ObjectivityIncarnate

I see what you mean now; your wording was ambiguous, specifically “do”.

anyone impersonating gestapo would post anything worse than they already do

sounds like you’re saying ‘would post anything worse than they already post’.

You haven’t been on the Internet very long, huh?

they’re platforming and subsequently legitimising them.

You could make that argument about them being allowed to have an account at all, but simply marking that account in such a way that informs the userbase that it’s not a troll/parody account or something, but the actual organization?

That doesn’t “platform” them, they’re already on the platform at the time this happened. And confirming that something asserted to be true, is in fact true, is a good thing.

It’s basically giving uncle Sam a list of targets to hit next.

How, exactly? Even if you use your real name as your username (which no one does), unless it’s very uncommon, that still won’t uniquely identify you.

Smugness and delusion in equal proportion, it seems.

I’m simply not equivocating protecting one’s person and protecting one’s assets, since it makes no sense to equivocate them.

It’s seriously absurd to call that “bootlicking”, and you’re only calling it “euphemistic” because you failed to grasp what was a very simply-stated statement.

If you Internet Tough Guys were ever going to do anything, you would have already. This is nothing more than an impotent circlejerk, not to mention it also violates Rules 3 and 4 of this community.

The thing that annoys me the most is the amount of money it takes to protect their wealth…the money paid for private guards and security alone is in the hundreds of millions.

Considering the above “protecting your wealth” instead of simply protecting yourself from hostile third parties is extremely disingenuous.

This is a very good way for a lot of terrible people to fly completely under the radar. There isn’t a(n accurate) ‘child molester’ stereotype—you do victims no favor by making assumptions like these.

how many women have been inappropriately approached by adult men.

This isn’t actually a useful metric for drawing any conclusions about men, objectively speaking.

The typical woman has met thousands upon thousands of men in her life; if she was inappropriately approached by as few as a single one of them, on a single occasion, she now falls in the ‘women that have been inappropriately approached by adult men’ category. It’s very easily possible for the percentage of such women to be as high as literally 100%, while simultaneously, the percentage of men making those inappropriate approaches is far, far below 1%.

Also, it merits mentioning that the number of victims should not be assumed to equal the number of perpetrators. The kind of man to do this sort of thing is certain to be several different women’s ‘man who inappropriately approached me’. This also widens the gap between the actual percentage of men doing this, and what may be assumed based on individual personal experiences.

One thing you could take as a data point is what searches are most common on Pornhub.

Neither ‘barely legal’ nor anything adjacent to it even made the top search list in 2024. On the other hand, there are several entries in that list that imply older women (e.g. milf, step mom, teacher).

As an aside, I was also intrigued to see that “wife” made the list.

So we had sex one more time

…

No, it doesn’t. My comment was nothing more than a grammatical correction, that “opinion” is not what you call an unsupported assertion/claim; that’s not what the word means.

I was not engaged in the underlying argument, at all, yet your response is a sputtering, indignant tirade about how I’m shifting the burden of proof, etc.

Read more carefully.

Pay more attention to who you’re replying to. Your comment makes zero sense directed at me.

No evidence of your claims and thus it is your opinion

Nerd time, but:

That’s not how it works. Opinions are subjective by definition. An assertion without evidence is not an “opinion”.

deleted by creator

Combine that with some rape cases that get swept under the rug with phrases like, “boys will be boys,” “she was asking for it,” or even something as outright cruel as “it’s the only way she’d get laid anyways,” and yeah, where OP is coming from isn’t too hard to understand.

And yet, cases of male victims of female rapists get “swept under the rug” basically 100% of the time, but the outrage toward that is non-existent, even though the also-swept-under-the-rug fact is that women rape men just as often as men rape women:

And now the real surprise: when asked about experiences in the last 12 months, men reported being “made to penetrate”—either by physical force or due to intoxication—at virtually the same rates as women reported rape (both 1.1 percent in 2010, and 1.7 and 1.6 respectively in 2011).

In other words, if being made to penetrate someone was counted as rape—and why shouldn’t it be?—then the headlines could have focused on a truly sensational CDC finding: that women rape men as often as men rape women.

The whole reason a woman raping a man isn’t simply called “rape” in these statistics is because of successful explicitly anti-male lobbying by feminists like Mary Koss, and NOW, who don’t think it “counts” as rape when the man is the victim of a woman.

As one of these male victims of a female rapist, it’s always extremely frustrating to see women complaining to men about things like under-reporting, or men who get away with it, when it’s so much worse for men and boys, that the average person believes that a female raping a male is something that is literally impossible.

A boy got molested by his female teacher, and she won child support from him! Could you in a million years imagine a male rapist achieving such a legal judgment from a girl he molested?

Yeah, there are a lot of comparisons like these that at least partially break down when you don’t consider the way the US is set up, re state governments.

Another big example is minimum wage. While the federal minimum is $7.25, it is a very small minority of places where it’s even possible to find (above-board, of course; if you work under the table, all bets are off) work at that low a wage, both because of the above (state minimum is higher) and because other market forces essentially negate it as the minimum, even in most places where $7.25 is in fact the legal minimum wage.

I’ve been using Firefox for over a decade, and Windows has never complained about it. What are you talking about?

were those numbers perhaps cherry-picked to make the situation look more dramatic than it actually is?

If anyone can go from 554th to 5th in any sport/event just by competing among the other sex, nothing else changing, then that obviously indicates something. You can’t handwave that away.

Her personal 100m freestyle time dropping less than a quarter of a second post-transition is honestly a bigger indicator that transition is not making a substantial difference, because that angle completely removes the ‘chance’ element in your opponents being different people.