[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Password (For file deletion.)


File: 1570495567242.png (174.67 KB, 768x768, 1:1, Untitled.png) ImgOps Google

As outlined in this video by Now This
In the state of California, Minimum wage is not a livable wage (if you're a single mom just trying to make ends meet).

This video, intended to argue for the raising of minimum wage, raises a common outcry "Minimum wage isn't meant to be a living wage!"

The question I pose is this: How should this hypothetical single mom earn her livable wage? If Minimum wage is meant to be for an unencumbered 15-25 year old to earn job experience, and a single mother is forced to try to live off of that wage, which part of the system is broken, and how would you fix it?
60 posts and 8 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


In the same way that many tyrannical regimes are "democracies". Sure.

>I would take that even further, and say that corporate america cannot help but exploit the workers because that's how capitalism functions as a model, and then there's this additional problem of them essentially having complete control of legislation.
I would disagree. I do not think it is something inherent with capitalism, rather I think it's something inherent with cronyistic governments who facilitate corrupt standards.
Though I suspect you and I disagree on what "exploitation" is.

>Sure, but that kind of agrarian society not subject to rule typically isn't capitalistic.
I know?
But Clam brought up feudalism in regards to concentrations of populations.

>You've named a thing that is essentially pre-capitalism.
I didn't. You just missed the context of this particular line of discussion.
Which I have to admit is a bit odd, considering it's greentexted.
I mean, you know what greentext is, right?
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


My solution would be just to set up a fund people can use after a set amount of time that gives basic moving capital.
Basically, enough to get started somewhere else. Pay for your basic transportation and a bit of rent.

I think you'd find development start naturally as a result. People'd move where the cost of living is low, and work is available. Demand would end up spreading out, and thus, equalize better.

Granted, this idea is expensive. But, so is welfare, and better-off citizens can be taxed. So, hopefully, it should balance out. Granted, that's idealism at play there.


Yes, and that business is a product of globalism. Something I am entirely in favor of stopping.
It'd solve the issues around that particular facet of 'captialism'


File: 1570921625869.png (282.97 KB, 526x353, 526:353, Shy Fluttersmile.png) ImgOps Google

i was talking to a dear friend the other day, about how to address others who you do not agree with. And it got my wondering whether or not our differences came from how our respective cultural communities handle issues thrust upon them

i am an Asian American. in my life, my family, my community, and all people of my culture have a general understanding of how to handle conflict.

There is a sort of put your head down and power through mentality that comes with East Asian culture. A sort of don't punch up, work within the system mentality that comes from millennia of Confucianism.

It gives us the appearance of meekness to the white American majority, but also the appearance of cooperation. A model minority.

On the flip side, black culture does not have this same millennia of Confucianism that East Asian cultures have.

It makes me wonder if, perhaps, it has been presumptuous of me to focus so much on how i have been taught to handle conflict when having discussions on the nature of conflict with my friend.

i believe it is immensely important to understand where another individual is coming from, even if you immensely disagree, and that you will only be understood if you can understand yourself, and that if heads are being butt together, there is not going to be any useful result.

What do you think? i will state as well that i could not think at all of the right way i wanted to word this topic, but still felt it would be good to discuss.
71 posts and 28 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1570950182590.png (287.91 KB, 693x507, 231:169, 26.png) ImgOps Google

People handle things differently because they're different from one another, yes.


File: 1570950475798.jpg (47.01 KB, 426x512, 213:256, futaba-akane-8cb1c8121e39e….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Anyway, I agree that it is best to remain calm and rational, and try to avoid emotion in argument/debate.

>Good debates do not necessarily need a loser.
^this, very much this.
Often, people can find common ground or alternatively pinpoint their source of disagreement to a different balancing of competing values and just agree to disagree on how best to make that balance.

Goodnight, everyone!


File: 1570950574956.png (127.44 KB, 252x305, 252:305, 13.PNG) ImgOps Google

I mean, I agree. I just don't think that's what happened here in the first place, or that it's the practical definition of 'argument' or 'debate'.


File: 1570484894635.png (138.01 KB, 800x350, 16:7, mlp-twilight-sparkle-readi….png) ImgOps Google

Since this is a board where careful logical reasoning is important, I thought it might be good to have a thread for practicing this skill.  Please feel free to contribute any exercises you might have.  I'll start with one, below:

Consider the following proposition P: "An outlet for population overflow is required for a country's economy to prosper."
Now the consider the following argument A against proposition P: "We need only look to our own shores to find counter-evidence: Cuba has long been able to discharge its surplus population by sending people here, and yet its economy has done quite poorly."
Why is A an invalid argument against P?
8 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


Seems correct.  Although in practice there will only be so many children, so a parameter will only be approximated by a population, the expected value can be figured exactly.

>>3258  >>3254
Right, the government might (and mostly did) simply limit families to one child.  In which case if they got a girl, better luck next lifetime, I guess.  In letting parents have children until they get a boy, some control is placed on population -- parents might really want several boys -- but parents at least won't miss out on having a boy.  To be honest, I'm not well versed in the history of China, but I think both versions happened, at least in some part, at least for some period of time.

I thought not giving the sex ratio of a birth might be an issue, although people have assumed 1:1 which was fine.  Solving for an arbitrary ratio would be fine as well.  Noted I should have said "Parents want families consisting of more than one boy."  I guess one can't change the past, so one will change the future.

Logic Exercise 2:
In China, parents want families consisting of many boys.  The government wants to limit births, so they compromise: parents may have children until they get a boy.  For simplicity, we'll say every family has one boy and however many girls preceded that boy.  At birth, the sex ratio may be assumed to be 1:1 -- that is 50% chance of male, 50% chance of female -- but arbitrary ratios may be used as well.  What is the sex ratio of Chinese children (and please specify if not using a 1:1 birth ratio)?

>finding the area compounded by
I convinced myself I can show convergence of the series, but it would be a bit long to type out.  You mention area -- did you compute a integral?


hi friends! Please note the following changes to board operating procedure:



I was thinking someone might come to it, but a simplifying insight is that in broad terms, parents are having babies, each birth an independent, random event.  There is no way to skew the expected birth ratio by choosing which family will have a child.


File: 1570656290796.jpg (135.44 KB, 820x1200, 41:60, https://36.media.tumblr.co….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Do you frame your political philosophy more in terms of what you support, or what you oppose? How do you think this influences others' perception of your politics, as well as your own? If it's a conscious thing, what's your reasoning behind it? Is your reasoning consistent?

Even when this choice ultimately boils down to two mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive sides of the same coin, I find that framing and connotation still influence the way beliefs are communicated and understood.

For instance, I tend to more frequently describe myself as anti-capitalist than socialist. This is in part because I have more conviction in capitalism being fundamentally flawed and unethical than I do in socialism being the best alternative, and also in part to avoid semantic confusion over what socialism actually means.

I'm also more likely to call myself anti-authoritarian than libertarian, because I believe the status quo in most of the world is authoritarian, and identifying authoritarianism as the problem by positioning oneself as explicitly opposed carries more of a proactive implication that it authoritarianism is a problem that needs to be addressed, compared the relative passivity of framing oneself as libertarian, which could just as well mean more liberty and autonomy is preferred or wanted rather than a necessity. (There is also a semantic problem here, particularly in the US, where the term "libertarian" is associated more with Randian right-libertarianism and the capital-L Libertarian party.)

But, I tend to describe myself as for LGBTQ liberation rather than anti-$(sexuality/identity)phobia. This is because the core of my position is that LGBTQ people have rights and dignity and deserve liberation/empowerment/respect; bigotry and discrimination are bad, but they're bad as a corollary of the previous statement, not the other way around. At first glance, this seems to contradict my anti-authoritarian/libertarian reasoning, but "liberation" carries an explicitly proactive connotation -- and, indeed, if true LGBTQ liberation were achieved, the potential harm done by bigotry would be orders of magnitude less severe.

Note: this thread is intended to be about pro-/anti- framing in particular, the reasoning behind it, and how this influences the way beliefs are communicated and understood, not about value judgments or scrutiny pertaining to specific views themselves, except where directlPost too long. Click here to view the full text.
4 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


I just don't really frame it at all, honestly. If I had to, I'd probably go from 'oppose' more than 'support', but I think that's a side effect of living in a mostly free western nation, and so having a lot of stuff to oppose adding, as opposed to removing.


I tend to be against dogmatism so much that I prefer not to adopt any label for my political beliefs, lest it become some sort of identity.

I don't believe in adopting political belief systems whole cloth that one is expected to adhere to completely just for the sake of being able to adopt as an identy or to be part of some group. There is quite nothing like tribalism and all that moral imperative to fit in and be loyal that can use a person's principles so effectively against their capacity to reason.

So, I don't really frame my beliefs as anything other than I guess ... pragmatic.

I guess I could frame myself as opposed to certain ideologies, philosophies and positions though.


File: 1570858720312.png (2.56 MB, 1280x1789, 1280:1789, you.png) ImgOps Google

Generally I don't come to townhall because I'm not interested  in debating about "x" topics


I'm more interested about that OP pic.

So the Charitable Squirrel, I would like to know about that Illustration.
If is not a big problem.

Who drew that illustration? Osamu Tezuka?
Those 3 strange characters from what manga are they from?
In what part/page of tumblr did you download that picture?

P.S. Yes, I know.... maybe I'm breaking the rules but I want to know about that illustration.... if my post gets deleted... The Charitable Squirrel find me in /pony/ so you can tell me about that illustration.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


File: 1570579516006.jpeg (89.59 KB, 800x727, 800:727, 800.jpeg) ImgOps Google

The country is spending too much compared to what we take in. I think we all agree. But what to be done? I found this interesting calculator where you can roughly dictate policy and try to, not balance the budget, but sorta fix it.


Let's just assume the premise on this website is right, that the estimates are good as far as estimates go, and the idea of getting the budget to the rates it asks is important. What I want to see is what people choose to do to reach the target.

I know how this kind of thing will bring out fighting, so I'm laying out rules and a goal. The goal is to learn from each other and give our opinions on the issues. The way we will do that is by posting our results, maybe adding comments about how you went about it, and then asking each other why we made the choices we did. What we will not do is criticise each others choices, not even in a productive way.

Good example:
>I see you chose to cut military personnel, do you feel that will hurt or position against our rivals? Do you feel it's worth the savings?

Bad example (please no do):
>wow, are you really going to cut spending to Medicare, are you heartless? How can you do such a thing!

And, once they tell you their rationale, that is it. This isn't a debate thread, there will be no arguing tolerated, even positive and good faith discussion is not for this thread. I just want to see what people come up with and hear about their values, even if I don't believe the same thing.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
37 posts and 5 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



I'm definitely a less government sort of person, but ultimately I don't know if that's reflected given how many taxes I added.  I do distinctly recall increasing infrastructure spending, because a lot of that is downright hazardous right now.  I didn't cut health care, but that was a pretty involved part of the survey, so I don't think I can summarize the changes.


Now that I've gone through the whole thing and seen the results, the first thing I might revise is the VAT, which I'm definitely concerned about, but seems largely unnecessary.  There might be a couple others I'd revise, but not necessarily anything major.  Overall I don't think any of the taxes I approved would significantly harm anyone, and some might be a gain on multiple levels.  I've always been fond of a wealth tax, for example, because taxing net worth should ideally encourage spending (as opposed to taxing income, which encourages...not making money).  I don't think hoarding assets is a healthy thing for anyone involved, including the hoarder.



Also, I mostly refrained from cutting programs that helped the poor.  I can remember a few exceptions, but even as someone who sees and government as an ideal, I didn't want to rip the rug out from under anyone who was already having trouble standing.


>I've always been fond of a wealth tax, for example, because taxing net worth should ideally encourage spending (as opposed to taxing income, which encourages...not making money).  I don't think hoarding assets is a healthy thing for anyone involved, including the hoarder.
I think I agree with this sentiment very closely!

Anyway, thanks for participating ^_^

Gotcha, I like where your priorities lie!


File: 1570249137521.jpg (59.17 KB, 517x360, 517:360, Impact_event.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

What should be done to safeguard against potential global catastrophes that could end the existence of human civilization?  Things like a super-massive asteroid impact, global thermonuclear war, a Yellowstone super-volcano explosion, a natural or biotechnologically engineered super-plague, a self-replicating nanobot mishap, etc.

10 posts and 4 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


How does any virus or disease? There's a few ways. You know that, if the aliens reproduce sexually, someone's gonna try and have sex with one.

It's unlikely, but possible. Isn't that the biggest issue with things like Swine and bird flu? That they jumped species?

I think the scenario specifically says organic matter. The fear being that the nanobots would just keep eating and reproducing until all organic matter (including humanity and all animals) were completely destroyed, leaving behind only giant masses of nanobots (the "gray goo").


I think joining extinction rebellion is certainly a good way to contribute to the global cause of trying to drag humanity back from the precipice it has perched itself upon.

For those not feelin that they are at a precipice at this moment, I think it'd help to listen to something like vid related, and see if you can deny these kinds of facts.


hi friends! Please note the following changes to board operating procedure:



File: 1570064744956.jpg (7.22 KB, 190x186, 95:93, pinky.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google


If people believe alt-right talking points or Nazi rhetoric, I wonder what other consequences this is having on their day-to-day lives.  Substantive examples are a plus for this thread.
56 posts and 4 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>You've insulted me plenty of times before.

I've "insulted" you by disagreeing with you and "misrepresenting" you (something I still attested I've never done intentionally), but I've never called you a racist with no empathy. I don't think you're a racist. I think you hold some racist views, and are too stubborn to admit it, but we went over why I don't think holding racist views and being a racist are the same thing. I've also never said you lack empathy or that you're "an asshole", especially since that last one violates the rules.

As for mint, it actually wasn't my honest opinion about him. My honest opinions about him are far, far worse. I felt what I said was holding back, but apparently it was still too far. So I won't be talking about him on the site anymore. I think it's easy for people to guess how I'd feel about a white supremacist, but if anyone's curious, I'll tell them in private so I can actually be honest.

I'm fine with voice. I'd prefer it, in fact.

I assume you are talking about Neo-Nazis, because Nazi Germany was not about free speech and silenced people and the media constantly...

But Neo-Nazis aren't in favor of universal free speech. Only free speech for people they consider "people" (i.e. whites) So yes, I am against their version of free speech. Moreover, I question whether they actually ARE for free speech, or try to use free speech as a shield to protect their rhetoric while still trying to silence their detractors.


>I've insulted you by disagreeing with you and "misrepresenting" you
No, you've directly insulted me, too.
The quote I pointed out in >>3283 was in context to you saying I had a "mood disorder". And of course, there's been plenty of other instances besides that.
>but I've never called you a racist with no empathy. I
You've definitely called me a racist. That was one of the earliest problems you and I had.

> I don't think you're a racist. I think you hold some racist views, and are too stubborn to admit it, but we went over why I don't think holding racist views and being a racist are the same thing.
Well I'm very happy to hear that. It's nice to know. Genuinely.
Though you did say it ages ago, during your political ban as I recall since it was a problem we had run in to a few times, and one I had ultimately complained about.

> I've also never said you lack empathy or that you're "an asshole", especially since that last one violates the rules.
Not so sure about that. I am fairly certain you have called me an asshole, a few times. Usually resulted in the thread getting locked, at that point.
Suggestion of being unempathetic had come up plenty of times, though, for sure. Sometimes more as a blanket for anyone who holds a belief, too. I believe, in the 2A thread, it was something along the lines of "Seems sort of counter-productive to vote against representatives who value human life."

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


> If I think kicking puppies is bad, I see people who kick puppies as a bad person. The only way not to is to not think the act of kicking puppies is bad, or to find out that person was forced to kick a puppy against their will.
What is someone believes that puppies enjoyed being kicked or that it is good for their health or that or it is a normal part of obedience training?  Admittedly it is unlikely in the puppy kicking scenario, but other cases are less clear cut.  


File: 1570066689575.png (480.91 KB, 700x301, 100:43, american-psycho.png) ImgOps Google

According to studies done by psychologist Kevin Dutton, CEOs are the occupation with the highest percentage of psychopaths working them. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy_in_the_workplace#Careers_with_highest_proportion_of_psychopaths).

Is capitalism structured in such a way that it disproportionally rewards those with psychopathic and/or sociopathic tendencies? Is there a hypothetical economic system that does not, or is humanity always destined to have the worst people in the highest positions of power and influence?
32 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>Maybe that's what you're asking the crowd.

In a sense, yes. I know that more than one economic system exists, I'd be interested in ideas for ones that do not promote the sociopathic to high positions of power.

> that minimizes positions of great power, as a person with too much empathy for individuals would avoid them.

Not necessarily. Just systems that do not favor the sociopathic, and thus put them in those positions.


>systems that do not favor the sociopathic
Philosopher-kings.  Hmm...well, I can ask, have there been past periods when there were proportionally more and fewer sociopathic people in power, and under what economic system?  Confess my knowledge of history is not that good.  I could pick leaders that most would say are sociopaths, I think it correlates to positions of absolute power over a state, though.  (Especially in ways that make trouble for the US.)

Sorry.  Maybe someone else will know better.  I have to go to work now.


I can't think of any, but someone else might be able to weigh in.

 No.2538[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

File: 1569693114530.jpg (61.88 KB, 670x377, 670:377, gummy.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Should we consider a person being romantically involved with a racist to be a tacit endorsement of racism?

Would you ever be romantically involved with a racist, if you yourself are not one?
458 posts and 75 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


I wasn't talking about how evil anyone might be. Please pay attention.

This is specifically about the standard that had already been established, by manly.
this is the justification used to not only condemn racists themselves as evil, but anyone who does not assist in cutting them off from society as a heathen in the flock of the holy faithful.


File: 1570237951355.png (265.27 KB, 1024x1883, 1024:1883, D9BCEA7A-F5BD-480E-9F80-3C….png) ImgOps Google

>It's impossible to communicate with someone who so openly hates you.
I agree, although I’d like to see the post where I called you evil or lied about someone you love to spite you.


This thread devolved into direct insults and accusations, it's no longer about genuine or thoughtful discussion. The thread is over now. Do not make another. Calling other posters "disgusting" is not acceptable, the shitposting was not acceptable, and this was a disaster.

There may be further to say after the mods talk about this.



File: 1570137180905.png (69.4 KB, 216x262, 108:131, img-564602-1-cqC2z.png) ImgOps Google

The 18th Amendment granted Congress power to write legislation to enforce a prohibition of intoxicating liquors.  Should the Constitution be further amended to give Congress power to prohibit marijuana and other drugs?
1 post omitted. Click reply to view.


>Should the Constitution be further amended to give Congress power



Nah. Leave that at state level. I don't even like laws restricting the stuff, anyway.


I don't smoke weed, I don't like potheads, and I don't endorse drug use.

That said, we should probably just go ahead and legalize marijuana at a federal level. Having it be illegal isn't stopping people from using, and it's only being used to disproportionally put some races of people in jail.


File: 1570065234374.png (238.02 KB, 1150x687, 1150:687, bellcurveblackwhiteiq.png) ImgOps Google

So various threads are addressing the topic of racist or fascist views.  I've begun reading a book that's a bit controversial, one of the most controversial parts centers around discussion of this graph.

While various inequalities in systems enforced by the state are to be considered justice, since a state won't be involved in racism, I don't think measure of IQ has such official standing, so it may be discussed without disrespecting moral authority.

So, it this graph racist?

Is the IQ test racist or is racist to have created this chart -- to want to pull out such data for analysis?

If no, I guess that's it.  If yes, what must be done in correction?
15 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.



Isn't that kinda old?  I mean, it was less old in '94, but I'd still like to see how things look these days, which arguably was the point of the NLSY.


And if you want precision, I'm sure minus those who didn't fall into white/black.  (The Bell Curve, Richard J. Herrnstein, Charles Murray; Page 279 if you want to dig into it).

>Isn't that kinda old?
Yes.  I take it the aptitude data came in after '79.  Does seem in sociology random samples are hard to come by, so you take what you can get.  Aptitude tests usually involve select groups -- an ACT for those going to college, for example.  I do remember talking some standard tests in K-12, though.

>how things look these days
I guess one advantage of an older book is you can do that.  I haven't gotten that far, yet, though.

(I lied a bit about sleep, but soon).


>I don't see any reason to suspect that all ethnic groups have the exact same IQ distribution.
The authors say "It seems
highly likely to us that both genes and the environment have something
to do with racial difference."  That is, they don't take a priori that the means should be indistinguishable when environments are.  I think some consider that racism.

>higher IQ of children (via environmental factors affecting IQ)

That was less stressed.  It was noted that it was likely a smart person born in poverty would escape it.

>higher-skewed distribution of IQs of Ashkenazi Jews compared to non-Jewish whites

The book mentioned 98 Jewish people in their study with an IQ 0.98 standard deviations above the mean, which I guess would be about 115, but I think overall they didn't consider the sample big enough to go too far with.

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


File: 1569983373510.png (117.21 KB, 1920x1188, 160:99, Tom_Bell_graph_showing_ext….png) ImgOps Google

Are current copyright terms too long?  How long should copyright last?
18 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



Hmm, maybe.  I'd give the limit five years, then.


Yes. They're very much too long. I think about 30 years is pretty reasonable. It leaves enough time for publishers to make money off the process so writers can still effectively work with publishers in a workable time frame, but doesn't leave us in a draconian state we're in now where copyright is a joke that nobody even takes seriously because it's over a fucking century now. Funny part is, these companies make most of their money on opening weekend anyway, and then another bump once the dvd is released, so it wouldn't really hurt these giant publishers much at all.

The way it is now is basically the result of corporations having free rein over the legal system via lobbying, and with the internet making information fast and free, nobody right now has any respect for the 110 year bullshit current copyright law. They'll do what they can to avoid legal ramifications, but nobody, not even the corporations, are looking at the century-long copyright rule and saying "yea, that seems reasonable".




It's anti-freedom and anti-competition to have such long terms.

Rather than a way to promote innovation, it is a way to stifle and stabilize society, producing less competition, in an age where technology rapidly advances.

Really, it should be the other way around - copyright should be getting shorter with advances in technology.


File: 1569885911207.jpg (75.75 KB, 960x534, 160:89, https___blogs-images.forbe….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Imagine you were to discover, with certainty, that the world you are currenty living in is fake.  Everything in it, including all the people, were artificially created.  Whether what you're experiencing is a VR simulation or the dream of a sleeping god, this isn't the real world.  Further, as part of this discovery, you've figured out how to end it.  You'll return to the real world and everything about the fake world will cease to exist.

What do you do?  Stay in the fake world?  Or destroy the fake world to return to the real world?  Does your answer change if the world is particularly good or bad to live in?
18 posts omitted. Click reply to view.



It doesnt say that in the OP.

Its not fun for you to shoot down responses.


End the simulation, probably.
Presuming this is something that's pretty obvious, anyway. More than just "put bullet to head".

Way I see it, better to break the cycle. I've no problem not worrying about whether or not it's possible the world we live in is fake, but if I do know, then I think I'd want to make effort to escape that reality.



Is your response the suggestion that we're currently living in a simulation?  'cause that seems like a whole separate thread, and also a question we've been asking since ancient Rome was a world power.  From here, there's no way to tell that the shadows on the wall aren't the extent of reality.  That's why I specified as part of the question that somehow you did know.

 No.2458[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

File: 1569643638637.png (249.17 KB, 675x683, 675:683, 1456910454539.png) ImgOps Google

(Continuing the conversation started at >>>/pony/987947 here in /townhall/ at moderator request.)

>the oldest trick in the nazi apologist book is to pit the onus on those reacting to the nazi and paint them as the real problem.
I'm not saying that Nazis are fine.  I think Naziism is a terrible ideology.  But two wrongs don't make a right.  And freedom of thought and speech is very important.  Just because people hold bad beliefs don't give anyone the right to physically attack them.  I'm honestly confused at how anyone could think otherwise.
97 posts and 16 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



Well, i wasn't understanding your words accurately.  Especially when we get into the words of common law, its easy to fail to communicate.

And, people here like to hear absurd strawman extremeness so they can feel justified to ad hominem.  Dont take it personally.


I would just like to point out that telling other posters not to target specific people when Mint is the only one actively going out of his way to accompany posts with images of Lyra, specifically so that people can identify that they're his, is incredibly hypocritical


Um, are are you saying that in response to something specific?  I'm having a hard time seeing how what you said fits in with the rest of this thread.  And what do you mean by "target"?  


I'm feeling very conflicted.

I like this creator, but some of the things they poke fun at in the video are things that sound similar to how my friends express themselves.

Can you guys please give me your honest and detailed opinion about both the video and what you think of genders and identity?
25 posts and 4 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Well, not as direct as a punch. Or just insulting you to your face. This is a more indirect "look at this person and laugh" kind of bullying.

Not saying one is any less hurtful or better or worse than the other. Just men and women use different flavors of bullying.


I definitely never experienced this! For me, bullying was always quite elaborate. It was clever name-calling, imitation and recurring gags. All the stuff that you see in this video.

You're very keen to stereotype this as male or female behavior, but I think really it's just culture.


Well, many of the differences between men and women ARE societal (or "cultural" if you wanna use that word) so I can't say I completely disagree.

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] Next
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]