March 9, 20241 yr 7 minutes ago, Enrico_sw said: I'm talking about the rapid progression of a totalitarian movement in our societies (called wokism/feminism). It's going in a wrong direction I'll give you that (especially in social media, poilitics etc) but I can only talk about my personal experiences and I don't know one single woman who hates Leonardo or any decent man (like him or in general). Individuals are not necessarily reflecting the toxic enviroment that our social society became. At least I can't witness it in my every day life (expect when I open the internet where everything seem radicalized, hated or twisted).
March 9, 20241 yr 1 minute ago, Jade Bahr said: Give me a break. Since when? The 00s??????? You're acting like gay people had some easy peasy way to get that "right" treatment in the western world. Since a long time in France. The criminalization of gay people stopped in 1791. Gay people were never massively thrown out of windows (unlike in the Middle East). In the UK, I know it's different (Alan Turing was condemned for being gay), but gay people in the West haven't been massively purged for centuries (unlike in the Middle East) You see the difference, right?
March 9, 20241 yr I watched "The Normal Heart" and "Fellow Travelers" (not saying they're 100% accurate since they're obviously not documentaries) but if you truly think gay people have THE EXACT SAME RIGHTS AND VALUES like heteros oh boy. There is also a doc called "the last taboo" from this year. I highly recommend you to watch it and tell me after the oppression/discrimination/harassment of gay people really has stopped. You don't have to be stoned to be hurt/damaged irreversible just saying.
March 9, 20241 yr 46 minutes ago, Enrico_sw said: Oppression is not a binary concept where one is either an everlasting oppressed or an everlasting oppressor. Men and women have been both oppressors and oppressed for a long time. It was way better to be a Noble woman in the 1500s Germany than a poor man. Way better. And I guess it must have been SO MUCH BETTER to be a noble man no matter the century.
March 9, 20241 yr 1 minute ago, Jade Bahr said: And I guess it must have be MUCH BETTER to be a noble man no matter the century. Wrong guess. There's minimal to zero difference in terms of life quality between noble men and women. The difference between nobles and poor people was vastly higher. Immensely higher. I know modern teachings tell you that women are everlasting victims, but it's false. Poor people didn't even have proper nutrition and hygiene. Nobles (men and women) had it way better. Noble women had servants, maids, etc.
March 9, 20241 yr 21 minutes ago, Jade Bahr said: I watched "The Normal Heart" and "Fellow Travelers" (not saying they're 100% accurate since they're obviously not documentaries) but if you truly think gay people have THE EXACT SAME RIGHTS AND VALUES like heteros oh boy. There is also a doc called "the last taboo" from this year. I highly recommend you to watch it and tell me after the oppression/discrimination/harassment of gay people really has stopped. You don't have to be stoned to be hurt/damaged irreversible just saying. You said it: Hollywood doesn't make documentaries. BTW, even a documentary can be politicised. What's better are history books (though nothing is purely objective). These two show/movies depict the 50s and 80s. They are fictions. Gay are not stoned to death unlike here in the present era. You see the difference?
March 9, 20241 yr 3 hours ago, Enrico_sw said: You said it: Hollywood doesn't make documentaries. BTW, even a documentary can be politicised. What's better are history books (though nothing is purely objective). If you see it that way you literally can't believe nothing anymore said, showed or written unless you're experience it by yourself. I'm pretty sure back in time books (or the written word in general) were just as instrumentalized like every modern media these days. It's not like humanity invented the oppression of individual groups just by now. It's part of our nature probably since we learned to speak/communicate. Also, when in all of human history has it ever been better to be poor than rich? I can also only repeat myself since you're still not paying attention. Not once I claimed women are the only everlasting victims nor do I believe they are nor was I teached they were/are so actually no you know nothing because you don't listen (also something that cursed grievances btw). It's more you playing the manly victim card again and again. And maybe you're right. Maybe you feel like a victim. But guess what? It's nothing unusual because most of us do. Maybe you should stand up and write a book since that's apparently the only media you trust and since you claim to know -well maybe not everything- but a lot about what's going wrong between the sexes.... because simply complaining about a situation never changed anything afterall right? So in your words
March 9, 20241 yr 1 hour ago, Jade Bahr said: It's more you playing the manly victim card again and again. And maybe you're right. Maybe you feel like a victim. But guess what? It's nothing unusual because most of us do. You're not paying attention. I don't feel like a victim, I literally told you that the oppressor/oppressed matrix is not an accurate one. The only thing that matters to me is having the most faithful representation of social dynamics. Nothing more. 1 hour ago, Jade Bahr said: Maybe you should stand up and write a book since that's apparently the only media you trust It's not the only media I trust. I said there's a gradation of trustworthiness and Hollywood is not at the top... but historical books are way higher. 1 hour ago, Jade Bahr said: Also, when in all of human history has it ever been better to be poor than rich? Never (though nowadays, thanks to technological breakthroughs, the middle class has standards of living that are higher than even the nobles' in the 16th century). In any case, your words confirm what I said: pointing fingers at the "straight white male" as the ultimate culprit (aka scapegoat) is a modern fallacy: a poor white man as it harder than a rich woman. That's all I'm saying. 1 hour ago, Jade Bahr said: So in your words I didn't use these words. That's your prejudices talking.
March 9, 20241 yr I think this woman is great: https://www.instagram.com/esteecwilliams/ She's beautiful on the outside and the inside. This is why she's attractive.
March 9, 20241 yr 2 hours ago, Enrico_sw said: He was hot. Great hair. Even better abs. fun fact: remember the time when instead of Gladiator 2 Kit ended up fighting and kissing his way out of crappy Pompeii? the moment you think it can't get any hotter guess what Spoiler marvelous time to be a cinematic with... boner heart At least aesthetically this movie delivered a full 10 😏 me watching movies for the plot the plot Feeling dizzy? Yeah me too. Bye Source: Daily Kit Harington
March 9, 20241 yr 20 minutes ago, Jade Bahr said: He was hot. Great hair. Even better abs. fun fact: remember the time when instead of Gladiator 2 Kit ended up fighting and kissing his way out of crappy Pompeii? Source: Daily Kit Harington It looks like Kit took some vitamins 😛 A short guy that is good looking on screen 😛
March 9, 20241 yr 5 hours ago, Cult Icon said: It looks like Kit took some vitamins 😛 Well thx to those vitamins making my life so much better for 100 minutes. #short king
March 13, 20241 yr On 3/9/2024 at 11:39 AM, Enrico_sw said: Loving and supporting your family is a man's task since dawn of time. Because when the woman is pregnant, her capacities are diminished. So, the man collects the resources for the family. The couple is the most efficient form of organisation to take care of children (the tribe was an alternative but a dysfunctional one). Modern women who don't need no man (thanks to a man's invention... the contraceptive pill) are against people like Leonardo. I mean they're against 99% of men like Leonardo, until they meet their Leonardo. It's called hypergamy. It tends to cloud rational thinking around these subjects. The "article/definition" you quoted mentions P. Bourdieu. This guy was everything but neutral. He was a far left activist who used the Marxist matrix (oppressor/oppressed) and tried to apply it in societal analyses. This approach is not scientific. Sociology is not a hard science and it's highly falsifiable. Your "article/definition” says that what happens in Germany and the Middle East is the same. This is insane. Homosexuals are massacred and stoned to death in the Middle East (example). These “woke” and far left intellectuals are not serious. They don't live in reality. They live in fantasy world. They just want to blame their newfound scapegoat: straight white man. This is totalitarian. Well the term patriarchy is derived from patriarch. Which was meant to mean the male leader of a family. Leo hasn't got a family yet, he isn't even married yet even though he is nearly 50. As such he does not conform to regular patriarchal values. A celebrity who could be deemed a patriarch in the old sense of the word would need to be married to a woman, for a long time at that and have several children. Before his divorce in 2011, Mel Gibson could have applied to the term. He had 7 children and was with his first wife for around thirty years. He since had two more children in subsequent relationships.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.