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.
No, on the bra strap thing, but I am also very interested. Much more interested than I am in the Triangle of Boredom.
Cassandra — no clue what that device is, but there’s a tape made to hold garments in place (useful huh?)
Kiwi Girl, thank you.
And I have a derail — http://www.lockwoodmathewsmansion.com/index.lasso
I. Must. Go.
Oh wait, it’s not this thing, is it?
Only if you’re talking frequentist statistics, if you’re in the Bayesian paradigm then there is no “correct value” for the population as the Bayesian paradigm postulates a distribution for the population as well.
FFS, keep your statistical paradigms consistent.
And again you shift the goal posts. This is what you said originally:
This is what you say now:
So your original comment wasn’t talking about confidence intervals for the variance, it was purely about the probability that the variance is a specific number.
You can try to insult me all you like. Sad how I can just go back and quote yourself at you to show how you shift the goal posts and then double down further. You’re not as intelligent as you like to think you are.
This is true, I find whoopie cushions, hand buzzers and water spraying flowers all raise my dopamine levels significantly. The fake cans of mixed nuts which have a snake spring out when you open it isn’t as effective, because my disappointment over not getting any mixed nuts causes my dopamine to immediately drop.
FYI, women masturbate too.
@ cloudiah
Nope. I think that just makes a regular bra into a racerback.
I haven’t heard of that clip thing, and while this is not what you are after in this situation, I will link it here just in case it helps anyone else with low cut tops:
http://www.cleava.com/Default.asp
I swear by this, it has stopped me having to wear camisoles (and getting way too hot) and stopped me from punching more holes in tops when I use decorative pins to try to hold the top together in the front.
@cassandra: is it this? http://www.amazon.com/Strap-Tamers-strap-concealers-pairs/dp/B0064BL882
And that’s a great invention too! Also much more interesting than listening to a 4-cornered triangle wanking.
Telling incels to eat chocolate as an alternative to having sex sounds like a fantastic way to troll them.
No, it was about the probability that the statistical variance in men is higher than in women for a given trait. That’s a binary. It’s either higher or it isn’t. That’s not the probability that the variance takes on a specific value.
Actually, with a census, Bayesian and frequentist statements about mean and variance of a population agree. They disagree somewhat about how to interpret these measures, but they agree on their values. The mean of a population is just the sum of the value for each member divided by the total number of members. If you have a census, and you can be guaranteed that it really is an exhaustive census, you have no disagreement about what the mean value of a specific quantity is. The same is true for the variance. If you have the whole population, and you are certain that it’s the whole population, you know exactly what the variance is.
Bayesians and frequentists often have disagreements about the need for an ensemble (a population) or the need for a prior. Frequentist statistics can’t be done without an ensemble. Bayesian statistics can’t be done without a prior. However, in many limiting cases, the two methods agree on their analysis.
@ Kiwi girl
Not exactly the same as the one I saw before, but same idea. Thank you! I love those damn tops but was feeling bad about the fact that whenever I wear them I keep flashing random people.
@ Ally
I agree. We should try it next time this blog develops an incel infestation.
Incel: It’s Valentine’s Day and no woman on the street has walked up to me and asked me to have sex with her. I can’t take it anymore.
MBZ: Hey, just wait one more day and the supermarket will have discount Valentine’s Day chocolate! It’s exactly like having sex with a random woman you just met.
I’m pretty sure that the only person who thinks that sex and chocolate are pleasurable in identical ways is someone who has consumed one too many pot brownies.
If they, as expected, are outraged by this suggestion, we can encourage them to get in touch with Triangle.
Can someone please concrete the goal posts in so troll stops moving them?
Those strap tamers seem like a cool thing.
So, I have to go on a job interview. Anyone want to give me wardrobe advice? Fairly conservative environment, but not law or the financial industry. Better than business casual, and not too flashy is the rule of thumb.
I’m thinking nice black pants, black ankle boots, a dark gray twin set (I know, but this is the world I live in), and then I have this rather nice scarf in a kind of dark red/maroon.
Would you hire me? XD
Ok, serious question. What the FUCK does it matter who has greater variance, if anyone? What’s the point? Are you trying to get us to do your stats homework for you or something?
Do you know if they’re okay with women in trousers/pants? Some conservative environments can be weird in that regard. Do you know what females at the same level of seniority are wearing, and then go a bit dressier for the interview?
Thats all I can think of.
If I want to go conservative I generally wear a suit jacket.
Cloudiah, anything short of a clown suit or yellow rain slicker and I’d hire you! (The later is from Dead Zone, the book, not the show that has fuck all to do with the book)
@Argenti: it’s the greater variance for a trait that has me scratching my head. I can follow the logic if the trait is continuous, like height, weight, IQ, shoe size. But if it’s categorical like eye colour, then each category within the trait has its own variance estimate, because its relating to estimating the actual proportion that the category within the trait represents. And all proportions must sum to 100%, otherwise one ends up with more eye colours than eyes.
So, huh?
Would an actual suit be too much? That’s usually the easiest default for an interview somewhere conservative. Better to be overdressed than underdressed, but otoh if nobody at the office ever wears a suit they might think it was too much.
Oh pants are definitely okay. I won’t work anywhere women can’t wear pants. And since I currently have a job, they probably need to convince me as much as I need to convince them — I just need to show up in an outfit that shows I won’t embarrass them if called upon to represent them in public. They’re probably even less conservative than I’m painting them, but it’s a job interview so I feel like I shouldn’t be pushing boundaries there…