Comments by "Eli Nope" (@elinope4745) on "TED" channel.

  1. 3
  2. 3
  3. 3
  4. 3
  5. 3
  6. 3
  7. 3
  8. 3
  9. 3
  10. 3
  11. 3
  12. 3
  13. 2
  14. 2
  15. 2
  16. 2
  17. 2
  18. 2
  19. 2
  20. 2
  21. 2
  22. 2
  23. 2
  24. 2
  25. 2
  26. 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
  27. 2
  28. 2
  29. 2
  30. 2
  31. 2
  32. 2
  33. kingofprussia17 worker coops are better than corporations for the vast majority of people (but not for the top deciders who are drastically overpaid to the detriment of other employees). but when worker coops start getting big, the country that supports them gets attacked and war is declared on it (see spain).  organized work is great for the economy. corporations are not the only available method, they simply are the method that is best at corrupting governments to put laws in place that create corporate monopolies and at the same time create an oligarchy of wealthy people who's interests are placed above everyone else's.  if you  haven't noticed corporations have crushed the open source movement, not through competition but through new laws that give the corporations monopolies. our copyright laws have become a joke, they exist purely to support the oligarchy and to suppress innovation.  corporations were great, in the 1940's through 1960's. but since then they have become corrupt and destructive to the lives of the people who live in the governments that sustain them.  there is a food coop named "Costco" that exists on the west coast of the united states, i prefer that store far over "sam's club" on the east coast. as a customer i can barely tell the difference. but the reality is that employees at costco get paid twice what sam's club employees get paid (and sometimes more than twice). this is because costco is employee owned and sam's club is a subsidiary of the walmart corporation. costco does it better. costco is a net benefit to the communities who it serves. sam's club is a parasite taking local money and centralizing it in the hands of the oligarchy. 
    2
  34. 2
  35. 2
  36. 2
  37. 2
  38. 2
  39. 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
  40. 2
  41. 2
  42. 2
  43. 2
  44. 2
  45. 2
  46. 2
  47. 2
  48. 2
  49. 2
  50. 2