What if there really are racial/sexual differences between people?

[Vault101]

As for neuroplastic changes, why yes, that would be revolutionary, but hardly unthinkable. I can find Scholar entries for similar topics dating back more than ten years. What I can't find is any papers indicating further successes in this specific field, and that should be enough to raise an eyebrow. Maybe you have read several papers to this end, but I'm currently inclined to not believe it. Not because of some deep dogma, but because of a lack of evidence.
.

I'll admit I was having a bit of an episode over if they manage to "cure" gayness, that kind of knowelge could fuck a lot of things up, I mean granted I hope we as a society have moved passed the point of caring, but it would fuel the bigots and homophobia can be a strong force, especially when they bring out the "they so perverted they dont WANT to be cured" it wuld be like the choclear implant saga....0_0

 

[Amir Kondori]

As for neuroplastic changes, why yes, that would be revolutionary, but hardly unthinkable. I can find Scholar entries for similar topics dating back more than ten years. What I can't find is any papers indicating further successes in this specific field, and that should be enough to raise an eyebrow. Maybe you have read several papers to this end, but I'm currently inclined to not believe it. Not because of some deep dogma, but because of a lack of evidence.
.

I'll admit I was having a bit of an episode over if they manage to "cure" gayness, that kind of knowelge could fuck a lot of things up, I mean granted I hope we as a society have moved passed the point of caring, but it would fuel the bigots and homophobia can be a strong force, especially when they bring out the "they so perverted they dont WANT to be cured" it wuld be like the choclear implant saga....0_0

If science could "cure" homosexuality then they could "cure" heterosexuality too. That would be an interesting time to live in, a time where you really could choose if you wanted to be gay or straight.

 

[lacktheknack]

It's taken a LONG time for scientists and society to even look twice at such an exciting development in neuroscience (Barbara Arrowsmith-Young is nothing short of a walking scientific revolution), and I bet you that the OP's statement that "science is beholden to the whims of society" is at least partly to blame.

I think your own bias is showing. Looking up Barbara, her methodology seems to have failed to provide any significant results when prompted for testing. I mean, I don't know. Maybe it is revolutionary, but it seems like she's selling books and charging exorbitant prices for a method she cannot actually demonstrate, and that makes it seem no different from healing crystals. Actually, given Wikipedia notes some lawsuits regarding critical talk, she sounds more like Ray Comfort, the Atheist's Nightmare.

As for neuroplastic changes, why yes, that would be revolutionary, but hardly unthinkable. I can find Scholar entries for similar topics dating back more than ten years. What I can't find is any papers indicating further successes in this specific field, and that should be enough to raise an eyebrow. Maybe you have read several papers to this end, but I'm currently inclined to not believe it. Not because of some deep dogma, but because of a lack of evidence.

But just the fact that this field has been explored before should help refute the notion that science being "teh bias" has anything to do with it. Something like this really could change the way we look at the brain--which is one of the reasons we extensively scrutinise any such new claim. Just recently I saw an article about a neuroscientist who claims that fMRI shots of a brain at rest demonstrate activity dsoes not change as we previously thought. This is contrary to our current line of understanding, but its not being decried. Indeed, it appears it's already being studied.

I wouldn't ever trust a single paper on any subject. But if this is true, it will be a huge breakthrough.

Most fringe science fans like to complain that science is keeping down their pet theories, and I'm not sure this is any different. But hey, I'm open to evidence to the contrary. I'm just not sure it exists.

Now I want to re-research it. If I come up with anything interesting in my uber-limited spare time, I'll let you know.

 

[Vault101]

If science could "cure" homosexuality then they could "cure" heterosexuality too. That would be an interesting time to live in, a time where you really could choose if you wanted to be gay or straight.

I'd hope by the time that happens people aren;t so dumb about sex, mabye getting an "preference" change would be like going to a sexshop to buy some toys

imagine the articles

[i/]10 reasons why every woman should try homosexuality at least once[/i]

[i/]10 reasons REAL men like MEN![/i]

[i/]my husband and I both changed our preferences and were both happyer than ever![/i]

 

[michael87cn]

I find science to be bullshit. Why? Because its never right. We're always finding out that we were so fucking wrong about everything later on, when its too late. But people act SO FUCKING smug and correct when they couldn't be more wrong.

It's basically a religion. People faithfully devote themselves to it and think it can't be bad.

That, and we smugly think we are 'modern'. Yeah TECHNICALLY, but not in the 'smug' way meant by it. 1000 years ago? Those were primitive people! Today, we're MODERN.

I mean, we heal people by cutting them open. We dig into rocks and claim to know their age because they have lines. We look at the sky and think we can predict how old things we can't even touch are. BULLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLSHIT.

Pluto is a planet jimmy! YOU GET AN F!

>_>

 

[Amir Kondori]

I find science to be bullshit. Why? Because its never right. We're always finding out that we were so fucking wrong about everything later on, when its too late. But people act SO FUCKING smug and correct when they couldn't be more wrong.

It's basically a religion. People faithfully devote themselves to it and think it can't be bad.

That, and we smugly think we are 'modern'. Yeah TECHNICALLY, but not in the 'smug' way meant by it. 1000 years ago? Those were primitive people! Today, we're MODERN.

I mean, we heal people by cutting them open. We dig into rocks and claim to know their age because they have lines. We look at the sky and think we can predict how old things we can't even touch are. BULLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLSHIT.

Pluto is a planet jimmy! YOU GET AN F!

>_>

Eh, I am keeping my eyesight because of science. I have a rare form of glaucoma that young people get, if humanity had not used to science to invent new medicines, like the eye drops that keep my intraocular pressure low, then I would be functionally blind right now. I wouldn't be able to do the IT work I do today.

 

[Vault101]

Well true science is not restricted in such a manner, by true science I mean work done using proper controls, and peer reviewed. I want to tread carefully here, as I really don't mean to promote any racist ideology here, but there is a score gap between African Americans and European Americans in standardized testing. Now how do you explain that gap? .

Black people in America are more likley to come from poor unstable backgrounds and lack access to better rescources/schools which is not a great environment to foster acedemic sucess

 

[wetnap]

And again, to repeat the point made by bar bar in that video, women flock in once there is money, once there is popularity. Harry potter and dr who are not obscure at this point,

same could be said about batman or starwars...women "coming in" when theres money is really a just a statment that doesn't seem to be based on much

Its just based on reality, for most of the history of comics, it was considered disreputable, it wasn't something the mainstream respected, in fact there moral hysteria about it and the rest. Women/feminists showed no concern for the subject until they saw money in it, and saying that batman and starwars was similar, well not really, since starwars was a blockbuster from the get go, so not valid for comparison, and batman when he wasn't that main stream was mostly a male interest.

There's a reason for all those stories of peoples mothers throwing out comic books which would have been worth a ton today.

you aren't an "outcast" geek for liking these things, its about the most conformist thing one can do at this point. But as a whole for male interest subjects like gaming, most "geeks" are going to be male. Just look at who are the ones who run the servers, who are the ones who create the mods, the hardcore are mostly men, and it was mostly men who were interested long before there was any main stream acceptability or money in it.

chicken and egg scenario....being told "this is for you" or "this is not for you" youre probably going to internalise it,

No one is telling you this isn't for you. That's the fallacy here, that there was some secret group of nerds keeping the girls out. No, comic book stores take anyones money, always have, always will. No one told boys to go out and find these things, especially before they were popular, in fact it was down right looked down upon, it wasn't respected at all. Its why the term nerd/geek was a pejorative. The clownish fantasy history created by feminists about how women were kept out of these interests is just ridiculous. The "geek girl" was and is a unicorn for many geeks because she was so rare in reality, the idea that they were actively keeping people out is unsupportable. If anything women receive disproportionate support and adulation for just showing minor interest in such subjects, thus you have many fakes jumping in to exploit the situation.

Anyways I don't think you realize that you are promoting the idea that women are so fragile they can't even watch dr who or buy a comic book without extreme amounts of coddling, if they are that afraid, that timid, why would you expect them to have the backbone to find their own interests even when they are unpopular, and defy the crowd. Basically you are saying that women are just followers, so of course things won't cater to them, they just follow whats popular like sheep instead of having the spirit to go their own way....

Why would you expect comic books to appeal to women when they don't read them? You think men would read cosmo if they put matt damon on the cover instead of angelina jolie? Its a faulty premise that such a thing would work at all.

theres a difference between being downright unapealing to anyone besides 14 year old boys and being "generall" appealing, why do you think Harry Potter is so popular?, granted I'm not saying things should be always made for wider appeal but comics themeslves are niche for anyone, regardless of gender...adding a whole lot of sexism on top of that (and cultural baggage) does help

Its not a chicken and egg, or else there would never have been comic books for men at all. Again, implicit in your claims is the idea of female helplessness, and the idea that its mens job to save them. If women know what appeals to women, its their job to create the comics they want to see. Harry potter is harry potter, the same way G rated films are for everyone, but the idea that you must make every film G rated so children can watch them is ridiculous. And that goes along with the idea that all mens interests must be interesting to women as well. Gender difference and the resulting differences in interest are not sexism, its diversity.

If women really were interested in comics they'd make their own, and serve their own market.

well they do, but that doesn't mean creators shouldn't take into account how it treats female charachters

If they do, there is no problem then. But they continue to complain because lets be honest, the comics they create are not popular. And again no, there is no need for creators to account for the tastes of people who are not the target audience. One might as well claim that a gay pornography director should take straight male tastes into account when he shoots his films. Its absurd. I'm sure comics by women don't take into account male tastes and that's fine, its not their business. Do you think Stephanie Meyers who wrote the stupidly successful twilight series even bothered to consider what men thought of her characters? Of course not, and that's fine. There are almost no men who find those characters anything but laughable.

So the idea that you should serve women by destroying things made for men is rather close minded.

oh I'm sorry..is inclusivity "destroying" things? I didn't know

Yes it is. If men demanded to be in vogue magazine when almost none had actual interest in it, it would be an attack on womens interests. No different than when women do it to mens interests. Not everything has to be universal. Its like saying that every gangsta rapper should censor his videos and song lyrics to appeal to a 80 year old demographic which doesn't exist. Its just absurdity.

And again it comes with a sort of patronizing attitude that women need to be served because they can't serve themselves.

ah yes the [i/]no, see YOUR actually the one being sexist![/i] logical gymnastics.....no

No, its entirely true, once you get past all ingrained cultural nonsense drilled into your head by sjw/feminist/left over the years, it really does come down to that. The basis for the concern is a patronizing assumption of womens weakness, their need to be saved by others. They can't serve their own needs, they can't create content, others must do this for them, they can't do it for themselves, after all, they are just women. Its not logical gymnastics to have the same standards for women as men, its just logic. The only question you have to ask yourself is how you've unconsciously slid towards this position of having such low standards for women....

No one needs to feel "welcomed" btw, do womens magazines "welcome" men? Of course not, and thats fine. One has to ask why you think that mens interest need to be universal, but womens are just fine to be segregated. Again, thats another sign of society being based on female priviledge, not the other way around as claimed.

1. I DONT think its good for women to be segregated...I think its BAD, the different is we live in a society where male is considered the default
2.no...it isnt..as I pointed out above

I'm sure in some communist paradise everything would be dictated as such. Every women's magazine, or fashion mag must be 50% men, or else sexism! All those bridal magazines, if not 50% male interest, must be sexist! sorry but the truth is men and women are different. Women don't have 50% of a penis and men 50% of a breast, nature doesn't work that way. Its fine if the sexes have different interests in a free country, you do have the freedom to choose to listen to rap music, its not right to claim every rap song has to have 50% jazz content. It wouldn't make it better, it would just destroy its uniqueness. No one is being forced to not enjoy their choice of entertainment, you speak as if there was a ban on women buying comics or a ban on men buying vogue. At this point its entirely personal choice, even more so when you can order anything you want anonymously on the internet, there is no excuse anymore, the only reason someone doesn't buy a comic book or a vogue magazine is because they don't want it. We are long past the days where people had to brave the curtains at a sex shop or video store to access something like porn. Now you can get anything you want, with no human interaction at all, only thing stopping you is you.
No we don't live in a society where male is default. The school system alone is configured to cater to women, its why they are more successful as a whole in grade school and college in terms of grades and graduation rates, this wouldn't happen if males were the default, so don't go there. In this society men have to apologize for being men. That's why women don't have to talk about any inclusivity with their own choice of entertainment, there is no default male in this society. Go to the mall sometime and see how many stores there are for women vs men...

Btw there is nothing with busty females. If such things are enough to damage their delicate sensibilities, thats a personal problem they should deal with.

I could explain Objectification but then I could also bash my head against a brickwall. I'm not saying abolish it all..everything has its place no matter how dumb it is...

You "could" explain objectification but you'd be bashing your head against a brick wall because its a ridiculous concept. Objectification is a tool for condemning mens sexuality, by the standards of objectification any man who jerks off to anything other than a womans brain is guilty. You see how that works, its universal guilt for being a man as such its a clownish concept, and just more evidence of the broken type of thought that goes on within feminist circles, which has unfortunately infected the main stream which just parrots things mindlessly. People are attracted to peoples bodies because guess what, we are sexual creatures. Men are more visually stimulated, so sexual characteristics of women are exaggerated in art and fantasy, because that's what people do. If people wanted "normal" they wouldn't bother with fiction or fantasy, normal is in abundance everywhere, you can't avoid it. The characters in comics whether male or female are meant to be extraordinary, and whether you like it or not, gender difference means that the power of a womans beauty is far greater than a mans, its why female models are paid so much more than male models that it makes the so called 75cents to a dollar supposed feminist claim wage gap look insignificant, we're talking quite literally 10 times more.

Human propensity to exaggerate form through art is not new.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eGRoSjp3Ik
It could be said to be part of human nature, only suppression/repression changes this.

Getting upset or jealous of a drawing is petty behavior

yep....bitches be jealous...that explains it....the silly harpies /sarcasm

Actually
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/11/the-evolution-of-bitchiness/281657/
So its really just a matter of getting past such issues by being a mature rational adult about it. You know..a standard you should be holding women to...

And also, geeks and nerds being not exactly the "in crowd" are hardly the "you don't belong" types.

yes...yes they fucking are, the amount of sexism in amonsgt nerds and the tech industry is paramount

Again no, this is the exact problem. When you can't acknowledge gender differences the real world will never match your dogma, and so you have to cast blame by smearing innocent people. This most recent attack on the tech industry was just a perfect example. No one is keeping women out but women. The founders like wozniak were self motivated individuals, wozniak learned to design computer chips on paper long before he had access to the hardware, that is how obsessed he was. This was long before fame or fortune was a given for such things, no one thought it was cool, people were hardly encouraged to become such uber nerds. bill gates woke up early each day to get to school to use their computer before class started. How many women would bother? He was also obsessed to the point where his personal hygiene was a problem.... sexism is least rampant amongst nerds because they are outcasts themselves. There was no female approval, there was no attention from the cheerleaders for these people in chess or math club, lets not kid ourselves. the tech industry is filled with diversity because it rewards competency. If your code doesn't work, you can't blame the patriarchy, you just proved your logic doesn't work. Its why silicon valley is filled with more brown and yellow skinned men than anywhere else in white collar industry. Yet it seems these people, Asians and Indians don't count, only white women count as diversity apparently, and we all know how supposed racist and sexist white men just love indian and Asian men so much, but hate women...oh yea


Actual places with lack of diversity? Media, journalism, games journalism. Where diversity means white women or jews. And so these same people spend their time pointing fingers at others to divert attention from their obvious hypocrisy.

Again, this is the problem with feminism

its a problem with sexism

Feminism is sexism at this point.

it smears everyone that doesn't deserve it. The only people who don't belong are the fakes, and its true nerds will rage about fakes, but that is only fair as those people make a mockery of their interests.

I don't give a flying fuck is jimmy the comic nerd was bullied in school..he has no right to act like a jerk based on sexist pre conceived ideas

Its not acting like a jerk when people defend themselves against unjust smears. Its like saying the only reason vogue magazine is filled with women and majority women readership is because of the pervasive sexism of women against men, and that the people behind that magazine are all sexist whether they know it or not.

 

[rob_simple]

There probably are differences between races and sexes, but there are also differences between people of identical race, gender and sexual preference.

It's kind of the whole reason we don't all look and think exactly the same, and I struggle to grasp what kind of study could credibly, unanimously prove that any one entire group of people are beholden to certain infallible traits at a genetic level.

 

[Vault101]

Its just based on reality

you say that but it doesn't make it true....

[quote/]for most of the history of comics, it was considered disreputable, it wasn't something the mainstream respected, in fact there moral hysteria about it and the rest.[/quote]
except back then comics were a lot more mainstream than they are now (and predominatly for kids) and supheros were not the dominant genre, there were comics for girls (though they may have been a minority) I'd also wager there were little girls reading comics too because comics were resctriced to niche stores they were everywhere, when mum went to buy her cigarette little jane or jimmy could get her to buy them a comic too

[quote/]Women/feminists showed no concern for the subject until they saw money in it[/quote]
lol wut?

[quote/]and saying that batman and starwars was similar, well not really, since starwars was a blockbuster from the get go, so not valid for comparison, and batman when he wasn't that main stream was mostly a male interest.[/quote]
my point was [/quote]
what I meant was being into batman and starwars is just as mainstream a thing as harry potter

[quote/]There's a reason for all those stories of peoples mothers throwing out comic books which would have been worth a ton today.[/quote]
which has nothing to do with feminism...


[quote/]
No one is telling you this isn't for you.[/quote]
yes...they are...in more than words

[quote/]That's the fallacy here, that there was some secret group of nerds keeping the girls out.[/quote]
never said there was...but there is a "girls are gross" or "girls are gonna ruin muh gamz" mentality

[quote/]No, comic book stores take anyones money, always have, always will.[/quote]
and somtimes even the employess act like dicks towards female customers because they assume they don't know what theyre doing

[quote/]No one told boys to go out and find these things, especially before they were popular,[/quote]
because they were the fucking target demographic, its called MARKETING and yes it applies to niche things as well

[quote/]
The "geek girl" was and is a unicorn for many geeks because she was so rare in reality, the idea that they were actively keeping people out is unsupportable. If anything women receive disproportionate support and adulation for just showing minor interest in such subjects, [/quote]
this is wrong on a number of levels 1."geek girls" are not that rare 2. pedastooling somone is BAD period, its not a good thing

[quote/]thus you have many fakes jumping in to exploit the situation.[/quote]
now THAT is the real unicorn

[quote/]Anyways I don't think you realize that you are promoting the idea that women are so fragile they can't even watch dr who or buy a comic book without extreme amounts of coddling, if they are that afraid, that timid, why would you expect them to have the backbone to find their own interests even when they are unpopular, and defy the crowd. Basically you are saying that women are just followers, so of course things won't cater to them, they just follow whats popular like sheep instead of having the spirit to go their own way....[/quote]
oh there you go again....

no see what I'm doing is what a lot of thos eother evil "feminists" are doing were saying "this is fucking bullshit, we want to be represented, we don't deserve sexism" were standing up for ourselves


[quote/]
Its not a chicken and egg, or else there would never have been comic books for men at all. Again, implicit in your claims is the idea of female helplessness, and the idea that its mens job to save them.[/quote]
hows that hamsterwheel spinning?

[quote/] but the idea that you must make every film G rated so children can watch them is ridiculous. [/quote]
thats bullshit and you know it


[quot/]
If they do, there is no problem then. But they continue to complain because lets be honest, the comics they create are not popular.[/quote]
Saga is drawn by a women and is very diverse and inslusive in its female charachters and representations of sex and race...its VERY popular, the writer is male and writes good female charachters, other writers who write comics have written good female charachters too

[quote/]And again no, there is no need for creators to account for the tastes of people who are not the target audience.[/quote]
no but that doesn't mean they have to depict "others" poorly


[quote/]
Yes it is.[/quote]
inclusivity is good for everyone, see: Saga

[quote/]
No, its entirely true, once you get past all ingrained cultural nonsense drilled into your head by sjw/feminist/left over the years, it really does come down to that. The basis for the concern is a patronizing assumption of womens weakness, their need to be saved by others. They can't serve their own needs, they can't create content, others must do this for them, they can't do it for themselves, after all, they are just women. Its not logical gymnastics to have the same standards for women as men, its just logic. The only question you have to ask yourself is how you've unconsciously slid towards this position of having such low standards for women....[/quote]
wow 3 times huh?

and around and round the hamster wheel goes...no seriously its perfect isn't it? perfect that world is just so right and just


[quote/]No we don't live in a society where male is default.[/quote]
we do in so many ways....

[quote/]
You "could" explain objectification but you'd be bashing your head against a brick wall because its a ridiculous concept. Objectification is a tool for condemning mens sexuality, [/uqote]
oh how I weep for the menz

sarcasm aside not everthing is a personal attack on the menz...if they could just get over that and listen..but no





[quote/]
So its really just a matter of getting past such issues by being a mature rational adult about it. You know..a standard you should be holding women to...[/quote]
yeah no..I cal bullshti on this one



[quote/]
Again no, this is the exact problem. When you can't acknowledge gender differences the real world will never match your dogma, and so you have to cast blame by smearing innocent people. This most recent attack on the tech industry was just a perfect example. No one is keeping women out but women.
[/quote]

hwo the fuck does that even work? weve SEEN the sexisim isn the industry, yeah less women do it for various reasons but when they do people make it hard for them

 

[Happiness Assassin]

Of course science isn't infallible. All theories put forth must potentially be falsifiable by definition or it can't be tested properly. By that definition, all scientific theories are potentially fallible if new evidence is found to support something else.

But to your main point, yes there are certain taboos that scientists refuse to engage in, race being one of them. Race itself is very rarely brought up in actual discussions for a few reasons, one of which is that often times there is a serious attempt to make one race look better than others. Every experiment into racial differences that currently springs to mind either used incredibly flawed methodology to prove bad science or are so insanely cruel that they wouldn't have even been taken seriously today just on ethical grounds.

Another reason brought up by my anthropology professor is the fact that race is an inherently social construct, a label that we often affix ourselves for a variety of reasons that often is on a case by case basis. As is often the case with of kids of parents of different races, often it is impossible to tell someones race without actually asking them. This is a problem when we use racial constructs that very binary.

And probably the biggest reason: what would be the point? When tackling things like differences between races, if there isn't a very good reason to be going there (such as diseases far more common to certain groups of people, like Tay Sachs or Sickle cell) then ethically you are treading in dangerous water. I'll give an example: we don't know exactly what causes a person to be straight or gay or whatever, but we don know it is not a choice, but there is extreme reluctance to delve any further as to the actual mechanics of it, due to fears of people looking for a "fix" of some kind. And the last thing that members of the LGBT community need is someone telling them that they should be "cured." That kind of thinking is what kids sent to gay camps.

Here is a video courtesy of SciShow dealing with scientific taboos.

Spoiler: Video

 

[Vault101]

I'll give an example: we don't know exactly what causes a person to be straight or gay or whatever, but we don know it is not a choice, but there is extreme reluctance to delve any further as to the actual mechanics of it, due to fears of people looking for a "fix" of some kind. And the last thing that members of the LGBT community need is someone telling them that they should be "cured." That kind of thinking is what kids sent to gay camps.

not to mentioned being "cured" in vitro

that said however I think its beneficial for the LGBT community to stop relying so much on the "born this way/can't help it" argument as it appeals to people whos opinions shouldn't matter in the first place

 

[Amir Kondori]

Well true science is not restricted in such a manner, by true science I mean work done using proper controls, and peer reviewed. I want to tread carefully here, as I really don't mean to promote any racist ideology here, but there is a score gap between African Americans and European Americans in standardized testing. Now how do you explain that gap? .

Black people in America are more likley to come from poor unstable backgrounds and lack access to better rescources/schools which is not a great environment to foster acedemic sucess

I think that gets to the heart of the necessity for proper controls. You need control groups, with control groups you can then see the effect income has, neighborhood, nutrition (which seems to be tied to performance on IQ tests), etc. You have to consider regression to the mean. If you don't do these things, as well as get your results replicated by other independent researchers, then your results are of very limited value.

 

[Yopaz]

There is actually research indicating that there are differences between the average intelligence of white and black people. The problem with this is that the methods that were used to reach this conclusions are heavily flawed and the research was paid for by wealthy people with the ambition that less money should go to schools since teaching black people is pointless.

When it comes to sexual differences, well yes they are actually quite significant. Early brain development in females is more balanced than male brain development. Females get earlier development in the Broca's area than males. This basically means they learn to talk earlier than boys. The most glaring differences get smoothed over with time, but girls generally have an advantage in school since they're more likely to get ahead from the start.

Then there's hormones which affects our mood and behaviour too. So yeah, there are sexual differences even though we try to ignore it. The question is should it matter? What if it turns out black people on average are less intelligent than white people, should we just pull them out of school and send them to do manual labour while the superior white man get to go to school? Well actually it would be the superior white woman who got to go to school.

Every man doesn't behave the same, nor does he have the same capabilities. We can't weed out people based on general genetics or physiology since we are too complex and we act too much as individuals for there to be a definitive pattern. If there is a genetic base to say black people are less intelligent then I guess I would have to accept that if they provided a good definition of intelligence that can be applied to all the relevant cases and their methods were flawless. I wouldn't really care though. I would still want them to have the same opportunities, the same rights regardless of the ccolour of their skin, regardless of what they hide in their pants and regardless of chromosome arrangement.

 

[wetnap]

Its just based on reality, for most of the history of comics, it was considered disreputable, it wasn't something the mainstream respected, in fact there moral hysteria about it and the rest. Women/feminists showed no concern for the subject until they saw money in it, and saying that batman and starwars was similar, well not really, since starwars was a blockbuster from the get go, so not valid for comparison, and batman when he wasn't that main stream was mostly a male interest.

There's a reason for all those stories of peoples mothers throwing out comic books which would have been worth a ton today.

you say that but it doesn't make it true....

Its true because otherwise there is no problem. People who are driven to create and consume regardless of popularity create their own market.

for most of the history of comics, it was considered disreputable, it wasn't something the mainstream respected, in fact there moral hysteria about it and the rest.

except back then comics were a lot more mainstream than they are now (and predominatly for kids) and supheros were not the dominant genre, there were comics for girls (though they may have been a minority) I'd also wager there were little girls reading comics too because comics were resctriced to niche stores they were everywhere, when mum went to buy her cigarette little jane or jimmy could get her to buy them a comic too

Doesn't matter because men created the continuation into adult comics based on their own interests. Even when they were made for children, there was no huge readership of things like superman for girls. It just didn't happen. Girls had their nancy drew books at the rest. If anything it shows the divergence, chick detective shows are all the rage for female audiences, who make up the majority of tv viewership today. Its why so many older female lead shows exist now. This again, is just another example of how the genders have different interests.

Women/feminists showed no concern for the subject until they saw money in it

lol wut?

Again. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40dOAvccnt0

and saying that batman and starwars was similar, well not really, since starwars was a blockbuster from the get go, so not valid for comparison, and batman when he wasn't that main stream was mostly a male interest.

my point was
what I meant was being into batman and starwars is just as mainstream a thing as harry potter ?

Point is the initial fanbase was majority male for batman so the idea that it now has to cater to women because its mainstream doesn't wash. Its like saying that the hunger games needs to gender swap its lead to make men more happy about going to watch those series of films. Batman remains great because it fundamentally remains a male story, it hasn't recently yielded to the calls to dilute its story by injecting unnecessary female characters into the story. I say recently because you do remember alica Silverstone in the terrible Schumacher version of batman. And you'll note that character didn't appeal to women anyways.

There's a reason for all those stories of peoples mothers throwing out comic books which would have been worth a ton today.

which has nothing to do with feminism...

Missing the point entirely. It was mothers who threw those things out, which says a bit about female interest in general, but its more about the general populations lack of respect for this kind of thing for all those years. It was stuff to be thrown out without a second thought.

No one is telling you this isn't for you.

yes...they are...in more than words

Voices in your head don't count ok? We have to talk about objective reality, and if people are giving themselves complexes by soaking themselves in so much feminist dogma that they see sexism around every corner and end up fearful of everything, thats their problem, and its a problem with their outlook, not with reality. Like walking around with a chip on your shoulder, that mentality only creates a self fulfilling prophecy.

That's the fallacy here, that there was some secret group of nerds keeping the girls out.

never said there was...but there is a "girls are gross" or "girls are gonna ruin muh gamz" mentality

No one knows you are girl reading a comic book, no one knows if you are girl ordering a comic book from amazon. How fragile are you claiming women are anyways?

No, comic book stores take anyones money, always have, always will.

and somtimes even the employess act like dicks towards female customers because they assume they don't know what theyre doing

Again, if women are that fragile, are they really equal?
Again implicit in your argument is the idea of female weakness. Its an idea you continuously promote whether you know it or not.
Beyond that again this is just another one of those smears, all those comic store owners must be vicious sexists, yea that's the ticket, and that's the only possible explanation for why women weren't interested in comics...
Oh wait, women in japan buy comic books written by other women just fine, and under a far more patriarchal society than the west. The difference being this, they actually bothered creating content which appealed to themselves rather than spend their time feeling sorry for themselves. Fancy that!!

And of course its been many years since anyone has really had to step foot inside a comic book store. cuz you know...internet.

No one told boys to go out and find these things, especially before they were popular,

because they were the fucking target demographic, its called MARKETING and yes it applies to niche things as well

Again no, chicken and egg. Men go out and create what interests them, and men go out and become fans long before these things go main stream. The fans make the success, no most comics were not the result of massive marketing sprees like you see with blockbuster films. Most organically grew from humble beginnings, and a great many have failed, no matter how much marketing was behind them. and if you know anything about marketing, if there was a huge female demographic, they would have exploited and catered to that, because you know...people don't hate money. And frankly that's what your feminist conspiracy theory has to assume, that people hate money, when the fact is that companies are shameless profiteers who will crank out anything as long as there is an audience, go look at transformers 4 or whatever its called now.

The "geek girl" was and is a unicorn for many geeks because she was so rare in reality, the idea that they were actively keeping people out is unsupportable. If anything women receive disproportionate support and adulation for just showing minor interest in such subjects,

this is wrong on a number of levels 1."geek girls" are not that rare 2. pedastooling somone is BAD period, its not a good thing

Great, so now you are damned regardless, its funny how that works. While its true no one should pedastool anyone, the fact is that it contradicts your claims of men trying to keep women out of such interests, or being jerks to keep them out. "pedastooling" means they seek the approval of such women, quite the opposite of trying to exclude them. But taken less far, is it really pedastooling if you just want a significant other that has the same interests as you? Its just evidence of trying to damn men regardless. Any interest is too much interest, and in any case you are trying to exclude me! But really, those girls got more attention because they were rare, and some exploited it, and many others followed as fakes to do the same. Its why you have things like the frag dolls, or all those "hot" presenters/hosts..

In any case the only people "pedastooling" women these days are the white knights who make the same arguments you are making right now.

No one is telling you this isn't for you. That's the fallacy here, that there was some secret group of nerds keeping the girls out. No, comic book stores take anyones money, always have, always will. No one told boys to go out and find these things, especially before they were popular, in fact it was down right looked down upon, it wasn't respected at all. Its why the term nerd/geek was a pejorative. The clownish fantasy history created by feminists about how women were kept out of these interests is just ridiculous. The "geek girl" was and is a unicorn for many geeks because she was so rare in reality, the idea that they were actively keeping people out is unsupportable. If anything women receive disproportionate support and adulation for just showing minor interest in such subjects, thus you have many fakes jumping in to exploit the situation.

Anyways I don't think you realize that you are promoting the idea that women are so fragile they can't even watch dr who or buy a comic book without extreme amounts of coddling, if they are that afraid, that timid, why would you expect them to have the backbone to find their own interests even when they are unpopular, and defy the crowd. Basically you are saying that women are just followers, so of course things won't cater to them, they just follow whats popular like sheep instead of having the spirit to go their own way....

oh there you go again....

no see what I'm doing is what a lot of thos eother evil "feminists" are doing were saying "this is fucking bullshit, we want to be represented, we don't deserve sexism" were standing up for ourselves

You can want to be represented all you want, but you are not entitled to be served if you don't bother to create your own content or are a significant portion of the market. Its like an 80 year old white lady demanding that 50 cent alter his material to fit her sensitivities.

Its not a chicken and egg, or else there would never have been comic books for men at all. Again, implicit in your claims is the idea of female helplessness, and the idea that its mens job to save them.

hows that hamsterwheel spinning?

Funny thing, the rationalization hamster is a thing for feminists...

But anyways what I said was correct and is implicit in your argument.

If women know what appeals to women, its their job to create the comics they want to see. Harry potter is harry potter, the same way G rated films are for everyone, but the idea that you must make every film G rated so children can watch them is ridiculous. And that goes along with the idea that all mens interests must be interesting to women as well. Gender difference and the resulting differences in interest are not sexism, its diversity.

thats bullshit and you know it

Its accurate and you are just in denial.

If they do, there is no problem then. But they continue to complain because lets be honest, the comics they create are not popular. And again no, there is no need for creators to account for the tastes of people who are not the target audience. One might as well claim that a gay pornography director should take straight male tastes into account when he shoots his films. Its absurd. I'm sure comics by women don't take into account male tastes and that's fine, its not their business. Do you think Stephanie Meyers who wrote the stupidly successful twilight series even bothered to consider what men thought of her characters? Of course not, and that's fine. There are almost no men who find those characters anything but laughable.

Saga is drawn by a women and is very diverse and inslusive in its female charachters and representations of sex and race...its VERY popular, the writer is male and writes good female charachters, other writers who write comics have written good female charachters too

That's fine, and its fine that I've never heard of it, it caters to its own audience, and it shouldn't be forced to cater for others, let alone people with no actual interest, like me. You say its very diverse, but well, I've not heard of it, so its not that diverse at all. Stop pretending everything must be universal, let alone pretend your example is at all.

Not everything has to be the same, and not everything has to appeal to everyone, its not that hard a concept to understand is it?

If they do, there is no problem then. But they continue to complain because lets be honest, the comics they create are not popular. And again no, there is no need for creators to account for the tastes of people who are not the target audience. One might as well claim that a gay pornography director should take straight male tastes into account when he shoots his films. Its absurd. I'm sure comics by women don't take into account male tastes and that's fine, its not their business. Do you think Stephanie Meyers who wrote the stupidly successful twilight series even bothered to consider what men thought of her characters? Of course not, and that's fine. There are almost no men who find those characters anything but laughable.

no but that doesn't mean they have to depict "others" poorly

Again, this is your assumption. Like the church lady who finds dungeons and dragons satanic and morally corrupting, this is a matter of your personal opinion which you choose to universalize based on nothing at all.

Yes it is. If men demanded to be in vogue magazine when almost none had actual interest in it, it would be an attack on womens interests. No different than when women do it to mens interests. Not everything has to be universal. Its like saying that every gangsta rapper should censor his videos and song lyrics to appeal to a 80 year old demographic which doesn't exist. Its just absurdity.

inclusivity is good for everyone, see: Saga

Really? Is that your argument? I might as well say that since forest gump had broad appeal all films must be like that from now on. Its not a serious argument at all.

No, its entirely true, once you get past all ingrained cultural nonsense drilled into your head by sjw/feminist/left over the years, it really does come down to that. The basis for the concern is a patronizing assumption of womens weakness, their need to be saved by others. They can't serve their own needs, they can't create content, others must do this for them, they can't do it for themselves, after all, they are just women. Its not logical gymnastics to have the same standards for women as men, its just logic. The only question you have to ask yourself is how you've unconsciously slid towards this position of having such low standards for women....

wow 3 times huh?

If you repeat the same mistake 3 times, it has to be said 3 times.

I'm sure in some communist paradise everything would be dictated as such. Every women's magazine, or fashion mag must be 50% men, or else sexism! All those bridal magazines, if not 50% male interest, must be sexist! sorry but the truth is men and women are different. Women don't have 50% of a penis and men 50% of a breast, nature doesn't work that way. Its fine if the sexes have different interests in a free country, you do have the freedom to choose to listen to rap music, its not right to claim every rap song has to have 50% jazz content. It wouldn't make it better, it would just destroy its uniqueness. No one is being forced to not enjoy their choice of entertainment, you speak as if there was a ban on women buying comics or a ban on men buying vogue. At this point its entirely personal choice, even more so when you can order anything you want anonymously on the internet, there is no excuse anymore, the only reason someone doesn't buy a comic book or a vogue magazine is because they don't want it. We are long past the days where people had to brave the curtains at a sex shop or video store to access something like porn. Now you can get anything you want, with no human interaction at all, only thing stopping you is you.
No we don't live in a society where male is default. The school system alone is configured to cater to women, its why they are more successful as a whole in grade school and college in terms of grades and graduation rates, this wouldn't happen if males were the default, so don't go there. In this society men have to apologize for being men. That's why women don't have to talk about any inclusivity with their own choice of entertainment, there is no default male in this society. Go to the mall sometime and see how many stores there are for women vs men...

we do in so many ways....

Notable how there is no argument.

Notable how you spend your time clipping out most of what I say in my quotes because otherwise you can't respond at all.

The truth is society is based around male expendability, but that's another discussion.

Fact is you can look at the statistics all you want on things like education, its clearly a system made for women at this point.

You "could" explain objectification but you'd be bashing your head against a brick wall because its a ridiculous concept. Objectification is a tool for condemning mens sexuality, by the standards of objectification any man who jerks off to anything other than a womans brain is guilty. You see how that works, its universal guilt for being a man as such its a clownish concept, and just more evidence of the broken type of thought that goes on within feminist circles, which has unfortunately infected the main stream which just parrots things mindlessly. People are attracted to peoples bodies because guess what, we are sexual creatures. Men are more visually stimulated, so sexual characteristics of women are exaggerated in art and fantasy, because that's what people do. If people wanted "normal" they wouldn't bother with fiction or fantasy, normal is in abundance everywhere, you can't avoid it. The characters in comics whether male or female are meant to be extraordinary, and whether you like it or not, gender difference means that the power of a womans beauty is far greater than a mans, its why female models are paid so much more than male models that it makes the so called 75cents to a dollar supposed feminist claim wage gap look insignificant, we're talking quite literally 10 times more.

Human propensity to exaggerate form through art is not new.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eGRoSjp3Ik
It could be said to be part of human nature, only suppression/repression changes this.

oh how I weep for the menz

sarcasm aside not everthing is a personal attack on the menz...if they could just get over that and listen..but no

Again, no valid argument because you simply can't respond. The broken idea of "objectification" is just the perfect example of the intellectual emptiness which is modern feminism.

Actually
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/11/the-evolution-of-bitchiness/281657/
So its really just a matter of getting past such issues by being a mature rational adult about it. You know..a standard you should be holding women to...

yeah no..I cal bullshti on this one

Bullsh8t on what? The idea that women should have the maturity to not get upset over cartoon women?

Never mind its all based on a false premise pushed by feminists for so long. The idea of the media being as influential as it is, as damaging as it is. I wish the media were that effective, if skinny models made women thin, we wouldn't have the obesity crisis we do in america.

Again no, this is the exact problem. When you can't acknowledge gender differences the real world will never match your dogma, and so you have to cast blame by smearing innocent people. This most recent attack on the tech industry was just a perfect example. No one is keeping women out but women. The founders like wozniak were self motivated individuals, wozniak learned to design computer chips on paper long before he had access to the hardware, that is how obsessed he was. This was long before fame or fortune was a given for such things, no one thought it was cool, people were hardly encouraged to become such uber nerds. bill gates woke up early each day to get to school to use their computer before class started. How many women would bother? He was also obsessed to the point where his personal hygiene was a problem.... sexism is least rampant amongst nerds because they are outcasts themselves. There was no female approval, there was no attention from the cheerleaders for these people in chess or math club, lets not kid ourselves. the tech industry is filled with diversity because it rewards competency. If your code doesn't work, you can't blame the patriarchy, you just proved your logic doesn't work. Its why silicon valley is filled with more brown and yellow skinned men than anywhere else in white collar industry. Yet it seems these people, Asians and Indians don't count, only white women count as diversity apparently, and we all know how supposed racist and sexist white men just love indian and Asian men so much, but hate women...oh yea

Actual places with lack of diversity? Media, journalism, games journalism. Where diversity means white women or jews. And so these same people spend their time pointing fingers at others to divert attention from their obvious hypocrisy.

hwo the fuck does that even work? weve SEEN the sexisim isn the industry, yeah less women do it for various reasons but when they do people make it hard for them

You've seen nothing, you can cherry pick whatever you want to prove whatever case you want, but it won't be valid. At this point its as I said, you are claiming that because vogue magazine appeals to mostly women, hires mostly women, it and all the fans must be rabid sexists, because the only reason men don't read vogue is because women make them feel unwelcome. Yea thats the ticket.

You know..the only reason women don't watch the WNBA is because of the menz right?


Grown adult women just don't have the backbone to just watch the entertainment they want, these are major life decisions and just anything can disuade them!!

Btw good job mangling the quote system so much that it was a pain for me to fix.

Perhaps you were trying to reinforce gender stereotypes on technology

 

[Vault101]

[quote/]Bullsh8t on what? The idea that women should have the maturity to not get upset over cartoon women?[/quote]

most female chrachters women like are above averge in terms of attractiveness, check out batgirls new suit, not sexualised, shes still attractive. We don't get jealous over fictional charachters, that is wuite franly sexist...

[snip]

[quote/]Its true because otherwise there is no problem. People who are driven to create and consume regardless of popularity create their own market.[/quote]
"there is no problem" because you havent considered how mainstream entertaintment might seem to anyone who isn't you, and anyone who does question your comics/games you can put neatly into the "feminist" box

[quote/]Doesn't matter because men created the continuation into adult comics based on their own interests. Even when they were made for children, there was no huge readership of things like superman for girls. It just didn't happen. Girls had their nancy drew books at the rest. If anything it shows the divergence, chick detective shows are all the rage for female audiences, who make up the majority of tv viewership today. Its why so many older female lead shows exist now. This again, is just another example of how the genders have different interests.[/quote]
but girls and women DO diverge from what its "assumed" they will like, you SEE us all over the internet, you may think there are too few of us too matter but somtimes being less sexist is not a zero sum game, it dosen't mean always changing what is for the worst or changing some things at all (as I said everything has its place) but this same old "DAE FEMENAZIS GONNA TAKE AWAY MUH GAMEZ" attitude comes up which is not only wrong but somtimes indicates a self centered world veiw, if people spent less time being reactionary and more time listening then we wouldnt be going around in the same hamster wheel
[quote/]Point is the initial fanbase was majority male for batman so the idea that it now has to cater to women because its mainstream doesn't wash[/quote]
I never said batman had to fucking change.....I mean charachters like Poison Ivy, Harley Quin or Catowoman could be....considered in a certain way....but thats a debate for another time. If I want my female romp around Gotham I'll read Batwoman or Batgirl

[quote/]Batman remains great because it fundamentally remains a male story, it hasn't recently yielded to the calls to dilute its story by injecting unnecessary female characters into the story.[/quote]
which I don't belive anyone has done recently....and as I said there are (albeit less notable) female charachters in the batverse....alongside a book called Gotham central

[quote/]Missing the point entirely. It was mothers who threw those things out, which says a bit about female interest in general, but its more about the general populations lack of respect for this kind of thing for all those years. It was stuff to be thrown out without a second thought.[/quote]
yes it shows that comics were considered pulp entertainment and nothing more...NO it says NOTHING about being female...

[quote/]Voices in your head don't count ok? We have to talk about objective reality, and if people are giving themselves complexes by soaking themselves in so much feminist dogma that they see sexism around every corner and end up fearful of everything, thats their problem, and its a problem with their outlook, not with reality.[/quote]
are you a women who has experiences sexism at one point in her life?

sexism in the geek comunity exsits, this false hysteria over "fake geek girls" is just one form, being treated as eather invisible or like crap in those spaces (like comics/games shops) is another

[quote/]No one knows you are girl reading a comic book, no one knows if you are girl ordering a comic book from amazon. How fragile are you claiming women are anyways?[/quote]
youre doing it again

[quote/]Again, if women are that fragile, are they really equal?
Again implicit in your argument is the idea of female weakness. Its an idea you continuously promote whether you know it or not.[/quote]
I am not saying this

you know I am not saying this

from what I can gather you have toruble understanding that its not ok to act like a dick, ESPECIALLY if youre running a buisness

talk to any women who likes geeky things, ask her how she feels, I bet she might feel rather pissed off...especially at this kind of thing

[quote/]Beyond that again this is just another one of those smears, all those comic store owners must be vicious sexists, yea that's the ticket, and that's the only possible explanation for why women weren't interested in comics...[/quote]
you talk about fragility and yet are quick to paint everything as some kind of personal attack...

I didn't say that....I said it happens, thankfully my local comic books stores have all been great, others aren't so luckey

[quote/]Great, so now you are damned regardless, its funny how that works[/quote]
only if you don't underastand the difference between pedastooling and treating somone as eaqual,it shouldnt be a big deal if a girl has certain interests

[quote/]While its true no one should pedastool anyone, the fact is that it contradicts your claims of men trying to keep women out of such interests, or being jerks to keep them out. "pedastooling" means they seek the approval of such women, quite the opposite of trying to exclude them[/quote]
they are not mutually exclusive....

[quote/]is it really pedastooling if you just want a significant over that has the same interests as you?[/quote]
that would depend....its reasonable to want somone with similar itnerests...but personally I wouldn't base my whole relationship on it, its also not good to have an unrealistic idea, she might be into comics but she might be a poor fit for you

[quote/]Its just evidence of trying to damn men regardless.[/quote]
you really need to stop reading everything as an attack against "teh menz"

[quote/]no most comics were not the result of massive marketing sprees like you see with blockbuster films. Most organically grew from humble beginnings, and a great many have failed, no matter how much marketing was behind them.[/quote]
EVERYTHING no matter how small is "marketed" way back when Solder comics had tough and cool solders to appeal to boys, girl comics used cute things and pastels to appeal to girls, everything right down to the gum you buy is "marketed" in some way

also somtimes companies are dumb in regards to demographics...just look at jims countless videos on the game industry and why COD shooters arent the only games that exist

[quote/]And frankly that's what your feminist conspiracy theory has to assume, that people hate money[/quote]

now weve gone from logical gymnastics to logical contortionism...jesus christ

[quote/]Funny thing, the rationalization hamster is a thing for feminists...[/quote]
no its some bullshit Redpillers made up

[quote/]But anyways what I said was correct and is implicit in your argument.[/quote]
I am not saying women are weak...you are puting words in my mouth

[quote/]Its accurate and you are just in denial.[/quote]
quoting fucked up but whatever you meant "you are in denial" is not an argument

[quote/]That's fine, and its fine that I've never heard of it, it caters to its own audience, and it shouldn't be forced to cater for others, let alone people with no actual interest, like me. You say its very diverse, but well, I've not heard of it, so its not that diverse at all. [/quote]
ummm....no its still diverse....regardless of how popular it may or may not be,

[quote/]Not everything has to be the same, and not everything has to appeal to everyone[/quote]
which is not what I am saying, when looking at weather or not something could stand to represent certain groups better we have to ask why and how? complaing about lack of female charachters in shaw shank redemption is pointless

[quote/]Again, this is your assumption. Like the church lady who finds dungeons and dragons satanic and morally corrupting, this is a matter of your personal opinion which you choose to universalize based on nothing at all.[/quote]
while theres an element of subjectivity I could provide some reasons why the way certain charachters are treated might be considered problematic

[quote/]Really? Is that your argument? I might as well say that since forest gump had broad appeal all films must be like that from now on. Its not a serious argument at all.[/quote]
my argument is in some cases it is not the worst fucking thing in the world and can add to a work, is it aplicable to all works? no, but that should go without saying

[quote/]Notable how there is no argument.

Notable how you spend your time clipping out most of what I say in my quotes because otherwise you can't respond at all.
[/quote]
see I purposfully didn't explain why because by this point I'm getting tired, but essentialy in entertainment men are always the default and women considered "other"

[quote/]Again, no valid argument because you simply can't respond. The broken idea of "objectification" is just the perfect example of the intellectual emptiness which is modern feminism.[/quote]
objectification is the idea of veiwing women as sexual objects with no purpose other than to be obtained...she is passive, not the one calling the shots in regards to her own sexuality

[quote/]Grown adult women just don't have the backbone to just watch the entertainment they want, these are major life decisions and just anything can disuade them!![/quote]
they do actually

 

[Nieroshai]

This is a classic example of mixing moral and scientific viewpoints.

That all humans should be treated as equal is a purely moral stance. It is based on philosophy, not scientific fact. Because from the scientific point of view there are differences, there's not even a question. The whole reasons we have races in the first place, for example, is that humanity spread across the globe and evolved to better deal with whatever conditions they found. Thus making them different by definition. It also doesn't take an expert to distinguish a male from a female, there's clear differences. Finally, it is common knowledge that no two humans are identical, even when of the same race, sex and age.

So to answer your question directly, "What if there really are racial-sexual differences between people?": there are, but the majority (more or less) of humanity feels this should not affect how they are treated. Thus it doesn't (or shouldn't) matter that there are differences.

The problem then follows that if there are any "shoulds" in science, science is treading on philosophy's turf. I feel that the OP may be trying to say that so often science does become politically charged, and with how hard it is to even get dissent peer-reviewed anymore (the UN has a track record of outright firing dissenters of established science the committees like) can we even trust science to be as objective as it should be?

 

[Thaluikhain]

Or are you saying that doctors used to believe women couldn't have GI bleeds?

The assumption was that that wasn't what was (at least generally) happening, it could a long time for that assumption to be challenged.

And even more important: are you suggesting that the "belief" that blood loss can lead to iron deficiency is somehow discriminatory or prejudiced?

No, not at all. But the automatic assumption that a medical condition must have different causes in men and women, which went uncorrected for quite some time, would seem to indicate that something is going wrong with the way gender is viewed.

By comparison, doctors neglecting to do a proper diagnosis on fat people, and just assuming that whatever the complaint is, it's due to them being fat. People are making assumptions, and skipping a few important steps in their job.

 

[Olas]

No. He's full of it. Science is a process. Processes are inanimate, insubstantial, incorporeal, abstract concepts. They don't have whims, because they don't have neurological systems, let alone brains capable of conscious thought.

Thinking, conscious creatures (i.e. people) have whims. That means what people think science means may be wrong and beholden to public whims, but science itself is just science.

Whether the process of science itself is objective is irrelevant, because it's always going to be carried out by and for communities of people who will always be biased.

Say "Who may potentially be biased," and you're speaking the truth. Say, "who will always be biased," and you're spread false, needless, and irrational misinformation.

A lot of adjectives there; is there a type of misinformation that isn't false?

No, I fundamentally disagree, everyone and every group will always have a bias. Denying that is denying how human beings work. Now people may try to suppress their bias as much as possible, and in some decisions where the options are fairly limited the bias may be suppressible so that it has no impact on the final decision made. But when making decisions as complex as what to research, how to carry out the research, and how to organize and present the findings, there is no way to remove bias even a considerable amount, and I'd raise the question of whether it's even a good idea to try.

Even under the assumption that the process itself is carried out in a purely mechanical fashion without bias towards results, the decision of what to investigate and research has to be based on something.

That's true. What you're leaving out is that the decision of what to investigate and research is being made by millions of separate, independent researchers around the world with no uniform governing body dictating what they can or can't research.

And why would that matter? You think that somehow human bias disappears because of how the researches are organized, or aren't? Individuals can have biases, teams can have biases, companies can have biases, governments can have biases, whole countries can have biases.

If the scientific community is trying to suppress information about differences in gender/race/etc

I'm going to stop you right there because your hypothetical proposal is meaningless. We have no evidence that the scientific community is trying to suppress information, nor even a credible proposal of how such a suppression would even happen. Therefore, there is zero benefit to speculating on the imaginary situations in which they might be.

Yes, let's never speculate about anything being possible unless we already have concrete evidence that it is already true, that seems like a very logical and open minded way to go about analyzing things.