Few days ago a friend linked me a danish research paper and claimed it shown that higher wages for women lead to decrease in children being born, and that higher male wages led to the opposite. I don’t have the skills required to parse this kind of paper quickly nor understanding of a lot of the terminology. I told chatGPT to read it and contrast it with the arguments being made, to which it responded with pointing out that the term “marginal net-of-tax wage” meant something different from “wage”, and that this paper suggested that tax laws incentivizing working more hours led to lowered fertility rather than higher salaries for women. I was asked to point exactly where in the paper it was said like that, and again, I had to lean on LLM to get me page numbers. I eventualy convinced my friend that he got duped by right wing talking points and got him to think a bit.

So, if I didn’t do that and just read the conclusion from the paper I’d probably have to agree with him instead, as just googling it led to the right wing trolls making those claims. Was this a good use case of LLM to get me some counter arguments, or would it have been better if I stayed true to my ideals and not to use those tools? Was I rude by arguing against the point made about a research that neither of us understood from the get go by using genAI to parse through it? While I do agree that companies developing those tools are evil and need to be stopped, there is an utility to it that I don’t think is available elsewhere. Would me losing that argument and believing that women should have lower salaries to increase fertility (because I believe in science, and this paper seemed to be referenced a lot, also if anything capitalism would be to blame, so probably not as bad) be better than normalizing the use of the devil-tech but having myself and my friend better informed? I am legitimately not sure, but I think I did the right thing? What should’ve I done? I don’t have the skills nor time nor will to read scientific papers that aren’t related to my area of expertise, especially when someone linking them didn’t do any research either. I am also genuinely exhausted from defending my left-wing points of view from the constant barrage of underhanded and often completely baseless arguments some of my coworkers and friends make to convince me I’m wrong and the default consensus is right. Is it bad to use genAI to figure out some counterpoints? Or should I give up and admit I’m not good or commited enough to make them myself? Right wing people often argue in bad faith and don’t take the counterpoints to heart, but sometimes they do, even if the original point they made was just to rile me up. So, am I the asshole? Am I wrong? I seriously don’t know.

Not with that attitude

Russia invaded Ukraine under a very weak pretense of de-nazification, and buldozed over a lot of privately owned means of production, including foreign owned. They had some reputation to lose back then, now the worst that could happen would be Trump getting pissed at them and threatening them to escalate the war, but never doing so, because he’s still beholden to the capital interests, and this war has been extremely lucrative for the world’s main exporter of weapons. At best(for Putin) Trump would claim that Zelensky is using private contractors as human shields and that Zelensky broke the deal because the yield of the mining operations was lower than promised, and because of that USA will help Russia deal with the terrorists that overtook the land.

As for the nuclear war - billionaires that push this war forward for their profit aren’t interested in living in bunkers, they want to lie on beaches and be sucked off by sex trafficed slaves. The war will never escalate beyond the point where it would endanger their profits, and definitely not to the point where they might worry for their lifes. No major player in this conflict that’s capable of employing a nuclear armaments will ever do so for those reasons, not to mention the soft power they would lose if they did - not that Trump and Putin are very concerned with soft power…

Russia doesn’t mind continuing, USA doesn’t mind either, it’s just that Trump lied in his campaign promises that he did, and now he’s making a stink about it not being possible because Zelensky is a dictator. If they can cause an election in Ukraine and do a coup once Zelensky wins, or forge some different series of events that leads to Ukraine changing it’s president to one aligned with Russia, then it would be a preferable outcome for them, but it’s going to be difficult without losing a lot of influence and power, and Trump is already very unpopular, so I feel it’s unlikely they would try, but I wouldn’t put it past them. Trump antagonized both the world and his own citizens, and the backlash is growing to a degree where he might lack means to control it. Zelensky probably saw that as his most viable way out, so he chose to argue with Trump and J. D. Vance, and hoped that the backlash will limit their further meddling. Not that he had any good option there, but out of bad ones this one at least didn’t lock all Ukrainian cards in a bad deal. At this point Ukraine can try dealing with Europe, Turkey (was it Turkey? I think so) or even China, and they still have those tasty minerals that Trump helped advertise.

Europe in general has to rethink their means of defence, and if Ukraine has something valuable, a new military alliance with more hawkish stance against both Russia and USA, one that would include security assurances for Ukraine and other member states, is not out of question. If fascism in USA keep getting worse, then Europe will definitely need it. If the bubble bursts, they may include USA in this alliance in the future, though probably without as much sway as it had in NATO. Not saying that it will happen, just a wild shot in the dark, but there are more options for Ukraine now, than if Zelensky went along with the farce, and, I don’t know, apologized for being a dictator and promised to be a good boy.

The idea that any deal with Russia that wouldn’t include rock solid security guarantees would lead to stopping the killing, much less any sort of peace, is extremely naive. This issue is ongoing ever since Russia annexed Crimea, there have been many deals and all of them failed to stop Putin from breaking them. The issue is very simple - Trump can not (and absolutely doesn’t want to, from the looks of things) convince Putin to stop the war, because Putin doesn’t want the war to stop. It was shown time and time again that they aren’t willing to stop their invasion, and only thing that ever thwarted their progress was military opposition. There is no reason to believe that Russia wouldn’t just continue the invasion after the deal with USA is made. And Ukraine wouldn’t have any benefit from this kind of deal, so why would they go through with it?

Since you watched all of it, as unbearable to watch it was, you probably also heard the comments of Trump in the interview afterwards - that he organized and prolonged this discussion to show the world that Zelensky can not be negotiated with. Whatever you might believe in, it’s hard to imagine that as anything else other than admission that Trump never expected his “deal” to go through. They jumped and insulted the president of soverign country and blamed him for the war their close friend started. If your reaction to that is “he shouldn’t have reacted to the provocation”, then you’re missing the point of why they provoked him in the first place. This way, at the very least, he made sure the world despised Trump and that all other allies of Ukraine were sympathetic. His only choice is to weather this storm until the fascist bubble in USA bursts and there is some chance for diplomacy in the future.

As for the economic entanglements, they mean nothing in times when USA is incapable of diplomacy and Russia is unwilling of adhering to any deals. Speaking of any trades where Ukraine is giving up their minerals before USA promises to push Russia outside of Ukraine borders is meaningless, and Ukraine wouldn’t get anything out of that.

How do you reconcile the understanding of her not being a good person and doing harm to the world with being a Swiftie? That’s a genuine question, I find identifying with the group supporting or admiring the person or idea I myself am opposed to on the ideological level hard to imagine. I can understand it being the case if one is defending the lesser evil, as they are coerced to do so by implied existence of the greater evil, but while I’m not well versed in the Swift lore I believe there isn’t any evil twin running around that she needs to stop. Unless.

That’s not an attack, I believe that being a Swiftie might mean something else than what I understand by this term and I am making a fool out of myself. Still, it does seem to mean supporting what you’re opposed to. How do you resolve that contradiction?

Comrade Putin thanks you for your contribution, we will do as you suggest and make people illegal.

IQ tests intentionally omit any questions related to empathy, emotional intelligence and creativity, so it can favour people from the top of the pile and act as accurate perdictor of success in ruthless capitalist society. It implicitly promotes lack of those traits in individuals and explicitly promotes the definition of intelligence that’s unrelated to them. While you don’t get lower scores if you’re highly creative or empathetic person, so it’s not directly a detrimental for society and can be a useful metric for some cases like specific jobs, it’s image as sole measure of intelect is manufactured to promote “specific kind of people”, to which group many republican businessmen would belong.

I’m not disagreeing with what you said, just thought I’d expand on that.

I’d say any claims about rape being a justification for genocide have lost their weight after Israelis protested punishment of IDF soldiers for rape of prisoners on the basis of “Palestinians deserving it”. There are no moral arguments supporting begining, maintaining or continuing the genocide in Gaza.

I also have felt unburdened by what has been, as if a spell was cast on me. I had no doubt though that replacing Joe Biden with literally anyone, including his son or dog, would increase democrats chance of winning. I think in my case it was more of letting go of pent up anger towards the rotting carcass of the current president and all those who campaigned for his reelection. Including the lovely folk of lemmy, for whom I still might hold some animosity. To those that rode hard for Biden, a sincere fuck you.

I don’t understand, why bring up Biden? He’s not opposing Trump, instead Harris will most likely do, and she’s basicially so much younger she could be his daughter! Propping up such an ancient candidate, republicans should be ashamed! Biden at least dropped out due to his age, this Trump guy should get a clue.

WW3 between… Russia and North Korea, with… uhh… allies? It’s weird because both China and USA would want to get involved, but neither would know on which side. Imagine USA allying with China to help North Korea fight Russia by mistake. That would be embarrassing.

“When I was your age I had to walk to school through 5kms of lava, just to avoid fighting with bears again, it was actually faster if I ran” just kidding I know we don’t have money to raise children anymore

Well, I didn’t say it was less important but that it was less discussed, and that it’s regrettable. You’re the one pulling the “women are more important” from your ass.

“And yet it is perfectly acceptable for women to call men trash based on their experiences” I literally have no idea where you took that from. I wrote that it’s insane to call all men trash and that it’s not a general consensus.

Everyone is dangerous. Anyone can have a weapon or other means to cause harm. You having a penis being a cause of concern is only viable as long as you have intent to maliciously use it. If you think people are afraid of you specifically, and specifically because you, ArcaneSlime, have a penis, then I think you need to rethink the way you approach people. No one is treating you as a monster and treating you as one because you’re a man is not fine. And if someone is attacking you on that basis then I’m not extending my argument to them, that’s simply moronic, but also not the way broader society works, as far as I’m aware.

I agree with you on most points, except for that part where you put yourself in the place of “generic strange man” in a forest. It’s not a fear of someone specific, but rather of a stranger with unknown intentions in a place in which the woman is not protected by any authorities. I feel like that last part is being intentionally omitted in the “male side” of the discourse, since other people being around change the dynamic dramatically. I’m pretty sure most women would prefer to meet a man on a busy street than a bear, since bear wouldn’t care about social subtleties like not mauling people to death while people watch. I also find idea of woman not being able to find their way out of the forest on their own, an so random stranger met in woods being a boon to them kind of silly. I know you were making a hypothetical situation there, and sure, if woman was lost in the woods for past 6 months, was hungry, injured and desperate, then I believe she would be more receptive to meeting a person in a woods, but that’s adding more and more conditions to the situation, changing it from “chance meeting” to “struggle to survive”.

I also think that we should recognize that women are afraid of meeting a man in a forest because that man could be a rapist/murderer in a middle of nowhere, that hypothetical collapses at the moment we assign specific person to the unknown face. I think people struggle with this question because they put themselves in the boots of the “random stranger” and feel bad for being feared, despite them being kind and loving. It’s not about meeting “you” specifically. You’re not the hated “man in a woods”. At most you’re a stranger in a bar that women feel a bit awkward and unsure about at the start. Most women will feel completely fine meeting their dad or brother in a forest.

Most people literally will trust you if you’re helpful, open and outgoing, women included. No one owes you their trust even if you did your best, regardless of gender, though. And even once they somewhat trust you, I still don’t think it’s a great idea to give/accept open drinks and otherwise expose yourself to potential danger, unless that trust is really solid. I don’t think it takes much to accommodate that kind of wariness nor that it’s somehow insulting or degrading to men. Being aware that women are - or feel like they are, whichever you prefer - exposed to more danger than men, just in general acting in a ways that wouldn’t be taken as suspicious and not taking it as an insult if they don’t entirely trust you is enough to fit in and not feel like you’re being ostracized as a man.

If you said that all women are trash, then regardless of what you would feel safer with, you’d still be called (deservingly) an incel. Calling all men trash is also an insane take, but I think you’re shadowboxing here. All/most/significant number of men being trash is absolutely not a general consensus on the matter. All women needing to be wary of all men because of actions of some men is, however. I don’t know what do you think “being treated as a rapist” looks like, but I’m pretty sure you’re not complaining about going to jail for being a man, but rather women not being overly friendly with you by default.

I am sorry for the experiences you had with abusive women, and I agree the issue of sexual violence against men is often swept under the rug because of comparison with sexual violence against women simply because of the prevalence of later being much larger. Wish it wasn’t.

The question was never about whenever men are scarier than bears, but rather whenever women are more afraid to be at mercy of man or a bear. Admitting that women have valid reasons to be afraid of men doesn’t equate to vilifying all men, however (some) men actively denying that they do and acting like their fears are baseless is quite valid reason to assume that those men are either clueless or the root of the problem.

I fail to see the misandry you describe as something common. No one is asking you to take responsibility for the actions of rapists, nor is anyone sane pretending that all men are violent. I do however see constant complaining about potential of this misandry becoming a reality and I think that’s a reactionary view, which leads to push back against women. Sure, there obviously are some women that do act like all men are violent rapists, because for every extreme opinion you’re going to find an extreme example somewhere on twitter. Dealing with women on daily basis I have yet to find one that actually acts that way. And sure, it could be that I live in a sheltered bubble and my anecdotal experience isn’t worth shit, but I do personally think that this view that “all men are bad” comes from the men misunderstanding of the issue of “all women are in danger because of some men”. I argue that the stats I mentioned in previous comment substantiate my opinion about the danger being there.

No one is asking you to bear responsibility for anything you didn’t do, but you can’t seriously blame women for being wary of strangers. Surely you can see how women would also prefer not to need to be afraid? Women aren’t much danger to you, so they don’t need to earn your trust as much, but the opposite simply isn’t true. And if you feel someone is dangerous (as in, has potential to cause you harm), it’s absolutely fine for you to require them to earn your trust, regardless of their gender.

As to what can be done by the majority, is to be informed and aware that the problem exists, and when silly question like “men or bear in forest” pops up, not to push back against women who are afraid of men and treat it like misandry.

Topic of men mental health is separate from this issue (imo), and sure, it’s valid and should be discussed broadly. I don’t believe that blaming women and their well founded fears for those issues is correct approach though. I don’t see anything inherently bad with needing to earn trust of someone, and I think that expectation that you shouldn’t need to do that is the problem. You might know you wont do anything crazy, but how should they? And it’s not like you need to sacrifice your firstborn to gain trust, just act like normal human being and don’t take it for granted.

Topic of anger issues is completely unrelated to women, unless we’re talking about them being potential victims there, but that’s not the point you’re touching on. In my opinion those issues stem partially from the fact that society glorified dominating men for a longest time, and this image also included taking whatever you want by force. Many people, mostly men but also some women, still see those as golden standards of masculinity. Being aggressive and overbearing is still presented as manly, especially on the right side of the political spectrum. Trying to deal with anger issues is thus seen as infantile and embarrassing. That’s obviously much more convoluted than just that, but if anything, it’s more of a source of a problem rather than the effect of women not trusting men.

IMO you’re missing the point. It’s less about whenever women are “right” to be afraid of men in general, and more about what their feelings on the matter actually are. If a lot of women would prefer to meet a bear rather than a stranger in a forest, then that’s because of their deep distrust of men. It’s not about whenever men are actually trustworthy and women are overreacting (though a lot of the responses are indicative that they’re not), but rather about what led to this distrust, and also about how unaware of the issue men are in general. Quick googling shows stats like 1 in 5/6 women was or will be a victim of rape, 1 in 3 of them as a child, 81% in general had been sexually harassed or assaulted. It’s not that many women just “hear stories of assault and rape and whatever”, many women are victims, and almost all know a victim personally.

Now, did you know that? Do you know a person who’s rape/SA/SH victim? Are you aware that’s actually a broad problem and not just some abstract culture of fear? Because I think this whole thing with a bear vs man in a forest shows mostly the difference between men and women when it comes to understanding this topic. I see it not as a “are men bad” question, but rather “is sexual violence common”, because you sure might be a righteous fella and most of your friends might be as well, but no women that know you can be sure you’re not the guy who’s keeping those stats up. It doesn’t take a majority of men to cause this fear, but it will take a majority of them to fix it, and understanding that there is a problem is at the very least the first step.