Total posts: 82
-->
@WyIted
He was arrested for crimes against humanity by committing extrajudicial mass killings of people (not all of whom had been found guilty of anything). He also wasn't just killing drug dealers, he was killing anyone found to be using drugs. The government would also falsify death certificates, claiming victims had died of "natural causes" when there was clearly a bullet hole in their skull and other signs of physical violence: https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/what-happened-philippine-drug-war-that-led-dutertes-arrest-2025-03-11/
Duterte did attempt to silence his biggest critic (Leila de Lima) with false accusations and arrest. 5 witnesses who gave testimonies against de Lima later retracted their testimonies and said that they were pressured to lie by member's of Duterte's government, and de Lima was eventually freed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leila_de_Lima#Retracted_testimonies
The crime rate in the Philippines are lower now than they were when Duterte was in office, and the crime rate was already declining before he took office in 2016: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1270736/philippines-number-of-crime-incidents/
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
So a logical fallacy and not any kind of universal truth.
The opposite of a "universal truth" is not automatically a logical fallacy. General trends speak more to overall society than outliers do. If you want to understand the experiences of women in-regard to rape, you would pay attention to the overwhelming majority. It would make sense to dismiss the claims of the majority under the possibility of lying, because we have examples of different things people do commonly lie about in society. Surveys and other research do pick up on when people lie, it comes up in the patterns found in these surveys. When patterns are inconsistent, that's when you see people lying.
Mind controls behavior. You cannot change behavior without changing mind.
But in this instance, the behavior isn't indicative of whether or not they enjoyed the rape.
These are assumptions. Also, you just conceded that some women think they consented to rape.
Now you're lying. I never suggested that women consented to rape, just that some women were aware that they were raped. Being aware that a rape occurred is not the same as consenting to a rape.
Denial is a change of opinion, as denial itself is an opinion.
Denial isn't an opinion, it's simply suppressing the knowledge that something occurred.
Some women said they enjoyed being beaten and even provoked their husbands just so he would beat them.
I would be interested in seeing where you got this from.
Some rape victims are obsessed with their rape. They search for places on internet to talk about their rape. They want to talk about it all the time. You often see comments on internet from persons who got raped. There seems to be some obsession in them about talking about rape. Maybe it creates some hidden pleasure.
This is true of anyone who experienced any kind of trauma or illness. They wish to speak with people who understand their experiences to help them process it. What it creates is catharsis, the same time of catharsis that people who speak about their experiences with grief after they've lost a loved one get. Are people who seek-out support groups, and subreddits for grief secretly happy their loved one died? I would argue most aren't.
Even you here made plenty of posts about rape in a very short time, which just shows that merely talking about rape maybe creates some excitement in people. All people are different, and we cant really say that all women who were raped think in same way.
I just like to debate.
There is also the fact that historically, women were often raped and forced to be with person they didnt want to be with, usually in form of forced marriages. It is very possible that women had to adapt and change due to those historical circumstances, and the new traits which resulted were probably passed on further even after women gained more freedom. It is possible that they got used to being dominated throughout history and even learned to enjoy it, so now when they get raped, they get those same feelings.
Except that you've provided no evidence of women who have suggested that actively they enjoyed being raped. You've taken certain information out of context, where you believe half of what is being said, but not the other half.
Some women masturbate while thinking of their own sexual abuse from the past. Now, I dont trust much in surveys, but there is a bunch of them on Quora and Reddit talking about people who get pleasure when thinking about their own sexual abuse. I am just saying, people are different, and different people react differently to experience. Some people like what others dont. Some people are hurt more by something, some not hurt at all.
How do you know that those women aren't lying? What do these women say about that? Do they say that they enjoyed it, and that they wish it would happen again? Or do they say it's like a compulsion or form of self-harm, and that it feels different from when they are masterbating to someone they are actually attracted to and has not hurt them (it's the later). Stop taking things out of context.
The problem with your premise is that you're willing to believe certain things that people say, but not other things based on whether or not it fits a pre-existing narrative you have in your head.
Here are the holes in your argument:
You claim that consent can never be given because a woman might secretly not want to do something she says she wants to do. You ignore that the definition of consent is to simply to give permission, and that personal desire to have sex is irrelevant to that act.
You equate the feeling of guilt, with actually being guilty of something. Many people can experience guilt when they logically know they've done nothing wrong (myself included). If a woman says she feels guilty following a rape, but unless a woman is being told "Hey, if you walk into this room, you're going to get raped, turn away if you don't want that" and then she decides to walk into that room anyway, she's not guilty of anything. The type of guilt women feel in these instances are typically that they decided to go out with their friends or that they trusted a co-worker to drive them home (and yes, if I believe women who say they feel guilt, then I have no reason not to believe the reasons they state for that guilt).
You suggest I should consider nit-picked information that you present (some women experience arousal during rape, some women have rape fantasies, some women experience guilt, etc.), but then say that I shouldn't also consider the reasons or the further context that is offered around that information. It's illogical.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
So you talked of majority and ignored minority?
Yes. I'm speaking to the general trends of the population, not outliers.
They wrote love letters to their rapists and asked to stay with them. If they claim how that was denial, then they changed their mind.
They've changed their behavior, not necessarily their mind. Some women acknowledge they were raped, but decide to stay with their abuser out of fear. Other women are in denial, and don't acknowledge they were raped until later on because they don't want to believe the person they trusted is capable of do such a thing or that they now may have to perceive themselves as victims. This doesn't mean that the experience wasn't negative for them at the time, but they suppressed those negative emotions in-order to get on in life. The problem with suppressing emotions that they often will eventually pop up in different ways, and that's typically when these women seek counseling for what happened to them. The psychological study of this sort of thing is vast and well-documented.
By sending love letters to their rapists?
Yes, denial is a self-defense mechanism. Women stay in relationships with their abusers, women who have been beaten by their boyfriends/husbands. This does not mean that women enjoy getting emotionally and physically abused.: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/love-lies-and-conflict/202001/8-reasons-women-stay-in-abusive-relationships
If they say they are guilty, do you believe them? Because if you can cherry pick which survey claims to believe and which not, then I can too.
I asked you first. Why are you afraid to answer?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Not everything article states is true. But it does say that some women who were raped felt pleasure and even fell in love with their rapist and sent him love letters and asked him to stay with them after he raped them. This contradicts your claim of consistency where you claim that women always talk badly of being raped.
To be clear, when I spoke of "consistency", I spoke of overall or general trend (I was careful with my language in this regard). I'm not speaking for every single instance that has ever existed (I'm not god). I'm sure you could find a few of women who would argue that "rape doesn't exist" or that "rape isn't bad." But they are the exception, not the rule. The overwhelming research, literature, and media we have on the topic all point to the same conclusion which is that the overwhelming majority of women who have experienced rape, did not enjoy it.
And the article you provided does not contradict that, as it states that these women still perceived what happened to them as negative, and that they didn't "change their mind" but they were suppressing negative feelings they were experiencing at the time as self-defense mechanism. The problem with the sources you've offered so far is that you cherry-pick and take certain points out of context.
So you dont believe everything survey says. You just cherry pick. You think woman lies when she says she is guilty.
Were the 9/11 survivors at fault for 9/11 because they stated they felt guilty?
So cherry picking, essentially. Just because you dont have a reason not to believe someone doesnt mean he is telling the truth. Also, having a reason not to believe isnt good either unless reason is strong, and your reasons arent.
So far, I've believed everyone mentioned through-out this argument. I've been consistent.
Orgasm is pleasure and excitement by definition.
Let's see what the science says:
"An orgasm is “the sudden, involuntary release of sexual tension”1 which may or may not include pelvic floor muscle contractions, intense pleasure, a sensation of “doneness,” heightened emotional experience, increased genital sensitivity, or other marked changes, usually after high sexual arousal.1"
"Orgasm is a subjective experience in both men and women, and it has been difficult to determine an objective marker."
You also have no reason to believe they are telling the truth.
Is your conclusion that we should never believe anyone, and only trust our own first-person experiences?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
This was already negated. You just copy pasted a refuted argument.
Ignoring is not negating. I'll keep repeating the argument until you actually address it.
If woman says she is guilty for being raped, why dont you believe her?
I do believe that she feels guilty, that's not the same as being guilty. I have felt guilty about things that I had no control over. It's a feeling, not a reality. Do you believe 9/11 survivors are guilty for causing 9/11?
My argument isnt that I know what people think. That is YOUR argument. You are the only one here who claims that you can read minds.
My argument is that I believe that people say unless I have reason not to. Your argument is just paranoid, and false apart when applied to any other scenario (which you know, and that's why you're avoiding the point).
Orgasm is pleasure and excitement by definition.
Nope. Orgasms can range in intensity, weak orgasms do not result in the feelings of "pleasure or excitement." Anyone can experience these types of orgasms at any time, and for some people, they are the only type of orgasm they can experience (https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/24640-anorgasmia). But at the studies I pointed out show, not everyone experiences pleasure every-time they orgasm.
You are the one who claims that everything written in surveys is true. I guess when woman writes love songs to her rapist, one cannot really make sense of what she wants.
I don't see any reason to believe that most people who are participating in these surveys and interviews are lying, you're right. I believe the women who had relationships with their rapists, and I believe them when they say they had a negative experience and were in denial.
But, let's try this again: How do you know that the woman who wrote the love songs to her rapist wasn't lying?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
This link talks of women who fall in love with their rapists. Some women date their rapists. Some write them love songs after being raped. I guess so much for consistency.
The study The article states that these women were in denial about their experiences, and didn't immediately acknowledge what happened to them as rape because they didn't want to deal with the gravity that. The trauma of the experience obviously caught up to them if, as the article states, they would later seek counseling for what happened. You don't seek counseling for sex you enjoyed.
This article doesn't contradict consistency, because (as your source states) these women would later go on to say that they didn't enjoy what happened to them and they were in denial as a self-protective mechanism.
But, by your logic, how do we know these women weren't lying about having relationships with their rapists?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I dont see how can you know that it is even unlikely. Sounds like another assumption. People lie consistently all the time. Average person tells over 1000 lies a year. You can see in religious communities that lies are very common and consistent when there is social pressure. Also, women who want to be raped wont admit that they want to be raped, because that would ruin the roleplay. Those women want to feel raped. If they admit they wanted it, then the roleplay is spoiled.
It's not an assumption. When multiple sources independent from each other say the same thing, it is irrational to assume everyone is lying. People are less likely to lie when they are in anonymous settings, that's a fact. And yet, we see no difference between what people say in-regard to their negative experience of rape when they are anonymous vs. when they are not.
I'll say it again: Your argument falls apart because it relies on you picking and choosing what you believe from what people say. You believe women when they say they've been raped, when they save they've experienced rape-fantasies, and when they say they've experienced arousal during an assault, but then you stop believing them when they say that they did not find the rape enjoyable. You only believe what suits your narrative.
So you say that women are guilty of their own rape? Well, that is your opinion.
Aw, you're purposefully ignore where I have repeatedly said: Feeling guilty is not the same as being guilty. I believe these women experience guilt, that is not the same as actually being guilty. I also believe that it is common for 9/11 survivors to feel guilt, I don't believe they are actually guilty of anything.
Thats not a negation of my argument, since I never claimed that those who dont express their desire dont have desire.
Do you believe that people who survived 9/11 secretly wanted 9/11 to happen? By your logic, they could simply be lying because many people have fantasies about being in action movies where things blow up.
Person can feel both pleasure and pain at same time. Its not really a negation of my claim.
If you read the study, you would see that participants did not claim pleasure in these scenarios (and these were many different types of people in many different types of scenarios).
Let me try your style of argument for a second.
Question:
How can you prove that the women who say they have rape fantasies aren't lying?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
When your whole evidence depends on assumption that those people are telling the truth about their mind, then me pointing out that they can lie destroys your entire evidence. So can people lie? Make up your mind. If people cant lie, then everything I say is true. If people can lie, then your whole evidence is based on assumption and blind hope that they told the truth.
We can look at these studies, surveys, interviews with victims, support groups, books written by victims, podcasts hosted by victims, documentaries made by victims, subreddits for victims, interviews with therapists who treat victims, etc. And we can see a consistency in how people express their experiences with rape, unwanted arousal during an assault, and their overall perspective on what happened to them. Yes, people can lie. But it's unlikely to see people lying this consistently in both open and anonymous settings.
Evidence that women don't enjoy rape comes from many many different sources through-out time. The idea is when multiple different sources that exist independent of each-other all display the same conclusions, then it would be irrational to dismiss those conclusions based on the idea that everyone could be lying about the same thing. If we saw a difference between how women reported their experiences with rape when anonymous than when they are identified, you would have an argument, but we don't see a difference in-regard to your claims.
The argument is simple. If you think everything what people say in surveys is true, then it is true that many women are guilty of own rape, many feel that rapist shouldnt be punished, and many have rape fantasies and gain pleasure when being raped. Do you concede to all these?
I believe women are telling truth in-regard to all of the above, including that they found their rape distressing and bad.
Let's break this down:
Guilt: It's common for people who have experienced any kind of trauma (including non-sexual) to experience guilt. There's survivor guilt, where the victims can feel guilty because for surviving or because they felt they didn't do enough to help other victims. Much of the time, there was nothing the survivors could do to help or to change the outcome in anyway, and the guilt persists despite this knowledge. This is also a common symptom of PTSD.
As the studies show, when women feel guilt regarding their rape, they blame themselves for things like: deciding to go out to the bar with their friends that night, trusting their co-worker to drive them home, being too nice to someone who was making them feel uncomfortable, etc. No where is it reported that the guilt comes from the feeling that they actually enjoyed the experience.
Punishment: As mentioned before, many victims don't wish to pursue prosecution for many reasons: fear they won't be believed, don't want the responsibility of breaking up a person's family, don't wish to relive the experience in court, fear that they will face some sort of retaliation, don't feel they remember enough about the person who raped them to be able to properly identify them, etc.
Fantasies: There's no correlation between people experiencing rape fantasies, and also expressing a desire to be raped in real life. Many may wish to experience a role-play scenario, as they are very common in BDSM circle. But in BDSM circles there is a very strict regard to consent, safety, and boundaries being established before the role-play begins (which would make the experience explicitly not rape). A core component to any fantasy, is the person who is doing the fantasizing is always in control, it's impossible to have a fantasy and not be in control of the fantasy.
Unwanted arousal: Both men and women experience unwanted arousal during rape/assault. Experiencing arousal is not the same as experiencing desire, and it is not always an enjoyable experience. It's a fact that bodies may always respond to certain stimuli, but that response is merely physical.
When her favorite thing to imagine sexually is being raped, one must doubt that she wouldnt want to realize her favorite thing.
In a role-playing scenario (typically where consent, boundaries, and safety are laid out ahead of time), sure. That does not mean she wants it to actually happen in real life. One thing to understand, even when just talking about sex generally in regard to women, is that while most women enjoy sex, they are not ready to have it all of the time. For example, a woman can enjoy having sex with her husband, but her husband randomly forces her into sex, that would still be a traumatizing experience regardless of the fact that she had enjoyed sex with him in the past. Like I mentioned above, one thing all fantasies will always have in common is that the fantasizer is always in control, you take the control away, and it's not the same experience.
They all depend on surveys. You cant read people's minds, thus they are just assumptions.
Your argument falls apart because it relies on you picking and choosing what you believe from these surveys. You believe women when they say they've been raped, when they save they've experienced rape-fantasies, and when they say they've experienced arousal during an assault, but then you stop believing them when they say that they did not find the rape enjoyable. You only believe what suits your narrative.
Arousal and orgasms are both pleasurable.
They are not always pleasurable (sometimes they can even be painful):
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/sexual-self/202108/the-psychology-and-physiology-bad-orgasms
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Surveys*
I cited statistics from the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Statistics. What do you think statistics are?
So you think you can read minds and that people cant lie, and me pointing out opposite is a "logical fallacy"?
I think dismissing research, studies, and data based on the premise that participants could have been lying is a logical fallacy, yes.
I didnt cite actual research. I merely said what many women have said. I didnt even say that I believe them. They say they have rape fantasies. My argument doesnt even depend on their words, but yours does. So their words are either true or not true as a source of information. Take your pick.
You did cite research in #4 and #7. It seems like you were attempting to form some sort of an argument around these statistics, and now you're backtracking. And I'm not arguing that some women don't have rape fantasies, just that having rape fantasies doesn't mean that a woman would want to be raped in real life.
Assumption =/= example
They are not assumptions, they're based on collected data which are cited in the studies that I linked to.
Guilt for own rape by definition means they are feeling bad for causing themselves to be raped. Are their words true there?Also, you already conceded that some women orgasm and feel pleasure from rape.
You keep repeating the same thing, and then ignoring what I wrote. Yes, guilt means they feel they are responsible in some way for what happened to them, but it doesn't mean that they were responsible in any way.
And as I've already pointed out, people who experience sexual arousal from rape, do not experience it as "pleasurable."
From the survey you posted. Does math confuse you?
Yes, be specific.
They also think they are guilty for own rape. Is that true too, or do you only pick from their words what you like?
I've literally stated it multiple times. Feeling guilty is not the same as being guilty.
Wow
If you don't answer the question, I'll take it as a win.
Its an assumption that superior wisdom and experience of one can negate the ability to consent of another.
Only when it pertains to children. Do you disagree?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
All of your reasons have word "want" in them, and since having sex achieves what they want, they want sex to achieve what they want.
This is what you said in your first post: "What if girl told you she wants sex, but she actually lied and didnt want it? Then you are a rapist without even knowing it."
What do you mean when you "didn't want it." What is "it" referring to?
regardless of your logical fallacy regarding child's experience and wisdom.
How is that a logical fallacy?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Here is a definition of guilt:"a feeling of worry or unhappiness that you have because you have done something wrong"So when someone says she feels she has done something wrong, then do you take that as true, or do your "surveys science" only accept words you agre
I already supplied examples of why victims experience guilt. I don't know how you're jumping from "experiencing guilt" to "enjoying rape."
So basically, 28% of them say they didnt consider rape as important enough to punish the rapist for,
Where did you get that from?
and 15% basically say its pointless to even report rape. Is this the survey you want to go with? Because it just agrees with what I said that there is a probability that they wanted it and these are just excuses for not reporting it.
As my other sources point out: Victims typically believe that it's "pointless" or "not worth" reporting rape because it's not a guarantee they would be believed, or that they won't face some sort of negative fall-out as a result.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
No, it cant.
You can consent because you don't want to hurt someone's feeling, you can consent because you feel like you should be in a relationship even if you don't want to be in a relationship with the particular person you're with, you can consent because you're friends are all doing it, and you don't want to be left behind, etc. These are bad reasons to have sex with someone, but they are examples of people consenting to sex for reasons other than actually desiring sex with the person.
Great. So now you apply circular logic.
Only when you take sentences out of context. Cheap move.
So you concede that consent depends on the mind, therefore contradicting your previous claims.
Nope. When it comes to sex, children and adults are in different categories (I hope you would agree). Adults are expected to have experience and wisdom that children do not have.
I dont need evidence, because that wasnt even my claim. I merely claimed that we cant read minds, thus we cant know if they wanted it.
Your argument is based on logical fallacy. "The invincible ignorance fallacy,[1] also known as argument by pigheadedness,[2] is a deductive fallacy of circularity where the person in question simply refuses to believe the argument, ignoring any evidence given. It is not so much a fallacious tactic in argument as it is a refusal to argue in the proper sense of the word. The method used in this fallacy is either to make assertions with no consideration of objections or to simply dismiss objections by calling them excuses, conjecture, anecdotal, etc. or saying that they are proof of nothing, all without actually demonstrating how the objections fit these terms."
As for your links, they are just surveys which cant be proved true because again, you cant read minds.
I offered statistics, and you ignored them.
You post surveys. I post surveys.
You posted a single anecdote from Reddit.
So you have no counter argument to my argument.
Can't counter logical fallacy.
By research, you mean surveys which rely on an assumption that people cant lie when they talk. Please stop embarassing yourself by calling that "research".
Why did you cite research in your earlier posts if you believe that they are diminished by the possibility of someone lying? Do you only believe research when it supports your argument?
Created:
-->
@WyIted
At worst it seems like just talk from the right from unelected thought leaders who tend to have crazy ideals before they get filtered down to politicians anyway. By contrast the left is actually taking steps to end democracy when they disagree with results
I mean, Trump and his followers never accepted the results of the 2020 election because he lost.
And I can't find any prominent people on the left who are writing books and essays on how America can dismantle its democracy (but I can on the right).
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
It is your premise which falls apart. Consent depends on mind completely. It is not possible to give permission if it doesnt come from the mind. If it doesnt come from the mind, then mind isnt consenting. People think children cant consent because of their mind being the way it is.
You continue to wrongly conflate consent with desire. Consent can be motivated by things other than desire.
So if your premise is that consent is just word "Yes", then you concede that children can consent as long as they can say yes. I really enjoy watching people fall in these logical traps I set.
This is not a "logical trap." Children can't consent because they are children. We don't expect children to have the knowledge or wisdom to be able to make certain decisions for themselves, which is why parents/guardians are often legally required to do so in their place.
I dont think random incomplete surveys count as research. You could have at least used statistics. But anyway, the quote I posted clearly said they were feeling guilty in most cases. Guilt indicates they did something to make it happen, maybe even wanted it or having mixed feelings.
- 20% feared retaliation
- 13% believed the police would not do anything to help
- 13% believed it was a personal matter
- 8% reported to a different official
- 8% believed it was not important enough to report
- 7% did not want to get the perpetrator in trouble
- 2% believed the police could not do anything to help
- 30% gave another reason, or did not cite one reason
Why victims feel guilt:
"The women who suffer most from these guilt feelings are those who have been severely abused, with prior emotional problems, with strict religious backgrounds proscribing nonmarital sexual relations, or those who are secretive about their experience. The reason why the rape victim blames herself rather than her assailant is that women in general have been socialized in a sexist society and have internalized discriminatory norms."
"Emotions like shame and guilt may follow sexual assault and some survivors blame themselves for being assaulted. This self-blame may relate in part to stereotyped sex-specific expectations; for example, women may blame themselves for not taking more caution, for drinking around others or for dressing in a certain manner, whereas men may feel guilty for physical and behavioral responses during the assault (10,39). Survivors who blame themselves may have more difficulty recovering following sexual assault, and unfortunately, survivors are sometimes blamed intentionally or unintentionally by others, which can intensify shame and guilt and further interfere with recovery (30,32)."
You have no evidence that women secretly "wanted it" or had "mixed feelings" about it.
No.
Lol. I found it. You got it from a Reddit AMA.
We cant know if it is involuntary because we cant read minds. But yeah, feeling pleasure from being raped seems to be as common as percentage of women who have rape fantasies.
Your argument boils down to: "We can't read minds, and anyone could be lying about anything at any time." It's irrational and paranoid. We can only know what the research shows, and what the research shows is that experiencing arousal during a rape is typically distressing, and not enjoyable for the victim.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Maybe she lied. You cant read minds. Consent is in the mind, not in the word. Consent cannot happen if woman doesnt want it in her mind, and being able to tell a lie means you can never know if she really consented.
This is where your whole premise falls apart, and you're ignoring my point: Consent is an action. It is not a feeling.
Cambridge English Dictionary:
Consent: permission or agreement. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/consent
You're confusing consent with desire. A woman can consent to sex that she doesn't really want to have, but whether or not something is rape is not contingent solely on whether or not a woman wants to have sex, but whether or not she was forced or coerced into having sex.
Again, you cant read minds to even know that, but some statistics are useful to understand better.What percentage of women report rape?"This study was designed to determine whether or not more women are reporting sexual assault, and whether or not previously noted theories about why women do not report continue to be valid. The study revealed that only 18% of the adult women's rapes and only 11% of the assaults of children were reported."
There has been exhaustive research on why victims of sexual assault and rape don't often report:
Fear that reporting won't help or benefit them: "Survivors frequently shared the sentiment that reporting their assaults to police was unlikely to benefit them or improve their situations in a meaningful way. Often, this reflected what survivors perceived to be limitations of their potential cases."
"Survivors remembered the assault but did not have what they felt would be sufficient information to help police apprehend the offender. One survivor stated, “I didn’t see his face. It could be any Hispanic man” and another expressed the concern that she didn’t “know him or how to find him.”
Fear that reporting will lead to further harm: "Survivors who expressed that reporting the assault would do them harm frequently referenced the emotional toll that participating in the criminal legal system would take. One woman explained, “Just repeating the story [is] emotionally draining” and another expressed that participating in an investigation “would draw out the process of grief.” Other survivors decided against reporting based on what would be required of them as their case moved forward, such as having to “face him again” in court. Survivors were also concerned about how they would be treated throughout the process, with one expressing “a huge fear of being in court and having a lawyer try to make it sound like it was my fault.” Across these concerns, survivors reflected that reporting the assault was likely to require that they disrupt their own healing process in order to provide the criminal legal system what was needed for investigation and prosecution."
Fear reporting will harm others: "Survivors were also concerned about the ways that reporting the assault could harm others. One survivor described how difficult it would be for her family to learn about the assault, stating that she did not want to report “because of my family, relatives, and especially my mother. It would destroy her.” Another woman, whose assault was perpetrated by her child’s father, explained the negative impact a police report could have on her relationship with her child: “If I call the police, my [child] will hate me . . . the most important thing is that your child will hate you.”"
"I've assisted more young women than I can count with this very issue. It often comes up at some point during therapy and it's extremely embarrassing or shameful to talk about. However once it's out in the open, the survivor can look at her/his reaction honestly and begin to heal. The shame and guilt around it is a large part of why some rapes go unreported and why there is a need for better understanding in society for how and why this occurs.There have been very few studies on orgasm during rape, but anecdotal reports and research show numbers from 5% to over 50% having this experience. In my experience as a therapist, it has been somewhat less than half of the girls/women I've worked with having some level of sexual response. (For the record, I have worked with very few boys/men who reported this.)"
You didn't link to a source for this quote, could you provide one?
This is called arousal non-concordance, involuntary sexual arousal, and unwanted sexual arousal (https://www.choosingtherapy.com/arousal-non-concordance/). This arousal is not associated with desire, and is usually a distressing experience, not an enjoyable one. This occurs with men as well: "According to this review, men frequently have erections or ejaculate uncontrollably during a sexual assault; nonetheless, the victim’s response does not imply consent. This review also supports the notion that anal rape might cause men to experience involuntary erections or ejaculations. These physiological responses complicate the impacts on men. It is as if their bodies are giving consent while their psychological selves feel violated."https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10135558/
But there are reasons why men may be less likely to report: "If the perpetrator is a man, the survivor may fear being labeled gay by those he tells of the assault. He may even question his own sexuality, especially if he experienced an erection or ejaculation during the assault." https://www.fredonia.edu/student-life/sexual-assault/malesurvivors
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
"Current research indicates that between 31% and 57% of women have fantasies in which they are forced into sex against their will, and for 9% to 17% of women these are a frequent or favorite fantasy experience. "
Right, fantasy is not reality. These women don't actually want to be raped in real life.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Maybe she lied. You cant read minds, and consent is in the mind.
"Consent does not have to be consistent with personal desire. There are many different reasons someone may consent to sex that they don't want to have, and ultimately the responsibility is on them to deal with that."
If she lied, it's on her. Consent is an action (to give permission), not a feeling.
Some women are into roleplaying rape. They pretend they dont want it because it turns them on.
I'm trying to imagine what kind of scenario you think this type of role-play occurs in. Roleplaying happens with consent. A woman isn't going to pretend she doesn't want sex as a vehicle for role-playing if the man she's with in unaware, especially if she doesn't know how the man she's with is going to react. The fact that the man she's with would earnestly want to rape her would likely turn her off of the fantasy..
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Bruv.
What if girl told you she wants sex, but she actually lied and didnt want it? Then you are a rapist without even knowing it.
You're overthinking it. If she said she wanted it, then she consented. Consent does not have to be consistent with personal desire. There are many different reasons someone may consent to sex that they don't want to have, and ultimately the responsibility is on them to deal with that.
Now, if someone is actively pressuring someone into having sex with them, and they keep pushing until the other person "gives in", then that is not proper-consent.
Created:
Călin Georgescu was leading in the polls and favored to win the election but just how establishment candidates collectively decided to fuck over the German AFD party as an attempt to overthrow democracy, they now take it a step further and just outright ban a political opponent.
"Romanian far-right populist Calin Georgescu has been barred from participating in May's presidential election rerun by the country's Central Electoral Bureau (BEC), triggering clashes between his supporters and police.
Last year, Romania's constitutional court annulled November's first round of the vote - in which he came first - after intelligence revealed Russia had been involved in 800 TikTok accounts backing him.
The BEC rejected his candidacy on Sunday, saying it "doesn't meet the conditions of legality", as he "violated the very obligation to defend democracy"."
Last year, Romania's constitutional court annulled November's first round of the vote - in which he came first - after intelligence revealed Russia had been involved in 800 TikTok accounts backing him.
The BEC rejected his candidacy on Sunday, saying it "doesn't meet the conditions of legality", as he "violated the very obligation to defend democracy"."
So, it seems that the BEC is concerned that Georgescu is the actual threat to democracy. To be fair, Georgescu has expressed admiration for literal dictatorships (Ion Antonescu) and literal fascist movements (Iron Guard) so...perhaps he might not be the biggest fan of democracy himself.
The real threat to democracy is from the left.Conservatives need to look at this and the efforts of leftists to end free speech and realize they will never be allowed to win if they play within the rules and that if the right wins, given these events than free helicopter rides are completely justified
To be fair, it would seem that the actual calls to end democracy are coming from the right: Peter Thiel, Curtis Yarvin, Balaji Srinivasan, Marc Andreessen, etc. All liberal-hating Conservatives. So, at best, it's a bi-partisan issue.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
It's not very "America First", is it? Do you think Trump will do something about this divide? It seems like, from a MAGA perspective, the techbro-right opening the doors (wider) for foreign workers to replace American workers could be a slippery-slope into other industries. And the techbro CEO's have a lot of incentive to see this through, they don't seem very concerned with "American First."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
The reason why is because being gender neutral is a product of Anglo American Civilization.
Ah, jeez, I hate to break it to you but: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_neutrality_in_genderless_languages
Created:
Posted in:
Seems simple: You’re attracted to women, and there’s two of them. Similarly, there’s a growing number of women into “guy on guy” (saltburn, the challengers). I imagine for the same reasons.
Sometimes, in either scenario (straight men viewing a man having sex, straight women viewing a woman having sex), can bring up some insecurities or inadequacies, and if you eliminate them from the viewing experience it becomes a more “comfy” time without any personal hang-ups getting in the way.
Or you’re a closeted trans lesbian.
Created:
Posted in:
The question is: do women, people of color, lgbt+, disabled people, etc. experience disadvantage in any way in this country? If the answer is no, then you're likely to believe DEI just exists to steal from straight white men. If the answer is yes, then a nuanced conversation gets to exist. Here's a good conversation on white men feeling left out of DEI (between people who actually work in DEI): https://www.forbes.com/sites/teresahopke/2022/03/30/white-men-are-feeling-left-out-of-dei-diversity-equity--inclusion-why-should-we-care-and-what-should-we-do/?sh=75cc82cffaa6
Created:
Most people, regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum, engage in politics emotionally and not rationally. They don't want to reason, they want to project and react. They are addicted to the "can you believe what the woke libs are doing now?" or "can you believe what trump said at his rally?" outrage machine that the media feeds them. It's a weird catharsis for your every day person. And if you try to inject nuance into the conversation? They shut down.
Created:
It's actually not true that BLM only showed up for black victims. They showed up for Andres Guardado, and Carlos Adrian Ingram-Lopez in the wake of their deaths. Two Latino men killed by police. BLM focuses on black victims, because black people are disproportionately affected compared to other groups.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Well, I am absolutely for change, but not change for change sake. For me, implementation of this plan would further take us in the wrong direction. But i'm a silly ol' lib.
Created:
Posted in:
Are you familiar with the plan to in-act "Project 2025" if Trump wins? Generally speaking, it's a very robust transition plan organized by right-wing think tank, The Heritage Foundation, to enforce Christian and Conservative policies on every level of Government: including replacing all government works with ones who will promote "Conservative ideals." https://www.project2025.org
Liberals seem concerned, and Conservatives seem largely indifferent (many not even knowing about it). The indifference part is interesting to me because most Conservatives i've spoken with have the attitude of "has some good ideas, has some really bad ideas, probably won't happen either way." And liberals are concerned with the prospect of a President who would think of any of it as a good idea let alone actually trying to push it through.
Project 2025 controversial points of interest:
- Reinstate the executive order known as Schedule F. This would reclassify thousands of federal employees as “at-will” workers and give the administration the ability to fire employees who don’t agree with or follow the extremist policies suggested by Project 2025.
- Create a training “academy” for potential employees of the next administration, which “provides aspiring appointees with the insight, background knowledge, and expertise in governance to immediately begin rolling back destructive policy and advancing conservative ideas in the federal government.”
- Will ensure that Department of Justice is not independent from the executive branch and implies the agency will be used to take legal retribution against whoever Trump decides to investigate.
- Calls for a future GOP administration to immediately review all major FBI investigations “and terminate any that are unlawful or contrary to the national interest.”
Created:
Posted in:
The idea that homosexuality is a choice exists so people who are anti-homosexuality don't have to accept it. They know it would be cruel to force someone against their own nature, so believing homosexuality is a choice (conscious or otherwise) is a much easier pill to swallow. You add religion into the mix, and it's a...duh. If someone believes god made everyone heterosexual for marriage and procreation then they're gonna have a tough time with homosexuality as a concept. So, to me, those who believe that homosexuality is a choice are operating a defense mechanism.
That said, you could say that homosexual behavior is a choice...but homosexual attraction is not. The amount of homosexual people with internalized homophobia who tried to force themselves into heterosexual relationships only to feel nothing should be evidence of this.
Created:
Student protest has existed for a long time, does it have impact? Not always. But it can help better contextualize a moment when we look back on it through a historical lens. When looking back on this time, it will be difficult not to include discussion of protests when revisiting the actions of Israel, and so...at the very least, the question of whether or not Israel was correct in their handling of this time will always be apart of the conversation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
I don't think this supports what you are saying. The link is talking about physical arousal to stimulation. It seems to be about rape victims who reached orgasm. The physical response to physical stimulation is not something controllable. I assume it is like when the prostate is used by doctors to force ejaculation, or whatever that technique is. I think we are talking about arousal from seeing or thinking about certain things. Like you know looking at somebody bend over. If you are a female and you get sexually aroused by a female bending over then I think it's safe to think you are attracted to women. This would be different than somebody forcing your nerve ending to be stimulated and then thinking that has anything to do with attraction
If you follow the linked resources, particularly Emily Nagoski, she speaks on non-concordance from visual stimuli. Essentially, something just has to be sexually relevant to produce blood flow, but it doesn’t result in your brain actually experiencing attraction or desire. This would explain why so many women in the study you provided experienced consistent arousal across visual stimuli but didn’t consistently report desire/attraction.
Anyway, I’m headed on vacation, so I won’t responding for a few weeks. Byeee.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Studies that actually test for attraction prove my theory that all women are attracted to other women.
Finally. Thank you.
You fell for the first part, the clickbait headline: “No women are totally straight.” It’s catchy, but not actually what the study found. The study concluded that 30% of women show exclusive attraction to the opposite sex. Certainly more than “never,” but still suggests that the majority of women experience some blood flow at the sexual imagery involving the same sex.
The findings are similar to something that has been observed of women in other research, and that’s many women experience physical arousal at any visual representation of sex (this include with animals, and in one study…an “erotic” looking piece of wood.) But as the study you provided mentioned, this experience of arousal often does not translate into desire. This would be known as arousal non-concordance: https://psychpd.com.au/arousal-non-concordance-and-involuntary-sexual-response/#:~:text=“Arousal%20non%2Dconcordance%20is%20the,turned%20on%20they%20feel%27.”
EDIT: I’ve removed any reference to your personal life, because you appear to be dealing with something, and I think that much of your perspective on female sexuality is the result of a personal defense mechanism to ignore an uncomfortable reality going on in your life. But, again, I’m going to refrain from any low-blows.
Honestly go on lezbian Twitter they all claim to fuck heterosexual women . Better yet gey a girlfriend and see if they are down for sex with another woman.
It’s pretty well established within the lesbian community that if you’re dating a woman, then she’s either lesbian or bisexual. The lesbians who claim they’re sleeping with straight women are simply stroking their own egos.
Now, I have to point out, the study you offered does contradict your claim that lesbians don’t exist. Has your view changed on that or do you cherry pick based on what is convenient for your personal narrative?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
It doesn't matter what you believe. The points how those in power many of whom are occultists thinks.
It’s doublespeak, it’s nothing new or fancy.
I’m not going to bother quoting the rest as your personal life is your business. I’ll just reiterate the following:
You don't offer any research, studies, or data to back-up your claims. You rely heavily on anecdotes to support your arguments (your TV viewing habits as a child, your relationships with women, a youtube video you saw, etc.). And anecdotes are fine, but they should be sprinkled on top of an argument supported by actual evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
So to correctly understand your claim. You claim language has not changed in even a single artificial way that was top down as opposed to more naturally.
Pertaining specifically to the examples you offered in your previous post(oriental to Asian-American, negro to Black, queer as an umbrella term), no.
Your second claim here just to understand it is that it is these communities themselves changing how they are referred to, to spite white people?
No. It's to have the same level of ownership of identity that white people in America have always had.
That reality is if whites called blackest African Americans 50 years ago that perhaps they would prefer to be called pizzas now or some other random word?
I'm not sure what this sentence says.
We are also going to ignore the fact that white people are on behalf of others telling them how they should feel about words like oriental or negro?
White people should never tell a marginalized person how they should feel about a certain word to describe themselves. If a black person would prefer the word "negro," then they have every right to use it without being criticized by a white person.
So to disprove your claims it seems like just need to find one instance of a top down manipulation of language..is this true?
No. I'm not claiming that no word ever has been a top-down influence, because I don't know that to be true. I'm speaking specifically within the context of the examples you offered.
I personally wouldn't tell you too much because I have been warned about sharing secrets with the uninitiated and a lot of it is pointless without foundational knowledge anyway.
It probably wouldn't help that I don't believe in demons or anything associated anyway. But, of course, people can use language to manipulate others. We agree there.
In this thread I pointed to the overgeneralization of words for the mot part to be more inclusive of people in the LGBT community. The expansion of terms like queer or bisexuality to include more people. I can tell you why this is done on one level anyway.
Bisexuality hasn't been expanded, it just means people who are attracted to both genders. And, as I pointed out, "queer" has always been used to describe bisexual and gender non-conforming people for about as long as it's been used to describe gay men.
The left is essentially saying "let's normalize being queer" you can only do that by creating 75 genders and dividing everybody among them and shrinking the definition of heterosexual. Everyone knows that gender and sex are a spectrum. We consider most of the spectrum or did to be heterosexual. They have expanded the definition of queer to include more of the spectrum and used the term cisgender as a type of pejorative. It's the one incorrect gender so now kids will furiously search for one of the 75 genders to describe themselves as. It's easy for females because a lot are tomboys but nearly every female has some sort of sexual attraction towards other women.
It's a bit more complicated than that: In the real world, you are cis, straight, or nonbinary. Of course, there is the topic of pronouns. For the most part you are either using he/him, she/her, they/them, or some combination. If we are talking about neopronouns, they are far less common, but they date back to the 1800s ("ze" was in the Webster's Dictionary from 1934 to 1961). In the 90s, you had trans-activist/authors like Kate Bornstein who used neopronouns for a character in one of her novels, and Leslie Feinberg who used neopronouns for themselves (who was introduced to it by specific lesbian spaces). Really, it was the popularity of "Stone Butch Blues" within the lesbian community where you saw people become more aware of neopronouns (and subsequently, some adopt for themselves). In my experience, it is very rare to encounter someone use uses neopronouns or identifies as nonbinary who isn't either transgender, gay, or bisexual. Meaning, the cis straight people, are still cis and straight. And considering that cis people still make up the majority of the LGBT+ community, I wouldn't say it's considered pejorative.
Now, I'll finally address your claims about female sexuality: Most women are straight, and don't have sexual or romantic attraction to other women (studies show around 81% of women experience exclusive attraction the opposite sex).
The reason you would want to expand the definition from their perspective us because the more people who see themselves as LGBT the more accepting of Trans individuals or homosexuality the community will be as a whole.
This shows a pretty fundamental understanding of the intentions within the LGBT+ community.
Within the LGBT+ community there is a term called "spicy-straights," this is in reference to straight people who believe that being poly or having a queer partner someone how makes them a part of the community. They are made fun of. The LGBT+ does not want to expand by including people who are not either genuinely attracted to the same sex or are transgender. That's the reality. If you're a some guy who looks like Billy Joel from Green Day and only dates women, but identifies as "nonbinary," you're being looked at as suspicious and annoying. The LGBT+ does not want to expand by accepting people who are cis/straight but go by some random label, that's the opposite of what's wanted.
The reality is: you can re-label heterosexuality but you can never erase it. However, heterosexuality can very easily erase "queer" or "lgbt+" identities and spaces.
It should also be pointed out that culture kind of flows downstream you have these academics in their ivory towers and you can read their books on this exact process and why the expansion of the term is important and people will laugh and say it is just some Crack academics but the academics influence "thought leaders" who influences people who consume a lot of low brow content who then influence their friends and neighbors.
I think a more accurate flow chart would be: community spaces > academia > mainstream. Before "nonbinary," people used the term "genderqueer." "Genderqueer" was born out of independent 'zines in the 1980s, and then academics began writing papers on it, and that's when the mainstream finds out about it.
You think my opinions are born from personal experience and I think yours are from brainwashing that tells you that your grandparents and previous generations were all rabbit racists who lynched black people for the slightest infractions and didn't want to share pies with them.It's of no use to speculate where we each collected our biases. My envisioning of you and your envisioning of me are perhaps useful when communicating with each other but are very unlikely to reflect reality. We can schedule a zoom call if you want to see if our impressions of each h other are correct but I would prefer we just stick to facts and acknowledge that we both likely have biases that effect our thinking and one of the reasons we expose our thinking to criticism is to work through these biases.
My problem is that you don't offer any research, studies, or data to back-up your claims. You rely heavily on anecdotes to support your arguments (your TV viewing habits as a child, your relationships with women, a youtube video you saw, etc.). And anecdotes are fine, but they should sprinkled on top of an argument supported by actual evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
It looks like you took issue with me claiming the change of language was some sort of manipulation. You stated it happened naturally or as a response to marginalized communities taking ownership of the words that they are referred to as.I dont think you addressed what I said about the language seeming to change faster now than it did in the past which was one of my premises.
Globalization and advancements in technology (internet and social media) are going to have impact on the speed in which language evolves.
Language surrounding marginalized demographics evolve in step with their advancement within society. As society becomes more accepting, and as new generations within those groups are born with new perspective different from their elders then things like language get reassesed.
This isn’t a mystery, there is no man behind the curtain. We can see how these trends evolved through writing and the words of the people who inspired those changes. The motivation is largely that these demographics wish to label themselves in the same way groups who are not marginalized can label themselves. The goal is make sure the playing field is level on every front.
Language surrounding marginalized demographics evolve in step with their advancement within society. As society becomes more accepting, and as new generations within those groups are born with new perspective different from their elders then things like language get reassesed.
This isn’t a mystery, there is no man behind the curtain. We can see how these trends evolved through writing and the words of the people who inspired those changes. The motivation is largely that these demographics wish to label themselves in the same way groups who are not marginalized can label themselves. The goal is make sure the playing field is level on every front.
My other premises are probably just not going to be extrapolated because I was into Satanism for so long as well s the occult and so I am kind of aware of what alterations in language can do and am kind of picking up on that.For example a lot of occultism would not say a phrase like "I am a fireman" when describing their occupation' they would say "I fight fires"
Would this be a way to keep someone from identifying more with their occupation than their loyalty to the occult?
There I hundreds of things we do with language in plain site and I am willing to write a post on some of how occultism and word choice works but it is a hidden Premise I held which is potentially not fair to explain one of my reasoning. Not that I believe the language manipulation is from occultism only that they seem to intuitively recognize some occult principles around language and be using them, and I don't feel like the language alterations are natural. Even when the term "social media" came out is seem contrived and the term seemed pushed more by mainstream media than a bottom up approach to language that is more normal
Darrell Berry coined the term “social media” in its current understanding in 1995 in an essay where he was explaining that the internet needed to go into a more social and interactive direction beyond text-based websites if it wanted to survive. The term didn’t become widely used until the success of platforms like myspace and facebook in the mid-2000s. The media latches on to phrases to better categorize trends, there needed to be a word to describe facebook, myspace, friendster, etc. as platforms and “social media” became the pick. And it really didn’t come out of left field: broadcast media, news media, interactive media, print media, etc. “Social media” flowed organically out of that, as it takes up similar space as the other “medias.”
I’m a big music nerd, so I see this more clearly with music critics trying to identify certain trends in music just to slap a label on it. It’s what writers, critics, analsysts, etc. do.
Your anxiety seems to stem from a lack of understanding, knowing the background. It’s hard to address you distrust without addressing the misconceptions that fuel it. Like with the word “queer” which in your experience has historically been used only to refer to gay men, but has been used against anyone who present themselves in a particular way in regard to their gender expression, gay men, bisexual men, etc. You seem to sometimes take your personal experience as the definitive experience without further investigation.
I’m a big music nerd, so I see this more clearly with music critics trying to identify certain trends in music just to slap a label on it. It’s what writers, critics, analsysts, etc. do.
Your anxiety seems to stem from a lack of understanding, knowing the background. It’s hard to address you distrust without addressing the misconceptions that fuel it. Like with the word “queer” which in your experience has historically been used only to refer to gay men, but has been used against anyone who present themselves in a particular way in regard to their gender expression, gay men, bisexual men, etc. You seem to sometimes take your personal experience as the definitive experience without further investigation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
No they can call me Irish or black or Japanese if they want. The question just annoys me. I know I am not Japanese and I have no problem with Japanese people so I don't mind being called it. I don't want to be asked though .
So, you don’t want to be asked, you just want people to assume and call you what they want? That's doesn't really make sense, you're doing a little jumping around here.
Everyone acknowledges it. Its not acknowledging the struggles. The criticism is in the insincere patronization and in the efforts to use these communities as cannon fodder such as with the BLM riots.
I don’t really know what you’re saying here but, the “BLM riots” accounted for about 7% of BLM protests and demonstrations. Meaning 93% were peaceful. A lot of positive came out of the movement. BLM protests addressed genuine concerns of the black community, not "made up" concerns.
Yeah so... racism. Favoring your own race over another one is racism. Sorry.
There is a difference between “favoring” your own race out of a feeling superiority, and “favoring” your own race because you feel that the majority of society unfavor them and you’re trying to balance out the difference. The playing field is not level.
Every study is imperfect but when asked if you are racist un the way it was done and answering that question yes, I'd pretty indicative you re racist.
I think you’re not understanding, it’s not about whether or not the study is “perfect” but whether or not the study’s findings can be used to draw conclusions about the real world. Zigerell’s writes within his own study that it has low external validity, which means:
“If external validity is low on a study, the results won't translate well to other conditions. That means that the research done doesn't tell us anything about the world outside of the study.”
https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-external-validity-in-research-definition-examples.html#:~:text=If%20external%20validity%20is%20low,world%20outside%20of%20the%20study.
“If external validity is low on a study, the results won't translate well to other conditions. That means that the research done doesn't tell us anything about the world outside of the study.”
https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-external-validity-in-research-definition-examples.html#:~:text=If%20external%20validity%20is%20low,world%20outside%20of%20the%20study.
I know they cited studies to see if wearing a hijab would decrease the likelihood of receiving help then the abstract explained that it did not reduce the likelihood of getting help but it just changed who was likely to help them. More women helped when the woman when she wore a head scarf. To me this would just be people scared to help because they maybe assume and correctly so that Islamic culture just accepts beating of women and the women don't want help. As somebody who read the Quran most of the time, I can assure you the assumption is well founded.
A lot of studies show that women are more likely than men to intervene when another woman is being assualted. This is true regardless of the religion involved.
Also: The Quran says no such thing. You’re probably referring to hadiths, of which there are thousands, and not all Muslims follow the same (or any) hadith texts.
Also: The Quran says no such thing. You’re probably referring to hadiths, of which there are thousands, and not all Muslims follow the same (or any) hadith texts.
I can tell you that there is inherently more risk in rescuing black people than non blacks, and perhaps that more risk is why it's not done as frequently
Let's say your typical white woman and man is in a car. Let's say they are parents and their baby is not breathing and they are pulled overbecause they are rushing to a hospital and the cop immediately takes the baby from the back of the car to save its life. You know because most ops have extensive training in first aid. The white couple is going to typically shut the fuck up and get out of the way so their child is saved.
The black couple a lot of times is not. Now it doesn't mean every white couple will be calm or every black couple will be erratic and try to stop the cop from rescuing the baby. It does mean that the white couples are more likely to be calm and thus you are at less personal risk by helping them.
You're basing your opinion, not on data or any kind of research, but on a youtube video. You're arguing that white people are less likely to discriminate, but should discriminate? Again, lots of jumping around happening here.
Yes I have. Like I said I was the only white kid in my foster home and so I got control of the TV like once out of every 7 times and trust me I also picked black shows because it's just not fun to be the only one enjoying a show or a movie. You want somebody thereto watch it with you. At least for me watching television is a communal thing.I think representation is probably a chick thing and mostly white chick thing. I never once heard one of the black kids in foster care (all boys home) cry about not being represented. However I did hear fat white chick's crying when Amy Schumer decided not to play Barbie
Again, I would not compare a period in your childhood to a person's entire life. Kids watch what's on without too much though. Most people don't start to seek out more representation until they are older. The fact is, you left that house and you were to experience more media and more context beyond that. If you genuinely don't care, that's great. But you stance is consistently, "If I don't care then no one else should" which is just inherently lazy.
And, you assumption on who cares about representation is wrong on two fronts:
African-Americans were more likely to consider racial diversity important when watching a film, and less likely to believe there is a sufficient enough of racial diversity within acting roles: https://morningconsult.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/190124_crosstabs_HOLLYWOOD_Adults_v1-1.pdf
And lefties hate Amy Schumer.
It' s legitimately stupid. Let me be more accurate. When I say I am American, I am happy to be American but it's just a factual thing. Why would anyone be a proud New Yorker or Texan?You literally have no control over where your mother gave birth. It's dumb to be proud of it.
Are "Proud-Americans" stupid?
Going off of what you've said in previous posts: It's a factual statement that you are an Italian-American as well. People would be proud to be a New Yorker or Texan, because America does not share a monolithic culture/experience, so naturally, people will favor their experience in a particular city/town/state over another and would identify the ways in which living in a particular place informed their values and character (which your environment will have direct impact on).
Incorrect. education you are partially correct with though you probablybthink the solution is throwing more money at the problem and fail to realize that places like DC have the highest cost per student and spending moremoney doesn't stip them from being the worst. So the solution isnt throwing money at problems. However school should be year round to make up for the disproportionate academic decline.
I would argue that funding is important, but is meaningless if it's not going to the right places.
But it also goes beyond that, it's about how certain students are treated differently in the classroom:
Teachers are more likely to label black students as troublemakers than they are white students with the same number of infractions: https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/eleases/teachers-more-likely-to-label-black-students-as-troublemakers.html
Researchers reported that teachers asked to rate students’ academic abilities scored Black children far below white peers with identical scores: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/du-bois-review-social-science-research-on-race/article/unequal-returns-to-childrens-efforts/F3F39A2BCA0CC35CA27029E725928C12
Black students are more likely to attend schools with inexperienced or low-paid teachers. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED581117.pdf
Healthcare- um.no, disproportionate health outcomes are due to a cycle that is too nuanced to get into here as well s genetics. Lets hust say socializing medicine and having 2 year wait times like Canada is not going to help the fact that black people eat unhealthy
Compared to white people, black people are less likely to receive preventive health services and often receive lower-quality care: https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/newsletter-article/2018/sep/focus-reducing-racial-disparities-health-care-confronting
A substantial number of white laypeople and medical students and residents hold false beliefs about biological differences between blacks and whites and demonstrates that these beliefs predict racial bias in pain perception and treatment recommendation accuracy: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4843483/
Housing- sure, you till havent put together that forcing banks to give mlre risky loans caused the banks to need billions to be bailed out in the early 2000s or noticedthat New york deciding to utilize rent control to help ith housing actually has the highest rents in the country. So you need some pattern recognition skills here.
It goes beyond that: https://home.treasury.gov/news/featured-stories/racial-differences-in-economic-security-housing
Black and white lenders were not treated the same even when equally qualified: https://www.nber.org/papers/w22004
Employment- correct but again not in the ways you suggest that make things worse. Clamp down on illegal immigration because black jobs are the firat to go. Stop the minimum wage hikes that are proven to increase unemployment of african americans but have zero impact on whute comunities. We also need to spread the "ban the box" initiative to every state because there is no reason that a felon is struggling tonfind employment as a dishwasher.
Black boys raised in America, even in the wealthiest families and living in some of the most well-to-do neighborhoods, still earn less in adulthood than white boys with similar backgrounds: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/19/upshot/race-class-white-and-black-men.html?mtrref=undefined&gwh=4075444A1D97B6EB0BDB191538718DEE&gwt=pay&assetType=REGIWALL
Black people are slightly more than half as likely to receive consideration by employers relative to equally qualified white applicants: https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/pager/files/race_at_work.pdf
Black employment in the testing sector is suppressed in the absence of testing, a finding which is consistent with ex ante discrimination on the basis of drug use perceptions. https://www.nber.org/papers/w20095#fromrss
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
I disagree that, that sort of ownership of language matters. Maybe that is because I speak 4 languages f and I just automatically accept whatever the people in those languages call me.
I find it hard to believe that you don’t care what people call you but later in your post you say that you get “annoyed” when people ask “what are you” insinuating that you would identify as anything else but “American.” I would think you wouldn’t care either way.
I see these groups that engage in that sort of thing as either misguided or victims of leftists. Especially ially groups like Hispanic who are called Latinx because white people don't understand gendered languages and how they work.
While, you’re right, most Latin people seems to hate the term, it was not white people who invented it…it was Latin people.
I really empathize with marginalized communities, and I see most of this nonsense as intentional divisiveness meant to create hostilities between groups because leftists can sense that these catholic Hispanics and socially conservative religious African Americans have different values than they do and so they exploit them through divisive language.
The left acknowledges how race and socio-economic struggles that impact marginalized communities disproportionately. There is no manipulation, it's just acknowledgment.
1. Bans on things that exploit the poor as if they are farm animals such as paid plasma donations, and surrogate pregnancy.
2. End things that harm th black family such as welfare policies that encourage single motherhood and ending the war on drugs so that way black fathers can be in their kid's lives more as well as dropping the stigma from being locked up that makes it so hard to get a job and support a family.
3. Taking measures so less African americans and poor babies are murdered in the womb.
The issues to focus on to help with poverty and everything that comes with it would be first and foremost: education, healthcare, housing, and employment. You're looking at the symptoms, but not the illness.
It's not needed. Quite frankly if you need to see yourself represented on screen you're probably a racist. I didn't cry when I was in fostercare when the whole house watched Martin and listened to Tupac all day.
Again, I’m not talking about the viewing habits of a single household. I’m speaking on the historic trends of mainstream Western media.
I am not speaking on anybody behalf who isn't a child. It would have to be an extremely rare circumstance where somebody is trying to rape them or something and I yell "leave him alone"
But if I speak on their behalf to save them and they say "it's mam" . I am likely to just say never mind and walk away.
It happens organically in conversation. You provide an extreme example (I doubt within the context you offer that mis-gendering someone would be an issue). So, let’s take it down a notch, take for example this scenario with 3 people sitting in an office:
Sara is distracted on the computer. Bob walks in and asks, “did anyone send that e-mail yet?” Larry gestures to Sara and responds, “she already did.”
Or this example of a friend, Larry, watching his two other friends, Sara and Bob, play video games:
Sara: AH, stop shooting!
Bob: Hahaha.
Larry: Get her Bob!
People usually alternative between saying someone’s name or mentioning them by pronouns. They’re not doing either consciously, just what’s easiest within the context of the conversation.
Sara is distracted on the computer. Bob walks in and asks, “did anyone send that e-mail yet?” Larry gestures to Sara and responds, “she already did.”
Or this example of a friend, Larry, watching his two other friends, Sara and Bob, play video games:
Sara: AH, stop shooting!
Bob: Hahaha.
Larry: Get her Bob!
People usually alternative between saying someone’s name or mentioning them by pronouns. They’re not doing either consciously, just what’s easiest within the context of the conversation.
In fact I probably bitch more about the white stuff. The reason being is nobody ever asks me if I am black but they will start talking about what they are "I am Italian, hey frank what are you?" I am Irish and John is polish. What are you Wylted?" I usually get annoyed and say "I am American dumbass".
It makes me so happy when I meet an immigrant and I befriend them and they become comfortable enough to start saying "I am American" the way I do. I am not Iriah or European or African or Mexican. I am American. That's all I am.
That’s lovely for you, I'll respect that by never referring to you as an Italian-American. But I’m still not sure why you care so much about what other people identify with. Should we do away with city/regional based sports teams, and just keep the national ones? When someone identifies themselves as a “New Yorker” or a “proud Texan”, are they being anti-patriotic?
I like Miles Morales better and before you bring up that he is still male one of my favorite characters. I probably identify more with him, though he is better than me so not by much
I’m just going quote myself in my earlier post: “Of course, people can connect to a well-written character that may be a different gender, race, or sexual identity than them, but if you consistently find that certain key aspects of your personal experience are never depicted in media…then you would start to feel like something is missing in the content you're consuming.”
White people didn't invent story telling. There are centuries of stories, hell thousands of years of stories in africa, Mexico, Greece, China. Music that goes back as well. Whites just aren't that great.
I’m not saying white people invented story telling or that they are the only ones who tell stories, I’m saying that straight white men have made up the majority of stories in mainstream Western culture, and so the cry for representation is just wanting something that straight white men already have. It’s silly to hear a straight white man say, “who cares about representation” because they’ve never known a world where they didn’t have it in abundance.
here is a study that asks groups how much they hate other races essentially and whites were the least racist
First, you're misrepresenting what the study was looking for: it was not looking to find which races "hate" other races, but rather was there a favoring of one over the other. Second, Zigerell says in “the limitations of the study” section that the study has low external validity, which means its findings can’t be used to draw conclusions about the real world. This is because the studies referenced were largely conducted as over the phone surveys, and not in real world every-day experiences and environments. This study elaborates on the limitations of the methods used: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/abs/are-survey-experiments-externally-valid/7233B1EF4DD36030A0BC19380AEBCDFA
More likely, the conversation this study opens the door to is aversive racism vs. overt racism. One of the study's that Zigerell references, speaks on this when it found white participants were less likely to help black help black people (and more likely to help other white people) under conditions where they were less inhibited, like in emergencies: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15745861/
More likely, the conversation this study opens the door to is aversive racism vs. overt racism. One of the study's that Zigerell references, speaks on this when it found white participants were less likely to help black help black people (and more likely to help other white people) under conditions where they were less inhibited, like in emergencies: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15745861/
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
This statement is the one I take most issue with and is my biggest issue. It's the left thinking people should control how they are perceived..it's none of your business how you are perceived. It's none of my business how I am perceived.
You’re not offering the full story. The playing field is not level, and that’s problem with your argument. Historically speaking, how particular groups are perceived is based on how they were represented. These groups were not represented by themselves, but usually by outsiders: white men. But who represented white men? White men.
The most important part: Perceptions influence treatment, and how people are treated is their business. If they want to change how they are treated, they have to change how they are perceived.
The most important part: Perceptions influence treatment, and how people are treated is their business. If they want to change how they are treated, they have to change how they are perceived.
Let's go down the list where this is a pervasive leftist belief.
Fat acceptance community- cries all day that people perceive fatness as unhealthy and unattractive. Attention FA community.it is none of your business if people think you are unattractive or if they think being fat is unhealthy. How you feel about yourself and others is what matters not how they feel about you. Get over it.
You’re right, it’s no one’s business why someone doesn’t want to date them. But if that negative perceptions leads to bullying, harassment, healthcare being mismanaged, etc. then those fat acceptance people do have a leg to stand on.
Trans people- pronouns are not what anybody is referred to. I don't walk up to somebody and say he or call them she. I call them by their name. Pronouns typically only happening when referring to somebody and usually they aren't around. It might be your business if you are called mam or sir or Mrs or Mr. But pronouns such as he or she that are never said in front of you, because it is rude to talk about somebody in their presence in that manner, is not your concern. Fuck you, you don't have a right to bend my reality to your will. If you see yourself as a male or female or an it that is your business it is none of my business.
There are absolutely instances where you would use pronouns with the person being referred to present, typically when you’re speaking on their behalf in some way. Anyway, you should realize that your way would be a two way street…little lady.
Nobody cares. I don't want to be represented in film. I don't want to watch a movie where a short fat guy is the main hero. I don't want somebody to represent me, I ant some sort of figure that represents the values I care about. Preferably somebody better than me so I can seek to emulate them. Not somebody who reflects back to me who I am. I already can look in the mirror and see that. I live my life I already know what it's like to be me, show me Batman Fuckers.
That’s what marginalized people want. They want an idealized or elevated version of themselves that they can be inspired by, not just a literal interpretation of who they are as individuals.
Batman is still a straight white guy, and straight white guys want to see straight white guys they can look up to. And everyone deserves that….whether you’re a straight white guy or a black gay guy.
Batman is still a straight white guy, and straight white guys want to see straight white guys they can look up to. And everyone deserves that….whether you’re a straight white guy or a black gay guy.
Representation is another thing where somebody is trying to force a perception. Fuck off. It's none of your business how I perceive you. Whats your business is how you perceive yourself and whether you act with integrity or not.
And this is a big misconception: While studies do show that representation is a big factor in helping marginalized people to be perceived (and thus treated) more positively, representation is also about being able to connect and enjoy a film on a personal level (not a political or social one).
Your identity impacts your experience. A person’s ability to connect to a story, regardless of the medium, is informed partially by their ability to connect to the experience that is being depicted. Of course, people can connect to a well-written character that may be a different gender, race, or sexual identity than them, but if you consistently find that certain key aspects of your personal experience are never depicted in media…then you would start to feel like something is missing in the content you're consuming.
If you’re a straight white man, there are centuries worth of stories and characters depicting that experience in a million different ways. As a result, a straight white man might not think of representation as a big deal, because they’ve never been without it. If every movie that came out was only about women and gay men, white straight men would take issue with it…and they would be right to. Everyone deserves representation after all..
Your identity impacts your experience. A person’s ability to connect to a story, regardless of the medium, is informed partially by their ability to connect to the experience that is being depicted. Of course, people can connect to a well-written character that may be a different gender, race, or sexual identity than them, but if you consistently find that certain key aspects of your personal experience are never depicted in media…then you would start to feel like something is missing in the content you're consuming.
If you’re a straight white man, there are centuries worth of stories and characters depicting that experience in a million different ways. As a result, a straight white man might not think of representation as a big deal, because they’ve never been without it. If every movie that came out was only about women and gay men, white straight men would take issue with it…and they would be right to. Everyone deserves representation after all..
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
First of all. White people having institutional power is not dangerous. Every study shows that whites have less in group bias than non whites and when we break it down by politics than we see that whites who are conservative have less in group bias than any other race and that white liberals have an outgroup bias which does not exist in non whites.To me that eems like even with large amounts of power that whites having it will be more fair than groups who have larger in group biases.
To be clear, i’m not calling a white majority inherently dangerous, I’m saying If white supremacy rises within the context of a white majority, that is more likely (and therefore more dangerous) than black supremacy rising within a white majority (it’s won’t).
And could you supply those studies you are speaking of?
And could you supply those studies you are speaking of?
No it's fcking annoying either way. It's ficking annoying to hear stuff called "mid" or to hear somebody say "no cap" or whatever the hell else is going on with language.
Just tell ‘em to get off your lawn and be done with it.
The bigger issue is intentionally changing terms for a political purpose. If we change terms to much than you can get misunderstandings of important things. For example the bill of rights. If our understanding of the word freedom differs from those who wrote the bill of rights than we can get into issues where courts think they can restrict speech more than the founders intended. Or we can read other old documents and really tarnish the legacy of those who came before us by misunderstanding their words to mean something other than intended. I don't want my words read 200 years from now and have my idiot great grand kids think I meant something other than what I meant when I wrote them.
That’s what you don’t understand: The intention is not political, it’s about humanity. You read it as political because that allows you to dismiss it as insincere or manipulative, which is why you don’t address any of the reasonings I supplied you with as to why these words changed. You want to maintain your anger toward these groups so you focus your arguments on more generalized concepts that you project your perceptions and assumptions onto.
Your fear of change is not rational. We have linguists and historians who study writings based on the context of the time they were written in. And still debates will occur about what meant what, and we will learn new things and that will change our perceptions of what a particular sentence meant centuries ago. It’s all evolving, and that scares you..but that’s life, and it’s nothing new.
It's not obvious and that is a stupid statement. I ill tart by saying I have been to Irish fest and German heritage fests and it is all dumb. These people are not Irish or German they are American and it's actually disrespectful to claim as somebody born in America "I am Irish".
Then why don’t people cry as much about festivals celebrating Irish or Italian heritage as much as they do those that celebrate black culture? It’s always an afterthought. But St.Patricks Day takes up much more space than any black celebrations, all the green and the alcohol....and yet, no outrage.
I will say though that if black culture is Olay to celebrate than white culture is. If you don't require them to sub divide it into Ghana or south African or Egyptian culture than requiring whites to divide it up that way is dumb.
I mean, those exist too. But most African-Americans aren’t going to know much about where they come from outside of the context of slavery.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Dude there is this game the left is playing with the English language where they think by controlling definitions they can control mindset.
Language evolves, it is expected to evolve. But people such as yourself only care when it evolves in regards to marginalized demographics because that evolution represents a social integration where marginalized people have autonomy over how they are perceived. The conversation largely comes down to the question of: Should specific communities be allowed to decide the language that refers to them, or should the language that was created during time when the people creating it largely did not have a favorable view of those communities they were labeling be protected?
Queer just meant gay male before. People used to refer to gays as "being funny" queer literally means funny (southern for different) . These people were not referring to people who were gender fluid or very fluid in their sexual orientation when they said it. The left plays this game with language as a stupid trick to attempt to make senior citizens look bigoted. It's a fact. Here I som other examples
Let me set a scene for you:
It’s the 1930s, a man walks into a store. He moves in a way that reads as feminine, he speaks in an effeminate manner. He makes his purchase he leaves. The the two clerks look at each-other and one of them says, “He seemed a little queer, dontcha think?”
They were not commenting on his sexual orientation, though they could make an assumption, but they were commenting on the way this man carried himself: his gender expression. The mistake of society was tying gender expression to sexual orientation so heavily, because it is not always the case that two will align as you would expect them.
Another example, in the National Archives, there is a letter from a Cyril Coeur de Leon which is established as example of an early use of the word “queer” as a way to self-identify. Cyril described his sexual orientation as “queer” while acknowledging his attracted to both genders. This letter was written in the 1930s.
So, this understanding of “queer” is not new.
It’s the 1930s, a man walks into a store. He moves in a way that reads as feminine, he speaks in an effeminate manner. He makes his purchase he leaves. The the two clerks look at each-other and one of them says, “He seemed a little queer, dontcha think?”
They were not commenting on his sexual orientation, though they could make an assumption, but they were commenting on the way this man carried himself: his gender expression. The mistake of society was tying gender expression to sexual orientation so heavily, because it is not always the case that two will align as you would expect them.
Another example, in the National Archives, there is a letter from a Cyril Coeur de Leon which is established as example of an early use of the word “queer” as a way to self-identify. Cyril described his sexual orientation as “queer” while acknowledging his attracted to both genders. This letter was written in the 1930s.
So, this understanding of “queer” is not new.
I mean, "bisexuality" originally meant "intersex." "Heterosexual" originally meant to refer to a "morbid passion for the opposite sex," before it became just the descriptor for general attraction to the opposite sex.
Negro- literally the Spanish word for black and clearly just means the same thing as African American. However if I said it on my way to work it would get me attacked on the bus
Why do you wish to say it? I’m not sure how old you are, but I will assume you were born after a time it was used regularly to regard black people.
“Black” replaced “Negro” as the favored description of racial identity, because a new generation arose in the 60s that wanted to establish a different set of ideals than the black generations prior. “Black” was the first identifier that the black population got to claim for themselves, everything prior was dictated by white people.
“Black” replaced “Negro” as the favored description of racial identity, because a new generation arose in the 60s that wanted to establish a different set of ideals than the black generations prior. “Black” was the first identifier that the black population got to claim for themselves, everything prior was dictated by white people.
Oriental- just a way to say Asian many older Asians still refer to themselves as being Orientals. The left wants to make 75 year old people look racist so thy randomly decide to change the term for whatever reason.
Most Asian activists and scholars would not attack anyone over a certain age for using the term “oriental.”
Much like the black community, the Asian community wanted to claim a new term for themselves that was not imposed onto them by a community that had…mixed feelings toward them to begin with. “Oriental” is a very Eurocentric term, it refers to the East. It comes from the direction the sun would rise from in relation to the Roman Empire. It has nothing to with Asia, but an outsiders perception of Asia. And such, a new generation chose a new identifier that was more accurate in its description.
Much like the black community, the Asian community wanted to claim a new term for themselves that was not imposed onto them by a community that had…mixed feelings toward them to begin with. “Oriental” is a very Eurocentric term, it refers to the East. It comes from the direction the sun would rise from in relation to the Roman Empire. It has nothing to with Asia, but an outsiders perception of Asia. And such, a new generation chose a new identifier that was more accurate in its description.
Racism- hatred of or having a feeling of superiority over other races on the basis of racial qualities.Now they know that maybe one in a million people are actually racist by that definition. So they have changed the definition to be the followingRacism- white people . Those with a higher social status in society and are white automatically have that status based on their skin color, oh and by the way since only oppressors can be racist any non white person who thinks they are superior to others based on their skin color are not racist.
This is your interpretation of the definition, but you’re confusing multiple concepts. The main being “intersectionality,” which is to suggest that most people experience privilege in some aspect of their lives, and don’t experience it on other aspects of their lives. A black people will not experience the privilege that being white affords. But a poor white person won’t experience the privilege of wealth that a rich black person would have. It works both ways, and it allows us to build a nuanced view of how different obstacles can present themselves within society.
The general population, as well as all major institutions in America, are comprised primarily of white people. As a result, “white supremacy” is a more dangerous concept than “black supremacy.” Black people are still a minority, and they will not experience the same access to power that the white population maintains simply because…there are more white people. So, you’re right that the two are not treated the same, because the threat is not the same.
That said, celebrations of black culture exist not out “supremacy”, but simply, because historically speaking, mainstream culture celebrates the demographics that make up the majority (not black culture). That has begun to change, but that change is fed by the actions, education, and celebrations from within the black community. And while a celebration of white culture would be racist, a celebration of Irish-American or Italian-American culture would not be racist….for reasons, I hope, would be obvious.
The general population, as well as all major institutions in America, are comprised primarily of white people. As a result, “white supremacy” is a more dangerous concept than “black supremacy.” Black people are still a minority, and they will not experience the same access to power that the white population maintains simply because…there are more white people. So, you’re right that the two are not treated the same, because the threat is not the same.
That said, celebrations of black culture exist not out “supremacy”, but simply, because historically speaking, mainstream culture celebrates the demographics that make up the majority (not black culture). That has begun to change, but that change is fed by the actions, education, and celebrations from within the black community. And while a celebration of white culture would be racist, a celebration of Irish-American or Italian-American culture would not be racist….for reasons, I hope, would be obvious.
It's really a stupid game you guys play and it is recent. Greek words in 500bc meant the exact same thing in 500AD because nobody played those games with language. The left see it as a tool to make senior citizens look racist so they change definitions every 5 years.
I'll leave the explanation to the actual linguists: https://www.linguisticsociety.org/content/english-changing#:~:text=Language%20is%20always%20changing%2C%20evolving,change%2C%20so%20will%20the%20language.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
A lot of incels are getting itinto their heads that it's easier to find love as a woman. So they become trans in order to get laid and finally be in a long lasting and loving relationship.I don't know what to suggest in this regard. Thy are probably correct, it is the o ly way they can find love.Studies have found a large overlap with autism, so my theory is that autistic people struggle to get laid because they come across as autistic when hitting on women, but if they turn into women the awkwardness is chalked up to being quirky or some other spin.
You're right, the mentality that "everything is easier for women" is a what controls incels, but it does not connect to transness.
Most trans women, regardless of orientation, would tell you that one of the things they sacrifice when they transition is their dating pool. Much of society is not yet ready to date a trans person, unless they themselves are trans. Any person who thinks they are willing to go through the transition process will probably try to find trans community (usually online) only to discover this reality being expressed often, so if the main motivation would be to simply to get more dates...it would die there.
Created:
Posted in:
Your conclusion is only straight men are straight.
Now, don't be weird, but i'm just gonna work with your logic to fix it:
Straight men, you are not straight.
You are bisexual, but you are more romantically (but also sexually) attracted to men while primarily only sexually attracted to women (you don't want to talk to them too much).
You love masculinity, you think about it a lot, and you prefer the men around you to exhibit it because it makes you feel safe and you get a little thrill when their strong hands accidentally caress yours while passing you the Xbox controller. The attraction leaves you with a feeling of vulnerability that is so unbearable, you rebel against your natural urge, and try to control others who aren't wimps about it. The liberation so many straight men will feel when they realize that they don't need to be incels, they don't need to lie about their body counts on message boards, they just need to date...each other.
Created:
-->
@Avery
You don't understand that you're still Ad Homming.The truth of an argument exists independent of who says it. If the "bias" or "political agenda" affects the truth of the argument, then it becomes a problem, but "bias" or "political agenda" are not issues in themselves. Hitler can say 'water is wet', and that's true regardless of how many Jews he killed.
I've addressed the arguments in your sources. I believe that bias and political agenda have affected the arguments in your sources. I believe you would be better off studying the statistics and data on your own, and then forming your own arguments.
No, no.We're not arguing whether poverty can predict violent crime at all. We're arguing whether race is a better predictor of violent crime than poverty, seeing your comment here: "poverty is more of the greater indicator toward violent crime than race". A small % of black men ARE the most VIOLENT in American society (debateart.com)So, the study found that race was a much better predictor than poverty across 3 decades, beating various forms of poverty in most single regression models. Specifically, across these 9 models, race better predicted homicide than unemployment, poverty, and median income in 7/9 of the models, and also income inequality in 8/9 models mccall_1990_amer_j_soc_922.pdf (ncsu.edu) .You need to contend with that argument, in order to defend your original argument.
You need to address my arguments in the post. I've explained that race will impact how a community experiences poverty (as your source also indicates). I would concede that race could be a greater indicator in so far that many black people experience a systemic racism that keeps them in poverty and provides less resources to get them out than their white impoverish counterparts (as your study also points out).
I'm going to quote directly from the study:
"Wilson (1987, pp. 46-62) argues that the social transformation of the inner city in recent years (through segregation, selective out-migration by the middle class, and racial discrimination) has resulted in a disproportionate and criminogenic concentration of the disadvantaged. For example, opposition from organized community groups to public housing projects and the decisions of governments to neglect rehabilitation of existing single-family housing have led to the massive segregation of housing projects. The consequences for racial differences in living conditions are striking; according to Wilson's (1987)calculations, in 1980 less than 10% of urban poor whites lived in poverty areas, but 40% of poor blacks did. In addition to sheer economic deprivation, the corre- sponding decreasing vertical integration of middle- and lower-class black families may thus contribute-through a process Wilson (1987, p. 61) calls social isolation-to the disintegration of community social control institutions and the supervision capacity of adults."
This quote is not arguing that race alone indicates high crime. It's not arguing that black people commit more crime because they're black. It's arguing that black people face unique societal obstacles that leave them with less resources than their poor white counterparts.
Again, we're arguing about whether race is a better predictor of violent crime than poverty. We're not interested in tangential 'how poverty is experienced' arguments. You need to connect what you're saying to what we're arguing about.
The problem is that your side wants to argue that being black in and of itself is the problem. You want to end the conversation there, but it would be disingenuous to do so (for the many reasons I've already pointed out). If we see that a particular demographic is more prone to particular outputs, we have to see what is unique about that demographics experience that may influence those outputs. Wanting to leave it just at skin color is lazy at best.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405
I mean, whether or not you believe in "white privilege" is going to be contingent upon whether or not you believe that black people face systemic racism in society. It's apparent you don't. But it does appear that many of your sources misunderstand the concept of "white privilege."
There is a rational way to approach this: The first thing to remember is that there are different kinds of privilege that exists within society. A poor white person growing up in a trailer park will have white privilege because race does not play a role in the obstacles they face (like it would for a poor black person). Alternatively, a black person can grow up wealthy and get a great education, they will still encounter racism so they will not have "black privilege," but they will have economic/class privilege (something that poor white person doesn't have). It's nuanced.
Here is some data and studies for you to read over (i'm just going to copy it from an old debate):
Education:
- Teachers are more likely to label black students as troublemakers than they are white students with the same number of infractions: https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/eleases/teachers-more-likely-to-label-black-students-as-troublemakers.html
- Researchers reported that teachers asked to rate students’ academic abilities scored Black children far below white peers with identical scores: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/du-bois-review-social-science-research-on-race/article/unequal-returns-to-childrens-efforts/F3F39A2BCA0CC35CA27029E725928C12
- Black students are more likely to attend schools with inexperienced or low-paid teachers. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED581117.pdf
Employment:
- Black boys raised in America, even in the wealthiest families and living in some of the most well-to-do neighborhoods, still earn less in adulthood than white boys with similar backgrounds: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/19/upshot/race-class-white-and-black-men.html?mtrref=undefined&gwh=4075444A1D97B6EB0BDB191538718DEE&gwt=pay&assetType=REGIWALL
- Blacks are only slightly more than half as likely to receive consideration by employers relative to equally qualified white applicants: https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/pager/files/race_at_work.pdf
- Black employment in the testing sector is suppressed in the absence of testing, a finding which is consistent with ex ante discrimination on the basis of drug use perceptions. https://www.nber.org/papers/w20095#fromrss
Housing:
- Black borrowers are at greater risk of receiving higher-rate loans than white borrowers, even after controlling for legitimate risk factors: https://www.responsiblelending.org/mortgage-lending/research-analysis/rr011-Unfair_Lending-0506.pdf
- Black home buyers are 105 and 78 percent more likely to have high cost mortgages for home purchases even after controlling for credit score and other key risk factors: https://ww.nber.org/papers/w22004
Heathcare:
- Compared to white people, black people are less likely to receive preventive health services and often receive lower-quality care: https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/newsletter-article/2018/sep/focus-reducing-racial-disparities-health-care-confronting
- A substantial number of white laypeople and medical students and residents hold false beliefs about biological differences between blacks and whites and demonstrates that these beliefs predict racial bias in pain perception and treatment recommendation accuracy: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4843483/
Legal System/Law Enforcement:
- White defendants are twenty-five percent more likely than black defendants to have their principal initial charge dropped or reduced to a lesser crime. White defendants with no prior convictions receive charge reductions more often than black defendants with no prior convictions: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3036726
- Black offenders get longer sentences than white for similar history and crimes. https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/demographic-differences-sentencing
- Black people are more likely to got to jail for drugs despite similar rates of usage. http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/vortex.pdf
- Black Americans are disproportionately affected by police shootings. https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2020/05/28/police-shootings-black-americans-disproportionately-affected-infographic/#24e8b51459f7
Here's an interesting one: Using a police training video game, the effect of ethnicity on shoot/don't shoot decisions was examined. African American or White targets, holding guns or other objects, appeared in complex backgrounds. Participants were told to "shoot" armed targets and to "not shoot" unarmed targets. In Study 1, White participants made the correct decision to shoot an armed target more quickly if the target was African American than if he was White, but decided to "not shoot" an unarmed target more quickly if he was White. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12500813/
Created:
-->
@Avery
Sorry for the delay, it's been a busy week.
Do you know what else isn't convincing?Ad Hom.Try addressing the data and arguments.
Ah. Ok. Typically, if i’m presenting an argument with data, I try to find data from sources that show no bias toward any particular political/social agenda. Objectivity and all that fun stuff. I’ll throw that out the window for this discussion. Reading through your sources, they bring up interesting arguments, but nothing compelling.
First, I’ll quickly explain my stance (if you want me to expand on anything, I will_: I believe its poverty and racial discrimination that black people face that creates more instances of crime. For example, data shows that black and white people experience poverty differently.
I’m actually going to bring up one of your sources to help me begin: Structural Covariates of Homicide Rates: Are There Any Invariances Across Time and Social Space? (thank you for providing a readable version btw). Though this study argues that poverty alone may not explain violent crime rates, it does suggest that it can be explained in conjunction with other factors. The study actually points to the social isolation, segregation, racial discrimination, and single-parent homes in conjunction with poverty as being likely major factors for why the crime rate is higher within the black community.
These two sources go into more detail about the different ways black and white communities experience poverty: http://www.npc.umich.edu/publications/policy_briefs/brief16/PolicyBrief16.pdf
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Long-Shadows_Final.pdf
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Long-Shadows_Final.pdf
Now, i'll dive into your other sources. I’ll highlight what stood out to me as relevant (if i miss anything you think is important to address, point it out, and i’ll get to it):
First up: https://www.unz.com/article/race-and-crime-in-america/
This article hammers on two main points: The first, Black people are more likely to commit violent crime than other demographics. The second, the author compares the poverty/crime rates of El Paso and Atlanta as well as Santa Ana and Oakland. Similar poverty rates, very different crime rates. The author points out that the cities with a higher black population is more likely to have the higher crime rate.
First up: https://www.unz.com/article/race-and-crime-in-america/
This article hammers on two main points: The first, Black people are more likely to commit violent crime than other demographics. The second, the author compares the poverty/crime rates of El Paso and Atlanta as well as Santa Ana and Oakland. Similar poverty rates, very different crime rates. The author points out that the cities with a higher black population is more likely to have the higher crime rate.
The first point, I have no contention with. The second is where it gets bit more complicated. The author doesn’t explore why these differences exist, just acknowledges that they do. So, let’s try to actually explore these differences in a bit more detail:
“Hispanic” as a singular demographic is tricky because it encompasses a much more diverse group of people than “black” does. Typically, you’ll see it broken down between “white hispanics” and “non-white hispanics.” It’s important to acknowledge the different experiences between these two subgroups, because skin color impacts them differently.
For example: Darker skinned hispanics reported experiencing racism from light-skinned/white hispanics at a similar rate as non-hispanic white people. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/05/02/latinos-experience-discrimination-from-other-latinos-about-as-much-as-from-non-latinos/
A majority of latinos say that skin color impacts their opportunities and their ability to get ahead: https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2021/11/04/majority-of-latinos-say-skin-color-impacts-opportunity-in-america-and-shapes-daily-life/
With this information, let’s look at the author’s comparison between El Paso and Atlanta. El Paso’s population is majority white-hispanic. Despite the similar poverty rates, we’ve already seen how skin color impacts opportunity, so this comparison is not as compelling as it may look superficially.
The other comparison the author makes is between Santa Ana and Oakland. Both having similar poverty rates, Santa Ana having a lower crime rate. The main demographic of Santa Ana is non-white hispanic. The author points out the low crime rate among hispanic immigrants. Santa An has an immigrant population of 45% (https://www.vera.org/downloads/publications/profile-of-foreign-born-population-santa-ana.pdf) nearly double that of Oakland.
This is an important point, because crime rates tend to be lower among immigrants from many different backgrounds (regardless of income) including African and Haitian immigrants: https://www.ncjrs.gov/criminal_justice2000/vol_1/02j.pdf https://www.cato.org/blog/immigration-crime-what-research-says https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00127-013-0799-3
So, it would make sense for a city with one of the highest populations of immigrants to not have a very high crime rate, and this would be true regardless of the skin color of the immigrant.
For example: Darker skinned hispanics reported experiencing racism from light-skinned/white hispanics at a similar rate as non-hispanic white people. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/05/02/latinos-experience-discrimination-from-other-latinos-about-as-much-as-from-non-latinos/
A majority of latinos say that skin color impacts their opportunities and their ability to get ahead: https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2021/11/04/majority-of-latinos-say-skin-color-impacts-opportunity-in-america-and-shapes-daily-life/
With this information, let’s look at the author’s comparison between El Paso and Atlanta. El Paso’s population is majority white-hispanic. Despite the similar poverty rates, we’ve already seen how skin color impacts opportunity, so this comparison is not as compelling as it may look superficially.
The other comparison the author makes is between Santa Ana and Oakland. Both having similar poverty rates, Santa Ana having a lower crime rate. The main demographic of Santa Ana is non-white hispanic. The author points out the low crime rate among hispanic immigrants. Santa An has an immigrant population of 45% (https://www.vera.org/downloads/publications/profile-of-foreign-born-population-santa-ana.pdf) nearly double that of Oakland.
This is an important point, because crime rates tend to be lower among immigrants from many different backgrounds (regardless of income) including African and Haitian immigrants: https://www.ncjrs.gov/criminal_justice2000/vol_1/02j.pdf https://www.cato.org/blog/immigration-crime-what-research-says https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00127-013-0799-3
So, it would make sense for a city with one of the highest populations of immigrants to not have a very high crime rate, and this would be true regardless of the skin color of the immigrant.
Moving on, the article then attempts to make its one of its weaker arguments. It suggests that with the election of Obama and mainstream media’s gradual change in representation of black people, that we should expect the crime rates to go down. But, unfortunately, data would suggest that we haven’t made as much progress as you might think:
Education:
- Teachers are more likely to label black students as troublemakers than they are white students with the same number of infractions: https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/eleases/teachers-more-likely-to-label-black-students-as-troublemakers.html
- Researchers reported that teachers asked to rate students’ academic abilities scored Black children far below white peers with identical scores: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/du-bois-review-social-science-research-on-race/article/unequal-returns-to-childrens-efforts/F3F39A2BCA0CC35CA27029E725928C12
- Black students are more likely to attend schools with inexperienced or low-paid teachers. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED581117.pdf
Employment:
- Black boys raised in America, even in the wealthiest families and living in some of the most well-to-do neighborhoods, still earn less in adulthood than white boys with similar backgrounds: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/19/upshot/race-class-white-and-black-men.html?mtrref=undefined&gwh=4075444A1D97B6EB0BDB191538718DEE&gwt=pay&assetType=REGIWALL
- Blacks are only slightly more than half as likely to receive consideration by employers relative to equally qualified white applicants: https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/pager/files/race_at_work.pdf
- Black employment in the testing sector is suppressed in the absence of testing, a finding which is consistent with ex ante discrimination on the basis of drug use perceptions. https://www.nber.org/papers/w20095#fromrss
Legal System/Law Enforcement:
- White defendants are twenty-five percent more likely than black defendants to have their principal initial charge dropped or reduced to a lesser crime. White defendants with no prior convictions receive charge reductions more often than black defendants with no prior convictions: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3036726
- Black offenders get longer sentences than white for similar history and crimes. https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/demographic-differences-sentencing
- Black people are more likely to got to jail for drugs despite similar rates of usage. http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/vortex.pdf
- Black Americans are disproportionately affected by police shootings. https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2020/05/28/police-shootings-black-americans-disproportionately-affected-infographic/#24e8b51459f7
These are just some examples, there is more.
Your Color of Crime study seems to be reporting more of the same about the higher rates of crime among black people, again, not exploring why. It assumes that the motivation behind Black Lives Matter and other anti-racist groups is based on the few of the highly publicized police killings that the protests focused on. The data I gave above show that isn't the case.
Anyway, I’ll end it there because i’ve written too much, but I'll elaborate on whatever ya want.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Yikes. Let's break this down:
I got it by looking at his citations and not being a retard about how to interpret what he wrote. You are still claiming he is saying that that percentage of black males were criminals when anybody else who has a 3 digit IQ would know he Is saying half of all crime comes from that demographic. Those are 2 wildly different things.
I'm referring specifically to this blog: https://samflynn0514.wixsite.com/americaindenial/post/black-men-not-whites-are-the-tried-and-true-violent-criminals-in-the-usa (if you're looking at another post or link please share it because we're probably not looking at the same thing)
He specifically says this: "A little less than half of the 6% black male population (3%) commit over 50% of the entire nation's #murders and non-negligent manslaughters."
What he is saying is that 6% of the US population is black men (which is correct: The current population of the US is 329.5 million. 6% of 329.5 million is 19.91 million which is how many black men there are in America), he says that a little less than half of that population commits over 50% of the nation's murders and non-negligent manslaughters which would be about 3%. So, if there are 19.91 million black men in America, 3% of that would be 600,000. But there are not 600,000 black men being arrested for murder/non-negligent manslaughter, based on data he shared, there's less than 5,000. So, it's a lot less than 3% of black men who are committing those crimes, it's actually more like 0.03% of black men. It's was either a little math mistake or he's purposely presenting data in a misleading way.
This was his citation: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/tables/table-43
There are three tables: total arrests, arrests under 18, and arrests over 18. Nothing that specifies 18-25.
So, what were you looking at where it says 18-25?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
It isnt just about me.You want to make this about me? I am not gonna discuss my love or sex life nor specifics of where I am.
I don’t want you to share information you’re not comfortable with sharing. I think my point is that, usually when I have conversations with people about their actually lived experiences, they don’t align so nicely with these stereotypes and expectations on men vs. women. There’s far too much nuance in reality. And usually, once people have their own experiences with dating and all that, they develop more nuanced understanding of who they are in a relationship and what specifically they are looking for. There’s no universal desire.
I have a lot of guy friends, and a lot of women friends, and what they are looking for in a partner varies all over the place. There’s no “women want this, and men want that” in the way that people like Andrew Tate present it. What I do see, is that there is safety in thinking relationships and people are black and white like that. And when something like dating give you anxiety, you are going to seek that safety out.
I have a lot of guy friends, and a lot of women friends, and what they are looking for in a partner varies all over the place. There’s no “women want this, and men want that” in the way that people like Andrew Tate present it. What I do see, is that there is safety in thinking relationships and people are black and white like that. And when something like dating give you anxiety, you are going to seek that safety out.
I do not idolise Tate, that would defy everything he teaches. Tate-stans are not living by Tate's philosophy. He is a strong man who knows what he wants and, until this cancelling, got what he wanted. I do think he has solid outlook on things.
See, when you originally said you were not a Tate-stan I thought that meant that you only casually check out his stuff and weren’t like super into him. But you’re saying the reason you don’t idolize him is because he wouldn’t want that. That doesn’t make you a stan, that makes you an uber-stan. And it would appear you are putting him on some sort of pedestal to listen to his teachings that closely.
You preach all this stuff and in your profile you list as female so let me ask you honestly, why are you pushing this on me and my personal life?
Again, I’m questioning the desire from Andrew Tate and his followers to generalize people and their experiences by making them so black and white. He preaches that there is a right and wrong way to exist, and I don’t agree with that. If you’re saying that you as an individual decided that you like going to the gym, wanted to become independent, get a nice job, and work on you emotional intelligence, I would give you a hi-five. If you’re saying that you want to do those thing because Andrew Tate preaches it and it’s the only right way to exist as a man, then I don’t think that’s a healthy mindset, and it won’t sustain you in the long-run.
Are you in denial that you have power over your looks, especially in 2022? All sorts of stylists, fashion designers, makeup experts, fitness experts and in worst case scenario, plastic surgeons exist. You can find me disgusting for what I just said but I find it more disgusting to deny genetically ugly women the right to compete by hard work and determination. Why did i say 'ugly' because not that I am insensitive but that I would not ever disrespect the agony of women who are unfairly born visually offputting by using a cleaner term that would not signify the severe suffering they experience. The one advantage that ugly women have is that they know for sure that their friends and lovers either enjoy their personality or at least genuinely enjoy(ed) their company. That is something I am sure many hotties envy, lowkey.
Full disclosure, I’m very into fitness, and bettering myself as an individual. I think that investing in yourself is the best thing you can do. So I think that you and I fundamentally agree there.
I’m not denying that people can’t change themselves, and if they want to do it then they should. I’m arguing against the idea that women have to put less work into getting a partner. When it comes to things like fitness, it takes longer for women to loose weight and build muscle than it does for men. I know women who have been going to the gym for years, and they are still technically considered “over-weight.” Different bodies respond differently to fitness and diets and all that. When you factor is female hormones it gets a bit more complicated with weight fluctuations.
But my point in that was to say, that it’s not easy for either gender to reach “high value” status by how Andrew Tate defines it and that men do have more variables that they can consider and control in becoming more attractive by societal standards (which while still difficult, would make it a bit easier).
I’m not denying that people can’t change themselves, and if they want to do it then they should. I’m arguing against the idea that women have to put less work into getting a partner. When it comes to things like fitness, it takes longer for women to loose weight and build muscle than it does for men. I know women who have been going to the gym for years, and they are still technically considered “over-weight.” Different bodies respond differently to fitness and diets and all that. When you factor is female hormones it gets a bit more complicated with weight fluctuations.
But my point in that was to say, that it’s not easy for either gender to reach “high value” status by how Andrew Tate defines it and that men do have more variables that they can consider and control in becoming more attractive by societal standards (which while still difficult, would make it a bit easier).
Being low value is not a reason to hate yourself, it is a reason to push yourself and get the lovelife and genetically blessed offspring (by the partner you reproduce with) that you will be proud of.
Well, that’s my other point that I was trying to make in my other post, I don’t really believe in the “low-value” and “high-value” thing. At-least, not how it’s presented by Tate. So, of course, no one should hate themselves and they should mould themselves into who they want to be. But who they want to be might not be someone that Tate would consider to be of “low-value” anyway.
For example, when I was in high school I dressed in the more conventionally attractive way, I was very preppy. I did it because everyone else did it. So, preppy/popular people tended to be more open to me. Though I envied the way the more “indie” kids dressed, but there weren’t many of them at my school and I was scared of being different. Then one day, I finally got to talk to one of them, and I told them what music I was into and they said, “wow, would have never guessed, you don’t seem like the type.” And that moment I decided it was more important for me to dress how I want, and connect with people I have things in common with than just dress to impress the popular kids. I learned how to play guitar, I read more books, I went out to more shows, I got to meet more interesting people, etc. I got to move to cool city, and work with interesting people because I prioritized my own sense of self and not being perceived as "high value."
One of my good friends, a dude, was a skinny pimple-faced soft-spoken metalhead growing up. All he did was play guitar. He met a girl, they connected over the same hobbies/interests, and they're happily married now. What I'm saying is, you shouldn't have to rely solely on someone else's template for your life to find success.
I have no reason to sugarcoat anything here. I am not a misogynist and I think us humans are too proud to enjoy our animalistic aspects and meaning of life so much so we reach depression and agony trying to find a meaning beyond the lust, emotions, fulfillment from defeating rivals and raw animalistic thrill of life.I was a depressed nobody that was bitter and blamed everyone else. You want me to get personal, I will leave it at that. I was more misogynistic before, when I blamed women for rejecting me, blamed them for leading me on and breaking my heart. Blame, blame blame, then I woke up and took the red pill and asked myself... dude, why would high value women desire the loser you were or are? Would you, as a woman, actively want to date you, fuck your skinny ass and enjoy your petty arrogance?And you know what I realised? The answer wasnt just no, rather it was a hmm I would if he just toned this down or accentuated this etc.So I stayed bitter and channeled it to myself. Every day I try to live my life as I want and blame nobody for what comes of it. If I choose to spend my time debating online, less women will dig that answer to hobbies esp if I refuse to tell them the RM account that is my passionate hobby so ofc they find me blander. No shit.I learned how to get other hobbies, how to be interesting way beyond any one thing (I learned that before this website though, it was a metaphor). Do you think women will get wet around a man who does not feel like he has a handle on his life and emotions? No woman, no matter what, enjoys a crybaby. They empathise and slowly they sympathise and then suddenly you're their burden and not their alpha or sigma strong man.I have seen it in couples I know/knew. It is up to me to be a strong man and a disciplined man because if I fail to be it, I sure as hell will fail to be a good and strong father to my children and that is an unacceptable failure, one they will pay the price for.You think Tate is this and Tate is that ? I do not care. Cancelling him just proves what a sensitive bitchfest this modern generation is becoming, yes the 'men' too.Being a man is about more than being a boy aged X years, a man needs to define himself, strengthen himself and aspire to be great or he can choose to wither. I withered repeatedly, gaming is fun, porn is fun and I like some Netflix and Spotify. The question isnt zero pleasure, it is can I prioritise and build myself or not.Change the porn addiction to a passion for seeking women.Change the gaming addiction to a passion for poker and other games that garner money, perhaps stocks and shares.Change the spotify and netflix to a small reward. It isnt easy. None of it is.Being disciplined means having the courage to love yourself enough to pity and resent the wretched loser you currently were and/or are.That is the core message Tate taught and for that reason he got that massive following. His cancellation is just proof what a joke our current generation is.
I don’t disagree with any of this really, and think that it’s really great you went out and worked on yourself like that. I don't think being anti-Andrew Tate means that you are anti-the things you mention here. But the things you arguing for are not the reasons why Andrew Tate got cancelled, and the good does not cancel out the bad in the things that he has said.
And i'm sure he'll be fine, he has a lot of money.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
You are misinterpreting what this means. By 3% he means 50% of the 6% of the population black males represent. I believe he is specifically talking about a demographic of 18 to 25 year old males. He isn't saying that all 18-25 year olds commit the crimes only that those crimes predominantly come from that demographic.
No, I think I understood. He's saying that black males commit over half of overall violent crime, but he got his numbers wrong and said that it would mean 3% of black males are committing those crimes. And while you're right, in that it would mean he would be implying just about half of black men are criminals, he would be wrong in the implication for the reasons I mention in my original post. He also didn't specify an age range in his blog so I'm not sure where you got that from.
Created:
-->
@Avery
This is not true at all.Land, McCall and Cohen (1990) found race to be the strongest predictor of crime across several decades (beating poverty) Structural Covariates of Homicide Rates: Are There Any Invariances Across Time and Social Space? | American Journal of Sociology: Vol 95, No 4 (uchicago.edu)Unz (2013) found that '%black' was the best predictor of crime throughout many American cities (again, beating poverty) Race and Crime in America, by Ron Unz - The Unz Review"The Color of Crime" analysis also found violent crimes correlated with 'black' at 0.81, and only 0.36 with poverty Color-Of-Crime-2016.pdf (amren.com)The list goes on...
These sources aren't terribly convincing. The last one is from literal white supremacist organizations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Century_Foundation), and the Unz Review is considered a white nationalist publication. The American Journal of Sociology would be an interesting read but it is over 30 years old and is behind a paywall so alas...if you could quote from it that would be cool.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Women have these as factors:
- How hot they are
- How healthy they are
- How emotionally intelligent they are
- How loyal they are reputed to be
- Being popular
Most women don't fit the mainstream societal expectations of "hotness" or "healthy" body shape. So, there's a lot of women who are out of the "high value " arena just based on genetics alone. I find that some young guys who are inexperienced with dating tend to have the perception that women have it easier because these guys are only considering conventionally attractive women. They're not considering the most women only the women they find attractive.
But, also, being "popular"? Popularity becomes a lot harder to quantify as you get older and are in the real world. There's a lot more social groups in the real world than high school, and all having contradicting measures of social success. So, a cool hipster type in the city won't be perceived the same way in the suburbs. A gym-rat with a car obsession will be popular among like-minded people, and will do well in certain social circles, but would probably not fit in with a more urban intellectual/cultured group. I'm going to assume "likability" would be a more accurate factor to consider (and that can be pretty subjective depending on what social circles you hang around with).
Men have all kinds of factors, this is both an advantage and a disadvantage because if they lack in the looks department and even in EQ on top of that, they can compensate well. Loyalty is actually much less a factor for men, it's nearly nonexistent as a competing factor, it just matters they're honest if they are poly much more so than that they're known to be sexually loyal.
I don't see the disadvantage with having more factors to have the ability to work on. Especially if many of those factors don't come down primarily to genetics, but are things that any person can develop over time.
And I would argue that loyalty is a similar factor for both men and women in that neither party tolerates infidelity, but if they are interested in polyamory for themselves then they have to be interested in it for their partner as well. For straight couples who were in "poly" or "open" relationships, it was women who were more likely to initiate those types of relationships as opposed to the men in those relationships (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/11/magazine/is-an-open-marriage-a-happier-marriage.html), and women were more likely than their male partners to have sexual relationships outside of their primary one.
I imagine Andrew Tate is the type of guy who believes that only men should be able to sleep around while a relationship, I'd be a little impressed if i'm wrong though.
- How 'achieved' they feel while interacting with them (cocky vibes without overt arrogance)
- How difficult it feels to impress them (they should be difficult to impress, not impossible)
- How interesting and intelligent they are when conducting conversation (men have to lead conversations, they need both good questions and good answers to hold a woman's intrigue)
- How reliable they seem, financally, emotionally and physically. This is why a man needs a decent job and body, it's about reliability, if he seems weak and flimsy in any way it turns the women off quite rapidly, depending which form of reliability the woman wants more. He should also be competent at staying calm and reliable emotionally but also not seem 'dead' emotionally, it's a complex mix.
- Also being attractive
- Also being emotionally intelligent
- Also being healthy
- Loyalty less important, being totally honest about urges and desires more important. Women would ultimately rather an honest playboy over a shady guy who's overall known for 'loyalty', though their preference there differs per woman in severity.
- Having an aura that 'turns heads' even if it comes with being hated. Women need to be likable to be attractive, men need to be noticable and can cope with being disliked and maintianing value quite easily with a jaded antihero vibe.
The funny thing is, any person who says they "never apologize" because they are "never wrong" is not emotionally intelligent. Any person who says or even jokes about smashing a woman's face in with a machete if she accuses him of sexual assault, is not in control of their emotions.
But Andrew Tate aside. A lot of those list pertains to both genders. For example, "should be difficult to impress, but not impossible" is the type of stuff women's magazines would tell women they needed to be in-order to get boyfriends. But, again, most people don't play games like that in-order to find dates. It's really easy to tell the difference between an authentic interactions, and someone who is trying to go over a mental checklist of how to maintain what they think is a desirable romantic dynamic.
I would also argue that what constitutes as physically "attractive" is broader for a man than for a woman. You have the recent obsession with "dad bods" for example, or the "silver fox" aesthetic as men age to consider. You have the androgyny of Harry Styles, Maneskin, Tokyo Hotel, etc. The physical "ideals" for women are much more narrow than that.
The idea that a man has to lead a conversation is a bit off too, while I do appreciate the acknowledgement that men should ask good questions, the reality is a good conversation is about the ability to connect in a sincere and mutual way. I don't know any woman that wants a man to "lead" a conversation, but wants a man who knows how to listen and contribute in a meaningful way to a conversation. Again, the mind game attempts are silly and unnecessary if you're pursuing a healthy and honest relationship.
But really, how have you implemented this in your dating life? What kind of women are you after? Do you find that these factors are how you define yourself and what you want in a partner, or do you have more specific characteristics based on your personality that you place greater importance on?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Tate has never been against the idea of high value women following his advice. The difference is that if you are a woman, you can focus primarily on being attractive, healthy, emotionally intelligent and loyal and you already spiral in value. In constrast, men who have focused on that have only become medium value at best, you can deny it or face reality, a man has to focus on more variables to be high value.
I think this is a bit simplistic. Most people don't fit solidly into any particular stereotype. If you look at the real world (not the TV or the internet), most people are just average across the board or below average in some area of their life. They find people who they click with, and they get married. I know a lot of slobs with average jobs who are married to slightly more attractive women with average jobs. I know conventionally attractive, nice guys, with not so impressive jobs who date/marry women who are also attractive and have slightly better jobs (they usually have interests in common as well), attractive women with ok jobs who marry less attractive men with nicer jobs. It's not black and white. What I don't see as often are less attractive women with more attractive men.
Dating is hard for young guys because, in a heterosexual context, they are often expected to make the first move. That leaves them in a vulnerable position which causes them to overthink strategies they deem "biology-proof" to make them feel a bit safer about the whole thing when they really should be developing themselves as individuals.
So cancel it rather than debate it because your side are a bunch of cowards. Sure.
I mean, I do agree, I wish there were more debate on larger levels. But your man said that he keeps a machete by his bed for any woman who accuses him of rape so...that might be past the point of debate.
Created: