Comments by "Icetea 2000" (@Icetea-2000) on "Asmongold Clips"
channel.
-
4800
-
898
-
634
-
253
-
236
-
186
-
177
-
151
-
115
-
114
-
92
-
87
-
85
-
83
-
73
-
71
-
69
-
68
-
63
-
61
-
59
-
56
-
56
-
52
-
44
-
43
-
39
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
35
-
35
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
27
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
@UnholyLia Yeah of course it is done in other places now, because it’s imported from America, but as someone living in Europe, it’s nowhere near as much of a thing as in the US. It’s mostly in the UK, which again, more influence from the US due to being anglosphere.
The CSD is a DAY, CHRISTOPHER STREET DAY , in no way is that the same as a month or even more leading up to it of constantly shoving all this in your face. It’s like any other event, if you want to take part in it you do, if you don’t, it doesn’t bother you or is less likely to.
What are "these countries" you’re talking about?? Always love to see the American imagination portraying the rest of the world as just barbarians, while thinking of themselves as some sort of enlightened land of the free while they never even left their country in their lives, it sure hasn’t changed.
You think "pride month" is some sort of innate concept that comes with being LGBT?? No, it’s at its core an American invention like Black or Women’s history month. Just a marketing concept relegating people’s identities to something akin to museum pieces to only look at in some sort of defined space and time instead of just generally or when someone wants to.
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@xanderabbey8529 Except the preorders were a minuscule part of sales.
You seem to be under the impression that game developers can just do whatever because people will just preorder anyway but that’s not how it works, with such a strategy they will and do lose money. People seem to think games like CoD or Assassins Creed only make money because people preorder them but that’s not true, the majority of those buyers actually went into a store and bought it. Of course it’s different in some cases, Cyberpunk opened preorders years before launch to fund themselves and to exploit the goodwill of the gaming community in CDPR, but that’s an outlier and they definitely burned themselves for doing this.
No man’s sky had a similar thing, but the hype got out of their control and they never stopped working on the game and made it into what people wanted. It’s also different because it was a small indie developer.
Preorders of this game didn’t play any role, it’s not going to matter, it flops all the same. The blame absolutely doesn’t lie with buyers. That way you will never be able to blame the developers fully because they can always say "well people still preorder it!", yeah, there will always be people preordering it, doesn’t mean that 400 people preordering it will fund the whole development of the game. It’s ridiculous to blame buyers for the game. Only buyers themselves can have remorse for wasting their own money.
Also this game is just so broken and conceptually bad that even with all the patches in the world it’s never going to be a good game.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
But why can’t women also say that? I feel like everyone acting for true equality are men, and women act like true equality is just unfair to women somehow.
Like seriously, I have read those feminist books where they, and I’m not making this up, claim that meritocratic based systems are a bad thing because they’re somehow biased towards men. Well if they’re biased, they’re not very meritocratic now are they? In their mind, meritocracy is just something privileged men act for, it became clear while reading that the reason she has a problem with that is because it would take away the moral basis for female quotas and forcing women into everything. In the end it just goes back to being a war of the sexes again, it doesn’t matter what people do, just "the people that look like me should control everything".
Anyway, my point is I hope some more reasonable feminists learn to pull the breaks before their whole movement just drives straight down the cliff of misandry
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@ca_kay First off 4 million a year is definitely not it for Phil. And it’s easily more than 40k for a lot of those, especially the managers of that studio. People apparently forget that they didn’t fire random people out of their own company, they terminated another company.
But even if it were those numbers (which it isn’t), they aren’t laying off 100 people, but 2000 people, which is 80 million a year, IF it were 40k for each person at the company, which will definitely be far higher on average with all the managers. And it’s not just the personal costs, it’s equipment costs, building costs, legal fees and whatever else is associated with running a company, it could easily be hundreds of millions of dollars to run those each year.
In no way does that stand in any relation.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Asmon, stop it with this narrative of "they don’t care", yes they do very evidently care, why? Because these companies are all infiltrated by these woke gender studies types that do want to push their agendas on a wider scale.
A company is just a group of people after all, and most people don’t own a stake in the value accruing process. When the project inevitably fails again, these wokists in the company don’t suffer, they just do it again or go to another company, because they are paid by paycheck. Only the very top cares about how well the company is doing, and even they either get influenced by these people to believe it is important in the long run, or they believed it themselves already.
The point is that yes, these companies DO care to push woke issues because they employ people that care. And to just keep on saying that they don’t, you completely blind yourself towards the real issue that it’s these major institutions like big media companies pushing woke stuff, and instead muddy the waters by acting like leftists don’t already own major influence in media.
The only reason it got this far and this storyboard was even conceived was because they unfortunately do care about this issue. You think this was made because they thought it would make them the big bucks? Ridiculous, the people behind it really believe this, so stop saying "they don’t care".
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@hunzukunz No, it may be a shortcut for skill, but nonetheless it essentially fits the same purpose, creating something a person imagines.
What a person imagines is uncontrollable, and shouldn’t be controlled unless you are in favor of a thought police. What they put into reality is up to them and whether people accept or reject it is up to them as well. All AI does is make it essier for people to put their thoughts into reality, it doesn’t create these things.
People should have all the freedom to decide what to do, that doesn’t mean that nothing should be illegal. It’s not that creating something with AI suddenly puts it out of your responsibility. You are the only creator of something that you put the prompt into. You may say you didn’t really do much, but that’s the thing, the program is just an AI running automatically, the only human controlling the input is you, therefore you are the one responsible for what you make. And if you make something illegal with it, then it’s your responsibility to shoulder
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Mereologist Well yes, I didn’t say that all vegans think the same, which is why I was only talking about those that do think like this.
Well, it’s unrealistic to be there the SECOND an animal dies of natural causes, even on a farm, and if you just wait a few minutes, you probably don’t want that meat anymore. Though to be honest, it would make more sense to have a group of people that is fine with eating meat of animals who only die when they are very old, and I know of farms that solely do that. In that case it wouldn’t really make much of a difference to get killed at an old age or natural causes.
Basically, vegetarians make more sense than vegans, but not much if they are that because they are concerned about the well being of animals.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Since your reply on my comment got shadowbanned by YouTube I don’t want to bloat up that reply section with a seemingly unrelated reply to a person that isn’t there, so here:
A day is certainly different than a month, and I also wouldn’t be in favor of just adding a new holiday for whatever the f.
This is where the problem lies, you believe you can only respect others within these timeframes. You need a certain month to tell you how to think otherwise you can’t just be conscious of it yourself, otherwise you wouldn’t be in favor of a "pride month".
Ah yes, here comes the victim complexes again, no they weren’t, and annoying everyone else for a month every year doesn’t exactly relate to that anyway.
"You think they have 0 problems in any sense outside of law or in law even in as short as 10 years?"??????
Nice strawman, can you point me to where I said that? Oh wait you can’t because I never did.
You seem to mistake me being against a pride month as me being against gay rights or something, which is such a gross either intentional or incompetent misunderstanding.
The aim is to normalize these groups, segregating them into their own months to ogle at like museum pieces does the opposite, it just solidifies the belief of others that they have no intention to be a normal part of society just like them. Of course that is wrong, which is exactly why we need to get rid of these types of months and I can tell you that outside the Anglosphere people don’t care about that and it doesn’t take away in any way from gay rights.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@somebodyoncetoldme2664 A day is certainly different than a month, and I also wouldn’t be in favor of just adding a new holiday for whatever the f.
This is where the problem lies, you believe you can only respect others within these timeframes. You need a certain month to tell you how to think otherwise you can’t just be conscious of it yourself, otherwise you wouldn’t be in favor of a "pride month".
Ah yes, here comes the victim complexes again, no they weren’t, and annoying everyone else for a month every year doesn’t exactly relate to that anyway.
"You think they have 0 problems in any sense outside of law or in law even in as short as 10 years?"??????
Nice strawman, can you point me to where I said that? Oh wait you can’t because I never did.
You seem to mistake me being against a pride month as me being against gay rights or something, which is such a gross either intentional or incompetent misunderstanding.
The aim is to normalize these groups, segregating them into their own months to ogle at like museum pieces does the opposite, it just solidifies the belief of others that they have no intention to be a normal part of society just like them. Of course that is wrong, which is exactly why we need to get rid of these types of months and I can tell you that outside the Anglosphere people don’t care about that and it doesn’t take away in any way from gay rights.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jekila2149 You're saying the company shouldn’t be blamed for what they do if people can just choose to not play the game?? Don’t you see that this behavior sets a precedent for customer abusing practices?
Well yes, they can legally do so, but customers can also not be prevented from voicing their dissatisfaction with it beyond just not buying it.
In a perfectly free market this would work, once any company just does anything you slightly don’t like, you just switch to the competitor that has the exact same product except for this thing you don’t like. That way consumers are perfectly flexible and can change where to buy at any point. But that’s simply not possible in practice. Products of a company, especially something as specialized as video games, and blizzard games in particular, can not just be substituted with another game on a whim.
If people have an issue with one thing in WoW, they can’t just simply switch to another game because it’s so specific. It’s called a lock-in effect.
Does this mean the company has a legal obligation to fix their game in every way the customer demans? No, but it leads to a giant dissatisfaction campaign by a lot of customers which the customers are perfectly allowed to do as well. And it makes sense why, as they cannot just switch to another game as if it’s the same.
But also, there are consumer protection laws beyond that. For example, you can’t just have misleading marketing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
>world is like our medieval one
>put magic and dragons in it
>this somehow means wheelchair wheels can cross country any better
I wonder if people will ever understand that a story needs to be internally consistent. In your own universe you make up, sure, you can come up with all the rules you want, but to make a convincing story you need to STICK to those rules you came up with yourself.
Especially in cases where you didn’t change the rules, but you just took things straight from the real world. Like the ground, or a wheelchair, there’s no reason given as to why these two should interact differently in that world. Just saying "it’s fantasy" doesn’t influence this, it’s not barren of logic just because it’s fiction.
It’s like these people are saying because there’s certain aspects changed about a world compared to our own that nothing needs to make sense anymore. Dragons exist in Lord of the Rings, yet if Frodo arrived in Mordor within a day’s walk from the Shire, that would make no sense and is completely unrelated to another. Just like how magic existing is completely unrelated to the fact that a wheelchair is obviously a major disadvantage for trying to traverse or fight anything and totally unconvincing, it’s too clunky
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ca_kay The point is the costs are not really as relevant, and they don’t decide their own pay unless they’re also the company owner, which Phil certainly isn’t.
And also you need to pay your higher ups more and more to give a proper incentive for people to even do those jobs. Do you actually know what a CEO or similarly high managers have to do? They have full schedules from morning to evening, even on weekends. I know this from my company which is far smaller and we all know each other, but even so my CEO has like a dozen meetings with important customers every day that she has to properly be prepared for, additionally to managing 4 different several months-long projects different teams do that she constantly has to be accutely aware of every detail and manage every day. And that’s just day to day work, without going into any long term strategies that need to be developed.
In short, it’s not a job I would want to do.
And even if some of the CEOs of the really big companies are overpaid, which might very well be the case, those companies already have such a big revenue stream that this one person doesn’t really matter and it’s far more important to have them managing the company as a whole, it is a pain in the ass to do so, I have seen that
1
-
@ca_kay The point is the costs are not really as relevant, and they don’t decide their own pay unless they’re also the company owner, which Phil certainly isn’t.
And also you need to pay your higher ups more and more to give a proper incentive for people to even do those jobs. Do you actually know what a CEO or similarly high managers have to do? They have full schedules from morning to evening, even on weekends. I know this from my company which is far smaller and we all know each other, but even so my CEO has like a dozen meetings with important customers every day that she has to properly be prepared for, additionally to managing 4 different several months-long projects different teams do that she constantly has to be accutely aware of every detail and manage every day. And that’s just day to day work, without going into any long term strategies that need to be developed.
In short, it’s not a job I would want to do.
And even if some of the CEOs of the really big companies are overpaid, which might very well be the case, those companies already have such a big revenue stream that this one person doesn’t really matter and it’s far more important to have them managing the company as a whole, it is a pain to do so, I have seen that. I would much rather work 12 hours in a steel factory than be a CEO
1
-
@ca_kay The point is the costs are not really as relevant, and they don’t decide their own pay unless they’re also the company owner, which Phil certainly isn’t.
In a big company like Microsoft it doesn’t really matter if one person is paid that much, and it’s not just some random person. And also you need to pay your higher ups more and more to give a proper incentive for people to even do those jobs. Do you actually know what a CEO or similarly high managers have to do? They have full schedules from morning to evening, even on weekends. I know this from my company which is far smaller and we all know each other, but even so my CEO has like a dozen meetings with important customers every day that she has to properly be prepared for, additionally to managing 4 different several months-long projects different teams do that she constantly has to be accutely aware of every detail and manage every day. And that’s just day to day work, without going into any long term strategies that need to be developed, how to expand and managing HR.
In short, it’s not a job I would want to do, I would rather work in a steel factory 12 hours a day
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ca_kay I'll try again, maybe my comment won’t be removed.
Basically, you seem to have little insight into what a CEO does. At the small company I work at, which is not exactly comparable because everyone knows another but still, the CEO too has a full schedule from morning to evening, weekends too. It’s not a job I would want to do or many could do. It’s not a mindless "just being there" and getting the hours over, you have to actually be at the top of your game every waking minute, calls and meetings with important customers every hour, managing 4 distinct projects at the same time where she has to be accutely aware of every detail as she works at all of them simultaneously, planning the strategy of the Company as a whole, managing personnel, etc.
That’s part of why they need to be paid that much because you seriously need to be a certain kind of person of which not many exist to do this every day and not go insane. I would rather work in a steel factory 12 hours a day seriously
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hunzukunz Of course, every thoight police doesn’t call itself that, it’s always about "stopping the spreading of misinformation". You know that that’s an easily exploitable way for bad actors to label anything misinformation they don’t like to ban right?
Yes, it very much is about censorship. "Character assassination", show me one person that was cancelled due to fake AI generated content. Something that is AI generated would immediately be provable to have been fake, and anyone caring enough about it would quickly find out that it was fake. No public figure would have their image forever ruined by something AI generated, it doesn’t make sense, it hasn’t happened and it cannot happen, because any such thing would be known to have been fake almost immediately, and anyone perpetuating it as something real would be ridiculed for believing something AI generated to be real.
I don’t know in what world you live in, but you seem to be under the impression that advocating for the freedom to its usage means also being completely removed from the responsibilities of its consequences or demanding that what was generated should be accepted by everyone.
Anyone can write anything, that doesn’t mean that anything you write would just be tolerated publicly. But you could write it is the point.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Lostachilles Alright, comparing AI generation to some sort of supersuits and WMDs is more than a little ridiculous. But I can’t compare an art enhancement tool to, you know, an art tool??
All of these things already exist. The supersuit comparison makes no sense when it gives you inhuman strength as you describe it, as AI analogously doesn’t allow you to do anything new, just generate something quicker. So really it would just be like uploading some sort of fighting knowledge into your brain matrix style, but that still doesn’t make you inhuman, or absolves you of crimes you could commit. No martial artist is "capable of laying waste to dozens of adversaries in seconds", the real world isn’t anime, and when you compare AI generation to inhuman feats that makes no sense, as those things could be done before already.
And FFS, it’s about threatening actual physical harm. That’s why it’s different. We regulate weapons because they could physically hurt people, we don’t regulate pencils because they could mentally hurt people. That’s the point.
Yeah the tool could create something you don’t want all the time. That's why it's up to you to publish it or not. Just because it was AI generated doesn’t mean anything by itself, just like drawing something on a canvas doesn’t mean anything when you don’t publish it.
1
-
@Lostachilles Yes, I am aware you didn’t say exactly that AI is a WMD, I am saying that your comparison is completely misplaced because the "large scale harm" is not at all posed by AI text or image generation in this way like an actual weapon of mass destruction. You try to make a more general point, but you still use this as a comparison point, which I say you can’t, it’s that simple.
"Forgery is highly regulated", what, by the forgery guild? Lmao, you are probably talking about law enforcement after the fact. Which is all fair and good, and is exactly what should apply to AI too, but you’re not talking about that are you? You’re talking about inhibiting the tool BEFORE it’s creating something. That is not at all how we handle forgery either.
No, the suit analogy doesn’t work, because you were talking about achieving inhuman feats of strength like beating dozens of adversaries in seconds, something that no human can do, not even the best fighters in the world. And no, the best fighters are not "inhuman", I don’t know why you are saying that, the literal fact that they do it makes it human and defines the human limits in the respective fields.
And even the best fighters in the world cannot just beat up and mug random people and then just get away because they run fast or something. The law catches up with them all the same. If all the suit does is just make you a top 1 percentile human fighter, that still doesn’t save you from being arrested.
"When you’ve already had it explained", which I disagree with, so what’s so funny about that? It doesn’t matter how many people it equates, obviously I'm not claiming it to be the EXACT SAME 1 TO 1 thing in PRACTICE, I'm saying it’s the same PRINCIPLE to a pen. Pretty rich for you to complain about comprehension when you can’t grasp such a simple analogy.
It’s not about the physical properties of one pencil, it’s about the concept of being able to put anything you want on a blank canvas anyway, regardless of how many people do so or what kind of tool they use to fill that canvas with whatever they want, THAT is the principle I am referring to, and I'm astounded that you didn’t realize that.
Except that things being generated by AI are NOT automatically published. Can you give me one example of someone having their AI generated content leaked, not by another human but because of the system itself?
I have literally studied AI and know a lot more about it than you seem to believe I do. You don’t need to put someone else down in such a condescending way because you disagree with what they say.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Derael That’s pretty assuming don’t you think.
I take it you’re a woman right? And even if you’re not, how can you possibly say that men just find harassment less serious than women? That’s up to everyone to decide themselves.
NO, YOU ARE AN ASSHOLE BECAUSE OF THE BEHAVIOR ITSELF, NOT BECAUSE OF THE RECIPIENT!!
Do you even know what you’re saying right now? You’re essentially saying that if someone was r*ped and abducted and then has stockholm syndrome and tells the authorities that it’s fine, that that means the person didn’t commit a crime. No, that’s not how it works.
You can’t just afterwards see if someone is fine with something, you have to know beforehand.
You’re so unbelievably sexist it’s honestly astonishing. You’re saying that men don’t mind being sexually harassed or even like it, you’re pushing an extremely old narrative that falls into the same vein as "a boy cannot have been r*ped if he got an erection" even though that has been proven to be an entirely physical response, just like a woman getting wet doesn’t mean she liked to be r*ped. You’re being so assuming of what other men would think like without a care in the world for their feelings, while adamantly defending the feelings of women, it’s disgusting.
You are just filled with doubke standards, YOU are the problem, you need to take a look at yourself and think about what you’re doing
1
-
@Derael That’s pretty assuming don’t you think.
I take it you’re a woman right? And even if you’re not, how can you possibly say that men just find harassment less serious than women? That’s up to everyone to decide themselves.
NO, YOU ARE AN A HOLE BECAUSE OF THE BEHAVIOR ITSELF, NOT BECAUSE OF THE RECIPIENT!!
Do you even know what you’re saying right now? You’re essentially saying that if someone was r*ped and abducted and then has stockholm syndrome and tells the authorities that it’s fine, that that means the person didn’t commit a crime. No, that’s not how it works.
You can’t just afterwards see if someone is fine with something, you have to know beforehand.
You’re so unbelievably sex1st it’s honestly astonishing. You’re saying that men don’t mind being sexually harassed or even like it, you’re pushing an extremely old narrative that falls into the same vein as "a boy cannot have been r*ped if he got an erection" even though that has been proven to be an entirely physical response, just like a woman getting wet doesn’t mean she liked to be r*ped. You’re being so assuming of what other men would think like without a care in the world for their feelings, while adamantly defending the feelings of women, it’s disgusting.
You are just filled with double standards, YOU are the problem, you need to take a look at yourself and think about what you’re doing
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Derael "I don’t get to dictate how men feel" followed by "I am just making a generalization for all men" Buddy, you can’t honestly be this dense.
How is the male status being abused for power? If you loudly proclaim you’re being harassed by that woman either people will find you weird, laugh at you, the woman will turn it around like you’re the problem, or all of them.
But here’s the thing, what do norms and generalizations do when reality is much more complicated than that? Everyone is going to have their own different experiences, so you can’t just say that men take it less seriously, that just diminishes the severity of those that had those experiences and didn’t like it.
The stakes aren’t any higher, you’re not going to get r*ped in a public club, that’s what I mean, women being seen as more vulnerable makes them much more protected like you’re proving right now, which goes around to taking the opposite less seriously like you’re doing right now.
You’re confusing what is considered as "normal" behavior as morally right behavior. The only reason we consider it normal is because of our gender biases.
It is "okay" because women are typically not treated as seriously as men, like how fights between two women are referred to as "catfights" because to other men it’s hilarious and adorable because they’re much stronger. However, this leads to women being able to go all out when fighting a man, and even when they do injure the man more than they got injured, the man is seen as the villain, even if he was holding back and even if she started it. That’s what I mean with exploitation of the victim status, it’s just your own impression that is somewhat founded in reality, but goes too far to actually be unfair even if we keep the strength difference between men and women in mind.
So no, there is no "default acceptable sexual harassment", it’s always wrong.
You’re saying women are just free to sexually harass a man when there hasn’t been any boundaries set prior, and only afterwards do they have to back off, that’s so sexist. Just because men generally don’t treat them as seriously in your mind, that can only lead to bad situations where a man is taken advantage of for that very notion. No, women shouldn’t be conditioned to just initiate sexual harassment, and you are actively trying to justify it which is disgusting.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@theworld6710 Oh my god stop this condescending talk, it’s just grating. You’re not looking smarter for it, it just ironically makes you look more childish. Just drop the sass and snarky remarks.
Oh so now again it’s about women, when my first comment was about how this is not only limited to women but men too. Why focusing only on women here?
Oh something that is forced upon them? You mean like the dialogue? Yeah, they agree to these things, just like they agree to what they wear on set. It’s literally the exact same thing, if you advertise the role including wearing this vault suit, you’re not forcing anything on anyone, they agreed to that role under those terms, just like the dialogue.
And the dialogue being as sexually charged as it is, is an invention by the show too, so why is that not also problematic to you? Because the actors agreed to that? Well, who is saying they couldn’t agree to wearing the suits beforehand or not?
Also the vault suits aren’t even that sexually provocative, it’s not even as skintight as a diving suit. I don’t know why this is the hill you want to die on
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Derael I think I would very much be afraid of getting sexually assaulted by her what the hell do you mean??? She’s an expert hand to hand combatant, are you STILL saying I would be the one with more power there and therefore shouldn’t have to complain about sexual harassment?
Also, you’re ignoring a very crucial side of this that I want you to think about. Men’s stronger physical strength on average doesn’t make things relating to sexual harassment/assault better but worse for the man most of the time. Let me explain:
Yeah a man might be able to overpower a woman most of the time when they’re alone, but anything with anyone in sight would immediately be noticed by others around them and get the man jumped on by half a dozen guys. Think about a typical scenario, a bar or club or something, men’s physical strength and the belief that they’re stronger is a huge negative, as they are constantly scared how far they can go because one second of the girl telling everyone you’re harassing means you’ll get your head bashed in.
It’s a case of our innate desire to root for the underdog, and our primal instincts are that someone physically weaker is the underdog even though in our modern society there are plenty of different ways to get power. In no social environment with a bunch of people do women have less power, in fact it’s the opposite by everyone immediately siding with them if they choose to confront someone.
A man is practically helpless against a woman because what can he do when she sexually harasses him even if she’s weaker? If she yells and tells everyone around you you’re a creep to her, you’ll have your face punched in by other guys. It’s not like you can use your physical strength in any way to get ahead in that situation, in fact it works as a downside in social environments.
A woman can also always use their full strength to assault a man, and a man can’t back. It goes back to women not being taken seriously in their strength, like how women on women fights are called "catfights" because it’s seen as cute and unthreatening as two cats fighting another. That’s not really always the case though, a woman can injure a man far more than a man can back, even if he is already holding back, because a man is "supposed to take it like a man".
If that’s not sexism against men I don’t know what is. Due to our nature of rooting for the underdog we always see women as inherently more vulnerable without realizing that this cavemen level of thinking doesn’t really hold true in the modern world and that women actually hold more power in those situations by being able to rally the support of anyone around her against a man if she so chooses to.
1
-
@Derael I think I would very much be afraid of getting sexually assaulted by her what the hell do you mean??? She’s an expert hand to hand combatant, are you STILL saying I would be the one with more power there and therefore shouldn’t have to complain about sexual harassment?
Also, you’re ignoring a very crucial side of this that I want you to think about. Men’s stronger physical strength on average doesn’t make things relating to sexual harassment/assault better but worse for the man most of the time. Let me explain:
Yeah a man might be able to overpower a woman most of the time when they’re alone, but anything with anyone in sight would immediately be noticed by others around them and get the man jumped on by half a dozen guys. Think about a typical scenario, a bar or club or something, men’s physical strength and the belief that they’re stronger is a huge negative, as they are constantly scared how far they can go because one second of the girl telling everyone you’re harassing means you’ll get your head bashed in.
It’s a case of our innate desire to root for the underdog, and our primal instincts are that someone physically weaker is the underdog even though in our modern society there are plenty of different ways to get power. In no social environment with a bunch of people do women have less power, in fact it’s the opposite by everyone immediately siding with them if they choose to confront someone.
A man is practically helpless against a woman because what can he do when she sexually harasses him even if she’s weaker? If she yells and tells everyone around you you’re a creep to her, you’ll have your face punched in by other guys. It’s not like you can use your physical strength in any way to get ahead in that situation, in fact it works as a downside in social environments.
A woman can also always use their full strength to assault a man, and a man can’t back. It goes back to women not being taken seriously in their strength, like how women on women fights are called "catfights" because it’s seen as cute and unthreatening as two cats fighting another. That’s not really always the case though, a woman can injure a man far more than a man can back, even if he is already holding back, because a man is "supposed to take it like a man".
If that’s not sexism against men I don’t know what is. Due to our nature of rooting for the underdog we always see women as inherently more vulnerable without realizing that this cavemen level of thinking doesn’t really hold true in the modern world and that women actually hold more power in those situations by being able to rally the support of anyone around her against a man if she so chooses to.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1