Posts by wiredfalcon2

Paul Martinez73 said:I appreciate your doctoral dissertation, but that wasn't the question; you went way too far afield...
So, you're saying a woman who consciously trades her body for career advancement, only to claim twenty years later that she was actually raped the whole time...

That's the point, Price, and that's where this all went off the rails...
Which is why I believe that because of cases like that, actual rape victims are viewed the same way as these first types, which shouldn't be the case...

You also mentioned what women deal with since childhood, but you failed to mention how many women use their femininity for personal gain, flirting, and everything else to get ahead in life from an early age. Who among us doesn't know women who were wearing revealing tops and flirting with certain professors back in high school just to get a better grade? Not to mention college... basically, consciously using their bodies and attributes to climb the ladder.

I honestly can't be convinced that anyone could endure being assaulted for twenty years without being physically restrained, tortured, or held under such extreme duress that their very survival depended on compliance. To suggest otherwise—and to label someone a victim when they've actually built an entire career out of it... well, I just don't see it happening.

Then why even bother asking the question?

Jessica Gonzalez said:I definitely agree with your points, but I wonder why it actually happens. Let's not steer this toward American culture, because these behavioral patterns exist everywhere, and our conversation was originally about Hollywood anyway. We're really talking about long-standing dynamics between men and women, and I don't think we have enough insight here to truly explain the root cause. I have a daughter who might face these kinds of situations one day, and while I certainly wouldn't want that to happen, it's hard for me to say it's just because "society is primitive" or that it can be easily fixed. It isn't quite that simple; sexual violence occurs every single day all over the world. I guess it's more of a complex web of impulses and behaviors that have existed for millennia, so maybe it can't just be erased in a few years with some hashtags.

The only way this actually changes is through individual emotional maturity within the society itself.

First off, sex needs to stop being such a massive taboo. And I don't mean the school version where they teach you basic biology and where the plumbing goes—I mean talking about sexuality in its full, raw scope. Let's be real: in the privacy of their own heads, 99% of men have misogynistic sexual fantasies where women are basically treated like little dolls meant for use. I'm not saying that's *all* they think about, but it's there. Most guys know how to separate fantasy from reality—they know you can't act like that without consent. Sure, plenty of men feel ashamed of those kinds of thoughts too. But then you get the ones who can't make that distinction, and out of pure frustration or some kind of trauma, they turn into predators. If you try to use a social movement to indiscriminately label all male sexuality as "bad," people are just going to push back, even if the goal—stopping violence—is good. Same goes for female sexuality, obviously.

As long as this stuff stays in the dark—as long as parents won't talk to their kids, as long as TV networks flip the channel when sex comes on, as long as it remains a taboo—that gap between what's acceptable and what isn't is going to keep causing friction and harm. You see it all the time: men only seem to realize how it affects women once they have a daughter. But that realization needs to happen a hell of a lot earlier than that.

Paul Martinez73 said:Let's switch things up, since we haven't touched this topic on Offside lately.
Setting aside the actual sexual assaults—which I absolutely despise and would personally go to war over—there's this whole narrative surrounding people like the cases involving high-profile Hollywood producers. You know, when these famous types come forward claiming they were coerced or abused for twenty years straight. Honestly, I just don't get it, and I don't think I ever will...

I mean, if nobody is physically holding you in a basement with your hands and feet tied, why does it even happen? Is that still considered assault if you're consciously allowing it to play out? It feels more like you're letting someone walk all over you because you know there's an advantage to staying quiet, only to suddenly remember the "abuse" twenty years later once you no longer need their help to land a role.

Look, even at my job, my boss is constantly calling me out for drinks, and I can't always say no because she gets so worked up about it, plus she's quite unpleasant to be around and it's mostly just her feeding her own ego while we grab a coffee. But I’m certainly not going to claim I'm being assaulted just because of that; if she actually told me I had to sleep with her just to keep my job, I'd simply walk out of the company right then and there.

Look, if you don't have that innate ability to grasp abstract concepts, some things are just gonna fly right over your head. It’s a lost cause. ☕ Yeah, you know... it’s one of those things. Having that specific female experience. It just hits different.

Violence and harassment against women? It’s just everywhere. Basically, the second a girl hits puberty, she's dealing with it. Just picture this: you're a fourteen or fifteen-year-old kid, you head out to some high school party, and suddenly seven different guys are grabbing at you—hands all over your body—and you didn't want any of them to touch you. Not even the one guy you actually liked. Look, I'm not saying every kid loitering around a house party needs to be hauled off to jail, but let's be real. Girls are facing this constant invasion of their own bodies from day one, something guys just don't have to deal with.

Look, here's the deal—when girls go on a blind date, their biggest fear is that the guy might actually be a psycho. For guys? The biggest fear is just showing up and finding out she’s way heavier than her profile picture. I mean, try to grasp the difference in the actual threat level there. And honestly, guys don't really deal with that situation where some massive dude walks up to them in a club, they reject him, and then he just grabs them by the arm like, "Hey, stay right there, we're talking." That doesn't happen. Except for maybe once in a blue moon. Guys don't walk home feeling creeped out just because the sun went down. They aren't carrying pepper spray in their purses because some guy's friend got jumped last week. They aren't gripping their car keys between their fingers like a weapon while walking through a dark parking garage thinking, "you never know." Guys aren't scared to hop in a car with a girl they just met, they aren't worried about picking up a hitchhiker, and they don't feel uneasy being alone on a subway car filled with five random drunk girls. It's just different.

Look, here’s the deal. When guys are actually good-looking AND killing it at work, nobody ever gives them credit for the face. Nah. Everyone just assumes they’re some kind of genius. They don't spend half their lives stressing over whether a shirt is too low-cut or if they look cold or "unapproachable" in a sweater. They just show up. They don't care. And when it comes to domestic violence? Let's be real—in like 99% of cases, the guy is the problem. Violent outbursts fueled by "passion"? Murdering exes or current partners? That's just man business. Plain and simple.

And then, when you actually deal with any of that crap, you end up being the one getting judged. Like, suddenly you're the victim but somehow it’s all your fault for letting it happen. They tell you you should've known better. Real helpful. Then the cops show up and just shrug it off because it’s supposedly "a private matter" or some guys just had a few too many drinks and it's no big deal. Total joke.

Look, when you're living in an environment like this—where threats to your physical safety are just part of the daily grind, where you've basically become numb to it because you don't expect anything better—things get weird. You know how it goes. If you actually open your mouth to say something, there’s a massive chance people will just laugh in your face or, even worse, pin the whole thing on you. So, women just stay quiet. They shut up. Because in a place like this, even a victim of assault is treated like nothing more than damaged goods.

Guys like that? They basically never deal with that kind of stuff from women in their entire lives. Not even close. And they definitely don't get harassed every single time they step foot out of their apartment. Then they have the nerve to act all confused, like, "Oh, why didn't she just report him?" Please. Give me a break.

Look, take someone like a guy like Lincoln back in the day—he wasn't exactly a religious zealot, just a fringe political player. His whole vibe was basically saying there’s a direct line between God and the people, with zero room for any middlemen like the church hierarchy getting in the way. Fast forward to today, and it’s been twisted into this absolute joke where being an American is synonymous with being Catholic. They completely scrubbed his anti-establishment sentiment from the history books just to keep up the myth that we've always been inseparable from the church <3 Like, sure, we're the leaders of Christendom, but only if you're playing by their specific rules. If you aren't Catholic? Well, then you don't count. Screw you, I guess <3

Larry Fox5 said:Your comparison between the Czech Republic and America isn't even valid for a dozen different reasons. Back in the early 1900s, the Czech Republic was an industrial powerhouse while America was still mostly rural, agricultural, and struggling with huge literacy gaps. Even back then, Prague was the place everyone from our neck of the woods headed to just to find decent schools and universities.
To be totally honest, we basically "imported" soccer from there too. Even the biggest club from this part of the world traces its roots back to Prague.

After the Warsaw Pact mess, the Czech space finally stabilized. But America? We were forged in war—unlike them. We were built on war profiteering, where the supposed "pillars of society" were stripped bare until there was nothing left. The first president of our country was also the ultimate war profiteer.
And if we ignore the geopolitical positioning, the wildly different histories, and the cultural influences... these two countries are completely incomparable.

And yeah, the Czech Republic was an industrial giant at the start of the twentieth century, and people flocked to their colleges—why? Maybe because they had this long tradition of liberal thought (liberal in relation to Catholic directives, not "liberal" like today’s nonsense) dating all the way back to reformers like Jan Hus in the 15th century, which eventually pulled them away from central Catholic control. They had a reformer fighting for a national church against the elites—the kind of guy the Church burned at the stake, which just ended up making the people revolt against the Pope. America never had that. Not even close. Sure, being near Germany, an industrial titan, helped, but that whole history of Czech industry and independent thinking didn't just magically drop from the sky in the 90s when they split from the Slovaks after the USSR collapsed.

Jessica Gonzalez said:I guess the real catalyst for development wasn't Protestantism, but rather factors that don't really have anything to do with religion. Most historians argue that the trajectory of Western progress—leading to the discovery of new continents, global trade, colonialism, the Industrial Revolution, and modern warfare—actually started back in the 13th century with the Mongol invasions of the West. That set off a chain reaction that brought the Black Death to the US and Europe in the 14th century. After that massive population drop, economic structures shifted, creating a desperate need for new trade routes and exploration. Once the Americas were rediscovered, it basically kicked off the wheel of modern history that’s still spinning today. Religion had very little to do with it; churches were mostly just political players with limited influence. They might have cut down a few revolutionary ideas here and there, but I suspect politics and the global trade of things like sugar and cotton cut them down much more often. Up until the early 20th century, most Western societies were incredibly conservative, racist, and religious. Religion was mainly used as legitimacy—a way to claim a God-given right to use other people on the planet however they wanted (originally it was about animals and plants, but as things progressed, the demand for human slavery emerged). The British, who didn't care much about the Pope, were pretty much the undefeated champions of the world in that regard. The Spanish followed the Pope, which left them in second place, but like I said, these are mostly just modified myths used as tools by warriors, explorers, or merchants. Protestantism itself just adopted pieces of cultures that those parts of the West already possessed; Northern and Southern European cultures were already distinct long before. All those religions, schisms, and whatnot are just different flags or playstyles, but the game remains the same. Economic and industrial progress brings about new insights and myths, which eventually allow society to start discarding ancient religious myths (either rejecting them entirely or just valuing them less because they aren't useful anymore). Maybe you're pushing your own agenda just like believers push theirs, but you're doing it aggressively because you don't know any other way. I mean, go ahead, who's stopping you? It doesn't really bother me. You both seem pretty exhausting. The idea that you think you're better than Patrick Martin, or that Patrick Martin thinks he's better than you, is just a subjective idea, I guess.

We're talking about pears and you're lecturing me about apples. I made it crystal clear that I'm only talking about countries comparable to the US in scale, not empires with massive colonies. But here you come, acting all high and mighty by bringing up colonialism, even though I said five times already that I'm not counting those countries, nor am I counting places with ten or twenty times the population of the US (like France or Poland). Patrick Martin is on my ignore list, and frankly, I couldn't care less what he thinks of me or if we're competing. He isn't.

Jessica Gonzalez said:You seem to be taking a one-way correlation for granted—the idea that if a society is religiously oriented, it's mostly because that's why it's economically underdeveloped. But why assume that? Research suggests it might actually be more likely that economic underdevelopment triggers higher religiosity. Besides, economic status seems to have more to do with politics, national education, and plenty of other factors. Religion is a set of myths that holds a group together, but the same goes for a nation, a drawn border, or a currency. Every one of these fictions is useful under certain circumstances. In this region, there was the fictional entity of America, which is gone now. There was the USSR, there was the British Empire, and many other things. I think we can agree that developed Western societies weren't all that long ago very religiously active, and some still are. Many of those societies call themselves post-Christian today, but they only became that way after they amassed wealth. Religious stories usually bore wealthy people because they have other preoccupations, mostly economic and scientific. If you're a poor farmer in a remote area, the church is one of your few options for engagement. It isn't black and white; Larry Fox5 made a good point that people in Switzerland, Bavaria, or Ireland are quite religious. And those are standards that many ambitious Americans strive toward. Like I said, these are just stories and myths for identification and collective action for larger groups, and they can have positive effects. You can't really have nations of millions of people without shared myths to bind them. There are objective links like a shared language, but even that is a result of other factors. It starts with ancient myths, and later, modern myths take over. For Americans, history heavily marks that Catholic identity, but that's in the past. Statistics suggest it's gradually fading; younger generations don't care much for those stories. If you're impatient and want Americans to become secular as quickly as possible, I guess you just have to hope they get wealthier before that happens.

Look, if you haven't been following this thread closely, I already laid it out: the first real sign of progress is how much a society hates organized religion. It’s about that massive pivot away from the Catholic Church and the Pope to make room for Protestantism, Lutheranism, or whatever flavor of faith comes next. That whole "anti-establishment" phase—where everyone stops bowing down to the Vatican and starts questioning the absolute authority of the Church—is basically the spark plug for everything else. You distrust the central religious power, then people start getting rich, and eventually, the whole thing just dries up until nobody even cares about God anymore. Simple as that.

Consumerism—you know, that whole vibe where you can actually save up enough to buy some useless luxury junk that only the ultra-rich used to touch—has really only been a thing for maybe two hundred years. And this decline in religion? We’re talking maybe the last century, if that. So, I wouldn't go as far as saying wealth itself is what kills faith. It’s not like there's a direct link between having money and becoming anti-Catholic. Look at guys like Luther or Hus; those were clashes of power, people going head-to-head with the Pope and the central Church authority. That's politics, not just a bank account. Sure, poverty plays a role. When people are struggling, they tend to cling to nationalism and Catholicism because they see it as a sort of shield. But let's be real: most of these people were closeted believers anyway. They spend all year barely acknowledging anything beyond Christmas and Easter, but the second they feel threatened, suddenly they’re "super religious." It’s a performance.

Poverty doesn't turn atheists into believers, and it sure as hell doesn't make Protestants suddenly convert to Catholicism. I didn't see people in Chicago during the Great Recession suddenly finding God and flocking to the local parish just because their bank accounts hit zero. But you know what I do see? I see these "devout Catholics" who, the second things get tough, morph into these ultra-right-wing, anti-immigrant types with pure venom in their eyes. It's pathetic. ☕

James Anderson5 said:There’s this theory that countries like the Czech Republic and Poland dealt with much heavier Russian influence, so once they moved past that, there weren't as many holdovers from the old regime sitting in high positions to steer the nation's future in a different direction...

It’s also argued that despite how intense things got during the breakup of America, with those clear territorial claims, a good chunk of the conflict was actually orchestrated to ensure control over social resources, corporations, and property that hadn't been privatized yet. If the war hadn't happened, the former communists wouldn't have stood a chance at winning elections or keeping their grip on power; most would have ended up behind bars. Instead, they just shifted into the major political parties, and if you look at who has been running the show for the last 30 years, you can see exactly who grabbed the lion's share of the wealth and influence...😁

The church is really just the icing on the cake. Throughout history, they’ve always hitched their wagon to whoever wins, which is why even historical figures didn't trust them. Nowadays, they seem to serve a similar role of keeping the public distracted and compliant...

And that idea about Protestantism being the driver for certain regions' progress? That goes all the way back to Max Weber. It’s not a universal rule, but there might be some truth to the influence. Not that being Catholic makes you an automatic failure or being Protestant guarantees success, but there's definitely a connection there...

I wasn't talking about Protestants specifically, I was talking about people who claim they don't belong to any religion. Regardless, Protestantism is better for economic growth than Catholicism (assuming that's the only difference between two nations) because Protestants believe if you don't look out for yourself, even God won't help you. Meanwhile, Catholics say—just throw all worldly stuff in the trash, it doesn't matter, only the soul counts. Which is, honestly, the worst economic advice ever given.

Faith doesn't drive logic—that's just poorly organized social structures. Faith drives tribalism (closed societies where "us" is all that matters, which leads to corruption and drives away free thinkers who are actually useful to the economy). Faith drives expansionism (and therefore wars). Faith drives blind obedience to authority (killing innovation and the urge to progress). Don't get me wrong, this applies just as much if you swap "religion" for a state ideology like Communism; the mental processes and worldview aren't fundamentally different from your average believer.

Look, societies that aren't religious but live in open democracies are 9 out of 10 times more successful than comparable societies that are heavily religious. Obviously, that's not the only factor—being born in an oil-rich country in the 20th century is a pretty easy way to be economically successful for a while—but looking at the countries I mentioned, less religious societies are undeniably more socio-economically successful.

That's my take. Over and out.

Larry Fox5 said:I honestly don't get why religion always turns into such a personal battlefield—everyone just dives straight into the deep end... Why does it have to be so trivialized? People start throwing these random statistics around just to claim that mostly atheist societies are somehow more successful or wealthier than others.

It’s so obvious, too—they conveniently leave out places like Switzerland (where it's 76-24) or even Bavaria (81-19), but then they immediately jump to Scandinavia or Estonia to make their point.

The whole argument is totally bunk.

Look, I already laid this out when I was talking about comparable nations—you know, looking at scale, cultural spheres, that whole lack of a massive colonial empire history, stuff like that. You can't sit here and bring up Belgium or the Netherlands, talking about how they basically had half of Africa or half the known world under their thumb, and then try to compare them to somewhere like Estonia. That's just not apples to apples. We’re talking about small players here, nations under 30 million people, tucked away in Europe, without a history of carving up continents. You can't compare America to Poland or France either; they're sitting on 60 or 80 million people. So, if you actually look at what we can realistically compare ourselves to, the correlation is pretty damn obvious—societies with heavy religious coloring are economically failing 9 times out of 10. Case closed.

I see these idiots making fun of the Czech Republic, even though they joined the EU a decade before we did. Their people actually had enough sense to stay rational—they didn't go obsessing over religious fanaticism during the war like some lunatics; they just handled things sensibly and split off from those stubborn Slovaks. Honestly, looking back at where we were in the 80s, the Czech Republic is basically our version of America. Once they finally shook off all that Soviet madness, they just started thriving. They’ve got the lowest unemployment rates out there. Doesn't mean they're New York City, but for us? Yeah, they're definitely the gold standard.

I’ll just say one thing—9 out of 10 successful nations in Europe had massive anti-church movements and don't have a Catholic majority. You always hear people bringing up the Czech Republic as this benchmark for America to follow when it comes to industry; they've got a 70% atheist rate. Or how you can start a business in Estonia in three minutes because the bureaucracy is so slick, and those folks are 55% atheist. And don't even get me started on Scandinavia... People love to claim America is the worst in the EU, but we've got a 97% believer rate and a bunch of altar slicks. The correlation is clear as day.

If you take a look at the onboard footage from Giovanni’s car, it’s pretty obvious that you've got Richard right there on the right ahead of him and Grosjean way out in front on the left, yet he still tries to squeeze his way between them—and then, to top it all off, he acts like nothing happened during the post-race interviews.

Gary Palmer8 said:calling Leclerc "the golden boy" is such a joke. It’s obvious most of you think Hamilton is too dark, so you try to deflect from his actual driving with this nonsense... didn't they teach you we're all equal under the skin or whatever?

What kind of garbage is this? I think Hamilton is one of the GOATs. Period. It doesn't matter if he complains on the team radio.

Richard Ross11 said:He wasn't whining literally, but he was definitely talking too much on the radio.
You don't just blather on like the whole damn world is listening.
"We had an agreement, I stuck to the deal, this isn't fair..."

His own teammate ignores the plan, he brings it up on the team radio using totally normal words and a normal tone, and suddenly that's "whining" because he "talked too much on the radio"? Please. This is just pure hate against Charles Leclerc. If he hates you, everything he does is whining. If he stayed quiet, people would call him a pushover for letting Sebastian Vettel mess with him. Now that he actually speaks up, he's whining. If he doesn't speak, he's too quiet. It’s a lose-lose situation. Basically, if you're part of the crowd that can't stand him, whatever he does is just more proof that he's doing something wrong.

Retire the car.

I have no clue where people got the idea that Charles Leclerc was whining on the radio. That wasn't whining at all. He was just giving the team a quick reality check about the deal they made when he felt like Sebastian Vettel wasn't playing ball, and then once Plan C was called, everything played out exactly how it was supposed to. There was zero crying involved—unlike Lewis Hamilton and his twenty-minute meltdown in Monaco, where poor Peter Bonnington basically had to snap at him and point out that if Daniel Ricciardo could pull it off last year, so could he. And don't even get me started on that whole "Retire the car" mess at the Hockenring; now that was some legendary-level whining, especially considering he usually acts like he's too tough to ever quit.

cosmiccyclist8 said:anyone know what actually killed Vettel's engine?

then he’s automatically getting hit with a grid penalty at the next race if they mess with his motor, right?

Nah, not if they just swap in some old parts.

There’s already a massive thread dedicated to all the historical titles and drivers, so why on earth am I stuck reading about Michael Schumacher again on the 2019 Sochi GP thread? Just take that conversation somewhere else.:

It’s blindingly sunny out here in Miami. Honestly, probably too much sun for Haas to handle. Pre-race coverage starts now:

If we hadn't dealt with that SC and Vettel's car didn't totally die on him, Ferrari would've cruised to a 1-2 finish with Charles Leclerc taking the top spot. Everything would've been fine.

bluewalker92 said:Is it even possible that Sebastian Vettel just lost his mind after being moved back to a different spot and intentionally stalled the car? Like, if I can't win, nobody gets to? 🙂

No way. That’s just some conspiracy theory nonsense people cook up when they want to see corruption and fixings everywhere. The guy pulls in tens of millions of dollars a year—you really think he'd tank a car on purpose? He'd be fired before he even made it out of the paddock.

If they hadn't totally screwed over Hulk Hogan in the pits, he would've cruised into 7th place. Instead, he's stuck in P10. Just a complete disaster of a weekend for Ford..