@you-get-an-upvote's banner p


Hyperbole is bad

1 follower   follows 1 user  
joined 2022 September 04 19:14:33 UTC
Verified Email


User ID: 92


Hyperbole is bad

1 follower   follows 1 user   joined 2022 September 04 19:14:33 UTC


No bio...


User ID: 92

Verified Email

I don't think that's a preference cascade.

From your original post:

Low male employment, antiwork, and the rise of NEET-dom

I am not @SomethingMusic

The very first graph on the page you linked yourself shows male sexlessness being a decent amount above female sexlessness in almost every year since 1989, other than a small slice at the end that you have chosen to exclusively focus on as a lame "gotcha". What in your original post indicates that you were only judging people's behavior past the year 2021 or so?

Two things:

First, Figure 1 is the share of under 35s who have not had sex in the last year. Figure 2 is the same, but only samples from people have have never been married, which is more relevant and shows no meaningful gap.

Second, you're responding to

Low male employment, antiwork, and the rise of NEET-dom has nothing to do with trust, but selfishness adequately describes the motivations for the ideological positions they hold.

Does this also apply to women for embracing frivolous promiscuity (far more than men as statistics on how many men vs. women are sexless in a given year, partner numbers, propensity for infidelity, etc. show) and antagonistic notions of "equality"

When you're replying to a discussion about recent trends like antiwork, NEET-dom, shoplifting, and Red Lobster closures, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume the trends you're choosing to bring up are on a similar timeline.

And if all of those prior years of greater female promiscuity get a pass, then I guess all of the years of alleged selfish NEETdom and low employment that men have supposedly engaged in also get a similar pass, right?

I'm not condemning men. I'm saying you're, at best, massively exaggerating your own complaints about women.

Of the 7 age buckets they look at, women only cheat more than men in one (18 to 29 years old), and only by 1% (10% of men vs 11% of women). Every other age bucket has a larger gap in the opposite direction.

Even if I pretend not to know that women obviously lie out their ass about this subject way more than men

You claimed the statistics supported you. Now that they don't you're claiming the statistics aren't accurate. Why did you claim they supported you then?

this still means we're allowed to call out young women for their selfishness in this area right?

I don't think it's appropriate to focus on a 1% difference in one age bucket and ignore the far larger differences in every other bucket that point in the opposite direction. Doing this falsely represents reality in an effort to push a particular narrative.

Or how about one clear demonstration of promiscuity that no manipulated data could even try to refute: the percentage of people

I agree there are more women actresses/subjects in pornography.

This is completely irrelevant to my point, which is that the statistics your post claimed supported your position do not, in fact, support your position.

Can we say it's a greater indication of selfishness on behalf of the female gender that they do it far more often than men?

I think that's a pretty reductive explanation. There is greater demand for pornography featuring women, and women respond to that. I don't personally think that makes women "more selfish", any more than men making more money than women makes them "more greedy". But these words are poorly defined enough that I'm not going to argue there is much objectivity here.

Are women to be held account for their selfishness in your formulation or not? Or just men? And if they are, then why only target men in your original post? You don't think women's contributions to a greater culture of selfishness are worth highlighting or what?

I've made one post apart from this one, which pointed out the statistics did not show what you claimed they showed. That's not targeting men.

You seem to think I'm some sort of white-knight SJW. I'm not. I've criticized women before. I've criticized progressive policies before (e.g. affirmative action, believe all women, lived experiences, etc.).

I tend not to do it here, because that stuff is in the water supply here.

It's rather grating that you insist that I'm being unfair to men when I've said nothing negative about men this entire conversation.

Because if your solution to a "culture of selfishness" is that men... need to quit worrying about/not cooperating with a system that's obviously biased against them and simply get back to thanklessly slaving so that they can simultaneously be attacked for being the core problem of society by that same society that incessantly demands their devoted labor, quite frankly, you can stuff it.

I also haven't agreed with the "culture of selfishness" thesis either, let alone claimed it needs solving or given a solution.

Again, I've made the very simple point that the stats that you cited don't support the thesis that you made. If you'd like to defend the other two statistics that you claimed support you, you're welcome to.

Please stop putting words in my mouth. Please stop saying I'm blaming men for anything.

Is the number of sex partners in last year corrected for gender-based social desirability bias

In that case "I believe X and the public statistics on X are not trustworthy because of Y" would have been a much more honest argument than "I believe X and the statistics support me".

as statistics on how many men vs. women are sexless in a given year, partner numbers, propensity for infidelity, etc. show

Can you provide some support for these claims. As far as I can tell, every single one of these is wrong.

  • how many men vs. women are sexless in a given year

AFAIK this statistic was from the GSS in 2018. The statistic in 2021 shows the reverse.

  • partner numbers

I just pulled the GSS data for 2022 (attached). I'm not sure how I can squint and that data draw your conclusions. Of the people who actually answered, 752 were male and 826 were female.

0 partners: 19.3% males vs 27.2% females
1 partner: 69.7% males vs 64.0% females
2 partners: 3.2% males vs 4.0% females
3 partners: 4.4% males vs 1.2% females
4 partners: 1.6% males vs 2.3% females
5+ partners: 1.3% males vs 1.2% females

I'm struggling to squint at this data and draw your conclusions.

  • propensity for infidelity

In general, men are more likely than women to cheat: 20% of men and 13% of women reported that they’ve had sex with someone other than their spouse while married, according to data from the recent General Social Survey (GSS).


Of the 7 age buckets they look at, women only cheat more than men in one (18 to 29 years old), and only by 1% (10% of men vs 11% of women). Every other age bucket has a larger gap in the opposite direction.

TL;DR I looked at the statistics you asked me to, but they don't support your thesis.


You're posting this on the wrong forum. The culprit has already been found. It's feminism, definitely couldn't be anything else.

You replied to my comment less than 24 hours after the top level comment was made, so I’m skeptical “we caught it too late” is a genuine factor here.

Moreover, OP had not defended the claim at the time, but if that plays a role, maybe “be willing to defend your controversial claims if somebody asks for it” would be a more accurate articulation of the way this rule is actually enforced?

As it stands, if you mod him before 24 hours he never has the chance to defend himself, if you mod him after 24 hours then it’s too late.

I'm not asking to cancel every length post. A mod saying

Black people, whose natural inclinations are adverse to lifelong monogamy, quickly devolved back into their ancestral mating patterns when released from the straitjacket of traditional Christian morality.

Please proactively provide evidence for controversial claims when you make them

Is completely fine.

Removing the rule is also fine.

Changing the rule to allow unsupported controversial claims in effort posts is also fine.

But don't write rules that sound lovely, but which you're not willing to enforce.

But if one cancels every lengthy post which contains some claim which might be controversial and is not backed by evidence then there will be very few posts left.

I don't personally believe this. I have every confidence that OP could have omitted or supported that sentence, if they had felt like it was expected of them.

I think people fall to the standard they can get away with, and it was clear when the top-level comment was posted that the mods were never going to mod it.

Since you now know this comment exists and haven't modded it... it seems like my comment was accurate?

I'm mentally unhealthy enough that I've tracked my reports and gone back to see if mods actually did anything, and I've concluded my reports just waste moderator time.

Don’t worry, the mods have decided that’s not a controversial claim, otherwise they’d have issued a warning for not proactively providing evidence.

  • -11

Why allow “Antifa” their own zone in Portland? Because when they are doing that they are doing nothing serious.

These sort of reverse arguments are easy to generate (e.g. "welfare is actually bad for the recipients because they become dependent on it", "affirmative action is bad for Black people because people assume they're diversity hires", etc), so barring any actual evidence, it's hard to take any specific example seriously.

America’s weak point is clearly potential civic disunity which could result in balkanization along racial, religious, or cultural lines.

Similarly, it seems extremely weird to argue that elevating racial groups in discourse is supposed to prevent civic disunity along racial lines. When there is a clear direct relationship in one direction and an alleged indirect relationship in the other, I take the direct relationship far more seriously.

There is a rule about being specific:

Post about specific groups, not general groups, wherever possible. General groups include things like gun rights activists, pro-choice groups, and environmentalists. Specific groups include things like The NRA, Planned Parenthood, and the Sierra Club. Posting about general groups is often not falsifiable, and can lead to straw man arguments and non-representative samples.

It's not followed or enforced. But it is a rule.

Yes, I consider actual legislation passed to be more relevant than your vibes, simply because I never consider vibes relevant. A poll demonstrating that Republicans think virtual child pornography should be legal would certainly be even better.

Yes, the fact that I'm citing American legislation is off topic to what some@ was talking about, but it's perfectly on topic as a response to your comment, which discussed American audiences, an American film, and generic redditors, but never mentioned Australia.

Looking at actual legal policy passed by politicians, the principle piece of legislation seems to be the PROTECT Act, which, among many other things

Prohibits computer-generated child pornography when "(B) such visual depiction is a computer image or computer-generated image that is, or appears virtually indistinguishable from that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct"; (as amended by 1466A for Section 2256(8)(B) of title 18, United States Code).

Okay fine, but that act includes lots of other provisions. Fine, how about the previous Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996? I literally cannot find a record of a vote (if that sounds impossible, please, somebody show me up). I can, however, find the court case that ruled it unconstitutional.

The majority had 3 Republican justices (Kennedy, Stevens, Souter), and 2 Democrat (Ginsburg, Breyer), and one concurrence (Thomas (R)).

I find these examples more convincing than your vibes and lived experience, so I'll reiterate: being against virtual child pornography sees bipartisan support.

I'm confused -- whose stance are you attacking?

You’ve blocked me, so I don’t expect a response, but how is not wanting underaged girls depicted sexually in video games a “feminist” thing?

Think back 10, 20, and 30 years and recall that this has a never been a partisan issue, let alone a predominantly leftist demand.

I'm unsure whether these women just haven't googled the most basic facts of the career they'll spend their next 4-6 years pursuing, or whether they're semi-deliberately deluding themselves. My guess is the latter.

Being evenhanded with "both genders that fall into this trap are negatively impacted" is fine. When you claim that women are the ones who predominantly actually fall into the trap, you are making an inflammatory claim made without evidence.

I agree it'd be nice to have a "job in your field" statistic. It'd be nice if OP would provide one before baselessly claiming that one gender is delusional.

Is your argument that modern society values motherhood more? That there have never been so few women per capita becoming mothers, to me is evidence against this.

Why do you think this was his argument? He says nothing remotely similar to this.

Plenty of female-oriented degrees such as psychology, behavioral science, speech pathology, etc. require a Masters in order to really start working in the field. Seemingly, most of the people who study those majors just aren't aware of this.

I'm unsure whether these women just haven't googled the most basic facts of the career they'll spend their next 4-6 years pursuing, or whether they're semi-deliberately deluding themselves.

Do you have any statistics here? It looks like 82% of men and 70% of women are employed full time after college, and 3% of both are unemployed, so it's weird how gendered you're choosing to frame this. In my personal experience, suppressing/repressing your future after college is quite common and pretty ungendered.

I don't recall anyone claiming that the other side was lying.

If men are so bad, why would having more of them around help?

Sorry, I’m feeling like an idiot, but I think you answered this in the previous paragraph, so I’m confused why you’re asking it rhetorically.

Yes, I read your edit before I made my comment. I'm asking what value you see in that comment -- why a warning would not have been merited if it had been made several levels deeper, despite the fact that it violates several rules and exists solely to complain bitterly about how terrible the author's outgroup is.

Be Kind

Be no more antagonistic than is absolutely necessary for your argument.

Be charitable.

Do not weakman in order to show how bad a group is.

Leave the rest of the internet at the door.

Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

I don't understand how this is even borderline. Where is the light / analysis / value that's overriding the negatives?

The discussion about payment processors earlier in the year included discussion of controversial topics (incest, bestiality, sexual exploitation of a minor, rape, non-consensual mutilation), and the change you link to today includes those.

However, the most recent announcement also says the restrictions are "to comply with regional laws", and includes much more general pornography:

  1. post any content that is obscene, illegal, unlawful, fraudulent, defamatory, libelous, abusive, lewd, invasive of personal privacy or publicity rights, harassing, hateful, racially or ethnically offensive, or encourages conduct that would be considered a criminal offense, give rise to civil liability, violate any law, or is otherwise inappropriate.
  1. post any content that appeals to the prurient interest, is patently offensive in light of community standards where you are located or where such content may be accessed or distributed, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value, or otherwise violates any applicable obscenity laws, rules or regulations.

In other words: I don't think these most recent changes are driven by payment processors. I think they're being driven by states like Texas making hosting porn more legally fraught (i.e. the same thing that made Pornhub pull out of Texas).