Seems to me that now that he has his own thread we can / should stop the pile-on here.
And move on to what this thread is supposed to be: a bop on the nose for good or at least redeemable posters, not the 75-post warmup round for a one-way trip to the omnibus troll thread or a dedicated screw you SoAndSo thread. Followed shortly by a banning.
Are they back? I’m disappointed.
No, they are currently suspended.
I see the time stamp now. But suspended wasn’t in the title thing. So it worried me.
I had the same thought.
I’m glad I’m not the only one. I thought I’ve been late all day for everything. Couldn’t get pizza because if a very very long wait time. My nap was short.
I say the eclipse ramp up has slowed everything down. Yeah. I’m going with that idea.
Pure bigotry.
No, it’s the person expecting others to conform to that person’s prejudices that tends to cause trouble, by looking for anything to justify categorizing someone else as less deserving of respect.
Decent people respect others’ appearances.
“It says that you care what they think of you” I don’t care. Why the hell should I?
I think you should show your fellow passengers enough respect to show up reasonably clean, and also minimally deliberately scented, so that you don’t stink.
I don’t think that whether you’re wearing sweatpants or business casual is a relevant issue. You should probably be wearing something.
Pure bigotry! Why should you care about my fat, aging, sweaty naked body rubbing up against you in one of those exercises-in-a-veal-fattening-pen they call a coach seat these days?! It’s just natural like Og intended! And you want me to use deodorant too? You weren’t born wearing deodorant or clothes. For that matter you were born covered in a layer of slime! What should you or the airlines care if my naked body is dripping with slime? I mean I…well…okay…
I’ll wear clothes and deodorant. I guess that’s okay. But no damn suits or ties! That’s where I draw the line! And I’ll have to think a little more on this slime issue.
A slime coat helps protect you from germs spread by fellow passengers.
Betcha never saw a coughing fish. Any day now they’ll be marketing a a slime supplement.
Maybe we can make a little space for Sage_Rat’s just asking questions about studies in the Diversity Equity and Inclusion thread in GD.
Here is the reason we are questioning your implicit motivation. For the most part scientists know what they are doing. If multiple peer reviewed studies reach a consensus it is probably the right answer. There is reasons to be skeptical at least initially but generally for one of the following reasons.
None of these apply in this case. There are multiple studies, the literature is entirely consistent (if you have a contradictory study please post it), and the conclusion is what we would expect from common sense.
So given that there are multiple studies and they are all pointing in the same direction, it appears to me that the reason you feel the need to demand extra scrutiny is the thrid one. You believe that DEI is beneficial is such an extraordinary claim that, it is more likely that the experiments are flawed then that
If someone were to ask the questions to cats sleep more than dogs, and someone else answered with five studies indicating that yes cats do indeed sleep longer than dogs, would you feel the need to say. Those all seem to be small studies (despite the fact that 350 of dogs were studied). Or maybe the experimenters exercised the cats but not the dogs before the study. Are we sure that the authors couldn’t have run the study 20 times and only reported that one instance that it happened that cats slept longer than dogs? (despite the fact that for the reported p-value of p<0.001 the study would have to have been repeated over a thousand times).
Or would you simply accept the perfectly reasonable conclusion that cats are in fact the lazy bums they appear to be.
ETA: I just noticed that the only other time I put a user in this thread it was also Sage_Rat. I think this is purely coincidental I’m not specifically targeting him, it just happened that the two times that I felt a discussion I was involved in was getting out of hand and hadn’t been moved that he was at the center.
I do agree far more with what you just said and not what he said. I hate the idea that how you dress is about showing respect for others. But it seems a stretch to call it bigotry. The term I would use is “snobbish.”
That said, I do think at minimum you shouldn’t smell, because smell can genuinely affect people in ways they can’t easily opt out of. And you probably shouldn’t be do dirty that you make the seats dirty.
But I still don’t consider either of those a “respect” issue. It’s not disrespectful, but inconsiderate to negatively affect others like that. Clothing style, however, usually isn’t even that.
That’s a great analysis.
The problem is inconsiderate behavior.
The societal challenge is that it’s a fairly short jump from “I don’t care what opinions others hold of me” as expressed by e.g. @DocCathode a few posts ago, to “I choose to ignore everyone else’s interests when choosing how to act.”
It’s one thing to wear PJs and crocs to the grocery store. It’s another to jump to the head of the line at the deli counter while loudly insisting you should be served first.
Looking around at my fellow 'Murrricans it seems like lotta folks have used #1 over the last few years as a gateway drug and have now moved on to actively living #2 as their daily MO.
How else do you explain the need to wear clothes to a 2 year old. Or a mandatory school uniform to a nine year old. Or a company dress code (as opposed to uniform) to an older teenager.
It’s not a huge stretch to generalize social norms regarding attire as a matter of “respect” across the board, i.e. when going out in public but not when home by oneself.
~Max
I’ve never heard of anyone teachomg the two year old that being naked in public is disrespectful to other people. You teach them simply that it is inappropriate. Later on, they may learn more about why—social norms, sexuality, etc. But never is it about “respect.” People may object to a nudist, but it isn’t because they believe the nudist is disrespecting them.
I have heard that explanation used for dress codes, but it’s far from the most common. The angle from the company would be something like “professionalism” or “our clients expect it.” The angle from parents is something like “sometimes adults have to follow arbitrary rules because that’s what society expects.”
Of course, a more thorough explanation would involve more, like the authoritarian need to control things that do not actually matter, the history of clothing expectations and classism, the history of fashion, etc.
But respect isn’t really a part of that. Because the idea that clothing choices are based on respect contains the underlying idea that others have the right to control your expression, even when that expression is not harmful or detrimental to yourself or others. It’s actually a leftover from the classism aspect, where “respect” mean respecting those who were your “betters” in that system.
I have only ever heard the “respect” explanation from anyone who doesn’t look down on people who dress differently than them. It is a classist thing.
My issue with Sage_Rat is that his skepticism does not rise above shooting the shit. Maybe the study was flawed in this way. Maybe it was flawed that way. I’d want to know if they did [insert basic precaution].
You’ve already been given a cite so it’s on you to show some effort. Look at the methodology section before criticizing a study’s methodology. Read the toplines and the definitions before you speculate on their flaws. And if you can’t find/access the straight dope (the underlying report), then mention that early on, before (or instead of) the wall of text criticizing it. There’s no shame in admitting you lack Buck_Godot’s ability to track down a missing citation, nor in refusing to acknowledge an unsupported secondary source.
In short Sage_Rat, sometimes you’re just a contrarian. Have the basic decency to be an armchair skeptic.
While we’re on that thread, GIGOBuster needs to work on better summarizing or selectively quoting his cites. I understand English is not your first language and maybe there’s a reluctance to paraphrase because of that, but you can’t keep on posting 6+ paragraphs of copyrighted material verbatim.
~Max
The only time “respect” comes to mind for clothing is when wearing the wrong thing is disrespectful. Like wearing a t-shirt with profanity on it to church, or wearing a rival team’s jersey to an event where you’re watching a game at someone’s house.
What I meant was that refusing to get dressed was disrespectful to Mommy (or Daddy, &etc). In the same way that refusing to wear a school uniform is disrespectful to the school, or refusing to abide by a company dress code disrespects that company, &etc.
Sometimes adults choose to follow arbitrary rules because they respect those arbitrary rules.
ETA: So when some kid wears shorts and a tank top on the airplane, the old curmudgeon is completely correct to say the kid is being disrespectful. Because wearing formal attire on an airplane is a hopelessly outdated rule (from a hopelessly oudated society) that no longer deserves respect.
~Max