I think you misunderstand. Whatever extra appeal you have to potential partners from having other people who "chose you (among others)" may be effectively negated because you're unwilling to abandon those others for the new partner. The people you attract probably don't want to share you.
So you and the person you were responding to can both be right. You're made "more attractive" but the "pool of women willing to date [you still] evaporates.
> It's not hyperbole. If you're not allowed to hold a job because you're female, how is that much better than slavery?
You serious? Just to point out a few of the glaring problems with your position:
1) you're essentially offering up a straw man to over-broadly condemn a wide range of social practices (which you haven't demonstrated much understanding of);
2) your general assertion that married women (globally, I assume) were generally not allowed to "hold a job" is questionable on many levels (for instance, on a family farm, do you think the husband had a "job" but the wife did not?);
3) if you weren't aware: slaves are legally property that can be bought, sold, and killed if it suited their master, serfs weren't slaves and neither were wives.
> If you can't call it marriage, the group denied that right is second class, full stop.
People can use different terms to distinguish between different things, but that doesn't necessarily make any of those things "second class," full stop.
>> he's honest with potential partners about being in an existing open relationship then the pool of women willing to date him evaporates
> I believe already having one or more lovers makes you much more attractive since the fact that those people chose you (among others) means you are probably a good choice.
Attractive to steal or attractive to share? That's an important and relevant difference.
No, clearly not. There are a lot more problems with the paragraph than can be solved by a simple substitution.
The root problem is that it's very hard (almost impossible) to make statements about the whole of an uncoordinated, loosely defined group that are both specific and true. Also, when you think you can easily make such statements, it probably doesn't mean that you're right but rather your thinking is being driven by biases and group-prejudice.
> Just for the record: GamerGate was 100% founded on harassing women. The "ethics in games journalism" thing was only ever a front to build popular support, which unfortunately worked. I'm happy to post more details if you're unconvinced.
GamerGate wasn't coordinated enough and lacked the centralized leadership to have been "founded" for a purpose or be a "front" to achieve specific clandestine goals.
From what I gather, it was sort of like Occupy Wall Street in that there was really no there there besides a vague ethos shared by the people who took up its flag to pursue their disparate pet causes.
> That's the literal reading at least. However since CoC violations are filtered through basically one person, personal biases will weigh heavily in how the rules are applied.
Yeah. To me, that part of the explanation read something like "we found democratic governance to be a lot of work, so we've given all our power to a dictator to make things easier for ourselves."
Democratic and consensus-based governance is hard and takes work, but there are well-understood reasons why it's a better way to run a community.
> why do we need to formally state that we should be decent human beings?
That's problematic phrasing. "Decency" is subjective and sits too high up on the pyramid of abstractions. Decent people disagree on what being decent actually means. If they're actually going to communicate, the conversation has to be about specifics.
> What a nightmarish reality to live in. You can’t trust your own parents, friends, neighbors, etc.
I think you missed my point. That's inaccurate and not what I intended to communicate.
My point was that Chinese can complain about their country among themselves, but there are social taboos against doing the same thing among foreigners. The implication is that when a foreigner asks a Chinese person what they really think about their country, they'll probably get a whitewashed version rather than their true feelings.
> except there is nothing socialist/communist about Chinese government except brand name and it can hardly weaken brand which is just running thw orst version of capitalism, EU is way more socialist/communist than China
Tell that to China.
Massive parts of their economy are state owned. IIRC, the state also has significant ownership stakes in many of its marquee companies.
> You're right, it may not have been proven but based on the amount of coverage and writing on it, there must be some truth behind it.
There has also been lots of coverage of Obama not being a natural born American, and thus an illegitimate president. Do you think that means "there must be some truth behind it?"
The kind of thinking you displayed in your comment leads to damaging nonsense like birther-ism. Don't go there.
> How do normal Chinese people feel about the things that go on?
That can be really hard to find out. Chinese culture looks down on people who criticize their own group in front of outsiders. So it's bad to truthfully criticize your family in front of a neighbor, even if you do it at home, and similarly bad to truthfully criticize your country in front of a foreigner. For an example, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuping_Yang_commencement_spee.... That student was ripped apart and called a traitor in regular media and social media, even though a lot of the things she said were true and often complained about. Add mass censorship to the mix, which denies access to honest options shared among the Chinese themselves, and it gets to be extremely difficult to get an accurate sense of true Chinese public opinion.
There are also other confounding factors: such as the CCP not emphasizing the distinction between the the government and the nation. Lots of people might not realize "you can love your country and hate your government" at the same time.