FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jul 23, 2022 1:43 pm
My money is on that being too weak to break this odd couple thing they have where the ritual mutual exchange of compliments keeps the honeymoon going.
Who is “they” here? From the context I was thinking IC and me, but I’m not sure?
Yes. I saw the youtube link, the whole "aaaand" thing he does when he's excitable, and Henry talking about feather ruffling... so I actually clicked on one of Mannie's youtube links (incognito mode obviously, I'm not after getting follow up recommendations off this shit). But it was just some boring Peterson waffle. So I predicted it wouldn't be the start of any interesting fireworks, because I felt the feathers and the 'aaaaaaaaaaaaand' were unmerited.
As Henry will tell you, I am super intrigued to see what will be thing that ends the whole opposites-can-have-massive-mutual-respect thing you two have going there. It's by far the most intriguing dynamic on these forums at the moment, and it's almost got me trying to remember if I used to have ostensibly civil conversations with him when I was new here.
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jul 23, 2022 1:43 pm
My money is on that being too weak to break this odd couple thing they have where the ritual mutual exchange of compliments keeps the honeymoon going.
Who is “they” here? From the context I was thinking IC and me, but I’m not sure?
Yes. I saw the youtube link, the whole "aaaand" thing he does when he's excitable, and Henry talking about feather ruffling... so I actually clicked on one of Mannie's youtube links (incognito mode obviously, I'm not after getting follow up recommendations off this shit). But it was just some boring Peterson waffle. So I predicted it wouldn't be the start of any interesting fireworks, because I felt the feathers and the 'aaaaaaaaaaaaand' were unmerited.
As Henry will tell you, I am super intrigued to see what will be thing that ends the whole opposites-can-have-massive-mutual-respect thing you two have going there. It's by far the most intriguing dynamic on these forums at the moment, and it's almost got me trying to remember if I used to have ostensibly civil conversations with him when I was new here.
'Pretty woman syndrome'. It makes men do weird things
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jul 23, 2022 1:43 pm
My money is on that being too weak to break this odd couple thing they have where the ritual mutual exchange of compliments keeps the honeymoon going.
Who is “they” here? From the context I was thinking IC and me, but I’m not sure?
Yes. I saw the youtube link, the whole "aaaand" thing he does when he's excitable, and Henry talking about feather ruffling... so I actually clicked on one of Mannie's youtube links (incognito mode obviously, I'm not after getting follow up recommendations off this shit). But it was just some boring Peterson waffle. So I predicted it wouldn't be the start of any interesting fireworks, because I felt the feathers and the 'aaaaaaaaaaaaand' were unmerited.
As Henry will tell you, I am super intrigued to see what will be thing that ends the whole opposites-can-have-massive-mutual-respect thing you two have going there. It's by far the most intriguing dynamic on these forums at the moment, and it's almost got me trying to remember if I used to have ostensibly civil conversations with him when I was new here.
Who is “they” here? From the context I was thinking IC and me, but I’m not sure?
Yes. I saw the youtube link, the whole "aaaand" thing he does when he's excitable, and Henry talking about feather ruffling... so I actually clicked on one of Mannie's youtube links (incognito mode obviously, I'm not after getting follow up recommendations off this shit). But it was just some boring Peterson waffle. So I predicted it wouldn't be the start of any interesting fireworks, because I felt the feathers and the 'aaaaaaaaaaaaand' were unmerited.
As Henry will tell you, I am super intrigued to see what will be thing that ends the whole opposites-can-have-massive-mutual-respect thing you two have going there. It's by far the most intriguing dynamic on these forums at the moment, and it's almost got me trying to remember if I used to have ostensibly civil conversations with him when I was new here.
'Pretty woman syndrome'. It makes men do weird things
First of all, thanks ^_^ I’m super self-conscious about online stuff so I took down that picture though.
Secondly, yuuuup
I recall one time a friend matched a guy in Tinder and she was like “I changed my mind, help me ditch this guy.” So I was like “gimme that thing” and started typing at him.
He was asking what she was into, so I made up some bullshit about having a form fetish (as in like tax forms and the like) and all this other ridiculous bullshit that no sane person would go for. He was still interested!!
Canadian Centre for Child Protection recently stated they're concerned that "adolescent boys are being targeted primarily on social media giants Instagram and Snapchat as part of an ongoing sextortion crisis ... The offender will then threaten to report the victim to police, claiming they are in possession of child sexual abuse material." ... Yet, so far I have seen this CCCP media release published in only one Canadian newspaper.
Male victims of sex-related harassment and/or abuse are still more hesitant or unlikely than girl victims to report their offenders. Boys refusing to open up and/or ask for help due to their fear of being perceived by peers, etcetera, as weak or non-masculine.
Also, I've noticed over many years of news-media consumption that, for example, when victims of sexual abuse are girls their gender is readily reported as such; but when they're boys they're usually referred to gender-neutrally as children. It’s as though, as a news product made to sell the best, the child victims being female is somehow more shocking than if male. Additionally, I’ve heard and read news-media references to a 19-year-old female victim as a ‘girl’, while (in an unrelated case) a 17-year-old male perpetrator was described as a ‘man’.
[Interestingly though not convincingly, one online reader suggested to me that since most sexual offences against boys are committed by men and therefore are homosexual in nature, the mainstream news-media will typically deliberately omit this information out of some misplaced concern for a potential resultant increase in hate-motivated violence against the collective gay community.]
Additionally, I’ve heard and read news-media references to a 19-year-old female victim as a ‘girl’, while (in an unrelated case) a 17-year-old male perpetrator was described as a ‘man’. Could it be that this is indicative of an already present gender bias held by the general news consumership, since news-media tend to sell us what we want or are willing to consume thus buy?
It's as though boys are somehow perceived as basically being little men, and men of course can take care of themselves.
Meanwhile, a New York Times feature story (“She Was a Big Hit on TikTok. Then a Fan Showed Up With a Gun”, February 19, 2022) written by reporter Elizabeth Williamson, at one point states: “Instagram, owned by Meta, formerly known as Facebook, has … been accused of causing mental and emotional health problems among teenage female users.” A couple paragraphs down, it is also stated that “Teen girls have been repeatedly targeted by child predators.”
The plain fact is, teen boys are also targeted by such predators. Another plain fact is that mental and emotional — along with physical — health problems are being suffered by teenage boys directly due to social media use. Revelatory of the latter is the extensive March 9, 2022, feature story headlined “Bigorexia: Obsession with muscle gain increasing among boys” (which originally appeared in The New York Times).
But a collective mentality may still societally persist, albeit perhaps a subconscious one: Real men can take care of themselves, and boys are basically little men. And without doubt, writes the author of The Highly Sensitive Man (2019, Tom Falkenstein, Ch.1), societal ‘real-man’ conformity stubbornly persists.
There are “numerous psychological studies over the last forty years that tell us that, despite huge social change, the stereotypical image of the ‘strong man’ is still firmly with us at all ages, in all ethnic groups, and among all socio-economic backgrounds. In the face of problems, men tend not to seek out emotional or professional help from other people. They use, more often than women, alcohol or drugs to numb unpleasant feelings and, in crises, tend to try to deal with things on their own, instead of searching out closeness or help from others.”
In [mainly the West] putting all their energy into fighting a ‘gender war’, they haven’t got the energy to fight the socio-economic changes that are being forced upon us.
MagsJ wrote: ↑Fri Sep 02, 2022 11:42 am
In [mainly the West] putting all their energy into fighting a ‘gender war’, they haven’t got the energy to fight the socio-economic changes that are being forced upon us.
Right. That's the point.
The Neo-Marxists are masters of distraction. They keep public attention on the irrelevant and vapid while they manipulate for poltical control. Like a magician, they try to get our eyes focused on the hand that's doing stupid gestures, so they can use their other hand to prepare the next manipulation for power.
They focus us on race, sex, age, ablism, fat, and even imaginary things like "gender," and in a heightened state of "moral" outrage and division, so we won't notice that they're seizing power.
The interesting thing is that when they get it, they're absolutely useless at doing anything positive with it. They just destroy. They have no forward plan.
MagsJ wrote: ↑Fri Sep 02, 2022 11:42 am
In [mainly the West] putting all their energy into fighting a ‘gender war’, they haven’t got the energy to fight the socio-economic changes that are being forced upon us.
Right. That's the point.
The Neo-Marxists are masters of distraction. They keep public attention on the irrelevant and vapid while they manipulate for poltical control. Like a magician, they try to get our eyes focused on the hand that's doing stupid gestures, so they can use their other hand to prepare the next manipulation for power.
They focus us on race, sex, age, ablism, fat, and even imaginary things like "gender," and in a heightened state of "moral" outrage and division, so we won't notice that they're seizing power.
The interesting thing is that when they get it, they're absolutely useless at doing anything positive with it. They just destroy. They have no forward plan.
MagsJ wrote: ↑Fri Sep 02, 2022 11:42 am
In [mainly the West] putting all their energy into fighting a ‘gender war’, they haven’t got the energy to fight the socio-economic changes that are being forced upon us.
Right. That's the point.
The Neo-Marxists are masters of distraction. They keep public attention on the irrelevant and vapid while they manipulate for poltical control. Like a magician, they try to get our eyes focused on the hand that's doing stupid gestures, so they can use their other hand to prepare the next manipulation for power.
They focus us on race, sex, age, ablism, fat, and even imaginary things like "gender," and in a heightened state of "moral" outrage and division, so we won't notice that they're seizing power.
The interesting thing is that when they get it, they're absolutely useless at doing anything positive with it. They just destroy. They have no forward plan.
Well said!
They actually try to "sell" that last point as if it were a good thing.
They argue, "We can't specify the ideal State in advance; it has to be worked out in the dynamic process of history unfolding." So they think that gives them an excuse from having to know, right now, what the "brave new world" of their future is going to look like. Just "trust history" is their mantra.
But while history is "unfolding," they also admit, it's a wasteful process. People will die...perhaps millions...on the way to "the ideal State" that they cannot tell you anything about. And they don't care that that is going to happen...that's just how "History" rolls, as far as they're concerned. To get to heaven-on-earth, we have to accept -- or even make -- Hell in the here-and-now. Burn down all the cities. Storm the bastions of authority. Silence all opposition. Murder the children. Whatever it takes.
They're a bunch of psychopaths. They're so ideologically possessed that they don't care how many millions die on the altar of their faith in "the dynamic of History."
The truth is that "History" is their substitute for God. It's supposed to "take care of" all the outcomes. And they just want us to put our faith in it, and to trust them to be its true-and-faithful advocates. And damned be all those who doubt the great goddess "HIstory." They're just "on the wrong side of History," so too bad for them.
This is why they're also so divisive. The anti-Leftists, whomever they may be, are just "a basket of depolorables," not a group of fellow citizens or a gathering of various dissenting human beings: they have no rights, deserve no quarter and no pity, and would do the world a favour if they were all dead. That's literally how they think.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Sep 02, 2022 3:05 pm...they're also so divisive. The anti-Leftists, whomever they may be, are just "a basket of depolorables," not a group of fellow citizens or a gathering of various dissenting human beings...
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 3:01 pm
I notice that a lot of gender theory talks two different ways. So I'd like to know which of the following two positions is to be considered genuinely "Feminist".
1. There is something unique and special to being female, something that cannot be generated by males...(What would it be? A kind of cognition? A kind of perception? A kind of intuition? A natural propensity? A domestic possibility? A set of values? A perspective?...etc. It varies among Feminist writers) -- this is a kind of 3rd Wave claim.
2. There is nothing unique to being female: any current differences that appear to exist between men and women are socially constructed, not essential. This is a kind of 2nd Wave, Billie Jean King kind of position.
One thing we can see for sure: these claims are absolutely exclusive of one another. If there is even one thing that corresponds to #1, then #2 is obviously not true. If #2 is true, then there is no way that even one item can be true under #1.
And this is but the start of the question. There is a stage 2 when we have sorted out the right answer.
So we can all see it has to be #1 or #2. Which do you think it is, and why?
It’s not a theory it’s cult indoctrination, an out right attack on binary humanity while at the same time identifying as human
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 3:01 pm
I notice that a lot of gender theory talks two different ways. So I'd like to know which of the following two positions is to be considered genuinely "Feminist".
1. There is something unique and special to being female, something that cannot be generated by males...(What would it be? A kind of cognition? A kind of perception? A kind of intuition? A natural propensity? A domestic possibility? A set of values? A perspective?...etc. It varies among Feminist writers) -- this is a kind of 3rd Wave claim.
2. There is nothing unique to being female: any current differences that appear to exist between men and women are socially constructed, not essential. This is a kind of 2nd Wave, Billie Jean King kind of position.
One thing we can see for sure: these claims are absolutely exclusive of one another. If there is even one thing that corresponds to #1, then #2 is obviously not true. If #2 is true, then there is no way that even one item can be true under #1.
And this is but the start of the question. There is a stage 2 when we have sorted out the right answer.
So we can all see it has to be #1 or #2. Which do you think it is, and why?
It’s not a theory it’s cult indoctrination, an out right attack on binary humanity while at the same time identifying as human
Well, true enough. But it's got to be one or the other: either "feminine" means something different from "masculine," or it means exactly the same thing. So I'm interested in which horse people want to ride on that question.
They don’t have “A” horse, they have a coral full of them and do not think for one second the definition of ANY WORD is truly defined in their mind. The speak Minglish not English
