Topic: I love how older women get all fussy about “cheating.”

Anonymous A started this discussion 2 weeks ago #133,727

We will respect your boundaries and consent. Since you give no thought to our needs and keeping a man happy is far from your thinking, it’s not cheating. It’s outsourcing.

It took years to change my perspective as a white middle class dweeb. Then I started going to a new gym. The guys there are Cuban, Dominican, Caribbean otherwise, West African, Slavic. None of these guys put up with a modicum of bullshit. Some have temp girlfriends when their wife is sexually unavailable.

While I wouldn’t take it to some extremes (girlfriend while wife is pregnant) it impressed on my that middle class white guys are brainwashed by late-stage campus-style feminism.

Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 53 minutes later[^] [v] #1,424,191

I especially love it when the single women are like 50 or 55 and want to play catchup: catch a man to handle a nice retirement after they've screwed up the first 3/4 of their life.

Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 57 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,193

@previous (B)

> I especially love it when the single women are like 50 or 55 and want to play catchup: catch a man to handle a nice retirement after they've screwed up the first 3/4 of their life.

Exactly. If I were to get serious I’d ask to discuss financials, health, etc. Few are willing to. It’s “unromantic,” but a huge liability for us. I had one woman agree and she had $300,000 or so in personal and student debt at 43.

I had a woman who was 46 who said she wanted to settle down and have kids. I asked if she meant adopt. No. She left when I asked why she still thought natural birth was in the cards. I wasn’t even trying to be an asshole.

Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 3 hours later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,215

@1,424,191 (B)
Interest in overseas dating has spiked in search volume and social media content in the past couple years.

Combine that with Red Pill going mainstream + the invention of AI girlfriend websites and many of these women are going to be in for a surprise.

Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 27 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,217

@previous (D)
I wonder how conservations go when these white men who look for foreign women start up a conversation about politics with a Chinese woman.

Anonymous E double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 9 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,219

Idk how it goes for white men, but one time when I was a teenager, I had the craziest experience where there was a Chinese woman who like fully unironically believed that the CCP was pro African. Somehow I feel like a conversation between a red pill Trump supporter and a Chinese woman from China would be incredibly entertaining. Chinese people who are actual believers are in a whole different universe.

Anonymous E triple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,220

I guess the thing is things Americans would be afraid to say are what you’re supposed to say in China, and things Chinese people would be afraid to say are what you’re supposed to say in America. So when you put the two together: it’s a batshit conversation.

Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 11 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,221

@1,424,215 (D)

> Interest in overseas dating has spiked in search volume and social media content in the past couple years.
>
> Combine that with Red Pill going mainstream + the invention of AI girlfriend websites and many of these women are going to be in for a surprise.

I wonder if overseas dating is better. I bet I could order a Filipina bride from a remote village and within a year she would be demanding more money, an SUV and visa sponsorship for her brother and cousin (that is, her actual husband and her boyfriend).

At the same time, when I’ve dated - in the U.S. - women from the Caribbean and other cultures - it’s been a refreshing change from conflicted, entitled, white women.

Anonymous E replied with this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,223

@previous (F)
You know the Philippines is mostly Catholic?

The Catholic Church has a simple, easy to understand view on sex: sex is great, it’s a way to connect with others, never use a condom, never use birth control, and don’t get an abortion, because anything else is selfish.

Anonymous D replied with this 2 weeks ago, 12 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,224

@1,424,221 (F)
Find one that wants to get away from her family? When you have that much leverage you can shop around.

There are urban areas full of young women who want the freedom of just living with a provider man away from the chaos of extended family.

(Edited 2 minutes later.)

Anonymous D double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 54 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,225

@1,424,223 (E)
Good, if you just want sex without anything long term you can hire whores.

If you want a LTR without kids you can find those too, it just takes a little more patience.

Anonymous E replied with this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,227

@previous (D)
You ever wonder how Ireland has 5 million people, but there are 40 million Irish Americans?

I’m Catholic myself, just letting you know how it is.

Anonymous D replied with this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,228

@previous (E)
You could still find an Irish woman that didn't want kids if you were significantly wealthier than the average Irish person.

(Edited 4 minutes later.)

Anonymous E replied with this 2 weeks ago, 25 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,229

@previous (D)
Man, even the Irish atheists in my family have lots of kids.

Anonymous E double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 27 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,231

A Catholic atheist is still a Catholic atheist, they’re not a Protestant atheist. There’s a big difference!

Anonymous E triple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,232

Maybe Ireland is a bad example though relative to the Philippines since there aren’t really countries that are wealthier than Ireland.

Anonymous E quadruple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,234

Apparently 5 million people is small enough to remodel your economy into an island tax haven.

https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-per-capita/

Anonymous D replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,235

@1,424,229 (E)
@1,424,231 (E)

I never said atheist.

Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,237

@1,424,223 (E)

There is not legal abortion in the Philippines. All abortion is illegal. Apparently the best way is to have large quantities of a particular plant.

You can't travel to Singapore to get an abortion. They don't allow foreigners doing that there. Thailand has legal abortion. There's no reference to it being banned for foreigners.

Anonymous E replied with this 2 weeks ago, 6 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,238

@previous (G)
I think people make the mistake of thinking that Catholicism is anti-sex. It’s not, they just literally believe that the purpose of sex is to create children and nothing else. Which is like, I mean if that’s what you want, that’s what you want. But that is like a thing though.

Anonymous D replied with this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,239

@previous (E)
So you are anti-LGBT?

Anonymous E replied with this 2 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,240

@previous (D)
I think we shouldn’t reduce all positions down to binary for or against. I’m generally not a hateful or extremist on any subject.

Anonymous E double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,241

I don’t want to say I don’t care because that sounds mean, like "oh you don’t matter." That’s not what I’m saying, I feel more like, these people are 1% of the population, how preoccupied should any reasonable person be with 1% of the population? 1% of the time?

Anonymous D replied with this 2 weeks ago, 51 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,242

@1,424,240 (E)
If you need to start sounding like a lawyer, you're homophobic.

Anonymous D double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 49 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,243

@1,424,241 (E)
It's much more than 1%.

If you met 100 people would only one of them be LGBT?

Anonymous E replied with this 2 weeks ago, 39 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,244

@1,424,242 (D)

> If you need to start sounding like a lawyer, you're homophobic.

I’ve been to Berlin, I can’t be homophobic.

Anonymous E double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 38 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,245

@1,424,243 (D)
Honestly, I’ve met trans people before, and given the ratio of trans to non-trans 1 in 100 feels about right.

(Edited 7 seconds later.)

Anonymous D replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,246

@previous (E)
You wouldn't be counting any acquiantances that passed and kept it to themselves.

And if trans alone were 1%, then LGBT prevalence would be much more than 1% because there's more gay people than trans.

(Edited 14 seconds later.)

Anonymous E replied with this 2 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,247

@previous (D)
I guess. But even if it’s more than 1%, the point isn’t the exact statistic, the point is, most people are straight and cisgender so it’s like, I feel like whatever the truth about sexual morality is, you can’t get caught up in what 1% of people are doing. My point is the amount of discourse about these people is disproportionate to how many of them there actually are. And I think it’s not really smart that as a society we spend so much time thinking about this topic. My real opinion is that in terms of the direction of society, it doesn’t really matter that much if some people are gay and we should concern ourselves with thinking about more important stuff. Obviously people being mistreated is bad and I’m totally against that. But as a society all this culture war stuff is just low IQ noise from the media to distract us from stuff that actually affects us like billionaires.

Anonymous E double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,248

Like, I probably use public restrooms less than 100 times a year, they’re gross. I’d rather poop at home. If 1% of people are trans, I’m more likely than not to never poop next to a trans dude in the bathroom. And if I do it would be like once every other year or something and I probably wouldn’t even know it. So why should I waste time thinking about something that totally doesn’t matter?

Anonymous D replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,249

@1,424,247 (E)

> I guess. But even if it’s more than 1%, the point isn’t the exact statistic, the point is, most people are straight and cisgender so it’s like, I feel like whatever the truth about sexual morality is, you can’t get caught up in what 1% of people are doing.

That sounds like erasure.

> But as a society all this culture war stuff is just low IQ noise from the media to distract us from stuff that actually affects us like billionaires.

Lugenpress and demonizing the successful.

So you're just a Nazi.

Anonymous E replied with this 2 weeks ago, 32 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,250

Now that said, I feel very strongly about discrimination, we shouldn’t discriminate against anybody and that matters. I strongly believe all people should be treated with respect. Beyond that, it’s like, I don’t really care.

Anonymous E double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 46 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,251

@1,424,249 (D)
Well, if the lying press is Fox News, then yeah. Lol

Anonymous D replied with this 2 weeks ago, 15 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,252

@1,424,248 (E)
Men's bathrooms have never been a protected space, gendered private spaces like that are so women can take their clothes off without men around.

It's very suspicious that you act like you don't understand that, because everyone understands that.

Anonymous D double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 49 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,253

@1,424,251 (E)
It's on more than Fox News, every left wing outlet talks about it nonstop too.

Anonymous E replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,254

@previous (D)
Yeah, because Americans are low IQ. I’m stealing that insult from the low IQ people.

Anonymous E double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 51 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,255

Like, be honest: you have to admit that what issues Americans preoccupy ourselves with, they’re not like… real problems, if you get what I mean? It’s all just drama. It’s all just an act.

(Edited 12 seconds later.)

Anonymous E triple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,256

@1,424,252 (D)

> Men's bathrooms have never been a protected space, gendered private spaces like that are so women can take their clothes off without men around.
>
> It's very suspicious that you act like you don't understand that, because everyone understands that.

Man, I feel like I shouldn’t say this, but I’m gonna say it. I don’t care about how other people feel. I just don’t. If women feel uncomfortable that’s their problem. I just worry about myself. I really couldn’t care less.

Anonymous D replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,257

@1,424,255 (E)
https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/25/us/gen-z-adults-lgbtq-identity-reaj

Nearly 1 in 3 people in Gen Z identify as LGBT.

It's been growing with each generation.

You can't just erase 1 in 3 people.

Anonymous E replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,259

@previous (D)
No they don’t. I’m gen Z. Most gen Z people my age in their 20s are straight.

Anonymous D replied with this 2 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,260

@previous (E)
It's what I've seen, and there are multiple surveys that show the same thing.

If you are in the city, this is normal now.

You are either willfully ignorant or living in MAGA countryside.

Anonymous E replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,261

@previous (D)
I’m a college student. Just because you saw something on the internet doesn’t mean it’s true.

Anonymous D replied with this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,262

@previous (E)

> Just because you saw something on the internet doesn’t mean it’s true.

What do you think "It's what I've seen" means? People I have actually spoken to, about 1 in 4 young people are lgbt or claim to be.

And when news orgs conduct surveys, it doesn't suddenly become invalid when they post the data online.

Anonymous E replied with this 2 weeks ago, 39 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,263

Like for example, it used to be that if you googled what the age of consent in Nigeria is, it would say 11. And people would repost that fact as like "oh look how backwards Nigeria is, isn’t that shocking." Except the age of consent in Nigeria is 18, somebody just made up that fact on twitter and people started believing it to the point people wrote websites with the fact that the age of consent in Nigeria is 11, even though that was totally bs.

Anonymous E double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,264

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Africa

https://www.ywca.uk/blog/chidmarraigeinnigeria

Just one example of how misleading the internet can be.

Anonymous D replied with this 2 weeks ago, 5 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,265

@previous (E)
"The internet" isn't a source, it's a medium.

PRRI is the source of that stat. They might be reliable, or may not, but that's irrelevant to them putting their data online.

Wikipedia is user-edited, which explains why you will see more errors.

Anonymous E replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,266

@previous (D)
My point isn’t that one source is better than the other, the point is you can clearly see two websites saying totally different things about what the age of consent in Nigeria is.

Anonymous D replied with this 2 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,267

@previous (E)

> My point isn’t that one source is better than the other

Yes, I'm aware, that was my point. You aren't comparing sources, you are attributing reliability to a medium (the internet) when mediums don't have the property of being reliable or unreliable.

If you were doing this right you'd know that it's sources that are reliable or not.

> the point is you can clearly see two websites saying totally different things about what the age of consent in Nigeria is.

That's because wikipedia is user-edited. If you are using Wikipedia you need to click the citations and check to see if it actually has a reliable source.

(Edited 24 seconds later.)

Anonymous D double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,268

@1,424,266 (E)
Imagine if someone dismissed a reliable textbook, and said "you can't believe everything you read on paper" and then started talking about misinformation they read in shared notebook that multiple people were passing around and writing in.

Anonymous E replied with this 2 weeks ago, 56 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,269

@1,424,267 (D)

> Yes, I'm aware, that was my point. You aren't comparing sources, you are attributing reliability to a medium (the internet) when mediums don't have the property of being reliable or unreliable.

I don’t agree with that. Obviously, there are false things published by journalists, but do you think it’s more likely you’re going to see something totally fake on YouTube or in the New York Times? That is a bias, but if we’re being honest here, not everything is equal.

Anonymous E double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 41 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,270

I’m not saying you should believe something just because it came from a source with a better reputation. But we can’t pretend that reputations don’t exist.

Anonymous E triple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,271

Now of course it wouldn’t shock me if the New York Times for example published misleading data about LGBTQ+ identification in America. But I feel like CNN isn’t super great at being reliable tbh. I had one assignment where I had to read a scientific paper then read the CNN article, and it wasn’t great…

Anonymous D replied with this 2 weeks ago, 0 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,272

@1,424,269 (E)
> I don’t agree with that. Obviously, there are false things published by journalists, but do you think it’s more likely you’re going to see something totally fake on YouTube or in the New York Times? That is a bias, but if we’re being honest here, not everything is equal.

You still don't get it then, because YouTube is a platform, and the channels are sources.

The New York Times has a channel on YouTube.

Do you think something from the New York Times suddenly becomes less reliable because it's on YouTube?

Anonymous D double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 35 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,273

@1,424,271 (E)
CNN also wasn't the source, they just reported on it. PRRI is the source.

Anonymous E replied with this 2 weeks ago, 49 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,274

@1,424,272 (D)
That’s not a logical way to interpret what I said unless everything on YouTube is from the New York Times.

Anonymous D replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,275

@previous (E)
Are you going to act stupid now so you can pretend everything from before was just trolling?

You clearly don't understand the difference between a medium, platform, and actual source of information.

(Edited 10 seconds later.)

Anonymous E replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,276

@previous (D)
What you said isn’t logical though. Just because the New York Times has a YouTube channel doesn’t mean the New York Times is less reliable, and that doesn’t mean that information on YouTube is more likely to be reliable either.

(Edited 26 seconds later.)

Anonymous E double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,277

What you said only makes logical sense if the only YouTube channel on YouTube is the New York Times. Then if YouTube is unreliable, it must be because the New York Times is unreliable.

Anonymous D replied with this 2 weeks ago, 21 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,278

@1,424,276 (E)
I'll take the half-assed trolling as a concession.

I hope you learned something, bye!

Anonymous E replied with this 2 weeks ago, 4 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,279

@previous (D)
…I feel like most people know that browsing a social media platform where anyone with any background can upload whatever they want with no accountability is not a reliable way to get information. You can look at it as entertainment or whatever, or if you just are interested in learning a few facts here and there, that’s fine, but I wouldn’t confidently say something is true because I saw it in a YouTube video.

Anonymous D replied with this 2 weeks ago, 15 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,280

@previous (E)
You're really good at balancing on the line between "is he stupid or a troll".

Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,281

thought for sure this was going to be a svet thread

Anonymous E replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,282

@1,424,280 (D)
Didn't you just ragequit?

Anonymous D replied with this 2 weeks ago, 4 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,283

@previous (E)
I'm done trying to explain it to you.

If you're really a college student you should know what a source is.

Anonymous E replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,284

@previous (D)
Yeah, I’m the stupid one because I don’t believe that 1 out of 3 people are gay.

Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,285

@previous (E)

> Yeah, I’m the stupid one because I don’t believe that 1 out of 3 people are gay.

Touch your toes and Matt will show you.

Anonymous D replied with this 2 weeks ago, 4 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,286

@1,424,284 (E)
I never called you stupid for that, I even said you might be in an area that had fewer or where they hide it.

I called you stupid because you don't know what a source is.

Anonymous E replied with this 2 weeks ago, 50 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,287

@previous (D)
You don’t actually think that I don’t know what a source is.

Anonymous D replied with this 2 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,288

@previous (E)
You treated the internet, YouTube, and Wikipedia like a source.

You claimed CNN came up with the info *after* I told you where CNN was citing the info from (PRRI).

You continued to talk about YouTube like it itself is reliable or not as a source, when the difference between a platform and channels was explained.

This isn't a complicated concept, and you still don't get it.

Anonymous E replied with this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,290

@previous (D)
So what you’re saying is, when I said that you can’t believe everything you see on YouTube, you interpreted that as me thinking that every YouTube video is made by YouTube?

You can’t be serious right now.

Anonymous D replied with this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,291

@previous (E)

> So what you’re saying is, when I said that you can’t believe everything you see on YouTube, you interpreted that as me thinking that every YouTube video is made by YouTube?

That's not what you said.

Quote: "I don’t agree with that. Obviously, there are false things published by journalists, but do you think it’s more likely you’re going to see something totally fake on YouTube or in the New York Times? That is a bias, but if we’re being honest here, not everything is equal."

You're treating YouTube and the NYT as two different sources, one reliable and one not.

Which is not how it works. YouTube is a platform, and the New York Times is a source that also publishes on YouTube.

(Edited 5 seconds later.)

Anonymous E replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,292

@previous (D)
So, where did I say YouTube isn’t a platform?

Anonymous E double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,293

I’m honestly starting to think you’re the type of person who goes around looking to start fights over nothing because this is just nonsense.

Anonymous D replied with this 2 weeks ago, 26 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,294

@1,424,290 (E)
And it would be easier to give you the benefit of the doubt on comparing a platform with a source if you hadn't *just* had it explained bow they are different.

And if you hadn't just insisted the internet was inherently reliable or unreliable, when it's not a source at all but a medium.

When you make the same mistake several different ways you can't play it off like that.

Anonymous D double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 22 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,295

@1,424,292 (E)
You compared a platform to a source, and attributed reliability/unreliability to a platform.

Anonymous E replied with this 2 weeks ago, 25 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,296

@1,424,294 (D)
Did I say how the New York Times and YouTube are the same or did I say how they’re different?

Anonymous D replied with this 2 weeks ago, 15 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,297

@1,424,293 (E)

You talked about a medium and a platform as if they had reliability as sources of information.

You could have stopped after making the mistake once.

Anonymous D double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 24 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,298

@1,424,296 (E)
You attributed a property of sources to a platform

Anonymous E replied with this 2 weeks ago, 33 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,299

@1,424,297 (D)
Well, is YouTube reliable? If you go on to YouTube right now and look at a random video, do you think the information will be reliable?

Anonymous E double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,300

I know you’re not being honest here. You know what I meant when I said what I said, and you know that the thought I was conveying makes perfect sense and isn’t a stupid thought, and it’s one most people would probably agree with.

Anonymous D replied with this 2 weeks ago, 29 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,301

@1,424,299 (E)

If you're asking that you still don't get it.

Is paper reliable? If I read something random on paper will it be reliable?

Anonymous E replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,302

@previous (D)
Well no paper isn’t reliable. Just because something is written on a sheet of paper doesn’t mean it’s true because anyone could write anything on a sheet of paper.

(Edited 13 seconds later.)

Anonymous E double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,303

Now you might not like that I said that, but what part of what I said is false?

Anonymous D replied with this 2 weeks ago, 25 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,304

@1,424,302 (E)

Now imagine someone reads a well-researched article from an award winning newspaper and someone says "you can't believe everything your read on paper". Stupid right? And yet that's what you did.

Anonymous E replied with this 2 weeks ago, 45 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,305

@previous (D)
No it’s not stupid, it’s true.

Anonymous D replied with this 2 weeks ago, 48 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,306

@1,424,303 (E)

Trying to attribute reliability to a medium is the problem.

If someone says they read something on paper, you'll want to know if it's a textbook, newspaper, or something jotted by a random person in a notebook.

Focusing on the medium as an indicator of reliability means you clearly don't understand what part is important.

Anonymous E replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 second later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,307

Just because you can’t believe everything written on paper, that doesn’t mean there’s nothing you can believe that’s written on paper.

Anonymous D replied with this 2 weeks ago, 30 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,308

@1,424,305 (E)
If someone reads something from a reliable source, and you're focusing on the medium that it was delivered on, you're an idiot.

Anonymous D double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 50 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,310

@1,424,307 (E)
You might actually be autistic.

I'm not claiming the statement is literally false, I'm saying that focusing on the medium is completely irrelevant to whether what they read is reliable.

Anonymous E replied with this 2 weeks ago, 13 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,311

@1,424,306 (D)
Well, no different mediums do have different levels of reliability. Where do you think most YouTube videos come from vs New York Times articles? You might not like it, but this is something that is difficult to deny.

Anonymous D replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,312

@previous (E)
Where most YouTube video comes from is also irrelevant.

If someone repeats a stat they heard, it's not equally likely they saw a personal video uploaded with 7 views as a NYT video with tens of millions.

The platform hosting the video is irrelevant. Whether it was delivered digitally or on paper is irrlevant.

The source is relevant.

Anonymous E replied with this 2 weeks ago, 35 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,313

@previous (D)
Certain platforms tend to have certain types of sources…

Anonymous E double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 38 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,314

I really think you’re pretending to not understand what I’m saying.

Anonymous E triple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,315

Who’s usually uploading videos to YouTube vs who’s usually writing articles for the New York Times?

You can’t say that the property of reliability doesn’t exist when it obviously does exist. I don’t care whether it aligns with your definitions or not. I’m describing something real, and if your definitions can’t describe something real, then they’re inadequate.

Anonymous D replied with this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,316

@1,424,313 (E)
Not "the internet" and YouTube has everything.

NYT, Harvard, government agencies.

It really tells you nothing about the reliability bu saying YouTube is the one hosting the video.

Anonymous E replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,317

@previous (D)
Yeah, that’s why it’s not reliable. There’s no filter. Do you think that everything is reliable? If something has everything it can’t be reliable.

Anonymous D replied with this 2 weeks ago, 10 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,318

@1,424,315 (E)
I didn't say the property doesn't exist. I said it applies to sources, not mediums, and not platforms like YouTube.

In any scenario, you should be focused on the reliability of the source.

Anonymous D double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,319

@1,424,317 (E)

Here's another analogy.

Someone says someone walked up to them and told them a fact.

Rather than asking who walked up to them (a professor? a friend? a stranger?) someone starts talking about how anyone can walk on pavement and so it's not reliable to trust someone who walked up to them.

Anonymous E replied with this 2 weeks ago, 25 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,320

@1,424,318 (D)
Properties belong to objects, if an object doesn’t have a property, then the property doesn’t exist within that object.

Anonymous E double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,321

What I’m saying is that you can make a statement about the reliability of a platform, because a platform contains sources, and sources have the property of reliability. So on average, you can make a blanket statement about whether the sources on a particular platform tend to be or tend to not be reliable. So a platform can inherit the property of reliability from its sources.

Anonymous E triple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 31 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,322

And that’s not a difficult concept to grasp, that’s the way any reasonable person would interpret what I said.

Anonymous E quadruple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,323

For example, Japan is older than Nigeria. Some Nigerians are older than some Japanese people, one country has a population that’s older than the other. Japan isn’t a human that lives and dies, but you can talk about Japan aging. It’s that sort of thing.

Anonymous D replied with this 2 weeks ago, 9 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,324

@1,424,320 (E)

There are many properties that cannot apply to certain objects.

Reliability is a property of a source, not a medium.

Just as a website cannot be rough or soft or heavy (unless you're trying to be metaphorical), a medium doesn't have the property of being reliable.

If you were actually engaging with the info, you would be explaining why PRRI is unreliable, not talking about the medium because that's irrelevant. PRRI is either worth trusting or not, and how they deliver that info changes nothing.

Focusing on parts that have nothing to do with that property is a sign you can't disti guish between the aspects that matter and the aspects that don't.

Anonymous D double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 39 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,325

@1,424,323 (E)
Naming a property that does apply doesn't change the facts about the properties that don't apply.

Anonymous E replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,326

@previous (D)
I think you think too simplistically.

Anonymous D replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,328

@1,424,321 (E)

You started this by saying the internet wasn't reliable, and in this entire thread you never once said anything about PRRI.

The fact that you never once addressed the reliability of the actual source, and just dismissed it because it's not what you've seen is the issue.

All the information people rely on comes on the internet, paper, or a small number of other mediums.

An educated person would know it's the source that matters.

Anonymous D double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,329

@1,424,326 (E)
You're reducing things to the medium and platform they came from, and ignoring the source.

Simplifying millions of sources into the few platforms they are shared on is reductionist.

Saying it's the individual source that matters is not simplifying, it actually means there's more work to do.

Anonymous E replied with this 2 weeks ago, 4 seconds later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,330

@1,424,324 (D)
Well… technically computers perform computations using electricity, and electrons do have mass. So software actually does have a physical weight.

Anonymous D replied with this 2 weeks ago, 37 seconds later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,331

@previous (E)
Really has nothing to do with what we are taling about, and you are just trying to sound smart.

Anonymous E replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,333

When you store information on an SSD, all of the cells have the ability to hold a charge, so when you download software your SSD actually physically has more electrons inside of it and those electrons have mass, so when you download information onto your computer, it does technically weigh more, if you ignore the drain from your battery.

Anonymous E double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 25 seconds later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,334

@1,424,331 (D)

> Really has nothing to do with what we are taling about, and you are just trying to sound smart.

Oh and that’s not what you’re doing?

Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 52 seconds later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,335

@1,424,331 (D)
this topic is a hundred and five postings of brown hands pretending to be smarter than it really is

Anonymous E replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,337

@previous (J)

> this topic is a hundred and five postings of brown hands pretending to be smarter than it really is

You have terrible grammar by the way.

Anonymous D replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,339

@1,424,334 (E)
I'm not talking about the weight of electrons to "🤓 akshually" a response.

Saying objects have properties doesn't address what I said about certain properties not being applicable to certain objects.

The reliability of the source matters. It's not some off-topic factoid like your electrons thing. And in this entire topic you've address the actual source a sum total of *zero* times.

(Edited 15 seconds later.)

Anonymous E replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,340

@previous (D)
You do realize that most of the comments in this thread are you pretending that you don’t understand that social media isn’t a reliable place to get information from when that’s not what the original thread is about.

(Edited 13 seconds later.)

Anonymous J replied with this 2 weeks ago, 43 seconds later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,342

@1,424,337 (E)
My mammy sed iwas smerterest nigguh to evar nigguh

Anonymous E replied with this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,344

I honestly don’t believe that you don’t realize that you’re making an incredibly weak argument. Your argument is literally that I can’t say that YouTube isn’t a reliable place to get information from because YouTube is a website where more than one person can upload content, when that’s the reason why it’s unreliable. Surely you can understand why your argument is so incredibly stupid that it’s hard to believe you even believe it yourself.

Anonymous E double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,346

And you can say on repeat like a broken record that "YouTube doesn’t have the property of reliability" that doesn’t change the fact that what I’m saying makes perfect rational sense, and you can’t tell me why a platform can’t be reliable or unreliable, because there’s no reason why it can’t be.

Anonymous D replied with this 2 weeks ago, 33 seconds later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,347

@1,424,340 (E)
No, I gave an article from CNN talking about a PRRI study.

Then you tried to dismiss it by talking about the medium that was used to deliver the CNN article (the internet) without ever addressing the actual source.

You could do this for any stat that you want to dismiss "🤓 actually technically anything can be online" yeah no shit. that's not news. If you want to discredit it, talk about why the source isn't reliable.

Anonymous D double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,348

@1,424,344 (E)
No, I'm saying that ignoring the source, and talking about the medium or platform is avoiding what actually matters.

You dismissed the PRRI study by saying it was online.

Anonymous E replied with this 2 weeks ago, 50 seconds later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,349

@1,424,260 (D)

> It's what I've seen, and there are multiple surveys that show the same thing.
>
> If you are in the city, this is normal now.
>
> You are either willfully ignorant or living in MAGA countryside.

@1,424,262 (D)

> > Just because you saw something on the internet doesn’t mean it’s true.
>
> What do you think "It's what I've seen" means? People I have actually spoken to, about 1 in 4 young people are lgbt or claim to be.
>
> And when news orgs conduct surveys, it doesn't suddenly become invalid when they post the data online.

Anonymous D replied with this 2 weeks ago, 34 seconds later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,350

@1,424,346 (E)
A platform like YouTube has reliable channels, and unreliable channels. Every org has a YouTube channel.

Just like every research org has a website.

Talking about the medium gets us nowhere. The source tells us a lot. Yet you have still avoided that this entire thread.

(Edited 44 seconds later.)

Anonymous D double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 38 seconds later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,351

@1,424,349 (E)
Those are two posts I made, yes, what's your point?

Anonymous E replied with this 2 weeks ago, 16 seconds later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,352

@1,424,350 (D)
You can’t be so stupid you don’t understand this.

Anonymous E double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 42 seconds later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,353

@1,424,351 (D)

> Those are two posts I made, yes, what's your point?

Read what you wrote in those two posts. You already forgot that you said it and are accusing me of talking about something irrelevant.

Anonymous D replied with this 2 weeks ago, 31 seconds later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,354

@1,424,352 (E)
@previous (E)
So you can't articulate your point at all?

Anonymous E replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,355

@previous (D)
Read what you wrote. You keep accusing me of talking about something irrelevant when I was responding to what you wrote. So obviously you forgot what you wrote so go back and read it again.

Anonymous D replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,356

@previous (E)
I'm not making your argument for you, if you can't put it into words that's your problem.

We're well over 100 replies now, and you have addressed the source zero times and nonstop tried to say that it being online or on youtube is somehow important.

I'm done, you will endlessly argue when you are so obviously wrong.

Anonymous E replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,357

@previous (D)
You forgot what you wrote. You told me that you saw the same 1 in 3 statistic on other websites on the internet and then I responded by saying not everything you read on the internet is reliable. And now you just spent ages yapping about how the internet can’t be reliable or not reliable because you’re a moron.

Anonymous E double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 37 seconds later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,358

You told me multiple times what I’m saying is irrelevant to the conversation, but you don’t even remember what you said.

Anonymous E triple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 19 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,362

@1,424,265 (D)

> Wikipedia is user-edited, which explains why you will see more errors.

I’m also just going to point this out because I’m petty:

This entire time you’ve been making the argument I can’t say YouTube is unreliable because YouTube has user uploaded content when you literally said the exact same thing about Wikipedia.

Anonymous J replied with this 2 weeks ago, 7 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,363

RAPING NIGGUHS PRETENDING TO BE INTELLLLIGENT

Anonymous E replied with this 2 weeks ago, 18 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,366

It’s also stupid because you asked me whether I support LGBTQ+ people, it was obvious you only asked that because you were looking for something to start a fight over, and you called me a Nazi when I didn’t directly answer and then you also said something transphobic, so it’s clear you’re actually more conservative than I am yet accusing me of being too conservative.

(Edited 13 seconds later.)

Anonymous D replied with this 2 weeks ago, 3 hours later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,374

@1,424,362 (E)
Wikipedia doesn't have private channels.

Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 4 hours later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,384

@previous (D)
Did I ever say that it does?

Anonymous K double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,385

My point is you’re a hypocrite.

Anonymous D replied with this 2 weeks ago, 4 hours later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,412

@1,424,384 (K)
You're acting like Wikipedia and YouTube do the same thing, and they don't.

Wikipedia has one article about a subject that anyone can edit.

YouTube has no official, or shared videos about topics. Each channel has control over their own videos, and there were multiple videos about the same subject.

Talking about Wikipedia being reliable or unreliable fits because they don't just host subsections for privately controlled articles.

It doesn't make sense for YouTube because they just host the videos for private channels, and those channels are either reliable or not.

Your comparison doesn't work.

(Edited 30 seconds later.)

Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,413

@previous (D)
I find it ironic you called me autistic and you take the smallest thing this literally.

Anonymous L double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,414

When you’re talking with people do you always do this?

Anonymous D replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,424

@1,424,413 (L)
How else would I take it?

Are you trying to say that your point wasn't serious, only now that I've refuted it?

Anonymous D double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,425

@1,424,414 (L)
In person I just ignore irrational people who don't take accountability, not worth being right next to someone who's going to freak out when they are refuted.

Online I can do it without an emotional person physically spazzing out at me.

Anonymous G replied with this 2 weeks ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,440

@1,424,247 (E)

I wish you had a name with a trip code. Maybe you are one of the normies on minichan.

Anonymous D replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,449

@previous (G)
he argues like a woman and thinks he's black.

chances are he's the bottom for an early bitcoin investor.

Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 36 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,451

@OP

> We will respect your boundaries and consent. Since you give no thought to our needs and keeping a man happy is far from your thinking, it’s not cheating. It’s outsourcing.
>
> It took years to change my perspective as a white middle class dweeb. Then I started going to a new gym. The guys there are Cuban, Dominican, Caribbean otherwise, West African, Slavic. None of these guys put up with a modicum of bullshit. Some have temp girlfriends when their wife is sexually unavailable.
>
> While I wouldn’t take it to some extremes (girlfriend while wife is pregnant) it impressed on my that middle class white guys are brainwashed by late-stage campus-style feminism.

well I mean yeah it just makes sense lol

Nowadays you cant afford to waste time with women who repeatedly fail to understand that while "consent, boundaries and communication" is all well and good;
they never to take into account that intimacy is the forth crucial cornerstone of any relationship. like yes guess what lady? Sexual compatibility and consistent intimacy are legitimate relationship needs as well.

I don't condone cheating personally not out of morality but mainly because it's just a temp fix to a long term problem and I dont want hotfixes, I'd like a solid working LTS update that never fails. I shouldn't have to go and get my cock wet just because you're willing to hold out for reasons other than being pregnant, going thru menstrual demon mode or depression.

Which is why I never understood why married women that are sexually unavailable don't just file for a divorce but w.e thats beyond my scope of giving a fuck.

SS replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,452

@previous (M)
fourth*

Anonymous M replied with this 2 weeks ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,455

@previous (SS)
thank you lol
I got side tracked with something else and I just did not bother to proofread after posting.

Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,457

@1,424,449 (D)

> he argues like a woman and thinks he's black.
>
> chances are he's the bottom for an early bitcoin investor.

Sexism, racism, no clue where the third thing came from.

Anonymous N double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,424,458

@1,424,440 (G)

> I wish you had a name with a trip code. Maybe you are one of the normies on minichan.

I feel like if I used the same name for too long or used a trip code some psycho would go looking through everything I posted. I come up with a new name every week or two. Just enough to annoy people who don’t like me.

Minichan