Comments on: OT11: Openezer Scrooge

By: mayleaf

mayleaf — Thu, 08 Jan 2015 00:17:50 +0000

>Which is why I’m not adverse to bringing back a little social disapproval and shame – and don’t tell me that shame is not involved in the reasons ‘better educated’ women tend not to be single mothers…

But this *isn’t* due to us shaming sex – as far as I can tell, educated people are much less likely to live in subcultures that shame non-procreative sex. (Educated subcultures tend to skew Blue Tribe, so if anything, the attitude of “saving myself for marriage” is considered low-status, because it pattern-matches to Red Tribe.) What *is* shamed, as you said, is single motherhood.

At my college, sex was normalized, but getting pregnant and having a baby was just generally… not considered an option. And sure enough, sexual activity was extremely common, while getting pregnant and having a baby was extremely rare.

My boyfriend grew up in a rural Christian area where premarital sex was shamed heavily. I don’t know what rates of sexual activity were like, but several of his classmates got pregnant and had children while they were still in high school.

Your claim is that educated people have lower rates of out-of-wedlock pregnancy because of social shaming. If that’s true, what you want to be shaming is out-of-wedlock pregnancy, not premarital sex in general.

Report comment

By: mayleaf

mayleaf — Thu, 08 Jan 2015 00:10:30 +0000

by believing that there’s no intrinsic right to create and raise a child?

Report comment

By: MugaSofer

MugaSofer — Thu, 01 Jan 2015 23:37:36 +0000

An interesting example of inferental distance:

http://www.messynessychic.com/2014/12/09/the-posters-that-warned-against-the-horrors-of-a-world-with-womens-rights/

These used to be semi-valid, if uncharitable, arguments. Now they’re barely-intelligible.

Report comment

By: MugaSofer

MugaSofer — Wed, 31 Dec 2014 19:43:21 +0000

Limi: you’re … you’re Scott?!

Report comment

By: Histocrat

Histocrat — Tue, 30 Dec 2014 20:03:00 +0000

Yeah, I’d tried that (and various other client-side cache-busting things). This seems like a different and rarer phenomenon.

Report comment

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 30 Dec 2014 19:07:55 +0000

All pages are dynamically generated. I have encountered something similar. It only happens under high load (not today!) and never for more than a day. I find that adding arguments to pages makes a difference. From this I see activity that makes me think others are not affected (eg, they reply to comments I cannot easily see). Could you compare this normal page to this abnormal link? (the only difference is a question mark)

Report comment

By: Histocrat

Histocrat — Tue, 30 Dec 2014 18:56:40 +0000

Requests to this site from some IPs seem to be hitting a stale database replica. When I visit the site (including dynamically created pages like http://slatestarcodex.com/?s=auld) from IP address 8.25.146.4, I get a snapshot as of December 22nd. When I visit from 8.25.146.25, I get more recent content. This has been going on at least a day (if I had to guess, I’d say it’s been going on since December 22nd).

Report comment

By: Math Teacher

Math Teacher — Mon, 29 Dec 2014 07:19:45 +0000

This threads lesson has been retroactively cancelled… for uh… the holiday season

Report comment

By: Roman

Roman — Sun, 28 Dec 2014 13:45:44 +0000

@Jaskologist: I don’t think the arguement was that less died, just that they suffered less. Which I think is pretty reasonable.

Report comment

By: David Friedman

David Friedman — Sun, 28 Dec 2014 07:49:25 +0000

A second and unrelated comment on “I Can Tolerate Anything Except the Outgroup.” You are confident that you don’t know any creationists. You probably shouldn’t be.

I say that because I know at least one—and only know that he is a creationist by chance. He is a West Indian immigrant and professional chef who is a member of my wife’s church and who I have sometime helped with producing meals for the church (of which I am not a member—like you I am part of the grey tribe). The question of evolution happened to come up in a chance conversation, and he made it clear that he thought it was of course a bogus idea.

Along related lines, I was a Harvard undergraduate in 1964 and a Goldwater supporter. The Crimson published the result of a poll which turned out to show about 20% of the students supporting Goldwater. I was astonished. I would have said there were only about twenty, and I knew all of them.

The fact that nobody you know expresses a view that is highly unfashionable in the circles in which you move is only weak evidence that none of them hold that view.

Report comment