The future of Men and Families
We should try to turn back the clock
10.4% (8)
10.4% (8)
We should not turn back the clock
63.6% (49)
63.6% (49)
Other
26% (20)
26% (20)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: The Manosphere and the future of Men and Families

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
 

undeadsuitor:

FriendoftheFallen:
The people I have been around that try and advocate for mens rights are not nearly as toxic as the misandrist feminists I regularly encounter.

the people I'm friends with aren't as toxic as the people I deliberately seek out to disagree with

?\_(ツ)_/?

your experiences may differ but they do not negate mine

I don't need to seek out disagreement. I see plenty of toxicity on that side without seeking it out.

Lilani:
I once saw someone liken being "pro equal-rights" to being "pro house-fixing." Sure that's all well and good, but typically to tackle certain issues it's best to find a specialist. When someone's having trouble with their plumbing, they don't usually call a "house-fixer." They call a plumber. Or if they're having trouble with their power, they call an electrician. Or an HVAC specialist, or a roofer, or an exterminator or whatever. This is because there are a lot of different components to a house, and it's simply not feasible for one person to be well-equipped enough to tackle all of these problems competently.

One major problem with the actions of feminists in the real world, if you will forgive the continued application that analogy, is that feminists are plumbers that insist they are "house-fixers" and that all those other specialties are "house-breakers". They go through sometimes extreme mental gymnastics to insist every problem is actually a problem related to their specialty. Problem with your electricity? Conduits are really just pipes for wires and wires are just pipes for electricity so you should leave it to the plumbers, an electrician would just wreck your house and make a huge mess. Problem with your HVAC? Ducts are just rectangular pipes for air and look at all these literal pipes running in and out of your heating and cooling units. Clearly a job for a plumber. An HVAC specialist would just tear up all your walls and wreck your house.
Of course when the plumber has to tear up floors and walls and make a huge mess that's just part of the house-fixing process. The insistence that plumbers need to spend the extra time and effort to minimize their mess and collateral damage is just counter productive to the goal of fixing your house. When other specialties make a mess that means the government needs to crack down on them and replace them with plumbers. You say a plumber cut a wire and now half of your house doesn't have power? Typical electrical privilege. You're just mad that bathrooms can be inside houses now. I bet you would rather go back to a time of outhouses and chamber pots. No we won't fix the wire, what do we look like, some sort of house-breaking electrician.

Silent Protagonist:

There's certainly a problem with that. I can't say how prevalent it is amongst feminists, but all rights groups seem to have this issue to some extent. Might extend that to all rights activists, again to greatly varying extents.

Silent Protagonist:

Lilani:
I once saw someone liken being "pro equal-rights" to being "pro house-fixing." Sure that's all well and good, but typically to tackle certain issues it's best to find a specialist. When someone's having trouble with their plumbing, they don't usually call a "house-fixer." They call a plumber. Or if they're having trouble with their power, they call an electrician. Or an HVAC specialist, or a roofer, or an exterminator or whatever. This is because there are a lot of different components to a house, and it's simply not feasible for one person to be well-equipped enough to tackle all of these problems competently.

One major problem with the actions of feminists in the real world, if you will forgive the continued application that analogy, is that feminists are plumbers that insist they are "house-fixers" and that all those other specialties are "house-breakers". They go through sometimes extreme mental gymnastics to insist every problem is actually a problem related to their specialty. Problem with your electricity? Conduits are really just pipes for wires and wires are just pipes for electricity so you should leave it to the plumbers, an electrician would just wreck your house and make a huge mess. Problem with your HVAC? Ducts are just rectangular pipes for air and look at all these literal pipes running in and out of your heating and cooling units. Clearly a job for a plumber. An HVAC specialist would just tear up all your walls and wreck your house.
Of course when the plumber has to tear up floors and walls and make a huge mess that's just part of the house-fixing process. The insistence that plumbers need to spend the extra time and effort to minimize their mess and collateral damage is just counter productive to the goal of fixing your house. When other specialties make a mess that means the government needs to crack down on them and replace them with plumbers. You say a plumber cut a wire and now half of your house doesn't have power? Typical electrical privilege. You're just mad that bathrooms can be inside houses now. I bet you would rather go back to a time of outhouses and chamber pots. No we won't fix the wire, what do we look like, some sort of house-breaking electrician.

Yeaaa, but the solution is not to go jumping over to the people who go to lengths to prove that plumbing it'self is destroying your house and that you're ruining the purpose of a house by having plumbing at all except to water the garden outside the house. Plumbers should water gardens as god/evolution designed them to do lest they destroy the house as you're seeing now.

FriendoftheFallen:

Are they toxic with the same frequency? Barring cherry picked examples the ratio of good to bad that feminism does far out classes whatever MRAs and MRMs do.

The people I have been around that try and advocate for mens rights are not nearly as toxic as the misandrist feminists I regularly encounter. I wholly disagree that the ratio of good to bad that feminism does is a good ratio if you are a man that has been abused. I have seen feminists tell victims that they deserved it because of their gender. The toxic members advocating for men's rights are not something I encounter nearly as much as the toxic feminists and misandrists. Frequency is a matter of exposure. I see misandry among feminists more often than I see misogyny among the egalitarians I see that champion rights for men and women.

Your experiences may differ but they do not negate mine.

Long as you acknowledge the same in return. I encounter far more people who say "rebellious and uppity women are ruining society and need to remember their role God intended" than the misandrist harpies.

Again, what about the overlap between feminism and misandry? My basic question is whether the thing you call out on one side is something you call out on the other side or do you give one side a pass for bad behavior? I keep asking a basic question and feel like I'm getting evasive responses. That could be on me, though. Perhaps I am misperceiving.

I could ask the same thing.

Lilani:

Also, many issues for men and women are more intertwined than you think. You mentioned how it's okay for women to wear pants and skirts, but society has deemed it's not okay for men to wear skirts. Which is a slight against men certainly, men should be able to wear what they damn well please with impunity. But it comes from this notion our society has held onto that things we've deemed as "for women" are inherently inferior and beneath the dignity of men. It's not shameful for a woman to wear the things men wear because masculinity is seen as empowering. But it is shameful for men to dress as women because femininity is seen as weak and foolish, a step down from the masculinity men already possess. We've let go of the notion that women don't deserve to dress like men, but we have yet to rid ourselves of the notion that a man who dresses as a woman is debasing himself.

This view of femininity has bad effects for both sexes. For men it means displaying feminine traits is "off-limits," hampering not only clothing but behavior and lifestyle options as well. And for women it means being seen as inherently inferior. We've made progress in the "women being seen as inherently inferior" department, but not enough to chip away at the "men who behave/dress like women are weak and foolish" department.

I don't know if this is true, it seems a rather one-sided, interpretive look at things?

Like, one could argue with the same kind of legitimacy that this phenomena occurs because we value women more, not because we think they are foolish.

When women's role in society is to be protected and provided for and men are responsible for their protection and provision, they carry themselves in a feminine way to emphasize that specific social position.
Now, women are discouraged from taking on a man's role in society because this gets in the way of their protection, but by the same token, men are mocked and humiliated for carrying themselves with the fragility we do afford women, because that is not their place, they are men, they are supposed to wear the proverbial "pants".

From this perspective women are not "inherently inferior", they are "inherently precious", men are not, and that is why feminine signals are "off-limits" for them.

As for me, I believe the truth lies somewhere in between these two interpretations.

Smithnikov:

Long as you acknowledge the same in return. I encounter far more people who say "rebellious and uppity women are ruining society and need to remember their role God intended" than the misandrist harpies.

Consider that circumstantial exposure then, because I have never seen god get involved in these sorta discussions, like, anywhere.

Combustion Kevin:

Smithnikov:

Long as you acknowledge the same in return. I encounter far more people who say "rebellious and uppity women are ruining society and need to remember their role God intended" than the misandrist harpies.

Consider that circumstantial exposure then, because I have never seen god get involved in these sorta discussions, like, anywhere.

You obviously don't live where I live then. Course, it's not just here. I can cite internet statements saying as such too.

Smithnikov:
[

Again, what about the overlap between feminism and misandry? My basic question is whether the thing you call out on one side is something you call out on the other side or do you give one side a pass for bad behavior? I keep asking a basic question and feel like I'm getting evasive responses. That could be on me, though. Perhaps I am misperceiving.

I could ask the same thing.

The same thing? I call out bad tactics on both sides. I see the bad tactics and sadistic behaviors of one side being defended a lot more than bad tactics on the other side. It seems like basic tribalism.

Smithnikov:

You obviously don't live where I live then. Course, it's not just here. I can cite internet statements saying as such too.

Of course you can same way I can cite examples of people advocating for male culling/genocide.
Not sure why we would though, the only point it would prove is that "crazy people say crazy things on the internet" and to claim that any of them are representative of any large rights movement would be equally dishonest.

On the notion of "Wife should be at home by the law of god", that is actually a very recent sentiment within certain christian circles as far as that particular doctrine is concerned.
Women used to work all the time all throughout history, usually assisting her husband in their crafts but a lot also worked independently as weavers of craftswomen, anything to make ends meet, really.

Combustion Kevin:

Smithnikov:

You obviously don't live where I live then. Course, it's not just here. I can cite internet statements saying as such too.

Of course you can same way I can cite examples of people advocating for male culling/genocide.
Not sure why we would though, the only point it would prove is that "crazy people say crazy things on the internet" and to claim that any of them are representative of any large rights movement would be equally dishonest.

On the notion of "Wife should be at home by the law of god", that is actually a very recent sentiment within certain christian circles as far as that particular doctrine is concerned.
Women used to work all the time all throughout history, usually assisting her husband in their crafts but a lot also worked independently as weavers of craftswomen, anything to make ends meet, really.

It's not the act of working in itself that fundamentalists hate. Diligence is a virtue. The reason they oppose it is that they are against women being economically independent. Their view is that women have a duty to submit and obey men. They view the idea of women being sexually independent as "unnatural" and as a result they also oppose women having economic agency and independence

CyanCat47:

It's not the act of working in itself that fundamentalists hate. Diligence is a virtue. The reason they oppose it is that they are against women being economically independent. Their view is that women have a duty to submit and obey men. They view the idea of women being sexually independent as "unnatural" and as a result they also oppose women having economic agency and independence

Oh absolutely, the same way men have a duty to provide for and protect women, and their wives in particular, which is where the gays catch a lot of flack, they don't exactly fit in the picture.
Make no mistake, I disagree with this fundamentalist world view, but I do not think it comes from a place of hatred or disdain, I think they legitimately believe this is best for both men and women alike, even if it is rather utopian.

Schadrach:
Ever heard of Earl Silverman? Man left an abusive relationship, realized there were no services for people like him at all, ran a men's shelter from a mix of private donations and out of pocket for 20 years, and finally hung himself when he couldn't afford to keep it open any more. He campaigned for government funding assistance for years to no avail. He claimed he was denied largely because the Men's Alternative Safe House wasn't a shelter for women.

So why aren't the MRAs supporting domestic abuse shelters for men? I send a sizeable chunk of my annual donations to a men's mental health charity, because I believe that's a practical and helpful thing that's easily done.

When I think toxicity, I think that they seem to be more interested in spuriously blaming feminists for killing Earl Silverman to generate outrage publicity than they are in doing practical things to make life better for struggling men.

The interesting thing about Roosh V as an MRA is that neither Roosh V nor MRAs consider Roosh V an MRA, it's literally only feminists looking to use Roosh V to attack MRAs that consider him one, usually on the basis of "he sometimes says things I accuse MRAs of saying, therefore he counts."

I could say the same about Vox Day, but Vox Day just sort of declares himself an important figure in whatever group he feels like at the moment. Nowadays he prefers to call himself a central figure of the alt-right, though I'd bet any alt-righter not familiar with the Puppies would respond "Who?" if you asked about him.

I literally could not care less about who chooses to adopt what label. An ideology is not like a club where you pay a fee and get a membership card, or citizenship where you have the passport or don't. It's about the extent to which what you say, do and believe meets the criteria of that ideology.

FriendoftheFallen:
Again, what about the overlap between feminism and misandry?

Given maybe around a third of women self-describe as feminists, probably not that high.

Chances are you encounter feminists very regularly, you just don't realise it because the vast majority of them don't bother to bring it up (never mind shove it down your throat) in your general interactions.

The toxic members advocating for men's rights are not something I encounter nearly as much as the toxic feminists and misandrists.

That could, I fear, be re-written as "The people I agree with seem like nice people, the people I disagree with seem not."

Subjective perspective matters. What might be misandry to you is not to many other people, just like what is misogyny to some feminists is not to many others. It's often just cognitive bias: if one is primed to suspect (or wants to find) the objectionable from a person, they are much more likely to encounter a vague statement and interpret it in the worst way possible.

Agema:

So why aren't the MRAs supporting domestic abuse shelters for men? I send a sizeable chunk of my annual donations to a men's mental health charity, because I believe that's a practical and helpful thing that's easily done.

When I think toxicity, I think that they seem to be more interested in spuriously blaming feminists for killing Earl Silverman to generate outrage publicity than they are in doing practical things to make life better for struggling men.

They do support men's shelters, there are a small handful of in-house operations or refuges that run entirely on donations, the problem is that these are very hard to sustain since they don't receive any government funding for not giving refuge to women (and if you are a refuge center specifically for men, why would you?).

This is where it ties back to Earl Silverman, his refuge was not only denied funding despite many requests, its presence was outright protested and his plight mocked, although I disagree with the notion to make a martyr out of him, the indignity is justified and the criticism stands.

I will say that your contribution to charity is admirable, so my compliments to you. ^^

Agema:

I literally could not care less about who chooses to adopt what label. An ideology is not like a club where you pay a fee and get a membership card, or citizenship where you have the passport or don't. It's about the extent to which what you say, do and believe meets the criteria of that ideology.

Is that like a reverse true Scotsman?
Like, you decide for someone else what their affiliation is as opposed to them articulating it explicitly to you?
I don't think that's a path we want to go down, is it?

Lilani:

I once saw someone liken being "pro equal-rights" to being "pro house-fixing." Sure that's all well and good, but typically to tackle certain issues it's best to find a specialist. When someone's having trouble with their plumbing, they don't usually call a "house-fixer." They call a plumber. Or if they're having trouble with their power, they call an electrician. Or an HVAC specialist, or a roofer, or an exterminator or whatever. This is because there are a lot of different components to a house, and it's simply not feasible for one person to be well-equipped enough to tackle all of these problems competently.

Just as a proper plumber doesn't hope they damage your electricity when they fix your pipes, a proper feminist doesn't hope men become oppressed by the advancement of women's rights (though sometimes the loss of privileges for the sake of equality can feel like a loss of rights to those who have lost them, but that's a different matter).

Now, just imagine the plumber's union started arguing that only plumbers should be running any kind of tubular product inside walls, and if electricians want conduit, it should only be installed by plumbers, and only used in ways plumbers see fit (i.e. for water). If that's not good enough, well that's too bad because the electricians actually control the whole house anyways, since the most expensive appliances run on electricity.

And yes, I'm aware that last sentence was rather nonsenical, that was precisely the point.

Lilani:

"Why do they need so many letters? Nobody even knows what they all stand for."

You know, I never heard people saying that until the acronym started expanding. LGBTQ, LGBTQIA, a brief stop at the only one I actually liked (QUILTBAG, if only because it's the only one you can actually say rather than spell), on to LGBTQIAGNC and LGBTQQIP2SAA which take longer to read than the rest of most sentences containing them. Also seen LGBTQAPIQA and LGBT (GGGGBTTTTQIAAAAAPPOODSSCTB). So, without looking it up, what do all the letters in those stand for? I can kind of see their point about it being a...lot of letters.

Smithnikov:
Yeaaa, but the solution is not to go jumping over to the people who go to lengths to prove that plumbing it'self is destroying your house and that you're ruining the purpose of a house by having plumbing at all except to water the garden outside the house. Plumbers should water gardens as god/evolution designed them to do lest they destroy the house as you're seeing now.

Look, I get that you believe that all problems can be solved by water pressure and it's the only valid form of energy flow in a house, and I get that video of Topsy the elephant was traumatic, but electricity is the best way to run my TV, and no number of plumbers standing in front of the screen screaming and calling the fire department is going to change that.

And yes, I may have tortured the analogy quite a lot, but it's still kind of twitching...

Agema:
I literally could not care less about who chooses to adopt what label. An ideology is not like a club where you pay a fee and get a membership card, or citizenship where you have the passport or don't. It's about the extent to which what you say, do and believe meets the criteria of that ideology.

So, basically instead of looking at MRAs and seeing what they believe, you choose a set of beliefs you declare to be MRA beliefs and look for people who meet them?

I mean, I could do that with feminists, but you'd respond to every example I'd give with "not really a feminist" or "not the same exact flavor of feminist as me, so not reflective of my beliefs." In comparison, two of your three examples were a pick-up artist who doesn't consider himself and MRA (nor do most MRAs consider him one) and an author who declares himself to be an important part of whichever group he thinks will make him feel relevant again [like I said, these days he considers himself a central figure of the alt-right, but I'd be surprised if many alt-righters feel that way]).

I mean, it wouldn't be hard to do the same in the reverse -- start from a terrible assumption of feminist positions, declare whoever lives down to them to be the "real" feminists.

Combustion Kevin:
They do support men's shelters, there are a small handful of in-house operations or refuges that run entirely on donations...

I'm sure there are. But strikes me there are probably a lot of keyboard warriors who don't support them.

Is that like a reverse true Scotsman?
Like, you decide for someone else what their affiliation is as opposed to them articulating it explicitly to you?
I don't think that's a path we want to go down, is it?

No, if we're going to characterise someone according to their beliefs, they surely have to articulate their position first.

What I reject is the somewhat mealy-mouthed tactic of stuff like something looking like a duck, swimming like a duck, quacking like a duck and being tested to have the genes of a duck, and people pretending it's not a duck because it refuses to say "I'm a duck".

Schadrach:
So, basically instead of looking at MRAs and seeing what they believe, you choose a set of beliefs you declare to be MRA beliefs and look for people who meet them?

Basically, yeah. Although it's not quite that straightforward, as of course there is a certain amount of reciprocity involved because what an MRA is is to some extent dependent on what MRAs believe, the corpus of philosophy and ideology built up by the movement, etc.

I mean, I could do that with feminists, but you'd respond to every example I'd give with "not really a feminist" or "not the same exact flavor of feminist as me, so not reflective of my beliefs."

Actually, I apply exactly the same principle to feminism. If someone pops up and says think women shouldn't be allowed to drive, own property, hold positions of social authority and also claims to be a feminist, I reserve the right to say they're full of shit.

I see no problem whatsoever with people arguing that there are different flavours of feminsim. Much like I don't waste my time telling Lutherans, Catholics, Pentecostalists, Orthodox or Coptics they aren't Christians because some other branch of Christianity does and says different.

I mean, it wouldn't be hard to do the same in the reverse -- start from a terrible assumption of feminist positions, declare whoever lives down to them to be the "real" feminists.

Yes, but it's one's intellectual responsibility to use a good description of feminism positions. It's not like there's a shortage of material to make a good geenral description, and there's no particular reason to excuse ignorance or dishonesty.

Agema:

I'm sure there are. But strikes me there are probably a lot of keyboard warriors who don't support them.

Presupposition.
Besides, are we talking about people who are against male shelters, can't afford to support them or don't even know where to find one, let alone support that one.

Agema:

No, if we're going to characterise someone according to their beliefs, they surely have to articulate their position first.

What I reject is the somewhat mealy-mouthed tactic of stuff like something looking like a duck, swimming like a duck, quacking like a duck and being tested to have the genes of a duck, and people pretending it's not a duck because it refuses to say "I'm a duck".

Such a judgement requires them to articulate their position first, otherwise it would be supposition, one's quacking, swimming and looking like a duck may make you designate them as a duck, but if their definition if duck differs from YOUR definition, they may not want to be associated with a ducks, after all, swans quack too.
I am confused as to the purpose of such a label in this context in the first place, the designation is not relevant to the arguments an individual presents, nor does it change the information they present.

What does it matter if you're dealing with a duck, swan or goose when they point out that the pool is polluted?

Combustion Kevin:
Is that like a reverse true Scotsman?
Like, you decide for someone else what their affiliation is as opposed to them articulating it explicitly to you?
I don't think that's a path we want to go down, is it?

You know that people have to meet certain criteria in order to justifiably be considered Scottish yeah? Not everyone in the world is a Scotsman.

Edit: Fuck it, while I'm here.

No True Scotsman in Theory:

A: No Scotsman would do a murder.
B: A Scotsman did a murder!
A: Well no TRUE Scotsman would do a murder.

No True Scotsman in Practice:

A: A Scotsman did a murder!
B: A Scotsman? But he has no traceable Scottish ancestry, no Scottish citizenship, he doesn't even speak Gaelic...
A: Oh, so you can just decide who's a Scotsman and who isn't now, can you?

Fin
Written and directed by Manic

Schadrach:

Look, I get that you believe that all problems can be solved by water pressure and it's the only valid form of energy flow in a house

I'm just saying quit regarding the guy insisting on outhouse and river washing as a genius all of a sudden. ,

and I get that video of Topsy the elephant was traumatic, but electricity is the best way to run my TV, and no number of plumbers standing in front of the screen screaming and calling the fire department is going to change that.

And you can have that electrical power without kissing the ass of the guy saying you're a sinner and a cuckold for having an indoor toilet.

Combustion Kevin:

They do support men's shelters, there are a small handful of in-house operations or refuges that run entirely on donations, the problem is that these are very hard to sustain since they don't receive any government funding for not giving refuge to women (and if you are a refuge center specifically for men, why would you?).

Name them. I have to see this to believe it.

Like, you decide for someone else what their affiliation is as opposed to them articulating it explicitly to you?

Well hey, if the opposition is allowed to declare me a cuckold cultural marxist and have it stick, why not?

Smithnikov:

Name them. I have to see this to believe it.

http://www.batteredmen.com/bathelpnatl.htm
This is the most complete list of up to date resources for male domestic abuse victims in the US (with an English hotline at the bottom), when Googling for privately owned shelter my results came up mostly with very short-lived projects that didn't last usually due to lack of funding.

By comparison, I looked for female abuse shelters and didn't find any privately funded ones either, the only privately owned shelters of any kind are homeless shelters, and these seem to be very below par.
To me, charity does no seem to be a reliable enough source of income to fund a facility of this kind, the costs are simply too high considering the space you need and the professionals involved, on top of that, in order to protect your clients from the more vindictive abusers you'll need close cooperation with law-enforcement.
These things are simply not in place.

Smithnikov:

Well hey, if the opposition is allowed to declare me a cuckold cultural marxist and have it stick, why not?

I'm sorry people called you mean names.

Combustion Kevin:
Presupposition.

Not just presupposition. If a substantial number of the people banging on about male rights were doing something more practical than slagging off feminists over the internet, half these funding problems wouldn't exist. Not least because there are also people like me who have nothing to do with them slinging money to the causes they seem to espouse.

Besides, are we talking about people who are against male shelters, can't afford to support them or don't even know where to find one, let alone support that one.

Trivial quantities of people are against male shelters. Potentially a lot of people are unaware of their absence or value to society.

Such a judgement requires them to articulate their position first...

Y-e-s... I already said that.

...otherwise it would be supposition, one's quacking, swimming and looking like a duck may make you designate them as a duck, but if their definition if duck differs from YOUR definition, they may not want to be associated with a ducks, after all, swans quack too.
I am confused as to the purpose of such a label in this context in the first place, the designation is not relevant to the arguments an individual presents, nor does it change the information they present.

Firstly, as a matter of trivia, swans don't quack. They use forms of hissing and grunting. And geese honk.

The idea that the meaning of a word is individually subjective is effectively rubbish, although it is a form of social constructivism. One way or another you can hardly go around pretending a swan is a duck, because there are clearly very good grounds to differentiate them. Thus the argument "Your definition of X differs from mine" by any reasonable standard exists under heavy constraints; it is not free rein to basically make stuff up. There is an enormous body of external knowledge to any individual upholding reasonable definitions.

What I don't accept is that someone can meaningfully be be a feminist / MRA when their beliefs are manifestly at odds with a reasonable definition, and that someone cannot meaningfully NOT be described as a feminist / MRA when their beliefs are manifestly in line with the definition. Although I accept there can be a lot of grey area around the edges.

Combustion Kevin:

Well hey, if the opposition is allowed to declare me a cuckold cultural marxist and have it stick, why not?

I'm sorry people called you mean names.[/quote]

Thank you but it doesn't answer that question.

Smithnikov:

Well hey, if the opposition is allowed to declare me a cuckold cultural marxist and have it stick, why not?

Combustion Kevin:

I'm sorry people called you mean names.

Smithnikov:

Thank you but it doesn't answer that question.

Because two wrong don't make a right, and mud slinging, name calling, tribalism, vindictiveness and petty grudges are exactly the reasons why we are in this mess in the first place, they are detrimental to a lasting and worthwhile solution, not conducive to it.

Combustion Kevin:

Smithnikov:

Well hey, if the opposition is allowed to declare me a cuckold cultural marxist and have it stick, why not?

Combustion Kevin:

I'm sorry people called you mean names.

Smithnikov:

Thank you but it doesn't answer that question.

Because two wrong don't make a right, and mud slinging, name calling, tribalism, vindictiveness and petty grudges are exactly the reasons why we are in this mess in the first place, they are detrimental to a lasting and worthwhile solution, not conducive to it.

Wholly agreed. Discuss issues men face and get insulted and labeled as misogynist. Ask for a bit of civility and get told I don't desrve it because I hold a different viewpoint. Then get more insults and false misogynist labelling.

Combustion Kevin:

Because two wrong don't make a right, and mud slinging, name calling, tribalism, vindictiveness and petty grudges are exactly the reasons why we are in this mess in the first place, they are detrimental to a lasting and worthwhile solution, not conducive to it.

Whilst true, understanding also needs to be given to perhaps why some people are abusive

Someone who has suffered something like domestic abuse or rape has potentially had a traumatic experience that has made them very sensitive. Perhaps these people aren't going to react so well to being challenged under any circumstance. In an extreme sense, disagreeing with them might feel to them like dismissing their suffering, or in an extreme sense even victimising them again.

We can bear in mind that we all know plenty of people who argue things similar to ourselves are rude, clumsy, aggressive and abusive. They are potentially going to sensitise some of our "opposition" to expect insults and hostility; consequently they may be defensive and prickly even to sensitively expressed disagreement from us.

We can consider that these aren't simple logical arguments - the disagreements cover topics that some people think are extremely important moral issues. Even by a kindly-worded rational position, we are still proposing something that find deeply morally offensive.

Some people are angry, frustrated, unhappy, etc. - whether generally or just at the time - for any number of reasons including ones unrelated to the topic at hand. They just don't manage to keep it in check.

And so on.

And of course, there are those people who are just scumbags who delight in tormenting and belittling people they disagree with.

Agema:

Whilst true, understanding also needs to be given to perhaps why some people are abusive

Someone who has suffered something like domestic abuse or rape has potentially had a traumatic experience that has made them very sensitive. Perhaps these people aren't going to react so well to being challenged under any circumstance. In an extreme sense, disagreeing with them might feel to them like dismissing their suffering, or in an extreme sense even victimizing them again.

We can bear in mind that we all know plenty of people who argue things similar to ourselves are rude, clumsy, aggressive and abusive. They are potentially going to sensitive some of our "opposition" to expect insults and hostility; consequently they may be defensive and prickly even to sensitively expressed disagreement from us.

We can consider that these aren't simple logical arguments - the disagreements cover topics that some people think are extremely important moral issues. Even by a kindly-worded rational position, we are still proposing something that find deeply morally offensive.

Some people are angry, frustrated, unhappy, etc. - whether generally or just at the time - for any number of reasons including ones unrelated to the topic at hand. They just don't manage to keep it in check.

And so on.

And of course, there are those people who are just scumbags who delight in tormenting and belittling people they disagree with.

Agreed, a lot of people speak from a place of pain, which is why it is important to argue from a place of good faith and not look for negative interpretation in someone's words, rather, take it at face value and consider why the other person chooses this way to express themselves.
And you are right, understanding also requires one to understand pain and where it comes from, that said, open discourse is a two-way street, and if someone's hang-ups are detrimental to the open and honest exchange of ideas and opinions then perhaps they are better off expressing their pain elsewhere, or take a break until they can keep a level head.

Even if their argument is an emotional one as opposed to a rational one, the prerequisite is that they do not judge or condemn the other based on what their opinions, ideology or (perceived) affiliation, the objective is empathy, not moral superiority.

And regarding the scumbags, yeah, fuck 'em, at least they are easily identified, sadism or dogmaticism tend to be rather obvious in their appearance.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here