en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/2394706 Comments by feelsthemagic http://www.worldinconversation.org/2013/04/18/voices-from-the-classroom-304/#IDComment624838065 I personally tend to feel uncomfortable at parties where people are predominantly speaking a language I’m unfamiliar with. I am of Indian origin and I mostly party with Indians, where we speak both English and Hindi. I think it’s fun to speak in your mother tongue on days when you’re out having a good time, so I don’t see a problem with this. However, I tend to feel awkward and out of place when I’m at parties with mostly Arabs or Chinese, as I am completely unfamiliar with the language. I find it hard to introduce myself to people and hard to maintain a steady conversation in English when everyone around me is speaking in Arabic or Mandarin. As far as partying with black people, I’ve almost never done it. Whenever I have, somehow I stuck mostly to my group the whole night and didn’t mingle much. I tend to feel uncomfortable when I’m the odd one out, so I stick to myself. I feel that when I’m the only one who is not of a certain race, people will stare at me and wonder what I’m doing there. However, I never tend to have this problem when I’m out with my white friends. I was raised to be very comfortable around white people, and I can relate better with them than most other races, other than Indians. I feel that people at parties dominated by a single race tend to all know each other or have partied with each other frequently. The situation is the same as being the new kid in the group – I don’t know how to make friends in that situation, since everyone already knows each other. However, one on one, I can make friends with almost anyone of any race. Just at big events like parties, I feel very out of place. Once someone comes and breaks the ice, I blend in fine, but I tend not to make the first step. I may be a bit of an exception here, because I tend to party with the same few groups of people, all of whom are Indian. I haven’t really gone out to a party at someone’s place that I didn’t know since freshman year, as I feel that I have more fun around people I know. In most situations, I find that guys from other races are more likely to talk to me than girls at parties. My hesitation to party with people of other races never is because I don’t like them- I’m normally more worried that I won’t fit in with them. When I’m at Indian parties and I see the odd few people of different races, I usually make an effort to talk to them, as I know that I would feel awkward in the same situation. Sun, 21 Apr 2013 23:07:19 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2013/04/18/voices-from-the-classroom-304/#IDComment624838065 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2013/03/28/voices-from-the-classroom-282/#IDComment608419819 I personally did not have strong feelings one way or another about Jasiri X’s message in class, although I understand why many people were offended. I think the difference is that I kept his background and his attitude in mind when I looked at how he chose to address the problem of race and class distribution. By the way, by this I don’t mean that I just put him into a stereotype of “black rappers.” But Jasiri X is in the music industry- a profession that you can only be successful in if you are passionate about a topic and willing to show it. I can’t really relate with his message, as I am a minority who simply has never felt the strings of racism or class warfare on me. I am sure that on some level, both issues have affected me, but I maintain the view that focusing on these issues are not the way to personal success. It is important to keep these issues in the back of my mind when I consider trends on a national scale, but I can choose my own personal path to success and I choose to see things like racism as just another hurdle to overcome that some people don’t have to face. I don’t resent white people for having this hurdle placed on me, as Jasiri X seems to, and I certainly would never embrace the radical methods he was suggesting, which seemed to imply violence. His name itself suggests that he is inspired by Malcolm X, who was a revolutionary with the view that violence is sometimes necessary to achieve a goal. Whether Malcolm X was right or wrong, his opinions stemmed from the time period he was in. The period we are in right now has no need for violence of any kind. Violence will further separate the races and is just not what we need right now. I also see Jasiri X as someone who has a lot of evidence-based bias. He believes in his cause and his revolution with the certainty of someone who has been exposed to these views over a long period of time. And once we start forming an opinion of something, we tend to look for data that confirms our viewpoint, which makes us more radical. This is one of the reasons people are so polarized in their political and social views. I don’t think Jasiri would seriously consider any message coming from the opposite viewpoint. He would probably find reasons to dismiss it and never consider the idea that there may be merit in the white people’s stories as well. By saying this, I don’t mean to attack him in any way. He is a radical, and there are downfalls associated with being one. The other downfall is that people in the middle of the spectrum, such as myself, tend to be turned off by such strong viewpoints, which is what I think happened in class. We agree that there is a problem concerning race issues, but we do not want to start a revolution, nor do we believe one is necessary. When people get too passionate like this in front of us, it appears like white-bashing and we are more likely to turn the other way. Sun, 31 Mar 2013 21:23:04 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2013/03/28/voices-from-the-classroom-282/#IDComment608419819 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2013/03/21/voices-from-the-classroom-274/#IDComment603375991 This question is interesting because it forces us to think about the concept of affirmative action from an unselfish perspective. People who are against affirmative action but would still take a handout based on nepotism must reconcile themselves with the fact that their actions directly contradict their beliefs. It’s not a stretch to say that many people are against affirmative action because they believe it is unfair to give preferential treatment to one group of people, not necessarily realizing that there is a huge history of reasons why these people might need aid in the first place. Given the same opportunity, many of us would be in favor of these policies if they benefitted us in some way. As a first generation American, I do not have the opportunity to receive jobs based on nepotism, as my parents simply don’t have the contacts. As a person of upper middle class Indian origin, I stand to lose from affirmative action policies. Therefore, I can confidently state that I am against both policies. However, if the situation were reversed and I found myself capable of benefitting from nepotism, I am almost 100% sure that I would take it. After all, it is all very well to oppose something for moral purposes, but at the end of the day, I am extremely ambitious- a job is a job, after all. I am hardly one to look a gift horse in the mouth. This forces me to look at the situation in a different light. My motivation for my beliefs against affirmative action and nepotism, as well as my willingness to engage in nepotism, stems purely from selfish origins, and I am reasonably sure that this is the case for the majority of others as well. Perhaps I am suffering from confirmation bias- I dislike the practice of affirmative action because it hurts me, and therefore I seek evidence that supports this point of view. I can point out a litany of reasons against affirmative action, but perhaps it is only because I am seeing what I want to see. I think we are all innately selfish to some extent, and true morality is decided when we can think about these types of concepts while disregarding our own relative gains or losses. I am glad that I at least have the self-awareness to see this failing in myself and start to think about this issue in a broader perspective. That said, I will undertake actions that directly benefit myself. If I can get a position based on nepotism, I will still take it, as I am driven by a need to further myself in any way possible. In any case, I don’t think there is any huge distinction between nepotism and networking. Keeping this in mind, however, we should be less quick to judge others for taking advantage of opportunities they might have to further themselves. In their position, we would all probably do the same. Sun, 24 Mar 2013 23:35:23 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2013/03/21/voices-from-the-classroom-274/#IDComment603375991 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2013/03/12/voices-from-the-classroom-269/#IDComment597864788 The question of menstruation being a taboo topic is certainly an interesting one. On one hand, it is definitely something that most people feel is a private matter and therefore it does not need to be discussed in public. On the other hand, it is a completely natural process that happens to all healthy females, so it’s really not as private of a concept as we think it to be. While the topic of menstruation is certainly awkward to talk about, I don’t think it’s quite as taboo as other topics such as incest. If a girl announces that she is menstruating, it is still understandable and we do not judge her for the simple act of bleeding (maybe people would judge her for talking about it, but that is a separate issue). However, if someone were to announce that they had incestuous relationships with family members, we would definitely judge them for their actions. This to me is an important distinction between what we feel is natural and what is not. So although we may feel awkward and uncomfortable talking about menstruation in public, we also do so with the understanding that it is a natural occurrence, whereas other topics are taboo because the act itself is something shameful. My extended family is very orthodox, so whenever I visit them I have to hide the fact that I have my period. The girls of the family are forced to sit aside in a different room, use different utensils and different bathrooms while they have their periods. Basically, the entire family will know if the girl has her period because she must remain isolated from them. I have never had to do this in my life, and I am completely unwilling to start, so I hide my period when I am around them. The whole practice makes me feel like I’m doing something shameful by being a girl and menstruating. I certainly understand why the topic is so taboo, when there used to be such a stigma about it. Thankfully, these days most women don’t have to subject themselves to this level of scrutiny over their periods, which may be another reason why it has become indoctrinated in our culture like a “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. As long as people around us don’t know we are menstruating, there won’t be a problem. So does this mean we aren’t free? If you look at menstruation in a historical context, I understand why we feel the need to hide it, so maybe we are not as free to make the choice about talking about it as we think we are. It has definitely become easier to admit to lately, however, and I don’t think there are any negative repercussions these days from talking about it. The awkwardness regarding the topic lingers, but I think that we’re moving towards a time when we will not feel quite as uncomfortable in talking about it. Sun, 17 Mar 2013 18:32:44 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2013/03/12/voices-from-the-classroom-269/#IDComment597864788 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2013/03/01/voices-from-the-classroom-262/#IDComment588980835 To start with, I’d like to address the wording of this question. Everyone does NOT have the same experience when they die- only 10% of people claim to have had any type of visions or feelings while they were temporarily dead. I think this is an important point that Sam failed to stress in class, which I personally think made this lecture the least credible of all our classes to date. That said, the lecture did not change a single thought process for me and in fact, slightly disgusted me, because of the sheer number of people who considered this to be some sort of life-changing news. I am a scientist- I have been trained to look at facts only and disregard anecdotal evidence. The fact is that a minority of people claims to have had these visions. I would be much more inclined to believe what the majority of people report- absolutely nothing. People in class seem to be suffering from extreme cases of confirmation bias. Everyone wants to find proof of heaven or some sort of post-mortem consciousness. I don’t mean to sound like some kind of radical atheist- the truth is, I was raised Hindu but I admit readily that I don’t know for sure what is out there. But I’m certainly not going to blindly follow what a small group of people claims to have seen. In fact, I find it curious that no one except people who attempt suicide ever report negative emotions. Clearly, not every one of these people would go to heaven. Why is it that no one ever reports seeing hell? It seems to me like these people are just trying to make their near death experiences sound more exciting and to paint themselves in a positive light. Even if we take a huge leap of faith and choose to accept these peoples’ words for it that they saw a white light or heard their deceased relatives, there are so many possible scientific explanations for this that it seems remarkably counterproductive to immediately claim some sort of supernatural influence without first examining the many alternatives. This could be a result of dreaming, or rapid influx at time of death of psychedelic chemicals such as DMT. Occam’s Razor suggests that the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one. There are a lot of phenomena that are easier to explain than the existence of heaven and hell dimensions. Truthfully, none of us know for sure what will happen when we die. People who have near death experiences come back- it is entirely possible that they did not fully pass on, and that is why they did not see another realm. I would love to know for a fact what actually happens when we die, but unfortunately, we all are doomed to forever remain unenlightened. Fri, 8 Mar 2013 04:09:45 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2013/03/01/voices-from-the-classroom-262/#IDComment588980835 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2013/02/21/voices-from-the-classroom-257/#IDComment578749813 In terms of religion, I would classify myself as very, very confused. First and foremost, I am a scientist. This view tends to make me reject ideas that have no basis in facts. I definitely believe that people like Jesus, Mohammed, and Krishna exist, but I am highly skeptical of the mythology lying behind each of them. Based on facts, therefore, I would reject the Abrahamic religions. However, I was raised a Hindu and it might be selective bias, but I have found a lot in science that validates the aspects of Hinduism I find myself agreeing with. I believe that the vast mythology of Hinduism is meant to serve as metaphors and parables, based perhaps on events that really happened. However, the fundamental idea of Hinduism is the belief in an all-pervading life force, Atman or Brahman, from which everything is derived. Who is to say that this atman that makes up all things isn’t in reality just another word for quarks or gluons? We cannot be 100% sure about anything at this point. If it were proved beyond a doubt that god did not exist, I would not change much in my lifestyle. I believe that it is more important to be a good person for the sake of it, rather than because you are forced into it out of fear of some higher deity. In fact, I’d be a little relieved, because then I would know for sure that the only person with a right to judge me for my actions would be myself. There would be no higher power to answer to for my sins and every one of my actions would be done because I believed it was the right thing to do, not because some ambiguous authority figure told me to. On the other hand, if it were proved that god did exist, I probably would change a lot. Despite me having never fully surrendered to any kind of god, I would suddenly have to radically change my world view. Also, I would have to give my life over to worship of that god in fear of escaping hell or punishment for not believing in him or her. My entire life would revolve around pleasing this deity and fulfilling his or her wishes. I actually wouldn’t want to do this. I fiercely value my independence and free will. I don’t want my actions dictated by the whim of my superiors, and I am sure I would resent the intrusion into my life if God were to suddenly become the forefront of it. And yet, because of this morally ambiguous line of thought, I’d probably just end up going to hell anyway. I don’t want my thoughts dictated. I don’t want God to exist. But just in case he or she does, I don’t want to mess up my chances now. It’s for the same reason that half the class changes their answers to the clicker questions Sam posts as soon as they realize they got it wrong. Mon, 25 Feb 2013 04:44:13 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2013/02/21/voices-from-the-classroom-257/#IDComment578749813 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2013/02/14/8532/#IDComment573683294 I thought the slavery discussion brought up some interesting points that we all tend to force ourselves not to think about. Of course, I know in the back of my mind that most of my belongings probably required some amount of slave labor. But because we are so far removed from the idea, we don’t think about it as much as we should. If we were still living in a place where we could see the effects of slavery firsthand, such as pre-Civil War America, I am sure we would be much more concerned about the issue. I personally know that at some point in my history, my ancestors probably were kept as slaves, or at the very least as indentured servants living well below the poverty level in India under either the Moguls or the British, or possibly both. I am not sure how I could ever justify it to them if I were to explain the degree of apathy my society and I have towards the fact that most of our economy is based on slave efforts in third world countries. That said, however, I am not sure what can be done about it. Yes, we see people picket and blacklist companies like Adidas, but as mentioned in class, this rarely has any effect. These companies may shut down one of their branches but they just open another branch in a new location. It is important to be aware of where our products are coming from, but just this knowledge is not sufficient to bring about any change. We need to work together on an international scale to have any kind of effect on this. The problem is that these large companies only seek a profit- the people making these major decisions are also far enough removed from the actual slavery issue that they don’t necessarily make the most humanitarian decisions. The main problem is the point Sam was making in class- that we tend to feel worse when something bad happens to one of our own people, rather than someone from another country. I don’t know why people feel this way, but the question always makes me feel uncomfortable and guilty, because I have always believed that all people are equal. I think loss of life is just as bad in another country as it is here, but the reason we feel worse is because we’re more exposed to the problems in our country. For example, we know that a number of faceless people in China are probably suffering through sweat shops and dealing with illness and poverty on unimaginable levels, but in the Sandy Hook shooting case, we were given much more intimate information about the victims and their lives. This means that we humanize them a lot more and feel more empathy for them. This is a problem that society creates, in part because of the media. I think unless we can change the way we see the rest of the world, we won’t be able to make any kind of impact on the way our products are manufactured today. Mon, 18 Feb 2013 02:09:34 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2013/02/14/8532/#IDComment573683294 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2013/02/07/voices-from-the-classroom-244/#IDComment568141849 First of all- my congratulations to the Iranian girl for speaking her mind! I was really glad that Arab students were given a chance to speak and let their voices be heard during lecture. I feel that we as a culture don’t give many opportunities to the Arab community to speak. Some of us act like we fear them, but that doesn’t seem to me to be the truth. I think we’re just looking for an excuse to oppress another group of people. Every culture has its radicals. Every religion does unspeakable evils in the name of protecting the name of their god. We as a country are just so ethnocentric that we truly believe that Islam as a whole is against us, just because a few radical people decided to attack us. What about all the hate crimes that go on in every possible corner of the world? Why is Islam suddenly the scapegoat for crimes that we, as the entire human race, are guilty of? That’s the problem with making America the target- we are so full of ourselves and our own superiority that we can’t see that we are just one more victim in a sea of timeless religious violence. No, everything is about us- threats to our national security are more important than all the other horrific things that happen in third-world countries every day. Lose that mentality, fellow Americans. We’re no better than the rest of the world. In fact, we might be worse, because we have the capability of retaliation. And boy, do we know how to use it. Of course, I’m generalizing here. Just like how every Muslim isn’t a terrorist, every American isn’t bursting with their own self-importance at being an American and looking at every attack against us as a personal affront. But guys, open your eyes! We’re all brothers and sisters in the world. It is so unutterably stupid for us to be targeting the masses for the actions of a few. Islam is the largest religion in the world. If they really wanted to f*** with us, we’d all be dead by now. Guys, it’s time to stop playing the victim card. We all need to get off our high horse and learn how to listen and talk to other people. It sickens me that there are people like the Iranian girl who don’t feel comfortable enough to disclose their nationality in this day and age. I found myself wishing that I were an Arab during class so that I could stand up and talk about all the feelings I have when I put myself in their shoes. Being of Indian origin, I couldn’t be prouder of my heritage. But I want to live in a world where I could be just as open about my love for my culture and values if I were an Iranian as well. Sun, 10 Feb 2013 21:34:16 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2013/02/07/voices-from-the-classroom-244/#IDComment568141849 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2013/01/18/voices-from-the-classroom-228/#IDComment555700624 The reason so many people think President Obama is a Muslim is simple- ignorance. These days, the media loves to spread misinformation or give misleading reports all for the sake of sensationalism. I can understand how some older, more gullible people might be convinced by their news channels that this is true, but I was surprised that so many people in the class also thought President Obama was a Muslim. It honestly scares me a little that these ignorant people are our future. These days, Muslims are the new scary species in this country. Many people look upon Muslim families with suspicion and even intolerance. The real issue behind people thinking Obama is a Muslim is asking ourselves why they would even care in the first place. Obviously, this is what we really need to be discussing as a race relations class. No one ever directly pointed to Obama’s race as a reason against him becoming president because it is politically incorrect to do so. However, they treat the Muslim issue as a deal breaker. How can we have reached a point in our history when being a Muslim is considered worse than being black? And why is it politically acceptable to discriminate against Muslims but not blacks? We were founded to be a secular country, with all the founders strongly believing in the necessity for separation of church and state. We seem to be getting worse rather than better at this as time goes on. I hate to point fingers, but the news network responsible for most of the speculation about Obama’s religion was Fox News- the news channel ranked as the least factually accurate and most prone to misinformation. I truly believe Fox News and general apathy are two of the biggest reasons for how ignorant people can be. This ignorance is very dangerous for our country- there is no one more obstinate than an obstinate fool. People who believe things like this and allow it to cloud their judgment regarding his capability hinder true progress. They hold back our country’s development towards a more accepting, nondiscriminatory society. I don’t know if or when racism and bigotry will truly be gone, but ignorance is the biggest obstacle that we face in removing prejudice from our society. It is widely known that a group of people is much easier to confuse than a single person, and with today’s technology and the ease at which information is spread is partially responsible for the huge amount of information, often contradictory, that we receive everyday. People who dislike Obama look for facts they can use against him to confirm their own opinion to themselves, so when they hear a rumor, however untrue, that Obama is a Muslim, they are eager to believe it blindly. Mon, 28 Jan 2013 00:25:27 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2013/01/18/voices-from-the-classroom-228/#IDComment555700624 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/11/29/voices-from-the-classroom-212/#IDComment545720433 When I was small, I didn’t exactly realize that race differences existed. I didn’t consider myself to be “brown” and therefore different from the norm, although I did have a very profound knowledge of the fact that I was Indian, even from an early age. Thus, although I am sure I am very much indoctrinated with the same racial stereotypes as anyone else, there is no real race that I would claim to actually hate. If I had to pick a group, I would say that I hate very religious people. I don’t hate them because of their beliefs. What I hate is their ignorance and prejudice. Some of them are incredibly smart and have the capability to make a real difference in the world, but their religion blinds them to facts. In this society, people can debate with each other and try and prove the other wrong about almost any topic- yet when it comes to religion, suddenly everyone tries to be politically correct and respect their rights to differing opinions. Why is the religion topic such a taboo? I am not atheist myself, but I feel that I can easily understand and relate to their points. There is not one religion that does not have some sort of conflict with science. The main case in point is evolution. No religion has ever been founded on evolutionary principles. And yet the fact remains that almost all of science comes together in the face of evolution. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind, nor in the mind of most other intellectuals, that evolution is fact. But to ask a radical Christian, they will completely ignore every bit of data we have ever collected and continue bleating, “The Bible says that God created man and woman, and that’s what I believe.” Or they will say “Evolution is just a theory,” like that is supposed to mean that it could be completely wrong. Gravity is a theory too, but you don’t see people jumping off buildings to prove it’s not real. People like these hold us back from real progress. The future of this country (and possibly every country) is in science and technology. Religion itself doesn’t necessarily hold us back from progress, but radical religious people do. They refuse basic rights to LGBT groups on the basis that it will destroy the “sanctity of marriage.” Pardon me if I personally believe that Newt Gingrich divorcing his second wife while she had cancer so he could marry his third wife or Kim Kardashian’s 45 day marriage destroyed the sanctity of marriage much more than two people who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together, who just happen to be of the same gender. Religious people, get over it. Science has proven you wrong and will continue to do so. These are people who blatantly ignore facts and choose to believe in their own deluded reality. These types of people are incredibly dangerous, because they are sheep. They follow the word of their perceived authority figure without thinking for themselves. I cannot abide people who refuse to use their brains, and for me, this is most clearly shown in very religious people. Wed, 16 Jan 2013 17:14:08 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/11/29/voices-from-the-classroom-212/#IDComment545720433 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/19/what-americans-fear/#IDComment145530917 This video is exactly the type of propaganda that makes Americans and westerners fear the Middle East. The negative connotation given to extremism stems mainly from current Islamic terrorism. About 60% of Americans think that Islam is inherently terroristic. But fundamentalists make up only a small fraction of Muslims. What of the followers who do not subscribe to the tenets of jihad and Islamic domination? We cannot expect all 1 billion of the world's Muslims to engage in various acts of terrorism, because Islam does not imply terrorism. In fact, “Islam,” roughly translated, means “peace.” The question is whether Islamic extremism always means terrorism. First, you must understand that Islam, like any other religion, has believers that range from moderate to orthodox. It does not lend itself to extremism any more or less than other religions. Islamic extremists, like those of any other social, political, or religious group, exist in the margins or peripheries of normalcy. These are highly religious Muslims who follow the word of the Koran specifically- they are only different in that they value their faith to a higher degree than moderate Muslims. Moderates have defined extremism negatively in an effort to avoid deviation. Society has always been about fitting in, so those who do not are glaringly obvious. Media sensationalism only adds to this, especially in light of recent terroristic actions by certain militant Islamic groups. If every Islamic extremist were to commit random acts of violence, we could associate extremism and terrorism. Instead, we see that not all extremists are terrorists. Therefore, we cannot presume the two to be synonymous. It is possible to be an extreme believer without resorting to violence to complete an agenda. Rather than denouncing all Muslims, we should make an effort to understand their culture and respect their values. We cannot forget that Christians were Crusaders too- every religion (with the possible exceptions of Hinduism and Buddhism) has undergone mass attempts at conversion followed by violence if unfruitful. We need to stop clinging to our illusion that we are the “good guys” fighting the evil jihad and give Islam the respect of considering it a religion, just like any other, at least on our side of the fence. It is up to the Middle East to extend the same courtesy to non-Muslims. Sun, 24 Apr 2011 02:16:18 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/19/what-americans-fear/#IDComment145530917 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/11/transgendered-complications/#IDComment143501121 This situation is a little ambiguous, and I see a lot of people jumping to defend Mr. Devoureau, but I don't think they've thought through every detail. It may be acceptable in some cases for a person to change his or her gender, for hormonal abnormalities and genetic mutations, but in this case, Mr. Devoureau was born physically female. He was, for all intents and purposes, a woman, and it should not be up to him to change this. From a sociological point of view, as long as we remain in our American society, we are placed in two gender roles, either male or female. Trying to switch this has a negative impact on every aspect of one's social life. Also, my sociological lens may be a bit rusty, but I find it hard to imagine living outside of the social boundaries I was placed in by being born as a woman. I don't see how someone could find it so hard adapting to the body they've had since birth that they would prefer the social stigma attached to being transgender over being their own gender. After all, there are plenty of women and men alike who don't fit every stereotype, and no one feels that they are not acting true their own gender. Society understands that stereotypes do not necessarily hold for everyone, and that there are exceptions to every rule. No one would seriously judge a man for not being manly enough or a woman for not being womanly enough. Even if the individual chose to become transgender due to homosexuality, I think being gay has a lot less stigma nowadays than being transgender. Biologically speaking, there is no good reason for a person to become transgender. Our role as animals is to produce offspring. Transgender people who have undergone surgery cannot do this. It is also difficult to tell who they might be attracted to, so it is impossible to tell how likely they will be at finding both a relationship and a way to produce offspring. If there is no biological necessity for transgender people, and no evolutionary benefit to being transgender, it seems to me that transgender people are an anomaly, and not natural. Sociologically speaking, they face a lot of stigma, and it will take a long time for this stigma to wear off, if it ever does. Sat, 16 Apr 2011 22:37:00 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/11/transgendered-complications/#IDComment143501121 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/24/religion-in-the-future/#IDComment141334044 I think that this article seems to rely on statistical data alone to make its point. As Barry Kosmin noted, religious fervor comes and goes. Who is to say that we aren't merely experiencing a blip in the record? There might be a sudden surge of rebirth in the year 2050 that we cannot predict. Also, I am sure no one predicted Buddha, Jesus, or Mohammed starting sects and stirring up religious forces. These surges occurred at a time when religion was in a decline. Who is to say that we will not have a new face claim to be our Messiah and create a new sect that ultimately might even become a new religion? As a deeply religious Hindu, I cannot help but think that religion is timeless and endless. As long as there are people on Earth and no clear answer to our origin, religion will continue to play an important role in society. I do agree that atheism might grow, as more and more people start believing in evolution and new scientific theories to satisfy their curiosity about the universe. Abrams, Wiener, and Yaple are being hasty in jumping to conclusions about the future of religion. What we are experiencing is a polarization. This does not mean that necessarily religion is dying. What it means is that people are moving from being moderately religious to either deeply religious or atheistic and agnostic. So yes, more people are beginning to identify with atheism. But this does not mean that the number of people who identify with a religion will dwindle and die out. Religious groups do not get “bored” by what their religion offers them. They may cease to believe in the values that are being taught to them and have different ideas on the origins of the universe and ethics. Also, I don't think the utility effect plays as large of a role as the article suggests. There are many ways to benefit from being a member of an organized religion. Churches are often willing to donate time, money, and effort to the more needy of their members. A Muslim neighborhood might connect and bond over their shared religion. I know I myself make friends with other Hindus easily, as I find common ground with them through religion. Sat, 9 Apr 2011 21:13:30 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/24/religion-in-the-future/#IDComment141334044 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/30/so-what-your-take-on-those-inequality-classes/#IDComment139443343 There is undeniably a large gap between the rich and poor. I'm glad that Sam at least agrees that this gap is necessary. Equality is an extremely idealistic term- sociologically speaking, there's no such thing. Neither should there be. Equality will take away competition, and therefore, quality in everything, from the job market to education. One of the points I see being repeated in comments is that those with power only use it for their own interests. So those without power aren't concerned about their own interests? Let's face it, everyone is self-absorbed. We all want to help ourselves and those we love. The rich simply have the assets to help themselves more than the poor. And to an extent, they deserve the benefits they get. If it were so easy to become a doctor, go through school for extra time, and start earning salaries like $600,000 a year, why doesn't everyone become a doctor? It's not that simple. If everyone can handle the stress, workload, and time commitment of a stock broker or hedge fund manager, then why aren't there more of them? These workers are paid because they provide a service to society that satisfies some need that can't be met easily. Even if I don't use the skills I learn in college for my profession, by going to college and studying hard, I show my determination. It also increases competition for these jobs and provides a higher level of quality in these individuals. Even if some of this comes from people in power using it to help themselves, anyone who says they wouldn't do the same is fooling themselves. We always will look out for our friends and allies, that's the way it's supposed to work. I would do everything to help my loved ones get ahead, whether I am in a position of power or not. Why do we still insist on pointing fingers at the rich? They're doing what any other person would do. I'm sure we can all live on an income much lower than what we receive. Why is it okay for us to keep the rest of the money, while it's not okay for the wealthier class? Sat, 2 Apr 2011 21:04:20 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/30/so-what-your-take-on-those-inequality-classes/#IDComment139443343 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/23/fear-2/#IDComment137271359 I find it incredibly difficult to believe that such abuse is possible, but I don't think he has any reason to lie. That said, this piece was extremely disturbing to read. It's so incredible that any parent can be so cruel towards their child. Why did they torment him, rather than his siblings? How can a mother tolerate her husband raping her son? This man is incredibly strong for having dealt with this all his life. Given his situation, there are clearly mitigating circumstances behind his crime. I can't say that I would not have been driven to murder should such abuse have fallen upon me. However, I am horrified and disgusted by the siblings. How could they support their parents in abusing their brother and deny the truth when he was finally driven to a breaking point? This clearly shows that we are too quick to judge people. Just like the teachers, anyone could have written the parents off as being normal, middle class citizens. We are afraid to look too closely at divergence in people, everyone looking to simply blend in, so we miss things that are happening right under our noses. Not only that, there are people who would not be interested in this man's story at all, but merely blindly state that he committed murder and is therefore guilty. Even the law gives room for mitigating circumstances- he can not be held fully responsible for his actions. Sociologically speaking, the strings that were binding him were extremely different from those that affect most people. Given his sociological situation, his chances of murdering his parents were a great deal higher than most. Of course, he could be a polished liar, or perhaps mentally unstable and firmly convinced in his story, but somehow, he does not come across as making this story up. It is refreshing to see that he is not self-righteous about his actions. He knows what he has done and why he did it, and still has good and bad days. It is terrible that he had to use any means to suppress memories of his trauma for so long, but good that he is becoming much more emotionally healthy now, while still in prison. Thu, 24 Mar 2011 16:09:22 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/23/fear-2/#IDComment137271359 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/09/the-r-word-and-the-oblivious-others/#IDComment135944388 I will admit it: before watching the video, I had no idea what the “r-word” was. When it finally dawned on me, my reaction was something along the lines of “That’s a bad word?” We use it so casually in conversation that it’s almost lost meaning to us. It is very refreshing to see the effort being made to eliminate its usage. I would never consider the word “retard” offensive before watching this video. We would never insult someone by calling them a cancer patient. Why do we think it’s acceptable to call them mentally retarded, which is really just another medical disorder? It’s saddening that political figures like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter seem to care so little for protecting other’s feelings. I respect Rahm Emmanuel for his public apology. We are all guilty of using the word indiscreetly, but how we choose to react after seeing its effect on others is what is important. The fact that some people defend their use of the word is disheartening and speaks to the desensitization we have grown accustomed to, where words used in casual conversation fling themselves at certain people as the deepest, most cutting insult. It is surprising that these political figures, who we are supposed to look to for leadership, moral rectitude, and encouragement, not only do not care about empathizing with those less fortunate than themselves, but are not even willing to make a farce of politeness by using politically correct terminology. “Retard,” is just another word. It’s connotation has several different synonyms that we can use to replace it. It’s not a big deal for us to change our usage of the word, to catch ourselves when we use it unconsciously. This little word makes a big difference for some people. Most people use the word without realizing the impact it makes on actual mentally disabled people. To be fully aware and continue using the word without regard to their feelings is morally reprehensible. The insensitivity shown by our political leaders reveals a fundamental issue inherent in society- a growing polarization of viewpoints, with no attempts at reconciliation. Sat, 19 Mar 2011 00:36:50 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/09/the-r-word-and-the-oblivious-others/#IDComment135944388 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/21/stranger-kidnapping/#IDComment133362028 We are taught from a very young age not to talk to strangers. To this day, I feel extremely uncomfortable if I am walking at night, especially if a man walks behind me. We stay away from strangers because of a fear of the unknown. Let's face it- we don't know if a person walking by us is really just a regular citizen or a would-be kidnapper or murderer. Where our children are concerned, we would rather err on the side of caution. Children can be very friendly and open with strangers, and unwittingly give away a lot of personal details while chatting with a newfound acquaintance. We seem to have a “guilty until proven innocent” mentality when it comes to strangers. In reality, the chances that we will bump into the one wrong person at the wrong time is very unlikely. Most people will be willing to help a lost child, so why should our child not take the chance of asking for help? The way I see it, if a child asks for help, they are interacting with ONE person. If they merely stand still and wait for their parents or the police, they risk a lot more, as several people might walk past and notice an unattended child. The chances of one of them being a kidnapper are a lot higher. These type of videos, however, make it seem like kidnapping is a lot more common that it really is. This is why there is a lot of paranoia about the subject. To be honest, I would be very protective of my child as well, because if there is even a small chance that my child could be kidnapped or lost, I would not want to risk it. But at the same time, I know that to an extent, I am being overprotective and such worry is not necessary. But for some reason, the human psyche is such that we always expect that the one person something incredibly unlikely will happen to is us. This is also why we buy lottery tickets. We always think that we are special, that we will be targeted. Although there is slight risk, in general, strangers are harmless and more often helpful. Tue, 8 Mar 2011 14:24:20 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/21/stranger-kidnapping/#IDComment133362028 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/17/how-much-government-do-we-need/#IDComment130763160 The answer is a resounding: no. The government should not mandate nutrition- there are some choices individuals must make on their own. It is each person's responsibility to take care of his or her own health, finances, etc. Neglecting to do so is no one's fault but your own.Why should my personal earnings go into paying tax that will be used for another's benefit? To an extent, tax and welfare are necessary. When it comes to matters such as health, which is a personal responsibility, the government can not hope to mandate our individual attitudes. If the government were to step in and mandate our eating habits, we would not be able to see the help it was providing. Rather, we would merely see government suppression of an enjoyable activity and grow rebellious and resentful at the lack of freedom we are being shown. What the government can do, however, is advocate healthier eating habits. This way, they are getting the message across to a widespread group of people, but at the same time not forcing anyone who does not want to change their eating habits. This method has proven effective for reducing smoking and tobacco use, and there is no reason why it should not work to decrease obesity and associated conditions. With regards to Michelle Obama's views on breastfeeding, this is her personal opinion that she is advocating. She is well within her right to support natural breastfeeding, and she has the benefit of research behind her. The government does not have a responsibility to help those who seek alternatives. If the government truly wishes to make a difference in people's lifestyle choices, then it can merely advocate in favor of its proposed changes. Too much government control of choices that we currently take for granted will cause unrest and resentment. Alternatives to breastfeeding are not widespread or taken for granted, and there is no reason for the government to provide funds or access to those who require these. Minimal government control is taken for granted in America, but we must remember that the reason for this is to emphasize personal responsibility. Sat, 26 Feb 2011 04:36:10 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/17/how-much-government-do-we-need/#IDComment130763160 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/13/whats-the-sociological-message-here/#IDComment128870099 The reason we find humor in this song is because the word's are such a contrast from our stereotypical notions of love. But in actuality, this is closer to the truth than our stereotypes. People often date many people and enter into multiple long-term relationships before settling down with one person. We think that when a relationship fails, it's our personal trouble, but in actuality, it is a public issue. The fact that the divorce rate is about 50% of all marriages tells us that there is a sociological reason behind so many failed relationships. People in relationships think that they have found their soulmate, and that their love was destined, but studies have shown that just about any two people, with the right amount of attraction and some common interests can develop feelings for each other. So really, love is a lot less about the individuals, and more about the sociological forces at work that cause two people to be attracted to each other. This is why we see recurring themes in relationships, such as women who are attracted to the same type of abusive man relationship after relationship. There are invisible strings that shape our mindset, making us more likely to choose a certain type of individual. I myself notice many eery similarities between my ex and my current boyfriend. The singer mentions many different factors that could have lead to he and his wife's getting together, but also factors that could have kept them apart. Basically, things going on in our life shape our mindset a certain way and also put us in certain positions such that we are more or less likely to be attracted to a specific person at certain times. Therefore, we can see that the issue of love, which many consider to be a private matter just between them is actually a public one, as who we are attracted to is affected by sociological factors. We all would like to think that our personal love life is special, and that “one perfect person” for us is out there, but the truth remains that we are just as affected by the invisible strings in the case of love as anything else. Fri, 18 Feb 2011 18:11:33 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/13/whats-the-sociological-message-here/#IDComment128870099 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/06/empathy-might-be-our-natural-drive/#IDComment127386006 This video addresses quite a large span of topics that all seem to lead back to the main point- that we are all empathically sociological beings. This makes a lot of sense, especially considering the studies of mirror neurons. Emotions such as violence, anger, etc. come from some sort of disturbance between one person and society at large. Therefore, it makes sense to assume that these negative emotions are not natural, as in one’s natural state, one is at harmony with society. If it were not for our innately empathetic natures, there would be no laws against murder, stealing, embezzlement, etc. as every man would be out for his own personal gain. It is because we recognize the need for all individuals to have equal rights that we have such laws. These laws are not recent; they outdate history. The oldest religions and societies in the world have rules against these sorts of actions. If we were all hardwired to think “every man for himself,” then there would be no need for rules protecting the people. It is because we are empathetic beings that we can think about others and our effect on them. It is the reason for generosity and kindness in this world. Our empathetic drive is what allows us to have relations with others, be it our family, friends, bosses, lovers, etc. Otherwise, we would not care about others or their emotions, and we would not be able to form bonds with our close ones. This need for empathy is what makes us human and social. Imagine if there was no empathy in the world. Individuals would isolate themselves, and through violence, we would slowly die out. Even in animals, this is not the case. We can see, in herds of whales and dolphins, empathy. The entire herd supports the pregnant mothers and helps them get to the surface to get air during childbirth. If the mother dies, the entire herd raises the child together, dividing the responsibility among them. When one wolf howls, the rest of the pack howls along with it. Observing such empathetic behavior, how can we assume that empathy is anything other than innate? Fri, 11 Feb 2011 19:11:48 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/06/empathy-might-be-our-natural-drive/#IDComment127386006