Folamh3
User ID: 1175
#3 is difficult to take seriously, to be honest.
Agreed, calling yourself a lesbian when you date men as well as women (maybe only date men) is stupid. Nonetheless, if the lesbian demographic includes many women who've been in (or currently are in) romantic relationships with men, that could potentially bias survey results in such a way to give a misleading impression of how common women-on-women domestic abuse is. The person conducting the survey might well assume that a person who identifies as a lesbian and claims to have experienced domestic abuse at the hands of a romantic partner has been victimised by a woman - indeed, this is a completely reasonable assumption given the standard definitions of the words "lesbian" and "woman". But just because that assumption is reasonable, doesn't mean there aren't people using those words in a nonstandard way which will bias the results. (Blood donor clinics and other medical practitioners already do this to route around the men who will give very different answers to the questions "are you gay?" and "have you had anal sex with a man in the past year?")
What you'd ideally want to do is design surveys in such a way that the results can't possibly be misinterpreted, like:
Q: In the past five years, have you been in one or more romantic relationships with:
- Male people only
- Female people only
- Male and female people
- No one
Q: In the past five years, have you experienced domestic abuse by
- At least one male partner?
- At least one female partner?
- At least one male and at least one female partner?
- No one
Of course, inevitably you would get people failing to report domestic abuse because the perpetrator was non-binary, or inflated numbers for female perpetrators of domestic violence because some respondents were victimised by trans women and interpreted male/female to mean "gender" rather than "sex". It's turtles all the way down.
Folamh3
1d ago
insecurities over their own hobbies (current or when they were younger)
Who drew that comic, it's hilarious
Folamh3
1d ago
Of course not, but on the narrow metrics of "desirability over time" and "fertility over time" I think it's fair to say men have it better than women and thus "women get shafted by nature" is a reasonable characterisation.
Folamh3
1d ago
- If she was abused by a male relative, flatmate or housemate.
- If she was in a relationship with a man who abused her during a period of her life in which she identified as straight or bi, but now identifies as a lesbian.
- If she's a "lesbian" who only dates men.
Have you ever dated, seriously, a woman who you felt was objectively smarter than you were?
I once dated a woman meeting that description. I thought she was smarter than me even in spite of the fact that she was into astrology. Like really into it.
Now that I think of it, I also went on two dates with a doctor who I thought was more intelligent than me.
Folamh3
1d ago
Not exactly the same, but I personally know one guy who said he was worried about the fact that his then girlfriend would soon be making more money than him.
As opposed to men, whose desirability to the opposite sex tends to increase between their early twenties and early forties, and who are able to conceive a child for a far longer proportion of their lifespan.
Folamh3
1d ago
as far as I know, the opposite is in fact true on average
I've heard incredibly conflicting takes on this. I once heard that lesbian relationships reported the highest rates of domestic violence compared to gay or straight relationships. But then I heard someone else say that this statistic had been widely misrepresented: it was that lesbians were most likely to report having experienced domestic violence, without disambiguating the sex of the aggressor i.e. many lesbians reported having been victims of domestic violence at the hands of a male aggressor. If it's really the former situation, do you have any stats?
A few years ago I read an article on Quillette called "My Misspent Years of Conspiracism", in which the author describes how he was taken in by Oliver Stone's 1991 film JFK which alleges a conspiracy to assassinate John F. Kennedy, and how he subsequently came around to the idea that the Warren Commission's conclusions were accurate: JFK was killed by two rounds fired from the Texas school book depository by Lee Harvey Oswald, who acted alone. He explained the turning point in disabusing him of his misconceptions about the assassination was the TV documentary The Kennedy Assassination: Beyond Conspiracy. Not being especially well-versed in the various conspiracies surrounding the JFK assassination, I was persuaded by this article, and by its assertion that pretty much everything in the film JFK (which I haven't seen) is nonsense.
Today I've been reading some of the Wikipedia articles about the assassination, including the master article and the article about the assorted conspiracy theories (there's also one about the Dictabelt recording and the single-bullet theory, which I haven't gotten to yet). I'm currently watching the Beyond Conspiracy documentary mentioned in the article and it's fascinating (available here, but you need a Vimeo account). I was intrigued by this paragraph from the master article:
All remaining assassination-related records were scheduled to be released by October 2017, with the exception of documents certified for continued postponement by succeeding presidents due to "identifiable harm... to the military, defense, intelligence operations, law enforcement, or conduct of foreign relations... of such gravity that it outweighs the public interest in disclosure." President Donald Trump said in October 2017 that he would not block the release of documents, but in April 2018—the deadline he set to release all JFK records—Trump blocked the release of some records until October 2021. President Joe Biden, citing the COVID-19 pandemic, delayed the release further, before releasing 13,173 unredacted documents in 2022. A second group of files were unsealed in June 2023, at which point 99 percent of documents had been made public.
Two questions:
- Did the documents released since 2017 contain any bombshells? Have any conspiracies (or any components of conspiracies) been vindicated by the release of these documents?
- Even if the film JFK is a load of tripe, is it entertaining enough to be worth a watch? Or can you only get any enjoyment out of it if you're a true believer? Speaking as someone with decidedly mixed feelings on Stone as both a director and a screenwriter: Platoon was okay, Wall Street is trash, Alexander dragged on for bloody years, Natural Born Killers was eh (although I was probably about twelve years old when I saw it and perhaps too young to really get it), Midnight Express was somewhat entertaining but also the most unabashedly racist Hollywood film I've ever seen - come to think of it, the only film in which Stone had any involvement which I can say I love without qualification is Scarface.
Folamh3
3d ago
Of all sad words,
Of tongue and pen,
The saddest are these:
"/pol/ was right again."
Folamh3
4d ago
This evening, I learned that there's a Wikipedia article dedicated to /pol/.
Reading it was a real walk down memory lane. Anyone remember #SuperStraight?
The higher level of analysis, however, is; should police departments be setup for this? I'd actually argue they should not.
I think about this sketch a lot.
As highlighted by Freddie deBoer, there's so much inconsistency in the standard progressive narrative about what the police are for and what they should do. Cops don't do enough to protect black people, but it's also bad that police allocate disproportionate amount of resources to high-crime (i.e. black and Hispanic) neighbourhoods. Cops don't do enough to protect female victims of crime. Therefore we should defund the police while criticising the police for not doing enough with their already limited budgets.
So much of the debate seems stymied by the availability heuristic. Consumers of true crime content focus on fascinating cases which happened to relatable victims: in other words, bizarre unsolved murders in which the victim was an (A)WF(L)*. Consumers of this content are then bound to come away with the misconception that it's exceedingly common for a man to murder a strange woman and get away with it, which is wrong in almost every way: the overwhelming majority of murder victims are men, most murder victims are killed by someone known to them (although admittedly the American murder clearance rate has plummeted in recent decades, although I suspect that most of the unsolved murders in recent decades were gang violence rather than Ted Bundy copycats). True crime consumers then apply this misconception to their expectations for a functional police force, clamouring for police to Do More to solve murder cases with female victims (but without increasing police budgets in any way, of course).
And sure, maybe if we raised police budgets by 10% every year we might improve the marginal return on murder clearance, solving that 1% of murder cases every year which don't neatly fall into a) gang violence b) domestic violence or c) drunken bar fight. Whereupon the narrative will shift on a dime: "$State spent $10 million sending this Black man with learning disabilities and an underprivileged upbringing who raped and murdered three women to the electric chair! Imagine if that money had been spent on education so that children from similar backgrounds don't follow him down that path." There's no winning.
I think I agree with you that I'm satisfied with a police force that can solve most of the banal murders in a timely fashion, accepting that a small number of really weird cases will go unsolved every year as the price of a free society. I'm not persuaded that increasing police budgets by 10% to catch these weird cases passes a cost-benefit analysis, much like it would be a misallocation of resources to invest millions trying to find a treatment for a disease which only kills 100 people a year.
*"Affluent" and "liberal" are preferred but optional.
Jordan Jensen is a comedian I discovered on Instagram. I think she's one of the most consistently funny comedians going and I would love to see her perform live.
Then this happened today, and I'm wondering how long it'll be before she has to issue a groveling desaturated apology video. (Personally, I don't think she has anything to apologise for.)
One thing I find funny is when people say things like "I can't believe you said this during Pride month!" The implication being that jokes of this kind would be well-received by the trans community at any other time of the year, but are beyond the pale during June. Like, right.
Folamh3
7d ago
The elections for the European parliament are running from yesterday until Sunday. I'm on my way to vote.
Folamh3
10d ago
Playing tennis in a 3-piece suit is just about the most insane thing I've ever heard.
Folamh3
10d ago
Earlier than your stated timeframe but Scott's "Can It Be Wrong to Crystallize Patterns?" might be relevant.
Folamh3
11d ago
It's not laugh-out-loud funny, but I think it nails a certain "if I don't crack a smile about this, I'll burst into tears" tone that Jewish humour is known for.
Folamh3
11d ago
I see nothing controversial about this clarification. Slaughterhouse-Five is an absurdist comedy-drama, which uses ridiculous situations, conceits and sci-fi concepts to throw the insanity of war into sharp relief.
Folamh3
11d ago
I know astrology seems like a blue tribe thing
Regardless of political persuasion, I have never met a straight man who was interested in astrology. 100% of the people I've met who were interested in it were women or gay men.
Folamh3
11d ago
I would very much like to read the female version.
I have no idea how indoor rock climbing became the quintessential sport/activity among yuppie tech workers. I went to my nearest gym a few times and felt out of place not wearing a Google/Dropbox/Salesforce t-shirt.
Folamh3
14d ago
Choral arrangement of "Adagio for Strings" was some baller shit.
Hard disagree, just think of all the subreddits dedicated to making fun of fat people which got banned over the years.
More options
Context Copy link