Saw this on women's stuff and didn't wanna engage cause that space isnt for me, but felt like this was a 10/10 post and wanted more people to see and think about it!

Feel free to cross post if you can think of broader communities where more people would be able to see it, this is just the comm that came to mind :)

Visualise Our Social Environments

all 71 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 14 points 2 days ago (16 children)
  • [+] -26 points 2 days ago (15 children)
  • [–] 14 points 2 days ago (14 children)
  • [+] -24 points 2 days ago (13 children)

    You can fuck off with your implication

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [+] -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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] -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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] -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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 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:

    1. A model permits individual improvement or deterioration.
    2. A particular hypothetical individual illustrates improvement.
    3. 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 52 points 2 days ago (4 children)
  • [–] 6 points 2 days ago

    Maybe the graph is supposed to show that (for some reason exclusively male) rapists decisions are evil beyond the physical rape?

    Ie that rapist-ism is a continuous function (that is all morally evil), not just a discrete step sudden evil. I can see how claiming rape as a one time thing is used to minimise victims experience, and I agree that this is a valuable distinction. I just can't see why the author felt they had to base the graph on gender.

    Then again, the author is human like everyone else so I guess their personal experience (on a topic like this potentially even PTSD) will bias their work, and we can't expect everyone to be perfectly woke 110% of the time.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    I assume it's not meant to be interpreted in a way where men would be evenly distributed in that scale.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 2 days ago

    That is a good point, that is possible.

    My first take would be that the visual implication still should be recognised if thats the intent, but I don't have a good reason to assume anything malicious.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago

    Also:

    Heroic men who would intervene

    Weren't these guys all derided as "white knights," "nice guys," and "epic gentlemen" for the past decade at least?

    Has that changed? Is chivalric heroism back in or are women still "not a delicate flower who needs your protection"?

    I'm not trying to be belligerent, I'm just genuinely confused on what's expected of me as a bystander and as (ostensibly) a man...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 42 points 2 days ago (10 children)

    That is not totally wrong, if you just replace "men" with "humans". As if women couldn't be unfathomably evil predators...

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 2 days ago (7 children)
  • [–] 17 points 2 days ago (5 children)

    Me when I minimise victims trauma cause they're not the right gender.

    Cause everyone knows the real problem with predators is gender right? /s

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 2 days ago (4 children)

    No, it just has the exact same energy as saying "all lives matter" in response to a black lives matter movement.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 2 days ago (3 children)

    I can see how someone would have that perspective, and I agree with the sentiment. A portion of the predator population can use good intentions to their advantage.

    I just think its also valid to get the vibes of the "despite making up 13% of the population...." racist copypasta, because statistical manipulation isnt good nor evil - its simply inaccurate.

    I'm a bit bias here, but the inaccuracy of claiming any significant portion of the male gender are likely to become rapists has a negative impact on my community, the transfem community. The same argument that is used to excuse some rich white shithead gang assaulting women during homecoming, will be used to put 6"4 black trans women in male prisons.

    Its a weird place to be in, and makes it almost impossible to objectively define what's more important, catching a higher ratio of predators, or protecting a higher ratio of victims?

    Personally generally I think its more important to protect victims than attack predators, but I'll admit the paradox of inclusion does show how this idea can be a fallacy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 days ago (2 children)

    I'd like to add that a predator can be so much more than "just" a rapist. Obviously, in purely sexually driven rape, men dominate the field. But as soon as there's more to it than "just" short-term sexual gratification (control, hate, sadism...), the importance of gender/sex evaporates.

    Try to ask victims of slavery, pedophilia, ritual torture or whatever else unfathomable you could fathom, and women are probably equally ruthless and evil. And even if men would be over-represented, gender/sex would still not be a striking indicator.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 18 hours ago (1 child)

    You got any studies on that other than a "probably"?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 17 hours ago

    That "Probably" was more sarcastic even. No studies I could name handily, just years of personal experience in some kind of shelter for the abused and broken. I can drown you in stories you would not believe anyway. That's how i spend my sparetime.

    But besides that, why on earth should a silly gender/sex make a person evil or good? We're mostly the exact same human. Being evil is our inherent nature. We're not as beautiful of a species as we'd like to think. I try to do only good, yet i'm neither religious nor a woman. Am i broken? Am I not man enough? :)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 2 days ago

    I don't think most people think there's a few binary evil men and the rest are unevil angels. It seems like there's like dozens, and it didn't sound as impactful as "most"

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 2 days ago* (2 children)

    Am man, don’t think predation outside the bedroom with consent should be a thing, and anyone doing so should be dealt with accordingly. Also “actively” enjoy consensual predation.

    Where exactly do I fit on this scale?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 33 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    True? But also I feel like this just stokes gender war by specifically focusing on men, as though men are the only ones who'll ever be evil...

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 2 days ago

    Another point it is missing is that women facilitate toxic masculinity as well. Their friends, girlfriends, mothers, basically half of their social circles, can be enablers of that behaviour.

    But you'll never hear it admitted that these people are part of the problem (and the solution)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 2 days ago (2 children)

    Seems like a pretty good example of sexism.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    I don't know. I don't seem to be actively discriminated by the post above.

    And in my experience it's pretty true. I rarely meey another boy/man that understands women have been the target of oppression for centuries.

    Sieze the means of reporduction... or something like that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 1 day ago (4 children)

    I wish cis men would take accountability instead of throwing temper tantrums. We know cis women can be dangerous. A lot of trans people have stories about cis women hurting us. But there's a very clear difference in how cis men are treated versus everyone else, and how much violence and harassment is excused when it's done against the rest of us. It's worse when you're trans, too.

    Now this post is about women specifically. If someone wants to make an image for violence against men or nonbinary people then do it and stop complaining.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 7 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    Yeah, I think thats part of what's frustrating to me about some of the comments- describing the ways in which men participate in or allow for the victimization of women doesn't preclude women can do harm or men can be harmed.

    A lot more people read this as a personal attack than I expected. I get why people sometimes feel frustrated or defensive about the way men are painted with a broad stroke, but the post is really just about understanding the "ladder of enablement" nature of how harm happens to women, and thats a really important concept I feel the image does an extremely good job visualizing

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • Honestly, trans men aren't much better. I've talked to others about the rampant sexism in the gay community especially against trans masculine and nonbinary people. The response I got from trans men was defensiveness and my comments being deleted. A lot of men (not all) can't take criticism.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago

    I wonder if part of that comes from the top bar, it being 90% white when 10% red primes thinking about it as portion of the population whereas (at least how I believe you are describing it) the second graph is about depicting more of the spectrum of the different stances without regard to population size. I wonder if making the first bar 50-50 would help clarify that it's moreso showing the view of either your evil or you arnt.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 day ago

    The world has too much nuance to be distilled in a silly chart.

    The bottom chart is just another version of the top.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 2 days ago (2 children)

    Why are they “heroic” just for intervening? That’s seems like just basic human decency to stand up against sexism.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 2 days ago* (1 child)

    There's a lot of risk to intervening, you can easily be seen as evil.

    The problem with this chart is individuals are variable. Right now person A can be on the right side of the bar, tomorrow they could be heroic.

    We're all assholes sometimes, other times more heroic.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago*

    now replace everywhere it says men/women with people and it's even more accurate.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 2 days ago (8 children)

    And one example of each exists within your family and extended, no joke.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 days ago

    You know my family??

    or are just approximating a population wide trend from a personal sized sample?

    Cause odds are, no, 25% of the population isnt unfathomably evil, theyre caring hard working people like most the population.

    Rapists do exist and are horrible people. Full stop. But arbitrarily defining random people as rapists doesn't seem to negatively impact these rapists, nor positively impact their victims - so any value in such an arbitrarily biased analysis seems moot to me.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 days ago (5 children)

    Not the most evil kind, pretty sure about that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 2 days ago (4 children)

    I used to think that, but there are actual people out there who care for nought except power. They will outwardly smile and telegraph all the signs of being empathetic generous individuals, and they will stab you with that same smile the moment the opportunity arises

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 days ago (2 children)

    Are you saying you know their family better than them?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    I love how comments on this post here vs the women's space kind of shows why there's a woman's space. Lol

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 2 days ago (4 children)

    Just lady butterfly doing her normal shit stirring.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 6 points 2 days ago (3 children)

    I'm not lady butterfly nor is the person who posted it originally...?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    My bad, she posted a few times in a few places.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 day ago* (1 child)

    She's not here to defend herself so I feel like its fair for me to do it for her

    Describing someone as shit stirring for posting in good faith on issues that are important to them, especially ones that affect them personally is kinda crappy

    You dont have to like how she speaks on women's issues, but attacking her for it as if its in bad faith when theres nothing to suggest as much sucks.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago

    Now do the same for women.

  • source
  • not being able to fathom / imagine the harms someone could do is such a boring category and tells me the creator was highly unimaginative

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago

    This seems accurate, yeah

  • source
  • 11 comments in c/womensstuff@piefed.blahaj.zone view that post
    [–] 40 points 3 days ago (8 children)

    The good/bad binary is something that people have to unlearn.

    EVERYTHING and EVERYBODY is on a scale of good or bad. (This includes us.)

    It's very hard to solve a problem if your thinking is black and white as that graphic so ably shows.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 3 days ago (4 children)

    Incidentally, that "men who passively enjoy/consume/encourage predation" bit is a lot more common than people think. Consider how many men are HUGE fans of japanimation. Now consider how much japanimation, even the stuff for children, contains casual SA as a way of saying "Hello"….

    That's men who passively consume predation. And there's a LOT of them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 days ago (3 children)

    So men are bad because youre racist to artists in Japan?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    Yes. That is exactly what I said, word for word.

    Also men are bad because they go to clearly-marked women's spaces where they are explicitly not welcome and babble.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 2 days ago (2 children)

    People don’t exist on the spectrum, the spectrum exists in all of us.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 days ago

    I think both are true. The spectrum exists in us, because we have an expansive internal life, but our actions place us in the spectrum. Most people are fairly uniform in their actions, while we could argue that you could display actions each one placing you in a different point of the spectrum.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 2 days ago

    This is amazing thanks for sharing

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 2 days ago*

    Meh, it’s both. Shades sure but much more compacted red like the first.

  • source