Nerd
I had sex with a vacuum, it sucked.
User ID: 1024
Nerd
2d ago
Which is one of those things that sounds plausible but not sure how true it is.
It bullshit, they have caught people going over gestational limits before. But going beyond that, most countries have gestational limits, and the idea that having them will put women in danger or make it hard for doctors makes no sense, given that fact.
Nerd
2d ago
Sure, but the problem im pointing out here is that those abortions in several states are allowed no matter what! The moms life doesnt need to be in danger, she can do it for any reason at all.
Nerd
2d ago
Nerd
2d ago
On a slightly different track, back when Harris was running for president there was this "ridiculous claim" that the Left wanted to legalize Abortion up to the moment of crowning, but just this Monday, Massachusetts became the 10th state in the union to do just that.
Its also worth pointing out here that the US is especially bizarre for this, since pretty much all of europe and most of the world minus China & Israel sort of, have gestational limits on the practice. So pretty much everyone, minus american progressives, think its an evil that deserves to be regulated.
Most states will also allow extremely late abortions…if only to save the mother’s life.
Vermont, Colorado, New Jersey, Oregon, Washington DC, & New Mexico will let you abort any time you want. & infact, there are clinics around the US that will let you do so, such as the DuPont Clinic.
Nerd
3d ago
Yeah, this is a huge problem with most conservatives in general. Honestly, I think part of the reasons societies become more liberal overtime is at least, in part, because conservatism is defense (which is arguably harder) vs liberalism which offensive. And as you point out, often times, even the the people defending the status quo dont understand the status quo.
Nerd
3d ago
The English writer G.K. Chesterton talks about what one should do if you encounter a fence unattended in a field. Some people might have the impulse to just tear it down. After all, what is it doing there, standing alone in this field? But he actually suggests that one should investigate. The fence may not seem useful to you in this moment, but it was probably put there for a reason, and one should try and figure out what that reason was before discarding the fence entirely.
I think that notion can be applied to social norms too, even once it seems outdated.
So here's one example: Should men open doors for women? When you're trying to figure out whether a norm has any use still, it's helpful to look at what it was there for originally. Was it there to help someone, to protect, to orient society in a useful way? Is that use case still in some way valid now? If so, maybe that norm is still doing something good, even if it isn't evident immediately to you.
One thing I dislike about critics of social norms is how bad they tend to be at understanding why people had certain norms in the past. Many people believe that everything was simply oppressive and to shit on people, without critically thinking about anything in particular.
Feminist for example, love to dunk on slut shaming, without thinking about the alternative, which is basically people getting sick as shit from disease, and various illegitimate children with multiple mothers/fathers. Of course, as long as you get checked for STD's and use protection, you could avoid many of those problems, but the fact we see large amounts of STDs, abortions, and single motherhood among various racial groups withing society (blacks, Hispanics, & native americans) doesn't make that argument convincing at scale. I've known of men & women who deliberately for go condoms because it doesnt "feel good", and then get a pikachu face when they are given diseases or get pregnant.
Its become more and more apparent to me that there are many people in our society who simply dont or cant make good decisions, even if given an optimal environment. Perhaps there is a discussion to be had around norms about dating and sex, even if we conclude slut shaming isnt an ideal solution?
Nerd
19d ago
Meta: I find this transcript difficult to follow.
Hmm fair enough. Give me a few seconds & I'll add some more context.
Nerd
19d ago
What made you want to resurrect these two ancient (by internet standards) videos for discussion today?
We still hear complaints about privilege in today's politics, especially as it relates to race and gender. There are all sorts of stories around transgender people and how they experience both sides of gender privilege. I also just happen to love counter arguments and wish he was still around.
But fundamentally, I just don't think this is a good way to frame the discussion around the issues of disadvantaged people. Unfortunately, because it doesnt appear to be designed to actually do that.
Nerd
20d ago
A Privilege is an unearned advantage according to this theory, and if you are born into a position of privilege, you dont know what its like to live without it. I think this idea has many flaws, but I'll let the author go more indepth:
The theory of privilege saying that being born a certain way makes certain outcomes more likely still appears to be a fair observation. So maybe the problem with this theory isn't the theory itself, but rather the way in which it is often applied.
Privilege is often not approached abstractly, but rather concretely. The notion that success is more likely with privilege is bastardized into the assumption that success requires privilege.
What could possibly go wrong when that assumption is made?
David Webb interviews Areva Martin:
I've chosen across different parts of the media world, done the work so that I'm qualified to be in each one. I never considered my color the issue. I considered my qualifications the issue.
Well, you know, that's a whole nother long conversation about white privilege—the things that you have the privilege of doing that people of color don't have the privilege of.
How do I have the great privilege of white privilege, David?
By virtue of being a white male, you have white privilege.
Whole long conversation. I don't have time.
Areva, I hate to break it to you, but you should have been better prepped. I'm Black.
Okay then, I—
You went to white privilege. This is the falsehood in this. You went immediately with an assumption.
So who gives you the wrong information?
...the wrong information that I'm white, to come on my radio show? What do you think about that for a minute?
What did she say? Her team.
What was the bad information they gave her?
The wrong information.
So what does that mean?
Well, that's my question. How do you give someone the wrong information about my skin color during this interview?
Areva Martin used the abstract theory of privilege as the basis for a concrete assumption about David Webb.
Martin's argument was that Webb could not have possibly accomplished all of the things that he had accomplished if he was Black.
Well, we know that's not true because David Webb is Black.
So what was wrong with Martin's argument?
Simply put, her argument took the theory of privilege out of the abstract and applied it improperly by making an assumption about an individual.
The theory of privilege states that certain characteristics make certain outcomes more probable. It does not state that certain outcomes are guaranteed.
Thus, this theory should not be used to make concrete predictions.
Unfortunately, that's often how it is.
I can't be the only one who dislikes the accusatory structure of Privilege to begin with? It kind of leads to the concrete argument inherently. Privilege is applied to the group that, by definition, lacks the disadvantage. Wouldn't a more productive conversation be around how to fix the disadvantages of others? If I say someone has Male Privilege, what is that meant to do? I cant say I've ever seen this used very productively. It just feels more like a bludgeoning fist than a helping hand.
Perhaps another argument could be that those with this advantage have an obligation to help others without it, but Its not like a lack of disadvantage is the same as being in a position to do anything, and its not automatically the case that the disadvantage have no power either. Maybe those with wealth privilege could give money to the poor, but that might not affect much if the reasons someone is poor is structural/government policy reasons, or due to their own personal failings. And some one who is poor could very well change their circumstances to become middle class if they work hard and stay in school. Yes this obviously has its limits, but it'll still put you in a better spot than doing nothing. Same with thing with male privilege: I can't stop other men from raping women and using money & power to get away with it unless I possessed a similar level of wealth and power. The fact that I am less likely to experience rape myself doesn't change this idea.
Its a frustrating conversation to have, because it pivots and assigns blame and responsibility to the "Privileged" group, instead putting focus on how to fix the issues of the less fortunate. It gives me the gist that many of these folk are just looking to shit on people and shut them up, rather than actually solve any real problems.
Nerd
27d ago
You probably have to to the extent you live around strivers and immigrants from India and China.
My parents are immigrants, and that was part of it. But in their defense, not doing this is detrimental to the end goal of renting an apartment or owning a home with modern house prices, especially if you want to live in a decent area. If you want the kinda job that can pay for that you don't have much of a choice.
Nerd
1mo ago
ersonally I am a bit of two minds about the Ukraine war. On the one hand, I am all for my taxes paying for Ukrainian weapons for as long as Ukraine cares to fight Russia. Punishing a defector against the rule based international order while also weakening the main NATO adversary seems an excellent investment.
I think we need to continue giving Ukraine money in the long run. For the sole fact that saving the innocent people in the country is a good for its own sake.
Nerd
1mo ago
For a regular man, this implies that becoming marriageable now requires clearing exceptional bars: a degree (with the debt that comes attached) and an income well above the male median (also — 6ft, muscular physique, etc. etc.). Likewise social media has raised the expectations against which men are measured to make-believe levels. A working man in 1965 was marriageable by default in a way that his grandson is not. Again, all of this leverages tremendous economic pressure on men to overperform.
I will say this as a man, it really sucks ass having to compete with other men for stuff like good jobs, girls, etc. I'm in the gym 4 days out of the week, calorie deficit, I just got out of another 2nd round job interview, gonna do another tomorrow, hoping to get something high paying with the degree i got (in my lucky case, for free) and the certs. I've done damn near 4 -5 internships and a part time job. Thankfully i live in a city that actually builds housing so its not horribly bad, but I'm not anywhere near where I'd like to be in my life. I got lucky with a girl Im seeing by complete accident. Its just better to date as a man when you have your own place and a decent paying job, and those things are insane amounts of work to get your hands on. Im glad someone's validating my (and others) experience, instead being told about how "good" we have it now compared to the past.
Nerd
1mo ago
One thing that annoys me about the term "adapt" here is that its assumed that the adaptation is gonna be gleeful, or wont involve any kind of major societal shift in a major direction that would be negative. I can adapt to diabetes by taking insulin, i can adapt to blindness by reading brail, but its a lot better for me if I avoid getting those in the first place, and said adaptations i can do while still being alive in those instances suck ass!
Nerd
1mo ago
Women, when given the choice, do not choose children, and so by allowing them to support themselves and choose whether to have kids, they choose not to.
Meh, its not that, most data shows people not even pairing, despite evidence for the desire to do so.
Nerd
1mo ago
Numbers don't back that story though, Gen Z is the least sexually active generation ever.
Nerd
1mo ago
It even lets you find a mate far away who is a great match, basically for free, which was impossible before.
Very few people end up finding matches on dating apps, or through instagram and facebook, if thats what your referring too. Dating is far superior if you go and talk to the girls in person. The people that arent pairing up via the phone arent cursed - the medium itself is flawed.
Meh, smartphones may be contributing somewhat. But the more likely factor is the fall of earlier marriage due to the pursuit of education and jobs, collapse of socialization & communities (predates smartphones: read Bowling Alone) & the rise in single-hood that follows, rising secularism, and a decline in education and well paying employment in the (non college degree having) male population. The whole decline is multi-factorial and isnt really just one thing.
Nerd
2mo ago
This isnt exactly a slam dunk argument, though? Bringing it into the light arguably legitimizes the industry and the harms it brings.
Nerd
2mo ago
There is something that bothers me about watching progressive/feminist content on youtube, especially regarding the topic of objectification, and its particularly emphasized in this video, as follows:
So if something doesn't serve a purpose (nudity and sex scenes), it's clear the only purpose it serves is to scratch an itch of the artists. This is something called Chekhov's gun, which is a storytelling principle that says if a gun is shown on screen, it must be fired later in the story. And if it isn't, the filmmaker made a promise to the audience that they didn't keep.
It's absolutely the same with female nudity and violence on screen. If it serves no artistic purpose, then the sole purpose becomes the objectification of women and the normalization of violence.
You know, like that scene where Cassie (Refering to the show euphoria) turns into a giant. Absolutely unnecessary. And it's completely inconsistent with the show's genre, which has no magical elements up until that point. We already got the point that Cassie is defined by her breasts from the 15-minute montage leading up to that scene and the other 200 shots of her naked throughout the show. Like, we got it, right? We got that point.
We actually didn't need you to bend the genre of the show in order to show her boobs in a giant form. In general, the amount of unnecessary nudity and the way that the camera lingers on women's naked bodies, or bodies in general, is beyond what is needed to make the point that they're in a lurid, exploitative industry.
To rehash for someone not familiar, objectification is defined as: the act of treating a person as an object, a commodity, or a tool, rather than as a whole human being with their own agency, feelings, and rights. The most common form, (sexual) occurs when a person is reduced to a mere object of sexual desire. It often involves judging someone solely based on their physical attributes or breaking their body into separate, "consumable" parts (e.g., focusing only on legs or a torso).
The main issue here is that this idea, at least on the surface is that it seems to be fundamentally in conflict with the the sexual revolution and sex positivity of many previous & current progressive movements. Pornography, prostitution, and strip clubs all fit the objectification bill quite neatly, and the data seems to support the authors argument that "sexual objectification" leads to or plays some role in many of these harms:
Sex workers are a vulnerable group of individuals that experience sexual violence on the job, but it is difficult and limiting for workers to report their assault (Sex Workers Project, 2020). Sex workers are adults who receive money or goods in exchange for consensual sexual acts. According to research, globally, sex workers have a 45% to 75% chance of experiencing sexual violence on the job (Sex Workers Project, 2020).
I struggle to see how these individuals may square this perspective that sex work is valid, despite fitting the bill of objectification. Perhaps there is something I'm missing?
Nerd
2mo ago
Yeah, that's the plan. I will say this though: I don't want to have children, then have them deal with poverty or a bad mothers. I'd need to find: 1) A good job (working on that, almost there hopefully) 2) finding a women who'd be a good mom (I'll do that once I find the job).
Reproduce, yes. But it should be done responsibly.
Nerd
2mo ago
Meh, kind of. But its not like not being able to find someone is all that bad either. Single and non married are a significant and rising portion of the population. At this point, its fairly normal, even if it doesn't give the same social brownie points.
You don't need to remove gestational limits to avoid Texas style ambiguity, nor does having them mean you are like a red state. Many of these states who have no gestational limits were like that pre dobbs.
I guess you more or less disputing, from what i can see now, about whether or not the left wanted that. But if they did not want that, they wouldnt have done it.
More options
Context Copy link