A Person Uses Transgender Law To Expose Gender Discrimination

[Dizchu]

Ohey, look at that, dismissing someone's argument because of its source. Glad to see you being the bigger person!

What's wrong with doing that, exactly? I personally would never consider reading a biology paper by a young-Earth creationist, I would never read an astronomy piece by a geocentrist, I wouldn't look to Roosh V for dating advice... that's completely reasonable. Everyone has biases, and many of those biases exist for good reasons. It's why I never read anything published on Buzzfeed or Breitbart, they're so ideologically-driven, sensationalist and vapid that I'd rather get information elsewhere. Even if it's the same information, at least I can be assured that I'd get a more accurate picture if I got it from a more reliable source.

It's not fallacious to do this, it's just healthy skepticism.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Ohey, look at that, dismissing someone's argument because of its source. Glad to see you being the bigger person!

What's wrong with doing that, exactly? I personally would never consider reading a biology paper by a young-Earth creationist, I would never read an astronomy piece by a geocentrist, I wouldn't look to Roosh V for dating advice... that's completely reasonable. Everyone has biases, and many of those biases exist for good reasons. It's why I never read anything published on Buzzfeed or Breitbart, they're so ideologically-driven, sensationalist and vapid that I'd rather get information elsewhere. Even if it's the same information, at least I can be assured that I'd get a more accurate picture if I got it from a more reliable source.

It's not fallacious to do this, it's just healthy skepticism.

It's the dishonesty of certain arguments, when people demand you have to give equal consideration to an opposing argument, especially when that argument is objectively bullshit. Like when someone demands an internet type MRA twitter slacktivist be heard, when his whole history is about talking about how awful women are. Another fine example is when people argue against trans folk's biologically driven identities using disproved TERF, "gender critical", or biological essentialist sources.

 

[Adeptus Aspartem]

We've diffrent kinds of mediocre clubs everyone gets in that doesn't violate the dresscode. And all our places are geared for locals and the more popular ones obviously have huge lines and basically every club as at least 1 ladies night a month in my city.
Basically everyone i know goes to a club to dance & drink with friends. That's it. So i'm okay with shellin' out 30-40 bucks if there's a special DJ or a life performance but some clubs even want +20 on a regular day as an entry fee. And that's just ridiculous.

Ehhh ... more and more people are pre-drinking before going out to clubs now. Of course this is a vicious cycle. Because the more that clubs charge, the more people will likely pre-drink before going out. There's better ways to make rent than merely an entry fee. Namely, make sure you have decent entertainment, a fairly low entry fee (relative to other venues), and merely have marginal price increases on service heavy drinks or advertise drinks with low service times and high returns. Like shots as chasers.

But the government has to waltz in, here ... and start dictating terms on that, also.

(Edit) Get your clientele 'happy enough' (never, ever, say drunk) and they won't be able to remember exactly how you charged for specific things. They'll just remember how much they're out of pocket when they look at their bank balance or wallet the next day. And they'll likely judge the post night out economic pains as worth it or not based on that. There are advantages to large entry fees ... namely it keeps out a lot of riff raff, reducing overheads in other ways (reduction in security, etc) ... it also allows you to tailor entertainment costs to the general vibe of the people within. If you feel like the venue is loving it, you can count on a lot of future clientele yet again, and by entry fees also better assess future rates of return.

I wouldn't have the energy to do that again.

Oh jeah, totally. I can drink quite a lot so if i'd only drink in the club i'd be broke in a jiffy. Well, now that me and most of my friends are either already 30 or closing in on it, if we go clubbin' we usually meet up for a nice dinner before hand and then we'll be drunk beforehand anyway.
If i drink in a club it's usually pure shots, because even when drunk i'll still want a good value proposition

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Oh jeah, totally. I can drink quite a lot so if i'd only drink in the club i'd be broke in a jiffy. Well, now that me and most of my friends are either already 30 or closing in on it, if we go clubbin' we usually meet up for a nice dinner before hand and then we'll be drunk beforehand anyway.
If i drink in a club it's usually pure shots, because even when drunk i'll still want a good value proposition

Well, shots made us a good deal of profit from that side of things. Also, back then, everybody who didn't do shots did simple mixer + spirit readily enough. Red Bull and vodka, that sort of thing. High income after revenue. Shots were good. Nobody did them by themselves... nobody stopped at one... and low spill hazard. Easy service, and the best profit margins.

 

[Helter Skelter]

You're trying to have a conversation with someone who doesn't even know that 'the grass is always greener..."? Someone who thinks that "ladies night" is presumably some kind of social justice movement, and not the sad attempt to get ANY women into a bar/club (and thereby draw men who will try to buy them drinks) that it is. All in relation to an article which is presenting people choosing to buy drinks for someone (almost always in the hopes of fucking them) as a societal problem.

When the argument from someone is that they're under the terrible burden of not enough free drinks, in a space that's normally occupied with one side talking about rape and money, and the other suicide and risky jobs, this is a fucking joke.

That's exactly it. Hell, "Ladies Night" buys into the same social paradigm. "Ladies Night" exists, like you said, to draw in women, because they draw men to the establishment, who are then presumed to spend more money. In fact, anything where the bar is forgoing money, including the likes of "Happy Hour" is about getting people into the establishment so they'll pay more later. "Ladies Night" is just another expression of the fact that men are expected to earn money, and then they're expected to pursue women, and attempt to use money to do so. It's not some special cause, it's literally a business strategy that buys into expectations.

Yes it's dumb, but it's dumb in exactly the same way that everything else is.

Even if bars were forced to do away with it, they'd still try to do it in some way to bring in women, to try to bring in men, under this bullshit social contract which says that men are supposed to try to buy drinks for women. Like, if you've realised that's bullshit, there's a simple fucking solution. Stop buying drinks for women. You don't have to pay for shit unless you choose to, if you've realised it's bullshit, then don't buy into it. So what if someone else is getting a free drink, you're not going to give them a reason to. It literally doesn't matter, unless you choose to waste your time.

I'm always amazed by the so-called anti-SJW people who talk about freedom and a war against authoritarianism and censorship, or telling a business how to do business...

...and then they turn around and do all of those things when it suits them. It's like they never realized that a non-binary "Don't also be an asshole" choice was available to them.

Ohey, look at that, dismissing someone's argument because of its source. Glad to see you being the bigger person!

What's wrong with doing that, exactly? I personally would never consider reading a biology paper by a young-Earth creationist, I would never read an astronomy piece by a geocentrist, I wouldn't look to Roosh V for dating advice... that's completely reasonable. Everyone has biases, and many of those biases exist for good reasons. It's why I never read anything published on Buzzfeed or Breitbart, they're so ideologically-driven, sensationalist and vapid that I'd rather get information elsewhere. Even if it's the same information, at least I can be assured that I'd get a more accurate picture if I got it from a more reliable source.

It's not fallacious to do this, it's just healthy skepticism.

I don't know, I think unless you've really read all of his work, you shouldn't leap to conclusions about that Stalin fellow's view on governance. "Please ignore the source" is one of the things that comes when people don't understand that's the opposite of the appeal to authority.

Lot of false dichotomies going around.