Schadrach

All of that is fair, except for one thing: you absolutely can see phenotype. It being observable characteristics is literally part of the definition. The pheno- prefix has a Greek root meaning to show or display, same origin as in phenomenon. A phenotype is thus categorizing something based on how it appears.

If there were, the markets that specialize in “ugly” produce would do much, much better, have higher demand and buy up more of the produce to fill it.

That 40% is what’s left after supermarkets buy all the “pretty” bananas they think they can sell, manufactured food companies buy up what they can use for stuff like purees, sliced banana going into various products, that sort of thing and “ugly” produce sellers (places like Misfits Market) buying up what they think they can sell. I don’t think bananas are used in animal feed but for crops where that’s a common use some of it gets sold for that. Broadly, each of these involves the farmer making less money per unit weight than the previous and selling less desirable product to each.

It’s easy to see someone holding up a camera or cell phone making it obvious they are recording.

Really? I routinely keep my phone in my breast pocket whenever I wear a shirt with one, and enough of it sticks out for the camera to see above the top of the pocket. I’d look no different recording or not, let alone it being obvious if I’m doing it. It’d be shaky body-cam style footage, but that’s not the point.

She was suggesting women should be codified to have more rights. He wrote back something like, “As to your extraordinary code of laws, I cannot but laugh.”

Now I’m curious what rights she felt they should be codified to have.

People doing drugs? They should be allowed to. Banning them doesn’t work; the government should just properly regulate them. Like how the EU is dealing with cigarettes. And in that case people would be less inclined to hide drug use.

Yeah, but a business doesn’t want someone to OD in their public bathroom - it’s bad for business.

pedophile supporters.

G.O.P. - Guardians of Pedophiles

It’s always about trans women and almost never about trans men (not that this is the main problem).

This part is because it usually roots from TERFs and from the TERF perspective it’s only trans women that are a problem. To be exact, they believe that you cannot change your birth sex and that sex is what’s important, not how you present or even identify. They also believe that men are sort of fundamentally evil. They’re only worried about “men pretending to be women” as they call them (aka trans women) because trans women might enter women’s spaces and the purpose of women’s spaces is to protect women from men, and in their minds the only reasons a “man” might “pretend to be a woman” and be in a women’s space is to prey on women whose guard is down because there aren’t supposed to be men present.

Essentially if you were born with the curse of the penis, you are fundamentally evil and the only reason you could possibly want to use the ladies’ room is because you are a dangerous pervert looking to prey on unsuspecting women in a vulnerable position. The idea that someone might genuinely identify differently than their birth genitals might suggest and not out of some malicious intent is literally outside of their philosophy.

It’ll be interesting to see how this aligns with the Full Faith and Credit clause for someone who updates their birth certificate from another state that allows for that then uses the bathroom that aligns with said certificate.

Only if the bill mentions birth certificate as the source for one’s “biological sex” and not something about genotype or phenotype at birth (both of which have different issues).

I guess the right response to this is to get the absolute manliest-looking trans men to Idaho to use the public ladies’ room in places frequented by lots of the most fragile GOP-types. Monkey’s paw that shitstain of a bill.

He was downplaying gun violence using a racist dogwhistle whilst standing under a giant ‘prove me wrong’ banner when he was shot with a bullet that had ‘owo what’s this’ written on it fired by a lily white Mormon cop’s kid.

Yeah, it doesn’t get much more ironic than that. Don’t forget that he’d previously (though not that day) said that the price of the 2nd amendment was that sometimes people were going to be shot and killed, but that that bargain was rational and prudent. I always wonder in the very last moments he was conscious if he thought about that, and if he still thought it was a rational and prudent bargain now that he was holding the check?

a jezebel article.

I have been totally unwilling to give Jezebel an ounce of attention since the article with several of their staff joking and laughing about hitting their boyfriends. One of them because he though he might have cancer. Their absence in my life these many years has managed to effect me not at all.

I have no clue who he was and why some people are upset. For the rest of the world he was like me, nobody, so cut the crap and stop explaining who was this nobody.

Being serious just in case.

He was a right wing talking head running an org called Turning Point USA that are basically nationalist christians and had risen to a degree of prominence within that niche by challenging people (mostly young women) to “debates” in which he basically steamrolled over people who really were not in any way prepared to challenge what was said. Anyone he didn’t steamroll just…wouldn’t be included in the footage he’d distribute.

To be less serious about it, he was best known for chronically publicly masturdebating to defenseless college girls. And for having a wife that seemed weirdly close to JD Vance immediately after Kirk died. There’s a part of me that expects JD to divorce his wife for the widow prior to making his next big political move, since his current wife is not exactly…blonde and white enough for a significant part of the white nationalist christian audience Vance is usually playing to.

Allowing a higher percentage of abnormal bananas to go to market would give people the option to buy them, but it wouldn’t remove their ability to buy normal bananas.

The core of it is this:

You have a crop. The “pretty” ones get sold to supermarkets at the highest price (who in turn only want to buy the “pretty” ones because they sell best). The less pretty ones get sold to manufactured food companies, where the processing hides that they weren’t “pretty” - diced veggies for canned vegetable soup, fruit purees, that kind of thing. There’s not enough demand here to sell all the “ugly” ones. There’s also online markets that sell “ugly” produce, like Misfits Market - they buy it cheaper than supermarkets and can resell cheaper than supermarkets as a result. Depending on the crop, some lower quality ones might get sold as animal feed. The rest is running out of people who want to buy it.

That and buyers preferring “pretty”/consistent produce, which means supermarkets only want to buy produce to spec because the other stuff won’t sell as well, shelf space is limited and it costs the supermarket more to waste unsold food than to just not buy food unlikely to sell. There are online markets out there that sell “ugly” produce that’s not to spec, but they aren’t broadly popular enough to make a huge dent in waste.

We are free to fork if need arises.

…and how do you ensure your fork does not contain a single commit involving even a single line written by Claude? If you can’t, then isn’t your fork slop by default?

And most of Claude was made on stolen code.

Sure, it learned to code by reading lots of code, most of it just publicly available online for anyone to read and for anyone to learn from but not explicitly licensed for a machine to read it and learn from it. I doubt it’s possible to teach an ML system (or for that matter a human being) how to code without reading lots of example code. And any code you’ve ever read has an impact on any code you write afterward (same as any other creative endeavor), that’s why clean room design as a defense against copyright infringement is a thing that exists.

then cite an MA THESIS in PSYCHOLOGY that doesn’t even say what you claim to think it says.

Only thing I knew of that even touched the topic - do you have a better source for someone looking into how other people perceive high or low levels of benevolent sexism in someone and how it relates to their presumptions regarding that person?

Also from the conclusions, since my direct quote of the abstract apparently doesn’t reflect the paper well enough for you: “While men’s endorsement of BS is viewed as a sign of a univalently positive attitude towards women, their rejection of BS is perceived as a sign of univalent sexist antipathy. Low BS men were judged as more hostile towards women than high BS men, suggesting that perceivers inferred that low BS men were indeed misogynists. Negative evaluations were reduced when men’s rejection of BS was attributed to egalitarian values, supporting the hypothesis that ambiguity about the motivations for low BS in men was partially responsible for the attribution of hostile sexist attitudes to low BS men.” I liked the phrasing in the abstract better, but you do you.

If I oppose a common but bullshit example of benevolent sexism (media minimizing wrongdoing when done by a woman), and your response is to invent an entire profile of me you can easily hate based on a single word choice (and it really does come off like your initial profiling was based heavily on my use of the word “malagency”, despite it being very often descriptive of reality), it very much does seem like an example of what that thesis was seeing - I expressed a not just low-BS view but an anti-BS view, and your response was to attribute it to misogyny. It felt appropriate to bring it up.

Going back to the original case, go look up other reporting on the case, without specifically searching for the use of the word “rape”. Note that the Guardian is one of the only outlets to call it what it is, while the vast majority of other sources refer to her as “having sex” or similar softening language. That just isn’t done when it’s an adult male and an underage female, unless you have the sort of wealth and/or status that lets you buy that kind of softening language.

And I say AI confidently

…and you would be wrong. Just because I’m aware of a somewhat obscure thesis that shows something interesting, doesn’t mean an AI chatbot was involved (I actually saved a copy of that one when I first read it years ago, and then Googled the title and author when writing the post to find a current link). Part of me wants to look up the value for em dash now and just start sprinkling them throughout just to fuck with you (you know, cause AI is fond of the em dash)…

You seem to have built an entire profile of me that you are very confidently very wrong about based on very, very little.

I also notice you didn’t engage with anything else.

To be fair, you don’t want to engage with the hypothetical because you and I both know of pairs of groups for A and B where you’d want to say those gasp are evidence of As being oppressed and also pairs of groups for A and B where those same gaps exist (and some are even wider than the previous case) where you’d want to attribute them to literally anything but that because your underlying worldview requires reality to conform to the prescribed hierarchies which means the need for an apologetic, which would prove my point. For anyone not knowing what I’m talking about, that same series of relationships between A and B show when A and B are black and white folks, respectively but also when they are men and women, respectively with the sex gap for some of those measures being larger than the race gap, though both apply to any given individual (and yes this means black men in particular get screwed by the criminal justice system being on the wrong end of both racial and sex gaps).

You don’t want to engage with me asking your opinion about the 2018 KY child custody law because the problem of course with the 2018 KY custody law and it’s rebuttable presumption of shared custody is it is on it’s face the least sex discriminatory policy attempted to date but who supported it and who opposed it is hard to stomach for a certain sort of person.

You didn’t engage with anything I said about Koss either. Which ultimately is built on the notion that Koss has expressed views that are…let’s just say unfortunate…for anyone who wants to consider male victims and female perps seriously. Since a lot of her work is foundational to sexual assault research, her leanings have also left a mark on that research (see things like often classifying common ways women sexually assault men in subcategories that make comparing it to men sexually assaulting women less intuitive). It’s not all bad though, things like “date rape” are useful terms and I actually like her talk about “unacknowledged victims” who essentially mentally frame what happened to them in a way to not make themselves victims, though I suspect she’d disagree with my view that this impacts male victims a great deal more than most think because of underlying social views about who perpetrators and victims can be making what happened to them not something they can readily identify for what it is.

Frankly, I have no issue with polyamorous people, but I honestly can’t understand how they get it to work.

Some people are just built different. I don’t understand how they get it to work either, but if it works for them, good for them. I don’t have to not think you’re weird to accept that you exist.

Going to get ranty here, a bit stream of consciousness, but feel free to engage.

Lots of signs of some internet education and naturalized perspective going on here.

I’m being descriptive, not prescriptive - I’m not saying the way society does shit is good or right or inherently natural, just that it is (and I would prefer it otherwise). I know you operate from a model where the fundamental structure of society is “a system of social structures, and practices in which men dominate, oppress and exploit women” as Sylvia Walby might put it, but that…doesn’t align with reality very well, especially not current reality. It (and related theories) are built on a foundation of Marxist-style class conflict which fits about as well as the demographic breakdown you’re using works as a proxy for socioeconomic status (this is why the similar class conflict logic for race fits better than it does for gender). Which is why if you look you can keep encountering situations in which society does the opposite of what patriarchy would predict, usually with some apologetic to shoehorn things back into position rather than consider alternatives. “The patriarchy hurts men too” is the equivalent of classical geocentrists inventing epicycles and deferents to shoehorn their model back into place when the sky did not behave like it should.

Let’s try a hypothetical. I’m going to divide adults into three groups based on a demographic axis. One of those groups I’m going to set aside because they either land in between the two groups I want to discuss, have a dramatically smaller population that makes comparisons unfair, or both. The other two I’m going to call A and B. All the following comparisons are relative to A and Bs share of the total population. As are more likely to be stopped by police. As are more likely to be arrested. As are more likely to be convicted when tried. As get longer prison sentences than Bs for the same charge. As are dramatically more likely to be killed by law enforcement. Violence against an A is seen as less serious than violence against a B, especially if a B is the perpetrator. People of either group tend to get higher punishments for hurting or killing a B than an A. Now, is this evidence of As being oppressed? Are As just innately criminal, evil and monstrous? Hell, is this somehow evidence of Bs being oppressed? Or are these stats totally meaningless to that kind of discussion? I’d post sources for those, but that would be telling how I’m grouping people and the whole point is to make you think about how your view of reality is decided by the model rather than the model describing reality.

“Malagency” is a word …

Malagency is the concept that society broadly tends to assign men more agency and responsibility than they often have and tends to assign women less agency and responsibility than they often have. That’s it. And it works well to predict what will actually happen in a wide variety of situations where expecting society to behave as “a system of social structures, and practices in which men dominate, oppress and exploit women” would lead one to expect different results. This is of course fucked up and needs be opposed. But saying we need to kill benevolent sexism (and saying we need to stop minimizing women’s misdeeds is an example of this) will be read as hostile sexism by third parties, see Amy Young’s thesis “Lay misperceptions of the relationship between men’s benevolent and hostile sexism” which suggests that not engaging in benevolent sexism is viewed by third parties as hostile sexism, unless you clearly signpost that your actions are egalitarian in nature. To quote the abstract: “The low BS male target (compared to high BS male target) was judged to be higher on HS, less supportive of female professionals, less good of father and husband, and more likely to perpetrate domestic violence. Ratings of the low BS male target were as equally negative as those of the high HS male target. In Study 2, low BS male targets were judged to be low in hostility towards women only if they explicitly stated that their low BS was motivated by egalitarian values, otherwise men’s low BS was assumed to indicate misogyny.”

While I’m at it, how do you feel about the 2018 change in the law in KY regarding child custody in contested cases? The move to the notion that judges should start from a position of equally shared custody unless there’s a good reason to be otherwise? I’m curious because most of the backlash against it came from feminist circles, and it’s more or less exactly a policy position that MRAs had been fighting for for most of the prior decade+ using the phrase “a rebuttable presumption of shared custody” to describe the concept.

I am 100% certain that you do not give a single fuck about young men who are victims of sexual violence. You have even sunk to using their victimization to platform views that reproduce the conditions for that violence to continue. Vile behaviour.

You would be wrong. Though I’m curious how invoking the notion that men are often assigned by society greater agency/responsibility than they actually have while women are often assigned by society lesser agency/responsibility than they actually have (and that that often applies regardless of who benefits) would “reproduce the conditions for that violence to continue.” The whole point is that male victims (especially those with female perpetrators) are minimized as victims because they are treated as being more responsible for what happened to them while female perpetrators have language around them minimized because they’re viewed as less responsible for their misdeeds. The whole fucking “NICE” meme via South Park was from an episode that was basically a satire of this taken to the extreme. To be clear, this is a problem.

I know I go after her immediately below this, but Koss’ concept of unacknowledged victims I think impacts men even more than women as a consequence of societal malagency - if you get told by society time and again that only men perpetrate and women are only victims, that men are responsible for whatever happens to them, etc, etc and then something happens to you as a man that is done by a woman, you reframe and internalize it in a way that makes you not a victim and her not a perpetrator. I know that’s how it worked for me, and it took me years and exposure to ideas not in that framing to get over that shit. That was almost 20 years ago, thanks for my daily reminder I’m turning into an old man.

This line of minimizing female perps extends into the research as well, it’s why for example categories like “made to penetrate” exist and get filed under a subcategory of “other” in some of the research. A lot of the foundational research around intimate partner and sexual violence operated by explicitly minimizing male victims and female perps. See Mary Koss as an example (you may know her as the person who produced the first real study on rape in the US, who came up with the oft-repeated “1-in-4” stat, who coined the term “date rape”, testified before Congress to get VAWA passed, her survey instrument [SES] is still widely used, etc, etc). Once in an interview when asked about male victims of female perps she responded in disbelief with “How would that happen… how would that happen by force or threat of force or when the victim is unable to consent? How does that happen?” and when given an example of a man who had been drugged into compliance declared that that was merely “unwanted contact.” She had also separately stated on the topic “It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman.” If malagency is the fruit of a poison tree that poisons anything it touches as you seem to think, why isn’t anything descending from her work on the topic likewise, aside from that being most of the research on the topic?

I was talking about being compatible, not performant. Proton is very often more performant, but WoW64 is seamless and extremely compatible. If we were to pick say 2000 windows 32-bit apps, selected at random released over the last, say, 25 years do you think WoW64 or the combination of Proton/WINE will correctly execute the largest number of them without requiring tinkering? How many if we limit the tinkering to something really basic, like picking the windows version it was made for off a list?

That’s what I’m getting at that I’ve been downvoted for - this “hybrid” console will almost certainly have better compatibility than Proton/WINE for regular windows software (let alone XBox software) and that’s going to be it’s draw. For stuff that’s also compatible with Proton you’ll likely get better performance out of Proton, but effective and seamless compatibility layers are a strength of MS - most regular users don’t even realize that when you run a 32-bit windows app in x64 windows that there’s a compatibility layer involved at all.

The G.I.F.T. Later referred to in actual research as the online disinhibition effect.

To a degree that once a woman chatted me up, gave me her number and I somehow still missed it entirely.

You just made me think of a book I once read, written by an AI researcher and author who wanted to try his hand at a format akin to a Japanese light novel. The premise is a girl who is absolutely depraved and terminally online as an isekai. She literally gets summoned while masturbating, gets asked if she is a virgin because the plan relies on giving her holy magic by binding an angel to her and she has to be a virgin for that to work (and thankfully masturbation doesn’t count). The angel is bound to her, which gives it access to her mind, and it immediately begins screaming in horror.