Give back Astra's 5th star.
| Flag: | Europe |
| Registered: | September 6, 2024 |
| Last post: | September 9, 2024 at 9:00 AM |
| Posts: | 79 |
You know what, that's fair. I'll admit I consume a fair share of doomer media / discuss doomer thoughts. Realistically, I should give it another week decade.
To be clear, I am Gen-Z myself so It's more so that I have no faith in my own generation.
If I was a gambling man, I wouldn't put my money on these odds, bro. ðŸ˜
I understand the logic though, could happen. Seems very unlikely.
I don't think you understood the point of the sarcasm. You're complaining at the fact the men were protecting their daughters and wives from suffering like they did, that's what I am making fun of.
I am not blaming women for the fact they were not in the mines or battlefield, I don't want them to be. I am only pointing this out because you brought up the gender dynamic of men owning women and so I am explaining how the past gender dynamic was not this straight foward, since people often make it seem as though men just had women on leashes.
Also, I'm impressed you managed to use four different forms of shaming language in two sentences:
Not bad, not bad.
Well said, I didn't go into too much detail myself but this appears to be what we're currently going through.
You know what, you're right. I feel deep sympathy for all those little girls and young women who never had the opportunity to work in the coal mines and fight in the trenches. If those men back then had any sense of equality, they would have given those little girls their own little lanterns and sent them right in there along with the boys. We'll learn from this as we look foward to a better future.
(I'm being sarcastic, of course)
is men owning women not a dynamic between them? genuine question
It is, but you're also dodging the other half of that dynamic, which was men sacrifcing themselves for women. Sure, today women are no longer expected to marry young, have children, etc, but men are also no longer expected take care of a woman, be a provider, fight her battles etc. Both traditional dynamics are gone. What I'm talking about now is simply how they get along.
less military around the world raping and murdering civilians is probably a good thing. theyre just dogs of the governments they fight for
I shouldn't have to point out the obvious error in this thinking. Sure, command all the men of your country to drop their weapons and lower their defences because it's the right thing to do. I promise to do the same, wink.
"gender relations are the worst ever" yeah maybe in the past 10 years
women were literally property and couldnt vote 100 years ago in the us.
By gender relations I strictly mean the dynamic between men and women.
Both genders have been historically opressed one way or another, I don't know where people get this notion that men were just dangling their power over women whilst they were: working in coal mines and factories as children, fighting and dying in the wars, forfeiting their own wellbeing for women. The only reason men (in America) even got the right to vote was because the trade-off was the privilege of being drafted for WW1, WW2 and Vietnam.
birth rates decline because of better economic state and contraceptives.
Yes, and these factors are even more damning than lack of male/female relationships because you can't sacrifice your economy for children.
college is becoming too expensive for what we/most of our parents make because wages dont track its increase. thats why more people are going to trade school now and not seeking higher education.
Young women are still attending higher education, they even outearn their young male counterparts. It would appear that there is a factor specifically affecting men here that women aren't being as harshly impacted by.
less people want to go to military because the government propaganda is less effective nowadays with internet and social media, among many other things.
Whatever the reason is, there are less men signing up for enforcement roles. Still not a good thing.
your post is filled with ignorance that a few simple google searches could fix.
I've responded above. But even if I granted everything you said as true, you have done nothing to change my opinion of the downward trend of society. I have found no greater sense of optimism.
-corrected grammar-
That's what I'm thinking. This looks like an intentional set-up to sign cracked Ascension players for next season. Kept their two best players but opened room for three strong talents.
I really have tried to be optimistic about this when I think about it and I just don't see how we reverse the negative social trends. The future is simply going to have to prove me wrong.
It's not just being young and stupid. Previous generations lived in a world where they were eventually forced to grow-up. They were working in their teens, sent to wars, had families in their early 20s, and felt some kind of responsibility towards a stable society. This is not true for Gen-Z or Gen-A. We are the most privileged and comfortable generations that have ever lived, and it shows in our actions.
-cut yapping-
Gen-Z might be redeemable but Gen-A is for sure cooked.
Last discussion went well so I'll propose another question: What is your prediction for the state of society in by 2050? Personally, I'm somewhat of a pessimist. Here's why:
Gen-Z/Gen-A will be world leaders and hold most positions of power by that point. Based on how these generations behave at the moment, I have little faith in Gen-Z/Gen-A men or women being capable of upholding societal order/structure, maintaining critical infrastructure, or keeping positive internal or international relations.
Gender relations are the worst they've ever been, men and women are in constant tension, so many are giving up on dating and children, birth rates are on a steep decline and below replacement in some countries (meaning a woman wouldn't even replace herself if she had a child), men are increasingly less interested in higher education, employment, or the military. They are being replaced by women but no men in certain types of work is a big problem.
I'll stop here to leave room for other ideas but there's also healthcare, housing, wages etc. It's just cooked.
Disclaimer: I've mentioned no specific politics to keep this within the rules. Some points might get into politics but it's not the focus.
Lmao, same guy who came in saying "youre a virgin idiot" and "you dont get sex or bitches" doesnt "gaf". Lie to me in another life and I might just believe you. Whatever.
It's just cooked bro.
Aother thing I did when I had the app was changing my location experience to a country like Japan. It basically muted all western politics/trends since that stuff didn't trend in Japan. Not sure if it still works, I don't really use Twitter anymore.
If you're on PC you can use extensions that are designed to block recommendations, trending etc. I do this for YouTube and Twitch also, every site tries to push trending topics and unless you're an NPC it's all annoying.
Why does your capacity to be truthful depend on how many women you can fuck? But you know what, I'll play ball. I've fucked 7 women, I don't think florescent is actually a woman. The fact I've had sex 7 times makes my statement true, right? That's the condition you've established.
This is why you don't use childish insults and actually address the point.
I wish the person recording actually touched the UI because this could just be spectator mode but if it's legit it looks clean.
Ain't no way, what the hell. ðŸ˜
Weekend + read my name. I made this account just to yap.
Whenever people discuss this they're always talking about florescent and their potential in T2/T1 but florescent also gets diffed in GC by other top female players. The question really is: are any of the GC players ready for T2/T1?
Look, I quite like watching top GC teams and seeing how they play. Currently I'm big on Vania, very crisp vandal. However, I also have to be realistic because then I watch VCT Ascension and these players are leagues ahead. We should wait for the co-ed off//season tournament happening soon and make our final judgements from there.
I saw bro in one of the ELCS break ads, and the casters have mentioned his name once or twice when I've watched. I knew he had played CS before but didn't know he was this much of a household name. Now he's casting Valorant, is he the goat?
Interesting thought but why is it written like a scripture.
I'm not 100% sure it could be possible to have empathy toward animal without conditioning (some of them might have slighitly human behavior and that's may help a lot), it's possible, since it'a a conscience, but I kinda think the fact a lot of TV show for children showing anthropomorphized animal that are able to talk make in people unconscious a fertile ground to develop empathy toward animals.
That's my point, really. I just don't understand why the animal then has a higher value just because it has a conscience.
PS : Thats also why it will be less accepted to kill pet, they have been domesticated by human, so tend to react more to human, communicate, and be closer to human conscience
It's still not a human being, doesn't think like a human being, has no intelligent thought, it serves no purpose outside of eating, breathing, and sleeping, which is almost identicle to a fetus, yet the fetus is more acceptable to kill. We can even extend this to humans in comas and severely mentally disabled humans, they have no conscience either or lack most of it.
Logical consistency would dictate that all are acceptable to kill, or neither are.
That's what I enjoy about worldviews though, I have listened to debates where people who are pro-abortion are willing to maintain logical consistency and accept that killing is acceptable in all instances where conscience is lacking or gone. It's impossible to argue against that because it's logical to all degrees.
-added quote-
That's not exactly what I was asking. I'll try to rephrase:
You said that women feeling empathy towards fetuses is religious conditioning because, scientifically, there is no reason to feel empathy towards a fetus, it's illogical.
Well, scientifically, there is also no reason to feel any empathy towards animals, yet people feel empathy towards animals and feed them, raise them, cry for them etc.
So, would you take your statement on fetuses to the logical conclusion and say that empathy towards animals is also illogical and conditioned into people by society?
That would make sense to me. If I don't care about a human fetus, why on would I ever care about a dog. I have even less of a bioligical connection to the dog than the fetus, and I already have no bioligical connection to the fetus. If your worldview is consistent, you would agree with me. If not, that's fine, I'm just testing for logical consistency.
-added sentence-
Bro is the goat.
Did he do a recent interview? I want to hear what he's saying specifically 'cause last time this was brought up it turned out the players thought it was no big deal.
Talon was 1/2 of the weak teams in that group. Granted Trace managed to upset LEV and VIT but TLN was still unfavoured against them. Maybe "group of death" is the wrong phrase, just a hard group for them to get out of.
I'm willing to give him the benifit of the doubt since he made champs, unlucky they had a group of death (LEV and VIT). If Talon can make Top #4 in APAC and at least one International next year then he's doing okay.
https://www.vlr.gg/401772/dr-disrespect-shit
Just read this, someone explained it all.
Yeah, when you're lagging hard you're kind of floating around the server so you can get info but you haven't actually moved. I used to get this when I'd spike to like 2000 ping.
Her vandal is actually dangerous. Always nice to see controllers who can shoot.
That's the magic of it. If I'm consistent and my worldview is logical to a fault, there is no such thing as "nuance", I will always use the same justificaton. It's the strongest worldview one can have, but almost nobody thinks like this. Not that this is a bad thing, logic is not really required for people to be happy.
With that being said, people who engage in political talks should at least apply this logic their arguments or else they're just throwing stones in a glass house.
Good logic but ur argument implies that legal = good at all times or that legal = bad at all times.
Yeah, in a consistent worldview which appealed to the law, legal would always be good and illegal would always be bad. The problem is that I am using the law to justify something which then falls apart the moment something I disagree with creeps in. I set it up that way to show the flaw of justifying something with a source you don't truly believe in.
Morality is its own topic but I think it's the deepest step in informing people's worldview. Some people very much argue that morality is entirely subjective, others use religion as a basis, some use metrics of harm etc.
Nah, it's a good example. It captures why I find this topic interesting and worth thinking about.
A logically-consistent worldview is very strong but it can lead to circumstances which are unfavourable even though they are justified. The breaking-point is whether that unfavourable circumstance is enough to make you change your mind, thus weakening the core of your worldview. If the law is always true, except for when you don't like it, then is it always true? Not really.
Of course, this is mostly theory since practically nobody is this perfect. However, it is very difficult to argue against a worldview that accepts all of its logical faults without appealing to morality and then you'd have to explain why they should accept your morality (which is a different topic of its own).
If you feel bad after an abortion depend on if you believe you killed a sentient human being or just meat, religious have enough power to make women doubt, but the fact is that the conscience that draw the line, and this is science, not religion.
Okay, let me test your consistency. Do you apply the same logic to the fact people feel bad killing animals i.e. cows, dogs, birds, chickens, anything really. All animals are below human beings in consiousness and are unable to process thoughts to the degree that humans do, we have no reason to care about them outside of their utility yet people cry whenever their pets die. Would you agree that this is also illogical and a consequence of social conditioning? If so, then your worldview is consistent and I'd have nothing to push back on (which makes it a strong worldview).
Personally, if I don't believe in the life of a human fetus being of any value, I'd share the same sentiment to an animal less than human, especially pets that return no objective benifit. That would be logical.
-added sentence-
Well, the empathy rule doesn't really make sense since not everyone has the same level of empathy. Even in the abortion example 50% of women will tell you they would feel bad for the baby and 50% will tell you they don't care about the baby. Who is right can't be dependant on how they feel, unless we go with the worldview these things are subjective and so both are right.
This is where having strong foundations comes in and finding a worldview that goes deeper than our emotions. Most people will go through life never thinking this far about what they believe in (which is okay) but the people who wish to change the world should really self-reflect more.
I think I understand where you're going with the spirit of the rule > rule.
The spirit of the rule is to prevent X. However, X can still happen and people can get away with it if we on only focus on the written rule, right? I don't even disagree with this but I think you're looking a step ahead of what I'm talking about. I'll show you below.
If we talk about political rules, then I'll consider justice > rule,
What is "justice", what is the source/logic to determine whether or not something is wrong or right? That's the worldview. And more importantly, is the worldview consistent.
I'll give a very blatant and relevant (mods please don't ban) example just to really show you what I mean and why being consistent is important.
Rule: Women should have the right to abortions.
Logic: Women should have full reproductive rights and should be able to decide what they do with their bodies.
Logical conclusion: There are no exceptions in which a woman should be denied an abortion, even if the baby was due in the next 5 minutes.
Incosistency: If I disagree with the abortions in the case of 5 minutes left, then I am denying women's full reproductive rights which is inconsistent with my worldview.
This doesn't neccessarily make me wrong, it just means I can't stick to my worldview the moment I come across something I don't like the sound of, and so why am I advocating for it? Basically the jist of it.
-this is actually a very surface level example of a worldview (a real worldview would be deeper than this) but it should help you get the picture-
We all have, bro. 😠it's the natural way we argue as humans. It's just not good for more serious discussions, lol.
Haven't really ran into that, to be honest unless you're applying for an agenda-driven company or you're putting your views on a speaker, people generally don't care.
The most political conversation I've had at work was being asked what I thought of Tate and I honestly just said he's a grifter but he's not wrong about everything and has some good points about masculinity and women. Nobody cared, I still get along with my female colleagues, but that's only because they're chill. You have to know the kind of environment you're working in.
I've never heard of genetic fallacy and learned something new today, thx for that bro.
No problem. There's a bunch of other fallacies like: appeal to authority (being in a position of power means your views are correct), ad hominem (personal attack instead of addressing their argument), strawman (arguing a different point than someone has made to make it look like you answered them). If you debate a lot, it's good to know as many of these as you can. They're a cancer to good discussion.
The first part, no. Doesn't bother me to be alone.
The second part, yes. It's called the genetic fallacy, "because of who you are/your views, you can't be right". The only way to argue with people like that is to keep your actual beliefs vague.
Applies to anything but mostly relevant when discussing political topics. Whether you're pro-this or anti-that, you've used some kind of logic to get there. The test would then be can I use that logic against you to justify something you disagree with.
Though, like Nachtel pointed out, this wouldn't make me morally correct but it does mean you should reflect on why I can use your own logic to advocate for something you don't like.
-cut to turn into reply-
If I believed that then the law isn't really why I believe A is fine, it's just a convenient reason. That's what makes my reasoning inconsistent, I'm using a justification I don't actually believe in.
I agree, "objective" wasn't the right word. A logical worldview is just consistent with its justifications, not necessarily "correct".
In a logical worldview there is always a objective good consistent answer, and that sometimes means doing something "bad" to get there. Not sure if that's what they were getting at but I'd say that's a good base rule for logical consistency.
-rephrase-
The majority of people are reactionary; that is to say they have no baseline beliefs or fundamental moral standards--they just base their morals on what feels the most 'right' when confronted with a scenario, without fully thinking it out.
This is how I came across this. Came across this debate guy who always makes people confront the source of their beliefs and apply the logic elsewhere. Like you say, they often had no fundamental standard so they'd just say, "it depends" or "but that other thing is bad". They still have a worldview, just one informed by personal emotion. It's impossible to not be a hypocrite with that kind of illogical baseline.
Discord