tsiivola
10d ago
Well, firstly, if a field becoming irrelevant leads to men leaving, then it does not automatically follow that the reverse is also true, so just by men leaving we cannot deduce that the field is becoming irrelevant. But if we take human medicine, then for example it seems that women like to treat children, and I would think that is the one demographic that is generally the healthiest and least in need of treatment. It also seems that there is talk about how these female majority specializations do not get paid as much as the male majority ones, which could indicate that there is not as much demand, which would support the idea that they are less relevant.
My point was that I do not think it is realistic that men leave a well paying field just because they feel a little bit uncomfortable when the field becomes majority female, because men seem happy to do many kinds of hugely uncomfortable jobs if the pay is good enough. It is more likely that there is a more fundamental cause behind the cases where a field slowly gets more female and then suddenly all the men leave, so a 50% share of women does not automatically lead to a 100% share of women, there must be some more fundamental reason that is driving all the men out.
tsiivola
10d ago
Some chicken or egg here right? Vets use to do things like treat livestock and now do little dogs. Did that change because of the gendering or did the job change and then gender ratios changed? Tough to know.
Not really, no. What vets do is mostly determined by supply and demand. If all vets suddenly wanted to specialize in treating some rare kind of pet, for example a squid, it would not mean that there would suddenly appear lots of pet squids waiting to be treated.
tsiivola
11d ago
My broad understanding is that when male only places begin to allow female membership they tend to disappear a decade later. I read an interesting paper in the last year that when a college major gets about something like 30-50% female it then quickly becomes 100% female. Biology did this. Veterinary science did this. I think Law will survive but it’s going thru this process now.
I think cases like these just reflect the changes in the real world impact these fields have. A veterinarian used to treat animals that were used for producing food and raw materials, but now most vets treat small dogs with hereditary deformities that are useless for anything significant. Men realized this and switched to other fields with more advantageous bargaining positions.
So when a field is slowly becoming irrelevant, men start to slowly abandon it and the share of women increases, and when the share of women is at 30%-50% then we are on the verge of total collapse and very soon all men will leave and only the women remain.
tsiivola
11d ago
To be fair, "right now" is approximately 100 years later than World War I, and the effects of that war on anything in the present have probably almost completely dissolved.
tsiivola
27d ago
But everyone is already openly declaring that this new religion is different from the old religion that people are leaving behind. So why would the priests not be content with their churches being empty if all they care about is accurate taxonomy of denominations?
tsiivola
28d ago
So are you claiming that people that lived in the Middle East some 1500 years ago "literally directly" used a modern English word, before modern English as a language even existed?
tsiivola
29d ago
But somehow I don't get the feeling that if everyone left the church and joined some other form of Christianity with Buddhist ideas, that all the priests and bishops would be content with it as long as everyone remembers to declare that this is a different form of Christianity. And this is of course only relating to the "meditation is bad" approach. The "meditation is good" side is perfectly happy to change their religion, as long as they can pretend that nothing has changed and this is an ancient tradition that was always so.
tsiivola
29d ago
I suspect that these saints living in 3rd and 4th centuries did not write in modern English, which would mean that the quotes we have at hand have been translated at some point, and perhaps the translator chose words that sounded fashionable at the time?
I could be wrong, but quick googling tells me that the "watchfulness" in the original texts was actually a word that means "soberness" (literally "no wine"), but for some reason it has been translated with a word that matches "*fulness", which is amusing, since there is another fashionable word that also matches that same pattern. I think the word that was translated as "mindfulness" was in the original Buddhist texts a word that meant "remembering".
The Christian Yoga Association has a page with bible quotes justifying the practice of yoga as a Christian. Their term for mindfulness is "Christfulness", which is just as amusing, if not even more.
tsiivola
1mo ago
I think the underlying reason behind the controversy is that since Christian leaders are afraid of losing adherents to other religions, when something from another religion becomes popular, such as meditation, there are two possible responses:
- Do not talk to those people of the other religion, meditation is really bad and will open you up for demonic possession
- Do not talk to those people of the other religion, meditation is really good and we already have it here, so there is no need really
And now that you have two approaches, where one emphasises that meditation is good, and the other that meditation is bad, you have a controversy.
It's amusing to see that when something like mindfulness becomes popular, someone discovers that there is a thing called 'watchfulness' in Christianity that is supposedly an ancient tradition, just like mindfulness supposedly is in Buddhism.
Another thing is that there is no one thing called "meditation", same as there is no one thing called "a sport" or "a game" (there is even an overlap between sports and games).
tsiivola
10mo ago
I'm not sure I follow. What exactly doesn't sound right? Allure would fade for whom? How exactly would this loss of allure shrink the pie?
tsiivola
10mo ago
You seemed to be saying earlier that people being OK with Bonnie Blue earning a lot of money is the explanation for why she is able to earn a lot of money. Now you only claim that people are OK with Bonnie Blue making a lot of money, but are no longer claiming that that explains why she is able to. So your point actually seems to be quickly deflating into nothing.
If people were generally not OK with Bonnie Blue making a lot of money, how could we tell? What would be different in that hypothetical universe compared to our actual universe? And if people generally did not even know who Bonnie Blue is, and did not even care, how could we tell? How would that hypothetical universe be different compared to our actual universe?
tsiivola
10mo ago
I think the simple explanation is that society generally condones or at least tolerates porn “actresses” making large amounts of money
I am not sure that I entirely understand the point that you are trying to make, because it seems that you are not making any point, but there is no central committee that needs to condone every monetary transaction between people. If someone discovers a clever way to make and deliver 500,000 pizzas every month at a profit, society in general probably does not even know about it, unless it gets highlighted in media etc.
Like others pointed out, it is all supply and demand. Society condoning or tolerating people making money has nothing to do with it. The only way that society's tolerance affects things is how it limits the supply of people willing to provide the thing that people are willing to pay for. In reality the relationship between making money and society's tolerance is the opposite of what you seem to think. The more something is tolerated, the more people are open to doing it, and therefore the supply goes up and the money that any one individual can make goes down. If there were 800,000 women doing the same thing as Bonnie Blue, then each of them would make on average 1 pound a month, but since 799,999 women said "nope" then one single woman gets to harvest all the demand.
tsiivola
1yr ago
If you do not want to expand the overton window in a certain direction, you typically would not make jokes in that direction.
So X making jokes about gas chambers does not mean that X is a Nazi who has read Mein Kampf five times. But it indicates that X regards updating his group's beliefs towards him being a Nazi at least neutrally.
At the 2016 White House Correspondents' Dinner president Barack Obama made the following remark:
"Eight years ago, I was a young man, full of idealism and vigor, and look at me now. I am gray and grizzled, just counting down the days 'til my death panel."
Do you think Obama was trying to expand the overton window to make more acceptable the idea that a panel of doctors would decide on the euthanization of non-productive or otherwise undesirable individuals? Do you think Obama's remark indicates that he and his group regard the idea of these "death panels" at least neutrally?
Or do you think that Obama was actually mocking his opponents and critics? That he considered the criticism so ridiculous in itself, that he did not even bother constructing a joke based on it, he just repeated the criticism verbatim while being fully confident that laughter would ensue?
Now, if it is the case that Obama was reminding everyone how ridiculous his opponents were just by repeating their words, then it could be the case that the people being ridiculed were fully aware that this is what was happening, and that there is no good way to defend against this kind of ridicule. And in this case someone who is being ridiculed could resort to lying, saying maybe something like "they told us they are not setting up these death panels, but here is Obama himself casually talking about them in an approving way!", and hoping that at least some people will believe the lie.
tsiivola
1yr ago
The criminal code chapter 34a paragraph 5e criminalizes encouraging or enticing to join a terrorist organization or to commit a terrorist crime, if it is done in a manner that is likely to cause someone to do so. The law does not explicitly mention celebrating, but I suspect that for example celebrating a terrorist act on television could be interpreted to be enticing, although I don't know if any judgement based on this law has ever been decided in a court of law.
tsiivola
1yr ago
When I look at something called Splenda Original Sweetener packets, I can see from the ingredients list that it contains dextrose, maltodextrin and sucralose. Dextrose is just sugar, (even the wikipedia page redirects to glucose), maltodextrin is another kind of sugar that may or may not get digested, and the ingredient mentioned last, sucralose, is the actual zero calorie sweetener. So it seems that the product called Splenda actually is mostly just sugar, with a tiny bit of super sweet sweetener added.
The lesson here is probably not that sweetness is subjective, but that you should read the ingredients list if you want to be careful about what you eat.
I would get a bag of something like pure stevia extract if you need something to sweeten your tea and really need zero calories.
tsiivola
1yr ago
A normal can of Pepsi has 40g of sugar. A can of diet pepsi has 0.124g of sweetener. Even if the sweetener has the same calories per weight, you would have to drink 300 times more of the diet version to get the same calories as the sugar version. What makes this possible is that per weight, the sweetener tastes much sweeter than sugar. The sweetness is the most relevant thing.
tsiivola
1yr ago
The point is that drinks sweetened with artificial sweeteners have 100 times less calories than drinks sweetened with sugar, because they have 100 times less of the sweetener. And 100 times less calories is so little that it can be rounded down to zero.
tsiivola
1yr ago
I oppose the idea that all "real science" is objective, since this fuels fields which are inhuman and which promote the inhuman as better than what's human. I'll even claim that most of the modern worlds problems is caused by designing society in a "rational" way which is actually incompatible with human nature.
I think the problem here is that since science has historically provided many obviously good things, a lot of people think that the word 'science' just means 'good things', so if you say that something is not science, to a lot of people it sounds like you are saying that it is not good. However, you don't need science to decide that you want your society to have public parks, sports stadiums, museums or hospitals. This is also probably the issue with social sciences. As long as people can claim that what social sciences are doing is science, it will sound to a lot of people that what they are doing is good. If you start asking what is it actually good for, people might stop to think and realize that the answer is "not much".
tsiivola
1yr ago
Noon-Is-Noon faction
Ironically, these are the same people who tend to be fans of SI (popularly "the metric system").
[...]Oh, so now you want to preserve a human-centric unit (like every system of measurement did before SI, metric or not) now that it affects you, rather than those backwards blue-collar people who do human-scale works with their hands?
Don't you have this backwards? The Noon-Is-Noon argument is that 0 hours should be at the time when the point on Earth comes to a phase in the rotation of the planet where the movement component towards the Sun becomes 0 and starts to increase again. That is, the Noon-Is-Noon argument is about the rotation of the planet, not about anything human-centric, whereas the perma-DST argument is about whatever schedule the person proposing it happens to have in their current job, etc.
tsiivola
1yr ago
If they truly felt guilty, then wouldn't they stop beating up Armenia? They've continued doing it to this day, they were helping Azerbaijan against Armenia in the recent war.
No. Feeling a certain way does not lead to the same behaviour in all cases. The feeling is an unpleasant stimulus and the behaviour it leads to depends on how you have learned to manage such unpleasant stimuli. Having a neighbour that constantly triggers the unpleasant feeling just by existing might well lead to holding a grudge for over a 100 years, if you are sufficiently immature as to being unable to see past the present moment. A more mature approach might be to realize that asking and receiving forgiveness resolves the issue now and forever and frees precious resources for something more useful.
If the Turks genuinely did not feel guilt they would say they drove away the Armenians and established a Turkish ethnostate, and are proud that they did, and not continue with obviously contradictory denials.
The armed burglar might say (if dragged into court or questioned by some third party) that of course he feels guilty and ashamed and it was society's fault and he was underage at the time and his friends made him do it and they had it coming anyway... But there is no sincerity in his words.
Perhaps you yourself have a somewhat immature point of view, as if playing a game of Sims or something. If the burglar says that they feel guilty, ashamed, are sorry and promise to not do it again, there is no sincer-o-meter that reveals if they "really" and "truly" mean it.
tsiivola
1yr ago
Furthermore, unlike with the Holocaust, Turkey isn't going to apologize. They won't pay reparations. They won't write it in their textbooks that this was a terrible shame on their civilization - they say that patriotic Turks need to be vigilant against all national security threats. There is no 'never again'. Only whites do this. The substantive differences are more important than the rhetorical differences. Talk is cheap, actions are costly. And it's only white countries that take costly actions to uphold concepts of guilt and moral virtue - consider the British anti-slavery work amongst other things. Nobody else would even consider 'giving back' the Elgin Marbles.
This seems just a difference in coping mechanisms. When the whites do something bad, they realize it will reflect poorly on them, and then try to correct it. When the Turks act impulsively and do something bad, they also wake up sober the next morning and realize it will reflect poorly on them, but instead of correcting things they somewhat immaturely retreat into a fantasy where it never happened and it also happened and was completely justified, which is a very obvious sign of guilt and shame to any intelligent observer.
tsiivola
1yr ago
No, I "win" the argument because first you bring a source that doesn't support your argument, almost as if you hadn't read your own source, and then you bring some non sequitur about hostages and then a claim (not even a link!) that someone has at some point seen an article online that is behind a paywall. Do you think we can deduce something from the fact that in all of internet there seems to be only one single source, that you are too afraid to even post a link to, that reports about "IDF firing indiscriminantly on the music festival"?
tsiivola
1yr ago
I'm saying that if you have lived experience of X, if you're writing a book about X, then all things being equal it will probably sound more convincing than a book about X written by someone who has never experienced X firsthand.
This depends on the readers. If both the writer and readers have experience in X, then the readers can recognize things from their own experience in the written work, and thus think it is realistic. But it could also happen that the writer has experience in X and the readers have none, and the reality of X is so far removed from the readers' own experience that they find a realistic depiction of X unbelievable.
No, massive population loss is relatively easily and quickly overcome by a corresponding baby boom.
More options
Context Copy link