|
What is important to understand is that the traditional model of man=supporter is rooted in the biological concept of male competition. Males compete with each other to gain access to females because females have the burden of parental investment and therefore are in a position to choose males.
Since society has shifted to egalitarianism, this is no longer true anymore: Men become more invested in raising kids and women become breadwinners as well. All seems fine, however, the biology is still stuck in the old model: Males are biologically optimized for competition and therefore have a slight advantage over females, not only regarding muscle mass, but also regarding hormonal composition and brain wiring. Females on the other hand are biologically optimized for raising kids.
So yes, slight gender differences exist, but egalitarianism tries to cover them up in order to give everyone equal rights. An important concept. If you are going to unleash women into a society optimized for male competition, those women will obviously do worse than men. So what egalitarianism does is to redefine the parameters of what constitutes this competition and most importantly, it is keeping everyone's mouth shut about the existence of those gender differences!
|
Ok, I've been looking everywhere, here and in TL.net. There are NO "I've lost my password" button anywhere. I have my TL logon saved on only one of my three computers(this on a laptop) and find it really irritating to switch pc's everytime I want to comment. It took me like ages to subscribe to TL+ having only one pc with access.
Can someone explain to me how in the world I'm supposed to change my password if I don't remember my old one? 
|
On June 02 2015 21:45 BadAim wrote:Ok, I've been looking everywhere, here and in TL.net. There are NO "I've lost my password" button anywhere. I have my TL logon saved on only one of my three computers(this on a laptop) and find it really irritating to switch pc's everytime I want to comment. It took me like ages to subscribe to TL+ having only one pc with access. Can someone explain to me how in the world I'm supposed to change my password if I don't remember my old one?
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Y9HEBWX.png)
Just open your profile. It doesn't seem like you have to verify your old pw to get the new one.
|
On June 02 2015 21:51 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2015 21:45 BadAim wrote:Ok, I've been looking everywhere, here and in TL.net. There are NO "I've lost my password" button anywhere. I have my TL logon saved on only one of my three computers(this on a laptop) and find it really irritating to switch pc's everytime I want to comment. It took me like ages to subscribe to TL+ having only one pc with access. Can someone explain to me how in the world I'm supposed to change my password if I don't remember my old one? Just open your profile. It doesn't seem like you have to verify your old pw to get the new one.
Ty, but your plan has a slight flaw. My password is only saved on liquiddota not on TL, therefore I have no access to TL.
|
your Country52797 Posts
On June 02 2015 21:53 BadAim wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2015 21:51 Uldridge wrote:On June 02 2015 21:45 BadAim wrote:Ok, I've been looking everywhere, here and in TL.net. There are NO "I've lost my password" button anywhere. I have my TL logon saved on only one of my three computers(this on a laptop) and find it really irritating to switch pc's everytime I want to comment. It took me like ages to subscribe to TL+ having only one pc with access. Can someone explain to me how in the world I'm supposed to change my password if I don't remember my old one? Just open your profile. It doesn't seem like you have to verify your old pw to get the new one. Ty, but your plan has a slight flaw. My password is only saved on liquiddota not on TL, therefore I have no access to TL.
The liquiddota profile page should be the same.
http://www.liquiddota.com/mytlnet/editprofile.php
|
|
|
your Country52797 Posts
|
Ty so much! 
|
if the password is like saved into the computer through like auto log on, should it be in ur browsers settings saved under like "passwords" or something with a button that says show characters
|
On June 02 2015 22:05 Shock710 wrote:
if the password is like saved into the computer through like auto log on, should it be in ur browsers settings saved under like "passwords" or something with a button that says show characters
I'll remember that, ty.
|
On June 02 2015 16:01 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2015 12:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 02 2015 09:52 Rollin wrote:On June 02 2015 06:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Let me put an example:
In a patriarchy, the phrase "you hit like a girl" is an insult.
In a matriarchy, the phrase "you hit like a girl" would be a complement
The goal should be that the phrase "you hit like a girl" is confusing because it doesn't actual mean anything. Hitting like a girl and hitting like a boy shouldn't really register as anything different from each other. Your example makes no sense as regardless of society's perspectives/values, women are statistically weaker than men. That's a fact. It's considered insulting to equate something to a lesser version, so in the context of hitting (strength) where women have lesser strength, it will always be demeaning when said to a man. Saying it to a female is strange though. Usage of the term may decrease and become distasteful though. And the problem you have is the values you place on what is a complement or not. In today's patriarchal society, good throwing is determined by strength. That is not necessarily true in a matriarchal society which might value something else as important in the act of throwing. That's what you don't seem to get. Something being a compliment or an insult depends purely on what is valued in the described topic. "You hit like a girl" as you say, is an emphasis on female weakness. But it's possible that "you hit like a girl" in a matriarchal society is a celebration of the person's grace or form. You being unable to see that shows how limited to patriarchal constructs your point of view is. Because, remember, it's about what is valued (not measured) that determines whether something is patriarchal or matriarchal--and that is because a matriarchal society will value and praise different things than a patriarchal one. Sorry, but no. In a lot of cases, that point can be made, and is a valid argument. In the two cases at hand, no, it can not. Hitting someone has a very specific purpose. Hurting them. Thus, a "good" hit is one that hurt more. That means either more force or more accuracy. No matter how graceful you hit someone, if that punch is worse at accomplishing the underlying goal, it is objectively a worse punch. The same goes for throwing a ball. Here, there are two things that are relevant: Distance and accuracy. Throwing a ball has a very specific goal. Thus, a throw is better if it goes further/faster and/or if it is more accurate. These are very objective criteria for a throw, and judging the throwing of a ball by other criteria does not really make a lot of sense unless you want to completely change the meaning of throwing.Ultimately, the whole goal of throwing something is to get it from A to B, possibly past C. And you can very objectively judge how good a throw is at accomplishing that goal. And in both those cases, men do have a biological advantage, simply because they are on average ~12cm larger and 10kg heavier.
Those are under your patriarchal guidelines with the assumption that that is the only valid value. An since you live in a patriarchal society with heavily misogynistic views, you cannot fathom even the remote possibility of defining different values to the same observed action.
|
Because that is basically the same as completely redefining the whole action. At which point you might as well use a different word entirely. Sure, maybe your hypothetical matriarchic society would have different meanings for different words. I do not find this line of thought very interesting to be honest, as the interesting thing is not the word used, but the concept behind it. If everyone were to call a rose a tomato and a tomato a rose, that would not fundamentally change anything about the world.
A punch is something you do to hurt people. It has a very clearly defined goal, and thus can easily be objectively judged in how good it is at achieving that goal. Thus a good punch is one that is better at hurting people.
I can easily imagine different criteria of judgement to be applied to a variety of actions. For example, a painting can be judged on how good it is at portraying reality, how much emotion it instills in the viewer, the technical difficulty, how innovative it is, and a lot of other criteria. However, this is not true for EVERY action. If an action i supposed to achieve a goal, it is only reasonable to have the effectiveness of that action towards that goal being the main guideline of judging it. Unless of course you think that that line of thought is inherently patriarchical (Which to me sounds pretty misogynistic, implying that women are not effective at doing anything).
In my opinion, there is nothing "patriarchal" or misogynistic in judging actions that are intended to fulfill a singular purpose by their effectiveness to fulfill that purpose. Maybe it is just because i am a stupid patriarchal man, but every other way of judging them sounds incredibly constructed and silly to me.
Just to reiterate. Not every action is one of those. But they do exist. If you have a hammer, the main interesting quality it has is how good it is at punching nails into things. Everything else is secondary. Sure, it being a pretty hammer is nice, but that does only matter if it is good at putting nails into wood, otherwise noone cares.
|
On June 03 2015 00:34 Simberto wrote:
Because that is basically the same as completely redefining the whole action. At which point you might as well use a different word entirely. Sure, maybe your hypothetical matriarchic society would have different meanings for different words. I do not find this line of thought very interesting to be honest, as the interesting thing is not the word used, but the concept behind it. If everyone were to call a rose a tomato and a tomato a rose, that would not fundamentally change anything about the world.
A punch is something you do to hurt people. It has a very clearly defined goal, and thus can easily be objectively judged in how good it is at achieving that goal. Thus a good punch is one that is better at hurting people.
I can easily imagine different criteria of judgement to be applied to a variety of actions. For example, a painting can be judged on how good it is at portraying reality, how much emotion it instills in the viewer, the technical difficulty, how innovative it is, and a lot of other criteria. However, this is not true for EVERY action. If an action i supposed to achieve a goal, it is only reasonable to have the effectiveness of that action towards that goal being the main guideline of judging it. Unless of course you think that that line of thought is inherently patriarchical (Which to me sounds pretty misogynistic, implying that women are not effective at doing anything).
In my opinion, there is nothing "patriarchal" or misogynistic in judging actions that are intended to fulfill a singular purpose by their effectiveness to fulfill that purpose. Maybe it is just because i am a stupid patriarchal man, but every other way of judging them sounds incredibly constructed and silly to me.
Just to reiterate. Not every action is one of those. But they do exist. If you have a hammer, the main interesting quality it has is how good it is at punching nails into things. Everything else is secondary. Sure, it being a pretty hammer is nice, but that does only matter if it is good at putting nails into wood, otherwise noone cares.
Then be accurate with the statement. "You hit like a feather" is more accurate than "you hit like a girl" while "you hit like a hammer" is more accurate than "you hit like a boy"
The only reason boy/girl is used as an indicator is because you live in a society that wants to reinforce women as weaker intrinsically when the truth is that a 6foot 200 lb woman who dead lifts 300 will out punch any man smaller than her. Not because she is more like a man--but because she's a 6foot 200 lb human who can dead lift 300 lbs. phrases such "hit like a girl" reinforces the idea that women outside the predefined roles people expect of them don't exist.
You want to be accurate? You want to be true to life? Use better phrases. Your need to use gender terms for things that could very easily and more accurately use non-gendered terms is you being corrupted by your patriarchal nature.
|
On June 03 2015 01:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2015 00:34 Simberto wrote:
Because that is basically the same as completely redefining the whole action. At which point you might as well use a different word entirely. Sure, maybe your hypothetical matriarchic society would have different meanings for different words. I do not find this line of thought very interesting to be honest, as the interesting thing is not the word used, but the concept behind it. If everyone were to call a rose a tomato and a tomato a rose, that would not fundamentally change anything about the world.
A punch is something you do to hurt people. It has a very clearly defined goal, and thus can easily be objectively judged in how good it is at achieving that goal. Thus a good punch is one that is better at hurting people.
I can easily imagine different criteria of judgement to be applied to a variety of actions. For example, a painting can be judged on how good it is at portraying reality, how much emotion it instills in the viewer, the technical difficulty, how innovative it is, and a lot of other criteria. However, this is not true for EVERY action. If an action i supposed to achieve a goal, it is only reasonable to have the effectiveness of that action towards that goal being the main guideline of judging it. Unless of course you think that that line of thought is inherently patriarchical (Which to me sounds pretty misogynistic, implying that women are not effective at doing anything).
In my opinion, there is nothing "patriarchal" or misogynistic in judging actions that are intended to fulfill a singular purpose by their effectiveness to fulfill that purpose. Maybe it is just because i am a stupid patriarchal man, but every other way of judging them sounds incredibly constructed and silly to me.
Just to reiterate. Not every action is one of those. But they do exist. If you have a hammer, the main interesting quality it has is how good it is at punching nails into things. Everything else is secondary. Sure, it being a pretty hammer is nice, but that does only matter if it is good at putting nails into wood, otherwise noone cares. Then be accurate with the statement. "You hit like a feather" is more accurate than "you hit like a girl" while "you hit like a hammer" is more accurate than "you hit like a boy" The only reason boy/girl is used as an indicator is because you live in a society that wants to reinforce women as weaker intrinsically when the truth is that a 6foot 200 lb woman who dead lifts 300 will out punch any man smaller than her. Not because she is more like a man--but because she's a 6foot 200 lb human who can dead lift 300 lbs. phrases such "hit like a girl" reinforces the idea that women outside the predefined roles people expect of them don't exist. You want to be accurate? You want to be true to life? Use better phrases. Your need to use gender terms for things that could very easily and more accurately use non-gendered terms is you being corrupted by your patriarchal nature.
Wow... We might never use any word or any comparison ever again because there could be some outliner that could make us wrong.
Woman are on average (much) weaker than men, Women in general clearly prefer Men that are bigger and stronger than them. That has nothing to do with a patriarchic or matriarchic society, its just like it is and disputing this or proclaiming that its not pc to say so is just mindboggingly stupid.
|
On June 03 2015 01:28 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2015 01:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 03 2015 00:34 Simberto wrote:
Because that is basically the same as completely redefining the whole action. At which point you might as well use a different word entirely. Sure, maybe your hypothetical matriarchic society would have different meanings for different words. I do not find this line of thought very interesting to be honest, as the interesting thing is not the word used, but the concept behind it. If everyone were to call a rose a tomato and a tomato a rose, that would not fundamentally change anything about the world.
A punch is something you do to hurt people. It has a very clearly defined goal, and thus can easily be objectively judged in how good it is at achieving that goal. Thus a good punch is one that is better at hurting people.
I can easily imagine different criteria of judgement to be applied to a variety of actions. For example, a painting can be judged on how good it is at portraying reality, how much emotion it instills in the viewer, the technical difficulty, how innovative it is, and a lot of other criteria. However, this is not true for EVERY action. If an action i supposed to achieve a goal, it is only reasonable to have the effectiveness of that action towards that goal being the main guideline of judging it. Unless of course you think that that line of thought is inherently patriarchical (Which to me sounds pretty misogynistic, implying that women are not effective at doing anything).
In my opinion, there is nothing "patriarchal" or misogynistic in judging actions that are intended to fulfill a singular purpose by their effectiveness to fulfill that purpose. Maybe it is just because i am a stupid patriarchal man, but every other way of judging them sounds incredibly constructed and silly to me.
Just to reiterate. Not every action is one of those. But they do exist. If you have a hammer, the main interesting quality it has is how good it is at punching nails into things. Everything else is secondary. Sure, it being a pretty hammer is nice, but that does only matter if it is good at putting nails into wood, otherwise noone cares. Then be accurate with the statement. "You hit like a feather" is more accurate than "you hit like a girl" while "you hit like a hammer" is more accurate than "you hit like a boy" The only reason boy/girl is used as an indicator is because you live in a society that wants to reinforce women as weaker intrinsically when the truth is that a 6foot 200 lb woman who dead lifts 300 will out punch any man smaller than her. Not because she is more like a man--but because she's a 6foot 200 lb human who can dead lift 300 lbs. phrases such "hit like a girl" reinforces the idea that women outside the predefined roles people expect of them don't exist. You want to be accurate? You want to be true to life? Use better phrases. Your need to use gender terms for things that could very easily and more accurately use non-gendered terms is you being corrupted by your patriarchal nature. Wow... We might never use any word or any comparison ever again because there could be some outliner that could make us wrong. Woman are on average (much) weaker than men, Women in general clearly prefer Men that are bigger and stronger than them. That has nothing to do with a patriarchic or matriarchic society, its just like it is and disputing this or proclaiming that its not pc to say so is just mindboggingly stupid.
What PC talk are you even trying to bring up? He's trying to talk about accuracy. There are millions of women stronger than millions of men out there. Why not be accurate?
Hits like a hammer
Hits like a truck
Hits like a wrecking ball
There are so many more accurate more visually clean ways to describe something hittin hard. But also for hitting softly.
Weak like the meek
A blow like a pillow
A slap like a clap
Hits like toddler
Hits like a feather
Hits like a snowball
The only reason to ever people in a patriarchy say "hits like a girl" is because they believe that women should be defined as weak when there's a near infinite amount of other things out there that hits weaker. The reason objects aren't used is because in a patriarchy women are seen as no more than just objects.
|
Mexico2170 Posts
Yeah I think that phrase comes from the fact that a man and a woman of the same height/weight is stronger than her. Frankly, I think a lot of people read too much into that kind of phrases, I have never seen a girl in real life complaining about that phrase.
Also you know what I find funny? That those guys talking about matriachal and patriachal societies are guys defending shit that doesn't matter.
For example, I have an uncle, who went on a crussade against racism towards black people, he is white, he didn't understand shit about people being racist, there was a bread here in mexico called "negrito" which is like, "little black" or soemthing, it was covered in chocolate so the bread was black. The "mascot" of the bread was a white guy with an afro. My uncle and a bunch of other people went on a crusade to change the name of the bread because it was suppousedly racist, and they succeded and the name of the brand was changed.
I've got a couple of black friends and you know what they said? That it was stupid, none of them were offended because of the name of the bread because there was nothing to be offended about.
Same with this, a lot of people try to see things and injustices and shit where there aren't. "you hit like a girl" would have the same meaning on a matriarch society or patriach, because its a phrase mostly used by men, with the meaning that your punches are weak, comparing them to the punches of a girl wich yeah, are weaker on average.
About the acurracy topic, huh well I guess saying your punches are weak is more accurate but, huh, tbh Idk what the point of this disscussion is anymore.
|
The point of the discussion is that we patriarchal and matriarchal societies are both willing to have less accurate phrases and descriptions both in an attempt to justify one sex as being superior to the other when we really shouldn't care either or. They are side effects to a larger problem. You fix the patriarchy and all the other little things (like phrases such as "you hit like a girl") goes away. Replace it with a matriarchy and you simply change the goal posts. Equality is the goal, you guys justifyin the rightness of patriarchal practices is a symptom of the problem.
|
On June 03 2015 01:28 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2015 01:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 03 2015 00:34 Simberto wrote:
Because that is basically the same as completely redefining the whole action. At which point you might as well use a different word entirely. Sure, maybe your hypothetical matriarchic society would have different meanings for different words. I do not find this line of thought very interesting to be honest, as the interesting thing is not the word used, but the concept behind it. If everyone were to call a rose a tomato and a tomato a rose, that would not fundamentally change anything about the world.
A punch is something you do to hurt people. It has a very clearly defined goal, and thus can easily be objectively judged in how good it is at achieving that goal. Thus a good punch is one that is better at hurting people.
I can easily imagine different criteria of judgement to be applied to a variety of actions. For example, a painting can be judged on how good it is at portraying reality, how much emotion it instills in the viewer, the technical difficulty, how innovative it is, and a lot of other criteria. However, this is not true for EVERY action. If an action i supposed to achieve a goal, it is only reasonable to have the effectiveness of that action towards that goal being the main guideline of judging it. Unless of course you think that that line of thought is inherently patriarchical (Which to me sounds pretty misogynistic, implying that women are not effective at doing anything).
In my opinion, there is nothing "patriarchal" or misogynistic in judging actions that are intended to fulfill a singular purpose by their effectiveness to fulfill that purpose. Maybe it is just because i am a stupid patriarchal man, but every other way of judging them sounds incredibly constructed and silly to me.
Just to reiterate. Not every action is one of those. But they do exist. If you have a hammer, the main interesting quality it has is how good it is at punching nails into things. Everything else is secondary. Sure, it being a pretty hammer is nice, but that does only matter if it is good at putting nails into wood, otherwise noone cares. Then be accurate with the statement. "You hit like a feather" is more accurate than "you hit like a girl" while "you hit like a hammer" is more accurate than "you hit like a boy" The only reason boy/girl is used as an indicator is because you live in a society that wants to reinforce women as weaker intrinsically when the truth is that a 6foot 200 lb woman who dead lifts 300 will out punch any man smaller than her. Not because she is more like a man--but because she's a 6foot 200 lb human who can dead lift 300 lbs. phrases such "hit like a girl" reinforces the idea that women outside the predefined roles people expect of them don't exist. You want to be accurate? You want to be true to life? Use better phrases. Your need to use gender terms for things that could very easily and more accurately use non-gendered terms is you being corrupted by your patriarchal nature. Wow... We might never use any word or any comparison ever again because there could be some outliner that could make us wrong. Woman are on average (much) weaker than men, Women in general clearly prefer Men that are bigger and stronger than them. That has nothing to do with a patriarchic or matriarchic society, its just like it is and disputing this or proclaiming that its not pc to say so is just mindboggingly stupid.
"its just like it"
great argument you got there buddy
|
Dude. That's not fucking true. The "girl" in the phrase is the typical frail girl I think we've all seen before. They do exist. The phrase has this fucking connotation. It's not even a general kind of way to be condescending to all girls because you'd never picture a deadlifting woman when you utilize that phrase.
Also, what's so hard to accept that on a purely biological point of view, men and women are different and women are generally weaker than men. You can't argue for a purely equal system when the parties in that system are inherently different from eachother. Yes, you should treat eachother equally and not discriminate eachother based on sex, but that's just because we are also both human fucking beings. People seriously needto start growing the fuck up about them taking offense to just about every little thing that they come across. Pointing fingers at every little thing that "could be" patriarchal indoctrination, simply clouds the more stringent problems at hand: babies are still being circumsized and raped. Women in middle eastern countries are still harshly oppressed because sharia, sexuality is being exploited for all the wrong reasons and human trafficking is still going strong (sex industry is still fucked up to a very large extent).
Also, your millions and millions of women example pales when there are literally billions of women in the world. 1% is not statistically significant, and even then, what the fuck would it matter if a minority of women are stronger?
We really have to stop arguing in this thread about this topic though, because it's getting out of hand. I suggest making a new topic or bumping an old, already existing one, if you want to debate it further, because this is not the main point of this thread.
|
Then stop making it be about justifying your use of a phrase laced with connotations and bring it to the actual topic of the fact that people should be more accurate in what they say without having to use derogation to make the same tired statements. Just accept that you should try to be better than the derogatory nature of your culture and leave it at that. Lots of racists and misogynisy terms are used everyday. The fact that people find them normal/okay *is* the problem with the system. Just because you and your friends are okay being derogatory does not mean it's okay to be derogatory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/XfDumwZ.png)
