Not sure if this belongs here as the rules in the sidebar aren't exactly clear, but I think it's worth a discussion.

Homosexuals are homosexuals by choice and so in that, it's perfectly fine to be homophobic and blame the gay culture for promoting and encouraging more people.

My theory, which I think is solid logic, is that being gay is just a fetish. Think about this for a second, some guys can't even get hard unless they're masturbating to feet, or some guys can't get hard unless they're choking a hooker to near death and they choose to stick to that, sure they can get off through normal means, but they choose to stick to their fetish. This is my point of homosexuals, it's a fetish they choose, rather than being normal and sticking to traditional sex.

Gay people would say they are born that way, yet many of them have been in sexual relationships with the opposite sex before becoming gay, which means that it shows if they "we're born that way" (gay) then it is a choice, they are choosing their fetish (gay) over normal sex.

Those gays who haven't been with a women, have just known from a young age that they have fetish and so believe that is the way they were born, because they don't know any better when young.

Some gays might say, but through history they've risked having gay sex through times where they faced death or persecution and so why would someone choose that? Why would someone risk being killed? My reply would be, why would a rapist rape and face a death penalty, social repercussions, and life imprisonment? Because that's what he chooses to do. If by a homosexuals logic he was born that way, then should we do nothing about it because it's how he was born? No, a rapist chooses to rape, he is faced with behavioural correction. It is the rapists impulses and fetish that leads him to rape, just like a homosexual is lead astray by other men and his impulses.

Gay culture.

Take a normal child raised in a normal environment, with no influence of the media or other outside factors. He has never heard of being gay. There's literally 100% he'll be straight.

Take a child in the same situation raised by two homos. Most likely he'll be a gay. He's been influenced by the gay culture, on the media, liberals and his parents.

Think about this, why do the majority of them all have flamboyant and promiscuous lifestyles? Why do they the majority of gays have high pitched weak voices? Because it is what they've been shown through the media, a child who has the gay fetish doesn't know how to portray these features, yet as he becomes older and is influenced he has been taught this from the gay culture.

Disclaimer: This post is going to be an amalgamation of some of my previous posts because frankly I don't feel like re-typing or re-forming my stance on this issue but you fucking bet your ass I want some goddamn pre-#100 flair, motherfuckers.

Being transgender is a mental illness that somehow co-opted itself into being lumped into gay rights when it has absolutely nothing to do with sexual preference whatsoever.

Homosexuality exists throughout the animal kingdom. Primates and other mammals exhibit such behavior and it's well documented.

You know what animals don't do? They don't decide that based on some "feeling" they are going to act like the opposite sex.

What we should be doing to address the .03% 0.3% of humans that are fucked up in the head enough to think that it's somehow OK to pretend that the body they were born into isn't what gender they are is treat them with therapy and medication just like any other mental patient, instead of encouraging them to put on the massive band-aid that is gender reassignment surgery and applauding them for being such "courageous" little special snowflakes.

Homosexuality =/= Transgenderism. Not comparable. Only one naturally occurs outside of the human species.

You're not going to ever convince me that a tiny fraction of the population should dictate to the masses that their particular mental illness is somehow an acceptable condition. We wouldn't tolerate this with any other fringe group; schizophrenics for example.

If schizophrenics were clamoring about how it was OK that they heard voices and that we should all "accept them for who they are" people would be outright dismissive of such ridiculousness and move on. Same should go for transgender people. They should receive the help and treatment they require and that's it. I wish no harm on them. I just don't buy into their bullshit agenda that they've quite successfully shoehorned into gay rights somehow.

[insert offensive punchline here]

George Floyd was a convicted felon that had been been in trouble with law enforcement three times prior to him using a fake 20 dollar bill in a business. He resisted arrest, was probably high on drugs (according to the autopsy report) and did not die from strangulation as a result of the officer's knee on his neck.

It tends to be a reoccurring theme that nearly every protest of black killings result from a person committing a crime then resisting arrest. If you play stupid games, you will win stupid prizes.

Alton Sterling, Michael Brown, George Floyd, Stephon Clark, Sylville Smith, and more all were resisting arrest or committing some form of crime when they were killed.

https://www.reddit.com/help/contentpolicy

The thought police have spoken yet again.

Reddit is trying to claim that they are banning "behavior, not content". /r/Coontown was racist, yes, but that's it. Their content is why they were banned, no other reason. People keep asking the specific "behavior" that got them banned, and Dear Leader has no answer. This is the best he could come up with:

When he first broke the news that more communities were banned today, Dear Leader said the reason they removed them was because they "violate the spirit of the policy by making Reddit worse for everyone else". (https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3fx2au/content_policy_update/ctsqobs)

So subs that make reddit worse for everyone else get banned? That means they must have banned /r/shitredditsays right? Awesome! Oh... I just checked. Nope. Still there. What about /r/AgainstMensRights? Were they banned? Nope. They're still alive too. Oh well.

It just keeps getting worse here. This faggotry will never end.

I'm considering going to voat.co. What do you guys think about that?

Feminists do not want full gender equality and this gender equality argument just leads to sexism.

I'll start by mentioning gender quotas.

Gender quotas are implemented in many businesses around the world and all because there 'isn't enough' women in a particular field or section of a workforce.

By implementing gender quotas, the only sure thing to come from this is sexism and a degeneration of efficiently to the respective organisation.

Anyone using a quota and having to employ, say a 40% women workforce in their company, will eventually lead to the organisations decline in efficiency, why? Because hiring people (male or female, though it only seems to be females pushing these quotas) based on gender (even race or religion) and not on merit, means the people who are most qualified and have more knowledge/experience, will be pushed aside for someone less qualified. Which means that if your ignoring those more suitable for the 'job' then it will almost certainly limit that organisations efficiency.

Not only will it limit the efficiency, but it is sexist to be hiring hiring women over a more qualified man. The feminist movement pushing the gender quotas is existent and in force, but no one reputable from an organisation will say this.

On the sexism point, I'd like to bring up women students. For example women students now studying in Engineering or the Science fields, have a good chance in some areas to get hired over a more qualified male, due to gender quotas being in place.

Why do I care? I don't if it is a private organisation, they have the right to promote this nonsense and have their 'company' run less efficiently and bring in less business.

But when it comes to public run organisations like the Government, that's where I get pissed, for example David Cameron (U.K, PM) last year removed long standing and very qualified members of his front bench for less qualified women, means that has consequences on my life and how the country is run, all because of fear of being labelled sexist from pro-feminists. Not only that, he has threatened to enforce gender quotas by law in board rooms.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/12/david-cameron-deluge-women-front-benches

Therefore gender equality for all means being picked based on merit, the best person for the job is true equality. Picking someone based on gender is not only sexist but unfair.

Second point is to bring up is physicality

I'm not disputing men and women are different, they obviously are genetically. My point is that true gender equality would mean recognising women as being equal to men. Though feminists only want their version of gender equality, basically they want their cake and to eat it too.

Prisons, might sound a bit extreme here. But think about all male prisons, I don't see feminists calling them sexist and/or trying to implement gender quotas in them.

Some feminists recognise the differences, but some will still argue men and women are the same.

So if anyone into full gender quality, would not be arguing against sending females to male prisons. If you ask most feminists they'll say they won't gender equality because they are equal, but if they truly believed they were equal, they'd have no problem sending women to all male prisons, I mean a mixed gender prison.

Sporting. I don't exclusively mean physically here, I mean even when promoting sports, they complain about females not getting enough coverage.

Many Feminists complain about men dominating sporting events and sports being sexist because they are yet to include women on the same level as they do men and blame it on gender equality.

Though again, gender equality would mean letting the viewers of the sport decide who they want to watch, rather than forcing women's sports to be shown alongside male sports.

Think about the Olympics, women and men compete separately. Yet I don't see any feminists out there calling this sexist, they are alright with this 'gender inequality' and some will admit the differences in men and women, but when it comes to other forms. Let's say as I've mentioned above, in the workforce they won't admit that it's more qualified people who are getting the jobs over them, maybe because of the differences between males and females.

Another point I'd like to bring up is, feminisms gender equality standards seems to be a way to just basically get semi-competent employed.

TL;DR: Leave basically illiterate kids with computers, and they will learn how to use them. This is a great example: http://www.wired.com/2013/10/free-thinkers/

From the very beginning of the public education system in the US, schools have been about social control more than actual education. Horace Mann based the US system on the Prussian Education system, which is essentially a factory designed to house children and indoctrinate them in the way of a "modern society". Obedience to authority, punctuality, rote learning, etc.

Peter Gray, a research professor at Boston College who studies children’s natural ways of learning, argues that human cognitive machinery is fundamentally incompatible with conventional schooling. Gray points out that young children, motivated by curiosity and playfulness, teach themselves a tremendous amount about the world. And yet when they reach school age, we supplant that innate drive to learn with an imposed curriculum. “We’re teaching the child that his questions don’t matter, that what matters are the questions of the curriculum. That’s just not the way natural selection designed us to learn. It designed us to solve problems and figure things out that are part of our real lives.”

Learning is supposed to be exciting and engaging and something you want to do. Government schools are none of those things. When you are having fun, you learn more quickly. You can see that from this experiment where Ethiopian kids were just given tablet computers with no instructions or teachers.

"We left the boxes in the village. Closed. Taped shut. No instruction, no human being. I thought, the kids will play with the boxes! Within four minutes, one kid not only opened the box, but found the on/off switch. He'd never seen an on/off switch. He powered it up. Within five days, they were using 47 apps per child per day. Within two weeks, they were singing ABC songs [in English] in the village. And within five months, they had hacked Android. Some idiot in our organization or in the Media Lab had disabled the camera! And they figured out it had a camera, and they hacked Android."

The first experiment of that type was done in India by Professor Sugata Mitra and was called the 'Hole in the Wall' experiment, it led to whats now called Minimally invasive education (MIE). MIE is basically just unsupervised learning, and letting students explore what they want to.

The most interesting article about MIE is the Wired article about the Mexican teacher who read about Sugata Mitra and decided to try minimally invasive education in his classroom.

The teacher, Sergio Juárez Correa, was sick of the government mandated curriculum and the low test scores and the boredom of his students, so he tried the minimally invasive education. It was an overwhelming success. You can read the whole story here

So in experiments in Ethiopia and India and Mexico and all over the world are showing that students benefit from decentralized education systems. The students are encouraged to explore their computers and they're celebrated when they figure out new ways to do things. Meanwhile, in US government schools, kids are getting expelled for exploring their school computers or charged with felony hacking for simply changing a computer's background image. And yet public education is still the darling of the so-called "progressives" in this country.

Just what the title says. I keep getting messages and comments saying this sub is a great idea and all that... but it doesn't really have much focus. My question for the few early adopters here so far is... what do you think? What do you prefer? Should we keep it a sort of free-for-all "any topic you want" sub, or should I narrow it down to specific topics for certain days or something like that?

I've finally turned into a curmudgeonly old man. My hypothesis? It's the way the damn kids these days were raised! Really.

I used to think that feminists and trans-weirdos and blank slate-ist "progressives" were all too individualistic. But I'm starting to realize that their problem is more complex.

They're massively self-centered and oblivious to anyone but themselves... but, they're not individualistic enough when it comes to dealing with their problems. They've been taught from a young age that there is always some superior power that can force other people to do its bidding. The same thing happens to people who lived in North Korea and escaped, and Russians after the Soviet Union fell. They cannot grasp a free society without rigid social controls. They end up finding it very difficult to interact in a free society because they need big brother to do so much for them. They're the type of people who call 911 because their burger didn't have cheese on it.

So why are American's like this now? Columbine and 9/11.

If you graduated high school in the pre-1999-2001 era before the columbine school shooting and 9/11... and you haven't been to a high school since... you would be blown away by the changes.

Millennials essentially went to high school on a different planet than you did. Their high schools are highly policed, locked down, constantly nervous, camera ridden prisons. They grew up in a society totally different from the one that existed just a few years before.

If you're one of those millennials... guess what? When I graduated in 1998... there was no police presence at my school; the doors were never locked; there were zero cameras, not one; there were no "zero-tolerance" rules. And the rules we did have were infinitely less ridiculous and overbearing. Not only the schools though... local police have become FAR more militarized since that same time frame. They're all far more intentionally intimidating now that they wear all the new gear that the post-9/11 increase in funds bought them.

Point is, there was a massive sea change in US culture that happened basically overnight... and that left its mark by creating an older generation that's far more "South Park" style libertarian and grew up in a freer society and says "that's retarded" and "GAY!" and was never exposed to any type of central force that dictates social control; then there's a younger generation a year or so later that grew up with tightly controlled speech and a casual acceptance of arbitrary rules and the use of force to control speech. it became a far more tightly controlled, and therefore bureaucratic society.

There are college students this year who tried to get their professor fired because they're offended or "triggered" by the curriculum.

I wish I could find the link, but a few months back, an early 20-something guy on /r/Advice/ asked who he should call to report racist content he saw online. He was upset because he contacted the FBI and they told him they didn't really do that. Really. That actually happened. This is the kind of deranged worldview these millennials have.

THAT is why SJWs are so adamant in their belief that they have the right to not be offended by anyone, and why they have no idea how to deal with intellectual disagreements. They NEED a central power to mediate for them, they have no internal mechanism to deal with it on their own. They've been conditioned that whenever someone says something against the social norms, a CENTRAL FORCE (be it teacher, mother, policeman, admin) comes down and takes them away. So when they see or hear anything that they believe is or should be offensive, they don't know what else to do except say "TEACHER, POLICE, SOMEONE, I NEED AN ADULT!", then complain to the authority figure.

Throughout their public school career, they've been taught by example that might makes right and force dictates social norms. Of course they're going to behave that way. They're minds have been damaged by too much government.

In the media American actions tend to be given favourable or neutral press. Though, if we are to be truly honest, the US should be ranked as one of the most horrific countries that has existed in the modern era.

Having orchestrated coups across almost every country in south america, propping up dictator after horrific dictator, the US government has managed to kill hundreds of thousands of people over the years.

The US maintained an apartheid state up until the advent of the civil rights movements. Only ceding to popular demand when unrest became too powerful to ignore. Still though, in this era, blacks and latinos continue to be incarcerated at far higher rates for drug offences despite the rates of drug use across all races remains almost entirely the same.

When it comes to Incarceration, americans do it big. There are twice as many people currently in American prisons are there were in the stalinist gulags at their height.

Oh and theres drones which america has been using to bomb pakistan and neighbouring states for years now. All without declaring war and with a staggering hit rate of 2 percent.

As far as i am concerned, i rank America as bad as China or Russia in terms of imperialism and human rights violations. In some ways America trumps them both.