Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

MRA's, Male Privilege, Men's Issues, etc.

116 replies to this topic
Fonz
  • Fonz

    Passarim quis pousar, não deu, voou

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 29 Nov 2014
  • None

#31

Posted 21 July 2017 - 03:17 PM

I don't need to defend the claims that I make because I already know I'm right. As a result, if you disagree with them I know you're wrong. I'm not going to run around defending what I already know to be true and impeccable. 

 

E: Me saying something is evidence in itself.

 

 

I sometimes lose interest when unintelligent people challenge me and I sometimes lack the time to post here. However, I'm here today, so you can be thankful for that.

 

 

 However, I can't remember the last time I was wrong about something so I don't doubt myself now.

 

I've always wondered: is this an unfunny shtick that you've chosen for your internet persona or are you really just that much of a deluded f*ckwit? Literally all of your posts are incoherent ramblings fueled by the most ridiculous delusions of grandeur and when you're challenged and/or categorically proven wrong, you just respond with some variant of "nuh huh" followed by the text equivalent of a furious wank while looking in the mirror. Whether you're genuine or just a dedicated troll, this is incredibly sad.

  • El Diablo, Tchuck, mr quick and 9 others like this

Chiari
  • Chiari

    Russian Bump Stocks Can't Melt Steel Beams

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2014
  • United-States

#32

Posted 21 July 2017 - 04:48 PM

What you seem to be failing to grasp is that insurance is a business based on risk. People considered higher risk pay more. If being male correlates to a higher risk then you pay more. That's not prejudice or bias, it's common sense.


By the logic you employ here, any weighting based on increased risk is "prejudicual". Should all insurance premiums be of equal cost despite the differences in risk? I don't think you believe that; in fact you've suggested pretty strongly you don't already in this discussion.

 

I grasp it just fine but now that it appears you do I assume you will also apply it to health insurance right? After all, smoking, drinking obesity, age, and congenital/pre-existing conditions all elevate the chance that you’ll need insurance, so it makes sense for these people to pay more for coverage right? If you understand why some people pay more for car and life insurance you must see why some people pay more for health insurance. We can apply this to women's health services as well.

 

 

I don't particularly care what figure you're more interested in. What I am interested in is the assertion that the figure has been "debunked" when it hasn't. Funny, given your later statements about being wholly correct. 

 

I’m sure you don’t because the real figure is about 5% which makes the ‘pay-gap’ pretty laughable. 21% doesn’t reflect reality so yes, using ‘debunked’ to describe it is not a misuse of the word. Apparently, you even admitted the adjusted gap is between 3-6%. 

 

"workers with the same job title, employer and location, the US gender pay-gap is about  5.4 percent. That amounts to women earning about 94.6 cents per dollar earned by men."

 

A nickel less + perks. This is the face of oppression, right?

 

And yet arguments from assertion with no supporting evidence made by someone who isn't a subject matter expert and has no clear exceptional knowledge, supported solely with a false claim that can be paraphrased as "well I know I'm right because I'm never wrong" are?

 

Yes, because I have a perfect record of being correct. Really though, this isn’t so difficult to see anyway. It’s like the very first time we debated against anecdote vs statistical polling regarding Clinton v Trump. My anecdote held true and the polling did not. A short while later I asserted that welfare failed the cost-to-benefit analysis. You disagreed and cited an article that literally said: “welfare fails the cost-to-benefit analysis”. A couple of weeks ago I claimed incarceration was less expensive than inpatient rehab day-for-day in my state. A couple of cretins cited an article from Maryland comparing 1 month of rehab to 1 year of jail. They were too stupid to realize their article proved me right and I lost interest. I see reality more clearly than most. I don’t need to check if welfare is net positive or not, logic tells me it’s not. I don’t need to confirm that counselors/MDs/RNs are paid more than corrections officers, logic tells me they are. My brilliance isn’t limited to my field of expertise, I can apply it anywhere.

 

My assertions should be revered as the gospel. If I chose to not use evidence in my argument for whatever reason, you will accept it as such and hold it in high regard. Either that or actually prove me wrong for once.

 

 

If it walks like a duck...regardless, I don't think "I'm so awesome it doesn't matter anyway" constitutes an argument. Frankly, the notion that "women are societally advantaged over men because reasons I can't be bothered to explain but it's true" isn't much of one either.

 

Story short? If you are in a segment of the population that benefits from affirmative action in any kind of noticeable or measurable way, that means you need 3rd party intervention to be (artificially) equal to me. I don’t need a diversity quota to help me. People who need it are failures who could never thrive in a true meritocracy. People that benefit from it but don't need it find it insulting.

 

 

 

Not really, but then again I don't really see women flirting their way to free sh*t from gullible fools on the blindly hopeful off-chance they might f*ck then to be an example of how societally advantaged women are.


I've never really felt the need to hand out free sh*t to minutely increase the odds of taking someone home so conceptually that kind of thing is pretty alien to me. If I want to buy someone a drink, regardless of gender, I'm going to do it because I want to, not because I'm hoping to get something out of it.

 

You took this the wrong way. I wasn't talking about person-to-person gifts, I was talking about establishment-to-customer promo offers... which don't exist for men. They exist for kids, and they exist for women, but they don't exist for men. As I said, I don't care because I don't need it. It's just a casual observation of something women should be grateful for.

 

 

I'd advise against holding your breath.

 

I have faith you'll come around. You always do. You learn from me every time we debate and it shows in your writing.

 

 

Which is nice, and good on you for thinking about stuff, but your determinations carry little weight in the absence of supporting evidence.

 

My evidence is the world around me. Gender inequality has been an obvious political division tactic since Sandra Fluke showed her ass to the world :-) If you can't see it for what it is that's your problem.

 

 

1)Jimmy Carter [who] was a left-wing president 

2) [Ayn Rand, whose philosophical ideas underpin every popular movement on the American Right since the Tea Party Republicans] is only ever brought up by liberals
3) the spike in terror attacks there [in the UK] is very new
4) this standard [direct vote tampering]...[is the only thing that] would retroactively invalidate the 2016 election
5) Obama's administration tried to oust the prime minister of one of our closest allies [Israel]
6)[Regarding Scandinavian societies] Freer: No
7) history is...worthless
8)History...lacks stimulation and does not advance one's intellectual abilities.

I could go on, but reading three pages of your posts has made me woefully misanthropic and I'm concerned I'll start banning entire country IP address ranges based on a spin of a globe if I continue.

 

 

1) He is. You must be joking if you say otherwise.

2) She is. I never see any right wingers here alluding to her, though I do see left wing radicals bring her up all the time.

3) Also true. Anything that happened before my birth is irrelevant. I don't care about some unrelated IRA bullsh*t from 40-50 years ago. I exist in the present.

4) Yes, this is true. The difference is I was referring to allegations that had already been made and you were talking about hypotheticals that could happen somewhere someday.

5) All available evidence suggests this is true. You think it's not because you don't believe in 'plausible deniability'.

6) I said this about Europe as a whole, not Scandinavia. I continue to stand by this statement.

7) History is a worthless discipine. A historian has nothing to offer me aside from a hole to f*ck.

8) Correct, it's reading comprehension. 


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#33

Posted 21 July 2017 - 06:00 PM

I grasp it just fine

Well you clearly don't, because you're complaining about unfairness in weighting of risk-based policies for men and simultaneously accepting them for women. You might have a point if the additional cost of services was actually proportional, but the data on the subject suggests it isn't.
 

21% doesnt reflect reality so yes, using debunked to describe it is not a misuse of the word.

Definition of debunk
transitive verb
: to expose the sham (see sham) or falseness of

Since it's not false, it can't be debunked.
 

A nickel less + perks. This is the face of oppression, right?

Just because you consider the adjusted gap trivial, doesn't mean it magically ceases to exist.
 

Yes, because I have a perfect record of being correct.

Except for the myriad of instances in which you're categorically not, yet are so manifestly delusional in your own competence as to fail to understand your own limitations. But it's okay. You're only human. The part of this I love the most is the suggestion that you've in some way shaped my contributions. The only way you've shaped my replies are in having to discover new and inventive ways to try and engage with someone clearly suffering from a messiah complex.

At this point I've come to the realisation that the best thing to do is just treat you like a strangely eloquent troll and deal with you as such. But personally I think this is what you actually want, so you can play the victim and continue to allege persecution by a cabal of left wing staff. Because you sure as sh*t don't want to actually debate.

I was talking about establishment-to-customer promo offers... which don't exist for men.

This is factually incorrect
 

My evidence is the world around me.

You mean your warped interpretation of that world created by your political and cultural views and biblically overinflated ego? I can agree with that.

In order:
1) Wrong by any actual definition of "left wing"
2) Wrong, you can read numerous right wing figures directly cite Rand
3) Wrong as I presume you were born before the 1990s
4) Legally wrong
5) Assertion based on nonexistent evidence (IE the complete absence of any evidence at all), therefore stupid as well as wrong
6) Still true in the case of Europe in general, though
7/8) Then you're as ignorant as you are delusional and egomaniacal. Not that that wasn't already abundantly clear.
  • Tchuck, Tacymist, DarkSavageDeathlyCloud and 3 others like this

Chiari
  • Chiari

    Russian Bump Stocks Can't Melt Steel Beams

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2014
  • United-States

#34

Posted 21 July 2017 - 06:58 PM

Well you clearly don't, because you're complaining about unfairness in weighting of risk-based policies for men and simultaneously accepting them for women. You might have a point if the additional cost of services was actually proportional, but the data on the subject suggests it isn

 

I don't feel comfortable pointing out the obvious to you, but yes I do understand it. I want you to think hard.... why would women be paid slightly less than men in the workplace? What is a key anatomical difference between the two? A difference that can require months of leave.... 

 

I don't care that I pay more for car insurance despite never crashing. Now you should get over the fact that my female colleagues earn a nickel less per dollar.

 

 

Definition of debunk

transitive verb
: to expose the sham (see sham) or falseness of

Since it's not false, it can't be debunked. 

 

It's a misrepresentation of reality. Debunked is a good word to use for this.

 

Sham would also be a good word to use for your 21% figure, considering it's a raw number that includes no variables. It doesn't even include location- which is huge on its own. My pay would be significantly higher in California or New York. My cost of living would be much higher as well so I'm not necessarily better off. 

 

You should have been able to discern that the 21% figure was bullsh*t with absolute immediacy. 

 

 

Just because you consider the adjusted gap trivial, doesn't mean it magically ceases to exist. 

 

Oh no, the tiny gap does exist. It's just not worthy of being called oppression and when all factors are included it's also not worthy of being labeled inequality.

 

 

At this point I've come to the realisation that the best thing to do is just treat you like a strangely eloquent troll and deal with you as such. But personally I think this is what you actually want, so you can play the victim and continue to allege persecution by a cabal of left wing staff. Because you sure as sh*t don't want to actually debate.

 

You accuse me of being egotistical but this is pretty much the height of arrogance. "You disagree with me and that means you're a troll." This is the gist of what you're saying. As for the left wing staff... I think the fun little game in general chat just proved it. Lastly, you don't even know what a debate is. Your idea of a debate is a left wing echo chamber where you, Fonz, diablo, MTD, and the rest of the possie circle jerk over each other, fighting about who has the best of the far left views. 

 

I'm not impressed by your pseudointellectual admirers and I'm certainly not looking to argue with them. I'm here to post my views and discuss them with you on my time. 

 

 

This is factually incorrect

 

You're basing this on your lived experience in a large metropolitan area in the United States, right? I think I just heard on the radio that men drink free tonight at club whogivesaf*ck until 12:00 am. Oh wait, it was women... as always.

 

 

In order:

1) Wrong by any actual definition of "left wing"
2) Wrong, you can read numerous right wing figures directly cite Rand
3) Wrong as I presume you were born before the 1990s
4) Legally wrong
5) Assertion based on nonexistent evidence (IE the complete absence of any evidence at all), therefore stupid as well as wrong
6) Still true in the case of Europe in general, though
7/8) Then you're as ignorant as you are delusional and egomaniacal. Not that that wasn't already abundantly clear.

 

 

In order:

1) He was president of the United States, so we're going by the US political spectrum (surprise surprise right?!). Turns out, he was left wing.

2) Absolutism is commonly seen in Asperger's and autism.

3) If you are really going to argue that there isn't a recent spike in terror in the UK don't respond at all.

4) It wasn't a legal or hypothetical discussion. You're quote mining. You're literally splicing a comment out of one discussion and applying it to a discussion that didn't happen so I can be wrong. 

5) The available evidence suggests otherwise. You know, I've seen you say 'the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence' over wild, fringe accusations. I've seen you cry 'correlation not causation' more times than I can count. Funny how these slogans evaporate when I'm criticizing Obama and feminism... funny, but not surprising.

7/8) Yah well you know... history is beneath me not but beneath you. We can't all be bottom feeders I guess. If I used an EEG to find out how stimulating it is I would find confirmation in what I already know. You would find that you don't have any idea of how to read an EEG so there we go.


Fonz
  • Fonz

    Passarim quis pousar, não deu, voou

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 29 Nov 2014
  • None

#35

Posted 21 July 2017 - 07:39 PM

It has nothing to do with left-wing echo chambers--there are about 4 or 5 far-leftists on this forum--but since you think Jimmy f*cking Carter is a leftist (turns out militarily supporting right-wing neocolonial regimes is leftism), it's not surprising that you would paint it as such. When we argued on the history thread plenty of people with different views thought you were absolutely ridiculous. It's not about political colors, it's about everyone finding you a complete ass. It turned out you didn't even know what history was, so your aversion to it is a totally natural response: it's much easier to claim things you don't understand are useless than to actually start using your brain, especially since learning history might get you to think critically about politics and maybe(!) even make you realize why your views are internally inconsistent bullsh*t.

 

Ayn Rand is actually fairly iconic in the Libertarian milieu, as is the 'John Galt' character. The idea that she's rarely mentioned by Conservatives was partially true, historically, but not anymore: Libertarianism is not exactly the same tradition as American Conservatism (whose adoption of Rand's ideas probably came about with Reagan and neoliberalism), and American conservatives up to the 1970s and early 80s were opposed to Rand (for example, William F Buckley) as a 'thinker'; nowadays, she's actually very popular with Conservatives and you can find prominent figures citing her as an influence, like Paul Ryan--Rand Paul's "healthcare is slavery" line is also a fairly common libertarian/Randian talking point, along with the promotion of tax cuts ("taxation is theft") and many others. Other than that, she's rarely mentioned by literary critics or philosophers because her fiction is absolute dog sh*t and her insights are misreadings of Nietzsche along with a pisspoor attempt to style herself as some kind Max Stirner for edgy hard-right nerds. Oh, and her prose is laughably bad. As for you not caring about anything prior to your birth, keep in mind that contrary to your fantasies, your birth is completely irrelevant to world politics as a whole.

 

I couldn't help but chuckle at this little nugget:

 

A historian has nothing to offer me aside from a hole to f*ck.

 

... because, given how interesting and socially skilled you seem to be, the only hole you're likely to f*ck is the keyhole on your bedroom door.

  • El Diablo, Tchuck, mr quick and 8 others like this

Leftist Bastard
  • Leftist Bastard

    Like tears in rain

  • Daily Globe
  • Joined: 29 Jan 2017
  • Syria

#36

Posted 21 July 2017 - 08:38 PM

 

 

 

 

E: Why don't you dispute something rather than beg for sources?

Because a statement you're not willing to back up with evidence should be dismissed as valueless.

 

 

I don't need to defend the claims that I make because I already know I'm right. As a result, if you disagree with them I know you're wrong. I'm not going to run around defending what I already know to be true and impeccable. 

 

E: Me saying something is evidence in itself.

 

Do you have trouble sitting down with a stick that big up your ass?

  • Alexander, Femme Fatale and DarkSavageDeathlyCloud like this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#37

Posted 21 July 2017 - 08:47 PM

I want you to think hard.... why would women be paid slightly less than men in the workplace?

I think you'll find that's accounted for in statistical modelling of the pay gap. It certainly is in the particular study I've been referring to, along with a variety of other tangible factors such as differences in worked hours. This neither represents an argument against the validity of the claim that elements of the pay gap can be most reasonably explained through intrinsic societal bias, nor does it really address the point I was actually making here.
 

Now you should get over the fact that my female colleagues earn a nickel less per dollar.

Now I don't know how much you earn but that's a pretty sizeable sum of money in raw terms of you're on a higher wage. For someone with a $100k per anum income- pretty high in the context of the wider economy but a long way from exceptional in my line of work, and I daresay yours, that's a bit over $5k a year difference by your figure. Or not far off six months of my mortgage repayments.

All else being adjusted for, I don't think you're worth six months of mortgage repayments more than someone who doesn't have a penis.
 

It's a misrepresentation of reality. Debunked is a good word to use for this

The statistics themselves misrepresents nothing, though. It's the outcome of the evaluation of raw data. Thankfully, I've never claimed not suggested that interpreting the 21% figure as a difference in salaries income entirely due to societal prejudice so arguments on the representation of this figure by other persons are completely irrelevant.
 

Oh no, the tiny gap does exist. It's just not worthy of being called oppression and when all factors are included it's also not worthy of being labeled inequality.

The first of these is a pure personal judgement call, though I doubt you'd be trivialising it to the same degree were the boot in the other foot. The latter is simply wrong; it is by definition inequality. Just one (of many, it seems) you don't happen to particularly care about.
 

You accuse me of being egotistical but this is pretty much the height of arrogance.

Way to miss the point, though I'm not entirely sure what I was expecting. It's not an issue with ideological position, it's one of failure to adhere to the basic principles of debate. Fallacious appeals to one's own ego and an active refusal, through several varied layers of mental gymnastics, to provide evidence to support assertions made or arguments posed is fundamentally contrary to the basic principles of debate. So I find it ironic to see you asserting that I don't understand the process.
 

I'm not impressed by your pseudointellectual admirers and I'm certainly not looking to argue with them. I'm here to post my views and discuss them with you on my time. 

You are aware of the basic concept of a "forum", no? I'm more than happy to engage in a discussion with you, but if the only person you have any interest in engaging with is me, then I think PM is probably appropriate.
 

You're basing this on your lived experience in a large metropolitan area in the United States, right

Naa, I'm basing it in the fact it's a stupid blanket assertion that's clearly factually wrong.

1) Even putting aside the ridiculous arbitrary rewriting of the political spectrums to suit the whims of Americans, it's questionable whether Carter is particularly left wing in the general spectrum of modern US presidents. Economically he's certainly on the right of the Democrats, and to be honest he's only notably left-leaning when it comes to isolated foreign policy (IE non-interventionist and diplomatic). He's probably the most right wing modern Democrat there's been overall.
2) Is it? You might want to remind yourself of that fact
3) Nice straw man. The two aren't mutually exclusive though; I can have my cake and eat it, inasmuch as I can acknowledge that there has been an elevated number of terrorist attacks in the UK and you can still be wrong.
4) It was absolutely a legal discussion- that was the primary focus of the posts of mine that you were responding to. The fact you'd failed to interpret it in that manner isn't really my concern.
5) Unlike you it seems, I'm familiar with the concept of ACH. I guess you don't actually have to spend much time evaluating available evidence and drawing measured, reasoned conclusions from it, because given the evidence you presented, your thesis fails to withstand even the most basic scrutiny. If you were an analyst producing me an intelligence assessment, that would be right at the bottom of the pile once I'd ordered them from best competing hypotheses to worst. You'd probably be in line for some mandatory refresher training at a minimum, maybe even a P45 if it was a reoccurring thing.
6) ????
7/8) This is basically just self-indulgent wankery.
  • Milfrah likes this

Chiari
  • Chiari

    Russian Bump Stocks Can't Melt Steel Beams

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2014
  • United-States

#38

Posted 22 July 2017 - 08:03 PM Edited by Chiari, 22 July 2017 - 08:05 PM.

I think you'll find that's accounted for in statistical modelling of the pay gap. It certainly is in the particular study I've been referring to, along with a variety of other tangible factors such as differences in worked hours. This neither represents an argument against the validity of the claim that elements of the pay gap can be most reasonably explained through intrinsic societal bias, nor does it really address the point I was actually making here.

 

You don't really have a point aside from 'there is a tiny pay gap so women are oppressed and this inequality is worth everyone's effort to fight against and be empathetic towards'. There are so many potential reasons for this pay gap, which to reiterate is insignificant, and yet you jump straight into sexism and societal bias without the willingness to even entertain other possibilities. 

Now I don't know how much you earn but that's a pretty sizeable sum of money in raw terms of you're on a higher wage. For someone with a $100k per anum income- pretty high in the context of the wider economy but a long way from exceptional in my line of work, and I daresay yours, that's a bit over $5k a year difference by your figure. Or not far off six months of my mortgage repayments.


All else being adjusted for, I don't think you're worth six months of mortgage repayments more than someone who doesn't have a penis.

 

5% is 5%. I understand what you're saying. 5% is a precious loss... not typically tax bracket changing or quality-of-life altering but it's something. I agree... I'm saying that when all of the extra benefits are included women either come out equal or ahead. For instance, there's a custom of me paying for dinner, vacations, nights out etc. There's an expectation that I will do things like hold a door open for a woman or be chivalrous in general. I tend not to whine about these things, so I expect the same courtesy for what is literally a loss of pennies on the dollar.

The statistics themselves misrepresents nothing, though. It's the outcome of the evaluation of raw data. Thankfully, I've never claimed not suggested that interpreting the 21% figure as a difference in salaries income entirely due to societal prejudice so arguments on the representation of this figure by other persons are completely irrelevant

 

Raw data isn't worth much, which is why I challenged you. When someone puts forth a statistic and defends it, the implication of it is 'this is reality' and you know better than that. Because I know the 21% difference isn't really true I'm not going to verify what went into it. My guess? Total currency/total full-time workers split by male and female. No other variables. A simple $/people.

 

There's $75 trillion on earth and 6.7 billion people, so human life is worth $11k. That probably sounds ridiculous to you, but it's as valid (and raw) as the 21% figure.

The first of these is a pure personal judgement call, though I doubt you'd be trivialising it to the same degree were the boot in the other foot. The latter is simply wrong; it is by definition inequality. Just one (of many, it seems) you don't happen to particularly care about.

 

 

In regards to the former, maybe not. Then again I don't get all of the extra benefits that the other sex gets. As for the latter, I clearly said when all factors are included

Fallacious appeals to one's own ego and an active refusal, through several varied layers of mental gymnastics, to provide evidence to support assertions made or arguments posed is fundamentally contrary to the basic principles of debate. So I find it ironic to see you asserting that I don't understand the process. 

 

I have never seen you challenge a person politically aligned with you who made a claim without evidence. Not even once. I see you let people post 1 liners about me, or claim Trump is a pedophile, or the police are racist. However when I say something like 'there is no gender inequality because of x,y, and z' it's all 'citation please' or 'I want evidence'. 

 

 

 

Naa, I'm basing it in the fact it's a stupid blanket assertion that's clearly factually wrong.


1) Even putting aside the ridiculous arbitrary rewriting of the political spectrums to suit the whims of Americans, it's questionable whether Carter is particularly left wing in the general spectrum of modern US presidents. Economically he's certainly on the right of the Democrats, and to be honest he's only notably left-leaning when it comes to isolated foreign policy (IE non-interventionist and diplomatic). He's probably the most right wing modern Democrat there's been overall.
2) Is it? You might want to remind yourself of that fact
3) Nice straw man. The two aren't mutually exclusive though; I can have my cake and eat it, inasmuch as I can acknowledge that there has been an elevated number of terrorist attacks in the UK and you can still be wrong.
4) It was absolutely a legal discussion- that was the primary focus of the posts of mine that you were responding to. The fact you'd failed to interpret it in that manner isn't really my concern.
5) Unlike you it seems, I'm familiar with the concept of ACH. I guess you don't actually have to spend much time evaluating available evidence and drawing measured, reasoned conclusions from it, because given the evidence you presented, your thesis fails to withstand even the most basic scrutiny. If you were an analyst producing me an intelligence assessment, that would be right at the bottom of the pile once I'd ordered them from best competing hypotheses to worst. You'd probably be in line for some mandatory refresher training at a minimum, maybe even a P45 if it was a reoccurring thing.
6) ????
7/8) This is basically just self-indulgent wankery.

 

Your absolutism is really getting in the way of open-mindedness. If you aren't willing to learn how do you expect me to teach you?

 

1) Absolutism again. I could say "Bush 43 wasn't right wing because medicare part d isn't conservative". I don't know what your problem is in regards to crying over a modified political spectrum for the US but you can go ahead and get over it. Who should set the standard if not the US?

2) Yeah, it is and it's meant for you, not for me. When I said 'she's never mentioned by conservatives' on a thread in this forum I was talking about this forum. If I wanted you to go out and find all the examples of right wingers who mentioned her anywhere in the world at any time in history, I would've said that.

3) Not really, I said the spike in terror in the UK is new. New and recent are synonymous. 

4) I disagree. When I entered the discussion I wasn't talking about hypotheticals, I was talking about actual possibilities for an event that had already transpired. It's your fault for not keeping up with the discussion.

5) Just because the article wasn't up to your standards doesn't mean it was wrong and/or should be discounted. I don't really care if you're skeptical of it, I know the wider context in regards to Obama distancing himself from Netanyahu so it's just a simple matter of connecting the dots.

6) I unintentionally left this out. I continue to stand by it. You don't get to say 'Europe' when you mean Scandinavia and then retreat to western Europe. If you want to compare the US to Europe you will include poor countries, countries that aren't in the Schengen zone, and countries that aren't in the EU. To be fair, I won't say "The US" and then exclude poor states like Mississippi or Louisiana. 

7/8) Why on earth you're standing by a degree that is bought (not earned) is beyond me. As someone who took this course throughout school and then took it freshman year of college, I can say with certainty that history is not any more difficult in college than it is in 4th grade. 


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#39

Posted 23 July 2017 - 09:43 AM

I'm pressed for time this morning so excuse the brevity of my response. I'll pick at this as and when I have time.
 

You don't really have a point aside from 'there is a tiny pay gap so women are oppressed and this inequality is worth everyone's effort to fight against and be empathetic towards'.

Can you point to a single instance where I suggested that addressing unequal pay specifically is an issue so pressing and vital in the grand context of social issues in the United States that it requires input from literally everyone in order to address? I didn't, so this is a straw man, but even if it weren't, the last assertion is simply wrong. Would addressing the pay gap, trivial or not, actually require effort from everyone to fight against and address? No, it wouldn't. Doing so would only require a minimal amount of effort from a small number of people, of which you wouldn't even need to be one.
 

I'm saying that when all of the extra benefits are included women either come out equal or ahead.

You've asserted this a couple of times now, but it isn't even clear what "benefits" you're talking about here, let alone on what this assertion is based. Are we talking direct societal benefits? Indirect cultural ones? If so, how do you quantify the benefit value of getting bought drinks at bars or having the door held open for you? This is the kind of point at which producing some kind of evidence to back up your assertion is required, because given your background I doubt you're so involved in statistical modelling of socioeconomic societal trends that you'd even begin to have any direct subject matter authority.
 

Raw data isn't worth much, which is why I challenged you. When someone puts forth a statistic and defends it, the implication of it is 'this is reality' and you know better than that.

Except at no time did I actually defend the 21% statistic as a realistic estimation of economic disparity caused by the societal inequality towards women. In fact, I've caveated the figure every single time I've used it by acknowledging it as an "unadjusted" gap. So I'm really not sure what you're challenging. Did I not make the unadjusted nature of this number sufficiently clear for you?
 

There's $75 trillion on earth and 6.7 billion people, so human life is worth $11k. That probably sounds ridiculous to you, but it's as valid (and raw) as the 21% figure.

Gross global product isn't a measure of total global economic value, it's a measure of total values of goods and services produced globally (as taken from combining each nation's GNP) in one year. So I'd argue that no, it's not a valid way of estimating the value of a human life. So what you've measured here is, I suppose, in a sort of oddball, not-actually-representative-but-works-for-the-argument kinda way is the value of one year of a human life.

Perhaps the combined GGP per capita of every year of the average human lifespan could be argued to be the numerical value of a human life. And if that $11k was the average GGP per capita for 79 years, that's just shy of $870k. Which is a lot more than most governments, insurers and probably people on the street value a human life at.
 

I have never seen you challenge a person politically aligned with you who made a claim without evidence. Not even once.

I suspect this is primarily due to your short presence and limited topics of engagement. I've probably spent more time asking for and dissecting citations in posts from Eutyphro than pretty much any member on this forum. He identifies, (or certainly used to, I don't know if his political views have changed) with the left of the political spectrum, certainly on economic and foreign policy issues and on some, but not all, social ones. In fact, in foreign policy particularly, he's quite far to the left of me.

Moreover, I commonly challenge assertions made by people who I get the impression you'd views as 'politically aligned" with me, not that it's entirely clear what that is given most of the examples you've used to furnish this statement aren't.
 
1) The assertion that Carter generally sits on the right of the spectrum when it comes to Democrat presidents is well supported by evidence. I'm very sorry if this doesn't mesh with your personal scale of left-versus-right, but I stand by it. You could try and argue that B43 was left wing because of a single policy, but you might struggle.

As for the question of the US political spectrum versus the actual political spectrum, if septics are so obsessed with their exceptionalism they want to rewrite political definitions to suit their whims that's their prerogative, but that doesn't mean their use of these fundamentally technical terms is correct.

As an aside I think there's something to be said on the subject of absolutism in reference to your comments here. What exactly have you been trying to infer? I mean, are the references to Asperger's and autism simply a guarded ad hominem designed to infer that my unwillingness to acknowledge things you've said that are demonstrably wrong as right is some kind of manifestation of a developmental disorder? Are we supposed to skip over the astounding hypocrisy of your repeat absolutist assertions on a wide variety of subjects, or do you genuinely believe that it's entirely acceptable in a debate for you to assert things are factual based on nothing more than your own say-so, but anyone else who does so is somewhere on the autistic spectrum?
2) perhaps you should be a little clearer with your wording in future, then, because I'm not the only person who interpreted it in that way. In fact given the original context it's difficult to believe it was intended in any other way.
3) "New" and "recent" aren't really synonymous in this context. "New" typically refers to something that has not occurred or existed before, or something which has occurred or existed but has only now been observed. "Recent" refers to things having taken place in an arbitrary, subjective preceding period of time. They're synonymous in the context of a discovery, possibly in a turn of events that has never happened before, but a repeat of events 20 years prior typically won't fit anyone's description of "new".

Even "recent" is debatable given that your own timeline for what constitutes events worth considering was your own lifetime, and if that's the measure we're using for "recent" then you're simply wrong. Or we can put this down to a lack of clear semantics on your part if you'd rather.
4) Then, again, perhaps you should be clearer in your statements in future. I realise that making vague statements can be quite handy if you need to retrospectively return and reinterpret your own meaning but it's rather disingenuous, not to mention blatant when that approach is used after several posts worth of back-and-forth where no issue is taken with the initial interpretation even when it's clear at the time.
5) The article- namely, the disconnect between its headline and its content- is pretty awful, but that's not really what the issue is with. It's the simple acceptance of, and eagerness to defend, a narrative not because it's supported by evidence or even represents the most viable hypothesis but simply because it confirms to preexisting cognitive bias. It's the most fundamental of analysis failures, and one which manifests itself in most people from time to time. But I don't expect you to be able to observe that, because of your attitude to your own knowledge and understanding.
6) Having reread this in context I'll concede that I my statements here were much too general. Though I wonder whether, if you did average the rankings in the various freedom induces of the EU28, they would average higher than the US. Maybe I'll work it out if I have time.
7/8) I don't think first-year college gives you enough insight to judge the value or difficulty of a full graduate or postgraduate degree, let alone someone actually practicing the discipline. I mean, does a year at college give you sufficient grounds to judge the value or difficulty of medical practice? Moreover, I can't really see tackling graduate or postgraduate studies in the same manner you did in fourth grade is likely to net you a particularly good grade. See also- Bloom's Taxonomy.
  • Tchuck likes this

Dealux
  • Dealux

    Goddess Of Light

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2011
  • European-Union

#40

Posted 24 July 2017 - 12:43 PM Edited by ΣΓ, 24 July 2017 - 12:48 PM.

I've thought about not posting anymore here because I don't fundamentally disagree with the views expressed in this thread about the MRA movement but nonetheless I don't think that we should throw everyone under the buss for embracing this label.

Most discourse on male oppression takes place on Reddit because it's intellectually vapid, lacking in ideological coherence, represents nothing more than than knee jerk reactionism to the erosion of male social and political hegemony, and is intertwined pretty much solely with the alt-right.

Alleging that there's a grand social and political conspiracy orchestrated primarily by indeterminate persons unknown to erode the rights of, and finally subjugate, men- which is word for word the belief of most MRAs- is absolutely mysoginistic. If you replaced the target with "white people", you've got the drum that pretty much every white supremacist groups in the US has banged for the best part of sixty years.

They're one and the same.

It's not about providing additional support to women, it's about a failure to properly base promotion and pay on performance rather than by request. It's not just confined to women, but statistics show that they are typically less willing to approach the subject even when their performance meets or exceeds that of male peers.

No, stating it's a myth is empirically untrue. Suggesting otherwise is simply wrong. You can question the validity of unadjusted figures without contending that a statistical gap which is unequivocally there- in both adjusted and unadjusted figures- is nonexistent. Doing so simply makes them liars and reinforces the notion that their views are driven by prejudice and mysoginy rather than any desire to properly evaluate evidence and reach a coherent conclusion.

I don't like Reddit either but the MRAs and anti-feminists of YouTube don't seem to fall into that category of yours. Again, some of them are actually women and they react strongly to the worst of feminism (AKA BuzzFeed, Huffington Post, etc feminists). Those are quite high-profile groups too and they do represent a certain portion of the feminist movement.

No, it's not. Feminists that actually hate white men exist. The worst come from BuzzFeed, Huffington Post, MTV, etc. As long as these man hating morons exist they legitimize the MRA movement to some extent.

I haven't seen any of those YouTubers send rape threats to people they disagree with. Some of them do like to troll on Twitter but it doesn't come close to what you're suggesting.

So what is the actual problem then? You seem to be suggesting that women not wanting to ask for a promotion is somehow evidence of sexism or something. I'm not sure if such analysis makes sense unless you think women are weak, which is a view I don't subscribe to. I'm not saying you do but even if this is a problem, how is it anyone's fault but the individual's?

It's a form of misspeaking. When they refer to the wage gap they actually refer to the 21% figure or comparable figures. At least the people on the MRA\anti-feminist side that I paid attention to.

Edit: Example of a feminist saying that the wage gap is a myth.
Spoiler

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#41

Posted 24 July 2017 - 01:23 PM

I don't like Reddit either but the MRAs and anti-feminists of YouTube don't seem to fall into that category of yours. Again, some of them are actually women and they react strongly to the worst of feminism (AKA BuzzFeed, Huffington Post, etc feminists).

You're conflating two different things here. MRAs an "anti-feminist" are not synonymous. It's possible to object to a particular kind of feminism that you view as counterproductive or unnecessarily aggressive or divisive without being "anti-feminist", so let's try and avoid using that term to refer to people who in many instances can and do consider themselves feminist whilst still objecting to particular characteristics in the feminist movement.

Those are quite high-profile groups too and they do represent a certain portion of the feminist movement.

You shouldn't confuse profile with representation. Those that shout the loudest normally aren't representative of wider discourse; just because certain media outlets give undue attention to certain kinds of views doesn't mean those views are an accurate or meaningful representation of the underlying ideology or discourse.

Feminists that actually hate white men exist.

What's your point here? I'm sure if you cherry pick aggressively enough you can find someone who hates literally anything. This does not constitute an argument for or against anything.

Even putting this aside, the logic here is ridiculous. The presence of people who apparently hate white men does not legitimise the MRA movement any more than the presence of white supremacist movements would legitimise minority-separatist movements.

I haven't seen any of those YouTubers send rape threats to people they disagree with.

It's widely reported in the mainstream media, and even in men's magazines. If you've not seen it I can only put this down to wilful ignorance.

So what is the actual problem then?

The main problem here is your inability to properly understand my point. I don't really know how I could explain it in simpler terms, but your insistence on boiling it down to "women must be weak" which is amongst the silliest non sequiturs I've ever read, suggests to me you have no interest in actually tackling the point as it was made. So go back and actually read it, and come back when you've got an interpretation which doesn't consistently of that ridiculous assertion.

It's a form of misspeaking. When they refer to the wage gap they actually refer to the 21% figure

Actually the cast majority don't, which you'd realise if you focused on the movement as a whole rather than whichever fringe example MRA bloggers want you to think is representative of the entire movement at any given time.

Edit: Example of a feminist saying that the wage gap is a myth.

You can cherry pick. Good for you.
  • Tchuck likes this

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Botswana

#42

Posted 25 July 2017 - 01:34 PM Edited by Eutyphro, 25 July 2017 - 04:27 PM.

Most MRAs cherry pick isolated individual examples they claim are representative of societal bias against men, and dismiss actual evidence of societal bias against women through statistical misrepresentation (case in point, the pay gap) or whataboutism. The issues they raise may, and often do, have merit (for instance suicide rates, drug addiction and homeless rates amongst men) but the societal conclusions they infer from them usually don't stand up to scrutiny.

Well, most (actually all) feminists cherry pick isolated individual examples they claim are representative of societal bias against women. And furthermore, the pay gap as it tends to be understood and used by feminists is a hoax.
 

I don't think this is remotely true, given that self-labelling "MRAs" have been largely responsible for hate campaigns, harassment and threats directed at just about any female public figure who dares speak on the subject of gender disparity.

Please give me an example of a prominent MRA who threatened a feminist. There is a large issue on the internet with resentful men who harass and write disgusting things about women. That definitely is true. But MRA's aren't really responsible for what other men do on the internet. Furthermore, many prominent figures in the feminist movement like Anita Sarkeesian consider almost all material arguing against her ideas 'harassment' 'threats' or 'hate'. Calling everything critical of feminism 'hate' is the main tool feminists use to avoid debate, or dialogue, as much as possible
 

We're talking about a movement whose public face consists almost entirely of alt-right internet trolls.

Eventhough I don't really consider myself an MRA, I do want to point out that it is strange how you don't really hold feminism to the same level of scrutinity. The most powerful ideological centre of feminism is in university departments where they spew anti scientific postmodern garbage. They might seem respectable because they hold university positions after all. But they are as insane as many people on the alt right. Furthermore, the most important and reasonable MRA to me is Warren Farrell, who is as far from alt right as you can get. Just a decent man who cares about the issues men and boys face in society. It's also disingenuous to portray anyone who is opposed to mainstream news reporting and active on the internet 'alt right'. Is Dave Rubin alt right? Is Sargon of Akkad alt right? I don't really think they are.
 

The fact that no MRA will entertain the possibility that factors seen as "voluntary choice" in these adjustments could possibly be as a result of societal and cultural pressures felt predominantly by women,

This is the case because people who are not on the left generally consider people responsible for the decisions they make. Men and women are responsible for the decisions they make and how it affects their pay. 'Cultural pressure' doesn't decide what you do. You do. Furthermore, the idea that women face more societal and cultural pressures than men is silly and false. One reason for the pay gap is because men face societal and cultural pressure to work hard. Working hard is not by definition a privilege, just like taking care of children isn't by definition a privilege. It can be a privilege, but it is also a responsibility, and a duty.
 

Sorry, this is just laughable. You can't honestly expect people to believe that publicly vocal MRAs, who are absolutely minute in number, don't debate with publicly vocal feminists, who are comparatively absolutely enormous in number, because none of the latter will engage with them? 

Mind boggling right? But true though.
 

it's much more likely that the general refusal to engage is becasue most MRAs are vile misogynist pigs

Yes, that is what the feminists say to avoid the debate.

 

Indeed, is there any actual evidence that any of the additional cherry picked statistics are indicative of endemic, societal prejudice?

If you want to look at the vast amount of examples of such 'cherry-picked statistics' you can look here: http://www.realsexism.com/

You can make up your own mind if they "are indicative of endemic, societal prejudice". Do you ask the same questions though when feminists cherry pick statistics and examples (generally examples, the statistics are not on their side)?

Equal in what sense?
In opportunity, which is the only thing that society should be concerned with. The state shouldn't be concerned with equality of outcome.

Not in economic power or social and political influence.
Women have a lot of social power. Maybe more than men, but it is hard to measure. Women have lot of economic power. Why do you think so much products are marketed towards women? There might be more marketing aimed at women than at men. We shouldn't just ask who makes more money, but also who is spending more money. Women can vote and run for office just like men can.

Not in healthcare if the American Health Care Act passes in anything resembling it's current firm,
Can you substantiate this?

and nor up until a couple of years ago when health insurance policies were gender weighted against women even excluding the costs of maternity care in the same way that you alleged other insurance policy are against men.
Yes, car insurance, and life insurance etc..

Not in the workplace, where gender-specific restriction on dress code and appearance are almost invariably placed on women above men and are subject far more frequently to sexual harassment.
So are you actually arguing men aren't expected to dress specific ways in the workplace? That's absolutely ridiculous.

Not when it comes to questions of violence against the person, with women suffering far more violence at the hands of men than the inverse.
The opinion is divided on that, considering men don't really call the police if they are physically abused by their partners. Some research indicates spousal abuse is evenly distributed between men and women.

There's still implicit cultural biases associating women with family instead of career.
And family is inferior to career according to what standard?

 

I just feel it's redundant. Feminism is about bringing everyone up to an equal playing level rather than giving one group an advantage over the other; so in that sense feminism is beneficial for both men and women when practiced correctly. Men's movements quickly dissolve into ''SPERMJACKING AND FEMALE PRIVILEGE'' more often than not rather than being a positive force.

This is what feminists often say. They pretend that men don't really have issues, and that you solve men's issues by solving women's issues, and that therefore only women's issues matter. This is false.

  • Sunrise Driver, Gay Tony and Khephera like this

Melchior
  • Melchior

    modern life is rubbish

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#43

Posted 26 July 2017 - 03:39 AM

And family is inferior to career according to what standard? 

 

 

The standard of not being a f*cking house elf. f*ck. 

 

Like how can you say this stuff with a straight face? You seem to genuinely believe that women would be happier not participating in social life. It's f*cked up.

  • Tchuck and mr quick like this

Leftist Bastard
  • Leftist Bastard

    Like tears in rain

  • Daily Globe
  • Joined: 29 Jan 2017
  • Syria

#44

Posted 26 July 2017 - 10:20 AM

Not in healthcare if the American Health Care Act passes in anything resembling it's current firm, 

Can you substantiate this?



 

 

I just feel it's redundant. Feminism is about bringing everyone up to an equal playing level rather than giving one group an advantage over the other; so in that sense feminism is beneficial for both men and women when practiced correctly. Men's movements quickly dissolve into ''SPERMJACKING AND FEMALE PRIVILEGE'' more often than not rather than being a positive force.

This is what feminists often say. They pretend that men don't really have issues, and that you solve men's issues by solving women's issues, and that therefore only women's issues matter. This is false.

 

I can substantiate that, if you wouldn't mind.

https://www.vox.com/...onciliation-act

https://www.thecut.c...-condition.html

 

How did you get that out of my post? you solve men's issues by solving men's issues and many of said issues are born out of a bullsh*t outdated view of masculinity which feminism fights. Feminism is an egalitarian movement by nature.


Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Botswana

#45

Posted 26 July 2017 - 10:27 AM Edited by Eutyphro, 26 July 2017 - 10:45 AM.

You seem to genuinely believe that women would be happier not participating in social life.

I'm not sure why you are calling paid work 'social life'. But anyway.. I think there is research to indicate that a lot of women get unhappy by the stress of balancing family and work. In general I've seen a lot of reporting that women have become less happy since the 1950's. The mainstream media is telling women they will be happiest if they choose a career, but the mainstream doesn't tell that to make women happy, but to make them contribute more to economic growth.

sh*t, maybe I should throw some f bombs in this comment to make it seem more powerful and tough.

 

I can substantiate that, if you wouldn't mind.

 

https://www.vox.com/...onciliation-act

https://www.thecut.c...-condition.html

I never doubted it would significantly cut important healthcare for women, as it is intended to cut healthcare for many people in general. I'm more interested in an argument that it is a program intended to discriminate against women. Defunding Planned Parenthood is very harmful, but it is not discrimination against women. Opposing abortion is not discrimination of women. There are as many women opposing abortion as men. Not all women support abortion, and not all men oppose it. I'm convinced it is a terrible plan, but not that it is a misogynist plan.
 

How did you get that out of my post? you solve men's issues by solving men's issues and many of said issues are born out of a bullsh*t outdated view of masculinity which feminism fights. Feminism is an egalitarian movement by nature.

Well, yes, exactly. According to feminists both men and women's problems all originate in patriarchy, and if you get rid of patriarchy both men and women's problems dissolve simultaneously. That's false, because the problems of men and women have different origins, because men and women are innately significantly different. It's amazing how people can still think the differences between men and women purely originate in them being socialized differently. That's obviously false and ridiculous.


Melchior
  • Melchior

    modern life is rubbish

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#46

Posted 26 July 2017 - 12:39 PM

 

You seem to genuinely believe that women would be happier not participating in social life.

I'm not sure why you are calling paid work 'social life'. 

Right except having a career is more than just going to your job eight hours a day. Do I really need to explain how staying home and taking care of children (who are not at home most of the day) for your entire life alienates you, especially so in our society? It also leaves them financially dependent on men, and really how fulfilling is 'keeping a house'? I don't know how you can advocate women be pushed into exclusively doing what is effectively menial labour and then claim with a straight face that science agrees that their brains are suited mainly for that! 

 

 

 

I think there is research to indicate that a lot of women get unhappy by the stress of balancing family and work.

Oh I'll bet. Which is why men and women should engage in both equally. 

 

 

 

 In general I've seen a lot of reporting that women have become less happy since the 1950's. The mainstream media is telling women they will be happiest if they choose a career,

Can you just try and actually think critically about this for two seconds? You're saying that women were better off in the 1950s. Yeah you'd probably be happier too if you were denied an education. A guy working on a farm or whatever is probably a lot happier than you or me, and we'd probably have more fun lighting our farts on fire instead of arguing about morality and economics all day. Here's an explanation why, in Italian:

non-existent-existentialist-memes-mama-m

 

 

 

but the mainstream doesn't tell that to make women happy, but to make them contribute more to economic growth.

I think women chose all on their own to start participating equally in our society.

 

 

 

sh*t, maybe I should throw some f bombs in this comment to make it seem more powerful and tough.

It's just shock. Like you keep saying shocking things. You said recently women shouldn't be engineers because they don't have tinkering brains. Like how can anyone in 2017 have such a deterministic view on this, do you even philosophy? 

  • Tchuck likes this

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Botswana

#47

Posted 26 July 2017 - 01:06 PM Edited by Eutyphro, 26 July 2017 - 01:19 PM.

Do I really need to explain how staying home and taking care of children (who are not at home most of the day) for your entire life alienates you, especially so in our society? 

I'm not sure where you are reading me as saying all women should only stay in the home. That's a gigantic strawman. If you would ask me what I think about the social effects of the emancipation of women you'd get a very nuanced answer. I'm close to a second wave feminist and support women having equal entry to the workforce and equal economic rights like anyone should. All I'm pointing out is that the increasing pressure on women to balance work and family is making them stressed and unhappy. That's true regardless of whether you support second wave feminism, which really everybody does support.

It's the same old schtick where I'm arguing women shouldn't be pressured to make the same choices as men, and vica versa, and you attack me as if equal outcomes have anything to do with rights whatsoever. The idea of forcefully creating equal outcomes is diametrically opposed to equal rights and freedoms.
 

I don't know how you can advocate women be pushed into exclusively doing what is effectively menial labour and then claim with a straight face that science agrees that their brains are suited mainly for that! 

This is another completely bullsh*t strawman that has nothing to do with what I said.
 

You're saying that women were better off in the 1950s.

I wouldn't say they were better off. The emancipation of women was morally right and necessary, obviously. But this necessary development has not unambiguously made women happier. Another factor making women less happy since then is most likely the increased pressure of societal beauty standards.
 

A guy working on a farm or whatever is probably a lot happier than you or me, and we'd probably have more fun lighting our farts on fire instead of arguing about morality and economics all day.

You can argue that happiness might not really be what people pursue and you might be right. People also pursue what can be called 'meaningful suffering'.
 

I think women chose all on their own to start participating equally in our society.

Sure, but I didn't disagree with that. But we are once again talking past each other, where I'm pointing out the mainstream intends to create equality of outcome. I'm opposed to socially manufacturing equality of outcome.
 

You said recently women shouldn't be engineers because they don't have tinkering brains.

You are once again lying about wat I think. What I said was that women and men have different interests and that one cause of this is biology. There are female engineers, and women should be as free to be as engineers as men. But it is dubious that there are less women going into computer tech in Scandinavia than in some significantly lesser developed nations. This seems to be the case because from what I have read, the women who excel at science generally also excel at other subjects. So brilliant women have a choice, and they don't tend to choose STEM. The group who is only excellent in STEM is very male dominated. There's many research indicating that a likely cause for this is increased pre natal testosterone, which leads to increased systematizing and lower empathizing. Increased systematizing is often a symptom of autism, and men have autism far more often than women.

  • Gay Tony, DarkSavageDeathlyCloud and Khephera like this

Leftist Bastard
  • Leftist Bastard

    Like tears in rain

  • Daily Globe
  • Joined: 29 Jan 2017
  • Syria

#48

Posted 26 July 2017 - 01:33 PM

 

You seem to genuinely believe that women would be happier not participating in social life.

I'm not sure why you are calling paid work 'social life'. But anyway.. I think there is research to indicate that a lot of women get unhappy by the stress of balancing family and work. In general I've seen a lot of reporting that women have become less happy since the 1950's. The mainstream media is telling women they will be happiest if they choose a career, but the mainstream doesn't tell that to make women happy, but to make them contribute more to economic growth.

sh*t, maybe I should throw some f bombs in this comment to make it seem more powerful and tough.

 

I can substantiate that, if you wouldn't mind.

 

https://www.vox.com/...onciliation-act

https://www.thecut.c...-condition.html

I never doubted it would significantly cut important healthcare for women, as it is intended to cut healthcare for many people in general. I'm more interested in an argument that it is a program intended to discriminate against women. Defunding Planned Parenthood is very harmful, but it is not discrimination against women. Opposing abortion is not discrimination of women. There are as many women opposing abortion as men. Not all women support abortion, and not all men oppose it. I'm convinced it is a terrible plan, but not that it is a misogynist plan.
 

How did you get that out of my post? you solve men's issues by solving men's issues and many of said issues are born out of a bullsh*t outdated view of masculinity which feminism fights. Feminism is an egalitarian movement by nature.

Well, yes, exactly. According to feminists both men and women's problems all originate in patriarchy, and if you get rid of patriarchy both men and women's problems dissolve simultaneously. That's false, because the problems of men and women have different origins, because men and women are innately significantly different. It's amazing how people can still think the differences between men and women purely originate in them being socialized differently. That's obviously false and ridiculous.

 

What would you describe as the most relevant issues that plague men today? the ones I usually hear - male rape not being taken seriously, higher suicide rates,  alcoholism, the inequalities of marriage and child custody all stem from old fashioned masculinity. Ideas that propose men should bottle their feelings, be stoic, emotionless, that they're the dominant sex and that getting raped by a woman is a joke, that they're only breadwinner incapable of taking care of the house. All these things have the same common root.

 

Which brings me back to your assessment of women being somehow more content during the 1950s and that they now have to face the stress of work and having a family - it might be because we expect women to be both breadwinners and caretakers but we don't expect the same from men or rather scoff at the possibility of a dad taking a bigger role in the house to balance things out. Paternity leave for instance, is still a major struggle.

http://www.parents.c...leave-struggle/


Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Botswana

#49

Posted 26 July 2017 - 02:32 PM Edited by Eutyphro, 26 July 2017 - 02:38 PM.

What would you describe as the most relevant issues that plague men today? the ones I usually hear - male rape not being taken seriously, higher suicide rates,  alcoholism, the inequalities of marriage and child custody all stem from old fashioned masculinity. Ideas that propose men should bottle their feelings, be stoic, emotionless, that they're the dominant sex and that getting raped by a woman is a joke, that they're only breadwinner incapable of taking care of the house. All these things have the same common root.

I don't think male rape by women is a significant problem, but prison rape is. Some of the issues men face, like far higher incarceration, far more suicides, far more homelessness etc.. have probably always been 'male dominated', and I think they always will be. I don't believe telling men that they should be more feminine will solve these issues. What you can highlight about these issues though is that they are male dominated, and that rarely anyone ever thinks that that is a significant aspect of it. Whereas any issue will be quickly defined as a 'women's issue'. This is the case because society is intent to frame men as perpetrators and women as victims. If anything bad happens to a man, it is his own fault, whereas a women taking years off to take care of children, and then ends up with a smaller salary is a 'victim'. That's really quite bizarre. But the idea that we should start judging men and women exactly the same for the same actions is far from what I would argue for. That's really something I don't believe in at all. Leftists say they support that, but they don't practice it in the slightest.

 

There's a huge cognitive dissonance, where all the traditional special treatment women get and deserve to get is still seen as part of 'equality', but at the same time women are expected to be treated as men whenever it could theoretically benefit them. And the fact that feminists think you can emancipate women further by telling them they'll always be the victim of their circumstances, and that there is a glass ceiling, is bizarre and strange. What also makes the 'feminists just want equality' claim so dubious is how feminists don't fight for equal custody of children for men, or for women to pay alimony equally as often. Feminist want to cherry pick male privileges and keep the privileges they already have.

Significant modern problems men face are the combination of porn and gaming addiction, and increasing societal failure, both in education and relationships with women. Men are treated harsher in education, and are increasingly doing less well. Teachers are increasingly female, especially earlier on. And what has been proven is that teachers have a bias to grade girls higher. http://www.bbc.com/n...cation-31751672 What has often been argued is that the natural rough playful behaviour and risk taking of boys is increasingly seen as problematic in recent years, and boys are increasingly punished for their natural behaviour. Apart from that, because of the predominance of women in education boys don't have enough male role models. What has been proven is that fathers are incredibly important for the success of young men.
 

Which brings me back to your assessment of women being somehow more content during the 1950s and that they now have to face the stress of work and having a family - it might be because we expect women to be both breadwinners and caretakers but we don't expect the same from men or rather scoff at the possibility of a dad taking a bigger role in the house to balance things out. Paternity leave for instance, is still a major struggle.

The issue is that men don't want a bigger role in the house, because women aren't attracted to the type of man who wants a bigger role in the house. Women select the men at the top of the dominance hierarchy. Women are attracted to successful males. To anyone even remotely reasonable these are truisms, but people with strong equity ideals are intentionally blind to this truth. The realsexism page has a chart where it shows the chance of a man getting married is directly proportional to his income. As it turns out, men and women are equally superficial when selecting partners. Men select women on fertility and attractiveness, and women select men on success.

  • Gay Tony and Khephera like this

Dealux
  • Dealux

    Goddess Of Light

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2011
  • European-Union

#50

Posted 26 July 2017 - 03:38 PM

Actually the cast majority don't, which you'd realise if you focused on the movement as a whole rather than whichever fringe example MRA bloggers want you to think is representative of the entire movement at any given time.

You basically said that popular YouTube MRAs are the same trolls that send rape threats on Twitter and then you provided some sort of poll that has nothing to do with that from what I can tell. Do MRAs hold questionable views about sexual assault or try to justify it? I mean if a large portion of them are chauvinists like we are led to believe then I am not surprised. I'm not really defending the movement in its current form. I think there is a place for activism on men's behalf (but if I'm honest, I'd rather people focused on a type of activism that is not gender, race, ethnicity, etc based) because it keeps a certain section of the feminist movement in check. I like the idea of opposing ideas existing in public discourse.

But going back to your wage gap point, why do you think there is a wage gap (of up to 18%) in Iceland for instance? They are the highest rated place in the world in terms of gender equality (not really a surprise given how small the population is) and yet women still don't earn as much as men overall. How can we confidently say then, even when the conditions are as good as they get for women, that this difference has to be due to discrimination?

Triple Vacuum Seal
  • Triple Vacuum Seal

    If you ♥ the $, then prepare to die for it.

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2011
  • United-States

#51

Posted 27 July 2017 - 11:29 PM Edited by Triple Vacuum Seal, 27 July 2017 - 11:38 PM.

 

It's a typical tactic among MRAs and pop-feminists alike to assume such a seesaw notion of rights. One sex generally faring better doesn't imply a need for anyone to 'give up' their rights. The liberal feminist vs MRA distraction is like men and women fighting over who gets to sit in first class on flight Pan Am 103.

Where have I implied such a thing?

 

When you responded to claims of female grievances with male grievances.  Why else would you interject with such a random case of men being exploited to the same extent?  The mentioning of male exploitation neither challenges nor even acknowledges the preceding claims around female disadvantages.
 
 

It's important to challenge these notions because people failing to do so for so long has made us end up with the monstrous cult that is third wave feminism, ...

 
Third wave feminism would have been a phenomena regardless of the substance of existing debates.

 

It's good to point out we have always chosen to sacrifice men for the benefit of women and children, because it is true.

 
Once again, this is not a reciprocal thing. While you're taking score however, it's worth pointing out that countless women and children sacrifice their will and ambitions to support the egos of imposing men. But let's not go down that dead end road of comparing human suffering. Doing so is of limited value, as you've suggested, and it's even more complex when we get racial idpol involved (for instance black men vs. white women, rich Asian women vs. poor white men, etc.).

 

 

On the battlefield/sacrifice/disposability thing...

Women don't benefit from war any more than men do.  They merely suffer its consequences in less violent ways, and rightfully so.  Men are the ones who glorify war/violence to begin with.  Labeling women privileged for not engaging in it is like someone calling you a pussy for not smoking crack cocaine.  Crack cocaine is neither beneficial nor among your priorities, but maybe necessary depending on one's brain chemistry and overall mentality.  

 

Feminists are also against the primitive tradition of men dying on the battlefield.  Whether or not feminists are against the broader concept of war is another debate. Nonetheless, war was bound to evolve beyond male-centric capabilities anyway. 

  • Tchuck likes this

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Botswana

#52

Posted 28 July 2017 - 12:21 AM Edited by Eutyphro, 28 July 2017 - 12:27 AM.

 

 

It's a typical tactic among MRAs and pop-feminists alike to assume such a seesaw notion of rights. One sex generally faring better doesn't imply a need for anyone to 'give up' their rights. The liberal feminist vs MRA distraction is like men and women fighting over who gets to sit in first class on flight Pan Am 103.

Where have I implied such a thing?

When you responded to claims of female grievances with male grievances.

I responded to a claim about male grievances namely "men weren't living under centuries of silent oppression either, so their plight is irrelevant in this context". Actually, it goes a little further back with a claim by Tchuck that men in general have been privileged over women in general throughout history "how much sh*ttier they had it when compared to man, and how the whole system was designed with men in mind". This is a popular opinion that I strongly doubt is true, and that is at least contestable on reasonable grounds. The 'system' was never 'designed' to 'favor' men. It evolved naturally and certain roles arose out of circumstantial factors.

 

The very mentioning of male exploitation neither challenges nor acknowledges the preceding claims around female disadvantages.

I never claimed it did.
 

Third wave feminism would have been a phenomena regardless of the substance of existing debates.

But people let it get out of hand by not challenging bullsh*t and half true oversimplifications.
 

Women don't benefit from war anymore than men do.

War is an inevitable aspect of the tendency of human beings to create conflict, and intention to expand power. Women benefit from the male willingness to self sacrifice for the well being of women and children. It's your job to go into the burning house, or to drown making sure the women and children safely get in lifeboats in case of a sinking ship.

 

Men are the one's who glorify war/violence to begin with.

Then women should start choosing only to mate with pacifists and all war and violence would eventually stop due to natural selection. The issue is that were that to happen, which it won't, that civilization will be wiped out by a more aggressive one. It's silly to blame men for war and conflict, when war and conflict are just an inevitable aspect of human nature.
 

Feminists are also against the primitive tradition of men dying on the battlefield. 

Feminists have completely delusional ideas about human nature. I mean, nobody, except warmongers I guess, 'support men dying on battlefields'. At most it is a necessary evil. But this is turning into a discussion about whether human beings are by nature pacifists (which they are not). What I want to challenge is the idea that throughout history men had it easier and better than women, which is a dubious idea, but a common dogma.

 

But another line of your reasoning is that because men had the political power historically, therefore all injustices are caused by 'men' or in feminist terms 'toxic masculinity'. That's such an idiotic line of reasoning that I don't even know where to start taking issue with it. It's based on the social construct delusion that I've talked about a lot that is thoroughly false. It seems to pretend the historical role of men as political leaders arose out of an arbitrary power struggle and social construct, which is obviously false and implausible. The social and political role of men in society is not an arbitrary construct, but arises out of a combination of biological factors, factors of the physical environment, the status of technology, etc..


Triple Vacuum Seal
  • Triple Vacuum Seal

    If you ♥ the $, then prepare to die for it.

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2011
  • United-States

#53

Posted 28 July 2017 - 03:26 AM

War is an inevitable aspect of the tendency of human beings to create conflict, and intention to expand power.


I figured you'd say something like this because it's actually a popular opinion and quite intuitive at a glance. However, war is not inevitable. War and conflict are not fully interchangeable terms. We must not conflate the two.  Otherwise, the anti-war movement would be a paradoxical 'war against the concept of war'.  War is a threshold of conflict escalation that often requires the destruction of what fighters claim to be defending in the first place.
 
War is self-consuming in that it rewards he/she who can destroy the most until there's seemingly nothing more to destroy.  It doesn't stop at nukes either.   In fact, the concept of total war between major world powers is pretty much obsolete because it would likely result in an apocalypse, the ultimate Pyrrhic victory.

 

Women benefit from the male willingness to self sacrifice for the well being of women and children.

 
This is beyond reductionism seeing as the social order that men have historically died at war to defend favors their property rights (male-centric primogeniture for instance) over women.  Next you'll be claiming that men are compelled by women to go to war.  The fact that >90% of the fights back in school involved males is no coincidence. Males love battle (until they actually get there).  This is a strength at times, but it's also a weakness when exploited by the state to create downright jingoism.

 

It's your job to go into the burning house, or to drown making sure the women and children safely get in lifeboats in case of a sinking ship.

 
No it's not. I'm not politically correct. If a kid is not my kin folk or that of a friend, then I'm not running into anyone's burning house. And if there aren't have enough lifeboats, you shouldn't be on the damnned ship to begin with...which comes full circle to my underlying point that someone else's escapist urge to procreate in the modern world is not my existential burden.  It's that of the parent.


And this emphasis on 'women and children first' is primarily a protection put in place for mothers. Women without children are also categorized as disposable, though probably not to the same extent as men.
 
 

But another line of your reasoning is that because men had the political power historically, therefore all injustices are caused by 'men' or in feminist terms 'toxic masculinity'.

 
Nope. Not my line of reasoning, though I can tell you've been itching to argue against such reasoning. My line of reasoning is clear. Looking to control people of both sexes, institutions have played up the weaknesses of both men and women. In men, one weakness is an appetite for fighting where diplomacy is warranted. In women, one weakness is a risk aversion that discourages forceful confrontation even when necessary.  Both of these weaknesses stem from net beneficial instincts (women are more disciplined risk takers, men are more assertive under the threat of violence). So you can't really shoehorn me into the anti-'toxic masculinity' camp because I...

1) never assigned blame on male/female terms (injustice isn't 'caused by men'), but rather attribute the exploitation to institutions

and

2) acknowledge that these weaknesses and strengths are two sides to the same instinctual coin


 

The social and political role of men in society is not an arbitrary construct, but arises out of a combination of biological factors...

 
What's with these constant appeals to nature? Surely you know this is a fallacy.  Do I need to remind you what else is natural, yet progressively less tolerable? Everything is natural. Where will humans be in 100 years if we just said, "Well sh*t. Nuclear warfare and gas attacks on children are a natural means of imposing a leader's will."

To the extent that a we can't modify some biological realities yet, we can contain the harmful impacts of such realities at the very least.
 


Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Botswana

#54

Posted 28 July 2017 - 02:03 PM Edited by Eutyphro, 28 July 2017 - 02:13 PM.

 However, war is not inevitable.

It seems to me that the only way to meaningfully respond to this is to analyze this as a free will problem, but I don't think that will move the discussion in a useful direction.
 

This is beyond reductionism seeing as the social order that men have historically died at war to defend favors their property rights (male-centric primogeniture for instance) over women.  Next you'll be claiming that men are compelled by women to go to war.  The fact that >90% of the fights back in school involved males is no coincidence. Males love battle (until they actually get there).  This is a strength at times, but it's also a weakness when exploited by the state to create downright jingoism.

This is the false toxic masculinity line of reasoning that I've pointed to being in your line of reasoning before. If men would just stop fighting and would start behaving like women the world would be far better right? No, that's ridiculous and incredibly naive. We can't coerce men to start being more like women. That seems to be what the left wants, but it is a project that will fail.

Any of these points might be meaningful if we could find any historical precedent of a successful highly advanced non male centric stateless society without private property, but we can't. That is the ideal you are comparing the world and history with continually, but it is a thought experiment that is at odds with the way the world really is and has been.

 

No it's not. I'm not politically correct. If a kid is not my kin folk or that of a friend, then I'm not running into anyone's burning house. And if there aren't have enough lifeboats, you shouldn't be on the damnned ship to begin with... which comes full circle to my underlying point that someone else's escapist urge to procreate in the modern world is not my existential burden.  It's that of the parent.

Regardless of the increasing tendency away from trying to serve the common interest and towards self preservation, which is probably normal in developed Western countries, you'd still be intuitively more inclined to save a group of women, or women and children, than a group of men. Feminists have managed to even be bitter about that, that we are more prone to protect women, by complaining about the 'damsel in distress' trope.
 

never assigned blame on male/female terms (injustice isn't 'caused by men'),

You did, consistently. "Men are the one's who glorify war/violence to begin with." "men have historically died at war to defend favors their property rights (male-centric primogeniture for instance) over women" But leftists in general value feminine traits over male traits. So that is quite usual.
 

but rather attribute the exploitation to institutions

You would consider an institution with female values good and an institution with male values bad.

 

What's with these constant appeals to nature? Surely you know this is a fallacy. 

Reality is not a fallacy.

 

To the extent that a we can't modify some biological realities yet, we can contain the harmful impacts of such realities at the very least.

Are you alluding to some creepy transhumanism project?


Alpha Demigod
  • Alpha Demigod

    Worthless deadbeat scumbag who deserves to die

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 02 Oct 2012
  • Canada
  • Best Closet Brony 2016

#55

Posted 28 July 2017 - 02:55 PM Edited by Alpha Demigod, 28 July 2017 - 02:58 PM.

Oh man, I have so much sh*t I could write about this. But I hung up my fedora and shaved my neckbeard a long time ago. Not because I didn't believe in the cause, but because I become a lazy "f*ck the entire universe" nihilist type and figured there are smarter men who are better equipped than me to fight for it.

Here is a TL;DR summary of my take on it.

- women face serious issues because of their gender

- men face serious issues because of their gender

- women have a massive sociopolitical support system to fight these issues, through feminism

- feminism is respected in academia and elsewhere. If a celebrity says "i'm a feminist" she's seen as a progressive liberated powerful woman.

- on the flip-side, men get pretty much 0 support to fight for their issues. And a dude saying "I'm an MRA" would lead to character assassination and laughter.

- I figured this is because many stereotype MRAs as misogynistic basement dwellers with neckbeards.

- But the hilarious thing is the sheer hypocrisy. Pretty much any feminist will HATE when you use the "topless bra-burning purple haired tumblertard" archetype to describe feminists. The defense is "not all feminists are like that! you can't be guilty by association!" and then 10-seconds later they tackle all MRAs as being neckbeard redpiller hate-filled mongrels. Lol.


- I think there are indeed serious issues that effect solely men.

- Let's look at divorce courts in many developed countries. Christ, they're f*cked. Men being robbed of every penny and losing their kids and assets and being driven to suicide. But it was probably a MALE judge that did that sh*t, using laws written by MALE politicians and all.


- It'd be really nice if a group of men could band together, pool their resources, link their minds, and start a coalition to fight for the rights of father's and husbands in a divorce court.

- I don't blame feminists for these issues like many MRAs do.

- If feminists want to only focus on female issues, that's fine. If each gender had a group dedicated to fixing their issues, that'd be okay.

- Problem is, many feminists don't let the men's groups operate in peace. That's what sucks. Why can't they exist in harmony? Feminists do fem stuff and meninists do men stuff? Why does it have to be a zero-sum game?


- Feminists hate and actively shut-down any attempts men make to fix their sh*t. (btw...if you want evidence for this, just ask).


- Wow, this TL;DR isn't even a TL;DR anymore. Anyway, I've said enough. Thanks for reading.




TL;DR of the TL:DR


Women face gendered issues. Men face gendered issues. Women are allowed to fight for theirs. Men aren't. And prevailing societal attitudes makes it such that women's problems are being fixed every day while men's problems are constantly swept under the rug.


There was a time I could write pages and pages of this stuff. About misandry in the media, or an inherent bias against men, or the sexism they face that everyone is completely blind to because we've done it for so long.

But that part of me is gone, along with the young high-school aged gamer.

Now I'm a mix of The Joker and Jimmy De Santa. I hate everyone, men, women, kids, dogs, cats, whatever.

And all I want to do is sit on my ass, masturbating and playing video games while I insult strangers.
  • DarkSavageDeathlyCloud likes this

Triple Vacuum Seal
  • Triple Vacuum Seal

    If you ♥ the $, then prepare to die for it.

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2011
  • United-States

#56

Posted 29 July 2017 - 03:50 AM

you'd still be intuitively more inclined to save a group of women, or women and children, than a group of men.


At best, all of that chivalry sh*t was just for pussy.

 

And with all due respect, this idea that men die at war to save their family from immediate danger stateside is a load of pious horsesh*t straight out of a wartime melodrama film. And I’m the idealist? Men die at war because…

a) The state forces them to/they’re too poor to avoid it

or

b) It personally benefits them. (honorable means of experiencing a bunch of otherwise illegal thrills, brainwashed by propaganda, want to obtain certain skillsets, or some misc. reason)

 

Protecting women and children back home is the type of rhetoric your state tells you to make you feel dignified when sh*t hits the fan.  Now that's not to take away from the bravery of those who do serve.  But the troops largely serve for themselves, and then eventually for each other once they get the trained up on the value of camaraderie.

 

This is the false toxic masculinity line of reasoning that I've pointed to being in your line of reasoning before.

 

Glorification of war is a problem and the only folks who think otherwise are those who haven't been to war and/or directly profit from warfare. It is possible to acknowledge that men are culturally encouraged to get in over their heads at everyone's expense without devolving into 'toxic masculinity' nonsense.

 

If men would just stop fighting and would start behaving like women the world would be far better right? No, that's ridiculous and incredibly naive. We can't coerce men to start being more like women. That seems to be what the left wants, but it is a project that will fail.

 

This ‘leftism is trying to make men effeminate’ line of reasoning is utter tripe. Emasculated men worship dogma and submit to the will of their state without critique. That’s the real cuckery tbh.

And by the way, which is it? The left are a bunch of hooligans engaging in wanton violence, or the left are a bunch of emasculated pacifists unable to grapple with the practical role of force?

 

Any of these points might be meaningful if we could find any historical precedent of a successful highly advanced non male centric stateless society without private property, but we can't. That is the ideal you are comparing the world and history with continually, but it is a thought experiment that is at odds with the way the world really is and has been.

 

Nope. Not comparing any ideals or thought experiments. Merely pointing out the power relationships that exploit men as you consistently distract from these facts with various forms of ‘but feminists…’

States put men to death on the battlefield.  The glorification of war is state-sponsored and exacerbates the male disposability problem.  These are uncomfortable facts, but a facts nonetheless.  There’s no sense in fiending ignorance just to avoid sounding radical. These features of our social order are not off limits if we are to engage in any serious discussion about why men have historically marched off in droves to fight wars and suffer in factories. You want reality? Well there’s your dose.

 

 

never assigned blame on male/female terms (injustice isn't 'caused by men'),


You did, consistently. "Men are the one's who glorify war/violence to begin with." "men have historically died at war to defend favors their property rights (male-centric primogeniture for instance) over women" But leftists in general value feminine traits over male traits. So that is quite usual.

 

 

No I didn't. But you seem to want me to.

Pointing out the observable fact that males glorify war isn’t tantamount to blame. It’s an honest assessment derived from what war veterans themselves have said in hindsight. The recognition of the state’s tendency to exploit male masculinity is also far from blaming men. I don’t blame people. I blame the bad ideas, which are not contained to any one biological sex. On one hand, you are urging critical voices to accept the natural ‘reality’, while on the other hand you complain about the effects of complacency with this status quo.

 

Are you alluding to some creepy transhumanism project?

 

Forgive my vague response. Let me clarify. Assaulting someone for disrespecting your reputation is natural. Killing someone for more grievous forms of disrespect is natural. Even rape is natural. All of these things were once customary (still are in prisons, among radical extremists, and other depraved conditions) as biological realities. Then somewhere along the line, we decided that such behaviors are unnecessary and ought to be minimized. Such agreements were also ‘unatural’ until they actually materialized.


I also take issue with your claim that war is inevitable. Nothing is inevitable.  The assertion that war is a necessary evil for now - one that I never disagreed with as an isolated claim - is a far cry from the outright glorification of war.  You can detest the complacency with military solutions while still supporting war readiness.

  • Melchior likes this

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Botswana

#57

Posted 29 July 2017 - 12:21 PM Edited by Eutyphro, 29 July 2017 - 01:43 PM.

Glorification of war is a problem

What makes you think I glorify war? You've turned my assertion that human beings have an innate ability to be violent, and that war can be a logical consequence of this, into the assertion that war is beautiful, when that is clearly unrelated.
 

And by the way, which is it? The left are a bunch of hooligans engaging in wanton violence, or the left are a bunch of emasculated pacifists unable to grapple with the practical role of force?

The most interesting case of this occurs with the pro censorship safe-space snowflakes, who think 'words are violent', which then justifies intimidation and threats against those with opinions they don't like. So the non violent/violent distinction you try to make is an oversimplification. All human beings have a similar capacity to be violent, and so do leftists.
 

The glorification of war is state-sponsored and exacerbates the male disposability problem. 

Male disposability isn't a problem at all. It is just a pragmatic measure in state of emergency.
 

Forgive my vague response. Let me clarify. Assaulting someone for disrespecting your reputation is natural. Killing someone for more grievous forms of disrespect is natural. Even rape is natural. All of these things were once customary (still are in prisons, among radical extremists, and other depraved conditions) as biological realities. Then somewhere along the line, we decided that such behaviors are unnecessary and ought to be minimized. Such agreements were also ‘unatural’ until they actually materialized.

I'm not at all arguing everything 'natural' is 'good'. What I would argue for though is that when it comes to political theory you should take people as they are, and not as you would like them to be.
 

I also take issue with your claim that war is inevitable. Nothing is inevitable.

In the past due to historical context and the way human beings are, it was logical that it occurred, inevitable might not be the right word.


Triple Vacuum Seal
  • Triple Vacuum Seal

    If you ♥ the $, then prepare to die for it.

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2011
  • United-States

#58

Posted 29 July 2017 - 03:32 PM Edited by Triple Vacuum Seal, 29 July 2017 - 03:37 PM.

What makes you think I glorify war? You've turned my assertion that human beings have an innate ability to be violent, and that war can be a logical consequence of this, into the assertion that war is beautiful, when that is clearly unrelated.

 
When did I say you did? Not only did I never direct the criticism of glorifying war at you, instead attributing it to a broader appeal to masculinity, but you quoted me as doing so (twice).   I said, "Men are the one's who glorify war/violence to begin with."  That's a fact. Then getting all defensive, you expanded my assertion to blaming men for what is essentially a human problem. You were the one more interested in assigning blame on male/female terms and even playing the blame game in general.  
 

Glorifying war is distinct from accepting its practical role in social relations while phasing out its disastrous effects with time.  I went back and drew this distinction so that any further straw men and resulting restatements could be averted.

 

All human beings have a similar capacity to be violent, and so do leftists.

 
Well that's nice to hear after the myth of specifically leftist violence being both a major and unique issue in the west has been perpetuated.  The bit about censorship is an irrelevant attack on the left because censorship is primarily a tool of the state more so than the left or right. These schools with 'safe spaces' are state institutions. One should mention that right leaning politics are more submissive to state authority, but that's for another topic.

 

Male disposability isn't a problem at all

 
Then what's with all of that men dying on the battlefield talk in the US Pol. topic that largely prompted this discussion then?  You said the following...

"Men have always been treated like objects throughout human history. As replaceable utility units to provide for and protect the women and children. Maybe you should continue this discussion in the MRA topic. It seems a better fit there."

The "replaceable utility units" bit suggested that you take issue with male disposability. After all, children and women are also replaceable utility units. Yet you drew the distinction with men being the disposable ones. Though such disposability is not limited to state emergency, if you don't take issue with it, then so be it. I'm not particularly passionate about the matter either.

 

What I would argue for though is that when it comes to political theory you should take people as they are, and not as you would like them to be.


'As they are', people's attitudes and priorities are constantly changing. So it's only logical to direct their attitudes away from the primal urge to nuke one another into extinction..however 'effeminate' such an aversion to large scale conflict might seem.

  • Melchior and sivispacem like this

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Botswana

#59

Posted 29 July 2017 - 04:04 PM Edited by Eutyphro, 29 July 2017 - 04:15 PM.

Glorifying war is distinct from accepting its practical role in social relations while phasing out its disastrous effects with time.

You seem to be under the delusion that we can move towards some utopic future where people live in complete peace with one another. The nearer we come to such a state of being, the more arbitrary conflict people will create. Humanity is not a peaceful species. The chance that we'll selfdestruct somewhere in the not too distant future due to nuclear weapons and climate change is quite large.
 

Well that's nice to hear after the myth of specifically leftist violence being both a major and unique issue in the west has been perpetuated.

Leftist violence is not a 'myth'. You have to be purposefully blind to think it is. But you will probably provide some revisionist idea of history up until the point that Khmer Rouge were right wing probably. Pim Fortuyn was murdered by a far leftist. Did that happen in your history book?
 

The bit about censorship is an irrelevant attack on the left because censorship is primarily a tool of the state more so than the left or right. These schools with 'safe spaces' are state institutions.

This is again you comparing the real world to some stateless utopian delusion that is wholly irrelevant.
 

One should mention that right leaning politics are more submissive to state authority

But at the same time leftist revolutions routinely degenerate into authoritarian states. Why would that be? There are many leftist movements and ideologies that are extremely authoritarian. The far leftist tendency to value the collective over the individual is an extremely authoritarian tendency.
 

Then what's with all of that men dying on the battlefield talk in the US Pol. topic that largely prompted this discussion then?

To point out an equivalency. Tchuck made the false assertion that we uniquely treat women as objects as opposed to men.
 

Though such disposability is not limited to state emergency, if you don't take issue with it, then so be it. I'm not particularly passionate about the matter either.

It's relevant because popular feminist dogma routinely ignores it. So it is relevant to point it out.
 

'As they are', people's attitudes and priorities are constantly changing.

People behaving more peacefully is not equivalent to human beings as a species becoming more peacefully fundamentally. We don't differ much genetically from the Nazi's, or other extremely cruel tyrants. If the circumstances in society change current people would be able to be exactly as cruel, violent and evil as those of past times, or current times if you consider ISIS.


Triple Vacuum Seal
  • Triple Vacuum Seal

    If you ♥ the $, then prepare to die for it.

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2011
  • United-States

#60

Posted 30 July 2017 - 05:03 PM Edited by Triple Vacuum Seal, 30 July 2017 - 09:19 PM.

Glorifying war is distinct from accepting its practical role in social relations while phasing out its disastrous effects with time.


You seem to be under the delusion that we can move towards some utopic future where people live in complete peace with one another. The nearer we come to such a state of being, the more arbitrary conflict people will create. Humanity is not a peaceful species. The chance that we'll selfdestruct somewhere in the not too distant future due to nuclear weapons and climate change is quite large.


And you seem to have this tendency to restate my claims in black and white proportions so they’re easier to argue against. Not sure why the utopian shtick is your go-to characterization of my worldview. In fact, I’m quite cynical about these things.

Have you not noticed how much less violent, but albeit more destructive war has gotten over the course of human history? In ancient times, people used to literally get butchered on a regular basis in civilizations that were considered advanced for their time. In the modern era, there was unfathomable bloodshed that sparked a global consensus around phasing out this complacency with war as a recurrent custom. News flash, technological development does not allow for such complacency anymore. Did your history book skip that bit? If you don’t want to hear it from me, then take it straight from a 4-star general (play from 27min to 28min)…

https://www.c-span.o...ender-directive


 

Well that's nice to hear after the myth of specifically leftist violence being both a major and unique issue in the west has been perpetuated.


Leftist violence is not a 'myth'. You have to be purposefully blind to think it is. But you will probably provide some revisionist idea of history up until the point that Khmer Rouge were right wing probably. Pim Fortuyn was murdered by a far leftist. Did that happen in your history book?

 
The myth is that leftist violence is a unique and significant manifestation of political violence in the west. The resulting panic was senseless. Don’t read too much into this rather straightforward claim.

 

The bit about censorship is an irrelevant attack on the left because censorship is primarily a tool of the state more so than the left or right. These schools with 'safe spaces' are state institutions.


This is again you comparing the real world to some stateless utopian delusion that is wholly irrelevant.


This is you again dismissing a 100% factual statement because of its inconvenience to your narrative.

 

But at the same time leftist revolutions routinely degenerate into authoritarian states. Why would that be?

 
Simple. Socialism, and just about anything left of the social democracies we see in say Denmark, Greater Scandinavia, and eventually Switzerland, is thoroughly incompatible with the state. With the state intact, it's merely regime change within an existing order and no longer leftist in nature. Developing any leftist order without creating a governance structure independent of the state is like putting a micro USB in a cassette player.  Ideas alone won’t change anything without severing a reliance on obsolete authorities (technology presents some opportunities here but I'm not optimistic).  Merely overthrowing without first creating alternatives is what causes degeneration into authoritarianism because chaos ensues and populists conflate public property w/state property.  Those who peacefully create alternatives to state authority are violently opposed by state and corporate 'authorities'; in case you're history books skipped that bit.  
 
I should mention that fostering this sense of resiliency completely independent of the state is actually a conservative idea as well.  It's one of the common grounds with intellectually honest conservatives and those on the left...but that's far enough off topic.


Back to men’s issues…
 

Though such disposability is not limited to state emergency, if you don't take issue with it, then so be it. I'm not particularly passionate about the matter either.


It's relevant because popular feminist dogma routinely ignores it. So it is relevant to point it out.

 
So relevant it is! Well I agree that pop feminists ignore it. They ignore many things. If they did acknowledge it as an extension of their discourse on gender roles, would that really make that much of difference to you? I’ll quote you again…

”They pretend that men don't really have issues, and that you solve men's issues by solving women's issues, and that therefore only women's issues matter. This is false.”

You’ve condemned the feminist tendency to suggest that men’s issues have solutions rooted feminism/women’s issues. Yet here you are constantly deflecting the focus to issues within feminism as if we cannot address men’s rights without fixing toxic feminism first. Institutional forces are in fact, the primary obstacle to male autonomy. These forces, whether they are state, corporate, or religious, have got us by the balls…literally in the case of religious institutions for instance.

For ages, religious institutions have imposed moronic restrictions on who we can have sex with, when we can have sex with them (premarital rules), how we have sex with them (prohibited acts), why we have sex (restrict casual sex + banning birth control + banning abortion). If anything, they gave radical feminists the playbook on how to control male access to the female body. The church specializes in Anti-Access and Area Denial when it comes to sex.
 
 
Religious institutions are just one example I have chosen since you seem to dislike criticism of the state, but more broadly...
 
As you've accurately hinted at earlier with reference to female "societal beauty standards", these 'rights' issues that make both men and women miserable feed on insecurity around one's femininity or masculinity...or as MRAs call it, the 'inner game'.  Rampant (psychological) insecurity is incredibly profitable because it allows you to sell people back what they already have.  More importantly, it makes people easier to control by overstating the social value of essentially rent-seeking institutions whether they be corporate or not.

 

People behaving more peacefully is not equivalent to human beings as a species becoming more peacefully fundamentally. We don't differ much genetically from the Nazi's, or other extremely cruel tyrants. If the circumstances in society change current people would be able to be exactly as cruel, violent and evil as those of past times, or current times if you consider ISIS.


What people are able to do in this context is irrelevant compared to what they tend to do. This goal isn’t to cure violence. That’s like ‘curing’ suffocation. The goal is to minimize senseless slaughter on a mass scale by continuing to socially evolve. People will still commit atrocities here and there.
  • Melchior likes this




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users