tripu @tripu@qoto.org

@Pat

I think that the laws and social norms we have guard against most of that.

eg, talking about people involved in MMA, either as participants or as spectators: only adults, consenting explicitly to that, and “in full possession of their mental faculties”.

Someone tricking you into taking poison is committing murder.

When problems get hairy, we implement more guards: higher minimum age (eg, those below 21 can't drink, those with less than two year's experience riding motorbikes can't ride the most powerful ones), mandatory delays (eg, being forced to wait X days before euthanasia, abortion, gender reassignment).

/cc @admitsWrongIfProven

Gotta love #TwinShadow's web site!

https://www.twinshadow.net/

https://www.arealme.com/english-level/en/

#English 🇬🇧 #language #test

https://www.arealme.com/spanish-vocabulary-size-test/en/

#Spanish 🇪🇸 #vocabulary #language #test

Our amazing hypocrisy:

https://y.com.sb/watch?v=EnPvQVsSbeU

@Pat

I am very, very reluctanct to ban anything like that, my default being to err on the side of freedom for consenting adults to do whatever they please.

I'm just surprised that so many people seem to like MMA so much.

(I know it's not the same, I know there are a few important differences, but) it feels to me like bullfighting: I can't understand how someone could enjoy watching _that_.

/cc @admitsWrongIfProven

Si queréis promover la participación femenina en sub-áreas concretas (p.ej. en ingeniería de minas), o pedir que mejoren los salarios de las mujeres en los campos en los que estén desequilibrados, creo que por coherencia y por justicia, deberíais

* no generalizar hablando de «mujeres» en «la ciencia», porque es una simplificación que ayuda a mantener vivo el mito de que las mujeres, así en general, están en desventaja en la ciencia en España, así en general,
* denunciar también los aspectos en los que son los hombres los peor valorados (p.ej. [a la hora de contratar profesores de STEM](https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1418878112)),
* denunciar a la vez que hay áreas científicas en las que los hombres son la (a veces muy exigua) minoría (en el curso 2020/2021, entre los recién titulados de máster: 48% de fisioterapeutas, 45% de arquitectos, 44% de veterinarios, 35% de biólogos y bioquímicos, 34% de médicos, 32% de dentistas, 29% de farmacéuticos, 27% de nutricionistas, 24% de neurocientíficos, 22% de enfermeros, 16% de psicólogos, 13% de logopedas… [fuente](https://www.universidades.gob.es/estadistica-de-estudiantes/)).

También a nivel europeo, hace ya dos años que, [según Eurostat](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/en/web/products-eurostat-news/-/ddn-20210511-1), las mujeres son (ligera) mayoría entre todas las personas empleadas en ciencia y tecnología en la UE.

A todos los que están promoviendo en 🇪🇸 España el [Día Internacional de la Mujer y la Niña en la Ciencia](https://www.un.org/es/observances/women-and-girls-in-science-day) quiero recordarles, este año otra vez, que en #España,

* [según Eurostat](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Human_resources_in_science_and_technology), hace dos años ya había más mujeres que hombres «empleadas en ciencia y tecnología», que
* [según el INE](https://www.ine.es/jaxi/Datos.htm?path=/t00/mujeres_hombres/tablas_1/l0/&file=c02002.px), hace dos años las mujeres ya representaban el 54% de todas las personas «empleadas en ciencia y tecnología», y que,
* también según el INE, hace como mínimo seis años que las mujeres ya son mayoría entre los estudiantes matriculados, y entre los que obtienen titulaciones, en _todas_ las áreas de estudio, y eso incluye «ciencias» y «ciencias de la salud» (única excepción: «ingeniería y arquitectura»).

#InternationalWomenInScienceDay #DiaDeLaMujerYLaNinaEnLaCiencia #11febrero #WomenInScience #IDWGS2023

I heard a mention of #ConorMcGregor, so I went to read a bit about him, and watched a few minutes of a couple #UFC fights — including that knockout 13 seconds into the match.

Change my mind: if you enjoy watching #MMA, there's something wrong with you.

It is brutal. Am I too sensitive?

> _“At the same time as events such as those currently occurring in #Turkey and #Syria, other ‘silent’ catastrophes are taking place worldwide. […] They have always been there. […] One of these silent #catastrophes is the young children dying daily from preventable diseases. **More than 1,300 children die every day from #malaria alone**, which can be prevented by providing simple interventions like mosquito nets. **These deaths are like an #earthquake occurring every day**. And because this suffering goes largely unnoticed by the world, donations in fields like this are low — even though the life of a child can be saved here with just a few thousand dollars, and many more children can be saved from pain and suffering.”_

https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/blog/turkey-syria-earthquake-donation-advice

#EffectiveAltruism

@amyvdh

> _“People who are anti-nationalist, progressive etc are just as passionate about their beliefs.”_

Exactly.

So we have very passionate people experiencing very specific and strong emotions on _both sides_ of every issue.

But it can't be that emotions so diametrically opposed are both well calibrated, useful, constructive.

Therefore, emotions can't be trusted.

So: we have to confront objective data, reasons and arguments.

@amyvdh

> _“Nationalism. That's not an issue of emotions but one of learned or accepted bias.”_

That right there is _your_ bias, you see? Nationalism may seem like a bias for you. But a nationalist would counter that it is _your_ globalist or nihilistic bias what blinds _you_ to the necessity and the virtues of nationalism.

And again: when I read/hear from/about nationalists, racists, people who oppose abortion under any circumstances, homophobes, religious fanatics… I see _a lot of emotion_ in them. They seem genuinely outraged, concerned, worried, disgusted.

Either we value _all_ feelings and emotions and give them weight in the political discussion, or we dismiss _all_ emotions. But you can't have it both ways. You can't use the feelings of the Apache or any other group as your “exhibit A”, and at the same time dismiss the feelings of a Nationalist or some other group as mere “bias”.

@amyvdh

> _“If you dismiss emotions or personal experience how can you be making fully informed decisions about human well-being and cultural issues?”_

Emotions are instinctive and subjective, almost by definition. They exist solely for evolutionary reasons. They aren't designed to disentangle complex ethical issues with fairness. They are designed to keep us alive and breed, above anything else. They are very useful heuristics in day-to-day life, but we can't base morals or politics on them.

Our “personal experience” can't be but a sliver of what happens in the world. If I were to rely on “personal experience” I couldn't have an opinion on almost anything. For most important subjects, I am not a member of that group, I don't have that problem, I'm not in that tax bracket, I didn't commit that crime, I don't use that product — and no-one or almost no-one I know does. Also, we all live in bubbles, so our “personal experience” is hugely biased and not at all representative of what is statistically true out there.

That's why we have maths, statistics, surveys, simulations, logic, rationality, biology, psychology, sociology, the scientific method, peer review, philosophy, thought experiments, natural experiments in History. I trust all that much more to “make fully informed decisions about human well-being”.

@amyvdh

I think we are converging, actually :)

Splitting my answer for brevity and to facilitate threads: