The cynicism is not based on nothing. I don’t crave being toxic. I crave intellectual challenge and general positivity.

The cynicism is born of experiencing reality. Particularly one where I’m a neurological minority among incurious people, people who engage in motivated reasoning, and people so motivated by avarice that they simply lie.

The following quote applies to my offline experience in an allistic dominated world: “I was ashamed of myself when I realised life was a costume party and I attended with my real face” ― Franz Kafka

I now simply play the game now, and fairly well. I still hate it though.

Online, I don’t need to worry about playing allistic games or worry about catastrophic social consequences of being my blunt and honest self. I can dissect things, and try my best to learn how far the ugliness goes.

Here’s an interesting example you just gave me. I don’t think that and never said as much.

It was more or less said when you stated the very premise of “Soft Skills are hard to teach”. But sure, I took a very unnuanced interpretation, that’s my bad.

Now to the example. It’s extremely frowned upon in a conversation to affirm what others think, when they haven’t explicitly expressed so themselves. Specially when the other person is still a complete stranger. It could be interpreted as hostility or an attempt to misrepresent other people’s positions in order to attack them.

I’m not on lemmy to practice soft skills. To be clear: I’m not exactly hostile, just cynical and impatient.

Humans literally evolved highly social minds entirely to rapidly develop soft skills.

You think most people lack soft skills because you placed additional effort into developing them and likely had the head start most average human beings get. Its rare that people start at zero, but some very much do.

I did.

Hard skills are easier to teach,

Hard skills are either easy to teach or virtually impossible. It depends on the person. That isn’t to say most people are incapable of learning: its that most people are fundamentally incurious or unmotivated, and teaching an incurious person is fucking impossible unless money is on the line for them.

while soft skills are very hard.

Most people have very little difficulty getting very good at soft skills very early on in life. If you haven’t learned them, you are in a minority. These two are likely in a minority psychological/neurological profile.

I can’t really tell you much more about it without outing my embarrassing and likely in a few cases socially obvious questions.

The most I can say is giving it some details about an encounter or series of encounters and asking it to clarify if it thinks some or other courses of action are reasonable or socially acceptable or advisable. And whether I’m imagining things or if there was “something there” if someone may or may not be flirting for instance.

And some other things that I will not be revealing here.

TBH, I’m an autistic male and using AI for dating advice has 100% helped me get laid (still working on a stable partner though). Not because its super smart, but because I can rapidly ask multiple questions I’d be otherwise unable to ask a human without incredible and crippling embarrassment and get answers that are “good enough” if a tad broad or obvious probably to most people.

But as a broad trend, I’ll admit that is a little worrying.

I would be so happy to be living in a part of Canada.

Would you prefer I simply consider you an intellectual coward? I’m not sure which would be worse.

There are a number of ways, I’m not inclined toward authoritarian measures. An incentive structure could be built to encourage genetic interventions (at least once that technology matures). Just kind of like some natalists want to encourage births in general. It would have a pretty gentle effect at most but again, I’m aiming for overall harm reduction. The reduction of male births isn’t the goal, its a tool to reach a goal.

In addition, a cultural movement could apply soft social pressure and normalize the practice of aborting boys and trying until a couple gets a girl. This would be difficult though not impossible. Cultural movements that started as a minority opinion pop up pretty frequently these days.

If we were to get authoritarian with it though, of course things get both easier and harder. Easier in that you could just mandate things, in reality this would probably just create black market situations and cause more harm than good. It might be possible to put something in drinking water to significantly decrease the chances of male births as well if you want to validate the conspiracy theorist types, though you could just be open with it and get people to accept it.

You mean you’re here to propagandize.

Do you know anything? What’s your alternative?

Men are not born inherently more violent than women. That’s a sexist assumption from the get and invalidates your entire reply to be honest.

I never said they’re more inherently violent on some biological level. I don’t think it matters if they’re “inherently” more violent. If men are statistically more violent and that is just a cultural effect, my solution would still be more humane than ideas like a prejudicial ride share filter.

And if your rebuttal is “We need to fix men’s culture” my immediately question is how? Because that’s not a proposed solution: My idea and the ride share filter are explicit and specific policy. They can be compared, their effects can be studied or if not studied, their assumed effects can at least be rationally predicted.

Acknowledging the real outcome of the patriarchy that men are encouraged and allowed to use violence to further their own wants is not the same as agreeing that men should be killed or boys shouldn’t be born.

Fewer boys being born is absolutely not the moral equivalent of killing men. And I know the whole “Kill all men” line itself is a (usually) a troll. Engaging with that is boring.

That said, how do we systematically discourage men from committing violence exactly? Obviously with the goal of reducing harm. That is, in a way that is more humane, time efficient, viable, than either other solution we’ve already discussed here? I don’t think this is a serious avenue to be explored to be honest, because I never hear any concrete solutions being offered. I’m open to being wrong. I want to be wrong because the idea that we can get men to just chill out with the violence and make everyone happy sounds legitimately like the best option, I just don’t think that we can do that.

I just recognize a violent and sexist idea when I see one and yours is extreme enough that it makes me think you’re doing it to further provoke gender wars on this site.

Provoke a discussion. Like I said I’m bored at work. I don’t care about gender wars. I’m more of an equal opportunity hater. And lover.

If you must know, I avoided the “bear vs man” discussion. Now that was just a means to provoke gender wars bullshit.

Population control and eugenics tend to be bad ideas.

I mean to be honest I’m not in favor of “population control” but I am basically a soft anti-natalist. I think we should stop reproducing entirely.

As for eugenics, I never said things would be manipulated along racial/ethnic lines, and that’s typically the area of moral outrage when it comes to eugenics. And what with a few people in this very comment section pointing out that it’d be unacceptable to let white people say they’re “uncomfortable” or “feel unsafe” around black people… well…

Like, you are being inconsistent at that point. Is viewing men as intrinsically less safe and validating that with prejudicial filters on ride sharing against them acceptable or not? If its acceptable, then just… simply not having more men is just a win/win. No one gets hurt, they’re just not born. And its justified because you can point out that its literally acceptable to apply what amounts to an economic sanction of already living men, some of which rely on their income to live a life worth living or to even live at all, on the basis that they are just more dangerous. This idea is more harmful than what I am proposing. It will result in more suffering.

What you don’t like is the emotions you feel when I suggest an idea that seems alien to you and have to mentally compare it to a worse idea that sates bitter catharsis or validates your desire to insulate and segregate for the aim of emotional comfort.

My idea is not me framing “birthing fewer boys” from some emotional perspective of “We should do it because we hate boys.” I’m suggesting it because I legitimately believe it would be more humane than what we’re doing now with everything, let alone considering this ride share filter.

I’m still convinced you’re here to make feminists and women who support safety measures for other women look sexist with your “provocative” views on men.

I’m here because I have no self control. I keep telling myself I’ll stop arguing on social media because it just makes me miserable but boredom at work just completely over takes my restraint. Why are you here?

I’m not trolling, though perhaps I am being provocative.

That said, I would be unironically in favor of the policy I am proposing.

I’m also open to better systemic policy propositions.

I’m a dude.

I’m just saying it straight. Both men and women would be happier if we had fewer men added to the population.

It’d make everyone happier.

A significant portion of women don’t seem to even like men very much so they’d not miss them. Men and women would get murdered less by other men. Fewer wars. Less violence. Less rape. Incels wouldn’t exist I can tell you that much. Rightwing politics would significantly lose influence.

Yeah, we need fewer men in general.

I think the issue people are taking is with collective punishment and validating prejudice.

Yeah, lets reduce the number of incels systematically. We can start by reducing the number of male births.

It’d be a win for everyone if we had fewer male babies.