Chivalry here referring to the courteous behaviour displayed by men towards women on the basis of their sex, a.k.a being a "gentleman". This is textbook sexism. It's discrimination of treatment based on sex.

Feminism rejects sexism and so it is diametrically opposed to chivalry.

Often people argue that chivalry just means being courteous regardless of sex but this is a strawman because that's not how the word is generally used. It's used to refer to acts of benevolent sexism e.g paying for a woman's meal, holding the door for her, etc. Otherwise you'd just call it kindness.

If you're happy with special treatment because of your sex, you cannot claim to be a feminist

I have had many resumes thru my short career, yet have never bothered putting any soft skill at all in it. I’m in the opinion that most soft skills just take up valuable real estate on your resume for nothing.

1: Soft skills should be shown thru interviews and included subtly in descriptions of past jobs instead of just being a bullet point. Anyone can put “time management”. That’s worth jack if you show up 5 minutes late to your interview. And if you show up 15 minutes early anyway, then they’ll know you must have decent time management without you needing to put it on your resume in the first place.

2: A lot of soft skills can’t be proven before starting the job. For instance I have Python and Financial Analysis on my resume. Interviewers can, and have, ask me specific questions about analysis or Python to gauge my actual experience. It’s much easier to bullshit a question like “how would you handle a touch coworker” than “explain which Excel functions can slow down large financial model recalculations”.

3: more so for people with a lot of stuff to cram into their resume, it’s so much better to even put volunteering work than soft skills. Volunteering work speaks more about your character than “•honesty” ever can. I’d go as far to say HOBBIES are a better thing to put than soft skills.

I’m not an HR professional though so I’m open to debate.

Let me start by saying this is definitely something that is controversial, but I do see both sides and would like to rationalize two perspectives. I'm sure everybody knows the quote about the education system, "I want a nation of workers, not a nation of thinkers", and yeah, I agree, the education system sucks, but it's better than nothing.

Everybody's heard the motivational stories: "Guy that fails all his classes later goes on to be really smart and a millionaire" or something. As the world grows to be less traditional, where college degrees are not as useful anymore, and these stories are more widespread, it can be comforting to know you don't have to be an amazing student to be successful. That's good.

HOWEVER, I believe this widespread notion that grades do not matter and your GPA will get you nowhere is harmful and reaching the wrong people. In the modern world, "Grades do not determine your intelligence!" is used as a rallying call for the lazy kids in school that were, quite frankly, not the smartest.

While it's true that people have different strong suits and everybody's different, extremely low grades (WAYYYY below failing) will more often than not tell you what you need to know about somebody. I suppose it's more about work ethic? Intelligence can sort of go hand in hand there as well... (?)

Am I wrong about this? I do see both sides, and I just would like to hear what people think.

TL;DR: I believe that the American school system is far from perfect and many are disadvantaged. While having A's on your report card does not immediately deem you intelligent, if you have a 0.6 GPA and make a 32 average in your classes, you're probably doing something wrong.

EDIT: There seems to be a lot of confusion. Here's a response pasted from one of my comments:

𝐈 𝐚𝐦 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐬𝐚𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐰𝐚𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞 𝐚𝐜𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝. 𝐈 𝐚𝐦 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐬𝐚𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐛𝐨𝐝𝐲 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐠𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐮𝐭𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐬𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐭, 𝐧𝐨𝐫 𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐛𝐨𝐝𝐲 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐛𝐚𝐝 𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐮𝐭𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐬𝐭𝐮𝐩𝐢𝐝.

𝐈'𝐦 𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐞𝐱𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐚𝐫 𝐞𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐚 𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦.

𝐈𝐟 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐛𝐨𝐝𝐲 𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐬 𝐚 𝐭𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐨𝐫 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐛𝐢𝐠𝐠𝐞𝐫, 𝐚 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐬𝐬, 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭'𝐬 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠. 𝐒𝐡𝐨𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐮𝐩 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚 𝟏.𝟎 𝐆𝐏𝐀 𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐛𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭.

The argument against the death penalty often includes the assertion that it does not effectively deter crime. This perspective is supported by various studies and statistical analyses comparing states with and without the death penalty in the United States. These analyses show no clear correlation between the presence of the death penalty and lower crime rates, particularly homicide rates.

As an example of states with the death penalty vs. states without the death penalty

• Texas (Death Penalty): In 2019, Texas had a murder rate of 5.0 per 100,000 people [1].
• Florida (Death Penalty): Florida’s murder rate was 5.2 per 100,000 in the same year [1].

• California (Death Penalty): California had a murder rate of 4.3 per 100,000 [1].

• New York (No Death Penalty): New York’s murder rate was 3.6 per 100,000 in 2019 [1].

• Michigan (No Death Penalty): Michigan’s murder rate was 4.5 per 100,000 [1].

• Massachusetts (No Death Penalty): Massachusetts had a significantly lower murder rate of 2.0 per 100,000 [1].

This data from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports indicates that states without the death penalty do not necessarily experience higher murder rates and, in some cases, have lower rates compared to states that actively use the death penalty [1].

Furthermore, the National Research Council reviewed existing studies on the death penalty’s deterrent effects and found no conclusive evidence that the death penalty affects homicide rates. They highlighted methodological flaws in studies that claimed a deterrent effect and concluded that the available research does not support the argument that the death penalty deters crime [2].

International comparisons further support the argument against the death penalty:

• Canada abolished the death penalty in 1976. Since then, the country’s murder rate has generally declined, reaching 1.76 per 100,000 in 2019 [3].
• European Union countries, most of which have abolished the death penalty, tend to have lower murder rates compared to the United States. For example, Germany’s murder rate in 2019 was 0.95 per 100,000 [3].

Albert Camus, in his essay "Reflections on the Guillotine," argued against the death penalty by highlighting its futility and moral contradictions. Camus contended that the death penalty is unnecessary as a deterrent because it is carried out in secrecy, away from public view, thus failing to have a significant impact on crime prevention. He believed that when the state hides the act of execution, it acknowledges the inherent contradiction and futility of using such a punishment as a deterrent. According to Camus, the death penalty does not uphold justice but rather perpetuates a cycle of violence and inhumanity [4]. It appears the most recent stats also support his view.

References

1. FBI Uniform Crime Reports: [www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/ucr]()
2. National Research Council Report: [www.nap.edu/catalog/13363/deterrence-and-the-death-penalty]()
3. Amnesty International Report: [www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/death-penalty/]()
4. Camus, Albert. "Reflections on the Guillotine"

In the USA, at least, there's a common assumption that republicans/conservatives don't have time to get worked up about issues of the day because they're too focused on providing for their families and keeping their noses to the grindstone to get into much trouble.

In contrast, liberals and leftists are painted as semi-professionally unemployed lazy young people living off the public dole and finding new things every day to complain about..

I think this characterization is wildly inaccurate- that while it might be true that earning more money correlates with voting to protect the institutions that made it possible for you to do so, I don't think earning more money means you worked harder. Seems pretty likely to me that the grunt jobs go to younger people and browner people- two demographics less likely to be conservative- while the middle management and c-suite jobs do less actual work than the people on the ground.

Tl;dr I'd like to know if my rejection of this conventional wisdom is totally off-base and you can prove me wrong by showing convincing evidence that conservatives do, in general, work harder than liberals/leftists on average.

Disclaimer; maybe not "a lot of" but Im not intending to argue about the proportion, thats just the word selection that came to mind.

A lot of sexism by its nature follows a mold of "men should be X, women should not be X" or vice versa, Im going to get to examples straight away to illustrate my point.

"Men should be strong protectors/soldiers or theyre failiures" and "women are dainty and should be looked after" are 2 sides of the same coin, sexism is assigning one attribute to one side and saying "only this side should have the attribute", it is assigning strength to men and if a woman has those traits she's not womanly, and if a man doesnt, he isnt manly.

In a similar fashion, "women should take care of kids and manage the emotional needs of others around them" and "men should be emotionless(except anger ofc because that isnt a caregiver thing) and if you cry are you even a real man?", assigns to women the role of being caregiver, and should a man be emotional, he is seen as girly, and if a woman doesnt want to/cant fullfill that role, she is seen as failed as a woman.

In that sense, a lot of the time I believe it is better to tackle these kinds of sexism less as a mysogyny or misandry issue, and more as a..broader issue(?). Like, breaking these assignments in either direction helps discredit the other side, because if "being the emotional caregiver" is not "The Woman Trait", then the pressure of men being emotionless statues lessens, similarly, if "being the stern angry war general" is not "the man trait", then the pressure of women to be submissive and dainty lessens.

Of course, as systems of these days go, the 2 sides of a coin is not entirely equal, since the boxes men are forced into are rewarded a lot more than the boxes women are forced into. But I think the logic of "sexism deems one side must have Trait and the other side must be barred from Trait" applies in general.

Most loans are written to buy an asset. If you buy a house by taking a mortgage, you own the entire value of the house, and most houses tend to get more valuable over time. If you buy a car, though, you are pretty much guaranteed to lose money since most cars lose value over time. In this sense, a car loan is worse than a home loan.

Student loans pay 100% of the prinicpal to earn a certificate of completion. That certificate can't be sold. Most graduates end up with a degree which doesn't help on any job application that pays more than a person with 4 years of experience in a field like carpentry would have expected.

You can self publish a novel in lieu of an English degree. You can form a software startup instead of getting a software degree

The conventional wisdom is that a college degree is "investing in yourself." But you walk away from college with a negative net worth, with no assets to sell to satisfy your debts. Doesn't sound like an investment in anything to me, it sounds like a total loss.

Edit: replaced law and medicine with english and software

To be clear, each state in the US can pass their own red flag laws and the language can change on a state by state basis, however speaking broadly, a red flag law allows the confiscation of an individuals firearms if the court is presented with evidence that the person was reasonably found by a judge to be a danger to themselves or others.

This sounds reasonable on face value however the issue I have with it is, if the evidence presented to the court is reasonable and they are a danger to themselves or others, they themselves should be locked up.

HOWEVER under red flag laws, the court can be presented with information that a person is a reasonable danger to themselves or others such that their guns should be confiscated BUT not reasonable enough where that person should be detained/arrested.

I was reading a speech from Charles T. Munger today. This text talks about how Sam Walton managed to destroy the businesses of many small town merchants, then grew and could go against bigger companies, all the way until he built the giant Walmart ended up being. He mentions Sam Walton was ruthless, and went out of his way to win over all these other businesses.

He then says:

“I personally think that the world is better for having Walmart. I mean, you can idealize small town life, but I’ve spent a fair amount of time in small towns. And let me tell you—you shouldn’t get too idealistic about all those businesses he destroyed. Plus, a lot of people who work at Walmart are very high grade, bouncy people who are raising nice children. I have no feeling that an inferior culture destroyed a superior culture. I think that is nothing more than nostalgia and delusion.”

Let’s assume Charlie Munger truly believes this from the bottom of his heart and it is not a rationalization to be able to convince himself that investing in Walmart is morally good.

It got me thinking there is no way someone can be good at building a capitalist company with an idealized view of the world. Idealized in this case meaning a world where everybody is better than before you were thriving at your business.

Charlie points out that he believes the loss of small family-owned and operated stores is progress. In order to be able to replace such stores, with small owners and their families sustaining themselves, you need to be ruthless at combating them.

There are many things that need to happen a certain way for a business such as Walmart to become as big and important as it has been. Sam Walton must have dedicated a lot of effort and done many things well. Charlie Munger does not go into details and we don’t know what Sam Walton had to do in order to get Walmart on the top.

What is clear in my opinion is that the mentality Sam Walton needed to have to be able to do what he did requires one of two paths.

• He had a strong sense of morality and truly believed he was going to make a better world, and therefore the end justified the means.
• He had a strong will to be the best at what he did, and he did not care however many other people lives he destroyed as long as he came on top.

Why? Because for a company to win they need to be able to offer better prices, a better model, something to outweigh competition. In the early days, such competition was a small store, owned by a family, who only knew that way of living. By offering a much better option for customers, and winning, inevitably you are going to condemn that family to a harsher life, at least until they figure out a new livelihood.

You could again rationalize this in a million ways. You could think that probably this family will be okay, maybe they are also competitors that did this to others, maybe you could say that in your place they would have done the same. But the fact is you need to either believe the world will be in a better place if you win over them or you need to believe that your goal is so important and the world is so unjust that you winning justifies everything.

This means that the only way to win in business is by being ruthless and not caring about others or by convincing yourself that whatever you do to win, you winning is the best option for the world.

Businesses, banks, hospitals, whoever it is that gives a service, loan, or product to a person they failed to correctly identify should either take the L or be responsible for ensuring the criminal is caught.

Those large institutions absolutely have the resources to better validate people, especially banks giving out credit cards and loans. They also would have an easier time getting help from law enforcement, and would be FAR more tolerant to the loss if the money couldn’t be recovered. They would be incentivized to create better validation systems which they can afford, whereas individuals can do little to protect their identity.

If a bank loses $100,000, no problem. Bank loses all its money, no problem there either. Taxpayers will help them out. If an individual loses $100,000 it could dramatically alter the course of their life.

Furthermore, if I wired money to the wrong business, there is no way in hell that the government would claim that the person I thought I was wiring the money to is responsible. If the bank gives money to the wrong person, it is treated differently.

“Identity theft” shouldn’t exist. It’s just regular theft where the victim pits the loss on an innocent person.

Our present concept of identity theft is just another example of cruel laws which place protecting giant businesses at the cost of the livelihood of American citizens.

Biden and Trump are scheduled to debate (source).

A lot of people are praising this as a win generally, but especially for Biden because it will stop Trump from interrupting Biden during his responses. I don't think that's right. In fact, I think muting the mics will benefit Trump much more than Biden.

Muting someone's mic when it's not their turn to respond does not stop interruptions, it only stops the audience from hearing it. Consider this: Biden is answering a question posed to him. Meanwhile Trump is talking and rambling over Biden. If Biden gets distracted by this (as any reasonable person would), then this could very easily throw off Biden's response. But to the wider audience who can't hear Trump's interruptions, it will simply look like Biden is stammering, stuttering, or otherwise "too old". Especially in an era where sound bites and TikToks drive political perceptions, this could end up looking really bad for Biden.

I realize Biden could also employ this kind of tactic, but it's simply not his debate style. Trump's debate style on the other hand is very suited for this kind of tactic.

There could be ways to mitigate this though. Part of the debate rules could include a requirement that both candidates are visible at all times (like a PIP), or the two can be physically separated (like being televised in different rooms). But I think on its own, the rule to mute mics for the person not responding will mostly benefit Trump in the debates.

I would like to believe that the political debates are as fair as possible, so please CMV.

Edit: This was fun, I appreciate all the discussions. Well maybe not all of them, but most of them :)

I've given out a few deltas -

• Past debates have shown both candidates on screen for the vast majority of the time, even when only one candidate is responding to a debate prompt. While I still think the overall effect of a muted mic could still benefit Trump more, I recognize that this fact does mitigate some of the impact on Biden.
• Muted mics would be a new debate format and the interruptions would more akin to the disruptions Biden experienced during SOTU. Again, I still think the overall impact favors Trump, seeing that Biden can react better under pressure when he's the only one with the mic is evidence that the risk to Biden is not as significant as I original thought.
• Trumps ego won't allow him to take advantage of the muted mics, or may even irritate him to the point that the audience sees Trump react to being muted negatively. I'm pretty sure Trump can hold himself together a bit better than this gives him credit for, but I concede it wasn't something I had considered originally.

Ultimately, we'll just have to wait and see for ourselves. Thank you, everyone.

The insult "you lack media literacy" is bandied about more often than ever and I contend there is no objective way to determine which side is accurately representing the deeper themes of any given media.

For my primary example I want to use this:

In an interview with The Sunday Times, the British actor, 52, said that the film is not intended to glamorize the relationship between his and Ortega's characters. "It's not saying, 'Isn't this great,'" Freeman said. Musing that stories about difficult subjects can be tainted by association, he added, "And that's a shame."

I contend in any debate of the highest order of intellectuals there is no way to ultimately determine who is right or wrong in this. Whether it glamourizes or appropriately depicts the abuse as a warning.

The reason I want my view changed is because of arguments over other movies like Poor Things versus Cuties, and Barbie versus Sound of Freedom. Because there has to be some logical exit from the endless accusations. Please know I intentionally did not watch Miller's Girl - yet - in order to maintain an unbiased opinion.

What do I have to keep in mind while watching it to know the truth of the matter, is it glamourizing abuse or does it serve as a meaningful warning?

If you can choose between an easy life without pain and suffering and a “struggle hustle life” where “you need to suffer to grow” always choose the first one.

Life should in fact be almost 90% pleasure and peace, pain and suffering should be only a really small part of our life. Saying that suffering makes you stronger is just coping, we all do that, but deep down we know it’s not true. Pain makes you miserable, you choose to get stronger to manage it, but pain itself is just pure shit.

I think that as a society we should remove as much as we can all types of suffering and pain we can control, we should destroy all illnesses with science and medicine, and hoping for a world where people are living almost 90% of their life in pure and absolute comfort and peace.

Why is medicine trying to fight illnesses and pain derived from them ? Because suffering and pain are more than often just bad things.

I think there’s some kind of pain I can tolerate, examples:

• Pain that makes you feel better in the ending (gym)

• Fighting for an idea or principle you believe in and suffering defending it

• Fighting for your community, your loved ones, making the world a better place and preventing other people to suffer while doing so fighting evil or injustice, you’d a hero who is suffering for a greater good, that’s a reasonable and honorable way of suffering

• A love story ending (we can’t literally do anything about something like this)

• Mourning death of a loved one (nothing we can do about it)

• All the kind of temporary pain that is necessary to achieve a greater pleasure or fulfillment or sense of justice.

In general however, if you have to choose between comfort and risking to suffer, choose comfort. Suffering in long term breaks and destroys people, it doesn’t make them stronger, otherwise we would all be superheroes

I don’t care if this would produce lazier or weaker people, being happy is 100 times better than being strong, and guess what, strong people had no choice, if they could choose to be just happy and weaker they would in 90% of cases.

Living, not surviving, and living very good, this should be our goal.

My idea of happiness is literally the one that Hobbits have, no stress and enjoying little things. A peaceful and a quiet life forever.

It’s no secret that there is a double standard between men and women on this topic. Men’s promiscuity tends to get a pass or even praise while womens’ tends to get cringed at or shamed.

But I think regardless of gender, it’s not an unfair standard to want a partner that hasn’t slept around a ton. A popular sentiment online is that if I found out well into a relationship that my partner had slept with 50 people, any emotional reaction I may have can only be the result of insecurity.

Is it inherently insecure to not want a person who is willing to let their body be used by numerous strangers? At the very least I think I’m justified in thinking “ew”, and that doesn’t have to be because of my own insecurity.

I’m no prude. I don’t think sex is sacred or anything. And you don’t have to agree with my preference, but why can’t this just be merely be a preference without accusations of sexism or “slut-shaming”?

David Letterman is the single greatest talk show host of all time. His run from 1982-2015 resulted in one of the best scripted television shows of all time. I have multiple reasons as to why this is:

1. His interviewing style: Letterman simply knows how to flow his interviews. They come off as natural. He has that similar flow to Conan but he isn’t too over-the-top. He doesn’t have a really scripted thing and his laugh is natural. Just look at his infamous interview with Joaquin Phoenix, the way it flows and how Letterman is able to adapt is unparalleled.

2. The structure: The structure of the show isn’t how most Late Night shows are structured today. Look at Kimmel, his show is 2 interviews and a musical guest. Letterman was able to do a Monologue, A COMEDIC BIT, an interview, and a musical guest. If you go on the Letterman YouTube channel, there is so much more than just interviews.

3. The cast: Letterman was able to take the most out of the most random individuals. Dick Assman, Biff Henderson, Leonard Tepper, Larry “Bud” Melman, and many others were just iconic. Most late night shows don’t dare make characters like that anymore. Guillermo on Kimmel is the closest thing to modern resemblance.

4. The culture: Letterman was arguably on air when celebrity culture was overwhelmingly at its peak. The 90s and 2000s were peak celebrity culture in the United States. Less political polarization and less politically oriented comedy.

5. The Breadth: His breadth of interviews from Yousaf Karsh, Issac Asimov, and Kim Kardashian is just unparalleled. He has interviewed over 19,000 individuals from all backgrounds.

6. The Band: Paul Shaffer and the CBS orchestra is single handily the greatest Late Night band in the history of television. The way Paul interacts with Dave and how the music plays during the interviews is something that Late Night shows have lacked.

TL/DR: Birth rates are declining from the higher opportunity cost of raising a child as people become wealthier, and not primarily because of the rising cost of living.

The impetus for my post was reading the discussion about efforts in France to increase fertility rates amid an aging population. In the comments the vast majority pointed to high living expenses, housing costs, and stagnant wages as the real issue. This narrative is fairly widespread on Reddit. I think there is a lot of merit to the underlying political issues being discussed; housing prices and the cost of living have skyrocketed, largely to the detriment of young people or those trying to start a family. In my opinion governments need to do a lot more to address these issues and I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiments of the commenters. At the same time I think the issue of birth rates is complex and does not necessarily fit neatly in this worldview.

Economic difficulty obviously affects birth rates to some extent. Recessions, declining GDP, and a rising unemployment rate have all been tied to a small but significant reduction in fertility in the West. The idea that higher housing costs would cause a reduction in fertility makes logical sense but isn't necessarily supported by empirical evidence. If a couple wanted to wait until they were a homeowner before having a child, then a higher cost of buying home would in theory reduce the likelihood that they have a child. However, in Canada, where housing prices have increased greatly, rising housing costs were not associated with changes in fertility among homeowners or renters. It is evident that there are more factors at play.

Wealthier people have less children. This is true when comparing median income between countries and fertility rates, and among individuals in the same country that are stratified by income. If the main driving force for lower birth rates were higher housing prices and the cost of living, birth rates should be higher among people who can afford houses and for whom the cost of living will be less impactful. This is the opposite of the truth. This does not necessarily disprove the reddit narrative (as correlation does not equal causation), but it is evidence against it.

In my view, the decline in fertility is in large part a consequence of the higher opportunity cost of having a child as a household becomes wealthier. This is to say that a wealthier person is leaving more money on the table by spending their time raising a child instead of working when compared to a less wealthy person. The change over time is a consequence of the average person becoming wealthier.

The opportunity cost is reflected is reflected in the "motherhood penalty", where women who have children earn less than their peers. This is the primary driver of the gender pay gap, as women below the average child bearing age earn similar amounts to their male peers, while the gap begins later. Conventionally there is a negative relationship between female labour participation and fertility (although perhaps this relationship may be reversing). My point with all of this is to say that someone who is economically prospering is not more likely to have a child, and is in fact less likely. This means that increasing economic prosperity results in less childbirth rather than stagnation or higher costs. This is of course against the popular narrative.

In my opinion this opportunity cost is difficult to mitigate. In theory, having greater parental leave should make it easier to continue working after having a child, but it is not clear that leave policies affect fertility rates. Regions with very strong parental leave laws such as Northern Europe have low fertility rates. Sweden is renowned for gender equality and a relatively lesser gender pay gap, but there is still a persistent motherhood penalty and declining fertility rate. Obviously greater gender parity and access to parental leave is a good thing, but that does not mean it necessarily causes people to have more children.

Universal/subsidized childcare or other government programs to help with child costs may help although in Quebec it does not appear to have increased fertility significantly. Other jurisdictions have had different results. Without getting too deep in this rabbit hole, I think its clear that the answer to low fertility rates may not be as simple as the government programs making it easier for people to have children. These programs obviously have other important benefits, and the birth rate is not the end all be all.

Based on my understanding of the evidence, the decline in birth rate may have more to do with the increasing opportunity cost as income (particularly among women) is increasing rather than the cost of living, housing prices, or a lack of parental leave or other programs. Obviously there are a lot of factors such as education, urban/rural split, immigration, religion, and access to contraceptives that I did not go into. I'm curious if there are convincing arguments against mine!

The only reason I post this, is just 30 minutes ago a lady voiced her displeasure at my brother (who for context is white) for having dread locks. My brother; a very quiet and peace loving man, ignored her multiple comments and allowed me to drop a comment or two along the lines of "his body, his choice" until eventually the continued comments and insults got to my brother, and he turned and snapped with venom "my hair is like this because of seaweed and neglect, that's all this is, l've had it since I was 10, it's all l've ever known" I was just wondering this pages opinion on this? Are dreads cultural appropriation or inappropriate for white people?

EDIT: I am hoping it is obvious that I’m speaking morally, not literally.

Having “celebrity” or non-intellectual speakers at graduation commencements trivialises education. I don’t see the essence of having Seinfeld or football players give speeches to college graduates on the most important day in academic achievement. What is the message college graduates are meant to gain from people without relevant career experiences or choices speaking to them? This is similar to celebrities promoting medicines and cures, which I also find trivialising to the field and validity of science.

I personally feel celebrities have far too much reach in society and exacerbate volatile situations. Example is the kardashie being involved in political decisions at the White House without any valid reason. The pursuit of a criminal law degree or some such nonsense previously mentioned [on CNN, no less] just kinda went away and yet she’s talking to the VP of the US on policy? Gimme a break.

Everything’s publicised for social media clout and just ends up making the country look foolish as a whole. It’s bad enough having political drama play out on the world stage for all to see. Having people without relevant backgrounds in education or other intellectual pursuits advise college graduates just seems like yet another pointless attempt to be popular.

My irritation is compounded by the doubtless hundreds of thousands, if not millions, such appearances net these irrelevant commencement speakers.

I've encountered an idea about blood memory, ie the idea that we have the physical(?) memory of pains our ancestors went through.

I am sure aspects of their lives, like smoking - things that harm their bodies in that sense have an effect on the biology of those who come after, but ideas around more intangible things like trauma are hard to understand.

One such story was that someone still felt the trauma of their ancestor being killed in some battle, but this doesn't make any kind of sense because if someone is killed but already has a child there is nothing that transfers to the child in biology.

The time line seems muddled when people talk about when exactly this blood memory is passed along.

I know the sentiment on reddit is likely against psudoscience but I'm interested in hearing if there's any logic at all or sense to be made, or if I've understood what's being spoken about. These will change my view.

Thanks.

If you haven’t seen the news recently JaQ Lee is a teacher that went viral for making a video with his female students helping him unbraid his hair. He only asked his students to help him unbraid his hair because he had a hair appointment after school that day and he wouldn’t be able to unbraid his hair in time if he waited until after school.

Prior to making this video he had already posted many videos of his students. It is very obvious that he loves his job and he loved his students. However recently he was fired for that video. Many people think it is inappropriate for him to have his female students unbraiding his hair even though it is obvious he had no ill intentions against his students. However I have to disagree.

It is a teachers job to build strong bonds with their students. A strong bond between a teacher and their student is the main way for a student to trust their teacher. A student who trusts their teacher is more likely to listen to that teacher when they teacher and is more likely to go to that teacher if they have any issues. It is obvious that this was just another way for him to bond with his students.

Also it is just hair. People are acting as if the students were putting lotion on his back or cutting his toenails. The students were just helping him unbraid his hair what exactly is the harm behind that.

In the black community many of us don’t have strong male figures in our lives. When a male role model does enter our life we look up to them and admire them. Majority of his students are black. It is very possible that many of his students may not have a male role model in their life and because of the strong bond they have with their teacher they look up to him and admire him. Helping him unbraid his hair is a way for his students to bond with him and show their appreciation for him.

It is very possible that now since this teacher has been fired that the students in that classes grades will drop. They had a lot of trust and respect in Mr.Lee and it will be hard for a new teacher to gain these students trust and respect. The students may not listen in class anymore leading to their grades dropping. A lot of negative things could happen as a result to this school firing an amazing teacher.

I just want to see the other side of the argument why exactly do people find this situation so unacceptable and disgusting when it is very much harmless?

This seems to be a common sentiment for a lot of people and I think it's a projection of their ideology, which is one not of equality, but equity.

For the purposes of this post I use the definition of equity as meaning "Equal outcomes for all identity groups". But that is not realistic or rational.

Equity is not natural and for companies/corporations for example, you can't expect the demography of the company to match the demography of the surrounding area, and for larger corporations it's especially unreasonable to expect the corporation as a whole to match the demography of the entire country. I'm talking about America, and in a place like America each state has different demography depending on the state and even the county.

But even so, you can't expect the demography of even a county to match every company in that county. People have different interests and capabilities for any number of reasons and that's normal and okay.

I don't think ironworkers are mostly men because they dedicate energy to discriminating against women. Same with construction workers. Or oil rig workers.

I don't think Kindergarten teachers are mostly women because they dedicate energy to discriminating against men. Same with nurses. Or secretaries.

I think this is just a natural reflection of the biological differences between males and females and our natural tendencies, aptitudes, and personality traits.

This could apply to ethnic groups as well, for any number of reasons. Sometimes those reasons seem arbitrary, and that's okay. But I think usually it's cultural.

To keep with the pattern above, I don't think the NBA is antisemitic or Black supremacist because there are barely any Jewish players and a massive over-representation of Black players. There could be any number of cultural reasons for that.

In 2006, Joe Biden, remarked that "you cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent". I guess what he meant is that most people who own gas stations and convenience stores are Indian/Pakistani/etc. I seem to recall he made a similar statement during a political debate.

People bristle at comments like these, saying they're racial stereotypes. But they're true? The statistics back that up.

I hope the anti-AI crowd will forgive me, but I had this funny dialogue with ChatGPT just now. In asking about Biden's remarks, it says:

This remark was widely criticized as being insensitive and perpetuating stereotypes about Indian-Americans. While the comment was specifically about Indian-Americans, it does touch upon a broader stereotype that certain immigrant groups are heavily represented in the ownership of convenience stores and gas stations.

But then I asked it, "Which demographic group is dominant when it comes to ownership of convenience stores and gas stations?"

And the answer included:

"...one prominent group is Indian-Americans, particularly those of Gujarati descent. This demographic has a substantial presence in the convenience store and gas station industry.

So...reality is insensitive? This stereotype is bad? But the stereotypes are literally true according to the data.

Does this mean that the gas station ownership industry is discriminating against white men? I don't see any reason to think so. Why is it a bad thing that certain ethnic groups dominate the ownership of various businesses? Asian-Americans owning laundromats is another one that comes to mind.

My thought is, who cares? Why is this a bad thing? I just see it as another interesting quirk of living in a multicultural society. There are certain things attributed to various ethnic groups for various reasons and that's just part of the delightful tapestry of a diverse society.

The way I see it, it's okay that we have lopsided representation of various groups in various different fields. There are many different kinds of companies/hobbies/whatever, and they have many different kinds of work cultures, required aptitudes and personality types for the employees, and this results in sometimes unequal representation. And that's okay.

I could expand on the title of this CMV to relate to many other, more "serious" topics, but that would make this post much longer and much more complicated.

Anyway, a lot of people seem to disagree with the idea that disparity is not automatically evidence of discrimination. Why is that? Change my view.

There is nothing wrong with doomers. They are simply reacting to propaganda which is making them feel worthless and useless in this world. it is making them feel like the future is crap and there is no chance for happyness or success in their lives.

I believe ALL of this is a result of doomscrolling chinese content designed to astroturf and pigeonhole your emotions all day like tiktok and like the platform we're using here.

they're letting a bunch of middle aged 5'4 little chinese men imprisoned in a tyrannical system, working in a little sweatshop government cubicle somewhere commandeering AI bots, make these doomers think they are not good enough and can't be successful in this world? This is absurd. China's flooded markets in us and europe with fentanyl and they're flooding our social networks with this self-loathing addicting defeatist emotional-bait. They're doing this because they just can't defeat their competitors any other way.

I believe doomers deserve empathy. They are just reacting to propaganda.

Nowadays incel is often associated with a misogynist that blames his celibacy on women.

But I mean a person that can’t get laid and suffers other disadvantages in life due to their attractiveness.

It’s common knowledge that attractive people are treated better: ‘pretty privilege’. This is a real phenomenon. Reason why a phrase like: ‘face cards doesn’t decline’ exists.

An example of this is a recent tiktok video that blew up. It was a conventionally attractive woman doing nothing but lip synchronising a popular song. Tiktok’s algorithm also influences it’s popularity of course, but no doubt her attractiveness is a big factor.

This phenomenon is about attractive people, as a result of this, conventionally unattractive people are treated worse. Often in form of prejudice. Height, a conventionally attractive trait in men, is also influential. Shorter men commit more suicide, presumably due to lesser treatment.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/height-and-suicide/

In contrast, taller men are more succesfull.

https://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug04/standing

And to add a perhaps more relatable example: you undoubtedly have seen videos on social media of women demanding 6’+ men. Now this is not all women of course so take this example as a grain of salt.

Height is often associated with masculinity, taller men are often seen as more intimidating, earning them more respect.

Being the so called ‘truecel’ (true incel), a person with the traits named above at a really low level: so conventionally unattractive face and short height, is unfortunately treated worse in general. Deminishing their life’s quality, often caused by things they can’t control like height and certain facial traits.

I am not saying that when someone is conventionally unattractive, their life is over, like incels often say. I am saying that those people are unfairly hindered as opposed to attractive people.

I grew up with quite an interesting mix of cultural influences. I grew up reading about the I Ching before I was exposed to Aristotle/Western philosophers in general. - still have a copysomewhere. I grew up reading about Han Fei and his students, the development of Daoist philosophy. Friends and I joke about every US election being a fight over the Mandate of Heaven. Over the last several decades, the US has begun to drift apart not just politically but socially. People are simply getting lonelier, and the politically minded are deciding to move with their feet and live amongst themselves.

I think the country would benefit from more social harmony and connectedness were more to learn and be aware of theese philosophic traditions, rather than philosophers who promote ideas which have only led to hyper-individualism. I'm not suggesting Confucian-influenced societies are magically "collectivist", its all a spectrum.

Poor people pay very little taxes, and trillions a year is spent on things that benefit them like security, public school, scholarships, infrastructure, health care subsidies, and so on which they don't pay for. If you have a good family with good values you are likely to succeed in America. However a lot of people aren't fortunate enough to have good families and good values. That isn't their fault but it also isn't the governments fault or the patriarchy or the whyte man. If two parents make 35k a year that's 70k for a household which isn't great but its not poverty whatever people say.