@Voyager's banner p

Voyager


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 22 08:34:10 UTC

				

User ID: 1314

Voyager


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 22 08:34:10 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1314

If men wanting attractive women to sleep with them is a harmful notion of masculinity, I'm rather concerned about the future of humanity.

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.

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.

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.

colorblind (or gay/trans-blindness? we need a better term)

I'd argue that given the symbolism of the rainbow flag, "colorblind" works fine.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

(e.g. if your friend got falling-down-drunk and asked you to help him jump off a bridge into shallow water you would be an awful person if you helped him do so).

Yes, but jumping off a bridge into shallow water is an objectively bad idea, whereas having sex is not.

If my friend wanted to jump off a bridge while sober, I also wouldn't help him with it.

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.

If all systems attempt meritocracy, we can still judge them by how well they actually achieve meritocracy.

But as you mentioned, the rate of victimization being a conserved quantity is not necessarily true. If we advocate running away from cheetahs, we could hope that it eventually starves to death. Or whatever incredibly strained analogy applies to real life human predators.

Indeed. For example, if all women avoid badly-lit routes, potential rapists will be forced to either stay home or attack on a well-lit route, which increases the chance of bystanders interfering, thwarting the crime as well as potentially leading to arrest. In the long-term, this leads to a situation where a large number of potential rapists are either in jail or law-abiding to avoid the risk, reducing total rape.

If all women cover their drinks and drink responsibly, rapist will have no opportunities to prey on unconscious victims. Potential victims will be aware and in control, able to fight back or scream for help. Same result.

"Tall man" is just additional information: A tall man is for all intents and purposes a man, his height isn't affecting his man-ness.

"Trans man" is a qualifier. It doesn't just add information, it also removes information that is normally contained in the description "man". It's not just less information, it's also ambiguous.

"You're a man, so you should regularly get checked for testicular cancer" makes sense, because "has testicles" is part of "man". This is information you expect to have from "man", so the qualifier is required in the case of "trans man" to warn you that some qualities of "man" might not apply.

If you drop it because it doesn't seem useful in context (leaving aside that that's controversial almost everywhere) then you're still implying information that isn't there, and once it does come up, there will be confusion.

You don't say "president" if you mean "vize president" or "year" if you mean "half-year" either.

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.

?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.