Antisexism

hideshow 16 child comments

[+] tetris11@feddit.uk -26 points 2 days ago (15 children)

fuck off with that

hideshow 15 child comments

parent

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 14 points 2 days ago (14 children)

Huh?

hideshow 14 child comments

parent

[+] tetris11@feddit.uk -24 points 2 days ago (13 children)

You can fuck off with your implication

hideshow 13 child comments

parent

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 19 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (12 children)

I was thinking of the capacity of people to grow and become more aware and move to brighter shades of brown, as well as the capacity of people to regress and move to darker shades of brown. That is literally the point of education and agitation on the one hand and the point of fascist propaganda on the other hand.

What implication did you think I was making that was so horrible as to compel you to tell me to fuck off?

hideshow 12 child comments

parent

[+] tetris11@feddit.uk -28 points 2 days ago* (11 children)

Westerner's tend to read left to right, I'm not buying the positive interpretation of what you were going for at all.

hideshow 11 child comments

parent

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 24 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (8 children)

Needs a time dimension

I.e., make this a two dimensional model by adding the missing perpendicular time dimension.

I'm a baffled at the astonishing level of bad faith and aggression you have exhibited in this interaction. You didn't ask for clarification, you went strait to cussing out. You assumed the wrong thing and went to shooting from the hip. Even after an explanation, you went to how Westerners read and how you "don't buy" my explanation as if I fucking owe you anything. Go touch some grass.

hideshow 8 child comments

parent

[+] tetris11@feddit.uk -19 points 2 days ago (7 children)

Right, so you're taking a one dimensional data (points on a line) and going to extrapolate into 2 or more dimensions of which no data points exist. Yes, I'm really buying it now.

hideshow 7 child comments

parent

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 17 points 2 days ago (6 children)

Data points: Being old enough to have seen people change attitudes over time.

Is that really that confusing for you?

hideshow 6 child comments

parent

[+] tetris11@feddit.uk -15 points 2 days ago (5 children)

Yes, because such a graph would have an inverted x-axis for it to even begin to describe the trend you're suggesting

hideshow 5 child comments

parent

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 17 points 2 days ago (4 children)

I don't think you understand what I'm proposing. You're talking about trends, extrapolation, and rearranging data, but none of those is what I mean by adding a time dimension.

In the original one-dimensional model, each person occupies a position on a spectrum. Suppose we assign a hypothetical shittiness score from 0 to 100. George is a 35, Bill is a 43.

Now add time as a second, independent dimension.

Instead of representing George as a single point, we can represent his position as a function of time. For example:

(89, 16): George is an incel teenager.
(50, 20): He gets deradicalized in college.
(35, 25): He becomes more aware of the problem.
(15, 60): He grows into a thoughtful old man who actively intervenes.

Each pair represents (shittiness, age).

George is no longer just a static 35. He's a trajectory through a two-dimensional space.

Other people might move in the opposite direction, fluctuate, or remain unchanged.

That's all I mean by adding a time dimension: it allows the model to represent people's histories and changes in attitudes.

I'm not proposing any particular trend, let alone extrapolating one. And there's absolutely no need to invert either axis.

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[+] tetris11@feddit.uk -10 points 2 days ago* (3 children)

I get exactly what you mean

Code

#!/usr/bin/env gnuplot

# Shittiness , Age
$DATA << EOD
89 16
50 20
35 25
15 60
EOD

f(x) = a * exp(-k * x) + c
a = 100
k = 0.05
c = 10

fit f(x) $DATA using 1:2 via a, k, c

set terminal pngcairo size 500,325 enhanced font 'Arial,12'
set output 'age_vs_shittiness_exponential.png'
set title 'Age vs Shittiness — Exponential Fit'
set xlabel 'Shittiness'
set ylabel 'Age'
unset key
unset grid
set xrange [0:100]
set yrange [0:70]
set grid
set key top right
fit_label = sprintf('Fit: %.2f e^{-%.4f x} + %.2f', a, k, c)
plot $DATA using 1:2 with points pt 7 ps 1.6 lc rgb '#cc2222' title 'Data', \
     f(x) with lines lw 2.5 lc rgb '#2266cc' title fit_label

but it still doesn't describe the positive trend you're angling for unless you invert the x-axis, which is not how the original image is framed

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 11 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

I'm not "angling" for any trend positive or negative. I'm not making any argument about people inexorably getting better or worse. George was just an example, I could have made a different one, where George becomes worse over time. I'm not saying data fits any trend, I never talked about data or trends or extrapolations, that's your own assumptions.

You seem unable or unwilling to distinguish three different propositions:

A model permits individual improvement or deterioration.
A particular hypothetical individual illustrates improvement.
A population exhibits a systematic trend toward improvement.

All I argued for is the first, using the second as an example. You're persistently treating me as though I'm arguing the third. Why?

I'm only saying people can change. That's all, it's a really simple thing. I don't understand why you absolutely must pigeonhole me in some kind of angling for some unsaid implication and pushing some kind of agenda. I'm not. And I'm tired, boss.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] tetris11@feddit.uk 13 points 2 days ago* (1 child)

Fair enough, catch you in a different thread under nicer circumstances.

Sorry I ran off with the worst interpretation of what you said, it just resonated really badly with me and in this world of careless assholes I wanted to pin it down to a concrete accusation.

But it became more about me needing to be correct, rather than actually giving you the benefit of the doubt. I'm sorry

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 10 points 2 days ago

Thank you for this. Take care :)