Timeboy
1yr ago
My understanding is that deflation causes perverse incentives for businesses to not spend money (since investing in doing nothing now has returns).
This is bad for the economy, which requires continual activity to work. Slowdoans cause further slowdown, which compounds unto itself
Timeboy
1yr ago
I remember this being said somewhere, does anyone have the article demonstrating this to be the case?
I want to read it again and see what it said.
Timeboy
1yr ago
Hmmm, I mean he was a random on a social discord server I frequent.
This was mostly done through dms, so I guess the paranoid thing would be to delete all the logs, but Idk if that's actually necessary or not. I didn't say anything wrong, or even anything too far outside the Overton Window (i.e. nothing like HBD or anything). But I guess a motivated actor could probably spin it as racist or dogwhistles.
Yeah, you got it.
The only study he provided was https://news.stanford.edu/2020/05/05/veil-darkness-reduces-racial-bias-traffic-stops/ (Actual study is: https://openpolicing.stanford.edu/findings/ )
I dunno, it at best demonstrated that there's some level of racial bias in traffic stops and in the threshold for searching for contraband, but I don't think there was much more that could be concluded from the study, especially not in response to the study I was citing.
But he liked it because 1) it was done via researching millions of cases, and 2) sampled from a multitude of cities.
Timeboy
1yr ago
Yeah, the sad thing was this was what the conversation ended up derailing to. I tried to ask what exactly he would need to change is position on the issue. I asked him "lets say I had the study that showed this difference continues across multiple cities in the US. Would that meaningfully change your mind?"
His answer was "no it wouldn't change my mind. what WOULD change my mind is if you had that study AND studies from OTHER COUNTRIES beyond just the US." because he rounded me down to someone who was just saying 13/50, and said "there are stats that look at crime in others countries and they take a steamy shit on the 13/50 stat."
I got into a discussion with someone regarding whether poverty was sufficient to explain disparate crime rates between different ethnicities. To this end, I ended up citing https://www.city-journal.org/poverty-and-violent-crime-dont-go-hand-in-hand this study, which goes into the poverty level of NYC of different ethnicities, and their crime rate. It demonstrated that although Asians had higher rates of poverty in NYC, compared to even African Americans, their crime rate remained the lowest of the various ethnicities studied.
The response of the person was 1) that because NYC was the 'wealthiest city in the US', the city was not going to be representative of the average American. Specifically, he stated "I think if you extrapolate data from the outliers (the highest cost of living city) onto the average American, then you are trying to "smuggle in hidden confounders" which is why I have an issue with your study." Later on, he also noted that 2) the study was not conducted over a long period of time, but rather only looking at data from 2020. Therefore, it could be a temporary effect.
My response to his criticism was pointing out that when trying to see whether there are differences between different groups, it isn't necessarily important for the individuals studies to be the centered around the "average" individual per say. What's important is that the individuals studied all have been subjected to the same incentives and forces which cause this deviation from the average. That way, their effects cancel out, unless we can see some specific reason for there to be an unequal effect on each ethnicity.
Yes, NY is a non-modal city, but the influences that fact has should equally affect white people, black people, and asian people. Therefore, whatever distortion NYC has by its citizens being on average richer, shouldn't matter, because 1) we are explicitly looking at comparative income/poverty level, and there are still poor people in NYC, and 2) the effects cancel out because everyone in NYC being subjected to the special circumstances of NYC.
This in fact makes the study better than a 'naive' use of survey data across the US, because Asian people, Black people, and white people are distributed unevenly across the country, and in fact a more general survey would be liable to confounders like rural vs urban location, north vs south, etc., whereas studying a single city would in fact be a superior methodology.
We never got to actually discuss whether the data being from 2020 was sufficient to ignore the study. I suppose it could have gone to talking about the effects of Covid on crime, especially hate crimes, but the conversation was unable to get even close to this.
On reflection, (since the conversation I had was very unsatisfying with the guy), I wanted to see whether that logic was actually sound, or if in fact it was just me sounding good in the moment.
I also was wondering if people had other similar studies which demonstrated that poverty was not sufficient to explain variable crime rates across ethnicities, especially when it comes to Asians and Asian Americans.
Timeboy
1yr ago
Not if gender roles are something which requires collective buy in to exist. If so, then defectors are in fact harming the group, and thus something you would want discouraged, in the same way you would want to treat any other tragedy of the commons defector.
Timeboy
2yr ago
I found a post on /r/Destiny which I found insightful enough I want to post it in full here: Credit to /u/hello_marmalade
On the Sexualization of Women in Contrast to Men
A sentiment I've heard about women before is that they aren't valued for things other than sex. I think this is correct, but the sentiment lacks context.
I think something that gets missed, is that men will pretend to be interested in women for reasons other than sex, in order to get sex - however if sex wasn't an option, they wouldn't be interested in those women at all.
I think the implication is that these women would be noticed for their other qualities - but in reality, without the draw of sex, most people will be ignored. That's the reality for men, which I think gets lost in translation in conversations about sexual attention.
I think this is why you get situations where men will be very dismissive of women when they complain about this, or where the attitude in response comes from. From a man's perspective, these women seem full of themselves. The thinking going something like "Why the fuck would anybody be interested in you? You're just another random chick." Now that comes off as misogynist but I think the sentiment comes from the experiential reality of most men being essentially being invisible. This doesn't get verbalized, because I think it's something that happens so early to both genders that it just becomes part of a person's qualia. Like, just knowing that the sky is blue. You can see it, it's right there. You could argue for hours with someone before realizing that the sky is green for them, because you wouldn't even think to consider that they thought it was a different color in the first place.
Now, some complications with this. There are more issues with the constant sexualization of women. One is that it fucks up your ability to trust people. How can you know when someone is genuinely interested in you, or is faking it? Two, there will absolutely be people that will ignore your other qualities in favor of sex. Three, people will correctly, but nonetheless unfairly evaluate you with the awareness that other people may have given you credit for things unjustly in order to try and have sex with you, which will simultaneously do damage to your self esteem.
I think this leads to attitudes in women that make complete sense even if they're kinda shitty. Basically, if you're always going to be evaluated in regards to sex, then fuck it, get the best evaluation you can possibly get. Think of the F&F panel with Sneako. The first question they get asked is "How much to fuck you?" Well shit, if that's where we're starting, does saying "As much as someone is willing to give me," make a woman a gold digger? If all you're gonna be evaluated on is being a hole, then fuck it, might as well get the highest value. This then gets weaponized as those women being entitled, or shallow, but if you were never going to evaluate them on anything else, why should it matter?
However, by the same token, it leads to a situation where men will feel taken advantage of. I can say for myself at least (and I think a decent number of other men) that being horny can feel like you're being 'tricked' by your own body. Hell, there's even a term for the clarity after you cum: 賢者タイム "Sage Mode", or more commonly known as "Post Nut Clarity". The phenomenon seems to be so universal that it has equivalents in multiple languages that are disparate. I think this is where the sort of misogynistic hate and bitterness can come out of some men. There's a power that you feel a woman can unilaterally hold over you in a way you can't hold them, which can lead you to doing foolish things. As such, any woman using her sexuality for personal gain feels like "cheating".
Additionally, I don't think most women really understand just how invisible you can feel being a man - on almost every level. Personally, I think this affects us in a really deep, underlying way. I think every woman understands that they intrinsically have value. They have limited control over that value, and that value can overshadow everything else about you as a person - but you have intrinsic value nonetheless. On the flip-side, as a man, you are essentially worthless until proven otherwise. Nobody cares. You intrinsically are valueless at best, and a drain at worst. I think this also forms a root of resentment in men towards women who seem to fundamentally not understand this. The line of thinking being "Who the fuck are you? Why do you think you should be valued for anything other than being a woman unless you've earned it? Why do you think you've earned it the same way as any man has?" For some women, this is true. There are women who don't recognize that they've been given credit for things that nobody would care about if they were male. However, at the same time, this creates a situation where any woman who has earned her value is looked at with suspicion. Her successes cannot stand on their own.
Anyway, those are just some thoughts that have been bouncing around in my head. Just things that I see come up fairly often, but I don't feel like I hear these things mentioned very much. I think a big problem is that the people who end up seeing these things end up being too invested in their own side to achieve any kind of synthesis of these ideas.
Interested to hear other people's thoughts on this. There's probably some other shit I've missed, since this is mostly off the cuff, so I may add to this with edits later as I remember/think of other shit.
"Size and strength differences significantly change the context for violence. More women end up in the hospital or the morgue."
While I understand the idea that physical violence would result in greater injury to women, even if abuse rates were equal, wouldn't that consideration be irrelevant to the discussion of unfair institutional bias in family courts?
My understanding of the original contention point was that family courts were biased against men, and a key point of evidence of this fact was that feminist groups were against reform, whereas men's groups were for reform.
Your reasoning for why feminist groups may be against reform, even if the current family court system was in fact unbiased, was because of the perception that abusive men are attempting to reform the courts in a way that would allow them to use the family court as a continuation of their abuse.
The response was that within domestic contexts, there seems to be an equal rate of abuse between men and women, and in fact women are more likely to abuse children than men, demonstrating that women are just as capable of abuse, where they have the opportunity.
Your response was that men are stronger than women, and therefore the result of any reciprocal physical abuse is that men's abuse would have greater context.
If we were considering creating policy for domestic violence, I can understand taking into consideration the fact that women are weaker into account. But here, such lack of physical strength should be irrelevant when deciding the contorts of family law, which is litigated out not by physical strength, but by lawyers and courts. In that case, if you've already conceded that men and women are equally abusive in rate, then here, in a context without a physical advantage, it should naturally follow that in fact, "feminists being scared that men will abuse through family court" is no more justified than the male activist's perspective that women currently do abuse through family court.
Beyond this, I think there's some weird inconsistency between how you treat male on women domestic violence, and women on children domestic violence. I presume that just like for men to women, women similarly enjoy a physical superiority to children, especially babies. Yet when speaking about men abusing women, your perspective is:
"I'm aware that women are equally or more likely than men to haul off and slap a partner, and I'm aware of the (so far still fairly limited) statistics on domestic violence rates in same-sex couples. I am nevertheless not terribly swayed by the "reciprocally violent" characterization of most abusive heterosexual relationships. Size and strength differences significantly change the context for violence. More women end up in the hospital or the morgue."
You would presume then that there would be very little sympathy for women abusing children, yet instead, when provided evidence that women are in fact, when given the opportunity to do so, seem to abuse children at a higher rate then men, instead of similarly emphasizing the consequences of the situation, you instead run cover for women:
"Women are more likely to abuse children, but most of this is explained by the fact that they are much more likely to be primary caregivers spending far more time with the child. The opportunities for frustration that escalates to criminality are multiplied."
I'm not sure it's to the point of saying that you're excusing the consequences of female violence, but it was enough that I had to make a note of it.
More options
Context Copy link