raocow's talkhaus

Spent all day cleaning up the yard

For future reference Fluffi, thinking about people in terms of groups (like gender, race, etc.) instead of individuals is pretty much always, in most cases, a bad idea. Also, I'm not that knowledgeable on relationships, but I don't think breaking up with someone and then immediately getting together with someone else is that typical (though my high school crush was single for a total of one week during my time knowing her...)

Wow, how uterly rude of me.

I'm very sorry to everyone I insulted with that post.

One word can change the meaning of a sentence conpletely.

Whimsical Calamari wrote:

Leet wrote:age doesnt really excuse blatant sexism

if somebody asks a question to "all [insert gender here]" theres really no way to excuse that

and 15 isnt really that young, its not like hes 8 or something

yeah, it's not like it's an incredibly common way of thinking in a high school environment or anything. surely nobody who grew up going to school (where it's common knowledge that [opposite gender] has cooties)

can you not tell the difference between kindergarten and high school???

i also dont see how saying "lots of people act like this" really makes it any better

(for the record, now that fluffi-dono has apologized, i dont have anything against him anymore and im just responding to others responses)

Leet wrote: can you not tell the difference between kindergarten and high school???

i also dont see how saying "lots of people act like this" really makes it any better

I wasn't saying "kindergarten = high school." A person is a product of their upbringing. Primary school is a part of one's upbringing.
And my point was not that the idea was ok because it's commonplace, just that it is common and it's not the best idea to simply expect someone to hold views which are not quite popular in many places (and especially not places like school, where (at least in America) sitting boy-girl at lunch is treated as punishment for the first half of one's tenure).

You guys always seem upset

i just found out that my dad got rid of my n64 months ago without even telling me

wtf that's not okay i had a lot of memories on that thing im actually really upset

Lunatic Quark wrote:For future reference Fluffi, thinking about people in terms of groups (like gender, race, etc.) instead of individuals is pretty much always a bad idea.

You are generalizing. For example, females (and I'm thinking in groups here) have a generally higher life expectancy, get less money than their male colleagues in most cases, etc.; while these examples might only correlate with being female and are not necessarily caused just by being female, but rather caused by other factors like prevalence of certain workfields, difference in workload caused by cultural and social norms, etc., they still are valid observations. Without thinking in groups in those cases, how could we strive towards equal payment if we never would've thought in groups and thus never discovered that there is a difference?
Problems arise with thinking in groups when there really is no difference in the discussed properties. To take Fluffi's example, males too can dump a girlfriend and have another one immediately afterwards, which might be as baffling for a friend of that guy as it was for Fluffi just now.

Sorry if this doesn't make sense, I haven't been awake for very long.

Fluffi-dono wrote:This is a question to all the girls and women out there

Why is your way of thinking so complicated to understand as a boy/man

My friend broke up with her boyfriend and had a new one right away

This can't be possible

Yeah real girls are too hard to understand, so forget about them and get yourself a perfect 2D waifu. :) :) :)

Also agree with what the guy above me said, you can refer to group of people when there is indeed visible differences between the groups. But you shouldn't refer to a group just because you had a bad experience with one member of that group.

Ugh labels

And I really don't see why we have to bring up the wage gap, it's a cherry picked statistic, and either way sexistic pay is illegal, no serious company does it because being sued is way worse than giving equal pay. It'll even out naturally.

Though in the end media is the problem, they treat people who talk about stuff like "close the wage gap" like angels and usually side with women in most conflicts where all parts are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.

On another note: Here in Sweden, we now have a radical feminist party, they got one out of 20 mandate in our EU election, so they might get a few mandate in our election, which'll be this fall. While they don't outright talk about 'the patriarchy' and 'rape culture' on their website they do talk about 'privilege' use terms such as patriarchal. I am so moving to another country.

My monitor died, and then my computer wouldn't show any visuals at all. Using a new monitor and computer, for now.

In other news, my cousin kept poking me constantly and randomly slapping me when we were in the waiting room to the County Office.

Today's been kind of abysmal.

btw since this is the twitter thread, I have a twitter. But I only use it to upload pictures from my 3DS or Wii U because it was requiered on 3DS.
I though of using it like a real twitter, by writting daily tweets things about my life that nobody cares, but I'm sure I will get bored of it and stop after a week so I didn't do it. （´∀｀）

Bryux wrote:Ugh labels

And I really don't see why we have to bring up the wage gap, it's a cherry picked statistic, and either way sexistic pay is illegal

Paying someone a different amount for the same job is illegal. Giving what is essentially the same job two different names and paying different amounts for each name is completely legal.

There was a deep statistical analysis of US job statistics a while back that found most of the wage gap (I think 80-90% from memory) is due to women tending to have qualifications that lead to lower paying jobs than men (e.g. teaching jobs compared to engineering jobs) or being less qualified in general. However, even when those were taken into account, a slight gap remained that could only be explained by gender. Nevertheless, it's worth asking why women are more likely to have lower-valued qualifications. Is it by choice? Is there a cultural bias encouraging them to make that choice or discouraging them from making other choices? Are there systemic factors that make it harder for women to get qualifications in general? These are all very relevant questions - more relevant in fact than asking why women get paid less for the same job, since that's not as much of a problem in causing the wage gap in general. If it is due to cultural and/or institutional sexism, and it probably is at least to some degree, you need to know exactly how it manifests in order to change it. Trying to tackle an incorrect perception of the problem will get you nowhere.

Bryux wrote:On another note: Here in Sweden, we now have a radical feminist party, they got one out of 20 mandate in our EU election, so they might get a few mandate in our election, which'll be this fall. While they don't outright talk about 'the patriarchy' and 'rape culture' on their website they do talk about 'privilege' use terms such as patriarchal. I am so moving to another country.

although im not challenging your opinions on this particular group for i know little about them, i must say - just because some people use certain terms doesnt mean the term itself's use is bad, just how the peoples are using them badly.

um, that explained nothing, but what im trying to say is 'privilege' being used in a social context is technically a thing, the problem is that the social justice stereotypical people whatever really overstates its affect on life and misuses the word immensely for their own gain.

so, yeah, nothing wrong with the term privilege in theory, its just... ended up driven into the ground to the point where i at least would never use it for fear of looking like those people.

lukaramu wrote:

Lunatic Quark wrote:For future reference Fluffi, thinking about people in terms of groups (like gender, race, etc.) instead of individuals is pretty much always a bad idea.

You are generalizing. For example, females (and I'm thinking in groups here) have a generally higher life expectancy, get less money than their male colleagues in most cases, etc.; while these examples might only correlate with being female and are not necessarily caused just by being female, but rather caused by other factors like prevalence of certain workfields, difference in workload caused by cultural and social norms, etc., they still are valid observations. Without thinking in groups in those cases, how could we strive towards equal payment if we never would've thought in groups and thus never discovered that there is a difference?
Problems arise with thinking in groups when there really is no difference in the discussed properties. To take Fluffi's example, males too can dump a girlfriend and have another one immediately afterwards, which might be as baffling for a friend of that guy as it was for Fluffi just now.

Sorry if this doesn't make sense, I haven't been awake for very long.

Yeah, good point, I wasn't thinking about cases like that when I made the post. Probably should've kept the "pretty much" part in that case. Seems like whenever I'm absolutely sure of something, I end up being wrong or missing something.

Lunatic Quark wrote:Yeah, good point, I wasn't thinking about cases like that when I made the post. Probably should've kept the "pretty much" part in that case. Seems like whenever I'm absolutely sure of something, I end up being wrong or missing something.

thats why you remember that everything you say is ABSOLUTELY never 100% right

can you stop using the word female to refer to women talkhaus it's really creepy

Rénà wrote:can you stop using the word female as a noun talkhaus it's really creepy

Is not female both a noun and an adjective?

And then we have this that happened on my Facebook

starfire wrote:Usually female, when used as a noun, refers to the sex of nonhuman animals. Try using "woman" instead. hth

What about if you're also referring to girls (i.e. younger people) though? "Female" encompasses all ages.

Falky wrote:

starfire wrote:Usually female, when used as a noun, refers to the sex of nonhuman animals. Try using "woman" instead. hth

What about if you're also referring to girls (i.e. younger people) though? "Female" encompasses all ages.

Could ladies work? Cause that's what I use.

cats-on-ice wrote:And then we have this that happened on my Facebook

incredible. some absolutely perfect textbook responses there, right down to the word. how did they manage?

Today I took a picture of Dinkie

Say hi to Dinkie

Thanks for the distraction

Hi there. *waves to cat*

Falky wrote: What about if you're also referring to girls (i.e. younger people) though? "Female" encompasses all ages.

how dare you call girls women

just call them the thing that offends them problem solved