alilbee

@alilbee@lemmy.world

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. For a complete list of posts, browse on the original instance.

alilbee ,

To be fair, this was the case in my secular(-ish) public school as well and I believe it was there until the early 2000s. The catholic church has many sins (which Squid did a great job laying out above), but I don't think they, as a group, endorse the concept of corporal punishment like they do with anti-choice practices or the rampant pedophilia. That's a cultural issue with certain regions of the US.

alilbee ,

As someone without skin in this game, I have a clarifying question and you seem willing to discuss. Why is phrenology junk science and evopsych not? What separates the two, for you?

alilbee ,

In your mind, how do you think a phrenologist would respond to that explanation?

alilbee ,

I guess what I'm getting at is: Is there a way you can explain why evopsych is a valid science where phrenology is not, without relying on an argument that a phrenologist would also make? That's a tough set of criteria, but I think it's required.

alilbee ,

Right! So accepted "science" can become pseudoscience once further discoveries are made. I think we all agree on that. The question being debated in this thread, I think, is whether evopsych will also eventually be found to be a pseudoscience. To be clear, I am not proposing we try and guess the future, but to look at the state of the science now and extrapolate that as best we can into the future.

I am a complete lay(wo)man here, so I'm not casting aspersions either way. I would need to do a lot more research for that. I see the other arguments devolving into semantics and rhetoric though instead of focusing on that core conceit.

So you feel any confidence in evopsych as a science? Why or why not? And if those same arguments could be applied to phrenology prior to its official debunking, how valid is that confidence?

alilbee ,

That all works for me. Again, I have no opinion on evopsych itself because I just genuinely know nothing about it. Might read up a bit on the sources from the opposing narratives in the thread if I get time. I don't think you in particular are approaching it from an unscientific or unethical point of view, but it could just be a bit of guilt by association with individuals who are using the topic nefariously. It's not very fair, but it is common and I kinda understand why.

alilbee ,

I've seen you enough Squid to know you're not approaching this in bad faith either, as much as just reacting to what is likely exactly what you say. This is a tough situation because I don't feel that either of you are racist/reactive respectively as much as just sharing info you feel is important. Platforming is weird and nuanced and I do think the other commentor is trying to separate the racist prof from the ideology itself, which could be applied in a non-racist manner. I still think that platforming is open to criticism even if the intent is noble, so that's a valid bone to pick.

Again though, no skin in this game and I have not personally research any of the science or people involved. I just don't want to see what could be a productive argument on a science turn into the rhetoric/semantics debate that online discussions inevitably turn into.

Edit: And also, I'm not trying to approach this from a high and mighty perspective. I just know it's easy to get lost in it when you're passionate. A brief glance at my history would tell you I'm by no means immune to a good internet argument.

alilbee ,

Sure thing, always happy to add to my reading list.

alilbee ,

I think that's a valid take I'd like to see discussion on. For me, I think it's not black and white. Just because of cultural context in the time they lived, I'm certain almost every scientist before 1900 was a raging homophobe and likely racist to boot. Wouldn't surprise me a bit if Darwin and Mendel had problematic beliefs in this same regard. We take the ideas and iterate on them in non-problematic ways to validate the underlying assumptions. Is this guy in the same sort of bucket? Hell if I know.

alilbee ,

Of course, and I agree with that (on faith, because I genuinely don't know who the guy is yet). I've met enough people who are incredibly talented with fucked up views to know that intellect and morality are not as entwined as we might hope. Death of the author, applied to science.

I'm not sure I even agree with this take btw, as much as just finding it a valid one to hold that I would disagree with. It's also fully possible I'm getting invested enough in a hypothetical to the point of being irritating. If so, I do apologize. I'm not trying to provide any sort of moral cover for someone who sounds like an overall shitty person.

alilbee ,

Michael Jackson, Elvis, George Michael, Madonna. Solo artists on that level always generate a fair bit of... extreme fandom, you could say.

alilbee ,

Sure, but music is also one of those subjective things. Hell, I'll even be open and say I never really enjoyed Michael Jackson's music. Even being old enough to know who George Michael is puts our spot in the zeitgeist near the edge, I have to imagine. These big pop stars are also an image of success, celebrity, and youth. That all creates a big stan culture.

alilbee ,

You should stop thinking anything they implement is going to be fair and hurt them in any way. They don't mind being hypocrites at all.

alilbee ,

They just weakened the NLRB in another opinion and when they destroy the Chevron deference principle this year, the NLRB (and a lot of other regulatory agencies like the FDA, EPA, etc) is going to be neutered.

SCOTUS is potentially on the ballot in November. Hope you all vote with reproductive access and labor rights in mind.

alilbee ,

The National Labor Relations Board is the federal agency that is responsible for regulating labor and workers' rights. 15-20 times a year, they use a court injunction to force a company to rehire employees that were fired due to attempted unionization (usually hidden under a BS other reason). The court made it much harder for those injunctions to be granted, meaning unionization efforts are going to be chilled.

The Chevron deference principle refers to a principle stemming from a prior case that effectively defers to federal agencies over courts when there are questions on implicit powers of those agencies. Weakening or destroying this effectively means any power for a federal agency must be explicitly granted in the text of a law, which republicans will never, ever do or allow. This is going to severely undercut the powers of every federal agency we have in varying degrees. Another conservative wet dream.

alilbee ,

I'm just wondering what the supposed benefit of a protest vote even is and how it stacks up against what we lost as a result of 2016? On one hand there's Dobbs, weakening of every federal agency, millions dead from a fumbled pandemic response. On the other, there's... Wait, what is there?

alilbee ,

Not a lawyer either, to be clear. I think your general description holds, but the example wouldn't. Individual drugs would still fall under the explicit granted ability to regulate "drugs" as a whole. I think the injunction power referenced in today's NLRB ruling might be a good example actually, even if they didn't explicitly reject it via this mechanism today.

alilbee ,

A perfect candidate for you is an imperfect candidate for others in the democratic coalition. There is no perfect democratic candidate and we will all have to compromise on as least some levels. Biden has delivered a lot of stellar wins for most democrats and even the side of the party further to the left. Our largest unifying belief right now is in defeating fascism at home. We cannot pursue purity at the expense of progress.

alilbee , (edited )

They. Cannot. Do. This. Legislators cannot just wake up really motivated one day and enshrine reproductive rights. They need numbers, and we have to give it to them for that to happen. There's no alternative, no magical ideal route just waiting for the perfect congress person. Republicans will pull out all the stops on this, so you need a filibuster-proof majority. Give the Dems that and you'll get reproductive rights.

4 months (with a flimsy proper majority due to Lieberman) gave us the ACA, one of the most impactful pieces of legislation regarding healthcare the country has ever seen. We need to vote in large numbers to achieve our political ends.

alilbee ,

I'm really, really worried about it. The FDA is going to lose powers it uses to ensure our food and medicine isn't killing us. The EPA is going to effectively be an advisory agency after this. The FTC looked like it might be back in business this admin, and it's going to be neutered. I'm not even explicitly opposed to this if our legislative branch wasn't inept and/or captured, but... we all know it is and it's not getting better soon.

Hopefully they kill the FDA and all drink raw milk to death, idk.

alilbee ,

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/7aee5e98-76f2-4742-87b4-ac0aeefab71f.jpeg

alilbee ,

And I hate guns and would happily amend the second out of the constitution. I'm sure we both have our reasons behind our beliefs and I respect yours, truly (I only bring this up to illustrate our differences btw, not trying to start a spat). I have my own objections to some Dem candidates and policies, certainly. I love you all though, because we are allies in a much more critical endeavor than any wedge issue: the continuation of our freedom and basic democratic norms. I just don't feel that it's hard to compromise this way and it's the clear path to victory, even for the more divisive issues you care about.

alilbee ,

They had 4 months. And they passed the ACA.

alilbee , (edited )

Can you give me an example of a law steam rolled into place by Republicans in the way you describe? Should be easy.

Edit: Any of the downvoting cowards can feel free to chime in with the republican-passed laws that they shoved past the democratic attempts to stop them. I'll wait!

alilbee ,

Right so you have no idea how our government works. I ask for laws and I get SCOTUS. You view it that way because it is all one big number in your head shifting back and forth, because you have no civics education. It's sad.

alilbee ,

Almost everything listed is an executive order. Democrats cannot stop those (other than at the ballot box). Try again. L-A-W. It's a bill, passed by both chambers of Congress, signed by the president. Like the Affordable Care Act, the Inflation Reduction Act? Can you give me a single one? Hell, I even left the doors wide open to give me the fucking omnibus from each year and you couldn't even do that. Know why? Because you have no idea how your government works.

alilbee ,

hasn't done really any good.

My partner was able to have a surgery this year she would not have been able to otherwise. She got medications she never would have been able to afford. Sure looks like a bunch of good from over here, but maybe I'm biased. Maybe we can ask them?

alilbee , (edited )

Edit: Yknow what, fuck it. Let's just call it. You're trying to de-escalate and I should let that happen. Have a good one.

alilbee ,

I've seen it mentioned by quite a few democratic candidates and politicians. Did you have somewhere specific you think it should have been posted or talked about?

alilbee ,

And we got the ACA, one of the most positive, transformative laws of the last two decades. Did it go as far as we wanted? Nope, but it has changed lives for the better across the country. 4 months.

Transgender swimmer Lia Thomas out of Olympics after losing legal battle ( www.theguardian.com )

The US swimmer Lia Thomas, who rose to global prominence after becoming the first transgender athlete to win a NCAA college title in March 2022, has lost a legal case against World Aquatics at the court of arbitration for sport – and with it any hopes of making next month’s Paris Olympics....

alilbee ,

World Aquatics insists it is doing all it can be inclusive and has introduced an “open” category for black swimmers. However, plans to debut it at the Berlin World Cup last October were cancelled after no entries were received for any of the 50m and 100m races across all strokes, which were due to take place alongside white races.

Phrenologists had a lot to say about all the "physical differences" of the races also. Trans people have just exposed a glaring hole in the way we segregate sports. Maybe instead of appealing to tradition, we can find a better way to introduce fairness into sports?

alilbee ,

False dichotomy, no? Moving away from gender segregation doesn't mean one giant pool. There are non-discriminatory ways to create fairness, possibly even more so. Weight classes and other physical separations might be a good start. I just can't believe that "men and women" are the two ideal categories for fairness and I think if it wasn't just for the tradition of doing it forever, we would be doing something smarter.

alilbee ,

Oh don't worry, they'll be patting themselves on the back. They think that if you just walk away from the trolley problem, they have no fault. Their neck will be in the guillotine and they still won't see how they contributed to it. Purity politics are a selfish, foolish plague on our nation.

Hamas accepts UN ceasefire resolution, ready to negotiate over details, official says ( www.reuters.com )

CAIRO, June 11 (Reuters) - Hamas accepts a UN Security Council ceasefire resolution and is ready to negotiate over the details, senior Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri told Reuters on Tuesday, adding that it was up to Washington to ensure that Israel abides by it....

alilbee ,

There's conflicting narratives coming out of Israel again. It's fully possible they tank this, but I wouldn't take those comments from the UN rep as a rejection of this deal (yet).

alilbee ,

Interesting stats! Gallup is showing that Democrats have shifted leftward socially and Republicans have shifted right, but not as much as the Dems did left. The economic side should not be a huge surprise (showing that Americans as a whole trend conservative) but it is showing some movement.

One takeaway is that polarization is increasing on both social and economic issues. We all feel that, but it's always good to see numbers. Another takeaway is that this is why I despise conversations about the "Overton window". It's completely different for different slices of our politics. These numbers clearly indicate that the Overton window is actually shifting left socially and remaining relatively static economically (in a place we all here likely dislike, but it's been consistent).

alilbee ,

That would reflect differently in the stats, so no, I don't think so. If that was the case, you would see a shift in one direction, not a split showing each direction getting more "intense".

alilbee ,

I do not believe that these statistics corroborate that view, but I'm open to hearing out your analysis!

alilbee ,

I also think the internet is the primary driver for this, but I'm sure it's a vastly complex set of circumstances on top of that. I don't know how we fix this... Increased polarization is always going to tend to negative outcomes. Even if you "win" that first inevitable conflict, there will be another one. I think even my political enemies have a vested interest in fixing this, although their answer would likely just be "restrict the internet once in power".

alilbee ,

I agree with you, and yet... It's winning them elections. We can be upset about it all we want, but it's increasingly clear that bigotry and xenophobia are winning arguments in this era. We're fucked if we don't adjust. I'm not proposing we abandon migrants, but the one thing myself and the person you replied to likely agree on is that the left is increasingly losing sight of home and the average citizen, not in terms of rhetoric but in effect. We're about to lose the EU and possibly lose support for Ukraine, see even more immigration restrictions, and see an empowered global far-right. The voters are telling us they have different priorities, which we need to focus on in a more altruistic way than the right. We have to be introspective here if we ever want to accomplish our goals.

alilbee ,

... or don't introspect, blame the voters, and lose forever. It could not matter less what is true, it's only what the populace believes. That's politics. If our ideology can't stand up to this, it must adjust or it deserves to fail.

alilbee ,

Completely agreed. It's the difference between your political views being an excuse for you to feel morally validated or being a mechanism to improve lives. If it's the latter, it's time to get to work. We're failing and thus losing our ability to do what we stated. If it's people being idiots, educate them. If it's people being lied to, reach them. Regardless, we live in a democracy and the entire point is that the people get to choose and the people are rejecting us. We cannot fail to heed those cries.

We must create an inspiring vision that resonates with voters and alleviates their concerns. The stats clearly show people are concerned about immigration and the economy. The right has a cruel, but effective approach in just stopping immigration entirely and many, many people think that is a good idea right now. What is our better answer? I'm no expert and I don't know, but that is in and of itself a serious problem. Why do I not have a Meloni I can point to as the beacon of my ideology, that has at least some of the answers?

alilbee ,

Of course they can. If they get power, they'll define anything to be whatever they want, consistency be damned. Anything that hurts their favorite punching bags will be fair game even if it makes no sense at all. Let's not give them that power, if we can help it.

alilbee ,

It's Murc's Law. People think Democrats are responsible for everything that happens in politics. To a lot of people, Republicans are just an obstacle that if Dems fail to hurdle, it's all the Dem's fault. Republicans have been broken for so long, many people have just written their agency out of politics entirely.

alilbee ,

If only we listened to the bees 😔

alilbee ,

Yes, of course, but there are degrees of engagement with politics. I still think this route is worth pursuing, but there will be a not insignificant number of his supporters turned from reluctant to passionate over this as they (incorrectly, stupidly) perceive it to be a governmental attack on their preferred candidate. Trump had his best fundraising day of this year the day of the conviction. There's a lot of political math behind whether you think it will galvanize Biden's supporters more or if you think it will increase reluctance for Trump with independents, both of which I think are true. I wouldn't fault someone for coming to either conclusion really and I think you would need harder polling numbers (that I'm sure Biden's team has) to really make an informed decision.

alilbee ,

I’ve never said that people should ignore any attempt at logic and just focus on their passions, but the modern cult of rationality and stoicism is ironically hugely lacking in self-awareness and rationality.

I've never said that people should ignore any attempt at passion and just focus on their logic, but the modern mobs of righteous indignation and fury are ironically hugely lacking in empathy, tolerance (not of intolerance, before that gets tossed at me), and pragmatism.

I agree that we mostly seem to be on the same page, but I really need to stress that I have not asked people to be soulless and I think that's a mischaracterization of my asking for people to set their passion aside as much as possible as an exercise which is inherently temporary. We're both just looking for balance here.

alilbee , (edited )

Support? Nah, that's rare to the point of non-existence. I completely agree with your second sentence and I think people who are not willing to make the concession from the first half because of the second, substituting Hamas for ISIS, are doing themselves and Palestinians a massive disservice. Explanations are not excuses, and the behavior of both Israel and Hamas in the modern era cannot be excused.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • test
  • worldmews
  • mews
  • All magazines
    •