Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Female Bassist Threads
- Thread starter Dr. Cheese
- Start date
- Status
I beginning to suspect that may be more a symptom or manifestation of a far deeper and much more serious problem involving human psychology. We, as a species, show a distinct talent when it comes to gleefully causing each other unnecessary pain and suffering. I can’t think of anything else on the planet that does that.
I’m sorry you are still hearing that stuff, even now. Thought at this point in time even the neanderthals would understand how insulting that is.
Cats. They are rather known for wounding something and playing with it.
Many species of animal will kill each other's young if given the slightest chance.
I know it's OT nitpicking but some one is going see your comments about our cruelty to each other and post something about how animals are so peaceful and much better then humans and my eyes will roll out onto the floor. Better to try to nip it now
.
- Oct 22, 2015
- 21,153
- 256,486
- Disclosures
- I am an affiliate for Ari Cap.
Possibly because it’s still an open question revolving around an unsettled issue?
Or possibly because the right question isn't asked?
Quite right! Everyone has an a$$h@le. However, the current issues of inequality being discussed are due to male domination.
Most animal behaviorists seem to agree that cats “playing” with their catch do so because they have never learned from their mothers how to efficiently kill it. Feral cats do a quick kill because predators can’t afford an injury which could result in a lethal infection or an injury that could slow them down and impair their ability to hunt.
That’s Darwin at work preserving the gene pool of the fittest. As is the case with some species of live bearing fish where the mother immediately attacks her hatchlings shortly after the last has exited the chute so to speak. The smarter faster ones hide in the weeds until after she completes her weeding out maneuvers. The sliwer less alert ones get eaten. Keeps the population in check and reduces the supply of available fry - which in turn helps regulate the number of predators the ecosystem around her can support by reducing a potential easy supply of nutrient rich food.
Nature is efficient. Not psychopathic or cruel.
I know it's OT nitpicking but some one is going see your comments about our cruelty to each other and post something about how animals are so peaceful and much better then humans and my eyes will roll out onto the floor. Better to try to nip it now
It’s generally silly to attempt to apply human motivation and morality to animals. They have their own referent frameworks and intelligences which they live their own lives under.
If anything, we need to get beyond our anthropocentric belief that our social structures, thought patterns, and behaviors are so superior to every other organism on the planet that we can weigh them using the same standards and metrics we apply to ourselves with questionable success.
Last edited:
Or possibly because the right question isn't asked?
I have come to believe progressive approximation more often yields useful answers much more frequently than waiting on the shingle for a major breakthrough to occur.
Annie Lamont (a favorite author of mine) observed that in order to write a decent novel you’ll first have to reconcile yourself to the fact you’re going to need to write a lot of crappy drafts.
I see threads like this as drafts. And like the I Ching teaches: “Persistence furthers. It is advantageous to have a goal in view. No blame.”
If you keep it going, most times (here at least) it eventually starts going in circles. But occasionally it doesn’t and something worthwhile comes out of it. You just never know unless you try. And I’m the hopeful sort of person since that’s a more acceptable option than its alternative illusion.
A factor in the equation to be sure. The only factor? Questionable. Deeper question: Is it the cause (i.e. “due to” as you assert) or an effect arising as a consequence of as yet unconsidered factors.
As fellow TBer @Morrighan posited earlier in this thread, maybe it’s a case where we’re not asking the right questions yet.
- Oct 22, 2015
- 21,153
- 256,486
- Disclosures
- I am an affiliate for Ari Cap.
I have come to believe progressive approximation more often yields useful answers much more frequently than waiting on the shingle for a major breakthrough to occur.
Annie Lamont (a favorite author of mine) observed that in order to write a decent novel you’ll first have to reconcile yourself to the fact you’re going to need to write a lot of crappy drafts.
I see threads like this as drafts. And like the I Ching teaches: “Persistence furthers. It is advantageous to have a goal in view. No blame.”
If you keep it going, most times (here at least) it eventually starts going in circles. But occasionally it doesn’t and something worthwhile comes out of it. You just never know unless you try. And I’m the hopeful sort of person since that’s a more acceptable option than its alternative illusion.
Observing the process of inquiry helps to see the entire structure.
Seems pretty obvious to me, as a full timer in the industry. Plenty of all types as musicians, but as in most industries, unfair pay and sexism is not questionable- it is fact, that is being dealt with now, more than ever.
Again, I have begun to suspect those wrongs are more symptoms of a deeper less obvious systemic problem rather than it’s proximate cause. And I’ve learned to distrust the “obvious.” Too many opportunities for logical and cognitive fallacies going down the “it’s obvious” path. At least for my sorry brain.
But in that my bias is probably showing since my professional background is in IT, and I tend to favor a systems approach to dealing with issues that emerge in complex systems such as I see this one being.
So while it’s absolutely the right thing to treat the symptoms (it wouldn’t be right to let the patient die while the doctor works out all the scientific details) it doesn’t get to the root of the problem or prevent it from reoccurring or spreading.
We have awareness happening on a large scale. We are electing a more balanced governing body. More than treating symptoms. What is the issue at it's core, as you see it? What solution do you propose?
I’m extremely hopeful it represents a sea change. But thar remains to be seen so I’ll reserve judgement.
So far so good. I’m more concerned about whether it represents a long term trend or ends up bring just a short term response to the extraordinary nature of the times we’re living in. I’d like to think of it as a good start to a long term trend. But only time will tell. Fingers crossed.
Heard that before. Back in the days of the so-called Counterculture we thought we were on the brink of exorcising demons and ushering in a new age of equality, peace and understanding. We were young and idealistic and buoyed up with the confidence born of our early minor successes. We had no idea what we were really about to go up against.
So let’s see if this current “new” awareness actually comes to fruition this time around.
Still working out what the core issue(s) may be. Don’t hold your breath. I’ve been giving it serious though for several years now. And although I have a sense of where it’s ultimately converging, it’s proven annoyingly elusive (for me) to nail it down. Which is why I listen to as many people’s take on this subject as I can. Grist for the mill. And I appreciate your input.
Haven’t a clue what the solution is. I’m still working on framing the question and defining its scope.
It’s like computer coding. Writing the code is easy. The hard part is grokking the big picture. But once you’ve got that in hand, the solution (i.e. the program) virtually writes itself.
Last edited:
- Status
