[1153] Brähmer Coefficient
└ posted on Thursday, 13 February 2020, by Novil
- Sandra: Today, we’d like to introduce you to a brand new social concept, the Brähmer coefficient Θ. It describes the physical distance between two people in terms of their personal core value.
- Woo: Brähmer coefficient?
- Sandra: I can assure you that this has absolutely nothing to do with the generous donation we recently received from Brähmer Metallverarbeitung GmbH, the leading manufacturer of ring head cylindrical pins!
- Woo: That’s good to know!
- Ye Thuza: My family means everything to me.
- Caption: Θ = 0.01
- George Best: I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered.
- Caption: Θ = 0.1
- Woman: I’m a happy social justice warrior.
- Woman: … Anyone?!
- Man: I’m sexually attracted to Saturn.
- Caption: Θ = 1000000
![[1153] Brähmer Coefficient](/comics/2020-02-13-1153-braehmer-coefficient.png "[1153] Brähmer Coefficient")
@ butts:
found the SJW who had prove the point by posting a complaint. @ butts:
Found the SJW who had to prove the point by posting a complaint.
@ TachyonCode:
because SJW’s don’t want justice, they want power.
@ Schadrach:
Schadrach wrote:
It’s ironic that you say prison sentencing gaps mean nothing when talking about gender, because it actually has more to do with Gender than race. Black men get the longest sentences and white women get the shortest, but in general women get about 63% shorter sentences than men for the same crimes with similar criminal histories. As an example there was a woman in Indiana who ran over four kids at a school bus stop, killing 3, back in 2018. She was facing 21 1/2 years in prison and got only 4 with a 3 year suspended probation, 3 year house arrest, and 10 year license suspension. To make that clear: She was facing over 21 years and is going to serve less than half.
Not surprising that you wouldn’t know this, most people don’t. So called SJWs won’t engage with the subject matter honestly, preferring to bury information that contradicts their world view and effectively lie by omission.
This strip helped me realize that I was getting almost no value from this comic.
I’m out.
Remember when Sandra and Woo was a comic about a little girl and a talking racoon, without trying to be a political platform?
I wonder whether Cloud got Sandra anything for Valentine’s Day…
@ non-appliant:
Strictly speaking, he is saying SJWs do not acknowledge gender bias in the legal system while insisting that the number of incarcerated black people is entirely due to bias. He does not seem to share their beliefs.
non-appliant wrote:
I was aware of that, it was actually my point. Social justice types tend to treat the racial sentencing gap as a massive example of how black folks are oppressed while either ignoring or finding apologetics for the gender sentencing gap. Why?
Because whites are the oppressor and blacks are oppressed, therefore any statistic that shows blacks getting a raw deal is evidence of oppression and thus right and true and valuable and needs no further explanation than the oppression narrative.
However, men are oppressors and women are oppressed, therefore any statistic that shows men getting a raw deal cannot be taken at face value. It’s probably a lie, and if not then it’s their own fault, or a side effect of men being monstrous and oppressive.
I could go on for days, with the Amber Heard/Johnny Depp stuff getting attention I could point out that the view that a significant number of women are abusive (and particularly that most abusive relationships are mutually abusive) dates back to shortly after the founding of the first women’s shelter in the UK and was an observation of the founder of that shelter (she even hit close to the percentage of mutually abusive relationships found in later research based on observing the number of women come to her shelter that were themselves violent). There were studies in the 70s by Straus, Gelles, and Steinmetz that found similarly, and just kind of get quietly ignored.
Schadrach wrote:
This is a strawman argument. It ignores a core tenet of feminism: equal treatment, and that would also mean equal sentences for men and women.
Also, this Brähmer coefficient does not make any sense. Apart from apparently not existing, i don’t think you can relate physical properties with… What even is a “personal core value”?
Wait what? Happy SJW? That’s an oxymoron…
SlugFiller wrote:
Am I supposed to know or care who James Pethokoukis is?
@ Tonks:
I’m thinking more like
3: Poking fun at the people who claim to be about justice who fight using tactics that only dig their purported opposition ‘s heels in, making things harder for the very people they claim to be fighting for with little to no actual benefit, make a spectacle of themselves in a way that damages the credibility of those actually fighting for equality, and then pat themselves on the back while calling anyone who calls them out on their BS bigots. See Nellis’s post. She put it better than I ever could.
@ KillerOh:
If you read a catalog of paraphilias (abnormal sexual attractions), you’d be surprised what turns some people on.
Cnup wrote:
Think about it this way: The mean distance to the next person that shares your ideology or religion. Basically, if you are an atheist in Europe, the distance might be 5 meters. If you are a Buddhist, it might be 2 km.
Of course, this Brähmer coefficient might change from country to country. Also, as you point out,
‘core values’ or ideologies are not clearly defined.
It could still be useful if you for example want to run a simulation how often a person might get in touch with people holding similar views.
@ Arent:
not only that, like in my original comment: is the scale, a linear one or a logarithmic one? is there a function for this, given the minimum distance?
also, this is good for studying societies as well. some obscure thoughts have really small average brahmer’s constant on their given commune. im talking about communes of sorts
@ Lodewijk:
Okay, but thanks to the ‘radical feminists’, ‘left-wing frminists,’ ‘vegan feminists’, ‘feminists … whatever’, the word ‘feminism’ is also an insult, at least for women who think for themselves same.
… wrote:
That’s pretty much it… people who are looking to drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator, versus trying to actually combat injustices.
Makes me wonder if they’ve ever read Harrison Bergeron.
Vandroiy wrote:
Yes. Anyone who insist that people should be given different treatment based on their race (or skin color) is BY DEFINITION racist. It doesn’t matter if it’s someone who didn’t noticed confederation lost the war or if it’s someone claiming to fight for oppressed people of color.
We may not be ready to just ignore race, but we should never forgot that THAT should be the goal. Only time skin color matters is when choosing sunscreen. Or I guess when programming face recognition for console games …
Cnup wrote:
Ever hear a saying to the effect of, “I love Christ, it’s too bad those that claim to worship him are nothing like him?” The same could be said of feminism – the claim is equality, but the practice is often very different.
To make reference to the domestic violence bit I kinda glossed over, the paper “Gender symmetry in partner violence: The evidence, the denial, and the implications for primary prevention and treatment”( https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Murray_Straus/publication/228350210_Gender_symmetry_in_partner_violence_The_evidence_the_denial_and_the_implications_for_primary_prevention_and_treatment/links/54ef34d60cf2432ba65626c4/Gender-symmetry-in-partner-violence-The-evidence-the-denial-and-the-implications-for-primary-prevention-and-treatment.pdf ). Note the about 1/6 of the paper is bout ways that gender symmetry in partner violence has been obscured, ignored, or avoided in the research.
For another example of not being all about equality, there are people that believe that in contested custody cases the judge should start from a position of equal custody unless there’s a good reason for it to be otherwise. Otherwise called a rebuttable presumption of shared custody. You know who the biggest opposition to that idea is in the US? NOW, the National Organization for Women, the largest feminist lobby group in the US. They call people who support a rebuttable presumption of shared custody the “abuser’s lobby”, under the bizarre belief that the only reason men would want significant custody of their children is to use it to have access to their ex, who they are obviously abusing.
Small question for Oliver: The term “SJW” especially used in pejorative and highly generalizing way it’s most often used by those who feel threatened by them, i.e. those who want to freely discriminate against minorities, propagate climate denialism and, generally speaking, promote an oppressive right-wing take over of politics and culture. My question is: is this the crowd you want to attract by echoing their lingo and disingenuously mocking people like the one in this strip?
I ask because your /webcomic/ is about a /female protagonist/ with a /raccoon/. If you haven’t realized how those elements tend to attract the kind of people you may label as “SJWs”, such as feminists, environmentalists, and sensitive art types, you may not realize that you may be ostracizing the biggest part of your audience with stuff like this. I mean, you’re free to have whatever opinions you may, but it’d be good to know your audience if you expect to profit from it.
This strip isn’t a fluke. Remember Dorothy Cambridge? She spent a whole storyline enacting Novil’s vision of an ‘SJW’. There was a dating advice strip, that said abusive men are blatantly obvious (and therefore women are idiots for dating them); But that abusive women are really hard to spot (and therefore men are innocent victims of their feminine wiles).
Writing these things off as simple jokes is no longer an option. We have to face facts: Novil has some really bad opinions.
Pylgrim wrote:
Adorac wrote:
All successful movies and books are ultraconservative. Lord of the rings, Harry Potter, Game of Thrones, Pride and Prejudice.
Sorry, guys, but your most beloved stories are a “right wing takeover of politics and culture”. Only that this “take over” of culture has been around for 2000 years 😉
@ Arent:
>Harry Potter
>ultraconservative
I take you haven’t seen published opinions by J.K. Rowling? She’s a bit much even for us progressives and “SJWs”.
As for the Lord of the Rings… I’m not sure. I mean it is white as hell and tinged with religiosity, but still, most of its themes resonate with left-wing values such as inclusivity, embracing of humility, love for the meek, accepting “otherness”, etc. Game of Thrones is a potpourri of all the positions in the political spectrum… Pride and Prejudice? Some flaws product of its era, but for its time, it was wildly feminist.
Pylgrim wrote:
It does not matter what Rowling tried to create. What she did create is an extremely conservative world. If that was not her actual intention, than she failed quite spectacularly 😉
Pylgrim wrote:
As for the Lord of the Rings… I’m not sure. I mean it is white as hell and tinged with religiosity, but still, most of its themes resonate with left-wing values such as inclusivity, embracing of humility, love for the meek, accepting “otherness”, etc. Game of Thrones is a potpourri of all the positions in the political spectrum… Pride and Prejudice? Some flaws product of its era, but for its time, it was wildly feminist.
Guys, there is nothing wrong with “white”, “black” or “asian” movies. There is also nothing wrong with “white”, “black” or “asian” countries. If you say such things that you can not accept the mere existence of “white” movies or “white” countries, then you are the one who obviously has ethnic prejudice and not the creators of these movies.
Now, Pressure Drag Coefficients are a different matter. Wasted too much time explaining to a model airplane enthusiast as to why the parabolic shape is aerodynamically superior to a rounded shape.
Pylgrim wrote:
Tolkien’s “racist, far right, white supremacist, Nazi” Christian values.
“Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love.”
“Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves.”
“When pride comes, then comes disgrace,
but with humility comes wisdom.”
“Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited.”
“Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will lift you up.”
“Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes. Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight.”
Yeah, Tolkien was totally a left wing Atheist Communist who wanted to wipe out whites to end racism and genocide.
A lot of people here seem to associate “Social Justice” specifically with identitarian politics, and maybe that is what they are attacking when they use “SJW” as a perjorative. But it was the social justice fight that stopped the most if us being wage-slaves (or even serfs!) in past centuries. The majority of us white, heterosexual men are just the group who “won” the first social justice fight (for the time being…)
The point of social justice as a concept is to try and move towards a just society. This must begin with recognising that societies are, to varying degrees, unjust – different people are treated differently according to factors beyond their own control. The largest, by far, (and thus the aspect of social justice that has the longest sociopolitical history) is wealth: in our ultra-liberal modern economies, poverty begets further poverty and wealth begets further wealth, and thst is viciously unjust. There are, of course, other inequalities – people treated differently because of their race, gender and the like, and from their the ideas of “intersectional” justice concerns.
It would be lovely to live in a world where – as I see already claimed in these comments – justice were equally applied to each individual. But at the the moment that is a proverbial pipe-dream.
What I can also see from the comments here is that – for all the alarm that this would provoke “SJWs”, the greater upset is *still* being displayed by the conservatives. Personally, I can sympathise with you, since nobody likes to be cast as a villain; but I feel it would be better to simply own that you think society either can not or should not be more fair, rather than pretending that it is.
I’m sure there are shrill shriekers among the social liberals, whose lack of social and/ or communication skills hurt their cause and give unnecessary insult to conservatives. But there are many, many such people on the conservative side as well – take, just for example, anybody using the term “butthurt SJWs”. Mostly, “social justice warriors” only get shouty when rallying for political change – just as they did when they won us the 8-hour work day! Most people who believe greater social justice is something to strive for, just as most who think society is fine as it is, are happy, well-adjusted souls.
Oh great, an SJW joke in 2020. I thought we’d evolved past that in 2016.
Threadnaught wrote:
There is quite big overlap between white supremacists and Christians which is clearly visible on their most important symbol: look at Christ as portrayed by Christians. How he looks? WHITE. How he actually looked? He was JEW. Google search for “how jesus really looked” to see the difference.
Now, I definitely don’t want to accuse Tolkien of being Nazi. There is some resemblance between Mordor and Nazi germany in fact. However, he was also product of his age, and looking at that age from today, there is definitely more “traditional” role of genders and some clear racial stereotypes …
Ilmari wrote:
There is nothing wrong about social justice, but calling yourself specifically Social Justice Warrior suggests you want to fight, not communicate, search for compromise, explain and enlighten … problem is that the time for actual fight is already over. There was time when only way women would get to be heard would be if they learned to fight and demanded justice with sword in hand. But that wouldn’t be helpful now and not because swords are obsolete as weapons.
@ TachyonCode:
Anyone who uses “Social Justice Warrior” unironically is already too broken by social programming to have a rational discussion.
“SJW”, like “politically correct”, is a boogeyman created by people who are REALLY MAD that some people, some times, occasionally point out they’re jerks and should not be jerks.
@ KillerOh:
Because the guy who’s sexually attracted to Uranus is sequestered way out there in the “cheap jokes that are just too far beneath us” section, along with John Wayne Bobbitt, Tonya Harding, and a rubber chicken.
Lol another comic that has aged poorly