happy mads is no longer sad!

I read it, and while it was fantastically written and well thought out... it was about advertising. The one form of "communication" aimed at our baser selves.

You know you want it. C'mon, you know you deserve it. Buy Buy. Buy.

I read it and I agree.
I'm not quite sure about the former though. Are you seriously saying we should not act upon knowledge of statistics because that would be sexist or discrmination? Don't you think that's only true when there are better ways to find out about the characteristics of an individual? I think it's entirely fair to let fat people pay more for health insurance, to let men pay more for car insurance, to let poor people pay higher interest on loans. It's all based on statistics which should not be ignored.
That said, in most cases of discrimination there is a far better way to find out the characteristics of someone. Let's say a woman claims to be very good at parking. Statistically (and biologically) they are worse than men at parking. It would be sexist to say she isn't because she's a woman just because women are, on average, worse at parking. The right thing to do would be to challenge her in some kind of parking contest (they, in fact, really exist).
However, others betting on the male (or odds in favour of the man) is not sexist. Statistics are literally everything bettors can go on. Basically, acting on these "presumptions" (if they are based on statistical evidence) is not sexist, unless you're actually not giving an individual from a group/minority the chance to prove him or herself.

Do you really not see a difference between these three cases? One is basing a decision on an actual, personal factor of an individual that has actual, provable negative health consequences. One is an example of incredibly profitable corporations bilking its customers for extra money based on stereotypes. One is predatory lending.

There's a difference between "Poor people tend to be fat, poor people have to pay more for insurance" and "unhealthy cost more in health care, they should pay more for insurance". One of these is needlessly discriminatory, the other is a valid response to an actual analysis of an individual's status.


ps: please don't defend predatory lending. I really don't have the heart to read anybody actually trying to rationalize predatory lending. It's one of the worst practices of modern banking in existence.

"We won't charge interest, as long as you agree to the 33% service fee."

Er, apologies for going further off topic.

That's not even the worst example I've seen. There's a company in the UK, for example, that operates solely in minority heavy neighborhoods and operates with a standard APR of over FOUR THOUSAND PERCENT. If you borrowed 25 bucks from them you'd owe over a thousand in one year's time.

Goof Lord. Don't even get me started on the 'shop now, pay in two years time' options. Some people take that literally, and wonder why they have to pay twice or more the original retail value.

Nobody has said anything about reacting to anything. We just expect things to work the way we've seen them work. If I see nothing but women in sales booths or whatever, then i will naturally expect the next booth to also have a woman behind it.

And I don't know in what fantasy world you live in, but in my world, people don't react in any obvious way when they see someone, that doesn't conform to a stereotype. Nobody goes "OMG I'S A MUSCULAR WOMAN HEY U MUSCULAR WOMAN Y U NOT MORE FEMININE". Most people just go "oh, didn't really expect that" in their minds and move on. And most of the time when they do react in any obvious, way in front of the one being stereotyped, it's of the "I haven't seen many people like you doing X, Y or Z", which is something that only insecure people get offended by. If there is an obvious stereotype, people will expect it to be true most of the time, it's only natural.

Need has nothing to do with it. It just happens. You seem to be unable to deal with this fact.



All my English comes from watching Cartoon Network all day when I was a child and I didn't give 2 shits about anything they told me in English classes. So every single post goes trough spellcheck, which sometimes makes it worse

VectorM I really can't reply to that post without being rude to you, sorry.

1. You're nitpicking
2. Poor people are more likely to default on their debts. This is a statistical truth (and come on, it really makes a lot of fucking sense). Higher chance of borrowers defaulting = higher risk = higher compensation = higher interest rates.

I was not referring to those sharks offering a direct loan at 70% interest per week.*

*Though even then, it's debatable whether or not such rates are fair or not. People who have to borrow €100 on short notice tend to be the people unable to pay their bills. If they're not even able to pay their bills, they're not likely to be able to pay back their loan. That said, as a company I would not even want to offer loans to these people because it makes matters worse. Charging a high interest rate in itself is not immoral (Greece is paying a shitload of interest as well).

@Gamer


I'm saying it would be discrimination, based on gender, therefore it would be sexism. Only if properties are true of all, or very nearly all, individuals belonging to a certain stereotype is it generally not discrimination; then it's simply acting on facts.

But the way sexism is seen, which is as something that is never ok, it's not a very apt word to use, even though I think it's accurate. It has so many additional meanings, and so much emotion is tied up in it, that most would never accept that sexism can be innocent and appropriate, even though it arguably is in Jonas bicyclist case.

Your examples are good and well thought out, but they don't change my perception of what the word means.

@ Bobby

Yeah, advertising is probably fairly fucked up, not arguing with that. But it's an interesting example of how accusations of acting on stereotypes sometimes themselves rest on stereotypes.

@ Lemming

Oh, I've got an example of where stereotypes are useful to you in your everyday life. If you've had a horrible day, and you read the start of a forum post and the beginning says something that seems unreasonable, a stereotype that leads you to conclude it'll all be bad will save you from reading it and getting a headache! Isn't that nice!

Grow a pair.

My decision not to respond to you is not one of cowardice, but rather respect for proper decorum on the forums. I'm not here for a pissing match, or a dick waving contest. I'm not even here to convert people to feminism. I just posted a negative impression of Kingdom of Amalur's barbie-esque representation of women and other posters challenged me on that. I'm ok with light conversation, even rational debate. But I will not fight you, and my reaction to your latest posts is too negative to politely respond to, beyond simply not responding. Much like with Aemer, there are certain things I find toxic to discourse that I refuse to respond to. Sorry.

Do you really not see a difference between a fat person, and a woman? Once is a factor that is natural aspect of a person they did not choose to adopt, one is the result of an individual's poor decisions. Fat people can work to not be fat, and by being fat they incur negative effects on their health, especially their heart, as a result of their unhealthy weight. Women are born women, they cannot be anything but women.

I don't want to continue the derail on loans, so I'll just link this: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/1 ... y-lending/
Go offsite for more information if you want it. Suffice to say, it's nowhere near as cut and dried or rational as you'd think.

@ JSL

Not all fat people are unhealthy. Some are actually very healthy, and the fat makes no difference to their level of health.

Assuming that fat people are unhealthy just because they're fat is an example of acting on stereotyping; it shouldn't matter that they can stop being fat, if they already are perfectly healthy, and make sure they are. That's where the equivalency with women is. Sure they might be able to dress up as males and get their gender legally changed, but they shouldn't have to, because it shouldn't matter. You deserve to be treated in accord with your personal attributes, not the attributes people can assume about you based on statistics about one of your traits.

Anyway, are you saying you've still not read the post I wrote?