[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / booru ]

/edu/ - Education

Learn, learn, and learn!
Password (For file deletion.)

New Announcement: IRC<=>Matrix bridge #leftypol on Rizon
Please give feedback on proposals, new every Monday : /meta/
/edu/ want your help building a library! >>>/edu/7066
New /roulette/ topic: /draw/ - Original Art


Do you agree with her?


What is the point of introducing a poset if you're going to slap a total ordering on top of it anyway?

Nice of them to recognize the importance of material conditions, though.


I thought this was going to be absolute turboshite. I suggest anybody who wants to REEEE about it actually watches the whole three minutes.


File: 1620523660958.jpg (11.01 KB, 257x307, 1433367340020.jpg)

>unironic oppression olympics arguments
No no no no no.
This is retarded and using it to explain why class (here: wealth) is more important than identity just makes your conclusion look weak because of a shitty argument.
This entire framework of thinking about these problems is bad and trying to make it less bad by introducing wrinkles is dodging the problem that the model is fundamentally flawed. It's like sticking your finger in the dam to plug the leaks. Just because they're using math doesn't mean it's better. It's the same kind of cope as saying "patriarchy hurts men too." The privilege narrative is itself fundamentally flawed and needs to be dealt with at its core, not with minor revisions like this.

Also note that individual conditions vary a lot and generalizations like this that don't take distribution into account are a major oversimplification. Trying to add nuance to an oversimplified model is stupid when you could start from the same raw data and make a new model that doesn't oversimplify as much to begin with.


this is why positivists need their books burned.


kind of a lot of words to state that class is the most important axis


But somehow, Asians and Jews are more privilegied than non Jewish whites. Richs of all kind are a lot more privilegied than normal people and women kill themselves a lot less than privilegied males.

This is just a layer of complexity added on top of lies to make you forget that they never proved the initial claim: being white or male is a privilege.


Asians are overperforming but that doesnt say much about their status in racial hierarchy actually because theyre largely immigrants (especially Indians) - theyre selected for by demanding legal immigration filters (education level etc.). They can still be racially discriminated against and overcome it on average because of this.

You will NEVER EVER hear about jewish privilege from academia though. Despite it being the same exact thing as white privilege but one level higher.


>>6468 (me)
In addition:
>women kill themselves a lot less than privilegied males.
Its necessary to note that men have several times higher rates of almost all mental illnesses compared to women. From autism to schizophrenia and personality disorders. Greater male variability hypothesis?


File: 1626495787193-1.png (110.5 KB, 360x249, 1618912348929-1.png)

Jews benefit from white supremacy.gay_naziGay Nazi


Damn dude people actually go severely into debt just for this shit lol



Maybe genetic factors for mental illness are carried on the Y-Chromosome


I thought a much higher % of women had diagnosed psychologial conditions or disorders and were on meds at a much higher rate, although being ill and being diagnosed as ill are different things of course.


It would be more likely that genetic factors for mental wellness are missing. Remember the Y chromosome is much smaller than the X and is simply missing many of the genes. Where someone with XX has 2 copes of each gene, someone with XY only has 1 copy of many or even most genes from that chromosome pair. This is also why you can't be YY, the X codes for things that you need to live and the Y doesn't have.

Take for example a mental disorder that appears with recessive genes. Generally if you have something that expresses recessively you need to have 2 copies of the recessive gene, one on each chromosome, for that trait to express. If you also have the dominant trait that means you are only a carrier. If the gene for this is on the part of the X chromosome that the Y doesn't have, that means that you have a higher chance of not getting the recessive gene if you are XX, because you might get the dominant gene from either parent that cancels the effect. If you're XY, that means you only get one copy of the gene. Your chances of getting the recessive depends on what your parents have, but if your mother is a recessive carrier and your father is not, an XX has no chance of expressing the recessive trait but an XY has it 50/50.

But you also get into weird things where if you're XY you can't inherit the recessive trait from your father because the Y doesn't carry it - you get your X from your mother. So It can pass from mother to child regardless of their chromosomes or from father to XX daughter. It can even skip a generation where Grandpa Andy passes the recessive X to his daughter Belle who then passes it to Andy's grandson Cody, who got the Y chromosome from son in law Dave which triggers expression of the trait which wouldn't have happened if Cody had got Dave's X chromosome instead. Dave doesn't have to have any family history of the recessive disorder for his Y chromosome to cause it to surface in Cody.

Because the Y chromosome is missing a lot of genes it works like a wild card causing whatever is on the X chromosome in that missing part to manifest.

But you should note that recessive genes =/= disorder. Recessive genes can be anything, including basic things like pigmentation. Disorders often are carried recessively though because dominantly expressed traits are passed down in a very obvious way, and when people see a disorder or disability being passed down they tend to avoid doing that, which causes dominant-expressed disorders to become less common. Recessive disorders are harder to keep track of because they can hide for several generations.


good post anon, where did you learn this shit?


Mental disorders aren't even real.


high school biology


Mental disorders are real but only in relation to society. It only truly becomes a disorder once it negatively impacts your functioning in daily life. If big pharma and corpos didn't dominate medicine, you'd see more of a focus on treating the disorder as a symptom of coping with social life rather than a problem inherent to the patient. Most psychologists and psychiatrists otherwise accept a nuanced biopsychosocial model of mental behaviour.
There will still be mental disorders under socialism, but different kinds and frequencies. Hopefully they will be treated differently as well.




Leftwing moment.
Tell us more how hearing voices telling you to murder someone isnt a real illness.


>TFW your massive effortpost got deleted by Melons autism on bunkerchan months ago

Unique IPs: 1

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / booru ]