A Rose By Any Other Name...

[Tinman]

I only asked for sources for one specific instance mentioned above - ie Tinman's Twitter Blocks 'Uncle Tim' From Trends Section After Senator Tim Scott's Speech.
You're the one who pointed in the general direction of "Third world countries", and pretended it was a source.

Don't pretend you'd have taken his source seriously. I provided a source that verified everything I said about Twitter allowing a racial slur to trend for almost half a day and you completely dismissed the incident once there was proof of it. Undecided could provide a thousand sources and once they'd proven their point you'd just brush it off like it's not important. Clearly evidence doesn't matter to you, you're just gish galloping.

 

[Undecided]

Articles are often biaised, and research papers usually have an abstract that summarizes the objective and findings of the study, right at the beginning of the paper.

Now that is incredibly ironic - because the majority of the sources I cited (which you never even acknowledged - such as the BEE case study...) were sources that were used as citations in the Wikipedia articles on the topic.
So, are you saying they can't be trusted?

Also, if you're using the narrative that only true information can be gleamed from research papers - then what's the point of journalism? Is it all false?
Research papers don't often report on topics that are present in every day media, such as corrupt activities (for example) - they'd only, for example, examine the presence of corruption and determine whether that was the case or not. That doesn't actually help readers identify whether there are actual verifiable corrupt actions occurring - which may be reported on in relevant articles when / if it occurs.

Yes, articles may often be biased - but as I just proved to you - even Wikipedia makes use of such articles. The way to find the truth is by observing both sides of an argument to find the truth - not only seeing one point of view; which is what you seem to be wanting.

Also, the abstract of a study is not sufficient information to go on; you're meant to read the entire case study - not just the abstract or the conclusion. Otherwise, what's the point of researching at that point - you'd only have done the bare minimal work to inform yourself of the entire case study - and therefore be working on misinformation.

I only asked for sources for one specific instance mentioned above - ie Tinman's Twitter Blocks 'Uncle Tim' From Trends Section After Senator Tim Scott's Speech.
You're the one who pointed in the general direction of "Third world countries", and pretended it was a source.

No, you actually said directly to me:

Yeah, that's not an actual source, buddy.

Which I actually addressed:

"Yeah, that's not an actual source either, buddy."
It's pretty funny that you actually took that bait; I was alluding to the fact that I know this from first hand experiences because of where I live... but okay lmao.
I'll chuck a lot of sources at you right now, don't worry; not that I really see you sourcing your claims...

Here's the overarching topics on Wikipedia; I'll link to actual articles too, don't worry.
Also, I'll just paste the paragraph for each just in case you're too lazy to go to Wikipedia; as you seemed to with my prior sources (which I'll mention later)...

BEE:

• Companies are scored based on the quota of black ownership, senior managers, training, as well as suppliers. These scores then translate into their ability to compete for government tenders.
• BEE also has its own Wikipedia article here.
• Articles criticizing it:
  -here and here.
• Articles citing corruption via it:
  -here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

Affirmative action:

• The SAPS (South African Police Service) operates a quota system policy for hiring and promotion. Positions will be left unfilled if the appropriate demographic candidate cannot be recruited, even if another qualified person is available.
• Affirmative action has its own Wikipedia article here.
• Negative outcomes of it:
  -here.

University requirements:

• First year students are registered on a racial quota basis. In some cases there are different admission requirements for different demographics. For example: to study medicine at the University of Cape Town (UCT), white and Indian students require at least a 78% average on their National Senior Certificate, whereas black students only requires 59%. This is largely as a result of the quota system requiring privelaged access for certain ethnic groups - In 2016 the University of Kwazulu Natal quota for medical students is 69% black African, 19% Indian, 9% coloured, 2% white and 1% other.
• Articles citing it:
  -here and here.

Quota system:

• Sports Minister Fikile Mbalula has imposed quota systems in athletics, cricket, football, netball and rugby
• Articles citing it:
  -here, here, here, and here.

As you can clearly see, if you read what I had said; I knew it wasn't a source - the intent was to showcase that you don't have all the information at your disposal. I was essentially baiting or probing to see your response; which you reacted exactly as I expected. Instead of addressing my claim with sources of your own, you wanted me to run out and source my claim, which I did - but you then proceeded to ignore it because it didn't fit your narrative (as seen time and time again).

Additionally, because of your lack of acknowledgement of the above; besides dismissing it (which you did in one of your prior responses - didn't even bother to acknowledge it); it leads me to conclude that you've not even bothered to read any of what I put - as well as not go to the citations that I went out of my way to source for you - at your request (which was heavily implied by your "Yeah, that's not an actual source, buddy." remark).

Also; on the topic of Tinman - you totally discredited their source - basically just dismissing the proof outright because it didn't align with your narrative - that is not how you partake in discourse; only if you want to push your narrative without ever entertaining other stances.
The way you handled it just shows that you interject your opinions into discourse and use them as though they're substantiated as fact - which is why not many here are taking what you say seriously. If you want to be taken seriously you should go out of your way to research your topics - approach it with the appropriate maturity - and be open to criticism and compromise.
What we've examined from you is a total disinterest in sourcing your own arguments - and discrediting others due to your own perceived biases / stances which don't align with your narrative (essentially anything that doesn't align with your opinion).

I did, I just failed to see why you thought it was supporting your point, since the article points out that yes, women are still a minority of STEM fields workers in the middle east, because they are expected to stop working to be "homemakers" - it's just that they get the most degrees in STEMS, and even then, the article says that they have to work way harder than their male counterparts to get them.

Not in your initial response; as seen here:

You're misunderstanding my words. I was explaining why internalized prejudice makes it so less women try pursuing male-dominated careers in the 1st place.

And yeah, the second part of your argument is as I pointed out above - it is materially more difficult to make a living as a women in a male-dominated field (as in, a field where men constitute the majority of the workforce, in case there's any confusion), which deters young women from pursuing a career in this kind of field. It may be more prevalent/worse in some places than in others, but the root cause (and outcome) is the same : less women in these kinds of jobs.

Which I then went to conclude you hadn't read the articles I listed in my response; as seen here:

You're misunderstanding my words. I was explaining why internalized prejudice makes it so less women try pursuing male-dominated careers in the 1st place.

I'm not misunderstanding you. I'm saying that that argument doesn't hold up in the case study of women in the middle east.
Why is it that women in the middle east, which face the most oppression (or at least definitively more than women in first world countries...) are getting qualified in STEM fields (which are mostly "male dominated" fields), whilst women in first world countries aren't? I'd think you'd have a better idea if you read the first link of my previous post, but don't worry, I've linked it again below.
Hence why I said it seems like "grasping at straws" - because women in the middle east don't have the luxury of saying they feel "deterred" as a reason for not pursuing qualifications / jobs in those fields.

If you want to make the argument that women in first word countries are actually more disadvantaged by their "internalized prejudice(s)" than literally oppressed women in third world countries, and more specifically the middle east - then I won't continue this further; as I feel I'll have more luck communicating with a brick wall.

And yeah, the second part of your argument is as I pointed out above - it is materially more difficult to make a living as a women in a male-dominated field (as in, a field where men constitute the majority of the workforce, in case there's any confusion), which deters young women from pursuing a career in this kind of field. It may be more prevalent/worse in some places than in others, but the root cause (and outcome) is the same : less women in these kinds of jobs.

"Yeah, that's not an actual source either, buddy."
The root cause is not the same. Women in the middle east are literally oppressed and they're getting qualified in "male dominated" fields. Women in first world countries aren't choosing these fields because they have a choice; women in the middle east don't have that choice if they want at least a modicum of independence - they need to be in those "male dominated" fields (as those aren't "male dominated" fields in the middle east - and would actually allow them to support themselves - if they were able to get a job, which may prove difficult).
It seems you didn't read the previous article I linked you... here, I'll link it again...

It's supporting my point by showcasing that your narrative of saying that women in first world countries are too "deterred" due to "internalized prejudice(s)" to work in "male dominated" fields - and by extent get qualified in them. Whereas women which face more oppression / discrimination (which you even agreed to yourself) are not deterred and are getting qualified and trying to work in those fields. Which is the comparison I was showing you - how can women in first world countries have it harder than women that are more oppressed (once again; you agreed with that) - to the point that they are not entering those "male dominated" fields or even getting qualified in them.
And yes I know your response to that (as seen prior) - "cuz of the wage gap obvs lol" - as though that's the crux of the issue - which it isn't.

I'll tell you what the actual problem is - according to your favorite source - Wikipedia. And you can't refute it since I'm doing exactly what you did prior - the minimal effort. I tried to go to the articles that they cited - but surprise surprise; they were books from long ago that you'd have to actually buy - or just articles that were lost in time. Not exactly verifiable information - but that's just how you roll I guess.
Here goes:

Gender imbalance in STEM fields​

According to PISA 2015 results, 4.8% of boys and 0.4% of girls expect an ICT career.[6]

Studies suggest that many factors contribute to the attitudes towards the achievement of young men in mathematics and science, including encouragement from parents, interactions with mathematics and science teachers, curriculum content, hands-on laboratory experiences, high school achievement in mathematics and science, and resources available at home.[7] In the United States, research findings are mixed concerning when boys' and girls' attitudes about mathematics and science diverge. Analyzing several nationally representative longitudinal studies, one researcher found few differences in girls' and boys' attitudes towards science in the early secondary school years.[7] Students' aspirations to pursue careers in mathematics and science influence both the courses they choose to take in those areas and the level of effort they put forth in these courses.

A 1996 USA study suggested girls begin to lose self-confidence in middle school because they believe that men possess more intelligence in technological fields.[8] The fact that men outperform women in spatial analysis, a skillset many engineering professionals deem vital, generates this misconception.[3] Feminist scholars postulate that boys are more likely to gain spatial skills outside the classroom because they are culturally and socially encouraged to build and work with their hands.[9] Research shows that girls can develop these same skills with the same form of training.[10][11]

A 1996 USA study of college freshmen by the Higher Education Research Institute shows that men and women differ greatly in their intended fields of study. Of first-time college freshmen in 1996, 20 percent of men and 4 percent of women planned to major in computer science and engineering, while similar percentages of men and women planned to major in biology or physical sciences. The differences in the intended majors between male and female first-time freshmen directly relate to the differences in the fields in which men and women earn their degree. At the post-secondary level, women are less likely than men to earn a degree in mathematics, physical sciences, or computer sciences and engineering. The exception to this gender imbalance is in the field of life science.[12]

Additionally; there is something you've yet to substantiate after me asking you on three separate occasions now. Just saying "women in first world countries are deterred from working in male dominated fields due to the internalized prejucies" doesn't help - you actually have to go out of your way to convince people that that claim is substantiated - which you literally never have.

Also, that proves my point from earlier - prejudice and gender discrimination do filter out average women from male-dominated fields. Did you read the article in full ?

If you see it that way then you're only seeing what you want to see; because you're still running with your narrative.
I can see how you'd reach that conclusion though - because it's aligning with perceived notions people have of how third wave feminists operate - ignore / disagree with anything that doesn't fit your narrative / agenda.

Also, see above excerpt from your favorite source; Wikipedia.

I did. Here :

ShySquare said:


Quotas aren't an ideal solution, obviously, but I do think the reasoning behind this is somewhat sound

ShySquare said:


Again, I'm not saying quotas are ideal by any means, but imo they're a wild sight better than no one even hiring female pilots because they're unjustly seen as inherently less qualified just because they happen to be women.

Alright, that was oversight on my part; for the context of this discourse I thought we were only referring to content we'd replied directly to one another.
This is the only mention of quotas that you directly replied to me with:

I did say that quotas weren't an ideal solution ; the only real, long-lasting solution is to change societal mindsets, and that's arduous, long term work that will presumably never end.
Quotas are a stop-gap solution.

Additionally - this was the only other thing you had said about quotas (prior to this) that I had read from you:

Do you think that quotas incentivize companies to hire unqualified people ? Of course they don't, especially not for pilot jobs. Companies will still hire the most qualified people possible. Only they'll be incentivised to hire the most qualified men AND women.

Again, I'll admit it was my own fault for not going through all of the posts you had made to find the two aforementioned instances of you mentioning quotas that you've linked.

However - that doesn't excuse the fact that you're not exactly keeping track of everything you're saying - and how you're changing your stance / narrative when it suits you - as seen in my previous reply when I actually showed the context you were actually referring to (when you tried to disingenuously paint it differently).

As is explained in the article, in the very article you used as a source, women in the middle east don't use their STEMS degrees for long BECAUSE they are EXPECTED and encouraged to be homemakers, IE DISCOURAGED from pursuing long-term careers in STEMS. This expectation is UNFAIR and explains why there aren't many women working STEMS jobs in the middle east. Because that's the general MINDSET of the society they live in.

WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO EMPHASIZE YOUR POINTS IN CAPS.
Also, yes I'm aware of what was in the article - and yes, it indicates that women in the middle east don't often get to make use of their qualifications for long. The point that I've tried to get across before (multiple multiple times) is that they're still getting the qualifications though; whilst women in first world countries are apparently too discouraged to even contemplate it - even though women in the middle east are more oppressed (as said before, something you agreed to yourself).

And yes, I already addressed that previously - I'm in agreement with the fact that in the middle east it is largely that mindset that exists. But as stated before; you've not provided a source for your supposed facts about it definitively happening in first world countries as well...

Women in "first world countries" like the USA are deterred from pursuing STEMS careers because prejudice means they will be paid way less than their male colleagues and are less likely to be promoted (plus the harassment and sexism to be expected in a male-dominated field).

Once again; do you have a source for these specific claims (note the quotations clearly please):
-"Women in "first world countries" like the USA are deterred from pursuing STEMS careers because prejudice"
-"(plus the harassment and sexism to be expected in a male-dominated field)"

Because making assertions like that is just throwing your opinion around without any source to back it up with.

So :
Same root cause (prejudice and gendered expectation rooted in sexism),
Different means (women getting a lot of stem degrees in the middle east but expected to give up their careers early to start a family in the middle east // economic deterrents for women in first world countries)
Same result (STEMS is a male-dominated field).

No, that is the conclusion you've reached. That does not automatically make it the same root cause - because as I've stated multiple times - there is cited (sourced) proof of the discrimination and oppression to women in the middle east - but you've yet to actually provide me proof of this "internalized prejudice(s)" that "deter" women in first world countries from qualifying / working in "male dominated" fields.

You cannot equate it to the exact same injustices without citing it. Also - I think it is incredibly disingenuous and a great injustice to the women that are struggling in the middle east to simplify their oppression to "just the same root cause".
No, it's not. It's a completely different context due to the difference in their society in any case - but that was never the focal point of my argument.

The focal point was to show you the disparity of your claims - and how you're claiming things without sourcing them - and then almost downplaying and simplifying the struggles of the women in the middle east to be the exact same root issue in first world countries - which it just isn't.
In the middle east it comes from an entirely different background - a religious one; which is harder to shake than a "societal" one that you're implying.
You can try to change things in society - but good luck trying to tell others that they can't believe in their religion because it's oppressive (especially when their family has followed that religion for decades).

Except as I said, it obviously isn't.

For example, let's say a company, company X, is looking for someone temporary to do a menial task - say data entry. Who do you think they'll hire : a person that send them their resume yesterday, or the child of the CEO who's looking for a summer job and has the same resume and skills ?
Who is more likely to be hired if a more permanent position opens up at this company ?
And that's if the CEO's child isn't expected to take over his parent's company in the first place, and essentially apprentices under their parent.
In this case, an external factor (one's blood relation to the CEO) strongly influences the chance of both candidates to get a job at company X.

Your notion that it's so obvious certainly doesn't seem to be that case; as I clearly missed it due to my "clear misinterpretation" of what you were actually trying to say - unless you're trying to insinuate something...

How many people are the children of CEO's - I would assume a minority of people across the globe...
But that's not the point I was trying to make - you cannot say that the majority of people have advantages (in "opportunities" as you put it) - because then who is your minority you're fighting for? Clearly everyone is advantaged at that point, no?
That's why I said - for the majority of people, when they start off at square one (post high school / qualification) "that individual competence and skills are the only factors influencing the kind of opportunities one gets in life".

If you have a source that proves otherwise - that the majority of people are actually advantaged (again in "opportunities" as you put it) I'd like to see it.
But that's why I said - the majority of people don't have these advantages (such as being the CEO's child) and are reliant on their own competence and skill-set when setting out after high school / college / university.

And this is just one potential factor, there are loads of them that influence the kind of opportunities you get.

So what's the solution to this? You're mentioning it but you've stated nothing about your view on this.
Are you seriously advocating that there be no bias when it comes to hiring? So that one would actually overlook their own children?
Because I don't think you're envisioning exactly how people operate - and at that point good luck trying to explain that to family businesses.

As I said - the fact that you're disputing my claim that the majority of people start out at square one and are reliant on their own skill-set - yet not providing any sources to the contrary leads me to believe that this is just speculation on your part.
If you truly believe that the majority are advantaged in some way then what do you propose doing? And do you even know who your minorities would be in that case?

You cannot tell people to not be biased. That's not how the world works. Parents will hire children, uncles will hire nephews - so on and so forth.
Is that unfair? I don't think it's valid for anyone to say - it comes across as entitlement to whine about things that aren't really your say in the matter - you can't force people to hire specific people from minorities - and if that's what you're insinuating - then that's truly not an idealistic way of solving any problems; as I've cited before.

Acknowledging that life isn't fair is only defeatist if you believe it can't be changed. It can.
It already has. Through unions and protests and political reforms.

Within that context that sounds ominous. The example you cited previously was about "a rich person will have overall better opportunities than a poor one" - so what does your response mean in that context...?
Are we politically reforming to be communist?

Are the unions going to make everything equal (but actually not equal rather using the principle of equity; as I mentioned before)?

Are we protesting people having bias / opinions / being subjective? If so, I have some bad news for you - you might be targeted by a protest.

And no, for the context of my response - I was saying it's defeatist to always want equality (what you actually mean is equity) - because: "Life isn't fair, it isn't equal - trying to force it to be is not something that is easily attainable, and in a lot of places; even feasible."
Your stance that some people are rich and some are poor and that is unequal is defeatist - because you cannot eliminate poverty for good; unless you know some radical method that humanity hasn't found for decades...
Unless you have found a fix to all of societies issues; lobbying, protesting and what have you doesn't actually result in anything except pointing out flaws - it doesn't offer any solutions - and even when solutions are proposed; are you sure that those solutions cater to absolutely everyone in an equal way? Or is it an another example of equity that takes from one group to give to another (huh why do I hear the soviet anthem).

And of course it doesn't mean no poor person can succeed ! There are always outliers. But very few do, and what happens to those who don't ? For every success story, how many people live in abject poverty because through no fault of their own because the deck is so stacked against them.
I want to change the deck, and I sincerely believe it can be. It'll take a lot of effort, time, and people, but it can. And imo, it will be worth the all the work it takes.

I understand the premise you're trying to go for; but I'm sorry to say, it's incredibly naive to believe that there's this very apparent and obvious solution to problems that have plagued humanity for a long long time - and especially this recent 21st society; for decades.

And you're not exactly detailing exactly what you want to change - and being vague about it leaves one to make assumptions; as what I've done previously.
If you're saying that the rich much be taxed and their wealth distributed according to people's needs; congratulations! you've just re-invented communism.

But that's my point - you can say what you want; but be clear, be concise about what exactly you're saying.
And don't expect it to be some radical change that instantly solves all the worlds problems.

Oh and do you actually have any estimation of the time, effort and people needed? Have you done analysis to determine the exact outcomes of what something like that will be for everyone (i.e. avoiding a communism 2.0 for instance)?

I'm not trying to be too negative or critical here - but as I said, it comes across as naive to present your stance as though humanity has never thought of bettering minorities and ways to go about doing so...

Of course you should keep on keeping on. And sometimes, keeping on means working to change the rules.
It's not a handout if people had to fight tooth and nail for years for it, all while still trying to survive - it's a hard-won victory. And then it becomes the new normal, and even though it may not be perfect yet, the way things used to be looks barbaric. Think of factory workers, for example.

Except your presenting that as though everyone within a minority group are "fighting".
Can you prove to me that everyone within the minority groups agrees with every stance that is used to "fight prejudice" in this day and age?
Because I see a lot of people (not within a minority group) in this day and age "fighting" and taking offense on the part of minorities who aren't even offended themselves...

And please don't misquote me to make me look bad out of context. I was not referring to handouts in that sense - I was saying that you cannot go through life expecting that you are deserving of / entitled to handouts - even if you yourself believe that you are being discriminated against.
Because as I was trying to convey - life isn't fair - and the expectation that it will be fair or should be fair doesn't sound like it's founded in reality.

I mean, if you want to directly compare conditions that were inhumane and bordering on slavery to discrimination nowadays then that's your prerogative. Even if that wasn't your intended narrative - I'm just showing you that there can be multiple ways of interpreting something.
Also, the context in that example is completely different to nowadays issues - it's not a one all fits all way to solve issues - to basically determine that things are barbaric and need to be changed. According to who? You? It shouldn't be from a subjective basis - rather from an ethical basis.

That's why as I said before - there are standards nowadays such as ethics that need to be complied to; so that instances such as what factory workers experienced in the industrial revolution won't happen again.
But you're not citing examples of these ethics not being met; and human rights being violated. You're just asserting your opinion / speculation as though it's substantiated fact.

And good for you.

Thank you; but I doubt you were being genuine.

I want the world to be better, good, for everyone. That's my "narrative". That means seeing that there are problems with the world, how to solve them efficiently, and then do it. It just so happens that systemic changes is the best way to solve these problems, so I'll just have to do my best to help with that in any way I can.

As I said, you do you. But you're operating from your own subjectivity - so when you say "These are the problems of the world..." - that is not coming from an objective basis. Meaning that you are biased in your outset; and cannot actually determine whether those are indeed problems or just problems that you are seeing.

And that applies whether or not you're in a group. It doesn't matter the sample size - if one never looks at things with objectivity then one will be biased; and likely not be able to come to an impartial and just decision - which is the very essence of what you claim to be striving for...

Also, if you're the one that is evaluating to solve them efficiently, have you determined how you're going to correct for bias? Have you done any analysis? Are you sure that you'll solve the problems in a just manner (neither resulting in equality or equity - justice for all)? After evaluating all of the above how did you reach the conclusion that systemic changes are the best way to solve these problems? Could I get a source?

Don't get me wrong, I don't mean to discourage you - but what I'm trying to get across is that there is a lot of variables that need to be considered. And honestly over the last few days, and upon reading you previous replies - it doesn't seem like you have the objectivity necessary. Everything seems to be done according to your narrative.
Hence I'd suggest re-evaluating your approach - especially when it comes to trying to get your narrative (and potential hope for change) across on a smut game forum...


Welp; that's 5.2k words.

 

[ShySquare]

Don't pretend you'd have taken his source seriously. I provided a source that verified everything I said about Twitter allowing a racial slur to trend for almost half a day and you completely dismissed the incident once there was proof of it.

I mean, I didn't dismiss your source ? I actually read the article you linked. I agree that Senator Tim Scott was harassed and slurred on Twitter. I don't condone harassment, and the "uncle tim" bit was insulting to him, and in bad taste.

I was flippant about it because this news story (anecdotal evidence) doesn't prove your original point.
The original context was this:

"Yes all men", "kill all men", "kill all cis", and numerous similar phrases have been allowed to trend on various social media sites. A racial slur trended on Twitter for 11 hours because your vocal minority didn't like Senator Tim Scott saying that the US is not racist. There is a very hostile movement against straight white cis men pushed by people whose careers provide them with the loudest megaphones.

Your point is that there's a movement that proactively discriminates against men, straight people, cis people, etc, on the basis of things these groups have no control over.
Senator Tim Scott, in this story, was harassed in reaction to (so not proactively) a harmful opinion* he stated in a public place (something he clearly has control over). The circumstances of Senator Tim Scott's story are different from what you were describing before and after.
Therefore, it doesn't prove what you were saying.

*

Spoiler: And it is a harmful opinion :

• it is untrue, the USA is still a racist country. For example, people of color are disproportionately victims of police violence and incarcerated at higher rates compared to white people
• anyone who wants to deny that there's a racism problem in the USA can point to him, a black man, saying that the US is not racist, and convince themselves and others that the US is not a racist country
• therefore they will indirectly contribute to the oppression of people of color by denying that there's even a problem

Undecided could provide a thousand sources and once they'd proven their point you'd just brush it off like it's not important.

They did, and I didn't. Sources are worthless if you can't draw logical conclusions from them.

Clearly evidence doesn't matter to you, you're just gish galloping.

I mean, I'm having a discussion with 3 people, and I want to reply to all of them, but sure.

 

[Undecided]

So sourced news media articles are valid for a discussion like this, but sourced online collaborative encyclopedia articles aren't ? Good to know [X] [X] [X]

Uh, what? You know that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone (to an extent; limited on some protected articles), right?

Also; good luck trying to convince colleges and universities to accept Wikipedia as your only source material - because as I was alluding to:
-If I know the Wikipedia article you're referencing from and I go an edit it to no longer be accurate; what now? What if on the off chance you now reference the invalid information I've now edited in, and take it as fact?
-Have you actually gone and validated all the citations that Wikipedia have used throughout the article? Or are you just assuming that their all valid and correct for the content presented in the article?

That's why using Wikipedia as your primary source is not really valid - and certainly not at a "professional" level or at least when trying to convince someone of your narrative using articles - which, surprise surprise - is actually mentioned in one of the sources you just linked me to.

Spoiler: Huh, did you really read these articles???

Yeah - I dunno. Referencing articles that are themselves linking to actual verifiable studies / sources seems to be the safer bet in my opinion. Because at least at that point I'm aware that I'm going to have to go to multiple articles to get full understanding of a specific topic.
Unlike just a one stop source that can tend to be biased and have politics included (to some degree) to begin with.

Anecdotal evidence is not worthless or invalid, but it must be used very, very carefully if one is to make generalizations out of it. Which is why it's not as reliable as statistics pulled from large sample sizes. Which is why many studies that do use anecdotal evidences (like surveys) try to mitigate this unreliability by using large samples.
A sample size of one isn't great.

I don't know why you're mentioning anecdotal evidence - unless you're implying journalists only publish anecdotal evidence? If that is indeed your narrative - then no; if they're writing an article and referencing statistics from a study that's not anecdotal evidence - because then that's be saying that you referencing a study would also be anecdotal evidence; speaking of which:

It then seems like you are using anecdotal evidence (or at least your bias / opinion) for almost every single one of your claims - because as mentioned before; you're not citing your claims to actually prove that they're tangible (real).

And, sure, good luck with finding studies that account for everything that is presented in journalism today. I seriously doubt you'd find all the specific cases of corruption (for instance) listed in a study; but you will get instances of it occurring in articles written by journalists (which have to be valid - for journalistic integrity).
Studies are done as abstracted as possible and often use samples to reach a conclusion without actually examining the specific cases of those samples - which is why for trying to convey your point it's more thorough to use articles.

If you're writing your own essay or article and are educated on a topic, then sure go right ahead and just use studies. But that is done in a formal fashion; and certainly not through posts on a forum (especially when trying to prove your point; as a statistic without specific instances doesn't showcase your point).
Hence why; when trying to convey a narrative to someone it makes it easier to reference articles (read valid and verified articles) - which are available for readers to examine (which often isn't the case for studies) - to allow for them to substantiate their own opinion; from specific instances to showcase that narrative.

 

[Undecided]

They did, and I didn't. Sources are worthless if you can't draw logical conclusions from them.

Really. You're really just going to disregard what you don't agree with, huh.
At this point I suggest mods just lock this thread - because this is no longer discourse; you're clearly not open to actually discussing anything that isn't your own viewpoint.

I mean, I'm having a discussion with 3 people, and I want to reply to all of them, but sure.

Clearly not very successfully; seeing as every person seems to have a gripe with the way you just intentionally misinterpret things to suit your narrative - or just outright ignore things that you don't feel like addressing.

Oh and also - not citing your claims; but whatever I guess.

 

[Paradox01]

I think we've taken the subject of research and sources as far as it'll go without getting ugly.

I won't ask for this thread to be locked, however. If anyone wants to get back on the original topic, cool. If not, let's just let this thread fade away.

 

[Nora Steele]

I believe that offense can be taken and given. It can be perceived where it doesn't exist, and attempts to induce a feeling of it can certainly be made without success. Accidents happen, but seeking to give people reason to feel offended should be avoided. It just wastes everyone's time and energy.
When it comes to specific words or phrases that might induce a feeling of offense in me, I expend only the energy required to move past them, rather than attempting to call out someone for their word usage. I've seen too many fruitless "arguments" over it.

 

[Paradox01]

When it comes to specific words or phrases that might induce a feeling of offense in me, I expend only the energy required to move past them, rather than attempting to call out someone for their word usage.

I've tried to instill this in my Soldiers for years. Try to solve issues at the lowest level. If I say something that inadvertently hurt your feelings, pull me aside and tell me.

It has really comes to light in the last few years where I've been assigned to non-combat arms (read: coed) units. I curse a LOT, and I always ask Soldiers to come to me first if I go overboard or let slip when I'm trying not to. Sometimes it works, but most of the time I get someone like a First Sergeant pulling me aside and saying something like, "Soooo, we received a complaint about your language..."

 

[coffee with milk]

This is a great question! Let me try.

Language changes a lot. It's been changing rapidly recently, and for many, especially the older generations, it's hard to catch up. I think we are in a time where language is shifting from one category of taboo words to another, more subtle category, the rank of intensiveness of the word can increase or decrease as society moves.

Personally, I don't think we should give up on trying to correct our language. Future generations will always make sure we have our work cut out for us. Saying they/them, it's a bit weird to the brain, but it's become increasingly popular in recent years and it might even change the way we perceive language and gender and society. That's extremely important.

 

[Undecided]

This is a great question! Let me try.

Language changes a lot. It's been changing rapidly recently, and for many, especially the older generations, it's hard to catch up. I think we are in a time where language is shifting from one category of taboo words to another, more subtle category, the rank of intensiveness of the word can increase or decrease as society moves.

Personally, I don't think we should give up on trying to correct our language. Future generations will always make sure we have our work cut out for us. Saying they/them, it's a bit weird to the brain, but it's become increasingly popular in recent years and it might even change the way we perceive language and gender and society. That's extremely important.

Honestly, I've always used they / their / them to refer to one if I didn't know the gender of the person in question (specifically in online instances) - although back then (when I was younger) things were a lot simpler in terms of gender identity and representation.

Nowadays I don't particularly take much issue with using terms that others want me to use, but that would be on a case by case basis. I don't exactly agree that people should be vilified for not knowing certain terms, or have the responsibility to do research on the topic.

Sorry, for veering off topic a bit here, but: I know I can't speak for any minorities here, but I've always tried to abide by the rationale that being offended by instances of discrimination / bigotry is less productive than just questioning one for their reasoning then moving on. One has no obligation in life to try and correct others' way of thinking, even if their way of thinking can be construed as offensive to others.
If one wants to have a formal debate about those things, sure, that's different - but persecuting others based on their personal opinions in some instances, honestly just feels less worthwhile than accepting the way they are. That's kind of what some people want in any case, acceptance, and when others don't give it to them they get offended, yet in the same turn they're not accepting that that's just the way some people are - whether that's objectively correct or not or whether they're objectively right or not.