|
cosmicprank posted:all an elaborate troll to prove anti-feminists are retarded Why'd you edit this post?
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 18, 2024 14:31 |
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Oddly I don't think the autism claim was even supposed to be a claim men are discriminated against, the reason it was posted was some weird jump of logic that showing more men have low IQs somehow proves that men have higher IQs, I guess because that is the logic that would work in a videogame? If someone has a higher chance of a low stat that must mean they have a higher average stat to be fair? or something? These are people who use F.A.T.A.L. as a primary source when discussing human capabilities and tendencies.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2017 05:23
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:If we're going to seriously talk about modern feminism then there needs to be an acknowledgement that many prominent devotees to it are absolutely of the idea that simulated violence is violence. Also that words or ideas they don't like are violence. There has been a fundamental re-purposing of words and their definitions in regards to modern feminism and activist culture in general that's usually happily ignored when all it's adherents get together to make a thread full of posts like "Gosh, I don't know why there are anti-feminists when all they want is equality." The movement has changed since inception, particularly lately, and to have a nuanced discussion is to acknowledge many of the failings and wrong turns of what should be an egalitarian movement and how it has been hijacked in many places into something not even resembling a fight for equality. Sorry that a lady didn't like your favourite video game about titninjas
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2017 07:05
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:elitist You seem to really, really love this word. Could you explain what you mean by it?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2017 13:11
|
|
|
Cingulate can you go even one thread without bringing up your worthless, disproven, repulsive human biodiversity pseudoscience? Go to fuckin' Stormfront, they'll love you there.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2017 00:36
|
|
|
Manchild King posted:Most internet people I see that proudly identify as "anti x" do so because of they really really hate a thing/person and enjoy conflict. It often comes with a side of moral grandstanding but not always. What a wonderful redtext.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2017 08:16
|
|
|
Exmond posted:You know that I can go to another circle of people and get the same statement as your. My opinion is based off of countless testimonies that man-spreading isn't a thing, women say man-spreading doesn't happen. And here we hit the real nub of the issue, in your mind: a woman trying to get you to shut up and stop explaining poo poo she already knows. That's the real issue here.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:I've already posted evidence in this very thread that a massive majority of people in the US want nothing to do with the feminist label while still believing in equality. There's a reason for that, as much as the devoted cultists of modern feminists will refuse to admit it. What a worthless, childish post. You really don't know what any of the words you use mean. It's impressive.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:I think a large reason the Dems lost this election is because modern activism is a turn-off for anyone who isn't 100% willing to submit to the turbo-woke cult currently in the position of prominence. Or become an unrepentant corporate cocksucker. The current incarnation of feminism championed by a millionaire heiress who molested her sister and thinks that sex she regrets with a Republican is rape is a big part of that. Feminists are going the way of Communists, obsessed about debating it's academic merits while being blind to it's real-world status and biggest proponents. Zero thought, pure recitation. You're duckspeaking like a pro.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:That's not even really my argument. I'm not an "antifeminist". I'm especially critical of the current incarnation of pop-feminism and pseudo-academic wankery that seems to dominate the movement these days, but I'm not against equality for women. It's sad that you think that Feminism is dominated by pseudo-academic wankery when it's clear you aren't interested in the actual academic aspect. Yeah, I bet it seems dominated by that poo poo if that poo poo is all you go looking for.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2017 06:14
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:The original academic aspects of feminism are great. The modern ones are an ever-encroaching system of unprovable dogma that seem designed to seep into every minor facet of life in the most insufferable way possible while being buttressed by the most raw tribalism imaginable. My original assertion stands. Modern feminism is a loving complex beast and your lack of interest in it, beyond being offended, is really showing.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2017 06:24
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:Well, it's gone back and forth previously on this topic but I think equality of opportunity is great but complaining about equality of outcome can be bad, especially in the modern context. There shouldn't be any barriers for women to pursue whatever career they want or higher education. However, the idea that 50/50 in every employment position is the only acceptable outcome when women clearly choose on their own to go into fields that prevent that outcome is bad. Especially when the explanation for that fact veers into conspiracy theory territory and robs the very women you're trying to speak for of their own agency. At that point it's no longer about attaining equality, but assuring hegemony and total adherence to an ideology regardless of the wants and desires of the people the ideology claims to represent. That bit I said about you having no interest in anything but the pseudo-academia poo poo that you're already determined to hate? This right here is what I'm getting at. Other posters have answered these assertions in loving detail but this post indicates you're not reading the replies.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2017 06:33
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:I read every single one, I just didn't agree with them. It veers too far into pseudo-religious dogma and cult-like behavior. You're asked to take shitloads of unprovable things on faith because the ideology demands you to. It's much less an educational experience than one of indoctrination. And did you expect them to be that way before you read them?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2017 06:37
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:I have to go. I have to go meet some people who hate my unfuckable rear end out in public at a place of merriment. Don't come back.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2017 07:11
|
|
|
There's also the fact that women's sports are deliberately tuned to not be comparable to men's sports. Shooting in particular has been changed so that women have arbitrarily shorter rounds. Y'all  morons are gonna say it's because of some bullshit about endurance, but the fact is women were getting close to overtaking men and then the rules changed to make the scores non-comparable.I don't deny that poo poo is sometimes biological but even the systems you assholes use to assert that poo poo are controlled, shaped and deliberately broken by men, only a few of whom need to be actively hateful to gently caress things up for a lot of people.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:Mad Max Fury Road was a good movie  Undertale was a good video game 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
Phyzzle posted:Given the relative success of the fewer women who get into shooting, it's possible that women tend to be innately better at shooting than men. I recall studies saying that women are also able to handle sensory deprivation time better than men, as well as perform tasks under distracting conditions. (There is a stereotype about women being better at multitasking, and there is some support for that being true.) You're ing this poo poo up. The point is that the [overwhelmingly male] organisers of many sports do not want women and men to be comparable, and there is no loving reason for that except for insecurity.E: To be clear, this insecurity is the result of the toxic aspects of masculinity. Somfin fucked around with this message at 05:11 on Jan 28, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2017 05:06
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:You can break down the performance levels of any sort of highly populated and competitive sport and there is clearly a gap in performance by gender. This occurs even with entire training regimens and support groups created specifically for the purpose of encouraging female success in sport. If you are an elite athlete training for the olympics, whether you are male or female has little bearing on the quality of the training you will receive and there will still be an observable deviation in achievement by gender. Shooting is already a counterexample to this you dumb gently caress. You're saying 'any' and I've already, in this very loving thread, brought up a counterexample. Please explain why women are better at shooting than men if the best sportspeople in all disciplines are men?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:One counterexample in a sea of data points conflicting your stance. A woman won in an extremely unpopular event one time that required an extremely low amount of athleticism to begin with. Never mind it's a sport she could have probably competed in from a wheelchair. Surely this tiny footnote proves your point rather than decades of recorded data on physical achievement in dozens of events that require an amount of athleticism slightly more difficult than standing around and pointing at things while pulling a trigger. You have no loving idea what competitive shooting is like, if this is what you think. Weak troll, 3/10, would not bother with again. E: The best part is you're not going to look it up or try to learn anything, you're just going to continue to believe that you know everything about the subject. Somfin fucked around with this message at 23:23 on Jan 28, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2017 23:10
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:All I'm saying is that example reeks of the type of intentional ignorance typified in similar arguments like "How can global warming be real when it's so cold here right now?" We're talking about the aggregation of shitloads of data collected over decades. Finding a single outlier in an ocean of contradictory information doesn't make your point for you. No, but it should make you question whether or not you actually believe that all sports are dominated by men is a dogma you can hold. Rather than the more likely most things I consider sports are designed so that a particular kind of man can dominate them. Right now there's a New Zealand golfer named Lydia Ko who is golfing as well as Tiger Woods was back in his glory days. That makes three loving data points. (Remember when Golf was considered a white man's sport? Something that black people couldn't ever participate in?) By the way, you're bringing up quotas again, another thing that has already been responded to. You don't loving read!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:Is it really that impressive when you realize that the average LPGA course is about 1000 yards shorter? I'll just let you respond to yourself here. new phone who dis posted:Surely this tiny footnote proves your point And I'll invite you to read the bit I already wrote about men's and women's sports being deliberately designed to be incomparable. Read something. Please. Anything.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2017 23:53
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:Yes, more conspiracy-theory level assumption that assumes malice. There is literally a case of segregating a sport when women started to win in the case of shooting. Women are still to this day better shooters than men. How obvious does it need to get for you to see it? E: Or are men just such angels that they would never do anything to hurt women as a whole?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2017 00:00
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:When I think of athletes, I think of people who shoot guns good. Maybe not quite the level of competitive eating, but close. You are, at this point, arguing in horrendously bad faith and moving the goalposts like mad. And you still don't loving read. You should take a look at what competitive shooting entails and check to see if you could manage that. Feel free to check the women's version, there's fewer rounds involved because the male organisers of the sport couldn't bear the thought of ceding the trophy to someone who doesn't use male pronouns.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:There's that pesky devil patriarchy showing up again. A true child of prudence's work is never done! So what's your explanation for the sudden division between male and female shooting?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2017 00:11
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:Typically divisions in sports among gender lines are to create more opportunities for women, not less. The implicit acknowledgement that the odd and extremely rare woman who can compete with men at most sports is not a good or compelling enough reason to mix them is a good one for women overall. It creates an entirely different set of much more numerous opportunities that employ or venerate a diverse cast of female athletes. Ultimately, that's better for everyone involved except one group of people - modern feminists. Maybe this shooting situation IS a direct result of sexism or bigotry. But it's still a huge outlier among sports in general, and not indicative of why there is a division to begin with. But in shooting they waited until a woman was winning. Why is that?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2017 00:29
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I really don't get what you two are arguing about. What does women's performance at the Olympics, and related IOC decisions, mean for either of you here? npwd seems to believe that there is no such thing as men deliberately making decisions that negatively impact women; shooting is an excellent counterexample. I need him to realise that this poo poo does actually happen, at all, if we're going to make any ground regarding anything.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2017 00:43
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:The claim put forth is that her win that year resulted in a huge spike in popularity among women for an otherwise rather stagnant event and to capitalize on that fact, they then split the competition to allow for more entrants. Whether that's bullshit or not, who knows? Is that what you believe? If you were going to explain it, is that what you would say? E: Put forth where?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2017 00:57
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:Sure, absolutely. I just think the dogma of the particular type of modern feminism many adhere to in this thread jumps to that assumption immediately way, way too often. We can agree on that. In the case of shooting, I believe that the women's version was deliberately created to keep women out of the 'real' version pf the sport, and the rules were changed so that the scores couldn't be directly compared. Do you agree with this assessment?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
Wales Grey posted:So I'd like to redirect the discussion to the most pressing issue in modern feminism: the portrayal of Mikiko Ebihara in John Romero's Daikatana. Empowered female character or nefarious stereotype? I think that the real question is whether or not a woman discussing a video game is allowed to do say anything, negative or positive, without facing a barrage of death and rape threats.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2017 04:48
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:I think feminism is pretty cool and people who won't shut up about how bad it is are pretty uncool. But don't you know that women are biologically worse at literally all sports!?!? How can feminism possibly survive this bombshell E: Smorgasbord posted:How do people deal with expressing your negative views of feminism in public/social settings, just hold your tongue? I don't view myself as sexist, however I can't abide the spread of dishonest positions like the gender pay gap, "1-in-3", domestic violence stats, the push for guilty until proven innocent in sexual assault crimes etc. You can start by not having viewpoints that conflict with widely accepted peer-reviewed studies. E: Or, y'know, actually cite the information that you do have that proves that the stuff you're saying is actually untrue E2: Like, do it here, in the thread, so that we know what kind of thing we're working with re: you and what you believe in Somfin fucked around with this message at 05:00 on Jan 29, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2017 04:57
|
|
|
Smorgasbord posted:Fair enough. My position on the gender pay gap is that the data doesn't state that women are paid less for the same work at the same level of performance and experience as men, but does demonstrate that women generally choose lower paid professions and are more likely to work lower hours than men so on an aggregate level are paid less. Whether those choices are a result of other societal influences on women is a different argument that the discussion usually pivots to. This runs counter to the argument that the majority of feminists put forward, that the stats show a 20%+ gender pay gap for the same job at the same level of hours, performance, and experience between men and women. How do you explain the study that showed that a female sounding name was enough to prompt a reduced pay offer for an applicant? E: Also, post data please. Actual studies, that sort of thing.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2017 05:15
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Here's from Professor Claudia Goldin, a labor economist, ca. 2014: Yeah but does this study take into account what Smorgasbord feels about the subject? Controlling for that you'll find that women actually make 103% of what men make because anything else makes him uncomfortable
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2017 05:22
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:"Sealioning" jesus christ just post a link to your Tumblr already. Why are you so angry about Tumblr seriously it's increasingly seeming like that is where you get 100% of your information from And by information I mean you hate-read feminist troll tumblrs that are deliberately designed to piss off gamergaters and not reflective of genuine feminist thought
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2017 06:15
|
|
|
Smorgasbord posted:1. direct quote from your linked study: "These comparisons of earnings are on a broad level and do not control for many factors that may be important in explaining earnings differences." e.g this is useless. If you're still interested in how to go about bringing this up, I recommend that you just stop having female friends, since quibbling over the scale of an obvious problem that you admit exists is a great way to lose friends while gaining nothing. How about that whole 'guilty until proven innocent' thing regarding sexual abuse? Wanna bring up what the gently caress you're on about regarding that?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2017 06:20
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:There's feminist "thought" and there's the folks running it on the ground. They blatantly contradict each other constantly as it suits the tribal mentality of the group. Because modern feminism is a mess. Nice scare quotes. It's really obvious that you only read the second part of that first sentence, and then use that to justify the rest of this post. You clearly do not actually engage with genuine feminist thought, and I'm increasingly certain that you don't even hate-read troll tumblrs. I'm guessing you just watch youtube videos of other guys who claim to have read troll blogs. Now, because I'm a kind soul, here. You were talking about virtue signalling earlier. Watch this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAmM872874A E: new phone who dis posted:The Title IX demand for the creation of kangaroo courts at the university level run by activists and educators dictated a significantly lower standard of proof while denying the accused some or all of the resources that would normally be available to them. Because modern feminism. Please cite one source actually calling for this.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2017 06:24
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:They actually have a problem with both of these things and gross overreach by unqualified individuals to run kangaroo courts stripping the accused of their rights is absolutely not the answer anyone claiming to be a progressive should be supporting. But what does the tribe say? Nice, uh, plagiarism. https://www.change.org/p/accused-tell-the-ded-to-end-campus-kangaroo-courts
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2017 06:26
|
|
|
Smorgasbord posted:I think I'll just take my chances, doesn't seem like either you or stone cold are interested in engaging in good faith discussion. "You bitches deserved to get raped by someone and if you think I did anything wrong you're just PMSing" is probably a bad approach by they by E: If you actually do want to approach in good faith, I'll respond- I promise I will- but you have to understand that you're in the same thread as a guy who believes that American universities are about to set up private courts to be able to freely jail men for false rape claims
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2017 06:33
|
|
|
Smorgasbord posted:Your initial reply tells me all I need to know about your willingness and/or ability to engage in good faith discussion about any of these issues. Given that you came in here asking how to bring up anti-feminist opinions among your feminist friends, I'd thought you'd have been a bit more confident. Now I think you're just a fuckin' coward. new phone who dis posted:They already have them set up and are using them, the accused just don't go to jail. They have their entire lives ruined and rights stripped from them by unqualified hacks operating under the guise of progressive thought, but they don't go to jail. Prove it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2017 06:38
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:Read through all the parts of this. You haven't watched that video I sent. And yeah, as noted above, this is overfocusing on a tiny minority of cases. 140 total. In the history of Title IX. Which has been around since 1972. Oh, my bad, Jessica Denis has "heard numbers between 150 to well over 300 cases like these." Which is obviously a misspelling as she meant to write 'hard numbers' because otherwise she's just reporting vague hearsay. Clearly a great writer either way. Holy hell your writer-saviour is a loving STDH fountain. http://www.liftable.com/jessicadenis/mom-in-coma-for-21-days-but-when-she-wakes-up-tells-family-where-she-really-was-whole-time/ Somfin fucked around with this message at 06:56 on Jan 29, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2017 06:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 18, 2024 14:31 |
|
|
new phone who dis posted:This specific policy went into action after prompting from the gvernment in 2011. So... 28 a year, assuming that we're using the most likely statistic from your writer. That's grand total across the entire country. That's less than the number of rapes per year at Harvard. E: And just because you don't understand things that aren't clearly spelled out to you, this is an example of you overfocusing on a small slice of an issue. Watch that video I posted. Seriously. Or, y'know, read anything. Somfin fucked around with this message at 07:07 on Jan 29, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2017 07:05
|
|