Moderation Questions

Was there anyone within these two sides who mentioned that maybe we could spend our limited days on earth not talking about men?

Yes, there was actually a lot of discussion about decentering men and the many benefits of doing so

Won't you need a new axis for your community if you do that?

It is actually very easy. Just keep developing AI companionship/sex robots, to provide men the physical and emotional needs women would naturally provide. With these basic needs otherwise satiated men, especially low status men, will completely check out and leave women alone. Problem solved.

It might be most but I don’t think that’s a universal pattern across social mammals. It seems to depend a lot on ecology and social structure. Bonobos are a good counterexample, and they’re also one of our closest living relatives along with chimps.

With the bobobos females form coalitions and collectively suppress aggressive males, so the typical “males protecting females from other males” dynamic doesn’t really occur. Male dominance is pretty weak and their status often depends more on his mother’s rank than on his own fighting ability. And most impotantly, a lot of conflicts are diffused through sexual behavior rather than male competition.

That’s quite different from species like chimps, where male coalitions dominate and territorial violence between males is common, or Gorillas, where a dominant silverback monopolizes and guards access to females.

And where bonobos live, food resources are more plentiful and evenly spread out and there are fewer predators or external threats. So females stick together, build alliances, and keep males in check, which probably explains why their social dynamics are so different from chimps or gorillas.

That seems more near what's happening with women, at least in the west.

Are you really saying that if a man protects a woman from another man, that's not protecting a woman?

I dont know how well you have been paying attention to natural human history the last 1 million years or so. But we are genetically, physically and socially organized much closer to chimpanzees than bonobos.

I suspect that you have absolutely no awareness of how profoundly the above claim/admission supports some of my theses

No. Most women in the west still pair bond with males and have their offspring (they just start procreating too late and not enough so it is below replacement level). And male vs male interpersonal violence and male on female domestic violence is muted in modern societies (some better than others) by the state monopolizing violence, not women keeping them in check.

There is a reason matriarchal free love hippy communes dont really exist, and when they are tried don't last very long. The hardware just isn't compatible with the software.

Well, our main difference you think there really is such a thing as a "sisterhood" of non related women, who form a cohesive tribal group organized around their the size of their gametes. Whose interests are divergent from the "tribe" of men.

Where I think that is all nonsense, at first principle levels and empirically.

like if there were goblins or bears or wolves roaming the streets attacking people i'm sure others would protect people from them - but that's not happening

more a process of elimination more than anything else

Like most apex predator species, humans being the ultimate apex predator species; I think Crossnerd's observation that male humans protect their females from other male humans is the "natural" state of affairs that has been the case the last million years or so. She is just under some bizarre misconception women are a victim class, have no agency, and would organize together to change the state of affairs if they could.

Psychologically, women are actually less empathetic towards "others" than men are; especially other women. This is part of the reason progressive women are so dismissive and have no empathy for the condition of Iranian women. Progressive women paradoxically view Islamist men as part of their tribe, and Iranian women as "others" deserving of no empathy.

Sure, humans are genetically closer to chimps, but one of the big things that set bonobos apart from chimps is basically a geographic accident. 1–2 million years ago, the Congo River formed and split the ancestral population. The southern group that became bonobos ended up with more stable food and fewer predators, which helped shape their very different social dynamics. So a lot of the differences between chimps and bonobos come from environment and circumstance, not just genetics.

Is this a creep-off? Where’s Mongo?

That sounds like a far more enjoyable conversation to have instead of the other ones

Sure, humans are genetically closer to chimps, but one of the big things that set bonobos apart from chimps is basically a geographic accident. About 1–2 million years ago, the Congo River formed and split the ancestral population. The southern group that became bonobos ended up with more stable food and fewer predators, which helped shape their very different social dynamics. So a lot of the differences between chimps and bonobos come from environment and circumstance, not just genetics. I think you're trying to make the latter do way too much work.

That might be the dumbest debate resolution I've seen in my life. They can both be true. DUCY?

Yeah. Environment definitely shapes genetics and evolutionary history. That is Darwinism 101. But if you stuck Bonobos today in harsher conditions, they would either have to evolve or (much much much more likely) go extinct. Individual animals are generally constricted by their hardware, where small random mutations and environmental evolutionary pressure over time can slowly alter the hardware.

Sure, the same way that if I light your house on fire and then call the fire department I’m a protector of houses

I get the social Darwinism angle. But for individual humans, it’s really our social structures and cultural norms that guide behavior. Genetics might set broad tendencies, but modern laws, social pressures, and institutions are what actually shape how we act day to day.

I think that perspective aligns way more with modern anthropology when it comes to explaining things like why some women are attracted to foreigners or why certain societies tolerate sexual assault of unaccompanied women.

We're breathing an atmosphere that is slowly leaking away, subsiding on floating crusts of land which slide along on a turbulent molten mantle. This makes up a planet that orbits a gigantic uncontrollable nuclear reaction in space whose radiation is both lifegiving and deadly. All of this is hurtling through a near empty void so vast and deadly that we have no idea if we can ever traverse it.

As far as Titanic allegories go, the world's nations are currently competing to see who can be the biggest iceberg.

This would be a paradox if we were talking about a single person, but it doesn't seem like much of a paradox to me when we are talking about a group of billions with varying propensities.

Where is this postulated?

Yes and I don't know.