Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[Gergar12]

This Is the Best Country To Be a Woman, New Report Finds - Georgetown University

A new Georgetown report on women, peace and security found that one Nordic country topped the list of best countries in the world to be a woman.

www.georgetown.edu

.

Countries that treat women/families/people, in general, the best vs their birthrate.

Denmark, Switzerland, Sweden, Finland and Luxembourg

Denmark has a TFR of 1.496

Fertility

Danmarks Statistik er den centrale myndighed for dansk statistik. Vores opgave er at indsamle, bearbejde og offentliggøre statistiske oplysninger om det danske samfund.

www.dst.dk

Switzerland had a TFR of 1.5 in 2021, I am guessing it went down, but let's say it's 1.5

World Bank Open Data

Free and open access to global development data

data.worldbank.org

Sweden has a TFR of 1.7

World Bank Open Data

Free and open access to global development data

data.worldbank.org

Finland has a TFR of 1.32

Total fertility rate lowest in measuring history in 2022 | Statistics Finland

www.stat.fi

Luxembourg has a TFR of 1.49

Luxembourg Fertility Rate 1950-2024

Chart and table of the Luxembourg fertility rate from 1950 to 2024. United Nations projections are also included through the year 2100.

www.macrotrends.net

I am going to preface this by saying we should treat mothers, women, families, people, etc. well because no one should have a malnourished child, and no mother should suffer. But to say that magically sustainably giving money to women either through means-tested ways free pre-k, tax credits, and so far, or even a UBI for mothers is going to magically solve the problem of people not wanting to fuck and give birth is not true and not seen in real life.

Unless you are willing to give each money an unsustainable amount given (supply and demand) per child or do it in increments like hundreds of thousands of dollars per child, or a massive 60% of the median income earner's money goes to super-sized welfare programs. You're not going to solve this issue.

That's why most people solve this either through immigration or cutting alternative means of activities other than procreation. (Porn, and abortion bans possibly internet bans possibly social media bans possibly even video game bans)

 

[Silvanus]

That's why most people solve this either through [...] cutting alternative means of activities other than procreation. (Porn, and abortion bans possibly internet bans possibly social media bans possibly even video game bans)

"They're restricting porn so we'll have no choice but to have sex with women and start families " is still one of my all-time favourite takes on here. Absolutely gold standard stuff, Escapist Hall of Fame.

 

[Ag3ma]

Unless you are willing to give each money an unsustainable amount given (supply and demand) per child or do it in increments like hundreds of thousands of dollars per child, or a massive 60% of the median income earner's money goes to super-sized welfare programs. You're not going to solve this issue.

That's why most people solve this either through immigration or cutting alternative means of activities other than procreation. (Porn, and abortion bans possibly internet bans possibly social media bans possibly even video game bans)

I don't think it's necessarily the money.

Children are a massive load of hard work, stress, lost sleep, etc. It's vast hours of anyone's day taken away from other stuff they might want to do. It might mean careers set back, ambitions not realised, etc. Money can mitigate some of this, but it isn't necessarily going to overcome it.

For instance, in the old days, many families could rely on the wider family to help with childcare - grandparents, aunts/uncles, etc. - potentially reducing the work burden on the parents themselves. A lot of these systems don't significantly exist any more, especially given how people tend to move around these days. Even hiring a nanny or childcare is not going to entirely replicate this. If you have an early career woman who wants to go places, pregnancy is going to either hold her back or delay her. She is likely to put off children to later life when she's more established. This doesn't need money, it needs better systems to protect mothers' ability to progress.

And bluntly, you're not going to solve fertility by banning porn and computer games.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

So people are mad the show set in feudal Japan doesn't have enough black people now

Where Are the Black People in 'Shogun'?

There's a Japanese proverb that says for a Samurai to be brave, he must have a bit of Black blood. If that's the case, FX's monster hit 'Shogun' has a lot of scared swordsmen

www.levelman.com

Including on about how one Shogun must have been black because he had stereotypically black features in some descriptions. Racism alive and well among the woke side apparently.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

??? Uhrm, they mention life expectancy for the vital context of how these health issues affect the individuals. That obviously doesn't mean they're actually only focused on people at the end of their life. Why on earth would it!? What an extraordinarily bizarre assumption.

They said sumo wrestlers. That means sumo wrestlers. Stop trying to wriggle out of that.



Football players don't life with extreme obesity, a documented risk factor for Type 2 Diabetes.

My point is that people that sumo wrestled don't stop being considered sumo wrestlers for studies like this. If there was a study saying teachers lived on average 5 years less than average, retired teachers are obviously still considered teachers. Hence the football player CTE example.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

This guy is bat shit crazy.

That channel is pretty bad. He'll make videos about how capitalism is bad but the problems he brings up aren't capitalisms fought.

 

[Silvanus]

My point is that people that sumo wrestled don't stop being considered sumo wrestlers for studies like this. If there was a study saying teachers lived on average 5 years less than average, retired teachers are obviously still considered teachers. Hence the football player CTE example.

Ok. So let's assume you're right, and that they're including retirees. There's zero indication of that, but we'll assume.

This would mean that people who WERE sumo wrestlers experienced higher rates of Type 2 Diabetes than those who were not.

How is that any better for your argument? It would still be damning evidence that obesity, not sugar intake, is the primary risk factor. Unless you want to argue that retired sumo wrestlers uniquely eat much more sugar after retiring than anyone else.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Ok. So let's assume you're right, and that they're including retirees. There's zero indication of that, but we'll assume.

This would mean that people who WERE sumo wrestlers experienced higher rates of Type 2 Diabetes than those who were not.

How is that any better for your argument? It would still be damning evidence that obesity, not sugar intake, is the primary risk factor. Unless you want to argue that retired sumo wrestlers uniquely eat much more sugar after retiring than anyone else.

The indication is the fact that doing a study on sumo wrestlers and normal people getting diabetes during the prime of their lives would be kinda pointless.

I already told you that sumo wrestlers have issues transitioning to a normal diet after they are done wrestling.

 

[Silvanus]

The indication is the fact that doing a study on sumo wrestlers and normal people getting diabetes during the prime of their lives would be kinda pointless.

Uhrm, except for finding risk factors, which was the entire point of the study.

I already told you that sumo wrestlers have issues transitioning to a normal diet after they are done wrestling.

And you chose to conveniently interpret that as an enormous uptick of sugar, only after retirement? Just because it would suit your conclusion?

 

[Gergar12]

"They're restricting porn so we'll have no choice but to have sex with women and start families " is still one of my all-time favourite takes on here. Absolutely gold standard stuff, Escapist Hall of Fame.

No, I just mentioned it as the conservative option. The other option is the liberal option of immigration. I am against the former, but not the later.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Uhrm, except for finding risk factors, which was the entire point of the study.



And you chose to conveniently interpret that as an enormous uptick of sugar, only after retirement? Just because it would suit your conclusion?

If like 2 people in your thousand person study get diabetes, how is that helping in finding risk factors?

There's also the enormous uptick of sedentary lifestyle as well.

 

[Silvanus]

If like 2 people in your thousand person study get diabetes, how is that helping in finding risk factors?

But they found a lot more than that. They found a statistically significantly higher rate.

There's also the enormous uptick of sedentary lifestyle as well.

....but you're the one arguing that sedentary lifestyle wouldn't matter if they weren't gorging on sugar. This directly contradicts your own argument.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

But they found a lot more than that. They found a statistically significantly higher rate.



....but you're the one arguing that sedentary lifestyle wouldn't matter if they weren't gorging on sugar. This directly contradicts your own argument.

Yeah because the study wasn't comprised of people in their athletic primes...

If you're eating the daily recommended about of sugars, you can not exercise and also not get diabetes.

 

[Silvanus]

Yeah because the study wasn't comprised of people in their athletic primes...

More circular logic. This argument was intended to show us why we can assume they weren't studying wrestlers in their prime. But... the argument also requires us to assume that premise to begin with. No.

If you're eating the daily recommended about of sugars, you can not exercise and also not get diabetes.

What relevance does that have?! You're the one arguing that they must be eating a massively increased amount of sugar, only after retirement. Now, instead of actually backing that up, you're just... talking about people have sedentary lifestyles, which would be irrelevant to your sugar-only argument anyway.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

More circular logic. This argument was intended to show us why we can assume they weren't studying wrestlers in their prime. But... the argument also requires us to assume that premise to begin with. No.



What relevance does that have?! You're the one arguing that they must be eating a massively increased amount of sugar, only after retirement. Now, instead of actually backing that up, you're just... talking about people have sedentary lifestyles, which would be irrelevant to your sugar-only argument anyway.

Why would you conduct of study of people in their 20s/30s to try to find risk factors for diabetes?
The onset of type 2 diabetes is most common in people aged 45–64. It usually appears after the age of 45 but can occur at any age.

Sumo wrestlers when wrestling both train and work out a lot plus their diet is selected for them. When they retire, I very much doubt they continue eating the same diet and will eat worse than their sumo diet plus they are not longer training and working out nearly as much.

 

[Silvanus]

Why would you conduct of study of people in their 20s/30s to try to find risk factors for diabetes?

!?!?! Why wouldn't you? How do you think we discover what risk factors are in the first place?

Sumo wrestlers when wrestling both train and work out a lot plus their diet is selected for them. When they retire, I very much doubt they continue eating the same diet and will eat worse than their sumo diet plus they are not longer training and working out nearly as much.

Uh-huh, but you're assuming their diet switches so dramatically in favour of sugar that it goes well beyond the population average. Since the study found sumo wrestlers have a higher risk of diabetes, and you're arguing that it can only be down to sugar. So therefore you're not just claiming their diet changes-- you're claiming it swings so far towards sugar that it exceeds the average retiree.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

!?!?! Why wouldn't you? How do you think we discover what risk factors are in the first place?



Uh-huh, but you're assuming their diet switches so dramatically in favour of sugar that it goes well beyond the population average. Since the study found sumo wrestlers have a higher risk of diabetes, and you're arguing that it can only be down to sugar. So therefore you're not just claiming their diet changes-- you're claiming it swings so far towards sugar that it exceeds the average retiree.

You'd have like a small handful of people, if any, get diabetes for the study and it would be hard to determine risk factors when the diabetes group is so small.

If they are overeating (which they do), it's really fucking easy to over consume sugar. They aren't allowed candy and whatnot when wrestling so what do people do when they can have something that they couldn't have before? A single pop or juice is over the recommended amount of sugar. Again, how do you think one gets diabetes without eating too much sugar? What's the other way to get diabetes then?

 

[Silvanus]

You'd have like a small handful of people, if any, get diabetes for the study and it would be hard to determine risk factors when the diabetes group is so small.

You're still assuming your position as correct in order to make this argument. That's circular-- your premise hasn't been established.

If they are overeating (which they do), it's really fucking easy to over consume sugar. They aren't allowed candy and whatnot when wrestling so what do people do when they can have something that they couldn't have before? A single pop or juice is over the recommended amount of sugar.

So why do you believe retired sumo wrestlers massively overeat sugar more than the average person? "Because they weren't allowed it before" is not an adequate explanation; it's sheer speculation, and wouldn't account for such a drastic difference in diabetic rates. Where's your actual evidence that they are?

...for that matter, why would they be studying solely retired sumo wrestlers unless their career had an impact on their risk!?

 

[Gergar12]

I don't think it's necessarily the money.

Children are a massive load of hard work, stress, lost sleep, etc. It's vast hours of anyone's day taken away from other stuff they might want to do. It might mean careers set back, ambitions not realised, etc. Money can mitigate some of this, but it isn't necessarily going to overcome it.

For instance, in the old days, many families could rely on the wider family to help with childcare - grandparents, aunts/uncles, etc. - potentially reducing the work burden on the parents themselves. A lot of these systems don't significantly exist any more, especially given how people tend to move around these days. Even hiring a nanny or childcare is not going to entirely replicate this. If you have an early career woman who wants to go places, pregnancy is going to either hold her back or delay her. She is likely to put off children to later life when she's more established. This doesn't need money, it needs better systems to protect mothers' ability to progress.

And bluntly, you're not going to solve fertility by banning porn and computer games.

This is directly tied to how many if not most US and other countries' employers view people in general. If you are a "burden" on them they cut you off or penalize you. It's a selfish era where everyone is at fault. Me me me me. Grandparents/baby boomers don't want to raise millennial children, companies lobby against paid leave for either parent, work-life balance is shot, and low wages are everywhere vs the cost of living, I would even argue academics are at fault despite many people thinking they aren't. Researchers do not want to project a worst-case scenario for climate change due to fear of funding constraints when in my hometown in Southern China the humility hit 100% and was 86 degrees. And in the ability to tax the rich's power via stocks.

Edit: A society grows great when old men grow trees whose shade they never will sit under aka long-term investments.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

You're still assuming your position as correct in order to make this argument. That's circular-- your premise hasn't been established.



So why do you believe retired sumo wrestlers massively overeat sugar more than the average person? "Because they weren't allowed it before" is not an adequate explanation; it's sheer speculation, and wouldn't account for such a drastic difference in diabetic rates. Where's your actual evidence that they are?

...for that matter, why would they be studying solely retired sumo wrestlers unless their career had an impact on their risk!?

And you're assuming your position to be correct. The study you linked to only has the abstract available so you can't read it. I'm telling you it would make no sense to do a diabetes study on people that are in their 20s/30s. It would be like doing a dementia study on that group of people.

People develop habits and it's hard to change. A sumo wrestler by sorta definition overeats so basic logic would say it's harder for them to eat normally compared to a normal person. And when you overeat in the normal world (outside the very strict sumo world), it's quite easy to over consume sugar. They weren't just studying diabetes. Again, what is the mechanism (outside of sugar over consumption) that would cause diabetes?