@thrownaway24e89172's banner p

thrownaway24e89172

naïve paranoid outcast

2 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 09 17:41:34 UTC

				

User ID: 1081

thrownaway24e89172

naïve paranoid outcast

2 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 09 17:41:34 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1081

Did you know that most non-Japanese men speak Japanese like a woman? According to the book it's because most Japanese language teachers are women.

This does not line up with my experience at all, unless the meaning here is just "more like Japanese women speak than like Japanese men speak". I believe most Japanese language programs start out teaching a polite, gender-neutral form of Japanese, later moving on to other forms as the student becomes more and more fluent. This has the effect of causing non-native speakers to "default" to this particular form since, being the form they learned first, it is the form they are usually the most comfortable with. Japanese women tend to use this form more often than Japanese men and thus non-Japanese men speak Japanese like women in this sense, and I could see an argument that this form being the default starting form is a result of most Japanese language teachers being women. However, there are also many grammatical constructs and vocabulary that are nearly exclusively used by (EDIT: men or women) one gender or the other. You won't typically see non-Japanese men using the ones used by Japanese women unless they are intentionally trying to sound like a woman.

I agree, but somehow I rarely see things in this space proposed and much more often see the "we need to take away women's rights" kind of solution.

I think part of the problem here is that you do sometimes need to restrict women's rights in order to protect men's, just as men's rights are sometimes restricted to protect women's. Framing "taking away women's rights" as incompatible with liberalism is a female supremist position, as it is equivalent to saying that men's rights must always give way to women's when they conflict.

While you can certainly make the case that those protective norms being applied, specifically, to interactions around romance and sex with such furor is a holdover from older conservative norms, the norms of repeated unwanted attention being bad behavior is because it’s dickish and rude.

Yes--conservative norms restricted young women from behaving that way towards men, which these young women want to do to exploit those men's desires for them to their benefit. They just don't want men to be able to behave that way towards them. Thus, this "furor" is not a holdover from older conservative norms, but rather the result of such women trying to have their cake and eat it too.

In any case I rather doubt the idea that the furor in such norms is mostly about social conservatism because very conservative communities do not generally see sexual harassment as some sort of ultimate evil, but rather as a more ordinary kind of bad behavior.

I think this is agreeing with me: it is not about social conservativism, but rather about trying to get some of the benefits of social conservatism for a particular demographic without actually having social conservatism.

If they're putting woke stuff in shows, it may be possible that like many a show-biz member, they've fully been subsumed into the successor ideology and calling them "mormon" is a stretch.

It seems far more likely to me that their personal beliefs had little to do with it and they wrote in whatever Amazon's audience analysis told them they needed to.

The policy is broader than "don't flash your breasts." According to your link it prohibited any content that "deliberately highlighted breasts, buttocks or pelvic region." I have no trouble believing that women were modded for content that men got away with. If a guy did a squat stream that prominently displayed their ass (maybe for form demonstration reasons) would Twitch mod it for sexual content? What if a woman did the same? I have no trouble believing Twitch would mod the woman but not the man. I think there is a pretty straightforward sexist implication to "men are allowed to do this thing but women aren't."

When women start getting treated equivalently to men for sexual assault/harassment, THEN AND ONLY THEN will women deserve "equality" in this regard. You don't get to simultaneously claim the same ability to show off while holding extensive privileges in controlling how people respond to your doing so.

Google became the advertising behemoth it is today by creating an ad network that promised to be (and for a long time delivered on being) non-intrusive at a time when online advertising was getting extremely obnoxious. It's a bit disappointing to see them stoop to these practices now that they have no real competition, but such is the way of things. Maybe a new competitor will arise to take advantage of the situation like they once did.

I strongly disagree. We teach kids about bad touching in certain situations (notably straight men touching girls) and completely downplay and excuse it in others (notably women and gay men touching boys). Or, at the very least, that's what my experience was growing up being repeatedly told that such touching (including on multiple occasions directly grabbing my penis) wasn't sexual and I was being too sensitive. Maybe the movement has gotten better in the years since, but I don't see it from my perspective.

Do you also live in a nation where the primary victims of police malfeasance (by raw numbers) have been so thoroughly erased from the discussion by the "pro-reform" block that most of that block think they are actually the most privileged demographic when it comes to police/justice system encounters?

That's ridiculous overcompensation. For comparison, that's equivalent to the maximum compensation for spending 100 years imprisoned on false charges in some states. Getting slandered on the internet by someone with no institutional power and dealing with petty harassment by people who see it is in no way comparable to being falsely declared a criminal and locked up by the state. It is absurd to argue that the former should payout more than the latter.

Though for all the abortion focused ads, I did notice none of them actually say the word "abortion": it's always "reproductive rights" or "women's health." The most notable euphemism I heard also happened to be the only time I think I've seen genuine "dog whistle" in the wild: a candidate declared (along a list of other issues) that they would preserve our "constitutional privacy rights". Excellently manufactured so that anyone who cares about the abortion debate will hear "I am pro-choice" while the average voter who doesn't care about abortion doesn't hear it at all. So, ads are big on abortion but mostly wants to talk to the base.

Really? I've been seeing tasteless crap like this. Nothing says pro-choice quite like "As men, it is our duty to protect women."

Wouldn't Rosenbaum's verbal threats, eg "if I catch any of you f**kers alone, I’ll f**king kill you," combined with his "starting the altercation" when he encountered Rittenhouse alone later in the night make it much easier in at least Rosenbaum's case? If not, that seems like a gaping hole in the law that desperately needs to be fixed.

The moment the LGBT movement started making and accepting arguments equating being uncomfortable being touched in certain ways with homophobia they crossed the line into being apologists for child molestation. To the extent that they continue to tolerate such arguments, they absolutely deserve the groomer label.

Or it could just be that women aren't trustworthy judges of creepiness, prone to interpreting men's (particularly certain kinds of men's) behavior in the worst possible way because they are incentivized to do so.

As probably the only person who will be bold enough to openly identify as an avowed pedophile

You're certainly not the only person, but it's not a particularly common perspective around here.

It doesn't even need to be criticism. Simply having gender dysphoria and and saying "this is not the place for me" because the narratives don't line up with your own personal experiences is also apparently toxic to the movement in the eyes of at least some of its members.

Day 2 two planes collided in Haneda, the airport closest to Narita in Tokyo. Everyone was evacuated and survived, though the videos are harrowing. The commercial craft collided with a Coast Guard craft that, from what I understand, was on its way to assist the previously mentioned earthquake.

Everyone on the commercial craft survived. Five of the six crew on the Coast Guard craft died.

Why are some young women apparently trying taboo a 22 year old women dating a 28 year old man when they are also disproportionaly hooking up with older men on the dating apps?

...because the threat of social ruin gives them power over the older men they are hooking up with?

I don’t know anyone who believes that child molestation is okay as long as you’d prefer adults.

Maybe there's a gendered difference? When I reported being fondled and groped the response was always that it was okay and I shouldn't be bothered by it because it wasn't sexual despite people literally grabbing my penis. A few times I was punished for trying to pull their hands away, and one particular person chasing me as I tried to avoid her at get-togethers became a running family joke. Those experiences make me feel like that belief isn't that uncommon.

The particular offender to whom I refer has allegedly been inappropriate with adults as well. I don’t know that he is a true pedophile. I am simply astonished that apparently someone can try his hardest to fuck a child, and everyone will just… act like it didn’t happen. Perhaps you and I agree about taking a hard line on troublesome behavior.

Yes, such behavior is not acceptable. I feel like a lot of the hatred of pedophilia comes down to people wanting an easy way to show they are against child molestation without having to actually put in any real effort in preventing it, like confronting someone actually molesting a child.

The fires are already being lit:

The IWF report reiterates the real world harm of AI images. Although children are not harmed directly in the making of the content, the images normalise predatory behaviour and can waste police resources as they investigate children that do not exist.

In some scenarios new forms of offence are being explored too, throwing up new complexities for law enforcement agencies.

For example, the IWF found hundreds of images of two girls whose pictures from a photoshoot at a non-nude modelling agency had been manipulated to put them in Category A sexual abuse scenes.

The reality is that they are now victims of Category A offences that never happened.

My understanding of the social norm is that people would be unhappy if someone who appeared to be a woman entered the men's bathroom

This strongly contradicts my experiences in men's restrooms. Women seem rather entitled to using the men's room when theirs is occupied, with the concern being for their privacy and safety rather than the men's even when arguments against it are made.

Boys may underperform relative to girls but struggling on the classroom to some extent suggests an IQ problem, not a sex differences problem

Or there's a bias in grading...:

Teachers are more lenient in their marking of girls' schoolwork, according to an international study.

An OECD report on gender in education, across more than 60 countries, found that girls receive higher marks compared with boys of the same ability.

...

When it comes to teachers' marking, the study says there is a consistent pattern of girls' work being "marked up".

It suggests that "teachers hold stereotypical ideas about boys' and girls' academic strengths and weaknesses".

Teachers are said to reward "organisational skills, good behaviour and compliance" rather than objectively marking pupils' work.

You obviously have experienced a very different set of US restrooms than I have. I have regularly observed women using the men's room in the US and was mildly reprimanded as a child for complaining about feeling uncomfortable because of it.

But the kid would likely be better off were they to go to a well-regarded private school. We calculate child support based on what the parent can afford, not based merely on what is necessary for the kid to be "fine", because the child is entitled to parental support. Why shouldn't we similarly require parents with the necessary means to not skimp out on their child's education?

The problem is we focus too much on hatred specifically of pedophilia rather than of child molestation. There are a number of problems with this approach beyond the one @Sunshine mentioned. Most relevant to your argument is the assumption that only pedophiles molest children, and the corollary that if you aren't a pedophile then your behavior must be "okay". The majority of child molesters are not pedophiles and they will often justify their behavior based on this fact.

On a more personal note, I think taking a harder line on troublesome behaviors would make my life as a pedophile much easier. Almost all of my sessions with my therapist boil down to some variation of "What is the appropriate behavior in this situation?" (eg, "A child comes up to me while I'm walking my dog and asks to pet her. Do I let the child pet my dog or not?"). It is extremely confusing how many behaviors are considered problematic based on whether the actor is attracted to someone rather than judging the intentions of the actor and the actual impact on others.

Feminism is nothing more than women taking on the role of the partner expecting to eat her cake and have it, while denying men the ability to. That similarly builds up resentment, leading to a never-ending cycle of hate.