You are 100% correct in your statement, and even women themselves know this and admit it... and like it. Some may be more shy to admit it, but they all do - especially behind closed doors. Even the most feminist, Bernie-voting women I know.
The only problem with your statement is it goes against what our feminist, matriarchal schooling system and media have been shoving in our faces for the past several decades, so we've been conditioned just as they want us to be: to react as if the world is coming to an end because someone said something that makes females not look like strong, independent perfect, women who don't need no man (because men are evil, in so many words).
What's wrong with women being more submissive and less independent? If everyone were the same the world would be a better place. Man needs woman, woman needs man...hence why we're all here today. Men have their own flaws we're more than happy to own up to. And those flaws, like women's innate flaws, are so great because it allows men and women to serve even more of a purpose for each other and make each other complete.
> It included the phrase "Women only want to look good and receive complements" if that gives you enough context?
Are you a male or a female? I have heard multiple women (friends, girlfriends, acquaintances) literally admit this. There is also a multitude of evidence that exists showing that the “theory” is not shocking in the slightest.
These women I speak of don’t consider it a bad thing. Why should you, a (presumably) male consider it that way on their behalf? Or anti-scientifically argue against truths that are too shocking for you to handle?
I assumed his post must’ve been genuinely awful, based on how dramatic your response is, but it’s been flagged so I can’t see it. I did see a quote below from it which makes it seem pretty harmless and now my gut is that your post is probably more “shocking” than his was…
What’s with the current trend amongst certain members of society of using such extremely dramatic words to describe things that… aren’t actually that bad? It feels like a tabloid or something. “Shocking. Horrific. Abhorrent. Reprehensible.” (Like, unless you’ve been on the internet for a day, you really actually thought it was “shocking”?)
I’m seeing this everywhere now and it’s kind of annoying. It’s like you don’t have much of an argument, and you realize they probably have a point, but you want to silence the opposition, so you downvote, flag, and then write something super melodramatic as an attempt to scare others away from daring to have a similar opinion.
Pro-tip: you are likely reinforcing and bringing more people to the cause you so histrionically oppose.
> In return for this "extra hour" you have to pay with waking up in the dark and doing your morning commute in the dark
Unless you're a senior citizen who's retired and doesn't like late nights, I don't get why for most people, darkness wouldn't be preferred for those "nothing" activities, so an extra hour of light can then be enjoyed after they get home from work/school/whatever. Otherwise, yeah, you're enjoying the light in the morning... from the inside of a car... on your way to a day of obligations where you're stuck inside usually doing things you have to do rather than things you want to do.
I think most people would rather have that extra hour of light for after they get home from work/school/whatever, so they can actually enjoy the outdoors a bit when they get home.
I always hated the feeling from late fall until early spring of being excited to be done school/work... only to get home and it be dark so basically the only thing I can do is walk inside and stay in there until the next day.
Of course, I agree. But the lives of drivers on public roads also have value, do they not? Furthermore, let's remember that the felon in question died because he was an uncooperative, aggressive criminal under the influence of drugs - not, truly, for any of the reasons the rioters purported to be rioting against.
Perhaps if fewer people of all races (given that more than double the number of whites are unarmed when killed by police than blacks - about 19 vs 9) were belligerent towards police when apprehended during the commission or suspected commission of a crime, the thin blue line that separates the violent criminals of this world and law abiding citizens like you and I wouldn't be forced into such situations where one misjudgement or slight overreaction here or there could end up in a life or death situation.
Fight against brutality of all sorts, sure, but the forced "equality" angle is cringe - and incredibly transparent - and most of the country knows it.
Hopefully someone will create a "Bundle to Reimburse Small Businesses, Property Owners, Ordinary People, Firefighters, and Law Enforcement Harmed by All the Riots". An estimated $2B in property damages alone, not to mention all of the injuries to both regular citizens and law enforcement [0]. All for a guy who just wanted to drive on public roads high on meth and fenty. :/
Because that’s too obvious and also Facebook’s userbase’s ideologies lean the opposite direction from the establishment, and Facebook is their best tool for sharing information that happens to run counter to what the establishment (media, government, etc) finds to be ideal.
Besides, there are only a few sites that most people ever visit. The internet is “small” now. Tackle the biggest threat, the rest will fall in line - likely with glee since they already enforce pro-establishment censorship policies as it is. Twitter, for example.
> I'm confused by the laser focus on FB all of a sudden.
You have to look at in the context of the 2016 election. Once it was discovered that the winning team utilized Facebook in a way the losing team had no concept of (or more likely they simply didn’t use said concept as effectively), Facebook has been singled out and targeted by most media outlets for being evil and in need of strict government regulations, to protect the children and democracy and society, among other things.
Yes, FB had negative press prior. But this was the clear turning point in press coverage and governmental oversight and it was like a light switch.
I can’t say I’m disappointed in the slightest about that, or that they’re wrong. I despise Facebook. But I do find the reasoning behind this all a very disturbing extension of the “cancel culture” we’re in today. The establishment doesn’t like not having a monopoly on the spread of information, and it is fighting back.
The only problem with your statement is it goes against what our feminist, matriarchal schooling system and media have been shoving in our faces for the past several decades, so we've been conditioned just as they want us to be: to react as if the world is coming to an end because someone said something that makes females not look like strong, independent perfect, women who don't need no man (because men are evil, in so many words).
What's wrong with women being more submissive and less independent? If everyone were the same the world would be a better place. Man needs woman, woman needs man...hence why we're all here today. Men have their own flaws we're more than happy to own up to. And those flaws, like women's innate flaws, are so great because it allows men and women to serve even more of a purpose for each other and make each other complete.