All that to say that taking the position that you have a right to tell others how to live is an asshole position.

Yeah no not at all when they literally only exist to endanger the lives of others. This is like saying it’s an “asshole position” that neo-Nazis and the KKK can’t rally and fire guns in public spaces because they have a right to live how they want. After all, they totally aren’t a danger to literally everyone who’s not a right-wing white guy, they’re just living how they want. Although you apparently listen to Joe Rogan so I wouldn’t be surprised if you are a neonazi collaborator.

“Science has its limits” is no reason to entertain seemingly schizophrenic beliefs in the divine. We have actual facts, they have their fake God.

If you think “communication devices can be used by pedophiles” is anywhere comparable to “this specific type of vehicle is literally killing thousands of children and polluting the environment and is one of the greatest threats to you in your everyday life” then you’re unable to be reasoned with. They have a choice to literally just use a sedan or even a van or something that isn’t superbly effective at murdering pedestrians, but they choose to blow a hundred thousand on a fancy orphan-crushing tank.

Also…

You can’t prove why two people in love… You can’t scientifically explain why.

YOU LITERALLY CAN DO EXACTLY THIS. This is a matter of technological advancement and the fact that human brains have an inconceivable amount of complex data in them for our current observation methods and have a lot of plasticity, not whether it’s possible. You can already use biochemistry/neurology to accurately predict this kind of stuff, even exact responses to environmental stimuli, in some simpler creatures. It is scientifically possible to do the same thing for humans, it is just physics/chemistry. You’re gonna need a lot better argument than “[obviously complex thing in science] isn’t solved yet so science and religion are equally as rational”. It’s like saying we shouldn’t trust mathematics because we haven’t solved the Riemann Hypothesis. We already have real, reproducable proof that physics, chemistry, and all that are objective and accurate to reality and can be used to accurately tell the future, even if we haven’t completely solved them. There is no such thing for religion.

You also can’t measure “consciousness” because “consciousness” doesn’t mean anything. It’s a completely subjective word that wildly changes based on who you ask. There is no “having consciousness” or “not having consciousness” or “having 50% consciousness” or something. It’s a ways we try to think of our perception/responses to the environment, which you can measure.

“Rationalism” doesn’t mean believing in shit some guys made up vaguely based on other shit guys made up a long time ago and saying it can’t be any more absurd than science. You wanna know what Rationalism is?

a belief or theory that opinions and actions should be based on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response.

And you wanna know what empiricism is?

view that all concepts originate in experience, that all concepts are about or applicable to things that can be experienced, or that all rationally acceptable beliefs or propositions are justifiable or knowable only through experience.

Neither of these are fond of religious garbage. They are both ways of interpreting science, and they aren’t a complete dichotomy because scientists use both. Religion is just emotional, illogical, completely subjective, and not based in reality.

Schizophrenic people may often believe the delusions in their head are real. It’s excusable because it’s not really their fault, but I can’t excuse religious people for the same thing because they choose to believe this garbage, sometimes even well into adulthood. It is irrelevant that you think it is real or that schizophrenic people and people with dementia think their delusions are real. Or that children think the tooth fairy and santa are real. That doesn’t make it any more up for consideration to actually rational people. The logical conclusions from data are far more important than the make-believe of the Pope.

Religious beliefs aren’t real, they’re delusions, and being gay or some other random “sin” isn’t at all comparable to what I’m speaking of. Cars are the #1 cause of death in the US other than health complications, most of those SUVs, they are demonstratably extremely harmful to society even if you don’t consider how their dominance destroys our infrastructure design, increases stress, and how they pollute the Earth a ton.

It’s silly to cater to people who believe in Christianity or something similar when we have actual problems that we have proven solutions for, like getting rid of car-dependent infrastructure. Compared to say, being gay or uttering the words “oh my God”, which according to Christian belief are equally as bad as murder, slavery, and rape or even worse than it on the sin scale. If a religion believes in a hell, especially when believing in an omniscient and omnipotent future-seeing God, it’s worth immediately disregarding everything from.

Even entertaining the idea that the Christian ideas of morality have any basis in reality, especially putting it on the same level as actual science, is unbelievable.

Generally when tires are deflated it’s people who are in ultra expensive and dangerous SUVs which are basically just killing machines and nothing else. But people deflating tires is a very small amount in the community regardless, although I could see people deflating the tires of those who endanger others very realistic.

Yank tanks (unreasonably gigantic and dangerous SUVs which are almost always American, named so because other countries have started being infected by them and now the rest of the world is mad at us) are just bad. Owning one is bad, using one is especially bad, they only exist to be the bigger vehicle so they can “win” car crashes and crush pedestrians like a tank (and because they cna bypass emissions regulations). It isn’t a matter of “I want to live this way so you have to live this way”, it’s “you’re endangering the lives of everyone around you beyond a tolerable amount”. So no, it’s not relevant at all.

Honestly your argument kind of sounds like someone against no-smoking zones because “let people smoke, just because you don’t want to doesn’t mean they can’t”. Second hand smoke endangers the health of a lot of people around you, it has nothing to do with other peoples’ not wanting to smoke – same goes with SUVs, they’re one of the largest causes of death that isn’t a chronic health problem, they are a danger. If smoking at, say, a middle school were legal, and someone did it with kids around, I’d have no issue with stealing their smokes and chucking them into a trash can, even if what they were doing wasn’t illegal it’s still immoral. Even if it caused them serious issues and withdrawal and stuff, what they’re doing endangers others and I’m fine if someone takes it into their own hands to put a stop to it. You can apply that same logic to yank tanks.

car-centric infrastructure destroys cities and residential areas, you’re stupid if you think r/fuckcars is relevant to this meme. most people on r/fuckcars have a car

Okay, you’re just copping out of the conversation and ignoring pretty much all the points you don’t like but I’ll give you what you want.

You fucking shut the conversation down any time it goes there. You define men’s issues as being impossible to discuss.

No, we just have the reaction anyone would have if we were talking about problems we face and someone else was like “yeah but what about these other issues I face”. You’re honestly telling me you think someone who just says “oh yeah your broken leg is bad but what about my broken arm? that’s bad, if not worse, and i’m tired of people talking about your leg when nobody is talking about my arm” is doing so in good faith? When do feminists shut down such conversations about men? Why do you insist on just making shit up about feminists saying not to discuss men’s issues?

You seriously believe that never once in the history of any of these discussions, somone saying “but what about men” has wanted to add to the conversation rather than derail it?

I don’t know every person in history who has done that, but when you respond to literally anything discussing women’s struggles with “but what about men who have X bad” it is more often then not a quite obvious attempt at diminishing the issue at hand. There are people who say “I’m not a woman but here’s my perspective as a man who’s faced similar issues”, who are adding to the conversation, and then there are people who instead take the opportunity to try to find some way to frame the problem as not as serious as men’s problems, and then often devolve it into blaming women for men’s problems and try to say “well actually women are privileged” to completely avoid the point. Feminists do not get in the way of issues affecting men and are usually the primary proponents of solving problems faced regardless of gender – most are not ones to go into discussions about how young men are facing loneliness to say “but loneliness isn’t just a men’s thing, women also face record high loneliness! and in fact women have it worse because nobody acknowledges their loneliness epidemic!” yet this is exactly the reaction you see droves of which are highly popular on social media every time women’s issues get brought up.

Show me the feminist initiatives to get women into trades.

Yeah this is how I know you’re talking out of your ass. How did you go through the entire 2000s-2010s without seeing all the initiatives to get women to work in traditionally male work places? Regardless I’ll give you what you want, talking about the issues faced with women not working in traditionally male-dominated workplaces and encouraging women in trades and many others:

https://www.apprenticeship.gov/employers/diversity-equity-inclusion-accessibility/women-in-apprenticeship#:~:text=The U.S. Department of Labor's Women's Bureau has awarded %247.4,as well as nontraditional occupations.

“The U.S. Department of Labor’s Women’s Bureau has awarded $7.4 million in active grant funding to help recruit, train and retain more women in quality pre-apprenticeship and registered apprenticeship programs as well as nontraditional occupations.”

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2023-06-01/constructing-a-place-for-women-in-the-skilled-trades

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2018/08/28/how-to-help-women-sustain-careers-in-male-dominated-spaces/

https://www.usaid.gov/engendering-industries/gender-equality-best-practices-framework

Show me the feminists working to get more male teachers.

Literally this entire Reddit thread is full of feminists discussing exactly that, and quite clearly having a higher amount of male educators than we currently have is pretty important to them, with the reception to the topic being overwhelmingly positive and linking many resources on the matter: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/1776kfn/what_is_the_impact_of_the_lack_of_male_teachers/

Show me the feminists funding scholarships for men.

The origin in scholarships for historically disadvantaged groups is based in the fact that they faced many significant barriers in the past to attending college, and these scholarships were crucial to getting e.g. women, black people, to attend. Your question is a bit like asking about racial minority rights movements creating scholarships for white people. That being said there are a TON of scholarships for men (and for specific groups of whites), here’s a list:

https://www.scholarships.com/financial-aid/college-scholarships/scholarships-by-type/scholarships-for-men/

https://scholarships360.org/scholarships/scholarships-for-men/

https://www.aamn.org/scholarships

Plus you have things like this which are supported by people who think like you: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kimelsesser/2022/04/13/womens-scholarships-and-awards-eliminated-to-be-fair-to-men/?sh=519c6bd87fe2

Your point is assuming that men have disproportionately higher of a financial burden to going to college than women. Which they don’t. In fact, women have significantly more student loan debt than men and are generally less financially independent in our society so it’s the other way around. Men’s college problems are more skewed towards the various other social issues that feminists work to improve, i.e. access to mental health services (which often disproportionally affects men) and harmful gender norms, like once again causes men to be perceived as not fit for child-related activities (like teaching). The result is that, in general, scholarships are a lot more effective for women than for men, so there is more initiative for scholarships for women, while college health resources are more directed towards men.

In general feminists aren’t very pro-gender based scholarship to begin with, although there are a lot of scholarships for both women and men (for example MenTeach which is made specifically to get men teaching) which are supported by many feminists.

Also things like this are mostly just an American thing, scholarships like that are generally rare outside of the US… but in the US, Feminists are a LOT more concerned with completely reforming the broken education system that requires you to have to have scholarships to go in the first place.

Because not only have I never seen anything like that, I’ve never even HEARD of anything like that. And I’ve gone looking.

Lmao you obviously haven’t. I was able to find all of these with actual seconds of searching. You are a liar.

But that IS part of feminism. Who is putting these women in check? Serious question. Link me to some of these good feminists please.

The entirety of the internet is putting people in check. You don’t even have to go to specific feminists to see it, any times a misandrist freak-out goes viral there’s immediately a visceral reaction to it by even the “woke” parts of the internet and a bunch of feminists being like “yea s/he’s not one of us”. Anyone can call themselves anything, and every movement has radicals, but every feminist knows that those radicals are a joke and just easy bait for anti-feminist rhetoric.

yeah this whole giant movement that says it’s about women is actually about men…come on bro get over yourself lol. I think feminism is about raising women up.

Jesus christ you really did filter out literally everything you just read didn’t you… every time “feminism” comes up it’s literally feminists telling you “it’s not just about women” but people like you just completely ignore it. What entity exactly is “this whole giant movement” that’s saying it’s about women? I explained where the gendered terms of the movement come from, the historical reasons why they’re called that, so I would hope you’re not just taking the name at face value. There is literally not a singular feminist that says “yeah this movement isn’t about men at all, we only care about women”. Many issues in this world primarily screw over women though, and those are often talked about, which I assume is where your confusion comes from.

It just doesn’t have any mechanism to (1) say “hey we did it! We achieved equality in this area!” (college admissions for example)

What is this even supposed to mean? You think feminists aren’t happy and don’t take pride in when a goal like more equal treatment in something based on gender or sexual orientation is achieved? That literally proves that you don’t actually pay attention to anything that has to do with the movement and you’re just making rage up lol.

(2) strive for equality in areas where men are at a disadvantage (dirty, dangerous, physical jobs for example)

Except they do. Literally one of the most important parts of the feminist movement is encouraging people to pursue career choices that societal perceptions discourage a specific gender from doing. Especially when it comes to dirty, dangerous, physical jobs. Do you know just how much women working trades/physical labour is talked about in various feminist groups? It is one of the primary workplace issues, generally women are completely bullied out of working such jobs and are seen as “incompetent” when it comes to professions like welders, mechanics, electricians, or any other form of physically demanding jobs. I have witnessed this firsthand, as well as my former best friend literally being a welder and constantly describing how awful women are treated by the people working these jobs, how they’re constantly sexualized/objectified and harassed, how they have to always be afraid in their own workplace because of this. This is one of the most important things feminists are actively working on, equalizing trades and making it so both men and women are treated fairly and well. Feminism is also often intertwined with worker’s rights, guarantees to employees, safety in the workplace, etc. which fits into this excelently.

address societal problems that uniquely affect men (lack of role models, for example).

What? I’m mentally facepalming right now… feminists are constantly encouraging positive role models, educators, leaders, etc. for everyone (including men), what are you on about? Additionally one of feminists’ primary concerns is access to healthcare, and especially relating to feminists’ concerns is mental healthcare, something that affects men a lot. They recognize what causes many of these problems, and they work to fix them. Feminists fight against negative influences like Jordan Peterson and Andrew Tate.

Many role models for men were/are feminists, and feminists actively are engaged in propping boys up and encouraging positive traits in them (as well as girls). I think one everyone can relate to hearing is Mr. Rogers.

This is the WHOLE POINT of “what about men?”

It really is not. The point is to say “women’s issues don’t matter because men also have other issues”. It is a way to detract from any discussion about women’s rights, to try to take over the conversation to say “we have it worse in some different way”, to try to emphasize the idea they have that women are privileged and men are the ones that really have it bad. It is never done to add to the conversation, but to change the conversation.

Feminists do not care about male struggles. And I’m not talking about the ivory tower theorists that no one listens to. I don’t know what they think because it doesn’t matter. What matters is what everyday feminists think and do and say.

You are straight up just constructing a strawman and beating it to death. What feminist discussions have you attended? Any at all?

If feminism is about equality, then for the love of God please help men a little.

That is quite literally what we are trying to do. But people like you refuse it and try to turn it around as a way to disparage other groups and diminish discussions about women’s struggles and gender in society. And you make strawmen constructed of some 2014 internet perception of a “feminist” pretending feminists actually believe in that, meanwhile “men’s rights activists”/anti-feminists are represented by literal far-right sex traffickers (as opposed to the many positive role models who are feminists). Like can you name any popular, modern-day, prominent-among-feminist influencers that are even a small fraction of the absurdity of that? Feminist role model influencers are random often apolitical chill people like Technoblade
lmao.

Can you name the actual feminist(s) which you’re referring to…? You won’t really see feminists doing feminist things if you’re not going out of your way to participate in the feminist movement. I’m pretty sure most people’s entire idea of “feminism” is youtube videos from 2015 complaining about dumb misandrists with colorful hair screaming “kill all men” or something.

Feminism isn’t about “men bad, women good” or “women need to be more privileged in society”, it’s about minimizing or erasing gender norms/stereotypes, even if those perceptions sometimes benefit women. Gender/sexual equality is the point of the movement, it recognizes that women are favoured by the judicial system when it comes to cases related to violence & domestic disputes, and that society thinks that men should be big and strong and scary and that society shuns men who face problems in life or are wronged as “weak”, and that young people (especially men) are lonely, and that women are unlikely to receive as much benefit from the same labour (e.g., promotions/raises, perceived expertise) compared to men, etc. etc.

And the movement recognizes that those problems are often mostly or entirely caused by fucked up perceptions about gender that our society has built over an inconceivably large amount of time, and that we still apply to the modern day, that women are weak and beautiful and pure and dumb and dependent and subordinate to men and nurturing and need to be protected, and that men are strong and smart and do all the dirty work and independent and providing and commanding and need to protect women. That women and men are treated certain ways in some areas and get certain privileges over the other because of the way society views the concept of/separation between “man” and “woman” (and pushes against the view or “neither man or woman”) in the first place.

Too many people think, because of few reactionary misandrists being significantly more publicized than actual gender equality movements, that feminism is about “we need to make men 2nd-class citizens”, rather than “these artificially constructed and inaccurate ideas of differences between men and women are harmful to society and cause us to force certain perceptions on people, making us be biased against a certain gender in many areas or shun those of a certain gender who don’t fit into certain stereotypes”. Also some people don’t really care either way and want to be mad, but that happens with everything.

Another thing that is always spammed every time anything related to women’s struggles or just general women’s rights (even if feminism isn’t mentioned) is “but what about men?” which is ignoring the entire point… we’re in a collective struggle, we should talk about all of our issues, even gender issues, and not be out to try to 1-up each other every time one of the “other” groups have their issues talked about. And we can recognize that women often face issues men don’t face as much, and men often face issues that women don’t face as much, and we can recognize that often times the difference of magnitude of struggles based on gender is caused by the fact that society treats different genders so irrationally different in the first place.

Some want to throw away the concept of “feminism”/“gender & sexuality equality” and instead exclusively use “egalitarianism”, but I think that’s kind of just trying to detract from the issue and is as absurd as saying we shouldn’t think about “racial equality” as its own concept either, and saying “women have all the rights men have, but they’re just greedy and want more” is as dumb as saying “racial minorities have all the rights that white people have, but they’re just greedy and want more”. Also because of this exact idea the term “egalitarianism” is generally associated with libertarians which is just… eugh… no thanks.

BTW this is tangential to the topic, but when people say “toxic masculinity” or “patriarchy” the idea isn’t that it’s mens fault and everything would be so much better if they just drop their toxicity and masculinity. It’s more generally referring to how historically, in societies where men were at the “top” of the social hierarchy, created were the perceptions that men are supposed to be a certain way, and that women are supposed to be a certain other way, based entirely around the most idolized men of the times having certain characteristics/powers that dictated their place in society. These ideas still, for the most part, persist to the modern day in an altered & tamer form, and they still affect how all of us who are raised in these cultures perceive gender identity. That’s why it’s said men are victims of “patriarchy” or “toxic masculinity” too, because modern gender perceptions/issues are tightly tied to where they originated, and those societal/governmental structures are still “here” in a very warped but slightly recognizable form.

I want my fucking foreskin back

Doom music starts playing

English phonology, American English dialects’ (and other dialects’) /r/ is usually pronounced retracted, post-alveolar/pre-palatal (usually bunched/molar), transcribed something like [ɹ̠ᶹ], so it causes alveolar consonants in the same cluster to retract/palatalize, usually into a post-alveolar affricate ([d͡ʒ] – the “j” sound for voiced stop /d/, [t͡ʃ] – the “ch” sound for voiceless stop /t/, [ʃ] – the “sh” sound for voiceless fricative /s/). The term would be assimilation (of place of articulation).

“Dragon” /dræ.gən/ -> [dɹ̠æ.ɡɪ̈n] -> [d̠ʒɹ̠æ.ɡ(ɪ̈)n]

You can see the same thing with words like “tree” /tri/ -> [t̠ʃɹ̠i] or even “street” /strit/ -> [ʃt̠ɹ̠it]

Would explain simpler but can’t, break ends now, just know its because consonant pronounced in different place in mouth is conforming to being pronounced in the same place in mouth as other consonant that is right beside it (like with “in-” vs “im-”, “impractical”, which notably isn’t “inpractical”, or “incandescent” which notably isn’t “imcandascent”, or “indecisive” etc. etc.)

Antisemitism is specifically discrimination against jews, not against all semitic peoples…