BruceVC

What are they referring to? Do you guys not think statements like this from anonymous are out of line ? But I wouldnt mind seeing what evidence they can produce?

You dont think he is hot?

My rule of thumb for doors is: If I'm coming to a door, I open it and hold it until everyone coming the opposite way has passed. If anyone is following me through the door, I'll hold it open as I pass through the doorway long enough for them to take control of it, at which point the door is theirs to do with what they want, although I may make exceptions to this if a large group is behind me and I'm in no particular hurry. At no time to I check to see if the people going through the doorway meet some arbitrary physical requirement. But what if you are with a lady, would you open a door in lets say a restaurant?

They should make a Booster Gold movie

There's still and appeal to challenge the verdict and even if they lose that, IIRC, Gawker can file for remittitur (?) asking for relief against an excessive verdict. Good points and I'm sure they will appeal....whats your view on the severity of this fine Amentep, I know we discussed this in the past and I ended up accepting that its fine for Gawker to be sued. You made a good argument back then but now that the court hearing is real do you still think its fair? As I understand it - and I'm not an expert - the fine actually exceeds Gawker's assets on the idea that Gawker's parent company and Denton have more personal worth that would cover the award/punitive fine. But frankly, given that Gawker were told to remove the tape and didn't in a previous court ruling, I have little sympathy for the company in this defense. And even beyond that, to publish the tape in the first place left me no sympathy for them (and I confess I I would have found it hard to be an unbiased member of the jury had I been called). I am full of sympathy for those not in Gawker's leadership who will lose their jobs if the verdict stands as they're losing their jobs for things they didn't do, but I think its important that companies understand that they cannot continue to exist and maintain such abhorrent business practices. At some point its not a case of "these people can be punished in a way that they can learn from their mistakes as they continue to do business" to "we need to make sure these mistakes cannot be perpetuated by a business that makes no sign that they understand the mistakes, wrong and hardships they continually force upon people", if that makes sense. Yes it does make sense

Article uses assumption that this attackers are European born and grown. Which means that nobody allowed them in Europe in first place. "European" as second or third generation North Africans and Middle Easterners. The result of an ongoing policy since the end of WWII. You can't come to Europe because your children or your children's children may grow to become terrorists because of things that have happened yet. Sounds reasonable policy, too bad that our politicians didn't understood need for such caution decades ago. The article being dumb aside, creating a policy where middle eastern and north african muslims become ghettofied over the generations and not part of society is the reason why we are here we are. I see little reason to continue with the same. It isn't good policy to let any population group secede from general population. But I see fault to be more in housing, schooling, and employment policies than in immigration policies of past. But of course if we can't make our domestic policies work then adding more stress to system that don't work isn't solid policy either. BruceVC: I am sorry that I have failed in my attempt of sarcasm. I tried my best to make it so over the top that nobody would take it serious. Elerond when you say your domestic policies dont work are you referring to the refugees and intergration?

Theres good people out there with good intentions but generally speaking, imo, the more rabid of these individuals just want to shout down any dissenting opinions and use "SEXISM" as their weapon. You know what, if that's the rules we must play by...in my household my wife interrupts me when I'm talking fairly regularly. She does it because she gets excited about the conversation and words just bubble out but it still aggravates me because I think its rude. But maybe I'm going about this the wrong way. Maybe shes been "shaming" me all these years and Ive just never noticed that my manhood is being harshed? Of course this is a tangent and specifically wrt to your and my conversation, I fully expected you to handwave "reverse discrimination", as you have before. You didn't this time so that's progress. I appreciate you taking the time to explain your personal experiences, you are not wrong about certain things Its a natural human response to get annoyed if someone interrupts you, this is not about gender. Who would like someone preventing them from talking..of course this can be frustrating Also I agree there is a degree of emotion around gender equality and sometimes people go overboard...its getting to a stage where guys are not sure if opening a door for a women will be seen in a negative light.." I can open my own door thank you " ..I am still chivalrous and just ignore this This social development of women being interrupted doesnt apply to all women...in fact none of the women I know have ever said to me " I feel shamed because I'm always being interrupted " Its just one of things people who believe in gender equality are opposed to from a historical context but maybe it should be framed better ?

Article uses assumption that this attackers are European born and grown. Which means that nobody allowed them in Europe in first place. "European" as second or third generation North Africans and Middle Easterners. The result of an ongoing policy since the end of WWII. You can't come to Europe because your children or your children's children may grow to become terrorists because of things that have happened yet. Sounds reasonable policy, too bad that our politicians didn't understood need for such caution decades ago. The article being dumb aside, creating a policy where middle eastern and north african muslims become ghettofied over the generations and not part of society is the reason why we are here we are. I see little reason to continue with the same. Really? I thought we were here because of ISIS and all the refugees arriving in Europe Since I have been on this forum which is 3 years or so I have never seen such active discussion about the Muslim world And there have been ghettos for years in the EU....how come this wasn't raised before?

Theres been a worldwide study on the matter? Hell yeah I want to see this piece of work. Link away! Gfted1 can I ask you a question? If someone said to you " what are the tenets or principles of gender equality " what would you say they are? In other words what do feminists want or people that support there views?

Article uses assumption that this attackers are European born and grown. Which means that nobody allowed them in Europe in first place. "European" as second or third generation North Africans and Middle Easterners. The result of an ongoing policy since the end of WWII. You can't come to Europe because your children or your children's children may grow to become terrorists because of things that have happened yet. Sounds reasonable policy, too bad that our politicians didn't understood need for such caution decades ago. Elerond what do you expect your politicians to do? I am interested

I assume there is proof of this claim? Don't leave us hanging. What color is it? There is ALWAYS proof.....but surly you dont need it to believe someone a forum?

Nice, I didnt think you Swedes used cars? I always assumed reindeer pulling a sleigh was how you got around

Yes I know you made a general comment not directed to me, I was just explaining how my experiences may tie in to your view. Come on...it must have felt great when the hottie realized you aren't some indigent , uneducated hillbilly Its not like you need acceptance from anyone but its still fun smashing stereotypes

True, but I'm of the opinion that crappy behavior works both ways. BVC is of the opinion that whoever he feels is oppressed is free to do the same things to others and its totally cool. I think you're being a little harsh on him. Its more I'm being misunderstood, my objectives to achieve social equality are not based on believing minority groups need to oppress groups that use to oppress them I dont believe in the Animal Farm outcome and never have Not quite the same. The animals on Animal Farm didn't oppress the humans. The oppressed the other animals to the point they became just like the humans. Which is pretty inevitable when one group obtains power over another history tells us. Personally on the topic you guys were discussing if reading the words of someone you don't really know or give a f--k about makes someone "feel bad" I'd suggest they drink a shot of whiskey and man the f--k up. Words don't cause injury.* *(Except in cases of libel or slander. just don't tell lies ok?) ' " GD you know how many times I get "insulted " on these forums ? People say I'm ignorant, a troll and other things...imagine if every single time someone said something " nasty " about me I got offended...I would quite possibly be offended every day But I only care what people who I respect say about me so sometimes I may something possibly rude to someone and I dont mean to come across a certain way. That bothers me because obviously you dont want to offend people you like. Like where I wasn't sure if I had annoyed you with the whole " redneck " comment

In my opinion, it's less about "payback", and more about "this is a thing that happens to women more often than it does to men, hence even if the number of women who do it doubles, things still won't be equal". The logic behind getting interrupted = shaming I do not understand, but I'm willing to entertain the possibility of it making sense in context of the actual lecture (lord knows I've seen accomplished scientists in respected fields write presentation headers and text that made absolutely no goddamn sense when read). I was hoping you would get my point, you have a good view of these matters I can explain the point to you in more detail if you interested?

Some people in SA complained that this series was mocking Christianity so the cable channel had to move the show later

I'm dont understand your point,sorry Zora ? Maybe someone can explain what you mean because it sounds interesting ...I'm missing the reason you compare them to Star Wars?

Well its more a suggested official new word in the English dictionary, see below http://www.collinsdictionary.com/submission/16561/manterrupting Well its not acceptable now for men to be interrupted, no one is suggesting that Its just a symbolic word that represents a culture of behavior that some men still practice, I wish I could explain it properly because I'm failing

There's still and appeal to challenge the verdict and even if they lose that, IIRC, Gawker can file for remittitur (?) asking for relief against an excessive verdict. Good points and I'm sure they will appeal....whats your view on the severity of this fine Amentep, I know we discussed this in the past and I ended up accepting that its fine for Gawker to be sued. You made a good argument back then but now that the court hearing is real do you still think its fair?

Okay I'll keep it simple but please understand I'm not saying "no " ...I am just saying there is context The whole concept of a man interrupting a women is historical and represents an aspect of women that have been marginalized for centuries. Its ties into the whole era where women weren't allowed or expected to have an opinion. So its an injustice around gender equality and this term " "manterrupting" for me just symbolizes this metaphorically But men haven't typically ever been in social environments where they weren't allowed to speak as there gender made them perceived to be inferior So yes if you ignore the historical context then being interrupted by a women would or could be seen as shaming but typically because this is not common for men its not considered something shameful ?

True, but I'm of the opinion that crappy behavior works both ways. BVC is of the opinion that whoever he feels is oppressed is free to do the same things to others and its totally cool. I think you're being a little harsh on him. Its more I'm being misunderstood, my objectives to achieve social equality are not based on believing minority groups need to oppress groups that use to oppress them I dont believe in the Animal Farm outcome and never have

But thats not what I believe but I dont have time to explain now, maybe later?

It appears ISIS has now accepted responsibility for the attacks in Brussels

Well I appreciate the honesty because I would rather not make a long post if someone doesn't want me to

C'mon BVC. If "manterrupting" is "shaming" a female, is it the same when a woman interrupts a man? I know you think I'm using double standards but there is a difference, I can explain it if you are interested but it will be a few paragraphs? If you want me to explain please give me 2-3 hours as I have my complex Trustee meeting now and I need to prepare some notes