Comments by CC99 (page 54)

The Dougster and VM feud still causing fights on TUSCL 1 year and three months later. I can't believe I was actually on TUSCL at that time, although I didn't post anywhere near as often as I do now.

IceyLoco do you really think a woman would be able to claim in court that her robbing somebody was okay because he tried to pay her for sex? The john can call the police and tell them that she robbed him for less than what Cardi B did. http://www.annarbor.com/news/crime/ann-arbor-police-john-calls-police-after-prostitute-took-his-money-and-raised-her-price/ https://www.shouselaw.com/nevada/trick-rolling.html

"Countryman: You’re wrong. He’s not a “coward bastard inbred cocksucker.” He’s a coward bastard inbred cocksucker retarded douchebag pussy." @Call me Ishmael remember when you said my thread was easily the most junior high thread on TUSCL? I think we got competition for that title now lol.

I'd take 25 over SirLDK any day. SirLDK's posts are absolutely brainless, there's no substance to them whatever. Not even substance in a goofy way like txtittyfag is, its just idiotic.

I put SirLDK on ignore as he has consistently showed an inability to make any kind of thoughtful contributions to discussions, instead resorting to the most brainless posts imaginable. I realized that I was never going to get anything of value from his posts, not even temporary entertainment. As a troll, he is not entertaining whatsoever, and as a participant in conversations he appears incapable of contributing anything thoughtful.

@IceyLoco A prostitute isn't necessarily having "financial woes" she is just earning money through an unconventional route. By that logic, every single person who's ever paid somebody is exploiting them by taking advantage of their desire for money. Giving somebody money to do certain tasks is a simplified version of the barter system if you think about it. If there's something you can't do yourself, just give the other person something that they want, and they'll do something you want.

Wikipedia is actually a pretty good source contrary to what a lot of people think. Everything published to Wikipedia is coming from somewhere as they are required to source their material which is then approved by other writers who check those sources and decide if they are accurate. I don't think Wikipedia is anymore likely to get something wrong than any other source.

For the first time in my history as a user of TUSCL, I've had to put someone on ignore because he has proven himself time and time again that he is incapable of contributing in a thoughtful way to discussions and is just trying to aggravate people.

I used the example of the Iraqi police/military casualties in Mosul to illustrate the kind of the things that caused me to lose faith in certain things. But yes, I'm obviously aware that some statistics are more reliable than others and that information from a warzone is less likely to be reliable. And there's logical reasons why I believed one statistic over the other.

No I think the stats compiled by the FBI from dangerous neighborhoods are probably accurate. The police investigate every case of homicide and determine what it is. The only thing is that some homicides may be doctored afterward to look like suicides or accidents in which case it won't be considered a homicide. My guess is actually that the stats make it look less dangerous than it really is instead of more. Once again, SirLDK is just trolling.

No I have just noticed that often times, things get doctored. Let's look at another example... Almost all the information regarding number of casualties and troop numbers in this article is false... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mosul_(2016%E2%80%932017) I want to direct your attention specifically to the information saying that 1,200-1,400 Iraqi soldiers were killed in the entire battle of Mosul. This is not only false, it is way way off base. In December, the UN reported that 2,000 Iraqi soldiers had been killed just in the month of November. The battle of Mosul went on for 9 months and caused massive casualties to the invading Iraqi forces. However, the Iraqi government was infuriated at the UN for publishing these statistics and told them they were "bolstering the spirit of the enemy." So the UN rescinded their statistics and stopped reporting on the dead completely per the government's request. https://www.cnn.com/2016/12/02/middleeast/iraq-mosul-battle-isis/index.html https://civiliansinconflict.org/publications/policy/policy-brief-civilian-protection-current-mosul-campaign/#section4 "Iraqi forces have sustained heavy casualties from ISIS VBIED and ambushes when they pushed forward without properly clearing and securing areas.34 More than 2,000 Iraqi special forces were killed in November 2016.35 The Iraqi military command has ordered that no casualty figures be disclosed until the offensive is finished." This report was later made from an independent source. https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20170223-mosul-ops-7000-iraq-troops-killed-by-daesh/ In addition, if you go back to the Wikipedia article. The Iraqi commanders are claiming to have killed anywhere from 7,000 ISIS militants to 25,000. This is despite reports from US and Iraqi sources before the battle even begun that there were only 5,000 ISIS militants in the city to begin with. How could they have killed more militants than were even inside the city? Furthermore, how the hell did the Iraqi soldiers, assuming their reports on their own casualties were in-fact, true, manage to kill 5-15 militants for every one of their own soldiers getting killed, while attacking a massive city riddled with mines, suicide bombers, and car bombs? Almost every general thoroughout history has noticed that if a besieging force almost always needs a minimum of outnumbering the enemy 3 to 1 in order to launch a successful assault against a fortified city but often times the attackers need to outnumber the defenders 5 to 1 because of the prediction that an assault on a fortified settlement will result in major casualties for the attackers. If an attacking general manages to conquer a fortified settlement with numbers of soldiers less than that, it is purely a result of tactical brilliance because that rarely works. The advantage that being in a fortified settlement gives you over an attacking army is enormous.

Ironic statement coming from the guy who just advocated people stop using their brains and act based on instinct.

Basically, I look at research studies now and use them as a starting point. After that I try to think about whether it makes logical sense and then look up personal anecdotes. If both confirm the same story. I think its probably true. If there are major differentiations between what is reported in the study vs what people on the ground are saying is true, however, I feel I have reason to be suspicious of it.

Yeah I saw the contradiction while I was writing it, but it does make logical sense, and its something that has been confirmed by many people who have worked closely with violent criminals. I have lost faith in research studies even though I love using them. I naturally want to use them because it provides me an easy answer to everything I wonder about. But at the same time, some are so far off base that I realized I can't trust all of them.

There's also the fact that the most extreme forms of violence are present because smaller, more frequent forms of violence in unsafe areas are very common. Wherever you see more homicide you will also see more fighting in schools, more bar fights, more abusive parenting. Violence exists as a culture and it starts small. 100% of violent inmates surveyed at San Quentin suffered from extreme levels of violence in their home life growing up from their parents. 100%. That's an astonishing number. 69% of juvenile delinquints experienced extreme violence growing up and 31% experienced severe violence at the hands of their parents. A violent criminal who did not have a violent home life is extremely rare. I am not making excuses for them, but who is worse, the criminal or the person who made the criminal who he is?

@IceyLoco Well I certainly do not want women being subservient, I do rail against that. I'm trying to fight against the idea that relationships need a dominant and submissive partner. I'm trying to help people understand the benefits of a system that has different roles but equal value. "World doesn’t have to be complicated, just gotta try your hardest to turn off that part of your brain that thinks." Absolutely not, that is the complete opposite of what people should be doing. Idiots who don't think have ruined this world throughout history and continue to try and ruin it. If people used their brains more often we would be able to make change happen quickly and setup a system that benefits the highest percentage of people. Stop thinking like an animal, think like a robot or a computer.

@SJG even being somebody who can't help but see sex as being something of scarcity, I can tell you that I want to spend approximately two hours every day, on average, doing sexual things with girls. It can be sex itself, it can be making out on the couch, it doesn't matter. It can be every other day, but if its every other day I want it to be a TLN. I want to go to sleep with a girl in my bed with me on a regular basis and wake up to her pretty face in the morning. That's my goal and that's why one night stands will never allow me to reach that goal.

@IceyLoco That's because expectations of femininity don't pressure women to be thuggish, power-seeking, tough, or selfish. The current expectations of femininity are already socially constructive. Being empathetic, nurturing, compassionate, and sweet are considered feminine qualities. These are already good qualities, so there's no point in trying to change them, in-fact, changing them would probably lead to problems. While I don't expect the majority of men to become as emotional as girls are, I deride some of the current expectations because they are pushing men into roles that are bad for the community at large. I don't actually claim that we shouldn't have gender expectations. I actually think that men and women seem naturally inclined to find differences with the way we act. I just disagree on what those gender expectations should be. The example I used with Ancient Greece was to show you that masculinity is subjective and determined by what we, as humans, choose to make it. I'm not saying that we should start considering it manly to fuck each other in the ass. I don't want to fuck another man in the ass that's not the point. The point is that you are treating what is currently seen as "manly" as what is inherent to masculinity. Now men are usually just not as emotional as girls are. There may in-fact be some biological truth to this. But that doesn't mean we can't have men in socially constructive roles and this is why I think the role of the family's breadwinner is the most socially constructive expectation of masculinity that we have created so far. Given that the breadwinner role isn't entirely outdated yet, we still have time to bring that back. But I would go further and say that becoming the family's breadwinner should be the primary expectation. While it may be difficult to entirely eliminate the expectation that men should be tough or callous or whatever, we put breadwinner as the most important role and as being better than toughness. Right now there are men who are hitting it and quitting it, knocking up women and think they are the manliest guys around because they actually consider disrespecting women to be manly, they consider it manly to be selfish, and to only care about yourself. That's what we should be changing.

Reliable statistics can be difficult to find I will agree with that. Sometimes even statistics that look reliable are not. That's why I've now thought that its important to gain personal experience and then see if it lines up with what statistical data supports. In high school I used to trust statistics and research data over everything. But there have been so many cases in my life where I've seen the results of a "research study" that made absolutely no sense at all which made me lose faith in the information gathering methods. A really recent example of this actually just came up... I'm taking a course right now that's teaching us how to use technology and different programs to create podcasts and animated videos and stuff like that. Well, during the readings of one of those courses, they said the average college student spends most of their time on the computer studying instead of playing videos games or going on social media. It then goes on to say the average college student studies 2-4 hours per day as opposed to 1-2 hours of recreational online time. I'm sorry but, I have been around enough college students to be well aware of what our study habits actually look like. And I know for a fact that the majority of college students have atrocious studying habits. I have a 3.3 GPA and I also have atrocious studying habits. 2-4 hours per day? The reality is more like 2-5 hours per week. I've seen scores of students who basically do absolutely nothing. The only people who work hard in college are the overachievers who feel like they have to get straight As and are terrified of disappointing their parents. And even then, I know some kids who can get straight As with almost no effort. I also know for a fact that a lot of students have told me they lie on those very same surveys about their studying habits because they don't want the school or their professors to know how little they study. I hate to say it, but I've lied on those surveys too. I even commented on this "study" to several other students and they called it fake news because we all know that's not true. Another thing is that despite researchers thinking their studies show a lot of underage drinking in college. They actually underestimate it. Studies often say that 80% of college students under 21 drink, I've even seen some studies claiming only 60% of college students do but that's just laughable. My professor however, did an unofficial survey of our sociology class one time and asked how many students regularly drink alcohol and 95% of the class said yes. And this is a required gen-ed class of primarily freshmen and sophomore students that everybody has to take with over 100 students taking that course. Almost nobody in there claimed to be a sociology major so you can't just say sociology majors drink a lot. Furthermore, my professor said he does this survey every year and that the answer is always about the same. If you were to look up the official statistics for how many students at my school drink though, it claims that its 85%. There are many other examples which has caused me to lose faith but this post would be even longer than it already is.

Karl Marx for example railed against the bourgeois even more than he did against the aristocracy. He did this because what we now define as middle class was more so seen as kind of rich back then.

Poverty doesn't necessarily exist because wealth exists. While yes there is a limited amount of resources to go around, a society in general can become more resource rich and "wealthy." Consider the fact that the average American actually has a much higher standard of living than kings did in the 19th century. Not more space necessarily or a bigger household, but better healthcare, more variety of entertainment options, as well as the comfort of heating and air conditioning. You're better off being poor in America during the 21st century than middle class in Medieval Times. Resources richness occurs because of the advance of technology. The more technology advances, the more we are able to produce more resources with less effort. The percentage of people who lived in poverty during the 18th and 19th centuries was around 60%. Poverty wasn't even weird, it was the norm. Most people were poor. The middle class would've been seen as being lowkey rich whereas middle class today is the norm. So theoretically, poverty can actually be eliminated if society became resource rich enough. That can only occur through technological progress though, otherwise, its up to us to figure out how best to distribute the resources we do have.

Under a nuclear family, domination and submission will not be a part of relationships. It will just be "I have this role, you have this role, both of our roles are equally important and valid to ensuring the healthy development of our children."

"Manliness" is so fucking subjective you have no idea IceyLoco and lots of people here seem to have no idea either. You know there's been many times in history when sexual restraint was considered manly? Women were considered to have an extremely overactive sex drive and to constantly crave sex while they thought men were the ones who could restrain themselves and that having casual sex was feminine? Ancient Greece thought that fucking another man was the manliest thing you could do and that guys who wanted to fuck women wanted to because they were more similar to a woman and related to them better on an emotional level. There's nothing inherently masculine about having good seduction skills. Certain cultures consider that kind of behavior sleazy and a sign of a bad father. I'm not the same as a feminist in saying that because gender is subjective that we should just eliminate gender roles entirely. I'm more of the opinion that we should define gender roles in a socially constructive way and that certain things which are being considered "manly" right now are really just being a fucking asshole. Instead we should go back to a nuclear family definition of masculinity. The man's duty in a family is to be a breadwinner, have a job, and make money so that his family can have a good life. Because certain people are trying to strip this away from men though, and because so many men are abandoning their responsibilities as a father by knocking up women and running away, a lot of men are reverting back to this primitive idea of masculinity instead which posits that being "manly" requires you to be tough, unemotional, selfish, and to have a callous, dominating, and uncaring attitude towards women. This is "hypermasculinity," and its a bad thing. So you also have a lot of men who see masculinity becoming defined as this and want nothing to do with it so they are opting out entirely. Instead, we should define the role of masculinity as being caring about the woman in your life, about your family and children, and as somebody who will do anything to give them the best life possible. That's a socially constructive way of defining masculinity.

Tl;rd The webcomic is trying to act like he's got this sleazy thought process when his actions indicate otherwise.

How is that not the ending one would hope for?? At that point the webcomic people are just making shit up so that it'll look like her decision makes sense when it doesn't. Two people who have a deeper connection than they've felt with anybody else are now together? That's like the ending of every romance movie ever. I can't even count the number of people I know who've told me that the best relationships are born out of friendships. And its sleazy somehow for him to be there for her when nobody else was? To comfort her when she is going through breakups? To build a connection with her and being an easy romantic option for her because she already knows who he is and will feel comfortable enough that it will feel smooth and natural without anybody having to be hurt? So that she knows he is committed to her and won't just fuck and run off? The webcomic exposes the exact reason actually why guys in friendships don't reveal their feelings is because most girls assume that if a guy has romantic feelings for a girl that he is incapable of having a normal friendship with her and get awkward. Or they treat "i like you" as an ultimatum. This has to be romantic or it will be non-existent. Nice guys are just seeing the relationship very fluidly. Most guys doing this just like the girl and want to be around her or just enjoy talking to her, which translates to romantic feelings as well, but they don't want to ruin the friendship by forcing the issue. And yes, its legitimate to not want to force the issue. I've seen some girls online say they've had good friendships with guys before that they really enjoyed, and knew the guy liked them, but hoped they never confessed their feelings because then she would have to decide between dating him and not being friends with him. That's what nice guys are trying to avoid is forcing you to make that decision, they'd rather just continue having a friendship and let you decide when you want to date him or if you ever do. And they do get frustrated when she dates assholes for the same reason that anybody would, because you don't want somebody you like and care about to be with an asshole. You want her to be with somebody who is nice to her and won't hurt her. If anything, trying to make it all about romance immediately is the awkward part. Dating somebody you just met feels weird, its a lot of pressure, and pretty much nobody acts like themselves on a first date. The first date essentially amounts to an interview if you date somebody you didn't have a friendship with beforehand. There's also the fact that no girl wants to make the first meeting with you a "date" because everybody thinks its awkward. The creators of this webcomic don't seem to understand that human relationships progress best when they evolve. When you skip steps in a human relationship, you increase the chances that it will fail or go badly. Good relationships are formed by going through every step of the process and not rushing it until you get to the end. At any point in the process if you decide that's far enough and you can't emotionally go any further with this person is when you stop. Nice guys will be hopeful if they notice things are progressing slowly but steadily, if they see that they've reached an end and things aren't gonna go any further, its up to them to decide if they are satisfied with that kind of relationship or need to move on. But there's no need to make things about romance and dating immediately from the start just because you're interested in somebody. Having a friendship can be a much more natural way of going through the "dating process" than the way a lot of people date. Also, I don't usually talk shit about female friends' boyfriends. I think I only had one female friend of mine who's boyfriend I criticized because he was mad at her for hanging out with other guys so he started posting pictures on his snapchat of him flirting with other girls to make her jealous. Pretty much all the girls I've been friends with have dated pretty decent, respectable guys though. Usually I just don't become friends with girls who's values don't align with mine to a certain extent.