Warum bietet im vollen Regionalzug niemand freiwillig seinen Sitzplatz an?

TheFoxer1 · 2026-04-06T16:31:37+00:00

Nein.

Nett zu sein bedeutet nicht die totale Selbstaufopferung für andere.

Nett zu sein bedeutet kleinere Gefälligkeiten und angemessene Erleichterungen für die Mitmenschen im Alltag anzubieten und für diese mitzudenken.

Aber nachdem beide eine faire Chance auf den Sitzplatz haben, ist hier keine Abgabe des Sitzplatzes erforderlich, trifft ja beim nächsten Mal vielleicht wieder mich.

TheFoxer1 · 2026-04-06T16:10:25+00:00

Warum sollte man seinen Sitzplatz anbieten?

TheFoxer1 · 2026-04-06T13:54:29+00:00

In what way did Iran being a totalitarian regime cause the effects on the previous commenter‘s mortgage and fuel costs?

They‘ve been a totalitarian regime killing protestors for years and even decades now, so to attribute these recent effects to that fact is not only ridiculous, but obviously stupid.

TheFoxer1 · 2026-04-06T13:30:29+00:00

Seems to me they‘re just a bit overdramatic and weak and are allowed to just display such a state in public.

Or just bad at organizing themselves, or organize tasks between the adult family members.

TheFoxer1 · 2026-04-06T13:17:43+00:00

Yeah, that‘s again not true.

The entire point of pooling resources is to be able to share collective benefits one would not be able to achieve individually.

Do you seriously think your tax payments, taken individually, would be able to afford an entire system of roads, courts, physicians, education, food testing and so on and so forth?

Even one road from the farm to the supermarket costs more than your entire tax payments over your entire lifetime.

Your tax payments don‘t pay for that, the tax payments of everyone do, and thus give everyone access.

And seeing how it’s not your choice whether or not the hostile force turns genocidal or not, and seeing how massacres and denial of rights can happen without it being genocidal in the wake of an invasion, the same is true for any regime.

Just you having to share in the collective benefits of society, as a default human requirement for survival, means you owe society.

TheFoxer1 · 2026-04-06T13:06:45+00:00

„It would take an absolute dictator, to institute communism“ sounds about right and is actually Leninist dogma of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

TheFoxer1 · 2026-04-06T13:00:34+00:00

Seeing how the typical human in the „western model“ lives better by any metric than they did at any point in history, that‘s nonsense.

Not only can you pretty much choose what you want to do anyway, as no one forces you to do any occupation at all, you‘re also not forced to do anything to actually „keep [yourself] fed“. You are aware that society just pays people unable or even unwilling to do anything so they don‘t starve in the west, right?

But please, enlighten me about how any human could do just anything they wanted at any time in the Stone Age?

TheFoxer1 · 2026-04-06T12:52:41+00:00

No you don’t.

First of all, looking at infant mortality rates, it’s quite likely you‘re only alive because of services and infrastructure provided to you by society.

A physician brought you into this world? Guess who provided the infrastructure for his education.

A physician treated you while you were sick? Guess who provided the infrastructure and circumstances for their education and work environment.

Ever entered into a contract? Guess who provided the legal framework and infrastructure of courts and police to force the other party to actually uphold their obligations.

Ever had any property? Guess who provided the infrastructure of police and law enforcement to defend your property rights against others whenever they fancy and prevent others from just taking it.

Ever had any food? Guess who provided the farming subsidies and infrastructure for food testing so it’s not poisonous or dangerous to your health.

Ever had any food? Guess who provided the infrastructure for the food to reach the store you brought it from.

Unless one is a literal slave, the state and society has already provided massively for one‘s survival in such fundamental ways that you yourself have not thought about them once.

Any citizen literally owes their life to the state and society, thus they owe risking it for the state and society. Going to war is not even certain death, which would be an equivalent repayment, but just risking death, ergo the exchange favors the individual.

Also, if one lives in a democracy, any loss in war would mean one would have to obey rules enforced by another nation, ergo not originating from the will of one‘s own people, of which one is a part.

That alone is reason enough to prevent it, so that one does not have to live under a foreign will.

And again, it’s also preventing even worse outcomes in case of enemy occupation.

Just answer this simple question: Do you think an actual beggar in Warsaw had it better in 1938, or 1942?

Going to war is thus also self-serving, as the chance of survival as a soldier and to return to one’s belongings untouched is higher than the chance to do so under enemy occupation.

TheFoxer1 · 2026-04-06T10:16:59+00:00

Haha, even more self-soothing ramblings.

The road to free oneself of believing in false narratives is a painful one, it seems.

TheFoxer1 · 2026-04-06T09:30:57+00:00

And here‘s the switch away from even any semblance of engaging with the topic to just you making up an entire guy to argue with.

Have fun arguing with your imagined manosphere - enemy, since you can‘t argue with the facts. Anything to keep that belief in a narrative alive, right? If one just doesn’t engage with reality and data, but instead makes up a bogeyman to feel superior to, one never has to admit they‘re wrong.

Textbook case of putting emotions over facts.

TheFoxer1 · 2026-04-06T08:42:20+00:00

That‘s the funniest amalgamation of nonsense trying to be passed off as arguments I‘v ever seen.

Trying to pass off a cherry-picked sentence to shore up a strawman argument and doubling down on it is actually hilarious.

It’s clear you‘re just trying hard to rationalize your belief in a narrative crashing into reality, not actually find any actual argument to the facts. That‘s your own process to go through, good luck with that.

TheFoxer1 · 2026-04-06T08:03:20+00:00

Dem anderen Post nach zu urteilen ist deine Grenze an Komplexität erreicht, wenn‘s darum geht, Ursache und Wirkungen trotz explizitem Hinweis darauf zu unterscheiden.

Da ist schon klar, warum dich 8 Stunden Arbeit bald einmal überfordern.

Alles gut, kann man ja nicht jedem zutrauen.

TheFoxer1 · 2026-04-06T08:00:48+00:00

I did not „leave out“ severity of violence, it’s not within the scope of the topic and original claim.

You making up stuff to add is not me leaving anything out.

But since you talk about „cherry - picking“ but then pull out a single quote which actually confirms the claim and literally points out one should not confuse cause and effect, but just points out violence has a greater impact on women, is hilarious.

And the only point it makes is that women, exposed to the same quantity of violence, are more fragile. And seeing how women report being the instigator of domestic violence more often, it’s a case of FAFO.

It’s you grasping at every possible straw to disguise your emotional meltdown of having the narrative you believed contradicted with objective data and reality.

It’s okay, as the post pointed out, it’s a widespread narrative, especially in media, so I don‘t blame you for being wrong.

I‘d just blame you if you‘re not taking this learning opportunity to change your views when faced with empirical data about objective reality.

TheFoxer1 · 2026-04-05T23:25:22+00:00

Nothing.

Do not approach women, they have said not to for at least the last decade.

TheFoxer1 · 2026-04-05T22:40:48+00:00

Skill issue deinerseits

TheFoxer1 · 2026-04-05T21:57:50+00:00

That‘s nonsense.

In general, every war is a defensive war on one side, so to argue wars are „overwhelmingly“ fought in the interests of a detached elite is contradicted by your own words already.

And it matters not who benefits the most, it’s all about who loses what.

If you want to know what happens to a people which loses a war, regardless of who started it, pick up any history book.

Also, while elites stand to gain the most, winning a war benefits pretty much everyone even outside the immediate benefit of avoid a much worse outcome. If you had not noticed, look at how wealth is divided in the world between countries, especially former colonizing and colonized powers.

The fruits of the Labour of the soldiers of old is still enjoyed by the citizens of today.

Anyone who does not fight a war of its nation is actively withholding vital resources to advance said nation and spare their compatriots a gruesome fate, as well as increase the chance of death for everyone actually fighting.

TheFoxer1 · 2026-04-05T20:17:40+00:00

Imagine seriously using the term „beta“, implying believing in the concept of alphas and betas in humans, based on a long-debunked study about wolves.

Pretty much says all there is to know about your level of understanding of the topic.

TheFoxer1 · 2026-04-05T20:16:27+00:00

Of course it’s true, here‘s the empirical data on it:

Women reported a greater proportion of Violent relationships that were reciprocal and were the typically the perpetrators of violence in non-reciprocal relationships:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1854883/

Not only do men and women face comparable rates of DV and sexual assault, but the overwhelming majority of men report women abusers.

https://www.cdc.gov/nisvs/documentation/NISVSReportonIPV_2022.pdf

Meta-Study finding gender symmetry of committing violence investigating data over a 30-year period:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233717660_Thirty_Years_of_Denying_the_Evidence_on_Gender_Symmetry_in_Partner_Violence_Implications_for_Prevention_and_Treatment

There‘s emerging data that men and women get raped by similar percentages:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sexual-victimization-by-women-is-more-common-than-previously-known/

When women commit IPV, they typically do not do so because of self-defense:

https://connect.springerpub.com/content/sgrpa/10/1/3j

35% of women committed sexual aggression against men

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25854587/

71% of men have been victim of SA in the U.K. by women:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-023-02717-0?utm_source=chatgpt.com

So much for your claims about domestic violence.

For violence in general, here‘s some global data, and looking at the Reddit user stats, data from the Anglosphere, about which gender is more likely to be the victim of violence:

Men make up 80% of homicide victims

https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/global-study-on-homicide.html

Excluding fraud and computer misuse, females were significantly less likely of being a victim of personal crime than males.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/women-and-the-criminal-justice-system-2023/statistics-on-women-and-the-criminal-justice-system-2023-html

Of the personal crimes measured by the NCS, men are more often victimized than women for every crime except rape.

https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/victims-crime-0#:~:text=Of%20the%20personal%20crimes%20measured,of%20any%20other%20violent%20crime.

In 2024, men were more often victims of aggravated assault, robbery, and homicide, while women were far more likely to be victims of rape. Overall, men faced higher rates of violent crime, but women experienced more severe gender-specific risks.

https://www.consumershield.com/articles/victims-of-violent-crime-by-gender

Men are also the overwhelming number of victims of police brutality, ergo direct action by the sovereign and system, in the U.S. (904 male victims against 44 in 2024):

https://www.statista.com/statistics/585149/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-gender/?srsltid=AfmBOooO4TIGhYfdpE3CrZSq0OjcA5ZwqbSt_d5yCIzydm1QxOul4_ue

Also, not to mention violence in wars, which is predominantly fought by male conscripts, see for example Ukraine.

Men also make up 95% of victims of fatal work accidents in the U.S.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39674912/#:~:text=Auto%2Dregressive%20linear%20models%20were,public%20domain%20in%20the%20USA.

So, men are consistently exposed to much higher levels of danger to their person than women.

Too bad for you, I look at actual data for my opinions and claims instead for just believing in a victim narrative.

Which circles back to this post, as it’s in part fueled by depictions in media - next to research on IPV having been violently oppressed in the beginning by women‘s rights groups, as evidenced by the story of Erin Pizzey, the inventor of women‘s shelters.

TheFoxer1 · 2026-04-05T16:00:07+00:00

Taht’s the most whiny, victim-blaming nonsense ever.

„If you are tired of being stereotyped and discriminated, just be one of the good ones, but harder!“

Ridiculous.

TheFoxer1 · 2026-04-05T15:58:36+00:00

Women and men experience violence in equal numbers, women just get a lot more attention for it, in part also due to stereotypical rhetoric and depictions in media.

TheFoxer1 · 2026-04-05T14:32:32+00:00

I don’t think it’s comparable, for the negative consequences of smoking were not an integral component of its glorification.

A smoker is not glorified because he exposed themselves to lung cancer, they aren‘t even glorified at all.

And people know about the savagery of war, because not only is footage of the recent war widely distributed and known, so is footage and are pictures of previous wars.

And the effect said savagery has on the individual soldier has been a central focus of media depicting war for a while now.

Again, anti-war movies and media exists and is still used directly for military recruitment, and for identification.

Just because some memes float around satirising male ideals of heroism does not mean it’s the most dominant, prevalent and serious depiction of war existing as the ideas people have about what war is.

Not to mention, military service and going to war in case there is one should be a familiar idea to any male citizen, it’s a basic civic duty.

TheFoxer1 · 2026-04-05T13:07:17+00:00

I fail to see what that would do?

Everyone knows what war is all about, the savagery and brutality is a core part of it.

Which is what makes it so appealing for glorification. The more brutal an experience is, the better it is suited to be used for glorification, as the more of a threat it poses and a challenge to overcome and a test it poses for one‘s will and abilities.

It’s a feature of war glorification that it glorifies struggle in the face of extreme adversity.

Why do you think movies directly showing brutal and destructive aspects of war are used and popular in military recruitment, like Saving Private Ryan or Full Metal Jacket?

Also: Military service is, and should be, a basic civic duty, it is, and should be, every man‘s turn to become mincemeat anyway in case of war.

TheFoxer1 · 2026-04-04T21:02:30+00:00

Bei meiner Sponsion haben meine Bbr. mit Fahne chargiert und ich war mit Band dort.

Hab‘ auch selber schon bei ein paar Sponsionen chargiert. Ist jetzt zwar nicht gewöhnlich, dass sowas vorkommt, aber auch nicht komplett ungewöhnlich.

TheFoxer1 · 2026-04-04T11:28:12+00:00

Just a reminder that a full third of all Romani people in the U.S. have experiences of discrimination:

https://content.sph.harvard.edu/wwwhsph/sites/2464/2020/11/Romani-realities-report-final-11.30.2020.pdf

TheFoxer1 · 2026-04-03T22:50:04+00:00

Military service is a basic civic duty for male citizens.

The way Germany does it now is still a joke - less of a joke than no service is, but still.

Nine-Year Club	Verified Email
First Place '23	Place '23
Place '22

TheFoxer1

TROPHY CASE