3 ms·

Lack of exercise, poor diet, extremely feminine culture, absolute taboo of violence, endocrine disruptors.

by trophycase 8y ago

thomasfedb 8y ago
> extremely feminine culture What's that meant to mean?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- trophycase 8y ago
  Perhaps feminine isn't the right word, perhaps what I mean is a devaluation of masculine traits. In my opinion we live in a time of extreme obedience to law, taboo and shaming of physical violence (with instead an emphasis on social shaming via television/media), and a general fear of social confrontation and disagreement. Our focus instead is on acceptance of absolutely everyone and everything.
  - yesenadam 8y ago
    You'd like to see more physical violence in the world? Or that it be less taboo, less shameful? Exactly which physical violence are you talking about?
    - thomasfedb 8y ago
      Words from my mouth.
      - trophycase 8y ago
        See my response.
        thomasfedb 8y ago
        I'm not sure I feel like your response clarified anything. When and where would you like to see more violence? I'd like to see less.
    - trophycase 8y ago
      By some measures the world is more peaceful than it has ever been [1]. I guess I just think that so many of the issues we constantly discuss on these forums could easily be solved with a bit more political violence. Instead we let people like Ajit Pai get away with blatant corruption because of our complete unwillingness to take any real action to stop him. Think about it. Alexander Hamilton died in a gun duel with someone. Can you even imagine something like that ever taking place in the modern day between politicians? Violence just simply is not allowed to be a solution for problems in the modern day even though it is often extremely effective. I'm not trying to argue for bombings or any sort of mass killings obviously, but that we just seem to be afraid of considering it as a solution to problems, even when that is the primary power our government has over us. [1] https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-09-29/world-actually-becoming-more-peaceful-believe-it-or-not https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-09-29/world-actually-becomi...
      - yesenadam 8y ago
        Violence just simply is not allowed to be a solution for problems in the modern day I'm very confused. Are we in the same world? so many of the issues we constantly discuss on these forums could easily be solved with a bit more political violence. Wow. Such as? Can you be specific? What you are saying sounds fairly dark and ominous. You think duels were "extremely effective" solutions to problems? It certainly is not obvious to me that you're "not trying to argue for bombings or any sort of mass killings". Why would that be 'obvious' to any reader of what you've said? What sort of 'political violence' do you mean? I guess a lot more violence would be even better at times, to solve those pesky problems where the normal amount isn't so effective? we just seem to be afraid of considering it as a solution to problems, even when that is the primary power our government has over us. I don't see the logical connection between the two halves of that. At all. Is it that thing where people in the US seemingly can't abide the police having guns and people not having them?
        trophycase 8y ago
        I'm very confused. Are we in the same world? Afaik the issue this thread is about is primarily an issue in modern western societies, so that is what I am referencing specifically. The article I linked suggests that violence is at near all time lows in such societies. Wow. Such as? Can you be specific? What you are saying sounds fairly dark and ominous. I literally gave an example in my post. Horrible corrupt politicians resurrecting from the dead to fake support for a massively unpopular policy? They are going to get away with literally no consequences. You don't see any issues with this? You think duels were "extremely effective" solutions to problems? Nope, I don't. This was an example of how violence has been de-emphasized. The fact that something like this feels simply unfathomable in the current day shows how far off we really are. That being said, I wouldn't mind seeing a specific few of our politicians face off in a duel. Maybe then we could replace them with people not bought off by corporations. What sort of 'political violence' do you mean? I guess a lot more violence would be even better at times, to solve those pesky problems where the normal amount isn't so effective? I would prefer if it was used in situations where rule of law is proving to be ineffective. It just feels like the right to vote is not proving to be enough leverage in our current society. Take the Equifax hack. What basically amounts to criminal negligence of the data nearly every american gave them (essentially) unwillingly. These people are just going to walk? I'm not saying kill them or anything... but where are the protests? The broken windows? Why aren't there offices being stormed with protests? Like what is happening? The only possible explanation I can come up with is that people have been pacified. They've been taught that getting fucked over is just the normal way. Businesses and politicians are sociopathic and that's just the nature of the world. Don't do anything, don't fight back, just take it. I don't see the logical connection between the two halves of that. At all. Is it that thing where people in the US seemingly can't abide the police having guns and people not having them? Violence is an important tool to impart change. Why should the government be the only ones allowed to wield it? Is law enforcement truly the only incarnation of violence we are going to view as socially acceptable? Why should that be the case?
madez 8y ago
There is no absolute taboo of violence because there are fighting sports.

Lack of exercise, poor diet, extremely feminine culture, absolute taboo of violence, endocrine disruptors.

thomasfedb 8y ago

> extremely feminine culture What's that meant to mean?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
trophycase 8y ago
Perhaps feminine isn't the right word, perhaps what I mean is a devaluation of masculine traits. In my opinion we live in a time of extreme obedience to law, taboo and shaming of physical violence (with instead an emphasis on social shaming via television/media), and a general fear of social confrontation and disagreement. Our focus instead is on acceptance of absolutely everyone and everything.
- yesenadam 8y ago
  You'd like to see more physical violence in the world? Or that it be less taboo, less shameful? Exactly which physical violence are you talking about?
  - thomasfedb 8y ago
    Words from my mouth.
    - trophycase 8y ago
      See my response.
      - thomasfedb 8y ago
        I'm not sure I feel like your response clarified anything. When and where would you like to see more violence? I'd like to see less.
  - trophycase 8y ago
    By some measures the world is more peaceful than it has ever been [1]. I guess I just think that so many of the issues we constantly discuss on these forums could easily be solved with a bit more political violence. Instead we let people like Ajit Pai get away with blatant corruption because of our complete unwillingness to take any real action to stop him. Think about it. Alexander Hamilton died in a gun duel with someone. Can you even imagine something like that ever taking place in the modern day between politicians? Violence just simply is not allowed to be a solution for problems in the modern day even though it is often extremely effective. I'm not trying to argue for bombings or any sort of mass killings obviously, but that we just seem to be afraid of considering it as a solution to problems, even when that is the primary power our government has over us. [1] https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-09-29/world-actually-becoming-more-peaceful-believe-it-or-not https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-09-29/world-actually-becomi...
    - yesenadam 8y ago
      Violence just simply is not allowed to be a solution for problems in the modern day I'm very confused. Are we in the same world? so many of the issues we constantly discuss on these forums could easily be solved with a bit more political violence. Wow. Such as? Can you be specific? What you are saying sounds fairly dark and ominous. You think duels were "extremely effective" solutions to problems? It certainly is not obvious to me that you're "not trying to argue for bombings or any sort of mass killings". Why would that be 'obvious' to any reader of what you've said? What sort of 'political violence' do you mean? I guess a lot more violence would be even better at times, to solve those pesky problems where the normal amount isn't so effective? we just seem to be afraid of considering it as a solution to problems, even when that is the primary power our government has over us. I don't see the logical connection between the two halves of that. At all. Is it that thing where people in the US seemingly can't abide the police having guns and people not having them?
      - trophycase 8y ago
        I'm very confused. Are we in the same world? Afaik the issue this thread is about is primarily an issue in modern western societies, so that is what I am referencing specifically. The article I linked suggests that violence is at near all time lows in such societies. Wow. Such as? Can you be specific? What you are saying sounds fairly dark and ominous. I literally gave an example in my post. Horrible corrupt politicians resurrecting from the dead to fake support for a massively unpopular policy? They are going to get away with literally no consequences. You don't see any issues with this? You think duels were "extremely effective" solutions to problems? Nope, I don't. This was an example of how violence has been de-emphasized. The fact that something like this feels simply unfathomable in the current day shows how far off we really are. That being said, I wouldn't mind seeing a specific few of our politicians face off in a duel. Maybe then we could replace them with people not bought off by corporations. What sort of 'political violence' do you mean? I guess a lot more violence would be even better at times, to solve those pesky problems where the normal amount isn't so effective? I would prefer if it was used in situations where rule of law is proving to be ineffective. It just feels like the right to vote is not proving to be enough leverage in our current society. Take the Equifax hack. What basically amounts to criminal negligence of the data nearly every american gave them (essentially) unwillingly. These people are just going to walk? I'm not saying kill them or anything... but where are the protests? The broken windows? Why aren't there offices being stormed with protests? Like what is happening? The only possible explanation I can come up with is that people have been pacified. They've been taught that getting fucked over is just the normal way. Businesses and politicians are sociopathic and that's just the nature of the world. Don't do anything, don't fight back, just take it. I don't see the logical connection between the two halves of that. At all. Is it that thing where people in the US seemingly can't abide the police having guns and people not having them? Violence is an important tool to impart change. Why should the government be the only ones allowed to wield it? Is law enforcement truly the only incarnation of violence we are going to view as socially acceptable? Why should that be the case?

madez 8y ago

There is no absolute taboo of violence because there are fighting sports.