The recent EU elections are a pretty good reminder of this

I was gonna disagree, but I couldn’t actually think of a functioning stateless ideology which allows private property. Anarchism is inherently for abolishing private property, so that’s out already. That mostly just leaves you with "anarcho-"capitalism which is just replacing the government with an ultra-capitalist power structure and decimating social mobility, it’s just an undemocratic state but shittier…

Shoot them

We’re allowed to kill Abe Lincoln and JFK, why aren’t we allowed to kill these guys? Why does Reagan get plot armor out of all the presidents? Who wrote this shit?

To be fair JFK getting shot was pretty epic though. He almost caused nuclear holocaust (although a more rabidly anti-communist president may have definitely caused nuclear holocaust), war crimed the South Vietnamese a ton, and stabilized Israel. RFK getting assassinated was less epic because that gave us Nixon

I have plenty of WEBP and every image editing/viewing application I have installed can use it fine. Including, but not limited to:

pdn, GIMP, Krita, Aseprite, InkScape, OpenToonz, IrfanView

I think Apple users have issues with Webm & Webp? But the issue here is using Apple products in the first place. Losing 90% of basic functionality is what you expect when using one of those.

They are the strongest DRM on the market.

LMAO you have got to be shitting me. It is the bare minimum for DRM, it’s weak as fuck and games protected by Steamworks DRM are cracked almost immediately by casuals

🤝 Single gay guys with conservative parents

We don’t call that gambling, no, no, we call that LOTTERY! In Georgia at least.

The American spelling “matte” probably comes from the spelling “mate” derived from French “mate”, and doubling the “t” to differentiate it from “mate”. The British spelling “matt” was probably primarily influenced by the German word “Matt” considering the UK tended to have more German influence.

Alternatively, either (or both) may be an etymological spelling from Latin “mattus” (which means “drunk” but likely became a word for “pale” in French).

While I am a linguist, I only deduced this from a bit of Googling and a lot of speculating, so don’t take my word for it…

Not gonna be active on Discord tonight. I’m meeting a girl (a real one) in half an hour (wouldn’t expect a lot of you to understand anyway) so please don’t DM me asking me where I am (im with the girl, ok) you’ll most likely get aired because ill be with the girl (again I don’t expect you to understand) shes actually really interested in me and its not a situation i can pass up for some meaningless Discord degenerates (because ill be meeting a girl, not that you really are going to understand) this is my life now. Meeting women and not wasting my precious time online, I have to move on from such simple things and branch out (you wouldnt understand) @everyone

All I mean is that statistic is not relevant here. One in three men commit sexual assault over the course of their lives. That doesn’t mean it’s a third chance someone’s going to do it randomly to a women in the woods.

Would you feel comfortable leaving your kid with someone who raped a child? Or someone who has said they would rape a child if there were no consequences? Or even being around a pedophile as a kid? Why do you think a woman would take their chances with sexually aggressive men? Because rapists are likely to be repeat offenders, on average rapists commit more than 1 rape and have more than 1 victim. “1 in 3 men are rapists or want to rape, but that doesn’t mean all of those rapists or aspiring rapists will want to rape you specifically when there’s nobody else around and no legal consequences for their actions” is a hard sell to women, just like “pedophiles don’t always reoffend” is a hard sell to parents. Obviously pedophiles aren’t the same as men willing to rape women, but I feel that analogy makes it a lot easier for men to understand the feeling – a woman doesn’t want to be stuck with a stranger who has admitted they would commit rape if there were no consequences, or an actual recent rapist for that matter.

And yet women run into more than 3 men every day and remain unmolested.

All of these crimes happened to someone they planned in their life over time. Not randomly at the gas station.

Lmao this is delusional. I literally gave you the numbers, plenty of women are raped by strangers.

They are crimes of personal hate that hurt the entire family.

Actual delusion

It’s not like men are attacking women on sight (1 out of 3 times).

And that means the large amount of men that commit rape and say they’d commit rape given no consequences are just non-existent? Do you have to rape a woman every time you go outside to be a rapist or something?

There are a small percentage of sickos that might attack a women in the woods.

And you base this on…? Are you gonna tell that to the large amount of women in college that get raped by people they barely no because there’s very low likelihood of consequences? That rape doesn’t happen often because you don’t see it? That the women reporting rape are in a conspiracy against you?

You are lying to yourself by actually stating that women only get raped by people they’ve been close to for years. And you’re lying to yourself if you think someone raping an acquaintance somehow makes them less likely to rape a stranger if they can get away with it.

Not 31%. This is all of a course obvious unless you want a frame statistics to spread hate

It’s not my fault if you want to ignore science and reality. It doesn’t even have to be 31% – even if it were only 10%, which yes over 10% of young men OUTRIGHT ADMIT that they would rape a woman given a situation with no legal consequences.

Men aren’t rapists. But an alarmingly high – at least single-digit percentage – of men have already committed sexual assault, and a double-digit amount would if they could. Papers on the matter mostly conclude that the ratio of sexual assault victims to perpetrators is around 3:1, which means the amount of perpetrators is almost certainly double-digit considering the amount of women to be sexually assaulted is well over 1/3. 25% of college-aged men specifically admit to committing sexual assault, while 8% admit to committing rape or attempted rape, according to the NIAAA. That is bad news for a woman.

It is a gamble with a chance of at least 31%. It is a random man, picked from anywhere in our God given country. It is not “very specific to statistical contexts”, you likely meet multiple rapists every day without knowing. It’s not like all the rapists are huddled up in Mobile, Alabama. In the city, in the suburbs, wherever you meet people, you will meet people who are willing to sexually assault a woman regularly.

That’s what you don’t understand by not being a woman or by not knowing the experiences of women. You don’t know how much you are required to fear the men around you to survive.

“A couple of bad examples” is at minimum 1/3 of men my guy. Most women with life experience are not going to take that gamble. In 2021, 400-500 children in the entire US die annually due to abuse from their mothers. It is not at all comparable.

You’re usually safe with sharks in general. It’s your problem if you think sharks are some mega-dangerous animal that terrorizes humanity. I wouldn’t entrust a kid, or even a pet for that matter, to a stranger regardless of gender.

Your statistic isn’t even about women. It’s about mothers. And the study states obvious common contributing factors to it:

The mothers were often poor, socially isolated, full-time caregivers, who were victims of domestic violence or had other relationship problems. Disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds and primary responsibility for the children were common.

It has nothing to do with “daycare workers”. It has to do with the fact that on average being more disadvantaged and marginalized makes mothers more likely to harm their children. And, indeed, while you’re not likely to be killed by your mom, a large chunk of the population does face abuse, from parents regardless of gender (but possibly more by women). I would be scared to be the child of a majority of parents, most parents are abusive even if it’s not legally documented as abuse. How you think that’s relevant to most women experiencing sexual violence and rape culture being prevalent in society is beyond me though.

Frankly, sexual assault has nothing to do with attraction.

You’re bringing up attraction – it’s irrelevant and not something I talked about.

Everyone knows how serious sexual assault is. It’s ridiculous to make an entire gender out to be evil.

You’re the one interpreting it as “men are evil”, probably intentionally. “Would you rather be stuck alone with a random man or a black bear” is not a question of “are all men scarier than bears”, it’s “are you more afraid of what a randomly chosen man would do to you if alone with you in the woods with no consequences for his actions than you are of what a bear would do to you”. You seem to be taking personal offense to the observation that a large portion of men are willing to make a woman suffer an extreme amount given the chance with no consequences.

The fact of the matter is, despite not all men being a threat, there’s enough of sexually aggressive men that are a threat and usually not much way to separate the “willing to do bad things” men from the “not willing to do bad things” men, that women have to see most men as a potential threat in order to avoid getting raped. I know, it sucks that the bad apples are ruining it for you or whatever, but you’re here basically getting mad at women for expressing that they don’t feel safe alone at the mercy of another man they don’t know.

Again women are much more likely to murder babies. Why are they allowed to run daycares? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2174580/

Man what in the hell are you talking about? Is this some conservative troll I’m not seeing? Are you just throwing out a non-sequitur to do some sort of woman-blaming or distraction?

Also 20% to 40% of women who report being penetratively raped were raped by strangers. And when women are sexually assaulted by a stranger, more than 54% don’t report it, according to the NCJRS. So you can’t just act like women are almost exclusively sexually assaulted by people close to them. Regardless it’s not very relevant in a scenario where there are no legal/societal consequences for committing rape.

Men can be terrible but it’s not that likely to encounter rapists and killers.

It is EXTREMELY likely to encounter a man who is willing to sexually assault or rape you given the chance with no consequences if you’re a woman. It’s ignorant of the differences in experience between being a man and being a woman to think that it’s rare to encounter men who may harm you and that it’s irrational to not give men the benefit of the doubt. Misogynistic rape culture is rampant, and it’s very rare for men to understand that, more common is victim blaming or telling women they’re irrational for being extremely cautious around every man they meet.

“Men can be terrible” is an understatement. Most women face sexual harassment on a regular basis by men who otherwise seem like normal and functioning members of society, and most women have been sexually assaulted. Just being a woman carries a massive risk on its own. Often times rape is even from people the victim knows well. Rapists don’t look or act a certain way, they don’t have to seem creepy, most rapists are average dudes like anyone else. There is no method to differentiate non-sexually aggressive men from the extremely common sexually aggressive men, and the extremely low risk of being caught after committing the crime makes it significantly more dangerous, because a lot of people only don’t commit crimes because they know they’d face consequences.

6.5% of women reported unwanted sexual contact as their first sexual experience… On average, a girl’s forced sexual initiation was 15.6 years old.

JAMA Internal Medicine, “Association Between Forced Sexual Initiation and Health Outcomes Among US Women”, 2019

When you’re out in public, or at a highschool reunion, or even at a family gathering, you’re likely surrounded by at least one rapist or future rapist. A meta-analysis on unreported rape, in fact, states this:

Studies of unreported rape, mainly on college samples, indicate that from 6% to 14.9% of men report acts that meet legal definitions for rape or attempted rape

Lisak, D., & Miller, P. M. (2002)

And this study from 2014 suggests that 1/3 of white college-aged men would rape a woman if there were no consequences, despite only 13.6% agreeing they would when explicitly pointing out that it’s rape. Studies like this also make it obvious that a large portion of men don’t think rape is rape.

Various other studies suggest a similar or higher amount of men would try to pressure a woman into having sex if she said no, including by getting her under the influence of drugs/alcohol or by attemtping to manipulate her with verbal abuse. Which, obviously, is rape.

And keep in mind, this is only the portion that voluntarily said they would. The actual number is likely higher considering that people tend to undersell “embarassing” behaviours or thoughts, like drug abuse and desire to rape, even on studies which aren’t face-to-face.

That’s why being alone with a random man is a much higher risk than being alone with a bear to most women.

Yeah and black bears are pussies despite being bears, if you’re lucky you can disable them at the expense of your arm’s noncrushedness

How can you tell that they’re not a 2D slice of life anime character living in the real world with real world problems? You the NSA or somethin’?

Social jet lag? Wouldn’t that just be delayed circadian rhythm?

I mean ADHD, Autism, Dyspraxia, etc. have a specific set of symptoms and specific treatments, and a large part of the population has those (as well as other mental disabilities like MDD, Bipolar, etc.). Many psychology researchers tackling the subject find that ADHD is severely underdiagnosed in the population (despite popular uneducated belief being that ADHD is overdiagnosed due to misinformation being widely spread on TV shows in the 2000s), with around 20% of people likely meeting the criteria for an ADHD diagnosis (diagnosis rates are usually in between 3% and 10%).

It’s postulated that the high occurence of ADHD compared to other disorders comes from our days as hunter-gatherers – then, many of the behaviours of ADHD would have been extremely helpful, such as high alertness/awareness of changes in the environment such as sound cues and slight visual changes, and impulsiveness/drive to be active to seek out berries and prey and such, making a decent portion of members of a group having ADHD be a huge benefit and boost to survival rates. But most of those useful effects have become quite useless in modern society, and many of the symptoms (like dysfunctional working memory & inattentiveness) have become a massive detriment under industrialism. It is likely that in pre-industrial/medieval society ADHD was still a net benefit, at least according to what little we can ascertain from it there.

Genes contributing to Autism Spectrum Disorder have also been positively selected for even since before humans came about, since they also brought benefits throughout primate evolution.

You can really take a lot of common mental disorders and find some sort of evolutionary reason for it; even mood disorders, anxiety disorders, insomnia disorders, schizophrenia, etc. would have had some potential benefits to prehistorical human groups.

Fun fact, there was a study done on prison populations in Estonia and it was determined that 40% of prisoners had undiagnosed ADHD – the symptoms of ADHD are kind of contrary to the core principles of being a capitalist worker, often with it being mistaken for “laziness” or “lack of motivation” (qualities which bring shame and have, for most of modern history, gotten you shunned from society), so they have a much higher likelihood of falling behind in life without proper treatment.