@Home's banner p

Home


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 October 04 21:46:46 UTC

				

User ID: 1483

Home


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 October 04 21:46:46 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1483

Women (and many men) often experience threats more vividly than I do, being by nature much more concerned about physical security and much less confident in their ability to deal with a situation.

OP, this is the answer you're looking for. Like most things in life, men harassing women isn't what we think it is. It could be a man staring for longer than necessary but never making eye contact. It could be a man moving to sit a few seats closer to the girl. It could be an offhand physical compliment that would only put up blinders while riding in a confined space with a stranger.

It's hard for us men to put ourselves in the place of woman. Best I can offer is to think of every man as a 6'10'' jacked football player who wants to fuck you. I wouldn't be thrilled to sit alone in a metal tube next to Aaron Donald after he tells me that he likes my shirt and gives me a wink lol.

As someone who grew up in a quietly conservative area, I was still completely surrounded by politics. Like you said, political jeers somehow found its way into everything - even when we had a traditional thanksgiving dinner, there would inevitably be a few comments about how liberals viewed thanksgiving. I'm now on the left and find the same thing - people and politics are often inseparable. I think this is especially prevalent in America and I don't know if it's possible to avoid it entirely.

Here's how I make it work. I realized that I don't really care what people believe - I care about why people believe it. I'm firmly on the left but have always had an aversion to the hyper-woke crowd as many of us do. It was hard for me because I often partially supported their ideas but could just never fully get behind them or anything that they say. This was confusing because I knew plenty of lefties in my own life that expressed similar views (or sometime more extreme) yet I would agree or be ok with them. Finally, I realized that my primary aversion to the hyper-woke was their poor arguments and dogmatic attitude. This aversion also explains my dislike of other political groups that express similar characteristics.

Once I figured this out, I started to be more selective - If my parents (smart people but misinformed politically) make anti-left comments at thanksgiving dinner, I just ignore it because I know that they don't have great support for their beliefs anyway. Same goes for some of my more woke friends. I only engage, care, or listen to people who's beliefs I consider to be well supported. My friends are much more politically diverse now because even if I don't agree with their conclusions I can at least respect how they got there. Just my two cents.

Just to be clear - the entire contents of the bag are worth over $2K while the suitcase is only worth $295 brand new. It would really shock me that someone in this position would a) risk a government job for petty theft B) steal a non-collectible, relatively inexpensive suitcase. What's the max you could even resell a used $300 suitcase for?

Obviously this story is really weird. But life is crazy enough that something like this could happen and at this point it was likely a mistake.

The worst part is that this doesn't even need to be nefarious - We've all seen so many scams ourselves that I can only imagine what these bigger companies are dealing with. Phone numbers are really the only other way to reliably check someone's ID or real existence without resorting to other measures (and even then phone numbers are getting worse and worse when it comes to security).

It really is a slow fade. It's too late to boycott and we've become so reliant on these stupid technologies that boycotts just hurt us in the end. Ggs, hopefully the metaverse will be better.

I'm going to keep it real with you. You say that you're cognizant of your own biases and that you're even positively disposed towards women. You also say that a diverse cast of women have almost exclusively given you the same answer to your question for years.

Why would you think that they might not be telling the truth? I'm not saying that people can't lie, but you, like most of us, have consistently heard the same answer to the same question with little variance. I find it odd that you would question their answer so much as to write a long internet post about it. I understand that you personally have never experienced said phenomenon. But given that you're of an above average intelligence, there are probably hundreds of things you believe without having personally experienced them. Granted, you came to this discussion with an open mind and i credit you with that.

It's quite a long story (and I can go into more detail if you want). Overall, I realized that certain beliefs I held weren't as supported as I was led to believe by conservatives. I attended a conservative Christian college but had two left-leaning professors in particular & a few new left-leaning friends who broke me out of my conservative bubble and challenged my previous beliefs. Growing up I was taught that issues like racism & sexism were issues of the past (and totally blown out of proportion by virtue signaling woke libtards). This new group of people gave me a different story via personal anecdotes (from my new friends) & substantial research (from my professors). Over the course of four years and lots of debating, I came to the conclusion that the biggest pillar of my ring-wing belief (namely the idea of merit, aka 'you can do anything as long as you work hard' & the inverse "If you're struggling it's primarily your fault") wasn't as absolute as I thought it was.

Trust me, I was not looking to turn to the left in the slightest. I mean, who wants to be associated with woke feminists (or worse, liberals)? Of course, I don't agree with everything the woke crowd believes nor do I have many positive things to say about Biden & other libs. But overall I'm now firmly planted somewhere on the left because the right just didn't have sufficient support for the biggest issues. Feel free to ask any other questions but that's the basic story for me.

Would this have been interesting news if Brinton weren't so... outspoken? If it was a generic everyperson sort of bureaucrat stealing a generic everyperson sort of suitcase, would it have made any national news, or just been an internal kerfuffle?

If you care I'll offer the leftist perspective on this. Of course this story is bigger than usual due to Brinton's identity. But Brinton isn't to blame for their outsized persona. I think Brinton's personal life adequately sums up how they came to be the person they are today.

Backstory:

Brinton grew up with homophobic parents who sent him to a conversion camp for two years after he came out. These camps are notorious for being both ineffective (clearly lol) and inhumane. Brinton's experience was so bad that they contemplated suicide while at the camp. Once out of the camp, Brinton was motivated to prevent others from having their same experience and started a successful political campaign to end conversion camps nationwide. After, they earned graduate degrees at MIT and starting working for several liberal think-tanks. The Biden administration then offered them a position which Brinton accepted. Despite having high-value degrees & work experience, Brinton received criticism for being a diversity hire. Then the suitcase incident happened.

Here's how Brinton's life would have gone if we lived in a Leftist Utopia™️:

Brinton grew up with supportive parents. After graduating high school, Brinton earned graduate degrees in nuclear science from MIT. They then worked with liberal think-tanks until they were offered a mid-tier government job in the area of their degree & work experience. Then the suitcase incident happened

Looking at the two stories, it's clear that Brinton's real life story is heavily influenced by their identity. Their entire childhood and pre-college experience would have been very different if they were straight or if society accepted them as-is. I'm seeing a lot of people talk about how Brinton is at fault for the extra attention due to their appearance & persona. But that's not Brinton's fault (unless you believe that Brinton is just making it up). The attention that's been given to Brinton is mostly negative - people questioning their credentials, calling them a diversity grad, a freak, etc.

If any other mid tier government employee took the wrong bag from the airport and claimed it was an honest mistake, it would only make the news AFTER a guilty verdict was reached (if guilty). Instead, this has become a major story because of Brinton's identity.

Is there any legal liability in him selling products based on a lie? I'm sure there were plenty of people who were convinced that his lifestyle was what he said it was and purchased products on that (very legitimate) assumption. I have no idea.

You're right in that using this word usually applies to adult authority figures and sexual situations. The issue isn't the definition, it's how loosely the word is thrown around.

Even in this thread, any adult that engages in any conversation about sexuality or gender identity = groomer. That's the issue. We need to have a higher standard of proof when throwing that word around in situations where it is incredibly unlikely to happen.

Meanwhile we've damaged two deeper principles: keeping politics out of where it doesn't belong, and actually meaning it when we said that we wanted race not to matter.

These are your principles though, not intrinsic principles. I personally think media is a great way to talk about politics and historically it's been a common practice (think of older novels with political messages, etc). Regardless, most media is political even when it's not explicit. You can make an argument that politics doesn't belong in movies but it's just an argument, not a deeper societal principle.

Along the same lines, 'not wanting race to matter' is fully loaded as well. I'm not sure where you stand on this issue, but there's plenty of proponents on either side of this debate. It's hardly a deeper principle.

duh, if two people disagree then one of them has to be in charge or the issue will never get resolved" doesn't seem to come up very often.

I don't find this to be true at all, whether in my personal relationships, business, or even politics.

Further, even in this case, who do you think should be in charge? In traditional gender roles it's obviously the man, but why? In a lot of ways this is what the 'battle of the sexes' is all about: One group claiming a right to power and the other challenging it.

I agree. This also seemed to successfully take some steam out of this story. He stopped the momentum and I'm sure that a large portion of people have forgotten about this. If it does pop up again, it'll be even easier to convince his audience that this is fake news Russiagate stuff again.

While registering, I indicated I was male. I was immediately shown what I can only describe as "anti-feminist" videos

I've had the exact same experience across all platforms (Tik tok, youtube, & instagram mainly). I used to be right wing but have solidly been on the left more several years now. Whenever I start any new account or social media I'm always bombarded with classic man-oriented 'right wing-ish' content (Peterson debunking feminists, gym bro complaining about girls, Shapiro clips, etc). Even now, after having these accounts for years, I'll still get random suggestions for this content.

What's even funnier is that if I watch a man-adjacent video (non-political workout vids or a video about guns) my algorithms get fucked up for weeks. I really do have to wonder if the right-wing influencers have a crazy high budget in comparison to the left. At this point they have to know my stats well enough to know that I'm not interested in those videos but they keep pushing. I admire the effort.

As someone who has done a lot of "red" hobbies both past and present, I find plenty of politics in these groups. It's especially prevalent in activities that are current political issues (e.g. guns/shooting). obviously your mileage may vary but that's my experience and it's only gotten worse in the current political climate.

You're assuming that family is typically a loving, healthy experience. You're also assuming that a healthy family is more important than a healthy individual. I also kind of feel like you're making kids responsible for how their families treat them rather than a split responsibility.

Let's flip the script here. It's 2200 and pink haired feminists have completed their takeover. While some groups tolerate straightness, the majority of people think that being straight is wrong and possible even harmful to society as a whole.

Would you tell a straight kid to stop meeting with the straights rights group at school to avoid conflict with their family? Would you tell the kid that even though they might actually be straight, living that lifestyle might result in their family rejecting them and to just put up with it? Would you tell their school to stop teaching less-popular sexual identities?

Of course not! You'd call their family and tell them to stop letting their child's sexuality determine how well they treat their kid. You'd tell them to stop acting as though their kid is gay when they're clearly not. Put some responsibility on them - they're the adults, they need to figure out how to love the child they created and are responsible for regardless of their sexuality.

Fantastic question - I'm admittedly still undecided on exactly how to approach this issue. But here's my basic moral justification:

All people should have equality of opportunity

Discriminated groups have less opportunity

Privileged groups have more opportunity

Therefore, discriminated groups ought to have more opportunity so all people have equality of opportunity.

('Equality' in this case simply means 'as equal as is possible to realistically achieve')

As a simple hypothetical, I would support increased government funding to schools with predominately black student bodies. This would privilege the discriminated-against but is justified based on my value of equality of opportunity. (Edit: I would also support increased government funding for schools in poorer areas using this same logic as well).

I'm curious, what is your opinion/justification on the same issue?

I can agree with your overall thought process but I think this would be a huge step to start with. I think you can get the best of both worlds by slightly changing up your plan. Instead of a blind 15% trust, what if the CBAs included mandatory finance classes or even mandatory financial advisor for each franchise to offer their players? I don't think these athletes are stupid or incapable of being better with their money - I think they're uninformed & rich surrounded by a bunch of other uninformed rich people. Providing mandatory classes or free financial services could be a great way for players to keep possession of their money but learn lifelong lessons about how they should take care of it.

For the guys I hang out with, they're not particularly worried about stuff like that happening. Like anyone else, they want to do stuff they enjoy and aren't super appreciative of people who are trying to take those opportunities away.

It's definitely a valid concern. But opponents of such programs/behavior also refuse to offer any other solutions for the child who expresses concerns of abuse from their parents. This has to go both ways. Any reasonable adult would want to protect a child from abuse and would take reasonable steps to do so. "Pink haired ladies" came up with one solution and it's not perfect. But I have yet to hear any reasonable alternative solution for other side of this coin either.

You're making a lot of assumptions about the behavior that you're seeing. Why do you assume that women in the GSA are craving emotional intimacy and/or using the GSA explicitly for their solely for their own benefit? Do you not think there could be any other alternative explanations for their interest in the GSA? Have you ever asked them about their involvement? I doubt they told you that they were there to emotionally masturbate with their kids, so why would you assume that?

In regards to point two, I think you're looking at diversity in a vacuum. Diversity isn't just about what shows are released right now in this moment, it accounts for the past as well. We have plenty of all white shows historically. We also have plenty of shows where the cast is like 90% white as well. In this context, it isn't surprising that today an all-white show would be frowned upon for diversity reasons while an all black show would be appreciated for the same reasons.

Yes, Sowell used to be my guy haha. If you want to talk more about Sowell or why I longer find him persuasive I'd be down.

I'm not an HBD enthusiast on the grounds that I don't find its support convincing nor its utility to be of much benefit.

I'm not familiar with the two types of meritocracy that you provided. Meritocracy might be too strong a word in this sense too. Here's what I mean in simple terms: I believed that (in general) people could achieve positive outcomes if they worked hard enough. On the flip side, people who weren't achieving positive outcomes (or people who were experiencing negative outcomes) were primarily at fault for their own situation. The solution to most problems was individual in nature: If you wanted to improve your life, work harder and be better. And especially don't rely on government handouts or assistance in the meantime. We can take my previous beliefs on homelessness for example: In 99% of cases, being homeless was the fault of the individual (drugs, behavior, work ethic, etc). Therefore, the solution to homelessness was focused on the individual as well: Pick yourself up, get clean, apply for jobs, and get back on your feet (and don't mooch off other people while doing so). You can copy/paste that reasoning to just about every political issue (racism, sexism, immigration, income inequality, welfare, etc).

So what changed? The primary factor was one of my economics classes called "the economics of race, class, & gender" (trust me, my past self was NOT happy to see this liberal bullshit on the schedule lol). Growing up well-off (and in a well-off area), I was hilariously naive when it came to the economics of class in particular. Life's trajectory was simple: do well in school, do well in college, do well in your career, and you'll never have to worry about being poor. This class quickly showed me why my simple plan was highly dependent on where you grew up. I'd heard a similar story before but this was the first time that I saw real statistics & research to back it up. I saw similar evidence for things like racism & sexism.

I finally came to the conclusion that some people were much worse off than others due to no fault of their own.

I know, not exactly a mind-blowing conclusion (and really speaks to my ignorance and naivety more than anything). But this had a domino effect on almost all of my other beliefs. For example, welfare. Since some people are 'poor' through no fault of their own, I could no longer justify my disdain for government handouts. Morally, I don't want people to suffer due to something that is likely out of their control. Even if becoming poor was a personal choice, escaping poverty is a vicious cycle. Economically, I found strong arguments for buffing up welfare systems in order to turn poor people into economically productive, tax-positive citizens. Homelessness is another example: Moral reasons were the same as before. Economically, in addition to making homeless productive citizens, I saw decent evidence that aggressive left-wing solutions were more cost-effective in the long and short term. I came to similar conclusions on other issues regarding race & gender. Morally, I find it wrong for someone to suffer because of something they were born with. Economically, I concluded that protecting these groups leads to positive economic outcomes for everyone involved.

I want to stress that I still value hard work and individual responsibility highly. I do believe that hard work can and will solve certain individual problems and that bad decisions/lack of effort can cause certain individual problems as well. But overall, I think that external, uncontrollable factors are the root causes of many of the issues we see today. Since being on the left I've also become more sympathetic to the idea that we should assist others even if they are entirely to blame for their situation (given that said assistance is effective, addresses root causes, and comes at a reasonable economic cost).

I mean definitely, but OP is specifically looking for people who don't talk politics at all. Again, in my experience, these people still make comments here and there about liberals who don't eat meat or some government regulation that shut down a stream. Maybe being on the other side makes these types of comments more noticeable but YMMV.

Athletes are more than just sports players though. Like you, I'm assuming you're not in charge of creating federal policy, so should I just tell you to shut up and do your job? This ideology is wildly antidemocratic and definitionally authoritarian.

I disagree with your framing completely. What if the black actress was the best actress for the job? What if she's the one who worked the hardest? Who says that an Ariel movie with a black actress will be lower quality than one with a white actress? These are all huge assumptions that you're making. The movie won't be released for months anyway, it's far too soon to make any quality judgements. This is only a conversation because Ariel is black. No one is wondering if choosing a white actor for Willy Wonka is the right decision, or if there were any 'racial issues' surrounding casting his role. No one is asking if a black actor would have led to a higher quality movie. It really just seems like people have a problem with the black actress and that's racial prejudice.

Further, why is it suddenly news that Disney is greedy? They've been this way since the 50s and they're not stopping now. Plus, Disney as a company is driven by money - pandering to audiences has been a valid sales tactic since the beginning of time. Why is that suddenly not ok? And why does choosing a black actress spur this discussion so intensely?