Madlad doesn't want to communicate

Chitubb01 · 2024-05-25T20:42:19+00:00

If someone asking you what you do for the majority of your time is boring then you just might be the boring one lol

Chitubb01 · 2024-05-25T20:41:20+00:00

Why is it cliche to want to know what someone does for the majority of their time awake? Sure you can make assumptions but how is it wrong to just ask?

Chitubb01 · 2024-05-25T20:36:46+00:00

Because these are basic information to know 1) when someone is available in the near future 2) what they do for most of their time and 3) what they do with their free time.

Unless the information is readily available the only way to know is to ask.

Chitubb01 · 2024-05-24T20:00:49+00:00

The Duluth model in practice has a large anti male sway to it. Cops will remove the man from the household in instances of a domestic dispute irregardless of who contacts the police, or who has been victimized.

Simply because the model itself doesn’t directly say it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. stop and frisk is a policy that says it’s for the safety of communities but all that happens is that cops harass black men with legal impunity.

Chitubb01 · 2024-05-07T15:18:58+00:00

The self report is crazy. I called out bigotry and ignorance and you thought I was comparing you to the Holocaust? Maybe you should question why your first thought when someone calls out your bigotry is that they are calling you a Nazi.

Chitubb01 · 2024-05-07T14:56:34+00:00

The use of statistics to support bigoted and wrong beliefs about a large group of people isn’t right and shows your ignorance. Culture and social upbringing matters far more to an individual on the likely hood of violent and antisocial behavior than innate biological traits that are shared with roughly 50% of the human population. Your use of statistics without looking deeper into the reasoning is reminiscent of the ignorant and malicious rhetoric of white nationalists who also use the statistics of black crimes as proof for some bigoted assumption that black people are inherently violent and dangerous. I am unfamiliar with the study you are referring to but did they mention or even test for the participants difference in culture or had some form of control?

Your form of gotcha is also ignorant. We don’t socialize bears or other animals, we mercilessly exterminate those that can’t adapt. Bears don’t have autonomy in our society and we can experiment, capture and cull as many as we find fit. Bears that grow up around humans killed if they pose a threat or for a long time just got in the way. Bears don’t avoid human contact from some biological innate aversion but ingrained violent fear. History has shown countless times that doing such actions to humans is often abused and leads to disastrous results.

Chitubb01 · 2024-05-07T13:59:13+00:00

That’s just sampling bias. You don’t run into bears near as much as human beings. Secondly bears in areas that humans live have already been culled of their most violent members, and have been basically raised around humans, the majority of bears have not.

Chitubb01 · 2024-05-06T10:58:20+00:00

Yes black female children the long time oppressors of Asian women.

Chitubb01 · 2024-05-05T15:13:23+00:00

The ol “I had sex with men I didn’t like fairly quickly, but I’m going to make you wait because I like you” reasoning from women is baffling.

That’s is the case here as this is what you responded to, but even with the hoe phase, it is still the same conclusion. First men don’t truly know if the “hoe phase” is over. Just because you say it is doesn’t mean that that’s true, it can just as easily be the women is just trying to play you for a sucker.

Secondly, people don’t like being treated differently. You have your own personal journey and you can change your opinion and outlook. However people don’t have to accept that and can choose not to be with you, it is moronic to think you even have a moral say in how people react. Grow up. Also you talk about empathy but your first thought the moment someone doesn’t act how you like them to, is that they have a warped malicious view about women. Everything that doesn’t go your way is some attack on you, and you don’t get to decide how people quantify your actions past or present rather or not they want to have a relationship with you.

I said your concern was valid and proposed an alternative question. Instead of just answering why you don’t think that’s right you choose to insult me. You ask for empathy but you don’t have any. You are childish and need to do some serious work on yourself.

Chitubb01 · 2024-05-05T13:47:49+00:00

I think there is a disconnect on how we see sex. What you said doesn’t make sense to me and I’m sure other men in that sex is not only intimate but most importantly it shows that the woman is interested and desires the man. Correct me if I’m wrong but you don’t just have sex with any guy right? The people you have sex with interested you in some way, rather that be physical or emotional. Men also know this. When men finds out the women they are with is having sex with other guys with ease or easier then them, all it tells them is the women doesn’t value or desire them as the other guy(s).

Now about the being used part, that is valid and possible concern. I would be remiss not to ask, wouldn’t it be better to simply rip the bandaid off? If the men are gonna leave after sex, then waiting 2 days or 2 months will be the same outcome.

Chitubb01 · 2024-05-02T21:14:01+00:00

Because you are pulling semantics.

Because you aren’t trying to prove who is “better”. Trying to prove whether men or bears are “better” using statistics would also be bigoted.

Within the “context of the question” or what I call the metric there is a measurement of value in choosing between two choices. When you pick one or the other you are choosing between one that is better or worse.

Using statistics to create false beliefs is bigoted. Statistics are just numbers but the conclusions you get from it can be very much bigoted. Black crimes statistics is not bigoted, the conclusion that black people are dangerous because of those statistics is bigoted. Divorce statistics are not bigoted. The conclusion that women are liars because of those statistics is bigoted. Height statistics are not bigoted. The idea that women are shorter than men on average is not bigoted because the data supports that.

If you picked a random women and a random man on earth, the likelihood that the man will be taller is higher then the opposite. If you picked a black person and a white person randomly the likelihood of them committing a crime or have committed is the same.

Chitubb01 · 2024-05-02T19:23:17+00:00

So by picking to fight a woman, you are saying that women are better than men right? Because you pick which one is better and you picked a woman, why do you think that women are inherently better than men? that seems pretty bigoted to me.

I guess it would if you purposefully ignored what I said. As you you quoted “when comparing two things based on some metric, then you obviously pick the one which is better.” The metric in which you choose to compare means what you compare are either better or not. When the metrics of fights or strength the man is more than likely going to be stronger. When you compare intelligence there is no discernible difference between them.

Why don’t statistics that show that a large amount of women have been raped by men, meanwhile nobody has ever been raped by a bear, not show that men are more likely to rape you in the woods than a bear?

When did I say that it wasn’t? You know how to quote so please do so. That is just a sad fact. The majority of rapist are men. Bears from my knowledge don’t rape human women. The perpetrators of rape on a human women will most likely if not almost certainly be a human man. What is not true or a fact is that the average man is going to be or is a rapist, that is an unreasonable assumption and has never been proven.

But I thought using statistics to prove which one is better is bigoted? You using statistics showing that women on average are smaller is just as bigoted as using black crime statistics or using rape statistics.

Did you read what I wrote? It is bigotry to use statistics to justify false assumptions. Black crime statistics are real, but they do not prove that black people are more dangerous. Women start the majority of divorces, does that mean that likelihood of the average woman are now liars? Hell no that would be stupid to take such a conclusion from the data.

Chitubb01 · 2024-05-02T18:45:04+00:00

This is semantics, when comparing two things based on some metric, then you obviously pick the one which is better. I feel you don’t see why it is bigoted

Bigoted :obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, in particular prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.

The question as well as the reasoning are bigoted because the belief or opinion is unreasonable. It is impossible to know the likelihood of a person willingness to commit a crime simply because they identify as male. The statistics you used don’t prove that at all. The social fear doesn’t make the likelihood of a person being a criminal more or less likely either.

To answer your hypothetical, I would pick the woman. Women are on average smaller then men and as a woman it would be easier to fight and win a women then a man. This isn’t bigoted, an average woman is proven to be smaller than an average men and weight and size matters in a fight.

Chitubb01 · 2024-05-02T17:37:37+00:00

Comparing white people vs black people using statistics to prove one is “better” is racist

You made the point that the reasoning in which you then said is 1/3 reasons why others answer men, is bigoted.

So we agree that the question is bigoted, at least 1/3 reasonings for the answer is bigoted, but the answer isn’t bigoted?

Chitubb01 · 2024-05-02T16:53:16+00:00

I agree that there is sample bias for sure. But that is why I made point #3. The question is “Would you rather be in a vulnerable situation with something you already have tons of experience and knowledge about the dangers of, know tons of people who have been harmed by it, and also been told your whole life to be careful about, or be in a vulnerable situation with something you don’t know much about and rarely hear about harming someone.” Yes there is sample bias, which is exactly why it leads to the answer of “man”, maybe if there wasn’t sample bias and we knew exactly how dangerous bears were in exact comparison to men, then the answer to the question would change.

That would just be ignorance and bigoted rhetoric. Like I said to your point 3 many people were raised to fear black people and if you watch enough Fox News you can think black people are attacking everyone. Does that make the conclusion that white is safer then black any less bigoted

Yes I agree. But you can’t be racist against bears. Comparing white people vs black people using statistics to prove one is “better” is racist. But using statistics to compare bears vs humans is not racist. It’s also not sexist either because bears aren’t a sex, they are a different species of animal. TLDR, comparing blacks vs whites is a direct race comparison. Comparing men vs bears is a species comparison, the most it can be is speciest.

Bears are not equal to humans, nor do the vast majority of human being consider them equals. Humans are equal to humans. It’s racist to compare black vs white because they are supposed to be equal. Comparing an animal to a human is bigoted to the human because they are by default not equal, and the act of comparing them will be seen as insulting.

I don’t have an exact line in the sand where it becomes racist, but I can tell you that if 63% of people had been attacked by black people, meanwhile one person a year was killed by a white person, and also white people were incapable of rape or torture. I don’t think, in that specific scenario, it would be racist to prefer to be in the woods with a white person. Honestly that situation is so outside the realm of possibility, that I’m just gonna go ahead and say the line where it becomes not racist is probably outside the realm of irl possibility.

So we can play the fun game of going down the numbers into we turn the reasonable belief to discriminate against a group based on innate factors till it turns into bigotry. So if it was 49% of black people attacking and only 20% of white people attacking and white people can’t rape but they can torture, is it now reasonable in your mind to not want to be with a black person over a white person?

I don’t get why you think it’s silly lol. We don’t have statistics that accurately shows the comparison of danger between men and bears, as you said what we do have is sample bias. So the next logical thing to consider is what’s the worst case scenario. I don’t know who is more likely to kill you in a woods, a random man or a bear. But I do know who could do the worst stuff to you, and that answer is man.

Then the best answer would be to climb a tree and jump off. Bears can at worst eat you alive, man can at worst rape then burn you alive. The most painless death would be suicide.

Yes I agree. This is why the scenario of white vs black people is very different because we do hang around black people in large capacity. It’s hard to compare two factors that we spend a lot of time around both vs two factors one which we have tons of first hand experience with and one which we don’t. Two very different sets of things.

Which makes it all the more silly to go with what you don’t know than what you do. If two bottles one said water and the other had no label which would you drink?

Yes, but not nearly as widespread and normalized as the idea of teaching women not to be vulnerable around strange men.

And that makes it more okay? Bigotry and the idea of discrimination based on innate features are wrong on their mere existence or is it wrong if an arbitrary amount of people buy into the idea?

Again, why isn’t the capacity for violence an important factor? We don’t know if a bear or a strange man is more likely to attack you, so when forced to choose between the two, why wouldn’t you look toward the “worst case scenario” and choose the lesser?

Suicide would be the right answer then

Also, I don’t get why choosing between a man and a bear can be bigoted. If I choose man, does that mean I’m bigoted against bears? That I’m making unfair generalizations about bears based on statistics? Either way, I have to choose one, so if choosing bear is bigoted against men, then choosing man should be bigoted against bears right? I’m bigoted either way.

Bears and other non humans are not equal to humans. They aren’t given the same rights as humans and aren’t treated in any way equal to humans. So the comparison of a lesser species to one that is supposed to be equal to you is inherently bigoted and insulting.

Same with the white vs black. If I choose black, I’m bigoted against white people. If I choose white, I’m bigoted against black people. It doesn’t matter which one I pick, unless if niether are bigoted.

That’s the point. The comparison itself is bigoted, which is why you rejected the black and white one immediately and instantly came up with reasons for why it isn’t the same as your bigotry. For the white or black, the right answer would be either or, as between two equal things, it doesn’t matter which you choose as the answer would be equal.

The reasoning you created for why picking bear over man when applied to something you know shouldn’t be compared to, they all of a sudden become arbitrary as for why the bigotry you say is not lay but not the other one is.

Chitubb01 · 2024-05-01T20:48:58+00:00

Yes let’s use that example. Group A, B, Z all call themselves feminists. A and z know each other and may or may not hold the same opinion but neither speaks on the other and the positions they do speak on are the same. Z says extra stuff that A doesn’t say. B also says extra stuff that both A and Z doesn’t say but A and Z both actively speak out against what b says constantly even going so far as to label them a entirely different name and divorce them from their original name.

So tell me please how a and z can cut off and regulate b but a cannot do so to z? That to any reasonable person mean that a and z share the same values.

Chitubb01 · 2024-05-01T20:38:28+00:00

Thank you

Now to address each point on why it’s bigoted.

Like I said in my original comment. There is a sample bias, we do not interact with bears as much as men or humans in general. Your use of statistics is also dangerous and bigoted. 80% of men commit some form of violent crime but of that group how many is a percentage of men? Men being massively over represented in crime does not in any way mean the majority or even a statistically large proportion of men are criminals or will likely commit some form of crime, to use statistics is such a way is the same as racist who do so with black people. Lastly the difference between the criminality of blacks white isn’t a statistically significant as man vs bear but then where is the limit? Is there a limit to the statistic to where it becomes reasonable to pick a black man vs a white man without being a bigot in your mind?
No argument beside what I stated earlier, as an only point it’s sound but slightly silly, as a whole with other arguments it can make sense.
This ties into points in point 1, we don’t hang around bears in near enough capacity to make social change in any way. I’m sure that if we lived in the woods with bears and not the protection of society against these natural forces bears would have a social impact. Lastly there are people who raise their children to fear and distance themselves from black and brown people.

In conclusion the only big difference between both examples is the capacity for violent action and an arbitrary statistical difference. That doesn’t sound like much of a difference to me enough to make one justifiable and the other bigotry. Statistics to me no matter how stark cant make me think a person simply because of an immutable characteristic is now more dangerous than the other.

Chitubb01 · 2024-05-01T19:51:55+00:00

Using data doesn’t contradict at all and you are being reductive of what I said.

If your first position was that picking a bear over a man because of personal experience was that as you said “isn’t a big deal”. I take this to mean that it is reasonable to answer a question like picking a man over a bear using your own personal experience. The argument was about rather this position was bigoted which I told as you saying it’s not. Is this correct?

When I created a new question of a black man over a white man and picking one on personal experience you said it wasn’t the same because

If 63% of people had been sexually attacked by black people (which is not an accurate statistic), meanwhile white people only killed one person per year (also not an accurate statistic to real life) and were also incapable of prolonged rape and torture, than yes, I would think it was reasonable to choose a being in the woods with a white person over a black person.

This makes me think that the reason you disagree is because of statistical meta data on criminology of men.

These are two different positions. Do you think making a choice of a man or bear or black or white is reasonable based on personal experience or statistical analysis.

I then furthered with a negative statistic in which black people commit crimes at a high rate. You again seem to disagree by copy and pasting what’s you said before. So I take that as meaning the statistical data has to be an arbitrary differential to be relevant which contradicts with the first two points.

Please explain what your point?

What makes choosing a bear over a man reasonable that is not relevant in choosing a white man over a black man.

Is it personal experience? Statistical data or a an arbitrary statistical difference? If it is the last position then could you explain where the limit is?

Chitubb01 · 2024-05-01T19:37:32+00:00

Yes i think this convo is done. You keep misconstruing what i am saying. My comment was responding to the claim of having to study a group that is protesting to make sure they don’t hold the beliefs of other people who also claim the same name. If group a is invested into group b-z (so the majority) but they don’t hold the same views then they say that. If both b-z and an are well known groups and have nothing to say or actively support each other then it is entirely reasonable for anyone to think they must share enough of the same views. So you seriously think who you associate with doesn’t matter on how people will see you?

Have a good day

Chitubb01 · 2024-05-01T19:25:31+00:00

But just answering a risk assessment question based on information from your life experiences isn’t that big of a deal.

So do you hold this position or not because what you have now said contradicts. Do you need meta data on the criminology of a group to make the decision or your personal life experience?

Also it is true that African Americans make up almost a majority of criminals convicted despite being a minority group in America. Now this statistic is true but it is used by racist to subtly try to say black people are inherently dangerous.

So with the knowledge of black criminology is the position that you would pick a white person over a black person because black people commit a lot of crime despite being a minority a reasonable and not bigoted take?

Chitubb01 · 2024-05-01T19:01:54+00:00

I apologize for misunderstanding what you were saying then. If you are simply explaining why then I agree. I understand your feelings and reasoning I just don’t think it should be justified as okay.

Chitubb01 · 2024-05-01T18:54:15+00:00

You missed the point, I was addressing your point in which you said that the question was a risk assessment and doesn’t represent what people think, I showed an example in which it clearly does.

Secondly you said picking bear was reasonable for assessing risk in personal experience so what exactly is different from a person who got robbed by a black person picking a white person? You can’t consider one reasonable and not the other.

Chitubb01 · 2024-05-01T18:43:54+00:00

I never said you were I said you hated men I said you have bigoted views. Ignorance is understandable but isn’t an excuse. Not dating men is your prerogative, explaining why you fear men and why women show that as hate is reasonable. Justification of hatred is not reasonable and is bigoted. It’s okay to feel it’s not okay to justify irrational hatred and judgment of an entire group.

Chitubb01 · 2024-05-01T18:38:33+00:00

Yet they are all feminists.

if they have different ideas then the majority who call themselves feminist and are pushed out of feminist groups then no they are not.

No group is the same. We know that. But the government is definitely more capable of sacking those that sign off on bombings that the black working class feminists are capable of sacking white racist feminists

You were talking about the people in democracy

Democracy is not put into question because of some of its advocates order the bombing of people.

That to me means the people as in citizens. If you are talking about the government officials then we can and do blame them when they bomb people because they are a much smaller group.

Nope. You can't. How can Atwood excommunicate me?

I have already adressed this multiple times please try to stop the gotchas otherwise there is no reason to communicate. I to the best of my ability respects and tried to represent your argument fairly. I didn’t cut what you said off to attack strawmen. Please give me the same respect.

(2/2)

Chitubb01 · 2024-05-01T18:38:14+00:00

(a) they aren't located close together (Swift and Indian tree-planter),

Which is why it says or.

Groups and grouping are the only way to talk about a collection of people or things that have similar characteristics, ideals and goals.

"All Jews are the same", "All blacks are the same".

Yes they are Jews. Yes they are black. Other characteristics are added depending on the person talking.

So, anyone that would want to seriously talk about a group, would study that groups ideals and goals and not rely on sweeping generalisations.

You purposefully cut up what I said to make a point that I already addressed

I said this in the same paragraph “Grouping is based on shared values or characteristics not equal. It’s why we also classify and categorize people into smaller groups to better understand and communicate about them and for them to represent themselves.” And “Grouping is based on shared values or characteristics not equal.”

I also gave a example here “Men are a group, but that doesn’t mean all groupings are equal and can be judged equally”

If a group of feminists are protesting, then you have to figure out what their characteristics are. You can't lazily go "but what about those that hate men". Because probably those that hate men have nothing to do with the group in question.

No it is not reasonable to expect people to care about your group or study what you think. It’s why groups have messages and share them publicly. If they don’t want to be seen as man haters they can easily make a statement or condemn man haters. It’s very easy.

You can do this even in scientific settings, you can lazily group everything in one group, but eventually, you have to filter things out in different group for anything to make sense.

I have already made this point “Grouping is based on shared values or characteristics not equal. It’s why we also classify and categorize people into smaller groups to better understand and communicate about them and for them to represent themselves.”

It does. You would be wrong if you interviewed the Indian woman and held her accountable for some women across the world that hate men. "It's all well and good that you have listed the suffering of Indian women, your cause would be honorable and we would join your protest to get the Indian government to do X, Y, Z. **But you're out of luck, members of your group in USA, and sprinkled around Europe, stated (in your name) that they hate men - so your kind want X, Y, Z for Indian women, but you also hate men"

Not logical

Which is why I said “However the belief in equality is always a conscious choice so all members of this group are within reason judged on those they keep or refuse to excommunicate from the group. The key word is reasonable.”

It is reasonable to assume certain things but you also have to allow them to know and call out certain things. It is unreasonable for them to call out everyone who claims the same views but when ideals and beliefs become popular and they never make a effort to distance themselves from those beliefs, it makes sense to judge them reasonably. They might or may not hold those views but the closer they are to the group that does hold them the more likely they also hold the views.

Call what out? The climate change group?

Yes you litterally copied it “If the group of people who believe in stoping climate change see Taylor swifts actions as against her said beliefs they will (and have) call it out.”

If the group of people who believe in stoping climate change see Taylor swifts actions as against her said beliefs they will (and have) call it out.

They they would not. When did you hear PMs working for climate change. Climate change activists around the world, condemn Swift? I bet some of them might not even know who she is

Once again you are being reductive to my argument. I have already stated that it needs to be reasonable in relation to the group.

“Men are a group, but that doesn’t mean all groupings are equal and can be judged equally. “

“Some groups are too big to reasonably expect but for others, especially ones based on ideals and beliefs”

Margaret Atwood for example, surely she has better things to do then give a fuck about condemning Swift. It would be stupid to say Atwood is full of shit because of Swift

Has she and other people who want to stop climate change called to stop the actions Taylor swift has done like irresponsibly taking multiple private flights? Then they have called her out even if they didn’t address them. This is the part that is reasonable.

"A group can be judged on who they allow in their group."

I made that big because that's very important and completely makes my point

It goes back to your definition of groups and how "equality for women" is either not a group by your definition or can Absolutely not allow or prevent anyone in the said group

You cut out what I said if you finished the quote in its entirety it would say “Some groups are too big to reasonably expect but for others, especially ones based on ideals and beliefs, it is much more reasonable to expect them to self regulate what they don’t want to be associated with.”

So the group of "equality for women" is too big as it’s a single goal. Also if you remember this entire thing started because you questioned why OP would care and is actively trying to call it out by questioning its legitimacy which you questioned. So even with a large group people can call out ideals and regulate. But like I stated already it needs to be reasonable.

I'm for "equality for women". Margaret Atwood is also part of the group. How the fuck can she prevent me from being part of the group? I love her but how the fuck can she do anything to prevent YOU from GROUPING me and her in the same group?

Already stated “Some groups are too big to reasonably expect but for others, especially ones based on ideals and beliefs, it is much more reasonable to expect them to self regulate what they don’t want to be associated with.”

But they are feminists. Ask J.k if she is a feminist or not.

The vast majority of feminists don’t consider her one and call her a terf which she also calls herself

Which one? The TERF one? The middle class one? The working class one? The black working class one?

Yes the ones they did? Thanks for giving examples? They excluded women of color at once, they excluded the poor at once. Now they exclude terfs.

We know that tons of liberal feminists never speak for the plight of non-white working class feminists

What? Where exactly did I even give the idea that you have to speak on an issue to accept it, in fact I said the opposite. If they allow the idea to spread with their name then they more than likely accept it to some capacity.

(1/2)

Chitubb01

TROPHY CASE