SkepticalButOpenMinded

@SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

SkepticalButOpenMinded,

When I looked into it a few years ago, I found that, contrary to the stereotype, Japanese homes are surprisingly big. Smaller than the US or Canada, which are some of the biggest in the world, but actually bigger than most of Europe.

The result of a quick search: the average Tokyo apartment is 65.9 sq m (710 sq ft). The modal apartment size is 19.7 sq meters (212 sq ft), so maybe that’s what you’re referring to. But that’s only 21% of Tokyo apartments.

SkepticalButOpenMinded,

Happening in Canada too. For the last decade, virtually every province has been led by Conservative governments (except BC and that was just half a decade ago). Healthcare and housing has been slowly falling apart.

Looking at the polls, what’s amazing is that most Canadian voters seem to think the problem is insufficient conservatism!

SkepticalButOpenMinded,

It’s worth noting that in most other rich countries, pedestrian deaths have been falling. And before anyone says something stupid about how America is uniquely big or new, even Canada has 60% fewer traffic fatalities.

What is your unpopular flim opinion

I’ll go first. Mine is that I can’t stand the Deadpool movies. They are self aware and self referential to an obnoxious degree. It’s like being continually reminded that I am in a movie. I swear the success of that movie has directly lead to every blockbuster having to have a joke every 30 seconds

SkepticalButOpenMinded,

Big oof, I had no idea that critics liked that. 91% on RT! OK, that might be the first major exception I’ve come across.

SkepticalButOpenMinded,

The critic rating is better than the audience rating. I’ve never seen a film with a high critic rating that didn’t have something worthwhile about it. But I’ve seen a lot of audience hits that were garbage.

SkepticalButOpenMinded, (edited )

I dunno. “Don’t attribute to malice that which can be sufficiently explained by stupidity.” I can totally believe that the average police officer has not thought this through. “5 hours of footage! We don’t have 5 hours to look for one bike.”

SkepticalButOpenMinded,

The video is not addressing the specific argument in the article. The main argument in the article is that the interest in tradwives is harming men’s ability to function in the real dating world. That seems plausible to me. There are probably not that many women who are into being tradwives so it’s an outrageous expectation to normalize.

The video doesn’t address that thesis at all. It’s making more of a libertarian argument: “tradwives aren’t hurting anyone so leave them alone.” But even if women should be allowed to be tradwives, that says nothing about whether men and other women are harmed by the promotion of these regressive gender norms. At one point, the video shows a ton of examples of men wishing violence on tradwife women, for e.g. not having dinner done on time. Somehow, this YouTuber still doesn’t see how promoting this view of a women’s place is harmful.

SkepticalButOpenMinded,

I don’t understand. Can someone explain this to me?

SkepticalButOpenMinded,

Though others have pointed out alternative interpretations of the poll (such as merely disagreeing with the label, not the ideals, of feminism), I am going to voice the minority opinion here: the straightforward interpretation may be right. In fact, I unfortunately find it completely plausible. Millennials, after all, went through ten formative years of and BLM, the biggest protests for equality in a century. The younger generation aren’t going through a cultural revolution anywhere near that scale. Things have quieted down, and sentiment may have regressed to the mean.

I also think people may be underestimating how powerful rightwing bro media has become, with radical figures becoming mainstream like Jordan Peterson and Joe Rogan, etc. I don’t see many countervailing feminist voices with as much reach, especially those targeting impressionable boys. I’m not sure about any of this, and I know some may not like to hear the alarm, but I think we need to be realistic about the possibility.

SkepticalButOpenMinded,

You’re right, I wrote that confusingly. I mean to say that the research I linked to is just about air pollution from tires. There are also non-air pollution consequences, as microplastics leak into our food supply, drinking water, our environments, our oceans, etc. This is no small matter.

Everyone who cares about the environment is in favor of EVs over ICEs, but some bad effects will actually increase with EV use. We need to transition every remaining car to EV, but we also need to transition society away from cars.

SkepticalButOpenMinded,

That’s not an argument, that’s a declaration.

SkepticalButOpenMinded, (edited )

Your EV is worse, per distance and per capita, than any non-car mode of transportation. Compared to ICEs, it’s better in one particular way, worse in others, but still causes major environmental damage through bad land use. Cars are one of the biggest killers worldwide, and EVs may make that problem worse.

SkepticalButOpenMinded, (edited )

I was talking about tire dust being worse than brake dust. Was that a typo?

Literally no one is arguing that EVs aren’t better for the climate than ICEs. But a lot of the climate harm of cars is not just tailpipe emissions, but bad land use. Pavement, parking lots, urban sprawl, are major contributors to climate change. I don’t understand this idea that if we push to move away from cars, it will encourage ICE use. It’s an inane argument.

edit: I also haven’t seen studies of how much air particulate matter from tires contributes to the greenhouse effect. I don’t doubt it’s still better than ICEs, but it could still be significant.

SkepticalButOpenMinded, (edited )

They also do all those things much worse than transitioning away from car dependence.

And they give people an excuse to not move away from cars.

And they are so much heavier and deadlier than ICE cars at the same speed that they may actually actively discourage other modes, like walking or cycling.

edit: Look, I think every car should be an EV. And I also think there shouldn’t be many cars because cars still suck. Both can be true.

SkepticalButOpenMinded,

It’s even worse than I said. Tire pollution is even worse than tailpipe pollution.

Another article from Forbes:

Tires were already a problem, but when we switch to electric cars, according to Michelin, we increase tire wear by up to 20%. According to Goodyear, it’s up to 50%. This is validated also in other research that we’ve seen.

I’m not seeing anything about how brake dust is nearly as big of a problem. Literally dozens of articles about how bad tire pollution is. I’m not even mentioning microplastics! Tires are the biggest source.

SkepticalButOpenMinded, (edited )

But massively increase tire dust, which is a much bigger source of air and water pollution than brake dust.

edit: There are literally dozens of articles about how EVs will produce more tire particulate pollution than ICEs.

Here is an article in the Guardian about how much worse tyre particulate pollution is than tailpipe exhaust.

This Atlantic article discusses tire particulate increase from EVs:

New EV models tend to be heavier and quicker—generating more particulates and deepening the danger. In other words, EVs have a tire-pollution problem, and one that is poised to get worse as America begins to adopt electric cars en masse.

According to this Forbes article:

Tires were already a problem, but when we switch to electric cars, according to Michelin, we increase tire wear by up to 20%. According to Goodyear, it’s up to 50%. This is validated also in other research that we’ve seen.

edit: To be clear, EVs are better than ICEs and every car should be an EV. But EVs also suck and we still need to transition away from car dependence.

SkepticalButOpenMinded,

This should go without saying but what’s on your mind about a car doesn’t change how deadly it is when it hits you.

SkepticalButOpenMinded, (edited )

Not only are they MUCH worse than brake dust, tire pollution might be worse than tailpipe emissions.

The comprehensive study has found that in everyday driving, particulate emissions from tires are 1,850 times greater than the equivalent exhaust emissions. This is only made worse by the heavier battery packs fitted to electric vehicles, which increase vehicle mass and, in turn, place further strain on the tires.

edit: this is not to say the tire particulate has the same greenhouse effect. Experts overwhelmingly agree that EVs are better for climate change. But EVs are still bad for the environment.

SkepticalButOpenMinded,

Yes, much heavier. It wouldn’t be such a big problem if car sizes weren’t exploding, and if people didn’t demand such absurdly high battery ranges “just in case”, even though their daily commute is not 300 miles. Consumers also seem to want unnecessary power instead of efficiency, negating some of the benefits of the transition.

SkepticalButOpenMinded,

I’m not sure what you were expecting. It is not unreasonable to ask for actual reasons to support your ideas, especially hot takes like “petrol will always be superior”.

SkepticalButOpenMinded,

Maybe I’m slow today, but can someone explain this to me?

SkepticalButOpenMinded,

As good a guess as any. I also don’t get the “my sense of humour is broken”. Is this a meta-joke? Anti-humour? It almost feels random.

SkepticalButOpenMinded,

The entire field of evolutionary psychology debunked? Do you mean the idea that our brains are subject to evolutionary forces like every other part of our anatomy? No, not debunked.

This is conflating specific methodological problems with theoretical claims. Yes, many have criticized the game theoretical methodology typical of evolutionary psychology. There are a lot of highly speculative junk claims out there. It’s also true that some (not all or even most!) cognitive scientists think that we cannot take the perspective that psychology evolved at all. But it is certainly untrue that there is some consensus that evolutionary psychology has been “debunked”.

This criticism is also a bit ironic given the highly speculative nature of the claims you put forward. Your guess sounds plausible I suppose, but I see no reason to think it’s any more methodologically rigorous.

SkepticalButOpenMinded,

Can someone explain what’s going on? I’m not sure I follow.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • localhost
  • All magazines
  • Loading…
    Loading the web debug toolbar…
    Attempt #