Log in | Sign up @ davidagain @lemmy.world

Posts

5

Comments

1,281

Joined

1 yr. ago

I have two kids

No you don't. You made them up right now.

Her fight is far more public than yours by an enormous factor.

She got her message across to millions by putting her money where her mouth is and leaving, whereas you're just carping to a few hundred on lemmy calling her names for standing up in a very public way that got more headlines in one day than your carping on the internet will do in your lifetime. You're just undermining her very important message about how bad things are and how much worse they're gonna be.

Your bravado is as fake as your fantasy children are.

Your anti-intellectualism, your lack of empathy and your fake bravado all point to you being a rightwing troll just trying to lessen the impact of her crucial lessons from history by discrediting her for taking a stand.

Yes.

I wish everyone who posted youtube links would say what they were linking to.

This is the kind of political purity nonsense that had people saying that the democrats should lose the election because of Gaza. That turned out great didn't it!

Dude, if your house is on fire, feel free to leave and feel free to give lectures on fire safety afterwards. No one can hear your wise words if you're dead.

This is the choice the intellectuals, the socialists and more than anyone else, the Jews faced in Nazi Germany. Stay and be removed from your homes by the racial purity police or leave.

I notice you not saying you have kids.

Let me know in a few years when you understand, because all your "fuck saving your own kids from the fascists, you should be in the street not on the news living out history lessons" bravado is a real tell for "I have absolutely no idea what it's like to have kids".

Your extreme lack of empathy and insistence on everyone doing it your way makes me surprised you aren't a conservative yourself.

My colleagues and friends, they were walking around and saying, ‘We have checks and balances. So let’s inhale, checks and balances, exhale, checks and balances.’

Er, no, America, you don't have checks and balances. Not any more. Have you not been paying attention? That stuff is GONE.

Magnificent.

I think the dare thing is consistent with the mismatched shoes.

Definitely a dare. Probably also drunk, yes. That or his boyfriend always likes to have easy access.

What you wanted to say was that you're incapable of trusting women, you disagree when I say mild things like "not all men are rapists and not all women cheat" and your response to "I'm your boyfriend now, you're not allowed any male friends because I'm taking charge of your social life and tearing your friendships apart" is "wait, this guy has a point". Yeah. Very nuanced. Are you sure she will obey your friendship commandment? Perhaps you'd feel better if you lock her in the basement while you're out!

At least this time you didn't try to claim nuance where there is only extreme.

No, no, no, I didn't say it was easy for her, I just think you completely lack nuance, balance, credibility and fairness when you excuse a position that pretty women can't be trusted around men unattended. That's not nuanced, it's misogynistic.

There's no nuance to "pretty girlfriend can't be trusted to spend time unattended with other men", that's not nuanced, it's blanket, it's controlling, it's relationship destroying, it's toxic and it's misogynistic.

I'm NOT arguing that it won't sometimes be hard for her to fend off men who aren't good at respecting women's boundaries.

I AM arguing that you utterly LACK nuance when you talk like pretty women can't have platonic friendships with men. It's untrue. Not all men are rapists. Not all women cheat. You're making a gross generalisation and it's nasty and not at all nuanced.

If hypothetically you spent all your relationship talking to your girlfriend like she's going to cheat on you, I think you would push her to live up to your expectations. After all, if she's already done the punishment of hearing you lecture her about how she/women can't be trusted around men, and you're already giving her a hard time about keeping male friends, and you're already forbidding male friendships she holds independently, and you're already breaking up her preexisting friendship groups making it hard for her to plan/maintain a social life, and you're already having the arguments about her unfaithfulness when she hasn't cheated yet, she may as well cheat because she is already living the punishment and the destroyed trust. But in this scenario, it was you that destroyed it all on your own.

You keep pushing this attitude to women as nuance, but it's like arguing that there's nuance in "I permanently grounded my teen children all their lives, to stop them being drawn into taking drugs by their friends". I mean, sure, ground them if they did drugs, but temporarily, because you can't be the police of someone else's entire social life, they're going to escape that toxicity or you're going to ruin their life. You can't ground them as a permanent preventative measure, there's no nuance to that, none at all, even though peer pressure is both real and powerful.

I completely reject your assertion that you're being nuanced by claiming that because some pretty women and some men can't be trusted, there's some reasonableness or counterbalance in the scenario, and I reject your claim of nuance wholeheartedly when you talk like platonic relationships between men and women are the exception instead of the rule. Very very wrong indeed. Like excruciatingly wrong. Statistically way out. Most male/female relationships are platonic. Most pretty women are not sleeping around and most pretty women can be trusted, even around men in your absence. There's no nuance to saying otherwise. There's no nuance to using the existence of male rapists and unfaithful women to justify toxic and controlling behaviour. There's no nuance to talking like petty women are inevitably going to sleep around. Stop using the word nuance to describe toxic misogynistic overgeneralisations.

Helpful guide, thank you. It's so easy to get confused. Saved.

Even if you're right that all men hit on her, he's wrong that that means he's the only man she can be friends with. Period. There's no nuance to that, it's just controlling. He can control her or he can love her, but he can't control and love her.

Pretty women develop the skills to keep drooling men at arms length early on. The mistake is thinking that she hasn't been picking and choosing so far and in thinking that control is the right response to the possibility of her choosing someone else. Either she leaves or she is at the very least emotionally abused, there's no third option with a controlling man.

I’ve had this issue with multiple girlfriends (who all ended up with one of the guys I warned them about).

It sounds like you pushed them away to me: These other dudes will have been being nice and friendly to her meanwhile you're being controlling and untrusting of the very guys who are considerably more fun to be with whilst you're telling her which of them definitely fancy her, so she's in if she wants to take a punt on one of them.

I mean, you're kind of acting like an annoying wing man for her male friends. Why not swap you out?

Is she not also right that most of his male friends also want to?

What's nuanced about his controlling behaviour?

Very much so.

Acknowledged.

Pretty much every country has a mating season. It's late autumn / early winter here in the UK. Birthdays all year round, but definitely peaking nine months after those long nights.