Opinions: ‘Real America’ is its own bubble

[Dill]

(12-15-2016, 01:55 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: STEM smack talk from a former philosophy professor?  LMAO

One who whines that girls are getting all the breaks in school and growing up to take jobs from real men.

[hollodero]

(12-14-2016, 08:27 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: ..

I think it's funny. Yeah, it's mainly BS and I don't agree with the notion on a serious level. 

But... I do know certain types of females that kind of fit the description. They expertise in a certain form of yoga or meditation skills or prenatal massage techniques or whatever, often combined with some kind of "holistic lifestyle" idea or some ancient Indian philosophy and such. And then they stand there with their holistic yoga idea and find it hard to find clients.
And then they complain. Meh, no money no nothing the deck is stacked against us, meh meh wage gap and all that.
As if it were their gender's fault and not one of their own to just "go with your heart" and walk into a direction that is not exploitable economically.

To a small portion I actually do agree that men tend to find more realistic opportunities for themselves and that it plays its part in the wage gap, too. 
Gender discrimination plays a much bigger part, however. To deny that is populism.

[*michaelsean*]

What a whiner.  Sorry bro, you're now flyover country.  

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(12-15-2016, 03:42 AM)Dill Wrote: One who whines that girls are getting all the breaks in school and growing up to take jobs from real men.

If you check her bio, she married the chair of the Brandeis University's philosophy department two years after she graduated with a Ph.D. in philosophy. So not only does she have an advanced degree from one of those useless liberal arts programs she criticized, but it would appear she was ***** the chair of her department. That's the ol'fashioned way to get ahead, right?  No wonder she is a critic of feminism; they're doing it wrong. 

[BmorePat87]

(12-15-2016, 10:48 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: If you check her bio, she married the chair of the Brandeis University's philosophy department two years after she graduated with a Ph.D. in philosophy. So not only does she have an advanced degree from one of those useless liberal arts programs she criticized, but it would appear she was ***** the chair of her department. That's the ol'fashioned way to get ahead, right?  No wonder she is a critic of feminism; they're doing it wrong. 

I'm sure she was attracted to her 60 year old professor's intelligence. 

[Dill]

(12-15-2016, 10:48 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: If you check her bio, she married the chair of the Brandeis University's philosophy department two years after she graduated with a Ph.D. in philosophy. So not only does she have an advanced degree from one of those useless liberal arts programs she criticized, but it would appear she was ***** the chair of her department. That's the ol'fashioned way to get ahead, right?  No wonder she is a critic of feminism; they're doing it wrong. 

LOL. I don't know that. I have read several essays by her and part of her "War on Boys" book.

Back in the 90s she was arguing that the suffrage movement did nothing to get the 19th Amendment passed.
Social change just happens on its, despite all those protestors disrupting daily life.  Stop protesting for civil rights and things will just be ok--and a lot quieter.

[Dill]

(12-15-2016, 09:02 AM)hollodero Wrote: I think it's funny. Yeah, it's mainly BS and I don't agree with the notion on a serious level. 

But... I do know certain types of females that kind of fit the description. They expertise in a certain form of yoga or meditation skills or prenatal massage techniques or whatever, often combined with some kind of "holistic lifestyle" idea or some ancient Indian philosophy and such. And then they stand there with their holistic yoga idea and find it hard to find clients.
And then they complain. Meh, no money no nothing the deck is stacked against us, meh meh wage gap and all that.
As if it were their gender's fault and not one of their own to just "go with your heart" and walk into a direction that is not exploitable economically.

To a small portion I actually do agree that men tend to find more realistic opportunities for themselves and that it plays its part in the wage gap, too. 
Gender discrimination plays a much bigger part, however. To deny that is populism.

There is such a thing as yoga therapy, yes.  But it is not siphoning students away from STEM courses.

To put this in a larger context--in the U.S., academia (along with the "liberal press") is one of the biggest thorns in the side of the Right, especially humanities courses which provide students in-depth learning about U.S./world history and social issues.

There has been a decades long effort to defund universities, abolish tenure, and make higher education more directly dependent upon the economy. The combined effect of all those moves is to reduce the number of humanities courses and majors (and students) and to turn universities away from traditional academic priorities and towards corporate/business forms of organization. Some state legislators don't want states funding any academic program that doesn't funnel people right into the job market.

Memes circulating about "useless" liberal arts (and to some degree social science) courses thus find a receptive audience in the U.S., where over the last 40 years there is an expanding consensus that higher education is really just higher vocational training. From this perspective, in-depth potentially radicalizing knowledge of culture and history serves no purpose in the work place. Feminism, especially of the radical lesbian variety, becomes the face of the humanities for this purpose--not, say, courses in Middle East History or 18th century antecedents to the U.S. Constitution or the history of civil rights.  If neither you nor anyone in your family went to college, tales of feminists taking over whole departments to teach "their lifestyle" at taxpayer expense can really set your imagination in motion and move you to support more defunding.

Talk radio and Fox can then take care of your civic education unimpeded.  

[Belsnickel]

More people need to understand that a number of bubbles exist. We all live with membership to certain groups that create bubbles around us and impact our perception of things. Once you acknowledge the existence of the bubble, you just have to work to figure out how to change things up so that you can recognize other perceptions. Truth is subjective, just something to keep in mind.

[*bfine32*]

(12-15-2016, 03:34 AM)Dill Wrote: I never found Cliff Notes very useful.

What appeared biased to you? Can you refer me to some news sources you deem unbiased?  Just curious.

Hell' let's just focus on one paragraph for breivty sake:

Quote:After the election, I was repeatedly told that I live in something called a “bubble” and, because of that, I know nothing about my fellow Americans. Well, in the first place, my bubble is bigger than theirs — size ought to matter in this instance — and in the second place, I know plenty. Among the things I know is that Trump voters were played for suckers. After lambasting Clinton as a tool of Wall Street, Trump has so far named four Wall Street figures to his administration — three from Goldman Sachs alone — and an oilman is under consideration. And for the Labor Department, Trump has chosen Andrew Puzder, a fast-food magnate (Hardee’s and Carl’s Jr.) who is opposed to a decent minimum wage. This is fast shaping up as a Cabinet of billionaires and, just for leveling, the occasional millionaire. So far, ain’t no one who works with his hands.

First off, if we just consider popular vote as the author wants us to; his bubble is not bigger, just more crowded. We have no idea how many folks from the coast would have voted otherwise if it were necessary.

The author "knows" Trump voters were played for suckers, by suggesting thay have been dupped because Trump has named 4 members of Wall Street to his cabinet. he further dismisses them as not "working with their hands"; although he found it necessary to share with the reader his background of working with his hands; regardless of his current station.

I have no idea how the fact that Puzder opposes a "decent" minimum wage fits into the played for suckers slant.


I have mentioned sources before I consider to be fairly unbiased (yahoo, BBC), but i guarentee if it is an opinion piece it is biased; regardless of the publication.

[GMDino]

(12-15-2016, 02:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Hell' let's just focus on one paragraph for breivty sake:


First off, if we just consider popular vote as the author wants us to; his bubble is not bigger, just more crowded. We have no idea how many folks from the coast would have voted otherwise if it were necessary.

The author "knows"  Trump voters were played for suckers, by suggesting thay have been dupped because Trump has named 4 members of Wall Street to his cabinet. he further dismisses them as not "working with their hands"; although he found it necessary to share with the reader his background of working with his hands; regardless of his current station.

I have no idea how the fact that Puzder opposes a "decent" minimum wage fits into the played for suckers slant.


I have mentioned sources before I consider to be fairly unbiased (yahoo, BBC), but i guarentee if it is an opinion piece it is biased; regardless of the publication.

Just to the bolded part:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2016/

I like to share these after the election because it shows how we're not red/blue states...we're a mishmash all living next to each other.

Quote:...large portions of the country are quite evenly divided, appearing in various shades of purple, although a number of strongly Democratic or Republican areas are visible too.

I also fully agree that an opinion piece is biased.

I felt that the argument that "group A lives in a bubble but I (being part of group B) do not" being wrong was worth some discussion. We all have our bubbles.

[Dill]

(12-15-2016, 02:44 PM)GMDino Wrote: I also fully agree that an opinion piece is biased.

I felt that the argument that "group A lives in a bubble but I (being part of group B) do not" being wrong was worth some discussion.  We all have our bubbles.

If we are all in our own bubbles, then just pointing out someone else is in a bubble has little traction. Like saying "You have a nose!"

However, it might matter which bubble one is in, and how large it is. I think that is what the argument is about here, not "whether" the other guy is just in a bubble.

[Dill]

(12-15-2016, 02:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: First off, if we just consider popular vote as the author wants us to; his bubble is not bigger, just more crowded. We have no idea how many folks from the coast would have voted otherwise if it were necessary.

The author "knows"  Trump voters were played for suckers, by suggesting thay have been dupped because Trump has named 4 members of Wall Street to his cabinet. he further dismisses them as not "working with their hands"; although he found it necessary to share with the reader his background of working with his hands; regardless of his current station.

That is a thoughtful response, Bfine. 

When I read the piece, I did not assume that by "bigger bubble" he was referring to numbers, but to the fact that he had been involved in many different institutions and sectors of the economy. I.e., he was not just a guy who lived in one place with no insight into how others in other situations lived.

As far as "working with their hands" goes, I took him to be referring to the billionaire Trump appointees, not to the Trump voters, of whom he assumes many do work with their hands. He mentions that he does too, just to show that he has something in common with those voters (i.e., he is not really outside their bubble), but the man they elected is choosing people who are very different from the average Trump voters--people who might fit their definition of a bubbled up elite. 

He is angry that after working with his hands etc. he is now negatively classified as "elite" because he got a college degree, while Trump's selections are clearly the economic elite and college-educated without raising doubts among Trumpsters.

I think that is an interesting point to make. I wonder how Trumpsters define elites and bubbles and the like, and whether they are in fact ok with Trump's selections.

[*bfine32*]

(12-15-2016, 02:44 PM)GMDino Wrote: Just to the bolded part:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2016/

I like to share these after the election because it shows how we're not red/blue states...we're a mishmash all living next to each other.

Nothing personal: but that's the silliest map ever. When did New Engalnd and Florida become much larger than TX?

Reminds me of something I read about how small Africa is on world maps.

[*michaelsean*]

(12-15-2016, 03:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nothing personal: but that's the silliest map ever. When did New Engalnd and Florida become much larger than TX?

Reminds me of something I read about how small Africa is on world maps.

I thought it was a colored version of Rorschach. Although the info may be accurate, it really looks nothing like the US. Not sure why they chose to make it look that way.

[GMDino]

(12-15-2016, 03:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nothing personal: but that's the silliest map ever. When did New Engalnd and Florida become much larger than TX?

Reminds me of something I read about how small Africa is on world maps.

From the link:

Quote:We can represent the effects of the electoral college by scaling the sizes of states to be proportional to their number of electoral votes, which gives a map that looks like this:

Then they use that map shape for the other breakdowns, like by county.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(12-15-2016, 03:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nothing personal: but that's the silliest map ever. When did New Engalnd and Florida become much larger than TX?

Reminds me of something I read about how small Africa is on world maps.

If you read the article you should understand the map is rescaled to reflect population density. Area with higher population density are scaled larger while sparsely populated areas are scaled smaller. It's a ratio of density to terrain. 

[fredtoast]

(12-15-2016, 03:21 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I thought it was a colored version of Rorschach.  Although the info may be accurate,  it really looks nothing like the US.  Not sure why they chose to make it look that way.

If you paint a regular map of the US with red and blue there is a huge majority of red.  And based on "land area" that is true.  But when you talk about "number of citizens" it is much more equal.

It also shows different shades instead of just two different colors.

[*michaelsean*]

(12-15-2016, 03:37 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If you paint a regular map of the US with red and blue there is a huge majority of red.  And based on "land area" that is true.  But when you talk about "number of citizens" it is much more equal.

It also shows different shades instead of just two different colors.

I get the coloring, I meant more the weird shape.  

[*michaelsean*]

(12-15-2016, 03:35 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: If you read the article you should understand the map is rescaled to reflect population density. Area with higher population density are scaled larger while sparsely populated areas are scaled smaller. It's a ratio of density to terrain. 

That part I missed. I was just looking at the map.

[*bfine32*]

(12-15-2016, 03:35 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: If you read the article you should understand the map is rescaled to reflect population density. Area with higher population density are scaled larger while sparsely populated areas are scaled smaller. It's a ratio of density to terrain. 

As I said, just more crowded; not bigger.