5 Likes
And when did you meet all women and ask their views of “low status males”? And some of us will not tolerate abuse by ANY men… thanks.
9 Likes
2 Likes
Oh hey all, the PUA has spoken. We don’t get a lot of those opinions on the internet.
Your low status is due to opinions like these.
“High status males” know to shut up before something so asinine escapes their lips, therefore people like them better.
It’s pretty bizarre how many losers are drawn to this thread through self-hatred. Maybe consider dropping the MRA/PUA/Redpill cargo cult where a bunch of fellow-losers ostracize themselves further. It’s “self-help” aling the lines of the Pro-Ana “community”. You’re only getting more damaged by all of this dangerous “beta” rhetoric that’s more likely to isolate you forever than it is to get you integrated with womankind.
1 Like
That’s not supported by the study. The communications scoring would have been done blindly - in other words, the communications were rated as “abusive” or “not abusive” by a person who didn’t know whether the speaker was high-performing or low-performing.
Anyway, as to your point - it depends on how you define “tolerate”. Abuse from a high-status person is more harmful than abuse from a low-status person. But at the same time, it’s riskier to fight back against abuse from a high-status person. So it might be more accurate to say that you “endure” abuse from a high-status person. You can “tolerate” abuse from a low-or-equal-status person if you happen to be in a good mood, or “sneer at” it otherwise.
4 Likes
You didn’t see curbstomping. I could have brought out the rhetorical brake press and done some verbal “chiropractic” on that asshole. He got it much easier than he could have.
6 Likes
I think we can, to a degree. But let’s look at his salient points:
[quote=“Caffinated”]
I genuinely enjoy boingboing right up until the point where they latch on to the SJW bullshit which seems to be all the time these days. We get it, men are assholes, women are eternal victims and anyone who disagrees is obviously misogynistic pond scum.[/quote]
That’s one hell of a way to begin a conversation about a topic people already know is charged–and it offers not even the slimmest margin of informational content and certainly doesn’t “make a few points” except where his male tears hit the sand.
When I go home for the holidays and, as always, the conversation drifts to politics, the best possible way to shut down any discussion at all (and to rile everyone up) is to immediately belittle the opposing viewpoint with the keywords we all know are intentionally malicious:
“Ya, hey, I was just curious about your thoughts on that socialist Kenyan dictator treasonfuck…”
Even a tactless and socially stunted human being can recognize that basic fact of human communication, so he gets no sympathy on that accord.
See also, what @ActionAbe said above.
6 Likes
3 Likes
My point is, nobody’s looking good with all this. Not you, Not him. Not Me.
1 Like
6 Likes
We share about 70% of our DNA with chimpanzees. With Neanderthals, it’s about 99.5%. That’s not “a small percentage.”
However, it is true that, compared to the variation within the human species (humans share close to 99.9%. of their DNA with every other human), the variation between a human and a Neanderthal is five times greater than between a human and another human.
That being said, who’s blaming Neanderthals? I’ve read the post, the linked article, and the comments, and you’re the first one to mention them in this discussion.
1 Like
We’ll have to agree to disagree on that point.
3 Likes
2 Likes
Whatever man. I stepped into this one knowing none of you would agree with or even like me. I just wanted to tell all of you to cut out the hatorade since it drowns out any good points being made.
Washington Post claim included in BB summary:
Some male players, however — the ones who were less-skilled at the game, and performing worse relative their peers — made frequent, nasty comments to the female gamers. In other words, sexist dudes are literally losers.
Actual quote from study related to sexist comments among men in the female manipulation group (where the researchers played pre-recorded clips during the match that were in a female voice)::
Since there were a greater number of negative statements within the female manipulation, we examined whether these statements could be considered hostile sexism [32]. Of the 82 players in the female manipulation playing on the same team as the experimental player, only 11 individuals (13%) uttered hostile sexist statements. As a result of this small sample size, we only examined whether the presence of hostile sexist statements was affected by individual performance relative to the experimental player. We found that the presence of sexist statements was not determined by differences in maximum skill achieved (χ2 = 1.70, p = 0.19), the number of deaths (χ2 = 0.57, p = 0.45) or the number of kills (χ2 = 2.25, p = 0.13) relative to the experimental player.
Yes, exactly. The problem, according to him, is that we’ve forgotten how to be ladies.
3 Likes
We noticed.
I just wanted to tell all of you to cut out the hatorade
Do you often find that “ur haters” is effective when responding to people who have to accept abuse from others online?
7 Likes
It does look like a study that was first done and then had a stats package thrown at it later, doesn’t it? 
I suspect the chi-squared test was a chi-squared test of independence — to see whether there was a difference in number of aggressive callouts between the “male” and “female” conditions. Which would be fair as the data collected are categorical. However I didn’t see the reasoning or the kind of chi-squared test specified in the paper.
No prior power calculation done either, so that really makes the whole thing meaningless. They could have just run the experiment until they got the result they were after and then published. 
5 Likes
