allthenews

>Kennedy pointed out that the legal professional style to which students learn to assimilate is “overwhelmingly white, male, and middle class.”46 But the Socratic method’s encounter with gender, race, and class diversity might related- ly occasion worry about exclusion or oppression in a more tangible way. That is, if the Socratic method causes the kind of terror and disempowerment in students that some have observed, and is stylisti- cally white, male, and middle class, would it not also impose dispropor- tionate harm on students who are women, as well as on racial and class minorities?

Of course the article is much more expressive than what I wrote-it is a summary.

I didn't inject ideology into this discussion. If you want to be consistent this article shouldn't be allowed either. This is blatant racism, sexism, and classism.

There's a difference between having humans check IDs and storing facial [and other data] data in a database.

Your original comment partly reads thusly:

> it's ok to discuss violence in Black communities and cheating in Asia, but it would be racist to assert that because you are Black/Asian/White you are more predisposed to violence/cheating/racism

Your implication is that something cannot be true if it is racist. This is a non sequitor. Race should never have been brought up in the first place.

[flagged]

>racist to assert that because you are Black/Asian/White you are more predisposed to violence/cheating/racism

The fact that a conclusion is racist does not mean it is factually incorrect.

This isn't about what is "OK", this is about what is true.

Feel free to point out the irrationality of any part of my post.

You are resolving your cognitive dissonance by ignoring documented differences among cultures, which is fundamentally illogical. This seems to be an increasingly common pattern "in the modern workplace" and outside of it too.

What you should instead be doing is accepting that cultures are varied, but individuals must be given the benefit of the doubt in an ethical society.

>MDMA is risky, and you probably shouldn’t use it

I don't understand how the author can come to this conclusion after describing almost every mentioned paper as unreliable for one reason or another.

As far as I know there is still very little in the way of consistent and/or rigorous evidence that even moderate recreational doses are harmful.

I would argue that if it is this uncertain as to whether or not the drug is harmful, then it is unlikely to have significant detrimental effects. Subcultures tend to build stigma toward obviously dangerous substances - most drug users would caution you to stay away from heroin or meth, for example, because the damage is obvious. If harmful MDMA effects are so subtle as to be effectively undetectable in the collective anecdote of millions of recreational users, then at the very least occasional use must not be so risky.

How do we know that the universe isn't sitting on the back of a giant turtle?

Most of the math that we use is self-consistent, and our proof system is, as far as we can tell, relatively consistent with the known properties of the universe.

What I'm getting at is that no, we don't actually KNOW with 100% certainty that, for example, certain proven divergent series continue to diverge at infinity, if your standard for proof requires trial of an infinite span of numbers; but such speculation is so far out of the realm of what is known and "proven" according to our [mostly] self and externally consistent set of knowledge[1] that it is more or less in the realm of pseudoscience/metaphysics.

1. Excluding the Incompleteness Theorem

Perhaps I accept that there are more than 2-5 dimensions in the sphere of politics, and that occasionally one must compromise because no singular philosophy is perfect in all circumstances. That doesn't mean that an entire political ideology is at fault.

The modern political system would be far better off without this kind of (engineered?) rigid thinking.

As someone who leans libertarian, I tend to shy away from rigid legislative solutions to social problems and corporate overreach.

However, articles like this make me wonder if it isn't time for the government to step in and implement privacy regulations of some sort. I did not consent to have my movements tracked and ads sold to me by privately owned kiosks all over my city of residence.

OTOH, I don't know if I would trust the current government to implement such protections in a way that isn't self serving and possibly counterproductive. Shitshow all around.