~ archived since 2018 ~
Popular
Other
jaib9
[–]RatsSewer 229 points230 points231 points 9 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link
Am I the only one bothered that both aren't the same race?
[–][deleted] 193 points194 points195 points 9 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link
AND they all have thin, athletic privilege, too !
Where are the 450 lb sprinters ? Huh ?
FAT ACCEPTANCE, bitches ! 450 lb runners can move just as fast as anybody else, it's only societal oppression that keeps them down by imposing such things as 'time' on them ! In the name of equality, we need more Jigglypuffs on the track ! Those skinny, athletic runners have had it way too good for way too long !
/sarcasm
[–]420weedscopes 26 points27 points28 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link
Tbf I've seen some fast o line men. They can sprint just not too far.
[–][deleted] 53 points54 points55 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
During my highschool football days, I had a rude awakening concerning big guys and potential movement speeds.
The offensive and defensive line coach was an understandably large dude. I was one of the fastest receivers on the team.
He joined one of the drills that basically pit me vs him.
It's terrifying to have a big dude keep pace in a chase like that. I still firmly believe that I only outran him because it was like a lion chasing an antelope - one runs for dinner, the other runs for life.
[–]420weedscopes 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Ahhaha I have my fair share of that in lacrosse, box not field. The motivation to run on a fast break comes from the dude with a metal stick wanting to smash you not to score.
[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Even though I actively played football, any sport where all of the players carry something akin to a weapon scares me.
Too many times I've seen kids do something awful in order to secure a win or advantage, I can only imagine the shit that comes from lacrosse or hockey being played by kids that don't have a full-grasp on right vs. wrong, or a full understanding that a person's livelihood is worth more than winning a single game.
[–]420weedscopes 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
The good thing is I saw it only happen once my entire life and I've been playing both hockey and lacrosse for about 17 years. I was reffing a hockey game where a kid cross checked a kick in the back of the neck. The thing is though there is generally a respect not to use it as a weapon or purposely hurt others. Even in fights in hockey there is a code you know. You don't wanna kill the guy so if he's gonna fall and smash his head you catch him. That respect has to be tought though but coaches can and refs weed those kids out usually.
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I can only hope they are weeded out and kept out. All it takes is one psychopath kid to ruin someone else's life.
[–]420weedscopes 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Yeah you're correct they have done a good job
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It really depends on what kind of coaching staff you have and what socioeconomic environment the team is set up in. When I was playing football in high school, there were five other schools in our league that we had to compete against. My school was more of a blue collar upper middle class school, there was one that was more white collar, another that was blue collar middle class as well, one that was way above our skill level but also blue collar middle class, one that was poor as shit and had trashy parents supporting the program butt the coaches encouraged a different work ethic on their players and then there was another school that was straight up ghetto trash. Guess which high schools grilled their players on a regular basis to not play dirty? The first five. Guess which school allowed their players to play dirty? You guessed it. The ghetto trash one.
[–]RatsSewer 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Yeah don't underestimate fat guys. They can be quite fast and athletic
Source: played soccer with fat Mexicans
[–]Holmfastre 23 points24 points25 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Growing up I played O line and my little brother was a RB. I always told him I was faster than him in the first 5 yards but he never believed me. One day he popped off a fat joke while standing too close to me. He didn't even finish his second stride before I tackled him. The best part was that our dad was in the yard watering the bushes while this went on, and as my brother yelled for help underneath me our dad just said he shouldn't stand so close while being a smart ass.
[–]bcmonke 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
That's some good dad wisdom that hopefully served your brother well
[–]Holmfastre 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Oh it did. I still have yet to catch him again.
[–]Coach_DDS 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
We need more dads like that today!
[–]ReunionIsland 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The problem with the lines in football is that your reference is the other inhumanly fast players on the field. Yes, they're not even close to as fast as the other players, but they're actually astonishingly fast in their own right.
[–]iamnathandrake 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
One of the few times where /s wasn't needed.
[–]Sbaker777 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It's really not needed most of the times I see it.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
it's only societal oppression that keeps them down
That...plus gravity
[–]Brusanan 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
That's pretty racist.
[–]Blutarg 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
It's time we saw past race, you bigot.
[–]RatsSewer 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I admit, I am racist.
[–]Blutarg 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
You racists really make me sick, even more than the Jews.
(Kidding, of course)
You're gonna kill the joke by saying you're joking! Let the context be your guide.
[–]amberclad 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
"race" ahhhhh
[–]Brusanan 79 points80 points81 points 9 years ago (48 children) | Copy Link
Life isn't a regular race; it's a relay race. You start where your parents left off.
[–][deleted] 9 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]Brusanan 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link
I think it's a good goal to keep everyone sheltered, clothed and fed, but I don't see why the solutions can't be provided by charities funded by fundraising and donations.
[–]thePINKavenger 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
I think the problem with charities is the inconsistency between them all. The goal, it seems, is to avoid holes in coverage for the truly needy.
[–]Brusanan 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
When a charity underperforms you can give your money to a different charity. When your government underperforms at providing social services you can't give your tax money to a different government.
[–]thePINKavenger 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
That's a valid argument. I find myself slightly cynical about it all - often it comes down to the individual to find a philanthropic bone in their body and I don't think that's as common as it needs to be.
[–]SaiHottari 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
People would be more giving if they weren't so often forced to be. Charity breeds charity. Theft (taxes) breeds resentment.
[–]lackofagoodname 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
And you can be damn sure that your government will provide shitty social services, while (some) charity foundations actually feel obligated to do what they said they would.
Charity foundations can be held accountable, your government can, but won't be.
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The truly needy are often covered by the government or at least claimed to, so there's a crowding effect.
[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link
We already have charities for these things, but people are still homeless and starving in America. Clearly only using charities isn't enough
[–]Brusanan 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link
We aren't only using charities. We also have government-funded social programs, which are also failing to address the issue. If it's a lack of resources issue, why would inefficient, bloated, and generally untrustworthy government-run programs be preferable to more charities?
100% of the time governments do a worse job at a higher expense than privately run companies.
[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link
Well how would charities be better if people are now choosing not to donate? What would change if government was out of the picture? The government is beholden to the people companies aren't. Private companies only care about profit margins and not about people. We only have to look at the late 1800's and early 1900's to see what companies do when they have all the power. Or look at companies like Walmart which don't pay their workers livable wages. So I find it hard to believe that private companies are better than a government.
[–]lackofagoodname 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
private companies only care about profit margins
Fucking exactly. Profit margins don't discriminate based on race, gender, etc. You don't like what a business is doing, you stop giving them money. They change or lose profits/go out of business.
How the hell would you stop the government? No amount of blocking highways or voting in other corrupt politicians will get them to change anything.
Also business can't break into your home, government can.
Not to mention you're not entitled to having some all powerful entity care about you. It's not the fucking government's job to provide shit for you, that's your responsibility. If you think any government as a whole cares in the slightest about its people, I don't know what else to say.
Also
we only have to look back a couple centuries to see what business does when the have all the power
Yes, so the solution was to break up that power. Why then should we give all the power to the central government and expect different results? Especially when the government has as much power as it can vote in. Stop giving them power.
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Well businesses have and still do discriminate against people. Overtly by race just about 50 years ago and now happens based on sexuality. That's also to ignore less obvious cases, but you know what stopped overt racial segregation? The government, not the businesses which didn't go out of business or change anything until regulations came in.
You stop the government by voting, protesting, etc. I'm sure you would tell the unions in the early 1900s, the Civil Rights movement, women's suffrage, the American Revolution, etc. that there is no way for people to change the government, right?
I don't know where you are from, but in America they (the cops) can't without a warrant or if they see some shit going down.
It's not the fucking government's job to provide shit for you, that's your responsibility.
Again, don't know where you're from, but America was founded based on life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are human rights that are secured by the government. So in America it is the government's job to care about you.
Are we better now with the government having power over corporations, or were we better back with corporations having near unlimited power?
[–]lackofagoodname 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
You know what also caused segregation? The government.
And yes, life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (property) was part of the declaration of independence (not a legal document detailing how the government would work by the way, just justification to break away from England). That means you're free to live your life, not that government will provide your life for you. It doesn't literally mean life in the sense that government is required to provide a living wage, free college, and healthcare.
And yes, government stepped in and put a stop to horrendous working conditions and monopolies (not so much with the monopoly part, but still). That was a legitimate role of government.
And if you haven't noticed, protesting doesn't mean shit anymore. We protested the outcomes of an election for weeks in case you don't remember. They're not listening. And just because someone stands at a podium and promises everything "the people" want, doesn't mean protesting works. If Obama is anything, he's a good representation of what happens. As soon as they're elected, they do what their funders tell them to. Not what the people want. Another good example of that is Hillary Clinton, who pretends to attack wall street while picking up checks from those same damn people.
And if I have a choice between trusting my unalienable rights to those pathetic snakes, or just not giving them the power, I'll choose the latter.
1 act of government power being good does not make all of them good. And most of the time, you never get that power back.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
So what? You're idea is to give all the power to large corporations and go back to the age of monopolies (but probably worse this time since they would have more power)? All of your criticisms of the government apply to corporations too. I mean, who do you think the "funders" of politicians are? They certainly aren't other politicians. The fact is that corporations don't do anything to help the people unless they are forced to, while the government does do good for people.
And if you haven't noticed, protesting doesn't mean shit anymore.
With that attitude it never will. It takes more than a couple weeks of protesting to change anything, you have to show them that you really mean it. Especially if it is something as big as changing the electoral process. Real talk change is slow and doing the right thing is never easy. It takes months or years of protesting to change things, and sometimes people will die. All successful protests were a long and hard struggle, during the union strikes people were beaten and killed by the Pinkertons and they had to send their kids away so that they didn't starve during the strikes. Black people in the Civil Rights movement were regularly beaten and killed by the police or just angry white people. If they gave up because "protesting doesn't mean shit anymore" like you did what do you think would happen? We would probably have far worse working conditions and have worse civil rights. But throwing your hands up in the air and giving up because nothing happened after a couples weeks of light marching didn't change anything shows that you don't really care that much.
Really, what do you propose that can replace our current system of government and be better?
[–]Brusanan 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link
Donations aren't necessary for charities to work. Just look at things like Humble Bundle. It raises money for charities and developers by appealing to our greed. Charities that have things to offer us in exchange for our money will thrive. And those who fail to raise money will fail, leaving room for other charities to move in and take their place.
What is a "livable wage"? Is it enough for a young adult with no debt to live in a studio apartment working 50-60 hours a week, or is it enough for a single mother to raise her two children while working 40 hours a week?
The money for higher wages won't appear out of thin air. That increase in wages will be subsidized by the lower and middle class shoppers who go there to save money. Walmart is helping a larger number of people by keeping their prices low rather than paying no-skill workers more than their jobs are actually worth, and forcing the shoppers to foot the bill.
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
You know what can raise more money than Humble Bundle or any charity? Taxing a population of 300 million people. I'm still confused why you think that charities are better than any government.
A livable wage would be a wage that allows a person to live without any government assistance or another job. Which Walmart does not pay, many of those "no-skill" workers are still on welfare. Walmart makes enough profit and the Walton family has enough money to take some pay cuts so that they can pay their workers a fair wage without raising any prices. All Walmart is doing is keeping people poor.
[–]Brusanan 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
The amount of money raised doesn't matter when most of it is wasted due to the bloat, inefficiency, incompetence and corruption of government. That money has to pass through 5 different redundant federal and state departments, padding the wallets of rich overpaid government assholes the entire way through, before it makes it to the people who actually need it. If you give that same amount of money to a privately owned charity minus the too many layers of bloated bureaucracy, don't you think that money is going to be able to help more people?
And I hate to break it to you, but if you take all of the dividends the Waltons make from their stake in the company and split it up between all of Walmart's (and Sam's Club's) current employees, that doesn't doesn't come close to allowing for the kind of wage you are talking about. We're talking about an almost negligible amount of money when split between 1,400,000 employees. If the minimum wage of Walmart employees was raised to $15, for example, almost all of that cost would have to be passed on to the shopper. The cost of living goes up for everyone, meaning effectively EVERYONE ELSE gets a reduction in pay to accommodate the raise given to Walmart employees.
What do you think happens to the number of jobs available in that scenario? Do you think a Walmart greeter is still going to be employed if they cost $15 an hour? Do you think they are going to have 5 isles manned at $15 an hour when 1 or 2 can accommodate the customers at a slightly slower rate? And how much do you think it will cost to replace those employees with kiosks within a couple years? What happens to all of these career Walmart employees when there are fewer jobs available and many more people competing for said jobs due to the high wage?
And you didn't answer my question. Is that person an adult living in a cheap apartment, or is it a single parent raising children? Is it a college student paying off $50k worth of student loans? Just how much of your financial burden can society reasonably be asked to bear for you?
Charities are better than government because they are more efficient, more competent, and more trustworthy. If you think government is any of those things then you have not been paying attention.
The same type of bureaucracy and corruption can exist in any group, even charities. It is not just limited to government, so no I do not think that using charities instead of a government is the right solution. Sure our government has problems, but those are not inherent in the system. Getting rid of the government for there being corruption and bad politicians would be throwing the baby out with the bath water.
I imagine the Walton family is making crazy bank off of their dividends being that just Jim Walton is worth $32.9 billion, Nancy Walton Laurie is the lowest with $4.2 billion, and their entire family is worth $124.3 billion. I imagine they make enough to cover the difference. But that is also excluding all of the executives, the CEO makes 1,133 times the median worker's wage ($25.6 million - $22,591). I imagine that the other executives make a similar amount. Lowering executive pay (a person does not need that much money per year, and can't even spend it all anyway) and cutting into some of their profits (which I feel is safe to assume is very large, if not ridiculously so) should be able to pay the workers fairly. Raising worker pay leading to raising costs of the product is a very common myth that these corporations like to tell. The fact is that they want to pay their workers as little as possible and charge as much as possible to make the biggest profit they can. When they really have so much money to spare that they don't really need to raise prices. It's a win-win situation for them, because if enough people buy that excuse they can pay their workers like shit, and they can raise the price of their goods if they have to pay their workers more, either way they make more money and no one is mad at them for it. This is all also ignoring the impact of good workers, if you pay them well and treat them well you will get the best workers and that is good for a business. I do find it interesting that you talk about "overpaid government assholes" and how the government can't be trusted, but don't seem to have a problem with corporations doing similar things.
To your question about a livable wage, I feel that the phrase is pretty self-explanatory. A livable wage is a salary that allows a person to live in that area without needing assistance (government or otherwise) or another job while working full time. This would include the cost of housing in the area, food, health care, etc. The minimum wage was designed to be just this, when pegged to inflation it should now be around $20 per hour, and companies seemed to survive then and I'm sure they can survive paying their workers fairly now.
I guess I trust the government to do this because the system can work, look at Denmark's social programs which seem to be doing just fine or in Utah where they just gave homeless people houses and suddenly they drastically reduced their homeless population. Every person of voting age has a say in who is in the government, we can change policies and vote the politicians out of a job if we don't like them, and we can see a lot of what the government is doing; while we don't have a say in the boardrooms/even know who makes corporate decisions, for-profit companies are beholden to profit not people, non-profits right now are chronically underfunded and usually scrambling for enough money to exist which I don't see changing if we follow your plan, and it has been proven in the past that having corporations in charge of the public hurts the average person more than a government in control will.
[–][deleted] 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
It's more like a sale. Developers still get paid. They get sales that never would have happened otherwise, and it is also advertising for their game. Humble Bundles can appeal to developers for purely selfish reasons. Plus there is the Humble store, where games are sold at market value and a cut of the sale goes to charity. You can also see that as the store being charitable, but it is also a selling point: it's a reason for consumers to choose that store over a competitor, and you can guarantee the "selfless" act of donating a portion of profits to charity will bring in plenty of free advertising all across the internet, and garner plenty of loyal repeat customers.
Either way, that was a response to the concerns of individuals not being charitable enough to donate to keep charities afloat. Nobody is arguing that charitable organizations need to exist (wasn't that my argument in the first place?), but charities already have a business incentive to exist. It's everyone else who needs more incentive to give to charity.
[–]geniice 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Dissolution of the Monasteries or on the US's case not having them in the first place.
The cost is so high that taxes are really the only way to fund it in a remotely modern economy. You might in principle be able to do it by turning over most land and all mineral rights to said charities instead but at that point it is functionally a tax anyway.
I agree with that statement. The only thing is, what's the answer to help others that start behind?
There are veritable "shackles" that can be the baton in a relay race for some racers(e.g. some batons are heavier or more cumbersome than others), so the question would be how to make those batons of equal weight and shape.
[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
That's why it says equality of opportunity. Not equality of outcome. An under privileged person needs equality of opportunity to compete, not equality of outcome.
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link
You start where your parents left off.
That isn't entirely true, and life is a little more complicated than that.
Middle class families can give their kids a good start, but it's up to them what they make of it. They can end up worse off than their parents, and their parents can't support them forever.
For rich families sure. Rich families with generational money, of course. They are set because their parents are set. For middle and lower class families, not so much. You start at a better position as a middle class family, but most of their kids go to the same schools as lower class family's kids do. It's not like those schools become magical because the families are middle class.
[–]Henniker 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link
In a relay race it doesn't matter how the person before you did, it matters what you do with it. You can be given a bad start and improve, or a good start and still fall behind. Rich kids sometimes become homeless drug addicts , and occasionally poor kids become rich and successful.
Therefore you do in fact start where your parents left off, however this does not guarantee success or failure. It is up to you to run your own leg of the race as best you can.
[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link
In a relay race it doesn't matter how the person before you did, it matters what you do with it.
Yes, but in a relay race, you generally don't go backwards.
[–]Henniker 14 points15 points16 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Yes...in a relay race most people do not run backwards. However you can easily undo everything the person before you accomplished by moving really slowly, not moving at all, or even turning around and running backwards around the track. Point is no one can truly control you once the baton is handed off. The analogy still holds.
[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The analogy still holds.
Eh, I disagree.
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link
People trip in relay races all the time.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link
That's still not going backwards.
ETA: Calling it a relay race indicates that you always end up farther along than your parents, and that's simply not the case. Lots of times people start off much worse than their parents straight out of college.
A better analogy would be that it's a straight up race where everyone starts at the same point, but some people's parents give them a car to start, some parents give their kids a bicycle, and some parents cut their kids off at the knees. But everyone starts at the same spot.
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
It is falling behind the other racers though.
Besides, nothing is stopping people from running backwards. The rules for success are much more clearer in a relay race than real life so it's harder to do on accident in the former, but that doesn't invalidate the analogy.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
No argument, but it's still farther ahead in the race than your parents were.
Yeah... it does. That analogy indicates that your success is guaranteed by your parenting situation (at least as successful as your parents) and that's just not the case.
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
The analogy does not indicate guarantee of success. It simply states what your starting point is.
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
in a race that only moves in one direction.
[–]GOpencyprep 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You start where your parents left off. That isn't entirely true, and life is a little more complicated than that.
Yeah? Life is a "little more complicated" than that? You dont say....
I absolutely hate this argument. It's lazy, as are the people who claim they're oppressed because of it.
Life is more of a shit storm than a race
[–]mensmod[M] [score hidden] 9 years ago stickied comment (10 children) | Copy Link
While this is a meme, and we typically don't allow memes, we didn't catch this one until it had generated a sufficient amount of interest.
We will not be removing this post in order to allow the discussion to continue.
[+]SRSLovesGawker -16 points-15 points-14 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
The problem I have with it isn't that it's a meme, is that it's incorrect. To have equality of opportunity, one has to have equality of outcomes of the things leading up to the opportunity.
Consider two children, one born to a poor family and one born to a rich family. The rich kid, broadly speaking, will likely have superior access to a stable home, nutritious food, more-than-adequate lodging, more likely to have a stay-at-home parent or more time to interact with parents in general, reliable transportation to school and other required locations, additional non-scholastic cultural and educational opportunities like travel to exotic lands, high speed internet and "always on" gadgets like smart phones to have constant access to the world's collected knowledge, few roadblocks to making or maintaining friendships, etc.
The poor kid is, again broadly speaking, more likely to not have a stable home life, subject to food, shelter, sleep and safety inadequacies. Opportunities that require money are going to be difficult to acquire and will have to be 'triaged', or gone without. Travel opportunities are pretty much nonexistent, as are hours spent with parents (or, often, the sole parent), and so on.
These kids both make it through public school, and are now looking to go on to college. Yet despite now both having an opportunity to attend college, you cannot reasonably claim that opportunity is equal. One kid has a clear advantage.
So how does one 'equalize' that opportunity? Well, you have to equalize all the disparities in the inputs. More money for the poor kid, or less for the rich one. More and better food for the poor, or less and poorer for the rich. More access to parental time for the poor, or less for the rich... etc etc. As we see, some of these solutions, while they result in more equality, can be considered deeply unethical: it takes someone truly dedicated to the ideal of equality to be sanguine with the idea of "less attention from parents for those with an excess" as a solution to inequalities of parental care.
The only real equality of opportunity is strictly equality of opportunity under the law, in that Anatole France style: "The law, in its majestic wisdom, prohibits the rich and poor equally from begging in the street, stealing bread or sleeping under bridges." This is practical, and I would suggest the only really enforceable equality that doesn't go into insanely unethical territory, even as it highlights the disparity of fortune to those subject to it.
I'm a fan of equality of access and opportunity under the law, but full equality of access, which would require full equality of outcomes, is something that I argue is neither possible to practically achieve nor desirable given the messed up things that'd need to be done to get there. See: post-czarist Russia, Maoist China, the Kibbutzim and other communes that required children be surrendered to the community for raising, et al.
[–]mensmod 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
You can have whatever problem with it that you want. The discussion remains visible, so that people can voice these opinions.
[–]SRSLovesGawker 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
Fair enough. I wasn't trying to get it taken down or anything, just registering my reservations with the concept overall.
Edit: Weird day. One post gets gold, the next gets dv'd to -10. Go figure. ;-)
Solid work mod!
[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
The meme talks about equality of opportunity. That is giving the poor kid enough resources by spending more money and resources on him. Not giving him a quota for a job because he is poor.
[–]SRSLovesGawker 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
Yeah, but how is dropping cash on a kid who, say, has been chronically underfed his entire childhood going to result in equality of opportunity? He'll still be shorter, he'll still have the psychological and neurological effects, just with a fatter wallet. It may help in some small way because those effects can result in him having less earning potential today, but it's not a solution, only a band-aid (and one that doesn't really band-aid particularly well either).
This is the point I'm trying to make -- for there to be equality of opportunity, there has to be equality of outcome of all the things leading to that opportunity unless you're only talking about equality of opportunity under the law and not social equality. I'm in favor of equality of opportunity under the law: noone should be turned away from an education because they're black, or female (or white or male for that matter). Opportunity based on merit leads to the best outcomes imo and judging based on the merit required to do the job/succeed in school/accomplish task xyz should optimally be the sole comparitor.
Of course, in the real world, we have things like 'equal opportunity' legislation which is, in fact, exactly the opposite... it's expanding opportunities for people not based on merit, but on their membership in what may be considered disadvantaged groups. Trying to force an equality of outcome (success in applying to college x, getting job y) where on the merits alone they wouldn't succeed.
Edit: Typo Fix
[–]Fucky_Thirstboi-16 points 9 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link
So this is facebook/tumblr now? There is no meaningful discussion going on, just sarcastic circlejerking. I thought this subreddit was supposed to be kept to a higher standard than social media feminism.
You can express your views through memes. Nothing wrong with that.
[–]mensmod 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
If you skip over the discussion in order to look at the circlejerking, of course you are going to see circlejerking. You find what you seek.
There is actual discussion here, it just doesn't fit with your narrative to recognize that.
[–][deleted] 43 points44 points45 points 9 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link
Equity!! Well a lot of feminist claim to thinks something along these lines: http://culturalorganizing.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/The4thPanel_Kit.jpg But when it comes to the execution only women gain benefits and men get disadvantages. The problem is that they prefer to not remove the fence so that they can discriminate and take advantage of men.
[EDIT] btw: The fact that a thicket might bee required here to watch the game and that they are black, really shows how the feminists mindset is about equality. They tried to make it PC, yet its 3 black people not paying for a ticket.
[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
They tried to make it PC, yet its 3 black people not paying for a ticket.
It's only not PC when you see it that way. I didn't notice their race until you pointed it.
They remade this pic: https://ixquick-proxy.com/do/spg/show_picture.pl?l=&rais=1&oiu=http%3A%2F%2Fimg-9gag-fun.9cache.com%2Fphoto%2FajAerM1_700b_v2.jpg&sp=1a89275db7bcfa739b3424a6f7fdba4f
"they" who are they?
[–]iainmf 16 points17 points18 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
So black people can't afford tickets?
But seriously, the whole equality/equity/parity thing is an exercise in moving the goalposts to enable double standards.
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Wouldn't they then be dragged out for being on the field during a game?
[–]bryanpcox 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
allot - give or apportion (something) to someone as a share or task. a lot - a large amount.
[–]Source_or_gtfo 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The problem is that groupist "positive discrimination" is on the level of individuals neither equality of opportunity nor equality of outcome. It's more like giving two boxes to the tall guy and no boxes to the short guy based on group averages.
[–]nybo 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Don't wanna read two much into this, but I live that they drew 3 black guys and 3 different self righteous justifications of trespassing.
[–]I_divided_by_0- 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
What are they doing on the field?
[–]buyingcoachtix 117 points118 points119 points 9 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link
tfw you realize they separate men and women's sports by sex to provide fair competition
fairness in competition is necessary to achieve meaningful outcomes
[–]_____username____ 19 points20 points21 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Harmony>Equality
[–]iamMANCAT 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
having women compete against men wouldn't even be sport anymore. the average man has a stronger upper body than 99.9% of women. Venus and Serena Williams got beaten handily by the 203rd ranked men's player. there would be no point to coed athletic competitions
[–]thesimen13 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
He crushed them with ease. He'd also played golf and had multiple drinks before the match.
[–]lackofagoodname 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Didn't they lower the number afterwards (let's say rank 300) and then he purposely lost to be ranked even lower to challenge them again?
[–]subzero_600 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Didn't purposely. He was being down ranked a few days after the match, which happened to put him in a lower enough rank for the rematch.
[–]crimsonkodiak 42 points43 points44 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Not really - we separate mens and womens sports so that women have the opportunity to participate in sports. If there weren't separate womens teams, there would be no womens soccer/hockey/basketball/whatever players.
You attach the label "fair" to that if you want, but fairness is inherently a subjective construct. In this context, you're providing additional opportunity to a select portion of the population (naturally athletic and/or relatively wealthy females), but there are still wide swaths of the population who don't have anything close to an equal opportunity to participate.
[–]gamercer 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
The special Olympics is a similar concept. As are weight classes in combat sports.
[–]Incident-Pit 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Sort of. I mean there are a fair few special Olympics runners that would disagree with you.
[–]gamercer 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
The cyborg ones with springs for legs?
[–]Incident-Pit 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Bing-pot!
[–][deleted] 17 points18 points19 points 9 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link
Just like they separate wrestling by weight, running by distance, and salaries by race.
[–]PacoBedejo 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link
It's not just like. Separating by gender is more similar to separating by skin color. It's not an important distinction.
When wrestlers are separated by weight, there's a huge bit of physics behind the division. As an extreme example; pitting a 100lb wrestler against a 400lb wrestler would not only be uncompetitive, but would very likely result in serious injury or death.
When runners are separated by distance, it's a matter of training and mechanics. You'd no sooner pit a sprinter against a marathoner than you'd pit a monster truck against a Formula 1 car.
The only reasons to separate male and female sports are:
Honestly, I can think of very few institutions which are more blatantly sexist than gender-locked sports.
Disclaimer: I was a 6'3" 240# HS American Football player
Think of it this way: The tallest and/or most athletic boys get to play HS basketball, if they'd like. The almost universally shorter and/or less athletic girls also get to play HS basketball, if they'd like. But...the 5'2" boys almost never get to play HS basketball, regardless their athleticism.
Instead of segregating by gender, it makes a lot more sense to segregate by more sensible characteristics like height, weight, age, or gauges of speed, strength, dexterity, flexibility, etc. That's how motorsports work.
But that's the point. The separations and distinctions are not universal or determined fairly, it's just a mix of different policies that result in all kinds of unfair outcomes.
Why isn't there a basketball league for people under 6'?
Why isn't there an ice hockey league for people who can't skate?
Why isn't there a ski race for people who are clumsy?
We come up with all kinds of arbitrary distinctions all the time and none of it matters anyway. Feminists are each focused on some issue that they personally have a problem with and scream that the one issue they care about is destroying the world when the truth is that there are millions of unfair things and the only thing that we can try to do is give everyone a chance to fail.
[–]jrdnsln 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
Interesting stat I came across. Women today run sprints as fast as men did in the 1920s. Makes me think if you have women competing head to head with men then there could be an leveling of opportunity for women to succeed in races against men. Like when no one could run a 4 minute mile til one guy did it. Then there was an avalanche of 4 minute miles.
[–][deleted] 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]jrdnsln 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
I'm saying there's more of a psychological barrier rather than a completely physical difference. I don't think women have evolved so much in the last 100 years to the point where they are now as strong as men were 100 years ago. More likely attitudes have changed more and that has lead to increase physical performance from women.
[–][deleted] 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]jrdnsln 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
lol yes I'll admit it's a stretch. But I'm more confident in saying that the top female athletes will beat 99% of all males in any sport.
[–][deleted] 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]jrdnsln 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Tbf, state finals athletes are in the 1%, no?
[–]ether_reddit 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
TIL! Maybe we just need some sports league or organization to take the bold move and desegregate an event, and if it's successful, more will follow.
They should start with the Special Olympics
[–]PacoBedejo 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Gross oversimplification. You can't turn a sprinter into a marathoner of the same ability just by changing the training. Different length races require different body types to excel.
I'm well aware. I wasn't trying to be thorough in the comparison. I felt it obvious enough to most readers.
And the end result would be that men dominate all sports. It's not just strength but men have better spacial reasoning and hand-eye coordination.
So? Why create a special category for an lower-performing group based solely on gender?
The problem is that the ceiling for peak female athletic performance is very low compared to the potential peak male athletic performance.
And the peak basketball performance for 5'6" males is very low compared to 7'0" males. It doesn't mean that some of them might not want to play competitively against people of similar ability.
This just sounds like equality of outcome. No one is guaranteed a spot on a basketball team.
I didn't say everyone needs to be on the same teams in the same games. If they're going to break out a special league for lower-performers...why must it exclude shorter and/or less athletic males? The taller and/or more athletic females sometimes play on the peak-competitive team.
[–]johhnytexas 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
but professional sprinters race for their salaries?
[–]TracyMorganFreeman -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Wrestling by weight is a feature for safety.
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
I actually don't see the point in doing it that way. There would be few women in the top of most sports but there would be some.
[–]HitlerHistorian 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Few??? Some sports, like rowing for example, an olympic womens 8 could lose to the top high boys team.
[–]umbra0007 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
deleted glhf 52577)
[–]rant2087 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Yeah most sports that aren't team based wouldn't have any females in it if that were the case.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Depends a lot on the sport. Power lifting, no. Cycling, swimming, maybe.
[–]SaiHottari 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You're forgetting that men's superior upper body strength isn't self-induced. It's the result of testosterone's effect on muscle growth and recovery. The heart and lungs are muscles too. Men generally outperform women in endurance sports as well. How many men have been busted for using steroids (artificial testosterone) in endurance sports like cycling?
[–]fengpi 53 points54 points55 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link
OH YEAH, WELL YOU WERE BORN ON THE FINISH LINE!!1!!1!!!1
CHEK YUR PRIVULIJ!
[–][deleted] 19 points20 points21 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
I'd see how you could say that about people born rich. I could almost see how African-Americans could say that about white people...even though I'd trade my poor white upbringing, if I could be born into a rich black family. I don't see how women could think all men somehow start off ahead of them. If anything, in this day and age, most men start off slightly behind women.
[–]rebuildingMyself 18 points19 points20 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Apex fallacy.
Feminists are referring to the top 10% of men (rich, godlike genetics, etc) and project any privileges those men have onto the rest.
[–]bluefootedpig 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
isn't it also the apsex fallcy to believe the few women who take advantage of programs represent women? In the above posts, people refer to women as women, not as title XI women or anything like that.
So it seems that both sides are looking at the top X%, or those on the margins, and trying to make a case for all.
[–]rebuildingMyself 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Bringing attention to how women abuse the loopholes in a system is not apex fallacy. Bringing attention to how the system basically rewards these women (or at least dismisses the issue) is not apex fallacy.
When feminists whine about male privilege, they are talking about the top men. Usually, it's a privilege due to wealth, upbringing and status, not his genitalia. And the rest of men get punished for it via affirmative action, quotas, nazi-like HR policies (that don't really apply to women), etc.
[–]bluefootedpig -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
When feminists whine about male privilege, they are talking about the top men.
So you believe they are talking about only the top men, but women abusing the loopholes, which is a very minority, are representing all women?
And as a pet peeve, I hope you realize at least in the USA, there are no quotas for AA.
But even in your response, you claim women are abusing loopholes, but ignore that some men do have privilege based on their genitalia. Yes, not all men, only a few, but I would venture to say it isn't 0.
So why is it evil to bring out that a few men get advantage because they are men, but a few women that get advantage means all women are doing it?
[–]rebuildingMyself 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link
tl;dr: NOT ALL WOMEN ARE LIKE THAT!
I don't think anyone here thinks all women are some mindless automatons that seek out to destroy men. What we're concerned about is the reality that if a woman wanted to destroy a man, society gives her plenty of legal options to do so with zero consequences on her.
Tell that to anyone that didn't get into Stanford with perfect grades because Stanford wanted to admit a muslim that spammed BLACKLIVESMATTER all over the application.
Or how about any firm above a certain size being screwed out of government contracts and such because they don't have enough women (whether or not they could do the job or not)?
But even in your response, you claim women are abusing loopholes, but ignore that some men do have privilege based on their genitalia. Yes, not all men, only a few, but I would venture to say it isn't 0. So why is it evil to bring out that a few men get advantage because they are men, but a few women that get advantage means all women are doing it?
Yeah....the top 10% of men have privilege. As mentioned in my original post. However, it's not due to their genitalia. It's always been about wealth and connections, assuming it was given to him thanks to being born in the right family. A poor man that worked his ass off and became rich is not privileged other than a fucking awesome drive to succeed. I'll even grant you genetic privilege like taller guys more likely to be hired than shorter guys. Which is why they are in the top 10%. Your average woman has far more privileges in western society than your average man. A glass floor subsidized by taxpayers being one of them. Or how about non-butchered genitalia?
The only obvious privilege any man has over a woman is the privilege of registering for the draft.
[–]bluefootedpig -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
Tell that to anyone that didn't get into Stanford with perfect grades because Stanford wanted to admit a muslim that spammed BLACKLIVESMATTER all over the application. Or how about any firm above a certain size being screwed out of government contracts and such because they don't have enough women (whether or not they could do the job or not)?
Show me where AA has any quota on it, it doesn't. There is in fact, no law that puts any quota on hiring. Those examples are sets of internal policy. Trump can decide to hire all male crews, there is nothing illegal there. A big company can decide to hire all men, nothing illegal.
What is illegal is ignoring an applicant because of their gender. So all AA gives is a way to sue a company that might be decriminalizing in hiring, if they can prove it. And showing that only men work there is not enough.
maybe you believe it is because he is Muslim (which there is no protection for), or because he is black, or maybe, just MAYBE, it is because he has a HUGE record of community service and was extremely well qualified by his achievements alone. Maybe you should read up on the guy, or would you reject Bill Gates because he didn't write an essay you liked? You talk on getting respect based on achievements and not skin color, look at that guy who got into standford, and look at what he has done.
Yeah....the top 10% of men have privilege. As mentioned in my original post. However, it's not due to their genitalia.
Yeah, you might want to get out and work more. I have worked at jobs where the hiring manager has told me point blank he doesn't hire women. Period. I have had co-workers say things like, "we would love to hire women but they just can't...." name your thing. Any man will do, but a woman will have to prove herself. I say this coming from a very male dominated field (engineering), and these are my co-workers and hiring managers saying this. Imagine going to work at a place that feels because you have a penis, you are not able to do your job of thinking.
A poor man that worked his ass off and became rich is not privileged other than a fucking awesome drive to succeed.
I agree, do you feel the same about women who are poor and become rich as well? or do you feel that they cheated due to AA?
Do you think that no women being able to serve combat roles is not privilege? My daughter loves the military, wants to be on the front lines to save the USA from bad people... sorry dear, but you can't because you are a girl and the boys next you can't handle being in a foxhole with you and not raping you.
Let's go in to that for a moment. Tell me the privilege that is lacking in the military that allows so many women to be raped? I believe men being raped in prison is horrible, I hope you do to, but how do you excuse it in the military? At least in prison, it is fellow prisoners raping you. In the military it is your commander.
Anyway, I digress. My point was simply you are highlighting less than 10% of women, even if there is legal ways of screwing over a man. You are following the very fallacy that you are claiming feminists do. Feminists are bringing awareness of rape on a campus and you are feeling attacked because only a few men do. It sounds like the exact same as you saying that women are able to screw men over legally. How is bringing awareness of campus rape different than you bringing awareness to your issues? Remember that both cases highlight only a fraction of the people involved.
[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
I think you hit the nail on the head this is actually the most annoying assumption of feminism in my view: men start ahead of women regardless of other circumstances.
I've been homeless. My home life wasn't great. I didn't qualify for any scholarships for school and could only get loans. I grew up on a farm. My family members were pill junkies for a while. I would've loved to have the life of a middle class white girl. You mean to tell me that my accomplishments are worth less because I'm white and have a dick? I had to work 2 jobs to go to school. I had to deal with my dad during opioid withdrawal. I had to live out of my car at uni for awhile. I've had my clothes thrown out on the lawn by my step dad. I had on average $3/day for food for 2 years.
They can shove their generalizations about how easy I have it up their ass. My story isn't unique either. This narrative that men have it easier invalidates every single struggle we've been through, and that's why men are angry. That's why feminism is under fire. That's why people hate liberals and by extension Democrats. That's why people are pissed off.
[–]azzaranda 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
That's why people hate liberals and by extension Democrats.
You had me up to this point. Not all "liberal" people are democrats, and not all democrats are like this; you are only furthering the negative discourse by making such a generalization. Otherwise, I agree with you - your early point addresses the fundamental flaw with modern feminism.
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You're right, I got a little fired up.
Intersectionality means we can acknowledge your difficulties while continuing to call you an oppressor. You fucking white male.
[–]quackquackoopz 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Did you just assume zxihrur's genders?
[–]fengpi 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Yes. Yes I did. I guess I'm just bad.
[–]Blutarg -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Wow, your spelling is awful.
[–]EricAllonde 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
And that's an Aussie girl winning the race, fantastic! Wheel in Michelle Jenneke to do a sexy little victory dance.
[–]WillMeatLover 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Of course she is fast, the slow ones get eaten.
[–]Autumnland 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Typical fair vs equal debate that should need to be debated
[–]iainmf 19 points20 points21 points 9 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link
I think it's a bit more complicated than that.
I think there are certain outcomes that should be equal. For example, I think boys and girls should have the same educational outcomes (or as close as possible and ideally all kids are educated to the same high standard). It's that education that gives them the equal opportunity as adults.
I think there should be a minimum standard of outcomes that we should accept so vulnerable people can have more opportunities.
[–][deleted] 21 points22 points23 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
But that comes down to each student's work and aspirations. As long as the school environment is providing quality education and giving everyone the same opportunities to learn and improve, then the job is done there. The rest is up to each student, isn't it?
You cannot make someone study just because equality, just as you shouldn't discourage someone from studying to help others that are less studious.
[–]iainmf 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
I'm talking about educating children. The responsibility for children's education is primarily in the hands of adults.
[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Agreed, but how do we get the same outcome from different children?
I'm not trying to oppose your point, I'm genuinely curious.
[–]iainmf -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
You get the same outcomes for different children by having a really good education system that can address individual children's needs. For example having a small amount of students per teacher allows more individual attention.
Obviously some children are not capable of reaching the standards, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't measure our success by looking for equal outcomes.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link
I fail to see how that would work, because again, it varies and depends on each child's ability and intent to learn.
In my opinion, as I said earlier, the job of the education system is to provide the best quality of education and to give everyone equal opportunities. That would include the points you made about addressing individual needs and providing more individual attention, but still, I don't see how that would result in an equal outcome.
Should we encourage hard work and discipline in studying? Absolutely. But it cannot go any further than that, because you cannot force or make someone study in order to ensure that they'll reach the same standard as the others.
[–]iainmf 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I think the issue for me comes down to how you measure success and how you achieve it. Some things should be judged on outcomes. EG everyone should be able to read to a level that allows them to function in society. I don't think it is good enough to simply give everyone the opportunity to learn to read and call that a success. If we don't have 95%-100% of adults at that level I think we have failed.
You don't have to force people to learn to read to get a high literacy rate. Although I think children's education should be compulsory. Certainly, it shouldn't be up to children to decide if they want to go to school. However, there are non-authoritarian methods for raising the literacy rate as well. Think more carrot and less stick. EG I think one of our politicians is proposing early release to prisoners who learn to read.
I see. In that aspect, I agree with you completely.
I was thinking in broader terms, but yes, when it comes to basic skills, it should be compulsory learning.
[–]MyFingerPointeth 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
I'm talking about educating children. The responsibility for children's education is primarily in the hands of adults parents.
Sorry to be that redditor, but FTFY
[–]GOpencyprep 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Hey no problem, let me just go ahead and fix THAT for you though:
The responsibility for children's education is primarily in the hands of parents adults.
because parents clearly aren't the only adults involved in the education of children.
[–]MyFingerPointeth 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
sure theres multiple adults involved, but only one party is responsible and that is the parents
[–]GOpencyprep 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I'd say one party (parents) is primarily responsible, you're absolutely correct in that regard - but lets not discount, teachers, councilors, educators, religious leaders, community leaders, extended family, etc.
[–]Rumpadunk 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link
I think equality of opportunity in education is all we should strive for. Currently, boys don't have the same opportunity. Even when they do it still won't be the same, there will still be smart and dumb people. Tre will all be prodigies and retards, you can't change that. Men will still be dumbest and smartest, too.
[–]iainmf 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
So how would you determine equal opportunity for school age children?
Doesn't compulsory schooling for children enforce equal opportunity?
[–]WillMeatLover 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
That's stupid too. People should have the option of going to university. But the university's job is to provide the best education, not to make sure it appeals to 50% of people by not hurting their feelings with new ideas.
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
That has nothing to do with what he said.
[–]iainmf 15 points16 points17 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I don't understand how your point relates to what I said.
I was talking about educating children before they choose (or don't) go to university.
In regard to vulnerable people, I was talking about things like minimum standards for things like health care, social security etc.
[–]WillMeatLover 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Basic/minimum standards are not high standards. Which is why I talked about actual matters of higher education. Where exactly in our western cultures are girls denied basic education on any level or to any degree?
I didn't talk about that because that is stupid. Yes, obviously, everyone should be taught to read, write, and count.
That's easy, just keep the smart kids from learning anything. Or maybe the idea that there is a race and a finish line in life outside of actual races is the problem. Maybe we are all on the same team trying to accomplish something together and the best of us should be helping those who need it.
[–]tinman3 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
This assumes that every kid has the same capabilities, this is a fallacy. Some kids will outperform other kids no matter the circumstances. Same start, same opportunity, different outcome.
No matter who teaches me, or how hard I try, I was never going to be a star basketball player, I just wasnt built for it.
Yes, but I think all children should learn to read. And we should measure our success on the outcome, that is, how many children can read, not measure how many children had the opportunity to learn to read.
Of course using outcomes as a measurement only useful in a limited number of situations.
[–]d3gu 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Isn't this literally the meaning of Liberal Feminism? Not disagreeing, I agree totally, treatment should be based on individuals not a group :) and it should indeed be opportunity not outcome.
[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
If you actually follow liberal feminism it's the exact opposite. Feminists are outraged that everything isn't 50:50 when the majority is male but never the other way around.
[–]d3gu 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
The majority of what is male?
I do actually follow liberal feminism, in the way that I believe common sense and gender equality shouldn't just be 'women are more equal' etc. I actively support mens' rights, especially with custodial agreements, and am regularly disgusted at the treatment of mates/fathers who get shat on by the system.
However, I also believe that things have to swing past and back the 'ideal point' before reaching a happy stability. It's unfortunate, but it's how issues get raised, challenged and resolved. Socio-cultural changes are depressingly slow!
Majority of CEOs, boardroom members, STEM fields etc. You have a zillion programmes for women to reach 50% of those where you also have quotas for women. Unfortunately no quotas in teaching, nursing, public service (there is still quota for women and they represent more than 65%) etc. Unfortunately no quotas in dangerous jobs like garbage collecting, construction etc.
[–]d3gu 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Fair enough, sorry I wasn't sure what you were referring to as the photo was of sport but you mention jobs elsewhere.
As a woman who used to work in construction, I can anecdotally say I was usually the only female (other than the receptionist/admin) in all but 1 company for over 4 years. But that's just anecdotal. It's a shame, construction/engineering is a wonderful and fulfilling career and I imagine a lot of young ladies would get loads out of it. Conversely, I briefly trained in counselling before settling into finance, and there were barely any male therapists. In finance I would say a very safe 50/50, even in management positions.
[+]SirTrumpSupporter 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Did a whole essay about this. Our indoctrination class (English anyone?) at my school made us do an essay about why being fair is important, which it is, but I also have a problem with them forcing an essay on an idea people might have different opinions about. It's like telling a women to right an essay on why men are better than them. Back to the point though, I turned it into an essay about what fairness really means and how it means fairness of opportunity, not equality of outcome. I sprinkled a couple of "fairness is good"s in there though
[–]gmcalabr 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
So the concept is that if we measure everyone's outcomes and one gender clearly leads, then likely they started ahead of the other. I agree, force equality of outcomes is flawed. But it's harder to measure that and harder to report about that than it is outcomes. Outcomes are a sign, not the end goal.
One go a step more to the left and say that, in some cases, the outcomes will never be equal because gender itself (strength, height, etc) will never have an equal starting position. Because of that, it's not totally unjustified to work towards equality of outcomes because all humans benefit from our biological diversity. Not to say this all wouldn't be easier if we could have our same biodiversity without being a dimorphic species, but we exist because we are dimorphs. So it lays upon all of us to deal with the problems instead of just telling women "it sucks to be you"
[–]Jules_Elysard 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
This does not say very much. A socialist, liberal or conservative could all agree on this statment, but mean different things with it.
[–]Temperfuelmma 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
buh buh buh I thought everyone was a winner?
[–]ISOanexplanation 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
What I want to know is why professional chess is gender segregated.
[–]ImaPBSkid 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You're never going to win this argument that way... And you don't have to! Men in our society start behind, and end up even more behind.
Embrace equity over equality, even if you don't support it as an ideal (I don't). Our opponents have (wittingly or unwittingly) chosen a battlefield that is stacked in our favor. Instead of trying to maneuver the fight to new ground, engage them here.
[–]-redditardation- -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I can't wait till they decide that the honour of winning a race shall be divided up across all the participants.
It's the inevitable consequence of the everyone gets a trophy mentality. Soon you'll actually be a winner just for showing up.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
The idea that we can't celebrate the fastest and celebrate effort is a problem. Instead of choosing between a winner's trophy and trophies for participation we can have both.
[–]-redditardation- 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
No one cares if you came in last. It only matters if you win. This is reality. If you were the second best candidate for a job opening you don't get the job. Now if you make it to say the Olympics of course that is an achievement in and of itself... but that is because to get there you needed to win countless competitions and be the very best in your country or a large part of your country.
The effort is acknowledged and taken into account when it comes to credits for the subject in school which seems fair but it isn't worthy of celebration.
Did anybody else notice that the women who are in the starting blocks are not the same women crossing the finishing line ?
And does it matter ?
[–]Electroverted[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Equality is an old, dead movement to them. They now want equity.
[–]ether_reddit 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Women achieved equality in most ways in the western world quite a while ago, but since the world didn't turn into a wonderful fairy land of ponies and rainbows, the goalposts needed to be shifted again.
It's a problem of not seeing the forest for the trees -- life always sucks in some way for everyone, and there are always some people who are really having a hard time. That doesn't mean that things haven't been steadily getting better for everyone; maybe things would seem a little brighter if we could realize that.
[–]Alkomb 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The rare comment that I actually "Save."
[–][deleted] 9 years ago* (21 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -17 points-16 points-15 points 9 years ago* (20 children) | Copy Link
Were you bringing this to my attention for a reason? Or just being a fuckwit?
EDIT: Checked profile. 11 days old. Mmmmhm.
[–]quackquackoopz 22 points23 points24 points 9 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link
Checked profile. against mens rights snowflake. Mmmmhm.
[+][deleted] -22 points-21 points-20 points 9 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link
I wouldn't be as busy if you guys would stop posting stuff that has such poor logic.
[–]quackquackoopz 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link
Up to you to do what you want with your life I guess.
[+][deleted] -24 points-23 points-22 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link
When I point out the logical failures directly, this subreddit's users tend largely to react with petulance and abuse. When I point them out in AMR, the responses are quite a bit more measured.
It's too bad, too. Because there are men's issues that matter a lot to me, and they're being handled by you lot like a kid with a mallot.
[–]quackquackoopz 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
"My sub that disagrees with other sub in 'more likely to agree with me'", shocker! :O
Misandry subber in "men's rights are important to me, honest!", scramble! :O
Talk about logical fallacies...
[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
Didn't say "agree". I said their responses are more measured. That is to say, they don't act like screaming children when I disagree with them.
Try that one more time - with grammar?
[–]quackquackoopz 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
"MUH GRAMMAR!"
You're starting to lose it now, so I'll leave you to it. Good day.
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Uh, lose what? All I asked was that you repeat yourself with proper grammar so that I could understand the remark. But if you're happy with that mess, that's all you.
[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link
deleted What is this?
Really? When you shit on men in AgainstMensRights they are more accepting?
There's a classic misrepresentative statement.
It is very clear from all your posts that you don't give a damn about issues men face.
It's very clear you haven't seen all my posts. You're going to have to come to terms with the fact that people will only agree with you about some things, at best. Anyone who agrees with you on everything you believe is plotting to kill you and wear your skin.
TBH, the only men's issues that I don't particularly care about are alimony and prison. As such, I don't involve myself in those discussions. I focus my attention on things I do care about - and because I care about them, the last thing I like to see is people discussing it like a bunch of spoiled brats throwing their toys out of the pram.
I did the same with feminist subreddits... briefly. You can probably imagine why that affair ended early.
[–]Badgerz92 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
When I point them out in AMR, the responses are quite a bit more measured.
FYI: You appear to be shadow-banned from AMR. Your three most recent submissions to there do not appear in AMR when sorted by /new, and the comments you made on those submissions are also gone (go try to view them while logged out of your account). They still show up in your profile so you didn't delete them yourself, which means either the moderators deleted each post and comment individually or perhaps they just shadow-banned you.
Either way, how's that for a measured response? You can come to /r/mensrights and complain that we don't exclusively blame women for homophobia or tell us that gay men aren't really "men," and you might get downvoted but at least we aren't banning and deleting everything.
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
FYI: You appear to be shadow-banned from AMR.
That's looking like it's the case. I had a run-in with one of the mods a few weeks back that didn't go pleasantly. Perhaps that played a part. What a shame. Running out of feminist subreddits to get banned from!
Either way, how's that for a measured response?
It kinda sucks, but to be honest, how does it compare to being called every nasty name in the book, insulted, demeaned, threatened... I really do not care about downvotes. Look at my comment history here. If I cared about upvotes and downvotes, I would have gotten right the fuck outta here a long time ago.
I care about disproving the stupid, while letting the wise make their case. Threads that I comment on are ones that I care about, but are steeped in either bad information, or no information at all. Threads that I agree with (or at least don't disagree with) or whose content I don't particularly care about (we all have our "meh"s), I tend to stay out of.
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
cuntsplaining
You're really going to have to define this for me, because like its counterpart, it seems to enjoy the status of "whatever the intolerant speaker wants it to mean".
Please explain me how quotas is beneficial to the society and how its fair to have a woman just because she is a woman?
I never said they were, and I don't agree that they are. You've made a remarkable leap in logic - it's just too bad there was nothing waiting to catch you on the other side :/
Remember, you instigated me to respond to you in this thread. I haven't told you anything about what I think on the subject matter yet. Of course, it likely won't matter much because you seem to have had this conversation with me already inside your own head, complete with all the feminist stereotypes that you can imagine.
I don't even know why I'm taking someone named "holyfuckingshit69" seriously. It must be the late hour.
[–]AutoModerator[M] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Your comment was automatically removed because we do not allow links to that subreddit. You may use a screenshot instead.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
[–]skunkboy72 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
There isn't equality of opportunity for anyone anywhere. Both equality of opportunity and equality of outcome are impossible to obtain.
[–]Doriphor 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
That's why we need to work toward equality of opportunity, even if the end-goal is unattainable.
Not sure 100% inheritance tax (one of the more minor things you would have to do) is politically viable.
[–]quackquackoopz 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Correct.
[–]Hardcorex -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
But what do you do when there is not equality of opportunity? I think that's where things get tricky because you can simultaneously be fighting for equal opportunity, but without having it yet, fight for equal outcome. AKA why the wage gap is seen as a myth, it technically may be, but because of in equal opportunity it still has evidence.
[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
but because of in equal opportunity it still has evidence.
The wage gap doesn't exist because of unequal opportunity. The wage gap exists because women have it pretty good. They don't have to work dangerous (higher paid low skilled) jobs. They don't have to work long hours. When they get married, their husband will do that. That's his role.
If women went through life without being able to receive any money or support from men or the government, the wage gap would disappear entirely.
[–]ether_reddit -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
The wage gap exists because women have it pretty good.
Ironically, this is because of lingering sexist attitudes. Girls growing up are not encouraged to enter into heavy-labour trades, and boys are. Women are not expected to go to war when their country needs them, and men are. There is still a pervasive cultural attitude that girls are more special and we should not be risking them.
Evolutionarily this is actually sane, but we have plenty enough women to keep population at replacement levels and we are not going to go extinct if not every woman cranks out as many babies as her body can bear, so culturally we need to let this attitude go. People who truly care about gender equality should be working to fight the belief that every girl is sacred and must be protected by the more disposable men.
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Ironically, this is because of lingering sexist attitudes.
Absolutely.
Girls growing up are not encouraged to enter into heavy-labour trades, and boys are.
Well, no. Girls growing up are encouraged to find a man to use for his money. Girls don't have to work heavy-labor trades because they can leech off of a man who will.
It's sexist, but not in the way you are indicating.
[–]ether_reddit -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
I was never encouraged to marry rich (except by old fogies in my parents' church who thought I should go to the church's college to get an M.R.S. degree). I was however steered heavily towards "soft" fields such as teaching and child care, and not encouraged to look more seriously at the subjects I was actually good at -- e.g. mathematics and engineering.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
I was never encouraged to marry rich (except by old fogies in my parents' church who thought I should go to the church's college to get an M.R.S. degree).
Sure you weren't.
[–]ether_reddit 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I'm not sure what you're saying here.
I'm saying every woman I've ever known has been pressured to marry a "good provider", and yet you claim to be the exception.
[–]ether_reddit -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Whatever you say. But do consider that "rich" and "good provider" can be very different, and sometimes even contradictory, things. Also, people on reddit might have very different backgrounds than what you're familiar with, and come from a variety of cultures and classes.
[–]soundsaboutWRIGHT -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
This is a terrible example. Men had a head start in this "race" all over the world. Women are and have been oppressed globally for centuries. "Women" are not given the same starting point. If you're married off at 9 to a 40 year old your opportunities are not going to be the same as your brother who was sent to school. If you're raped as a young girl and become pregnant you're not going to have the same opportunities as your brother. If you're expected by your family to have babies and cook, and they prepare you ONLY for that, you're not at the same starting point. Women are not allowed to become heads of many religions because they are seen as inferior. In fact all religions but very liberal protestant churches are lacking equal opportunities for women and men. Like I said. Terrible example.
[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Still women don't deserve quotas. Those women need equality of opportunity. That is giving all the resources to free them to compete on an equal level. Western women may be were oppressed decades ago but most of them are dead or old now. Millennial women are no where near oppressed radar. In fact even the education system in schools were changed which rewards coursework over intelligence and problem solving because it's more suitable for girls. Decades ago boys were outperforming girls in schools.
[–]Hazzman -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
This is how the conversation STARTS.
Its inevitably not how it ends. Anyone who has had this conversation will tell you that establishing the meritocratic necessity of society is an easy victory. Don't pin your hopes on winning any debates about this topic if that's where your argument ends - you've already won.
Diversifying interest - that's inevitably where the conversation turns. Why aren't more women interested in STEM fields - for example. Are women encouraged into certain culturally endorsed roles. How do you get more women interested in more things? Thats where the conversation turns speculative and interesting and where most people who are hung up on the meritocratic aspect fall apart.
Prepare.
[–]valherum 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Why is anyone trying to push diversification of interest in the first place? Trying to control what other people are interested in seems like it is (and should be) a failure from the beginning. I agree it's not a good thing to DISsuade anyone from being interested in a certain field, but nor should it be seen as a virtue to try to interest people who don't care about certain fields just to make things "equal".
Men and women often have different interests and we can debate all day long about why and how those interests came to be, but in the end what each person is interested in is that person's own business, and nobody should be trying to equalize it just to make the scales look balanced.
[–]Hazzman 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The argument is that women aren't as interested in STEM fields because of cultural influence.
I guess the idea is that by encouraging more women into these fields you can offset the cultural influences that have always existed.
The reason they have always existed is, from an anthropological standpoint. Somewhat self explanatory, but thanks to modern technology may no longer be a requirement as the standard hunter/ child bearer relationship is no longer relevant.
As to WHY its necessary to have equal representation of men and women in a certain field. One argument that will continue to be raised is that of role models. Proponents claim that it will be difficult for women to feel like they can achieve something without a suitable role model in said field, someone they can relate to or imagine themselves being.
I'm not necessarily endorsing any of this, rather as someone who likes to debate these issues often with people of that persuasion, I am merely repeating the arguments I receive over and over and over again.
Starting the argument from a meritocratic stand point will inevitably lead you down the exact same logical path and the end point is what we are talking about now - arguably the most important, interesting and vulnerable aspect of this discussion.
Cut to the chase I say.
[–]p3ngwin -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
exactly, if we forced equal equity everywhere, then suddenly every competition would be illegal.
© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.created by /u/dream-hunter
[–]RatsSewer 229 points230 points231 points (24 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 193 points194 points195 points (17 children) | Copy Link
[–]420weedscopes 26 points27 points28 points (13 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 53 points54 points55 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]420weedscopes 12 points13 points14 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]420weedscopes 2 points3 points4 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]420weedscopes 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]RatsSewer 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Holmfastre 23 points24 points25 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]bcmonke 13 points14 points15 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Holmfastre 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Coach_DDS 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ReunionIsland 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]iamnathandrake 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Sbaker777 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Brusanan 13 points14 points15 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Blutarg 5 points6 points7 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]RatsSewer 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Blutarg 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]RatsSewer 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]amberclad 6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Brusanan 79 points80 points81 points (48 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] (25 children) | Copy Link
[–]Brusanan 4 points5 points6 points (22 children) | Copy Link
[–]thePINKavenger 11 points12 points13 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]Brusanan 4 points5 points6 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]thePINKavenger 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]SaiHottari 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]lackofagoodname 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points (14 children) | Copy Link
[–]Brusanan 0 points1 point2 points (13 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[–]lackofagoodname 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]lackofagoodname 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Brusanan 0 points1 point2 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Brusanan 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Brusanan 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]geniice 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (18 children) | Copy Link
[–]Henniker 9 points10 points11 points (16 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points (15 children) | Copy Link
[–]Henniker 14 points15 points16 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]GOpencyprep 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]mensmod[M] [score hidden] stickied comment (10 children) | Copy Link
[+]SRSLovesGawker -16 points-15 points-14 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]mensmod 7 points8 points9 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]SRSLovesGawker 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Coach_DDS 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]SRSLovesGawker 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Fucky_Thirstboi-16 points [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]mensmod 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 43 points44 points45 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]iainmf 16 points17 points18 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]bryanpcox 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Source_or_gtfo 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]nybo 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]I_divided_by_0- 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]buyingcoachtix 117 points118 points119 points (35 children) | Copy Link
[–]_____username____ 19 points20 points21 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]iamMANCAT 11 points12 points13 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]thesimen13 6 points7 points8 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]lackofagoodname 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]subzero_600 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]crimsonkodiak 42 points43 points44 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]gamercer 10 points11 points12 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Incident-Pit 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]gamercer 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Incident-Pit 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 17 points18 points19 points (16 children) | Copy Link
[–]PacoBedejo 7 points8 points9 points (13 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]jrdnsln 4 points5 points6 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]jrdnsln 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]jrdnsln 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]jrdnsln 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ether_reddit 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]jrdnsln 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]PacoBedejo 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]johhnytexas 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman -2 points-1 points0 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]HitlerHistorian 7 points8 points9 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]umbra0007 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]rant2087 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]SaiHottari 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]fengpi 53 points54 points55 points (14 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 19 points20 points21 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]rebuildingMyself 18 points19 points20 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]bluefootedpig 2 points3 points4 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]rebuildingMyself 5 points6 points7 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]bluefootedpig -3 points-2 points-1 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]rebuildingMyself 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]bluefootedpig -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]azzaranda 6 points7 points8 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]quackquackoopz 3 points4 points5 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]fengpi 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Blutarg -2 points-1 points0 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]EricAllonde 11 points12 points13 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]WillMeatLover 12 points13 points14 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Autumnland 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]iainmf 19 points20 points21 points (20 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 21 points22 points23 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]iainmf 4 points5 points6 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]iainmf -1 points0 points1 point (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]iainmf 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]MyFingerPointeth 6 points7 points8 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]GOpencyprep 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]MyFingerPointeth 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]GOpencyprep 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Rumpadunk 4 points5 points6 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]iainmf 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]WillMeatLover 9 points10 points11 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]iainmf 15 points16 points17 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]WillMeatLover 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]tinman3 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]iainmf 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]d3gu 6 points7 points8 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]d3gu 3 points4 points5 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]d3gu 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]SirTrumpSupporter 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]gmcalabr 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Jules_Elysard 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Temperfuelmma 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ISOanexplanation 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ImaPBSkid 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]-redditardation- -2 points-1 points0 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]-redditardation- 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Electroverted[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]ether_reddit 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Alkomb 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] (21 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -17 points-16 points-15 points (20 children) | Copy Link
[–]quackquackoopz 22 points23 points24 points (17 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] -22 points-21 points-20 points (16 children) | Copy Link
[–]quackquackoopz 13 points14 points15 points (13 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] -24 points-23 points-22 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[–]quackquackoopz 13 points14 points15 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]quackquackoopz 13 points14 points15 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Badgerz92 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]AutoModerator[M] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]skunkboy72 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Doriphor 4 points5 points6 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]geniice 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]quackquackoopz 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Hardcorex -2 points-1 points0 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]ether_reddit -2 points-1 points0 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]ether_reddit -1 points0 points1 point (4 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]ether_reddit 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]ether_reddit -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]soundsaboutWRIGHT -1 points0 points1 point (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Hazzman -1 points0 points1 point (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]valherum 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Hazzman 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]p3ngwin -2 points-1 points0 points (0 children) | Copy Link