There are things that bother me, also. Misuse of the apostrophe is one of current ones; it the apostrophe seems to be disappearing from the vernacular. I think that people get confused about it and so leave it out. — Ludwig V

They are attempting to remove the apostrophes from street names in England, which is upsetting to some: https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/2014/01/22/grammar-is-off-the-mark-for-apostrophes-on-shropshire-road-signs/

In the US, I don't know that I've seen the apostrophe in street names, like if it were Baker's Street, I would expect it to be Bakers Street. I'm not as concerned about that sort of thing because it's an arbitrary street name and they can name it whatever they want.

are they logic, or do we just memorise them because they have been part of our vocabulary for centuries? — javi2541997

Both. Those languages with more irregularities pose more serious problems for non-native adults than anything else, but that might be an evolutionary stranger danger attribute. Knowing who isn't from your tribe can matter, especially historically.

But I speculate.

My mind is twisted in this point... so the correct form is: I have come home and not "I have came home" — javi2541997

"I have come home" is correct. If someone said, "I had came home, " I'd think either they are non-native, not as formally educated, or millennial.

He had seen (not saw). He had done (not did). He had gone (not went). He had run (not ran). Perfect tense takes the past participle.

Regular verbs are predictable, while irregular are chaotic for a child or learner. — javi2541997

I'd just point out that irregular verbs are difficult for adult, non-native speakers, but not for children. They may make errors at first, but it's generally not difficult to distinguish a non-native speaker who learned as an adult versus a non-native speaker who learned as a child.

In terms of what makes languages hard to learn, it's not just having to learn exceptions to general rules, but all sorts of things go into language difficulty: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/learning-the-lingo-the-5_b_997685

When some modern words came into common parlance, such as fax, no one had its past tense form, but obviously everyone adopted the regular form: "faxed". It's less chaotic. — javi2541997

But we have computer mouses because of the general rule that we accept the more modern forms over the older forms when we create new words, but maybe it would make more sense to say I have computer mice if I have two mouses.

I do see why you'd say the Childs are coming for dinner as opposed to the Children are coming for dinner if Mr. and Mrs. Child were coming over. I always liked that joke.

One thing you see in languages spoken by people from many different backgrounds is a reduction in word designators because they are largely unneeded. For example, in modern English (unlike older forms), we say I walk, he walks, they walk, we walk, you walk. Note that the word only changes form once, but then compare the various ways you'd have to say that in your native tongue.

One thing that grates on my ears is the common misuse of the past participles in the past perfect, as in, "I have come home" versus the incorrect "I have came home." I used to hear that only among the uneducated, but it's everywhere now. A point could be made that these identifiers are irrelevant.

At the first glance irregular verbs would seem to have no reason to live. Why should language have forms that are just cussed exceptions to a rule? What do you think? — javi2541997

Some of the verb endings are irregular because they originated in other langauges and then were brought into English.

There are languges with no regular verbs and there are languages that have far more designators than English.

Well, when we explore space, we don't see any Boltzmann brains, which suggests the density is very low (or we occupy a special place). — RogueAI

But your OP postulated there were an infinite number of things, but here you reference our world which doesn't have an infinite number of things, so this empirical evaluation doesn't help us.

The rebuttal:

NPR isn't what it used to be — BC

It's really not. I've been disappointed in what they believe is newsworthy and in the great efforts they make to show their alignment with various causes. I also don't think their reporting is always in good faith. As an example, my son went to college in the inner city and the area was gentrifying, with his low income apartment on the chopping block. NPR came out and interviewed him assuming he was a local resident and not a suburban student transplant. He explained that he felt that if low income housing were mandated, the cost burden would shift to him to make it sustainable, and that he would expect to pay more for where he would eventually live. You may disagree with his analysis, but the way they hacked his quote up, you'd have thought he was Bernie Sanders, sorely upset with the capitalistic system and mistreatment of the poor.

In any event, I take the position that objectivity is an impossible standard, and not even one worth pretending to advance. We all have some perspective and point of view and those biases are inevitable. I think the better practice is to try and be balanced, which means offering competing perspectives without favor toward one or the other. That is a difficult task given the consumer driven market, meaning one shops for news at the place where they expect to get the news they want.

The solution then for those who are looking for balance would realistically be to look at various news outlets, meaning if you want a real perspective, first go to Fox, then make your way over to CNN. That approach might be a good one, but the likely result is that you'll settle on the one where your preference lies. There's no reason to keep trying the competitor's burgers once you've figured out what you like.

Nietzsche was right in calling democracy a slave morality. — Merkwurdichliebe

The criticism of democracy in light of the Trump example is not that democracy is a slave morality but it's that it allowed its leader to abide by a master morality and be above the law.

That is, N opposed democracy not because he thought the general public too stupid to select competent representation, but because he thought it crushed the uberman's quest for dominance by imposing the rules of the slaves upon the masters.

Trump might be seen by N as an uberman, so much a master that he was able to live by a master morality despite specific democratic structures that were designed to make sure he was not treated as above the common man.

am pretty sure that vaping is accounted for in smoking statistics which are derived both from sales records and from health surveys. — BC

Not sure that's correct: https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/27/health/cigarette-smoking-decline/index.html#:~:text=The%20percentage%20of%20adults%20who,are%20becoming%20even%20more%20popular.

The question of "what would happen if women became fully equal to men" isn't answered as your OP proposes. It is actually opposite as you predicted:

"The answer: the more egalitarian and wealthier the country, the larger the differences between men and women in temperament and in interest. And the relationship is not small. The most recent study, published in Science (by researchers at Berkeley, hardly a hotbed of conservatism and patriarchy) showed a relationship between a wealth/egalitarian composite measure and sex differences that was larger than that reported in 99% of published social science studies. These are not small-scale studies. Tens of thousands of people have participated in them. And many different groups of scientists have come to the same conclusions, and published those results in very good journals.

Given that differences in temperament and interest help determine occupational choice, and that differences in occupational choice drives variability in such things as income, this indicates that political doctrines that promote equality of opportunity also drive inequality of outcome."

This is to say, in Scandinavian countries where women have the most equality and can choose to do however they want, they choose female stereotyped occupations, leaving a reasonable explanation that when you eliminate social pressures and create freer choice, the biological pressures become more evident and revealed. That is, genetics heavily drive feminine and masculine behaviors, so your OP assumed outcome would not occur.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jordan-peterson-the-gender-scandal-in-scandinavia-and-canada

Another way to play is to ask what could logically follow as next in the series. As people respond, you tell them if they are correct or not. The ones left guessing get additional hints from the prior correct and incorrect guesses until finally they get it or they beg someone to tell them the answer.

So the idea is: we, corporate America, will present you dumbass consumers with the options we’ve decided and a couple buttons to push. That’s freedom and democracy. At least it’s not that great evil, communism. — Mikie

Drugs have traditionally been through the black market, which isn't part of corporate America. I've heard that many still prefer to buy marijuana the old fashioned way and not at dispensaries.

The point being that addictive substances find their way into the most restrictive of systems, even in prisons. It hasn't been into recently that a legalization movement has been afoot.

I guess you can say that street dealing is the most basic form of capitalism, but I would think that sort of trade would exist even in Marxist system (assuming it is non-totalitarian).

But the thing is, smoking is much less common now than it was 30 or 40 years ago. — BC

I wonder if that has just been offset by vaping and now marijuana. That is, more alternatives.

Yes— isn’t it great that racism is behind us? — Mikie

The Court did not hold there is no more racism. It said race could not be considered a reason to permit or deny admission into college under the Constitution. Unless you can show their reasoning is flawed from an interpretive perspective, you're just arguing you're unhappy with the result.

think the point is we choose our taboos (at some level) and we can examine their individual merits. unenlightened's point about sexualization and nudity is at the very least worth thinking about. — Baden

I wasn't dismissive of it. I was trying to arrive at a reason why the nudity taboo ought be reconsidered. The basis provided by me was not that nudity necessarily leads to arousal, but that it's a social norm related to modesty. My suspicion is that it's possible to desensitize ourselves from arousal when watching others have sex as well. My question is why we ought abandon a social norm because it makes things less workable for 0.5% of the population.

Do I have the right not to shower alongside a fully physically appearing female who identifies as male? I think I do, else somewhere we've assessed his right to avoid the discomfort of showering in the women's shower higher priority than mine.

Telling me to get over it and deal with the naked person of whatever stripe is next to me sounds as reasonable as me telling him to get over it and shower somewhere else.

other words, there seems to be a hierarchy of accountability in societies based on factors such as wealth, class, culture, etc. that feeds into larger issues surrounding how agency is treated. — schopenhauer1

There is one legal standard throughout a jurisdiction, meaning the same leash laws apply to the poor and the rich. That's why lady liberty wears a blindfold.

Obviously law enforcement occurs differently throughout the city. There is both the feeling that law enforcement under-enforces in the poor areas as to certain crimes and that it over-enforces as to others.

I suspect the disparities result from practical considerations, class issues, race, and politics.

In some neighborhoods they get mad when the trashcans stay out on the street too long. Others are trying to keep the needles out of the alleys.

And of course the evidence of the Naturist movement is that it is perfectly possible to dispense with the taboo on nudity without dispensing with the taboo on public sex. — unenlightened

What is wrong with the taboo against public nudity? Why must it hinge upon proof that it violates the taboo against public sex is my question?

That is, I'm just saying the rule of modesty justifies the rule against mixed nudity as it justifies the rule against public sex. Why make some taboos taboo? Can't it just be that I find showering beside children not my own uncomfortable enough that I'd rather maintain that rule? It's not like fear of arousal is what makes me not want to see most of my neighbors having sex.

Oh yes, it signifies that we have to change all our taboos if we even question one of them, and I am advocating that. — unenlightened

Mine is a reductio argument, not a strawman, asking why change one and not the other unless you can show how in principle they're not the same.

Being autistic, it is definitely the case that I can be poor at anticipating what other people will and won't understand, at least until I've gotten to know the person somewhat. — wonderer1

All you say may be true, that you fully comprehend without having an easy way of showing that to others by reducing your thoughts to conveyable language, but would not that still make you a complicator under your use of the term?

I think you did provide important counters by pointing out the way those who are neuro-atypical process and communicate, but I imagined a complicator or simplifier to be someone who offers information to others for clarification purposes, but if you're imagining those terms to describe a person in terms of what goes on internally for their self-clarification, then that would be a difference in how I considered the terms you presented.

To the extent that one can internally be a simplifier and be unable to show it due to an atypical neurological process, that would draw a distinction in the way we might have been defining your vaguely defined terms. That is, I instinctively thought of a simplifier as that professor who could simplify concepts for me, not as someone who might have the thoughts clear in her head but unable to articulate it to me. But yes, I'll concede there are those who do understand but cannot articulate it well, but I'd call those complicators, not because they're confused, but because they leave me confused.

Maybe that makes me a complicator to you under my definition of the term.

Yes, but why respond to a post when snark is easier?

Let me restate it:

You've identified that public nakedness is taboo and argued it is without justification. I've indicated a justification beyond it being a community standard isn't required and that any change to it should come organically, as opposed to decree, especially one motivated by a select few being inconvenienced by the standard.

Beyond that, I pointed to another taboo, which is that we don't have sex openly in public, despite that taboo resting on the same rules that prohibit public nudity, which are generally considered the modesty rules.

That is, we needn't place all these taboos on the agenda to consider them for change and dramatically restructure our social norms just because we now face challenges from a very small minority as to what a man or woman is.

Great cite by the way. I'll just reference google.com as my source. Sort of like citing anthropology.

Fer fuck's sake! Has no one on this site read any sociology or anthropology? — unenlightened

Only for the points that support my biases. But point me to your articles.

I take as an indicator of comprehension, the ability to simplify and explain. In fact, the way you teach children to better comprehend (yes, it's a teachable trait) is to have them read a passage from a book, to have them summarize it, to ask them to relate it to the real world, and there are other techniques. But simplification demands examples, comparisons, and relation to experience.

For example, "Jack and Jill went up a hill to catch a pail of water. "

A complicator would say two people went to get water. That's not simplified. It's abstracted to summarize. We no longer are dealing with actual people, but concepts of people and we have no setting, but it's occurring anywhere.

To simplify, it must be a story because stories are what happens in real life.

So, if the child is doing poorly with comprehension, ask him how Jack and Jill are related (brother/sister, husband/wide, neighbors?), why are they getting water from beyond a hill (don't they have a sink?, where are they? What year is this happening), why do they say "fetch"? (is this somewhere far away?).

I'd argue a simplifier fills in these blanks. The person who can't provide these answers obviously did not experience this event and fully understand it. The complicator keeps it abstract without the ability to fully explain it, either because he's just poor at anticipating what his audience doesn't understand, or more commonly, he doesn't fully understand what he's talking about

That is true also, but irrelevant to the effect of the taboo. On the contrary, the effect of a norm of nakedness would be to make overcrowding unacceptable for just those reasons you suggest, unless close contact was also desexualised as occurs to a great extent in 'touchy-feely' communities. — unenlightened

I don't know the hangup people have in limiting their sexual activity to private places. If a boyfriend and girlfriend wish to shower in the gym and time constraints demand they relieve themselves sexually in the instant, why should us prudes interfere? We all need to nut from time to time. It's a natural function, so let's just grow up and let them have at it.

"Taboo" I'd submit is the dysphemism for "community standard."

What I suggest is that even if we can offer no immediate acceptable reason for why we impose such rules on expected civil interaction, and even if our most progressive thinkers believe they can prognosticate our eventual state with all these antiquated vestiges of our sexually repressed history finally being purged, i still object to the process being hastened due to the concerns of a micro-minority, but insist the change occur organically with acceptance occurring at whatever rate it might.

That is, one day we might all fuck like rabbits in a field and it'll be like shaking hands, but it's going to take some time for that change to happen, and I'm not going to hurry up that change because it is affecting someone's special sensitivities right now.

Some of the materialists here get all huffy when you ask them if insects are conscious. Well, — RogueAI

Makes me mad as a hornet.

The studies show a low rate of transitioning regret at less than 1%.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8099405/


On the other hand, there's no good evidence transitioning reduces suicide or suicidal thoughts.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10027312/

Which means that this genetics is, in fact, a pop-biology that's not looking at the wide range of expressions which are possible. — Moliere

It's not pop biology any more than it's pop sociology to favor nature or nurture as primary. I realize the impossibility of proving the cause of behavior down to the last detail, but there have been separated twin studies to show the impact genes play. https://www.livescience.com/47288-twin-study-importance-of-genetics.html

A male's Y chromosome results in increased levels of testosterone, which dramatically impacts behavior. https://www.healthline.com/health/low-testosterone/effects-on-body#Central-Nervous-System

This is just to say the obvious, which is that your physical constitution plays a major role in who you are. Being dismissive of the role of genetics on behavior is required under certain political narratives, especially those that want to attribute all successes and failures to a rigged system.

I think the opposite is just as absurd (and clearly more evil), which is to state most successes are attributable to genetics, thus leading to this idea that some groups are superior to others.

My view is simply that genes and environment matter, but still leaving independent decision making to the person. But if you look and see that close to 100% of certain trades are men, it's doubtful that's 100% environment or 100% choice.

Not to the question of patriarchy, but to the larger question of whether it is subjectively better to be male or female, females report higher happiness levels than men: https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2003/10/29/global-gender-gaps/

So while maybe men have certain competitive advantages in society, they don't serve to promote happiness.

Similarly in debate, when the process is denigrated in an effort to win, we lose a sense of what we're doing and why. But trying to ''win'' all the time is a very hard habit to shake. — Baden

You're not eliminating competition, you're just reducing the risk of loss so that the limited reward of winning is worth entry into the contest.

The risk of loss is the stress associated with criticism or being told you rank beneath your peers. The reward of winning is a pat on the back. To get more entrants, you either need to reduce the risk of loss (e.g. don't have an objective rating system or don't permit harsh criticism) or increase the rewards of winning (e.g. give the winner $1,000).

Since we have limited resources to increase rewards, we opt to limit risk. That is, you just rewrote the rules to your competition. You didn't eliminate it.

As to stress tolerance, a critical attribute of any competitor (arguably as critical as intelligence and conscientious), if that is more a male trait, you are correct that its reduction would benefit women. That thesis would rest on the idea that women seek stability more than men, perhaps owing to their nurturing instincts, but that's an idea based on stereotype, but maybe supportable empirically. I don't know. I've certainly known many stress tolerant women.

Part of that discomfort might be a holdover from the days of that boyish fear. — Metaphysician Undercover

It's hyperpeckererecterphobia. It's a youthful affliction. It's followed later in life by hypopeckererecterphobia, it's evil opposite.

Tender loving care is the cure for either though.

Speaking of male/female differences, any chance a female would ever be having this conversation?

He saw the title of the book "Real men don't eat quiche", and murmured quietly "Real men eat whatever they fuckin' want. — Banno

I agree with this, and tip my hat to any badass man who bellies up to the biker bar in his fishnets and stilettos.

Are not the "masculine" attributes of e. g. aggressiveness and competition generally privileged in contemporary societies? Isn't social success primarily presented as being about dominance / status / material gain rather than e. g. caring / protectiveness / cooperation etc? — Baden

Are the maternal characteristics you identify the result of genetics or societal influences. It must be genetics for this to work else the system would not have resulted in this clear distinction because our XXs would be just as likely to have these paternalistic behaviors to this day. This acknowledgement seems to defeat the argument that we should not assign gender distinctions on the basis of sex. From this, the conclusion we'd draw is that the common correlation we typically see between gender and sex is likely actually causative in most people.

I have no difficulty acknowledging we live in a patriarchal society as you've described it. If our society allows men certain advantages and you insist these advantages arise from manly traits, then we're forced to that conclusion, but this is a pretty black and white binary system you've described, with women in need of help by men due to their inability or lack of desire to compete. How did we circle all the back around to women being X and men being Y, and since Y leads to greater acquisition of shit, we need to carve out a special room for X?
That sounds fucked up even to me.

Anyway, enough trying to sort through the inconsistencies and I'll just state the obvious. Women and men both compete equally in the vast number of fields in contemporary society, but for likely genetic reasons women tend toward some professions and men others, but if a man wants to work in a nursery school and a woman wants to operate a back hoe, they both can. Mostly they just don't want to.

The great equalizer is an education because outside of brute strength and perhaps some limited distinctions in intellectual interests and in certain fields, there are more than sufficient opportunities for both sexes to fully and equally enjoy their lives on this planet earth.

This isn't to say you don't have a bunch of chauvinistic men who use their increased presence in the workforce to deny women their right to compete, so we make laws to stop that. And men pass these laws too because fairness is a value both men and women prefer. No one likes an asshole.

So let's get off the idea that men and women are just the same but for a few anatomical differences, and that it makes sense to respect some amount of gender behavior is in fact caused by basic genetics, and let's all stand behind the idea that you can't subjugate anyone, especially if it means putting your boot on a woman's neck because she'll outperform you if you don't.

It's the same concept as the victors get to write history. The stats you highlight are the result of historical male dominance and they are not a result of what women wanted or were capable of doing. — universeness

I know. So many women wish to plumb but are held back by the bullies who force them into other professions.

It's impossible to find data unsupportive of your narrative. Such is how Gospel works.

Oh the casual misogyny of celebrating the little homemakers who "are really in charge" because they tend your heirs just as your wonderful mum tended you. Pass the sick bag. — apokrisis

It's possible if you try not to read everything through your limited lens that you are the protector of women and all other things small from the men monsters of old who hate everyone not themselves, even their moms who supposedly were like June Cleaver and not far more complicated as such things tend to really be.

I responded empirically to the question of what men are. The data are remarkable really. There are a whole host of occupations that are nearly 100% male, particularly in the trades. These jobs are not particularly well paying, prestigious, or glamorous. In fact, they're backbreaking and necessary, literally assuring such things as your light bulb turning on when the switch is flipped.

Why do men take these jobs and women not? Does the patriarchy elbow out the women and save the glory for the man to solder the pipe and pull the cable? I don't think so. I think it's because women don't want those jobs.

Why do men take them? I suppose it says something about men, which I took to be the question of the OP, but then you interjected to help the women cross the street because they needed a man to help them from my maybe bad words.

Worry not. I'm only looking at what men do to answer the question of what men are.

Not worth posting the vid here but the ambience seems similar to me. And again, not a criticism, but your piece struck me as a kind of ''advertisement'' for manhood. Which is appropriate as a 'real man' seems a thing of marketing--maybe that's the essence of it. — Baden

I didn't take it as a criticism.

You missed the last line. It wasn't written for you. It was written for @T Clark

You'd have to spell that out before i could assent to it. I don't know what you mean by hetero-erotic fear.

I am familiar with people being called faggot and beaten up as if gays are a huge threat. Does this happen to straights where you live? I haven't seen any signs of fear of being or being thought to heterosexual. — unenlightened

No, not at all what I was getting at.

You said you thought maybe closeted homosexuals didn't want transsexuals in the locker room because it would be too erotic for them to bear.

I wasn't disagreeing with that necessarily, but I was just remarking that part of the reason they don't let women squeeze into the men's showers along side men isn't just because the women might fear assualt, but it might also be that the heterosexuals would find that too arousing.

I don't know if I'd find it arousing to shower next to an attractive woman who I was not otherwise involved with. It would be very uncomfortable though. Like very. Especially if it was like a neighbor or something, or like the neighbor's 19 year old daughter. In fact, I feel like I need to go wash my hands after typing this.

I'll need a link.

My feeling is that it is a species of homo-erotic fear. If — unenlightened

Isn't the basis for having separate gym lockers right now in part hetero-erotic fear?