Who is wanting to earn $200 within 15 mins?
I’ve literally seen men riot over a ball game.
My kids sometimes like to watch compilations of “fail” videos. The sheer number of clips involving adult-age males either punching or ripping their televisions off the wall as a result of a sports (or video game) outcome amazes me (but probably shouldn’t). I always tell me kids (especially my daughter) that if they ever see someone do this, they need to leave immediately and not have any kind of interactions with this person. If they’re willing to beat the hell out of a television, they’ll do the same to you.
I’ve launched a few controllers in my day. But that day was when I was like 15 and I was an emotionally volatile little shit who still needed to learn to manage his emotions. Can’t believe that we have dudes who never grew out of this phase, only doubling down, running around acting like they’re the superior sex.
Yuuup, smashed a controller or two in my time, and quickly learned that I don’t like when my stuff breaks, and have to master my emotions better/find better ways to vent, and then I did. Wild to watch full grown adults who never learned the same, and are just… wasting money replacing things, I guess.
My SNES controller still bears the scars of when I smacked it into my grandparents’ brick fireplace when I was 12. And I learned the importance of controlling my emotions as a result of the time I got mad at Panzer Dragoon Saga and ripped the disc out of my Saturn–scratching it EXACTLY where I was stuck in the game (like, it ran fine until that particular boss battle began, then it glitched out). I was able to fix the disc years later with a Disc Doctor (and still have the game), but given how rare and valuable that game is these days I still feel the pang of regret for having such a short temper. But the silver lining to that is that it all began a process of learning to properly handle my emotions AND gives me a good cautionary tale to tell my kids when they start getting mad at games and I tell them to take a break.
You sir. You are a good man.
Philadelphia officials grease city light poles, often with Crisco or hydraulic fluid, to prevent fans from climbing them during major sports celebrations, notably for the Philadelphia Eagles.
Every time there’s football matches between Rangers and Celtic in Glasgow, they send out the riot police because shit can get violent very easily.
On the other side of the central belt in Edinburgh, there were plans to have separators on the trams to keep Hibs and Hearts fans separate.
London tube trains have to skip some stations on match days to prevent certain fans mixing and fighting. Doesn’t stop them banging on the tube trains. Arsenal tube station has bars specifically designed to stop rival teams fighting each other on the stairs.
Millwall fans are so notoriously violent when the Dockland’s light railway was being built, rather than naming a station “Millwall” they named it “Mudchute”. Do you know how bad you have to be to have your area’s station named after a euphemism for arsehole.
Those are justified emotions!
spoiler
/s
I like the whole “I tried but didn’t really care at all” vibe with the username censoring.
I call it “hentai censoring”
I though the idea was to deface the post to show that you disagree with it.
Fathernathan already defaced it more than anybody else could.
It’s jaicilgin. He’s an incel that says women should be owned by men. He’s perpetuating the male loneliness epidemic by encouraging men to be terrible pieces of shit.
I would say that the majority of women that I know are more emotionally intelligent than the guys I know…
Most of the guys I know are emotionally repressed because they need to be a man.
And men don’t? I am willing to bet that the most wars in history could be traced to men who couldn’t cope with their emotions in a healthy way.
War is men not coping with their emotions in a healthy way. There is more than that to it, sure, but that is the central pillar at the core of every war throughout documented history.
*a few. I like to believe wars were fought more over resource domineering than ideology or emotion
Otherwise jesus are we lost as a species
Yeah. Wars weren’t fought because a king had a temper tantrum. Wars were mostly fought to control land.
This is mistaking cause and effect. Fighting over land results in a lot of strong emotions. Emotions aren’t the cause of fighting over land.
It is, though, compromise and negotiation would be the healthy way to deal with these things, fighting over them is a failure of emotional control, it’s required by at least one side of those kinds of conflicts. And many a war was indeed fought due to kings having temper tantrums.
If your army can easily crush the enemy and they refuse to give you the resources you want, it’s not an emotional decision to go to war to get it. It might be an immoral one, but so is demanding the resources in the first place.
You really see that as the emotionally healthy way to deal with these kinds of situations? Building an army and crushing all who cannot stand against you so that you can take what they have and force your control over them?
Telling. Very telling.
Immoral = emotionally unhealthy.
It’s very telling that you think emotion has anything to do with it.
A better question is: what caused the dispute in the first place? Who the true aggressor?
You’re letting us know a lot about yourself there.
I mean the War of the Roses was fought initially for resources/control, but began to become more about settling bitter feuds than economic gain. But I see these as exceptions
Men don’t have emotions remember? Stoicism and what not.
I can’t say I agree with you historically, but you have a point. Bear with me here.
In pre-industrial societies, the two ways to sustain more people were either to use the land more efficiently (agriculture in fertile areas, pastorage in marginal lands) or to have more land. Agriculture can only sustain so many people without modern tools, specialised crops, irrigation technology and so on. At some point, you reach the maximum of how many people the land can feed.
With a slowly growing population, that leaves you with a problem: more mouths to feed than food. Imagine you’re a young adult facing the fact that your father’s farm just can’t sustain both your family and your siblings’. You have the option to a) never have a family (= stay celibate because the contraception methods of the time weren’t quite as reliable as those today), b) fight your siblings over that farm or c) fight other people over their land.
Since a) most people like to bone and wanted to have a family, b) most people loved their family and didn’t wanna kill them or leave them to starvation, that really only leaves one option: war against other communities. Hey, it ain’t pretty, but better them than me, right?
Early war won’t have looked like the organised armies that emerged later, but more in the form of raids and ambushes, trying to make an area too dangerous for the others to live or cultivate. Later wars would have been more active efforts to expel or enslave the residents. Either you succeed in winning new land, or you got rid of your overpopulation. It would be quite macabre to call it a solution, but in any case, war served survival.
Obviously, it’s nice to have more than just “barely enough”. There is some prestige and respectability that comes with being a generous host, throwing feasts and sharing what you have with others, but you’ll need to have it in the first place. So even beyond survival, war becomes a means for prosperity.
With that in mind, it’s not hard to guess what people would expect from an effective leader: to secure their survival at least and ideally bring some prosperity too. From that, a form of military aristocracy arises, people whose authority derives from their ability to protect their community and lead them to prosperity.
That effect eventually gets out of hand as those aristocrats exploit their own people, but the general expectation of “good leader = good at war” remained, particularly within the hierarchy of these aristocrats. Where religion meets kingship, there is also an element of divine provenance: a good king has the gods’ favour (or, in the European middle ages, God’s favour). At this point, kings struggling to build legitimacy (perhaps because poor harvest pulls into question, whether they really have God’s favour) like to do war, both to demonstrate their military excellence and prove their divine favour, and to acquire land and riches to reward their nobles for loyal service and prove generous.
War, like many other activities, becomes a thing kings are expected to do, because all the good kings do it, and they’re good kings because they did it well. It’s somewhat circular, but essentially, war becomes a political performance (because the ones leading it generally don’t do the dying…) and also still a means for survival and prosperity. Emotions provide the cause, but the driving mechanism isn’t just wounded pride or anger.
Now, to circle back to my emphasis historically and specification of pre-industrial societies: at some point, new technologies provided new means to make land more fertile. Logistics made it possible to specialise on certain crops that would then be exported to other places while importing what wasn’t grown locally. Machines made planting and harvesting faster. Fertilisers, pesticides, new breeds of crops all improved the yield of land. You’ll be aware that there are tons of food being wasted: Modern, developed countries tend to have more land than they strictly need for survival.
So with the survival motivator being negligible, kings no longer needing to prove themselves, the factor that remains is prosperity, or more accurately, greed. Colonialism won’t need more than two sentences in this respect. Early settlers may have just been looking for a place to live, but the allure of exotic goods didn’t take long to draw nefarious attention. Trade could also obtain these things, but why bargain for what you could take by force?
And to make things worse, sometime in the 19th century, national sentiments began to crop up. Now we arrive at the point where pride and anger become a motivator. Suddenly, that plot of land isn’t just a matter of prosperity, but of possessiveness. Technically, it doesn’t matter much which government collects the taxes and which the import tariffs. Trade across the border would allow anyone to profit from it anyway, and generally, investing in the infrastructure of an area is more lucrative than war. But “I’ll be dammed if I let that other flag wave over our land” does become a factor.
Particularly after the world wars, we should have understood how devastating industrialised warfare is, and how much you pay for so little gain. In fact, I posit that war has generally become downright irrational. Trade and infrastructure could achieve so much more.
But we’re stuck with petty people and grand ambitions, driven not by survival, nor by desire for prosperity, nor by plausible greed: Today, more than ever, we fight over the pride, anger, jealousy, hate and other emotions that people couldn’t cope with in a healthy way.
War was never pretty, but whatever fig leaf of justification one might come up with has been torn away by mortar shrapnel and burned to a crisp by nuclear devastation.
This is a great write up. Thank you for writing it.
I find it incredibly stupid when people blame the forests when they have a problem with a specific tree. And that’s just the most sympathetic take on why he posted this in the first place.
No sympathy for this guy at all.
I second this. Every woman reaching voting age should be eligible to their own patch of land to live on. As should every man. Let’s expropriate the real estate companies! 🚩
In all seriousness, as a guy, I am genuinely gobsmacked at how many men feel entitled to sex and blame their insecurities and lack of dating skills on women. Looking back, I’m glad that I came from a culture where it’s more egalitarian. The schools I went to taught us that feminism is about equality between men and women. It’s not about one gender being superior to the other. When I was younger, my mom repeated to me couple of times not to get upset if a woman rejects me, to the point I told her she keeps saying what I already know before.
Later, as I got older, I realised that feminism and gender equality is taught differently in different places, or barely taught at all. Many people mistake feminism as female superiority. Some families don’t teach treating the opposite gender with respect. Even here in Europe, despite the progress since forever, I find Europeans still have more rigid gender expectations than in Southeast Asia.
Sometimes, being born into what family and the environment you grow up in is a matter of luck and shape who you are. Despite my parents’ flaws, I’m lucky I was born to educated parents and our culture is more or less egalitarian despite some hiccups.
Sometimes it’s a willful misunderstanding of feminism.
A strawman they’ve built in their heads from the words of their tv news preachers enables them to continue to hate women.
Listening to actual feminists and taking a minute to understand how it benefits everyone is hard and means they might have to stop feeding their delicious hate.
Where do you come from, if you don’t mind me asking. Because your birthplace sounds AWESOME
I don’t want to say specifically where I’m from, but I am originally from South East Asia. A common theory for the relative gender equality is because of the sea-faring, nomadic culture of Austronesians, who populated South East Asia and later the Pacific. Apparently, because of the lifestyle and constant movement, the workload is distributed between men and women, which promotes egalitarianism. Similar thing is observed on Native Americans and hunter gatherer cultures. I don’t know how solid the theory is but I will have to read more on it.
Even with South East Asia now being a “settled” society, and Abrahamic religions introducing some patriarchal ideas, the egalitarian value still largely remains as far as I can tell. There is remarkably more women in management roles in South East Asia compared to other countries. Many Westerners even noted how there are many female security guards in my home country.
Being generic here, but the concept of Hijra is not controversial or unaccepted across SE asia, correct? Or at least to the best of my knowledge (Cambodia and Burma).
I tend to pose just having such uncontested language goes a long way for gender roles (and conformance) not being such a puritanical binary like it is in the American anglosphere.
The hijra are on South Asia or the Indian subcontinent. I don’t know exactly what their social status is but it might differ from one part of South Asia to another.
I don’t know much about Burma and Cambodia so I can’t comment. Barring Malaysia and Indonesia, since they are Muslim-majority countries, the lgbt community in Philippines and Thailand is widespread and less stigmatised. We all know how accepting Thailand is of lgbt, and in Philippines many gays and lesbians are tolerated, but not accepted due to Catholic reasons for still refusing same sex marriage. However, before the Spanish colonisation of Philippines, gay men or bakla were conferred a special status as clerics in religious occasions, similar to hijra in South Asia and third spirit among Native Americans. Despite the Christian influence, the tolerance of lgbt in Philippines is still intact.
I tend to pose just having such uncontested language goes a long way for gender roles (and conformance) not being such a puritanical binary like it is in the American anglosphere.
Austronesian languages are not gendered. There is no he or she. Probably the closest translation of singular pronouns to English from Austronesian languages is “they”, which may sound awkward to gendered language speakers.
We may never know @jaicilgin’s name
I’m pretty sure it’s
jaicilginYou can swear on the internet.
Women shouldn’t vote unless they’re over the age of 18.
Great news! Before the age of 18, they’re not women.
Are you saying Louisa May Alcott lied to me?
From my experience, men are emotional too so his dumb ass point is invalid
Is your experience reading the OP? Because that post is full of emotion. I think the post is ironic but after Alanis Morissette I’m never sure anymore.
It’s like
RAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIN
He is describing Donald Trump, actually.
Edit: except he does have real estate. But he still shouldn’t be in charge.
How would it even work to have 1000s of emotions each minute? That’s a minimum of 16,6 emotions every second. Is he under the impression that women have superhuman time perception?
I have BPD and it makes perfect sense to me.
Hey, as a woman who was in the military, a lot of those women are pretty crazy too. Are you sure you wanna automatically give a green light to thousands of crazy women whose political literacy hasn’t been vetted?
If we must put restrictions on who is allowed/not allowed to vote, it should be based on passing some sort of political literacy test. For everyone.
The question with having a complicated standard/threshold for voting is always the question of who is responsible for choosing who gets to vote
