[0596] 97 Points
└ posted on Monday, 7 July 2014, by Novil
On Sunday, 6 June 2014, I posted the submissions between place 13 and 25 of the Sandra and Woo and Gaia fanart contest 2014. Go check them out!
- Title: The Human Brain: IQ (3)
- Footnote: Ian J. Deary et al. [2007]
- Biology teacher: This graph shows that the distribution of IQ in men has a larger variance than in women. This means that there are significantly more very intelligent men than women.
- Biology teacher: On the other hand this also means… Oh no, it’s the moral police!
- Dorothy Cambridge: GET HIM!
- Teacher: Tell my wife and children that I love them!
- Male activist: 97 points on the privilege-o-meter!
- Female activist: High time to cull him from the herd!
- Principal: Please welcome your new biology teacher, Mrs. Dorothy Um… Cambridge!
- Dorothy Cambridge: Margaret Cavendish! Laura Bassi! Caroline Herschel! Elizabeth Báthory! Ada Lovelace! Marie Curie! Lise Meitner! Emmy Noether! Dorothy Hodgkin! Rosalind Franklin! Ada Yonath!
- Sandra: This will not end well.
![[0596] 97 Points](/comics/2014-07-07-0596-97-points.png "[0596] 97 Points")
Ostriche wrote:
BULL. SHIT.
Here’s one example:
http://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/piv-is-always-rape-ok/
This is the single most sexist person I have ever met in my fucking life, she’s impossibly sexist even for a feminist. I realize this example IS extreme, but I have seen other feminists display this belief before, even if they haven’t been this upfront about it. This IS a thing feminists believe. Not all feminists, sure, but a large enough portion to discredit the entire group, at least for not openly rejecting the radical minority.
BULL. SHIT.
Anybody with ANY practical experience with feminists know this isn’t true. Feminists don’t give a shit about men. Especially not sexist nutjobs like Anita Sarkeesian, Karen smith and the entire membership of Witchwind.
@ wobster109:
That is the best impression of a TOTAL IDIOT that I have ever heard. You almost made me think you were… Wait, you WERE serious? Oh boy.
In the first, you pull out the bullshit feminist figure instead of the actual figures. Feminists only make the bullshit 2-8% claim by defining rape as any sex in which one partner ever felt uncomfortable, even if both consented. I’m not even kidding, that’s their definition. I’ve had uncomfortable sex before, I’ve had sex that I didn’t like or wasn’t happy with, or where I thought she was going to injure me. Does that mean I was “raped”? NO. FUCK NO, that’s NOT WHAT RAPE MEANS. The truth of the matter is that feminists using this definition are claiming that any time sex happens and one partner is not satisfied, it was rape. In other words, pretty much all sex is rape to them. They use this definition so as long as some sex happened and the woman claims it was rape later she can automatically be considered true. The 2-8% are just the ones where NO SEX HAPPENED, AT ALL, and she claims rape anyway. The REAL figures are 40% unfounded, 20% questionable. The 40% are definitely not rape because she DID consent or even initiated, and then claimed rape later. This is used when caught cheating, or to blackmail, as well as other circumstances such as spiting ex-boyfriends. That’s almost half of all “rape” accusations. The next 20% mostly involve alcohol. “Sure, I consented, but I was drunk, and I don’t like what I did or who with now that I’ve sobered up, and I’m a woman so nobody will even think about it if I call rape! Never mind that you were almost certainly also drunk, and if it was you that wasn’t comfortable with this you couldn’t make the same claim, but let’s forget the inherent sexism in claiming that intoxicated sex is rape completely unquestioned.”
This is to severe that even Windy Mc Elroy, a well-known feminist from Ifeminists.com, who was trying to prove false accusations didn’t happen, ended up conceding this point once she did her research. She understates the issue rather severely herself even when conceding, but that’s to be expected due to bias.
The Forensic Examiner magazine puts the figure even higher than I did, saying it was between 41 and 50%. False rape accusations could be HALF of all cases, not even counting that “intoxication=rape” bullshit. I don’t think it’s that high myself, but that’s not the issue. The issue is that feminists insist that that false rape accusations never happen and that every person accused of rape is a rapist. They want to DISPOSE OF DUE PROCESS for accused rapists, and they’re SUCCEEDING through a process called “trial by media”. Even if somebody is acquitted, they insist they’re a rapist anyway and attempt to ruin their lives forever in retaliation for a perceived injustice, when the only injustice is that feminists assume they were guilty due to their own bigotry before any facts were even presented.
Feminists SHOULD hate false accusers more than anyone else involved because it undermines their entire stance on rape to the point where they can’t be taken seriously by anybody even slightly paying attention to the issues. But no, they just pretend they don’t exist. I said it before and I’ll say it again, modern feminism is WITHOUT MERIT.
You also clearly did not read what I had said, since you seem to think I have said the exact opposite of what I actually did. You seem to think I said that men can’t be raped, what I ACTUALLY said was that men get raped MORE than women, by an INSANELY MASSIVE margin. How fucking stupid are you?
@ Psychronia:
That’s what he was about to say before he was cut off, retard.
Oh God, please tell me this comic is NOT going to pull a Sinfest. Extremely feministic characters are NEVER a good thing.
@ Ry Rodriguez:
No, I don’t think that’s where it’s going. They might do a couple strips on this, but then they’ll move on. And immediately equating this mocking radical feminism, to Sinfest promoting radical feminism is pretty stupid.
Avian Mosquito wrote:
Oh good, I’m glad you’re here to tell us what feminists believe. Otherwise I might be in danger of confusing what the vast majority of feminist who I interact with each day at work and socially (a slight majority of whom are female) say versus what you know feminists *really* believe.
Also, I’ve personally seen clear evidence that Americans are fascist, communist, homophobic, anti-heterosexual, fundamentalist atheists! It’s terrible. But I can point out sites that make it clear that this is what Americans believe (according to each site).
By the way, I’ve also got clear proof in a posting that I read only minutes ago that men are massively insecure and get easily upset because there are extremists somewhere in the world who aren’t concerned about injustices against them! It’s almost as if our tribulations aren’t, by definition, the most important in the world. Dear God!
These men. Let me tell you, I know what they *really* believe…
Luke wrote:
We used to have one. It was called Justice.
I’d much rather support justice for the unjustly treated, regardless of gender, because equality implies equivalence in the minds of most people, and fighting for equivalence will only lead to a ‘sea of androgynous beige’ – all people the same, without culture, without personality and without independence.
@ Tom West:
This is the best you can do? Clinging to a ridiculous strawman argument? I already acknowledged that not ALL feminists believe that ridiculous bullshit, but a large (and VERY vocal) minority DO, and I haven’t found a single example of another feminist directly contradicting them, disavowing them, or doing any of the things you’re SUPPOSED to do when a lunatic in a group you are associated with says something indefensible. Silence is tacit approval. Every feminist, by not taking any action or even acknowledgement of the psychotic monstrosities so common in their ranks, and by allowing those abominations to be a part of their group to begin with, is expressing approval to them whether they intend to or not. And that, as far as I’m concerned, makes them enablers.
And like many feminists, when challenged you immediately resort to ad hominem attacks, strawmen, blatant sexism and insane troll logic, ignore huge sections of arguments against them and make constant appeals to emotion instead of actually making arguments.
@ Tom West:
Actually I’m not done.
Your comparison is also retarded. “American” is a geographical distinction, not a movement with its own ideals. “Men” also aren’t a movement and don’t have shared ideals. Neither is a valid comparison for feminism. This not only doesn’t support your point, it shoots it right down.
Further, not all of those things you listed are negative. Communism is misguided, but ultimately well intentioned, and atheism is dead neutral (and thus positive compared to its purely negative contenders). I am appalled that you would use them alongside things like fascism, homophobia and fundamentalism, and if we were in person right now I would likely smack you.
How do I take back a ‘like’?
Because I liked the first paragraph or two of @AvianMosquito’s argument, and ‘like’d it based on that, then began reading the rest of the textwall and wished I could switch my preference.
@Ostriche
They do exist, and form one of the largest, most vile factions of feminism. There was a (hilariously named) thing called the ‘Feminist Sex Wars’ that happened in the 70’s. Look it up. Or alternatively look up ‘PIV-Critical’. The radfem argument in a nutshell is basically that anyone who is not a cisgender lesbian is either an oppressor, co-opressor, or brainwashed. I spend way too much time trying to understand their arguments
@ Jozarin:
Whether you’re upset because my post was largely written in an angry tone, used foul language, or you just don’t like the facts, you’re hopeless if you dismiss it based on that. Especially when you don’t even begin to present an argument, which is the most ignorant form of dismissal. Make an argument against what I have to say or accept it.
@ bE:
The problem is, though, that that’s a very broad view to take. For, let’s say, the 30 years it takes for women to catch up enough that we can ease off, what shall we tell the men who are genuinely better qualified for jobs that they lose to less qualified women in the name of equality?
Will this not foster a generation of resentment? Will it not call into question female ability if they need such a ‘stool’ to prop them up?
I recognise that it makes sense on one level, but overall, whenever the playing field is not absolutely level, people will continue to call foul until it is.
Of course, there is an entire discussion to be had on what is level, but as I use it, I mean when there is no discrimination. If you wanted everyone to be inherently equal, we ought to also overly favor the unintelligent too, right? They can’t help it – they deserve to be rocket scientists and doctors too, right?
There is no fair. But what there are is equal opportunities. Everyone is judged on their relevant personal qualities, not those of any group they belong to. For better or for worse. The person that best fits gets the position.
My ideal for Equalism is that effort is put into a gender’s problems proportional to the relative severity of those problems against those of the other gender. So, when men and women have equal sexual discrimination, equal effort would be put toward fixing those problems. So currently, if 1/4 of the people who get abused or raped are men, then 1/4 of the total effort in those areas should go into helping them.
But I’ve done research. Studied meta-analyses of studies on male abuse cases. Looked at oh so many relevant statistics. And that’s not the case. Not even close. And heaven forbid Feminists fight for men once in a while. I’ve never seen it happen.
Simply, I don’t see Feminists behaving the way I would expect an equality movement to. They are pushing up on one side of a scale, not using two hands to carefully level it. They’re doing a lot of good, to be sure, but it’s not equality.
“Oh hi guys what’s happening he……”
*War and dead bodies scattered all around*
“Uh…. I think I will visit the Thursday update. See ya.”
*Slowly backed away from the comment section*
The correct answer is: both.
A high IQ but no common sense tends to lead into problems like the above. And for some reason, I find it difficult to believe that someone who outright fails an IQ test could have any common sense at all.
@ Avian Mosquito:
I’m sorry, but that 40% figure leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It is closer to 8% (still too high, but only because of the special stigma attached to rape by society – even a false accusation can ruin a person). I generally agreed with the rest, but I would argue that modern feminism does work against that, if only after their own battles.
Also, your suggestion that Anti-PIV Radfems believe women can’t enjoy sex is inaccurate. It is more specifically that women are not empowered enough for consent to be meaningful. This is based on the sort of thinking that works mathematically, but falls apart once applied to a real population, because it makes assumptions that are patently false: that women identify first and foremost as women, that women-vs-men is the central conflict, and should take precedence above all others, and that the Marxist ideal of conflict even applies to feminism in the first place.
@ demarion:
Well, Larisa doesn’t have to worry anymore…
@ Tom West:
Or…
You get everyone to drop the rope and gently place the knot in the middle. There is no need for tug of war, and absolutely no reason, considering there is one, why one side should expect the other side to join them.
@ Takashoru:
I mostly agree with your sentiment here, a few nitpicks but nothing worth getting too far into. (Like, I don’t think feminists have done any good in years, perhaps decades, but they did at one time do a LOT of good so you’re technically accurate.) Instead, I’d like to supplement your position with two reasons why, if feminists gave a shit about equality, they’d be paying more attention to men’s issues.
1. The big ticket with feminism recently is rape. Everything’s about rape. It’s “rape culture” this and “rape culture” that, all the fucking time. But they only ever talk about *females* being raped. Men get raped so much more than women there’s no comparison. While rape in normal life is roughly equal per capita, prison rape is almost exclusively male simply because prison population is almost exclusively male, and prison culture promotes male rape as a symbol of dominance. Prison rape is the VAST majority of rape. Male prison rape alone, not counting rape outside of prisons, accounts for twice as much rape as ALL female rape, prison and otherwise, in the US. US male prison rape is more than all female rape in the entire developed world COMBINED. Do feminists do a thing about it? No. Because they’re not a gender equality group, and don’t give a fuck about men.
2. Feminists also talk a lot about domestic violence, but again only care about male abuse of females. The abusers are roughly evenly split between men and women, but the victims are mostly male. Spousal abuse is mostly done by males, true, but not by a large margin. Feminists completely ignore any incident where women abuse their husbands and even frequently ENDORSE it. Then there’s child abuse. Women are MORE likely than men to abuse their children, if not by an especially large margin either, and once again feminists ignore this fact. Then there’s the fact that the vast majority of child abuse is directed against boys, which feminists ALSO completely ignore. Men, and to a lesser extent boys, are even denied the ability to report abuse by women, whether they be wives, mothers, sisters or whatever else, and in the case of spousal abuse will frequently be arrested and charged with spousal abuse themselves if they report that their wife is beating them. Feminists are not a gender equality group, since males have it far worse when it comes to abuse and they not only don’t put any effort into resolving the abuse of males they pretend it doesn’t exist and some even actively endorse violence against men.
@ Avian Mosquito:
Dude. Cannot tell if you are a feminist troll out of 4chan (does that exist?)(I bet it does) or just a normal troll out of 4chan. I really hope you’re not serious, but then, Poe’s Law. Poe, why must you always haunt me?
Seriously. Shut up. Either way.
I don’t know, you might actually get some stuff right in that wall of text, but what I do know is that I’m not going to find out. If you were right, you were right for all the wrong reasons.
To anyone who wants to strawman me, disclaimer: I do not reciprocally endorse this user’s ideas.
Tom West wrote:
English isn´t my first language but even in my own language I never bother correcting spelling mistakes. It is, too, a waste of my energy since as long as I am understood, it does not matter wheather they are there or not.
And no – they are NOT expending resources. Most people do not give chances to anyone. What we do is choosing the safest course of action with the biggest probability of sucess. And it is not a human thing. Every animal does it. Even a tyger female will sarcrifice (and eat) it´s cubs when she is unable to hung enough prey to feed them.
A self-sarcrifice with extending resources to save them would kill her, and consequently the cubs would die out too.
When you are employing someone, ot just educating someone it costs resources and it is impossible to do a full screening wheather someone actualy has a potential that can be realized.
And main point is simply a minimalization of risk that the resources “investment” will go to waste.
and in the end- it does not matter wheather choice is gender based, racial or based on whatever past experience.
If you buck for IQ in any form the safest choice is an asian male. This is a group with highest average intellect and relatively small variance compared to others.
Using them to do work that requires peak strength is just moronic. There are many more groups that will perform better.
Yes it is discrimination… but well the world actualy means “choosing because of SOME criteria”)
@ Jozarin:
I’d give a longer reply, but chrome is acting really, really weird. It keeps closing out, this is my fifth try to post this. All I have to say is that even feminist sources admit the numbers are much higher than that once they do the research. DNA evidence exonerates 20% of people accused of rape, and finds another 20% questionable. False rape accusers also don’t give a shit if the person’s life is ruined, and have no reason to because making a false claim and thus ruining the man’s life has no repercussions for them at all. Add on how often minorities, especially african americans, are accused of rape and you’ll see why they care so little. (Yes, I’m suggest many false rape accusers are either racially motivated or at least believe that race makes their false accusation safer.)
Anti-PIV feminists also really DO believe women can’t enjoy intercourse, and the position that women are not empowered enough to consent to sex is complete and utter bullshit. I’ve heard that one too, not as often as the claim that intercourse can’t be enjoyed by women or even that it’s painful, (which it can be in rare cases but almost never is), but I have heard it and it’s nonsense. Not that a lack of agency isn’t a sufficient reason to negate consent, but that still isn’t the same as rape and there’s no lack of agency for women in western society. Now, *children* lack enough agency to meaningfully consent to adults, due to the inherent authority adults have over children. Women? Not the slightest fucking bit. Women have so much more agency than required to meaningfully consent that it’s patent nonsense to claim otherwise, and men do NOT have an inherent position of authority over them. This just doesn’t hold any water, and while not *as* ridiculous as the bullshit reasoning I’ve heard more from feminists, it’s still ridiculous.
@ Takashoru:
There was a lot of stupidity in that. Let’s explore what and why.
1. Calling somebody a “troll”. This is a cop-out.
2. TL;DR. Refusing to read a post you’re insulting somebody over is stupidity at its finest.
3. Attacking your own supporter, thus losing them. Need I explain why this is stupid?
4. Failing to make any argument, at all, when dismissing a point of view. This is feminist-level stupidity.
If this is how you conduct yourself all the time, you are retarded. That’s not a joke, and it’s not an exaggeration. If this is how you behave all the time, you are severely mentally retarded. Your intelligence is so far below normal that you could be considered handicapped due to a lack of mental capacity, and be considered a danger to yourself and others. You should be allowed to work in only the safest environments and should never be allowed to operate a vehicle or any other dangerous device, and should be under supervision at all times.
@ Helen:
1
actualy the difference is significant- if you divide 3000000/4000000ve that is not siginificant difference… but on the outer edges of the curve you can divide 100/1000¨in given ration.
the difference is huge.
and well the thing is – there are actualy more “average” inteligent women than there are men. but there are more genius men than there are genius women. (concsequently there are more idiots among men then there are women)
Thing is – in all species – male Y chromosome is less resistant to mutations… and in general the variation of almost all parameters is bigger in male populaces – we are simply SAFER to experiment with, since we are not really necessary for out progeny to biologicaly survive we are expendable.
In terms of survival of the species it just better as more females are average and haven´t survival issues.
this works for billion years. It is actualy advantageous. It offers both safe ability to change the genome (male contribution) and safety to raise cubs (female genome).
Really I do not see any point in NOT acknowledging what has perfectly worked so long, it is just human arrogance to believe that it can beat a bilion years of how almost all life evolved and changed.
Takashoru wrote:
Sadly, in any injustice, there are a lot of people invested in its continuance, for any number of reasons. (Doesn’t have to be drooling evilness – mostly change is uncomfortable, and human beings don’t like it.) That means there is always a lot of pressure to not change.
Moreover, people like me who are fairly middle of the road, aren’t actually going to go up and shake things up, and do the uncomfortable and exhausting work of changing people’s minds. And make no mistake about it – you won’t be thanked. And if you’re unlucky, you’ll be subjected to violence.
Change does not come without struggle. Just about every worth-while social change that’s occurred has occurred because of the struggle by people I’d probably not care for myself.
@ Avian Mosquito:
I’ve got to be honest with you – between this strip and the one a few updates ago, I find the only explanation to be that the Goddess bequeathed the ability to type upon a fedora.
Paeris Kiran wrote:
Ah, I see what you are getting at. Better to simply throw the resumes in the garbage than bother trying to find the qualified candidates who are women because they are so few.
Sadly, you’re proving my point in spades. If HR experience is any guide, fewer women tend to apply for programmer positions, and in fact, the ratio of decent programmers is *higher* among women _who apply_.
But this conflicts with the gut instinct of men (and women) like yourself. Human brains aren’t all that good at statistics, and your gut tells you that women aren’t as good as men, and you throw away the pile (or ignore the hard results in favor of your interview, which, no surprise, tells you what you *know* is the truth.)
This is what I see by far too many people (including the kids in a tutorial long ago). They construct a logical just-so story that fits there built-in beliefs. They pride themselvesa in their faulty logic because *real* logic doesn’t fit their narrative.
Just as it was well understood by *everyone* that women were simply not as capable musicians in symphony orchestras (genetics, don’t you know) until they started doing blind auditions and suddenly the ratio of acceptances matched the ratio of applicants.
Yet the maestros *swore* they were not discriminating. They would *never* harm the orchestra by hiring an inferior player. And they weren’t. There brain was telling them that the women were inferior players.
Paris
Paeris Kiran wrote:
Human arrogance is to assume that our knowledge of genetics is *so* perfect that we can trumpet results that have decisively negative affects on human beings. Acknowledge? Fine. Promulgate? Thanks, but if I see someone doing damage using the excuse of “it’s the truth”, and I damn well look at their motives. And sad to say, when we’re looking at people studying group differences in IQ, their motives are usually pretty clear.
@ Raen:
Need I run through how throwing around insults without the slightest hint of an argument is stupid one more time? Because to be honest, I’m getting tired of repeating that to every retarded douchebag on the internet.
Avian Mosquito: You know, if you want to claim I’m straw-manning, it helps a whole hell of a lot if you don’t immediately play the scarecrow…
And I noticed that you didn’t point out the millions starving in Darfur. Obviously you don’t care about non-Americans, you swine!
Get real. The radical (and not-so-radical) feminists have the crises that they choose to deal with, and you’re whining because they aren’t addressing *your* issues? Just how big is your ego? More to the point, how many marches have *you* marched in to help raise awareness of prison rape, given your insistence that feminists be fighting that fight?
Or are you claiming that it’s an outrage for anyone to fight crises if they’re not also fighting for the issues *you* care about?
At least they’re actually *doing* something about the issues they care about, as opposed to you and me, who are sitting on our backsides whining. And yes, they’re fighting against the rape of *women* and domestic violence against *women*. I haven’t noticed that many claim prison rape doesn’t exist. It’s just they care about it the same as you do. That is to say, not enough to make it a crucial focal point of their life.
Look. The only feminists you talk about are the radicals. You talk as if the radicals are all feminists. Almost every statement is “Feminists think this” or “Feminists say that” when the movement is *incredibly* diverse. You demand that they work on your issues.
And *I* am the one who is making you a straw man?
You’ve got chutzpah, I’ll give you that.
(And by the way, if you’re an avid atheist, I trust we’ll hear about your disavowal of Richard Dawkins rather “interesting” attitude towards women. No? Then I trust you understand why small communities under siege don’t put their private disagreements out in public.)
@ Tom West:
Again, I’d love to make a longer reply, but chrome keeps closing out on me and I still don’t know why. So I’ll keep this short.
I never said feminists claim specifically that prison rape doesn’t exist. I said instead that they completely ignore it. What they pretend doesn’t exist is male rape outside of prisons, and they pretend that most rape is against women. They also ignore domestic violence if the victims are male, pretend it doesn’t exist, or even endorse it.
Most of your argument is completely invalid because feminists also claim to be an equality group. If they don’t give any effort to one side, they are definitionally not an equality group.
And while I talk frequently about radicals, as they are the worst of the group, the fact that they still allow the radicals under their banner reflects poorly on their entire group, and even their core principles and beliefs (IE: the patriarchy) are both blatantly and subtly sexist.
And yes, you ARE the only one making a strawman. In fact, you’re making a strawman argument to claim that I am making a strawman argument. You keep putting words in my mouth and I’m getting really, really fucking sick of it.
And for your last bit of mental retardation: Atheism is also not a group joined with shared ideals. Atheism is a default, what you are if you are not a member of religion, and it has no ideals. There is no affiliation between atheists because of this. There are atheists of many forms and styles, from anti-theists like myself, who believe very strongly that there is no god and that theism is a destructive force that needs to be fought, to agnostics who don’t know if there’s a god and don’t care, to ignostics that refuse to make a definitive claim on whether there is a god or not until the term “god” is properly defined. All of these are technically atheists, none of them are affiliated, and none of them have any actual ideals, just a definition.
You’re about as far off here as if you were saying “Well, you’re German, so let’s hear about your disavowal of Adolf Hitler’s rather ‘interesting’ opinion on minorities.” In both cases you’re taking a superficial commonality from a group I never chose to be a part of and claiming it ties me to a person I’m not actually affiliated with, and then telling me I have to disavow their words and actions because of this imaginary connection or be guilty by association.
That is totally different from what I am saying. Feminists are a group nobody is born into or defaults to, they have requirements to membership, a set of core ideals and beliefs that everyone joining must subscribe to, and they have both leadership and vocal figureheads. In this case, it’d be more like associating Goring and Hitler. Even if Goring doesn’t specifically say he hates the Jews, Hitler does, so wouldn’t Goring have to disavow Hitler’s opinion on the Jews or else be considered tacitly approving of it? Why yes, he would. But does every German have to publicly denounce what he says or be considered tacitly approving of his anti-semitism as well? I didn’t think so.
And for the record, I don’t even know what Richard Dawkins said about women. It could be harmless, it could be heinous, I have no idea. And I have no reason to care, either. Especially since we’re about as associated through “atheism” as Fred Phelps and Malik ibn Anas are through “religion”.
@ Avian Mosquito:
Well, that wasn’t short at all. But chrome didn’t cut out. So maybe I could have gone with my original post.
Seems as though, he was about to point out that it also means there are significantly more unitelligent men than women. Interesting how it all kind of balances out like that, eh? But alas, the moral police will have none of that.
@ Tom West:
anyone who says that he is NOT discriminating lies.
because only way how not discriminate when doing ANY kind of choise at all is to RANDOMLY throw the dice.
Psychronia wrote:
But that’s exactly what the teacher was going to say *before* he was hauled away by the moral police 😉
Avian Mosquito wrote:
And I would ‘smack’ you. Because what you are saying is basically rewriting history. Socialism/communism was in fact the worst ideology on the list of tom west, the difference is simply that they killed off social groups instead of religious (fundamentalists) and ethnic (racists) groups. Also note that the term ‘fascism’ is today used in a historically completely wrong way, it usually does not refer anymore to italy but instead people like Mao/Stalin/Hitler/Pol Pot are called ‘facists’ although they were clearly communists/socialists.
@ Arent:
Aww look someone trying to pretend they know stuff. The Nazi party was anticommunism moron, that was one of their core beliefs.
OmegaB wrote:
Logical fallacy. (1) The worst socialist was Mao, Hitler was only the third worst. If you want to prove socialism/communism is tolerant & peaceful you have to (a) prove that Mao was no socialist/communist (b) prove that Stalin was no S/C (c) prove that Hitler was no s/c (d) prove that pol pot was no s/c 😉 I’m just getting myself a bit of popcorn before I start laughing 😉 (2) Of course the trotzkists, leninists, marxists, communists, bolschewyk, nationalcommunists, maoists, stalinists, nationalsocialists, facists, khmer etc. all killed each other, exactly like protestants & catholics and sunnis & shiites & of course it is absurd to claim that they belong to different ideologies 😉
I just want to know why she mentions the Blood Countess. You’d think a feminist would have a problem with a woman who tortured other women and bathed in their blood to maintain her youth and beauty.
Oh, dear you actually believe that? Seriously this is making fun of everyone…besides, morality police? I call that “Moral Majority” in disguise and all that crowd gets from me is a rope and a shallow grave. 🙂 I find PC speech to be censorship and what I’d do to ALL censors would make the creative director for the Calligula blanch.
>@ doombybbr:
@ Arent:
I see you’re just going to keep talking out your ass, good day.
OmegaB wrote:
Well, I suggest we just accept that we hate each other & do not spam this lovely comic 😉
Why is the joke that the moral police came in? He didn’t do anything wrong.
so wait… this comic isn’t commentary on how the artists cannot risk saying anything that might be considered controversial by anyone for fear of a gag order and shouting match from the faceless section of internet that got itself in a twist?
Cause that’s what I got. I’m not 100% up on current events if this is some sort of recent news commentary.
Or have the last 150+ posts been intended ironically?
Cute Potter insert.
Love your work btw. Keep the lovely comics coming!
Avian Mosquito:
Wikipedia definition of Feminism: the advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.
Note, the _women’s_ rights? Note, that the movement is not called “Equalism”?
Fighting against prison rape is a fine idea, but that is *not* their issue. Nor is it required to be. Nor is it yours or mine (unless you’re donating or volunteering), so no moral superiority for you or me.
Do you have any concept as to what advocacy is? I’ll give you a hint. It’s *not* about addressing real issues that don’t involve your group. Oxfam doesn’t feed the hungry in America. the United Way doesn’t feed the hungry in Africa.
I swear, you seem *really* offended at the existence of an movement that isn’t working for you.
Paeris Kiran wrote:
Paeris, are deliberately trying to be pedantic. You are, of course, technically correct. However, in actual English usage (and the purpose of language is to effectively communicate), discrimination means using non-business related grounds such as gender and race to select candidates.
As I’ve detailed – we humans are prone to doing so, even as it harms our business because of we’re not inherently logical. We are rationalizing creature who build logical fantasies to justify what we *know* to be true.
Our best defense is to (1) know these tendencies and thus fight when our brain attempts to mislead us and (2) not reinforce these beliefs in the first place. (Thanks for nothing S+W!)
@ Avian Mosquito:
The majority of rape is of women by men. The problem is that feminists treat it as 20:1, rather than the possibly more accurate 2:1 ratio. This has come about due to the social discourse that puts women who are raped on a ‘pedestal of victimhood’ of sorts, whereas men who are raped are treated either as though they are lucky they ‘got laid’, or as though they should ‘toughen up and get over it’. Because of this, far fewer men come forward, and next to none, if the rapist was a woman.
Also, you do choose to be an atheist, so that is a good comparison.
@ Avian Mosquito:
Issue is really that Sinfest began that way too… then went in 2-3 strips into the deep end.
Drake wrote:
She’s listing successful women, and Bathory was extremely successful in her chosen field… Although her chosen field was torture and serial murder so…
/*(technically the bloodbaths are not really likely to have happened, since the earliest accounts of this appear much later than the slightly less gruesome accounts. History, ruining everything everytime.)*/
It’s really cool to see that a simple webcomic can produce these big debates. They are very interesting to read 😉
Psychronia wrote:
That’s part of the joke. You can see that he was getting ready to make such an observation when the “Moral Police” interrupted him.
I wonder about the effectiveness of using a straw feminist for humor’s sake when it appears so many people don’t know the difference between actual feminism and straw feminism.
@ Cory:
for references on feminism / straw feminism.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/Feminism
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StrawFeminist