It's not a fight between equals, it's some douchebag asserting their power - their ownership - over someone else.
Other than the "ownership" hyperbole, you're right, regardless of the posterior plumbing of the douchebag.
Because you don't slap someone who might punch back, precisely because it does nothing but anger the target, but only someone who you think is incapable of fighting back either physically or even legally
Except the numbers show that, obviously, people do just that. And when a stronger target DOES hit back, the attacker takes more hurt than gives.
People engaging in such bullying absolutely should be made examples of, and deserve no one's sympathy when they are. Goddamn overgrown schoolyard bullies.
I used to agree with this just as vehemently as you seem to. When the bullies started coming up without a Y-chromosome, though, I'm sexist enough to content myself with discrediting them.
If the Men's Rights people really want to help deal with issues like this one they need to do what feminists did and start a dialogue that isn't dominated by such extreme rhetoric and reactionary outbursts.
I disagree. It *is* an example of women wanting special treatment, and it is them getting it. Feminism (as opposed to feminists, who can't seem to agree on a damn thing) doesn't want to solve this issue, and MRAs certainly aren't interested in being told condescendingly to "sit down, shut up, and do what feminism tells you," as you're doing. Whatever the solution to the incongruity may be, I have a hard time believing feminism has anything to contribute to it, since its own flawed premises created the problem in the first place.
I'm not even an MRA, just a guy who feels about "bullshit" the way you say feminists feel about "sexism."
However, domestic violence is not random violence, victims of domestic violence are overwhelmingly female. The sexes are NOT equal in physical strength, the average male has 1.5X the upper body strength of a similar sized female and twice the strength of grip in their hands, it's almost always the unarmed female who ends up in hospital when push turns to shove.
That's using a very carefully crafted definition of "victim," and even if it wasn't, you're still wrong. Even removing cases of bi-directional violence, female instigators are at near-parity to male.
It makes sense, when you apply a moment of rational thought. Removing the genders from the equation will probably make that easier for most:
Starting a brawl with someone bigger and stronger than you means it's going to hurt you more when they hit you back. Doesn't mean you didn't start the fight, and should probably be considered when deciding whether or not it's a good idea in the first place (it usually isn't).
Then what prevents you from reading what I clearly wrote? Just refusing to do so?
The fact that you didn't write the relevant bit, so that I had to ask for more information.
It's not only physical abuse, it's being treated as lesser.
Since you've moved the goalposts from "physical abuse" to "systemically treated as lesser" without providing any examples of the latter, I'm going to limit the context of my response to the former.
In what sense? In the sense that they are unable to make decisions on whether or not to strike someone physically stronger than they are ("primary aggressor" policies), less capable of defending themselves and thus need stronger protection of the law and society (gender-biased "domestic violence" legislation, most DV shelters and social programs being women-only)? In the sense that they're unable to care for their children alone, despite being the ones with decision-making power on the subject?
All of these things show a certain gender-bias, that's true, and they're all the result of false observations like the ones you originally made in your post, and supported or even demanded by those claiming that they counter said "oppression."
And it's about how when a man assaults a woman, the results are usually more severe than vice-versa.
Widespread social response would disagree with you. A man who slaps around a woman is statistically much more likely to be punished in court, pilloried by the media, and basically served up to the metaphorical stake. A woman who permanently disfigures a man is fodder for a bunch of washed up old women on a TV talk show.
In a situation like that, it's really hard to take claims of women being valued "lesser" at face value.
It's about how women are systematically treated as less than men by most societies worldwide
When you aggregate the whole gamut of "most societies worldwide", you get a hell of a skewed picture. Propagating disinformation, myths, and outright lies in the Western world isn't going to do jack to help in those societies where women DO have legitimate complaints of oppression.
In the developed world, where all of these bogus statistics, pseudo-sociological screeds, and PC Thought Police are perpetually bounced around, though, is another matter. When measured on gender-lines, the "privileges" of males is a proper subset of that of females. Calling that "oppression" is a real stretch.
My knee is not jerking, and I honestly expect better from you than that (normally I don't bother engaging on the internet anymore). I'm not misreading what you're saying, I'm inquiring about your reasoning.
You say that abuse being "pervasive" is the problem, but that you "can't look at just the numbers." How else are you measuring pervasiveness? The incidents occur at similar rates, and one of them *is* socially acceptable, but it's the opposite of your original implication.
It's still going on in both directions. Domestic violence is instigated by both sexes at Similar Rates (PDF warning again. SAVE handout that contains citations). Enforcement, however, is not, thanks to the broken-by-design Deluth Model, sexually biased "primary aggressor policies", and social pressure against men reporting being hit.
Woman-on-Man and Girl-on-Boy violence, though, enjoys a great deal of public acceptance. Usually "played for laughs."
It wasn't the men beating their wives, raping them and so on?
That was never as socially acceptable in this country as the dogma would have you believe. Going back to the 17th century (before there even was a "this country"), the colonies were making laws against wife-beating. I can't find the link now, but there are images of newspaper announcements of men being publicly whipped for doing so.
The people, usually men, abusing their children or stepchildren?
Actually, according to "Child Maltreatment 2012" (US Dept. of Health and Human Services - PDF Warning), the numbers pretty strongly indicate that the opposite is true: among biological parents, mothers are about 2x as likely as fathers to be perpetrators of child abuse, and among non-parents, categories that are separated by gender go to females as well. "Partner of Parent (Male)" does beat "Partner of Parent (Female)", though, at 2.3% vs 0.3%, so if you're limiting the population to just children abused by stepfathers, what you said is not exactly false.
You use a lot of florid prose to try to make yourself look smarter than you are, which doesn't change the fact that your entire premise hinges on the fact that you believe in ghosts. I expect I won't lose much sleep over your opinion of my "advancement."
See, I didn't say everyone was above average. Tagging something as "mediocre" implies not just that it's average, but that it's inadequate or redundant.
You might as well stop arguing there, and update your lexicon file. It's broken. Mediocrity is the state of being unremarkable, ordinary, etc...
Not to mention that, even using your incorrect definition, your claim that there are no "inadequate or redundant" human beings is still ridiculous.
You either have absurdly low speed limits, a bunch of extreme athletes, or perhaps you've mistaken something motor-assisted for a bicycle.
He did say "in a school zone", which is not uncommon to have a speed limit of 15-20 at the start and end of the school day, when the sidewalks and streets are going to be lousy with buses, cars, and pedestrians.
So an audit performed by a closed group of corporates who have, no doubt, been thoroughly vetted and has never, ever, ever gotten a phone call from anyone in a suit offering them the choice of a bag of cash to play ball, or an increased probability of "accidents" and "unfortunate data leaks."
Given the farewell address we got from the TC devs, which I'm sure most of us remember, and the laughable suggestions of "alternatives," there are two strong possibilities for why the project was shuttered:
1. The developers all suffered a massive psychotic break at the same time. 2. A canary so big and obvious that it's more of a "warrant roc."
They may have ended the "silence", but the "uncertainty" is still alive and well, AFAIC.
And even in the spots you DO want it, odds are they used a ready-made library to hide the ugly bits. I'm no crypto expert, but I know enough to know that rolling your own would probably be a disqualification right there.
Jesus, why would you even think about using Ubuntu in a server anyway? Everywhere I ever worked or heard of used RHEL, Centos or occasionally Debian. Since I discovered Mint I would not even waste my time using Ubuntu on a desktop.
I wouldn't, the decision was made 10 years ago before I came on board for the project. Back then, the server release hadn't gone full dumbfuck yet, so it was just a matter of "meh, whatever." As it's gotten more ridiculous, it's just been a matter of overcoming inertia. Now it has done, and we're scraping it out of the network.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not a fight between equals, it's some douchebag asserting their power - their ownership - over someone else.
Other than the "ownership" hyperbole, you're right, regardless of the posterior plumbing of the douchebag.
Because you don't slap someone who might punch back, precisely because it does nothing but anger the target, but only someone who you think is incapable of fighting back either physically or even legally
Except the numbers show that, obviously, people do just that. And when a stronger target DOES hit back, the attacker takes more hurt than gives.
People engaging in such bullying absolutely should be made examples of, and deserve no one's sympathy when they are. Goddamn overgrown schoolyard bullies.
I used to agree with this just as vehemently as you seem to. When the bullies started coming up without a Y-chromosome, though, I'm sexist enough to content myself with discrediting them.
If the Men's Rights people really want to help deal with issues like this one they need to do what feminists did and start a dialogue that isn't dominated by such extreme rhetoric and reactionary outbursts.
I disagree. It *is* an example of women wanting special treatment, and it is them getting it. Feminism (as opposed to feminists, who can't seem to agree on a damn thing) doesn't want to solve this issue, and MRAs certainly aren't interested in being told condescendingly to "sit down, shut up, and do what feminism tells you," as you're doing. Whatever the solution to the incongruity may be, I have a hard time believing feminism has anything to contribute to it, since its own flawed premises created the problem in the first place.
I'm not even an MRA, just a guy who feels about "bullshit" the way you say feminists feel about "sexism."
You're probably right. I'm just disappointed that I gave him/her too much credit.
However, domestic violence is not random violence, victims of domestic violence are overwhelmingly female. The sexes are NOT equal in physical strength, the average male has 1.5X the upper body strength of a similar sized female and twice the strength of grip in their hands, it's almost always the unarmed female who ends up in hospital when push turns to shove.
That's using a very carefully crafted definition of "victim," and even if it wasn't, you're still wrong. Even removing cases of bi-directional violence, female instigators are at near-parity to male.
It makes sense, when you apply a moment of rational thought. Removing the genders from the equation will probably make that easier for most:
Starting a brawl with someone bigger and stronger than you means it's going to hurt you more when they hit you back. Doesn't mean you didn't start the fight, and should probably be considered when deciding whether or not it's a good idea in the first place (it usually isn't).
Then what prevents you from reading what I clearly wrote? Just refusing to do so?
The fact that you didn't write the relevant bit, so that I had to ask for more information.
It's not only physical abuse, it's being treated as lesser.
Since you've moved the goalposts from "physical abuse" to "systemically treated as lesser" without providing any examples of the latter, I'm going to limit the context of my response to the former.
In what sense? In the sense that they are unable to make decisions on whether or not to strike someone physically stronger than they are ("primary aggressor" policies), less capable of defending themselves and thus need stronger protection of the law and society (gender-biased "domestic violence" legislation, most DV shelters and social programs being women-only)? In the sense that they're unable to care for their children alone, despite being the ones with decision-making power on the subject?
All of these things show a certain gender-bias, that's true, and they're all the result of false observations like the ones you originally made in your post, and supported or even demanded by those claiming that they counter said "oppression."
And it's about how when a man assaults a woman, the results are usually more severe than vice-versa.
Widespread social response would disagree with you. A man who slaps around a woman is statistically much more likely to be punished in court, pilloried by the media, and basically served up to the metaphorical stake. A woman who permanently disfigures a man is fodder for a bunch of washed up old women on a TV talk show.
In a situation like that, it's really hard to take claims of women being valued "lesser" at face value.
It's about how women are systematically treated as less than men by most societies worldwide
When you aggregate the whole gamut of "most societies worldwide", you get a hell of a skewed picture. Propagating disinformation, myths, and outright lies in the Western world isn't going to do jack to help in those societies where women DO have legitimate complaints of oppression.
In the developed world, where all of these bogus statistics, pseudo-sociological screeds, and PC Thought Police are perpetually bounced around, though, is another matter. When measured on gender-lines, the "privileges" of males is a proper subset of that of females. Calling that "oppression" is a real stretch.
My knee is not jerking, and I honestly expect better from you than that (normally I don't bother engaging on the internet anymore). I'm not misreading what you're saying, I'm inquiring about your reasoning.
You say that abuse being "pervasive" is the problem, but that you "can't look at just the numbers." How else are you measuring pervasiveness? The incidents occur at similar rates, and one of them *is* socially acceptable, but it's the opposite of your original implication.
HOW is it fundamentally different? What's the magic element that makes one "not as bad" as the other?
It's still going on in both directions. Domestic violence is instigated by both sexes at Similar Rates (PDF warning again. SAVE handout that contains citations). Enforcement, however, is not, thanks to the broken-by-design Deluth Model, sexually biased "primary aggressor policies", and social pressure against men reporting being hit.
Woman-on-Man and Girl-on-Boy violence, though, enjoys a great deal of public acceptance. Usually "played for laughs."
Billions? Apparently I'm Ming the fucking Merciless. Sweet.
It wasn't the men beating their wives, raping them and so on?
That was never as socially acceptable in this country as the dogma would have you believe. Going back to the 17th century (before there even was a "this country"), the colonies were making laws against wife-beating. I can't find the link now, but there are images of newspaper announcements of men being publicly whipped for doing so.
The people, usually men, abusing their children or stepchildren?
Actually, according to "Child Maltreatment 2012" (US Dept. of Health and Human Services - PDF Warning), the numbers pretty strongly indicate that the opposite is true: among biological parents, mothers are about 2x as likely as fathers to be perpetrators of child abuse, and among non-parents, categories that are separated by gender go to females as well. "Partner of Parent (Male)" does beat "Partner of Parent (Female)", though, at 2.3% vs 0.3%, so if you're limiting the population to just children abused by stepfathers, what you said is not exactly false.
Actually, it's just conoviator and timothy trolling now.
Personally in my spare time I transmute base metals into gold. And vice versa.
That's actually a thing, though.
You use a lot of florid prose to try to make yourself look smarter than you are, which doesn't change the fact that your entire premise hinges on the fact that you believe in ghosts. I expect I won't lose much sleep over your opinion of my "advancement."
See, I didn't say everyone was above average. Tagging something as "mediocre" implies not just that it's average, but that it's inadequate or redundant.
You might as well stop arguing there, and update your lexicon file. It's broken. Mediocrity is the state of being unremarkable, ordinary, etc...
Not to mention that, even using your incorrect definition, your claim that there are no "inadequate or redundant" human beings is still ridiculous.
You either have absurdly low speed limits, a bunch of extreme athletes, or perhaps you've mistaken something motor-assisted for a bicycle.
He did say "in a school zone", which is not uncommon to have a speed limit of 15-20 at the start and end of the school day, when the sidewalks and streets are going to be lousy with buses, cars, and pedestrians.
So an audit performed by a closed group of corporates who have, no doubt, been thoroughly vetted and has never, ever, ever gotten a phone call from anyone in a suit offering them the choice of a bag of cash to play ball, or an increased probability of "accidents" and "unfortunate data leaks."
Given the farewell address we got from the TC devs, which I'm sure most of us remember, and the laughable suggestions of "alternatives," there are two strong possibilities for why the project was shuttered:
1. The developers all suffered a massive psychotic break at the same time.
2. A canary so big and obvious that it's more of a "warrant roc."
They may have ended the "silence", but the "uncertainty" is still alive and well, AFAIC.
As a fat guy, I call that "dirty pool!" ;)
Sure they will, he's just doing it one dev at a time ;)
And people wonder why we're moving to FreeBSD instead of making our "reasoned arguments" to get systemd's flaws fixed...
And even in the spots you DO want it, odds are they used a ready-made library to hide the ugly bits. I'm no crypto expert, but I know enough to know that rolling your own would probably be a disqualification right there.
... it's an assumption that he's looking for an additional or extra method of notification.
But not an unreasonable one, if he's conscientious enough to reach the point where he's looking for something like this.
Jesus, why would you even think about using Ubuntu in a server anyway? Everywhere I ever worked or heard of used RHEL, Centos or occasionally Debian. Since I discovered Mint I would not even waste my time using Ubuntu on a desktop.
I wouldn't, the decision was made 10 years ago before I came on board for the project. Back then, the server release hadn't gone full dumbfuck yet, so it was just a matter of "meh, whatever." As it's gotten more ridiculous, it's just been a matter of overcoming inertia. Now it has done, and we're scraping it out of the network.
I'd rather have a smart-assed car, myself.
Which, again, has nothing to do with the original BSD licensed code.