You don't compare athletes from different eras directly against one another. You compare how dominant and ahead of their peers they were during their respective eras.
Female genital mutilation is common practice in some countries. Let's analyze and study the reasons for this practice that started centuries ago before we can say anything about it. I mean, hey, they burned people at crosses for a long time, they must have had a valid reason too, right? No, not every reason behind a custom is a valid one in the 21st century. If the parable villagers were nervous and twitchy because they feared demons would send the tiger, and they figured out that by sacrificing a baby would please the demons, nobody today should say that throwing a small child off a cliff is still an ethical custom. Of course, changing the custom is another thing, but we today have something called human values, ethical values, and human rights. They do trump a few ethical values that we have carried from the past. I'm not denying others' humanity because I say this, but when you come to a conclusion that an action is not as ethical as another, you should adopt it, and explain why you did it. There's no shame in stating that slavery is wrong, that genital mutilation is wrong, that child labor is wrong. Why is is wrong and racist for me to say that latin american machismo is wrong, especially and it results in so much suffering?
I'm as much against slavery and mutilation as you, but I think that in reaching for this easy explanation, conveniently placing ourselves at the pinnacle of civilisation and ethics, we risk overlooking some important things.
You name child labour as an evil thing. That's a great example of something that could potentially be made even worse if you just tell people to stop doing that evil thing without doing anything about the reason people do the evil thing.
It's true that behaviours can reinforce themselves. "Machismo" could easily be a thing where you are forced to play that game because so many others play that game, and that we could all be better off if we managed to coordinate a break with those practices. I said customs can be sticky.
When I said make sure the tigers are gone, I meant just that. Maybe the tigers ARE gone, and this is just our process of unsticking our bad customs. I just don't want us to take the easy way of assuming we are inherently better than earlier generations/other cultures.
No, in my latin american country it really is the men who need much more civilizing. I'm done with feeling guilt or fear of being called euro-centric or colonialist, especially when my country ranks fifth in violent homicides against women, in the world (source: UN's ACNUDH). The other countries? Three of them are also in South America (Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala). In Brazil a woman is murdered every 6 hours, 81% of the time by their partners or ex-partners. I won't even list the number of rape cases each year. I have a daughter and I have a wife, and I have two sisters, and I grew up here, I know my own culture, I talk to other men every single day. If you live in Europe or the US, they don't view women the same way you do. And yes, Europe's views on women and on equality is objectively better than ours. Ask 1,000 women here. Ask 10,000. Cultures are not all equal, not equally 'good'. Some aspects of my culture I love. Others, not so much. That's how it is, actually, not some 'every aspect of every culture has equal merit and should never be criticized' fairy tale. I'm very sorry for the readers for sounding so harsh, I really am. But, like I said, I have a daughter and a wife. My wife is scared or at least on high alert any time she is alone. I will criticize this society and this machismo culture until the day my daughter grows up and doesn't have to feel this way. Again, really sorry for the harsh tone, I guess I'm venting more than anything.
These reactions are primarily a kneejerk because frankly, Western mentality is much too eager to present their methods as 'the cure', presenting women primarily as victims and men primarily as perpetrators, without ever introspecting on the damage they do with their supposed methods.
Your reaction is almost synonymous to this, mainly showing fear women have, statistics for women, etc. Regardless if perpetrators are primarily men, men tend to be victims far more often than women, and far more often than they are perpetrators. For almost every country. Yet the narrative never reveals this, and goes as far as to make it sound like men are predominantly perpetrators (which is a vastly different statement than 'perpetrators are predominantly men').
Even writers who recognize this will quickly dismiss any notion that the West is introducing other problems through the methods used. That statement of 'men need much more civilizing'? That happened, and now boys are walking around thinking they are the problem before they even had a chance to prove themselves while girls are told they can do everything, even get way with (sometimes literal) murder. Western media is arrogant enough to denounce counterculture to boot.
Whether that be better than what is the current state in LA is irrelevant to those preoccupied with looking at the West alone. Doubly so since the situation is LA is generally irrelevant to them and won't ever affect them directly.
> Regardless if perpetrators are primarily men, men tend to be victims far more often than women
But not for the same things
I don’t see the point of saying “men get killed too” - the point is to stop the killing
> and now boys are walking around thinking they are the problem before they even had a chance to prove themselves while girls are told they can do everything, even get way with (sometimes literal) murder
Trying to give you the HN comment benefit of the doubt but that is a very broad generalization that can’t possibly apply to most boys or girls - sounds like BS to me
The man subject in the article is a self-proclaimed victim of toxic masculinity. He didn't die per-se but it doesn't take mental gymnastics to understand that many young men imprisoned for never being taught how to be civilized are as much victims of their circumstance as they are guilty for their behaviors wrought from it.
I think it was Bell Hooks who talked a lot about this, how men are also victims of patriarchy in general, and how overlooking this truth retards the healing progress
Sure it’s not easy to say we act in complete isolation and clear thought - but these type of arguments have sooo many wrinkles to them (nature/nurture/opportunity) that it ends up coming down to free will, etc
At the core of a violent act an individual acts in a way that harms another individual - be it theft, rape or murder. Could be heat of the moment, or cold blooded action. Either way someone gets hurt
In addition to enforcing consequences we should identify the causes and work to continue civilizing individuals
Same here. The statement above comes from my mom, who grew up in Bangladesh in the 1950s and 1960. British colonial influence, and the desire for elite Bangladeshis to be more like the British, was why she was one of the tiny fraction of women who graduated college and had a professional career. She doesn’t feel any need to frame that in politically correct terms.
The many "Lab meat still has a long way to go" comments here haven't been following the space. Please check out wildtypefoods.com for an example of "lab" grown salmon that you can eat right now. There are other startups doing the same, google them up.
Eagerly anticipating cultured sashimi v0.1 myself but it’s not wrong that this is still an expensive, rudimentary approximation of slaughtered meat products. We’ll get there—for a sustainable planet we have to—but the road is long and we are indeed at the rough beginning.
Is that how chickens are raised in big farms here in Brazil too? It's funny how I hear some people say they'll never eat lab meat and it will never taste as good as meat from an animal, and then they sit there drinking their Coke or their Pepsi because they don't like fruit juice.
How dangerous is scuba diving in shallow waters, say less than 15ft/5meters? I'm planning on learning basic scuba with my wife and kids, and my feeling (born out of ignorance, masked as common sense, I know) was that it was very safe if you don't go deep, however some comments here are making me question that. So how safe is it, in general lines, if you don't go more than a couple of meters? And how much better/more fun is it than snorkeling? Thanks in advance for any answers!
It is far more fun than snorkeling and (in my opinion) anything less than 10/12 meters is very safe, if something goes wrong you just slowly kick up and don't need a safety stop. A couple of caveats: you should get certified with an instructor who takes the time to teach you safety techniques (like how to recover if your mask gets pulled off); the certification will involve at least one deep dive. I recommend proceeding directly to 'advanced' certification (the next level after open water diver) right away, because the basic open water course is targeted at minting as many new scuba divers as possible, and is not enough to adequately practice what you learned.
As far as shallow water diving goes, the best places are coral reefs (like Hawaii), you can spend all day in 30 feet of water and never get bored. The great advantage over snorkeling is that you can get very close to things (like tiny fish that look like designer handbags defending their little patch of coral) and see things in 3D, sea turtles slowly drifting past you, small sharks warming themselves on sunlit patches of sand like cats.
For maximum safety, avoid diving sites that have currents or boat traffic, and shore dives with strong surf, those are probably the biggest risks to a beginner in shallow water. It's also a good idea if diving with your family for the most proficient one or two of you to eventually take a rescue diver course, which will teach you how to help a panicked or incapacitated diver. Good luck and have fun—good safety habits go a long way in this activity, and you are in for years of enjoyment diving together.
Funny... I'd have said that snorkeling is among the best ways to spend time in the water. The cool life is near the surface anyway, and requires zero training.
Scuba lets you get closer and it's wonderful to feel the true 3D freedom of movement. But in terms of sight seeing snorkels get got 90% of the joy for 1% of the effort.
> How dangerous is scuba diving in shallow waters, say less than 15ft/5meters?
Bear in mind that the rate of change in pressure is higher at shallow depths. At the surface pressure is 1 atmosphere, it will be 2atm at ~33ft, 3atm at ~66ft and so on. This means that if you have a momentary loss of buoyance control and shoot up, say, 10ft, it is a much larger sudden change in pressure (i.e. more dangerous) to go from 20ft to 10ft than from 100ft to 90ft. So having expert buoyancy control is actually more important at shallower depths.
It just takes practice, but it is a risk for new divers who go in thinking they'll just stay shallow but do so without having mastered boyancy yet.
For shallow dives I use nitrox at 36% oxygen to reduce nitrogen absorption. It's easy to get nitrox certified after completing basic & advanced training so I'd recommend it if shallow diving is a primary goal.
Although at 15ft or less I generally just snorkel if the visibility is any good. At such depths you can see the same by snorkeling, with less risk and hassle.
