domain:betonit.substack.com
Stellula
1m ago
What do you think Lehi did in approximate 600BC?
What do you think Joseph smith did in approximately 1830?
Who is Moroni? What did Moroni do in relation to Joseph smith?
What did Jesus do after his resurrection? Did he come to America? Who did he interact with here?
Who are the nephites? Who are the Lamanites?
Who wrote the narrative in the Book of Mormon? Who wrote the pearl of great price?
The reason that Christians don’t consider Mormons to be Christian, the reason that Mormons try to hide their beliefs, and the reason for things like trying to rename the church, or imply some sort of “latter day saints movement”, instead of just another example of the charismatic religious movement (there were MANY of these in the 1800s), is revealed in the answers to these questions.
Mormons should do whatever they want, I don’t have a problem with them, my frustration is the linguistic poisoning at the center of the religion. If Mormons were simply honest and upfront about what they believe, then cool, but they aren’t. It’s the same as men insisting they’re woman and instead of saying “I am a man who dresses and acts like a woman”, they say that they are women, and try to poison the language.
And I’m not saying that Christian beliefs aren’t also strange to an outsider. “I believe a man rose from the dead 2000 years ago” probably sounds just as crazy to a non Christian as “I believe a lost tribe of Israel sailed to America in 600BC, then hid some golden plates in up state New York, and eventually revealed them to a guy named Joseph Smith in 1830 who used them to make himself the central figure of a new religions”.
The difference is that Christians don’t try to hide this stuff.
When I say "advantages", I mean those things which make it better to be of one sex over the other in a particular practical circumstance. It is true that mammalian biology places the burden of gestation on the woman; my question is about what other aspects of her biology might take the sting out of her manifest physical inferiority and considerable neurotic pathologies.
Pigeon
coo coo
14m ago
Due to differences in skeletal muscle composition, differences in metabolism esp. re lipids, and difference in anatomical structure mean that women are often more suited for endurance compared to bursts of physical activity. Men still top the charts when it comes to endurance running and swimming but it is a closer call than it is with sprinting, where there is just no hope for women to ever catch up with men.
In particular I think this would come into play more than we would expect from looking at competitive results when we consider the endurance required for e.g. farming.
FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
28m ago
I don't think those two contributions are really equivalent.
If I knocked up my wife when we made love this morning, and I died in an accident this afternoon, the kid would be fine. I mean he'd probably have a thing about not having a dad and his mom being sad about it and whatever; but he'd still grow up and everything.
If I knocked up my wife this morning and she died in an accident any time in the next nine months, the kid is dead. If she died any time in the next eighteen months the kid follows a different development path right away.
Even just economically, the one is of far higher cost than the other.
It is worth noting in understanding the WWII mythos that is the subject of the discussion. Why was it not mentioned at all in thousands of pages of memoirs across the most important leaders? There are two theories: the mainstream theory is that this is just a testament to how much Allied leaders were ambivalent towards Jews, therefore also providing evidence they wouldn't wage a psychological warfare campaign to sacralize a Jewish victimization narrative which is the ultimate bedrock to this entire discussion- including the reason a song like this is censored so heavily. The Revisionist theory is that they knew the nonsense story about millions being tricked into gas chambers disguised as shower rooms would eventually be debunked like the very similar WWI propaganda about the Kaiser's death factories.
But @johnfabian is wrong that Churchill's writing represents the Holocaust being viewed as uniquely terrible early on, it isn't mentioned at all in many volumes of writing across thousands of pages written by the most important belligerents who otherwise have a strong incentive to feature that story to justify their own frame of the war.
Better at learning foreign languages. This should be obvious to anyone who has ever taken a language class.
I'm not sure how true this is, and how much of it is a reflection of interest rather than aptitude. At least even if there's a skew, I don't think it's blatantly obvious.
Better at multi-tasking/task-switching. This one is well known.
I'm pretty sure this is false; pretty much everyone other than rare savants suck hard at multi-tasking/task-switching almost equally.
Better fine motor control. Women are faster typists and have neater handwriting.
Are women faster typists? I think I type faster than every single woman I know.
In any case, I suspect that this stereotype has two components, and the advantage might disappear as soon as these are controlled for:
- For skills that are learned during formative years, differences in earlier development of girls might lead to e.g. better handwriting; boys that learn handwriting a little later IIRC also have relatively neat writing (I am not entirely certain that this "disproves" superior female fine motor control -- if the boys took longer rather than simply later to be able to learn these properly it would be still be indicative of a difference. Likewise I think girls are quicker to learn to hold chopsticks than boys do very early on in life)
- For skills involving small components e.g. sewing and knitting, women are smaller generally and have smaller hands and thinner fingers in particular; I think more recent studies have generally shown the increase in motor control in these tasks to be more related to the size of the hands/fingers, with differences disappearing when controlled for (hand/finger) size, implying that this isn't really a difference in neurological control. Though this does still lead to a practical advantage with regards to motor control in daily tasks that matter.
Ioper
35m ago
My experience is largely contrary to yours but the final one is exactly me and my wife, not in small part because my wife likes to 'tidy up' and rearrange things. I have a very good memory and don't lose things, unless someone moves them. What I'm bad at is not remembering where things are but searching for and finding things that have been moved.
Eupraxia
Shut up and quantify
40m ago
I've seen some evidence that women's better fine motor control is largely an artifact of their smaller hands, which would make sense. There could still be something there, though: weaving and spinning are traditionally women's work, at least in western culture.
I forgot about g-force tolerance in my OP, though again that's partly a side effect of their smaller bodies. Even controlling for that, women seem to have an advantage. Gynoid fat distribution might be the cause, but I'm unsure.
Tree
43m ago
-
In that scenario, Xi doesn’t care enough to even pay lip service to his ally, and to the idea of peace? For what, trying to humiliate Putin for his domestic audience (“have you even said thank you once?”)?
-
That’s a stupid idea that will never work, so it would be a normal day at the golf course for TRUMP. But it would be one more reason why Xi wouldn't snub Putin in the first place. Personally I think the americans would be better off (re)-peeling peaceful China away from global nuclear threat Russia. They're like Pakistan, they threaten to destroy the world every time things don't go their way ("what's the use of a world without Russia?" - Vlad P., Moscow).
TowardsPanna
50m ago
Most of your claims seem to be stereotypes or shit that media puts out and people have confirmation bias for. Multitasking is a myth and women aren't actually better at rapid task switching. The claim of women being better at it was based on self reports afaik.
Pigeon
coo coo
50m ago
In particular, China didn't adopt this particular vice despite being home to small but significant populations of Jews throughout history, with enclaves in many Chinese cities (with the Kaifeng Jews being the most famous of the bunch), while also hosting significant numbers of Christians and Muslims. There has been some suggestion in the official records that the earliest of them arrived mid-Han dynasty approx. two thousand years ago, and there are independent observations by e.g. Persian travellers noting established Jewish merchants operating in China by the Tang dynasty.
Interestingly I have noticed an uptick in a bizarre sort of antisemitism in some of the wackier corners of Chinese popular culture very recently -- some sort of combination of classic Da Jooz tropes imported from the West, combined with the perception that the West is trying to contain China, resulting in various syncretic conspiracy theories about how (((they))) are puppeteering Western institutions to control China (or have in some nonsensical way done so in the past). But on the whole the Chinese remain philosemitic.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
52m ago
We're literally watching the formation of deep-seated assassination culture in our society right now.
Could you give some examples of what you're referring to? As an Aussie I tend to get only the US news that's talked about a lot on here. I know about the attempts on Trump (at least, the ones before his re-election), but you sound like you're talking about more than that.
FtttG
53m ago
Closely related to #6: more risk-averse. Likewise a trade-off, but it's no coincidence that men represent a disproportionate percentage of successful entrepreneurs AND people horribly mangled in auto collisions.
cjet79
54m ago
It doesn't seem worth noting unless you care about the history of chemical warfare and it's supporters. Churchill had a complicated political history with chemical and gas weapons.
Crowstep
58m ago
-
Better people skills, at least in the sense of tact, curtesy and reading body language. Male charisma is its own thing but in the median social situation, women are better.
-
Relatedly, better memories about personal and biographical information. I've noticed that my wife and female colleagues are much better at remembering stuff about people, whereas me and the men I know are better at remembering stuff about stuff.
-
Better at learning foreign languages. This should be obvious to anyone who has ever taken a language class.
-
Better at multi-tasking/task-switching. This one is well known.
-
Definitely more conscientious (at least with certain subtypes of conscientiousness)
-
More conformist and neurotic. These are more trade-offs than straight advantages, but if you want to avoid big life-ruining screw-ups and danger then they are definitely helpful.
-
Better fine motor control. Women are faster typists and have neater handwriting.
-
More organised? I'm less sure about this one but the stereotype of a husband asking his wife where something is and her pointing out that it's right in front of his face is definitely a real thing.
yestrusocialist
1hr ago
Malaysia has.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahathir_Mohamad
I have seen a theory that some of it was intended to create a (nonexistent) Jewish scapegoat for Malay ethnic mobs to distract them from (very real) Chinese and Indians they were currently targeting.
Similarly, "Black americans stop beating up Asians. Your real enemy is the Uzbeks."
orthoxerox
If you can read this, you're using a custom theme
1hr ago
I don't know in what world Xi would not endorse his ally's peace talks offer.
In the world where he thinks Russia is firmly in China's orbit no matter what the outcome of the war is.
Also why trump would be swung by Xi's endorsement in putin's favour.
Because peeling Russia away from China to further isolate the latter is one of Trump's goals.
dr_analog
razorboy
2hr ago
I managed to find a ratty copy on ebay for $5 with delivery. So, only 30 years later there's somewhat plentiful supply ig.
Was not in any library or digital library catalogs though.
It's worth noting that Churchill does not, in this passage nor anywhere else in writing- including Churchill's six volumes of Second World War, reference Nazi gas chambers disguised as shower rooms. The Holocaust is not referenced at all in any concrete terms either in Eisenhower's Crusade in Europe, nor in Charles de Gaulle's memoirs.
johnfabian
2hr ago
Certainly there were lots of people who at the time of the Holocaust saw it as a uniquely terrible crime, even as it was ongoing. For example in July 1944, Churchill wrote to Anthony Eden (concerning the deportation of Hungarian Jews to Auschwitz):
There is no doubt that this is probably the greatest and most horrible crime ever committed in the whole history of the world, and it has been done by scientific machinery by nominally civilised men in the name of a great State and one of the leading races of Europe. It is quite clear that all concerned in this crime who may fall into our hands, including the people who only obeyed orders by carrying out the butcheries, should be put to death after their association with the murders has been proved. I cannot therefore feel that this is the kind of ordinary case which is put through the Protecting Power, as, for instance, the lack of feeding or sanitary conditions in some particular prisoners’ camp. There should therefore, in my opinion, be no negotiations of any kind on this subject. Declarations should be made in public, so that everyone connected with it will be hunted down and put to death.
quiet_NaN
3hr ago
I would not call the Jews "universally hated". For example, I don't hate Jews. More generally, while antisemitism has a long history in Christian Europe, and pogroms happened in many places over many centuries, I think "universal hatred" is a bit of an over-simplification. For one thing, Judaism was (sometimes) tolerated in a way which other religions (besides Christianity) were not tolerated. Most Christian rulers would not have suffered a temple to the Norse gods within their realm, for example. I also think that Muslims generally displayed even less of a deadly hatred against Jews pre-1900, there was the 1066 Granada pogrom, but Wikipedia lists few other pogroms.
(Also, there is an argument made that the biggest victim group of Hitler are gentile Slavs, but I concede that the one group he was really fanatic about genociding are certainly the Jews.)
And while you can describe the European theater of WW2 as an "intra-white" thing, I would argue that this is simply because Germany did not have any borders with non-White countries. Nazi ideology has a ranking of "races", with the "nordic race" being the most noble, and the Slavs being the least noble white people (apart from certain minorities), but they certainly consider Blacks to be inferior to even Slavs.
Neither the Western Allies nor the USSR had racism as a major part of their doctrine, so framing WW2 as the proud racists vs the people who reject racism is not exactly wrong.
HereAndGone
3hr ago
Yeah, it's stupid more than offensive, and I'm not going to get outraged over it, but were I looking for "dumb jokes to get hot under the collar about" then the Onion would be first before the Bee.
I think those two are helped by the sheer number of intellectuals who either fell for live propaganda about how great life was in the USSR, or who are generally pro-socialist/pro-communist and would rather not draw attention to such high-profile failure states.
More options
Context Copy link