Quick, get the patent lawyers on the phone!

morbiuswilters

@morbiuswilters said:
I have a lot more faith in twelve average people than in an army of "experts".
Plus they work cheaper. We should totally get our next e-commerce site designed by the Grumpy Cat guy and friends instead of those expensive "security" consultants.

Are you people incapable of comprehending the words you read? I just can't fathom what would lead you to be so fucking stupid. I mean, it's even worse in your case because I already flamed Ben for not being able to communicate like an actual human being and instead operating like a shitty ELIZA program.

morbiuswilters

@dkf said:

In general though, if you always let the opposition choose the rules, you'll always be at a disadvantage. Why do you seem to feel that it is necessary to challenge the rabid feminists on their ground? Think like a great general, not a footsoldier.

See, I'd say the same thing to you. You're ceding a lot of territory by not challenging their psychotic assumptions. An example: let's say I invented a field called "racial food studies". My base claim is that I will prove black people are superior to white people because chocolate ice cream tastes better than vanilla ice cream. Now, of course, chocolate is better than vanilla, but by allowing me to tack my nutty claims onto it, you've already lost the battle.

If the feminist science is wrong, it won't matter, because the point of feminism is not reality but intersectionality. Feminists already say all sorts of crazy shit that's clearly wrong but the whole thesis of their demented religion is that if you try to criticize them you are part of the patriarchy and are oppressing their vibrant voices, etc..

And if the science actually does turn up something useful, now you're in the position of saying "Well, sure, the science was right, but all the other shit they were saying isn't." You're on the defensive. And note they are picking things which I don't think can be answered. Are women better, the same or worse at math/science than men? I have no idea, but I do know that nobody can answer that question. But they will produce an answer and it will be used to advance their agenda.

And believe me, this won't be real science. This will be "science" like all the rest of the "social sciences". All of the social sciences are bullshit, including psychology and psychiatry. The whole "science" label is just there to lend legitimacy to what are political movements. These movements exist solely to advance an agenda, usually a fascistic one which transfers power from the people into the hands of a political elite.

This "science" is just an outgrowth of the "scientific racism" of centuries past. The point is to find a pre-determined answer, one that coincidentally happens to strip groups of people of their fundamental human traits and reduce them to little more than the superficial identity groups they've been assigned to, whether it be race, sex or political status.

(*And before someone goes off on a bitch-fest, my problem is with modern "Being a male means you are a rapist and denying you are a rapist is only proof you are a rapist because you are trying to suppress our voice" feminism. Women should be equal before the law. I do think men and women have some profound differences and that the best societies are ones that are built with and understanding and appreciation of those differences. Neither men nor women should be forced into any kind of social roles based on their sex, but I think it's beneficial for those roles to exist and for there to be pressure to conform to them.)

morbiuswilters

@dhromed said:

I don't know where you got this, because it cannot be observed in the world.

You're either lying or you are an idiot. Even a cursory reading of women's studies would show that no other opinions are tolerated.

Even people like Camille Paglia, who used to be considered a radical feminist, are now denounced as part of the patriarchy. The fact that you aren't aware of this tells me you don't really know the first thing about modern feminism and are just falling back on some bullshit, pansy "why can't we all get along" view of feminism which you fabricated entirely in your head because you are so afraid of being honest that you prefer a feeble lie to the truth.

morbiuswilters

@flabdablet said:

Very pseudo indeed, and more objectionable than objective.

Why do you feel more comfortable living a lie than the truth? Not that you're the only one, most people prefer to live lies, but I never could understand it. Maybe you can explain it to me.

morbiuswilters

@random said:

@dhromed said:
What I do see on a near-constant basis, though, is manbabies going "ew stupid women", even though they clad it in pseudo-objective wording like you do.

Whenever I hear someone bitch about those "stupid feminists", I immediately assume that person is sexually frustrated and needs someone to blame.

Lazy slander from a dim-witted neanderthal who thinks acting like a pathetic, sniveling toady is going to be what gets women to notice him. Talk about sexually-frustrated.. do they at least give the thumbs-up to your sad masturbatory fantasies or do you do it without permission and then feel wracked with guilt afterwards?

@morbiuswilters said:

Lazy slander from a dim-witted neanderthal who thinks acting like a pathetic, sniveling toady is going to be what gets women to notice him. Talk about sexually-frustrated.. do they at least give the thumbs-up to your sad masturbatory fantasies or do you do it without permission and then feel wracked with guilt afterwards?

nigga u mad