Sociopath Community

Spatial Mind said: 

Turncoat said: 

Spatial Mind said: 

I don't understand the point about old white men and business practices. It's still throwing me off. Originally I was stating how slavery isn't really about race.

Alright let me break it down for you: 

Historical precedent still shows us more recent examples with some than others

We can agree on this much right? 

and we still culturally feel the ripples of it

Does this portion make sense or is this where I end up losing you? 

No one feels the effects of slavery today in the US.

So the idea of history reflecting in the modern age makes no sense to you. 

Interesting, this might explain some of the holes in your world view. 

Victim mentality aside. Slavery has nothing to do with race,

That's like saying Slavery has nothing to do with History. 

We're talking slavery and you have to make it about gender,

I have at an earlier point in our talks, recently enough, alluded to the connections thematically between race and gender rights historically when it comes to the struggles for equality. 

The struggle for equality. Okay dude. What more do men need to do for the ladies now ? And if it's nothing then why are they failing to be equal ? 

You think equality is about men doing it for them? 

Ew dude. 

Society still reflects the tail end of Patriarchal practices in it's older work force, so right now it's more a matter of time; Women are continuing to outperform Men in college environments. Currently among young college aged people there are 10% more Women with college degrees than Men. These numbers are as recent as November of 2024, and are liable to keep trending in women's favor. 

The problem is more how society sees women at this point now that the facilities themselves are focused on equality. Where the system is successful, it's those running it that are keeping women and minorities down. 

I mean look at what you'd stated: 

Which is the same thing as having a guest stay over at one's expense as the guest pulls their weight for food, lodging and other needs, such as a bath and a place to shit. This arrangement is actually quite good, and even better if the keeper is kind.

Wouldn't you say the same about Women? 

The Bible certainly does. 

LOL you're having a inclusion episode man, demonizing texts that doesn't bow down to the queens of the Earth. I'm talking about people in general dude. That includes the dickless. I hope that cleared things up.

Why would Men not being in charge suddenly mean Women are? 

You fall on this presumption often enough to give me the impression that you feel threatened over women becoming equals. 

When it comes to you Nathan. The way you suck women's anus is your way of trying to get laid.

So you genuinely think I don't believe the things I'm spouting? 

You belittle other men as a way to stand out.

So you legit believe a 'man' can't have Feminist or otherwise Misandrist beliefs without being a 'Pick Me'. All this really demonstrates to me is why you'd find yourself doing it via projection, and that the means of perspective taking why another would is beyond you. 

That's actually more insulting against women than it is against me over how you can't even seem to fathom what's being said. 

You carried on about toxic masculinity and how women won't need men to reproduce.

^ He says, as if it's not true. 

Yes you're bisexual but you'd rather rail a woman. You're basically a type of soup Nazi, but a segragator of genders. After years of observing you're easy to identify. Your ideology is for women to cast off and take you with them. There's an agenda behild your belief. Otherwise you don't want anything to do with women, or desire a relationship. As someone you've debated with for a long time, when asked I'd say you're sick like that.

So... wait, you think I'd rather be around Men, and have no interest in relationships???

Your logic's unraveling a bit. 

Orrrr, perhaps, I have Gender Dysphoria.

It's not like I'm not attracted to men too, your point misses the mark in more ways than one. If your argument above were the case, wouldn't I be flipping my arguments when I want to suck dick? 

Actions speak louder than words. In over a decade your ideology between gender relations hasn't been in favor of men.

There are men who, in their defense, are acceptable over how they show lower levels of toxicity than the norm. Men on average have been raised with enough privilege to reflect a lower social IQ when compared to women. 

It is harder to respect a man than it is to respect a woman as a matter of intelligence, more men don't feel like peers than women in that fashion. Even conversationally speaking women tend to have an easier time following the conversation when compared to your average man, men need a lot more things explained for them either as a result of underdeveloped/stunted emotional intelligence or as a direct byproduct of the Testosterone raging in their body. 

You're supportive of chaos between men and women.

No, I support equality. I still see a harmony outside of men literally shepherding women around like children. 

You're the one who seems confused when it comes to how relationships work, even at this point accusing me of having no desire for one. 

You're so pro choice you also believed in the execution of infants after birth.

So did 300, but tons of people love that movie. 

To you progress is some glorious instant gratification while ignoring the fact it all leads to extinction.

We're overpopulated, look at the stats and try this again. 

How am I even supposed to respond to this sort of thing? 

I don't see the idea of equality as that far a stretch, yet you both find it appalling and call the claims illegitimate. Do you genuinely not see 'men' as capable of seeing women as a peer over how your idea of a woman is essentially an adult child? 

For obvious reasons you're trying to get me to believe that my own idea about women is essentially an adult child. That's why I told Dragoon you're more like he is, making shit up.

What about this confuses you? 

Spatial Mind said: 

Most women are pro life. 

Those stats are going to reflect all sorts of statistical skew. 

Do you need that explained for you, or do you see how that'd happen here? 

Also let the record show that pro choice is still a thing, and abortions still happen the US. Most pro lifers are women. I too am pro life but I don't see any point in protesting in an endless war. 

Trump isn't in office for another few weeks, and leaving it up to the states is the first step in phasing out those rights. 

You really struggle to see how chain reactions work sociologically, and I'm not really sure what to do for you there. You can't even see the echoes of our own history that persist into the now. 

The enemies of the US chant "Death to America" in government chambers. As it turns out, there are people who'll gleefully castrate themselves and put an end to procreating, so the children of their comrades can witness the decline of one's nation and get dominated by hostile forces who always hated the west.

This has absolutely nothing to do with what I'd said above. A stay at home father with a working mother are just as capable of producing children as having those roles reversed. It doesn't reduce their fertility so I don't see how this segway of yours is even related, and a dual income household is a byproduct of economic struggle that shows us that equal rights are needed to build a future together nowadays. 

A man staying at home isn't attractive. She'll eventually want to settle for a divorce if he isn't making money. If he can stay home and manage to make more, then he has say, but if not then she's the boss. Women are happiest when submissive.

I've seen a lot of successful marriages and couples work out with a female worker and a male nurturer. To expand on this, I've also seen successful marriages and couples from homosexual pairings once the roles for how they'd keep their lives afloat were established. 

There are also many, many women who find the social expectation of Submission to be as acceptable as you being told to do it. Even further, through society constantly telling them that they're doing it wrong they often end up with a chip on their shoulder that prompts them to work that much harder. For such a woman to be shown that men exist who not only accept the lifestyle they want to live, but can encourage and support it via raising the kids, keeping the home clean, cooking the meals, and otherwise making their time home from work a relaxing one? They'll go balls deep into that man and never look back. 

This has been loudly true since at least the Murphy Brown era, and you apparently somehow missed the memo. The 90s was when you started to see more children born of role-swapped parents and homosexual pairings, and we even see women more likely to go to college and join the workforce if their gender-matching parent did so in their youth. 

Anyway that was very nice Nathan. Lady boss and weak men ftw !

It's an equality argument, yet you take it as if men are under attack. 

Seriously you can't possibly think men are this fragile and in need of help. 

What happened is the conversation did a complete 180, and we ended up talking about the same old shit. It devolved into argument. You insinuated the right wing women are enslaved, I denied it, and from there things started crapping out. As it carried on you make false assumptions and present them as true, like how you fabricated some idea that I see adult women as children. That's that thing I was talking about, a way for you to gain favor with women is to pictures of other guys with slander.

The problem here is that I am capable of accepting your premise far enough to explore it, at the very least as an exercise in seeing your POV, while your trying to do the same seems to overstimulate and confuse you. 

The reason why the talks tend to go further and smoother when it's about your subject matter is over how I'm capable of having that discussion, and in time, hopefully, you'll learn how to reciprocate in that way. Think of it like learning another culture, sure there may be some Culture Shock but ultimately that doesn't deny culture's existence. 

The points I'm making aren't even serving to impress any women right now, so within your own premise... why would I even do these arguments if it doesn't assist as a form of Peacocking like you claim? Who am I even trying to show off to at this point? 

Right winged women aren't slaves. Though it would delight you for her to leave him, she's free to do so for her own reasons regardless if they align with your ideology or not. 

Women aren't property and this statement that you made is gross. How you can say they're not slaves and then talk about them as if they'll leave if they aren't shackled shows where your head's at. 

Turncoat said: 

 

Right winged women aren't slaves. Though it would delight you for her to leave him, she's free to do so for her own reasons regardless if they align with your ideology or not. 

Women aren't property and this statement that you made is gross. How you can say they're not slaves and then talk about them as if they'll leave if they aren't shackled shows where your head's at. 

 Ha ha ha. I read this last quote you responded to and it really seems like you're having some type of magical thinking episode or something. lol no one said she's property Nathan. Relax. It's all an illusion.

What do you think of Thomas Sowell's point that the way the left is trying to fix the race problems actually widens the gap between the races in the longer term because we're not allowing black people to fairly compete with white people?

I'm kind of with Spatial when it comes to the whole race slavery aftereffect thing. I've seen no evidence whatsoever that what we're seeing in the US racial class divide has anything to do with slavery. It sounds as though not believing this premise is so incredible to you that you consider it extreme. I've genuinely tried to find any evidence whatsoever to support the notion that the black misfortune in the US is caused by slavery, but I only find vague philosophical arguments. So if you have something to back that up I'd be really curious to learn more.

I think the argument of the right is that by making a change, society responds. By making it easier for black people, blacks respond by trying less. So the effect of affirmative action is to destroy black people. The left makes the mistake of thinking that the black people are in a sort of static state. They think that the policies have no effect on how hard black people try. They have the static view as opposed to dynamic view.

Yet, the same criticism could be levied at the feet of the right. The principal idea of the left is that by normalizing men doing households, we make men who do households more attractive to women in the longer term. The right sees attraction as an immutable property, whereas the left says that by driving social change, men and women respond. So on the longer term, the system becomes stable. Most would agree that a society without gender or racial issues is better. Ergo we should make our policies so as to drive our society towards a utopian future.

I generally agree with the left wing utopian view, but as of late I find it unrealistic. What the right portrays as the left wing agenda is delusional man babies who neither understand these arguments nor have the brain capacity to shut their mouths. Even with my very lengthy education I find the social dilemma on the left noble, but difficult to make into reality.

I don't agree with all of it, of course. Some policies of the left I don't like.

Regarding Women winning the education race, women are 25% in STEM. It's been on the rise, but until that figure is close to 50%, I wouldn't say women are winning the education race. All the degrees that end up forming the core of our economy are dominated by men. Also business and economics.

So when you say that a social phase transition is about to happen because 60 percent of uni degree holders are women, it's a bit misleading. It sounds as though you are implying that future CEOs and economic and technical leaders will be women, as opposed to more women getting University degrees in dancing. Nobody would be happier than me to see more women in STEM, and personally I love employing women and my group is majority women, but unless you meant that our future leaders will be those people getting dancing and nursing degrees, that phase transition is not happening anytime soon.

Not that there's anything wrong with dancers or nurses. I have nothing but respect for those professions. However, the point is that economy is driven by people holding more technical degrees, and economy drives power.

Sorry but as soon as I hear "free market economy" I start zoning out from the stupidity of the phrase. There is no free will, free market, or freedom. These are myths that are convenient tools of the capital class.

Dragoonback said: 

Sorry but as soon as I hear "free market economy" I start zoning out from the stupidity of the phrase. There is no free will, free market, or freedom. These are myths that are convenient tools of the capital class.

 What would you define as a true "free market economy"?

I don't really like the word free in general because of determinism, but I hear free market used so often as like a childish understanding of the way capitalism works along with an embedded denial of its colonial aspect to some degree.

In 2017 the PC gaming community was pissed off cause the crypto miners were buying up all of the GPU's, which caused the prices of the most sought after units to skyrocket.

To the haters we said, "It's a free and open market". Plus AMD and Nvidia were loving us. They even wrote drivers to optimize our operations.

The distributors couldn't stop us but they did limit GPU purchases to 2 per day with no reservations. I've had days where I managed to snipe 4 GPU's.

The complainers complained and did nothing while I collected 27 GPU's and other people collected more or less. But instead of complaining, they could've become vultures we did and monitored the supply before swooping into with the stampede. Buying one or 2 at a time was simple. They were available almost every other day.

Of course now things have simmered down. The moral of the story. I think its a good thing how we can buy sell and trade anything as much as we like.

My question is, why wouldn't an open and free market NOT be a good thing ?

Spatial Mind said: 

Turncoat said: 

 

Right winged women aren't slaves. Though it would delight you for her to leave him, she's free to do so for her own reasons regardless if they align with your ideology or not. 

Women aren't property and this statement that you made is gross. How you can say they're not slaves and then talk about them as if they'll leave if they aren't shackled shows where your head's at. 

 Ha ha ha. I read this last quote you responded to and it really seems like you're having some type of magical thinking episode or something. lol no one said she's property Nathan. Relax. It's all an illusion.

Yet you would blame the women for leaving, unless it is over the man being an unsuccessful handler. 

Come on man, same situation, different terms used. Rather than saying it directly you say like fifty things adjacent to it while modeling off of heinous people. I know having your sexism highlighted makes you feel weird but you don't have to stoop to character attacks to try to divert away from the larger conversation. 

The points you make are unfashionable and some part of you find them gradually more embarrassing to say, but at least others when they say these things stand by them instead of trying to dodge. Even admitting when you don't understand something would be considerably more constructive than this.