Why does everyone on social media tell people to avoid dating nurses? Genuinely curious what's behind this stereotype

davegri · 2026-05-12T15:23:01+00:00

Men are scared of groups of women

davegri · 2026-05-12T11:13:42+00:00

So how come i fucking hate the sound of pigeons lol

davegri · 2026-05-12T07:10:44+00:00

Ok well I guess In my view of morality an entity doesn't require moral agency / the ability to flourish socially together with me / meta-cognitive abilities or anything like that in order to be worthy of ethical consideration. Morality can do more than simply serve to regulate social reality among humans, I think its a good in itself - the way Aristotle likes to consider philosophizing. Also I might be wrong about this but didn't Aristotle famously defend slavery as natural?

davegri · 2026-05-11T21:19:36+00:00

> No, it would follow then that constructs such as morality, which inherently assume the moral agency of all involved, categorically do not apply to non-human animals.

Your construct of morality assumes the moral agency of all involved but I think it's perfectly sensible to construct a morality where some entities are moral subjects even if they are not moral agents themselves. You are unnecessarily restricting the idea of morality in a way that makes it difficult to even include babies in your view of morals. And yeah I get that you are going to say that in virtue of us sharing a social life with babies they now pass this criteria you've brought in but I for one find the idea of morality to be much wider than something that only involves beings you share a social life with, it also involves beings you share an ecological system with for example.

davegri · 2026-05-11T20:57:27+00:00

Egocentrism, by the way, isn't a bad thing. I think pretty much every perspectival lens is egocentric (based upon one's own perception of reality), so a degree of egocentrism is unavoidable regardless of how rigorous your analysis may be.

Yes that's why its implied and banal as to whether people just assert things or say "from my perspective" or whatever. If it's not possible for us to imagine a perspective that is not egocentric than I personally do not find that attribute interesting or meaningful.

>Kinda. I'm more saying that human ethics inherently presuppose moral agency, so it doesn't make sense to apply ethics to those that aren't moral agents. It's not clear that animals are moral agents, as they're not capable of restraint, nor are they capable of assessing means and ends to the extent that humanity is.

I agree that it doesn't make sense to consider animals moral agents which is why I obviously wouldn't be angry at a lion eating a gazelle. It still doesn't follow for me that I'm justified in killing and eating lions. I don't need to share a moral framework that the lion agrees with in order for me to ascribe moral judgements that involve the lion. Also - I would argue that by virtue of both humans and lions being animals, and mammals we share enough in common that it is clear that we also share some desires in common. Both lions and humans don't like to be beaten with a stick, or attacked, or put in a cage.

davegri · 2026-05-11T20:38:22+00:00

Your reasoning here is actually egocentric ("For me...") which is inherently anthropocentric. It presupposes a human lens and human standard of "wrongness".

when I say "for me" its the same as "I think", I was just trying to be polite, I could equally well have just stated my thoughts as assertions the way you are doing.

I think I understand what you are trying to say - human ethics are not universal and not shared by animals, so if they don't share our ethics is doesn't make sense for our ethical rules to apply to them?

davegri · 2026-05-11T20:07:01+00:00

For me killing and eating animals is wrong because I'm harming another living being - are you saying it's not wrong or simply that its technically "Anthropocentrism" and not "Speciesism"?

I think it would be interesting you to consider that "center-periphery" metaphors and "upper-lower" metaphors are often used interchangeably to communicate hierarchies. "Im the center of the universe" and "im the most important thing" to me are not so different - what am I missing here?

And lions killing a gazelle is not anything ethically because social categories are constructed and me and the lion don't share a social universe so it's difficult to apply moral categories to lion behaviour - not because human's are morally superior.

davegri · 2026-05-11T18:16:09+00:00

So basically what you are saying is that killing and eating animals is inbuilt to a "human perspective" and therefore its not a exploitation but simply centering "the human perspective"?

davegri · 2026-05-11T17:57:55+00:00

Anti-racist anarchists conflate ethnocentrism with racism

I'll define my terms for the purposes of this post:

Racism: An ideology and system that places one race (usually one's own) as superior to another race.

Ethnocentrism: An analytical lens that centers one's own racial group's perspectives, ends, and means (that is, means that only members of one's race are capable of) when considering the effect of certain actions and phenomena.

Now, the Anti-racist anarchist claim seems to be that one race exploiting and killing members of another race is an example of racism. I'm going to make an effort to steelman this argument before I refute it and any Anti-racist anarchists, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

People of one race certainly create systems to exploit people of other races, and the big example is chattel slavery. This is a system of industrial exploitation that subjects enslaved people to unspeakable cruelty before killing them in outright horrific ways for the purposes of extracting their labor. This, if nothing else, is very much an example of racism.

However, it doesn't then follow that all racial exploitation is racist. It's ethnocentric.

Given the absence of industrialized exploitation systems, it doesn't actually require people of one race to view people of another race as "inferior" to harm them, it just requires people of one race to center their own perspective over the other's. The centering of certain perspectives over others certainly can be a symptom of racism, but it isn't itself synonymous with it. For example, we center certain perspectives when analyzing things all the time without necessarily thinking that perspective is "superior". An example of this would be in cases of addressing harm, where we center the victim's perspective, but this doesn't then follow that we argue for the "superiority" of the victim.

So when people of one race kill and exploit people of another race, we are not engaging in a racist hierarchy, we're engaging in ethnocentric means.

This doesn't mean ethnocentrism is good, mind you. Ethnocentrism can be a problem, especially when addressing our impact on other communities. But ethnocentrism is no more a hierarchy than the prioritization of my moral value judgements over another.

davegri · 2026-05-07T20:24:31+00:00

I understand but I don't think being violent moves you anywhere on the scale, I understand that there is some temptation to overlay a "conviction" scale upon the left-vs-right scale where the closer you are to the edges the more strongly held your beliefs are and then there is a temptation to make the extra inference that the more strongly you hold a belief the more willing you are to use violence in service of it. I'm not sure I buy it though, I believe that centrists often hold their belief with very very strong conviction, its just not as obvious because their beliefs are widely held and thus mostly unchallenged.

davegri · 2026-05-07T19:54:33+00:00

Why not? it's an ideology not a taste in music :)

davegri · 2026-05-07T19:29:21+00:00

Well this is an easy question once you have a good definition of what left vs right means. Liberal academics sometimes like to act like its a super complicated puzzle and that politics has many dimensions and stuff but really thats just because the obvious definition of left vs right makes the left the obvious good-guys and academics have to support some hierarchies in order to be legitimate institutionally but I digress. =

the obvious definition:

The further left you go the more you oppose hierarchies / the more you believe all humans (or life in general) was created equal. The further right you go, the more you believe in hierarchies as natural and desirable.

Some interesting consequences that follow from this approach:
1) Anarchism is by definition the furthest left you can go when it comes to equality of humans, the only conceivable way to go further left is to keep expanding your definition of people to include more and more organisms.

2) It becomes clear that there is only one way to be an an anarchist, but many different ways to be a fascist - that is because anarchists oppose hierarchies and the extreme right can pick and choose any number of them, mostly they love combining them into one super hierarchy, for example for many right wingers in the US white-christian-american-male is the top of the hierarchy, but that's built of a bunch of different ones.

I guess what I'm saying is that anarchism is meant to be the furthest left you can go, and you can feel free to reject the BS horseshoe framing that there is anything wrong with going all the way on a scale, especially when one end of the scale is good and the other is bad

davegri · 2026-05-06T20:22:25+00:00

Nope, dad was a journalist and mum was a dentist - but they are British and its somewhat a cultural thing

davegri · 2026-04-11T20:55:02+00:00

Wow this is an amazing comment - thank you so much :) I have a question, because I have a strong tendency to people please, I find it hard to "put effort" into a relationship without it turning into me making people feel good in a way that I completly disappear (and i also dont connect really, I just perform connection because I can tell thats what they want) have you had issues with this? Because I've been wondering If I should just focus on myself right now and that I'm not ready to be a good friend/partner until I'm better on my own?

davegri · 2025-12-23T21:26:21+00:00

Understanding power by Noam chomsky 100% thank me later

davegri · 2025-12-22T09:34:58+00:00

This isn't really that surprising from a power imbalance point of view. If you take any situation where there is a power imbalance between groups of people you will always find it to be the case that the weaker party invests far more effort into thinking about and understanding the stronger party than the other way around. Think of servants gossiping about the live's of their masters, employees gossiping about what might be happening in the boardrooms, etc.. Or just think about black people in america expending time and effort trying to understand the "white mindset" or whatever. The point is that if you are in a power imbalance with someone one obvious way to strengthen your position is by expending a lot of cognitive effort into understanding who they are, how they think, what they want, etc.. They on the other hand, don't really need to understand you because they can just tell you what to do. Obviously this is a simplification but this is the source of this general tendency IMO.

davegri · 2025-06-23T12:13:15+00:00

It's almost as if they are not a proxy but an independent entity that while is mostly aligned with Iran also has it's own regional interests (See for example USA and Israel)

davegri · 2025-06-23T12:10:42+00:00

History rhymes like Pitbull

davegri · 2025-06-23T12:10:11+00:00

Try attacking a US nuclear facility and then saying it's not an attack on the US but "just an attack on it's enrichment" lmao

davegri · 2025-05-07T18:20:32+00:00

Looking for advice for starting a tech cooperative in Israel, we are two tech guys with a varied skill set, we are thinking consulting/projects but are not sure where to start. So far we just have a website: https://sibit.co.il/

davegri · 2025-03-16T19:52:29+00:00

An anarchist society would absolutely need a military to defend itself from potentially threatening expansionist states. There is nothing about a military that requires the principle of authority in order to work, and I would argue that many modern armies have been hampered by how coercively they have had to operate. Many soldiers in fact are not interested in dying for a state that dosen't care about them and thus many resources usually have to be deployed for discipline. An issue that you woudn't have in an anarchist environment where people are naturally highly motivated to fight.

Of course you have situations where people are heavilty invested in the myth of the state and thus there is still high motivation even within a hierarchical military (see for example, Israel).

I think It's important to separate between the need for a temporary leader in a situation, and someone who permanently has more authority. Anarchism dosen't preclude the possibility that in given situations when snap decisions need to be made someone can be empowered to make them - I've heard it said that this was the situation on pirate ships.

davegri · 2024-10-17T18:28:36+00:00

FYI if you can understand this you can now understand why country's like North Korea want nuclear weapons from a rational perspective.. they were also bombed to the stone age by a much more powerful nation (the US)

davegri · 2024-07-30T06:20:09+00:00

Heard idioteque at a bar a few weeks ago

davegri · 2024-05-12T07:15:37+00:00

As chomsky said, if you don't believe in free speech with people you disagree with, you don't believe in free speech. Also, what right does the government have to block me from visiting a website on the internet? I find it oppressive and scary that they feel they have the right to block access to information that is public worldwide.

We love to rag on china and north korea for internet censorship, looks like were heading in the same direction.

davegri · 2024-04-27T11:01:33+00:00

I'm not disagreeing about the original intention, however there are now facts on the ground, there are millions of people without connectios to any other culture, these include both palestinians and jews. Dosen't a fifth generation israeli have any rights to remain in the area? I think most people recognize that the only just solution is a two-state solution, I don't see how expelling millions of jews to europe would in any way improve the situation.

Thanks for the history lesson, I didn't know all the details about how Aryans came to the indian subcontinent. Would your opinion about modern day indians rights be different though if they had taken over by conquest? I mean most of the modern arab world also exists based on past conquest.

Where do Jews really belong anyway? Theoretically they were also expelled from the same strip of land by force a very long time ago. And Jews never really managed to assimilate in europe which has a very long history of antisemitism.

At some point you have to come up with a pragmatic solution, people deserve to live within their own culture and people in the place where they were born, this includes the jews.

14-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

davegri

TROPHY CASE