I've never seen a math journal that requires academic credentials or affiliation to submit a paper, and I've published several math papers without an academic affiliation. You can put your employer as your affiliation or even "Independent Researcher". The hard part is writing the papers themselves. Getting a paper in a decent math journal as an outsider is rare, not because the journals ban or are biased against outsiders, but just because it's rare for an outsider to write a decent math paper.
As you know, Korea has compulsory military service for men, but not for women. This would be a fantastic place for gender equality activists to make their voice heard and rally for greater gender equality, it's strange that they seem to be unconcerned with this sort of thing.
Hmmm...I'm not sure if gender equality advocacy is when you always advocate for complete equality in all things always.
There's a side component of the mens right advocacy movement that tries introducing the idea that there's some flaw in woman's rights movements because they're not true gender equality movements: inter alia, famously, lawsuits over ladies nights at bars
I think the reason that doesn't carry much attention is because it's intuitive, even without the concept involved, to understand why someone might advocate for equal pay but not for equal conscription. We are but sentient meat.
Isn't it about equal responsibilities? No one is talking about women should be serving in the assault infantry together with men. But there are many different jobs to be filled within army which are equally suitable men and women: pretty much anything tech related: aircraft, drones, tanks.
> There's a side component of the mens right advocacy movement that tries introducing the idea that there's some flaw in woman's rights movements because they're not true gender equality movements: inter alia, famously, lawsuits over ladies nights at bars
It's not just men's rights. There is a massive part of the West who believes that to acknowledge that women are physically different than men is the real sexism. Erasing female as a distinct category entirely is supposed to be the anti-sexist option. Females are just weak men, too lazy to get taller and stronger. Or men are just big, sterile, extremely strong women. Now that I type it, I guess it is a men's rights movement.
Turning "woman-hating" into "misogynist" into "sexist" was as men's rights as turning Women's Studies into Gender Studies.
edit: always remember that the history of "sexism" is not a history of people hurting people, it's a history of men hurting women. Sexism is a euphemism. The reason only males are required to do military service in Korea is because men decided that's how it should be. If men decided otherwise, it would be changed.
Idk what either of you are on about, if it makes you feel better.
Seems like he's trying to complain...everyone? blue team? women? women and betas? women and lib cucks? women and misled men?...lie and say women are as strong as men and saying otherwise is censored as sexism.
You misread it as complaining about people who say there's a difference in mens and womens strength, and start complaining about how this is adjacent to blaming male voters for conscription given woman vote too, and all feminists won't read statistics.
Both of you need to grow up, in that, these are silly strawmen and not even wrong, in the Pauli sense. There's nothing to engage with.
You're making up obviously false stuff, and you've found a safe way to not have to engage with reality by claiming if you tried, you'd have to deal with all feminists ignoring statistics because all feminists believe men are as strong as women.
Why bother to be on a discussion forum if you're so pressed for time that you're lashing out at people agreeing with you and consider any interlocution a waste of time?
From the outside, it looks like all you get out of this is feeling upset, and it makes us wonder how you misread so wildly.
I didn't misread anything. refulgentis edited his comment after I replied, and the issue seems to stem from his failure to understand the comment I replied to. Without that context, my reply obviously won't make sense either.
The comment I replied to is pretty standard feminist dreck, and if you can't understand it, maybe interlocute them first? Debate is one thing, spoon-feeding you explanations of someone else's comment is another.
Still, I'll give you a hint: both pessimizer and I agree that men and women are physically different - again, I did not misread them in that regard. The difference is that I take that to a logical conclusion, while they are bound by ideology to stop short.
Here's the second sentence of this post you've claimed twice now believes men and women are no different: "There is a massive part of the West who believes that to acknowledge that women are physically different than men is the real sexism."
Here's the second sentence of this post you've claimed twice now believes men and women are no different: "There is a massive part of the West who believes that to acknowledge that women are physically different than men is the real sexism."
> Korea has compulsory military service for men, but not for women
If they make it compulsory for women it probably will just crash fertility further. Unless they couple it with the possibility of exemption for mothers.
What makes you think that conscription for women isn't being discussed in Korea?
1. Do you have evidence that it isn't?
2. You do realize that Korea is not actually a society with a lot of gender equality (or equality in general, as I'll note in point #4) as-is, right?
3. Which 'gender equality champions' exactly do you expect to be shouting about this so that you will hear about it? Americans and Europeans posting on Reddit and Hacker News?
4. Do you think that the existing problems regarding equality in conscription (with every connected person's sons actively dodging the draft) may be poisoning the well for anyone advocating - or considering advocating - throwing more bodies into that machine?
Why do people think 4chan is unmoderated? It is moderated, spamming an unrelated board with gore or porn will certainly get you banned, and illegal porn will get you banned and reported to federal agencies. It's unmoderated in the sense that you're allowed to say things that are against the status quo, but that's a good thing.
Please, 4chan has always been rife with illegal porn. It's been like that since the beginning. The Fappening and subsequent leaks were driven by 4chan. It's about as moderated as twitter is these days. Let's not white wash the site and pretend that every thread doesn't have multiple people just popping in to call OP or other uses slurs.
Is conspiracy to commit murder an unfairly persecuted thoughtcrime that we should permit on the off-chance that punishing it would lead to Orwellian outcomes?
I've never seen conspiracy to commit murder of individual people on 4chan. That would violate U.S. law and thus is banned from the site. There are retarded posts about genociding whole groups of people, but while that's totally retarded, it shouldn't be censored, no more than it should be illegal to propose blowing up the sun.
Because it doesn't harm anyone. If censorship laws are all that's preventing genocide, it's not like people are going to go, "Well, we'd love to genocide that other group, but these pesky censorship laws, I guess we'll have to find something else to do..."
Anyway, your argument, whether intentionally or not, is a kind of motte-and-bailey fallacy. You accuse 4chan of allowing "absolutely reprehensible political views". In many circles, that description would include views like "Women shouldn't be allowed to play in men's sports" or "Young children shouldn't be allowed to have sex-change surgery". That's the "bailey". But rather than defend that, you fall back to the "motte" of things like conspiracy to commit murder. In some peoples' views, abortion is murder, should we censor talk encouraging abortion? Of course not; that would be me countering your motte-and-bailey with my own motte-and-bailey.
The fact is, private companies shouldn't be allowed to choose what we can talk about. We DO have people allowed to choose that; they're called legislators, and if you dislike the things people are saying on some website, you should take that up with your legislators, not with the website.
Threats don’t harm anyone physically. Similarly, conspiracy to murder isn’t an actual murder until the murder is carried out. Calling for a genocide isn’t an actual genocide, but it’s hard to see what purpose it serves other than being the first step to enacting a genocide. There are plenty of other examples of speech acts rising to the level of criminality that no ordinary person would consider to be Orwellian.
> If censorship laws are all that's preventing genocide, it's not like people are going to go, "Well, we'd love to genocide that other group, but these pesky censorship laws, I guess we'll have to find something else to do..."
By this logic we shouldn’t have any laws, because people will always find a way to circumvent them.
> You accuse 4chan of allowing "absolutely reprehensible political views"
You are quoting a different user. My chief contention is that the sort of material you can find on /pol/ often rises to the level of incitement and that there isn’t anything wrong with prosecuting people for it. The same logic used to justify the criminalization of threats can be used to justify the criminalization of hate speech. The meta then shifts to inventing new or redefining existing categories of violence, sure, but this is just a slippery slope fallacy which assumes that there will be an endless tolerance for bad faith interpretations of an existing law. Outlawing murder has not led to the definition of murder becoming so expansive as to prohibit the general public from discussing the death penalty, for example.
> the criminalization of threats can be used to justify the criminalization of hate speech
This doesn't make sense to me. The reason threats are only illegal when they are "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action"[1] is because of 1A.
Hate speech isn't well defined. As the GP stated, some may say that abortion is murder. To others, it is hateful to suggest they don't own their bodies. Same argument can be made for trans, gays, etc.
Disallowing speech like, "Kill all Christians! They're ruining our nation." doesn't incite people to imminent, lawlessness. There is a massive jump mentally the reader must make to transform that statement into action.
Rwanda wasn't well-known for its expansive internet forums. The genocide in Rwanda stemmed from whispers and hushed conversations in rooms with closed doors. That no one could easily monitor. If you succeed in censoring the likes of 4chan, then you can look forward to those whispers here in places where they'd find no agreeable ears.
There is a natural human inclination to want to listen to and read the words that you're not allowed to listen to and read. If you want to lend credence to genocidal ambitions, ban and censor them.
> The genocide in Rwanda stemmed from whispers and hushed conversations in rooms with closed doors.
This isn’t true. Radio played a huge role in coordinating mob activity during the Rwandan genocide. Several radio hosts were prosecuted for the role they played in inciting the genocide.
> If you succeed in censoring the likes of 4chan, then you can look forward to those whispers here in places where they'd find no agreeable ears.
The catharsis of venting about racial minorities doesn’t lessen the inclination to vent about racial minorities, it just creates an hedonic treadmill which rewards further radicalization.
> If you want to lend credence to genocidal ambitions, ban and censor them.
Can you point out any historical examples of this occurring?
The Shining is one of the most heavily analyzed films of all time, for good reason. It's not just some random Michael Bay flick. It's really almost unbelievable how deep the rabbit hole goes, so no, it's not surprising in the very least that people would spend time on a detail like this. If people 100 years ago weren't doing this kind of thing with films, it's because they didn't have access to films the way we do today, if The Shining was around 100 years ago and people had home computers they could play it on and could download it easily over the internet, you can be sure people would be analyzing it like crazy back then too.
Another factor everyone is missing because it's politically incorrect to talk about:
There needs to be a way to avoid loud inconsiderate neighbors. Currently, this is done in practice by choosing an area where loud inconsiderate people are priced out. Until there's another way to do it, there will always be a demand for such areas.
Increasing supply of housing is great on paper. But imagine you're a productive citizen who gets up early, works hard, and goes to bed early. Housing prices get reduced to where anyone can afford to live anywhere? By definition, suddenly ANYONE can become your neighbor, including folks who will play loud music at all hours of the night, keep loud dogs, etc. And sure, that might violate noise laws. Good luck getting those enforced, if the laws aren't changed to have teeth!!
When dreaming up solutions to housing problems, ask yourself: "Would this solution allow a bum to move near to Bill Gates?" If the answer is yes, then your idea will not work. "Would this solution allow a bunch of high school dropouts to live alongside highly-paid software engineers doing work crucial for the economy?" If the answer is yes, your idea will have unforeseen bad consequences.
Why do you assume only poor people are annoying neighbors? Rich people can afford bigger speakers, more booze, and to not have a job so they can stay up all night. I think wealth is positively correlated with the problems you describe.
Some of us have actually lived in both cheap and expensive areas. Cheap areas tend to have unemployed people on them who decide to play loud music at all hours of the day and night.
Expensive areas have people who are busy working jobs to pay for their expensive housing and go to sleep at night.
Ergo, people who value peace and quiet gravitate towards expensive areas.
Of course there are exceptions, but on average, wealthy people are way way better when it comes to these kinds of things. Especially wealthy people who get that way by keeping themselves busy with productive labor. The upstairs neighbor doesn't need a $5000 stereo system to make your life a living hell, they can do that perfectly efficiently with a $30 subwoofer.
See, this is why the housing problem is so difficult to solve. You think you're being virtuous or something by sticking up for the poor oppressed. Why don't you be even more virtuous and move yourself to Skid Row since all those poor people are really so mild and quiet and misunderstood. All you're really doing is ensuring that this problem continues indefinitely. You're the same kind of person who insisted men should be allowed to use womens bathrooms and thus ushered in Trump 2.0, hope the good-boy-points you got for that were worth it.
Somehow I doubt social justice warriors are the key thing holding up housing reform. That grants a few wokescolds more power than a huge number of other economic forces.
This is kind of like blaming environmentalists when NIMBYs use environmental reviews to prevent new construction. They don't give a shit about the environment, really, but they know how to misuse the system to get what they want.
Reinforced concrete walls don’t keep out noise on courtyards and also don’t work as the decibels get higher and higher. Another major nuisance is the constant sound of sirens (often at night), or domestic disturbances spilling into hallways - the front door isn’t a reinforced concrete door.
People who value peace and quiet will select places to live where the neighbours don’t engage in domestic violence or otherwise do things that result in the police coming out with sirens going.
Right, so that sort of thing needs to be part of whatever proposed solution to the housing problem. This will of course raise building costs etc., and the regulations will need to have teeth so people can't just build apartments out of cardboard and paint them concrete-color. Also, that concrete will need to be really thick to ward out subwoofer noises. Maybe you could get around this by banning subwoofers.
