9 Likes
18 Likes
It is a bullshit argument! Because you are responding to what I said under the pretense that it was something else.
FWIW, I donât believe in âopposing viewsâ. I specifically said that polarized thinking is inaccurate and unproductive.
4 Likes
Sure you do. Iâve seen what modern feminism actually is, and what it amounts to. You seem to believe itâs unknowable due to personal experience dictating what it means to the individual. Iâd call that an opposing view right there.
1 Like
Clearly, we were all better off when men could beat us when ever they saw fit, we could be fired for daring to get pregnant (or married, or whatever), no one thought rape was a crime, and we spent all our times tending to others in our lives, ignoring our own needs⌠/s
20 Likes
Except that I am admitting that I cannot possibly know what it ultimately is - only what I think about it right now based upon my limited experience.
In contrast, you are stating that you somehow know exactly what it is all about, for everyone! As positions go, I do not need to personally disagree with this, but I do think this claim is demonstrably untrue.
3 Likes
Good insight. Maybe this helps explain why bigots so often use liberal as a pejorative. They perceive that liberals have contempt for them and return the favor enthusiastically.
2 Likes
Thatâs pretty ironic. You sound a hell of a lot like all the christian fundies crying about how persecuted they are now that gay people can get married.
Youâre just bitching about how your gender is slowly losing its long and undeserved hegemony.
If you canât recognize the systemic and societal unfairness in the way men and women are being treated, I dare say youâre either intentionally not looking (boy that cognitive dissonance stings), or just lying.
18 Likes
?? No one owes you a discussion for a short rant about how no one listens to you.
Your post and previous posts generally consist of you calling people assholes, particularly your first post in this topic, you try to give them banners and tell them that freedom of speech is having to argue with you and accuse people of thinking youâre an asshole because youâre a man instead of realizing you sound like an asshole and thatâs why people think that.
But hey, go all MRA, you go boy! Stand up for us all, show them you tha man! You can stop those elite superior SJWâs that hold you back so and vilify you personally⌠YOU CAN DO IT LIL TROOPER!! YOU CAN DO IT!
20 Likes
As a loser Iâm insulted at all these jerks sullying the fine art of being a loser.
5 Likes
What?
These losers hate themselves and project it outwards.
2 Likes
Itâs a pretty good sign of a garbage human being, sure.
Why are we testing this on Halo and then claiming something about âpowerful/dominantâ men? No one who plays Halo is powerful or dominant. Even the best players are most likely not in the upper echelons of society (they spend their time playing and getting good at Halo, which is awesome and fun but not a social mover).
How about we take some data from boardrooms, C-suite executive interactions with their employees, etc? Iâm sure it would be amazing to see. And given a great deal of anecdotal evidence⌠I think youâd find that dominant and powerful men can be just as big of scumbags (likely even more so).
We donât because itâd be impossible to get a proper sample size. Plus a lot of C-suite execs are complete psychopaths who would make it difficult to even collect worthwhile social data.
5 Likes
Ignorite!?
This study just seems⌠eh. unthreatened dudes are less like to be shit bags. Surprise!!! Replace dudes with like⌠anything. âUnthreatened racoons are less likely to be aggressiveâ. Not trying to downplay that some dudes are assholes or #notallanything. But this just seems like something that goes without saying and doesnât really point out anything useful about current society.
But eh whatevers! Glad someone published a paper and furthered their career I guess.
1 Like
People who play Halo can at least win within the rules of the game. Games are good for this (although I am not sure about Halo specifically) because they have a formal, built-in structure, with methods and objectives.
Society in general does not have âechelonsâ for precisely the same reason. Because there are no overarching goals which unambiguously define âsuccessâ at social activity. If my team is playing football, and you are training for decathlon, there is no actual competition between us to measure.
3 Likes
And why does being low-status and non-dominant make us losers, not sure I want to even play that game, let alone win.
I didnât RTF study, but from the chart on the article the correlation seemed to be between antisocial behavior and being good (achieving a high maximum skill level) at an online game; couldnât this as easily point to it being more enjoyable to stick around long enough to get good/achieve a high level at the game if you werenât an asshole?
1 Like
Iâd say thereâs still value in looking at behavior closely. Doing a formal study like this can end up being useful down the line in a field that seems unrelated. But I donât really think the âevolutionary explanationâ is supported by the evidence, at least as far as the abstract and publicly available data goes.
Theyâd be more credible just going from a pure behaviorism analysis than trying to cram this data into an evopsych mold, because I donât think this experiment gives nearly enough new information to justify such wide generalizations about specific group dynamics at a species or gender level.
Iâd like to see it done again with at least a control group doing something non-competitive, perhaps a focus group activity or something.
Iâd also like to see some priming studies done in this way. I think the experiment they designed could be really useful to see how much priming plays a role during gaming interactions like this. Just out of personal curiosity.
6 Likes
Agreed on all points. It really is the âevolutionâ jargon that bugs me now that you point it out. Because this just doesnât seem to point that out. But again⌠Iâm open to being wrong and missing something!
3 Likes
