From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
We control what
you think with

Icon language.svg
Said and done
Jargon, buzzwords, slogans

Promiscuous Women[edit]

The following is meant to be a brief discussion of the curious case of the shunned promiscuous woman. University studies have routinely used sample spaces comprised of University students. It is relevant then, that "The rational part of a teen's brain isn't fully developed and won't be until he or she is 25 years old or so." ( The age of full development is given in some cases to be as late as 40 years of age.( Developmental parameters may lead to fatal errors when extending the domain-valid conclusions of social-science experiments relying upon college students as test subjects. Otherwise well-constructed experiments using subjects in their late teens and very early twenties cannot be expected to in every case produce accurate predictions for subjects in other, especially older, age groups. Sex-related activity is high on the list of behaviors likely to be influenced by the age of the study participants. University studies focused on student participation that do not consider age a significant variable cannot be automatically assumed to be more reliable than magazine surveys. Magazines tend to rely on sexuality as a sales multiplier. Examples of online articles on the subject of female promiscuity include:

(1) Harpers Bazaar, "When it comes to Promiscuity, are Women the New Men?" (;

(2) IOL, "Loose Women Shunned by All", (;

(3) New York Daily News, "Women Shun Promiscuous Peers." (

(4) The Daily Mail (London), "In the Age of Promiscuity, Women have more Sexual Partners than Men, (

Studies referred to in the above articles seem to show that young women have on average, more sexual partners than their male counterparts and also that women themselves are responsible for shunning sexually promiscuous women. It seems that even women who are themselves promiscuous do not accept that behavior in their peers and do not want promiscuous female friends (see ref. 3). These considerations make "The fact that sexual promiscuity is socially admired in men but shunned in women" at least a dubious example of privilege.

What's the point?

So you are saying that because women are a source of sexism against women, it's not a problem? StickySock (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The last sentence states the point: the first example of privilege in the 'Privilege' article should be as simple as possible for educational purposes. It is not. It is not even an example of privilege. It is reportedly other women who will not accept promiscuous women as friends. It seems unreasonable to interpret this as an unfair advantage or privilege that men have, at the very least because most women don't want it. My point is, the reductionist approach characterized by " This seems unfair, therefore [privilege]" doesn't always work: evidently not every objectionable behavior can be reduced to a priviledge in the sense that privilege is defined.

And how exactly does the gender of those discriminating against women affect whether or not women are discriminated against? As I've said elsewhere... 1) It might technically not be privilege, but the difference is pedantry that matters about as much as whether the volcano next door is spewing magma or lava; the more important thing is that you do something about it, not whether you get the name right. 2) If you are getting this worked up over pedantry, chances are you don't really care about it at all and are trying to use the issue as part of some form of wedge strategy, whether that's denying there's gender discrimination of any form or some nonsense about how men suffer more than women from discrimination. Never mind that discouraging women from being promiscuous kind of hurts men too... CorruptUser (talk) 00:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't by definition. I honestly don't understand why you would suppose my answer could be otherwise. But you can't define your way out of the problem I have posed: the so-called privileged class is not the class denying the privilege to women, which ipso facto brings into question whether an actual privilege is involved. I am arguing about whether an example is a good example. This is meant to be a technical discussion about a single example. The point is not whether there is discrimination, it is whether the discrimination can rightly be called due to privilege. I don't see how it can. It is not meant to attack the idea of privilege. You actually write, "It might technically not be privilege," and I say fine, then we agree. Then maybe it should not be the first freaking example of privilege in the article on that subject. How deep do you want to bury the body? Ariel31459 (talk) 01:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


"Everyone is racist - I just admit it" - an argument that certain racist individuals and organisations use to justify their prejudices. (Comment: Actually, it's a form of a more general argument: "everyone is [negative quality X], therefore [my (extreme) form of X] is OK", though I'm not sure what to call that one). This form of the argument assumes there are necessary forms of racism by declaring "everyone is racist" is true, and concluding an admission of racism is therefore normal (OK). The initial quote makes two claims: 1) "everyone is racist," and 2) " the speaker himself is a racist." The argument is valid, it is the premise that is false.

This wiki describes racism as follows: "Racism is the belief that humans can be meaningfully defined into biological ethnic categories in order to separate supposed superior from inferior races and/or generally showing discrimination or hostility against a person(s) on the basis of their race.[1][2]" The popular apprehension of racism does not necessarily involve the aforementioned scholastic error asserting it is reasonable to order the decomposition of humanity into phenotype-classes, known as races. The naming process whereby the term racist is applied to individuals in popular usage usually does not require a structured acceptance of racism. e.g.,;

If the definition is to be taken strictly, a minimum standard by which a person might be declared a racist might be: he must agree with a racial theory of some sort, asserting that the traditional racial class to which he belongs is superior (or inferior), to at least one other racial class. Thus, unconscious bias, normally associated with racism should not be accounted as clear evidence of racism. Yet unconscious bias is a measurable phenomena: Largely misunderstood, media has engendered the understanding that unconscious bias is a reliable indicator of racism. In reality, unconscious bias can be understood in terms of "in-group favoritism." See, Thus the person who claims "everyone is racist, I just admit it," is offering us two separate claims, one that is false and one that is true: it is false that everyone is a racist, yet it is true that we may regard him as one.

Implicit Association[edit]

Implicit bias, assumed to be unconscious, may be generally analyzed with a psychometric tool known as the Implicit Association Test (IAT)[1][2] which profiles and evaluates biased ways of thinking about any number of social categories which individuals may be incapable or unwilling to admit in direct reporting. "The IAT may be especially interesting if it shows that you have an implicit attitude that you did not know about." [3]

Project Implicit Mission Statement: Project Implicit is a non-profit organization and international collaboration between researchers who are interested in implicit social cognition - thoughts and feelings outside of conscious awareness and control. The goal of the organization is to educate the public about hidden biases and to provide a “virtual laboratory” for collecting data on the Internet.[4]


"We cannot be certain that any given IAT can diagnose an individual. At this stage in its development, it is preferable to use the IAT mainly as an educational tool to develop awareness of implicit preferences and stereotypes. For example, using the IAT to choose jurors is not ethical. In contrast, it might be appropriate to use the IAT to teach jurors about the possibility of unintended bias."[5]

The following Facts may provide an Overview to the General Topical question "Am I racially biased?"

1: Virtually everyone is implicitly biased. (Or: "Everyone is biased") This is undoubtedly true, i.e., that a given individual will certainly be biased about some group of people or set of beliefs. What is not true, generally, is that everyone is biased about the same group of people or the same set of beliefs. The Project Implicit, for example, provides these results for implicit bias between people of European origin and those of African origin: 18% showed little or no preference between African American and European American Groups. If one goes to the Project Implicit webpage and takes the relevant test, a distribution summary is given. It summarizes 3,314,277 IAT "race task" test scores taken between December 2002 and December, 2015

2: Implicit bias is not identical to racism/sexism/etc. but can help cause implicit racism/sexism/etc. in decision-making. Many people ask "What can I do about an implicit preference that I don’t want?" Project Implicit answers: "It is well-established that implicit preferences can predict behavior. But, there is not yet enough research to say for sure that implicit biases can be reduced, let alone eliminated, or whether implicit bias reduction will lead to behavior change."[6]

3: Implicit bias is unavoidable, and so should not be shamed. The Implicit Project policy holds it is unethical to use the IAT to diagnose racism, sexism or other negative attitudes. Yet people should be encouraged to use the IAT to become aware of implicit bias.


This is the generalization of Scientism. That is, in its extreme form, when one presumes science can solve all human questions. Science becomes an ideology, and therefore some of its results become susceptible of being unscientific. "Ideologismo" in the Italean, already has this approximate meaning. See The main difference is that an ideology does not have a testing rule, as does science.

Sample[citation NOT needed]

Think of the geep

no flying monkeys please

Interview part2[edit]

Because I don't have a friend here to ask interesting and provocative questions I thought it might be informative and fun to ask them myself.
RW: How long have you been a ratwick?
Ariel31459: what?
RW: Oh! A rationalwiki member. Sorry. That's my pet name for us all.
Ariel31459: I see...
RW: So, anyway, how long have you been a member?
Ariel31459: On and off for about a year now. Recently a very nice person gave me a mop, and I am learning how not to make a mess.
RW: I see. Well let's hope you succeed at that, at least. But I must ask you about this "transphobe" thing you have.
Ariel31459: Yes?
RW: what do you mean by saying you feel transphobic sometimes? Do you hate trans people?
Ariel31459: It is a jest. More prescisely, it is kidding on the square.
RW: Meaning?
Ariel31459: Well, that I don't think I am a transphobe, but I might be one.
RW: that doesn't seem to make sense.
Ariel31459: that's right, now you are getting it. We all could be transphobic, even trans people, and not even know it. See, lots of people are called transphobic, and they don't even know about that because the people who think so are not well-enough connected to get their opinions "out there". But that doesn't mean they are wrong. For all we know everyone south of the Mason-Dixon line is a transphobe. But if they are, that would make being transphobic not much different than getting chicken pox. Yeah, there is something wrong about it, but everyone has it and it isn't your fault.
RW:So, you don't hate trans people? Ariel31459: I hope not.
RW: Do you want them in your bathroom?
Ariel31459: Well, not all at once. I don't know how many of them that there are, but it could get crowded in there.
RW: No, very funny, I mean for your sex, as an X, do you want transX people to use your bathrooms?
Ariel31459: Well yeah, sure, if they say they are Xs then that's what they should do. But then, I'm an X, I think I should only speak for Xs. Honestly I think Ys should feel the same way, but if they don't, well, there's that problem.
RW: So, great, maybe. Would you consider becoming a part of the transsexual awareness and advocacy movement?
Ariel31459: wait, is that a real thing? I mean is there an actual group going by that name?
RW: well there is the National Transgender Advocacy Coalition, among a number of others in the US. All together, you could refer to them as a movement. Ariel31459: Well, in theory yes. I'm a little old to go on long marches though. But I'm not going to just repeat stuff other people say about it. I mean, I don't know a lot about transgender issues. How do I know that the person educating me possesses the aegis of scientific opinion?
RW:I guess that's a judgement call.
Ariel31459:Yeah, but what if I'm not really good at that? But, say I am. I almost never meet trans people, as far as I know. My sister-in-law has a transmale nephew. But I never see him. He lives in New York. I'm a firm believer in taking care of the things nearby first, and I hate to travel. I don't make jokes specifically about trans people because as far as I know they are not distinguished in a way that even makes humor possible in any obvious way. I think its the people who make dubious claims about trans people that can be hilarious.
RW:So you have no experience with trans people at all, besides your sister-in-law's nephew?
Ariel31459: Yeah, except for movies and TV. Theatrical experiences, basically. Although, there was a person I ran into who took me really aback once in an out-of-the-way coffee house. I was there with some friends and this person who looked a lot like Howie Long, only wearing a pleated skirt, walked in and sat down at the next table from where we were seated.
RW:Howie Long?
Ariel31459:He played football for the Oakland Raiders for 13 years. He played a position called "defensive end" which you have to be really big to play well. He is 6'5" and close to 300 pounds, I think. And built like a rock statue. So,...anyway, I couldn't stop stealing glances because his appearance was so remarkable.I don't know if the term "trans person" would have been appropriate. It could have been that he was trying to win a bet. Something like,one of his drinking buddies made a bet like "You look so tough and intimidating, nobody in that coffee house will dare to say a word to you if you walk in there wearing a skirt." Back then, I wouldn't have even known what "transwoman" meant. Now I'm 6'1", 230lbs, and I was intimidated. You could call it an incidence of transphobia I suppose. Hell it could be a case of pediophobia. I guess you get used to these things. Then again, that was the only experience like that I can remember.
RW:You just mentioned telling jokes. Are you a comedian?
Ariel31459:No. Not at all. I just think that sometimes humor is refreshing, and I do like a joke now and again. What I was driving at was, if I really hated trans people I think I would make jokes about them, you know, given my particular personality. Instead, I see them having a handicap. Not physical, but social. I like to make jokes about people who should be able to take it in good humor. If I make a joke about someone and it hurts their feelings, I don't say "too bad kid, I thought it was funny!" I feel bad about it, and I don't make the same kind of joke again about that person. You don't know what you'll get sometimes. I guess that's what makes it interesting to me.
RW: So, how would you summarize your thoughts today about trans people?
Ariel31459: I would say that unless you go to YouTube and search for their videos, it is likely that you will never know for certain you have seen one or heard their opinions. From what I have been able to discover in the media, they hold a variety of diverse opinions. From what I can tell, there is no transsexual definity with regard to identity. Politically they are as diverse as any demographic group. It is probably a mistake to think of them as a similarity group at all, rather than as an ordinary demographic set. They are a set of individuals associated with the prefix "trans". There is no reason I can think of that makes them fit together in a group any more coherently than say, the set of all women and men
RW: Let's take a break.

RW: OK, let's get back to it. I see that you are a reformed troll. Why do you say that?
Ariel31459: Well, just look at the troll icon, Troll. I think it is very funny and I love to use it. And most of us are trolls after all.
RW: Are we?
Ariel31459: Well there's this GOAT theme that's so very popular around here. You say: "pull up a goat and have some fun." Doesn't that suggest something to you? I assume that you have heard the expression "to get someone's goat?" Isn't that the point of some, not all, of these articles? RW: Wait, are you an anti-feminist or anti-social-justice?
Ariel31459: No. I am a skeptic. I trust in the scientific method, and have an unhealthy distrust of all ideologies.
RW: Unhealthy?
Ariel31459: Yes well, maybe you haven't heard, but flying monkeys are real, and they can be pretty agitated.
RW:So, are you a feminist?
Ariel31459:Yes, in the same sense that I am an atheist. I don't believe in a god, and I don't believe that women should be denied any rights that men, or anyone else have. It doesn't mean I agree with theoretical speculations about sexuality and society. But, here is the important point: I don't have to agree with any of that to support social justice.

More Sandbox[edit]

Ariel31459rudo in lucha libre