Child beauty contests are completely harmless. Their negative impact is in no way greater than anything competitive sports does to children. People, however, need to do tons of virtue signalling, so they scream about the terrible “sexualization” going on there, when it is in fact just some kids playing dress up, one of the most natural games children play.
Speaking as a psychologist, you really need to be squinting to think like this. Consider motivations for entering into such a contest and who they’re held by.
What do we need arguments for, mate? It’s been talked about a thousand times. It’s bad, it HAS horrible psychological effects on kids and it IS sexualizing them. You’re wrong just to be contrarian. It’s annoying. It’s not Kids playing dress up, it’s that while they are getting rated (eeew) by adult people.
The vast majority of statutory rape is not rape at all, just an angry over-protective father or an over-zealous ambitious politician (D.A.) criminalizing a young person’s romantic life.
Romeo-and-Juliet laws are the solution to this problem. Under such a law, it is legal to have sex with someone if your age is close enough to theirs, or if both of you are adults.
Many 13 year olds are still pubescent. None are children. Nature turns children into adults. There is lots of individual variation.
What turns a kitten into an adult cat? Puberty. What turns a puppy into an adult dog? Puberty. What turns a child into an adult human? Puberty. This is not difficult.
There are clear obvious scientific facts at work here. They are not technicalities.
How I feel does not make reality real. If I feel like a dog, I am still human.
Nature makes us adults. The process is called puberty. There are several visible objective secondary sexual characteristics which make pretty damned clear who is where in the process.
Nice Freudian slip you’ve got there. How you feel, indeed, does not make your reality real. You keep claiming it’s a scientific fact while rambling about something no professional in the field would ever agree on.
At one point you’ve learned about one aspect of measuring (purely physical) development - the tanner scale - and decided to forever discard everything else. Keep rest assured this is not how the world or science actually works.
The Tanner scale measures sexual development. Nothing else. It has nothing to do with general maturity, it just measures if the external sexual characteristics have come in.
Whenever people like you go this “its just biology/science!” route they always conveniently forget that the animals you’re comparing us to aren’t sapient and don’t require the time for mental development that humans do. a sixth month old dog might be physically and mentally an adult but human psychological development doesn’t end until about 23-25, our level of intelligence requires a longer incubation time.
You pretend biology is on your side by ignoring psychology entirely.
Care for some actual science? You’re making some extraordinary claims with very simplistic statements relating an interdisciplinary, highly complex field of research. There is not one single point in development when maturity is reached, there are different, simultaneous processes involving different aspects of development and maturity.
(…) For the current discussion, the key point is that there is no single progression that encompasses functional maturation. Neural activity intensifies and reduces, varies quantitatively and qualitatively, in linear and nonlinear ways that are both linked to—and independent of—behavioral differences across development. Each of these patterns reflects developmental progress, but the wide range of ‘‘journeys’’ prohibits a simple definition of what emerging brain functional maturity looks like. (…)
(…) As reviewed in the accompanying article by Paus [5] there is growing evidence that maturational brain processes are continuing well through adolescence. Even relatively simple structural measures, such as the ratio of whiteto-gray matter in the brain, demonstrate large-scale changes into the late teen-age years [6–8]. The impact of this continued maturation on emotional, intellectual and behavioral development has yet to be thoroughly studied, but there is considerable evidence that the second decade of life is a period of great activity with respect to changes in brain structure and function, especially in regions and systems associated with response inhibition, the calibration of risk and reward, and emotion regulation. Contrary to earlier beliefs about brain maturation in adolescence, this activity is not limited to the early adolescent period, nor is it invariably linked to processes of pubertal maturation (Figure 1). (…)
(…) Consistent with prior work showing that risk-taking behavior increases and peaks during adolescence (Gullone et al., 2000; Steinberg, 2007), we found that rebelliousness similarly increases from early adolescence to late adolescence before declining into adulthood. Research on the development of prosocial behavior however is mixed (for an overview, see Do et al., 2017). We observed a quadratic effect of age on a broad measure of prosocial behavior, peaking in mid-to-late adolescence, suggesting that, like rebelliousness, prosocial development follows a nonlinear age pattern that converges during late adolescence, although future studies should test if different age patterns are observed for different domains within prosocial behavior (such as helping and donating behavior). Our findings converge on the hypothesis that the development of rebellious and prosocial tendencies peak during late adolescence relative to earlier or later ages (Do et al., 2017), thus highlighting late adolescence as both a window of vulnerability and opportunity (…)
and teenagers drive the same cars as all other adults on the same roads as all other adults to the same jobs as all other adults where they do the same work as all other adults and get the same wages as all other adults and pay the same taxes as all other adults
for all of human history we have known that teenagers are adults
advanced research into neural pathways changes nothing. they are still just as capable of doing all the things they’ve been doing for thousands of years regardless of what some morons claim about their white matter or prefrontal cortexes.
the brain is by far the least understood organ in the human body, and lots of clickbait bullshit pseudo-science has convinced people that everyone under 25 is a retard. it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that teens would be just fine, if we only treated them with basic respect and gave them a chance.
history is replete with examples of that happening. the current level of infantilization of young adults aged 14-24 in the USA is completely unprecedented. it’s a huge experiment, and as their rates of depression, self-harm, and suicide have skyrocketed it’s safe to say this path is disastrous, evil, or both.
Well, and if you’re not trying to imply that we are at peak cognitive ability at the age of 13 (and I at least hope you don’t believe that) this should be hint number one for you that the way you think maturity works is probably wrong.
It also shows me that you didn’t even read the short excerpts I provided for you. Here, again:
(…) For the current discussion, the key point is that there is no single progression that encompasses functional maturation. Neural activity intensifies and reduces, varies quantitatively and qualitatively, in linear and nonlinear ways that are both linked to—and independent of—behavioral differences across development. Each of these patterns reflects developmental progress, but the wide range of ‘‘journeys’’ prohibits a simple definition of what emerging brain functional maturity looks like. (…)
Or another quote from that paper:
(…) Measures of widespread brain connectivity shift in complex ways from childhood to adulthood, characterized by reductions in local connections and rises in distributed connections. These connectivity-based shifts are thought to reflect a brain that is becoming more efficient in its in-network communication and more integrated in its cross-network communication (…)
Since you seem confident in your grasp of the topic I guess those two should answer your question.
You chose to ignore all of the obvious signs of adulthood. Instead you want to cherry-pick a few insignificant changes in the brain and say “these are the only things that matter for maturity”
Sorry. That’s just very stupid.
It would be equally valid to claim that pubic hair, or menstruation, or any other adult trait is the only one that matters.
You think that there’s a difference between 26 year olds and 16 year olds. Well, yes, there is. But many 26 year olds can pass for 16 and vice versa. Because they are both adults. 16 year olds cannot pass for 6 year olds or vice versa. 6 year olds are children.
After puberty humans are adults. This is not difficult. Desperately searching for neuological data so you can claim 17 year olds are children is dumb. Stop doing it. Nobody benefits from you supporting bigotry. Stop it.
It would be equally valid to claim that pubic hair, or menstruation, or any other adult trait is the only one that matters.
This is exactly what you’re proposing by claiming that the Tanner Scale is the only determinant. Like really, exactly this. It’s beautiful how you’re debunking yourself.
Your position, that puberty is irrelevant, and the only thing that makes humans adults is a vague kind of “maturity” measured only by minute changes in the least-understood organ in the human body, is appallingly stupid.
Like, I can’t believe that you’re not just trolling me. How on earth can you claim something so obviously not true?
I’m blocking you. Rethink your life. You don’t have to be a useless blockhead troll forever.
has convinced people that everyone under 25 is a retard
But this follows from none of those papers. You have simply no clue what you’re talking about.
I’m absolutely in favor of letting young adults live their lives and participate in society. Give them the right to vote, let their voices be heard. Give them the opportunities they need and want. You’re arguing against a strawman if you think I am against any of those. But your original claim is simply false. There are differences between people with 20 and 40, and a much bigger difference between 16 and 40. That doesn’t mean we should infantilize 16 year olds, but in certain aspects treating them the same will simply be unfair to the teenager. We have juvenile laws for a reason. And the recommendation to wait with smoking until the early 20s isn’t simply meant to annoy young people either.
If you’d stop looking at this from your over emotional point of view and read up on some actual research for a few minutes you could see that everything else you’ve implied has nothing to do with the topic.
If actual scientists however are nothing but “some morons” for you, you’re simply incorrigible and ever conversation with you over this is pointless.
Everything you write fuels bigotry against a hated demographic.
Teens usually have less experience than older adults. So they will be at a disadvantage.
You write that my posts have nothing to do with the topic, but my posts are the topic. You have veered off into totally irrelevant nonsense about neural pathways.
The vast majority of brain development happens ages 0-3 and 9-13. We get adult brains along with our adult bodies during puberty. That is scientific fact. The fact that brains age even after puberty is not new info, nor is it relevant at all to anything. Our brains slow down as we age. Maturity is not always a good thing.
re: “has convinced people that everyone under 25 is a retard” Yes. Sensational clickbait headlines about very unreliable fMRI studies did that. I am talking about public opinion here. You links to studies of tiny brain changes make no difference. Nobody cares. Read the nasty crap peeps write about under 25s. They have truly been convinced that youth are brain-dead morons who must be shunned if not locked up entirely.
Odd how our bodies reach adult height and brains adult size during puberty :-)
You have cherrypicked your sources. All of neurology points to very fact that brains develop very quickly ages 9-13 and then very slow change from that point on.
but that data doesn’t support your bigotry, so you ignore it.
Teens are adults. We reach Tanner Stage 5 on average at 14 years of age now. This is not in dispute. The science is clear. You just dislike it, so you deflect to irrelevant garbage about some neural pathways that change a bit when you’re 20 :-D
I want people to respect each other. and unwarranted infantilization is very damaging. Our teens are having a massive mental health crisis right now. They are depressed as hell and killing themselves at rates never before seen. The way we treat them like shit, tell them they’re idiots and will be for 10 more years contributes to this.
We’ve not changed the way we see adolescent development for far longer than mental health and suicide have been rising, meaning your ideas of what’s contributing aren’t even remotely the cause. You wanna know why teenagers are killing themselves in record numbers? Here’s a few quick reasons…
Social media. Influencers have created an entire fake reality that is so impossible for the average person to achieve that they feel disconnected and worthless. The fact that these people make boatloads of money while producing and providing zero value to the economy is also disheartening.
Climate change. It’s clear that it’s happening, and clear that governments and their corporate overlords are willing to destroy the fucking planet while we can’t do anything about it.
Cost of housing. Want to retire? Ever? Hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha. Hope your family is wealthy or has a place to pass down to you.
Cost of education. In the last 50 years the cost of a bachelor’s degree has risen 500% above inflation. Somehow this has also happened during a decreased value of education as well (so literally breaking the economics of supply and demand) because every fucking entry level paperclip counting job needs you to have a 60k degree to “prove you have the discipline to get things done.”
But yeah, I’m sure it’s the fact that 13 year olds aren’t considered legal adults (something that’s never been a thing in our society) that’s somehow causing the increased suicide in the last two decades. Cause that makes any fucking sense at all.
Your straw man at the end is stupid bad-faith bullshit. The vast majority of teens are no longer 13.
There are other factors, of course, but getting treated like shit, being constantly told you’re a moron, having your sex life criminalized, constantly being told you’ll get groomed and preyed on because you’re an idiot, getting zero respect, and having no legal rights is a major cause of the mental health crisis (which happened simultaneously with the change of paradigm from teens = young adults to teens = large children)
This and puberty takes time. It isn’t ‘puberty not started’ or ‘puberty done’. There’s also 'puberty on going ’ which takes a long time in most mammals.
I wrote “Teenagers Are Adults” and you respond by moving the goalposts to make a strawman. I never wrote “All of the youngest teenagers are always adults” You made that up so you could knock it down.
The vast majority of teenagers are adults. That’s just science. The median age of reaching Tanner 5, adulthood, is 14 now. So most of us are fully adult before our 15th birthdays.
So now you are trying to use the Tanner scale to determine if somebody is an adult? There is no strawman here, you are writing those ridiculous comments yourself.
Physically yes (at least in late teens), mentally no. Their brains have not finished developing.
From a less biological standpoint, they’re also still (typically) living with their parents and attending school, largely insulated from the real world.
But it’s really the brain development that kills the argument. Any argument about whether a teenager is an adult is almost guaranteed to revolve more around the mental/emotional aspects of adulthood than the physical.
Let’s stick to unpopular opinions, not incorrect facts.
“finished developing” is a stupid red herring. Our bodies and brains never stop changing. There is literally no point of “finished developing”
Our brains are largest around age 13. We get adult brains along with our adult bodies during puberty. This is a well-known scientific fact.
If anyone is “insulated from the real world” that was a choice society made. Was it the intentional infantilization of young adults? Keeping them locked out of adult society means they stay mentally children. We created this problem. We can remove it.
Parts of our brains don’t finish cooking until your early to mid twenties. By the time you are 18 19 you are mostly cooked but a 16 year old still has a lot of developing to go
I think the point is that things like impulse control improve as we get older. This continues to evolve.
‘Mature impulse control’ would be when the majority of people have reached a level that is acceptable for them to behave ‘responsibly’.
I’d argue there are teenagers that have already reached this level, and that there are many 30 year olds left to reach the level, but a best-fit age needs to be decided upon to avoid many with low impulse control being given too much responsibility.
I think I see your point, but I do feel there are aspects that stop this one from being true.
Never before in human history have teenagers been as intensely infantilized as they are in the USA right now.
Look at pre-literate societies too.
The idea that we are children until some time in our early twenties is brand new. Nobody ever considered such ridiculous bullshit until about 20 years ago. Now there are huge numbers of Americans thoroughly convinced of this obviously false, vile, bigoted dogma.
Okay. Let’s calm down. You can make your argument without calling it emotional words like ‘bullshit’. Talking emotionally makes others less likely to listen to your point. Funnily enough it also makes you appear less mentally mature 😉
Just because it’s a new idea doesn’t mean it’s wrong.
I’d also wager that the 'point of maturity ’ is a little high in the US, but not that all teenagers are mature enough to be called ‘adults’.
Do people really believe that 20 year olds are children and no one ever in the entire history of the world ever noticed this, and the only people who ever got this right are in the USA in the last 20 years?
Personally, I think most 20 year olds are mature enough to be called adults.
I don’t think a 13 year old is.
I agree with most of Europe that around 18 is a sufficient age.
So for me, 18 is the point where people are matute enough on average.
Your first comment suggests you think as soon as a person hits puberty they’re mature enough to be called adults. I’m not sure at this point if this is what you meant.
I have seen people literally argue that a romantic relationship MUST be abusive because one of the lovers is only 19 and therefore “still a teen” … the dogma that says teens are children is absolutely false and it is damaging the hell out of young people.
arguing semantics to win an argument must make you great at parties and nothing I said was illogical. Just because you feel you are right doesn’t automatically make other points illogical.
Simply put your “constantly changing” is as much a hand wave over complex topics as my cooking metaphor and allows for significant development of cognition and decision making.
frontal and parietal cortices aren’t developed until mid to late teens with maturation continuing for another decade. Maturation is an important part to consider because just because it’s developed doesn’t mean you are capable of using it effectively.
The frontal lobe is generally where higher executive functions including emotional regulation, planning, reasoning and problem solving occur.
How does your brain being biggest at 13 prove adulthood? I think it would better prove the opposite: brains are biggest at that age because they need the space to restructure things.
That’s not unpopular that’s just gross unless you’re a teen yourself. Then it’s like whatever because of course you think you’re grown. There’s no acceptable reason for an adult wanting a teenager to be considered an adult.
Edit: What I mean is that we should talk to them like they are adults so that adulthood sets in more smoothly. I do not think they should have the same rights as consent and stuff like that. They should learn about this stuff but not be able to do them and participate since they are not mature enough to make these descisions. For example, they can take sex ed classes but not consent to actual sex.
I am scared as to how consent is being implied here… I don’t think they have the life experience and maturity to consent to sex and maybe drinking alcohol.
If you lock people out of adult society they gain no life experience.
Strictly keeping youth out of bars because they have no “life experience” means they’ll never get the “life experience” you think they need to be considered adults and allowed into bars. It’s a system for maintaining child status permanently.
So, based on your post history, the age of consent is too high, teens are more mature than what society believes, and we should let children into bars? Bro. You are a pedo. You are trying to justify your bullshit. I will follow you. I will continue to call you on your bullshit. Everywhere you go on the fediverse, I will reveal your nature.
We don’t need more pronouns. We need less of them.
In my native language there is no even he/she pronouns. The word is “hän” and it’s gender neutral. You can be male, female, FTM, MTF, non-binary or what ever and you’re still called “hän”. You can identify as anything you like and “hän” already includes you.
That sounds like a solution that should make everyone happy. However, the crowd arguing against more pronouns would also argue against this, just because they’re impossible to appease.
Wouldn’t be surprised if the (mostly) political right that seems all these new pronouns as stupid would also ironically be against giving up on their own gender specific pronoun for a gender neutral one.
I’ll go one further: I get (and respect) the utility of they/them pronouns for a singular entity, but it IS clunky and confusing. English is ever evolving but when I hear a “they” it is still very much more abstract and plural than a more specific he or she.
Whatever: it’s my shit and I’ll gladly deal with a nanosecond of confusion and adjust if it allows people to maintain their dignity. Point is, by insisting that there’s nothing confusing about they/them in reference to a single entity feels disingenuous. I know moderate people who are otherwise live and let live as well as receptive to basic human dignity who are turned off by the confusing abstraction, switching tenses, etc.
They/them isn’t the elegant, seamless drop in that people say it is and it hurts the messaging. I get that being rigid and forceful is necessary with the rampant transphobia and “i’m just asking (bad faith) questions” going on, but I still fuck up semantics and tenses like whoa
I don’t think they/them is the ideal word to replace he/she with either. It probably needs to be a whole new word. They/them exists in my language too and it’s used when you’re talking about multiple people. It’s confusing to say “they did something” when you’re speaking of a single person.
This argument has never made sense simply because of the fact that singular they/them has been in use for literally centuries. It’s even reasonable to say it’s always been in use considering singular they/them was in use in the 14th century and modern English formed around 14-17th. I can guarantee you have never batted an eye when you heard something like “someone called but they didn’t leave a message”.
There are only two differences with recent usage: people are less likely to assume genders so use they/them more freely; and people identifying specifically as they/them. The words themselves haven’t really changed, they’re just more common now. Opposition to singular they/them is almost entirely political.
Their argument has a lot to do with people not establishing context upfront unlike your example with “someone called”. I can’t count the number of times I’ve had a conversation with someone talking about a non-binary person, only to realize five minutes in they weren’t talking about a group of people. It’s super jarring when it happens.
True, but singular they is undeniably clunky. Unfortunately it’s the best we have, so we will have to get used to it. Opposition to the natural evolution of language has never worked.
It’s not people using the neutral that bothers me, it’s the fact that the neutral is both singular and plural while the non neutrals are only singular/plural.
and the plural part also alters the entire sentence structure to plural.
“He is over there” - Singular and easy to understand
“They is over there” - Just sounds wrong.
“They are over there” - Both singular and plural. Is it a person of unspecified nature or multiple people of mixed ones?
English could use a popularization of a strictly singular neutral that doesn’t carry implications of being an object rather than a being (“It is over there”)
I feel the same but with genders. To be clear if anyone identifies to a specific gender, I’ll respect that. However I don’t see why genders are necessary. We are all unique human beings and there’s no need to label everyone to a specific gender.
I think a little bit it’s just that people typically like labels. They want to fit neatly into their little labeled box and the more labels they have, the more unique and/or complete they feel.
I really rejected labels as a teen, I hated the idea of it. Now I realize they can be useful for some things, and you know, if my trans brother feels better because his label is now male, that’s fine it doesn’t hurt me any to call him what makes him feel good.
the more labels they have, the more unique and/or complete they feel.
That sounds completely bonkers to me but you might be right.
if my trans brother feels better because his label is now male, that’s fine
No, of course if you don’t like the body you have and you want to change your “gender-defining” features, you should. It’s a bit like changing your haircut - although more impactful. You didn’t like your looks/body before, so you changed it and now you feel better so that’s perfect!
Before I learned about the LGBTQ community, I thought of gender as something you were born with and that described your body type: masculine or feminine. Aside from that, I don’t and never believed that it defines what kind of person you are, it only defines a part of your looks.
Now with the community there are people who describe themselves as non-binary or agender and again, I’ll totally respect that. However when I tried to think about what my gender really was, I started to realize that the whole concept of gender didn’t really make sense to me. What does it really mean to be non-binary? Heck, what does it even mean to be male or female? If it’s not just your body-type then what is it? Why do we need it? Isn’t it easier to not assign any genders at all? Just be who you want to be and love who you want to love!
If it’s not just your body-type then what is it? Why do we need it? Isn’t it easier to not assign any genders at all? Just be who you want to be and love who you want to love!
That would be lovely if they weren’t a lot of heavily armed persons willing to kill you or make you suffer if you act that way.
We should remove the gender information from ID and other documents unrelated to the gender
(Maybe kept the XX or XY mark on medical papers though, may be useful to avoid death from medical poisoning, but even your gender and sexual preferences have nothing to do here, so no gender mark neither)
However I don’t see why genders are necessary. We are all unique human beings and there’s no need to label everyone to a specific gender.
And if many people (specially, even if not exclusively, in a certain country whose name I’ll avoid mentioning) didn’t have as their favorite passtime “kill the freak”, where “freak” is anyone not belonging to their narrow definition of acceptability, difference would truly be unremarkable. However, reality doesn’t seem to be working well for those folks, and they need a way to identify each other to provide community and to feel less alone and, maybe, to defend each other.
And we’ve nowadays taken it even further, in spoken Finnish we’ve even got rid of the “hän” and mostly use “se”, which is the Finnish word for “it”. The same pronoun is used for people in all forms, animals, items, institutions and so on, and in practice the only case for “hän” is people trying to remind others they consider their pets human.
My language is the exact opposite, everything is gendered in a binary way, and there’s no way to talk in a neutral or non-binary way, at least not in a super awkward way.
This doesn’t answer the question… but it’s my 1,001st comment on Lemmy, what the hell.
This thread exemplifies why I love Lemmy so much. It’s because we have so many original, free thinkers. We don’t always get along, but you can be sure you’ll find plenty of brand new ideas when you scroll through these threads.
It’s not. OTOH it’s nonsense. The social engineering came late. First it was a primitive attempt to explain the unknown and give meaning to the meaningless.
I agree and have a follow up opinion. It’s not a bad thing. Religion was created to share and make people believe that certain things are bad because those things used to hurt or kill people. It’s social engineering to essentially try to make people better at living longer and happier lives. Sadly, a lot of religion broke out into more and more bad actors that used it for greed and personal gain.
Most conservatives, however deeply red, are not intentionally hateful and are usually open to rational discussion. People just don’t know how to have rational discussions nowadays and the few times they do, they don’t know how to think like somebody else and put things in a way they can understand.
People nowadays think because a point convinced them, it should convince everybody else and anybody who’s not convinced by it is just being willfully ignorant. The truth is we all process things differently and some people need to hear totally different arguments to understand, often put in ways that wouldn’t convince you if you heard it.
It’s hard to understand other people and I feel like the majority of people have given up trying in favor of assuming everybody who disagrees with you knows their wrong and refuses to admit it.
It is very hard to have rational disccussion when people disagree on the basic observable facts, ignore the “rules” of debate, and are struggling with critical thinking. You can meet difficult people on all the political spectrum, but certain idealogy attract more difficult people, and certain stuff mainstream conservatives believe right now has absolutely no basis in reality.
Yeah except for the fact that they are causing very real damage to POC and LGBTQ people. So let’s be very clear here. Conservatives are not intentionally hateful and can be nice and kind if you are a straight white Christian. If you aren’t in the in group though they can and will turn on you even if they tolerate you. Because conservative ideology is one fundamentally founded on hate and oppression.
I have had plenty of conversations with people irl. Most of the them with people who are to the right of me on the political spectrum. What I found in the conversations that were fruitful, was that our disagreement on larger issues, such as economics or personal freedoms, tended to stem from disagreements on smaller issues. To paraphrase my friend, “We are using the same words, but they all mean different things.” It seems to me that there are some elementary differences between progressives and conservatives that change how we rationalize the larger issues. That’s how the two groups can, based on the same information, come to two different conclusions.
That being said though, I think Fox News and other conservative news channels have created information silos. Not everyone who is conservative has necessarily had access to the same body of facts and evidence that progressives have. I think a good portion of people who are stuck in those silos would change their views if they had a more balanced news diet.
You’re not outright wrong, but it’s really hard to have the rational discussion skills to cut through decades of propaganda. For the many deep in the right-ring bubble, brainwashing is a better term than mere propaganda.
I can agree with that. I’ve been part of a cult before (was born into it) and I can recognize a lot of what I went through there in far right people. I guess I’m just a little sensitive to people calling these people idiots and hateful people due to seeing myself in them. Like, to me, they’re (usually) just good people being manipulated into thinking the awful things they say and do are good, and they need a rational and caring person to pull them slowly out of it, the same way I did.
Obviously, it takes more than just talking usually to pull somebody out of a cult, but I think it’s still a big part of it. They’ve been fooled into thinking that things that are rational aren’t, and unless they’re confronted with the actual truth and the facts to back them up, they’re not going to even start to question their beliefs.
I’m also not suggesting that every person needs to debate every republican about every issue they bring up. If you can’t or even just don’t want to debate somebody, you don’t have any obligation to, but I don’t think insulting them over it is almost ever the right response.
There’s also the angle of how every cult teaches you that you’re going to be persecuted for your beliefs, and brainwashes you into thinking that should reaffirm you that you must be correct. That is one major reason I think labeling all conservatives as irrational and hopeless is dangerous. When somebody who’s been taught that the world is going to hate them for being “right” finds that the world does not, in fact, hate them, but instead just displays genuine concern, that’s when you fully start to question everything.
I don’t think every right winger is going to fling left when presented with this view. In fact, I think the vast majority won’t, but it will make them a little more understanding, and a little more understanding over the course of many years and generations adds up.
Are the downvotes because that’s a good one or because they hate it? Are the upvotes in agreement that votes should go or agreement that it’s unpopular?
I think two can be fine, if just to cover weird situations you might find yourself in (cosigning with somebody, somebody dies and leaves it you, or I guess I don’t really mind a “summer home”). I think beyond that though I agree.
I think having multiple houses(for different seasons or whatever) is fine. It is the financial exploitation of housing that is wrong. You shouldnt be able to rent houses.
Private landlords are not as bad. If everyone had only one house there’d be nowhere to rent unless you only want to rent the room.
Now corporate landlords. They own so much real estate it’s practically a monopoly. And as a business they’re profit driven and exploit their tenants. I think renting wasn’t so bad before companies started investing in real estate.
This is the real problem! Companies that own many many homes/ apartments are disgusting to deal with - everything is profit driven. Lost my mom recently and her house is transferring to me through the court so every day i get a dozen calls from investors, -" I’m sorry for your loss; can i buy your house? AAA Property Mgmt."
Men commit almost all rape and murder, but no one seems to think this is a problem we need to do anything about. If any other group committed 90% of serious crimes – let’s say immigrants – people would be calling for them to be rounded up and exiled. But when it’s men, that’s just the way things are, nothing to be done about it.
But we know exactly what to do about it when we’re talking about other species. We castrate male cattle because bulls are dangerous and steer aren’t. Violent criminals typically have elevated testosterone levels. It doesn’t take a genius to realize that putting men on testosterone-blockers is going to make them less dangerous.
What will be the other effects?
Men will be be weaker—Meh, physical strength is less useful now than it was in the past.
They’ll have less hair on their bodies and more on their heads—Awesome.
They’ll won’t be able to get hard—That’s what viagra is for.
They’ll lose fertility—They can go off blockers while they’re trying to have a child. Or you could just have a small number of uncastrated sperm donors.
I’m an anarchist, so I don’t want to force this on anyone. But if I believed in prisons or police, I would also believe in mandatory castration.
Props for having an unpopular opinion. I think its interesting a self proclaimed anarchist has such an incredibly totalitarian belief. Also one that sounds rooted in a deeply right wing/bigoted style of thinking. “Men are inherently violent so we need to castrate them against their will to fit our view” wouldnt the much more logical conclusion be to try and change culture to one that discourages toxic masculinity? Rather than believing in a massive violation of human rights
I don’t think we should castrate men against their will, although I would if I weren’t an anarchist. As it is, I think it would be a good social norm for men to take testosterone blockers.
I’m not sure what “men are inherently violent” means. I think that testosterone makes people more aggressive. Adult men with typical levels of testosterone are more likely to be violent than people with lower testosterone levels. Men with very low testosterone levels are not particularly likely to be aggressive. Aggression is not inherent to being a man, but it is caused by a chemical that’s found in larger amounts in men than in women.
I do think we should discourage toxic masculinity, and I do think it’s responsible for some of the difference in aggression in men and women. However, I think that testosterone also plays a major role.
Men commit almost all rape and murder, but no one seems to think this is a problem we need to do anything about.
There’s a feminist movement. One of the major theses of the feminist movement is the rape and murder overwhelmingly committed by men. I’d like it if a lot more people were feminists, but it’s not correct to say that no one cares.
If any other group committed 90% of serious crimes – let’s say immigrants – people would be calling for them to be rounded up and exiled.
And that would still be an insane reaction to that fact even if it was true, which no self-identified anarchist should support. Rehabilitation must still be the goal of any justice system.
But when it’s men, that’s just the way things are, nothing to be done about it.
Okay, that’s reasonable. However, that doesn’t mean that we should accept absolutely any solution to eliminate misogyny no matter the cost. There are wildly more creative and practical ways to go about this.
But we know exactly what to do about it when we’re talking about other species. We castrate male cattle because bulls are dangerous and steer aren’t.
Spicy hot take: we shouldn’t be castrating bulls. Technically you would probably achieve your goal of taming a bull by castrating it, but at the disproportionate expense of the bull’s personality, health, and bodily autonomy. Now we’re not bulls or trained in bovine social cues so we don’t miss the minds of castrated bulls, hence why there’s no controversy; it’s not obvious. However, men are
Violent criminals typically have elevated testosterone levels. It doesn’t take a genius to realize that putting men on testosterone-blockers is going to make them less dangerous.
Correlation ≠ causation!
What will be the other effects?
The other effect is that men will have their bodily autonomy violated. Women have been suffering a related torment from patriarchal governments banning their access to abortion. Generally, women’s bodily autonomy has been systematically disregarded, and they have suffered through bizarre mutilations and “treatments” aimed at making them more palatable to men.
I gotta be blunt with you: I typically let stuff like this slide. I understand that a lot of women and other vagina-owners have been put through a tremendous amount of pain by men, so I’m usually willing to give you space to vent. And if it’s worth anything to you, I’m sorry that this stuff still happens, and we need to take concrete action to prevent rape and femicide.
But you wrote a really detailed paragraph defending sex-based eugenics. The thing about eugenics is that it never really went away. Seriously, go scroll through Reddit and see how long it takes before some “bleeding heart liberal” goes on a tirade about how people they don’t like need to be castrated. The world is absolutely flooded with eugenicists ready to torture and murder people, and there’s no telling what suffering they’ll impart on humanity if we don’t challenge them wherever they pop up.
It is especially irritating to see someone who claims to be a comrade express views like this. It makes me less confident to call myself an anarchist when my views are associated with eugenics. We already have a tremendous amount of ill will generated by “anarcho”-capitalists and “anarcho”-primitivists; we really do not need more bad takes.
Now I would prefer it if you dropped the eugenics, but if you really can’t drop the eugenics then at least stop dragging anarchists through the mud. I’m sorry if I’ve been harsh…but just know that I’ll be equally as harsh in your defense when the eugenicists come to neuter you.
I somehow don’t believe that [you’re an anarchist].
Since everyone seems to have focused on the thing I said I would believe if I weren’t an anarchist (mandatory castration), I guess I should clarify what the anarchist version of this belief is. When I say “most males should be castrated,” I mean it in the same way as “most children should go to school.” I don’t think that parents or any other authority should force children to go to school if they really don’t want to. However, I think it’s good for children to go to school, I would personally encourage them to, and I think it should be a social norm. I feel the same way about men taking T-blockers. If I got to design society, I would make the norm that when boys reach the age where they get the talk about puberty, they would be given T-blockers and told that taking them will make them less likely to want to hurt people. They wouldn’t be forced to take them, but I think many would choose to if it were seen as a normal and safe way to be a man.
I don’t think there’s any conceivable way we could make this a social norm, so this is just a pipe dream of mine. Nevertheless, it’s a good fit for a “really unpopular opinion” thread.
And [rounding up and exiling immigrants] would still be an insane reaction to [immigrants committing 90% of serious crimes] even if it was true, which no self-identified anarchist should support. Rehabilitation must still be the goal of any justice system.
I agree. My point was to show that there is a double standard in how mainstream society treats men committing a lot of crime compared with any other group committing a lot of crime. I was not trying to say that attitudes towards immigrants, etc. committing crime are correct.
There’s a feminist movement. One of the major theses of the feminist movement is the rape and murder overwhelmingly committed by men.
Point taken, although I’d say that only a small proportion of feminists take male violence as seriously as you would expect people to if it were any other group committing almost all crime.
There are wildly more creative and practical ways to go about [preventing violence by men].
That’s true. I don’t think this idea is practical at all, although I don’t think any practical idea would be as effective in preventing violence as this one.
Spicy hot take: we shouldn’t be castrating bulls.
I actually agree. Humans should not use animals for food or labor, so really the only place we should interact with cattle is in zoos, and I think trained professionals should be able to handle uncastrated bulls.
Correlation [between criminal behavior and high testosterone] ≠ causation!
True, but come on. When we remove the source of testosterone in other mammals, they become less aggressive. About half of all humans have high T levels starting in adolescence, and it’s exactly at that age when their crime rates shoot way up. And some of the most violent people in society also have the highest T levels. Do you really think that’s all just a coincidence? Can you think of a another non-tortured explanation for these observations?
The other effect is that men will have their bodily autonomy violated.
Right, I don’t think we should violate people’s bodily autonomy to prevent crime, which is why I think castrating men should be a norm, not a mandate. However, a lot of people are fine with violating people’s bodily autonomy if it stops serious crimes. They want the state to crack down on people putting heroin in their bodies and becoming violent as a result. Well, I don’t see why they logically shouldn’t also want the state to crack down on people having testosterone in their bodies and becoming violent as a result.
But you wrote a really detailed paragraph defending sex-based eugenics. The thing about eugenics is that it never really went away.
I proposed two methods of reproduction in a world where most men were chemically castrated: (1) men would go off T-blockers while trying for a baby, or (2) people would rely on a small number of uncastrated sperm donors. Of those, (1) is not eugenics, but (2) could be, depending on how the donors were selected. Obviously eugenics is not compatible with anarchism, but as you said, there are a lot of people who still believe in eugenics. My argument is that people who think that the state should limit who gets to reproduce to make society safer should also want it to limit the number of people with high testosterone to make society safer.
It is especially irritating to see someone who claims to be a comrade express views like this. It makes me less confident to call myself an anarchist when my views are associated with eugenics. We already have a tremendous amount of ill will generated by “anarcho”-capitalists and “anarcho”-primitivists; we really do not need more bad takes.
This is the type of take I give when people ask for “really unpopular opinions.” It’s not something that I talk about when I’m trying to advocate for anarchism. And I mean… I don’t think you have much to worry about people associating anarchism with this idea. The only person other than me I’ve ever heard expressing an opinion like it was a weird blogger 10 years ago who was definitely not an anarchist.
It is blindly saying that all men are bad, which can’t be proven and also would be unfair to the men that are “good” human beings.
It can cause mass population drop since there won’t be enough men to sustain the numbers we have now.
Testosterone can’t be the only factor that would push a man to do something like murder or rape. Humans can reason except if they have some sort of psychological issue. The person must have other motives to do it, it is not “hormone bad” and therefore get rid of the hormone. Women are also guilty of murder and rape, this will solve nothing. This answer is speculative as per the demographics but… at the end of the day… Please don’t go with the guilty until proven inocent mindset. It is very unfair to just people.
This is not true. Historically, “Many castrati lived rather promiscuous lives. Because their unions could produce no embarrassing offspring to explain, women saw them not only as beautiful, ethereal celebrities of the opera stage, but as prime candidates for affairs.”
their penises will never grow to adult size
I bottomed for a trans women with a highly atrophied penis and had a great time. Tbh I don’t know why anyone cares about penis size.
their voices will always sound like that of a little boy.
Their larynx won’t drop, but they won’t sound like little boys. Only some features of adult male voices are caused by biological puberty—there are a lot of other vocal characteristics that distinguish adults from children and men from women. I’ve known trans men who hadn’t gone on testosterone who still had masc-leaning voices. And adult women sound different from little girls even though their voices don’t drop during puberty.
Now, maybe you’re lesbian or asexual or something, and you’re fine with all that, but I imagine some women would not be pleased.
I’m bisexual, and I’d be totally down to date a guy who looked like this. As pointed out above, castrati were highly sought-after by women in the past. Obviously contraceptives negate the appeal of their infertility, but still, they must have been otherwise sexually appealing enough for women to want to sleep with them in the first place. Sure, it would be a loss for those who only like super-manly men, but that seems like an acceptable trade-off to me.
Well, men are also most of the victims of serious crime and do most of all dangerous jobs. These are all consequences of taking more risks.
Men commit almost all rape and murder, but no one seems to think this is a problem we need to do anything about.
Really? No one?
But we know exactly what to do about it when we’re talking about other species. It doesn’t take a genius to realize that putting men on testosterone-blockers is going to make them less dangerous.
It doesn’t take a genius to realize that, it takes a fool, because it’s not necessarily true. It may make them less aggressive, but what else would happen? You’re giving an easy answer to an extremely hard problem.
YES, there are many people thinking about this. What about we make society less toxic first, for example? But I commend you for posting an actual unpopular opinion.
Well, men are also most of the victims of serious crime and do most of all dangerous jobs. These are all consequences of taking more risks.
That’s true. I don’t see what it has to do with my argument, though. I’m pretty sure that testosterone increases risk-tolerance, and that’s part of why it correlates with aggression. Are you suggesting that men have elevated risk-tolerance for reasons other than testosterone, and that risk-tolerance is responsible for aggression instead of testosterone? Or are you saying that risk-taking is important so it’s worth keeping men the way they are even if it causes most serious crime?
No one? YES, there are many people thinking about this.
Most people see violent crime as a problem, but few see it as a problem with men. When people discuss crime, I never hear them frame the problem as “there’s something causing men to commit 10 times as much rape and murder as women: what is it and how do we stop it?” Even feminists who talk about male violence generally don’t frame it that way.
It doesn’t take a genius to realize that, it takes a fool, because it’s not necessarily true.
No empirical data can lead us to accept something as “necessarily true,” but it stretches credulity to think that castration would reduce aggression in pretty much every kind of male mammal we try it on except humans and further that the most aggressive humans coincidentally have elevated testosterone levels. I don’t think that you actually believe that, since you said:
It may make them less aggressive, but what else would happen?
I specifically listed the other effects I could think of. If you think something else bad might happen, just say what it is. If your objection is that we should be cautious because there might be unexpected effects… well sure, that’s true, but it’s also a general-purpose objection to any suggestion to change anything ever. You can’t really have any interesting opinions if you accept that reasoning.
What about we make society less toxic first, for example?
I’m in favor of that. But I think there’s a limit to how much you can improve society via culture alone. You could probably design a culture where people would be a lot less selfish than they are today, for example. But I don’t think you could get people to never be selfish at all, because some amount of selfishness is part of human nature. I think the same is true for aggression, and that the minimum amount of aggression you could get from people is in large part of function of testosterone levels.
Furthermore, “make society less toxic” is a goal, not a policy. A policy to reduce violence by making society less toxic could be something like teaching children to play cooperative games instead of competitive ones. That would probably have a small effect in a few decades. But I think chemically castrating men would have a bigger effect in a shorter amount of time than just about any other policy you could think of, and those effects would be in addition to anything else you did.
I don’t see what it has to do with my argument, though.
You’re proposing an extremely harmful measure to remediate a problem that men cause without citing that we’re also the main victims of said problem. You’re framing it as if we only cause suffering and do not experience it.
Or are you saying that risk-taking is important so it’s worth keeping men the way they are even if it causes most serious crime?
Risk-taking is one example of effect of testosterone other than violence. It does not justify serious crime, it shows that if you get rid of testosterone you also get rid of other caracteristics.
Most people see violent crime as a problem, but few see it as a problem with men. When people discuss crime, I never hear them frame the problem as “there’s something causing men to commit 10 times as much rape and murder as women: what is it and how do we stop it?” Even feminists who talk about male violence generally don’t frame it that way.
Telling that a group very concerned with gender equality don’t frame it that way, isn’t it? Reasonable people will never suggest that racialized groups should learn western European values by norm to solve their high criminality rate.
No empirical data can lead us to accept something as “necessarily true,” but it stretches credulity to think that castration would reduce aggression in pretty much every kind of male mammal we try it on
Again, it doesn’t. People are orders of magnitude more complex than any other animal and, even then, we haven’t castrated that many animals. You’re thinking of domesticated animals, and we’ve done a lot of other things to remove undesired traits in them, like selective breeding. Do you think that eugenics is a reasonable solution to violence amongst men too?
that the most aggressive humans coincidentally have elevated testosterone levels.
So we already have a much more reasonable, though still very unethical, measure: bring down testosterone levels of violent individuals so that they’re closer to the average. Miles ahead and still in the same line of thought.
I don’t think that you actually believe that, since you said:
It may make them less aggressive, but what else would happen?
I specifically listed the other effects I could think of. If you think something else bad might happen, just say what it is. If your objection is that we should be cautious because there might be unexpected effects… well sure, that’s true, but it’s also a general-purpose objection to any suggestion to change anything ever.
I don’t have an specific effect in mind and your examples are bad. Let’s quickly analyze the third one:
They’ll won’t be able to get hard—That’s what viagra is for
Is solving hormone-caused impotence that straight-forward? What are the side effect of using Viagra? For how long can you take Viagra and how frequently?
I don’t think we could enumerate the problems that would arise from screwing with people’s endocrine systems. The issue isn’t that solutions also bring problems, the issue is that your “solution” brings so many problems that it is very hard to believe that you actually want to solve anything.
Furthermore, “make society less toxic” is a goal, not a policy.
Yeah, sure, and castrating men is a “policy”.
But I think chemically castrating men would have a bigger effect in a shorter amount of time than just about any other policy you could think of, and those effects would be in addition to anything else you did.
Wow, and the things you can think of are so spectacular, while you can’t even spot your own prejudices. Your “fax and logic” facade does not fool anyone other than yourself that you want to help society instead of externalizing your prejudices.
I LOVE banana flavored stuff. When I say this, people will often say “even banana flavored Laffy Taffy?”. Yes, that’s the best flavor and it’s not even close.
They still exist but they aren’t bred at scale anymore.
A lot of the suitable land for the banana is contaminated with the fungus that causes Panama Disease so they can only be planted on land without it.
A decade ago, a new strain of the fungus that infects Cavendish was detected. There isn’t any real replacement or treatment for it yet, meaning there is a high chance that all edible bananas will go extinct.
That flavor is isoamyl acetate and the original “Big Mike” bananas of yesteryear were rich in it. Seriouseats actually has a really good article on it. I’m right there with you though. I actually love the flavor too. More for us, friend.
I like bananas, but I definitely don’t like banana flavored stuff. So I guess you might be right. It tastes so artificial imo. When we buy yoghurt, the banana yoghurt is always the one that stays until all other flavours are gone. Same for candy.
That’s because it doesn’t taste like the bananas we eat nowadays. It’s a flavor based on the Gros Michel banana, which was largely wiped out in the 1960s by a disease. The bananas we eat today are less flavorful, but they’re also resistant to that disease.
I do mean no exceptions. They rarely do "good things" for anyone.
Having a homeless shelter where you require the homeless to attend mass is not helping people, it's taking advantage of people in a bad situation and forcing your views on them. Just one example.
Absolutely, 100% agreed. I know most other church-goers would disagree, though. Religious organizations should be treated no differently from any other organization.
I upvoted you, but do disagree with this a bit, there are a few religions which set up food for anyone willing to come inside, like I went to eat langar at a Sikh temple during my friend’s wedding, and all we have to do is cover our head out of respect. Grab a plate, sit on the floor, and eat.
I randomly went with my friend a couple days later, and they still had food out, so it’s not a wedding only thing, but they actually have cooks in the kitchen most of the day.
Add comment