Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,287,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

Fox News Rant

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 151 to 212 of 212
  1. #151
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post

    Imagine if Bernie was caught with a spliff.
    The image this brought to my mind made me lol.
  2. #152
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    If it were someone you opposed, there is no question you would be gloating.
    False

    I agree with a lot of what you say
    Not surprising. I'm generally ultra-fucking-correct.

    however your hypocrisy needs to be highlighted. You'd be the first to hound a political opponent for whatever reason you could.
    False again. My criticism of political figures is based on policy, not salacious personal trash.

    You'd be quick to mock those of us on this forum who supported the now discredited opponent.
    False for yet a third time.

    It's funny you use the word "opponent". I never considered Bill O'Reilly to be an 'ally'. I don't consider Chris Matthews to be an 'opponent'. I think O'Reilly had a fucking awesome show. I think he was a smart guy, I think he was a patriot, and I think he was a generous and compassionate man who did a lot of good.

    And I think it's sucks how some off-camera indecency precludes him from ever earning a living or continuing his good works.

    That's not justice.

    Imagine if Bernie was caught with a spliff. What would you have to say about that?
    First of all, probably not much. Secondly, thats entirely different. Bernie was running for an office that wielded tremendous power over world events and public policy. Bill O'Reilly is just the host of a cable TV show.

    If your personal failings compromise your ability to function in a job like POTUS, where everything you do has far reaching implications, then you're not qualified for that job. So Bernie smoking a spliff, would be a problem if he wants to govern. That's why Gary Johnson's "what is Aleppo" flub was so so so so bad.
  3. #153
    Not surprising. I'm generally ultra-fucking-correct.
    Mostly. That's because most of what you say is subjective, so of course you're correct, because you're sharing an opinion, not a fact. You're wrong when you claim subjective shit is objective, like morality.

    False
    You're Gloaty McGloatface, of course you'd gloat. You would take great pleasure in mocking those who supported someone who has been disgraced, assuming that person was someone whose policy you opposed.

    False again. My criticism of political figures is based on policy, not salacious personal trash.
    Well your language here suggests you engage in personal trash, if not salacious. So forgive me if I find this hard to believe.

    Bill O'Reilly is just the host of a cable TV show.
    Fair point.

    So Bernie smoking a spliff, would be a problem if he wants to govern
    Why would this be any more of a problem than drinking whiskey?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  4. #154
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Gloaty McGloatface
    Can I change my handle to this, please?
  5. #155
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Mostly.
    Agree
    That's because most of what you say is subjective,
    Disagree
    so of course you're correct,
    Agree
    because you're sharing an opinion, not a fact.
    Disagree
    You're wrong when you claim subjective shit is objective, like morality.
    If I recall, the debate was in regards to 'decency', which is a wholly objective determination. Your propensity to conflate 'decency' and 'morality' is a YOU problem.
    You're Gloaty McGloatface, of course you'd gloat. You would take great pleasure in mocking those who supported someone who has been disgraced, assuming that person was someone whose policy you opposed.
    Don't think so. Eli Manning has a staunch and unwavering policy of helping the NY Giants win football games. I can't imagine a policy I oppose more vehemently. Mr. Manning was recently busted for selling two helmets he claimed were game-used, but were not.

    Running a scam over two helmets worth maybe $1,000 seems humongously disgraceful coming from a guy who has accumulated $206 million dollars playing football. Because of our different preferences on policy, it's possible I may take some extra satisfaction in seeing him punished. Call it "gloating" if you will.

    However, if Eli gets fired from the Giants, kicked out of football, and blacklisted from ever working again, I'm not sure I'd be so jubilant. I don't think I'd take great pleasure in seeing another human being destroyed over a relatively minor indiscretion. It's not reason to celebrate when the plethora of charitable causes he supports loses an income stream.

    Well your language here suggests you engage in personal trash, if not salacious. So forgive me if I find this hard to believe.
    On this side of the atlantic, we make judgments based on evidence.

    Fair point.
    More of me being right.

    Why would this be any more of a problem than drinking whiskey?
    OMFG

    You don't see the difference?

    *sigh*

    Really?

    Whiskey is legal, pot is not. If it's your intention to become the leader of a nation, a nation of laws, then it's probably best if you abstain from illegal activity. It sort of demonstrates an insurmountable hypocrisy, don't you think?
  6. #156
    If I recall, the debate was in regards to 'decency', which is a wholly objective determination. Your propensity to conflate 'decency' and 'morality' is a YOU problem.
    Decency is one aspect of morality. Is it not immoral to be indecent? Standards of decency are based on morality, which is why decency is subjective. Unless, that is, you subscribe to the idea that law defines decency, not morality.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  7. #157
    Whiskey is legal, pot is not.
    lol now come on banana, we both know that the legal status of weed in USA is different from state to state, which only goes to demonstrate the ridiculous nature of your position. You're basically saying it's ok for Bernie or Trump to smoke a huge spliff in states where's it's legal, but not where it isn't.

    If it's your intention to become the leader of a nation, a nation of laws, then it's probably best if you abstain from illegal activity
    lol "illegal activity"

    Weed is/isn't (delete as applicable) illegal in [enter state here].

    Invading Iraq was illegal.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  8. #158
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    lol now come on banana, we both know that the legal status of weed in USA is different from state to state
    OMFG you've been so duped!!

    Weed is illegal EVERYWHERE in the United States. It is forbidden in literally every single square inch of land, sea, and sky within the borders of US sovereignty.

    Certain states have passed fake laws legalizing or decriminalizing the drug, and are enforcing those laws as if they were real.

    Marijuana is still a FEDERALLY controlled substance, and any law enforcement agency with federal jurisdiction can arrest and prosecute you for owning/using/selling it under federal statutes.

    Now, because of the prioritization of manpower at the federal level, they don't have the resources to go chasing after very low level offenders like yourself. The vast vast vast vast majority of law enforcement agents that a typical person encounters are operating at the state level, and adhering to the fake laws.

    Most folks interact with their local and state police. Much fewer people ever interact with DEA, FBI, or ATF. However, if you did meet a DEA agent while smoking a spliff, you'd be in trouble. Even in colorado.

    So for practical purposes, weed is legal in the states with those fake laws. But on paper, it's very much ILLEGAL.

    To you, me, and other everyday people, that really doesn't matter.

    However, if you were running for president, it would be a very significant distinction.
    Last edited by BananaStand; 04-20-2017 at 03:04 PM.
  9. #159
    So for practical purposes, weed is legal in the states with those fake laws. But on paper, it's very much ILLEGAL.
    America, fuck yeah.

    Honestly, if this is an accurate assessment of the legal status of weed in USA, then your nation is more fucked up than I realised. Fucking split into several nations already.

    However, if you were running for president, it would be a very significant distinction.
    Only to people like you.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  10. #160
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    America, fuck yeah.
    Comin again to save the mutha fuckin day yeah!

    Honestly, if this is an accurate assessment of the legal status of weed in USA, then your nation is more fucked up than I realised. Fucking split into several nations already
    .
    That's an overly dramatic assessment. It's actually supposed to be like that. The constitution was framed in a way to give the federal government very limited powers and then everything else is governed by the states. We're supposed to be 50 separate states, "united".

    I think you'll find more alignment on issues that really matter. The feds don't really care about potheads while they're battling a nationwide opioid crisis.

    Only to people like you everyone who votes
    Fixed your post
  11. #161
    Fixed your post
    I'm a voter. I wouldn't care if the person I was thinking of voting for smoked a spliff.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  12. #162
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I'm a voter. I wouldn't care if the person I was thinking of voting for smoked a spliff.
    Well you should

    You'd care if he cheated on his taxes
    You'd care if he embezzled money
    You'd care if he was working with the Russians.
    You'd care if he was doing crack
    You'd care if he sexually harassed someone
    You'd care if he did basically anything else illegal.

    The problem here is that by concerning yourself with weed, you're a hypocrite unless you also criticize your own weed use, which you most definitely won't do. It's called bias.

    It wouldn't be a problem except for the fatal flaw in your thinking where you equate yourself to a person of national political significance.

    Most people feel that despite wanting sympathy their own personal failings, the POTUS should be held to a higher standard.
  13. #163
    You'd care if he cheated on his taxes
    Yes, unless he was exploiting legal loopholes.

    You'd care if he embezzled money
    Yes.

    You'd care if he was working with the Russians.
    No. In fact this would be a positive.

    You'd care if he was doing crack
    Probably. If it wasn't effecting his sanity (good luck with that), then no I wouldn't care.

    You'd care if he sexually harassed someone
    Physically, certainly. Verbally, depends on the context.

    You'd care if he did basically anything else illegal.
    Not necessarily.

    I couldn't give a fuck about law. I care about morality. If a candidate acts immorally, in my opinion, then I will not vote for him. If he acts illegally, but not immorally, in my opinion, then I don't care about his "crime" and only care about policy.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  14. #164
    The problem here is that by concerning yourself with weed, you're a hypocrite unless you also criticize your own weed use, which you most definitely won't do. It's called bias.
    I'm not a hypocrite. I'm not critisising anyone else's weed use.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  15. #165
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,507
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Honestly, if this is an accurate assessment of the legal status of weed in USA, then your nation is more fucked up than I realised. Fucking split into several nations already.
    AFAIK, Mr. Stand is correct. The legal status of weed in the USA is FUBAR.

  16. #166
    bigred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    15,462
    Location
    Nest of Douchebags
    Meh, gloating aside, I see the Bill O'Reilly firing as a victory for the constant struggle of women in the workplace. I've seen it so often and I'm happy for such a high exposure outcome. I've seen the boys club mentality at almost every level of every company I've consulted for with my former company and I saw it among the ranks of the leadership within said former company. I've watched former bosses refer to women as too emotional, on her period, the one with the boobs, etc etc and I'm tired of it. There's a clear lack of respect for women (often not always overt) and so many choose to look the other way or pretend it doesn't exist and is some liberal agenda conspiracy.

    I think it's our job as males in the majority (I can only speak for myself as a straight, white male) to stand up for those who are marginalized and at risk to stand up for themselves.

    Reacting to the Bill O'Reilly news as a claim that its women who didn't get their perfect career opportunity and then tried to cash grab is so pathetic, selfish, and ignorant. You're assuming these women are willing to put themselves out there to the scrutiny of the public for a cash grab? To admit humiliating things and risk any future career in media for a cash grab? That is such a huge denial of their horrible experiences and so belittling.

    I used to think things like that because it was easy. It's so much simpler to label these women as bad and not give it a further thought. It's so much simpler to dismiss them as cash grabbers so you don't have to consider the complex and hostile environment that is often the workplace for women because "don't we all have problems?." It's so selfish and arrogant to think you understand these women and that you've figured out their little conspiracy.

    But I'm lucky. I'm lucky enough to have married someone who is a strong female and who has called me on my bullshit since day 1. Someone who has challenged me to think past my biases, denials, and over-simplification of very complex issues. Someone who to this day (even yesterday on a walk) still calls me out on my bullshit.

    And now I'm calling you on yours but it won't matter. The internet doesn't have the same impact as a partner you can't log off from. I can only hope one day you are lucky enough to find someone who can impactfully call you out on yours. Cause I'm done with the internet arguing and shitposting. It's not helping me and it's certainly not making this forum a fun place for anyone.
    LOL OPERATIONS
  17. #167
    bigred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    15,462
    Location
    Nest of Douchebags
    Here's a cat with a mustache

    LOL OPERATIONS
  18. #168
    Quote Originally Posted by bigred View Post
    Meh, gloating aside, I see the Bill O'Reilly firing as a victory for the constant struggle of women in the workplace. I've seen it so often and I'm happy for such a high exposure outcome. I've seen the boys club mentality at almost every level of every company I've consulted for with my former company and I saw it among the ranks of the leadership within said former company. I've watched former bosses refer to women as too emotional, on her period, the one with the boobs, etc etc and I'm tired of it. There's a clear lack of respect for women (often not always overt) and so many choose to look the other way or pretend it doesn't exist and is some liberal agenda conspiracy.

    I think it's our job as males in the majority (I can only speak for myself as a straight, white male) to stand up for those who are marginalized and at risk to stand up for themselves.

    Reacting to the Bill O'Reilly news as a claim that its women who didn't get their perfect career opportunity and then tried to cash grab is so pathetic, selfish, and ignorant. You're assuming these women are willing to put themselves out there to the scrutiny of the public for a cash grab? To admit humiliating things and risk any future career in media for a cash grab? That is such a huge denial of their horrible experiences and so belittling.

    I used to think things like that because it was easy. It's so much simpler to label these women as bad and not give it a further thought. It's so much simpler to dismiss them as cash grabbers so you don't have to consider the complex and hostile environment that is often the workplace for women because "don't we all have problems?." It's so selfish and arrogant to think you understand these women and that you've figured out their little conspiracy.

    But I'm lucky. I'm lucky enough to have married someone who is a strong female and who has called me on my bullshit since day 1. Someone who has challenged me to think past my biases, denials, and over-simplification of very complex issues. Someone who to this day (even yesterday on a walk) still calls me out on my bullshit.

    And now I'm calling you on yours but it won't matter. The internet doesn't have the same impact as a partner you can't log off from. I can only hope one day you are lucky enough to find someone who can impactfully call you out on yours. Cause I'm done with the internet arguing and shitposting. It's not helping me and it's certainly not making this forum a fun place for anyone.
    TIL Bigred doesn't wear the pants in his relationship.
  19. #169
    Quote Originally Posted by bigred View Post
    I've seen the boys club mentality at almost every level of every company I've consulted for with my former company and I saw it among the ranks of the leadership within said former company. I've watched former bosses refer to women as too emotional, on her period, the one with the boobs, etc etc and I'm tired of it. There's a clear lack of respect for women (often not always overt) and so many choose to look the other way or pretend it doesn't exist and is some liberal agenda conspiracy.
    No one is suggesting that doesn't happen, or that it doesn't exist, or that it's all some liberal conspiracy.

    The problem with what you're saying is that it's so heavily saturated with confirmation bias, it can't possibly be an informed position.

    Remember when Megyn Kelly opened the debate by asking Trump a question about all the bad things he's said about women? The reason that's an unfair question, is that it presumes he doesn't also talk that way about men. There's a painful double standard here that gets wholly ignored by mainstream discourse. So it's considered simple 'ribbing' when Trump talks about Chris Christie and meatloaf, but it's a misogynistic hate crime if he makes a comment about a fat woman.

    It's easy to condemn the 'boys club' for saying "too emotional", "on her period", the "one with the boobs". But when also don't condemn those same people for saying "the fat guy", "the bald dude", "the mamas boy", or "the prick" then we've created a double standard. An offense against a man is regarded vastly differently than a similar offense against a woman.

    This just reinforces the idea that women are fragile, not strong enough to assert themselves, and require delicate coddling in order to be successful.

    I can't think of a more misogynistic line of thinking.
  20. #170
    Women do indeed have tits and periods. Perhaps as we stive for equality, we should ban these things. Also ban dicks, facial hair, anything that differentiates males from females.

    We should also ban different colour skin, mental ilness, ginger hair, obesity, homosexuality... all of these things demonstrate we're not all equal.

    The problem with equality is... how do you treat people equally when people are not equal? You can have all the good intentions on the world, but until we can watch a man smack shit into a woman (or vice versa) in the boxing ring, until we can fit fat people into regular bus seats, until crazy people can function like a normal person, until ginger people get souls, equality is nothing but a leftist pipe dream.

    Equality is unnatural. Are lions all born equal? No, the fucker with the best genes (probably the offspring of the dominant male) will have an advantage. Ban genetic advantages already.

    I'm tired of people thinking we're all the same and should be treated so. We're not all the same.

    Equality for me is everyone is equally a cunt until proven otherwise.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  21. #171
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,660
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  22. #172
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,799
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Idk if Bill's accusers are legit or not. But there are a ton of ppl who'd throw away a career for a million bucks.
  23. #173
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,507
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    I'd guess that for most people, if they had a million bucks, then they'd no longer need a career.
  24. #174
    bigred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    15,462
    Location
    Nest of Douchebags
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    No one is suggesting that doesn't happen, or that it doesn't exist, or that it's all some liberal conspiracy.

    The problem with what you're saying is that it's so heavily saturated with confirmation bias, it can't possibly be an informed position.

    Remember when Megyn Kelly opened the debate by asking Trump a question about all the bad things he's said about women? The reason that's an unfair question, is that it presumes he doesn't also talk that way about men. There's a painful double standard here that gets wholly ignored by mainstream discourse. So it's considered simple 'ribbing' when Trump talks about Chris Christie and meatloaf, but it's a misogynistic hate crime if he makes a comment about a fat woman.

    It's easy to condemn the 'boys club' for saying "too emotional", "on her period", the "one with the boobs". But when also don't condemn those same people for saying "the fat guy", "the bald dude", "the mamas boy", or "the prick" then we've created a double standard. An offense against a man is regarded vastly differently than a similar offense against a woman.

    This just reinforces the idea that women are fragile, not strong enough to assert themselves, and require delicate coddling in order to be successful.

    I can't think of a more misogynistic line of thinking.
    A few questions/comments:

    How is what I'm saying saturated with confirmation basis? Specifically point out my statements because I don't see it nor would I if it's bias. Not a loaded question. Just asking for data.

    I don't disagree with your two middle paragraphs but I don't see how they're relevant to our conversation aside from diluting my statements. Sure, people are dicks to males and females. We should't do this...wholly agreed. However, men are in a position of power. They have been the majority for some time and being the majority (in my opinion) means things aren't equal. It requires tougher skin. A slight against a minority group in business such as women is not the same as a slight against the majority (a male). I think it's just the complexity of the social construct we live in today. Some day this might not be true and what you say is true. But, again in my opinion, to state equality is to ignore the continued undermining of women in the commercial world.

    I heavily disagree with your statement that this suggests women are fragile. I don't think they're fragile. I think it's sticking up for a minority. I don't think women are fragile but I think humans (based on my background in sociology and behavioral economics) suggests that humans are risk averse. When you're in the minority, survival mode suggests you put up with unfair treatment to your detriment.
    LOL OPERATIONS
  25. #175
    bigred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    15,462
    Location
    Nest of Douchebags
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Women do indeed have tits and periods. Perhaps as we stive for equality, we should ban these things. Also ban dicks, facial hair, anything that differentiates males from females.

    We should also ban different colour skin, mental ilness, ginger hair, obesity, homosexuality... all of these things demonstrate we're not all equal.

    The problem with equality is... how do you treat people equally when people are not equal? You can have all the good intentions on the world, but until we can watch a man smack shit into a woman (or vice versa) in the boxing ring, until we can fit fat people into regular bus seats, until crazy people can function like a normal person, until ginger people get souls, equality is nothing but a leftist pipe dream.

    Equality is unnatural. Are lions all born equal? No, the fucker with the best genes (probably the offspring of the dominant male) will have an advantage. Ban genetic advantages already.

    I'm tired of people thinking we're all the same and should be treated so. We're not all the same.

    Equality for me is everyone is equally a cunt until proven otherwise.
    I think you're conflating the preposterous idea that "people should be exactly the same" with my idea of trying to support marginalized groups. I'm not stating the former so I'm not sure your above statement applies. I'd be happy to have an argument on why the human race has evolved past this faux-Darwinism 'enlightenment' but unless you can convince me, I don't think your post applies except as maybe an apathetic excuse to ignore the marginalized.

    Here in 'Merica (can't speak for the Brits), we believe in the equal chance to pursue happiness.

    Specifically:

    The pursuit of happiness is defined as a fundamental right mentioned in the Declaration of Independence to freely pursue joy and live life in a way that makes you happy, as long as you don't do anything illegal or violate the rights of others.
    How can we claim to be patriotic and supporters of the constitution when the rights of women are clearly being violated? To me, this debate should be statistic/source based discussing my assertion that women are marginalized.

    What you need to convince me on, Ong, is that your point is relevant? "Fuck it, we're not the same, so there's no point in trying to help anyone" seems like apathetic denial to me.

    Also, people are generally awesome unless influenced by fear and ignorance.
    LOL OPERATIONS
  26. #176
    The problem I have with this matter is that anyone can put themself into a "marginalised group" if they really want to be a victim.

    We have a female PM, and you nearly had one for Prez. Germany has a female leader, France might have one too soon. These women are not disadvantaged, these women have not allowed institutional sexism to stop them from getting where they want to be.

    I'm tired of hearing that women are a "marginalised group" in western society. They're not. It's just men are assholes, which is 100% natural and isn't going to change any time soon. I'm glad that the men here in the UK and USA aren't nearly as much assholes as the fuckers in Saudi Arbia and Turkey and all these fucked up places where they make them cover their faces. That's where women are disadvantaged, it's by force.

    Any disadvantage women have in the western world is purely implied. It's the consequence of a competetive environment. Men are better at being bullies than women, men are better at forcing their will, so yeah society tends to favour men. But it's because women are weaker. If women don't want to be disadvantaged, don't be weak. Harsh, but sadly it's the real world.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  27. #177
    The thing about weakness... in places like Saudi Arabi, it's their physical weakness that puts them at a disadvantage. That's men forcing their physical dominance over women. That is a problem for me. Here, in the UK, and the USA, physical weakness is not a barrier to success.

    But mental weakness is. And that's where women need to not be weak. But so long as they allow themselves to be "marginalised", they are.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  28. #178
    Quote Originally Posted by bigred View Post
    How is what I'm saying saturated with confirmation basis?
    Well, you go on to say that you don't disagree with my middle two paragraphs. So in essence, you're admitting that both men and women do shitty things to each other for a myriad of reasons. If you're only going to be laser-focused on instances of men putting down women, then you're choosing to embrace only the evidence that supports your opinion, and ignoring everything else. That's bias.

    I don't disagree with your two middle paragraphs but I don't see how they're relevant to our conversation aside from diluting my statements.
    Right, your undiluted statements do not reflect reality.

    Sure, people are dicks to males and females. We should't do this...wholly agreed.
    Great, so why can't someone just be a generic dick? If someone is a dick to everyone, all the time, then why is it so much worse when he does it to certain groups of people? You're manufacturing prejudice where none exists.

    However, men are in a position of power.
    Totally sexist.

    They have been the majority for some time and being the majority (in my opinion) means things aren't equal.
    The majority of what? Last I checked the man/woman count was hovering right around 50/50. If anything, there are more females on the planet than males.

    It requires tougher skin
    What does?

    A slight against a minority group in business such as women is not the same as a slight against the majority (a male).
    This suggests that women are less equipped to handle a slight than men are. How do you not see how sexist you're being???

    I heavily disagree with your statement that this suggests women are fragile. I don't think they're fragile.
    You just got through saying how women have a harder time overcoming a slight than men do. Literally, one sentence ago dude.

    I don't think women are fragile but I think humans (based on my background in sociology and behavioral economics) suggests that humans women are risk averse.
    Fixed your post. In an economy where there is a strong correlations between risk and reward, those who accept less risk will reap fewer rewards.

    When you're in the minority, survival mode suggests you put up with unfair treatment to your detriment.
    This is crybaby bullshit. Timidity is not a handicap.
  29. #179
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Any disadvantage women have in the western world is purely implied. It's the consequence of a competetive environment. Men are better at being bullies than women, men are better at forcing their will, so yeah society tends to favour men. But it's because women are weaker. If women don't want to be disadvantaged, don't be weak. Harsh, but sadly it's the real world.
    Pretty harsh, but not totally inaccurate.

    The best example of this is the statistical reality that women make less than men, on average, for doing roughly equal work. BigRed would say that's evidence of the marginalization of women. And frankly, ALOT of mainstream discourse assumes the same conclusion.

    But no one ever tries to illustrate the details behind the numbers. No one ever tries to explain that difference with anything other than by blaming systematic oppression of women.

    Example: Let's say I have a frozen banana stand. I'm expanding it to two new locations and I need to hire a manager for each. I hire a man for one, and a woman for the other. I pay them both the exact same $50,000 per year.

    After year 1, both employees have shown favorable performance, so I give them each a 5% raise. After year 2, the same thing. So both employees are now making $55,125. In year 3, the woman takes a year off to have a baby. The man keeps working. At the end of year 3, the man gets a 5% raise for his work that year. The woman doesn't get a raise because she was absent the entire time.

    Now at the start of year 4, the man is making $57,881 and the woman is making $55,125. I continue to employ these two people, giving them both equal 5% raises at the end of each year. By year 10, the man is making $81,444 while the woman makes $77,566.

    I offered two candidates of opposite sexes the exact same job, for the exact same salary, and gave them identical raises after every year of service. I didn't discriminate. There's nothing misogynistic about this scene. It just looks bad when you zoom in to the very end and take a snapshot showing a man making $4k more than a woman for the same job.

    Another piece to this, which I believe is Ong's point, is that men are bigger risk takers, and generally better negotiators than women.

    One of my college professors told the class that whenever you're offered a job, decline it, and ask for $5,000 more. No matter what, just do it every single time. I don't have any stats to back this up, but I would bet a lung that if you took a poll right now asking people if they've ever done this, the overwhelming majority of positive respondents will be men.

    Now lets go back to my frozen banana stand. I've found the world's two leading expert on banana sales and I want to hire both of them to manage my new locations. I am positively convinced that these two candidates, and no one else, will be my best chance at growth and success.

    In other words, I'm at a disadvantage in negotiations because I NEED these two specific people.

    I offer them both $50K. The woman accepts right away, but the man, asks me for $5k more or threatens to move on to another employer.

    If I give in to the man's demand, am I obligated to go back to the woman and offer her more money? Is that how a free market works?????

    So now let's work the math through. If I give both employees identical 5% raises every year, then by year 10, the man is making $89,589 and the woman is making 81,444. Then if I insert the baby scenario from above, where the woman misses year 3, then by year 10 the salary discrepancy is larger. Man = $89,589, Woman = $77,566

    Where in this scenario have I done anything misogynistic? How exactly have I participated in the systematic marginalization of women?
  30. #180
    Where in this scenario have I done anything misogynistic? How exactly have I participated in the systematic marginalization of women?
    You haven't, but if I'm a stupid (or insincere) feminist, I could highlight this pay gap and nothing else, call myself a victim, or marginalised, or discriminated against, shout loudly on social media, and leftists the world over will agree that sexism happened.

    Risk taking and negotiating is just one aspect of where men are generally better at forcing their will. But it goes deeper... men are less likely to react emotionally when they encounter perceived discrimination. That's not to say they don't, but to less of a degree. I think women are more likely to lose motivation, or for their competetive edge to be eroded by playing the game. It's quite difficult to put into words the point I'm trying to make, but ultimately I do not feel that women are "marginalised" because I do not believe there is a conscious effort from the system to favour men... it's just the natural differences between men and women, coupled with a cut throat working environment, means men have the upper hand. And why would they give an inch if it means they lose out? It's capitalism, not sexism.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  31. #181
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I think women are more likely to lose motivation, or for their competetive edge to be eroded by playing the game. It's quite difficult to put into words the point I'm trying to make,
    I think you're trying to make a different point but you happened to have touched on something pretty important.

    It doesn't matter whether we're talking about women, black people, the poor, the disabled, or whatever. When the leaders of your particular "group" make huge public spectacles about how your "group" is marginalized, they are providing an excuse for people who under-achieve. More importantly, they are undermining motivation right from the beginning.

    Why try if it doesn't matter how hard you work. Some man, or white person, or rich guy is gonna screw you over anyway.

    Feminism is one of the worst things to happen to women
    'Black Lives Matter' is one of the worst things to happen to black people
    and Bernie Sanders is one of the worst things to happen to poor people.

    All of these 'movements' have the same message to their constituents...."the system is rigged against you"

    That CRUSHES initiative. Is it possible that sentiment is contributing to a culture that's holding women back?
    Last edited by BananaStand; 04-24-2017 at 02:37 PM.
  32. #182
    ...and Bernie Sanders is one of the worst things to happen to poor people.
    Well we're drifitng into territory here where we disagree. I mean the system is rigged as fuck, not against women, or blacks, but against nearly everyone. But that's a different story.

    Sanders is a symptom of poverty, not a cause. You can't blame Bernie for socialism.

    The thing is, if we genuinely want a society where we at least strive for equality, a health system and education system that is accessable for all seems like a good place to start. I dunno about Bernie's policies, but I'd be surprised if that's not the direction he was going.

    Healthy and educated people is good for business. Such policies are compatible with capitalism.

    When we start talkiing about social security like unemployment benefits and a living wage, well we've had this argument before and got nowhere. I can at least respect the argument that paying people to do nothing is bad for the economy, even if I'll argue that paying people to do a substandard job is potentially worse. Better would be everyone has a job and does it well. That's more likely if people are healthy and educated.

    Leftist policies don't have to be the polar opposite of capitalism.

    The points about feminists and BLM, I agree with those analogies.

    That CRUSHES initiative. Is it possible that sentiment is contributing to a culture that's holding women back?
    I think it plays a role. The problem we have is that people today want to cry their way to equal status. Equality comes by first considering yourself equal, and if you're placing yourself in "marginalised groups", then clearly you don't see yourself as equal.

    Discrimination is such a powerful word that there is an outpouring of sympathy from social justice warriors for anyone deemd "marginalised". That's what crushes initiative.

    I just don't consider left wing politicians to be social justice warriors. It's their job to represent the ideology of their target vote. SJWs are the people who demand social equality without considering the underlying factors as to why it exists. They offer only one solution - crying.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  33. #183
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,660
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    and Bernie Sanders is one of the worst things to happen to poor people
    I think you firmly believe that Donald Trump and his Goldman Sachs cabinet members is the best thing to have happened to poor people, right after sliced bread

    Because they really truly understand what poor people are going through, and how hard it is to grow up without a rich daddy, and they really truly completely and thoroughly empathize with their struggle to not buy an iPhone instead of healthcare
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  34. #184
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    I think you firmly believe that Donald Trump and his Goldman Sachs cabinet members is the best thing to have happened to poor people, right after sliced bread

    Because they really truly understand what poor people are going through, and how hard it is to grow up without a rich daddy, and they really truly completely and thoroughly empathize with their struggle to not buy an iPhone instead of healthcare
    Is empathy a good thing in a lot of situations? When people are emotionally invested in things they tend to come to some pretty stupid conclusions.
  35. #185
    Empathy is a good thing from a strategic point of view. If you can understand a person's emotions, why someone feels the way they do, you're better placed to take advantage of their weakness.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  36. #186
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Empathy is a good thing from a strategic point of view. If you can understand a person's emotions, why someone feels the way they do, you're better placed to take advantage of their weakness.
    In the context of the argument.
  37. #187
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,507
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    While I agree that most people are confusing and do things which are contrary to their self-interest, there are other people.

    Some people shun a free handout and want nothing more than to earn their self-worth and pride through hard work and dedication.

    Don't be so jaded about people that you disregard the latter group. They're out there, and they're awesome.
  38. #188
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Some people shun a free handout and want nothing more than to earn their self-worth and pride through hard work and dedication.
    There is no better path in life, than the one paved by his or her own hand.
  39. #189
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    I think you firmly believe that Donald Trump and his Goldman Sachs cabinet members is the best thing to have happened to poor people, right after sliced bread

    Because they really truly understand what poor people are going through, and how hard it is to grow up without a rich daddy, and they really truly completely and thoroughly empathize with their struggle to not buy an iPhone instead of healthcare
    The is the failed logic of the left. The answer to poverty is opportunity, not empathy.

    Someone who empathizes with poor people, is probably not the best tour guide on the road to success. Survivor-ship bias aside, generally speaking the most successful people are probably best suited for determining the conditions for the cultivation of wealth.

    I'll tell you this, encouraging government dependence is NOT a good development for poor people. Beware the exploitation in disguise.
  40. #190
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    While I agree that most people are confusing and do things which are contrary to their self-interest, there are other people.

    Some people shun a free handout and want nothing more than to earn their self-worth and pride through hard work and dedication.

    Don't be so jaded about people that you disregard the latter group. They're out there, and they're awesome.
    The groups of people that exist are unimportant in this argument it's about the approach which pays the most dividends. So not that the group doesn't exist but like why isn't it bigger, performing better, etc.

    Also I disagree that the group you are talking about as a whole are awesome.
  41. #191
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Survivor-ship bias aside, generally speaking the most successful people are probably best suited for determining the conditions for the cultivation of wealth.
    For a start the sweeping statement of survivorship bias aside is great, figure that one out and you'll make a few pennies. I disagree with the statement as a whole too really (nor the antithesis) & don't really see any reason why it should be true bar that person made money therefore they understand making money which is such a general nonsense statement that it is meaningless.
  42. #192
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    For a start the sweeping statement of survivorship bias aside is great, figure that one out and you'll make a few pennies. I disagree with the statement as a whole too really (nor the antithesis) & don't really see any reason why it should be true bar that person made money therefore they understand making money which is such a general nonsense statement that it is meaningless.
    This reads like it was written when you were drunk

    What I think you're saying is that you believe that the difference between wealth and poverty is simply whether or not you win the lottery of life. And anyone who is successful, probably got there by accident.

    It's not hard to look at large groups of successful people and identify the common threads. Did you put up a good effort in school? Did you say no to drugs? Did you avoid getting a girl pregnant? Etc etc.

    It's not unreasonable to ask those people to help others find the same path.
  43. #193
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    This reads like it was written when you were drunk

    What I think you're saying is that you believe that the difference between wealth and poverty is simply whether or not you win the lottery of life. And anyone who is successful, probably got there by accident.

    It's not hard to look at large groups of successful people and identify the common threads. Did you put up a good effort in school? Did you say no to drugs? Did you avoid getting a girl pregnant? Etc etc.

    It's not unreasonable to ask those people to help others find the same path.
    Nah none of that you're just a mong.

    You clearly don't understand survivorship bias on any level.
    Last edited by Savy; 04-25-2017 at 11:30 AM.
  44. #194
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    Nah none of that you're just a mong.
    That's inaccurate AND racist

    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    You clearly don't understand survivorship bias on any level.
    Also inaccurate. I just don't subscribe to your crackpot idea that it's the only determiner of success
  45. #195
    What's racist about the word mong?

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    I just don't subscribe to your crackpot idea that it's the only determiner of success
    Which I said where exactly? It doesn't even make sense to say that.
  46. #196
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    What's racist about the word mong?
    I always assumed it came from Mongoloid, and where I'm from, that's a slang term for Downs' Syndrome given the slant of their eyes. So I would say it's more anti-disabled than anti-Mongolian, though its' not a flattering comparison for the latter either. Don't see where the racism comes in since Mongols aren't a race.



    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    Which I said where exactly? It doesn't even make sense to say that.
    Savy meet Troll.
  47. #197
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    So I would say it's more anti-disabled than anti-Mongolian, though its' not a flattering comparison for the latter either.
    Right.

    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Don't see where the racism comes in since Mongols aren't a race.
    Fine you hair-splitting douche. Call it jingoism if you wanna be a real dick about it.
  48. #198
    I approve of the word mong.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  49. #199
    Also, spaz.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  50. #200
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,507
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Mongol is the adjective form of Mongolia.
    Mongoloid is one of the 4 human races I was taught in grade school. So, in that sense, it is a race.
    (EDIT: Mongoloid referring to the Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and other SE Asian peoples.)

    BUT...

    Unfortunately, the notion of human race is not a scientifically, or data-based, method of categorizing humans. At least, if it is, there is no consensus among biologists, internationally, as to what are the relevant data which determine race.

    I.e. different people have dramatically different ideas of what "race" is, and recognize different numbers of human races.

    Some cultures (check out Brazil) don't see race as an unchanging fact about a person, but as something that changes over time.
    E.g. you can wake up as one race, then get a nice tan and be a different race by dinner time.
    Last edited by MadMojoMonkey; 04-26-2017 at 08:50 AM.
  51. #201
    It doesn't even matter about race. Savy wasn't saying "mong" as in someone from Mongolia, that's not really much of an insult. He was saying "mong" as in someone with down's syndrome.

    Tasteless, perhaps, but certainly not racist, regardless of your point of view as to whether Mongols are a race or not.

    Mongoloid wasn't even an offensive word in the 70's. Yet another example of how butthurt over the decades causes words to be "unacceptable". It's stupid.

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  52. #202
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    It doesn't even matter about race. Savy wasn't saying "mong" as in someone from Mongolia, that's not really much of an insult. He was saying "mong" as in someone with down's syndrome
    Just say "retard"
  53. #203
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Just say "retard"
    Or spaz. All three words are exactly as offensive.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  54. #204
    I mean honestly banana, if you think "retard" is an acceptable word to use as an insult, but not "mong", then you're a stupid hypocrite.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  55. #205
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I mean honestly banana, if you think "retard" is an acceptable word to use as an insult, but not "mong", then you're a stupid hypocrite.
    How.

    The word 'mong' only came about because of the racist nomenclature that said "Hey these retards look mongolian. Mongolians look like retards. Let's call retards 'mongs'"

    Retard is simply a word that means "slowed", which describes the characteristics of the afflicted person's thinking. It is a word with no racial connotations that describe symptoms of a disease.
  56. #206
    Calling someone a retard is a reference to those with learning difficulties. It's exactly as offensive as calling someone a mong (reference to down's syndrome) or a spastic (reference to cerebal palsy).

    retadred - less advanced in mental, physical, or social development than is usual for one's age.
    It's offensive to people with learning diffculties. Not that I have a problem with the word "retard", it's just that to assume it's less offensive than "mong" or "spaz" is stupid.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  57. #207
    The word 'mong' only came about because of the racist nomenclature that said "Hey these retards look mongolian. Mongolians look like retards. Let's call retards 'mongs'"
    This is an interesting point, to be honest. The original use of the word "mongoloid" to describe someone suffering from down's syndrome does indeed seem to have racist origins. That said, very rarely is the word used in a racist context. An offensive context, sure, but very rarely racist.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  58. #208
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    It's offensive to people with learning diffculties. Not that I have a problem with the word "retard", it's just that to assume it's less offensive than "mong" or "spaz" is stupid.
    I never said one was more or less offensive than the other.

    I said one was racist and one wasn't
  59. #209
    I think you're forgetting that when I call you a mong I want to hurt your feelings, this seems to have worked. Job done.
  60. #210
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    I think you're forgetting that when I call you a mong I want to hurt your feelings, this seems to have worked. Job done.
    No, actually it was just an opportunity to call you a racist and attempt to hurt your feelings.

    Must feel shitty being a jingoist, racist, mong-ophobe.
  61. #211
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    I never said one was more or less offensive than the other.

    I said one was racist and one wasn't
    Well I'd say you're being disingenuous if you argue calling someone a mong is racist. Just because the word's origin is racist, doesn't automatically mean its usage is racist.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  62. #212
    I still say it sucks that Bill got fucked over.

    But KG in primetime...BOOOOOIIIIIIINNNNNGGGG

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •