LogFAQs > #956686458

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, Database 8 ( 02.18.2021-09-28-2021 ), DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	People on GameFAQs understand that Critical Race Theory is ANTI-racist, right?
Gaawa_chan 08/01/21 10:05:29 PM #150:	wydrah posted... On point. Too dumb to realize he's dumb. That's not quite fair; I understand that people get confused if this isn't something they've been educated on, but the problem is that: They claim to want answers about the nature of such things, but refuse to actually engage with it to learn; they could easily look all of this up on their own and save everyone time (and find themselves far better worded explanations than anything they could get on freaking video game boards) but instead of learning about the topic at hand, they get all their information off of people who misrepresent stuff for ideological reasons. They don't have to do that. They could go straight to the source to learn what CRT is instead of going off of social media posts and partisan corporate media sensationalism, but they don't. It suggests that they don't actually want to learn what something is; they just want to learn the talking points to reject it out of hand. Why? Well... They are weirdly emotionally attached to outdated methods of categorization. Maybe it's my autism but I just don't understand it at all. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... Originally, it was determined by where a person's reproductive organs were located. There's nothing superficial or nebulous about that. It was purely utilitarian in regard to the method for passing on of genes. The modern day definition is far more nebulous. ... No, we never decide whether the person we just met is a man or a woman based on their genitals, because people don't walk around naked all the time... unless you live in a nudist colony, I guess. You've never had anyone pull down their pants to help you determine their sex, nor demanded a chromosome test. If you're referring to doctors estimating a child's sex based upon their outer characteristics, you should have said THAT, but even then it's inaccurate due to sex characteristics that only arise during puberty and the existence of intersex people. What you and others throughout human history have done is taken a bunch of characteristics, plotted them on two points, and then when you observe a person, you tally up those observed sex characteristics and make a subjective estimation of a person's sex based upon the sum total of those characteristics. Most people don't know their chromosomes. And you have never seen the genitals of 99% of the people you interact with, but I am willing to bet that you think you know their sexes. You don't. Edit: This is me being inaccurate for the sake of brevity. Many cultures have recognized the existence of people who do not fit into one of the two extremes, and this applies both to sex and gender (though we're just talking about sex atm). It's just that the modern dominant cultures have historically not done so. A thought experiment to illustrate my point: A person walks up to you. This person has quite a bit of body hair, wide shoulders, but also appears to have breasts and small hands. What is this person's sex? Is this person a cis male with delicate hands who has lost a lot of weight rapidly? Is this person a cis woman with a hormonal disorder? Is this an intersex person? Is this a trans woman or a trans man? You don't know, because this person could easily fit into any of these categories based upon your metrics. ALL of these categories can possess ALL of these traits. So what's going on? Answer: your categorization system is flawed. These metrics exist, but are completely arbitrary; it is true that they do gravitate towards general extreme trends, but a 2 point system (binary) is clearly insufficient. It's excluding all exceptions save for the most extreme examples. it is therefore far more accurate to instead use a bimodal scale. With a bimodal system, medical treatment of patients becomes more accurate and scientific studies benefit more, and culturally, people who do not plot into the stereotypical extremes are not treated like absolute shit. Just look at how people bend over backwards to justify how intersex people don't even need to be categorized because they're... what? Defects? They exist but the system people want us to keep using doesn't account for them at all! And people make excuses for a system that is obviously inferior and is NOT working as well as the alternative, but they don't have to! This is like making excuses for the failures of Linaean taxonomy for classifying mammals! Why are you bothering to emotionally defend a less accurate category method? Because you're comfortable with it? The bimodal system accounts for intersex people completely; it's literally more accurate AND more useful, both to scientists and medical practitioners, but people won't accept it because it offends them for some reason, it's ridiculous. These categories only exist for us to get utility out of them, and the bimodal system offers more accuracy and utility, ergo, if we're going to make categories based upon sex characteristics at all, the bimodal system is unambiguously superior to the binary system. Much like the traits we use to describe mammals in Linaean Taxonomy do exist; they are factual traits, but the CATEGORY is arbitrary and flawed. It outright excludes examples of animals that should by all rights be categorized as mammals, but do not possess the arbitrary cluster of traits required to fit into that category. It's not that these traits don't exist; it's that the methodology of categorization is in and of itself both flawed and a statement in and of itself about what you prioritize and value. Outdated methods of categorization should be discarded when we have better ones; it really is that simple. Perhaps I am not phrasing this well... sigh uh, watch this then. I looked it up while at work. Basically what I'm saying, but better phrased. She uses a hypothetical using heights: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koud7hgGyQ8 Oddly, I think the issue of social constructs was easy for me to get a grasp on and accept in great part because I already knew about the mess of categorization that was Linaean taxonomy years and years ago. The platypus thing is a great example of why Linaean taxonomy is just... not a good social construct for categorizing organisms; it's just too inaccurate. And there was pushback on changing that system as well, btw. If you're even just mildly into the history of taxonomy, seeing old examples of people rigorously trying to defense Linnaeus' work is, um... pretty pathetic, tbh. --- Hi <cite>Gaawa_chan posted [p:956686458] in People on ... [t:79589532]...</cite> <quote>wydrah posted... </cite> <quote>On point. Too dumb to realize he's dumb.</quote>That's not quite fair; I understand that people get confused if this isn't something they've been educated on, but the problem is that: They claim to want answers about the nature of such things, but refuse to actually engage with it to learn; they could easily look all of this up on their own and save everyone time (and find themselves far better worded explanations than anything they could get on freaking video game boards) but instead of learning about the topic at hand, they get all their information off of people who misrepresent stuff for ideological reasons. They don't have to do that. They could go straight to the source to learn what CRT is instead of going off of social media posts and partisan corporate media sensationalism, but they don't. It suggests that they don't actually want to learn what something is; they just want to learn the talking points to reject it out of hand. Why? Well...They are weirdly emotionally attached to outdated methods of categorization. Maybe it's my autism but I just don't understand it at all. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> <quote>Originally, it was determined by where a person's reproductive organs were located. There's nothing superficial or nebulous about that. It was purely utilitarian in regard to the method for passing on of genes. The modern day definition is far more nebulous.</quote>... No, we never decide whether the person we just met is a man or a woman based on their genitals, because people don't walk around naked all the time... unless you live in a nudist colony, I guess. You've never had anyone pull down their pants to help you determine their sex, nor demanded a chromosome test. If you're referring to doctors estimating a child's sex based upon their outer characteristics, you should have said THAT, but even then it's inaccurate due to sex characteristics that only arise during puberty and the existence of intersex people. What you and others throughout human history have done is taken a bunch of characteristics, plotted them on two points, and then when you observe a person, you tally up those observed sex characteristics and make a subjective estimation of a person's sex based upon the sum total of those characteristics. Most people don't know their chromosomes. And you have never seen the genitals of 99% of the people you interact with, but I am willing to bet that you think you know their sexes. You don't. Edit: This is me being inaccurate for the sake of brevity. Many cultures have recognized the existence of people who do not fit into one of the two extremes, and this applies both to sex and gender (though we're just talking about sex atm). It's just that the modern dominant cultures have historically not done so. A thought experiment to illustrate my point: A person walks up to you. This person has quite a bit of body hair, wide shoulders, but also appears to have breasts and small hands. What is this person's sex? Is this person a cis male with delicate hands who has lost a lot of weight rapidly? Is this person a cis woman with a hormonal disorder? Is this an intersex person? Is this a trans woman or a trans man? You don't know, because this person could easily fit into any of these categories based upon your metrics. ALL of these categories can possess ALL of these traits. So what's going on? Answer: your categorization system is flawed. These metrics exist, but are completely arbitrary; it is true that they do gravitate towards general extreme trends, but a 2 point system (binary) is clearly insufficient. It's excluding all exceptions save for the most extreme examples. it is therefore far more accurate to instead use a bimodal scale. With a bimodal system, medical treatment of patients becomes more accurate and scientific studies benefit more, and culturally, people who do not plot into the stereotypical extremes are not treated like absolute shit. Just look at how people bend over backwards to justify how intersex people don't even need to be categorized because they're... what? Defects? They exist but the system people want us to keep using doesn't account for them at all! And people make excuses for a system that is obviously inferior and is NOT working as well as the alternative, but they don't have to! This is like making excuses for the failures of Linaean taxonomy for classifying mammals! Why are you bothering to emotionally defend a less accurate category method? Because you're comfortable with it? The bimodal system accounts for intersex people completely; it's literally more accurate AND more useful, both to scientists and medical practitioners, but people won't accept it because it offends them for some reason, it's ridiculous. These categories only exist for us to get utility out of them, and the bimodal system offers more accuracy and utility, ergo, if we're going to make categories based upon sex characteristics at all, the bimodal system is unambiguously superior to the binary system. Much like the traits we use to describe mammals in Linaean Taxonomy do exist; they are factual traits, but the CATEGORY is arbitrary and flawed. It outright excludes examples of animals that should by all rights be categorized as mammals, but do not possess the arbitrary cluster of traits required to fit into that category. It's not that these traits don't exist; it's that the methodology of categorization is in and of itself both flawed and a statement in and of itself about what you prioritize and value. Outdated methods of categorization should be discarded when we have better ones; it really is that simple. Perhaps I am not phrasing this well... sigh uh, watch this then. I looked it up while at work. Basically what I'm saying, but better phrased. She uses a hypothetical using heights: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koud7hgGyQ8 Oddly, I think the issue of social constructs was easy for me to get a grasp on and accept in great part because I already knew about the mess of categorization that was Linaean taxonomy years and years ago. The platypus thing is a great example of why Linaean taxonomy is just... not a good social construct for categorizing organisms; it's just too inaccurate. And there was pushback on changing that system as well, btw. If you're even just mildly into the history of taxonomy, seeing old examples of people rigorously trying to defense Linnaeus' work is, um... pretty pathetic, tbh. --- Hi</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1