|
Manager Hoyden posted:But the problem is practical safety - disaffected young men are the primary targets of radicalization and propaganda. This is where shootings and terrorism come from. This is at least some source of support for strong-man fascism. This is a driver for gang violence in vulnerable communities. Ahahahahaha. Oh wait your serious. Let me laugh even harder. Young men may primarily be the recipients of a lot of propaganda, but the majority of the propagandised to are the reasonably wealthy and the reasonably secure. It's so everywhere that it just doesn't come across as propaganda. The idea should have loving died when you looked at the people involved in the 1/6 occupation of the capitol. Most of it was done by people entering their middle years, not "disaffected youth". Most of the people doing it were comfortably well off or at the very least not struggling as much fiscally. These were the people. I am not saying that random killings are not usually done by younger men, but look at the amount of 'family annihilation" killings and see that the majority of the propagandised, the people who really want to do the violence who are the chief building block are not now the young and disaffected. They are the middle aged and older who long for the return of their youth and the maintenance of what power they have.
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 14:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 09:59 |
|
|
Yeah you're right the majority of violent crime and terrorism is in fact committed by the middle-aged segment Astute observation A plus work
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 14:19
|
|
|
Manager Hoyden posted:Yeah you're right the majority of violent crime and terrorism is in fact committed by the middle-aged segment Yes? Most theft is wage theft. Most violent crime is spousal abuse within families. Most terrorists are usually in their late 20's/early 30's which is not actually all that young. Most of the people going out and getting in fights near me aren't young people. They are older men. Do you want to compare anecdote to anecdote? The big flashy stuff is focused on younger people. But it is not the young that are making things worse or need to be involved in some sort of "mass cull" which you seem to believe is both possible and morally necessary.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 14:25
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:late 20's/early 30's which is not actually all that young. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 14:26
|
|
|
It really isn't though. Even though I am part of that age group it isn't really "young". It's adult it's full grown. "Young men" in my view is closer to 17-26.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 14:33
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Yes? Most theft is wage theft. Most violent crime is spousal abuse within families. Most terrorists are usually in their late 20's/early 30's which is not actually all that young. Most of the people going out and getting in fights near me aren't young people. They are older men. Do you want to compare anecdote to anecdote? I think this might be a bit, so agree to disagree I suppose
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 14:33
|
|
|
Manager Hoyden posted:I think this might be a bit, so agree to disagree I suppose It's not a bit mate. I am always posting sincerely and I am trying to get you to engage with something instead of going "lol, lmao" at people responding. So come on, stand up for yourself and your ideas. Push back and talk about it, but don't just run off and go "well, agree to disagree". I am not agreeing to disagree. I am just disagreeing. Your ideas are foolish in this instance, I don't think you are foolish Hoyden, but you seem to really dislike actually talking about them. PHUO: Unironically is inferior to "sincerely". Josef bugman has a new favorite as of 14:52 on Nov 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 14:44
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:It's not a bit mate. I am always posting sincerely and I am trying to get you to engage with something instead of going "lol, lmao" at people responding. So come on, stand up for yourself and your ideas. Push back and talk about it, but don't just run off and go "well, agree to disagree". Well okay I will engage because you are consistently a decent sort The large majority of crime is committed by young men. For this purpose I am defining young as 35 and below (here we will have to agree to disagree because we can't very well argue the definition of young). What's more, even as violent crime declines, the percentage of violent crime committed by young people is rising. This could be due to previous generationsjust being more violent in general, but I think it is due to changing social patterns. As far as terrorism goes, like four out of five terrorists are under the age of 30. Yes, there are a lot of lovely things committed by older people, BUT those are out of the scope of what I am talking about. I think maybe other groups are dangerous as well - notably the rich, who are definitely old - but again I'm not saying young disaffected men are the only threat to a population. I do not think western nations have reached a point of instability due to surplus men yet, but I am getting some of my opinion from Bare Branches by Hudson and Boer who address security in the context of sex ratios and attachment to dangerous groups. They are talking more about international instability but the causes are largely similar. I don't want to say "go read a book" to support my point, but honestly the point is made better there than I can here. There is a corresponding article here. Also I can get sources on the numbers claims above but honestly just looks at any crime statistics ever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 15:19
|
|
|
Manager Hoyden posted:The large majority of crime is committed by young men. For this purpose I am defining young as 35 and below (here we will have to agree to disagree because we can't very well argue the definition of young). What's more, even as violent crime declines, the percentage of violent crime committed by young people is rising. This could be due to previous generationsjust being more violent in general, but I think it is due to changing social patterns. As far as terrorism goes, like four out of five terrorists are under the age of 30. Yes, there are a lot of lovely things committed by older people, BUT those are out of the scope of what I am talking about. I think maybe other groups are dangerous as well - notably the rich, who are definitely old - but again I'm not saying young disaffected men are the only threat to a population. Compared to what and where mate? Because most financial crimes are not committed by young people. Most violent crimes like assaults, that are reported, are usually younger men, but the vast majority of things like spousal abuse takes place across all ages and is significantly under-reported. Most theft is wage theft. Every burglary and arson attack in the USA is less than the amount left unclaimed through overtime not being paid on time and various other activities of organizations. Sure, but I don't think they are young men as a sole reason. You could make the same claim about engineers as terrorists as opposed to young men as terrorists. Because the people directing the whole thing are older men who are, in a very real sense, more responsible for the violence spread throughout the world than the young. The actual people directing the violence are not young. It also depends on your definition of "terrorist". Y'all Queda and groups like the Oathkeepers and the various different militia groups may recruit from a large number of younger person facing websites, but the vast majority of their more committed and violent members are older. They are old and they are still willing to do and direct violence. To say that some vast generational murder is necessary to ensure that violence is reduced is utter madness. Not least because, as you yourself argue, violence and crime have been reducing. The generation that has not seen people thrown en mass into the killing fields of Verdun or Iwo Jima is still less violent than the ones that did. Because those events created violence. That "cull" just made people much more broken and much more willing to use violence. How do you define dangerous groups? Would people like the ANC have counted back in the day? What about Sinn Fein and the IRA? I think the idea that "young men need sex and other stuff to keep them from violence" is, to put it bluntly, monstrous. It creates an idea that people will always respond in a set way and gives no regard for how other things can potentially be a replacement. Josef bugman has a new favorite as of 15:45 on Nov 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 15:37
|
|
|
Getting real  up in here, lol.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 15:38
|
|
|
Aramek posted:Getting real It is a bit. I think that nature isn't as much of an influence on our behavior as our lived experience is to be completely honest.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 15:51
|
|
|
If I were those disaffected young men I would simply not feel those feelings. Because lol if you ever feel anxious or scared or all that bullshit so you start doing terrorism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 19:02
|
|
|
Talking out of my rear end, but I don't think that particular population just says welp I'm doing a terrorism today I think humans are social creatures who ( ) need to be part of a community/society. I think anyone rejected or excluded will in turn reject that social order, but will maintain that human need for connection. They will look for an explanation of why they don't get what others get and there are many people/groups who take advantage of that situation to get a person to act in a way that would be unthinkable to the rest of us
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 19:18
|
|
|
On the one hand the atomization of society in the service of capital has devastating effects on the physical, psychological, and emotional well-being of individuals at every level, the violence discussed itt being only a portion, albeit a highly visible one, and the full extent of that damage is something we have barely scratched the surface of in our understanding. OTOH, lol. lmao
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 19:21
|
|
|
I have a feeling that this one will be spicy: if I'm in the left lane on the highway going over the limit, and you've attached yourself to my rear end despite having the ability to change lanes, then you're driving dangerously; not me. If I had to brake quickly, the resulting wreck would be on the impatient fucker riding my rear end for not being able to react in time. A lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine. If you're so much in a hurry that you're tailgating everyone in sight, consider better time management. F_Shit_Fitzgerald has a new favorite as of 23:45 on Nov 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 23:43
|
|
|
You're correct, passing on the right is infuriating and so are people who feel compelled to speed like getting to their destination five minutes faster after a 10 hour highway drive is worthwhile In what world do you feel righteous speeding in the left lane? When has this ever actually helped your dumb rear end travel? Do you regularly do journeys where cruise control at 75mph on the right would make you late? If so, leave earlier. Edgar Allen Ho has a new favorite as of 00:04 on Nov 6, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2021 00:02
|
|
|
At least half the time these people make a big deal out of passing and then end up right next to me at the next red light. They're not shaving off any more time; they're just impatient assholes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2021 00:06
|
|
|
Incels are just a symptom of a dysfunctional (capitalist) society. Saying the young single men should be purged, OK, but we should expand that to all men who don't own land and have legal heirs, or the protection of someone who does have that and vouches for their conduct.
doverhog has a new favorite as of 01:46 on Nov 6, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2021 01:43
|
|
|
F_Shit_Fitzgerald posted:At least half the time these people make a big deal out of passing and then end up right next to me at the next red light. They're not shaving off any more time; they're just impatient assholes. Why are you driving in the left lane if you aren’t in a hurry or aren’t passing somebody? Wouldn’t it be safer for you to be driving in the right lane? silence_kit has a new favorite as of 01:56 on Nov 6, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2021 01:52
|
|
|
Passing on the left or right is unsafe cause someone could shift into your lane, it's safest to pass on the shoulder
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2021 01:55
|
|
|
I think internet traffic talk is pretty disconnected from reality. There's all this talk of zipper merging and only using the left lane for passing/never passing on the right, but when I get on the beltway it's more like the wild west where there are no rules and you just get in whatever lane you need to to survive the drivers up here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2021 01:58
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Why are you driving in the left lane if you aren’t in a hurry or aren’t passing somebody? Wouldn’t it be safer for you to be driving in the right lane? Maybe, but I was making a left turn and because of the traffic, wanted to be in the lane I needed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2021 01:59
|
|
|
Does anyone actually know what a yield sign means? I sorta just treat it as a stop sign where stopping is optional
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2021 02:02
|
|
|
while we're on the topic of traffic: those roundabout things with more than one lane shouldn't exist. I accept that I'm too dumb to understand them and I'd be fine with just avoiding them because of that, but basedon my experience, nobody else knows how to use them either.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2021 02:06
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:I think internet traffic talk is pretty disconnected from reality. There's all this talk of zipper merging and only using the left lane for passing/never passing on the right, but when I get on the beltway it's more like the wild west where there are no rules and you just get in whatever lane you need to to survive the drivers up here. Yeah, but it's a tragedy of the commons. A lot of this is created by bad drivers who have a fear of changing lanes/merging and instead of doing their driving at or below the limit in the right lane, where they would have to pay attention to surrounding traffic coming in and out of the lane, they will select a middle or sometimes even the left lane to cruise in, oblivious of their surroundings, and force everybody else to work around them. silence_kit has a new favorite as of 02:20 on Nov 6, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2021 02:15
|
|
|
If only people were smart and drove like I do
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2021 02:22
|
|
|
F_Shit_Fitzgerald posted:Maybe, but I was making a left turn and because of the traffic, wanted to be in the lane I needed. passing on the left is for highways, not places with regular left turns.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2021 02:57
|
|
|
Captain Monkey posted:passing on the left is for highways, not places with regular left turns. I was on a highway, about to turn left onto a side road.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2021 03:02
|
|
|
F_Shit_Fitzgerald posted:I was on a highway, about to turn left onto a side road. You shouldn't be able to turn left onto a side road from a highway
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2021 03:20
|
|
|
I think you're conflating interstates with highways. Most interstates (but not all - there are some dumb ones i've seen in florida that have exits on both sides) only have exits on the right, but there are a ton of highways with lights and turns in both directions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2021 03:22
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:those roundabout things with more than one lane shouldn't exist. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2021 04:56
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:Do you just mean a normal multilane roundabout like this, or something else? If by normal you mean I've only seen one in my life and it was a nightmare, yes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2021 04:58
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:You shouldn't be able to turn left onto a side road from a highway Yes you should. In fact it's very common.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2021 05:12
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:If by normal you mean I've only seen one in my life and it was a nightmare, yes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2021 05:55
|
|
|
PHUO: the drivers in my area aren’t particularly bad. Obviously I’m a better driver and complain about how bad they are at opportune times in conversation, but, if I may be honest, drivers in faraway places aren’t actually any better.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2021 06:36
|
|
|
The only roundabout that scares me is that big seven circle one they have in England.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2021 06:57
|
|
|
PHUO: The Recon Bill is not dead now that the Bipartisan Bill has passed the house and is ready to be signed into law, contrary to the vast opinion of frothing C-Spammers. o The Moderates have promised to pass whatever goes through the senate, including the Recon Bill. o BBB is not dead, just now they can actually work with what's real: what manchin will or won't vote for. o Which realistically is what it has always been.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2021 07:34
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:The Moderates have promised lol
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2021 07:36
|
|
|
PHUO: Candles are gross and people should not burn them indoors on the regular.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2021 07:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 09:59 |
|
|
Grouchio posted:PHUO: The Recon Bill is not dead now that the Bipartisan Bill has passed the house and is ready to be signed into law, contrary to the vast opinion of frothing C-Spammers. PHUO: Politics should stay in D&D and Cspam
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2021 07:59
|
|