5895 pts ยท June 1, 2015
And like - bigger picture about 'not happy', what, I'm supposed to not bad mouth the police because they'll stop doing their jobs? Like - you're in *favor* of them having the authority to say 'you're only allowed to say nice things about me, or I'll fuck up public safety?' You want police to be immune to criticism? You like how the boot tastes?
Average hourly salary for a police officer is like 30$ where I am. I'm more than happy for thirty, sixty bucks of my taxes to go towards not starting violent fights with dumbasses or mentally disturbed people. It's really that simple. And WTF is this about 'not happy' cops? Like you say, it's a job. They're getting paid. I really don't care if having to wait a whole-ass hour or two before assaulting someone makes them SAD. My god, what horrible working conditions, unimaginable. They'll live.
What's this 'you guys' business? You think you know how I'd react to every situation off two comments, you're arguing against a strawman built from every combined dumb internet opinion you've ever read. Most people, myself included, are capable of reasonable nuance.A lawsuit over a guy getting pepper sprayed costs a hell of a lot more than twenty minutes of an officer's time, win or lose. It's absolutely cheaper to take a chill pill and wait the guy out, and bonus points, nobody gets sprayed.
Being difficult and uncooperative still isn't violent. I'm not saying citizens are never in the wrong - but I expect LEOs to be patient, emotionally stable people who have the restraint not to jump to escalatory violence to handle nonviolent noncompliance. If the dude is just being a prick... just wait him out. Suck it up. Take all the time they need, nobody is going anywhere. There's no need to break out the pepper spray when he's not in anyone's way, not dangerous, and isn't fleeing.
"You're not acting normal, most people-" this is a very revealing line. Cops expect absolute, unquestioned authority and deference at all times and resort to intimidation and violence very, very quickly if it's not granted, even if you aren't doing anything illegal. It's not a healthy or productive mindset, and leads to paranoia and unnecessary escalation. In their mind, anyone who dares question a cop is dangerous and a valid target for escalation.
The whole... pastoral bliss small family farms image you have in your head is largely propaganda. The difference between 'Farmer' and 'Farm Worker' is that a Farmer owns land and a small business. Farm labor is some of the worst paid and most strenuous work out there. The massive corporate farms actually often have better labor conditions, because they have more oversight and standardization, not just a small business owner who can abuse immigrant labor who has no legal protection or recourse.
There's an interesting line about what works and what doesn't. The couch fucking joke worked great, because it was so ridiculous - repeating it was an obvious flex of 'you can't stop me from straight up insulting you with no basis in fact'. Walz calling them 'weird' worked great because it's a flex of 'we can define social norms and you're outside them'. Flexing power works. I'm not sure this does, because it's too easy to look dumb instead of powerful, like you don't know how twitter works.
However absurd you find it, Dwarves halflings and gnomes all have base 25ft movespeed. Having 4 or 5 squares of movement just isn't that major a mechanical downside if your abilities have 10+ squares of range.And the other minor saves are rarer, but often devastating to fail. INT saves especially, look at an Intellect Devourer or Mind Flayer. Meanwhile Ghosts - a pretty common monster to encounter! - dish out CHA saves to fully possess characters,
Of course succeeding a save is better than failing! The point is that failing a STR save isn't usually nearly as bad as failing a WIS save, for example.And IDK about prohibitive. If you're a melee fighter certainly, but if you want to fight in melee and wear heavy armor... that's what a STR primary class is for. But for say, a cleric? Play a dwarf, and ignore the penalty as a racial feature. Play a wood elf, and have 25ft movement after then penalty. Play a centaur and have 30!
The problem with STR saves is that while they're common on monsters statblocks, they're often just not very bad to fail - getting knocked prone, pushed back or grappled isn't good, but it's not the end of the world either. Worst is some form of swallow whole, but those are very rare.Low STR doesn't actually prevent wearing armor either. But you have to be proficient it anyway, so for a lot of classes immediately don't care. If you are, wearing plate with 8 STR is a only a 10ft speed penalty.
5e has a problem with STR and INT, in that they're nearly useless as secondary stats so anyone who isn't using them to attack is so deeply encouraged to just dump them entirely. Unlike DEX (initiative, saves), CON (hp, saves), WIS (perceptions, saves). CHA is one that sometimes doesn't hurt to dump, but there's both a lot of CHA skills and just a lot of CHA classes.BG3 didn't want to pick crappy stat distributions, but they just weren't willing to give up Gale and Halsin being buff.
Yeah. I followed him because of Behind the Bastards, and I paused to ask myself 'hold on, am I agreeing just because I like him? No, wait he's traveled aroudn the world literally hanging out with terrorists and radicals, he's probably one of the most relevant people to listen to on this'
both men and women, but despite you saying 'that does not mean nobody else deserves help', I don't know how else I can read your refusal to acknowledge that men could be suffering from gendered harm! At the very least, it sure seems like the kinds of harm that happen to men just aren't something you think is as high priority as what happens to women.
I'm tired of being bludgeoned with demographic averages. This birds-eye average view of identity absolutely does prevent help from reaching those who need it.When you say 'women have it worse', you absolutely do imply that the priority is therefore helping women over men, and that men need to sit down and shut up. You throw men committing sexual assault in my face like it's some kind of 'gotcha' while refusing to engage with the harm to men's physical health at all.I believe in supporting-
- like, you want to talk about the last HUNDRED YEARS of data, you're throwing the world wars in there! But those aren't actually relevant to the present day!You did not add >on average< to your earlier claims, and it's not on me for failing to read them into existence.
I'm not dismissing any 'data', I'm dismissing the conclusion you're drawing from the data which is NOT something that's been stated with the kind of confidence you claim. That is the narrative. Physical harm to men is so normalized on our society you don't even see it as harm, it's just... how things are.And yeah, horror stories. I guarantee you men will have the same about work injuries. Along with the fact that going by 'the last hundred years' isn't exactly a good representation of NOW.
to PUT that responsibility on other men who suffer under this system and need help.The only responsibility I'll accept is to use the privilege I have to help people, and I expect that equally of anyone, man or woman. But some of the people who need help are men, and the men at the bottom don't deserve to be automatically be pushed to the back of the line based on their gender. This is why the class distinction is so important to discussing 'men' as a demographic category.
And when you say 'we take responsibility for our own action' - we should. But 'we' doesn't mean I am expected to take responsibility for the homicides, rapes, patriarchy - I categorically refuse to take responsibility for other people's actions. I am not interested in performative self flagellation for crimes I never committed, for a system I never built! I will gladly help dismantle it, but I refuse to bear the slightest speck of responsibility for things I had nothing do with, and I refuse-
- when you talk about triage priority in a hospital, SOME men's heart is very much stopped, and SOME women very much have a hangnail. When you try to put women categorically ahead of men in priority for support, you utterly stomp the men in the worst position offer aid to women who need it least. Gender is not a good proxy for severity of harm, and the men who are being deeply harmed deserve to have it recognized!
Okay, since you made a 4-parter here it's gonna be hard to answer. I can't really make a bite sized response to all the different points here.'numbers, the studies, the research' - no, we don't. We have a narrative. 'number of categories' is a piss poor metric when one of those categories is 'who dies more', and that's men. I reject that this should be a contest, and I reject you saying that women categorically have it worse.And you can't compare demographic as if they're individual people-
- someone who refused to believe any man's suffering out there could be gendered in nature and equal to anyone else's. Who does not see the gendered nature of physical harm in labor. Who believes that as long as a man is the perpetrator, 'men' as a category cannot be the victims, and their concerns must always be ranked lower than women's. I can't feel true friendship coming from someone who if I was destitute, would pass me up for help to give it to a more deservingly oppressed identity.
I agree with most of this! But can you see how you're doing exactly what I said I've come to despise? This conversation started with you saying women categorically have it worse, and when confronted with the most significant challenge to that assumption - the direct physical harm falls overwhelmingly on working class men - you're sidestepping the challenge to focus on he emotional state of CEOs as if it's representative of all men?I cannot feel warmth, camaraderie, or understanding from
- that criminals, patriarchs and capitalists, these are people we should fight! But that's not a good representative sample of 'men', and that doesn't tell you who you need to HELP. Because the men being hurt by other men still deserver help, and there's a hell of a lot more men homeless, imprisoned, or desperate than there are CEOs.
Right, but most men don't commit homicide, rape, and aren't CEOs. 'Men' as an arbitrary category makes up like half the population, and does not deserve some kind of collective punishment and mandatory self flagellation for the actions of narrow categories of people!I've come to despise the conversation about social isolation. It's so often used as a distraction to avoid centering the direct, physical harm to men. The statistics you give don't mention who the victim is - by all means, I agree
The big 'outlier' that bothers me is health. Life expectancy, injury, illness. The vast majority of direct physical harm in my society falls on... working class men. I'm not arguing that men have it 'worse' but I do feel that '(all) women have it worse' is both unproductive and more dogma than any clear statistical truth. Likewise, this idea that 'men' are a collective body responsible for the things you list feels like a gross generalization. I don't think 'men' is a coherent category.
I think part of the difficult with empathy is that men's challenges don't look the same as women's, so if you ask 'do men experience X that women do' the answer might be no, but that doesn't mean men don't have their own different challenges.I do have to take precautions being outside at night - mostly just planning what parts of a city to avoid on the way home - but at the same time, I'm not allowed to act like Im afraid, because that would be viewed negatively and socially punished.
There have been no documented fatalities from wild Orca attacks, and any kind of violence or injury is staggeringly rare. They're not like wolves, they just don't see humans as prey.
A random line that stuck with me was "The only thing better than perfect is standardized."
When you say some make it big, most don't - that's the lucking out. If plenty of people who work just as hard don't succeed, what else besides luck could be the difference between those who make it big and those who don't?Either you're saying that the people who 'make it big' all worked harder than those who didn't, or you're saying there's some other factor besides hard work (things under our control) and luck (things not under our control). Which is it?
And like - bigger picture about 'not happy', what, I'm supposed to not bad mouth the police because they'll stop doing their jobs? Like - you're in *favor* of them having the authority to say 'you're only allowed to say nice things about me, or I'll fuck up public safety?' You want police to be immune to criticism? You like how the boot tastes?
Average hourly salary for a police officer is like 30$ where I am. I'm more than happy for thirty, sixty bucks of my taxes to go towards not starting violent fights with dumbasses or mentally disturbed people. It's really that simple.
And WTF is this about 'not happy' cops? Like you say, it's a job. They're getting paid. I really don't care if having to wait a whole-ass hour or two before assaulting someone makes them SAD. My god, what horrible working conditions, unimaginable. They'll live.
What's this 'you guys' business? You think you know how I'd react to every situation off two comments, you're arguing against a strawman built from every combined dumb internet opinion you've ever read. Most people, myself included, are capable of reasonable nuance.
A lawsuit over a guy getting pepper sprayed costs a hell of a lot more than twenty minutes of an officer's time, win or lose. It's absolutely cheaper to take a chill pill and wait the guy out, and bonus points, nobody gets sprayed.
Being difficult and uncooperative still isn't violent. I'm not saying citizens are never in the wrong - but I expect LEOs to be patient, emotionally stable people who have the restraint not to jump to escalatory violence to handle nonviolent noncompliance. If the dude is just being a prick... just wait him out. Suck it up. Take all the time they need, nobody is going anywhere. There's no need to break out the pepper spray when he's not in anyone's way, not dangerous, and isn't fleeing.
"You're not acting normal, most people-" this is a very revealing line. Cops expect absolute, unquestioned authority and deference at all times and resort to intimidation and violence very, very quickly if it's not granted, even if you aren't doing anything illegal. It's not a healthy or productive mindset, and leads to paranoia and unnecessary escalation. In their mind, anyone who dares question a cop is dangerous and a valid target for escalation.
The whole... pastoral bliss small family farms image you have in your head is largely propaganda. The difference between 'Farmer' and 'Farm Worker' is that a Farmer owns land and a small business. Farm labor is some of the worst paid and most strenuous work out there. The massive corporate farms actually often have better labor conditions, because they have more oversight and standardization, not just a small business owner who can abuse immigrant labor who has no legal protection or recourse.
There's an interesting line about what works and what doesn't. The couch fucking joke worked great, because it was so ridiculous - repeating it was an obvious flex of 'you can't stop me from straight up insulting you with no basis in fact'. Walz calling them 'weird' worked great because it's a flex of 'we can define social norms and you're outside them'. Flexing power works. I'm not sure this does, because it's too easy to look dumb instead of powerful, like you don't know how twitter works.
However absurd you find it, Dwarves halflings and gnomes all have base 25ft movespeed. Having 4 or 5 squares of movement just isn't that major a mechanical downside if your abilities have 10+ squares of range.
And the other minor saves are rarer, but often devastating to fail. INT saves especially, look at an Intellect Devourer or Mind Flayer. Meanwhile Ghosts - a pretty common monster to encounter! - dish out CHA saves to fully possess characters,
Of course succeeding a save is better than failing! The point is that failing a STR save isn't usually nearly as bad as failing a WIS save, for example.
And IDK about prohibitive. If you're a melee fighter certainly, but if you want to fight in melee and wear heavy armor... that's what a STR primary class is for. But for say, a cleric?
Play a dwarf, and ignore the penalty as a racial feature. Play a wood elf, and have 25ft movement after then penalty. Play a centaur and have 30!
The problem with STR saves is that while they're common on monsters statblocks, they're often just not very bad to fail - getting knocked prone, pushed back or grappled isn't good, but it's not the end of the world either. Worst is some form of swallow whole, but those are very rare.
Low STR doesn't actually prevent wearing armor either. But you have to be proficient it anyway, so for a lot of classes immediately don't care. If you are, wearing plate with 8 STR is a only a 10ft speed penalty.
5e has a problem with STR and INT, in that they're nearly useless as secondary stats so anyone who isn't using them to attack is so deeply encouraged to just dump them entirely. Unlike DEX (initiative, saves), CON (hp, saves), WIS (perceptions, saves). CHA is one that sometimes doesn't hurt to dump, but there's both a lot of CHA skills and just a lot of CHA classes.
BG3 didn't want to pick crappy stat distributions, but they just weren't willing to give up Gale and Halsin being buff.
Yeah. I followed him because of Behind the Bastards, and I paused to ask myself 'hold on, am I agreeing just because I like him? No, wait he's traveled aroudn the world literally hanging out with terrorists and radicals, he's probably one of the most relevant people to listen to on this'
both men and women, but despite you saying 'that does not mean nobody else deserves help', I don't know how else I can read your refusal to acknowledge that men could be suffering from gendered harm! At the very least, it sure seems like the kinds of harm that happen to men just aren't something you think is as high priority as what happens to women.
I'm tired of being bludgeoned with demographic averages. This birds-eye average view of identity absolutely does prevent help from reaching those who need it.
When you say 'women have it worse', you absolutely do imply that the priority is therefore helping women over men, and that men need to sit down and shut up. You throw men committing sexual assault in my face like it's some kind of 'gotcha' while refusing to engage with the harm to men's physical health at all.
I believe in supporting-
- like, you want to talk about the last HUNDRED YEARS of data, you're throwing the world wars in there! But those aren't actually relevant to the present day!
You did not add >on average< to your earlier claims, and it's not on me for failing to read them into existence.
I'm not dismissing any 'data', I'm dismissing the conclusion you're drawing from the data which is NOT something that's been stated with the kind of confidence you claim. That is the narrative. Physical harm to men is so normalized on our society you don't even see it as harm, it's just... how things are.
And yeah, horror stories. I guarantee you men will have the same about work injuries. Along with the fact that going by 'the last hundred years' isn't exactly a good representation of NOW.
to PUT that responsibility on other men who suffer under this system and need help.
The only responsibility I'll accept is to use the privilege I have to help people, and I expect that equally of anyone, man or woman. But some of the people who need help are men, and the men at the bottom don't deserve to be automatically be pushed to the back of the line based on their gender. This is why the class distinction is so important to discussing 'men' as a demographic category.
And when you say 'we take responsibility for our own action' - we should. But 'we' doesn't mean I am expected to take responsibility for the homicides, rapes, patriarchy - I categorically refuse to take responsibility for other people's actions. I am not interested in performative self flagellation for crimes I never committed, for a system I never built! I will gladly help dismantle it, but I refuse to bear the slightest speck of responsibility for things I had nothing do with, and I refuse-
- when you talk about triage priority in a hospital, SOME men's heart is very much stopped, and SOME women very much have a hangnail. When you try to put women categorically ahead of men in priority for support, you utterly stomp the men in the worst position offer aid to women who need it least. Gender is not a good proxy for severity of harm, and the men who are being deeply harmed deserve to have it recognized!
Okay, since you made a 4-parter here it's gonna be hard to answer. I can't really make a bite sized response to all the different points here.
'numbers, the studies, the research' - no, we don't. We have a narrative. 'number of categories' is a piss poor metric when one of those categories is 'who dies more', and that's men. I reject that this should be a contest, and I reject you saying that women categorically have it worse.
And you can't compare demographic as if they're individual people-
- someone who refused to believe any man's suffering out there could be gendered in nature and equal to anyone else's. Who does not see the gendered nature of physical harm in labor. Who believes that as long as a man is the perpetrator, 'men' as a category cannot be the victims, and their concerns must always be ranked lower than women's. I can't feel true friendship coming from someone who if I was destitute, would pass me up for help to give it to a more deservingly oppressed identity.
I agree with most of this! But can you see how you're doing exactly what I said I've come to despise? This conversation started with you saying women categorically have it worse, and when confronted with the most significant challenge to that assumption - the direct physical harm falls overwhelmingly on working class men - you're sidestepping the challenge to focus on he emotional state of CEOs as if it's representative of all men?
I cannot feel warmth, camaraderie, or understanding from
- that criminals, patriarchs and capitalists, these are people we should fight! But that's not a good representative sample of 'men', and that doesn't tell you who you need to HELP. Because the men being hurt by other men still deserver help, and there's a hell of a lot more men homeless, imprisoned, or desperate than there are CEOs.
Right, but most men don't commit homicide, rape, and aren't CEOs. 'Men' as an arbitrary category makes up like half the population, and does not deserve some kind of collective punishment and mandatory self flagellation for the actions of narrow categories of people!
I've come to despise the conversation about social isolation. It's so often used as a distraction to avoid centering the direct, physical harm to men. The statistics you give don't mention who the victim is - by all means, I agree
The big 'outlier' that bothers me is health. Life expectancy, injury, illness. The vast majority of direct physical harm in my society falls on... working class men.
I'm not arguing that men have it 'worse' but I do feel that '(all) women have it worse' is both unproductive and more dogma than any clear statistical truth. Likewise, this idea that 'men' are a collective body responsible for the things you list feels like a gross generalization. I don't think 'men' is a coherent category.
I think part of the difficult with empathy is that men's challenges don't look the same as women's, so if you ask 'do men experience X that women do' the answer might be no, but that doesn't mean men don't have their own different challenges.
I do have to take precautions being outside at night - mostly just planning what parts of a city to avoid on the way home - but at the same time, I'm not allowed to act like Im afraid, because that would be viewed negatively and socially punished.
There have been no documented fatalities from wild Orca attacks, and any kind of violence or injury is staggeringly rare. They're not like wolves, they just don't see humans as prey.
A random line that stuck with me was "The only thing better than perfect is standardized."
When you say some make it big, most don't - that's the lucking out. If plenty of people who work just as hard don't succeed, what else besides luck could be the difference between those who make it big and those who don't?
Either you're saying that the people who 'make it big' all worked harder than those who didn't, or you're saying there's some other factor besides hard work (things under our control) and luck (things not under our control). Which is it?