361–370 of 480 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The military repeatedly drills into trainees that they serve to defend and uphold the constitution , not the presidential orders. There are all kinds of lessons on when to disobey direct orders, when to speak up, how to speak up, what your protections are, etc. etc.
That's what they tell them, yes. Do their actions align with their words?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> wokeness on the left… I am directly threatened by their program. Could you please explain what that threat is exactly, and what kind of “concessions to white males” you would have in mind?
I’ll candidly assume that this is not a rhetorical question aimed at making me pass as a spoiled child, as is frequent with leftism: - AOC, known as “the squad” (!), has claimed the Congress has too many white males. President Macron said the same about the US tech sector, and he’s not even part of the extremists, so this issue permeates society. Basically everyone says white men should be fewer of them. This is a di…
So, to put a finer point on it - you decided that aiming to destroy the United States, and the Pax Americana underlying western civilization, was an appropriate response because AOC and Macron (who represent "everyone", in your apparent media diet) hurt your feelings. As a fellow man, this is just pathetic and entitled.
There have always been groups in society you cannot criticize. There has always been groupthink bullshit that you just smile and nod, and then later share your real thoughts with your trusted close friends. The growing prevalence of talking about men's rights issues was the painstaking path to them getting better - there are some pretty harsh biological reasons why custody courts are slanted towards women, right? If you really wanted to phrase this in terms of "men", then maybe you needed to listen to your fellow wiser men telling you to hold your nose and vote conservative/democrat instead of lashing out with histrionic destruction. Alas.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So will the government mandate that 50% of stay at home parents be men? Because as the other poster pointed out, if you push men out of the workplace and out of family life (by favoring custody for women) you just end up with a bunch of unemployed idle men, which is a recipe for revolution. And if 50/50 is the goal, where is the government push for more men in places where they're underrepresented, like university st…
I can’t reply to your other comment for some reason. You got me, I did not express myself well. I should have said “working people”. I framed it as a women’s issue since you said that the solution to that would be forcing men to trade places with them. Re: the fact that bringing up men’s issues is kind of taboo to the left, it seems more of a language problem. If you frame it as a “war on men”, that will turn people…
About 40% of male domestic violence victims who seek help are accused of being the abuser.
Completely coincidentally I'm sure, the federal law on domestic violence is called the "Violence Against Women Act", which furthers the bias that men can't be victims.
How would you improve the situation for male victims without making people on the left hate you?
The same people who say that "firemen" is sexist, will hypocritically say that the naming of the law isn't sexist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Genuinely curious: what do you see as the distinction between an illiberal democracy and a fascist dictatorship? And if there is a significant difference, what stops one becoming the other?
I refer to what political scientists write about the subject. Illiberal democracy (aka electoral authoritarianism, competitive authoritarianism, or soft authoritarianism) is a system with democratic institutions that don't work properly. Opposition can still win but it's not a fair game. >And if there is a significant difference, what stops one becoming the other? People. For example, Ukraine was illiberal democracy…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Trump and meritocracy? You are insane. Oh, Hegseth the wife-(and alcohol-)abusing TV-presenter should be in charge the world's most powerful military? Brett Kavanaugh, who in the balance of probability did assault that woman, should be forced into the supreme court (even blocking the FBI investigation)? You're just going to excuse these flaws away, aren't you? To be honest, this thread has shown what weak fragile ego…
My wife likes to tell me that she'll know when feminism has succeeded when the US Supreme Court is all women. I tell her that I'll know when feminism has succeeded when the military is all women.
1. Men are on average physically stronger than women, and at their peak are physically stronger than is possible for any woman. This is more useful in a combat situation.
2. Women's bodies are specialized for pregnancy and childbirth. Without women providing this essential function, the next generation of humanity would not exist. By contrast, men are more disposable because all they do is provide the sperm.
A society where almost all women have been killed in battle cannot effectively repopulate, as there is a bottleneck of pregnancy: it is a long process that - excluding relatively rare cases of multiple births - requires one woman per newborn to conduct. A society where almost all men have been killed can repopulate much more rapidly, as it only takes a small number of men to fulfil the male reproductive role of providing sperm.
In fact the existence of sperm banks makes the widespread obliteration of males even less of a risk to the survival of humanity. Plus there is a promising subfield of stem cell research on growing viable sperm from female cells, which would remove the reliance upon males entirely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's wrong with a blowjob?
Nothing. Clinton got impeached not for the blowjob (which was consensual), but for lying under oath about it, i.e. perjury.
For most people, getting blowjobs from a subordinate in the office during work hours would result in more than just a warning.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can’t reply to your other comment for some reason. You got me, I did not express myself well. I should have said “working people”. I framed it as a women’s issue since you said that the solution to that would be forcing men to trade places with them. Re: the fact that bringing up men’s issues is kind of taboo to the left, it seems more of a language problem. If you frame it as a “war on men”, that will turn people…
Let's look at a concrete example: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3175099/#S12title About 40% of male domestic violence victims who seek help are accused of being the abuser. Completely coincidentally I'm sure, the federal law on domestic violence is called the "Violence Against Women Act", which furthers the bias that men can't be victims. How would you improve the situation for male victims without making…
The "Violence Against Women Act" is from 1994. Most statistics of that time pointed to a disproportionate amount of women being victims of domestic violence in comparison to men. I tried to find more recent statistics, but this is a very serious topic, so it deserves to be treated with more caution. Also, this is one of the reasons why I think it should not be used as a "war on men" talking point. Do we want to solve the darn problem or use it as a weapon against political opponents?
[flagged]
The media is largely at fault here, pretending that both sides are equal.
So it becomes a "seat at the table is better than no seat" thing where they won't ask Trump these questions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
I mean critics of the Trump administration are still thrown in a max security prison and subjected to forced labor. I get that there isn't a sign on the front calling it a gulag but that distinction isn't particularly important to the people being brutally punished for using their first amendment rights.
Who lost money during this deal? Or generally who indirectly paid these lucky gamblers?