Thanks for your comment. Well put. I probably wasn't being completely fair. Certainly this thread is about a guy who feels entitled to women's bodies. Within it was a conversation about modern make-up aesthetic that likely would have been more appropriate in a separate thread.
It's quite likely some people used that as a cover for expressing a different type of entitlement to women's bodies. It is frustrating when a conversation topic gets used by bigots to sneak in their bigotry.
I could have been more fair in my approach, but I also find it frustrating when people sneak misandry through feminism. It's almost like someone used one conversation topic to sneak in their bigotry.
In modern times, one of the main groups still firmly in the grasp of patriarchal structures is men, and while the extremely rich men at the top certainly exploit everyone, most men are more oppressed by the patriarchy than they realise. Toxic masculine gender roles and expectations undermine their ability to find authentic joy even as they are permitted some power over others. We can't destroy the patriarchy until most people have found a way out of it and you can't get "most" people out when you leave half the population in.
In making the space for leftist men outside of the patriarchy, solidarity compels me to call out examples of blatant misandry like all other forms of bigotry. That makes a lot of people who were used to their bigotry going unchallenged uncomfortable, but that's a small price to pay.
Anyways my main point is that you're right. Thank you for the comment. Sorry if you felt you had to be overtly diplomatic, but I appreciate the effort to reach someone that may seem distant ideologically. Hopefully we're not too far apart after all.
Good job assuming everyone's gender in this thread I guess.
Also nobody is asking anyone to change? It's two pictures of the same woman in different looks?
It's like someone posts a picture of them in two dresses and someone says "I like the one on the left" and you're out here flipping out on them.
The point is some people like make up, some people don't. That's true for the person putting on (or not) the makeup and the person observing them. I hope they partner up in compatible ways so no one is pressured to change. Some people like the make-up look but feel betrayed when they find out it wasn't natural. That last group is insanely out of touch. That's pretty much the whole thread.
When a guy says that, it’s presumptuous and annoying. Women aren’t concerned with his thoughts on what looks best on women. No one gives a fuck what he prefers women to look like.
This gendered language is what I'm talking about. The gender of the objectifier isn't what determines whether or not objectification happened. The implication of your sentence as structured is that it's a problem because a man did it. It's a problem either way and we shouldn't excuse objectification of women just because internalized misogyny made it so the patriarchal gaze came from a woman.
Look you're obviously EXCELLENT with rhetoric and well versed in feminism. Good on you. We need more of that around here. I'm just suggesting you explore your thoughts a little deeper because your inner misandry dilutes your arguments and weakens the effectiveness of your fight.
Or ignore me, I'm just calling out what I see like you are.
When people think of two homes the second is usually a cottage or other seasonal property that you can't really live in while participating in society. So it's not really taking something away. Sure an argument could be made, but here in Canada if you put homeless people in cottages you'd just have a bunch of people frozen to death by spring.
Seems like your problem isn't objectifying women, it's men. Which is fine, but don't act like you're taking some morally superior position, you're just a basic misandrist.
That's the dream! But right now we have a two party system where one wants to get rid of the CBC immediately, and the other wants to suffocate it slowly and watch the light fade from its eyes.
Housing prices went up because since COVID most companies have been making record profits. These all went to shareholders/hedge funds who are flush with cash and bought up all the properties. They're doing it because "it's good to own land". In Ottawa, in most neighborhoods, the cost of the empty lot is the same whether or not there is a house on it.
This is combined with the inflation and layoffs that affected the regular people who aren't shareholders. Politicians have been freezing or cutting municipal taxes rather than keeping them tied to inflation to "try to help the little guy". Unfortunately that benefits the rich more than anyone else.
Without strong tax revenues our cities have been cutting back on public transit, amenities, and even road maintenance.
This happened regardless of immigration.
The only way to fix our material base is to tax the rich and reinvest in cities, and public housing to drop housing prices. But the middle class sees housing as "an investment" instead of "a place to live" and would rather their 3br townhouse be worth a million bucks than have their kids and grandkids be able to afford a house. So anytime the government talks about public housing they lose the election.
Immigrants would be a huge asset if we wanted to fix the problem because they're significantly overrepresented in the trades we need to build our way out of this if we find the political will to do so.
Think about it from a different point of view. If you had a big piece of land and a bunch of construction workers asked to live on it with you, wouldn't say "we can't invite you in until we build you a house first" you'd say "here's some lumber, get cracking". We haven't fixed the base capacity problem because we (the rich and to some extent middle class boomers) don't want to.
That doesn't even make sense. Once you're immigrated to Canada you can just change provinces.
What if Newfoundland said "fuck it, we need people, everyone in" then they're just Canadian immigrants who can live anywhere in Canada completely undermining more restrictive provinces and making a mockery of the system. Unless you're suggesting immigrants should be second class citizens bound to their province of arrival like medieval serfs?!?!?
And provinces do have power to shape immigration programs, like Quebec has a special fast pass for French speakers. But nothing keeps you there.
I'm not saying the criticism isn't valid. I just don't understand the purpose of spreading it when if we really wanted media independent of American interference we should target the rules that allow Americans to own our media in the first place.
It's like attacking immigrants for crime. Sure, it happens, but immigrants commit crimes at a fraction of the rate of Canadians so if someone cared about reducing crime, statistically they should logically want more immigrants not fewer.
Everytime someone attacks the CBC I'm immediately suspicious. In this case they're attacking the CBC for being "too aligned with Americans" when most of our news and news media, especially print, is owned by Americans. Is this a criticism made by someone worried that our media is "too American" or is this typical hypocritical conservative attacks on the CBC because it's one of the few networks they can't control with money?
All the thrust to weight ratio tells you is what percentage of the craft is the engine.
The next component is the propellant mass you eject to get your thrust. To escape the Earth's gravity you need 11200m/s of acceleration which with the best nuclear thermal rocket specific impulse of 900 means 72% of the ship is propellant. If the rest is engine with no payload at 28% of the mass and thrust to weight of 7:1 you get a max acceleration of 1.8Gs at liftoff which is... Okay... Again that's with no payload.
Basically your options would be to invent a way to propel the exhaust at a higher velocity to increase your ISP (maybe you could ionize the propellant, use the heat to generate electricity and then use the electricity to blast the propellant to ridiculous velocities), or make your rocket engine much lighter to improve thrust to weight and make room for payload. But my favorite option is just make a monstrously huge rocket with a small command module at the top of it and the rest is all engine and propellant. These things could replenish by consuming massive amounts of mass from nebulas or small meteors or something. Just giant nuclear punk monstrosities that take a chunk out of the solar systems they operate in and create jets of high speed ionised exhaust that obliterate anything that happens to pass by.
LMFAO, you ever seen how the police manage anti genocide protests in Canada? This guy is not going to be arrested for anything, and if he is, it's not because of the law, it'll only be because thousands of Canadians made a stink over it. For every guy like him there will be a thousand who get away with it.
The number is Canadian citizens who have served with with IDF since the conflict was deemed a genocide by the UN is astronomical and not a single one has been charged with crimes against humanity.
And yet we have dozens of protestors in Canada charged with crimes for merely asserting Palestine's right to exist.
You are naive to believe our legal system will deliver justice in this situation.
Thanks for your comment. Well put. I probably wasn't being completely fair. Certainly this thread is about a guy who feels entitled to women's bodies. Within it was a conversation about modern make-up aesthetic that likely would have been more appropriate in a separate thread.
It's quite likely some people used that as a cover for expressing a different type of entitlement to women's bodies. It is frustrating when a conversation topic gets used by bigots to sneak in their bigotry.
I could have been more fair in my approach, but I also find it frustrating when people sneak misandry through feminism. It's almost like someone used one conversation topic to sneak in their bigotry.
In modern times, one of the main groups still firmly in the grasp of patriarchal structures is men, and while the extremely rich men at the top certainly exploit everyone, most men are more oppressed by the patriarchy than they realise. Toxic masculine gender roles and expectations undermine their ability to find authentic joy even as they are permitted some power over others. We can't destroy the patriarchy until most people have found a way out of it and you can't get "most" people out when you leave half the population in.
In making the space for leftist men outside of the patriarchy, solidarity compels me to call out examples of blatant misandry like all other forms of bigotry. That makes a lot of people who were used to their bigotry going unchallenged uncomfortable, but that's a small price to pay.
Anyways my main point is that you're right. Thank you for the comment. Sorry if you felt you had to be overtly diplomatic, but I appreciate the effort to reach someone that may seem distant ideologically. Hopefully we're not too far apart after all.
Good job assuming everyone's gender in this thread I guess.
Also nobody is asking anyone to change? It's two pictures of the same woman in different looks?
It's like someone posts a picture of them in two dresses and someone says "I like the one on the left" and you're out here flipping out on them.
The point is some people like make up, some people don't. That's true for the person putting on (or not) the makeup and the person observing them. I hope they partner up in compatible ways so no one is pressured to change. Some people like the make-up look but feel betrayed when they find out it wasn't natural. That last group is insanely out of touch. That's pretty much the whole thread.
This gendered language is what I'm talking about. The gender of the objectifier isn't what determines whether or not objectification happened. The implication of your sentence as structured is that it's a problem because a man did it. It's a problem either way and we shouldn't excuse objectification of women just because internalized misogyny made it so the patriarchal gaze came from a woman.
Look you're obviously EXCELLENT with rhetoric and well versed in feminism. Good on you. We need more of that around here. I'm just suggesting you explore your thoughts a little deeper because your inner misandry dilutes your arguments and weakens the effectiveness of your fight.
Or ignore me, I'm just calling out what I see like you are.
When people think of two homes the second is usually a cottage or other seasonal property that you can't really live in while participating in society. So it's not really taking something away. Sure an argument could be made, but here in Canada if you put homeless people in cottages you'd just have a bunch of people frozen to death by spring.
It's not objectifying women when you reduce them to "big tits", but when a guy says "She's attractive without makeup" that's "punching down"!
This you in the same thread?
“Nobody cares what makes your dick hard.” https://lemmy.world/post/50398336/25177012
"Can confirm, I am also thinking about the waitress with big tits while laying in bed.” https://lemmy.world/post/50398336/25171603
Seems like your problem isn't objectifying women, it's men. Which is fine, but don't act like you're taking some morally superior position, you're just a basic misandrist.
It's also inside your insurance policies 2008 style. https://youtu.be/watch?v=_YXDHskRP6Y
They literally woke up one day and said we're going to build AI and make everyone else pay for it.
Or close up anus and balls slapping
That would be the funniest thing global warming could do to reverse global warming.
That's the dream! But right now we have a two party system where one wants to get rid of the CBC immediately, and the other wants to suffocate it slowly and watch the light fade from its eyes.
That's a red herring.
Housing prices went up because since COVID most companies have been making record profits. These all went to shareholders/hedge funds who are flush with cash and bought up all the properties. They're doing it because "it's good to own land". In Ottawa, in most neighborhoods, the cost of the empty lot is the same whether or not there is a house on it.
This is combined with the inflation and layoffs that affected the regular people who aren't shareholders. Politicians have been freezing or cutting municipal taxes rather than keeping them tied to inflation to "try to help the little guy". Unfortunately that benefits the rich more than anyone else.
Without strong tax revenues our cities have been cutting back on public transit, amenities, and even road maintenance.
This happened regardless of immigration.
The only way to fix our material base is to tax the rich and reinvest in cities, and public housing to drop housing prices. But the middle class sees housing as "an investment" instead of "a place to live" and would rather their 3br townhouse be worth a million bucks than have their kids and grandkids be able to afford a house. So anytime the government talks about public housing they lose the election.
Immigrants would be a huge asset if we wanted to fix the problem because they're significantly overrepresented in the trades we need to build our way out of this if we find the political will to do so.
Think about it from a different point of view. If you had a big piece of land and a bunch of construction workers asked to live on it with you, wouldn't say "we can't invite you in until we build you a house first" you'd say "here's some lumber, get cracking". We haven't fixed the base capacity problem because we (the rich and to some extent middle class boomers) don't want to.
No way, our bigots hate Asians and brown/middle east people! Their bigotry is truly multicultural.
That doesn't even make sense. Once you're immigrated to Canada you can just change provinces.
What if Newfoundland said "fuck it, we need people, everyone in" then they're just Canadian immigrants who can live anywhere in Canada completely undermining more restrictive provinces and making a mockery of the system. Unless you're suggesting immigrants should be second class citizens bound to their province of arrival like medieval serfs?!?!?
And provinces do have power to shape immigration programs, like Quebec has a special fast pass for French speakers. But nothing keeps you there.
Hegseth was 100% jerking it to young army kids and got turned so off when he saw women that he crashed out publicly about it.
I'm not saying the criticism isn't valid. I just don't understand the purpose of spreading it when if we really wanted media independent of American interference we should target the rules that allow Americans to own our media in the first place.
It's like attacking immigrants for crime. Sure, it happens, but immigrants commit crimes at a fraction of the rate of Canadians so if someone cared about reducing crime, statistically they should logically want more immigrants not fewer.
Everytime someone attacks the CBC I'm immediately suspicious. In this case they're attacking the CBC for being "too aligned with Americans" when most of our news and news media, especially print, is owned by Americans. Is this a criticism made by someone worried that our media is "too American" or is this typical hypocritical conservative attacks on the CBC because it's one of the few networks they can't control with money?
I think in this case the question answers itself.
So it looks cool, but it basically sputters hot wax all over the place every couple of minutes.
All the thrust to weight ratio tells you is what percentage of the craft is the engine.
The next component is the propellant mass you eject to get your thrust. To escape the Earth's gravity you need 11200m/s of acceleration which with the best nuclear thermal rocket specific impulse of 900 means 72% of the ship is propellant. If the rest is engine with no payload at 28% of the mass and thrust to weight of 7:1 you get a max acceleration of 1.8Gs at liftoff which is... Okay... Again that's with no payload.
Basically your options would be to invent a way to propel the exhaust at a higher velocity to increase your ISP (maybe you could ionize the propellant, use the heat to generate electricity and then use the electricity to blast the propellant to ridiculous velocities), or make your rocket engine much lighter to improve thrust to weight and make room for payload. But my favorite option is just make a monstrously huge rocket with a small command module at the top of it and the rest is all engine and propellant. These things could replenish by consuming massive amounts of mass from nebulas or small meteors or something. Just giant nuclear punk monstrosities that take a chunk out of the solar systems they operate in and create jets of high speed ionised exhaust that obliterate anything that happens to pass by.
LMFAO, you ever seen how the police manage anti genocide protests in Canada? This guy is not going to be arrested for anything, and if he is, it's not because of the law, it'll only be because thousands of Canadians made a stink over it. For every guy like him there will be a thousand who get away with it.
The number is Canadian citizens who have served with with IDF since the conflict was deemed a genocide by the UN is astronomical and not a single one has been charged with crimes against humanity.
And yet we have dozens of protestors in Canada charged with crimes for merely asserting Palestine's right to exist.
You are naive to believe our legal system will deliver justice in this situation.