this post was submitted on 21 Mar 2024
16 points (100.0% liked)

Science Memes

11148 readers
3372 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip 3 points 8 months ago (2 children)

et. al

I wouldn't mess with her, she contains multitudes!

[–] Skullgrid@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] pancakes@sh.itjust.works 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

We are Borg et al. Resistance is futile.

[–] jaybone@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

I am 7 of etc etc

[–] EmperorHenry@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

DEAR GOD! The patriarchy! A successful woman...who's probably rich and living in a nice house and owns a nice car who may have not put her face out there that much wasn't recognized for who she was immediately.

Also who was that guy? what are his qualifications? Has he achieved anything?

I suspect this story didn't happen. How could you be so bad and speaking about your own work that someone questions it like that?

[–] chocosoldier@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

ITT people baww at the mere mention of race and gender, and proceed to behave as if the problem is other people being too sensitive about race and gender.

[–] davemeech@lemmy.ca 0 points 8 months ago (3 children)

I'm very sorry, but what is ITT and baww?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] therealjcdenton@lemmy.zip 0 points 8 months ago

What does skin color and gender have to do with this?

[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 0 points 8 months ago (4 children)

Funny, but what does the skin color have to do with the situation?

[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 months ago (13 children)

When a given demographic is a dominant presence in a given area (not necessarily work, it can be anything), there is a tendency for they demographic to start making assumptions about other demographics.

In most places, men are the dominant presence, and in most of the "western" world, they will also be white.

In this case, the individual who a white male was doing what's called colloquially, "mansplaining". He was correcting a woman when not only was the woman right, but was the very source he was using to correct her.

This is a consistent and very unpleasant fact of the world that white men will treat anyone of any other demographic as less than equals.

In this specific case, I suspect that the person making that post was pointing to the prejudice and stupidity of the person indirectly insulting her being a systemic issue arising from both gender and sexual entrenchment along with the privilege that allows the dominance of the white male demographic despite their being no quantifiable factor for that group to be dominant other than that privilege.

She, in other words, was pointing out a systemic issue by using an anecdote. Which can be a bit difficult to accept as evidence. Or would be if there wasn't a good century or so of giant piles of anecdotes from real people pointing to that systemic issue not only existing, but being something that holds everyone back.

Truth? Yes, women and people of color are going to assume they're right and whoever they're talking to is wrong just like any humans will. But white dudes have been pulling that crap for multiple generations, and anyone that isn't both white and male get sick of the bad behavior.

[–] casual_turtle_stew_enjoyer@sh.itjust.works 0 points 8 months ago (2 children)

This is a consistent and very unpleasant fact of the world that white men will treat anyone of any other demographic as less than equals.

Pls stop generalizing this bad behavior upon all white men. It only serves to further the divide, and is completely unfair and uncalled for against those in the demographic who don't subscribe to those beliefs or patterns of behavior.

I'm not sure if that was your intent, that's just how it comes across and it makes it hard not to completely write off your argument/viewpoints for being unable to respect your neighbor.

[–] worldofbirths@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I think the generalization isn't really about white men per se, but about the demographic in power. Give a group unchecked power long enough and they forget how that came to be. I agree that it's not a rule, and maybe should be expressed as more of a heuristic: if you are speaking to someone that is in power, and you don't look like them, they might think you are not empowered.

Don't let the lack of nuance in that statement take away from all the very valid points being made. The plight is real, and hopefully the white men who are enlightened enough to not confuse circumstance with natural order will read and know to not take it personally.

Thank you for the civil discussion.

Completely agree about unchecked power and your interpretation of it as a heuristic rather than an ambiguously defined trait.

I most certainly realize the plight is real and wish it never was like I'd hope all of us can say. But the lack of nuance struck me as dangerous. I understand how disenfranchised men will interpret things, and when people willfully neglect the opportunity to be concise it leaves a worrying amount of room for misinterpretation and effectively is ragebait that can serve to further entrench a misguided incel or the like into their toxic niche.

And for anyone who thinks I'm overreacting: see how Reddit powermod awkward_the_turtle intentionally acted to provoke men, then wrote off everyone who took issue with it as inherently being member of the ideology they were allegedly targeting. Reddit, the company, enabled and encouraged this mod and their collaborators to attack users on their platform indiscriminately.

If Lemmy is to serve as only a new platform for abuse, then it deserves to die with the rest of social media. Please, do not let it come to this. Discuss and debate civilly.

[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I'm a white man. I can absolutely generalize about a well known aspect of reality. It isn't in question that white men are currently in a position of overall privilege, and that as a group that position of privilege has the effect stated.

I pretty much also said that this is true in the western world where white men are the supposed majority. I said that the same would be the case with any dominant group because humans are just like that.

A generalization can not only be true in general, but it doesn't inherently mean that the entire group is at fault (beyond any unintentional benefits from the situation, which is what's called privilege in current discourse on matters of gender and race in specific, but applies to more than those alone).


Here's the thing. Until and unless we, not just as white men (speaking of the group I'm in) work on calling out and correcting bad behaviors as a group, to the point that it ceases to be a problem for others, we are part of the problem, no matter how little any individual likes that.

Divisions currently exist. They will always exist because any time there is a place of authority/power, there will be those that seek it and use it. Over time, you might see a given demographic shift in and out of that place of power, but it won't change humans being humans; there will be abuse of power.

That's the real key. The fact that white men have held dominance over most of the world for centuries (for a given value of most, and a given value of white) is simply fact. One could argue that the position of dominance really covers all the world since anyone wanting to disrupt that has to contend against that hierarchy. There are definitely places where, within a region* white men aren't the dominant group, kinda impossible to be otherwise. But trying to pretend that the world isn't the way it is is just silly.

Completely agree with your points. But also hope you can see it may be more fruitful to appear as though you're ready to attack the problem, rather than your fellow man.

I say this because I didn't read this as an outright attack or denigration of your fellow man, but I very much fear how easily any other man may interpret it and how it could serve to further the divide and make the problem even harder to address. That is my chief concern.

I appreciate you taking the time to clarify your position fellow internet stranger <3

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] blindsight@beehaw.org 0 points 8 months ago

Did you drop a /s? This is a funny meme, so I'm assuming I just missed a joke.

Right?

(Speaking as a white male, white male entitlement, and privilege for that matter, are incredibly relevant to white men being sexist/racist.)

(You can trust me on this because I'm a white male. Also, I'm used to my opinion being listened to, so I expect you to as well. Just FYI.)

[–] UnityDevice@startrek.website 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

It's an American obsession.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] InappropriateEmote@hexbear.net 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It's not obvious? Because white males as a demographic are the most privileged people on the planet and not coincidentally also the ones most prone to petty, oblivious arrogance, tantrum-throwing, and egotistical man-splaining. The latter was demonstrated by the one in this NASA scientist's anecdote.

[–] Dra@lemmy.zip 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

This robs people of their individual context. The UK Prime Ministers wife is Indian and astonishingly privileged. You are suggesting a poor mine worker from Romania is somehow more privileged based on how he looks.

Lumping people into loose categories (particularly based on skin colour) and then prescribing loose values to them is fascist and racist.

[–] kristina@hexbear.net 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

youre deliberately misinterpreting the concept of intersectionality, it includes class.

[–] DinosaurThussy@hexbear.net 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

You are suggesting a poor mine worker from Romania is somehow more privileged based on how he looks.

You misunderstand the concept of privilege. It’s not linear. Intersectionality was devised to solve this exact contradiction.

[–] Dra@lemmy.zip 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] The_Jewish_Cuban@hexbear.net 1 points 8 months ago

Intersectionality is the idea that various forms of privilege and circumstance interact with each other to make an individual. Certain influences are more impactful upon a particular person's circumstances, and thus influence privilege to a much greater extent. The non-linear nature that DinosaurThussy is talking about can better be shown with examples.

If you're homeless and white it's clear that you're in a worse off situation than a billionaire who is black. Class status has a far greater influence on this situation. It would be fair to say that the black billionaire has more privilege due to his class status but not his ethnic identity. That being said, it's unlikely that the white man was denied a job due to his race in a way a homeless black person may be. Being poor and white and poor and black have many commonalities, but intersectional analysis allows us to understand the different ways and avenues that particular characteristics influences the ways that a person may end up in a particular circumstance.

The idea continues on. A person who is a billionaire may be significantly shielded from a lot of racism, or face it in a less extreme way. For example, that proverbial black billionaire likely wouldn't have many run ins with racist cops in impoverished neighborhoods. However, he still might face the unifying characteristic of being called a slur by his peers in the way that a poor black person might. His privilege of wealth may not complete inoculate him facing racism at all, even if he faces it in a less extreme way.

In essence, this situation is viewing individuals dialectic-ly. It seeks to understand how all of a person's identity and circumstances relate to the struggles and oppression certain groups or people may face in society.

[–] HollowNaught@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I always roll my eyes whenever I see a "you can't do that because you're a woman" character in a show, and then I'm always reminded that these people actually exist

[–] booly@sh.itjust.works 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

these people actually exist

The way it's been explained to me is that so much of the negative interactions in life come from a tiny, tiny number of offenders who manage to be shitty to dozens and dozens of people. So anyone who has to interact with many different people will inevitably encounter that shitty interaction, while most of us normies would never actually behave in that way.

Of the literally thousands of times I've interacted with a server or cashier, I've never yelled at one. But talk to any server or cashier, and they'll all have stories of the customer who yelled at them. In other words, it can be simultaneously true that:

  • Almost all servers and cashiers get yelled at by customers.
  • Very, very, few customers actually yell at servers or cashiers.

In other words, our lived experiences are very different, depending on which side of that interaction we might possibly be on.

When I talk to women in male dominated fields, basically every single one of them has shitty stories about sexist mistreatment. It's basically inevitable, because they are a woman who interacts with literally hundreds or thousands in their field. And even if I interact with hundreds or thousands of women in that same field, just because I don't mistreat any of them doesn't mean that my experienced sample is representative.

[–] Socsa@sh.itjust.works 0 points 8 months ago (2 children)

I wouldn't say very few. I'd say a solid 10% of people are routinely rude, impatient or entitled in a retail or restaurant setting. Even higher in some places.

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

I think you’re right. People want to believe that humans are good but in reality a huge number are deeply broken.

Fixed an autocorrect in edit.

It really is a matter of perspective.

You're saying that 10% of the population being awful means that a "huge number" are deeply broken.

So then 90% are being good! Mind, it doesn't take too many assholes to wreck things for everyone, but it is nice that the majority of folks really are trying to do their best. A sizeable majority, even!

[–] Acamon@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Maybe in some places. But when I go out to a restaurant, I'm often surrounded by a few dozen other diners, and no one is acting up or shouting at waiting staff. I have seen customers be obviously rude to staff but it's very rare compared to the number of "normal" interactions. Sure not everyone is friendly and totally polite, but entitled, shouting or just being an ass is an absolute exception, like less than 0.1%. I also worked as a waiter in a couple of different restaurants over a two year period, and don't remember any incidents either to me or my colleagues.

When I read comments like this it makes me wonder if I've been lucky enough to live and work in decent places, and the USA is just an nightmare hellscape, or if the reality there is much more normal and we just hear an unrepresentative sample of it.

[–] imgcat@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 months ago

the USA is just an nightmare hellscape

[–] nick@midwest.social 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

What does “human drivers of fire” mean?

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Well I'm here so I guess I'll answer.

There are many human drivers of fire, the first and foremost being, well you know, lighting a fire. And boy, do humans light a lot of fires.

Take for example, here is a map of active fires around the globe, right now:

First order human drivers of fire are things we actively or accidentally do to light a fire. Ignition is a fundamental for fire to happen, and humans cause WAY more ignition events than nature does. Things like a cook fire, burning brush or downed debris for management purposes, infrastructure like power lines or fueling stations, car accidents, lit cigarettes being thrown out etc.. etc.. The timing and frequency of these events directly influence the frequency of fires.

Second order drivers are things like vegetation management, home placing and construction, and other biophysical drivers. For example, introduction of invasive species like bromus tectorum, which burns very readily, represents more fine fuels in the environment. Yadayadayada more fires. Other things around vegetation management would fall into this category, such as the suppression of fire, or the psychical thinning of fuels in forests, or prescribed burns.

[–] nyahlathotep@sh.itjust.works 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Well I'm here so I guess I'll answer.

Are... are you McCarty et al., TropicalDingdong?

edit: !rimjobsteve@thiscommunitydoesntexistyet.poo

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

No no no, I'm an et al, just no any of those particular et al. I focus on wildfire risk and have read much on the topic. I've read McCarty and many more when it comes to understanding wildfire and wildfire risk. Some of my research focuses on wildfire risk, and spatial features as they relate to wildfire risk, so drivers becomes pretty important when it comes to wildfire risk modeling. I have taken several courses through NASA on the matter even though I don't focus on drivers directly.

This is the kind of thing I'm working on:

The nodes are features, the edges are weights. In this case I'm just looking at structure:structure risk.

[–] WarmSoda@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I'm sorry, but you obviously don't understand wildfires. You should really try reading Tropical Dingdongs, Esq.

load more comments
view more: next ›