Current Events > Democracy might come to an end because some dudes can't get p****

(+) Yeah! (+)

GranAures posted...

No, more like we've already been through it, and we are not changing the other's mind so it's a waste of space to go through that song and dance again.

Yeah, I know. I was agreeing with you on that.

UndefeatedGOAT posted...

what was the rights answer to men not getting women? I'm on 'the right' and im not aware of an answer. Maybe only take in women and children as immigrants and less immigrants all together?

what the fuck is this post holy shit

@Lozguy709

I think that many apathetic people are exhausted by all the arguments thrown at them about how to think, but they can still be reached and sometimes really do have good intentions.

It's just that like with people declaring themselves neutral or in the middle. But they still focus on one side to the point they don't seem different from Republicans at all.

And another reason I deem apathy to be as bad? Generally when people make say homophobia, racism and sexism out to be just opinions.

You know as if those viewpoints are akin to hating say pepperoni on a meat lovers pizza or hating certain Star Trek films and so on.

In other words suggesting that bigotry is a trivial concern.

Antiyonder posted...

Or it boils down to people upset cause "I'm treating a girl with basic human decency! Reward me for it!!".

If nothing else, an honest jerk is preferable than the one who tries to hide the fact.

Someone actually doing bad things is not logically preferable to someone you simply suspect of being bad since you're repulsed by them.

pezzicle posted...

like this isn't "being nice"

this is being a pushover and lacking boundaries.

work on being assertive

Not all men are capable of balancing traits. And unfortunately an all-out scumbag is more likely to be successful than an all-out doormat.

Gladius_ posted...

Everything you have posted has been silly and you haven't had a single person in this thread who believes anything you've said holds any value.

I'm in the thread tho. >_>

Antiyonder posted...

@Lozguy709

It's just that like with people declaring themselves neutral or in the middle. But they still focus on one side to the point they don't seem different from Republicans at all.

And another reason I deem apathy to be as bad? Generally when people make say homophobia, racism and sexism out to be just opinions.

You know as if those viewpoints are akin to hating say pepperoni on a meat lovers pizza or hating certain Star Trek films and so on.

In other words suggesting that bigotry is a trivial concern.

I think it's important to fight against apathy but also important to understand why so many are drawn toward it, or else you risk coming off as a belligerent preachy type yourself.

Now people faking apathy to distort the way other people think? Yeah, fuck them.

Antiyonder posted...

But they still focus on one side to the point they don't seem different from Republicans at all.

AKA "I'm not X and I am very much against X, but I have no reason to actually do anything against X."
Antiyonder posted...

In other words suggesting that bigotry is a trivial concern.

I feel at most generous those that say it only say it because it doesn't harm them. Many present it purely as a cover in "I'm not racist but I don't know why people get upset over a different opinion" fashion as if anyone is buying that those "different opinions" aren't being used as a bludgeon to deny others.
[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Wat

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


that was that dude that said that? it was in a topic where he was defending hasan so i guess shilling for putin and antisemitism is more important to right wingers than 'socialism'

Antiyonder posted...

It's just that like with people declaring themselves neutral or in the middle. But they still focus on one side to the point they don't seem different from Republicans at all.

I focus on Dems more because since 2016 Dems have been the ones insulting me for abstaining. For whatever reason Republicans don't care that I never vote for them.

Gladius_ posted...

Oh! So he has the backup from a person who has argued that laws that prevent gay marriage aren't sexist because they effect straight people who want to marry the same sex too. I can see why you are supportive of someone who likes to argue at clouds by debating stances that don't exist that no one in the thread used as an argument.

I was arguing from a technical perspective.

Apathy = "Not my problem!"

"Why should I care if they're going after trans people?"

"Why should I care if they're going after women?"

"Why should I c- wait they're going after me?! Guys help!"

Funny thing about neutrality. No one with their next in the guillotine feels "neutral" about the situation.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Discriminatory.
That they weren't discriminated against purely because they could marry the opposite sex too while all to happily ignore that they were not allowed to marry who they loved, or even be physical with the people they loved until the 2000's and 2010's.

SecretBase posted...

I focus on Dems more because since 2016 Dems have been the ones insulting me for abstaining. For whatever reason Republicans don't care that I never vote for them.

LOL no. If you just quietly didn't vote for anyone, nobody would care. You and your ilk get static because you aren't quiet, and all you ever do, over and over and over and over again is bash Democrats.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]



If he said that, then my tag for him remains accurate after all this time.

EPR-radar posted...

LOL no. If you just quietly didn't vote for anyone, nobody would care. You and your ilk get static because you aren't quiet, and all you ever do, over and over and over and over again is bash Democrats.

I also bash Republicans. It just doesn't turn into massive arguments when I do so.

Umbreon posted...

Apathy = "Not my problem!"

"Why should I care if they're going after trans people?"

"Why should I care if they're going after women?"

"Why should I c- wait they're going after me?! Guys help!"

Funny thing about neutrality. No one with their next in the guillotine feels "neutral" about the situation.

Eh they can come after me. Not that I'm ok with them going after other people but there ain't much I can do to stop either situation. I can barely take care of myself.

As an apathetic person, it's not that it isn't my problem but I don't really know what one would expect me to do.

I focus on Dems more because since 2016 Dems have been the ones insulting me for abstaining. For whatever reason Republicans don't care that I never vote for them.

Wait, you're upset that people are calling you out for not giving a shit about anybody other than yourself?

Gee I wonder why the other side doesn't insult you for being happy to help them put rules into place that harm everybody. Because you're happy to let them overthrow democracy because your feelings got hurt.

This is actually crazy to me, Republicans are messed up.

Oh I'm not saying you single handedly go in there and solve things like Rambo or Superman.

But a lot of people choose to be silent on issues to avoid rocking the boat. It just takes a little courage to say "Hey, that's not right!".

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

I see it as a good example of the result of the marriage cases -- literally the best argument ever made in court against marriage equality was "mindless adherence to tradition". It's a stupid argument, but not inherently offensive. In contrast, every right wing attempt to arrive at their desired backward policy outcome was patently offensive.

More generally, every right wing argument more "sophisticated" than "Trump rah, Biden boo" or "vote magic R" is patently offensive.

Umbreon posted...

Oh I'm not saying you single handedly go in there and solve things like Rambo or Superman.

But a lot of people choose to be silent on issues to avoid rocking the boat. It just takes a little courage to say "Hey, that's not right!".

I dunno fam, I kept getting my ass beat for saying stuff, I'd rather not get my ass beat. Like the situation last night I told you about. I'm not gonna tell a violent guy to stop being violent, that's the police's job.

SecretBase posted...

And unfortunately an all-out scumbag is more likely to be successful than an all-out doormat.

successful in what way? attracting equally toxic people and having sex with them?

Umbreon posted...

Oh I'm not saying you single handedly go in there and solve things like Rambo or Superman.

But a lot of people choose to be silent on issues to avoid rocking the boat. It just takes a little courage to say "Hey, that's not right!".

At the very least, it isn't a big ask to hope that sane US voters do yearly pest control.

Gladius_ posted...

Yeah, my mistake. I didn't pay much attention to his posts after he stated what he stated. It was apalling.

I explictly stated the laws were still unacceptably harmful and rightfully repealed. Just that the legal text of those laws were technically not directly discriminatory.

People here argue from emotion too often.

pezzicle posted...

successful in what way? attracting equally toxic people and having sex with them?

That's still better than nothing ever.

SecretBase posted...

That's still better than nothing ever.

Don't stick your dick in crazy brah

Oh sanctity of marriage!

When you could arrange for your daughter to marry another man's son in exchange for property or goods.

But two guys who love each other is wrong because reasons. /s

That's still better than nothing ever.

Give it a shot then and tell us how it goes.

pezzicle posted...

Men who feel entitled to sex feel entitled to sex for simply existing. They feel that they should get sex from women simply because.

I did already address this, though. It's a strawman, no one is saying "I exist. Sex now."

pezzicle posted...

Women who want xyz from men in the context of a relationship. Not in the context of simply sex. What are women expressing that they are "entitled to" when it comes to sex? Consent?

Addressed this too, that's not the equivalent. Relationships are. You and the user I replied to earlier who said the same thing keep hyperfixating on sex because you know fully well that women can easily get that so it's not an issue for them.

pezzicle posted...

And women who do have extremely toxic ideas of what they should be getting from a man without putting any effort into the relationship are 100% ridiculed just as a man would be

Right but what's considered ridiculous? That's what you keep missing. The woman wanting 6 feet, 6 figures, 6 inches or whatever might be considered to be out there. A man just wanting someone who is willing to fuck him is seen as equally entitled? That's the double standard I'm referring to.

And of course this is all totally ignoring the elephant in the room that women are wanting a whole-ass lifetime partnership here in your framing of the thing, I guess we're supposed to act like that's a small ask or something

@LoZguy709

I think it's important to fight against apathy but also important to understand why so many are drawn toward it, or else you risk coming off as a belligerent preachy type yourself.

Now people faking apathy to distort the way other people think? Yeah, fuck them.

Problem is I not to sure that those genuinely apathetic really own it though. Like trying to turn the other cheek and then are dumbfounded when their needs aren't met or catered to.

And well, people need to look at Spider-Man's origin story.

@SecretBase

Someone actually doing bad things is not logically preferable to someone you simply suspect of being bad since you're repulsed by them.

I was more referring to people presuming that a woman's options are nice guy or jerk VS anything else.

You know like "nice guy" and jerk or two people who are genuinely nice, just one is assertive and so on.

Umbreon posted...

So um...

That quote asked if you think men just straight up buy women. Your response wasn't a rejection of that, as you asked if pezz was denying whatever or not women find wealth attractive.

That doesn't give off a "You're being silly" tone. It comes off a lot more like you're trying to suggest that it's true. If you thought that statement was foolish, you did a poor job establishing it.

He talked right past what I said and attacked a strawman instead. I responded in kind and talked past his strawman to reiterate the point I actually had made. There's not a thing wrong with the way I did that.

Just that the legal text of those laws were technically not directly discriminatory.

Only because you want to hang onto semantics to ignore the intent of those laws. Just like vote ID laws which are written explicitly to disenfranchise certain voters, just like sodomy laws existed to punish certain people(and those are being called to return).

But I guess somebody is only a bigot if they use specific curated slurs too.

BloodMoon7 posted...

I dunno fam, I kept getting my ass beat for saying stuff, I'd rather not get my ass beat. Like the situation last night I told you about. I'm not gonna tell a violent guy to stop being violent, that's the police's job.

To be clear, I'm not telling anyone to casually risk their life. I'm not blaming anyone for not rushing in on very big and angry men with weapons. But there are absolutely times where someone who isn't as threatening will do something, and other people will just look the other way because saying something would be inconvenient.

GranAures posted...

Only because you want to hang onto semantics to ignore the intent of those laws. Just like vote ID laws which are written explicitly to disenfranchise certain voters, just like sodomy laws existed to punish certain people(and those are being called to return).

But I guess somebody is only a bigot if they use specific curated slurs too.

But I didn't ignore intent. The people pushing the laws being bigots just isn't the same as the laws themselves being bigoted on a technical level.

SecretBase posted...

But I didn't ignore intent. The people pushing the laws being bigots just isn't the same as the laws themselves being bigoted on a technical level.

"bigoted law" and "law that is bigoted on a technical level" is a textbook distinction without a difference.

shockthemonkey posted...

Youre tipping your fedora in semantics to undermine a legitimate conversation in a topic about how mens social failures are being exploited and leading this country down a shitty path. Are you proud of yourself for that?

I wouldn't have even needed to say anything if I wasn't attacked over saying rights were largely equal in the 80s onward. People could've just it left it alone because it was obvious what I meant, or at least issued a polite correction without getting all aggressive about it.

Anyway it's worth looking at why more and more men are being pushed out of dating. Because I don't think all of them are just bad guys.

You are using technical definitions to try to tell everybody else that a law written explicitly to punish a certain group of people is not a discriminatory law purely because it can sometimes hit somebody else instead of understanding that those laws are written like that to create plausible deniability and because the misfires will be a fraction of the number of cases of them hitting who they are intended to hit.

Everybody else realizes those laws exist to punish those groups.

You are sitting here effectively arguing that somebody who regularly calls certain groups violent criminals isn't a bigot because they didn't use a slur.

I'm just waiting for someone to list the multiple ways people have historically ordered the death of people without ""technically"" saying the words "Kill them".

Because serious people look at technicalities instead of intent.

Come?

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

You have no business calling anyone or anything else funny when you just pretended I misgendered you by calling you a user of this site and that you'll have me modded next time I do it, tbf.

Antiyonder posted...

@LoZguy709

Problem is I not to sure that those genuinely apathetic really own it though. Like trying to turn the other cheek and then are dumbfounded when their needs aren't met or catered to.

And well, people need to look at Spider-Man's origin story.

When you have two camps claiming that supporting the other side is going to be the ruin of society (speaking more politically now), even if only one of the entities are actually a genuine threat to do so, a less politically/societally aware person may find indecision to be the safest choice because at least they won't be actively making things worse.

Umbreon posted...

To be clear, I'm not telling anyone to casually risk their life. I'm not blaming anyone for not rushing in on very big and angry men with weapons. But there are absolutely times where someone who isn't as threatening will do something, and other people will just look the other way because saying something would be inconvenient.

Yeah like if a person is rightfully charged guilty of rape/assault (attempted even) and such isn't at doubt, there is no reason to defend them on the basis of "They're just a victim of hormones".

Makes the #NotAllMen stuff more self-serving cause victim blaming requires you to claim that guys just can't help themselves and keep civil when in the presence of a self woman. So you throw good men under the bus just to defend a shi**y one why?