Total Posts:240|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Modern Woman

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 7:50:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
*Disclaimer: If you don't think this applies to you, then it doesn't. I'm just making casual generalizations about the way many women in modern times seem to behave.

I think they have it easy in life - at least in the 21st century. They can get away with just about everything. They don't have to work, because they strongly believe that's their husband's job (reverse sexism) ... they can be lazy, because they can easily claim that they're weaker than they really are. They don't need education because again, they're not going to work. They still feel entitled to not only chivalry, but special treatment in general. Now, in the past, the big trade-off was that they had to do so much child-rearing, cooking, and were disrespected and considered inferior. However, the modern woman, exploiting the bloody work of her feminist predecessors, can cry "sexism" at the slightest hint of disrespect or role circumscription. In addition, the rise of day-cares and mass-marketed food obviates their domestic obligations.

So, having everything taken care for her, the modern western woman can be as flippant and carefree as she wishes.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 7:52:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 7:50:12 PM, 000ike wrote:
*Disclaimer: If you don't think this applies to you, then it doesn't. I'm just making casual generalizations about the way many women in modern times seem to behave.

I think they have it easy in life - at least in the 21st century. They can get away with just about everything. They don't have to work, because they strongly believe that's their husband's job (reverse sexism) ... they can be lazy, because they can easily claim that they're weaker than they really are. They don't need education because again, they're not going to work. They still feel entitled to not only chivalry, but special treatment in general. Now, in the past, the big trade-off was that they had to do so much child-rearing, cooking, and were disrespected and considered inferior. However, the modern woman, exploiting the bloody work of her feminist predecessors, can cry "sexism" at the slightest hint of disrespect or role circumscription. In addition, the rise of day-cares and mass-marketed food obviates their domestic obligations.

So, having everything taken care for her, the modern western woman can be as flippant and carefree as she wishes.

When royal comes to your house and kills you, we will praise your courage to say what we were all thinking.
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 8:07:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 7:52:59 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 3/4/2013 7:50:12 PM, 000ike wrote:
*Disclaimer: If you don't think this applies to you, then it doesn't. I'm just making casual generalizations about the way many women in modern times seem to behave.

I think they have it easy in life - at least in the 21st century. They can get away with just about everything. They don't have to work, because they strongly believe that's their husband's job (reverse sexism) ... they can be lazy, because they can easily claim that they're weaker than they really are. They don't need education because again, they're not going to work. They still feel entitled to not only chivalry, but special treatment in general. Now, in the past, the big trade-off was that they had to do so much child-rearing, cooking, and were disrespected and considered inferior. However, the modern woman, exploiting the bloody work of her feminist predecessors, can cry "sexism" at the slightest hint of disrespect or role circumscription. In addition, the rise of day-cares and mass-marketed food obviates their domestic obligations.

So, having everything taken care for her, the modern western woman can be as flippant and carefree as she wishes.

When royal comes to your house and kills you, we will praise your courage to say what we were all thinking.

I knew the first post would mention royal's name in some way. May the flame wars begin.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 8:09:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"*Disclaimer: If you don't think this applies to you, then it doesn't. I'm just making casual generalizations about the way many women in modern times seem to behave."

That's on the level of racism.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 8:13:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 8:09:30 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
"*Disclaimer: If you don't think this applies to you, then it doesn't. I'm just making casual generalizations about the way many women in modern times seem to behave."

That's on the level of racism.

That's a pretty light and unserious definition of the word, no?

Racism must involve deliberate hatred or feelings of superiority. Racism is not based on behavior, but rather personal characteristics. Racism substitutes words like "many" and "some" with "all" and "most".

If you're going to call something on the level of racism, maybe you should check if that thing aligns with the above description, first.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 8:16:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 8:13:53 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/4/2013 8:09:30 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
"*Disclaimer: If you don't think this applies to you, then it doesn't. I'm just making casual generalizations about the way many women in modern times seem to behave."

That's on the level of racism.

That's a pretty light and unserious definition of the word, no?

Racism must involve deliberate hatred or feelings of superiority. Racism is not based on behavior, but rather personal characteristics. Racism substitutes words like "many" and "some" with "all" and "most".

If you're going to call something on the level of racism, maybe you should check if that thing aligns with the above description, first.

You're berating a group and the individuals within it for being a part of the group.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
thett3
Posts: 14,344
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 8:17:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 8:13:53 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/4/2013 8:09:30 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
"*Disclaimer: If you don't think this applies to you, then it doesn't. I'm just making casual generalizations about the way many women in modern times seem to behave."

That's on the level of racism.

That's a pretty light and unserious definition of the word, no?

Racism must involve deliberate hatred or feelings of superiority. Racism is not based on behavior, but rather personal characteristics. Racism substitutes words like "many" and "some" with "all" and "most".

If you're going to call something on the level of racism, maybe you should check if that thing aligns with the above description, first.

Are you sure about that? I surely agree with your definition of racism, but if I were to say "blacks are violent" and cite a bunch of statistics showing how blacks commit more violence than other races, would not that be racism in your view?
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 8:18:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 8:16:50 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/4/2013 8:13:53 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/4/2013 8:09:30 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
"*Disclaimer: If you don't think this applies to you, then it doesn't. I'm just making casual generalizations about the way many women in modern times seem to behave."

That's on the level of racism.

That's a pretty light and unserious definition of the word, no?

Racism must involve deliberate hatred or feelings of superiority. Racism is not based on behavior, but rather personal characteristics. Racism substitutes words like "many" and "some" with "all" and "most".

If you're going to call something on the level of racism, maybe you should check if that thing aligns with the above description, first.



You're berating a group and the individuals within it for being a part of the group.

No no no, he said if you don't feel like it applies to you then he's not directing it at you haha
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 8:19:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 8:18:34 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 3/4/2013 8:16:50 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/4/2013 8:13:53 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/4/2013 8:09:30 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
"*Disclaimer: If you don't think this applies to you, then it doesn't. I'm just making casual generalizations about the way many women in modern times seem to behave."

That's on the level of racism.

That's a pretty light and unserious definition of the word, no?

Racism must involve deliberate hatred or feelings of superiority. Racism is not based on behavior, but rather personal characteristics. Racism substitutes words like "many" and "some" with "all" and "most".

If you're going to call something on the level of racism, maybe you should check if that thing aligns with the above description, first.



You're berating a group and the individuals within it for being a part of the group.

No no no, he said if you don't feel like it applies to you then he's not directing it at you haha
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 8:24:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 8:17:42 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 3/4/2013 8:13:53 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/4/2013 8:09:30 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
"*Disclaimer: If you don't think this applies to you, then it doesn't. I'm just making casual generalizations about the way many women in modern times seem to behave."

That's on the level of racism.

That's a pretty light and unserious definition of the word, no?

Racism must involve deliberate hatred or feelings of superiority. Racism is not based on behavior, but rather personal characteristics. Racism substitutes words like "many" and "some" with "all" and "most".

If you're going to call something on the level of racism, maybe you should check if that thing aligns with the above description, first.

Are you sure about that? I surely agree with your definition of racism, but if I were to say "blacks are violent" and cite a bunch of statistics showing how blacks commit more violence than other races, would not that be racism in your view?

We can't be so sensitive that it becomes impossible to peacefully make observations about group behaviors. By first of all acknowledging that not all blacks are violent, and that the violence of some is not a result of their blackness but of other factors, and that the observations are open to questioning, there would be nothing racist about it.

There's a difference between an angry neo-nazi screaming that Blacks are violent, and a sociologist writing about the violence in Black culture. Tone and intention in large part determine the "racism" of a comment, not the comment by itself.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
thett3
Posts: 14,344
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 8:26:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 8:24:42 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/4/2013 8:17:42 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 3/4/2013 8:13:53 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/4/2013 8:09:30 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
"*Disclaimer: If you don't think this applies to you, then it doesn't. I'm just making casual generalizations about the way many women in modern times seem to behave."

That's on the level of racism.

That's a pretty light and unserious definition of the word, no?

Racism must involve deliberate hatred or feelings of superiority. Racism is not based on behavior, but rather personal characteristics. Racism substitutes words like "many" and "some" with "all" and "most".

If you're going to call something on the level of racism, maybe you should check if that thing aligns with the above description, first.

Are you sure about that? I surely agree with your definition of racism, but if I were to say "blacks are violent" and cite a bunch of statistics showing how blacks commit more violence than other races, would not that be racism in your view?

We can't be so sensitive that it becomes impossible to peacefully make observations about group behaviors. By first of all acknowledging that not all blacks are violent, and that the violence of some is not a result of their blackness but of other factors, and that the observations are open to questioning, there would be nothing racist about it.

There's a difference between an angry neo-nazi screaming that Blacks are violent, and a sociologist writing about the violence in Black culture. Tone and intention in large part determine the "racism" of a comment, not the comment by itself.

alright fair enough, makes sense. I was afraid you wouldnt respond to my question in that waty but I'm glad you did. Anyway good luck once Royal and Oryus arrive
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 8:28:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 8:26:43 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 3/4/2013 8:24:42 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/4/2013 8:17:42 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 3/4/2013 8:13:53 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/4/2013 8:09:30 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
"*Disclaimer: If you don't think this applies to you, then it doesn't. I'm just making casual generalizations about the way many women in modern times seem to behave."

That's on the level of racism.

That's a pretty light and unserious definition of the word, no?

Racism must involve deliberate hatred or feelings of superiority. Racism is not based on behavior, but rather personal characteristics. Racism substitutes words like "many" and "some" with "all" and "most".

If you're going to call something on the level of racism, maybe you should check if that thing aligns with the above description, first.

Are you sure about that? I surely agree with your definition of racism, but if I were to say "blacks are violent" and cite a bunch of statistics showing how blacks commit more violence than other races, would not that be racism in your view?

We can't be so sensitive that it becomes impossible to peacefully make observations about group behaviors. By first of all acknowledging that not all blacks are violent, and that the violence of some is not a result of their blackness but of other factors, and that the observations are open to questioning, there would be nothing racist about it.

There's a difference between an angry neo-nazi screaming that Blacks are violent, and a sociologist writing about the violence in Black culture. Tone and intention in large part determine the "racism" of a comment, not the comment by itself.

alright fair enough, makes sense. I was afraid you wouldnt respond to my question in that waty but I'm glad you did. Anyway good luck once Royal and Oryus arrive

I'm not sure what this means...
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
thett3
Posts: 14,344
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 8:29:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 8:24:42 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/4/2013 8:17:42 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 3/4/2013 8:13:53 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/4/2013 8:09:30 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
"*Disclaimer: If you don't think this applies to you, then it doesn't. I'm just making casual generalizations about the way many women in modern times seem to behave."

That's on the level of racism.

That's a pretty light and unserious definition of the word, no?

Racism must involve deliberate hatred or feelings of superiority. Racism is not based on behavior, but rather personal characteristics. Racism substitutes words like "many" and "some" with "all" and "most".

If you're going to call something on the level of racism, maybe you should check if that thing aligns with the above description, first.

Are you sure about that? I surely agree with your definition of racism, but if I were to say "blacks are violent" and cite a bunch of statistics showing how blacks commit more violence than other races, would not that be racism in your view?

We can't be so sensitive that it becomes impossible to peacefully make observations about group behaviors. By first of all acknowledging that not all blacks are violent, and that the violence of some is not a result of their blackness but of other factors, and that the observations are open to questioning, there would be nothing racist about it.

There's a difference between an angry neo-nazi screaming that Blacks are violent, and a sociologist writing about the violence in Black culture. Tone and intention in large part determine the "racism" of a comment, not the comment by itself.

Just out of curiosity, would it be racist to reject the idea that this occurs from factors outside of race? I mean we both know that being black isnt the reasonfor more violence among blacks, but if one genuinely believed that out of some scientific evidence would you consider that racist? Even if there is no hatred, just regurgitation of what they view as objective fact
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 8:30:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 8:24:42 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/4/2013 8:17:42 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 3/4/2013 8:13:53 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/4/2013 8:09:30 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
"*Disclaimer: If you don't think this applies to you, then it doesn't. I'm just making casual generalizations about the way many women in modern times seem to behave."

That's on the level of racism.

That's a pretty light and unserious definition of the word, no?

Racism must involve deliberate hatred or feelings of superiority. Racism is not based on behavior, but rather personal characteristics. Racism substitutes words like "many" and "some" with "all" and "most".

If you're going to call something on the level of racism, maybe you should check if that thing aligns with the above description, first.

Are you sure about that? I surely agree with your definition of racism, but if I were to say "blacks are violent" and cite a bunch of statistics showing how blacks commit more violence than other races, would not that be racism in your view?

We can't be so sensitive that it becomes impossible to peacefully make observations about group behaviors. By first of all acknowledging that not all blacks are violent, and that the violence of some is not a result of their blackness but of other factors, and that the observations are open to questioning, there would be nothing racist about it.
Then it's a stupid observation.
There's a difference between an angry neo-nazi screaming that Blacks are violent, and a sociologist writing about the violence in Black culture. Tone and intention in large part determine the "racism" of a comment, not the comment by itself.

I would tend to disagree. You can be unintentionally racist.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
thett3
Posts: 14,344
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 8:30:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 8:28:47 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/4/2013 8:26:43 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 3/4/2013 8:24:42 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/4/2013 8:17:42 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 3/4/2013 8:13:53 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/4/2013 8:09:30 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
"*Disclaimer: If you don't think this applies to you, then it doesn't. I'm just making casual generalizations about the way many women in modern times seem to behave."

That's on the level of racism.

That's a pretty light and unserious definition of the word, no?

Racism must involve deliberate hatred or feelings of superiority. Racism is not based on behavior, but rather personal characteristics. Racism substitutes words like "many" and "some" with "all" and "most".

If you're going to call something on the level of racism, maybe you should check if that thing aligns with the above description, first.

Are you sure about that? I surely agree with your definition of racism, but if I were to say "blacks are violent" and cite a bunch of statistics showing how blacks commit more violence than other races, would not that be racism in your view?

We can't be so sensitive that it becomes impossible to peacefully make observations about group behaviors. By first of all acknowledging that not all blacks are violent, and that the violence of some is not a result of their blackness but of other factors, and that the observations are open to questioning, there would be nothing racist about it.

There's a difference between an angry neo-nazi screaming that Blacks are violent, and a sociologist writing about the violence in Black culture. Tone and intention in large part determine the "racism" of a comment, not the comment by itself.

alright fair enough, makes sense. I was afraid you wouldnt respond to my question in that waty but I'm glad you did. Anyway good luck once Royal and Oryus arrive

I'm not sure what this means...

I was afraid you would say "no that is racist" and pretty much contradict yourself, but you're consistent which is good
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 8:31:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Just out of curiosity, would it be racist to reject the idea that this occurs from factors outside of race? I mean we both know that being black isnt the reasonfor more violence among blacks, but if one genuinely believed that out of some scientific evidence would you consider that racist? Even if there is no hatred, just regurgitation of what they view as objective fact"

If it's true then no. However, it clearly isn't.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 8:36:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 8:30:12 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/4/2013 8:24:42 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/4/2013 8:17:42 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 3/4/2013 8:13:53 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/4/2013 8:09:30 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
"*Disclaimer: If you don't think this applies to you, then it doesn't. I'm just making casual generalizations about the way many women in modern times seem to behave."

That's on the level of racism.

That's a pretty light and unserious definition of the word, no?

Racism must involve deliberate hatred or feelings of superiority. Racism is not based on behavior, but rather personal characteristics. Racism substitutes words like "many" and "some" with "all" and "most".

If you're going to call something on the level of racism, maybe you should check if that thing aligns with the above description, first.

Are you sure about that? I surely agree with your definition of racism, but if I were to say "blacks are violent" and cite a bunch of statistics showing how blacks commit more violence than other races, would not that be racism in your view?

We can't be so sensitive that it becomes impossible to peacefully make observations about group behaviors. By first of all acknowledging that not all blacks are violent, and that the violence of some is not a result of their blackness but of other factors, and that the observations are open to questioning, there would be nothing racist about it.
Then it's a stupid observation.
There's a difference between an angry neo-nazi screaming that Blacks are violent, and a sociologist writing about the violence in Black culture. Tone and intention in large part determine the "racism" of a comment, not the comment by itself.

I would tend to disagree. You can be unintentionally racist.

I really think you need more nuance in your terminology.

There's a difference between the terms:
1. presumptive
2. Disposed to stereotypes
3. Bias
4. Prejudicial
5. Racist

If the controversial comment was unintentional, then it's probably either #1 or 2. There's no such thing as "unintentional racism"
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 8:38:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 8:36:37 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/4/2013 8:30:12 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/4/2013 8:24:42 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/4/2013 8:17:42 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 3/4/2013 8:13:53 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/4/2013 8:09:30 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
"*Disclaimer: If you don't think this applies to you, then it doesn't. I'm just making casual generalizations about the way many women in modern times seem to behave."

That's on the level of racism.

That's a pretty light and unserious definition of the word, no?

Racism must involve deliberate hatred or feelings of superiority. Racism is not based on behavior, but rather personal characteristics. Racism substitutes words like "many" and "some" with "all" and "most".

If you're going to call something on the level of racism, maybe you should check if that thing aligns with the above description, first.

Are you sure about that? I surely agree with your definition of racism, but if I were to say "blacks are violent" and cite a bunch of statistics showing how blacks commit more violence than other races, would not that be racism in your view?

We can't be so sensitive that it becomes impossible to peacefully make observations about group behaviors. By first of all acknowledging that not all blacks are violent, and that the violence of some is not a result of their blackness but of other factors, and that the observations are open to questioning, there would be nothing racist about it.
Then it's a stupid observation.
There's a difference between an angry neo-nazi screaming that Blacks are violent, and a sociologist writing about the violence in Black culture. Tone and intention in large part determine the "racism" of a comment, not the comment by itself.

I would tend to disagree. You can be unintentionally racist.

I really think you need more nuance in your terminology.

There's a difference between the terms:
1. presumptive
2. Disposed to stereotypes
3. Bias
4. Prejudicial
5. Racist

If the controversial comment was unintentional, then it's probably either #1 or 2. There's no such thing as "unintentional racism"

You're basing your opinions on groups. Race would be the group in that particular scenario. Therefore it is "racist". I'm sorry if I have a different definition than you.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 8:42:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 8:29:46 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 3/4/2013 8:24:42 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/4/2013 8:17:42 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 3/4/2013 8:13:53 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/4/2013 8:09:30 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
"*Disclaimer: If you don't think this applies to you, then it doesn't. I'm just making casual generalizations about the way many women in modern times seem to behave."

That's on the level of racism.

That's a pretty light and unserious definition of the word, no?

Racism must involve deliberate hatred or feelings of superiority. Racism is not based on behavior, but rather personal characteristics. Racism substitutes words like "many" and "some" with "all" and "most".

If you're going to call something on the level of racism, maybe you should check if that thing aligns with the above description, first.

Are you sure about that? I surely agree with your definition of racism, but if I were to say "blacks are violent" and cite a bunch of statistics showing how blacks commit more violence than other races, would not that be racism in your view?

We can't be so sensitive that it becomes impossible to peacefully make observations about group behaviors. By first of all acknowledging that not all blacks are violent, and that the violence of some is not a result of their blackness but of other factors, and that the observations are open to questioning, there would be nothing racist about it.

There's a difference between an angry neo-nazi screaming that Blacks are violent, and a sociologist writing about the violence in Black culture. Tone and intention in large part determine the "racism" of a comment, not the comment by itself.

Just out of curiosity, would it be racist to reject the idea that this occurs from factors outside of race? I mean we both know that being black isnt the reasonfor more violence among blacks, but if one genuinely believed that out of some scientific evidence would you consider that racist? Even if there is no hatred, just regurgitation of what they view as objective fact

It's not racist, it's just false and culturally myopic. If Black people who grew up around prim and perfectly positive influences still turned out to violate the law and demonstrate low intelligence, I'd be more inclined to agree. But since that's not the case, I seems more rational to conclude that such behavior stems from sociological, not biological influences.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 9:05:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 7:50:12 PM, 000ike wrote:
*Disclaimer: If you don't think this applies to you, then it doesn't. I'm just making casual generalizations about the way many women in modern times seem to behave.

I think they have it easy in life - at least in the 21st century. They can get away with just about everything. They don't have to work, because they strongly believe that's their husband's job (reverse sexism) ... they can be lazy, because they can easily claim that they're weaker than they really are. They don't need education because again, they're not going to work. They still feel entitled to not only chivalry, but special treatment in general. Now, in the past, the big trade-off was that they had to do so much child-rearing, cooking, and were disrespected and considered inferior. However, the modern woman, exploiting the bloody work of her feminist predecessors, can cry "sexism" at the slightest hint of disrespect or role circumscription. In addition, the rise of day-cares and mass-marketed food obviates their domestic obligations.

So, having everything taken care for her, the modern western woman can be as flippant and carefree as she wishes.

Wow, ike, your sexist side is really coming out today, isn't it? The modern woman can be as flippant and carefree as she wishes? Really? Am I supposed to bow down to you because you're a male? Sorry, but having male genitalia doesn't make you superior (in fact, it probably makes you inferior). Despite the fact that women are now expected to work, they are still expected to be essentially responsible for domestic activities as well. Many women struggle to care for their children in a traditional way as well to work at the same time, and often therefore have to sacrifice one or the other. (FYI, I don't think that women need to raise children in a "traditional" way. I attended a daycare center as a child, and I was absolutely fine. I don't understand why they are not used as much as they should be; women shouldn't be sacrificing their careers to take care of their children.) In fact, psychologist Flynn suggests that this extra pressure is what caused women with higher IQs to be selected for, and is thus the reason that women currently outstrip men in terms of intelligence in countries in which they are permitted to have educations and work.

I honestly have no idea why you posted this nonsense. Women feel like they don't have to work because that's their husband's job? Really? Most women do feel like they have to work, and in fact, it's expected that they will work. Women are also more educated than men are; they have higher high school GPAs and graduation rates, higher college GPAs and graduation rates, and higher graduation rates from graduate school. So, maybe men think they don't need to be educated because women are going to be doing the educated work for them. Thanks for discussing male laziness and lack of ability to succeed in an educational context, ike :)

We don't have any "domestic obligations", sorry. It's not our job to feed you and clothe you because we are not slaves. If you don't like that, cook your own dinner. Nobody is forcing you to eat what your wife cooks, and men should be contributing to domestic activities as well. It's also not my job to raise children while uneducated men sit around and watch tv all day. Raising children is supposed to be a shared activity.

I am honestly very surprised that you posted this, and I think I lost the modicum of respect I had for you prior to reading this thread. This has got to be the most sexist thing I've seen on DDO. Even JT wasn't this vitriolic.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 9:08:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
You know, Ike, if you don't like the frozen dinners you eat every night, you should learn how to cook. I bet that your parents would appreciate you more if cooked for them instead of loafing around and demanding that your mother be your personal slave.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 9:09:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 7:52:59 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 3/4/2013 7:50:12 PM, 000ike wrote:
*Disclaimer: If you don't think this applies to you, then it doesn't. I'm just making casual generalizations about the way many women in modern times seem to behave.

I think they have it easy in life - at least in the 21st century. They can get away with just about everything. They don't have to work, because they strongly believe that's their husband's job (reverse sexism) ... they can be lazy, because they can easily claim that they're weaker than they really are. They don't need education because again, they're not going to work. They still feel entitled to not only chivalry, but special treatment in general. Now, in the past, the big trade-off was that they had to do so much child-rearing, cooking, and were disrespected and considered inferior. However, the modern woman, exploiting the bloody work of her feminist predecessors, can cry "sexism" at the slightest hint of disrespect or role circumscription. In addition, the rise of day-cares and mass-marketed food obviates their domestic obligations.

So, having everything taken care for her, the modern western woman can be as flippant and carefree as she wishes.

When royal comes to your house and kills you, we will praise your courage to say what we were all thinking.

Waah! Waah! I don't get to have a personal slave! Life is so unfair :(
Cinco
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 9:10:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 7:50:12 PM, 000ike wrote:
*Disclaimer: If you don't think this applies to you, then it doesn't. I'm just making casual generalizations about the way many women in modern times seem to behave.

I think they have it easy in life - at least in the 21st century. They can get away with just about everything. They don't have to work, because they strongly believe that's their husband's job (reverse sexism) ... they can be lazy, because they can easily claim that they're weaker than they really are. They don't need education because again, they're not going to work. They still feel entitled to not only chivalry, but special treatment in general. Now, in the past, the big trade-off was that they had to do so much child-rearing, cooking, and were disrespected and considered inferior. However, the modern woman, exploiting the bloody work of her feminist predecessors, can cry "sexism" at the slightest hint of disrespect or role circumscription. In addition, the rise of day-cares and mass-marketed food obviates their domestic obligations.

So, having everything taken care for her, the modern western woman can be as flippant and carefree as she wishes.

An asshat and a dick! How'd you do that?!?! That's gotta hurt...

(I'm working on my empathy. How'm I doin?)
If your time, to you,
Is worth savin',
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone.
For the times they are a-changin'. - Bob Dylan
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 9:11:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 8:13:53 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/4/2013 8:09:30 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
"*Disclaimer: If you don't think this applies to you, then it doesn't. I'm just making casual generalizations about the way many women in modern times seem to behave."

That's on the level of racism.

That's a pretty light and unserious definition of the word, no?

Racism must involve deliberate hatred or feelings of superiority. Racism is not based on behavior, but rather personal characteristics. Racism substitutes words like "many" and "some" with "all" and "most".

If you're going to call something on the level of racism, maybe you should check if that thing aligns with the above description, first.

I'm fairly certain that you think that you are superior to modern women. Well, guess what, you aren't. There is affirmative action for men at top schools because they have lower GPAs than women do. I can't wait until affirmative action is banned later this spring (it's almost guaranteed that it will be; see Fisher v. Texas. The liberal judge Kagan recused herself). The Ivies will be flooded with Asians and with women. :) You won't be able to coast and have your male privileges any more.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 9:18:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Oh, and sexism definitely still sexists. For the same job, women are paid less than men are. There is also a glass ceiling for women.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 9:21:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 9:18:23 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Oh, and sexism definitely still sexists. For the same job, women are paid less than men are. There is also a glass ceiling for women.

Er ma gerd. No they don't.

On average, women get less because they go into different profession but on the same job, they earn the same or above their male counterparts.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 9:21:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
professions*
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Bull_Diesel
Posts: 1,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 9:24:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 7:52:59 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 3/4/2013 7:50:12 PM, 000ike wrote:
*Disclaimer: If you don't think this applies to you, then it doesn't. I'm just making casual generalizations about the way many women in modern times seem to behave.

I think they have it easy in life - at least in the 21st century. They can get away with just about everything. They don't have to work, because they strongly believe that's their husband's job (reverse sexism) ... they can be lazy, because they can easily claim that they're weaker than they really are. They don't need education because again, they're not going to work. They still feel entitled to not only chivalry, but special treatment in general. Now, in the past, the big trade-off was that they had to do so much child-rearing, cooking, and were disrespected and considered inferior. However, the modern woman, exploiting the bloody work of her feminist predecessors, can cry "sexism" at the slightest hint of disrespect or role circumscription. In addition, the rise of day-cares and mass-marketed food obviates their domestic obligations.

So, having everything taken care for her, the modern western woman can be as flippant and carefree as she wishes.

When royal comes to your house and kills you, we will praise your courage to say what we were all thinking.

yup. but it'll be awesome.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 9:29:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 9:21:16 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 3/4/2013 9:18:23 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Oh, and sexism definitely still sexists. For the same job, women are paid less than men are. There is also a glass ceiling for women.

Er ma gerd. No they don't.



On average, women get less because they go into different profession but on the same job, they earn the same or above their male counterparts.

No, that's not the case. Your own video concedes that they make less for the same job.