ObjectivityIncarnate

clicking on a weird video and you permanently scar your algorithm.

It’s trivial to delete individual videos from your watch history, even moreso if you just saw it. Doing so makes it as if you never clicked on it in the first place.

If you truly believe that it is naive or ignorant to have a problem with any individual hoarding

Well, here’s an example of the ignorance I was referring to: no billionaire is “hoarding” anything. Their net worth comes from the value of their investments, investments into businesses that function within the economy. And investing into a business, and in turn owning a piece of it, is absolutely not “hoarding” that piece. To define it that way would be to define that owning anything equals “hoarding” it.

Ownership and hoarding are not the same thing. The fact that I have something you don’t doesn’t mean I’m “hoarding” it. That is a ridiculous notion.

so much wealth that they could solve just about any problem where money is the limitation

You have zero perspective on just how costly those problems are, nor the fact that there is almost no major problem that an injection of funds can fix all by itself.

The US government spends more each and every year than the net worth of every US billionaire combined. Over $1 trillion (which is ONE THOUSAND TIMES the amount of wealth that ‘qualifies’ someone as a billionaire) was spent last year on welfare programs alone.

It’s just not as much as you think it is, in the grand scheme of things.

I don’t think we can have a meaningful conversation.

Until you become more familiar with the facts of the matter, I definitely agree.

Billionaires should not exist.

You’re going to have to come to grips with the fact that there is always going to be someone with the most wealth. And in an economy that is constantly creating new wealth, the peak will also be constantly growing.

This is an incredibly naive and ignorant sentiment.

Total net worth of top 10 richest is ~$1.6 trillion: https://ceoworld.biz/2024/03/15/richest-people-in-the-united-states-2024/

That makes a net worth increase of $64 billion an increase of ~4%…which is the same amount the S&P 500 is up over the past few days.

“Stock market surges following Trump’s victory and billionares’ stocks go up the same amount as everyone else’s” just doesn’t make as good a headline, huh?

This is a big pile of nothing, nice job taking the clickbait and spreading it. The outrage farmers thank you.

those who block ads are more likely to say “fuck product X I’ll never buy it because of this ad” if forced to see an ad.

This demographic is much, much smaller than you probably assume it is–I mean ‘statistically insignificant’ small.

That’s the majority of them, but ragebait articles aren’t written about them, so you have no idea who they are.

Don’t be so easily manipulated by media.

As opposed to everyone else who actively seeks to make trades that are detrimental to them?

“Service” and “for profit” are not antonyms, nor mutually exclusive.

American Pie 2 passes that test, for anyone who thinks passing it actually means anything, lol.

https://bechdeltest.com/view/5560/american_pie_2/

Exactly, if renting wasn’t a thing, that means everyone unable or unwilling to buy a whole house has no other choice but to live on the street.

The middle ground should be there. It, in and of itself, is not a bad thing, quite the opposite.

we can’t know how many also choose to escalate because of these outlets.

But we do know that in general, porn doesn’t elicit that kind of escalation into real life. If this particular category of porn did cause that, it’d literally be a total outlier.

Same with other media, too. Rape porn lovers aren’t statistically more likely to rape irl, violent video game lovers aren’t more likely to be violent irl, etc., compared to the general population.

So I think it’s pretty fair to hypothesize that, if anything, it would reduce the incidence of real-world offense. Just look at the massive negative correlation between the proliferation of porn (thanks to the Internet), and the overall incidence of rape.

Also, I’m familiar with one bit of evidence out of Japan that apparently showed that child molesters consume less porn than the average citizen, which I was definitely surprised to learn, but once you think about it in the context of the stuff I mentioned above, it actually makes perfect sense.

In all likelihood, fictional ‘simulations’ like LLMs will directly reduce the incidence of CSA, if anything. If that’s the case, I can’t oppose such things in good conscience–it’d be pretty narcissistic to put my personal disgust over even a single kid not getting bad touched.

Hell, I don’t even want to ban users guilty of piracy.

Yeah, if someone shoplifts from a store, the punishment/penalty should not involve confiscating the car they drove to the store, lol.

500 people surveyed? 29% variance? This is click bait for the real narcissist: the author.

Firstly, the study starts off with the researcher complaining about noise pollution around the university area. They then proceed to only study young adults in the university area. 529 business students to be exact.

The sample, 529 students, isn’t a bad size for a pilot study, but isn’t large enough to draw worthwhile conclusions. There is an adequate gender distribution to support their claims, but the age distribution is exclusively focused around younger populations. As the average age is 18 among a university population, there is likely very little age distribution. The study is only focusing on a very specific age population and results cannot be extended to other age groups.

Second, the choice of questions asked to the participants is just horrendously biased. The researcher specifically asks about participants own cars. Given that this is a university sample, there are likely many students who do not have a car. Those students without a car would have inherently scored lower, thus biasing the results.

Overall, the researcher did a poor job with their sampling distribution as well as their choice in questioning. The results cannot be extended to more general audiences and are applicable to first and second year university students at the Ontario Western University.

Don’t mention that among the three primary ‘sex pairings’ of romantic relationships (m/f, m/m, f/f), the one with the highest incidence of domestic violence is f/f, or their head might just explode, lol…

This problem will never get solved until men take ownership over it

Why exactly, should having a chromosome in common with a violent criminal make preventing their crime more that person’s responsibility than anyone else’s?

The crimes of men are not ‘owned’ by men. The crimes of women are not ‘owned’ by women. Crime is a societal ill that society collectively is responsible for preventing/catching/etc., to the best of its ability.

Don’t imagine you’d be good with a girl being physically abused by her mother reporting it to a male authority figure and being told ‘sorry, women gotta take ownership over this problem and solve it, it’s not men’s problem’, would you?

Think for a moment and realize how bigoted this line of thinking actually is.

If you’re alluding to the actual deaths of the victims being equally bad no matter their gender because they are all humans, then congratulations for passing the lowest threshold for human decency.

Yeah, and as low as that is, there are many in here who don’t pass it, so shame on them.

Wanting to end femicide doesn’t mean you value women more than men, it’s pointing to a specific issue. It also doesn’t mean that other issues doesn’t matter.

It’s the same sort of thing as when there was that big statement made some years back about ‘stop targeting women journalists’, alongside a statistic that 11% of the journalists who were killed over the prior year were women. In other words, ‘89% of killed journalists are men, so stop killing women’. At best, a statement like that comes off as foolishly ignorant–at worst, it comes off as callous and indifferent to male victims.

Is this article about a newborn being killed?

Is the concept of an analogy really so far beyond you? Do you not understand my simple point that it would be completely unfair to point the finger at the entirety of the female sex and say “hey you, stop killing your babies”, based on a crime that a tiny percentage of them commit?

And that therefore one might consider that it’s equally unfair to point the finger at the male sex, based on a crime that a tiny percentage of them commit?

This is not exactly cryptic, you know.

You’re the same clown that said [that it’s irrational to live life in fear of an event that has a 0.00147% of occurring]

I did say that. Stating simple facts is not exactly what clowns do, though, you seem a bit confused.

Fuck off, you hate women

No, I hate fear-mongering used to manipulate, in all cases. In this case, it’s feminist fear-mongering that tries to deceive women into thinking that murderous men are always all around them, waiting to strike the moment their guard is down.

Hate it just as much as sensationalized media that deceives the public into thinking the violent crime rate is much higher than it actually is. Just to give one sex-neutral example of the exact same phenomenon.

You could say I hate manipulation via deception in general.

and you’re trying desperately to gaslight them.

This is straight-up projection–you can’t gaslight someone with facts, lol.

If the sex of a murder victim changes, at all, how you perceive the crime, you’re sexist, period.

At least have the guts to admit it instead of pretending this is a noble stance.

There is a big difference in intent.

Literally irrelevant. The victim is no less murdered. What kind of ridiculous justification is this for devaluing male victims?

‘But the reason they were killed isn’t as bad (according to me)!’

Who in their right mind gives a shit? They’re still murdered! ‘I know your son was murdered, but don’t worry, the motive wasn’t one of the (in my opinion) really bad ones’. Seriously?

So to push this absurd ‘logic’ just a bit further, if the same number of women were murdered, but the motives were in alignment, incidence-wise, with murdered men, this would be an improvement, in your view, even though the same amount of killing has occurred. Because motive makes a murder more or less bad, apparently. Absolutely absurd.

‘Sure men are killed way way more often, but people who kill women are (I assume, hehe) more likely to do it for a way more worser reason’ is some of the dumbest, flailing, desperate attempts I have ever seen to minimize and erase male victimhood.

How many in that statistic are men being killed by women?

Thinking this is a question of any merit already exposes you. It does not matter, at all, what sex a murder victim’s murderer is, to the victim–they are equally dead.

The attempt to minimize male victimhood with this insane implication of ‘if the perpetrator is the same sex, it doesn’t count’ is actually pathetic. For shame.

Reminder that the vast, vast, vast majority of males have never and will never murder anyone, despite these disgusting sexist narratives.

Can someone explain where the notion of an exception proving the rule came from? This has never made the slightest bit of sense to me, lol.