You must log in or # to comment.
et. al
I wouldn’t mess with her, she contains multitudes!
That guy publishes a LOT.
Fucking hive minds
We are Borg et al. Resistance is futile.
I am 7 of etc etc
Is tenforward leaking again?
What does “human drivers of fire” mean?
Well I’m here so I guess I’ll answer.
There are many human drivers of fire, the first and foremost being, well you know, lighting a fire. And boy, do humans light a lot of fires.
Take for example, here is a map of active fires around the globe, right now:
First order human drivers of fire are things we actively or accidentally do to light a fire. Ignition is a fundamental for fire to happen, and humans cause WAY more ignition events than nature does. Things like a cook fire, burning brush or downed debris for management purposes, infrastructure like power lines or fueling stations, car accidents, lit cigarettes being thrown out etc… etc… The timing and frequency of these events directly influence the frequency of fires.
Second order drivers are things like vegetation management, home placing and construction, and other biophysical drivers. For example, introduction of invasive species like bromus tectorum, which burns very readily, represents more fine fuels in the environment. Yadayadayada more fires. Other things around vegetation management would fall into this category, such as the suppression of fire, or the psychical thinning of fuels in forests, or prescribed burns.
Well I’m here so I guess I’ll answer.
Are… are you McCarty et al., TropicalDingdong?
edit: [email protected]
No no no, I’m an et al, just no any of those particular et al. I focus on wildfire risk and have read much on the topic. I’ve read McCarty and many more when it comes to understanding wildfire and wildfire risk. Some of my research focuses on wildfire risk, and spatial features as they relate to wildfire risk, so drivers becomes pretty important when it comes to wildfire risk modeling. I have taken several courses through NASA on the matter even though I don’t focus on drivers directly.
This is the kind of thing I’m working on:
The nodes are features, the edges are weights. In this case I’m just looking at structure:structure risk.
I’m sorry, but you obviously don’t understand wildfires. You should really try reading Tropical Dingdongs, Esq.
Cool! I have no idea what any of that means, but cool! I get the feeling that you really enjoy what you do, and if that’s the case I’m glad for you :3
When you refer to that diagram, is it a way of gauging fire spread risk? Like this grill could start a medium sized fire, and it’s close to a shed which could become big fire, and that could spread to house, etc, etc?
So to be clear, I’m not trying to model spread. I’m taking a pretty different approach which is to look at metrics I can derive from an entire network, like centrality and modularity, and use those to predict the overall probability of survival. I’m not trying to say where or how a fire might progress through a network, but rather looking at the overall structure of a network at, for example the parcel resolution, to estimate the likely hood that a given structure might survive a wildfire.
So in the above figure, (it was literally a screen cap of what I had on at that moment, so no effort into graphic design etc.), the diameter of the circle corresponds to the exposure, which is weighted by the total facing. The units on the edges are kilojoules per m^2 per 300 seconds. The circles are on the ‘receiving’ side of the network (this is a directed kpartite network, and we’re only looking at structure:structure edges).
So you can imagine that if you stand with your face to a campfire, you receive more radiation than if you stand edgeways. Likewise if you take a step back. Same principal. I’m not adjusting the edge weights for structural composition or construction (although I’d like to. in the metaphore, all the campfires are the same size and intensity). This is just assuming that each structure will put out about the same amount of energy when burning. However, because of the physical arrangement of things in space, they do not necessarily all experience the same exposure. We can use those differences to create a set of weights, and then by looking at how ‘modular’ the system is at a given exposure rating (IE, how fully connected is the graph at a given kJ/m2), we might find that the network breaks into some interesting or predictive components.
So, very long answer, but trying to make it shorter: I’m not trying to model spread or predict how fire would move through this system. I’m trying to come up with an overall probabilistic assessment or risk based on how ‘connected’ features are in space.
Well that’s pretty cool, thanks for sharing! :D To repeat to check my understanding, you’re looking at where structures are relative to other structures, their shape and orientation, and how that goes together in a big system to influence general structure survival in a wildfire situation.
Do you foresee the outcome being something where you could “tune” a neighborhood to be more survivable, or would it end up with too many combinations to be viable?
yeah so there was a nature publication last year basically demonstrating this, however, they were working on 30 meter pixels.
I kinda got scooped, but I was always working in much higher resolution data.
But basically yeah. We can look at the network and identify where it can be hardened in or broken apart to be make more resistant.
No no no, I’m an et al, just no any of those particular et al.
I’m going to
stealcite this. I guess it’ll be ‘et al et al.’The nodes are features
I think the fact every car is white is a feature.
Thanks!
…such as the suppression of fire, or the psychical thinning of fuels in forests, or prescribed burns.
I’m definitely picturing Jedi clearing debris from the forest floors using the Force, now.
Take for example, here is a map of active fires around the globe, right now:
By “fires” do they mean fores fires? Controlled fires to burn crops, or burn land to clear it for crops? House fires? Bonfires? Campfires? Fires in fireplaces?
Ignition is a fundamental for fire to happen, and humans cause WAY more ignition events than nature does.
A car causes hundreds of ignition effects per minute. But, I’m guessing you mean a certain kind of ignition?
The timing and frequency of these events directly influence the frequency of fires.
The timing and frequency of things like lighting a fire directly influence the frequency of fires? Do you mean the frequency of out-of-control fires? Because otherwise that seems like a pretty obvious conclusion.
Thank you so much for sharing something that you are passionate about. It was awesome to hear about, and I hope you continue to share the knowledge you have with others like myself. 😁
I use geospatial science and data to document, analyze, and predict complexities of wildland and human-caused fire, from individual to global scales. I have a particular interest in fire emissions and modeling, regional food security, land-cover/land-use change, and the Arctic. As a mom, I am concerned with helping children and future generations have better lives.
This is my best guess without googling it or her.
The only acceptable use of generative AI is to get the shit posts out faster
I think it’s a great use, but not only.
Resume building, cover letters, aggregating open text responses, summarizing complex texts, and so on.
While the AI can’t be left alone to do these things and if you do it’ll be clear it’s AI but it can reduce the time to do them significantly.
I firmly believe this is like the age of the computer before it. Those who fail to become AI natives in knowledge work will become under employed or unemployed in 10-15 years.
So I encourage you to make an excuse to learn it and get good at it.
Those who are deemed “Lit” in academic language.
It means she’s a trouble starter, punkin’ instigator, fear addicted, a danger illustrated.
So, you’re saying she’s a firestarter? Twisted firestarter?
She’s the bitch you hated, filth infatuated.
Oh, right! She’s the pain you tasted, fell intoxicated!
Probably just the totality of human influences on wildfires. This can include a wide range of activities and factors including climate change, forest preservation or cutting, changes in wild or domestic mammal herbivory, accidental ignition events, controlled burns, irrigation or diversion of streams, damming rivers, invasive species introductions, etc.
Found an article referencing McCarty as a “fire scientist” which is a really cool title. Seems like human drivers of fire is exactly what it sounds like, motivations and causes for why humans set fires.
human drivers of fire is exactly what it sounds like
Dudes who drive flaming cars in stunt shows?
It’s my new band name, that’s for sure.
Something about climate change maybe?
She is McCarty for sure but I doubt that she is et al too …
Taking credit for the work of people who are barely even credited in the first place is… a way of responding. If only she had disappeared behind the curtain for a moment, re-emerging with everyone there with big hair and guitars and eye shadow and screamed “we are McCarty and the Et Als!!!”
Oh well; next time.
She drew attention to her being the/an author of the paper rather than just being a naming coincidence (or family relation, etc).
Adding the et al was likely for that effect, rather than an attempt to take credit for other authors’ work, imo
We’re all et al on this glorious day!
My friends just call me Al.
Can you call me Betty?
Hello Al, I’m Et.
Alright Allen Iverson… Or is it just Al. Can’t tell with damn LlIi
Oh, that reminds me:
l ll ll L
Oh, that reminds me:
l ll ll L
I’m at a loss as to what you are trying to say.
:.|:;
Speak for yourself.
Maybe et al was their last name.
Common misunderstanding - her full name is “Jessica McCarty Et Al”
Is that her father?
Yeah, Papa Et Al registered Et Al as his family name, and combined names when he got married
“Et al” is a pretty funny honorific though
She’s so prolific, one mere mortal body is insufficient for her bamfness.
I always roll my eyes whenever I see a “you can’t do that because you’re a woman” character in a show, and then I’m always reminded that these people actually exist
these people actually exist
The way it’s been explained to me is that so much of the negative interactions in life come from a tiny, tiny number of offenders who manage to be shitty to dozens and dozens of people. So anyone who has to interact with many different people will inevitably encounter that shitty interaction, while most of us normies would never actually behave in that way.
Of the literally thousands of times I’ve interacted with a server or cashier, I’ve never yelled at one. But talk to any server or cashier, and they’ll all have stories of the customer who yelled at them. In other words, it can be simultaneously true that:
- Almost all servers and cashiers get yelled at by customers.
- Very, very, few customers actually yell at servers or cashiers.
In other words, our lived experiences are very different, depending on which side of that interaction we might possibly be on.
When I talk to women in male dominated fields, basically every single one of them has shitty stories about sexist mistreatment. It’s basically inevitable, because they are a woman who interacts with literally hundreds or thousands in their field. And even if I interact with hundreds or thousands of women in that same field, just because I don’t mistreat any of them doesn’t mean that my experienced sample is representative.
I wouldn’t say very few. I’d say a solid 10% of people are routinely rude, impatient or entitled in a retail or restaurant setting. Even higher in some places.
I think you’re right. People want to believe that humans are good but in reality a huge number are deeply broken.
Fixed an autocorrect in edit.
It really is a matter of perspective.
You’re saying that 10% of the population being awful means that a “huge number” are deeply broken.
So then 90% are being good! Mind, it doesn’t take too many assholes to wreck things for everyone, but it is nice that the majority of folks really are trying to do their best. A sizeable majority, even!
10% of 8 billion is still many hundreds of millions. That’s a huge number. More: it’s a number we have to stop pretending is not a big deal and get to work to fix ourselves as a species.
Oh, no denying that at all. It is a problem, especially in aggregate.
When looking at the big picture, those rotten apples really do spoil the bunch and it can be depressing.
But also people can take that big picture awareness of problems and hate on people a little universally. Saying things like humanity is awful and a plague on the earth and maybe shouldn’t exist. There’s absolutely reason to see things that way.
But we are also a species that dolphins can approach for help when they’re injured. Or that will fight tooth and nail to help a wild creature. Or who will sacrifice their own well-being, not just for friends and family, but for strangers. Who will take other creatures, like dogs, into our homes and hearts and love them with all we have.
We can suck as a species, absolutely. We need to fix it. But it’s important to remember the joys of humanity, and not just the failures. Both are extreme, for we are a rather extreme species!
Maybe in some places. But when I go out to a restaurant, I’m often surrounded by a few dozen other diners, and no one is acting up or shouting at waiting staff. I have seen customers be obviously rude to staff but it’s very rare compared to the number of “normal” interactions. Sure not everyone is friendly and totally polite, but entitled, shouting or just being an ass is an absolute exception, like less than 0.1%. I also worked as a waiter in a couple of different restaurants over a two year period, and don’t remember any incidents either to me or my colleagues.
When I read comments like this it makes me wonder if I’ve been lucky enough to live and work in decent places, and the USA is just an nightmare hellscape, or if the reality there is much more normal and we just hear an unrepresentative sample of it.
the USA is just an nightmare hellscape
If you are visiting a restaurant you really only get a sense of what’s happening at your table. Same when you reach a cashier - you might overhear what happens straight ahead, but not much more than that. People can be very rude without being very loud - if you work in customer service you have to deal with these people all the time, and you can’t escalate things either. It’s not something other customers are aware of.
Totally agree that eating at a restaurant doesn’t mean you see all the subtle ways people are douches. But the comment above was about people shouting, so I assumed that the “10% of people are rude” was meaning obviously and noticeably rude. If it’s just 10% of people are impatient / distracted / not very friendly / kinda annoying. Then sure, but I don’t think anyone would be surprised with such a mild claim.
And as I said, I was a waiter in a busy restaurant for over two years. And the staff spent a lot of time complaining about the job to each other (as you do) and while many customers were annoying, kept changing their orders, or were a bit drunk and laughing loudly the whole time, blah blah, I don’t remember anyone ever complaining about a customer being as rude as I regularly read / see on the Internet. I never encounter a “Karen”.
I’ve always assumed it is just that Internet focusses on the tiny number of extreme behaviours and makes it sound more normal. But then I hear people say things like 10% of people are awful to staff and it makes me think that maybe there’s a real cultural difference.
Sorry, somehow totally skipped over the part of your comment where you said you worked as a waiter! I didn’t intend to explain your own job to you at all haha. There are definitely demographic differences I’ve noticed, and specific workplaces… I’ve worked a relatively small number of customer service jobs. Cafe was broadly as the previous commenter described, maybe 5-10% of people were… not great. Although, no shouting or anything when I worked there. Just rude, entitled people. Pubs are not so bad, in my limited experience, drunk people are annoying but in a different way. The worst was a job where I had to take customer calls (not quite a call centre)… There I had to deal with the closest thing to a “Karen”.
Oh god, yes. I worked in a call centre for six months and it was dreadful. The combination of dealing with sometimes frustrating situations + the anonymity of a voice only call… People were regularly dreadful. Definitely at least 10% very rude people.
I also took it to be a sign of the ‘banality of evil’, that people having a nice time with their friends, eating some nice food, are generally pleasant. But put them in the privacy of their own home, speaking to a faceless stranger, and suddenly they can be awful. But I tried not to judge them to harshly. The design of call centres, with long hold times and staff with no real power to do anything helpful, is pretty much guaranteed to frustrate the most saintly of people.
I seen first hand examples of something happening like women being interrupted by men and they go on about how everything is sexist and they were mistreated. But in that exact same meeting multiple guys talked over multiple other guys. It just happens, not everything is sexist but a lot of people claim sexism when it isn’t.
I think you’re right that only a tiny minority are directly responsible for the negative interactions, but as someone within academic science, there’s also a much larger chunk of people who don’t challenge the assholes or the systemic fuckery when they see it.
Minorities who face oppression are much more likely to be ignored if they report inappropriate or offensive behaviour; I directly know people who have been made to feel like they are the problem for highlighting a problem. This is especially common if it’s an established and respected academic who makes the iffy comments, because there’s a tendency to them like a senile grandparent at Christmas. If they’re a professor emeritus, there’s a sense of them not really being relevant anymore, even if they’re still respected, but it can feel tremendously isolating to see no-one step in to challenge the comments, either at an individual or institutional level.
It’s understandable to not want to rock the boat, but abstaining is easier for some than others.
I agree.
I point out that pretty much everyone in that group experiences it, so even those who aren’t in that disadvantaged group should show some empathy towards the experiences of others, that we may never directly encounter ourselves. Part of that empathy, of course, is to provide support and structures for reducing the likelihood that these things happen, and mitigating them when they do happen.
Sometimes it’s true, like a penismodel
Women can have penises.
They can have one, if they have penises that’s scary
someone missed your joke about one person having multiple penises. or maybe they’re really progressive and are looking out for their multipenile friends.
Look, if one of you knows a guy (or a gal) rocking hemis and you’ve been holding out, I’m gonna lump you up with a Louisville Slugger on my Johnny Dangerous shit.
Yeah, I guess I’m not progressive enough
“There are women with penises, men with vaginas, and phobics without teeth.”
Some would even argue that all of the best penises are on women.
Lol the dudebros getting mad about only having a boring male penis instead of a cute female one and downvoting you.
Oh, I don’t think it’s that. I think it’s two parts actually comradely queers considering him a chaser, and two parts he’s an absolute self-aggrandizing waste of time who thinks he’s the “better class of socialist” compared to us when “degenerate” is an active part of his vocabulary and he just can’t stop parroting the State Department.
The only “socialists” that align with NATO are the same ones making excuses for the kinds of things on Vaush’s computer is the last I’mma say on that.
Thx :3
Not only that they exist but also that they’re disturbingly common and disproportionately in positions of power.
We poke fun at your infatuation for these infantile cartoons. You reply, “misogyny!!”
The only reason your cries are taken seriously here is that so many of these people are on the same dumb wavelength.
And then everyone applauded..
But seriously if I witnessed this, I might actually applaud because that is a pretty badass bit of trivia to get to whip out.
I think I would rather this happen to me than just about anything professionally, the withdrawal from that high might actually kill me
ITT people baww at the mere mention of race and gender, and proceed to behave as if the problem is other people being too sensitive about race and gender.
I’m very sorry, but what is ITT and baww?
ITT. In this thread.
Bawww in this context means “cry”
Thanks for the clarification. This is how I find out that I’m old.
I thought ITT was in reference to that technical community college I used to see ads for on tv
In this thread
Whining
This funny story really brought a lot of great accounts out of the woodwork to block!
“I’m sorry you feel that way.”
Refusing to accept responsibility for their actions.
You’re not kidding. The comments are so much worse than I was expecting.
I had to scroll down to see what you mean. Shocking that people really still don’t understand how privilege works.
Hilarious. I actually witnessed this online when someone tried to “well actually” another user and it turned out that user was the author of the paper they cited.
I see it happen a lot online with people “looking for help with”, but really just looking to vent about, open source software.
And I encounter it a lot at work with policies, reference docs, and little PowerShell scripts I’ve written.
“Hello I am tech support. Sysadmin, please help with strange situation A”
Sure thing, you’ll need to do X.
“But that doesn’t match our documentation, it says to do Y and that’s not working”
My man, look at the changelog on the first page. I wrote it and made most of the updates for the first year we had it. This is an exception, and adding it to the doc would have bloated it outrageously for how infrequently this comes up. Especially to explain the why. I’d also need to try to cover all the other rare exceptions, which would turn the doc into an absolutely useless shitshow. Anyway, I should have a PowerShell script to handle it, give me a bit to find it.
“Ahckstually, Numpty #3 says our team has a PowerShell script to handle it already, no worries! Thanks!”
Motherfu- My brother in christ who do you think wrote that? You know I used to be on your team, and I just said- My name is in the first line of the scri- I mean cool, glad I could help you get it sorted.
Similar story, talking with a vendor. Again, I’m the one not in quotes.
I need you to connect me with a technical resource on your side for assistance with attempting an alternate solution Y for the issue we are facing, which Important Muckety Muck #7 in my company said you were able to do for them. I understand that I previously suggested that we could do X on our side as a solution for our problem. As we’ve moved forward in other places on this project, we have found that X will not work for us as a solution for reasons A, B, and C.
(He’s breathing loudly through his mouth, hanging agape between words like some great panting missing-link-between-man-and-ape who has somehow found his way into a sales position. Somewhere in the dark recesses of his mind, the sounds of the wind through jungle trees, the calls of ancient and exotic birds and animals, the quiet noises of strange insects alien to this modern time and place, all combine into a beautiful primal music lost to the modern world. It flits through his subconcious, never quite fully able to be grasped.)
“I am the technical resource. According to my notes, X was identified as a solution to your problem.”
(This was not some poor third world guy stuck in a call center having to follow a basic help desk script. Same first language, a few states away, he’d been involved with this project the whole way)
AS STATED IN MY PREVIOUS EMAIL
BOFH vibes haha
Isn’t there an infamous Usenet post where someone did that to the creator of Perl?
Funny, but what does the skin color have to do with the situation?
It’s a reminder than people that have always been in a privileged position often don’t realize they do.
What privilege applies here?
When a given demographic is a dominant presence in a given area (not necessarily work, it can be anything), there is a tendency for they demographic to start making assumptions about other demographics.
In most places, men are the dominant presence, and in most of the “western” world, they will also be white.
In this case, the individual who a white male was doing what’s called colloquially, “mansplaining”. He was correcting a woman when not only was the woman right, but was the very source he was using to correct her.
This is a consistent and very unpleasant fact of the world that white men will treat anyone of any other demographic as less than equals.
In this specific case, I suspect that the person making that post was pointing to the prejudice and stupidity of the person indirectly insulting her being a systemic issue arising from both gender and sexual entrenchment along with the privilege that allows the dominance of the white male demographic despite their being no quantifiable factor for that group to be dominant other than that privilege.
She, in other words, was pointing out a systemic issue by using an anecdote. Which can be a bit difficult to accept as evidence. Or would be if there wasn’t a good century or so of giant piles of anecdotes from real people pointing to that systemic issue not only existing, but being something that holds everyone back.
Truth? Yes, women and people of color are going to assume they’re right and whoever they’re talking to is wrong just like any humans will. But white dudes have been pulling that crap for multiple generations, and anyone that isn’t both white and male get sick of the bad behavior.
This is a consistent and very unpleasant fact of the world that white men will treat anyone of any other demographic as less than equals.
Citation needed.
In all seriousness, I understand your point and respect you for trying to deconstruct the mechanics of privilege.
But I just factually disagree with your assertion. I would argue that every human being has an inherent preference for people that they perceive as similar to themselves in some way, and this can result in bias along racial or gender lines. However, this arguably applies less to white men than any other demographic, because such behavior is so consistently condemned and shamed when exhibited by white men.
In contrast, people of other demographics are less frequently made aware of their own biases, because calling it out has not been construed as some kind of ethical imperative, as it has with white men.
It’s also well documented that women have a much stronger in-group bias compared to men.
In essence, women can be characterized as “If I am good and I am female, females are good,” whereas men can be characterized as “Even if I am good and I am male, men are not necessarily good.” This sex difference in cognitive balance suggests that a mechanism that promotes female preference in women does not similarly contribute to male preference for men.
https://rutgerssocialcognitionlab.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/9/7/13979590/rudmangoodwin2004jpsp.pdf
Privilege is writing off your own privilege as inherent in nature and then pointing at other groups of people going “but they’re allowed it’s not fair!!!”
Your barely-in-context paper is not support for your main argument :
However, this arguably applies less to white men than any other demographic, because such behavior is so consistently condemned and shamed when exhibited by white men.
Do you have any citations that actually support your claim? Because it sounds like vibes “please don’t say mean things about my group” bullshit.
That’s not my main argument, it’s merely a supporting clause.
OP asserted that
white men will treat anyone of any other demographic as less than equals.
I countered that by pointing out that it’s obvious that any human being tends to prefer people who they consider similar to themselves. That’s my main argument.
And if that is true, then attempting to frame such behavior as particular to white men is just silly and unproductive.
I obviously can’t definitively measure the amount of social stigma around white male prejudice, but I don’t need to. I’m not saying that white men are definitely less biased than other demographics, I’m merely pointing out that it’s a distinct possibility, even as you all indicate that they are the demographic most deserving of condemnation for such behavior.
Now, one could make the argument that even though white men may not be especially biased, the effects of their bias may have greater impacts on other demographics due to the disproportionate amount of power they collectively wield. I think that’s a fair point, but it doesn’t really hold any ethical implications, it’s simply a description of a material reality.
Personally I believe that large parts of this discussion and topic are simply human nature.
Any group with power, will seek to keep that power, and to increase their standing over the other people. If history had played out differently and asian or black people were the historical in-group we would have the exact same situations and issues as we have today. Only another enemy.
I agree. People tend to ascribe inherent traits to other groups, when in fact observed behaviors can usually be traced not to inherent dispositions, but to specific environmental conditions that incentivize said behaviors.
For instance, a white man in our current social environment who exhibits a confident, assertive attitude is well situated to succeed. White men are expected to be competent and often rewarded for appearing competent, so they sometimes attempt to exaggerate their competence in order to meet the perceived expectations.
If this is your main argument then:
…it’s obvious that any human being tends to prefer people who they consider similar to themselves.
Doesn’t your paper you linked imply it isn’t so obvious? I still stand by that it’s not really relevant so I’ll just say that I fully disagree with your argument or the implication that you have somehow proven anything.
I’ll repeat something I said in another comment:
It is intentionally, intellectually dishonest and obtuse to pretend that condemnation of systemic problems resulting from unfair biases for/from certain demographics is as bad as the systemic problems in question.
You just pretend you are unaware of massive swaths of history in order to act offended that anyone would make generic statements about an infamously problematic demographic. And you falsely equate any attempt to talk generically about the problematic behaviour to the same issue, as a transparent tactic to suppress discussion of the problematic behaviour entirely.
I’m sure you will have some bullshit response that will annoy me again but I’m gunna try to let it go because I find talking to you unpleasant.
Doesn’t your paper you linked imply it isn’t so obvious?
Yeah sure, in the absence of any other data.
If you refuse to acknowledge that people like people similar to themselves, you’re not being honest with yourself, let alone me.
What is the systemic problem/problematic behavior that you are trying to solve? You clearly believe that white men are especially discriminatory towards other groups, which isn’t crazy, although I disagree. But are you so naive to think that if we replaced the powerful white men with powerful hispanic women (or any other combination of race and gender), racial and gender-based discrimination would suddenly end? I’m just pointing out the inconvenient truth that the system would still be biased and unfair, just with different winners and losers.
In my view, the fact that some white men are biased for or against certain groups is completely insignificant and irrelevant to solving the problems that society faces today. It’s the fundamental structure of the economic and political system that naturally results in the few individuals at the top of the hierarchy expressing a large degree of control and domination over the rest of the society.
The idea that humans are inherently predisposed to subjugate those different from themselves is a fascist belief that fascists say to justify fascism. So… Not a fan of that line of thought, thanks
Normally, I only comment when i have something to add, but I just want to commend you for your high quality contribution to this sensitive topic.
Really learning a lot from this. Your arguments are solid and your phrasing is respectful. Thank you!
That’s really nice to hear. Your comment did add something, at least for me!
This is news to me because I have been condescended to exponentially more as a decently passing white trans woman by cis white men in particular than I ever was before transition by ANYONE. Worst I ever got from black men was one calling me a “pretty thing” riding past on his bike. White men are getting the most push back as of late because they have historically been the worst offenders. And that hasn’t changed yet. That doesn’t mean the rest of us are free of guilt, but there is a very obvious frontrunner when it comes to unearned perceived self superiority, conscious or not.
I’m sorry that happened to you.
However, your anecdotal experience is just that. I have been subject to exponentially more racist abuse from black individuals than from individuals of any other race. Does that indicate to you that we should be “pushing back” against black racists? Obviously not, because my personal experience is not enough to draw any conclusions about society as a whole.
In fact, you’re condescending me right now. You’re implying that your personal judgment supercedes my rational argument. I provide sources and construct an argument, and you respond “this is news to me” (condescending and dismissing my argument) and proceed to explain that what I’m saying can’t possibly be true, because it contradicts your personal viewpoint.
This is a consistent and very unpleasant fact of the world that white men will treat anyone of any other demographic as less than equals.
Pls stop generalizing this bad behavior upon all white men. It only serves to further the divide, and is completely unfair and uncalled for against those in the demographic who don’t subscribe to those beliefs or patterns of behavior.
I’m not sure if that was your intent, that’s just how it comes across and it makes it hard not to completely write off your argument/viewpoints for being unable to respect your neighbor.
I’m a white man. I can absolutely generalize about a well known aspect of reality. It isn’t in question that white men are currently in a position of overall privilege, and that as a group that position of privilege has the effect stated.
I pretty much also said that this is true in the western world where white men are the supposed majority. I said that the same would be the case with any dominant group because humans are just like that.
A generalization can not only be true in general, but it doesn’t inherently mean that the entire group is at fault (beyond any unintentional benefits from the situation, which is what’s called privilege in current discourse on matters of gender and race in specific, but applies to more than those alone).
Here’s the thing. Until and unless we, not just as white men (speaking of the group I’m in) work on calling out and correcting bad behaviors as a group, to the point that it ceases to be a problem for others, we are part of the problem, no matter how little any individual likes that.
Divisions currently exist. They will always exist because any time there is a place of authority/power, there will be those that seek it and use it. Over time, you might see a given demographic shift in and out of that place of power, but it won’t change humans being humans; there will be abuse of power.
That’s the real key. The fact that white men have held dominance over most of the world for centuries (for a given value of most, and a given value of white) is simply fact. One could argue that the position of dominance really covers all the world since anyone wanting to disrupt that has to contend against that hierarchy. There are definitely places where, within a region* white men aren’t the dominant group, kinda impossible to be otherwise. But trying to pretend that the world isn’t the way it is is just silly.
Completely agree with your points. But also hope you can see it may be more fruitful to appear as though you’re ready to attack the problem, rather than your fellow man.
I say this because I didn’t read this as an outright attack or denigration of your fellow man, but I very much fear how easily any other man may interpret it and how it could serve to further the divide and make the problem even harder to address. That is my chief concern.
I appreciate you taking the time to clarify your position fellow internet stranger <3
rather than your fellow man.
Imagine thinking anyone who actually has skin in the game is going to look at genocidal oppressors as “their fellow man” fucking lmao. Clown world kumbaya shit that will only end with the settler empire standing over unending hectares of the bodies of subjects-of-empire who got backstabbed and throat-slit by the settlers; while they still hold the knife.
As long as the knife is still six inches in our back, it doesn’t matter that the settlers planted it twelve, and “graciously” drew it back six; the settlers haven’t done shit worth being regarded as “fellow man”. Really, haven’t done shit in general other than harm us.
I think the generalization isn’t really about white men per se, but about the demographic in power. Give a group unchecked power long enough and they forget how that came to be. I agree that it’s not a rule, and maybe should be expressed as more of a heuristic: if you are speaking to someone that is in power, and you don’t look like them, they might think you are not empowered.
Don’t let the lack of nuance in that statement take away from all the very valid points being made. The plight is real, and hopefully the white men who are enlightened enough to not confuse circumstance with natural order will read and know to not take it personally.
Thank you for the civil discussion.
Completely agree about unchecked power and your interpretation of it as a heuristic rather than an ambiguously defined trait.
I most certainly realize the plight is real and wish it never was like I’d hope all of us can say. But the lack of nuance struck me as dangerous. I understand how disenfranchised men will interpret things, and when people willfully neglect the opportunity to be concise it leaves a worrying amount of room for misinterpretation and effectively is ragebait that can serve to further entrench a misguided incel or the like into their toxic niche.
And for anyone who thinks I’m overreacting: see how Reddit powermod awkward_the_turtle intentionally acted to provoke men, then wrote off everyone who took issue with it as inherently being member of the ideology they were allegedly targeting. Reddit, the company, enabled and encouraged this mod and their collaborators to attack users on their platform indiscriminately.
If Lemmy is to serve as only a new platform for abuse, then it deserves to die with the rest of social media. Please, do not let it come to this. Discuss and debate civilly.
I owe no civility to the oppressors, or the supposed minstrels that bear their water. Let’s not talk about what they’re honestly owed.
When a given demographic is a dominant presence in a given area (not necessarily work, it can be anything), there is a tendency for they demographic to start making assumptions about other demographics.
Isn’t she the one making assumptions, though? Specifically, the “prejudice and stupidity of the person indirectly insulting her” part? I mean, is that really the only possible explanation?
What other reason would you suggest as to why he would assume that he knows more than her or that she couldn’t be the person that he’s referring to? Clearly he didn’t even know her name yet so what did he have to go by to draw those conclusions? It obviously wasn’t her lack of knowledge on the subject that they were discussing now was it?
Clearly he knew her name, though. He just didn’t know the woman he was speaking to was the woman whose work he was recommending.
And he made that assumption based on? Because, again, we know for a fact she didn’t sound ignorant on the topic.
How should I know? Or you, for that matter?
I still don’t see why adding the skin color was important, but eh, I have other things to deal with, so I don’t really care, just found it slightly annoying.
Gender not important also, loads of women “mansplain”, it’s a problem with attitude, not gender or race
Yep, I hate that word as well, but didn’t have the energy to post about it…
Because the 'splaining phenomenon is about perceived but unearned superiority which leads the 'splainer to 'splain to someone who knows a great deal more than they do and, crucially, someone who the 'splainer ought to realise knows more than they do but doesn’t because of the illusion created by the society they live in.
I’d have added “(born) middle-class” because that’s an important part of it too.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
By calling out dominant race they imply that those silent on race are talking about a minority
Only if you ignore reality.
If the post said “a Black trans women interrupted me”, would that be also fine, in your eyes?
Are Black trans women known for this kind of behaviour? Are there apologists for Black trans women who make every effort to miss the fucking point that there are people who think this isn’t a thing that happens?
Are Black trans women known for this kind of behaviour?
The question suggests that Black trans women are all alike. It’s exactly that kind of generalization that’s being criticized.
Nobody is saying all white men are like this, what they are saying that it is only white men who do this.
Being a white man who is aware of the stereotype, I in no way feel attacked by it. I do feel aware that I need to be careful not to interrupt my colleagues or to mansplain things that I may be less knowledgeable about. This response from me is beneficial to both myself and the people I interact with.
“Only white men do X” is absolutely racist and sexist. “Mansplain” is derogatory.
“Mansplain” is derogatory.
I agree that it is derogatory to mansplain to someone, like to tell an expert in a subject that they don’t know what they’re talking about and thinking that’s okay because they are a woman.
Nonody is “known” for that behaviour. You really just seem to ascribe personality traits to people based on their skin color. I thought we were long past that.
It is intentionally, intellectually dishonest and obtuse to pretend that condemnation of systemic problems resulting from unfair biases for/from certain demographics is as bad as the systemic problems in question.
Is that dog coming when you whistle?
Are there apologists for Black trans women who make every effort to miss the fucking point
Oh, don’t blame people. Don’t bring irrelevant details if you don’t want to distract them from the fucking point.
It would surprise me, but it would still be fine.
How many black trans women are in positions of authority? To not remark on that would be unusual. Mind you, the chances of a black trans woman making it to that kind of position and holding on to the kind of stupidity in the original post is pretty damn slim, hence the surprise.
It’s not obvious? Because white males as a demographic are the most privileged people on the planet and not coincidentally also the ones most prone to petty, oblivious arrogance, tantrum-throwing, and egotistical man-splaining. The latter was demonstrated by the one in this NASA scientist’s anecdote.
This robs people of their individual context. The UK Prime Ministers wife is Indian and astonishingly privileged. You are suggesting a poor mine worker from Romania is somehow more privileged based on how he looks.
Lumping people into loose categories (particularly based on skin colour) and then prescribing loose values to them is fascist and racist.
You are suggesting a poor mine worker from Romania is somehow more privileged based on how he looks.
You misunderstand the concept of privilege. It’s not linear. Intersectionality was devised to solve this exact contradiction.
Expand?
Intersectionality is the idea that various forms of privilege and circumstance interact with each other to make an individual. Certain influences are more impactful upon a particular person’s circumstances, and thus influence privilege to a much greater extent. The non-linear nature that DinosaurThussy is talking about can better be shown with examples.
If you’re homeless and white it’s clear that you’re in a worse off situation than a billionaire who is black. Class status has a far greater influence on this situation. It would be fair to say that the black billionaire has more privilege due to his class status but not his ethnic identity. That being said, it’s unlikely that the white man was denied a job due to his race in a way a homeless black person may be. Being poor and white and poor and black have many commonalities, but intersectional analysis allows us to understand the different ways and avenues that particular characteristics influences the ways that a person may end up in a particular circumstance.
The idea continues on. A person who is a billionaire may be significantly shielded from a lot of racism, or face it in a less extreme way. For example, that proverbial black billionaire likely wouldn’t have many run ins with racist cops in impoverished neighborhoods. However, he still might face the unifying characteristic of being called a slur by his peers in the way that a poor black person might. His privilege of wealth may not complete inoculate him facing racism at all, even if he faces it in a less extreme way.
In essence, this situation is viewing individuals dialectic-ly. It seeks to understand how all of a person’s identity and circumstances relate to the struggles and oppression certain groups or people may face in society.
I empathise with most of this and thank you for bothering to respond without resorting to 4chan energy.
The problem that remains unresolved is the refusal of some people to acknowledge that, like in science, observation is not without cost. What ends up happening is the observation of these trends then causes casualties of blame - in your example we could say the huge population of white people who dont fundamentally see black people in any light other than equal. An insult based on a black billionaire being a greedy billionaire gets called racially charged, when actually, it’s entirely class based. This reliably means that (for example) white working class boys/girls are left to rot.
Personally I see most of these prejudicial issues being an exclusively American problem that has been exported abroad, to the extent now that its difficult to untangle.
Prejudice being exclusively a domain of America is a crazy hot take
Personally I see most of these prejudicial issues being an exclusively American problem that has been exported abroad
Have you forgotten who colonised most of the world, including America? This is in no way an American centric issue. Racism exists in most countries on earth.
This is what happens when you view the world through liberal idealism instead of doing any material analysis whatsoever
Systems aren’t real, they’re just imaginary, they can’t hurt you, there’s no such thing as systemic oppression just a few bad apples
Lmfao shut up
You are correct, but you can’t discuss on a rational level with people from hexbear, just give up.
For example, just because a queer person is white does not mean they experience the same privilege as a cis het white person
Or how all women are oppressed, but the tribulations of white women are Not the same as those facing women of color or trans women, they face more and more varied forms of discrimination, but it doesn’t mean that one is more important or valid than others, just materially different for example
That poor mine worker is still in a better position than an otherwise identical minority would be in the same position.
A poor mine worker is in a tough place but at least he wasn’t refused that job because the company doesn’t hire non white people.
This exporting US culture shit has got to stop
We aren’t talking about another mine worker. We are comparing 2 individuals with certain characteristics. You have instead decided to compare a third individual because the initial comparison made the concept break down
Just because someone is a certain color does not prescribe to them any specific value judgement. As soon as you do that, one of those categories becomes the ongoing scapegoat for everyone’s problems, and it becomes fascist.
Does it ever occur to you that for your arguments to make sense you have to strip it of all context, historical perspecrive or material reality.
I literally didn’t say anything about the us. I’m saying that Romanian is still better off than a minority in Romania that got discriminated again.
Any more reasons for you to smugly ignore everything everybody is repeatedly telling you.
For people who complain about how rude we are and how we’re an echo chamber you’re being shown an incredible amount of patience for how unbearably obtuse you’re intentionally being.
This robs people of their individual context.
Is the context not that in STEM women often face sexism?
I honestly have to pretend that sexism in STEM is nowhere near as bad as I know it is for the sake of my own mental health. I’ve heard incredible stories of blatant sexism from colleagues and friends that I just can’t fathom
I’ve had to defend a close friend from repeated advances and touching, she was an engineer, he was 40 years older than her. It’s a problem. I’ve had good friends get taken advantage of by a PI. Gross. It’s the power dynamic in academia too where one person controls the career outcome of the PhD student. It’s really nuts out there. It’s getting better but that takes time and awareness. I’ve seen what the bad eggs do and they disgust me. It’s not just men, but there are a lot of cases of it.
Address what I said, not something else
Is the individual context not that in STEM women often face sexism, not something else?
Do you think that the Prime Ministers wife is less privileged than the Romanian miner? How would you address the discrepancy with the group prescription?
No, no one thinks that, because part of the context there is that one of the people is married to a head of state, and one is a coal miner
You aren’t misunderstanding anything here, loser, and we aren’t dumb enough to fall for it
Do you think STEM women don’t face sexism? Address what I said, not something else.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
youre deliberately misinterpreting the concept of intersectionality, it includes class.
I’m not deliberately mistinterpreting anything, if I don’t understand something, then explain it to me.
Incredibly privileged of you to assume everyone else has your spoilt middle class educational background
You’re posting to a niche reddit-clone that you only could’ve reliably found out about through either reddit, twitter, or mastodon. You have access to Google, you disingenuous twit.
Not relevant, it’s not my job to Google your arguments that I don’t know exist. If you wish to correct me on something, please do!
LOOK IT THE FUCK UP WHEN YOU’RE CALLED ON FUNDAMENTALLY MISUNDERSTANDING SOMETHING RATHER THAN BEING A REDDITOR PEDANT, JESUS FUCKING CHRIST DO YOU NEED TYING YOUR SHOES EXPLAINED TO YOU THE SAME WAY???
Y’know what, since I can’t even trust you to do that right at this point, have a link for it! https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=intersectionalism
Incredibly privileged of you to assume everyone else has your spoilt middle class educational background
uhm, actually, it is in fact YOU who is the privileged one in this scenario, no I. check, and furthermore, mateif I don’t understand something, then explain it to me.
ok so you have deliberately removed as many brain cells as possible from your brain, understood
Do you really think that you know all there is to know? Perhaps I know something that you don’t, but you don’t know what it is. What then?
Not the “I know of this one poc that’s in a position of power and so white privilege doesn’t exist” argument lol
Did you drop a /s? This is a funny meme, so I’m assuming I just missed a joke.
Right?
(Speaking as a white male, white male entitlement, and privilege for that matter, are incredibly relevant to white men being sexist/racist.)
(You can trust me on this because I’m a white male. Also, I’m used to my opinion being listened to, so I expect you to as well. Just FYI.)
Nope, I wasn’t sarcastic, I was slightly annoyed, annoyed enough to make rhe comment but not to maje a huge deal about it.
lemmy.zip
Edit: this slap fight below this comment is the reason for this comment originally, that is why it was a joke to point out the instance, Thanks for demonstrating my point lol
I don’t know what that is supposed to mean…
I expect ignorance from your and other such instances
Yet you offer no reason for doing so…
I feel like the incomplete explanation should have been more than you expected in the first place
I get and accept that you may dislike me based on my comments in this thread, I am more confused as to what the lemmy.zip instance has done to dismiss it outright.
Because everybody makes the same shitty comments and it’s almost more tiring than anything.
If you so graciuosly “accept that we may dislike you” why can’t you understand we wouldn’t like people like you especially when it’s always the same tired bullshit from people like you.
It happens to be an instance federated with several idealogy-heavy instances, while itself being a general use instance with simple account creation procedures.
It makes it a popular choice for people who want to make multiple accounts for trolling, as well as people who have unpopular (as far as lemmy goes) ideologies. You can hopefully understand the kind of friction that could create and the reputation is the outcome.
You probably could have figured this out yourself if you just… Looked around. You shouldn’t expect people who are in disagreement with you to explain everything.
They dont have to you assholes wont stop offering up reasons.
Seriously look at the comments there’s damn near 100% overlap with the people bitching about how this is unfair to old white dudes and people with lemmy.something for a username
I really couldn’t have asked for a better demonstration lmao
They seem pretty God damn determined to prove they’re exactly as disingenuous and intentionally ignorant as possible.
Lot of MLKs Whote Moderates in here.
lol. There is no point in bickering further now that you have started with the insults and ascribed me views that I do not hold, I am not the terrible person you think of, and I will not stoop down to your level and fling insults at you.
So instead I am just going to wish you a pleasant weekend and hope you realize that not everything is as you believe it to be, much less so on the internet.
There never was any fucking point I really dont know why I even bother waste my fucking time trying to talk to you dumbshit liberals who are more concerned with tone policing than acknowledging that racism and sexism exist.
Being white is a huge risk factor for unearned confidence. So is male. Being both just multiplies the chances.
Wow! This is like saying that if someone owns an axe, they are more likely to be a serial killer. If they also have rolls of black garbage bags, then its even more likely …
That’s such a straw man. You would have no trouble saying that if someone doesn’t have an axe they are less likely to be an axe murderer
Sorry - what do you mean?
The fact that someone owns an axe and garbage bags, does nothing to their likelihood of them being a murder, just like being white and/or a male has nothing to do with the “risk of unearned confidence”.
In the US it’s all about skin colour
To emphasize the privilege this guy has.
Exactly.
It’s an American obsession.
It’s an American reality. Race still influences much of American life.
It’s an American obsession.
Are you just going to pretend that there is no racism anywhere else? It was the Europeans that colonised half the planet and invented the concept of “whiteness”, and proceeded to divide and carve Africa up. Are you just going to pretend that this action has had no influence on modern European ideas around race and class? And I haven’t even mentioned the Roma people. Or the ongoing genocide in Palestine, which has a racial component. Or the rise of Hinduistic fascism in India. Or the issues around race in my own country in South Africa. Racism is a global issue.
All you losers acting like you dont understand why the fact it was a white male that was being the ignorant self righteous asshole just shows you aren’t actually serious with engaging with material realities.
You should all really look up what MLK Jr has to say about you white moderates and make an effort to remind yourself people like MLK Jr and Malcolm X think you’re literally worse than white supremacists.
You’re right, racism doesn’t exist outside of America
It is just mentioned. Just a description of what happened. What’s wrong about saying it was a white male when it was a white male? Why jump to the opinion that mentioning the gender or complexion has any other purpose than being descriptive?
Good god, no
What’s wrong about just mentioning it was a post doc asking the question?
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Or even the gender?
Edit: so… based on the downvotes this gets, its not OK for a male to interrupt but if it had been a female or other gender, then it would have been ok?
Male and Female aren’t genders, they’re Sex, Words used to describe biological makeup of a living creature, for example XX Chromosomes are Female, XY Chromosomes are Male, but there are also instances where XXY Chromosomes can happen, and things get a little tricky.
Gender is what we use to tell children how to behave based on their genetalia and cause dysphoria in them when they don’t want to do something but will get ostracized for doing what people with the other genetalia do.
Thanks. Its a bit confusing to me especially as a none English user. But your description of gender sounds negative. I assume a gender can be a neutral description of oneself? I am not sure.
My point here though is, that OP mentioning it was a male, is as irrelevant as their skin color. I dont see why it needs to be there when they dont add other irrelevant characteristics such as nationality, age, hair color etc.
I would encourage you to do your own research regarding sex and gender. In many parts of the world, these terms are interchangeable. As they were in the US for many years, even after the term gender was popularized.
There’s a lot more to sex than chromosomes. It’s probably better to say it’s clustering of positions on bimodal curves of traits. And even then you wind up with weird shit because biology really doesn’t like simple classifications. Like seriously there are so fucking many ways to be intersex and intersex people are downright common.
But also grammatically male and female when used to refer to humans are generally just the adjectives for man and woman.
You know when the right looks at the left and calls us batshit? Your comment is shit they point to…
What’s batshit about it? As a society we do exactly that, we tell boys to like blue and girls to like pink.
You can’t be racist against white, duh
Edit: nobody realized this was sarcasm
Also the gender?
Any kind of interruption seems rude AF, and that’s without even considering the sexism and insinuation that she’s incompetent.
What’s the norm for the audience in situations like this? Raising your hand? Holding any questions/comments until the end?
Even then you don’t go “you don’t understand x!”. You make an actual point about something in the presentation, usually with enough self-doubt to state it as a question.
If the whole presentation is trash in your opinion, just leave.
You start by asking questions. If you’re wrong you’ll find out, if you’re right you’ll expose something.
Also, if someone just says “you’re wrong about X” that’s way easier to deal with than “considering this other paper says these things, can you explain your motivation for X?”.
Those questions are the worst.
I find that to be the other way around. I would much rather have people ask the second kind of question, whereas the first kind will give me nothing to work with. In the worst case you can answer that you havent read thtose papers and you will after the presentation. At best they can actually teach you something you haven’t considered yet. But often you can respond with your motivation which you generally thought about for much longer than they did.
that is a very scientific environment. of you cant deal well with the second question youre at the wrong place
I mean, it’s much easier to dismiss a shitty question than a good one.
Most researchers I know welcome difficult questions. Like that’s the whole game. Finding the difficult questions about your work and answering them.
A lot of the time, it sucks of you only get bad questions or no questions. It usually means your work was uninteresting or so poorly presented no one grasped enough to even ask about something relevant.
If a subject is a scientific passion of yours, you don’t dismiss good questions, you welcome them.
Depends on the size of the meeting and the length of the meeting.
For an hour-long lecture/seminar with less than 20 people, probably raising your question directly is fine.
For a 25 mins talk at a conference with 200 people, you will probably need to save your question to the end.
But it is always safer to ask beforehand.
Some people develop extreme skills while never learning how to interact with others.
The @lemmy.liberals in the comments here being flabbergasted that straight white men in positions of power are privileged and embarrassing is very funny
Keep it up dorks
Edit:
To the salty folks out there mad about people not stooping down and being your personal elementary school teacher to teach you basic lessons about the world we live in, and our friends from lemmy.world who are assuredly reading through posts like this one from defederated instances (hi!)
A word about what it is to be civil in conversation and Why Those Tankies Are So Mean (not a tankie but w/e):
I will definitely admit that I was very annoyed and could have been nicer about a lot what I went about saying throughout my posts in this thread. Here’s the thing, ‘being nicer about it’ is a personal decision not a moral necessity, and not even necessarily beneficial at all. The “it” we’re being “nicer” about is often something horrifying, like when people got upset at Aaron Bushnell for his self immolation, people who were more upset about THAT than they are about what’s happening to innocent bystanders in Palestine. These are not positions that should be met with civility. No one is required to put up with someone’s bullshit just for the purpose of helping them learn and grow. Its good to do in the few times when that is possible…
but here?
on the internet? On a not-reddit forum website in a science memes community? Its 1/10000 chance where that’s possible.
We all know why you would feel attacked by seeing the mention of his white maleness and the implication that had anything to do with it. No unbiased person would see that and think “this is prejudice based on skin color!” or pretend they can see no connection between the guy in the tweet’s old male whiteness and THE TWEET, A perfect encapsulation of the absurdity our nightmare culture which enshrines and systematically enforces the power of ignorant old white men. Its not a statement that all white people are bad, its not a statement that all old people are bad, its not a statement that all men are bad.
It’s a recognition of the systemic rot inflicted on the scientific community by our current culture shaped by patriarchy, capitalism, and imperialism.
Add to that how sick I and many of us are of the constant bullshit, the harmful attitudes beliefs and inevitable whining and whinging when the least criticism lands near the fancy of the loser we run across on some post. We’re leftists, but also most of us are either trans or queer or poc or neurodivergent etc etc or any combination thereof. We have been around for years just on lemmy, and years before. And over those years, have grown to recognize civility bullshit for what it always was. And recognize what it means when we see stuff like this post, where people are upset about criticism of privileged behavior that demonstrates an injustice inherent to our current system. So we see that bullshit, and we come down on it. To see that an not react harshly against it is no different than contributing to it yourself, to let it fester and grow, to let something horrible and unjust become simply ‘normal’.
To hear incorrect views without rebutting them and instead to take them calmly as if nothing had happened is unacceptable.
That’s why many people in this thread reacted negatively to the comments we did. Clear enough?
This is why I usually just say shut up, loser. It’s way fucking easier, and taking the effort like this is never worth it, not on here, not with the .world et all crowd.
So shut up, losers.
Not as confrontational, but had a similar experience with a collaborator. Due to the PIs’ old habits, our collaboration meetings were telecons (telephone landlines, rather than zoom or other video conferencing). So at a conference, I see a poster from a member of the collaboration, having never seen the faces of many members, and go over to introduce myself. This other grad student was in poster presenter mode, so as I approach he immediately asks “So you are interested in [collaboration project], how much do you know about [project]” and I point to my name on the author’s list and say “well, I am that guy”.
I’ve been on both sides of that kind of interaction, though not in academia. I met my boss of six months for the first time like two weeks ago, tbh I’m not sure if I would recognize him (or anyone else on my “team” for that matter) if I saw him again right now.
That et al is the best scientist, they’re in all the papers.
That man’s name? Albert Einstein
I was hoping for Davy Crockett, oh well…
He kil’t him a bar when he was only three.
As a white dude, I would be horribly embarrassed to do something like that. I hope the guy in the story learned a lesson from it.
…later that evening, that’s when this poor wounded white male post doc subscribed to the Ben Shapiro podcast.
