Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Fri Sep 21 13:03:56 2018

Utopia Talk / Politics / Offensive words
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Mar 11 08:17:06
TL:DR Women are more easily offended by words than men.

Discussion
We were not surprised that women rated all words as more offensive than men. In most studies of taboo words, researchers have found that women rated taboo words far more harshly than men did (Selnow, 1985). Regardless of gender, participants rated racial slurs as the most offensive types of taboo words; however, women’s ratings of racial slurs were more severe than men’s ratings. Taboo words usually used against women were also found to be highly offensive, with women rating them higher on the offensiveness scale than men. This rating trend continues through many of the other categories as well.

http://osf.io/b2nxg/
McKobb
Member
Sun Mar 11 10:53:08
Cunt holes!
Paramount
Member
Sun Mar 11 11:03:06
So you can use this knowledge to spot women on the internet?

Let’s say I say something, a foul word, to someone. I can then watch that persons reaction, and if that person seems offended, it is likely a woman?
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Mar 11 11:16:49
Or a woman trapped in a mans body :-D
hood
Member
Sun Mar 11 11:17:37
This explains dukhat.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Mar 11 11:24:04
A very strange case that guy (?), there are so many similarities between him and The Children.
jergul
large member
Sun Mar 11 11:42:37
That would follow from women being verbally stronger than men (multiple studies). Words have more meaning to them.
McKobb
Member
Sun Mar 11 11:47:09
I thought it was how I said it and not what I said :P
TJ
Member
Sun Mar 11 11:48:19
Yes, and we know words don't we? chuckle
Hot Rod
Revved Up
Sun Mar 11 16:41:28

Golly Gee Whiz.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Mar 11 17:07:54
This should color and provide nuance to the claims that women suffer more abuse online. It is true that almost every hysterical voice I stumble upon on FB or twitter that complains about abuse online, is a woman. While studies show that women do not actually receive more abuse online, just different abuse (sexual). As our resident femme expert likes to point out, women are more communicative (about their problems as well), and as the study shows more prone to be offended by words. Say words in a google memo or something.

All of these things form a trifecta in social media, to figure out the consequences is not rocket surgery. Not surprisingly social media makes people, specially young girls depressed.

TL:DR Bitches be whining and other bitches be taking them too seriously too often.
Dukhat
Member
Sun Mar 11 18:10:17
Yet if we cut through Nimatzo's bullshit and narcissism, we can see that the obvious corrolary men probably are more helpless with regards to abusive words since they are so commonly used in all-male settings such as sports or prison.

All-male interactions are often a race to the bottom in terms of language such that many men will internalize them as a sign of "machoness."

When in fact men are often more enabling of abusive behavior and ignorance and stupidity: see the strong support Trump still has among white men. Those men LOVE him because of his tongue and poor behavior and his ignorance because his ignorance reflects their innate biases.

So in a way, harsh language and ad hominem attacks are used to end discourse and create an environment where an impulsive, pack mentality ensues.

See Nimatzo with his attempt to bully me like a schoolyard bully. It's amusing that you think that I care what you think. If you have a good argument I'm willing to listen but I have seen none. I see your dumb ideas and then go into the real world and realize how fucking retarded they are.

You're constant harping upon social issues and you're misogyny is as bad as any social justice warrior; worse even because it's just naked narcissism that panders to strangers you don't even know.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Mar 11 18:49:43
^Waaaa Nimatzo uses my words against me and "bullies" me. Typical melting snowflake.

I think we can safely conclude that you care in light of all the posts you have made today, whining about how I am abusing you when I point out how richly laced with stupidity and unintended irony your posts are.

Listen dickface, friend, I am not trying to trample your right to hate Trump voters, by all means shit post and hate, it is your right. I think even your attempts of bullying Rugian after he shared that story, while in bad taste is your right, I think Rugian would agree we are not snowflake SJWs after all.

However dickhat, I hope you are still with me, do not whine when I point out how full of shit, confused and lacking of empathy you are, for that is a bitch move. Accept the rules of the game you have set yourself, like a man.
Dukhat
Member
Sun Mar 11 20:40:24
The emotional poster that obsesses over feminism accuses others of being a snowflake.

I don't care if you attack me personally you junkie. It's kinda cute how you think you're under my skin when I'm actually under yours.

Your rank narcissism is sad. Every idea you have is simply you seeking only things that conform to your narrow worldview and any and all facts or people that opposite it are personally attacked. Assumptions become conclusions. Evidence are subjective blog posts or exaggerated, overgeneralized academic studies.

A reasonable person can see this and a person with experience in things such as a court of law would find it ridiculous. You are right to post here. It's one of the special safe spaces where retards can post what they want and find agreement among other retards.
Aeros
Member
Sun Mar 11 22:22:26
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRquPxdHNGE
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Mar 12 05:19:25
You say you don’t care, but it is the only thing you talk about. You are almost crying that I am some school yard bully. Which is rich coming from someone that would kick a person when they are down. Face it dickface you are an aweful person, but you seem semi remorseful, that is good, it means hope is not lost.

As for your ”criticism”, not very creative. ”Obsessed” is a way for people to hide their own ignorance on this topic. I can not turn on the TV or read a newpaper without someone either talking about a ”woman’s issue”, equality policy or feminism. I get most of my media consumption from the internet, feminist have an even larger footprint on the internet. Everything from gaming culture to education policy has been ”assaulted” by feminist. I have worked in schools and with social services with young boys, this country is pissing on young boys with retarded gender theory ideology, divorced from the real world.

I have deep philosophical and epistimological disagreements with feminist, but my ”war” with feminism is conducted in the framework of the political arena and certainly not on the level of vitriol and hatred you have for Trump voters. I work with feminist and have civilized face 2 face conversations with them about politics.

So obsessed is a meaningless word people use to mask ignorance. Feminism and gender perspective are written into legal framwork of Swedish law and once I started paying attention things could not be unseen. Every state institute, everyone recieving state funding has to apply gender perspective. Everyone applying for scientific grants have to apply gender perspective or explain why they do not. As _one_ example, biologist studying the mating habits of cod fish, was asked to explain why he was not applying gender perspective, that is dedicate part of his research to explain how his research effectes gender balance and equality in society. The Swedish military college now has a professor in gender theory, the text books now tell soldiers to secure the village and apply gender perspective (indeed). Obsessed?

If people want to navel gaze in academia I could not give a shit, but this is application, this has real consequences. I care obsessivly about the admin of society, science and education policy, academic freedom and gaming and yes about boys. If you don’t you can fuck off.
jergul
large member
Mon Mar 12 06:13:41
And nimi misunderstands research yet again. Publically funded research papers are required to have a diversity statement that either demonstrates diverisity, or states why diverisity is lacking.

So, yes, a biologist would have to explain why his research was conducted by an all-white, male team if that was the case.

It does not mean he has to apply gender theory to mating habits (though not using evolutionary biology would of course logically require some explanation in the discussion section)

As for civility - #feminismiscancer much?

Gender perspectives in military-civilian relations is highly relevant.

And yes, it ultimately does reflect that changing norms isolate males. Call it a genetic mismatch between desirable traits in modern societies, and the skillsets evolution has given men.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Mar 12 06:44:58
What a confused first paragraph. I misunderstand research and then he goes on to explain what I just wrote regarding public research requirement.

I already explained why gender perspective was required, to explain how the research will effect gender balance and equality in society. Not how gender perspective effects the mating habit of fish.

Research is about figuring things out, not pleasing diversity quotas for the sake of diversity quotas or applying a "perspective". That is kinda what you are not suppose to do, impartiality and objectivity.

^Critical theory bullshit metastasizing to other domain.

"As for civility - #feminismiscancer much?"

I make a distinction between ideas/ideologies and the people who hold them. Your ideology is intellectual cancer. It is a fitting description provided you understand how cancer works and spreads in the body.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Mar 12 07:04:41
These days a lot of research looks like this. You get a bunch of people who agree with you and have studied the same horseshit, you get state funding and bam you have a department studying post-colonialism or gender theory and publish "peer reviewed" papers via circle jerk mechanism. Now you can provide profound explanations to, why most females are born as women.

http://www.../10.1080/08038740.2015.1136681

^Of limited relevance part 1.
jergul
large member
Mon Mar 12 07:45:00
So you are basically just outraged by diversity statements.

Well, they are required if the goal is public (or most any) funding.

Gender perspective are generally used to describe theoretical approaches. Which is something entirely different.

Or you could use "a lot of research [that looks] this" to frame what values societies hold.

You are probably quite correct in assuming that future modern society will not value the skill-set package evolution has provided men.

Suck it up.

hood
Member
Mon Mar 12 07:51:04
I don't know the correct word for it, but right now amusing is all that comes to mind.

It's anything how fully jergul has embraced the "feminism is not about equality, but female dominance" stance of the movement. It puts into perspective every comment he makes, including the ones about his supposed superiority.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Mar 12 08:43:45
So when I sound obsessed, know that I have been confronting people like Jergul for 15 years, since I joined the Swedish liberal party. I am not longer a card carrying liberal (classic liberalism), but I can tell you that the trend has been the wrong way, specially with the explosion in social media. I never spoke about this topic on UP, until a few years ago.

I would lie if I said people like jergul make up a huge minority even, but because they ride the larger wave and they fight for "justice" and "equality" it is very difficult to confront them without being well read. For them it is trivially easy to label you a woman hating loser and garner support from 50% of the audience, without even trying.

I don't react well to bullying and these people are bullies. And bullies that can bully while on the face of it serving "a greater good", those are the worst kind, because they can act with impunity. This is precisely how religious radicals operate. Not all muslims are radicals, but a small subset can operate with almost impunity, because I mean brother, you are a good Muslim are you not, you serve Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala?
jergul
large member
Mon Mar 12 08:58:17
Hood
You are struggling with the timeline. Future is not now, mkay?

My position would correctly be summarised by "apres nous - le deluge"
hood
Member
Mon Mar 12 09:05:11
Yes, yes, whatever stipulations you need to justify your inconsistencies.

We all recognize your insecurity. It's fine, bro. I'm sure Seb has a shoulder for you to cry on or something.
jergul
large member
Mon Mar 12 09:10:19
http://tv.kampanje.com/-det-er-urettferdig

You don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows, bro.

You guys are so screwed. Lulz.
hood
Member
Mon Mar 12 09:17:58
Links some barbarian language site...
jergul
large member
Mon Mar 12 09:24:40
http://www.amnesty.no/samtykkelov

If I can figure out Hebrew, you can figure out Norwegian. Both videos are self-explanatory.

So screwed. Lulz.
hood
Member
Mon Mar 12 09:31:43
O.o

Why do you assume Hebrew means anything to me? Kinda fucking racist there.
jergul
large member
Mon Mar 12 09:41:25
Why would you assume I thought Hebrew means anything to you? Kind of fucking racist there.

Long time posters know I have dealt with hebrew stuff without knowing the language at all (the crowning point was calling the Israeli census and statistics office to verify something I was curious about. They had little to no English. Which was surprising).
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Mar 12 09:48:11
And as expected you walked away empty handed. That was the so called "crowning point". Even your delusional view of yourself falls short of inept.
hood
Member
Mon Mar 12 09:52:36
"Why would you assume I thought Hebrew means anything to you? Kind of fucking racist there."

I don't think you understand the meaning of words.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Mar 12 10:04:10
Let me save you 2 minutes hood.

The moral of the story is that if you do the _exact_ same work you should get the same reward. Which I think no one disagrees with. Now how lulzgul has analyzed what constitutes the exact same work in work places where individual salary applies, where people rarely do the exact same work. That is another question. But he thinks he has a point.

The problem is that large parts of Sweden and Norway operate under collective agreements. Specially workplaces where "exactly" the same work is being done like hospitals, industry, old folks home and so on. Yet people earn different salaries, because people rarely do the exact same work have the same seniority, responsibilities and additional roles and so on.

The world is very simple in jerguls views, where there are differences in outcome there is obviously injustice and foul play. Fairly straight forward old school socialist outlook.
Dukhat
Member
Mon Mar 12 10:29:21
Now Nimatzo's whole premise is that academic papers must be screened to have "diverse" teams that write them.

Is there any proof of this; it's certainly not true in the US or Canada ...

Nevermind, I'll just assume he just made another logical leap in order to justify his world view while Jergul eggs him on.
jergul
large member
Mon Mar 12 11:03:14
Nimi
The world is very simple.

If you have a choice between two candidates and one is cheaper than the other, then not only will I want to hire the cheaper one, I would also adjust wage expectations to match the new norm represented by the cheaper candidate.

Assuming natural attrition, then market principles have created an environment that will offer preferential treatment to new women joining the organization, and lower pay to new men joining the organization, while older males will be insulated from this mechanism.

The only caveat is not doing stupid shit that would undermine insulated protected positions.

Smith's invisible hand is bitchslapping you, bro.

Lol.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Mar 12 11:03:24
Only those that apply for state funding, and pretty much with the regulation of "equality planning" it is expected in the universities as well. So practically all research outside the private field is slowly being molested by gender theory in Sweden in one form or another.

When computer science educations require you to write an essay on the privileges of white hetro normativity, things are not going in the right direction. Probably as an attempt to nurture peoples empathy. You would like it Dukhat.

The analog of this exist when you are requesting federal grants, yes. However since a lot of US universities are private entities, the SJW cancer only effects those schools that have taken a firm social justice stance. Other schools have taken another path. The free market is a saving grace here.

Canada is in much worse shape than the USA on this, but not as bad as Sweden. Remember who the PM is, the leader of peoplekind.
jergul
large member
Mon Mar 12 11:09:54
How is it possible to misunderstand diversity statement requirements so fundamentally?

They are usually just copy-pasted from the grant application incidentally.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Mar 12 11:10:09
"The world is very simple."

This is why Sweden and Norway have fewer women in STEM than Algeria. Because the world is simple as construed by a socialist living above the arctic circle. Reality is raping your ideology.

Funny that you would use the argument that people use to demolish the wage gap. That if women were paid less because they are women, then why do not companies only hire women.

Can we mark this as another prediction you are making? I am quite confident that it will go the same way as 12.5% by 2020. How serious are you?
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Mar 12 11:24:52
The entire gender perspective is based on the assumption that I just wrote earlier. Different outcomes = injustice, in this specific domain, the unjust division resources for research.

The problem being of course as I posted a while ago, that the more egalitarian a society, the fewer women in STEM.

Another prediction of gender theorist goes up in smoke. Of course no one admits that, instead we must double down on the equality effort.

Face it lulzgul, western women are whiney, easily offended losers who when given the choice of education study useless topics. If you want proper go getters, who soldier on despite patriarchal structures and get STEM degrees, visit the middle east.
jergul
large member
Mon Mar 12 11:25:22
Nimi
We are actually already there. Women are paid the same as men for entry level jobs. In tech they are actually paid 7% more.

There are some seniority mechanisms that reward men disproportionately that are still in place, but the wagegap is mostly just inertia.

It really is about who makes the rules. As you rage about every day as the new rule sets continue to solidify.

I will float on the inertia. You will not. You are too young. Rofl.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Mar 12 11:36:53
If you or a gender theorist predicts it, we can safely assume the opposite will happen. Nuff said.
jergul
large member
Mon Mar 12 11:45:52
You would not be so freaked out and obsessive about the topics if you believed for a second I am incorrect nimi.

TJ
Member
Mon Mar 12 12:02:26
Rules..., phooey nexus. That is the argument Nim is making. Those making the rules distort the rule of science to become the rule. Both could be incorrect and one more than the other. Science is to question. False science has the strongest armor with the weakest entity applying establishing science. Equilibrium isn't always correct.

Don't let that confuse anyone and just take it for what it is worth to you personally.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Mar 12 12:12:42
My worry for boys has nothing to do with your idiotic predictions that will never come true, but the application of solutions you vote for. That is the issue dear first order thinker, I worry about how many things you idiots will break trying to fix problems you do not understand.

I have been working with problem solving all my professional life. The first and most valuable lesson, is that solving a problem is trivial, understanding the problem is the big hurdle to overcome. One of the biggest problems undertaking complex tasks in complex systems are all the idiots who want "results" before the quarter figure are out or election is up. So they end up focusing on the solution and not the problem itself.

You know what happens when idiots try to solve problems they don't understand? They often end up breaking new things in ways they could not even imagine.
TJ
Member
Mon Mar 12 12:16:07
Let me count the ways! chuckle
jergul
large member
Mon Mar 12 12:19:59
TJ
That is because he has a poor understanding of science.

A grant application requires a diversity statement (who is going to collaborate on the project and what are their backgrounds).

He is twisting that into some sort of gendertheory approach to the actual topic that is to be researched.

Nimi
What broken? I have 3 girls. Why would I not want the best for them?

I get why you are all upset. But that is just how it is.

Some winners, some losers.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Mar 12 12:33:24
I am "twisting" it because I have actually read what it says. You are spouting ideological bullshit again.

"Genusperspektiv" goes well beyond diversity statement showing how many penises and cunts that will collaborate.
TJ
Member
Mon Mar 12 12:53:10
I have four girls and I want nothing but the best for them. How is Anna Katrina doing? All four of mine are doing fantastically well on their own merit. As a proud father I believe sound guidance had something to do with their success. It always begins at the foundation.

I'm more in line with Nimatzo. Another bump in the road of time. Masking the foundation is not a solution.

There is a lot of twisting concerned with gender theory. The key being theory. Specification on which genitalia does the research is telling in neon and has little to do with the science. We all know that mutation exists. The focus is wrong in my opinion.
jergul
large member
Mon Mar 12 13:11:47
Just as I believe mine do well on their own merit.

Nibbled to death by ducks is an expression that comes to mind when I think of gender posing.

A better, more equal union is within reach, but not if men play hardball.

nibble, nibble and the rules change.

It is actually a realistic outlook that significantly fewer boys will be born in the future.

We all want the best for ours. All things being equal, is it not best to opt for the longest life expectancy?
Rugian
Member
Mon Mar 12 13:14:33
Quality != quantity jergul. All things being equal, is it not best to opt for not bleeding and being cranky for several days every month?
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Mar 12 13:25:53
"A better, more equal union is within reach"

Mmm yes, the one where there are fewer women in STEM in Sweden compared with Algeria.

To complement that study, here is one on psychological differences. They follow the same paradox trend. More equal society, more difference is psychological traits. Like say neuroticism and agreeableness.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27000535

This is what you have created for your daughters, lulzgul. Things are working out great, empirically speaking :-)

The road to hell is paved by idiots.
TJ
Member
Mon Mar 12 13:30:54
"We all want the best for ours. All things being equal"

No, all people are not equal, and all people don't know what is the best for them from an individual perspective. Forced social reconstruction has long demonstrated the balancing act. The scale is turbulent, always has and always will be, until we become hardware or will it?

There appears to be a contradiction in that statement. If all things are equal life expectancy would be equal? Is that what you are expressing? If I must be a social robot you can have your life expectancy.

Fallibility is the spice...
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Mar 12 13:41:57
Anyone else gets shivers down their spine when Jergul is talking about his egalitarian Utopia? When people start talking about the brave new future that awaits, delusion only scratches the surface. In other words, prepare for a better future or else! Cancer.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Mar 12 13:48:01
3 Years in Sweden and Norway, for some reason Jergul thinks this matters. And it is shrinking worldwide. Literally nothing he says is accurate or to the extent that it is, it is trivial nonsense.

I understand you have been able to keep it civil all these years, but Jergul is insanely full of shit. The moment it became apparent way back when (on topic about Iran), the entire thing came down like building 7. And humpty dumpty was never the same again.

So as a general rule of thumb, if jergul says something, it most likely wrong or such a gross misrepresentation of reality that it does not even qualify as a conspiracy theory.
TJ
Member
Mon Mar 12 13:48:46
The heart too often subdues the brain.
jergul
large member
Mon Mar 12 14:12:44
TJ
All other things being equal.

In its simplest form. If things are equal between genders and technology allows to chose gender of off-spring, then why choose the gender with shortest life expectancy?

Rules change because ultimately, they can outvote us.
jergul
large member
Mon Mar 12 14:13:32
Nimi
What a masterful projection!
jergul
large member
Mon Mar 12 14:14:30
For those wanting the historical record. What Syria is now, Nimi wanted for Iran. I thought that a rather bad idea and told him so.
TJ
Member
Mon Mar 12 14:24:21
Rules change because ultimately, they can outvote us.

It isn't profound and it certainly isn't science. Yet it is true. :)
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Mar 12 14:28:23
That was not it no. You made factual claims regarding Iran being responsible for the Halabja gas attack and another one about ethnic tension between Azeris and Persians. I remember very well. All complete horses shit.

This other figment of your imagination is also wrong on many levels. Quite telling of your level of intellect that even after Iraq and Syria, completely and utterly fail to understand what the relevant divisions are in the ME. It is secterian, not ethnic. Iran is 90% shia. Homogeneity where it matters.
jergul
large member
Mon Mar 12 14:44:43
Nimi
Incorrect. But I get why you may have repressed your opinions from that time.

TJ
If only nimi could see that and adjust appropriately.

2% more women than men of registered voters vote in Sweden. There are more women voters to start, and their votes are disproportionately left leaning.

Nimi frames the problem as one of socialism, while in fact it is just women voting in their own best interests for parties inclined to support policies in their best interests.

The left had the same role for the working man not long ago. The divide shifts from class to gender and I expect to see the same kind of political and economic shifts in favour of the group with the voting numbers behind it.
TJ
Member
Mon Mar 12 14:49:49
Environmental science in an attempt to make one environment. Did I get that wrong? Different strokes for different sciences. We do a very good job of manipulating evolution in the modern age.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Mar 12 15:02:19
Lulzgul thinks that any sufficiently large group "voting" in their interest, is a sign of progress. Not that this prediction is coming true either. "Progress" has a habit of not working out as intended.
jergul
large member
Mon Mar 12 15:48:18
TJ
Men are probably happier in an environment with a greater woman to man ratio anyway. Science allows for less violent ways to see a golden ratio materialize.

For women it would be a slam-dunk improvement.

But the end result is not a single environment.

Nimi
Why, then you have nothing to worry about!
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Mar 12 15:58:15
Nothing you have said is cause for worry. I have already detailed what and where I worry about men. None of them involve things you have said. I thought I was clear,

"So as a general rule of thumb, if jergul says something, it most likely wrong or such a gross misrepresentation of reality that it does not even qualify as a conspiracy theory."
TJ
Member
Mon Mar 12 16:12:02
"But the end result is not a single environment."

That is true and basically what I've been saying.

For some women it would be a slam-dunk improvement, but others it will not. Decency is all that is necessary to smooth the path.

If it is given and not earned it is not wanted. If it is wanted and not earned it is a tragedy.

One woman's junk is another woman's treasure. What I find troubling are the numbers who either don't want and remain silent. Must not be very important to them. I'm all for equal pursuit and liberty.
jergul
large member
Mon Mar 12 16:12:41
Nimi
You are always anything but clear. Something to do with how your inner chaos reflects in your posting.
jergul
large member
Mon Mar 12 16:18:36
TJ
If you assume decency, then everything will work out fine without radical adjustment.

The issue I see is the stunning lack of dignity shown by the male-jihadists. There will be a back-lash for that.

If we all had agreed that women have the shorter end of the stick and we should fix that, then there would be no problem.

Like in the 60s when young men were still thin and full of confidence.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Mar 12 16:20:00
"For women it would be a slam-dunk improvement."

Nope. More men, more to pick from. There is an article on how the male to female ratio effects the no. of female virgins on a campus. More women, less virginity. More intra-sexual competition leads to more girls putting out, to put it simply.

Nothing you say is correct, empirically. Women compete with each other just like men, too many woman has the same effect on women as too many men has on men.
jergul
large member
Mon Mar 12 16:22:32
And there you are with your inner chaos.

What is not an improvement for women having more sex? For example.

"Its not an improvement at all. Women will have more sex"

See? Your inner chaos manifest in writing.
TJ
Member
Mon Mar 12 16:26:07
The issue I see is the stunning lack of dignity shown by male and female progression. :)

It all begins at the foundation and masking the root doesn't solve the condition.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Mar 12 16:34:10
"What is not an improvement for women having more sex?"

You think it is an improvement that men have more influence over when a couple has their first sexual experience? Which is the conclusion of the researchers.

I mean for someone with 3 girls you sure are fucking clueless. This is expected from a first order thinker though. Go out there and improve the world for your girls :)
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Mar 12 16:42:42
Using a nationally representative sample of college women, we evaluate the effect of campus sex ratios on women's relationship attitudes and behaviors. Our results suggest that women on campuses where they comprise a higher proportion of the student body give more negative appraisals of campus men and relationships, go on fewer traditional dates, are less likely to have had a college boyfriend, and are more likely to be sexually active. These effects appear to stem both from decreased dyadic power among women on campuses where they are more numerous and from their increased difficulty locating a partner on such campuses.

^Slam dunk improvement for the women. Difficulty finding a good mate, men get to pick and choose and women's power and value as a couple item decreases. This is what happens when idiots try to "solve" problem they do not understand. Jesus christ lulzgul, should I worry about men or your girls?

See what I mean TJ? Literally everything he says is wrong and probably more than half have the opposite effects he thinks they do.
jergul
large member
Mon Mar 12 16:57:20
Nimi
They socialize less with young men, have a more realistic appraisal of young men, and have more sex.

Like I said. A slam-dunk improvement.

You seem to exist on some strange planet that finds the company of men in their late teens or early 20s enjoyable.

jergul
large member
Mon Mar 12 16:58:57
I am hoping my girls will identify as "mostly hetero-sexual". Particularly in their college years.
TJ
Member
Mon Mar 12 17:03:21
I'm pretty sure I understand both of you as well as possible in this particular arena. IF there were no differences there would be no need for dialog. Huge differences can bind critical thought. Intelligence isn't the cause, it's
a virus in the software.

I admire the tenacity in both of you though.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Mar 12 17:10:00
Noone is interested in your warped analysis, I assure you,

”These effects appear to stem both from decreased dyadic power among women on campuses where they are more numerous and from their increased difficulty locating a partner on such campuses.”

Simple supply and demand, pussy inflation.

Ultimately you can lead an idiot to facts, but do little about his innate ability digest the facts.
jergul
large member
Mon Mar 12 17:23:00
They learn to realistically appraise the value of young men and the value of spending time with them, and have more sex.

College is all about learning and having fun.

Slam-dunk.

Here is an idea. Go hang out with your wife for a few hours. Just talk. Ask her about her hobbies and life. See how long it takes before she finds an excuse to get away from you.

And you are much better now than you were in your late teens.
Rugian
Member
Mon Mar 12 17:23:20
jergul,

Are you sure that UP is the best place to open up the subject of your Scandinavian daughters' casual bisexual activities at college? If so, A/S/probable college L, please.

Also, in light of several posts you've made in this very thread, I suddenly can't help but wonder if the fact that you have daughters is a coincidence. Is it legal in Norway to abort a fetus after the point where it's possible to determine gender? I'm not even fooling around, I consider this to be a legitimate possibility here.
TJ
Member
Mon Mar 12 17:25:23
The donkeys drink from a different water holes. I prefer the one you offer and have made that very clear. Garbage in digests garbage.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Mar 12 17:26:46
But it is quite progressive for a man with 3 daughters to say that an environment were women recieve more social pressure to sleep around is a slam dunk improvement for women. I will give you that.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Mar 12 17:29:49
TJ all these posts are for ”Edward”. Specially the one about leading the idiot. You just managed to post between.
TJ
Member
Mon Mar 12 17:43:27
Nim:
I understood with confidence :). I had just thought it necessary to clarify my position again after the admiration of tenacity admission.

jergul
large member
Mon Mar 12 18:06:22
Ruggy
No, it is not possible in any sense. Nor would abortion be a feasible way of designer kids.

Current treatment costs 1000 bucks and is offered in your country to name one. Choosing gender has to be for medical reasons here.

TJ
I never mistook this for a popularity contest :).

Nimi
Your inner chaos is peeping though again. Less men means more social pressure?

It means less pressure, bro. With women calling the shots instead of being nagged into submission or worse by tactless toads.

Men have to back off for women to choose their own partners and have sex when the inclination strikes them.

They would be adults at the time, not property in my goatherd or however you tally such things.

Anyway, you don't seem to see any downside for men in a golden ratio context.

That you fail@women is just you being consistent.
TJ
Member
Mon Mar 12 18:10:24
"I never mistook this for a popularity contest :)."

I wouldn't expect going against the current being easy.

There is nothing wrong with pressure. :)
obaminated
Member
Mon Mar 12 18:26:54
It is nice to see a progressive man have so little interest in protecting his daughters from men who would happily take advantage of their naive pussies.
TJ
Member
Mon Mar 12 18:29:23
Oh, btw, you seem to be trading one property for another when neither should be considered property. The dirt bag will be a dirt bag and have more choices to abuse.

Sounds like you are underestimating a woman's ability to manage her own affairs. Ouch!

Unpack carefully.
jergul
large member
Mon Mar 12 18:50:55
TJ
On the contrary! I am arguing women will manage their affairs in the most fundamental way possible.
jergul
large member
Mon Mar 12 18:52:36
An unborn dirtbag is thus not.
TJ
Member
Mon Mar 12 19:38:52
I see fundamental way as deficient and defining an unborn with a label is absurd.

It isn't a fundamental world and if it was there would be no challenge. Risk will always exist and awareness provides the edge necessary to be successful.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Mar 13 02:11:45
Just gargling noises from a bruised ego, pulling stuff out of his ass when the study says the exact opposite. That is you inner retard.

The sad thing jergul, is that this was an easy one. Do they no longer teach how supply and demand works at socialist camp? What inflation entails for prices? They only teach you to write ”Crush capitalism” on a white cardboard and nail it to a stick. Socialism rots the brain.

This should have been easy for the guy who discovered the pie chart mechanics. Ultimately you have given me more material to work with in the future ”Edward”.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Mar 13 03:46:40
"Less men means more social pressure?"

^This is actually a serious question :,) from someone who understand nothing about female intra-sexual competition, not even that such a thing exists. Do you think that when women put on make up, dress up and go out, they are doing it to attract men? lol :,)

"Half the aggressive tweets using the words slut and whore analysed by social thinktank Demos came from women and girls, research indicates."

"Women are almost as likely to use 'slut', 'whore' and 'rape', both casually and offensively, as men."

^Cunt behavior, rivaling dick behavior. Empirically speaking and everything.

So... you managed to fuck things up so badly that she got sole custody. Hence why you do not understand women while being the "father" of 3. That is sad.
jergul
large member
Tue Mar 13 04:26:39
TJ
Unconcieved. And labels are fine as we are dealing in large numbers.

Many women will only have one child. And the technology is there. You do the math.

Nimi
You found a horrible source for documenting what women miss out on when the male ratio decreases.

The get to have more sex and spend less time with what objectively speaking are generally asshats.

The counter-argument presented most systematically suggests people think more sex is a bad thing. I pity you.

The effects of a more natural gender ratio would be less pressure, a longer hiatus between relationships, more alternative relationship arrangements (including sexual and non-sexual same sex set-ups). So basically what we see anyway in the above 65 year population.

Like you said, women in social arenas are there mostly for the other women anyway. Which is absolutely no bomb (how long did it take for your wife to flee when you tried spending time with her?).

We already agree that I am at least half-right (a lower ratio would be good for men), I am simply showing I am completely right.

Too many men are simply not in women's best interests. And women ultimately control how many men there are.

We have had tons of threads on the reasons why.

Really, you should stop deflecting the solidity of your relationship on to me. We all know relationships in Sweden are relatively short term affairs statistically speaking.

Mine is a death do us part deal. Also in a statistical sense.
jergul
large member
Tue Mar 13 04:41:27
My main thesis is that it is in men's best interests that men are in women's best interests.

The sooner we make it so, the better.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Mar 13 06:25:17
I forbid you to ever talk about what is in the best interest of men, you have not raised men and know nothing about contemporary manhood and trials and tribulation us men face. But now after the retarded bs you have spouted here, I will have to extend this to women as well.

I skipped that last post entirely. Your nonsense has reached this level, it is unfortunate. They now even lack the entertainment value of yesterday. This makes me sad, truly.
jergul
large member
Tue Mar 13 06:32:40
I am not your goat nimi. What you forbid or do not forbid is even less relavant to me than her.

From your attitude, and Swedish divorce rates, I rather suspect your trials and tribulations are just beginning.

Never mind the micro-dosing and the impact narcotic use has on a person's long-term connection to the work-place.

I get that you are doing what you think you must.

But goddamn, you are screwed.
jergul
large member
Tue Mar 13 06:34:29
Statistically speaking of course. I assume you read the introduction and summary of the risk management curriculum you had at college?

Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Mar 13 07:40:44
"Statistically" speaking, someone who has spent his entire 50 something life above the arctic circle is not likely to understand a lot about human interaction, communication and behavior.

Put more generically you suffer from "I understand what I have experienced" and you have not experienced a lot, like manhood. And you some how managed to have 3 girls and learn nothing about women. "Statistically" the kind of people who like to wave their academic accreditation around, are not the kind of people who learn and grow through out their entire life.

As an addendum to the equality paradox, you should know that nationally the same thing can be seen in the north of Sweden compared to the cities and south. Women from the rural north's so called "macho" culture get STEM degrees and move, while the men stay behind in the dying fishing, agricultural and wood industry. Men with lacking communication skills you might say, the "unemployables". You probably know all too well what I am talking about.
jergul
large member
Tue Mar 13 07:58:40
Nimi
"Statistically" means simply that caution needs to be applied when considering individual fates. Who knows? You might win the lottery tomorrow, or get hit by a bus.

I understand what I have considered in earnest would about cover it. For gut instinct generalizations and confirmation bias - look in the mirror.

There are reasons for why I always take a contrary position in this forum. It causes consideration in earnest.

As opposed to "waah, femicancer, socialistcancer" that you default to - always.

You are emotion driven.

Its not a paradox. See Maslow.

As for migration patterns. Women moving to places where they form a significant majority and fleeing places where they are a minority.

What a surprise. Not.

Anyways, if you ever get around to getting a grip, then you can see that I am providing arguments for policies you favour (young male migrants are bad?).
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Mar 13 08:53:27
"There are reasons for why I always take a contrary position in this forum."

Not even remotely believable. "I have thrown my lot with the social democrats" is your defining characteristics and it oozes out of your every pore and drips from every thing you write. Not even back when I respected you did I think you were anything but a run of the mill Scandinavian socialist. It is as I have told you in the passed, why I normally enjoy your idiotic input, it serves IRL purpose.

I don't have any hatred for socialists, my closest friend is a old school run of the mill social democrat. My beef is with snake oil salesmen, bullshitter i.e those that speak with too much authority on too many subjects. Remember how sandy your vagina got when I did not accept your expertise on the US legal system? There is a never ending line of stupid behavior from you over the years, that just does not go away.

As opposed to "waah, femicancer, socialistcancer" that you default to - always."

Only with selected morons. No surprise this obvious fact has escaped your sharp contrarian intellect. A person that gets upset when I say "krossa socialismen" and completely misses the intended irony and satire and the riff off of his own tribes "krossa kapitalismen" sign on 1st may, is an idiot who takes his religion very seriously.

That is incidentally the easiest way of identifying those that take themselves and their religion very seriously, they are easily offended by satire and will relatively quickly resort to some form of violence. You know like the Muslim radicals who want to cut off your head for drawing Muhammed, socialist radicals want to deport you for calling their ideology cancer.

Make the last post count Lulzgul.
jergul
large member
Tue Mar 13 09:37:03
What is credible and not credible to you is of supreme disintrest.

Its your inner chaos, bro.

Sucks to be you.
show deleted posts
Bookmark and Share