= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Alicorn comments on I've had it with those dark rumours about our culture rigorously suppressing opinions - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (857)
I'm hesitant to produce a point-by-point rebuttal. This thread is about unspeakable notions, but you have confounded the data about your own unspeakable notions by bringing in what sounds like real-life personal information. I'm not sure if I'd be rebutting a persona you're putting on to play with the thread concept (nor what the point of rebutting a mere persona would be), or if you actually agree with the positions you've described.
I'm really not sure what's so controversial.
That demographically women are less intelligent than men, with less variation (glass ceiling, dirt floor)?
That women - being beautiful and loved by default - have less need to act responsibility, in the modern world or the ancestral environment?
That women are more emotional and prone to manufacturing drama in relationships? 'Shit tests' as the PUAs say.
That women are evolutionarily programmed to seek out dominant men?
That some women repeatedly date domestic abusers, and appear to enjoy it?
The stereotype of the nagging wife didn't arise ex-nihilo; women are very prone to verbal abuse, often continuing an argument long after their man has conceded. When a woman natters, natters, natters, then yes - as Sean Connery said - an open handed slap is justified (though ill advised in the present legal climate).
To clarify, I'm not trolling; I'm being quite sincere. I have an opinion based upon evidence and theoretical constructs, and furthermore (in my experience) it works when the rubber hits the road.
You're using a cheap tactic here, listing fact-shaped opinions optimized to appear tolerable to the intended audience and pretending that a list of them covers all the inferential distance from the audience's position to the one you stated. ("...most women are incredibly stupid, and quite useless without a strong male presence guiding them...", etc).
However, that's just a distraction. Your unspoken assumptions - e.g. that if a woman is even slightly sexually aroused by some male behavior, then, regardless of its other effects, this behavior is the best for her and she just doesn't know it; her utility function can't differ from her sexual instincts - are intended to do the real work here. We are to swallow them along with the spoken points. You know what? No sell!
Such unspoken assumptions are easy to find out. We take the mainstream LW position, apply all of the points listed above to it as if we had full confidence in each of them, then we look at the remaining gap between our "modified" attitude towards gender relations, women, etc and the position being forced upon us (that most women are stupid, immature and most importantly undeserving of freedom and respect).
As I have just demonstrated, in that gap lie the things that our opponent would like us to assume but can't say out loud for fear of repulsing us. I have named one; let's look for more.
(Why the downvote?)
I want to discourage further troll-feeding. I don't actually disagree with anything you said, though.
I think you're wrong; Aurini seems capable of good-faith debate, even if he has sunk pretty low at the moment. I say we should engage him and try to find some sanity.
That's your right, of course. I still don't think that having this conversation with him in this forum is more important than minimizing the amount of proud public misogyny that shows up in google searches of lesswrong, though. I mean, there's always PMs.
Um... you're concerned with perceived misogyny? In conversations like these, LW has come up with arguments in favor of infanticide, torture, overthrowing democracy, "right to discriminate", terrorism... Goddamnit, people have been upvoting Sam0345 on occasion, when he's pushing some reactionary-flavoured grand theory more eloquently than usual. I think that worrying about low-grade stuff like this is silly while we've all of the above going on.
Yes. Misogyny is much easier to engage in overthrowing democracy, and has a larger short-term social effect.
The other piece of it is that misogyny has a very bad reputation these days, so it does have an effect on how a site is perceived.
It hasn't been my experience that new members of a community google for mentions of infanticide while trying to decide whether they're welcome there, but yes, I generally disapprove of most things like that on similar grounds.
Edit: Which isn't to say I disagree with all of them. If Aurini had taken out the gendered language from his claim "most people are immature idiots and need firm direction in their lives" (or whatever) I might have upvoted him. It's the aggressive depersonalization of the traditionally oppressed half of the population that I think is toxic.
So if I'd caveated that most men are stupid, and that a greater proportion of women are stupid? I'm honestly baffled as to whether you're intentionally misunderstanding me, or if you're seriously that locked down into current ideology.
I'm really not saying anything that radical; you seem to think it is though.
...
Huh?
...
(Surely I misread that. But I reread it 5 times. Hopefully I missed some context which somehow negates the meaning, but assuming I haven't:)
That doesn't strike me as a particularly useful caveat if the purpose of the caveat is to reduce perceptions of ignorant misogyny. Sometimes it is better to not say all the things that you think, for signalling purposes. (ie. For the purpose of signalling that you aren't an ass that it is socially deleterious to be affiliated with.)
Then I disapprove of your policy, and most of those participating in the mentioned conversations would be on my side. Self-censorship is very easy to carry too far.
I'm aware I'm in the minority on this one, yeah. Though I notice PUA doesn't get talked about much anymore.
Just out of curiosity: do you think that people who are idiots but not immature or immature but not idiots need "firm direction"? And what is your idea of "firm direction", anyway?
Smart children and dumb adults? Sure.
Yeah, that's where the disagreement starts (i.e. slapping is a big no-no). Bear in mind I include myself in "most people". I guess I'm (over?)generalizing from my childhood experience shuttling between a home with an extremely permissive parent and a home with a more authoritarian parent who set goals and boundaries and so on. Akrasia's a big problem for me.
Sam0345 is sometimes right.
Also eloquent rational reactionary thought is bad and unwelcome on LW? Why? I though rationality dosen't come with a political package. If we are worried about signalling ditching our support for Cryonics would probably help more.
It comes with an intention to not treat questions of fact and policy as political packages that can be ditched for reasons other than evidence about their truth and utility.
Naturally, I don't see how I implied they wouldn't be. I just said that we are under no automatic obligation to signal our preferences for cryonics when we put up our rationalist hats. Even if one is convinced that cryonics would be an excellent policy according to one's values one can still judge the cost of agitating for it or advertising it to be too high.
Quietly agreeing that cryonics is the best course of action without making main posts about how awesome it is and everyone should do it might be better for our community than doing so.
Of course he's sometimes right, and of course no ideological label is bad in itself, judged in a vacuum.
Presumably because people don't like the subject matter.
At the very least, the assertion that the behavior is the result of evolutionary programming is quite controversial, and is far beyond what state of the art science can assert.
Can you think of any society where women pursue weak, supplicating men?
Just because behaviour is malleable doesn't mean it isn't based upon an innate template. Are you advocating the blank slate theory? And if so, would you also advocate the blank slate for animal behaviour and mating patterns?
I agree that the "best" men got their pick of the most desirable women. The women were rewarded for complying, and they did. It's hard to separate that effect from the one you describe.
More generally, the meaning of "best" has changed over time. I don't agree that best and dominant were always identical through history, and I don't agree that your intended meaning of dominant necessarily matches the historical meaning of that term.