3 ms·

> For example, he mentioned that women, on average, have more neuroticism. [..] he didn't consider the political ramifications of describing 3.5 billion people

> For example, he mentioned that women, on average, have more neuroticism. [..] he didn't consider the political ramifications of describing 3.5 billion people as neurotic. You're doing it too. If I say "men have, on average, more muderous tendencies than women", am I describing 3.5 billion people as murderers?

AussieWog93 6y ago
You're technically not, but don't be surprised if people react as though you are.
- StavrosK 6y ago
  Certainly, but I don't find the fault to be with the statement, but with people. Our inability to separate "inconvenient general fact" from "specific, personal insult to whole swathes of people" is one of the banes of modern discourse.
  - AussieWog93 6y ago
    Unfortunately, you're communicating with other people. Unless you find a way to magically stop people getting triggered, it's best to avoid certain trigger words and be careful when expressing certain points.
    - Retric 6y ago
      Or actually educate people on both logic and reality. I realize it seems to be asking for a lot, but we can do better.
    - plutonorm 6y ago
      I help them with exposure therapy.
    - StavrosK 6y ago
      When you're the author, yes, absolutely. When you're a reader, absolutely not, you need to consider what the author is saying rather than what your personal feelings make you think he's saying. Each party must be responsible for their part, and while "he could have been more tactful" is valid criticism, "he shouldn't have offended people" is not. Just to be more tactful, I don't remember exactly what had happened with this whole thing, I'm only talking about this specific fact.
redis_mlc 6y ago
In case you haven't studied evolutionary biology ... Women have ingrained neuroticism to protect themselves and their children. You can read about hypergamy and also shaming. Men have ingrained traits of provisioning and protection. Yes, that leads to murderous tendencies, especially against other tribes. That's part of nature in general. As a society, the US doesn't face any existential threats like war or famine, so we've turned inward against biology and against the nuclear family. Ironically, this is because the US has dominated the globe for 75 years, preventing large conflicts, and allowing the rise of coordinated Marxism. Most of the SJW drama would stop if somebody launched several ICBM's at us, then US women would be asking US men for a murderous, toxic solution - "do something, please!" But it will take an external threat to unite our society again. Until then, our society will resemble the fall of Rome. If you're interested in learning more, watch Dr. Victor Davis Hanson's lectures (military historian and policy advisor), or NTD Media (nee Falun Gong) on Youtube. Both are acknowledged as clairvoyants.
tomcam 6y ago
Absolutely not. If you are talking about young men, you are stating a statistical fact. As a former young man, I would not be the least bit offended.

AussieWog93 6y ago

You're technically not, but don't be surprised if people react as though you are.

StavrosK 6y ago
Certainly, but I don't find the fault to be with the statement, but with people. Our inability to separate "inconvenient general fact" from "specific, personal insult to whole swathes of people" is one of the banes of modern discourse.
- AussieWog93 6y ago
  Unfortunately, you're communicating with other people. Unless you find a way to magically stop people getting triggered, it's best to avoid certain trigger words and be careful when expressing certain points.
  - Retric 6y ago
    Or actually educate people on both logic and reality. I realize it seems to be asking for a lot, but we can do better.
  - plutonorm 6y ago
    I help them with exposure therapy.
  - StavrosK 6y ago
    When you're the author, yes, absolutely. When you're a reader, absolutely not, you need to consider what the author is saying rather than what your personal feelings make you think he's saying. Each party must be responsible for their part, and while "he could have been more tactful" is valid criticism, "he shouldn't have offended people" is not. Just to be more tactful, I don't remember exactly what had happened with this whole thing, I'm only talking about this specific fact.

redis_mlc 6y ago

In case you haven't studied evolutionary biology ... Women have ingrained neuroticism to protect themselves and their children. You can read about hypergamy and also shaming. Men have ingrained traits of provisioning and protection. Yes, that leads to murderous tendencies, especially against other tribes. That's part of nature in general. As a society, the US doesn't face any existential threats like war or famine, so we've turned inward against biology and against the nuclear family. Ironically, this is because the US has dominated the globe for 75 years, preventing large conflicts, and allowing the rise of coordinated Marxism. Most of the SJW drama would stop if somebody launched several ICBM's at us, then US women would be asking US men for a murderous, toxic solution - "do something, please!" But it will take an external threat to unite our society again. Until then, our society will resemble the fall of Rome. If you're interested in learning more, watch Dr. Victor Davis Hanson's lectures (military historian and policy advisor), or NTD Media (nee Falun Gong) on Youtube. Both are acknowledged as clairvoyants.

tomcam 6y ago

Absolutely not. If you are talking about young men, you are stating a statistical fact. As a former young man, I would not be the least bit offended.