"When people go along with an opinion they disagree with but think is popular, they are in a catch-22 of inviting pain through cognitive dissonance by trying to avoid the pain of social rejection."
-
"When people go along with an opinion they disagree with but think is popular, they are in a catch-22 of inviting pain through cognitive dissonance by trying to avoid the pain of social rejection."
-
"When people go along with an opinion they disagree with but think is popular, they are in a catch-22 of inviting pain through cognitive dissonance by trying to avoid the pain of social rejection."
While I think this article has its merits, really important ones, some of the test questions that it reports are complex in themselves. And the results reflect a failure on the part of society, to understand that ‘fairness’ isn’t just a question of what happens to you, personally.
Part of living in a cohesive society isn’t blanket agreement, but an ability to acknowledge that your feelings may differ from that of a larger society, without the threat of exclusion.
-
J jwcph@helvede.net shared this topic
-
While I think this article has its merits, really important ones, some of the test questions that it reports are complex in themselves. And the results reflect a failure on the part of society, to understand that ‘fairness’ isn’t just a question of what happens to you, personally.
Part of living in a cohesive society isn’t blanket agreement, but an ability to acknowledge that your feelings may differ from that of a larger society, without the threat of exclusion.
But all of this is predicated on a firm agreement on some fundamental principles of what a fair society is. That one might be slightly disadvantaged in order to allow someone else the dignity of existing in that society is something we simply don’t teach kids anymore. When we value selfish competition above everything else, that’s when differing opinions become intolerable.
-
But all of this is predicated on a firm agreement on some fundamental principles of what a fair society is. That one might be slightly disadvantaged in order to allow someone else the dignity of existing in that society is something we simply don’t teach kids anymore. When we value selfish competition above everything else, that’s when differing opinions become intolerable.
I had the luck to spend a good portion of my adult life in societies which didn’t view the darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ models as conducive to reaching our societal aspirations.
The rot set in long, long before our current era. I blame Reagan and Thatcher.
-
I had the luck to spend a good portion of my adult life in societies which didn’t view the darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ models as conducive to reaching our societal aspirations.
The rot set in long, long before our current era. I blame Reagan and Thatcher.
The article reports results from the question of private vs public opinions on Trans athletes in sports.
I’ve always found the question a kind of ludicrous one. For two reasons:
The premise that ‘sport' is about starting with a level playing field is delusional. The diversity of bodies in sport precludes that, regardless of gender.
What is the social worth of ’sports’? A spectacle of zero sum games? How is that good for us as a society?
-
The article reports results from the question of private vs public opinions on Trans athletes in sports.
I’ve always found the question a kind of ludicrous one. For two reasons:
The premise that ‘sport' is about starting with a level playing field is delusional. The diversity of bodies in sport precludes that, regardless of gender.
What is the social worth of ’sports’? A spectacle of zero sum games? How is that good for us as a society?
I admit that I find it depressing how often I see abject laziness, even in progressive circles, to get to the root of the issue.
We constantly stick an emotionally satisfying bandaid over what requires a serious unpacking.
Perhaps for fear, if we do a thorough unpacking job, the whole edifice will fall down.
Well, maybe, in that case, it was a piss poor edifice to begin with.
-
The article reports results from the question of private vs public opinions on Trans athletes in sports.
I’ve always found the question a kind of ludicrous one. For two reasons:
The premise that ‘sport' is about starting with a level playing field is delusional. The diversity of bodies in sport precludes that, regardless of gender.
What is the social worth of ’sports’? A spectacle of zero sum games? How is that good for us as a society?
THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS FUCKING THIS.
The argument against trans participation in sport always begins and ends with an uninformed and unfounded declaration of "unfair advantage" as if that is, or has ever, mattered in sport.
Sport CANNOT be simultaneously a test of physical athleticism AND a level playing field of evenly matched, equally physically identical bodies.
Either admit that the point of sport is to pit two dissimilar bodies against one another and see which body is more physically athletic in a specific category of physicality — or ban Shaq from basketball for being unfairly tall. Ban Michael Phelps from swim meets for having unfairly webbed feet. Ban Usain Bolt from track events for having unfairly muscular legs. Ban every member of the NFL from playing football for having unfairly large bodies.
There is no sport ever invented in which the physical differences of our bodies does not give some players advantages over other players. It is, in fact, these physical differences which DEFINE sport. And, here's a news flash for the uninitiated - many sports give a FEMININE body the clear advantage — such as long distance running, or sports in which sustaining a high g force or high pain tolerance. The fact that these physical differences which favor WOMEN'S BODIES are not generally valued by this society says a lot more about the patriarchy than it does trans bodies.
