Welcome to INTJ Forum

This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, see hidden subforums, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.

Macka

Members
  • Content count

    205
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Macka

  • Rank
    Member

Personality

  • MBTI
    INTJ
  • Astrology Sign
    Cancer

Converted

  • Biography
    Kiwi INTJ with a penchant for flatwhites.
  • Location
    Melbourne, Australia
  • Occupation
    IT Security
  • Interests
    Cricket, snooker, Doctor Who, travel, Scandinavia, Germany, property investment
  • Gender
    Male
  1. Interesting comment. I'm also a man. Ask those men in war-torn countries if it's all their fault. Ask those men born into poverty if it's their fault. Sweeping generalisations such as yours don't even come to close to covering all circumstances under which men live across the world. Let's bring this back on topic: My original statement was not that men aren't privileged; rather, it was simply that feminism is not about equality -- it's for women, about women. If you point out that men are also discriminated against in this world -- and don't kid yourself, we are -- it becomes some kind of "race to the bottom", as if feminists are unable to see that men are also treated badly. "But women face....", 'It's worse for a woman..." are the beginnings of these arguments. If men are discriminated against, that's bad; if women are discriminated against, that's also bad. It's not a competition for who is treated the worst. Both are disgusting. As I mentioned in my post, I am for equality. I have told male colleagues that, "givvus a spin, luv", is not an appropriate response to a female colleague having bought a new dress. Now, let's look at some ways in which men are discriminated against. For anyone reading, I'd like to remind you that allowing yourself to acknowledge the below is completely and utterly independent of women also facing discrimination. And, yes, I know that women face more discrimination. Again, it's not a competition. 1) Men receive harsher prison sentences than women. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11/men-women-prison-sentence-length-gender-gap_n_1874742.html 2) Male victims of domestic violence are not taken seriously, despite the fact women commit between 40-50% of domestic violence. Source: Dunedin Longitudinal Study. http://dunedinstudy.otago.ac.nz/. TL;DR: https://www.buzzfeed.com/candacelowry/watch-how-people-react-when-they-see-a-woman-abuse-a-man-in#4kqqw47 3) Men have nowhere to go when they're a domestic violence victim: https://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2014/08/05/throwing-domestic-violence-victims-to-the-wolve 4) Ever been on a date? Women still expect men to pay despite wanting equality. (I encourage all men to never pay for a woman, as I do. Get that purse out, ladies, because we're going Dutch!) 5) Workplace attire. I have to wear a suit to work. Women can get away with far more casual outfits and have far more variety from which to choose. 6) Back to the serious side, far more men die at work than women. https://www.bls.gov/iif/oshcfoi1.htm#2011 7) The majority of homeless people are... you guessed it, men. I've not even going to bother with finding a source for this; we all know it's true. I look forward to your response.
  2. I very much hope your comment was a sarcastic one.
  3. I wouldn't have taken so many maths papers. I wouldn't have taken so many programming/algorithm-based papers. I wish that I'd taken some economics or finance papers to balance out the science. But my biggest regret is that I didn't look to study in Europe. I wouldn't have been mature enough, but the earlier opportunity to live in Europe and study for much, much less (or even for free) would have been amazing.
  4. Here is a couple of articles that explain the situation reasonably well: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/17/holocaust-deniers-google-search-top-spot https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/16/google-autocomplete-rightwing-bias-algorithm-political-propaganda In short: Google said it was impossible to change the search results. A journalist spoke Google's language, the language of money, and he was able to change the search results himself. Another multinational American company that has no soul, no social responsibility, and that only understands profit.
  5. INTJf has one glaring omission: There is no cricket thread... until now. (It's also a bit disappointing that there's no snooker thread, but hey, you can't have everything.) So I'll kick off the conversation: I haven't watched that much cricket in the last few years for various reasons. However, I was sitting in the MCG a few weeks ago -- wearing my Blackcaps jersey, of course -- and I'd forgotten how much I love the game. Indeed, since moving to Melbourne, I've been watching an awful lot of cricket on TV (mostly the recent Australia vs. South Africa series). I can sit through 5 days straight of a Test match cricket (not that this happens often because of the usual commitments), watching every delivery, having lunch when they have lunch, and basically planning those 5 days around the game. I'm definitely a traditionalist: If it's not a Test match, it's not a real game of cricket. ODIs aren't too bad, and of course Twenty20 is an abomination. However, I am very excited about day-night Test match cricket. Having watched the recent day-night matches in both Adelaide and Brisbane, the day-night aspect was a breath of fresh air. Families were having a great time. People could eat, drink, and socialise. And.... a pool at the cricket?! It was a raging success. Where does everyone think the future of the game lies? Can Pakistan take the second Test? Will Cook give Root the captaincy? Let's discuss all this and more.
  6. The Finns have what is widely regarded as the best education system in the world. They don't charge for tuition (even in private schools, I believe), and schools are equal. It doesn't particularly matter which one you go to. They also don't have standardised tests. 1) Make tuition free and funded with taxes, because education is a right to which we should all have access. It greatly benefits society and the economy to have us all well educated. Education for profit shouldn't be allowed. 2) All children should go to the same schools. This will ensure that the privately-educated children won't screw over the publicly-educated children later in life (see Eton/the Tories as an example) since they would have grown up with them. 3) Food should be provided by the schools, thereby ensuring that children have the appropriate nourishment at school and can about healthy eating habits. 4) Standardised tests are a waste of time. They ensure that certain things are learnt/remembered, and that's all. 5) Children should be exposed to different cultures/opinions when they're younger. 6) Religion has no place in education. The concept of religion should be taught without any specific religion. 7) Children should learn another language.
  7. I've never wanted children. Many people have told me, "you'll want them when you're older", but I'm 34 now and have never felt more passionate about not having children. I reject the argument that I will "fail at life". You might think that I will have failed. However, to the person who matters (that's me), having children would be failure in my life.
  8. Tough questions. I think we'll end up -- I'm talking decades away, because many politicians [Australia's... you guys suck] still can't get their tiny, little minds around same-sex marriage -- allowing human-robot relationships (civil unions/partnerships first, marriage later) between humans and humanoid robots. No doubt our humanoid robot friends/lovers will continue to enable the surveillance state, with each robot reporting our favourite sexual positions (amongst other data) directly to the government. People won't care 'cause, well, they'll be getting all kinds of laid from something that never gets a headache or achieves orgasm then falls asleep. Slowly but surely, many, many decades after that -- and after quite a number of robo-bestiality sex tapes from celebrities -- the citizenry will demand the "right to robo-choose". Governments will quite rightly decide that any robo-depiction of something that's already illegal (e.g., a relationship with a child) is also illegal. However, marriage to a pre-approved, government controlled list of robo-types will be allowed. The waiting list to have a helicopter approved will be a few months and cost hundreds of thousands of Icelandic crowns. Attack helicopters won't be allowed after a series of missile-related, sexual thrusting incidents. Such robots will be programmed only to "love" their owner. However, it will be possible to jailbreak robots, and jailbroken robots will be able to be reprogrammed to love others. (But updates will wipe that functionality.)
  9. Hrmmm, interesting thread. I work in IT security. The whole "hack Google to find a job at Google" thing used to work around 10 years ago. Kevin Mitnick is the best example. Nowadays companies and law enforcement are more aware of computer hacking. If you hack a company, and you inform them of it to impress them, you're likely to get in trouble with the law. Many companies don't find vulnerability disclosure helpful -- because it shows they're terrible at protecting their customers' data and hence threatens their reputation and thus their profit -- and they don't want people to know that. YMMV depending on the company. Many companies will hire externals to penetration test their systems; that is, try to hack them legally under a contract. These days many companies offer a legal method by which you can impress them with your hacking skills. This method is called "bug bounties": If you find a security vulnerability/bug, they will pay you some money. You can make a living from this. Anyway, in my experience, it's true that women say they want one thing ("a nice guy") and typically (not always) want something else ("a confident guy who doesn't always do what they want, leads the relationship, and tells them when they're not acting appropriately"). A lot of what does work is based on evolution. Men see a pretty woman, and, well, that's all that needs to happen. Woman see a man with confidence, and, well, they're on their way. On a lighter note, I can confirm that having some hacking skills does not impress the ladies! Most women find IT pretty boring, as is evident by their reaction to me saying what I do over the years.
  10. Watching the sport highlights of the year on TV1.
  11. Doubleplusgood, comrades. Sorry that you have to spend Christmas in London, Cockney Red. It's a godawful place.
  12. Finally! There's hope for us all to find someone.
  13. My friends tell me that I'm very judgemental. I remember saying once that, "I don't think I'm very judgemental"... one of my friends kinda choked on what he was eating, the other squirmed awkwardly. Anyway, I notice the way in which people speak. If they speak poorly, and they're not native English speakers, I will judge them quite harshly.
  14. We both know that's the minority.