Don’t be so hard on him. He clarified his statement.
2 Likes
There’s something wrong with this headline. (from vox)
4 Likes
Correction: The original headline of this article referred to Cox as a British “PM.” She was a member of Parliament, or MP — not PM, which stands for Prime Minister. We regret the error.
Looks like they fixed it. Americans writing about stuff in other countries is always… dicey.
huh-- no that wasn’t it. It’s just that when articles suggest that "it’s time to admit that x has a misogyny problem, x, be it gaming, or some sports league, or some subculture usually has some redeeming feature that misogyny overshadows, to it’s detriment.
What redeeming feature, what value does violence have? Would violence be something that the whole family could comfortably enjoy if it involved men and women equally?
7 Likes
Oh… well now I feel stupid… x that. Now I feel smarter. Thanks for giving me a new perspective to look through!
1 Like
I’m sure that others will chime in to say that I’ve missed the point entirely.
4 Likes
i just wanted to chime in and say that you’ve missed the point entirely.
8 Likes
Do we need to if you’ve already admitted to missing the point? ;p
2 Likes
Violence is properly aimed at the Capitalists, comrade.
8 Likes
mario princess peach is in another castle
5 Likes
Violence frees the slave, and violence preserves the tribe. Violence is a basic human need, like happiness or sex. The violent execution and dismemberment of other living things feeds the starving.
Women are often socially conditioned to abhor violence and/or express combativeness by inflicting emotional and/or psychological abuse. Nonetheless, while I was in Missouri last week I saw entire families enjoying violence immensely! So empirically, yes, absolutely.
Humans are top predators. Thanks to evolution, most of us require violent physical activity in order to maintain our physical and mental health. Some find that bicycling and Warcraft gets close enough, while others take up martial arts and combat sports, others condemn themselves to a lifetime of unresolvable anger, &etc &soforth.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
The slave is only a slave due to violence in the first place. Were there no violence, there would be no slaves, and thus no need to resort to violence to free the slaves.
Ah. No social conditioning was involved?
2 Likes
work on those thoughts a bit more and you can really bring out that special fascist flavor.
1 Like
Not true, historically. It’s a fascinating subject worth thousands of hours of study. Men and women voluntarily and peacefully enslave themselves with distressing regularity.
However, I’ll be happy to give you that one anyway, because much slavery is involuntary, and it’s not like I need extra support for my argument. Violence is necessary for all but sessile phototropes, whether you free the slaves or not. Man’s gotta eat; slaughtering plants and animals is what we do. You’ve arbitrarily murdered dozens of harmless bacteria while reading this!
1 Like
I find that taking contrarian positions to strangers on the internet resolves most of my anger.
4 Likes
I find that taking contrarian positions to strangers on the internet feels good at the time.
I’m more in the condemn myself to a lifetime of unresolvable anger camp, though, to be honest.
3 Likes
Given the thread we are in, I would posit that economic necessity is a priori a form of violence.
But that the - very arguable - “natural” ingestion of food is not inherently violent.
I am not capable of formulating such a cogent argument without it being so full of holes that I myself could drive several trucks through.
2 Likes
11 Likes
