Crowstep
1yr ago
Well, we don't live in pods, nor do we eat bugs. I'm not sure how being able to walk to work counts as a 'cage' but whatever. Falsified, I guess?
But you haven't answered the key question. Who are these malicious actors? What evidence do you have for their exitence or motives?
Crowstep
1yr ago
I think it was pretty clear from the context that the first part was a summary of your views. Plus, I did literally quote you later on with a far stronger claim.
Your prediction isn't predicting all that much. Birth rates are plummeting and have been for decades. Global births peaked in 2016 and the world's TFR is about to fall below replacement. That the global population will shrink significantly is mathematically certain.
The second part is stronger (at least the 'absolute' part if not the 'relative' part), but seems very unlikely to me.
However, we weren't discussing whether or not the average human will be poorer in 2100 than they are now. The discussion was about the 'malicious, intelligent, competent agents'. Who are these agents? Where is your evidence for their existence and motives? What would you accept as falsification of these claims?
Crowstep
1yr ago
I think the accusation of Bulverism is unfair. 'Me and people like me are being oppressed by shadowy, unnamed forces' is impossible to falsify. The onus is on you to prove it. If you can't or won't do that, then speculating on why you might believe that there are malicious, intelligent, competent agents which plan for humiliation and elimination of large masses of populations is a reasonable thing to do.
Crowstep
1yr ago
Seems to be that they are most likely 'fake' artists and songs, created by Spotify to pad out their playlists without having to pay so much in royalties to real musicians.
Crowstep
3d ago
That doesn't explain why its female dominated now though. Medicine and law used to be male dominated. Now women make up a majority of new doctors and lawyers. These things can and do change.
A better explanation is that nursing, a caring profession, is majority female because all caring professions are majority-female, because women enjoy caring (for obvious biological reasons relating to maternity).
Crowstep
3d ago
because it pays very well
This study suggests its appeal lies in it being a caring profession. This one too. I don't know how things are in every country but in the UK, nursing doesn't really pay well. The average nursing wage is only slightly above the average wage for the country as a whole. Also, we see in other jobs that higher salaries attract more men than women, relative to the pleasantness of the job. High salaries should make nursing more male, not more female.
and is female gendered
That's tautological, surely? I'm asking why is it female gendered.
Crowstep
8d ago
Who exactly is 'they' here?
The survivors, the soldiers who liberated the camps and the historians who studied the Holocaust afterwards are not the ones doing the censoring. Governments (and not most governments) censor Holocaust denial because they know that the only people who question the historical facts do so because they hate Jews, and hating Jews caused the Nazis to kill six million of them. We can argue whether censorship is the right approach or not, but its mere existence isn't evidence that the Holocaust was exaggerated or made up. To believe otherwise fails in the same way that all true conspiracy theories fail, it requires too much coordination from too many people over too long.
Crowstep
8d ago
Holocaust denial censorship is best understood as part and parcel of bans on Nazi symbols. Holocaust deniers aren't disinterested historians searching for truth. They're Jew-haters who are threatened by the idea of a genocide of Jews because it undermines their beliefs that Jews rule the world.
Fortunately, I live in a country which bans neither Holocaust denial (our vibrant Muslim underclass are very grateful) nor Nazi symbolism. The Holocaust deniers have failed to win in the free marketplace of ideas because they are wrong (and motivated by transparent ethnic animosity), not because the government won't let them post on the internet.
Crowstep
8d ago
I have literally personally spoken to a Holocaust survivor who was in a death camp as a girl. I believe her (and the entirety of the historical field) over internet jew-haters.
Crowstep
8d ago
I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you suggesting that I need to personally know doctors, scientists and scientifically literate people to believe that vaccines work?
Crowstep
1mo ago
5 as a body count is definitely an ‘arbitrary’ number, but again, you get much above that and it implies more bad decision-making.
Very arbitrary. A 26-year-old woman who became sexually active at 16 and slept with one guy every two years would exceed it.
It's much more likely to reflect the reality of serial monogamy than bad decision making.
Not ‘obese.’
Not unreasonable to include, but remember that obesity is an equal opportunities offender. Most non-overweight men aren't going to want a fat wife, but then most men are fat too.
This is also true, to a lesser extent, with mental illness. Women have more mental illness than men (or at least they say they do) but the numbers for men aren't zero.
In fact, we can really apply this filter to most things you've listed. Men have high levels of obesity, student loan debt, mental illness, existing paternity and STIs. We can't apply it to everything of course. Men want a woman below 30 for obvious biological reasons that don't apply exactly to women, but broadly the way you've framed the question implies an average eligible man and an average ineligible woman. Whereas in reality, most of these things affect the numerator as well as the denominator. Loads of women are fat, but so are an equal number of men, which reduces the competion for the slim women.
Crowstep
3mo ago
Well no, you're well aware that they benefit from race discrimination in their favour.
You're also well aware that Jews are classified along with all other European ethnic groups as white. All that's happening is that the places being allocated to white students are being allocated to the most intelligent ones. This doesn't bother most people because most people don't hate Jews.
Crowstep
5mo ago
Sure, let's compare average wages to average house costs in Europe and see what we get.
The cheapest houses are in Denmark (TFR 1.46), Ireland (1.47), Sweden (1.42) and Spain (1.12), for a mean of 1.36. The most expensive houses are in Slovakia (1.45), Czechia (1.36), Slovenia (1.5) and Montenegro (1.79) for a mean of 1.53.
According to this article, the cheapest houses globally relative to wages are in Brazil (1.47), Poland (1.12) and Thailand (0.95!!).
Cheap housing does actually increase birth rates, as I mentioned in my post, but its effect is miniscule compared to the massive cultural effects of whether or not getting married young and having children is high status or not.
Crowstep
5mo ago
Well the developed world has also had dysgenic fertility since the 1800s, so it could well be a case that the two things balance out.
You have to also consider that the rest of the world also had famine, disease and pollution in 1800. You're comparing India now to (a rough outline of) Britain in 1800, as opposed to comparing India in 1800 to Britain in 1800.
India's average IQ is far too low to merely be a product of not having gone through the full Flynn Effect. Maybe once it's more developed it'll be 86 instead of 76, but India is not going to see IQ scores like we see in East Asia, the gap is too vast.
Crowstep
6mo ago
I've had what seem to be more colds than usual, but none of them particularly bad. That said, maybe its like this every year and it just doesn't stick in my memory.
Crowstep
8mo ago
Even at a meetup, you still have to ask her out and court her yourself. Just because she's in the same room, doesn't mean you're playing with cheat codes.
Crowstep
9mo ago
Well there are tons of weight loss groups full of women who do actually want to lose weight. Something like Weightwatchers comes to mind. And it's not as if fat women are turning down Ozempic and all these new drugs.
But I agree, there is something strange about approaching it like this. I would guess it's simply that most women in these groups have tried to lose weight and failed. Rather than simply resign themselves to a life of not being pretty, they'd rather try and enforce consensus in such a way that favours them.
Unfortunately, while the 'in this house we believe' approach may work with regards to public morality, it is puny in the face of human sexuality. Nobody, men or women, likes looking at fat people. And you can't shame men into finding you hot.
Crowstep
9mo ago
That answer is not even wrong.
The problem with using the CICO tautology as weight-loss advice is that an individual cannot control calories-out (if you exercise, the body will reduce your non-exercise caloric expenditure to compensate) and cannot control calories in either, at least over the long term. People eat because their appetites tell them to, and stop eating when their appetites tell them to stop.
Going outside of this is essentially impossible in the long term for 95% of the population, which is why Biggest Loser contestants, Minnesota Starvation Study subjects and prison weight gain study subjects returned back to their set-point eventually. This is also why the entire developed world is getting fatter. We're not deciding to eat more collectively, it's that something is messing with our lipostats. I personally think it's vegetable oil, but I wouldn't be too shocked if it was microplastics, xenoestrogens or some other environmental stressor.
CICO is either one of two things:
- A tautology that is axiomatically true
- A weight loss protocol that can be tested
If it's 1 then there's no point even discussing it, tautologies cannot be wrong, by definition. If it's 2, then we can test it. We have done so, and it has failed those tests completely.
What we usually see with CICO advocates is the fallacy that this site is named after. The bailey is telling fat people 'just to eat less', the motte is retreating to the tautology when someone points that that calorie-restricting diets don't actually work.
Crowstep
9mo ago
It may well be embraced by fat acceptance activists, but it is also embraced by most of the field of nutrition science.
CICO, meanwhile, is only popular with laymen (who very often pair it with moral condemnation of fat people).
I don't think it's possible to look at a chart like this and conclude that what's really going on is a linear increase in laziness starting in the mid-C20th for no reason. Pick any profession full of intelligent, hardworking people (medicine, law, programming, high-level business) and you'll see similar proportions of fat people to the general population. While there are entire premodern cultures where nobody is fat at all.
CICO feels better than set-point theory in the same way that complaining about greedy landlords feels better than campaigning for YIMBY zoning reform. Most people will choose righteous outrage over real explanations if given the choice.
Crowstep
9mo ago
I feel similarly when people tell me that HBD is obviously true, because "evolution didn't stop at the neck;" then are shocked Pikachu when people start dusting off the conniving greedy Jew stereotype and say "no no no we were just talking about IQ!" Maybe, but before iq tests were invented the differences you purport to notice existed, why can't other metrics exist even if we haven't found how to measure them yet?
How would you even measure 'greediness'? My experience has been that it's basically just a word used enviously. If I'm a tenant who can't afford rent, then landlords are greedy. If I'm a low-paid worker, then my boss is greedy. If inflation is making food more expensive, then supermarkets are greedy.
Antisemites don't think Jews are greedy because they've observed it, they think Jews are greedy because Jews are rich, and to the envious, rich=greedy.
By contrast, it's pretty easy to notice intelligence effects dispassionately. Even blank slatists notice that Asian kids do well in school.
Crowstep
10mo ago
I've thought the same thing, like ugly Zoomer fashion is just young women trying to act out a sexual counter-revolution without having to dress up like it's the 1950s.
But then I remember that young men have moustaches and mullets now, and I don't believe for a second that they are trying to desexualise themselves. Fashion is just arbitrary and weird (which, I suppose, seems pretty obvious when I look back at how some of my more fashionable friends dressed when we were teenagers).
Just like the American Office is a much more popular adaptation of the British original, the Haitians eating cats thing is really just a rip-off of Bangladeshis
eatingserving cats in their curry houses.Or maybe it was gypsies eating swans.
More options
Context Copy link