No women allowed In this guys BJJ class

[Dirty Dog]

Well tbh if what was said about a false claim of sexual assault is true then I feel it’s absolutely justified. If it wasn’t true then the guys name was dragged through the mud because of a liar and I can absolutely understand him not wanting to teach women because of this

Really? Because it's ok to blame all [insert label here] for the actions of one member of that group?

That's the very definition of bigotry.

 

[Headhunter]

Really? Because it's ok to blame all [insert label here] for the actions of one member of that group?

That's the very definition of bigotry.

It’s not blaming them but if he’s not comftorable teaching women because of that false accusation which would shake anyone up then why should he feel forced to. There are gyms that teach women’s only classes...is that the definition of bigotry to?

 

[jobo]

It’s not blaming them but if he’s not comftorable teaching women because of that false accusation which would shake anyone up then why should he feel forced to. There are gyms that teach women’s only classes...is that the definition of bigotry to?

well yes of course it is, unless you can make a case that the women in question only feel comfortable in the company of other women, then its OK

as by its nature your training women to defend themselves from attack by men, its perfectly fine to exclude all men who are potential attackers of women, and this isnt at all holding all men responsible for the actions of a few

I thought that was obvious ?

 

[Steve]

The problem is these bandaid fixes become the solution, and then we tread further down.

Think about it like this. A group of folks are standing around 10 people who are all dying of thirst. One guy in the group says, "They should have rationed their water better. This is really their fault to begin with. We happen to have plenty of water, and we shouldn't be made to share." Everyone who lives around the lake with this guy agrees with him.

Another guy says, "We need to figure out why these folks don't have water! Water is a basic human right. We have to fix this! Why don't these poor guys have water?" Some of the folks in the group, who are compassionate, agree with him.

And then they all start arguing their positions. Except for the folks who are dying of thirst. No one even listens to them, when they say, "HEY! Can we just, you know.... get some water?" Not only is their immediate need not being met. They aren't even involved in the discussion.

My point is, the very fact that you are willing to forego immediate relief is an example of unconscious bias. These demands aren't philosophical to the folks who are making them. They are concrete, grounded in actual pain and actual suffering, with tangible consequences. Personally, I think we need to listen to the folks who are feeling the most pain. Prioritize those requests, and give folks a voice in the discussion.

 

[jobo]

Think about it like this. A group of folks are standing around 10 people who are all dying of thirst. One guy in the group says, "They should have rationed their water better. This is really their fault to begin with. We happen to have plenty of water, and we shouldn't be made to share." Everyone who lives around the lake with this guy agrees with him.

Another guy says, "We need to figure out why these folks don't have water! Water is a basic human right. We have to fix this! Why don't these poor guys have water?" Some of the folks in the group, who are compassionate, agree with him.

And then they all start arguing their positions. Except for the folks who are dying of thirst. No one even listens to them, when they say, "HEY! Can we just, you know.... get some water?" Not only is their immediate need not being met. They aren't even involved in the discussion.

My point is, the very fact that you are willing to forego immediate relief is an example of unconscious bias. These demands aren't philosophical to the folks who are making them. They are concrete, grounded in actual pain and actual suffering, with tangible consequences. Personally, I think we need to listen to the folks who are feeling the most pain. Prioritize those requests, and give folks a voice in the discussion.

you make a good philosophical point
BUT

how do you decided who is feeling the most ''pain''
its easy if its water, who has the greater thirst...? oh **** everyone put their hand up

so now your going to decided who should get the water,,, how do we then account for your bias

lets be clear about the problem, in a capitalised society, there is and always must be a pyramid of of wealth...

there has to be a bottom layer of the not have very much. the whole system is based on it., if a country doesn't have enough poor people to go round, they open the door to immigration so they can get back to cheap labour

if you decided to redistribute water or wealth, dependent on need, then some one else takes up the bottom layer and now there need is greatest,, so you now take wealth or water off the last group and give it to the fresh group.. repeat

the answer of course is to take significant wealth off the middle class and rich and and pay everybody a good wage and decent social security, ( thats your equivalent of running water pipe to everybody) thats seldom a popular election promise

they tried that in this country and all the rich people left to live somewhere else, like america because it was intrinsically a less fair society, but was therefore fairer to them ( that would be they moved the lake so they didnt have to share)and we nearly went bankrupt so then everybody got less

 

[skribs]

But you still need the bandaid until you get to the solution. If someone is hurt, and after bandagint them the emts just leave them alone, the issue isn't bandaging them, it's stopping at that.

The whole idea behind Jim Crow is that whites and blacks should be "separate, but equal." That we were incompatible with each other, and that we should not interact with each other. That it was in both species (the white man and black man) best interests that we stay apart.

I refuse to accept an environment where that becomes acceptable again. The idea that we have to separate whites and blacks for our own safety was the main driving force behind Jim Crow. Its what made lynchings feel justified. If a white girl and a black guy had sex, it must be because that primitive man raped her, and not because she liked him.

This idea that there should be people of one race who only serve their race is the idea at the core of everything that civil rights leaders fought against decades ago. Suggesting segregated doctors, even as a bandaid measure, is opening the door for us to undo all that Rosa Parks and Dr. King fought for.

 

[Steve]

you make a good philosophical point
BUT

how do you decided who is feeling the most ''pain''
its easy if its water, who has the greater thirst...? oh **** everyone put their hand up

so now your going to decided who should get the water,,, how do we then account for your bias

lets be clear about the problem, in a capitalised society, there is and always must be a pyramid of of wealth...

there has to be a bottom layer of the not have very much. the whole system is based on it., if a country doesn't have enough poor people to go round, they open the door to immigration so they can get back to cheap labour

if you decided to redistribute water or wealth, dependent on need, then some one else takes up the bottom layer and now there need is greatest,, so you now take wealth or water off the last group and give it to the fresh group.. repeat

the answer of course is to take significant wealth off the middle class and rich and and pay everybody a good wage and decent social security, ( thats your equivalent of running water pipe to everybody) thats seldom a popular election promise

they tried that in this country and all the rich people left to live somewhere else, like america because it was intrinsically a less fair society, but was therefore fairer to them ( that would be they moved the lake so they didnt have to share)and we nearly went bankrupt so then everybody got less

The person feeling the pain is the one who determines who is feeling pain. Who gets to decide? That's the entire point. The people who are most affected often have the smallest seat at the table. For example, in the issue of policing, the black communities would very much like some community influence over the police, but the police control the narrative. In the case of sexual harassment, #metoo was all about women controlling the narrative vs men.

Regarding the bottom layer, you're exactly right, though we (the collective "we") have a choice about what constitutes the minimum standard of living for the bottom layer. For example, in the USA, we have different opinions on this. A libertarian would probably argue that there is no minimum. Folks either make it or they don't, and if anyone wants to share, that's completely up to them, but don't force me to do so. Taxes, welfare, disability checks for veterans... all of that is contrary to a strict libertarian perspective.

On the other side, some folks argue that the minimum should include full and equal access to healthcare, tuition free education through the bachelors degree, a minimum monthly check of something like $1000 for everyone regardless of income, food, clothing, and shelter.

Both of those statements above represent a vision of "the bottom layer."

All that to say, I agree with you for the most part. But you're speaking in very broad terms.

 

[Steve]

The whole idea behind Jim Crow is that whites and blacks should be "separate, but equal." That we were incompatible with each other, and that we should not interact with each other. That it was in both species (the white man and black man) best interests that we stay apart.

I refuse to accept an environment where that becomes acceptable again. The idea that we have to separate whites and blacks for our own safety was the main driving force behind Jim Crow. Its what made lynchings feel justified. If a white girl and a black guy had sex, it must be because that primitive man raped her, and not because she liked him.

This idea that there should be people of one race who only serve their race is the idea at the core of everything that civil rights leaders fought against decades ago. Suggesting segregated doctors, even as a bandaid measure, is opening the door for us to undo all that Rosa Parks and Dr. King fought for.

Once again, I think you fundamentally misunderstood the demand, and from that fundamental misunderstanding you have spiraled wildly off the mark.

 

[jobo]

The person feeling the pain is the one who determines who is feeling pain. Who gets to decide? That's the entire point. The people who are most affected often have the smallest seat at the table. For example, in the issue of policing, the black communities would very much like some community influence over the police, but the police control the narrative. In the case of sexual harassment, #metoo was all about women controlling the narrative vs men.

Regarding the bottom layer, you're exactly right, though we (the collective "we") have a choice about what constitutes the minimum standard of living for the bottom layer. For example, in the USA, we have different opinions on this. A libertarian would probably argue that there is no minimum. Folks either make it or they don't, and if anyone wants to share, that's completely up to them, but don't force me to do so. Taxes, welfare, disability checks for veterans... all of that is contrary to a strict libertarian perspective.

On the other side, some folks argue that the minimum should include full and equal access to healthcare, tuition free education through the bachelors degree, a minimum monthly check of something like $1000 for everyone regardless of income, food, clothing, and shelter.

Both of those statements above represent a vision of "the bottom layer."

All that to say, I agree with you for the most part. But you're speaking in very broad terms.

but your rather dodging my forst question, you have already d3cided who has the mosy pain in American society, you have to had, or you wouldnt know who to invite to the table, so thats yoyr bias right there ?

its not my country, but id be tempted to start with the homeless and hungry and then move on to the hungry, irespective of their colour, . if i wanted to install social justice, there need does indeed apear greatest, they general havent been tipping statues over, so may have dropped of the liberal radar

amd dont the homless get a hard time from the police and bad health care? we clearly need homeless policemen and doctors to equal that up

 

[Steve]

but your rather dodging my forst question, you have already d3cided who has the mosy pain in American society, you have to had, or you wouldnt know who to invite to the table, so thats yoyr bias right there ?

its not my country, but id be tempted to start with the homeless and hungry and then move on to the hungry, irespective of their colour, . if i wanted to install social justice, there need does indeed apear greatest, they general havent been tipping statues over, so may have dropped of the liberal radar

I didn’t write the demands. I’m just choosing to listen to them.

 

[jobo]

I didn’t write the demands. I’m just choosing to listen to them.

but you choosing which out of many desvibg cases you are listening to

and of course reproducibg and argueing for change on her , you cant just skip respobsibility for the action you have decided on

 

[jobo]

The whole idea behind Jim Crow is that whites and blacks should be "separate, but equal." That we were incompatible with each other, and that we should not interact with each other. That it was in both species (the white man and black man) best interests that we stay apart.

I refuse to accept an environment where that becomes acceptable again. The idea that we have to separate whites and blacks for our own safety was the main driving force behind Jim Crow. Its what made lynchings feel justified. If a white girl and a black guy had sex, it must be because that primitive man raped her, and not because she liked him.

This idea that there should be people of one race who only serve their race is the idea at the core of everything that civil rights leaders fought against decades ago. Suggesting segregated doctors, even as a bandaid measure, is opening the door for us to undo all that Rosa Parks and Dr. King fought for.

In the US i thought, that given sufficient medical insurance you were allowed to choose your own doctor/ surgen gynecologist etc, for which one would give you the best care, is that not the case?

Think of it as allowing that right of choice to be expanded to others

 

[Steve]

but you choosing which out of many desvibg cases you are listening to

and of course reproducibg and argueing for change on her , you cant just skip respobsibility for the action you have decided on

That's true. We all have unconscious biases. It's a life long exercise.

 

[Steve]

In the US i thought, that given sufficient medical insurance you were allowed to choose your own doctor/ surgen gynecologist etc, for which one would give you the best care, is that not the case?

Think of it as allowing that right of choice to be expanded to others

No. Most people are limited to doctors who 1 are accepting new patients, and 2 are in their specific insurance company's network of "preferred" or "in network". Providers.

It can be very difficult to figure out. You might get slammed with a huge bill because you saw an in network provider in an out of network facility or an out of network provider at an in network facility.

And this can happen without your consent. You could be unconscious when someone scans your file and sends you a bill.

Healthcare in America is a disaster.

 

[jobo]

No. Most people are limited to doctors who 1 are accepting new patients, and 2 are in their specific insurance company's network of "preferred" or "in network". Providers.

It can be very difficult to figure out. You might get slammed with a huge bill because you saw an in network provider in an out of network facility or an out of network provider at an in network facility.

And this can happen without your consent. You could be unconscious when someone scans your file and sends you a bill.

Healthcare in America is a disaster.

thats soibds like the next deserving case after sorting out the hungry and the homeless, sort out free medical care for the ill, theres so much to go at

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

The whole idea behind Jim Crow is that whites and blacks should be "separate, but equal." That we were incompatible with each other, and that we should not interact with each other. That it was in both species (the white man and black man) best interests that we stay apart.

I refuse to accept an environment where that becomes acceptable again. The idea that we have to separate whites and blacks for our own safety was the main driving force behind Jim Crow. Its what made lynchings feel justified. If a white girl and a black guy had sex, it must be because that primitive man raped her, and not because she liked him.

This idea that there should be people of one race who only serve their race is the idea at the core of everything that civil rights leaders fought against decades ago. Suggesting segregated doctors, even as a bandaid measure, is opening the door for us to undo all that Rosa Parks and Dr. King fought for.

So what is your bandaid measure to prevent people from dying until the root of the issue can actually be achieved?

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

In the US i thought, that given sufficient medical insurance you were allowed to choose your own doctor/ surgen gynecologist etc, for which one would give you the best care, is that not the case?

Think of it as allowing that right of choice to be expanded to others

Theoretically yes.

In a hospital you get to choose the hospital not who will treat you. In an outpatient setting, like steve said, you have to find an in-network provider accepting patients, and then also hope that the doctor treating you ends up being in network as well.

 

[Steve]

thats soibds like the next deserving case after sorting out the hungry and the homeless, sort out free medical care for the ill, theres so much to go at

Thanks, Jobo. This is the laugh I needed today. I want to be clear, while I sincerely find this to be funny, it's not because I disagree. I agree wholeheartedly with you that we need to sort out the hungry and the homeless and then sort out free medical care for all. It sounds so simple when you say it!

 

[Steve]

Theoretically yes.

In a hospital you get to choose the hospital not who will treat you. In an outpatient setting, like steve said, you have to find an in-network provider accepting patients, and then also hope that the doctor treating you ends up being in network as well.

And, to be clear, you don't always get to choose the hospital. If you're travelling, in an emergency situation, or in several other ways, you may not have a choice.

Some of us live in areas where there is more than one hospital. Some folks live where there is only one hospital within a significant area, and right now, because we have a "for profit" healthcare system, many of those rural hospitals are closing.

 

[Steve]

And just because this thread is ranging pretty far from the OP, I'll say that I believe the women. This de la riva black belt stands to gain nothing but trouble from accusing a BJJ legend of sexual misconduct. And the fact that his reaction to it is so extreme suggests to me that there have been some shenanigans and he knows it.

Like a drug addict making a grand gesture of throwing away his bottle of Oxycontin. "I don't need this! I can quit anytime. Watch me! I'll never take it again!"