The basis of cooperation, and therefore the basis of social behavior, is reciprocation. If someone offers me a gift, and if I accept that gift, then I know I have to reciprocate. If I don't want to reciprocate, I have to refuse the gift.
If a woman accepts the chivalrous act of a man, she also implicitly accepts to reciprocate in one way or another. If she accepts the chivalrous act of a man without the intent of reciprocating, she's just an abuser.
Although I agree some religious people like Mother Theresa were psychopaths, there is a difference between happiness and seeking immediate pleasure. I'd agree most religions are about constraining our search for pleasure, but I do think controlling our desires for immediate pleasure is necessary for happiness.
You say religions forced obedience, but I believe that if people followed a religion (instead of another), it's because the rules of this religious made people happier. The concept of natural selection also applies to how religions developed.
You don't understand the concept of duty. Duties always come from others (mainly society), never from ourselves. I can assign myself goals, but not duties.
Because duties are, by definition, not a choice, someone accomplishing his duties has to be rewarded. This is part of any social contract. Both duties and reward goes together. For example, when I was doing my mandatory military service, the reward I got for accomplishing my duties was a promotion, that is I was given more power.
There is a lot of talk about "incels" right now, and I believe their feeling of entitlement comes from their idea there is still a social contract between men and women. I guess they believe they accomplish their social duties toward women, and therefore they expect a reward. Feminism should explain those men that they don't have any duty at all toward women, unfortunately feminism sends the opposite message. The feminist message to men is that they have the duty to respect, protect and help women achieve their dreams (while receiving nothing in return).
As for your rhetoric about "violence", although I tend to be a pacifist, I'm certainly not nonviolent. Violence is not only part of our human nature, but it is also necessary and inevitable in a civilized society. Without violence to enforce social rules, there would be no society.
Here in Quebec common law "marriage" doesn't give women a right to alimony, division of property, inheritance in case of death, etc. There is no commitment associated with common law "marriages". Ending a common law "marriage" is just about ending the relationship and declaring to the government and a few other legal entities (for example insurance companies) that you are not together anymore.
The context was replacing marriage, which is supposed to be "for life". That's why I said, " I was never able to find any statistics on the average duration of non-married relationships".
The statistics you linked includes "temporary" relationships, which are not a replacement for marriage. My point was that without marriage (and the legal obligations that go with it), most relationships last at most a few years.
Relationships are not transaction-based. You do not get a card where you get a blowjob after 10 "nice guy" stamps.
Relationships are contract-based, and like all contracts, each party expects to receive something for what they give, whether you like it or not.
Because men aren't forced into the roles you claim they are forced into. Men were the ones deciding what those roles are, so men chose the roles they would prefer to take on.
No, men never decided what role they should play. Those roles were decided by culture.
Not the parent poster, but it shows I'm not a denizen of r/incel.
Neither am I, but that doesn't mean I center my life around women. I'm not a "mangina".
We menfolk have it really good. All those traditional gender roles? We never had to obey them. You could go ahead and never get married. You could go ahead and abandon your family. You could go ahead and fuck any woman regardless of your marriage vows.
I wonder in what universe you are living. For example, one day I received a letter from my government telling me I had to do my mandatory military service. Not that I disliked it, in fact I loved my military service, but men have always had to fulfill a lot of obligations that women never had to do.
As for abandoning your family, divorce for the common man is something that became a reality only in the 19th century, and men who chose that solution ended up with having to support their ex-wife anyway, meaning they still had to fulfill their part of the contract.
The feminist idea that men had power is just fantasy. The vast majority of men had no power at all.
This feels like oppression to you because you're losing elevated status, not because you're actually oppressed.
I'm not saying I'm "oppressed", I'm saying women are now highly privileged compared to men.
You realize that "partner" does not mean "spouse", right?
Yes, I realize that, but I don't consider a relatively short-term relationship without true commitment is really "finding a partner".
Quebec is clearly a place where people can't possibly form long-term relationships without being forced into them by society!!!! Or not.
Living a few years together and then abandoning your supposed "partner" is not what I define as a "long-term relationship".
Golly....I wonder why you're having so much trouble with long-term relationships.....it's not like there's a massive warning sign, alarm klaxon and flashing lights around this sentence.
My point was that I never wanted a committed relationship. I never wanted to become the "stable partner" that a lot of women desire. I just didn't see what I would get from this, and unfortunately, I still don't. I do think it's bad for both men and women, I do think it's a mistake not to start a committed relationship, but that committed relationship must be framed and enforced by society, and be fair for both men and women. That's not the case anymore.
Once again, relationships are not transaction-based.
Once again, relationships are contract-based, and like all contracts, each party expects to receive something for what they give.
If I'm being polite and helping people, I certainly do expect people to do the same with me. This is part of our basic social contract. If you are polite and help people who won't do the same with you, then you are just being abused, and I suggest you get away from those people as the only result will be that you'll end up bitter and vengeful.
As for starting a meaningful relationship, who said I had trouble doing so? I said I never felt I had the duty to do so. Can you understand the difference?
Duties are what gives us a meaningful life. The duties parents have toward their children. The duties we have toward our neighbors. The duties we have toward our employer or our clients. The duties we have toward our society. Those are what is important in life. Unfortunately, this is something we can understand only when we are older.
How do you know "cohabitation rate in Quebec is very high"? I was never able to find any statistics on this. More than that, I was never able to find any statistics on the average duration of non-married relationships. From the people I know, I'd say they don't last long.
Of course, if what you want is a short-term relationship, then I guess Quebec is your place.
I'm not confusing anything. Since the Suffragettes, feminism was always about power. The "equal opportunity" of second-wave feminism was only a (dishonest) selling pitch, not the goal. You say that "true feminist" won't mind "chivalry". OK, but what men will get in return for being chivalrous? What men will get in return for protecting and constantly helping women?
I don't know if you are a man who is virtue signaling in order to get sex or one of those "feminazi", but I find it very revealing that you completely missed my message. I talked about me. I talked about me who should have been pressured into marriage and the traditional husband role, even if my freedom looked more appealing. Yet, you immediately changed the subject to make it about women. Why?
Of course, I certainly acknowledge that any social duties imposed on men should be reciprocated with social duties imposed on women, so I do acknowledge that women too should be pressured to play their traditional roles, but it doesn't change that you think only about women and completely ignore men. What does that say about you?
Anyway, your idea that women can still have a "partner" is dying. I live in Quebec, where feminism is very strong, and as a result most men are now like me. The synthetic marriage rate (the number of women who will marry at least once before the age of 50) has fallen to 30% for women and 27% for men. Only 30% of women will find a husband, and considering that the divorce rate is about 50%, it means not a lot of women will be able to find a stable partner.
You said women should get things on their own terms. Well, in my case, when one of my clients wants to get things on his own terms, what I do is to tell him to find someone else.
Feminism is worse than organized religion. At least most organized religion understood human nature and tried to force people to adopt a behavior that would bring them happiness. Feminism, on the other hand, is based only on pursuing power. Not that pursuing power is inherently wrong, but there is always a huge price to pay for this power, and the reality is very few people are willing to pay that price.
I'm a 48-year-old man. I was never interested in having kids, or even a wife. Thanks to the destruction of our culture caused by feminism, I never felt starting a family was a social duty, and now that I'm too old to start a family or even to start a meaningful relationship, I realize this was a mistake.
I'm a strong atheist, I believe religious beliefs are pure absurdities, but the reality is organized religions are generally good things, not "evil movements" at all. Feminism is a lot more "evil" than organized religions.
If the white helmets are like the Red Cross, then why do they operate only in regions under jihadist control? Why don't they help the people who are the victims of those jihadists?
Yeah, yeah, I know, you will now say I'm a Russian bot.
So let me reiterate what he said : Yes, it seems the advocacy groups have turned on slashdot now. Get used to the most mundane of things turned into an 'anti-trump' sh*tpost in a wall of propaganda. Sigh.
What a bunch of crap. How about you use a bit of critical thinking for a change?
Yes, RT certainly bought ads, like all news media. And yes, RT certainly use subjects that could raise passion, as that's the best way to make people click on those ads and then share RT as a source of information. So what? I live in Canada. Do you think the CBC didn't do the same? Will you also accuse Canada of trying to destabilize the US?
I check RT's website every day. I subscribed to RT's channel on YouTube. The reality is I like RT a lot because I get (real) news that is otherwise censored in Western media, and because there is a real diversity of opinion, something I do not see in Western media. This diversity of opinion is why, for example, people like Jill Stein and Ron Paul were regularly on RT. Will you also accuse Jill Stein and Ron Paul of being part of a Russian conspiracy to destabilize the US?
Stop playing the fucking victim of a bogeyman. I can assure that Americans are well able to destabilize themselves. I mean just look at the left who is still calling over and over anyone who supports the current US president as "racist", "misogynistic", "homophobic", and pretty much any insult they can think of. Look at how Kanye West is now insulted over and over by the left because he said he liked Trump. Do you think this bellicose and anti-democratic attitude from the left is because they saw some ads from RT?
I think one of the men we see on the left (the one with the long hair, the purple coat, the knee-high boots and the beige purse) is kind of cute. Am I gay?
But yes, in this crowd I count 18 men for 8 women. PATRIARCHY!!! DEATH TO ALL MEN!!!
As for your tip, since you seem to think we should not use technology, can I ask what the fuck you doing on this website?
The best way to stop living in fear is to stop hiding under your blanket and to open that damn closet door to confront the monster.
I know I could lose some clients for my opinions. It happened to me in the past. I know Google could one day decide to close my account (I don't have a Twitter account nor a Facebook account). I know that a bunch of SJW "netk00ks" could one day try to assault me (I always post under my real name, and as far as I know, I'm the only "William Baric" in Canada, so I'm easy to find).
Look at my user name. Yes, it's my real name. And you know what? I'm certainly someone with some "very offensive" opinions. That never stopped me to express those opinions using my real name. More than that, I live in Canada. Since it's clear some people might feel "offended" for what I say, this means some of my opinions could easily be classified as "hate speech". I could end up in jail for them. But I prefer to go to jail rather than to shut up or to hide.
"Lively political debate" on the Internet between anonymous people are extremely low quality and they have very little influence in real life. They don't change anything. They are only intellectual masturbation.
In fact, it's even worse than that. By hiding, by refraining from expressing what you really think in real life, you give way to political correctness. One of the reasons political correctness took so much space in our society is because a lot of people who had an "offensive" opinion decided to hide.
By having the User Agent eliminate any post without a valid digital signature automatically. People can already get validated X.509 certificate, so everything is more or less already in place.
Personally, I think the X.509 certificate should at least include the name, age, country, and postal code of the person. The age is to let people filter out kids, and the postal code is to differentiate people with the same name.
I'm 48. I feel I was playing with my Colecovision only a few years ago. The reality is a couple of decades goes by very fast.
I do think we should now gradually start to implement Universal Income. Not $2000 a month like some people are saying, that would be catastrophic, but let's start with, let's say, $200 a month. Instead of lowering income tax, increasing minimum wage, increasing welfare, let's keep income tax as it is now, let's freeze minimum wage and welfare, and let's implement this $200 a month. After that, let's see what happens.
Slashdot Mirror
The basis of cooperation, and therefore the basis of social behavior, is reciprocation. If someone offers me a gift, and if I accept that gift, then I know I have to reciprocate. If I don't want to reciprocate, I have to refuse the gift.
If a woman accepts the chivalrous act of a man, she also implicitly accepts to reciprocate in one way or another. If she accepts the chivalrous act of a man without the intent of reciprocating, she's just an abuser.
Although I agree some religious people like Mother Theresa were psychopaths, there is a difference between happiness and seeking immediate pleasure. I'd agree most religions are about constraining our search for pleasure, but I do think controlling our desires for immediate pleasure is necessary for happiness.
You say religions forced obedience, but I believe that if people followed a religion (instead of another), it's because the rules of this religious made people happier. The concept of natural selection also applies to how religions developed.
You don't understand the concept of duty. Duties always come from others (mainly society), never from ourselves. I can assign myself goals, but not duties.
Because duties are, by definition, not a choice, someone accomplishing his duties has to be rewarded. This is part of any social contract. Both duties and reward goes together. For example, when I was doing my mandatory military service, the reward I got for accomplishing my duties was a promotion, that is I was given more power.
There is a lot of talk about "incels" right now, and I believe their feeling of entitlement comes from their idea there is still a social contract between men and women. I guess they believe they accomplish their social duties toward women, and therefore they expect a reward. Feminism should explain those men that they don't have any duty at all toward women, unfortunately feminism sends the opposite message. The feminist message to men is that they have the duty to respect, protect and help women achieve their dreams (while receiving nothing in return).
As for your rhetoric about "violence", although I tend to be a pacifist, I'm certainly not nonviolent. Violence is not only part of our human nature, but it is also necessary and inevitable in a civilized society. Without violence to enforce social rules, there would be no society.
Here in Quebec common law "marriage" doesn't give women a right to alimony, division of property, inheritance in case of death, etc. There is no commitment associated with common law "marriages". Ending a common law "marriage" is just about ending the relationship and declaring to the government and a few other legal entities (for example insurance companies) that you are not together anymore.
Why are so many people becoming unhappy with relationships? Why do they hop from one relationship to another so easily?
Happiness is something we build, it's not something we find.
The context was replacing marriage, which is supposed to be "for life". That's why I said, " I was never able to find any statistics on the average duration of non-married relationships".
The statistics you linked includes "temporary" relationships, which are not a replacement for marriage. My point was that without marriage (and the legal obligations that go with it), most relationships last at most a few years.
Relationships are contract-based, and like all contracts, each party expects to receive something for what they give, whether you like it or not.
No, men never decided what role they should play. Those roles were decided by culture.
Neither am I, but that doesn't mean I center my life around women. I'm not a "mangina".
I wonder in what universe you are living. For example, one day I received a letter from my government telling me I had to do my mandatory military service. Not that I disliked it, in fact I loved my military service, but men have always had to fulfill a lot of obligations that women never had to do.
As for abandoning your family, divorce for the common man is something that became a reality only in the 19th century, and men who chose that solution ended up with having to support their ex-wife anyway, meaning they still had to fulfill their part of the contract.
The feminist idea that men had power is just fantasy. The vast majority of men had no power at all.
I'm not saying I'm "oppressed", I'm saying women are now highly privileged compared to men.
Yes, I realize that, but I don't consider a relatively short-term relationship without true commitment is really "finding a partner".
Living a few years together and then abandoning your supposed "partner" is not what I define as a "long-term relationship".
My point was that I never wanted a committed relationship. I never wanted to become the "stable partner" that a lot of women desire. I just didn't see what I would get from this, and unfortunately, I still don't. I do think it's bad for both men and women, I do think it's a mistake not to start a committed relationship, but that committed relationship must be framed and enforced by society, and be fair for both men and women. That's not the case anymore.
Once again, relationships are not transaction-based.
Once again, relationships are contract-based, and like all contracts, each party expects to receive something for what they give.
If I'm being polite and helping people, I certainly do expect people to do the same with me. This is part of our basic social contract. If you are polite and help people who won't do the same with you, then you are just being abused, and I suggest you get away from those people as the only result will be that you'll end up bitter and vengeful.
As for starting a meaningful relationship, who said I had trouble doing so? I said I never felt I had the duty to do so. Can you understand the difference?
Duties are what gives us a meaningful life. The duties parents have toward their children. The duties we have toward our neighbors. The duties we have toward our employer or our clients. The duties we have toward our society. Those are what is important in life. Unfortunately, this is something we can understand only when we are older.
Apart from ridiculous straw men and absurd conspiracy theories ("system based on oppression"), do you have any argument? I guess not.
How do you know "cohabitation rate in Quebec is very high"? I was never able to find any statistics on this. More than that, I was never able to find any statistics on the average duration of non-married relationships. From the people I know, I'd say they don't last long.
Of course, if what you want is a short-term relationship, then I guess Quebec is your place.
I'm not confusing anything. Since the Suffragettes, feminism was always about power. The "equal opportunity" of second-wave feminism was only a (dishonest) selling pitch, not the goal. You say that "true feminist" won't mind "chivalry". OK, but what men will get in return for being chivalrous? What men will get in return for protecting and constantly helping women?
I don't know if you are a man who is virtue signaling in order to get sex or one of those "feminazi", but I find it very revealing that you completely missed my message. I talked about me. I talked about me who should have been pressured into marriage and the traditional husband role, even if my freedom looked more appealing. Yet, you immediately changed the subject to make it about women. Why?
Of course, I certainly acknowledge that any social duties imposed on men should be reciprocated with social duties imposed on women, so I do acknowledge that women too should be pressured to play their traditional roles, but it doesn't change that you think only about women and completely ignore men. What does that say about you?
Anyway, your idea that women can still have a "partner" is dying. I live in Quebec, where feminism is very strong, and as a result most men are now like me. The synthetic marriage rate (the number of women who will marry at least once before the age of 50) has fallen to 30% for women and 27% for men. Only 30% of women will find a husband, and considering that the divorce rate is about 50%, it means not a lot of women will be able to find a stable partner.
You said women should get things on their own terms. Well, in my case, when one of my clients wants to get things on his own terms, what I do is to tell him to find someone else.
Feminism is worse than organized religion. At least most organized religion understood human nature and tried to force people to adopt a behavior that would bring them happiness. Feminism, on the other hand, is based only on pursuing power. Not that pursuing power is inherently wrong, but there is always a huge price to pay for this power, and the reality is very few people are willing to pay that price.
I'm a 48-year-old man. I was never interested in having kids, or even a wife. Thanks to the destruction of our culture caused by feminism, I never felt starting a family was a social duty, and now that I'm too old to start a family or even to start a meaningful relationship, I realize this was a mistake.
I'm a strong atheist, I believe religious beliefs are pure absurdities, but the reality is organized religions are generally good things, not "evil movements" at all. Feminism is a lot more "evil" than organized religions.
Women don't do physically demanding jobs, at least not at the level of men.
If the white helmets are like the Red Cross, then why do they operate only in regions under jihadist control? Why don't they help the people who are the victims of those jihadists?
Yeah, yeah, I know, you will now say I'm a Russian bot.
Well, I didn't join today.
So let me reiterate what he said : Yes, it seems the advocacy groups have turned on slashdot now. Get used to the most mundane of things turned into an 'anti-trump' sh*tpost in a wall of propaganda. Sigh.
Now... will you call me "Vlad" too?
What a bunch of crap. How about you use a bit of critical thinking for a change?
Yes, RT certainly bought ads, like all news media. And yes, RT certainly use subjects that could raise passion, as that's the best way to make people click on those ads and then share RT as a source of information. So what? I live in Canada. Do you think the CBC didn't do the same? Will you also accuse Canada of trying to destabilize the US?
I check RT's website every day. I subscribed to RT's channel on YouTube. The reality is I like RT a lot because I get (real) news that is otherwise censored in Western media, and because there is a real diversity of opinion, something I do not see in Western media. This diversity of opinion is why, for example, people like Jill Stein and Ron Paul were regularly on RT. Will you also accuse Jill Stein and Ron Paul of being part of a Russian conspiracy to destabilize the US?
Stop playing the fucking victim of a bogeyman. I can assure that Americans are well able to destabilize themselves. I mean just look at the left who is still calling over and over anyone who supports the current US president as "racist", "misogynistic", "homophobic", and pretty much any insult they can think of. Look at how Kanye West is now insulted over and over by the left because he said he liked Trump. Do you think this bellicose and anti-democratic attitude from the left is because they saw some ads from RT?
I think this guy seriously lack self-awareness.
I'm not sure how much is a "figure", but I think paying 83% taxes is a bit high.
As a Canadian, I'd say "paranoid culture that plays up their victimhood" narrative perfectly describes the post-9/11 USA.
https://www.reuters.com/articl...
I think one of the men we see on the left (the one with the long hair, the purple coat, the knee-high boots and the beige purse) is kind of cute. Am I gay?
But yes, in this crowd I count 18 men for 8 women. PATRIARCHY!!! DEATH TO ALL MEN!!!
As for your tip, since you seem to think we should not use technology, can I ask what the fuck you doing on this website?
The best way to stop living in fear is to stop hiding under your blanket and to open that damn closet door to confront the monster.
I know I could lose some clients for my opinions. It happened to me in the past. I know Google could one day decide to close my account (I don't have a Twitter account nor a Facebook account). I know that a bunch of SJW "netk00ks" could one day try to assault me (I always post under my real name, and as far as I know, I'm the only "William Baric" in Canada, so I'm easy to find).
So?
Look at my user name. Yes, it's my real name. And you know what? I'm certainly someone with some "very offensive" opinions. That never stopped me to express those opinions using my real name. More than that, I live in Canada. Since it's clear some people might feel "offended" for what I say, this means some of my opinions could easily be classified as "hate speech". I could end up in jail for them. But I prefer to go to jail rather than to shut up or to hide.
"Lively political debate" on the Internet between anonymous people are extremely low quality and they have very little influence in real life. They don't change anything. They are only intellectual masturbation.
In fact, it's even worse than that. By hiding, by refraining from expressing what you really think in real life, you give way to political correctness. One of the reasons political correctness took so much space in our society is because a lot of people who had an "offensive" opinion decided to hide.
By having the User Agent eliminate any post without a valid digital signature automatically. People can already get validated X.509 certificate, so everything is more or less already in place.
Personally, I think the X.509 certificate should at least include the name, age, country, and postal code of the person. The age is to let people filter out kids, and the postal code is to differentiate people with the same name.
The solution to this is quite simple : remove anonymity.
I'm 48. I feel I was playing with my Colecovision only a few years ago. The reality is a couple of decades goes by very fast.
I do think we should now gradually start to implement Universal Income. Not $2000 a month like some people are saying, that would be catastrophic, but let's start with, let's say, $200 a month. Instead of lowering income tax, increasing minimum wage, increasing welfare, let's keep income tax as it is now, let's freeze minimum wage and welfare, and let's implement this $200 a month. After that, let's see what happens.