deleted by creator

I wasn’t intending to say we only like muscles as an indicator of lifestyle. I was saying they’re also an indicator of lifestyle, so even if we are attracted to them we may still pass because it doesn’t match the kind of personality we prefer, and personality is generally a lot more important to us than appearance (generally, but not always.)
For instance, I find muscles attractive. I like that they show somebody’s interested in staying healthy, but I don’t generally date muscular men simply because I’m not into the fit lifestyle. I much prefer a guy who’s more likely to join me playing my favorite games or watching my favorite movies, because I’m a nerd and those are the things I like, and a guy who’s a little chubbier tends to be exactly that kind of guy.

I can’t speak for every woman, but I can speak for my own experiences and report based on the things women I know have said. For me and those I’ve spoken to, we may like muscles, but the things you need to do to get those muscles often aren’t as attractive and cancel it out. Like, if you’re getting muscles by going to the gym every day, that’s only gonna attract women who are enthusiastic about the gym. If you get them from farm work, you’ll attract women enthusiastic about farm life.
That’s why a lot of us like dad bods so much. It’s not that it’s inherently more attractive, it’s that it’s a body type achievable by living the kind of life style people who’re into that enjoy.
In other words, yes, muscles can be attractive, but not nearly as attractive as shared hobbies and interests, and it just happens quite often muscles can be a quick indicator that you probably don’t share many.

Yeah, and the worst is when people are talking about something I know a lot about, getting virtually every detail wrong, and I have to resist saying anything because I know my input will either be ignored, or worse, straight up unwelcome.
Luckily the blessing of being dumb as bricks is that that doesn’t happen a lot, but I sure hate when it does.

Yeah, it’s a preventative measure, because repeated trauma is much, much harder to heal from, and also as a physical safety measure. In some situations where the trauma isn’t likely to reoccur or is caused by bad emotional coping skills, they still recommend minimizing contact until you learn to handle it or at least have stronger coping mechanisms (or at least they did in every case of my traumas.)

I agree that the way it’s been handled thus far has been awful, straight from the get go. It wasn’t a good way to put it and was obviously gonna rile people up, but I still think the popularity it’s gotten on social media can be used as a good tool to help people understand this better. And yeah, obviously, therapy is a huge thing, but it’s also worth noting that the one thing you’re supposed to do in nearly every traumatic situation, and will be recommended by any therapist you see, is to take healthy measures to prevent it from happening again. That does include doing what you can to stay safe and not be alone around men. Obviously there are people who take it too far and jump straight into misandry (and I can say from experience as a trans woman, misandrists are a problem for us too, because they don’t treat us like real women, just punching bags to treat in the most misogynistic way possible, because they only see you as a now vulnerable man to get revenge on.)
To be clear, I’m not suggesting men are inherently more violent than women and need to be avoided more often. I just think the messages society sends toward men and women as they grow up are vastly different which is what leads to violence being more prevalent in men. It’s a complex issue that requires huge societal changes to fix, but for now it’s just the truth that women need to look out for their own safety in the presence of men until these issues are solved to a reasonable degree.
But to reiterate, yeah, the meme is clearly inflammatory, I just think anything than can be used as a learning experience should be.

The statistics of how likely any individual man is to commit sexual assault or violence against a woman is irrelevant because the discussion is about trauma, not objective danger. That’s the part people don’t seem to understand.
People think we’re saying “men are more dangerous than a bear” when what we’re saying is “I’ve grown to fear men more intensely than even a bear due to my traumatic experiences as well as the traumatic experiences of those I know.”
Even if most men won’t touch a woman, the fact that enough will that the majority of women have been sexually assaulted means the majority of women are also traumatized enough that of course they’re gonna be wary of men who they fear could cause them to relive their trauma. That’s reasonable (don’t confuse that for rational though.)
It’s just an attempt to show men why we need the boundaries we do by putting into perspective how intense that trauma is, but instead of being met with understanding it’s been met with yet more accusations that it’s just proof women are irrational and hate men.
Pulling out another statistic to say “hey, um, actually, individual men aren’t statistically likely to be violent toward you” is useless for helping a trauma victim overcome that trauma. Especially if it becomes a repeated trauma, at which point your brain rejects any amount of healing you’ve done and resists any attempts at healing again, because it feels it’s been proven right.

Nobody said “men are more dangerous than bears.” You made that up in your head to be offended about. They said “I’d rather be alone in the woods with a bear than a man,” and I explained to you how that’s a very different thing. If you’re going to continue to be intentionally obtuse and ignore that I’m not interested in explaining again.

Therapy isn’t a cure all for trauma. And trauma that is easily relived is not trauma that is easily gotten over. Also, obviously they’re letting trauma dictate their actions. That’s kinda how trauma works. If you behave completely the same before and after your trauma then by definition you weren’t traumatized.
And the point of the statement isn’t that bears are literally less dangerous than men. It’s to show how real and intense the fear is. Not to say “men are more dangerous than bears,” but “women feel more threatened by men than bears,” which is not even close to the same thing. It’s a simple attempt to help men understand how we feel and make it clear why we need the boundaries we do. That is inherently an empathetic statement. You being offended by it doesn’t make it an insult.
Let me tell you, I happen to have also been the victim of other women, and fear them just as much, but mysteriously nobody pops up to quote statistics or tell me I’m the real problem here when I express that fear, especially not other women. I’ve never had a woman get offended by me not wanting to be in a room alone with her.

The average man isn’t going to rape me. The average bear also would rather leave me alone than maul me. But I have been sexually assaulted by men. I’ve never been mauled by a bear. I think it’s understandable one of those fears is a lot more real to me than the other.
You’re not talking to people who just decided to fear men for no reason. You’re talking to trauma victims and their family and friends. Traumas cause irrational fears. Getting upset that a trauma victim is afraid of reliving their trauma just straight up lacks any kind of empathy.

I suppose I was overly vague about what I meant by “exact copy.” I mean all of the knowledge, memories, and an exact map of the state of our neurons at the time of upload being uploaded to a computer, and then the functions being simulated from there. Many people believe that even if we could simulate it so perfectly that it matched a human brain’s functions exactly, it still wouldn’t be conscious because it’s still not a real human brain. That’s the point I was arguing against. My argument was that if we could mimic human brain functions closely enough, there’s no reason to believe the brain is so special that a simulation could not achieve consciousness too.
And you’re right, it may not be conscious in the same way. We have no reason to believe either way that it would or wouldn’t be, because the only thing we can actually verify is conscious is ourself. Not humans in general, just you, individually. Therefore, how conscious something is is more of a philosophical debate than a scientific one because we simply cannot test if it’s true. We couldn’t even test if it was conscious at all, and my point wasn’t that it would be, my point is that we have no reason to believe it’s possible or impossible.

I see, so your definition of “physical” is “made of particles?” In that case, sorta yeah. Particles behave as waves when unobserved, so you could argue that they no longer qualify as particles, and therefore, by your definition, are not physical. But that kinda misses the point, right? Like, all that means is that the observation may have created the particle, not that the observation created reality, because reality is not all particles. Energy, for instance, is not all particles, but it can be. Quantum fields are not particles, but they can give rise to them. Both those things are clearly real, but they aren’t made of particles.
On the second point, that’s kinda trespassing out of science territory and into “if a tree falls in the forest” territory. We can’t prove that a truly unobserved macroscopic object wouldn’t display quantum properties if we just didn’t check if it was, but that’s kinda a useless thing to think about. It’s kinda similar to what our theories are though, in that the best theory we have is that the bigger the object is, the more likely the interaction we call “observation” just happens spontaneously without the need for interaction. Too big, and it’s so unlikely in any moment for it not to happen that the chances of the wave function not being collapsed in any given moment is so close to zero there’s no meaningful distinction between the actual odds and zero.

There shouldn’t be a distinction between quantum and non-quantum objects. That’s the mystery. Why can’t large objects exhibit quantum properties? Nobody knows, all we know is they don’t. We’ve attempted to figure it out by creating larger and larger objects that still exhibit quantum properties, but we know, at some point, it just stops exhibiting these properties and we don’t know why, but it doesn’t require an observer to collapse the wave function.
Also, can you define physical for me? It seems we have a misunderstanding here, because I’m defining physical as having a tangible effect on reality. If it wasn’t real, it could not interact with reality. It seems you’re using a different definition.

A building does not actually enter a superposition when unobserved, nor does Schrodinger’s cat. The point of that metaphor was to demonstrate, through humor, the difference between quantum objects and non-quantum objects, by pointing out how ridiculous it would be to think a cat could enter a superposition like a particle. In fact, one of the great mysteries of physics right now is why only quantum objects have that property, and in order to figure that out we have to figure out what interaction “observation” actually is.
Additionally, we can observe the effects of waves quite clearly. We can observe how they interact with things, how they interfere with each other, etc. It is only attempting to view the particle itself that causes it to collapse and become a particle and not a wave. We can view, for instance, the interference pattern of photons of light, behaving like a wave. This proves that the wave is in fact real, because we can see the effects of it. It’s only if we try to observe the paths of the individual photons that the pattern changes. We didn’t make the photons real, we could already see they were real by their effects on reality. We just collapsed the function, forcing them to take a single path.

I think you’re a little confused about what observed means and what it does.
When unobserved, elementary particles behave like a wave, but they do not stop existing. A wave is still a physical thing. Additionally, observation does not require consciousness. For instance, a building, such as a house, when nobody is looking at it, does not begin to behave like a wave. It’s still a physical building. Therefore, observation is a bit of a misnomer. It really means a complex interaction we don’t understand causes particles to behave like a particle and not a wave. It just happens that human observation is one of the possible ways this interaction can take place.
An unobserved black hole will still feed, an unobserved house is still a house.
To be clear, I’m not insulting you or your idea like the other dude, but I wanted to clear that up.

On the contrary, it’s not a flaw in my argument, it is my argument. I’m saying we can’t be sure a machine could not be conscious because we don’t know that our brain is what makes us conscious. Nor do we know where the threshold is where consciousness arises. It’s perfectly possible all we need is to upload an exact copy of our brain into a machine, and it’d be conscious by default.

We don’t even know what consciousness is, let alone if it’s technically “real” (as in physical in any way.) It’s perfectly possible an uploaded brain would be just as conscious as a real brain because there was no physical thing making us conscious, and rather it was just a result of our ability to think at all.
Similarly, I’ve heard people argue a machine couldn’t feel emotions because it doesn’t have the physical parts of the brain that allow that, so it could only ever simulate them. That argument has the same hole in that we don’t actually know that we need those to feel emotions, or if the final result is all that matters. If we replaced the whole “this happens, release this hormone to cause these changes in behavior and physical function” with a simple statement that said “this happened, change behavior and function,” maybe there isn’t really enough of a difference to call one simulated and the other real. Just different ways of achieving the same result.

My point is, we treat all these things, consciousness, emotions, etc, like they’re special things that can’t be replicated, but we have no evidence to suggest this. It’s basically the scientific equivalent of mysticism, like the insistence that free will must exist even though all evidence points to the contrary.

The generations are determined by what the biggest common experience they all have is (at least, that’s how it’s supposed to be.)
Millennials are millennials because they all remember the turn of the millennium. anyone born 1997 or later wouldn’t remember it, which is why the generation line was drawn where it was.
There are people who find that weird and prefer to call anybody born after 2000 gen Z because they were born after the turn of the millennium, so there’s a sizable amount of people who’ve taken to calling anybody born 1996-2000 a “zillennial” as a compromise. I use the term sometimes, but only when I need to demonstrate to somebody that there’s no clear difference between a young millennial and an older gen Z.

Gen Z is 1997-2012. The oldest of us are 27.

I never said old? Quick edit, I meant “how old” as in people have a misimpression of our age, not old as in “oh we’re so old.” People think gen Z is just a bunch of teenagers who couldn’t possibly share any experiences with them.