Elections in Greece will be held on Sunday. If Syriza prevails, we might get some movement after all. Fingers crossed. All those politicians clinging on to this perverse notion of moral supremacy, particularly in Germany, are going to have a stroke when Greece starts ignoring the Troika's non-negotiable commandmends.

Its sheer entertainment value will put Hollywood to shame.

I'm pretty sure this guy was doing something before the guy was filming him. That would be why this video was happening too. Dude saw something developing and turned his camera on.

As for the guy whining about this being "American" and not deescalating: Oh get off the cultural supremacy kick. People were telling him to settle down, that the police had already been called, asking him what his problem was, etc. He then escalated the situation and they responded by immobilizing him. Not kicking the crap out of him, immobilizing him. You either have a very warped view of how people act or you feel the need to hate on America for anything, regardless of how inappropriate.

So many holes in your argument.

You're cherry picking the parts of Nazism to fit your anti-religious views. You even made the argument that Russia was dogmatically atheist, which isn't a true characterization of Russia then, either.

The simple fact of the matter is racial supremacy had what was seen as extremely scientific underpinnings with a foundation of Darwin, which then was applied to Social Darwinism, etc.

You had Nazi scientists who were going around the world literally measuring people's skulls, with the assumption that Germans had bigger brain pans, and that must explain why they're the master race.

Those ideas sure as hell weren't religious.

The simple fact of the matter is that there were secular and religious arguments against Nazism, as there also were secular and religious arguments in favor of it at the time.

It's very difficult to argue that the evil of Nazi Germany rose due to the level of dogmatic behavior within Germany. Prior to Hitler's rise, Germany was considered a Western European modernized, industrialized country, and for the time well educated, as was France and Britain. It was far more like Britain and France than it was to Russia.

An even better counterargument - who was the most modernized, secular, educated people in Southeast Asia, and therefore should have been the least likely to instigate war according to your logic? Japan, yet they became an imperial, aggressive power.

The rise of Nazi Germany is something I studied quite a bit of, and boiling it down to how dogmatic the people were is not only overly simplistic, it's not remotely historically accurate. It completely factors out the god awful mistake the Treaty of Versailles from WWI was, the common particular disdain for Jews at the time (some due to religious conflict, for Nazis it was more about race), the dependency of Germany on US loans, which dried up when the Great Depression began, the scientific trends in thought at the time, etc.

Those all converged.

And the reality is that "Muslim" countries are more likely to subject women to numerous horrors simply because more Muslim countries have not modernized their economies yet. Hey, just like every other religion. The reason we treat women well is we've had an industrialized economy far longer, and even then, the speed of it was often circumstantial. Women's rights in the US took a quantum leap forward because of women being needed for labor in WWII (same reason the Civil Rights Movement started so relatively soon after WWII as well).

Well, answering the second half of her questions is easy. Obviously all those things will be done by whatever warlord gains supremacy in the area. Unfortunately the same can't be said for the first half of her question. Many of those functions simply wouldn't be fulfilled.

This is really crap.

This imperialist fuck's argument amounts to this:

1) The US will need to defeat Japan through military means
2) The US wants to avoid "another Okinawa" (with a quote from Truman)
3) The US needed to drop the atomic bomb

So, lets look first at that Okinawa analogy. Okinawa, as with other pacific islands, were particularly brutal because of both their strategic importance to the Pacific front as well as their terrain. Both because of they needed to be seized in order to cutoff mainland Japan (and isolate it) and their small, heavily dense terrain caused warfare to be at times hand-to-hand, the battles here were desperate and ugly.

This leads us to the next point: the whole presupposition with the imperialist fuck's argument is that there was no other way but occupation, in the form of Okinawa, to end Japan's empire.

This is false. The US had other options to end the war. Occupation of Japan wasn't a strategic necessity in the way occupation of the pacific islands was. The US could have maintained a bombing campaign while getting the rest of the world to pursue political/diplomatic talks with Japan.

The reason the US dropped the bombs wasn't to end the war (which was already war, de jure shit aside). It was to a) ensure supremacy over Japan (which isn't the same thing as ending a war) and b) to ensure global imperialist hegemony.

Amerikkka doesnt give a shit about saving lives. What about all the people firebombed in Dresden? What about all the imperialist adventures before and after WWII? Don't give me some ethical crap about a country, at least 1/4 of which was still under apartheid conditions, that wants to save lives because it respects human life so it drops atomic bombs on an already defeated people.

*dead black or white supremacy

this should be sent to space to acknowledge our supremacy to other species all across the multiverse

I found you're contribution to the female supremacy thread very enlightening. Thank you for being a sifter

LMGTFY

"Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women."

Seems pretty fair to me.

I think you made some good arguments earlier in the thread, but saying that "feminism is the concept of female supremacy" is just too broad a generalisation. Are there some elements that believe that? Of course.

And there are some women who hold ridiculous (elevatorgate) or hypocritical (pycon) positions.

But there are also some atheists who have done some pretty bad things (Stalin, Mao), but their views are not representative of atheism as a whole.

I know plenty of feminists (IMHO, it's kinda hard to meet an intelligent woman who isn't a feminist) and none of them espouse that kind of belief.

Personally, my favourite definition of feminism comes from a NZ blog:

"I couldn't help wondering though for a while afterwards what I should make of all this, you know, as a feminist? My conclusion is that feminism is essentially about women having choices and if your choice is to fling your undies at someone famous, I guess I'm allowed to be a bit embarrassed for you but also pleased that you won't be flogged by your father or brother for it."

I haven't made any unsubstantiated claims, I have only asked questions. If you don't have the answer to those questions you can't assert something is the case without providing any evidence.

So if I ask, where does the idea come from that Feminism is based on the Supremacy of women there's either an answer to that question that's supported by facts, or there's an opinion by someone on the internet. Since all I'm getting are opinions and nothing I can check or investigate the claims of I left this post, it wasn't worth my time.

That's right gwiz just say things. It's end-goal is female supremacy, citation not needed because I said so. You're worried about what will happen when equality is achieved before it's even been reached.

I have to leave this thread, it's just gotten ridiculous. It's like arguing that black people might get the upper hand on us if we don't keep enough of them in jail.

I don't think you can look at it as either-or. I'm not sure you can even simplify down to single issues like "wages" because there will be outliers on either side.

I think on average (if I can use such a term) we still have a male supremacy in many if not most areas.

I think gender is important and our physical bodies dictate many of our abilities or potential abilities; I don't think it's possible to be entirely gender neutral on most issues. Women should have less winnings in Tennis, because they play less and they play less well. Hell, they could just abolish women's and men's tennis and only have a joint competition - then it certainly would favor it fairly. It would however mean that the female to male ratio would be 1:20 all of a sudden, since the male body is built stronger in general.

How it should be approached I don't really know. It won't be easy to change the people's minds in a positive way. Too many feminist proponents think they're Rosa Parks and feel completely justified in debasing and downright embarrassing behavior like the girl at the end of the video, the PyCon incident, "Elevatorgate" etc. I don't have a problem with them standing up for themselves at all - everyone should be free to protect their space, but they should also respect others' space (now I'm talking PyCon particularly).

Right now the male/female discussion has very little scientific base (at least as far as I know), we only have anecdotal stuff. It would be interesting to have studies going in neutrally and examining the basic differences in women, so we have some basis to argue from.

Some things are relatively simple - women can have babies, men can't - this means time off from work, etc etc. Right now employers consider this when hiring and shouldn't they?

Other things are grabbed out of thin air like: men focus on single things better, while women multitask better. I'd like to see some data for that and for other differences between the sexes.

Gorillaman seems to want to gender/sex out of the discussion entirely; I'm not sure that's really fair or helpful since we are different.

I suppose I would like people to not be thought of as a mass of blue and red, but rather as individuals and judged on the individual skills. Like say, compare ME and Serena Williams - there's no possible argument that I would beat her in tennis (or most any physical activity) ever. She should clearly be valued higher than me in those areas.

Sports solve the issue by going around it - making guy sports and girl sports. That's one solution, but segregating society is not cool. Imagine making guy workplaces and girl workplaces. Not really cool, is it? So, how do we find jobs, places in society that appeals to the individual? I would imagine we figure out the requirements of job and judge applicants on their merits - some women would beat all men in some jobs, and vice versa.

I don't think society is trying to keep women down, at least not consciously. Consider if the present position is caused natural evolution of society or if its patriarchal rule enforcing it? If you look at the hyper-muslim countries, I'd say it was the patriarchal rule, but over here? I'm not sure.

Ramble ramble.

So its the means and not the ends which perturb you?

How do you propose those end get met? By ends I mean equilibrium/equality rather than female supremacy.

Further, if female supremacy is the end goal you imply that it is not yet met. Does it not entail that there is male supremacy? If there is and gender is not important then why not female supremacy? What possible objection could there be? Males have had it up until, on a folk-historical account, the mid 1980's.

Because its end-goal is female supremacy. Where it is right now happens to be in line with "equalism" because there are still areas where men and women are not equal (wages, repesentation in government etc), but when that balance is achieved the end goal is not to stop there.

In that respect there are a lot of ideas that can be considered oppressive though, Christianity, for one.

My main problem I guess with Femmenism is actually its proponents which often have an air of up-their-own-assedness and "i'm better than you" attitude which always infuriates me. Present company excluded - I value calm, rational discussions.

Female supremacy is keeping this video from getting sifted.