By blackace Go To Post#alllivesmatterreal funny
I find it funny that both shooters are ex military but really weren't combat tested due to their jobs in the military…
The Dallas shooting still doesn't add up for me.
By DY_nasty Go To Postreal funnyright? The Dallas shooting is basically impossible to do with a lone shooter... Not to mention he was supposedly a terrible shot...
The Dallas shooting still doesn't add up for me.
By etiolation Go To PostAdd black to the male and that article doesn't see the light of day, despite following along the same logic."Men are discriminated against!" is the new "the civil rights movement is anti-white"
You're such a thing of the past. I pity the women who have the misfortune of having you around.
By blackace Go To Postright? The Dallas shooting is basically impossible to do with a lone shooter… Not to mention he was supposedly a terrible shot…The simultaneous fire in the clips showing the very start of the ambush completely destroy the possibility of a single gunman.
You will never see immediate returned fire in a close urban ambush. Makes zero sense.
By Gabyskra Go To Post"Men are discriminated against!" is the new "the civil rights movement is anti-white"
You're such a thing of the past. I pity the women who have the misfortune of having you around.
I'm not joking about the teaching thing. You really shouldn't be teaching.
By etiolation Go To PostAdd black to the male and that article doesn't see the light of day, despite following along the same logic.
Did you miss the entire point of the article? I'm just struggling to find the meaning or purpose in your post.
By Fenderputty Go To PostDid you miss the entire point of the article?MRAs/GamerGaters tend to miss out on a lot of things.
Not only that, but see Rob actually doing as he said, and the quote sounds completely farcical at that point.
By reilo Go To PostMRAs/GamerGaters tend to miss out on a lot of things.
I'm just like ... I ... I don't really have words.
Better to just claim misandry then actually take a long hard look at how boys/men are socialized in this country.
By Fenderputty Go To PostDid you miss the entire point of the article? I'm just struggling to find the meaning or purpose in your post.
It's a dumb article. I added a scare term to highlight that.
It goes from gender stats on mass shooters to putting more women into policing on the out-of-touch idea that shooting strangers as a imbalanced mass killer is somehow the same as dangerous situations that police officer may find themselves. It's ridiculous.
You should compare dangerous jobs to other dangerous jobs, but there is not many women in those types of jobs so a comparison is sort of futile. Instead, the article openly proposes a "I'm not saying all men are violent, but.." So I highlighted its stupid premise.
The question is how can anyone look at that article and not immediately see the terrible assumptions and mistakes.
By etiolation Go To Postsomehow the same as dangerous situations that police officer may find themselvesExcept thanks to cameras we've seen time and again the officers were in no such danger.
How much you gonna dog whistle.
By etiolation Go To PostIt goes from gender stats on mass shooters to putting more women into policing on the out-of-touch idea that shooting strangers as a imbalanced mass killer is somehow the same as dangerous situations that police officer may find themselves. It's ridiculous.
I mean they used more stats than just mass shootings.
I'm also not sure why it's silly to assume that since women are statistically less violent or likely to kill, that this would translate to the job of policing as well.
I can't believe you went with the poor men angle there.
By Fenderputty Go To PostI can't believe you went with the poor men angle there.I can ☕️🐸
By Fenderputty Go To PostI can't believe you went with the poor men angle there.
That's surprising since there's a reason Gaby said
I pity the women who have the misfortune of having you around.
Violence in our culture is hard to talk about because you start getting into what people are ingesting on the daily and they get wholly defensive of their hobbies, interests and media. Also you get people who actually think CIA/FBI/CDC numbers about DV/rapes are entirely made up and part of a feminist conspiracy. Good luck actually tackling reality if you're busy dealing with delusions.
By Fenderputty Go To PostI mean they used more stats than just mass shootings.
I'm also not sure why it's silly to assume that since women are statistically less violent or likely to kill, that this would translate to the job of policing as well.
I can't believe you went with the poor men angle there.
Since you're the only one with any sense to actually engage my ideas, I'm gonna respect you.
First, though, ditch tribalism views. No MRA!!@!@!!@!@ boogieman or anything. Ideas of merit are ideas of merit. The article's idea had little merit.
If you engage that men are violent, you must engage that we put men into violence. I call this the bullet proof vest fallacy. When you see someone with a bullet proof vest on or even if you see that vest in a room, you assume there's danger or that the person is dangerous. However, the vest is the thing violence is done towards. The vest itself is not a weapon. It is only the sign that danger is possible and thus the vest exists to protect against it. The bullets hit the vest, not the other way.
That is what is expected of it and yet we see those vests as objects of violence, which then lazy thinking extends into the object being violence.
We often look at men the same way. We expect of them to engage violence and deal with danger. Nobody should feel unsafe around me. I'm a fucking pacifist. But at the same time, they know if danger comes their way that I am expected to volunteer to engage it. And because of that, I am the dangerous one. We often both condemn men for the violent situations that we all expect them to deal with and also praise them for the danger we expect them to deal with.
This extends to dangerous jobs. Policing is a dangerous job. It takes a certain sort of mentality to engage it. Women do less dangerous work and have less job related deaths. We simply cannot compare unalike things to try to create some flowery answer to a situation.
So the only real note in that article is this:
"The reality is that we don’t know exactly why men are exponentially more prone to violence."
And from that, all attempts at making a point falter. The other stats are just as useless. It overlooks that we put men in violent situations and that women do not have that same expectation. There is no basis for any gender related discovery upon policing. For all that article tries, there is simply nothing there to be said. It really is a "I'm not saying.." approach.
Again, as I said, just ignoring the plain realities of DV/sexual assault, especially in this case, chortled really hard at women not thrown into violent situations. The statistics just don't bear out for that. And going beyond statistics plenty of women will tell you their narrow escapes from potentially harmful situations. And even when faced with an actual viable threat to their personhood they're not blowing dudes away. So yeah your logic just doesn't pan out dude.
By reilo Go To PostAggression and abuse doesn't start with physical violence, either.Definitely not, just talking about the issue will net you harassment, threats and doxxing. It would be funny if it wasn't so tragically ironic.
How did this conversation become about Rape?
Anyhow more violence against police today...... I'm actually scared about what happens if this becomes a long term trend
Anyhow more violence against police today...... I'm actually scared about what happens if this becomes a long term trend
By etiolation Go To PostSince you're the only one with any sense to actually engage my ideas, I'm gonna respect you.
First, though, ditch tribalism views. No MRA!!@!@!!@!@ boogieman or anything. Ideas of merit are ideas of merit. The article's idea had little merit.
If you engage that men are violent, you must engage that we put men into violence. I call this the bullet proof vest fallacy. When you see someone with a bullet proof vest on or even if you see that vest in a room, you assume there's danger or that the person is dangerous. However, the vest is the thing violence is done towards. The vest itself is not a weapon. It is only the sign that danger is possible and thus the vest exists to protect against it. The bullets hit the vest, not the other way.
That is what is expected of it and yet we see those vests as objects of violence, which then lazy thinking extends into the object being violence.
We often look at men the same way. We expect of them to engage violence and deal with danger. Nobody should feel unsafe around me. I'm a fucking pacifist. But at the same time, they know if danger comes their way that I am expected to volunteer to engage it. And because of that, I am the dangerous one. We often both condemn men for the violent situations that we all expect them to deal with and also praise them for the danger we expect them to deal with.
This extends to dangerous jobs. Policing is a dangerous job. It takes a certain sort of mentality to engage it. Women do less dangerous work and have less job related deaths. We simply cannot compare unalike things to try to create some flowery answer to a situation.
So the only real note in that article is this:
"The reality is that we don’t know exactly why men are exponentially more prone to violence."
And from that, all attempts at making a point falter. The other stats are just as useless. It overlooks that we put men in violent situations and that women do not have that same expectation. There is no basis for any gender related discovery upon policing. For all that article tries, there is simply nothing there to be said. It really is a "I'm not saying.." approach.
We put men into violent situations? Is there some requirement that we put more men into policing than women? It's a fucking job that people apply for. In fact, the same reason this rings true:
90% of those who commit homicide by any means are male; and 80% of those arrested for all violent crimes — murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault — are male.
Is probably same reason women don't feel like they would fit the standard douchebro mold that almost every cop I ever known seems to adhere too.
That stat I quoted has nothing to do with "being put into a situation". I mean fuck, we just opened up female draft conscription bro. Women are statistically less violent and aggressive. Postulating that this would carry over into the job of policing doesn't seem like a stretch, nor does it seem like an attack against men. Who cares why men are more violent. They are. It seems like the article touched a soar spot for you and you reacted.
By Rob Go To Postwell there goes his respect for you
By etiolation Go To PostI'm not joking about the teaching thing. You really shouldn't be teaching.It's too bad you weren't on any of the committees that have judged me so far. I'm sure your insight would have been valued.
But too bad, I'm part of the feminist conspiracy, buddy. Keeping good men like you down, and indoctrinating their kids with gender equality and communism.
By Fenderputty Go To PostWe put men into violent situations? Is there some requirement that we put more men into policing than women? It's a fucking job that people apply for. In fact, the same reason this rings true:
Is probably same reason women don't feel like they would fit the standard douchebro mold that almost every cop I ever known seems to adhere too.
That stat I quoted has nothing to do with "being put into a situation". I mean fuck, we just opened up female draft conscription bro. Women are statistically less violent and aggressive. Postulating that this would carry over into the job of policing doesn't seem like a stretch, nor does it seem like an attack against men. Who cares why men are more violent. They are. It seems like the article touched a soar spot for you and you reacted.
It is a huge stretch to think it carries over. Comparing violent crime to police work is comparing apples to oranges.
Also, if you don't care why men are more violent or experience more violence then you shouldn't be engaging that very question. (Which the article does and then self-servingly side steps.)
It's cute when MRAs pose as the rational side of a debate when all they do is replicate 19th century prejudice, with literally zero serious literature backing their claims ever since social darwinism has been sent to the trash. They're the climate change deniers of gender studies.
I'm still trying to figure out who these imaginary forces are that put men in violent situations where they're expected to be violent? Other men? Oh duh.
By etiolation Go To PostIt is a huge stretch to think it carries over. Comparing violent crime to police work is comparing apples to oranges.
Also, if you don't care why men are more violent or experience more violence then you shouldn't be engaging that very question. (Which the article does and then self-servingly side steps.)
The comparison is the capacity for violence. Not criminal violence vs police violence.
I thought I was clear that when I said that I didn't care, it meant in this context.
Either way I don't want to derail this thread anymore than it has been so I'll drop it.
