|
Samurai Sanders posted:That's all? No elaborate scheme for how they secretly control all of the (mostly male) leaders of the world? Quoting from an article quote:A large segment of the MRM believes in rigid gender roles, and they look down on men they consider effeminate or homosexual. Feminism and women’s liberation are part of a scheme to undermine men and masculinity and feminize male children. Overall, MRAs distrust women and their motives, and encourage others to do the same--or as they call it, "take the red pill."
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 11:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 15:17 |
|
|
Lid posted:Quoting from an article Link?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 11:37
|
|
|
americong posted:Link? http://fusion.net/culture/story/elliot-rodgers-online-world-primer-mens-rights-activists-723716 The quotes "Take the red pill" is a hyperlink to - http://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-red-pill-reddit-2013-8 Lid fucked around with this message at 11:44 on May 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 11:41
|
|
|
This is a hectic thread with a lot going on, but I'd like to discuss changes that can be made by all of us on a personal level with the intent to combat the sort of mindset that Rodger and others have found themselves in. I know that sort of thing seems like rearranging deck chairs on the titanic, but I am of the opinion that the best way to change the people around you is by example and acceptance. I was stuck in a similar rut as Rodger at one point in my life, a disillusioned, frustrated, insecure 19-year-old virgin who had tried and failed at what little PUA nonsense I had dabbled in and come to the conclusion that all women are judgmental, spiteful and malicious bitches (not momma though, she's cool), and that I was a nice guy who was doomed to a life of celibacy in a world that couldn't see what a great guy I was. To me, there was no way out, the hole could only get deeper. I'm over that now, mostly thanks to a supportive environment of people who were willing to listen and lead me to seriously think through the bullshit I had absorbed from the proto-MRA echo chambers and find out for myself that those world views are built entirely on self-loathing and projection. That sort of rut is a nasty one to get stuck in, and as far as I can tell it was ultimately the product of being a shut-in with nothing to challenge the excuses I was making as to why everyone else had been laid and I hadn't. Going by the reactions I have generally been seeing to the sort of misogyny involved, they tend to be very much "That's horrible, he's a sicko nutjob", followed by a haphazard attempt to assign some kind of blame to wherever it sort of feels right, preferably cursing out the holder of such wacko opinions as they go along. This sort of judgement and condemnation, while understandable, is not very constructive in the long run, because for the MRAs involved it means they are now seen as some sort of threat, and will retreat further into their echo chamber circle jerk. For me, it also meant I was avoiding the cognitive-behavioral therapy that eventually turned me around, for fear of what the therapist might think of me. IMO the better way forward is to acknowledge that they are just as much human as you are, and that their misogyny is just a foible just like any one of yours. From there, it becomes much easier to reason with someone than if the nature of your discussion is confrontational. Basically I am asking that everyone who comes across that sort of thing not write the person off as a hopeless shutin lady-hater, but rather try to be as good a listener as you can; engage in their world view from a non-judgmental stance, ask questions, try and find the weak points in the reasoning, and try and nudge the conversation towards calling those into question. The less assertions and accusations made and the more questions asked the better. I have had relatively good success with discussions of that nature from topics ranging from politics over health quackery, misanthropy/misogyny all the way to hardcore conspiracy theories, and I think others will too.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 12:29
|
|
|
Thanks for sharing. It's easy to forget that these too are people.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 12:35
|
|
|
murphyslaw posted:Thanks for sharing. It's easy to forget that these too are people. Something tells me you're being sarcastic, but it rings true either way. The amount of otherization on both sides of the whole thing is staggering and someone's got to be the first to get the gently caress over it and be civil for a moment.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 13:02
|
|
|
I was not being disingenuous. It's pretty telling that the conversation has been irrevocably poisoned when you have to make double sure that a compliment to a heartfelt post was really a compliment.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 13:44
|
|
|
snorch posted:Something tells me you're being sarcastic, but it rings true either way. The amount of otherization on both sides of the whole thing is staggering and someone's got to be the first to get the gently caress over it and be civil for a moment. I'm actually going to provide a counterpoint. I don't think that progress can be made in some areas of gender issues without at least some segment of the feminist side coming off as pretty shrill. It really isn't enough to be passively sympathetic to gender issues, so it make sense in my book that we have people trying to vilify anyone who isn't actively and outspokenly feminist. ...others have laid this point out much better than me, if this facet of the discussion goes anywhere I'll try to source it. E: I just went ahead and found a delightful quote Emmeline Pankhurst posted:Experience will show you that if you really want to get anything done, it is not so much a matter of whether you alienate sympathy; sympathy is a very unsatisfactory thing if it is not practical sympathy. americong fucked around with this message at 13:54 on May 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 13:45
|
|
|
murphyslaw posted:From what I gather it's not really a coherent idea, let alone elaborate. They "know" that women are to blame for many of their ills and that feminism, in reality, is little more than an anti-male lobbying group. But as for how women control society, although men generally are at the head of it, they are not completely clear (although they will do their best to try to convince you that this is the case).
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 14:57
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:I think they believe it's kind of like a nefarious Lysistrata. She who controls sex, controls the universe. Or something like that. Wasn't part of the point of Lysistrata that women want sex just like men, so cutting the men off also meant cutting themselves off? So it also works in showing these guys how dumb the idea is. The whole MRA thing seems to open itself up to parallels with people who've been swept up in the Southern Strategy. One of the arguments put forward there is that poor whites keep voting for it because white privilege is all they have-- strip that away and they are in essence nothing. MRAs on some level know they're getting an advantage, the problem being they are too other flawed to get ahead because of it. So they have to push back, because otherwise they'd be totally cut out of society. Note that this doesn't excuse either behavior-- either they can fight against their actual enemy (the 1%ers and patriarchy respectively) or they can get bowled over when they lose whatever ill-gain status they had. rkajdi fucked around with this message at 15:47 on May 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 15:44
|
|
|
snorch posted:Going by the reactions I have generally been seeing to the sort of misogyny involved, they tend to be very much "That's horrible, he's a sicko nutjob", followed by a haphazard attempt to assign some kind of blame to wherever it sort of feels right, preferably cursing out the holder of such wacko opinions as they go along. This sort of judgement and condemnation, while understandable, is not very constructive in the long run, because for the MRAs involved it means they are now seen as some sort of threat, and will retreat further into their echo chamber circle jerk. For me, it also meant I was avoiding the cognitive-behavioral therapy that eventually turned me around, for fear of what the therapist might think of me. IMO the better way forward is to acknowledge that they are just as much human as you are, and that their misogyny is just a foible just like any one of yours. From there, it becomes much easier to reason with someone than if the nature of your discussion is confrontational. For example, if you were to read Mein Kampf, you wouldn't immediately start by going "this book is terrible and this guy was evil, now let's read it." You already know the guy was bad. You don't need to make these performative statements condemning it to show other people that you're morally correct. What you should do is try to have some methodological empathy which doesn't *endorse* these views, but attempts to understand why this person believes this thing.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
snorch posted:I know that sort of thing seems like rearranging deck chairs on the titanic, but I am of the opinion that the best way to change the people around you is by example and acceptance. edit: how did your friends manage to notice the signs in you, before you went past the point of no return? Samurai Sanders fucked around with this message at 18:09 on May 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
snorch posted:Something tells me you're being sarcastic, but it rings true either way. The amount of otherization on both sides of the whole thing is staggering and someone's got to be the first to get the gently caress over it and be civil for a moment. Is it because they will die otherwise? Is it because now they have the credible threat of hurting others if they are not treated with such compassion? If you are simply calling for politeness and perhaps the occasional firm but civil refutation of views, possibly even sprinkled with "I reject your views but not your person," that is fair enough. But BOY!
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
snorch posted:I was stuck in a similar rut as Rodger at one point in my life, a disillusioned, frustrated, insecure 19-year-old virgin who had tried and failed at what little PUA nonsense I had dabbled in and come to the conclusion that all women are judgmental, spiteful and malicious bitches (not momma though, she's cool), and that I was a nice guy who was doomed to a life of celibacy in a world that couldn't see what a great guy I was. To me, there was no way out, the hole could only get deeper. I'm over that now, mostly thanks to a supportive environment of people who were willing to listen and lead me to seriously think through the bullshit I had absorbed from the proto-MRA echo chambers and find out for myself that those world views are built entirely on self-loathing and projection. That sort of rut is a nasty one to get stuck in, and as far as I can tell it was ultimately the product of being a shut-in with nothing to challenge the excuses I was making as to why everyone else had been laid and I hadn't. You have to have a very particular mindset to think that people are deliberately trying to hurt you if you have trouble forming social bonds. It's not a reasonable conclusion. If you can't find a job you typically wouldn't think companies are out to get you. There's some narcissism, inflated ego and lack of self-reflection in it. So why do so many men seemingly have that problem?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:You don't need to make these performative statements condemning it to show other people that you're morally correct. If you are an Internet SJW you do, after all that's the whole point--a platform to proclaim your "right-think". Just look at the various hashtags that have popped up and that often start trending after well publicized events only to quickly disappear with nothing to show for it. Ultimately these things are meaningless, require no effort and reflect no one's but the author's viewpoints. So after their life-cycle what have they done? I guess giving some bloggers some page views and maybe a few stories for jezebel and huffpro. Has progress been made? Was that ever the point? Anyway the internet is poo poo because complicated issues lose all nuance, and ultimately all the discussion is pointless, and frankly, not even that interesting.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Anyway the internet is poo poo because complicated issues lose all nuance, and ultimately all the discussion is pointless, and frankly, not even that interesting. But I am going to stay on it and keep discussing things because Anosmoman posted:You have to have a very particular mindset to think that people are deliberately trying to hurt you if you have trouble forming social bonds. It's not a reasonable conclusion. If you can't find a job you typically wouldn't think companies are out to get you. There's some narcissism, inflated ego and lack of self-reflection in it. So why do so many men seemingly have that problem? Men are taught to be the masters of their domain and their destiny so when a guy has particularly rotten luck he assumes it is because others are asserting some kind of control over his life. Control that is supposed to be his.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
Nessus posted:To share the contrary view: Why should we, the pro-woman, or at least non-anti-woman side, have to be - again - the ones who are gentle and sweet and forbearing and accepting and nurturing? Why is it necessary that we be the "bigger men" (so to speak); why is it vital that we be the ones who are civil, while the frothing MRAs receive both the privilege of getting to fulminate about HB9s and also the privilege of being coddled to? If I hate women and believe that everyone supporting women is out to destroy me, then telling me that I'm a crazy rear end in a top hat who is a danger to those around him is probably not going to dislodge me from my views. Quite the contrary, I'm probably going to see that as evidence supporting my delusions and further entrench myself in them. There is a reason that therapists build relationships through trust and mutual respect instead of browbeating the patient about how dumb and illogical their beliefs and behaviors are.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:While I understand all of this, what can we do if they've deliberately shut themselves off from nurturing, supportive people in favor of other people like themselves? I mean, I don't see how they could have gotten like this if they had even a single friend with their head screwed on right. Or, heaven forbid, a female friend. But in the end, it was the parents and mental health providers who were *trying* to help when he was becoming radicalized. They just weren't fully aware of what was happening. So giving parents and providers (and schools) knowledge and tools to help them do their jobs seems like the logical place to direct counter-radicalization programs. It's hard and I wish I could speak in more detail. But that just seems right to me, as that's the most direct conduit from where you can exert the most influence. Powercrazy posted:If you are an Internet SJW you do, after all that's the whole point--a platform to proclaim your "right-think". Just look at the various hashtags that have popped up and that often start trending after well publicized events only to quickly disappear with nothing to show for it. Ultimately these things are meaningless, require no effort and reflect no one's but the author's viewpoints. So after their life-cycle what have they done? I guess giving some bloggers some page views and maybe a few stories for jezebel and huffpro. Has progress been made? Was that ever the point? But I don't think all discussion is ultimately pointless. I think we can ride out the wave of the stupid stuff and hopefully add something to the discussion that might end up helping someone out there who is a parent. And I think the main thing to focus on is the radicalization process and how to pull people away from it, which is a common feature of mass shooters and lone wolf terrorists. BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 18:55 on May 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
I stopped watching when he was like "Oh he totally wasn't a PUA you guys, he was a member of PUAHate  "
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:But I am going to stay on it and keep discussing things because In this case because the irony of sincerely discussing "misogeny" is amusing to me.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:If you are an Internet SJW you do, after all that's the whole point--a platform to proclaim your "right-think". Just look at the various hashtags that have popped up and that often start trending after well publicized events only to quickly disappear with nothing to show for it. Ultimately these things are meaningless, require no effort and reflect no one's but the author's viewpoints. So after their life-cycle what have they done? You consider what you can do differently. I'm not an Internet SJW, or an MRA, or really anything in these debates. Generally, I don't think either one will affect my world, what small truths exist are obscured by radical agendas. But after talking to some people with some way-far-out there views that were simply more progressive than I was willing to go, I noticed I had a lower tolerance for rape humor. It's probably a lot like how you may find something distasteful at a pride parade, but simply the experience of going makes you less accepting of think that gays are sub-human.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
I would just like to let you all know, via an internet discussion forum, that internet discussion ultimately has no purpose or outcome and this is amusing to me.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
snorch posted:This is a hectic thread with a lot going on, but I'd like to discuss changes that can be made by all of us on a personal level with the intent to combat the sort of mindset that Rodger and others have found themselves in. I know that sort of thing seems like rearranging deck chairs on the titanic, but I am of the opinion that the best way to change the people around you is by example and acceptance. I used to think a lot of fedora things, and then I realized that I just hated being a man. Now I'm a trans lady.  Somehow I doubt I'm the only one.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:Yeah one thing I hate about these mass shootings is that everyone immediately makes a big show about what side they're one, and they pull their knives out. Remember the Boston bombings, right? They were Muslims! They were white! They were white Muslims whaaaaa?! Like it would've made a difference. It's just otherization. People like to be on the "right" team, and grouping all Misogenist as MRAs/PUAs is easy. It's hard to identify a person that hates women on the internet unless you are talking specifically about women or "bitches" or whatever. However if someone is concerned about being treated unfairly in a divorce trial, or being kicked out of a university because a student tribunal found them guilty of something they did to someone, rather then say, "hey maybe it's kind of hosed up that the system is setup this way," it's much easier to say your kind deserve it, categorize them as a misogenist and move on smug in your moral righteousness. Popular Thug Drink posted:I would just like to let you all know, via an internet discussion forum, that internet discussion ultimately has no purpose or outcome and this is amusing to me. Well yea, internet forums are usually pretty amusing, sometimes you learn new ideas too, but unfortunately it lacks depth. ate shit on live tv fucked around with this message at 19:07 on May 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
I'm not sure why hashtags or online activism is meaningless other than Powercrazy just being older than his age and cranky. I mean #YesAllWomen is turning into a series of events for women to discuss their experiences.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:It's just otherization. People like to be on the "right" team, and grouping all Misogenist as MRAs/PUAs is easy. It's hard to identify a person that hates women on the internet unless you are talking specifically about women or "bitches" or whatever. However if someone is concerned about being treated unfairly in a divorce trial, or being kicked out of a university because a student tribunal found them guilty of something they did to someone, rather then say, "hey maybe it's kind of hosed up that the system is setup this way," it's much easier to say your kind deserve it, categorize them as a misogenist and move on smug in your moral righteousness. stop being smug about how you don't hate women 
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
Ernie Muppari posted:stop being smug about how you don't hate women Well yea, it should be the default? You don't need to be smug about it, you also don't need to reassure everyone that you still don't hate women. Did you go to the bathroom by yourself too? Should I congratulate you?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
is the gimmick that you're doing the exact thing you accuse sjw of doing
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:In this case because the irony of sincerely discussing "misogeny" is amusing to me. So you fully admit that your presence in this discussion is completely pointless and that you are only really here to troll and that you should be completely ignored?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
Lessail posted:is the gimmick that you're doing the exact thing you accuse sjw of doing it's a refreshing twist on the general concern troll that crops up itt i have opinions, and would like to let you know what they are though they have very little to do with the topic at hand
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
Hatred and abuse of women? How amusing even to touch upon it 
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
Oh my god people it is "misogyny", just remember to save the Ys for the end.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Well yea, it should be the default? You don't need to be smug about it, you also don't need to reassure everyone that you still don't hate women. Did you go to the bathroom by yourself too? Should I congratulate you? Yeah, but it isn't the default in reality. That would be the problem, in this case.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
Oh man, I just powered through this entire thread this morning while waiting for my friend to get ready. The first 20 or so pages were absolutely loving shameful, with lots of people on both sides making terrible garbage arguments, jumping to conclusions, and operating on terrible logic. Y'all have absolutely zero idea what "trolling" actually is. Someone who slightly disagrees with you on one point isn't trolling. There WERE trolls in this thread (and funny ones at that), but none of them were actually accused of trolling laffo. By reacting to disagreement with immediate accusations of trolling or accusations of secret-MRAism I think many people are betraying how shallow their personal adherence to feminism is - they use it as a bludgeon in arguments, a way to posture themselves as Superior and Objectively Correct. Feminism, after all, is a correct and necessary critique of patriarchy and advocating for the well-being of both women and men, right? So, their thinking goes, if I'm a feminist, and someone disagrees with me, then they clearly must be wrong. I'm infallible, because I'm a feminist. Hmm. Why are they disagreeing with me, then? Perhaps they're actually a misogynist, a MRApist? Or, trolling!!! Aha, they aren't responding to me in good faith, it's so clear now, that's the only possible reason they would be disagreeing. I really enjoyed that that one guy who made the bold assertion that more women get murdered than men and got blown up on it but never actually admitted he was staggeringly wrong and just shifted the goalposts repeatedly instead: Lid posted:More women are murdered than men worldwide, not to mention genocide by rape. EasternBronze posted:You are so incredibly wrong. But that's typical D&D, I guess. Actually, EasternBronze got jumped on later in the thread for apparently making MRA arguments. I had to think about it for a bit, but I think I've put my finger on why exactly what Zeitgueist tried to do really bothered me. It's deeply dishonest and ideological to try to dismiss something being said because it's similar to an argument being made by another ideological group, even (especially) if it's correct. If I point out that far more men are murdered than women, does that make me a MRA? Absurd. The way you deal with MRAs, the actual individuals and the movement as a whole, is thorough mockery. But it's not at all useful, it is actually counterproductive to dismiss correct things being said just because of its source. What happens when you do that, is they then get actual examples of so-called feminists ignoring correct statements that don't jive with their worldview. You give them ammo. Don't do that, idiots. It is very extremely clear that Rodger was both severely hosed in the head and also incredibly misogynistic, and it is also very extremely clear that the conjunction of those two things did a large part in incurring this murder spree. Pointing out one does not make you a MRA. Noting that Rodger killed more men than women is factually correct, and it's also factually correct that his goal was to kill as many women as possible. Why is it so difficult to take a broad view on this, that people went to the trouble of posting hundreds of time squabbling with each other because they couldn't possibly step back and try to take in all the factors that led to this happening? Yes, even including the extreme misogyny and the expression of that misogyny through violence! Also what the gently caress if this Rodger rampage makes women terrified that they'll be a murder spree victim then they have about a few hundred other things that they should be terrified of that are more likely to kill them. It's the height of irrationality. Don't suggest that this is a reasonable response to Elliot Rodger, to encourage people to ramp up their paranoia. Rampages are very, very rare compared to regular ol' gun violence (which largely kills men), and vanishingly rare compared to stuff that kills people way more regularly like vehicles. I mean, this isn't really relevant to the topic I guess, but I saw that mentioned a few times that Women Should Be Afraid and that's just bizarre to me and honestly comes off really badly, trying to put women in their places Because Elliot Rodger Might Happen to You, and We Should Make Sure No More Elliot Rodgers Happen So Women Won't Be Afraid of something that has a fractional chance of happening. Karnegal posted:I just want to weigh in professionally on the "mental illness" and misogyny angles. Dazzling Addar posted:*snip* These two were great posts and if you somehow missed them you should go read them. The Walking Dad posted:He also uses the term "grok" in his article, which goes to show that even when being conscious of misogyny, many of us lack the ability to recognize it or be sensitive to it when it clashes with our reverence of nerd culture. It's hard to escape the irony of using a word from "Stranger in a Strange Land" when talking about misogyny. A book riddled with homophobia and descriptions of women as either one dimensional or inferior to their male counterparts. Heinlein was also a lover of the rape joke. What the retard is this poo poo? SedanChair nailed it I guess: SedanChair posted:Are you kidding me with this preciousness? "Grok" is a word that has fully entered the English language, it is not misogynistic in and of itself. We don't rewind through the annals of time disappearing words that were created by lovely people. Jesus Christ.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
Nessus posted:To share the contrary view: Why should we, the pro-woman, or at least non-anti-woman side, have to be - again - the ones who are gentle and sweet and forbearing and accepting and nurturing? Why is it necessary that we be the "bigger men" (so to speak); why is it vital that we be the ones who are civil, while the frothing MRAs receive both the privilege of getting to fulminate about HB9s and also the privilege of being coddled to? You just identified stance of the "respectable" reactionary on literally every issue of import.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
Brannock posted:Oh man, I just powered through this entire thread this morning while waiting for my friend to get ready. The first 20 or so pages were absolutely loving shameful, with lots of people on both sides making terrible garbage arguments, jumping to conclusions, and operating on terrible logic. Y'all have absolutely zero idea what "trolling" actually is. Someone who slightly disagrees with you on one point isn't trolling. There WERE trolls in this thread (and funny ones at that), but none of them were actually accused of trolling laffo. By reacting to disagreement with immediate accusations of trolling or accusations of secret-MRAism I think many people are betraying how shallow their personal adherence to feminism is - they use it as a bludgeon in arguments, a way to posture themselves as Superior and Objectively Correct. Feminism, after all, is a correct and necessary critique of patriarchy and advocating for the well-being of both women and men, right? So, their thinking goes, if I'm a feminist, and someone disagrees with me, then they clearly must be wrong. I'm infallible, because I'm a feminist. Hmm. Why are they disagreeing with me, then? Perhaps they're actually a misogynist, a MRApist? Or, trolling!!! Aha, they aren't responding to me in good faith, it's so clear now, that's the only possible reason they would be disagreeing. This post would be incredibly more productive if I didn't have to read 2 paragraphs of a strawman. The reason people had a problem with individuals pointing out that Rodgers killed more men than women was simply because it was irrelevant and the very mention of it implies it isn't. Unless you completely missed the context of these posts, I don't see how you can fault someone for responding to that as they did. This post is just awful and completely misses the point of a lot of the critiques presented early on in this thread. Judakel fucked around with this message at 20:02 on May 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
Well it does illustrate how many people get utterly butt crumpled about SJWs, feminists, tone arguments, etc. for no reason at all, which is nice.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:Well it does illustrate how many people get utterly butt crumpled about SJWs, feminists, tone arguments, etc. for no reason at all, which is nice. People like to be angry, and when the topic in general agrees with them they got to find a new way to get angry. It happens in a discussion about anything really.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
SealHammer posted:If I hate women and believe that everyone supporting women is out to destroy me, then telling me that I'm a crazy rear end in a top hat who is a danger to those around him is probably not going to dislodge me from my views. Quite the contrary, I'm probably going to see that as evidence supporting my delusions and further entrench myself in them. Like, this just seems to cast the assholes back in the center of things, you know? I suppose it is better in some sense, since the therapeutic project seems theoretically limited, and has an actual goal rather than just "obey or get punished." To be completely clear, this is not meant to condemn reasoned or civil conversation with avowed misogynists in order to get them off their woman-hating horse and reform them into civilized individuals; I am also not going to condemn someone who was a dumb teenager or even early-twenties-er and got into this stuff but later grew out of it. Pope Fabulous XXIV posted:You just identified stance of the "respectable" reactionary on literally every issue of import. 
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 15:17 |
|
|
Honestly, I think I liked the actual misogynists better than the posters showing up to pose as above it all and lecture us with tone arguments.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 20:28
|
|