Why Isn't it Called No Woman's Sky?

Gweenz said:
"Man" in this context is just a generic term for the human race, not a gender specific term.
Click to expand...

but then SJW would have to find something to complain about that actually matters.

Plus you could also interpret the title as meaning "no men", ie women's sky, which is sexist against men!! OUTRAGE!
 
I would love to see those feminist talking about conscription. In my country, men are forced to do either 6-12 months in army, 12 months in civilian service, or 6 months in prison, but females don't have to bother with any of that, they can just get on with their lifes. Like we all should. Also, if females do go to army voluntarily for some reason, they have certain freedoms (such as retaining long hair and n) that men don't.

The equality, or rather inequality, it goes both ways.

I remember my time in the civilian service, my female boss (in human resources) in her comfy office, telling me how unequally treated they were in compared to men in similar positions. While I was sitting there doing my forced labor with no pay. Then she just throw me all the weeks work she was supposed to do for the upper management, because why not (she of course took all the glory when documents were done)
 
Last edited:
I think the main problem is that some people think that their interpretation of things is more important than the intended meaning. I'm not sure how someone can be that self-entitled, if everyone did that literally nothing would ever get done and no one would agree with anything. I wonder how long before everyone gets sick of this sort of thing, obviously most of the forum members here are already sick of it, but how long before everyone everywhere just tells all these people to shut up and go away?
 
Quix said:
Sure there is, just switch to Japanese. No pronouns, so simple.
Click to expand...
How is that? It's been a while, and I was never that good... but Boku/Ore is masculine. Atashi is feminine. Both are used for "I" on top of the commonly taught Watashi.
EODetroit said:
Doesn't No Man's Sky imply its Every Woman's Sky?
Click to expand...
My first thought when reading the title.
 
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. If it were called "No Woman's Sky", they'd scream discrimination because they'd claim the title says the sky belongs to men and not women. There's simply no satisfying these snowflakes.
 
Reminds me of a story I just read about SI's newest cover of the "Greatest American Olympians" Phelps, Ledecky, and Biles , and the number of comments about people bitching that Simone Manuel didn't get the cover because she's the first African American, blah blah blah... *facepalm*... just fucking can't have anything good without shit turning all PC political SJW trolly.
 
No worries... I think I heard somewhere they are letting "trans" into the women's olympic sports and he's wrecking their shit.
 
If it really is a joke, it's no different from their normal articles, so does that mean their entire site is a joke?

The answer is yes, but that's not really the point.
 
pothb said:
If it really is a joke, it's no different from their normal articles, so does that mean their entire site is a joke?

The answer is yes, but that's not really the point.
Click to expand...

Normal articles like what
 
RAutrey said:
Most people who say they want equality actually want something very different.
Click to expand...
They mistake equality for equality of outcome. Which would be communism. The closest thing to what they want is the society in the divergent series. Where you have no free choice, your career choices are pre-determined. That's the only way to achieve their brand of equality. Otherwise there will always be people who make different life choices which takes them to different levels of success, hence creating "inequality".
 
M76 said:
They mistake equality for equality of outcome. Which would be communism. The closest thing to what they want is the society in the divergent series. Where you have no free choice, your career choices are pre-determined. That's the only way to achieve their brand of equality. Otherwise there will always be people who make different life choices which takes them to different levels of success, hence creating "inequality".
Click to expand...
I used to think this too (and it might be true at that time)... but more recent crap seems to go way beyond that. They want more than equality, they want to dominate.
 
People only want equality if it works in their favor.

Subjective equality ("fair") and absolute equality are two completely different concepts, the latter of which nobody will actually accept.

Humans are fundamentally unequal because the genetic difference between man and woman, which makes the notion of equality a literal impossibility, unless it is Subjective equality, which is not literal equality.

Basically, equality is a buzzword
 
When Bernie Sanders says the top tax rate should be 90%, I don't even try to tear down the whole progressive tax rate inequality, I just ask, "If he believes in 90% taxation as being right and proper, why doesn't he contribute 90% of his income to the government?" It's not about being "fair". It's about being "more fair". Subtle, but important. "More fair" means you can exempt yourself, and those you favor, from your draconian rules and laws which pull down others.

The current sjw movement is astroturfed. It is propped up by outside money, using these dimwitted, lazy, moronic robots to achieve the goals desired by the movers behind the scenes. College profits have skyrocketed. How are the graduates looking? Can't get a job with your gender studies major? Oh, it's society's fault. Go riot. Funny how that's acceptable behavior these days. Napoleon began his meteoric career based on handling riots.
 
c3k said:
When Bernie Sanders says the top tax rate should be 90%, I don't even try to tear down the whole progressive tax rate inequality, I just ask, "If he believes in 90% taxation as being right and proper, why doesn't he contribute 90% of his income to the government?" It's not about being "fair". It's about being "more fair". Subtle, but important. "More fair" means you can exempt yourself, and those you favor, from your draconian rules and laws which pull down others.

The current sjw movement is astroturfed. It is propped up by outside money, using these dimwitted, lazy, moronic robots to achieve the goals desired by the movers behind the scenes. College profits have skyrocketed. How are the graduates looking? Can't get a job with your gender studies major? Oh, it's society's fault. Go riot. Funny how that's acceptable behavior these days. Napoleon began his meteoric career based on handling riots.
Click to expand...
And rob CVS, can't forget CVS, those pharmacists! and their high pay, why don't they give us some?
 
chenw said:
People only want equality if it works in their favor.

Subjective equality ("fair") and absolute equality are two completely different concepts, the latter of which nobody will actually accept.

Humans are fundamentally unequal because the genetic difference between man and woman, which makes the notion of equality a literal impossibility, unless it is Subjective equality, which is not literal equality.

Basically, equality is a buzzword
Click to expand...

Equality is a buzzword? Seriously?
 
I am all for fair (or at least fairer) treatment.

However, Fair =/= Equal, and equal treatment is inherently unfair (morally and subjectively speaking), so yes, I believe the word has been used, over-used and abused to the point where it has lost its actual meaning.d
 
Damar said:
George was on the case long ago..... ;)
"What would you call a ladies' man, a "person's person"? That would make a he-man an "it-person." Little kids would be afraid of the "boogie-person." They'd look up in the sky and see the "person in the moon." Guys would say "come back here and fight like a person," and we'd all sing "For It's a Jolly Good Person," that's the kind of thing you would hear on "Late Night with David Letterperson"! You know what I mean?"
Click to expand...
Here you go, George in all his glory:
Zarathustra[H] said:
Anyone who doesn't believe that all human beings, regardless of race, creed, gender or anything else should be equal is - quite frankly - a terrible human being.
Click to expand...
We're not equal. Never were, never will be. We should have equal opportunities, yes, but we aren't equal, and until people can understand that, there will always be one group complaining that the other has an unfair advantage. Life's unfair. Get used to it. People simply have to understand that we each have some advantages over others, and some disadvantages. I, for example, will never be able to drive my first dream car. Why? Because I can't fit in it. Just like a midget will never be able to play center professionally in the NBA. Ain't going to happen.

For those who think they should be able to do whatever they want, STOP! Evaluate yourself, and consider what you are capable of. And stop insisting that you can do stuff that you aren't physiclly or mentally capable of doing.

Mistral said:
I would love to see those feminist talking about conscription. In my country, men are forced to do either 6-12 months in army, 12 months in civilian service, or 6 months in prison, but females don't have to bother with any of that, they can just get on with their lifes. Like we all should. Also, if females do go to army voluntarily for some reason, they have certain freedoms (such as retaining long hair and n) that men don't. The equality, or rather inequality, it goes both ways.
Click to expand...
The ones complaining don't want 'both ways'. They want the advantage that they think the other group has. But they don't want to ever give up any advantages that they, themselves have.
 
nightfly said:
We're not equal. Never were, never will be. We should have equal opportunities, yes, but we aren't equal, and until people can understand that, there will always be one group complaining that the other has an unfair advantage. Life's unfair. Get used to it. People simply have to understand that we each have some advantages over others, and some disadvantages. I, for example, will never be able to drive my first dream car. Why? Because I can't fit in it. Just like a midget will never be able to play center professionally in the NBA. Ain't going to happen.

For those who think they should be able to do whatever they want, STOP! Evaluate yourself, and consider what you are capable of. And stop insisting that you can do stuff that you aren't physiclly or mentally capable of doing.
Click to expand...

You know full well what equality means in this context. It does not mean that everyone is exactly equal no matter what. Please put aside your straw man arguequt.

Equality on this context means equal opportunity, equality before the law and a few more things. It means the right to be judged by objective performance metrics, not by prejudices based on race, gender or creed.

When you start talking about absolute equality in an equality discussion all you are trying to do is take things out of context and refute something based on what no one is actually claiming. It is wrong and deplorable.
 
You're going to have to be surviving here beefcak
Zarathustra[H] said:
You know full well what equality means in this context. It does not mean that everyone is exactly equal no matter what. Please put aside your straw man arguequt.

Equality on this context means equal opportunity, equality before the law and a few more things. It means the right to be judged by objective performance metrics, not by prejudices based on race, gender or creed.

When you start talking about absolute equality in an equality discussion all you are trying to do is take things out of context and refute something based on what no one is actually claiming. It is wrong and deplorable.
Click to expand...

How dare women want equality! I'm too tall to fit in a corvette, so equality it's a ridiculous ideal!
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
You know full well what equality means in this context. It does not mean that everyone is exactly equal no matter what. Please put aside your straw man arguequt. Equality on this context means equal opportunity, equality before the law and a few more things. It means the right to be judged by objective performance metrics, not by prejudices based on race, gender or creed. When you start talking about absolute equality in an equality discussion all you are trying to do is take things out of context and refute something based on what no one is actually claiming. It is wrong and deplorable.
Click to expand...


And yet, it's happening. There are some jobs which require particular physical or mental capabilities in order for them to be done well, and the equal rights people like to change those requirements so that everyone can have those jobs, at the increased safety risk to the rest of us, all so the special snowflakes can have whatever they want. You want a little cop or soldier who can't subdue the bad guy with the gun/bomb? You got it. You want the little person who can't get the injured person out of the burning building/vehicle? You got it. You want the affirmative action physician that can't save your ass because he's not as smart as the one who isn't the politically correct gender, sex or race? You got it. We're increasingly becoming a country where stupidity like this will get you killed. But no one will speak up because it's not the 'nice' thing to say, it might hurt someone's feelings to tell them that they're not qualified, so we dumb down the qualifications and pretend that yes, we're all equal.

All because those people insist that we're all equal in every way, not only in the ways you think they do.

You do not become stronger, taller, faster, or smarter just by wishing you were, and telling everyone that you are.

I'm all for equal opportunity. But what we're getting is a handicapping system, which gives us the lesser abled doing things that they shouldn't be doing. In the famous words of Dirty Harry, "A man's (woman, child, whatever) got to know his limitations". And not pretend that those limitations don't exist.
 
nightfly said:
And yet, it's happening. There are some jobs which require particular physical or mental capabilities in order for them to be done well, and the equal rights people like to change those requirements so that everyone can have those jobs, at the increased safety risk to the rest of us, all so the special snowflakes can have whatever they want. You want a little cop or soldier who can't subdue the bad guy with the gun/bomb? You got it. You want the little person who can't get the injured person out of the burning building/vehicle? You got it. You want the affirmative action physician that can't save your ass because he's not as smart as the one who isn't the politically correct gender, sex or race? You got it. We're increasingly becoming a country where stupidity like this will get you killed. But no one will speak up because it's not the 'nice' thing to say, it might hurt someone's feelings to tell them that they're not qualified, so we dumb down the qualifications and pretend that yes, we're all equal.

All because those people insist that we're all equal in every way, not only in the ways you think they do.

You do not become stronger, taller, faster, or smarter just by wishing you were, and telling everyone that you are.

I'm all for equal opportunity. But what we're getting is a handicapping system, which gives us the lesser abled doing things that they shouldn't be doing. In the famous words of Dirty Harry, "A man's (woman, child, whatever) got to know his limitations". And not pretend that those limitations don't exist.
Click to expand...
Your philosophy: Gattaca
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
You know full well what equality means in this context. It does not mean that everyone is exactly equal no matter what. Please put aside your straw man arguequt.

Equality on this context means equal opportunity, equality before the law and a few more things. It means the right to be judged by objective performance metrics, not by prejudices based on race, gender or creed.

When you start talking about absolute equality in an equality discussion all you are trying to do is take things out of context and refute something based on what no one is actually claiming. It is wrong and deplorable.
Click to expand...

Translation:

"You know full when that my definition of equality changes when you call me out on the reality of such a asinine delusion. It means the right to be judged by objective performance metrics, unless they are IQ, test scores, strength, injury likelihood, or ability to do the job itself. How dare you think that you can call me out on an equality discussion when I'll just pass off anything valid you say with anecdotal evidence and back-handed insults. You're a bad person."

here's your end-game of equality: Harrison Bergeron - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
lilbabycat said:
Translation:

"You know full when that my definition of equality changes when you call me out on the reality of such a asinine delusion. It means the right to be judged by objective performance metrics, unless they are IQ, test scores, strength, injury likelihood, or ability to do the job itself. How dare you think that you can call me out on an equality discussion when I'll just pass off anything valid you say with anecdotal evidence and back-handed insults. You're a bad person."

here's your end-game of equality: Harrison Bergeron - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Look, no one is proposing giving equal consideration to a blind man when hiring a bus driver here.

This line of reasoning is typical straw man bullshit.

For instance, women serving in combat roles in the military was referenced indirectly several posts back. I believe very much they should have the right to do this, but it was suggested this was a risk because of people being "too small to pull their fellow soldiers out of the way, etc."

I haven't heard anyone suggest implementing lower standards for women. They deserve the right to be judged based on the same physical standards as men are. It is true, men tend to be stronger than women, but as a 6'3" man I know that there is some overlap, and that this is not at all an absolute.

There are definitely some women out there who could kick my ass if so inclined. Not a large percentage, mind you, but they exist. Since these natural variations exist in nature why should be have arbitrary gender based limits?

Anyone who passes the physical strength and other requirements should be considered equally. There will certainly be fewer women than men who do, and that is fine. If passing the physical performance requirements isn't enough to do that job, then it is the requirements that are wrong, not the gender.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top