https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/884033889613828096
Wow, this is just awful in every way. Somebody actually sat down and recorded that song. Somebody actually edited that video. Somebody actually put the two together, and Trump actually tweeted it.
You guys have unsurprisingly missed the point(s) (just like last time).’
I’m a white male, I could never possibly understand these things.
Hopefully someday you and the rest will (and you most certainly can), and the world will be a better place.
Yeah, I know, I make the world such a horrible place right now.
This is the kind of shit that makes it impossible to reach a point of understanding.
No the kind sh** that makes it impossible to reach a point of understand are articles like the ones posted yesterday.
No.
Yes.
huh?
2011 meme
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/nope-chuck-testa
It was a roundabout way of saying “nope.”
You guys have unsurprisingly missed the point(s) (just like last time).’
I’m a white male, I could never possibly understand these things.
Hopefully someday you and the rest will (and you most certainly can), and the world will be a better place.
The world will never get better, Donald Trump will transfer his brain into a giant robot and lead the US invasion of Canada, climate change will turn this country into a Mad Max-ian wasteland within 2 years.
Oh god, Jeebus is one of those “circumcision is forced upon males against their will” people.
Not really. It’s not an issue I particularly care about, but I don’t see how you can disagree with the fact that it’s forced.
I’ve been playing a heap of Fallout 3 recently. I know it gets a lot of hate, but if this is the worst Fallout game, I can’t wait to play the best.
It isn’t, that would be 4. The best of the 3D is New Vegas, no doubt.
Really? That’s interesting, I bought PS3 New Vegas some time ago but never played it much. Sounds like I ought to revisit it.
It hasn’t aged very gracefully (the shooting/combat mechanics being the greatest offender), but it’s still an amazing RPG. I would recommend getting it on PC and modding it, but it’s just as good vanilla.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/explore/what-comes-after-once-twice-thrice
Nothing comes after ‘thrice’.
This isn’t about defending my damaged ego, this is about fairness. It is not fair assume guilty due to group.
I think some part of your ego is hurt. Why are you defending this so voraciously?
Is this a fallacy of some sort? I see it all the time, and it’s a line of argument that goes no where.
Some part of everybody’s ego is hurt when your arguments are beaten down. A part of the masculine ego is hurt when it is challenged.
Didn’t realize you were a psychologist. But that’s not the part I was talking about, I meant the “why are you doing this?” part.
That was more of a rhetorical question.
Men should of course listen to what women have to say, but this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t defend ourselves when attacked.
Let’s say that men were, in some way, unprivileged in some way. Would you appreciate a woman going “well, actually” to you and undermining your points? No. In this theoretical situation, it’s the women’s place to listen, not talk.
If the man said something along the lines of “women are privileged,” or said that women have no problems, then yes, I would support her doing that. But what this really is, is a way of shutting down arguments. Someone₁ can claim that men are privileged, and when someone₂ tells them₁ that men get longer sentences, are the victims of anti-gay hate crimes more often, are the majority of the homeless, and are victims of homicide more often, they₁ can just accuse the other person₂ of mansplaining and derailing.
Firatly, what I posted was a purely theoretical thought experiment with nothing to do with the the world we live in now.
Secondly, men are disadvantaged in some areas, but all in all, they’re less disadvantaged than other people.
Some areas? Those seem like pretty big areas to me.
a few of the whole = some
And yes, those are bigger areas, but they are not universally specific to all genders. Fixing core problems with our economy will help homeless people, not just homeless men.
I’m not sure what the point here is. Gender issues are only an problem if they can’t be solved by wide-sweeping gender-neutral reforms?
What I’m saying is that these aren’t men-specific problems, like the ones we’ve been talking about with women.
Such as? Sexual harassment? That isn’t woman specific, though, so it’s not a woman problem, right?
It’s by far a woman problem. You don’t get headlines every day for sexual harassment of men.
I’d say that’s partly because people don’t believe it exists.
How is men being over-represented in the homeless and workplace injuries not a man problem, but women being underrepresented in some professions a woman problem?
Because those are problems that do not exist solely in our conception of gender roles.
Word salad.
Wouldn’t the ideal be a nice clean 50/50 ratio, with 0 deaths for either gender?
Yes. Where did I argue something other than that?
I didn’t claim you did, I was just asking.
The issues women have are much more engrained in society and are much harder to solve.
Much like prison rape and circumcision, yes?
I’m not sure what your issue is with circumcision.
Its existence.
Ok. Care to share some more?
My problem is when it’s done to newborns for the sole purpose of ‘aesthetics’. It strikes me as needlessly cruel. If it’s medically necessary, alright; if someone grows up and decides that they want it done, fine.
This isn’t about defending my damaged ego, this is about fairness. It is not fair assume guilty due to group.
I think some part of your ego is hurt. Why are you defending this so voraciously?
Is this a fallacy of some sort? I see it all the time, and it’s a line of argument that goes no where.
Some part of everybody’s ego is hurt when your arguments are beaten down. A part of the masculine ego is hurt when it is challenged.
Didn’t realize you were a psychologist. But that’s not the part I was talking about, I meant the “why are you doing this?” part.
That was more of a rhetorical question.
Men should of course listen to what women have to say, but this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t defend ourselves when attacked.
Let’s say that men were, in some way, unprivileged in some way. Would you appreciate a woman going “well, actually” to you and undermining your points? No. In this theoretical situation, it’s the women’s place to listen, not talk.
If the man said something along the lines of “women are privileged,” or said that women have no problems, then yes, I would support her doing that. But what this really is, is a way of shutting down arguments. Someone₁ can claim that men are privileged, and when someone₂ tells them₁ that men get longer sentences, are the victims of anti-gay hate crimes more often, are the majority of the homeless, and are victims of homicide more often, they₁ can just accuse the other person₂ of mansplaining and derailing.
Firatly, what I posted was a purely theoretical thought experiment with nothing to do with the the world we live in now.
Secondly, men are disadvantaged in some areas, but all in all, they’re less disadvantaged than other people.
Some areas? Those seem like pretty big areas to me.
a few of the whole = some
And yes, those are bigger areas, but they are not universally specific to all genders. Fixing core problems with our economy will help homeless people, not just homeless men.
I’m not sure what the point here is. Gender issues are only an problem if they can’t be solved by wide-sweeping gender-neutral reforms?
What I’m saying is that these aren’t men-specific problems, like the ones we’ve been talking about with women.
Such as? Sexual harassment? That isn’t woman specific, though, so it’s not a woman problem, right? Women being underrepresented in some professions? It seems to me like you’re picking and choosing when to care about representation. Do you care that men are graduating college less and less (a problem that particularly affects black and Hispanic men, btw)? How is men being over-represented in the homeless and workplace injuries not a man problem, but women being underrepresented in some professions a woman problem? Wouldn’t the ideal be a nice clean 50/50 ratio, with 0 deaths for either gender?
The issues women have are much more engrained in society and are much harder to solve.
Much like prison rape and circumcision, yes?
I’m not sure what your issue is with circumcision.
It’s existence.
This isn’t about defending my damaged ego, this is about fairness. It is not fair assume guilty due to group.
I think some part of your ego is hurt. Why are you defending this so voraciously?
Is this a fallacy of some sort? I see it all the time, and it’s a line of argument that goes no where.
Some part of everybody’s ego is hurt when your arguments are beaten down. A part of the masculine ego is hurt when it is challenged.
Didn’t realize you were a psychologist. But that’s not the part I was talking about, I meant the “why are you doing this?” part.
That was more of a rhetorical question.
Men should of course listen to what women have to say, but this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t defend ourselves when attacked.
Let’s say that men were, in some way, unprivileged in some way. Would you appreciate a woman going “well, actually” to you and undermining your points? No. In this theoretical situation, it’s the women’s place to listen, not talk.
If the man said something along the lines of “women are privileged,” or said that women have no problems, then yes, I would support her doing that. But what this really is, is a way of shutting down arguments. Someone₁ can claim that men are privileged, and when someone₂ tells them₁ that men get longer sentences, are the victims of anti-gay hate crimes more often, are the majority of the homeless, and are victims of homicide more often, they₁ can just accuse the other person₂ of mansplaining and derailing.
Firatly, what I posted was a purely theoretical thought experiment with nothing to do with the the world we live in now.
Secondly, men are disadvantaged in some areas, but all in all, they’re less disadvantaged than other people.
Some areas? Those seem like pretty big areas to me.
a few of the whole = some
And yes, those are bigger areas, but they are not universally specific to all genders. Fixing core problems with our economy will help homeless people, not just homeless men.
I’m not sure what the point here is. Gender issues are only an problem if they can’t be solved by wide-sweeping gender-neutral reforms?
The issues women have are much more engrained in society and are much harder to solve.
Much like prison rape and circumcision, yes?
Men are still more privelleged than other groups.
If you say so.
This isn’t about defending my damaged ego, this is about fairness. It is not fair assume guilty due to group.
I think some part of your ego is hurt. Why are you defending this so voraciously?
Is this a fallacy of some sort? I see it all the time, and it’s a line of argument that goes no where.
Some part of everybody’s ego is hurt when your arguments are beaten down. A part of the masculine ego is hurt when it is challenged.
Didn’t realize you were a psychologist. But that’s not the part I was talking about, I meant the “why are you doing this?” part.
Men should of course listen to what women have to say, but this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t defend ourselves when attacked.
Let’s say that men were, in some way, unprivileged in some way. Would you appreciate a woman going “well, actually” to you and undermining your points? No. In this theoretical situation, it’s the women’s place to listen, not talk.
If the man said something along the lines of “women are privileged,” or said that women have no problems, then yes, I would support her doing that. But what this really is, is a way of shutting down arguments. Someone₁ can claim that men are privileged, and when someone₂ tells them₁ that men get longer sentences, are the victims of anti-gay hate crimes more often, are the majority of the homeless, and are victims of homicide more often, they₁ can just accuse the other person₂ of mansplaining and derailing.
Firatly, what I posted was a purely theoretical thought experiment with nothing to do with the the world we live in now.
Secondly, men are disadvantaged in some areas, but all in all, they’re less disadvantaged than other people.
Some areas? Those seem like pretty big areas to me.
This isn’t about defending my damaged ego, this is about fairness. It is not fair assume guilty due to group.
I think some part of your ego is hurt. Why are you defending this so voraciously?
Is this a fallacy of some sort? I see it all the time, and it’s a line of argument that goes no where.
Men should of course listen to what women have to say, but this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t defend ourselves when attacked.
Let’s say that men were, in some way, unprivileged in some way. Would you appreciate a woman going “well, actually” to you and undermining your points? No. In this theoretical situation, it’s the women’s place to listen, not talk.
If the man said something along the lines of “women are privileged,” or said that women have no problems, then yes, I would support her doing that. But what this really is, is a way of shutting down arguments. Someone₁ can claim that men are privileged, and when someone₂ tells them₁ that men get longer sentences, are the victims of anti-gay hate crimes more often, are the majority of the homeless, and are victims of homicide more often, they₁ can just accuse the other person₂ of mansplaining and derailing.
Every group of people is disadvantaged in one way or another, in this world. That is the human condition. Rather than focusing on one and pretending another doesn’t exist, why don’t we work on all of them?
EDIT: If you think that saying “Not All Men” is sexist or even problematic in any way whatsoever, then you’re absolutely crazy. You’re an absolute lunatic if you think that reminding people not to generalize and blame an entire 50% of the population for the actions of a few is something that we shouldn’t do.
When they are untrue, imo, it becomes valid to bring up “Not All Men”. Point #5 shows this. Point #5 basically argues that there are no “good guys”.
Well, I mean, it is true. Every human being on this Earth is susceptible to bad behavior. It’s in our DNA. It’s why we have civilization. You, me, and every man on Earth are susceptible to objectifying women and giving in to bad social constructs.
I disagree with your framing that there are no “good guys,” as you put it, because there are good people in the world. There’s good men in the world. But every good person is susceptible to evil, just as all evil people are susceptible to good.
Then why frame it as a problem with masculinity? I don’t buy the “it’s a problem with the human condition” argument, if that’s what she meant, she would have said it. I think it’s very clear what the author is saying—by the very nature of being a man in the western world, you do have problems with women in some form or another.
Please stop taking the bait and let this thread die.
Matt Lanter is Anakin, to me. Speaking of Anakin, he looks very strange.
Back in black.
I found out your profile pic is of a new fangled Pokemon!
This again, lol.
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/04/politics/kfile-reddit-user-trump-tweet/index.html
CNN is not publishing “HanA**holeSolo’s” name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.
CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.
CNN tracks down someone’s personal information and threatens to release that information to the public unless he grovels at their feet and apologizes for daring to meme. If he does anything that CNN decides is ‘ugly behavior’—they dox him.
I thought “doxxing” was putting someone’s address, Social Security number, driver’s license and other private info out there.
Posting any personal information that the person hasn’t made public themselves; is doxxing, IMO. But even if it isn’t technically doxxing, it’s still not right.
If someone is going to play at being a racist a-hole online, don’t be surprised if somebody tries to out you.
I believe in the right to privacy, and that right is not forfeit just because someone may have shitty opinions. I am surprised with the unprofessional way CNN handled this, and with their massive overreaction to a silly Twitter GIF. I am not surprised that someone may have wanted to out him, but for it to be a major news outlet? And for that outlet to use that information as leverage against him?
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/04/politics/kfile-reddit-user-trump-tweet/index.html
CNN is not publishing “HanA**holeSolo’s” name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.
CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.
CNN tracks down someone’s personal information and threatens to release that information to the public unless he grovels at their feet and apologizes for daring to meme. If he does anything that CNN decides is ‘ugly behavior’—they dox him.
As usual, I don’t understand how people can get worked up about something so inconsequential.
The animation or being about women?
I’m not sure if this could be accomplished, but I had an idea that Padme and the Jedi would actually be at opposite ends of the political spectrum throughout the prequels, (probably with Amidala supporting palpatine), and that a big twist mid-episode III would be that mace windu was working with dooku to assasinate Padmé throughout the movies.
This would give Anakin much better motivation for switching sides IMO, and be a surprising twist that the prequels sorely lacked.
Cool idea for Padme to be a Palpatine supporter. It would be an interesting challenge to make the audience like her as a character; and look past the fact that she supported the villain, and ultimately helped bring about the Empire.
Could you elaborate on your idea for the Windu twist?
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/drone-attacks-yemen-war-bombs-daughter-was-killed-a7820566.html
Horrible, and this isn’t even unique to Trump’s administration. Things like this have been happening for years now.
Here are some gems from the comment section:
Sounds made up.
Thats war. Innocents get killed. Too bad, don’t live close to a target.
It’s a war. Islamic extremists have declared war on the west and many of their own people and until they stop - or are stopped by the communities that harbour them - this will continue to happen until the entire region is a crater.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/881503147168071680
This is supposedly the President of the United States.
https://twitter.com/JesseFFerguson/status/881601699500232708
Non-scientific poll:
If you were the CEO of Twitter, would you ban Donald Trump off the service?
Nah.
I am wondering… Why are you here?
Because I give more of a shit about other movies I own on DVD/BD/UHD compared to Star Wars. Fucking hell, I import too.
That’s the joke.
But jokes are supposed to be funny.
Let’s face it, THE CLONE WARS CGI TV series managed to accomplish something Episodes II & III could never do. Made you care about Anakin. Oh yeah, because the actor received far better direction. Blame Lucas on not wanting to give proper direction to Hayden Christiansen.
+1, but only for the section I quoted.
