Repeating a fallacy over and over does not make it true. Which proves my point: you argue that men lead, women follow, because men are superior thinkers and hence natural leaders, and emotional women need to be led. Misogyny. You are living up to your expectations of men, and expect your wife and daughters to live up to your expectations of women, and as long as they do, you're happy.
Jesus tap dancing christ. I'm hoping this is all some misguiding trolling, @walle because hot damn if you aren't being the dictionary definition of misogynistic.
I don't believe it is trolling. Unfortunately, there are people out there who genuinely hold these sort of views. Not going to lie, though: whether it's trolling or genuine, I find reading this stuff pretty difficult.
Yeah there is a reason I basically bowed out of the thread, some things are just too hard to engage with especially if your mind has a tendency to wander towards the stories you've heard from those who had to experience it.
https://www.libertarianism.org/podc...justice-system-jason-brennan-chris-surprenant Pretty hard hitting podcast about some of the problems of the US criminal justice system.
And on the UK statue obsessed version of this I saw this photo posted: without image-searching can anyone guess the time and place where these statues were being destroyed
I've found it rather entertaining watching the attempt at arguing human nature with a psychologist. I'm going to go with Germany 30s or 40s, since the kind of people who dig up these things wouldn't think about the Soviet Union and definitely wouldn't know Regno d'Italia.
Going by the clothing? WW1? But considering the quality of the photo? I'd say it is 30 years old at most (or has been tampered with).
I was about to complain that yet another thread in "serious" is getting dragged off topic but watching a misogynist trying to retreat into logic is ****ing hilarious.
Native Americans usually refers to the indigenous peoples of the US. Not Mexico (Central America) or South America. Anyway, I had no idea she wasn't Mexican until you brought this to my attention. I said complementary. 1. combining in such a way as to enhance or emphasize the qualities of each other or another. The two sexes bring different qualities to the union. That's what makes them...complementary No need to bring religion into it.
The interview was too short, would have needed another hour or two, guess we'll have to buy the book. I'll go with Belgium or France, simply because of the mustache, it's all about the mustache. Late 40s to early 50s maybe, the quality is very good.
After debating cognitive differences between men and women with a clinical psychologist, you're now debating the definition of Native American... with a Native American.
And the Egg on Face award goes to... https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ing-the-knee-feels-like-symbol-of-subjugation
I find it so weird that the confederacy flag is still used outside of books and museums, military bases were named after confederate generals and that there were even statues built of them. But then the racism against blacks makes sense, only in a country that glorifies people fighting to keep slavery legal you will find such disrespect for black lives. I imagine that Germany would be a very hostile place for jews and blacks if there were people flying the nazi flag and building statues of nazi generals and leaders. Imagine a military base called Fort Hitler.
From what I understand of, at least some, Jewish communities in Germany there's a strong air of unease. The lady was, unsurprisingly, taken on a lot of Judaism (Is that the right word here? it read like **** with 'Jewish' but I frankly don't remember how to use 'Judaism' as a word..) related school trips, and apparently her overriding memory from those communities is not positive towards 'outsiders'. I mean, totally understandable given what happened here, but. Seems that there's an uncomfortable atmosphere even with no Hitler statues. Not that that should be taken as a defence for having racist ******** strewn around the country like someone ****ed up grinding pepper and covered the table as well as dinner in the same way that America seems to do with the confederacy and its associated people and apparel.
Trouble is all the Confederate leaders were pardoned and many went on to have plenty of success in business and politics after the civil war. I bet lots of southern states will gloss over the whole slavery bit to talk about how the guy with the statue was Senator for X terms and started this company or built that railway. Much like how our slave owners are remembered for their business and political careers.
While true, given how much emphasis is put on the actual confederacy by current racists and closet racists (Rather than the post-slavery businesses and political runs) I don't feel like they're in the same paragraph - Although definitely on the same page as our statues of slavers who went on to run business and such. As for the naming military installations after them, it strikes me as profoundly odd to name a military base after anything on the losing side. I'm not aware of any navy ports called "Bismarck". Although I could be showing my ignorance here, I don't know the names and significance as such of all the Axis battleships, and if any names are in continued use and why.
This is a good little video on the confederacy and racism/slavery, I'm finding this channel a treasure trove of insights: Unrelated. Has this thread already touched on the Atlanta shooting of Rayshard Brooks? It's a weird one because the news media immediately ran with the narrative that it was another example of racially motivated police brutality and murder, but then the bodycam and CCTV footage showed a lengthy and very professional discourse in which the officers behaved impeccably and courteously, followed by an arrest attempt for DUI, followed by Brooks wrestling the police officers, fighting them, stealing a taser and shooting it at them before being shot himself. Online noise on youtube, on these videos, is overwhelmingly to the tune of "wtf - why was this pitched as another George Floyd? I support BLM but this is clearly justified. Officers acted properly." The officer who shot him was immediately fired (and I mean immediately) and is now being tried for murder, with the death penalty option if prosecutors push for it. This is the anxiety I have whenever emotionally founded activist movements explode across a society. That although BLM's intentions are good, and although they will undoubtedly achieve positive societal change and force the US to have the discussions and reforms it needs to progress, along the way there will be lots of very weird results and problems if they're not careful, precisely because things are emotionally charged and gung-ho now. Due process, evidence and perspective are always at risk of going out the window at times like these. Legal Eagle, in the same breath as avidly supporting BLM and condemning the killing of Floyd and Trump's actions since, also warned of the potential for public sentiment to lean on legal decisions at a time like this. I think that's a warning people should take very seriously. I felt from the outset that the focus on the police was something of a distracting aspect of the movement (since based on my research so far the really juicy racism is in hiring practices and judicial systems), and where getting angry at the justice system can only lead to judicial reform, getting angry at the police can lead to lots of violence, injustice, and an unwinnable situation for police officers, on the way to police reform.
Rayshard Brooks was shot in the back. Yes, he turned and aimed a taser at the chasing policeman, he then kept running and it was after that he was shot in the back. IIRC, a taser is not usually life threatening, even if it could pierce a policeman's body armour. Is shooting someone in the back considered "reasonable force"? I am not so sure, I agree with the decision to charge the policeman, let a court decide if the policeman's claim that his life was in danger and the shooting of a fleeing suspect in the back was considered justified. Every country has had these moments, remember the guy carrying a chair leg who was shot in the UK? That was ruled unlawful initially then an open verdict was returned after review. That was not handled particularly well and I am not sure the same verdict would be returned now. Ask yourself, is it justified in any circumstances to shoot a fleeing suspect in the back?
It potentially highlights the bigger question, which is why were armed police called in the first place. Adding guns to a situation is more likely to cause more violence to occur than less I would think in situations that aren't already violent.
