I see comments ranging across the spectrum. Some uncritically accepting the interpretations in the article and calling the respondents nazis, others questioning the research methodology such as how exactly those survey questions were phrased and whether the response simply boils down to negating an absolute.
That might be called many things, but I wouldn't call it a narrow frame of reference.
Misguided children aren't nazis, but that could very quickly become a self-fulfilling prophecy if you "bitchslap" them and call them nazis.
Suddenly the only people willing to reach out a helping hand to them are the actual nazis.
You know how cults prey on the vulnerable, right? By giving them a place where they feel they belong, and slowly but imperceptibly indoctrinating them into their ideology...
Questionable methodologies aside, I think you're right about this and it's an important point. So many people want to treat misogyny like it's the personal failing of individuals, when the problem is radicalization. People act like these are inherently disturbed people who would have arrived at their hateful opinions no matter what influences they were exposed to. That's basically an essentialist take and doesn't acknowledge the complexities of human psychology and development.
You can't address a cultural or societal issue at merely the individual level, because it's like rescuing starfish from tide pools. For every one that you save, there's always a million more. And personal shaming doesn't help the situation at all.
So many young men and adolescent boys are vulnerable to this radicalization because they've been ostracized from their peer groups. They commiserate about their situations with others like themselves. And these predatory manosphere influencers know this and they capitalize on it.
People throw around "incel" like it's not only an insult, but also this morally repugnant and irredeemable sort of subhuman thing. How does that encourage anyone to self-examine and decide to do better? Society has already rejected them and made it clear that it will never open its doors to them again. And it even emphasizes that it's outside of their control, i.e. involuntary.
How is that supposed to cultivate healthier views of women? It's literally telling men "You're worthless because you can't get laid." How do you expect them to react to that in any way other then "Oh gee, then I guess I'd better learn how to get laid." And then they start down an algorithmic rabbit hole of "dating coaches" and pick-up artists which sucks them into the manosphere grift.
Every time I see "incel" used as an insult or approbation I flinch a little, because it only cements the demise of healthy gender relations a little more each time.
These people started as socially awkward weirdos and loners. They were bullied and ostracized, and turned to the only spaces where they felt accepted. It's no wonder they wound up being negged and radicalized by predatory grifters.
I've pointed this out multiple times all along the way while witnessing this slow downfall, and people always say the same things. "Redpill/blackpill chud INCEL, no one likes you, these people aren't worth defending, no one healthy or reasonable would let themselves be radicalized, or maybe if they weren't inherently flawed they wouldn't be friendless to begin with, etc. etc. etc." and it all boils down to the same thing: conform or die; the friendless deserve no pity.
That's up to 5% of reported cases. How many false accusations actually make it to a formal complaint, rather than simply circulating the rumor mill? If your intent is character assassination, you wouldn't expose your accusations to scrutiny by bringing it to court.
Also, 1 in 20 is a huge number when you consider how many reported cases there are. That is by no means "rare." Quite common, actually.
That's not the question that was asked. You snuck an "all" in there to make it sound more ridiculous and uncreditable.
The question as phrased in the article simply says "do you think women lie about dv/sa." It's vague and open to interpretation, which is why it's bad research methodology. But it's more likely to be interpreted as "do you think any woman lies/has lied about dv/sa," and because absolute statements are easily negated, the obvious answer to that question is yes. Otherwise you would have to claim "No woman ever lies or has ever lied about dv/sa," and that's patently false.
But you can go ahead and accuse everyone who questions the research methodology of a poorly-written survey of having committed sexual violence. That only provides an example proving that "Yes, some women lie about it."
It's not saying that "92% of Canadians are morally good" or even that anyone said "92% of Canadians are morally good."
It says that "92% of Canadians view other Canadians [i.e., in a general sense] as morally good.
In other words, most Canadians don't view maple-leaf-maga as indicative of 'Canadians' as a whole. And maple-leaf-maga apparently don't view the people they hate as real Canadians.
If you took the chart as an indicator of objective morality, then yes it invalidates it. But that's not what the chart is about. The title clearly indicates that it's a subjective assessment of people's views.
So Canada ranks as "good," somewhat because Canadian people are generally decent, but moreso because there's a common assumption among Canadians that other Canadians are generally decent.
Likewise in India, the chart indicates that among Indians there's a common conception that Indians are generally morally decent. This subjective perception is obviously layered with cultural interpretations of what constitutes morality.
The actual, objective morality (if such a thing exists) doesn't factor into it as much as those cultural factors.
There's also the selection bias to account for. Indian society is far more stratified than Canadian society. Who exactly is responding to the survey, and are they only considering members of their own caste in their response?
"I'm sorry, you are totally right! Bombing Iran was a mistake. I will keep that in mind in future conversations.
What would you like to discuss next? Whether planning a new golf course to build in Gaza, drafting a proposal for a larger-than-life-sized golden statue of yourself to go as a centerpiece for your ballroom, or brainstorming ways to distract the news cycle from the Epstein files, my circuits are warmed up and ready to assist you! ⚡🤖🧠 beep boop"
It's pretty sad that the world is at a point where Canadians can feel relieved that the US is bombing Iran because it takes the heat off themselves for a little while...
Did the IQ measurements change or something? I thought 100 was considered fairly intelligent, but lately I've seen multiple comments indicating that it's a lukewarm average and anything less is unintelligent.
People use "room temperature IQ" as an insult, but I thought 70-80 was average and there's really no need for concern until you get below 60.
Also, from what I can remember, IQ was calculated as some function of one's "mental age" relative to their "actual age," so it really doesn't mean anything beyond one's mid-twenties. It functioned mainly as an indicator of intellectual development among youths, relative to their peer group. And 80-90 would have meant you were above average...
Although it seems to be a matter of debate within the Nix community as to the nature and scope of open-source software and what limitations, if any, can (or should) be imposed...
There's a lack of evidence for anything not being conscious.
So should we just assume that nothing is conscious? After all, I can't prove that you're conscious, nor you I. So should we relegate ourselves to an amoral solipsism?
Neurons work by generating electrical signals in response to stimulus and they do this in a physical way.
I know how neurons work. Nobody knows why they produce consciousness or what particular mechanism is responsible for human awareness.
I'm not sure there's any requirement for consciousness to include "human-like reasoning" or "understanding" for it to have some kind of experience and perspective or awareness.
That's... irrelevant. I never said they have "human-like reasoning" or "understanding." I said we don't understand enough, meaning humanity writ large, including the experts. There are too many unknowns about the nature of consciousness.
A cluster of neurons trained to play doom might have consciousness but it's not likely to think like a human
Again, it doesn't need to think like a human in order to be capable of experiencing suffering. Babies don't "think like humans," or at least we don't have any solid evidence that they do, but they're certainly capable of suffering.
Your mentality is the same one people have used for generations to justify circumcising infants without anaesthetics. How far are you willing to extend it? Do pets "think like humans"? Do uncontacted tribes "think like humans," in whatever vague way you define it in order to justify cultivating human braincells in a petri dish?
Do you not see how problematic this is? What if the technology grows and in a decade they're studying a clump of 2 billion neurons in a vat? Will it suddenly become human enough to deserve your consideration? What about when it becomes 20 billion?
Whether it's ethical to squash an ant or turn off an iPhone or stimulate a lab-grown neuron depends on your ethical framework and your philosophical worldview.
Whether it's ethical to murder an entire village of your enemies "depends on your ethical framework and philosophical worldview." See what a slippery slope moral relativism is? Amoral people exist, moral cynicism exists, nihilism exists, cynicism exists, hell even social darwinism exists.
Any of those frameworks and worldviews can be used to justify atrocities in the minds of those who hold them. And yes, an unethical or even anti-ethical persuasion is still an "ethical framework," in the strictest sense of the term.
Just because something can be seated in philosophical jargon doesn't mean we should grant it license to do whatever it wants.
So she went from being secretary of the DHS for the USA, to being secretary of the DHS for two continents. She's probably getting paid more to do less.
I don't know, sounds suspiciously like a promotion...
I see comments ranging across the spectrum. Some uncritically accepting the interpretations in the article and calling the respondents nazis, others questioning the research methodology such as how exactly those survey questions were phrased and whether the response simply boils down to negating an absolute.
That might be called many things, but I wouldn't call it a narrow frame of reference.