squaresinger
@squaresinger@lemmy.world
- Comment on what are the grievances with the "male loneliness epidemic"? 19 hours ago:
Both is kinda true. Yes, a poor black man will be worse off than a poor white man and a middle-class black man will be worse off than a middle-class white man and so on.
But a poor white man will be worse off than a middle-class black man and a rich white man will be better off than a middle-class white man.
That’s what intersectionality means: All these things stack together instead of wiping eachother out.
If intersectionality wasn’t a thing, then any black man will always have less privilege than any white man, no matter any other circumstances. And that’s obviously crap, considering that clearly someone like Barak Obama or Will Smith has much more social privilege than any random white homeless guy.
- Comment on what are the grievances with the "male loneliness epidemic"? 1 day ago:
Totally, dating sucks for all genders, no question about that. The issues are just different and pretty much mirrored.
A friend showed me who was writing her and most of it was weird and creepy. If you’re a man, it’s hard to find someone who wants to write with you period.
Yeah, that’s exactly it.
Unfortunately I think we are at the point where these conversation are bound to get eroded by inflammatory rhetoric.
That’s also not wrong.
Tbh, I think the most important thing (not only in regards to dating but in regards to society at large) is to counter the individualization trend. It just makes people very lonely in general. It separates young men from resources needed to develop into more socially acceptable people, it separates people from their support groups in general and it just makes things really hard for everyone who’s not perfectly well adjusted for the individualist life style.
- Comment on Not stealing 1 day ago:
when he’s older and truly appreciates all you’ve done for him
Wishful thinking
- Comment on Not stealing 1 day ago:
Tbh, definitely not with all kids. You have to specifically train them to not use “emergency” screams when they are frustrated.
- Comment on Not stealing 1 day ago:
Starting all over with child proofing and sleepless nights after 11 years… wow. Seriously, respect for pulling it off.
- Comment on what are the grievances with the "male loneliness epidemic"? 2 days ago:
Certain = most. And you might have misunderstood what survivorship bias means.
- Comment on what are the grievances with the "male loneliness epidemic"? 3 days ago:
men tend to generally be less interested in social interaction
Is that the case, because they are men, or because they are afraid?
Piggybacking on thsi comment: it’s incredibly rare for men to get approached, it’s incredibly common for women to get approached.
Both of these situations have downsides, but right now we are talking about men, so let’s ignore the downsides for women right now.
If you are the one who has to approach somebody if you want to start up any kind of relationship (from casual acquaintance to friend, to romantic relationship), that means you will be on the receiving end of rejection, by definition. If you are in the “approaching” role, and you’d reject somebody, you just don’t approach them. So by definition, it’s quite rare when being approached that you are rejected by the person who approached you.
So while women have to reject a lot of approaches they don’t want, men get rejected quite often. A socially inept woman is a wallflower, a socially inept man is a creep.
If you have been rejected too often (and maybe too harshly), this might easily turn into a sour grapes situation (“I can’t do social interaction, so I don’t want social interaction”) due to fear of rejection.
- Comment on what are the grievances with the "male loneliness epidemic"? 3 days ago:
No, that’s not it. You are seeing your experience (and the experience of people around you, all living in the same society at the same time) and extrapolate that to the “very human nature”.
Just go back 50 years and you have all these structures making it easier for men to keep contact. You had fraternities, churches, unions, clubs, associations and so on, all designed to pick up young men, give them structure, give them contacts and help them being part of something bigger. All that failed some time in the 70s or 80s with the individualism movement that valued individualism over every kind of group.
If you go back even further, social structures were even stronger, with even things like arranged marriage being commonplace in many societies. In societies where that was common, there was no expectation at all that a young cis man would have to approach women at all.
Don’t extrapolate your experience to all of human-kind. It is almost never correct.
- Comment on Why aren't you creating more workers?? 3 days ago:
This, but also retirement being a thing.
100 years ago, kids were much less of an investment than today (they’d start pulling their own financial weight at like age 6-12, not at age 20-30 like today) and they’d be the only thing making the difference between being able to retire to one of your kids’ home or the poor house.
Nowadays kids take much more money and time to get ready, and if you have no kids you can still retire and have your retirement financed by other peoples’ kids. And then you even get to keep all the money you would have spent on getting your kids ready for the world, and you can spend it on yourself.
Financially speaking, having kids used to be a necessity and now it’s a pretty bad choice.
- Comment on 🏹🏹🏹 3 days ago:
Fair.
- Comment on 🏹🏹🏹 3 days ago:
Image: Bad AI.
Text: Bad AI.
Source: Bad AI.
Neither the name of the effect nor the story turn up any results on google.
This is not a science meme, but instead a “My first AI meme”.
- Comment on 🏹🏹🏹 3 days ago:
Yeah, so much so that people believe this meme is reality, even though google turns up not a single result for “plus c bow effect” that has anything to do with archery. Neither does any google search on the story.
The whole post is placebo, aka pure AI slop.
- Comment on Why aren't you creating more workers?? 3 days ago:
If they are following the usual timeline, that’s another 4 years until a world war, and then another 6 years until someone drops a bomb and ends everything.
- Comment on Why aren't you creating more workers?? 3 days ago:
The biological clock exists, and it is real. But it ends at a time where no reasonable person should seriously consider having a first child.
For most women menopause starts around 45 and the last period happens around 49-55. That’s the hard limit.
Between 30-45 having kids is most often possible, though it’s getting more difficult and the chance for things like trisomy 21 is increasing exponentially with increasing age.
- Comment on Why aren't you creating more workers?? 3 days ago:
The math has changed.
100 years ago, you’d get kids so you can afford eggs.
- Comment on Beyond Beef? Impossible Beef? I Can't Believe It's Not Beef? 5 days ago:
Try soaked shredded wheat as a mince meat replacement in Chili con Carne. It’s seriously good.
Or falafel burgers with fried egg. That stuff is amazing.
- Comment on Beyond Beef? Impossible Beef? I Can't Believe It's Not Beef? 5 days ago:
Tbh, McDonalds vegan burgers are the best patties they have. Not because they are great, but because at least they don’t taste like fried shoe sole like their beef burgers.
Seriously, their beef burgers are animal cruelty. No animal deserves to be turned into that garbage.
- Comment on nooo my genderinos 6 days ago:
Except that yes, math is about precision and rigor, and yes, the square root of negative numbers is totally allowed (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_root#Square_roots_of…) and yes, math totally allows for statements with multiple solutions.
sin(x) = 0also has infinite solutions and yet it’s totally legal for x to make an equation like that. - Comment on nooo my genderinos 6 days ago:
And bee queen generate full-animal-sized flying sperm, aka drones.
- Comment on nooo my genderinos 6 days ago:
Well, clearly. If you define a male characteristic as something that’s more common in men than in women and vice-versa, then e.g. being tall would be a “male characteristic”.
Height isn’t a binary thing with men being exactly Xcm tall and women exactly Ycm, so there’s people who have more of said male characteristic and people who have less. And you also have women who have more of this characteristic and some men (e.g. there are some women that are taller than some men).
The same can be done for every characteristic that’s associated with a gender. Genitals are on a spectrum (large clitoris vs micropenis), fat distribution is on a spectrum (e.g. there are men with breasts and women without), body hair is on a spectrum, hormone distribution is on a spectrum and so on and so on.
If you take a lot of characteristics at once it becomes clear in most cases whether the person you are dealing with is a man or a woman (though there are some where that’s more difficult or impossible), but if you take just a single characteristic (e.g. height) it’s impossible to say whether the person you are dealing with is definitively a man or a woman.
- Comment on YOU HAVE NO POWER HERE 6 days ago:
It does, but their eyes still have blind spots and their eyes could possibly be even better if their photoreceptors were oriented towards the incoming light.
- Comment on YOU HAVE NO POWER HERE 1 week ago:
Evolution likes local maxima. Getting out of them is difficult. That’s what the OOP meant with “evolution was powerless to correct it”.
Getting out of local maxima means you first have to go with a worse setup until you get to a new, better local maxima. That’s why evolution doesn’t really do that all that often and instead prefers small optimizations.
(I use “like” and “prefer” not to say that evolution has goals or emotions, but to say that that’s what the “algorithm” of evolution leads to.)
- Comment on YOU HAVE NO POWER HERE 1 week ago:
No blind spot and probably better light sensitivity. But it’s not like we really need higher light sensitivity as land-dwellers.
- Comment on BE NOT AFRAID, MORTAL 1 week ago:
Thanks!
- Comment on BE NOT AFRAID, MORTAL 1 week ago:
It has been quite a long time.
- Comment on BE NOT AFRAID, MORTAL 1 week ago:
Thanks for the recap! I can’t remember anything at all about that episode.
- Comment on BE NOT AFRAID, MORTAL 1 week ago:
Can you post a picture of what this is supposed to look like?
- Comment on BE NOT AFRAID, MORTAL 1 week ago:
Where is that from? Is that Cowboy Beebop? The art style looks like it, but it’s been a very long time since I last watched it.
- Comment on When Americans Fly Economy, They're Actually Paying for Someone Else to Fly Private 1 week ago:
The fundamental difference is the direction of the redistribution.
The capitalist system inherently distributes from poor to rich. With no state involved, a capitalist system strictly and always devolves into one person (or a very small group) owning everything and everyone else being owned by them. That’s why we have states that do have redistribution systems that try to counteract that: We have progressive tax systems that tax the rich more than the poor to fund free (or at least subsidized) public good systems.
To get back to your example: The rich don’t need free schools. Even without free public education, they would still be able to afford to send their kids to expensive private schools. A free school program is there to mostly benefit the poor.
Redistribution systems that redistribute from poor to rich on the other hand are inherently broken. The base economic system already does that redistribution from poor to rich, so allowing the rich to mooch even more off the system is not a good idea.
- Comment on Anon is Bri’ish 1 week ago:
Or “bad teeth”
I lived in the UK for a while and what shocked me most was the ads for tooth care products.
Where I’m from they are like “Fresh breath all day long” or “Keeps your teeth white”. In the UK they were like “Mouth wash can prevent tooth loss”.