- Welcome to Languish.org.
Recent posts
#1
Off the Record / Re: Being a boy in 2024
Last post by crazy canuck - Today at 03:50:40 PMQuote from: Razgovory on Today at 09:46:08 AMIf you run into a bear in the woods it won't accuse you have sexual assault.
This is the sort is bullshit post that makes women rightfully distrust men.
Give the men who actually interact with women a break and shut the fuck up. This goes doubly for the men here who have to pay for it.
#2
Off the Record / Re: The Off Topic Topic
Last post by crazy canuck - Today at 03:46:46 PMQuote from: Valmy on Today at 02:43:39 PMAnd you have to make a choice to either make an effort to assure people that no, you are a fluffy harmless bunny of a man or try to use this newfound power to your advantage. Or do one or the other depending on the situation.
This exactly. Now imagine you have been well over 6 feet tall and north of 220 since your early teens.
The funny thing I have observed is most of the males whi play the power card are small and are compensating.
#3
Off the Record / Re: The Off Topic Topic
Last post by crazy canuck - Today at 03:42:23 PMQuote from: Josquius on Today at 11:48:28 AMQuote from: Sheilbh on Today at 11:06:23 AMQuote from: Jacob on Today at 01:49:17 AMHmmm... well... I live in a place where bears are fairly frequent. I can tell you that more women are killed by men every year than are killed by bears. I'd wager that the number of incidents of women having had encounters where they felt threatened or scared by a man's behaviour is orders of magnitude greater than those who've had scary encounters with bears. I think most women have felt endangered by a man at some point in there lives; and if they haven't, they know a women who has. I doubt the same is true when it comes to bears.Yes. Of women I've spoken to about it I think more or less all have experienced male violence or the threat/risk of violence. Also waited with female friends at the bus stop that I don't need at a discreet request because there's a man who is concerning them in some way.
Perhaps if you calculated the rate of scary encounters and the rate of murders per encounter, men would be statistically safer than bears due to the large number of encounters. But in terms of absolute numbers men have a much higher impact on women's safety than bears.
It seems only natural that this would impact women's threat perception. And it seems pretty silly to be offended by that, IMO.
I think it's mad to be offended by that or think it's about you.
It's made me conscious of how I behave - I mean I'm an incredibly weak, fairly herbiverous gay man but that's not clear at night when I'm walking down the street. So if I'm walking somewhere for example and I'm behind a woman on her own, chances are I'll cross the road - no extra time/impact for me, but hopefully remove something that could concern her.
Who thinks it's about them?
If a woman has been a victim of assault then it's obvious they would have this irrational fear of all men and make dangerous decisions rather than risk an encounter with their phobia.
Logically this is clearly wrong. But phobias don't follow logic so nobody can be blamed there.
But when someone hasn't been a victim of such a thing, has no such phobia, and is still pushing this idea that almost certain death, possibly being eaten alive, is better than being alone with a random man....
That a majority of men couldn't be trusted in this situation of being alone with a random woman.... That is just sexist and dumb.
I am not sure where to start, but I will pick a women's fear of men is rationale.
#4
Off the Record / Re: Israel-Hamas War 2023
Last post by Valmy - Today at 03:01:41 PMQuote from: Tamas on Today at 10:19:15 AMI am not saying the majority of Muslims in Europe want caliphate I am sure they do not. What I am unsure about is how many of them are opposed to the thought enough to work against it, but that part shan't become an issue for many decades.
Support the rights of apostates and ex-Muslims. Don't let their "community" handle them.
#5
Off the Record / Re: The Off Topic Topic
Last post by Valmy - Today at 02:43:39 PMWell the whole bear-man thing didn't surprise me at all. Once you become a teenager as a guy you notice that people are suddenly low key afraid of you. Most concerningly: the police 
And you have to make a choice to either make an effort to assure people that no, you are a fluffy harmless bunny of a man or try to use this newfound power to your advantage. Or do one or the other depending on the situation.
Because we live in a patriarchal society where violence by men is both the cause and solution to all problems. And the assumption also is that we have no control over our sexual urges and without the iron grip of civilization will rape everything slightly resembling a human being. Those are just assumptions built into our culture. And what came first? The assumptions or the behaviors? I don't know. That is up to anthropologists to figure out I guess.
And this has a double edged sword if you are a man. Yes it makes you more respected and feared and sometimes seen heroically. However, it also is kind of dehumanizing and justifies locking us all up in prisons. I also think it is why men struggle socially and often feel alone and alienated.
But it also sucks for women because they are told to be paranoid about their physical safety and if they get sexually assaulted sometimes take the blame because hey men are subhuman monsters who can't be expected to control themselves so it is obviously the woman's fault. And the expectation that is somehow the job of a woman to civilize men (while also somehow being overly emotional and irrational...I don't know none of this makes any logical sense).
So yeah we all grew up in a society where men's violence and sexual predatory nature are an assumption. Of course women would choose a bear. I mean most people haven't experienced a bear and it is all very theoretical whereas having a violent or scary interaction with a man might be very visceral indeed. Now granted women who have had close encounters with bears might feel differently? I don't know. Most people live in cities today.
But I guess my main concern about this whole man-bear discourse is that it is mainly going to be used to attack transwomen, because that is the main purpose these days of bringing up the fear people have for men. These transwomen are just trying to get into a woman's bathroom to rape women. Because otherwise there some kind of invisible force field around women's bathrooms keeping rapists out otherwise. There is no other way to rape a woman than become a transwoman. But more seriously the notion that being violent and sexually predatory is so ingrained in being born a male that no hormone treatment or identity can wash it away, they still should be feared as a predator.
Also the online toxicity between men and women is kind of sad to see in general, as somebody who wants us all to be a community and team that makes me sad. Not surprised or anything, just sad.
And you have to make a choice to either make an effort to assure people that no, you are a fluffy harmless bunny of a man or try to use this newfound power to your advantage. Or do one or the other depending on the situation.
Because we live in a patriarchal society where violence by men is both the cause and solution to all problems. And the assumption also is that we have no control over our sexual urges and without the iron grip of civilization will rape everything slightly resembling a human being. Those are just assumptions built into our culture. And what came first? The assumptions or the behaviors? I don't know. That is up to anthropologists to figure out I guess.
And this has a double edged sword if you are a man. Yes it makes you more respected and feared and sometimes seen heroically. However, it also is kind of dehumanizing and justifies locking us all up in prisons. I also think it is why men struggle socially and often feel alone and alienated.
But it also sucks for women because they are told to be paranoid about their physical safety and if they get sexually assaulted sometimes take the blame because hey men are subhuman monsters who can't be expected to control themselves so it is obviously the woman's fault. And the expectation that is somehow the job of a woman to civilize men (while also somehow being overly emotional and irrational...I don't know none of this makes any logical sense).
So yeah we all grew up in a society where men's violence and sexual predatory nature are an assumption. Of course women would choose a bear. I mean most people haven't experienced a bear and it is all very theoretical whereas having a violent or scary interaction with a man might be very visceral indeed. Now granted women who have had close encounters with bears might feel differently? I don't know. Most people live in cities today.
But I guess my main concern about this whole man-bear discourse is that it is mainly going to be used to attack transwomen, because that is the main purpose these days of bringing up the fear people have for men. These transwomen are just trying to get into a woman's bathroom to rape women. Because otherwise there some kind of invisible force field around women's bathrooms keeping rapists out otherwise. There is no other way to rape a woman than become a transwoman. But more seriously the notion that being violent and sexually predatory is so ingrained in being born a male that no hormone treatment or identity can wash it away, they still should be feared as a predator.
Also the online toxicity between men and women is kind of sad to see in general, as somebody who wants us all to be a community and team that makes me sad. Not surprised or anything, just sad.
#6
Off the Record / Re: The Off Topic Topic
Last post by Josquius - Today at 02:38:50 PMQuote from: Jacob on Today at 01:50:49 PMQuote from: Josquius on Today at 12:08:20 PMThe version I've heard has you transported to a isolated forest with a bear or a man. Not just seeing a bear in a normal situation on a hiking trail.
The odds of the bear being freaked out and attacking are pretty high.
Also I'm assuming brown or polar bear here. I understand black bears are cowards.
In Svalbard it's literally illegal to leave town without a gun the bears are just that dangerous.
So your assumption is that the random man appearing is someone like their uncle or brother or yourself - so harmless; while the random bear appearing is a highly aggressive grizzly or polar bear.
Perhaps the women are making the assumption that the man appearing is strong and has violent inclinations, while the bear is a well fed black bear on its way to a nice blackberry patch.
I'm assuming a roll of the dice. It could be any man. Though playing that game the odds are good they're not going to attack a random woman. Too many men do think some very bad stuff is OK. But they're still a minority overall.
Thinking about it I'd even say get rid of men overall and you're just talking about the domestic prison population - you'd still be talking more likely than not they're not going to attack.
We don't have black bears in Europe so I would imagine they're not what comes to mind at the mention of bears. Though if that is how they were parsing things it would make the claim less mad.
#7
Off the Record / Re: The Off Topic Topic
Last post by Jacob - Today at 01:50:49 PMQuote from: Josquius on Today at 12:08:20 PMThe version I've heard has you transported to a isolated forest with a bear or a man. Not just seeing a bear in a normal situation on a hiking trail.
The odds of the bear being freaked out and attacking are pretty high.
Also I'm assuming brown or polar bear here. I understand black bears are cowards.
In Svalbard it's literally illegal to leave town without a gun the bears are just that dangerous.
So your assumption is that the random man appearing is someone like their uncle or brother or yourself - so harmless; while the random bear appearing is a highly aggressive grizzly or polar bear.
Perhaps the women are making the assumption that the man appearing is strong and has violent inclinations, while the bear is a well fed black bear on its way to a nice blackberry patch.
#8
Off the Record / Re: The Off Topic Topic
Last post by Grey Fox - Today at 01:24:58 PMMen will believe a women that says it's been attacked by a bear, almost instantly.
It isn't the universal the other way around and it seems a lot of women feel betrayed by that.
It isn't the universal the other way around and it seems a lot of women feel betrayed by that.
#9
Gaming HQ / Re: The Miscellaneous PC & vid...
Last post by The Minsky Moment - Today at 01:24:34 PMSony is in a weird place; they don't seem to know what to do.
Nintendo has a clear strategy; they have built high walls around their core IP and run a purely closed system. They churn out iterations of the same game over and over, but get away with it because the IP is well loved and because their design people do a solid job and produce quality product. But if you want to play Mario, Zelda, etc. you are stuck doing it on Nintendo hardware, which at present is a big phone screen layered over 2015 era Nvidia Shield surplus parts. The closed system means high sales of the hardware at great margins, but it limits their reach. And if emulation ever goes mainstream, they could face problems, which is why they are the only major policing that ecosystem with lawsuits.
Microsoft has gone completely in other direction, pushing openness and interoperability, and centering their strategy around gamepass for subscription-based distribution with bring your own device. Accordingly, "Series" X Box sales have stalled and XBox is firmly mired in the #3 position in the console wars, but does MSFT really care that much? They see that Steam has become such a powerful player in the gaming market, that developers have to develop or port to PC or forgo a big chunk of potential sales. And once a game is playable on PC it can played on virtually any platform - again Valve has helped demonstrate that. I think MSFT is looking into a future where consoles became obsolete or just one of many interchangeable "boxes" that can be used to stream content.
Where does that leave Sony - seemingly stuck between two stools. The PlayStation is their core platform, but it doesn't look like this gen will match PS4 sales, much less the heights of PS2. That means hard decisions to be made on the publishing side - do they go exclusive to the console to try to flog more PS5 sales, or dual distribute on Steam for the revenue boost. Helldivers 2 seemed to the poster child for the second strategy, but it also appears Sony is understandably scared for the long-term implications for their console if that becomes the new model.
Nintendo has a clear strategy; they have built high walls around their core IP and run a purely closed system. They churn out iterations of the same game over and over, but get away with it because the IP is well loved and because their design people do a solid job and produce quality product. But if you want to play Mario, Zelda, etc. you are stuck doing it on Nintendo hardware, which at present is a big phone screen layered over 2015 era Nvidia Shield surplus parts. The closed system means high sales of the hardware at great margins, but it limits their reach. And if emulation ever goes mainstream, they could face problems, which is why they are the only major policing that ecosystem with lawsuits.
Microsoft has gone completely in other direction, pushing openness and interoperability, and centering their strategy around gamepass for subscription-based distribution with bring your own device. Accordingly, "Series" X Box sales have stalled and XBox is firmly mired in the #3 position in the console wars, but does MSFT really care that much? They see that Steam has become such a powerful player in the gaming market, that developers have to develop or port to PC or forgo a big chunk of potential sales. And once a game is playable on PC it can played on virtually any platform - again Valve has helped demonstrate that. I think MSFT is looking into a future where consoles became obsolete or just one of many interchangeable "boxes" that can be used to stream content.
Where does that leave Sony - seemingly stuck between two stools. The PlayStation is their core platform, but it doesn't look like this gen will match PS4 sales, much less the heights of PS2. That means hard decisions to be made on the publishing side - do they go exclusive to the console to try to flog more PS5 sales, or dual distribute on Steam for the revenue boost. Helldivers 2 seemed to the poster child for the second strategy, but it also appears Sony is understandably scared for the long-term implications for their console if that becomes the new model.
#10
Off the Record / Re: Brexit and the waning days...
Last post by Gups - Today at 01:15:54 PMMatthew Syed was pushing a land tax in the Sunday Times replacing income and corporation. Annoyingly he doesn't provide any details.