286437714's recent activity
-
Comment on Drones seen over Danish military bases in latest air disruption in ~society
-
Comment on Disney decides it hasn’t angered people enough, announces Disney+ price hikes in ~tv
286437714 Link ParentKimmel is an outlier, like a mule standing in the middle of a herd of horses. Did anyone catch Foundation Season 3? I think it was my favourite one so far. Reading the books, I couldn't believe...Kimmel is an outlier, like a mule standing in the middle of a herd of horses.
Did anyone catch Foundation Season 3? I think it was my favourite one so far. Reading the books, I couldn't believe they made up my favourite plots (the Empire, the Genetic Dynasty, Demerzel as the guardian of it) and there was really nothing in the books from the Empire's side.
It's all so cool, but the showrunner and writing team has recently left and been replaced by the showrunner of Fear the Walking Dead, so I'm not hopeful the (likely) final season will reach the same heights.
-
Comment on Denmark airport closed due to drones, two days after incursions in Copenhagen and Oslo in ~society
286437714 Link ParentThere are inexpensive, reusable anti-drone systems that aren't super secret and are available commercially off the shelf. Systems like this are used pretty commonly by police and aviation...There are inexpensive, reusable anti-drone systems that aren't super secret and are available commercially off the shelf.
Systems like this are used pretty commonly by police and aviation authorities as a reusable non-kinetic (boom) solution.
There's even a human portable one that you can make pew pew noises with!
Danish Defence is normally really sensible with this stuff, the fact that they weren't able to deploy a non-kinetic system in time is surprising. Unless they've acquired a counter-drone system and it hasn't reached full operational capability for deployment yet, that seems most likely given how obvious the threat is
-
Comment on The Buff Scammer, isolation, and the male loneliness epidemic in ~life.men
286437714 Link ParentThis is my experience also. The best way I ever saw it framed was the difference between what is explicitly requested of us, versus what is implicitly expected of us. It was from a Reddit post a...- Exemplary
This is my experience also. The best way I ever saw it framed was the difference between what is explicitly requested of us, versus what is implicitly expected of us.
It was from a Reddit post a decade ago that I saved. Full post in full below, I can't credit the original author because they've deleted it. It came from a thread about 'Why do men always try and solve problems instead of just listening?'
As men are socialized, we receive many mixed messages from both men and women concerning how we should handle our emotions. On one hand, we are explicitly told by both men and women that we should be secure in showing our emotions, be they sadness, anger, or whatever. This is an example of an explicit attitude. Another way to think about this: it is a feeling or a behavior that a person wants to have.
On the other hand, both men and women levy sanctions against men who openly display emotions (except for anger, which is highly encouraged as long as it's displayed in a socially acceptable way). These sanctions are not formal, and typically present as insidious forms of social rejection (e.g., exclusion or gossip). These sanctions stem from negative implicit attitudes toward men who openly display emotions.
Another way to think about this: an implicit attitude is your actual behavior or feeling in a given situation. Negative implicit attitudes toward emotional men are common among participants in social psychology experiments, although the exact reason for this is unknown. It has been hypothesized that presenting behaviors that are not gender normative guess would be that an "emotional male" violates the gender norm of the "emotionally neutral/acceptably aggressive breadwinner."
Interestingly, negative implicit attitudes toward displays of emotion in men are independent of peoples' explicitly endorsed attitudes. Thus, males are faced with quite a conundrum.
Someone may explicitly endorse progressive attitudes, encouraging me to be secure about showing my emotions. However, the same person may feel deeply disturbed when these emotions are shown because they harbor negative implicit attitudes regarding male displays of emotion. This behavior is unfortunately all-too-common among men and women alike. As teenagers, we get called "pussy," "bitch," or "fag" by other boys (and, especially important in the shaping process, by girls) when we show emotions aside from anger. As grown men, we don't get called names... instead, someone "forgets" to invite us to their bachelor party, or we get passed-over for a promotion because we are viewed as "ineffectual" by our male and/or female supervisors.
Concerning romance, we don't want to be in the situation where a woman we are pursuing stops returning our calls because we accidentally opened up to them and ended up disgusting them with our emotions. I would hazard to guess that every man knows at least one person who was dumped by their girlfriend soon after he finally felt comfortable enough to open up to her. Very frustrating and confusing, as you can imagine, to be pestered for months or years about being emotionally unavailable, only to be dumped because you no longer present a "challenge" for your girlfriend. I personally view this as the male analogue of the woman getting dumped after she sleeps with her boyfriend.
In light of these observations, my own theory is that our attempt to "problem solve" allows us to have our cake and eat it too. Asking questions and providing solutions are actually indirect attempts to empathize without appearing too "emotionally open." Asking you "Did you try xx and xx?" allows men to put themselves in your shoes because it lets them visualize your train of thought. As a bonus, it usually gets the other party to vent MORE when they respond to these questions (e.g., "I thought about doing that, but I know that it will just upset so-and-so. That's another thing that bothers me about this situation, is that so-and-so is always in my business and it stresses me out.").
Like any heuristic, it provides a desired outcome with sufficient reliability: by attempting to troubleshoot your problems, we get to fulfill our need for empathy and connectedness while preventing social rejection. But like any heuristic, it is not fool-proof, and is likely to cause problems if employed inflexibly (e.g., attempting to "problem solve" for your girlfriend after her mother has just passed-away).
Since this has generated a lot of interest, I've included a list of relevant sources. In order to view these articles, you will likely need to access these articles through your local library or your university library. Additional tip: type the title of an article into Google, followed by "pdf." If you're lucky, you might find a link to a pdf file housed on the author's homepage.
-
Good primer on attitude theories (includes information on explicit and implicit attitudes, and provides theories as to why these are treated as separate "islands" by the mind): http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.psych.121208.131609
-
Example of how people react unfavorably to men who violate prescriptive gender norms: http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/men/11/2/140/
-
An example of how attitudes related to gender norms influence perception of male or female bosses with non-gender-normative traits: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103110000260
-
I want to note that women are also subjected to sanctions when they violate gender norms: http://psp.sagepub.com/content/34/2/237.abstract
-
An example of explicit-implicit attitude incongruence (albeit applied to a different research topic... I included this for illustrative purposes): http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2011-14550-001
-
Being an agreeable male (i.e., violating the gender stereotype) puts you at a disadvantage for income compared to women and less agreeable men: http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/102/2/390/
-
Telling men they do not conform to their gender "ideal" invokes acute detrimental effects on their emotions and cognition: http://www.springerlink.com/content/e47127007118278v/
-
Compared to gay men who exhibit "masculine" behavior, gay men who exhibit "feminine" behavior are viewed more negatively by straight men: http://www.springerlink.com/content/lgr67x0766032884/
-
Although female identity is generally viewed as a stable trait, identity as a "male" is viewed as conditional (i.e., must be "earned," and can be "revoked" if one fails to adhere to prescriptive gender norms): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19025286?dopt=Abstract
-
UNICEF briefing does an excellent job describing the fundamental processes through which men are socialized, and how this socialization results in harm for both men and women: http://www.unicef.org/emerg/files/male_roles.pdf
-
Powerful organizations take advantage of all of us by promoting "traditional" male and female normative gender roles: http://www1.georgetown.edu/departments/justice_peace/research/theses/theses2005/fuller_lisa.pdf
-
Comment on United Kingdom, Australia and Canada officially recognize a Palestinian state in ~society
-
Comment on United Kingdom, Australia and Canada officially recognize a Palestinian state in ~society
286437714 Link ParentThey were literally at a meeting to discuss a US-tabled proposal to release the hostages when their negotiating room was hit by ballistic missiles. From space. You cannot be serious.They were literally at a meeting to discuss a US-tabled proposal to release the hostages when their negotiating room was hit by ballistic missiles. From space.
You cannot be serious.
-
Comment on United Kingdom, Australia and Canada officially recognize a Palestinian state in ~society
286437714 Link ParentTechnically, they haven't been torpedoing negotiations. A torpedo is a guided undersea munition to take out a sub-surface water target. Israel's been using air-launched ballistic missiles to kill...Technically, they haven't been torpedoing negotiations. A torpedo is a guided undersea munition to take out a sub-surface water target.
Israel's been using air-launched ballistic missiles to kill negotiators. These negotiators were all in one room to formulate a response to an American-led hostage release proposal.
They then leaked to the Wall Street Journal that they'd used ballistic missiles 'to respect Arab airspaces.' My view of this is that providing this information to the press is a grotesque wink to the concept of international law, using some of the most expensive weapons systems on Earth (and in space), provided by the United States.
Also, their own battle damage assessments conclude that they failed to assassinate Hamas leaders.
I know this does not even rank on the list of Israeli crimes during this genocide, but having equipment this good and consistently failing to achieve the simplest military objectives has become the main character of their operations.
In most cases, in Gaza, the brutality and lack of discrimination is the point. But in this case, they tried a decapitation strike, in a compound where Hamas leaders were living with their families, with the most advanced weapons systems in the world, and they fucked it up. Even though it's from a satirical film, the math on this one is very simple.
No, not at all. It's baffling and concerning.
I'm surprised at how susceptible Denmark is to this provocation. Danish Defence in particular has talked a big game about hardening society to hybrid and gray zone warfare over the past decade.
The fact that it's not seeking an Article 4 consultation makes it seem out of step with Poland at the time NATO needs to be presenting a united front.
This is very strange, and seems to be handing Putin an easy win on the eastern flank. What the larger strategy is I couldn't guess at, but showing NATO as dithering and fractured was a preventable own-goal.