NationStates

I'm curious why you 4 have concluded Cek is bad. I've just seen general feminist stuff from them, so is there something i've missed?

Ostroeuropa wrote:I'm curious why you 4 have concluded Cek is bad. I've just seen general feminist stuff from them, so is there something i've missed?

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=491254&p=37685651#p37685651 is what I believe is the thing that made the others go "Nope".

The Blaatschapen wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:I'm curious why you 4 have concluded Cek is bad. I've just seen general feminist stuff from them, so is there something i've missed?

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=491254&p=37685651#p37685651 is what I believe is the thing that made the others go "Nope".

Ahh. So, Cek isn't aware of the study showing female leaders start more wars per-leader than male ones.

This is the old "All food poisoning is caused by the chef, so if I cook, there will be less food poisoning" nonsense, the presumption that because most wars are started by men, that must mean men are more likely to start wars and if we replace them with women there will be less wars. It ignores that opportunity plays a role in those figures.

The Blaatschapen wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:I'm curious why you 4 have concluded Cek is bad. I've just seen general feminist stuff from them, so is there something i've missed?

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=491254&p=37685651#p37685651 is what I believe is the thing that made the others go "Nope".

Oof. That's a nasty quote.

Yeah nah, if the world was ruled by women we'd still have the same problems we do now, since (quite amusingly) having a dick isn't a prerequisite for being a dick.

Albrenia wrote:

The Blaatschapen wrote:viewtopic.php?f=20&t=491254&p=37685651#p37685651 is what I believe is the thing that made the others go "Nope".

Oof. That's a nasty quote.

Yeah nah, if the world was ruled by women we'd still have the same problems we do now, since (quite amusingly) having a dick isn't a prerequisite for being a dick.

If the stats are anything to go by, we'd have more problems. This is not surprising when you consider men have undergone about 100 years of ethical and moral development more than most women, who have been blocking their ears and screaming about patriarchy rather than learning to be better people and engaging in actual dialogue with men.

Consider the influence women have had on disaster aid for instance, where we have moved back as a species as a result of their leadership on that issue.

I'm not sure "50% more of the planets population is now at risk from famine in disaster areas" is a stellar thing for them to put on their resume, though of course this doesn't get through to most of them due to the high levels of in-group bias they have.

It's sort of like thinking "Group A With a measurably extreme level of racism would make better leaders than Group B, who do not have this quality.".

It's, you know. Ridiculous. The only way you can believe it is if you share that racism.

That's before you examine the studies on how women start wars more often than men, and a whole host of other issues like the neuroticism studies showing women are less able to cope with stressful situations. (I'd argue as a result of a life of privilege compared to men.).

Finally, womens in group bias and how they have build their identity on in-group out group dynamics and feminist ideology would certainly cause some issues if they were to take full control over all levers of government. It would result in either escalated and increasingly deranged discrimination against men, resulting in eventual mass violence one way or the other, or the balkanization of womens in-group bias as they search around for a new Other to hate and define themselves against and start clinging to racism and xenophobia.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Albrenia wrote:
Oof. That's a nasty quote.

Yeah nah, if the world was ruled by women we'd still have the same problems we do now, since (quite amusingly) having a dick isn't a prerequisite for being a dick.

If the stats are anything to go by, we'd have more problems. This is not surprising when you consider men have undergone about 100 years of ethical and moral development more than most women, who have been blocking their ears and screaming about patriarchy rather than learning to be better people and engaging in actual dialogue with men.

Consider the influence women have had on disaster aid for instance, where we have moved back as a species as a result of their leadership on that issue.

I'm not sure "50% more of the planets population is now at risk from famine in disaster areas" is a stellar thing for them to put on their resume, though of course this doesn't get through to most of them due to the high levels of in-group bias they have.

It's sort of like thinking "Group A With a measurably extreme level of racism would make better leaders than Group B, who do not have this quality.".

It's, you know. Ridiculous. The only way you can believe it is if you share that racism.

How can I have 100 more years of ethical and moral development when I am only in my 30s?

It's not like I only read and listen to other men. I read media written by all genders. In the case of men, I guess I can call it mendia. (and womendia.... and now i've made my pun so terrible)

The Blaatschapen wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
If the stats are anything to go by, we'd have more problems. This is not surprising when you consider men have undergone about 100 years of ethical and moral development more than most women, who have been blocking their ears and screaming about patriarchy rather than learning to be better people and engaging in actual dialogue with men.

Consider the influence women have had on disaster aid for instance, where we have moved back as a species as a result of their leadership on that issue.

I'm not sure "50% more of the planets population is now at risk from famine in disaster areas" is a stellar thing for them to put on their resume, though of course this doesn't get through to most of them due to the high levels of in-group bias they have.

It's sort of like thinking "Group A With a measurably extreme level of racism would make better leaders than Group B, who do not have this quality.".

It's, you know. Ridiculous. The only way you can believe it is if you share that racism.

How can I have 100 more years of ethical and moral development when I am only in my 30s?

It's not like I only read and listen to other men. I read media written by all genders. In the case of men, I guess I can call it mendia. (and womendia.... and now i've made my pun so terrible)

Ethics is a discourse. You are the product of thousands of years of ethical and moral discourse and the development of that discourse.

It's also not a matter of who is discussing, but what is being discussed.

Thanks to feminism, for about a hundred years, womens worst and most selfish impulses have been encouraged and glorified while men have been instructed on how to be better people to others and be less discriminatory and sexist. Women have not undergone this development.

Sort of like if white people decided "Minorities are all thick as shit compared to white people, so we should give them free school and college. Obviously whites are just inherently intelligent though, so they don't need to go to school.", kept that up for generations and then acted outraged when people pointed out the obvious consequences of that behavior would be that minorities are simply more knowledgable than white people and white people have made themselves really stupid and ignorant as a result of their own ridiculous idea.

This is essentially what feminism has done on the topic of ethical discourse and education.

Feminisms fundamental solipcism, self-absorption, and selfishness led to a fundamental misdiagnosis of sexism, how it works, what causes it and so on, and has left women ethically challenged relative to men in terms of treatment of the other gender.

We have a very developed understanding as a society of how men should act and how they should treat others to avoid being sexist. This understanding is lacking for women and how they should behave.

That is what I mean when I say we have a hundred years of development over them. Your question is like asking; "How can I have thousands of years more scientific development than a tribe that outright denies the scientific method is a thing? I'm only 30.". And yet, you know the earth goes round the sun, gravity and all that, and they're still sacrificing people to volcanos. The gulf of understanding between you and one of them is more profound than "30 years" would suggest.

You stand on the shoulders of giants and so on.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

The Blaatschapen wrote:
How can I have 100 more years of ethical and moral development when I am only in my 30s?

It's not like I only read and listen to other men. I read media written by all genders. In the case of men, I guess I can call it mendia. (and womendia.... and now i've made my pun so terrible)

Ethics is a discourse. You are the product of thousands of years of ethical and moral discourse and the development of that discourse.

It's also not a matter of who is discussing, but what is being discussed.

Thanks to feminism, for about a hundred years, womens worst and most selfish impulses have been encouraged and glorified while men have been instructed on how to be better people to others and be less discriminatory and sexist. Women have not undergone this development.

Sort of like if white people decided "Minorities are all thick as shit compared to white people, so we should give them free school and college. Obviously whites are just inherently intelligent though, so they don't need to go to school.", kept that up for generations and then acted outraged when people pointed out the obvious consequences of that behavior would be that minorities are simply more knowledgable than white people and white people have made themselves really stupid and ignorant as a result of their own ridiculous idea.

This is essentially what feminism has done on the topic of ethical discourse and education.

Feminisms fundamental solipcism, self-absorption, and selfishness led to a fundamental misdiagnosis of sexism, how it works, what causes it and so on, and has left women ethically challenged relative to men in terms of treatment of the other gender.

We have a very developed understanding as a society of how men should act and how they should treat others to avoid being sexist. This understanding is lacking for women and how they should behave.

That is what I mean when I say we have a hundred years of development over them. Your question is like asking; "How can I have thousands of years more scientific development than a tribe that outright denies the scientific method is a thing? I'm only 30.". And yet, you know the earth goes round the sun, gravity and all that, and they're still sacrificing people to volcanos. The gulf of understanding between you and one of them is more profound than "30 years" would suggest.

You stand on the shoulders of giants and so on.

Thank you for the clarification. I'll now process this.

Cekoviu wrote:

Nuroblav wrote:Everybody gangsta until the informal alliance pops up

ikr im so scared and intimidated im reconsidering my entire worldview bc a brocialist and three liberals dont like me

Today I learned not hating men and not thinking we should curtail their civil rights makes me a brocialist.

The Blaatschapen wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:I'm curious why you 4 have concluded Cek is bad. I've just seen general feminist stuff from them, so is there something i've missed?

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=491254&p=37685651#p37685651 is what I believe is the thing that made the others go "Nope".

What really pisses me off is that the mods tolerate this hateful bullshit.

The Rich Port wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:ikr im so scared and intimidated im reconsidering my entire worldview bc a brocialist and three liberals dont like me

And me.

And of me, you should most definitely be scared.

Scared that you don't make any sense and your thoughts about this shit be basic and lukewarm af.

I'm Gimli telling Frodo he got the axe too and you're... I dunno what's a really crappy LOTR villain.

Figwit.

i am not a nerd so i have no idea what you're talking about

West Leas Oros 2 wrote:

The Blaatschapen wrote:viewtopic.php?f=20&t=491254&p=37685651#p37685651 is what I believe is the thing that made the others go "Nope".

What really pisses me off is that the mods tolerate this hateful bullshit.

love u too

Cekoviu wrote:

West Leas Oros 2 wrote:What really pisses me off is that the mods tolerate this hateful bullshit.

love u too

You know, you could try to substantiate and defend your beliefs instead of responding with smug quips.

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:love u too

You know, you could try to substantiate and defend your beliefs instead of responding with smug quips.

i'm aware that i could, but i don't particularly want to so

Cekoviu wrote:i'm aware that i could, but i don't particularly want to so

Of course you don't why would anyone want to look like an idiot? Explaining your position would just end in you getting owned by three liberals and a brocialist.When your beliefs are indefensible declining to offer a defense is often the best course of action. Knowing when to fold em is a noble trait, if you've made an error it was acknowledging that you're aware of the opposition even if you arent yet admitting you're vastly outgunned.

Des-Bal wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:i'm aware that i could, but i don't particularly want to so

Of course you don't why would anyone want to look like an idiot? Explaining your position would just end in you getting owned by three liberals and a brocialist.When your beliefs are indefensible declining to offer a defense is often the best course of action. Knowing when to fold em is a noble trait, if you've made an error it was acknowledging that you're aware of the opposition even if you arent yet admitting you're vastly outgunned.

and/or i simply choose not to because i have better things to do than dissect and justify my psychology to a bunch of smug internet randos with 0 self-awareness

Cekoviu wrote:

The Rich Port wrote:
And me.

And of me, you should most definitely be scared.

Scared that you don't make any sense and your thoughts about this shit be basic and lukewarm af.

I'm Gimli telling Frodo he got the axe too and you're... I dunno what's a really crappy LOTR villain.

Figwit.

i am not a nerd so i have no idea what you're talking about

You're an entomologist lol

Cekoviu wrote:and/or i simply choose not to because i have better things to do than dissect and justify my psychology to a bunch of smug internet randos with 0 self-awareness

Or maybe you have to wash your hair, lies and excuses can be as big as your imagination.

New haven america wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:i am not a nerd so i have no idea what you're talking about

You're an entomologist lol

ok i'm a nerd but i'm the kind of nerd who reads about stoneflies not elves

Des-Bal wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:and/or i simply choose not to because i have better things to do than dissect and justify my psychology to a bunch of smug internet randos with 0 self-awareness

Or maybe you have to wash your hair, lies and excuses can be as big as your imagination.

i have to admit, i'm not familiar with the expression you're using here

Cekoviu wrote:i have to admit, i'm not familiar with the expression you're using here

"I have to wash my hair" Is a much-used excuse some give to avoid social engagements to which they do not wish to attend. Usually dates, but can also apply to non-romantic gatherings if one wishes it to.

The person generally does not have to wash their hair.

Albrenia wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:i have to admit, i'm not familiar with the expression you're using here

"I have to wash my hair" Is a much-used excuse some give to avoid social engagements to which they do not wish to attend. Usually dates, but can also apply to non-romantic gatherings if one wishes it to.

The person generally does not have to wash their hair.

ah, i see

incidentally, washing my hair was one of the things i did today instead of arguing about feminism online, so that does fit

Cekoviu wrote:

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:You know, you could try to substantiate and defend your beliefs instead of responding with smug quips.

i'm aware that i could, but i don't particularly want to so

If you haven't the heart to argue with people, don't bother expressing such snide contempt for them.

New haven america wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:i am not a nerd so i have no idea what you're talking about

You're an entomologist lol

Seriously, if there's anybody that shouldn't judge someone to be a nerd or anything else... It's a goddamn bug nerd.

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:i'm aware that i could, but i don't particularly want to so

If you haven't the heart to argue with people, don't bother expressing such snide contempt for them.

y tho, it's so fun

Bug nerds are best nerds.

*squeezes his Skitter plushie*