Total posts: 28,020
Posted in:
-->
@AdaptableRatman
Lol, who cares if you are going to reduce the hypothetical to "do you want to be next to a murdering bear or a murdering man"...either way you are not escaping.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
Also, its very likely a .5 to 1.5% man would leave you alive where a bear will not.
Also, even in the rare case that you did cross paths with the 0.5% to 1.5% of men statistically likely to commit rape, there’s still a significant chance you’d survive, because most human assailants don’t kill their victims. But a hungry grizzly isn’t trying to violate social norms or assert power, it’s trying to eat, and it has zero incentive to leave you alive. It doesn’t bluff, negotiate, or hesitate. Once it decides you’re a food source or a threat, it goes full force, and unless you have bear spray, a firearm, or sheer luck, there’s no mercy or second thoughts, just primal instinct.
The actual chance of being killed by a random man is incredibly low, well under 1 in a million per year according to FBI statistics. Most homicides involve someone the victim knows, like a partner or acquaintance, and only about 11–14% of murders are committed by strangers. Even fewer occur randomly in public without any prior interaction. By comparison, the odds of being attacked and killed by a hungry grizzly at close range are far higher, because a bear isn’t concerned with laws, guilt, or hesitation, it just acts. So despite the cultural anxiety around men, statistically speaking, you’re far much safer next to a random man, even more than with a man you know, than within sniffing distance of a starving bear.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
6 percent.
This stat comes from a 2002 study by psychologist David Lisak. He surveyed 1,882 male college students using an anonymous questionnaire and found that about 6% of them admitted to behaviors that legally qualify as rape, but without using the word “rape.” Importantly, this was not a national survey, not randomized, and only included students at a single university. It also relied on self-reporting, which is notoriously unreliable for sensitive topics. Using that to claim “6% of all men are rapists” is like surveying one dorm and declaring a national epidemic.
Moreover, Lisak himself never said that 6% of all men are rapists. His research focused on the idea that a small subset of serial offenders commits the majority of assaults, essentially that most rapes are committed by a few repeat perpetrators. So ironically, the study’s real message is the opposite of what the stat is usually used to imply: most men are not rapists, and those who are tend to offend repeatedly.
So no, there is no reliable national data that shows 6% of all men are rapists. The number gets tossed around without context, often to stir fear or score rhetorical points. The truth is complex, and using flimsy stats to paint with a broad brush does more harm than good, especially to real victims and to honest discussions around consent, crime, and justice.
if you're looking for a grounded estimate, somewhere between 0.5% and 1.5% of men might commit rape in their lifetime, not 6%, and certainly not a majority. That’s still deeply troubling, but it’s important to be accurate so we can focus on stopping real predators, not smearing entire populations with flawed stats.
Being near a hungry grizzly is vastly riskier than being near a random man, even factoring in all the fears people have about human violence. Statistically, the odds of being attacked by a stranger are extremely low, especially if we're talking about a random man on the street or in a public setting. But a hungry grizzly is a different beast entirely, literally and figuratively. When a grizzly is food-stressed, particularly after hibernation or in the lead-up to winter, its instincts override caution. At close range, say within 50 yards, your risk of being charged or mauled skyrockets, with some wildlife experts suggesting it could exceed 50% depending on the bear’s agitation, prior contact with humans, and food availability.
By contrast, the chance of being attacked by a man you pass in public is astronomically lower. Even in crime-heavy areas, random unprovoked assaults are rare, and violent crime statistics reflect that reality. A hungry grizzly isn’t calculating risk and morality, it’s operating on instinct, and to it, you might be food, a threat, or simply in the way. So while fear-mongering about men gets tossed around casually, the cold truth is this: if you’re in arm’s reach of a hungry bear, you’re in far greater danger than you would be walking past 1,000 random men.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
I was never offended. You not discussing your thoughts here could have far worse consequences in the real world if you had put them into action instead.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
What does Kamala and district judges have in common? They were both not chosen by the people to run the entire country.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
I wonder why so low. There's 5 times more chickens and they have the IQ of Trump.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
So perhaps we would be better off if some men were to keep their dicks in their pants.
What you and others like you will, in time, be irrelevant, as that kind of thinking ensures the removal of not just the genes from earth history, but also the culture that facilitated said removal of those genes. You will be replaced by Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews and other cultures that care about family and tradition. They will be the ones to harvest resources of the Earth, and the ones to forget those cultures that thought it was okay to destroy the natural roles of biological women and families. See Ireland for a real time destruction of that culture. Darwin is never kind to cultures based on the seppuku of the next generation. (like the Aztecs)
other than several billion selfish organisms denuding Planet Earth of it's resources.
Oh, I thought you said shellfish, which is kind of funny, because there are literally trillions of those little bottom-feeders scraping and filtering the ocean floor 24/7. If anything’s denuding the planet, they’ve got us beat by sheer numbers and hours worked. Our few billion two-legged apes aren’t even in the same league. Get over yourself proud boy. Nature is bigger than your manufactured soon to be extinct culture.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Less women voted for Trump than men.
More mothers voted for Trump. More cat ladies and boss babes voted for the glass of water.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
That would be for Congress to decide, and no it's not the same for citizens as it is for illegal aliens. Due process is whatever is codified into law, and that's what the Trump administration ignored when they pulled all these persons onto a plane with no hearing and just flew them out of the country without being reviewed by anyone.
You got the first part right and the last part wrong.
U.S. immigration law—codified by Congress—has long provided for “expedited removal” under certain conditions. Specifically, 8 U.S. Code § 1225(b)(1) allows immigration officers to order removal without further hearing or review for non-citizens who arrive at a port of entry without proper documentation or attempt to enter fraudulently, unless they claim asylum or express fear of persecution. In such cases, they are then referred for a “credible fear” interview—not a full court hearing—before any further proceedings.
Congress extended expedited removal in 1996 through the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA). This law gave the Department of Homeland Security (and previously the INS) the authority to deport certain unauthorized immigrants swiftly if they are apprehended within 100 miles of the border and cannot prove they've been in the U.S. continuously for more than 14 days. In 2004, under George W. Bush, DHS used this authority more widely, and in 2019 the Trump administration expanded it further to apply to those who had been in the U.S. for up to two years without authorization. This expansion was challenged in court but ultimately upheld in 2020 by the D.C. Circuit.
Additionally, Congress explicitly does not require a full immigration court hearing for all removal proceedings. 8 U.S. Code § 1229a lays out formal removal procedures, but § 1225 and § 1231 provide separate authority for expedited and administrative removals. For instance, reinstatement of prior removal orders (per § 1231(a)(5)) allows ICE to re-deport someone previously deported without a new hearing, unless they express a fear of return. These laws were passed by Congress and upheld by courts, making them a part of the due process framework.
So, yeah, while due process is guaranteed by the Constitution, courts have consistently held that the scope of that process depends on the individual’s citizenship status and the nature of their presence in the U.S. Unauthorized immigrants at or near the border with little or no established ties are legally subject to summary removal processes, which have been authorized by law and used by every administration, Democratic and Republican, since the 1990s. The Trump administration acted within that legal framework, as had all previous administrations including the Deporter in Chief, Obama. No outrage is necessary to admit reality.
If someone has already gone through immigration proceedings and received a final order of removal from an immigration judge, they are not entitled to a second court hearing before being deported. This is codified in 8 U.S. Code § 1231(a). Once the order is final, the government is required to remove them within 90 days. The Trump administration, like previous administrations, deported many individuals with final orders, including criminals, without new hearings because the law doesn't require one.
For example, in 2020, Trump’s DHS deported a group of individuals who had been convicted of crimes and had exhausted their appeals. The removal of these individuals—often by plane—was not "without due process," because their due process already occurred during the lengthy removal proceedings. Many had years of appeals and court time. Once those proceedings were completed and a final order issued, no further court review is required before physically deporting them. That is legal, routine, and was authorized by Congress in the laws mentioned above.
So the idea that they were pulled onto planes “with no hearing” misrepresents what happened. Their hearing already happened. What people confuse as a violation is often just the enforcement phase of a lawful deportation order. There’s no legal obligation to give someone a second hearing or unlimited hearings, unless new evidence or asylum claims arise, and even then, it’s a VERY narrow exception to established jurisprudence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Democrats are paid by the billionaire donor class t destroy the requirements to be a citizen and make it so that everyone can be an exploitable citizen no matter what country they are loyal to.
No citizen requirements means America regresses to becoming a colony of the remaining nations of the globe. They literally come here, exploit, and send money back to their home country. They treat native Americans far worse than we treated Indians. At least we gave them reservations.
People can argue about compassion, economics, and diversity, but I am asking a more fundamental question: What does it even mean to be a citizen anymore? If there's no border, no loyalty expectation, and no enforcement of laws, then maybe it means nothing. And if it means nothing, then the people funding this erosion, whether on the left or right, are doing so for one reason: to control and exploit a low-trust, low-resistance labor pool and giving fuck all about protecting the culture of America. I can't wait for your 10 million Chinese to start constructing illegal buildings all over California and watching Americans self deport themselves to Canada in shame.
Created:
-->
@Shila
mothers and children are under represented.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
For sure, in culturally repressive systems the subjugation of females is still prevalent. Which is why I was questioning your origins and cultural habits.
Men are instinctually and biologically wired for high-risk behavior, promiscuity, and dominance competition. If society doesn’t repress those instincts, you get deadbeat fathers, abandoned offspring, violent power struggles, violent crime, and collapsed social order. Every civilization that survived past the tribal stage has imposed strict roles, expectations, and punishments on men, forcing them into monogamy, discipline, and responsibility.
This is a feature of a surviving society, not a bug.
In most "Western" societies where there is a well developed sense of equality, the old style concept of a career as "wife and mother" is now largely obsolete.
Yes, as obsolete as their posterity.
Created:
-->
@yachilviveyachali
Biological instincts.
Women who are good at sacrificing nurturing time to build and secure things for society often have fewer and less viable offspring. It's no coincidence the birthrates plummeted with forced inclusion of women into the workspace. We also see that childhood mental illnesses soared during the age of social engineering, further reducing the chance of the continuation of the species, as it's less likely those children will reproduce, especially when they can't figure out their identity OR their purpose for the survival of society.
Darwin will take care of the rest.
biology doesn’t just go away because we invented DEI, HR departments and social norms. The species is still governed by the cold rules of natural selection. And now that people can technically opt out of reproduction entirely, we’re watching an unsustainable model play out in real time, population collapse, rising infertility, offspring psychological instability, and evolutionary dead ends dressed up as empowerment.
Darwin will handle it. Not with malice, but with silence. The genes that choose extinction don’t get second chances.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
Centralized and decentralized.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Since 1993 Clinton, apparently. Back when many Democrats were sitting their diapers laughing at Trump movies like Home Alone 2.
Who knew one movie could destroy the government for decades?
So all those election cycles full of “the rich need to pay their fair share”? Turns out their “fair share” has been stuck at the same level since Home Alone 2 hit theaters.
That’s 30 years of empty promises, and some folks still think Trump broke it all in 2016. Wild.
Yeah, that's what happens when half the country is stupid enough to believe the 2016 election was literally fascism and the end of Democracy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
after 3 years of the meat grinder they have no victory to show for their efforts.
Then there shall be zero outrage when Trump forces the war to end with the current map of controlled zones.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
Elon musk is the firm state, not the deep state.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
It's not a money laundering scheme run by the deep state.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
Eloncaid would save more kids.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Again, government doesn't work the way you are pretending it works
You mean it just doesn't work, period. Decades since Clinton and zero progress.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Oh those poor poor billionaires, how will you ever survive?
Created:
Posted in:
China has a new cultural movement called "lay flat" as a way for the youth to passively resist a government that has not provided a better future for them.
What do you guys think?
Created:
-->
@Double_R
The last time democrats succeeded in raising taxes on the wealthy was in 2013 when they raised the top rate from 35% to 39.6%.
Right, that's the rate the Democrats set in 1993 (decades ago)
So much for "progress" and taxing the rich. Same rate as decades ago. Same broken promises...
Every election they talk about “making the wealthy pay their fair share,” and yet the top rate keeps bouncing between 35% and 39.6%, like a political prop. Meanwhile, the actual billionaires, the ones swimming in capital gains, crony pass-through income, and trust fund loopholes keep skating by untouched.
So yeah, so much for “progress.” Same rate, same rhetoric, same broken promises, same excuses from the glass of water voter base. If taxing the rich was really their priority, they’ve had plenty of chances to prove it. They just didn’t. Because deep down, their donors are the same class they pretend to fight.
It's a big club, and you aint in it. -George Carlin
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Let me guess, the economy was a complete and total trainwreck under Biden, but now that Trump is in office everything is great!?
I wouldn't say a 9% spike in the inflation rate was a trainwreck, but it definitely was an avoidable self-inflicted wound that moved the economy in the wrong direction.
Created:
In 2021 nothing would have passed through Congress without the approval of Joe Manchin and Kirsten Sinema. You can call that full control of you want to, but it just isn't so.2021 was also right in the aftermath of COVID when millions of Americans were still out of work and global inflation was in the process of spiking. Not exactly the time to raise people's taxes.
I don't care about 2021. Democrats had full control many times over the past couple of decades and basically fucked everyone over by lying and not keeping promises.
Decades of lies are why they are at rock bottom and why AOC, as shitty as she is, is number one in a sea of shitballs cause she might actually break the decades of Democrat lies.
83% of the benefits went to the top 1%. So you can sit here and pretend this was a bill for the middle class all you want, the reality is that's just laughable.
Just as laughable as the Democrats choosing to keep it while passing all sorts of bullshit laws to crash the economy. Shit priorities. Shit power motives.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
Then why hasn't it been done?
Deep state bitch.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
You guys voted in Biden, you don't get to quote anyone ever again.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
What do republicans rack up deficits for? Oh yeah, tax cuts for corporations and the rich.
Yawn, such a tired old storytime fable. Democrats haven't taxed the rich in decades.
If the Trump tax cuts were really just for the rich, then why did the Democrats keep them? They had full control in 2021 White House, Senate, and House. If those cuts were the corporate giveaway they always claimed, they could have repealed them. But they didn’t. Why? Because they obviously weren’t just for the rich. The tax cuts lowered rates for almost everyone, expanded the standard deduction, boosted child tax credits, and gave middle-class families more take-home pay. Repealing them would’ve meant raising taxes on the very people Democrats pretend to fight for, and they knew it.
At the same time, they love to talk tough about taxing the wealthy, but when it comes down to it, they haven’t actually done it in decades. Every election cycle they promise to “make the rich pay their fair share,” but capital gains are untouched, billionaire loopholes remain, and the donor class gets a wink and a nod. The truth is, they’ve quietly accepted the tax structure they once called immoral, because it turns out it’s popular with the middle class, and their donors are doing just fine under it too, as evidenced by the record fundraising Democrats got from the billionaire class.
So let’s be clear: Democrats didn’t repeal Trump’s tax cuts because they helped most Americans, and they haven’t raised taxes on the rich because they never actually intended to. The “party of the people” talks a good game, then quietly keeps everything in place. Americans are done with the inactivity.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
The party that claims to speak for the future is too busy preserving and conserving the comfort of the past. When is the last time you ever heard of a Democrat reforming anything? Not just adding to government bloat, but actually fixing the problems? The only thing they care about progressing is control and power. That's why their approval is deservedly in the gutter.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
It's a lot more than that. Every issue when it comes to choosing, Democrats favor seniors over the youth, whether its education, abortion, policies that discourage stay at home dads, forever wars that the kids have to fund and fight, medicare and social security, illegal invasions replacing American youth.... Democrats haven't actually raised taxes on the wealthy in forever because the dirty little secret is that older people are far richer than younger people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
@TheGreatSunGod
Saying that on one hand: expanding Medicare leads to fraud while cutting it leads to dead kids is a false and manipulative oversimplification plus a false dichotomy. Fraud and waste in Medicare are not caused by how many people are covered but by poor oversight, loopholes in the billing system, wasteful centralized planning, and lax enforcement. These issues can be addressed through better auditing, smarter tracking systems, decentralization, and stronger penalties, regardless of the program's overall size. Cutting Medicare does not automatically result in death, especially not among children, since most kids are not even covered by Medicare. The claim that every dollar cut equals human tragedy is an emotionally charged scare tactic, not sound policy analysis. It is entirely possible to reduce Medicare costs by eliminating inefficiencies and redundant services without harming the people who depend on it. This kind of extreme, binary thinking ignores the serious work of reform and reduces a complex issue to political theater.
Reducing the issue to cartoonish extremes is intellectually lazy and dishonest, and it’s exactly why nothing ever gets improved by those manipulating for power and control.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
If it's cut, then you get more dead kids.
Medicare stops abortions?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
@n8nrgim
MAGA appeals to the retrograde ideals of an ageing population and paranoid isolationists.
This is absolutely false. 2024 election demographics prove without a doubt that the opposite is true.
It's a well known fact Democrats are losing the youth vote for obvious reasons. The Democrats worship the old at the expense of the young, racking up national debt that they happily pass onto to the younger generation as an unreasonable burden. They destroy opportunities for entry level work by flooding the country with mostly military aged men from all over the globe. They destroy the education of the youth by funneling most of the education money to old administrators and political activists instead of young teachers. They soar property costs and inflation to increase the wealth of the older landowning class at the expense of the young rent-seekers.
The Democrat party has no vision for the youth of America. None. Just more of the same. In fact, The Democrat party is now conservative wanting to preserve all the failing government and economic institutions of old while the GOP is now progressive, willing to knock it down and build anew.
Democrats are losing the youth vote, and it's no mystery why. They worship the old while saddling the young with crushing national debt. They flood the country with military-aged men from across the world, slashing opportunities for entry-level work. They gut education by funneling money into bloated administrations and political activism instead of into young, passionate teachers. They let property costs and inflation skyrocket, enriching the older landowning class while leaving young Americans to drown in rent.
The Democratic Party has no vision for the future, only the preservation of broken institutions and failed systems. Ironically, they’ve become the conservative party, clinging to the past. Meanwhile, the GOP is the new progressive force: ready to tear it down and rebuild a system that actually works for the next generation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Jan 6 will go down as one of the most Pyrrhic victories in history for the Democrat party. Right up there with wiping out the Alamo and ambushing Pearl Harbor.
Created:
-->
@AdaptableRatman
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
I never said that effort doesn't pay off. I didn't tell OP not to set goals and then strive to meet them. I told him not to just expect things will go his way because he has a college degree. There are life and career challenges your typical recent to recent-ish graduate in his 20s faces, and having self-awareness about one's circumstances is a good first step to either doing something about it or at least coping with it.
These times encompass the most hostile job climate for a college degree holder. Degrees have been so watered down that many employers now treat them like a second form of ID, to be acknowledged, then quickly set aside. Over half of all college grads are going to start with a job that requires no degree. I have been strongly urging my senior students to enroll in a trade school, or at least, the local community college at 6,000 dollars a year if they want to see what 1st year college is like without breaking the bank. Trade schools are great springboards to apprenticeships which give immediate job experience that's far more valuable than most college degrees, which you can always get later if you want to. Job experience plus a degree will get you very far.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
I am much more on board with national pride, assuming one is actually residing in the nation one is showing pride in.
National pride is colorblind, which is why every race grifter is against it.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
I can't believe so many people were brainwashed into believing we could live under "Jim Snow" laws like DEI without the serious decay of a free society.
Created:
-->
@AdaptableRatman
You do realize I am making fun of the obvious skin standards on language and shame based on skin tone that can be adjusted with sun exposure.
There's no honor supporting that kind of hypocrisy that keeps evil men in control and power when they forcibly take away your outrage by silencing you.
You have a right to say no to the shame and power games.
It’s not just hypocrisy, it’s a ritual of submission. You're expected to wear the skin suit of guilt and shame like a uniform, speak only in approved tones, and let your rage and "uppitiness" be managed by the very controlling people causing it. And when you resist, even with humor? They label you dangerous, hateful, unworthy of speech.
I am not buying into their sacred hierarchy. I am tearing that dated manifesto up:
“I’m not ashamed. I’m not silent. And I’m not playing by your rules.”
The moment I willingly accept arbitrary rules that forbid me from saying no is the moment I willingly consent to my own enslavement.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
Nothing a good suntan and a good postmodern book on oppression can't fix.
Then you can live a shame-free life like an emancipated nigger.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
If you have the right skin color, shame isn't an emotion you will ever be compelled to feel.
I suggest laying out in the sun a few hours and learn to talk with a bit of sass.
Created: