MyShadow Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 Hi Stef, I Listened to your estrogen based parasites show the other day and was very surprised by the horrific statistics that you mentioned. However I was frustrated that there was no stats on male fidelity and honesty/virtue. I heard you mention on one of your subsequent shows that you were going to do a show on all these stats. If you do, please include the stats for both sexes. I'd be thoroughly interested in the results whatever they may be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
massaki Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 He is just catering to his audience which is mostly men, he told us that a few times. He might do that, but i don't think the interest is there. If you want you can Google the information you seek and post it here, that would be cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyShadow Posted April 4, 2014 Author Share Posted April 4, 2014 I get that, I'm 29 years old, male and not married. So I guess I am part of that demographic, I'll see what I can come up with and post back with my findings. I don't disagree with the proposition that women are predisposed genetically to behave that way. It Makes sense... But without comparative numbers for guys ideally sourced from the same demographic that those stats were sourced from I find it very hard to believe that women are much different from men... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Beal Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 People generally accept that high rates of men do immoral things. The idea that women are just as capable if not bigger offenders in some areas is still considered shocking and offensive to people. The aim is to have a general view of women which is consistent with reality, and to shake off the excuses we make more for women than we do men, partly because it's unjust for men, and also because it infantilizes women, absolving them of responsibility (which is terrible). Unless it were shown that people generally had the same defensiveness around men as they do around women in the particular areas that he mentioned, Stef is probably not going to post the new male statistics. Why should he? He's come down hard on men before too, and nobody was offended. It's such a stark contrast in fact that most people don't even notice. Nobody ever goes "you just criticized men, so now you need to go criticize women to be fair!" Nobody says that kind of thing except a few men's rights activists, whose message is typically ignored by most people. Stef is not responsible for your frustration. You are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyShadow Posted April 4, 2014 Author Share Posted April 4, 2014 Hi Kevin, Thanks for the reply, my opinion was that generally most people arent immoral, however I hadn't looked up the stats for men and the women's stats mentioned were certainly quite surprising to say the least. Having now looked up the stats and found that men are just as bad if not worse in most cases I now realise that its a fundamental societal issue and not that most women are just manipulative sociopathic whores and most men are blameless. I haven't heard stefs other shows critiquing men regarding this topic, so that was my first impression from the podcast. My frustration with the episode was not with the fact that stef was brutally honestly (hilariously as well i might add) describing the genetic tendancies of the female species but that I was genuinely interested in the facts about men to try and form a better picture of why this happens and they were omitted. The fact that it wasn't included doesn't in any way make the content any less pertinent, it just frustrated me that all the information I wanted to get the bigger picture wasn't there on a plate for me . My frustration is just that, my frustration. However, it is also feedback which is what this portion of the forum is about yes? In hindsight I should have put my reasons in the first post, but I didn't, oops. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesP Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 It's not because the show has a greater proportion of men as listeners (which I think is probably still true but the proportion has been shifting and continues to shift). It's because these are the empirical facts and nobody is talking about it. (Whoops, not nobody, but certainly not a mainstream topic.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Beal Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 Having now looked up the stats and found that men are just as bad if not worse in most cases I now realise that its a fundamental societal issue and not that most women are just manipulative sociopathic whores and most men are blameless. Why do you seem so relieved? Like "men are worse, whew! That was a close one!" Haha. There are things that women socially need to do something about, just as there are things that men need to do something socially about. That it's not just gender independent problems, which of course, there are those too. Men, for example, cannot do much about the entitlement and hypergamy talked about in the show except to turn down opportunities to be with those kinds of women. But as he showed, it's not just romantic partners, and neither is it visible to most men. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotDarkYet Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 This is the core imho: -Female evil is taboo to discuss -We've been programmed to avoid assigning blame to women. -That is why the discussion bothered people. The order of events: 1) discussion of the hidden evils perpetrated by women 2) feeling bothered by the discussion 3) not recognizing the discomfort, not investigating the source of the discomfort 4) creating a post-facto intellectual argument to explain the discomfort (Ie, women are more moral than men, Stef is being a jerk) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyShadow Posted April 5, 2014 Author Share Posted April 5, 2014 Im not sure how you got relieved from what I wrote... It doesn't make me feel better to know that men are just as bad, it is in fact the opposite. However i am no longer frustrated because I now feel I have a more complete understanding of why this is the case. Agreed that men can't do much about it. It certainly will make a Much larger difference if women call out other immoral women. No where have I mentioned that stef is a jerk, or that I was frustrated by the content itself, although it was shocking and surprising I certainly am extremely grateful to stef for bringing it up and making me aware of it. I Simply Mentioned that I was frustrated by the omission of content that i felt would have given me a more complete understanding of the topic at hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Beal Posted April 5, 2014 Share Posted April 5, 2014 I apologize then. Perhaps I am too defensive and/or hasty around this subject. Thank you for the clarification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyShadow Posted April 5, 2014 Author Share Posted April 5, 2014 No worries mate, it is a subject that carries alot of social stigma and I probably could have better articulated myself in the opening post and avoided the confusion. I would say that most of the time you'd be right to assume that someone frustrated with that episode is actually frustrated with the content especially considering it was my first post. Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SBRFS Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 He is just catering to his audience which is mostly men, he told us that a few times. He might do that, but i don't think the interest is there. If you want you can Google the information you seek and post it here, that would be cool. As of the time of this writing, that post was rated negatively by two points. I'm curious as to why. My best guess is that somebody didn't like the fragment "He is just catering to his audience which is mostly men", yet failed to pair that with the second half of the sentence ("he told us that a few times"). I, too, recall Stef mentioning that latter part in one or more of his shows, so obviously the negative rating cannot be a claim of baseless assertions. The second and third sentences do not appear to be inflammatory, as one just states a mild opinion about whether significant interest does or does not exist, and the second is naught but friendly encouragement to seek out and post the relevant information. What good is a reputation system if there's no clear way for people to know what it is about their posts that is liked or disliked? That just leaves the poster guessing, perhaps afraid to speak out, and certainly vulnerable to baseless sniping. (A while back I wrote to Mike, asking if there was a way to improve the system by requiring that an explanation be required for each rating of a post. He seemed to agree. Presumably, though, the code for the forum does not include such a feature, and it may be some time before it can be implemented.) I would like the raters to explain, specifically, why they down-voted the aforementioned post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Beal Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 I would like the raters to explain, specifically, why they down-voted the aforementioned post. I didn't downvote, but obviously the phrasing "he's just catering to his mostly male audience" is not the most favorable way he could have stated it. Stef probably doesn't just think to himself "hey, my male audience would like this, therefore I will say it". But that's how it's phrased, and being that there is a lot of white knighting that happens around this subject, one might think that it's a diminishment of the veracity of the claims made in the video. Certainly what's true is what matters. Also, I love these public challenges for people to justify their downvotes. Why do you care? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatrickC Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Blaming it on the 'sausage fest', if that is what is happenning, is really to miss the point.. Notice also how most men on this board are entirely comfortable with the term 'sausage fest'.. Stark contrast to the often faux offence taken by others when it comes to anachronisms for the 'fairer' sex. This is a bleedin philosopy board, that can take the rough with the smooth, so long as it is consistant and defers to reality. Now pull those big boy/girl pant/ie/s up!.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SBRFS Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Why do you care? For the same reason I care about somebody getting beaten up in an alley, or being accused of misconduct by an anonymous source, or any other number of tragedies or injustices. Because I have some sense of justice or fair play, and also because I either know, or can imagine, how it feels to be victimized by hidden faces that can't be confronted. I try to stand up against such abuse when I notice it, not just because of personal feelings, but also as a matter of honor. How can anybody not care? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Beal Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 For the same reason I care about somebody getting beaten up in an alley, or being accused of misconduct by an anonymous source, or any other number of tragedies or injustices. Because I have some sense of justice or fair play, and also because I either know, or can imagine, how it feels to be victimized by hidden faces that can't be confronted. I try to stand up against such abuse when I notice it, not just because of personal feelings, but also as a matter of honor. Do you challenge people who downvote youtube videos? How about any other place with this feature? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SBRFS Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Notice also how most men on this board are entirely comfortable with the term 'sausage fest'.. [...] Does the board have a polling feature? Maybe we can find out if that's correct. Do you challenge people who downvote youtube videos? How about any other place with this feature? I answered your question. Perhaps you would like to answer mine, before posing another one to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wesley Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 How is clicking a downvote button that signals that I am expressing a preference against something at all similar to beating someone up, false accusations, tragedy or injustice? It is just my expression of preference. Also, the board does have a polling feature, up to 3 questions. I would be happy to set it up if someone can post what questions/options they want the poll to contain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatrickC Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Does the board have a polling feature? Maybe we can find out if that's correct. This is easy fella.. Point to me one post where anyone has complained about this expression. 'Sausgae fest' I mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SBRFS Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 This is easy fella.. Point to me one post where anyone has complained about this expression. 'Sausgae fest' I mean. I detest the term "sausage fest". <--- There ya go! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatrickC Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Ha!.. Well come on old chap you are probably the first and I strongly suspect is not a leftist wuss.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wesley Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 **Starts searching the board for instances of "sausage fest", very concerned for what he may find....** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Beal Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 I answered your question. Perhaps you would like to answer mine, before posing another one to me. Nuh uh! You are! ...that's the best I got ;P I don't care, probably because I've got plenty of votes to spare, but I'm going to pretend like that's not the reason and say that I don't care because I think it always has a lot more to do with hurt feelings than with any perceived injustice; perhaps wrongly, but if people talked about the hurt feelings rather than the "injustice", I would totally respect that. But if I'm right, then calling it an injustice only seems to turn it up to eleven unnecessarily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SBRFS Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 How is clicking a downvote button that signals that I am expressing a preference against something at all similar to beating someone up, false accusations, tragedy or injustice?This is the second time today you seem to have twisted my words into something sinister.But to answer your question, it depends on your perception of what the downvote button is for. If it is indeed as you say, expressing a preference about a particular message, then why do user profiles keep a tally of downvotes? Furthermore, why would too many accumulated downvotes in one's profile cause one's messages to be hidden from all users by default, rather than just the user(s) who downvoted them? The intent is clear: this is a system of "virtual" ostracization, and with it being both anonymous and at-will, it offers potential for a ridiculous amount of abuse.Being able to put a black mark on someone's public record, without even the slightest requirement for evidence or explanation? Are you kidding me?but if people talked about the hurt feelings rather than the "injustice"Perhaps I lump all willful malignance in together as "injustice", and that confuses the issue.P.S.: Sorry, MyShadow, if I derailed your thread! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatrickC Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Being able to put a black mark on someone's public record, without even the slightest requirement for evidence or explanation? Are you kidding me? A 'black mark!'.. Come now, since when didn't us anarchists take personal responsibility for our repuations?.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Beal Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Perhaps I lump all willful malignance in together as "injustice", and that confuses the issue. Yeesh! Well, I certainly don't want to be counted among that number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SBRFS Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 OK, this somewhat off-topic conversation that I started has now gotten me all riled up, so here goes... Let's look at downvoting in "real life": You may remember that movie that comes on TV once in a while, about the teacher who was falsely accused of molesting his students. When it went to court, his accusors recanted and he was cleared of the charges. Even so, he continued to receive death threats, couldn't get a job, and was basically given the evil eye wherever he went. It drove his mother to the grave, and he ended up killing himself. That was just one of many such incidents where people have found themselves ruined because of a bad reputation, deservedly or not. So please don't suggest that anonymous and consequence-free downvoting to a person's reputation in a public space like the Internet is just a harmless expression of preference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Beal Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Let's look at downvoting in "real life": [something that is nothing at all like downvoting or real life, generally] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SBRFS Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Kevin, the mechanism may vary slightly, but the theme and outcome are the same: a public reputation (be it a score or just word of mouth), damaged perhaps to the point that sanctions are applied (either by automatic mechanism or by human assumption), and possibly accomplished without provision for correction or restitution (depending on the nature of the implementation, such as courts or forums). So again, anonymous and consequence-free downvoting to a person's reputation in a public space like the Internet is not just a harmless expression of preference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatrickC Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Kevin, the mechanism may vary slightly, but the theme and outcome are the same: a public reputation (be it a score or just word of mouth), damaged perhaps to the point that sanctions are applied (either by automatic mechanism or by human assumption), and possibly accomplished without provision for correction or restitution (depending on the nature of the implementation, such as courts or forums). So again, anonymous and consequence-free downvoting to a person's reputation in a public space like the Internet is not just a harmless expression of preference. So rather than reputation judged by individuals, which can be easily usurped by self improvement.. Why not have 'collective' judgement.. Wait, doesn't that lead to tyranny? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Beal Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 So again, anonymous and consequence-free downvoting to a person's reputation in a public space like the Internet is not just a harmless expression of preference. Maybe not, but it's nothing like accusing someone of child molestation either... or even "wilful malignance" or "injustice". This is very strong language, and maybe it's just some intellectual incapacity on my part, but I do not see what you are saying even a tiny bit. I'm inclined to take it rather as some quite disturbing hyperbole. Like a crazy person getting mad at me for looking at their backpack the wrong way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SBRFS Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 So rather than reputation judged by individuals, which can be easily usurped by self improvement.. Why not have 'collective' judgement.. Wait, doesn't that lead to tyranny? Well, you seem to have made a wonderful strawman, criticized him as being a collectivist monster, and then soundly defeated him. All in one line, too!Maybe not, but it's nothing like accusing someone of child molestation either... or even "wilful malignance" or "injustice". This is very strong language, and maybe it's just some intellectual incapacity on my part, but I do not see what you are saying even a tiny bit. I'm inclined to take it rather as some quite disturbing hyperbole. Like a crazy person getting mad at me for looking at their backpack the wrong way. Criticizing hyperbole... on FDR... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wesley Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 This is the second time today you seem to have twisted my words into something sinister. "Twisted" and "sinister" for me not understanding what you said and then asking for clarification based on it is quite strong language for something so trivial. Unless you are making threats against me or others, I am not sure how anything you say on a board could possibly be qualified as sinister. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Beal Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Criticizing hyperbole... on FDR... ...and you are also anonymous. Which is like what you were saying was so bad and stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cynicist Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 For the same reason I care about somebody getting beaten up in an alley, or being accused of misconduct by an anonymous source, or any other number of tragedies or injustices. Because I have some sense of justice or fair play, and also because I either know, or can imagine, how it feels to be victimized by hidden faces that can't be confronted. I try to stand up against such abuse when I notice it, not just because of personal feelings, but also as a matter of honor. How can anybody not care? Lol that's all hyperbole? You could take it more seriously then, since now I'm not even sure what you're talking about. It would be nice if people posted explanations, but to some degree that defeats the purpose of the rating system if you didn't want to get into an in depth discussion or argument over the reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts