Voyager
2mo ago
Yes, both of these are arguments against meritocracy in practice. The former is refuted by HBD, and while the latter is not, it's also weaker, because it relies on a moral axiom that is harder to defend and less shared in the mainstream.
Hence, HBD weakens the case.
Voyager
4mo ago
Again, no, that wasn't my argument.
Fair enough, but I take it you understand now how @SSCReader's unfairness test measures comparative advantage, you just think comparative advantage isn't relevant?
Voyager
5mo ago
Also, school forces children to sit down at a desk for a large part of their day. It seems reasonable that school also is responsible for counteracting the bad effects thereof.
Voyager
6mo ago
But there’s no logical incoherency there.
Yes, there is. It's exactly what logical incoherency is.
Having a rational strategic reason to employ flawed arguments doesn't make them any less flawed or the the self-contradicting position any less wrong.
We were talking about whether feminists were wrong, not about whether they were acting irrational in support of their goals, and you shouldn't confuse "logically inconsistent" with the latter.
Voyager
6mo ago
The latter, unlike the former, is going into the Dark Arts realm of treating people as manipulable
But people are manipulable, and pretending otherwise is not going to help you navigate politics. If you're worried about the signal of your vote being misunderstood by other people to bad effect, it's perfectly valid to account for that.
I also think the worry is less that a yes vote would by itself naturally lead to support for reparations, but rather that it would be used by proponents as an argument to make it seems to have more support that it actually does. In which case the proponents are the ones employing Dark Arts, and you're merely depriving them of their tools. That would just be recognizing Dark Arts and taking countermeasures, i.e. Defense against the Dark Arts.
prioritising optics over ground truth
The point of voting is to signal the will of the voters, not to figure out some sort of "ground truth". A vote is always a public signal, and it's entirely fair to think about what exactly you're signalling compared to what you want to signal.
Voyager
8mo ago
The reason may be some compromising material, military secrets, or, if he had confidence in the loyalty of his people, the threat of a second "march of justice" from the Wagner PMCs. The latter scenario is unlikely, further complicated by the death of Dmitry Utkin
It seems plausible that this is no coincidence - Putin was worried about Wagner trying to take revenge, and he thought this would be led by Utkin, and thus he struck when he saw the opportunity to take out Utkin together with Prigoshin, decapitating Wagner and thus preventing a coordinated response from them.
Voyager
11mo ago
I can't really begrudge women for not making that argument any more than I begrudge myself for not making the argument that all gyms should be banned so fewer guys are buffer than me so I can get more chicks. I would like it if they were but I can't make the argument.
But are you making the argument that gyms should be banned because of toxic masculinity or [insert made-up argument]? If so, that's unethical, if not, the comparison doesn't work out.
Voyager
11mo ago
If men wanting attractive women to sleep with them is a harmful notion of masculinity, I'm rather concerned about the future of humanity.
Voyager
2mo ago
More resentment than shouting from the rooftops that it's oppression? That seems unlikely to me.
Will it immediately fix race relations? Certainly not. But I don't think it will make things worse either.
Voyager
9mo ago
If all systems attempt meritocracy, we can still judge them by how well they actually achieve meritocracy.
Voyager
4mo ago
Right, saying that 'Mens team' means 'Males team' is the conflation.
I explicitly made an argument as to why this is the case, without even referencing the term "Men". There's no conflation.
I also made sure to avoid terms like "men" or "women" when they were potentially ambiguous, so asking again for your retraction and apology.
Yes that is literally the thing that my entire initial comment was doing.
So to be clear, you are accepting that the burden of proof lies on the trans-inclusive position and conceding your argument of
Since no one has ever demonstrated a statistical advantage in win/loss records and we have weak priors about innate ability, we should assume then null hypothesis for now and let trans women compete. If that leads to gathering enough data to demonstrate an unfair advantage some day, then we'll have a legitimate reason to revisit that decision.
?
Voyager
4mo ago
I am confused. Assuming men are better than women at these sports, wouldn't any woman competing against men rank lower than they rank against women?
Not if it's a transwoman who competed against men in a body with male advantage, but underwent a procedure that nullified the male advantage before competing against women.
Your claim is that transition is such a procedure. If that's true, we should expect the test to show no comparative advantage.
It's not an individual test for infairness like a doping test, it's a measure for judging transition as nullifier of the male advantage.
Voyager
4mo ago
But from the point of view of someone who believes that Trans Women Are Women, would this even be evidence of an unfair advantage?
Sports is about biology, and Trans Women Are Women is not true in the biological sense. Ex falso quodlibet.
Voyager
6mo ago
If it were just about investigating there wouldn't be a problem. But it isn't. And to be fair, the police are currently doing reasonably well. But other party of society are not, and there's also a context of calls for the police to go harder on suspected rapists.
You don't just get to declare that a separate issue, it's intrinsic to how we should deal with rape accusations, and "maybe the people victimized by one failure mode deserve what we do to them" is an implication that should be pushed back against.
Voyager
6mo ago
The more measured case (and this one definitely is in the official No campaign) is that a Yes result would have a) built a Pro-Aboriginal consensus, which might make people more friendly to reparations, b) directly provided some level of soft influence to Aboriginals - that's the whole point, giving them an advisory body - which they might then use to advocate for reparations. I shy away from using this as motive to vote - feels a bit Machiavellian
Only if you think reparations are just and good but you just personally don't want to pay for them. If you are against reparations for fundamental or even pragmatic reasons, then "vote against a proposal that will have bad consequences further down the line" is perfectly reasonable.
Note that "it will cost money without achieving anything useful" is also a valid reason to be against something, even if it doesn't come out of your pocket.
Voyager
7mo ago
If he believes he is already doing everything he possibly can through his office, he can say that
But that only serves the purpose of covering his ass, whereas giving advice to potential victims helps solve the problem, which is his actual job.
The problem is framing the issue as something that is the victim's job to prevent, rather than a problem that society should be trying to fix.
The victims are part of society, and they have the biggest interest in preventing the crime. Excluding them from being part of the solution only makes sense if you're playing the blame game and want to make sure the "right"* people get the blame, not if your priority is solving the problem.
*IMHO, the people who actually deserve the blame are the rapists.
Voyager
8mo ago
colorblind (or gay/trans-blindness? we need a better term)
I'd argue that given the symbolism of the rainbow flag, "colorblind" works fine.
Voyager
8mo ago
Why wouldn't you believe (or pretend to believe) something that isn't true
"Believe" and "pretend to believe" are very different things. The latter can be rational in many situations, if dishonest.
Voyager
11mo ago
I don't think it's emotional damage so much as effects on role model. A father who abandoned his familial obligation, or went to prison, is a very bad role model. A father who died will is not present as a role model, but his idealized memory will be.
Also, becoming the man your dead father would have been proud of is more motivating than making a father proud who "clearly" didn't care.
Voyager
11mo ago
Fair enough, bad example from me, but there's a both qualitative and quantitative difference here. "Testicle-less" or any other example is just one property out of too many to list. Here the only reasonable thing to do is deal with exceptions as they come up. A trans man, however, is missing a lot of the properties of men, and a lot of what's there is artificial. Usually, a man naturally has a number of properties that can be deducted from knowing he's a man, with the exceptions being rare and surprising, because everything in nature has exceptions. A trans man does not. What's more, a trans man has a lot of the properties of woman, which in humans is the opposite of man.
Most of the time where it's not reasonable to distinguish between men and trans men, it's not reasonable to distinguish between men and women either.
Voyager
11mo ago
No, I mean that a choke physiologically CANNOT last longer than about 5-15 seconds. If you have a choke on someone and they are still struggling after that long, it is either autonomic flailing and their brain is about to die or you are actually strangling them.
-
"Choke" has been used, by me and the people I responded to, to mean "the act of choking someone". You can, physiologically, very easily hold a choke on someone who is already dead.
-
If your point is the distinction between choking and strangling, that's just a terminology nitpick.
-
I'm pretty sure you actually got it mixed up. Wikipedia:
"A chokehold [or] choke […] is a general term for a grappling hold that critically reduces or prevents either air (choking) or blood (strangling) from passing through the neck of an opponent."
Two is if you squeeze someone's throat for more than the x amount of time (which is quite short actually), it is +/- equivalent to shooting them in the chest or stabbing them.
But there isn't an "x amount of time". Even when properly applied, you yourself give ranges of time, but when not (as clearly the case with Penny and Neely) it can take much longer. And you typically have the warning of unconciousness before lasting damage. The proper thing to do is to release the choke on that, not after a countdown regardless of whether he's weakly twitching or trying to gouge your eyes out.
All this is going waaaaaaaaaaaaay off track from what I started reeeeeing about though; that being that manslaughter charges are appropriate for someone that does something that commonly results in death without premediating or intending to kill the other dude.
The "something that commonly results in death" is "keep holding the choke after unconciousness". You don't expect choking someone just until they stop resisting to result in death, regardless of how long it took.
Voyager
2mo ago
How do you think the Hausa or Fulani are likely to respond if an Igbo comes up to them and says that, actually, on account of his people’s average IQ being at least one standard deviation above the Nigerian average, they ought to be in charge of the country and occupy the majority of the top jobs in Lagos and Abuja and so on? How do antisemitic white nationalists respond if you tell them that actually it’s a good thing that Jews are disproportionately in positions of power because we are, in fact, significantly smarter than them on average and that effect is exacerbated in the long tail at IQ 160+ (so we deserve it really)?
But if HBD is true, the Igbo or Jews will disproportionately occupy higher positions, and you need to explain it.
Realistically, the alternative to "we deserve it because we're smarter" is "we don't actually deserve it, we're just oppressing you", which is clearly worse for racial relations.
HBD as a fact of nature is already leading to racial tensions via disparate outcomes. The Hausa or white supremacist are already angry because they don't have positions of power. Discussing that there's a good reason isn't the problem. Denying discussion of the good reason, leaving oppression on the table as the only potential explanation, makes it worse.
Sure, a politically color-blind world, where race is considered about as relevant as hair color and no one cares about racial distributions of anything, would be preferable in practical terms, but that's not the world we live in. And in such a world, HBD could simply be a nerdy niche topic that no one except a few scientists cares about. HBD isn't the problem here.
Voyager
4mo ago
And you are the one playing rhetorical games conflating 'male' and 'man' with regards to that.
No, I'm not. I have consistently been talking about biology, and I have made it explicit where necessary (by pointing out that sports divisions, which use the terms "men" and "women", are about biology.)
I'd like you to retract that accusation and apologize.
Everything is always going to end up being an arbitrary semantic game, if you don't agree ahead of time on some empirical metric to use to settle the issue.
That's one of the arguments you made, but not the one discussed in this comment thread.
Respond to the actual points made. Don't jump around between different arguments when you can't defend the one at hand.
I've said repeatedly that we should default to a policy of maximum liberty and freedom until we find compelling evidence of a conflicting interest. That's a bog-standard libertarian argument that you are ignoring.
I'm not ignoring it, you're ignoring my counterargument upthread:
The proof is easily given though: We have male biology. The burden of proof now shifts to the affirmative defense of "in this case the effects of male biology don't apply".
We have good evidence that male need to be excluded from female competition. We would now need evidence that these particular kind of males do not.
Voyager
4mo ago
I've been suggesting win/loss record statistics as an unambiguous and definitive empirical metric here, so we can ignore all teh rhetorical games and just decide the matter on facts.
Per your claim, the situation of fact is that we don't have good evidence, so we need to decide what to do as a default until we attain it, whether the burden of proof is on excluding or allowing transwomen in. You are the one who started rhetorical games about "women on women's sports", weaponizing the ambiguity of "woman", with regards to that.
Family is exceeding personal, and therefore incest porn is kinda distanced and meta. The guy watching mother/son porn isn't attracted to his mother - but the woman in the video isn't his mother, she's someone else's mother.
More options
Context Copy link