The truth is that sometimes it’s best for a man to hit his woman to get her to behave
I fully endorse this sentence because I see it not as advice but as stating whether something is or isn’t a fact. In a thread about ugly truths!
sometimes it’s best for a man to hit his woman to get her to behave
I don’t endorse this as universal advice because it can be unethical to tell this to someone. For example if I stand next to someone and tell them that sometimes the only ethical course of action is to kill another human being, this is trivially true, but it could be my ethical obligation to say this, or it could be very very wrong for me to say this. Context is everything.
It is still a true statement though.
And if any reader is still wondering and wants it spelled out, yes sometimes a man hitting a woman is the right thing to do. We can casually without disclaimers talk infanticide, abortion, euthanasia, war, deicide, murder, genocide and constantly implicitly break intuitive moral rules and plain politeness with all sorts of nasty sounding but true utilitarian statements …. yet from all that deontological framework the “don’t hit girls!” rule seems to be implanted the strongest and least likley to be challenged. Makes sense since our brain seem to be built to see the default woman as worth more than the default man by virtue of her existence. I can understand why people fail (or maybe not—maybe our CEV genuinely does care more about the welfare of regular women than regular men) their moral calculus that way. Doesn’t mean I have to like it.
Just as an experiment I challenge the reader to consider the well know trolley problem. Be honest to yourself. Make up a random man on the street. Name him Joe. Joe can save plenty of other people if you push him on the track. Imagine average Joe. Now wait 10 minutes, by the clock. Now imagine a random woman. Lets call her Jane.
Are you really going to tell me you aren’t seeing it there? Scurrying about in the dark back of your mind, registering on your warm fuzzy evaluation function, before you suppress it in shame or to win an argument. You would spend more time before pushing Jane compared to Joe and you know it. Ceteris paribus for some values of numbers of lives saved you might push Joe but not Jane.
it’s best for a man to hit his woman to get her to behave
This is no longer a true statement, because it implies it is always so, I do not endorse it. Funny how I think most people seem to have read the first sentence as this, when it clearly wasn’t.
Just as an experiment I challenge the reader to consider the well know trolley problem. Be honest to yourself. Make up a random man on the street. Name him Joe. Joe can save plenty of other people if you push him on the track. Imagine average Joe. Now wait 10 minutes, by the clock. Now imagine a random woman. Lets call her Jane.
Are you really going to tell me you aren’t seeing it there? Scurrying about in the dark back of your mind, registering on your warm fuzzy evaluation function, before you suppress it in shame or to win an argument. You would spend more time before pushing Jane compared to Joe and you know it. Ceteris paribus for some values of numbers of lives saved you might push Joe but not Jane.
I thought it would be something like this. These are not reasons “for a man to hit his woman to get her to behave”. These are reasons why anyone might need to hit anyone else to avoid something worse happening.
In the original context, by “behave” Aurini means “be compliant to the man’s desires”. This in the context of another person’s blog posting elsewhere advocating, right up in the title of the post, “the necessity of domestic violence”. This is what you are endorsing.
In the original context, by “behave” Aurini means “be compliant to the man’s desires”.
Well obviously it is sometimes best for a person to use violence for their own gains if the person dosen’t mind such violence and can escape punishment. I interpreted your question as asking me when I though this is appropriate or right. The question of whether use of violence is the optimal tactic to get people to act according to one’s goals is a different one depending, heavily on what preferences that person has.
For a person with different ethics (more selfish for example) there are plenty of theoretical opportunities when it is rational to use violence to get one’s way.
Given the concept “sometimes it’s best for a man to hit his woman to get her to behave”, you generalised the words “man”, “woman”, and “behave” to “someone”, “someone” and “do something”, and ignored the word “his” altogether. Now you’re generalising “best” to mean serving to get whatever the first someone wants.
This reduces the whole matter to fatuity: the optimal tactic to get people to act according to one’s goals is whatever will achieve those goals. Duh. The original question was about certain specific goals and specific ways of getting them.
Anyone’s ethics, including yours, must have a subgoal of aiming to influence others’ behavior in some ways, in order to have consistency. If, like any decent person, you believe that violence in less extreme situations, especially for selfish gain, is unacceptable, you can’t just fold your hands and say “Oh well” when others endorse such violence! Otherwise your morals in this regard become just an aesthetic choice for your private behavior, and not a consistent consequentialist position.
Hmm, maybe. Anyway, my point still stands; all of us, including Charlie, should come down like a ton of bricks on top of anyone who seriously hints about using violence for selfish gain; doubly so when it constitutes domestic abuse. To endorse or tolerate unacceptable physical or emotional violence is in itself immoral.
should come down like a ton of bricks on top of anyone who seriously hints about using violence for selfish gain;
Does this statement also hold true for those who would vote themselves the tax dollars of others?
Spare me your hypocrisy; repeating the current Myths of our Age does not make you holy. You disgusting, malevolent hypocrite; I never suggested hitting a woman—I outright advised against it, as did the original blog post. I simply acknowledged—as did Ferdinand—that stupid women who date stupid men enjoy being hit by them.
People such as you - ‘rationalists’ who believe all the myths of our modern era—are precisely the reason that this community has declined since Eliezer’s leaving, into obscure contests to post the most inscrutable mathematics.
Go comment on the Amazing Atheist’s Youtube channel; you’ll fit right in there.
I don’t think you understood my position in the above post. I don’t approve of clippy using my atoms for paper-clips, yet I can’t deny that for him that may very well be the rational choice. If that is the case it is hard argue that the regular meaning of the words “best for him” dosen’t includes turning me into paper-clips.
Clearly from the perspective of someone slightly more selfish or less altruistic or different (for example non-Western) values sometimes the application of violence is the rational course of action.
Clearly from the perspective of someone slightly more selfish or less altruistic or different (for example non-Western) values sometimes the application of violence is the rational course of action.
I don’t think I understand why this particular post is down voted. Seems to be true to me.
So long as she wants to be compliant to my desire.
Do you have zero understanding of the sexual market, my friend? The moment she no longer wants me, that is the point where I leave her to the Alpha Males she has chosen as superior.
I… it’s like talking to an idiot. You misinterpret my words to impress others. I have zero interest in hitting a woman, and for that matter—dating a woman who needs to be hit.
I demand that my women act like ladies. If they want to be whores? They are more than welcome. They immediately get discounted from the marriage market. I would never hit them, but I’m not going to ‘forgive’ that gangbang (a gangbang I orchestrated would be another thing). I am simply recognizing that prole women enjoy being hit, and prole men need to hit them to keep their dumb vaginas in line. Do I think this admirable? Do I seek this out as my Utopia? Of course not!
I think most people are stupid, and stupid people enjoy the drama of violence—in a cathartic manner.
You idiot leftists have banned all violence, and now all entertainment is vicarious violence because real-life hatred has been banned.
Get over yourself; I’m far more civilized, and far less likely to hit a woman, than you could ever hope to be.
You idiot leftists have banned all violence, and now all entertainment is vicarious violence because real-life hatred has been banned.
While this is political and thus mind-killing language I think it is only fair that if Alicorn has the opportunity to talk about “tactical difficulties” in the debate Aurini should too. I think this hatefest he has attracted has strawmaned and demonized him to ridiculous proportions and that he is indeed right about the reasons for why this happened.
You idiot leftists have banned all violence, and now all entertainment is vicarious violence because real-life hatred has been banned.
Frankly, I don’t understand. Would someone here who’s not an Idiot Leftist—you, or Aurini, or whoever, clear that up, please? How do we get a real-life outlet for violent instincts that’s more safe, moral and convenient than entertainment? What precisely is he complaining about, and why is he so angry about it?
I’m an idiot leftist, who’s just wandered by from here. I don’t think Aurini or Sheen think real-life violence outlets can be more safe, moral, or convenient than watching simulated violence on TV or performing simulated violence in a video game. They (or at least Aurini) argues that a large social class finds a lot of value in cathartic violence, both the giving of it and the receiving of it, and that this value outweighs the physical and emotional damage.
I hadn’t considered it before, but I do think it’s not obvious which is correct.
This “value” is only an issue if you have utilitarian ethics in the first place. I don’t. Enforcing happiness against subjects’ will is usually insane, but enforcing virtue makes a scary amount of sense. I’d be willing to, in some form.
Yes, yes, I’m a creepy intolerant liberal-fascist who thinks that everything in the world is his business.
(Speaking objectively? Welcome to the human tradegy, where both action and inaction have such huge downsides that each one is very easy to construe as evil! We should all just hate ourselves even more, epistemically that’s my only advice here.)
Please stop being so disingenious and twisting your allies’ words to give a likeable pseudo-summary. You aren’t dumb, so you must be doing it on purpose. To quote my other comment:
My whole motherfucking problem with the whole thing is that Aurini holds men to be a superior species: i.e. they can’t be disciplined by women when they act stupidly or rashly, they aren’t said to be largely stupid while women are actually less likely to have an IQ below the mean (and defining “stupid” as just 100 IQ or above is pretty damn unjustified), etc. He completely avoids criticizing his own gender, but seizes upon every opportunity to insult the other one. And by the looks of it you’re acting in the same hypocritical and unfair manner.
For example:
most women are incredibly stupid, and quite useless
Most people are incredibly stupid, and quite useless. Women are people. QED.
See how coy you’re being? Aurini specifically excluded men from his comment; in his thinking, much less men must be “incredibly stupid” than women. And as that’s absurd for any reasonable value of “incredibly stupid” (men of IQ>140 might indeed far outnumber women, but, had he meant that, he would probably be calling himself, most of LW and most scientists stupid) - why, it must’ve been meant solely as a mean-spirited, irresponsible insult.
Likewise, if women always physically assaulted men when they considered it to be reasonable self-defense, and so did men when they felt that they’re defending themselves fron an aggressive woman, much more men would get hit by women than vice versa. But that’s unacceptable, he’d say; bitches can’t do this to me whenever something gets into their brain tubes!
See how coy you’re being? Aurini specifically excluded men from his comment; in his thinking, much less men must be “incredibly stupid” than women.
I wasn’t coy at all if you don’t take that quote out of context.
Most people are incredibly stupid, and quite useless. Women are people. QED.
Are women in my social circle generally less intelligent than the men in them? Yes, because women have lower IQ variance and I don’t generally stick around with the left half of the Gaussian.
If you need it spelled out:
Men have greater IQ variance and I don’t hang out with men on the left side of the bell curve. If anything I spend more time socializing with women than men and am perhaps even less selective. Quite clearly yes the women I run into in my daily life will tend to be less intelligent and competent than the men, simply because of these factors.
And yes among the extremely capable subset of the entire population (not my social circle) there will be more men than women.
And as that’s absurd for any reasonable value of “incredibly stupid” (men of IQ>140 might indeed far outnumber women, but, had he meant that, he would probably be calling himself, most of LW and most scientists stupid)
That sounds perfectly reasonable. Humans are not very good at thinking. Ever heard that quote about John von Neumann?
“only he was fully awake.”—Eugene Wigner
Spend some time with 140+ people, you will soon see that you and I and most of humanity are incredibly stupid.
why, it must’ve been meant solely as a mean-spirited, irresponsible insult.
But yes the way it was phrased it probably was a stylistic move to lower women’s status.
Likewise, if women always physically assaulted men when they considered it to be reasonable self-defense, and so did men when they felt that they’re defending themselves fron an aggressive woman, much more men would get hit by women than vice versa. But that’s unacceptable, he’d say; bitches can’t do this to me whenever something gets into their brain tubes!
Are you really going to tell me you aren’t seeing it there? Scurrying about in the dark back of your mind, registering on your warm fuzzy evaluation function, before you suppress it in shame or to win an argument. You would spend more time before pushing Jane compared to Joe and you know it. Ceteris paribus for some values of numbers of lives saved you might push Joe but not Jane.
Actually, my System 1 feelings wouldn’t push either of them (I guess—I’ve never been in such a situation before with System 1 being aware of it; I think the Implicit Association Test would be a better test of what you’re trying to test).
(FWIW, my System 2 reasoning wouldn’t either, for TDT reasons—if the answer to “If someone is offered $10,000 to murder someone, should they accept and then give the proceeds to AMF thereby saving five lives?” were “Yes”, I would have to be more careful about not displeasing rich people, for example.)
Depends on what you mean by endorse.
I fully endorse this sentence because I see it not as advice but as stating whether something is or isn’t a fact. In a thread about ugly truths!
I don’t endorse this as universal advice because it can be unethical to tell this to someone. For example if I stand next to someone and tell them that sometimes the only ethical course of action is to kill another human being, this is trivially true, but it could be my ethical obligation to say this, or it could be very very wrong for me to say this. Context is everything.
It is still a true statement though.
And if any reader is still wondering and wants it spelled out, yes sometimes a man hitting a woman is the right thing to do. We can casually without disclaimers talk infanticide, abortion, euthanasia, war, deicide, murder, genocide and constantly implicitly break intuitive moral rules and plain politeness with all sorts of nasty sounding but true utilitarian statements …. yet from all that deontological framework the “don’t hit girls!” rule seems to be implanted the strongest and least likley to be challenged. Makes sense since our brain seem to be built to see the default woman as worth more than the default man by virtue of her existence. I can understand why people fail (or maybe not—maybe our CEV genuinely does care more about the welfare of regular women than regular men) their moral calculus that way. Doesn’t mean I have to like it.
Just as an experiment I challenge the reader to consider the well know trolley problem. Be honest to yourself. Make up a random man on the street. Name him Joe. Joe can save plenty of other people if you push him on the track. Imagine average Joe. Now wait 10 minutes, by the clock. Now imagine a random woman. Lets call her Jane.
Are you really going to tell me you aren’t seeing it there? Scurrying about in the dark back of your mind, registering on your warm fuzzy evaluation function, before you suppress it in shame or to win an argument. You would spend more time before pushing Jane compared to Joe and you know it. Ceteris paribus for some values of numbers of lives saved you might push Joe but not Jane.
This is no longer a true statement, because it implies it is always so, I do not endorse it. Funny how I think most people seem to have read the first sentence as this, when it clearly wasn’t.
This is a disturbingly effective demonstration.
What are the circumstances in which you think it is best for a man to hit his woman to get her to behave?
Self-defence when there is a risk of bodily harm or death
Defence of another when there is a risk of bodily harm or death
While attempting to restrain her when trying to stop her from hurting herself
ect.
I thought it would be something like this. These are not reasons “for a man to hit his woman to get her to behave”. These are reasons why anyone might need to hit anyone else to avoid something worse happening.
In the original context, by “behave” Aurini means “be compliant to the man’s desires”. This in the context of another person’s blog posting elsewhere advocating, right up in the title of the post, “the necessity of domestic violence”. This is what you are endorsing.
Well obviously it is sometimes best for a person to use violence for their own gains if the person dosen’t mind such violence and can escape punishment. I interpreted your question as asking me when I though this is appropriate or right. The question of whether use of violence is the optimal tactic to get people to act according to one’s goals is a different one depending, heavily on what preferences that person has.
For a person with different ethics (more selfish for example) there are plenty of theoretical opportunities when it is rational to use violence to get one’s way.
The more you talk, the less you say.
Given the concept “sometimes it’s best for a man to hit his woman to get her to behave”, you generalised the words “man”, “woman”, and “behave” to “someone”, “someone” and “do something”, and ignored the word “his” altogether. Now you’re generalising “best” to mean serving to get whatever the first someone wants.
This reduces the whole matter to fatuity: the optimal tactic to get people to act according to one’s goals is whatever will achieve those goals. Duh. The original question was about certain specific goals and specific ways of getting them.
Anyone’s ethics, including yours, must have a subgoal of aiming to influence others’ behavior in some ways, in order to have consistency. If, like any decent person, you believe that violence in less extreme situations, especially for selfish gain, is unacceptable, you can’t just fold your hands and say “Oh well” when others endorse such violence! Otherwise your morals in this regard become just an aesthetic choice for your private behavior, and not a consistent consequentialist position.
(It is likely that all humans do have such ethics. It is not actually a requirement for consistency.)
Hmm, maybe. Anyway, my point still stands; all of us, including Charlie, should come down like a ton of bricks on top of anyone who seriously hints about using violence for selfish gain; doubly so when it constitutes domestic abuse. To endorse or tolerate unacceptable physical or emotional violence is in itself immoral.
Does this statement also hold true for those who would vote themselves the tax dollars of others?
Spare me your hypocrisy; repeating the current Myths of our Age does not make you holy. You disgusting, malevolent hypocrite; I never suggested hitting a woman—I outright advised against it, as did the original blog post. I simply acknowledged—as did Ferdinand—that stupid women who date stupid men enjoy being hit by them.
People such as you - ‘rationalists’ who believe all the myths of our modern era—are precisely the reason that this community has declined since Eliezer’s leaving, into obscure contests to post the most inscrutable mathematics.
Go comment on the Amazing Atheist’s Youtube channel; you’ll fit right in there.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/i0/are_your_enemies_innately_evil/
It would be wise for some of the other participants to mind that advice, since I think Aurini started out in good faith in this debate.
Why don’t you try applying the lessons of that post to your own thought process?
Um… he’s being more loud about it? ;)
I don’t think you understood my position in the above post. I don’t approve of clippy using my atoms for paper-clips, yet I can’t deny that for him that may very well be the rational choice. If that is the case it is hard argue that the regular meaning of the words “best for him” dosen’t includes turning me into paper-clips.
Clearly from the perspective of someone slightly more selfish or less altruistic or different (for example non-Western) values sometimes the application of violence is the rational course of action.
I don’t think I understand why this particular post is down voted. Seems to be true to me.
So long as she wants to be compliant to my desire.
Do you have zero understanding of the sexual market, my friend? The moment she no longer wants me, that is the point where I leave her to the Alpha Males she has chosen as superior.
I… it’s like talking to an idiot. You misinterpret my words to impress others. I have zero interest in hitting a woman, and for that matter—dating a woman who needs to be hit.
I demand that my women act like ladies. If they want to be whores? They are more than welcome. They immediately get discounted from the marriage market. I would never hit them, but I’m not going to ‘forgive’ that gangbang (a gangbang I orchestrated would be another thing). I am simply recognizing that prole women enjoy being hit, and prole men need to hit them to keep their dumb vaginas in line. Do I think this admirable? Do I seek this out as my Utopia? Of course not!
I think most people are stupid, and stupid people enjoy the drama of violence—in a cathartic manner.
You idiot leftists have banned all violence, and now all entertainment is vicarious violence because real-life hatred has been banned.
Get over yourself; I’m far more civilized, and far less likely to hit a woman, than you could ever hope to be.
While this is political and thus mind-killing language I think it is only fair that if Alicorn has the opportunity to talk about “tactical difficulties” in the debate Aurini should too. I think this hatefest he has attracted has strawmaned and demonized him to ridiculous proportions and that he is indeed right about the reasons for why this happened.
Frankly, I don’t understand. Would someone here who’s not an Idiot Leftist—you, or Aurini, or whoever, clear that up, please? How do we get a real-life outlet for violent instincts that’s more safe, moral and convenient than entertainment? What precisely is he complaining about, and why is he so angry about it?
I’m an idiot leftist, who’s just wandered by from here. I don’t think Aurini or Sheen think real-life violence outlets can be more safe, moral, or convenient than watching simulated violence on TV or performing simulated violence in a video game. They (or at least Aurini) argues that a large social class finds a lot of value in cathartic violence, both the giving of it and the receiving of it, and that this value outweighs the physical and emotional damage.
I hadn’t considered it before, but I do think it’s not obvious which is correct.
This “value” is only an issue if you have utilitarian ethics in the first place. I don’t. Enforcing happiness against subjects’ will is usually insane, but enforcing virtue makes a scary amount of sense. I’d be willing to, in some form.
Yes, yes, I’m a creepy intolerant liberal-fascist who thinks that everything in the world is his business.
(Speaking objectively? Welcome to the human tradegy, where both action and inaction have such huge downsides that each one is very easy to construe as evil! We should all just hate ourselves even more, epistemically that’s my only advice here.)
Please stop being so disingenious and twisting your allies’ words to give a likeable pseudo-summary. You aren’t dumb, so you must be doing it on purpose. To quote my other comment:
For example:
See how coy you’re being? Aurini specifically excluded men from his comment; in his thinking, much less men must be “incredibly stupid” than women. And as that’s absurd for any reasonable value of “incredibly stupid” (men of IQ>140 might indeed far outnumber women, but, had he meant that, he would probably be calling himself, most of LW and most scientists stupid) - why, it must’ve been meant solely as a mean-spirited, irresponsible insult.
Likewise, if women always physically assaulted men when they considered it to be reasonable self-defense, and so did men when they felt that they’re defending themselves fron an aggressive woman, much more men would get hit by women than vice versa. But that’s unacceptable, he’d say; bitches can’t do this to me whenever something gets into their brain tubes!
Neat! I didn’t know I had allies. What’s the war?
I wasn’t coy at all if you don’t take that quote out of context.
If you need it spelled out:
Men have greater IQ variance and I don’t hang out with men on the left side of the bell curve. If anything I spend more time socializing with women than men and am perhaps even less selective. Quite clearly yes the women I run into in my daily life will tend to be less intelligent and competent than the men, simply because of these factors.
And yes among the extremely capable subset of the entire population (not my social circle) there will be more men than women.
That sounds perfectly reasonable. Humans are not very good at thinking. Ever heard that quote about John von Neumann?
“only he was fully awake.”—Eugene Wigner
Spend some time with 140+ people, you will soon see that you and I and most of humanity are incredibly stupid.
But yes the way it was phrased it probably was a stylistic move to lower women’s status.
This is a straw man.
Actually, my System 1 feelings wouldn’t push either of them (I guess—I’ve never been in such a situation before with System 1 being aware of it; I think the Implicit Association Test would be a better test of what you’re trying to test).
(FWIW, my System 2 reasoning wouldn’t either, for TDT reasons—if the answer to “If someone is offered $10,000 to murder someone, should they accept and then give the proceeds to AMF thereby saving five lives?” were “Yes”, I would have to be more careful about not displeasing rich people, for example.)