Can you provide evidence that there is a epidemic of teachers logging onto PornHub and trying to show it it kids?
You understand that if this drug is banned, women who suffer miscarriages have to carry the dead fetus and risk sepsis (whereas before they could take the pill to pass the tissue) correct?
I highly disagree I have exhibited the same uncharitable language.
Is this type of discourse approved by the mods?
I find your last sentence to be especially uncharitable and antagonistic. Is this type of discourse approved by the mods?
That my posts are being mass reported comes a bit as an amusing surprise to me, I must admit. But I am not entirely surprised.
I agree that a majority of my posts are an expression of opinion and anecdotal evidence, and I can attempt what I believe you are asking in terms of course correction. Please forgive me if I veer again and I will try further correction.
I do struggle, admittedly, in that you say I assume everyone who disagrees with me here is evil. However, I feel I have to defend myself that I have not said the word evil since I began posting here, because I do not assume everyone here who disagrees with me is evil (I think “everyone who disagrees with me” is too diverse of a group to generalize like that). An assumption I do have is most people who disagree with me here are also reporting me.
The reason I am participating instead of lurking is because I believe there are impressionable people reading these forums and adopting beliefs that are hurting themselves and others around them because, as discussed I believe below in further threads, there is very little if any “push back” from non-rightwinged aligned folks.
I do think conservatives are uniquely repugnant, and therefore do not consider discrimination against them bigotry, much less in a similar vein as sexism and homophobia. I reconcile this because, unlike homosexuality, poverty, sex and gender, conservatism is a choice. What you consider bigotry, I consider to be consequences. I do not think someone who chooses to be anti-authoritarian, bigoted and dishonest is a good employee for a workplace, although I sympathize that emotional abuse is a lifelong damage people suffer from, and I try to, as they say, separate the sin from the sinner. However I believe the good news is they have the ability, unlike gays, women and the poor, to change their status down the line to find a job they really want, or find someone who doesn’t care, or to actually change their mind. Therefore I would disagree as well that my motivations lie in genocide, because conservatism is not an immutable trait. In your link, genocide is defined as “in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such”. Unless conservatism is a religion or a nationality, it fits none of those descriptions.
I do not believe the people you know who are “fairly leftwing” are also “traditional” and are more likely in my opinion casual conservatives, because “traditional” families (AKA gender roles) set misogynistic and misandrist expectations for everyone involved, and sexism is not a tenant of progressivism (but is of conservatism). I know myself plenty of self-described liberals who spout misandry (and therefore reveal their misogyny) - I do not consider them to be liberals. I also do not consider religion, hunting and pickups repulsive, although I do consider traditionalism to be. Almost all of the conservatives in my life I have known have not been rural - they live in the city or suburbs, with the exceptions of my aunt, grandmother, and a family friend. So I disagree with you there are no commonalities between the culture practices of conservatives, because I have seen a farmer in Minnesota and a mayor of an affluent neighborhood and a divorced mom of two in the neighborhood ask me the same questions and have the same responses and be just as nauseating to try to converse with.
I have known no trouble understanding why “the chuds” and the city folks and the suburbias voted against their interests - because they ate Fox News every morning for breakfast and the Drudge Report for lunch and more Fox News for dinner and found a man who represented their emotional immaturity born from generational abuse kickstarted by the Industrial Revolution. I believe they wanted a man to reenact the abusive nature of their lives, and a person like Trump was bound to come along eventually.
If someone was entirely sympathetic to my motivations and lived experience, then they would also agree with my desires. It is the common good for everyone that social conservatism, much like institutional Civil War era slavery, is no longer tolerated by civilized societies, and is socially ostracized. Such as, for example, Turning Point. I do not believe that organization has anything useful to say, and so I find the motivations for why someone would want to listen to useless things dubious, unless they found it useful.
I am not interested in discussion and debate insofaras I have no expectation that my arguments will be met in good faith much less intellectual honesty and so will not put in extra effort into replying to a post that engages me.
It’s the poor support that bugs me. This forum claims that conversations here “leave feelings at the door” and deal with the facts, and as far as I see, most users here pride themselves for foster that culture. But anecdotal evidence for generalized inflammatory statements such as, “Women don’t know what they want and are less funnier than me .” are such a poor foundation for debate that I am quite doubtful that it is what most users here actually want.
I would be much less “bugged” if what I perceive to be rampant intellectual dishonesty was not as generally supported as it is here, so yes, I would rather someone here give me objective evidence that men are funnier than women so we can debate the merits of the data.
As I understand it, progressivism cannot exist alongside conservatism, because all of the progress done by the former will always be challenged by the latter. I think I have been open to those perspectives for a majority of my life and once possessed them myself, but when I realized I was at the point where I was sadly conceding that my future husband would inevitably cheat on me, or at least want to cheat, because I would get older and his nature would have him seek younger women with better childbearing hips, I figured I didn't need to be open to that kind of stuff anymore.
Anecdotally as well, where you find conservatives a rare breed where you live, the opposite is true for me. It is rare for me to find a progressive here.
I sincerely don’t know what “coding class signals as political” means, otherwise I would answer that question.
I believe you are asking, “Would I not hire someone if I knew they were conservative?” To answer that, I would, yes. I believe conservative ideology is incredibly abusive to both the believer and those associated with them. My evidence for this belief is partially anecdotal; every single conservative I have ever known in my life (to include myself at one point) my mother and father, my brothers, my grandparents, my boss, my coworkers, my boyfriend’s sisters, brothers and parents, and his friends hurt themselves and others around them as the expectations social conservatism puts on them clashes with their wants and desires and causes untold amounts of emotional discomfort, immaturity and agitation. I have my own objective evidence as well, but that would be too long to list for this response.
I personally trust the judgement of someone who believes in social conservatism to be so significantly impaired that yes, if somewhere down the line I were to find two applicants were equally qualified but one attended their college’s Turning Point club and the other did not, I would find the former to be a potential emotional, physical and ethical danger to my employees. I would worry they would say hurtful things to their coworkers, disrespect the authority of their supervisors and use workplace equipment incorrectly.
If you are asking me if I would hurt a conservative in real life when you say “real harm”, no. I believe social conservatism was partially born from poor emotional regulation being met with hostility and pain, and responding with more pain is not constructive.
I feel it is unfortunate you find it cynical, as I find it to be rather optimistic. I am quite sure I have considered other perspectives, and have found them, in charitable terms, to be utterly fruitless. I believe my overall peace increased and my confusion decreased when I stopped giving my time to conversations which I found ultimately proved unconstructive. As a result, I like to think my capacity for mercy and forgiveness increased with my overall contentment, and where my previous necessary interactions with conservatives was, I’d say, entirely hostile, now I believe it is far more constructive when viewed from a lens of what I consider to be compassion. But I find I can only retain such compassion in the company of conservatives IRL by restricting my company with them to absolutely minimum - sans my one guilty pleasure of commenting on here.
It’s difficult to be convinced you’re logically inconsistent and unfair when the people trying to convince you are, in your own view, being exactly that.
Why would I want to debate with facts in a forum that seemed to genuinely approve of the generalized declaration: “Men are funnier than women.” being justified with with the anecdote, “Because the men in my life make me laugh more than the women.” instead of, I don’t know, “Because here is a study that concluded that estrogen affects the part of the brain that creates brevity which is the leading trait for successful comedians, please look at the data and tell me if you disagree with their methods of testing.”?
I am a progressive Democrat myself, and I feel similar to you in terms of reading and learning. I myself have very little interest in “pushing back”; I find it would be absolute waste of time, and likely why you won’t find the discourse you are looking for. In my opinion, the value of a forum like this is that it allows progressives, at least such as myself, to observe a rich diversity of right-winged thinking to identify the more insidious and subtle dogwhistles indicating the traits of a conservative, so one may steer clear of them in IRL interactions.
I believe Ron attempting to use government overreach and taxpayer money to punish an independent business for expressing opinions he didn’t like has got to be the most anti-small government move around. I believe it will be an excellent sales point for every Democratic nominee and will sway over true moderates who see the hypocrisy.
That is the quiet part being spoken out loud. Social conservatives, the religious and right-wingers tend to believe all men are inherently dangerous due to their testosterone levels (or the devil), and therefore assault by men is more on women to defend from than men to change, because they can’t. An argument I have heard commonly is cis men are indeed just as dangerous, and ideally, women need to be chaperoned by their brothers/fathers (who are the least likely to assault due to being repulsed by incest) to prevent a man from succumbing to his instincts, and if feminists would stop trying to put women next to men (aka potential assaulters), we’d find a lot less assault on women by men.
Every single woman who is raised to believe that they are lesser than others and grows up to believe they are lesser than others for no other reason than their biology has poor self esteem, that is my belief yes. That goes the same for a man. I think that all men and women are equally capable of the same range and rate of thoughts and feelings, and so to be told otherwise and lead to believe otherwise leads to natural misery.
In a space where commentators are expected to speak clearly about their beliefs so that we can try to discuss in good faith (not succeed! But try.) , I would expect that yes, when someone says here that "Men are taller than women.", they are saying, "All men are taller than women." and when someone says "Men are funnier than women" they mean "all men are funnier than women".
A meta-analysis is still subjective, anecdotal evidence, and I have my own subjective, anecdotal evidence that women can be funnier than men, so who cancels who out? Objective evidence would be much easier to discuss. When you say "false flag to make women look bad", would I be correct in assuming your are saying thus that you believe I am only arguing these beliefs because of my biology?
Edit: I should update my interpretation that when you say "false flag to make women look bad" I assume you mean that you suspect I actually don't believe what I am saying and am purposely trying to make bad arguments to make women sound sillier?
Brains are part of a body, no?
If you say "men are funnier than woman", and I am a woman and you are a man, it would not follow then you are saying "you" which can be supplemented with "a man" are funnier than "me" which can be supplemented with "a woman". Otherwise, I imagine one would say "most men" are funnier than "most women", no?
I don't think you can measure personality and intelligence, so I would have to disagree with you.
Do you have evidence of this strong statistical backing? Can you show me where my lack of understanding of statistics, which I took in highschool and college, causes me to fail to recognize that, from what I am understanding, when someone say "all" men they mean "not all" men?
I am not too sure how saying "women have a tendency to be immature" is not that same as saying "you have a tendency to be immature", since I am a woman. I would have to find though that your comment that my "outrage" is a "womanly thing" to be awfully uncharitable and insulting if you do not have evidence to support that.
What is wrong with "increased flexibility in the computing-device market to meet any available needs"? And do you have evidence men are more competitive than women and are "leaders" more?
The existence of successfully passing trans women does prove it can be 100%, otherwise, every single trans woman, no matter how much surgery they had, would be instantly recognizable as a man due to their mannerisms violating their gender role. But there are trans women who walk around you all the time who you wouldn't know were trans if they didn't tell you.
I am not familiar with countries in Europe, much less their economic policies, so I cannot think of any.
I'm not trolling. If you'd like to message me privately, I can send you proof of the genealogical book my grandmother wrote that traces my ancestry back to the mid 1500s starting with the owner of Sud-Bjorntuft Farm, Taraldson Bjorntuft (earlier than that and I will have to get my grandmother to send me some PDFs for you).
Where on earth did someone in my university tell me I must never be blamed for the consequences of my actions? I certianly, as a progressive feminist active in those spaces, disagree with that. Removing consequences for all women out of some effort to protect their fragile psyche is benevolent sexism, and women who espouse that have internalized misogyny, in the same way the "divine feminine" is benevolent sexism.
What you see as "discussions about male issues" I see as "discussions about why all women are unfunny and shouldn't go to college".
My main argument has been that I think broad generalizations of women are untrue and harmful for men who want to date them? Where did I say "I feel bad" and where did I even mention "party"?
What does "structure the landscape of incentives" mean?
I don't know if being able marry is the baseline for "success" in a relationship. I don't think men dating people they find to be less funnier, less empathetic, less intelligent and less capable than them are head and shoulders above people who are single.
I didn't say "Any woman who dates a man who doesn't share my political worldview must secretly hate herself and be miserable, without knowing it." But I do believe anyone who is with someone that fundamentally disrespects them and thinks they should be subservient has low self esteem, and could be happier.
There is nothing that would make be believe a woman dating a sexist man is happy and fulfilled, any more than what it would take to convince me a man dating a sexist woman is happy and fufilled. It doesn't help I have anecdotally seen dozens of women with sexist husbands who claim they have a wonderful marriage while behind closed doors their husbands are calling them whores in screaming matches or badmouthing them to their children, and dozens of men who claim their girlfriends are wonderful while secretly their girlfriends are threatening to cheat on them with their friends.
I think you are lying about how much you respect the women you are dating. I think, assuming they are healthy, if they knew the full extent of how the three of you felt, they would leave ya'll out of self respect. If they do know the full extent of ya'll feelings, then I'd say they have very low self esteem to stay with someone who sees them as lesser.
I know my suggestion isn't new, but neither is making broad generalization about women based on anecdotal bad experiences. Women are not a monolithic them any more than men are. And yes, I think a sexually frustrated man should not have sex with the first woman who wants to have sex with him if he thinks she is dumber than him and more emotional than him. I would find that would lead to a toxic attitude about sexual relationships.
The other factor I would say is bad luck. Unsatisfying, yes, but success in the dating sphere largely depends on finding someone compatible romantically, and that is as guaranteed as finding someone compatible platonically. If I were to renounce making friendships with other women because I had some bad fallouts in my past, my friends would tease me rightfully for thinking all people are the same.
- Prev
- Next
I thought right-wingers hated cancel culture as it was impressing on the First Amendment? Unless right wingers think this isn’t cancelling?
More options
Context Copy link