Grumble4681's recent activity
-
Comment on Proposal: For sensitive topics, if a thread is intended for a particular demographic, there needs another thread open for everyone to discuss without having to join the targeted thread in ~tildes
-
Comment on A man rescued a bear cub, now they’re inseparable in ~life.pets
Grumble4681 Link ParentThe thing is, the ending where it ends without the bear killing him is the one you'll likely never hear about. We're far more likely to only ever hear about the bear killing him ending which makes...The thing is, the ending where it ends without the bear killing him is the one you'll likely never hear about. We're far more likely to only ever hear about the bear killing him ending which makes it hard to have an idea how likely each ending is to actually happen.
I actually suspect that he will have to find some kind of animal sanctuary or something for the bear since as he acknowledges it would be a bad idea to release it back in the wild.
-
Comment on Following the money from Tim Tebow to Sage Steele and cancel culture in ~sports
Grumble4681 Linkhttps://www.motherjones.com/politics/2026/10/tim-tebow-dropped-out-of-life-surge-then-came-the-celebrity-exodus/ For anyone interested in a written version. Not sure that it covers all the same...For anyone interested in a written version. Not sure that it covers all the same things in the video, but PTFO podcast is filled with a lot of fluff if that's not your thing. That's also a follow-up and below is the first part.
This part in particular I find rather aggravating, regarding the founder of the Life Surge group and the history of other things he had been involved in.
In 2013, he founded a company called Welfont Group, which last year became the target of a Department of Justice lawsuit over its “abusive” practices. According to the complaint, the company recruited property owners to sell real estate—a former assisted living facility and an industrial site, for example. Welfont would then sell these properties to charities (including one that Johnson founded) at bargain sale prices. After soliciting inflated property appraisals—which, the DOJ alleges, routinely quoted Johnson’s own marketing materials verbatim—he found charities to purchase the property at the low price, which would enable property sellers to take a charitable deduction based on the difference between the discounted sale price and the appraised value. The lawsuit accuses Johnson of making “as many as 190 abusive bargain sale transactions” resulting in tax losses of more than $46 million.”
Nosek noted that Johnson denied the government’s allegations, maintaining that “neither Welfont nor Welfont’s clients are responsible for providing the necessary support, since Welfont’s clients were not the beneficiaries of any tax deductions.” Ultimately the DOJ offered Johnson a settlement with no monetary damages or civil penalties and no admission of wrongdoing, though as part of the settlement Johnson agreed to an injunction that prohibited him from making these bargain sales in the future.
-
Comment on Non-queer men of Tildes: PLEASE consider before commenting on ~life.women and ~lgbt without careful consideration. We are losing members over this issue. in ~tildes
Grumble4681 Link ParentI was actually more engaging literally with the hypothetical you presented, while the emphasis of the word 'all' was used in part to tie it to the referenced topic it was also because it provides...If you're referring specifically to the use of #AllMen, my understanding is that the message is that all men have a responsibility to help make spaces safer, not that all men are guilty of causing harm.
I was actually more engaging literally with the hypothetical you presented, while the emphasis of the word 'all' was used in part to tie it to the referenced topic it was also because it provides a clear scenario where I think most people would see it as reasonable if people did come into that thread and start posting about plants that don't need watered daily. That part is not intended to be some kind of meta commentary on a 1:1 level on the other thread, again, I was working on the more literal basis of the plant idea. You presented a scenario where it sounded farcical and stupid that someone would post something about a plant that hasn't needed water in 5 years, and that generally no one would even bother posting such a message, but I attempted to re-frame that to show that it's not that crazy people would post something like that in a different context.
Furthermore, I asked the initial question about how you know whether the topic is intended for a certain audience because the thread we're all talking about here arguably doesn't meet the criteria. It's not that clear cut, and yet the "not a genius" person acted like they thought it was so obvious, so clearly if other people don't get it, they're further below the "not a genius" person. My other comment in this thread discussing why I don't find it was all that clear cut who the topic was 'intended' for, especially in the context of what started this chain of comments here where someone said groups on this site don't work that way.
If you're referring specifically to the use of #AllMen, my understanding is that the message is that all men have a responsibility to help make spaces safer, not that all men are guilty of causing harm.
That might be the message some people convey with it, but other people convey a different message with it. If you don't account for the context of what people are saying about men in general outside of just the time that hashtag is mentioned, then you might miss it. I haven't bothered to take note of all the comments I've seen on this site so that I could pull them up as some kind of receipt for this exact moment, but I've seen it often enough where it's acceptable to push 'men=bad' on this site even. Within that context, it's harder to find the more charitable interpretation you give the #allmen hashtag.
-
Comment on Non-queer men of Tildes: PLEASE consider before commenting on ~life.women and ~lgbt without careful consideration. We are losing members over this issue. in ~tildes
Grumble4681 (edited )Link ParentIf the topic title was something like 'PSA: ALL plants need watering daily', I would fully expect that tons of people would go in there highlighting the various plants they have that don't need...If the topic title was something like 'PSA: ALL plants need watering daily', I would fully expect that tons of people would go in there highlighting the various plants they have that don't need watered daily. For one, it's PSA, public service announcement, so it's basically an attempt to push a message out to the public, not just to other plant enthusiasts and two, it would be helpful to know that there are some plants that don't need watered daily if your only source of information on the watering of plants comes from the title that tells you ALL plants need watered daily. That's the type of topic title that would draw non-plant enthusiasts in to dispute a blanket statement that isn't true.
-
Comment on Non-queer men of Tildes: PLEASE consider before commenting on ~life.women and ~lgbt without careful consideration. We are losing members over this issue. in ~tildes
Grumble4681 (edited )Link ParentI avoided commenting in the referenced post as well, though I view a meta topic as different in terms of the audience so now I'm commenting. The main thing that I see is, the topic title...I am one of those that avoids these topics. I did watch the #yesallmen video and read the thread and upvote, but didn't comment. If that title is incendiary, it's designed to be, probably for engagement purposes, but also as a reflection of the author's deep frustration (and who could blame them?). It looks sexist only on the surface, but the content clarifies the stance of the author beautifully into something closer to "all men need to be better allies, need to be more aware, need to be more willing to be uncomfortable."
I avoided commenting in the referenced post as well, though I view a meta topic as different in terms of the audience so now I'm commenting. The main thing that I see is, the topic title essentially invited all men to comment on it. If you're going to have a tag that says allmen, and the author in the video as you described is effectively conveying a message to men, is the topic for men or is it not? Even more so, the author in that video wasn't just speaking to men who already are allies, she was speaking to men who may have been part of the problem in the experiences that she described. I really think the way that the experiences and messages she conveyed in her talk were really well done and it's a bit of a disservice to the talk that the title of the video didn't match it. I realize titles are challenging and even more so when they're on platforms that demand shitty titles in order for the 'algorithm' to push the videos, but it is still a choice to choose 'engagement' on that level.
I just find it a bit ironic that some people are stating that the post wasn't for men, but then some would argue it's for men but it's only for men that agree with it, but the talk was ended with a message directed at men in general. It was obviously at least partly intended to get men to think about those experiences and think about how to do better in their own lives so I recognize it's not an open invitation for men to dismiss or discount everything she just talked about, but I don't see how its reasonable to assume you can just call out #yesallmen and not get at least some variance in response that goes beyond what was perhaps intended.
I don't think "it looks sexist only on the surface" is justifiable. That's called out for anything else. If someone said "it looks racist only on the surface" or "it looks misogynist only on the surface" with the same meaning that you conveyed, I believe they'd be heavily criticized for that. Some people would argue that "surface" matters a lot, even if the content conveyed something else.
-
Comment on Non-queer men of Tildes: PLEASE consider before commenting on ~life.women and ~lgbt without careful consideration. We are losing members over this issue. in ~tildes
Grumble4681 Link ParentWhat makes a topic specific to a small minority? It was just mentioned in the parent comment to yours that groups don't necessarily establish that anything posted there is specific to anyone in...What makes a topic specific to a small minority? It was just mentioned in the parent comment to yours that groups don't necessarily establish that anything posted there is specific to anyone in particular.
-
Comment on Does Tildes welcomes “self-promoting” links to personal blog posts? in ~tildes
Grumble4681 LinkI look at it through the lens of 'what if everyone did this?' instead of self-posts, and while that's a bit of an extreme and not realistic scenario for a small site like this, I think it does...I look at it through the lens of 'what if everyone did this?' instead of self-posts, and while that's a bit of an extreme and not realistic scenario for a small site like this, I think it does highlight the base issue of the activity even if it's not very apparent on a smaller scale. If everyone were posting their ideas on a blog and then linking that here instead of just posting it here, it does send a different message than if you post it here where the intention is that this is your intended audience and it was meant for people here. There's a bit more community behind it. Now perhaps your blog post is meant for people beyond Tildes and of course that would be the natural and obvious thing for a publicly available blog, but then that is where I think it highlights a level of impersonal nature to it if everyone were to do that.
Of course, even if everyone were doing this in moderation, perhaps it would still feel that way, I'm not sure, so I'm not saying it's the definitive perspective on the matter. Since it's sort of at self-moderation scenario if Deimos isn't around to set strict limits then I don't know if there's a super solid answer.
-
Comment on Three children and a teacher were killed in Bend, Oregon, elementary school shooting, police say in ~news
Grumble4681 (edited )LinkOther news reports have highlighted a teacher had also apparently fought with the attacker and was trying to get the gun from him when the armed father mentioned here came in and shot the...Other news reports have highlighted a teacher had also apparently fought with the attacker and was trying to get the gun from him when the armed father mentioned here came in and shot the attacker.
From a "a good guy with a gun stops bad guy with a gun" perspective, this would be about as least bad an outcome as you generally can expect from that situation and still 4 people were murdered and 2 others seriously injured, along with many more who will have to live with painful memories of this experience and the ever-present reminder to millions more that it could happen to them. I think that can't be understated. When the nearly 'least bad' outcome is still a horrific tragedy, regardless of whether some will hear it, it's clear that 'good guy with the gun' isn't going to stop these events and the people that are pretending it will are woefully delusional or just bad actors.
-
Comment on iPhone Duo sells out immediately, now backordered until next year in ~tech
Grumble4681 Link ParentThese foldables are markedly different than a standard phone in price. That's true for non-Apple phones too. Wouldn't doubt if part of it is that this is one of the upper parts of the K audience...These foldables are markedly different than a standard phone in price. That's true for non-Apple phones too. Wouldn't doubt if part of it is that this is one of the upper parts of the K audience and the audience that doesn't think people would buy it isn't on that part of the K. Some people can just buy anything and other people are too locked into their own world to realize that those people create a whole class of product they wouldn't consider worth buying. That isn't saying the products aren't good or worth buying, but they're luxury items. They aren't intended for the majority of people with average income, they're intended for the minority with more money than they know what to do with.
-
Comment on Metallica’s James Hetfield has a message for entertainers who bring their ‘bullshit‘ agenda to the stage in ~music
Grumble4681 Link ParentRight, his statement actually comes across as a bit of a political statement, especially by vaguely referencing "other entertainers" and "influence you with their bullshit". This message is...Right, his statement actually comes across as a bit of a political statement, especially by vaguely referencing "other entertainers" and "influence you with their bullshit". This message is intended to be speaking to an audience of people who feel alienated by the 'other entertainers' he's referring to, and there's of course very notable recent ones that have come out as well as the general notion that artists tend to be more liberal than conservative. That's a coded political message right there 'These other entertainers that have made it newsworthy enough for me to make a statement right now are pushing a identifiable ideological-side messaging which is bullshit and Metallica is a safehaven for all of you who disagree with that side, and for those who don't see that messaging as bullshit, well I didn't call out any specific entertainer or specific messaging, so rest assured we also want your money still too'. It really just comes across as coded pandering while not attempting to overtly push anyone away.
Even the idea of getting ahead of the questions is not really that compelling to serve this narrative of being apolitical. If they had said nothing like this message and made no political remarks, if someone asks them, its not that hard to respond "Well we've not done that at our concerts and don't plan to", no need to throw shade at 'other entertainers', no need to make an opinion known about it one way or the other if its purely a business decision. Just state the relevant fact and move on. Instead what this response they have given should generate as questions towards them is more like "So is Metallica's music not meant to serve any meaningful messages to the audience if you're not here to peddle any messages to the audience?" After all, everything can be made political, as modern times have shown us. Personal struggles and tragedies surely aren't off limits either. I'd be real interested to know if Hetfield is actually stating that Metallica's music has nothing meaningful at all to say.
-
Comment on US Pentagon says the firing squad execution of Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan will be livestreamed in ~society
Grumble4681 LinkThere is a segment of mass murderers who want exactly this. I'm not distinguishing by ideology or anything, but there is a segment of people who want to kill a lot of people, want to go out in a...There is a segment of mass murderers who want exactly this. I'm not distinguishing by ideology or anything, but there is a segment of people who want to kill a lot of people, want to go out in a blaze of glory, and why even open the door up for the possibility you're going to give one of those people what they want? This is reopening the wounds this person created many years ago by turning this person's death sentence into a public spectacle. Not even referring to the livestreaming of the execution itself, but the simple prospect of doing the livestream is the spectacle at this point. Whether the convicted in this particular case personally has the characteristics to be the person who is actually enjoying the fact that this administration is turning the spotlight onto this guys actions, I don't know, but I believe there absolutely would be some people who would enjoy that, and this administration is giving that person a reward.
I don't believe half of what this administration does is genuine, whether they intend to follow through or not is often secondary as far as I see. I see it as, they do these things to see if they can, to test the boundaries of what they can do and how people will react and also as more distraction fodder. They don't care that they might be giving this guy what he wants or incentivizing other people to possibly commit crimes that could lead to this insanely elevated public spectacle. I know there's been some mass murderers who have live streamed or attempted to live stream their crimes and got shut down before it became too widespread, now imagine the US government turns their blaze of glory into the Superbowl. And the people in this administration just don't care, they only care what they can use for their own benefit. Just like getting diesel from Russia to lower the prices before the election, promising payouts for certain election results, and it's just incredibly demoralizing how far a civilization can fall behind such stupidity.
-
Comment on The fine dining flip in ~food
Grumble4681 Link ParentThese would also be some of the cheaper ways to revamp the place into something else. A fine dining place that's struggling to bring in enough business to justify itself, which is obviously what...I found the first photo really interesting to compare what, of the space, they kept the same and what they changed to signal the less swanky, more approachable tone. All the bones: the floor, lighting, and tables the same, but toss down some nice rugs and put up wood panelling.
These would also be some of the cheaper ways to revamp the place into something else. A fine dining place that's struggling to bring in enough business to justify itself, which is obviously what situation they were in, has to make some kind of change. You can't get fancier without spending a bunch of money, but you can take your already sunk costs in a fine dining place and tone it down a bit for much less to target a different audience.
-
Comment on Was watching a history YouTube video when I realized they are all AI in ~tech
Grumble4681 LinkThis will surely get worse. I just recently had a friend try to convince me to make videos like this. He sent me a video of someone on Youtube explaining the 'business model' of making videos like...This will surely get worse. I just recently had a friend try to convince me to make videos like this. He sent me a video of someone on Youtube explaining the 'business model' of making videos like this and also making 'influencers' with AI and just pumping out slop and my friend was telling me I should do this to make money since I'm unemployed. I'm not going to do it because it sounds terrible and not even viable, seems like a few people can automate the vast majority of this and just churn out most of the AI slop.
-
Comment on The fine dining flip in ~food
Grumble4681 (edited )LinkFor something like dining that doesn't really scale with the widening wealth gaps, it doesn't surprise me. Increased wealth can buy you a bigger house to buy more objects to store those things in...For something like dining that doesn't really scale with the widening wealth gaps, it doesn't surprise me. Increased wealth can buy you a bigger house to buy more objects to store those things in so people on the high side of the wealth gap can have a much greater influence on what products are made even when they are the minority, but it isn't going to expand your stomach to eat more or give you more days in the week to visit restaurants more often. It just means they'll spend more on the same trips to restaurants they already would take, but that isn't going to increase the frequency of it.
-
Comment on Blocking of unverified apps on Android starts in Brazil and other three countries in ~tech
Grumble4681 Link ParentThe very Wikipedia page you linked provides an image that uses the phrase, and it doesn't say the image is a fake or anything like that but is supposedly an official image. So 4chan didn't even...The very Wikipedia page you linked provides an image that uses the phrase, and it doesn't say the image is a fake or anything like that but is supposedly an official image. So 4chan didn't even coin the phrase, and they certainly don't have ownership over the rights to lambast it. The fact that they attached it to their own ridiculous ethnic/racist conspiracies shouldn't prevent anyone else from being able to use it anymore than you shouldn't be able to use a keyboard because people on 4chan also use keyboards.
-
Comment on Sling TV day, weekend and weekly passes are no longer available in ~tv
Grumble4681 Link ParentIt also coincides with Dish exiting bankruptcy. (Sling is owned by Dish) Whether that actually had anything to do with it I don't know, but it was fairly obvious from the start that this day pass...It also coincides with Dish exiting bankruptcy. (Sling is owned by Dish) Whether that actually had anything to do with it I don't know, but it was fairly obvious from the start that this day pass was likely dead once their contracts with networks came up because they were utilizing the fact that there was apparently a loophole in their existing agreements to offer it and the networks obviously didn't like it based on their reaction.
That 'promise' url is interesting because Dish used that earlier this year on their own site when they had a dispute with Gray Media for carrying the local network stations.
-
Comment on An insight into looksmaxxxing/blackpill "ideology" in ~life
Grumble4681 (edited )Link ParentI'm not so sure this is an accurately representative way to frame 'incel' viewpoints. That's now how I've perceived to be the predominant desire of 'incels' anyhow, and surely I could be wrong,...I'm not talking about number of median relationships, distribution of sexual partners or anything like that. I'm talking about the common incel claim which is so often repeated by those communities that it's become axiomatic, that says: it's easier to find love (as in, a long term committed relationship) as a woman, than it is as a man.
It doesn't matter for the sake of this argument though. In the theoretical situation of a serial dating hot guy that women fawn over dating lots of average looking women who are now single, the women are not in a desirable situation. They got dumped (or dumped the guy who had no interest in settling down long term), are now single, and aren't in a committed relationship. That's not the situation that incels are thinking of when they're being envious of how "easy women have it".
I'm not so sure this is an accurately representative way to frame 'incel' viewpoints. That's now how I've perceived to be the predominant desire of 'incels' anyhow, and surely I could be wrong, but the word incel is literally standing for 'involuntary celibate', not 'never finds love' (though that seemingly would be intertwined with someone who is involuntary celibate), so I think reducing what 'incels' want to 'finds long term love' is not accurately portraying that block of people. And before I leave it at that, yes I'm aware when people refer to incels it doesn't literally mean these people necessarily have to be involuntarily celibate always, just as in the same way it used to be in fashion to call people neckbeards without any regard for what beards someone actually had or didn't have, it's common to refer to people as 'incels' based on stereotypes people are imagining of these groups of people not necessarily that they're strictly involuntarily celibate.
I'd say more accurately, the classic 'forever alone' group is the one that is more strongly associated with and concerned with finding love. Now I would presume that has strong overlap with incels, cause if you're forever alone then perhaps more likely you're involuntarily celibate, but one could argue that people can have casual sex while still being 'alone' in the relationship sense.
The stated end goal is to have a loving, committed relationship. I basically never seen incels complain that they're not able to have long strings of failed relationships.
You've never seen an incel complain that they've never had a relationship or never been on a date etc.? Obviously they aren't desiring a long string of failed relationships, but you can't have a chance at finding love if you're not even having the relationships to begin with for them to have a possibility of succeeding or failing. So while no one is desiring a long string of failed relationships, they are desiring the chance at relationships which will in all likelihood lead to a long string of failed relationships. If you look at 'failed' relationships differently, you could also frame it as 'time being in love' or 'experience of love', because many of those relationships will encompass that before their failing point. Someone who has been in 5 'failed' relationships over the course of 20 years, you could frame their experience as 'experienced loving relationships' for 10 years or 'time spent in love' was 10 years, and perhaps another 5 years was 'time spent with growing discontent for person they love' before breaking up and another 5 years was 'time not in a relationship'. Someone who has had no relationships at all will have 0 years compare to the person who had 5 'failed' relationships who may have had 10 years.
Most people have failed relationships, if you want to call it that. Part of even having a chance at finding love are these failed relationships. Do you think incels or the 'forever alone' types are only looking at 70 year olds who have been married for 50 years and feeling like that is what they are missing out on, or do you think that they're looking at the similar aged folks who are dating someone right now, and very likely won't be dating that person in 5 or 10 years, and feeling jealous over that person's relationship? Yes, there are likely desires that aren't realistic or matched to reality, much in the same way people might browse Facebook or Instagram etc. seeing pictures and posts of other people's glamorous vacations and wonderful lives meanwhile what's not in the picture is all the stuff going wrong in their life. I'd guess most people are probably doing this or have done this at some point in their lives over some aspect of life, looking at false depictions of something wishing they had it, or imagining something more fantastical than what is actually depicted.
What I'm saying here is that while people may not be fantasizing or dreaming about having lots of 'failed relationships', that's part of being in the 'game' of finding love. Certainly people who go through these redpill, blackpill or other feedback loops that warp their minds to thoughts that become ever more extreme or ever more unrealistic end up saying something else after they've been simmering in that pan for awhile, but if you go back to where they started, what first led them into that feedback loop, what they wanted was what they perceived everyone else to have. If they were 'in the game' so to speak, they would have quickly learned the reality that everyone else learns, which is that even if they can get dates and get into relationships, finding that 'loving, committed relationship' isn't necessarily what they think it is.
I think a lot of them actually do desire to have lots of casual sex. I'm not addressing that desire, because I think a lot of them know that's an unreasonable public complaint to make, so the posts they make are things like "I just want a looksmatched girl who loves me and I can start a family with, is that so much to ask???". That's the demand I'm addressing, and the arguments around it that I'm attacking.
So you're addressing what you believe to be a coded desire for sex, that what they are saying is not what they really mean but it's a cover for wanting sex but not feeling like they can express it. If you don't believe what they said was genuine, then seems strange to me to begin by making arguments against it as though it's genuine, and then later say that it's not genuine and it's code for 'give me sex' and that is what your arguments are tailored around. I don't really know how to respond to that as it feels like the goalposts are moving. Telling people who are coding their desire for sex into a phrase of something like "I just want a looksmatched girl who loves me and I can start a family with" that it's 1:1 and women are equally impacted in terms of chances of a 'loving, committed relationship' doesn't make sense to me.
-
Comment on An insight into looksmaxxxing/blackpill "ideology" in ~life
Grumble4681 (edited )Link ParentYou just need to think about it logically for 10 seconds is so incredibly condescending that I want to do it back to you even harsher, because your comment sounds just as stupid as you think...I don't get how this theory is so widely accepted in this community when you don't even need any research or experience to disprove it, you just need to think about it logically for 10 seconds.
You just need to think about it logically for 10 seconds is so incredibly condescending that I want to do it back to you even harsher, because your comment sounds just as stupid as you think others remarks do, but I'll stop at that and hope that I didn't go too far considering that's not the proper way to respond. But I want you to know that's the kind of feeling your condescending remark inspires in others, or at least in me.
To address your 'logical' 1:1 claim, let's say you take a pool of 20 people, 10 women and 10 men, let's ignore age gaps or anything like that and just say they're all adults who theoretically are within the dating pool of the opposite sex. Now chart this over the course of a few years. For simplification, let's just label each person as W1-10 and M1-10. Let's say W1-5 and M1-5 are dating their respective opposite sex number, and each one of these were 6 month relationships. Within those 6 months, let's also just say W6-10 and M6-10 weren't dating anyone. All is equal, just like you said. Now the next 6 months, W6-10 begin dating M3-7. So within a year, all 10 women have dated, and 3 men have not. Hmm I really wonder about this 1:1 thing you said now, maybe it's not so solid. Now at the 1 year mark, they all break up, and W1-5 all now enter 1 year relationships with M1,2,6,7,8. Then fast forward another year, they all break up, and W4-10 are dating M1-6. So to sum it up, the average time the overall group of women were in a relationship is equal to the average time the overall group of men were in a relationship, except the difference being W1-10 all were in a relationship at some point while M9,10 were never in one.
We could keep this going for awhile, but I hope I've made the picture clear by now. I vastly oversimplified the timing of relationships and what not because writing out anything more realistic would greatly expand the amount of words to convey it. Even outside of 'casual sex' scenarios, more women can have been in a relationship within whatever time frame you want to examine, and for similar logistical reasons that you acknowledged were possible with 'casual sex', just on a longer timescale. It also doesn't need to be as drastic as you stated, as one man having sex with hundreds of women in a year's time span. Even a lesser imbalance over a large population set will still have a significant result.
Now to clarify, I'm not claiming that the data above is reflected in reality, but I believe it to be possible and if so it would tear a hole into the 1:1 claim. However a quick search, which I don't expect anyone to do the work to dispute it nor do I expect anyone to put much stock into this, as I do not, does produce some results that may suggest such a thing does happen.
https://www.understandingsociety.ac.uk/blog/2024/12/10/new-relationships-after-a-break-up/
Our results confirmed that heterosexual men are more likely to re-partner than heterosexual women. The gap starts to emerge two years after the first relationship breaks up, and remains throughout the ten-year period we looked at. Within those 10 years, 73% of the heterosexual men in the sample re-partnered compared to 61% of heterosexual women.
If you were to take the simplified example that I gave above, it would necessarily produce results like this, where men will have less time 'out of relationship' between relationships. I really just wanted to use that to illustrate what data might look like if the above simplification I created did play out in reality, not that it is actually true. I cannot find more comprehensive data on that, and to be clear, I'm mostly disputing this flawed 1:1 claim and I'm not attempting to put forward a claim that some men are definitely dating less or none at all more than a similar portion of women.
The 1:1 idea assumes you're taking a snapshot in time, that at any given time, given vast majority of people are monogamous, it's roughly 1:1, which would be true from a single snapshot in time or from a static pairing over time, but being static over time is not true of a large majority of relationships. When you factor in time, you can have imbalances in dating/relationships/love just like you can in 'casual sex' that break the 1:1 if the consideration is history of dating rather than just current status.
-
Comment on The doomsday cult inside OpenAI in ~tech
Grumble4681 (edited )Link ParentI don't think that even if people are giving credit to the idea that all of these dire warnings from AI execs are greed-induced faux hype for their AI products that it means people are...I find it rather off putting that there is large group of people who seem rather quick to conclude that the people closest to this technology don't know it the best or can't be trusted to give observations.
I don't think that even if people are giving credit to the idea that all of these dire warnings from AI execs are greed-induced faux hype for their AI products that it means people are discrediting the actual threat of AI. I think both things can be true, that they're not to be taken at face value for what they're saying but that what they say could also be true. They are untrustworthy in the sense that they have very conflicting incentives.
There are dire safety concerns with AI, but the 'solution' being offered is sort of creating this narrow focus of it being the only way to handle it. Whether it's 'slow it down' or some similar angle, all of this is an inevitable product of relatively unrestrained capitalism. Instead of the solution being to rein AI in, maybe it's to rein capitalism in. Unrestrained capitalism is a race to the 'end', so is it any surprise that we're now getting all these signals from people in high positions proclaiming something resembling an 'end'? The reality is that the people with the resources making these signals don't want to risk or give up any of their resources to attempt to resolve the problem. They want to continue to hoard their resources and hoard their power while claiming to be the prophets foreseeing a problem that they're perpetuating while pretending to offer some kind of solution that doesn't involve acknowledging that they themselves are part of the problem.
Also, the 'slow it down' suggestion isn't even a solution. Slowing it down doesn't prevent anything, and I have absolutely no faith in the current US government, influential people/leaders, the general populace or the direction things have been going for the past couple decades that even if we gave them more time to react to the coming disaster that they would appropriately respond to it in a meaningful way that helps people.
Instead what they are proposing is a 'controlled fall', because it is what best helps them maintain the system and control over that system. If you fall in an uncontrolled manner, you might fall hard and fast and with significant collateral damage, of course they don't want this because the blowback could come on them. Instead in a controlled fall, they can attempt to ensure the system that best lets them hold their resources and power has the least amount of collateral damage to impact them. Why exactly should there be a fall at all? How did we get to a point where a 'controlled fall' is the solution? Because the people proposing it and the cloth they are cut from led us to this situation.
It comes across like you're saying it's bad to be fragile, but everyone has something they're fragile over in the way you frame it. Some people associate with certain identities, they may have pride in them or just outwardly everyone else recognizes it about them. I could say all artists are a bunch of lazy slobs and obviously that doesn't mean every artist actually is, and even the ones that aren't are possibly going to take offense to that because I'm devaluing an identity they associate with. They take pride in being an artist, and I'm degrading artists by saying they're all lazy slobs. That's not my personal belief but it's something along a stereotype that I'm aware exists for artists. Point being that if I were to say that, I'm making it worse for them to identify as an artist by perpetuating that image of them even though it's not true in their case, because whether its true in their case or not doesn't matter, more and more people will start thinking of artists as lazy slobs and like it or not, that's going to be an initial judgement they make on the person when they find out they're an artist.
Some things people also can't change. Whether they want to identify with it in that way or not, they can't separate themselves from it and if they're externally visible factors then everyone can immediately take all that baggage and apply it to them before they've even spoken to them to know whether or not they personally carry that baggage.
So many times, I get the impression that when people call out men or white people, they think that it's fine because they're the majority or they're punching up. Somewhere in this twisted logic of striving for equality, punching up is seen as acceptable, encouraged even. What's lost in this is that not everyone within those groups is actually up. While you imagine you're punching up at the business executives who hire promote or hire white men more because of biases, or because you're imagining old white men politicians who have outdated ideas of society or even if you're just imagining the male coworker who hits on a woman, gets rejected and then starts taking out his hurt feelings by hurting her career, it's not always what you imagine and you're not always punching up, sometimes you're punching down.