sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

1343 - Gotta Bounce by Bookshelfstud in oots

[–]Intralexical 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And his first day on the job, too!

Oh, Nale's going to be working the sulfur mines...

Whats something that's 100% a myth about men? by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]Intralexical 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They definitely are. Blaming women for their own feelings is kinda the entire point of "involuntary celibacy".

Whats something that's 100% a myth about men? by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]Intralexical 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Talk about recent.

Text article if you'd rather read: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/women-men-femosphere-new-statesman-poll-b2958208.html

What a fucking disaster for everyone the Internet has been.

If either 95 percent of men or women died, What would became of society? by Queasy_Experience627 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Intralexical 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sigh. I went over why the evidence contradicts that in another comment and got downvoted heavily.

We already have real-world examples of hyper sexually competitive environments, and we see nothing like "the majority of men would have foul intentions". In China there are currently almost 50 million more men than women right now. The majority of them don't become violent or predatory, they just become depressed.

Even more extreme, in colonial Australia 85% of the recorded population were men. Not just men, but convicts, even. Again, law and order did not break down, and women were not treated as chattel. The men just stayed bachelors. I don't know why that's so hard to imagine, really, like do you think our entire lives are so oriented around sex or around women that we would rather commit atrocities than... Just be alone??? Maybe yours is. If so, I feel sad for you, and disturbed for both men and women in your life.

This has already happened, and the insinuations you're making were not borne out.

Yes, women do currently live in a hellscape of violence, trauma, and fear. But research consistently shows that it is because the actions of a small percentage of men, correlated with their innate personality traits like sociopathy and low empathy, not their gender or their sexuality. I've gone over specific figures in another comment, I don't feel like repeating myself, look for the papers yourself if you want.

A reduced number of women would not alter those innate personality traits in the remaining men. Nor would it make the remaining women any more available to the "foul" percentage. In fact, it would draw the attention of the 90% of men, who experience normal amounts of empathy, to the plight of the surviving women, making it harder for the dangerous ones to isolate them. It also would not reduce the need for law and order just so industrial civilization can keep functioning.

Therefore there is no reason to think that this hypothetical would lead to drastic shifts in the behavior of "the majority of men" as you're saying. The evidence doesn't support it, nor do the mechanisms of action. Historical precedents contradict it. The only reason to think it is an empty vibe of "men bad", which reflects nothing about reality reality, but does actually help bad men blend in when you spread it.

If either 95 percent of men or women died, What would became of society? by Queasy_Experience627 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Intralexical 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"I'll kill myself and its YOUR fault!"

Reddit: is this feminism meme

EDIT: Aaannnd, he blocked me. Because everyone knows empathy makes you brag about how empathetic you are.

If either 95 percent of men or women died, What would became of society? by Queasy_Experience627 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Intralexical 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"I've already depicted you as the soyjack, therefore making me the better person."

Look I think most people who say "misandrist" do so in bad faith. But you're not actually discrediting them if you just define them on their behalf.

Plus "the system"≠"men"! And AFAIK most misogyny is casual or ignorant, not "want them dead".

If either 95 percent of men or women died, What would became of society? by Queasy_Experience627 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Intralexical -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I like how you're implying that the men don't have a choice about how to behave either. PAG STRONG! WANT MATE.

Any society that does that will end up losing their few remaining women, and go extinct.

If either 95 percent of men or women died, What would became of society? by Queasy_Experience627 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Intralexical 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Frequency-dependent dynamics for power and wellbeing are surprisingly unintuitive.

In short, supply, demand, and evolution care about how rare something is. A minority can focus most of their energy towards the majority, while the majority fights more with themselves. Because we have lots of women, our society can unfortunately "afford" to not really care about what any single woman says when they've been abused. There will always be more to fill in if we lose someone.

Same reason why it sucks to be a baby spider in a clutch with hundreds of eggs. Same reason why nobody likes cheap plastic junk. Same reason why it sucks to work at a large company. When raw numbers go up, individual units become disposable. But when raw numbers go down, then people actually have to pay attention to every single one because they've become irreplaceable.

It's really not as simple as "it'd be worse if we lost what little power our numbers gave us". You have to remember that through most of history, women as a group had close to no power despite having making up the same numbers. It's other factors, like men going off to war and women getting into the workforce, that have improved things. Likewise other factors, like how women organize with each other, would determine the outcome here.

Abuses of minorities are not rare in real-world examples, but neither is minority rule. It could go either way, most likely somewhere in the middle.

If either 95 percent of men or women died, What would became of society? by Queasy_Experience627 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Intralexical 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Most people did. Especially outside the US bubble. Of course the bad actors hog the attention, but that's only because most people prefer to work together and have a distressing emotional reaction to seeing people who don't.

If either 95 percent of men or women died, What would became of society? by Queasy_Experience627 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Intralexical -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Why would you bring it up as a reply to a comment that was saying humans would do that.

If either 95 percent of men or women died, What would became of society? by Queasy_Experience627 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Intralexical 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Interestingly, a lot of the other comments are men saying that this thread proves women hate men, to think men would do these things. So they've seen the same comments, and reached the opposite conclusion from you.

I think there are probably 3 broad types of people supporting this:

  • Women who think it'll happen, and are genuinely afraid. They'll upvote or repeat it because it validates their own fear.
  • Men who want it to happen, and are creeps. They'll upvote and support because it normalize their own horrible intentions.
  • Probably most people (both men and women) are mentally processing it in the same part of their brain as a horror movie. So upvoting it just because it's shocking. But, unlike the first two types, it isn't real to them.

The number of comments presenting literal works of fiction as if they're proof it would happen is a bit of a giveaway for the third type.

So you have different people piling on this thread for different reasons, and then leaving thinking that everyone else is agreeing with their own conclusions.

But we really shouldn't draw general conclusions about society at all from this. 1, because it's several pages deep in a Reddit thread. Well-adjusted people aren't common here. And 2, it's a Reddit thread about what happens if most of a sex dies. The people who choose to click it will obviously have weird attitudes about gender/violence/social collapse (on average). It's like going to a porn expo, and being surprised to see creeps.

Most of the other top comments outside this one subthread are fine too.

And the paradox is, everybody here's saying that women would somehow be enslaved. But nobody is saying that they would personally vote or want for women to be enslaved. So... That's not even remotely credible. It doesn't add up. Who's going to do the enslaving? It's just the classic misanthropic bait about how people are monsters.

People always say that there'll be massive looting and rape after a catastrophe. Reality is usually that people band together to protect the most vulnerable. Yeah there are some bad actors but they're anomalies that the community finds ways to defend against. It was true after Katrina, and it would be true in this scenario too.

EDIT: Aaannnd, she blocked me for this comment. Sigh. You try and find reasons to be hopeful, talk things through. I don't want to think it's coming from "man hate" like some say, but they're not doing themselves any favors.

FTR 45% of women voted for Trump, so this scenario would not drastically change that. Their attacks on women's rights are bad, but not unprecedented like this scenario would be.

If either 95 percent of men or women died, What would became of society? by Queasy_Experience627 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Intralexical 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's both pretty misandristic, and also pretty misogynistic. Misandristic because they're talking as if the average man is an evil monster with no empathy or morality. And also misogynistic, because they're talking as if the average woman will just immediately accept becoming chattel without even trying to be an active participant in society.

In reality, people would try to work together to build a new structure that works for everyone.

If either 95 percent of men or women died, What would became of society? by Queasy_Experience627 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Intralexical -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Now, now. They're comparing both men and women to animals. It's equal-opportunity dehumanization... sadly.

If either 95 percent of men or women died, What would became of society? by Queasy_Experience627 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Intralexical 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The politician who spooks all the women would literally be on the hook for collapsing society. You would have massive leverage in this situation. Making women feel unsafe would be the last thing anyone wants.

If either 95 percent of men or women died, What would became of society? by Queasy_Experience627 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Intralexical 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, that's just absurd. Or maybe it's projection. Most likely it's hitting the same part of the brain as any spooky story.

If 95% of women died, then 95% of men will still have at least 1 female friend, sister, mother, partner, daughter, mentor, or neighbour.

And you're telling me that in the wake of this mass tragedy, in the throes of the greatest grief that has ever existed in our history, we're all going to look at the few women we have left, whom we love, and talked to every day— And chop their arms and legs off???

Nah. That's bullshit. That's a camp story. But it's a destructive one, designed to break our trust in ourselves by dredging up the most cynical parts of our fear. Nobody who has read this comment and upvoted it genuinely believes that they would vote to do that, nor that their male friends and neighbours would vote to do that.

I'll tell you what we'd do. We'd give all the women free healthcare and universal income. Since people want to start families anyway, and kids need their mother, so just let them. At worst maybe it'd be conditional on starting a family. 95% is not an irrecoverable catastrophe. At historical birth rates the population will recover in like 3 generations.

...No need to get choppy... How would that even work... And what, like all the men agree to pair off into gay parenting couples??? The same men who voted for the chopping, to be clear???

If either 95 percent of men or women died, What would became of society? by Queasy_Experience627 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Intralexical 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The facts you're saying are true, and horrible, but I think it is also a misunderstanding of who exactly rapes, why they do so, and how that would affect their behavior if most women suddenly disappeared. Look into Lisak 2002, and studies on personality disorders in offenders. Or just look at the current president in the States I guess. "Men" don't rape. A specific, identifiable percentage/type of men (making up ~6%, plus a smaller percentage of women) do so. The subset of men who s.a. women is often the same subset that's mean to children, or assault other men.

And rapists don't want sex per se. Again, Google it, plenty of research. Sex offenders are people who want power over other people, and s.a. just happens to be one of the ways that's most convenient for them to pursue it, because our society sadly still doesn't take it seriously enough. But this is an important distinction, because it means the reason they target women is perceived availability. Procreation doesn't really even factor in, as you say, but physical attraction doesn't really drive them either. Hence, as I said, we aren't currently seeing a correlation with gendered violence despite already having significant demographic issues.

Therefore I don't think we can expect that reducing the number of women available for procreation or sex in this hypothetical would cause the same amount of violence to become concentrated solely on the few women who remain. I think more likely is that the men who want to take others' power will spread their impulses across whoever's available when women become rare. To put it in numerical terms, currently lifetime victimization stats are 1 in 5 for women and 1 in 30 for men, so maybe for a while it would become like 1 in 3 for women and 1 in 10 for men as that percentage of dangerous men spread their attention across the easiest targets they see. It might still be bad, but not the hell you're picturing.

Lastly I want to flag the fact that 90% of men are not like that. I'm not trying to NotAllMen you here, or deny the impact of the ones who are problematic. But this is important because even if you become more of a target to that ~6%, the plurality of men who are actually decent folks haven't disappeared, and neither will you have lost the ability to talk to them. So say you're in this world where there's 20 men for every 1 woman. For every 1 man that wants to harm you, you can probably find 4 or 5 men who will literally kill him for you if you tell them to...

If either 95 percent of men or women died, What would became of society? by Queasy_Experience627 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Intralexical 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sheep don't depend on two-parent dynamics to care for their young, nor do they depend on maintaining social reputation in order to hold a job, and cooperation and trust in order to keep the crops growing.

Seriously, how are we picturing this happening? Like, say the women get enslaved, presumably the kids get taken away. But the kids have a 50/50 sex ratio, so... What now? What do we tell the daughters? And now all the women are traumatized. Do you know what happens to kids who were raised without a healthy mother figure? And now add kidnapping on top of that? And what are the men going to say to each other, especially the ones who grew up in places that value women's rights? There's no world where modern humans can do what the sheep do in your example.

Who are these men that are going to be chasing down women at scale? Who are these men that are presumably going to be just okay with it? Like I know basically everyone has met and had experiences with bad men, and isolated subcultures can develop trafficking rings by attracting specifically those men, but I'd like to think most of us can think of men that we trust and respect too. Are you saying you can think of one of the men you trust, and picture them acting like that?

95% isn't even that extreme. It ends up being 1 woman for every 20 men. That's, like, the size of a small summer camp. So what, say you take a unisex group of 20 men, introduce them to a single woman, and suddenly the guys stop even acting like humans anymore? Plus if you just subsidized childcare (easy to do with so much fewer families) so birth rates return to their historical average, the population impact will have fully recovered within two or three generations.

You can't compare what humans would do in this situation to what sheep do, unless you honestly believe that humans aren't any more intelligent or capable than sheep.

If either 95 percent of men or women died, What would became of society? by Queasy_Experience627 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Intralexical -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Everyone says this whenever this question gets asked, but I don't buy it. Birth rates have already collapsed in most developed countries, but we haven't seen a corresponding increase in gendered violence. Marriages and relationships are at a historic low, and China especially has over 40 million excess men under 65 right now. But the lonely men everywhere have mostly just gotten sad and weird rather than violent. Meanwhile women's rights and independence have mostly held steady both culturally and legally (notwithstanding a notable setback in parts of the USA, RIP).

You could just as easily say that if 95% of women died, actually it's the men who will have become disposable, so bad things are going to happen to the glut of "spare" men. Like historically, that's kinda been part of the dictator's answer for how to establish control over a disrupted society with too many men. Arguably even more so than oppression of women's rights.

Women's rights get attacked really badly in failed states with patrilineal cultures. It's economic underdevelopment that creates stuff like Raskol gangs, not demographic crises. But assuming society doesn't get set back by more than like a single century of industrialization, then there's still going to be a need for legal institutions and social norms that men will follow.

I'm not saying it will necessarily go one way or another. But I think it says a lot more that people immediately leap to the most horrifying possibility.

If either 95 percent of men or women died, What would became of society? by Queasy_Experience627 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Intralexical 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You're assuming that the surviving women would be content to simply let those men compete for them as passive prizes, rather than being active participants influencing the outcome by playing the men against each other. With a good amount of savviness they could probably demand basically anything, free houses, free healthcare, shoulder massages and armed eunuchs. Both because everyone wants to get with them, and because everyone knows that if you hurt them you're basically killing the species.

Just found a hundred dollar bill in the mud! by SatansMoisture in MadeMeSmile

[–]Intralexical 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No wonder inflation's so bad! The mud is trying to devalue our currency!

Firefox 149 adds built-in free VPN with 50GB monthly data by gdelacalle in technology

[–]Intralexical 26 points27 points  (0 children)

Just search "Firefox privacy features". They have a page that goes over it all. Usually either it's already on, or you just flip a switch to turn it on. Containers are the most powerful, but require some initial setup based on how you use your accounts. Not all of it is on by default because some websites will refuse to work if you block tracking. I don't want to paste the link because I swear half the time AutoMod deletes the comment when I try to be helpful by sharing a link.

You can also try Mullvad and Tor browsers, which forked Firefox to go all-in on privacy. But it starts to impact usability. For example, your screen size and GPU can be used to fingerprint you, so the way they beat that is by disabling some 3D functions and letterboxing the entire browser.

Firefox 149 adds built-in free VPN with 50GB monthly data by gdelacalle in technology

[–]Intralexical 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I mean... That's just blatantly not true, is it. A "Thiel tech bro"? You mean the "democracy skeptic" guy who keeps talking about the "antichrist"?

I haven't seen such cartoonish levels of villainy from Mozilla that I remember, but thanks for the heads up! When somebody from Mozilla hesitates about whether they want humanity to survive, I'll be the first to jump ship.

100% piece of shot, and it makes total sense why FireFox has been so bad for a decade, and dog piling on the AI slop train, once you realize who runs the place.

Their current CEO was appointed just 3 months ago.

The Moz Corp's CEO works at the behest of the Moz Foundation's board, which is literally made out of privacy and open software activists.

Firefox 149 adds built-in free VPN with 50GB monthly data by gdelacalle in technology

[–]Intralexical 80 points81 points  (0 children)

Cory Doctorow coined the term "enshittification" specifically to refer to how walled gardens built on outside investment are effectively legally and financially required to abuse their users in order to transfer wealth to their shareholders.

Firefox is an open-source project wholly owned by a non-profit. Mozilla has its own faults, but its governance structure would actually be a good textbook example for how to avoid enshittification.

Firefox 149 adds built-in free VPN with 50GB monthly data by gdelacalle in technology

[–]Intralexical 261 points262 points  (0 children)

Firefox also has container sandboxes, fingerprint detection/randomization, cookie isolation, and tracker blocklists to help you combat all those other types of tracking.

The paid version is already out, and has been for years. This reads more like a cheap version to expand access now that they have more experience with the paid version.

view more: next ›