Why does 9/11 matter so much but not the many far more horrible atrocities that the US regularly supports or commits (and that 9/11 was partly a response to). Clearly some lives are considered worth far more than others.
I think it's because the USA was an incredibly safe country, attacked seemingly out of nowhere (as far as the public was concerned, at least) with ramifications that impacted every country in the world.
Covid does about a 9/11 every two days, but covid isn't intentional. Bombs go off and kill innocent people all over the world, but none of them kill this many people in a country perceived safe.
The overreaction that followed the attack on the towers helped shape the mess in the middle east. It impacted public perception on NATO. It started more government conspiracies theories than any other event I can think of.
If you're living somewhere outside the West or the Middle East, then 9/11 probably has very little significance in your daily life. Still, its impact on worldwide politics have shaped the world we live in today.
It's the same reason we still see the Tiananmen Square massacre in the news. 3000 people died, but even though they were people in a remote, (then) poor country that barely anyone outside China had any personal reason to care about, the event changed people's views all around the world.
I didn’t attribute any sort of moral value to said thing, but it is a biological fact.
And as a society we should overcome these biological “laws”, or at least what we find immoral. Like healing and caring for weak/ill children, etc.
But I don’t see any solution to this problem that would not infringe on women’s freedom, which should be upheld even at the huge price psychological harm of a few. And attributing this harm to women should similarly be condemned, because one gender having biologically favorable chances of mating is a fact just as much as males having more muscle mass on average.
How do you know if what women find attractive is a result of societal pressure or freedom? Again, do you think women's extreme racial "preferences" in dating are a result of freedom because men of some races are far less attractive and the women are just serving "an evolutionary goal that the stronger gets to pass their genetic lineup"? How do you know society isn't also influencing many other characteristics?
Do you think the average 4'6 Cameroon Pygmy is just as attractive as the average US white guy, or are the Pygmy men just "biologically inferior"?
I've just replied to another comment of yours, where I may have cleared up some things.
I don't believe for a moment that racial "preferences" are a result of some personal freedom without being influenced by culture. But women don't live in a women society, it is shaped by both men and women. My problem is with the framing/blaming of women. And racism is in every culture, interracial couples are looked down in most countries. There is improvements, but it is a slow process. One can hardly change personal views ingrained throughout decades, and it does gets passed down from parents, though hopefully less and less.
And the important thing is regardless of the source of her preference, at the end of the day it is a given women's inalienable choice who she finds attractive -- even if it is not "fair".
Why don't I see almost any feminists fighting against this? Instead they are some of the most racist and hateful people in my experience.
> And the important thing is regardless of the source of her preference, at the end of the day it is a given women's inalienable choice who she finds attractive -- even if it is not "fair".
Sure, but shouldn't they be taking responsibility and criticized heavily on a societal level, I don't see that happening much.
I don't buy that. If we use the example of height alone, the vast majority of women would not date a man shorter than them regardless of whether the man has a "likable personality". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbG05ePWRQE
Fortunately women’s height shows a normal distribution, as well as it’s not like many 150 cm women would date a guy well above 2m.
(Sorry, don’t know freedom units)
"How about actually having a likable personality, which easily tops all other qualities?"
So do you now agree this statement is obviously false?
Height is just one of the first filters women use, and often the requirement is more strict than just "taller than me". You also have to pass other commons filters. Another very important filter for most women is race, and we're just getting started.
It's a general well known trend. You can make a fake account and test it in a few minutes.
Just like in many other animals, female choosy selection is the limiting factor, and the males either prove themselves or might as well die. That's where all this lack of empathy is rooted.
> You clearly would not stick up for short or ethnic men the way you do for women
Based on what?
> who are already heavily privileged
Depends on country. I’m not supportive of some new-found feminist movements, but all for it in some Muslim secular countries where women are not allowed to drive and are all around thought of as the property of their husband.
> I've seen women with your left wing mentality talk about women's rights and BLM and then, in the next sentence, move on to making fun of Indian men and talking about how they would never date them
That’s called a hypocrite. And I don’t see how generalizing an entire gender based on n=1 is any different than your example where you rightfully was offended by the making fun of Indian men. You do the same shit for half of all people.
> Most of society does share this hateful mindset.
And a significant percentage of men also share the mindset that women are inferior/object, or other misogynistic shit. Neither should happen.
> You responded by saying "the sky is blue", do you believe some races are objectively less attractive than others?
Heh?
In another thread I did write that men usually don’t want to have relationship with women of another race (and vice versa). But it is all around true, most cultures look down on interracial relationships — which is said.
The fact that you blamed "personality" for all problems.
> Depends on country.
Well I'm talking about the West, the US in particular.
> generalizing an entire gender based on n=1
It's not n=1, the reason people do it is because it is generally considered socially acceptable.
> And a significant percentage of men also share the mindset that women are inferior/object, or other misogynistic shit. Neither should happen.
You really don't realize how many men are not misogynistic, and how much more acceptable it is to make fun of men for their insecurities (like height).
> Heh? In another thread I did write that men usually don’t want to have relationship with women of another race (and vice versa). But it is all around true, most cultures look down on interracial relationships — which is said.
This is not true, men are more open in general, and women, especially white women, have the strongest bias. Women will even refuse to date ethnic men they find attractive. There are lots of studies on this although I'd have to dig them up. Also why doesn't this affect white men as much if it's just about opposition to interracial relationships? They are preferred by many ethnic women.
> The fact that you blamed "personality" for all problems.
Which is all around the most important; the catch is that one can't really get to it over a picture. And unfortunately even in real life (especially now with COVID) it makes first moves harder. But there are many places where one can get to know others - work place, school/college. There people can show their true personality. And many part of one's appearance can be changed.
> It's not n=1, the reason people do it is because it is generally considered socially acceptable.
I'm fairly sure each culture have stereotypes of other cultures; but it is getting better. I'm sorry if you have been the target of such negative stereotypes, it's absolutely not okay, but one should not hold grudges against unknown individuals of that society, because it is the same shit.
> You really don't realize how many men are not misogynistic, and how much more acceptable it is to make fun of men for their insecurities (like height).
I said a significant percentage of men are misogynistic. And it is never acceptable to make fun of someone's insecurities - if it happens to you, quit those circles, they are toxic people. But I doubt non-popular high school girls have it better. My point is that the problem is bullies, not another group who is often hurt.
> This is not true, men are more open in general, and women, especially white women, have the strongest bias. Women will even refuse to date ethnic men they find attractive.
Well, how about blaming society instead of the individual? Behind every such woman there is a father and mother who repeatedly told her how bad these "other" people are and to never bring one home, etc. Or even just implicitly meaning that. It takes time to "heal" a society and interracial couples are much more acceptable than even just a decade age.
The science simply doesn't back this up. And nowadays, even without covid, most people meet online where the simplest filters (race, height, face) are the most important. Imagine if men used a "breast size" filter, do you see why this is so disturbing?
> I'm fairly sure each culture have stereotypes of other cultures; but it is getting better. I'm sorry if you have been the target of such negative stereotypes, it's absolutely not okay, but one should not hold grudges against unknown individuals of that society, because it is the same shit.
There is no stereotype like this about white men, they are considered extremely attractive.
> I said a significant percentage of men are misogynistic.
This has not been my experience in general, most men I meet in tech and in the US share your types of beliefs.
> Well, how about blaming society instead of the individual? Behind every such woman there is a father and mother who repeatedly told her how bad these "other" people are and to never bring one home, etc. Or even just implicitly meaning that. It takes time to "heal" a society and interracial couples are much more acceptable than even just a decade age.
Even asian women show these biases for only dating white men. A lot of these women are very left-wing, it is not because of their fathers and mothers. They should take responsibility.
> They do? Like what do you think they swipe left/right based on? It is another very apparent feature..
No it would be heavily criticized to filter based on that, and it often is not that apparent. Men would not be able to ask for it even if they wanted to know. There is also no weight option, which men would like. All of this is because women control the market.
> Where? Do you think a Muslim women would prefer a white men over another Muslim? An Indian women (living in India) a white one over another Indian?
In the US, and yeah all women pretty much prefer white men. White men are heavily preferred in india.
> Maybe you just don't consider those things misogynistic, because frankly you do sound like one..
Because you consider me pointing out how racist/sexist women can be as misogynistic. It's an easy way to avoid the issues I bring up.
> I doubt asian women date white men over other asian ones, but stereotypically asian people can be very racist, except for white people, I agree with you on that.
Asian women raised in the US often strongly prefer white men, you rarely see it the other way around.
> For daring to prefer someone with the same skin color as themselves?
For the societal biases and helping to fix them. You're clearly a complete racist, that is practically the definition of racism. Why would you word it like that unless your a psychopath? Also it's not about skin color, it's about race. Again I even mentioned how women admit to finding ethnic men attractive but still won't date them. Women will even ask for ethnic background for ambiguous looking people and unmatch based on that. This is not comparable to sexual orientation, it's very much about societal issues and you know it. You are disgusting. You fight so much for women's issues but don't care at all about fixing problems like these.
> All of this is because women control the market.
Yeah, I'm sure every dating apps' CEO and other important positions are held by women...
> In the US
There you are, at least read what I was writing. You know there are other countries than one that is predominantly white from its inception?
> Because you consider me pointing out how racist/sexist women can be as misogynistic
No. There is a difference between being racist and not being attracted to someone from another race. And your conclusion of some women being racist is in no way in disagreement with what I say. But you've been saying that all women are racist, which is not true.
> Asian women raised in the US
raised in the US, maybe that has to do something with it??
> Again I even mentioned how women admit to finding ethnic men attractive but still won't date them
SOME. They are racist, or has parents that would disown them if they would have an interracial relationship, or other reasons.
And thank you for your kind remarks, that's a great way to emphasize your points...
EDIT: I do apologize if I upset you, it was not my intention at all. I just feel that in your reasoning you are thinking of an object instead of another human being. Unfortunately, even if the other's choice is due to some evil reason, like blatant racism, it is only their choice who they want to date with and you can't do anything at all with it at this level. But as I noted earlier: more and more interracial couples, even at first surface-level things like more attention to diverse casts in movies will slowly make it more acceptable at a societal level. Of course there will always be racist people, but exactly the societal-pressure-free choice of women will let go of the old stigmas.
Nearly everyone has physical dealbreakers, and height is a very socially acceptable one that the vast majority of women have. Most women also filter on somewhat less politically correct factors like race. The total hypocrisy when it comes to this topic is considered acceptable since women control the market.
Respectfully, after reading the original paper, I agree with the findings of the authors. The last bit in the abstract puts their findings the best:
"In contrast to demographic reconstructions based on mtDNA, we infer a second strong bottleneck in Y-chromosome lineages dating to the last 10 ky. We hypothesize that this bottleneck is caused by cultural changes affecting variance of reproductive success among males."
Saying that the average man reproduces less than the average woman seems to fit the facts as presented in the paper. I've not read other papers that may refute that one though. This is not my area of expertise.
The extreme skew (1 male for every 17 females reproducing) is what's incorrect, not the average man having less reproductive success than the average woman.
total lie, they have both stack ranking and forced firing, and it's often passed down to specific managers on small teams. The reviews tend to be mostly political, it's completely corrupt.
> I mean, yes, obviously having trainers helps, but really the basics of a good exercise plan are pretty readily available. As for equipment, really most gyms have enough equipment to get 95% of what most actors achieve.
No it's 100%. What do actors have that can't be done with a gym?
> Obviously they have to work very hard at it.
How hard do they really have to work if they are taking powerful steroids? The roids will have large effects even with minimal training.
> No it's 100%. What do actors have that can't be done with a gym?
I mean, sometimes there are fancy machines. E.g. in a video on Kumail Nanjiani (whom I love, btw), they talk about using that machine which runs electricity through the muscles to aid in contraction. Or something, I really don't know. Most people won't have access to that.
But neither did the bodybuilders of the 70s, like Arnold Schwarzenegger, and he still managed to get a pretty impressive physique :)
> How hard do they really have to work if they are taking powerful steroids? The roids will have large effects even with minimal training.
Honestly, I really don't know, there's a raging debate on just how much the steroids help assuming no training, and since I have no hands-on experience and am not planning to get some, I'm not sure how big an effect it really is (again, assuming no training).
You can get somewhat faster results using steroids (provided you are a decent responder and don't experience strong sides), sure. However, the overwhelming majority of people complaining about (often hypothetical) drug users are not putting in even minimal effort and haven't taken the time to learn how to train properly. I'm unconvinced that this is anything but a way to protect their ego and simultaneously feel cheated of the god-like bodies they would most assuredly have if it wasn't for their superior morals and judgement. It comes as no surprise that those very people don't get anywhere once they hop on gear, which is something I've witnessed firsthand a few times.
It's not just somewhat faster, the difference is often huge. You shouldn't let your personal experiences and anecdotes get in the way of the science here, what you wrote earlier about steroids only aiding recovery for people who put in large amounts of work was ridiculous.
I don't see how it is ridiculous. Can you get a great body with hard work and intelligent programming without anabolic steroids? Yes. Can you get it without hard work and with anabolic steroids? No [cue that one study where they gave test to people for ten weeks and they gained a few kilos of water and glycogen weight]. Can you become a mass monster without either? No. Now what I personally find ridiculous is how people complaining about "unrealistic bodies" prefer to promote unrealistic expectations of what AAS do instead like they're some sort of black magic.
