Are NTs/humans becoming more easily offended as time passes?

Post Reply New Topic

I'm looking back a long way into history though. US history is very short, a few hundred years. I'm looking at history since BC times, thousands of years, when I say that women have generally been powerless. It's only in the last few hundred years women have had any power.

You're right, societies do function well with fewer men and more women...but these days due to nearly everyone surviving because of better healthcare, the balance is changing and there are slightly more men in the world than women. I'm not sure what that will do to humanity.

You are looking back through the filter of modern mythology. Native American tribes look like patriarchies, because the chief was generally a man in the prime of his life. However, he didn't get there by beating people up, but by helping them work together and get more done. He was chosen not by combat, or even by his gang, but by the grandmothers. They had the most interest in the future of the tribe, rather than their own fortunes, the wisdom of experience, and the interests of both men and women at heart.

When boys are busy playing sports, and building skills useful for hunting and protection through practice and teamwork, their sisters are preoccupied with learning to compete with each other by making and breaking alliances and controlling information. If women were helpless and just being kept down by physical force, they would have also taken up arms when "the great equalizer" made Billy the Kid as dangerous as any man.

^

Dude..."Billy the Kid" was a dude!

You must have him confused with Calamity Jane, or with Annie Oakley.

What is the confusion? Men went for improved weapons, while women trusted their wiles. Annie Oakley did exhibitions, not executions.

You were talking about relative amounts of brute force between the sexes.

You implied that the invention of firearms leveled the playing field between the sexes by saying "the great equalizer [I assume that you mean 'guns'] made Billy the Kid the equal of any man" thereby implying that he was a woman- who suddenly could shoot men as well as they could shoot back despite woman having less physical strength or whatever. Or thats what it sounded like you were saying.

I guess its my bad. I dont know what you were saying then. What does one dude being equal to other men hafta do with what you were talking about?

Before guns, bigger men were more dangerous. Guns made us more equal - maybe even giving advantage to smaller targets. However, women did not take up guns to share that kind of equality - they had ways to control the gunslingers and stay safe.

Your evidence for this claim?

Moral codes have varied quite a bit from one society to another. They can't be reduced to just two.


What is your source for this "remarkably consistent error rate of 10%"? It's not even entirely clear what you mean by "error rate," in the first place.

Anyhow, there have been plenty of cultures in which, traditionally, marriage is/was arranged, with women having very little say as to who they got married to. Thus, many women have not been in a position to "dictate" who the fathers of their children were.


So, by "remarkably consistent error rate of 10%," do you mean to claim that married women consistently cheat on their husbands 10% of the time?

If indeed that's what you meant to hint at:

I would expect the rate of cheating to be highly variable. Different women, in different circumstances, vary a lot in how much opportunity they would have to cheat, and in how strongly they've internalized a moral code against adultery.

I would expect adultery to have become much more commonplace since the invention of the automobile, especially after families with two or more cars became commonplace in the 1960's or so. This would have given lots of people many more opportunities to cheat. And I would expect this to have been one of the main causes of the divorce revolution of the 1960's and afterward.


Regardless, there have been plenty of deception and "fairy tales" in the political realm. And some kinds of deception are essential to victory in war. So deception certainly isn't just a women's thing, as you seem to think.

By the way, what is your evidence that women are more inclined to be deceptive than men? (There have been studies that would seem to show, if anything, a slight tendency in the opposite direction, e.g. this one.)


So now you're blaming women in the workplace for today's rise in intolerance???

I should point out that the typical American workplace has always been a dictatorship. And only in unionized workplaces (NOT the majority of workplaces) are hiring and firing decisions based on anything even remotely resembling "fair trials." Also, in the vast majority of workplaces, there has always been the expectation that workers "fit in" with the workplace "culture" and conform to various social norms.

What has changed recently (within the past 10-20 years) is the nature of some of those social norms, and the changes have happened quickly enough to leave many people feeling disoriented. Most of these changes occurred MUCH more recently than the arrival of large numbers of women in the workplace, which therefore is unlikely to be the main cause.


While the "breakdown of family homes" has indeed resulted in various problems, I think the recent fragmentation of society is caused more by other things, such as social media and its algorithms.

Last edited by Mona Pereth on 03 Jan 2023, 3:27 am, edited 5 times in total.

Agreed.
Politically speaking, if you are an independent centrist, you cop crap from both hyperpartisan sides.

This hypothesis you have about women bringing their inner sense of authority to the commons is very interresting. It reminds me of how women's associations played an important role for both prohibition and women's suffrage in the US. Basically as soon as women began participating in politics, first thing they did was to exert control based on morality.

Interesting question.

I think as our communities fall away from church and religion; culture fills in the gaps with their religion. Secular religion doctrine is social justice, personal truth (vs absolute truth), being dominated by feelings instead of facts, limited speech so as not to offend anyone, and majority rule dictated by popular trends and the idols of the day (Fauci for one example/actors/actresses/politicians/the elite/schools).

I guess my theory is that there existed an adopted Judeo-Christian mores which most folks and families adhered to for nearly 200 years which goes all the way back to our country's founding. And in the 1960's that started eroding away with humanistic theological and philosophical pursuits which has led to a modern hodge-podge of beliefs and notions in our citizenry with little coherence or common denominator with which to relate to each other.

Certainly what we are seeing now with wokeism is the birth of a religion, or an attempt at it. As Nick Cave called it, "A bad religion run amok". It shares a lot of similarities with religions, it has its own doctrine free of reality, it has it's special magic words, it has it's infidels, It has its saints like Greta Thunberg, Malala, Faucci etc. It has happened before. Communism was probably the largest religion in the world during the 20th century. It had it's dogma, it's prophet (Karl Marx), it's sacred text (The Communist Manifesto), it's church (The Communist party) and its eschatology (Communism). Fascism was similarly a religion. That's why those who opposed Nazism the most from within the German society, were the priests and pastors, because they could see that this was an ideology foreign to the Christian faith. The 19th century German philosopher Friedrich Nitzche was the one to predict what was to come in the 20th century by proclaming "the god is dead". Meaning that since scientific advance had rendered the Christian faith unbelievable, now the western societies were in a moral crisis. He was afraid of what was to come that is going to fill that gap which the abandonement of Christianity left. Unfortunately he was proven to be right as we witnessed during the 20th century with the raise of Communism and it's cousin, Fascism. What we are witnessing today with this cluster of morality and virtue signsling based movements, like intersectionality, critical theory, climate change, green new deal and so on, is yet another attempt at filling that gap.

@ dengashinobi

Nice overview.

Out of curiosity are you familiar at all with the term 'the metacrisis'? If not you might enjoy following that chain a bit, particularly the long-form podcasts where Daniel Schmachtenberger gets into his description of it. It's a lot to process but he's really good at hitting the details.

I've also found this to be true over the course of my lifetime. Honesty used to be seen as a good thing in the past decades and I used to be able to joke around. People weren't so hung up on political correctness in the past decades. There was one member at my clubhouse who took offense at the fact that I carved an iron cross in the back of my pumpkin around Halloween. It seems that people have become snowflakes.

I hadn't been familiar with the term. I read a little about it. It's a very interresting notion. It's premise is something it can definitely be felt. I will research it further for sure. Thank you for the suggestion.

Yes, I think the problem is multifaceted. The ghosting culture probably cannot be blamed on just one monolithic entity, such as social media, but there are other economic and cultural factors involved also.



Same here. There was a transgirl I was trying to date, and on our first meeting she acted like she was into me and then the next day ghosted me with no explanation. Later I found out she was a flat-earther so there's no explanation for that kind of crazy. To this day I still don't know exactly why she ghosted me. One of my theories is that when I left the car, maybe she didn't like the side-angle of my face, or maybe she didn't like my walking style. Idk.




If they viewed Fauci as that, they wouldn't be very woke, as he tortures dogs for no reason (and basically the whole NiH tortures animals also.) The Land Management down south also slaughtered a bunch of wild horses for oil.

The whole woke thing is basically a change of hands from right-wingers who acted the same as modern woke leftists. In the past, right-wingers were intolerant of things such as queers or things that questioned their religion. There was a whole right-wing cancel culture for anything outside of tradcon dogma.

Maybe the Romans ended up embracing Christianity due to the lack of tolerance of society, perhaps there society was getting infested by cancel-culture needed to learn to forgive and forget. Modern Christianity seems to be missing the point as Jesus was basically a commie and Republicans seem really intolerant. Though cruxifiction is barbaric and primitive, maybe there should be some sort of torture punishment given to people who torture animals and such.