# Everything explained



## notimp (Sep 2, 2020)

If you ever wanted a starting point to understand ... everything ?! about politics, currently, this one hour interview is just - ten times extraordinary.


Yes its Chomsky again, but this time he goes broad. Recorded three weeks ago.

For people that dont know him - put a 50% filter in at *despair stories* (he is old, mind you..  ).

For people that cant get enough despair stories, watch the spoiler section. 



Spoiler




On that video remember that Rising is the "agent provocateur" channel of modern polit TV 


On that video remember, that Greenwald is a little of a doomsday voice on all things US politics


----------



## notimp (Sep 3, 2020)

Another part of understanding the current political sphere is the notion that -

All of the following is produced:

This is labeled a documentary, but it is not.


The idea is, to produce a notion that this is the new evolutional advantage. For intelligent young people. But it is not. By definition it is not. It all just starts to work, if energy is practically free and there are very low transactional costs. The idea is, that you still have your googles and apples taking 30% off the top of everything. And that you'll have less in the end but perceive it as more, because it has a sense of community attached.

I'm writing this on the closing day of a one week conference of the liberal global elite trying to move people into that model. I've seen local politicians having no clue about any of the details, but selling the concept. I've seen people being funneled into being dumb but engaged networkers, who would profit most in that system (apart from the software architects), but currently arent much more than a-holes acting on a buzzword. (Think 'blockchain bros'.)) I've seen half a dozen actors on the EU level uttering with absolute certainty, that we need more data aggregation, more data analytics, but that all of this is dandy, because people would own their own data, and be payed for having it exploited. You can chose not to be payed, of course. Ive seen them argue for 'the first step' being to do this with industrial data, so it wont hit in the next ten years. I've seen actors faking 'revolutionary spirit' (they literally conjured up occupy in one session, at a meeting of the global international elite) just to get people invested in the renewable infrastructure investment game early, with private money - because companies, and banks arent (low ROI, they get higher returns if they invest in the BRIC part of the world). And state investments will only mitigate risks. Millenials solely remaining purpose is to inherit Boomer money, and to invest it poorly (from a short term perspective).

The lies are outrageous. The manipulation is sickening. The lack of knowledge on the political level leaves me dumbfounded.

And yet its the model thats propagated by the international liberal class - and almost every intellectual.

Because we are faced with declining per capita GDP in 2/3s of the world. And global warming.


----------



## notimp (Sep 3, 2020)

This is currently a figurehead for 'lets not have a structural revolt'.


Curiously enough, without a seemingly prepped Q&A session, as in the highly produced video in the previous posting.

You can also look up TED talks with him, if you are so inclined.


----------



## notimp (Sep 4, 2020)

Here is the problem I have with putting Hanauer behind the concept of changing GDP as an economic indicator.

If both Hanauer and a technocrat like Enrico Giovannini (https://gbatemp.net/threads/what-are-alternative-economic-indicators.572607/) can be seen promoting a change away from GDP, and they both do it 'in the interests of the masses', and both do it so we can have sustainable growth, but one of them clearly is not an empathic charismatic and in no way affiliated with an empathy movement -- I tend to see it as a reaction measure and less as an 'activist' tool.

Oh, and btw. Stiglitz of course also has written papers on it. Its something thats trending currently within a certain circle..


----------



## notimp (Sep 4, 2020)

Targets as a press release, if you arent familiar:
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/02/beyond-gdp-put-alternatives-economics-growth/

GDP projections, if you arent familiar (allthough we had a thread in here once before afair):
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/jan/07/gdp-projections-china-us-uk-brazil

Oh, and bad tread title.


----------



## notimp (Sep 23, 2020)

Alphabet part in this is interesting:


Cameras and data collection are needed for Level5 automation on driving (individual people becoming the most 'chaotic' part of the traffic model), and data driven business models. See how all this layers into the goal of the Verge 'documentary'. 

And maybe this:
https://gbatemp.net/threads/what-are-alternative-economic-indicators.572607/ 


edit: Also, I have to contextualize the video posted above. (I've now seen more of it.) Its actually a little problematic. If you see a former RT host, now 'documentary filmmaker' say into camera 'we've looked at 100s of hours of film footage those people gave us, and its amazing stuff, really heroic', chances are, that you havent understood the 'documentary filmmaker' part. 

Also her movie trailer - kind of 360 shot slowmo around women baring flags standing on a hill, going into a protest? What story are you telling here? 

Also, if you mostly hang out with Oliver Stone, at least recognize, that he got exclusive filming and interviewing rights for his Putin documentary, and looked very 'greatful for it' on video... 

Have to add that as context here..


----------



## Seliph (Sep 23, 2020)

The industrial revolution and it's consequences have been a disaster for the human race -


----------



## notimp (Sep 24, 2020)

Seliph said:


> The industrial revolution and it's consequences have been a disaster for the human race -


You fix it.

But while you do that, dont effing hoodwink and guilttrip middleclass folks into investing in a renewable economy before presumed larger efficiency gains, causing their investments to be devalued.

Also when you push states to set rules that include externalities, you do that pulling down industrial processes efficiency (at more than a 20% loss, roughly), because oil currently is still cheap (and in some sectors you currently dont have a valid replacement (transportation (en mass))), and have to implement a border tax regime again, because you major trading partners are still laughing into your face about 'save the climate stuff'. Causing major harm to your economy.

Rebuttle then is, yes, but if you distribute it better and have higher income middleclasses trapped in a religious stupor, you can mitigate that, and get a 'first mover advantage" longterm. Issue. Speculative, and you bank on the religious stupor part.

As an addon, 'circular economies' dont work in any way at all from a 'retain quality of life' perspective, and to make sense efficiency wise, probably forever.

And then you come in with the stupid effing idea (sorry), to shift economic consumption over to 'virtual goods', because when you have pacified people in VR, all sit on the couch and click the skinner box button all day, issue zolved. Yay future.
(Facebook has built nothing, ever, except stupid pretty addictive skinner boxes. Thanks, social studies majors hired by the company!)

And then I have to listen to STUUUUUPID rectifications, from Mark Zuck the berg, where all this is so cool, because a flipping designer kid in brasil can come up with your next VR TV design, that you will buy for them real bux.

And if that doesnt work out, we go 'second currency' on the entire population and gamify life - just the way we gamers know and looovve.

Rant aside, structurally - you are still running into 30% cut of profit made by others 'we provide the virtual infrastructure' monopolies, that even today have no flipping reason to exist. Virtual goods economies, would scale to zero cost (as we open source users know first hand), and half of your flipping economies, would not only be virtual in a discriptive sense, but actually made up, resting only on marketing and (anti piracy/patent) laws that uphold artificial properties.

I look at this and see people wanting to take the mick out of society, at scale - for as long as possible.

This ONLY makes sense, if you are an affluent, multinational, liberal idiot, that could think about paying 30% more to keep their lifestyle largely the same, but feel better because of added virtue signaling benefits. And for that you had to alter society, to think that your behavior is 'high moral' and not just deranged.

All that while the energy industry sits back and hedges their bets on investments, because technological  progress could be reaped for free, every additional year you do nothing.


Long term goals are clear and undistputed - but everything else, everything else....


Additional issues: Drive as many people as possible into rural environments, where they will cultivate the ground as a CO2 sink, not drive, not take part in the political process, not matter, and slowly realize, that they've been had big time, roughly at the same rate as they come to the conclusion that everything got harder, and less fun, but now with a designed community, and designed purpose.

Also religious stupor is designed to only last as long as you could press investment out of boomers and stupid millenials, because you're never going to touch the capitalist model, really, which is fully expected to take over again after the 'renewable' transition. So what the eff? What type of social betterment should I celebrate here?

(If I'd be a power elite, I'd be stuck in a constant laughing fit, designing this.)

Storytelling on this will be so fun...


----------



## notimp (Apr 18, 2021)

More Chomsky - debating with young students. Too astonishing not to share, imho. 


edit:
Currrent Peter Zeihan is still quite good on that front as well -

thats:


and


----------



## Hanafuda (Apr 18, 2021)

Seliph said:


> The industrial revolution and it's consequences have been a disaster for the human race -




You want to go back to how we lived pre-1800?


----------



## Seliph (Apr 18, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> You want to go back to how we lived pre-1800?


Yeah sure why not


----------



## Hanafuda (Apr 18, 2021)

Seliph said:


> Yeah sure why not



1. No antibiotics.
2. No refrigeration.
3. No running water in homes, go to the well.
4. No sanitation, no flush toilets.
5. No reasonably safe surgery. (see #1)
6. No electric light.
7. Best/fastest travel is by horse.
8. Slavery, serfdom, indentured servitude
9. Dentistry = extraction by pliers. No painkillers. Infection likely. (see #1)
10. No TV or internet. Read a book. If you're rich, that is. Chances are you're illiterate though, no education.


That's just a small list of why. Out of all of human history, we are exceedingly fortunate that our lives are in the here and now, and not the pre-1900 past.


----------



## Seliph (Apr 19, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> 1. No antibiotics.
> 2. No refrigeration.
> 3. No running water in homes, go to the well.
> 4. No sanitation, no flush toilets.
> ...


I'm cool with those things


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Apr 20, 2021)

Seliph said:


> I'm cool with those things


But that would mean no more bugsnax

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Seliph said:


> The industrial revolution and it's consequences have been a disaster for the human race -


Ted? Is that you?


----------



## Vila_ (Apr 20, 2021)

Videos bad...


----------



## notimp (Apr 20, 2021)

Vilagamer999 said:


> Videos bad...


Better stuff you post then.


----------



## Vila_ (Apr 20, 2021)

notimp said:


> Better stuff you post then.


Yes


----------



## notimp (Apr 20, 2021)

Want to see McKinsey talk about integrating the disenfranchised, so they dont revolt?





Talks start at roughly 13 min in.


----------



## notimp (Aug 16, 2021)

Vilagamer999 said:


> Videos bad...


Better video I post then.

Chomsky again, I know..


----------



## djpannda (Aug 16, 2021)

....42...


----------



## SG854 (Aug 16, 2021)

Seliph said:


> The industrial revolution and it's consequences have been a disaster for the human race -






Hanafuda said:


> 1. No antibiotics.
> 2. No refrigeration.
> 3. No running water in homes, go to the well.
> 4. No sanitation, no flush toilets.
> ...


It must've been anoying to live pre 1800's.

No refrigeration so food had to be constantly bought fresh and goes rotten faster. Or preserve meat with lots of salt.

No all in one super markets where you can get almost everything you need in 1 location. You had to go to many individual specialty stores which takes up more time.

No cars to pack all of your food so many things had to be carried by hand which limits what you carry so multiple store and home trips or put on a slow carriage moving horse.

No stoves so fire had to be made by burning wood. Cooking took all day.

Clothing had to be nit by hand.

No toilets or sewage system or charmin ultra extra strenght toilet paper. Light had to be from candles.


----------



## impeeza (Aug 16, 2021)

47


----------



## jimbo13 (Aug 17, 2021)

I enjoy Noam, thanks for posting.



SG854 said:


> It must've been anoying to live pre 1800's.
> 
> No refrigeration so food had to be constantly bought fresh and goes rotten faster. Or preserve meat with lots of salt.
> 
> ...



You heavily over estimate the values of these modern conveniences.

I do have a fridge and a freezer but I store food in a root cellar as was common in the 1800s, it's entirely feasible and effective.  I'd be just fine without a fridge.   My veggies are in better than shape than anything refrigerated.

I get all my food at one location, it's called my back acre.

I only drive once or twice a month, if your homes a place you enjoy without a bunch of obnoxious neighbors you wont find the need to escape all the time.

Plenty of other ways to do fire other than wood, all just as reasonable as gas/electric ovens.

I don't have a "city sewer" we have a composting toilet and a incinerating toilet commonly used on yachts.  Both entirely sanitary, most people wouldn't know the difference.   Grey water drains out to the plants.


No criticism intended, but most of these things aren't nearly as important as you are accustom to believing.  I live next door to Hutterites (like the Amish) they get by just fine with few modern conveniences.


----------



## SG854 (Aug 17, 2021)

jimbo13 said:


> I enjoy Noam, thanks for posting.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


For you root cellars would be fine as you are close to your produced food and you have your own farm land.

But refrigeration is incredibly important that got  really fast wide adoption for a reason and practically nearly every industry and american home has one.


Industrial revolution happened. Cities got bigger. Jobs changed, less farmers now. People are father away from the source of produced food. Refrigeration is important in transporting food over longer distances. And the way many homes are built especially apartments where root cellars and farm lands are not possible in their back yard.


Prior to 1800's there was little need for refrigeration as most americans mostly ate bread and salted meat. Fruits, vegitables, fresh meat, fish and milk wasn't really a part of the American diet at this time period.


And refrigeration benefited the metal working industry, textile mills, it helped boost iron production, oil refineriers, paper, drugs, soap, glue, sugar mills, bakeries, chocolate factories.


Modern technology like refrigeration and microwaves and many others is what freed Women from past gender roles, probably more so then the Feminist movement. Women now spent less time preserving food, pickling and all that, spent less time cooking food by buying microwavables and have more free time to devote to things like a career. It was technology that was the main force that freed women from gender roles. The feminist movement probably did speed this process, but it was not possible without the aid of modern technologies.


----------



## subcon959 (Aug 17, 2021)

SG854 said:


> Modern technology like refrigeration and microwaves and many others is what freed Women from past gender roles, probably more so then the Feminist movement. Women now spent less time preserving food, pickling and all that, spent less time cooking food by buying microwavables and have more free time to devote to things like a career. It was technology that was the main force that freed women from gender roles. The feminist movement probably did speed this process, but it was not possible without the aid of modern technologies.


Are you specifically talking about the US? Because I can assure you that there are plenty of places in the world where nothing about this has changed by getting a fridge and microwave.


----------



## SG854 (Aug 17, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> Are you specifically talking about the US? Because I can assure you that there are plenty of places in the world where nothing about this has changed by getting a fridge and microwave.


world wide too when importing meat and produce from other countries, like from Australia to Europe. Or transporting spoils from cooler to warmer climates.


----------



## subcon959 (Aug 17, 2021)

SG854 said:


> world wide too when importing meat and produce from other countries, like from Australia to Europe. Or transporting spoils from cooler to warmer climates.


Yeah, I just don't see that it has made much difference in women's roles in large parts of Asia and Africa.


----------



## SG854 (Aug 17, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> Yeah, I just don't see that it has made much difference in women's roles in large parts of Asia and Africa.


Not just womens roles but also mens. Men no longer had to farm to survive. Mental labor started to replace physical labor. Farming was an all day task without todays modern technology 

In africa that are still living in hunter gatherer tribes I don't think so. 

But every part of the world had different climates and different period of rates before food will spoil. So different areas were impacted by refridgeration and other modern technologies. 

We can mass produce things on a scale we couldn't before. Which frees up everybodies time for other tasks.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 20, 2021)

SG854 said:


> Not just womens roles but also mens. Men no longer had to farm to survive. Mental labor started to replace physical labor. Farming was an all day task without todays modern technology
> 
> In africa that are still living in hunter gatherer tribes I don't think so.
> 
> ...


In the 1800's 90% of the population globally were farmers - this was necessary to produce enough food to sustain the population. Contemporary it's 26.7% globally, and only 1.3% in the United States. Figures from most first-world countries are similar, most farms below 10 hectares are located in Asia, which is still pretty rural. The idea that technology, particularly mechanisation, food preservation technology and cooking appliances did not free up people's time to pursue other walks of life that do not involve agriculture is silly though, your point is obviously correct. All three have caused rapid progress in all walks of life since food is the quantum of life and the number one concern. Not having to worry about it opens up untold possibilities, especially for women and the poor who would otherwise tend to the home and their fields all day.


----------



## SG854 (Aug 20, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> In the 1800's 90% of the population globally were farmers - this was necessary to produce enough food to sustain the population. Contemporary it's 26.7% globally, and only 1.3% in the United States. Figures from most first-world countries are similar, most farms below 10 hectares are located in Asia, which is still pretty rural. The idea that technology, particularly mechanisation, food preservation technology and cooking appliances did not free up people's time to pursue other walks of life that do not involve agriculture is silly though, your point is obviously correct. All three have caused rapid progress in all walks of life since food is the quantum of life and the number one concern. Not having to worry about it opens up untold possibilities, especially for women and the poor who would otherwise tend to the home and their fields all day.


The problem is people view the past with the convinience of todays technology. They just don't sinply understand how things were different back then.

Traditional gender roles were out of neccesisty for survival and not because one day men wanted to be sexist and keep women in the Kitchen.

Technological invovation was the biggest driving force behind equalizing gender roles. A women can accomplish many physical labor type tasks men can today with machines.

And also making things like the medical field to prosper in better ways. A doctor who is also a farmer won't have the time to dedicate full time to tending peoples medical needs.


----------



## Dakitten (Aug 20, 2021)

SG854 said:


> The problem is people view the past with the convinience of todays technology. They just don't sinply understand how things were different back then.
> 
> Traditional gender roles were out of neccesisty for survival and not because one day men wanted to be sexist and keep women in the Kitchen.
> 
> ...



Have you by chance considered that many fields were still unavailable to women even if children and physique were not relevant? Your viewpoint is awfully convenient if you're a man, but I dare you to try it on a date~


----------



## SG854 (Aug 20, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> Have you by chance considered that many fields were still unavailable to women even if children and physique were not relevant? Your viewpoint is awfully convenient if you're a man, but I dare you to try it on a date~


Considering that alot modern careers didn't exist in the past they were inaccessible to men also.

I don't bring politics on a date thats ridiculous, I'm on a date not a debate. lol

I bring it it with my female co-workers and they seem to not be phased by it. They seem to agree also.


I am not connected to men in the past. I am my own individual person. So I have no Idea how that'll be convenient or benefits me in any way.


----------



## Dakitten (Aug 20, 2021)

SG854 said:


> Considering that alot modern careers didn't exist in the past they were inaccessible to men also.
> 
> I don't bring politics on a date thats ridiculous, I'm on a date not a debate. lol
> 
> ...



That seems a bit blind to reality. We are all the total sum of what came before us, and the mentality of the modern day is an evolution (or decaying stagnation) of yesterday. Men never had to handle things like witch burnings, gender focused anti voting laws, and of course the ramifications of being property, both by laws and faiths. These mentalities trickle down (and in some cases persist) to now.

That being said, women still make a lot less than men at the same jobs with the same qualifications, and there is a lot of harassment and discrimination they have to deal with.

I am curious, what women-only professions were you thinking of?


----------



## SG854 (Aug 20, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> That seems a bit blind to reality. We are all the total sum of what came before us, and the mentality of the modern day is an evolution (or decaying stagnation) of yesterday. Men never had to handle things like witch burnings, gender focused anti voting laws, and of course the ramifications of being property, both by laws and faiths. These mentalities trickle down (and in some cases persist) to now.
> 
> That being said, women still make a lot less than men at the same jobs with the same qualifications, and there is a lot of harassment and discrimination they have to deal with.
> 
> I am curious, what women-only professions were you thinking of?


Well I was specifically talking about the past during hunter gatherer days and farming days which the majority of people were.

If we were to talk about times after that, early industrial working days it was hell for men. 

There was no child labor laws, no saftey regulations, no modern concept of 5 day work days, no minimum wage laws, no unions existing, technology was still primitive so work hazards was still very high & death happened alot. Majority of men were at the bottom working for some big corporate boss who didn't gave a shit about them and constantly fucked them over. There was constant fights to be treated with dignity and to get better pay and better working conditions. It was an uphill battle to get to where we're at today.

In addition to the problems you listed that women faced.



Well its not black and white for today. Some jobs women face discrimination and some jobs they benifit for being women. I remember a while back a womens sports team the soccer team they were complaining about less pay but then found out they were paid more then men. Then you have video game companees that paid women less. 



And I wish I can benifit from the past efforts of people besides the obvious work conditions I mentioned. If not then I would not stress today about graduating college and getting into a good career or face homelessness.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 20, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> That seems a bit blind to reality. We are all the total sum of what came before us, and the mentality of the modern day is an evolution (or decaying stagnation) of yesterday. Men never had to handle things like witch burnings, gender focused anti voting laws, and of course the ramifications of being property, both by laws and faiths. These mentalities trickle down (and in some cases persist) to now.
> 
> That being said, women still make a lot less than men at the same jobs with the same qualifications, and there is a lot of harassment and discrimination they have to deal with.
> 
> I am curious, what women-only professions were you thinking of?


They most definitely do not because that's illegal in most civilised countries, for instance the U.S. and the UK. The gender pay gap is the average gap in wages between all men and all women, adjusted to nothing - the 23% gap can overwhelmingly be explained by different work hours, different choices of occupation or, in salaried positions, negotiation skills. If you know a company that has different wages based on gender and not another obvious explanation then you should report them immediately to the authorities.

https://time.com/3222543/wage-pay-gap-myth-feminism/


----------



## Dakitten (Aug 20, 2021)

SG854 said:


> Well I was specifically talking about the past during hunter gatherer days and farming days which the majority of people were.
> 
> If we were to talk about times after that, early industrial working days it was hell for men.
> 
> ...



You... do realize women workers were also exploited, and had even less agency in how they might starve or become homeless, since they had fewer protections where and when they could be employed, right? You're literally pulling a "Well, I suffered, too!" against a history of being property and considered less human. I would strongly endorse a women's history class, comrade!



Foxi4 said:


> They most definitely do not because that's illegal in most civilised countries, for instance the U.S. and the UK. The gender pay gap is the average gap in wages between all men and all women, adjusted to nothing - the 23% gap can overwhelmingly be explained by different work hours, different choices of occupation or, in salaried positions, negotiation skills. If you know a company that has different wages based on gender and not another obvious explanation then you should report them immediately to the authorities.
> 
> https://time.com/3222543/wage-pay-gap-myth-feminism/



C..c..c..counter-link!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...-equity/aeeca66c-790c-4867-bbce-5106890027b8/

No, but seriously, that Times article is a gross misinterpretation of a limited dataset by an employee of a conservative economic think tank. She is literally rich off of being a woman fighting against a deviation of "traditional values". 

As for the pay gap and discrimination, it happens all the time. I have repeatedly experienced it in my lines of work, and while there are countermeasures in place, they are unwieldy and time consuming, not to mention varies in quality depending on your region. Beyond even that, utilizing said tools generates enormous hostility. There needs to be a cultural shift, but at a time where male supremacy groups are actually on the rise, and certain people are literally paid to attack progressive initiatives, it is an uphill battle.


----------



## SG854 (Aug 20, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> They most definitely do not because that's illegal in most civilised countries, for instance the U.S. and the UK. The gender pay gap is the average gap in wages between all men and all women, adjusted to nothing - the 23% gap can overwhelmingly be explained by different work hours, different choices of occupation or, in salaried positions, negotiation skills. If you know a company that has different wages based on gender and not another obvious explanation then you should report them immediately to the authorities.
> 
> https://time.com/3222543/wage-pay-gap-myth-feminism/


We do not embrace gender pay discrimination and have laws to protect this and thats the important part.

But that does not stop it from happening anymore then having laws against murders does not stop it from happening. We do not live in a perfect world

But when it does happen we move to stop it from happening. Its not law to discriminate against womens pay. It not something we embrace in society.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Dakitten said:


> You... do realize women workers were also exploited, and had even less agency in how they might starve or become homeless, since they had fewer protections where and when they could be employed, right? You're literally pulling a "Well, I suffered, too!" against a history of being property and considered less human. I would strongly endorse a women's history class, comrade!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Considering I do not live in the past, I do not suffer from past problems against gender.

I could've of sworn slavery happened and men were property too.

Im well aware of womens history comrade. And never said anything you said did not happened. I never did imply either that womens suffering didn't count and aknowleged they suffered confirming your posts. Only that men also suffered too. I have no idea what you are arguing against.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 20, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> C..c..c..counter-link!
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...-equity/aeeca66c-790c-4867-bbce-5106890027b8/
> 
> ...


When adjusted for hours worked, career choices and other controls the wage gap vanishes. Women are overall paid less than men, that I will not disagree with you on, but it's not because they're women. Rather, it's because they make different decisions regarding their education and employment. They have equal opportunity, what's bothering you is that the outcome is not the same - it can't be the same because women make different choices than men. That's not to say that those choices are bad - there's a reason why women live longer while men overwork and die early. The "79 cents to a dollar" figure comes from a misinterpretation of the Bureau of Labour Statistics which compared median incomes of men and women per capita *without* accounting for whether the women worked and for how long compared to the men. If you refuse to compare like for like, you're not going to end up with an accurate figure.




https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2017/08/01/are-women-paid-less-than-men-for-the-same-work

The reason why Johnny is paid more than Sally is not because Sally is a woman, but rather because Johnny works 10 hours longer, or doesn't take as many holidays, or chose not to take advantage of paternity leave, or chose a higher-paying, but less fulfilling career, or a myriad of other differences that you can't possibly account for in their totality. You're welcome to believe in the wage gap as a form of discrimination, but broadly speaking that's not a thing. Actual instances of sex-based discrimination are harshly prosecuted and I strongly encourage everyone to report unfair employment practices to keep the market level, open and fair to everybody.


----------



## Dakitten (Aug 20, 2021)

SG854 said:


> We do not embrace gender pay discrimination and have laws to protect this and thats the important part.
> 
> But that does not stop it from happening anymore then having laws against murders does not stop it from happening. We do not live in a perfect world
> 
> ...



That men's suffering was different, and measurably less than women's suffering, and that the after effects of this fact stretch into the here and now. I actually wasn't wanting to get into outright slavery, as that gets into even uglier waters with rape and child ownership, to which an argument could be made that women had it worse there, too.

We may not live in the past, but we all live with the past and how it impacts our present.



Foxi4 said:


> When adjusted for hours worked, career choices and other controls the wage gap vanishes. Women are overall paid less than men, that I will not disagree with you on, but it's not because they're women. Rather, it's because they make different decisions regarding their education and employment. They have equal opportunity, what's bothering you is that the outcome is not the same - it can't be the same because women make different choices than men. That's not to say that those choices are bad - there's a reason why women live longer while men overwork and die early. The "79 cents to a dollar" figure comes from a misinterpretation of the Bureau of Labour Statistics which compared median incomes of men and women per capita *without* accounting for whether the women worked and for how long compared to the men. If you refuse to compare like for like, you're not going to end up with an accurate figure.
> 
> View attachment 273601
> 
> ...



Oy, I hate replying by phone with sources. I owe you one for Texas, I was reminded too. TBA... also, that chart doesn't list where the data was collected from, or... a lot of things? I still say the department of Labour Statistics data stands fairly well, and that Blizzard's recent lawsuits are a fun sampling that women get paid less for MORE work at major corporations. 

 I will say you have an awful lot of faith in a system to manage a problem while at the same time wanting to reduce its abilities to enforce and gather data on issues, though. It would be lovely if the government was involved enough to investigate and proactively handle discrimination before it has to be reported.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 20, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> Oy, I hate replying by phone with sources. I owe you one for Texas, I was reminded too. TBA... also, that chart doesn't list where the data was collected from, or... a lot of things? I still say the department of Labour Statistics data stands fairly well, and that Blizzard's recent lawsuits are a fun sampling that women get paid less for MORE work at major corporations.
> 
> I will say you have an awful lot of faith in a system to manage a problem while at the same time wanting to reduce its abilities to enforce and gather data on issues, though. It would be lovely if the government was involved enough to investigate and proactively handle discrimination before it has to be reported.


I am also on my phone, so you'll have to excuse the poor cropping. It's the same chart as the one in the linked article. There are many studies that come up with pretty much the same conclusion - there is a measurable difference between median wages of men and women, which I also agree is true, but most (if not all, since, we're getting close to margin of error here) of it is accounted for by factors that women are in control of rather than prejudice or discrimination. I could probably find more if it really interests you that much, but from what I've read on the subject, when proper controls are in place there's no noteworthy difference between wages of men and women (which is not surprising considering discrimination based on sex is, as I mentioned, a crime). It's exceedingly rare, and when it does occur, attorneys salivate at the opportunity to sue - those are easy wins. The lawsuit at Blizzard is only further evidence that this is the case (regardless of our subjective definitions of "more").


----------



## Dakitten (Aug 20, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I am also on my phone, so you'll have to excuse the poor cropping. It's the same chart as the one in the linked article. There are many studies that come up with pretty much the same conclusion - there is a measurable difference between median wages of men and women, which I also agree is true, but most (if not all, since, we're getting close to margin of error here) of it is accounted for by factors that women are in control of rather than prejudice or discrimination. I could probably find more if it really interests you that much, but from what I've read on the subject, when proper controls are in place there's no noteworthy difference between wages of men and women.



I always love more sources and more reading, so please and thank you in advance!

That being said, we can actually take this a step further and expand on how much of wealth is owned by women, and how that impacts education and employment. Much like minority groups, the impacts of discrimination and property rights regarding women in the past stretch on into today very obviously, and without a level playing field, it is difficult to improve upon.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 20, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> I always love more sources and more reading, so please and thank you in advance!
> 
> That being said, we can actually take this a step further and expand on how much of wealth is owned by women, and how that impacts education and employment. Much like minority groups, the impacts of discrimination and property rights regarding women in the past stretch on into today very obviously, and without a level playing field, it is difficult to improve upon.


I don't care who owns how much and why - those are not my things. I find that line of discussion tremendously uninteresting - I'm a strong supporter of discussing policies that allow people to earn more, not just receive more by taking from others. Other people can keep their things, I'm not envious of them - I can get my own.


----------



## SG854 (Aug 20, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> That men's suffering was different, and measurably less than women's suffering, and that the after effects of this fact stretch into the here and now. I actually wasn't wanting to get into outright slavery, as that gets into even uglier waters with rape and child ownership, to which an argument could be made that women had it worse there, too.
> 
> We may not live in the past, but we all live with the past and how it impacts our present.
> 
> ...


I hope you are not dismissing mens suffering just because in your mind they did not have as worse as another group you are doing relative comparisons with. Suffering is suffering. This isn't a contest.

And I don't particularly agree that their suffering is less then womens. Just different.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 20, 2021)

SG854 said:


> I hope you are not dismissing mens suffering just because in your mind they did not have as worse as another group you are doing relative comparisons with. Suffering is suffering. This isn't a contest.
> 
> And I don't particularly agree that their suffering is less then womens. Just different.


I mean, all of the world's wars, from the dawn of our species until relatively recently, were fought by men. Men were always the hunters and protectors - their sole objective in life was to provide for others, and die for them if necessary. That's a lot of suffering, so I'm not sure how the suffering calculus works out, or how to even begin to gauge it.


----------



## SG854 (Aug 20, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> I always love more sources and more reading, so please and thank you in advance!
> 
> That being said, we can actually take this a step further and expand on how much of wealth is owned by women, and how that impacts education and employment. Much like minority groups, the impacts of discrimination and property rights regarding women in the past stretch on into today very obviously, and without a level playing field, it is difficult to improve upon.


As long as you embrace other arguments then I'd be all for speaking with you. I did read books on this very topic so im decently versed on it. But my memory is hazy and im trying to remember everything off the top of my head. I would need to dig up all my sources. If you were talking with me a few years ago then it would've been different and all fresh in my head.



Foxi4 said:


> I mean, all of the world's wars, from the dawn of our species until relatively recently, were fought by men. Men were always the hunters and protectors - their sole objective in life was to provide for others, and die for them if necessary. That's a lot of suffering, so I'm not sure how the suffering calculus works out, or how to even begin to gauge it.


I agree with you, but usually the response is women were bared from wars by men. Which I think isnt a good rebuttle.

Getting your limbs blown off is worse then being barred from war. And lets be real, if you were to ask women today many of them are happy the draft doesnt exist for them.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I also want to add not to dismiss women who are hurt by war or from rape in war, comfort women in Asia comes to mind

And the atomic bomb in hiroshima and nagasaki wiping out populations of women and children along with males.


----------



## Dakitten (Aug 20, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I don't care who owns how much and why - those are not my things. I find that line of discussion tremendously uninteresting - I'm a strong supporter of discussing policies that allow people to earn more, not just receive more by taking from others. Other people can keep their things, I'm not envious of them - I can get my own.



That mentality only works if everyone has enough access to "things" to build or procure their needs too... which often doesn't work out for minorities and the poor. In order to make sure everyone can thrive, at some point some folks are going to have to take responsibility for hoarding and exploiting both resources and people, to say nothing of the environment. 


SG854 said:


> I hope you are not dismissing mens suffering just because in your mind they did not have as worse as another group you are doing relative comparisons with. Suffering is suffering. This isn't a contest.
> 
> And I don't particularly agree that their suffering is less then womens. Just different.


If you want to get into purely resources, it absolutely could be a contest where women have suffered more. That is kind of my point. Don't want to get into the other stuff, but...



Foxi4 said:


> I mean, all of the world's wars, from the dawn of our species until relatively recently, were fought by men. Men were always the hunters and protectors - their sole objective in life was to provide for others, and die for them if necessary. That's a lot of suffering, so I'm not sure how the suffering calculus works out, or how to even begin to gauge it.



You do realize that not only were women often deprived agency on if said wars should be fought or if they could fight in them, but the aftermath, particularly for the losing side, was quite grim, right? This is not the hill you want to die on, gentlemen.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 20, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> That mentality only works if everyone has enough access to "things" to build or procure their needs too... which often doesn't work out for minorities and the poor. In order to make sure everyone can thrive, at some point some folks are going to have to take responsibility for hoarding and exploiting both resources and people, to say nothing of the environment.


Dressing up envy in pretty words doesn't make it any less of a vice. As I already said, the market must be open and accessible to everybody, and laws exist to regulate it in this regard. If women were truly earning less for the same amount and quality of work, nobody would employ men. Why would they, if they can pay a woman less (by a not so insignificant amount, if we're to believe the bogus 23% figure)? Out of spite? You can't buy things with spite, but you can with money. You have two conflicting narratives going on at the same time, and they can't both be true simultaneously. One is that the market in a capitalist society operates on a money over people basis and will do anything and everything, often skirting the law of the land, to hoard capital. The other is that women are paid less for the same work. Logically, if I can pay a woman 79 cents instead of a dollar that I'd pay to a man, the incentive is clear - as a ruthless capitalist I would only hire women and pocket the change. Since this is obviously not how the market operates in real life, there must be other factors at play which are currently ommited by the side of the argument that proclaims the wage gap is a pressing issue. One such difference would be career choice, and that exists even within a singular industry. Take medicine, for instance - male doctors outnumber female doctors 64 to 36. Conversely, only 12% of nurses are men whereas 88% of them are women. You could argue that this is due to reduced educational opportunities, but that doesn't check out - women outnumber men in both college and university. 56% of college students are female versus 44% male, and they successfully graduate at a higher rate. Why is that? Is it because one profession is cold and calculated whereas the other is inherently focused on direct care? Those choices matter, since one is definitely paid better than the other.


> You do realize that not only were women often deprived agency on if said wars should be fought or if they could fight in them, but the aftermath, particularly for the losing side, was quite grim, right? This is not the hill you want to die on, gentlemen.


It's not a hill anyone should die on - there's been a lot of suffering over the ages, but I wouldn't argue that one gender suffered more than the other. As it was mentioned, they suffered in different ways. It's indeed not a contest.


----------



## Dakitten (Aug 20, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Dressing up envy in pretty words doesn't make it any less of a vice. As I already said, the market must be open and accessible to everybody, and laws exist to regulate it in this regard. If women were truly earning less for the same amount and quality of work, nobody would employ men. Why would they, if they can pay a woman less (by a not so insignificant amount, if we're to believe the bogus 23% figure)? Out of spite? You can't buy things with spite, but you can with money. You have two conflicting narratives going on simultaneously, and they can't both be true simultaneously. One is that the market in a capitalist society operates on a money over people basis and will do anything and everything, often skirting the law of the land, to hoard capital. The other is that women are paid less for the same work. Logically, if I can pay a woman 79 cents instead of a dollar that I'd pay to a man, the incentive is clear - as a ruthless capitalist I would only hire women and pocket the change. Since this is obviously not how the market operates in real life, there must be other factors at play which are currently ommited by the side of the argument that proclaims the wage gap is a pressing issue. One such difference would be career choice, and that exists even within a singular industry. Take medicine, for instance - male doctors outnumber female doctors 64 to 36. Conversely, only 12% of nurses are men whereas 88% of them are women. You could argue that this is due to reduced educational opportunities, but that doesn't check out - women outnumber men in both college and university. 56% of college students are female versus 44% male, and they successfully graduate at higher rate. Why is that? Is it because one profession is cold and calculated whereas the other is inherently focused on direct care? Those choices matter, since one is definitely paid better than the other.
> It's not a hill anyone should die on - there's been a lot of suffering over the ages, but I wouldn't argue that one gender suffered more than the other. As it was mentioned, they suffered in different ways. It's indeed not a contest.



Wowwie, I yield you have quite the dedication to capitalism. I will fault you on two things in particular here, and the first is assuming that capitalism can't exist without absolutely thriving off of all forms of exploitation simultaneously. The world doesn't work that narrowly, and what few efforts have been made to pacify the equality argument do operate as some level of deterrent... sometimes.

The ratio of nurses to doctors is interesting (and I would love to see the source, when you have a moment!) but considering trends prior to equal opportunity laws, that correlates with a slight adjustment to force inclusion. I also can't help but notice that you picked THE example STEM field with the closest level of equaIity, but I can walk with you a bit. I would propose that it would shift more if more programs for assisting mothers in schooling existed, and more wealth for higher education tuition was in the hands of women. I presume (but am open to rebutted with some data!) that your statistics don't include university and doctorate studies. 

As for the second fault... yeah, okay, no pretenses since subtlety is insufficient. Women have suffered more than men, at the hands of men, in the faiths of men, in the states of men. Don't piss off mums, folks. This really shouldn't be up for debate considering the above, and I encourage a little privilege check.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 20, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> Wowwie, I yield you have quite the dedication to capitalism. I will fault you on two things in particular here, and the first is assuming that capitalism can't exist without absolutely thriving off of all forms of exploitation simultaneously. The world doesn't work that narrowly, and what few efforts have been made to pacify the equality argument do operate as some level of deterrent... sometimes.
> 
> The ratio of nurses to doctors is interesting (and I would love to see the source, when you have a moment!) but considering trends prior to equal opportunity laws, that correlates with a slight adjustment to force inclusion. I also can't help but notice that you picked THE example STEM field with the closest level of equaIity, but I can walk with you a bit. I would propose that it would shift more if more programs for assisting mothers in schooling existed, and more wealth for higher education tuition was in the hands of women. I presume (but am open to rebutted with some data!) that your statistics don't include university and doctorate studies.
> 
> As for the second fault... yeah, okay, no pretenses since subtlety is insufficient. Women have suffered more than men, at the hands of men, in the faiths of men, in the states of men. Don't piss off mums, folks. This really shouldn't be up for debate considering the above, and I encourage a little privilege check.


We'll have to disagree in regards to the latter point. In regards to the former, the EEOC was passed in 1964, it's been almost 60 years, how old do you think the average doctor is? They're not 80+ (keeping age at graduation in mind). Again, a lot can be jotted down to preference - the largest differences between male and female preferences can be observed in countries with the largest number of "equity" regulations, for instance Sweden. Paradoxically, it is the capitalist system that forces women to pursue careers formerly associated with men, specifically in in the pursuit of higher income. When left to their own devices and with all things being equal, women overwhelmingly pursue very different careers because they have very different personalities - they're more conciencious in terms of psychological traits. The industry is still adjusting to take advantage of this, and preliminary results show that women are excellent team leaders, purely because they're better at forming personal relationships. Of course this is all broad strokes, we could have a whole separate thread about the differences between men and women. It's worth noting that this is all statistics - individuals can fit anywhere on the spectrum, this is more a matter of statistically significant trends.


----------



## SG854 (Aug 21, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> Men never had to handle things like witch burnings,


Yes they did deal with things like Witch burnings

1) The accusers were not all men
2) The victims were not only women



Males that were accused were called warlocks

Female participated in as much witch hunts as men. And alot of it was directed at women by women.


In Scottland 86% of accussed were Women, who do you think the other 14% were?



Sometimes men were accused more than woman especially in the early days of Witch hunting.


In the British Isles 59% of the accused were men. In Switzerland it was as high as 80%. Iceland 92% of men. Estonia 60% men. Moscow, Russia 2/3rds were men.


Here's an article from Cambridge University

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3879463




> but also pockets within Western Europe, where men, not women, comprised a large fraction or even the majority of accused




Also Witch hunting wasn't the only religiously charged thing. There was two inquisitions, Protestants and Catholics going at it, and persecution of Jews. There was blasphemy, heresy, apostasy which punished as harshly as witchcraft and the majority of victims were men. Witch hunting made up of only a very small percentage of all these religiously charged things.




Dakitten said:


> gender focused anti voting laws,


While not gendered focused many men did not have the right to vote period for a huge part of history.

40% of men did not have the right to vote and had their own suffrage movment and fought to gain the right to vote. Only after WW1 did they gain the right to vote as a reward for fighting in the war in 1918, the same time women got the right to vote. Many men died for their right to vote.

https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2018/jun/11/1918-suffrage-celebrations-what-about-the-men



Dakitten said:


> I actually wasn't wanting to get into outright slavery, as that gets into even uglier waters with rape and child ownership, to which an argument could be made that women had it worse there, too.


Who's more likely to get shot by the police? A black man or a black woman?

Black men are far more likely to be in prison, more likely to be street homeless, police are 25 times more likely to shoot a black man then a black women a much bigger gap then the white and black gap of police shootings.


Again you trying to make this a game of who's oppressed more is ridiculous. Neither opression is nice and both genders suffered in their own ways.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 21, 2021)

SG854 said:


> Again you trying to make this a game of who's oppressed more is ridiculous. Neither opression is nice and both genders suffered in their own ways.


Well, of course. It's the 21st century, oppression olympics are well-underway. Victimhood is currency, even if it's only perceived victimhood based on past wrongs that occurred generations ago and may or may not have any bearing on your current situation. That's the fun trend now, in a few years we'll come up with something new. In any case, the whole witchcraft chit-chat reminds me of Giles Corey, a man sentenced to being pressed to death during the Salem Witch Trials. For those unfamiliar with this method of execution, it consists of restraining the victim and stacking stones on top of them until the weight of the stones crushes them to death. His famous last words? "More weight". What a chad.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giles_Corey

So yes, men were accused of witchcraft, not just women. Not that it matters anyway since men had other woes throughout history.


----------



## SG854 (Aug 21, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Well, of course. It's the 21st century, oppression olympics are well-underway. Victimhood is currency, even if it's only perceived victimhood based on past wrongs that occurred generations ago and may or may not have any bearing on your current situation. That's the fun trend now, in a few years we'll come up with something new. In any case, the whole witchcraft chit-chat reminds me of Giles Corey, a man sentenced to being pressed to death during the Salem Witch Trials. For those unfamiliar with this method of execution, it consists of restraining the victim and stacking stones on top of them until the weight of the stones crushes them to death. His famous last words? "More weight". What a chad.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giles_Corey
> 
> So yes, men were accused of witchcraft, not just women. Not that it matters anyway since men had other woes throughout history.


Yes, overall im not making any claims of which gender was more oppressed because in my many debates of this topic in the past the opression olympics is a ridiculous game to play.

I can name certain instances and certain areas where more men or more women were disadvantaged. But overall will not make the claim that one had it worse then the other. They both have some disadvantages that were similar and some that were unique to their specific gender. And overall both faced disadvantages and suffered in their own ways.


----------



## notimp (Oct 13, 2021)

Take note of that youtuber as well, imho. This is the second "exceptional" video of him I've watched.

Great also, because talking about the politics of Japan serves as a good proxy for western (satellite state) politics, while also generating some familiarity for people in this forum interest wise. (Just saying, that this might connect with "tha gamers".)


----------



## Subtle Demise (Oct 21, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> Wowwie, I yield you have quite the dedication to capitalism. I will fault you on two things in particular here, and the first is assuming that capitalism can't exist without absolutely thriving off of all forms of exploitation simultaneously. The world doesn't work that narrowly, and what few efforts have been made to pacify the equality argument do operate as some level of deterrent... sometimes.
> 
> The ratio of nurses to doctors is interesting (and I would love to see the source, when you have a moment!) but considering trends prior to equal opportunity laws, that correlates with a slight adjustment to force inclusion. I also can't help but notice that you picked THE example STEM field with the closest level of equaIity, but I can walk with you a bit. I would propose that it would shift more if more programs for assisting mothers in schooling existed, and more wealth for higher education tuition was in the hands of women. I presume (but am open to rebutted with some data!) that your statistics don't include university and doctorate studies.
> 
> As for the second fault... yeah, okay, no pretenses since subtlety is insufficient. Women have suffered more than men, at the hands of men, in the faiths of men, in the states of men. Don't piss off mums, folks. This really shouldn't be up for debate considering the above, and I encourage a little privilege check.


Voluntary exchange =\= exploitation


----------



## Dakitten (Oct 21, 2021)

Subtle Demise said:


> Voluntary exchange =\= exploitation


Wow, I forgot about this terrible thread... Same pathetic rhetoric, different day.

Voluntary servitude at places that fail to pay enough to meet the minimum means to survive on your own anywhere or death on the streets = exploitation. Half a million homeless people in a country that has several million empty homes speaks volumes to the credibility of your statement. Hell, capitalism even NEEDS desperation from the poor in order to push profits for the top by design. The more desperate people are, the harder you can work them. The more needless deaths there are, the more the living will sacrifice to not become one of them.


----------

