Gender is the idea that different sexes should have different appearances, clothing, roles, tasks, etc.

For example women have long hair, wear make up and dresses. If a man did that they would be breaking gender norms. None of those 3 behaviors are biological. Another society could have those 3 things reversed and be otherwise identical.

The fact gender is a social construct isn't that complicated.

The headline is a bit misleading. What it should say is that "men who score low toxic masculinity traits are more likely to seek enthusiastic/affirmative consent". Which is a bit of a "duh" thing.

Even the authors admit that passive response is normative consent, and as much as I love enthusiastic consent, a lot of men AND women feel very awkward when you try that paradigm since they're used to normative human sexuality. That's especially prevalent with older men and women like millennials and gen X. Escalating sexual behaviour with passive consent is different from escalating without consent or against consent. Perhaps when affirmative/enthusiastic consent is normalized, we can have a different conversation.

"A passive response to a sexual advance is a normative indicator of consent, but also might reflect distress or fear, and whether men are able to differentiate between the two during a hookup was important to explore," said Mattson.

That's the exact point. In a future study they'll be able to see if men who score high in toxic masculinity traits are more likely to not notice or actively ignore distress or fear.

I honestly suspect yes since empathy is not a valued trait in performative toxic masculinity, but with science it's unwise to jump to unsubstantiated conclusions, like this headline does.

Oh yeah, that was a real stupid moment in this guy's life. No defending that. And having that on video is just awesome! This guy will never live this down lol

I'm really torn about this. He's in jail now for driving without a license. That in itself doesn't harm anyone. It could very well be that he just didn't have the money to renew his driver's license. Doesn't seem like the kind of thing deserving of jail time by itself. As for the driving, in a lot of places it's not possible to keep a job, or go to the doctors office, without a car.

That being said, since he doesn't have a license, his insurance, even if he had any, is void and therefore he is a liability. He clearly isn't going to stop driving when he isn't legally entitled to.

In a society where driving isn't often optional, I feel like the law is more callous than necessary. I don't have a solution though. Maybe drivers licenses could be free so that your license would only be suspended for cause?

The video is absolutely hilarious though. The comedic timing is as good as a sitcom. No marks.

No. They're dumb. It's scientifically proven at this point. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289609000051

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/fenton-appeal-1.4397286

Only one cop was punished. His sentence was losing 60 paid vacation days, probably 2 years without vacation at his seniority.

"It is difficult for us to conceive how convictions for the mass arrests, found to be unlawful, of hundreds of individuals in contravention of their Charter rights are not at the more serious end of the spectrum of misconduct."

The panel that sentenced him admits his behaviour was heinous, but gave him such a slap on the wrist.

He argued in court that what he did was fair and it's unreasonable to expect him to have done better.

The people who were arrested and forced to stand outside in the rain without food or water for hours won a 16 million dollar class action settlement and had their records expunged. But it took nearly a decade because the police was trying to weasel out of it. A decade with a wrongful criminal record sets you back more than 16k/person.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/g20-toronto-police-regret-1.5767958

This tree is by a path, so it's better to leave it be.

Other trees can be sustainably harvested and made into whatever our society needs.

Stores in most developed countries, UK included, can refuse service only for legitimate reasons, and they have to do so uniformly based on fair and unbiased rules. If they don't, they're at risk of an unlawful discrimination suite.

https://www.milnerslaw.co.uk/can-i-choose-my-customers-the-right-to-refuse-service-in-uk-law

She didn't do anything that would be considered a "legitimate reason", and although applied uniformly, it's difficult to prove that an AI model doesn't discriminate against protected groups. Especially with so many studies showing the opposite.

I think she has as much standing as anyone to sue for discrimination. There was no legitimate reason to refuse service, AI models famously discriminate against women and minorities, especially when it comes to "lower class" criminal behavior like shoplifting.

TL;DR: effective communication requires that the language part of the brain of both people map VERY closely. It's no surprise autistic people and NTs don't communicate well together, but communicate very well within their own groups. How much you need to adjust your communication depends mostly on how important it is to get your message across, which if you're a teacher should be a lot. It's your job to communicate effectively lol. Your teacher was shitty!

Honestly I'm mostly replying to the "I'm not reading that but I agree". That made me chuckle. Like I could have had "Aurora_TheFirstLight sucks" in the middle of that and you're all "It's cool I agree lol"

Damn that's a lot of people declaring that THEY'RE the ones who speak clearly and THE OTHERS only think they're speaking clearly.

Brains are fairly unique to the individual. When you have an idea, this represents a unique neural activation pattern no one else has.

Being a social species, we often need to communicate these ideas to other people. This means we need to get that unique neural activation pattern into the other person's brain. That's where language comes in.

Language is a massive part of the brain that we work on our entire lives. The entire purpose of language is too make that part of our brain as close to identical as everyone else's. This way we take our idea, convert it into a neural pattern in our language center, transfer that pattern using words and non-verbal communication, then the other person receives it hopefully without massive transmission loss. They're now able to recreate the unique idea you have.

One of the defining features of autism is that the language part of the brain develops very differently in autistic people than neurotypicals. This means that neurotypicals can communicate well together. Autistic people can communicate well together. But communication between autists and NTs will be poor because of that difference.

Many people are arguing about who should change their communication to adapt to others. I don't think this is a useful question because the answer is unique to the individual and is based entirely on need. If you're an NT who needs to communicate to many people with autism, or have someone very close to you with autism, you will likely make an effort to build an autistic language map in your brain. If you're autistic and need to communicate with NTs, you'll likely build an NT language map in your brain. I can see these mapping strategies like using metaphors etc... in this very thread.

Unfortunately since autism is in the minority, there are more people in the latter group than the former. This means the pressure is felt by autistic people more than NTs. This is a natural consequence of the need to communicate in society, not an ethical dilemma. One natural consequence is that autistic people will prefer to have autistic friends to ease their communication burden.

Everyone accepts that there are people that they can't communicate well with. People who speak a different language, people with a different culture, people who have a very different life experience, people whose brassica develop differently. All these groups will have a different language sector of the brain and communication will suffer. It's not efficient for everyone to try to be able to communicate perfectly with everyone else. The goal is to be able to communicate very well with your friends and partners, communicate work concepts with colleagues, communicate basic concepts with most strangers, and avoid unintentionally making enemies with everyone else as best as you can. The onus is on each person to achieve theses goals for themselves.

There isn't really a right or wrong in this situation.

Not really. Either way you're not listening. In one case you're not listening as a group.

You ever get tired of shilling for genocide?

The consequence is the water is shut off. There is no avoiding that.

The neighbour is PAYING for every drop of water that comes out of the hose. Who uses that water isn't up to anyone except the neighbour since he owns the water he paid for.

Any other interpretation of property rights is due to people trying to punish the poor for their poverty.

Absolutely not! You may have a right to speak but you have no right to an audience. Just because someone wants to talk it doesn't mean I have to "challenge their ideas". I can just not listen. And if they want to come speak in my house I can trespass them. That's what the Democrats are doing.

You can speak, but no one needs to listen. Some ideas don't deserve the respect of a challenge. Anything Bibi wants to say right now is easily in that range.

That's how a lot of stuff works, true. I don't agree that can work with violence. I also don't appreciate the conceptual response to very practical questions.

I live in a peaceful society. I wouldn't want my neighbour to be able to use violence because my tree dropped it's leaves on his side of the lawn. I wouldn't want an alternate police force hired and paid by a group of white supremacists (current statistics aside) to enforce laws in a biased manner. Having other corporations able to use violence is an absolute dystopian nightmare and is 100% the cause of every dystopian fantasy world. If the government WASN'T empowered with violence then there is nothing to stop the above 3 scenarios. So I'm not sure what other "equalizing distribution" you're imagining and I'm not certain a better one exists.

I am open minded, which is why I asked those 3 very specific questions. If your have a better idea I'm all ears. If your idea is just to open up the floodgates and hope for the best because that will equalise access to violence and more equal is more better, then I will keep treating libertarian ideology as a threat to civilization. Mostly ideas that sound nice, but no practicable solutions that don't destroy society. Like communism.

Sure, if you change the definition of words then you'll never be wrong. Of course when YOU said "free speech" you didn't mean the commonly understood, legally defined term that people use when the government oppresses its citizens by restricting their ability to speak out against it. You meant some arbitrary broader concept that includes Bibi coming over and explaining why opposing genocide is anti-Semitism directly to Congress. As if any foreign agent has, or should have the right to address the government anytime they want.

I wonder what word you'll redefine next to not be wrong.

THAT'S NOT WHAT FREE SPEECH IS!!!

It only means literally only one thing: the government isn't allowed to punish you for saying something.

That's literally it. No one is being punished. Bibi can say whatever depraved shit he wants to anyone who will listen, it just turns out that it's not Congress.

You "free speech" literally don't even understand the very basic thing you build your lives around. Less brain cells than an orange tabby.

Yeah, they won't let me give a speech to Congress either. They're stifling MY free speech too.

What's that? That's not what free speech means?

Dude what the fuck? You do NOT want it to be legal for people to use violence to enforce their views on others. That's what "might makes right" is and it's how gangs are run. It's brutal. Every positive consequence you imagine will be completely dwarfed by the depths of human violence and depravity this would unleash.

That's just not how medical research works. Modern medicine isn't built on trying unproven technology on desperate people and using their bodies as a fast track stairway to success. Medical experiments have to ensure human dignity and that doesn't include "he was desperate enough to say yes" as a rationale.

In an interview with the Journal, Neuralink’s first patient, 29-year-old Noland Arbaugh, opened up about the roller-coaster experience. “I was on such a high and then to be brought down that low. It was very, very hard,” Arbaugh said. “I cried.” He initially asked if Neuralink would perform another surgery to fix or replace the implant, but the company declined, telling him it wanted to wait for more information.

Oh yeah, words of happiness right here! So much QOL, I'm glad you enjoy this.