= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
IlyaShpitser comments on A heuristic for predicting minor depression in others and myself, and related things - Less Wrong Discussion
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)
Comments (35)
Yes, OP's treatment of men is little better. But:
(a) I am replying to a subthread that started discussing women specifically. There is no "equal airtime" rule for gender for every thread in which gender comes up. Discussing a specific gender issue does not imply willingness to throw the other gender under the bus, or dismissing the issue as not existing for the other gender. As I am sure you know, because you follow the principle of charity -- right? This is LW, not tumblr.
(b) OP's take on women is "worse" than OP's take on men, to me. Men are described in terms of physics -- "spring in the step." Women are described in terms of sex appeal. Both descriptions have problems because they are not engaging with the complexities of human brains and human self-esteem. But the simplifications in play are different in character, too.
Except your demands in this thread are specifically for equal attention and care to be paid to women. You're right, there's no "equal airtime" rule for gender, at least where you are concerned - there's just an "equal airtime" rule for one gender.
No. I follow a reciprocal principle. Do you think you have been charitable? I don't.
Are you sure your perceptions are unbiased? https://uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/bitstream/handle/10012/6958/Yeung_Amy.pdf
Which is a perfectly valid criticism to make, and entirely different from the criticisms you actually made, which is why I responded to you in the first place.
Can't argue with telepathy.