Upload
Login or register

splinfinity

Last status update:
-
Date Signed Up:12/30/2010
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#10983
Highest Content Rank:#1798
Highest Comment Rank:#2311
Content Thumbs: 5397 total,  6440 ,  1043
Comment Thumbs: 4605 total,  5244 ,  639
Content Level Progress: 95% (95/100)
Level 153 Content: Faptastic → Level 154 Content: Faptastic
Comment Level Progress: 68.99% (69/100)
Level 243 Comments: Doinitrite → Level 244 Comments: Doinitrite
Subscribers:3
Content Views:216778
Times Content Favorited:198 times
Total Comments Made:1577
FJ Points:10020
Favorite Tags: Doctor Who (3) | girlfriend (2) | PENGUIN (2)

latest user's comments

#34 - You sneaky **** that's brilliant 04/20/2015 on Oy Vey 0
#40 - Hey, there was that one Disney one about the black chick who b…  [+] (3 new replies) 04/18/2015 on Sinbad: Legend of the Seven... +7
User avatar
#72 - nickelakon (04/18/2015) [-]
Disney's last hand drawn movie was Treasure Planet, since the the art has been made using computer. Even treasure planet wasn't completely hand drawn, the characters were but the scenery was all CG, which made it pretty interesting because they were able to use 2-D in a 3-D space for the movie. After that the drawing even was done computer based.
#128 - theruse (04/18/2015) [-]
Actually, the last one was Winnie the Pooh in 2011. Uneducated swine.
User avatar
#127 - elsanna (04/18/2015) [-]
I was pretty sure the last Winnie the Pooh movie they did was hand drawn.
#123 - I guess that my question there is whether that's the instituti…  [+] (5 new replies) 04/16/2015 on Suck it Sarkeesian 0
User avatar
#125 - thirdjess (04/16/2015) [-]
It definitely is the judge being sexist, but because it seems to happen more often than not makes it institutionalised. The only structuralist sexism I can think of off the top of my head is that men have to pay child support, which I don't necessarily disagree with.
#159 - sirpnie (04/17/2015) [-]
I don't particularly disagree with men having to pay child support but my friend who lives with his mom and then lives with his dad. You know going back and forth between the houses because of law stuff. But his dad lets say he makes around 40-50k a year I think. And his mom makes around 100k a year. The dad takes care of him half the time. Now why does he have to pay child support? That doesn't make sense to me. He does though.
User avatar
#202 - thirdjess (04/17/2015) [-]
At least in Australia, the more time you spend with your child the less you have to pay because the more you'd be paying in food and general health. But the 'secondary' parent would still have to pay a minimal amount to the 'primary' parent to cover things like doctors visits, school supplies and so on.
#220 - sirpnie (04/18/2015) [-]
I see. I don't really have anything more to ask about. Nothing else that isn't just personal bias maybe. But thanks for the reply.
User avatar
#221 - thirdjess (04/18/2015) [-]
That's what I'm here for
#114 - "Diet bias." I enjoy that term, might have to steal …  [+] (7 new replies) 04/16/2015 on Suck it Sarkeesian 0
User avatar
#122 - thirdjess (04/16/2015) [-]
Well institutionalised sexism means that this reinforced opinion has made it's way into corporate bodies. Like a judge will tend to reward custody to the mother over the father because of the reinforced opinion that women are the caring ones - that's institutionalised sexism.
User avatar
#123 - splinfinity (04/16/2015) [-]
I guess that my question there is whether that's the institution being sexist, or the judge. Like I said, I tend to take an individualistic view of such things, rather than a structuralist view. I believe that's where most of the differences lie; feminism seems to be heavily reliant upon structuralist theories.
User avatar
#125 - thirdjess (04/16/2015) [-]
It definitely is the judge being sexist, but because it seems to happen more often than not makes it institutionalised. The only structuralist sexism I can think of off the top of my head is that men have to pay child support, which I don't necessarily disagree with.
#159 - sirpnie (04/17/2015) [-]
I don't particularly disagree with men having to pay child support but my friend who lives with his mom and then lives with his dad. You know going back and forth between the houses because of law stuff. But his dad lets say he makes around 40-50k a year I think. And his mom makes around 100k a year. The dad takes care of him half the time. Now why does he have to pay child support? That doesn't make sense to me. He does though.
User avatar
#202 - thirdjess (04/17/2015) [-]
At least in Australia, the more time you spend with your child the less you have to pay because the more you'd be paying in food and general health. But the 'secondary' parent would still have to pay a minimal amount to the 'primary' parent to cover things like doctors visits, school supplies and so on.
#220 - sirpnie (04/18/2015) [-]
I see. I don't really have anything more to ask about. Nothing else that isn't just personal bias maybe. But thanks for the reply.
User avatar
#221 - thirdjess (04/18/2015) [-]
That's what I'm here for
#96 - Generally, the view of how societies develop "institution…  [+] (9 new replies) 04/16/2015 on Suck it Sarkeesian 0
User avatar
#102 - thirdjess (04/16/2015) [-]
It's not so much institutionalised opinions (though this is something that influences modern culture) but more so reinforced opinions. Things that we've 'known to be true' for generations, like women make good mothers and men want to bone all the time. We have a list of things women do, and a list of things men do. And that's not really healthy for a modern society.

You're absolutely right about misogyny but the same can be applied to racism, classism and so on. Racism that isn't based on hatred, I like to call 'diet racism', and similarly 'diet misogyny'.
User avatar
#114 - splinfinity (04/16/2015) [-]
"Diet bias." I enjoy that term, might have to steal it. Theft is the highest form of flattery, after all. I think I have to disagree with you slightly, though; much of what I've read discusses things like "institutionalized sexism," which seems to be the (perhaps unintentional) institutionalization of biased opinions in people, rather than merely reinforcing such opinions. Alternatively, this might be a distinction between various people and thinkers within feminism which I'm not familiar with.
User avatar
#122 - thirdjess (04/16/2015) [-]
Well institutionalised sexism means that this reinforced opinion has made it's way into corporate bodies. Like a judge will tend to reward custody to the mother over the father because of the reinforced opinion that women are the caring ones - that's institutionalised sexism.
User avatar
#123 - splinfinity (04/16/2015) [-]
I guess that my question there is whether that's the institution being sexist, or the judge. Like I said, I tend to take an individualistic view of such things, rather than a structuralist view. I believe that's where most of the differences lie; feminism seems to be heavily reliant upon structuralist theories.
User avatar
#125 - thirdjess (04/16/2015) [-]
It definitely is the judge being sexist, but because it seems to happen more often than not makes it institutionalised. The only structuralist sexism I can think of off the top of my head is that men have to pay child support, which I don't necessarily disagree with.
#159 - sirpnie (04/17/2015) [-]
I don't particularly disagree with men having to pay child support but my friend who lives with his mom and then lives with his dad. You know going back and forth between the houses because of law stuff. But his dad lets say he makes around 40-50k a year I think. And his mom makes around 100k a year. The dad takes care of him half the time. Now why does he have to pay child support? That doesn't make sense to me. He does though.
User avatar
#202 - thirdjess (04/17/2015) [-]
At least in Australia, the more time you spend with your child the less you have to pay because the more you'd be paying in food and general health. But the 'secondary' parent would still have to pay a minimal amount to the 'primary' parent to cover things like doctors visits, school supplies and so on.
#220 - sirpnie (04/18/2015) [-]
I see. I don't really have anything more to ask about. Nothing else that isn't just personal bias maybe. But thanks for the reply.
User avatar
#221 - thirdjess (04/18/2015) [-]
That's what I'm here for
#90 - Sounds fair, about my assessment of both sides. Each have well…  [+] (11 new replies) 04/16/2015 on Suck it Sarkeesian 0
User avatar
#92 - thirdjess (04/16/2015) [-]
Anything specific?
User avatar
#96 - splinfinity (04/16/2015) [-]
Generally, the view of how societies develop "institutionalized" opinions. I believe it's more accurate to view the world as containing myriad individuals, many of whom may have errant personal opinions. Individualistic v. structuralist/societal viewpoints. Also, I generally have issue with the use of the word "misogyny" since its literal meaning is the hatred of women; I believe it is too strong a word to describe potential inherent biases. For example, the person who thinks "all women are cheating whores" is a misogynist, whereas the person who thinks "women are best suited for home-work and parenting" is biased (and yes, both opinions are in error), in my opinion. In a way, it's an active v. passive dichotomy, although I believe that might make the distinction a shade too simplistic.
User avatar
#102 - thirdjess (04/16/2015) [-]
It's not so much institutionalised opinions (though this is something that influences modern culture) but more so reinforced opinions. Things that we've 'known to be true' for generations, like women make good mothers and men want to bone all the time. We have a list of things women do, and a list of things men do. And that's not really healthy for a modern society.

You're absolutely right about misogyny but the same can be applied to racism, classism and so on. Racism that isn't based on hatred, I like to call 'diet racism', and similarly 'diet misogyny'.
User avatar
#114 - splinfinity (04/16/2015) [-]
"Diet bias." I enjoy that term, might have to steal it. Theft is the highest form of flattery, after all. I think I have to disagree with you slightly, though; much of what I've read discusses things like "institutionalized sexism," which seems to be the (perhaps unintentional) institutionalization of biased opinions in people, rather than merely reinforcing such opinions. Alternatively, this might be a distinction between various people and thinkers within feminism which I'm not familiar with.
User avatar
#122 - thirdjess (04/16/2015) [-]
Well institutionalised sexism means that this reinforced opinion has made it's way into corporate bodies. Like a judge will tend to reward custody to the mother over the father because of the reinforced opinion that women are the caring ones - that's institutionalised sexism.
User avatar
#123 - splinfinity (04/16/2015) [-]
I guess that my question there is whether that's the institution being sexist, or the judge. Like I said, I tend to take an individualistic view of such things, rather than a structuralist view. I believe that's where most of the differences lie; feminism seems to be heavily reliant upon structuralist theories.
User avatar
#125 - thirdjess (04/16/2015) [-]
It definitely is the judge being sexist, but because it seems to happen more often than not makes it institutionalised. The only structuralist sexism I can think of off the top of my head is that men have to pay child support, which I don't necessarily disagree with.
#159 - sirpnie (04/17/2015) [-]
I don't particularly disagree with men having to pay child support but my friend who lives with his mom and then lives with his dad. You know going back and forth between the houses because of law stuff. But his dad lets say he makes around 40-50k a year I think. And his mom makes around 100k a year. The dad takes care of him half the time. Now why does he have to pay child support? That doesn't make sense to me. He does though.
User avatar
#202 - thirdjess (04/17/2015) [-]
At least in Australia, the more time you spend with your child the less you have to pay because the more you'd be paying in food and general health. But the 'secondary' parent would still have to pay a minimal amount to the 'primary' parent to cover things like doctors visits, school supplies and so on.
#220 - sirpnie (04/18/2015) [-]
I see. I don't really have anything more to ask about. Nothing else that isn't just personal bias maybe. But thanks for the reply.
User avatar
#221 - thirdjess (04/18/2015) [-]
That's what I'm here for
#88 - What're your thoughts about MRA's/Men's Right's Groups/Meninists/etc.?  [+] (13 new replies) 04/16/2015 on Suck it Sarkeesian +1
User avatar
#89 - thirdjess (04/16/2015) [-]
They have a bad rep just like we do. A lot of them are very logical, very decent people who want a lot of the same things for society that I do. Some of them are crazy ass neckbeards that bitch about womens shelters and expect mens shelters to appear magically without any effort on their part.
User avatar
#90 - splinfinity (04/16/2015) [-]
Sounds fair, about my assessment of both sides. Each have well-intentioned people, as well as complete wackjobs. Cards on table, I tend to disagree a fair amount with the scholarship of modern feminism; I do think that most people who consider themselves "feminists" are well-meaning, though.
User avatar
#92 - thirdjess (04/16/2015) [-]
Anything specific?
User avatar
#96 - splinfinity (04/16/2015) [-]
Generally, the view of how societies develop "institutionalized" opinions. I believe it's more accurate to view the world as containing myriad individuals, many of whom may have errant personal opinions. Individualistic v. structuralist/societal viewpoints. Also, I generally have issue with the use of the word "misogyny" since its literal meaning is the hatred of women; I believe it is too strong a word to describe potential inherent biases. For example, the person who thinks "all women are cheating whores" is a misogynist, whereas the person who thinks "women are best suited for home-work and parenting" is biased (and yes, both opinions are in error), in my opinion. In a way, it's an active v. passive dichotomy, although I believe that might make the distinction a shade too simplistic.
User avatar
#102 - thirdjess (04/16/2015) [-]
It's not so much institutionalised opinions (though this is something that influences modern culture) but more so reinforced opinions. Things that we've 'known to be true' for generations, like women make good mothers and men want to bone all the time. We have a list of things women do, and a list of things men do. And that's not really healthy for a modern society.

You're absolutely right about misogyny but the same can be applied to racism, classism and so on. Racism that isn't based on hatred, I like to call 'diet racism', and similarly 'diet misogyny'.
User avatar
#114 - splinfinity (04/16/2015) [-]
"Diet bias." I enjoy that term, might have to steal it. Theft is the highest form of flattery, after all. I think I have to disagree with you slightly, though; much of what I've read discusses things like "institutionalized sexism," which seems to be the (perhaps unintentional) institutionalization of biased opinions in people, rather than merely reinforcing such opinions. Alternatively, this might be a distinction between various people and thinkers within feminism which I'm not familiar with.
User avatar
#122 - thirdjess (04/16/2015) [-]
Well institutionalised sexism means that this reinforced opinion has made it's way into corporate bodies. Like a judge will tend to reward custody to the mother over the father because of the reinforced opinion that women are the caring ones - that's institutionalised sexism.
User avatar
#123 - splinfinity (04/16/2015) [-]
I guess that my question there is whether that's the institution being sexist, or the judge. Like I said, I tend to take an individualistic view of such things, rather than a structuralist view. I believe that's where most of the differences lie; feminism seems to be heavily reliant upon structuralist theories.
User avatar
#125 - thirdjess (04/16/2015) [-]
It definitely is the judge being sexist, but because it seems to happen more often than not makes it institutionalised. The only structuralist sexism I can think of off the top of my head is that men have to pay child support, which I don't necessarily disagree with.
#159 - sirpnie (04/17/2015) [-]
I don't particularly disagree with men having to pay child support but my friend who lives with his mom and then lives with his dad. You know going back and forth between the houses because of law stuff. But his dad lets say he makes around 40-50k a year I think. And his mom makes around 100k a year. The dad takes care of him half the time. Now why does he have to pay child support? That doesn't make sense to me. He does though.
User avatar
#202 - thirdjess (04/17/2015) [-]
At least in Australia, the more time you spend with your child the less you have to pay because the more you'd be paying in food and general health. But the 'secondary' parent would still have to pay a minimal amount to the 'primary' parent to cover things like doctors visits, school supplies and so on.
#220 - sirpnie (04/18/2015) [-]
I see. I don't really have anything more to ask about. Nothing else that isn't just personal bias maybe. But thanks for the reply.
User avatar
#221 - thirdjess (04/18/2015) [-]
That's what I'm here for
#252 - Sure, could be interesting. FYI, you're probably gonna get a b… 04/16/2015 on Do You Wanna Ask an Escort? 0
#37 - **splinfinity used "*roll picture*"** **splinfinity rolled … 04/12/2015 on hot girls comp 0
#32 - Is making fun of joshlol still a thing? I didn't think that wa…  [+] (2 new replies) 03/31/2015 on a bundle of sticks 0
#34 - phanactssonjoe (03/31/2015) [-]
User avatar
#38 - mymommasallama (03/31/2015) [-]
yes. i see your point