Dee-lighted! by xoenix in Comics

[–]xoenix[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Gotta be careful how you use the term capitalist. We're talking about bankers and monopolists who hate competition. These guys saw a future communist Russia as a potential lock-in, single-monopoly client state that they could land exclusive contracts with. Which both GE and Ford eventually did.

Dee-lighted! by xoenix in Comics

[–]MagicMike 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

In a way, we can’t blame capitalists for adopting a form of communism: the masses are stupid and violent. Pay bribes to the masses in the form of social spending and carefully choose who will be candidates for office.

Dee-lighted! by xoenix in Comics

[–]xoenix[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Derailed by xoenix in Comics

[–]YoMamma 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks for sharing. It's amazing that Xitter and Youtube have become news sources for so many, especially when a 1-second search will locate the actual news, which is often the opposite of the disinformation on Xitter ant YT.

Greenland’s Democrat party 'which told US president Donald Trump that the country was “not for sale”, has emerged victorious in the country’s parliamentary elections.'

'Greenland has voted for a complete overhaul of its government in a shock result in which the Democrat party more than tripled its seats after a dramatic election campaign fought against the backdrop of Donald Trump’s threats to acquire the Arctic island.'

Before the election, the PM said, 'We don’t want to be Danes or Americans”, Greenland Prime Minister Múte Egede.... He wants his country to be independent and plans to hold a referendum.'

TLDR: Trump's threats have resulted in Greenland's destabilization and attempts, by all parties (former leadership, current Democrat leadership, and the dumbass Naleraq party) to gain independence from Denmark, which obviously would weaken it's relations with Europe. Putin is very happy about this. And this vote confirms that Greenland politicians don't want Denmark or the US to influence their country.

Derailed by xoenix in Comics

[–]WoodyWoodPecker 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Derailed by xoenix in Comics

[–]WoodyWoodPecker 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Derailed by xoenix in Comics

[–]xoenix[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

We don't really know each other, so you can't reasonably make that claim.

Every old lefty gets this way, I've seen it repeatedly. Increasingly unhinged that they won't live to see the U.S. fall and collapse under "late-stage capitalism" - instead, only to see it double the collapsing globalist EU economy within a decade.

Derailed by xoenix in Comics

[–]YoMamma 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

We don't really know each other, so you can't reasonably make that claim.

BTW: doesn't every country want to become a state of the US?: https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/1j9ln4f/fox_news_reporter_gets_emotional_as_he_attempts/

LMFAO

Derailed by xoenix in Comics

[–]xoenix[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Perhaps we don't want to those predictions to come true?

Absolutely not. You want to manifest them.

Derailed by xoenix in Comics

[–]YoMamma 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Perhaps we don't want to those predictions to come true?

OK let's assume everyone's happy as clams and will still be happy in due course (in the US). How does their income improve with the increase in GDP, with all of those lovely "trickle-down" golden showers Reagan promised?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_of_living_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Gdp_versus_household_income.png

Derailed by xoenix in Comics

[–]xoenix[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

the US standard of living will drop to one of the worst in the so-called 1st world.

LMAO lefties have been saying this for decades. Better luck with your predictions in future.

Derailed by xoenix in Comics

[–]YoMamma 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Really dumb.

The U.S. government contributed almost $13 billion to the United Nations in fiscal year 2023, and allocated approximately $200 million in 2024 to organizations operating in the West Bank and Gaza.

Compare that with $20.7 billion in contracts with SpaceX, which has a habit of exploding its expensive rockets, while NASA could make better use of that money.

Compare that also with $4.5 trillion in handouts to the .1%, which are not funded, will be borrowed from China, which will cost each American 1000s of dollars, and will NEVER trickle down, as we've seen since the Reagan era and all of the tax cuts in between.

Compare that also with the $1.3 trillion the US spends on the military and veterans.

Compare that also with $billions in subsides to Oil Companies and BigPharma.

While the .1% take as much as they can from important government departments, and the DOE, and Medicare, and Social Security, merely to fatten their bank accounts, the US standard of living will drop to one of the worst in the so-called 1st world. It's been part of the Heritage Foundation's plans for decades, and is now part of Project 2025.

Supportive Librarian by Ave_Satanas in Comics

[–]PerfectDebate 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Is this a comic about letting people read books with sexual content?

"Webtoon Sucks!" by carn0ld03 in Comics

[–]Alaska2 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The USA is a bankrupt warmongering police state, but nothing will change because Americans think everything is just fine.

Charlie Brown you're still a fag! by WoodyWoodPecker in Comics

[–]twolanterns 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

charles Shultz had a chronic depressive personality

Nice haul by xoenix in Comics

[–]hfxB0oyA 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Condition's not great, so they're probably not worth a lot. The value is in the stories that aren't infected with gay.

Nice haul by xoenix in Comics

[–]hfxB0oyA 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I had a few of those back in the day.

Nice haul by xoenix in Comics

[–]Zapt 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I wouldn't be able to take advantage of someone who didn't know how much money they were sitting on. I would have to advise them to take them to a dealer.

Nice haul by xoenix in Comics

[–]Drewski 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

How much are they worth?

Floogle Accordion Co. by xoenix in Comics

[–]WoodyWoodPecker 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Does your dog bite? by xoenix in Comics

[–]cunninglingus 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Pet insurance CEOs take note....

Does your dog bite? by xoenix in Comics

[–]WoodyWoodPecker 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

That's not my dog.

AHA! by xoenix in Comics

[–]American_Muskrat 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I was thinking of posting this from X too lol

AHA! by xoenix in Comics

[–]WoodyWoodPecker 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

AHA! by xoenix in Comics

[–]LordoftheFlies 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

It took me a moment. But I got it.

Sinfest: October 16, 2024: Mount Olympus 2 by Questionable in Comics

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What is the point of looking that good if you aren't going to have sex because it is a sin? If the only way to not sin and have sex is to get married first then the proper way to live that ideology is to get married soon after puberty otherwise you are just fighting your strongest instincts and eventually will lose.

So why are the people who denounce hedonism always so silent about young love and marriage?

If you subscribe to the claims that it is also perverted and adjacent to pedophilia you are not offering a viable alternative to hedonism. You are at that point just someone disgusted by everything to the point that your prescriptions for life are self defeating, nihilistic and depressing.

Monogamy and chastity are virtues of a society where people get married in their teens. If you are not willing to fight for that first you don't have a valid argument. You don't get to simply point at the success of that society, but them cherry pick some parts of it and demand we live by a mishmash of moral virtues from different societal structures. We can't have feminism, single 30 year olds, teen marriage demonized, sexual deviance normalized, but then also demand people stop masterbaiting and sleeping around.

The first solution needs to be access to sexual gratification because it is an inalienable part of our species. If your moral system does not have that then it is not viable.

Sinfest: October 16, 2024: Mount Olympus 2 by Questionable in Comics

[–]xoenix 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Is he a pagan?

Climate policy tug of war by xoenix in Comics

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So you accept the scientific observations that CO₂ is making the earth greener

There are species of desert plant that are more tolerant of drought under high CO₂, so you do see more plants growing on the edge of deserts, but that doesn't offset the damage to the boreal forests and due to warming allowing increased range of parasites[1] , nor of the impact of increasing drought in the Amazon basin[2] .

And you get an impact from CO₂ fertilization where growth is not limited by soil nutrients, water or sunlight. And that has increased leaf area in most places that haven't suffered from the increased wildfires[3] that we are also seeing with increased temperatures.

However, that doesn't tell the whole story. CO₂ fertilization favors vines over woody plants, and results in crops with lower nutritional value by weight[4] , putting pressure on ecosystems, and increasing the threat of malnutrition.

and that the world is benefiting from CO₂ emissions.

Big claim. There are certainly winners and losers, but I would have thought that the loss of human life[5] and impact on every ecosystem on the planet[6] would've overwhelmed the increase in arable land available to Russia and Canada.

What scientific observations are you using to claim that "the world is benefiting from CO₂ emissions"?


1 Mountain pine beetle: an example of a climate-driven eruptive insect impacting conifer forest ecosystems

2 Why Does Amazon Precipitation Decrease When Tropical Forests Respond to Increasing CO₂?

3 Climate Change Increases the Risk of Wildfires

4 Effects of Elevated CO₂ on Nutritional Quality of Vegetables: A Review

5 Health effects of climate change: an overview of systematic reviews

6 Recent responses to climate change reveal the drivers of species extinction and survival

Climate policy tug of war by xoenix in Comics

[–]ilovestalin 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So you accept the scientific observations that CO2 is making the earth greener and that the world is benefiting from CO2 emissions.

Climate policy tug of war by xoenix in Comics

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There is no "science and reason". None at all.

Yes there is. See how there's 20,000 scholarly papers returned by the search term "Global Climate Change" ... for this year so far alone? That's a lot more science than "None at all".

It is 100% propaganda, pushed by the technocrats and billionaires.

Nope. See the 20,000 papers above.

The technocracy was the first group that invented tax and control of CO2.

Nope. Just trying to limit climate change, because that's about 5 times cheaper than adaptation.

The 99% (or 95%) is a made up number, mixed with censorship and attacks.

No. Follow the link. It's 99.9%, and its from a literature review by some scholars at Cornell University.

They literally punished scientists that were better at climate science.

No. That's straight up literature review. No one was punished. The abstracts of the papers were merely read and classified by the field of the paper, and the level of endorsement of the scholarly consensus that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming.

And several "scientists" (like Michael Mann) changed the historical data to fit to the models, instead of adapting the models to the data.

No, that's bullshit. Michael Mann did no such thing. He investigated pre-historical data using proxies for temperature measurements. But he got it right. That work has been reproduced at least a dozen times, showing it to be correct.

Which means that we are dealing with fraudulent science.

No, that's 100% propaganda. The fossil fuel industry finds its profits under threat from the facts, and so they spend a little bit of money (for them) creating distrust in the science. That is the only reason why some people think that it is fraudulent.

Or similar to flat-earth science: real observations are denied.

Quite the opposite.

Real observations are that CO2 is increasing, and that temperatures are increasing, and that the former is the cause of the latter.

The CO2 has been much higher in history, when nature was doing very well.

This is true. However, the increasing CO2 now threatens the ecosystems that exist now. We can infer that any Trigonotarbids from the Devonian would be well adapted to the increased CO2. However, that doesn't help us now, as they've been extinct these 400 million years.

The effect of CO2 is minimal, human caused CO2 even lower.

The effect in the year 2000 of the human caused part of climate change was about 160,000 human deaths.

But there were also effects on the ecosystems and economy.

And recently the climate has been much warmer, even allowing vikings to grow Hop in Greenland.

The south of Greenland was about 1.5-degrees Celsius warmer than the surrounding cooling centuries ... which was about the same as today, not "much warmer".

But the global average was cooler.

Variable influence from volcanoes and sun are completely ignored.

No they're not ignored. They are in the models. They contribute to the "natural factors" in the graph above.

Climate policy tug of war by xoenix in Comics

[–]zyxzevn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There is no "science and reason". None at all.
It is 100% propaganda, pushed by the technocrats and billionaires.
The technocracy was the first group that invented tax and control of CO2.

The 99% (or 95%) is a made up number, mixed with censorship and attacks.
They literally punished scientists that were better at climate science.

And several "scientists" (like Michael Mann) changed the historical data to fit to the models, instead of adapting the models to the data.
Which means that we are dealing with fraudulent science.
Or similar to flat-earth science: real observations are denied.

Simple observations and facts:
The CO2 has been much higher in history, when nature was doing very well.
The effect of CO2 is minimal, human caused CO2 even lower.
And recently the climate has been much warmer, even allowing vikings to grow Hop in Greenland.
Variable influence from volcanoes and sun are completely ignored.

Climate policy tug of war by xoenix in Comics

[–]zyxzevn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The Oil and Coal companies want to maintain the energy-monopoly.
Which is also connected to the oil-dollar and banking.
The plan for monopolizing energy (and food) is the basis for the technocracy.

The nuclear energy may come back after the "green technologies" have completely failed.
But there also seems to be a depopulation agenda going on, or is it a communist slavery agenda?

Climate change deniers do not exist. Climate changes all the time.. but human CO2 has no influence.
The vikings were harvesting Hop on Greenland, because it was green at the time.
Historically there have been many different climates.
Even with double the CO2 there wouldn't be much change. And plants eat CO2, making them grow faster.
See /s/ClimateSkeptics for a full overview.

Climate policy tug of war by xoenix in Comics

[–]ActuallyNot 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's Science and Reason vs the fossil fuel industry's propaganda.

More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change

The tug of war isn't Nuclear vs Fossil fuels. Gas and nuclear are complementary: Gas is peaking, whereas Nuclear can't rapidly change output.

Climate policy tug of war by xoenix in Comics

[–]WoodyWoodPecker 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It is just like that! Climate Change Activists have stock in oil and coal companies.

Climate Change by xoenix in Comics

[–]Rah 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Faggot.

Climate Change by xoenix in Comics

[–]Rah 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

  • Misinformation is a CIA term that only useful idiots and state officials use
  • Climate change is a myth. It is only a reality when you apply thousands of years, and men are unable to control nor influence it
  • Fossil fuel is a negative term applied to hydrocarbon fuels to apply a sense of scarcity to it, when in reality it is a regenerative resource that simply accumulates and appears in different parts of the world in different areas. Depleting a source does not mean other places in the world will never have new ones. The world generates more oil and gas than we can harvest in order of thousands; if we extracted a hundred times what we do today, it would still be a drop in a bucket compared to what the world generates.
  • Your attributing PR campaigns from a certain side but ignoring the other means you have an axe go grind with only one side of the argument.
  • People concerned about the weather are mentally ill
  • Renewables are a scam because they pollute more than they can generate and are much more expensive, even if 100% of the energy generated could be stored indefinately. The combustion engine is the simplest and most effective energy generator in the history of mankind to date.
  • Nuclear power is supposed to be the silver bullet in favour of renewable energy, but it was too simple and the grift had to turn to other areas to keep useless people afloat by tricking chumps like you
  • Stupid nigger cant even understand a fucking cartoon lmao, faggot

Climate Change by xoenix in Comics

[–]CheeseWizard 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If there's a climate change, then why don't we send ice to the sun? Checkmate!!!

Climate Change by xoenix in Comics

[–]Questionable 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I parsed a freshly fried chicken the other night. It was a̭̯͖̫̲͙͚͈̟̖͕̭̫͕̙ ͙̬gas......

Climate Change by xoenix in Comics

[–]YoMamma 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yep - and there are reconsiderations for developing nuclear powerstations in some countries, though they're not necessary.

Climate Change by xoenix in Comics

[–]HugodeCrevellier 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This question, of course, ignores everything I said and redirects the conversation to, coincidentally no doubt, the favourite talking points of the Nuclear Industry.

Accordingly, your next step would then be, in response to whatever numbers I might offer (that would lack long-term increased probabilities of getting cancers), to compare these numbers to the estimated health costs of ... coal (!?) ..., which is what Nuclear Industry shills (or unwitting useful idiots doing the work for free) are directed to always compare nuclear to.

And so, the conversation would get bogged down in irrelevancies, minutiae and the credibility of courses, etc., and that nuclear (fission) power is fucking idiotic (if anywhere close to humans) could thus be completely disregarded.

PS) Never mind disasters (short term high dose exposure), ionising radiation kills people cumulatively, with long term low dose exposure, even under 'normal' conditions, invisibly, quietly, under the radar, without need for actual news-making disasters: https://www.bmj.com/content/382/bmj-2022-074520

Climate Change by xoenix in Comics

[–]ID10T 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Do you know how many people have died from nuclear power plant disasters?

Climate Change by xoenix in Comics

[–]Jiminy 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Nuclear power is no good they melt down too much

Climate Change by xoenix in Comics

[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It is simple, nuclear power is the most efficient source of energy.

Interesting claim.

In 2020, the world nuclear association published that "Nuclear plants currently being built have about 34-36% thermal efficiency, while one of the new reactor designs boasts 39%.".

Hydro power is about 90% efficient. Which is why pumped hydro is a decent choice for energy storage.

The waste is control rods sealed in lead containers in a mountain.

Are you worried about lead leaching into your mountain groundwater?

It will eliminate the emission of CO2 from coal plants by replacing them.

A good time to start would be 1980. In the meantime, the more renewable and nuclear energy sources we can bring online, the better.

Liberals don't want it because they'd rather eliminate the social-economic system.

The doesn't sound very sensible. What counts as an eliminated social-economic system, and how is that achieved by changing energy sources?

Climate Change by xoenix in Comics

[–]HugodeCrevellier 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Nuclear seems like an idiotic source of energy, at least when anywhere close to people.

Everything that even touches anything nuclear becomes deadly to humans for a very long time. Also, every step in nuclear, from mining to disposal, passing from transportation and processing, requires hugely expensive security. But the costs are hidden by transferring them to the government, i.e. the taxpayers. The profits, of course and as always, go into private hands.

Incidentally, do you know how we currently derive energy in nuclear?

We use the deadly (but interesting) radioactivity very mundanely, as mere heat, to warm water to a boil, for the steam, for turbines to turn. Seriously. Nuclear power plants are, in principle, actually very low tech. They're basically steam engines. All the tech you see in nuclear plants is for, you guessed it, ... 'security!'

Don't be fooled by nuclear industry cute/cartoony astroturf campaigns.

Climate Change by xoenix in Comics

[–]WoodyWoodPecker 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It is simple, nuclear power is the most efficient source of energy. The waste is control rods sealed in lead containers in a mountain. It will eliminate the emission of CO2 from coal plants by replacing them. Liberals don't want it because they'd rather eliminate the social-economic system.

Climate Change by xoenix in Comics

[–]ActuallyNot 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't think that "parsing" is a verb that can be applied to a cartoon.

Climate Change by xoenix in Comics

[–]xoenix[S] 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

If you're incapable of parsing a cartoon then I don't think anyone can help you.

Climate Change by xoenix in Comics

[–]ActuallyNot 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Has anyone else noticed that the misinformation about climate change that the fossil fuel funded PR companies push involves calling people who are concerned about climate change "chicken little", and yet refer to transitioning to renewables and nuclear energy as "dismantling our socio-economic system"?

Herotaiku by Ujiken in Comics

[–]Danteu 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Hahahha

Help-Guide} How can I get in touch with American Airlines fast?? @FastestSupport by groicrelleppouha in Comics

[–]groicrelleppouha[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Help-Guide} How can I get in touch with American Airlines fast?? @FastestSupport

https://www.scoop.it/topic/high-school-return-of-a-gangster-ep-7-8-7-8 by paticianita in Comics

[–]Poofer 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

G******* ding a ding a dong dong whoopty whoopty whoopty pop pop diddly diddly womp womp diddly deadly wop wop poopity poopity boppity boppity poop hahaha ding ding a bang bang bang

https://data.norfolk.gov/nominate/357840 by samphilips in Comics

[–]samphilips[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

https://data.norfolk.gov/nominate/357812 by samphilips in Comics

[–]samphilips[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Superman saves the day by xoenix in Comics

[–]WoodyWoodPecker 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

WEF deserves to be burned by Lex Luthor.

In A Relationship: The Man or the Bear? by TonyDiGerolamo in Comics

[–]NastyWetSmear 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Oh, well that's a misunderstanding on my part as well.

You can try and qualify down the specifics, if you want, but we can always do the same with the bear: "Well the majority of these won't be when they are hungry, they might not have seen you, they are usually on the move to feeding grounds or home so they won't bother..." etc etc etc. For every excuse we create to excuse the men as a factor, we can create one to excuse the bear. The fact boils down to - For all interactions with men and bears, the vast majority of the time, the men... Who I should point out, if they wished you harm, have the capacity to follow you until you are alone, simply aren't interested in causing you harm and despite possessing the means to do so if they wish, do not wish. Burrow down into it if it helps, but it doesn't change that any belief a woman has that a bear is less dangerous to her than a man isn't held up by fact and is purely a fabrication of her reading/watching/listening to so much modern social media that attempts to tell her she's constantly at risk of rape or death from men.

For more specific figures, I recommend you create a Bear Man stadium and lock 10,000 women in it, allow them into a secluded clearing at a home and deposit a random man or a random bear with her and record the results... And I promise I'll visit you in gaol when you're done, because they don't understand, but I know you're doing it for the betterment of humanity!

In A Relationship: The Man or the Bear? by TonyDiGerolamo in Comics

[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So this gives us roughly 8 trillion, 212 million, 500 thousand interactions between women and men in the US yearly,

We're really looking for interactions in which the man and women are alone, and help is a long way away.

That's a 0.000000028% chance that any interaction with a man will result in harm. Not bad!

The immense majority of those will be in the city with other people around, and the vast majority of the remainder would be a situation in which yelling loudly has a chance of bringing help or at least witnesses. A lot of the remainder would be situations in which the woman takes precautions because of the risk posed by men.

It was just so jarring for you to quote numbers at me, never ask me for numbers, then claim you're asking again as though I've refused to offer them.

Perhaps I should have been clearer. When I asked "Okay, How inaccurate do you think it is?", I wasn't really asking you to guess. I was hoping you'd quantify it with data.

My follow up questions to your internal speculation: "What proportion of Bear sightings result in attacks, do you think?" was supposed to be a clarification that I don't trust your speculation and would be interested in the numbers.

So when I said "Okay, again, link me to these figures", it was the third time I'd asked you for numbers, after you'd just responded to questions about the numbers with internal speculation twice already.

In A Relationship: The Man or the Bear? by TonyDiGerolamo in Comics

[–]NastyWetSmear 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Okay, again, link me to these figures.

What do you mean again? This is the first time you asked, and you were the one quoting the figures... I can't believe the audacity of that statement made me come back to this...

Okay, let me search up some numbers.

I've found some, partially stolen from another conversation about this on Reddit... The shame...

So, apparently, there are around 234,000 instances of violence and sexual assault against women in the US each year. Now, this number will swing in favour of the bear, because this won't include women who commit crimes against women, repeat offenders which reduces the number of aggressive men, repeat victims who constantly return to the offender, etc, etc... But, okay, have some free points, bears. There are an estimated 333.3 million people in the US, so if we just say roughly half of those are female and ignore the left overs, that's 150,000,000 women. Picking random numbers of the times a woman passes a man, interacts with a man, in the same way we consider a person to have "Interacted" with a bear, which is to say having seen one "close" to them, they probably, technically, "Interact" with over 300... But let's call it 150 to be safe. This also swings numbers in favour of the bears being the safer creature, as just seeing a bear while walking would be considered an interaction with one, while a woman might literally see a thousand men if she's somewhere like New York and has a long commute. Again, however, let's favour the bear.

So this gives us roughly 8 trillion, 212 million, 500 thousand interactions between women and men in the US yearly, 234 thousand of which result in an assault or murder or so on. That's a 0.000000028% chance that any interaction with a man will result in harm. Not bad!

As for bears, it seems hikers have a 1 in 232,000 chance of being attacked by a bear. Now, the person who originally did this math plucked a 5% encounter rate from their backside, because there isn't statistics on it available. Playing by their numbers, that's a 1 in 11,600 chance of getting beared, making it a 0.0086207% chance to get attacked by a bear. That's a pretty significant upgrade over a man. You're well over 2,000 times more likely to get eaten by a bear than eaten by a man, unless you ask him nicely.

Now, at the moment, so far as I can see, all these numbers favour the bear - the number of incidents against women doesn't account for random acts of violence that happen to have a woman involved, like a brawl or a shoot out, repeat offenders who attack 10 women each before getting caught, reducing the number of offenders dramatically, women assaulting women, so on. The rate of bear interaction is also VASTLY swung in favour of the bears... And you might not think that at first, except to say that I think it's likely that what would be counted as an interaction with a bear if we knew about it, like the bear smelling you and choosing to walk the other way, or the bear seeing you and you not seeing it and it opting to go home, would Skyrocket the number of interactions you have with men daily if we used the same measure, effectively turning: "A man drove past me on the opposite side of the road and didn't stop, get out of his car and assault me" into a successful interaction with a man, driving the number of interactions a person would have with men on their way to work up over the thousands and making seeing a man maybe one of the safest things you can do except maybe staying in bed and refusing to leave the house.

So, there. Sorry to come back after I said I wouldn't. It was just so jarring for you to quote numbers at me, never ask me for numbers, then claim you're asking again as though I've refused to offer them. C'mon, man. I'm not a bear. You don't have to goad me like that.

In A Relationship: The Man or the Bear? by TonyDiGerolamo in Comics

[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The figures show it's Very unusual behaviour for a man.

Okay, again, link me to these figures.

You have agency against a man that you don't against a bear. Can a woman outrun a man? Often no... Can she outrun a bear? Far less likely.

How does "agency" kick in between unlikely and less likely? Surely they're qualitatively the same.

For example, I know a Polar Bear will stop and investigate literally anything you drop.

Sure. I don't think the though experiment would work on polar bears. They're aggressive, they're obligate carnivores and you're prey even if they don't mistake what you are. They're not afraid if you look big, letting them know you're there will draw them, and playing dead doesn't work because they attack to eat.

Cute when they're on the TV though.

Maybe it's just the ignorance of the average person as to how powerful and wild a bear can be?

They don't generally attack. I mean the thought experiment doesn't involve going up to hug one. Just encountering in the woods.

In A Relationship: The Man or the Bear? by TonyDiGerolamo in Comics

[–]NastyWetSmear 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Sure. The thing is that's unusual behaviour for a bear, and less usual for a man.

No, see, here is where we've now gone back to square one. The figures show it's Very unusual behaviour for a man. Again, if we think about it, we interact with maybe hundreds of men each day, much closer and sometimes much more vulnerable and personal than we do with a bear, yet despite this, women aren't attacked 3-5 times a day. In fact, most women, despite being inches from men dozens of times a day, don't get attacked at all. This brings us back to the initial point where you pointed out statistics showing there are numerically more attacks by men and less by bears, but didn't take into account that women spend 24/7 surrounded by men, but not by bears, and when I mentioned that you said it wasn't about statistics.

You can't just say: "Men are more dangerous than bears", then have someone questions that logic, then say it's not about that logic, then come back to men being more dangerous than bears. The conversation becomes circular.

Unlikely as a woman. (x 3ish?)

But not as unlikely as it would be against bears. That's the point. You have agency against a man that you don't against a bear. Can a woman outrun a man? Often no... Can she outrun a bear? Far less likely. Bears get up to 48km/h, while Bolt is just under 44, and most men aren't Bolt.

Credit where it's due, though: If a man is planning to attack a woman, it's normally with the distinct purpose of doing something specifically to her, while a Bear might give up and look for easier prey if she's getting away or making life difficult. For the bear it's a case of: "Can I get more energy than I use by eating this pink ape?", for a man it's: "I've got to get her now. Can't have her getting back to town and telling people I tried to attack her!"

yeah. Feeding bears is illegal, because it creates a situation where a bear will approach people when its hungry which creates a bear that is unnaturally dangerous. But in a pinch you'd at least not pack up your lunch if you think your life is on the line.

I imagine that a bribe would at least slow them down.

I'm no bear expert, but I understand this changes from bear to bear. For example, I know a Polar Bear will stop and investigate literally anything you drop... So if one is chasing you, and you throw your hat, it'll stop chasing you to check out the hat, while, from what I'm told, a Brown Bear that has decided to kill you will run past anything you drop to kill you. Mind you, I don't think tossing off your clothes in an environment where you'd meet a Polar Bear is going to end much better. :( Just a different, slower way to die.

I think it's just which would you feel more in danger from if you encountered a lone one in the woods, before you know anything about them.

Sure, sure... Maybe it's just the ignorance of the average person as to how powerful and wild a bear can be? Maybe, because they are surrounded by men and can see evidence of men being frightening, their hind-brains focus on the danger that is present: Could I be killed by a box jellyfish? Maybe, but I'm not surrounded by box jellyfish at all times. Could I be killed by a car? Yes, and there's cars everywhere - Ergo, I'd rather be in a swimming pool with 10 box jellyfish than 10 cars!

Maybe we should get women to listen to that tape of that girl who called her mum while she was being eaten alive by a family of bears, or that dude who decided he was one with the bears and went to live with them. Maybe it would help link their minds to the potential danger of a bear, despite not personally seeing it very often.

Either way, this was cool, but that's enough bear for me. I've had all I can... Bear...

In A Relationship: The Man or the Bear? by TonyDiGerolamo in Comics

[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Do I think bear attacks in the woods are as common as being attacked by men in the woods? It's a bit hard to measure those against each other.

Yeah, that's the thought experiment posed to women.

It's a bit hard to measure those against each other.

Sure.

"Okay, but only bears that came within 15 meters of you during mating season when they can smell other male bears around."

The advice is still announce yourself by yelling or with a whistle. So if they know you're there, even in mating season their most common behaviour is to leave you be.

That being said, that's already a foregone conclusion with the bear. If the bear is going to attack you, they run faster than you, they are stronger than you, they have claws and teeth - It's really all up to the bear how that goes.

Sure. The thing is that's unusual behaviour for a bear, and less usual for a man.

With a fellow human you have agency: Maybe you can run faster,

Unlikely as a woman.

maybe you can fight him off,

Unlikely as a woman

maybe you can ask him to leave,

This would be equivalent to yelling or whistling at the bear wouldn't it? You've put "If the bear is going to attack you," in the premise, but you're avoiding the premise "If the man is going to attack you," which isn't a fair comparison

maybe you can bribe him,

yeah. Feeding bears is illegal, because it creates a situation where a bear will approach people when its hungry which creates a bear that is unnaturally dangerous. But in a pinch you'd at least not pack up your lunch if you think your life is on the line.

I imagine that a bribe would at least slow them down.

maybe you can act so crazy he just wants to go away...

Analogous strategies can discourage a bear too. Hold your hands above your head to look big. Hold a big stick.

Are you safer with a bear or a man, I think, as it requires that the man already be a danger that you need to negotiate.

I think it's just which would you feel more in danger from if you encountered a lone one in the woods, before you know anything about them.

In A Relationship: The Man or the Bear? by TonyDiGerolamo in Comics

[–]NastyWetSmear 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What proportion of Bear sightings result in attacks, do you think?

Not sure. Not many, I'd guess. Depends on the bear, the time of year, the luck of the camper and the bear.

What proportion of single man encounters with single women in the wilderness result in attacks to you think?

Not sure. Not many, I'd guess. Depends on the man the time of year, the luck of the camper and the man.

If your question is: Do I think bear attacks in the woods are as common as being attacked by men in the woods? It's a bit hard to measure those against each other. Bears don't normally follow you into the woods from the city, or invite you to the woods from the city. Bears also, however, don't pass you on the walking trail, smile and say good morning. If you're counting every encounter everyone ever had with a man in the woods vs an encounter everyone ever had with a bear in the woods, bears would be more dangerous by leagues, simply because camping areas, walking and hiking trails, observations spots, hunting locations, fishing locations all contain men that you're likely to meet alone, pumping the numbers up an astronomical amount compared to bear encounters.

On the other hand, the more you narrow the field, the more you tip it in one sides favour of the other: "Okay, but only men who are total strangers, when you're alone, after 9pm on a Friday night when they've been drinking." or "Okay, but only bears that came within 15 meters of you during mating season when they can smell other male bears around." - ultimately, humans send a lot more time in and around humans, which means, on average, you bump into a man in the woods thousands of times more than you do a bear, and are perfectly safe almost all of that time. On the other hand, you don't bump into many bears, and are perfectly safe almost all of the time... But once that math comes out in the wash, if there's 100 interactions with bears and 2 deaths, and 1,000,000 interactions with men and 2,500 deaths, That's a 2% kill ration on the bear and a 0.25% kill ration on the man.

End result - People think they are in more danger from a man because it happens numerically more, but that's because you spend a phenomenally huge amount of time around men, meaning the odds of meeting the one insane one go up. People think you're less likely to be killed by a shark, but that's because you don't spend anywhere near as much time around sharks. People think you won't get eaten by a bear because the attacks are rare, but the meetings are also rare. If the bear meetings were as common as the man meetings, alone, in the woods, at night, when the bear had been drinking?... Those stats wouldn't look as nice.

Then you have to take into account repeat offenders, bears and men, then you might want to take into account provocation - if you shot the bear, it's hard to call that a random, unprovoked bear attack, same with the dude... It gets complicated, but if we're just looking at bears and men alone in the woods, I'd say: Yeah, you're safer with a man.

... If that wasn't your point, boy, I'm sorry about all those words. :(

Being in the woods means that there's no help for the woman's if the man (or bear) is dangerous.

Yeah, that's why I assumed we were going that way. That being said, that's already a foregone conclusion with the bear. If the bear is going to attack you, they run faster than you, they are stronger than you, they have claws and teeth - It's really all up to the bear how that goes. With a fellow human you have agency: Maybe you can run faster, maybe you can fight him off, maybe you can ask him to leave, maybe you can bribe him, maybe you can act so crazy he just wants to go away...

Mind you! None of that would impact the nature of the question: Are you safer with a bear or a man, I think, as it requires that the man already be a danger that you need to negotiate. I would say, if you have to convince the man not to murder you, it should be counted under the More dangerous count. While it makes the bear strictly more dangerous, as in you can't stop it once it starts but you might be able to stop the man, it goes against the spirit of the question, I think.

In A Relationship: The Man or the Bear? by TonyDiGerolamo in Comics

[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

"Bear because men are more dangerous", I think it's: "Very".

What proportion of Bear sightings result in attacks, do you think?

What proportion of single man encounters with single women in the wilderness result in attacks to you think?

Most interactions on the street don't allow for a rape or murder, but being in the wood provides opportunity, therefore motive?

Being in the woods means that there's no help for the woman's if the man (or bear) is dangerous.

In A Relationship: The Man or the Bear? by TonyDiGerolamo in Comics

[–]NastyWetSmear 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Okay, How inaccurate do you think it is?

If the person's choice is: "Bear because there's only 2 bear attacks on women a year, but there's 2,500 a year in the US and Canada", I think it's: "Wildly, dangerously inaccurate". If it's: "Bear because men are more dangerous", I think it's: "Very".

I believe that the man or bear thought experiment is set in the wilderness.

Yes, but what I was driving at is that, in your day to day life, a person likely has upwards of 300 "Man interactions", assuming they are classified the same as "Bear interactions", which, I assume, cover being close to a bear. Are you saying that you think being alone in the wood would be enough to change a person's reaction? - Most interactions on the street don't allow for a rape or murder, but being in the wood provides opportunity, therefore motive? That sort of thing?

In A Relationship: The Man or the Bear? by TonyDiGerolamo in Comics

[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

If their perception of risk is wildly inaccurate, then the conversation needs to shift to that.

Okay, How inaccurate do you think it is?

let alone when you get back to the city

I believe that the man or bear thought experiment is set in the wilderness.

In A Relationship: The Man or the Bear? by TonyDiGerolamo in Comics

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The man or bear thing is about the perception of risk.

The bottom line is, a woman has a chance against a man. She has no chance against a bear.

She's got a good chance against either if they don't attack her.

Expert Tips for Choosing the Right Digital Signage Templates for Your Restaurant by nentoCORP in Comics

[–]nentoCORP[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

In A Relationship: The Man or the Bear? by TonyDiGerolamo in Comics

[–]WoodyWoodPecker 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

But she chooses the bear because she is a thunder cunt!

In A Relationship: The Man or the Bear? by TonyDiGerolamo in Comics

[–]TonyDiGerolamo[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Comparing bears in the woods with ALL MURDERS in North America is a little like comparing, say, meteor deaths to people who have been killed in car accidents. You have to be in a CAR to be killed in a car accident. In the hypothetical, you have to be IN THE WOODS. ALONE. Most murders happen between people that are known to each other and are in urban settings.

The bottom line is, a woman has a chance against a man. She has no chance against a bear.

In A Relationship: The Man or the Bear? by TonyDiGerolamo in Comics

[–]NastyWetSmear 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The "Man or Bear" thing is about which a woman would feel safer with. It's not statistics. It's perception of risk.

If their perception of risk is wildly inaccurate, then the conversation needs to shift to that. That would be like saying: "I don't eat fruit because it contains live bees. This isn't about if or not fruit actually contains live bees, it's about how I choose to live my life."... Really, you can frame your fruit issue however you want, but addressing the fact that fruit doesn't contain live bees should be priority number one.

Besides, I wasn't making a comment on the purpose of the discussion, I was just addressing the statistics you, yourself, raised. It's especially important to look at them logically if someone were about to base their choice on bumping into a bear vs bumping into a man on them, but believed that they showed an elevated risk per random man compared to per random bear.

But by the same token seeing a brown bear in the woods isn't a death sentence.

That's true, and that was also part of my point. It wouldn't be fair to say every contact with a bear is doomed to end in being eaten alive while on the phone with your mother over 3 hours or so. In fact, for every reported "Bear Interaction", I bet there's another, undocumented one where the person simply never tells anyone what happened, or they don't even see the near by bear.

I'll bet there's even a few where both parties, bear and person, are totally unaware, like some Warner Brothers cartoon skit where they both hear something move, lean up against the same tree, but peak around the opposite sides and totally miss each other.

With that said, you likely still pass more random men on a hiking trail than you do bears, let alone when you get back to the city, catch a bus, go to work and so on... Unless you work in a zoo, specifically caring for the bears, I guess? Then it might be a toss up.

In A Relationship: The Man or the Bear? by TonyDiGerolamo in Comics

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

A random man is likely to be harmless,

Likely.

The man that some women actually select over all other men can be a violent thug.

But also most likely to be harmless.

In A Relationship: The Man or the Bear? by TonyDiGerolamo in Comics

[–]DesertOfMirrors 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Choosing the bear over the man kind of represents that doesn't it?

Statistics fail. The game, as it usually posed, is that a woman meets a random man or a random bear in the forest. A random man is likely to be harmless, or even helpful. The man that some women actually select over all other men can be a violent thug.

Feminists are brainwashed not to see the vast majority of helpful men, and instead focus only on the men who are harmful. Classic selection bias.

In A Relationship: The Man or the Bear? by TonyDiGerolamo in Comics

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

That's not really: "On the other hand", that's a bit of a misunderstanding of how those statistics would work.

The "Man or Bear" thing is about which a woman would feel safer with. It's not statistics. It's perception of risk.

As for bears being aggressive, I think that's as much case by case as the average man is.

Sure, the video is during the salmon run. But by the same token seeing a brown bear in the woods isn't a death sentence. Recommended behaviour involves the basic strategies of letting the bear know you're there, and relying on the fact that they don't generally attack if they know you're a human and don't perceive you as a threat.

And being eaten is relatively rare too. Playing dead is the recommended strategy if you're getting mauled, which only works if they're not eating you.

In A Relationship: The Man or the Bear? by TonyDiGerolamo in Comics

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

How many men does a woman typically encounter during the day?

I don't know. How many?

Also, how many of those male offenders were known to the female victim, and actually selected by her?

Choosing the bear over the man kind of represents that doesn't it?

In A Relationship: The Man or the Bear? by TonyDiGerolamo in Comics

[–]DesertOfMirrors 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

How many men does a woman typically encounter during the day? Also, how many of those male offenders were known to the female victim, and actually selected by her?

In A Relationship: The Man or the Bear? by TonyDiGerolamo in Comics

[–]CheeseWizard 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Shhhhh. Stop telling feminists to not choose the bear, dammit.

I haven't even finished grabbing my popcorn yet.

In A Relationship: The Man or the Bear? by TonyDiGerolamo in Comics

[–]tiny-brown-mug 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There was a pretty awful incident a while back where a peaceful, 60-something year old guy was just chilling by his campsite and a Black Bear mauled him to death. Which was quite unusual, as Black Bears are rather small and don't usually attack humans. Happened in Arizona.

In A Relationship: The Man or the Bear? by TonyDiGerolamo in Comics

[–]NastyWetSmear 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's not really: "On the other hand", that's a bit of a misunderstanding of how those statistics would work. For them to be a simple 1 to 1, women would have to pass equally as many bears in the street each day as they do men, at which stage you could say: "See? Far fewer woman are killed by bears!"

... Except that I suspect you'd be saying: "Holy shit, we need to do something about all the bears killing people in the street!".

As for bears being aggressive, I think that's as much case by case as the average man is. Mother bear with cubs near by? Guess you'll die. Hungry and you're hanging around? Sadly, I hear bears eat people alive, so it won't be over quickly. On the other hand, it could be a warm, summer day, no cubs, no mating season, plenty of food and the bear will trundle pass utterly indifferent to you. It's pretty hard to predict. Unlike a man, you can't really ask a bear what it's doing or why it's there, and baring you having a big'ol gun, that kind of ends your autonomy to address the bear situation. After that it's all down to how the bear feels about you in that specific moment.

In A Relationship: The Man or the Bear? by TonyDiGerolamo in Comics

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

On the other hand 8 women have been killed by bears in North America in the 2020s. Something like 2 per year.

In 2018, there were 1,946 females murdered by males in single victim/single offender incidents that were submitted to the FBI for its Supplementary Homicide Report, and Canada had about 500. Something like 2500 per year.

Possibly bears aren't as aggressive as the cartoon implies

Kids are NOT Into Marvel and DC Comic Books. by carn0ld03 in Comics

[–]BobOki 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Clownfish is ALWAYS a win.

Kids are NOT Into Marvel and DC Comic Books. by carn0ld03 in Comics

[–]SMCAB 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Nope it's 20-30 something shourtrounds with Anime body pillows who obsess over their height and bra size.

Kids are NOT Into Marvel and DC Comic Books. by carn0ld03 in Comics

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Kids are not into left wing propaganda.

A.I. is taking our jobs by xoenix in Comics

[–]ameliajack 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

In today's fast-paced world, efficiency is key. Website : https://ctspoint.com/accessories/controller-panels/

A.I. is taking our jobs by xoenix in Comics

[–]In-the-clouds 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That guy in the chair is so old that he still reads the paper version.

Cartoon modernized by AI

Either way, man is appointed to die once, and then the judgment. Will the blood of Jesus cover your sins?

A.I. is taking our jobs by xoenix in Comics

[–]Jiminy 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Outlaw AI and illegal immigrants both

A.I. is taking our jobs by xoenix in Comics

[–]at_finn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So do you get permanently deleted or just go to the recycle bin to be reincarnated in the future?

A.I. is taking our jobs by xoenix in Comics

[–]x0x7 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

It is going to take the job of journalists who tell us AI is going to take our jobs. I wonder if AI journalists will warn us about AI every day.

Women's Powerlifting by xoenix in Comics

[–]binaryblob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

One could argue that women sports are like the Special Olympics (because they are assumed to be worse than the males) anyway and that's why nobody should care. This point of view would enrage the planet, but is logically sound. Lower weight divisions in fighting sports are kind of the same; ultimately what matters is whether in a fight one guy wins or another. Adding handicaps just makes it easier.

White people could claim that there should be an all white division too, because they can't ever beat Ethiopians in a marathon.

My personal opinion is that the easiest solution would be to just use the medical sex to group results (that way intersex people would also be able to participate somewhat in yet a separate group), so if one transgender wants to join, they would just win a $5 trophy because they presumably were the only contestant. So, they can still participate, because probably there would also be events like a world championship with more contestants.

The most popular option would probably be an outright ban, however.

I don't really get why you care so much about this topic. It makes me think it's just Russian propaganda.

Women's Powerlifting by xoenix in Comics

[–]blackpilllife 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Trans athletes are getting involved at women’s sports to easily beat women at sports that are supposed to be for women. When people say there is something wrong with this the intolerant far leftists get involved to come at the people saying their is something wrong with it to acuse them of being transphobic.

Trans athletes should not participate in women’s sports it’s not transphobic to say that and anyone who thinks it’s transphobic is highly likely to be someone who falls for the lefts victim narrative that can’t think for themselves.

Most logical people would say trans athletes should have their own individual trans competing division of sports. We are in a decade of madness and you can’t get away with being logical and fair because people with a victim narrative will stop at nothing to bully people in to trouble they don’t deserve over not getting they’re way these days

Women's Powerlifting by xoenix in Comics

[–]WoodyWoodPecker 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Sinfest: Chosen People by carn0ld03 in Comics

[–]WoodyWoodPecker 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The thing they want by xoenix in Comics

[–]NastyWetSmear 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You sure said a lot of things there without actually saying anything. "Secure a niche in the market" is some of the most meaningless buzz language I think I've ever heard, as if owning a company that makes towels means there's no room for other companies to make towels, even though your towel company is bleeding money.

Look, I get it, you don't have a good answer to my question. That's totally cool. I don't either, that's why I asked it. Getting all "Don't be naïve" doesn't help. If your point is they are "True Believers", that's fine. That was one the original points I offered up.

The thing they want by xoenix in Comics

[–]Rah 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The company is never gone. You dont seem to realize the scheme is deeper. There are thousands of zombie companies out there surviving on loans with little profit. They exist solely to secure a niche in the market. What makes you think the banks dont want to control the gaming industry by zombifying triple-A companies into making products they want? Stop being so naive.

The thing they want by xoenix in Comics

[–]NastyWetSmear 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You keep saying this, but I keep pointing out that it isn't correct: There isn't a gold mine. There's no gold in this practice. Those franchises lose money, the companies lose money and even the largest ones are starting to suffer as a result, as we can see with Disney being called out for lying about their profits on these franchises at their earnings call, having battles over board positions and closing down whole sections of their parks that cost billions to create.

I understand that ESG ratings impact loans, but, one again, I point out that a loan option is no good if your company is gone. With this in mind: Why crash a company over this?

The thing they want by xoenix in Comics

[–]Rah 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The people involved will stay in the sector and ruin other franchises. The companies will rebrand. Its too much of a gold mine to be left alone, the banks incentivize it too much.

The thing they want by xoenix in Comics

[–]NastyWetSmear 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Okay, that's a slight pivot, but it returns to my original point: That's earning investment and loans by following the ESG guidelines, but that seems secondary when whole companies are closing down due to it. An example - Luminous Productions were shut down following their game, Forspoken, crashing and burning. The Rings Of Power got such low viewership, such negative reaction and so few people who started watching it will finish watching it that they've packed up the whole production and moved it out of New Zealand for whatever remaining seasons they are contracted to complete. ESG scores earning you loans to create new products is great, but when none of your products return a profit, why keep doing it?

As to the idea of them selling the property on? I don't see much evidence of that. Disney aren't selling Star Wars to someone to recoup the losses of making these dozens of shows that fail. Nobody is buying Snow White after they nearly released a film that was crashing and burning so hard they tried to CGI in Dwarves at the last second. Once these brands are tarnished, selling them on isn't going to cover the loss they made. There must be something else. "True Believers Of The Cause" is my first assumption?

The thing they want by xoenix in Comics

[–]Rah 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It does not matter if the franchise is destroyed as long as they sold it out and keep selling it out. Banks will pay. Content harm is secondary to loans and debt renegotiation. Companies know what they are doing and its a race to see just how much they can squander their intellectual property to the highest bidder.

The thing they want by xoenix in Comics

[–]NastyWetSmear 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well, you still haven't told me who "They" is.

The thing they want by xoenix in Comics

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That you think their names would be public shows how much you underestimate them.

They don't have jobs to go to. They spend their entire life scheming, with the best help money can buy. You are not going to get their names, addresses, and concrete proof of how they operate.