Started by silentridge3 · · 👁 10 views · 52 replies
slywolf45 said:Someone really needs to buy some pads for silentridge3.
Susan Price30 said:Listen, brother (or sister).😁They really should have shut down those kinds of arguments on the news right from the start—you know, like when they closed that thread after things spiraled from just being rude to actually hostile. But hey, I guess that’s why we’re here... on this forum.
slywolf45 said:Look, comments like mine are perfectly standard from a guy's perspective. It’s just how things work.
To be perfectly honest, I couldn't care less whether I get a red card right now or not.
Look, if she wants to act like a cranky old lady going through menopause, that’s her prerogative. Let her.
I can't stand that behavior, regardless of whether I'm dealing with men or women.
Look, just go to a bakery and eat some pastries. Seriously.
silentridge3 said:I mean, part of the whole feminist hypocrisy thing is definitely this manipulation of statistics.
It seems like the usual tactic is to have the media constantly churning out these "statistical estimates," you know, like saying "every single second in America, a million women are being beaten"...
...but honestly, what you're doing here, this constant "nitpicking," feels even more shameful to me, if that makes sense. Because, look, even if we actually sit down and go through your specific calculations and assumptions—and let's say we give you the absolute best-case scenario for women—out of those 31 crimes, 7 were actually committed by women against their male partners.
Is that a small amount, or are 7 male victims somehow unworthy of being mentioned? Does a 24:7 ratio really feel sufficient enough to you to push this whole narrative that "women are exclusively victims and men are exclusively criminals"?
And where is even one solitary instance of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission stepping in to address men as victims? Not one article, not one TV show, not one single seminar, action, or petition...?
Maybe it's the feminism itself that has manufactured this kind of omertà, I guess.
Nicholas King said:Honestly, this is a question you should be directing at someone who—despite those figures you claim "aren't small"—still feels the need to repeatedly spout entirely different, incorrect numbers. Oops, my bad—it turns out you're actually the one who keeps typing out the wrong data... 🙂
I truly cannot wrap my head around why you're incapable of discussing the very issue you're writing about without resorting to terms like "feminism" or falling back on these weird forum conspiracy theories (though, I suppose if you look around, there isn't a single man to be found on this entire board, not even among the admins or the moderators...)? Surely you don't think the problem is too insignificant, or that you aren't skilled enough at debating, to handle a standard, civil discussion on a forum?
Sean Cook2 said:The figure being waved around here refers to attempted murder rates in the US back in 2011 (broken down by men and women)—and even that number is questionable. It doesn't account for actual homicides.
Drew Brooks8 said:I’ve already weighed in on this thread before, and honestly? I’m all for shutting it down. It was impossible to have a decent, normal conversation in there without everything turning into a total mess.
I don't know, I guess you could call it being violently happy, if that’s even a thing, though maybe it’s just that sort of aggressive, overwhelming sort of joy that feels almost like an assault on the senses, which is kind of strange when you think about it, because usually happiness is supposed to be this quiet, gentle little thing, isn't it? But sometimes it hits you with this weirdly intense, almost jarring force, like a sudden burst of sunlight in a dark room that actually makes you wince for a second before you can even process how good it feels, and honestly, I find myself wondering if we’re all just waiting for that kind of impact, or if we’re just too exhausted by everything else to notice when it finally happens. I can't quite make out what was being said there, though I suppose it doesn't really matter much in the grand scheme of things, does it? It feels like we're always just circling the same drain, waiting for someone to say something that actually shifts the needle, but maybe I'm just being overly cynical about the whole situation. Anyway, if you were trying to get a point across, I guess I missed it.
I mean, someone really ought to buy some diapers for that silentridge3 outfit, honestly.
I don't know, I guess there’s this strange, almost aggressive sort of joy that just hits you out of nowhere, isn't there? It’s like being violently happy—not in a way that actually hurts, but in a way that feels a bit too loud for the room, if that makes any sense. You’re sitting there, maybe sipping a coffee in a quiet corner of a Starbucks in Seattle, minding your own business, and suddenly everything just feels... overwhelming. It’s almost unsettling, really, because you start wondering if it’s sustainable, or if the universe is just building up some kind of cosmic debt that you’ll have to pay back later with interest. I mean, I’ve always been a bit skeptical of those people who seem to be perpetually walking on sunshine, and maybe that’s just my own cynicism talking, but when happiness comes at you with that much intensity, it feels less like a blessing and more like a sudden, uninvited guest who refuses to leave. It’s a heavy sort of lightness, I suppose. kaže:
I mean, honestly, comments like mine... they're just pretty standard stuff from a guy's perspective, I guess, if that makes any sense at all.
Honestly, I don't even care if I get handed a red card right this second or not. It really doesn't matter to me, I guess.
Susan Price30 said:I don't really care about that either.
The bigger issue is that the topics shouldn't be spread thin across two different subforums—like having World News and Politics cover the exact same thing—only for this guy to come crawling back here complaining because his thread got shut down after he spent all day trolling and being toxic... unbelievable.
I don't know, I guess you could call it being violently happy, if that’s even a thing people say, though maybe it’s more like a sort of aggressive, overwhelming sort of cheerfulness that feels almost intrusive, like someone coming at you with a smile that’s just a little too bright for the hour of the day or the general mood of the room. It’s a strange sensation, really, this sudden, jarring burst of positivity that hits you out of nowhere—almost like a physical impact—and you find yourself wondering if it’s actually genuine or if it’s just some frantic, desperate attempt to drown out the usual grayness of everything else, which, let’s face it, happens more often than we care to admit. It’s a bit much, I suppose, this intensity, this feeling of being pushed into a state of joy that feels less like a gentle wave and more like a tidal wave hitting a coastal town, leaving you a bit breathless and unsure of where to stand. Maybe it's just how things go sometimes, an unpredictable surge of light in a world that usually prefers its shadows, but it always feels a little unsettling, doesn't it? kaže:
I mean, honestly, just go head to some bakery or a cupcake shop somewhere and just gorge yourself on sweets, I guess.
Grace I guess I should probably mention what Sean Cook2 was saying about this...
And then, of course, he actually had the nerve to show up here and complain that his thread got shut down, as if he hadn't spent the entire time just trolling and being an absolute menace to everyone involved... I mean, honestly, it’s just unbelievable.
Susan Price30 said:So now the government is considered "femi-nacist" simply because it specifies the rights of any group that was historically viewed as vulnerable? (Especially in societies that weren't exactly pioneers in protecting human rights or believing in democracy). Perhaps this code should emphasize protecting the rights of heterosexuals, since they were also "vulnerable and persecuted" throughout history by homosexuals.
Please, don't even talk to me anymore 🙏...thankfully, I've never had the chance to encounter someone this extreme in real life.
The point is, it seems you don't even grasp (or perhaps you just refuse to accept) that this article—just as the headline states—supports gender equality by ensuring certain legal protections for women, who, let's face it, have been continuously disenfranchised throughout history.
And really, what else is there to discuss? Nothing.
Susan Price30 said:So now the government is considered "femi-nacist" simply because it specifies the rights of any group that was historically viewed as vulnerable? (Especially in societies that weren't exactly pioneers in protecting human rights or believing in democracy). Perhaps this code should emphasize protecting the rights of heterosexuals, since they were also "vulnerable and persecuted" throughout history by homosexuals.
Please, don't even talk to me anymore 🙏...thankfully, I've never had the chance to encounter someone this extreme in real life.
The point is, it seems you don't even grasp (or perhaps you just refuse to accept) that this article—just as the headline states—supports gender equality by ensuring certain legal protections for women, who, let's face it, have been continuously disenfranchised throughout history.
And really, what else is there to discuss? Nothing.
Susan Price30 said:So now the government is considered "femi-nacist" simply because it specifies the rights of any group that was historically viewed as vulnerable? (Especially in societies that weren't exactly pioneers in protecting human rights or believing in democracy). Perhaps this code should emphasize protecting the rights of heterosexuals, since they were also "vulnerable and persecuted" throughout history by homosexuals.
Please, don't even talk to me anymore 🙏...thankfully, I've never had the chance to encounter someone this extreme in real life.
The point is, it seems you don't even grasp (or perhaps you just refuse to accept) that this article—just as the headline states—supports gender equality by ensuring certain legal protections for women, who, let's face it, have been continuously disenfranchised throughout history.
And really, what else is there to discuss? Nothing.
Susan Price30 said:So now the government is considered "femi-nacist" simply because it specifies the rights of any group that was historically viewed as vulnerable? (Especially in societies that weren't exactly pioneers in protecting human rights or believing in democracy). Perhaps this code should emphasize protecting the rights of heterosexuals, since they were also "vulnerable and persecuted" throughout history by homosexuals.
Please, don't even talk to me anymore 🙏...thankfully, I've never had the chance to encounter someone this extreme in real life.
The point is, it seems you don't even grasp (or perhaps you just refuse to accept) that this article—just as the headline states—supports gender equality by ensuring certain legal protections for women, who, let's face it, have been continuously disenfranchised throughout history.
And really, what else is there to discuss? Nothing.
silentridge3 said:I can't help but wonder why such an important and genuinely engaging topic was just shut down instead of the moderators actually doing their jobs—you know, by penalizing the people breaking the rules and scrubbing the offensive posts from the board. It feels like the thread wasn't closed because of the trolls, but rather because of all of us who were actually invested in the discussion.
I really hope I haven't offended anyone by bringing this up.
hollowtrucker77 said:People have pleaded with everyone here more times than I can count to stop the trolling and actually stick to the facts and arguments instead of just shouting
but honestly, it’s pretty obvious certain people had an agenda from the start, and the moderators basically sat on their hands and let this whole thread go up in flames; they just ignored the reports until it was too late, letting everyone descend into total toxicity once the conversation was already dead in the water anyway
In my book, it’s completely unacceptable to let a discussion fall apart like this just because some activists decided to stage a hit job, and frankly, it says everything you need to know about the quality and the supposed "democratic" nature of this forum's leadership
I get that people have strong feelings and deep-seated disagreements, but this level of moderation is nothing short of a total disgrace
and I find it hard to believe any of this happened by accident
silentridge3 said:And this is just blatant misandry:
What do you think, Sean Cook2? Are you on the same side as people like this?
silentridge3 said:So, I suppose we should probably circle back to where this all started. Back on Tuesday, December 4th, 2012, I kicked off this thread by putting a very direct question to the moderators here:
Anyway, it's now Friday, December 7th, 2012.
Not a single moderator has bothered to give me a straight answer to that specific question. Honestly, nobody has even made an appearance, yet they seem perfectly content to let the radical feminists in here continue insulting me right under their noses.
What am I supposed to take away from this? I guess the (unspoken) conclusion is pretty obvious:
Michelle Wells3 said:The truth is, the thread got nuked because the personal attacks went totally off the rails. It turned into a complete circus and lost any connection to the original point a long time ago.
If you have something else you want to dive into regarding feminism, go ahead and start a new thread, but please—just be clear in your first post about what you're actually trying to discuss.
And let's keep the feminist state strategy out of the Politics section, folks. Same goes for the other side, obviously. Whether it's blatant or just masked behind those massive essays filled with sweeping theories about why the opposite sex is supposedly lacking.
silentridge3 said:Well, I guess I do have the right, and I’d argue the term actually makes perfect sense.
I mean, how else would you even categorize an ideology or a specific drive that insists on the "superiority of women"—which, if you look at how they handle everything from child custody disputes to those totally nonsensical quotas—or this whole idea regarding the "inherent value of women," like the notion that women are exclusively victims while men are just inherently violent?