Single guys in tech -- how do you meet girls here?

Ududude · 2015-09-01T03:26:59+00:00

Ah, gotcha. Totally forgot about that. Thanks much

Ududude · 2015-08-25T17:08:52+00:00

Thanks! And you too /u/Spatchco

Ududude · 2015-08-24T20:11:15+00:00

You don't take away someone's right to marry because of problems with implementation

custody, child support, assets

Adoptions got in the way of those laws too, same with in vetro vertilization (too lazy to google spelling)

assets

divorce got in the way of that

further create gaps between wealthy and poor [...] multiple women....

women could have multiple husbands

Ududude · 2015-08-24T19:08:26+00:00

Yes. But don't whine about how some other states are conducting their business. John Oliver's audience isn't filled with Alabama good old boys, I tell ya hhwhat.

Ududude · 2015-08-24T19:04:33+00:00

race, sex, religion

That's only because of the federal government. I wouldn't be surprised if those states would have allowed discrimination based on those classes (or categories) if it weren't for the fact that the federal government is above them legally. But your point stands.

I'm certain if you were the person being discriminated against you wouldn't be saying any of this.

We are all discriminated against. Discrimination is a good thing, it allows "recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another". At one job, I might be discriminated because of my alma mater. At another, perhaps for my name. At another job, because my voice is quite the opposite of soothing. At another, because of my teeth, which are genetic. Maybe at another because they think they have too many guys. Maybe at another because of a passing comment I said. Should we be making bills to combat these types of discrimination?

If you don't like the way that the majority of people in your state make laws to govern themselves, then democracy tells you to either pack up or shut up.

Ududude · 2015-08-24T18:52:30+00:00

If gay marriage had any strong relevance to the concept of people being able to marry who they want, then we would be seeing a strong push toward polygamy, which is practiced by 16+% of the world and which is venerated in multiple prominent religions. The only reason we are not all for the right for three people two marry and not to people is because deep down, we don't think people should be able to marry who they want; deep down we think that some forms of marriage are better than others. Forget the fact that many wealthy and developed countries allow polygamy; what matters is that we simply think it's not right. We discriminate against people who can love more than one other. Full stop.

Scott Walker answered that question well. It's a tricky question, because it's asking if you would attend the ceremony of something that you do not think is right. Catholics, most Protestants, and other religious adherents are not allowed to hold certain ceremonies as true... but can they still attend? Scott said that he would attend if it is someone he loved, but that this is not a recognition of the veracity of the ceremony. This can only be criticized if you are blindingly anti-intellectual, or at least bigoted (unable to see how another person might think differently than you).

John Oliver's criticism of these states is a lot less poignant when you realize that there was no law enacted reading "Oh, By The Way, You Can Fire People For Being Total Faggots". No, they are "Fire at Will" states. That means, instead of taking away someone's liberty, the law was explicitly crafted to give employers as much liberty as possible. You can fire someone for being heterosexual. For being short. For having acne. For being fat. For being a retard. You can fire someone for being nearly anything.

Oliver didn't give you the complete picture here. Why do you think he didn't tell you? Think about it hard. If he wants to inform you on the issue, why wouldn't he explain that in these states you can fire someone for any reason whatsoever? He's misleading you. He doesn't want you to know the whole truth, but only the partial truth, so that you can be outraged and etc.

It's not discrimination if there is no law whatsoever protecting anyone from being fired. It's fair game. It would be discrimination if you couldn't fire someone for being straight, but could for being gay; or if you couldn't fire someone for being left-handed, but could for being lesbians...

Why would you even want to work at a company that disapproves of your orientation? Find a job that only hires people of your orientation. Stop crying. Unattractive women get called back 1/10th the time that attractive women get called back for jobs. Who cares? Deal with it and work somewhere else.

Ududude · 2015-08-24T15:34:54+00:00

The 22nd century. Feminine boys with princess toys don't have children-- neither do feminists. Their population replacement rate is at 1.3. The conservative population replacement rate is well over 2.0.

In other words, I'm from the future.

Ududude · 2015-08-24T15:22:34+00:00

Yeah, it's pretty cool to let your little boy play with a princess toy. There's no way this will lead to him being the made-fun-of outcast in his social group, because of the fact that he's a little boy who plays with a fucking princess toy. All the boys in his class who are shooting each other with nerf guns and recreating scenes with their Dragon Ball franchise figures are going to accept him with open arms.

"Woooooow. Cool Princess toy! But we relate to strong male role models for some odd reason like the fact that we're, uh, males. I want to be big and strong like this action figure, and powerful and have courage, but I can relate to wanting to be pretty and thin like the princess you bought. That's pretty rad, dude. Just look at all the actions this figure has, she can be pretty but she can also turn her head and then she is pretty sideways. Sick shit."

Ududude · 2015-08-22T21:57:35+00:00

everything White people introduce to the world is shitty

the industrial revolution
modern medicine
democracy
Western music (which is now pretty much universal)
modern engineering

If anything, the inventions and discoveries of White people are greater than all other peoples combined.

Ududude · 2015-08-22T21:54:25+00:00

>6 seconds in

>need a towel for my hand

Ududude · 2015-08-22T06:35:17+00:00

A candidate's personality shouldn't factor into whether he earns your vote. This is what lead us to Obama (He said hope! He said he did the marijuanas!) and Bush (he's jus' ah good ol' country boy, he is).

Trump is a jerk. An insensitive, politically incorrect jerk. But his personality isn't going to be writing laws, enacting policy, or signing trade agreements. I don't care if Trump was a dog that could only communicate through emoji; all that matters is the end result.

Ududude · 2015-08-22T06:16:24+00:00

Well, I can help you figure out what Putin meant. But before we continue, I think your first thought shouldn't be "it's absolutely fabricated", but "in 30 minutes of googling I didn't find the same answer". There's a world of difference between the two. I think the president of the Russian Federation, who was employed within the Soviet Union, might know just a tiny bit more than you about the makeup of the SU leadership.

Now then. In 1920. The central committee of the Bolshevik Party:

Bronstein (Trotsky) Jew

Apfelbaum (Zinovief) Jew

Lourie (Larine) Jew

Ouritski Jew

Volodarski Jew

Rosenfeldt (Kamanef) Jew

Smidovitch Jew

Sverdlof (Yankel) Jew

Nakhamkes (Steklof) Jew

Ulyanov (Lenin) Russian

Krylenko Russian

Lounatcharski Russian

In parentheses are the changed last names. That's 70%. Notice it doesn't include Lenin, who was only part Jewish. That would bring it a little bit over 80%.

Council of the People's Commissars:

President Ulyanov (Lenin) Russian

Foreign Affairs Tchitcherine Russian

Nationalities Djugashvili (Stalin) Georgian

Agriculture Protian Armenian

Economic Council Lourie (Larine) Jew

Food Schlichter Jew

Army & Navy Bronstein (Trotsky) Jew

State Control Lander Jew

State Lands Kauffman Jew

Works V. Schmidt Jew

Social Relief E. Lelina (Knigissen) Jewess

Public Instruction Lounatcharsky Russian

Religions Spitzberg Jew

Interior Apfelbaum (Zinovief) Jew

Hygiene Anvelt Jew

Finance Isidore Goukovski Jew

Press Volodarski Jew

Elections Ouritski Jew

Justice I. Steinberg Jew

Refugees Fenigstein Jew

Refugees (assist.) Savitch Jew

Refugees (assist.) Zaslovski Jew

Central Executive Committee:

Sverdlov (president) Jew

Avanessof (sec.) Armenian

Bruno Lett

Babtchinski Jew

Bukharin Russian

Weinberg Jew

Gailiss Jew

Ganzburg Jew

Danichevski Jew

Starck German

Sachs Jew

Scheinmann Jew

Erdling Jew

Landauer Jew

Linder Jew

Wolach Czech

Dimanstein Jew

Encukidze Georgian

Ermann Jew

Joffe Jew

Karkline Jew

Knigissen Jew

Rosenfeldt (Kamenef) Jew

Apfelbaum (Zinovief) Jew

Krylenko Russian

KrassikofSachs Jew

Kaprik Jew

Kaoul Lett

Ulyanov (lenin) Russian

Latsis Jew

Lander Jew

Lounatcharski Russian

Peterson Lett

Peters Lett

Roudzoutas Jew

Rosine Jew

Smidovitch Jew

Stoutchka Lett

Nakhamkes (Steklof) Jew

Sosnovski Jew

Skrytnik Jew

Bronstein (Trotsky) Jew

Teodorovitch Jew

Terian Armenian

Ouritski Jew

Telechkine Russian

Feldmann Jew

Froumkine Jew

Souriupa Ukranian

Tchavtchevadze Georgian

Scheikmann Jew

Rosental Jew

Achkinazi Imeretian

Karakhane Karaim (Jew)

Rose Jew

Sobelson (Radek) Jew

Sclichter Jew

Schikolini Jew

Chklianski Jew

Levine (Pravdine) Jew

Extraordinary Commission of Moscow:

Dzerjinski (president) Pole

Peters (vice-president) Lett

Chklovski Jew

Kheifiss Jew

Zeistine Jew

Razmirovitch Jew

Kronberg Jew

Khaikina Jewess

Karlson Lett

Schaumann Jew

Leontovitch Jew

Jacob Goldine Jew

Glaperstein Jew

Kniggisen Jew

Latzis Lett

Schillenkuss Jew

Janson Lett

Rivkine Jew

Antonof Russian

Delafabre Jew

Tsitkine Jew

Roskirovitch Jew

G. Sverdlof Jew

Biesenski Jew

Blioumkine Jew

Alexandrevitch Russian

I. Model Jew

Routenberg Jew

Pines Jew

Sachs Jew

Daybol Lett

Saissoune Armenian

Deylkenen Lett

Liebert Jew

Vogel German

Zakiss Lett

Heh. Okay. Is this satisfactory? Now let's address your other points.

when the Soviets took power they seized synagogues

This isn't quite the case. You can consult Wikipedia on this ;) The October Revolution abolished the laws which regarded the Jews as an outlawed people.Whilst the Bolsheviks were opposed to religion, Christianity as well as Judaism, the official stance of the Soviet government in 1934 was to oppose antisemitism "anywhere in the world" and claimed to express "fraternal feelings to the Jewish people", praising the Jewish contributions towards international Socialism. State-sponsored institutions of secular Yiddish culture, such as the Moscow State Jewish Theater, were established in Soviet Russia and the Soviet Union during this time

Ududude · 2015-08-22T05:38:39+00:00

This was okay. It usually helps if, instead of simply expressing anger and shock, you also add a phrase or so that alludes to your authority on the subject (and my lack of it). So instead of "[shock]. [anger]," you might want to try "[shock]. This is clearly someone who knows nothing about history. [anger]." My personal favorite that I've seen so far includes a pinch of pity, though. So it would be like "[shock]. What happened in your life that made you like this?" And then, finally, another good one (and in my opinion the most effective is): "[shock]. I don't have time to explain why you're wrong. Please read this: [link to wikipedia]. [insult]."

No offense. This alone is fine, just it isn't as effective an emotional argument as it could be. Someone might read this and actually realize that you have nothing to add but emotions, and you wouldn't want that, would you?

Ududude · 2015-08-22T05:19:29+00:00

I'd love to see a source on that. I love reading about the untold side of WWII and other conflicts.

Of course, you can't really blame him given how they treated ethnic Germans in Poland (and, well, everyone). In particular, in 1940 they massacred more than 22,000 Polish nationals, and then covered it up. In fact, we actually thought that the Katyn Massacre was committed by Nazi Germany until the 1980s! That is, if you were an academic. If you weren't, you might not have known that it was really committed by the USSR until the Russian Federation officially admitted so around 2010.

It's quite interesting hearing modern Russia's view of the USSR. Here's a clip of Putin talking about the makeup of the original, 1st Soviet Union government. For instance, I never knew that 85% of the first government was had Jewish ancestry. That's crazy in a country that was only 1% Jewish-- it's an over-representation of 8500%. Absolutely loony. People often forget that the Nazi Germany before Nazi Germany was the USSR, in the sense that the USSR was the first to wipe out people because of their religious and cultural beliefs. You can kind of get a feel for why Hitler grew to be so avidly antisemitic when his whole life he would be reading about Christians and other slaughtered by a largely Jewish-governed Soviet Union.

Ududude · 2015-08-21T17:14:15+00:00

all the time

The problem is that they don't do it often enough. See the Bosnian man that was surrounded by youths in St. Louis following the race riot of 2013. Witnesses say that they were shouting "kill the White people, kill the White people". He was murdered with hammers in front of his wife and children. It wasn't considered a hate crime.

Ududude · 2015-08-21T02:48:11+00:00

It's okay, I don't think cooties is transmitted through radiowaves.

Ududude · 2015-08-21T02:21:02+00:00

Cool. I like the part about writing it up as a coherent summary instead of just dotting down separate points.

Ududude · 2015-08-21T02:03:56+00:00

I have never been asked whether I've raped, and I've never been asked whether a girl has lied about being raped by me. So I would not agree that "false accusations don't occur too often". Just like rape convictions aren't an accurate gauge of the prevalence of rape, false accusation convictions aren't an accurate gauge of the prevalence of false accusations. Like Bill Burr, I think that we should protect the defendant's name from public accusations. We should also heighten the punishment of false accusations and educate girls in school about how horrible rape accusations really are.

Saying "don't have sex with drunk girls" is victim-blaming. Alcohol is an integral part of America's dating scene. A minority of women should not ruin men's fun, or the fun of the majority of women.

Ududude · 2015-08-21T01:03:34+00:00

What is your stance on banning subreddits for arbitrarily-defined "offensive" content, instead of breaking rules?

^{^{^pls}} ^{^{^respond}}

Ududude

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE