I assumed a master of satire would appreciate the tongue in cheek jab at global warming. Perhaps, I've overestimated you after all.
Question... Is this not being an evolution denier?
- Thread starter MegaPoke
- Start date
I assumed a master of satire would appreciate the tongue in cheek jab at global warming. Perhaps, I've overestimated you after all.
Absolutely no one is arguing to the contrary. Did you read the article OP linked?
I get the reference, completely misapplied. Like calling Mike Morgan a science denier for predicting a cold front.
@ThorOdinson13 note how I took this issue too seriously. I'll go back to mocking.
This is true. The only serious part of the banter is that pilt is a cuck.
Read the following link and you'll see why anyone with a minimum of biological science knowledge should be laughing at this retarded liberal shit. Literally a minimum of biological science knowledge SHOULD be laughing.
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/06/toxic-masculinity-and-mass-murder/486983/
We've just gotten over the humps of if you disagree with climate change/warming/cooling being primarily man made you're a science denier worthy of criminal charges, if you disagree with 0bama you're a racist, if you blame radical Islam for Islamic terrorism you're an Islamophobe, if you don't believe that homosexuality is an abnormal behavior you're homophobic, and if you believe that males and females are biologically different you're a sexist misogynist. With the trend of liberalism over the years, this is nothing more than the latest attempt to assign terrible behaviors to some touchy feely bullshit cause fixable only by liberal brilliance (maybe mandatory government approved gender training?) and then label all those who disagree "phobic and/or deniers" and point fingers at everyone that isn't the actual problem.
Rinse, spit, repeat. Sorry, I find this latest bullshit amusing for exactly what it is.
You're a smart guy. Or at least I think you're a guy. Maybe you have toxic femininity.
Males have been doing male stuff since the beginning of males. Primitive brain parts are primitive. They serve a function of survival. The only thing that has changed over our known history is that people have become more civilized and the implements of death have changed. Testosterone and its effects on the primitive brain haven't changed much at all. Do lions teach their cubs to act like killing machines or is it something that they are born with? Since I know one question you may counter with, yes, lions who have been bred in captivity and trained in captivity have been known to revert back to acting like uncouth killing machines. Primitive brain parts are hard to train.
My question to you. What are males supposed to act like in liberal utopia? Should they act like females? What particular female behavior should be mimicked? Should they act like they have no identifiable gender? Should all guys look and act like Pat? Who the hell is going to play football for our entertainment? What is the end game of these liberal interventions?
Come on. Please go read the article (from Breitbart of all places) in the OP. Then read the Atlantic article. Pick out the parts that are wrong biologically and point them out. You are attacking a strawman. These people are only saying it would be better if we defined manliness and masculinity in a more positive way. Less emphasis on violence and more on emphasis on responsibility, providing, and leadership. A shift from Conan the Barbarian as the archetypical male to King Solomon or something.
And what is that more positive way? Who exactly is emphasizing violence? And what violence is emphasized? Are there a bunch of fathers teaching their sons that raping a drunk chick is cool? Did someone teach Joe Mixon that knocking out a tiny woman was acceptable male behavior? What sort of training would have kept the Orlando shooter from killing a nightclub full of people? A six week college course? A 16 week college course? Not allowing him to play with toy guns? Parent training? Should Youtube, TV, movies, etc be heavily censored to never feature male violence? What about violent sports that are so popular? There are even groups of people that GASP recreate medieval battles by beating the shit out of each other with swords. We should ban that, right?
Liberals seem to have solutions to all of these terrible social constructs society has built. At least one of them should have an end game, a final product, something measurable to lead the way. They must have tons of data to support that traditional male training is a huge problem and they've found a viable solution. I'd hate to see yet another fabricated crisis with fabricated solutions that actually solves nothing.
We went from this is "laughable to anyone that knows biology" to "well we shouldn't do anything unless you can prove that a college course can solve the problem" pretty fast.
The corner you have backed yourself into is that behavior is in no way shape or form influenced by cultural expectations. I have seen you argue the exact opposite when talking about inner city crime.
Really? Is that what this actually says? Maybe I don't understand liberal, but claiming that toxic masculinity is why we "have so many damn shootings" is quite bold.
“If toxic masculinity was just about men posturing around each other in a comical fashion, that would be one thing,” writes Marcotte, “but this persistent pressure to constantly be proving manhood and warding off anything considered feminine or emasculating is the main reason why we have so many damn shootings in the United States.”
There, we can agree on something. Marcotte is hyperbolic and annoying.
I did, how do you think a class designed to explore the negative effects of femininity would go over? Would it be acceptable or would it be deemed misogynistic and sexist, an attack on women?
So you'll find this equally as annoying as I do...
“Being able to stockpile weapons and have ever bigger and scarier-looking guns is straightforward and undeniable overcompensation insecure men trying to prove what manly men they are,” writes Marcotte. “This isn’t a discussion being held on the plane of rationality, but a psychological drama about these men’s fears of emasculation.”
I don't have any issue with college courses teaching males about "emphasis on responsibility, providing, and leadership." Great idea, but we've always had those. What is at issue is the label of "toxic masculinity" and the theories and thoughts that created it.
What is quoted above is exactly what is being reverberated on college campuses. Hell, one of the board liberals posts this shit all of the time. Acting "male," although biologically normal, seems to have become a hot issue and likely not one that will exhibit any tolerance to folks with opposing opinions as has happened at least a couple of times before on similar subject matter.
Sometimes these horrific male behaviors (is rape commonly taught at home?) are just the result of biology and opportunity. Give a horny college aged male from a great home with great parents and from a great school a few brews (or not in some cases) and what he sees as an opportunity to sink his man parts into the appropriate biological receptacles (and hell, lots of other weird shit too) of a female that can't physically say no (she was into me!), and sometimes you'll see the primitive male brain take over and do shit he knows is wrong. Additional leadership training likely isn't going to help that poor testosterone fueled dude. A thoroughly severe punishment might make the next horny guy think twice though.
Maybe I'm just not getting or understanding the desired end result of the solutions to this new fangled toxic masculinity problem.
Not really, or at least that isn't what I've meant to convey. We both know nature and nurture play a role.
It is interesting though. When I have brought up gang culture as a substantial driver of gang violence and inner city crime, a liberal fella on here went ape shit. It's about opportunities is what I was told. I've since modified my belief system to understand that suggesting gang culture (and a genre of music that glorifies it) contributes significantly to gang violence is racist and is not based on anything that can be considered factual. I'm trainable if nothing else.
We know the answer to that one...
What are little boys made of?
What are little boys made of?
Snips and snails
And puppy-dogs' tails
That's what little boys are made of
What are little girls made of?
What are little girls made of?
Sugar and spice
And all things nice
That's what little girls are made of
I like violence.
It's fun to watch...and engage in.
My wife agrees.
Word.
It's fun to watch...and engage in.
My wife agrees.
Word.
You fighting your wife, who wins? Judging by the black eye I've seen that she gave you, I'll put some cash on the wife.
You fighting your wife, who wins? Judging by the black eye I've seen that she gave you, I'll put some cash on the wife.
Armed or unarmed?
Unarmed, I have a distinct reach and weight advantage so I say me.
Any weapons involved, she has a distinct skill and experience advantage, and I'd have no chance.
Fair enough. I do want to emphasize, with me being a Sooner fan and all, I was not condoning you actually fighting your wife as we are so well known for doing usually. This time. Unless you guys are freaky like that.
If that's the case and it might make a good wad of cash, I'd be willing to offer up amateur production capabilities, a webcam, and my trailer for the event. Unarmed though. I'm not doing a snuff film here. At least not with two law enforcement folks involved.
Now I'm just rambling.
