artificially cheap? try artificially expensive. the last thing we need is more taxes. we need a government that spends wisely and frugally.. like the money actually belonged to it. then the currency wouldn't keep declining. that's probably the number one reason it's hard to make ends meet even at a base level these days.
See, I don't live in that world. In the world I live in, feminists (of whatever gender) are on the whole pretty decent people who want pretty reasonable things. I'm guessing you're an asshole, and calling that a natural or necessary part of "being a man"... it's just a guess, of course, but your post in this thread certainly gives the impression.
have you watched tv, read some of the law and case rulings for family court, listened to any pop music, or sat in a highschool health class recently? feminists want a lot more than just reason. feminism has moved on from any legitimate griping a long time ago.
tha'ts right, rush to that 'no true scotsman' fallacy. those 'boys' aren't real men but you're that white knight who's just waiting for a femitard to rule your life. you're a man because you'll take and take and take and take her shit and then wonder why she fucks someone else anyway. if this is the definition of 'true man' today, I want no part of it. Maybe the trends stated in this article prove that more and more guys are thinking the same way.
I'll bet it does.. I also bet it keeps away the self righteous bitchy feminazis who say they don't need men anyway, the same kind who support efforts at writing articles like this.
as opposed to ignorant anonymous cowards who also refuse to look at this objectively, with nuance. most people prefer real to fantasy, but when real starts to suck that much for a lot of people, then something's wrong with the society itself...and the blame for that is clearly on the shoulders of the most popular, well-adapted people who run the show.
Porn and Video Game addictions are very real problems.
no, they aren't. they're fallacies designed by certain people with something to lose if an activity not involving them is chosen. porn and games are just easy targets.
As systemic, bureaucratic, and hypocritical extremist feminism encroaches on the politics of the institutions controlling the doorways to success, men and boys will have an increasingly harder time. Government, employers, schools (elementary to university), the military, and virtually every other path of progress are affected by this, and it's getting worse. Society has been so obsessive about women's rights/needs/whims due to the combination of reinterpreted chivalry (what creates manginas and white knights in adult males) and bigoted gynocentrism passed off as 'social justice,' that no one in power is interested in representing an equitable balance in the houses or sane judgments in the courts. Yes, the feminist men this dynamic creates help keep it going as much as feminist women.
men are washing out with women because women today are taught to have ridiculous expectations, entitlement complexes, and systemic fear of men, starting in junior high health class. They want men they're attracted to, of course, but are taught to demand men they can control, psychologically, like children or pets, which creates a double bind between highbrow reason and lowbrow libido. They are told from age 8 by the media and school that men are the first cause for every failure to move up in the world. Failure is the fault of the 'patriarchy' and women would flourish if only it was crushed just a little harder. Feminists claim they want equality but have no idea what the term means, or implies, as people are not clones, and the genders certainly not simple social constructs. It's that or they're purposely vindictive for their own gain. They don't understand (or care) that real social justice comes from equity, not oppressive doublethink equality created by strict conformance to one party's expectations.
men on the other hand are taught to revere women and their whims as rights. They are taught that any relationship shortcoming is their fault and she is blameless. If she's upset it's his fault, and if his expectations aren't met, it's his fault for not measuring up to feminist expectations in the first place. psychological draw and quarter attacks like this from feminism are what is turning guys into permanent adolescents, not video games. men should have the chance to earn respect while not being held to this one way feminist damocles sword social contract. Right now, such opportunities only exist for women, backed by a culture that produces tripe like this CNN piece. Men are taught by such tripe to devalue themselves to levels rivaling stockholm syndrome, as the media and education is saturated with reverence of feminine ideals/imperatives and ridicule of any assertive masculine trait. The pressure on men to act feminine is growing. Video games and sports are the last two bastions of escape left for men, and even that is starting to deteriorate (that despicable breast cancer awareness routine with the NFL comes to mind, and performance double standards in the military that have equal rewards of rank). A man who has no fear of expressing his expectations for women is considered a bigot while it is a-ok for women to express their ill-gotten notions about men. Everywhere. This is what feminism today is doing to men, and of course they fail to measure up. Psychologically healthy men make poor women, as it should be. Men and women are different, and this must be tolerated equitably.
Notice how the article plays up feminine relationship imperatives by labeling them as the standard by which things should be, while men are compared to rats in a cage, or with compulsive gamblers. Then, it says
"excessive use of video games and online porn in pursuit of the next thing is creating a generation of risk-averse guys who are unable (and unwilling) to navigate the complexities and risks inherent to real-life relationships, school and employment."
What this really means is that men aren't measuring up to the standards that feminists have embedded in these life processes for their own
solar will never reach parity with energy demand.. we would need collectors out in space to get close.. The answer to outside threats is to attack them when they get uppity. I realize this is outside the realm of possibility for the gimpwrists who run the federal government. for them, it's easier to do the terrorists work for them by destroying our liberty with life sucking surveillance and censorship...all with corporate blessing.
what does this have to do with capitalism? I hate it when people don't have the discipline to leave their own biases out of objective writing formats like summaries.
1. The cues I'm talking about aren't exactly easy to hide.. If you're one of these, you're probably not as cloaked as you think.
2. Ok, well if broadcasting like that is meant to be used as identification, then I see no problem with non-members of said group using the information to keep them away if desired. The issue I have is I'm being told by schooling/pop culture/law that I must like these people and want to be around them no matter what, and keep my internal responses private, while they can choose to discriminate against 'breeders' like me all they like, labeling them with 'homophobia' if they dare say something. While these situations are rare, it has happened to me in ultra-liberal organizations, and that proves, given the opportunity, gays can be just as 'hateful' as any other cross section. Btw, this 'not-really-reverse discrimination' applies to many axes, not just gay/straight.
3. so, you want others to accept you with open arms and care about your feelings/quirks without justification, but you expect justification from others' quirks concerning you? Do you not see the hypocrisy here? Where do you think the bullying comes from? The systemic hatred of gays? It's got to be rooted deeper than simple social indoctrination. My anecdotal experience has several examples of gay males doing just that: accusing me (and others) of discrimination when their performance is critiqued. I have no respect for this, and these people deserve the negative feedback they get for hiding behind it. Judging based on relevant attributes is exactly what I want, as far as the law and institutional opportunities go, but none of the victim caste groups push for this. they push only for entitlements based on assumed defaults of repression.. that will NEVER build equitable systems.
4. I meant appeal to fear, not force.. I used the wrong term. While it's true that most people don't literally mean appeal to fear when they use the word (they mean hatred), but that's because the word has been coopted by people who DO want both implications.. basically, it means dislike = fear and thus not justified no matter what. it's a character attack used on anyone who questions..
Not at all since rape is an assault, whereas I'm talking about distaste and discomfort. Not everyone is going to like you, no matter what you are or are not. That's life. Tolerance is multilateral. We should encourage youth to learn these lessons so they don't go to extremes in order to shield their lack of emotional control, whether as a target or as a bully. This would minimize the damage all around.
these 'victim castes' we are building do not help the situation, and many individuals within them take advantage of it for their own benefit. I have no sympathy for those sorts, esp for the ones who then go out of their way to make others uncomfortable.
not at all. many straight males find male gay behavior disconcerting to offensive. no, they are not gay. ironically, it makes the claim that being gay is not good by hurling it as an ad hominem at those who find gays' behavior/cues uncomfortable.
This is not the same thing as closet case syndrome.
this overidealism of yours is what I'm talking about.. Who is getting hurt? what defines hurt? all of these things are subjective, and building legal frameworks around it just creates a nasty minefield for warring individiuals (or groups) to shove each other into, then fallaciously say "see?! you WERE wrong."
what we call bullying is part of human behavior. It helps keep weakness at bay the same way a little sunlight is good for you. you cannot eradicate it without unbalancing things, in this case resulting in that vat of nitroglycerine.. you can mitigate it through encouraging self esteem and a sense of personal responsibility, from youth to adult hood. while politicians and social thinktanks abuse both of these terms to create psychological dependence for their ideologies in education (and employment), if it was done in a way that actually empowers the individual, things would improve drastically.
I guess the schools have other priorities, like funding athletic teams, political correctness culturebuilding, 'womens studies', and other nonsense.. that is, when they're not blowing money on useless contrivances like shiny new electronic toys instead of ensuring solid academic rigor of the professors and the curriculum. This problem affects the entire american education system, from kindergarten to ivy league university.
'hate crime' is just an excuse to build a caste society, where certain things cannot be said/done to certain groups.. This is not possible in a society that respects free expression and, ironically, equality.
maybe not.. but until gay males understand that their non-verbal feminine cues create negative responses in straight males, and tolerate that as much as they demand that straights tolerate them, there's little reason to have sympathy. the gays I've dealt with in school/work seem to think they're beyond reproach, and claim any negative response to their behavior as 'homophobia.' It's a bullshit fallacy (ad baculum iirc).
Slashdot Mirror
artificially cheap? try artificially expensive. the last thing we need is more taxes. we need a government that spends wisely and frugally.. like the money actually belonged to it. then the currency wouldn't keep declining. that's probably the number one reason it's hard to make ends meet even at a base level these days.
See, I don't live in that world. In the world I live in, feminists (of whatever gender) are on the whole pretty decent people who want pretty reasonable things. I'm guessing you're an asshole, and calling that a natural or necessary part of "being a man"... it's just a guess, of course, but your post in this thread certainly gives the impression.
have you watched tv, read some of the law and case rulings for family court, listened to any pop music, or sat in a highschool health class recently? feminists want a lot more than just reason. feminism has moved on from any legitimate griping a long time ago.
oh and feminism isn't one giant example of that?
tha'ts right, rush to that 'no true scotsman' fallacy. those 'boys' aren't real men but you're that white knight who's just waiting for a femitard to rule your life. you're a man because you'll take and take and take and take her shit and then wonder why she fucks someone else anyway. if this is the definition of 'true man' today, I want no part of it. Maybe the trends stated in this article prove that more and more guys are thinking the same way.
yes, severely negative ones, at least by today's definition of 'strong female.'
I'll bet it does.. I also bet it keeps away the self righteous bitchy feminazis who say they don't need men anyway, the same kind who support efforts at writing articles like this.
as opposed to ignorant anonymous cowards who also refuse to look at this objectively, with nuance. most people prefer real to fantasy, but when real starts to suck that much for a lot of people, then something's wrong with the society itself...and the blame for that is clearly on the shoulders of the most popular, well-adapted people who run the show.
...and that women would treat men with respect instead of demanding they act according to feminine ideals and worldview.
Porn and Video Game addictions are very real problems.
no, they aren't. they're fallacies designed by certain people with something to lose if an activity not involving them is chosen. porn and games are just easy targets.
As systemic, bureaucratic, and hypocritical extremist feminism encroaches on the politics of the institutions controlling the doorways to success, men and boys will have an increasingly harder time. Government, employers, schools (elementary to university), the military, and virtually every other path of progress are affected by this, and it's getting worse. Society has been so obsessive about women's rights/needs/whims due to the combination of reinterpreted chivalry (what creates manginas and white knights in adult males) and bigoted gynocentrism passed off as 'social justice,' that no one in power is interested in representing an equitable balance in the houses or sane judgments in the courts. Yes, the feminist men this dynamic creates help keep it going as much as feminist women.
men are washing out with women because women today are taught to have ridiculous expectations, entitlement complexes, and systemic fear of men, starting in junior high health class. They want men they're attracted to, of course, but are taught to demand men they can control, psychologically, like children or pets, which creates a double bind between highbrow reason and lowbrow libido. They are told from age 8 by the media and school that men are the first cause for every failure to move up in the world. Failure is the fault of the 'patriarchy' and women would flourish if only it was crushed just a little harder. Feminists claim they want equality but have no idea what the term means, or implies, as people are not clones, and the genders certainly not simple social constructs. It's that or they're purposely vindictive for their own gain. They don't understand (or care) that real social justice comes from equity, not oppressive doublethink equality created by strict conformance to one party's expectations.
men on the other hand are taught to revere women and their whims as rights. They are taught that any relationship shortcoming is their fault and she is blameless. If she's upset it's his fault, and if his expectations aren't met, it's his fault for not measuring up to feminist expectations in the first place. psychological draw and quarter attacks like this from feminism are what is turning guys into permanent adolescents, not video games. men should have the chance to earn respect while not being held to this one way feminist damocles sword social contract. Right now, such opportunities only exist for women, backed by a culture that produces tripe like this CNN piece. Men are taught by such tripe to devalue themselves to levels rivaling stockholm syndrome, as the media and education is saturated with reverence of feminine ideals/imperatives and ridicule of any assertive masculine trait. The pressure on men to act feminine is growing. Video games and sports are the last two bastions of escape left for men, and even that is starting to deteriorate (that despicable breast cancer awareness routine with the NFL comes to mind, and performance double standards in the military that have equal rewards of rank). A man who has no fear of expressing his expectations for women is considered a bigot while it is a-ok for women to express their ill-gotten notions about men. Everywhere. This is what feminism today is doing to men, and of course they fail to measure up. Psychologically healthy men make poor women, as it should be. Men and women are different, and this must be tolerated equitably.
Notice how the article plays up feminine relationship imperatives by labeling them as the standard by which things should be, while men are compared to rats in a cage, or with compulsive gamblers. Then, it says
"excessive use of video games and online porn in pursuit of the next thing is creating a generation of risk-averse guys who are unable (and unwilling) to navigate the complexities and risks inherent to real-life relationships, school and employment."
What this really means is that men aren't measuring up to the standards that feminists have embedded in these life processes for their own
solar will never reach parity with energy demand.. we would need collectors out in space to get close.. The answer to outside threats is to attack them when they get uppity. I realize this is outside the realm of possibility for the gimpwrists who run the federal government. for them, it's easier to do the terrorists work for them by destroying our liberty with life sucking surveillance and censorship...all with corporate blessing.
why would someone go through the effort of decapping a real cpu to emulate it exactly, then write the emulator in javascript?
If you're' looking for that 'classic' sound with its harmonic distortions, then yes.. if you're looking for accurate sound, then no.
what does this have to do with capitalism? I hate it when people don't have the discipline to leave their own biases out of objective writing formats like summaries.
what are you even talking about? you're all over the map. what points are you trying to make?
1. The cues I'm talking about aren't exactly easy to hide.. If you're one of these, you're probably not as cloaked as you think.
2. Ok, well if broadcasting like that is meant to be used as identification, then I see no problem with non-members of said group using the information to keep them away if desired. The issue I have is I'm being told by schooling/pop culture/law that I must like these people and want to be around them no matter what, and keep my internal responses private, while they can choose to discriminate against 'breeders' like me all they like, labeling them with 'homophobia' if they dare say something. While these situations are rare, it has happened to me in ultra-liberal organizations, and that proves, given the opportunity, gays can be just as 'hateful' as any other cross section. Btw, this 'not-really-reverse discrimination' applies to many axes, not just gay/straight.
3. so, you want others to accept you with open arms and care about your feelings/quirks without justification, but you expect justification from others' quirks concerning you? Do you not see the hypocrisy here? Where do you think the bullying comes from? The systemic hatred of gays? It's got to be rooted deeper than simple social indoctrination. My anecdotal experience has several examples of gay males doing just that: accusing me (and others) of discrimination when their performance is critiqued. I have no respect for this, and these people deserve the negative feedback they get for hiding behind it. Judging based on relevant attributes is exactly what I want, as far as the law and institutional opportunities go, but none of the victim caste groups push for this. they push only for entitlements based on assumed defaults of repression.. that will NEVER build equitable systems.
4. I meant appeal to fear, not force.. I used the wrong term. While it's true that most people don't literally mean appeal to fear when they use the word (they mean hatred), but that's because the word has been coopted by people who DO want both implications.. basically, it means dislike = fear and thus not justified no matter what. it's a character attack used on anyone who questions..
Not at all since rape is an assault, whereas I'm talking about distaste and discomfort. Not everyone is going to like you, no matter what you are or are not. That's life. Tolerance is multilateral. We should encourage youth to learn these lessons so they don't go to extremes in order to shield their lack of emotional control, whether as a target or as a bully. This would minimize the damage all around.
these 'victim castes' we are building do not help the situation, and many individuals within them take advantage of it for their own benefit. I have no sympathy for those sorts, esp for the ones who then go out of their way to make others uncomfortable.
not at all. many straight males find male gay behavior disconcerting to offensive. no, they are not gay. ironically, it makes the claim that being gay is not good by hurling it as an ad hominem at those who find gays' behavior/cues uncomfortable.
This is not the same thing as closet case syndrome.
old media dynamics allowed for anonymity.. the internet doesn't.
where were you? why weren't you paying attention? most accidents can be avoided by either party.
this overidealism of yours is what I'm talking about.. Who is getting hurt? what defines hurt? all of these things are subjective, and building legal frameworks around it just creates a nasty minefield for warring individiuals (or groups) to shove each other into, then fallaciously say "see?! you WERE wrong."
what we call bullying is part of human behavior. It helps keep weakness at bay the same way a little sunlight is good for you. you cannot eradicate it without unbalancing things, in this case resulting in that vat of nitroglycerine.. you can mitigate it through encouraging self esteem and a sense of personal responsibility, from youth to adult hood. while politicians and social thinktanks abuse both of these terms to create psychological dependence for their ideologies in education (and employment), if it was done in a way that actually empowers the individual, things would improve drastically.
I guess the schools have other priorities, like funding athletic teams, political correctness culturebuilding, 'womens studies', and other nonsense.. that is, when they're not blowing money on useless contrivances like shiny new electronic toys instead of ensuring solid academic rigor of the professors and the curriculum. This problem affects the entire american education system, from kindergarten to ivy league university.
'hate crime' is just an excuse to build a caste society, where certain things cannot be said/done to certain groups.. This is not possible in a society that respects free expression and, ironically, equality.
maybe not.. but until gay males understand that their non-verbal feminine cues create negative responses in straight males, and tolerate that as much as they demand that straights tolerate them, there's little reason to have sympathy. the gays I've dealt with in school/work seem to think they're beyond reproach, and claim any negative response to their behavior as 'homophobia.' It's a bullshit fallacy (ad baculum iirc).
I don't see any fear here on ravi's part. so no, no homophobia.