thrownaway24e89172
Death is the inevitable and only true freedom
No bio...
User ID: 1081
How do you define a "principled liberal"? Liberals typically have principles beyond "freedom of speech" and recognize that important principles sometimes conflict. Does being "principled" require a naive "Rank principles in order of importance and act based on that ranking." method of conflict resolution?
They themselves believe in equity more than in meritocracy.
I don't think this is true. They believe in a different kind of meritocracy, specifically one that focuses on the skills needed for social climbing rather than the nominally productive goals that meritocracy usually implies. "Equity" and "equality" are mere tools to be used to gain social standing, whether by elevating oneself or eliminating one's competition.
Have you noticed a difference in quality of analysis of mature code-bases versus its ability to make changes/additions to them? The consensus on our team so far seems to be that its analysis is significantly better than its generation, though how much of that is the quality of the AI versus the quality of our prompting is rather up in the air.
As WhiningCoil expresses above, the redpill perspective on women essentially considers them as men's lessers, baser creatures driven primarily by instinct. This is a perspective with strong cultural precedent, and its echoes persist to this day, even in aspirationally egalitarian societies. When feminists keep talking about wanting men and women to be equal, despite their equality before the law and the outright preference shown towards women by our cultural institutions, this is what they mean.
And that is evidence that feminists are either too incompetent (they aren't...) to understand the reason for this or are deliberately maintaining (or feigning) ignorance for social manipulation. The idea that men are by nature baser creatures driven primarily by their instincts (eg, "They think with their dicks.") is widespread in culture just as it is for women. Men are not seen as inherently better than women; people who control themselves and don't give in to their base instincts are seen as better than people who don't. Society expects this of men in a way it doesn't of women and in return grants them greater status for achieving it, as well as punishing them much more harshly for not. Feminists typically focus on eliminating the greater status granted men without eliminating (often rather reinforcing) the greater pressure nor the greater punishment.
I've seen people of both sexes put up with shit I really wouldn't have; being down bad is quite the drug.
Unfortunately so are low self-esteem ("this is the best I could ever hope for") and self-harm ("I deserve this abuse"), particularly in people who don't show it publicly.
It's only considered "cheating" when it is framed to make progressives look bad. It's considered a perfectly valid solution when framed as a solution for groups progressives hate.
You may think this, it might actually be true for you. That is not why the meme exists. Nybbler is correct. The meme exists for 2 reasons: 1) The "Hello HR" meme is true to life; and 2) Reality produces approximately 1 Marie Curie a century, whereas it produces dozens of her male equivalents. I was once an engineering student. Lady engineering students, as a rule, just flirt to get their work done by the men.
The "Hello HR" meme is only true to life in the sense that there do exist a small minority of women who fit it. Likewise "lady engineering students" who "just flirt to get their work done by the men" do exist, but they are a small minority of female engineering students. Those that do stand out a lot more however due to the relative lack of social skills in the type of people who typically become engineers making them more vulnerable to such social aggression.
The Army is an army and a land force. The Air Force was originally part of the Army, ergo it too is an army and a land force. I apparently misunderstand your disagreement then, because I thought your classification was due to how its forces work, which was why I brought up the land-based nature of its assets.
No, no, and no respectively. And that wasn't how I made the determination, it was how you did by arguing that the air force isn't an army because it uses aircraft. My determination was that because it was originally part of the Army it is therefore just another army separate from the Army for bureaucratic reasons.
Does the fact that the US Army maintains its own fleet of ships make it a navy? Are the aircraft that are still directly under the US Army unconstitutional? What about the aircraft that are part of the US Navy?
It is obviously a land force as demonstrated by its fixed assets (bases, airfields, etc). That some of its units are temporarily airborne doesn't change this fact anymore than the fact that a person who is running temporarily loses all contact with the ground would make running soldiers no longer part of an army.
It is trivially an army: it was originally the Army Air Force and was only separated from the Army for bureaucratic convenience.
What happens when women can no longer command attention?
They will do the same thing they've always done in this situation--abuse social power to outlaw alternatives so men's only choice is to give them attention. And then whine that they get too much attention from men.
My wife's stereotype of me is that I like dark depressing films that require thought. This isn't wrong, but it's hardly the only genre I am interested in.
So...something like Grave of the Fireflies or Haibane Renmei might be more up your alley?
- Prev
- Next
That's fair. I do wonder how much of that is due to not being principled versus not being effective at communicating in general though? Effective communication skills aren't that common, particularly at the higher bar of being effective at communicating with an at least partially adversarial audience.
More options
Context Copy link