- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
et. al
I wouldn’t mess with her, she contains multitudes!
That guy publishes a LOT.
Fucking hive minds
We are Borg et al. Resistance is futile.
I am 7 of etc etc
Is tenforward leaking again?
What does “human drivers of fire” mean?
Well I’m here so I guess I’ll answer.
There are many human drivers of fire, the first and foremost being, well you know, lighting a fire. And boy, do humans light a lot of fires.
Take for example, here is a map of active fires around the globe, right now:
First order human drivers of fire are things we actively or accidentally do to light a fire. Ignition is a fundamental for fire to happen, and humans cause WAY more ignition events than nature does. Things like a cook fire, burning brush or downed debris for management purposes, infrastructure like power lines or fueling stations, car accidents, lit cigarettes being thrown out etc… etc… The timing and frequency of these events directly influence the frequency of fires.
Second order drivers are things like vegetation management, home placing and construction, and other biophysical drivers. For example, introduction of invasive species like bromus tectorum, which burns very readily, represents more fine fuels in the environment. Yadayadayada more fires. Other things around vegetation management would fall into this category, such as the suppression of fire, or the psychical thinning of fuels in forests, or prescribed burns.
Well I’m here so I guess I’ll answer.
Are… are you McCarty et al., TropicalDingdong?
edit: [email protected]
No no no, I’m an et al, just no any of those particular et al. I focus on wildfire risk and have read much on the topic. I’ve read McCarty and many more when it comes to understanding wildfire and wildfire risk. Some of my research focuses on wildfire risk, and spatial features as they relate to wildfire risk, so drivers becomes pretty important when it comes to wildfire risk modeling. I have taken several courses through NASA on the matter even though I don’t focus on drivers directly.
This is the kind of thing I’m working on:
The nodes are features, the edges are weights. In this case I’m just looking at structure:structure risk.
I’m sorry, but you obviously don’t understand wildfires. You should really try reading Tropical Dingdongs, Esq.
Cool! I have no idea what any of that means, but cool! I get the feeling that you really enjoy what you do, and if that’s the case I’m glad for you :3
When you refer to that diagram, is it a way of gauging fire spread risk? Like this grill could start a medium sized fire, and it’s close to a shed which could become big fire, and that could spread to house, etc, etc?
So to be clear, I’m not trying to model spread. I’m taking a pretty different approach which is to look at metrics I can derive from an entire network, like centrality and modularity, and use those to predict the overall probability of survival. I’m not trying to say where or how a fire might progress through a network, but rather looking at the overall structure of a network at, for example the parcel resolution, to estimate the likely hood that a given structure might survive a wildfire.
So in the above figure, (it was literally a screen cap of what I had on at that moment, so no effort into graphic design etc.), the diameter of the circle corresponds to the exposure, which is weighted by the total facing. The units on the edges are kilojoules per m^2 per 300 seconds. The circles are on the ‘receiving’ side of the network (this is a directed kpartite network, and we’re only looking at structure:structure edges).
So you can imagine that if you stand with your face to a campfire, you receive more radiation than if you stand edgeways. Likewise if you take a step back. Same principal. I’m not adjusting the edge weights for structural composition or construction (although I’d like to. in the metaphore, all the campfires are the same size and intensity). This is just assuming that each structure will put out about the same amount of energy when burning. However, because of the physical arrangement of things in space, they do not necessarily all experience the same exposure. We can use those differences to create a set of weights, and then by looking at how ‘modular’ the system is at a given exposure rating (IE, how fully connected is the graph at a given kJ/m2), we might find that the network breaks into some interesting or predictive components.
So, very long answer, but trying to make it shorter: I’m not trying to model spread or predict how fire would move through this system. I’m trying to come up with an overall probabilistic assessment or risk based on how ‘connected’ features are in space.
Well that’s pretty cool, thanks for sharing! :D To repeat to check my understanding, you’re looking at where structures are relative to other structures, their shape and orientation, and how that goes together in a big system to influence general structure survival in a wildfire situation.
Do you foresee the outcome being something where you could “tune” a neighborhood to be more survivable, or would it end up with too many combinations to be viable?
yeah so there was a nature publication last year basically demonstrating this, however, they were working on 30 meter pixels.
I kinda got scooped, but I was always working in much higher resolution data.
But basically yeah. We can look at the network and identify where it can be hardened in or broken apart to be make more resistant.
No no no, I’m an et al, just no any of those particular et al.
I’m going to
stealcite this. I guess it’ll be ‘et al et al.’The nodes are features
I think the fact every car is white is a feature.
Thanks!
…such as the suppression of fire, or the psychical thinning of fuels in forests, or prescribed burns.
I’m definitely picturing Jedi clearing debris from the forest floors using the Force, now.
Take for example, here is a map of active fires around the globe, right now:
By “fires” do they mean fores fires? Controlled fires to burn crops, or burn land to clear it for crops? House fires? Bonfires? Campfires? Fires in fireplaces?
Ignition is a fundamental for fire to happen, and humans cause WAY more ignition events than nature does.
A car causes hundreds of ignition effects per minute. But, I’m guessing you mean a certain kind of ignition?
The timing and frequency of these events directly influence the frequency of fires.
The timing and frequency of things like lighting a fire directly influence the frequency of fires? Do you mean the frequency of out-of-control fires? Because otherwise that seems like a pretty obvious conclusion.
Thank you so much for sharing something that you are passionate about. It was awesome to hear about, and I hope you continue to share the knowledge you have with others like myself. 😁
I use geospatial science and data to document, analyze, and predict complexities of wildland and human-caused fire, from individual to global scales. I have a particular interest in fire emissions and modeling, regional food security, land-cover/land-use change, and the Arctic. As a mom, I am concerned with helping children and future generations have better lives.
This is my best guess without googling it or her.
The only acceptable use of generative AI is to get the shit posts out faster
I think it’s a great use, but not only.
Resume building, cover letters, aggregating open text responses, summarizing complex texts, and so on.
While the AI can’t be left alone to do these things and if you do it’ll be clear it’s AI but it can reduce the time to do them significantly.
I firmly believe this is like the age of the computer before it. Those who fail to become AI natives in knowledge work will become under employed or unemployed in 10-15 years.
So I encourage you to make an excuse to learn it and get good at it.
It means she’s a trouble starter, punkin’ instigator, fear addicted, a danger illustrated.
So, you’re saying she’s a firestarter? Twisted firestarter?
She’s the bitch you hated, filth infatuated.
Oh, right! She’s the pain you tasted, fell intoxicated!
Those who are deemed “Lit” in academic language.
Probably just the totality of human influences on wildfires. This can include a wide range of activities and factors including climate change, forest preservation or cutting, changes in wild or domestic mammal herbivory, accidental ignition events, controlled burns, irrigation or diversion of streams, damming rivers, invasive species introductions, etc.
Removed by mod
Something about climate change maybe?
She is McCarty for sure but I doubt that she is et al too …
Taking credit for the work of people who are barely even credited in the first place is… a way of responding. If only she had disappeared behind the curtain for a moment, re-emerging with everyone there with big hair and guitars and eye shadow and screamed “we are McCarty and the Et Als!!!”
Oh well; next time.
She drew attention to her being the/an author of the paper rather than just being a naming coincidence (or family relation, etc).
Adding the et al was likely for that effect, rather than an attempt to take credit for other authors’ work, imo
We’re all et al on this glorious day!
My friends just call me Al.
Can you call me Betty?
Alright Allen Iverson… Or is it just Al. Can’t tell with damn LlIi
Oh, that reminds me:
l ll ll L
:.|:;Oh, that reminds me:
l ll ll L
I’m at a loss as to what you are trying to say.
Hello Al, I’m Et.
Speak for yourself.
Maybe et al was their last name.
Common misunderstanding - her full name is “Jessica McCarty Et Al”
Is that her father?
Yeah, Papa Et Al registered Et Al as his family name, and combined names when he got married
“Et al” is a pretty funny honorific though
She’s so prolific, one mere mortal body is insufficient for her bamfness.
Funny, but what does the skin color have to do with the situation?
When a given demographic is a dominant presence in a given area (not necessarily work, it can be anything), there is a tendency for they demographic to start making assumptions about other demographics.
In most places, men are the dominant presence, and in most of the “western” world, they will also be white.
In this case, the individual who a white male was doing what’s called colloquially, “mansplaining”. He was correcting a woman when not only was the woman right, but was the very source he was using to correct her.
This is a consistent and very unpleasant fact of the world that white men will treat anyone of any other demographic as less than equals.
In this specific case, I suspect that the person making that post was pointing to the prejudice and stupidity of the person indirectly insulting her being a systemic issue arising from both gender and sexual entrenchment along with the privilege that allows the dominance of the white male demographic despite their being no quantifiable factor for that group to be dominant other than that privilege.
She, in other words, was pointing out a systemic issue by using an anecdote. Which can be a bit difficult to accept as evidence. Or would be if there wasn’t a good century or so of giant piles of anecdotes from real people pointing to that systemic issue not only existing, but being something that holds everyone back.
Truth? Yes, women and people of color are going to assume they’re right and whoever they’re talking to is wrong just like any humans will. But white dudes have been pulling that crap for multiple generations, and anyone that isn’t both white and male get sick of the bad behavior.
This is a consistent and very unpleasant fact of the world that white men will treat anyone of any other demographic as less than equals.
Pls stop generalizing this bad behavior upon all white men. It only serves to further the divide, and is completely unfair and uncalled for against those in the demographic who don’t subscribe to those beliefs or patterns of behavior.
I’m not sure if that was your intent, that’s just how it comes across and it makes it hard not to completely write off your argument/viewpoints for being unable to respect your neighbor.
I’m a white man. I can absolutely generalize about a well known aspect of reality. It isn’t in question that white men are currently in a position of overall privilege, and that as a group that position of privilege has the effect stated.
I pretty much also said that this is true in the western world where white men are the supposed majority. I said that the same would be the case with any dominant group because humans are just like that.
A generalization can not only be true in general, but it doesn’t inherently mean that the entire group is at fault (beyond any unintentional benefits from the situation, which is what’s called privilege in current discourse on matters of gender and race in specific, but applies to more than those alone).
Here’s the thing. Until and unless we, not just as white men (speaking of the group I’m in) work on calling out and correcting bad behaviors as a group, to the point that it ceases to be a problem for others, we are part of the problem, no matter how little any individual likes that.
Divisions currently exist. They will always exist because any time there is a place of authority/power, there will be those that seek it and use it. Over time, you might see a given demographic shift in and out of that place of power, but it won’t change humans being humans; there will be abuse of power.
That’s the real key. The fact that white men have held dominance over most of the world for centuries (for a given value of most, and a given value of white) is simply fact. One could argue that the position of dominance really covers all the world since anyone wanting to disrupt that has to contend against that hierarchy. There are definitely places where, within a region* white men aren’t the dominant group, kinda impossible to be otherwise. But trying to pretend that the world isn’t the way it is is just silly.
Completely agree with your points. But also hope you can see it may be more fruitful to appear as though you’re ready to attack the problem, rather than your fellow man.
I say this because I didn’t read this as an outright attack or denigration of your fellow man, but I very much fear how easily any other man may interpret it and how it could serve to further the divide and make the problem even harder to address. That is my chief concern.
I appreciate you taking the time to clarify your position fellow internet stranger <3
rather than your fellow man.
Imagine thinking anyone who actually has skin in the game is going to look at genocidal oppressors as “their fellow man” fucking lmao. Clown world kumbaya shit that will only end with the settler empire standing over unending hectares of the bodies of subjects-of-empire who got backstabbed and throat-slit by the settlers; while they still hold the knife.
As long as the knife is still six inches in our back, it doesn’t matter that the settlers planted it twelve, and “graciously” drew it back six; the settlers haven’t done shit worth being regarded as “fellow man”. Really, haven’t done shit in general other than harm us.
I think the generalization isn’t really about white men per se, but about the demographic in power. Give a group unchecked power long enough and they forget how that came to be. I agree that it’s not a rule, and maybe should be expressed as more of a heuristic: if you are speaking to someone that is in power, and you don’t look like them, they might think you are not empowered.
Don’t let the lack of nuance in that statement take away from all the very valid points being made. The plight is real, and hopefully the white men who are enlightened enough to not confuse circumstance with natural order will read and know to not take it personally.
Thank you for the civil discussion.
Completely agree about unchecked power and your interpretation of it as a heuristic rather than an ambiguously defined trait.
I most certainly realize the plight is real and wish it never was like I’d hope all of us can say. But the lack of nuance struck me as dangerous. I understand how disenfranchised men will interpret things, and when people willfully neglect the opportunity to be concise it leaves a worrying amount of room for misinterpretation and effectively is ragebait that can serve to further entrench a misguided incel or the like into their toxic niche.
And for anyone who thinks I’m overreacting: see how Reddit powermod awkward_the_turtle intentionally acted to provoke men, then wrote off everyone who took issue with it as inherently being member of the ideology they were allegedly targeting. Reddit, the company, enabled and encouraged this mod and their collaborators to attack users on their platform indiscriminately.
If Lemmy is to serve as only a new platform for abuse, then it deserves to die with the rest of social media. Please, do not let it come to this. Discuss and debate civilly.
I owe no civility to the oppressors, or the supposed minstrels that bear their water. Let’s not talk about what they’re honestly owed.
I still don’t see why adding the skin color was important, but eh, I have other things to deal with, so I don’t really care, just found it slightly annoying.
Gender not important also, loads of women “mansplain”, it’s a problem with attitude, not gender or race
Yep, I hate that word as well, but didn’t have the energy to post about it…
This is a consistent and very unpleasant fact of the world that white men will treat anyone of any other demographic as less than equals.
Citation needed.
In all seriousness, I understand your point and respect you for trying to deconstruct the mechanics of privilege.
But I just factually disagree with your assertion. I would argue that every human being has an inherent preference for people that they perceive as similar to themselves in some way, and this can result in bias along racial or gender lines. However, this arguably applies less to white men than any other demographic, because such behavior is so consistently condemned and shamed when exhibited by white men.
In contrast, people of other demographics are less frequently made aware of their own biases, because calling it out has not been construed as some kind of ethical imperative, as it has with white men.
It’s also well documented that women have a much stronger in-group bias compared to men.
In essence, women can be characterized as “If I am good and I am female, females are good,” whereas men can be characterized as “Even if I am good and I am male, men are not necessarily good.” This sex difference in cognitive balance suggests that a mechanism that promotes female preference in women does not similarly contribute to male preference for men.
https://rutgerssocialcognitionlab.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/9/7/13979590/rudmangoodwin2004jpsp.pdf
Your barely-in-context paper is not support for your main argument :
However, this arguably applies less to white men than any other demographic, because such behavior is so consistently condemned and shamed when exhibited by white men.
Do you have any citations that actually support your claim? Because it sounds like vibes “please don’t say mean things about my group” bullshit.
That’s not my main argument, it’s merely a supporting clause.
OP asserted that
white men will treat anyone of any other demographic as less than equals.
I countered that by pointing out that it’s obvious that any human being tends to prefer people who they consider similar to themselves. That’s my main argument.
And if that is true, then attempting to frame such behavior as particular to white men is just silly and unproductive.
I obviously can’t definitively measure the amount of social stigma around white male prejudice, but I don’t need to. I’m not saying that white men are definitely less biased than other demographics, I’m merely pointing out that it’s a distinct possibility, even as you all indicate that they are the demographic most deserving of condemnation for such behavior.
Now, one could make the argument that even though white men may not be especially biased, the effects of their bias may have greater impacts on other demographics due to the disproportionate amount of power they collectively wield. I think that’s a fair point, but it doesn’t really hold any ethical implications, it’s simply a description of a material reality.
Personally I believe that large parts of this discussion and topic are simply human nature.
Any group with power, will seek to keep that power, and to increase their standing over the other people. If history had played out differently and asian or black people were the historical in-group we would have the exact same situations and issues as we have today. Only another enemy.
I agree. People tend to ascribe inherent traits to other groups, when in fact observed behaviors can usually be traced not to inherent dispositions, but to specific environmental conditions that incentivize said behaviors.
For instance, a white man in our current social environment who exhibits a confident, assertive attitude is well situated to succeed. White men are expected to be competent and often rewarded for appearing competent, so they sometimes attempt to exaggerate their competence in order to meet the perceived expectations.
If this is your main argument then:
…it’s obvious that any human being tends to prefer people who they consider similar to themselves.
Doesn’t your paper you linked imply it isn’t so obvious? I still stand by that it’s not really relevant so I’ll just say that I fully disagree with your argument or the implication that you have somehow proven anything.
I’ll repeat something I said in another comment:
It is intentionally, intellectually dishonest and obtuse to pretend that condemnation of systemic problems resulting from unfair biases for/from certain demographics is as bad as the systemic problems in question.
You just pretend you are unaware of massive swaths of history in order to act offended that anyone would make generic statements about an infamously problematic demographic. And you falsely equate any attempt to talk generically about the problematic behaviour to the same issue, as a transparent tactic to suppress discussion of the problematic behaviour entirely.
I’m sure you will have some bullshit response that will annoy me again but I’m gunna try to let it go because I find talking to you unpleasant.
Doesn’t your paper you linked imply it isn’t so obvious?
Yeah sure, in the absence of any other data.
If you refuse to acknowledge that people like people similar to themselves, you’re not being honest with yourself, let alone me.
What is the systemic problem/problematic behavior that you are trying to solve? You clearly believe that white men are especially discriminatory towards other groups, which isn’t crazy, although I disagree. But are you so naive to think that if we replaced the powerful white men with powerful hispanic women (or any other combination of race and gender), racial and gender-based discrimination would suddenly end? I’m just pointing out the inconvenient truth that the system would still be biased and unfair, just with different winners and losers.
In my view, the fact that some white men are biased for or against certain groups is completely insignificant and irrelevant to solving the problems that society faces today. It’s the fundamental structure of the economic and political system that naturally results in the few individuals at the top of the hierarchy expressing a large degree of control and domination over the rest of the society.
The idea that humans are inherently predisposed to subjugate those different from themselves is a fascist belief that fascists say to justify fascism. So… Not a fan of that line of thought, thanks
Normally, I only comment when i have something to add, but I just want to commend you for your high quality contribution to this sensitive topic.
Really learning a lot from this. Your arguments are solid and your phrasing is respectful. Thank you!
That’s really nice to hear. Your comment did add something, at least for me!
This is news to me because I have been condescended to exponentially more as a decently passing white trans woman by cis white men in particular than I ever was before transition by ANYONE. Worst I ever got from black men was one calling me a “pretty thing” riding past on his bike. White men are getting the most push back as of late because they have historically been the worst offenders. And that hasn’t changed yet. That doesn’t mean the rest of us are free of guilt, but there is a very obvious frontrunner when it comes to unearned perceived self superiority, conscious or not.
I’m sorry that happened to you.
However, your anecdotal experience is just that. I have been subject to exponentially more racist abuse from black individuals than from individuals of any other race. Does that indicate to you that we should be “pushing back” against black racists? Obviously not, because my personal experience is not enough to draw any conclusions about society as a whole.
In fact, you’re condescending me right now. You’re implying that your personal judgment supercedes my rational argument. I provide sources and construct an argument, and you respond “this is news to me” (condescending and dismissing my argument) and proceed to explain that what I’m saying can’t possibly be true, because it contradicts your personal viewpoint.
Privilege is writing off your own privilege as inherent in nature and then pointing at other groups of people going “but they’re allowed it’s not fair!!!”
If the post said “a Black trans women interrupted me”, would that be also fine, in your eyes?
Are Black trans women known for this kind of behaviour? Are there apologists for Black trans women who make every effort to miss the fucking point that there are people who think this isn’t a thing that happens?
Nonody is “known” for that behaviour. You really just seem to ascribe personality traits to people based on their skin color. I thought we were long past that.
It is intentionally, intellectually dishonest and obtuse to pretend that condemnation of systemic problems resulting from unfair biases for/from certain demographics is as bad as the systemic problems in question.
Is that dog coming when you whistle?
Are there apologists for Black trans women who make every effort to miss the fucking point
Oh, don’t blame people. Don’t bring irrelevant details if you don’t want to distract them from the fucking point.
Are Black trans women known for this kind of behaviour?
The question suggests that Black trans women are all alike. It’s exactly that kind of generalization that’s being criticized.
Nobody is saying all white men are like this, what they are saying that it is only white men who do this.
Being a white man who is aware of the stereotype, I in no way feel attacked by it. I do feel aware that I need to be careful not to interrupt my colleagues or to mansplain things that I may be less knowledgeable about. This response from me is beneficial to both myself and the people I interact with.
“Only white men do X” is absolutely racist and sexist. “Mansplain” is derogatory.
“Mansplain” is derogatory.
I agree that it is derogatory to mansplain to someone, like to tell an expert in a subject that they don’t know what they’re talking about and thinking that’s okay because they are a woman.
It would surprise me, but it would still be fine.
How many black trans women are in positions of authority? To not remark on that would be unusual. Mind you, the chances of a black trans woman making it to that kind of position and holding on to the kind of stupidity in the original post is pretty damn slim, hence the surprise.
By calling out dominant race they imply that those silent on race are talking about a minority
Only if you ignore reality.
When a given demographic is a dominant presence in a given area (not necessarily work, it can be anything), there is a tendency for they demographic to start making assumptions about other demographics.
Isn’t she the one making assumptions, though? Specifically, the “prejudice and stupidity of the person indirectly insulting her” part? I mean, is that really the only possible explanation?
What other reason would you suggest as to why he would assume that he knows more than her or that she couldn’t be the person that he’s referring to? Clearly he didn’t even know her name yet so what did he have to go by to draw those conclusions? It obviously wasn’t her lack of knowledge on the subject that they were discussing now was it?
Clearly he knew her name, though. He just didn’t know the woman he was speaking to was the woman whose work he was recommending.
And he made that assumption based on? Because, again, we know for a fact she didn’t sound ignorant on the topic.
How should I know? Or you, for that matter?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
It’s a reminder than people that have always been in a privileged position often don’t realize they do.
What privilege applies here?
Did you drop a /s? This is a funny meme, so I’m assuming I just missed a joke.
Right?
(Speaking as a white male, white male entitlement, and privilege for that matter, are incredibly relevant to white men being sexist/racist.)
(You can trust me on this because I’m a white male. Also, I’m used to my opinion being listened to, so I expect you to as well. Just FYI.)
Nope, I wasn’t sarcastic, I was slightly annoyed, annoyed enough to make rhe comment but not to maje a huge deal about it.
To emphasize the privilege this guy has.
Exactly.
It’s an American obsession.
You’re right, racism doesn’t exist outside of America
Being white is a huge risk factor for unearned confidence. So is male. Being both just multiplies the chances.
Wow! This is like saying that if someone owns an axe, they are more likely to be a serial killer. If they also have rolls of black garbage bags, then its even more likely …
That’s such a straw man. You would have no trouble saying that if someone doesn’t have an axe they are less likely to be an axe murderer
Sorry - what do you mean?
The fact that someone owns an axe and garbage bags, does nothing to their likelihood of them being a murder, just like being white and/or a male has nothing to do with the “risk of unearned confidence”.
In the US it’s all about skin colour
Or even the gender?
Edit: so… based on the downvotes this gets, its not OK for a male to interrupt but if it had been a female or other gender, then it would have been ok?
Male and Female aren’t genders, they’re Sex, Words used to describe biological makeup of a living creature, for example XX Chromosomes are Female, XY Chromosomes are Male, but there are also instances where XXY Chromosomes can happen, and things get a little tricky.
Gender is what we use to tell children how to behave based on their genetalia and cause dysphoria in them when they don’t want to do something but will get ostracized for doing what people with the other genetalia do.
Thanks. Its a bit confusing to me especially as a none English user. But your description of gender sounds negative. I assume a gender can be a neutral description of oneself? I am not sure.
My point here though is, that OP mentioning it was a male, is as irrelevant as their skin color. I dont see why it needs to be there when they dont add other irrelevant characteristics such as nationality, age, hair color etc.
I would encourage you to do your own research regarding sex and gender. In many parts of the world, these terms are interchangeable. As they were in the US for many years, even after the term gender was popularized.
You know when the right looks at the left and calls us batshit? Your comment is shit they point to…
What’s batshit about it? As a society we do exactly that, we tell boys to like blue and girls to like pink.
There’s a lot more to sex than chromosomes. It’s probably better to say it’s clustering of positions on bimodal curves of traits. And even then you wind up with weird shit because biology really doesn’t like simple classifications. Like seriously there are so fucking many ways to be intersex and intersex people are downright common.
But also grammatically male and female when used to refer to humans are generally just the adjectives for man and woman.
Also the gender?
You can’t be racist against white, duh
Edit: nobody realized this was sarcasm
deleted by creator
It is just mentioned. Just a description of what happened. What’s wrong about saying it was a white male when it was a white male? Why jump to the opinion that mentioning the gender or complexion has any other purpose than being descriptive?
What’s wrong about just mentioning it was a post doc asking the question?
Removed by mod
I always roll my eyes whenever I see a “you can’t do that because you’re a woman” character in a show, and then I’m always reminded that these people actually exist
these people actually exist
The way it’s been explained to me is that so much of the negative interactions in life come from a tiny, tiny number of offenders who manage to be shitty to dozens and dozens of people. So anyone who has to interact with many different people will inevitably encounter that shitty interaction, while most of us normies would never actually behave in that way.
Of the literally thousands of times I’ve interacted with a server or cashier, I’ve never yelled at one. But talk to any server or cashier, and they’ll all have stories of the customer who yelled at them. In other words, it can be simultaneously true that:
- Almost all servers and cashiers get yelled at by customers.
- Very, very, few customers actually yell at servers or cashiers.
In other words, our lived experiences are very different, depending on which side of that interaction we might possibly be on.
When I talk to women in male dominated fields, basically every single one of them has shitty stories about sexist mistreatment. It’s basically inevitable, because they are a woman who interacts with literally hundreds or thousands in their field. And even if I interact with hundreds or thousands of women in that same field, just because I don’t mistreat any of them doesn’t mean that my experienced sample is representative.
I wouldn’t say very few. I’d say a solid 10% of people are routinely rude, impatient or entitled in a retail or restaurant setting. Even higher in some places.
I think you’re right. People want to believe that humans are good but in reality a huge number are deeply broken.
Fixed an autocorrect in edit.
It really is a matter of perspective.
You’re saying that 10% of the population being awful means that a “huge number” are deeply broken.
So then 90% are being good! Mind, it doesn’t take too many assholes to wreck things for everyone, but it is nice that the majority of folks really are trying to do their best. A sizeable majority, even!
10% of 8 billion is still many hundreds of millions. That’s a huge number. More: it’s a number we have to stop pretending is not a big deal and get to work to fix ourselves as a species.
Oh, no denying that at all. It is a problem, especially in aggregate.
When looking at the big picture, those rotten apples really do spoil the bunch and it can be depressing.
But also people can take that big picture awareness of problems and hate on people a little universally. Saying things like humanity is awful and a plague on the earth and maybe shouldn’t exist. There’s absolutely reason to see things that way.
But we are also a species that dolphins can approach for help when they’re injured. Or that will fight tooth and nail to help a wild creature. Or who will sacrifice their own well-being, not just for friends and family, but for strangers. Who will take other creatures, like dogs, into our homes and hearts and love them with all we have.
We can suck as a species, absolutely. We need to fix it. But it’s important to remember the joys of humanity, and not just the failures. Both are extreme, for we are a rather extreme species!
Maybe in some places. But when I go out to a restaurant, I’m often surrounded by a few dozen other diners, and no one is acting up or shouting at waiting staff. I have seen customers be obviously rude to staff but it’s very rare compared to the number of “normal” interactions. Sure not everyone is friendly and totally polite, but entitled, shouting or just being an ass is an absolute exception, like less than 0.1%. I also worked as a waiter in a couple of different restaurants over a two year period, and don’t remember any incidents either to me or my colleagues.
When I read comments like this it makes me wonder if I’ve been lucky enough to live and work in decent places, and the USA is just an nightmare hellscape, or if the reality there is much more normal and we just hear an unrepresentative sample of it.
the USA is just an nightmare hellscape
If you are visiting a restaurant you really only get a sense of what’s happening at your table. Same when you reach a cashier - you might overhear what happens straight ahead, but not much more than that. People can be very rude without being very loud - if you work in customer service you have to deal with these people all the time, and you can’t escalate things either. It’s not something other customers are aware of.
Totally agree that eating at a restaurant doesn’t mean you see all the subtle ways people are douches. But the comment above was about people shouting, so I assumed that the “10% of people are rude” was meaning obviously and noticeably rude. If it’s just 10% of people are impatient / distracted / not very friendly / kinda annoying. Then sure, but I don’t think anyone would be surprised with such a mild claim.
And as I said, I was a waiter in a busy restaurant for over two years. And the staff spent a lot of time complaining about the job to each other (as you do) and while many customers were annoying, kept changing their orders, or were a bit drunk and laughing loudly the whole time, blah blah, I don’t remember anyone ever complaining about a customer being as rude as I regularly read / see on the Internet. I never encounter a “Karen”.
I’ve always assumed it is just that Internet focusses on the tiny number of extreme behaviours and makes it sound more normal. But then I hear people say things like 10% of people are awful to staff and it makes me think that maybe there’s a real cultural difference.
Sorry, somehow totally skipped over the part of your comment where you said you worked as a waiter! I didn’t intend to explain your own job to you at all haha. There are definitely demographic differences I’ve noticed, and specific workplaces… I’ve worked a relatively small number of customer service jobs. Cafe was broadly as the previous commenter described, maybe 5-10% of people were… not great. Although, no shouting or anything when I worked there. Just rude, entitled people. Pubs are not so bad, in my limited experience, drunk people are annoying but in a different way. The worst was a job where I had to take customer calls (not quite a call centre)… There I had to deal with the closest thing to a “Karen”.
Oh god, yes. I worked in a call centre for six months and it was dreadful. The combination of dealing with sometimes frustrating situations + the anonymity of a voice only call… People were regularly dreadful. Definitely at least 10% very rude people.
I also took it to be a sign of the ‘banality of evil’, that people having a nice time with their friends, eating some nice food, are generally pleasant. But put them in the privacy of their own home, speaking to a faceless stranger, and suddenly they can be awful. But I tried not to judge them to harshly. The design of call centres, with long hold times and staff with no real power to do anything helpful, is pretty much guaranteed to frustrate the most saintly of people.
I seen first hand examples of something happening like women being interrupted by men and they go on about how everything is sexist and they were mistreated. But in that exact same meeting multiple guys talked over multiple other guys. It just happens, not everything is sexist but a lot of people claim sexism when it isn’t.
I think you’re right that only a tiny minority are directly responsible for the negative interactions, but as someone within academic science, there’s also a much larger chunk of people who don’t challenge the assholes or the systemic fuckery when they see it.
Minorities who face oppression are much more likely to be ignored if they report inappropriate or offensive behaviour; I directly know people who have been made to feel like they are the problem for highlighting a problem. This is especially common if it’s an established and respected academic who makes the iffy comments, because there’s a tendency to them like a senile grandparent at Christmas. If they’re a professor emeritus, there’s a sense of them not really being relevant anymore, even if they’re still respected, but it can feel tremendously isolating to see no-one step in to challenge the comments, either at an individual or institutional level.
It’s understandable to not want to rock the boat, but abstaining is easier for some than others.
I agree.
I point out that pretty much everyone in that group experiences it, so even those who aren’t in that disadvantaged group should show some empathy towards the experiences of others, that we may never directly encounter ourselves. Part of that empathy, of course, is to provide support and structures for reducing the likelihood that these things happen, and mitigating them when they do happen.
Sometimes it’s true, like a penismodel
Women can have penises.
They can have one, if they have penises that’s scary
someone missed your joke about one person having multiple penises. or maybe they’re really progressive and are looking out for their multipenile friends.
Look, if one of you knows a guy (or a gal) rocking hemis and you’ve been holding out, I’m gonna lump you up with a Louisville Slugger on my Johnny Dangerous shit.
Yeah, I guess I’m not progressive enough
Some would even argue that all of the best penises are on women.
Lol the dudebros getting mad about only having a boring male penis instead of a cute female one and downvoting you.
Oh, I don’t think it’s that. I think it’s two parts actually comradely queers considering him a chaser, and two parts he’s an absolute self-aggrandizing waste of time who thinks he’s the “better class of socialist” compared to us when “degenerate” is an active part of his vocabulary and he just can’t stop parroting the State Department.
The only “socialists” that align with NATO are the same ones making excuses for the kinds of things on Vaush’s computer is the last I’mma say on that.
Thx :3
“There are women with penises, men with vaginas, and phobics without teeth.”
Not only that they exist but also that they’re disturbingly common and disproportionately in positions of power.
We poke fun at your infatuation for these infantile cartoons. You reply, “misogyny!!”
The only reason your cries are taken seriously here is that so many of these people are on the same dumb wavelength.
ITT people baww at the mere mention of race and gender, and proceed to behave as if the problem is other people being too sensitive about race and gender.
I’m very sorry, but what is ITT and baww?
ITT. In this thread.
Bawww in this context means “cry”
Thanks for the clarification. This is how I find out that I’m old.
What does old mean to you? Maybe you’re just not terminally online 😅
… ITT has been used since early 00s AFAIK (2003 urban dictionary https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ITT). It’s possible that it was used before that I just couldn’t find any “proof” and can’t remember it personally.
The bawwww I just got contextually. Plus sounded out it kinda sounds like someone bawling their eyes out. QQ
Upvoting in solidarity.
Same. I always immediately think of the Fela Kuti track!
I thought ITT was in reference to that technical community college I used to see ads for on tv
In this thread
Whining
This funny story really brought a lot of great accounts out of the woodwork to block!
“I’m sorry you feel that way.”
Refusing to accept responsibility for their actions.
Removed by mod
I can assure you I’ve never had a magnetic resonance angiography.
You’re not kidding. The comments are so much worse than I was expecting.
I had to scroll down to see what you mean. Shocking that people really still don’t understand how privilege works.
“It’s difficult to get a man to understand something when his paycheck depends on his not understanding it.” – Upton Sinclair
And then everyone applauded..
But seriously if I witnessed this, I might actually applaud because that is a pretty badass bit of trivia to get to whip out.
I think I would rather this happen to me than just about anything professionally, the withdrawal from that high might actually kill me
Hilarious. I actually witnessed this online when someone tried to “well actually” another user and it turned out that user was the author of the paper they cited.
I see it happen a lot online with people “looking for help with”, but really just looking to vent about, open source software.
And I encounter it a lot at work with policies, reference docs, and little PowerShell scripts I’ve written.
“Hello I am tech support. Sysadmin, please help with strange situation A”
Sure thing, you’ll need to do X.
“But that doesn’t match our documentation, it says to do Y and that’s not working”
My man, look at the changelog on the first page. I wrote it and made most of the updates for the first year we had it. This is an exception, and adding it to the doc would have bloated it outrageously for how infrequently this comes up. Especially to explain the why. I’d also need to try to cover all the other rare exceptions, which would turn the doc into an absolutely useless shitshow. Anyway, I should have a PowerShell script to handle it, give me a bit to find it.
“Ahckstually, Numpty #3 says our team has a PowerShell script to handle it already, no worries! Thanks!”
Motherfu- My brother in christ who do you think wrote that? You know I used to be on your team, and I just said- My name is in the first line of the scri- I mean cool, glad I could help you get it sorted.
Similar story, talking with a vendor. Again, I’m the one not in quotes.
I need you to connect me with a technical resource on your side for assistance with attempting an alternate solution Y for the issue we are facing, which Important Muckety Muck #7 in my company said you were able to do for them. I understand that I previously suggested that we could do X on our side as a solution for our problem. As we’ve moved forward in other places on this project, we have found that X will not work for us as a solution for reasons A, B, and C.
(He’s breathing loudly through his mouth, hanging agape between words like some great panting missing-link-between-man-and-ape who has somehow found his way into a sales position. Somewhere in the dark recesses of his mind, the sounds of the wind through jungle trees, the calls of ancient and exotic birds and animals, the quiet noises of strange insects alien to this modern time and place, all combine into a beautiful primal music lost to the modern world. It flits through his subconcious, never quite fully able to be grasped.)
“I am the technical resource. According to my notes, X was identified as a solution to your problem.”
(This was not some poor third world guy stuck in a call center having to follow a basic help desk script. Same first language, a few states away, he’d been involved with this project the whole way)
AS STATED IN MY PREVIOUS EMAIL
BOFH vibes haha
Isn’t there an infamous Usenet post where someone did that to the creator of Perl?
Any kind of interruption seems rude AF, and that’s without even considering the sexism and insinuation that she’s incompetent.
What’s the norm for the audience in situations like this? Raising your hand? Holding any questions/comments until the end?
Even then you don’t go “you don’t understand x!”. You make an actual point about something in the presentation, usually with enough self-doubt to state it as a question.
If the whole presentation is trash in your opinion, just leave.
Also, if someone just says “you’re wrong about X” that’s way easier to deal with than “considering this other paper says these things, can you explain your motivation for X?”.
Those questions are the worst.
I find that to be the other way around. I would much rather have people ask the second kind of question, whereas the first kind will give me nothing to work with. In the worst case you can answer that you havent read thtose papers and you will after the presentation. At best they can actually teach you something you haven’t considered yet. But often you can respond with your motivation which you generally thought about for much longer than they did.
that is a very scientific environment. of you cant deal well with the second question youre at the wrong place
I mean, it’s much easier to dismiss a shitty question than a good one.
Most researchers I know welcome difficult questions. Like that’s the whole game. Finding the difficult questions about your work and answering them.
A lot of the time, it sucks of you only get bad questions or no questions. It usually means your work was uninteresting or so poorly presented no one grasped enough to even ask about something relevant.
If a subject is a scientific passion of yours, you don’t dismiss good questions, you welcome them.
You start by asking questions. If you’re wrong you’ll find out, if you’re right you’ll expose something.
Depends on the size of the meeting and the length of the meeting.
For an hour-long lecture/seminar with less than 20 people, probably raising your question directly is fine.
For a 25 mins talk at a conference with 200 people, you will probably need to save your question to the end.
But it is always safer to ask beforehand.
Some people develop extreme skills while never learning how to interact with others.
That et al is the best scientist, they’re in all the papers.
That man’s name? Albert Einstein
I was hoping for Davy Crockett, oh well…
He kil’t him a bar when he was only three.
Why is ‘race’ relevant here? What the fuck is wrong with Americans and how did they become so astonishingly self flagellating.
That said… this sounds like one of those fantasy scenarios where “then everyone clapped”.
Just on the insecure posture of this tweet, I’m prepared to bet cold hard cash that he asked her for clarity or something with a informational challenge “but does x not come from y?” Or whatever and she manufactured his reasoning and the rest to feel good. She doesn’t seem to know what et al means either.
Why is ‘race’ relevant here?
Because it’s extremely relevant in American culture. Every culture really, we’re just somewhat ahead on not lying to ourselves about it.
What the fuck is wrong with Americans and how did they become so astonishingly self flagellating.
Nothing and we’re not, you’re an irate ignoramus with a chip on your shoulder having an imaginary dick measuring contest because you’re super duper sensitive about race.
Just on the insecure posture of this tweet, I’m prepared to bet cold hard cash that he asked her for clarity or something with a informational challenge “but does x not come from y?” Or whatever and she manufactured his reasoning and the rest to feel good. She doesn’t seem to know what et al means either.
He was literally telling her to go read her own work. The “et al” part is very fucking clearly taking the piss, do they not have humor over there in Stuckupistan? Or are your panties always in too much of a twist about basic ass descriptors to have any kind of humor about literally anything?
E: guy’s post history is chock full of dogshit-tier takes with a thin veneer of leftism and a big heap of good ol’ fashioned xenophobia.
“Because of the sheer scale of the issue and long history of institutionalized racism with lingering consequences, we, Americans, developed more vigilance on the issue, and I think this experience and this point of view should be considered across the globe. I do not appreciate the way you speak of it, and I’d rather have you respect, even if not immediately understand, this position.”
-Your comment, with personal attacks taken out.
I ask you to consider the way users express themselves around Lemmy, and keep this place nice and tidy. Personal attacks and flaming are better left to Reddit. What makes the Lemmyverse so amazing is the cooperation of kind strangers, and in the spirit of it, it would be amazing for you not to provoke flaming and aggression.
I’m no admin and no mod, but a kind patriot of the Lemmy space, and I sincerely hope you could listen up to this and be kinder next time, even to the people who aren’t perfectly keeping to the good conduct themselves.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
They’re mentioning the race and gender basically to say “a privileged person”. Having privileges obviously influences your character. And race+gender correlate with privileges.
So, while there’s no direct causation, and us white males who aren’t chumps don’t need to be offended, it’s often good enough of an explanation why a particular white male might be a chump.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
racism is race discrimination along a prevailing axis of oppression. so yes, being discriminatory towards white people, in a white supremacist society, is “reverse racism”, which is to say “not racism”
I agree that the usage of “white” is irrelevant here. That being said, are you in academics? It is not an unusual situation for people to not be aware of the “face behind the maths” so to speak. Granted, this is not entirely unique to women in science but it is exhaustingly common for women to be questioned more than their peers.
I think questioning this is fine as many people lie but I wouldn’t take this to mean this type of situation didn’t happen/couldn’t happen.
I recognise that, I think it’s important to make very clear distinctions with no sweeping statements when prescribing value to demographic groups.
While I perfectly agree with your position on that the “privilege” talk has become a weapon in and of itself, and that a lot of bullshit stories come out of it, I’d love it if you could change the tone of conversation.
Americans are different, and they may have cultural reasons to behaving this way. That’s not to say they’re right - but seeding anger this way is not gonna magically change their minds.
This is a reasonable request
I’m glad we have a common ground here
Hope it didn’t turn out mean on my part - I just want to keep this place nice :)
This is top some top tier mansplaining here. I detect no sense of irony. Chef’s kiss.
deleted by creator
…later that evening, that’s when this poor wounded white male post doc subscribed to the Ben Shapiro podcast.
What does skin color and gender have to do with this?
hegemony
I find it interesting how writing “a male” instead of man is a good way of pointing out “sexist mansplaining” and writing “a female” is dehumanizing (which i actually agree on). I will not deny that there are many sexists out there who are mansplaining or see women as less knowledgable. Without knowing the person (“offending”) however, i think we would be wise to use occam’s razor which would lead us to the conclusion that this is a prime case of the dunning kruger effect (which would also apply if sexism is involved).
Mycomment however has to be seen as mansplaining because i sadly have a dick between my legs. Sorry for that.
im this case she uses male as an adjective, which would be fine for female too (“a female post doc”)
I think the comedy rule of punching up explains this.
