Bonam

Science is not the strong suit of most MLW posters, to put things mildly.

Oh the irony.

This is a surprise to someone? It's a natural human reaction, completely expected. Tell anyone they are "privileged" and they will react by explaining how they are not in fact privileged. Of course, that simple reality has nothing to do with whether there is actually such a thing as white privilege.

The fact that "PC run amok on campuses" is not necessarily valid as a nationwide narrative doesn't mean that one cannot point out and criticize those particular instances where we do see "PC run amok".

Ok so I read through this. Here are my thoughts. 1) Approximately the first half of the article is devoted to explaining that there are in fact relatively few examples of universities acting in the "PC" way that articles like "coddling" rail against, rather than a broad "rising tide". That is probably true, currently. Nonetheless, there are some examples... and what is relevant from my perspective as we debate the issue isn't whether it's already spread widely to most universities, but whether it's something that we should support or oppose. And the first part of the article does not address that point. 2) The next few paragraphs deal with trigger warnings and sexual assault on campus. Personally, I find nothing wrong with the idea that if a class is going to discuss something which may bring up associations with sexual assault that they warn students first in case they have been recently traumatized. That's no different than a teacher in a biology class providing a brief warning if they are about to show some gross photos. That's certainly fine but is not a defense of the idea of microaggressions and protecting people from offense. 3) The next few paragraphs make some unsubstantiated references to "overwhelming whiteness", people having a problem with the mere fact that other races "exist", and "privilege". This is all largely nonsense and not worth addressing. 4) Next, he says that many people are for the first time having agency over their lives including what "they let in". That's all fine and good, let in only what you like, but that doesn't mean you have to be shielded from any speech that might offend you. If you hear statements that you find offensive, exercise your agency and "don't let it in" rather than complaining that such statements should never be made. 5) Next, he tries to link the idea that PC culture is resurging to the trashing of millenials. He does not provide anything to substantiate this linkage though and I don't think articles like "Coddling" which he is attempting to refute make that linkage either. In short, I don't think he's done anything to defend the idea that things like "education about microaggressions" should be done on university campuses. Rather, he has only stated that it's not happening in many places yet and that therefore those who warn against it have no reason (yet) to panic. And then he talks about a bunch of stuff that's kind of off topic and/or unsubstantiated.

1) Farms can operate at a reduced level of productivity even with many of these external inputs limited. The goal is to produce enough to eliminate the risk of mass starvation, not necessarily to produce at normal levels. 2) Notice I used the term "overseas". Trade with close overland neighbors that are almost certain to remain friendly under foreseeable circumstances is secure enough, one could argue. 3) And those countries will be royally screwed if international trade is ever significantly impeded by the outbreak of a major war or severe planet-wide natural disaster. 4) International trade can still prosper even if the countries that are able to do so maintain a protected domestic food production capacity that is sufficient to keep the population from starving to death. For one, they can still all specialize in different types of crops that are best suited to their climates.

When it comes to food, I think it should always be mandated that at least some of it be produced domestically rather than overseas. Food is the #1 strategic commodity. A country that doesn't grow enough food domestically is extremely vulnerable to any possible disruption in international peace, trade, and distribution networks, and it's people are exposed to the risk of starvation as a result of decisions made by people in other countries rather than their own.

I don't think I agree. If someone is repeatedly making improper posts, then deleting the posts is not sufficient.

It's not a matter of physically or financially taking care of their parents. In the modern society, that function has been taken over by other institutions. However, it can be a significant source of emotional well-being. As people age, their own parents die, more and more of the people they grew up with die, etc, until the world starts to look devoid of people with whom you have significant relationships... except your children, grandchildren, etc. A retired individual who no longer works, whose spouse has died, whose lifelong friends have died, and who no longer has the physical ability to go out into the world and forge new ties has very little to live for except their descendants. One of my friends works with seniors, and she says that those of them that had no children almost universally regret it.

Humankind has driven other species to extinction since there were only a few million of us. But at this point species extinction is on the radar and is almost universally regarded as something to be avoided. Humankind is the only species which now takes deliberate steps to try to prevent the extinction of other species. And, if we survive for the long term, then it is likely that many species that exist today will be preserved along with us due to our efforts, species that would otherwise have gone extinct by natural causes otherwise. We'll get there, as well as other planets. Probably even other planets with indigenous lifeforms of some sort, some of which we'll possibly cause the extinction of too.

More people live better today than at any other time in history, by just about any metric.

Do you say these things just to try to be outrageous or because you actually look forward to the deaths of millions-billions of people? Man this forum is nuts these days.

Err... what? Is your implication that having children is the same thing as being a serial killer?

Yes and people get by on $30k without additional tax breaks, too. I think everyone here is too focused on some kind of absurd pissing match about how frugal they think they are. People can get by on less than a dollar a day in some parts of the world, for that matter, so should we simply say "move there" to any Canadian who might not mind a tax break, as Squid suggests? The point is that whether one is talking about $30k or $90k, neither of those comes anywhere close to falling into the category of rich/wealthy in Canada, and therefore some kind of holier-than-thou scoffing about why such people should get a tax break is just nonsensical.

Evidence?

No, I prefer people to have individual freedom.

Let me rephrase. Someone in Vancouver making $95k needs a tax break just as much as someone living in rural areas making $30k.

$95k in a place like Vancouver is so so far from wealthy.

If your #1 priority is reducing population, sure. War is very good for that too. As is disease and starvation. But while all those may sound like a good time to you, I would disagree.

No kidding. Raising kids is more work than pretty much anything else one could do.

It would help if the term "social justice" wasn't an oxymoron to begin with...

China's fertility rates won't increase much, it's already in the natural declining fertility phase of development anyway. Anyway, it will be a big benefit because it will likely mean a reduction in sex-selection in couples who do choose to have children. There is a huge lack of women in China right now because since 1980 parents have been aborting female embryos/fetuses since sons have been considered more valuable than daughters. The lack of women means a lot of males who end up unattached and with no hope of ever finding a wife or even a meaningful relationship, and that means social unrest. Getting rid of this policy means this unrest might only last one generation as opposed to even longer. And unrest in China is a bad thing, both because it is one of the world's largest economies and because it could mean confrontation with its neighbors or other countries. As for the whole overpopulation argument... world population is naturally reaching a plateau anyway and anyone who supports a policy in another nation of forcefully preventing people from having children while continuing to enjoy that freedom themselves is a hypocrite and a cruel and terrible person.

Yes, and should you or anyone you know ever suffer from a disease that can only be treated by one of these drugs, you'll be damn thankful that that drug exists. Without an incentive to spend billions of dollars on drug development, no one would do it, and medicine would not progress.

The point is that individual variations far outweigh race-to-race variations when it comes to any metric. You can say that certain race groups face certain disadvantages, and I would not disagree with that statement. But you can't look at an individual and say that they are "privileged" simply because of their race. Come on man, this is basic stuff. Statistical statements apply to large groups but tell you nothing about an individual.

Should be pretty obvious if you think about it for a moment rather than just dismissing it out of hand. There are members of every race group born to billionaire parents and given every advantage possible in life, the richest and safest neighborhoods, vast networks of connections to provide career opportunities, money to buy whatever they want. Similarly, there are members of every race that are born to impoverished drug addicts who quickly become orphans and grow up without education and experience physical and sexual abuse throughout their childhood. The differences in opportunities between those individuals is far greater than the difference in opportunities between an average white person in Canada and an average black person in Canada, for example. If you're not prepared to take this as self-evident, I'm not sure there's much point to continue this line of discussion. And if you really want stats, it's pretty easy. Consider one aspect of the issue like for example average income by race: About a factor of 2 difference between the most succesful and least succesful groups in terms of income. On the other hand, what is the difference between the most succesful and least succesful members of each of those groups? Each group has people that earn $0, and each group has people that earn millions. You can show the same for education, life expectancy, or whatever other metric you might choose.