Dr. Jill Biden

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by SteveFoerster, Dec 13, 2020.

  1. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    You carefully lay out the danger of going from the general to the specific person yet feel completely justified in asserting that you know what Elizabeth's opinion of Epstein's article would be?

    I see significant difference between the media being concerned about misleading the public in general terms in their articles and saying that someone with an Ed.D. using the title Dr. in their private life. Or a well known individual such as a First Lady using the title when it should be abundantly clear to everyone that she is not a medical doctor. So the change of anyone being "mislead" would be minimal.
  2. Acolyte

    Acolyte Active Member

    To me, this is all emblematic of two persistent trends in American society. One is a aggressive strain of anti-intellectualism that seeks to legitimize ignorance, misinformation, lies, factual distortions, superstitions, and all manner of unsubstantiated assumptions to give them the same credibility as fact, expertise, and informed or rational discourse. The other is a desire to informalize everything down to a sort of false egalitarian ideal, perhaps with the intention of removing the inherent power dynamic that manifests when a title is involved, sort of trying to short-circuit a "legitimized appeal to authority" logical fallacy or something. I think that both of these endeavors are unfortunate. I think it is unfortunate that news organizations won't use the title of "Doctor" because people aren't smart enough to understand the context in which it is being used. Instead of elevating the conversation, we are so often being asked to "dumb it down" - and to what end? To invite the ignorant, misinformed, liars into the conversation under the pretense that their nonsense has some kind of intrinsic value? There is a degree to which skepticism is productive, and a degree to which it is counter-productive, or even destructive. I think we're there.
  3. Maxwell_Smart

    Maxwell_Smart Active Member

    I'm not asserting anything about her "opinion". I stated that "even if she didn't agree" ("if" being the operative word, meaning that she may or may not agree) it's a separate matter from the expectation to follow the protocols in place for her profession. Those protocols are simply a matter of fact that she herself spoke to in that reference.

    But we're not discussing private lives or those of private citizens. Jill Biden is a public figure and has been for quite some time now. Her credentials aren't a private matter for a number of obvious reasons that long predate this article.

    If it wasn't clear before, I didn't post the media information to say it was Epstein's motivation for the article, it obviously wasn't. I posted it to point out that even though Epstein's way of going about it was wrong—the whole article was unnecessary junk—there is still protocol within his industry to not use the title under certain conditions. It was a point of interest so to speak, not an agreement with his disrespectful tone or the need for his article existing at all.
  4. Lerner

    Lerner Well-Known Member

    Sadly media is political arm of their sponsors. Mostly shooting at their targets and trying to inflict max damage to make money.
    They need crisis to make money to increase ratings. They compete who will inflict more damage to the other side.
    SpoonyNix and Maxwell_Smart like this.
  5. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    Men and women, as a whole, make different choices responding to incentives. A situation where the system of incentives leads a certain group to consistently worse outcomes, in terms of wealth and power, is by definition systemic bias. In this case, systemic misogyny.
    I mean, c'mon. In my own industry, women were the majority of people who CHOSE to become "computer programmers" back when it was a relatively low pay, low status support role serving (male) gods in the flesh - scientist and engineers. The role suddenly became almost exclusively male, coincidently, at the same time as increased demand brought money and status. Similar things happen to professions such as "nurse", "teacher", "accountant". It's almost as if women WANT to choose whatever pays less and is less respected, right, Maniac?
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2020
  6. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    Dr. Jensen makes excellent points. Points opposite to yours.
  7. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

    Under normal circumstances, such a sweeping self-sealing claim is dismissed as a baseless conspiracy theory. Just curious what your evidence is that nullifies every last point that I made that you didn't even bother to address.
    Well, wow. I guess never thought of it that way. Thanks for setting me straight.

    Since you have it all figured out, maybe you can explain which part of the conspiracy has made it so that men are more likely to be homeless, incarcerated, impoverished, to commit suicide, to be the victims of violent crime, to have a lower life expectancy, to have their parental rights stripped away from them, to have a harder time getting into college, to having a lower high school and college graduation rate, to take the most brutal and most dangerous jobs and to be conscripted into military service and sent off to war to die or return maimed and psychologically broken.

    False flag operation, I suppose?

    Sure, Stanislav. It's whatever makes me come off as ignorant, bigoted and unreasonable as possible. That's exactly what I mean. It couldn't possibly be anything other than that.

    Now that you've called me out on it, I'll just walk away in shame, with my head down and all of the statistics I referenced and all of my attempts at soundly presenting coherent arguments between my legs.

    What's the point of any of that in the face of such air-tight reasoning as "I mean c'mon"?
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2020
    SpoonyNix likes this.
  8. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    When one group consistently comes up behind, there are just three possible explanations, basically. "It's their CHOICES": basically "just world hypothesis". This kind of thinking leads to rather horrible conclusions, I'm afraid; besides, it's plain wrong. "It's someone's sinister plan": that's a conspiracy theory. Most of the times there's no evidence for this kind of stuff (although if there IS a conspiracy, good money is on the Kremlin being involved ;)). Or, bear with me: "there's SOMETHING wrong in the world": a system of oppression, for the lack of a less-triggering term. How would YOU describe a situation that favors one group over another in statistically-significant ways?

    I only have the vaguest ideas on these topics (one fleeting observation: women are overwhelmingly victims of domestic violence and sexual violence, two kinds of crime that are notoriously underreported AND where they are not simultaneously most of the perps. Also, jobs like a domestic health aide are simultaneously brutal, low-paying, AND female). What I'm quite sure is that one can't dismiss these societal ills with "oh, that's because of the choices they are making". What makes you think one can apply that to the gender pay gap?
  9. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

    If I could magically make myself the world's best critical thinker, I know exactly what I would do. I would consider all possibilities and follow where the data lead me without assuming things that can not be proven, nor cherry picking data to confirm assumptions based on my own experience, nor getting carried away with the most extreme and unreasonable interpretations. In the process of doing so, I wouldn't push aside the ever-important values of the presumption of innocence, the justice of personal accountability and the right to individual liberty.

    Since I can't make myself the world's best critical thinker, I'll just go ahead and try my best to do all all those things.

    It's a theory that much better fits the data than the assumption that it must be due to discrimination.

    As I explained above, the biggest sources of the pay gap come down to career choices and the experience gap. Regarding the latter- the experience gap is closing, and lo-and-behold, so is the pay gap. Regarding the former- we can just as easily theorize that certain fields are increasing in pay because there are more men coming in as we can that there are more men coming in because they are increasing in pay.

    There are other possibilities, of course. You alluded to one of them. Maybe the reason why men and women are making different choices is not due to innate differences between them, but due to socially constructed differences between them. I accept that that is a strong possibility, even though I certainly don't accept it as a sweeping catch-all answer. If that's the case, then pointing fingers and wantonly accusing others of being misogynist is STILL the wrong way to make progress because it would fail to address the issue and would turn friends of the cause into enemies of the cause.
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2021
    SteveFoerster and SpoonyNix like this.
  10. Maxwell_Smart

    Maxwell_Smart Active Member

    (((Shrugs))) Dr. Mengele did that, too. He was still wrong overall, and nuts.
  11. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    You really should read articles you attempt to quote, that's all. Again, the link YOU gave argues rather forcefully against your position.
  12. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    It is a coincidence, then, that this theory is so similar to "just world hypothesis", a known fallacy.

    (1) Well, duh. Experience gap is certainly PART of it. Your cause-and-effect comes down to "people with more seniority tend to make more". Which is trivially true, and I don't think you seriously believe it is the full picture. It's good women have more career opportunities, now; it's weird to assume ALL underlying problems have been resolved.
    (2) Try to explain why would it matter.

    Socially constructed differences, and socially constructed different TREATMENT (mostly subconscious). Both affect choices, because why would they not; both are well-documented and evident, in plain sight. There is no reason to ignore these.

    Why was the article in question even published? It's not just that this guy decided to write it; it was WSJ's decision to give him space. Yes, the surface reason is attacking Biden for his politics. But they chose this way because putting down professional women is a familiar, and EFFECTIVE, trope. Another common trope is the rush to defend the attacker, whether it is because "he didn't mean it like that", "let's not overreact", "he's a family breadwinner", or the modern thing, "freedom of expression and personal liberty" (a weird argument to attack other people's SPEECH, tbh). How many First Ladies asserted their own professional identity? Dr. Jill is something of a trailblazer. Using her to get to Joe is a deliberate action of a right-wing media outlet, and it is inherently misogynist. I don't think defending the non-existing career of a retired lecturer (it's not a coincidence that WSJ picked someone with so little to lose) is a good reason to not pointing this out.
  13. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

    This post is 95% strawman arguments, and we've now returned to the familiar point in our conversation where I'm bored with trying to level with you.

    I just don't have enough motivation to, once again, try to sneak a few words into the conversation that you keep on having between yourself and the imaginary caricature of me that you're pretending to debate.
    SpoonyNix likes this.
  14. Maxwell_Smart

    Maxwell_Smart Active Member

    That's hilarious because saying that is proof that either YOU didn't read the article, or you simply don't understand it:

    1. The exact quote of Elizabeth Jensen I posted has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with the misogyny charge, it's a matter of industry protocol and literally nothing else. You do realize that two separate matters can co-exist in the same space and still be topically relevant, right? Well, if not, re-read the quote within the article, then read the rest of the article.

    2. The article is not written by Elizabeth Jensen, it's written by Beth Linas so you're clearly very confused. Hell, you confused me by saying that because since she didn't write the article I thought you were talking about Robert Jensen, a proponent of radical feminism.

    3. Despite LINAS mentioning women having some issues in professional settings, the article LINAS WROTE is not at all a commentary on—nor a defense for—women with Doctorates facing widespread discrimination over the use of the title when not an MD so don't even try to make the article out to be something other than what it is just to support whatever position you're trying to take.

    Epstein is criticizing someone for using the title who is not a Medical Doctor who just happens to be female and that's what we're discussing. And here is the key point: even if 95% of the article were about women with Doctorates who are not MDs facing discrimination when using the title of "Dr" (it isn't), it still would not negate the separate point of industry protocol. Again, two separate matters can co-exist in the same space and still be topically relevant. What part of that are you not understanding?

    One minute you're trying to paint someone as a misogynist without real proof, next minute you're making a feeble attempt to attach an opposing view to wild conspiracy theories and political ideologies, and now you're claiming people aren't reading when it's simply a matter of YOU not understanding what YOU'RE reading. You're really strawmanning and reaching for something, what that is I don't know. But more concerning is that YOU don't appear to know either, yet you keep doing it.
  15. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    OK, let's focus on this point. Epstein's article was NOT at all linked to the news industry protocols in general nor the AP style guidelines in particular. Not a single person pushing back against WSJ is demanding that news outlets subscribing to the AP style make an exception for Dr. Jill. Yet, your article argues that even that, not explicitly misogynist, protocol is damaging for women in particular. How much more damaging is Epstein's rant, which is incredibly condescending in the exact same way women so often get condescended to?

    It is very much NOT a conspiracy theory that women have it harder, particularly in the workplace. It is NOT about title protocol, or the same actors would have a problem with say Doctor Sebastian Gorka (for the record: that guy is a borderline Nazi, his dissertation is sh1t, his degree is from a low-ranked semi-mill that broke their own protocol awarding it: yet he is still entitled to use the Dr. title based on it. Left commenters stating otherwise are wrong). It's about attacking Joe through Jill, because she's a softer target PRECISELY because she's a woman.
  16. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    I've the suspicion that my points do not get to you either. We may well stop this discussion at this point. It's not like we're likely to solve the world problems here, anyway.

Share This Page