Nerd
I had sex with a vacuum, it sucked.
User ID: 1024
Nerd
2mo ago
Are they black? It may depend on the race. Steve and Maddy don't sound black, but 4 „teenagers“ with guns going carjacking sounds black. I think it's hard to talk about this without race. r/K selection theory says some races reproduce under an earlier, lower investment pattern than others. Different races also have different levels of adult neoteny, different developmental timing, and so on. It's not impossible to consider that the average black person becomes adult-in-their-race earlier than the average Asian or white person.
Im honeslty curious for your answer here, because this reply is unique in taking race realism into consideration. For our car-jacking situation, we'll say they are poor white kids. Steve (Black) & Maddy (Hispanic) are in an interracial relationship.
On a side note, It probably be rather difficult to set maturity levels into law based on race as well, but im guessing this is a moral judgement, rather than a legal implementation.
So its no secret that people, particularly zoomers, like to bitch and moan about age gaps in relationships. Should someone who's 30 date someone who's 18? Does it make you a pedophile if you do?
A lot of this discussion hinges on whether or not these people are actually "adults" that can make logical decisions. I've been pondering this myself so I'm going to run by two hypotheticals (Both for and against 18 year olds or "teenagers" being adults) and see what you guys think:
Case 1
Suppose you are on your way to work and are at a stop light. A convertible pulls up beside you, in it, 4 boys, all 18 years of age. One has a shotgun, two others have a glock. They tell you to hand them your wallet and the keys, or you die. Here is a clip for reference. Now, lets say that you have your own gun here, and instead of a wallet, you open fire, and successfully kill one of them as they drive off.
Is it fair to say that you killed a child? Probably not. You killed teenagers? Technically. Did you kill some grown ass man thinking he could jack you? Many would say yes! On top of this, many people would judge these boys as adults, and have them take a prison/jail sentence as adults. It seems that in the eyes of many, if you do adult things, and are expected to take accountability as an adult, we should rightfully call you an adult. Make sense? Maybe lets consider case 2.
Case 2
Two teenagers, Maddy (16F) & Steve (15M) are in a relationship, and are maddly in love. One day, Maddy finds herself pregnant, and gives birth to baby boy. Steve decides to marry her, and get a job at a factory to support her and the baby.
Now, both Steve & Maddy choose to do an adult action (have sex) with an adult consequence (reproduction), and took responsibility as "adults" (getting married and getting a job). Would we say these 2 are adults? It seems the answer here, for many is no. You shouldn't want teenagers to be having kids: that's what adults are expected to do. That fact that Steve & Maddy have done adult things, and are now taking on adult responsibilities, doesn't make them true adults in the eyes of many.
So far, Im what I'm thinking with both of these cases is that the cognition needed to make adult decisions perhaps simply lie at different ages, based on said decision. Maybe its easier at 14 to know that car jacking & killing is wrong, than it would be to have the knowledge and maturity neccessary to handle a sexual relationship. And that the whole "lets have one universal age of adulthood" is looking at it wrong: Different actions simply have different complexities to them, and thus a universal set age of adulthood ignores those complexities. But assuming this is true, where does sexual relationships lie on the age scale? Is a 16 year old really too immature to date some one who is 19? 20?
If we should have universal age of adulthood, that tracts onto everything (alcohol, crime, sex) where would it be? Currently, all of these have different ages (21 is for alcohol if you are in the US). What do you guys think?
Nerd
2mo ago
I gotta say, Im really fucking disappointed in Trump for this. Alienating his base and attacking his own supporters, and then starting a insane war for what seems like no particularly good reason. And to top it all off, the blockade? Why? Seriously?
Its one thing to not like the Iranian government. Fine. But going all out and attacking them in the way he has been doing is really goofy, and is making many on the right utterly regret their vote, and making blue tribe go "I told you so".
The only thing I can hope for is that the public has a short memory and that this all comes under control during midterms. But chances are looking quite slim that that happens....
Nerd
2mo ago
Consider it a blessing if this is how they lead with things. This company clearly failed your test.
A shame too. They were late with both the phone screening and the initial in person interview, I had to email them to get an update on what had happened. I was actually curious about the role.
@pigeonburger @YoungAchamian @The_Nybbler @bolido_sentimental @Tretiak @cablethrowaway
Updating Job Search again. Bitter Sweet news:
1.) All the jobs posted on the previous post fell through, minus IT Support for the school. The Building maintaince company gave me a really unprofessional and sad email, Saying that they filled the role, despite promising me a final interview previously (this was like, 3 days after the 2nd round interview) EDIT Network Engineer Internship pulled through. Im gonna get a call Monday.
2.) I've technically been given an offer, however, its 21 an hour with no benefits. Better than 17 an hour part time. Not ideal (but i accepted anyway).
3.) I had an excellent interview for a Tier 2 position at a Mortgage company. Dude tried to sell me on the company for atleast half the interiview, he really likes me! Its 27 an hour with benefits. Im crossing my fingers and hoping it wont be another "we filled this role" situation. He says HR should hook me up with a final interview early next week.
I have to say, its really fucking frustrating to be getting to the final round, only to be given the no. Its happened to me 3 - 4 times during my entire job search. Either Im doing something at the end that fucks everything up, or my competition is just insanely good, and they are edging me out in most cases. Its nuts that i could get to the final round and get the no that many times.
If i get the school or the mortgage company, im ditching the 21 an hour gig. I've been broke my whole life. I am tired. EDIT Ok, Now I have to choose between Network Engineer Internship and 21 an hour job at a hospital with no benefits. Better position than before. Still hoping that something fulltime with benefits pulls through.
Nerd
2mo ago
At this point we're into at least a second or third generation (probably more, it's not like I was around to observe between the 70s and the 90s) of libmarxist teachers doing their thing.
I think its something else entirely, but ill wait till next week to flesh this out. My hypothesis is that as societies become richer and more technologically advanced, there becomes less of need for conservative rules. This allows for more liberal morals to flourish.
Nerd
2mo ago
It wasn't that long ago that the evangelical religious right were an extremely powerful political force in America, with their own champions, cultural icons, shibboleths, set of not-entirely-related-beliefs-that-served-as-tribe-signals and bespoke rituals.
I wasnt there back then, but wasnt this kinda how Britney Spears started out, from what I heard?
Nerd
2mo ago
There's also little to no developmental difference between a 17.99 year old and an 18.01 year old person, but there's a vast difference in legal status. You can argue about development all day long, but birth either happened or it didn't.
I mean, yeah. But even thats not cut and dry is it? There are plenty of places where age of consent is 16, compared to 18 or 19 else-ware. The Netherlands will even let you commit infanticide, if the child is sick enough. & Most countries with legal abortion have some kind of gestational limit, minus the good old US of A (to my knowledge). I don't think the birth canal is as magical a line in the sand as one would think.
Nerd
2mo ago
Why? The vaginal canal is literally just 3 - 4 inches in length. There is little to no developmental difference between a 28 week old premie and a 28 week old fetus, besides a 3 - 4 inch move.
Nerd
2mo ago
"I consented to having sex, I didn't consent to getting pregnant".
I've always found this reasoning to be weakest of all possible arguments, for the simple fact that is doesn't follow on the male end of things. Can someone get out child support payments purely because they didn't "consent" to fathering the child? No! We give them the old adage of "Man Up" and "You play you pay", and rightfully so.
Nerd
2mo ago
Yeah, i definitely miss his older content! Dude incredibly intelligent and a goldmine!
Nerd
2mo ago
gay marriage
I was around when Obergefell v. Hodges was ruled on. What happened in a nut-shell was that there was an entire campaign to convince people that being gay was ok. It took family members coming out to each other on a personal level, the whole "born this way narrative" trying to indicate that this wasn't a choice. I especially think the fact that friends and family were gay really made the issue salient: should I really be against my brother, uncle, etc. Marrying another man if thats what they like? In particular, I also think most of the arguments against being gay or gay marriage itself are kinda ass.
But another factor that is likely worth taking into consideration is demographic shifts. We simply are a less religious society as we were before, and younger generations tend to be more liberal than older ones. Its just plain old demographic replacement. As to why the young are more liberal than the old - I couldnt tell you.
Nerd
2mo ago
Then we can see which one is better in the long run
I still think this would be fundamentally subjective, no? Is Japan "worse" for being an ethno-state compared to Canada, which is cosmopolitan? From just the outside looking in, they both are functional countries, with functional governments.
Nerd
2mo ago
The more I think about politics, I always end up coming back to this quote from a very good video (from a very good youtuber!).
A common bait-and-switch happens so quickly you might miss it, and it occurs very frequently. Pinker lines up a number of things that involve good fact-checking, methodological research, and asking questions, but these are not the reasons why we have core disagreements about values—they simply aren’t. There isn’t a scientific problem that is going to convert a Democrat into a Republican, and the insinuation that we can just “use science” to solve these problems is misleading.
A great example is abortion. This is largely a question about choice, life, and volition. While science can show developmental details about what a fetus is, or whether it has certain cognitive abilities, the core belief revolves around whether there is a responsibility to preserve that life, whether it has inherent value, and whether society recognizes a duty toward it. That is what governs the debate—not the microscopic details. So regardless of how much information we gather about the fetus, the abortion issue does not fundamentally change. It won’t be resolved by higher-resolution data; the question is about the value we assign, and science alone cannot determine that.
I think in most cases, politics are about values. To piggy back off the abortion example. The go to argument surrounding this typically is bodily autonomy, and although one could argue that this isn't really consistent on a factual, legal level. If I were in the room debating a pro-choice person on the issue, here is how it would go.
PC Person
The fetus is not entitled to its mothers body, consider the court case McFall v Shimp: McFall suffered from a life-threatening bone marrow disease and his cousin, Shimp, was a compatible bone marrow donor. Shimp refused to donate bone marrow. McFall requested Shimp be compelled to donate. The Court considered Shimp’s refusal “morally indefensible,” but still ruled in Shimp’s favor, explaining,
“For a society which respects the rights of one individual, to sink its teeth into the jugular vein or neck of one of its members and suck from it sustenance for another member, is revolting to our hard-wrought concepts of jurisprudence. Forcible extraction of living body tissue causes revulsion to the judicial mind.”
Judith Jarvis Thomson tackles the issues of bodily integrity and moral obligations in her essay, “A Defense of Abortion.” Thomson asks us to imagine a famous violinist with a fatal kidney ailment. One day a bunch of music lovers kidnap you and hook your kidneys up to the violinist’s circulatory system. In nine months the violinist will have recovered, but if you disconnect yourself prematurely the violinist will die. Thomson asks, “Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation?”
When you drive (have sex), you know there’s a possibility you could crash into someone (conceive). Even when you drive very cautiously (use contraception), there is still a chance of a car accident. Should you be in a car crash in which the victim’s life is at stake, the law does not compel you to donate blood or organs to save the victim. While it would be admirable for you to donate, you are not required to do so."
Me:
"Thats cool. Lets say you, for whatever reason, are a psychopath who enjoys taking children, draining them of their blood, hospitalizing them and or possibly killing. If I was king for a day, and assuming your blood was a match, I would sentence you to life in prison, and then order that your blood be drained and given to the remaining children to save them. Fight Me"
I don't find this to be unreasonable, given that we would already use lethal injection for these kinds of people (also a violation of "bodily autonomy"). Draining someone of their blood would be no less worse than forcefully injecting them.
You are free to think I'm a crazy person, fine. But that's not my main point. The same problem exists for issues like nationalism & immigration. You can scream all day about how immigrants are a net gain to the economy, or how they commit less crime. But a ethno-nationalist will simply go "No, I value the culture and heritage of the green people, and I'd rather them go extinct than to have our way of life polluted by the purples.".
Another explicit example of what im talking about is race. A black person does not vote democrat because they are factually good for the economy (whether or not they are is besides the point). If you asked average black voter to produce a study about specific policies that cite this, they would come up short. Support for democrats comes from the idea of racial solidarity, and the fact that black people value the black race, and would like to advance black interest.
I have no clue how one would even go about resolving this. Morals & values are not empirical - you cant prove bodily autonomy and cultural heritage are good in the same way you can prove what foods are and aren't healthy. These things are based on moral intuitions that are fundamentally subjective. I don't think I could ever change my personal mind on that issue to be completely honest, but on a societal scale, this is obviously not sustainable. There needs to be some way to reconcile a difference in moral values.
@quiet_NaN @coffee_enjoyer I'm gonna do a defense of @Poug argument.
The original tweet is very poorly worded. However, i think if we exam other aspects of trumps behavior aroundthe whole conflict, there is probably are good reasons to think that trump doesn't have any real desire to wipe out Iranians.
Here is trump telling Iranians to get really excited for a positive future. & wanting to continue talking to Iran to work something out afterward the initial "genocide threat"
Here is my take: I don't think trump unironically desires to genocide Iranians, even in the original tweet, he blesses the people. He is using hyperbolic language to try and get Iran to capitulate and work with him for some new deal. This is a poor strategy, but its also important to remember that there are plenty of crazy out there stuff trump has said in the past that never came to fruition. As far as I can see now, this has failed, and he is now blocking the strait. Not good, but not what i would call genocidal either. I think Iranians are gonna stay with us.
Nerd
2mo ago
I am intentionally comparing prejudice against men to prejudice against Muslims because both often stem from fear-based logic.
My critique focuses on the specific progressive argument that prejudice against men is "valid" because women’s fear is backed by the reality of male-driven misogyny and violence. By accepting this "valid reason" as a justification for sexism, one inadvertently creates a logical pathway to justify prejudice against specific racial or religious groups based on similar statistical or anecdotal fears. Afterall this is the reasoning given for the different treatment of sexisms that you suggest.
The core of my point is this: if we validate differential treatment of men based on their collective actions, we undermine the fundamental argument against racial or religious profiling, as the same logic of "justifiable prejudice" could then be applied to any group.
Nerd
2mo ago
I mean yeah that might be her message overall, but I cant help but feel, intuitively, that there would be a deliberate avoidance to dating black men on her part, just based on the 1st NYC video, even if she wouldnt encourage her audience to think in this way directly. It is harder to date black men as a black women, she knows this, and she very likely avoids dating black men because of it. I think that this is ok for what its worth. But I dont think she is entirely free of non-discrimination. Besides that, sexual selection is the one aspect of life that is always discriminatory, and people have the right to do it, based on race or whatever characteristics, because someone has a right to decide who they want to sleep with, period.
Nerd
2mo ago
I think the flaw with this explanation specifically is that pretty much everyone on the planet has a close relationship with the opposite sex by default, due to the fact that everyone has a mother and father, and has had at lease one romantic relationship. Plenty of men have close relationships with other women like a sister or a mom, that doesnt mean that anything a particular man is saying wouldnt be called misogyny, just because they have those connections. Andrew Tate probably has had his fair share of girlfriends and has a mother, lots of people think he is a misogynistic douche. Its not like he is just telling the truth about women because he has had personal relationships with them.
Nerd
2mo ago
If she were to follow up her statement with “and so as a rule I don’t date Black guys” then we have a problem. That’s discrimination because it ignores the humanity of individuals (and also creates hard feelings that are often counterproductive on a societal level). I realize this is not always cut and dry (what if she says “and so I’m reluctant to date Black guys?”) but I strongly believe we should save the vast majority of the moral approbation for this kind of specific individualized behavior. Kindness is a bit of a skill.
I mean, if you watch the video, she basically admits to to most of her boyfriends being white, partially for stereotypical reasons. She actually has a whole video in depth talking about the issue dating black men as a black women.
Nerd
2mo ago
I think this is it: nobody today, even the most self-described feminist really believes in a blank slate between the sexes in areas like physical strength and capacity for violence and criminality.
Many of the self described feminist, and many leftist i ran into quite literally believe this. Maybe its just been my experience, but I've ran into people both online an personally who think that men and women are essentially the same at birth, & that patriarchy makes us different. I agree this is not the case, but as I've addressed in the original post, this fact is rejected by many within our society, perhaps my experience with such people differ from yours.
A lot of the resistance to these facts probably come down to the fact that they: 1 - basically prove gender essentiallism to an extent 2 - Can be used to argue for gendered treatment of individuals. I dont think either of those are wrong, but a lot of theses types do.
Nerd
2mo ago
I don't think it's sexist or racist to believe that men are more likely to be violent or that Muslims are more likely to be violent. I think prejudice occurs when you go from the real statistical understanding to collective blame and group punishment, treating every man or black person or Muslim or whatever else as if they aren't an individual who holds responsibility only to themselves and not to others who they have an attribute of theirs in common with.
This is actually what I meant to critique. Ill modify the post accordingly! (Although many people do think that simply believing this is wrong) Im trying to talk more about treating people within a given group differently based on these general facts. (Treating an individual man as if he would rape you, and profiling him, for example, because the majority of rape is men.)
What makes sexism more tolerable than racism?
So I was watching a video the other day about being a woman in NYC. And something this women said stuck out to me, and this something I notice In liberal/Progressive circles when it comes to Men specifically:
"I feel like with Black men in the city, I don’t really—like, I don’t trust them. I racially profile Black men a lot, just because I know whenever I see a group of Black men, they’re probably going to catcall me. Like, nine times out of ten. It's weird being standoffish to your own kind, but it’s like at this point, it’s not even like, 'Oh, like my fellow Black community member.' It’s just like, 'Oh, like that’s a man, and they are the enemy,' especially Black men. And I hate to say it, but like..."
There is often deep talk in many feminist circles, and society, generally, about how scary it is to be a women, and how fearful women are of Men. Im not here to argue that this fear is unjustified - I understand it fully, but here is what I think is a bigger problem with this: It is, by definition, prejudice. Thats honestly not the problem I have with it, the problem is a perceived double standard between prejudices.
Im sure everyone here is aware of the not so secret that Men as a group commit more violent crime than women - Mass Shootings, Rape, ect. As a response people are more fearful and more cautious of men as a whole. And for the most part, it seems that we consider this prejudice justifiable. No one would really refer to this as "Sexism"
Yet, with race & religion (and fascinatingly enough, this young women herself, despite being very liberal, is prejudice against her own race) we would reject this very reasoning. For example, according to the Global Terrorism Index, at least 75% of global terrorism comes from Islamic Groups. Yet, if some one says that they fear Muslims, or don't think they should be able to migrate into the country, many of these liberal types would revere this as a form of "racism", after all, not all Muslims are terrorist. Same for Black Men, they have a disproportionate amount of criminality, yet if you said what this young lady said as police officer, and that you profile Black Men more often because they are more likely to do it, you'd be cooked alive.
The obvious intuitive response someone could give here is that, Men & Women are obviously different in a way that people of different races and religions are not (unless you are a race realist). We know biologically that males are more aggressive, so them engaging in more criminality and being the scarier sex overall should be no surprise, thus, this prejudice isn't wrong. But the issue here is that this is obviously not a very progressive explanation, as these progressives typically believe that differences between the sexes are due to the social construct of gender, and that society is largely responsible for this difference. But this merely mirrors the same beliefs about differences we see between races and religious groups, no? If all these differences were indeed, socially constructed, and a product of patriarchy - white supremacy, etc, Than why wouldnt it follow that this prejudice is wrong too? Is it not sexist to believe that someone is inherently more likely to kill and rape you due to a immutable and arbitrary characteristic, like gender, in the same way believing that black people are Muslims are more likely to kill and rape others because of their faith & skin color, and treat individuals within these groups accordingly based on that? Its not something inherent about men (or muslims, black people) that make them more likely to be violent, society is to blame!
So the question here is this: Why is prejudice based on sex tolerable, but prejudice based on race & religion, not?
Nerd
2mo ago
I actually ended up getting laid off of previous job, luckily i was already looking before hand anyway, and there is a good chance i nab one of these. But yeah, its definitely tough. Im really grateful that i've made it this far out.
Nerd
2mo ago
Why'd you choose the ISP? Or was it just not your first choice, you just got a job? Honestly, I am actually thinking about taking bluecollar company job (Sadly, the financial firm fell through, and i suspect the engineering firm job has as well, leaving me with the 3 others remaining.) Its a combination of IT Support and some minor office administration work. I'm highly curious about it.
Meh for you maybe, but I feel like a lot of people would reject a 130 IQ 14 year old dating someone who is in their 30s. It just seems intuitively wrong on many levels, even if someone has a really high IQ.
More options
Context Copy link