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

[G's Ah's 371]

2 hours ago, Darth Yokel said:

Says the guy who's just regurgitating alt-right talking points from reddit. You're not fooling anyone, you know?

They've already been fooled into thinking that Western feminism isn't being run by its most radical wing, and that somehow the less openly misandrist liberal feminists are running the show. Further more, if you think what I am saying is "alt-right", boy are you in for a surprise when you find out what actual people who are "alt-right" think about feminism. 

[Eutyphro 2,911]

Feminism is here to stay though, because we have lost other ideologies to regulate sexual behavior. #Metoo is an effort to reestablish some of the sexual norms that kept men at bay and regulated sexual behavior when Christianity was the reigning moral doctrine in the West. It seems that mainstream feminism is throwing ideals of sexual liberation in the trash, and is trying to start regulating sexuality once more to the point where you have to sign a contract before having sex or it might be considered rape. Mainstream feminism doesn't have much authority though, and is strongly rejected by at least half of most populations in my estimation, so the norms will ultimately fail to be properly established and it will just lead to a lot of confusion and bad practice.

Feminism is here to stay because it has become a secular religion. You see an increasing number of secular religions these days. Feminism is one, but so is environmentalism, and veganism. I'm not implying that these aren't in part based on reasonable ideas and values, but an increasing number of people are looking for an idea of what is sacred in these ideologies, because they have a desire for that.

[sivispacem 20,119]

32 minutes ago, Eutyphro said:

#Metoo is an effort to reestablish some of the sexual norms that kept men at bay and regulated sexual behavior when Christianity was the reigning moral doctrine in the West.

And here I was thinking it was a campaign focused on highlighting the normalisation of sexual harassment and abuse, primarily in industries like the media.

Frankly, this assertion reads as complete drivel and I really hope you've got more evidence to support it than you've been able to supply in this discussion so far.

[Eutyphro 2,911]

11 minutes ago, sivispacem said:

Frankly, this assertion reads as complete drivel and I really hope you've got more evidence to support it than you've been able to supply in this discussion so far.

How sexual morals develop culturally isn't really something you 'prove' with statistics. It's a cultural and not a scientific issue. We are all aware of how #metoo has developed, and can reflect on the type of implications this has in the context of sexual morality compared to the free love sexual liberation hippie movement of the 60's and 70's (which also had a powerful feminist current), or to traditionalist norms of sexual morality.

 

I'm not really sure what 'evidence' you would want, but I also don't think you are genuinely interested in evidence. I think you are more interested in a cheap effort to 'win' the discussion. If you were interested in an actual conversation you would propose a coherent counternarrative, which we could discuss, but you fail to provide that. You also make up claims, like this one on the previous page: "the assertion that it is 'feminists' and their supporters who are more prolific in doing this than other groups". Sometimes the manner in which you make up claims is a case of a genuine misunderstanding, but in that case it seemed like purposefully moving the goalposts.

 

Quote

And here I was thinking it was a campaign focused on highlighting the normalisation of sexual harassment and abuse, primarily in industries like the media.

Yes, it has come as a response to the age old phenomenon known as 'the casting couch' and more generally the trade of sexual favors for career advancement, which sadly is the norm in many industries. It has also sharpened discussions on the topic of workplace relationships. But I was framing it even more broadly as a cultural change concerning sexual morality. There are many ways to look at a cultural phenomenon like #metoo.

[sivispacem 20,119]

1 hour ago, Eutyphro said:

How sexual morals develop culturally isn't really something you 'prove' with statistics.

In which case assertions that the purpose of the movement to "re-establish some of the sexual norms" of Christian morality are basically meaningless assertions from someone with a set of biases clear for all to see.

That's ignoring the questions over whether such norms ever actually existed in the first place, which in most case they didn't as the imagining of pre-Enlightenment and Victorian eras as sexually austere is a modern fantasy.

 

1 hour ago, Eutyphro said:

I'm not really sure what 'evidence' you would want

Given you're the one making the assertion I'm questioning, that's kind of up to you to decide.

If there's evidence to support your assertion, cite it; don't worry about my expectations.

 

1 hour ago, Eutyphro said:

I think you are more interested in a cheap effort to 'win' the discussion

If by "cheap effort to 'win' the discussion" you mean "pointing out baseless, flippant assertions, that you can't or won't support with evidence, designed to mis-characterise the views of your opponents", then yes.

 

1 hour ago, Eutyphro said:

If you were interested in an actual conversation you would propose a coherent counternarrative

I don't need to have built my own orbital rocket to know that yours, made from cardboard and powered by pig sh*t, won't work.

 

1 hour ago, Eutyphro said:

You also make up claims, like this one on the previous page: "the assertion that it is 'feminists' and their supporters who are more prolific in doing this than other groups".

This is more to highlight the double standards which see you focusing only on denigrations and character assassinations performed by what you're viewing as your particular "vogue" ideological adversaries at any given time, selectively ignoring anyone else doing it and attempting to portray it as unequivocally intertwined with whichever movement you're currently arguing against.

 

1 hour ago, Eutyphro said:

But I was framing it even more broadly as a cultural change concerning sexual morality.

It must be nice to be able to arbitrary redefine popular movements to suit your own whims at the drop of a hat.

[Eutyphro 2,911]

2 minutes ago, sivispacem said:

made from cardboard and powered by pig sh*t,

I mean, lol, what even is this sh*t? Why are you so f*cking mad actually? This is supposed to be D&D but the tone of your reply is as if I pissed in your drink.
 

Quote

In which case assertions ... basically meaningless assertions 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verstehen
 

Quote

That's ignoring the questions over whether such norms ever actually existed in the first place, which in most case they didn't as the imagining of pre-Enlightenment and Victorian eras as sexually austere is a modern fantasy.

So in your view of history the 60's didn't happen and that level of sexual liberation was already present in the Victorian era? Oke, got it.
 

Quote

This is more to highlight the double standards which see you focusing only on denigrations and character assassinations performed by what you're viewing as your particular "vogue" ideological adversaries at any given time, selectively ignoring anyone else doing it and attempting to portray it as unequivocally intertwined with whichever movement you're currently arguing against.

Tu quoque much? It's not as if conservatives don't engage in exactly the same behavior. They've been engaging in it increasingly often as well. Conservatives hold a minority stake of media power though, so they're not as effective at it.

Also, it's still a made up claim: "that it is 'feminists' and their supporters who are more prolific in doing this than other groups". A claim I have never made, and don't intend to make, because I don't even think it's true.
 

Quote

It must be nice to be able to arbitrary redefine popular movements to suit your own whims at the drop of a hat.

It must be boring to never depart from what the mainstream media tells me concerning how I should interpret popular movements..?

 

More generally, this has once more devolved into the most boring pedantry, that is most definitely too boring and spiteful for anyone to actually follow, read, or join. It's a completely useless and time wasting discussion at this point.

[sivispacem 20,119]

36 minutes ago, Eutyphro said:

Why are you so f*cking mad actually?

If you genuinely see comments like that one as an expression of anger rather than jovial ridicule, then you're the flakiest little snowflake that ever did fall.

 

36 minutes ago, Eutyphro said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verstehen

Verstehen requires both a meaningful academic understanding and appreciation of a subject matter and the evaluation and presentation of qualitative data to support the interpretations made. Your speculation fails to meet either criteria.

 

36 minutes ago, Eutyphro said:

So in your view of history the 60's didn't happen and that level of sexual liberation was already present in the Victorian era?

Are your straw men usually this sh*t, or is it an off day for you?

 

36 minutes ago, Eutyphro said:

Tu quoque much?

It's not really a tu quoque when the specific argument you made was predicated on a particular characteristic being assigned primarily to the group you're attacking.

Highlighting an apparent double standard in your approach to addressing actions taken by different societal groups is perfectly valid.
 

36 minutes ago, Eutyphro said:

It must be boring to never depart from what the mainstream media tells me concerning how I should interpret popular movements..?

Oh good, a Galileo Gambit, begging the question and a poor attempt at poisoning the well all rolled into one.

 

36 minutes ago, Eutyphro said:

More generally, this has once more devolved into the most boring pedantry

...And yet you keep coming back.

[DEALUX 2,419]

Christianity does get some things kinda half right but seemingly by accident and by citing the wrong reasons not to do something. Like why is lust considered a sin? We all intuitively understand that there is something wrong with being completely captured by lust (well, maybe at least in hindsight). I would even go as far as to say that some forms of "casual sex" are "wrong" but not necessarily in a significant way (unless you're obsessed with sex or something).

[G's Ah's 371]

8 hours ago, sivispacem said:

And here I was thinking it was a campaign focused on highlighting the normalisation of sexual harassment and abuse, primarily in industries like the media.

That was the intention, but as with many other movements that lacked any real structure to them, it fell apart pretty quickly. The movement also resulted in unintended consequences for women, especially those in the corporate sector. It's interesting to see the male response to this as being near universal, which I interpret as being the way men tend to respond to sudden environmental changes and the new threats that may manifest from these changes. In the case in the aftermath of #MeToo, it can be considered that men have gone into self-preservation mode, accelerating an already growing belief of the increasing difficulty in dealing with women on a day-to-day basis. This is, of course, not what Western feminists wanted or had in mind. 

 

As the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. 

 

9 hours ago, Eutyphro said:

Feminism is here to stay though, because we have lost other ideologies to regulate sexual behavior. 

Well no. Feminism isn't an ideology, ironically due to the fact that the movement lacks structure and the cohesiveness that typically one can find in political ideologies. For the most part, that's not to say that elements of Western feminism at least don't have their act together and don't dominate the modern movement, but even then, the infighting between those adhering to more traditional or women-based orthodoxy and intersectionalists largely undermines the organisational and political influence radical feminism has. 

 

Quote

#Metoo is an effort to reestablish some of the sexual norms that kept men at bay and regulated sexual behavior when Christianity was the reigning moral doctrine in the West.

Not really. Christianity, and other Abrahamic faiths for that matter, attempted to address the gender power imbalances between men and women by instituting strict social constraints upon men and women, in the form of introducing the taboos regarding extramarital and premarital sexual intercourse, among other things. Hence why marriage, and specifically marriages blessed and ordained by the preeminent religious authority, became important aspects of how a man and women cohabited together. More importantly, these constraints on sexual intercourse outside of marriage, and the requirement for sex to only be enjoyed by man and women within the confines of a heterosexual marriage, did two important and valuable things: it ensured that women's natural promiscuity remained under control, and in doing so, allowed for a greater number of men to not only procreate, but also achieve natural desires to pass on genetic material and engage in pair bonding with females. This reduced the number of men who were unable to fulfill either of these biological imperatives, and create social stability from which civilisation could flourish. 

 

Quote

It seems that mainstream feminism is throwing ideals of sexual liberation in the trash, and is trying to start regulating sexuality once more to the point where you have to sign a contract before having sex or it might be considered rape.

Not quite. Women have held the upper hand in terms of sexual dynamics for as long as civilisation has existed. Yes, societies and civilisations have attempted to control the female desire to procreate with more than one male at a time, but for as long as mankind has existed, it has been up to the male to not only prove his worth as a male, but to court women and to fulfill romantic and sexual obligations to women. Men's entire existence is based around pleasing and providing for women. This of course, isn't a Abrahamic, or even an anthropological one, but one that is part of our biology as a descended of the first hominids and the evolution of our species. 

 

With regards to the intention behind #MeToo and other concepts and beliefs in Western feminism, this is simply Western feminists maintaining these established precedents and behaviours, and increasing women's control over sex to women. This ensures that women can regulate and control men's behaviour by using sexual intercourse as a carrot in order to get men to perform various tasks or favours for women. And men, who think about 95% of the time with their second brain located somewhere in their genitalia, are more than happy to do these tasks and favours if it means they get sex. Feminists and women know the stigma attached to claims of sexual abuse and rape if they're leveled against men, hence why such things are used as coercion to get men to behave the way they want them to. 

 

Quote

Mainstream feminism doesn't have much authority though, and is strongly rejected by at least half of most populations in my estimation, so the norms will ultimately fail to be properly established and it will just lead to a lot of confusion and bad practice.

Mainstream feminism is radical feminism and yes, it has considerable authority. You only have to look at the successful push by radical feminists to stop the introduction of gender neutral rape laws in Israel and India, as well as the continued criminalisation of the purchase of sex in Scandinavia, Canada and France, in addition to the proposed redefinition of rape laws in Spain to essentially render all non-verbally consensual sex as rape to see this in effect. Feminism in of itself is not some radical fringe movement, it is in the mainstream and it is a powerful lobby. 

 

Quote

Feminism is here to stay because it has become a secular religion. You see an increasing number of secular religions these days. Feminism is one, but so is environmentalism, and veganism. I'm not implying that these aren't in part based on reasonable ideas and values, but an increasing number of people are looking for an idea of what is sacred in these ideologies, because they have a desire for that.

None of those social and political beliefs you have mentioned are either ideologies nor meet the definition of a religious movement. 

 

Quote

Christianity does get some things kinda half right but seemingly by accident and by citing the wrong reasons not to do something. Like why is lust considered a sin? We all intuitively understand that there is something wrong with being completely captured by lust (well, maybe at least in hindsight). I would even go as far as to say that some forms of "casual sex" are "wrong" but not necessarily in a significant way (unless you're obsessed with sex or something).

Lust is considered a sin because it leads to promiscuity, and as advanced civilisations need a high investment in parenting in order to maintain themselves, promiscuity, and therefore lust, are considered to be threats to the maintenance of civilisation. 

4 hours ago, Dealux said:

Christianity does get some things kinda half right but seemingly by accident and by citing the wrong reasons not to do something. Like why is lust considered a sin? We all intuitively understand that there is something wrong with being completely captured by lust (well, maybe at least in hindsight). I would even go as far as to say that some forms of "casual sex" are "wrong" but not necessarily in a significant way (unless you're obsessed with sex or something).

Lust is considered a sin because it leads to promiscuity, and as advanced civilisations need a high investment in parenting in order to maintain themselves, promiscuity, and therefore lust, are considered to be threats to the maintenance of civilisation. 

[Eutyphro 2,911]

On 8/1/2018 at 4:19 AM, G's Ah's said:

Well no. Feminism isn't an ideology, ironically due to the fact that the movement lacks structure and the cohesiveness that typically one can find in political ideologies. For the most part, that's not to say that elements of Western feminism at least don't have their act together and don't dominate the modern movement, but even then, the infighting between those adhering to more traditional or women-based orthodoxy and intersectionalists largely undermines the organisational and political influence radical feminism has.

I didn't claim that feminism is historically static, or that it is has ever been uniform. But there have been ideas, or sets of ideas, that can be considered feminist that have had an effect on women's rights, the sexual revolution of the 60's, and also on #metoo. These ideas that impacted society aren't a historically constant and uniform force. Indeed feminism is diverse. There are also feminists that are highly critical of #metoo, and this doesn't make them less feminist. Thus there are many feminist ideologies. But it is true that how feminism effects political change is connected to ideology in a scattered way, and is sometimes more easily understood in terms of interests.
 

Quote

Not really. Christianity, and other Abrahamic faiths for that matter, attempted to address the gender power imbalances between men and women by instituting strict social constraints upon men and women, in the form of introducing the taboos regarding extramarital and premarital sexual intercourse, among other things. Hence why marriage, and specifically marriages blessed and ordained by the preeminent religious authority, became important aspects of how a man and women cohabited together. More importantly, these constraints on sexual intercourse outside of marriage, and the requirement for sex to only be enjoyed by man and women within the confines of a heterosexual marriage, did two important and valuable things: it ensured that women's natural promiscuity remained under control, and in doing so, allowed for a greater number of men to not only procreate, but also achieve natural desires to pass on genetic material and engage in pair bonding with females. This reduced the number of men who were unable to fulfill either of these biological imperatives, and create social stability from which civilisation could flourish. 

I don't really disagree with any of this. I'm not inclined to believe female sexuality is as promiscuous and functions in the same manner as male sexuality, but that is not really that relevant for what we are talking about. But if I'd say one thing about it, it would be that the main difference between male and female sexuality that I'm aware of is that women are far more hypergamous than men, which causes physical attraction and youth to be a larger factor in what men are attracted to compared to women.

If you interpret me as claiming that #metoo and feminism are trying to regulate sexuality in the same manner as traditional norms did, then you're misinterpreting me. It is indeed wholly different. But that it is attempting to take over the role of regulating sexuality that Christianity once occupied, and that modern mainstream feminism is rejecting the free sexuality of the 60's and 70's, is in my opinion an accurate observation. On the basis of feminist ideas new norms are being established on what constitutes sexual harassment, what relationships are acceptable in the workplace (none generally), what constitutes consent etc.. Whereas Christianity tried to regulate sexuality by limiting the freedom of women and forcing chastity onto women, feminist are trying to once more limit promiscuity just as Christianity had attempted, but now by pathologizing masculinity ('toxic masculinity'), institutionalizing men as being aggressors by only giving men consent training (which many sane feminists are critical of), and often by default considering men the aggressor in case no consent has been established. What now often happens at colleges is that after promiscuous sex where no concrete consent has been established, if afterwards relations turn sour, a situation occurs where either party can accuse the other of rape. Men are also using this opportunity against women, sometimes to defend themselves, sometimes out of spite.

I'm aware that what I'm summing up are the negative aspects of how feminism regulates sexuality, and that very often, as in the case of #metoo, genuine abuse is challenged. I'm more concerned with criticizing the bad side of feminism than pointing out the good side in this post though. But I shouldn't be understood as an orthodox anti-feminist, which I am not. This post can be seen as too one sided in its negativity on feminism, and I'd agree with that criticism, but it's already a very long post as it is.

The conclusion is thus the following. Feminism is currently being used to once more attempt to limit promiscuous behavior, mainly among young people, but also to completely prohibit workplace relationships, which is problematic because most relationships happen to start at the workplace. Feminism's tactic is opposite to that of Christianity though, because feminism attempts to reach its goals by pathologizing masculinity by deeming it toxic, and by pathologizing male sexuality. These are criticisms of how mainstream feminism is handling sexuality, and the good sides I have not discussed.
 

Quote

Not quite. Women have held the upper hand in terms of sexual dynamics for as long as civilisation has existed. Yes, societies and civilisations have attempted to control the female desire to procreate with more than one male at a time, but for as long as mankind has existed, it has been up to the male to not only prove his worth as a male, but to court women and to fulfill romantic and sexual obligations to women. Men's entire existence is based around pleasing and providing for women. This of course, isn't a Abrahamic, or even an anthropological one, but one that is part of our biology as a descended of the first hominids and the evolution of our species.

With regards to the intention behind #MeToo and other concepts and beliefs in Western feminism, this is simply Western feminists maintaining these established precedents and behaviours, and increasing women's control over sex to women. This ensures that women can regulate and control men's behaviour by using sexual intercourse as a carrot in order to get men to perform various tasks or favours for women. And men, who think about 95% of the time with their second brain located somewhere in their genitalia, are more than happy to do these tasks and favours if it means they get sex. Feminists and women know the stigma attached to claims of sexual abuse and rape if they're leveled against men, hence why such things are used as coercion to get men to behave the way they want them to. 

I happen to agree with pretty much all of this, but it doesn't contradict anything I said. It does more than give the power over sex to women. It limits promiscuous behavior by pathologizing masculinity and masculine sexuality. Sometimes feminists are women who are resentful that they are not approached by men, so out of resentment they pathologize masculinity. In this manner feminists are a mirrored version of resentful groups of males, such as the many PUA charlatans that sell hedonism and egoism to young men. Whereas pathological male groups are aimed at pathological egoism and hedonism, toxic femininity is aimed at pathological group and social manipulation. Society provides more currency to men for leadership and individual success, but society values female approval higher. Because female approval is so influential, this is the currency women have for social manipulation. Female approval is so powerful because female approval is guiding in deciding which men are valuable enough to reproduce. Historically women have been twice as successful at reproducing, so the selection on men is much tougher than vica versa. For every man that has reproduced two women have. This is a large factor in the creation of the class of incel males when Christianity stops regulating marriage and female sexuality is liberated by contraceptives.

I've read Judith Butler, and in my opinion she pathologizes stereotypical heterosexual behavior and makes homosexuality the norm. I'm not saying that Judith Butler is a resentful woman though. I actually found her intellectually honest, consistent and interesting. Andrea Dworkin is a resentful woman though, and is batsh*t insane.
 

Quote

Mainstream feminism is radical feminism and yes, it has considerable authority. You only have to look at the successful push by radical feminists to stop the introduction of gender neutral rape laws in Israel and India, as well as the continued criminalisation of the purchase of sex in Scandinavia, Canada and France, in addition to the proposed redefinition of rape laws in Spain to essentially render all non-verbally consensual sex as rape to see this in effect. Feminism in of itself is not some radical fringe movement, it is in the mainstream and it is a powerful lobby. 

No, mainstream feminism is not radical feminism as has been pointed out. Mainstream feminism is barely coherent ideologically, and is mainly premised on reaching ends that favor the power and privilege of women, but behind these goals often very little coherent ideology exists. There is an increasing influence by third wave feminism on the topic of gender neutrality and such. But the ideology behind such initiatives are often scattered. Much more relevant are the interests at play and a general power game. And the power game is played purposefully, because influential French philosopher Foucault reduces society to a large power game. Foucault was influenced by Nietzsche on the topic of power. Nietzsche, who was a raging misogynist. It's kind of funny how feminist conceptions of politics sometimes originate from incredibly misogynist males.
 

Quote

None of those social and political beliefs you have mentioned are either ideologies nor meet the definition of a religious movement .

Which is why I called them 'secular religions'. They are not strict and coherent like classic religious movements, and they miss many standard aspects of religions. But they do treat certain ideas, practices, subjects and objects as sacred, and they include a utopian vision of a kind of redemption, humanity living in harmony with nature, the liberation of women, the liberation of animals from harm... Marxism is a classic example of something that can function as a case of a secular religion. What I recognize as a secular religion is based on the emotional attachment to the ideal that is so strong that the ideal manifests itself as sacred. You can notice this when you debate such people. Disagreement is blasphemy to them. Women's right's, the protection of the environment, or animal rights, are all reasonable political goals. But in some people these goals become tied to orthodox belief systems and a belief in a radical utopian perfectibility compared to the current situation.

Edited August 10, 2018 by Eutyphro
some ideas that I got reading it over once more

[Eutyphro 2,911]

So where have all the leftists gone after ad nauseam repitition of the minor point correcting the definition and manifestation of radical feminism, the usual insulting of anyone opposing their views, and completely failing to provide or defend a counter narrative?
 

On 7/24/2018 at 2:39 PM, Eutyphro said:

This discussion will never go anywhere if all of you are too disingenuous and cowardly to actually have it. None of you seem very convinced by your ability to coherently argue for your own position I think.

Still 100% accurate.

[Tchuck 3,156]

Not a leftist, but we've argued and shown why radical feminism isn't mainstream nor the main form of feminism. Only to be met with people actively rejecting reality. People who have no real grasp of what feminism is in any way shape or form, nor have any active involvement with feminism. So it's pointless to argue.

[Eutyphro 2,911]

15 minutes ago, Tchuck said:

but we've argued and shown why radical feminism isn't mainstream nor the main form of feminism

And that's true. But the practice of repeating that ad nauseam, insulting, and referring to a bunch of books you haven't even read yourself, is intellectually lazy and cowardly. And that is how I would qualify most of the response to G's A's: intellectual cowardice and arrogance in an attempt to hide a general inability to actually argue for your own position. A position that is most likely inconsistent, not well thought out, and based on emotion. G's A's makes some mistakes, but in his attempt to coherently argue for his own position in good faith he does a far far better job than the cowardly snobbery he meets as a reaction.

[Tchuck 3,156]

3 hours ago, Eutyphro said:

But the practice of repeating that ad nauseam, insulting, and referring to a bunch of books you haven't even read yourself, is intellectually lazy and cowardly.

You know what happens when you assume, right? You speak sh*t. I've not only read the majority of them, but do have a hand in supporting a friend who runs a decently sized radical feminist community in my native Brazil. 

 

3 hours ago, Eutyphro said:

And that is how I would qualify most of the response to G's A's: intellectual cowardice and arrogance in an attempt to hide a general inability to actually argue for your own position.

So you say nothing of his own responses? Very convenient for you to complain about the people replying to him, while giving him a pass for spilling absolute asinine statements. There's nothing left to address in the garbage he says. He's wrong. Factually wrong. What he says literally contradicts reality, and our attempts at showing it to him has just let him to further place his head in the sand and claim he's right. Again, he's a person who has never had any contact with the feminist movement, save for whatever strawman view of it that he holds. He's so inaccurate and wrong that it's pointless to address him. Until he does himself a favor and actually familiarizes himself with the movement and even touches some of the literature behind it, there's nothing to address. His argument is "black is white, prove me wrong.".

[sivispacem 20,119]

5 hours ago, Eutyphro said:

So where have all the leftists gone after ad nauseam repitition of the minor point correcting the definition and manifestation of radical feminism

Having just checked the thread, you selectively ignored the bulk of rebuttals directed at you, threw a paddy and refused to engage further, then had a little-dude discussion with G's Ah's.

 

And now your trying to spin it as "leftists" (by which I assume you mean "everyone who doesn't hold the same views as me") having nothing more to contribute?

 

How utterly ridiculous, disingenuous, intellectually lazy and cowardly. It's genuinely like you live in some kind of fantasy world where your massively overinflated sense of self-worth and imaginary intellectual prowess make you a learned and respected intellectual authority rather than an entitled, petulant, ignorant man-child.

[Eutyphro 2,911]

16 minutes ago, Tchuck said:

I've not only read the majority of them

Then how come you were unaware that Kimberle crenshaw and Judith Butler aren't radfem but third wave? You haven't really exhibited the fact that you have read any of this in any of your posts.
 

Quote

There's nothing left to address in the garbage he says.

That's just nonsense. Apart from some factual errors many of his positions are entirely up for debate. This pretension that he needs to be schooled by you and other self proclaimed feminists is the exact arrogance I'm addressing. It's phoney arrogance with the intent to hide an inability to defend an argument.

 

13 minutes ago, sivispacem said:

you selectively ignored the bulk of rebuttals directed at you

Your attempts at strawmanning, moving goalposts, failing to provide an argument for your own position, and asking for 'evidence' of cultural movements and developments that are happening right before our eyes in the media, do not constitute rebuttals, but arrogant disingenuous laziness in an attempt to defend your great position as the 'fantastic debater', as in the 'fantastically disingenuous bad tempered (insert cuss word of choice), lacking any ability to form an actual original thought, but completely conforming to the mainstream for the purpose of receiving the maximum approval by others'.

Really what you time and time again show is that you have zero interest in debating or discussing. What you like doing is making the laziest, least interested attempt to defend your own biases through insults, and fallacies, which you claim to hate.

[G's Ah's 371]

5 hours ago, Tchuck said:

Not a leftist, but we've argued and shown why radical feminism isn't mainstream nor the main form of feminism. Only to be met with people actively rejecting reality. People who have no real grasp of what feminism is in any way shape or form, nor have any active involvement with feminism. So it's pointless to argue.

It's pointless to argue with people that willfully detach themselves from reality and form their own ideas about what reality is, so yes, until you and others eventually come to see what Western feminism is actually doing rather that retreating back into academia to avoid things you don't like, none of us are going to have a productive discussion. 

[Eutyphro 2,911]

.

Edited August 11, 2018 by Eutyphro

[sivispacem 20,119]

1 hour ago, Eutyphro said:

Your attempts at strawmanning, moving goalposts, failing to provide an argument for your own position, and asking for 'evidence' of cultural movements and developments that are happening right before our eyes 

You've literally just described your own posts. There's nothing of any intellectual or narrative value in your contributions in this thread; in fact I'd go so far as to say there's nothing of intellectual or narrative value in anything you post on the forum these days. It's simply a procession of baseless assertions interspersed with off-kilter name-dropping of prominent sociologists, ad hominems and childish petulance.

 

Which I suppose would be forgivable if you weren't such a narcissistic, entitled oaf, or if you had a modicum of the competence to actually back up your views, but you are and you don't. At least G's Ah's made an attempt to furnish his assertions with some narrative examples to demonstrate his point, even if they're non sequiturs in my view. Instead we have you bouncing from blanket assertion to personal insults to wildly imprecise and often irrelevant attacks on whatever buzzword-bingo groups you happen to see as your adversary at this precise moment- the MSM, "leftists" and "liberals".

 

It's so deeply ironic you accuse me of a lack of originality in thought when you spend your entire life parroting Jordan Peterson verbatim and reciting other people's Reddit rants. Do you actually think you've succeeded in convincing anyone that you're an intellectual, a free thinker, someone whose views are actually worth discussing? It's just a childish fantasy at this point.

 

I mean look at your last feeble attempt to remain involved in the discussion. From portraying your views as verstehen whilst clearly not understanding its meaning, to idiotic straw men about 1960s sexual liberation "not being a thing", to a procession of other fallacies, you added absolutely nothing of value or coherence to the discussion and refused to be further engaged; refused to provide any evidence, no matter how basic, to support your assertions even though the very Weberian principle you so pretentiously quote-mined is predicated on it.

 

 

[Eutyphro 2,911]

I don't even have a Reddit account and almost never go there actually. But oke. What would be good is if you deleted that post above you. I've kind of lost interest in continuing any of this because due to reasons I have already pointed out there will be nothing meaningful or interesting resulting from this discussion.

[sivispacem 20,119]

Do you want me to wind back the clock a bit further and remove your stupid "why do you leftists have nothing more to say?" tripe, even though you'd basically thrown in the towel at that point and already said (and demonstrated) you weren't going to discuss any more? More than happy to let you forget that little faux pas too.

[Eutyphro 2,911]

No, I completely stand by what I posted.

[sivispacem 20,119]

You stand by attacking the vapid mirage of "leftists" for not continuing a discussion you'd said you wanted no further part in, and had already refused to respond to subsequent posts on? For apparently doing exactly what you'd done?

 

Righto.

[Tchuck 3,156]

1 hour ago, Eutyphro said:

Then how come you were unaware that Kimberle crenshaw and Judith Butler aren't radfem but third wave? You haven't really exhibited the fact that you have read any of this in any of your posts.

Unaware? I said those books are relevant to radical feminism. Not once did I say Butler or Crenshaw are radical feminism. Reading their stuff will help you gain an insight into the various forms of feminism. Way to again, assume sh*t. 

 

1 hour ago, Eutyphro said:

That's just nonsense. Apart from some factual errors many of his positions are entirely up for debate. This pretension that he needs to be schooled by you and other self proclaimed feminists is the exact arrogance I'm addressing. It's phoney arrogance with the intent to hide an inability to defend an argument.

I've no interest in engaging with someone who refuses to accept reality. I stand by what I said: he has had zero contact with actual radical feminism, and has such a strawman of what feminism actually is that he refuses to understand how radical feminism isn't mainstream in any way shape or form. And he refuses to engage with any literature that would very quickly point out how wrong he is. Call it arrogance if you wish. I don't waste time engaging with people who reject reality.

[G's Ah's 371]

On 8/10/2018 at 7:05 PM, Tchuck said:

So you say nothing of his own responses? Very convenient for you to complain about the people replying to him, while giving him a pass for spilling absolute asinine statements. There's nothing left to address in the garbage he says. He's wrong. Factually wrong. What he says literally contradicts reality, and our attempts at showing it to him has just let him to further place his head in the sand and claim he's right. Again, he's a person who has never had any contact with the feminist movement, save for whatever strawman view of it that he holds. He's so inaccurate and wrong that it's pointless to address him. Until he does himself a favor and actually familiarizes himself with the movement and even touches some of the literature behind it, there's nothing to address. His argument is "black is white, prove me wrong.".

 

I've no interest in engaging with someone who refuses to accept reality. I stand by what I said: he has had zero contact with actual radical feminism, and has such a strawman of what feminism actually is that he refuses to understand how radical feminism isn't mainstream in any way shape or form. And he refuses to engage with any literature that would very quickly point out how wrong he is. Call it arrogance if you wish. I don't waste time engaging with people who reject reality.

I wonder if this is the part where I say "pot and kettle", given you're essentially repeating what I said almost ad verbatim. 

[Clem Fandango 5,034]

>be Eutyphro

>"hey brother don't bother speaking the truth here, everyone around here is indoctrinated into the cult of feminism out of fear of being called a virgin lol"

>obviously sore about being called a virgin like five months ago

>hugely specific narrative about feminism replacing Christianity 

>obviously wrong

>obviously Jordan Peterson

>"I guess the 60s didn't happen lmfao"

>"Conservatives hold a minority stake in the media"

>also obviously wrong

>literally no references to virginity made in entire thread

>owned on every point

>*extremely pigeon strut* "Your only counter-narrative is my supposed virginity"

 

[Eutyphro 2,911]

Be Melchior, unable to write a normal reply because of having sh*t inconsistent ideas. Only able to reply like a petulant child. Pretends like it is the pit. Pretends others are sore though being the absolute #1 sorest snidiest anxiety ridden beta male known. Pretends others are sexually unsuccessful, though he looks like AIDS Skrillex and Carl the Cùck.

Edited August 12, 2018 by Eutyphro

[make total destroy 20,073]

Unironically calling people 'beta males' is the highest form of debate.

[Eutyphro 2,911]

Holding others to standards you yourself consistently fail to meet. Truly the Antifa way in practice.

[sivispacem 20,119]

Jesus f*cking Christ Euty, you can't post sh*t like that and pretend your not a Reddit obsessed saddo. 

 

Given you've made it pretty clear you don't want to discuss anymore, and the rest of the discussion is just contradiction between G's Ah's and everyone else, maybe we can revisit this when someone has something worthwhile to contribute.