TheActualDevil

Why do you hate sex workers?

Is it typical to give a whole run-down of your sexual history when dating? Like, I've mentioned previous encounters or exes when it comes up, but rarely near the beginning of the dating process. In my experience people tend to not have those discussions. Not because it's bad but because it doesn't matter. When I meet a new woman and start seeing them, I don't need to hear about or care about their past relationships unless it's something they feel they want to share for whatever reason.

It sounds like you don't think sex work is immoral, so I wouldn't bring it up unless it's something that would actually affect your current relationship. If sex is casual enough to commodify then it's not something that would be brought up when getting to know someone. Do you also give them a run-down of every meal you've ever bought at restaurants?

I think it fucks up the marriage (divorce) racket for women due to the fact it’s simply cheaper and a lot less hassle.

If people are getting married just to have sex, they probably shouldn't be getting married in the first place. And I can't imagine that the marriage for that woman would be great.

Gonna be honest though, your phrasing kind of gives off "sees women as pieces of meat to fuck" energy. And while we're here, plying women with alcohol doesn't sound super consensual to me. If she doesn't want to fuck you sober, don't do it.

Hold up. I'm not super experienced in reading studies, but I can read.

1. At best this is correlation. HRV increasing for these men doesn't mean a high HRV is required to be good at chess.

2. Sample size of 16... And only male.

HRV was reduced in participants who achieved worse results. This could indicate the possibility of HRV predicting cognitive performance

If reduced HRV means lower cognitive performance and women have, on average, lower HRV, you're saying women are less smart. At least in chess. I think that's bullshit and this study isn't incorporating enough/the correct data to show anything you're stating.

But here is one: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0149763411002077 that links HRV with stress response

And another: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0149763419310292 That shows women's HRV responds less severely to stress.

Both meta-analysis, not a single data point.

So maybe men are just shit at dealing with stress and that's why their brains go haywire during competition. But it's so gracious of you being so kind to women and giving them a space where they can play among equals on a "MORE level playing field."

By your logic, they should just be testing people's HRV and ranking them that way so they all are on even ground. Give those dummy men a MORE level playing field.

I mean, the real answer is that chess is full of toxic people who've made it to the top to run the organization. The fact that this behavior wasn't curtailed already shows that. Its just an accepted part of it. If the ones who would make the decision to ban those players don't already see an issue they're not going to start now to make the space better for women.

Sure, that's the concept, and it's a problem. But that's not what the name "Human Resources" means. That's like saying the office of Veteran Affairs is implying that veterans are themselves affairs. The title is obviously meant to imply resources for humans. It's a lie, but that's what those words are supposed to mean. It's not called "Humans are Resources."

You're allowed not to pay your taxes to fund socialist programs. There is a consequence of jail, but you have that choice. How is it different?

I'm sure that's a major part of it, but I also wouldn't want to live in a world where we could only get aspirin from willow bark. We either wouldn't have enough aspirin or we wouldn't have any more willow trees. Medicines derived from the actual source aren't possible on a global scale in most cases.

Capitalism is a blight on society and has lead to countless deaths. But in a utopia where money doesn't exist and people create medicine for the world only to help people with no profit they still need to synthesize it.

"It's a very true dichotomy!"

Proceeds to make up an imagined scenario with a ridiculous fake name to prove it's reality.

I mean, sure, you can blame this batch on the internet and necessary SEO, but good artists being skipped over is nothing new. There were days before the internet (and even after it's implementation, but before the ecosystem you are talking about existed) where artists and band with immense talent were lost to time because things didn't line up just right for them to be successful. Bands played gig after gig, sending their singles to record companies and nothing happened. Just being good at a thing has never been enough. That's just step 1. Often, the right person has to see you, and that person has to be in the position to elevate you at the time. Maybe that industry guy was just in a bad mood that day and wasn't enjoying any music and you just got a bad night.

And we have examples of visual artists dying in obscurity only for their art to hit it big after their death. It's a whole trope in the art world. Van Gogh is probably the most famous. He died penniless having only sold a single painting while alive, and that was to his brother, a frickin art dealer! He even had a guy on the inside and couldn't make it. Impressionism was a new school, but not exactly empty. As a genre it basically got it's own museum in the Musée d'Orsay, and still, one of the greatest artists in the genre (and probably all art) couldn't get a fucking break. Talent is often not enough. Luck and timing have always been more important.

Go crazy?

I mean, easier? Sure. But I don't think most people would find it easy to just say go torture a guy. At least I hope so.