5 ms·

Wow, way to put a bunch of words in my mouth. Actually, what I am saying is that nature is not always nice or civilized. When you get a bunch of drunk males i

Wow, way to put a bunch of words in my mouth. Actually, what I am saying is that nature is not always nice or civilized. When you get a bunch of drunk males into a room, their super ego goes down and they will begin to behave (almost literally) like animals. Is it right or wrong? I don't know, but it is not sexism. Is it to be expected? Yes. How do I know it is to be expected? Because you can easily replicate the situation. Go to Cancun if you want to see males in their most animal-state. Is it condonable? I do not know, but it is the way nature made us. Nature designed us to want reproduce - without our rules, morals, and what-have-you, we would be doing much worse things than asking to see private parts. Unfortunately, nature also gave us language, which means a lot of times males will utter really stupid things because their sex-drive takes over and their brain reaches a state of near-retardation (hence the popular phrase "show us your tits"). In shorter words - if you are a female in a bar that is overwhelmingly packed with males -- yes, you should very much expect to get harassed. Yes, it is not "right", but its the way nature made us so there is not a lot of sense in complaining about it. You could just as well complain about people being obese, because nature designed us to enjoy food. Am I saying women deserve to be harassed when they dress sexually? No, of course not. But what I am saying is that some males have less super ego than others, and it varies with the situation, so there are certain situations (like this one) in which a female could certainly expect to be harassed.

mkramlich 14y ago
Upvoted you to counter-act the "college P.C." brigade.
- gavanwoolery 14y ago
  Awesome. :)
- derleth 14y ago
  "PC" just means "Being polite to everyone"
  - gavanwoolery 14y ago
    Sometime's PC goes overboard. It is not a bad thing necessarily, unless abused. One example of PC going wrong is the word "retarded" - the PC crowd thought "mentally challenged" would be a better term, even though retarded just means you are a bit slow, mentally-challenged makes it seem like thinking is an arduous task.
    - mkaltenecker 14y ago
      No. You are not supposed to use retarded because that word has consistently been used to insult and denigrate disabled people. It's the same with gay. You are not supposed to use it as an insult. It doesn't matter whether the person you are insulting is gay or not.
      - gavanwoolery 14y ago
        My gay friends prefer "gay" or "queer" over homosexual. My black friends prefer "black" over African American. I could very well be wrong about the word retarded though. :)
        mkaltenecker 14y ago
        You did not understand me. Using “gay” as a positive term isn’t a problem. “He came out first as a gay footballer” is a perfectly alright sentence. Using ”gay” (or “retarded”) as an insult is where the problem lies (with “retarded” the additional problem is that no one uses it as a positive term – and since it’s so overwhelmingly used negatively, using it neutrally isn’t really possible). When someone tells you he likes My Little Pony and you respond with “Man, you are so gay!” then that’s a problem. You are using “gay” as in insult, as if being gay were a bad thing. That’s the reasoning behind why many people think using “gay” in that manner is a bad idea. That works analogously for “retarded”. That’s not to say you can’t express, say, disgust at someone liking My Little Pony. “Man, your taste fucking sucks!” is a perfectly alright response no one will have a problem with (beyond disagreeing whether My Little Pony is good or bad). Again, I don’t want to ban people from using “gay” or “retarded” as insults. But when they do I will call them out and explain my reasoning.
- jessedhillon 14y ago
  Downvoted you to enact the "consider an idea for what it's worth and not react to your perception of who wrote it while desperately attempting to preserve your prejudices" agenda.
  - mkramlich 14y ago
    Downvoted you for being a rude asshole.
anthonyb 14y ago
> it is the way nature made us What utter bullshit. I've been in plenty of bars, while drunk, and never felt the need to sexually harass anyone. You're just excusing sexist, asshole behaviour.
- gavanwoolery 14y ago
  Not excusing it, explaining it. Do you see the difference? If I tell you that serial killers kill people because it is the nature of sociopaths, I am NOT EXCUSING it, I am EXPLAINING it.
  - anthonyb 14y ago
    Thanks for the patronising tone, but I follow your logic (such as it is). You're just wrong.
- Jach 14y ago
  http://lesswrong.com/lw/dr/generalizing_from_one_example/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/dr/generalizing_from_one_example/
  - anthonyb 14y ago
    Oh, a lesswrong pedant. No, it's disproving his statement. You only need one counter example for that.
    - Jach 14y ago
      More like an Overcoming Bias hipster, the post I linked however is one of the excellent-content posts from post-migration. (Even the comments are interesting, I especially liked those by lindagert trying to describe what it's like not having the ability to mentally visualize anything.) But fair enough point about your reply being a counter-example, I stand corrected. I interpreted your reply as more akin to "your observation about general human behavior has absolutely no merit because not every human follows the same pattern, just look at me", rather than a formal logical counter-argument to an informal assertion made outside of a proof that not only personifies nature without the usual caveats but also to which a more charitable interpretation of being a comment in a discussion (not an attempt at a proof) would not apply the universal quantifier reserved for formal arguments. I guess I should have interpreted your reply more charitably as well, but in the other direction with respect to being an attempt at a proof.
jessedhillon 14y ago
I didn't put any words in your mouth, these are the extensions of your reasoning -- you simply haven't considered the full weight of your positions and so these conclusions are a surprise to you. Let's give you the benefit (a huge one) of the doubt here, I'll consider fully and without prejudice everything you're saying: The statement you make is essentially that all behavior has an explanation behind it, no matter how distasteful or uncivilized. Fine, agreed. First, what is the value in pointing out this obvious conclusion? The only logical counter position would be to claim people have random and inexplicable behavior, a position which practically nobody holds in full sincerity. You then continue to say that because behavior has an explanation, that behavior cannot be sexism. Literally, if some behavior can be explained by a surface comparison to animal behavior, or by similarities to vague concepts in evolutionary psychology, then it can't be sexism. Let's even accept your very unscientific and highly dubious observations about Cancun and male behaviors, and conclude from this that all males have irresistible animal instincts which compel them to act offensively and crudely. We have two things here: first, only behaviors which cannot be explained in any other way can be considered sexism. That means that the only behavior which is sexist is the behavior which occurs when a person, in their mind, has the thought "I will now enact a sexist agenda" or something like that. If, for example, a person thinks "it would be okay to go and lick her tattoo" that is not sexist, because it can be explained as a result of poor socialization combined with repressed animal sex urges. Second, we cannot complain about "natural" behaviors, because after all, they are natural. You might as well complain that it's not a full moon every night, or that the Sun is too bright in the Summer months. Tough, that's nature. 1. Only behavior which is motivated by an explicit intent to be sexist is sexist. 2. Behaviors which can be explained by appealing to "nature" or "instinct" (natural behaviors) do not merit complaint, and efforts to change or curb them are misplaced. Therefore, two conclusions arise from this. First, nothing is sexist! All behavior can be explained by appealing to base and instinctual motives. Sexual harassment in the workplace is unavoidable: what do you expect when you put a man next to or above a woman he finds attractive, for eight hours a day? Sexual discrimination in the workplace is also not sexist: it's not a discrimination against women, it's just a natural and active desire to engage with other males. And the situation described by the OP is also not sexist: those men aren't being inappropriately aggressive towards her because she's a woman and they don't respect her boundaries, it's just because they're sex-starved losers! Second, and even more stupid: bigotry doesn't exist! If the standard for sexist behavior is very specific and limited intent to be sexist, then by analogy you can show that the standard for e.g., racism, is the same. And per the first conclusion, there then is no racism. Or homophobia. These are, after all, very natural expressions of revulsion and disgust for people not like ourselves, and we cannot be faulted for our instincts. Why, these very instincts are what brought us out of the jungle! A third, less obvious conclusion, is that nothing can be done, or needs to be done about any of this. Women, don't like being manhandled? Don't go to bars where there are males, they can't help themselves. Non-whites, don't like receiving dirty looks or beatings? Stay away from white people, they have a natural revulsion for people not like them. And whatever you do, don't complain! It's natural and to be expected! So then, if you can't complain about it, if the behavior is completely natural, then the obvious conclusion is that if you are subjected to offensive-but-natural behavior, you share responsibility for that because you could have prevented it. After all, you have a brain woman, you could have predicted getting manhandled by a bunch of nerds! And everything else I "put in your mouth" is just a little bit more absurd than this. (But only a little, because this is a pretty stupid position to begin with.) What you're employing here is a logical fallacy called appeal to nature, which in general is an appeal to something that is irrelevant. You haven't demonstrated that it's relevant at all to consider what is natural, even if we allow for your wildly exaggerated notion of nature. You are also being lazy and offensive.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

mkramlich 14y ago

Upvoted you to counter-act the "college P.C." brigade.

gavanwoolery 14y ago
Awesome. :)
derleth 14y ago
"PC" just means "Being polite to everyone"
- gavanwoolery 14y ago
  Sometime's PC goes overboard. It is not a bad thing necessarily, unless abused. One example of PC going wrong is the word "retarded" - the PC crowd thought "mentally challenged" would be a better term, even though retarded just means you are a bit slow, mentally-challenged makes it seem like thinking is an arduous task.
  - mkaltenecker 14y ago
    No. You are not supposed to use retarded because that word has consistently been used to insult and denigrate disabled people. It's the same with gay. You are not supposed to use it as an insult. It doesn't matter whether the person you are insulting is gay or not.
    - gavanwoolery 14y ago
      My gay friends prefer "gay" or "queer" over homosexual. My black friends prefer "black" over African American. I could very well be wrong about the word retarded though. :)
      - mkaltenecker 14y ago
        You did not understand me. Using “gay” as a positive term isn’t a problem. “He came out first as a gay footballer” is a perfectly alright sentence. Using ”gay” (or “retarded”) as an insult is where the problem lies (with “retarded” the additional problem is that no one uses it as a positive term – and since it’s so overwhelmingly used negatively, using it neutrally isn’t really possible). When someone tells you he likes My Little Pony and you respond with “Man, you are so gay!” then that’s a problem. You are using “gay” as in insult, as if being gay were a bad thing. That’s the reasoning behind why many people think using “gay” in that manner is a bad idea. That works analogously for “retarded”. That’s not to say you can’t express, say, disgust at someone liking My Little Pony. “Man, your taste fucking sucks!” is a perfectly alright response no one will have a problem with (beyond disagreeing whether My Little Pony is good or bad). Again, I don’t want to ban people from using “gay” or “retarded” as insults. But when they do I will call them out and explain my reasoning.
jessedhillon 14y ago
Downvoted you to enact the "consider an idea for what it's worth and not react to your perception of who wrote it while desperately attempting to preserve your prejudices" agenda.
- mkramlich 14y ago
  Downvoted you for being a rude asshole.

anthonyb 14y ago

> it is the way nature made us What utter bullshit. I've been in plenty of bars, while drunk, and never felt the need to sexually harass anyone. You're just excusing sexist, asshole behaviour.

gavanwoolery 14y ago
Not excusing it, explaining it. Do you see the difference? If I tell you that serial killers kill people because it is the nature of sociopaths, I am NOT EXCUSING it, I am EXPLAINING it.
- anthonyb 14y ago
  Thanks for the patronising tone, but I follow your logic (such as it is). You're just wrong.
Jach 14y ago
http://lesswrong.com/lw/dr/generalizing_from_one_example/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/dr/generalizing_from_one_example/
- anthonyb 14y ago
  Oh, a lesswrong pedant. No, it's disproving his statement. You only need one counter example for that.
  - Jach 14y ago
    More like an Overcoming Bias hipster, the post I linked however is one of the excellent-content posts from post-migration. (Even the comments are interesting, I especially liked those by lindagert trying to describe what it's like not having the ability to mentally visualize anything.) But fair enough point about your reply being a counter-example, I stand corrected. I interpreted your reply as more akin to "your observation about general human behavior has absolutely no merit because not every human follows the same pattern, just look at me", rather than a formal logical counter-argument to an informal assertion made outside of a proof that not only personifies nature without the usual caveats but also to which a more charitable interpretation of being a comment in a discussion (not an attempt at a proof) would not apply the universal quantifier reserved for formal arguments. I guess I should have interpreted your reply more charitably as well, but in the other direction with respect to being an attempt at a proof.

jessedhillon 14y ago

I didn't put any words in your mouth, these are the extensions of your reasoning -- you simply haven't considered the full weight of your positions and so these conclusions are a surprise to you. Let's give you the benefit (a huge one) of the doubt here, I'll consider fully and without prejudice everything you're saying: The statement you make is essentially that all behavior has an explanation behind it, no matter how distasteful or uncivilized. Fine, agreed. First, what is the value in pointing out this obvious conclusion? The only logical counter position would be to claim people have random and inexplicable behavior, a position which practically nobody holds in full sincerity. You then continue to say that because behavior has an explanation, that behavior cannot be sexism. Literally, if some behavior can be explained by a surface comparison to animal behavior, or by similarities to vague concepts in evolutionary psychology, then it can't be sexism. Let's even accept your very unscientific and highly dubious observations about Cancun and male behaviors, and conclude from this that all males have irresistible animal instincts which compel them to act offensively and crudely. We have two things here: first, only behaviors which cannot be explained in any other way can be considered sexism. That means that the only behavior which is sexist is the behavior which occurs when a person, in their mind, has the thought "I will now enact a sexist agenda" or something like that. If, for example, a person thinks "it would be okay to go and lick her tattoo" that is not sexist, because it can be explained as a result of poor socialization combined with repressed animal sex urges. Second, we cannot complain about "natural" behaviors, because after all, they are natural. You might as well complain that it's not a full moon every night, or that the Sun is too bright in the Summer months. Tough, that's nature. 1. Only behavior which is motivated by an explicit intent to be sexist is sexist. 2. Behaviors which can be explained by appealing to "nature" or "instinct" (natural behaviors) do not merit complaint, and efforts to change or curb them are misplaced. Therefore, two conclusions arise from this. First, nothing is sexist! All behavior can be explained by appealing to base and instinctual motives. Sexual harassment in the workplace is unavoidable: what do you expect when you put a man next to or above a woman he finds attractive, for eight hours a day? Sexual discrimination in the workplace is also not sexist: it's not a discrimination against women, it's just a natural and active desire to engage with other males. And the situation described by the OP is also not sexist: those men aren't being inappropriately aggressive towards her because she's a woman and they don't respect her boundaries, it's just because they're sex-starved losers! Second, and even more stupid: bigotry doesn't exist! If the standard for sexist behavior is very specific and limited intent to be sexist, then by analogy you can show that the standard for e.g., racism, is the same. And per the first conclusion, there then is no racism. Or homophobia. These are, after all, very natural expressions of revulsion and disgust for people not like ourselves, and we cannot be faulted for our instincts. Why, these very instincts are what brought us out of the jungle! A third, less obvious conclusion, is that nothing can be done, or needs to be done about any of this. Women, don't like being manhandled? Don't go to bars where there are males, they can't help themselves. Non-whites, don't like receiving dirty looks or beatings? Stay away from white people, they have a natural revulsion for people not like them. And whatever you do, don't complain! It's natural and to be expected! So then, if you can't complain about it, if the behavior is completely natural, then the obvious conclusion is that if you are subjected to offensive-but-natural behavior, you share responsibility for that because you could have prevented it. After all, you have a brain woman, you could have predicted getting manhandled by a bunch of nerds! And everything else I "put in your mouth" is just a little bit more absurd than this. (But only a little, because this is a pretty stupid position to begin with.) What you're employing here is a logical fallacy called appeal to nature, which in general is an appeal to something that is irrelevant. You haven't demonstrated that it's relevant at all to consider what is natural, even if we allow for your wildly exaggerated notion of nature. You are also being lazy and offensive.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]