How stupid do you have to be to actually believe the following nonsense? Not just regular stupid. Men’s Rights stupid.
Heck, this is even stupid by normal Men’s Rights standards. It made me think of this line from Ruthless People.
Now, horqth could very well be a troll. His account is brand new, and, I mean, this is just amazingly dumb. But here’s the thing: his comments are being treated as if they are completely reasonable by the Men’s Rights subreddit. I noticed only a couple of mostly ignored comments out of more than 100 even raising the possiblity that he was a troll.
Not only has his post gotten dozens of upvotes, but in the comments there are numerous other Men’s Rights Redditors — not trolls — who’ve actually managed to outdo him in the sheer ridiculousness of their opinions. And they’re getting upvotes too.
Milessycamore seemed to suggest that horqth had understated the degree to which men were being victimized in both places, and more than 200 Redditors agreed:
Saxonjf thought it would be nice if more women would act like these strippers and make men feel “important special.”
Itchybrain, putting his economist hat on, suggested that the root of the problem was the massive over-valuation of women:
So how did the ladies get so overvalued in the first place? Blame the government and all that darn welfare. Responding to one contrarian Men’s Righster who suggested — get this! — that women are appropriately valued — FloranHunter laid down this truth bomb, by which I mean a bunch of complete and utter crap:
If only we could return to the good old days, when women would starve unless they were super nice to unattractive dudes who pestered them in bars!
Lawtonfogle also has no problem with the idea of men being valued for their money; he just wants to get more bang(s) for the buck.
![Lawtonfogle 10 points 1 day ago (12|2) Government intervention in the means of social support programs that result in a woman having far more bargaining power in relationship dynamics. If it weren't for laws that provided support for children and forced fathers to pay for children (even when they aren't the biological father), it would be a very different issue. Men would still be valued for their money and women for their attractiveness, but money would hold more value and being a male willing to commit would also hold (more) value. permalink source parent save give gold hide child comments [–]IOIOOIIOIO 5 points 23 hours ago (7|2) Effective male contraception is going to be amazing.](https://i0.wp.com/www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/lawton.png?ssl=1)
I give up.
You’re the one that brought up “variability” in the first place. I was not the one that did this.
I always, and only, said that the variance in phenotypic expression of men and women will differ, with men have the larger values. That is all I said. No one really addressed that assertion. They brought up irrelevancies, they misunderstood my rather trivial statement about priors, and in general tried to exaggerate what I actually said, but they never really addressed the point.
Those are some hasty generalizations you have there.
Cultural narratives are not merely believed “in the abstract” as you say. They are internalized and often faithfully followed, and in turn they affect behavior. A good example of this is the white supremacist, eurocentric standard of beauty. People fawn over the birth of a baby that has “fair skin” but almost never appreciate babies of a darker skin color. The cultural narrative here is that whiteness is beauty. And this narrative is powerful in that it encourages even people of color to have white supremacist beauty standards. I have Pakistani family members who didn’t want my uncle to marry a white German woman because they would feel inferior to her due to her whiteness. The same beauty standards lead to black women devaluing themselves as women because of the white supremacist notion that blackness is inherently ugly. In other words, black women internalize white supremacist, eurocentric beauty norms. None of these phenomena can be simply regarded as results of abstract belief in cultural narratives. If they were often only believed in the abstract then socialization would almost be nonexistent.
Yeah, you said that, but you never offered any actual evidence that its true.
It’s something that can be derived simply from the X/Y sex determination scheme. Some massive counter-term would have to occur in order for it not to be the case. In general, such a counter-term requires evidence, and is therefore not present in the null hypothesis.
I addressed that point, and then you doubled down, moved goal posts, and proceeded to demonstate how little you know about Bayesian statistics (I have no idea why you have tried to use a Bayesian paradigm except to try to show how mathematically literate you are, LOL).
You couldn’t even get your prior equations correct, both times you tried.
You’re being laughed at here, for numerous reasons.
@kiwi girl
This nonsense reminded me of a post from you on the OKCupid thread.
I like your approach a lot more than Fourside’s willful obfuscation, but then again I’m a fan of good communication skills.
Fun Fact: After fundi Hector railed off topic about the evils of abortion, “Dating by the Numbers: Why “hacking” OkCupid is a waste of everyone’s time” now has 666 comments.
So you’re somehow combining all trait expressions into a single overall phenotype?
Please, give us the equation.
(Makes Devil hands)
Perhaps it is incorrect to say they are only believed in the abstract. What I mean to say is that the fact that our present culture holds women to a higher standard of beauty is not an indication that people in our culture do so when selecting mates, and it’s certainly no indication that humanity do so throughout most of its evolutionary history. As well, physical attractiveness is only one standard to which potential mates can be held.
Are unattractive women less likely to reproduce than unattractive men? As far as I can tell, the fact that ugly women are treated worse than ugly men doesn’t give much insight into this question. That’s the point I was trying to make and I apologize if it came out badly.
“Sex is not unique in the benefits it can bring. Every single one has chemical or procedural alternatives.”
O rly? Citation desperately needed. Some people find being in a romantic, sexual relationship with another human being (or beings) they deeply care about to be uniquely fulfilling.
There’s nothing wrong with my prior. There’s nothing wrong with it at all.
Is this guy boring the crap out of everyone, or is it just me? And, if it’s not just me, would anyone mind a derail? I need some practical fashion assistance.
For those who wondered why I laughed at this particular troll comment:
Here’s why I laughed, the method for calculating variance:
Because yes, I spend most of my day trying to estimate the probability of a variance being exactly a particular number.
You should wear boho, everyone suits boho. 🙂
No, think really tediously specific.
(Also women with disproportionately large breasts do not suit boho at all, ime.)
For males, masturbation can replace sex as a source of ejaculation in order to decrease the probability of prostate cancer. For both genders chocolate can replace sex as a source of oxytocin. Dopamine can be replaced by harmless novelty or better yet, by accomplishing tangible things in life.
I’m happy to give advice, depending on what advice you need. BTW for troll, I suggest that they should go around wearing a large question mark, in beige.
WTF are you talking about? That makes no sense. The “null hypothesis” is the hypothesis that the variable you are manipulating will not affect the what you are measuring. It’s the “the experiment was a bust” hypothesis. You don’t need evidence to form a null hypothesis. It’s what you’re testing against.
The null hypothesis would be “there is no difference in the variance of phenotypic expression in men and women.”
Have emailed the Dark Lord.
You’re talking about the “true” variance of a population. I’m talking about estimating variance. When estimating a parameter, you only get a probability of getting the correct value. The only way to ensure you get the correct value is to take a census of the entire population. Have you not seen basic confidence interval stuff? This is freshman/sophomore statistics. Confidence intervals for a variance are a little more complex than confidence intervals for a mean in practice, but it’s no more difficult to understand what it means in principle.
Maybe if we give him some chocolate that will satisfy whatever emotional need he’s trying to fulfill and he’ll piss off.
So, my question. I have several (identical but in different colors) scoop-neck tops that keep slipping off one shoulder when I’m walking around, which means that my bra strap is showing and it’s generally a bit much for daytime. At some point I remember seeing some sort of nifty little device intended to attach bra strap to the inside of the shirt to prevent this from happening (not a safety pin, something that won’t make holes or be visible from the outside. Anyone else seen the thing I’m talking about and remember what it’s called/where to find it?
That would be the null hypothesis if we knew nothing. However, we know that certain traits are X-linked and we know how dominant and recessive genes work, to a degree. Taking that information into account generates a new null hypothesis. What is and is not the default position depends on prior information.
cassandrakitty: Please, derail.
Nope. Again, none of those things replaces sex, for those who enjoy sex.