/baw/ - General Discussion

Clearly-seen bias, yadda yadda yadda, ANYWHO.

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/uncucumbered/kentucky_clerks_want_different_marriage_license_forms_for_same_sex_couples

(And hey, would you rather I link there, or link to Jezebel?)

>>401863
Aren't you one of those #gg freaks?

>>401867
No

>>401868
Thought there was a baw trip who was pro #gg. Must be mixing em up. Sorry Stone.

>>401871
Slowpoke is a #gg sympathizer, I think. Maybe not full blown #gg, but leans more for them than against them. You might be thinking of him.

Now that the dust has settled, can we all agree gamer gate did nothing wrong?

>>401878

No.

>>401879
I don't see what's so bad about them. SJWs wanted to talk about "politics in gaming, comics, tech etc." but they were only talking about one limited side of it. Of course people were going to get pissed off since you weren't being representative of all views. So they said "we're pissed off" and got called bad guys for it, then how else should they have gone about it?

>>401876
Slowpoke isn't anything. He tries to find a golden mean in literally every discussion, even though there always isn't one. As some Anon pointed out last thread, it's "South Park Politics." Outsiders look at an issue and either think, "Giant Douche vs. Turd Sandwhich" without applying any additional thought. There are some scenarios in which both sides are awful, but it gets annoying when it's used in a situation in which one side is *light years* worse than the other. Bonus points of one of the sides didn't actually do anything wrong in the first place and people still take a middle road as some lame attempt to be impartial.

>>401880
Yes, I also don't see what's so bad about rape and death threats. Or the harassing of people who aren't even journalists. Or even worse outright ignoring the misdeeds of large companies, opting to focus on small, independent developers over fabricated claims.

And you can go ahead and type out whatever long response you have, but know that if at any point you try to imply that the threats and harassment *didn't* happen, I will be disregarding anything you say (and just so you know, this means I won't be responding to you) and look at you the same way I look at 9/11 truthers or ding-dongs who don't think we landed on the moon decades ago.

>>401881
Isn't this kinda racist logic, like saying all blacks commit crime simply because more of them do?

>>401881
That isn't really true. I'm pretty non-concrete and don't stand on the polar side of any given argument (I don't really even answer yes or no to basic day-to-day questions, it's mostly "probably" or "I doubt it" or something), but if you want my opinion on something, without me being able to be "contrarian" by just opposing whatever else is posted(not your words, but at least one other anon has said I just argue against whatever someone else says), just ask about something out of the blue.
I do actually have opinions, they're...not really any less valid because they're somewhere between 1 and 10,000 instead of being one or the other.

Consider this: If someone is willing to discuss both sides, and you try to pressure them into "picking one side", they are more likely to side against you. Because even though you swear up and down that the other side is awful, you are the one acting like an asshole.

>>401884
It's not about picking a side. It's about looking for a golden mean when there isn't one.

>>401885
Right... and if you keep saying "the other side is much worse, they are bigots, terrorists, I hate them so much, they cucked my dog" you will look like the bigger asshole. Your hatred backfires on you.

>>401888
Honestly, I dunno why everyone is so extreme about the stuff. I think it's pretty okay. I mean, I personally don't keep it around, but I can see why people would.

>>401887
>you will look like the bigger asshole.
Key word here is "look like"

As long as I know I'm not the bigger asshole, I'll sleep easy.

>>401890
Every asshole says that though.

>>401887

Yes, and hatred backfired on GamerGate. In the eyes of a hell of a lot of people, that name will forever be associated with the harassment of women in all corners of the video game industry—specifically because members of the “movement” targeted women. Hate doesn’t exist without some kind of investment; considering the way lots of GG members still hang on every word Anita Sarkeesian says or writes, they made a huge investment into hatred that they simply can’t rescind without paying a huge cost (i.e., losing their identity).

Think about white supremacists: they invest in the hatred of non-whites to the point where rescinding that investment would rob them of an identity they’ve taken some time (possibly even most of their lives) to create for themselves and open them up to blowback or retaliation from others who shared in that identity. GamerGaters who’ve invested in the hatred of Sarkeesian, Zoe Quinn, etc. for this long are committed to their hatred—their identity—for the long haul. They can’t pull back on that hatred without destroying that identity and suffering the consequences of doing so.

Hate requires an emotional investment; make it too big, and you risk losing yourself to it. GamerGate as a “movement” made that investment—and lost itself in hatred—way back when it decided to harass Zoe Quinn.

>>401886
Nice reaction image shitposter, do you have a response?

>>401892
Criticism is still not harassment retard.

>>401894

A pithy attempt at a one-liner combined with an insult that doubles as a slur for the mentally handicapped is still not a rational discussion of an issue.

>>401891
I don't really care about being labeled an asshole.

You'd probably call me an asshole for going in on people and politicians who shit on gay people and minorities. If you're going to equate me to the people who actively aim to strip rights away from these people, or are turned off by what I have to say because of my tone and not the content of my message, I got nothing but laughs for you.

>>401894
Rape threats are still not criticism.

>>401896
I'm just sayng, to most people who are not convinced {people you hate} are as bad as Hitler, they will probably be turned off by your sounding like a lunatic. If you insist that there is not a golden mean and one side is worse, that side is clearly you, since you are the one acting like a douchebag.

>>401897
But why is it okay when SJWs do it?

>>401898
Well, I never called anyone hitler.

>If you insist that there is not a golden mean and one side is worse, that side is clearly you, since you are the one acting like a douchebag.

Since, you brought up Hitler first, tell me, how are your feelings about the Nazi party in direct relation to how they treated Jewish people?

Tone policing is so stupid.

>>401900
You're being judged on your content, not your tone. Most people do not think christians or gamers are lightyears worse than liberals, or responsible for rape threats and death threats, or whatever else.

Also, consider, if they are as bad as you say, how come you look worse compared to them?

>>401898
>If you insist that there is not a golden mean and one side is worse, that side is clearly you, since you are the one acting like a douchebag.
If one side thinks we should build a bridge and the other side thinks we shouldn't, building half a bridge is not really an option. There are in fact such things as binary choices, and sitting on the fence doesn't make you right, nor does it make you rational, nor does it make your opinion more valid in any other way. It just makes you irrelevant to the discussion. If you don't care which decision gets made, then stay out of the argument.

>>401901
>Most people do not think christians or gamers are lightyears worse than liberals, or responsible for rape threats and death threats, or whatever else.

What are you even talking about?

>>401901
>Most people do not think christians or gamers are lightyears worse than liberals, or responsible for rape threats and death threats, or whatever else.
Most people do however think that the majority of abortion clinic bombings and murders are done by Christians, and GamerGate *is*, to non-gamers, "that gamer hate group that keeps trying to rape people."

>>401902
>how come you look worse compared to them?
Look worse in whose eyes exactly? That's subjective as hell.

Also can't help but notice that my question about Nazis (which is totally legit given I'm not even the one who namedropped hitler in the first place) went ignored.

>>401906
>"Both of you stop being angry, open a blog, and talk about your 'big important social issues' without being whiny".

You sound a lot like what he just said about the "middle ground" being irrelevant to the discussion.

>>401908
How?

>>401909
You are literally adding nothing to the discussion and addressing no points that either side has presented.

>>401911
Just because you typed more doesn't mean you're adding anything to the discussion. Read what I just said. You've addressed no points being made. You're just saying one side is worse (without giving any explanation) and also calling both sides whiny without actually addressing any points that they made.

You're making "Twinkie" posts. Just like the snacks, they aren't great for you, or very filling. They're just there--and asking to be acknowledged for no real purpose. And a prime example as to why people don't like fence sitters.

>>401911
>it's completely embarrassing
/baw/ in a nutshell tbh

>>401912
Why do you care why I think SJWs are worse, you won't listen to anything I say anyway. I don't really care which "side" you are on, I have my personal beliefs, but this bogeyman mentality I think is stupid. How are people so divided again.

>>401913
And it's amazing, you've typed more, but you *still* haven't managed to make a post noteworthy. I've said several times to address something actually said, and you're still going on this "both sides x, y, z" nonsense. You are providing nothing to the discussion. It's like the anon above said. Building half of a bridge is not the solution. You've given no rebuttals to anything said. You've just decided you hate both sides and think that this is a quality addition to the conversation. It's not. If I have two friends debating on where to go eat for lunch, with one saying McDonald's and the other saying Burger King, I am not helping a solution come to a head (or even providing any real insight to the debate) by calling both of them stupid.

And I'm done responding to your posts. I suspect you're the anime dude from last thread. I will continue to ignore your posts. G'night!

>>401914
It's an internet at large thing. The SJW trolls here are kinda annoying, but in general people are unwilling to talk to each other anymore. It's sad, you'd expect that on muh facebook and old media, but you'd think the "geek savvy" people would be more able to get along even though we're polarized.

>>401914
Yes, Slowpoke, you are an embarrassing person. There's not much need for you to remind us. We know.

>>401918
It's flattering that you consider me to be such a big part of the board you enjoy <3

>>401917
>you'd think the "geek savvy" people would be more able to get along even though we're polarized.
Why would you think that? Geeky people have worse social skills than most people, and social skills are one of the key things to coming to understandings or disagreeing without name calling. And they're no less prone to tribalism or hate--if anything, they seem to be more prone to it, in general. Plus geeks are prone to superiority complexes in regards to their intelligence and arguing ability and a lack of self-awareness.

If anything you should be surprised things aren't even worse.

>>401919
Every village needs its idiot.

>>401922
>Both are prolific shitposters, both use "boycotts" and "censorship", both claim the other "harasses" them.
None of those are major ways. And "Both sides claim the other harasses them" is a pretty ridiculous argument. It's like saying gays and Christians are basically the same because, while Christians demonstrably oppress gays, Christians claim they're being oppressed by gays when they're not allowed to prevent gay people from getting married.

>>401921
Luckily, we have so many of you anons to fill that role. :)

>>401923
How is that in anyway comparable?

>>401925
Because both sides claim to be oppressed by the other. Therefore they are obviously the same.

>>401927
Is English your first language? Because if so, you need to practice your ability to both communicate and to understand the things people say to you.

>>401928
What is wrong with what I posted? I have adopted some bad grammatical habits from ESL-kun's on imageboards, that I notice but choose not to correct since I think it's cute. But never something that makes my posts hard to understand.

>>401927

Christians have long used their religious beliefs—and still use those beliefs—to oppress gay people by forcing them into the closet and painting gay people as perverse sex fiends who deserve nothing less than a public curbstomping. Gay people didn’t have the political or social capital to fight back against this oppression, so they accepted it and built up that capital until they could fight back and win. Now that gay people have won the right to legally marry each other—a right that does nothing to infringe on a Christian church’s right to refuse marrying gay couples or force a Christian to think gay people are just normal people—Christians see having to do things like allowing gay couples to receive marriage licenses or treating gay people equally in public accomodations as “oppression”.

Both sides can claim to be oppressed, but one side has a far stronger case than the other.

>>401929
You don't seem to understand the things people say to you, and the things you say in response are either completely fatuous or you don't know how to communicate the things you're thinking.

>>401933
Be more specific.

http://www.polygon.com/2015/4/6/8352651/mobius-final-fantasy-sexy-costume-video-gameplay

So it looks like the SJWs successfully censored costume designs from a new game because they were too revealing.

Oh, wait, that wasn't the SJWs? It was the dudebro gamers who are afraid of people thinking they're gay if they play games about nearly-naked men? Carry on then.

>>401931
Christians have all sorts of different views on homosexuality, and there are thousands of gay Christians too. To act like Christianity only does bad is a pretty ignorant view of the world, when they have done so many good things, for arts, for science, for law, etc. There are way more Christians than gay people so it stands to reason there is going to be a lot more diversity of their views, but to hate Christians over such a minor thing is breathtakingly ignorant.

>>401936
#notallchristians

>>401935
>Japanese devices
and
>Apr. 2015

Come on.
http://kotaku.com/players-say-fatal-frames-new-costumes-are-censorship-1737632217

>>401936

1.) >>401937 nailed you worse than Jesus Christ.
2.) I don't hate all Christians. I don’t even hate the Christians who advocate for things like ex-gay therapy or the continued legal marginalization of gay people. What I hate is the idea of a specific set of religious beliefs being used to marginalize gay people. If someone uses such a set of beliefs to justify anti-gay discrimination, I’d take issue with that person and their actions—but it wouldn’t rise to the level of “hate” because it’s too much of an emotional investment and I don’t have that many fucks to give these days.

>>401940
I think we can agree that disagreeing with feminists also does not mean you hate feminists.

>>401936
>and there are thousands of gay Christians too.
This confuses the fuck out of me. I'm sorry but you literally can't be both gay and Christian. You can't just ignore that the bible says it's a bad thing and assume you'll be forgiven anyway. I'm not even Christian, but this ignorant clinging to your beliefs despite you being incompatible with them makes no fucking sense.

>>401943
Actually the laws against homosexuality, being from the Old Testament, are supposed to be voided according to the doctrine of many denominations, since Christ himself cast aside the laws of the OT, and acceptance of him is the only remaining law.

Theology is an immerse complicated subject, hence the billions of schisms.

>>401941
Considering how absolutely segmented and evolved the movement is, its very hard to agree with them all even if you yourself deliberately consider yourself one.

>>401941

Just disagreeing? Yes, I can agree with the sentiment.

Disagreeing, insulting, and doing everything possible to antagonize the people with whom you disagree? Pretty sure that takes some emotional investment.

>>401950
There was a mass stabbing in china with like 50 dead, it just requires some organization. This was a terrorist attack by the Chinese version of Al Qaeda, and it was plenty successful.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/01/at-least-50-reported-dead-in-september-attack-as-china-celebrates-xinjiang

People also tend to forget the most popular means of mass killing is with fire. Block the nightclub fire exit with a dime, pour some low vapor pressure accelerant, cook at 475 degrees, serve hot.

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/10/16/german-refugee-center-attacked.html

This is what people do in societies with higher gun control, they use other means to kill people they don't like. But media can't sensationalize this as some robocop, 80s style action movie rampage, so it didn't happen.

>>401953
>i cant insult or anger the people i disagree with
What kind of world do you live in dipshit?

>>401957
No one ever acts like that to Christians.

>>401911
>>401913
>>401922
No one ever responded to my posts. SJW-kun, why do you feel like both sides can't come to an understanding?

>>401955

>The media can't sensationalize a whole building of people being set on fire!

The stupidity really is reflexive for you gun nuts, isn't it?

>>401960
>gun nuts

You're and idiot.

>>401964
It's interesting that you choose a meaningless, general poll about the favorability of an industry lobbying group to support your point rather than one that supports the specific initiatives you're arguing in favor of. Especially considering polls consistently show the majority of votes being in favor of common sense gun control initiatives, including the majority of gun owners.

That's the difference between a gun owner and a gun nut. Gun nuts are the wackadoo conspiracy theorists who think the government is run by snake people and their guns are all that protect them from it.

>>401965
>wackadoo conspiracy theorist

Wouldn't that be you?
Those evil gun owners are threatening your life.

>>401966
>Those evil gun owners are threatening your life.

That's not a conspiracy, that's just a fact. The entire purpose of owning a gun is to make yourself more capable of killing.

>>401967
You're an idiot.

//youtube.com/watch?v=B85RR_Jnl78

>>401970
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/22/1437368/-Family-Business-Brigaded-on-Yelp-by-MRA-YouTube-Stars

This whole thing is lol. Spergs sperging spergs sperging spergs.

>>401969
Unless you're someone who aims specifically at inanimate objects (target shooting), how is he wrong?

>>401965
>show the majority of votes being in favor of common sense gun control initiatives, including the majority of gun owners
Debunked in the previous thread

>>401967
>The entire purpose of owning a gun is to make yourself more capable of killing people who attack you.
Forgot to finish the sentence there.

If you intend to attack me, you kind of do have so meting to worry about.

Otherwise, not.

>>401971
>>401970
Laughing witch tried to get Thunderfoot fired by sending slander and libel to his employee, claiming that he's a Nazi with an army and that he hates women.
Protip feminists: He has tenure, firing him is nigh impossible, and even if you succeeded in getting him to quit willingly, he would actually get a pay raise in the private sector.

She also tried to get him swatted by sending all kinds of wild accusations to the local police department, Thunderfoot has accusing them of terrorism, this is illegal in America at least.
Protip feminists #2: This is actual harassment.

She made videos of herself showing the slanderous letter she wrote, then putting it in an envelope, then mailing it. She made videos which could be used as testimony against other people in the campaign as well. Thunderfoot can easily bury her legally, he has no need to send NINE PEOPLE to BRIGADE against her on review websites. Fucking Daily Kos....

>MRA tripe
>Daily Kos using MRA as an insult
I thought feminists were pro-mens rights? Wouldn't that make feminists into mens rights activists?

>>401975

Feminism is anti-patriarchy. Issues such as women getting custody more often than not and men being afraid to report physical abuse at the hands of women are “men’s issues”, but they’re also feminist issues—the idea of women being “better suited” to raising children is a patriarchal idea, and women who physically abuse men should receive the same treatment as men who physically abuse women.

>>401972
>If you intend to attack me, you kind of do have so meting to worry about.
Unless you happen to be one of those maniacs who shoot up schools. Logically speaking, it's safest to assume you are--even if I'm wrong, the worst I suffer from avoiding you is that I don't get to make friends with someone who is probably exhausting to talk to anyway. If I'm right, I avoid getting shot to death by you.
>>401975


>I thought feminists were pro-mens rights? Wouldn't that make feminists into mens rights activists?
No. MRA's aren't in favor of men's rights, they're just an anti-feminism movement. It's one of those branding situations like how the USA FREEDOM act is actually about limiting freedoms or how Right to Work laws are actually about expanding the powers of employers to fire people.

>>401977
>Unless you happen to be one of those maniacs who shoot up schools. Logically speaking, it's safest to assume you are--even if I'm wrong, the worst I suffer from avoiding you is that I don't get to make friends with someone who is probably exhausting to talk to anyway. If I'm right, I avoid getting shot to death by you.
Assuming that someone is a maniac trying to build a police state has a very similar justification.

>>401978
>Assuming that someone is a maniac trying to build a police state has a very similar justification.
Except it doesn't because very few people have the ability to do that, even (one might even say especially) in government. Whereas if you own a gun, the only thing standing between you and shooting up an innocent is your own restraint.

>>401980
>The mens rights movement isn't in favor of mens rights?

No, it's not. It is fighting *against* men's rights in most cases. It is fighting in favor only of the patriarchy-approved version of masculinity, which means it's fighting to limit the freedom of men to be who they want to be--and is actively opposed to, for example, trans men, who need their rights protected more than any other class of man.

>Or how feminism is actually a female supremacy movement.
No, I was using examples of things that are actually true.

>>401981
>Bottom line you would trust the restraint of government rather than that of your fellow Americans, and honestly at that point it's time for you to emigrate to a country with more government. Like North Korea.

I would trust a system which is specifically set up with multiple obstacles to individuals operating in that system from abusing their powers more than I would trust a single private individual with access to deadly power and no such obstacles, yes. Accountability is what makes things trustworthy. The government has plenty, you have very little.

>owning a gun = conspiracy theorist
>believing in patriarchy is not

>>401982
Isn't a big part of Men's Rights Activism also Fathers' Rights Activism? How would this ever apply to trans men? Most "father's issues" wouldn't apply to them, do to not having penises.

>>401984
There's no conspiracy involved. It is demonstrable fact that we live in a patriarchy. Women make up 51% of the population and less than 10% of the leadership of our society. That is a patriarchy. Unquestionably. You can question the effects or the goals of the patriarchy, but questioning whether or not we live in a patriarchy just means you don't know what a patriarchy is.

>>401985

MRAs fight for “fathers’ rights” in one specific area: men getting custody of their children in divorce cases. They’re not fighting for paid paternity leave or anything that would genuinely help fathers; they’re fighting for the right to stick it to the evil bitches who want to take kids away from their dads.

>>401988
According to this thing they did.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fathers%27_rights_movement

Maybe you are confusing the fact that some of them are libertarians, with the "movement" overall.

>>401988
Wow, you sure know everything.

>>401991
He seems very angry for some reason.

>>401992
I don't see anything in that post that denotes anger.

>>401993
>stick it to the evil bitches

>>401984
The idea of Patriarchy is more just cultural momentum and bias from various sources leading to demographics of employment failing to shift as quickly as they could be on the national level. I don't agree with every supposed cause, solution for, or general framing of the issue, but it's one that exists. I suspect it was purposefully named to make people mistake what it is so those advocating the concept can start off discussions with a semantic correction.

I'm fairly sure one of the actual major contributing factors is sex-segregation of Greek-letter ogranizations, what with dorm communities being such a huge boost to career advancement. Men going to faternities both get connections that make them more likely to run businesses and are mostly sheilded from needing to apply general social skills to interaction with women.

>>401994
That's anger he attributes to other people, specifically the father's right advocate's he's talking about, not what he harbors himself.

>>401996
That's the part that makes him sound angry, putting words in someone's mouth like that.

//youtube.com/watch?v=MngMpoMRu8o

Holy fuck. Some people are monsters.

>>401999
that artist draws bad noses. Looks like a pig snout

>>402001
You have a bad understanding of anatomy if you think those noses are bad.

>>402004
who gives a shit if they're ugly

>>402006
>Art? Subjective? Don't be silly.

>>402004
Press your finger on the tip of your nose, and go upward until it stops being your nose.
Now look at that picture. Hopefully you understand my argument now.

>>402007
lol

>>402008
How do you recommend I replicate the enlarged eyes and overly thin necks?
Or are those fair game.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/free-speech-is-flunking-out-on-college-campuses/2015/10/22/124e7cd2-78f5-11e5-b9c1-f03c48c96ac2_story.html

Fuckin’ PCU, man.

>>402011
What a shitty graph. A woman agreeing with gamergate doesn't make the movement suddenly right. It just makes that woman an asshole like the rest of them.

>It is demonstrable fact that we live in a patriarchy.
lol

>Women make up 51% of the population and less than 10% of the leadership of our society.
Oh man, do you think if a man is elected by mostly female electorate that he's going to support only men because he has a dick? Do you think when a woman is elected, she supports only women? Just like fathers are only parents to their sons and mothers only parents to their daughters. It's impossible for someone to support someone who has the opposite crotch equipment!

SJWs are the most racist, sexist people on the planet.

>>402011
Hey dude, >>402013 is right.

You forgot the accusations of internalized patriarchy.

>>402013
Wow... someone thinks gamergayt is a movement against women....... this place keeps getting more and more retarded.

>>402014
>Oh man, do you think if a man is elected by mostly female electorate that he's going to support only men because he has a dick? Do you think when a woman is elected, she supports only women? Just like fathers are only parents to their sons and mothers only parents to their daughters. It's impossible for someone to support someone who has the opposite crotch equipment!

No, it's simple statistics. In a fair system, the leadership has a similar makeup to the people. If you only had one leader, sure, that's not a reliable thing. But when you're talking about something like the House of Representatives, where there are 435 people to represent the citizens of the country, you can expect to see something at least approaching the makeup of the country. The numbers don't have to be exact, but the difference between the number of women, and the number of minorities, filling the position of a Representative versus the number in the country is statistically significant by any honest mathematical measurement.

Even if your argument is that women are less likely to run for the position, that's still patriarchy.

>>402018
>believing that patriarchy is the evil behind everything
>believing it is good to have perfect 50/50 sex ratio in all professions
Truly, this thread is bizarro /pol/; equally retarded.

>>402019
>>believing it is good to have perfect 50/50 sex ratio in all professions

If your argument is that women shouldn't be the ones making the decisions in government, then you're not arguing that patriarchy doesn't exist, you're arguing that patriarchy is a good thing.

>>402019

>believing that patriarchy is the evil behind everything

LOLno. But there are inherent issues with a patriarchy - for example, men getting to create and pass legislation that affects women's health (see: abortion legislation) with either minimal or no input from women on the matter.

>>402022
And for that matter, any time almost all the decision makers belong to a certain group, the needs of that group are going to be addressed more than the needs of people from other groups that aren't the same as that first group, just because the people making decisions aren't going to be as aware of those needs as the people who need them. Ovarian health is less of an issue to men than women, so when men have all the leadership positions, men's issues are going to get more attention. When white people make up the majority of the leadership, issues that only affect black people aren't going to be considered as big a deal as issues that affect white people.

This is just human nature. If women made up the majority of leadership, men's issues wouldn't be seen as being as high priority as women's issues, either. That's why it's good for representatives to actually represent the population.

>>402023
If you stop dividing the human race into "groups", everything will look differently.

>>402026
And yet your chart is prostate vs. breast (and men can get breast cancer as well.)

>>402027

And breast cancer awareness/treatment is a “sexier” sell than prostate cancer awareness/treatment.

>>402028
which it wouldn't be in a patriarchy

>>402018
>In a fair system, the leadership has a similar makeup to the people.
No it doesn't. Men and women are free to vote for either gender, not locked into one.

>you can expect to see something at least approaching the makeup of the country.
Why must things be this way?

>Even if your argument is that women are less likely to run for the position, that's still patriarchy.
How is it patriarchy?

You're just making statements, you aren't explaining the methodology behind your conclusions or providing any information to support them.

>>402022
You are stunningly ignorant. Have you considered for a moment that religious Christian or Muslim women have been voting against abortion? They're number one behind organizing pro-life letter writing campaigns, retard. Maybe you should leave your liberal enclave and meet a woman that isn't part of the 18% of feminists in this country

>>402020
>women shouldn't be the ones making the decisions in government
Women systematically turn up in larger percentages to vote, and have larger share of the population size overall. Women have been making the decisions in our society for awhile now, we live in a matriarchy, deal with this.

The fact that women use men to carry out those decisions is besides the point, men have always been the expendable labor and slaves for women.
As evidenced by Mr. Stone and Dude With Money.
It's like saying blacktriacrhy is keeping white people from the cotton fields, which means black people should give white people more power.

Foolishness.

>>402032
>men have always been the expendable labor and slaves for women.
l m a o
m
a
o

>>402033
Who tends to die in war, anon? Who is expected to take deadly risks for the benefit of greater society? Who is expected to die to protect everyone else?

>>402033
It is true though, just because of gender roles.

Men = fight war and do labor.
Women = raise the next generation.

Since 1 sex was more invested in the child being born and fed, they were more often the ones to stay home.

>>402035
>>402036
Can't speak for anything else, but didn't we just have a big thing here in the states about women being allowed in combat roles?

>>402031
>How is it patriarchy?
>
Because patriarchy is a system in which men are the decision makers. That is the definition. There's really no having a conversation with you if you just deny that words have meaning.

>>402041
BUT... you cannot just make any decisions. If you make bad decisions that The People do not like, you will be stripped of your position of power, and replaced with someone The People like more.

Do not buy into the "men are the dictators and women are oppressed" narrative. It will do you no good.

>>402043
Who said anything about that narrative

Redirect from the SYM thread:

>>402044

SJWs aren’t the only people who might think rape jokes aren’t really all that funny, y’know.

>>402046
You are right. You don't find them funny also.

>>402041
Again, do we live in a jewocracy?

>>402036
>because of gender roles
Because of the biology of sexual dimorphism.

>>402041
>Because patriarchy is a system in which men are the decision makers.
The point he's making is that this isn't the case.

Men in government aren't the decision makers - they're the REPRESENTATIVES of a pool of decision makers - who happen to be hold 10 million more women than men.
http://cawp.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/resources/genderdiff.pdf

>>402049
And the fact that those representatives do not match up with the population they represent is proof that there is a cultural bias toward white rich straight male christian leadership in a country where the majority of people are not all of those things and where many of the people are none of them. Whether it is systemic, intentional, or cultural, it is still a bias and therefore a patriarchy.

>>402058
>is proof
No, it is not.

Women vote for men because women like men. Women poll favorably to deep voices, masculine appearance, to older men... Obama and Clinton were elected largely due to a windfall of female voters for example. This is why Trump is polling better with women than Hillary.

We used to have male majority in power because only men were allowed into politics, right now we have a male majority in power because of natural preferences of women.

If we had a weird situation of less women voting than men, but women still being free to enter politics, we would gradually see an increase in women being voted in by the male electorate until they were the majority representatives.

If you look into British politics you'll find men vote conservative more often while women vote liberal more often. In the case of Margaret Thatcher, she won because significantly more conservative men voted for her. The labor government unseated Thatchers conservatives in 1992 because women voted against her.

Before you bring it up, it's not sexual. I'm a bit fuzzier on this but my professor claimed it tracks back to parental identification. Similar to why voice assist for mostly male pilots is a female soprano instead of a male baritone.

>>402064
>Women vote for men because women like men. Women poll favorably to deep voices, masculine appearance, to older men... Obama and Clinton were elected largely due to a windfall of female voters for example.

Congratulations you have just described patriarchy.

>>402066
>women voting for those who appeal to them is patriarchy
Lol, okay.

>>402067
Feminism: the theory that women need to be saved from themselves

>>402067
No, women feeling that men are better leaders than women--and in such great numbers as it actually happens--is patriarchy. It is society teaching us from a very early age that men are in charge, and therefore making the attributes of masculinity the attributes we associate with leadership.

I'm surprised at you, Slowpoke. For all your fence-sitting and apologism for bigots, usually you seem to pay attention to numbers. Do you honestly look at the number of women in congress compared to the number of men in congress, and then look at the actual demographics of the country, and not think "there's something wrong here?" Or are you just intentionally plugging your ears because it's so important to you to believe sexism is over?

>>402073
Of course i don't believe that sexism is over. I was laughing at the ridiculousness of that post

>>402073
maybe men are better leaders

>>402078
In which case you are in favor of patriarchy.

>>402073
It's because Slowpoke is not actually a fence sitter and is in fact straight up a gger.

>>402080
Sure, but that has nothing to do with the subject at hand? lol
>>402072
A lot of white male feminists sure do treat it that way, eh?

>>402080
If you're on one side of the fence but think the other side isn't all that bad this guy considers you a fence sitter.

>>402067
Problem: White people have all the money.
Your Argument: "Well clearly black people WANT white people to have all the money because they keep buying things from white people and working at companies run by white people. Why do you hate black people's freedom?"

So what are the chances of a government shutdown over the U.S. debt ceiling?

>>402066
Did you miss the part where men vote for women more often? Is that matriarchy?

>>402073
>No, women feeling that men are better leaders than women
That's not what he's saying.

>>402083
Yeah, that's probably what that mysterious "lol" acronym stood for.

>>402083
Money isn't voted in to people, how the fuck is that a good analogy?

>>402087
Extremist progressives created that hash as yet another in a long line of slurs against a race. I'm glad the targets are finally punching up at the neomarxist douchebags.

>>402090
Voting with your wallet.

>>402095
That's voting WITH your wallet, not having money voted into your wallet.

>>402058
>Whether it is systemic, intentional, or cultural, it is still a bias and therefore a patriarchy.
Then the patriarchy, as defined, is insfficient as an indicator for determining what action should be taken. It is a state of bias in which one's demographic details affect one's probability of securing office. By itself, it neither shows what could be done to prevent that trend from contiuing or the effects that result from it. Further, it does not give a particularly useful meaning to "partiarchy-approved masculinity" as used in >>401982, since it's not like the House of Representatives is handing out a list of what it means to be masculine. It's not the legislature itself under question, but the way legeslators are selected.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/eeoc-wins-discrimination-case-for-muslims-fired-for-not-delivering-beer/article/2574720

Muslims fired for not doing their job awarded $240,000 damages.

>>402106
>Hobby Lobby refuses to pay its employees the full amount they're entitled to because Jesus: religious freedom.
>Muslim refuses to deliver beer because Mohammed: "not doing their job."

>>402110
>entitled

>>402111
Yes, entitled. By law.

>>402112
Damn. I wish I was entitled to a paycheck I didn't have to work for.

>>402113
>Expecting to be paid for working at Hobby Lobby means expecting to be paid not to work.

>>402110
>>402112
Star Transport is the employer, the muslim is the employee. The employer can do whatever the fuck they want unless there's a specific contract between them and the employee guaranteeing certain treatments, due notices, and so on.

They're the guy with the money in hand, they can decide to give money based on whatever criteria, including imaginary friend reasons, otherwise people couldn't be employed by churches. The employees right is to accept the money for a job, or object to the job and leave without any money.

No legitimate law entitles people to not do the jobs they were hired for because their imaginary sky friend told them to, because such a law would be IN VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT, specifically the section on congress not establishing religion.

What these guys got paid for was likely a breach of contract, perhaps they had a leeway clause in being able to deny certain deliveries. In short; Stop being retarded about basic legal realities of the country you live in, buy a copy of the bill of rights and read it.

>>402123
*tips fedora*

>>402123
Considering who won the suit it sounds like you're the one that doesn't understand the legal aspects of the issue.

>>402123


"1. Are employers required to accommodate the religious beliefs and practices of applicants and employees?

Yes. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on religion. This includes refusing to accommodate an employee's sincerely held religious beliefs or practices unless the accommodation would impose an undue hardship (more than a minimal burden on operation of the business). A religious practice may be sincerely held by an individual even if newly adopted, not consistently observed, or different from the commonly followed tenets of the individual's religion."
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/wysk/workplace_religious_accommodation.cfm

>Employers are required to respect religious beliefs
>Unless they're Christian
>Then the government sues them

>>402128


Workplace accommodations: "Hey, can you have another driver take this load?"

"My faith says I have to wear this scarf/turban, can I have exemption from that aspect of the dress code?"

"Can I take Yom Kippur/Eid/the Solstice off?"


Using religion as a bludgeon against others:

"I, a government employee, am using my religion to justify barring your access to a government service."

"We, a corporation, a fictitious entity that exists by and of the laws of this supposedly secular nation, somehow have religious beliefs, and based on said beliefs, refuse to provide legally-mandated health care to all our female employees."

"We, a business purportedly open to the public, holding a business license and making use of public roads and utilities, are denying service to entire classes of people, and should be able to do so because religion."

Can you see the difference?

If an employer can accomodate an employee's religious beliefs without having to bend over backwards to do so, said employer is legally required to do so. If an employee asks for a religious accomodation that unfairly burdens the employer, said employer can refuse such an accomodation. How the hell is that hard to understand?

Ty mods

I repeat it. Muslims have special rights.

>>402131
In practice, Muslims get rewarded for following their beliefs while Christians get persecuted for it. It's impossible to see that as anything other than an anti-Christian bias on western governments. Show me any Muslim bigot who's been punished by the government, or any Christian who has their religious rights protected - you can't.

>>402147

>any Christian who has their religious rights protected

The owners of Hobby Lobby.

>>402147
>>402148
To expand: the owners of Hobby Lobby get to pay their employees less than everyone else in the country because of Jesus.

>>402147

Show me the FBI and NYPD infiltrating Christian churches after a Christian bombs an abortion clinic. (http://www.ap.org/Content/AP-In-The-News/2012/Newark-mayor-seeks-probe-of-NYPD-Muslim-spying). Show me a single Christian in Guantanamo. But oh no, a Muslim employee not being fired or forced to drive a beer truck, or getting to wear a hijab at Disneyland! We're bending over backwards for those savages!

>>402152
So what you're saying is, it takes Muslims committing acts of terrorism for the government to do anything. While Christians get sued for amounts >$100k for hurting someone's feelings.

>>402153
Christians commit acts of terrorism all the time, and have done throughout history. We just don't automatically consider their religion to play a factor in their terrorism when it's Christians because Christians aren't seen as "other."

>>402154
It's because Christians don't have organized terrorist groups waging war on other countries. Likewise neither is Jewish, or Hindu, or Buddhist terrorism an issue either. Islam has unique issues other religions don't have.

>>402155
And Christians have organized groups waging sociological and economic war on marginalized communities, thus the need to hit them with fines for all the economic bullying they get up to. You don't get to have this both ways. If it's okay to assume Muslims as terrorists, it's okay to assume Christians as oppressors and bullies.

>>402153

>Christians get sued for amounts >$100k for hurting someone's feelings.

I know what you want to reference here, but since you don’t seem to have the balls to say it outright, let me lay it out for you.

Every Christian business owner sued by gay people was sued for breaking the law—specifically, non-discrimination ordinances that forbid public accomodations from refusing service to gay people for being gay. Kim Davis was sued (and jailed) because she broke the law by denying marriage licenses to gay couples who were legally entitled to said licenses. The point of such lawsuits isn’t to “persecute Christians”, but to show that breaking the law has consequences. If you really think a bakery being told it can’t discriminate against a gay customer who wants a cake for their wedding reception because the Bible said “gays deserve to be killed”, I’d love to hear why.

Dear person who keeps using “Mudslime”: take your casual racism back to /pol/ where it belongs.

>>402159
Well I made a valid point I don't see why mean-words make it invalid.

>>402158
Why is it only enforced against Christians.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/5/video-puts-muslim-bakeries-florists-in-gay-rights-/?page=all

Because it's an anti-Christian law... duh.

>>402160

If you have a point to make, you can make it without using a racial slur. Try doing that next time.

>>402162
Yet your anti-White, anti-Christian hate speech is OK?

>>402161

>Mr. Williams argued that there has been no media coverage of Muslim bakeries because there have been no complaints filed against them, a point reinforced by Sommer Foster, political advocacy director of Equality Michigan, who said Friday she was unaware of any complaints.

And when there’s a complaint filed against a discriminatory bakery run by Muslims, I’ll say the same thing as I would when complaints are filed against discriminatory bakeries run by Christians: if the law says public accomodations can’t discriminate against customers for being gay, any business owner that discriminates deserves the consequences of their actions.

>>402163

Please, by all means, show me an example of this “hate speech” that you accuse me of espousing.

G’head, I’ll wait.

>>402164
The laws aren't being applied equally now, that much is clear. It is insane to claim Christians are somehow "privileged" considering how much the government persecutes them.

>>402126
>Civil Rights Act of 1964
As well meaning as it is, it's unconstitutional because it was worded in a really shitty way. For example:
>A religious practice may be sincerely held by an individual even if newly adopted, not consistently observed, or different from the commonly followed tenets of the individual's religion.
In other word, making up a religion on the spot still counts. It's been abused and is rife with corruption, we really need to modify it.

>>402152
>Show me the FBI and NYPD infiltrating Christian churches
They do it right now, protip: when they say domestic terrorist they mean christians not muslims. FBI even had one of its assets bomb a fucking church in 1963, what kind of rock are you living under never to have heard of COINTELPRO.... which actually helped push for the Civil Rights act of '64... Yes, my uneducated christfag and anti-christfag friends ITT, it was christian churches that framed the very civil rights act that is currently fucking them over.

Just goes to show, making laws based on emotion is retarded.

>>402166

Discrimination claims are civil affairs, not criminal ones. For the law to apply to an alleged case of discrimination, the discriminated party must make a formal complaint. Some customers may choose to simply find another business to patronize rather than file a legal complaint against a discriminator.

>>402155

Christians have plenty of organized terror groups, from the small (Nagaland separatists in India, various loose groups in the Central African Republic, the Orangemen, various American right wing militias; there are thousands of the latter (http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/05/us/splc-extremist-groups-report/)) to the global (the US government). And there are violent separatist, nationalist, and radical religious groups in every faith, from Buddhist (http://world.time.com/2013/06/20/extremist-buddhist-monks-fight-oppression-with-violence/) to Sikh ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Indira_Gandhi) to Jewish (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irgun_attacks).

>>402169
"Right-wing militias" aren't terror groups. Owning guns and meeting up on weekends isn't similar to planning acts of mass murder.

//youtube.com/watch?v=Tq4BR5KHuqA

this went viral

>>402170

No, but planning and occasionally carrying out murder is.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/here-are-10-of-the-worst-domestic-terror-attacks-by-extreme-christians-and-right-wing-white-men/

http://securitydata.newamerica.net/extremists/deadly-attacks.html

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_(organization)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_God_(United_States)

>>402167
That kind of wording is necessary, though, since all religions are made up and only brought up when convenient.

>>402177
>-right-wing-white-men/
Great lets do one for left wing black men now.
>MEMORY OVERLOAD
>SERVER CRASH

http://techraptor.net/content/reddit-problem-judgmental-safe-space
Interesting read, and pretty sad.

>>402183
https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005/terror02_05#terror_05sum
http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/01/08/3609796/islamist-terrorism-europe/
http://www.dailynews.com/general-news/20150709/turns-out-people-get-angry-when-you-say-white-americans-are-terrorists-too

Never understood why liberals are Islamic terrorism apologists.

>>402175
What was she even doing that needed a response like flipping a desk because I see no context in any of the articles I've read beyond "inappropriate behavior"

>>402186
Never understood why conservatives are mass shooting apologists.

>>402187

But wait, there’s more!

http://www.wltx.com/story/news/local/2015/10/27/second-student-arrested-spring-valley-hs-speaks-out/74665360/

>>402187
It looked like she flipped the desk while she was trying to resist

>>402187
>>402190

Possibly it was for chewing gum.

http://m.mic.com/articles/127433/spring-valley-officer-placed-on-administrative-leave-after-brutal-assault-caught-on-cam?utm_source=policymicTBLR&utm_medium=main&utm_campaign=social

>>402190
If that's true, she shouldn't have gotten in trouble for filming, but I don't see what was wrong with the first arrest. She was under arrest. She had many chances to listen to her teacher and she refused, what do you expect to happen?

http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2015/10/26/thunderf00t-rebuts-charges-he-commands-a-hate-mob-by-unleashing-a-hate-mob-on-a-woman-who-made-this-charge/

Opinions on this? It looks like hypocrisy to me.

>>402196
>what do you expect to happen?
Not violence. I'd expect, at most, her parents to receiive a mailed court summons for her. Unattentive behavior in the classroom shouldn't be a criminal issue to begin with, and should in no case require immediate intervention by law enforcement. As a teacher, I would tell other students that if her actions are interfering with their ability to learn, they could walk up to her and ask for her to stop themselves. This would demonstrate to her that the rules of the classroom are for the benefit of the students, and if none of them volunteer, then either she isn't a distraction or none of them care enough about learning for stopping her to actually make a difference worth arresting someone over.

This type of behavior from authority figures is a demand to display submission for its own sake, a mockery of the whole purpose of law. As an example it refutes the idea that overreaches of authority are impossible. As an example it shows that officers must rely on their own reputation and that of their department, not a universal differance to any position of power.

>>402198
>As a teacher, I would tell other students that if her actions are interfering with their ability to learn, they could walk up to her and ask for her to stop themselves. This would demonstrate to her that the rules of the classroom are for the benefit of the students, and if none of them volunteer, then either she isn't a distraction or none of them care enough about learning for stopping her to actually make a difference worth arresting someone over.
A classroom isn't a democracy. By not leaving when told, she's basically trespassing. The school has to do something to show the students can't overpower the teacher because they're bored.

>>402199
>A classroom isn't a democracy.
It's not a vote, it's letting fellow students show that order in the classroom isn't an arbitrary display of power.

>By not leaving when told, she's basically trespassing.
Even if she is conviced of that, it would be no excuse for the degree of force employed.

>The school has to do something to show the students can't overpower the teacher because they're bored.
Unatentatively sitting in a chair is not an example of trying to "overpower" by any stretch of the imagination.

>>402200
conviced
*convicted

>>402198
>Unattentive behavior in the classroom shouldn't be a criminal issue to begin with, and should in no case require immediate intervention by law enforcement.

THIS! Since when does high schoolers "not paying attention", "chewing gum" or "bringing a cellphone" lead to police involvement? Teachers act in loco parentis; their kids are their temporary children, they are responsible for discipline. Putting cops on campus turns ordinary juvenile misbehavior into adult crimes. It leads to kids being brutalized, thrown in jail, and sent to juvie or adult prison instead of getting administrative discipline. Shit like this funnels kids right into prison, then back onto the streets, and then our leaders and pundits shake their heads at all the crime and poverty.

Would the pig-defending anon be ok with a teacher responding with violence to nonviolent misbehavior, or does a badge act like an indulgence, absolving all sin?

>>402197
She organized a harassment group against an innocent dude, tried to slander him with a bunch of random stuff with his employer and local media, and tried to SWAT him.

His response was to archive the video of her admitting it, and post it online. He didn't do jack shit except tell the truth and provide video evidence.

>>402198
>Not violence.
We went over this in the last thread, laws can't be enforced through nonviolence. Violence MUST always be the last resort underlying every polite request, in this case violence was used as a last resort after all measures failed so there's no problem with that part.

If you object to what happened in the video, your problem is with the rule system of the school board, not the cop called on to enforce it.

>i am bowser from super mario bros and asgore from undertale. I Am Both. i am literally them and im the only one whos either of them if you think otherwise or associate w/ ppl who claim to be me Please Get Out Of Here
This person is 19.
I'm kind of appalled.

>>402204

>He didn't do jack shit except tell the truth and provide video evidence.

Didn’t he explicitly ask for people to raid the Yelp page of the company that employs her?

>>402204
Oh by the way it should be easy as fuck to point to a clip from his video where he is "encouraging his followers to harass a woman", it would be an easy sound bite they could spam over the net. The reason why this blogger has not done this is because thunderfoot has never done any such thing.

Tunderfoot is the victim here. I've watched his videos without seeing him ever call for any campaign against anyone, and before you form an opinion about the guy you should watch his videos too.

>>402208
I'm an ignorant fuck. What's going on in Sweden?

>>402202
Yeah, I think this is a case for bringing back corporal punishment. Then you wouldn't need to get a cop involved.

>>402200
>Unatentatively sitting in a chair is not an example of trying to "overpower" by any stretch of the imagination.
But what you said is this:

>This would demonstrate to her that the rules of the classroom are for the benefit of the students, and if none of them volunteer, then either she isn't a distraction or none of them care enough about learning for stopping her to actually make a difference worth arresting someone over.

Which is challenging their authority. It sounds like you just hate the idea of school.