This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Isn't this just the effects of billionaires not being in the bottom quintile of men, who are more likely to die young? It's not some biological law that all men die younger than women do. If you're not a coal miner, drug dealer, fighter, suicidal... (these are usually men, admittedly for reasons rooted in biology) then you'll have a long lifespan.
Somewhere on the Motte we were having a discussion about male vs female life expectancies (IIRC motivated by the UN declaring men dying 5 years earlier than women "equality"), and the decrease in the gap comes in much earlier than billionaires. I think it was, once you get into the top decile, the gap drops to below two years.
It's much more accurate to say, if you're poor, don't be a man, than it is to say if you're rich, don't be a woman, unless your interest in life expectancy is just in having a big gap. Every step up the income ladder for both sexes increases life expectancy; it just does so much more for men.
It is, somewhat. Across the animal kingdom, the heterozygotic sex (XY, ZW) nearly always has a shorter average lifespan than the homozygotic sex (XX, ZZ).
I think it's worth pointing out that the life expectancy of underclass women is also generally rather bad, as their diet is terrible, they often abuse substances, and the tasks they normally do everyday either involve standing in one place for longer periods or bowing and lifting relatively heavy objects, which is also terrible for your health.
I think it depends on why you're doing it.
Point taken. To be clear, I was referring to the sorts of shitty manual labor, mostly in the service sector, that underlass/prole women normally perform.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I would think that's a factor, but I would guess there is another issue in play: The question of when in life the person becomes a billionaire. So for a trivial example, if you look at people who become billionaires at age 85, you can bet that their average age at death is at least 85.
I think it's pretty well known that extremely wealthy women are much more likely to have inherited their money than extremely wealthy men. To put it another way, I think it's much more common for male billionaires to be self-made than it is for female billionaires. It seems to me that if this is true, it's going to have an effect on when in life the person becomes a billionaire, as well as on other aspects of the person's life. These things, in turn, are arguably likely to affect the age of the billionaire at time of death.
Edit: That being said, I recall reading research indicating that among the upper class, the life expectancy difference between men and women is much smaller than in the general population. I imagine this is due to the sorts of lifestyle difference you point out. In other words, it doesn't seem that being rich is bad for women so much as it's good for men.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link