Men’s Rights Redditor: “Going to a strip club as a guy must be like going to a regular nightclub as a girl!”

Cultural narratives are often believed only in the abstract, and are very often hypocritical and internally inconsistent.

If only he knew how ironic it is for him to be saying this.

Auggz — until recently the idea of not having kids wasn’t just shunned, but nearly impossible — Roe’s 40 years old, the idea of remaining childless is even younger. Under those conditions it makes sense not to mention any potentially problematic genes, and thus not to discuss the heritability.

Except this was used to justify eugenics — mental patients were sterilized for decades (among other “undesirables”) because gods forbid we might pass on a crazy gene! (It’s a risk I’m not willing to take, but that’s my personal choice and other people should be free to decide that they are okay with the risk)

In short, I think we don’t want to talk about it because it would admitting that eugenics wasn’t COMPLETE crap, just 99% crap. That is, that yes, you can pass on flawed genes, and maybe should decide not to, but that’s your choice. That’s not gonna be a thing high schoolers grasp well. Am I making sense? What I’m trying to say is I don’t think we want to touch anything remotely related to eugenics, and at the same time don’t want to admit that we may pass less than ideal genes onto our kids, especially if those genes are related to something stigmatized.

@katz, no idea. Under the Bayesian system, you focus a lot more on distributions than on point estimates (like you do in frequentist statistics, with the mean, etc). It sounds like he’s saying that the posterior distributions for traits are larger for males when compared to females, but that doesn’t make an awful lot of sense. For trait expressions, like eye colour, they’re all binary: you either have green eyes or you don’t. So for each eye colour, you could do an estimate of the proportion of the male population that has green eyes, and the proportion of the female population that has green eyes, and with the Bayesian approach you would be more interested in the distribution, not the point estimate (i.e. you would be interested in the minimum and maximum proportions calculated, not the mean proportion). But each person with eyes must have an eye colour, so how does that equate into the variance for males being larger?

It’s not that I don’t have a clue about what they’re trying to say, I don’t think anybody else could understand it either.

*sexualized

Fucking autocorrect

What’s your problem, trolly (apart from being unable to write in plain English)? Why do you feel the need to trot out this evopsych bullshit? You had jibes at MRAs buried in your first screed. Fine, they exist to be mocked, as far as this site’s concerned. So why flap around with the same garbage they like to trot out, pretending humans are little more than breeding machines on autopilot?

1. An equation of being fat with being lazy would forego the necessity of the “and” conjunction. There is no need to say that something is “red and scarlet.” To do so would be redundant. Hence, my use of “and” is an indication that I do not find the additional adjectives to be absent additional information. One would hope you to be a non-native speaker and that you speak a language where the closest analogue to our “and” conjunction has a different logical truth table. Otherwise, your lack of comprehension signifies either dishonesty, laziness, or cognitive deficiency.

You didn’t specify “and”, your sentence were broken up by commas, which imply continuinity in the listed terms. It read:

Most MRA’s are fat, lazy, lower IQ, genetically inferior individuals

I would be careful with stating someone is cognitively deficient when one appears to be grammatically ineffective oneself. We could assume the “and” in question was actually there, replacing the commas, but then your sentence would read “fat and lazy and lower IQ and genetically inferior”, which is two things – bad writing, and untrue.

Don’t be insulting and high fallutin’ if you cannae get the writing down without crapshootin’

2. I am well-aware that triangles possess only three sides, and I’m fairly certain you know that I know this. The name, as you are probably aware, is a deliberate absurdity. Pretending that I don’t understand basic geometry is an adorable attempt at poisoning the well, but adults can see that it for the petulance it represents.

Yeah, I was giving you lip. I like your name though, I find it neat.

I’d be careful about claiming petulance (interesting attempt at ascribing a typically feminine emotion to me, though, and deliberately reducing any conversation to me as a childishly sulking and you as intellectual superior… that’d be dishonest, and, what’s that phrase, poisoning the well? Well, you wouldn’t…) when mere “sass” would be more appropriate.

On the other hand, I know of no proof that all triangles must have three sides. To be sure, any sufficiently topologically trivial Riemannian manifold has the property that a closed, 2-dimensional figure with three internal angles must be comprised by the intersection of three arcs, and if we wish, we can specify that the arcs must be geodesics in order to properly generalize the notion of a polygon to non-Euclidean geometry. In particular, any flat space with finite dimension (R^N, SxSxSx…xS, or even R^NxSxSx…xS) will almost certainly have this property. However, I am not aware of any proof that there’s no manifold (or orbifold) wherein all geodesic polygons with three internal angles must be constructed by exactly three geodesics. In particular, spaces in which the homology contains torsion elements may not pass this test. For example, must all “triangles” in the real projective plane (RP^2) or any of its higher dimensional analogues be comprised of three distinct geodesics? It’s not obvious that this must be the case, even if it is true. You may also note that the “tri” in “triangle” signifies the presence of three internal angles, not the presence of three “sides,” as you asserted. It’s even in the name. It’s tri-ANGLE, not tri-SIDE.

Take your Non-Euclidean inanity elsewhere, you parallel apologist, you’re being hyperbolic enough without attempting to move into hyperbolic geometry. A triangle has three sides and three internal angles, and any attempts at pretending that such a thing as manifolds exist or that sufficiently advanced mathematics allows us to envision dimensions with a non-complete z axis is the Devil’s Math.

3. Also, I included the possibility for exceptions to the general rule of sexual selection. This is obvious in that I even included a particular exception by name. To act as if I allowed for no exceptions is patent dishonesty.

No, it’s patent truth, given that you allowed for exceptions, then went right on stating your argument as if those exceptions were irrelevant – then included a further summation that invoked elements of different species mating patterns attributed to humans and constructed an eugenic argument which ignored your own stated exceptions.

You’re being patiently dishonest if you claim otherwise, and for the record, this is me being petulant at your petty inability to maintain a cohesive argument.

4. Certainly males exhibit some degree of mate selectivity. Indeed, the existence of exceptions, something to which I attested, proves this to be the case. However, the difference in male and female reproductive biology all but guarantees that, ceteris paribus, the selectivity of females will be larger. Also, as I indicated, the X/Y sex determination scheme ensures that male phenotypic variance will be larger than female phenotypic variance for all X-linked traits, and also that the phenotypic variance of Y-linked traits will be non-existent for females. For all other chromosomes, both males and females have two pairs. Barring extreme epigenetic factors, the overall variance of males should be greater than that of females. As a “Bayesian prior,” for any given trait, males will have a higher than 50% chance of having more variance than females. This provides an even stronger indication that the primary sexual selectors will be female.

But all other things aren’t equal in mating, and parity in the biological sense is a constantly shifting circumstance based on the environment. This isn’t physics or math where we can neatly disregard the rest of the world and assume friction is just a petty annoyance, this is evolutionary biology, where such mere thing as complete disregard for the rules of the world is rather a big deal.

Also, read a genetics primer about the chromosomal distribution of human genotypes (Hint: It’s not just xx and xy)

So with that, variance and variability has little impact on sex selection because all it results in is varying phenotypes from males at a somewhat higher rate than females – that changes nothing about the notion of sex selection, and pretending it does is… patently dishonest. Merely repeating your dross science won’t make it true, but it will make you seem petulant. Ceteris paribus works in economics, because we know it’s a dismal science, and it works in accounting, because fuck if I’m testing for tax, but proclaiming that “All else being equal” when all else is patently not equal is utter madness, of the inane kind – humans don’t rely on genotypic variation to test for selective parameters, because, oh dear, we have brains and can talk (Sapien sapien, I say again).

Also, as a bayesian prior, for any given trait with a higher variance, the person with the highest possibility of being exceptional gets to make the choices in that field – but that would make sufficiently lucky genetic constructions with a male genotype more likely to be selective and oh shit wait I just messed up your argument by changing the assumption. Ups. It’s almost like it’s just dressing up a stereotype in scientific language. Odd.
Yeah, now I’m being petulant.

I’ll spell it out – mating is not a one time transfer, it’s a process over time. Now adjust for that, and try again… You might arrive at a conclusion that isn’t ham-fistedly unconcerned with the 99 % of sexual selection science.

5. Humans think, but you largely overestimate the degree of Type II reasoning in humans. Humans engage in unconsciously-driven and heuristically-derived behaviors (Type I reasoning) far more often than you would like to believe. Type II reasoning (rational deliberation, empirical evidence, etc.) is hard and time-consuming. Most decisions must, of necessity, be left to less reliable but faster methods.

…. So the method that grants you a mental short cut like: “This person can talk to me, and he has hair” is more likely to end up being followed by people than the method wherein they sit down, get genetically screened, and then finally find out if they’re genotypically compatible? So… people in an emotionally charged situation will often not take the most reasonable course of action or maximize their utility, but will instead probably do something stupid?

Now you’re just fucking with us, chap. Because that would mean your entire argument shot itself in the foot. Come on, one more time now – explain to us exactly why humans who often persue the less optimal, less rational, less utility maximizing path will nevertheless entirely disregard genetically unfit people when they have no way to test for genotype variance other than phenotypic stand in like a marker of some kind, and then, as a bonus, explain to me that testing becomes solely the onus of the woman in this hypothetical situation.

(oh, and being really petulant as opposed to merely boring – None of those arguments explain why MRA’s are the lowest of the low who should have their genes die off to passive eugenics, nor did you apologize for randomly calling a bunch of people losers, lazy and jobless, you shiftless intellectual ivory tower of dishonest rambling. Given the constraints of your set up, any given person could still sleep with anyone else, because human beings don’t have genetic scanners in their eyes. )

Trolly must be a hoot at a party or on a date. Instant insomnia cure.

Oh, look – another cissexist evo psych enthusiast. Very new and refreshing.

You could have just said you were wrong when you stated this:

Barring extreme epigenetic factors, the overall variance of males should be greater than that of females. As a “Bayesian prior,” for any given trait, males will have a higher than 50% chance of having more variance than females.

He’s the Ghost of Terrible Parties Past, here to remind us all to ask the host(ess) who else is going to be in attendance before RSVPing.

Whoa shit yes, that reminds me of some parties I’ve avoided.

I am unable to see females except as breasts? Amusing claim, though it describes the sexually desperate MRA’s far more than it describes me. I have no desire to reproduce and, barring reproduction, there is no rational reason to have sex. Sex is a risky action which involves a large allocation of resources to procure. Even with prophylaxis, it is still far riskier than celibacy. Indeed, even if I had the desire to reproduce, I would do so without sexual intercourse. Unhygienic, risky, time-consuming, and disease-transmitting “breeding” vs. sterile and controlled procedures? The choice seems obvious to those not blinded by hormones. With artificial reproduction, one can even introduce a degree of control over which genes are actually passed on. It disturbs me that there are still intelligent people who reproduce via sex.

Is this Pell? Or is it just some other obnoxious pseudo-intellectual?