zlemflolia
-
Posts
6,046 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Downloads
Store
Everything posted by zlemflolia
-
Also as for the right to vote in the US - men do not technically have the right to vote when turning 18 upon birth, and women do. Men have to register with the selective services upon turning 18 or else they will become felons who sacrifice their right to vote. Women simply don't have to do anything, they just get the right to vote. Therefore current female voting rights are superior to current male voting rights - plus females are a majority of the population so they have even stronger voting rights as a group.
-
I make no claims that gender roles are right or just, simply that they are ignored when they come to male gender roles. The male gender role of "do hard physical labor and die at a higher rate than women, also you have to fight all the wars" is far worse than "you have to stay safe at home and raise babies" as far as I'm concerned - one has inherently deadly risks to the individual, one does not.
-
I'm just going to go out on a limb here and say that's probably because men are physically stronger by nature, so men doing the brunt of the physical labour is logical. Ditto for the lumberjack/coal miner thing, in addition to sexism when it came to hiring for those jobs. So because men as a gender are physically stronger it's more acceptable to exploit them for cheap physical labor as a society and not expect women to do the same? Well yeah, if I needed someone to lift 100 lbs I would ask someone who is physically capable of doing so without hurting themselves. Simple logic there. Resembles a naturalistic fallacy though. I could say "if I wanted someone to take care of a baby I would ask someone who has bodily organs specifically made for nurturing babies" yet you'd likely deny this is reasonable and I'd agree that it's not entirely reasonable to make this societal expectation.
-
Look fair enough, but they can do anything they want now in the west, and in Scandinavian countries specifically, the most egalitarian countries in the world, women largely choose to engage in traditionally feminine occupations. I don't mean this as a justification for any state of affairs, but as a refutation to the claim that this is all just one big situation completely manufactured by malicious men. It's not. If you want to analyze the history of gender discrimination are we going to ignore the fact that the vast, vast, VAST majority of people who have had to sacrifice their lives for social purposes are men, through war? Of course we're going to conveniently ignore that, because as usual issues which largely affect men don't matter and are completely skimmed over. A few women being burned at the stake due to superstitions and bullshit do not discount the billions of men who were forced to die in wars due to their leaders. This sure annihilates the patriarchy concept and justifies the female privilege concept as far as I'm concerned
-
I'm just going to go out on a limb here and say that's probably because men are physically stronger by nature, so men doing the brunt of the physical labour is logical. Ditto for the lumberjack/coal miner thing, in addition to sexism when it came to hiring for those jobs. So because men as a gender are physically stronger it's more acceptable to exploit them for cheap physical labor as a society and not expect women to do the same?
-
I'm just going to really bluntly say this now - if an ideology is opposed to people speaking certain truths, then it is inherently flawed. There are all sorts of abstract justifications for this, generally based on the idea that the truths shouldn't be spoken because they hold within them kernels of sexism or some other undesirable -ism or conclusion, but they are unacceptable if you want the ideology to be considered intellectually viable. Fact: men literally physically built the vast majority of structures you see in in society, statistically they laid the concrete and set the bricks. If your ideology is unhappy about the fact that I just said this fact then you really need to revise the ideology to be accepting of it and make it capable of interpreting it in terms of the ideology without disregarding the fact entirely - or else the ideology is factually flawed. That's just how it is. And feminism breaks if you say this in the minds of most feminists. This is an unacceptable fact to say. And believe me, these men did not enjoy laying the bricks. They did not reserve brick laying and construction, and these bad jobs, as a right only men get to partake in and enjoy, because it's not enjoyable and many died doing it.
-
Sorry but I don't buy the "it's all men's fault" patriarchy argument. Women hold a large amount of power in society and it goes largely unnoticed in discussions like this. They make the majority of purchasing decisions, so they are the primary drivers of the economy. They are the majority, so they could theoretically vote in favor of their personal benefit. History matters but only to the extent that it can be used for analysis of current issues. A history of patriarchy doesn't excuse the current situation. If feminists want to claim to be in favor of gender equality they actually have to act in favor of gender equality and not just discount the inconvenient male-specific issues because patriarchy supposedly caused them Patriarchy is not some thing that just existed in isolation, at best it's a natural state of our innate biology, since it can be observed in many species completely unrelated to us. And it's caused by higher responsibilities placed upon males, which comes with subsequent higher privileges for those elite males. None of us are part of the patriarchy, the vast majority of males throughout history weren't. It's irrelevant to modern times and women can choose to vote their own fellow women into office if they want, but they don't. As for the job argument, I understand it but it's irrelevant when it comes to feminist motivations for not arguing for more coal miner and lumberjack jobs for women. And they are stereotypically old style jobs, but they still exist - we still have lumber and coal, so they exist. Sorry but I don't think it's well said at all "Even if it's bad, it's because men made it that way" if we want to go down that path then you have to acknowledge all of the other things that exist on that path, such as the concept that men created the majority of all of modern society, including the good parts. If they created the bad are you going to acknowledge the good? I doubt it even though it's an obvious extension of what he said. There's this narrative that men created the bad... But nobody talks about the good, and assigning it to men's doings is politically incorrect. So who did the good part? Men did the bad and women did the good? Sorry I don't buy that. Is this going to be responded to in a reasonable way? Most likely not. "Men are crap, patriarchy caused all of this, not women, even though women are the ones who sculpted the current state of our entire species through their gender-specific sexual selection mechanisms" Going to acknowledge that? Women like dominant patriarchal men. They're sexually attracted to them, as a general rule. They specifically sculpted our species to be this way. Going to blame them for that?
-
tl;dr I want feminism to disappear and be replaced by humanism, and have every issue facing humanity be acknowledged and treated with equal importance relative to how many people they affect and how serious they are, with no preference towards ones facing females. Feminists claim to want gender equality but I don't see them acting that way Then on a lesser note complain about a lack of women in high positions but they don't complain about a lack of women in coal miner and lumberjack positions. They want the advantages they perceive men to have without taking on the disadvantages that are in general faced by men alone, even when the vast majority of men don't have those high positions they claim are male-exclusive for reasons of sexism alone.
-
Women are given a pass for everything because people as a whole are more sympathetic towards their causes. Women do the majority of personal spending on themselves, yet the broad and misleading wage gap statistic is held up as the superior statistic to describe the situation. Furthermore, men are encouraged by society to forgive female infidelity much more than women are encouraged to forgive male infidelity, even though female infidelity is the only one that can't result, for the female, in accidentally raising a child that isn't yours - since they know it came out of their vagina. And in France for instance paternity tests by suspicious "fathers" are illegal because "keeping the peace" of the public is more important than men getting to know whether "their" kids are actually theirs. I could go on and on. But I only brought up this topic because you specifically asked. Oh, and the homelessness rate gap. Does anyone treat that like a gendered issue? No - issues are only gendered if they're gendered to the disadvantage of females. Because only disadvantages that are female-specific get any special treatment as issues, even when other male-specific issues which are far worse still exist and are ignored or not properly acknowledged Whatever.
-
I've been on the internet my entire life, ever since I was a young teenager. I'm personally very horrified of some day realizing the internet isn't "my place" anymore, and instead it's "the place" of whoever is currently in elementary school. Hopefully there will always be a place for oldfags (I'm only 24 right now) How can you be so bitter toward women at only 24? I’m not trolling or baiting, I honestly can’t understand. I don't see how that even remotely relates to my post. And I'm not "bitter towards women" I'm bitter towards a society which simultaneously grants women countless advantages while also completely denying that those advantages exist, and on top of that also denying that men as a group face any disadvantages despite the completely well known and vetted statistics which support this being the case. Dispute the validity of claims that the male vs. female wage gap statistic only indicate discrimination against women? YOU'RE A SEXIST Bring up the workplace death rate gap, suicide rate gap, and assault victimization gap? You're being a pussy Bring up the biases in favor of "women and children" in family court which sometimes leave men penniless based on false or vague accusations of domestic abuse which taint the jury's conscience? YOU'RE A SEXIST Bring up well understood psychological tendencies like the "women are wonderful" effect? SEXIST I just want to be able to talk about it in the right context without immediately being shut down and called a sexist. I just want gender biased analysis of issues to go away in favor of humanist analysis, where the actual issue itself is analyzed instead of female-specific disadvantages it causes. For instance, the claim that women are discriminated against because they're, as a broad group, not as assertive and less capable of wage negotiation. While that may seem true on the surface, it's really a "shy vs. not shy" people problem, not a "female vs. not female" problem as most would have you believe. And this ignores the males who are affected by that particular issue The lack of any real in-depth discussion regarding topics like these, and the immediate reversion to insults and calling people sexist, is what I'm bitter against. On top of this, I also hate the lack of sympathy society gives towards male victims of physical, psychological, and sexual abuse at the hands of women in relationships in comparison to the large amounts of sympathy it gives to women who have experienced that situation.
-
I've been on the internet my entire life, ever since I was a young teenager. I'm personally very horrified of some day realizing the internet isn't "my place" anymore, and instead it's "the place" of whoever is currently in elementary school. Hopefully there will always be a place for oldfags (I'm only 24 right now)
-
You're right, now that I've researched it more I've seen that real estate is immune to the types of speculative bubbles people accuse crypto of being A permissionless uncensorable global financial network to bank the formerly unbanked doesn't provide utility to the world like cement, 2x4s, and sheet-rock assembled and then marked up 500% in desirable locations does. Real estate is even more profitable as well because you have to pay taxes simply for owning it, and the world's most valuable real estate is located near coasts, which will bring its value up even more when the surrounding areas are flooded due to climate change -
coinbase is decent, wire transfer into gdax (the exchange half of coinbase) and you can make limit orders and pay no fees
-
It's not unexpected. Regardless of the species and regardless of the types of sensory organs this species has, any sufficiently intelligent culture will eventually develop art consisting of modulations of the medium used to stimulate that sense. If there was a species whose primary method of sensation was touch and they advanced into a human level society, no doubt they would have advanced massage techniques and rituals, which could be abstractly called songs, meant for the stimulation of their touch sensitivity And since humans are the first species that evolved on Earth with language as complex as ours, sound is a serious and important sense for us. Music probably stimulates in a similar way to abstract hunting calls and the subtle walking sounds of animals we hunted, which developed into early musical rituals for stimulating that same mechanism [/end speculatory spergdump]
-
Had this a couple weeks ago and it was absolutely delicious. Went down so easy https://www.ratebeer.com/beer/paulaner-hefe-weissbier-hefe-weizen-55/647/
-
Oscars and all these awards are stupid nobody cares anyway
-
^Fiat is INFLATIONARY not deflationary* mistype
-
Also, to be clear here, the argument that "if everyone cashed out at the same time the system would crash and tons of people wouldn't get their money" applies to fractional reserve banking even moreso and this is one of the reasons people are switching to crypto. But they're not switching as a temporary value holder before inevitably cashing out to fiat, they're switching out permanently. I am at least.. I don't know how much cash Coinbase keeps but I don't care because I don't want shitcoins like USD. And make no mistake, USD and all government issues fiat currencies are shitcoins by the high standards of judgement we traditionally apply to crypto >Pre-mined >Deflationary >Monetary policy decided by a centralized group of authorities >Counterfeitable >Physically losable and rippable >Unsanitary >Wastes resources printing larges quantities of notes, and creating ink The list goes on and on. USD is officially a shitcoin, cryptos like this aren't touched with a ten foot pole by aware crypto investors.
-
Anyway you can cash out, for instance on Coinbase but there are $5k daily limits or something, they can be raised though if you ask nicely. If you're shady you may get your money frozen. You should do it in small batches and only ever have small amounts of crypto or fiat in an exchange at once. Just keep it, the whole point is to stop depending on fiat
-
Not clicking that link, but if you think building algo trading bots can ever be done simply think again. Even "basic" arbitrage bots are not basic. Have fun losing it all in flash crashes, feedback loops, manipulation by other algo traders who, if they know your algos, can make money off you trivially, things like this. The area is emergent right now still so you may be able to make money, but that doesn't mean much - it's hard to lose money in this market. Naive statistical methods do not make money >he thinks you can cash out
-
This is what generally happens for me with all artists. No matter what I don't find their newer work to be as good as their older work. I think it's actually a biological thing - apparently your memories lose their negative edge as you age, and this is the cause of nostalgic feelings. You associate their early work with your earlier life. Maybe bullshit though. That being said, this does not apply at all to one artist - Autechre - their new stuff gets better and better every time by orders of magnitude in ways I can't even describe. I will stop writing here or I will sperg out.
-
I don't even care lol. "Oh no, we're back to December prices :(". If you got in early this doesn't matter.
-
It doesn't matter if DOGE started as a joke, that's the nature of open source software. People liked it so they used it. It's largely used as part of an online tipping culture. Creators don't inherently matter. Only users. Nobody even knows who Satoshi is. Likewise, nobody should give a fuck what "Jackson Palmer" says since he hasn't even been involved in DOGE for years. The fact that the name and symbol are a joke doesn't mean anything significant
-
That's simply not true, the BTC transaction fees are likely far too high to tumble anything except massive quantities anymore, since BTC is not even anonymous. I don't think BTC would be good for money laundering at all for this reason alone
-
The main positive of the movie was the introduction of an entirely new class if supposedly artificial beings - AI holograms and the philosophical problems surrounding them such as the mass production of identical minds, determinism of programming versus freedom etc. BR1 = Humans + Replicants BR2 = Humans + Replicants + AI If they didn't add AI this movie wouldn't have been nearly as good. Can't wait to get on blu ray
