Poll of the Day > Which gender has the most "privileges"?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Who really has the most so called "privileges"?
---

You
---

There is no such thing as privilege, only exploitations that people are afraid to patch
---

People born into wealth
---

Apache Attack Helicopters. I asked one out once and I got shot down.
---

People still rehashing that tired helicopter joke
---

I don't care to answer this question.
---

Judgmenl posted...

I don't care to answer this question.

Yet you still wanted to post
---

Looked at the results, not at all surprised by the votes...
---

White males, there's no question.
---

SunWuKung420 posted...

White males, there's no question.

lmao
---

What "privileges" does men and women each have that the other doesn't?
---

LeetCheet posted...

What "privileges" does men and women each have that the other doesn't?

well men start with better skill bonuses but women are guaranteed certain vaginal feats at higher levels
---

LeetCheet posted...

What "privileges" does men and women each have that the other doesn't?

I have absolutely no idea.
This whole concept of privilege makes zero sense to me.
---

I_Always_Die posted...

SunWuKung420 posted...

White males, there's no question.

lmao

The funniest part is that he actually believes it.
---

white males lol
if you're a white male you get your kids taken away and will get no place to live
---

Judgmenl posted...

I have absolutely no idea.
This whole concept of privilege makes zero sense to me.

Exactly. It's just dumb.

RoboXgp89 posted...

white males lol
if you're a white male you get your kids taken away and will get no place to live

"Privileges" is just something the SJW's made up because they're angry at the "patriarchy".
If anything they're the privileged ones because they always demand that everyone(especially men) bend to their will and they throw a fit when they don't get their way.

Just look at the recent Xmen debacle, they thought it was a sexist name because it has the word 'men' in it despite it being a gender-neutral word in this context.
---

SunWuKung420 posted...

White males

Especially ones over 6' 2" with green eyes, defined jawlines and light brown hair. Those bastards.

Mead posted...

LeetCheet posted...

What "privileges" does men and women each have that the other doesn't?

well men start with better skill bonuses but women are guaranteed certain vaginal feats at higher levels

Women are born with +1 charisma with an experience boost in charisma and Black Widow perk.

Men get +2 strength at a low level with experience boost in strength then must pass charisma checks to flirt with women so have their build funnelled toward that or capitalise on strength growth bonuses.
---

Judgmenl posted...

This whole concept of privilege makes zero sense to me.

The way I usually explain it is that if life was a video game, privilege is the difficulty setting and "straight white male" is the lowest setting.

In this particular game, you get a single character file that is auto-generated for you that you don't get to reroll. All of your base stats - strength, charisma, intelligence, fortitude, and a hundred others - all get randomly determined. But not only that, the number of points that go into your stat pool is ALSO random. So you might be lucky and get 10,000 points with a great distribution, or you might have shit luck and get 2000 points with int and cha being your dump stats.

You'll also be assigned 1-2 "parent" NPCs who are responsible for guiding you through the tutorial levels until you're ~Level 18. Unfortunately, their stats - including "wealth", which has disproportionate importance in this game - are also random, so you'd best hope they're good at their job.

So what does the difficulty setting do? Simple - it makes certain quests easier or tweaks their rewards, and improves the default disposition of certain NPCs towards you. On the higher difficulty settings, some NPCs become straight-up hostiles that will attack on sight.

That's it. Some people think the difficulty setting will automatically grant them great stats or complete certain missions for them, but that's not the case. It's also why people get confused when they play on the lower difficulty settings and their life is shit, while they see some other people on the higher difficulty settings doing well. Maybe you just got a bad stat layout or your starting wealth roll was poor. Maybe those other people got a better stat distribution or more stat points to invest or spawned in a better starting area. Maybe those people are just better at playing the game than you are.

You can play a game on the lowest difficulty setting and still lose. You can play a game on the highest difficulty setting and still win. That doesn't mean difficulty doesn't exist, it just shows that it's not the sole determinant of your success or failure in the great game of life.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Judgmenl posted...

This whole concept of privilege makes zero sense to me.

The way I usually explain it is that if life was a video game, privilege is the difficulty setting and "straight white male" is the lowest setting.

In this particular game, you get a single character file that is auto-generated for you that you don't get to reroll. All of your base stats - strength, charisma, intelligence, fortitude, and a hundred others - all get randomly determined. But not only that, the number of points that go into your stat pool is ALSO random. So you might be lucky and get 10,000 points with a great distribution, or you might have shit luck and get 2000 points with int and cha being your dump stats.

You'll also be assigned 1-2 "parent" NPCs who are responsible for guiding you through the tutorial levels until you're ~Level 18. Unfortunately, their stats - including "wealth", which has disproportionate importance in this game - are also random, so you'd best hope they're good at their job.

So what does the difficulty setting do? Simple - it makes certain quests easier or tweaks their rewards, and improves the default disposition of certain NPCs towards you. On the higher difficulty settings, some NPCs become straight-up hostiles that will attack on sight.

That's it. Some people think the difficulty setting will automatically grant them great stats or complete certain missions for them, but that's not the case. It's also why people get confused when they play on the lower difficulty settings and their life is shit, while they see some other people on the higher difficulty settings doing well. Maybe you just got a bad stat layout or your starting wealth roll was poor. Maybe those other people got a better stat distribution or more stat points to invest or spawned in a better starting area. Maybe those people are just better at playing the game than you are.

You can play a game on the lowest difficulty setting and still lose. You can play a game on the highest difficulty setting and still win. That doesn't mean difficulty doesn't exist, it just shows that it's not the sole determinant of your success or failure in the great game of life.

If you're suggesting certain races start with inferior stats, I'd suggest this privilege mindset is pretty racist.

There's also the issue that being white in Africa gets you maluses like black in the deep south, so it's not inherent to race, just circumstance.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

If you're suggesting certain races start with inferior stats, I'd suggest this privilege mindset is pretty racist.

I mean, I did say this:

darkknight109 posted...

Some people think the difficulty setting will automatically grant them great stats or complete certain missions for them, but that's not the case.

...which is the exact opposite of what you're claiming I said. So, y'know, you might want to read my post next time before responding to it.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

There's also the issue that being white in Africa gets you maluses like black in the deep south

Yeah, but what are white people supposed to do with a bunch of shrubbery?

Kyuubi4269 posted...

so it's not inherent to race, just circumstance

I'm playing on the North American localized version. Experiences may vary depend on which team was responsible for your regionalization.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

If you're suggesting certain races start with inferior stats, I'd suggest this privilege mindset is pretty racist.

I mean, I did say this:

darkknight109 posted...

Some people think the difficulty setting will automatically grant them great stats or complete certain missions for them, but that's not the case.

...which is the exact opposite of what you're claiming I said. So, y'know, you might want to read my post next time before responding to it.

You're not on a lower difficulty if your stats are high, whether that's wealth, charisma, etc.

darkknight109 posted...

Yeah, but what are white people supposed to do with a bunch of shrubbery?

Africa is hard, doesn't mean it can't be harder for some.

darkknight109 posted...

I'm playing on the North American localized version. Experiences may vary depend on which team was responsible for your regionalization.

So it's native privilege (and more often cultural homogeneity privilege), which is something people generally don't have an issue with.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

You're not on a lower difficulty if your stats are high, whether that's wealth, charisma, etc.

You apparently missed the paragraph of my post that explained what the difficulty setting of this game does. That or you're being deliberately obtuse.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Africa is hard, doesn't mean it can't be harder for some.

Still don't see how a bunch of bushes are going to help.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

So it's native privilege

The Native Americans and other aboriginals would probably disagree with you on that point.
---

darkknight109 posted...

The Native Americans and other aboriginals would probably disagree with you on that point.

Let's note that they have an in-bias too, it's not like they went "I know we war amongst eachother all the time, but you're white so we welcome you with open arms!" In a hostile land we challenged the hostile natives and dominated. Current Americans are effectively native as they've established themselves in the land and adapted to it as a distinct group from their originators.

darkknight109 posted...

You apparently missed the paragraph of my post that explained what the difficulty setting of this game does. That or you're being deliberately obtuse.

Note where I corrected your nonsense as native bias, not racial bias.

darkknight109 posted...

Still don't see how a bunch of bushes are going to help.

I don't see how that's relevant. Everywhere was a shithole once; some civilised, others stayed in mud huts, in the end Africa is suffering from lack of progress or healthy competition like Europe had.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Judgmenl posted...

This whole concept of privilege makes zero sense to me.

The way I usually explain it is that if life was a video game, privilege is the difficulty setting and "straight white male" is the lowest setting.

In this particular game, you get a single character file that is auto-generated for you that you don't get to reroll. All of your base stats - strength, charisma, intelligence, fortitude, and a hundred others - all get randomly determined. But not only that, the number of points that go into your stat pool is ALSO random. So you might be lucky and get 10,000 points with a great distribution, or you might have shit luck and get 2000 points with int and cha being your dump stats.

You'll also be assigned 1-2 "parent" NPCs who are responsible for guiding you through the tutorial levels until you're ~Level 18. Unfortunately, their stats - including "wealth", which has disproportionate importance in this game - are also random, so you'd best hope they're good at their job.

So what does the difficulty setting do? Simple - it makes certain quests easier or tweaks their rewards, and improves the default disposition of certain NPCs towards you. On the higher difficulty settings, some NPCs become straight-up hostiles that will attack on sight.

That's it. Some people think the difficulty setting will automatically grant them great stats or complete certain missions for them, but that's not the case. It's also why people get confused when they play on the lower difficulty settings and their life is shit, while they see some other people on the higher difficulty settings doing well. Maybe you just got a bad stat layout or your starting wealth roll was poor. Maybe those other people got a better stat distribution or more stat points to invest or spawned in a better starting area. Maybe those people are just better at playing the game than you are.

You can play a game on the lowest difficulty setting and still lose. You can play a game on the highest difficulty setting and still win. That doesn't mean difficulty doesn't exist, it just shows that it's not the sole determinant of your success or failure in the great game of life.

This is extremely racist. I don't even believe race is a thing. I inherently treat everyone equally.
Culture is the real issue our generation should be addressing.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

If you're suggesting certain races start with inferior stats, I'd suggest this privilege mindset is pretty racist.

There's also the issue that being white in Africa gets you maluses like black in the deep south, so it's not inherent to race, just circumstance.

I have you marked as "I don't like you." I think that no longer deserves to be the case.
---

darkknight109 posted...

The way I usually explain it is that if life was a video game, privilege is the difficulty setting and "straight white male" is the lowest setting.

Except for the part where choosing "female" gives you a ton of free perks that you don't have when you're male.
---

Judgmenl posted...

LeetCheet posted...

What "privileges" does men and women each have that the other doesn't?

I have absolutely no idea.
This whole concept of privilege makes zero sense to me.

you probably would have been baffled at life in the 50's then where women were typically seen as just the doting house wife who does all the cooking and cleaning..not much else while men do all the hard work

i find it funny people act like this stuff has never really been a thing when there was a time when women weren't even allowed to vote in elections simply due to the fact that they were women

it's not like all the dickhead men from those days are all dead or in positions where they can't really influence anything
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

If you're suggesting certain races start with inferior stats, I'd suggest this privilege mindset is pretty racist.

ITP you're racist if you believe racism exists.

Judgmenl posted...

This is extremely racist. I don't even believe race is a thing. I inherently treat everyone equally.

Even if this were true, and sure, why not, it very well could be, one person's view on race =/= an entire society's view on race. Racism is a real thing.
---

The_tall_midget posted...

darkknight109 posted...

The way I usually explain it is that if life was a video game, privilege is the difficulty setting and "straight white male" is the lowest setting.

Except for the part where choosing "female" gives you a ton of free perks that you don't have when you're male.

Yep! Lower pay, condescension, harassment, domestic violence, rape. Higher expenses for clothes, cosmetics, haircuts. Privilege indeed!

A couple of years back, all my cars had crapped out on me, head gasket, transmission, etc. A buddy from Kung Fu class drove me around on a Saturday morning to find a car. Found a decent little beater for $800, private sale by a couple. Test drive: husband asks Mike, "Can she drive stick?" Mike: " She' s a sports car nut, she prefers it. " Decide to buy, hand over the money, husband keeps pushing the paperwork to Mike, he passes it on to me, "She's buying the car."

Yeah. Perks.
---

the stats that this guy is talking about is not relating to genetic factors FFS

this should be obvious

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Let's note that they have an in-bias too, it's not like they went "I know we war amongst eachother all the time, but you're white so we welcome you with open arms!" In a hostile land we challenged the hostile natives and dominated.

I hate to bring facts into your revisionism, but what killed the North American natives wasn't the white man and his mighty warriors, it was cholera, small pox, typhus, measles, tuberculosis, and the host of other pathogens they introduced to the new world. Tens of millions died to these diseases and what was left over was a shell of what once was.

The absence of historical knowledge in this post is just staggering...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Current Americans are effectively native as they've established themselves in the land and adapted to it as a distinct group from their originators.

By your logic a brand new British immigrant should face far more discrimination and hostility than a third-generation citizen of Arabic descent, but we both know that's not even close to true.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Note where I corrected your nonsense as native bias, not racial bias.

So, in your fever-dream logic, why does this only apply to whites? After all, white colonizers brought black slaves (and African American communities are culturally distinct from their African ancestors in the same way you're saying white Americans are), so blacks should be equally as "established" as the whites and, therefore, should have that same "nativist" boost. Yet they don't - black families that can trace their roots in America back to the time of Washington are subject to worse discrimination than first generation white immigrants.

Again, your premise is ridiculous.

Judgmenl posted...

I don't even believe race is a thing.

Good for you. You're demonstrably wrong, but kudos all the same.

Judgmenl posted...

I inherently treat everyone equally.

Again, good for you - you, however, are not everyone. And you would have to be blind not to acknowledge that there are people out there who treat people differently based on sex, race, or sexual orientation, sometimes violently so.

The_tall_midget posted...

Except for the part where choosing "female" gives you a ton of free perks that you don't have when you're male.

Perks like increased rates of sexual violence, lower average salary, lack of representation at highest levels of business and politics, and under-representation in STEM fields? Because those don't sound all that great to me.

Now I'll go ahead and head off the obvious response here in advance - yes, women do have it better than men in some areas. Men are underrepresented in education. Boys' grade levels and graduation rates are lower than women. Men, particularly non-white men, typically are convicted at higher rates and sentenced to longer prison terms than women convicted of the same crime. I acknowledge all of that is true.

At no point in any of my posts have I said or suggested that things are always easier for men, in every way, all the time. What I've said is, on the balance, women still have it harder than men. That gap is narrowing, as it should, and there are inequalities where men get the short end of the stick that also need to be attended to.

But to suggest - as you did in this post - that women are basically men with easier lives and no areas where they have to deal with issues that men do not is straight-up wrong, and dangerously so.
---

darkknight109 posted...

I hate to bring facts into your revisionism, but what killed the North American natives wasn't the white man and his mighty warriors, it was cholera, small pox, typhus, measles, tuberculosis, and the host of other pathogens they introduced to the new world. Tens of millions died to these diseases and what was left over was a shell of what once was.

This may surprise you, but whitey can get ill too.

We came to a foreign land with unfamiliar pathogens and used our capabilities to stave off illness and cure it. They met outsiders at home and could deal with it at all, we effectively had superior medicine to take over. Not that our guns didn't wreck them pretty hard.

darkknight109 posted...

The absence of historical knowledge in this post is just staggering...

America ain't dick to the outside world.

darkknight109 posted...

By your logic a brand new British immigrant should face far more discrimination and hostility than a third-generation citizen of Arabic descent, but we both know that's not even close to true.

Culturally similar vs culturally hostile.

Three generations doesn't close the gap, which shows how different Arabic cultures are.

darkknight109 posted...

Perks like increased rates of sexual violence, lower average salary, lack of representation at highest levels of business and politics, and under-representation in STEM fields? Because those don't sound all that great to me.

Men have a vastly higher rate of general violence, start at lower wages, have higher wage-earning pressure and are represented nearly exclusively as villainous.

darkknight109 posted...

What I've said is, on the balance, women still have it harder than men.

You're objectively wrong.
---

TallTamryu posted...

Looked at the results, not at all surprised by the votes...

dancer62 posted...

The_tall_midget posted...

darkknight109 posted...

The way I usually explain it is that if life was a video game, privilege is the difficulty setting and "straight white male" is the lowest setting.

Except for the part where choosing "female" gives you a ton of free perks that you don't have when you're male.

Yep! Lower pay, condescension, harassment, domestic violence, rape. Higher expenses for clothes, cosmetics, haircuts. Privilege indeed!

A couple of years back, all my cars had crapped out on me, head gasket, transmission, etc. A buddy from Kung Fu class drove me around on a Saturday morning to find a car. Found a decent little beater for $800, private sale by a couple. Test drive: husband asks Mike, "Can she drive stick?" Mike: " She' s a sports car nut, she prefers it. " Decide to buy, hand over the money, husband keeps pushing the paperwork to Mike, he passes it on to me, "She's buying the car."

Yeah. Perks.

this....
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

This may surprise you, but whitey can get ill too.

Yes, and whites also had several hundred years to build up resistances to the pathogens they got from living in close proximity to domesticated livestock. On that note:

Kyuubi4269 posted...

We came to a foreign land with unfamiliar pathogens and used our capabilities to stave off illness and cure it.

Oh, man - add lack of basic biology knowledge to lack of basic history knowledge for your posts.

No, there was no "New World Plague" that the mighty Europeans had to conquer. About the most debilitating new-world disease the Europeans faced was syphilis.

Plagues, like influenza, bubonic plague, tuberculosis, mumps, measles, small pox, and the like, aren't magical miasmas of death that hang over their native lands like you're implying; they happen when a disease jumps from an animal to a human. And the Europeans were fucking great at cultivating plagues, given how horrible 1500s-era Europe was at separating "water for drinking" from "water that we let the animals shit in". I find it hilarious that you're bragging about the superiority of European medicine, when their complete absence of hygiene and basic medical knowledge was exactly what made these diseases into the contagions they became in the first place (and given that half of Europe died to the black death, maybe hold off on the victory lap there).

There was no new world plague for the Europeans to fight off with their big-brained medicine like you're claiming, because the Native Americans didn't have domesticated animals. And they didn't have domesticated animals because there were no animals suitable for domestication. Even today, aside from some breeds of dog, there are no domesticated animals that are originally indigenous to North America (and if you extend it to South America as well, you get precisely one addition in the llama).

Kyuubi4269 posted...

America ain't dick to the outside world.

So why are you still talking about it?

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Culturally similar vs culturally hostile.

Three generations doesn't close the gap, which shows how different Arabic cultures are.

That's racist horseshit and you know it.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Men have a vastly higher rate of general violence, start at lower wages, have higher wage-earning pressure

You apparently completely ignored the rest of the post you carefully excised my quote from.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

and are represented nearly exclusively as villainous.

https://media1.tenor.com/images/f8cae265542ac29aa6d00dcbeab7bfd9/tenor.gif

Oh, man, do you need to get out more. If you want to see men portrayed heroically, may I suggest you look into, I don't know, literally any comic book, action movie, or video game released ever?
---

Mead posted...

People born into wealth

The only right answer

NightMareBunny posted...

you probably would have been baffled at life in the 50's then where women were typically seen as just the doting house wife who does all the cooking and cleaning..not much else while men do all the hard work

i find it funny people act like this stuff has never really been a thing when there was a time when women weren't even allowed to vote in elections simply due to the fact that they were women

Men were forced to go to war while the women could stay at home if they wanted to though.

dancer62 posted...

Yep! Lower pay, condescension, harassment, domestic violence, rape. Higher expenses for clothes, cosmetics, haircuts. Privilege indeed!

The gender pay gap is a myth.
The reason why men usually earn more money than women is because men generally have tougher jobs, even dangerous jobs and work more hours.

And women normally take lower paying jobs such as teachers, nurses or cashiers.
Because most women prefer to work with people.

Which ones deserve to earn more salary;
The ones who have these dangerous and often more physically demanding jobs like construction workers, welders, etc.

Or the ones who works with children, elderly people, patients or costumers.

I dunno about any of you but if I were an employer I would probably pay more money to the ones who risk their health and life for a living.

Harassment and domestic abuse aren't exclusive to women.
That happens to men too except when it happens to them, people usually don't take them seriously and/or just tell them to grow a pair.

Women articles are more expensive probably because well, women usually like to dress up in fancy clothes(often made in much more expensive materials than men's) and wear make up.

The companies probably hiked up the prices for women articles because they were in high demand and most women probably didn't care enough to make such a big fuzz about it so the companies continued.

If they raised the prices for men articles, many men would probably not buy as much of them anymore because many men aren't as fuzzy when it comes to stuff as clothes.

Long post but whatever. I will probably get modded or hated for this post alone.
---

If there even is such a thing as privilege, it comes from a combination of sex, gender appearance and probably other stuff. Not from a single thing and definitely not just from gender.
---

LeetCheet posted...

And women normally take lower paying jobs such as teachers, nurses or cashiers.

Which ones deserve to earn more salary;
The ones who have these dangerous and often more physically demanding jobs like construction workers, welders, etc.

Or the ones who works with children, elderly people, patients or costumers.

I dunno about any of you but if I were an employer I would probably pay more money to the ones who risk their health and life for a living.

I'd pay good money to watch you work a 12-hour shift as an ER nurse.
---

LeetCheet posted...

And women normally take lower paying jobs such as teachers, nurses or cashiers.
Because most women prefer to work with people.

Which ones deserve to earn more salary;
The ones who have these dangerous and often more physically demanding jobs like construction workers, welders, etc.

Or the ones who works with children, elderly people, patients or costumers.

And the "working with people" jobs kinda deserve higher paying salaries, because A. there is a huge shortage of people in those fields and B. why would you not want to pay your employers who have to work with people well? They are the main representative of your company to your patients/clients/products etc. and it can be a terrible stressful and emotionally hurtful to work with people.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Yes, and whites also had several hundred years to build up resistances to the pathogens they got from living in close proximity to domesticated livestock.

That's an advantage of being more technologically advanced.

darkknight109 posted...

No, there was no "New World Plague" that the mighty Europeans had to conquer. About the most debilitating new-world disease the Europeans faced was syphilis.

Plagues, like influenza, bubonic plague, tuberculosis, mumps, measles, small pox, and the like, aren't magical miasmas of death that hang over their native lands like you're implying; they happen when a disease jumps from an animal to a human. And the Europeans were fucking great at cultivating plagues, given how horrible 1500s-era Europe was at separating "water for drinking" from "water that we let the animals shit in". I find it hilarious that you're bragging about the superiority of European medicine, when their complete absence of hygiene and basic medical knowledge was exactly what made these diseases into the contagions they became in the first place (and given that half of Europe died to the black death, maybe hold off on the victory lap there).

There was no new world plague for the Europeans to fight off with their big-brained medicine like you're claiming, because the Native Americans didn't have domesticated animals. And they didn't have domesticated animals because there were no animals suitable for domestication. Even today, aside from some breeds of dog, there are no domesticated animals that are originally indigenous to North America (and if you extend it to South America as well, you get precisely two additions in the llama and alpaca). Contrast that to Europe, which got horses, cattle, sheep, goats, various forms of poultry, pigs, dogs, cats, and donkeys. among others, and it's not hard to see why Europe spent much of the middle ages as the world's virulent disease cauldron.

We got these diseases, we didn't die off like them, we won. We didn't start with domestic cows, pigs and dogs, we had bison-like cows, eurochs, boars and wolves. We domesticated our environment and grew stronger, the Native Americans did not, point 2 to europeans.

Native America stagnated and ended up vulnerable to a dominant force.

darkknight109 posted...

So why are you still talking about it?

You brought it up, I wasn't raised in a barn so I don't just drag the conversation wherever I want.

darkknight109 posted...

That's racist horseshit and you know it.

Christianity evolved beyond the crusades, Islam stuck with it, stagnant cultures that refuse to mix are less accepted than an evolving society like all of Europe has been.

darkknight109 posted...

You apparently completely ignored the rest of the post you carefully excised my quote from.

Did I now.

darkknight109 posted...

Oh, man, do you need to get out more. If you want to see men portrayed heroically, may I suggest you look into, I don't know, literally any comic book, action movie, or video game released ever?

I probably should've phrased it better. I meant that villainous roles almost exclusively cast men. Women are given an assumed angelicism of sorts while men are cast as beasts in varying stages of domestication.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Men have a vastly higher rate of general violence,

I like that you included "men are more violent" as though that's a disadvantage that men have to suffer and not an action those violent men choose to take.

LeetCheet posted...

Which ones deserve to earn more salary;
The ones who have these dangerous and often more physically demanding jobs like construction workers, welders, etc.

Or the ones who works with children, elderly people, patients or costumers.

I dunno about any of you but if I were an employer I would probably pay more money to the ones who risk their health and life for a living.

So garbage men deserve to make more than doctors? For that matter, nurses should make more than doctors?
---

Pus_N_Pecans posted...

Even if this were true, and sure, why not, it very well could be, one person's view on race =/= an entire society's view on race. Racism is a real thing.

I actively advocate for equality in society. Nobody deserves to be put on a higher pedastal than anyone else when it comes to their visual appearance. Merit is the biggest factor for me IMO.
---

Even for potd there is some pretty intense MGTOW logic up in this thread
---

Considering women enjoy greater legal and social protections while still being held to a lower social standard than men, clearly they have greater privileges. Which isn't to say that men arguably also don't enjoy certain perks, but the net is clearly skewed in women's favor *especially* because society scrutinizes benefits associated with men while ignoring benefits associated with women.
---

darkknight109 posted...

The way I usually explain it is that if life was a video game, privilege is the difficulty setting and "straight white male" is the lowest setting.

darkknight109 posted...

In this particular game, you get a single character file that is auto-generated for you that you don't get to reroll. All of your base stats - strength, charisma, intelligence, fortitude, and a hundred others - all get randomly determined. But not only that, the number of points that go into your stat pool is ALSO random. So you might be lucky and get 10,000 points with a great distribution, or you might have shit luck and get 2000 points with int and cha being your dump stats.

You'll also be assigned 1-2 "parent" NPCs who are responsible for guiding you through the tutorial levels until you're ~Level 18. Unfortunately, their stats - including "wealth", which has disproportionate importance in this game - are also random, so you'd best hope they're good at their job.

So what does the difficulty setting do? Simple - it makes certain quests easier or tweaks their rewards, and improves the default disposition of certain NPCs towards you. On the higher difficulty settings, some NPCs become straight-up hostiles that will attack on sight.

That's it. Some people think the difficulty setting will automatically grant them great stats or complete certain missions for them, but that's not the case. It's also why people get confused when they play on the lower difficulty settings and their life is shit, while they see some other people on the higher difficulty settings doing well. Maybe you just got a bad stat layout or your starting wealth roll was poor. Maybe those other people got a better stat distribution or more stat points to invest or spawned in a better starting area. Maybe those people are just better at playing the game than you are.

You can play a game on the lowest difficulty setting and still lose. You can play a game on the highest difficulty setting and still win. That doesn't mean difficulty doesn't exist, it just shows that it's not the sole determinant of your success or failure in the great game of life.

...and if you roll white, you're far more likely to be born into a true-rural setting where you'll face inescapable poverty, as opposed to non-whites who are more likely to be born around cities where social mobility is possible. In many cases, those rural settings are very nearly the equivalent of a third-world nation, considering in some areas they still have to manually pump water from a well.

But sure, parents play one of the biggest roles. And if you want the greatest opportunity in life, typically that's been associated with having Asian parents. Pretty much every metric favors Asians over whites.

Earning power? Asians out-earn whites:
https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2018/asian-women-and-men-earned-more-than-their-white-black-and-hispanic-counterparts-in-2017.htm

In fact, white men barely earn more than Asian women, so think about that for your gender gap.

College enrollment? You're more likely to go to college -- and a good school at that -- if you're Asian than if you're white. Whites make up 77% (or 63% if you exclude Hispanic-whites) of the population yet only 54% of college. Asians make up 5.6% of the population but 8.4% of college students.

https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2018/comm/classroom-diversity.html

Oh, and incarceration rates? Asians make up 1.5% of prisoners (again, vs 5.6% of the general population). Whites make up 58.9%. In short, whites are more likely to go to prison than college, which is also true of blacks.

https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_race.jsp
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

That's an advantage of being more technologically advanced.

No, it's an advantage of eating cow shit for long enough that it killed off huge swathes of the population, leaving only those whose genetics gave them better disease resistance. Technology had nothing to do with it, given the horrid state of medical knowledge of the day.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

We got these diseases, we didn't die off like them, we won.

Dude, 100 million people died to the black death alone. It took 200 years for Europe's population to recover to pre-plague levels. We didn't "win", we died off the same as everyone else, we were just fortunate enough not to have another culture decide to pick that moment to invade.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

We didn't start with domestic cows, pigs and dogs, we had bison-like cows, eurochs, boars and wolves. We domesticated our environment and grew stronger, the Native Americans did not, point 2 to europeans.

You know, I almost think you're taking the piss now. The fact that I have to explain shit this basic to you is ridiculous.

Yeah, Europe didn't start with cows, pigs, or goats, they started with aurochs, boars, and ibex. You know what North America didn't have? Aurochs, boars or ibex.

Again - and I already spelled this out in the last post - there are no animals indigenous to North America suitable for domestication. This is why - even today, with all the technological advancements we have made - there is no such thing as a domesticated bear or a domesticated moose. There are tamed specimens of those species, but that's not the same as domesticating them. In order to domesticate an animal, it needs to have a very specific combination of temperament, fecundity, and non-competition for human-needed resources and no North American animals fit the bill. And if you doubt that's true, consider that we domesticated horses about 5000 years ago but we still haven't domesticated their close relative, the zebra, because the differences in a zebra's temperament (specifically the lack of a family/herd structure) make it a much, much more difficult animal to domesticate (and, given that humans originated in Africa, we had a lot longer to try and break the Zebra but tens of thousands of years later it's still not off the "to-do" list).

North and South American natives didn't fail to domesticate their animals because they weren't as smart as the Europeans or whatever other racist bullshit you're trying to spew, they didn't domesticate their animals because they didn't have any animals that could be domesticated. The Europeans lucked out in that regard (an apt thing to point out, given that the topic of the day is "privilege") and it goes a long way towards explaining why Europe and Asia advanced much faster than Africa, Oceanica, and the Americas.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

You brought it up, I wasn't raised in a barn so I don't just drag the conversation wherever I want.

If you weren't raised in a barn, maybe you should be claiming knowledge on it you quite clearly don't have. After all, you did already say it means dick to you.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Christianity evolved beyond the crusades, Islam stuck with it

Didn't you just say you don't drag the conversation wherever you want?

I said Arabic, not Muslim - why the fuck are you bringing up Christianity and Islam?

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Did I now.

The part where I explicitly talked about the ways that men sometimes have it worse than women? Yeah, you did.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

I meant that villainous roles almost exclusively cast men. Women are given an assumed angelicism of sorts while men are cast as beasts in varying stages of domestication.

Because it's not like the phrase "Femme Fatale" exists or has a long, cherished history in prose or anything.

Anyways, in that case, may I suggest you look into pretty much anyone on this page: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DarkActionGirl
---

lmao this board
---