Kansas Crimson

To be fair, I don't recall reading anything from psych that I thought was racist. If someone wants to link to it, I can be persuaded.

Misogyny on the other hand...

MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 1:51 pm Dudes like hot chicks. Nothing fascinating about that.

That's quite normal, Michhawk, as I said about your statement previously.

What's kind of creepy is two old, yucky looking politicians pretending that they're talking about her for any other reason.

Feral wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 3:12 pm

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 2:02 pm

lobster wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 12:35 pm Speak for yourself -- Psych is not a racist or misogynist.

She's been saying that for fifteen years now. Anyone who disagrees with her is racist and misogynist. Let it go. I have.

Anyone who has been reading Psych's racist and misogynistic posts for 15 years would be lying if they pretended they didn't agree with seahawk.

You're right. I should have said "Anyone who disagrees with Sea and Feral is racist and misogynist." Mea culpa.

lobster wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 12:42 pm

Geezer wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 12:37 pm

lobster wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 12:35 pm Speak for yourself -- Psych is not a racist or misogynist.

you have any reason to believe that?

If he's ever posted anything racist or misogynistic, please call it to my attention.

Well, there was that time he said all women were whores.

Then there are the multiple times he called out Michelle Obama as "Moose" or made reference to her having a penis.

There are plenty more. But I'm sure these aren't enough for you to acknowledge that you're wrong. Again.

chiknbut wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 4:16 pm

lobster wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 12:42 pm

Geezer wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 12:37 pm

you have any reason to believe that?

If he's ever posted anything racist or misogynistic, please call it to my attention.

Well, there was that time he said all women were whores.

Then there are the multiple times he called out Michelle Obama as "Moose" or made reference to her having a penis.

There are plenty more. But I'm sure these aren't enough for you to acknowledge that you're wrong. Again.

Women have an expectation of being compensated for sex. I didn’t make that up. Look up hypergamy in any evolutionary psychology text and it will tell you the same. I guess if science is misogyny, then I’m guilty.

Acknowledging that MO is big, ugly, and awkward is hardly misogyny. It merely demonstrates that I have two working eyes.

I've only seen it for 12 or 13 years. Farel nailed it.

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 4:33 pm

chiknbut wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 4:16 pm

lobster wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 12:42 pm

If he's ever posted anything racist or misogynistic, please call it to my attention.

Well, there was that time he said all women were whores.

Then there are the multiple times he called out Michelle Obama as "Moose" or made reference to her having a penis.

There are plenty more. But I'm sure these aren't enough for you to acknowledge that you're wrong. Again.

Women have an expectation of being compensated for sex. I didn’t make that up. Look up hypergamy in any evolutionary psychology text and it will tell you the same. I guess if science is misogyny, then I’m guilty.

Acknowledging that MO is big, ugly, and awkward is hardly misogyny. It merely demonstrates that I have two working eyes.

People pretend to be outraged about it, but at a basic level of our human existence, it's true. Women are programmed to look for successful, hard-working, intelligent men who provide money. Men are programmed for young, attractive women who can have children. It's not all we look for when we seek a partner, but most people are biologically drawn to these things. Most importantly, this is not misogyny -- it's biology.

lobster wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 5:07 pm

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 4:33 pm

chiknbut wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 4:16 pm

Well, there was that time he said all women were whores.

Then there are the multiple times he called out Michelle Obama as "Moose" or made reference to her having a penis.

There are plenty more. But I'm sure these aren't enough for you to acknowledge that you're wrong. Again.

Women have an expectation of being compensated for sex. I didn’t make that up. Look up hypergamy in any evolutionary psychology text and it will tell you the same. I guess if science is misogyny, then I’m guilty.

Acknowledging that MO is big, ugly, and awkward is hardly misogyny. It merely demonstrates that I have two working eyes.

People pretend to be outraged about it, but at a basic level of our human existence, it's true. Women are programmed to look for successful, hard-working, intelligent men who provide money. Men are programmed for young, attractive women who can have children. It's not all we look for when we seek a partner, but most people are biologically drawn to these things. Most importantly, this is not misogyny -- it's biology.

Alright then, putting you down as "OK with calling all women whores."

Good to know.

chiknbut wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 5:21 pm

lobster wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 5:07 pm

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 4:33 pm

Women have an expectation of being compensated for sex. I didn’t make that up. Look up hypergamy in any evolutionary psychology text and it will tell you the same. I guess if science is misogyny, then I’m guilty.

Acknowledging that MO is big, ugly, and awkward is hardly misogyny. It merely demonstrates that I have two working eyes.

People pretend to be outraged about it, but at a basic level of our human existence, it's true. Women are programmed to look for successful, hard-working, intelligent men who provide money. Men are programmed for young, attractive women who can have children. It's not all we look for when we seek a partner, but most people are biologically drawn to these things. Most importantly, this is not misogyny -- it's biology.

Alright then, putting you down as "OK with calling all women whores."

Good to know.

You cannot comprehend nuance, or simply act obtuse. I simply point out the biological truth. I never said women are whores.

Look at Leo DiCaprio and his recent girlfriend who is 20 years younger and gorgeous. Hungarian composer Bela Bartok was 35 when he married his wife of 17 years. Look at Picasso -- the list goes on and on. Women are not whores -- they want security and resources. Men want beauty and sometimes, women who can have children.

lobster wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 5:30 pm

chiknbut wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 5:21 pm

lobster wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 5:07 pm

People pretend to be outraged about it, but at a basic level of our human existence, it's true. Women are programmed to look for successful, hard-working, intelligent men who provide money. Men are programmed for young, attractive women who can have children. It's not all we look for when we seek a partner, but most people are biologically drawn to these things. Most importantly, this is not misogyny -- it's biology.

Alright then, putting you down as "OK with calling all women whores."

Good to know.

You cannot comprehend nuance, or simply act obtuse. I simply point out the biological truth. I never said women are whores.

Look at Leo DiCaprio and his recent girlfriend who is 20 years younger and gorgeous. Hungarian composer Bela Bartok was 35 when he married his wife of 17 years. Look at Picasso -- the list goes on and on. Women are not whores -- they want security and resources. Men want beauty and sometimes, women who can have children.

You wanted an example of Psych's misogyny.

I showed you. Hell, Psych didn't even deny it. And, for the most part, you agreed with him.

I'd call you obtuse, but I'm not sure that's correct. More like dense.

But the problem is, Psych didn't agree with you. Hypergamy is not the same as being a prostitute. Look it up if you need to.

Every honest women who's decent will tell you that most women want a guy who is ambitious with the ability to earn. There's nothing wrong with that -- it's just the way most women are. It doesn't mean all women want a rich guy, but they want someone who can earn a decent, comfortable living. If she can do better (like DiCaprio's girlfriend), she will. People often take what they can get. Nothing wrong with any of it.

lobster wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 5:41 pm But the problem is, Psych didn't agree with you. Hypergamy is not the same as being a prostitute. Look it up if you need to.

Every honest women who's decent will tell you that most women want a guy who is ambitious with the ability to earn. There's nothing wrong with that -- it's just the way most women are. It doesn't mean all women want a rich guy, but they want someone who can earn a decent, comfortable living. If she can do better (like DiCaprio's girlfriend), she will. People often take what they can get. Nothing wrong with any of it.

He. Called. All. Women. Whores.

And you don't think that's misogyny.

I'd ask you to put the words "hypergamy" and "whore" side by side and compare. But seriously, what's the fucking point?

Moving on.

lobster wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 5:41 pm But the problem is, Psych didn't agree with you. Hypergamy is not the same as being a prostitute. Look it up if you need to.

Every honest women who's decent will tell you that most women want a guy who is ambitious with the ability to earn. There's nothing wrong with that -- it's just the way most women are. It doesn't mean all women want a rich guy, but they want someone who can earn a decent, comfortable living. If she can do better (like DiCaprio's girlfriend), she will. People often take what they can get. Nothing wrong with any of it.

Every honest women who's decent will tell you

Bless your heart, do you actually talk to women you know like that?

I think what we have here, with Lobster and Chikn, is a perfect example of the reason why our political discourse has degenerated so rapidly and so thoroughly in the digital/message board/social media age.

There is a significant difference between one party to a digital conversation being unable to understand nuance and the other party being unable to express nuance.

In some cases, it may be Chikn's fault for not understanding what Lobster is trying to say, while in other cases, it may be Lobster's fault for not making it understandable.

It's easier on this board, where knowledge of a small group makes it easier to discern which is which and who is to blame for any confusion. In the broader digital-political world, however, it's far more difficult.

One of the major problems I see here (and many other places online) is a lack of understanding of definitions. Words define specific things, and I see people misrepresenting them. Very few people actually know what a racist is, yet people use that term to try to slander someone who says something that offends them. Similarly, we have people here calling Psych a racist and misogynist, when he actually didn't use any language to support that claim.

@Sea, my wife is Asian and they are very honest and open about this kind of topic. My wife wouldn't be married to me if I was on the street, smoking dope and had no ambition. She's very honest about it. If I were in her position, I wouldn't want anything different. Every woman has some level of hypergamy in her, even if it's a small, tiny amount.

I think, DC, it's pretty easy to discern what Lobster is trying to say, that Psych is correct. All.Women.Are.Whores.

seahawk wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 6:28 pm I think, DC, it's pretty easy to discern what Lobster is trying to say, that Psych is correct. All.Women.Are.Whores.

As I said, "It's easier on this board, where knowledge of a small group makes it easier to discern which is which and who is to blame for any confusion."

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 5:58 pm I think what we have here, with Lobster and Chikn, is a perfect example of the reason why our political discourse has degenerated so rapidly and so thoroughly in the digital/message board/social media age.

There is a significant difference between one party to a digital conversation being unable to understand nuance and the other party being unable to express nuance.

In some cases, it may be Chikn's fault for not understanding what Lobster is trying to say, while in other cases, it may be Lobster's fault for not making it understandable.

It's easier on this board, where knowledge of a small group makes it easier to discern which is which and who is to blame for any confusion. In the broader digital-political world, however, it's far more difficult.

Chikn doesn't "understand" nuance because he has an axe to grind, namely, he wants to make me feel as small as he feels about himself. He does this by calling names and making accusations. When that doesn't work, he plays the martyr and details all the ways I (among others) have wronged him. When that doesn't work, he goes back to name-calling. It is why I rarely respond other than to point out which strategy he is currently employing. Unfortunately, insight does not always equal behavior change.

this thread has become a cesspool

That tends to happen when people have an axe to grind.