Articles that make us dumber by reading them

[cableok]

Every now and then we all run across an article written with such stupid points or opinions that we feel dumber or just that we wasted five minutes.

Today I read an article just below the top headlines on NBC News web site. I had to re-read portions at first because I thought I might I clicked on a story by The Onion.

This was the second sentence of the article, “As the status quo, heterosexuality is just not working.”

And then this in the third paragraph, “Framed differently, the picture is this: Men need heterosexuality to maintain their societal dominance over women. Women, on the other hand, are increasingly realizing not only that they don’t need heterosexuality, but that it also is often the bedrock of their global oppression.”


After I read that I wept because I realized I have been oppressing my wife. Getting ready to call my daughters boyfriend and berate him profusely for oppressing her as well. Shame on us men.

 

[OKSTATE1]

Two of my friends can not take a shit without their wives permission.

Thank god my wife and I give each other a lot of personal space to hangout with friends, etc...

If you can not trust your spouse? Do not get married.

 

[Ostatedchi]

WTF does all that even mean? At the root of his point he attacks a female's orientation. If she is straight then her own sexual orientation is her own oppression. Circular logic that collapses once you break it apart.

 

[BIGOSUFAN]

WTF does all that even mean? At the root of his point he attacks a female's orientation. If she is straight then her own sexual orientation is her own oppression. Circular logic that collapses once you break it apart.

Has nothing to do with “logic.” This is all by design to destroy our society.

 

[100TonsofOrangeFury]

I'm more intrigued by the process by which a young person can begin to entertain, then fully embrace these wacko ideas in the first place. Maybe they were never right to begin with, then underwent intensive programming by leftist ideologues over a period of years. Then live within an echo chamber where this madness is not questioned.

 

[CBradSmith]

Has nothing to do with “logic.” This is all by design to destroy our society.

I see statements like this and, while I dont disagree (or agree), I find them short of detail. Do you mind expanding?

For myself, I see it as a framework for the acquisition of power. They state it right there in the article.

Which, then, makes me wonder where are the disastisfiers in people's lives that are so egregious, and so widespread, that it creates of "movement" that runs against natural law.

And I'm forced to believe that capitalism, technology, current social frameworks have been so effective as to create little to no struggle in people's lives.....so they have to create it. They need engagement, stimulation, emotional highs...and with no real boogeyman, they conjure them.

Eh, I'm rambling. But "this is all by design to destroy our society" is not sufficiently specific as to create levers by which we can deconstruct their condition. So, if you've got more specific thoughts, please elaborate.

 

[Ostatedchi]

And I'm forced to believe that capitalism, technology, current social frameworks have been so effective as to create little to no struggle in people's lives.....so they have to create it. They need engagement, stimulation, emotional highs...and with no real boogeyman, they conjure them.

this

 

[aix_xpert]

this

From the Matrix: "But I believe that as a species, human beings define their reality through misery and suffering."

Capitalism has taken away so much suffering and moved the bar so far that we literally are looking for societal boogeymen to slay.

 

[HighStickHarrry]

Can we any post/link/media embed from @CBradSmith to this list?

 

[CBradSmith]

Can we any post/link/media embed from @CBradSmith to this list?

Hi @HighStickHarry 's dumber, uglier cousin.

 

[HighStickHarrry]

Hi @HighStickHarry 's dumber, uglier cousin.

So the answer is yes then?

 

[HighStickHarry]

Hi @HighStickHarry 's dumber, uglier cousin.

I have a lot of those.

 

[CBradSmith]

So the answer is yes then?

Whatever your precious heart desires.

 

[aix_xpert]

I nominate anything from Vox.com.

 

[soonerinlOUisiana]

When I read the headline, I thought this would be an endless thread of sissykatine posts.

 

[squeak]

And I'm forced to believe that capitalism, technology, current social frameworks have been so effective as to create little to no struggle in people's lives.....so they have to create it. They need engagement, stimulation, emotional highs...and with no real boogeyman, they conjure them.

Some people have real problems (homeless, unemployed, etc), others have good problems (algae breakout in pool, Range Rover broke down, Trump is POTUS). Both sets of people react to their problems the same way.

 

[OUSOONER67]

Every now and then we all run across an article written with such stupid points or opinions that we feel dumber or just that we wasted five minutes.

Today I read an article just below the top headlines on NBC News web site. I had to re-read portions at first because I thought I might I clicked on a story by The Onion.

This was the second sentence of the article, “As the status quo, heterosexuality is just not working.”

And then this in the third paragraph, “Framed differently, the picture is this: Men need heterosexuality to maintain their societal dominance over women. Women, on the other hand, are increasingly realizing not only that they don’t need heterosexuality, but that it also is often the bedrock of their global oppression.”


After I read that I wept because I realized I have been oppressing my wife. Getting ready to call my daughters boyfriend and berate him profusely for oppressing her as well. Shame on us men.

See syskaspitoons "Current Score" Thread
30 seconds in and I was drooling, had to put on a diaper and forgot my name for over an hour.

 

[AC_Exotic]

Every now and then we all run across an article written with such stupid points or opinions that we feel dumber or just that we wasted five minutes.

Today I read an article just below the top headlines on NBC News web site. I had to re-read portions at first because I thought I might I clicked on a story by The Onion.

This was the second sentence of the article, “As the status quo, heterosexuality is just not working.”

And then this in the third paragraph, “Framed differently, the picture is this: Men need heterosexuality to maintain their societal dominance over women. Women, on the other hand, are increasingly realizing not only that they don’t need heterosexuality, but that it also is often the bedrock of their global oppression.”


After I read that I wept because I realized I have been oppressing my wife. Getting ready to call my daughters boyfriend and berate him profusely for oppressing her as well. Shame on us men.

We live in the dumbest times in the history of humanity.

 

[Syskatine]

I see statements like this and, while I dont disagree (or agree), I find them short of detail. Do you mind expanding?

For myself, I see it as a framework for the acquisition of power. They state it right there in the article.

Which, then, makes me wonder where are the disastisfiers in people's lives that are so egregious, and so widespread, that it creates of "movement" that runs against natural law.

And I'm forced to believe that capitalism, technology, current social frameworks have been so effective as to create little to no struggle in people's lives.....so they have to create it. They need engagement, stimulation, emotional highs...and with no real boogeyman, they conjure them.

Eh, I'm rambling. But "this is all by design to destroy our society" is not sufficiently specific as to create levers by which we can deconstruct their condition. So, if you've got more specific thoughts, please elaborate.

Nah. Cant generalize like that.

If you want to though, women - the smart or pretty ones - have power out the ass, it's just not symmetrical or binary. Women dominate families, households, sexual availability, mold children, and that is just pure gender advantage over men before we discuss capitalism and government.

People that negatively overgeneralize about heterosexuals have JUST as much an axe to grind as people that do the same thing the other way, imo. There's just too much diversity in hetero relationships to generalize much. Maybe 30 years ago, not now though.

 

[soonerinlOUisiana]

Women dominate families, households, sexual availability, mold children, and that is just pure gender advantage over men before we discuss capitalism and government.

This pretty much explains why leftist "men" exist.

 

[iasooner1]

SiL, text or call me sometime; I lost all my contacts/phone at a hospital a couple years ago

 

[Syskatine]

This pretty much explains why leftist "men" exist.

Your constant attempts to establish your masculinity is hilarious. You're likely the most effeminate poster on the board.

 

[CBradSmith]

Nah. Cant generalize like that.

If you want to though, women - the smart or pretty ones - have power out the ass, it's just not symmetrical or binary. Women dominate families, households, sexual availability, mold children, and that is just pure gender advantage over men before we discuss capitalism and government.

A lot of the power you are referencing here is illusory or fleeting at best. Belief in it sets a woman up for long term failure and indicates a male doesnt understand or "step up" to his role in a relationship fully.

FWIW, most of my statement was originally geared toward the general statement by @BIGOSUFAN that "this is all designed to destroy our society." I'd like more deets, if he has them.

 

[CBradSmith]

Nah. Cant generalize like that.

If you want to though, women - the smart or pretty ones - have power out the ass, it's just not symmetrical or binary. Women dominate families, households, sexual availability, mold children, and that is just pure gender advantage over men before we discuss capitalism and government.

People that negatively overgeneralize about heterosexuals have JUST as much an axe to grind as people that do the same thing the other way, imo. There's just too much diversity in hetero relationships to generalize much. Maybe 30 years ago, not now though.

I then pivoted to address the type of person that would write the statements in the original post. The author themselves tied to societal power as the need to boot "heterosexuality as status quo."

Look no further than the dating/hook up apps who share their statistics that the best looking men get the overwhelming responses or contacts. Women who are a "5" are trying to land an 8 or 9. Won't give the similar 5 man the time of day.

So, again rambling, it's quite possible that average or unattractive women with unrealistic expectations for a man (she's attempting to bat out of her league consistently) are deciding in larger numbers that it's just easier to put up with being with another average woman. And I speculate that it isn't some revolutionary reveal that gay and bi is everywhere (only held down by patriarchal structures) in as much as these women have painted themselves into a corner with their own expectations and instead of accepting that they need to put forth some effort or not be a bitch, they think men are the problem and explore pairing with a woman.

Rambling conclusion is that the opinion piece, on the surface, is misdiagnosing what might be a real observation about who women are pairing with.

To much "If you can't handle me at my worst, you don't deserve me at my best" and not enough real life, grounded thinking.

We live in a time of hyper narcissism and lack of consideration.

 

[Syskatine]

So, again rambling, it's quite possible that average or unattractive women with unrealistic expectations for a man (she's attempting to bat out of her league consistently) are deciding in larger numbers that it's just easier to put up with being with another average woman. And I speculate that it isn't some revolutionary reveal that gay and bi is everywhere (only held down by patriarchal structures) in as much as these women have painted themselves into a corner with their own expectations and instead of accepting that they need to put forth some effort or not be a bitch, they think men are the problem and explore pairing with a woman.

@07pilt my man, you are on the cutting edge of conservative intelligentsia in this room. Toxic femininity was just coined by our very own brad.

 

[CBradSmith]

@07pilt my man, you are on the cutting edge of conservative intelligentsia in this room. Toxic femininity was just coined by our very own brad.

More like inferior status or competency seeking sexual decision making....in the aggregate.

 

[soonerinlOUisiana]

Your constant attempts to establish your masculinity is hilarious. You're likely the most effeminate poster on the board.

Has nothing to do with my masculinity. Just your complete lack thereof. God help anyone who has to rely on you as a provider.

 

[Syskatine]

Has nothing to do with my masculinity. Just your complete lack thereof. God help anyone who has to rely on you as a provider.

 

[trapped_in_tx]

We live in a time of hyper narcissism and lack of consideration

Not sure I fully argue with the rest of your post but I’m 100% on board with this part.

People are capable of generosity but the baseline self absorption and attention seeking has seriously ramped up, or people are no longer afraid of others seeing publicly just how self absorbed they are.

 

[aix_xpert]

The problem I have with the article is the implication that those who've chosen to be hetero (particularly women) are doing so simply because they are bound by societal norms and simply unable to shed the shackles of tradition. This implies that women are easily manipulated and too weak to think (and decide) for themselves.

 

[aix_xpert]

Not sure I fully argue with the rest of your post but I’m 100% on board with this part.

People are capable of generosity but the baseline self absorption and attention seeking has seriously ramped up, or people are no longer afraid of others seeing publicly just how self absorbed they are.

100% agree. Even many who are capable of generosity seek fame and attention for their 'good works'.

 

[imprimis]

The problem I have with the article is the implication that those who've chosen to be hetero (particularly women) are doing so simply because they are bound by societal norms and simply unable to shed the shackles of tradition. This implies that women are easily manipulated and too weak to think (and decide) for themselves.

Don't think it's a choice to be hetero. Put me in a locker room of naked women (unless they were all Joy Behar or Rosie types) and I'd have a raging hard-on. I never got one in a locker room of naked men.

 

[HighStickHarry]

Don't think it's a choice to be hetero. Put me in a locker room of naked women (unless they were all Joy Behar or Rosie types) and I'd have a raging hard-on. I never got one in a locker room of naked men.

That’s because you were raised on John Wayne and cultural heterosexual ideals. If you were in Ancient Greece and the traditions different you would be gay. And a pedophile.

 

[imprimis]

That’s because you were raised on John Wayne and cultural heterosexual ideals. If you were in Ancient Greece and the traditions different you would be gay. And a pedophile.

Don't think so. The sight of a pretty woman stimulates an uncontrollable response---handsome or not men have never done that. Cultural ideals didn't stimulate my groin when the girl next to me in 6th grade started growing tits. If gayness was so prevalent in Ancient Greece, how come Greece is still around? Seem like gobbling and cornholing would have brought an end to Greek civilization in a generation or two.

 

[HighStickHarry]

Don't think so. The sight of a pretty woman stimulates an uncontrollable response---handsome or not men have never done that. Cultural ideals didn't stimulate my groin when the girl next to me in 6th grade started growing tits. If gayness was so prevalent in Ancient Greece, how come Greece is still around? Seem like gobbling and cornholing would have brought an end to Greek civilization in a generation or two.

The majority still married and had kids so I should have used bi not gay. But having sex with boys was ok.

Do you actually think all of this trans stuff was just suppressed until now? There are people born with gender dysmorphia, but imo the culture creates more when it loses its stigma. Go to Bangkok and let me know what biological differences they have from rural Oklahoma/Texas.

 

[Medic007]

If you want to though, women - the smart or pretty ones - have power out the ass, it's just not symmetrical or binary. Women dominate families, households, sexual availability, mold children, and that is just pure gender advantage over men before we discuss capitalism and government.

That's the incel anthem right there. That explains everything about you. Funny how often gut feelings are right, even on a message board.

 

[Syskatine]

That's the incel anthem right there. That explains everything about you. Funny how often gut feelings are right, even on a message board.

Lol the board misogynist weighing in with answers. I can only imagine your relationship with women. Or as you call them "vaginasaurus menstrual queens."

 

[Medic007]

Lol the board misogynist weighing in with answers. I can only imagine your relationship with women. Or as you call them "vaginasaurus menstrual queens."

There are a few guys here that know what kind of awesome women I'm surrounded by. I only speak poorly of gross women like Hillary, the kind you're fond of. The women I'm surrounded by think she's gross too.

Dude, you literally typed out the incel anthem in your own words. Don't hate on me for noticing it. I feel bad for you, but you can probably change your circumstance by not acting like a screeching nutless cuck 24/7. It's ok to be masculine. Hot chicks dig that even if you look like a toad.

 

[iasooner1]

^^^^^^^ TRUTH ^^^^^^^^