as alive as you need me to be
The stats are meant to be illustrative of the fact that women are also capable of, and do, commit assault and sexual assault in large numbers.
You're just missing the point.
In your other reply you mention a magnitude of difference as being important, after asserting the one that exists is surely so massive that its not a problem.
Ok here's an attempt at giving you that magnitude, ah, but, now its not precise enough, the situations are too dissimilar.
The point is women can be, and certain women are dangerous, and the extent to which that is common is not trivial, and is not hugely lopsided toward men just always doing all the bad things at an order of magnitude difference, 1 to 10 or 1 to 100, its more like a 1/3 to 2/3 difference.
You opened with highly doubting that women can be dangerous.
Uh, they can be.
They are 'somewhat less dangerous than men'.
Not 'so much far less dangerous than men as to be statistically negligible'.
Do you want me to pull stats on how many women have ever gotten arrested for a violent crime?
That number is not 0.
What I am getting for asking various AIs this question is that in the US, the overall crime.rate is going down, but since the 90s, the proportion of violent crimes committed by women is going up.
This data is not like, easily accessed, it would be an significant academic research task to attempt to properly answer this question, so, I'm ok with using an AI with sources for an ballpark estimate.
I'm asking duckduckgo's duck.ai, if you want to check this.
In 2023, we've got ~880k violent crimes committed by men.
In 2023, we've got ~320k violent crimes committed by women.
Assuming thats one crime per person, we assume US population is 350 million, and its a 5050 population sex split, we get:
Chance a US man committed a violent crime in 2023: 0.0050%
Chance a US woman committed a violent crime in 2023: 0.0018%
Proportion of 2023 violent crimes committed by men: 73 1/3%
Proportion of 2033 violent crimes committed by women: 26 2/3%
Or, put back into my original phrasing...
Women are 30% as likely as a man is to commit any violent crime.
Which is, ok, half of what I said with IPV stats, half of ~60%.
But again, we are at proportional difference levels, not orders of magnitude difference levels.
So what this means, what Uber and Lyft are doing, is something like allowing discrimination against all their male drivers, so that the chance a woman gets assaulted goes down from ~0.005% to ~0.002%.
Something roughly in that ballpark.
Thats what you call massive losses for a mostly innocent group, for basically imperceptible gains, in comparison to the losses sustained by the group.
Women choosing only women drivers do not become 1100% (10x) or 100% (2x) or 50% (1.5x) safer by doing so.
They only become about 0.0032% (1.0032x) safer.
If you routinely did things because of that level of safety margin improvement, you can justify basically any decision at the level that it will make you 3 thousandths of a percent safer.
Yeah, these are estimates, they're far from perfect, but this is the ballpark we are in.
Its ludicrous, from a mathematical standpoint, to attempt to justify this behavior. It is irrational. It is paranoid.
Maybe if you're ubering to work every single day of the week, ok sure it becomes a cumulative thing, at that point you'd save money with a personal chauffeur, so that's also kind of ridiculous.
Sounds like Uber and Lyft should stop hiring drivers who sexually harass customers.
Hey I completely agree with that!
Maybe instead of punishing their entire male driver base, 99.9% of whom have not sexually assaulted a passenger, they could adopt some screening standards, have some regular, mandatory instructional courses with scored tests at the end, do some background checks!
Ok so you also seem to be describing 'being in a vulnerable position' as a, or the 'line'.
Can you define that explicitly, you know, as if it were part of a law?
I will note that tons of people have anxiety/trauma complexes that trigger in public, or in private, with people.of specific sexes, genders, races, expressed religions, etc... so... are all of those things fair game for things that can cause people to feel 'in a vulnerable position'?
Some people don't really even have any specific personal trauma, but are just bigotted and some way, and would tell you that... certain people with certain attributes in certain situations make them feel 'vulnerable'.
Women are roughly ~60% as likely to commit IPV assault or sexual assault or stalking as men, so... using that as a proxy, yeah, its less, but its not insignificant.
As the other reply to your comment mentions, I'm a guy, I have been both physically and sexual assaulted by women.
... Do I not exist?
There are roughly 60% as many male victims of female IPV violence/sex assault as there are women who are victims of men.
Thats millions of people, in both categories.
https://www.cdc.gov/intimate-partner-violence/about/index.html
IPV is common. It affects millions of people in the United States each year. Data from CDC's National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) indicate:
About 41% of women and 26% of men experienced contact sexual violence, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner during their lifetime and reported a related impact.A Over 61 million women and 53 million men have experienced psychological aggression by an intimate partner in their lifetime.
IPV starts early and continues throughout people's lives. When IPV occurs in adolescence, it is called teen dating violence. About 16 million women and 11 million men who reported experiencing intimate partner violence in their lifetime said that they first experienced it before age 18.
But hey, I know not all women are like what I've been through, from more than one woman.
Took a lot of therapy to get a hold of the PTSD, but maybe one day I'll feel comfortable enough to seriously date again.
In the meantime, yeah, I am at least healed enough that I don't personally feel the need to request only male uber drivers...
... A tattoo artist or masseuse could not more easily sexually assault me than a grocery store clerk or dog walker?
What about a therapist vs an accountant, doing in office consults with either?
How about a bus driver or a pilot crew, flight attendants?
I am assuming the line you are trying to draw is something like ... being in a confined space, and having less control over your ability to egress.
But you didn't actually draw that line, so that's just a guess on my part.
You just made a dubious claim and then used that to justify an undefined rule.
If you'd like to actually try to draw a line, that would be nice.
So, the actions of a subset are being used to justify discrimination against an entire group, from a business.
It's not personally my fault, but I am (hypothetically) personally punished.
Uh ok, sounds like a winning discrimination lawsuit to me, if you just admit all that right off the top!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_Civil_Rights_Act
The text of the relevant law:
All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, or sexual orientation are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever."[3]
Relevant case:
The California Supreme Court also decided that the act outlaws sex-based prices at bars (ladies' nights): offering women a discount on drinks, but not offering the same discount to males. In Koire v Metro Car Wash (1985) 40 Cal 3d 24, 219 Cal Rptr 133, the court held that such discounts constituted sex stereotyping prohibited by this Act.[8]
Uber and Lyft drivers are independent contractors, ie, they are procuring services from Uber and Lyft, the businesses.
They are not employees.
https://chauvellaw.com/post/ca-supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-uber-and-lyft-in-ab5-case/
In July 2024, in the case of Castellanos v. State of California, the California Supreme Court issued a ruling which upheld a voter-approved law that allows app-based transportation companies such as Uber and Lyft to classify their drivers as independent contractors, and not as employees.
Thus, they, men, are a protected class when acting as independent contractors, and being treated in one way or another by the business they are contracting with.
So, that means, that this is far from a frivolous class action.
https://www.vjamesdesimonelaw.com/dealing-with-discrimination-as-an-independent-contractor/
Nonetheless, if you are subjected to blatant discrimination as an independent contractor, you may have protection under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act which mandates that “[a]ll persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.” The Unruh Civil Rights Act has been used to obtain protection for independent contractors experiencing discrimination in business relationships, but it does not apply to employment relationships.
If you gave the explanation that you just gave me, to a court, in CA... you would lose, and the men bringing the case would win, because you have just plainly admitted you (figuratively, as Uber/Lyft) are doing discrimination.
The alternative sets a precedent that independent contractors cannot be protected from sex based discrimination.
Which uh, would be very problematic, for say uh, strip clubs and modelling, which tend to also actually largely to entirely also be contractor configurations, not full employee configurations.
Or, Uber and Lyft, in CA at least, have to treat everyone who drives for Uber and Lyft, in CA, as actual employees... which would grant them various benefits, but would also allow for the 'female driver only' option to still exist in CA.
Theres... no other, more statistically significant profile to sexually assaulting drivers than just 'they are men'?
There's no training regimen or qualifying standards, no background check... ?
There's... no way other to ensure rider safety?
Can you explain that to me, how either collectively, or personally, male drivers are somehow all responsible for their services being valued less, less in demand?
Walk me through it.
I'm a guy, never done uber or lyft before, lets say I'm gonna start tomorrow.
Why and or how is it my fault that I'd be less in-demand as a driver than a woman driver?
Ok, lets say I prefer only male customer service representatives, front desk receptionists, only male grocery store check out clerks, only male baristas, hairstylists, tattoo artists, auto mechanics, chefs/cooks, restaurant servers, daycare providers, dog walkers, whatever.
Now, I only use businesses where my 'consumer preference' is 'respected', and there are so many others who have similarly strong preferences to me, that businesses begin to either gender bias their hiring, or offer specific locations that are gender locked, or offer me some kind of filter for non location based / scheduled / on demand enterprises.
Am I being sexist, or am I expressing my consumer preferences?
Are the businesses being sexist, or are they aligning business practices with consumer expectations?
What if femboys, queer men, trans men, well, they're not men to me, I don't want to see any of them, so I stop using businesses who hire them, or at least allow me some option to avoid them?
What if I also only want to interact with white, christian men?
Who are 25 to 45 years old?
... How do you draw the lines between 'businesses reflecting consumer demand' and 'the inherent structure of society is bigoted and segregated'?
Why do you draw those lines, which lines do you draw or not draw?
I mean, you'd think that would make sense, right?
But try arguing that if Tinder adds a visually verified height filter, it should also add a visually verified weight filter.
B should be: A and/or D.
There, now its a bafflingly bullshit question.
Sonuvabitch, you beat me to it.
Yep.
Literal first thing I thought of: how is this person real?
No not the name, the face.
- Jump
What would you do if you found out someone was drawing hentai of you with very exaggerated features?
If it was like, inflation or some other very odd, nonconsenual kind of kink, somebody pretending I'm their sibling or something... yeah that would not be ok.
Barring that kind of nonsense?
Flattering!
I've never been the basis of an erotic artwork, but I have had guys and gals give me some fairly explicit uh, physical attribute based comments... less explicit, but more common... particularly gals, would be just actually jealous of my eyelashes and hair, sometimes literally pouting about how unfair it is that they don't have them.
Its a compliment.
- Jump
What would you do if you found out someone was drawing hentai of you with very exaggerated features?
"Would you fuck me? Yeah, I'd fuck me."
lolololololol
No but for real this is the kind of actual self-confidence and security in one's own identity that is actually healthy masculinity.
Depending on exact codecs and such, you might get some occasional wierdness with some 4K movies, but I'd think under that, you'd be basically fine as an HTPC.
For gaming/emulation... I dunno, don't try and go beyond roughly PS2/360 era, ... probably that's doable, staying at or under that?
Yeah lol, here's a $7k expensed bill, that your insurance covers an unpredictably random amount of, due to hyperbyzantine complexity of billing codes and what not, for ultimately a sterilized suture and some ibuprofen/tylenol, that anyone with basic field medic training could have done in 15 minutes, charged maybe I dunno, $50 - $100 bucks for labor and supplies.
ProTip: Go to a hospital without your wallet or phone, don't give them your name.
This is the entire fatal conceit/flaw of the US medical system, which private insurance just actually can't address, I guess maybe unless we also implement a digital panopticon society with biometric ID resolving cameras literally everywhere.
laughs in
piratedata archivistIf something isn't worth waiting just a bit of time to torrent it, as opposed to just instantly streaming it?
Good rule of thumb: It's slop, you don't actually care for it, it's just white noise.
... I need panel 4 on my wall.
I do appreciate the Mussolini ending, but...
What I have been saying since Jan 6th:
Bury him alive at the feet of Lincoln, maybe a 20 foot deep shaft, just throw him in, then the concrete.
All that would indicate anything was amiss, would be an engraved gold plate on the floor, on top of the shaft, reading SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS.
... A more patriotic spin on the steretypical real estate developer method of assasination.
Leave him encased in his own disgrace, literally under Lincoln's feet, the only suitable place for a racist insurrectionist mob boss.
And also, the plate is gold... meant to be stepped on, and the engraving wear away with time.
No, you're missing the entire concept of Civil Rights and Anti Workplace Discrimination laws.
Just replace sex with race, or height, or disability status, or sexual orientation, and you can see how you are making a fool of yourself.
People have to do these jobs. If you just say a class of people can be prevented from doing these jobs, then you don't believe in employee/worker rights.
And again, no its not just the passenger who is picking.
Its the business that is allowing their contractors to be discriminated against, when it comes to the awarding of micro-contracts, based on their sex alone.
Businesses, and the government, are not allowed to unfairly discriminate based on things that are irrelevant to the contract itself, in how they award contract work. That's already illegal, in many other contexts.
Its a worker rights issue, not a consumer choice issue.
Uber or Lyft could actually do effective things to weed out bad drivers... effectively cutting half of their drivers payout down by roughly a third... is not a sensible way to do that.
And yes, a man or a woman being your driver is irrelevant. 99.99% of male drivers do not assault their passengers. The chance that a female driver is going to be safer than a male driver is statistically indistinguishable from 0.