RWDT XX: The System Is Kapp Putsch

[Italios]

concerning women:

the current arrangement for women is very new, so it's only natural that the previous arrangement(s) bleed over into the current one. whether the current one is a. functional and b. stable, we shouldn't really say yet. but more importantly, it's not known for certain if the previous arrangement(s) came from state of nature and we are living in defiance of it, whether that's a good thing for humans or not, and whether humans can adapt well to new arrangement without big problems.

so far the answer to the last one seems to be no, and getting worse, but we'll see — like everything this is not just a matter of "i want women to have x trait" so click fingers and it happens. sex equality might turn out to be a disaster (things both less and more weird and unusual have turned out that way too)

im hedging my bets because i don't want to be cancelled in 20 years and forced to go through sex equality training seminars in a progressivist gulag, but equally my suspicion is that feminists are, basically, wrong on most premises

tbh i reject this line of thinking that puts men as the default and women as the secondary actors. like okay, i obviously accept that the societal and sexual roles for women are very new, largely defined by the psychological revolution of the 60s-70s, but if it's new for women, it's new for men too. when we treat half the population as non-agents this intrinsically sets up a discourse focused on "i want women to have x trait," which is worse than what feminism offers because there's no way to implement your preferred trait.

think about how dumb it is to philosophize about the state of womanhood on online forums, paper, the media, etc. it does nothing. meanwhile, feminism as a movement is a clear - though not cohesive - response to changing the socio-economic reality.

[Cekoviu]

akshually, from observing the commonality of one trait in a group of people we can legitimately infer the presence of that trait in the rest of the people of that same category even if the amount of them who actually have it is relatively low

this is a "heuristic", a method of judging risk:probability, as opposed to a "statistic", which is a work of fiction

Heuristic analysis doesn't really work here (and is overused). From Wikipedia:

a heuristic, is any approach to problem solving or self-discovery that employs a practical method that is not guaranteed to be optimal, perfect or rational, but which is nevertheless sufficient for reaching an immediate, short-term goal.

Now, I don't think it's out of line to suggest that deciding whether we should fundamentally alter the way in which we deal with human relationships on both a social and political level (in this instance, with regards to polygyny) is not a short-term thing and we ought to find the most foolproof solution.

First of all, human groups, on average, become increasingly psychologically diverse with size. For example, a small group such as <C1 Japanese speakers living in Sochi> is likely to exhibit less diversity in cognition, social attitudes, background, etc. than a large group such as <people of majority West African descent living in the American South>. Using heuristics to extrapolate a trait (that is not part of the definition of the group) to all people of a particular group, i.e., stereotyping, tends to become less effective as a group becomes more generally diverse. Women are of course a very large group, and therefore very diverse, so a heuristic model will probably be very inaccurate.

Surveying a sample of forty thousand women is by no means impossible in the modern era. The classic consideration when trying to choose between heuristic and statistical approaches is the accuracy/effort trade-off, that is, whether the decreased accuracy of a heuristic model is worth the decreased amount of effort. Given the amount of accuracy that you're sacrificing by trying to come to a conclusion via heuristics and the relatively small amount of effort that it would take to use statistics, the latter is definitely a much better choice.

[Taihei Tengoku]

Much more than half the population are non-agents.

[Cekoviu]

there's also possibility in the future, we'll all be some mix of trans, asexual, and androgynous. we will look back to 21st-century patterns and think how wrong we were, if in the future humans are capable of both thinking and knowing what the 21st-century was (not guaranteed)

That'll only happen if we undergo a huge shift in our collective neurology, but sure?

[Italios]

Much more than half the population are non-agents.

u would have a lot more substance to add to a conversation if you transitioned away from lowbrow one-liners that purposefully miss the point.

[Cekoviu]

Much more than half the population are non-agents.

the point -------->





o
-|- <- you
/\

[Taihei Tengoku]

Much more than half the population are non-agents.

u would have a lot more substance to add to a conversation if you transitioned away from lowbrow one-liners that purposefully miss the point.

Don't think I'm here for your sake.

[Cekoviu]

u would have a lot more substance to add to a conversation if you transitioned away from lowbrow one-liners that purposefully miss the point.

Don't think I'm here for your sake.

Ironically a perfect illustration of exactly what she's pointing out lmao

[Italios]

u would have a lot more substance to add to a conversation if you transitioned away from lowbrow one-liners that purposefully miss the point.

Don't think I'm here for your sake.

so keep talking to the wall then. seems pretty par for the course for a non-agent.

[Taihei Tengoku]

Don't think I'm here for your sake.

so keep talking to the wall then. seems pretty par for the course for a non-agent.

You are doing a very bad job at not engaging, but to status signal is a natural human behavior so I empathize

[Italios]

so keep talking to the wall then. seems pretty par for the course for a non-agent.

You are doing a very bad job at not engaging, but to status signal is a natural human behavior so I empathize

a non-agent with empathy? did they update ur software or something?

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

I will address these two posts together:

think about how dumb it is to philosophize about the state of womanhood on online forums, paper, the media, etc. it does nothing. meanwhile, feminism as a movement is a clear - though not cohesive - response to changing the socio-economic reality.

Surveying a sample of forty thousand women is by no means impossible in the modern era. The classic consideration when trying to choose between heuristic and statistical approaches is the accuracy/effort trade-off, that is, whether the decreased accuracy of a heuristic model is worth the decreased amount of effort. Given the amount of accuracy that you're sacrificing by trying to come to a conclusion via heuristics and the relatively small amount of effort that it would take to use statistics, the latter is definitely a much better choice.

er, depends what your aim is.

i'm not a policymaker, i'm a person trying to understand the world. i don't have goals related to this and where i do they are controlled by other factors as well.

there are two orthodoxies about women:
1. women are not as good as men at doing real things because god or nature and feminism should be stopped
2. women are equally as good as men at doing real things because we want them to be and feminism should be accelerated

both of them are probably wrong.

my heterodoxy is too long to explain at nearly 5am, but we are a product of our genetic, environmental, and social history, so obviously feminism is a response to changing conditions, and we can't "stop" feminism neither we can "accelerate" it as human social movements are like rivers, strong and fast and take considerable effort to dam. but what i understand about men, women and humans is derived partly from heuristics, partly from reading about genetic, environmental and social history, but none of it is from "statistics". I understand the world mainly through heuristics as this is the only way i can rationally combine contradicting evidence, some of which includes "statistics."

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

humans imagine we can reshape the world in our image, which is why we believe things like:
1. we can "transplant" our species effortlessly to other planets
2. whatever we determine to be "true" abstractly applies to reality universally (!!!!!)
3. god (superstition)
4. human as god (marxism)

but actually we can't reshape the world in our image, the world moves at a scale and speed vastly out of sync with our own primordial ideas about time and scale, and what happens to the natural world has resonating effects for thousands, tens, hundreds of thousands of years for humans at least until today. but there's no peace in people in thinking about that, it is better and comfortable to think that we can "be" a feminist who redraws the world to be "more equal".

[Cekoviu]

I will address these two posts together:

think about how dumb it is to philosophize about the state of womanhood on online forums, paper, the media, etc. it does nothing. meanwhile, feminism as a movement is a clear - though not cohesive - response to changing the socio-economic reality.

Surveying a sample of forty thousand women is by no means impossible in the modern era. The classic consideration when trying to choose between heuristic and statistical approaches is the accuracy/effort trade-off, that is, whether the decreased accuracy of a heuristic model is worth the decreased amount of effort. Given the amount of accuracy that you're sacrificing by trying to come to a conclusion via heuristics and the relatively small amount of effort that it would take to use statistics, the latter is definitely a much better choice.

er, depends what your aim is.

i'm not a policymaker, i'm a person trying to understand the world. i don't have goals related to this and where i do they are controlled by other factors as well.

there are two orthodoxies about women:
1. women are not as good as men at doing real things because god or nature and feminism should be stopped
2. women are equally as good as men at doing real things because we want them to be and feminism should be accelerated

both of them are probably wrong.

my heterodoxy is too long to explain at nearly 5am, but we are a product of our genetic, environmental, and social history, so obviously feminism is a response to changing conditions, and we can't "stop" feminism neither we can "accelerate" it as human social movements are like rivers, strong and fast and take considerable effort to dam. but what i understand about men, women and humans is derived partly from heuristics, partly from reading about genetic, environmental and social history, but none of it is from "statistics". I understand the world mainly through heuristics as this is the only way i can rationally combine contradicting evidence, some of which includes "statistics."

(I took a sleeping pill about 15 minutes ago since I was planning on sleeping and it is really kicking in, so this might be totally incoherent.)
I think you're slightly misunderstanding the nature of views on the matter. Just as you claim you are purely trying to understand the world and not propose policy, the same is frequently true of "orthodox" (anti-)feminists. The actual ideas are not so much "feminism should be accelerated/stopped" as "feminism is a good/bad idea." Ideas about what to do about feminism are downstream of this, but don't have to exist on a subconscious level because our political ideas all operate with the assumption that the world works in at least a slightly more utopian fashion than it actually does.

I can barely keep my eyes open, so look forward to further discussion tomorrow morning.

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

in my old job, we once had to move a lot of heavy things and my boss contracted some bengali guys to come and do it. she ordered me downstairs and said look, these banglas won't listen to me because they're sexists, can you get them to do x y and z. the fact they did what i asked them was related mostly to my boss being a total bitch and not really because they were sexists.

in my current job, where we have to deal with a lot of arabs, they mostly just ignore my boss and try to circumvent her decisions via me, even though she is very highly qualified (much more than I am), partially because they're sexist, but mostly because she isn't enough of a bitch to them.

so you can't win. but then, there's nothing we can do about either of these things. the reality is that most people do not have as much agency as they think they do (even highly intelligent people), and sometimes, even though you want to put your world to rights, you actually just can't, because you're tiny, and mass action is huge, so when mass action appears on your side, then you go with it. this is the "reality" of "politics" independent of state, anarchy and utopia, but this is the greatest heresy in our political system (because it leads directly to all the other heresies.)

The actual ideas are not so much "feminism should be accelerated/stopped" as "feminism is a good/bad idea.

yeah I know, that's my point exactly.

"feminism is bad / good" = "ok, prove it"

uh, how? most likely by implicit reference to "what I want to be true."

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

by the way it's insane that the fucking austrian book site is demanding captcha from me to post

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

by the way this is one half of my position, im not finishing at "oh everything is pointless now", that's dumb

[Vince Vaughn]

You're money, baby.

[Jack Thomas Lang]

You're money, baby.

We've gone beyond using babies as currency, perhaps unfortunately.

[Munkcestrian RepubIic]

Speaking of polygamy, I've found it very strange that the "socially progressive/liberal" left has recently been so positive about it. Polygamy is, after all, a form of class warfare perpetrated by the rich against the poor (see: all of human history where it has been present). Guanggun rebellions here we come!!!

Polygamy should be legal, as the government should not determine what is and what is not a valid marriage.

The government should, actually.

[Munkcestrian RepubIic]

You see this? This is a bad take.

Polygyny creates severe social dysfunctions without necessarily defining the social hierarchy any better than formalized titles, privileges, social deference, superior education, or access to valuable assets/property do. It creates genetic bottlenecks as well, which is bad for the genetic diversity and adaptability of a population in the long-term. Also, an*me of the sort you're referencing is wholly degenerate and more a patchwork of disparate and obscene fetishes than a genuine story-telling format or genre. Please report to the Based Department for immediate physical removal from the premises.

What is stable may not be what you approve--women have already revealed their preference to be the second mate of top men rather than the first mate of a male of equal rank.

Proof

[Northern Davincia]

You're money, baby.

We've gone beyond using babies as currency, perhaps unfortunately.

This is either the least or most Ancap thing I've ever read.

[Senkaku]

in my old job, we once had to move a lot of heavy things and my boss contracted some bengali guys to come and do it. she ordered me downstairs and said look, these banglas won't listen to me because they're sexists, can you get them to do x y and z. the fact they did what i asked them was related mostly to my boss being a total bitch and not really because they were sexists.

I wish people read things to themselves after writing them lmfaooo

[Cekoviu]

in my old job, we once had to move a lot of heavy things and my boss contracted some bengali guys to come and do it. she ordered me downstairs and said look, these banglas won't listen to me because they're sexists, can you get them to do x y and z. the fact they did what i asked them was related mostly to my boss being a total bitch and not really because they were sexists.

:thinking:

by the way it's insane that the fucking austrian book site is demanding captcha from me to post

Die ist ein Wunderseite, ja.

[Celritannia]

Polygamy should be legal, as the government should not determine what is and what is not a valid marriage.

The government should, actually.

There's this thing called Common Law marriage.