I’m gay

  • 62 Posts
  • 230 Comments
Joined 10 kuukautta sitten
cake
Cake day: tammi 28, 2022

help-circle
rss

A few years ago I listened to a TED talk by Keith Chen, which was focused on the research highlighted in this article. It made a lot of sense to me, that the language constructs which you have and which you use would affect your behavior and how you think about things. Thank you for this article, as it highlights a bunch more research in a subject I haven’t seen much about in some time. I find small quirks in thinking like this quite fascinating and I’m happy to have a new book to read 😄



Their hobbies likely aren’t causing them to have negative feelings, whereas their work more likely is. Humans are somewhat biased towards needing to vent and talk about issues which cause them negative feelings that they have to do.

People also talk about work for a variety of social reasons. Most importantly, perhaps, is that people often measure social standing by their work. Where they work, what jobs they have, how much money they make, and other characteristics of work are important for many human social evaluations. Because this is important, it becomes socialized as something that you should discuss, and thus becomes a common topic of conversation. People then internalize it as something they should talk about, or is interesting to talk about. It’s a self sustaining model built upon the foundations of social worth and evaluation, supported by the emotional needs of humans.

Interestingly you’ll see that in certain circles where social worth is not derived from your work (minorities in which upwards mobility or potential jobs are limited often talk less about work) but from other aspects of your life (talking about children is a favorite for those who have them and artists love to talk about their creative pursuits) that you’ll find conversation drifting towards different topics instead.

I think the best thing you can do, if you find this boring, is to attempt to redirect conversation away from work and towards something you’d rather talk about. People will naturally drift back towards conversation that they find useful, interesting, or have been socialized to do and ultimately you may need to tolerate this or find a group of friends less interested in talking about their career. I’ve generally found that quips which highlight it’s silly to be talking about work away from work (such as when participating in work offsite trips) or highlight how work is just a means to make money and I’m disinterested in talking about capitalism and would rather know the person and what they find interesting tend to work well to divert conversation away from chatting about work.


I think @MicholasMouse hits on a lot of the same thoughts I have on the issue. There is ultimately a potential good that can come from an article like this. Pointing out the problems with the authors is a good practice which can help to frame what’s here better and can help people to learn where the authors fall flat or what they didn’t consider when writing this article.

A blanket rejection isn’t warranted, I don’t think, especially when the poster attempts to frame that it’s a problematic article. I think that @thursday_j did a great job giving this an appropriate title for the downsides/problems with the article. I also think this discussion we’ve been having is a good example of how to discuss problematic content, without removing it from the server.



I believe you’re absolutely correct to criticize and point out that this would be a much better article if it were written by a woman. With that being said, there’s probably a decent number of people who might pay it more credence because it’s written by a man. If the goal was to appeal to the very people who probably need to be educated the most, it could have been helpful to include quotes by women or to have made it clear that women were consulted when this was written (I’m making an educated guess that this was the case here, but it’s entirely possible this is not true).

It is clear, however, as you read through the article that there’s a significant amount of bias and that perhaps not all that many women were consulted. Either that or they wrote some of these sentences with hyperbole in mind, to make it more palatable or easy to understand for the men who need this education. It was a bit disappointing to see them unintentionally reinforcing beauty norms, for example, when they make statements such as

She doesn’t typically consider what men actually find attractive or she misunderstands it completely.

I hope, however naively, that this kind of article does appeal to and helps to slowly shift the minds of those who need it most - men who are unintentionally or ignorantly sexist or are struggling with dating due to cultural norms they haven’t deconstructed yet.




Tell that to people unwilling to leave twitter because they are struggling to find content on mastodon. The major benefit of big social media companies is typically that they provide an algorithm to content that people find interesting by paying an invasive amount of attention to what you do on their websites and how you interact with content.

While not everyone is as interested in an algorithms idea of what we would like to see or content we would enjoy, to ignore that many people out there are very interested or to paint it as purely a means of advertisement ignores why some humans are still on these platforms and the source of their attraction.


I think you brought up a fantastic point and one that did not line up with my expectations either, so thank you for surfacing the question so that others can see. 😊


Unfortunately this is somewhere in medicine where you will see a lot of discrimination if you do not currently have children and attempt to access this route of birth control. Women are more likely to experience this kind of discrimination when pursuing healthcare that limits child bearing capabilities in the future. Perhaps men pursuing more permanent options will make the system relax a bit when it comes to push-back when pursing certain kinds of care.

I also wonder whether it’ll spur legislators to fast track options which have been under development for a long time such as RISUG. I know the ability to make babies is an important platform for conservatives, so seeing men pursue options that they haven’t made illegal might spur them to action… or they might just ban vasectomies or something idk


The way this is reported on, and what precisely each number means are things you should investigate when they do not line up with your expectations. This chart comes from this data brief. In the definitions the following is stated (emphasis mine):

In this report, as in prior NSFG reports (3), women who were currently using more than one method are classified by the method that was most effective in preventing pregnancy, because that method has the greatest impact on their risk of unintended pregnancy. For example, women who report using both oral contraceptive pills and male condoms in the current month are classified as using pills, because pills are more effective at preventing a pregnancy.


oh no, pressuring advertisers by speaking to them is destroying free speech



Not just that, they’re often way less nutritionally useful. Nearly all alternative milks have very low protein content. It would be trivially cheap to add in a small amount of whey protein or use less sugar, but for some reason I haven’t been able to find a brand that does. At most they focus on making it analogous to milk when it comes to frothing for coffee…





Not to nitpick too hard, but it sounds more like they can distinguish between strangers and their owner, and that when exposed to audio of their owner talking, they can distinguish between two tones - those humans typically use with other humans and those humans typically use with animals and infants.

Interesting science. Thanks for sharing!


That enables companies like this to take advantage of troves of information to set prices while leaving individuals and families struggling to keep up.

Even if individuals had access to this information, it’s being set by a single source. If companies are unwilling to adjust prices to meet demand, and simply set it to what a single source says they should, what leverage do individuals truly have? How many of the individuals will have the time and energy to investigate the source? Once they investigate the source, what actions can they take?

One might make the argument that they can simply not purchase the service, but is this realistic for something like housing? Would you rather be homeless or pay more than you’re comfortable paying? When a company is gigantic enough to survive a significant period of time where they aren’t making profits or has enough holdings that they can float some empty units in order to make more profits int he long term, what levers can affect the way the company operates if they are secure in knowing that no one else will undercut their prices?

At the end of the day what’s lost on these free market fundamentalists is that supply and demand are concepts to describe a **free ** market. If the market is dominated by a single interest, it is by definition not a free market. As you rightly mentioned, most of the time nowadays, larger interests tend to be on the seller/supply side and they have an imbalanced power dynamic with consumers/demand side. This imbalance leads to a market not being a free market, and fundamentalists tend to ignore a nuanced take on power.


I mean, entirely unsurprising, but I’m glad I wasn’t the only one with this thought when that story broke.



It’s not just libertarians, it’s extremists in any direction, really. Rules are about a sense of stability and safety in a community. This leads to two kinds of ideologies, both of which are often at play on some level.

The first ideology and in my opinion the most important one is an ideology which sets rules designed to protect the members of the community based on ideas which are shared across the entire community (or close enough to the entire community). Ideas like “don’t kill people for no reason” are pretty universally human, protect human communities pretty well, and in general are not controversial. Other ideas such as protections for minority groups within a community may garner a bit more controversy from some, depending on how ostracized the minority groups are and how they contribute (or damage) the community. On the internet this manifests with rules which are pretty universally accepted such as no posting of child pornography

The second ideology is one of setting rules via populism or trending towards the average opinion. There are both good and bad rules which sit in this category and a lot of it depends on how the rule is framed or what it is intending to do. Rules which enforce social norms, such as “girls must wear dresses”, tend to do a lot more harm than rules which might aim to protect well-accepted ideas which face some controversy but are not quite at the level of universal acceptance such as “gays and interracial couples can marry”. These kind of rules on the internet typically resemble “free speech is protected” on the permissive end and “transphobia is not allowed” on the protective end.

However, as you mentioned, rules are not just what is explicitly written and codified. Rules are also reflective of how the community treats people. You don’t need to have a law which says “no black people” in a rural community in America with deep-seated racist issues - this kind of behavior is simply reinforced by the peers in a community when they condone or condemn behavior they witness, by the conversations they have, and how they act around people from within and outside the community who push back against these unwritten rules. The core principle of Beehaw is formed around providing a framework which is designed to support the latter, with a focus on curating a community which represents a particular set of ideals designed to be protective and supportive, as it’s a kind of community we haven’t seen often online and a community which we wished to participate in.



Housing first has repeatedly been shown to be the most important factor. Turns out knowing you have somewhere to sleep which is a shelter, where you don’t have to worry about everything you have to worry about sleeping on the street is a huge contributor to someone’s ability to devote time and energy to just about anything else in life.


I remember when congress “investigated” big oil for making record profits during the last recession

big whole lot of nothing came of that, I remember thinking ‘well that can’t be good for the rest of capitalism’… and here we are. Cat’s out of the bag, government doesn’t want to do anything about it.


Absolutely absurd that something like this can exist and it’s not considered price fixing



To be clear I wasn’t suggesting it should happen without a transparent log (and a very visible one, not one that’s hidden in the modlog) that it happened, such as by having the original title in small text and the moderator who changed the title attached to the new title. This was mostly a use-case to keep things clear and understandable. As it is someone could post a lot of relevant links and just title them all “Article” for example or “Read this” and it wouldn’t be particularly useful and just leads to a lot of moderator cleanup.


Re-title a post?
Is there a way to change the title of a post someone else created on a community you moderate? If not, can we please add this functionality
fedilink





Beehaw is a community
From the early stages of conceptualization of what we wanted to do differently, up through the feedback we've been getting as Beehaw has been growing, there's been a consistent narrative and push back from certain individuals about how we've decided to run things here. To be clear, these are the individuals whom are either on the fence, those who are not enthusiastic about our mission and voice it elsewhere, and to a lesser extent comprise of some of the individuals we have since banned from our platform. The narrative typically takes the side of 'open/free speech' is tantamount and that any suppression of said speech is unwelcome (typically said in a much more hostile way). As I've experienced this push back, I've slowly gathered my thoughts and realized what I believe is a fundamental disconnect between those who have earnestly and openly adopted our platform and those who fight against it. Beehaw is a community. Communities are organic. As a community grows and shrinks, everything about the community fundamentally changes. Most online social spaces don't operate as communities on the same level that communities do offline. When communities are run in a way that the members of the community do not like, the community often splinters, or leaders are ousted. Websites tend to have much stronger incentives to stay on a platform and leaders (platforms) are much more resistant to this kind of natural control by the members of the platform (you can't exactly overthrow Facebook). However, communities still need to have some kind of rules, and because the size of a community is much more amorphous online (in general also much larger), the default state we're used to online is one of semi-authoritarianism with explicit rules. If you've ever spent some time deeply involved in an offline community, especially if you've done so as an organizer or otherwise involved in the management or running of a community, you're probably at least somewhat aware of the kinds of discussions that communities regularly need, in order to keep them running. Communities are not perfectly homogeneous, and many communities value diversity. However, get enough humans together and there will always be disconnects of values, boundaries, wants, and needs. Navigating these disconnects can be as simple as ensuring that two people don't sit near each other at an event or as difficult as engaging the majority of the community in a discussion about what kinds of behavior are acceptable and what aren't. Discussions happen at all kinds of different levels and involve different groups of people to reflect where the disconnect happened and involve the parties necessary to resolve the disconnect as well as to manage the emotions, needs, wants, values, or boundaries of people who were hurt when this disconnect happened. If you're not familiar with running communities, you're probably at least aware of this from simply living with other humans. It's rare that two people both desire everything the same- disconnects over how clean a house should be, where to place objects such as kitchen utensils, how to interact with or ask for permission to use objects owned by another person or that are for shared use, and other such disconnects are commonly discussed when cohabitating with another human. These discussions can be as simple as asking your housemate to clean their dishes within a day of using them to allow for the space you like in a kitchen when cooking or may be as complicated as months or years of discussions, debates, or fights and can cause a serious strain on the relationships between the involved parties. Many children are often ecstatic to move away from their parents because they've been strained by these kinds of disconnects and the often inadequate resolution of conflict. While there are some limitations with regards to governance and some design considerations on the kind of community we would like to grow here, ultimately Beehaw is a community and at the core of that community is the desire for a stronger community experience. One thing that offline communities do a much better job at, is navigating these discussions. Online communities often operate at a scale which being cold is the only feasible way to operate a platform, and thus explicit rules enhance the ability to scale moderation and enforce behavior. Unfortunately, this kind of framework results in pushing out minority individuals, reinforcing an echo chamber and in some cases promoting some very not nice behavior. Our goal is to create a platform in which nice people will want to stick around so that the experience is less toxic than other websites and because of such it needs to resemble an offline community - the rules must be more open to interpretation and the way the rules are interpreted needs to be a community effort. Which brings me to the reason I'm writing this post in the first place - many free speech advocates and others who've pushed against the lax rules have offered suggestions of making the rules more explicit, of weakening the need for community discussions. Many individuals who've participated on this website and received bans have explicitly resisted having a discussion about whether their behavior was acceptable or not. These are both incompatible with the vision of this website. We want this to be a community - this means that discussions about behavior should organically arise. When someone violates a rule they aren't banned immediately, but rather reminded that they need to behave appropriately. In the offline world, this might resemble a friend asking you about how you treated their friend, a pastor pulling you aside and talking to you about how you've seemed on edge lately, or security asking you not to vape inside their establishment. What this resembles depends on the severity of the behavior, who's around to witness the behavior, how others react to and respond to said behavior, and a variety of other factors. The more severe the behavior, the more severe the reaction. Extreme measures are reserved for the most heinous of actions and the analogous behavior online (preemptive banning from our platform, de-federation, etc.) is treated with the hesitancy and respect it deserves. Someone being banned from an establishment they've never attended doesn't happen out of the ether - it happens because people in the community express this wish and it involves a serious enough crime for it to be justified (such as a history of domestic abuse, sexual assault, or other heinous acts). If you're worried about how our rules are explicitly open to interpretation, that's on purpose and I hope the text above helps to clarify the vision that I have (and others of the community share) around how I'd like to see this community evolve and what we'd like to think we're doing differently on this website. I'm not banning people for no reason or simply because they don't agree with me. I want people to disagree with me. I want diverse opinions in here. But I also **need** this place to be nice and members of the community need to be willing to hold each other accountable in creating that kind of space. Of note, I've never banned a single person without openly discussing what happened with other individuals who participate in this community and asking for their input. I can't promise this will always be the case, but I can promise that I'll be open to having a discussion with any community member who feels that something unjust happened with another user or to themselves.
fedilink