Does Hubski not ever ban users? I can't really see what more he could do to get himself banned.

Oh! Well that's good then. Nice to see far-right candidates fail.

Ehh, it's probably that I didn't express myself well.

My point is that if arguments around free speech or keeping an open mind start to be in and of themselves justifications for certain views to be expressed on a platform, that platform then has to accept literally EVERYTHING that isn't active harassment, because everyone can whine equally about how other people aren't being open minded when they are told how toxic their views are.

As such, I think it's important to be ruthlessly opposed to such arguments, because they're the quickest way for a community or platform to lose all control over content.

Seems like a paradoxical conclusion. If the party got pushed right because it HAD to to keep political power, that makes sense, but this push right comes "at the expense of its ability to govern and pick presidential nominees." I haven't got time to listen to the discussion so maybe I'm missing some nuance, but it seems like a peculiar thing to happen to the party.

This is SUCH a dangerous point of view.

If a community begins to accept 'keep an open mind,' 'everyone's entitled to their opinion,' 'there's always someone who will disagree with you,' or, God forbid, 'freeze peach' as justifications for allowing certain points of view or sentiments, that community has lost ALL critical potential or faculty, because it has no ground to weigh the value (or lack thereof) of any given idea.

Eh, I've seen shitty people push good people out too often, especially on the internet. And it's easy for them to get a foothold on a site with a 'encounter new people and ideas' sort of ethos. They can complain other people aren't being open minded to racism and some naive souls sometimes fall for it.

:(

One more step towards Reddit 2.0...

I suppose they both have to do with women's perception in the media. The 'vindictive emotional ex' trope is a common one, casting women as unstable, irrational, and boy-crazy. Plus you could argue it's exacerbated by themes of violence.

It is a bit of a variation on the oppression olympics, though. Who's The Worse Public Figure is an irritating feature of celebrity culture.

What's the analogy? I didn't see one in that article, I don't think.

Small world!

Oh wow, I live there! The Ice Wharf looks way less skeezy than usual in that light.

This is not remotely relevant to your much more interesting comment, sorry.

I'm afraid I don't know a lot of free resources. A lot of the topics I mentioned have their own SEP articles which would be a decent start. But I'm not sure where to direct people from there.

Fairly analytic list :)

The Oxford Short Introduction series is fantastic. To build up continental knowledge I'd recommend the books on German Philosophy, Continental Philosophy, Foucault, Poststructuralism, Marxism.

Also maybe throw in the one on Postcolonialism, although now we're edging away from philosophy a bit.

His claims to be objective fell flat. For instance, Mr. Stewart denied being in President Obama’s corner by re-airing a clip in which he had made fun of the Obamacare website’s rollout, as if that was the same as questioning Obamacare itself.

Sorry, it's biased and smug to have an opinion on a major national issue now?

It's a weird doublethink, too. If you DON'T surround your child with sex/gender-appropriate toys, pronouns, friends, and attitudes, you're enforcing your politics on them.

I still don't get whether I'm on the internet or not if I use a built-in maps application on my phone.

I suppose it is true he doesn't need any Western help to oppress his own people?

There are rules you can follow to help you get used to it. Always keep the steering wheel in the middle of the road (which you do in either case, since the steering wheel is on different sides of the car in different drive areas) and stay close to the curb on your side of the road, because your sense of how far over into the other lane you are is a little off at first.

30 Rock and Parks and Rec for me.

In terms of prevailing theory, they aren't actually that different. Gender is seen increasingly as a performance, especially since Butler's Gender Trouble. Actually, 'born this way' is now largely a questionable way of getting liberal legal theory to grudgingly give rights to LGBT people, because liberal legal theory really does not do well with anything that isn't obviously a liberal issue - and the denial of rights based on an accident of birth is obviously a legal issue. There was an article recently on Hubski about 'born this way' actually: http://aeon.co/magazine/society/why-born-gay-is-a-dangerous-idea/

I'm doing a gender studies masters, most theorists - particularly in queer, poststructuralist traditions - don't see sexuality as innate. They don't see it as a choice, either, of course. Gender and sexuality are part of the process of being constituted in discourse, and discourses about gender and sex are inseperable. Even as a straight cis mail, you were constituted in gendered discourse just as much as a trans lesbian. You just don't have to agitate for your rights as a straight cis man politically.

Language isn't innate, either. But learning a language is an inevitable part of growing up and growing a conscious. And we all speak SOME language, even if some languages are more associated with oppression than others.

Plus, less theoretically, political alliances are important. Having similar experiences and problems is more than enough for a political alliance.

By the way, if you want a really fascinating look at how discourses of gender and sexuality can be constructed radically differently from ours that doesn't involve a lot of complicated theory, read volumes 2 and 3 of Foucault's HIstory of Sexuality.

The US is only really diverse if you reduce everyone into a paste and spread that paste evenly across the entire country. You look down at the level of counties / cities / neighborhoods and the US really isn't that diverse.

Which on the one hand is discouraging, but I think you could also argue the US has never really tried actually having diverse communities, and that that therefore could still work.

Seems like a huge portion of it is power dynamics.