: "Feminism aims to help everyone who's oppressed, not just women!"
: "Oh, ok, so feminism = socialism?"
: "no, I mean they are related ... sort of ... but women need a special movement just to deal with their specific problems!"
: "Oh, ok, specialization! Good!"
-
Show this thread
-
: "So I guess there's a men's rights movement as well, and you all support that too?"

: "NOOOO!"
: "They're evil!"
: "They're losers! They just can't attract mates"
: "So does that apply to feminists too?"

: "NO! NO!"
: "So why the asymmetry?"3 replies 0 retweets 12 likesShow this thread -
: "As far as I have been told, men and women are equal, doesn't that mean that men's rights and feminism are equal?"

: "NO, it doesn't work like that!"
: "Well, then humans, how does it work?"
: "Well it's oppression ... "
: "We already covered that."2 replies 0 retweets 10 likesShow this thread -
: "Because of the way reproduction works in your species, men are strongly incentivized to oppress OTHER MEN"
: "Your history and your prehistory make this abundantly clear"
: "I think I can see where the asymmetry creeps in"1 reply 0 retweets 9 likesShow this thread -
: "What you name 'woman' is the form of human who pays a large fraction of the cost for making a new human. I'll call them 'Makers' "
: "What you name 'man' is the form of human who pays a tiny fraction of the cost for making a new human. I'll call them 'Blueprinters' "2 replies 0 retweets 8 likesShow this thread -
: "One Blueprinter can produce new humans with 500 Makers, but not vice-versa"
: "This means that the payoff distribution for Blueprinters is extremely skewed. From this we can predict that Blueprinters will evolve to take more risks and display more variability"
: "ok"1 reply 0 retweets 11 likesShow this thread -
: "This greater Blueprinter variability explains why your Blueprinters are found more often at the top of your hierarchies and at the bottom"
: "But I don't yet see where there is a 'Woman-help' movement but not a similarly popular 'Man-help' movement"2 replies 1 retweet 10 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @RokoMijic @RokoMijicUK
: "Sure. In this paper, evolutionary anthropologist Barbara Smuts explains how male primates use coercion to control female reproduction, and how females form alliances to resist this: https://www.academia.edu/21986624/THE_EVOLUTIONARY_ORIGINS_OF_PATRIARCHY … "1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @zackmdavis
: "Zack of Davis, I see the rationality flows strongly in you"1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @RokoMijic @zackmdavis
: "Will you summarize why the less-evolved Blueprinters would be interested in limiting the number of new beings created by the less-evolved Makers? Each Blueprinter is individually incented to maximize the occurrences of its Blueprint, or are you speaking of group selection?"1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
Now your alien is sneaking in a thought-terminating cliche. Try to expand on the phrase "group selection" because that phrase is doing a lot of work - there's plenty of evolutionary history of total Y-chromosome replacement events (tribe gets conquered, men die, women don't).
-
-
Putting this back in your dialog's framework: Makers are highly invested in all their own offspring so would prefer to only get the highest quality blueprints - which all makers would recognize. Discerning which blueprinters are the highest quality is very difficult. 1/3(?)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Ideally for the makers, all the blueprinters would ruthlessly compete directly with each other so all the makers could get blueprints from the one winner and all the non-winners could die or whatever. Ah, but this isn't a game theoretically stable solution! 2/4
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.