SirBillybob

I thought you had it covered and with sufficient class, without the need of an external boost.🤷🏼‍♂️

Life’s too short … tick tock.

That’s insightful. However the problematic dips in negative bias attenuation we don’t like, apparent reversal of attitude gains, were very moderate for sexuality (10% range; negligible gain nullification) yet soared to the 100% deterioration range for other disenfranchised population categories. The point made by the researchers is that the small regressive dip over 3 years for sexuality deviated from theoretically prospective additional improvement that had been expected to extend, extrapolate, from the previous (2007 -> -> 2021-ish) enormous gains theretofore measured. That measurement is stacked against what would have been additional desirable improvement as it had been hoped that the trajectory would proceed to the notion that orientation is moot in terms of societal attitudinal bias. It’s a progressivism stall, albeit worth following. I’d have recommended that they rewrite and rename the op Ed as: American Ceiling Effects on Sexuality Attitudes, but then may have been relegated to the back page of the Palookaville Tribune.

OK, a surely viable option. Essentially similar to (b)? Have I got that right? How is (c) unique? You are succinct yet it may spur additional unpacking. What damage, though? And to whom of three main scene players? Or two? Let’s assume provider not at all in the loop about the connectivity, and no harmful cascade effect that way. The illustrative lesson for all punters is what stands … decouple personal content about a commercial sex worker (CSW) from identifying images he obviously would prefer not be plunked in to the narrative but that he himself posted in social media in a natural celebratory way due to a travel opportunity. He also does NOT advertise in any online public or paywall domain. —- Let’s also talk about actionable options for the guardrail-intentional member. Given (a) mapped out or (b) / (c) mapped out. As Karen, you have no event receipts specific to the guardrail action. Your board peer may have event receipts, none evidently in play. As Karen, your peer-trashing manoeuvres, given (a) having mapped out hypothetically, leave footprints. In contrast (b) / (c) not categorically ruled out but would suggest punctuation in dynamics.

Fun scene set up … You are: @triggerablekarenwithhaironfireoficial on Instagram as well as a gay travel board member and poster of experiences. You treat a provider to a transactional-inclusive trip; he is @naivelytrustingacompanhantegayforpay on Instagram. Your chatroom-posted trip diary includes gossip about provider’s hard life and occupational ambivalence, as well as holiday photos, none intended to harm or reveal. However, provider also innocently IG-posts same trip photos, unaware of the crossover, subsequently observed by other chatroom contributors following him, in the same CSW pool context, including actual physical body imagery common to your board posts as punter, that unambiguously delineates him as your (Karen’s) BF of the week. His punter’s follower/ following status also pops right up. Uh oh. One of those other chatroom members posts a brief caution alert for the member constituency at large regarding the risks of outing within today’s multi-media context … how easy it can be to unintentionally deposit content that is triangulated in such a way as to potentially compromise either side of the transaction and break anonymity. That member appends redacted content for illustrative emphasis: “ @t…………..l and @n………..y “, no images or ID-revealing ‘watermarks’, also having thought it through and deciding to post this messaging method over DM utilization options, in order for the collective to be privy to the lesson and it’s across-board application. No evidence that reverse image search had factored into the scenario but you perhaps cannot be certain about that and jump to conclusions. ——— As Karen, you: a) Dash overreactively screaming to management with accusations of stalking & doxxing, imputing to your hobby peer the worst of intentions in spite of risk commonality, flea the scene licking false wounds, making it your life mission to smear your board peer, whining about losing the prerogative and comfort of ever posting hobby material again? b) Accept the positively intentioned life lesson, no thanks required, trust or inquire about any further worrisome implications if any residual concerns, not unnecessarily fuelling antipathy towards your chatroom peer when none existed in the first place, and taking into consideration peer’s capacity to effectively take management admin to task over misplaced chastisement? [This is not at all an actual real life scenario specific to our board.]

And worrying, since most of us have vastly cleared that debt, owe no mo’ on the topic at hand.

The measures are quantitative changes by percent in continuous variable scores of Implicit Association Test, not percent population proportion changes on an arbitrary categorical binary. If an average score drops from, say, 100 to 25 and rebounds to 27.5 then the previous net change is nullified by merely 3%… no?. And that is constant from any randomly chosen baseline. These data are amenable to inferential parametric statistics … I don’t know if they did that … and grade of clinical significance predicated on what proportion of standard deviation is represented by score changes … did that? IDK. No hints in the abstract.

Can’t read the actual PDF preprint, 50 pages, as I would typically, and it keeps crashing out upon zooming in to charts. First time this problem; I download papers all the time. I would want to see the full temporal data compared to that excluding the latest period. Not just the pre /post comparison. The extended earlier period saw such a marked decrease in negative bias that the latest ratings may somewhat reflect statistical ‘regression to the central tendency’ artefacts. Expected upward and downward bias variation here and there over the full time could be obscured if baked in and could be extant equally or similarly to latest trends. 10% adjustment to 75% isn’t huge. Also, outlier scores either direction need to be analytically excluded to reconcile regression and younger age group collective bias scores may have been dragged negatively by a very small proportion of that age demographic. Again, I have to be able to view the data!! The devil is in the details.

(1) Compared to whom now? And whose disturbing tone deaf cringey eyeroll inducing blog field work essays appended on our chat board on local haggling in sex trade / sex tourism contexts and navigating / reporting MSM brothel experiences with arguably unfortunate favela exports in remote run-down prostitution venues? (2) What consultative process took place in which was greenlit the integration of his prostitution work history into his tour guide CV? IDK, some young folks might like it shaken off their persona? Hardly scrubbable now is it? Maybe he and his social radius folks’ll take the hit as just another toxic gringo-sourced speed bump on his laudable life improvement trajectory. LESSON: know whose wagon you hitch to and it’s toxicity grade. (3) Muddled … conflated with the aspirations of which particular occupations? Is commercial sex work, while blatantly achievable for basic survival, categorizable as an occupational dream for particular constituencies? —— Back on topic: What guardrails for favela tour guides and tour participants? Issue elaboration on request. How can one transcend the distastefulness of a product marketer and decouple from the type of filtering deficiency that exacerbates natural worry about outing and derogatory false narrative stimmed by incubatorial product collaborator dripping with faux altruism? I think it’s accurate to opine that this guy’s ouevre reads like the Wild West, stacked with sub-automatics, but boundaryless in your face anywhere. I should be able to just walk in unaccompanied to Vidigal, by all accounts, with less potentially risky consequences. Up to him to self-identify. I don’t care; not my game hand. Up to him to disabuse anybody of erroneous notions of who, why, where and what rodeos host him. Enjoy crossfire laddies (/s) NOT … friendly, hostile, id, ID, ego, superego, inflated ego, score goal, own goal, refereed, freestyle, catharctic … what have you. Vidigal reflexivities ‘r’ us. ~not brung to u by AI~

Deal, if I end up making it out, though I’m making out.😏

I’m gay but Canadian. Any insights on what age group or specific category, locale, or orientation of Americans or American adjacents I should be wary of in terms of direct toxic impact on me as an old queer? Full disclosure: essentially never in USA, but wonder where particularly it might be prudent to be less out.

Hugs! It’s off track. I had just posed a current thematic comparison. Won’t testify here. Is there another topic within which I might add? One where word limit enforcing trolls may be less lurking? This thread isn’t heavily truth-weighted. Truth precedes reconciliation. Always hitch your wagon to the former. Oops, tangential me.

Just what we need, fuel tossed on what some view an incendiary mess by someone channeling complete lack of awareness that a barely skinned onion worth exploring was actually delivered by a local frog that had some legs. It was a start. Care to add anything useful to the agenda of peeling back, other than thinly veiled mockery? Astute readers don’t need to be steered to the recognition that the ground zero starting point time mark of content criticism defies determination because the whole dynamic is circular and there exists no lack of reiteration. So that’s done and dusted, expect regularity. Then my input, then bated breath … what will drive it? Impulsivity? The wrong type or grade of emoticon buffet? Fat Fingers? Childhood? … Childish? An alliance proclamation? Muddled by exposure to multiple platforms? Lonely? Lazy? Pushing luck? Thought it the right heat temp to ease peeling? How is it that the anthros and kids put it? Microsystem micro aggression plopped into frog’s macrosystem analytical frame, ego-screened for chatroom visa authorization? But thanks for the obvious absence of AI footprints. Perhaps the thought incubation tanked, DOA. I guess I should add something about the favela. It is called Vidigal and close to the coast.

Back to the titled topic: A propos of the tour specificity and implications thus far would an old geezer sex tourist like moi super need to provide my ID for favela tour registration? I’m advised there are reasons to check guardrail infrastructure. Always be a step ahead. Seems any super uptake hesitancy on my part is now retroactively super exculpatory some years now. History is one second back. Super anonymity contingency manifesto SVP? Super included? Alternate pseudonymity super permitted with impunity, sim mockery? Rear view mirror super accessible? Well, showrunners? … Asking for the collective. Hunh? 🤷🏼‍♂️

Say who what where when why now !???! I’m super confused here, folks. My sources tell me that somebody of similar handle in a nonspecific location is rather super obsessed about pseudonymous data. Is this true or have I got it super wrong? I shouldn’t take all things at face value or as absolute truth. Could it be, after all, just a super backwards but well-intentioned attempt at census acquisition, super demomandering for tour marketing and security measures? How is this fringe activity imported into the tour registration ledger? Again, product monograph checks and balances please? Where are ID data banked? Who, after all, wishes a leg up for the favela and credit for it? So many IDs flying around.🤷🏼‍♂️

Appreciate the analysis. I think some (not me necessarily) might like it tightened up a bit. Boilerplate is also fine with me and I’m not going to grouse about word count. This reads like standard theory related to opinion and value difference; best practices for effective dispute resolution where consensus is elusive if not impossible. But fluently applied to some of the core contexts embedded in our chat forum. Here’s my boilerplate, for the record not AI filtered … I would say the thread is spicy and conflictual here at CoM. “Conversations” is not the word I would employ. Stellar moderator surveillance makes a huge difference. The criterion or threshold of “ugly” here at CoM wasn’t nearly met IMHO. If there’s “ugly” elsewhere it hasn’t been clearly outlined here and not everybody here is conjoined re: other platforms. Some confusion arises when content in one site is infused with normative reactivity to that of a different site. I’m not advocating for the impossibility of board mutual exclusivity, so we have to live with trying to figure out just what is being responded to. One of the ideas that I liked most is the notion that everybody has particular lines in the sand with respect to the themes, eg, values, guardrails summarized. These shift internally while also often deviating from others’. Huge variations in terms of degree to which perspectives are amenable to alteration and evolution. On such natural gradients of perspective, one’s position may come across as pearl-clutchingly hypocritical but isn’t, another’s as egregiously dismissive of locals’ wellbeing but isn’t. As you astutely suggest, these are grey areas. We read one another’s content but we cannot have much commonality related to what is actually noticed, consumed, and retained. We naturally construct impressions about how coherently presented the very values and principles you cogently summarized come across. All it takes is one or two others’ content to get one’s hackles up. This is exacerbated by inhospitable sparring that is usually superfluous to the values topic. It makes stepping back expedient to untangle one’s appraisal of another’s views, the degree that they cross a line by any reasonable standard, rarely but sometimes manifested, irrespective of the natural inclination to defensiveness and rigidity as opposed to self-reflection. Such lulls for processing usually eventually occur or fizzle out. Other topics are corpses with preservative lime perpetually shovelled on. Wash, rinse, repeat. That said, there are explicit examples of content that spur my own particular objection to material that may appear neutral superficially to most people but inadvertently reifies what has been internalized in judgement as questionable integrity, and … to such a degree that association and affiliation is unappealing. What is important is to choose one’s hills judiciously and accept that such spillover may seem ambiguous on paper. Often one can provide receipts, as the kid’s say, for one’s virtual seemingly almost wholesale rejection of a peer even if obviously you would help them out of a random jam for instance, but there are understandable checks and balances against castigating them and that wouldn’t influence their behaviour anyway. The imperative is to be concise in your own mind … openness to a recommendation for a particular açai loja is not the same as blind acceptance of their weighing in on the benefits of local support activities in one breath and in another breath strongly opinionated yet poorly analyzed bottom-line positioning on the microeconomics of local MSM trade negotiation accompanied by vivid explicit depictions of experiences drawn to buttress personally advantageous pricepoints. Just one example, and not specific to any individual. Subfinally, irrespective of profession there is no fiduciary responsibility to play nice with sustained troll harassment, particularly those that are not formal service recipients . Those constraints are applied uniformly for all members but according to the specific constructed regulations of a platform entity. The principle of standing one’s ground and rejecting flack and manipulation where appropriate has no less objective value than that of silence masked as promoting harmony. Being the change you want to see is fine in theory but has its limits particularly within a backdrop of anti-oppression self-efficacy. We operate according to behaviour, affect, sensation, imagery, cognition, and interpersonal dynamics. Happy sad angry anxious startled repelled. Messy. I have not solved the ills of social media. We won’t here.

But what about timing of truncated full meal payment for the amuse bouche course and wine appraisal splash given OP’s desire for mere frottage while basically indifferent to either coq amused by bouche? He seemed to not rub up against a fair deal even based on fixed prix. Apart from time compensation alone the the little treat’s a fitty granted.

Here’s a tangent that informs my perspective in relation to geo-locations similar in thrust as to visitor visibility and access related to other venues, as yet unlisted, points south. As an accredited, registered First Nations & Inuit Health provider and having participated extensively in Truth & Reconciliation, Indian Residential Schools abuse compensation testimony, and the like, I happen to also reside in a central Montreal area peppered with unhoused Aboriginal adults. The subgroup receives moderate infrastructure services. Many sleep on the sidewalks. One chap sadly froze to death in a porta-potty a few years back. Inhabitants watch out for one another but he fell into a supportive safety surveillance gap. There are tourism lodgings right there as well but that is not specifically pertinent to any one component of the blend of peoples populating the area. There is no formal curated tour but these folks like to chat a bit as it breaks the monotony of sitting on curbs between congregate dining offerings. I am happy to show around anybody interested. I think there are obvious parallels thematically. The nearby city mountain can be pretty. The area is relatively gentrified in the McGill Uni vicinity with decent grub/ snack options. I realize that this is not 'south of the USA' but that reference point is not how this sub-community conceptualizes sense of place. We would keep it 'low key', as the kids say. Coffee on me. Strip club tour not included.

Is Bangu’s Boate Casa Grande, RdeJ, with entertainment and MSM trade, in a favela or sufficiently adjacent, moderators, to justify not decoupling its implications for favela inhabitants while adding commentary on a piece that was written about it and entered within the public domain some time ago? Seems present-day day relevant, from what was intended to be an interesting anthropological or quasi-anthropological ‘field’ report perspective.

Thought-stimulating presentation by, I believe, Londoner in urban studies. Centric on favela males’ lived experience.

Fancy manipulating, dude. Thanks no thanks for the lecture. Do not try to “handle” me without an interpersonal visa and not expect reciprocity. Now let’s get to what is a dressing down as justified, perhaps no less impressive … If it comes down to dollars and cents and their obvious purchase power just inform me what would be a meaningful $$ donation to the cause and we can arrange it off-grid via DM. My disinclination to accept a tourism recommendation was not intended to starve any particular constituency of important resources but was related to an attempt, obviously futile, to deprive the influence-seeking person recommending it of oxygen in a way that spills over into the wellness-undermining activities that directly deleteriously impact one or more favela communities. Can’t you read? My admittedly short-hand take on the side of the narrative in which constituents are viewed as subject to exploitourism fit neatly at the time with the oppression I view as inherent within a peer’s approach to documenting in the public domain trade experiences with identifiable young naïve males. I appreciated the course correction but I expected you to be less thick and get it. Yes, it gets personal. You have yet to read the room comprehensively or know me. You’re a journalist so act like one and chase facts, not simply mic drop a superficial opinion based on your apparent inclination to self-aggrandizing. Be better, and concede that you are not necessarily the smartest and most approachable person in the room. You have no idea the flack I get for dissuading fellow punters from nickel-and-diming locals. I’m the guy who topples the economy by overpaying a dollar. Guess who exists as grandpoobah of skinflintery? And whose recommendations for brothels with CSW loading of the youngest and most socio-economically disadvantaged male trade I dismiss? So arrest or sue me for the unquantifiable financial collateral damage to MSM trade endured by my nonattendance. Now I have two separate jackass-sourced reasons to steer clear of Vidigal. If I were to contribute I would, however, require that you drill down into the extant available material that underpins my appraisal of a person whose behaviour I don’t like and whose ethics I reject. If your simplistic reductionist approach is that you two can ultimately get a room in your big-hearted open love-in world and braid each others hair then we’ll need to discount my offer, or connect me with somebody there in possession of the intelligence and grit to engage meaningfully … they needn’t be MA’d or D’d. Maybe they would have in common my lack of expectation to be compensated for my time. Welcome. Don’t get lost. Or get lost. We’ll see, non? Next.

In case anyone thinks it’s not established how odd and tasteless you are.

Thanks for the input. And that maybe you can read thoughtfully and with an actual attention span. It nudged the dial. Although I was not unaware of the expanded and interesting rhetoric you put forth. I also commenced my years of visits with family stays. Some of us are negatively predisposed to recommendations from punters who, within the same platform, neglect … compared to our guidelines … to adequately construct blog guardrails for young or vulnerable people who may not fully grasp the permanence of online sexual content, to which they “consent” where asymmetry of power turns documentation into commodification. In contrast to conventional ad platforms where subscription determines image shelf life, if they cannot opt out of blog review images, including anal sphincter photos, for example, on their own prerogative without middleman control I’m not going to buy in. The justification put forward so far is that people like sex (true ‘nuff) and the binary of commercial sex work legality need be the sole consideration. Not nuanced at all. What feels temporary and expedient for a socioeconomically disadvantaged Colombian or Brazilian at 18+ can become costly at 30 —>->, what have you. The ethics playbook of one agenda will inadvertently spill into perceptions of gringo exploitation in relation to the very context in which naïve young people are plucked for dehumanizing masked as erotic expression. Surely somebody as intelligent as you can understand. And we can both get, with personal histories of ‘pro bono’ community contribution, that the fantasy this fellow maintains about magnanimous advocacy and his gluttonous desire for influencer status recognition within the legit yet complex field of prostitution collapses under the weight of narcissism. But take a look yourself and you and your associates can draw your own conclusions. Beware the antagonism to which you may be subject should you fail to drink the Koolaid. If I were to tour Vidigal it would likely still be contaminated by the association. His contributions are that ubiquitous while often offputting. All I require is that I be right about it for me. People like him pushing promotion are doing you no favour; affiliating with him amounts to prostituting your psyche. I can compartmentalize certain aspects of a person but in this case the synthesis of two competing agendas amounting to zero sum of worth for your enclave is just too much to stomach. In this case cancel culture connotes a paradoxical rejection of exploring something that is possibly good because the wrong person endorsed it while setting it back. We don’t draw on specific contemporaneous political analogy here because it is usually inflammatory and superfluous anyway.

Thanks, but I’m not living under a rock, have been visiting long periods for over a decade, and Vidigal has always been comparatively advantaged by virtue of its proximity to wealthier areas. The “gentrification” has made it palatable for tourism but the trickle-down effect of subsequent benefit is not uniform and some categories of longterm residents may be displaced by property values soaring. Obviously some people benefit by the opportunity to provide tourists with the false proclamation that they actually have an experiential grasp of the reality of urban favela life. In this sense ‘favela’ becomes a misnomer. The superficiality of pretty tourism promotion is not a valid proxy for discounting the downsides of change. I merely presented an established summary of counterpoint that I only drew from entities far more equipped for critical appraisal on this topic than most of us. That and the reality that my career was predominantly centred among the vastly disenfranchised. Prolly nothing from the rank and file here to ‘learn’ me, though your interaction style is appreciated. Also not lost on me is the sense that low-paid underprivileged favela youth are favoured by a subcategory of punters visiting Rio. What might one expect other than minimal degrees of separation between justification for favela tourism and the defense of slinflint trade compensation that is purported to be of benefit given that, after all, resource acquisition is impoverished and what a boost is conferred when offering accessible for high- health risk sexual favours, including condomless bottoming within the “negotiated” choreography? It’s not just the what of the debate; it’s the who. 🤮

You lost me both at your explicit troll commentary and the type of activity window dressing that underpins a broader critique of the range of implications of Looky-Lou tourism. It’s up to the mods to categorize a poster’s content as befitting ‘troll’ categorization; they are the resident ‘something burgers’ in that domain. I think you’re new and there is hope that you can catch on.