You're being a complete dip shit. You can say those aren't the totality of feminism and you're right. However, they ARE major talking points in feminism, and yes they ARE misleading. You are being smug by putting on a false air of superiority and responding to say you refuse to respond. You are proving my point. You have fucking failed. If you want to be an adult and write something not so dismissive then by all means go ahead, but do not be a smug dip shit and then call me smug. Thanks for playing.
Why should I "be and adult" when you're not - even though you're claiming to act like one? Everyone who posts here knows you have a major hate-on for Feminism. You don't have an open mind, you aren't willing to listen to anything you don't already agree with, so what's the point in arguing with you? You've made up your mind about Feminism and that's that. So stop fucking up this thread with your trolling. You've already been banned before.
When I said people did not know what they were talking about before, I referred to a post that started with: "I don't know what the patriarchy is, but...." If you don't know, then you don't know what's going on. Which is fine. But don't lecture me then. That's all I'm saying. In any case that was like a year ago so it's not really that important anyway.
Honestly dude, I think trolling is when you say someone is wrong and then make a bunch of personal attacks without responding to anything they actually wrote, BUT THAT'S JUST ME. I was banned for about one hour. If the mods want to ban me again they can. It is not relevant to this whatsoever. Why are you even bringing this up? If you don't like me or my posts, or whatever, that's fine. I don't really care, but making a bunch of personal attacks and then getting defensive isn't exactly the pinnacle of having an open mind and mature discussion.
Ok, a few opening remarks, then I'll address the above. First, being a Contrarian does not equal being a Critic does not equal being an Intellectual. You're batting 1 for 3, which in baseball gets you in the Hall of Fame, but here gets this response from me. 'Nu-uhh' is not intellectual discourse. And frankly, the vast majority of your posts come down to that. Which is frankly why I don't bother responding to your posts. I read them, and so long as they seem to adhere to the general rules about not being a complete fuckwit, I let it go. To be blunt, of all the mods here, I'm probably the one that gives the most rope before I step in. I don't care if anyone disagrees with me, and most of the time, even if it's a bit aggressive, I certainly don't take it personally. What I am not thrilled about is your continued assertions (and the tone) that have no basis when you're busy claiming the other side has no basis for their views. For instance, the above bolded statement. Why is it bullshit? Show me some studies - show me that you've actually vetted the studies, that you actually know something of the method and research put into those studies. Where did the money for the grant come from? Is there a bias? What other studies has the author published? Again, you start with a proposition: Rape culture does not exist. Ok, first things first? What is rape culture? Second, what studies support such a contention? Third, what studies don't support such a contention? Again, citations please. Fox News doesn't count, or that blogger guy who couldn't get a date. So how about showing us some hard facts? Put on your case, show me some evidence, give me the tools necessary to agree with you. To be blunt, the only tool you seem to use is your credibility, which isn't much of a tool because if I've lumped you in with the Contrarians, then likely other folks have as well. Prove me wrong. Don't just tell me I'm wrong. Your word, without evidence, isn't enough. In a cleverly concealed approach, you're tying disagreement with being a tool. What I can't cotton is the fact that you have routinely used invective in your posts and to counter other arguments (often badly). You've been privately warned about this in the past, now I am warning you in public: either you display courtesy to others, or you'll take a break from this thread. I hear you, but we're on it. Let's not get into shouting matches in this thread, you can take that shit over to the WDT. This thread is meant for serious discourse (and in a strange coincidence the word 'Serious' actually appears in the title). Let's leave the trolling and name calling for other places, I consider this thread sacrosanct, and will enforce the courteousness rule ruthlessly.
I posted some numbers, I posted stats. I posted claims. VI, what in the fuck are you on about? Here's some concrete citations. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/416536/how-common-are-false-rape-charges-really-jason-richwine There's a couple. I can not show you the feminist studies about how false rapes are less than 1% of claims BECAUSE THEY DO NOT EXIST. If you aware of them, show them to me. Thank you. Juice Edit: The second half of this post was not at all constructive. If you want to exchange words with him, it's not going to be in the thread. Take it to PM or WDT.
Here we go again: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/peyton-manning-human-growth-hormone_567f16e4e4b0b958f6599440 Does anyone give a second thought to this stuff anymore? I feel like we've reached the point with these reports where people just shrug their shoulders and move on to the next story of the day. Then again, I've really never cared very much about PEDs - except how it relates to the availability of my teams' players - so perhaps I'm being too nonchalant. We've already had PED discussions here in the past so I don't know if there's any new ground to tread.
That made me laugh. No, you fucking can't. Partially because the PED use seems to be so rampant to begin with.
Don't know why you're ragging on this guy Kampf; he sounds like a pillar of integrity: Honestly, talking about this guy makes me feel like the conversation belongs in the WDT.
My industry does the exact same thing, and that's kind of my point. Aside, from the reality that's it's just not true (you just write nuh-uh herpa derp, still waiting on you VI) companies totally would do it if they could get away with it, but they can't. If you do a job better than a man for less money you can bet your fucking ass they will hire you instead.
On an unrelated note: Sanders has shined the proverbial spot light on the fact that corporations are buying politicians left and right. They are literally buying legislation. They are writing the fucking laws in their own interest. And nobody gives a fuck. No one will talk about it. People think it's a moot point. What the fuck is wrong with this country? In my opinion this is the biggest issue in politics right now, but nobody cares. What the fuck, America?
I actually see this talked about quite a lot among progressives, but there's a sense of futility about trying to change it, because what good does it to elect a representative who makes claims of counteracting this only to watch them get bought and sold like the rest of them? SCOTUS empowered superpacs with the Citizens United decision, so at this point it's going to take an act of Congress to address it. The best that can be done without a Constitutional amendment is regulation, because Citizens United made prohibiting non-profits from spending as much as they want on politics unconstitutional.
The thing is, I feel like if proper pressure was put on them they would have to cave. I mean, this shit is just indefensible. I would trust Sanders to actually do that. Maybe I'm wrong, but there is a pretty key difference between him and Clinton. Look at the stances they've taken in the last 20 years. Clinton just does what the polls tell her to do. I don't know what she actually cares about because that is all she ever does. Sanders has taken many unpopular stances, and held them regardless of what was popular at the time. He was often right too, like with Iraq and the impending financial crisis.
Say what you will about both Sanders and Trump but the only two slime balls I would consider in the cesspool that is the 2016 election are Sanders and Trump. Not because of their stances, I find most of what they say abhorrent for one reason or another.....one is economically illiterate and the other is a corporate sleazebag who will gladly send your children off to fight an unnecessary war in my opinion. The thing I admire is that they are, for the most part, unbought and unbuyable; therefore, they say what they mean and not what polls well with the voters like every single other scumbag running. I agree with what everyone else say here, we need to find a way as the public to counteract corporate money buying politicians and legislation. Look at all of these free trade agreements and what they really do to the American middle class......it is far, far worse on EVERYONE than worrying about transgender rights or police brutality (I am not saying they aren't important but these are FAR, FAR bigger issues). People used to say vote out all the incumbents, that'll fix it! I don't think it will......I think the answer is don't vote. Don't vote en masse: A peaceful symbol to show the Government that they must change. If elections had a 5% or 8% turnout rate, that is a message. Essentially a vote of no confidence; a vote showing them that they must change now or we will do it for them.
The thing for me is, people should stop protesting their lack of safe spaces, tax rates going up (especially after they actually went down), doing slut walks, Israel returning fire to Hamas --- fuck all that shit; and start protesting the corruption. I don't think that will happen because it's just not an issue very many people seem to be emotionally charged about, but it should be. I'm not saying none of that other shit matters. Speak up for what you believe in of course. I just think this is a way more important issue right now.
Holy shit. Apparently this is where we're at...Police officers trained to run and hide in the case of an active shooter. http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/30/us/unarmed-aviation-officers/index.html
How would that show anything? I mean the 5 to 8 percent would vote in who ever they vote in. People will go on not really willing to give up making a living for themselves to protest or volunteer while far of leaders will still be swayed by people and institutions with money and influence. There is quite an intensity gap on this subject. Also while more and more both sides of the isle are realizing money and influence have got out of hand. People are still so ideologically divided that I think people are worried that the other sides philosophies would become the dominate one in the event that laws were put in place to prevent money and influence in politics. Thus, no big push for it. Beyond campaign finance reform there also is way too much power focused on the federal level when in reality our country was set up to be run with local legislatures and governments. I think more people would be served if power was reverted back to the states. Let states experiment with funding their own systems. I have no problem with states wanting to set up single payer systems for healthcare or fully fund college for their residents if they so choose (some do this in some capacity). Yet most things come down to the federal government threatening to cut off state funds for highways or other programs if they don't fall in line for XYZ.