Welcome! These forums will be deactivated by the end of this year. The conversation continues in a new morph over on Discord! Please join us there for a more active conversation and the occasional opportunity to ask developers questions directly! Go to the PS+ Discord Server.

[Heavily Moderated] Regarding the nature of of extremism in ideology.

38 posts / 0 new

Last post

Sun, 2014-03-09 13:17

Kremlin K.O.A. Kremlin K.O.A.'s picture

[Heavily Moderated] Regarding the nature of of extremism in ideology.

I will start this with some, seemingly unrelated, observations. We are in the middle of a societal revolution. Some have coined it the "Information Revolution." I would prefer to call it the "Communication Revolution." Our world is rapidly changing, and it is changing us with it. The reason I call it "Communication," rather than "Information," is because it allows us to spread ideas, not just facts and data. this has allowed activists and movements unprecedented ability to market their agendas* to the marketplace of ideas. This has, however, come at a price. Before this revolution, the extremists of any movement had to convince the moderates of any of their positions before they could bring them to market. The new technologies negate this requirement. This means we see the extremists in all their naked glory. This is a new thing to us, and we have yet to build the instinctive filters that will allow us to differentiate between the two types without thinking. It is likely the next generation will not have this problem, haing grown up in an environmnt that allows them to see this stuff and get used to it. But for us poor souls who are still not natie to the world of light and numbers**, we have to think about these things. To me, the first thing to remember is, nor more thna ever, extremists do not represent the group they call home. Stalin does not represent Socialism and Communism. Darwin Bedford does not represent Atheism. The Westboro Baptist Church does not represent Christianity. Allecto does not represent either Feminism, or the people of Perth, Western Australia. Now most groups are responding to this phenomena in the same two actions: 1: Point out the extremists of the opposing political positions as proof that the other side is insane. 2: Deny the existence of extremists in their own group, and get angry when one is pointed out. Instead, what I feel we should be doing is these three actions: 1: Acknowledge the existence of the extremists in our own camp. 2: Point out where they disagree with our mainstream movement's goals. 3: Share a drink with otu political opponents over the shared experience of dealing with problematic extremists. Comments? Questions? Examples of extremists in your own philosophies that make you wnat to laugh/cry/scream/eat a bullet? *Contrary to some beliefs, agenda is not a dirty word. Everybody has one. **A.K.A. Internet

Sun, 2014-03-09 14:49

consumerdestroyer consumerdestroyer's picture

Extreme is subjective. People

Extreme is subjective. People can't eat ideas, or arm themselves with them to oppose direct oppression and unjustified authority in their lives. As far as that goes, nearly every ideologue, myself included, makes me want to eat a bullet. It's extreme ideology to keep talking theory with zero praxis, or to have praxis so completely unconsidered in its economic dimension that it amounts to reinforcing of the forces that oppose their goals (i.e. eco-capitalist NGOs and activists, hierarchical labour unions, etc.), and the only people I know who are marrying just enough theory with an appropriate (to the current global economic/political clusterfuck) amount of praxis are people I can't talk about on a searchable online forum, and I can count 'em on one hand. And by most minority world lenses? They'd be extremists. For the majority world, however, I'm willing to bet their actions would be seen as barely sufficient, seeing as their misery continues (and continues mounting) apace despite these people and their violent direct actions against authoritarianism. In other words, my thoughts on this are that people (in our minority world) have ideas about what constitutes extreme that are based on the artificial comfort they enjoy, artifice which is itself constructed on the backs of the global poor via an [i]actually extreme ideology[/i], authoritarian economics (capitalism), and this particular framing of "extremism" is encouraged and normalized everywhere you look. Imperialism and colonialism looked pretty damn extreme from the point of view of those being subject to white dreams of Empire and the colonizing forces, whether military, political or economic. The idea that a liberatory economic or political framework is viewed as "extreme" by a bunch of comfortably entrenched minority world citizens sitting in the comfort of their own home on the internet is something I imagine the majority world might view, I think accurately, as symptomatic of the benefits those people have from a normalized web of ideologies which look much more extreme to those in the majority world countries undergoing the labour of resource extraction for our products (as one example among a multitude).

Mon, 2014-03-10 11:29

Kremlin K.O.A. Kremlin K.O.A.'s picture

I must be reading your post

I must be reading your post wrong. Sorry for the confusion, but your post reads, to me, as if you are suggesting only terrorists and guerrilla fighters should be considered "non-extremist." Could you please clarify what you actually mean? I am misreading it, right?

Mon, 2014-03-10 13:07

nezumi.hebereke nezumi.hebereke's picture

It's interesting though that

It's interesting though that extremists are more effective in acquiring change than non-extremists. (The downside is frequently that change is intense pushback.) i.e., you believe that something requires change, that it's truly important, it's far better to be a wild person, willing to go to any extremes to enact change, than to donate a few dollars to a good cause.

Mon, 2014-03-10 13:19

consumerdestroyer consumerdestroyer's picture

First of all, the people I

First of all, the people I refer to do not practice terrorism (a diversity of tactics are involved in anti-authoritarian direct action and all of them are anti-terror), although like your use of the term "extremism", your framing of what I said with "terrorist" and "guerilla fighter" belies the influence minority world media has on the lens through which you view the activity of people committed to severely hampering authoritarian capitalist profits or authoritarian state terror by any means necessary. Second of all, my first sentence says it all. Extremism is subjective. The rest of my post was just explanatory. I'm not saying what should or should not be considered extremism or not. I'm saying that I consider every ideologue of theory who has zero praxis to be an extremist in a world where the lack of action on global human crises that are the result of capitalism (which often happen to be crises generated by the deflection of said crises from the ideologue's neighbourhood) is a much larger sin by death toll (both by raw population and by percentage of global population suffering and dying) than the silence in the 1920s to 1940s (in some cases to 1970s) of Italian, German, Spanish and Portuguese citizens in the face of fascism's crises. People were scared or they were comfortable (or they were in agreement), but none were under the same duress as those in fascist prisons, tortured by fascists, murdered by fascists, or put into concentration camps by fascists. Today, as long as the country is not a minority world country, those in the minority world who are either too scared or too comfortable (or who are in agreement that capitalism includes the right to exploit others to enrich themselves) remain inactive. This is not an avoidance of extremism, this is a tacit approval of extremism, the statement being that they as citizens of the place where the wrongs are birthed can do nothing. Meanwhile, in the camps, the struggle to survive takes forms that we now can read about and feel horrified, feel as though if they could do what they had to under the conditions they had to, risking their lives for fellow prisoners, why couldn't those who lived in walking distance from the camps for the entirety of their existence have risked their lives? Comfort. Fear. Agreement. The three pillars that support extremist authoritarian politics are the three pillars that support extremist authoritarian economics today.

Mon, 2014-03-10 13:23

consumerdestroyer consumerdestroyer's picture

nezumi.hebereke wrote:It's

nezumi.hebereke wrote:
It's interesting though that extremists are more effective in acquiring change than non-extremists. (The downside is frequently that change is intense pushback.) i.e., you believe that something requires change, that it's truly important, it's far better to be a wild person, willing to go to any extremes to enact change, than to donate a few dollars to a good cause.

Unfortunately, the aid/charity industry has become a very profitable industry. It's why some websites like Charity Navigator exist: to separate those who are in it more for the profit from those who actually use the money for what their NGO/charity/aid organization are for. http://anticapitalists.org/2013/03/17/solidarity-not-charity/ http://propertyistheft.wordpress.com/2010/08/15/charity-mutual-aid-and-c... These are pretty good primers on the complex relationship between capitalist charity and continuing suffering in the majority world. Capitalism as an extremist authoritarian economic ideology has this unfortunate impact on attempts to help. Dollars to cure the harm dollars do just perpetuates the cycle.

Mon, 2014-03-10 16:33

nezumi.hebereke nezumi.hebereke's picture

Even so, charities operate

Even so, charities operate within the rules. If your goal is to construct infrastructure or assist people in getting jobs, that's great; your goal is also part of the infrastructure. But if your goal is independence for your nation, ending a particular social evil, eliminating some dangerous person, etc., the willingness to step outside of the rules gives you a much greater range of motion. Worse, if the target you are trying to eliminate depends on that infrastructure, the cost to you is extremely low to disrupt that same infrastructure in removing your target, while the cost if limiting yourself to ethical and legal issues is relatively high and the results are paltry. One philosophical question I've always struggled with (and take this only as a hypothetical example): -You are a utilitarian who believe the good of the many outweighs the good of the few; -You believe that act X is equivalent to or worse than murder; and -X is legal, and practiced. Why would you not use physical harm to stop X? Doesn't killing of one practitioner still weigh lighter than their practicing X twice? I have my own answers, but I'm curious how others address it.

Tue, 2014-03-11 12:53

consumerdestroyer consumerdestroyer's picture

Well, one of the answers is

Well, one of the answers is that sometimes physical harm doesn't stop it. Murder every banker, and the banker's family still get the assets. Murder the entire extended family of the banker too, there will still be some beneficiary (probably the bank he works for or close friends in the industry), and on and on. The legal framework would have to be taken down before you could kill 'em all, and by then you wouldn't need to kill 'em all because the framework wouldn't exist for them to keep doing what they're doing. Same goes for minority world private security contractors (the 21st century capitalist phrase for mercenary or hired thug) in majority world countries. Kill three, and they send a dozen more. The thing about hypothetical situations like that is that they ignore the multifaceted nature of the conflicts at hand. For example, it's often better to hit a company's bottom line than take a hit out on their unelected top-down authoritarian CEO or Chairman of the Board or President or what have you. Hit it enough times and hard enough, and it can make a company think twice about immoral actions for reasons absent any moral argumentation. This can be done primarily either through property destruction or digital thievery, and while both often have insurance redunancies in place, at least their insurance premiums are going up over and over, and operations of minority world companies in the majority world often operate with less safety nets...but I digress, that's more an issue of tactical nitty-gritty. Point being, using physical harm doesn't always stop X, whatever X happens to be. Often, physical harm is what's being done that [b]is[/b] X (i.e. Shell Oil's collusion in targeted assassinations of labour leaders in Nigeria), and to "prevent it" via harm, you'd have to be a bodyguard for a labour leader or form up a militia to oppose corporate funded private security forces (i.e. Monsanto's recent acquisition of the services of the most recent iteration of Blackwater, whatever they're calling themselves now dozens of heinous scandals/PR makeovers down the road). I'm not even saying that people who do "non-extreme" things from the point of view of a minority world citizen enjoying majority world miserycomforts are necessarily wrong. If everyone who wanted to do something decided tomorrow to form up into militias and storm the centres of finance, government, etc and demand this, that and the other thing, there'd still need to be people on the ground in communities providing support and mutual aid to those most in need of it, and to an even greater degree people like that are needed when very few people are forcing the hands of authoritarianism (political or economic), as is largely the case today. So becoming a social worker? A really good thing to do, as long as your social work is informed by intersectional anti-oppression (and most social work degrees these days will have you engage with that kind of theory before you get the degree that lets you get the jobs where you can apply that praxis). And becoming a social worker is not held by very many people as an "extremist" thing to do, although a lot of what social work [b]is[/b] is mitigating the very real socio-economic effects of capitalism on global, national and local scales, particularly poverty and in particular cycles of poverty which have various oppressions at their root, hence the need for an intersectional anti-oppression to cover all the bases (i.e. racism and the disproportionate amount of people of colour on the streets in white nations, sexism and the right-wing attack on welfare/abortion/birth control driving lower middle class and poorer single mothers deeper and deeper into poverty, heterosexism/homophobia and the disproportionate amount of queer youth on the streets in growing numbers, etc, etc.). So I'm not even saying the only solution is something a pair of upper middle class white parents in America might call "extreme", even though I favour those solutions in large part because they undermine the comforts those upper middle class white parents enjoy that are bought with the blood and tears of other human beings. I do care, unlike the vast majority of the American and European middle class, where their comfort comes from. I do care that slavery still exists, and that because it exists at the level of resource extraction, it is often impossible to purchase any products from any company that don't somewhere along the line have horrific labour conditions involved (even if the company swears up and down it gets its processed materials to work into their product from a factory in India that processes raw petrochemicals into plastics which gets all of their petrochemicals on the up and up, the various suppliers who supply that factory don't all get the best oversight as to where they themselves get the raw resources, and in some cases even the suppliers are getting from enough different countries with enough different regulatory bodies that things like labour rights slip between the cracks...such is the lot of transnational finance and global capitalism). So for me, if you have a bottle of shampoo, how in the fuck do you know whether that particular company makes sure that the plastics they work into bottles are obtained from somewhere that has good enough checks in place to make sure the raw resource extraction that led to the processed product that they purchased from a secondary (or even tertiary) supplier wasn't originally at least partially because of slavery? And again, lots of people don't care about that. If their dollars ultimately go towards a company unwilling to take a hard look down their supply chain (which is most companies in nearly all industries), then that white upper middle class family isn't one whose protests about "extremism" I particularly care about. Their lack of insight into the economic mechanisms that bring them the products they purchase is itself propping up extremism, and I could care less what they think is extreme when they vote with their dollar for slavery. This is largely the case with everyone who tries to frame violent direct action against state or capitalist authoritarianism as "extremist", since I know very few people who don't buy shampoo, who don't buy dish soap, who don't buy cell phones, who don't buy something with plastics in them, with metals in them, with all kinds of things that, at the resource extraction level, are often a big international blend that gets funnelled through supply chains that are much shadier than intranational (within a nation) supply chains. International supply chains are fucked, and they supply the intranational chains in most cases. And "chains" is the right word, given what they represent: chains on the global poor in the majority world that benefit us in the minority world. We are beneficiaries of some of the worse labour conditions, labour conditions we would not allow our parents, siblings, cousins, children or neighbours to participate in. Which makes us hypocrites, even if the reason is that our media and advertising are designed to distract us from these basic facts about capitalist economics and the driving down of prices at the level of raw resources (and at other levels where employees receive pay, as well, depending on the company, i.e. sweatshops and the like). So yeah, I mean, individual acts of violence by Benthamite or Millsian utilitarians might accomplish something if said person had a comprehensive system-view and a private army...but even then, all it might do is feed the beast as paycheques roll in to other private security companies and arms manufacturers and so on. So who knows? The solutions aren't easy, but they certainly aren't made easier by people framing resistance to the extreme economic oppression as itself being "extremism" or some such. Extreme is subjective, and many more thinking subjects are oppressed by capitalism than benefit from it, and those who benefit from it benefit from extreme oppression, so again, I don't really take their definitions of extremism with anything but a billion ton bag of salt. Utilitarianism, I find, often uses very simplistic either/or binaries to show what actions one should or should not take (or contemplate taking, as the case often is with these hypotheticals), and it just doesn't answer the complex interconnected nature of actual decision making in the world. It gets even [b]worse[/b] when the issue at hand is the taking of a life to prevent something, as again, if it's about power dynamics the system of power in place has ways to fill the role of that individual whose power was (in the case of a legal X) being exercised legally.

Tue, 2014-03-11 14:41

Kremlin K.O.A. Kremlin K.O.A.'s picture

I was wondering, did you

I was wondering, did you notice that none of my examples of extremists came from 3rd world regions?

Tue, 2014-03-11 16:43

#10

consumerdestroyer consumerdestroyer's picture

1. First/third and developed

1. First/third and developed/developing are terms with distinct colonialist and imperialist framing behind them. Hence the use of minority/majority in 21st century postcolonial and anticolonial discourse. 2. Yes, but that bias is one of the reasons for my critique: to frame extremism as points of difference within the minority world's ideological stratum when, for a lot of people, the extremism is the entire minority world ideological stratum as opposed to their day to day living conditions/survival...well, again, as I said in the first sentence of my first response: extremism is subjective.

Tue, 2014-03-11 17:26

#11

Kremlin K.O.A. Kremlin K.O.A.'s picture

So you basically came into a

So you basically came into a thread about differentiating between the core of a movement and its fringes. Then decided to respond with a post that basically boils down to everyone on this site being a bunch of hypocrites who are bad and should feel bad? Because I feel quite confident in asserting that the population of a board dedicated to a Transhumanist RPG are unlikely to be from the 'majority world' as you put it.

Tue, 2014-03-11 22:16

#12

consumerdestroyer consumerdestroyer's picture

Well, to be fair, I was

Well, to be fair, I was saying that "the core of a movement" (and indeed a nexus of cores within a particular framework) can itself be seen as extremist from the point of view of someone outside the movement (or framework of movements). Not saying people needed to feel bad, just that the framing of "extremism" seemed a bit biased.

Tue, 2014-03-11 23:01

#13

consumerdestroyer consumerdestroyer's picture

That said, sorry if my

That said, sorry if my terminology deconstruction feels off-topic to you. I know most people would understand what you mean by core and fringe, and would consider my critique a fringe (and likely "extremist fringe", ironically) critique. So I apologize if my critique has felt like a derailment to you or has made you feel that I'm trying to make people feel certain ways. I'm nothing if not anti-authoritarian, and I would not want people feeling that I had authority over their emotional states, in particular if that was a negative impact.

Thu, 2014-03-13 12:16

#14

nezumi.hebereke nezumi.hebereke's picture

1) Your argument that

1) Your argument that sometimes physical harm doesn't add up is a pretty weak one. Sometimes it does add up, so my question is still valid. Even in the examples you gave, it didn't add up because it was misapplied. You attack the people who make the business profitable. The business may still continue to operate, but you increase their operating expenses. See MEND in Nigeria, and Al Qaeda attacks on foreign contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan for examples. 2) I read these forums for fun and to decompress between giant technical documents. I ask that you please avoid pulling on too technical concepts or words if you don't need them. Post #8 could have been summed up in two paragraphs, and had I needed details, we could have gone into that as necessary. I don't mean to be rude, and you are of course free to post however you like. But if I'm going to discuss with you, I really want to take the time to read what you write and understand it. If your post is three pages with few line breaks (which it is), that just means I don't have time to engage with you respectfully and honestly. I really don't mean to be rude, and I enjoy talking with you. I'd just hate to have to cut back on it due to such mundane concerns as my snack breaks being too short.

Thu, 2014-03-13 16:15

#15

consumerdestroyer consumerdestroyer's picture

Trying to take 2 into account

Trying to take 2 into account, here's my response to 1: These are organized efforts, not the direct action to take as the utilitarian in your original post's example. The first action would be something along the lines of "find one of these groups" or "co-found/organize one of these groups", not "kill person who does legal X". Which was the gist of my answer to your post: the reason why I don't kill X (among other reasons, including not being a strict follower/observer of any particular utilitarian thinker/school of thought) is because it's not always the most efficacious (hence, utilitarian) Z from the twin thoughts of "person does legal X with Y utilitarian ramifications" and "I need to do Z to stop X/Y from happening", IMHO.

Fri, 2014-03-14 15:24

#16

nezumi.hebereke nezumi.hebereke's picture

Okay, that's fair. I'm sure I

Okay, that's fair. I'm sure I could think of a specific example, but you're correct, the ones I'm heralding right now don't quite seem to match up.

Thu, 2014-03-27 20:19

#17

Erulastant Erulastant's picture

As Bibliophile suggested, I'm

As Bibliophile suggested, I'm moving discussion of Feminism, MRAs, gender equality, etc. here rather than leaving it in the forum moderation thread. @nick012000: As far as I can tell, you seem to have self-identified as an MRA. Could you explain to me which rights the Men's Rights movement feels are important and are fighting for? I have never actually seen an MRA explain this. In particular, I'm curious as to how this conflicts with the aims of (most branches of) feminism. Like Lorsa, I'm skeptical about the two movements being mutually exclusive or naturally opposed to each other. Hopefully an explanation of what exactly the MRM is aiming for will help me understand why some people seem to feel they must be.

Extrasolar Angel wrote:
In short:no. Feminists generally don't fight for equality but for women to have a privileged position in society. For example they aren't fighting for women to be instituted in the draft, or face the same prison terms when convicted. They also largely attack the idea of men having the same rights as women. For example feminists I encountered are very critical of sex robots as objectifying women, while no criticism is made towards women objectifying men by using sex toys patterned on male shape.

I'm not going to address the points about the draft, etc. Bibliophile has talked on those, and I do not see the need in repeating his words. I will talk about sex robots though. First, the "for penises" equivalent of a dildo exists. It's called a "fleshlight" IIRC. I do not believe feminists have any objection to these. In fact, I'm not sure most feminists would object to the sex robots. Have you heard actual feminists complaining about sex robots, (Are they hypothetical or an actual thing nowadays? I don't know and I'm in a public place so I don't want to google 'sex robot' right now) or is this just something that you have heard that feminists complain about? If you are referring to actual complaints, it might be best to ask those people the reasoning behind them. I can speculate that their objection might be that creating robots modeled off of human female bodies* for the exclusive purpose of sex is dehumanizing to women and implies that their sole value is in sex. I don't believe this argument is sufficient, but I also don't believe it is necessarily the only or the best argument being put forward. Like I said, if you have heard actual complaints against sex robots it would be better to ask the reasoning from the people doing it. *While sex robots with penises might be produced, the ones that would be made first, marketed more, and in all likelihood made higher quality would undoubtably be the ones aimed at straight men.

—

You, too, were made by humans. The methods used were just cruder, imprecise. I guess that explains a lot.

Sat, 2014-03-29 04:41

#18

Extrasolar Angel Extrasolar Angel's picture

Kremlin K.O.A. wrote:

Kremlin K.O.A. wrote:
Stalin does not represent Socialism and Communism.

Some ideologies are extreme at their very core, for example if you say Stalin doesn't represent communism, does it mean Hitler doesn't represent nazism as well(since both are iconic figures of the two ideologies)?

Quote:
I'm not going to address the points about the draft, etc. Bibliophile has talked on those, and I do not see the need in repeating his words.

Bibilophiles passionate defense of feminist movements was flawed at every point to be fair. Feminists do not fight passionately for abolishing the draft or equal sentences for women in prison for starters.

Quote:
In fact, I'm not sure most feminists would object to the sex robots. Have you heard actual feminists complaining about sex robots, (Are they hypothetical or an actual thing nowadays? I don't know and I'm in a public place so I don't want to google 'sex robot' right now) or is this just something that you have heard that feminists complain about?

I heard it just recently during transhumanist conference from a feminist. The usual feminist arguments that are rather based on emotions rather than any real reason("not healthy", "not genuine", "man up"(btw do you notice the sexism here ?)) If you want an online example http://appetiteforequalrights.blogspot.co.uk/2010/01/thoughts-on-sex-dol... The real reason there is opposition to sex robots is that the control over men will be abolished, there are many men who will be willing to resign from sacrificing their time, effort to biological women in order to have sex(not all, but significant amount). As such interests of women and their influence over men will decrease. A smashing blow for the matriarchy we live in(yes, one of the greatest realization you will have when studying gender relations is that it is actually women that dominate our modern society and are privileged, while majority of men are the underclass that can only dream of privileges enjoyed by female gender in health care, legal system, government protection, education subsidies, sexual freedom and opportunities). It is even more amusing/sad when you realize that the mant men who are enthusiastic about sex robots are those who have little or no chance of having female sexual partners, and as such feminists opposed to sex robots want to reinforce their current standing in society as deprived of sexual contact. While at the same time defending female sexual choice and slutwalks ;) So in short-the criticism about sex robots is the attempt to ensure that social status of the privileged and underprivileged remains the same as it is today.

—

[I]Raise your hands to the sky and break the chains. With transhumanism we can smash the matriarchy together.[/i]

Sat, 2014-03-29 05:30

#19

Extrasolar Angel Extrasolar Angel's picture

consumerdestroyer wrote: And

consumerdestroyer wrote:
And becoming a social worker is not held by very many people as an "extremist" thing to do, although a lot of what social work [b]is[/b] is mitigating the very real socio-economic effects of capitalism on global, national and local scales, particularly poverty and in particular cycles of poverty which have various oppressions at their root, hence the need for an intersectional anti-oppression to cover all the bases (i.e. racism and the disproportionate amount of people of colour on the streets in white nations(...).

Out of curiosity, do you realize that in countries like UK white immigrants from Eastern Europe are treated with more racism(which is tolerated and present in mass media and to some extent even repeated by some mainstream politicians) than say immigrants from Japan or South Korea?

—

[I]Raise your hands to the sky and break the chains. With transhumanism we can smash the matriarchy together.[/i]

Sat, 2014-03-29 08:28

#20

Kremlin K.O.A. Kremlin K.O.A.'s picture

Extrasolar Angel wrote:Some

Extrasolar Angel wrote:
Some ideologies are extreme at their very core, for example if you say Stalin doesn't represent communism, does it mean Hitler doesn't represent nazism as well(since both are iconic figures of the two ideologies)?

Hitler doesn't have an equivalent to: Trotsky Mao Zedong Lenin Krushchev Karl Marx or Gorbachev.

Quote:
Bibilophiles passionate defense of feminist movements was flawed at every point to be fair. Feminists do not fight passionately for abolishing the draft or equal sentences for women in prison for starters.

Well that is provably wrong.

Sat, 2014-03-29 08:56

#21

Extrasolar Angel Extrasolar Angel's picture

Kremlin K.O.A. wrote

Kremlin K.O.A. wrote:
Extrasolar Angel wrote:
Some ideologies are extreme at their very core, for example if you say Stalin doesn't represent communism, does it mean Hitler doesn't represent nazism as well(since both are iconic figures of the two ideologies)?
Hitler doesn't have an equivalent to: [Trotsky Mao Zedong Lenin Krushchev Karl Marx or Gorbachev.

You can find plenty of people comparing Mao and Lenin to Hitler, with some claiming they were worse, especially Mao. I don't subscribe to that point of view, but it exists and isn't limited to fringe movements. Certainly Lenin was as iconic as Hitler and engaged in establishing a totalitarian system which was engaged in genocide and ethnic cleansing.It is true however that it wasn't racist, but rather focused on class warfare(and perceived class enemies). But terror and violence were actually part of their ideological concept.

Quote:
Bibilophiles passionate defense of feminist movements was flawed at every point to be fair. Feminists do not fight passionately for abolishing the draft or equal sentences for women in prison for starters.

Quote:
Well that is provably wrong.

There is nothing in your link that proves that. One swallow doesn't make a summer. After all there are feminists who support reduction of males like Sally Miller Gearhart(“The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.") or Mary Dale but the vast majority don't. On the other hand the vast dislike and open sexism towards males I have seen exhibited towards males in feminist writing and online posts(for example on tumblr) or comments from feminist like Dworkin("“I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.”), doesn't make believe such positions are uncommon in feminist movement. Just an example that these are not isolated incidents, a young feminist calls for reduction of male population: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvEJfN-jiS4#t=81 This btw made me want to create a Furies group as villains in campaign developing a bio-agent bent on exterminating remaining male biological population in Eclipse Phase universe....

—

[I]Raise your hands to the sky and break the chains. With transhumanism we can smash the matriarchy together.[/i]

Sat, 2014-03-29 11:29

#22

bibliophile20 bibliophile20's picture

Extrasolar Angel wrote:

Extrasolar Angel wrote:
Some ideologies are extreme at their very core, for example if you say Stalin doesn't represent communism, does it mean Hitler doesn't represent nazism as well(since both are iconic figures of the two ideologies)?

Sure. Let's say Stalin represents communism. Really, really bad communism. Let's look at the Inca to get a better idea of what communism is supposed to be. Sure, they had a class structure, but they also distributed food and goods among the populace in a reasonably equitable manner.

Quote:
Bibilophiles passionate defense of feminist movements was flawed at every point to be fair. Feminists do not fight passionately for abolishing the draft or equal sentences for women in prison for starters.

Moving the goalposts. I show how they're trying to make the draft apply to everyone, not just men, and then you insist that they're not trying to abolish it. Secondly, yes, feminists actually are trying to abolish the draft and get equal prison sentences, although, for obvious reasons, this is a lower priority item for most US-based feminists than, say, trying to keep the TRAP laws (Targeted Regulation Of Abortion Providers) currently sweeping the US from shutting down the clinics that women need in order to provide health services to them (including abortion, yes, but also such things as, say, breast cancer detection).

Quote:
I heard it just recently during transhumanist conference from a feminist. The usual feminist arguments that are rather based on emotions rather than any real reason("not healthy", "not genuine", "man up"(btw do you notice the sexism here ?)) If you want an online example http://appetiteforequalrights.blogspot.co.uk/2010/01/thoughts-on-sex-dol...

Generalizing from personal anecdotes and single examples.

Quote:
The real reason there is opposition to sex robots is that the control over men will be abolished, there are many men who will be willing to resign from sacrificing their time, effort to biological women in order to have sex(not all, but significant amount). As such interests of women and their influence over men will decrease. A smashing blow for the matriarchy we live in(yes, one of the greatest realization you will have when studying gender relations is that it is actually women that dominate our modern society and are privileged, while majority of men are the underclass that can only dream of privileges enjoyed by female gender in health care, legal system, government protection, education subsidies, sexual freedom and opportunities).

Fractal wrongness, here. This argument is like arguing that 2+zebra=kumquat. So, let me posit some questions. Where are the mass protections for women that make men legally second class citizens? Where is the mass prosecution of rape, where is the harsh sentencing for rapists, where is the harsh sentencing for men that beat their wives and girlfriends? Why is there still purity culture? Why is there a double standard for sexually active men (studs) vs. sexually active women? Why is the government still made up of more than 2/3 men, if the government is actually controlled by women? Why do the TRAP laws actually succeed in getting passed, when women die in horrible ways when abortion is outlawed? Why do we blame the victim in rape cases and talk about the promising careers of those promising young men that were just ruined by the woman, when they assaulted her? C'mon, if men were actually second class citizens, do you actually think that Medicare would have paid $172,000,000 for penis pumps over a five year period while we right now have a case going before the Supreme Court on whether a corporation owned by religious extremists has the right to dictate whether their female employees are allowed to use birth control? (also, there are only three female Justices on the Court at present. If this truly were a matriarchy, they did a terrible job of stacking the bench, because now it comes down to the men on the Court, because all three of them are deciding against Hobby Lobby, and we don't know which way Bryer will jump, so it comes down to him to decide if corporations can be religious persons too. Pretty bad matriarchy, there) Why are women earning about 77 cents for each dollar that their equally trained male counterparts are earning, if they're the first class citizens? Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't social classes usually defined by legal protections and economic earnings? Why can women be fired for being too attractive, if they're actually in charge? Why can women be raped, get pregnant, have an abortion, and then go to jail for fetal homicide? If they're the first-class citizens, why do they feel afraid of walking out alone at night? I've got more where that came from, but it's already 11:30 and I have housework to get done and I've wasted enough time this morning.

Quote:
It is even more amusing/sad when you realize that the mant men who are enthusiastic about sex robots are those who have little or no chance of having female sexual partners, and as such feminists opposed to sex robots want to reinforce their current standing in society as deprived of sexual contact. While at the same time defending female sexual choice and slutwalks ;) So in short-the criticism about sex robots is the attempt to ensure that social status of the privileged and underprivileged remains the same as it is today.

Oh noes! Men might actually have to be decent to the wommez in order to get laid! *eyeroll*

—

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -Benjamin Franklin

Sat, 2014-03-29 12:45

#23

Kremlin K.O.A. Kremlin K.O.A.'s picture

Extrasolar Angel wrote

Extrasolar Angel wrote:
Kremlin K.O.A. wrote:
Extrasolar Angel wrote:
Some ideologies are extreme at their very core, for example if you say Stalin doesn't represent communism, does it mean Hitler doesn't represent nazism as well(since both are iconic figures of the two ideologies)?
Hitler doesn't have an equivalent to: [Trotsky Mao Zedong Lenin Krushchev Karl Marx or Gorbachev.
You can find plenty of people comparing Mao and Lenin to Hitler, with some claiming they were worse, especially Mao.

Talk about missing the point. I was noting that Stalin has a lot of other famous communist figures to be held against, thus he is not the sole icon of a communist leader. Hitler is the only person to have led a Nazi country. Hence Hitler can be considered representative of Nazism as a whole, while Stalin does not hold the same position for Socialism, or even communism (maybe for Stalinism)

Extrasolar Angel wrote:
I don't subscribe to that point of view, but it exists and isn't limited to fringe movements. Certainly Lenin was as iconic as Hitler and engaged in establishing a totalitarian system which was engaged in genocide and ethnic cleansing.It is true however that it wasn't racist, but rather focused on class warfare(and perceived class enemies). But terror and violence were actually part of their ideological concept.

And what about Karl Marx (Author of the Communist Manifesto.)? How about Leon Trotsky? He was one of the leaders of the communist politburo at the beginning of Communist Russia.

Extrasolar Angel wrote:
Kremlin K.O.A. wrote:
Extrasolar Angel wrote:
Bibilophile's passionate defense of feminist movements was flawed at every point to be fair. Feminists do not fight passionately for abolishing the draft or equal sentences for women in prison for starters.
Well that is provably wrong.
There is nothing in your link that proves that. One swallow doesn't make a summer.

Maybe not, but given that it only took me 78 seconds to find an example of a Feminist group who has that as item 1 on their agenda... How many more do you think a few weeks of dedicated research would find? Besides so far the argument has gone. You: X groups don't do Y. Me: Here is an example of an X group doing Y. You: Your example of an X group doing Y doesn't invalidate my claim that X groups don't do Y. Because it is only one example. Note the goalpost shift there? Doubly so considering you have previously used single examples as evidence of majority trends?

Extrasolar Angel wrote:
This btw made me want to create a Furies group as villains in campaign developing a bio-agent bent on exterminating remaining male biological population in Eclipse Phase universe....

You will find my link to Allecto, above, a good source of quotes and rhetoric too use for this.

Sat, 2014-03-29 13:37

#24

Kremlin K.O.A. Kremlin K.O.A.'s picture

bibliophile20 wrote:

bibliophile20 wrote:
Why are women earning about 77 cents for each dollar that their equally trained male counterparts are earning, if they're the first class citizens?

Minor note there. The 77 figure came from studies that looked at overall workforce, rather than a profession by profession breakdown. The figures were thus skewed by certain high risk professions that have very low female participation (skyscraper window washer is a good example) These jobs get significant danger money I seem to recall the number being in the high 80s with those jobs excluded. Still uneven, and in need of reform, but not quite as bad as that number suggests.

Sat, 2014-03-29 16:01

#25

bibliophile20 bibliophile20's picture

Extrasolar Angel wrote:I am

Extrasolar Angel wrote:
I am all for men having the same rights in health care, courts, sexual relationships as women, agreed.

Just moving this post to the proper thread. Okay. So, you want men to have the same rights in health care, the courts and sexual relationships as women? Alright. So, for health care, prepare to have all testicles and penises legislated. If you use them in a way that the fundamentalists disagree with--actually having pleasure with them!--you will be forced to undergo an invasive probe that is medically unnecessary and designed to shame and emotionally damage you. You will never be allowed to buy condoms or have a voluntary mastectomy without people such as Rush Limbaugh and Fox News screaming about your promiscuity and how you are so obviously out of control sexually. You will have a coordinated legal and political effort devoted to shutting down all clinics that keep you from having to worry about testicular cancer, hormonal imbalances and other bodily issues through targeted legal restrictions. You will have protesters standing outside those clinics, at the very edge of a demarcated line to the inch as they scream through megaphones at you for daring to enjoy sex without consequences, even if you're not there for the purposes that they think you are. And that's just for starters. For the courts, prepare to have judges be dismissive of you because clearly you're so weak and helpless and fragile that you would never be able to survive a full prison sentence. Unless, of course, you're accused of killing a fetus that was born stillborn, in which case, prepare to have the book thrown at you. Prepare to have judges tell you that you are not in control of your own body, and that if you were willing to have sex, you should be prepared for all of the consequences, including parenthood. Be prepared for them to take the side of the sexual assaulter and inquire about the details of the clothing you were wearing, how much you had been drinking and other victim-blaming attitudes, because, clearly, they couldn't control themselves from throwing themselves at such a prime sexual target. Also, if the assaulter was on a sports team, forget ever getting justice for the fact that your body was used as an object for another person's power and pleasure without your consent. Be prepared to have the judge simply dismiss the person that attacked you without sentencing them, or just letting them walk free after less than a year (Hi, Stubenville!), while you will spend the rest of your life dealing with the cold looks, ostracisement and mental disorders that come with being assaulted. And, again, this is just for starters. For sexual relationships, be ready to enjoy the Walk Of Shame. Be prepared to have everyone judge you for who you decide to share your body with. No matter what you do, it will be criticized. Every aspect of your daily life will be judged, and you will be held to multiple impossible and self-contradictory standards simultaneously, in dress, friendship, public and private behavior, business relationships and more, and you will have people running to sites such as Twitter to loudly declaim your shortcomings whenever they have the opportunity. Be prepared to have to deal with people being sexually interested in you and forcing their attentions on you without listening to your non-interest. Be prepared for entire groups of people to hate you just for your gender and your refusal to bestow sex when they want it with you, not when you want it and not with who you want it. And be prepared, again, that, when the die is cast and your 1 out of 3 chance of rape comes up snake eyes, to have nobody believe you, to feel depressed, to have people attack and question you, as if it were somehow your fault, to make excuses for the rapist, of accusing you of creating "drama" and trying to destroy the reputation of a pillar of the community. Be prepared to have elected officials dismiss your pain and anguish with phrases like "in cases of legitimate rape," as if your violation didn't meet some abstract line of violation. I would say that this is just for starters as well, but this barely even scratches the surface. This the abstract of the abstract of the index. I haven't even touched honor killings, the financing differences of "sex sells", or any of a host of other topics. [Sarcasm]Sounds peachy, doesn't it? Absolutely wonderful. Something to aspire to and hold up as an example of superiority. [/sarcasm] Getting rid of those "rights" is what feminism is fighting for--a level playing field. Where the only thing that matters is one's actions, not who or what you were born as. Are there damaged and psychotic feminists? Yes. You pointed out two that personally really worry me, Gearheart and Dale. But, guess what? They're extremists! To use your own phrase, "one swallow does not make a summer". They are no more examples of what it means to be a mainstream feminist than Thunderf00t is an example of what it means to be a mainstream atheist. So, lets back this away from the massive stereotyping, moving the goalposts and insisting that one swallow doesn't make a summer, except when it does, because it is convenient for your argument that it actually does so. Because, by that same token, we could start making the same statements about MRAs as well--that they're all horrible, sad, deluded men who have such disgusting personalities and habits that they have no prayer of ever engaging in a committed relationship between equals and are reacting out of hatred to externalize their self-loathing onto another target that they feel has spurned them--i.e. women. But this isn't accurate either!. There are honest and sincere MRAs that have identified actual grievances and systemic biases against men that are built into the legal and social fabric of society. These include such things as:

A lack of mental health care support, a parallel stigma against mental illness, a culture of toxic masculinity that directly works against emotional connections with other people, the three of which combine to lead to higher rates of suicide among men.
Educational discrimination against boys, including higher rates of school suspension and unnecessary disciplining
Violence against men being seen as the status quo by legal and police authorities.
Paternal rights in child custody cases
The assumption that men are disposable in combat and violence, as well as depictions of men as such in cinema and literature (there's even a Trope for it, Men Are The Expendable Gender)
The higher rates of male imprisonment and for longer sentences, typically under horrible and crowded conditions, and being subjected to the death penalty at rates where women are a statistical anomaly (in the 35 or so years since the death penalty was reinstated in the US, there have been about 1,300 executions. 12 of them were women)
The assumption that men are the violent and uncontrolled gender and the resulting bias in everything from domestic abuse scenarios (yes, women can and will abuse their male partners--aided by that culture of toxic masculinity I mentioned earlier) to insurance rates (men typically pay less for health insurance, but more for auto and life insurance... because they're seen by the actuaries as being less capable of controlling themselves), and, while rare, the stigma of false rape reporting.
The assumption, tied into the former point and into the culture of toxic masculinity, that all men that work with and teach children are... well, shall we say that when I teach and work with underage students, I am personally very careful to have stated and direct parental consent on file that I am allowed to be alone with them (essentially a babysitter clause in my contract) or I take extreme care to meet in public spaces.

(Personally, I really resent that last one. [url=http://csrowan.wordpress.com/2012/09/11/men-should-be-offended/]It presumes that my natural state is Rapist[/url] and other, unspeakable, things). But we don't typically hear about those MRAs who are fighting for redress of those issues. We typically only hear MRAs talking about women-this and feminist-that, and how this society is a matriarchy, and how they're all out to subjugate men, and only rarely do you see discussion on the other topics that I just outlined. And, sadly, I, personally, in all of the time I have spent online, have never seen an MRA bring up those topics unless I specifically went looking for them. I have only seen those topics brought up by feminists in general discussion. Now, I tend not to hang out in those places where MRAs congregate, so there is certainly a sampling bias there, but, at the same time, in my experience, that says some things (ugly, worrisome things in the case of the MRAs) about the comparative priorities and end goals of both groups. Well, that certainly turned into quite the essay... ...damn. Where'd the afternoon go? I had chores I needed to get done before tonight... *eyeroll*

—

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -Benjamin Franklin

Sun, 2014-03-30 01:21

#26

Erulastant Erulastant's picture

[joking]

[joking] I can assure you that Bibliophile is not a member of the Feminist Illuminati, as we do not accept men into our ranks. [/joke] OK, now that that's out of my system, how is this for a proposal? -We all recognize that there are a number of movements that fall under the label "Feminist", and that similarly there are a number of movements that fall under the label "Men's Rights Movement". -The feminists in this discussion explain and provide references to the feminist movements they consider themselves a part of. -The MRAs in this discussion explain and provide references to the men's rights movements they consider themselves a part of. -Having heard each others' positions, we critique each others' positions based not on anecdotal evidence and strawpeople but on the actual viewpoints expressed by MRAs/Feminists in this thread. Also statistics if relevant. -By this point will find ourselves capable of realizing that the other side consists of human beings with valid concerns and be able to continue productive discussion. -Having achieved the impossible, the merely difficult will be no challenge for us, and so we should start our own space program and colonize Luna. -Even if we fail to recognize each other's validity and/or basic humanity, we will at least have heard the other sides' positions, which will lead to slightly more accurate fruitless squabbling.

—

You, too, were made by humans. The methods used were just cruder, imprecise. I guess that explains a lot.

Sun, 2014-03-30 13:40

#27

Ranxerox

Older women

Extrasolar Angel wrote:
It is even more amusing/sad when you realize that the mant men who are enthusiastic about sex robots are those who have little or no chance of having female sexual partners, and as such feminists opposed to sex robots want to reinforce their current standing in society as deprived of sexual contact. While at the same time defending female sexual choice and slutwalks ;) So in short-the criticism about sex robots is the attempt to ensure that social status of the privileged and underprivileged remains the same as it is today.

I don't know where you live, but here in the US we have a one to one ratio of women to men between ages 15 and 64. However, 15 to 64 is a pretty wide age bracket and things aren't evenly distributed throughout the entire bracket. In the under 15 age bracket there are 104 guys for every 100 girls and in the over 65 there are only 75 men for every hundred females. Looking at these numbers, you can figure that guys enter the 15th year of their life in greater numbers than their female counterparts and over the next 5 decades die a little quicker until women eventually out number them. So, at your (not literally your but a general your) high school if all the guys and girls pair up there are likely to be some lonely left over guys. However, once you leave high school the numbers start to shift. There is no denying that there are a lot of lonely guys out out there looking for love, but there are also a lot of lonely women looking for love too. The women just tend to a bit older. Therefore, before you (once again not you specifically but a general you) spend 7 grand buying a sex robot, you might want to investigate the world of attractive older women. There are lots of them out there, and they are good for many things besides sex.

—

[img]http://i1111.photobucket.com/albums/h469/Jefferson_Watson/IU.jpg[/img] [img]http://i1111.photobucket.com/albums/h469/Jefferson_Watson/TC.jpg[/img] [img]http://i1111.photobucket.com/albums/h469/Jefferson_Watson/AU.jpg[/img]

Mon, 2014-03-31 19:12

#28

Erulastant Erulastant's picture

I suppose it would make sense

I suppose it would make sense for me to present my own views first (And I apologize for not having done so alongside my last post. It has been a very busy weekend.) I am a liberal intersectional feminist. What this means is that I support legal and societal equality between people of all genders. I support the elimination of gender roles and stereotypes rather than the total annihilation of the concept of gender. One thing that intersectional feminists recognize is that in the existing power structures, non-male genders are significantly disadvantaged. Therefore, we work primarily to advance the interests of people who are not male in order to achieve equality or liberation. (Hence the name 'feminist' rather than 'equalist'.) Intersectionality is the idea that gender struggles do not occur in isolation. Early feminist movements favored white cisgendered straight women. Intersectional feminism recognizes that the struggle against racism is a feminist struggle--Most people who are not male are also not white. The struggle against homophobia, biphobia, and asexual erasure are all part of the feminist struggle. The fight against transphobia and transmisogyny is a feminist fight. The fight for intersex rights and recognition is a feminist fight. Intersectionality also emphasizes recognizing how common problems are experienced differently by different people. The ways that a white woman experiences sexism are different from the ways that a black woman does, which are different from the ways an Eastern Asian woman does. The way that cis women are sexualized and degraded is different from the way that trans women are sexualized and degraded. The 'big issues' of intersectional feminism will vary depending on who you are asking. What I consider to be some of the big issues here in the US are: -Severe governmental underrepresentation of every group besides white cishet males. -Lack of positive representation of women in media, especially of queer women, especially of women of color, and especially of trans women. -Lack of *any* representation of nonbinary people in media. -Rape culture -Female sexuality being demeaned and reviled, while male sexuality is praised and elevated. For example, the predominance of male gaze advertising and slut-shaming. This website does a good job of explaining basic feminist concepts: http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/the-faqs/faq-roundup/ Of particular relevance to this discussion: http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/08/12/faq-some-feminist-sai... Wikipedia has a decent page for intersectionality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality

—

You, too, were made by humans. The methods used were just cruder, imprecise. I guess that explains a lot.

Tue, 2014-04-08 23:24

#29

nick012000 nick012000's picture

Quote:Nick012000. Strike Two.

Quote:
Nick012000. Strike Two. Reason being, just shortly (ten posts earlier in the same thread) after it was made very clear that that that sort of broad negative generalization is not going to be tolerated, you made broad and general accusations about how "yes, all feminists are like that", essentially stating that all feminists that have "actual, institutional power" abuse it--as if that were an innate tendency of just feminists and not human beings in general. As the saying goes, to truly test someone's character, give them power. If you have examples of specific abuses of institutional power by those individuals that identify as feminist, feel free to share links and articles that expose their corruption. But do not make broad statements that make the implicit argument "they are feminists with power, therefore they are corrupt and abusive."

Okay, since I just saw this, I'll move to this thread instead. In short, yes, all feminists with power are like that. Want examples? Okay, then. Even leaving out the obvious example (you), take a look at [url=http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/g2eme/feminists_tell_you_tha... and [url=http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRightsMeta/comments/tnwn8/faq_suggestion_ant..., and the /r/mensrights subreddit in general; if they're good at anything, it's posting evidence of feminists behaving badly, and women getting off with a slap on the wrist due to feminist-influence court policies (it actually results in the occasional complaint that there's too many posts about feminists being scumbags and not enough about actual activism in the subreddit). Meanwhile, I cannot think of [i]any[/i] instance where a feminist organisation did [i]anything[/i] to help men, even in the slightest way (and if you have a counter-example, I'd be glad to hear it!), and in the few instances where individual feminists do try to help men (like when Warren Farrell, then a male feminist, wrote his book, The Myth of Male Power), they're almost immediately kicked out of Feminism. So no, it's not simply "power corrupts". It's also the fact that they police speech and act to cast out silence anyone who disagrees with their belief system. Saying "all feminists are anti-male bigots" (or, if you like, "all feminists believe in the Patriarchy Theory", which really amounts to the same thing) is like saying "all Muslims believe that Allah is the only god, with Muhammad as his final prophet". There are "Muslim" sects that don't believe those things (like the Sikhs), but the Muslims cast them out pretty quickly, just like how the feminists cast out anyone who supports men (many of whom wind up becoming MRAs).

Quote:
nick012000: As far as I can tell, you seem to have self-identified as an MRA. Could you explain to me which rights the Men's Rights movement feels are important and are fighting for? I have never actually seen an MRA explain this. In particular, I'm curious as to how this conflicts with the aims of (most branches of) feminism. Like Lorsa, I'm skeptical about the two movements being mutually exclusive or naturally opposed to each other. Hopefully an explanation of what exactly the MRM is aiming for will help me understand why some people seem to feel they must be.

Well, firstly, the MRM's actual aims are the same as the feminist movement's stated aims: equality between the genders. Unfortunately, as you can see in the links I provide above, rather than seeking to combat inequality, the feminist movement instead aims to cement it in place whenever it favours women. As a result, in order to seek equality, the MRM must seek to combat feminism in order to undo the inequalities feminism is in favor of. In short: women are the privileged sex, and the MRM seeks equality. If you want to know more specific details of how men are disadvantaged, well, look at the links above. Now, Lorsa's post in the other thread:

Lorsa wrote:
I was wondering if I should reply or not, and it seems bibliophile took care of part of what I wanted to say.
nick012000 wrote:
Men's Rights Activist (or MRA for short), and no, you can't be both a Feminist and an MRA, though most MRAs are former Feminists. If you don't believe me, go onto Reddit's /r/feminism and say that. You'll be banned from the subreddit in minutes.
Just because other people buy into a false dichotomy doesn't mean you have to. Or I for that matter. There is no logical reason why you couldn't fight for equal rights for both men and women (and adrogynous/agendered/genderfluid etc people).

You're right, there is no reason you can't fight for equal rights for both men and women. The people who do that are called "Men's Rights Activists".

Quote:
nick012000 wrote:
Claiming to believe in an ideology is worthless if you don't do things to back it up, and conversely, an ideology is judged by the actions of those who support it.
I disagree with the last statement very strongly, but first I want to say that even if it is worthless to believe in an ideology without actively doing anything to advance its agenda, you might still [i]believe[/i] in it. Besides, voting for specific types of politicians is still doing [i]something[/i].

Voting for politicians is pretty worthless without supporting lobbying groups to further advance your agenda (at which point you become partially culpable for the agendas those lobbying groups advance).

Quote:
Anyway, you can't judge an ideology based on the actions of those who support it. The ideology is just that, an idea. It should be judged based on its own merits. Also, the definion of "those who support it" is very vague. Is it those who actually act in according to the stated ideology or is it simply those who claim to follow it? If it's the first then I could agree but then it become rather pointless and you might as well judge the ideology itself. If it's the latter then it is quite abuseable. You could simply claim to be following an ideology and perform all sorts of henious acts "in its name" in order to paint it in a bad light. It's even quite likely people are already doing this so to dissuade people like you not to follow an otherwise good ideology.

How can you judge an idea on its own merits? Without people putting it into action, it has no merits, it's just nice-sounding words. What's important are actions, not words, and the consequences of those actions, not their intended result. So, for instance, let's take the very nice idea of "everyone should get food". It's very nice, isn't it? Nobody wants people to starve. So, let's try to implement it! But how? I know! People without food don't have much money, so let's put a price cap on the amount of money people can charge for food! But that leads to farmers going out of business, and food supplies dropping, so now fewer people have food! The same sorts of things happen if you start giving everyone free food; the price of food drops, farmers go out of business and soon everyone has less food. So, would you say from that that "everyone should have food" is a bad ideology?

Quote:
I mean, you can't judge Christinanity based on the crusades, or Islam based on suicide bombers or Capitalism based on the blood diamond industry. Actions are performed by people, not by ideologies.

What? Of course you can. All of those actions were primarily based on the ideologies responsible for them (though a significant portion of the blame for the last lies with DeBeers corporation's diamond monopoly creating the conditions to incentivise the blood diamond industry). Both the Crusades and Suicide Bombings, however, are definitely examples of religiously-motivated violence (though it should also be pointed out that the Crusades used violence as a means to an end (namely, a performing a pilgramage to the Holy Land), while for Muslim suicide bombers the violence is the end in and of itself). Also, everyone involved in the Crusades is long dead, and medieval Christianity was a very different thing to modern Christianity in ways that are hard for modern people to understand. Now, onto Bibliphile's post in this thread...

Quote:
*snip reproductive rights*

That's the way it already is, Bibliphile. Men have precisely zero reproductive rights. Women have to go through invasive procedures to get an abortion? That's an advantage in their favor, because they get to have one at all! A man has zero say in whether or not his child get to be born; if he takes into his own hands, he goes to prison for murder. If the mother does decide to have the child, welp, kiss your freedom goodbye because you might as well be her slave for the next 18 years, and if you're lucky, she'll be gracious enough to allow you to assist with raising it. If she decides she doesn't, I hope you can find a reasonable judge, because if not, prepare to watch yourself be beggared by child support payments you can't afford, on pain of being thrown in prison if you fail to pay them (and, of course, the child support continues to accrue while you're in prison), while being shamed by everyone around you as a "deadbeat dad".

Quote:
For the courts, prepare to have judges be dismissive of you because clearly you're so weak and helpless and fragile that you would never be able to survive a full prison sentence.

That's not a disadvantage, that's an advantage! It's exactly what the MRM are fighting against. Some of the cruder members of the movement jokingly call it the "pussy pass"; more intellectual members call it "female hypoagency and male hyperagency", combined with the "male empathy deficit". Women get [i]vastly[/i] shorter prison sentences than men do, and it's one of the things the MRM hates passionately.

Quote:
For sexual relationships, be ready to enjoy the Walk Of Shame. ... *snip people paying attention to women*

You're framing this as a disadvantage, but it's not. All of that? It's the result of Female Privilege. It's an advantage women enjoy, because people actually care about what happens to them. Men? Totally expendable. 75% of suicides? 90% of workplace deaths? Who cares, right? It's just men, it's not like they're people or anything. Like I said, "male empathy deficit".

Quote:
*list of grievances MRAs have* But we don't typically hear about those MRAs who are fighting for redress of those issues. We typically only hear MRAs talking about women-this and feminist-that, and how this society is a matriarchy, and how they're all out to subjugate men, and only rarely do you see discussion on the other topics that I just outlined.

Except that we do. I myself brought them up multiple times. You just weren't listening properly. And yes, all of those issues? They're caused by one source: the toxic culture of fear-mongering and male exploitation and minimization promoted by feminism, or the Matriarchy.

Quote:
And, sadly, I, personally, in all of the time I have spent online, have never seen an MRA bring up those topics unless I specifically went looking for them.

Bullshit. I [i]know[/i] that I, personally, have linked those two pages I linked above in this post on this forum before. If you haven't seen them, it's because you're not reading my posts properly.

—

+1 r-Rep , +1 @-rep

Tue, 2014-04-08 23:50

#30

Kremlin K.O.A. Kremlin K.O.A.'s picture

nick012000 wrote:

nick012000 wrote:
Except that we do. I myself brought them up multiple times. You just weren't listening properly. And yes, all of those issues? They're caused by one source: the toxic culture of fear-mongering and male exploitation and minimization promoted by feminism, or the Matriarchy.

Given that the prison one, the walk of shame, and the conscription one all predate the existence of the feminism movement... I suspect you may be mistaken about the source. Unless the feminists have developed time travel, of course.

Wed, 2014-04-09 00:58

#31

nick012000 nick012000's picture

Kremlin K.O.A. wrote

Kremlin K.O.A. wrote:
nick012000 wrote:
Except that we do. I myself brought them up multiple times. You just weren't listening properly. And yes, all of those issues? They're caused by one source: the toxic culture of fear-mongering and male exploitation and minimization promoted by feminism, or the Matriarchy.
Given that the prison one, the walk of shame, and the conscription one all predate the existence of the feminism movement... I suspect you may be mistaken about the source. Unless the feminists have developed time travel, of course.

Feminists actively promote pre-existing anti-male portions of our culture. As a result, they are now responsible for them.

—

+1 r-Rep , +1 @-rep

Wed, 2014-04-09 01:29

#32

Erulastant Erulastant's picture

...So remember when the forum

...So remember when the forum banned broad negative generalizations? Honestly, how do you

nick012000 wrote:
*snip men's reproductive rights*

Alas! Men cannot dictate to their sexual partners what will happen in their uteri for nine months after intercourse! Oh how you suffer. In seriousness, though, I do understand your point about child support. But... Feminists are anti-child support! http://www.salon.com/2013/11/02/make_fatherhood_a_mans_choice_partner/ (You will notice that this article, written by a feminist in opposition to child support, links to writings by feminists on both sides of the issue. It's almost as if we are not a monolithic hive mind or something.) You may also wish to note that this particular problem was not brought upon men by evil feminists, but by other men.

nick012000 wrote:
*snip women favored in courts*

Again, feminists are in favor of changing this. http://www.againstthegrain.org/program/797/wed-102313-angela-davis-femin... And, again, the source of this problem is not women but men. (In this case, male judges.)

nick012000 wrote:

Quote:
For sexual relationships, be ready to enjoy the Walk Of Shame. ... *snip people paying attention to women*
You're framing this as a disadvantage, but it's not. All of that? It's the result of Female Privilege. It's an advantage women enjoy, because people actually care about what happens to them. Men? Totally expendable. 75% of suicides? 90% of workplace deaths? Who cares, right? It's just men, it's not like they're people or anything. Like I said, "male empathy deficit".

So... it's good for women to be raped... because then people pay attention to them? Did you actually just say that? Because you just summarized "Women have a one in three chance of being raped" as "people paying attention to women". And then said that that was an advantage. I guess there's no point in arguing with someone so self-centered and blind to reality as you seem to be, so I will just wait for you to be banned for yet again violating forum policy on broad negative generalizations. In your mind I suppose it's because the feminist illuminati is silencing your dissent. I would, however, like to make a final request to you: Please be publicly open about your views IRL. It would be a terrible pity if someone were to mistake you for an empathetic human being.

—

You, too, were made by humans. The methods used were just cruder, imprecise. I guess that explains a lot.

Wed, 2014-04-09 02:02

#33

RobBoyle

Nick012000. Strike Three. Bye

[color=#00FF00]Nick012000. Strike Three. Bye Bye.[/color] [color=#00FF00]I'm tired, cranky, and busy as hell, so this will be short. Nick just got himself banned for his overly broad negative generalizations, offensiveness, and general asshattery. We did warn that this thread would be heavily moderated.[/color]

—

Rob Boyle :: Posthuman Studios

Wed, 2014-04-09 03:19

#34

LionElJonson2 LionElJonson2's picture

I dunno. It looks to me like

I dunno. I'm new here, but it looks to me like nick012000 is right. All his statements certainly seem to be factual, at the very least. Why are you banning someone for telling the truth? If you're going to oppose someone, don't just silence them if you have any shred of intellectual honesty. Rebut them, like Erulastant was trying to do.

Wed, 2014-04-09 09:10

#35

RobBoyle

"LionElJonson2" -- not only

[color=#00FF00]"LionElJonson2" -- not only are you new here, you are posting from one of nick012000's previous IPs. Sockpuppetry is not tolerated here. Goodbye.[/color]

—

Rob Boyle :: Posthuman Studios

Wed, 2014-04-09 10:06

#36

Lorsa

nick012000: Again you seem to

nick012000: Again you seem to be missing the point. It's not about what you say, it's about how you say it. So well, I suppose it is what you say... but it's not about you being against feminism or believing them to some evil conspiracy or whatever, it is the way in which you express those views that is causing people to "silence you". It's a great shame that one viewpoint isn't being spoken for anymore but people come here looking for a respectful climate and you're disrupting that. I can assure you that it is more than possible to argue against feminism in a non-disruptive manner. So instead of accusing RobBoyle of "silencing" a viewpoint on what is in effect his forum, try to understand why. I mean the real why, not the illusatory why that you are accusing him of.

—

Lorsa is a Forum moderator [color=red]Red text is for moderator stuff[/color]

Thu, 2014-04-10 14:24

#37

Extrasolar Angel Extrasolar Angel's picture

Erulastant wrote:s.

Erulastant wrote:
s. Intersectionality is the idea that gender struggles do not occur in isolation. Early feminist movements favored white cisgendered straight women. Intersectional feminism recognizes that the struggle against racism is a feminist struggle--Most people who are not male are also not white.

I couldn't not spot this sentence in your post.You seem to exclude people who happen to have white skin color from being victims of racism(feel free to correct me if I am no right) White people aren't an uniform group with the same traits, cultural values, attributes, history and so on,but a various collection of groups, and some of them are victims of racism as well. For instance Poles and other Eastern Europeans in United Kingdom experience today more racism that Hindu or Japanese immigrants, with attacks on them being tolerated in mass media and voiced by politicians with little opposition. A white Polish or Romanian woman will experience more prejudice in UK than a Japanese woman or Hindu woman. Or if you want a historic example:Nazis considered white Poles to be subhumans while non-white Japanese were considered equals. It might be that your view is US-centric(I never lived or been to United States, so I am taking a guess), and i don't know if all European ethnic groups are treated equally in United States. Then again, existence of Polish Jokes in United States leads me to believe that the situation isn't that clear/equal either. It seems to me that you are influenced by the white privilege theory ? Is that correct ? I must confess I never agreed with its supporters, for as Eastern European I would dream of lives non-white Japanese live in Tokyo, compared to existence in Minsk, Belarus. For me their lives were always on easy mode....to paraphrase what the Scalzi claimed. Then again I was always under the impression that the whole theory ignores the world outside USA pr the fact that many nations never engaged in colonialism or in fact were victims of colonialism in some cases, despite being white.

Quote:
ways that a white woman experiences sexism are different from the ways that a black woman does, which are different from the ways an Eastern Asian woman does.

There is no universal white woman. An experience of Belarussian woman will be completely different from experience of English woman, or that of a Japanese woman.

—

[I]Raise your hands to the sky and break the chains. With transhumanism we can smash the matriarchy together.[/i]

Thu, 2014-04-10 16:07

#38

Erulastant Erulastant's picture

Extrasolar Angel wrote

Extrasolar Angel wrote:
Erulastant wrote:
s. Intersectionality is the idea that gender struggles do not occur in isolation. Early feminist movements favored white cisgendered straight women. Intersectional feminism recognizes that the struggle against racism is a feminist struggle--Most people who are not male are also not white.
I couldn't not spot this sentence in your post.You seem to exclude people who happen to have white skin color from being victims of racism(feel free to correct me if I am no right) White people aren't an uniform group with the same traits, cultural values, attributes, history and so on,but a various collection of groups, and some of them are victims of racism as well. For instance Poles and other Eastern Europeans in United Kingdom experience today more racism that Hindu or Japanese immigrants, with attacks on them being tolerated in mass media and voiced by politicians with little opposition. A white Polish or Romanian woman will experience more prejudice in UK than a Japanese woman or Hindu woman. Or if you want a historic example:Nazis considered white Poles to be subhumans while non-white Japanese were considered equals. It might be that your view is US-centric(I never lived or been to United States, so I am taking a guess), and i don't know if all European ethnic groups are treated equally in United States. Then again, existence of Polish Jokes in United States leads me to believe that the situation isn't that clear/equal either. It seems to me that you are influenced by the white privilege theory ? Is that correct ? I must confess I never agreed with its supporters, for as Eastern European I would dream of lives non-white Japanese live in Tokyo, compared to existence in Minsk, Belarus. For me their lives were always on easy mode....to paraphrase what the Scalzi claimed. Then again I was always under the impression that the whole theory ignores the world outside USA pr the fact that many nations never engaged in colonialism or in fact were victims of colonialism in some cases, despite being white.
Quote:
ways that a white woman experiences sexism are different from the ways that a black woman does, which are different from the ways an Eastern Asian woman does.
There is no universal white woman. An experience of Belarussian woman will be completely different from experience of English woman, or that of a Japanese woman.

Yes, I am arguing from a primarily US-centric viewpoint. I apologize, it's a bad habit I fall into, as those I'm arguing with are frequently US citizens discussing the situation here. I know racism in Europe is not deliniated by skin tone to nearly the same extent as it is here in the US, but sometimes I tend to forget that, because usually when I hear people talking about "Racism against white people" it is an attempt to claim the existence of 'reverse racism' in the US where white people are actively and systematically discriminated against by people of other skin tones, rather than white-on-white racism which is prominent in other parts of the world. Again, my apologies. Please do not hesitate to correct me if I slip up again.

—

You, too, were made by humans. The methods used were just cruder, imprecise. I guess that explains a lot.