I know it’s subjective, and not denying your experience. But for other readers, the og Linkbuds are hands down the most comfortable headphones I have ever worn, without exception. I sometimes even forget I’m wearing them.

Obviously your mileage may vary, but if they sound like they might be your thing, it’s worth giving them a go, especially with the crazy low sales atm

At the moment it looks like what the market is demanding. A few years ago specialisation was in

The main issue with YouTube premium is the price, I can’t imagine that they’re making anywhere near $14 a month from showing me ads that I never click on. I’d love to see a breakdown, including how much is subsiding free users, how much is going to creators, and how much is going into the pockets of shareholders.

I think like most if not all of the people I know would easily pay $5 dollars for premium

Exactly, the Ukrainian seasoning costs way too much to import nowadays

Good first step though. Imagine all the protest/riot organising time we’d have

“Anti-Work” does this better how? I’m genuinely confused

FALGSC isn’t going to happen overnight, and work reform is a realistic interim solution.

Arguing for lower hours and more pay to match the massive increases in productivity we’ve seen over the last 100 years is totally feasible. And a step in the right direction long term.

FALGSC is currently not feasible, and at this rate automation is only making the rich richer

Yeah, “Work Reform” is much better. There’s this weird trend of massively exaggerating a talking point, as the echo chamber seems incapable of thinking about any kind of optics or moderation

To add to your point. It also, in this case, subverted my expectations of what the joke was going to be. As the standard one just implies the therapist is taking notes because you’ve done something weird. The expectation is subverted, as the therapist is just stealing the joke instead. Subverted expectations are often a key part of humour.

Okay, thanks 👍

Yeah, we once adopted an Australian Kelpie that was misidentified as a Doberman, and I was a dumb fuck and didn’t know better.

Australian Kelpies are nutcases at the best of times, and are capable of jumping garden fences. Our rescue had some extra issues on top of that.

He really need a huge farm to run around on. He was a darling, but had too much energy for us to handle

CUDA accelerated JSON parser is sorely needed

What scenario? Have you even read the thread you’re in?

Should I try being patronising too? Would it help?

No worries, thank you for getting me this far!

Ah, gotcha, sorry my mistake. Thank you for all your help btw.

So it’s specific for when men are less disenfranchised than women? Regardless of the perpetrator of said injustice?

So looking at that other guys examples. The only one that doesn’t immediately make sense is:

Or if some women asking for some sort of benefits over men is patriarchy

And to me the only example that comes to mind is women expecting men to pay for dates? Which I think is part of patriarchy as it’s inherited from a time where women couldn’t work or had severely limited career prospects?

And other things like

Or if some women shaming men for not being masculine enough is patriarchy.

are a response to a historic lack of agency among women, requiring them to force their husbands to find success for them.

I’m not getting this one though, could you explain how this is patriarchy?

Wonder if some women abusing men is patriarchy.

Thank you for responding.

What I’m getting is that patriarchy is a system that is structured in a way that it benefits (or disenfranchises less) those that are:

• White
• Wealthy
• Born in a “Western” country?
• Able bodied
• Straight and cis gendered

And that you can keep identifying different traits and expanding the list where relevant?

Totally, you’re right.

The whole discussion is entirely feelings based, as despite the percentage men actually committing being really low (as far as our stats can tell) it doesn’t really matter that much.

Same with the bear, actual bear attacks are so statistically unlikely to occur that it’s irrelevant to the discussion, even if we had the required stats to make it a 1 to 1.

Assuming only 1% of men do something (illegal or otherwise) that makes a woman feel afraid, that 1% can do that to multiple women. If they do it to 100 different women, that’s enough that 100% of women have experienced it.

Negative experiences stick in our mind a lot more readily than good ones, and it creates the perception that a chosen random man could be more dangerous than a bear.

And I’m not saying they’re wrong, my take away is still that enough men are shit, and we as a society need to do better.

Equally, using shock value and absurd hypotheticals is going to cause emotional reactions in men, and sure, that gets the message out. But we can’t act surprised and start demonising men when they act shocked and disagree with the absurd hypothetical. It’s valid to feel hurt by the statement, and telling people their feelings don’t matter distracts from the issue

This post, and most of the other bear ones, are in normie forums full of people not familiar with feminist discourse. The reason for that? It’s funny, cathartic, shocking, and a little inflammatory. And that’s fine, it’s meant to be. It gives it reach and allows people to learn and others to teach. The problem is that when men do find this to be shocking and inflammatory, they need to channel that emotion somewhere, and antagonistic/angry internet discourse is not the correct way respond to that.

There was a popular post the other day of “If you don’t understand why women pick the bear, you are the bear”, that directly antagonises the exact people who need to hear about why women choose the bear, and those people don’t need to be antagonised, they need a little empathy and non-confrontational discussion to get there.

When I talked to them calmly, and acknowledged the way they feel, validated their emotions, then explained the topic to them, every single one I talked to accepted the core point and came out better for it. Take that angry energy, educate, and direct that energy in the right direction.

It’s not that men’s feelings should trump women’s safety. It’s that you need to think about why people are disagreeing so you can effectively talk to them

You’re correct, but you’re every bit as angry as they are, and your comment is so devoid of any respect or empathy for men as fellow human beings that you’re only making things worse for everyone.

You are the ammo that anti-sjw grifters put in their guns.

Like it or not, men are 50% of the population, and no one is getting anywhere by needlessly antagonising them

I get that, and you’re right. But a lot of people are taking the meme too far, and taking something that was originally good, and making it it anti-men. Men’s feelings actually matter, and we as society need to start actually thinking about them, rather than just telling them to man up all the time.

I’ve talked to a whole bunch of anti-bear men, and all of them accept the point when told in an empathetic way that acknowledges their right to feel the way they do. You can take that feeling and channel it as a force for good, rather them antagonising them and pushing them further away

(Not saying you in particular are doing this)

Edit: Please respond instead of downvoting. I’m failing to see the problem with identifying that there’s a enough antagonistic commenters that maybe it’s pushing people in the wrong direction. And we now require an over-correction of empathy to undo that damage.