Youtube comments of john (@Pistolita221).

  1. 142
  2. 102
  3. 94
  4. 92
  5. 86
  6. 72
  7. 57
  8. 49
  9. 42
  10. 41
  11. 41
  12. 40
  13. 37
  14. 35
  15. 26
  16. 26
  17. 23
  18. 22
  19. 22
  20. 22
  21. 20
  22. 20
  23. 19
  24. 18
  25. 18
  26. 17
  27. 17
  28. 17
  29. 16
  30. 16
  31. 14
  32. 13
  33. 13
  34. 13
  35. 13
  36. 13
  37. 13
  38. 12
  39. 12
  40. 12
  41. 12
  42. 12
  43. 12
  44. 12
  45. 11
  46. 11
  47. 11
  48. 11
  49. 11
  50. 11
  51. 10
  52. 10
  53. 10
  54. 10
  55. 10
  56. 10
  57. 10
  58. 10
  59. 9
  60. 9
  61. 9
  62. 9
  63. 9
  64. 9
  65. 9
  66. 9
  67. 9
  68. 9
  69. 8
  70. 8
  71. 8
  72. 8
  73. 8
  74. 8
  75. 8
  76. 8
  77. 7
  78. 7
  79. 7
  80. 7
  81. 7
  82. 7
  83. 7
  84. 7
  85. 7
  86. 7
  87. 7
  88. 6
  89. 6
  90. 6
  91. 6
  92. 6
  93. 6
  94. 6
  95. 6
  96. 6
  97. 6
  98. 6
  99. 6
  100. 6
  101. 6
  102. 6
  103. 6
  104. 6
  105. 6
  106. 6
  107. 6
  108. 5
  109. 5
  110. 5
  111. 5
  112. 5
  113. 5
  114. 5
  115. 5
  116.  @UnyonRing  The US is the one that initially built the grid? The feds fund the grid, through congress and everything. It's part of the budget, bunch of welfare queens if you ask me. Infrastructure has the right incentives when the government provides it, and the wrong incentives when private industry has control. Nobody competes for infrastructure, it's territorial for the most part. They have no competition, the legal duty to turn a profit, and a market that HAS to have their product. The government doesn't want to lose taxable hours to a faulty grid, but an energy provider? Just like everyone else, they're in the business of giving the minimum service for the maximum cost to the end user. Which works great for non-captive markets, of which there are many. The federal government is involved in grid expansion planning and funding, they enforce national standards, etc. they are intimately involved in all utility providers affairs. It's pretty disingenuous of you to claim the government can't do it, when they already are (doing it, the grid) with more paperwork so that the hydra Edison Electric can tax us all. The government can run infrastructure, they built the highways and rails and parts of the grid and telecom, IDK why you think more electricity would be so impossible. You know what's difficult? Making an actual hypersonic ASM, and the USA defense complex has groomed companies to produce them (a lot of research is done at military facilities and research at public universities). We can do it, it's about the political will to challenge Edison & Co.
    5
  117. 5
  118. 5
  119. 5
  120. 5
  121. 5
  122. 5
  123. 5
  124. 5
  125. 5
  126. 5
  127.  @bornkinggamer3347  Unfortunately institutional feminism has never been motivated by proper morality. (Institutional) Feminism has done a lot of good things, but it has always been headed by racist, classist WOMEN, many of whom were very spiteful towards men (they had valid experiences that led them to that) and have at best been ambivalent towards men and masculinity. There is nothing about political lesbianism that is interested in mens anything, definitionally. I am not saying that the rights feminism won was bad, it IS an enormous good, not only to women but society as a whole, as well as the cultural liberation that followed it. However, as good as it was, it still excludes men, which it necessarily had to. But let's not pretend feminism isn't a womens movement, and isn't at best ambivalent towards men & masculinity. There is something deeply disconnected if the movement claiming to be concerned with mens issues also regularly say "men are trash" and "kill all men". I would argue that those things, being concerned about mens wellbeing and claiming men are trash and kill all men, are mutually exclusive. You cannot be genuinely concerned for someone while also telling them they are unneeded trash, and they should die. I hope I'm not coming off too harsh, I do appreciate the gains feminism has made on behalf of women and I am not proposing going backwards in any way. At the same time, men who aren't in the top 5% are genuinely not doing well, in terms of mental health and it is genuinely ruining a lot of things, for everyone both directly in terms of lost production and funeral expenses, but also because emotionally dysfunctional people are the ones holding society back, they're the ones who are anti-everyone else's rights. Men with high emotional intelligence and who are well adjusted are not anti-anyone else's rights, typically. From my perspective, the biggest obstacle for most cultural issues (misogyny, religious&lgbt+ bigotry, specifically) is that people are persecuting them, because they're misunderstood. So education is the best way to fight bigotry, emotional intelligence specifically.
    5
  128. 5
  129. 4
  130. 4
  131. 4
  132. 4
  133. 4
  134. 4
  135. 4
  136. 4
  137. 4
  138. 4
  139. 4
  140. 4
  141. 4
  142. 4
  143. 4
  144. 4
  145. 4
  146. 4
  147. 4
  148. 4
  149. 4
  150. 4
  151. 4
  152.  @aleksandrs1422  Yes, Turkeye is a dictatorship Israel has a better reason to suspend their elections as long as it's temporary (TBD), as does Ukraine, obviously (much better reasons than Israel) Israel commits a lot of human rights violations, none of them are genocide, though. IDK enough about Hungary to know if they're a dictatorship. It's not a knock against the citizenry, it's an adjective to describe a nations government, not the people who live there. The USA (my country) is struggling to keep a dictator out of office right now. China our enemy and the Saudi's our quasi-allies are also dictatorships. There's been a resurgence in authoritarianism recently, I think technology created opportunities for authoritarianism creep into democracies. I consider the monarchs of Europe to be quasi-dictatorships or having authoritarian/dictatorial power since they usually have their own intelligence agencies/secret societies that function like agencies. That doesn't mean they people who live in those nations are evil, and they're not bad people for supporting their government, either. But do you really want me to believe that Putin, who assassinates his personal enemies, consolidated power for decades, and manipulates election results is not a dictator? Eh. It's not your fault the international community helped install authoritarians from the KGB to lead the new Russian federation, it's more Bush senior's fault, than most anyone else. Nothing was meant as a personal attack against you or the Russian peoples of the world, just trying to have a conversation about geopolitics.
    4
  153. 4
  154. 4
  155. 4
  156. 4
  157. 4
  158. 4
  159. 4
  160. 4
  161. 4
  162. 4
  163.  @jessicarichards8531  I know for a fact no matter what misandry I show you within feminism you'll just deny it's importance so I'm going to save everyone some time and only respond to your comment about suicide, because thou doth protest too much. It's not to convince you of anything, I know you hate men and therefor will never acknowledge what I've said is true, but hopefully you'll ruminate on it long enough to get something out of it. "If you're concerned about suicide, then you should know that the bullying suffered by trans people has led to the highest rates of suicide of any group within the US." As a ratio relative to their population, however if we're being honest and saying a life is a life, the group with the most suicides is men, and if you want to get more specific it's poor men. I think the general group of poor men is the most descriptive demographic without getting too specific and losing utility. Men are 3/4 of all suicides, so while yes trans are most likely as a demographic addressing their issues will solve less than 10% of the over-all problem, and will actually be overtaken by the increase in poor men's suicides within a decade of stopping ALL trans suicides. So I have to wonder, why would you make such a obviously bad-faith argument if you genuinely care about mens issue? I must believe your actions not your words, you LOVE to give lip service to the 'rare situations' where men are disadvantaged when it's convenient, but whenever you're told to ACT like it matters all of a sudden it's 'whataboutism group x' comes before you, so wait your turn. "and if you are actually concerned about that, then i'm with you, but not if you're using that as a political chip to try to win an argument." You see how you've just projected, using trans issues as a political chip to distract from mens issues? GTFO, suburban feminist (to use the term white feminism is to make it genetic essentialist, something I am opposed to) is cancer. We need a mens cultural liberation and your contempt for death does nothing but make me dislike you.
    4
  164.  @jessicarichards8531  " what feminists say is that everyone (including men, who are indeed people) have and should be allowed to express more emotions than anger, irritation and mirth." That is not what feminism has ever been focused on. Feminism has been a movement for rich white women to complain. And in the 2nd wave, they were very openly misandrists. Feminism has a hateful history, in spite of its positive advances for women. Failing to recognize the motivations of political lesbianism is to allow genetic essentialism to grow within your movement. "what leftists say is that we should prioritize the powerless before the powerful." Poor white males have less influence than rich white women. If you think rich white women need more aid, or that US male death of despair rats is 3x the global intimate partner murder rate are signs of a groups domination then you're lost in the sauce. You've traded material analysis for genetic essentialism, and in doing so become a red fascist. " if you reject those ideas, then that's your choice, but you aren't going to trick us into not understanding the obvious implication that you're siding with the toxic and powerful aspects of our culture." Yes, i'm siding with the all-mighty suicide victim. With the all powerful mocked SA victim. With the criminalized DV victim. I am decidedly looking out for the powerful, not the downtrodden Oprah or DeVos. Not the group dominating middle management and all of education. Yes, decidedly I've lost the plot, focusing on material conditions and problematic statistics, instead of your nuanced genetic essentialism. Pfft, you're not a lefty, you're blind like everyone else.
    4
  165. 4
  166. 4
  167. 4
  168. 4
  169. 4
  170. 4
  171. 4
  172. 4
  173. 4
  174. 3
  175. 3
  176. 3
  177. 3
  178. 3
  179. 3
  180. 3
  181. 3
  182.  @GarbageCanMaddie  "reads to me like cowboy was saying that women are privileged to be able to report their SA and be believed but men aren’t afforded the same privilege" Yes, that's more or less the gist. imo, it was more focused on his specific experience. I don't think it was a made up example, so (typically in my experience) the first time a SA victim comes out to you, it's not to make a larger narrative point. It's typically for some form of support or validation, something that no one on the panel did. That, imo is problematic and worth discussing separately from womens issues. "griffin is replying women experience SA more often so their stories are more likely to be validated by those around them" That's not at all what they said, they said not to suppress your experience BUT we're changing the topic to male on female SA, and btw that's why it happened to you. "You keep saying “at fault for the SA” but I think the focus is more on the patriarchy being at fault for his SA being invalidated by his coworkers" Griffin said men enforce the culture of SA to such a degree that even in this instance the monolith men is more at fault than the perpetrator. At no point did Griffin attempt to validate their experience, or condemn the perpetrator. If you can find Griffin saying something to the contrary, please quote and time stamp. On a tangentially related note, yes the hypersexualized expectation of men is a part of patriarchy and that's not good. And #MeToo isn't exclusive to male on female victims.
    3
  183.  @GarbageCanMaddie  If that were what was being discussed, you'd be right. And in the case of Terry Cruise that's more correct. But I personally wouldn't use identifiers that are linked to the victims identity if I'm trying to be supportive of the victim. That's not really what's being discussed in the video, though. How the survivor framed it was 'women get away with SA at a higher rate than women, and that's normalized and even defended.' @20:40 Don't believe me just watch. "I think it's good for women to expose men who are doing evil things in the work place, I think it's been a good thing in exposing SA, there's also the opposite side of the coin where women are allowed privilege to do certain things men are not. So in the work place, I was working at a place where a woman was grabbing me inappropriately, doing things that were inappropriate, and when you bring that up to your coworkers you know what they say? they laugh and they say 'you should be excited', right. So if a man is SA, the stigma totally changes." Griffin responed with "I don't think #MeToo is what prevented people from believing you and your story and like your story is valid, i'm not here to suppress that BUT I do think it's worth noting that women are far more likely to be victims of SA." Then Griffin went on to say "it was put in place by men it is enforced by men" Griffin makes a strawman out of his argument, claiming that he said #metoo was at fault for his SA, then he proceeds to refocus the issue on women instead of the survivor who just came out to a room full of strangers and a camera, and finishes by saying men are responsible for SA, even when women do it. Men enforced that woman to be a creep, yeah mkay thx grif for the support; at least Jordan Peterson would cry while he gaslights you, lmao. Not to defend JP, but to show how the left can be even less appealing under the right circumstances, to the right person.
    3
  184. 3
  185. 3
  186. 3
  187. 3
  188.  @swiftlylovestruck  Here's the transcript from @20:39 "I think it's good for women to expose men who are doing evil things in the work place, I think it's been a good thing in exposing SA, there's also the opposite side of the coin where women are allowed privilege to do certain things men are not. So in the work place, I was working at a place where a woman was grabbing me inappropriately, doing things that were inappropriate, and when you bring that up to your coworkers you know what they say? they laugh and they say 'you should be excited', right. So if a man is SA, the stigma totally changes." Note, Cowboy doesn't gender his co-workers. He doesn't blame #metoo, he says there are blind spots. Griffin responded with "I don't think #MeToo is what prevented people from believing you and your story and like your story is valid, i'm not here to suppress that BUT I do think it's worth noting that women are far more likely to be victims of SA." Then Griffin went on to say "it was put in place by men it is enforced by men" Griffin makes a strawman out of his argument, claiming that he said #metoo was at fault for his SA, then he proceeds to refocus the issue on women instead of the survivor who just came out to a room full of strangers and a camera, and finishes by saying men are responsible for SA, even when women do it. Men enforced that woman to be a creep, yeah mkay thx grif for the support; at least Jordan Peterson would cry while he gaslights you, lmao. Not to defend JP, but to show how the left can be even less appealing under the right circumstances, to the right person. This is why the Alt Right is no longer having trouble recruiting, because leftists have begun victim blaming white, mas, cis, het men. It's not appealing to them.
    3
  189. 3
  190. 3
  191. 3
  192. 3
  193. 3
  194. 3
  195. 3
  196. 3
  197. 3
  198. 3
  199. 3
  200. 3
  201. 3
  202. 3
  203. 3
  204. 3
  205. 3
  206. 3
  207. 3
  208. 3
  209. 3
  210. 3
  211. 3
  212. 3
  213. 3
  214. 3
  215. 3
  216. 3
  217. 3
  218. 3
  219. 3
  220. 3
  221. 3
  222. 3
  223. 3
  224. 3
  225. 3
  226. 3
  227. 3
  228. 3
  229. 3
  230. 3
  231. 3
  232. 3
  233. 3
  234. 3
  235. 3
  236. 3
  237. 3
  238. 3
  239. 3
  240. 3
  241. 3
  242. 3
  243. 3
  244. 3
  245. 3
  246. 3
  247. 3
  248. 3
  249. 3
  250. 3
  251. 3
  252. 3
  253. 3
  254.  @TheRealest215  "" Deaths of despair" meaning giving yourself the ax?" Deaths of despair are suicide, OD and alcohol caused. "If those statistics are soaring, then obviously something needs to be done to counter the effects of so many young men lost; but where does the nazism come in?" Exactly what Peter said, people who a re suffering look for comfort where they can find it. And the comfort the left offers is objectively better than the right. The left shows immense empathy and emotional intelligence, we can use that to help young men find positive ways to express themselves and find community, because even above relationships I think most of these young men are just looking for a community where they feel heard. I find a lot of people struggle with acknowledging the struggles of those who they think have more privilege, regardless of whether they're left or right. It just is more difficult to have empathy for the person with the metaphorical/perceived golden pillow, and while we shouldn't give up any principals, we also shouldn't allow ourselves to develop a blind spot. "What are the needs that these young men have specifically that needs to be addressed via a political agenda?" Boys test scores suffer more the less PE and recess they get relative to girls. Boys tend to need to get their wiggles out more often than girls before they can focus, so that's a political thing. We could also make the mental health conversation more gender neutral, and have ads that target both masculine and feminine types of people. Having fluid conversations about how their feeling, and trying to think "would I be more sympathetic if they were a girl?". For myself personally, I find that sometimes my bias is so deep I actually have to say the entire sentence with the genders flipped before I can see my own implicit bias. Just as an aside, in my opinion the man who best exemplifies my ideal 21st century masculinity is a guy by the name of Beau of the Fifth Column, he covers news and he's a white southerner who's also a radical leftist. 100% on board with radical feminists, trans rights, etc. but he still does some historically 'masculine' thing like disaster response, and he emphasizes that ALL help is essential in disaster response, from donations to over the phone organizers. I absolutely love his content, there were left wing channels that used to boost his videos because he's so effective at deradicalizing hard right people, comparing the police in african american communities to the ATF and the other alphabet boys relationships to rural communities. He points out the difference between police in cities, where they're unlikely to know the community they serve, and the sheriff of a small town where everybody knows everybody, so the sheriff is accountable to the community. He also delivers these topics in such a soothing way, it's in such stark contrast to national news networks. He also used to serve, so he has good military analysis. Beau of the Fifth Column, 10/10.
    3
  255. 3
  256. 3
  257. 3
  258. 3
  259. 3
  260. 3
  261. 3
  262. 3
  263. 3
  264. 3
  265. 3
  266. 3
  267. 3
  268. 3
  269. 3
  270. 3
  271. 3
  272. 3
  273. 3
  274. 3
  275. 2
  276. 2
  277. 2
  278. 2
  279. 2
  280. 2
  281. 2
  282. 2
  283. 2
  284. 2
  285. 2
  286. 2
  287. 2
  288. 2
  289. 2
  290. 2
  291. 2
  292. 2
  293. 2
  294. 2
  295. 2
  296. 2
  297. 2
  298. 2
  299. 2
  300. 2
  301. 2
  302. 2
  303. 2
  304. 2
  305. 2
  306. 2
  307. 2
  308. 2
  309. 2
  310. 2
  311. 2
  312. 2
  313. 2
  314. 2
  315. 2
  316.  @MrSmith-ik4bx  "So if women get away with more sexual violence (citation needed) it's because of the heterosexist bias that is pervasive amongst male dominated systems of policing, politics, and criminal justice." Citation: ProQuest 'The Gender Gap in Sex Offender Punishment' Again, I feel like you're missing my point. Griffin said none of that. Griffin said men enforce the culture of SA to such a degree that even in this instance the monolith men is more at fault than the perpetrator. At no point did Griffin attempt to validate their experience, or condemn the perpetrator. If you can find Griffin saying something to the contrary, please quote and time stamp. Script: @20:40 "I think it's good for women to expose men who are doing evil things in the work place, I think it's been a good thing in exposing SA, there's also the opposite side of the coin where women are allowed privilege to do certain things men are not. So in the work place, I was working at a place where a woman was grabbing me inappropriately, doing things that were inappropriate, and when you bring that up to your coworkers you know what they say? They laugh and they say 'you should be excited', right. So if a man is SA, the stigma totally changes." Griffin responded with "I don't think #MeToo is what prevented people from believing you and your story and like your story is valid, i'm not here to suppress that BUT I do think it's worth noting that women are far more likely to be victims of SA." Then Griffin went on to say "it was put in place by men it is enforced by men" Griffin makes a strawman out of his argument, claiming that he said #metoo was at fault for his SA, then he proceeds to refocus the issue on women instead of the survivor who just came out to a room full of strangers and a camera, and finishes by saying men are responsible for SA, even when women do it. Men enforced that woman to be a creep, that is another way to say what Griffins said.
    2
  317. 2
  318. 2
  319. 2
  320. 2
  321. 2
  322. 2
  323. 2
  324. 2
  325. 2
  326. 2
  327. 2
  328. 2
  329. 2
  330. 2
  331. 2
  332. 2
  333. 2
  334. 2
  335. 2
  336. 2
  337. 2
  338. 2
  339. 2
  340. 2
  341. 2
  342. 2
  343. 2
  344. 2
  345. 2
  346. 2
  347. 2
  348. 2
  349. 2
  350. 2
  351. 2
  352. 2
  353. 2
  354. 2
  355. 2
  356. 2
  357. 2
  358. 2
  359. 2
  360. 2
  361. 2
  362. 2
  363. 2
  364. 2
  365. 2
  366. 2
  367. 2
  368. 2
  369. 2
  370. 2
  371. 2
  372. 2
  373. 2
  374. 2
  375. 2
  376. 2
  377. 2
  378. 2
  379. 2
  380. 2
  381. 2
  382. 2
  383. 2
  384. 2
  385. 2
  386. 2
  387. 2
  388. 2
  389. 2
  390. 2
  391. 2
  392. 2
  393. 2
  394. 2
  395. 2
  396. 2
  397. 2
  398. 2
  399. 2
  400. 2
  401. 2
  402. 2
  403. 2
  404. 2
  405. 2
  406. 2
  407. 2
  408.  @JohnT.4321  "Socialism is when the workers collectively own the means of production" What about my end goal was not collective ownership? lmao. "The socialist government does not buy out the shareholders." Yes, they can. That is the most peaceful way to seize the means of production. How do you intend to take it from them, otherwise? With force? You're going to violently overthrow the US government? Good luck with that one, bruv. "It takes capitalist private property and nationalizes it." What about my plan didn't do this? Is it missing some Maoism or Leninism, to kill off the doctors? What plan do you even have which actively denies Marx's theory on the division of labor? Doctors are better at being doctors, they don't need to farm. "Power to the workers when they organize politically and economically." How do you plan to organize? Through what group do you intend to congregate under and to what SPECIFIC POLICY GOALS do you have? How do you expect to get them into law, be it this government or the new one once you overthrow the US military and intelligence apparatuses? How do you intend to organize in a way that doesn't allow the movement to be fractured and destroyed like the hippies, civil rights activists, punks, gangs, etc.? Assuming you can answer that, what's your battle plan to take the nation? What materials do you need, how long will it take, what are some primary objectives? Lmao, or is this 'glorious revolution' too real for you now? "That is the actual two edge sword to defeat capitalism." Ugh, I don't even think you have any concepts on how a post scarcity society would ACTUALLY function, let alone a totally command economy. Complete command economics is terrible. It has never worked and I really can't imagine it working, especially not jumping from Roman/English/American legal structure, skipping post scarcity, and going STRAIGHT to total command. No one knows how to do that equitably, and in the past it has lead to some of the worst authoritarianism in recent history. Try outlining some policy solutions instead of saying "that's not socialist enough", if you can. But I know a lot of trendy leftists think economics and logistics management is bourgeoise decadence.
    2
  409. Claiming it for the workers basically means the government buys out the shareholders and we elect the board of directors the way we elect senators, sort of. But it's better than a senator, cause we know what we vote on when we're electing the head of the US auto manufacturing industry, as opposed to senators who vote on EVERYTHING from social, to economic, to regulatory to foreign policy and it's luck of the draw who ends up on what committee. The system as it is is SO opaque it breeds corruption. We're not waging a war, and the only organization with the ability to manage and enforce this transfer is the federal government itself. Buy them out then sue them for crimes against humanity and c suite for treason. Clean it up correctly in a way that helps workers and instills faith in the justice system AVOIDING a violent transfer of power while still offering restorative justice ; we don't want things plunged into chaos by trying to create a new center of physical power. It starts with getting money out of elections, and we keep pushing for election reform until they're clean elections with incomes that pay enough they're incentivized to not risk employment (it's ridiculous to me that the most powerful politicians make pennies compared to CEO's based on their LEGAL income). Then we can start voting to delegate their powers away, once the elections are clean. We should probably push the big-tech anti-trust first, so we have better access to information and organization as a part of our preparation for governmental reform. But yeah, I really like the idea of getting rid of or seriously limiting congress and the senate's power, and having state ownership of anything considered a utility or infrastructure, and electing their board based on federal court districts (for national utilities like electric, telecom, interstate transit infrastructure, and big tech). And then IDK how I'd make the smaller districts for water, IDK if I'd change it, aren't water commissioners elected usually? State governments should reform similarly, the state does more than settle land disputes, lol. You don't grow your own medicine like they did back in the 1800's. Division of labor and all that.
    2
  410. 2
  411. 2
  412. 2
  413. 2
  414.  @MichelleHell  "Communism as a political ideology is about a fight against a global form of indebtedness to property" No, communism is the government controlling production, in practice. That CAN be good, but it can also be bad. Government intervention isn't INHERENTLY good, ask Native Americans or POC if the government's intervention has always had positive impacts on all citizens. "The same thing that happens locally, happens between nations, with regards to trade relations and debt." International trade is not comparable to interpersonal or regional trade. The amount of paper work, the way the agreement is reached, the on the ground physical representation of the trade, etc. all completely dissimilar. "Communists are working in an imperfect and hostile world, where people refuse to understand them and why they exist." Most communists, like most people are idiots. Big words to say nothing. They don't understand the logistics system, so they can't effect a material change. I am economically socialist/bordering communist and socially libertarian, but I can't stand identity politics and Hegelian dialectics. "How does Vietnam do a classless moneyless society when the US is bombing them and then sanctions them after the war unless they restructure their economy to be "crony" capitalist?" Capitalism is not the boogyman. It's oligarchy, not capitalism. Old school libertarians are for making trading partners not bombing brown people's 5,000 year old holy sites. It's OLIGARCHY, and they call themselves capitalists so rubes think they earned their money, and you're aiding that charade by calling them capitalists. THEY DID NOT WIN THE GAME THEY RIGGED IT. They sabotage competition with selective regulatory enforcement, get bailouts when they fail, get packages to update essential infrastructure, etc. It would be more capitalist for the USA's bailouts to have purchased the corpos they kept afloat. Actually THINK about what capitalisms definition is, and then think about all the government handouts for billionaires, and try to square that. It's a completely controlled economy. Why do you keep claiming they did something to get this money? They didn't even come up with the strategies!!! They are helpless toddlers, many literally in diapers. "How does the USSR do the same when the Nazis are targeting them?" Oh, so the USSR wasn't a TRUE communist nation, but the USA is a TRUE capitalist nation? Why make that distinction for one and not the other? "War is the means by which the moneyless globally are rendered into service to capital." Oligarchs, not capital. Capital is an object without consciousness, oligarchs manage the capital and means of production. "And war comes in the form of blockades through trade alliances too." ...you mean to tell me war can be fought through ECONOMIC MEANS? Waaah, far out. I'll have to tell the phoenicians circa 1,200BCE.
    2
  415.  @MichelleHell  "Financial games are the logical conclusion to capitalism" No, they are power games and they are ever-present in all groups above a certain size. " Capitalists operate" You're giving them too much credit, they didn't work for that money. They inherited it, they wish they were clever enough to earn that much money, make a new corporation, have a new idea, etc. but they don't, so they park their wealth in money management firms that hire actually intelligent working class people to make the money for them. 1/2 of these CEO's should have been out of a job in 2009, but they got a government hand-out. "Accumulation of property under capitalism is the accumulation of money," No, it's accumulation of wealth and power. It is not money, money is liquid, their wealth comes from securities, commodities and property which are a different asset class. Eat the rich, but know what you're eating. "The monied society has within it the bankrupted, who make up the moneyless aspect within." Wrong, the rich are a fatty tumor. They produce nothing, they invent nothing, they are worthless from a utilitarian perspective. They exist by our (the proletariat's) grace. They are a house cat, incapable of doing anything for themselves yet utterly convinced of their superiority. "As a result, we get the ideology of the moneyless people and their organizing efforts to attain freedom as bankrupted people within an indebted world order." It's a hall of mirrors, not a true battle. The issue is getting enough of the population to move as one long enough to get something done, not actually dethroning the monarch, or oligarch in this case. "Capitalism creates its antithesis when it enriches people AND when it bankrupts people." Any unmaintained socio-economic system will enable the worst to gravitate to positions of power. "The new thesis is socialism, where money is used for general public welfare, which includes various forms of trade and ownership models that are more broadly spread across the population." Socialism is not a silver bullet. If we allow unions to become the new oligarchies, they will do that. If we allow the government to become tyrannical because we're politically atomized and apathetic, the wicked will once again do what they always do, it's human nature not capitalism. Capitalism makes the best culture and luxury goods. We need socialism for inelastic demand, but some degree of capitalism for everything else.
    2
  416. 2
  417. 2
  418. 2
  419. 2
  420. 2
  421. 2
  422. 2
  423. 2
  424. 2
  425. 2
  426. 2
  427. 2
  428. 2
  429. 2
  430. 2
  431. 2
  432. 2
  433. 2
  434. 2
  435. 2
  436. 2
  437. 2
  438. 2
  439. 2
  440. 2
  441. 2
  442. 2
  443. 2
  444. 2
  445.  @silkyslapjaw5154  lol, ok I'm sure it scares the animal. I don't think animals emotions matter all that much. Only their physical well being. Are you aware of how long it takes a wolfpack to make a kill especially for larger animals like cattle? and important follow up, why it is necessary for predation to occur? Violent death is literally the ecological function of most herbivores. That doesn't mean we can or should hurt animals, it does mean that we, by virtue of a quick death are more merciful than what 90% of wild animals experience in their final few moments, and anything but physical harm for your meals is pretty alright as long as you take care of their other needs. "think of the bulls feelings!" I imagine bulls feel angry, horny and hungry mostly, lol. Not the complexities our brain to body ratio and prefrontal cortex afford us. You're entitled to your opinion, I just think #1 you're not achieving a goal, because food's emotions simply don't matter and #2 even if point #1 is conceded and the bulls feelings matter, I think the town's painless, less than a day long ceremony matters more than 1 cows 15 minute experience. Bull fighting is obviously bad and should be stopped, and I do love my pets like kids, but you really wanna talk about your hamburgers feelings? It seems absurd. "THIS TOWN IS BAD CAUSE THEY SCARE THE COWS!" I mean, do you hear how that sounds? Have you heard of cow tipping? Is that turrible animal abuse, too? I think you could make a case degrading your cat by making him chase a laser pointer is hurtful to their feelings, if we wanna to try and imply our reasoning to what COULD offend a party that can never properly communicate. There's all sorts of innocent intentioned actions that "could hurt the animals feelings" and it's simply a non sequitur because it winds up with imo a small imaginary box.
    2
  446. 2
  447. 2
  448. 2
  449. 2
  450. 2
  451. 2
  452. 2
  453. 2
  454. 2
  455. 2
  456. 2
  457. 2
  458. 2
  459. 2
  460. 2
  461. 2
  462. 2
  463. 2
  464. 2
  465. 2
  466. 2
  467. 2
  468.  @badluck5647  Yes, Ukraine won't have the same kind of close air support, but they've probably got some decent drones either doing surveillance, jamming, or actual air support. Russia has the Iranian Shahed 136 but Ukraine has the Turkic bayraktar, among other NATO drones. I don't think the F16 will do close air support, I think they'll be used to carry smart missiles close enough to fire at a target then dip bellow radar detection, to extend their current missiles range. That alone is a huge advantage, I don't think they'll want to risk direct dogfights, they'll probably try to stick to BVR shoot and scoot to protect their expensive new craft, get the most miles out of them. There's a DCS group called the Grim Reapers and they mod their aircraft to match the publicly available data on aircraft. They did some runs on the Kerch bridge with F16's and they can stay bellow the SAM net well enough to fire BVR smart missiles at the bridge, a few weeks before it was bombed the first time. Good sim data, to go along with Perun's OTG and logistical analysis. IDK about that, Russia has been using them since the beginning, and Ukraine has been asking for a while. The defense contractors can also ramp up production, I'd imagine. So many nations use NATO standard rounds, it's hard to imagine Ukraine could run out of ammo as long as they don't run out of support, because obviously the occupied country isn't producing anything themselves. IDK, I think between the instability in the USA, the refugee crisis in north africa and the middle east, and Russia aggression, the whole of NATO's top brass are looking to become more self-sufficient in terms of protection. I feel like they want to push russia back, and I would imagine ally with Ukraine, with the eventual goal of getting Ukraine in the Schengen zone so Europe has access to Ukraine's fresh water and agricultural resources, as heatwaves rock western europe from north africa.
    2
  469. 2
  470. 2
  471. 2
  472. 2
  473. 2
  474.  @aleksandrs1422  That is an important distinction, between a tyrant and a dictatorship, that is especially lacking in the west; El Salvador has raised the question to a few here, though. I agree with you about Israel, completely. Their aggression is going to put the only Jewish state in existential danger, because Syria and Lebanon will use swarm attacks to wear down defense before they send in the real damage. I think Israel will survive regardless, but it will be a painful lesson to the Israeli people that these wars are on their border, not half a world away like Iraq was to the USA, and also unhelpful in Israel building relations with their neighbors. I think, because of the Russian disinformation that has hurt Western democracies (which survive on unbiased information to elect quality representatives), all Democracies have to treat russia (the government) as an adversary to some degree, at the very least keeping a close eye on the media and especially the internet. Not a hot war, more like the cold war. If we can keep Russian influence out, they'll feel less confident in taking any sort of military action, which will hopefully prevent wars and be even more peaceful than the cold war, with upwards of 80% legitimate targets being seized/removed, since it'll be server rooms getting raided not vietnam being invaded. Much, much better than any previous conflict, but it will be difficult for democracies to deal with, because companies want to make money, regardless of where it comes from, and dictatorships have absolute control so they can easily censor our disinformation, or easier than we can censor theirs. It's the biggest advantage to authoritarianism especially in todays world, imo. If Russia were to not interfere in western elections, then there's no reason the NATO nations and the Russian Federation can't be friends, but that is not todays situation. I wouldn't be surprised if NATO instigated it, but regardless this is where we are, sadly.
    2
  475. 2
  476. 2
  477. 2
  478. 2
  479. 2
  480. 2
  481. 2
  482. 2
  483. 2
  484. 2
  485. 2
  486. 2
  487. 2
  488. 2
  489.  @menin84  I agree with you about pharmaceutical companies, I think at least 1 pharmaceutical company should be nationalized in every nation, that way there is a generic option that's produced with the purpose of keeping people healthy for cheap. That would increase the tax base, by increasing how many people are healthy workers. Corporations in markets where people die without access to service need a nationalized option, where the board of directors are elected by the people. Representatives were never meant to regulate domestic business transactions, only foreign policy and domestic land rights. We need to separate those powers, into a new, democratically elected branch of government so we know what we're voting for. I think one of the biggest issues in politics. "In Mexico, this might be a drug cartel. Couple a merger of the government plus media in bed with it, and you can effectively control a large segment of public opinion. Preferably, the ones upholding the facade of a democracy rather than demanding real change or alternatives." This is so true!! I have seen this sort of thing in the USA, I know how connected they are. They're at my local airport, too. In suits and stuff. I hope someone does get to expose what's happening, but honestly most of it is too insane to believe if you're not already informed. AI could be helpful, but I really like "the division of power and elected representatives" I think we haven't gone far enough with it, anywhere in the world. Stalin was not elected, no one was elected in the USSR, and I don't want a fully state run economy, but probably around 20-30%, and they should be elected. Information about the candidates and election should be broadcast by an independent federal agency, without any sponsors or donations to the broadcasters, organizers, candidates or affiliates. And the board members need to be paid enough they don't want to risk getting caught and losing their post, which would be north of a million annually. It's still cheaper than modern campaigning. And after your 3rd term, the minimum % for being re-elected should increase by 10%, and then 5% every time they run for re-election until we reach 75% approval. Make them work for US! Let us know what we're voting for!
    2
  490. 2
  491. 2
  492. 2
  493. 2
  494. 2
  495. 2
  496. 2
  497. 2
  498. 2
  499. 2
  500. 2
  501. 2
  502. Communism takes government intervention too far. Governance is a balancing act. What rules HAVE to be enforced, how should the verdicts be applied, etc. What outcomes do these regulations achieve? We need things with in-elastic demand to be rice-regulated, but things with elastic demand should be left as much to the market as can be safely achieved (ecological and human costs weighed vs societal gain). Whatifalthist didn't read any communist lit for this video, he's fighting a strawman to validate his positions on the free market. If the founding fathers wrote the constitution today, we'd be electing the board of directors of the utility companies we use, and standardizing tech coms so that companies had to compete on individual products value added, instead of locking people into an ecosystem. Communism is generally too much intervention/too close to anarchy to work in the era of nation-states, but we DO need government intervention in price fixing, and less government intervention in starting a corporation, so we have more competitors driving down leisure goods pricing, while the government ensures nobody starves or dies of exposure in the age of abundance, as well as ensuring we don't allow a few rich people to poison the people and planet for short-term profit. Unlearning Econ is a great socialist YT channel, so is KnowingBetter. I like Contrapoints view on things, generally too. She's more social democrat than socialist, but she's a VERY effective communicator and VERY well educated. Beau of the Fifth column is great, secular talk is good, ehh.. there are more. But those are who spring to mind first.
    2
  503. 2
  504. 2
  505. 2
  506. 2
  507. 2
  508. 2
  509. 2
  510. 2
  511. 2
  512. 2
  513. 2
  514. 2
  515. 2
  516. 2
  517. 2
  518. 2
  519. 2
  520. 2
  521. 2
  522. 2
  523. 2
  524. 2
  525. 2
  526. 2
  527. 2
  528. 2
  529. 2
  530. 2
  531. 2
  532. 2
  533. 2
  534. 2
  535. 2
  536. 2
  537. 2
  538. 2
  539. 2
  540. 2
  541. 2
  542. 2
  543. 2
  544. 2
  545. 2
  546. 2
  547. 2
  548. "Guys have spaces in our left-leaning groups, if that weren't the case, I'd have zero male friends." What? You said I have black friends, how am I racist? Well, for starters that defense is so weak it's legitimately unsettling. "I can't stand this new rhetoric...These lonely men need to grow up." They can't, they die too young from suicide, alcohol and OD. But if they weren't killing themselves at the highest rate of any developed nation per capita, then you'd have some great advice. I might try to work on the delivery, typically people in a mental crisis so great their lives are at risk don't respond well to such forceful rhetoric. "What I'm hearing is this, a bunch of men now have to face the consequence of what happens when ostracized groups finally get enough of an upper hand to set standards and boundaries. They're lonely because they refuse to meet women and other groups where they are as we progress." This has big 'you already got your rights quit complainin' energy to me. "They're lonely because they're taking something so personal rather than reflecting and supporting what the ostracized say." You're just femesplaining mens issues, and it's ick. Don't tell me about the empathy gap and I won't tell you about the wage gap. "Women have had to endure a lot worse while being accountable for their own actions and feelings." You can say a lot about the mistreatment of women, but you can't say women were made to be responsible for themselves. It was literally illegal to dress better than your wife in public in the 1800's. That means the man was LEGALLY responsible for taking care of his woman. A gross concept for sure, but responsibility for anything? No. Definitely not. And african americans suffered more than women, if you want to get into the oppression olympics. IDK why issues can't just be issues, though. Almost like you're intentionally trying to minimize others suffering because you don't view them or their experience or something like that as valid. Again, big ick. "Men can do it too." Yes, and we have to force women to respect this changing dynamic just like how feminists forced men to change. Or did you think feminists changed things without interacting with men? "Go make yourself included." That's not how inclusion works, and you know this. You're just trying to belittle and gaslight the issue until you can put it to bed. " Recruitment on the other side is not on us, it's on them." You're right, the right wing is responsible for their own success, that doesn't need explaining. However the left is responsible for completely failing to appeal to this enormous demographic. "Blaming liberals, lefists, and progressives for "listless" men is so typical of a patriarchal system." Actually, it's antithetical to patriarchy. They're saying women do things and they're responsible for the effect of their actions. That's 100% feminist, it's just not the aspects of liberation feminists wanted. Because feminism is a deepely problematic movement, from its inception it was founded on classism and racism, and by the 1970's the 2nd wave feminists were openly man haters, modern feminists have more emotionally intelligent language to say the same things though, the attitude has never changed. Why is it feminists never talk about the fact that female sex criminals get less time in prison, lower conviction rates, less time on parole and the registry? That is objectively sexist policy, institutionalized acceptance of SA, an issue feminists claim to care about. Why isn't this ever mentioned? Could it be indicative of a larger issue within feminism that's been allowed to grow and fester for over a century? Certainly not, I'm just a bigot, clearly. I didn't even use the term intersectional ONCE. "You don't get to be tempted by the evil side and then go, "but if only we were included, we wouldn't be racist fascists."" Did you even watch the video? That's not who they were talking about. And that's not what attracts most of these young men. But go ahead, keep helping the Oath Keepers recruit, see where that gets us. We have to take the moral high ground, this tit for tat comparing oppression BS will kill everyone in a civil war. We are all workers, we are all in the same class that will be automated out of subsistence in 50 years. WAKE UP, Bezos and democrats are a greater threat to you and your family than poor farmers in nebraska. Start acting like it. Socialism is about class consciousness.
    2
  549. 2
  550. 2
  551. 2
  552. 2
  553. 2
  554. 2
  555. 2
  556. 2
  557. 2
  558. 2
  559. 2
  560. 2
  561. 2
  562. 2
  563. 2
  564. 2
  565. 2
  566. 2
  567. 2
  568. 2
  569. 2
  570. 2
  571. 2
  572. 2
  573. 2
  574. 2
  575. 2
  576. 2
  577. 2
  578. 2
  579. 2
  580. 2
  581. 2
  582. 2
  583. 2
  584. 2
  585. 2
  586. 2
  587. 2
  588.  @mackayladavis4021  "Those are all things that enable you to improve your quality of life without the expense of someone else" IKR, shocking isn't it? Men don't need to be war pigs, and, this just in: rapping isn't the cure for depression! Some really nuanced deep dives going on. "But if you frame male singlehood as a "problem", you imply that women owe single men their bodies or relationships" No, that's just not true. Not how those words work. It may be implied depending on YOUR presumptions, but that is not what that sentence means. Believe it or not, women aren't the center in this issue. At least, not their disinterest in most men. "No one owes single men anything." I like how you pretend to care but really just keep complaining about how you think men are pigs. Like, if you don't care be honest, admit you'd rather see 1/16 or more men die than treat their needs with the dignity and respect you offer to most women you meet. "Single men can be helped by therapy and helping them find ways to be productive and happy without a relationship." Why was there all this presumption and hostility before addressing the problem? Do you expect to get anywhere with at risk people with that attitude? "And what do you mean by "everyone has to give something"?" Money, via taxes/and time. And reevaluating the gender dynamics with the understanding of male disposability. In order to radically reshape how a culture treats a population, you have to critically evaluate the fabric of the culture to make sure you didn't overlook normalized but still dangerous behavior. "Are you saying that women should be forced to date men against their will?" Even if i cared that little about my mother and sister, what makes you think forcing women to pretend to like men they don't like will make anyone happier? i'm trying to have a serious conversation, I don't want answers that are bad faith. And you can't tell me you assumed that in good faith.
    2
  589. 2
  590. 2
  591. 2
  592. 1
  593. 1
  594. 1
  595. 1
  596. 1
  597. 1
  598. 1
  599. 1
  600. 1
  601. 1
  602. 1
  603. 1
  604. 1
  605. 1
  606. 1
  607. 1
  608. 1
  609. 1
  610. 1
  611. 1
  612. 1
  613. 1
  614. 1
  615. 1
  616. 1
  617. 1
  618. 1
  619. 1
  620. 1
  621. 1
  622. 1
  623. 1
  624. 1
  625. 1
  626. 1
  627. 1
  628. 1
  629. 1
  630. 1
  631. 1
  632. 1
  633. 1
  634. 1
  635. 1
  636. 1
  637. 1
  638. 1
  639. 1
  640. 1
  641. 1
  642. 1
  643. 1
  644. 1
  645. 1
  646. 1
  647. 1
  648. 1
  649. 1
  650. 1
  651. 1
  652. 1
  653. 1
  654. 1
  655. 1
  656. 1
  657. 1
  658. 1
  659. 1
  660. 1
  661. 1
  662. 1
  663. 1
  664. 1
  665. 1
  666. 1
  667. 1
  668. 1
  669. 1
  670. 1
  671. 1
  672. 1
  673. 1
  674. 1
  675. 1
  676. 1
  677. 1
  678. 1
  679. 1
  680. 1
  681. 1
  682. 1
  683. 1
  684. 1
  685. 1
  686.  @noneed-z1m  " So, have no diversity on a topic that requires obvious diversity" I said accurately represent the public, you're trying to make a strawman. Don't be simple, you'll get embarrassed. "Also, no, they're not 70-80%, not even close." 61% is close to 70% in my book. "They just brought what most feminists be onto the panel, lower than the average IQ people lol I have yet to come across a single, actually, fair minded and almost intelligent feminist." I believe you meant 'they just brought your average feminist onto the panel'. I have met intelligent feminists, not many fair ones, though. "Ya'll" Quite the assumption there. I'm not unequivocally supporting you so I must be with Big Red? Lmao. "can't even see how much equity you have caused over the years." I think you meant equality not equity. I agree, and if you actually look at the history of feminism, it's always been based in bigotry. It started as a reaction by wealthy white women against the emancipation and civil rights of african americans, and morphed into a classist, sexist juggernaut over the next 100 years. I'm aware. "You said beliefs and feelings," No I didn't, quote me if i'm lying. "You FEEL on issues." Yes, hunger and exposure are issues with political fixes that are physical experiences, you do indeed feel them. "I'm still waiting to see some fair equality." Me too, I've been talking about male suicide and isolation for over a decade. "Please tell me you are one of the rare ones." I don't call myself a feminist so I can't be one of the good feminists, though I do support the dictionary definition of feminism (egalitarianism) I'm not tied to labels so when I see radicals ruin a label it means nothing to me, because I'm concerned with ideas and actions not labels.
    1
  687. 1
  688. 1
  689. 1
  690.  @imaniketo  No, he didn't. He didn't even say my co-workers so you could have plausible deniability, he said your coworkers. And because I know you won't believe that female predators get less time, lower convictions and less parole and time on the registry, I'll give you the title of a peer reviewed study for you to check yourself. ProQuest: 'The Gender Gap in Sex Offender Punishment' Script: @20:40 "I think it's good for women to expose men who are doing evil things in the work place, I think it's been a good thing in exposing SA, there's also the opposite side of the coin where women are allowed privilege to do certain things men are not. So in the work place, I was working at a place where a woman was grabbing me inappropriately, doing things that were inappropriate, and when you bring that up to your coworkers you know what they say? They laugh and they say 'you should be excited', right. So if a man is SA, the stigma totally changes." Griffin responded with "I don't think #MeToo is what prevented people from believing you and your story and like your story is valid, i'm not here to suppress that BUT I do think it's worth noting that women are far more likely to be victims of SA." Then Griffin went on to say "it was put in place by men it is enforced by men" and that's all griffin said in the video about Cowboy's SA. Griffin makes a strawman out of his argument, claiming that he said #metoo was at fault for his SA, then Griffin proceeds to refocus the issue on women instead of the survivor who just came out to a room full of strangers and a camera, and finishes by saying men are responsible for SA, even when women do it. Men enforced that woman to be a creep, that is another way to say what Griffins said.
    1
  691. 1
  692. 1
  693. 1
  694. 1
  695. 1
  696. 1
  697. 1
  698. 1
  699. 1
  700. 1
  701. 1
  702. 1
  703. 1
  704. 1
  705. 1
  706. 1
  707. 1
  708. 1
  709. 1
  710. 1
  711. 1
  712. 1
  713. 1
  714. 1
  715. 1
  716. 1
  717. 1
  718. 1
  719. 1
  720. 1
  721. 1
  722. 1
  723. 1
  724. 1
  725. 1
  726.  @techblogger8323  "I think your take on this is being a bit obtuse and naive to the culture of our society at large;" No, that's you. Women are responsible for the crimes they commit. Any conversation about a wider cultural narrative when discussing the crime a woman commits is being obtuse. " you’re not acknowledging the domino effects of the patriarchal ideology in society and how this plays into male SA victims feeling like they should be excited" You're not using the term domino effect correctly, or not representing reality correctly. This sounds like the circumstantial excuse. IDC what life dealt you in order to get you to commit a crime, barring some very extenuating circumstances. SA is not excusable because of 'the effect culture had on her'. "(which was said to him by other males)" Timestamp the quite, he said co-workers. Are you implying women aren't allowed outside the kitchen? I highly doubt there was just 1 woman he worked with. And imo people are responsible more as individuals than as a genetic demographic. I know leftists HATE that notion when in reference to men but hey, I don't make exceptions; all genetic essentialism is the same in my eyes. "instead of recognition of the wrongdoing" How much time have you spent recognizing the female sex offenders wrong doing in this story? From where I'm sitting it seems like you're obsessing over how culture shaped the situation and how other people's reaction (specifically men) is inappropriate, without once condemning the actual S offender. But I'd love for you to prove me wrong in your next response.
    1
  727. 1
  728.  @MrSmith-ik4bx  I appreciate that you dropped the female sex offenders debate, but why can't you recognize that? I'm SURE it's not implicit bias, cause you're a leftist so you're beyond self-reflection, unlike me the leftist who likes to reflect. "To say that Griffin was victim blaming while in the same sentence quoting that they said "your story is valid" doesn't make any sense." What was the NEXT word out of Griffins mouth? He said "I'm not racist BUT 13/50". " It is not victim blaming to point out that the dominant group to which you belong is victimizing you because his coworkers ridiculed him for complaining about unwanted sexual advances from a woman." See there you go again excusing the womans actions and imagining he said his co-workers were male. The bad guy in this situation is the woman being a creep more so than the people who aren't believing the victim. You know SA is worse than victim blaming, criminally and socially, right (even when it's women being SA and men not believing, it's the woman more in the wrong). For all you know he could be the only man at the office. You're just making assumptions to defend Griffin's indefensible takes. "What Griffin was responding to in reference to #MeToo was the statement the cowboy made about women being allowed to act out as sexual predators in ways that men cannot." It's true though, there are studies on it and everything. Female SP's are less likely to get a conviction, when they do they get less time in prison, on parole, and on the registry. All the way through women have an easier time as SP's in the court system. ""It was put in place by men, and enforced by men," the "it" in question being patriarchy. "Oh, when did someone say patriarchy in this discussion? From what the 4 guys who had something to say in this exchange, the primary subject was men not patriarchy, so your excuse is paper thin and I am still rejecting it. IK, you don't care about male victims of SA when women are the perpetrators, just admit that and move on with your life. It's the normative position, no one is going to be upset with you, except MRA's and other adjacent people who nobody respects anyways. "This is a complete and separate statement from the previous conversation about the Cowboy's experience in the workplace." No, they were definitely still talking about Cowboy's SA. That's a MF, joke, right? Try watching from the timestamp I have you earlier (@20:39) and tell me when the subject changed. "There's nothing in what Griffin said that makes men responsible for acts of SA perpetrated by women and I think you know that given how you strung these quotes together." How I strung quotes together? You left out the operative word in Griffin's first sentence; BUT. I really like what you made me BUT. I really don't wanna be a sexist BUT, I don't mean to be mean BUT, I don't mean to be racist BUT, why is the only instance where it's acceptable to say 'I believe X but' when talking about male victims of SA? God you're as adept as a Tater-tot at identifying SA. Go ahead, show me a quote that exonerates griffin. Quit debating the definition and use of words when I KNOW you're just being disingenuous, because as a leftist you'd NEVER accept that same sentence having the genders flipped. Not in a million years, so the only reason you'd deny it and refuse to offer quotes is because you know you're just defending bigotry and SA, but those things can't happen to men according to your world view. Prove me wrong, offer better quotes and timestamps if my argument is so paper thin. "You just used a straw man argument to claim Griffin was making one." A lot of talk for no quotes. Do you think I've already forgot what griffin said after I typed it out and rewatched it over 5 times? Jesus christ, you're thick AF.
    1
  729. 1
  730. 1
  731. 1
  732. 1
  733. 1
  734. 1
  735. 1
  736. 1
  737. 1
  738. 1
  739. 1
  740. 1
  741. 1
  742. 1
  743. 1
  744. 1
  745. 1
  746. 1
  747. 1
  748. 1
  749. 1
  750. 1
  751. 1
  752. 1
  753. 1
  754. 1
  755. 1
  756. 1
  757. 1
  758. 1
  759. 1
  760. 1
  761. 1
  762. 1
  763. 1
  764. 1
  765. 1
  766. 1
  767. 1
  768. 1
  769. 1
  770. 1
  771. 1
  772. 1
  773. 1
  774. 1
  775. 1
  776. 1
  777. 1
  778. 1
  779. 1
  780. 1
  781. 1
  782. 1
  783. 1
  784. 1
  785. 1
  786. 1
  787. 1
  788. 1
  789. 1
  790. 1
  791. 1
  792.  @laurataylor9950  " I would say first off, do better and do some research." Oh, tell me about all the huge successes of the mens liberation movement if I'm just uneducated, lol. "Don't think you've ever had it worse compared to women's experiences." I'll think and say what I like don't try to femsplain my experience. "Women have been having movements long before the 1970's." Yes, but the cultural liberation didn't begin properly until the 1970's. It was focused on legal issues before then. You'd know that if you actually card about these issues. "And did the bulk of labor when some men decided to start a world war, twice." What about meeee? It isn't fair! "Men have ultimately been on top of the food chain and have had control of women for far too long, this is proven statistically." You say that like Bezos and King Charles have my best interests at heart, lol. Judging from your presumptive attitude I bet you're a rich white woman, which is a pretty posh place to be, from where I'm sitting. " Did you know that women were called "dependents" on census forms for a long time?" 😂😂For a long time? Yeah I'll do the research. "Yet we still can't walk on the streets safely or even talk to a man without him assuming he wants something more." maybe all the HS classmates you've talked to, but I can assure you I have absolutely NO romantic or physical interest, so I suppose you could say I'm your first in that respect, lmfao. Come on, you know that this sort of genetic essentialism is what makes TERF's, SWERF's and political lesbians. Men aren't inherently anything, neither are women. Isn't that the point of feminism, not fearing men? " I would love to see men that were more vulnerable and open and honest about their feelings." That's a joke, right? All I said was men could use a cultural liberation, and you start screaming about how women were treated in the antebellum south. Do you really think that's the kind of support that leads to people feeling safe enough to be emotionally vulnerable? Of course you don't, you wanted to validate your experience at my expense and shut down any conversation about broader societies responsibility in upholding gender norms. " There is nothing wrong with that, it is the best! But its comments like this that is just so exhausting. Research some history before you reply to me again." And what's that I smell? the curdled stench of a condescending teen. You seem smart get educated and budget your time better than this. Have a blessed day.
    1
  793. 1
  794. 1
  795. 1
  796. 1
  797. 1
  798. 1
  799. 1
  800. 1
  801. 1
  802. 1
  803. 1
  804.  @amythyrstchryseum2141  "Men are the benefactors of the gains of both systems." Would you rather play the lottery or work a job? Women are a minority of CEO's, they're also a minority of homeless. So it's not "men are the benefactors" it's "0.01% are benefactors". "Women have not, and have been completely victimized with no gains." Queen elizabeth has seen NO GAINS under the hierarchy she lived within? LMFAO. "We can't even decide what happens to our bodies," Are you aware of how many fatalities and disfigurements happen due to circumcision? And the laws around mens reproductive rights? Reproductive rights are a mess. The system doesn't work for anyone. "Fields that women are dominant in are considered lesser (nursing, teaching, administrative ects) or even "low skill"." That's not the absolute bottom, but yes it exists. It doesn't kill anywhere near close to 180k people per year though. "So while toxic masculinity hurts men too, it is simply not comparable to the thousands of years it has been (and still is) wielded against women." Why bring up society from a thousand years ago? You don't know anything about history pre colonization. There have been queens, empresses and female pharoahs for basically as long as there have been kings. And the queen has always been held in high esteem, just because the queen doesn't rule doesn't mean she had no influence. There have even been women controlling the pope and therefor the catholic church. Women haven't been held down nearly as much as you've been lead to believe, or at least it wasn't unique. Do you think it was a privilege to be a male peasant and be conscripted or die in a muddy field or mine as a slave to the lord? Come on. "So yeah, men have the higher responsibility to challenge it and dismantle it." If what you said earlier were true, this would be true, too. but it's not. "It's about Equity not sameness." Yeah, and women helped build the world. Women who raise their children, female teachers who shape them, as well, have NO responsibility for the last 2 generations of nervous wrecks? It was the people who were out of the house/not in the classroom who did everything? Or MAYBE there are other metrics for influence within a nation besides money?!
    1
  805. 1
  806. 1
  807. 1
  808. 1
  809. 1
  810. 1
  811. 1
  812. 1
  813. 1
  814. 1
  815. 1
  816. 1
  817. 1
  818. 1
  819. 1
  820. 1
  821. 1
  822. 1
  823. 1
  824. 1
  825. 1
  826. 1
  827. 1
  828. 1
  829. 1
  830. 1
  831. 1
  832. 1
  833. 1
  834. 1
  835. 1
  836. 1
  837. 1
  838. 1
  839.  @Scotty-P  "Well, why should any 'panel' in (what is supposed to be, or one would presume to be) a majority White country not be mostly White?" Because under a free market the corporation can do what it likes and you can sukit unless you have the cash to challenge viacom or whoever owns VICE. "Or, is it just that Vice (their bias being already blatantly obvious, really) just keen on having less Whites/more non-Whites on their 'panels'?" Much like the tootsie pop, the world may never know. "Methinks you'd probably otherwise be the type who'd 'laugh' if someone describes the U.S (or any other Western nation) as being White, because of "diversity" and "because it's not the 50's anymore"." Don't make assumptions about me. I don't think the USA has an ethnicity. US white people aren't really white, and white isn't really an ethnicity, not even within america. White culture is very different between Nola and Miami, where's your cut off for latino people being considered white? Benjamin Franklin didn't consider Germans to be white, lol. France can follow most of their lineage back to Franks who have over 2,000 years of written history. Iranians are descendants of the Persian Empires, which have cultural history dating back more than 2x that of the franks. Chinese have been in china for 5000 years of recorded history for over 2000 years known as the Chinese. So America is a beast of no nation, unlike anywhere else on the planet. Don't like it? Leave. "Also, there's the 'demographic change/ "changing face of America" line we hear trotted out." America's face has always been changing. "So, really, you're aggressively back peddling so as to try and make what clearly is happening seem as though it isn't. " Where is the harm in people with melanin existing around you? If you're so worried about a population collapse of the US and the rise of China then we need more immigrants to bolster the labor market. Immigrant labor is ideal, we don't spend the money to raise or educate them, and then they come add value to our nation.
    1
  840. 1
  841. 1
  842. 1
  843. 1
  844. 1
  845. 1
  846. 1
  847. 1
  848. 1
  849. 1
  850. 1
  851. 1
  852. 1
  853. 1
  854. 1
  855. 1
  856. 1
  857. 1
  858. 1
  859. 1
  860. 1
  861. 1
  862. 1
  863. 1
  864. 1
  865. 1
  866. 1
  867. 1
  868. 1
  869. 1
  870. 1
  871. 1
  872. 1
  873. 1
  874. 1
  875. 1
  876. 1
  877. 1
  878. 1
  879. 1
  880. 1
  881. 1
  882. 1
  883. 1
  884. 1
  885. 1
  886. 1
  887. 1
  888. 1
  889. 1
  890. 1
  891. 1
  892. 1
  893. 1
  894. 1
  895. 1
  896. 1
  897. 1
  898.  @unknownandunheard  "But who ruined all that?" Humans, or ecology take your pick. Gender roles were decide before we were humans, but gender, being down stream of consciousness can be reshaped. "Who enslaved both men and women just to crown themselves" Royal families? China, Egypt, England, France the Vatican, Babylon, etc. etc. have all had female rulers. Were they inherently less violent? Nope. So while it has usually been men at the helm, it's disingenuous to claim all women were victims and all men got a hand in deciding it. Very, very few people consciously choose how society functions at scale. " leaving the modern day woman to compete on the Bachelors for a meathhead, who gets paid to be a professional chad?" lmao, professional chad? "It doesn't erase the fact that men don't use physical violence to intimidate their fellow men and women." IDK if anyone's told you this before, but this holier than thou finger wagging isn't convincing anyone new, it just signals to people who already agree that you're on the same team. "The number one pandemic of the modern world (and ancient times when humans were used as cattle and abused as slaves) is physical violence." It's actually malaria. A plurality, and almost a majority of pre-vaccine deaths. "Who does that?" Everyone. "Who is most capable of that since time immemorial?" People who train for it, or people with the most social influence, people with weapons. "My point is, why aren't men rebelling against this use of strength and violence to achieve their aims?" Because "men" isn't singular? There are BILLIONS of men. You know who's prevented the most violence? Men; men like Gandi and MLK. But they don't count, right? Cause they go against your 4y/o level overly simplified explanation?
    1
  899. 1
  900. 1
  901. 1
  902. 1
  903. 1
  904. 1
  905. 1
  906. 1
  907. 1
  908. 1
  909.  @215juliusgirl  "while you’re explaining selection bias to me like I didn’t take 8 sociology courses" Then why did you pretend to miss when I said andre's experience is due in part to 'selection bias'? You were talking like I claimed everyone under a certain age was a certain way. I never said anything remotely close to an absolute, I specifically started off that paragraph with the phrase SELECTION BIAS. So, because you pretended to not know, I felt it was necessary to explain it to you, because you sounded ignorant. If you want to avoid that in the future, read what I wrote more carefully, or otherwise demonstrate you know what I'm talking about. "I was actually talking about your saying that most women want a guy to be empathetic towards them but are apathetic in return. I think a lot of that has to do with, like you said, the type of person you are attracting." Yeah, it does. But like a abuse victim having selection bias for abusers doesn't mean the abuser isn't at fault, Andre choosing bad dates doesn't mean manipulation for financial gain is something good people do. Does that make sense? It's very nuanced, the victim can and should do better but the perp is still at fault and responsible for their own behavior. So while I'm not saying it's common, I am saying it's bad and the people who do it are PERSONALLY responsible. Not all people from the closest demographic, JUST the people who do the problematic behavior. Again, nuance. I hope you don't miss part of this, otherwise I'll explain it again, but in simpler terms. "However, not all exercise is at the gym and not everyone that exercises regularly and eats healthy will lose weight." When did I talk about weightloss? Lmao. "I do yoga as well as I can, I take walks, I swim in the summer, I play kickball and also use 20 lb weights and the nautilus at my gym" Good for you. Do you think I'm trying to criticize you? I'm just saying whatever level of exercise you can safely do is generally good for your physical and even mental wellbeing. Why is this such an offensive concept to you? IDC about your BMI, it means nothing. IDC about your blood pressure, heart-rate, BFP, etc. all I'm saying is that exercise is good if you don't over-do it. Do you think something about that is debatable? "What you still need to learn" That's a little condescending, isn't it? "every situation that you think you have figured out, for every belief you hold, the reason you (or any of us) can hold fast to that belief is because we refuse to see the shades of gray." Where was I lacking nuance in this discussion? Where did I give an absolute? Are you ESL? Did you read my comments? "Unfortunately some people - me - live in that gray and therefore make other people very uncomfortable." I would argue I live in more of a gray than you. I am poor, mixed POC, physically fit, cit, het, tall, generally considered aesthetically pleasing, neurodivergent (dyslexia, dysgraphia, very high emotional intelligence with inconsistent emotional expression, probably also have DID, definitely have SAD which displays as anhedonia). Ironically while I'm poor my father is a religious leader for his religion for the state (9 million people in the state) so I have social status without economic status. The opposites pile up with me. The list of contradictions and places I don't belong but somehow fit is very, very long. I'm also a leftist who has an appreciation/respect for capitalism, which I could explain but it's its own unique political philosophy, so much nuance it would require pages to explain and you still wouldn't get it because it'd be the first time this was explained to you, and radical leftists/tankies rarely get it the first time its explained to them, cause they have too much dogma and not enough material and systemic analysis. "But there’s always the ones that will surprise you and understand and believe that you can get better, that you can get off of these medications and, yes, unfortunately, pay some of your bills." When did I tell anyone to get off their meds or that they're going to immediately improve? When did I say anything about taxes? lol. You're boxing your shadow not something I said.
    1
  910.  @215juliusgirl  "Also, I don't think Roosevelt was buff anywaya and that's quo I was talking about, yes?" it probably was, but i didn't know that, and it wasn't timestamped. I'm also not talking about getting buff, I'm talking about taking care of yourself. Exercise should be like washing your hands, for your health more than for your appearance. I don't like bodybuilding competitions, because it's not what athletics are about. "It is impossible to have a productive discussion when someone accuses you of acting a way you have never acted just because of your sex." I didn't say anything about you. I said that andre has selection bias. Selection bias is when you choose something because of an unconscious behavior pattern that leads to preference. I'm saying Andre (and probably me) have an unconscious behavior pattern that leads to these types of dates, and that these kinds of dates are more common than women tell each other, cause why would you tell someone you intentionally took advantage of someone else? "Or assumes that because the majority of girls under 25 in their lives act a certain way, that is how most women act/feel." I don't think it's a majority of women/girls. And it is usually born out of economic pressure, it gets more and more expensive to go out or even just eat every day. imo, the behavior is just opportunistic which is something all humans and animals do, but the opportunity is unique to passing women in human society (passing, as in including trans, but let's just call people people). But I do agree that it is something younger people do, and as people age and become financially stable & independent as they progress in their careers, this behavior out of necessity ends. There are some bad-faith people, though who keep doing this into their later years with less and less success. But it is a tapering minority with age. "As for you being shamed for showing joy, excitement, etc was this a woman who made you feel this way or society? Because if it was a societal thing, don't look at me, not living in a matriarchy." Since I was mostly raised by my mom at home, and female teachers in school I'd say it was in large part under womens control. Yes, the boys helped enforce it, but the teachers have the authority to stop it. I had a female teacher tell me to literally "get bullied less so I don't have to deal with this". I kid you not. I've been kicked and spat on by women and they got 0 punishment, and I knew if they hurt their ankle kicking me I"D get in trouble (it was a unique school). But society is not just about economic power. Social influence is also key, and women hold A LOT of social power. All arts are considered feminine, even if some fields are still male dominated. And especially in social interactions, a womans opinion matters more than a mans unless he's paying for everyone. That's not to say it's easy or women rule the world, but women aren't helpless or lacking influence.
    1
  911. "The guy talking about working out cracks me up. Some people are just not athletic. Some people are born without the use of their legs or with degenerative diseases or are in car wrecks." IDK how being in a wheel chair means you can't work out. There are VERY strong people in wheel chairs, who exercise and are athletes. And, even if you're not trying to be an athlete, the TRUE discipline you build (not emotional masking) by consistently exercising is also VERY good for you. It helps reduce stress and depression, but especially stress. You literally metabolize the hormone for stress. And then there's all the PHYSICAL health benefits. So while it's important to not overdo exercise, or get lost in glamor muscles, it is not good advice to say "exercise isn't important". "The guy who said that the bad first dates he has are when he talks about his problems and his past issues so women can’t have it both ways: do they want him to be emotional or not?" I think because of his selection bias, he found women who want him to emotionally support him, but not ask for support in return. That's what I'm finding, there are a lot of women who want an emotionally intelligent man who can listen/validate and problem solve, but don't want to do the same for him. At best, they want to hear his problems and assume by admitting them once, they'll disappear and she can be celebrated for being 'progressive and supportive' without actually putting in any work. Or worse yet, sometimes it will be used as ammunition in an argument, or spread around after a break up. It's not all women by any means, but it's more common than women think it is for sure. It's also not as common as ...andre? says it is, but still. "Men seem to forget thar joy, excitement, awe, hilarity, seriousness, empathy, sensuousness are all emotions. Emotions are not just fear and sadness" It's not forgotten, it's trained. Imagine if every time you showed joy, hilarity, excitement, or vulnerability 10-100% of everyone shamed you for it repeatedly, and no one stepped in to defend you for your whole life. Would you have a normal, healthy relationship with those aspects of yourself, or would you disassociate to protect yourself, if you couldn't escape it?
    1
  912. 1
  913. 1
  914. 1
  915. 1
  916. 1
  917. 1
  918. 1
  919. 1
  920. 1
  921. 1
  922. 1
  923. 1
  924. 1
  925. 1
  926. 1
  927. 1
  928. 1
  929. 1
  930. 1
  931. 1
  932. 1
  933. 1
  934. 1
  935. 1
  936.  @JMAstrology  I appreciate your tone and understanding, while I'm unlikely to change my mind I do respect your opinion. Hopefully if I explain myself well enough you'll at least be able to understand where I'm coming from. "I believe men in power see men without power as expendable (i.e. soldiers fighting in wars they start). They see women and girls whom they exploit, through trafficking (allegedly) and other means, as expendable as well." Trafficking is split 60/40 with more girls than boys but it's almost gender neutral, unless you group all prostitution as trafficking. "I don’t believe in an oppression Olympics. I do not intend to minimize the suffering of men, collectively or personally." TY, I hope you don't get think I'm saying women had it easier or that feminism hasn't done good. "That said, women historically have been forced into dependence on men through limits placed on their independence. The money making ability of women has been limited by men in power." That's true, things were EXTREMELY different pre-WW. I am going to explain how (as someone who's studied ecology for 20 years) ecology shaped our culture. This is not to romanticize the past, it was entirely bad with no good guys on any side by todays standards. It was born out of necessity, and only served because the conditions and our ability to manipulate material/energy, which is today factors of magnitude beyond the systems the old norms were built around. While men had 'more choices' pretty much all of those choices lead to grizzly premature death. If I had to choose for myself, I'd rather be the wife of a 19th century miner than the miner. Human living conditions were so terrible across the board we had to live more like animals than beings with the ability to self-actualize. Wars were necessitated out of ecological carrying capacity. Within that context of no self-actualization and just doing your best to survive, females have a higher value and are therefor protected by doing the domestic duties, which when you include child-birth mortalities, averages to the same level of risk as men took on. Today, things are radically different and we shouldn't go backwards, but to say it was a system set up to have a preferred class beyond aristocracy is dubious, life was short and filled with senseless violence for everyone. It is good women have bene liberated, but men have not in any meaningful way. The best and easiest example is how women in suites or pants is so much more acceptable than a man presenting fem. We as a society have not separated the people from the performance of masculinity, and certainly haven't done that long enough to evaluate it's true form and function, not anything like what's been done for women (which was/is good and necessary). "The same men who send other men to war." Exactly, those men and women who send men to war are the problem, from their cultural standards to their geopolitical decisions. And we need to remove them from their seat of power, not to replace them with women but with democracy. I personally would rather have a white CRT professor work on reparations than an Uncle Tom. I would rather have Bernie weighing in on abortion than Amy Coney Barrette, because to me governance's primary focus to the detriment of all else is outcome, not identity or optics. There's probably close to half a million preventable deaths in the USA every year and the US government is the only institution with the authority and incentive structure to address it. "Women also face a differing sexual standard regardless of class, and are valued for not having sex, while men are in many circles valued for having more sex." This stereotype is only positive for those who want to be a 'frick boi'. It's not a fulfilling lifestyle, from what I've seen of it IRL. These stereotypes only suit a handful of men. Women already had their cultural liberation, nobody is surprised by pant-suits or log cabin lesbians, so I can't say women have the same narrow island of acceptability. "It seems a limit placed on the pleasure women are allowed to have more so than how much sex they have." I really don't think slut shaming is that common, or gendered. I've been slut shamed plenty. And I remember feeling ENORMOUS pressure to lose my virginity, and feeling like there's something wrong with me because I hadn't yet. Once I had, it wasn't happening 'enough' according to my peers. I know this is very common for other boys and men, too. This isn't a problematic steraotype though, it's liberating? I don't think so. "The queen upheld a great deal of standards that kept current systems in place. I don’t believe women as a whole benefited from her reign. A woman in power individually does not always advocate and create power for women collectively" First wave feminism coincides with Queen Victoria and 2nd and the beginning of 3rd wave feminism were openly supported by Lizzy the 2nd. This is actually another reason I think feminism is a flawed movement, it has so many ties to monarchy, and when you realize that, the TERF's, SWERF's, misandrists, and GirlBoss crap makes SO much more sense. Queen Elizabeth the 2nd actually hand picked a bunch of celebrities in the 70's 80's and 90's to lead feminism, so it's arguable monarchist, or at least argues for things towards those ends. Feminism needs to be watched, because there really aren't a lot of rights women don't have, and the main one in america was taken away BY A WOMAN, getting more women on doesn't matter, it's the ideology because government is about outcome not identity. "a lot of these men illustrate, an inability to act in ways considered feminine causes a lot of damage. To be blind to the reality that femininity is not seen as equally valuable (financially, emotionally, socially, etc.) to masculinity is damaging." This upper-crust has an entirely different culture than ours, we are not the same. The oligarchs SA their kids and treat family like business partners from a very early age. It's very weird, but to claim they represent you or I is absurd. The only human things we share are the XY and English, but not even the same kind of english. They dislike our culture, they dislike us. It is a classist system. Even those oligarchs prefer their own low class oligarch women to proletariat men, because the dominant force is class. Sexism isn't primarily enforced by us, it's enforced by oligarchs. They're the ones with universal power, not the block 'men'. It's a con the crown developed to keep us chasing our tail. " I don’t feel the need to call them patriarchal; hegemonic works too." FANTASTIC! Cause from what I can gather, we're mostly mad at the same people for the same things, it's just this identity stuff that causes division. I clearly struggle with it too. "Also, it could be said that more of a respect of attributes contributed to women and femininity such as peace, compassion, and empathy could lead to greater collective opposition to war and thus less war." I agree with this, too. The reason I don't like the idea that female rulers are less violent is #1 that's not historically true. And #2 I perceive it as genetic essentialist to say x result is guaranteed by y group, all people are different. There's nothing inherent in a woman, but there is something inherent in femininity. I think feminine men would be less likely to go to war, I don't think that's inherent to women, because femininity isn't inherent to all women, just like masculinity isn't inherent to all males or only males.
    1
  937. 1
  938. 1
  939. 1
  940. 1
  941. 1
  942. 1
  943. 1
  944. 1
  945. 1
  946. 1
  947. 1
  948. 1
  949. 1
  950. 1
  951. 1
  952. 1
  953. 1
  954. 1
  955. 1
  956. 1
  957. 1
  958. 1
  959. 1
  960. 1
  961. 1
  962. 1
  963. 1
  964. 1
  965. 1
  966. 1
  967. 1
  968. 1
  969. 1
  970. 1
  971. 1
  972. 1
  973. 1
  974. 1
  975. 1
  976. 1
  977. 1
  978. 1
  979. 1
  980. 1
  981. 1
  982. 1
  983. 1
  984. 1
  985. 1
  986. 1
  987. 1
  988. 1
  989. 1
  990. 1
  991. 1
  992. 1
  993. 1
  994. 1
  995. 1
  996. 1
  997. 1
  998. 1
  999. no, no, feminism is about doing all the same chivalrous stuff women liked, AND giving them all the privileges that enabled you to be the provider (which is good, if not for the chivalrous expectations), AND being emotionally intelligent in a supportive way that's not reciprocal except to congratulate them on how supportive they are, PLUS social grants for universities, etc. to make sure they're still on "equal footing" with men. Cause bezos AND king charles are men. Forget about Queen Lizzy and Bezos's ex-wife, the wealthiest woman in america. Women are the victims, Ghislaine Maxwell was FORCED to do it by epstein! and Amber Heard was the real victim, how could johnny put her in a position where she HAD to cut off his finger (IF that even happened)? And please, for the love of god no one bring up the death of despair rate, killing more men alone than strokes since the before 2019, or the work related fatalities rate. Especially don't bring up how 3/4 of the homeless are men or the thousands of years old social construct of male disposability! That's just personal choice! Nothing WE can do, it's all their fault, they did it to themselves because they failed us (should have done the work, ever read bell hooks [w/o the capitals]?). So don't mention it again. I am being inflammatory, exaggerating and facetious, but it's got more than a crenel of truth. It is highlighting the worst aspects of both institutional and proletariat feminism, though. Not at all charitable. But also warranted. The receipts are uglier than the jokes, though.
    1
  1000. 1
  1001. 1
  1002. 1
  1003. 1
  1004. 1
  1005. 1
  1006. 1
  1007. 1
  1008. 1
  1009. 1
  1010. 1
  1011. 1
  1012. 1
  1013. 1
  1014. 1
  1015. 1
  1016. 1
  1017. 1
  1018. 1
  1019. 1
  1020. 1
  1021. 1
  1022. 1
  1023. 1
  1024. 1
  1025. 1
  1026. 1
  1027. 1
  1028. 1
  1029. 1
  1030. 1
  1031. 1
  1032. 1
  1033. 1
  1034. 1
  1035. 1
  1036. 1
  1037. 1
  1038. 1
  1039. 1
  1040. 1
  1041. 1
  1042. 1
  1043. 1
  1044. 1
  1045. 1
  1046. 1
  1047. 1
  1048. 1
  1049. 1
  1050. 1
  1051. 1
  1052. 1
  1053. 1
  1054. 1
  1055. 1
  1056. 1
  1057. 1
  1058. 1
  1059. 1
  1060. 1
  1061. 1
  1062. 1
  1063. 1
  1064. 1
  1065. 1
  1066. 1
  1067. 1
  1068. 1
  1069. 1
  1070. 1
  1071. 1
  1072. 1
  1073. 1
  1074. 1
  1075. 1
  1076. 1
  1077. 1
  1078. 1
  1079. 1
  1080. 1
  1081. 1
  1082. 1
  1083. 1
  1084. 1
  1085. 1
  1086. 1
  1087. 1
  1088. 1
  1089. 1
  1090. 1
  1091. 1
  1092. 1
  1093. 1
  1094. 1
  1095. 1
  1096. 1
  1097. 1
  1098. 1
  1099. 1
  1100. 1
  1101. 1
  1102. 1
  1103. 1
  1104. 1
  1105. 1
  1106. 1
  1107. 1
  1108. 1
  1109. 1
  1110. 1
  1111. 1
  1112. 1
  1113. 1
  1114. 1
  1115. 1
  1116. 1
  1117. 1
  1118. 1
  1119. 1
  1120. 1
  1121. 1
  1122. 1
  1123. 1
  1124. 1
  1125. 1
  1126. 1
  1127. 1
  1128. 1
  1129. 1
  1130. 1
  1131. 1
  1132. 1
  1133. 1
  1134. 1
  1135. 1
  1136. 1
  1137. 1
  1138. 1
  1139. 1
  1140. 1
  1141. 1
  1142. 1
  1143. 1
  1144. 1
  1145. 1
  1146. 1
  1147. 1
  1148. Well, it sort of is. I accept that you have to break eggs to make omelets, and if you want to be THE omelet man for the whole world (et al Bretton Woods) then you have to break the most eggs, but my concern is what is this omelet going to be, and who is going to be served? It doesn't seem like it's to serve everyone. And yes, most government employees and agents are decent people, but there is a distinct minority of VERY vile people, and then tend to end up in the more influential positions. Also, the private public partnership is what birthed the deep state, it could not exist without private research, boots, espionage, data manipulation, etc. so imo realistically, the biggest issues today are caused by a minority of government officials and a minority (but more than in government, I'd like to think) of people with generational money and power, generals like Lafayette, and the Hessians, and money/high society types like George Mason University and the bad bny of NYC, BNY Mellon fam. Also, I get why operation paperclip had to happen, but we REAALLY bungled how they were handled. NASA offices speaking German? Are you kidding me? They didn't think that could go wrong? They knew it would and didn't care, cause the oligarchs are more racist than the general population. US oligarchs taught the Germans how to set up shop, via debt peonage and prison labor death camps. Obviously they didn't mind what the Germans did, they literally helped them finance and organize it (We see you, Bush, who didn't drop the suite for damages until the 1970's!)
    1
  1149. 1
  1150. 1
  1151. 1
  1152. 1
  1153. 1
  1154. 1
  1155. 1
  1156. 1
  1157. 1
  1158. 1
  1159. 1
  1160. 1
  1161. 1
  1162. 1
  1163. 1
  1164. 1
  1165. 1
  1166. 1
  1167. 1
  1168. 1
  1169. 1
  1170. 1
  1171. 1
  1172. 1
  1173. 1
  1174. 1
  1175. 1
  1176. 1
  1177. 1
  1178. 1
  1179. 1
  1180. 1
  1181. 1
  1182. 1
  1183. 1
  1184. 1
  1185. 1
  1186. 1
  1187. 1
  1188. 1
  1189. 1
  1190. 1
  1191. 1
  1192. 1
  1193. 1
  1194. 1
  1195. 1
  1196. 1
  1197. 1
  1198. 1
  1199. 1
  1200. 1
  1201. 1
  1202. 1
  1203. 1
  1204. 1
  1205. 1
  1206. 1
  1207. 1
  1208. 1
  1209. 1
  1210. 1
  1211. 1
  1212. 1
  1213. 1
  1214. 1
  1215. 1
  1216. 1
  1217. 1
  1218. 1
  1219. 1
  1220. 1
  1221. 1
  1222. 1
  1223. 1
  1224. 1
  1225. 1
  1226. 1
  1227. 1
  1228. 1
  1229. 1
  1230. 1
  1231. 1
  1232. 1
  1233. 1
  1234. 1
  1235. 1
  1236. 1
  1237. 1
  1238. 1
  1239. 1
  1240. 1
  1241. 1
  1242. 1
  1243. 1
  1244. 1
  1245. 1
  1246. 1
  1247. 1
  1248. 1
  1249. 1
  1250. 1
  1251. 1
  1252. 1
  1253. 1
  1254. 1
  1255. 1
  1256. 1
  1257. 1
  1258. 1
  1259. 1
  1260. 1
  1261. 1
  1262. 1
  1263. 1
  1264. 1
  1265. 1
  1266. 1
  1267. 1
  1268. 1
  1269. 1
  1270. 1
  1271. 1
  1272. 1
  1273. 1
  1274. 1
  1275. 1
  1276. 1
  1277. 1
  1278. 1
  1279. 1
  1280. 1
  1281. 1
  1282. 1
  1283. 1
  1284. 1
  1285. 1
  1286. 1
  1287. 1
  1288. 1
  1289. 1
  1290. 1
  1291. 1
  1292. 1
  1293. 1
  1294. 1
  1295. 1
  1296. 1
  1297. 1
  1298. 1
  1299. 1
  1300. 1
  1301. 1
  1302. 1
  1303. 1
  1304. 1
  1305.  @secretbassrigs  You're trying to move off the field with those goalposts there, junior. Let's stay on topic, China is a more powerful country in every way except for petrochemically than Saudi Arabia. You had some minor quibbles about their influence on the settlements bank they made (BRICS) which I hope I dispelled for you. You didn't have any qualms with my information warfare, blockades, embargos or currency manipulation though, did you? If you do, let me set you straight on that. Otherwise it's time for you to concede. "who would destroy Saudi Arabia's oil fields? Iran is the one trying to do that. Iran is China's ally. why in the world would Saudi Arabia want to help China for being so treacherous?" I'm the delusional one, but you're the one imagining things? Got it, very big brain stuff going on, on your end. I never said anyone was coming for the saudi's oil fields in a military capacity, or china was picking a side in the islamic religious war between Sunni's and Shia. Sorry, 'islamic religious war' is more information and nuance than you're incapable of recognizing; delusional I believe is the word you used to describe it, last time I told you you can't get a real grasp on geopolitics without knowing the major players (DTC, BRICS and BIS). The discussions on the federal reserve (the chairmen of the board being a member of the board of BIS) and China's finances without understanding their relation to the BRICS system they created with Russia (who they now dwarf) (China's central bank chairman is also a BIS board member) is an incomplete picture. It's a complex system, if it's too complex for you I suggest you focus on something with less complexity, or put some actual effort into becoming knowledgeable, beyond what youtube videos offer you. There's virtually nothing on DTCC and BIS on YouTube.
    1
  1306. 1
  1307. 1
  1308. 1
  1309. 1
  1310. 1
  1311. 1
  1312. 1
  1313. 1
  1314. 1
  1315. 1
  1316. 1
  1317. 1
  1318. 1
  1319. 1
  1320. 1
  1321. 1
  1322. 1
  1323. 1
  1324. 1
  1325. 1
  1326. 1
  1327. 1
  1328. 1
  1329. 1
  1330. 1
  1331. 1
  1332. 1
  1333. 1
  1334. 1
  1335. 1
  1336.  @YourCapyFrenBigly_3DPipes1999  Yeah, it does seem like we're moving backwards, especially on womens and LGBTQ+ issues. But the conservatives seem like they want it in name only, because those conservative states are flipping blue, cause bodily autonomy isn't a joke. Kansas turned blue, MI is straight blue, Wisconsin is blue. I have a feeling republicans overplayed their hand. The republican front-runner could be in prison by the time of the election. Fox is getting sued by Dominion, Proud Boys are a terrorist organization. I think the fed is responding, finally. We will likely see the republican party implode and disappear. They're torn between the financial backers, and the populist MAGA base who are actually more misinformed socialists with right wing social policies than actual fiscal conservatives, which is the main goal of the orthodox republicans. I think we have a small number of proper fascists, and a lot of disaffected country folk who don't understand the modern logistics and governance, so they reject the entire concept of modernity and attempt to return to tradition, but those espousing the 'return to tradition' are actually just con-men hired by the oligarchs. I see most conservatives as overwhelmed by the rapid change (more change in 35 years than from the founding of Sumeria, 9,000 years ago, until the founding of the nation) which is understandable. I don't think any group is adapting well to this change. Because they can't control how they react to the changes, they try to stop the changes around them, instead. That doesn't mean that they're all reachable, or that there aren't some genuine fascists, but I think this describes a significant portion of those who appear fascist. Indeed we do, but I'm hopeful. Republicans are tearing each other apart. TY, I was going to say the same to you. I've been really enjoying your well-reasoned replies. I just wish this sort of conversation was in the main-stream consciousness of leftist/socialist/progressive politics. I didn't respond for a few days because I wasn't sure if you were going to write a second response before my reply, or if you wanted to wait until after.
    1
  1337.  @YourCapyFrenBigly_3DPipes1999  I also just want to point out how weird it is conservatives are always talking about someone else's junk. I cannot comprehend how a group that's actually sex-averse can be so obsessed with what other people do in the bedroom. Whenever they bring it up, I always say "#1 freedom, and #2, really weird, why do you want to make me talk about someone elses sex life/identity, who isn't even in the room? it's creepy and voyeuristic." it shuts down the conversation real quick, and puts the pressure on them to justify themselves, but internally. It's actually quite accusatory, while remaining polite and you're taking yourself the moral high ground, even from their perspective. You can throw in some bible verses about not judging, for effect. lol, make them contend with their own script. Or maybe not you, but the left should as a rhetorical tactic, generally. Cause the bible should be our ally in this. The protestants who founded this country laid the ideological groundwork for Karl Marx, I shit you not. They came up with the concept of a classless, moneyless society. The USA was one of if not the first secular state. The USA was founded because they wanted to give out free land. Peasants didn't pay to live on land until enclosure began, and it really came to a head around the late 16th/early17th century in Brittan, there were something like 5 peasant rebellions against the commoditization of land, and Protestants took up the cause, and the catholics and episcopals opposed it. America was founded on proto-socialism. Socialists are actually the most american. The USA kept giving out free land until 1976, with the creation of the Bureau of Land Management, and the US middle class has been sliding backwards ever since. 'Atun-Shei Films: In Defense of Puritanism' he's a history major with an emphasis on the founding of the country-civil war. He's also got a bibliography in the description.
    1
  1338.  @YourCapyFrenBigly_3DPipes1999  Right? Imo, the cultural divide seems to be the right wing pundits (bourgeoise to the left, globalists to the right, aristocrats historically) intentionally misattributing symptoms of the oligarchy's mismanagement. Like, they're worried about the kids but they can't accept that it's guns or a mental health crisis so they go after whatever new cultural phenomena is the least understood. It's not climate change causing supply chain issues, it's the CHINESE. It's not corporations raising prices when inflation makes headlines to give them excuses to raise prices EVEN MORE, it's government interference. I think a major issue is that while we do have mostly aligned economic interests, the difference in lifestyles between rural and city, and language divides make it more difficult to reach across to them. The left needs to go there and just listen for a while, and then work WITH the rural folks on policy they'd support, rather than coming in and being prescriptive from the beginning and running the risk of appearing patronizing. It is a weird situation, indeed. Civilization has gotten SO ridiculously complex. Our financial system is so complex, no one knows how it works, so they can't effectively reform it. I find the foreign influence is a better argument to convince conservatives to nationalize major corporations. Why would the USA leave essential infrastructure like information and electricity open to Chinese or other Eastern interference via buying controlling interest in companies. Major institutions that make the world run are not known, like DTCC and ASML, probably the 2 most powerful companies in the world. Individually, they are more powerful than the entire Business Roundtable.
    1
  1339. 1
  1340. 1
  1341. 1
  1342. 1
  1343. 1
  1344. 1
  1345. 1
  1346. 1
  1347. 1
  1348. 1
  1349. 1
  1350. 1
  1351. 1
  1352. 1
  1353. 1
  1354.  @brandon9172  Because the owner class will use their private security contracts (Pinkertons intelligence, Acadami military engagements, AUSS for holding territory if the PD isn't on board, and others), gang connections, arms companies, etc. to wage war to maintain power. They threatened FDR during the depression and made him weaken the New Deal policies, I don't think their intelligence network is in worse shape today with Google, Apple and Amazon. They co-opted the German socialist revolution after WWI and turned it into fascism. They co-opted the Socialists in Russia and consolidated power to form the Soviet Union. There is a long history of military interventions working out in favor of the bourgeoise. Also, armies NEED a strict hierarchy to ensure they keep secrets and to avoid friendly fire. It also makes change of battle plans much faster to enact than a democratized system, so strict hierarchies win wars. But strict hierarchies do not lend themselves to socialism. Why would the general who won the war step down? Would this new army even remain unified when the person in charge is swapped out, before there is precedence and an established order? We got SO lucky with George Washington for all his shortcomings, that he was willing to step down. Will we roll another nat 20 after the next catastrophic revolutionary war? IDK about that (it's possible, though). I'm not sure it's worth risking war with the most powerful armies in the world to find out, either. As much as I do understand that radical change is DESPERATELY needed RIGHT NOW both for humanitarian/economic issues, social issues, political structure, and climate change. But I just can't see a forceful overthrowing of the government having good enough odds for a positive outcome to actually be worth the INSANE level of risk in challenging "the powers that be". It is unfortunate that (as I understand things) the process needs to be long and drawn out, I REALLY had my heart set on "glorious revolution" for a half a decade after high school, but I realized how unrealistic and ineffective that has the potential to be. Plus the constitution is pretty cool, a lot of the people who wrote it are bad people (especially by todays standards) but JUST THE WRITING TAKEN AS IT IS WRITTEN is actually remarkably based. Would the next constitution be that much better? Who's writing it? What are some concepts we want to work into it? Forcefully replacing the system is not the right way to get the best odds of enacting the most positive change, in my opinion. So i tried to come up with another plan to achieve the exact same ends.
    1
  1355. 1
  1356.  @skyisreallyhigh3333  "You know who we did that for essentially? Slave owners. We do not and should not reward these people in any way." Dumb💩 did you not get to the part where I said they should be tried for crimes against humanity & C suite for Treason, which includes death? Does that sound like paying them and them getting off scott free, to you? Or does it sound more like an actionable long term plan for radical change? "So its either buy it all out and keep them insanely wealthy, or toppling the US government." Seems like you're conveniently ignoring the part where i said TRY THEM FOR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANIY AND TREASON. I described a long game, it could happen over a generation's lifetime, though. Or we could try your "glorious revolution" and maybe over the course of a lifetime we rebuild from the war, or maybe we end with a military dictatorship like Stalin and Mao that drains our intellectual base and causes supply chain issues with mandated allotments of bread, creating inflexibility for the impending climate crisis. Please, please please stop with this maoist crap. "The US as a political project must come to an end. " HOW DO YOU DO THAT?! You don't is how. So you'll get no change. You're a part of the co-opting of leftist policy. You're not armed or organized, and you're not a majority. You're probably some not poor, young white person who's never seen just what the cops can do, let alone SWAT or national guard. I had family in detroit during the riots, you don't want something worse than that. "We could try out worker councils instead." I don't like the idea of someone who is unaccountable to me controlling my access to fresh water, actually. So I'd rather elect that person, so they serve the community not themselves. Utilities are utilities because they need to be accountable to the people they serve, it's not a luxury, you could die without access to most utilities and your standard of living is much worse, as well as medical and mental health outcomes. Worker democracies are cool for non-utilities. Walmart would be a prime candidate imo. If amazon was broken up into separate companies, those separate companies could probably do well under a worker democracy. I also like unions a lot, I generally prefer stronger unions because I think they're more scalable for large companies. "You can not clean up the capitalist system." You don't know anything about capitalism, I'm no expert but I LAP YOU on logistics management, economics and probably ecology and global warming. You're spouting opinions you've heard online, you didn't research how the material system functions to try to understand why it is, or the limits to the systems flexibility. You think products appear and there's no labor or material that goes into it, so it could appear for everyone like it does for you. That is not the case. "No one should have faith in the justice system for there was never any reason to have faith in it in the first place." Very poetic, but not useful. You genuinely think that crime wouldn't increase if we GOT RID of the justice system, so it would be mob rule? Do you know who The Mob is? They're in your town, and they're not very nice people; just FYI. We want them limited to the shadows. They're one of the best arguments in favor of legalizing and banking SW and drugs. Lmao, no justice system, no reform. SO childish, life needs to break you and I'm sure it will. But you need to practice ACTUAL material analysis while it does so you grow instead of becoming bitter, you know MATERIAL analysis where you study the physical world, as in how things are made so you can have coherent and relevant thoughts on how the systems should be managed. "Corporations use very similar models that the USSR did" Are you using Corporate Towns which were outlawed as proof that command economics works for the proletariat? Do you hear yourself? "You clearly know nothing about leftists. You sound like you have gobbled up a shit ton of capitalist propaganda and have yet to deprogram yourself." I literally said the bourgeoise should be stripped of their money and sentenced to be hanged, but it was said in legalese. Did you not know treason is punishable by death? You think after losing control of the means of production, being heavily taxed, losing their cash to the government via trial, and being sentenced to death is "gobbling the capitalist propaganda"? LMFAO OMG W'S IN CHAT.
    1
  1357. No, CO2's IR absorption rate is known. The thermal energy can be calculated, but the impacts and specific hot spots that travel around the jetstreamwhich is weather are not very predictable. "After reading up on Lakatos, I question whether the climate change theory can even be described as a scientific theory given the difficulty, if not impossibility, of refuting or falsifying the anthropogenic CO2 induced climate change premise." You're right, you can't refute or falsify AGW. It's a mathematic equation. "But the test that provides corroboration for any given theory is how well it survives an honest attempt to falsify it." They make predictions based on expected CO2 emissions, and they make multiple models for multiple possible rates of emission. The models that track emissions most accurately, also most accurately correlate with expected temperature rise. The Henson Projections 1988 Model B. "Nobody ever seems to present a high empirical content scenario whereby climate change should be considered falsified." Did you just say that 'because no one has worked backwards to prove my conclusion, the PROVEN SCIENCE is bad'? Nobody presents high empirical evidence where climate change should be considered false because no such data exists. But that's bad science because your fefes? "Could that be because the theory would fail such a test and then the theory would have to be abandoned or significantly modified?" lmao you already gave away your game. Why doesn't NASA agree with my opinions? Didn't they hear Mitch McConnell, AGW isn't real, it's just a political issue. lmao, sad,
    1
  1358. 1
  1359. 1
  1360. 1
  1361. 1
  1362. 1
  1363. 1
  1364. 1
  1365. 1
  1366. 1
  1367. 1
  1368. 1
  1369. 1
  1370. 1
  1371. 1
  1372. 1
  1373. 1
  1374. 1
  1375. 1
  1376. 1
  1377. 1
  1378. 1
  1379.  @MichelleHell  Capitalism is fitness and communism is truth? lmao, I'm sorry that's just comically reductive. Which communism and which capitalism, and then how are they fitness and truth respectively? "The more exploited you've been, the more traumatized you become, the more you want to live a life free of money" Why are you making such broad sweeping generalizations? That's just not true. Some people join gangs or start cut-throat businesses and get paid, but they're bad people. Some people figure out/get lucky and make it out, and don't critically look back. You're describing YOUR journey and it's valid, but let's not make sweeping generalizations as an argument. What scares me about tribal societies being replicated in todays world? Well, tribes can have their own unique language. We live in a globalized world. Tribes don't have formal courts, they don't have formal contracts, or formal ways to enforce contracts. They exist without currency, often. Do you like your phone? They don't want bread, they want money for that phone. Tribes often follow religion and tradition more than science, which I think we can all agree is problematic. I generally don't want to die of exposure, which is more common in those communities. Sure, the cooperation is something we desperately need but let's not pretend tribal governance would maintain the incredibly complex logistics supply chain that allows us to live such relatively comfortable lives. I'm saying wahabist terrorist groups aren't representative of islam. Or that what priests do to kids to make the news is not in accordance with Christianity. Like, yeah they wear the flag and we can't remove it but we can also acknowledge the letter of the word and how their actions don't align. I think that's typically the best argument to make to get someone to change their behavior.
    1
  1380.  @MichelleHell  Democratic government intervention has the potential to curb corruption. Communism&socialism are just as susceptible. They are fine systems, a major improvement on what we currently have IF implemented correctly, which requires democracy. There can be worker democracies within capitalism, it is arguable that some degree of control creates a freer market than an unregulated one. Depression and suicide are not INHERENT in capitalism. You're not understanding my point. It's ALL nuance. I'm not all in on capitalism or communism, they both have good traits I'd like to borrow from but neither system is a "fire and forget" deal, maintaining a healthy government is a FULL TIME JOB for ALL citizens. Whatever system we have, we need to be conscious of it. Like the mega-corps that run the world from behind the scenes like DTCC, BNY Mellon, ASML, Investor AB or Hearst Media? You need to know the systems and how they work before you try to change them. Otherwise you're grasping at smoke. I don't believe in great man theory, I am saying that calling them capitalists is too generous. They are the welfare queens, their market share protected by selective regulations, their failures subsidized. No one else gets that level of government intervention on economic matters than the rich. I am saying call a spade a spade, they are OLIGARCHS NOT CAPOTALISTS. Corruption has existed in every societal system humans have ever created. It is not JUST capitalism. Even in basic tribal societies people make dirty deals.
    1
  1381. 1
  1382. 1
  1383. 1
  1384. 1
  1385. 1
  1386. 1
  1387. 1
  1388. 1
  1389. 1
  1390. 1
  1391. 1
  1392. 1
  1393. 1
  1394. 1
  1395. 1
  1396. 1
  1397. 1
  1398. 1
  1399. 1
  1400. 1
  1401. 1
  1402. 1
  1403. 1
  1404. 1
  1405. 1
  1406. 1
  1407. 1
  1408. 1
  1409. 1
  1410. 1
  1411.  @darrylgonzalez5727  " Incredible then how we've built the world's strongest military without it." Ah, you think I'm talking about a combat use scenario? no, total war, and even direct action (black ops and strategic bombing, and even some forms of in person espionage) are basically 20th century tactics, in other words, they need to be retired. I'm talking about economic and electronic national defense and sovereignty. China is the most powerful country in the world, not because of their military, but because of their economy and most importantly, their manufacturing. We can't invade china, they make too many things we need, there will never be direct or important proxy wars fought against china, only economic and electronic (attacking the grid). Imagine if American manufacturers were contracted because american HSR standards were the best? What if we were chosen to be the infrastructure that links asia and europe? Billions of dollars of foreign investment, a hand in the design and construction of dozens of nations infrastructure, and once you choose a rail standard, you have to keep it. That's guaranteed income, for decades. The information, money, and strategic advantages are immense to shaping other nations transit systems; and those tactics are the future of war, not nuclear bombs. Also, allowing people to have access to more job opportunities makes your economy more flexible. What if, to function in the global economy, rapid transit becomes even more essential than it is today, and to function in the late 21st century we need HSR to move millions of people thousands of miles in a few hour or days, with regularity, and we don't have the capabilities to build it ourselves? Do we allow another nation to design and built this essential infrastructure? Seems like a national security and sovereignty issue to seed that sort of control and information to a foreign power. HSR has commercial applications, too. Eventually it can be used to ship fresh produce, so it can be picked closer to peak ripeness, increasing nutritional content per acre of land and gallon of water. It'll also become essential for other shipping needs, since atomic clocks are cheap enough to fit into factories, HSR adds to the production speed gains, making us more competitive per acre of land used, an important metric for governments. HSR, and specifically SC MagLev is also an important field to be researching, because we're exiting the fossil fuel era and internal combustion era, and entering the electromagnetic era. SC MagLev subsidizes railgun research, it subsidizes carrier jet takeoff systems, it subsidizes future electric motor research, and all related fields, even medicine like MRI's; and those are just the known unknowns, who knows how many unknown unknowns there are to this emerging field of study. And we're seeding that ground to Asia. This is a national defense and economic sovereignty issue. If we want to be scientifically competitive, and have competitive manufacturing, we need to invest in SC MagLev, heavily. " The reason I mention this specifically is because we in Texas are currently fighting a battle against Texas Central Railway, a supposedly private company with ties to Japan Central Railway. They are asserting that they, a private company, have eminent domain authority and are attempting to secure the land to build a Shinkansen rail line between Dallas and Houston." Well I'm not in favor of for profit infrastructure, public services or utilities. It's like handing a corporation a gun and telling them they're allowed to rob people, so long as the shareholders get a cut of the action, not a sustainable system, and also extremely easy for foreign actors to infiltrate, as foreign investment is a goal of all corporations. We all know money buys influence. For profit essential services is extortion with window dressing. You'll die without this insulin, you say? Well, prices just went up.
    1
  1412.  @darrylgonzalez5727  "Privately run high speed rail benefits only those who ride it," HSR doesn't benefit everyone? I hope you're not involved in any decision making, cause that's patently false. You've clearly never heard of the downs thompson paradox, which states traffic is only as fast as the fastest alternative, be it biking, walking or mass transit. HSR also allows people to work in different job markets, without using a car, helping improve living standards. "and it literally takes DECADES for a high speed rail system to become profitable once it is built." Infrastructure isn't supposed to make money. Do fire fighters make money b fighting fires? Is the incentive structure for police and road comissioners to pad the bottom line for the shareholders; no. It's to provide an essential service for citizens. But for the record, HSR makes money. It makes money in europe and asia, though that's not the purpose of infrastructure. "What I object to is the taking of private property for use by a private company when the owner of said property has stated that they do not want to sell." Cry me a river, I don't care about your fefe's, this is an emotional argument, and I won't entertain it beyond this. "I understand that the Fifth Amendment provides for eminent domain authority, but I contend that the idea that this should extend to a private company is unconscionable." I agree with you, transportation infrastructure is for the public good and therefore should be run by the government, so it's not designed to make a profit, but provide freedom of movement. "Roads create a caste system?" Yes they do, ever hear of "driving while black" stop and frisks? Have you ever been advised to submit to police searches of your vehicle whether they have just cause or not? You're not aware that cheaper cars are pulled over more frequently? And once you get that ticket, your insurance, which you legally have to have goes up in priced, forming a caste system, by any other name. "What can you do on a commuter rail system? Ride the train (IF you can afford a ticket)." Exactly, you just get where your going, no gambling with LEO's, cause they can't stop the vehicle. And everyone can afford train tickets, they're the cost of gas, plus you don't need the initial investment of 10k to get a reliable vehicle, no insurance or maintenance, either. Freedom from those expenses, and the ability to avoid police interactions. "I can do most of my own vehicle maintenance." Anecdotal, not relevant to the discussion of how to move 340 million americans. "Insurance is affordable." Maybe in your state. "I would agree (in principle, I've never ridden one) that the Japanese high speed rail trains are wonderful. So too are the TGVs." HSR is fantastic, once you're up to speed, you're moving without the sensation of moving, no vibrations, no wind noise, no engine noise, nothing at all. The cabin is always correctly pressurized, because they don't have to maintain air pressure. Since the engine is electric, and away from you and the wind is broken 100ft ahead of you there's no wind noise, and for distances between 90 and 600 miles, HSR is faster than cars or planes. The fastest trains can reach 375mph, if they averaged 350 they would be faster than planes for distances up to 1,200 miles. There's no TSA, no luggage claims or bag checking, which is what makes HSR faster than planes. "But landowners shouldn't be forced to sell their land, or any part of it, simply so that others can have a nice and comfortable ride, and some greedy executives somewhere can MAYBE SOMEDAY make a lot of money off of it." HSR is an issue of national defense, we need to have 21st century infrastructure in order to be able to maintain sovereignty. Our freight rail standard is what gave us our rise to prominence on the international stage. We're seeding 21st century rail to China and Japan. And also, it should be managed by Amtrak, not a private company, IDK why you keep claiming that's my position; it's not.
    1
  1413. 1
  1414. 1
  1415. 1
  1416. 1
  1417. 1
  1418. 1
  1419. 1
  1420. 1
  1421. 1
  1422.  @easternshore8367  The first university was founded in africa before 789AD. Africans collapsed the European economy via salt trade, Europeans who were living in mud huts until the 1800's. Rome wasn't a white nation, they were Philistines, or Palestinians, see Palatine Hill. They had as many African emperors as they had Germanic, unless you include the post collapse Holy Roman Empire (which was not a continuation, was not roman, nor holy nor an empire). The proper roman empire actually considered africans to be the most intelligent, and the germans to be ignorant brutes, with the Philistinian Romans the happy middle ground, possessing both the intellect of the africans and the strength of the Danes. The Thracians were as much Philistinian as they were Danish. Do you even know who the Thracians were? Europe was civilized through contact with Indians and Persians (an offshoot of the Indians, or Harappan civilization, more accurately). There's a pretty good chance that europe only colonized america as a reaction to african colonization in the West Indies. And what did you do with this natural bounty? Clear cut it, cut it just to be rid of the forest, not even for farming. You wasted this continent in 300 years, africans have been in africa forever and there are still elephants, civilizations rising and falling around them. Africans were the first ones to work with iron, and the first to make it on an industrial scale, over 4,000 years ago. Gana's capital city's planning was a marvel of the world until colonization. You're illiterate, I get that. I wish we lived in a world where you were more literate as well, but here's some knowledge for you to cram into that Danish peabrain, for ya. Demon and Dane come from the same root word, BTW and it's a Hindu word, that should let you know where your kind fit into this tapestry of humanity.
    1
  1423. 1
  1424. 1
  1425. 1
  1426. 1
  1427. 1
  1428. 1
  1429. 1
  1430. 1
  1431. 1
  1432. 1
  1433. 1
  1434. 1
  1435. 1
  1436. 1
  1437. 1
  1438. 1
  1439. 1
  1440. 1
  1441. 1
  1442. 1
  1443. 1
  1444. 1
  1445. 1
  1446. 1
  1447. 1
  1448. 1
  1449. 1
  1450.  @FlyByWire1  "Pricing of economic inputs like resources and labor will inherently be different." Indeed, that's why I picked Germany, they have unions build their roads, just like the USA, to make the price comparison more accurate. "Not to mention that 4 to 6 million is most likely an average of the entire US which is much larger than Germany." This does not mean what you think it means, cause we're comparing mile for mile. And also, if anything, that would give the US an economy of scale, driving prices down. Or have I missed something? "Also, you seem to be confused about the relationship between currency valuations and prices. In rich economies like the US and Germany, prices are influenced primarily by supply and demand, not currency valuation." Once again, we're comparing oranges to clementine's, not apples to oranges. You just agreed they're similar economies (in a lot of ways). "The currency exchange markets exist for a reason: they tell us exactly what the value of currency A in relation to another currency. 1 USD currently equals 0.93€ which is the strongest the USD has been against the euro in the last decade. So that currency exchange rate alone tells us the USD’s value isn’t inflated at all." A record high isn't a sign of inflation? Really? Tell that to the dot com boom. "Inflation in the EU is also reaching records, just like everywhere else in the world. It has nothing to do with Biden or any specific policies." I agree with you, Biden isn't at fault, and it is indeed larger than the US economy. I don't think it's effecting asian countries as much as western ones, though. "So in conclusion, you are confusing two concepts with each other and thinking they logically are connected when economically it’s a little more complex than it seems." So, you're saying I'm confusing inflation with purchasing power? I suppose I haven't been as clear as I should have been with my language, but I don't think the concept I'm trying to communicate is incorrect. The USA's GDP seems over-valued, relative to our PPP, when comparing it to other nations.
    1
  1451. 1
  1452.  @FlyByWire1  "that’s not how that works my friend. When we compare GDP across currencies, we use what’s called purchasing power parity. What the PPP calculation does is it levels the playing field between currencies so that the value of one currency is equal to the value of the other." Ok, lol. They do PPP averaging, like they do inflation calculations, weighted in their favor. You wait until the global economic system kicks the petrodollar as a necessity of responding to climate change in the next 5 years and then tell me if my assertions about chinese manufacturing being undervalued and the US being overvalued are correct or not. "So no, your 100% incorrect." We've lost a lot of international trust over the last decade and a lot of international good faith over the last 50 years with our foreign interventions both overt and covert. The insurrection, the inflation from a lack of Chinese goods, our crumbling infrastructure, etc. is catching the globe's attention, the writing is on the walls: China is the next superpower, there's an argument to be made they've already usurped the USA. We're losing the space-race to mine rare earth elements to China. China will be the one to build infrastructure bridging the EU with Asia via their HSR standard, much like the US rail standard built the 20th century. You should see Ray Dalio's 'Principals for Dealing with a Changing World Order', so you don't get caught unaware. US bitcoin devaluation is a sign of the times, the next currency is going to be blockchain, but it won't be democratized like bitcoin, so the testbeds are winding down. " I don’t need to research these things when I have two degrees in economies" You've been to college, sorry 'university'? Why'd you call it degrees in economies instead of economics? Not the most convincing way to phrase that, is it? imo, there's a lot of indoctrination in higher education, they have to help gain support for the government. It's not the best place to learn a complete and accurate view on global systems, and the globe and 21st century logistics are very much global enterprises. That's not to say the entire system is bad, you learn the language, networking, the mechanisms and makers, etc. but it's got a nationalist slant to it.
    1
  1453. 1
  1454. 1
  1455. 1
  1456. 1
  1457.  @blackhole9961  "with how American cities were different planned and built, public transit is unlikely to get you anywhere efficiently, which is why you still need a car." That's not really true, the downs-thompson paradox unequivocally proves that all cities with traffic need mass transit solutions. And the few larger cities that are spread out enough that they have less traffic won't be able to maintain their infrastructure like clean and waste water, bridges and tunnels, they don't generate enough tax revenue to cover their infrastructure expenses, and have a competitive economy. "That’s essentially no different than just flying." Exactly, HSR averaging 200MPH is faster than driving for distances over 90 miles, and faster than flying (because of parking, security, luggage claim, etc.) that gives HSR a 1.5 hr head start, making it faster for distances under 600 miles. But at 350mph, of which Japanese have hundreds of miles of track can they are faster for distances up to 1,200 miles, making the trip (including ticket, boarding, and leaving for HSR) in 4.43 hrs, while the plane would take 4.5hrs. SC MagLev tech is also basically experimental superconductor experimentation, which is the applied physics of the future so it's a good field to be the leader of. The theoretical top speed of maglev systems is much higher than ICE systems, because gas expansions has a much lower ceiling than electric ones. Once the 2nd gen HSR is under less civilian traffic it can be used for industry, cutting produce shipping times in half, and better than half the longer the distance, because trains stop less than trucks, and are exponentially faster than ships, while HSR is competitive with truck shipping prices, but expect the HSR shipping costs to only decrease over time as the tech becomes more widely adopted (thus industry of scale pricing), while trucks are severely limited by fuel pricing.
    1
  1458. 1
  1459. 1
  1460. 1
  1461. 1
  1462. 1
  1463. 1
  1464. 1
  1465. 1
  1466. 1
  1467. 1
  1468. 1
  1469. 1
  1470. 1
  1471. 1
  1472. 1
  1473. 1
  1474. 1
  1475. 1
  1476. 1
  1477. 1
  1478. 1
  1479. 1
  1480. 1
  1481. 1
  1482. 1
  1483. 1
  1484. 1
  1485. 1
  1486. 1
  1487. 1
  1488. 1
  1489. 1
  1490. 1
  1491. 1
  1492. 1
  1493. 1
  1494. 1
  1495. 1
  1496. 1
  1497. 1
  1498. 1
  1499. 1
  1500. 1
  1501. 1
  1502. 1
  1503. 1
  1504. 1
  1505. 1
  1506. 1
  1507. 1
  1508. 1
  1509. 1
  1510. 1
  1511. 1
  1512. 1
  1513. 1
  1514. 1
  1515. 1
  1516. 1
  1517. 1
  1518. 1
  1519. 1
  1520. 1
  1521. 1
  1522. 1
  1523. 1
  1524. 1
  1525. 1
  1526. 1
  1527. 1
  1528. 1
  1529. 1
  1530. 1
  1531. 1
  1532. 1
  1533. 1
  1534. 1
  1535. 1
  1536. 1
  1537. 1
  1538. 1
  1539. 1
  1540. 1
  1541. 1
  1542. 1
  1543. 1
  1544. 1
  1545. 1
  1546. 1
  1547. 1
  1548. 1
  1549. 1
  1550. 1
  1551. 1
  1552. 1
  1553. 1
  1554. 1
  1555. 1
  1556. 1
  1557. we need to overhaul what our representatives responsibilities actually are. I hate that the President is responsible for everything, I don't want commander of the armed forces and the top legislative officer to be the same persons responsibility. It's debatable if it's realistic to have the chief of the regulatory agencies and the chief of the armed forces to be the same person's job (but there's enough overlap that it makes sense). One is more domestic and intelligence/minimal force, and the other is geopolitical and requires the use of a lot of force. And the legislative duties on top of that? come tf on! No one could ever do that job effectively, the constitution was written for a time when everything, literally everything was different about society, the only thing that hasn't noticeably changed is human biology but the government isn't our doctor so that doesn't really matter. The way we associate, the means we use to associate, the means which information is distributed, the means with which force is projected, the means with which preparedness is maintained, the means we use to grow food, produce medicine, transportation, harness and direct energy on a fundamental level has changed incomprehensibly. Time for a rewrite, or at the very least some dramatic additions. We just need a more easily understood, better defined and clarified democracy. The solution isn't return to monke, or a rejection of the government, or a rejection of the profit motive, just a new regulatory system that was designed for the broader ecosystem both domestic and abroad that we live in today. More tech, more democracy, more government, and potentially less taxation.
    1
  1558. 1
  1559. 1
  1560. 1
  1561. 1
  1562. 1
  1563. 1
  1564. 1
  1565. 1
  1566. 1
  1567. 1
  1568. 1
  1569. 1
  1570. 1
  1571. 1
  1572. 1
  1573. 1
  1574. 1
  1575. 1
  1576. 1
  1577. 1
  1578. 1
  1579. 1
  1580. 1
  1581. 1
  1582. 1
  1583. 1
  1584. 1
  1585. 1
  1586. 1
  1587. 1
  1588. 1
  1589. 1
  1590. 1
  1591. 1
  1592. 1
  1593. 1
  1594. 1
  1595. 1
  1596. 1
  1597. 1
  1598. 1
  1599. 1
  1600. 1
  1601. 1
  1602. 1
  1603. 1
  1604. 1
  1605. 1
  1606. 1
  1607. 1
  1608. 1
  1609. 1
  1610. 1
  1611. 1
  1612. 1
  1613. 1
  1614. 1
  1615. 1
  1616. 1
  1617. 1
  1618. 1
  1619. 1
  1620. 1
  1621. 1
  1622. 1
  1623. 1
  1624. 1
  1625. 1
  1626. 1
  1627. 1
  1628. 1
  1629. 1
  1630. 1
  1631. 1
  1632. 1
  1633. 1
  1634. 1
  1635. 1
  1636. 1
  1637. 1
  1638. 1
  1639. 1
  1640. 1
  1641. 1
  1642. 1
  1643. 1
  1644. 1
  1645. 1
  1646. 1
  1647. 1
  1648. 1
  1649. 1
  1650. 1
  1651. 1
  1652. 1
  1653. 1
  1654. 1
  1655. 1
  1656. 1
  1657. 1
  1658. 1
  1659. 1
  1660. 1
  1661. 1
  1662. 1
  1663. 1
  1664. 1
  1665. 1
  1666. 1
  1667. 1
  1668. 1
  1669. 1
  1670. 1
  1671. 1
  1672. 1
  1673. 1
  1674. 1
  1675. 1
  1676. 1
  1677. 1
  1678. 1
  1679. 1
  1680. 1
  1681. 1
  1682. 1
  1683. 1
  1684. 1
  1685. 1
  1686. 1
  1687. 1
  1688. 1
  1689. 1
  1690. 1
  1691. 1
  1692. 1
  1693. 1
  1694. 1
  1695. 1
  1696. 1
  1697. 1
  1698. 1
  1699. 1
  1700. 1
  1701. 1
  1702. 1
  1703. 1
  1704. 1
  1705. 1
  1706. 1
  1707. 1
  1708. 1
  1709. 1
  1710. 1
  1711. 1
  1712. 1
  1713. 1
  1714. 1
  1715. 1
  1716. 1
  1717. 1
  1718. 1
  1719. 1
  1720.  @aleksandrs1422  To my knowledge, the NATO intelligence services haven't been big on declassifying anything since the fall of the USSR. The USA declassifies things as the geopolitical chapter closes, and a new one opens. If the Russia-China stuff takes more than 3 decades to come to a close, it's possible this stuff might not come out for much more than 30 years. I think a majority of Americans distrust the official story on some older conspiracies, but they're still very much not acknowledged by the fed. Even Kennedy is still is a stupid grey-zone, 60 years later. But that's to protect the federal reserve bank, so it'll probably never come out since that motive/means is too central to be the official record. From my understanding, Russia's disinformation campaign began by riding the coattails of NATO member disinformation campaigns (drum up division amongst the working class to enable the wealth disparity to grow), and spread to include anti-american propaganda which dovetails well with the USA's own disinformation campaigns targeted at leftist circles. And what's so disappointing is the US intelligence is still unwilling to change tact with information releases, even when they know hostile foreign powers will use this against us. There's a revival of respect for the public coming, but it's slow and there are some very entrenched morons in US services. The USA may lose the information war because we're more committed to lying than sovereignty or the constitution. God bless! Happy to hear Russians are still getting some decent information even if they can't really act on it.
    1
  1721. 1
  1722. 1
  1723. 1
  1724. 1
  1725. 1
  1726. 1
  1727. 1
  1728. 1
  1729. 1
  1730. 1
  1731. 1
  1732. 1
  1733. 1
  1734. 1
  1735. 1
  1736. 1
  1737. 1
  1738. 1
  1739. 1
  1740. 1
  1741. 1
  1742. 1
  1743. 1
  1744. 1
  1745. 1
  1746. 1
  1747. 1
  1748. 1
  1749. 1
  1750. 1
  1751. 1
  1752. 1
  1753. 1
  1754. 1
  1755. 1
  1756. 1
  1757. 1
  1758. 1
  1759. 1
  1760. 1
  1761. 1
  1762. 1
  1763. 1
  1764. 1
  1765. 1
  1766. 1
  1767. 1
  1768. 1
  1769. 1
  1770. 1
  1771. 1
  1772. 1
  1773. 1
  1774. 1
  1775. 1
  1776. 1
  1777. 1
  1778. 1
  1779. 1
  1780. 1
  1781. 1
  1782. 1
  1783. 1
  1784. 1
  1785. 1
  1786. 1
  1787. 1
  1788. 1
  1789. 1
  1790. 1
  1791. 1
  1792. 1
  1793. 1
  1794. 1
  1795. 1
  1796. 1
  1797. 1
  1798. 1
  1799. 1
  1800. 1
  1801. 1
  1802. 1
  1803. 1
  1804. 1
  1805. 1
  1806. 1
  1807. 1
  1808. 1
  1809. 1
  1810. 1
  1811. 1
  1812. 1
  1813. 1
  1814. 1
  1815. 1
  1816. 1
  1817. 1
  1818. 1
  1819. 1
  1820. 1
  1821. 1
  1822. 1
  1823. 1
  1824. 1
  1825. 1
  1826. 1
  1827. 1
  1828. 1
  1829. 1
  1830. 1
  1831. 1
  1832. 1
  1833. 1
  1834. 1
  1835. 1
  1836. 1
  1837. 1
  1838. 1
  1839. 1
  1840. 1
  1841. 1
  1842. 1
  1843. 1
  1844. 1
  1845. 1
  1846. 1
  1847. 1
  1848. 1
  1849. 1
  1850. 1
  1851. 1
  1852. 1
  1853. 1
  1854. 1
  1855. 1
  1856. 1
  1857. 1
  1858. 1
  1859. 1
  1860. 1
  1861. 1
  1862. 1
  1863. 1
  1864. 1
  1865. 1
  1866. 1
  1867. 1
  1868. 1
  1869. 1
  1870. 1
  1871. 1
  1872. 1
  1873. 1
  1874. 1
  1875. 1
  1876. 1
  1877. 1
  1878. 1
  1879. 1
  1880. 1
  1881. 1
  1882. 1
  1883. 1
  1884. 1
  1885. 1
  1886. 1
  1887. 1
  1888. 1
  1889. 1
  1890. 1
  1891. 1
  1892. 1
  1893. 1
  1894. 1
  1895. 1
  1896. 1
  1897. 1
  1898. 1
  1899. 1
  1900. 1
  1901. 1
  1902. 1
  1903. 1
  1904. 1
  1905. 1
  1906. 1
  1907. 1
  1908. 1
  1909. 1
  1910. 1
  1911. 1
  1912. 1
  1913. 1
  1914. 1
  1915. 1
  1916. 1
  1917. 1
  1918. 1
  1919. 1
  1920. 1
  1921. 1
  1922. 1
  1923. 1
  1924. 1
  1925. 1
  1926. 1
  1927. 1
  1928. 1
  1929. 1
  1930. 1
  1931. 1
  1932. 1
  1933. 1
  1934. 1
  1935. 1
  1936. 1
  1937. 1
  1938. 1
  1939. 1
  1940. 1
  1941. 1
  1942. 1
  1943. 1
  1944. 1
  1945. 1
  1946. 1
  1947. 1
  1948. 1
  1949. 1
  1950. 1
  1951. 1
  1952. 1
  1953. 1
  1954. 1
  1955. 1
  1956. 1
  1957. 1
  1958. 1
  1959. 1
  1960. 1
  1961. 1
  1962. 1
  1963. 1
  1964. We have no true cause for most things we take as fact. There is no objective PROOF  of anything, simply coincidences&interpretations, nothing is 100% true for any series of events. We have theories, not facts, nothing is guaranteed in science (as you should know). We have correlations, which equates to causation. The only true fact is "I think therefore I am", but let's not go there. Let's simply accept correlations as fact, because that's all we have in this world. You think that a 6 fold increase DURING divorce is simply a coincidence? That's an awfully strong correlation to be dismissed. Women can get mental illnesses as well. No data suggests that mentally ill males are 6 times more likely to get married than mentally ill females nor that men are 6 times more likely to become mentally ill during a marriage; your claim is baseless. In fact, women are more likely to have mental illnesses than men. We do have data that says men lose custody 90% of the time, and pay alimony 97%of the times alimony is awarded. Those are statistics, not conjecture. That would lead me to believe that the aforementioned is more the cause than your baseless conjecture of mental illnesses being the cause of suicide. So, let's review: Men commit suicide 6x more often while in a divorce, men are the overwhelming majority of those who pay alimony&lose custody, and women face mental illnesses more often than men, from this we can surmise that it is unfair divorce courts which lead to the uptick in male suicide rates during divorce. Do you follow? Now, I ask you to reply with FACTS instead of conjecture, if you'd like to disprove my claims.
    1
  1965. 1
  1966. 1
  1967. 1
  1968. 1
  1969. 1
  1970. 1
  1971. 1
  1972. 1
  1973. 1
  1974. 1
  1975. 1
  1976. 1
  1977. 1
  1978. 1
  1979. 1
  1980. 1
  1981. 1
  1982. 1
  1983. 1
  1984. 1
  1985. 1
  1986. 1
  1987. 1
  1988. 1
  1989. 1
  1990. 1
  1991. 1
  1992.  @jakobsmith4046  "It is simply a fact that there is no ethical consumption under capitalism that has nothing do with being puritanical not even remotely, " If it is everything than it is nothing, it is a logical fallacy. It is a non-sequitur, it has no meaning. I would argue that there is no ethical consumption, under any system. Because you can always find something being taken from, that is necessary for giving, as matter isn't created or destroyed on earth. It is a fatalist statement with no line of action to be taken. It is nothing but hurtful. "everything we consume was made by exploited wage slaves." That doesn't meaningfully change under any other system. There's always something being exploited in order to do something. It is ubiquitous, it is found in nature. Does a cat have any obligation to consider the morality of feeding itself? I don't think so, and I we're animals, too. So it doesn't matter, and the proletariat doesn't have enough influence to make decisions without coercion and therefor have no more obligation to critically consume than the cat. "I find it hilarious voosh fan boys could listen to an unedited clip of voosh make a full moronic, pedophilic or imperialist statement and say its out of context." Then link me to a clip of it! cause I've watched him make dumb jokes like that, I think it's a symptom of his autism more so than actual malice. "Is Voosh supporting the bombing of countries by NATO clip chimped?" Very obviously. I can tell the sarcasm from READING what he said, the sarcasm is so thick. It's so clear he's being facetious, that's his style of humor. But again, red fascists hate humor so anything that's meant to be a joke, to make a caricature of a bad position is perceived as an actual endorsement of that position. It's a puritanical perspective, modern puritans hate humor, and value nothing more than labor. Most of the red fascists I've met grew up in puritan houses, and they're just replicating the social structure they grew up with, but with different values imposed over it. It's just as dysfunctional, though.
    1
  1993. 1
  1994. 1
  1995. 1
  1996. 1
  1997. 1
  1998. 1
  1999. 1
  2000. 1
  2001. 1
  2002. 1
  2003. 1
  2004. 1
  2005. 1
  2006. 1
  2007. 1
  2008. 1
  2009. 1
  2010.  @Gringoviej0  "If you are single making 31k you are doing just fine. Maybe you can't afford a nice house, and we could talk about that's the case, but for one person that is good." No, you won't. Median income is 31k, median rent take HALF of that without utilities, insurance, car, gas, food, etc. "If you make 150,000 and have a family of five all of them are essentially running on 30k." No, because you only pay for 1 shelter which significantly reduces costs, renting 5 1,400$ a month apartments eats up a lot more money than one 3k mortgage/rent. " If you like in a city you're doing it to yourself, democrats run them all and they do a terrible job in pretty much all aspects." Yes, because moving is so cheap, easy and simple. Why didn't everyone think of that instead of trying to improve the system? "Illegal immigrants don't have them, but that doesn't give me the right to run around killing them." Illegal immigrants have names and SSN equivalents in their nation of origin, it is quite different. "Abortion is especially bad because it involves a mother killing her child in the interest of convenience alone 99% of the time." It's not legally a human, you have an opinion and that opinion has no legal justification in the secular courts of the US constitution. "Fortune 500 companies and other large corporations do have responsibilities to investors that come before anything else oftentimes, and they often do have poor practices, though they get resolved quickly." Quickly? really???? Walmart was getting bad press for decades and still commit wage theft. 20 an hr doesn't matter if they only pay you for 20 hrs out of the 40 you worked. "Amazon and Walmart pay like 20+ an hour to pretty much every employee now, and all of the complaints of mistreatment that are relevant are years old." Just because it's not getting cycled through your feeds doesn't mean it's not happening, it's still rather famously happening if you just look it up instead of letting the algo put you into an information silo. "We trust busted the monopolies in the early 20th century and I think it would be good to do so again." Trust busting Google, Apple or Microsoft would destroy the service. Trust busting rail companies and other infrastructure just creates a less homogenous system and therefor more expensive and less reliable. We need megacorps, but they need to have their interests align with the public good. imo the only way to make that happen is to elect their board of directors. "The fact that there are big companies doesn't take away from the fact that a capitalist free market is better for the general wellbeing of the population than any other economic system though." There is no such thing as a free market in such a complex and bottle-necked system. You don't get to decide if you support ASML or DTCC if you want to A use the internet or B buy stocks/options. NO CHOICE what so ever in the United States, and because of that, and because they're essential services they would best serve the world and therefor the economy by not creating an extortion racket for essential services. "If someone hated our system so much that they wanted to tear it to the ground against the will of the majority of the country they could just go somewhere else where their ideological brethren have already accomplished that task." Lol, yes why didn't the confederacy just go to Mexico? MF morons, fighting for what they believed in and for the land they lived on for generations. Because I'm sure you're ideologically consistent with this argument, right? " Venezuela, Cuba, any other socialist country starving it's people to death, except china, they are fascists at this point." China isn't socialist, they're decidedly capitalist with authoritarian tendencies, not socialist tendencies. Venezuela is a failed state because of US intervention. Cuban is fine, they have better literacy and infant mortality than the US does, actually. All the 10 happiest, healthiest, and longest lived countries are more socialist than the USA, Lack of regulation places our government amongst those of Nigeria and India, You don't want americans to live like niger's do you? Cause that's the governmental system you want to mimick. "Your disbelief in the self made man is holding you back." Statistically speaking the US has pretty poor economic mobility, but I'm glad you've met exceptions. Don't post about smuggling online, though. "I say no real problems, though there are of course the exceptions of the homeless you've mentioned (the exposure deaths) which are once again almost all in leftist bastions of so called acceptance" Homeless people travel, and they go to wherever has the best assistance, so my city in michigan ends up with homeless people from dakota and cali and NY and maine and fl. It's less representative of policy impact than you might think. And small conservative towns have higher violent crime and crime in general rates than major cities, so to say crime is urban is BS. "What I am saying is that I lived in rural South America for years. I know people who live in tiny houses that are made from whatever scrap wood and garbage they could find, have dirt floors, and can only hope to feed their family off of subsistence farms and the little their jobs allow them to buy" US zoning regulation prevents this from happening, most places require houses to be above 900sq ft and with concrete foundations, electricity running certified water, etc. to bolster housing price values, thus raising the median home price in America to 400,000 USD. Median rent 1,400USD, median home price 400,000USD, median income 31,000USD. " It is not perfect, but the idea that some socialist utopia will usher in the end of all suffering is beyond stupid." When did I say we'll end all suffering? We can definitely reduce it, and it's probably cost effective, too. " If you are evidence based you know that no socialist nation has ever succeeded." Except all the happiest, healthiest, wealthiest, longest lived nations in the world. Even Cuban is doing better than the USA by some important metrics. "Ours works comparatively very well to any other on planet earth." The US policy over the last 40 years has been good? Are you a 1st gen immigrant? "When I say celebrate peoples success I mean guys like Troy, my friends dad, not Jeff Bezos or BIll Gates who are both snakes." Troy isn't rich, and there are a lot of other billionaires who pay to keep their names out of the news. Can you find a complete list of the families who were represented at the Jekyll Island meeting? "In the US there are literally millions of people like Troy." But they functionally hold no power. If they can ax JFK for opposing the federal reserve, they can get anybody else who stands in their way. Most people are too concerned with hustling to realize their piece of the pie gets smaller every year no matter how much they work, and that is the nature of all wage earners. We're about to see programmers pay decrease sharply. "I know what I have in this country, and anyone letting it slip through their fingers in favor of partying, sleeping around, or just being lazy thinking they are owed something is squandering the blessing of opportunity they have." If you think this generation is poor because they're hedonists I would point you to the free-love generation of the 60's and 70's who are now controlling the world. It's kind of hilarious you actually believe the OG hippies weren't out of their mind ALL the time on everything they could get their hands on. Before that, you had the speak easys of prohibition, which were IDK if you know this, a place of degeneracy.
    1
  2011.  @jessicarichards8531  "when women advocate for men's rights, the people who oppose that advocacy, the people who oppose advocacy for men, are other men." Find some examples of feminists supporting mens issues on a policy level, then if it's so important to them Because most of the policy work feminists have done around these issues is to actively oppose any legislation to address any issues men face. Feminists protested the the AMA or CDC or some other highly accredited institution of the like for publishing a study that found that more men were victims DV that year than women in the US, out of 10 million people who claimed to have experienced DV in the study. FEMINISTS PROTESTED THOSE FINDINGS and said that can't be justification for mens DV shelters, but no no I'm sure they're just not a true scottsman. This is pretty well known, you can easily look up feminists protesting any mens issue that gets brought up ,especially on the policy level. I know you won't because you have no intellectual backbone, though. Republicans like to put feelings before facts, but so do 'leftists' whenever the truth is inconvenient. "as for emotional labor, it is an often-observed fact" You mean anecdote? Well I often imagine you're not a good person so it's law now, lol. Anecdotes mean nothing here, who TF do you think you're talking to? "i'm not going to read the rest of your tirade(s)." You read it you just can't form a rebuttal that sounds like you're not a eugenicist. You really should respond to this, I think it quite nicely highlights your clear disregard for human life if they have the wrong chromosomes. "another is death by domestic violence, committed mostly (though not exclusively) by men" Yes, cherry picking stats. About 700 women die each year during child birth, or about 0.3% of the male deaths of despair, but lets add in DV deaths, which are 4k, which brings the total deaths to 2.8% of male deaths of despair. To claim these issues are equivalent is a MF joke, do you want to admit to valuing female life more than 40x more than men, or do we admit you made a very bad argument? Men make up 80% of all murder victims when you include random and non-intimate partner deaths. So you CAN cherrypick data to make whatever story you like, but when you look at the numbers, what demographic dies of preventable causes the most? It's men. ALL major categories men die at usually 2x or more the rate of women.
    1
  2012.  @jessicarichards8531  "feminists have won more equal treatment for people of a variety of different gender descriptions, including cis het men." What have feminists done for cis het men? I legitimately can't think of anything positive they've done for me. I've been told I'm inherently dangerous and problematic because I'm a man. I've been told I am the problem with the world because i share the same XY chromosomes as my ancestors slave masters. I've been creeped on and catcallked and told that's just a lil taste so get over it. I've been told my SA is less valid by feminists. I've never had a feminist offer support or any form of non-punitive advice. I know feminists rigged family courts. I understand you as a woman have benefitted immensely from the legislation feminists have passed, but that doesn't mean they've effected everyone the same way or treated everyone the same way. The constitution has no race-related laws yet somehow America has historically been one of if not the most racist nation in the world, so clearly the impact and the title do not always mean the same thing. And you know feminists are TERF's and SWERF's but you can't admit they might also dislike men just as a general demographic, it would be comical if it wasn't a part of the suicide rate. "the reason those terms have become a thing is that most feminists are moving past those outdated forms of bigotry." And to deal with that problem, the first step was to identify that it existed and is indeed problematic. How many feminists are willing to recognize mens issues and fight for them the way you fight for trans, POC and SW rights? Cuz men are doing to well already, maybe once 1% of the male population dies every year due to preventable illness THEN we can think about calling the highest suicide rate in the developed world and one of the highest in the globe a 'problem'. "but where men get the short end of the stick (and it does happen sometimes), feminists have consistently advocated for men's rights." You're just lying to make yourself feel better, so you can keep ignoring the issue. Feminists have PROTESTED marches for male suicide victims. For decades. It's disgusting you call that support, or care so little that you don't know what you're actually advocating for. I know what I stand for and where I align, I align with the definition of feminism but the actions are not representative of the definition they self selected. "while MRAs bitch and whine and complain about a lot of shit that isn't real," MRA's are too bitter to be effective messengers but their message when based in the stats and not their experience is better than the feminist response 9x out of 10. "feminists are out there really advocating for shit that really affects men, like the draft, child care rights, like awareness about sexual assault against men," You're literally lying SO hard. You have no evidence, you've never checked to see who actually advocates for these issues. You're starting from the definition of the word and working backwards from your conclusion. It's painfully obvious by the lack of detail. And for the record, feminists SET UP the unfair family courts system, you're so thick you don't even know what feminism DOES legally. "like how toxic masculinity shouts men down when they try to act like authentic human beings (leading to, among other things, higher suicide rates)." I hear feminists actually talk about this, and do you know what they say when men come up to them looking for support? 'I can't do the work for you, you have to do it yourself.' which is functionally saying "I said PULL on them bootstraps boy ain't nobody comin to help you." Feminists at best pay lip service to mens issues and when they take action it's to protest mens issues. As someone who has been aware of this discussion for the last decade, your isolated liberal bubble and being female does not allow you any insight into the male perspective on feminism or its impact on us as a demographic. You're functionally trying to mansplain this to me and it's just offensive how little you're willing to recognize another persons experience. I am not saying all feminism is bad. I am not saying you or women or anything is universal or inherently bad, but there are problematic elements and they are so problematic they're increasing the suicide rate. But that feels like such a personal attack you have to justify the status quo, and feminism is the status quo. Feminists train police on DV, they train judges, they have departments in most universities, they have PACs they help write legislation. There is no group working towards the betterment of all men, it's just rich freaks stealing from EVERAYONE. Bezos wants the men to die so people buy things to fill the void. There is nobody coming for the 168k dead per year, least of all feminists. "another is death by domestic violence, committed mostly (though not exclusively) by men" Yes, cherry picking stats. About 700 women die each year during child birth, or about 0.25% of the male deaths of despair. To claim these issues are equivolent is a MF joke, do you want to admit to valuing female life more than 400x more than men, or do we admit you made a very bad argument? Men make up 80% of all murder victims when you include random and non-intimate partner deaths. So you CAN cherrypick data to make whatever story you like, but when you look at the numbers, what demographic dies of preventable causes the most? It's men. ALL major categories men die at usually 2x or more the rate of women. Here's a great example of the argument you've made. 'isn't it a funny coincidence how the only planet with birds also happens to be the place where all humans die?' Statistically valid sentence. Not rational, in spite of my loose representation of statistics. "another good metric is sexual assault, which is primarily (though not exclusively) directed against women and girls, by again primarily (though not exclusively) men." We don't have legitimate statistics on male SA. And when you include prison SA men are more likely to be the victims of SA, but men in prison are even less human that men outside of prison, so we should keep excluding their SA from national stats. Add to that, when a woman SA's a man the man knows nobody will believe him and even if they did he'd be ridiculed not supported. You don't talk to enough men if you've never heard a man say he's been blackmailed into sex via threats of false accusations. And of course those guys would totally bring that forward to society as it is today, right? Get all that support the 'patriarchy' was designed to give men? "i would consider a culture that drives men to suicide by shouting them down whenever they try to express themselves authentically, as full human beings with more emotions than anger, irritation and mirth, to be extremely misogynist" Lmfao, that's WILD, you're retarded! "the sexist double-standard is a trap that shortens mens' lives, which should be reason enough to abandon it, all on its own." Ah, yes because women have no responsibility for anything. They're just dumb fragile little flowers incapable of being anything but sugar and spice? GTFO with your patriarchal 'women are victims men are actors' BS narrative. You support patriarchy more than I do. I recognize and support womens agency, I just don't simultaneously deny their need for responsibility over their agency. And that's misogyny to you, lmfao, WILD, you really aren't bright. Giving women credit for their actions is MUH PATRIARCHY and femsplaining mens issues is FEMINIST. If you weren't saying more men like my brother need to die before we can acknowledge the problems causing this issue it would be funny, but because it kills good people and you keep justifying it I am quite upset with your eugenics style of regard for human life. Wrong chromosomes? Let them jump.
    1
  2013. 1
  2014.  @Gringoviej0  "Minimum wage is for teenagers to make some money flipping burgers." Low skilled jobs make up 1/3 of all available hours and the median income is 31k for single americans. Minimum wage is not for teens or incompetent adults. "That is why I appose abortion, it would be interesting to see what you think about that, not trying to be confrontational just genuine curiosity. " According to a secular governmental standard, you're not a human with rights until you have your SSN. I think that's too late in the process to restrict access, so I think the first half of the pregnancy abortions should be done for any reason and past that it shouldn't be any question of you can have one if you have medical concerns. Nobody enjoys getting an abortion, the parties you see are like parties for funerals, trying to find joy in dark trying times, from what I understand which is limited as I am a man. "And your assumption that all companies are garbage companies just exposes some naivety." All companies with investors have a fiduciary duty that comes before the customer and employee, legally. So yes, all corporations have bad incentive structures and therefor seldom make decisions for the benefit of everyone, making them bad by their deeds. "Companies that really mistreat their people tend not to last very long" Have you heard of Walmart or Amazon? Walmart does wage theft and Amazon is a bean counter's wet dream and a workers nightmare, monitored by camera's all day working insane hours, peeing in bottles to keep up with the standards set by machines. " If you think they are all evil then why are you wearing their clothes, using their phones, and enjoying all the comforts they have provided you from birth?" Because it is impossible to live without participating in the economy. All food, shelter, transportation and clothing is bought, the days of people living in log cabins with salt and booze as the height of technology are over, and nobody actually wants to go back. The standard of living was absolutely pathetic. Dirt floors, bugs, no soap, no central heating, no natural gas, no oil, spices etc. etc. We are held together by cultural ties, but more importantly we're held together by logistical ties. You don't make your hammers yourself, there is no escaping consumerism. If you wanted to do that, you'd have to live like cavemen and die like cavemen, dirty, scared, sick and in the dark. "The only problems are ones made up by people who don't seem have any real difficulties other than their own lack of motivation to better themselves." This is a narrative not evidence. I operate in evidence, it is evident that banks control money and money controls the flow of commodities. Therefor while yes you have autonomy over your body, if you want to live in the first world you cannot be self made, it is a myth to keep us from realizing that inheriting art doesn't count as economic productivity. There's a family that INHERITED the NASDAQ, they inherited an empire that in publicly disclosed holdings, proves they make as much in revenue per year as Elon Musk's net worth. That is not fair, that is not innovative. It is a drain on the economy to allow unproductive people to siphon off the wealth generated by those actually involved in production. "Y'all have to root around to find something to complain about." How old are you? You've clearly never paid rent in a city. The median rent is 1,200 or 1,400 and the median income is 31k, that means it's 1/2 your income. That's not a systemic problem? How about the 17,000-43,000 americans who die of exposure because of these extortionary pricing schemes? I'm against dead americans, and I don't care what adversary we have to oppose to stop it, foreign or domestic. "Celebrate others success when its honest and be grateful for what you have. Set some real goals, and go work on accomplishing them." This is legitimately great advice, to me it felt ironic after reading what you wrote earlier. I hope I come off respectful, I try to be but I don't always succeed.
    1
  2015. 1
  2016.  @jessicarichards8531  "feminism is egalitarian. that's literally the whole point of feminism." I prefer to judge a political movement by its impact and action not its dictionary definition. "valuing/respecting stay-at-home women more than stay-at-home men is a right-wing idea." I agree, haven't you heard of TERF's and SWERF's? Or the anti-civil rights feminists from last century? You honestly mean to tell me there's never been reactionary elements within feminism? I can't believe that, as someone from the trans community you HAVE to be aware of TERF's, who are right wing reactionary in a lot of their stuff. "people need to do what works for them (as long as they aren't hurting anyone), and other people need to just leave them be." I agree, we're not in disagreement on very many issues. I dislike feminism, both as a name and by its impact on men and somewhat broader society. I do appreciate the advances women have made, we just can't forget about the other half of the population who are dying like MF lemmings. " to be lesbian is to have a particular sexual orientation. it's something you're born with, that's all." I agree that's the healthiest way, from my perspective. I think that if someone tries to have their orientation align with their politics, there's nothing anyone can do about it. But ideologies rooted in hate are toxic and should be watched. "womens' rights (and others' rights) don't have to wait for all of the mens' issues to be addressed first." I was ranking severity of the issue, I think fatalities are a pretty decent metric ranking political priorities. I know nobody cares enough about 168,000 deaths of despair enough to make that a reality, though. So it'd be great if we walked and chewed gum at the same time, if you catch my drift, address all issues. "putting men's needs before everyone else's is misogynist." What would you describe a culture that ignores 1.5 million deaths of despair over 20 years before even mentioning it as an issue, simply because it's men? imo, I'd call that misandrist. SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO where does that leave us? Well from an objectivist perspective it leaves us with a misandrist nation that thinks it's misogynist, if you look at death, life expectancy and mental health.
    1
  2017. 1
  2018. 1
  2019.  @jessicarichards8531  I appreciate that you can see the reason to my argument. I hope you know I'm genuinely not making these statements in bad faith. I do care about trans suicides, and I've heard the left talk about it many times. The right talks about it as a grift, they want to exacerbate the issue to grow their private army. There is from what I can tell, which is not a lot (because of my individual experience) it seems like there's less stigma for seeking support within the trans community than for men in almost any social circle. I also think that making boys more emotionally intelligent will lead to them being a lot more accepting of EVERYONE. I'm a poor mixed cis het man, I don't want to regress socially, but mens issues MF matter and it feels like nobody cares how many of us die. 168,000 easily preventable deaths per year and climbing. But like Stalin said, 1 death is a tragedy, but 1 million is a statistic. That is to say, dozens is unfathomable, but a single death can be personified and therefor has more effect than the massacre of thousands or millions, and as the number grows the less understood it is. "(1) those stats are a bit misleading, because women attempt suicide more often, while men succeed more often" Men who fail suicide attempts don't admit to failing. You think someone too afraid to ask for help before is going to ask for help when they couldn't even get that right? That is how men frame it in their mind, it disappears into anger or a more final attempt. So while yes, there are more REPORTED female attempts, we can't reasonably compare those numbers. If we take some of the OD rates as attempted suicides that aren't claimed, the number grows very rapidly. "(2) a lot of those male suicides can be explained by the loneliness of isolation, which in turn comes from yelling at men whenever they try to express genuine emotions outside of a narrow, limited spectrum." I agree that's how the right alienates men, however the left does this, too often. They'll use more emotionally intelligent language like "I wish I could help you but the only person able to effect your emotions is you" or something like "It's not my responsibility to do this emotional labor for you." either response shuts down the conversation and lets them know #1 they are alone and #2 others refuse to be bothered. That is such a common response.
    1
  2020. 1
  2021. 1
  2022. 1
  2023. 1
  2024.  @franklinbadge1215  He's suffering under late stage capitalism, and receives no class solidarity because of his genetics. Cis, het, white men can't have real issues according to 90% of the left, especially not social issues, as if the bar for being too poor to go out to eat lowers because of your genetics. There's nowhere on the left/in major cities to discuss this without being shouted at for being a bigot and erasing minorities oppression, even when you specifically frame it as your individual experience not indicative of the system. The notion that women can be at fault for anything socially is also driving the poor men up the wall. I can't tell you how many times I've had a rich white girl tell me how privileged I am for having a little flesh between my legs, while she lives in a 1 million dollar mansion and I grew up on food stamps. Quotas hurt poor men, i think they're necessary but we have to figure out how to not let anyone fall through the cracks. imo, universal services seems like the best policy solution (college and healthcare, including mental healthcare). I may be misrepresenting OP's perspective, but as someone who used to hang out with people in this demographic, and being in this demographic myself this represents some of the issues a lot of us face. And we're all scared to even admit it for fear of being called a bigot. It's comical in a very dark way that people don't complain for fear of being called a bigot to such a degree they'd rather jump than voice their problems.
    1
  2025. 1
  2026. 1
  2027. 1
  2028. 1
  2029. 1
  2030.  @arlenebozich  "I would even consider in this situation." Then you're being to vague 'not enough accountability' in what? Where? Cause there's LOTS of accountability for men, at all times. It comes with the perception that men are agents and women aren't, a premise most uneducated feminists hold. Men do things to women, it is a one way street in 90% of all feminist speech and writing I've seen and heard. "I'm not misinformed" Then prove to me that women are punished more than men for the same infraction. It's very VERY simple. "All the sudden I'm expected to have specific, detailed steps and an action plan? Pass." Yes, when we're discussing an issue that kills hundreds of thousands of people in one demographic per year, we generally look for solutions, and solutions require detail. If you're just here to doubt the importance of the claim and bounce then don't pretend you actually care, that's all. You don't have to care, just don't get in the way. "Insulting peoples intelligence and looking for reasons to be offended when other people have thoughts or ideas that are different than yours is a sad, miserable way to live your life." I didn't insult you. You're projecting like mad. I'm offended you're actively trying to end the discussion on male suicide, that seems like a pretty tame response, since I've lost my best friend and 2 co-workers to suicide. With all the skin in the game I have, you're lucky all I said was that your apathy is monstrous. "Hope you get the help you clearly need, just re-read the Nazism comment you left another person and I'm ashamed to have wasted so much time on someone who expects empathy and logic in their debates but obviously doesn't give it in return." Can you site anything I said in particular, like you did in your original comment or are you afraid of having your ideas challenged, like I clearly am. And I'm SO emotional right now, too. You can tell by my informative answers and polite requests. " But you do what you want, I just ask that you live your life away from me." Sweetheart, if my comments drove you to suicide I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep. Don't you worry about me wanting to live my life with any degree of proximity to you, mkay?
    1
  2031. 1
  2032. 1
  2033. 1
  2034. 1
  2035.  @arlenebozich  " 'Woo the women'? Did you read that out loud before you sent it? I haven't cringed that hard in a while, please be more degrading." Lol, do you think someone trying to impress you is degrading? Or are you just trying to ignore my argument because the phrasing was out of the roaring 20's? "Why is it so difficult to acknowledge reality?" You mean to tell me there haven't been female monarchs for basically all of history along with men? It's a classist system before it's sexist or racist. You and Oprah are not in the same boat. Peter Thiel is not my friend or ally. " That single fact is enough to denote the society we currently live in as a Patriarchy- society favoring men." Sureee, we'll just ignore circumcision, let's pretend it's like a fingernail, ignore the deaths and deformities it cause. Yep, women are the only ones with their rights infringed by the government, which is awful, don't get me wrong. You're just not alone. Because as you said, it's a bad system for everyone. "And, considering the conversation is about how much men are suffering, it's also accurate to say that gender is the main system we're examining in this situation." You're right, I should apply that logic to female issues... you're the common thread in all of it, so i guess you have to do it yourselves with no recognition from me. That's what feminism's been about, staying in your lane and not letting others know what's unequitable. "Of course the rich are rigging the system- they've set the balance off in favor of men and you're playing right into their hands when you don't acknowledge that manipulation." Men were allowed glory, but how else do you convince a peasant to jump on a grenade for you? It's a tool to get them to kill themselves. Do you think the king sent the peasants to die and not his queen&the women because he liked the men more? It was a terrible system for EVERYONE. The Queens have not been benevolent, the crown, money and power are the cabal not 'men'. "So, since men have political representation, landownership, and financial access moreso than other parts of the gender spectrum, and men are the ones currently suffering, how did it become another problem for women to solve?" Firstly, the 0.1% of men you're talking about does not know my name or care if i live or die, they use that money on their family, not the patriarchy. And a majority of men despise those rich picts, they are not what most men would choose as the best example of masculinity. I would say they're typically closer to evil than to masculine. Do you think men only care about money and sex? Do you think depression can be caused by interpersonal relationships or is it exclusively an economic phenomena? "This is like when we talk about violence against women- it's always in the passive voice. Who is committing the violence on the women? Overwhelmingly, MEN. It's another instance of not taking responsibility for actions, on a cultural and individual level. Accountability. Responsibility. Standards to meet, goals- these are part of the building blocks of a purpose driven life, which is what men are missing right now under the isolation they're forced into in the current iteration of our system's demands culturally (which is absolutely bs)." Look at you so eager to avoid talking about suicide, get to an issue where you can claim victimhood. Find me ANY piece of research that says women receive longer sentencing for the same crime, men have more accountability than women. Nobody recognizes female domestic violence, not even the most ardent feminists I know were willing to talk about the DV we saw at my work. I have been let go because I was a man and the boss didn't like working with men. Women are not these passive angelic beings, and portraying women as such weak willed incompetent objects is really antithetical to everything the (extremely flawed racist, classist, SWERF, TERF, misandrist) feminist movement won you which was necessary, but still we have to acknowledge the flaws if we want to not have feminism be racist, classist, SWERF, TERF and misandrist nonsense, just like the history of our nation and every other institution we should not paper over the ugly bits until they've healed. Pfft, you've got to be a baby. I doubt you're even 18. You need to keep a more open mind so you don't turn into a bigoted feminist (because yes, they exist SWERFing is bigotry). Now look, I can also talk for days about the flaws of the manosphere, but YOU wanted to talk about feminism, I am a feminist in the text book definition of the word, but I don't like labels so I support the policy and not the people, cause you shouldn't support anyones actions all the time. "But, the only way out is through. You have to want to change, have to be able to admit there's a problem in the first place or you'll never get to solving it." You just femsplained men's cultural liberation, this is exactly the BS you tell men not to do, and rightfully so. It is not my place as a cis man to tell you anything about womanhood, can you afford me the same level of respect? "However, the rest of us are the ones suffering from domestic abuse, human trafficking, and violence at the hands of confused men while you all take your time deciding who is responsible for your actions." Oh, yeah let's ignore that 40% of HTV's are boys. Let's ignore the fact that lesbian relationships are the most violent and nobody acknowledges female on male DV, feminists even say it's inherently different no matter how much damage she does. But that's not an issue because it happens to a genetic group you dislike, right? I mean, 13/50 right? That's half your argument. "Tough love, I don't have time for people who can't get out of their own way- you'll just have to deal with a 'flippant' YouTube comment (redundant, they're all inherently flippant) from someone who has fought through enough mental health episodes to have earned the gallows humor." Tough love? I wouldn't consider this loving, this sounds more like the "tough love" that angry husbands used to give in the 50's.
    1
  2036.  @mariz_mariz  "When you bring up and validate the talking points of incels, the Andrew Tate types and passport bros...you are in fact asking everyone to support predators and misogynists." It's misogynistic to acknowledge there's a mental health crisis in men? No it's not, you're just a misandrist who refuses to acknowledge mens issues, because like a fascist you can ignore any amount of suffering if it's the people with the 'wrong genetics'. "You don't have an argument sir. "It's women's fault" is NOT an argument. It's a scapegoat." That's not what I said, actually. But you know that, you're just so caught up in reactionary hate you can't accept I have a point, don't worry, I'll explain myself later in this discussion. But put your big kid pants on and try to react with some tact and decorum, this is a serious subject and we shouldn't let emotions get in the way of useful communication. " Because you claim women cannot raise a man, but then you're pointing at women as if they are the ones that need to FIX your issues." I didn't say that, actually. Are you ESL? So, mens cultural liberation will be similar to womens in that men will define the new terms for themselves, without womens involvement. And like womens cultural liberation, it will require women listening to mens perspectives, and respecting them. It will require womens expectations in dating to change, too. It will require women to get over their implicit bias to take care of baby girls more than baby boys (empirically proven by American Psychological Association’s journal Behavioral Neuroscience amongst other studies). So while the bulk of the work will be done by men, women have agency and therefor responsibility within society and culture at large. "If you are having an issue concerning manhood...talk to other men. But the more men champion misogynists and predators, the more people will look at them as lunatics that need to be in a jail somewhere." You can talk about your issues, I just think the rest of polite society should want you jailed. I am not a misandrist, i just think microaggressions against my preferred genetic demographic is worse than 104,000 preventable deaths from those with bad genetics. "so saying that women should not be talking about women's issues...which most involve maltreatment from certain men is STUPID. It's you guys that cannot have a conversation about your issues without conjuring up women who have issues with some men." Wow, the lack of self awareness is PRICELESS, you retard. "If men's issues have to do with having an issue with women....just say that." Well, that's a very 1 dimensional perspective. Women's expectations of men are problematic, I don't have an issue with women as a concept, I have an issue with their expectations and lack of self awareness. "But stop pretending as if you don't want women included in your conversations when every time men's issues come up, you have dickheads chomping at the bit to scream feminism. Feminism has nothing to do with the issue of manhood." And men have nothing to do with a lack of women in stem. SA can't be caused by men because it requires a woman to happen, right? Big brain takes happen between your ears don't they?
    1
  2037. 1
  2038. 1
  2039. 1
  2040. 1
  2041. 1
  2042. 1
  2043. 1
  2044. 1
  2045. 1
  2046. 1
  2047. 1
  2048. 1
  2049. 1
  2050. 1
  2051. 1
  2052. 1
  2053. 1
  2054. 1
  2055. 1
  2056. 1
  2057. 1
  2058. 1
  2059. 1
  2060. 1
  2061. 1
  2062. 1
  2063. 1
  2064. 1
  2065. 1
  2066. 1
  2067. 1
  2068. 1
  2069. 1
  2070. 1
  2071. 1
  2072. 1
  2073. 1
  2074. 1
  2075. 1
  2076. 1
  2077. 1
  2078. 1
  2079. 1
  2080. 1
  2081. 1
  2082. 1
  2083. 1
  2084. 1
  2085. 1
  2086. 1
  2087. 1
  2088. 1
  2089. 1
  2090. 1
  2091. 1
  2092. 1
  2093. 1
  2094. 1
  2095. ​ @Christi6746  First I want to say Tate is disgusting, and nothing but a grifter trying to make the problem worse while profiting off if it. So PLEASE don't think I am associated with the right, or the manosphere. You identify with the movement, like a good pastor provides cover for the creepy pastor in the church next to them. Until YOU/feminists take initiative to clean the house you choose to identify with you are supporting the bigoted feminists, even if you don't use their rhetoric (you're still providing cover). I get called a POS because of bezos is a man, and every time a celebrity male gets caught being a creep somehow it's ALL MEN who need to learn and apologize. That is the rhetoric of the biggest feminist platforms, at least that I've seen (hasanabi, majority report, Alice Cappel, Khadaji Mwabi (not that bad usually, but still not incorporating average men's experiences and the alarming stats into her discussion of the issues is still downplaying the severity, which is an improvement on opposition but decidedly still needing work), FD signifier, etc.). When discussing the CONCEPT of domestic violence, male is a stand in for perpetrator and female is a stand in for victim. YOUR MOVEMENT IS ESSENTIALIZING CRIME TO IMMUTABLE CHARACTERISTICS, don't complain to me about you catching flack for a label you put on yourself. If you don't like that association, don't call yourself feminist (use egalitarian, or non-radfem, or something that communicates what you actually want to associate with), drag the misandrists like you drag misogynists, or just deal with the fact you associate with some REMARKABLY hateful people (and you're OK with that), and because YOU CHOOSE that association it wasn't forced onto you, you get the good and the bad of it. I choose to not use labels at all on myself, even though if I described what I want in broad terms it's socialist (more command economics, a more flat payscale, universal services, etc.) and feminist (as in true equality, and i'm even for the intersectional feminism, as in LGBT+ and POC issues), but the online left has destroyed those terms along with material analysis, systemic analysis, class consciousness amongst others. In spite of feminists getting push back on this rhetoric for a decade+ they haven't changed anything material, so they're still a group of accidental willing idiots providing cover to real bigots, at best. I feel this way about the church, and religions generally. I feel this way about the government, and many other institutions/movements, so don't think I'm singling feminism out.
    1
  2096. 1
  2097. 1
  2098. 1
  2099. 1
  2100. 1
  2101. 1
  2102. 1
  2103. 1
  2104. 1
  2105. 1
  2106. 1
  2107. 1
  2108. 1
  2109. 1
  2110. 1
  2111. 1
  2112. 1
  2113. 1
  2114. 1
  2115. 1
  2116. 1
  2117. 1
  2118. 1
  2119. 1
  2120. 1
  2121. 1
  2122. 1
  2123. 1
  2124. 1
  2125. 1
  2126. 1
  2127. 1
  2128. 1
  2129. 1
  2130. 1
  2131. 1
  2132. 1
  2133. 1
  2134. 1
  2135. 1
  2136. 1
  2137. 1
  2138. 1
  2139. 1
  2140. 1
  2141. 1
  2142. 1
  2143. 1
  2144. 1
  2145. 1
  2146. 1
  2147. 1
  2148. 1
  2149. 1
  2150. 1
  2151. 1
  2152. 1
  2153. 1
  2154. 1
  2155. 1
  2156. 1
  2157. 1
  2158. 1
  2159. 1
  2160. 1
  2161. 1
  2162. 1
  2163. 1
  2164. 1
  2165. 1
  2166. 1
  2167. 1
  2168. 1
  2169. 1
  2170. 1
  2171. 1
  2172. 1
  2173. 1