only wrong-headed, it also hinders solution of the problem.


Cock: I want to add that just because one says that "environment X [e.g. the existence of men who think skimpily dressed women invite themselves to be raped] is dangerous" does not mean that we morally condone the existence of environment X. Environment X may be very difficult to eradicate or minimise for all sorts of cultural or practical reasons, and while we are at the job of doing that it makes sense to live with Environment X, in the sense of taking some precautions to minimise risk.

For example, while being drunk shouldn't be an excuse at all for men to sexually assault women who have had too much to drink ( and the law in England and Wales is highly deplorable in this respect), nevertheless, I do not think that it is insensible to say that objectively that "drunkeness increases your vulnerability to assault, and it is actually a good idea to take precautions, such as having friends to look out for you." I think that this is the gist of what Gabriel is trying to get at.


C: Yeah, for example, it would be really stupid for a girl to take part in some orgy of drinking with a bunch of teenaged guys. If she gets raped, the guy should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and her stupidity is no excuse for the guy's behaviour. But it's still really careless on her part!


D: Yes, but more importantly, no.

Gabriel thinks it is counter-productive to say 'the idea that a woman can act in certain ways which are likely to provoke rape is abhorrent', because apparently that encourages women to act in risky ways.

No. Alcohol, naivety and stupidity might lead a woman to do certain things which will increase her likelihood of being raped. Risk-loving behaviour is not the cause here.

MOREOVER, this abhorrent idea has been implanted in the minds of sexist judges, who DO in fact give very lenient sentences (at least in the UK) and make rape one of the LEAST prosecuted serious crimes. Indeed, you are more likely to be successfully prosecuted for tax evasion than raping someone in the UK.


Me:

>Gabriel thinks it is counter-productive to say... abhorrent',

Incidentally, what is true and what is abhorrent are not always mutually exclusive, at least to some people.

>because apparently that encourages women to act in risky ways.
>
>No. Alcohol, naivety and stupidity might lead a woman to do certain
>things which will increase her likelihood of being raped. Risk-
>loving behaviour is not the cause here.

When did I talk about risk loving behaviour? Is not imbibing a lot of alcohol a risky way to act? Do naivety and stupidity not make one act in risky ways?

>MOREOVER, this abhorrent idea has been implanted in the minds of
>sexist judges

From my reading, I was under the impression that worldwide, rape is one of the most harshly and enthusiastically prosecuted crimes. Perhaps it is different in the UK.