stupid first world problems you're dealing with

Hello Spiral - fallacious straw manning for comedic effect ep

coming soon!!!

to be fair, humour is the historically the pathetic coping mechanism of children, idiots, and women. 

  On 2/4/2018 at 11:29 PM, Bulk VanderHooj said:

Can't you ask them to check the cameras? =(

  On 2/4/2018 at 11:34 PM, Zephyr_Nova said:

She's not gonna check the cameras... Eh, I guess maybe I resign myself too easily.  I don't like making a big issue out of things.  If situations get stupid I just try to put them behind me as quickly as possible.  Probably not the best way to get ahead in life.

Stephen G., you were right!  I was complaining about this thing to my friend, who got angry on my behalf and phoned the Mac's in question.  Her 5 minute conversation ended with the guy on the other end saying he would check the security cameras and to phone back in 20 min.  She phoned back later, and sure enough there was footage of the customer behind me swiping the bus ticket from the counter just seconds after I after I turned to leave!  Unbelievable!  Anyway, the deft conversational social maneuvering she did on the phone is something far beyond my own capabilities.  There's no way that conversation would have ended with the desired result had I initiated it. Anyway, I now have a replacement bus pass.  Miracles do happen.

what exactly am i coping with, none of zeff's views are that controversial to me

  On 2/5/2018 at 7:59 AM, messiaen said:

on my facebook feed, when i actually know the situation of the guys who have become convinced by it, this argument loop is exlusively maintained by guys suffering from obesity, chronically low self esteem, or brutal break-ups of relationships they were heavily invested in.

yep, it's often a basic emotional response disguised in rationalist clothing. and in the absence of grounding themselves in the real world through human contact and support the person just goes off their chosen deep end and thinks they're woke af bro.

this is like the hallmark of young guys who have picked up a bit of philosophy (not even once) and started calling themselves "rationalists". like this dickhead whose vid I stumbled on somehow the other day:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZKaBW9rSaQ

such enlightenment.

  On 2/5/2018 at 8:14 AM, messiaen said:

i stopped arguing on the internet half a decade ago. maybe give it a try, its quite good.

It's nice to take quasi-higher grounds but these are serious topics that affect societies worldwide, and despite this being a trivial discussion place on some music forum in a throwaway thread, social media outlets like this do matter because they help sculpt public opinion.  I've received some PMs over the years and today expressing support of some of these views privately by people who don't want to admit it publicly but I won't say from who.  You're suppressing free speech by trolling in this way and limiting the rate of human convergence towards an ideal societal end state through intellectual consensus, which is unethical regardless of how trivial a platform this is and regardless of whether you care about the topics at hand.  Others do.

Whatever guys, I got my bus pass back.

Thanks for not sharing my pms

wait, fuck

Zeff, this is not the thread for this discussion.

Latest FWP is that women control the future of our species - if women choose to revolt against dominant alpha male behaviour choosing only to mate with more "polite" beta males, then that will be the future

  On 2/5/2018 at 8:37 AM, auxien said:

Zeff, this is not the thread for this discussion.

Nor is this the forum for it. Because if this discussion were to be started as a separate thread, I guarantee it would get locked.

Zeff, at this point all I have to say is this; pray that your mother never finds out you're on WATMM.

messaien how dare you suppress his free speech. Oh wait. you didn't. never mind, carry on.

fwp: it's really dry here. plus the fact that i'm old as fuck, makes my skin all dry and brittle. cracked knuckles ain't nuttin to fuck with. So to all you young'uns out there: moisturize. daily. slather yourselves with lotion. hydrate (with H20, not alcohol).

Anyway I would like to clarify that I did not bring that topic up, ChenGOD did, and I am now exiting the discussion

First world problems:

a) Too hot with window closed, too cold with it open

b) Star Trek re-runs keep playing the boring ones

c) T h e   c h e e t o   d u s t   o n   m y   t h i r d   c h i n   k e e p s   m a k i n g   m y   d e p r e s s i o n   w o r s e   a n d   i t   r e a l l y   m a k e s   m e   w a n t   t o   c o m p l a i n   a b o u t   h o w   I   c a n ' t   g e t   l a i d   o n   F a c e b o o k 

My room mate's getting it on with way-over-the-top-sex-sounds girl again.  I have no idea what she looks like, but I know what her (everlasting?) orgasms sound like all too well.

this thread is now delight, simply delight

  On 2/5/2018 at 4:21 AM, Zeffolia said:

The idea that throughout history women have been eager and desperate to become soldiers, but patriarchal sexist military leaders didn't let them join due to gender based discrimination, is so intellectually dishonest I won't even bother entertaining it.  And you're oversimplifying this situation so much.  Women enforce gender roles as well, upon men.  Not only biologically in our far past through sexual selection of mates, but in modern day times through selection of husbands.  There may be historical periods where this selection mechanism was limited due to patriarchal structures in which fathers chose the mates of daughters, but this would have only occurred after sufficient cognitive and social development of the species and would be relatively recent.  

 

I see a lot of grasping at straws to explain every burden of women as being a result of gender based discrimination, but I don't see the same grasping to explain similar or significantly worse burdens which are primarily faced by men.  This is the primary issue I have with this entire debate.  It spans many historical time periods and cultures, and even now differs between cultures.  Yet the loudest feminist talking points regarding the situation oversimplify everything to the point of it being a caricature of the real thing in which no matter what, anything that negatively affects women is a result of a patriarchal power structure which disadvantages them, and conveniently everything that negatively affects men is also a result of that same patriarchal power structure which they claim to be the fault of man

 

High level decisions like waging war are not made by "men" as a group despite the fact that the small minority of individuals who made that decision were men.  Feminists turn this into a gender issue when it's really a class issue.

 

To claim that not being allowed to join wars is more harmful than historically being forced to join is disgusting.  To ignore the atrocities men have faced throughout history in favor of those women have faced is disgusting.  It's easy to give in to the stronger empathy response humans have towards women than men, and this is a large source of many of these gender based issues I'm pointing out, and the reason they are ignored and laughed at.  

 

And death is a long-term impact, the longest and worst one, since it destroys the individual's future  - the idea that dying isn't as bad as the continued hardship after survival that women face during and after war is preposterous

In conclusion, society cares more about the wage gap than the personal spending gap, the homelessness rate gap, the workplace death gap, the suicide rate gap, the healthcare spendings gap, and all sorts of other gaps that harm males more than females.  And this is unacceptable and indicative of a lack of intellectual honesty in those claiming that feminism is more important than humanism.

That would be intellectually dishonest indeed - luckily for me that's not the argument I'm making. The point (which I thought was quite obvious but I guess I failed to explain it clearly, so my bad) is that the power structures in place now which continue to keep women out of combat roles is one that has been constructed over a long time. This is the same power structure that has created the atmosphere that kept women "safe and home raising babies" even when they didn't want to.

Are you seriously trying to make the argument that the power system has not been constructed by men? Certainly there have been negative impacts on men (including the death rate in combat), but if you're trying to make the argument that the power structure hasn't been created to be beneficial to men to the exclusion of women, then you're a long ways behind. It's the same system that created the wage gap (which yes, is negated when women "choose" not to have children - great choice - your child or your career)

No one is ignoring atrocities faced by men. But that  study doesn't simply say that women face continued hardships after war, it's that war creates longer-term conditions that disproportionately affect women and children in a study of fatality rates as a result of civil war. Yes men die because of these conditions, but women and children die at higher rates.

Again, the argument is simple - just because you don't "buy" the argument that the patriarchy doesn't exist, doesn't magically make it disappear. I'm glad we agree that there is a class gap, we'll make a socialist of you yet.

Was about to send a bunch of important documents out and I realise that the digital signature on the files lists the author as being "Fuck You". And cannot be changed. Welp.

  Quote

 

 

No one is ignoring atrocities faced by men. But that  study doesn't simply say that women face continued hardships after war, it's that war creates longer-term conditions that disproportionately affect women and children in a study of fatality rates as a result of civil war. Yes men die because of these conditions, but women and children die at higher rates.

Can you expand upon where this is coming from? 

Posted earlier in the thread to a literature review that attempted to gain some meta-insight on the issue of casualties in war.

Got fired from a job for the first time in my life. Last few jobs I've run into issues of clashing with other management/management above me because I just can't grin and bear it any more, just fucking lies and bullshit and incompetence all the time...and it bit me in the ass this time I guess. Job was shit anyway.

edit: definitely not fishing for sympathy or anything, just felt like saying it. I'm fine with it, it's for the better.

Silver lining: find less shit job.

  On 2/5/2018 at 7:23 PM, chenGOD said:

Posted earlier in the thread to a literature review that attempted to gain some meta-insight on the issue of casualties in war.

Please re-post it then if you care.  I'm not convinced and even if this is coincidentally the case, it's incidental and not intended.  The women and children at home in the US didn't die.  It was never an intention to use the lives of women and children to shield the lives of men.  This is about a combination of intent and social values, and actual results, and incidental exceptions in results to what the social values are cannot act as evidence to invalidate the social values, which are that the lives of women and children hold precedent over those of men, in general.  Men are the disposable gender, the workhorses of humanity.

so are you saying you want rights...for men?

  On 2/6/2018 at 4:39 AM, zaphod said:

so are you saying you want rights...for men?

Yes, some legal rights in the US that men lack but women have:

>Right to not register with the selective services

>Right to vote without registering with the selective services

>Right to abdicate parental responsibility in cases of female-on-male rape resulting in pregnancy

>Right to abdicate parental responsibility in cases of non-rape unintentional impregnation (woman lying about birth control)

>Right to abdicate parental responsibility in cases of paternity fraud (not even biologically related, but he signed the papers and was married to her at the time)

>Right to have their gender not used to assume male guilt and female victimhood in mutual domestic violence cases (predominant aggressor clauses, the Duluth Model)

General social inequalities:

>Right to unbiased child custody hearings

>Right to unbiased divorce hearings resulting in high rate of alimony payouts

>Right to equal healthcare research spending

>Right to a higher standard of safety in the workplace to bring their workplace death rate in line with that of women (currently ~10:1)

>Right to a higher standard of social safety nets to bring their homelessness rate in line with that of women (currently ~10:1)

>Right to a higher standard of mental healthcare emphasis to bring their suicide rate in line with that of women (currently ~10:1)

I guess none of these things are important though.

  On 2/5/2018 at 7:45 PM, auxien said:

Got fired from a job for the first time in my life. Last few jobs I've run into issues of clashing with other management/management above me because I just can't grin and bear it any more, just fucking lies and bullshit and incompetence all the time...and it bit me in the ass this time I guess. Job was shit anyway.

 

edit: definitely not fishing for sympathy or anything, just felt like saying it. I'm fine with it, it's for the better.

I can't say congrats, but at the same time I'm not sure "sorry" is the right response, since it sounds like a crappy place to work. So I'll just wish you the best of luck on finding your next primary source of income and hope you can stay afloat in the meantime.

Of course, said source of income doesn't necessarily have to be a 9 to 5, Monday thru Friday gig. Hell, there are people who make a living with their YouTube channels thru ad revenue (by following certain guidelines) and Patreon support. Though I'd imagine that's a full-time commitment as well.