I’m gay

  • 56 Posts
  • 139 Comments
Joined 5M ago
cake
Cake day: Jan 28, 2022

help-circle
rss

https://twitter.com/USA_Polling/status/1540101829702336517

Those Who Have A Great/A Lot Of Trust In The SCOTUS:

2022: 25%*

2021: 36%
2016: 36%
2011: 37%
2006: 40%
2001: 50%


Yes, as I mentioned earlier it stems from the treatment of women as property. You can’t sexually harass property, and as a society we protect property.




Protect woman, but if they’re bad call them a b or karen. Whereas a dude - no specific b word and no trending karen equivalent.

Male on male ostracization typically is aimed at feminizing men, referring to them as sissies or f*gs, calling them weak, questioning the function of their genitals, implying they can’t provide for others (especially women), etc. There isn’t an exactly equivalent word to the b word because that’s directed women who break typical gender norms by being more commanding. Men wouldn’t be ostracized for being more commanding than their peers, they would typically be celebrated. Instead, when they break gender norms by being more caring or comforting they get ostracized with different words instead.

Let me guess - women now earn money outside the household, therefore hitting them and risking giving them ptsd/whatnot lowers their output therefore protect women by default?

I mean I think most men still think of women as property, which is why they think its okay to sexually harass them, so I think protection typically still stems from this. Those who are feminists probably take a more humanitarian view of just ‘protect people, but especially those who need extra protections such as minorities’.

lowkey default to calling african-american women welfare queens and be fine with them being mistreated more?

There’s definitely problems with racism entwined when we talk about intersectional identities. Unfortunately for many they internalize values from systemic racism, such as social judgements, without questioning their source.





Well, it’s not so simple. Testosterone operates within ranges. There’s a range we consider healthy when we’re considering the typical serum testosterone level. This biomarker has a rather large range (one which I believe needs to be refined, but for the most part is adequate). This study noted that there was a decrease in the amount, but not a shift in range. Most individuals are not at the extreme edges of this range, and in fact falling in or out of the range is not a marker of reproductive function.

In this same study they looked at other fertility markers such as FSH and LH (much more important for sperm function) as well as motility - these three are much better markers of fertility than testosterone is. There was no significant change in any of these, except as noted by the authors a short term (<6mo.) decrease in motility that seemed to disappear with time.

The reason I mention all this is that I believe there is good reason for the authors to not focus on these findings. In fact, they recognize their existence and call it out in the results and discussion section. There is a reason it was excluded from the main abstract and the conclusion - these findings aren’t particularly notable if you understand how we measure fertility and sex hormone levels considered normal. On the other hand, we have ample evidence that anything increasing BMI and decreasing VO2 max are unhealthy - while both of these are often binned for simplicity purposes, we happen to know that any absolute shift affects health, whereas this is not the case with testosterone.


Why do you think there are serious implications of this finding as compared to other findings such as increased BMI or decreased VO2 output? What are the implications you are worried about?


I think there are some interesting points brought up in this article, but it hardly touches on the far reaching effects that this and many other advances in AI/ML will bring to the world in the coming decade. I suspect the end result will be a mix of advances in what’s available to the average consumer and the horrifying effects of amplifying already existing issues with systematic bigotry.





I’ve seen plenty of science reporters directly contradict what’s spelled out in the study they are reporting on. Sadly the highlighted quote at the top wouldn’t be enough to ensure accurate reporting or interpretation of science. This is why we ‘solve cancer’ multiple times every year. It would be awfully nice, however, if there were more institutions devoted to precise and accurate reporting on science, as my default behavior nowadays is to more or less ignore the reporting and go straight to the source. In many cases the abstract of the paper is enough to understand the real findings, but more information is available if I feel the desire to dig further.


There are plenty of historical instances of both narratives existing. Even as far back as ancient Greece we have enough text available to explore ideas of domestic violence and conflicting narratives which exist primarily to enforce a concept commonly referred to as the sexual contract (note: I recognize that Carol Pateman has some problematic takes, but we will ignore them for the purpose of exploring this thesis) or in simpler terms to uphold the idea that women are property and the implications that come from that - if they are property then they need to be protected. Of course, if a woman is to assert that she is not property or challenges her status as property or causes trouble for the property owners it may make sense for the system to then treat them as hostile and allow a counter-narrative to exist, such as it’s okay to hit a woman in these circumstances, otherwise we should protect them as we protect property.


Neurons aren’t how you measure IQ. The gut system is a primarily a sensory one which simply gathers and relays information, however, there is processing that happens locally so that it doesn’t all have to be relayed to the brain, utilizing similar mechanisms to reflexes (what happens when the doctor hits your knee with that little mallet). At the end of the day your gut is not independent of your brain, thus measuring anything absent the rest of your body isn’t a particularly useful metric.


Disgusting, yet sadly not surprising given how the internet just allows content like this to stick around on most websites


You know, revisiting some of these articles I read back in the day makes me wonder whether it was actually propaganda spun up by the US govt (or agents on behalf of it) to sow distrust in the Chinese government. With that being said, however, I wouldn’t trust any government or company with being any more truly secure - there’s too many incentives not to be.


I would not put any trust in China to not have backdoors in their chips. Historically speaking, they’ve done this more than once. Frankly I wouldn’t trust any large company - many companies have also done this historically and there’s an incentive for them to do so, government money and backing.


Kinda wonder what allegations were in that letter


This is a great watch if you’re unfamiliar with food/dietary science. The foundational diet framework provided by Dr. Gardner in this talk is a great way to approach dietary needs and changes that is fairly easy to remember and follow and is compatible with any specific diets.



You’re asking me to do a lot of educational lift on your behalf, and my time is limited. I wish you the best on your quest for knowledge


No one is discounting your lived experience, but you shouldn’t infer this is universal because it’s what you’ve seen


Baldness is caused by testosterone.

This is a common myth.


Very likely double exposure

Could be done with purely photographic techniques, or aided through the use of technology like image editors




Brought up some good points I hadn’t considered. Thanks!