The counter-claim is not that racism is exclusively a men's issue. The counter-claim is that the claim "men's rights don't vary by state" is false, as evidenced an example of how men's rights do vary by state. The implied part that should have been explicit is that the way racism manifests from state to state also has gendered aspects, with some disproportionately affecting women (e.g. hair/dress policing in the workplace) but some also disproportionately affecting men (e.g. incarceration). That is to say, racism and sexism are intersectional. Another example might be how custody rights typically vary from state to state often unjustly disfavoring the father, given all other things being equal.
I'd suggest that this argument does not go against the underlying position of OP that "patriarchy bad", rather it corrects OP to highlight how institutional sexism typically falls along normative/conservative conceptions of gender for men too. That is to say "patriarchy bad mostly for women, but also bad for men too".
I think it echoes that video of those two Apache crews blowing up civilians in Baghdad and then targetting people who came to help the injured. One of the most chilling parts of that video was probably how casually routine it all seemed. Can only imagine what footage existed that never got leaked.
I agree, I'm separating the justification of the engagement from how they label people. So the parallel I'm drawing only has to do with how they loosely label people as part of a group based on broad characteristics once they decide a group can be a valid military target, i.e. "insurgents" or "narco-terrorists".
Declaring drug smugglers as valid military targets is certainly new, but ordering strikes on military targets on the thin rationale of "hey, they look like the group we said we can hit" is not new for the US military.
If it's not obvious, I disagree with both of these issues.
I agree, but it's also consistent with how the US operates. Through Afghanistan's and Iraq, anyone appearing as a military-aged male in the vicinity of an operation (e.g. a village where insurgents were shooting from) was labeled an enemy combatant and treated as valid targets.
I have genuinely conflicting feelings both for and against this kind of comment. Don't have time to unpack them so I'll just say it means there's a fruitful discussion to be had and an online forum is a fine place to have it.
If you want quality for classic Nintendo, you're probably better off with midi files, which are like sheet music for a synthesizer your computer can play. This way it's original full quality sound without any recording/large files.
VLC/Windows Media Player can play them if you download a soundfont like general montage (gm.sf2) or in Nintendo's case, there are a couple Nintendo soundfonts you can search for like this one for the NES: https://musical-artifacts.com/artifacts/610
It's never stopped the US from selling them modern-for-the-time F-15s, their advanced versions, and other advanced weapons systems. Or Europe from selling them the Eurofighter Typhoon.
I'm not saying this is the same or not a horrible decision full of corruption. Just that SA has been a longstanding strategic ally that has received a lot of military support from Western countries.
This sale is horrible for many reasons including military intelligence. However a lot of the responses seem a bit ignorant of the current state of things.
I'm sure there are lots of key technologies in materials, aerospace engineering, and digital warfare let alone the strategic intelligence of capabilities. However, China also already has many of the F-35 plans, enough to build a version of their own in the J-35. These fighters are also no longer next gen fighters. They are current 5th gen. Both US and China are developing their next 6th gen fighters.
Lol with multiple gaming PCs, you are far far removed from the target consumer.
Im pretty sure it will be cheap. Unlike PC hardware manufacturers they can do what the console companies do and price at/below cost and make it up in game sales.
No problem, I can be direct. There are two things.
The OP suggests making reservations is "less than" by calling it embarrassing. So the framing around teenage/adult was a clap back against the original diminishing of making reservations.
The pontificating about right food/time/people was to highlight the meaningful purposes that are often behind making a "spaghetti appointment"--spending time with loved ones, engaging with a life passion, or even doing something therapeutic--which the OP neglects.
This does not suggest that spontaneous food activities are less than, nor does it suggest that one cannot prefer one thing while appreciating the value of another. They are not mutually exclusive.
Oh cool! With the Internet these days it's not always obvious, but this is a fine example showing the signs of the teenage mind. The post is preoccupied with the notion of embarrassment, the ultimate death in that social environment.
More importantly, their young brains have yet to develop the experience and wisdom to comprehend the existential seriousness of the spaghetti appointment. Adults can be stunted in maturity, never developing emotionally nor intellectually, they dive headfirst into the most extremes of political and moral insanity...
But one thing that marks a true adult is upholding the sacred spaghetti appointment. Across all cultures and creeds around the world, adults understand that the right food at the right time with the right people is one of the most important appointments one must make.
It's not a strawman. Just because the proportions aren't as extreme as you expected doesn't mean it's not an issue. Just because we're talking about the gap here doesn't dismiss the overall problem of isolation. There are many many threads talking about the problem of social isolation overall. Go engage in those threads that are addressing the problem you're newly woke to and are holding so urgently now instead of bickering in here about who should be talking about what where.
That's giving some all lives matter energy.
We can talk about why everyone is so closed off in general, but this thread clearly focuses on a particular men's issue under that umbrella issue. So no, we should talk about the topic, not hijack it for "a larger issue".
I'm a thread about the wage gap between men and women (10-15%), you don't say "We should be talking about why the economy is struggling instead"
In a thread about the incarceration gap between blacks and whites, you don't say "We should be talking about why crime is up overall instead"
You make a great point about society needing to change, and a particular men's issue doesn't mean only men need to change, it actually does speak to how broader society considers what it is to be a man. How men decide that for themselves, are socialized by their environment into it, and how they're treated by other genders. Just as women's issues are human issues, men's issues are human issues too.
The reason why Valve has a chance whereas Asus and Lenovo do not is that the latter two have to make a profit off of the hardware, whereas Nintendo/Microsoft/Sony can sell at a loss/cost because they earn it back and more through game sales. Valve is in the same position so can price competitively against the big 3.
The counter-claim is not that racism is exclusively a men's issue. The counter-claim is that the claim "men's rights don't vary by state" is false, as evidenced an example of how men's rights do vary by state. The implied part that should have been explicit is that the way racism manifests from state to state also has gendered aspects, with some disproportionately affecting women (e.g. hair/dress policing in the workplace) but some also disproportionately affecting men (e.g. incarceration). That is to say, racism and sexism are intersectional. Another example might be how custody rights typically vary from state to state often unjustly disfavoring the father, given all other things being equal.
I'd suggest that this argument does not go against the underlying position of OP that "patriarchy bad", rather it corrects OP to highlight how institutional sexism typically falls along normative/conservative conceptions of gender for men too. That is to say "patriarchy bad mostly for women, but also bad for men too".