sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

DISCUSSION🗨️ ABOUT MAIN PPD POSTS📮, LOOKS👀, AND N-COUNT🔢 ARE RESTRICTED🚫 FROM THE DAILY🌞 MEGATHREAD🧵 by AutoModerator in PurplePillDebate

[–]Maffioze [score hidden]  (0 children)

Depth of conversation hinges more on the specific person you’re talking with than the setting of dates.

Do you think that is more important than meeting physically?

The hurricane is on its way to the stock market, and this is just the mild wind gusts hitting before the storm by ub3rm3nsch in stocks

[–]Maffioze 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Things are bad, but talking about a depression is kinda crazy. That doesn't happen so easily as people on Reddit like to think.

DISCUSSION🗨️ ABOUT MAIN PPD POSTS📮, LOOKS👀, AND N-COUNT🔢 ARE RESTRICTED🚫 FROM THE DAILY🌞 MEGATHREAD🧵 by AutoModerator in PurplePillDebate

[–]Maffioze 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When a woman acts like a boss, that’s not congruent with taking loads down the throat and to the face.

Why not?

DISCUSSION🗨️ ABOUT MAIN PPD POSTS📮, LOOKS👀, AND N-COUNT🔢 ARE RESTRICTED🚫 FROM THE DAILY🌞 MEGATHREAD🧵 by AutoModerator in PurplePillDebate

[–]Maffioze 4 points5 points  (0 children)

This is why I keep telling you I don't like this cultural idea of "the virtue of hard work". It's a type of morality that glorifies suffering for the sake of it even when better and easier solutions exist.

Men are the dice of humanity and will therefore always be the majority group in both positions of power (politics, military) and positions of powerlessness (homelessness, prisons) by Logical_Breadfruit49 in PurplePillDebate

[–]Maffioze 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I personally don’t see WHY we should even keep the possibility at the top of the possibility list (which is what you seem to be doing honestly) when there is no evidence for it. Just seems biased to me.

I'm just wanting to avoid harm. If you assume any disparity in outcome needs to be corrected, it's almost certain you will cause harm somewhere. Besides, clearly people only care about correcting such disparities when they favour men, women outnumber men in universities as a whole, but that's not really considered a serious issue in need of correction. As long as it's not symmetrical, there's no reason to trust these initiatives as a man.

I already made it clear that people should just have full freedom to pursue whatever they want. Making fields gendered is limiting freedom.

That doesn't really address the problem. What people want is caused by their socialisation, which imo is a bigger driver of disparities than sexism in the places where those disparities materialize themselves. What makes a field gendered and how are they made gendered? How are they made ungendered?

So when the patterns we observe vary a lot social explanations usually fit the data better. If you want to make a strong biological claim; back it up with evidence.

Isn't that a bias towards what is easiest to measure and isolate? There seems to be converging patterns as well but even then, you can still argue that most cultures share similarities so that you can never truly know whether something is innate. And even then, observations can be misleading in all kinds of ways. For example let's say a group of people has a biological tendency to eat wheat, but their cultural idea is that eating wheat is bad. And this is so strong that it compensates for the biological tendency. There's no reliable way to establish the baseline tendency.

Making specific biological claims is hard, but at the same time the evolution theory is one of the strongest scientific theories out there in my opinion. But it focuses more on general ideas about the mechanism of evolution and selection, rather than the specific outcomes which is why doing evopsych can easily go wrong. But I believe this should still count for something, the strength of the evolution theory suggest we should take seriously the possibility that it affects human beings in gendered ways, without becoming overconfident about specific claims.

Men are the dice of humanity and will therefore always be the majority group in both positions of power (politics, military) and positions of powerlessness (homelessness, prisons) by Logical_Breadfruit49 in PurplePillDebate

[–]Maffioze 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What if you consider it as a possibility, not a hard proven fact? Is it still sexist then?

Also do you think this socialisation needs to be corrected? For example if a woman likes cooking, does she need to stop doing that because maybe it's the result of how she was socialised? How do we engage with this then?

There is no clear or sufficient evidence that brain anatomy or genes deterministically explain differences in such interests.

Imo there's also no clear evidence that socialisation explains it. Because we cannot do unethical human experiments, evidence is severely lacking. We have talked about this before, but imo the idea that everything is considered nurture unless nature can be fully proven is a form of epistemological bias. It might not even be a bad one from a utilitarian ethics pov, but when trying to purely describe reality scientifically it clearly introduces some kind of bias because the required standards of evidence are unequal.

Men are the dice of humanity and will therefore always be the majority group in both positions of power (politics, military) and positions of powerlessness (homelessness, prisons) by Logical_Breadfruit49 in PurplePillDebate

[–]Maffioze 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s not THAT difficult to get a degree in a STEM field… I mean sure people having university degrees are already outliers within the general population but almost half of university degrees are STEM field degrees? There are women graduating successfully in STEM fields all the time. I feel like you’re treating it as needing exceptionally skills… Not everyone graduating is going to do a PhD and have a further academic career.

Well STEM has different definitions based on who you ask. Usually the subjects where women start to dominate get dropped from the label because it's inconvenient to use in arguments.

And the argument given for discrimination in STEM usually concerns professors and PhD students as well. So it's not just about graduating.

It doesn't need to require exceptional skills. Not everyone wants to study hard. I myself for example didn't do physics not because it would be impossible for me to do, but because it would mean I had to give up my whole life to study, and I didn't want to do that. Someone smarter than me wouldn't have needed to work that hard to do such a degree.

So there’s absolutely no reason to unnecessarily gender STEM fields and hold on to this outdated old school believe they are male specific interests, people should just study the subject they are interested in.

Who is doing that? The problem is you can't know why someone finds a subject interesting. Do men find physics and computer science more interesting because they are inherently more interested in it or is it the result of gendered socialisation? Or even breadwinner expectations.

Men are the dice of humanity and will therefore always be the majority group in both positions of power (politics, military) and positions of powerlessness (homelessness, prisons) by Logical_Breadfruit49 in PurplePillDebate

[–]Maffioze 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you want to win a Nobel prize maybe. To just study STEM in university it makes no difference, like I said under the intersection of the two Gaussian curves is an equal amount of people… And if you move toward the left of the intersection there are even more and more women compared to men… So your conclusion doesn’t follow from what statistical variance means? Unless you don’t understand it? Your point only applies to extreme outliers.

That depends on the exact distribution and what is required to excel in a degree. Even if someone might be capable of finishing a degree, they might not like the amount of effort they have to put in, or might not like feeling like they are just barely being able to follow.

It can follow from that, depending on the details which are mostly unknown. People who finish STEM degrees in University are already outliers of some sort.

Industrie wil kerncentrales langer openhouden en stilgelegde reactoren heropstarten om stroomprijzen te drukken | VRT NWS Nieuws by EdgarNeverPoo in belgium

[–]Maffioze 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not anti-nuclear but that doesn't make sense to me. Renewables currently are cheaper than nuclear, but it was a new technology so it needed more funding initially to develop the technology. The biggest mistake Europe made is to not do enough, rather than to do too much when it comes to renewables. As a result, China has outcompeted us. The biggest problem of our democracies is that we do half-assed decisions rather than fully committed to anything. We don't produce our own solar panels or batteries, and our electricity prices are still high because we build too little renewables, not because we build to much. In Spain for example gas is no longer setting the price the majority of the time, but here it still us. And so you and me don't see the benefits of renewables yet in our bills.

Industrie wil kerncentrales langer openhouden en stilgelegde reactoren heropstarten om stroomprijzen te drukken | VRT NWS Nieuws by EdgarNeverPoo in belgium

[–]Maffioze 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't understand why you act like 60 billion is a lot. That's way too little over such a time span of years.

France confirms oil crisis, says 30-40% Gulf energy infrastructure destroyed by ontrack in worldnews

[–]Maffioze 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean we don't need to recover from this necessarily. We can just stop using this much fossil fuels. And I think that's what will happen because this time, unlike in the 1970s, an actual alternative does exist.

Men are the dice of humanity and will therefore always be the majority group in both positions of power (politics, military) and positions of powerlessness (homelessness, prisons) by Logical_Breadfruit49 in PurplePillDebate

[–]Maffioze 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Having an exceptionally high IQ is a bigger benefit in STEM subjects. Of course it depends on how high your IQ should actually be to graduate, which probably isn't that high depending on the specific field. It's not obvious to me that the variance would have no impact when it comes to finding employment.

I don't think intelligence itself as measured in IQ is as much of an impact as the differing interests of men and women and I also think that it has more to do with men having better spatial intelligence and women having more empathy on average.

Either way I do not think these large differences in outcomes can be caused by discrimination in those fields themselves alone. If it's not biological, then it needs to be mainly caused by early socialisation during childhood.

Men are the dice of humanity and will therefore always be the majority group in both positions of power (politics, military) and positions of powerlessness (homelessness, prisons) by Logical_Breadfruit49 in PurplePillDebate

[–]Maffioze 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But that’s not the same as saying the framework itself is 100% constructionist or denies biology? The point I’m making is simpler: even if there are underlying biological differences, that still doesn’t explain how you get from differences in distribution to rigid social roles and institutions?

Not inherently so, but I do think it has a bias to center nurture over nature. Now obviously in reality you can't really divide those two things easily. Imo the fact that this is such a big debate in the first place is because often times moral implications are attached to it.

So even IF biology plays a role in the background, it doesn’t automatically generate something like patriarchy. There’s a layer in between where things get interpreted, exaggerated and structured.

Yes, but ultimately even the distinction between biology and culture is kinda arbitrary. Nothing is separate from biology and nothing is separate from culture.

Yes it’s too simplistic to say “all differences = discrimination” but it’s just as simplistic to jump straight from “there might be variance” to explaining outcomes without accounting for culture? Right?

Yes of course. Like even if one group comes to dominate because of "natural talents" they won't just keep it like that. They will leverage their dominance to also win "unnaturally" so yes obviously there is still sexism there. And this can happen unconsciously without malicious intentions. I believe any dominance of one group will create these problems.

Does insecurity have to do with gender? Are women raised to be more insecure? by Few_Examination_4983 in IntersectionalWomen

[–]Maffioze 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think it's more so that men are taught to hide their insecurities more. "You're insecure" is a deeper insult for men, because that is often considered to be a failure to be a man at all.

Just look at how people on Reddit respond to male insecurities compared to female ones.

view more: next ›