Josh F

Evolutionary biologists say the darndest things.

indeed, well put. Its rare that I see them make a moral argument, its normally an aesthetic one... me no likey.

seriously, i wish i didnt have to give one up to gain another. I think only Israel does the dual thing for people who aren't born there, otherwise you need family from the other country I believe

Cenk, what every guy is thinking is "wait did she say she stuck a metal spike into his urethra, OUCH!"

As an expat, let me tell you the US passport means less and less every year. Here in S America, Argentina and Brazil charge over a hundred bucks for Americans to just come into their country. They consider it a reciprocity fee for the high costs for them to go to the US.

oh, don't get me wrong, the Jezebel feminist crowd is insanely horrific. They remind me of those commie protestors who shout CONSENSUS at people who disagree with them, its so childish.

yeah I feel ya. At first I was like, oh great, women finally challenging feminism... but then I saw this one posted today... and it isnt the first really goofy argument I've seen. "I have a personality besides being an edgy, contrarian, special snowflake tumblr twat" Good on them, of course... keep it going. Would be nice if they brought up some of the actual laws in place hurting people instead of how feminists make them feel... but thats jsut me.

I told my girlfriend about this post. She was sharing a bunch of stories about men cat calling, super aggressively, even as a young child. I don't think the feminist approach to the issue is right, but its one of the few things they talk about which is worth talking about. Is it rape culture? I don't know, in some cases I can easily see the connection between some creepy old man grabbing his dick and saying vulgar things to a child and rape. I personally hate cat calling and the people who do it, its extremely disrespectful. I guess the rape culture theory makes their point absurd by including things like guys asking women out, or looking at attractive women in public. Comparing stay at home moms with slavery is ridiculous. If anything, having to work all day to pay for a family you barely see sounds more like slavery, to me. As for these ladies and their comments.... I think that male issues do effect them. Something like "I don't need feminism, because I'm divorced and I don't need to steal my ex-husbands income" or "I don't need feminism, because I don't want my son shamed for masculine" Am I way off base here, or are women just solipsistic in general?

If you're not familiar, this is a group of women who post photos holding signs saying why they hate feminism. Their reasons are so dumb though!!!! I hate feminism because I'm proud to be a stay at home mom. I hate feminists because I don't mind cat calls. I hate feminism because me me me me me. Its never issues like circumcision, the draft, alimony, corruption in family court, corruption when registering you as a sex offender, men paying for the single mother state, etc. Anyone else feel me on this?

yeah I think the horizontal oppression, women shaming other women, is more prominent than the vertical oppression of more powerful men shaming women.

Wow, that list of things women can't do sounds like it was written by a man in the 1800s. Women should avoid meeting with men alone in their homes. Women should avoid dressing scantily. Women should avoid traveling alone, talking back to a man, or talking to strange men. Then it asks at the end, what worries you? The draft. Alimony. Being registered as a sex offender for public urination. Think its awkward being a single woman on a subway with only men? Try being a single man at a park filled with mothers and their children. Things are just different.

Royal with Cheese

I've been really into this topic recently. I moved to Uruguay, and for whatever reason I found myself making a lot of gay friends. I'm not a homophobic person at all, but I've kind of thought of gender as unimportant. At first, things like queer theory just seemed like bourgeois attempts at victimhood. Facebook has some 50 plus options now for your gender, things like pansexual and cis-gender. It took me some time to realize that queer-theory was very compatible with other rejections of inherited social norms, like religion and government. Gender bias in queer theory is called heteronormative, the idea is that we consider traditional male female straight relationships the norm and everything else abnormal. Now, I think the above message is completely unimportant. The reason women can't physically compete with men is not because of social programming, but biological reality. That is very much within the category of SEX and not gender. There are differences between the sexes which inform those stereotypes. More importantly, attempting to change the way people talk can only be accomplished through shaming, violence, or an ACTUAL change in understanding. If women were suddenly to start beating men in sports, then saying "she hits like a girl" will mean something very different. Until that day, I think shame is a horrible way to accomplish change, especially for anyone interested in gender issues, which are all about heterosexuals shaming them. Lastly, ask female athletes their opinion. Do they think people saying "you hit like a girl" was a hinderance to their accomplishments? I doubt it. Oh, and who is "you hit like a girl" designed to insult? Women? No. Men. Its something a man says to another man to shame him. I never tell a women you hit like a girl, that makes no sense. They also never say "you do math like a girl." Its only physical things. So why is being female considering weakness when it comes to physical activity? Because women... are weaker... physically.

=) Yeah I kind of realized that, its still funny though, and funny works great in a debate. Oh yeah the watchmaker analogy is one of my least favorite.

I agree with the sentiments above about changing the name for marketing reasons. Grammar Armenian Genocide is available? j/k

I'm defood and I blocked two aunts over similar issues. The more recent one was estranged from my entire family, so I thought there might be some hope she was different. I was seeking donations to a project I was working on and after sharing it with her, I asked her, and explained in detail, why I didn't want her to donate to it. She donated anyways, and when I asked her about it and explained how I felt she was super condescending. Block. RTR is great, but its only good if you actually want a relationship with that person. And a general rule of thumb I have for enjoying facebook... purge you friend list often. By doing that you ensure your messages are only for your friends, and in general your posts won't be geared towards "everyone" if that makes sense.

Denmark does not have a minimum wage. It has highly competitive unions and generally much more expensive labor. The labor force is also more educated, and businesses compete for those employees. Additionally, because of these higher labor costs far fewer jobs exist in fast food. The cost of doing business is much less, as well. While there are higher income taxes, there are much fewer and less costly regulations and taxes on businesses. There are less frivolous lawsuits, as well. Employees in Denmark enjoy a higher cost of living. McDonalds employees pay much more in taxes in Denmark. McDonalds employees in the United States pay between 10% and 15% in taxes, compared to 32% in Denmark. Additionally, those people need to pay union fees. Its still a better job, though. And on the issue of unions, the union fighting for this is the SIEU, one of the largest in America. the American Union system is extremely consolidated, and thus not as competitive as other unions. The teamsters, for example, were notorious for even committing violence to increase wages under Jimmy Hoffa. What people don't get though is that Hoffa was so hard core because he was competing against other unions. He had to out-do everyone else, because employees had a choice. Now, unions like SIEU are massive and employees are REQUIRED to join those unions. Denmark enjoys less union consolidation.

If you're not familiar, the watchmaker argument is a theological argument for intelligent design. Its an analogy, often told as a parable. You find a watch on the ground. Upon examining its complexity you safely assume the watch has a watchmaker. Similarly, upon examining the complexity of the universe one should determine it too has a maker. I was thinking of an atheist equivalent. I call it the Book Writer Analogy. You find a book on the ground. Upon examining its written word you safely assume the book was written by a human. Similarly, upon examining any Holy Book, one should determine it too has a human author. Anyways, thought it was a good counter if you find yourself up against such an argument.

arent those westerners joining ISIS almost all muslim?

no exactly. Its interesting to see a free market currency like bitcoin create anti-democratic incentives. In this context, it is so easy to understand why 51% control over a system is inherently corrupting to the system, and ultimately devalues it. Happens every 4 years.

I was just pondering this today. For those who don't know, a 51% attack in the bitcoin world means that someone controls 51% of the mining pool. And this is a dangerous and bad thing to be avoided at all costs (even by the companies which achieve the 51%)....and then it hit me Democracy is a 51% attack.

fuuuuuuuck you america!

I wonder the order of things. I dont think the state represents the will of the people, I think the state does base its laws on normative perceptions. So like with marijuana, before we saw any decriminalization anywhere, people's attitudes towards it changed on a big level. In this way, our fleeting moral norms within society are enshrined into law by the state. In some states sodomy is still illegal, but unenforced. Jay walking in New York is illegal, but unenforced. If anything, laws are a reflection of what people will tolerate, not their will.

Again, the issue I am arguing is not "this police officer was racist" or "all police officers are racist" but that the laws and enforcement of the laws are prejudicial, and that the history of state oppression (of which cops are the foot-soldiers) within the black community deserves to be included in this discussion. Statistics that police are racist are very hard to prove, because if they equally prosecute the guilty, but target more black people for investigation then stats are going to show only that black people commit more crimes. And I think there is room in the argument that black people do commit more violent crimes, but that violence within the black community is in large part a byproduct of state intervention.

oh okay, yeah I agree.