Microaggression Butt-Hurt

I never claimed that. I just claimed your theory is not fact-based, and you have yet to provide any.

Larger populations or not, you need SOME data in order to make the claim that these labels have any meaning.

Some data has already been presented by HH, you have yet to specify anything else that you would like to see proven.

I've already pointed you in the direction of where you can find it, I'm not going to re-listen to 15 hours of podcasts.. but I might dig up something specific. There is plenty of irrefutable data that shows that this model is consistent over large populations.

You're really sounding like you are so against it that all the data in the world wouldn't sway your opinion, though.
 
This confirms my suspicion that this theory isn't really fact-based. It's just a set of generalizations made to make sense of the world according to a Molyneux-ian point of view.

Tendencies that move things in directions affect larger populations more than individuals, correct? So what i said is exactly right.

It sounds more like an alpha vs. beta thing explained in Molyneux-ian terms. In any case, the fact that the terms are so loose makes the labels r and k sort of meaningless.

Honestly in all the talk of r vs. K I don't recall Stefan mentioning anything about alpha vs. beta and that is something he has gone into great lengths discussing in the past so I'm not really sure that r and K have anything to do with alpha vs. beta, though I could be wrong.
 
Some data has already been presented by HH, you have yet to specify anything else that you would like to see proven.

I've already pointed you in the direction of where you can find it, I'm not going to re-listen to 15 hours of podcasts.. but I might dig up something specific. There is plenty of irrefutable data that shows that this model is consistent over large populations.

You're really sounding like you are so against it that all the data in the world wouldn't sway your opinion, though.

Of course you would say that. To you, every battle is uphill and anyone who shows even the slightest doubt for your preconceived notions is already a traitor who cannot be swayed. If you don't want to provide the data, that's fine, but don't accuse me of saying the facts don't support it when I have said no such thing.
 
Tendencies that move things in directions affect larger populations more than individuals, correct? So what i said is exactly right.

Yeah, but the problem is that you didn't really say anything.

Honestly in all the talk of r vs. K I don't recall Stefan mentioning anything about alpha vs. beta and that is something he has gone into great lengths discussing in the past so I'm not really sure that r and K have anything to do with alpha vs. beta, though I could be wrong.

I didn't claim they did have anything to do with each other. I'm just saying it kind of sounds like that whole debate where nobody really knows how to define the terms, but they are all staunchly in one camp or the other nonetheless. It comes off as more of a pop-culture labeling exercise than anything fact-based. Like I said, though, I'm not making any claims about the facts, and it was either ignorant or dishonest for you to say I made the claim that the facts don't support your position. You're getting really defensive without any provocation.
 
At what point do we get to start fighting back?

If I met someone like that I would. It's yet to happen where I live. I don't know anybody that is such a pussy to even know what a microaggression is but when I do find them, I will tell them what a spineless piece of shit they are.
 
I believe you on that claim, but the overarching explanatory power of this theory remains questionable. The age of puberty in girls really doesn't help explain how people can be split into k- and r-selected groups according to their genetic traits and/or political beliefs.

my curiosity has got the better of me..
you are from WV. and are now hanging out with the chinks and the slant eyes. (:))

do they entertain discussions of this type?
my bet is that they are much like our typical self absorbed Americans.
 
Seems backwards to me. City people seem to be more of the stunted and dependent ones. While rural people tend to be tougher and self-sufficient.
 
Others defend the focus on microaggression as the next step forward in the country's long, slow march toward greater equality and understanding.






Jerry Kang, a professor of law and Asian American studies at UCLA



...



"The microaggression conversation has helped all of us," said Kang, who was named this year as UCLA's first vice chancellor for equity, diversity and inclusion. "Having multiple vocabulary and methods for measuring how fair and square we are is always a good thing for society."







But students say it's not always easy to call out such slights. At UC Berkeley, Spencer Pritchard, a biracial student majoring in political economy and African American studies






A white male speaker, apparently frustrated by the discussion, questioned the need for diversity training for guest lecturers and whether one student was human at all. He told the packed room that "you guys don't understand how endowments" and university finances work.

Several students groaned, and Cynthia Blondeel-Timmerman, a junior, told the speaker she found the term "you guys" offensive.

"This isn't a men's issue," she said. "How dare you come into this space and say that [females] aren't important."

0698bb596613dcbfc5494d151c1bf1a45431b28d76e5f5cfb5c454a0a02478b2.jpg
 
my curiosity has got the better of me..
you are from WV. and are now hanging out with the chinks and the slant eyes. (:))

do they entertain discussions of this type?
my bet is that they are much like our typical self absorbed Americans.

You mean micro-aggressions and such? Nope, never comes up.
 
Last edited:
Seems backwards to me. City people seem to be more of the stunted and dependent ones. While rural people tend to be tougher and self-sufficient.

Not sure where you got that idea. It may be the case for some old-timers, but we're raising a generation of kids for whom living in the country isn't much of a chore. They have all the modern luxuries of the city but they simply move around less because there's nothing to do and they always travel by car when they do travel. For me, living in the country was probably more what you described as a young child, but as a coming-of-age man in the country, I found I didn't get the opportunity to move around a lot because I had everything I needed at home and whenever we did travel, we always traveled by car. Our homes are more self-sustaining these days so we don't interact with nature much anymore although it's within arm's reach.
 
I think SM really nails it: r/K, Paris terror, etc. etc.

These are interesting times, scary times.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top