I am guessing that where they [not only these but all the others in this thread saying the same types of thing] are going with this is explained thusly:
My life hasn't been perfect, and neither has that of any white male I've ever known. I/we don't have the individual ability to exercise our whiteness or maleness to our advantage. Therefore, there is no such thing as white- or male-privilege, and I am personally insulted and outraged to be considered a bogeyman. Because of my personal indignation prompted by the internalization of this concept and the resulting guilt said internalization causes, I will violently cling to our legal code, insisting it is an accurate reflection of the daily reality of our society rather than a goal towards which we are still working. Because I am a literal, action-oriented person who must justify my own situation based SOLELY upon my own merits and actions, I will never bring myself to consider that something intangible, invisible, silent, amorphous, and psychological could be at play, providing me with intangible, invisible, and silent advantages. If I did consider such a thing, I would have to question my own merits and actions, and that would be altogether too uncomfortable a thing to do willingly, because there is no benefit to me for doing so.
Imagine each of them writing something like this, right now, after all of the, unprovoked vitriol, personal attacks, resentment, and anger they've displayed. Makes more sense, doesn't it?
I personally think the issue is micro vs. macro -- Discussing "society" is extremely difficult to do without subconsciously noting our individual place within it and therefore internalizing anything said about those segments of which we are a part.
When, by personality, you're a literal person who gives more credence to hands-on, in-your-face prima facie ev than anything else, separating yourself from such a discussion can be difficult if not impossible. Hell, I've fallen victim to it myself. The key is to recognize what you're doing and TRY TO STOP, because, if you can't, you can't be anything close to objective. The conversation quickly devolves, and the time and effort involved are wasted because the parties now are more set in their position due to anger, indignation, and frustration -- The investment now cannot be wasted.
What's the answer? Besides patiently and without the micro-involvement continuing to try to illuminate others, in the methods they demand before they will consider, I don't know. Anecdota is powerful to the human psyche, because it becomes a part of you (i.e. personal) in addition to being literal, hands-on, in-your-face ev. Helping someone move past that is tooth-pulling difficult, especially with sympathy for it being there at all (for me, anyway).
I'm open to suggestion while continuing to try to discuss these issues and brainstorm solutions to them with anyone willing to do so. I hope you continue to do so, too, Claire.
11. Go ahead, Beta, troll ME for the following, I dare you:
A lack of logic/math ability (straw man and stereotype) when speaking from my own experience in unsupported (your opinion) assertion (not done).
Arguing from stereotype (not done), which of course is cool when you do it but not when she did it (and I disagree that she even did). Conspicuously disregarding your point (refuted) of wanting ev (supplied in spades), or speaking in stale cliche (cliche is MADE of truth, cliche is OVERWHELMINGLY COMMON truth).
While crying for the ev *I* quickly gathered via Google, you're engaging in the same tactics you're accusing her of: straw men, stereotyping, unsubstantiated assertions, laziness, and speaking in stale cliche. What she DIDN'T do was revert to ad homonim attack, while you did.
To my eyes, it is "You [who] give[s] the painful impression of someone equipped with a collection of old talking points and no ability (or willingness) to endanger them by considering the facts or entertaining a new idea."
12. I dare you now to stand by your words. I've addressed your points, substantiated hers, and now it's time to discuss the topic with ALL of us if you can leave the arrogance, privilege-blindness, childishness, and willful ignorance at the door. Those qualities don't make for productive debate.
I believe I have shown you you're wrong. If I have not, discuss as you've requested, with the ground rules YOU laid. Otherwise, WE'RE "not going to bother with you any further."
(Many thanks, Mike, for this topic and for your concern about it!)
(1) CLAIRE:I I love how the argument is always the same; gender/race doesn't matter! It should only be about merit and achievement!
(2) And it's so easy for you, the white guys, to say that, when your race or gender is not systematically taken as a mark against you nor a reason for your merits and achievements to be devalued. It's so easy for you to demand that everyone be judged equally when anyone who isn't a white man starts with a handicap just by being born in a world run by and for white men.
(3) Don't stick your head in the sand and pretend that bias doesn't happen any more. It absolutely does. The discussion of whether it's happening in any one particular case is important, and it'd be good for white guys to approach this discussion with at least some awareness of the advantages they get just for being white and male.
(4) I have a lot of respect for Mike for wanting to talk about this. (Also, congrats on making the list.)
(5) BETA:Your message is dated 2012, so you'll have to do better than making assertions like "it absolutely does". A white male could assert that these days he is the one who is being systematically (and legally) discriminated against by race- and gender-biased hiring and university admission practices. His claim would have more weight than yours, unless you can put up some evidence (from this century).
(6) Approach this discussion with at least some awareness of the advantages you get just for being female (and non-white?), and your argument will seem a lot more compelling.
(7) CLAIRE:Oh noes! Laws designed to combat sexism and racism mean white guys DON'T automatically get jobs or university places over non-white non-males of equal or better skill and experience? Say it ain't so!
(8) Guess the white guys will just have to settle for majority control over the world's money, governments, mass media, etc etc etc.
(9) Seriously. White guys are not systematically denied jobs because the employer is worried they'll want to start a family or take time off to take care of their kids. White guys are not systematically paid less or passed over for promotion just because they're male and white. White guys are not systematically targeted by police just because they're white.
(10) Denial ain't just a river in Egypt, mate.
(11) BETA:Could you please not contribute to the stereotype that women are no good at math and logic? Your first paragraph is a straw man argument, your second is an irrelevant (and unsupported) assertion, your third is argument by stereotype that conspicuously fails to address my point, and your fourth is a stale cliche. You give the painful impression of someone equipped with a collection of old talking points and no ability (or willingness) to endanger them by considering the facts or entertaining a new idea.
(12) Address my point and I'll discuss this topic (and your points) with you. Show me I'm wrong, and I'll concede. Otherwise I'm not going to bother with you any further.
Starting from the top, by paragraph, which I have numbered for quick cross-reference.......
2. Researcher finds "stereotypes of men as decisive and aggressive and of women as indecisive and gentle are alive and well and influencing personnel decisions [and that] the power of stereotypes shapes hiring to a statistically significant degree." These results "are believed to represent the first time that this conclusion — that employers discriminate according to gender stereotypes — has been substantiated by real-world data, rather than by laboratory experiments." 2005. http://www.virginia.edu/insideuva/2005/17/gorman.html
5. Research finds that "black and Latino applicants with clean backgrounds [and equivalent resumes to the white applicants] fared no better than white applicants just released from prison" when trying to get a job. 2005. http://asr.sagepub.com/content/74/5/777.abstract
(You bad mouthed Claire for not providing ev when she was obviously speaking from personal experience, but you do the same. Poor form. Even though you gave no ev for your point, your overall attitude compels me to supply counter-ev for your opinion.)
Because of this, we'll never have al a carte cable.
Fine, CableCo, you don't want to sell me al a carte channels. Why not sell me the same bundles YOU pay for? It makes me insensible with rage that I cannot tell CableCo "I'll take Discovery Networks + NBC/Universal for $50/month, pls."
What also infuriates me is that I can't go to TNT's or USA's website and pay them a monthly/yearly/per-season fee to watch their programs from their site (even though they're available!) because of their contracts with the CableCos.
The only way I can watch their programs at their sites is to have my cable bill in my hand to log on . . . and I rent a condominium with group-maintenence-fee-purchased basic cable. No one can tell me how to get a copy of the bill so that I can do this, and the CableCo won't tell me what I need to know to do so even though they know enough to send a technician to do a repair.
In what freakin' universe does it make sense for TNT/USA et al to turn down my money to watch their already-made programming simply because I want to pay it to them and not to a CableCo?
It's their contracts with the CableCos that prevent this. The CableCos are so petrified of a changing market that, if TNT/USA et al want their channels carried by the CableCos, then the CableCos insist that they not make their programming available by other methods.
Add bandwith caps to this mess, and the injustice is breathtaking because every.singe.CableCo.does.this.crap -- So they all get away with it and we have zero recourse except cutting the cord and doing without or with breaking the law.
When breaking the law makes more sense to your prospective customer base than continuing to deal with you and your crap, you should wake.the.hell.up.
Of course the CableCos (and their shills) and lawmakers keep having the unmitigated gall to act confused/suprised/outraged/disappointed with the concept of cord-cutting and piracy.
This is about GOVERNMENTAL retribution because someone disapproved of non-threatening, non-defamatory speech. Remember that "Free Speech" is supposed to protect individuals from GOVERNMENTAL retribution.
Just because those of us who hang out here are much more likely to agree with _actual_science_ (pro-vax) vs. anecdotes or superstitious hokum (anti-vax and autism "cures") and are occasionally snarky about it doesn't mean that your "free speech rights . . . are worthy of ridicule" -- It means that other PEOPLE find your MESSAGE worthy of ridicule.
Seriously, return to us with your argument as soon as it's made public that there has been GOVERNMENTAL retribution for the anti-vax stance. I expect that would be a situation into which we could sink our teeth.
I am not trying to be mean here, but pls understand that the governmental retribution the vaxer health official experienced is a metric-crap-ton worse than a group of glorified BBS users poking fun at anti-vaxers.
I am pretty sure that the AC's point was that content creation and presentation cost for older works (such as "Stranger in a Strange Land") was covered long ago.
I think he's trying to say that 15 hours of scanning/OCRing/proofing doesn't equate to >$7 per negligible incremental cost for digital distribution in his mind. I tend to agree with the thought.
I think the AC was trying to ask the OP how 15 hours of additional work on an existing older piece justifies the >$7 retail on all-but-free-to-distribute copies.
I don't think he was comparing SiaSL to the OP's example of $20 e-books after paperpacks are available, I think he was asking why such older works aren't, say, $3 if the additional production cost to transform an older book to an e-bokk is 15 hours of labor.
I've been wanting to do this for a while now . . . Hell, Houston Comcast is so expensive (and U-Verse not available) that I'd even be willing to sign up for a third service to supplement the Huly/Netflix combo.
My problem is that I'm addicted to Headline News, Science Channel, History/History International, and ID (C&I would be an acceptable substitute).
Suggestions as to replacing these babies in a non-Comcast/U-Verse household?
Appreciate the response. I read through those links and have to say that either I misunderstood the intent of your previous post (possible), or you're equating two completely different concepts (also possible).
In the post previous to yours, AC referenced "secretly install[ing] infringing content on the computer" prior to sic-cing attorneys on the owner. Your response referenced the *AA "planting fake evidence of copyright infringement."
Interpreting these two comments together, *I* thought that you were describing drive-by downloads, disguised torrents, virus infestation, or other possible malware-type methods by which the *AA (or their agents) were underhandedly "pushing" copyrighted content onto the computers of the ignorant just to send them a shake-down (read: blackmail) letter.
I was astounded to hear this, and dug around a bit. I couldn't find anything similar. Maybe there was an accusation during the discovery phase of a lawsuit that I'd somehow missed? Maybe this was breaking news you heard before I did? So I asked you for your source/s, and you provided enough to show me that we're simply not talking about the same thing at all.
Both of the links you sent me were about the DHS domain seizure dragnet.
The first link tells about the presence of both non-copyrighted and copyright-holder-or-agent-submitted content being cited as reason for inclusion in the domain name seizure. The second link mostly talks about a specific website cited for the copyright-holder-or-agent-submitted content and how absurd this has been.
The first link is about the technical ignorance/incompetence of the DHS, and the second is about the situation of the myriad music industry arms not knowing what each is doing.
Per the second link, the industries "various subsidiaries and independent promoters and DJs and mixtapes, and all sorts of stuff that the labels very specifically support with one hand" sometimes conflict with their other hands, and they seem to be unclear on the larger picture. Add the artists themselves, the executives, and the fans, mix well . . . And the industry is such a mess that the *AA has found it easier to call in a flock of attorneys and the DHS to resolve the idiocy of their own cannibalistic business model.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt in that I misunderstood your original intent, because you really can't be unhinged enough to be equating the orchestrated, engineered blackmail of innocents and simple, garden-variety incompetence that collaterally damages innocents, right? ;-)
But, by all means, if you *are* attempting to equate the two, do share! :-)
I'm all for punishing actual paedophiles, and there's no excusing this kind of crime - throw the book at them, no question. But, $3.68m for possessing a photograph?
Yep, for possessing a photograph. The precedent of classifying the consumers in the same category as the producers and distributors easily leads to something like this . . .
The overseas automobile company with a plant in the US that was found guilty by US courts of discrimination against and abuse of women a few years back . . . (Sorry I can't find the name right now, we'll call it X) . . . X company wouldn't have had a motivation to discriminate/abuse if not for the profits obtained, and those profits wouldn't exist without X's customers.
Soooo . . . If every pedo with a picture is as guilty as the creator/distributor of said picture, doesn't that mean that every owner of an X car is as guilty of female discrimination/abuse as X company?
That's the funny thing with precedent: It applies to all similar situations, and the X company situation is similar enough that I would expect it to apply.
I expect the possessors of the pictures should should fall into another category . . . We have perpetrators, accessories, conspirators, and . . . Nothing. Maybe we need a new legal category/label for people who knowingly benefit from illegal activities but who don't pepetrate, conspire to perpetrate, or assist (before/after) perpetration. Maybe beneficiaries?
There absolutely needs to be a criminal middle ground between "involved" and "not involved at all". I am not involved in any way with child pornography (creation, distribution, consumption), and I am therefore a hell of a lot less "not guilty" than the consumer of child pornography who is involved in some way.