Bottom post of the previous page:
Completely ignoring the entire thing what the hell did he mean by the last line.its a joke right? it has to be a joke
Bottom post of the previous page:
Completely ignoring the entire thing what the hell did he mean by the last line.Timberpoes wrote: Lepi was right all along.
Why are you surprised? Isn't "men's right advocate" something that should describe all of us?
Timberpoes wrote: Lepi was right all along.
Lower your tone with me if your tracked play time doesn't look like this:Timonk wrote:You have clearly never seen his dickWesoda25 wrote:Genuinely think they should be blacklisted.
Flatulent wrote:of course you can change religion doing it while islamic however makes you lose your head from happiness
It's mainly because you arbitrarily gave rulings and were a spineless shit stirrer.
whenever you post I think of that reddit guy with the fedora meme
You had me right up until you said you could thinksinfulbliss wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2023 1:36 amwhenever you post I think of that reddit guy with the fedora meme
digg moderators don't get paid how are they going to eat enough to get fat
Depends. Is there a specific issue or is MRA one of those "I should be assigned a girlfriend because I'm male" causes? Because while society in some matters is disadvantageous towards men, men also straight up commit like 98% of the murders, so which side is more in the wrong?
Poor people are more likely to be obese in America. I don't know what percentage of income goes towards food in the shire but in the USA you get food stamps if you've got no income or savings.
I think more broadly. MRA being shorthand for "men's right advocate" just seems more like a descriptor. Like do you think that men shouldn't have to be the military property of the state to die for at the drop of a hat? Would you advocate for that position? Then it would be accurate to describe you as a MRA. Do you think that men should be allowed to keep all of their skin? MRA.dirk_mcblade wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2023 2:28 amDepends. Is there a specific issue or is MRA one of those "I should be assigned a girlfriend because I'm male" causes? Because while society in some matters is disadvantageous towards men, men also straight up commit like 98% of the murders, so which side is more in the wrong?
I’m just guessing but I reckon MRA was a response to the more radical wing of WRA that sorta started to go more into the “men are the problem” territory.dirk_mcblade wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2023 2:28 amDepends. Is there a specific issue or is MRA one of those "I should be assigned a girlfriend because I'm male" causes? Because while society in some matters is disadvantageous towards men, men also straight up commit like 98% of the murders, so which side is more in the wrong?
Well I mean if murders are overwhelmingly committed by men then they're simply much more suitable for killing others and therefore exactly the kind of people you want in a combat unit. How would a draft involving women work? Would they go into noncombat roles to free up more men for fighting? Or would they be integrated into the front lines? The latter would be retarded based on common sense and the marine corps study on this.Boot wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2023 2:42 amI think more broadly. MRA being shorthand for "men's right advocate" just seems more like a descriptor. Like do you think that men shouldn't have to be the military property of the state to die for at the drop of a hat? Would you advocate for that position? Then it would be accurate to describe you as a MRA. Do you think that men should be allowed to keep all of their skin? MRA.dirk_mcblade wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2023 2:28 amDepends. Is there a specific issue or is MRA one of those "I should be assigned a girlfriend because I'm male" causes? Because while society in some matters is disadvantageous towards men, men also straight up commit like 98% of the murders, so which side is more in the wrong?
Men commit the vast majority of murders globally, it's not a cultural issue. If the percentage of men being victims of murder drops below 98% then the victims are disproportionately female, which means women are murdered in excess of themselves murdering others. In some places, Hong Kong and South Korea for example, women are more likely to be murdered than men. I think that's fucked up. I don't think being a murderer is an advantage in society, but I think given how the vast majority of criminality is done by men it'd be rational to scrutinize the activities of men. It's also hard to say the men are disadvantaged moreso than women regarding murder if women are more often murdered by men than the other way around.sinfulbliss wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2023 2:44 amI’m just guessing but I reckon MRA was a response to the more radical wing of WRA that sorta started to go more into the “men are the problem” territory.dirk_mcblade wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2023 2:28 amDepends. Is there a specific issue or is MRA one of those "I should be assigned a girlfriend because I'm male" causes? Because while society in some matters is disadvantageous towards men, men also straight up commit like 98% of the murders, so which side is more in the wrong?
Also I think men committing all the murders isn’t exactly a counterpoint to the “men are disadvantaged in society” argument. Not that I think they are, but why would that be an advantage!!
Men commit most of the murders because of testosterone and a higher proclivity towards violence as a result, pretty sure. Probably also partially a cultural thing with the glorification of violence as a form of solving issues/problems as a man.
MrStonedOne wrote:I always read dendy's walls of text
I genuinely don't see the connection between men committing murders and the claim they are advantaged... because they would be wanted for a combat unit? That sucks who would want to be in a combat unit!dirk_mcblade wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2023 2:54 am Well I mean if murders are overwhelmingly committed by men then they're simply much more suitable for killing others and therefore exactly the kind of people you want in a combat unit. How would a draft involving women work? Would they go into noncombat roles to free up more men for fighting? Or would they be integrated into the front lines? The latter would be retarded based on common sense and the marine corps study on this.
This is just an incredibly bizarre, tangled argument you've constructed. First of all men commit murder more =/= Women get murdered more. The murder victim rate is like, overwhelmingly male, around 5:1 in the US. That's kind of a nothing-statement though, obviously men are killed more because they're more violent and prone to violent crime than women on average. But yeah have no idea why you'd make this assumption.dirk_mcblade wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2023 2:54 amMen commit the vast majority of murders globally, it's not a cultural issue. If the percentage of men being victims of murder drops below 98% then the victims are disproportionately female, which means women are murdered in excess of themselves murdering others. In some places, Hong Kong and South Korea for example, women are more likely to be murdered than men. I think that's fucked up. I don't think being a murderer is an advantage in society, but I think given how the vast majority of criminality is done by men it'd be rational to scrutinize the activities of men. It's also hard to say the men are disadvantaged moreso than women regarding murder if women are more often murdered by men than the other way around.
Like, I don't consider myself a feminist, but some of the aspects of masculinity is pretty indefensible while nonetheless existing as basically a force of nature.
Basically this
Loads of people already volunteer for combat units so it apparently contains some value to someone. Navy SEALS aren't conscripts for example. But at any rate you should ask the people pushing for women to be in combat units, not me. Shit like https://www.brookings.edu/essay/women-w ... ed-forces/ frames it as an accessibility problem for women in the military and refer to it as a "milestone" that they began to be allowed to do so recently. So don't ask me, ask the people pushing for it. It's apparently treated like it's an advantage. I think it's batshit crazy but I'm not the guy being a proponent of it out of "fairness". My perspective is if you're going to issue a draft you want to assign the most effective people to the direct combat roles and it's not an argument I base on equitability but because the survival of the given country would be at stake. Or at least it should be. The most recent drafts in the USA and Russia concerned force projection rather than responses to being attacked first.sinfulbliss wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2023 4:06 am I genuinely don't see the connection between men committing murders and the claim they are advantaged... because they would be wanted for a combat unit? That sucks who would want to be in a combat unit!
This is just an incredibly bizarre, tangled argument you've constructed. First of all men commit murder more =/= Women get murdered more. The murder victim rate is like, overwhelmingly male, around 5:1 in the US. That's kind of a nothing-statement though, obviously men are killed more because they're more violent and prone to violent crime than women on average. But yeah have no idea why you'd make this assumption.
That’s like saying it’s primarily Muslims who commit terrorist attacks on the US therefore it makes sense to regard Muslims as the problem.dirk_mcblade wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2023 4:39 amLoads of people already volunteer for combat units so it apparently contains some value to someone. Navy SEALS aren't conscripts for example. But at any rate you should ask the people pushing for women to be in combat units, not me. Shit like https://www.brookings.edu/essay/women-w ... ed-forces/ frames it as an accessibility problem for women in the military and refer to it as a "milestone" that they began to be allowed to do so recently. So don't ask me, ask the people pushing for it. It's apparently treated like it's an advantage. I think it's batshit crazy but I'm not the guy being a proponent of it out of "fairness". My perspective is if you're going to issue a draft you want to assign the most effective people to the direct combat roles and it's not an argument I base on equitability because the survival of the given country would be at stake.sinfulbliss wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2023 4:06 am I genuinely don't see the connection between men committing murders and the claim they are advantaged... because they would be wanted for a combat unit? That sucks who would want to be in a combat unit!
This is just an incredibly bizarre, tangled argument you've constructed. First of all men commit murder more =/= Women get murdered more. The murder victim rate is like, overwhelmingly male, around 5:1 in the US. That's kind of a nothing-statement though, obviously men are killed more because they're more violent and prone to violent crime than women on average. But yeah have no idea why you'd make this assumption.
Women get killed by men far more often than men get killed by women, therefore it's not surprising that at least some women regard men as the problem. Also the statement of "obviously men are killed more because they're more violent and prone to violent crime than women on average" is exactly my point. If women are murdered 20% of the time but are murderers only 2% of the time that implies women are being targeted disproportionately despite being less violent than men.
"It's not understandable that some people would regard men as the problem because we kill each other more often than the sex that's generally non-combatative (but we still kill a lot of them too)."sinfulbliss wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2023 4:48 amThat’s like saying it’s primarily Muslims who commit terrorist attacks on the US therefore it makes sense to regard Muslims as the problem.dirk_mcblade wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2023 4:39 amLoads of people already volunteer for combat units so it apparently contains some value to someone. Navy SEALS aren't conscripts for example. But at any rate you should ask the people pushing for women to be in combat units, not me. Shit like https://www.brookings.edu/essay/women-w ... ed-forces/ frames it as an accessibility problem for women in the military and refer to it as a "milestone" that they began to be allowed to do so recently. So don't ask me, ask the people pushing for it. It's apparently treated like it's an advantage. I think it's batshit crazy but I'm not the guy being a proponent of it out of "fairness". My perspective is if you're going to issue a draft you want to assign the most effective people to the direct combat roles and it's not an argument I base on equitability because the survival of the given country would be at stake.sinfulbliss wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2023 4:06 am I genuinely don't see the connection between men committing murders and the claim they are advantaged... because they would be wanted for a combat unit? That sucks who would want to be in a combat unit!
This is just an incredibly bizarre, tangled argument you've constructed. First of all men commit murder more =/= Women get murdered more. The murder victim rate is like, overwhelmingly male, around 5:1 in the US. That's kind of a nothing-statement though, obviously men are killed more because they're more violent and prone to violent crime than women on average. But yeah have no idea why you'd make this assumption.
Women get killed by men far more often than men get killed by women, therefore it's not surprising that at least some women regard men as the problem. Also the statement of "obviously men are killed more because they're more violent and prone to violent crime than women on average" is exactly my point. If women are murdered 20% of the time but are murderers only 2% of the time that implies women are being targeted disproportionately despite being less violent than men.
No man you can’t broad brush an entire group of people over the actions of the most extreme portion of them, that’s bad news. Your statistics are also completely out of whack, that’s not how proportions work. If women are murdered 20% of the time but only murderers 2% of the time then that means two things: mostly men are killed, and mostly men commit murder. It doesn’t mean women are disproportionately murdered, it means there are more women killed by murder than women who commit murder themselves.
Hong Kong has a female homicide rate of 52.9% while South Korea has a rate 52.5%. Yes women are technically more likely to be murdered, but it's only 2%, it's practically equal. It's nothing compared to the vastly higher percent of male homicides in countries like the United States.dirk_mcblade wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2023 2:54 am In some places, Hong Kong and South Korea for example, women are more likely to be murdered than men. I think that's fucked up.
It's generally not women killing men in most countries (perhaps all even but I won't bother going that far because I'd have to confirm there isn't even one country like that). I don't see how it's sexist to point out that it's more common for men to kill women than the other way around.BlueMemesauce wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2023 6:06 amHong Kong has a female homicide rate of 52.9% while South Korea has a rate 52.5%. Yes women are technically more likely to be murdered, but it's only 2%, it's practically equal. It's nothing compared to the vastly higher percent of male homicides in countries like the United States.dirk_mcblade wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2023 2:54 am In some places, Hong Kong and South Korea for example, women are more likely to be murdered than men. I think that's fucked up.
You're implying Hongkongers and Korean people just hate women way more than in the United States, but that's not the case. It's actually because Hong Kong and South Korea have the lowest homicide rates in the world. The rates being equal is mostly because less male gang members are killing men (Although I don't have any evidence for that, it's just my assumption), which is probably why the rates of homicide by gender are equal. It's not fucked up at all, it's a good thing when they're equal because that means neither of them are disproportionately killed. It seems you just value women more than men, which is why you think it's fucked up when women are killed at a rate equal to men. edit: okay I apologize that it might be wrong of me to say that you're sexist if you actually saw women were being killed at a way higher rate.
Correct! It isn’t understandable to regard an entire class of people as a “problem.” Not men, not women, not black people, not Muslim people, not gay people, etc. I’m sure if I took any one of those groups and called them a “problem” for whatever disproportionate bad thing I wanted to find, you’d find it incredibly awful of me to say.dirk_mcblade wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2023 5:02 am "It's not understandable that some people would regard men as the problem because we kill each other more often than the sex that's generally non-combatative (but we still kill a lot of them too)."
No one mentioned biological determinism except you, there’s a difference between “biology makes a difference in your proclivity to violence” and “biology destines people to be violent.” Also male biology doesn’t really differ between countries so again why is it predominantly male?
Except this isn’t a discussion about crime statistics in general it’s a discussion about gendered crime difference so that’s why it’s what’s being talked about.
The vast Majority of men aren't violent criminals, so you need to look at the crime as a whole. Why is someone becoming violent?sinfulbliss wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2023 11:27 amNo one mentioned biological determinism except you, there’s a difference between “biology makes a difference in your proclivity to violence” and “biology destines people to be violent.” Also male biology doesn’t really differ between countries so again why is it predominantly male?
Except this isn’t a discussion about crime statistics in general it’s a discussion about gendered crime difference so that’s why it’s what’s being talked about.
kieth4 wrote: infrequently shitting yourself is fine imo
There is a lot of very bizarre nonsense being talked on this forum. I shall now remain silent and logoff until my points are vindicated.
Player who complainted over being killed for looting cap office wrote: ↑Sun Jul 30, 2023 1:33 am Hey there, I'm Virescent, the super evil person who made the stupid appeal and didn't think it through enough. Just came here to say: screech, retards. Screech and writhe like the worms you are. Your pathetic little cries will keep echoing around for a while before quietting down. There is one great outcome from this: I rised up the blood pressure of some of you shitheads and lowered your lifespan. I'm honestly tempted to do this more often just to see you screech and writhe more, but that wouldn't be cool of me. So come on haters, show me some more of your high blood pressure please.
Armhulen wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2023 11:08 pmThe Spessmen Times wrote:Prohibition agent Sam Salamander bragged that he could find a metacord in any server in under 30 minutes. In Bagil it took him 21 minutes. In Sybil 17 minutes, and Manuel just 11 minutes. But Terry set the record of 35 seconds. Sam asked an assistant on the arrivals shuttle where to get a discord invite, and the assistant linked him one.
RedBaronFlyer wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 3:52 pmIt would somehow manage to pick Birdshot Station for headmin if we did that
wtf dendy is now my new favorite admin? (sorry arm)dendydoom wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2023 3:20 am firstly, this thread sucks.
secondly, these discussions always hide some inner political belief that people are subtly deferring to.
as usual i will use my personal life experience to tell a story about this:
i'm a woman and when i was younger i spent a lot of time online and wanted to be liked by my peers and accepted into "the culture" of 2008 era 4chan shitposting. i would tell intolerant jokes, say bigoted things and mock "normies" because they were the outside and i needed social cred to elevate myself on the inside.
years later in my late teen years i started hanging out with other women who were politically active and they taught me about feminism and i had a phase where i was one of those "men are the problem" types and i was just as much of an insufferable jackass but now i hung out on the other side of the divide.
then a few years later, in my early-mid 20s, i had calmed down because i had made friends with men, women, normies and internet dwellers all alike. i started to find it difficult to tell those same jokes, to hold those same beliefs against men or women because every time i did i would think of my friends, their life experiences, the problems they faced and i knew it would hurt them to hear me say those things and it became impossible to be so reductive to the true breadth and depth of their struggles and experiences. i care about them, no matter who they are, and i want to help them self actualize and be free from the things causing them pain.
what i'm ultimately trying to say is that it does no side any good to paint the other with a broad brush. i still believe in intersectionality: the idea that all people are a big ball of different types of privilege and discrimination based on a wide array of attributes. men wield the majority of power in society, but that power does not benefit all men. access to mental healthcare is worse for men, suicide affects them more, it is harder for them to show emotional vulnerability, they are the ones who are made to take dangerous jobs, they are the ones that die in wars, they are the ones who often lose access to their children in divorce, the list goes on and on. obviously it goes without saying that there is a whole host of issues that affect women too. it doesn't mean any of that stops existing like it's some sort of competition over who gets fucked over more. we all do. the thing that will change you and better you in this regard is to make friends with everyone, even those you might disagree with. they will see you as a real person, not some political opposition that's dangerous to them, and you will see the same in them too, and both of you will grow from sharing your experiences and your struggles.
You're incoherently regurgitating a bunch of retarded liberal platitudes that have no relevance. Men commit more violence than women because they're biologically stronger than women, and they're mentally inclined to engage in territorial/aggressive behavior. This is the case for almost every species of animal that exists on the earth.
before you declare her your favorite admin please be aware she is ENGLISHMrStonedOne wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2023 8:21 pmwtf dendy is now my new favorite admin? (sorry arm)dendydoom wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2023 3:20 am firstly, this thread sucks.
secondly, these discussions always hide some inner political belief that people are subtly deferring to.
as usual i will use my personal life experience to tell a story about this:
i'm a woman and when i was younger i spent a lot of time online and wanted to be liked by my peers and accepted into "the culture" of 2008 era 4chan shitposting. i would tell intolerant jokes, say bigoted things and mock "normies" because they were the outside and i needed social cred to elevate myself on the inside.
years later in my late teen years i started hanging out with other women who were politically active and they taught me about feminism and i had a phase where i was one of those "men are the problem" types and i was just as much of an insufferable jackass but now i hung out on the other side of the divide.
then a few years later, in my early-mid 20s, i had calmed down because i had made friends with men, women, normies and internet dwellers all alike. i started to find it difficult to tell those same jokes, to hold those same beliefs against men or women because every time i did i would think of my friends, their life experiences, the problems they faced and i knew it would hurt them to hear me say those things and it became impossible to be so reductive to the true breadth and depth of their struggles and experiences. i care about them, no matter who they are, and i want to help them self actualize and be free from the things causing them pain.
what i'm ultimately trying to say is that it does no side any good to paint the other with a broad brush. i still believe in intersectionality: the idea that all people are a big ball of different types of privilege and discrimination based on a wide array of attributes. men wield the majority of power in society, but that power does not benefit all men. access to mental healthcare is worse for men, suicide affects them more, it is harder for them to show emotional vulnerability, they are the ones who are made to take dangerous jobs, they are the ones that die in wars, they are the ones who often lose access to their children in divorce, the list goes on and on. obviously it goes without saying that there is a whole host of issues that affect women too. it doesn't mean any of that stops existing like it's some sort of competition over who gets fucked over more. we all do. the thing that will change you and better you in this regard is to make friends with everyone, even those you might disagree with. they will see you as a real person, not some political opposition that's dangerous to them, and you will see the same in them too, and both of you will grow from sharing your experiences and your struggles.
Our power grows.Super Aggro Crag wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2023 9:04 pmbefore you declare her your favorite admin please be aware she is ENGLISH
what if they live in the desertEmpressMaia wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2023 10:10 pm what the fuck happeed to this thread. go touch grass, all of you
See guys this is why we should befriend neo-nazisdendydoom wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2023 3:20 am the thing that will change you and better you in this regard is to make friends with everyone, even those you might disagree with. they will see you as a real person, not some political opposition that's dangerous to them, and you will see the same in them too, and both of you will grow from sharing your experiences and your struggles.
Size and behavior are absolutely "causal" and the rest of this is just irrelevant
This is like saying that poverty doesn't cause crime because "Some poor populations commit less crime than some rich populations" Completely incoherent logic
the statement "Men commit more crime than women because they're biologically inclined towards violence and aggression" is indisputably true, the existence of various socio-economic factors that result in crime don't change the reality of this
I'm not going to do that, I'm not in the discord.
Users browsing this forum: GPeckman