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

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2
darkknight109 06/21/19 11:10:03 AM #52:	Zeus posted... ...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 You're also statistically more likely to get a better starting wealth roll and have a much higher chance of rolling into the "ultra-wealthy family" category. So there's that. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:923638632] in Which gend... [t:77804621]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote>...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</quote> You're also statistically more likely to get a better starting wealth roll and have a much higher chance of rolling into the "ultra-wealthy family" category. So there's that.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LeetCheet 06/21/19 11:12:23 AM #53:	Nichtcrawler X posted... 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. I agree, nurses and teachers should get paid much more than they do now. That way, they could attract more people to those particular jobs. More employers/higher ups should recognize how hard their work really is. adjl posted... So garbage men deserve to make more than doctors? For that matter, nurses should make more than doctors? Nah, being a garbage man isn't a really dangerous job and you don't really need much to get a job like that. I'm a welder and to have a job like that, you need licences(sometimes even multiple ones for different occasions), have certificates for handling multiple devices and machines so you can handle them safely, such as overhead cranes and forklifts. Nurses does much more work than doctors though so I agree they should get more. All in all, if a man and a woman work at the same place, doing the same job, they most likely get equally paid. That's how it has been in my experience on every place I've worked at so far. --- https://imgur.com/eQrRxik https://imgur.com/NC8itow <cite>LeetCheet posted [p:923638735] in Which gend... [t:77804621]...</cite> <quote><cite>Nichtcrawler X posted...</cite> <quote>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.</quote> I agree, nurses and teachers should get paid much more than they do now. That way, they could attract more people to those particular jobs. More employers/higher ups should recognize how hard their work really is. <cite>adjl posted...</cite> <quote>So garbage men deserve to make more than doctors? For that matter, nurses should make more than doctors?</quote> Nah, being a garbage man isn't a really dangerous job and you don't really need much to get a job like that. I'm a welder and to have a job like that, you need licences(sometimes even multiple ones for different occasions), have certificates for handling multiple devices and machines so you can handle them safely, such as overhead cranes and forklifts. Nurses does much more work than doctors though so I agree they should get more. All in all, if a man and a woman work at the same place, doing the same job, they most likely get equally paid. That's how it has been in my experience on every place I've worked at so far.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 06/21/19 11:20:38 AM #54:	LeetCheet posted... All in all, if a man and a woman work at the same place, doing the same job, they most likely get equally paid. That's how it has been in my experience on every place I've worked at so far. Personal anecdotes are not statistically valid. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:923639118] in Which gend... [t:77804621]...</cite> <quote><cite>LeetCheet posted...</cite> <quote>All in all, if a man and a woman work at the same place, doing the same job, they most likely get equally paid. That's how it has been in my experience on every place I've worked at so far.</quote> Personal anecdotes are not statistically valid.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead 06/21/19 11:23:41 AM #55:	darkknight109 posted... LeetCheet posted... All in all, if a man and a woman work at the same place, doing the same job, they most likely get equally paid. That's how it has been in my experience on every place I've worked at so far. Personal anecdotes are not statistically valid. That works both ways --- If they drag you through the mud, it doesnt change whats in your blood <cite>Mead posted [p:923639280] in Which gend... [t:77804621]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>LeetCheet posted...</cite> <quote>All in all, if a man and a woman work at the same place, doing the same job, they most likely get equally paid. That's how it has been in my experience on every place I've worked at so far.</quote> Personal anecdotes are not statistically valid.</quote> That works both ways</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 06/21/19 11:28:53 AM #56:	Mead posted... That works both ways Uh... what? There is no "second way" to this. Personal anecdotes aren't statistically valid - that's simple fact. If you want to make a convincing argument it needs to be based on more than just your personal experiences. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:923639519] in Which gend... [t:77804621]...</cite> <quote><cite>Mead posted...</cite> <quote>That works both ways</quote> Uh... what? There is no "second way" to this. Personal anecdotes aren't statistically valid - that's simple fact. If you want to make a convincing argument it needs to be based on more than just your personal experiences.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead 06/21/19 11:32:30 AM #57:	darkknight109 posted... Mead posted... That works both ways Uh... what? There is no "second way" to this. Personal anecdotes aren't statistically valid - that's simple fact. If you want to make a convincing argument it needs to be based on more than just your personal experiences. Depending on how data is gathered or presented, statistics can be just as unreliable --- If they drag you through the mud, it doesnt change whats in your blood <cite>Mead posted [p:923639674] in Which gend... [t:77804621]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Mead posted...</cite> <quote>That works both ways</quote> Uh... what? There is no "second way" to this. Personal anecdotes aren't statistically valid - that's simple fact. If you want to make a convincing argument it needs to be based on more than just your personal experiences.</quote> Depending on how data is gathered or presented, statistics can be just as unreliable</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LeetCheet 06/21/19 11:34:44 AM #58:	darkknight109 posted... LeetCheet posted... All in all, if a man and a woman work at the same place, doing the same job, they most likely get equally paid. That's how it has been in my experience on every place I've worked at so far. Personal anecdotes are not statistically valid. Women tend to work less hours than men and are more often at home taking care of children. At my previous job, more women than men worked between 4 to 6 hours per day because they were more often sick and had certain disabilities that prevented them to work more. Why should people get paid for not being at work? If men were more often home from work than women then I'm sure they would earn less too. --- https://imgur.com/eQrRxik https://imgur.com/NC8itow <cite>LeetCheet posted [p:923639762] in Which gend... [t:77804621]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>LeetCheet posted...</cite> <quote> All in all, if a man and a woman work at the same place, doing the same job, they most likely get equally paid. That's how it has been in my experience on every place I've worked at so far.</quote> Personal anecdotes are not statistically valid.</quote> Women tend to work less hours than men and are more often at home taking care of children. At my previous job, more women than men worked between 4 to 6 hours per day because they were more often sick and had certain disabilities that prevented them to work more. Why should people get paid for not being at work? If men were more often home from work than women then I'm sure they would earn less too.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kyuubi4269 06/21/19 11:59:57 AM #59:	adjl posted... 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. Men are subject to more violence, they are fair game. darkknight109 posted... 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. That was a side effect of the superior agricultural technology. darkknight109 posted... 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. We evolved through conflict and grew. darkknight109 posted... there are no animals indigenous to North America suitable for domestication. Wrong, there are none domesticated because nobody bothered. darkknight109 posted... 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. You could have either, but the Natives didn't bother and the settlers didn't need to. darkknight109 posted... 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. Because they were not produced that way. We made aurochs in to cows to suit our needs, they weren't just convenient pets from God. darkknight109 posted... 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). Note: Africa is a shit hole. Of course it wasn't done in Africa, nothing is done there, it's another culturally stagnant area. --- Doctor Foxx posted... The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas. <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted [p:923640799] in Which gend... [t:77804621]...</cite> <quote><cite>adjl posted...</cite> <quote>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.</quote> Men are subject to more violence, they are fair game. <cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>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.</quote> That was a side effect of the superior agricultural technology. <cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>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.</quote> We evolved through conflict and grew. <cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>there are no animals indigenous to North America suitable for domestication.</quote> Wrong, there are none domesticated because nobody bothered. <cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>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. </quote> You could have either, but the Natives didn't bother and the settlers didn't need to. <cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>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. </quote> Because they were not produced that way. We made aurochs in to cows to suit our needs, they weren't just convenient pets from God. <cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>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).</quote> Note: Africa is a shit hole. Of course it wasn't done in Africa, nothing is done there, it's another culturally stagnant area.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kyuubi4269 06/21/19 12:09:10 PM #60:	darkknight109 posted... 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. Europe and Asia expanded quicker from thousands of years of aggressive arms races, we were "privileged" with aggressive rivals to overcome. To further note reality, Europe is in a climate sweet spot for civilizations, not as a perfect environment, but as a too cold one. Everyone to the south was too warm to be motivated to develop and everyone north was too cold to afford to take risks to develop. Europe was "privileged" with an uncomfortable environment and stiff competition to push forward. darkknight109 posted... 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? Europe is a Christian culture, the Middle East and North Africa are Muslim culture, it's defined the areas extensively. Most of our conflict historically has been on our cultural differences between these religious influences. Without a Christian base, you can't really tie Europe and America together and yet we do. darkknight109 posted... The part where I explicitly talked about the ways that men sometimes have it worse than women? Yeah, you did. Everybody has some ways worse than others, we were talking about the overall picture, and you were wrong. darkknight109 posted... Because it's not like the phrase "Femme Fatale" exists or has a long, cherished history in prose or anything. The fact it has a name notes how it's significant that a woman is portrayed evil. And since the topic has touched on job worth, I'd like to divert. Service jobs pay worse because you influence more people. You might be able to massage 20 people in a day, but you can pack thousands of boxes in to shipping containers. Production has economy of scale, service is limited by the personal factor. --- Doctor Foxx posted... The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas. <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted [p:923641192] in Which gend... [t:77804621]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>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.</quote> Europe and Asia expanded quicker from thousands of years of aggressive arms races, we were "privileged" with aggressive rivals to overcome. To further note reality, Europe is in a climate sweet spot for civilizations, not as a perfect environment, but as a too cold one. Everyone to the south was too warm to be motivated to develop and everyone north was too cold to afford to take risks to develop. Europe was "privileged" with an uncomfortable environment and stiff competition to push forward. <cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>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?</quote> Europe is a Christian culture, the Middle East and North Africa are Muslim culture, it's defined the areas extensively. Most of our conflict historically has been on our cultural differences between these religious influences. Without a Christian base, you can't really tie Europe and America together and yet we do. <cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>The part where I explicitly talked about the ways that men sometimes have it worse than women? Yeah, you did.</quote> Everybody has some ways worse than others, we were talking about the overall picture, and you were wrong. <cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>Because it's not like the phrase "Femme Fatale" exists or has a long, cherished history in prose or anything.</quote> The fact it has a name notes how it's significant that a woman is portrayed evil. And since the topic has touched on job worth, I'd like to divert. Service jobs pay worse because you influence more people. You might be able to massage 20 people in a day, but you can pack thousands of boxes in to shipping containers. Production has economy of scale, service is limited by the personal factor.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
wwinterj25 06/21/19 12:57:00 PM #61:	LeetCheet posted... Who really has the most so called "privileges"? Woman these days. Rather than making everything equal some gals would rather men just stop existing. Ironically it'll come to a point where man will become the minority and continue to create a movement. I'm still waiting for those "plus size" men to take a stand. --- One who knows nothing can understand nothing. http://psnprofiles.com/wwinterj - https://imgur.com/kDysIcd <cite>wwinterj25 posted [p:923643368] in Which gend... [t:77804621]...</cite> <quote><cite>LeetCheet posted...</cite> <quote>Who really has the most so called "privileges"?</quote> Woman these days. Rather than making everything equal some gals would rather men just stop existing. Ironically it'll come to a point where man will become the minority and continue to create a movement. I'm still waiting for those "plus size" men to take a stand.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Krazy_Kirby 06/21/19 1:17:48 PM #62:	no fault divorce laws clearly favor women --- Kill From The Shadows. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot <cite>Krazy_Kirby posted [p:923644293] in Which gend... [t:77804621]...</cite> <quote>no fault divorce laws clearly favor women</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
thekingoftown 06/21/19 2:31:00 PM #63:	wwinterj25 posted... LeetCheet posted... Who really has the most so called "privileges"? Woman these days. Rather than making everything equal some gals would rather men just stop existing. Ironically it'll come to a point where man will become the minority and continue to create a movement. I'm still waiting for those "plus size" men to take a stand. Men are too lazy for that --- I'm so glad The Cheat is not dead <cite>thekingoftown posted [p:923647497] in Which gend... [t:77804621]...</cite> <quote><cite>wwinterj25 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>LeetCheet posted...</cite> <quote>Who really has the most so called "privileges"?</quote> Woman these days. Rather than making everything equal some gals would rather men just stop existing. Ironically it'll come to a point where man will become the minority and continue to create a movement. I'm still waiting for those "plus size" men to take a stand.</quote> Men are too lazy for that</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 06/21/19 2:38:57 PM #64:	Kyuubi4269 posted... That was a side effect of the superior agricultural technology. No, it was a side-effect of poor urban planning. Kyuubi4269 posted... We evolved through conflict and grew. There was no conflict involved in the black death. A bunch of people died to disease. Keep trying to frame this as some mighty war if it makes you feel strong, but that's not at all what happened. Kyuubi4269 posted... Wrong, there are none domesticated because nobody bothered. Nobody bothered because it would have been impossible to do. You can name literally any indigenous North American animal and I will be happy to point out exactly why it can't be domesticated. Kyuubi4269 posted... You could have either, but the Natives didn't bother and the settlers didn't need to. No, you couldn't. Seriously, use some common sense. You've already stated that you believe humans grow through conflict and interaction... and already agreed that the Native tribes of North America fought with each other regularly the same way the European tribes did. It would therefore make sense that the Natives would be similarly driven to develop any advantages they could gain in war. And in the pre-gunpowder, pre-metallurgy tech era, moose or bear cavalry would have been a fucking instant win machine. Yet neither one happened, not even in Europe or Asia, which also have indigenous bears and cervidae. -Moose are solitary animals, which makes gathering a breeding population difficult (contrast with horses, which both travel in herds and have an easily exploitable social structure - capture the lead stallion and you've basically got control of the entire heard). They are also tremendously difficult to subdue, possessing good strength and running speed as well as (unique for a deer) the ability to kick in any direction. They also have tremendous jumping height, like most deer, and can easily escape nearly any paddock by either jumping out of it or charging through it. -Bears are an even worse proposition. There's a reason why the only domesticated carnivores/omnivores are small and can subsist by hunting vermin and other pests. Bears consume huge amounts of resources and, worse, it's the same resources humans need to survive. As a rule of thumb, any domesticated creature either needs to eat things that humans don't (grass being the most common example) or be happy with whatever scraps we can spare after we've had our fill. Getting a breeding population would be borderline impossible - they're extremely solitary and have large territories (up to 4000 square km) and they also have extremely low reproductive rates (~5 years to reach sexual maturity, roughly eight months to gestate, two years raising young, average of two cubs per litter), which hinders domestication efforts (you want animals that breed fast and, ideally, have large litters so you can quickly breed out undesirable traits). They're tremendously strong, have fantastic endurance, are bad-tempered and can easily maim or kill anyone stupid enough to try and capture them.... oh, and they hibernate. Yeah, good luck with this one. Kyuubi4269 posted... We made aurochs in to cows to suit our needs, they weren't just convenient pets from God. They were, actually. Aurochs were herd animals and lacked the speed, skittishness, and jumping ability of deer, while their strength made them excellent draught animals. They were prime candidates for domestication. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:923647808] in Which gend... [t:77804621]...</cite> <quote><cite>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>That was a side effect of the superior agricultural technology.</quote> No, it was a side-effect of poor urban planning. <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>We evolved through conflict and grew.</quote> There was no conflict involved in the black death. A bunch of people died to disease. Keep trying to frame this as some mighty war if it makes you feel strong, but that's not at all what happened. <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>Wrong, there are none domesticated because nobody bothered. </quote> Nobody bothered because it would have been impossible to do. You can name literally any indigenous North American animal and I will be happy to point out exactly why it can't be domesticated. <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>You could have either, but the Natives didn't bother and the settlers didn't need to.</quote> No, you couldn't. Seriously, use some common sense. You've already stated that you believe humans grow through conflict and interaction... and already agreed that the Native tribes of North America fought with each other regularly the same way the European tribes did. It would therefore make sense that the Natives would be similarly driven to develop any advantages they could gain in war. And in the pre-gunpowder, pre-metallurgy tech era, moose or bear cavalry would have been a fucking instant win machine. Yet neither one happened, not even in Europe or Asia, which also have indigenous bears and cervidae. -Moose are solitary animals, which makes gathering a breeding population difficult (contrast with horses, which both travel in herds and have an easily exploitable social structure - capture the lead stallion and you've basically got control of the entire heard). They are also tremendously difficult to subdue, possessing good strength and running speed as well as (unique for a deer) the ability to kick in any direction. They also have tremendous jumping height, like most deer, and can easily escape nearly any paddock by either jumping out of it or charging through it. -Bears are an even worse proposition. There's a reason why the only domesticated carnivores/omnivores are small and can subsist by hunting vermin and other pests. Bears consume huge amounts of resources and, worse, it's the same resources humans need to survive. As a rule of thumb, any domesticated creature either needs to eat things that humans don't (grass being the most common example) or be happy with whatever scraps we can spare after we've had our fill. Getting a breeding population would be borderline impossible - they're extremely solitary and have large territories (up to 4000 square km) and they also have extremely low reproductive rates (~5 years to reach sexual maturity, roughly eight months to gestate, two years raising young, average of two cubs per litter), which hinders domestication efforts (you want animals that breed fast and, ideally, have large litters so you can quickly breed out undesirable traits). They're tremendously strong, have fantastic endurance, are bad-tempered and can easily maim or kill anyone stupid enough to try and capture them.... oh, and they hibernate. Yeah, good luck with this one. <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>We made aurochs in to cows to suit our needs, they weren't just convenient pets from God. </quote> They were, actually. Aurochs were herd animals and lacked the speed, skittishness, and jumping ability of deer, while their strength made them excellent draught animals. They were prime candidates for domestication.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 06/21/19 2:39:02 PM #65:	Kyuubi4269 posted... Of course it wasn't done in Africa, nothing is done there, it's another culturally stagnant area. Yet they managed to domesticate camels and they did it before the Europeans managed to domesticate horses. But no zebras. It's almost like the zebras were shitty animals for domestication, despite their similarities to the much easier to domesticate horses. Kyuubi4269 posted... Europe and Asia expanded quicker from thousands of years of aggressive arms races, we were "privileged" with aggressive rivals to overcome. How is this different than the Native tribes in North America fighting with one another? Or the constant struggles in Africa, particularly in the Middle East? Kyuubi4269 posted... To further note reality, Europe is in a climate sweet spot for civilizations, not as a perfect environment, but as a too cold one. Yet North America has a very similar climate, but did not see the same development. It's almost like you're full of shit and just pulling these justifications out of your ass while steadfastly ignoring the truth that's right in front of your face. Kyuubi4269 posted... Europe is a Christian culture, the Middle East and North Africa are Muslim culture Again, why the fuck are you talking about this, after you just said you don't like derailing conversations? I'm not talking about European culture or Christian culture or Arabic culture or Muslim culture - I said an Arabic family (which, contrary to your relentless pigeonholing, need not be Muslim - as an example, there are plenty of Christian sects still native to Arabic lands, including some of the oldest in the world) in the US will face more discrimination, even several generations after immigrating, than a brand new British family (who need not be Christian, given that roughly half the country isn't). That has nothing to do with culture and everything to do with race. The mental gymnastics you're employing to try and dodge this point are ridiculous. Kyuubi4269 posted... Everybody has some ways worse than others, we were talking about the overall picture, and you were wrong. Go ahead and cite your sources then, broski. Kyuubi4269 posted... The fact it has a name notes how it's significant that a woman is portrayed evil. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvilOverlord Oh, look, a male villainous archetype has a name. I guess that means it's super significant that men are sometimes portrayed as evil. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:923647809] in Which gend... [t:77804621]...</cite> <quote><cite>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote> Of course it wasn't done in Africa, nothing is done there, it's another culturally stagnant area. </quote> Yet they managed to domesticate camels and they did it before the Europeans managed to domesticate horses. But no zebras. It's almost like the zebras were shitty animals for domestication, despite their similarities to the much easier to domesticate horses. <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>Europe and Asia expanded quicker from thousands of years of aggressive arms races, we were "privileged" with aggressive rivals to overcome.</quote> How is this different than the Native tribes in North America fighting with one another? Or the constant struggles in Africa, particularly in the Middle East? <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>To further note reality, Europe is in a climate sweet spot for civilizations, not as a perfect environment, but as a too cold one. </quote> Yet North America has a very similar climate, but did not see the same development. It's almost like you're full of shit and just pulling these justifications out of your ass while steadfastly ignoring the truth that's right in front of your face. <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>Europe is a Christian culture, the Middle East and North Africa are Muslim culture</quote> Again, why the fuck are you talking about this, after you just said you don't like derailing conversations? I'm not talking about European culture or Christian culture or Arabic culture or Muslim culture - I said an Arabic family (which, contrary to your relentless pigeonholing, need not be Muslim - as an example, there are plenty of Christian sects still native to Arabic lands, including some of the oldest in the world) in the US will face more discrimination, even several generations after immigrating, than a brand new British family (who need not be Christian, given that roughly half the country isn't). That has nothing to do with culture and everything to do with race. The mental gymnastics you're employing to try and dodge this point are ridiculous. <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>Everybody has some ways worse than others, we were talking about the overall picture, and you were wrong. </quote> Go ahead and cite your sources then, broski. <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>The fact it has a name notes how it's significant that a woman is portrayed evil.</quote> https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvilOverlord Oh, look, a male villainous archetype has a name. I guess that means it's super significant that men are sometimes portrayed as evil.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zareth 06/21/19 2:42:58 PM #66:	Attractive people born into wealthy families. --- It's okay, I have no idea who I am either. https://imgur.com/WOo6wcq <cite>Zareth posted [p:923647973] in Which gend... [t:77804621]...</cite> <quote>Attractive people born into wealthy families.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Thor 06/21/19 3:00:54 PM #67:	Hmm...I will have to ponder this one. --- "Whosoever holds this hammer, if he be worthy, shall possess the power of Thor." -Stan Lee- <cite>Thor posted [p:923648749] in Which gend... [t:77804621]...</cite> <quote>Hmm...I will have to ponder this one. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BanjoBoomer 06/21/19 3:12:34 PM #68:	It's not mainly about gender, it's mainly about the individual. A tall, attractive person with a commanding voice and rich parents has all the privileges. A short, chubby, pimply-faced, chipmunk-voiced, broke-ass loser like myself has no privileges. My dick hasn't gained me a single advantage in life, sorry to say. If you're well off enough to be complaining about a wage gap then you already have far more privilege than any of us working-class wage-slaves. Down here in the pit we all get the same shitty pay, man or woman, black or white. <cite>BanjoBoomer posted [p:923649282] in Which gend... [t:77804621]...</cite> <quote>It's not mainly about gender, it's mainly about the individual. A tall, attractive person with a commanding voice and rich parents has all the privileges. A short, chubby, pimply-faced, chipmunk-voiced, broke-ass loser like myself has no privileges. My dick hasn't gained me a single advantage in life, sorry to say. If you're well off enough to be complaining about a wage gap then you already have far more privilege than any of us working-class wage-slaves. Down here in the pit we all get the same shitty pay, man or woman, black or white.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
InfiniteMick 06/21/19 3:25:40 PM #69:	trodi_911 posted... Apache Attack Helicopters. I asked one out once and I got shot down. you guys have like one joke that you tell over and over again --- Self proclaimed Wendy O. Koopa of the Smash Ultimate boards. Without any approval from my peers. I've learned to lower expectations of myself in life. <cite>InfiniteMick posted [p:923649804] in Which gend... [t:77804621]...</cite> <quote><cite>trodi_911 posted...</cite> <quote>Apache Attack Helicopters. I asked one out once and I got shot down.</quote> you guys have like one joke that you tell over and over again</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
OhhhJa 06/21/19 4:12:51 PM #70:	Zeus posted... 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. Seriously this. Asians in america have way more advantages than whites on average. I had asian kids my school that knew calculus in like 7th grade and parents teaching them coding and shit <cite>OhhhJa posted [p:923651863] in Which gend... [t:77804621]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote>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.</quote> Seriously this. Asians in america have way more advantages than whites on average. I had asian kids my school that knew calculus in like 7th grade and parents teaching them coding and shit</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
The_tall_midget 06/21/19 4:47:05 PM #71:	OhhhJa posted... Seriously this. Asians in america have way more advantages than whites on average. I had asian kids my school that knew calculus in like 7th grade and parents teaching them coding and shit Yes, but remember that the amount of white people in the west is higher than Asians, which means that Asians are higher on the leftist victim totem pole than Caucasians. But don't worry, if things change and Asians eventually catch up to white people, the typical leftists will suddenly blame Asians for more crimes and whatever stupid shit they tend to do. It's about MUH DIVERSITY, MUH OPPRESSION, AND MUH REPRESENTATION (despite the fact that the representation and diversity that leftists want is nowhere near close to society's reality, but hey, don't expect much logic from them). And I am still amazed about the idiotic claims that women have less privileges than men in the west despite it oozing out of every orifice of society. --- 1. Kill your own children. 2. Import migrants. 3. Disarm yourselves. Sounds like a real intelligent plans to be taken over, thanks to the useful idiots. <cite>The_tall_midget posted [p:923653378] in Which gend... [t:77804621]...</cite> <quote><cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>Seriously this. Asians in america have way more advantages than whites on average. I had asian kids my school that knew calculus in like 7th grade and parents teaching them coding and shit</quote> Yes, but remember that the amount of white people in the west is higher than Asians, which means that Asians are higher on the leftist victim totem pole than Caucasians. But don't worry, if things change and Asians eventually catch up to white people, the typical leftists will suddenly blame Asians for more crimes and whatever stupid shit they tend to do. It's about MUH DIVERSITY, MUH OPPRESSION, AND MUH REPRESENTATION (despite the fact that the representation and diversity that leftists want is nowhere near close to society's reality, but hey, don't expect much logic from them). And I am still amazed about the idiotic claims that women have less privileges than men in the west despite it oozing out of every orifice of society.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
mooreandrew58 06/21/19 5:35:25 PM #72:	Men I suppose with some exceptions being really attractive women. Some of their "privileges" I envy to a degree. --- Cid- "looks like that overgrown lobster just got served!" Bartz-"with cheese biscuts AND mashed potatoes!" <cite>mooreandrew58 posted [p:923655463] in Which gend... [t:77804621]...</cite> <quote>Men I suppose with some exceptions being really attractive women. Some of their "privileges" I envy to a degree.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ForteEXE3850 06/21/19 6:54:12 PM #73:	Overall in the world? Men without question. Lots of countries are still really, really, really sexist. In the U.S.? Not men. --- Mwahahahaha. <cite>ForteEXE3850 posted [p:923658976] in Which gend... [t:77804621]...</cite> <quote>Overall in the world? Men without question. Lots of countries are still really, really, really sexist. In the U.S.? Not men.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
The_tall_midget 06/21/19 7:14:22 PM #74:	ForteEXE3850 posted... Men without question. Lots of countries are still really, really, really sexist. Want a truth that leftists like to ignore? Those countries that tend to be sexist, chauvinists, genocidal, and discriminatory are usually those where Caucasians are minorities. There are exceptions, but I think it's amazing that white people are blamed for being racists and bigots, when the reality is that the countries that tend to actually discriminate against LGBT, women, and being xenophobic are usually where Caucasians are in small quantities. If anything, the reason why all those "intelligent" leftists/feminists/sjw's can be so loud in the west and cry about so many stupid crap is because Caucasians are MORE tolerant than other races. I mean, I am still amazed that someone in this thread has the gall to actually play the wage gap card... In America... Where paying women less is illegal. To know that there are still such levels of ignorance in 2019 is quite amazing. --- Remember the "refugee" camps back in the Clinton and Obama era? Well Trump is the president so they're called concentration camps. -The honest left. <cite>The_tall_midget posted [p:923659760] in Which gend... [t:77804621]...</cite> <quote><cite>ForteEXE3850 posted...</cite> <quote>Men without question. Lots of countries are still really, really, really sexist.</quote> Want a truth that leftists like to ignore? Those countries that tend to be sexist, chauvinists, genocidal, and discriminatory are usually those where Caucasians are minorities. There are exceptions, but I think it's amazing that white people are blamed for being racists and bigots, when the reality is that the countries that tend to actually discriminate against LGBT, women, and being xenophobic are usually where Caucasians are in small quantities. If anything, the reason why all those "intelligent" leftists/feminists/sjw's can be so loud in the west and cry about so many stupid crap is because Caucasians are MORE tolerant than other races. I mean, I am still amazed that someone in this thread has the gall to actually play the wage gap card... In America... Where paying women less is illegal. To know that there are still such levels of ignorance in 2019 is quite amazing.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LeetCheet 06/21/19 8:17:31 PM #75:	Doesn't female pornstars get way more pay than the male ones in the adult industry? Isn't that kinda sexist towards men? I mean, in women's soccer they complained about they not earning as much as their male counterparts. Well, it's just simple economics. Men's world Cup drives in much more money which increases the money shared with the male players. Women's World Cup on the other hand doesn't drive in as much money which decreases the amount of money shared with the female players. There was an outcry over this of course, so they had the increase the share from 9%(the percentage men has) to 13% for the ladies. So technically, women soccer players are actually overpaid. So yeah, women getting higher salaries than men in the porn industry makes sense because the companies gets more revenue from videos starring them. Kinda weird how no one gives a fuck when women earn more than men in the same industry but when it's the opposite, it's unfair and sexist. Simply put, men and women excel at certain jobs and therefore earn more for doing that than the other. --- https://imgur.com/eQrRxik https://imgur.com/NC8itow <cite>LeetCheet posted [p:923662392] in Which gend... [t:77804621]...</cite> <quote>Doesn't female pornstars get way more pay than the male ones in the adult industry? Isn't that kinda sexist towards men? I mean, in women's soccer they complained about they not earning as much as their male counterparts. Well, it's just simple economics. Men's world Cup drives in much more money which increases the money shared with the male players. Women's World Cup on the other hand doesn't drive in as much money which decreases the amount of money shared with the female players. There was an outcry over this of course, so they had the increase the share from 9%(the percentage men has) to 13% for the ladies. So technically, women soccer players are actually overpaid. So yeah, women getting higher salaries than men in the porn industry makes sense because the companies gets more revenue from videos starring them. Kinda weird how no one gives a fuck when women earn more than men in the same industry but when it's the opposite, it's unfair and sexist. Simply put, men and women excel at certain jobs and therefore earn more for doing that than the other.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
mooreandrew58 06/21/19 8:19:55 PM #76:	LeetCheet posted... Doesn't female pornstars get way more pay than the male ones in the adult industry? Isn't that kinda sexist towards men Iirc gay men get paid more in porn. Could be wrong though only hearsay never seen a source for that --- Cid- "looks like that overgrown lobster just got served!" Bartz-"with cheese biscuts AND mashed potatoes!" <cite>mooreandrew58 posted [p:923662499] in Which gend... [t:77804621]...</cite> <quote><cite>LeetCheet posted...</cite> <quote>Doesn't female pornstars get way more pay than the male ones in the adult industry? Isn't that kinda sexist towards men</quote> Iirc gay men get paid more in porn. Could be wrong though only hearsay never seen a source for that</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Pus_N_Pecans 06/21/19 10:16:59 PM #77:	LeetCheet posted... Simply put, men and women excel at certain jobs and therefore earn more for doing that than the other. So basically women should just go into porn if they actually want fair pay. Alright. --- My arts- http://gopherguy.deviantart.com/ <cite>Pus_N_Pecans posted [p:923667245] in Which gend... [t:77804621]...</cite> <quote><cite>LeetCheet posted...</cite> <quote>Simply put, men and women excel at certain jobs and therefore earn more for doing that than the other. </quote> So basically women should just go into porn if they actually want fair pay. Alright.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
wwinterj25 06/21/19 10:39:07 PM #78:	LeetCheet posted... Simply put, men and women excel at certain jobs and therefore earn more for doing that than the other. Not sure pornstars should be included in that though. --- One who knows nothing can understand nothing. http://psnprofiles.com/wwinterj - https://imgur.com/kDysIcd <cite>wwinterj25 posted [p:923668030] in Which gend... [t:77804621]...</cite> <quote><cite>LeetCheet posted...</cite> <quote>Simply put, men and women excel at certain jobs and therefore earn more for doing that than the other.</quote> Not sure pornstars should be included in that though.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
The_tall_midget 06/22/19 12:10:33 AM #79:	Pus_N_Pecans posted... So basically women should just go into porn if they actually want fair pay. Alright. Because, as we all know, there are no laws in the west against paying women less or anything. Stop the virtue signaling, feminists no longer have any valid arguments about sex discrimination and haven't had them for years. --- Remember the "refugee" camps back in the Clinton and Obama era? Well Trump is the president so they're called concentration camps. -The honest left. <cite>The_tall_midget posted [p:923670838] in Which gend... [t:77804621]...</cite> <quote><cite>Pus_N_Pecans posted...</cite> <quote>So basically women should just go into porn if they actually want fair pay. Alright.</quote> Because, as we all know, there are no laws in the west against paying women less or anything. Stop the virtue signaling, feminists no longer have any valid arguments about sex discrimination and haven't had them for years.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LeetCheet 06/22/19 1:49:59 AM #80:	mooreandrew58 posted... Iirc gay men get paid more in porn. Could be wrong though only hearsay never seen a source for that You know what, that might be true actually. And it makes sense, because it's somewhat rare(compared to straight porn) and to encourage more gay men into the business they offer more cash. Like a bounty, if you know what I mean. Still, it's not sexist if it's a higher demand for a certain kind of product. Pus_N_Pecans and wwinterj25 . No it was just an example for a occupation women usually get paid for more than men. I also realize, women also has to do some really crazy shit in this business sometimes. But it makes sense, if they get paid enough it should be worth it for them. --- https://imgur.com/eQrRxik https://imgur.com/NC8itow <cite>LeetCheet posted [p:923673620] in Which gend... [t:77804621]...</cite> <quote><cite>mooreandrew58 posted...</cite> <quote>Iirc gay men get paid more in porn. Could be wrong though only hearsay never seen a source for that</quote> You know what, that might be true actually. And it makes sense, because it's somewhat rare(compared to straight porn) and to encourage more gay men into the business they offer more cash. Like a bounty, if you know what I mean. Still, it's not sexist if it's a higher demand for a certain kind of product. <cite>Pus_N_Pecans and wwinterj25</cite> <quote>.</quote> No it was just an example for a occupation women usually get paid for more than men. I also realize, women also has to do some really crazy shit in this business sometimes. But it makes sense, if they get paid enough it should be worth it for them.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead 06/22/19 1:55:59 AM #81:	mooreandrew58 posted... LeetCheet posted... Doesn't female pornstars get way more pay than the male ones in the adult industry? Isn't that kinda sexist towards men Iirc gay men get paid more in porn. Could be wrong though only hearsay never seen a source for that I cant imagine why they would get paid more --- If they drag you through the mud, it doesnt change whats in your blood <cite>Mead posted [p:923673777] in Which gend... [t:77804621]...</cite> <quote><cite>mooreandrew58 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>LeetCheet posted...</cite> <quote>Doesn't female pornstars get way more pay than the male ones in the adult industry? Isn't that kinda sexist towards men</quote> Iirc gay men get paid more in porn. Could be wrong though only hearsay never seen a source for that</quote> I cant imagine why they would get paid more</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
mooreandrew58 06/22/19 1:57:14 AM #82:	LeetCheet posted... mooreandrew58 posted... Iirc gay men get paid more in porn. Could be wrong though only hearsay never seen a source for that You know what, that might be true actually. And it makes sense, because it's somewhat rare(compared to straight porn) and to encourage more gay men into the business they offer more cash. Like a bounty, if you know what I mean. Still, it's not sexist if it's a higher demand for a certain kind of product. Pus_N_Pecans and wwinterj25 . No it was just an example for a occupation women usually get paid for more than men. I also realize, women also has to do some really crazy shit in this business sometimes. But it makes sense, if they get paid enough it should be worth it for them. Yeah on what i said i think I heard they make like 10k a porn movie. Its led to some guys being "gay for pay" though i questioned the dudes i saw on this show about it. Showed up to the interview wearing glittery cowboy hats and what not --- Cid- "looks like that overgrown lobster just got served!" Bartz-"with cheese biscuts AND mashed potatoes!" <cite>mooreandrew58 posted [p:923673804] in Which gend... [t:77804621]...</cite> <quote><cite>LeetCheet posted...</cite> <quote><cite>mooreandrew58 posted...</cite> <quote>Iirc gay men get paid more in porn. Could be wrong though only hearsay never seen a source for that</quote> You know what, that might be true actually. And it makes sense, because it's somewhat rare(compared to straight porn) and to encourage more gay men into the business they offer more cash. Like a bounty, if you know what I mean. Still, it's not sexist if it's a higher demand for a certain kind of product. <cite>Pus_N_Pecans and wwinterj25</cite> <quote>.</quote> No it was just an example for a occupation women usually get paid for more than men. I also realize, women also has to do some really crazy shit in this business sometimes. But it makes sense, if they get paid enough it should be worth it for them.</quote> Yeah on what i said i think I heard they make like 10k a porn movie. Its led to some guys being "gay for pay" though i questioned the dudes i saw on this show about it. Showed up to the interview wearing glittery cowboy hats and what not</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2

Poll of the Day > Which gender has the most "privileges"? (+) Yeah! (+)

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