Show newer

@BenLubar@mastodon.social You'd always be welcome here on , but let me say, there isnt an instance in existance that doesnt get blocked by some number of other instances. Particualrly if its an instance that doesnt block other instances they are likely to be blocked just for that stance alone by some instances. Its inevitable.

@hendrikboom3 Math isnt really about truth. It is about making useful tools. those tools just are less useful when there are inconsistencies and more useful when everything works according to simple rules without needing long lists of exceptions. I dont see it about reaching an absolute truth, just trying to build a useful tool for analysis.

@irstm @Christian I appreciate that. I certainly dont mind if he unfollowed me due to it. Just curious so I asked. He is free to follow whoever he likes.

@Christian Is it just me or did you actually unfollow me as a result of this conversation?

@Christian It is simply the first example showing the very poor and selective use of statistics.

But sure, lets go on to talk about some of the core statistics mentioned. The next number they mention is violence, trying to suggest men are far more likely to perpetrate violence. But then when they go and try to cite a statistic they curiously dont use violence at all but specifically murder. There are many issues with this.

First when we look at the on-the-books murder rate disparity between sexes that disparity is higher than with violence. So of course it is a subset of the assertion picked for dramatic effect, what we would call cherry picking. If they had actually recited violence statistics you would find the percentage between women and men is actually quite small at only a few percentage points difference.

Even then the number stated is much higher than even the highest official numbers. Most are in the ball park of 75% male and 25% female. Which is a pretty large difference from what was suggested.

Still one might ask, why the disparity exists and this goes back to my original comment. Truth is women are physically at a disadvantage when it comes to murder. The way the law is written murder is only murder when you succeed, funny he didnt bother to look at stats on attempted murder which would have of course been much more relevant. At that point the numbers would be even closer to each other. so once you actually try to create a fair and reasonable statistical picture all the BS goes away and the differences between men and women in terms of violence disapear with it.

Another important point, which ive avoided since there is so much good evidence using established statistics, is that we have to understand enforcement bias too. Much as a black person is more likely to be accused of and persecuted for a crime than a white person we see similar patterns with crime and sex. A police officer is much more likely to take a violent act seriously from a man than they are from a woman, as is the general population. One place we can see this statistically is how male victims of violence from their partners (usually female partners) is often dismissed by violent shelters and the men are even often accused of being the perpetrator. The assumption in our society is that males are violent, as such the likelyhood of being convicted is higher.

@Christian Well that was exactly the debate I was hoping to debunk.

But literally even the first sentence int he video has been debunked. The claim that there were 300 mass shootings in the united states last year. That debunked figure usually has its sources in Everytown's stated stats or similar sources that when the list is investigated turns out to be very easily debunked. Of course when you look to more reliable sources that verify well and have no bias to try to push an agenda for or against guns youll usually find the number of mass shootings in the USA is usually int he ball park of about 12, a far cry from the 300 figure stated.

Thats just in the first 2 seconds of the video, sadly this pattern of cherry picking extremely questionable or even flat out debunked data seems to be repeated throughout the video.

@Christian Yea i was about half was about half way through when I commented. Its a bit painful to get through with all the inaccurate facts (most of these have been pretty extensively debunked in the past). But in between the misinformation there were a few points worth considering.

I just didnt want to be too critical of the video itself. since i find most people hold onto "alternative facts" almost religiously, particularly around guns and violence and sex issues.

@Christian Because they are physically stronger. Women in all likelihood have the same tendency but due to physical disparity they are less able to act on it successfully.

@hendrikboom3 So after reading that it seems it was little more thn a hard drive platter but the magnetic bit imprinted on it didnt last very long. So it needed to be constantly read and rewritten. Making it a delay line yes, though a very strange one as delay lines go I suppose.

@hendrikboom3 well yes, id say a paradox is just a more formal way of saying "nonsense"

bigotry on fedi 

@masterofthetiger@theres.life
Ok, nice chatting.

@Surasanji @USBloveDog

bigotry on fedi 

@Surasanji I'm not sure I agree that absolute truth exists of anykind. It may, it may not.

The closest we have are things that behave as if they are well enough that we can treat it as such. Beyond that all there is is subjective truth.

But thats another topic entierly

@masterofthetiger@theres.life @USBloveDog

bigotry on fedi 

@masterofthetiger@theres.life
The one that makes the most functional, logical, and historical sense while also causing the least suffering.

We already established what that is here...

@Surasanji @USBloveDog

bigotry on fedi 

@masterofthetiger@theres.life
There is the moral aspect and the logic aspect, and just what is functional and workable.

In this case all three of those aspects are in alignment.

@Surasanji @USBloveDog @Elizafox

bigotry on fedi 

@masterofthetiger@theres.life

What makes them bigots is that there is literally hundreds, even thousands of years of english precedence that defines gender int he way I described it.

A few people come along who all of a sudden want to change this definition to some arbitrary standard they just made up and is already the established standard of a totally different word (the word sex). So one has to ask, why would they go through all the effort to make such an absurd linguistic change. For the most part the answer to that is bigotry. In some cases its just group-think repeating like parrots when they heard other bigots say even if they themselves arent a bigot.

So while I wouldnt say all of them are just bigots for the most part it has its roots in bigotry at the very least. I certainly cant think of any other underlying motivation for it.

Moreover the issues with how to apply the standard. The established standard for the past few hundred/thousand years was always "if it looks like a woman you treat it like a woman".. but to switch to a standard of "I must know what genitals are sitting in someones pants and once I am aware of what that is I will treat the person according to that" functionally can never work anyway, so its just pretty stupid a way of doing things "Hi, I know you look like a woman but before I refer to you as she can you please verify you have a vagina, and can you reassure me you were born with it, thanks"

@USBloveDog @Surasanji @Elizafox

bigotry on fedi 

@masterofthetiger@theres.life
Well not just what you want it to be but what you put effort into expressing. You would have to take the leap to express that want by changing your outward appearance.

Id also say gender is a bipolar spectrum. So most people who claim there are 1000+ genders each with their own name would be wrong. But as far as spectrums go yur free to fall anywere on it youd like.

@USBloveDog @Surasanji @Elizafox

bigotry on fedi 

@masterofthetiger@theres.life
The standard for ones gender is the same as what it has been for hundreds of years. Your outward presentation. If you dress, speak, and behave feminine then that is your gender. It isnt a new concept.

@USBloveDog @Surasanji @Elizafox

bigotry on fedi 

@USBloveDog
Yup thats my thinking.

More important that is the definition of gender (and has been for hundreds of years). Gender is and always has meant ones presentation of femininity or masculinity. Sex is something different from gender, its your chromosomes and your genitalia.

For trans their sex and their gender are different, but all we should be interacting with, thus what counts, is the gender.

@masterofthetiger@theres.life @Surasanji @Elizafox

@Surasanji @tjemni At the next reunion ill make sure to seat you two int he table out in the hallway.

@tjemni You are now officially a horrible human being. Congratulations.

Show older
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.