First of all, I never wrote "other side" anywhere. This is entirely your phrase.

And second, if you can't tell, who is telling the truth in the debate that are going right now, how can you even hope differentiate between two (or even more) historical sources (of which you know even less context, as they are in the far past) that contradict each other about how, for example, women were treated or how muslims behaved?

You straight up said you looked at both sides of history, which again, makes no sense.

And the reason we can trust history is because it happened on a wide scale. We know exactly what happened because it's well documented by thousands of writers and historians unless you somehow believe none of it which makes you delusional.

Like I'm pretty sure we have an exact date when women were able to vote in the US or how WWII started and when the first episode of Lost aired.

You need evidence to be taken credibly. Which I dont even know why we're going down this road considering this is about how Cyberpunk treats real world issues.

Again, I'm asking - what if some of those writers and historians say different things? For example in WWII there are different estimates of casualties. Whom do you believe? Russian sources or German sources? What about Rosenberg family, who were executed for being Russian spies? Were they spies or were they just falsly accused victims?

Oh, and by the way, since you know - tell me when first women voted in America?

What are we even doing. I dont know put both in as different sources, they don't say anything that contradicts the other. Clearly people died, how much? Dont know here's some estimates.

Okay I googled it, August 18, 1920

Anyways I'm glad Cyberpunk 2077 brings up social issues, its really important to look critically at our society, perhaps we can learn something from the game. Perhaps a different outlook on life or what the future holds and what we can do to make a better society.

You should really look at more sources, as the numbers you provide are way off. Overall women are sexually assaulted less often than men, they abuse men more often in domestic violence cases, cause most (70-85%) of violence against children and receive milder prison sentences and consequences for their life after they served their prison sentence. This and more, which I won't go into now, affects the horrific 4 to 1 suicide ratio of men compared to women. Oh and btw, people of European descent represent less than ~10% of all people on earth, which means that less than 5% are men of which less than 0.001% are actually rich. So please, tell me more about our privileges.

A few relevant links to what I wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2449454/More-men-raped-US-women-including-prison-sexual-abuse.html
https://slate.com/human-interest/2014/04/male-rape-in-america-a-new-study-reveals-that-men-are-sexually-assaulted-almost-as-often-as-women.html?via=gdpr-consent
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/men-women-prison-sentence-length-gender-gap_n_1874742?guccounter=1
http://www.saveservices.org/2012/02/cdc-study-more-men-than-women-victims-of-partner-abuse/
http://newscastmedia.com/domestic-violence.htm
https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/34qhvx/7_more_legal_rights_women_have_that_men_dont/
(If some links from the address below don't work try to enter the name of the researcher and title of the research in a non-Google search engine)
https://www.mankind.org.uk/statistics/

Where?

No, that was the date when the woman right to vote amendment was ratified. It was declared in effect only on August 26. But that's besides the point - since women actually voted in US earlier. It Wyoming they had a vote as early as 1890. And individual examples (like Lydia Taft in 1756) were even earlier.

See? You've even failed to know about that one thing, you specifically mentioned. How can you be sure that "class struggle" is a real thing, like Karl Marx claimed and not a conspiracy theory, like said many, who criticised his work? How can you be sure about all modern feminists' claims to be true?
Dude, even the most skewed and exaggerating left-wing sources say that there are 35% women tops, who wore sexually assaulted all over the world. It's clear that francksteel just pulled that 50% number out of his ass.

You are absolutely going bananas, not only do you refuse to talk about the main subject but you want to play semantics when woman were able to vote. "Some women were able to vote, so therefore oppression doesn't exist."

Not to be mean but you have terrible discussion skills. Straight up questioning if class struggle exists.

It does, I cant spoonfeed you information if you refuse to look at it. You have bad critical thinking skills. I honestly don't think we can even have a debate if you lack basic knowledge.


Also I'm pretty sure the other poster is straight up lying. He gave links to a sexual assault in prisons only, which wasn't even gender based. And the other one was only about 38% men in sexual assaults. Also a link to a very uncredible website. I dont even think you guys read the links you're sharing.

Excuse me? The subject was specifically - "do you know exact dates and events in history". And you clearly don't.

I never said, nor implied that. But apparently you think that oppression exist, even now, when women are allowed to vote, to work at any job same as men and overall have the same rights and opportunities.

Yes. That's exactly what is called "critical thinking". I'm not going to accept idea of "class struggle" (at least in a way that Marx depicted it), just on someone's say-so.

If by "refuse to look" you mean not accept it at face value, than yes. Why should I believer you and not people who critisized Marx and socializm in general?

Ah, so NOW you started to separate sources on credible and non-credible. Yeah, and just earlier you've accused me of "playing semantics".

Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown. I mean the gog forums.

What?!? Does our beloved SJWarrioress despairs so early?:)
No "fight for the Children of Sodom's rights"?
Madam, I dissapoin (c)

Hah. My first thought when reading this: the idea of someone like that fighting for any child's rights is laughable. Animals, terrorists, sexual delinquents and deviants -- all of those, yes. But a child -- or, God forbid, an unborn one -- no way.