|
tokin opposition posted:First wave: let us vote* In my untrained eye, fourth wave is just repackaged 2nd wave + hashtags. Largely driven by 2nd wavers like Hillary and people in that orbit. It mostly concerns itself with shattering the glass ceiling for the upper class women.
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2021 14:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 19:35 |
|
|
Arivia posted:I can tell that your eye is untrained, yes Yes, that is what I said 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2021 15:34
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:2nd wave had a lot of biological essentialism in it, like thinking emancipated women would do "women's work" but just wanting care work or education or nursing to be valued more highly, equivalent to fields of work coded as masculine. That biological essentialism is why a lot of 2nd-wavers have become terfs in their old age, because they think being a woman is something innate rather than something culturally constructed, and some of their beliefs reinforce rather than deconstruct patriarchal cultural constructs. the third wave was all about tearing down those cultural constructs and expanding feminism in pretty much every direction: away from white cis middle-class women and towards intersectionality along lines of race, class, gender, sex, based on deconstructing the cultural constructs that try to limit what men and women can and can't do or be. It is probably the lack of definition that gets me there and that these things seem largely defined in American terms. From an outside US perspective fourth wave appears heavily enmeshed in Dems vs Reps, with RBG, Hillary (which I understand to be 2nd wavers?) etc. as the ideal. Or maybe that isn't fourth wave at all?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2021 15:56
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:People innately have very, very poor intuition about probabilities. Even if you learn how the probabilities in poker work and do all the proper math, you still end up with a lot of people having that feeling that they "shouldn't" lose a hand in which they are 90-10 favoured, even though that means 10% of the time they lose. And 10% represents an event that will occur quite frequently. So, sure, the player winning the 10% game gets lucky, but then, so technically does the player winning the 49% game. But the latter feels very different to people. Then on top of that comes faulty pattern recognition such that people are way better at remembering all the times they lost to the 10% odds versus all the times they won the 10% odds, let alone all the times they won the 90% odds. I don't watch poker, but isn't he pissed at losing on a 47% loss chance?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2022 11:50
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:It’s not really accurate to say that he’s pissed at losing a coin flip (actually two consecutive flips) because neither of them knew what the odds were at the time. What they both knew is that they didn’t have very good hands. Right, from his perspective - at the time - he lost a 90% loss chance. But he certainly didn't have an - either believed or actual - 90% chance of winning. If I understand the percentages in the bottom right correctly 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2022 12:44
|
|