NullHypothesis
No bio...
User ID: 2718
I would guess that most of the people complaining are more concerned about who he was running against. And for some of those people, more specifically the race of that person.
The resulting comment chains to your statement is yet another example of the problems caused by using words such as "most" and "some" because those words are vague and can be interpreted in so many ways.
At this point, I say you should put a percentage estimate with your confidence on that estimate (e.g. I am 90% confident 5% of Romney voters voted for him because they didn't like Obama being black) and this should reveal what you really think about the matter. And if your estimate is reasonable it should take some heat off your back.
NullHypothesis
1yr ago
Not sure if it would change your mind, but I find seeing the gameplay in video footage instead of a screenshot can change how you perceive the graphics, as motion and animation have a huge impact on perception. If you ever pause a video the image never seems "right" and often you get people in strange facial poses/expressions. Or if you ever pause an animation when a character is making a big movement you get some really funky-looking images.
I play Starcraft and I prefer the visuals of Starcraft Broodwar to Starcraft II. The interesting thing about Brood War is that the units pop out to me whether it is on video or a screenshot, but Starcraft II looks much worse as an image than when I view it in a video. So something similar could be happening to BG3.
You can see a similar in Age of Empires series;
Age of Empires 2: https://cdn.akamai.steamstatic.com/steam/apps/813780/ss_e2fc6cfd934c8150cf751955d44deb688ab3c7d0.1920x1080.jpg?t=1702497119
Age of Empires 4: https://cdn.akamai.steamstatic.com/steam/apps/1466860/ss_48195285a60c6208f8bd722f74c556b9a224f4b0.1920x1080.jpg?t=1702338967
The units in Age of Empires 2 just seem to pop out more to me.
I am in general agreement with you that things look worse in 3d, but I'm speaking strictly from an RTS gameplay experience where your ability to process visual information in a short amount of time is crucial. For a game like BG3 where the gameplay is turn-based and people are probably playing to immerse themselves in the story, I don't think the 3d art detracts from the gameplay or experience.
It doesn't actually mean that. The manosphere loves these horror stories but alimony is awarded only in a minority of divorce cases, about 10%. Women tend to wind up significantly poorer after divorce, not richer.
That's a sobering white pill if I've ever seen one, but it only partly addresses the income portion.
There is still the loss of assets, as the division of assets is different from alimony. For example, South Carolina considers equitable distribution as a separate concept from alimony. As men tend to be the partners with a higher income, they will have contributed to a greater portion of the assets in a marriage, and thus lose out more in terms of the assets.
Child support, while not alimony, is also something that the man has to contribute, and it's no secret knowledge that men get the short end of the stick when it comes to rights over their children.
Couple of reasons to read a book still:
- Learn how other people build arguments to reach the conclusion you already are convicted of. It can help you with additional arguments that can help bolster your defense of that idea, or if the argument is poor you now know in advance how others might want to dismantle your conclusion.
- Someone else put the effort into compiling a bunch of sources that can count as evidence, statistics, stories, etc that can be a good reference point, especially if you don't have those yourself already.
- The style of the writing itself is interesting/entertaining enough to warrant reading.
Pinker's books are quite lengthy though, so it'll take a month to get through his books via audio if you do like 1-2 hours a day. That being said, you could just look at the chapter titles and skip to the parts that might be of interest to you. You might miss some of the context/previously established ideas but the nice thing about nonfiction work is that you don't have to read the whole thing in its entirety.
Nassim Nicholas Taleb has some interesting ideas in his books (The Black Swan, Antifragile, and Skin in the Game were three I listened to). He comes off a bit arrogant to me but I think his books leave some interesting ideas to ponder on. Funnily enough, Pinker and Taleb also have some beef:
NullHypothesis
1yr ago
We see that the social expectation of cooperation is not always the best result for everyone in a group.
I don't know much about League of Legends, but do solo queue people get pitted against pre-assembled groups of 5? I imagine the group that has experience playing together would be more receptive to cooperative play because they know exactly what those pings mean, whereas in solo queue that ping could mean anything from just providing information "hey enemy is here" to " hey jungler you need to come and gank now". Cooperation means you take the other player's input into account, not to just blindly follow another person's orders.
NullHypothesis
1yr ago
I asked about this a month ago and got a response from one of the mods.
Typically I read all the comments by a particular user. Trolling stuff never gets out. If we have recently banned or perma banned users I have to be on the lookout for similarish commenting.
There are certain thresholds you have to hit before your posts and comments get auto-approved.
Spam and bots are not serious problems. But trolls and ban-evaders are major problems. The time delay of a moderator reading the comments and approving them helps lower the effectiveness of trolling, and makes bans actually costly (unlike on reddit, where they were trivially easy to dodge as long as you didn't piss off the admins).
We try to lean heavily towards approving new comments and posts. So all of your comments will eventually get approved.
And when I asked about reposting a question/topic from the previous week:
As a general rule, reposting from a previous week's thread is ok.
Intentionally reposting from something that is already in the thread is frowned upon.
The rule of thumb I use when modding: is there already a live discussion on this topic, if so, just join that. The deader the previous discussion the more ok it is to repost it and start it up again.
Careers don't make most women happy in the long term, which is why you can see a trend of highly competent and successful women leaving their extremely lucrative and successful careers by the time they reach their 30s. For example, when you look at lawyers, 30% of women with JDs are unemployed from the ages of 36-40 compared to just 4% of men.
There's a recent survey of women lawyers leaving their firms that indicated that 82% of women left due to lack of flexibility and work/life balance. The article on the survey tries to paint the picture that women aren't leaving for the commonly held belief to be stay-at-home moms, but it's clear the high-stress and workload jobs at the top law firms aren't making women happy, because if it made them happy, why would they quit? The men aren't quitting, in fact, they'll gladly work 60-80 hours a week because the men in these professions are highly conscientious competitive people who find their sense of worth from dominating their chosen area of competence and will put in those extra hours to beat the guys that don't. You don't see them complain about work/life balance because to them it's one aspect they can use to win against their competition. Jordan Peterson talks about women who quit their careers in this 11 minutes video and is worth watching if you want more reasons why women leave their careers. There are a lot of interesting tidbits in that video that I don't want to bother quoting right now.
Something to keep in mind is that a lot of guys also wouldn't be happy working 60-80 hours a week. That's why most men aren't CEOs, doctors, lawyers. But there are enough men with that drive, and those men outnumber women with that kind of disposition. Men also find fulfillment in providing for their families, which is why many men deliberately choose to work overtime if they can, to earn more money for their family. Women can show their love and support for their family, but they'd rather do it in the presence of their family rather than slave away at a job where they are away from their family.
What feminism has done is tell women that they don't need a man, they don't need to do traditionally female tasks, and they can go out there and work and compete just like men in all those highly respected and sought-after professions and fields. As a result, a bunch of women pursued extremely tough and competitive careers, only to find out that it didn't make them happy. Is it such a surprise that working a highly stressful, competitive job with a lot of responsibility is really, really tough and doesn't give you time to do much else? Most men wouldn't want to do those jobs, which is why most men don't do those jobs. Feminism took a slice of the male population, a slice that is highly irregular, and told women that they should all be just like these highly competitive conscientious men. And they'll be happy doing so.
Women in general would be much happier raising a family than working a highly stressful job. Women prefer to work and be with people, and properly raising a family ensures that you'll have people around you well into your deathbed. However, because feminism has pushed women to pursue a career and actively put disdain on traditional female roles, more and more women are delaying or ignoring the idea of being a mother. By the time these women realize that careers don't make them happy and that they might want children, it might be too late. And if they're lucky enough to still be able to have children, well they still have to find a suitable partner to be their husband. Women tend to date across or up the social ladder, so if you're a highly successful woman, your options become quite limited. And their success is to their detriment, as men don't care how much the woman makes, and men prefer younger women. Thus, we're seeing the rise of childless old women and as they get older they slowly lose their social connections and without having a family they become more and more isolated. As a result, we see more and more women get depressed as all they to show for their life is a career they don't care about and the bitter truth that feminism lied to them, as their now aging bodies are too old to have children.
Some women resort to freezing their eggs so that their age won't be a problem, but there are many issues related to egg freezing. If the frozen eggs no longer work, as it hasn't for so many women, then they truly have no option to bear children as by the time they do go ahead and use their eggs their bodies are too old to have children.
Other ideas may have factored into "The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness" such as social media, the use of drugs and anti-depressants, the sexual liberation of women, dating and casual sex, marriage and divorce, and the decline of religion, but I'm not going to explore these ideas further right now.
NullHypothesis
1yr ago
Women have a net negative fiscal impact for most of their lives. See page 23, Figure 16 for a graphical breakdown. Basically, women cost the state more than they provide in taxes until the ages from 40-64, (where the net capital impact doesn't even reach 5000 in the positive at its peak). Across their lifetime this translates to a net cost to society from a fiscal perspective.
Couple of reasons:
- Welfare and social programs are tailored more toward women than men.
- Women earn less money overall. Feminists call it the wage gap, anyone who looks at the issue knows that for various reasons, women work less hours, tend to choose careers that are not as lucrative, are less likely to negotiate a higher pay, retire earlier, among many other factors.
- Women have lower workforce participation.
Some caveats:
- Data is for New Zealand
- Women have not participated in the workforce for as long.
- Young women are starting to outearn young men . Mostly due to more women graduating from college than men in combination with the massive social campaigns/programs to get women into higher-paying fields. Whether these women will continue to outearn men as they age only time will tell.
My question is, why should these rich Western nations allow women and girls entry? What are the benefits of doing so? There has to be an upper limit and there is no reason why we should prioritize providing jobs/work for migrants especially when people in the country are already struggling to find jobs. I'm pretty sure it's typically illegal male migrants that work under minimum wage difficult blue-collar jobs, not women. And since these are women coming in, and this is a nationally approved program, there is no way that these women will be allowed to work at an under-minimum wage rate. The only argument I could see how this policy is a net positive for the country is that this can lead to an increase in the birth rate, but the children of the next generation are going to have the same opinions/beliefs that lead to the birth rate issue. So this is merely a band-aid solution with a whole list of other potential issues.
Let's not forget women are the ones who mostly voted for lax immigration policies that have led to the issues we see in these Western nations today. What's stopping these women from becoming a large enough group to influence other women to change this policy? After all these migrant women would likely want to bring their family over if they can.
A bit of a stretch for this point, so feel free to criticize this as I do not have strong evidence for this thought. This migration policy could potentially increase terrorist threats against Western countries. What happens to the males in the countries these women are leaving? As the gender ratios further shift to more males, resentment in these countries will rise. And unlike China, which is mostly caused by China's policies, the gender imbalance will be caused by a clear external party (Western nations). Someone with a vendetta against the western nations could channel the increasing tension amongst young men in these societies and point out how western nations are siphoning their women away and use this to increase conflicts and start terrorism against the Western countries.
Are we talking about regular papers published in journals, conferences and such and not some university internal reports?
Yes, published papers specifically. The exact method is explained in the method section of the source:
Data for this paper are drawn from Thomson Scientific’s Web of Science, which comprises the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE), Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) and Arts and Humanities Citation Index (AHCI), for the 1900–2007 period. Each journal was classified based on the taxonomy used by the U.S. National Science Foundation. For the Humanities, the NSF classification was completed using in-house classification results. NSF subject headings where grouped into four broad categories: natural sciences and engineering (NSE), medical fields (MED), social sciences (SS), and the humanities (HUM). Data for NSE and MED start in 1900, data for the SS start in 1956 and for HUM in 1975.
The matching of article citations was made using Thomson’s reference identifier provided with the data, as well as using the author, publication year, volume number and page numbers. Only citations received by articles, notes and review articles were included in the study and first author self-citations were excluded.
Also had excluded online data at the time:
The data reported in this paper do not take into account the “online availability” variable.
Note that this is data from studies published in the early 2000s, i haven't found a more recent analysis, but I find that things that studies/analyses that can put leftist doctrine and ideology into question don't get produced out of the universities and are quite rare. This leads me to assume that analysis would prove the numbers are even worse, as I imagine the Humanities sectors would be incentivized to disprove this statistic to justify their existence in the universities, and the fact that I could not find a detailed analytic reputation from within the last 16 years implies the truth of the scenario.
The quality of the majority of papers being produced is extremely questionable and the methodology has been in question. Back in 2018 three professors deliberately created 20 fake studies with the most outlandish claims, of which "seven of their articles had been accepted for publication by ostensibly serious peer-reviewed journals. Seven more were still going through various stages of the review process. Only six had been rejected." A similar stunt was performed in 1996, known as the Sokal Hoax. It is a fact that people can submit fake, bullshit papers into the humanities and have them published for the world to see. It's also a fact that nobody is reading these papers.
What was the content of these bullshit studies? Sokal submitted his paper proposing that quantum gravity is a social and linguistic construct. According to the Atlantic article I linked above, one of the published papers from the more recent 2018 example argued that "western astrology" was sexist and imperialist, and that physics departments should study feminist astrology and practice interpretative dance. Another asked if “dogs suffer oppression based upon (perceived) gender?" Even another argued that "men who masturbate while thinking about a woman without her consent are perpetrators of sexual violence." These were the ones that got published into supposedly reputable journals that publish works from professors from distinguished universities like UCLA, Penn State, etc. (There is a section at the bottom of the Atlantic article that provides some criticism/counterargument to what Sokal and the three professors are trying to prove about the state of Academia, for those interested, go look at the article).
The question then is why is this allowed to happen in the humanities? There is the common explanation that one must publish or perish in order to have a successful academic career, which drives people to publish whatever they can to succeed in the Academia rat race.
Jordan Peterson provided another explanation on the humanities papers fiasco.
The question is, why do these papers get published since no one reads them and they have nothing to offer? And the answer to that is very straightforward. The journals are extremely expensive. Way more expensive than they should be. So just to buy a single paper online for the ordinary person is like $40 which is more than a hardcover book. That's just to download the pdf. And so the journal itself - libraries are full of them - are very expensive and the subscriptions are very expensive. And so what happens is the professors pressure the university libraries to buy the journals, and the library funds the publisher, and so the publishers will publish anything - Routledge is a good example of that much to my chagrin because they published my first book - but and they used to be a great publishing house but they'll publish damn near anything and the reason for that is that the libraries are forced to pay radially inflated prices for the publications that no one ever reads and so people write, to publish in journals that libraries have to purchase at inflated prices, to produce knowledge that no one will ever read and that's the little scandal that plagues the humanities. I think it characterizes the humanities more than plagues them.
It seems like Jordan Peterson is arguing the humanities in the universities have either set up or taken advantage of a system that allows financial gain for the professors in the humanities so there is no incentive to publish good studies. It's possible the money generated from this system can be used to justify the existence of these humanities departments to the university. But essentially Jordan Peterson is saying the humanities are a scam.
NullHypothesis
1yr ago
Why waste time going to college if you already have a business making 200K a year? Especially since that business is in the digital marketing space, nothing you learn in college is going to help with that. Yes, I'm aware of the possibility that the TikTok user just made up the scenario for clicks and views. I also know people value a degree and that there may be family/social pressure to attend college.
Too many students tie their sense of worth to what college they get admitted to. As others have said, a 1460 SAT score, especially nowadays, isn't something you'd expect SHOULD get you into an Ivy League or even the next-tier down colleges. It's impressive, but not good enough. There are plenty of good schools the next tier down that still have extremely high brand recognition and provide a good education.
There's certainly something to be said about the networking access you get and brand recognition if you go to a school like Harvard, but a lot of these students go from being the top or smartest kid in their town/school to being mediocre or below average. This is a huge blow to their ego and while it certainly is a humbling and valuable lesson a lot of these students end up switching from a difficult STEM track to something more manageable such as liberal arts. I think this is a net loss to humanity, while I can acknowledge there is some value to the liberal arts the world needs more doctors/scientists/engineers instead of another person writing papers nobody cares about. 82 percent of papers in humanities don't get a single citation 5 years after they are published. (I was unable to find a source with more recent data, but my gut feeling is that the work coming out of the humanities now is even worse on average than they were 20 years ago).
You can see this happen on a statistical level with students admitted via affirmative action. A decently smart black kid who's always wanted to be a scientist gets into Harvard, falls into the bottom 10% of students, and since he's human gets discouraged and switches majors to something else instead, where he has a much easier time because the coursework is not as difficult. The black community lost a future scientist or doctor to affirmative action. If that kid went to some state university instead, he may have graduated top of his class and proceeded to produce valuable work for humanity as a scientist or engineer.
Maclolm Gladwell makes a similar argument in his book David and Goliath. He points out how the top third of students, no matter the university, around 45-55% get a STEM degree, while the bottom third only 15-20% get a STEM degree. The top third of students at a place like Hartwick is equivalent in average SAT scores to the bottom third of students at a place like Harvard. It's the bottom third of Harvard students switching majors, even though they are likely as smart or smarter as the top third of students at Hartwick. In addition, Gladwell argues that it's better to be a big fish in a small pond, and points out how the top students at mid-tier universities publish papers at a higher rate than middle-tier students at elite universities. In terms of their SAT scores and academics, they are equivalent and Harvard should have a superior education, so you should expect the middle-tier Harvard students to perform better, but in reality, it's the opposite. Essentially, the relative position in their local environment mattered more than the absolute position nationwide. (Here is a link to an 8-minute video where he also talks about this idea)
That being said, for the individual, it's still probably better for their career to go to a school like Harvard and be a middle-tier or bottom-tier student than be a top student at some state university. It's a net loss for humanity on average, but a huge opportunity for the individual. If you can get past the ego loss and instead grow as a person just accepting that you're mediocre amongst the geniuses you'll gain a lot from an Ivy League environment.
NullHypothesis
1yr ago
It's just a matter of personal preference. I find the carbonation increases the flavor experience and clearly a lot of other people do as well. Maybe you just have a more sensitive mouth/throat than other people which causes you to find carbonation more painful. I don't think most people would say carbonation is painful and it could just be your body not being suited for it. It's like how some people when eating Hershey's chocolate find it tastes like bile while others don't.
I find your point more understandable if you were talking about spicy food, some people love extremely spicy food. Spicy food causes pain/discomfort to a lot of people during and after eating. Do you find some people's preference for spicy food just as puzzling?
NullHypothesis
1yr ago
I think some people just don't want to be helped and can't be helped, and thus shouldn't be helped at all since it's just draining resources and enabling their drug-induced behavior. Forcible institutionalization would probably be the cheapest and fastest solution but like you said people would be against that. But I can't help but think of what San Francisco did to clean up the streets when Xi Jinping was coming to visit, clearly if there is a will then there is a way. I would argue the policies of cities like Los Angeles or San Francisco enable a growing homeless population.
There is certainly an argument that it could be cheaper to provide a clean and safe place to let these people get their drug fix since that would lessen other crimes and means the city no longer needs to spend money on fixing the other issues (as they would no longer occur) but I haven't looked into those studies and my gut feeling is that even if the economics are true there are plenty of counter-arguments beyond just the economics.
NullHypothesis
1yr ago
I was thinking of individual cities rather than cities in general since if Chicago decides to push out all homeless for example, San Francisco would not have changed their policies. On the city level, you don't get to decide to policy of another city.
NullHypothesis
1yr ago
I find that posts that get popular and rise to the top tend to have a change in the majority opinion.
My thought is there is a small group of negative, constantly online individuals who just want to ruin someone's day. These people will be the first to comment because they're always online looking for new posts.
If the posts get popular enough then the normie Reddit opinion takes over and overshadows those initial negative comments.
Some examples can be found if you browse any old popular AITA posts. A lot of times the OP will post an edit addressing initial comments, but those comments are usually the opposite of the majority of highly upvoted opinions.
This should be obvious but which subreddit you are also impacts your experience. As biased as Reddit it is still diverse in its bias and the type of people on each subreddit, especially the smaller niche ones.
NullHypothesis
1yr ago
Isn't this just a case of straw-manning?
They're oversimplifying the proposal that it's a road to a person's house and then arguing over the straw man they set up.
Also, it's possible that the road doesn't end up at someone's house, it could end up at a publicly owned location, or a private factory, or a business. In the case it goes into empty wilderness, there would probably some justification such as developing something there in the future. I think it's a valid question to ask why something is being done, the issue with your example is that the question is straw-manning the proposal by framing it in an uncharitable manner which allows the opponents to ignore other benefits.
I feel like another example might be better to get to the heart of your question about the specific type of argument you're looking to identify.
NullHypothesis
1yr ago
Jakhammer's preference reveals more about the negative state of the perpetually homeless people than it does about the migrants.
The migration issue has a clear and simple solution - increase border security and stop incentivizing people to come to the United States. Homelessness to me is not as clear what to be done with. I believe cities in the past that effectively dealt with homeless people simply moved those homeless people to another place. It solves the problem on the city scale, but it is still a nationwide problem. There are policies that enable homelessness in these cities so stopping them would certainly help, but I don't think doing just that will solve the homeless issue.
NullHypothesis
1yr ago
Yup, which really puts into question the values and philosophies that guide these breadtubers. Fascinating how people view the world through such a lens!
To steelman Innuendo Studio's) point, I think there is an agreed-upon base assumption about basic human decency and respect when operating in the world and that it's safe to assume that normal people will not invoke such a power. So nobody would for no reason just pull a gun at someone or tell them their family member was run over by a a car. Or that the other side has the option to do the same to you. But in the case of trigger warnings, some people can and will abuse such powers if there are enough people on their side that make it socially acceptable. You can invoke their trigger, but they can't invoke such a response in you.
However, I have not met a single person who would knowingly expose a person their their stated traumas/triggers, even amongst the anti-trigger warning crowd. At best some edgy internet trolls, but they do whatever they can to rile other people up. Innuendo Studio makes a pretty uncharitable depiction of the opposing side.
NullHypothesis
1yr ago
Yup, I routinely use translation tools that give me access to certain hobbies of mine (Untranslated Japanese and Korean games and web novels). I've even communicated with people on Japanese Discord servers. Praise to technology!
I think the issue is that there are people with the mindset that such solutions have to be built or provided, rather than hoping that market solutions will resolve these problems. And rarely is it the case that they will make the effort to build those solutions themselves, they'd rather mandate other people use their time and resources to fix problems they see in the world.
NullHypothesis
1yr ago
maybe someone could write a bot that uses AI to review the item and add some reasonable (low-hundreds) list of triggers as metadata, and then the consumer can set their pertinent triggers and automatically receive a warning that they want, whereas everyone else is unaffected.
This is probably the ideal solution for trigger warnings for people who may want trigger warnings. (And for those, if they exist, that may benefit from trigger warnings).
I wonder if this solution is adequate for the activist type that might argue on the point of trigger warnings though. I'm sure most reasonable people would be perfectly happy with such a solution, but something tells me there is a small vocal group of activist types that would not be satisfied with such a solution and would rather force putting trigger warnings in front of media. Couple of reasons they might come up with:
- Not everyone has the ability to use such a tool.
- People with trauma should not be forced to use a tool that normal people don't have to use.
- Not everyone would know about such a tool. But if we put trigger warnings in front of media, then everyone will 100% have the opportunity to make an informed choice about if they want to continue to watch the media. Or the very least be able to mentally prepare themself for when they encounter it.
- By even having this conversation we've fallen for the alt-right trap, that we've accepted the premise that "some people do and should take extra precautions just to exist in the world alongside the rest of us."
I don't think I'm making up a caricature or a strawman here. If you watch the video, near the end of this video Innuendo Studios make the following statements:
"If you are a person with triggers it means other people can provoke a panic response in you against your will. The severity of the response is frankly immaterial. The point is, they have power over you. And if you're going to operate in this world as equals, you need their word that this power will not be invoked."
He also summarized the viewpoint of the Didoer as follows: "Yes I do have power over you... and you should just let me have it."
Would people who view the world in such power dynamics be satisfied with the proposed solution? Actually, your solution might be a really good test to see if the other person genuinely wants to help people who have traumas/PTSD or if they're just ideologically motivated.
NullHypothesis
1yr ago
I watched the video, and I agree with your conclusion. Yes, person B is obviously correct. Not every media and aspect of life is accessible to everyone
Some examples of problems where life is unfair and it would be absurd to try to make things fair.
- People who don't speak English will have varying levels of difficulty engaging in communication with English speakers. Should everyone learn that other person's language just so they can function normally in English-speaking society? (Or have translations made for every language, etc.)
- Deaf people can't enjoy music. That being said, songs with heavy bass components do allow deaf people to enjoy music based on rhythms caused by vibrations. Do all music now need to have a heavy bass component to it?
- A guy born without arms wants to play basketball in the NBA. Should the NBA change the rules of basketball so that people without arms can play just as competitively as people with arms?
- Some people have PTSD when looking at the color red. Should we remove all red things from society just to accommodate these people? Or put warnings indicating that something red is in the vicinity?
Yes, I realize these are absurd examples, but absurdities often put premises and assumptions into question.
Innuendo Studios doesn't touch on his premises and assumptions - that the scale of a problem that affects someone is worth addressing. Or how much time/effort should be spent solving these problems. He barely touches on the idea of what level of inconvenience should be acceptable to accommodate certain groups of people.
Also, notice the framing of the premise "some people do and should take extra precautions just to exist in the world alongside the rest of us" which puts the idea that person B thinks those people should not exist if they don't take those extra precautions.
Speaking of trigger warnings, I can think of a few (admittedly not well thought out) reasons why I may not want trigger warnings that are different from the strawman he used at the start of his video.
- Every time spent looking at the trigger warning is time spent wasted.
- My experience of that movie/show may actually be worsened because that trigger warning may spoil key elements of the plot for me
- The list of things that can trigger someone is infinite. Who decides what should or shouldn't be a trigger warning? Rape/Suicide might be something you could get a lot of people to agree on, but there are people who have PTSD or fear of a lot of other things - spiders, heights, trypophobia, the color red. The more you add the more time I waste looking at the list of trigger warnings.
- There are impacts this kind of thinking/fostering has beyond just the realm of movies. The movement that is pushing trigger warnings in movies is pushing it to other mediums, including classes in universities and schools. Rather than teach people to deal with their issues, trigger warnings support a culture that makes them avoid issues altogether at the of inconveniencing everyone else who doesn't have issues with the trigger. Slippery slope fallacy? Maybe, I haven't thought this through thoroughly but there is a culture of protecting people by having them avoid sensitive/controversial topics/ideas and trigger warnings play into into that culture.
- Whether trigger warnings work or not is in question, and some studies are showing that trigger warnings do not work or may do more harm than good.
Also ironic this guy talks about power in his video when trying to enforce societal changes such as implementing trigger warnings (and some people even go so far as to try to make it mandatory) is in itself a display of using power on people by enforcing changes that they don't want imposed on them. Rules for thee, not for me I suppose.
NullHypothesis
1yr ago
I'm assuming the numbers are birth rates per 1000 people
Doesn't the data provide some evidence for Botond's point though? Black and Hispanic teen birth rates were raising the average to 30-50% above the white birth rate. It also doesn't break down the white population any further, so while his hunch about the "presence of large numbers of Scots-Irish with low impulse control" isn't proven, it isn't disproven either.
We'd have to consider what would have been an acceptable rate for the birth rate to not be an "embarrassingly high" number for the early 2000s. Birth rates for teens have been on the overall decline since 1955 except for a bump from 1986 to 1991 and minor bump from 2005 to 2007. (The source for their data is the same source you linked). I don't know exactly what the early 2000s conservatives were arguing regarding the birth rate being too high for teens, since it has been declining. My guess is they were considering mostly the black and Hispanic population, considering it's 2-3x the white teen birth rate. Their numbers in 1991 seem to put them close to the national average rate in 1955, and the numbers from 2002 to 1965. Since the overall rate has been declining for decades, the rate would be only embarrassingly high if it was much higher compared to other modern first-world nations, or if they were talking about a specific group. We'd also have to consider if they were thinking about specific areas of the United States, like cities versus rural areas or specific states.
These stats are 15-19, which is probably dominated by young married couples
What Botond didn't mention but probably meant was that the concern in the early 2000s was more about out-of-wedlock teenage pregnancy than just teenage pregnancy. If you look at the source I linked earlier it shows that by the early 2000s, more than 75% of births for teenagers were to unmarried mothers, and that the percentage is even higher the younger the age of the mother. That number has only gone up since then. That being said, the total number of births to unmarried mothers has declined even if the percentage of births that are to unmarried mothers has increased.
NullHypothesis
1yr ago
You can't just say 0.4% increase in the population is easily manageable. If the current European welfare/support structure can currently only support 500,000 in excess, a 2 million increase is a 1,500,000 overload of what the system can support. Let's not forget there will still be migrants coming in from other places while this is going on.
As an example New York City, as of August 13, has had an increase of 58500 migrants come into their care system. That's 0.75% of the population of New York City, but New York has a ton of money and resources put into a support/welfare structure. Yet that increase is overstraining the New York support system, to the point where local residents are now frustrated with the incoming migrants taking away city resources that should have gone to them, and the city is offering tickets out of New York City to the migrants now.
There is also the question of how likely are the people of Gaza to be absorbed peacefully into Western society and culture? The low age and the fact that this is a more equal gender split is an interesting point you brought up, but it's also a fact that nearby Arab/Muslim countries like Egypt don't want to accept Gazan refugees. The countries containing the people who have the most in common with Gazans and have greater proportions of people that are in agreement with Gazan's wants and desires don't want to take them in.
Then there is the issue of the people who don't want to leave Gaza. What percentage of the people in Gaza actually want to seek aslyum and leave compared to wanting to stay and create a Palestinian state? Hamas's open stated goal is the complete destruction of Israel and a large portion of the Gazans (58%) have a positive or very positive view of Hamas. Are we going to just force these people to be absorbed into the west as well?
NullHypothesis
1yr ago
A lot of men don't put any effort into their appearance at all, so putting in effort should at least make you average. A lot of men are overweight or obese, are you really claiming they are more physically attractive than you?
Have you gone through the effort of getting a toned body, skincare, hair care, self-grooming, etc? If your face is really physically unattractive even after doing all that, plastic surgery is an option.
If he is that physically repulsive (which I don't believe, most people can look better than average simply by putting in effort because most people don't put in effort) he could just have plastic surgery. Women use makeup all the time to look better, I don't see why men can't use similar measures if all else fails.
I never got a response though, probably because he was banned soon after but I'm 90% sure he just downvoted without responding. It's as if his looks aren't the root of his problem.
More options
Context Copy link