|
Mental health issues affect everybody and are frequently caused by things external to the individual. And most importantly, because they affect all sorts of people, the existence of the mental health minister does not imply the existence of a coherent outgroup for the mentally unhealthy to be fighting against and even if it did, that outgroup wouldn't be "women" i.e a group of people who are already having a poo poo time of it. Once again, "men" is not a coherent category of political organization because men already occupy the dominant position among equivalent categories, and thus their problems are primarily caused by other men and therefore you can't advocate for "men" generally any more than you can advocate for "white people's rights" for example, without necessarily implying "to fight against people who aren't part of the group" and when everyone in the outgroup categories are already relatively disadvantaged, that means advocating for the right to oppress. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 14:30 on Sep 29, 2023 |
#
?
Sep 29, 2023 14:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 03:16 |
|
|
Rugz posted:By that logic we should not have a mental health minister then?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2023 14:26
|
|
|
Rugz posted:Split the brief off from mental health and women's health strategy minister and do that good old fashioned ministerial thing that all other ministers do. Alternatively, don't split the brief and tell the current minister to get on with their job. However, since the starting point seems to be 'The job isn't being done' the latter seems a bit redundant. Do you have an example of a non-nutjob arguing we need a men's minister for men's rights? Because that'd be the obvious counter to the "it's an idiots' cause" line
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2023 14:29
|
|
|
'By that logic' is a fantastic lead in to then make up a truly deranged alternative interpretation of what the OP said, keep doing it. I'm sure eventually it'll create a cogent argument.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2023 14:32
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Mental health issues affect everybody and are frequently caused by things external to the individual. And most importantly, because they affect all sorts of people, the existence of the mental health minister does not imply the existence of a coherent outgroup for the mentally unhealthy to be fighting against and even if it did, that outgroup wouldn't be "women" i.e a group of people who are already having a poo poo time of it. Now I am confused because men's issues are absolutely external to the individual so what relevance does that even have? A man can experience issues caused by things external to themselves. You're also saying the existence of a mental health minister does not imply the existence of a coherent outgroup but your argument against a men's minister is that it is impossible for such a group to have a coherent outgroup. OwlFancier posted:Men's problems are primarily caused by other men, so "men" is not a coherent political advocacy category unless you define that advocacy by things external to it Why does this need to be true? You've just said it is not true for mental health.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2023 14:33
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2023 14:35
|
|
|
and furthermore, why isn't there a White History Month  "men" as a group are neither special, important, nor victimised enough to merit an entire minister. hth
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2023 14:36
|
|
|
If a new minister role actually did something to tackle male suicide then that would be wonderful. Call it whatever you like. But I'm doubtful that nothing gets done due to there not being a specific role for it. Nothing gets done because it's something in society that no one seems to care about and when people I see asking for said role are usually only doing it as a whataboutism argument against something else
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2023 14:37
|
|
|
My argument is that it is possible for men's advocacy to have a coherent outgroup and that outgroup is near universally "women" which is why men's rights activists are usually just misogynists and also factually wrong, because the cause of men's problems is not women. If mental health advocacy drew an obvious line between "mentally unwell people" who were already quite advantaged by society, and another outgroup of people who are relatively disadvantaged by society, then I would have the same complaint about it. But it doesn't. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 14:40 on Sep 29, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2023 14:37
|
|
|
Recommending a Goon's Minister committee be formed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2023 14:38
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:My argument is that it is possible for men's advocacy to have a coherent outgroup and that outgroup is near universally "women" which is why men's rights activists are usually just misogynists and also factually wrong, because the cause of men's problems is not women. But it doesn't need one (as we have seen by the mental health minister's role) so to say 'this shouldn't exist because the outgroup isn't something we want' seems to be making an assumption that has already been demonstrated to not be true.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2023 14:41
|
|
|
Rugz posted:Now I am confused because men's issues are absolutely external to the individual so what relevance does that even have? A man can experience issues caused by things external to themselves. You're also saying the existence of a mental health minister does not imply the existence of a coherent outgroup but your argument against a men's minister is that it is impossible for such a group to have a coherent outgroup. Is your argument that being a man is caused by hormones excreted in your brain, and thus is comparable to your definition of mental illness?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2023 14:42
|
|
|
Then should we have a minister for white empowerment? After all that does not necessarily suggest that anything is being taken away from anybody else.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2023 14:42
|
|
|
Tijuana Bibliophile posted:Is your argument that being a man is caused by hormones excreted in your brain, and thus is comparable to your definition of mental illness? No it is not. My argument has been clearly stated. OwlFancier posted:Then should we have a minister for white empowerment? After all that does not necessarily suggest that anything is being taken away from anybody else. Empowerment directly suggests something being taken from another. If you are empowering someone they are being given something that previously belonged to someone else.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2023 14:45
|
|
|
Rugz posted:But it doesn't need one (as we have seen by the mental health minister's role) so to say 'this shouldn't exist because the outgroup isn't something we want' seems to be making an assumption that has already been demonstrated to not be true.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2023 14:45
|
|
|
Rugz posted:Empowerment directly suggests something being taken from another. If you are empowering someone they are being given something that previously belonged to someone else. No it doesn't. We seek to empower people all the time. I am very much in favour of empowering people with mental health problems and I would hope you would be too. I would agree that if someone demands white empowerment they mean taking rights away from other people, but that is because white people are already the most empowered group, there is nothing to give them relative to other groups, only things which can be taken away from others. Which is my point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2023 14:46
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:No it doesn't. We seek to empower people all the time. I am very much in favour of empowering people with mental health problems and I would hope you would be too. I would agree that if someone demands white empowerment they mean taking rights away from other people, but that is because white people are already the most empowered group, there is nothing to give them relative to other groups, only things which can be taken away from others. What you are giving them is inherently being taken from another entity. Be that the state or another individual. If someone demands empowerment they are demanding the transfer of a thing from some other to themselves. All rights already exist, empowerment is just the transfer of ownership of those rights.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2023 14:50
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/whelankarl/status/1707478714374656170?s=46&t=ARI_L-v32Oind1-d9B3a3Q Good thread on that pair of parasites who build that dodgy tower block, and their habit of hoarding land without serious investment.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2023 14:53
|
|
|
Rugz posted:What you are giving them is inherently being taken from another entity. Be that the state or another individual. If someone demands empowerment they are demanding the transfer of a thing from some other to themselves. All rights already exist, empowerment is just the transfer of ownership of those rights. Zero sum fallacy is what cunts believe. It is possible for someone to receive something without it first being taken away from someone else.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2023 14:55
|
|
|
Rugz posted:No it is not. My argument has been clearly stated. By who? I've read you're posts if you concede that maleness is, at partly and at least in most cases, caused by hormonal influence during childhood, that inherently limits your male minister's role to regulating hormonal levels.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2023 14:56
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:Good thread maybe post some of it for the growing number of people without logins to the musk zone.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2023 14:59
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Zero sum fallacy is what cunts believe. It is possible for someone to receive something without it first being taken away from someone else. It is not. What is possible is to argue that it is a good thing for something to be taken from one and given to another, but to argue that nothing is being transferred is just wilfully ignoring reality. I'm not sure why it's an issue though, unless someone is morally opposed to taking things but also wants to give things, I guess they would need to square that circle.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2023 15:00
|
|
|
As a censible sentrist I demand that the PM appoint a Minister for Magic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2023 15:02
|
|
|
Like how we empowered women with the right to vote by taking it away from men, or how we empowered same-sex couples with the right to get married by taking it away from mixed-sex couples
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2023 15:03
|
|
|
Rugz posted:It is not. What is possible is to argue that it is a good thing for something to be taken from one and given to another, but to argue that nothing is being transferred is just wilfully ignoring reality. I'm not sure why it's an issue though, unless someone is morally opposed to taking things but also wants to give things, I guess they would need to square that circle. So in this zero sum rights arithmetic of yours, prohibiting the use of cars wouldn't affect the people's combined right to freedom of movement?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2023 15:05
|
|
|
If one group doesn't have rights that another group has then you don't have to take those rights from the in group to bestow them on the out group, that should be the least controversial statement on earth.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2023 15:06
|
|
|
Rugz posted:What you are giving them is inherently being taken from another entity. Be that the state or another individual. If someone demands empowerment they are demanding the transfer of a thing from some other to themselves. All rights already exist, empowerment is just the transfer of ownership of those rights. If someone can't walk and you give them a wheelchair, or medical care that lets them walk, you aren't taking the right to walk from someone else... Political advocacy for people in general to be given medical care is not taking life from other people. And even in the case of rights, if you abolished slavery the rights you are "transferring" are not equivalent, another person's right to own a human being is not the same as allowing that human being to live their own life. This is a legitimately insane way to look at the world. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 15:09 on Sep 29, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2023 15:06
|
|
|
History Comes Inside! posted:Like how we empowered women with the right to vote by taking it away from men, or how we empowered same-sex couples with the right to get married by taking it away from mixed-sex couples The right to vote for women was a right owned by the state, which it chose to withhold. The empowerment of women was the transfer of that right, the right was taken away from the state.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2023 15:06
|
|
|
History Comes Inside! posted:Like how we empowered women with the right to vote by taking it away from men, or how we empowered same-sex couples with the right to get married by taking it away from mixed-sex couples Some people unironically think the latter is true because the institution is meaningless now. I laugh at their anger.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2023 15:06
|
|
|
How am I not surprised that somehow in the UK thread we've now seen a debate break down to state's rights.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2023 15:07
|
|
|
Rugz posted:The right to vote for women was a right owned by the state, which it chose to withhold. The empowerment of women was the transfer of that right, the right was taken away from the state.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2023 15:08
|
|
|
Rugz posted:The right to vote for women was a right owned by the state, which it chose to withhold. The empowerment of women was the transfer of that right, the right was taken away from the state. The state wasn't shooting itself up full of the hypothetical women's votes before suffrage you utter lunatic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2023 15:10
|
|
|
Bobby Deluxe posted:Do you think the state was voting on behalf of women or something? They definitely thought they were, or at least pretended. It was argued at the time that it was the duty of the state to look after the interests of women and that they couldn't do this themselves.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2023 15:11
|
|
|
Rugz posted:The right to vote for women was a right owned by the state, which it chose to withhold. The empowerment of women was the transfer of that right, the right was taken away from the state. Mental gymnastics on the tier of those Spetsnaz demonstration videos
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2023 15:11
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The state wasn't shooting itself up full of the hypothetical women's votes before suffrage you utter lunatic. No, it was withholding the right of women to vote because it owned the right for women to vote and could do what it liked. Then when women were empowered the right for women to vote was transferred from the state to the women and the state could no longer withhold the right because it did not own it
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2023 15:12
|
|
|
i can do this too OwlFancier posted:If someone can't walk and you give them a wheelchair, or medical care that lets them walk, you aren't taking the right to walk from someone else... The transfer of resources needed to produce that wheelchair means another man's prosperity is necessarily affected. Who are you to say this appropriation does not impede the victim of this transaction equally to the increase enjoyed by its beneficent?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2023 15:14
|
|
|
Tijuana Bibliophile posted:Who are you to say this appropriation does not impede the victim of this transaction equally to the increase enjoyed by its beneficent? Literally nobody is saying this. You have jumped whole hog from 'You are saying this thing exists' to 'You are advocating for this thing' and it is tiresome. The right is being transferred.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2023 15:16
|
|
|
I... think I can see the logic here? By giving women the vote, the state was relinquishing its (and its male voters') power over women to women, in much the same way that transitioning from authoritarianism to democracy is a ceding of power from the state to the public.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2023 15:17
|
|
|
But where did the state get those things in the first place, and from whom?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2023 15:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 03:16 |
|
|
The right doesn’t exist you disingenuous doughnut, it’s created and given and absolutely nothing is taken from anyone.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2023 15:18
|
|