Lurker > asdf8562

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

I did not use that as some prized lone example. That idea was literally from another user. You just ran with that.

Despite me repeatedly saying struggles aren't limited to something small like some expensive date. Even now you are still trying to make my argument to be all about some expensive date.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

No, I made the argument that both men and woman have reasons to be cautious for totally different and specific reasons that can ruin and devastate both genders lives. That it shouldn't be acceptable to embrace one gender has having good reasons to be cautious when non gender specific reasons are given, but blow off/dismiss/shun the same thing being applied to a man as "red pill" like some like to do.

That's actually what I argued. I also more importantly said TCs alleged scenario is not some gender specific behavior. Both men and woman do what the TC is allegedly claims these supposed woman do to him.

My analogy is just fine as struggles are not limited to just some expensive date, and I also did not limit struggles fo some expensive date like you are claiming. You did that.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Again, something you can't claim.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

This claim is about as credible as your "every. Single. Woman" claim you originally doubled down on. Especially given how in this topic alone you seem to think devastating struggles a man can face is limited to only spending a lot of money on a date.....

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Try to cut "have a nice day" theatrics, when we both know you're coming back one way or another.

As for you claiming Im arguing you said men shouldnt be cautious too, that isn't what I was arguing, but you knew that. Your argument blows off men having hard struggles for totally different reasons that yes can be horrible too. Horrible things that go beyond your examples which seems to be things like dick shaming or wasting money on some expensive date like you seem to think.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

If that's what you need to tell yourself, more power to you.

But thank you with the case in point with the goto "red pill" buzzword.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Taking it literal? You literally said and I quote, "Every. Single. Woman."

When pressed on this you doubled down that it's every single woman. Sp spare me on the weak argument thing you're going for given it was the argument you doubled down on.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Ofc you don't want to talk about that. Like I said, any struggles a man faces that statistically men faces more than a woman, "we don't want to talk about that." Struggles that can indeed hit a man's life for years, and can indeed hit them mentally and even physically, with yes even years they can't get back.

As for frequency, this disingenuous ask is no doubt highly contingent on what sources you deem as acceptable and still ignores there is not just ONE issue at play here that you ofc dismiss. You didn't even give a backed frequency, and once again, it's false to paint this as only a one issue thing when it's not.

The idea that men and woman can both face horrible problems for 2 totally different and specific reasons and that both should be cautious for totally different specific reasons is very taboo to you.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

This line of questionnaire is just bad as the same applies to you?

"You know every women on the planet, and including all the woman in my life whether that be family or friends? You are able to just declare each female in anyone's life has had unwanted advances? Had people try to push the point when told no? And also doesn't know anyone else who has? I also don't believe you."

I also love how it perpetuates that literally every single woman on the globe MUST be around a man that's a sexual predator who specifically made some kind of unwanted advance on the woman.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Your attitude is still blowing it off. As two problems can be awful for two different reasons. Using your example of a man paying money. Things such as paying for a child that isn't yours and the legal system fucking a man over financially can definitely devastate a man's life for totally different reasons.

You seem to have this false notion that a woman blowing off a date, or eating some expensive dinner is the most devastating thing a woman can do to a man.

Or let's use your accusations of rape, and the life devastation even a false accusation can do to a person. As this country has a lovely history of white woman screaming rape on innocent non white men. With that lovely history costing some years in prison they can't get back, or worse their life. False accusations of rape haven't disappeared either, and the accusation alone is a devastating blow regardless if it's true or not.

Two traumatizing events can be horrible for two totally different reasons.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

This alone is not even true nevermind the rest of your post perpetuating exactly what I'm talking about. It's not "Every. Single. Women" as not every single woman actually had to deal with the same problems.

As for the rest of your post, men and woman go through different very real struggles that they both should be cautious about for specific reasons that pertain to the specific struggles each specific gender may or may not face.

I also never called being cautious sexist. I said regardless of gender, being cautious shouldn't be prized for one, but blown off or seen as irrelevant or even shunned for the other. Something that certain types of people most certainly do.

Guide posted...

Ah, this is more about users on the board than the argument itself.

I mean, yes, I think you have something if that's the case. Sure, a man can have reasons for being cautious of women, depending on circumstances. This is kinda why we all cross the street when we might instead walk past an lone woman on the sidewalk.

Not specifically singling out anyone, but I guess you can say that. Also not all or most users either, just those that tend to be okay with generalizing men, but not okay with generalizing woman. The same types that also seem to argue woman (again, not most) dont or cant do anything to men.

I don't think either should be generalized.

NoxObscuras posted...

It's a fact that women have to be cautious about things that men don't.

That also applies to a man as well. There are things a woman has to be more cautious about than men. There are things that a man has to be more cautious than woman.

NoxObscuras posted...

And in your last example, that absolutely is something that men have to be on guard for. So no, that post wouldn't be attacked. We've actually had topics that talk about women trying to make men pay for $400+ first date dinners and most of the responses were talking about why it's better to do cheaper things like, go for coffee on a first date. Specifically to avoid the possibility that a woman might try to prey on men for a free meal. And it was understood there, that it wasn't saying that all women were like that. Just that it was a possibility to be on guard about.

Hard disagree on this.

I just want to start off by saying I definitely don't think most woman are opting for 400 dollar dinners. While on that note, topics that bring so called "viral" videos about the minority of woman who do get ridiculous, often has a percentage dubbing its so clearly fake because apparently woman can't possibly do this sort of thing. I'd also take it a step further and say any topic specifically being made perpetuating men need to watch out for gold digging woman would rightfully be attacked as red pill or incel content.

I want to be clear again that's not what most woman are out here doing.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Yes, and contrary to your woman are angels belief, a man can be cautious about a woman as well for several reasons.

Being cautious is fine, however generalizations of entire genders are still bad regardless if it's on males or females.

Guide posted...

Was someone saying that about men in the first place? Being generally cautious doesn't mean you think everyone of x group is evil, but because you can't easily tell which ones are trouble, you're gonna be... generally cautious, at least until you learn more.

My point is the logic being used conveniently only applies to one gender. The "just being cautious" logic shouldn't only apply to woman.

If this topic was about a man being "weird" (to be clear, Im only using the TCs word, as I dont think the woman turning down free pizza is weird nor a female specific behavior) about something, with the man refusing the idea for a non gender specific reason. The answer was a simple respectful, no thanks.

Now, let a post read, "Because too many woman expect to get something like money out of the man so for that reason men are on their guard" it would rightfully be attacked. As just because you can point at certain woman who act predatory for free shit, doesn't mean it's justified to think this scenario had anything to do with thinking the woman had some nefarious intent.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

What I'm saying then is the same thing I'm saying now.

It hasn't changed.

Being cautious has nothing to do with embracing the idea that an entire or "too many" insert gender are evil creatures after one thing. Regardless of gender. If it's wrong to jump to that conclusion for woman, it's also wrong to jump to that for men.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

No, the equivalency I'm making is:

If a post read, "Because too many woman expect to get [insert red pill things men think woman are after like marriage, children, etc] as a 'thank you' so for that reason men are on their guard" it would rightfully be attacked.

In their twisted rationale they think they are justified in thinking most woman are these bad people only after whatever they claim woman are after.

I also don't think the TCs little scenario has anything to do with being a woman specific behavior. Men do exactly what the TC is claiming woman do, as well.

NoxObscuras posted...

But women are generally wary of men that they aren't that familiar with. It sucks, but it is what it is. No one is saying that all men have ill intentions. But it is something that women are aware of, in a general sense. So that makes it a possible reason for TC to get the reactions that he does. It doesn't mean it's the only reason. Just one possibility. I'm not sure why you're getting so hung up on absolutes.

I'm hung up on it because the double standards some happily embrace.

If a post read, "Because too many woman expect to get [insert red pill things men think woman are after] as a thank you and men are on their guard" it would rightfully be attacked.

In their twisted rationale they are justified in thinking most woman are these bad people after only afyer whatever they claim theyre after.

My point is, I completely tabled the TCs scenario as a man or woman behavior. I already said both men and woman do the TCs scenario. This isn't particular to just woman. I turn down shit all the time for a variety of reasons. So what's wrong to generalize all woman should also be wrong to generalize men for too. Turning down a nice gesture from a man or woman, is not a gender neutral thing. Nor is the person doing the nice gesture always looking for some nefarious malicious plot that some generalize an entire gender into looking for.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

None of this changes what I said.

If it's wrong to claim most woman are after whatever red pill types claim woman are after, it's also wrong to jump into a conversation automatically claiming as such for a man.

Then jumping to the logic that just because bad woman or men exist, that the logic is justified to generalize.

Not every man is a sexual predator looking to get in a woman's pants if they do something nice for them, just like not all woman are interested in a guy if they do something nice. It's also not true just because a person can allege a man or woman had nefarious intentions in their nice deed when that might not be necessarily true. Same to being able to point at another example where bad woman and men exist.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

I'm ignoring whether the TCs story is true or not and even if it did happen, plenty of men do the same thing.

So with that tabled, just like not every woman are not the vile vixens looking to do whatever red pill types claim..... not all men are sexual predators who only do favors to get in a woman's pants.

What's wrong to accuse one gender of something all the time is also wrong to accuse another.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/a/a21b6f71.jpg

Too many still have the above policy, or at least right wingers do. Seeing black people is "woke."

To each their own I guess, but I find this incredibly weird and in the same category as those groomers they complain about so much.

I haven't looked into this yet to verify the claim.

That said it wouldn't shock me IF it's true. I think it's a pretty safe bet the America's default position is simp for Israel. If you dare question the Israel government, well then it's time play the trap card, "antisemitism!" That trap card is very powerful in American politics.

Nevermind Israel government =/= all Jewish people.

Inohira posted...

Absolutely not, they treated Bernie supporters worse than Trump supporters.

I'd argue just the enlightened ones got treated badly. The ones that to this day sound like Trump supporters.

Why they got more flak, because of the whole enlightened Progressive routine which argues "both sides bad", the election was rigged, you shouldn't vote in 2016, 2018, 2020, 2022, and now 2024. The eerily similar narrative Republicans parrot, as Republicans have openly said its a good thing when there's less people voting in elections because most tend to vote Democrat.

Which I think it's important to note, this is not all Progressives or all Bernie supporters doing the above.

hockeybub89 posted...

Except it has been proven time and again Trump lost legally.

Bernie didn't even get screwed by anything illegal. There was just a clear effort to consolidate around one moderate by everyone dropping out at once.

Bernie lost legally as well. The other candidates rallying behind one guy isn't illegal, nor is Bernie owed some divine right of the others rallying behind him. The other candidates banded together, and to make sure who they thought had a better shot won, and he did. He also even beat Trump despite some enlightened Progressives best efforts to side with Republicans. Enlightened Progressives just have a hard time accepting he lost.

Hence like Trump supporters, the enlightened ones love to cry Bernies loss was rigged.

ssb_yunglink2 posted...

the shin megami tensei game series is really good for all types of religious figures interacting. the latest mainline title has a pretty cool angle on how capital G God can exist and do the things he does despite the gods of other religions also existing

I'd argue it's more pro for the biblical God than the other religions. At least all of the ones I've played.

The top dogs tend to be Lucifer, the Arc Angel's, Satan. With the other religions being lesser beings.

Not saying practices of other religion don't okay SMT over this. But I imagine they aren't particularly thrilled to see their religions depicted as weaker than the biblical God in this series.

1337toothbrush posted...

During. The. Party. Controlled. Primary. Process. And. With. The. Power. Of. All. Their. Big. Media. Buddies. Controlling. The. Narrative. On. Who. Was. Likely. To. Win.

Yes yes. Just like Trump supporters, when your guy loses, it was rigged.

I refer you to my last post oh enlightened Progressive you.

1337toothbrush posted...

Me: "I vote for democrats every single election down the entire ballot"

You: "You're trying to convince people to stay home"

You're also still ignoring why republicans win when fewer people vote. It's because they deliver what their voters want so their voters are dedicated in return.

In reality:
You: promoting the same logic and reason as Republicans why it's a brilliant idea not to vote, why both sides are the same, and why you mind as well let Republicans win anyway.

Me: "You're trying to convince people to stay home with your enlightened Progressive routine which helps Republicans. Your logic does not help Progressives, but Republicans sure do love telling the enlightened ones just how much they are winning by letting Republicans win!"

Republicans win partly due to people like you spreading the great word why staying home election day, while letting Republicans get a conservative Supreme Court, and overturned Roe v Wade..... is some how a big brained move.

Oh and we can't forget your Trump supporter like logic, "the election was rigged!!!!"

1337toothbrush posted...

See, that's another thing. Republicans play dirty and they fight for every scrap of power they can get. Meanwhile democrats sit with their thumbs up their ass and claim they can't do anything ever. If anything you're the closet republican because you're content with this arrangement.

Like what you are doing in this topic. Trying to convince/defend people staying home election. A well known strategy of Republicans who openly admit more people voting they'll lose.

1337toothbrush posted...

Funny how not voting means that republicans win. Do you know why that is? It's because republicans give their voters exactly what they want, so they reliably show up to vote. Shocking, I know.

Despite Republicans losing the popular vote twice:
Holds enough power in the Senate and House to obstruct progress;
Is able to win the presidency through the electoral college system;
Has Republicans actively trying to correct their mistakes from 2020 to allow them to reverse results of elections they don't like;
Has Republicans openly admitting they fear for the chances of winning when more people can vote. Hence their efforts to reduce voters (similar to your efforts actually with you enlightened progressive routine);

So it's not a shocker at all people like you love to ignore the minority party is able to hold power by your type promoting people to staying home.

So either your a closet Republican or an enlightened Progressive.

1337toothbrush posted...

What enlightenment? I vote democratic down the entire ballot every single election, I just happen to respect the choices of other. You, on the other hand, are an enlightened democrat who thinks they know better than everyone else and thinks that if we guarantee democrats votes -- no matter what, even when they're supporting genocide full-throatedly -- then democrats will surely listen to us someday instead of serving their own interests first and foremost. You also think that it's the job of the voter to guarantee votes instead of the job of politicians to appeal to voters, as if we're living in bizarro world. Maybe we are, because I can't imagine any other world calling this a democracy.

Your claim that you vote Democrat down the ballot is irrelevant to me given your enlightened progressive routine of telling others in a roundabout way to let Republicans win if your wet dream progressive pick lost some unproven rigged election. That and you defending that somehow in your roundabout way that both parties are the same.

1337toothbrush posted...

No one else seeing the irony of the "democratic" party basically saying "vote or die"?

I'm seeing the irony in enlightened progressive types who complain the election was rigged against Bernie or their darling progressive, and their roundabout "both parties are equally bad" routine.

Where the enlightened progressive would rather Republicans win, somehow spin Democrats are just as bad (when they arent) and the somehow Republicans winning is a good thing so we can elect this fabled progressive in the future who totally has a great shot in the future if you just let Republicans win this go around.

(For the record I'm not calling all or most progressives like this. Just the enlightened ones who have a habit of being directly or indirectly in favor of letting Republicans win if their progressive candidate loses.)

1337toothbrush posted...

Staying home is a form of voting. It's saying "I don't see any candidates worth going to the polls to vote for". Maybe you hate democracy, but I think people should have a choice. If democrats don't want fascism, then they should stop promoting fascist candidates and then portraying themselves as heroes for being the only opposition: https://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign-intentionally-created-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/

Democrats being brain-dead morons has consequences.

Congrats! Your enlightened progressive routine only aids the party actively trying to actively making things much much worse and openly flirts with doing away with elections entirely for the dear orange leader. (Republicans)

1337toothbrush posted...

Doing nothing isn't my logic, it's yours. I never said don't vote or, worse, to vote for republicans. I always vote and entirely democratic down the entire ballot every time. However, if you want to convince more people to vote for democrats, you have to appeal to them. Like, this should be obvious and basic politicking, but you're so resistant to democrats doing anything that you refuse to acknowledge this one simple trick. In other words, you want democrats to do nothing, but want to shame voters into voting for them. It just doesn't make any sense.

I'm not the one defending people staying home as valid reasons. That's you.

Staying home is doing nothing.

Elections regardless have consequences even if one candidates does little as you say to reverse damage (as you allege, Democrats) and the other is actively making things much much worse and openly flirts with doing away with elections entirely for the dear orange leader. (Republicans)

Any rational arguing or defending the idea of letting Republicans win because you think Democrats don't do enough is dumb logic if you truly lean left. There is absolutely no guarantees whatsoever your dreamy wetdream candidate will ever have enough control of the government given what Republicans actively are pushing for which is laws to keep them permanently in power.

1337toothbrush posted...

Except when democrats have the chance, they don't reverse damage or provide progress. Take Obama having a supermajority and promising to act on reproductive rights while on the campaign trail, then... https://www.reuters.com/article/obama-abortion/obama-says-abortion-rights-law-not-a-top-priority-idUKN2946642020090430

2016 was literally the result of democrats 1) Doing what they can to have Trump as an opponent so they can point and say "our opponent is so bad that you must vote for us because there is no alternative" and 2) Insisting that it's "her turn" to be president so they pulled all the stops to make Hillary the nominee through the party primary process which skews heavily in favor of what the party wants (since typically party diehards are the ones participating during that party process) even though she was deeply unpopular on the national level. Both Hillary and Trump had a below 50% approval rating before the election. They couldn't have chosen to promote someone with a better approval rating to ensure victory?

Once again, your logic of do nothing and intentionally let things get far worse is what brought us a conservative Supreme Court.

Elections regardless have consequences even if one candidate does little as you say to reverse damage and the other is actively making things much much worse.

Generations of damage is not a "small price." Especially given what Republicans are literally aiming to do which is to install their white ethno theocratic state with Trump and his sycophants at the wheel. There is absolutely no guarantees whatsoever the Republicans round 2 attempt if Trump becomes president that he will actually leave and the US guardrails in place will make him go. We have an entire party that wants to install him as the leader and is willing to ignore laws and create laws to keep him president. Their first attempt just spectacularly failed.

So this idea of letting Republicans win is operating on an extremely false pretense that some dreamy progressive or whoever will win in the future (2028) and somehow magically reverse all of the damage caused by Republicans like Roe v Wade, a conservative Supreme Court, magically somehow overcome Congress, and any new damages caused 2024.

This enlightened progressive you are hoping for isn't going to be able to wave a magic wand to reverse the damage.

hockeybub89 posted...

I don't want people to help Democrats win. I want people to help Republicans lose. If people would rather the man who will shoot them in the head win, than settle for being kicked in the genitals, then that's their problem. We aren't going to entirely reshape America's political system or find an Option C by this time next year.

Like, America First is stupid, but people literally thinking hurting everyone in this country because neither political party will help Palestine are not making any sense. Self-preservation needs to kick in at some point. I'm sure the women harmed by a national abortion ban would feel very happy that the Democrat Party will learn their lesson. The generations ruined by the complete gutting of public education and limiting of free expression are totally a small price to pay to remind politicians that they are supposed to earn our vote with positive traits.

This is not a good take at all. As you seem to think Republicans winning in 2024 somehow guarantees Democrats will even get a chance to in 2026 and 2028.

Literally abortion is a problem in the first place is because of people like you toting your logic in 2016. Well guess what, your grand prize was a conservative Supreme Court that led the way to Roe v Wade being overturned. Elections have consequences. Regardless if you are madly in love with both candidates or not, one of those 2 are likely to win regardless, and they are both not equally damaging.

Each time a Republican wins, it makes it that much harder to reverse the damage they have done. This idea that some dream progressive is going to stroll in reversing total 180s on Republican legislation damages is not realistic. Things like education being gutted would and will have lasting damages. Republicans pushing to make sure their dear leader is harder to remove this go around would have lasting damages as their failed coup is already looking to be a failed proving ground they aim to get right this time if he wins.

Generations of damage is not a "small price." Especially given what Republicans are literally aiming to do which is to install their white ethno theocratic state with Trump and his sycophants at the wheel.

Irony posted...

Sounds like tens of thousands of people are stupid

This.

No votes mean Trump wins. Trump winning means even worse conditions for the Palestinians.

As opposed to Biden who cares far more than any Republican. Especially more than Trump

@ArsGoetia

atheists are like vegans
vegans that just wanna practice veganism are cool
the ones that wanna fuckin talk to you about it are annoying af

same with atheists

That's the same with religion too which includes Christians.

Christians who want to practice their faith and stick to themselves are fine.
Christians who want to preach to everyone thinking they have a moral high ground, and push their religion on others are annoying af.

wackyteen posted...

Surprised 3/4 of CE has been baptized

Why?

Your parents can baptize you regardless if you decide to stay Christian when you grow up.

Can someone explain how this is supposed to be a good thing for Trumpanzees?

"You are generally not responsible for your spouse's credit card debt unless you are a co-signer for the card or it is a joint account. However, state laws vary and divorce or the death of your spouse could also impact your liability for this debt"

Child support should not ever be 30k a year.

I don't care what lifestyle the former wife or husband is used to.

BewmHedshot posted...

The source is not Twitter do you know how to read?

Do you how to read? You skipped my entire second sentence and the post only had 2 sentences.

In the very post you quoted I acknowledged there's a source inside the tweet.

I will say to grievances of land disputes, that needs to remain to things that's actively being done, or at the very least recent. By recent, I dont mean what some call recent which tends to be bringing up shit that demands totally innocent people to repent for shit that happened long before they were even born. As if it's a reasonable argument to demand totally innocent people who have nothing to do with what happened long before they were born to repent.

Because these land grievances being used..... where does it end if we can just start calling any year before the people alive today were even born. Because that kind of logic gets easily murky for very obvious reasons.

TerraSeeker posted...

People here actually like the IRS for some reason. Weird.

Most here actually pay their taxes and don't have the resources to dodge paying their taxes. I don't care where you lean on the political scale.

Most here don't have taxes so incredibly complex, the IRS would have a difficult time prosecuting hence why they need more resources.

The rich however does, hence why they don't want the IRS funded.

Since majority of Republicans back the rich, it goes without saying why they don't want the IRS having the resources to actually audit the rich and their taxes.

Solar_Crimson posted...

Democrats may be the lesser of two evils, but they still serve their corporate donors' interests.

12 out of how many Democrats voted for this? Calm down.

Do we have an actual credible source. Twitter/X is not credible, and the source in the tweet is hardly better.

Torgo posted...

Every single straight woman I will see or pass by on the street today would look at that pic and find that actor highly attractive.

Tbf, that actor is still around and still somewhat relevant for those who watch TV.

(Not saying I agree with people being ugly before the 90s btw)

AnsestralRecall posted...

Every conflict in history is that of the ruling class harming the working class. It is inherently left vs right.

I'm not even bothering to touch what your talking as that isn't what I addressed.

Being pro Israel or Pro Palestine is not, and should not be a left vs right wing discussion. It's not helping Palestinians or Israel civilians. Especially given how even more hyper partisan this country is right now.

To many are way to allergic to having a nuanced discussion because they are so hyperpartisan. Hamas =/= Palestinian civilians. Israeli government =/= Israeli civilians. We could go on and on here yet, basic nuanced discussion has to be spoon fed or you always get a group of people falsely conflating two completely different statements as one.

Why does so many feel an insisting need to turn every issue into a left wing vs right wing thing.....

Being pro Palestinians having rights =/= hate Israel. The people feeling the insisting urge to make it a left wing vs right wing issue are only making things worse given how hyperpartisan this country is right now with people blindly being for or against things based on what party is supporting it.

Spartan_Jedi117 posted...

Agreed but...I think some people here are misunderstanding that he could get 30 years and not that he's definitely getting 30 years

While true, I think some here are dead serious about him deserving 30 years for this.

I can't tell if people are serious in this topic

Cocytus posted...

What if that was your mom...

Ones personal feelings shouldn't factor into the legality of a case and the punishment.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Let me know when you want to post something in the realm of actual reality.

The only thing I concede on is I definitely took the bait on the insanity of me entertaining your all over the place discussion that argues things never argued, for so long.