Comments by "Eli Nope" (@elinope4745) on "TED"
channel.
-
496
-
95
-
64
-
57
-
51
-
41
-
33
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
25
-
24
-
20
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
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
-
5
-
5
-
You are right, but you are also wrong. Money isn't a car, its a piece of paper, or some 1s and 0s on a computer. There are finite actual resources. Look at the price of anything, but more importantly look at the price of raw materials. Its going up, because there are more people and fewer untapped resources. We have taken the easy oil, the easy iron, the easy coal, the easy everything. Underground aquafers are drying up, water is getting more expensive. So sure, the top 1% have a whole bunch of money, but if that money was distributed, it wouldn't get you more things, it would just raise the price of everything because demand would go up, but supply is fucked.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
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
-
Xanxei i actually stick by my stances. you can call me a troll, i think trolling is a art. i troll with logic, and support things that are reasonable, especially if it is reasonable yet unpopular.
cat calling really isn't a bad thing. some women don't want to be cat called, others do. but censorship isn't equality. trying to make people equal slaves is not a good stance for human rights. we should liberate those who are oppressed instead of equally oppressing everyone.
being cat called is not being oppressed, it is being annoyed. it is not being harassed unless it persists after the person doing the cat calling has been informed of the desire of the person who is being called to not be called. the norm is not to be protected from unwanted solicitation, rather the norm is to be exposed to solicitation (either wanted or unwanted) unless specifically communicating the desire not to be. solicitation of those who have communicated the desire not be solicited is a form of harassment but to limit this just to cat calling and not to other forms of unwanted solicitation is to focus on issues to specific groups of women over everyone else. it communicates a hidden message that this specific group is more important than other groups, and that is not equality.
imagine a scenario in which a woman walks down the street wearing a shirt that openly and clearly states that they do not wish to be cat called, and someone ignores the message and still cat calls them.
now imagine a person is on the internet and they are running an adblocker program that clearly states their desire to not be advertised towards. they run the program and yet some company finds a way to advertise to them anyway.
these two situations have an equal amount of harassment. both are being exposed to unwanted solicitation despite their effort to communicate their desire not to be exposed to such communications.
now imagine a guy wearing a shirt that openly states "don't expose me to your feminist propaganda". despite the shirt, a feminist tells him that cat calling is harassment. she is now just as guilty as the above mentioned guy who cat called the woman who had a shirt saying that she did not wish to be exposed to cat calls.
the core debate is about solicited and unsolicited communication and the desirability of having such communications aimed at you. yes it is annoying to be exposed to unwanted unsolicited communication. but the line for harassment can't be drawn there as it would infringe upon free communication. the line to harassment must be drawn after a communication is made that informs the soliciting party that the person does not wish to be exposed to such communication. only after such a communication is made and ignored is it harassment. until that point it is simply unsolicited communication. (which may be annoying and unwanted, but still not harassment).
to attempt to silence or control men as a whole in order to protect some women (not all women are opposed to cat calling), is a clear sign of placing the wants and desires of women over and above the liberty of men. currently both have the right to cat call each other and so currently on the issue of cat calling there is equality. to ask for men to be censored to ask for inequality and female superiority.
neither men nor women have the right to be protected from unwanted unsolicited communication. laws to stop such communication will always attack the right of free speech for others. the line between free speech and harassment is drawn only after communication of intent not to be contacted (this can be a shirt, a restraining order, a sign, or an adblocking program). but even then some forms of harassment are still legal (especially true of commercial interests such as phone based advertising to people on a "no call" list or advertising to people running ad blocking programs).
i do think that we should shine light upon the plight of attractive women. they gain a massive amount of unwanted solicitation. this is one of the many down sides of being very attractive. the public narrative is that being attractive is always a good thing. this is not true. there are many ups and downs to being attractive just like there is to being unattractive. pretty girls do not always have it better than ugly girls, like all things in life these things are circumstantial. and privilege is circumstantial as well.
anyhow, i hope you understand what i am trying to say, and why i would oppose opposition to cat calling. i stand on this on the right to free speech. everyone has the right to free speech. nobody has the right to not be offended.
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
-
Jaquelynn Gering women cry more than men. "why we cry" - american psychological association.
"THE IMPACT OF PREGNANCY ON U.S. ARMY READINESS" - merideth bucher
i am relatively sure he is comparing STEM careers to the career fields you DON'T see feminists fighting for more. the fields of work where A- there are a relatively high number of work place deaths (yes there are a few exceptions, but in those exceptions you can count the women on one hand, while there are hundreds or thousands of men) such as elite or front line military, underwater welding, nuclear waste clean up, lumberjack (the old style where you do it, not a machine), sky scraper construction, etc.
go look at the two women who passed the ranger course, they didn't carry machine guns (the M240-B) ,and they recycled courses more than men are allowed to without failure. i'm not going to try and go dig for it, there was a personal report leaked and you can find it, it wasn't put out in the media, although another personal report by a general was before the girls passed and that general basically said the girls would pass or the trainers would find new women that could. basically they were going to find women and push them until the women passed and they were going to suffer if they didn't do as the general told them.
a lot of this stuff has been traced in books about the wage gap myth, it is easy enough to find credible sources on the wage gap myth just using the youtube search field. at least one leading feminist from the 70's wrote a book about this.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Xanxei my stance would be that all public places are areas where free speech may be expressed (including the right to cat call people), as the government has an onus not to suppress free speech and to support free speech (specifically unpopular speech). since public land is government controlled, i believe there should never be any form of censorship on public lands. (obviously does not apply to illegal speech such as a call to violence or a lie intending to cause harm through massive panic).
i am opposed to public lands that censor profanity and nudity. i am opposed to any attempt by the government to squash peaceful debate or protest.
i admit to the possibility of me worrying incorrectly here, but i fear that free speech is being eroded and that some powerful people are "astro-turfing" (starting false grass roots movements that are actually funded and organized by powerful institutions with specific political agendas) movements that erode free speech in an attempt to suppress peaceful revolution and political dissent in the future.
in order to preserve free speech, i fight to protect all speech, especially unpopular speech. i would defend someone's right to scratch their balls in public, just like i would defend another person's rights to call them gross in public for doing so. i am not concerned with the uncouthness of a situation, rather i am concerned with the preservation of the ability to communicate unpopular things. (of any political stance, including stances that i adamantly disagree with so long as they are not an erosion of free speech).
i believe that speech must remain free and thoughts must remain free. these things are sacred to me. the first amendment is all about the protection of belief and speech, it is the very first human right protected in the constitution for a reason, and the second is guns to make sure that violence can back up the first if it is abridged.
the correct political action to suppression of speech and thought is to kill the person doing the suppression. free speech allows for peaceful political change, if that is not possible than violent political change follows.
nobody has the right to not be offended. nobody has the right to censor others or to control their thoughts and beliefs. once these things are breached than civilization has been breached and we revert to the natural order. in the natural order there is no right to life.
i stand by these things. i will fight for these things. i am a veteran of wars in iraq and afghanistan. i am a firm believer in the constitution. i have fought for these principles before (actually i believe i was deceived while i was young and ignorant), and i will fight for them again if needed. but i don't think it should come down to that.
you have the right to offend me. you do not have the right to silence me. you have the right to be protected from my physical violence, but not my verbal non-threatening attacks. i do not have the right to be protected from your verbal attacks. but the second one group silences and censors the other, it is a declaration of war and an invitation to violent conflict in the truth meaning of the word. the type that doesn't just offend, but leaves dead bodies in its wake.
i don't believe it should ever come to that.
rather i think that public awareness for the most part works, and that awareness is spread through freedom of speech. most people are good people, that don't want to see others harmed (this is especially true of veterans who have seen too many people die over stuff that should have been talked out instead of gunned out).
most young men do not understand the perspective of pretty women who have to go through being cat called around every corner they cross. they don't understand because women don't cat call them. they have no ability to empathize because to them it is a compliment. women should SHARE their experience first hand, by returning the favor. until that happens men and women will live in different worlds with different perspectives.
at the same time many women do not realize that a lot of cat calling is a legitimate compliment. if they SHARE the experience of being on the other end, it will help them see the men's perspective. once both men and women understand each other's perspective they can use their free speech to come up with a solution that works for everyone without suppressing anyone.
the problem with cat calling (and everything really) is that it is seen through different perspectives by different people. freedom of speech allows people to share their perspectives to both recognize a problem (or to recognize if it actually isn't a problem) and to recognize how the problem can be addressed in a manner that doesn't oppress one group to protect another.
but freedom of speech is important in these (and all) things. the cost of individuality is that people will have different perspectives (i am an avid supporter of the liberty to be yourself and not be like everyone else as well).
as for the trolling, i was sharing the male perspective. i do my best to be aware of the perspective of other people. this is why i am aware of the problems that are unique to pretty women even though i am a short man (the male equivalent of being a fat woman).
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Creative Guise I don't think they dragnet with routers, rather if they have any reason to suspect you for anything they man in the middle. It takes an actual person with actual intent to exploit your routers. That being said, if you logged onto the wrong website it may have flagged you. Say you click on a something that has to show something on your screen (could be damn near anything), it could also run a simple file that your computer doesn't run but your router recognizes and runs without any permission on your side since the router is already hacked. Now FBI or some guy who used to work for FBI, or China, or Google, or the private investigator your ex wife hired, or a Russian sec ops or whoever can get in the middle of whatever goes from your router to your computer. Now that could be securely encrypted, or poorly encrypted. But in the future, any encryption key your router sends they know, and they know the key sent back, so encryption is useless since they can look like you to access anything you accessed. How long do they keep it? Depends on who has it and what they are using it for. Your ISP isn't spying on your router, well it might be, but I doubt it since there are simply too many and it would be expensive to log all that data. But who knows, maybe uncle sam is paying them to do that.
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
-
***** you are correct, western nations are not egalitarian nations. they have legal policies that are primarily sexist in men, and here in the united states there are many many subcultures that treat girls and boys differently.
gender equality cannot be reached. it is comparing apples to oranges, in the end both women and men are a bunch of individuals with individual goals that are based both on genetic factors and environmental factors. they will only be truly equal if they neither have genetic differences or environmental differences. if this were to be the case, then one of the genders needs to be eradicated (which would be horrible for everyone).
the women in third world nations have much fewer opportunities than women in first world nations. furthermore the abuses against them are much more dire.
in the united states the typical rape is a guy who got too drunk and made a poor decision in a party after school with a girl who gave him social indications of consent, and later revoked them without him noticing or sometimes without him caring.
the typical rape in a muslim third world country is a brutal affair where a man holds down a woman, often kicking and screaming and forces himself upon her under the threat of imminent death if she resists too much.
these are wildly different crimes. third world countries have much more violent actions against women.
more importantly the western nations are at a point where they can consider the rights of other marginalized groups that are suffering because we aim too much money at women in general instead of specific groups that bear the brunt of abuse, and oppressive actions, for instance, young black women in the united states are at much higher risk of being raped than white upper class women going to college. and yet it is the college girls that we are trying to protect while still allowing the young black girls to get victimized.
so yes the western nations still have problems. but when they are confused with being in the same state as non western nations (especially nations ruled by sharia law) it creates larger divisions between the people and increases crime rates, thus harming more women and girls.
so we have to focus our efforts and put money into systems that help people based upon stopping the most harm and protecting the most vulnerable before moving on to less dire considerations.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Xanxei i guess we are just split on what is and is not harassment. i don't have a problem with women admiring sexy men whether they are celebrities or not.
i go to the gym 5-6 days a week. i have a friend who has been doing this much longer than me and he goes to the gym with me. he is an attractive guy. he carries himself well, he drives a nice car, he is taller than average and has a muscular build. women are constantly eyeballing him. they don't cat call him, but they do check him out, some more bluntly than others. every once and a while he will get a minor cat call. we just laugh it up. and he takes it as a compliment, and says it is good reason to go to the gym.
taylor swift can't go anywhere without body guards. it is the price she pays for being famous. when you are in the public eye that much you have to worry about the one out of a million people that nobody likes and what they might do to you. its unrealistic to think that nobody would hurt her even though we all agree that nobody should hurt her.
what taylor swift has to do is sad. she has to protect herself from motivated psychopaths. she has no intention of motivating those psychopaths, but there she is in the spot light. some people (this isn't limited to men) make terrible decisions and do terrible things.
pretty women have to worry too. they don't have to worry as much as taylor swift, but the more people they are exposed too the more danger they are in. at the same time, the more people they are around, the safer they are at the moment. prettier women catch more attention. they have to worry about what that stranger guy might do if he is turned down. in that sense when she is alone, and a guy cat calls her she may have to consider her safety. this is a reasonable fear.
i don't go cat calling women that i don't know when they are alone. that could scare them, i understand.
i have some friends i made while going to college, some of them are pretty women. many of them are in long term relationships and have been with the same guy for years. one of them is very pretty and is like a little sister to me. she had gained some weight over winter, and recently worked hard to get that weight off. she looks much better, but i don't see her boyfriend who lives with her saying much about it, i think they have been together too long for her to appreciate how pretty she is anymore.
i whistled at her during a party where she was around a lot of her family members, and her boyfriend. she smiled at me and gave me a hug and asked how i was doing.
cat calls can be good or bad. if you are suggesting i don't cat call strangers, than you don't have to worry. i don't. but i should have the right to do so, because i am smart enough to identify times when it would be appropriate and when it would not.
these are times when it is appropriate to cat call a woman. 1) she is around many friends so that she feels safe and secure, 2) she appears to be in a good mood and is not busy or focused on something at the moment, 3) she is dressed up or at least not dressed down (not in the gym, not in pajamas, not in something that she would feel is not attractive on her). 4) it is a social situation where other people are openly talking about how other people look. 5) you have met her before and she already knows your first name.
if those 5 things are true, than it is a great time to cat call a woman. or alternatively 1) she is eyeing you up and down.
if that is true than it is appropriate to respond with a cat call if you find her attractive as well. you are returning a non-verbal communication that she started.
i might do the original cat call whistle (call me old fashioned, but this is the only form of cat all i ever use) maybe one to three times a year. it never fails to elicit a smile and a positive response. but i know who to do it too, and more importantly when.
if your stance is that many men are socially inept and stupid than sure i agree with that. many women are as well. unfortunately in our society the onus is on men to start conversations to meet women when starting a romantic relationship. if you want to change society and the cat calling thing, changing that standard would go a long way. it might extinguish the problem all together.
but for the moment cat calling occurs to attractive women because men want to meet them and want to attract their attention. the men send a message of "i find you attractive". this is a compliment. it might get annoying, but it is one of the ways that men get the attention of women. there may be better ways to get her attention. but until we change the social norms we cannot possibly blame men for following the social norm of starting the communication to begin a potential romantic relationship while at the same time expecting them to be the pursuers and the women the pursued. and the only way to change that is to have women pursue men. in that manner, the problem isn't that men cat call women, the problem is that women don't cat call men.
in japan it is women who are expected to initiate romantic relationships. the women are much more forward than in western cultures. it is the men who must worry about feeling harassed by women using various methods to get their attention. its not so bad over there though because their culture also is very concerned with causing someone else to become embarrassed. many western people go over there to teach english. women don't stay though, the guys don't try to date them. its not their job, in japan it is the woman's job to get the attention of the guy. western women don't seem to be comfortable in that situation, they get turned down too often for their comfort. they usually leave within the first year. meanwhile western guys love it there. you would never have to worry about guys cat calling you in japan. but they might grope you on the subway or take a picture of you just to be nice and let you know that they won't reject you. they aren't trying to embarrass you or make you uncomfortable, they fear doing something that would do that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1