4 ms·

Its called burden of proof. And its the core of scientific thinking we don't automatically put the assumption that gyms are secret powerplants that exist to si

Its called burden of proof. And its the core of scientific thinking we don't automatically put the assumption that gyms are secret powerplants that exist to siphon off energy to feed space aliens at equal likelihood to its negative. Likewise the existence of sexism, especially at the broad global conspiratorial heights at which it is postulated is the more complicated hypothesis so its up you you guys to provide the compelling evidence.

SantalBlush 7y ago
>Likewise the existence of sexism, especially at the broad global conspiratorial heights at which it is postulated is the more complicated hypothesis It's no more complicated than the hypothesis of the existence of false accusations of sexism, especially at the broad global conspiratorial heights at which it is postulated. Beginning with the assumption that sexism is not a big problem only gives the appearance of neutrality. In reality, we probably all agree that sexism exists and false accusations exist, and we're trying to determine how prevalent each is. That is an extremely difficult task.
- cybersnowflake 7y ago
  No...I don't think it works that way. You can't bootstrap the likelihood of one hypothesis by proposing a counterhypothesis. The existence of the Easter Bunny doesn't become more likely because someone hypothesizes that there is a global conspiracy to cover up the existence of said Bunny. BTW, the 'false accusation' movement in sofar as it exists is a drop in the bucket compared to the sexism victimhood industry.
  - SantalBlush 7y ago
    >sexism victimhood industry This is your hypothesis, which illustrates my point perfectly. You are not merely refuting the existence of a certain degree of sexual harassment, but you're hypothesizing that a "sexism victimhood industry" exists. The fluff about "hypothesis" and "scientific thinking" is just useful subterfuge.
    - cybersnowflake 7y ago
      Yes, I made an additional point but that doesn't invalidate the main response that a bigger burden of proof than men/women are different == MUST BE GLOBAL THERMONUCULAR SEXISM is on its feminist advocates. If you're upset that I think the sexism victimhood industry is bigger than its opposition you can set me straight on how billions of dollars over decades, tony institutes, college majors, federal/state regulations, corporate campaigns etc etc are equaled or exceeded by a few neckbeards complaining on Roosh.com.
      - SantalBlush 7y ago
        It absolutely does invalidate the main response, as was my original point. Your position isn't neutral or scientific; erroneously bringing hypothesis testing into the discussion is an attempt at appearing objective, and nothing more.
        cybersnowflake 7y ago
        Okay, I'll bite...tell me how the burden of proof is not on those postulating a global conspiracy of sexism?

SantalBlush 7y ago

>Likewise the existence of sexism, especially at the broad global conspiratorial heights at which it is postulated is the more complicated hypothesis It's no more complicated than the hypothesis of the existence of false accusations of sexism, especially at the broad global conspiratorial heights at which it is postulated. Beginning with the assumption that sexism is not a big problem only gives the appearance of neutrality. In reality, we probably all agree that sexism exists and false accusations exist, and we're trying to determine how prevalent each is. That is an extremely difficult task.

cybersnowflake 7y ago
No...I don't think it works that way. You can't bootstrap the likelihood of one hypothesis by proposing a counterhypothesis. The existence of the Easter Bunny doesn't become more likely because someone hypothesizes that there is a global conspiracy to cover up the existence of said Bunny. BTW, the 'false accusation' movement in sofar as it exists is a drop in the bucket compared to the sexism victimhood industry.
- SantalBlush 7y ago
  >sexism victimhood industry This is your hypothesis, which illustrates my point perfectly. You are not merely refuting the existence of a certain degree of sexual harassment, but you're hypothesizing that a "sexism victimhood industry" exists. The fluff about "hypothesis" and "scientific thinking" is just useful subterfuge.
  - cybersnowflake 7y ago
    Yes, I made an additional point but that doesn't invalidate the main response that a bigger burden of proof than men/women are different == MUST BE GLOBAL THERMONUCULAR SEXISM is on its feminist advocates. If you're upset that I think the sexism victimhood industry is bigger than its opposition you can set me straight on how billions of dollars over decades, tony institutes, college majors, federal/state regulations, corporate campaigns etc etc are equaled or exceeded by a few neckbeards complaining on Roosh.com.
    - SantalBlush 7y ago
      It absolutely does invalidate the main response, as was my original point. Your position isn't neutral or scientific; erroneously bringing hypothesis testing into the discussion is an attempt at appearing objective, and nothing more.
      - cybersnowflake 7y ago
        Okay, I'll bite...tell me how the burden of proof is not on those postulating a global conspiracy of sexism?