tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post436847999321213138..comments2024-03-22T05:55:48.117-04:00Comments on The Pervocracy: On not taking the bait.Cliff Pervocracyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02080142422250604406noreply@blogger.comBlogger53125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-85678631546912069972012-03-20T09:23:14.889-04:002012-03-20T09:23:14.889-04:00Best thing about the post is that she describes th...Best thing about the post is that she describes the chart as "really more of an exercise in common sense"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-2127131392500048572011-07-20T19:16:00.391-04:002011-07-20T19:16:00.391-04:00Hey Holly,
So I decided to take your advice reg...Hey Holly,<br /> So I decided to take your advice regarding doing hobbies instead of masturbation. I decided to build a house of cards ala Brady Bunch style. Surprisingly, the house still seems to stay up. The only problem is the cards keep sticking to my palms. I guess I still have some issues. JUS KEEDING! Keep up the good work Holly. Your column's great.- jonny5Black Jesushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13689918120461920972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-69114641034047813182011-07-17T03:07:50.493-04:002011-07-17T03:07:50.493-04:00Susan Walsh is an upper-middle class WASP. In her ...Susan Walsh is an upper-middle class WASP. In her mindset, casual sex="OhGawdimsodrnuk!"clamoring gals grabbing the first decent looking guy and dragging him into an open room. Unlike the non-collegiate/Frat boy world in which mature adults have sex with (purportedly) willing/sober participants. Context, in this case, is everything (unless of course, no one else in this thread knows a person who uses alcohol as a social lubricant.) IME, as someone who's walked the hallowed halls of academe and served a decade in Uncle Sam's Exchange Program, I've lost count of the amount of "Someone's going to be pissed in the morning" couples who I've seen walking out of a local bar/pub. And yes, I've seen some, "I'm gonna rock this geek's world stop talking to me and tellin' me what to do!!!", couples in that mix.MaMu1977http://www.google.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-50054746340548908282011-07-16T19:39:20.024-04:002011-07-16T19:39:20.024-04:00Of course, hanging around, eating food out of our ...Of course, hanging around, eating food out of our garden, lending each other books and playing music is bad for the economy, but taking a quarter of your population, implanting guns into their arms and replacing their brains with robotics would be a huge boost to the electronics and munitions industry. I like to think of Economies as a giant race of beings that insist humans work to feed them else they rampage across the world stepping on houses. Fee Fi Fo Feng, the Nasdaq is weak against the Hang Seng.<br /><br />Oh, and the proof that cancer causes cell phones<br />http://xkcd.com/925/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-78335474009025700762011-07-16T14:47:12.670-04:002011-07-16T14:47:12.670-04:00"a possible correlation between casual sex an..."a possible correlation between casual sex and rape"<br /><br />I'd like to note that there is, in fact, a very simple explanation for such a correlation.<br /><br />If you count rape in your numbers for casual sex, then rape victims, all other things being equal, will have had more casual sex. This is because they will have had sex with as many partners on average as anyone else, and also you're counting the time(s) they were raped. That will bump up the numbers, either in an intuitive or systematic analysis of the situation. You have to remember to ask the question on its head, or in a Bayesian sense.<br /><br />Put it another way: if you count rape as sex (and you shouldn't, without very, very clear crosstabs, but many do), then the population of people who do not have sex contains zero rape victims! So of course the population of those who do have sex contains disproportionately many rape victims. It contains ALL of them. You'd have to control for that insight before you could establish previous promiscuity as a risk factor. <br /><br />Now, if there is such a correlation, and it holds even eliminating the problem of misreporting, there are plenty of other explanations one could proffer. And it's important to remember that the actions of rape victims are risk factors rather than causal agents; they make them more attractive to rapists who are selecting targets and deciding whether or not to rape. "Sluttiness" does not somehow summon the Rape Demon from the pits of the netherworld.<br /><br />As for those possible mechanisms, here's one. Rapists are known to select targets who will be disbelieved or discredited; women with more sex partners will be disbelieved or discredited; therefore they are tempting targets for rapists. <br /><br />But since disbelieving or discrediting claimed rape victims on any sort of collective basis is wrong, we should work to disconnect promiscuity from assault, rather than working to discourage promiscuity--particularly as discouraging promiscuity tends to condemn, Other, and vilify the promiscuous, actually increasing their vulnerability.<br /><br />So there's that. But as Hershele points out, without any evidence of a connection, there's no point in any of that argument.<br /><br />Thanks for taking my earlier comments in stride, and I look forward to what you have to say about them!Erlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-91488653121551303482011-07-16T11:50:20.344-04:002011-07-16T11:50:20.344-04:00Pointing out a possible correlation between casual...<i>Pointing out a possible correlation between casual sex and rape is not the same thing as supporting rape.</i><br /><br />No, but it is the same thing as saying "well, if she wasn't such a slut ..." with a side of "I'm not <b>judging</b>, statistics! Rational, objective, uncaring statistics!"<br /><br /><i>Which is exactly why I'm not defending Susan's claim. I have no information either way, so I am in no place to judge Susan's claims beyond saying "well, that sounds vaguely possible". </i><br /><br />So "statically" wasn't a typo. "Statistically" means "backed up by actual data, and not just my intuitions." Since you say here it is just your intuitions, just as the chart is only Walsh's intuitions, it's just as well you didn't say "statistically."Hershele Ostropolernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-77944426815533620152011-07-16T10:26:53.333-04:002011-07-16T10:26:53.333-04:00Developers, 'pointing out a possible correlati...Developers, 'pointing out a possible correlation between casual sex and rape is not the same thing as supporting rape' is what people say when they want to victim-blame but don't want to do so explicitly enough to be called on it. It gets peoples' hackles up, and for good reason; the argument has been made before, and it's very rarely been made in good faith. Expecting people to behave as though there's no history to it is unrealistic and unhelpful. It's already a loaded topic, and you can't divorce a statistical analysis of the characteristics of rape victims from a long (LONG) history of society bending over backwards to find a way to shift the responsibility of rape to the victim.<br /><br />I'm not saying that you can't present a statistical analysis that suggests exactly that, but you damn well better have something more compelling than 'eh, this seems about right, let me just throw it out there.'aebhelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-42569301473794713752011-07-16T02:52:33.749-04:002011-07-16T02:52:33.749-04:00I also really love the implication that rape is ba...I also really love the implication that rape is bad... because trials cost money.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-33202231733419043872011-07-16T02:52:07.304-04:002011-07-16T02:52:07.304-04:00I love the implication that rape exists primarily ...I love the implication that rape exists primarily as date rape within the context of casual relationships. Date rape within serious relationships, marital rape, stranger rape, child sexual abuse, rape by people you sort of know but are not dating, these things are all imaginary. I feel safer already!<br />I also love the idea that being promiscuous makes you more likely to have an std or become pregnant. With regards to stds - well, someone you slept with had to pick it up some time, but I think condoms and testing are better protectors than "feeling like you aren't a slut," especially because you can get an std from a partner who has lied about his sexual history or cheated. With regards to pregnancy - you only need one partner to get pregnant. Are women with a single sexual partner sluts now?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-36666492966672447352011-07-16T01:51:39.176-04:002011-07-16T01:51:39.176-04:00I'm not sure what the intended message of link...<i><br /> I'm not sure what the intended message of linking rape with casual sex was, but the message "promiscuity increases one's odds of being sexually assaulted" looks a whole lot to me like "sluts get raped" which seems all too often, in these arguments, to bring us to "sluts deserve to be raped." And even if none of that was intended, it's still promulgation of an exceedingly offensive myth.<br /></i><br />That's exactly why I think that line of reasoning is a a retorical cheap shot. Pointing out a possible correlation between casual sex and rape is not the same thing as supporting rape.<br /><br />However, you may very well be right to attack Susan's reasoning here, as Hershele Ostropoler has done:<br /><i>If you meant "statistically," what, specifically, are these statistics? What is the source? How reliable are the underlying numbers, and how sound is the model? What mechanisms are proposed to explain the apparent link between casual consensual sex and nonconsensual sex -- and how are we defining "casual sex" in this context? Do we even have reason to believe there is a cause-and-effect relationship here? </i><br />Which is exactly why I'm not defending Susan's claim. I have no information either way, so I am in no place to judge Susan's claims beyond saying "well, that sounds vaguely possible". <br /><br />@Holly<br /><i>I also don't know what the economic impacts are of letting people practice the religion of their choice.<br /></i><br />Does the presence of LDS Missionaries, Evangelical priests or Muslim imams infringe on your right to practice your region (or lack thereof)? Do their attempts to convert you to their brand of Christianity or Islam prevent you from practicing your region? <br /><br />Goodness knows, I do not want a want a government office of sexual relations. That doesn't mean that people like Susan Walsh aren't allowed to put forward their ideas. Social pressure does not violate individual freedom in my mind.<br /><br /><i><br /><br />I also am bothered by the disingenousness of people claiming to have an economic argument when what they really have is a moral or ideological argument, and then they found economic justifications to back up what they already believed. Unless "I analyzed the economic consequences and then came to this conclusion" is your actual thought process, it's not honest to pretend it was. </i><br />If you approach ethics form a Utilitarian viewpoint, nearly all decisions involve some economics. Yes, there's a whole heck of a lot more to life (and economics) than money, but that doesn't mean that all economic arguments are invalid. Moreover, making an economic argument isn't the same thing as pretending that economics is the only reason you hold a particular viewpoint. <br /><br />@Erl<br />Well, you aren't going to let me get away with shooting from the hip, are you? You make some valid points, I'll get back to you soon with some attempt at a rebuttal.Developers! Developers! Developers!noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-25905726053269118462011-07-16T00:13:29.106-04:002011-07-16T00:13:29.106-04:005) Rape is just another type of out-of-wedlock sex...<i>5) Rape is just another type of out-of-wedlock sex. - I know where you are coming from, but that is just a cheap shot. That is not the intended message and you know it.</i><br /><br />I don't know it, having only as much access to Susan Walsh's head as she is willing to grant and having only skimmed her post. I certainly don't count the outrageousness of the interpretation as evidence that's not what she meant.<br /><br /><i>The intended message is that having lots of casual sex statically increases your chances of being raped. </i><br /><br />I don't think this is the case, since if something is static it isn't increasing.<br /><br />If you meant "statistically," what, specifically, are these statistics? What is the source? How reliable are the underlying numbers, and how sound is the model? What mechanisms are proposed to explain the apparent link between casual consensual sex and nonconsensual sex -- and how are we defining "casual sex" in this context? Do we even have reason to believe there is a cause-and-effect relationship here?Hershele Ostropolernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-67979423363680831342011-07-15T20:30:41.246-04:002011-07-15T20:30:41.246-04:00...now I'm thirsty.
I like this one. Simple, ......now I'm thirsty.<br /><br />I like this one. Simple, but eloquent.<br /><br /><a href="http://hellokeltie.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/white-trash-repairs-repair-flowchart.jpg?w=500" rel="nofollow">Repair Flowchart</a>aebhelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-23031529109367791042011-07-15T17:22:31.713-04:002011-07-15T17:22:31.713-04:00Augh. I needed a marginally better chart to wash m...Augh. I needed a marginally better chart to wash my eyes out. I think this chart of milk products does the job nicely.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Milkproducts_v2.svgNathan Williamsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-76352175975304068742011-07-15T17:03:47.875-04:002011-07-15T17:03:47.875-04:00In (attempting) to read that so-called flow chart ...In (attempting) to read that so-called flow chart all I could think was "does not compute". That's horribly organized and doesn't make sense.<br /><br />And there's far too much that I do in this life that isn't necessarily going to perk up the economy. That doesn't mean I'm going to stop doing them if I enjoy it. Some things up my quality of life and this is one of them.Jaknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-70807573322494067922011-07-15T16:15:51.780-04:002011-07-15T16:15:51.780-04:00Emma: I agree with Hershele; that makes perfect se...Emma: I agree with Hershele; that makes perfect sense.<br /><br />-Anon from 9:40Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-43088966138156165292011-07-15T15:54:05.822-04:002011-07-15T15:54:05.822-04:00Emma: college coursework in political science -- f...Emma: college coursework in political science -- for that matter, 25+ years following politics in some way or other (yes, since before I turned 8, what of it?) -- I never thought of that. It's brilliant. People holding the belief that government is somehow "artificial" actually explains a lot.Hershele Ostropolernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-85162808631194411312011-07-15T14:13:28.338-04:002011-07-15T14:13:28.338-04:00No, if I had children, I'd be trying to save f...No, if I had children, I'd be trying to save for their college 'n' stuff. That would be BAD for the economy. I think putting money in savings actually means the terrorists have won!<br /><br />flightlessAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-53753211488741907832011-07-15T13:33:49.881-04:002011-07-15T13:33:49.881-04:00Anon from Europe -
From what I've seen in my...Anon from Europe - <br /><br />From what I've seen in my corner(s) of America, I would say that the issue is that many Americans, especially conservative ones, use freedom to mean "life unfolding naturally, without interference." Interference is usually assumed to be from the government, and almost never from corporations or local people or organizations, because business, family, social norms etc. are considered natural, whereas the federal government is an imposition from outside society. It's sort of a freedom for society as a whole unit (and powerful people), rather than individuals. So when the government does things like mandate environmental regulations, that isn't seen as a clash of two powerful forces within society, but one natural one (businesses) and one unnatural one (federal government) manipulating other people. This is also why when bad things happen without reference to the government, that's "the market restructuring itself" or something, and when bad things happen related to the government, that's "the government can never get anything right." Also why all politicians have to claim to be outsiders to politics. <br /><br />Symptoms include economics-related smugness and "those ____ want special rights!"Emmanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-34524903014502492792011-07-15T13:04:53.206-04:002011-07-15T13:04:53.206-04:00Science or research or whatever name you want to g...Science or research or whatever name you want to give to "an endeavor of which the end result is a flowchart" exists to avoid or correct the errors relying on common sense may lead us into. "Here's a flowchart based on my 'common sense reasoning' but not backed up with any data" is not even wrong.Hershele Ostropolernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-22616821567203100672011-07-15T12:51:46.203-04:002011-07-15T12:51:46.203-04:00Sarcasticgrrl - Oh god, please don't rinse and...Sarcasticgrrl - Oh god, please don't rinse and repeat! :p<br /><br />ewwwwwCliff Pervocracyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02080142422250604406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-73169926070843418252011-07-15T12:50:47.314-04:002011-07-15T12:50:47.314-04:00Flightless - But if you had children, you'd sp...Flightless - But if you had children, you'd spend your income on childcare, education, and kids' clothing and food and toys--thus BOOSTING THE ECONOMY!!!!!!!!!!!11Cliff Pervocracyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02080142422250604406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-44748049259636028542011-07-15T11:36:06.347-04:002011-07-15T11:36:06.347-04:00My personal childless sluttery means that I have l...My personal childless sluttery means that I have lots of disposable income to spend on travel, parties, booze and lingerie - thus BOOSTING THE ECONOMY!!!!!!!!!!!11<br /><br />flightlessAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-37632818152043520532011-07-15T11:20:35.121-04:002011-07-15T11:20:35.121-04:00The reason promiscuity is good for the economy: mo...The reason promiscuity is good for the economy: moar condoms needed, more needed to be made, more used, rinse and repeat. <br />:P<br />bleh. I'm not sure that promiscuity actually affects fertility (but I wouldn't know)<br />as far as I'm aware it's a person by person thing in terms of fertility.<br /><br />But I do acknowledge that this chart is icky.<br />And people should have their own levels of want of sexual activity and be allowed to them. ¬¬<br />grumble.<br />snarl.<br />etcSarcasticgrrlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08552212021504742517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-89742341440226874952011-07-15T10:32:43.139-04:002011-07-15T10:32:43.139-04:00He never said "wicked" though. I think t...<i>He never said "wicked" though. I think that's your hilarious "vodker and coke" accent acting up again...</i><br /><br />'Vodker' and 'watuh' are my eastun mass accent pahking its cah in the linguistic yahd again. 'Wicked' isn't accent, it's the propuh way to superlatize something when you're east of Woostuh.<br /><br /><i>I also am bothered by the disingenousness of people claiming to have an economic argument when what they really have is a moral or ideological argument, and then they found economic justifications to back up what they already believed.</i><br /><br />That's the problem with zealots, though... many of them KNOW that they're being disingenuous, and they don't care. In their minds it's okay to lie and give false information, even if doing so causes harm to people in the real world... because they absolutely believe that they're saving everyone's immortal souls for the next world (or implementing the best free-market/socialist/communist economy, or cheering for the best sports team, insert extremist ideology here), so anything goes and the ends justify the means. I think that's ultimately more of a problem than the falsehoods people like that choose to wield as the weapons.<br /><br />My solution to that larger issue is currently nonexistent. :(Jacknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-34809542274619723762011-07-15T09:40:53.233-04:002011-07-15T09:40:53.233-04:00"I really wonder (from my corner of europe) h..."I really wonder (from my corner of europe) how on earth can these right-wing americans simultaneously believe that having a national health care system is raping people's freedom, but women still shouldn't be allowed to have consensual sex, because that would be, like, too much freedom for the sluts, or what."<br /><br /><br />I've often wondered that myself. It makes no sense to me that so many people in this country seem to define personal freedom as "the ability to deny the rights of those deemed unworthy".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com