aluminiumtrioxid

That's an idiotic assumption right at the beginning. There is much more people for a production company. You just have no idea how complex is a company. Gee, sorry for using literally the same numbers you mentioned in your first post in my calculations. So essentially you're saying an exploitative system that favors you > justice?

Translation: "Societal problems can only have one reason and one reason only. The very idea of society being a complex system with multiple parts that interact in producing a certain outcome is alien to me." You're a bloody idiot if all you can do is deliberately put words in other peoples mouths. Read what I said, not what you think. Where the hell did I say that society isn't a complex system? Do you honestly fail to see why "no no no, this is all about money, stop talking about rape culture" and "society is a complex system where there are inequalities based on class, race, gender etc., and these interact in producing some really ****ed-up outcomes" are two statements that are directly opposed to each other?

Okay, let's assume your company has 40 men working under you, plus you, earning 40 times as much as any of those laborers. Let's also assume that the laborers can live reasonably comfortably* (meaning they can cover all their needs and afford a limited amount of entertainment) from the money they get paid to. Now, if we redistribute the wealth so you only get paid double the amount of money than any of your laborers, then any of them would bring home 80/42** = 1.9 times their current earnings. Now, you'd still earn double of what they earn, making it 3.8 times the amount of money one needs to live reasonably comfortably. Is earning almost 4 times as much as one needs to in order to cover all their needs and some entertainment objectively unjust? *I mean, we could also assume that they're living in poverty, but I'm not sure "for every man to live in comfort, 40 others need to live in poverty" reflects well on the system you're advocating for. **40 workers, + you earning double.

Except that didn't happen. Ie. the power of the rich to pervert the course of justice. Speaking of proper wealth redistribution: Nobody here was vouching for communism.

Well, you seemed happy enough to simplify blue-collar labor as "swinging a hammer". My point is, every job description can be simplified to the point where it seems trivial; that doesn't mean it indeed is. Yes the health care I need to wait 3 years to get (yes we need to register a visit 3 years ahead...unless you go to a private clinic and pay), retirement fund that doesn't cover food for a month which I maybe get if I live 10 years more than the average lifespan (average lifespan in Poland 61, retirement age 67), education that sucks and is done by underpayed teachers (absolute worst education in EU), roads that are the worst in EU, worst than some Afrikan countries even. And you don't think the systematic tax avoidance that seems to be a favorite national pastime in eastern european countries might have something to do with that?

Money gets you out of a lot of things. I know rich kids who drove while drunk and killed little girls, and got out with a slap on the wrist because they had a rich daddy. So why talk about "rape culture" in this context? It is the very phrase you used, so stop being disengenius. Translation: "Societal problems can only have one reason and one reason only. The very idea of society being a complex system with multiple parts that interact in producing a certain outcome is alien to me."

I refuse to see "earning double of what my employees earn, instead of 40+ times as much" as "being punished".

Compare the production lineman who screw the drives who makes the work worth of lets say 5000 $ monthly with Sales Director who signes contracts worth millions of $. I'm sure signing contracts must be physically and intellectually demanding, and a job that absolutely can't be replicated by anyone else in your country. You mean the same taxes that cover your healthcare, retirement funds, education of your future kids, building and maintaining the roads of your country, etc.? Ah well, you're right, better skip them.

I think you might be reading him overly charitably. (Also, if he's such a big shot, he surely knows enough English to express himself in exactly the way he means to - after all, I'm basically a nobody who learned the language as an autodidact, yet here I am, being understood - so a person with the unquestionably higher amount of talent and resources he has probably also can manage to accomplish the same feat.) I'm not sure what you mean by "the person in corporate is probably more educated and will earn more money", could you please clarify that? Oh, but surely the one who's bringing in 100k in a month probably deals with a different clientele than the person who earns 2.5k, so it's not like they started from the same position. The comparison is therefore unfair.

Sorry, didn't notice the edit until now. I find the idea questionable, but you're welcome to show me how that would be possible.

Oh, I'm sure your work is more valuable (for a given definition of valuable) to your company than another dude's work whose contribution stops at "can swing a hammer", I just find the notion of "40 times as valuable" questionable unless you're some sort of super-genius inventor type whose work literally can't be replicated by anyone else in the world.

I'm guessing "resonates with a lot of people in some way throughout the ages".

I'm pretty sure wealth is a finite resource. For every dollars he has, there's someone else with those dollars not in their pockets. That's mostly wrong. Wealth is all about how you use those resources. You can be productive and make the resources you control more valuable, or you can be unproductive and waste said resources. I'm doing pretty well financially, and I was given very little resources (by American standards). Heck my land only costed about $1,000. That's about a months rent in New York. I've taken this area and made it pretty productive. So like I said, it's not as much about the amount of resources you are given; as much as it is about how you use them. That... actually has nothing to do with what I was talking about. Which is my fault, of course, because "wealth" is an abstract concept and money isn't a static thing that just floats around doing nothing... anyways, what I've meant is that a company has a finite amount of resources for paying employees, and I'm pretty sure that if you're paying a single employee more than 40 times as much as you're paying another employee, something doesn't work as it should. (For a given value of "should", that is.)

I'm pretty sure wealth is a finite resource. For every dollars he has, there's someone else with those dollars not in their pockets.

So, basically, you're saying every 42nd person should live well and **** the rest?

Ep 4. was a pretty decent adaptation of the very first Hellblazer story, given the limitations. John is sleazily manipulating his friend into willingly becoming a demon vessel instead of sacrificing him just because he's at hand, but otherwise it's a mostly faithful adaptation with some semi-decent horror sequences. Ep 3. is also a step up from the quality of the godawful pilot, but then again, almost anything would have been. Still, I recommend starting with 4.

A recap of what happened: - Some bloke links to a post on an anonymous board by a self-identified "gamer girl" dripping with redpiller terminology and transphobia. - I point out that said post is dripping with redpiller terminology and transphobia. - Someone asks what I mean by "redpiller terminology". - I link to an explanation found on the site most widely associated with the "redpill movement" as far as I'm aware (aside from r/RedPill), in the interest of accurately representing the movement. - Someone expresses that they find the site to be horrible. - I point out that the primer I linked was really just the tip of the iceberg. Characterizing me giving an answer to a very specific question as "visiting some obscure minority-voice website no one's ever heard of and going 'omg outrageous radical views!!!'" is an extremely uncharitable reading of what happened. I think you fundamentally misunderstand their point: the problem is that "knights-in-shining-armor with vaginas" (wouldn't it have been easier to just call them "female fighters in reasonable armor"?) are currently not represented in gaming, or at least not nearly to the extent sexualized female characters are. If you could provide links with actual quotes - quotes that mean the same thing in the wider context of the source, if possible - where they're asking for all sexualized female depictions to be immediately replaced with chaste nuns/vaginas in a tin can/whatever, I'd be more than happy to admit that I've been proven wrong. And as I have pointed out, the theory has a solid foundation in the fact that pregnant women are comparatively vulnerable, but "pregnant women need protection, men won't give protection to pregnant women if they're not absolutely sure that said woman is carrying their genetic material, therefore ****-shaming is biologically determined" is a hypothesis that can't be considered to prove anything not just because it's making a few logical jumps I find questionable, but because there is no way of setting up an experiment where it can be scientifically tested. I don't mean to sound dismissive, but given the fact that, being a lawyer-in-training, you have spent a considerable amount of your life either preparing for law school, or in law school itself, which, I assume, limits one's available free time for simultaneously educating oneself on how statistics and biology works, while I, being a med student, have spent a comparative amount of time and effort studying biology, research related to biological - mostly medical - matters, and how to evaluate the validity of said research, I'd say I might have a skillset better suited to determining whether there is a point in comparing two studies, or whether one of those studies is built on a questionable understanding of how biology, statistics, or even scientific research itself works. Then again, if you were the type to just go around believing every random bloke on random forums who proclaims himself a med student in the vague hope of winning an internet argument, you probably wouldn't really have much of a future in your chosen career, so I assume pointing this fact out was somewhat meaningless. (Please do forgive the overall flippant tone, I've just finished reading a detailed account on how politicians in my country are stealing literally all the money, no, I'm not exaggerating, literally all, and am extremely pissed off, which is not conducive to writing responses in a non-flippant manner.)

That was a nice touch.

Like it or not, "the redpill movement" is a name co-opted by "the manosphere". I mean, okay, you can use it in any sense you want to, but the original question was "what do I mean by 'redpiller terminology'", and the answer is "the terminology you're likely to encounter on r/RedPill, the number one site google brings up when searching for 'redpill'".

Erm...you are aware both of those are pretty common fetishes? Not saying ALL women like them or that the site is amazing (I'm unfamiliar with it), just not clear based on the context of your post if you're finding it horrible that they encourage guys to just start choking women without discussion or if you find the act itself disgusting or the suggestion most women are submissive to be disgusting. My point was that a/ saying all women are biologically programmed to be submissive is disgusting - not only from a moral standpoint, but also because it's based on the worst kind of pseudo-scientific bull**** (the large majority of evopsych "research" is done by people who seem incapable of understanding basic research methodology and statistics), and b/ encouraging people to engage in an extremely dangerous area of BDSM play without first asking for consent is one of the most irresponsible bits of advice you could give, especially taken into account the fact that a sizeable part of the redpiller community is composed of sexually inexperienced young males. I honestly don't see your problem. Aside from the extremely small minority of nutjobs going "gender traitor!" on the women who dare to enjoy straight sex and being a housewife, how exactly does a feminist endorsement of "traditionally masculine" life choices as not replacing, but being a viable alternative to living as a housewife threaten their way of life? I mean, a situation where the only viable lifepath for a woman is being a housewife sounds like a pretty crappy alternative to what feminism is offering. Yeah, this whole argument here? Exactly the type of pseudo-scientific drivel I was talking about earlier. If I remember the study in question correctly (you didn't cite it, and what you describe isn't a study, it's a very logical-sounding theory supported by exactly zero pieces of factual evidence - but I do remember reading something like it in an actual study), it came to this conclusion based on behavior observed among a certain species of monkeys - but later studies have revealed the species it was based on to have about as much in common with humans, genetically speaking, as mouses do (which is still quite a lot, but when a very sizeable amount of genetic material is pretty much universal to all mammals, you can't really tout it as some kind of ultimate proof - after all, the differences between a human and a platypus are self-explanatory, despite the genetic commonalities). Granted, I might be confusing it with a different study. There's a lot of bad science floating around in evopsych. Also, you might wanna ask an actual historian about how life was like for women before our time. You might be surprised at the answer (spoiler warning: the popular concept of "they were basically slaves to their all-powerful male overlords" is a steaming pile of bull****). I don't think feminists are using the word "sex positive" in the sense you mean it. That said, carceral feminists playing white savior and denying sex workers their voices and agency? Bad. However, I don't think Sarkeesian (who undoubtedly does have a problem with recognizing sex workers' autonomy, but has acknowledged it and is working on trying to improve her terminology) or Quinn or whoever else GG is against are among them. *squint* I don't think social darwinism is the philosophy we should build our society around. I've never heard any feminist ever claim they know the secret to making all women happy, so I kinda wonder what your point is...? As a practicing member of the local BDSM community, I really don't appreciate being lectured on the prevalence of kinks in the human population by someone whose interest in the matter is purely theoretical and hasn't been pursued with academic rigour. Thank you for your understanding.

Oh yes. That site is full of even juicier stuff, like how all women are naturally submissive and choking them improves sex life or something. It deserves to be visited and mocked mercilessly.

A quick primer to redpill. I might need brain bleach now, thank you very much.

A strange mixture of redpiller terminology (betalords? really?) and transphobia, you mean?

And until you define what you mean by "prominent GGer", this question remains unanswerable. I'm talking a person that GamerGaters put up on a pedestal. TotalBiscuit, Oliver Campell, Sargon of Akkad, ThunderF00t, Mike Cernovich, Christine Sommers, Jennie Bharaj etc etc etc. You get the idea. I'll look into them.

And until you define what you mean by "prominent GGer", this question remains unanswerable. Is Davis "women in our society have become the most decadent sluts since the fall of Rome" Aurini, a self-identified gamergater, co-creator of The Sarkeesian Effect, with a Patreon that managed to gather nearly 10k dollars of gamergater money, prominent enough? Is Milo "you get your **** out for a living, don't tell me how to do my job" Yiannopoulos, also self-identified gamergater prominent enough?