brnaftr360

Why does the IRS even think they need this? I feel like this was developed from an incident at a stripclub after a ritzy dinner, which was then proceeded by hookers - and less to do with practical scrupulous enforcement of the tax code.

You're right, the relative expense to the revenue isn't a good argument when you're framing it in the light of efficient business practices.

On the other hand if you consider the real intention of illuminating Google's cashflow it's pretty damning. Do you pay some relative pittance to keep devices supported, adding value to customers, reducing waste, increasing convenience? 'Cause this is a moral argument, not a financial one, and if you're fleecing the public at large (in myriad ways) it's more a question of the lord giving alms to his subject than it is paying $50 for a piece of gum.

Should Lord Google be a beneficent ruler, or a shitpile?

"Machine learning, cameras, ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunfire_locator "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_policing

Even if your proposition isn't initially designed as such, it will almost inevitably trend towards that. Tweaks to optimize sensitivity turn into increasingly thorough surveillance, suddenly the scope grows. Parkinson's law. Viola, our quaint police state is amplified into some chimeric synthesis of 1984 and some other jackbooted caricature. You can find these trends elsewhere, y'know, basically anything the government is allowed to touch. The old adage "Give them an inch and they'll take a mile."

Call it slippery slope all you want, it's happened time and time again.

Or we can work to eliminate the egregious discrepancies of wellbeing, and give these people something to work for so their risk analytics aren't weighing zero.

This is little more than a band-aid, which will almost inevitably be decried as prejudiced - rightly so. It does not treat the root cause and increases institutional control in a realm where measures are becoming increasingly draconian to scratch out crime. Why increase surveillance, institute predictive crime models, and so on while crippling human rights when it's well within the realm of possibility to actually provide a curative modality over the long run without further compromising privacy?

What if your brand of extremism gets you pinned as a probable criminal? How would you like that? Your search history and your playlist parsed into an AI, the way you move spells criminal. No due process. Would that be good for you?

No, that means that the idea that deterrents are constructed on is flawed. The fact of the matter is that no matter what "the people" opt to do, is that state forces in America are reactionary and not preventative - innocent until proven guilty.

These people aren't even doing the mental accounting where Z disincentivizes X if it isn't plainly obvious. The most responsible and humane thing to do is to ask why are they able to skip that gap. I think what you'll find is that they're victims to society in many cases - removed from opportunities through any number of institutional or economic processes. E.g. criminal record, or living in an economically depressed area (which itself has many widespread effect). In other cases they're possessed of a genuinely destructive pathology. And in any of these cases they're probably poor. This shit occurs when people are poor. Stop making poor people and violence goes down to the point where pathologically violent or otherwise unstable people are the baseline.

I'm interested in the neurological differences in the male and female brain as they relate to ASD. If we accept the findings in Ingalhalikar et al.[0] it seems to me like there is some explanatory power in the evident disproportion of occurrence of ASD in females. On one hand it appears the female connectome tends to favor a strategy of "indiscretion" whereas men do the opposite, instead relying on discrete processes. If we follow another study, they reason that the increased male variability in brain development may lead to susceptibility of certain disorders[1]. From the "purely neurological" pathology, is this something that might fit your findings? Where, if women aren't less susceptible then perhaps men are in terms of brain development?

And then we might consider the process of socialization as well, which I'd expect could lead to differing outcomes on the nose.

I don't know how extensive the issue is, or why it is, but I read a Wired article that indicated most pain medication studies focused exclusively on male subjects, and 96% did not compare differences between genders[2]. But also indicated differences in the way that pain is handled. If we extrapolate this into a trend, what else might we missing in the long run with such an oversight? Not to say that it is one, but if.

[0] https://www.pnas.org/content/111/2/823 [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33044802/ [3] https://www.wired.com/story/womens-pain-is-different-from-me...

I've got an anecdote from a nurse that when autism was registered as a disability the diagnostic criterion were loose enough that it enabled practitioners to fudge the numbers in favor of the families enabling them access to the special needs care and support systems which would otherwise be crippling.

If this is true, I would expect it to function as an umbrella describing symptoms rather than pathology.

EDIT: I should clarify that I'd like SubiculumCode's input on this if they find it worthy of discussion.

I suppose I can't really say, it's something that happened decades ago. Like heartbreak of high school, it's sort of faded away into emotional oblivion, though it never really excited me. I'd say I can pretty readily identify thoughts and feeling of the events, recollect the environment, the people, but being they were so long ago there's no realistic way for me to verify.

>The rest is theory...

It's a hypothetical, I'm not intent on stating anything as fact.

>Look at the victims of the Catholic Church and other well-known situations.

Part of what I conjectured was that the system itself is potentially traumatic. And that (naive) interventions might hypothetically be damaging. Again, one is potentially braving a number of institutions, not just family, but police, case workers, mental health professionals. Not to mention in the case of familial abuse considerable transitions, up to foster care, itself from what I've heard is frequented by pederasts. Perhaps a window for a form of gaslighting, wherein the victim is induced to believe they're traumatized.

That is to say, that any well-known case, perhaps especially well-known cases would be outside the scope.

Oh for sure I agree, like the prospect of dealing with sexual abuse with a direct family member over the length of a childhood adolescence and perhaps adulthood, and the various emergent effects certainly registers as several orders of magnitude more impactful than my experiences. And being that mine was coercive and not forcible, I don't have that direct experience. There's a wide gamut to run and I'm not intent on discounting anybody's experience. I'm more concerned with the amplification of that, y'know? Exacerbating the damage of people who've already been compromised.

As to the long-range effects, I don't really have a high resolution reference point pre- and post-incident, and history being what it is I've no control to compare against so I don't know how, if at all my behaviors are and were adjusted.

There's a considerable asymmetry here between men and women. I'm really curious about sussing it out and understanding how it develops.

At an early age, about 5 or so I was exposed to sex, with peers, male/female. Later I was raped through coercion by two older children at 10-ish, male/female. Additionally none of this was ever reported until adulthood.

As a male I've repeatedly been put in positions that I could describe as uncomfortable (though I don't, usually), pressured intimacy, catcalling, sexually forward girls/men...

Having gotten feedback from female peers in adulthood, I've gotten to wondering about the way that society tends to articulate sex and rape to women. The summary of framing that I've gotten from one of my intimates, is that at an early age women are given the impression that sex is their single lever in a relationship or socially. Sex is the only way which a woman can gain approval. Which, to me, seems like it would drastically amplify the experience of rape. There's also the puritanical considerations of virginity and slut shaming, etc... But I don't know that it's really a running theme in individual women.

And then there's the proactive modality. At the time of my rapes, I was not informed on rape or consent, and so the context wasn't that of violence, but simply commonplace arm twisting, and because it was as such I only ever saw that it could be framed as a traumatic episode much later. On the obverse, having been informed of such things as detestable, as violent, as traumatic and serious and driven to reporting it, I could imagine that it would escalate my feelings, and I suspect so would dealing with it externally with strangers and institutions and perhaps having some artificial narrative constructed by interlopers either directly or indirectly. I mean, consider having to talk to parents, police, social workers and so on it's implies a considerable escalation from the day-to-day. Especially as a child. Of course this seldom happens. I wonder if it's a sort of funeral psychology where you feel compelled to cry and mourn because that's what's implied, even if you don't feel the need.

But as a male having gone through these situations, without the framework being described, but rather having the privilege to describe it myself, it simply never evolved into a trauma. And I think this might be borne out by the statistics wherein boys/men simply do not report rape, just beyond the fact that it may happen less frequently. But having direct perspective on it, I wonder if I'm an oddball, or if trauma resulting from female rape is sort of amplified by the way women are socialized and informed.