john89

joined 11 months ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Yes, exactly.

Although I will agree with you that there are women out there that feel as though they are 'owed' something due to the historical treatment of women.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (5 children)

Not really. I'm referring to women enjoying the benefits they get from having others do the work for them.

Trying to argue that they can't enjoy this without some overarching control is just reinforcing the idea that women can't think for themselves.

Good job doing your part to reinforce the idea that women should be treated like children.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (13 children)

as you talk about how women are so baby brained that they can’t think.

Saying it's an 'anti-feminist' talking point holds no water when we're describing reality. You're literally supporting my argument by saying that women can't rise above the expectations the patriarchy has put on them. They can't think for themselves.

You're also supporting my notion that you refuse to acknowledge greed and consumerism as being the root cause of these issues because you're so distracted and invested in blaming "the patriarchy."

It's a lot easier for women to blame "the patriarchy," because if they addressed their own greed then they would have to give something up. If all the blame is put on "the patriarchy," then women can continue to consume just as they always have and delude themselves into thinking they're not part of the problem.

It’s just the women’s side of patriarchy.

Now this is an interesting point to bring up, although it does reinforce my argument. Men are more likely to value autonomy, women are more likely to value homogeny. It's why I said that women have a harder time thinking for themselves than men and why they've been conditioned to operate as one unit.

None of this is up for debate and you haven't disproved any of my points. Even if these ideas aren't acceptable in our social circles, it doesn't mean they don't describe reality.

Stop trying to look good in front of your peers.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (3 children)

That’s not what I am saying. Women and men can rise above those expectations. It’s called feminism.

No, it's not. It's called autonomy.

“men good, women bad”

Wrong. I never said nor implied anything like this.

You described an aspect of patriarchy as it effects both women’s expectations of men and men’s expectations of women.

It's an aspect of the patriarchy, but it stems from consumerism and greed.

you use terms that accurately describe the ideologies at work rather than the group itself.

Wrong. I'm telling you uncomfortable truths so you have to plug your ears and deny.

Because to do so builds stereotypes

No. Seeing their actions builds the stereotype. If they can't rise above other people's expectations, then it coincidentally reinforces the idea that they can't think for themselves.

In your case, you are stuck in the male patriarchal false consciousness that is clouding your ability to see that we are saying the same thing.

In your case, you're desperate to prove that "feminism is the solution and the patriarchy is the problem" when the real issue is greed and consumerism.

We can just agree to disagree here. If you're going to be pretentious and patronizing by saying "I agree but I don't understand the words being used," then just re-read this comment.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (18 children)

complete free will

Hyperbole.

It's a spectrum, for sure. I wouldn't be who I am without the influence of others.

That said, women are way more likely to go along with what the crowd (their peers) is doing than I am. If they disagree with the crowd, they are way less likely to put those disagreements into action than I am.

They cannot think for themselves and it's encouraged by those who refuse to acknowledge it. It's not a problem unique to women, but they suffer from it more than men because women have been conditioned to operate as one unit.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (14 children)

It is disagreeing, though. You're saying that women can't rise above the expectations put on them by "the patriarchy." I agree that women, on average, cannot think for themselves.

It's not the fault of the patriarchy that women like expensive things and are willing to reward males who buy them things with sex. Women themselves encourage this behavior.

Trying to absolve them of any responsibility is just contributing to the culture of treating women like children.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (17 children)

You are right, but that is due to patriarchy creating the cultural expectations

This is where we disagree, and it's not just the words that we use. Women are greedy, too. They like the nice things men buy them. They don't care about the true cost of consumerism because they've been conditioned to ignore it.

It is women simply trying to meet their side of the expectation.

This is why I agree with you insomuch as women aren't able to think for themselves. I don't put that expectation on them. People richer than us do. Even though I'm able to rise above their influence, the average person cannot. This goes doubly-so for women because women have been encouraged for generations to function as one entity as much as possible.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

I must say, seeing all this war footage has really opened my eyes. It looks like the powers that be have a vested interest in keeping it hidden from us. If more people could see how inglorious war actually is, they wouldn't be so eager to continue engaging it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (43 children)

It's not their fault insomuch as they can't think for themselves, I'll agree with you there.

But the agreement stops when you blame the patriarchy over consumerism. No, this generation has been convinced to sell itself out to the lowest bidder. Average women are proud consumers that want to live like instagram models. Any kind of modesty is shunned in their social circles. It's drowned out by "look at this new thing I bought! Please praise me for spending money!"

The sex speaks for itself. Men have a ridiculously easy time getting laid if they have money, even if they're pieces of shit in every other way.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

I just switched this video out for a higher quality version.

I'm experimenting with reducing the quality of videos to save on storage space.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (5 children)

Unfortunately, the homogenization of women works against them when they're all conditioned to be proud consumers living vicariously through those richer than them.

18
submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 

I'm trying to add more fruit to my diet, but I'm having trouble finding good deals.

Grapes, for example, are $6 per bag of ~2.25lbs (~~453~~ 906 grams). That would be mostly acceptable, only I can't eat that many grapes before they go bad.

I then saw pears, and noticed they were ~$1.30 each. That's a crazy price to be paying when I'm going to be eating an entire pear with my meal. It becomes the most expensive part by a massive margin, and it's not even meat!

So, what really set me off was seeing apples, apples for $1. One. Dollar. Per. Apple. That's insane. It's unacceptable. It should not be the case.

So I ask, what is going on? Is this the result of ensuring people will pay the absolute maximum they're willing to, regardless of what something costs to produce? Is this the result of that occurring at every step of the way in all of our lives, including for apple farmers?

Is there something else? Is there a legitimate, not-passing-a-bunch-of-money-around-at-the-top reason for why a bleeping apple costs $1 now?

 

It's my understanding that fruits typically are made to be consumed, in the sense that it benefits the evolution of the plant. An animal eats the fruit and perhaps some seeds along with it, the seeds don't get digested and end up in soil somewhere further than the plant could spread on them on its own.

How do pineapples fall into this mix? They're practically impossible to eat without tools, and it looks like it's by design. It also bothers me that they're not as easy to eat as apples.

How would this be beneficial to the evolution of the species?

 

I’m trying to repair my Lenovo Ideapad Gaming 3 laptop, model 15ACH6. The plastic is cracked/broken at both hinges, so I am replacing the “upper case.”

The manual says I need screws of certain sizes. One of these sizes is M2 x L11.5 which I can’t seem to find at any major online retailer. I’m not a screw-expert, so maybe I’m looking in the wrong spot or entering the wrong information.

All the screw sets I’m seeing appear to leave out the 11.5 screws.

Does anyone know where to find these?

It’s bad enough that I have to fix what shouldn’t be broken in the first place, but to add insult to injury the brilliant engineers at Lenovo decided to use extremely hard to find screws. Couldn’t they have just added that extra .5 whatever to the upper case so it doesn’t break in the first place? I’d really rather have a thicker laptop than one that breaks in this extremely inconvenient and preventable manner. Planned obsolescence is alive and well.

1
submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 

Does anyone else notice how Steam doesn't update games automatically? You need to wait until you launch the game to update it. It also doesn't tell us when games need to be updated. Too often, I'm about to play with friends then find out I need to update the game.

What's also weird about a lot of these updates is that they don't even seem necessary. For example, Skyrim would run a 1GB+ update every time after I launched it, even though the game launched properly and I could play it just fine. This was every. Time.

There are some mad inefficiencies with how Steam handles updating games on Linux. I'm making this post hopefully to bring awareness to the issue and let others know who may be suffering from it that they are not alone.

As much benefit as Valve has provided for gaming on Linux, there's no denying that Steam is an albatross around the neck of the free software ecosystem.

 

I'm interested in something that games and front-ends can implement in order to play online and connect with friends, independent of the actual front-end in use.

This would allow gamers to connect without being reliant on companies' stores.

Is there such a thing? Are there any discussions about creating one?

 

This happens at the end of the game. AI Colonel and Rose mention that Shadow Moses was chosen as a template for the S3 plan because of its harshness. Rose then jokes, "I wonder if you would've preferred a fantasy setting?" and Colonel chuckles.

This sticks out to me, being a huge fan of fantasy games. I wonder if they just took a shot in the dark and it happened to land on me. I get similar feelings to Psycho Mantis reading our memory cards and mentioning the games we play.

Is there something else to this quote? Does anyone have any ideas on why it may have been included?

view more: ‹ prev next ›