YouTube Spotlight?

What the hell is this? United Nations "change ambassadors"?

https://www.youtube.com/user/YouTube

YouTube Spotlight on: why Islam is cool and trendy and woman-friendly

YouTube Spotlight on: let's get offended about stupid crap and get rid of all societal structures including gender roles.

YouTube Spotlight on: our UN ambassadors on more stupid crap that doesn't matter

YouTube Spotlight on: A sprinkle of glitter?

YouTube Spotlight on: the Illuminati controlled music industry
 
I think since Women's Day just passed that's what is trending on Youtube?

Perhaps they are tricksters though, dissolving societal structures so that something new may emerge?
 
Well the link showed up on Google's home page and since Google said it was about the UN, I clicked to see what it was... And the channel says it is all about these UN ambassadors and a platform for them to speak on their issues.

I donno I just hate having it all shoved in my face all the time. I hate how they are trying to make Islam seem trendy and liberal when it is just not and it is a religion used by millions around the world to oppress women and imprison people with fear. I also dislike how they obsess over gender and pop culture nonsense.

And it's just funny to me that "A Sprinkle of Glitter" is given a position of authority in our world government. Well maybe that's what we need. Maybe a sprinkle of glitter in Syria and North Korea could avert WW3. :)

I am sure this is the trickster at work! I have thought a lot about the campaign to blur gender roles in this respect. If you want to tear society down and rebuild it as you please, this is surely one of the first steps.

I don't care how people want to express their sexuality. I just don't want men to be shamed for expressing masculinity or women to be shamed for expressing femininity.
 
If "A Sprinkle of Glitter" gets a voice at the UN for her fancy YouTube vids, I demand Colion Noir and Alex Jones and Alex Tsakiris get seats as well. ;)
 
I guess I don't really think gender roles are a necessary foundation of society? Though I agree people should be free to choose for themselves what roles they wish to play.

I think the gender stuff is trending because it was Women's Day. For myself I don't really feel like this stuff is in my face personally? I don't have much interaction with these Youtube channels though.

Islam just seems like any other religion to me, which means it can easily be used as a tool of oppression but I don't know if that makes it impossible for it to be liberal? It seems any old world religion can be utilized to oppress women? Even Buddhism, IIRC, has some sexist elements? Maybe Taoism and certain indigenous faiths are free from this? (I wouldn't the neo-pagan stuff since it's not clear how historical their roots are.)

It it a bit odd that the Change Ambassadors, at first glance, don't seem to be doing much. Seems more like make up tips and such rather than building schools for girls or battered women's shelters. But then as a corporation I guess it's not too surprising they focus on fluffy feel good stuff?
 
I guess I don't really think gender roles are a necessary foundation of society? Though I agree people should be free to choose for themselves what roles they wish to play.

I think the gender stuff is trending because it was Women's Day. For myself I don't really feel like this stuff is in my face personally? I don't have much interaction with these Youtube channels though.

Islam just seems like any other religion to me, which means it can easily be used as a tool of oppression but I don't know if that makes it impossible for it to be liberal? It seems any old world religion can be utilized to oppress women? Even Buddhism, IIRC, has some sexist elements? Maybe Taoism and certain indigenous faiths are free from this? (I wouldn't the neo-pagan stuff since it's not clear how historical their roots are.)

It it a bit odd that the Change Ambassadors, at first glance, don't seem to be doing much. Seems more like make up tips and such rather than building schools for girls or battered women's shelters. But then as a corporation I guess it's not too surprising they focus on fluffy feel good stuff?

Thanks, Sciborg. Strange to see someone defending sex-roles here while decrying a religion he believes oppresses women. (I am not saying that this religion does not oppress women, btw.) I haven't seen anyone shamed in any real way for men expressing "masculinity" or women expressing "femininity" in this (Western) society. It's usually the other way around!

Men are shamed for not living up to masculine ideals, particularly gay men. And women are shamed for not living up to feminine ideals, particularly butch (often lesbian) women. The idea there is an inherent "man brain" and "woman brain" that makes people behave, dress and act a certain way seems inherently sexist to me. And yes, I have looked at the research. :P

Hurmanetar, perhaps you can elaborate on what you mean?
 
Thanks, Sciborg. Strange to see someone defending sex-roles here while decrying a religion he believes oppresses women. (I am not saying that this religion does not oppress women, btw.) I haven't seen anyone shamed in any real way for men expressing "masculinity" or women expressing "femininity" in this (Western) society. It's usually the other way around!

Men are shamed for not living up to masculine ideals, particularly gay men. And women are shamed for not living up to feminine ideals, particularly butch (often lesbian) women. The idea there is an inherent "man brain" and "woman brain" that makes people behave, dress and act a certain way seems inherently sexist to me. And yes, I have looked at the research. :P

Hurmanetar, perhaps you can elaborate on what you mean?

I'll try and elaborate what I mean when I get some time. Got to make sure I word things very carefully! Been a busy day.
 
Okay finally have some time to respond... With the oil and gas bust my business is realllllly slow; however, since none of our customers are actually working on any real projects right now they don't have anything else to do except shop around endlessly which means I am getting flooded with quote requests.

Anyway... I might be a little loquacious since I've had a few beers on an empty stomach after working outside all day on no sleep because I have to wake up every two hours to put eye drops in my Boston terrier's infected eye which makes her look like she's turning into a zombie...

Okay I'm stalling because I'm afraid anything I say on the subject is going to be perceived as bigoted or misogynistic. I know there's lots of liberals on here. Just keep in mind that when I took that political compass test I came out left of center! ;) and of course strongly libertarian.

We live in luxury. Most of our lives are far removed from serious conflict. So we find it hard to recall that nature is full of conflict and so is human history.

Civilizations go through cycles: oppression > rebellion / revolution > freedom > prosperity > complacency > corruption > destruction > oppression.

Since human nature and nature in general result in predator/prey relationships, conflict and a fight for survival will always be part of life on planet earth - at least for the foreseeable future.

When a civilization reaches the prosperous complacent phase, the people are ripe for hungry prey. The implosion or conquering of the ripe civilization applies selective pressure on the people and their communities. There are certain qualities of societies and communities that make them better able to handle conflict and therefore survive. And even if they do not survive, the memory of their heroic struggle will be immortalized in history and inspire future generations to strive for their ideals thereby influencing future generations.

One quality that improves a generation is a cohesive and stable family unit. The family unit is the kernel and building block of all civilizations. Outside of individual mental sanity, it is the smallest of human relational structures and therefore foundational for larger societal structures.

Men and women are different. They have different strengths and weaknesses both physically and mentally which make them better adapted to certain roles - gender roles. All species of animals do this - segregate the labor and responsibilities by gender. This is not a matter of religion.. It's just about what is most efficient and effective for survival and the raising and equipping of the next generation for survival. You don't use a hammer on screws or a driver on nails. You use what is best adapted to the task. Now certain religions have attempted to codify these natural tendencies into written law or scripture. Some more effectively and nobly than others.

Without gender roles women and men attempt to do what they are not best adapted for. Power struggles occur within the family. Children are confused about how to behave.

It is easy for us who are 30+ years old and who have achieved a place of comfort and stability in life to forget how excruciatingly confusing and difficult it was growing up - especially during puberty. We have instincts but we also need social cues to help us figure things out. The idea that kids need 100% freedom to decide how to behave is anti-structural which leads to lack of societal structure which makes the society more easily conquered by better organized competitors.

One mark of an "advancing" civilization is that the physically weak are treated better and with more patience and compassion than in a less advanced society. Women are physically weaker than men so unfortunately they have been grossly abused in less advanced civilizations.

The Koran codifies abuse of women and this is evident in the widespread mistreatment of women in Islam. The Bible has some questionable and negative statements about women in the OT, but is generally more uplifting to women than Islam - especially in the NT. "Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her." "I made a covenant with my eyes not to look lustfully at a woman." "Anyone who looks lusrfully at a woman has committed adultery with her in his heart." "What God has joined together let man not separate. (No divorce)" Christianity requires that husbands be willing to sacrifice all and endure the most horrible abuse for the sake of their wives. Christianity codifies chivalry and in that respect it us superior to Islam. Christianity commands wives to obey their husbands, while Islam commands husbands to beat their wives into submission. The tales of the Arabian Knights are also shockingly misogynistic, but that's the Islamic culture. Both Islam and Christianity in the West have adapted to more modern liberal standards of treatment of women which I think is a good thing. However I think it is fair to say a majority of Muslims around the world still mistreat and oppress women horribly. Western media is largely silent on these abuses, makes excuses for the Muslims, and tries to make Islam seem cool and trendy.

Now I know there were advances in Islamic civilizations in the past with the mystic Sufis and Algebra and all that. But Islamic culture by and large has a great deal of misogyny and oppression of women baked into it.

I think misogyny is different than recognizing men and women in the family are better adapted to different roles and that the family unit and society in general will be more effective stable and resistant to military conquest by reinforcing these roles.

What these roles are can be somewhat flexible, and I don't think I have to enumerate what they are. I think traditional roles are the ones to which humanity has adapted.

I'm not in favor of completely rigid roles as I know every individual is different and family situations differ and I think it is great and honorable when a woman steps up to do a "man's job" or a man steps up to do a "woman's job" out of creative desire or necessity.

At any rate, I think there has been a multigenerational program in place in the West to attack the family unit and gender roles in order to ease us into conquest. A Brave New World lays it out nicely. This latest social cuing force fed to us by YouTube and Google is just another installment of it.
 
Last edited:
What these roles are can be somewhat flexible, and I don't think I have to enumerate what they are. I think traditional roles are the ones to which humanity has adapted.

I'm not in favor of completely rigid roles as I know every individual is different and family situations differ and I think it is great and honorable when a woman steps up to do a "man's job" or a man steps up to do a "woman's job" out of creative desire or necessity.

Just to give one example... As it came up in the thread on women in the military: I have the utmost respect for women who make it in the military. K9! on this forum is one such woman. However, if I personally were tasked with creating the most effective and efficient combat unit possible, I would select only men for a variety of reasons. Men are typically physically and mentally better adapted to combat. Men are easily distracted by women. Men can become competitive over women. Women can get pregnant. And men who have been trained to be protectors of women typically feel compelled to act more softly or chivalrous towards women. So throwing women into the mix of a combat unit in my estimation reduces its effectiveness and also chips away at societal gender roles (softness and tenderness in women replaced with hardness and harshness and chivalry in men replaced with harshness or indifference towards women) reducing the cohesiveness and effectiveness of the society as a whole.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tim
Anyway... I might be a little loquacious since I've had a few beers on an empty stomach after working outside all day on no sleep because I have to wake up every two hours to put eye drops in my Boston terrier's infected eye which makes her look like she's turning into a zombie...
Okay.
Okay I'm stalling because I'm afraid anything I say on the subject is going to be perceived as bigoted or misogynistic. I know there's lots of liberals on here. Just keep in mind that when I took that political compass test I came out left of center! ;) and of course strongly libertarian.
Interesting. I don't consider myself a liberal (nor conservative) and have libertarian leanings myself, as well as having issues with cries of "bigot!"

We live in luxury. Most of our lives are far removed from serious conflict. So we find it hard to recall that nature is full of conflict and so is human history.
Agreed.
One quality that improves a generation is a cohesive and stable family unit. The family unit is the kernel and building block of all civilizations. Outside of individual mental sanity, it is the smallest of human relational structures and therefore foundational for larger societal structures.
True, this is sociology 101. The family is the foundation that community and later institutions are made on, though this is slowly changing. Not saying I agree with it changing.
Men and women are different. They have different strengths and weaknesses both physically and mentally which make them better adapted to certain roles - gender roles. All species of animals do this - segregate the labor and responsibilities by gender. This is not a matter of religion.. It's just about what is most efficient and effective for survival and the raising and equipping of the next generation for survival. You don't use a hammer on screws or a driver on nails. You use what is best adapted to the task. Now certain religions have attempted to codify these natural tendencies into written law or scripture. Some more effectively and nobly than others.
Umm, yes, I do think that men and women are different physically, but what do you mean when you say we are different "mentally"? And are you advocating for social Darwinism here?

Without gender roles women and men attempt to do what they are not best adapted for. Power struggles occur within the family. Children are confused about how to behave.
What does this mean?

It is easy for us who are 30+ years old and who have achieved a place of comfort and stability in life to forget how excruciatingly confusing and difficult it was growing up - especially during puberty. We have instincts but we also need social cues to help us figure things out. The idea that kids need 100% freedom to decide how to behave is anti-structural which leads to lack of societal structure which makes the society more easily conquered by better organized competitors.
I thought that, as a libertarian, you would be against current social structures?




Okay finally have some time to respond... With the oil and gas bust my business is realllllly slow; however, since none of our customers are actually working on any real projects right now they don't have anything else to do except shop around endlessly which means I am getting flooded with quote requests.

Anyway... I might be a little loquacious since I've had a few beers on an empty stomach after working outside all day on no sleep because I have to wake up every two hours to put eye drops in my Boston terrier's infected eye which makes her look like she's turning into a zombie...

Okay I'm stalling because I'm afraid anything I say on the subject is going to be perceived as bigoted or misogynistic. I know there's lots of liberals on here. Just keep in mind that when I took that political compass test I came out left of center! ;) and of course strongly libertarian.

We live in luxury. Most of our lives are far removed from serious conflict. So we find it hard to recall that nature is full of conflict and so is human history.

Civilizations go through cycles: oppression > rebellion / revolution > freedom > prosperity > complacency > corruption > destruction > oppression.

Since human nature and nature in general result in predator/prey relationships, conflict and a fight for survival will always be part of life on planet earth - at least for the foreseeable future.

When a civilization reaches the prosperous complacent phase, the people are ripe for hungry prey. The implosion or conquering of the ripe civilization applies selective pressure on the people and their communities. There are certain qualities of societies and communities that make them better able to handle conflict and therefore survive. And even if they do not survive, the memory of their heroic struggle will be immortalized in history and inspire future generations to strive for their ideals thereby influencing future generations.

One quality that improves a generation is a cohesive and stable family unit. The family unit is the kernel and building block of all civilizations. Outside of individual mental sanity, it is the smallest of human relational structures and therefore foundational for larger societal structures.

Men and women are different. They have different strengths and weaknesses both physically and mentally which make them better adapted to certain roles - gender roles. All species of animals do this - segregate the labor and responsibilities by gender. This is not a matter of religion.. It's just about what is most efficient and effective for survival and the raising and equipping of the next generation for survival. You don't use a hammer on screws or a driver on nails. You use what is best adapted to the task. Now certain religions have attempted to codify these natural tendencies into written law or scripture. Some more effectively and nobly than others.

Without gender roles women and men attempt to do what they are not best adapted for. Power struggles occur within the family. Children are confused about how to behave.

It is easy for us who are 30+ years old and who have achieved a place of comfort and stability in life to forget how excruciatingly confusing and difficult it was growing up - especially during puberty. We have instincts but we also need social cues to help us figure things out. The idea that kids need 100% freedom to decide how to behave is anti-structural which leads to lack of societal structure which makes the society more easily conquered by better organized competitors.

One mark of an "advancing" civilization is that the physically weak are treated better and with more patience and compassion than in a less advanced society. Women are physically weaker than men so unfortunately they have been grossly abused in less advanced civilizations.

The Koran codifies abuse of women and this is evident in the widespread mistreatment of women in Islam. The Bible has some questionable and negative statements about women in the OT, but is generally more uplifting to women than Islam - especially in the NT. "Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her." "I made a covenant with my eyes not to look lustfully at a woman." "Anyone who looks lusrfully at a woman has committed adultery with her in his heart." "What God has joined together let man not separate. (No divorce)" Christianity requires that husbands be willing to sacrifice all and endure the most horrible abuse for the sake of their wives. Christianity codifies chivalry and in that respect it us superior to Islam. Christianity commands wives to obey their husbands, while Islam commands husbands to beat their wives into submission. The tales of the Arabian Knights are also shockingly misogynistic, but that's the Islamic culture. Both Islam and Christianity in the West have adapted to more modern liberal standards of treatment of women which I think is a good thing. However I think it is fair to say a majority of Muslims around the world still mistreat and oppress women horribly. Western media is largely silent on these abuses, makes excuses for the Muslims, and tries to make Islam seem cool and trendy.

Now I know there were advances in Islamic civilizations in the past with the mystic Sufis and Algerbra and all that. But Islamic culture by and large has a great deal of misogyny and oppression of women baked into it.

I think misogyny is different than recognizing men and women in the family are better adapted to different roles and that the family unit and society in general will be more effective stable and resistant to military conquest by reinforcing these roles.

What these roles are can be somewhat flexible, and I don't think I have to enumerate what they are. I think traditional roles are the ones to which humanity has adapted.

I'm not in favor of completely rigid roles as I know every individual is different and family situations differ and I think it is great and honorable when a woman steps up to do a "man's job" or a man steps up to do a "woman's job" out of creative desire or necessity.

At any rate, I think there has been a multigenerational program in place in the West to attack the family unit and gender roles in order to ease us into conquest. A Brave New World lays it out nicely. This latest social cuing force fed to us by YouTube and Google is just another installment of it.
 
I would select only men for a variety of reasons. Men are typically physically and mentally better adapted to combat.
I can see physically but not mentally. What do you mean by that?
Men are easily distracted by women. Men can become competitive over women.
Sounds like men are the problem then, not women.
Women can get pregnant.
I agree.
And men who have been trained to be protectors of women typically feel compelled to act more softly or chivalrous towards women. So throwing women into the mix of a combat unit in my estimation reduces its effectiveness and also chips away at societal gender roles (softness and tenderness in women replaced with hardness and harshness and chivalry in men replaced with harshness or indifference towards women) reducing the cohesiveness and effectiveness of the society as a whole.
Hahaha on the sex roles meaning women are "soft and tender". What are you talking about? Are women or female mammals who "go medieval" on some predator threatening their babies "soft and tender"?

Chivalry, if you care to look into it, was always deeply sexist.

You might also look into male and female socialization. It is not all about "genetics" or male and female stuff.
 
Okay. Interesting. I don't consider myself a liberal (nor conservative) and have libertarian leanings myself, as well as having issues with cries of "bigot!"

Glad we share some common ground. I'd say I'm socially fairly conservative since I was raised in Christianity and still find a great deal of the moral teachings and social structures developed therein to be positive (though not all), but when it comes to the role of the state, I want the state to have as little to do with our lives as possible.

I thought that, as a libertarian, you would be against current social structures?

My libertarian leanings mean I am in favor of decentralized government with minimal power and lots of checks on its power. Government's role, as I see it, should primarily focus on protecting individual liberties and preventing any one group (governmental or corporate) from amassing too much power. Free the markets and let people do whatever they want as long as it is not a hindrance or threat to someone else having the right to do the same.

Despite all this, I have lately begun trying to think about the positive aspects of an expanded role of the state. This is mostly because I've had a libertarian mindset for so long, I'm trying to think about things in a new way and understand the statist mindset. Also because large powerful states make for a great deal of interesting intrigue and history (what would we conspiracy theorists have to live for without all these fantastic conspiracies??). Also, because practically speaking any realized libertarian utopia is likely to be fleeting without a drastic concurrent change in human nature and spirituality.

I am not against social structures. I'm sure there is room for improvement on the prevailing ones and I'm all for that, but I think change should be slow and cautious, so in that sense I am conservative. Radical experimental changes to social structures don't seem to end well. I think that social structures evolve over time and that we got to where we are with them because there were some underlying benefits and wisdom behind them that helped them outlast others. The U.S. has been under a social engineering program for nearly a hundred years that is designed to radically change social structures and make us more easily dominated.

Umm, yes, I do think that men and women are different physically, but what do you mean when you say we are different "mentally"? And are you advocating for social Darwinism here?

I don't advocate social Darwinism in the sense of "might makes right", but I do think that social organizations and ideologies and institutions grow and evolve as they face selective pressure and have different reproduction and survival strategies. And I think that before we dismantle a dominant culture or social organization or ideology or institution, it makes sense to sort through its elements and figure out what propelled it to its place in the ideological food chain and figure out what elements of it are worth keeping around and what the consequences will be if it is destroyed and what will replace it.

I think the physiological differences between men and women transition seamlessly into mental differences. For example, hormones have a great deal to do with physical development as well as temperament. Males are naturally inclined to be more aggressive and interested in combat and mechanical performance tools and toys (cars, guns, boats, gear etc.) and tactics and non-emotional type information while women are typically naturally more inclined to make emotional connections and be interested in relationships and feelings. Women are generally better at multi-tasking and men are generally better at compartmentalizing. Most men find bad sights and smells highly entertaining and most women find them gross.

Do you think men and women are mentally the same?

I also think it is possible and highly likely that there is a metaphysical component to masculinity and femininity - a male and female principle of the universal creative spirit which manifests itself in various forms.

True, this is sociology 101. The family is the foundation that community and later institutions are made on, though this is slowly changing. Not saying I agree with it changing.

Cool. By the way I've never had any sociology courses or formal training in any of this, so this is just what I've picked up from reading to and listening to a lot of stuff. If you have any formal education on it and see where I've got things amiss, let me know!

Without gender roles women and men attempt to do what they are not best adapted for. Power struggles occur within the family. Children are confused about how to behave.
What does this mean?

One example I gave was women in military combat roles. Women are not as well adapted for this role as men. By encouraging boys and girls in directions and behaviors which are supported by their physiology and mentality we set them up for more success in their endeavors. If someone is tone deaf you don't encourage them to pursue a career in music. If a guy is short and light you don't encourage him to shoot for the NFL. So there are all kinds of ways where we admit that we can't all do it all and we should choose a path in which we will be more likely to be successful. Children often have instincts and natural inclinations that line up with these gender roles, but it also helps eliminate potential confusion by having the family and society reinforce these roles. I used to teach a group of 4-5 year olds and the boys were always building guns and monsters and space ships out of the LEGOs and running around blowing stuff up. Girls were a lot gentler and less destructive and more relational. In regards to power struggles in the family - I think that anytime you get two or more people together you have to make joint decisions and coordinate actions and sometimes there will be conflict in those decisions and actions. To continue working together as a unit requires leadership. A good leader persuades or inspires others to follow and listens to advice. A bad leader uses force alone and doesn't listen to advice. I think that in a family situation, men are naturally inclined to take the head leadership role. If no one steps up to lead or if the leader is mocked or goaded out of this position, then there is confusion or inaction or lack of coordination. Men also have a deep need to be respected more than they need to feel loved and women have a need to feel loved and desired more than respected (not to say that they don't also feel the need to be respected, just not as deeply as men do).

I would select only men for a variety of reasons. Men are typically physically and mentally better adapted to combat.
I can see physically but not mentally. What do you mean by that?

Men are typically more aggressive and bolder in regards to taking physical risks. A small group of male warriors develops a wolf-pack mentality which creates incredibly strong bonds. Women in groups aren't typically as cohesive - offenses, grudges, and competition (catiness) can more easily break them up. Men are usually better able to compartmentalize emotions and memories in order to focus on the immediate task at hand while women have emotional threads of thought continually popping into mind which can be very intense and sometimes leads to more emotional decisions. Men bond over crass humor and bad smells and can be comfortable while roughing it. Men are less inclined to hold long term grudges and don't need to talk through every personal conflict.

Men are easily distracted by women. Men can become competitive over women.
Sounds like men are the problem then, not women.

Men are naturally inclined to pursue women. That's not a problem unless it is in the wrong way or the wrong time. It just doesn't make sense to take a bunch of guys in their prime with hormones raging and living in close quarters and throw some fit young women in the mix and expect them to have ironclad discipline and not be distracted from the mission or have their ability to make quick crucial decisions compromised by emotional connections or to have rivalries form over the women. You can greatly simplify and streamline things by taking women back out of the mix.

Hahaha on the sex roles meaning women are "soft and tender". What are you talking about? Are women or female mammals who "go medieval" on some predator threatening their babies "soft and tender"?

Of course mamma bear can get vicious when defending her young. I just mean generally women are softer and men are harsher. Men generally find gentleness and softness in women to be appealing and persuasive while a woman barking orders and expletives doesn't easily command respect or a following. In college I did some training in the Marine Corps and at one point had a female Staff Sargent screaming at me for a good 2 minutes. It was not at all intimidating and it was all I could do to not crack a smile. Women can wield a lot of power over men, but not often by using the same methods as men do over other men.

Chivalry, if you care to look into it, was always deeply sexist.

I just meant chivalry in the sense that the stronger should care for and protect and serve the weaker. My girlfriend loves it when I am protective of her or do physically demanding tasks for her or treat her in a superior manner or provide symbols of this (like opening her door or giving her first choice on this or that) and I love to be her hero. I would feel weak and pathetic and unworthy of respect if those roles were reversed.

What do you mean by "sexist" and what are the sexist origins of Chivalry?

Also surprising. Once again voting for the duopoly, with Trump playing the fascist "strong-man"?

I don't see Trump as being merely the "right" option in the left/right dialectic of control. I think he is truly an outsider and the power structure abhors him. As Newt Gingrich said recently, "he hasn't been through the initiation rites. He's not part of the Secret Society." I think the deep state is following a long term plan to phase out American and Western national power structures and ideals and liberty culture in order to make a malleable Brave New World type social order that is more easily controlled by a technocratic elite. I think Trump is opposed to these efforts. He is truly independent and uncontrolled. He is talking about a lot of things that have been off limits for the controlled politicians and media. He has been opposed to our actions in Iraq and Syria and Libya. He harps on the enormous amount of waste in government. He has pointed out that we created ISIS. He would rather support Russia and work cooperatively with Russia whereas the others want to start WWIII with Russia. He is opposed to globalism and the manipulated centrally controlled financial system.

The main things I disagree with him on are torture and the wall. I don't think torture is ever ethical and it opens the door for forced confessions so the intelligence gathered from it is not trustworthy. The talk of a wall is stupid and I hope it is just a symbol of his intent to follow existing immigration laws which would solve the problem. Currently the Border Patrol has been ordered to completely stand down on enforcing immigration law and they are actually completing the smuggling process of illegal immigrants into the U.S. You can't go into Mexico or any other country and say, "I'm here. I'm not leaving. I want a job and free healthcare." You'll get arrested and deported. I had to go to Canada last year to do some warranty repair work and the Canadian border agent questioned me for half an hour before letting me in the country just to be sure I wasn't planning on working long term and staying. Why can't we just follow our own laws and do the same? But the flood of illegal immigrants is being used as a weapon by the deep state against the people and culture of the West and that is why it continues unabated.

What are your main objections to Trump? And who is your candidate of choice and why?
 
Last edited:
I think the physiological differences between men and women transition seamlessly into mental differences. For example, hormones have a great deal to do with physical development as well as temperament. Males are naturally inclined to be more aggressive and interested in combat and mechanical performance tools and toys (cars, guns, boats, gear etc.) and tactics and non-emotional type information while women are typically naturally more inclined to make emotional connections and be interested in relationships and feelings. Women are generally better at multi-tasking and men are generally better at compartmentalizing. Most men find bad sights and smells highly entertaining and most women find them gross.

Do you think men and women are mentally the same?

Hi Hurmanetar, I thought you might find this interesting or at least something to take into account with respect to the question of real gender differences.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/11/brains-men-and-women-aren-t-really-different-study-finds
http://www.pnas.org/content/112/50/15468

....
n the new study, researchers led by Daphna Joel, a behavioral neuroscientist at Tel Aviv University in Israel, tried to be as comprehensive as possible. Using existing sets of MRI brain images, they measured the volume of gray matter (the dark, knobby tissue that contains the core of nerve cells) and white matter (the bundles of nerve fibers that transmit signals around the nervous system) in the brains of more than 1400 individuals.....
.....
The majority of the brains were a mosaic of male and female structures, the team reports online today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Depending on whether the researchers looked at gray matter, white matter, or the diffusion tensor imaging data, between 23% and 53% of brains contained a mix of regions that fell on the male-end and female-end of the spectrum. Very few of the brains ”between 0% and 8%” contained all male or all female structures. There is no one type of male brain or female brain, Joel says
.....
So how to explain the idea that males and females seem to behave differently? That too may be a myth, Joel says. Her team analyzed two large datasets that evaluated highly gender stereotypical behaviors, such as playing video games, scrapbooking, or taking a bath. Individuals were just as variable for these measures: Only 0.1% of subjects displayed only stereotypically-male or only stereotypically-female behaviors.


[Edit] So my take on this is that, yes there are physiological differences between men and wormen but that is only a general statement. When it comes to individual men and women, those physiological differences, as exhibited in brain structures for example, may be more or less different between a single man a single women, or even between to women or between two men. I think it is very difficult to draw specific conclusions about what can or cannot define an individual person based purely on generalized concepts and statistical data. Each individual is a unique being in all senses of that word.
 
Last edited:
There's a whole plethora of things to be said on the subject, but generally speaking they cannot be said. It's not acceptable to question tenets of feminism, so I don't think it's fair to ask for those criticisms here and expect a straightforward answer from someone who doesn't want to cross a social line. How can one have an open discussion like that? I would imagine on a forum there are countless numbers waiting to pounce on the slightest misuse of phrase to put it in perspective. As I see it, the subject is simply off the table for dialogue. In all fairness, it's a touchy subject for good reason. And I think it's legitimate for one to worry that valid criticism might jeopardize beneficial gains: baby/bath water . . .

All of that said, and in spite of all that, I will make a couple soft points about what started this: shaming of new roles or old roles. How are men viewed now? They're viewed as either buffoons/clowns or as violent psychopaths. Sometimes, certainly, they're seen as lesser versions: the drunk, bad father (where the sane, responsible mother has to bear with the idiocy and see to practical matters for years, stoically, without complaint.) And it's not always as bad as complete buffoon, but rather a generally toothless, goofball. The myth of The Good King for a man is out of style and ne'er seen. And would in fact be generally ridiculed.

As far as gender roles go, it's not really something open for "figuring out" and then encouraging. Gender roles are decided by the opposite sex during their peak sexual period, when they have the most options sexually. Who they choose and the types they choose determine the opposite sex's gender role. What type guys do gorgeous 21 year old girls choose? Of course this applies equally to anti or non mainstream groups: artistic/intellectual for instance, (also homosexual), though in different ways. If the most desirable (by guys) girls choose non-violent, nice guys who meditate, then that will do more than anything else to push the male gender role that direction. Stop and contemplate that Charles Manson has a young girlfriend but many nice guys you know don't.

Concerning the president: I believe the entire election and the candidates are controlled. Trump is uber easy for liberals to hate. Bernie is uber easy for conservatives to hate. This is how division is maintained. If it weren't controlled, it would be easy-ish to voice points/find a candidate that a lot of opposing camps could unite on . . .
 
Last edited:
Hi Hurmanetar, I thought you might find this interesting or at least something to take into account with respect to the question of real gender differences.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/11/brains-men-and-women-aren-t-really-different-study-finds
http://www.pnas.org/content/112/50/15468

Thanks for the links.

[Edit] So my take on this is that, yes there are physiological differences between men and wormen but that is only a general statement. When it comes to individual men and women, those physiological differences, as exhibited in brain structures for example, may be more or less different between a single man a single women, or even between to women or between two men. I think it is very difficult to draw specific conclusions about what can or cannot define an individual person based purely on generalized concepts and statistical data. Each individual is a unique being in all senses of that word.

I agree. Every person is unique both physically and mentally, and we all have a mixture of male and female characteristics, but we can still make generalizations and stereotypes based on trends and this is fine for discussions about large groups as long as we are not "fundamentalists" about these generalities and are able to suspend them to treat people as individuals during personal interactions.

Why does nature divide us up in to sexes anyway? (I know not all plants and animals reproduce sexually, but many many many do.) I don't think there is anything wrong with female or male sexes nor is there anything wrong with ideals forming around these sexes. By establishing poles, creating division, and then coming back together in unity and cooperation with complimentary rather than identical traits, something new is created. But there is now a big push towards androgyny and the blurring of these boundaries which is anti-structural and creates confusion. I'm a male right now. Maybe I'll reincarnate as a female next... who knows? But while I'm here and male, I'm going to go all the way male and use the strengths it affords me and work on the weaknesses. If I come back as a female, I'll use the strengths that body and identity affords me and work on the weaknesses. Diversity makes things interesting. :)
 
Thank you, Humanetar, for your respectful answer.

I do actually disagree with you on a lot of issues, but I have been down this road before. I think arguing here is not going to lead to any sort of agreement. I do appreciate that you maintained a respectful tone and did not resort to name-calling (or worse, threats), which is what I usually experience when discussing these issues.

However, and I do like you, but I cannot get past the Trump support. I thought you were awake to media propaganda, and candidates, in order to be where they are, have no personal moral code?

I will never vote for a republican or democrat again, no matter how much the media tries to scare me into voting for one of them. Anyway, posted on the Trump thread urging people to read the "book within a book" in 1984.

Also:

"O’Brien silenced him by a movement of his hand. ‘We control matter because we control the mind. Reality is inside the skull. You will learn by degrees, Winston. There is nothing that we could not do. Invisibility, levitation — anything. I could float off this floor like a soap bubble if I wish to. I do not wish to, because the Party does not wish it. You must get rid of those nineteenth-century ideas about the laws of Nature. We make the laws of Nature.’"
...
"And yet he knew, he KNEW, that he was in the right. The belief that nothing exists outside your own mind — surely there must be some way of demonstrating that it was false? Had it not been exposed long ago as a fallacy? There was even a name for it, which he had forgotten. A faint smile twitched the corners of O’Brien’s mouth as he looked down at him. ‘I told you, Winston,’ he said, ‘that metaphysics is not your strong point. The word you are trying to think of is solipsism."
 
Back
Top