# Double standards



## Saylor (Nov 26, 2017)

So, I was watching tv and saw a commercial come on tv that led me to an interesting question/statement of how the entertainment industry influences people in society and the excessive double standards that go along with it. 

Before I go any further, I’d like it to be made clear that I *do not* agree on any points of modern “feminism.” 

Now, onto my topic. Has anyone else ever noticed this? You turn the tv on and there’s almost guaranteed to be some guy in it with the same body as Ryan Reynolds with chiseled abs and is wearing some revealing clothing, this doesn’t appeal to you, so you go to some social media site and there’s something to do with the male reproductive system whether it be out in open display where everyone can see it or it be a subtle hint of something going on (also involving some guy who looks like Ryan Reynolds), this doesn’t appeal to you either, so you go outside and it’s almost completely surrounding you no matter what you do to try escaping it, you’re always looking at some half naked guy with abs. 

Why? 

Then you go and you turn the news on and you see some woman blabbering her mouth off about how men are always objectifying women based off of looks and that all women should be treated as queens or goddesses no matter how she looks, she believes that all women are entitled to that guy who looks like a Greek god, even if the woman is a spoiled and rotten scumbag. 

Isn’t this the purest definition of double standards? I have tried to keep my mouth shut about this while I’m around most of the women I know. However, I have asked a few of them and they seem to be blind to the double standard which they have established as their way of life. Yet, when a guy who is just slightly average looking is talking to a woman, it seems that the more common approach is to immediately call him a sexual predator and to claim sexual assault because she feels “uncomfortable” around the man who did absolutely nothing in terms of sexual advancements towards her. 

Are we *really *so ass-backwards as a society that we see no problem with setting up these ridiculous double standards? What ever happened to us respecting other human beings as people and not some object just for women to look at? I really don’t know what happened because I prefer to live in the real world where not all men and women are supposed to look like some sex gods. In my opinion, it’s a shame that we can do this to ourselves as members of the human race and not feel bad about it.


----------



## Yakamaru (Nov 26, 2017)

Modern feminism have become the epitome of double standards, double morals, hypocrisy, sexism and outright hatred for men. Especially white men. Modern feminism have done nothing but harm the relations between men and women, giving rise to the MGTOW movement and men who wants nothing to do with women at all. There are a lot of men out there who are genuinely afraid to even talk to a woman because he might get accused of sexual harassment or other garbage. "Listen and believe" is a phrase often going on in these circles. It's almost as if this shit is a cult, a religion.

Modern feminism is a joke, having been taken over by men-hating ideologues whose interior is so ugly even Satan would go "..Get the fuck away from me! I want nothing to do with you!". And neither does anyone else, 'cept for desperate beta males who will do anything for the odd chance of a shitty handjob behind the shed.

13% of American women identify with feminism. 7% in the UK does the same. I'd say about the same numbers lie all across Europe. These numbers were taken months ago, and have no doubt dropped.

Feel free to watch Sargon of Akkad's series, "Why Do People Hate #Feminism?"





I am not a feminist. I am an Egalitarian. I am not for the supremacy, advocacy nor privileges of any group above others. I am for equality of opportunity. The *spirit* of feminism, "equality of the two genders", is included in Egalitarianism. In essence, I am a feminist, but I do not identify with what feminism have become.

You know what they say: The ones who cry/shout the loudest are the biggest hypocrites.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Nov 26, 2017)

I'm a feminist, but in the sense of the ethics of care, and probably not modern feminism, which seems to think that only equality will be achieved with men and women occupy exactly 50/50 of every industry.


----------



## ChromaticRabbit (Nov 26, 2017)

Saylor said:


> So, I was watching tv and saw a commercial... I *do not* agree on any points of modern “feminism...”


Can you provide a wikipedia or other web link to what you consider 'modern' feminism? Is that first wave, second wave, third wave, or some new idea like transfemenism? Feminism is about gender equity, and so what have you got against the equality of all genders or even just cisgender male and female equality specifically? Doesn't a position against equality mean you are an individual with an illiberal value system and as such you are an outsider in our system here in the west?



> You turn the tv on ... some guy ...  wearing some revealing clothing
> You go to some social media site and there’s something to do with the male reproductive system
> you go outside ...  you’re always looking at some half naked guy with abs.
> you turn the news on and you see some woman blabbering her mouth off about how men are always objectifying women... she believes that all women are entitled...
> ...


Setting aside the question of what exactly stirs within you to animate such discomfort from that view of men's bodies, it still doesn't appear to be an example of double standards with the elements you've presented. Those examples don't appear to be from same context or speaker, so it's not clear that one unified standard is being applied to one context. You can't throw a pile of unrelated things together and then point out what feel to you as if they must be contradictions, that's not what 'double standard' means. A double standard would have to apply to a specific narrow circumstance in a consistent context such that it creates or promotes inequitable ideas. What standard do you believe unites commercial produced US television with "people online" talking on social media, for example? Those aren't even the same cultural space and they exist in completely different ways, one being broadcast programming, the other being, well, "people who are online."

Are there women who wear revealing clothing on television? If so, that seems in parity with your example, both exist at once in a kind of memetic equality. Are there people on social media who talk about the female reproductive system? If so, that seems in parity with your example. Are there not women who expose their bellies or even chests to the sun outdoors? If so, that seems in parity with your example.  Do men ever complain about women misspeaking on that "news" program? If so, that seems in parity with your example.



> ... I prefer to live in the real world where not all men and women are supposed to look like some sex gods.


And this is about feminism in your mind why? 

Well, the first step to living in the "real world" might be to eject yourself from The Matrix and turn off your television. It's mostly poison corporate messaging on TV these days and it's all astroturf, don't you know? It's noise with empty false cultural authority. Hey, for what it's worth, lots of us have noticed the way corporate-sponsored media fills the airwaves with that noise and how it endlessly confuses people with cultural or societal non-credible voices of "authority," but just because they bought themselves a large megaphone and won't share it with anyone else doesn't mean corporations or money get to set the standards for anyone. That'd be a crappy fascist world where everyone was enslaved to the ideas of rich predators and oligarchs. Maybe you need to pull your seeming desire to land hits against gender equality and save that ire for manipulative memes in corporate messaging?

Leave all the other genders alone with your incompletely-developed conceit for a crusade and keep in mind that most of the discomfort you cite feeling has been expressed in dismay by women for quite a long time. Isn't it a double standard to tell them to sit down and shut up because you've decided that your concerns are "more equal" than theirs?


----------



## Junkerfox (Nov 26, 2017)

Around here most us guys are fat anyway so women dont have alotta good options.


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Nov 26, 2017)

Some people need to eat their makeup, because they are uglier on the inside. 

It's like an $8k paint job on a Pinto.


----------



## ellaerna (Nov 26, 2017)

Has anyone else noticed this? You turn on the tv, or start up a video game, or go out to the movies and there's almost a guaranteed to be some girl in it with the same body as a photoshopped 1990's Heidi Klum with giant boobs and is wearing some revealing clothing, this doesn't appeal to you, so you go to some social media site and there's something to do with literally anything but it's being sold using boobs or women in suggestive poses, with either their breasts out in open display where everyone can see it or subtly hinting that she'll blow you if you just buy Burger King (also involving the 20 something photoshopped Heidi Klum), this doesn't appeal to you either, so you go outside and it's almost completely surrounding you no matter what you do to try escaping it, you're always looking at sexualized ladies with tiny waists and big breasts? Even when you try to play a gritty war game the ladies have to show cleavage. Even when you just want a greasy burger the commercials are all with sexy women. Even a simple, old fashioned sitcom with a portly male lead has to have a sexy wife even if no overweight women can have a sexy husband.

Why?

And then you go online and there's some guy bitching about the fact that some video game company took out their panty flashes, decrying it as censoring artistic freedom, even though just last week they were crying about a sexy dude in their Final Fantasy. And when you try to point out that these kinds of things are unreasonable or suggestive of a misogynistic culture, they try to shut you up by implying the men are just as sexualized and how dare you, you filthy feminist, even though anyone can see that there's more variety of male bodies in media than female bodies just by looking at it. And they try to strawman you by making up some imaginary harpy who claims that an ugly woman deserves an Adonis and that's unfair, but they fail to acknowledge the sitcom problem you ran into earlier. 

Isn’t this the purest definition of double standards? I have tried to keep my mouth shut about this while I’m around most of the men I know. However, I have asked a few of them and they seem to be blind to the double standard which they have been engrossed in their entire lives. Yet when a girl tries to explain that what media has taught you is acceptable ways to treat women is actually really uncomfortable for many ladies, men immediately get defensive and blame it all on her being too sensitive and attention seeking. 

Are we *really *so ass-backwards as a society that we see no problem with setting up these ridiculous double standards? What ever happened to us respecting other human beings as people and not some object just for men to look at? I really don’t know what happened because I prefer to live in the real world where not all men and women are supposed to look like some sex gods. In my opinion, it’s a shame that we can do this to ourselves as members of the human race and not feel bad about it.




See what I did there? 
Honestly, I thought this was satire at first. Do you really think that men are more sexualized than women in today's society? Like, I would listen to an argument saying that they're the same amount of objectified, but what you're implying is beyond silly. I would also listen to an actual argument about the state of feminism, but this is just pissy ranting. It honestly sounds like you're snippy cause you don't have abs and some chick called you out on your advances.

And @Yakamaru not a single call for a cite from you? Not a single comment about how this is all anecdotal? A single video from a known anti-fem and not an actual reputable source?  I'm beginning to think you might have lied to me. 


> *I want the facts and the evidence to go with it.* Hence my political shift from Left-wing Liberal/Libertarian to a Centrist. *If you are incapable of putting your evidence/facts where your claims/words are, you will lose credibility until you have none.* If you insult someone for asking questions or wanting specifics, you instantly lose any credibility. I am not interested in things that are subjective.


----------



## Saylor (Nov 26, 2017)

I can see what you are trying to say, Chroma. I don’t exactly know what era of feminism it is that I’m defining, but there are the many examples like this from the Olympics in 2016.... 



 (see more in linked attachments)

As you can see, many of these come from the same editors and they seem to follow the same thought train of “men are pigs, women are entitled.”

Personally, I wouldn’t really care at all if there was diversity of these depictions between men and women. I see nothing wrong with a world which involves everyone having eye candy and nobody raising a finger at it However, you can see that this is geared towards only appealing the female audience all while shutting out the straight male perspective. But, it seems to be more of a case where if 1 news editor were to do anything along these lines except with women being objectified these days, they’d get labeled sexist and mysoginistic, whereas it’s completely okay to objectify men based on their physical appearance.


----------



## Yakamaru (Nov 26, 2017)

@ellaerna Cite me one credible feminist, if you don't mind. Cite me one feminist who is actually doing good and take up both men's and women's issues.

If not conforming to what feminism have become makes you an anti-feminist, then so be it. I will be an anti-feminist. Again: Only 13% of those surveyed in America identify as a feminist, 7% in the UK, though these numbers are slightly outdated. I would guess the rather vast majority of people are anti-feminists then.

Also. There are TWELVE videos in the installment. If you're not interested in investing some time into understanding where we come from, I have no intention of responding further.

R v Elliott - Wikipedia


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/931486109791637504
This is just the tip of the iceberg. Modern feminism is cancer.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 26, 2017)

This thread is a trainwreck. I need a glass of vodka now.


----------



## ellaerna (Nov 26, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> @ellaerna Cite me one credible feminist, if you don't mind. Cite me one feminist who is actually doing good and take up both men's and women's issues.
> 
> If not conforming to what feminism have become makes you an anti-feminist, then so be it. I will be an anti-feminist. Again: Only 13% of those surveyed in America identify as a feminist, 7% in the UK, though these numbers are slightly outdated. I would guess the rather vast majority of people are anti-feminists then.
> 
> ...


Oh no. You started this. The burden of proof is on you. If you want to traipse around these forums thinking yourself some paragon of reason and unbiased, scientifically proven ideals, then it's on you to keep that consistent. You can't yell at me for sources (which were proven factually reliable) in a thread about impeachment, then try to get by with a youtube video in this one. Back your own self up, or stop trying to pretend you're something you're not.

Also, citations needed on your numbers.

EDIT (7:05 pm CST): And before you try it, one wiki article and a single tweet from some random woman are also not reliable, scrutiny-proof sources. Just sayin'


----------



## Yakamaru (Nov 26, 2017)

ellaerna said:


> Oh no. You started this. The burden of proof is on you. If you want to traipse around these forums thinking yourself some paragon of reason and unbiased, scientifically proven ideals, then it's on you to keep that consistent. You can't yell at me for sources (which were proven factually reliable) in a thread about impeachment, then try to get by with a youtube video in this one. Back your own self up, or stop trying to pretend you're something you're not.
> 
> Also, citations needed on your numbers.
> 
> EDIT (7:05 pm CST): And before you try it, one wiki article and a single tweet from some random woman are also not reliable, scrutiny-proof sources. Just sayin'


Looks like I hit a nerve, it seems. Go watch the videos. I will give you until Thursday.

Also:
http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenint...ont-consider-themselves-feminists-poll-shows/
Only 7 per cent of Britons consider themselves feminists
The first article's statistics had 4% respondents who didn't want to answer.

Have a nice day.


----------



## Saiko (Nov 26, 2017)

Eh, I'll accept the term "modern feminist." It implies some kind of distinction between bullshit feminism and actual feminism. It's unfortunate that the bullshit variety has gained such notoriety that it's misconstrued as the norm, though.


----------



## Simo (Nov 26, 2017)

ellaerna said:


> Has anyone else noticed this? You turn on the tv, or start up a video game, or go out to the movies and there's almost a guaranteed to be some girl in it with the same body as a photoshopped 1990's Heidi Klum with giant boobs and is wearing some revealing clothing, this doesn't appeal to you, so you go to some social media site and there's something to do with literally anything but it's being sold using boobs or women in suggestive poses, with either their breasts out in open display where everyone can see it or subtly hinting that she'll blow you if you just buy Burger King (also involving the 20 something photoshopped Heidi Klum), this doesn't appeal to you either, so you go outside and it's almost completely surrounding you no matter what you do to try escaping it, you're always looking at sexualized ladies with tiny waists and big breasts? Even when you try to play a gritty war game the ladies have to show cleavage. Even when you just want a greasy burger the commercials are all with sexy women. Even a simple, old fashioned sitcom with a portly male lead has to have a sexy wife even if no overweight women can have a sexy husband.
> 
> Why?



That post was perfect. Every female doing the news, the weather, or whatever else, always follows this same basic model...even women like Megyn Kelly can't simply be smart, they also have to be blond and attractive, and even then, their niche is less than assured.  

Thanks for posting; odd, I was about to write a very similar reply, and then, I saw yours : P


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 26, 2017)

I seriously don't think men should be the ones with opinions on feminism, or other women's movements for that matter.
I'm speaking as a male too, but the hint is in the name - of course you don't like it, it's not_ for_ you.


----------



## ellaerna (Nov 26, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> I will give you until Thursday.


Haha. Or what? You execute the hostages?
Dude, I want to like you, you seem nice, but you are so far up your own ass you've forgotten what daylight looks like.


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Nov 26, 2017)

What, nobody wants to bring up Selective Service?


----------



## ellaerna (Nov 26, 2017)

Simo said:


> That post was perfect. Every female doing the news, the weather, or whatever else, always follows this same basic model...even women like Megyn Kelly can't simply be smart, they also have to be blond and attractive, and even then, their niche is less than assured.
> 
> Thanks for posting; odd, I was about to write a very similar reply, and then, I saw yours : P


It was my pleasure. 
Like, I won't disagree that men can be objectified, but it's not like this only happens to men. 
I honestly think that part of what's happening is that for so long everything was catered primarily for men, so much so that we became numb to it, desensitized. We don't notice the sexy ladies anymore because we are so over-saturated with sexy ladies. But now that media is trying to include the female gaze a little, it's immediately noticeable and it feels lop-sided even though it isn't. We get a few Channing Tatums and all of a sudden women are sexist, ignoring the fact that we've been overburdened with Heidi Klums all our lives. 



-..Legacy..- said:


> What, nobody wants to bring up Selective Service?


Fuck the draft. 
This thread is about sexualization and objectification so I won't go too far into this, but I do think that part of the sexist underpinnings of the agency do stem from a form a misogyny. Women were always seen as weaker, belonging in the home and popping out babies. Men need to be masculine, tough, fighters who are hard as nails. If we thought of the sexes as equals, then women would be conscripted too. Ideally, no one would get forced into service, but I think we only draft men because of sexist ideas about both men and women.


----------



## silveredgreen (Nov 26, 2017)

ChromaticRabbit said:


> Can you provide a wikipedia or other web link to what you consider 'modern' feminism? Is that first wave, second wave, third wave, or some new idea like transfemenism? Feminism is about gender equity, and so what have you got against the equality of all genders or even just cisgender male and female equality specifically? Doesn't a position against equality mean you are an individual with an illiberal value system and as such you are an outsider in our system here in the west?



Pretty sure the OP is talking about third wave feminism, aka the social justice warriors.

At the OP's post:

Honestly this doesn't even surprise me, they do this constantly. Its old news at this point, third wave feminists just want women to have more rights than men. They're not even real feminists at this point. They should move to third world countries already.


----------



## Yakamaru (Nov 26, 2017)

ellaerna said:


> Haha. Or what? You execute the hostages?
> Dude, I want to like you, you seem nice, but you are so far up your own ass you've forgotten what daylight looks like.


I expect you *to do your part:* Do some *research*. Find out *why* so many people *don't* identify as feminists. Find out *why* so many people want nothing to do with it. I am not the one sitting high on a horse without even looking at the evidence and doing some research into the topic. I *have* done my research, and have concluded that it have been reduced to a pile of garbage of what was previously a noble and worthy name to get behind. Now it's full of people like Steve Shives, Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian, Big Red, to name a few. 

Want to know a good feminist? Look up Christina Hoff Sommers.

Have a nice day.


----------



## ChromaticRabbit (Nov 26, 2017)

silveredgreen said:


> Pretty sure the OP is talking about third wave feminism, aka the social justice warriors.
> 
> At the OP's post:
> 
> Honestly this doesn't even surprise me, they do this constantly. Its old news at this point, third wave feminists just want women to have more rights than men. They're not even real feminists at this point. They should move to third world countries already.


Well, first off, a world without social justice is an unlivable dystopian nightmare. That said, it's odd to hear you speak so because it's clear that contemporary feminism is seeking equity, as in, literally, inequity is the thing that they're against, and so they were obviously never promoting that and it's odd to see you suggest otherwise.

Feminism's contemporary thought calls for new unity. First wave feminism was almost this countercultural reaction, and it was existing in the world of 1960s "mad men" etc, and it was a first take on the ideas, which were developed, trialed, passed around, cultivated into later generations of feminism, which increasingly was about the idea of gender being a topic that exceeds biology. 

The new thinking and ideas are why I feel attracted to transfeminism's inclusiveness of building a group of people interested in a more equitable and inclusive space away from the incumbent anachronisms and inequity. Hey, all of us, cisgender or not, whatever gender, have a shared stake in seeing equity achieved in our lifetimes so that we can finally live in a sort of detente and peace, no longer preoccupied with latent sexist challenges baked into culture. As the ideas promoting equity that new feminism promotes and cultivates grow, they exist and help move us closer toward parity and equality. It's not about replacing one system of inequity with a flipped system, it's about stepping beyond one group dominating and ideologically enslaving another group generally.

Liberty and equality, mutual respect and balance, we're all human, we're all equal to define ourselves free of others' schemes for our identities and lives and how they would be slotted into someone's else's parochial worldview rather than allowed to exist in freedom. We're free to group together and live in cultural unity around those modern progressive ideas.  It's clearly the path forward to the future, and this is, after all, the 21st century. It's past due time to live like it. We'll all be so much better off and satisfied with life because it will be equitable and free. Male "soft" and "hard" power will drop away as a system preferring gender dominance is no longer in service.


----------



## ellaerna (Nov 26, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> I expect you *to do your part:* Do some *research*. Find out *why* so many people *don't* identify as feminists. Find out *why* so many people want nothing to do with it. I am not the one sitting high on a horse without even looking at the evidence and doing some research into the topic. I *have* done my research, and have concluded that it have been reduced to a pile of garbage of what was previously a noble and worthy name to get behind. Now it's full of people like Steve Shives, Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian, Big Red, to name a few.
> 
> Want to know a good feminist? Look up Christina Hoff Sommers.
> 
> Have a nice day.


Now who's getting on the other's nerves. Did I touch a sore spot? 
(Adopting your format, cause why not?)
I expect you *to be internally consistent*. I expect you to *hold your side to the same standards you hold the opposition to*. I expect you to *cite* yourself well and *reputably* after claiming that those types of evidence are all you care about. I expect you to take a *scientific approach* to these issues or *stay out of it*, since you yourself have said that you only care about data and facts and have disdain for subjective matters. I expect you to *share your research* if you're so damn proud of it, especially when you expect others to share their work with you. Yeah, I'm not going to watch 12 youtube videos by a_ game developer_ because you won't* do your part* and *cite a good source. *Or am I the only one meant to find those?

Man, if I had the time to point out all the hypocrisy you show on these threads just with citations alone... well, it would certainly take longer than watching 12 videos.


----------



## WolfoxeCrevan (Nov 26, 2017)

Holy crap. You make an amazing and unarguable point, I'M SENDING THIS TO ALL FEMINISTSjkjkjk but good job bro k bye I don't belong here


----------



## silveredgreen (Nov 26, 2017)

ChromaticRabbit said:


> Well, first off, a world without social justice is an unlivable dystopian nightmare. That said, it's odd to hear you speak so because it's clear that contemporary feminism is seeking equity, as in, literally, inequity is the thing that they're against, and so they were obviously never promoting that and it's odd to see you suggest otherwise.
> 
> Feminism's contemporary thought calls for new unity. First wave feminism was almost this countercultural reaction, and it was existing in the world of 1960s "mad men" etc, and it was a first take on the ideas, which were developed, trialed, passed around, cultivated into later generations of feminism, which increasingly was about the idea of gender being a topic that exceeds biology.
> 
> ...



Try telling that to all the SJWs making videos on Youtube and posts on Twitter saying that "white cis men are scum" and that we need to commit genocide to free this world from "white privilege". Talking about those people. They're the ones who spew the bullshit. 

And personally i disagree with the third wave feminist belief that everyone has to be included in everything. They get pissed when media has 'token' gays/poc/etc but then they get mad at other forms of media because they've left those groups out entirely for reasons of their own. If you want inclusiveness, stop expecting other people to do the work for you and make your own shit. And for the love of all you find holy please realize when you're forcing a double standard upon people. 

And yeah we are all human and we are all free to live how we want and identify as whatever we want, but you have to understand that if you guys get freedom of speech then so do the people who oppose you. And with that freedom of speech they're allowed to say things like "there's only two genders" and "make America great again". People can and will use their freedom of speech to be assholes and there's nothing you can do about it. Your perfect world will never exist, and neither will ours.

I don't even know if i've replied to everything properly because as usual you fill your rather lengthy posts with words i've never even seen before. Are you that determined to be a walking thesaurus?


----------



## BahgDaddy (Nov 26, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> Looks like I hit a nerve, it seems. Go watch the videos. I will give you until Thursday.
> 
> Also:
> http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenint...ont-consider-themselves-feminists-poll-shows/
> ...



Argumentum ad populum logical fallacy: what the public, even an entire segment, believes is irrelevant to objective reason and fact. 

And men's rights? WTF are men's rights? What area are men being discriminated against? I'm a dude. I've always been at an advantage over women. Society orients to me, I don't have periods, and I'm easier to hire because I can readily apply to physical work jobs like construction that pay good. 

Men's rights? Really? God...


----------



## ChromaticRabbit (Nov 26, 2017)

silveredgreen said:


> Try telling that to all the SJWs making videos on Youtube and posts on Twitter saying that "white cis men are scum" and that we need to commit genocide to free this world from "white privilege". Talking about those people. They're the ones who spew the bullshit.


Hey, I don't think you should take twitter seriously. Anyone can post a video to youtube, might even be someone working against another group's public perception or used as "evidence" to cite in "argument," all a part of these little Psychological Operation objectives. Who knows how credible anything you just waved a hand it is? That's why you don't place much weight on individual messages but look for what the conventional thought within a movement actually credibly is.

Also, for the n-th time, can we all please agree that "SJW" is worthless and pejorative neurolinguisticly-brainwashed noise that has no place in civil discourse in an international context like FAF. I'm not going to sit here and listen to you tell me that we need more injustice. That's preposterous, and you're being ridiculous when you do it, you may not even see how because you may not recognize how worthless "SJW" actually is as a term to swing around, and so I will educate people like you endlessly until you get that it's an attack on meaning and language.



> And personally i disagree with the third wave feminist belief that everyone has to be included in everything.


Who should be excluded from what, in your view?



> They get pissed when media


"The media" is not to be valued or give much weight, therefore, who cares?



> And for the love of all you find holy please realize when you're forcing a double standard upon people.


Since this is a thread about that, why not list some and we'll see if that makes sense of if they're awash in seeming fallacy, like the OP seemed to me.



> And yeah we are all human and we are all free to live how we want and identify as whatever we want, but you have to understand that if you guys get freedom of speech then so do the people who oppose you.


Dude. You don't have a right to wage unconventional civil war against us. What gives you a right to oppose anyone on a basis of gender? That's really-out there thinking, objectively-speaking, isn't it?



> I don't even know if i've replied to everything properly because as usual you fill your rather lengthy posts with words i've never even seen before. Are you that determined to be a walking thesaurus?


Anti-intellectualism is self-defeating, don't you know? Thank goodness the Internet makes it so easy to look up a word. Did you know you could just type "define: word" in the search bar and get results?


----------



## Saiko (Nov 26, 2017)

silveredgreen said:


> And personally i disagree with the third wave feminist belief that everyone has to be included in everything. They get pissed when media has 'token' gays/poc/etc but then they get mad at other forms of media because they've left those groups out entirely for reasons of their own.


Actually I can comment on this.  The problem is subtle, and admittedly most of the people you're complaining about either can't articulate that or aren't aware of it themselves. It basically amounts to media often falling on one extreme or another. On one hand, particularly in the past, producers were afraid or opposed to including various minorities at all in media, even when it made sense. Examples of this include some episodes of Star Trek where they could only hint at analogies to LGBT issues, but they weren't allowed to explicitly address them. On the other hand, more recent shows are prone to including them just to check off a box; and the characters are left as flat, cliche, and otherwise useless for anything other than comedic relief. Oftentimes this is patronizing, and at worst it perpetuates negative stereotypes that we're trying to get rid of.

Disclaimer: Ray in Archer is hilarious.


----------



## silveredgreen (Nov 26, 2017)

ChromaticRabbit said:


> Hey, I don't think you should take twitter seriously. Anyone can post a video to youtube, might even be someone working against another group's public perception or used as "evidence" to cite in "argument," all a part of these little Psychological Operation objectives. Who knows how credible anything you just waved a hand it is? That's why you don't place much weight on individual messages but look for what the conventional thought within a movement actually credibly is.
> 
> Also, for the n-th time, can we all please agree that "SJW" is worthless and pejorative neurolinguisticly-brainwashed noise that has no place in civil discourse in an international context like FAF. I'm not going to sit here and listen to you tell me that we need more injustice. That's preposterous, and you're being ridiculous when you do it, you may not even see how because you may not recognize how worthless "SJW" actually is as a term to swing around, and so I will educate people like you endlessly until you get that it's an attack on meaning and language.
> 
> ...



Dear lord please put the thesaurus away and speak like a normal human being. You're difficult to debate with because of it.

1. Got a credible feminist to refer me to in order to support your views? The radicals speak the loudest and bury any potential decent people under their bullshit. And you know there's a reason why most women refuse to call themselves feminists. 

2. SJW, or Social Justice Warrior, is a term used in reference to third wave feminists as a form of insult. But it describes their actions perfectly, how they tend to resort to violence in the name of social justice. Antifa is a perfect example. Also you're not gonna educate anyone if you keep using big words like that.

3. I'd rather have no LGBTQ+ character at all than a stereotyped one, first of all. But say you're making a comic about colonial America, perhaps specifically the Salem witch trials. Most, if not all of your main cast will likely be straight, cis and white due to the time period and what it was like. 

4. Hmm, lets start with "stay in your lane". Speak on a subject you have no firsthand experience with, even if you're on the same side, and you're told to "stay in your lane". Basically "shut up, your opinion doesn't matter" but nicer. However, if you say nothing you're "part of the problem". How is anyone supposed to be an activist or ally in this case?


5. Who said i was waging civil war? I'm just giving you the cold hard truth. Freedom of speech has to be available to all sides if its to be considered freedom of speech. You can't demand free speech while at the same time demanding free speech be taken away from the other side. And what gives me the right to oppose anyone on basis of gender is, well, freedom of speech. People have the right to disagree with nonbinary genders just as much as you have the right to agree with em. 

6. Not really, i just want to be able to have a civilized debate without developing a migraine trying to understand what you're saying.


----------



## silveredgreen (Nov 26, 2017)

Saiko said:


> Actually I can comment on this.  The problem is subtle, and admittedly most of the people you're complaining about either can't articulate that or aren't aware of it themselves. It basically amounts to media often falling on one extreme or another. On one hand, particularly in the past, producers were afraid or opposed to including various minorities at all in media, even when it made sense. Examples of this include some episodes of Star Trek where they could only hint at analogies to LGBT issues, but they weren't allowed to explicitly address them. On the other hand, more recent shows are prone to including them just to check off a box; and the characters are left as flat, cliche, and otherwise useless for anything other than comedic relief. Oftentimes this is patronizing, and at worst it perpetuates negative stereotypes that we're trying to get rid of.
> 
> Disclaimer: Ray in Archer is hilarious.



K yeah i'll give you that, back in the day they weren't allowed to show anything that wasn't straight. People were a lot more homophobic then too.

But i still don't think its right to attempt to force people to include everyone. Yes its nice when they do it and do it well but if someone doesn't its not the end of the world. Like i said to that other person, i'd rather have no lgbt characters than a stereotype.


----------



## ellaerna (Nov 26, 2017)

silveredgreen said:


> 3. I'd rather have no LGBTQ+ character at all than a stereotyped one, first of all. But say you're making a comic about colonial America, perhaps specifically the Salem witch trials. Most, if not all of your main cast will likely be straight, cis and white due to the time period and what it was like.


I am not going to get into this with the two of you (have to show some small modicum of restraint and I've honestly just been skimming your guys' posts) but I do want to comment on this one thing briefly.
"Historical accuracy" can be a really shitty excuse not to include diversity. People of color have always existed in a number of different locations. Gay people have always existed, just in different stages of being "out". Trans people have always existed, some just never transitioned due to period pressures and medical limitations. There can be non-cis, straight, white characters in colonial Salem. Their experience might be different than a trans, gay, poc from today- definitely more closeted and with fewer rights- but they still existed.


----------



## ChromaticRabbit (Nov 26, 2017)

silveredgreen said:


> Dear lord please put the thesaurus away and speak like a normal human being. You're difficult to debate with because of it....


I'm not going to accept anti-intellectual correction from you. It's not happening because anti-intellectualism is objectively moronic and stupefying. I will not be degraded, we're conversing internationally at a high level, bring your very speech and make this worthwhile.

I'm representing a view in all earnest good faith, though would happily accept correction being a relative neophyte emerging from the same circumstance as everyone else exposed to incumbent establishment cultural memes in the US. I don't believe I'm going to get into who is a "credible feminist authority" in your view, but there's plenty of information out there and if you feel something you find demonstrates that I'm in error on a point, please do get into the particulars with me and then we can address that, too.

What's feminism got to do with violence? What's feminism got to do with the so-called antifa group? I don't get it.

Re: "stay in your lane," it's not that your opinion doesn't matter, it has to do with whether you're aware of prior thought and consensus on high topics, or just inviting yourself to the table with no commitment or knowledge regarding the topic you're speaking so assertively about. How can you talk about something if you're not familiar what it really is? We'd love for you to listen and learn all about it, ask questions, challenge it as you grapple with it.

Define what you're an activist for and go from there. There's a difference between activism and being a reactionary. I can't imagine what you would need to be an activist for, what's wrong in your world that needs correction?


----------



## quoting_mungo (Nov 27, 2017)

Please find a way to participate in this discussion without sniping at each other, people. It's possible to disagree without being hostile about it.



BahgDaddy said:


> And men's rights? WTF are men's rights? What area are men being discriminated against? I'm a dude. I've always been at an advantage over women. Society orients to me, I don't have periods, and I'm easier to hire because I can readily apply to physical work jobs like construction that pay good.


Be glad you're not involved in a custody dispute, then, because those are stacked against men. 
In the US, men who do not register for selective service lose a lot of rights/privileges, including the right to vote and access to a slew of state- and government funded scholarships/financial aid programs they might otherwise qualify for. 
In north America, male infants are routinely circumcised, often without any real pain management, while female genital mutilation is (rightly) prohibited.


----------



## Yakamaru (Nov 27, 2017)

quoting_mungo said:


> Be glad you're not involved in a custody dispute, then, because those are stacked against men.
> In the US, men who do not register for selective service lose a lot of rights/privileges, including the right to vote and access to a slew of state- and government funded scholarships/financial aid programs they might otherwise qualify for.
> In north America, male infants are routinely circumcised, often without any real pain management, while female genital mutilation is (rightly) prohibited.


Male circumcision is basically used as a means to control men's sex lives. Parents do it either out of ignorance or religious beliefs. Every guy I know who have been circumcised are utterly disgusted by the actions of their parents. I see less and less people doing circumcision on their kids, as the kids who grow up without a foreskin find out what they've been missing out on their entire lives.

How about we stop amputating shit that was meant to be there in the first place, yes? We didn't evolve foreskin just so idiots out of superstition can remove it while the kid lies there screaming his lungs out due to the pain.


----------



## JustSomeDude84 (Nov 27, 2017)

Saylor said:


> So, I was watching tv and saw a commercial come on tv that led me to an interesting question/statement of how the entertainment industry influences people in society and the excessive double standards that go along with it.
> 
> Before I go any further, I’d like it to be made clear that I *do not* agree on any points of modern “feminism.”
> 
> ...


...Have you never picked up a Vogue magazine before?

The only thing I'll give credence to is that beauty is largely construed to be high peak fitness and musculature for men. Also, male chests are predominantly advertised and not seen as explicit material, which is a unique double standard largely due to censorship of female breasts. Women in advertisements are depicted as slim and curvy, as opposed to muscular, and are also more conservatively clothed in advertisements that prefer to have slightly revealing clothing rather than bare nudity (because they can't do that, obviously, due to censorship).


----------



## JustSomeDude84 (Nov 27, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> Male circumcision is basically used as a means to control men's sex lives. Parents do it either out of ignorance or religious beliefs. Every guy I know who have been circumcised are utterly disgusted by the actions of their parents. I see less and less people doing circumcision on their kids, as the kids who grow up without a foreskin find out what they've been missing out on their entire lives.
> 
> How about we stop amputating shit that was meant to be there in the first place, yes? We didn't evolve foreskin just so idiots out of superstition can remove it while the kid lies there screaming his lungs out due to the pain.


Fortunately, circumcision does have a positive correlation with reduced STD transmission. Male Circumcision | HIV Risk Reduction Tool | CDC

It may have originated as a religious tradition, but it seems to have a beneficial effect, according to the CDC.


----------



## Yakamaru (Nov 27, 2017)

JustSomeDude84 said:


> Fortunately, circumcision does have a positive correlation with reduced STD transmission. Male Circumcision | HIV Risk Reduction Tool | CDC


We've evolved foreskin for a reason. It's to REDUCE risks of infections and other crap. The foreskin is there to protect your forehead. Circumcision removes a natural protection mechanism. Circumcision is mutilation, plain and simple. And a means to control men. You are removing a fully functional natural part of the male physiology that shouldn't be removed unless there are direct health complications.

If I made claims that FGM reduced STD transmissions people would jump down my throat, and rightly so. Want to ruin your kids' sex life in the future? Feel free to throw him under the scalpel, and listen to the kid scream his lungs out while he lies there without being able to do jack shit let alone consent to being mutilated. You owe the kid that much at least. 

I give zero fucks if you want to get a circumcision as an adult. Doing it to infants is cruel, mutilation and morally wrong, especially not when the kid isn't even capable of consent.

There are a lot of risks involved in circumcision. Including the loss of most if not all of your nerve endings on Junior. 

Why is circumcision harmful? - Intaction


----------



## JustSomeDude84 (Nov 27, 2017)

I think a lot of these threads are more interested in pointing fingers rather than stating something that we all disagree with in general. There's a lot of stupid things in our culture, and a lot of stupid people, but in general these things have no real world-ending or catastrophic ulterior motive, they're just dumb superficial things that lack any depth or meaning. Who cares? Some advertising executive is just going for the lowest common denominator, that's all. I doubt that executive would actually care whether or not it's objectifying to a man, woman, or a dumb piece of rock on some far away moon. Why do all of these types of threads devolve into an "us vs. them" mentality?


----------



## JustSomeDude84 (Nov 27, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> We've evolved foreskin for a reason. It's to REDUCE risks of infections and other crap. The foreskin is there to protect your forehead. Circumcision removes a natural protection mechanism. Circumcision is mutilation, plain and simple. And a means to control men. You are removing a fully functional natural part of the male physiology that shouldn't be removed unless there are direct health complications.
> 
> If I made claims that FGM reduced STD transmissions people would jump down my throat, and rightly so. Want to ruin your kids' sex life in the future? Feel free to throw him under the scalpel, and listen to the kid scream his lungs out while he lies there without being able to do jack shit let alone consent to being mutilated.
> 
> Why is circumcision harmful? - Intaction


That's an organization's website completely dedicated to anti-circumcision. Here's a scientific article, this one works better for your argument: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov: Do the Benefits of Male Circumcision Outweigh the Risks? A Critique of the Proposed CDC Guidelines

I'll read that article later, so you may be right about that. I'll also need to check that source too, since the author is sponsored by "frontiers in Pediatrics"


----------



## Yakamaru (Nov 27, 2017)

JustSomeDude84 said:


> That's an organization's website completely dedicated to anti-circumcision. Here's a scientific article, this one works better for your argument: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov: Do the Benefits of Male Circumcision Outweigh the Risks? A Critique of the Proposed CDC Guidelines
> 
> I'll read that article later, so you may be right about that. I'll also need to check that source too, since the author is sponsored by "frontiers in Pediatrics"


http://www.nocirc.org/touch-test/bju_6685.pdf
www.fathermag.com: Genital Mutilation American Style - Circumcision

Some Jews, Muslims and some Americans circumcise mutilate their kids. 97% of the male infant population is NOT circumcised. In a decent amount of countries it's illegal, regardless of your religious beliefs.
www.rt.com: Norway may ban non-medical circumcision of boys
^ About time. 

A decent level of hygiene is required regardless of you having been mutilated or not. When you're old enough to consent on your own I don't give a fuck. Someone should be able to experience sex the way it's meant to be experienced before they decide to go under the scalpel, aka, above the age of 18.


----------



## silveredgreen (Nov 27, 2017)

I'm gonna bail on this thread, its off topic now and i refuse to debate with someone who refuses to speak like a normal person. Want to be an "intellectual"? Then find someone else to debate with.

Someone on Discord once said intelligence isn't how many big words you can use, its how well you use your words in general.


----------



## ellaerna (Nov 27, 2017)

quoting_mungo said:


> e glad you're not involved in a custody dispute, then, because those are stacked against men.
> In the US, men who do not register for selective service lose a lot of rights/privileges, including the right to vote and access to a slew of state- and government funded scholarships/financial aid programs they might otherwise qualify for.
> In north America, male infants are routinely circumcised, often without any real pain management, while female genital mutilation is (rightly) prohibited.


As far as custody goes, and the draft though I touched on that earlier, I think it boils down once again to misogynistic ideas about gender roles that end up hurting both sexes. Mothers are favored in custody battles because women are by default seen as care providers and child raisers. That's their role while men are supposed to be tough and aloof alpha types who would suck at care giving. Get rid of the gender roles, get rid of the problem. Misogyny doesn't just hurt women, but it also places harsh standards and stereotypes on men. 

As for circumcision, I get the impression that it is less frowned upon than it should be because it is so ingrained in religion. It's not seen as okay because it's done to men and not women, but because it's incredibly common and a religious practice. It's horrible and there is a lot to be discussed as far as ethics, but I'm not sure this is s sexism thing. Though I am part of the outgroup on this so I'm willing to be wrong.


----------



## Pipistrele (Nov 27, 2017)

Saylor said:


> What ever happened to us respecting other human beings as people and not some object just for women to look at?


Nothing, really - while both male and female folks love getting crazy over unrealistic biological standards in media, in reality, not many (normal) people care about it that much in the first place.  I mean, I've never been rejected by society due to "Oh boi you don't look like Liam Neeson" or something like that. It should also be said that "sculptured bodies" often serve a narrative purpose - of course guys like Nathan Drake and Marcus Fenix are ripped to the  extreme, they have to be as fit as possible to shoot stuff and climb walls all the time, it's not a job for chubby dorks.

Hygiene and self-discipline are still important, though - can't blame TV for setting up unachievable examples if you're legitimately fat and smelly, there's just not much to like about people who don't care about their body that much.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Nov 27, 2017)

The hypocrisy-or-not discussion gets a bit murky around states of (un)dress, as there is disparity around how socially acceptable given areas of skin are to show off. Whether this disparity is justified or not, I'm not certain, though I've heard a lot more "woo tits!" from people attracted to women than "woo pecs!" from people attracted to men, so...

I personally do not see an inherent issue with courting the sex appeal of the human body in advertising (though Photoshopping models to look thinner/fitter should be banned for public health reasons); sex is a good way of hooking into the brain's primitive emotional responses, and anything that got an emotional response will stick better in memory. 

There is absolutely a huge amount of unjustifiable disparity (and probably hypocrisy to go with it) between how other issues are handled based on the sex of the people involved, though. It sucks. Some of those issues come down to the wording of laws, which is just sad, while others are just... long-lived, stubborn perceived "truths" that no amount of studies seem to be able to shake. Sad, too, but in different ways.



JustSomeDude84 said:


> Fortunately, circumcision does have a positive correlation with reduced STD transmission. Male Circumcision | HIV Risk Reduction Tool | CDC
> 
> It may have originated as a religious tradition, but it seems to have a beneficial effect, according to the CDC.


Claims that circumcision reduce the risk of HIV transmission are usually based on a single abortive (and highly flawed) study or set of studies in Africa. The CDC don't seem to cite what they're basing their assertions on, so I can't say for sure whether it's the case here, but it's likely, as to the best of my knowledge it's the only study out there that got anything resembling those results. 



Yakamaru said:


> Every guy I know who have been circumcised are utterly disgusted by the actions of their parents.


Just noting that I've got significantly more variation in attitudes among my male aquaintances, which of course doesn't invalidate the feelings of those men who _are_ unhappy with their circumcisions. 

From where I'm standing it would be logical for both pro- and anti-circumcision advocates to agree that performing surgery without pain management is inhumane and it would be in the best interests of the infants getting circumcised to draft legislation mandating effective pain management. The law in Sweden does this, and at the very least that minimizes the trauma of the procedure itself. If after this the sides diverge in attitudes, so be it, but the situation would still have been objectively improved.



ellaerna said:


> As far as custody goes, and the draft though I touched on that earlier, I think it boils down once again to misogynistic ideas about gender roles that end up hurting both sexes. Mothers are favored in custody battles because women are by default seen as care providers and child raisers. That's their role while men are supposed to be tough and aloof alpha types who would suck at care giving. Get rid of the gender roles, get rid of the problem. Misogyny doesn't just hurt women, but it also places harsh standards and stereotypes on men.


Perceived motivation doesn't change whose rights are being infringed on, however. Also note that if you look back far enough, men were favored in custody disputes. From what I understand the feminist movement was a significant force in changing this. Logically, default custody arrangement in an equal society, absent evidence of one parent's unfitness, should be shared custody, but this wasn't the result.



ellaerna said:


> As for circumcision, I get the impression that it is less frowned upon than it should be because it is so ingrained in religion. It's not seen as okay because it's done to men and not women, but because it's incredibly common and a religious practice.


Circumcision is a religious practice predominantly for Judaism and some sections of Islam; neither of these are very large portions of the population in NA. The justifications for it, again, don't change the fact that it is done, it is not done in a humane manner, and it exclusively impacts infants born with a penis (nearly exclusively a male issue). 

To me whether it's specifically _sexist_ is irrelevant. I mentioned it as an example of a right (to bodily integrity) that (cis) women have and (cis) men don't. I don't rightly know whether there's some use for the foreskin in gender reassignment surgery that also leads to it negatively impacting trans women. I don't personally have any horses in that particular race, either, beyond my mind being boggled by circumcisions being performed without even local anaesthetic. You can't put an ID tattoo in a cat's ear without putting it under, here, and that's a much quicker, less invasive procedure.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Nov 27, 2017)

quoting_mungo said:


> Please find a way to participate in this discussion without sniping at each other, people. It's possible to disagree without being hostile about it.
> 
> 
> Be glad you're not involved in a custody dispute, then, because those are stacked against men.
> ...



Interesting. However I disagree on all counts. Perhaps things are different in Sweden. 

But you don't get to see the toxic effects of America's patriarchal society on a daily basis. It's getting better, for sure, but there's a reason the feminist movement still exists, just like other movements like Black Lives Matter still exist. And no, despite what some people who lean alt right will likely tell you, the BLM is not a terrorist organization and they are not violent, although sometimes violence does occur. 

Yes, the selective service is required for men. And I would never support it for women. I do not view war or military service in the same light as others. If we feel we must do patriotic duty to our country, that is one thing, but to be drafted against our will is a violation of freedom. Currently the selective service doesn't really do anything - it just means that if in the future, we have another world war, we can draft men to take up the burden. 

The reason I don't support it for women? If women want to serve in the military, that is one thing, and I'll fight for their right to do so. I won't support a selective service that includes women. If inclusion into a non voluntary aspect of society represents feminstic achievement, we've got our priorities messed up. 

Onto male circumcision. 



Yakamaru said:


> Male circumcision is basically used as a means to control men's sex lives. Parents do it either out of ignorance or religious beliefs. Every guy I know who have been circumcised are utterly disgusted by the actions of their parents. I see less and less people doing circumcision on their kids, as the kids who grow up without a foreskin find out what they've been missing out on their entire lives.
> 
> How about we stop amputating shit that was meant to be there in the first place, yes? We didn't evolve foreskin just so idiots out of superstition can remove it while the kid lies there screaming his lungs out due to the pain.



Count me into a list of circumcised males who doesn't give a fig. Your anecdotes fail regularly because you interact, quite obviously, with an apparently very narrow segment of the population. Your logical fallacy is argumentum ad populum. You make this fallacy on a routine basis, suggestion you place far more emphasis on your peers' opinions than is healthy. Or you use them for echo chamber effect, an also unhealthy motive. 

There is no comparison between male and female circumcision. Female circumcision results in an inability to feel sexual pleasure. I feel sexual pleasure just fine. 

There is still medical debate over whether or not it's a good idea. The forskin can hoard bacteria and grime. The argument that it should be left alone is the naturalistic logical fallacy. Just because something is natural, doesn't make it healthy or necessary. UV light is natural, but could give you skin cancer. 

However I do find the Bible's emphasis on circumcision a bit appalling. It's as if the thing was written by people with some sort of mutilation fetish. I guess S&M has been around a long time.


----------



## Yakamaru (Nov 27, 2017)

quoting_mungo said:


> Just noting that I've got significantly more variation in attitudes among my male aquaintances, which of course doesn't invalidate the feelings of those men who _are_ unhappy with their circumcisions.
> 
> From where I'm standing it would be logical for both pro- and anti-circumcision advocates to agree that performing surgery without pain management is inhumane and it would be in the best interests of the infants getting circumcised to draft legislation mandating effective pain management. The law in Sweden does this, and at the very least that minimizes the trauma of the procedure itself. If after this the sides diverge in attitudes, so be it, but the situation would still have been objectively improved.


Ban it outright unless for actual health situations. If you absolutely have to circumcise, I agree that there should be pain management to lessen the trauma.

Unless someone can properly consent, don't touch an otherwise fully natural and functioning part of the body.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Nov 27, 2017)

BahgDaddy said:


> But you don't get to see the toxic effects of America's patriarchal society on a daily basis. It's getting better, for sure, but there's a reason the feminist movement still exists, just like other movements like Black Lives Matter still exist.


Whether the feminist movement is necessary has no relevance to whether men lack some rights that women have, though. A society can fail both its male and its female populations simultaneously, in different areas, and refusing to address a subset of those inequalities because another subset also exists is pretty foolish far as I'm concerned.



BahgDaddy said:


> Yes, the selective service is required for men. And I would never support it for women. I do not view war or military service in the same light as others. If we feel we must do patriotic duty to our country, that is one thing, but to be drafted against our will is a violation of freedom.


Absolutely, being drafted against your will is a violation of your freedom. Yet you lose a significant number of your privileges of citizenship if you refuse. If that's not a right men are being denied on the basis of their sex/gender, I don't know what is.



Yakamaru said:


> Ban it outright unless for actual health situations. If you absolutely have to circumcise, I agree that there should be pain management to lessen the trauma.


Maybe it should be banned outright. I stand by my position that regulation (such as requiring pain management) is better than doing nothing, and far more likely to pass than a straight ban. Going step by step and getting some of the way is preferable to trying to make a grand leap and ending up getting nowhere at all.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Nov 27, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> Ban it outright unless for actual health situations. If you absolutely have to circumcise, I agree that there should be pain management to lessen the trauma.
> 
> Unless someone can properly consent, don't touch an otherwise fully natural and functioning part of the body.



I would advocate leaving it up to individual interpretation. Parents are ultimately in charge of their child and its wellbeing. If you want to remove that choice, you will have to make circumcision illegal, which I would advocate would be a rather useless and lengthy legal battle. We have more important matters at hand, such as keeping our government from sliding into a dystopian anti intellectual regime. 

Matters of consent are somewhat irrelevant with regard to matters of mild pain to an infant. Everything is painful to an infant - flashes of light, loud noises, late bedtime, and teething. I apparently wailed nonstop for the first 18 months of my life due to teething complications. I don't remember a lick of that. 

That's not to say pain is unimportant, and I don't want someone applying the slippery slope fallacy to my argument and saying if pain is irrelevant, than cutting off an arm shouldn't be a problem. That would be much different and cause extensive harm [into the future]. 

Local anesthetic would be a great improvement, that said.


----------



## Yakamaru (Nov 27, 2017)

quoting_mungo said:


> Maybe it should be banned outright. I stand by my position that regulation (such as requiring pain management) is better than doing nothing, and far more likely to pass than a straight ban. Going step by step and getting some of the way is preferable to trying to make a grand leap and ending up getting nowhere at all.


Indeed. Step by step. Regulation first, then a straight up ban over time wit the exception of health implications, like phimosis. It's mutilation, no matter how you word it.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Nov 27, 2017)

quoting_mungo said:


> Whether the feminist movement is necessary has no relevance to whether men lack some rights that women have, though. A society can fail both its male and its female populations simultaneously, in different areas, and refusing to address a subset of those inequalities because another subset also exists is pretty foolish far as I'm concerned.
> 
> 
> Absolutely, being drafted against your will is a violation of your freedom. Yet you lose a significant number of your privileges of citizenship if you refuse. If that's not a right men are being denied on the basis of their sex/gender, I don't know what is.
> ...



1. Quite frankly, if women have a few privileges that men don't get, I am ok with that. I'm a little biased. My father was abusive and nearly killed me in utero. My mother was sexually abused as a child... by men. As an adult... by men. So forgive me if I have a few negative impressions of other men. We're the only animal that it's considered wrong to castrate. 

Want to know one of the best kept crime stats in existence? Most violent crime is committed by *MEN*. The leftist media isn't going to tell you that because it's not PC. 

Now, as for your dichotomy, I'm not sure how to solve it. We could instigate selective service for women. I would never be in favor of that. But it would be equality. Or we could delete selective service altogether. That would also create equality but still cause its own problems. 

I think this is one time when equality isn't as much of an issue as we make it out to be.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Nov 27, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> Indeed. Step by step. Regulation first, then a straight up ban over time wit the exception of health implications, like phimosis. It's mutilation, no matter how you word it.



No, it is not. Mutilation is an emotional power word and implies destruction, degradation, serious and wanton damage. You'd like to ban something because you disagree with it, instead of using rational thought and logic to come to your conclusions, whic plaxss you in the exact same category as the safe-space mentality people who believe their feelings and opinions are empirical fact.


----------



## ChromaticRabbit (Nov 27, 2017)

BahgDaddy said:


> Interesting. However I disagree on all counts. Perhaps things are different in Sweden.


They're definitely different in Sweden, and objectively better on issues of gender equality. Case in point:



> *Church of Sweden to stop referring to God as 'he' or 'Lord' *
> _theGuardian/AP, 24 November 2017_
> 
> The Church of Sweden is urging its clergy to use gender-neutral language when referring to the supreme deity, refraining from using terms such as “Lord” and “he” in favour of the less specific “God...” The decision was taken on Thursday at the end of an eight-day meeting of the church’s 251-member decision-making body, and takes effect on 20 May on the Christian holiday of Pentecost. Jackelén told Sweden’s TT news agency that a more inclusive language had been discussed as early as the 1986 conference. “Theologically, for instance, we know that God is beyond our gender determinations, God is not human,” Jackelén said.
> ...


I went on to read elsewhere that they ordained their first female minister in the early 1980s! That's awesome.



> But you don't get to see the toxic effects of America's patriarchal society on a daily basis.


I associate it with Fundamentalism, which seems to selectively ignore the Christian Bible's New Testament and tries earnestly to revive elements from the book of Exodus etc., but most people would stagger back mortified from what that stuff really literally is saying. One of the stories of the Reformation and Enlightenment Age and especially the 20th century has been that extreme religious ideas promoting illibrality have been pacified and made civil, the Church is no longer part of the State, it's not up them how culture and society work.



> I won't support a selective service that includes women.


This is a double standard, naturally. I understand where you're coming from, but I don't agree with you, we're all human beings, no exceptions, why would selective service exclude half from mandatory service? And anyway, how do women feel about it?



> *Draft women? These girls say yes *
> _Green Valley News, By Kim Smith, Nov 1 2017_
> 
> The draft was created so that in times of emergency the U.S. would have enough manpower. But pretty soon the country could end up having extra womanpower, too... Last month, the Pentagon recommended to Congress that women ages 18 to 25 be required to register for the draft... The Pentagon's recommendation comes in an era where the military is removing gender-based bans. Women have participated in ground combat missions since 2013; in 2015, the Pentagon announced it would open all combat jobs to women; in December 2016, the Army Rangers graduated its first woman.
> ...


It's all about equality, and just one more reason that war was always unthinkable. There's nothing to fight over anymore, war is obsolete once corruption is expunged from the major powers. It shouldn't be on the table anymore, it's a senseless interruption of civilization, and look at who has directly or indirectly triggered all the big war actions in the last sixteen years. And for what?



> The argument that it should be left alone is the naturalistic logical fallacy. Just because something is natural, doesn't make it healthy or necessary. UV light is natural, but could give you skin cancer.


Maybe the better word is "unmutilated." I'm pretty sure the 'natural' state of the body is wellness, and once you start cutting things, you're reduce that wellness, barring some condition of disease being treated. It seems as though someone's playing God by deciding what the 'correct' form of the human body is 'disease free,' and that seems like some cancer or a disease of the mind as far as I'm concerned. 



> Count me into a list of circumcised males who doesn't give a fig... There is no comparison between male and female circumcision.


That's fine, but it's mutilation one cannot recover from; it should be opt-in and not up to the parents for all sorts of Reasons, and no double standards. I suspect the elevation of the bath or shower or running water made any premise for this one completely obsolete over a century ago.


----------



## Sagt (Nov 27, 2017)

BahgDaddy said:


> Quite frankly, if women have a few privileges that men don't get, I am ok with that. I'm a little biased. My father was abusive and nearly killed me in utero. My mother was sexually abused as a child... by men. As an adult... by men. So forgive me if I have a few negative impressions of other men. We're the only animal that it's considered wrong to castrate.
> 
> Want to know one of the best kept crime stats in existence? Most violent crime is committed by *MEN*.


._.

If that's the sort of reasoning you're using, then you're not any better than all the other people who make dumb generalisations about people based on sex, sexuality, race... etc.

In your post, swap "men" with any other group. What you wrote is pretty bad.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Nov 27, 2017)

ChromaticRabbit said:


> They're definitely different in Sweden, and objectively better on issues of gender equality. Case in point:
> 
> 
> I went on to read elsewhere that they ordained their first female minister in the early 1980s! That's awesome.
> ...



I get where you are coming from. And normally I support equality. Let's be honest with ourselves. Men and women are biologically different. 

Oh God, I said it. The words! The terrible words! It's true though. There's probably a reason you don't see many female construction or road workers. Men are physically stronger. And there's a reason women are over represented as nurses. They have maternal instincts - and men frequently  lack those.

And of course that's a broad paintbrush, but think about what I'm saying from a biological standpoint and ignore the outliers. 

So when it comes to war, I don't want women getting drafted. If they want to sign up, fine. They can, and do, sign up. Non voluntary draft? Nope. 

As for the church trying to feminize their god, it won't work either. The Christian god is very obviously a masculine entity and the religion is clearly one of patriarchy. Of course people are free to practice their religion in any way they want, so I support that - but again, they're ignoring what the Bible fundamentally is.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Nov 27, 2017)

Lcs said:


> ._.
> 
> If that's the sort of reasoning you're using, then you're not any better than all the other people who make dumb generalisations about people based on sex, sexuality, race... etc.
> 
> In your post, swap "men" with any other group. What you wrote is pretty bad.



The truth hurts. Sorry. 

However you're out of line by accusing me of using logic similar to racism and sexuality discrimination. 

Females are far more likely to be raped than men. Women take physical and psychologist precautions to protect themselves that men don't even have to think about. I've never had to worry that someone was going to grope me or give me lewd looks or cat call me. I just don't have to worry about it. 

You want to pretend these differences between the sexes don't exist, but they do. They don't have to be divisive, either. We're focusing on the negatives right now. 

Let's throw some more non PC stuff on the fire while I'm at it. Men are better at detecting changes in the field of vision, while women are better at discerning pattern and color differences. 

Oh GOD, I said the word Differences! There aren't any differences, the leftists cry! Erode the differences, they don't exist, wheee! Fuck... Of course they exist! We just don't want to admit them. We want everyone to be the same. That's the toxicity of modern cultural relativism and so-called egalitarianism. Until we acknowledge differences, and accept them instead of trying to erode them, we haven't made any progress. 

So don't you dare say I'm the same as a fuckin god damn racist!


----------



## quoting_mungo (Nov 27, 2017)

BahgDaddy said:


> Quite frankly, if women have a few privileges that men don't get, I am ok with that. I'm a little biased. My father was abusive and nearly killed me in utero. My mother was sexually abused as a child... by men. As an adult... by men. So forgive me if I have a few negative impressions of other men. We're the only animal that it's considered wrong to castrate.


Hey, if you're okay with it, that's fine by me. I'm only demonstrating that there are inequalities. What if anything you think should be done about them is up to you.

I'm very sorry that your mother had those negative experiences, and the men who did that to her were absolutely, definitely in the wrong. There are (unfortunately) lots of awful people out there, and it's always a sad thing when those people hurt others.

Performing any surgery on another person without their consent (with the exception of life-saving procedures where best guess will always be that someone would prefer survival to the alternative and similar) is never an ethical solution. There are, however, some need-driven sex offenders who've voluntarily undergone chemical or surgical castration, and I have immense respect for taking that step to claim responsibility for their own actions and rehabilitation.



BahgDaddy said:


> Want to know one of the best kept crime stats in existence? Most violent crime is committed by *MEN*. The leftist media isn't going to tell you that because it's not PC.


Oh, I've heard that one plenty, from media and individuals alike. 

But then we have things like, say... the CDC shuffling men raped by women into their own category, preserving the perceived "truth" that women are an overwhelming majority of rape victims when, if you folded that category in, the stats would be about on par. (I've looked over the CDC report in the past, just located an article that went into how the numbers are misleading so I don't have to make a huge digression.) There's also evidence to suggest that domestic violence in heterosexual relationships is most often mutual, followed by female-on-male, but men don't tend to call the police when assaulted by their wives or girlfriends. In some cases, this is due to societal pressure and shame, while at other times it's out of self-preservation, as predominant aggressor guidelines and mandatory arrest laws make him more likely to be arrested than she is, regardless of what happened.

Far as I can tell, it's in many cases more a matter of women's violence looking different and being more socially acceptable. There's also been some (arguably frightening) social experiments performed, filmed, and posted to Youtube, showing passers-by of either sex being much less likely to intervene in an abusive situation in a public place when the aggressor is female.



BahgDaddy said:


> I've never had to worry that someone was going to grope me or give me lewd looks or cat call me. I just don't have to worry about it.


Women don't _have_ to worry about this. They're being told to do so, and uncritically accept the claim that it's necessary. I get along just fine not worrying about sexual assault or harassment. _I have an anxiety disorder_ and I don't worry about bogeyman rapists. Because they're a small minority and not a realistic threat to everyday-life me.


----------



## Sagt (Nov 27, 2017)

BahgDaddy said:


> The truth hurts. Sorry.
> 
> However you're out of line by accusing me of using logic similar to racism and sexuality discrimination.
> 
> ...


Woah, didn't expect that sort of reaction.

I don't really care about you mentioning that men, on average, rape women more than the other way around, I was actually more concerned about the conclusion you reached, which was that they consequently don't deserve the same rights as women.

Like, dude, that's the exact same way racists and other shitheads format their rhetoric.


----------



## ChromaticRabbit (Nov 27, 2017)

BahgDaddy said:


> And normally I support equality. Let's be honest with ourselves. Men and women are biologically different.


Men and men are biologically different. Woman and women are biologically different. What's your point? Equality is equality, we're all humanity as a class.



> Men are physically stronger... So when it comes to war, I don't want women getting drafted. If they want to sign up, fine.


Then why aren't you against women being in the military entirely? It seems like you're picking an arbitrary place to introduce inequity by focusing on the SSI war draft. 



> As for the church trying to feminize their god, it won't work either.


You're the second person that I've shown this article to who has given a similar reaction, but it's fascinating because it seems irrational to go from the article literally saying "God is beyond our gender determinations" and you deriving this must be "feminization" of a "god" (not the God). You seem to have exposed some sort of bias there. Did you even notice?


----------



## BahgDaddy (Nov 27, 2017)

ChromaticRabbit said:


> Men and men are biologically different. Woman and women are biologically different. What's your point? Equality is equality, we're all humanity as a class.
> 
> 
> Then why aren't you against women being in the military entirely? It seems like you're picking an arbitrary place to introduce inequity by focusing on the SSI war draft.
> ...



It's possible, and you're right that that is fascinating. My main assertion is that I view the Christian God as a patriarch, and the religion itself has been predominantly male centric for most of its life. But that's because society has been male centric most of its life, so of course the religions were too!

So what was my reality warping bias?



Lcs said:


> Woah, didn't expect that sort of reaction.
> 
> I don't really care about you mentioning that men, on average, rape women more than the other way around, I was actually more concerned about the conclusion you reached, which was that they consequently don't deserve the same rights as women.
> 
> Like, dude, that's the exact same way racists and other shitheads format their rhetoric.



Like, dude, that's not what I was saying. I don't think men don't deserve the same rights as women. I don't agree with the selective service at all, so it's probably strongly coloring my argument here. Ask me about some other aspect of the gender dichotomy.


----------



## ChromaticRabbit (Nov 27, 2017)

BahgDaddy said:


> It's possible, and you're right that that is fascinating. My main assertion is that I view the Christian God as a patriarch, and the religion itself has been predominantly male centric for most of its life. But that's because society has been male centric most of its life, so of course the religions were too!
> 
> So what was my reality warping bias?
> 
> I don't think men don't deserve the same rights as women. I don't agree with the selective service at all, so it's probably strongly coloring my argument here.


Christianity infiltrated Roman power and declared* the other religious cults as punishable by death. That's not "society being male centric," that's a fascist insurrection decreeing it so.

Your bias was that you were determined see anything like emasculation of liturgy as tantamount to feminization and react on this basis, as you did there.

Re: "Men's rights," that's also a double standard, equality means that everyone is treated as though they were born with the same rights and liberties because we're all of the class "humanity." While I agree with you SSI shouldn't exist because war is obsolete and always preventable in the myriad ways that our government policy is failing to uphold right now such as respect for and deference to the UN charter mandates, the topic here is double standards and you brought it up. I'm saying it shouldn't exist too, but if it does, like all things, it must be equitable. There's no reason it shouldn't be, it's just a compulsion to enlist, not a duty assignment.

* (Edict of Thessalonica - Wikipedia)


----------



## BahgDaddy (Nov 27, 2017)

quoting_mungo said:


> Hey, if you're okay with it, that's fine by me. I'm only demonstrating that there are inequalities. What if anything you think should be done about them is up to you.
> 
> I'm very sorry that your mother had those negative experiences, and the men who did that to her were absolutely, definitely in the wrong. There are (unfortunately) lots of awful people out there, and it's always a sad thing when those people hurt others.
> 
> ...



Sure, but again, you live in Sweden, not the US. We used to live in the South, of the US. Mom used to live in Portland OR and I was born in South MO. She was abused in her home town, but sexual abuse was rampant in our area, and in many other places in the Bible Belt as well. For some reason, sexual deviancy is more prevalent in the area that strongly disagrees with it. Must be that psychological backfire effect?

It's also a lot more of a problem for people who've been abused in the past. These people sent out "victim signals," which attract sexual predators. It takes a great deal of healing to get rid of those victim signals. 

But yeah, when we get into the practice of what people consider feminism, which autocorrect just corrected to demonism for some reason, things get sticky. How people practice their behavior is, of course, a different thing to discuss than the philosophical aspect of this problem in an ontological (question answering) perspectives.


----------



## ellaerna (Nov 27, 2017)

quoting_mungo said:


> Perceived motivation doesn't change whose rights are being infringed on, however. Also note that if you look back far enough, men were favored in custody disputes. From what I understand the feminist movement was a significant force in changing this. Logically, default custody arrangement in an equal society, absent evidence of one parent's unfitness, should be shared custody, but this wasn't the result.


I mean, yes. I'm not going to try to argue that there aren't certain rights that are infringed upon for men. That would be silly. But it's important to remember that these issues don't exist in a vacuum.

Focusing on the issue alone- sexy men or women in media, women being favored in custody battles, the draft- is very limited and only works to _maybe_ fix that one issue. If we try to pull back the layers and think about _why_ we have these issues and how they relate to other societal structures, we can begin to unravel the harmful framework that keeps both sexes in unfavorable positions. Getting rid of the draft fixes the draft problem, but addressing the underlying gender roles that helped make the draft what it is can help to also fix custody issues or other gender imbalances.

The OP was a rant discussion about male sexualization and how awful feminism is. While what we're discussing now doesn't quite relate to objectification very well, we can examine them from a feminist point of view which is both relevant to the discussion and helpful in overcoming these issues.


quoting_mungo said:


> Circumcision is a religious practice predominantly for Judaism and some sections of Islam; neither of these are very large portions of the population in NA. The justifications for it, again, don't change the fact that it is done, it is not done in a humane manner, and it exclusively impacts infants born with a penis (nearly exclusively a male issue).
> 
> To me whether it's specifically _sexist_ is irrelevant. I mentioned it as an example of a right (to bodily integrity) that (cis) women have and (cis) men don't. I don't rightly know whether there's some use for the foreskin in gender reassignment surgery that also leads to it negatively impacting trans women. I don't personally have any horses in that particular race, either, beyond my mind being boggled by circumcisions being performed without even local anaesthetic. You can't put an ID tattoo in a cat's ear without putting it under, here, and that's a much quicker, less invasive procedure.


Again, while justification does not make it better- I am definitely not trying to argue that point- there can be more to gain by examining the _why_ rather than just the base issue. Sexism isn't irrelevant, particularly not in a thread that is about sexism and feminism. And if we want to talk about bodily integrity, we could bring up abortion, which is something that affects ciswomen but not cismen and is highly influenced by religion.

I am not arguing for the draft or for custody imbalances or babies getting circumcised. I am merely trying to put things into perspective. Coming up with examples of how men are poorly treated too doesn't do anything but break us down further into us vs. them. Those nasty feminists ignoring men's issues. Those sexist men's rights activists ignoring lady issues. But what about us! But what about them!

If you really look at it, feminism- even the hated "modern feminism" that focuses _so much_ on gender- is trying to tackle structures that harm us both. It may focus on the woman side of things since a lot of society was structured against them, but the practice is beneficial to all. There will always be rotten people who shout the loudest, but I would not demonize all of them


----------



## Sagt (Nov 27, 2017)

BahgDaddy said:


> Quite frankly, if women have a few privileges that men don't get, I am ok with that.





BahgDaddy said:


> Like, dude, that's not what I was saying. I don't think men don't deserve the same rights as women.


Well, which one is it? Privileges and rights; they're the same thing.



BahgDaddy said:


> Like, dude, that's not what I was saying. I don't think men don't deserve the same rights as women. I don't agree with theselective service at all, so it's probablystrongly coloring my argument here. Ask me about some other aspect of thegender dichotomy.


The way you wrote that original post rubbed me off the wrong way, because it's very similar to how I've seen a lot of people, with very distasteful views, structure their rhetoric.

They'll post homicide/crime/rape/harassment statistics of some group, bring up anecdotal evidence of their experience with someone of that group, and then mention high profile stories involving them. With these, they will then paint that whole group with a broad brush and make the conclusion that they're trouble, and begin suggesting knee-jerk "solutions". It's the way that whole hate cycle begins.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Nov 27, 2017)

ChromaticRabbit said:


> Christianity infiltrated Roman power and declared* the other religious cults as punishable by death. That's not "society being male centric," that's a fascist insurrection decreeing it so.
> 
> Your bias was that you were determined see anything like emasculation of liturgy as tantamount to feminization and react on this basis, as you did there.
> 
> ...



Sure, but ultimately I don't care how people interpret their religion, provided it's done ethically and in line with modern liberal society. Keep religion out of politics and all that. 

And let's face it. Maybe if women ran more of the top levels of government we'd be better off. I'd be ok with that. Balance is best. Not going to far one way or the other. 

Can you show that Christianity is not a patriarchal religion?


----------



## BahgDaddy (Nov 27, 2017)

Lcs said:


> Well, which one is it? Privileges and rights; they're the same thing.
> 
> 
> The way you wrote that original post rubbed me off the wrong way, because it's very similar to how I've seen a lot of people, with very distasteful views, structure their rhetoric.
> ...



No, Lcs, rights and privileges are not the same thing, legally speaking. A provelege for instance is driving. This can be revoked from you, and to a certain point you can't fight it. 

The right to free speech is a right, as codified in law. 

Some privileges may be de facto rights, but we'd have to look at those on a case by case basis. 

I deliberately sectioned off my comments and specified that they were anecdotal and coloring my bias. It was a disclaimer, not an argument, not really. 

But my statistic, that men mostly commit violent crime, is correct. 

Sex differences in crime - Wikipedia

Scroll to the stats section.


----------



## ChromaticRabbit (Nov 27, 2017)

BahgDaddy said:


> Sure, but ultimately I don't care how people interpret their religion, provided it's done ethically and in line with modern liberal society. Keep religion out of politics and all that.


Where we run into issues is when a religious group breeches the firewall between church and state or tries to wage cultural war. Now some fight for a get-out-of-jail 'religious exception' pass to rule-of-law and civil liberty. It's deplorable.  They see it as a loophole to twist free of gender equality.



> And let's face it. Maybe if women ran more of the top levels of government we'd be better off. I'd be ok with that. Balance is best. Not going to far one way or the other.


The right women, who stand for gender equality and social responsibility, sure. But you can't just throw up token women and assume that because they are female their ideology is sound (this would be sexism, in fact); just look at Ms. Clinton, who is neither a true liberal nor progressive. But under the present system, it doesn't actually much matter which individuals get elected because the system is beyond them as it's been so profoundly corrupted and subverted to the point of dysfunction by broken standards of campaign conduct and finance, mil-spec Psychological Operation SuperPACs and operators like Robert Mercer's Cambridge Analytica, and generally corrupted elections operating under the pretense that money equals speech. It's effectively fascism and inverse totalitarianism in significant ways, lately. But for the most part the people getting elected are whomever the corporations and oligarchs appoint with money, and the few who aren't become completely paralyzed and embattled by the subverted elements of government.



> Can you show that Christianity is not a patriarchal religion?


Well, for example:



> Christian egalitarianism (derived from the French word égal, meaning equal or level), also known as biblical equality, is a Christian form of egalitarianism. It holds that all human persons are created equally in God's sight—equal in fundamental worth and moral status. This view does not just apply to gender, but to religion, skin colour and any other differences between individuals. It does not imply that all have equal skills, abilities, interests, or physiological or genetic traits. Christian egalitarianism holds that all people are equal before God and in Christ; have equal responsibility to use their gifts and obey their calling to the glory of God; and are called to roles and ministries without regard to class, gender, or race.
> 
> According to Christian egalitarianism, gender equality is biblically sound in Christian church leadership (including pastors) and in Christian marriage. Its theological foundations are interpretations of the teachings and example of Jesus Christ and other New Testament principles.
> 
> ...


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (Nov 27, 2017)

BahgDaddy said:


> No, Lcs, rights and privileges are not the same thing, legally speaking. A provelege for instance is driving. This can be revoked from you, and to a certain point you can't fight it.
> 
> The right to free speech is a right, as codified in law.
> 
> Some privileges may be de facto rights, but we'd have to look at those on a case by case basis.


Fancy way to say that the former is a subset of the latter; rights are privileges granted as a reward for abiding by whatever laws that the ruling authorities dictate to you. Failure to abide by those laws, henceforth referred to as crime, is grounds for the ruling authorities to revoke those privileges as they see fit.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Nov 27, 2017)

BahgDaddy said:


> Sure, but again, you live in Sweden, not the US.


Most of the statistics I've mentioned are based on US or possibly (can't recall offhand) UK survey data. I have also lived in the US in the past, and wasn't any more afraid then, nor did I have cause to be. Most of my social interactions, which is how I come across nearly all this fucked-up crap, are with people somewhere in North America. I probably know significantly more about the US than you do of Sweden.



BahgDaddy said:


> It's also a lot more of a problem for people who've been abused in the past. These people sent out "victim signals," which attract sexual predators. It takes a great deal of healing to get rid of those victim signals.


Uh huh.
That's more of an issue with domestic abuse and power-disparate situations (such as boss/secretary, to name a stereotypical one) than random everyday occurences.



ellaerna said:


> I am not arguing for the draft or for custody imbalances or babies getting circumcised. I am merely trying to put things into perspective. Coming up with examples of how men are poorly treated too doesn't do anything but break us down further into us vs. them.


Yes and no. I do think it's important to bring up and address inequalities regardless of whom they effect. You see attacking the underlying framework as the most effective method for that, while I see adjusting the individual policies as a way to erode that framework, with far less risk of backlash. The MRM feels feminism will not solve the issues they have now in an acceptable time frame, and so they work to bring up those issues as, well, issues needing addressing. It's not really much different from any other focus organization.

In this case, mentioning examples of areas where men are at a disadvantage had the purpose of demonstrating that such areas exist, to someone who questioned their existence. If you don't know about an issue it may never get addressed anyway, regardless of how many frameworks are deconstructed.



ellaerna said:


> If you really look at it, feminism- even the hated "modern feminism" that focuses _so much_ on gender- is trying to tackle structures that harm us both. It may focus on the woman side of things since a lot of society was structured against them, but the practice is beneficial to all. There will always be rotten people who shout the loudest, but I would not demonize all of them


Part of the problem is, however, that some aspects of feminist theory, when used to inform policy making, results in harm coming to groups other than cis women. Predominant aggressor guidelines were worked out by feminists who later basically recanted, but them saying they were wrong hasn't removed the usage of the guidelines. I would have a lot more patience with feminism if it was more similar to the MRM in scope. That is, if it focused on challenges that women face on the basis of being women. There are instances where intersectionality may be beneficial, but I'd say trying to be the panacea to heal all of society's ills does feminism more harm than good.

To be explicitly clear, I don't particularly care for feminism as a movement. I personally have had too many negative experiences, and seen too many examples of "all women" rhetoric that doesn't apply to me (which irritates the hell out of me, as that's basically co-opting my voice to support something I might not care for), to have much patience with its follies. I have also seen people very close to me be harmed by a lot of the rhetoric about men that comes out of the feminist movement. I have no problem with individual egalitarianism-leaning feminists, just with the "feminism behemoth", so to speak.



BahgDaddy said:


> But my statistic, that men mostly commit violent crime, is correct.
> 
> Sex differences in crime - Wikipedia
> 
> Scroll to the stats section.


Note that those statistics make no attempts to adjust for socioeconomic status or other factors that could influence the results, nor are they guaranteed to be unbiased. If my boyfriend punches me in the chest in public, he is vastly more likely to be arrested for it than if I were to punch him just as hard in the chest. Would that make him more violent than me? Nope. It just means there's a bias in reporting and enforcing crime that we have to watch out for. Men _could_ be more prone to violence, at which point we'd have our work cut out for us to determine whether that's caused by nature or nurture, or maybe women are just better at getting away with it. We Just Don't Know.

(Disclaimer: the above was an example to illustrate a point - neither I nor my boyfriend would go about striking anyone, including each other.)


----------



## Sagt (Nov 27, 2017)

BahgDaddy said:


> No, Lcs, rights and privileges are not the same thing, legally speaking. A provelege for instance is driving. This can be revoked from you, and to a certain point you can't fight it.
> 
> The right to free speech is a right, as codified in law.
> 
> ...


I'll admit that I was wrong when I said that the two words are synonymous, although I'll maintain that the way you wrote your post was distasteful. I won't take up any more space on this thread, after this post, to continue this exchange though, since I think I've made my case, and I suppose it's not really a big deal anyway.

To be clear though, I wasn't contesting your claims, I was instead questioning the conclusion and your way of thinking.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Nov 27, 2017)

ChapterAquila92 said:


> Fancy way to say that the former is a subset of the latter; rights are privileges granted as a reward for abiding by whatever laws that the ruling authorities dictate to you. Failure to abide by those laws, henceforth referred to as crime, is grounds for the ruling authorities to revoke those privileges as they see fit.



You are wrong. If you commit a crime, rights still apply to you. Privileges don't. If you break the driving rules, they are revoked, and if you've broken them badly enough, they will be revoked permanently. 

Rights won't be revoked. You are still entitled to free speech (and the right to NOT speak) if you are arrested for a crime. You will still have the right to a lawyer. 

In committing a crime, in which one knowingly breaks the law, yes, I suppose rights are then revoked. More or less, one agrees to the consequences. 

I hope I've corrected this fundamental misunderstanding. 

I would give you a reference, but for some reason all my google search turned up was trash websites and right wing Constitutional whack pieces. Interesting. 



quoting_mungo said:


> Most of the statistics I've mentioned are based on US or possibly (can't recall offhand) UK survey data. I have also lived in the US in the past, and wasn't any more afraid then, nor did I have cause to be. Most of my social interactions, which is how I come across nearly all this fucked-up crap, are with people somewhere in North America. I probably know significantly more about the US than you do of Sweden.
> 
> 
> Uh huh.
> ...



I feel that the statistics were rather unequivocal. The predominant skew towards crime and especially violent crime is male. There is, I think, an easy explanation for this - testosterone. 

In our society, there are other explanations as well, however - cultural machismo programming, glorification of violence, and capitalistic competition all foment a toxic mix of violence, in my opinion. 

I'm not sure what your quoted article that you wrote was supposed to prove. I get the impression that you're a capable, self reliant, and intelligent person. Therefore you are well equppped to avoid potentially dangerous situations, I would imagine. I think it's important not to compare other people to our own personal psyche. 



Lcs said:


> I'll admit that I was wrong when I said that the two words are synonymous, although I'll maintain that the way you wrote your post was distasteful. I won't take up any more space on this thread, after this post, to continue this exchange though, since I think I've made my case, and I suppose it's not really a big deal anyway.
> 
> To be clear though, I wasn't contesting your claims, I was instead questioning the conclusion and your way of thinking.



Yes, you were incorrect.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Nov 27, 2017)

BahgDaddy said:


> Rights won't be revoked. You are still entitled to free speech (and the right to NOT speak) if you are arrested for a crime. You will still have the right to a lawyer.


The US has capital punishment. That means the state reserves the right to revoke the most basic human right of all.



BahgDaddy said:


> I feel that the statistics were rather unequivocal. The predominant skew towards crime and especially violent crime is male. There is, I think, an easy explanation for this - testosterone.


Interestingly, it appears that there's a not insignificant correlation between increased _estrogen_ levels and aggression in both animals and e.g. human abusers of anabolic steroids. Testosterone correlates with competitiveness and dominance, but that does not by necessity need to mean violence. Again, the statistics need to control for other factors in order to say much. Since they mostly covered arrest and conviction records, disparities in societal reactions to violence from men vs women is one of those factors.



BahgDaddy said:


> I'm not sure what your quoted article that you wrote was supposed to prove. I get the impression that you're a capable, self reliant, and intelligent person. Therefore you are well equppped to avoid potentially dangerous situations, I would imagine. I think it's important not to compare other people to our own personal psyche.


If your hypothesis that victimization inevitably breeds victimization was true, arguably my story should not have ended where it did, as the situations described are very much the kind of thing that get waved around as examples of how women get coerced into sex (according to the people doing the waving, as a form of rape). While I am eloquent and possibly intelligent, I am also pretty soft-spoken and shy, and abhor confrontation (as previously mentioned, I have an anxiety disorder). I have willingly and without particular worry put myself in situations which other women in my life deemed "dangerous" on numerous occassions. I _could_ avoid pedestrian underpasses after dark, or refrain from going on walks alone at stupid hours of the night/morning, but I don't. Because I realize that fearing them without specific reason to believe they pose a danger is irrational in a way that I _can_ choose to not let myself worry about.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Nov 27, 2017)

quoting_mungo said:


> The US has capital punishment. That means the state reserves the right to revoke the most basic human right of all.
> 
> 
> Interestingly, it appears that there's a not insignificant correlation between increased _estrogen_ levels and aggression in both animals and e.g. human abusers of anabolic steroids. Testosterone correlates with competitiveness and dominance, but that does not by necessity need to mean violence. Again, the statistics need to control for other factors in order to say much. Since they mostly covered arrest and conviction records, disparities in societal reactions to violence from men vs women is one of those factors.
> ...



Yeah, I correct myself from my previous statement regarding testosterone. It's probably not true that it leads to [violence]. But certainly it's an accomplish that encourages social dominance. 

www.scientificamerican.com: Strange but True: Testosterone Alone Does Not Cause Violence



> For example: regardless of their gender, the most violent prisoners have higher levels of testosterone than their less violent peers. Yet scientists hypothesize that this violence is just one manifestation of the much more biologically and reproductively salient goal of dominance.



And also at this point I'd like to point out my favorite example of a truly egalitarian society - in fact, healthy socially in many ways that even the most advanced nations struggle with. 

Batek people - Wikipedia

This article probably doesn't go in depth into their egalitarianism. These are probably one of the few totally egalitarian societies in existence. The leader of the tribe is female, for instance, but I memory serves men can serve as well. There very little delineation. Men will weave clothing and rugs and baskets and women will hunt, although those are two areas when we're probably the most gender centric aspects of the culture. Ie, the men usually do the hunting, but the fact remains that there is no social stigma surrounding a woman hunting if she chooses. 

Hunger gatherer societies were usually egalitarian. We like to think modern society has come up with all these great social advances. Nope, sorry! After the agricultural revolution came about, the gender discrepancy became a thing. Before that there's little to suggest that tribes tended to be patriarchal. Some were, some were also matriarchal. 

In Rome, gender equality and feminism were coming about. So even in that respect we're still repeating history. Apparently, agrarian society encourages patriarchy. Perhaps it is because women had to reproduce children in order to generate farm hands. There are several running theories on that matter. 

Anyhow, good discussion. I don't consider it to be a problem to talk about these matters. I'm learning stuff, learning how other people think about the modern feminist is movement, and I've gotten to engage in some interesting conversation. Hopefully I've contributed some novel facts as well.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Nov 27, 2017)

BahgDaddy said:


> Men will weave clothing and rugs and baskets and women will hunt, although those are two areas when we're probably the most gender centric aspects of the culture. Ie, the men usually do the hunting, but the fact remains that there is no social stigma surrounding a woman hunting if she chooses.


This is absolutely the type of egalitarianism that is my ideal; I find it troubling when/if progress in areas of equality comes at the expense of disparaging people who _do_ feel comfortable in the traditional gender roles. If Maude feels happy and fulfilled being a homemaker while Benjamin brings home the bacon, more power to her! It is also, I suspect, the sort of society that would be most open and comfortable to trans and nonbinary individuals. Which in itself is a good thing.


----------



## JustSomeDude84 (Nov 27, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> http://www.nocirc.org/touch-test/bju_6685.pdf
> www.fathermag.com: Genital Mutilation American Style - Circumcision
> 
> Some Jews, Muslims and some Americans circumcise mutilate their kids. 97% of the male infant population is NOT circumcised. In a decent amount of countries it's illegal, regardless of your religious beliefs.
> ...


These are still fairly biased sources, even if they have merit to them it is always important to understand that issues like these are best left to peer-reviewed commentary, research articles, and governing bodies (federal research and health institutes, biomedical journals, etc.) Organizations are not inherently direct sources, and most utilize information to push a specific agenda instead of as a neutral body of publication.

There is plenty of interesting research into the function of foreskin. Immunology has a few interesting topics of note: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov: Foreskin T cell subsets differ substantially from blood with respect to HIV co-receptor expression, inflammatory profile and memory status


----------



## Yakamaru (Nov 27, 2017)

JustSomeDude84 said:


> These are still fairly biased sources, even if they have merit to them it is always important to understand that issues like these are best left to peer-reviewed commentary, research articles, and governing bodies (federal research and health institutes, biomedical journals, etc.) Organizations are not inherently direct sources, and most utilize information to push a specific agenda instead of as a neutral body of publication.
> 
> There is plenty of interesting research into the function of foreskin. Immunology has a few interesting topics of note: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov: Foreskin T cell subsets differ substantially from blood with respect to HIV co-receptor expression, inflammatory profile and memory status


*Potential* reduced risks. Even the *potential* is miniscule. America is the only developed country that still practice circumcision, and the rates are dropping rapidly. There's a reason only in America it's still being practiced at a more mainstream level, and at an expontentially lower rate.
Circumcision does not affect HIV in U.S. men -- Sott.net
Circumcision does not affect women's STD risk | 2007-11-01 | AHC Media: Continuing Medical Education Publishing
Prevalence of circumcision - Wikipedia

The same way I am against female genital mutilation, I am against male genital mutilation. The foreskin is a fully functional and natural part of the penis. Feel free to go to Youtube and search up "Infant circumcision" and tell me that shit should be legal with the exception of health issues. Doesn't matter if you apply local anesthesia. It's still mutilation even if it's for health issues.
www.noharmm.org: The Foreskin is Necessary
*"Routine circumcision of babies in the United States did not begin until the Cold War era. Circumcision is almost unheard of in Europe, Southern America, and non-Muslim Asia. In fact, only 10 to 15 percent of men throughout the world are circumcised." *

"Western countries have no tradition of circumcision. In antiquity, the expansion of the Greek and Roman Empires brought Westerners into contact with the peoples of the Middle East, some of whom marked their children with circumcision and other sexual mutilations. To protect these children, the Greeks and Romans passed laws forbidding circumcision.1 Over the centuries, the Catholic Church has passed many similar laws.2,3 The traditional Western response to circumcision has been revulsion and indignation."

I am not interested in watching Americans justify the mutilation of children because they themselves have been mutilated and doesn't understand what they've lost. If people were for female genital mutilation people would froth at the mouth.

This thread is about double standards. I had no idea we went into the area of circumcision. This thread is not for this topic.


----------



## Yakamaru (Nov 27, 2017)

To get the thread back on topic:


----------



## JustSomeDude84 (Nov 27, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> *Potential* reduced risks. Even the *potential* is miniscule. America is the only developed country that still practice circumcision, and the rates are dropping rapidly. There's a reason only in America it's still being practiced at a more mainstream level, and at an expontentially lower rate.
> Circumcision does not affect HIV in U.S. men -- Sott.net
> Circumcision does not affect women's STD risk | 2007-11-01 | AHC Media: Continuing Medical Education Publishing
> Prevalence of circumcision - Wikipedia
> ...


I'm glad you've read the pubmed articles I've been providing, since those are the only sources that have been relevant to this discussion so far. I'm largely providing those research articles so that you understand what to look for in them, and reading them in context is something that I think you've got down. I still don't understand why you keep linking random websites, though. You don't need to rely on them, suggesting that "potential" was an emphasis that needed addressing is far more important than a bunch of junk websites that you've found on Google.

I'm not actually arguing on a stance here, I just like good sources.


Yakamaru said:


> To get the thread back on topic:


And why does everything have to revolve around this tug-of-war thing? Isn't it a bit childish?


----------



## JustSomeDude84 (Nov 27, 2017)

quoting_mungo said:


> Please find a way to participate in this discussion without sniping at each other, people. It's possible to disagree without being hostile about it.
> 
> 
> Be glad you're not involved in a custody dispute, then, because those are stacked against men.
> ...


I actually don't remember when I registered for selective service. I did a lookup, and apparently I registered in 2011? Weird.


----------



## Saylor (Nov 27, 2017)

Is this a circumcision thread? Because I clearly didn’t mention anything about circumcision in my original post... I don’t mind if you guys want to talk about this topic, but please start your own thread if that’s what you want to discuss. Honestly, I find it irrelevant to what I addressed in my original post. 

Back on topic: 

Today, I was reading an article written by a journalist who said: “I understand that not all men are bad people and I understand that there are some good men in the world. However, I feel no shame in falsely accusing them with intention to tarnish their reputation, as I believe that all men need to be punished collectively for the acts of what only a few men do wrong.” 

Does that not sound like social injustice to anyone else? I mean, granted that there are some circumstances in which you do need to be weary of those you surround yourself with, but I don’t believe it’s fair or right to accuse *all* men of being sexual predators and that every man needs to be demonized based on the fact that he was born as a man. He didn’t have a choice to be who he was. He could have never even had any interest in women at all, yet he’s the victim of this ideology just because of how this framework of a belief is set up. 

It’s also necessary that I point out how hypocritical it is because of how similar it is to racism. No, they’re not racist. But, here’s my point: back in the days when it was common to be racist, the colonial Europeans viewed all who were not white as “uncivilized savages who were the lowest lifeforms in the human race” and because of their beliefs, they thought that the nonwhites deserved the injustice of slavery as punishment for not being white. Nowadays, you cannot say anything against anyone of a different race because it’s commonly accepted to be wrong (which is great and something I strongly agree with). But, take race out of the picture and fill in the blank with something relating to someone’s sex, and you’ll see my problem because this seems to follow the wicked ideology of these crazed idealists. 

I believe that it is so bad to the point where it has become necessary to stop this ideology from doing any further damage. I’m not against supporting the preservation of the rights of the people, however it should not come at the expense of others. Like a wise man once told me: “Two wrongs do not make a right.”


----------



## ChromaticRabbit (Nov 27, 2017)

Saylor said:


> I don’t believe it’s fair or right to accuse *all* men of being sexual predators and that every man needs to be demonized based on the fact that he was born as a man.


Nobody credible disagrees with this. If this individual's statement is what you're pointing to, it's not a standard, it's someone saying something completely unreasonable on their own. You don't get to make hay with this.



> ...this seems to follow the wicked ideology of these crazed idealists... I believe that it is so bad to the point where it has become necessary to stop this ideology from doing any further damage.


What "ideology," exactly? Gender equality? That's part of liberalism, a political philosophy, not an ideology. What "damage?' Where's the double standard?


----------



## JustSomeDude84 (Nov 27, 2017)

Saylor said:


> Is this a circumcision thread? Because I clearly didn’t mention anything about circumcision in my original post... I don’t mind if you guys want to talk about this topic, but please start your own thread if that’s what you want to discuss. Honestly, I find it irrelevant to what I addressed in my original post.
> 
> Back on topic:
> 
> ...


Yes, your topic was about double standards, then it devolved into foreskin talk and memes about feminism. Sorry about that.


----------



## Yakamaru (Nov 27, 2017)

Saylor said:


> Is this a circumcision thread? Because I clearly didn’t mention anything about circumcision in my original post... I don’t mind if you guys want to talk about this topic, but please start your own thread if that’s what you want to discuss. Honestly, I find it irrelevant to what I addressed in my original post.
> 
> Back on topic:
> 
> ...


I have the perfect video on this topic:





Feminism have devolved into a triggered culture.


----------



## Saylor (Nov 27, 2017)

ChromaticRabbit said:


> Nobody credible disagrees with this. If this individual's statement is what you're pointing to, it's not a standard, it's someone saying something completely unreasonable on their own. You don't get to make hay with this.
> 
> 
> What ideology exactly? Gender equality? What damage? Where's the double standard?



The double standard was in how we approach the ethical treatment of others. It goes along the lines of “You’re like me and I’ll treat you right. You’re not like me, so I’ll treat you like shit, but I expect you to treat me like royalty. If you don’t treat me like royalty, I’ll have you arrested for something you never did just because I can get away with falsely accusing you of something you didn’t do.” It’s that mindset which I believe is poisoning our culture collectively as members of the human race. 

Go look it up on the internet. Do a google search on something along those lines and you will find that your search results will come up quite clearly that it’s more than just one person who believes in a radical ideology such as this.

 My intent with that post was to highlight it so something can be done before it gets out of hand and becomes a more widespread issue with ideology because it’s unethical and there are so many people who are prone to believing everything they see on the internet to be fact.


----------



## ChromaticRabbit (Nov 27, 2017)

Saylor said:


> The double standard was in how we approach the ethical treatment of others ...If you don’t treat me like royalty, I’ll have you arrested for something you never did just because I can get away with falsely accusing you of something you didn’t do.” It’s that mindset which I believe is poisoning our culture collectively as members of the human race.  ...  more than just one person who believes in a radical ideology such as this.
> 
> My intent with that post was to highlight it so something can be done before it gets out of hand and becomes a more widespread issue with ideology...


Ethical? You mean like professional ethics? What are you talking about? Nobody credible does those things, there is no gender-associated movement about doing those things. If you think this is a problem, you're quite confused. I don't see any standard, much less a double standard, in anything there that you're talking about because nobody thinks those things you describe are reasonable things to do or say.

You're dancing with a straw man of your own construction, but it has nothing to do with any standard of behavior or virtue that I know. There's no double standard, everyone credible already thinks that prejudice is reprehensible.


----------



## Saylor (Nov 27, 2017)

Did I say it was from a credible source? No. I know for a fact that half of the writers on the internet are not credible sources of information. Do people still believe every single word of it? Yes. These writers have a spreading audience made up of hundreds of thousands of people who believe in this ideology. Some are first time readers, others are long time followers. And that’s where the problem lies in, it’s that people believe in non credible articles written by non credible writers who state a radical ideology which seems to be spreading. Ignoring it will only allow this problem to get worse in my opinion because it’s allowing them to believe in something that is untrue rather than being surrounded by the truth which if they know, would lead them to disagree with this ideology in the first place.


----------



## ChromaticRabbit (Nov 27, 2017)

Saylor said:


> Did I say it was from a credible source? No. I know for a fact that half of the writers on the internet are not credible sources of information. Do people still believe every single word of it? Yes... believe in something that is untrue rather than being surrounded by the truth


People say and believe the darnedest things on the Internet, but it doesn't mean much if it isn't credible. There's no such movement, or if there is, give us a link to its wikipedia page or something. What is untrue here? Nobody believes you can make false statements to authority, there's even laws against it.


----------



## JustSomeDude84 (Nov 27, 2017)

Saylor said:


> The double standard was in how we approach the ethical treatment of others. It goes along the lines of “You’re like me and I’ll treat you right. You’re not like me, so I’ll treat you like shit, but I expect you to treat me like royalty. If you don’t treat me like royalty, I’ll have you arrested for something you never did just because I can get away with falsely accusing you of something you didn’t do.” It’s that mindset which I believe is poisoning our culture collectively as members of the human race.
> 
> Go look it up on the internet. Do a google search on something along those lines and you will find that your search results will come up quite clearly that it’s more than just one person who believes in a radical ideology such as this.
> 
> My intent with that post was to highlight it so something can be done before it gets out of hand and becomes a more widespread issue with ideology because it’s unethical and there are so many people who are prone to believing everything they see on the internet to be fact.


It's definitely been an "us vs. them" mentality as of late. A lot of it has to do with frustration on all ideological fronts, and radical attitudes are becoming exceedingly obvious. I don't think anything can be done about it, that's a bit of an impossible task to try and soothe the tensions that have been feeding each other in an endless cycle of political mud-slinging. The best that can be done about it is to let it burn out on its own.

I've noticed that every time this topic is brought up, it just leads to trashed and locked threads. Methinks this is a bad topic for this forum. I mean, it's fine if you want to keep making these, but clearly nobody here is willing to have a quiet discussion without being loud (is that the right way to describe it?).


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Nov 27, 2017)

I get what Saylor is saying.  

Most people don't understand to look at more than one source, and as soon as they do, they parrot the falsehood like a record.  It just snowballs from there.


----------



## ChromaticRabbit (Nov 27, 2017)

JustSomeDude84 said:


> It's definitely been an "us vs. them" mentality as of late.


If there is, no wonder. Look at all the disgusting uncivil political behavior on display, the attacks on gender equity and progress. That's not "us vs them" that's "holy crap, hold on for your lives, the psycho exploitative male beast-clown cult has come and now they're issuing threats, being degrading, and making demands!"

That's not normal, acceptable, or tolerable. It's a wild affront, objectively, what's been and being done. It's an assault on modernity, it's a violation, it's _sick_.


----------



## JustSomeDude84 (Nov 27, 2017)

ChromaticRabbit said:


> If there is, no wonder. Look at all the disgusting uncivil political behavior on display, the attacks on gender equity and progress. That's not "us vs them" that's "holy crap, hold on for your lives, the psycho exploitative male beast-clown cult has come and now they're issuing threats, being degrading, and making demands!"


The best way to deal with that is to be a better example, and certainly a more professional example, of civil behavior.


----------



## ChromaticRabbit (Nov 27, 2017)

JustSomeDude84 said:


> The best way to deal with that is to be a better example, and certainly a more professional example, of civil behavior.


That's like saying that a woman who was raped should have dressed different and must have brought it down upon herself. No, it has nothing to do with the victims, we can't blame them, they're doing nothing whatsoever wrong. People will say anything on the Internet, it has nothing to do with recognized credible movements, you can't make hay with it, it's not an excuse to take a bowel movement on gender equity, and it's not a double standard to expect equality and a modicum of civility and respect when seeking that long-overdue progress here in the United States, where it has been withheld by male cultists in a war on culture and society that's lasted decades now and they think it's time to intensify because they've lost.


----------



## JustSomeDude84 (Nov 27, 2017)

ChromaticRabbit said:


> That's like saying a women who was raped should have dressed different. No, it has nothing to do with the victims, we can't blame them, they're doing nothing whatsoever wrong.


Civil as in calm and organized. Martin Luther King Jr. did great things through organized and civil demonstrations. It wasn't easy.


----------



## ChromaticRabbit (Nov 27, 2017)

JustSomeDude84 said:


> Civil as in calm and organized. Martin Luther King Jr. did great things through organized and civil demonstrations. It wasn't easy.


Dude. It's like you're accusing the people defending gender equity of not being the civil ones, and yet look at this thread and then look at the alt-Right and Trumpism and just _try_ to justify yourself to the world. Civil isn't about calm, it's about civilization and the things that go into making social plurality work. It's about how liberty and equality are the rules we agree to so that we can all live together in peace and without being spiritually enslaved to exploitative male cultists, bullied by tyrants, or exploited by oligarchs and corporations.


----------



## JustSomeDude84 (Nov 27, 2017)

ChromaticRabbit said:


> Dude. It's like you're accusing the people defending gender equity of not being the civil ones, and yet look at this thread and justify yourself to the world.


I'm accusing only you, here. I can't speak for what others do with their time on a forum.


----------



## ChromaticRabbit (Nov 27, 2017)

JustSomeDude84 said:


> I'm accusing only you, here. I can't speak for what others do with their time on a forum.


Wait, you were trying to accuse _me_ of something? What?!


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Nov 27, 2017)

Ok, time out peoples.  

Take a few minutes to relax a bit, no earth-shattering revelations will come of it.


----------



## JustSomeDude84 (Nov 27, 2017)

ChromaticRabbit said:


> Wait, you were trying to accuse _me_ of something? What?!


You make huge logical extremes, far outside the purview of this forum. I might say that a few other members do the same thing, but it's clear to me that the reason these threads get locked is because a few key members are absolutely unrestrained.

I have watched this time and time again. Am I supposed to ignore these terrible threads that drown out any casual, relatable topics here?


----------



## ChromaticRabbit (Nov 27, 2017)

JustSomeDude84 said:


> You make huge logical extremes, far outside the purview of this forum. I might say that a few other members do the same thing, but it's clear to me that the reason these threads get locked is because a few key members are absolutely unrestrained.


It's not actually up to you what the purview of these forums are. Logical extremes? For example...?

Isn't it a double standard to complain when people defend movements wrongfully disparaged by you? Do you hold yoruself as inscrutable, and am I "extreme" for trying anyway as eloquently as I know how?



> Am I supposed to ignore these terrible threads that drown out any casual, relatable topics here?


That might be the mature thing to do. There are plenty of threads here I don't touch, for reasons.


----------



## Saylor (Nov 27, 2017)

Take this as an example of one: I'm Done Pretending Men Are Safe (Even My Sons) - Role Reboot

Here’s another: #killallmen hashtag on Twitter (read all the latest tweets)

And another: www.google.com: Yes, I Am A Feminist, And I Hate Men

Read between the lines, and you can tell something is going on. I know that right now, it’s not so much of a big issue as it doesn’t affect everyone. But, all radical movements start off small and then work their way up to something big. 

That’s how Hitler influenced an entire country to hate Jewish people. He didn’t just start off as some great powerful leader who hated Jews. He influenced people one by one which then spread throughout an entire country like a virus. 

Like I said earlier, I think something needs to be done to stop this from spreading and becoming a problem which we all have to live with. It’s unethical based on the rights based moral theories, virtue ethics, and a little bit along the lines of Immanuel Kant’s moral theories as to “not treat someone as merely a means to an end” if you can tie it in with reproduction.


----------



## JustSomeDude84 (Nov 27, 2017)

ChromaticRabbit said:


> It's not actually up to you what the purview of these forums are. Logical extremes? For example...?
> 
> Isn't it a double standard to complain when people defend movements wrongfully disparaged by you? Are you inscrutable, and I'm "extreme?"


Everything you say is correct, I will never argue with you again. I'm probably done posting, for an indeterminate period.

I'm done with this.


----------



## ChromaticRabbit (Nov 27, 2017)

Saylor said:


> Take this as an example of one: (someone's opinion) Here’s another: (someone's opinion) And another: (someone's opinion)
> 
> Read between the lines, and you can tell something is going on... That’s how Hitler influenced an entire country to hate Jewish people... influenced people one by one which then spread throughout an entire country like a virus ... something needs to be done to stop this from spreading and becoming a problem which we all have to live with.



You appear exposed.  Do you not apprehend how _impossibly kooky_ the stated reasoning and conclusions there seem? I desperately hope they're not your own, just something you're pasting from a demagogue. Stuff like this is poison, friend.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Nov 27, 2017)

Boy.. @ChromaticRabbit sure loves to be in a heated conversation


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Nov 27, 2017)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> Boy.. @ChromaticRabbit sure loves to be in a heated conversation



They do, but they've been so sociable lately, that it offsets much better than before.


----------



## Saylor (Nov 27, 2017)

ChromaticRabbit said:


> You are exposed.  Do you not comprehend how _impossibly_ kooky your reasoning and conclusions there are? I desperately hope they're not your own, just something you're parroting from a demagogue. Stuff like this is poison, friend.


Look, I’m just pointing out an issue whether you want to admit it’s an issue or not is completely up to you. I’m not against someone having an opinion, but you do need to understand what is right and what is wrong. My view is that it is completely wrong to place blame on *all* men just because of some crooked ideology, some bad men, and then going around, saying “all men should die” or “all men are pigs” or just about anything along those lines. By stating anything along those lines, you’re saying that we should kill people and judge them, and do great acts of injustice against someone who is completely innocent of doing anything wrong. There are good people in the world and I’m not afraid to stand up to defend the good people who do not deserve such scrutiny just because of the fact they are men. I noticed a trend of those who are not afraid to make these good people victims of their hatred and I despise them for it.


----------



## ChromaticRabbit (Nov 27, 2017)

Saylor said:


> My view is that it is completely wrong to place blame on *all* men


Nobody credible or decent disagrees with this. There's no controversy here. You're much ado about nothing.


----------



## ellaerna (Nov 27, 2017)

Saylor said:


> That’s how Hitler influenced an entire country to hate Jewish people. He didn’t just start off as some great powerful leader who hated Jews. He influenced people one by one which then spread throughout an entire country like a virus.


I'm sorry, but






All joking aside, though, I would appreciate a source for the journal quote you posted. It's such a brazen comment, I feel like there is either you're paraphrasing or there's some context missing. And if not, then I'd like to know the person who would make such a claim and the journal that would willingly publish it.

Also, I feel like just as you take exception to "feminists" painting all men with broad strokes, you are doing the same to them. You may have skipped over my initial post with all the other hullabaloo going on, but I noted there that your original post was ranty at best. Just as you say feminists are labeling all men as rapists, you're labeling all feminists as entitled asshats who want dominion over men. Each story is of some faceless feminist foe who wants to kill all men while also being worshipped by the survivors, some strawwoman come to press charges and take names.

Yes, there are bad people who shout loudly from under the feminism umbrella, and no, I'm not saying they are right, but if you want to talk about hypocrisy I can't help but point out your own.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Nov 28, 2017)

Some of you could do to calm down a little. Pretty sure you know who you are.

There is a journalist named Katarina Wennstam who has written two books on the social and judical climate surrounding rape in Sweden, and more recently, one book on slut-shaming. After reading the first two I had immense respect for her, as she was quite possibly the first person I'd encountered to address the skewed nature of the rape culture discourse that was going around at the time. If you suggest for a moment that men can't help themselves around women in short skirts, you are not only victim-blaming, but also profoundly insulting the perpetrators along with the rest of their sex. There are no winners when you bring out those arguments. It was a very welcome breath of fresh air to see someone speak from a perspective that wasn't based on collective male responsibility for the actions of a few.

The third... seems to have been too close to home for her. Her tone changes to something far less egalitarian, and it troubles me, at least, to see it argued that men are to blame for women slut-shaming other women. The people to blame for bad behavior are the people engaging in that behavior, no one else. I still respect her as a journalist, but I get the impression this book might not have been one she should have written alone, if at all.

But all of the books do manage to touch on a number of issues and inequalities suffered by either sex. Acknowledging that "unfair" goes both ways is just about the best first step anyone can take.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Nov 28, 2017)

-..Legacy..- said:


> They do, but they've been so sociable lately, that it offsets much better than before.



Engaging in conversation and rigorous debate is how we foment an orderly and structured society. Organizations such as the military are excellent at creating machines, and machines out of people. Debate is not a good thing - following a leader and orders is a good thing. There is no room, on the battlefield, to equivocate about the ethical quandary between _jus ad bellum _and _jus in bello. 
_
And in broader society, disagreements are seen as bad. Loyalty is the primary virtue - loyalty to something; God, country, fellow man. In actuality loyalty to persons is faulty and flawed. Loyalty to _principles _is far superior to loyalty to any one person. Consequently, we view people who argue as socially unacceptable. In actuality if we knew better how to argue, provide clear points, and learn about each other, we learn and grow as people. Just from this thread I've learned that some people, even people who are arguably feminists by definition, don't agree with certain aspects of modern feminism, and some people don't agree with circumcision, etc. And so we talk about these issues and we all hopefully learn something.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Nov 28, 2017)

ellaerna said:


> I'm sorry, but
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There are a wide variety of feminists who are quite ethical and equitable in their beliefs and actions. But there are also some who are apparently very obnoxious and have some rather questionable ethics, so I think people are reading Twitter and brushing the rest if the feminist movement with those people. Any feminists who say all men should die and sperm should be stored in a giant sperm bank are clearly raving lunatics, yet they've come up several times in this thread. So that's an important distinction to make.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Nov 28, 2017)

BahgDaddy said:


> I think people are reading Twitter and brushing the rest if the feminist movement with those people


A question still exist if feminism is still needed in the US.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Nov 28, 2017)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> A question still exist if feminism is still needed in the US.



I think it's a narrow special interest. We need to look at the big picture and be learning to treat everyone as humans worthy of dignity and respect, regardless of sex, gender, race, economic status, and so on. The instant we resort to us-vs-them, we've lost.


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Nov 28, 2017)

BahgDaddy said:


> Engaging in conversation and rigorous debate is how we foment an orderly and structured society. Organizations such as the military are excellent at creating machines, and machines out of people. Debate is not a good thing - following a leader and orders is a good thing. There is no room, on the battlefield, to equivocate about the ethical quandary between _jus ad bellum _and _jus in bello.
> _
> And in broader society, disagreements are seen as bad. Loyalty is the primary virtue - loyalty to something; God, country, fellow man. In actuality loyalty to persons is faulty and flawed. Loyalty to _principles _is far superior to loyalty to any one person. Consequently, we view people who argue as socially unacceptable. In actuality if we knew better how to argue, provide clear points, and learn about each other, we learn and grow as people. Just from this thread I've learned that some people, even people who are arguably feminists by definition, don't agree with certain aspects of modern feminism, and some people don't agree with circumcision, etc. And so we talk about these issues and we all hopefully learn something.



That's an odd response for my observation, of simply noting that their discussions are easier to engage with now.  

You are correct, and I do agree with your post, except for the "just follow orders" part in combat.  We were more than allowed to decline an unlawful order.  We just don't have as much time to make distinctions, which is why we are unusually quick with taking in possibilities and outcomes from the current environment.  We are accountable for bad actions, which many aren't aware of.  That's why ROE exist.


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (Nov 28, 2017)

BahgDaddy said:


> You are wrong. If you commit a crime, rights still apply to you. Privileges don't. If you break the driving rules, they are revoked, and if you've broken them badly enough, they will be revoked permanently.
> 
> Rights won't be revoked. You are still entitled to free speech (and the right to NOT speak) if you are arrested for a crime. You will still have the right to a lawyer.
> 
> In committing a crime, in which one knowingly breaks the law, yes, I suppose rights are then revoked. More or less, one agrees to the consequences.


As I stated before, the revoking of rights is as the ruling authorities see fit. While it may not be conducive for most Western nations to impose the draconian measures more commonly used by totalitarian dictatorships, they still reserve the right to revoke yours if you fall out of line. Gag & restraining orders, search warrants and denial of services are soft examples of revocation of rights as condoned by authorities.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Nov 28, 2017)

ChapterAquila92 said:


> As I stated before, the revoking of rights is as the ruling authorities see fit. While it may not be conducive for most Western nations to impose the draconian measures more commonly used by totalitarian dictatorships, they still reserve the right to revoke yours if you fall out of line. Gag & restraining orders, search warrants and denial of services are soft examples of revocation of rights as condoned by authorities.



Sure, but when someone committed a crime, they infringed on someone else's right/s. Therein lies the problem, not the ostensibly draconian government.


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (Nov 28, 2017)

BahgDaddy said:


> Sure, but when someone committed a crime, they infringed on someone else's right/s.


Not necessarily. People have been legally persecuted by ruling authorities for far less.

Though in truth a rare thing in the West these days on account of the necessary laws largely being absent, even the mere accidental circumstance of your existence could be legally used as justification for your incarceration, deportation, denial of service, or even execution, as is the case in a large part of the world.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Nov 28, 2017)

ChapterAquila92 said:


> Not necessarily. People have been legally persecuted by ruling authorities for far less.
> 
> Though in truth a rare thing in the West these days on account of the necessary laws largely being absent, even the mere accidental circumstance of your existence could be legally used as justification for your incarceration, deportation, denial of service, or even execution, as is the case in a large part of the world.



Please be more specific. Where in the west, by which I assume you mean the developed world, are people being executed because of their "mere existence?"

In the US, rights are universal and apply to everyone equally. In practice, it's not perfect, but that the goal of the law. The UN Declaration of Human Rights is even more explicit in specifying what exactly are inalienable human rights, i.e. Principles which apply equally to all persons.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Nov 28, 2017)

slightly relevant or maybe not


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (Nov 29, 2017)

BahgDaddy said:


> Please be more specific. Where in the west, by which I assume you mean the developed world, are people being executed because of their "mere existence?"


I never framed my argument in such a manner.

I'll indulge you regardless in saying that, no, such extreme cases as you've specifically described do not _currently_ exist in the West to the best of my knowledge. At least, so long as the hypocritical bigots among the social justice movements don't have their way.


> In the US, rights are universal and apply to everyone equally. In practice, it's not perfect, but that the goal of the law. The UN Declaration of Human Rights is even more explicit in specifying what exactly are inalienable human rights, i.e. Principles which apply equally to all persons.


In principle, I agree on the basis of the idea of such abstract concepts being useful tools. Unfortunately, these same "inalienable" human rights you refer to are little more than a myth whose meaning and weight are backed by a fictitious authority figure (i.e. the UN) in the same manner that the Ten Commandments are backed by God (complete with its own sacred toilet paper, no less). To reiterate, the abstractions and the authorities that back them sell well to the masses not because they are necessarily true but because they are useful.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Nov 29, 2017)

ChapterAquila92 said:


> I never framed my argument in such a manner.
> 
> I'll indulge you regardless in saying that, no, such extreme cases as you've specifically described do not _currently_ exist in the West to the best of my knowledge. At least, so long as the hypocritical bigots among the social justice movements don't have their way.



You said:



> Though in truth a rare thing *in the West* these days on account of the necessary laws largely being absent, even *the mere accidental circumstance of your existence* could be legally used as justification for your incarceration, deportation, denial of service, or even *execution*, as is the case in a large part of the world.



What did you mean by this?



ChapterAquila92 said:


> In principle, I agree on the basis of the idea of such abstract concepts being useful tools. Unfortunately, these same "inalienable" human rights you refer to are little more than a myth whose meaning and weight are backed by a fictitious authority figure (i.e. the UN) in the same manner that the Ten Commandments are backed by God (complete with its own sacred toilet paper, no less). To reiterate, the abstractions and the authorities that back them sell well to the masses not because they are necessarily true but because they are useful.



On the contrary. These are not abstract concepts. The right to not be a slave, for instance, is in no way abstract. The UN is not really a _de facto _enforcement arm, but rather a goal for humanity. 

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

I find the language of the UN's Universal Declaration to be precise and clear, unlike the US Bill of Rights, which sometimes codifies rights for non-human entities such as guns.

The Ten Commandments aren't comparable to this because they're fiction.


----------



## 134 (Nov 29, 2017)

A lot of people today are very selfish and only think about how they can sell themselfes. Everyone wants to be the coolest, richest and most influencing person on facebook or twitter. To get to this point of not beeing yourself anymore to be the one who everyone listens to many people try to please everybody but the problem with this is that you just CAN'T be liked by everyone (that is what they thaught us at school) everyone has a different point of sight one loves nuclear energy the other one dislikes it and wishes people who like it cancer or something like that, you just can't like both when you try this you will be really fast revealed as a liar.
Since Facebook, Twitter and Instagramm more and more people try to be the coolest dude in their town they wear sports shoes, jogging clothes and drink protein shakes but are fat as f*** then they visit one of their favourite social network and pump up their ego by insulting other people or telling them how vital their lifestyle is and why the other should do this too. In today's society everybody wants to be famous and that is the problem! People can't get enough friends and collect tousands of friends on FB instead of spending time with people they really like! Once I had a friend, we met everyday, played soccer, chatted, built treehouses or deerstands for his dad (because he was a hunter). Then he (my friend) made himself a facebook account, I didn't make one because my parents tabooed it, and since then my friend just collected tousands of friends on FB, ran every farmer-child afterwards who had the biggest tractor. He never had time for me and when he called me he just needed help doing work. I always helped him in the hope that we will do some cool stuff again but I hoped too much. I congratulated him every birthday he had but he always forgot mine. Then I made myself a FB-account and added him to my friends list, I felt betrayed because he just made hundreds of posts how cool the farm from his "best" friend is. He always told me we can hang out together but he always had time when there was work to do. He told me how cool the partys were on this farm and asked me if I will help him set up the equipment and buy alcoholic beverages, I accepted because I thought he would invite me... Last year I told him to fu** off I'm not his retard who makes his work and always is too optimistic. (ok now I forgot what I wanted to point out but I think you will) Thanks for reading.


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (Nov 29, 2017)

BahgDaddy said:


> What did you mean by this?


Come now, you don't mean to tell me you don't know about state-sponsored ethnic cleansing, do you?

We live in a world where being from a different tribe is a death sentence, where being a woman reduces you to 2nd-class status at best, and where simply having a different opinion is enough to be incarcerated. It just happens that these things rarely happen if at all in the West, and those that do are so alien and surreal to the average 1st-Worlder that it may as well have happened on another world in their eyes.


> On the contrary. These are not abstract concepts. The right to not be a slave, for instance, is in no way abstract. The UN is not really a _de facto _enforcement arm, but rather a goal for humanity.
> 
> Universal Declaration of Human Rights
> 
> ...


I've heard this same argument before from fundamentalists so convinced that their beliefs are the One True Faith that they'd denounce every other belief as false. It truly is amazing how willing we are as a species to believe that which we prefer to be true rather than what evidence lies to the contrary.

Gods, nations, corporations, money, human rights... the truth is that _none_ of these are _physical entities_. They can certainly have physical _representations _(i.e. the Declaration you so graciously linked) but they themselves do not physically exist as anything other than fiction devised by humans as tools, not only to help us make sense of the world around us but also to cooperate with and coerce others.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Nov 29, 2017)

ChapterAquila92 said:


> Come now, you don't mean to tell me you don't know about state-sponsored ethnic cleansing, do you?
> 
> We live in a world where being from a different tribe is a death sentence, where being a woman reduces you to 2nd-class status at best, and where simply having a different opinion is enough to be incarcerated. It just happens that these things rarely happen if at all in the West, and those that do are so alien and surreal to the average 1st-Worlder that it may as well have happened on another world in their eyes.



Most opinions won't get you incarcerated in the US, nor should they in Canada, either. However you've got a slightly lower tolerance for free speech, which is both good and bad. 



ChapterAquila92 said:


> I've heard this same argument before from fundamentalists so convinced that their beliefs are the One True Faith that they'd denounce every other belief as false. It truly is amazing how willing we are as a species to believe that which we prefer to be true rather than what evidence lies to the contrary.
> 
> Gods, nations, corporations, money, human rights... the truth is that _none_ of these are _physical entities_. They can certainly have physical _representations _(i.e. the Declaration you so graciously linked) but they themselves do not physically exist as anything other than fiction devised by humans as tools, not only to help us make sense of the world around us but also to cooperate with and coerce others.



I'm not a fundamentalist, because I'm always willing to accept other points of view. If you have a belief system that is superior to human civil rights and liberal democracy, I'd like to hear about it. But I'm not a moral relativist, and of course these are not physical entities. Saying that they are not physical entities, however, is like saying that water is wet - in other words, anyone with a grasp of basic linguitistics will understand that. They still effect the objective world, however.


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (Nov 29, 2017)

BahgDaddy said:


> I'm not a fundamentalist, because I'm always willing to accept other points of view.


I never called you one. I'm just saying that it's the same rhetoric used by others to justify their own claims of moral superiority.





> If you have a belief system that is superior to human civil rights and liberal democracy, I'd like to hear about it.


If current projections are to be believed, humanist religions as a whole (liberalism, socialism, and evolutionary humanism alike) are going to be competing with information-based posthumanist religions in the near future. I'm personally opting for the evolutionary humanist's solution to the problem as a techno-humanist, insofar as liberal democracy is unable to come up with a solution for its current tenets becoming undermined by advances in neuroscience.





> But I'm not a moral relativist, and of course these are not physical entities. Saying that they are not physical entities, however, is like saying that water is wet - in other words, anyone with a grasp of basic linguistics will understand that.


Then answer me this: how can you claim that human rights are not abstract concepts while simultaneously acknowledging that they are not physical entities?


> They still affect the objective world, however.


Inter-subjective is the term to use here, because all of it is a case of "clap your hands if you believe." Imaginary things can only have power when we believe that they have power, and as a social species we're inclined to believe such things, if not because we find them useful then because there are others who do. The rest is a matter of self-delusion.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Nov 29, 2017)

ChapterAquila92 said:


> I never called you one. I'm just saying that it's the same rhetoric used by others to justify their own claims of moral superiority.



Everyone attempts to justify their own moral superiority. We all believe that what we currently believe is the pinnacle of thought, naturally. Of course we should try to temper that line of thinking and remain open minded. So I reject your claim here - I think you should interact with some alt-righters to find true ideologies. Further, "fundamentalist" is usually a term used on fundie Christians, which I am also not.



ChapterAquila92 said:


> If current projections are to be believed, humanist religions as a whole (liberalism, socialism, and evolutionary humanism alike) are going to be competing with information-based posthumanist religions in the near future. I'm personally opting for the evolutionary humanist's solution to the problem as a techno-humanist, insofar as liberal democracy is unable to come up with a solution for its current tenets becoming undermined by advances in neuroscience.



I reject the notion that technology will solve ethical quandaries. In fact, it seems to create its own. Case in point - if we can make genetic superhuman, should we? If can create immortal humans, should we? Who gets that technology and who doesn't?



ChapterAquila92 said:


> Then answer me this: how can you claim that human rights are not abstract concepts while simultaneously acknowledging that they are not physical entities?



I would call them concrete principles to avoid answering your dichotomous (either-or) question. They, however, are physical entities in that we can choose to make them so. Christian ideology has, for instance, resulted in numerous physical texts, organizations, political arms, and temples. 



ChapterAquila92 said:


> Inter-subjective is the term to use here, because all of it is a case of "clap your hands if you believe." Imaginary things can only have power when we believe that they have power, and as a social species we're inclined to believe such things, if not because we find them useful then because there are others who do. The rest is a matter of self-delusion.



Self delusion is great, I use it all the time.


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (Nov 30, 2017)

BahgDaddy said:


> Everyone attempts to justify their own moral superiority. We all believe that what we currently believe is the pinnacle of thought, naturally. Of course we should try to temper that line of thinking and remain open minded. So I reject your claim here - I think you should interact with some alt-righters to find true ideologies. Further, "fundamentalist" is usually a term used on fundie Christians, which I am also not.


Whatever floats your boat. I don't see anything new to be gleaned by interacting with such people that I can't already piece together from a distance, however, and not least of all with people readily giving up their privacy by opening themselves up to the world through social media.


> I reject the notion that technology will solve ethical quandaries. In fact, it seems to create its own. Case in point - if we can make genetic superhuman, should we? If can create immortal humans, should we? Who gets that technology and who doesn't?


I sympathize - I'm equally not satisfied with the idea of doing things solely for the sake of doing those things - but I disagree in principle. Sapiens such as ourselves are simply not cut out for the modern world, and we need to be able to keep up with the rate of our technological advance somehow, or else look to our species' retirement. It's regrettably understandable that people fear being made obsolete, but often that tends to be a myopic affair where people aren't planning ahead.

I've gone into detail elsewhere as to where I stand regarding transhumanism. Simply put however, where I stand on the issue is that if a piece of technology can reduce or eliminate human suffering in some way, to argue that we shouldn't use it out of some moral high ground would be both ironically immoral and ultimately inhumane.


> I would call them concrete principles to avoid answering your dichotomous (either-or) question. They, however, are physical entities in that we can choose to make them so. Christian ideology has, for instance, resulted in numerous physical texts, organizations, political arms, and temples.


Again, a representation of an entity is not the entity itself. If you were to destroy all of the churches, bibles, icons and Christians in the world, Christianity would still live on so long as Christianity is believed, at behest of some authority, to have existed. You can similarly burn all the copies and variations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and kill everyone who believes in its superhuman authority to no avail, so long as human rights are believed to exist.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Nov 30, 2017)

ChapterAquila92 said:


> Whatever floats your boat. I don't see anything new to be gleaned by interacting with such people that I can't already piece together from a distance, however, and not least of all with people readily giving up their privacy by opening themselves up to the world through social media.
> 
> I sympathize - I'm equally not satisfied with the idea of doing things solely for the sake of doing those things - but I disagree in principle. Sapiens such as ourselves are simply not cut out for the modern world, and we need to be able to keep up with the rate of our technological advance somehow, or else look to our species' retirement. It's regrettably understandable that people fear being made obsolete, but often that tends to be a myopic affair where people aren't planning ahead.
> 
> ...



Paragraph ref number:
1. I have interacted with the alt-right for quite some time. The illogic and indoctrination is incredible. Their minds are downright scary, but also quite simplistic. 

2. Eh. I don't look forward for a world where technology is more advanced than we are. Why strive for such a future? Why are we so intent on replacing ourselves, creating our own gods?

3. I agree partially. Technology that improves human lives always has an almost equivalent reciprocal evil. We could go back to a 10 million citizen hunter gatherer society and solve nearly every problem in the world. Yay? Who'd like to run the extermination camps? So that's not happening for obvious reasons - unless of course we destroy ourselves, which seems incredibly likely. 

For instance, new tech almost always benefits the developed world first, and then trickles down to the undeveloped world. So essentially what ultra super tech will do is create an increasingly sophisticated class of super humans while an entire segment of the population flounders and dies. 

This is why your can't separate transhumanism from civil rights. 

4. Yes, yes, again, a most obvious point I would think.


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (Nov 30, 2017)

BahgDaddy said:


> Paragraph ref number:
> 1. I have interacted with the alt-right for quite some time. The illogic and indoctrination is incredible. Their minds are downright scary, but also quite simplistic.


Small minds are easily filled with faith, but then again anyone can fall into the trap of cult mentality out of a desire for belonging. Nothing new to see here.


> 2. Eh. I don't look forward for a world where technology is more advanced than we are. Why strive for such a future? Why are we so intent on replacing ourselves, creating our own gods?


Why strive for any future at all?

The way I see it, either you make your own future, or others will impress their own on you. If the future you're given is not to your liking, do something about it or forever rest your peace.


> 3. I agree partially. Technology that improves human lives always has an almost equivalent reciprocal evil. We could go back to a 10 million citizen hunter gatherer society and solve nearly every problem in the world. Yay? Who'd like to run the extermination camps? So that's not happening for obvious reasons - unless of course we destroy ourselves, which seems incredibly likely.


The Catch-22 of civilization for you. It sucks to be the farmer who's breaking his back in the fields in order to feed everyone, but the flip side is that he's able to more consistently gather far more food than an army of foragers in the same amount of space and time.


> For instance, new tech almost always benefits the developed world first, and then trickles down to the undeveloped world. So essentially what ultra super tech will do is create an increasingly sophisticated class of super humans while an entire segment of the population flounders and dies.


Either that or shun the outside world and fade into irrelevance like the Amish or the North Sentinelese. It's hardly beyond me that there will similarly also be communities of bio-conservatives who flat-out reject augmentation, but when morphological freedom is universal it really doesn't matter what they do with their bodies, and most people under that circumstance aren't going to see much of an advantage in remaining un-augmented if they choose to be part of the wider world.

Either way, the problem isn't that there is a widening technological gap between the rich and the poor - that's an unfortunate symptom of it - but that the current socio-economic and political systems are not adapting fast enough to handle the impact that the technology is having on everyday life.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Dec 1, 2017)

ChapterAquila92 said:


> Small minds are easily filled with faith, but then again anyone can fall into the trap of cult mentality out of a desire for belonging. Nothing new to see here.



Speak for yourself, I have faith in my ethical principles and in the common goodness every person is capable of. I also see the great evil we're capable of, of course, which is why it's so important to focus on the positives and continue to make social progress. 

So, faith =/= cult mentality, although it certainly helps. 



ChapterAquila92 said:


> Why strive for any future at all?



Because it is where we will all spend the rest of our lives.



ChapterAquila92 said:


> The way I see it, either you make your own future, or others will impress their own on you. If the future you're given is not to your liking, do something about it or forever rest your peace.



True to an extent. I make my own future by constantly striving for a better future and an improvement in my situations. However, such a view ignores the very real power people can wield over others. So, this is a form of subtle victim shaming, or I not interpreting this correctly? Some people truly exist in circumstances beyond their control - should they "forever hold" their peace?



ChapterAquila92 said:


> The Catch-22 of civilization for you. It sucks to be the farmer who's breaking his back in the fields in order to feed everyone, but the flip side is that he's able to more consistently gather far more food than an army of foragers in the same amount of space and time.



They're not breaking their backs anymore. One farmer can run a 1,000 acre farm these days with giant tractors and GPS driven drone implements. And lots and lots of toxic chemicals. And yeah, a forager society wouldn't work with this many people. We'd quickly just eat everything out of oblivion and cause even more damage than we currently exact.



ChapterAquila92 said:


> Either that or shun the outside world and fade into irrelevance like the Amish or the North Sentinelese. It's hardly beyond me that there will similarly also be communities of bio-conservatives who flat-out reject augmentation, but when morphological freedom is universal it really doesn't matter what they do with their bodies, and most people under that circumstance aren't going to see much of an advantage in remaining un-augmented if they choose to be part of the wider world.



Fallacy of extreme example. We do not need to shun all technology, or embrace all of it. I'm perfectly capable of using some technology and rejecting others, such as a personal voice assistant that is always listening to me. However, this ignores the ethical questions we need to be asking ourselves. What future will genetically engineered humans bring about? Telomere treatments? What are self-driving cars going to do to the trucking industry, currently one of the foremost employers of blue collar workers? 

We just keep creating new technology and racing forward with it, leaving the human condition behind in shambles to deal with the moralistic and ethical consequences. 



ChapterAquila92 said:


> Either way, the problem isn't that there is a widening technological gap between the rich and the poor - that's an unfortunate symptom of it - but that the current socio-economic and political systems are not adapting fast enough to handle the impact that the technology is having on everyday life.



Yes, that's true enough. Our political system is slow and ponderous and can't react as fast as technology is created. But see my previous point - we humans almost can't keep up, either.


----------



## Saiko (Dec 1, 2017)

BahgDaddy said:


> Because it is where we will all spend the rest of our lives.


I’m just gonna chime in and obnoxiously point out that you answered a rhetorical question here.


----------



## Simo (Dec 1, 2017)

Huh, if we have double standards, can we gave triple, and even quadruple standards? : P

I will have to ponder this.

Maybe we can have infinite standards, even.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Dec 1, 2017)

Saiko said:


> I’m just gonna chime in and obnoxiously point out that you answered a rhetorical question here.



Yes. In debate, I treat rhetorical questions as actual questions, to try and keep people actually saying what they mean. 



Simo said:


> Huh, if we have double standards, can we gave triple, and even quadruple standards? : P
> 
> I will have to ponder this.
> 
> Maybe we can have infinite standards, even.



We're all full of contradictions for various reasons. Analyzing and understand those contradictions not only helps us understand others, but ourselves as well.


----------



## Ramjet (Dec 1, 2017)

Double standards?

Naw,it's just the new normal in 2017...

Men=shit
Women=godlike,can do no wrong

That is all


----------



## Simo (Dec 1, 2017)

BahgDaddy said:


> We're all full of contradictions for various reasons. Analyzing and understand those contradictions not only helps us understand others, but ourselves as well.



It's almost as if out of the irony of all these myriad contradictions, that the self emerges, in some sense.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Dec 2, 2017)

Simo said:


> It's almost as if out of the irony of all these myriad contradictions, that the self emerges, in some sense.



A very wise thing to say, I think.


----------



## Simo (Dec 2, 2017)

BahgDaddy said:


> A very wise thing to say, I think.



Though I'm too sleepy to try to explain why : P


----------



## BahgDaddy (Dec 2, 2017)

Simo said:


> Though I'm too sleepy to try to explain why : P



I feel like what you meant was something along the lines of, we are all full of contradictions, because we are all constantly trying to act and believe different things. Our beliefs may at times contradict each other, and then our actions may contradict our beliefs, but we rationalize them somehow. In the totality of the things we do, think, and believe, the self emerges. At least that is my interpretation.


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (Dec 2, 2017)

BahgDaddy said:


> True to an extent. I make my own future by constantly striving for a better future and an improvement in my situations. However, such a view ignores the very real power people can wield over others. So, this is a form of subtle victim shaming, or I not interpreting this correctly? Some people truly exist in circumstances beyond their control - should they "forever hold" their peace?


Herds are not worth my time, but I'd be loath not to acknowledge that few people have it in them to think for themselves when it matters most, and fewer still have it in them to be natural leaders.


> They're not breaking their backs anymore. One farmer can run a 1,000 acre farm these days with giant tractors and GPS driven drone implements. And lots and lots of toxic chemicals. And yeah, a forager society wouldn't work with this many people. We'd quickly just eat everything out of oblivion and cause even more damage than we currently exact.


Farmers today can certainly live better these days thanks in large part to automation, but bear in mind that for most of history that was not the case. Since the agricultural revolution, farmers were breaking their backs starving compared to the rest of the population who benefited from their labour. It's a far cry from the otherwise idyllic hunter-gather society, but when the alternative is for everyone to starve to death fighting over food scraps because there's too many people and not enough food available, most people would rather that a few people suffer so that the greater whole can thrive.


> Fallacy of extreme example. We do not need to shun all technology, or embrace all of it.


I'm curious to know what led you to that conclusion, because even the most extreme example I gave still uses technology, however primitive it may be.

The North Sentinelese are a bit of a tragic case, even. Being marooned on a remote island with limited resources for thousands of years has left them in a perpetual stone age and with a fear of the outside world, seeing outsiders as hostile invaders to be driven off.

The Amish? They prefer to keep to pre-industrial technology out of a belief that it is what God would have wanted, shunning most outside innovations where they can avoid it. Health is health however, and I am aware of many Amish communities turning to gene therapy to counter the seclusion-related problems of in-breeding.

In principle, bio-conservatives are the new Amish. They'll use technology alright, but not when it is integrated into the body itself for reasons other than health.


> However, this ignores the ethical questions we need to be asking ourselves. What future will genetically engineered humans bring about? Telomere treatments? What are self-driving cars going to do to the trucking industry, currently one of the foremost employers of blue collar workers?


However you want to approach obsolescence is up to you. So long as at least one subset of humanity's children can and is willing to carry on our legacy, I'll be content working to that end.

As for automation, there is a token of irony in the fact that the jobs being replaced require workers that are cripplingly overspecialized machines anyway. As algorithms, humans are needlessly complicated for the specialized tasks of the modern workforce. With that said, prospective blue collar workers ought to be taking a serious look at becoming technicians or repairmen instead (my two cents on the matter).


> We just keep creating new technology and racing forward with it, leaving the human condition behind in shambles to deal with the moralistic and ethical consequences.


Then it would therefore be imperative that we improve the human condition, beginning with the faculties of health, education, and social welfare. If it means empowering the blind to see and the lame to walk, so be it. If it means that those same enabling tools can also be used to improve an able man's performance, so be it.


> But see my previous point - we humans almost can't keep up, either.


And what exactly is your solution to this problem? If you have any alternatives to what I've been doing my best to explain over the past few posts, let's hear it.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Dec 4, 2017)

ChapterAquila92 said:


> Farmers today can certainly live better these days thanks in large part to automation, but bear in mind that for most of history that was not the case. Since the agricultural revolution, farmers were breaking their backs starving compared to the rest of the population who benefited from their labour. It's a far cry from the otherwise idyllic hunter-gather society, but when the alternative is for everyone to starve to death fighting over food scraps because there's too many people and not enough food available, most people would rather that a few people suffer so that the greater whole can thrive.



Everyone suffers to an extent. The main goal from a utilitarian perspective is to increase happiness broadly and as much as possible. Basically speaking that ethical viewpoint looks at consequences over actions. But from a deontological perspective (reasons matter more than consequences) we would say that no, it's not okay for farmers to suffer while people in the city flourish, and all suffering is bad.

It's an issue, and it's also not. But the main point is - don't ignore the impact farmers have on the nation. I used to be one, so if you have any questions in that regard, I'd be happy to answer them.



ChapterAquila92 said:


> I'm curious to know what led you to that conclusion, because even the most extreme example I gave still uses technology, however primitive it may be.
> 
> The North Sentinelese are a bit of a tragic case, even. Being marooned on a remote island with limited resources for thousands of years has left them in a perpetual stone age and with a fear of the outside world, seeing outsiders as hostile invaders to be driven off.
> 
> The Amish? They prefer to keep to pre-industrial technology out of a belief that it is what God would have wanted, shunning most outside innovations where they can avoid it. Health is health however, and I am aware of many Amish communities turning to gene therapy to counter the seclusion-related problems of in-breeding.



Yeah, everything is technology in that sense. The wheel is a form of technology, as is fire and the screw and so on. The North Sentinelese are indeed a tragic example. Can you blame them for hating everyone, though? Look at what happens to all the other tribes due to people "good intentions." Missionaries come in and corrupt their way of life and thinking under the guise of help and assistance. What they're actually doing is assimilating a people to become part of the soulless machine of capitalism. The government comes in, if applicable, and also looks down on them as "other people," "backwards," "uncivilized," etc. And "uncivilized" is basically an automatic term, because "civilization" involves agriculture, politics, religion, cities, etc. and they have none of those. Of course they're uncivilized. Now we have to ask, is that a bad thing? I'd say no, it's not.

The Amish are hypocrites, for the most part. They pay English people, as they call us, to drive them around, they own tractors and some of them even use electricity in their shops. 

However, shunning technology of various sorts doesn't make one a hypocrite. I should really shun my cellphone - there's suspicions it can cause inner ear damage, mild cancer, and lower sperm count. However I use it too much to get rid of it.



ChapterAquila92 said:


> However you want to approach obsolescence is up to you. So long as at least one subset of humanity's children can and is willing to carry on our legacy, I'll be content working to that end.



I don't plan on approaching obsolescence at all, nor do I believe we should work toward such an end. Or, what do you mean by obsolescence?



ChapterAquila92 said:


> As for automation, there is a token of irony in the fact that the jobs being replaced require workers that are cripplingly overspecialized machines anyway. As algorithms, humans are needlessly complicated for the specialized tasks of the modern workforce. With that said, prospective blue collar workers ought to be taking a serious look at becoming technicians or repairmen instead (my two cents on the matter).



Many blue collar workers already are technicians and repairmen, so what do you want them to do, and who are you to tell them what to do anyway? The working class sector already got trashed by automation and overseas competition for various tasks, especially in manufacturing of furniture, electronics, etc. So what is this - the new human condition is people becoming technicians to serve the machines? Aren't the machines supposed to serve us? 



ChapterAquila92 said:


> Then it would therefore be imperative that we improve the human condition, beginning with the faculties of health, education, and social welfare. If it means empowering the blind to see and the lame to walk, so be it. If it means that those same enabling tools can also be used to improve an able man's performance, so be it.



You seem to have contradicted yourself here. We should always improve the human condition - is transhumanism the way to do it, or will that level of technological attainment destroy our soul? Personally I believe a society in line with nature is the most healthy. Nature already has a lot of the solutions figured out, we just have to learn how to listen. Sometimes technology beautifully implements with nature. Solar panel and windmill technology are great examples of this.



ChapterAquila92 said:


> And what exactly is your solution to this problem? If you have any alternatives to what I've been doing my best to explain over the past few posts, let's hear it.



I wanted to have you explain your position to me so I could see if I understood it adequately. I still feel like liberal democracy and human civil rights are the best way to go. Human rights are the framework - thus far, you've shown me lots of explanations about why technology is good and inevitable, but not what we're going to do about the ethical consequences. That's where human rights steps in. (The argument that these are abstract concepts is immaterial - we decide what we want to make material in this world. Human rights become quite concrete when we act on them, such as when we stop discriminating against black or LGBT people.)

For instance, we will have a human-wide discussion about what to do about CRISPR gene editing technology. We could conceivably made GMO humans now. Who gets that blessing? Is it a blessing or a curse? Will we be creating genetic super humans? Odds are, some country with appalling human-rights track records like China or Saudi Arabia is already working on that. 

Then the people of the country vote for people that they believe represent their best interests, who coordinate with knowledgeable experts in the various fields, and we enact policy that's in line with what's best for humanity - under ideal conditions, of course. 

Granted this requires populations that aren't composed of ignorant people. But that's why I believe my method is better, because it will allow us to deal with whatever quandaries technology throws at us, which is why it's so important to avoid slipping into a theocratical or other authoritarian government system.


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (Dec 6, 2017)

BahgDaddy said:


> Everyone suffers to an extent. The main goal from a utilitarian perspective is to increase happiness broadly and as much as possible. Basically speaking that ethical viewpoint looks at consequences over actions. But from a deontological perspective (reasons*actions* matter more than consequences) we would say that no, it's not okay for farmers to suffer while people in the city flourish, and all suffering is bad.


FIFY. I'm sure we can both agree that utopia is no justification for genocide.

In the classical perspective, perhaps, but until the impossible goal of eliminating suffering altogether is achieved, there will always be some degree of permissible harm. It's by no fault of the farmer to suffer, nor is it the fault of the city to reap the benefits, but so long as suffering is unavoidable it is permissible that harm comes to as few people as possible, and unfortunately for the farmer he drew the short straw.


> It's an issue, and it's also not. But the main point is - don't ignore the impact farmers have on the nation. I used to be one, so if you have any questions in that regard, I'd be happy to answer them.


The analogy has run its course and its significance has since been lost and forgotten.


> Yeah, everything is technology in that sense. The wheel is a form of technology, as is fire and the screw and so on. The North Sentinelese are indeed a tragic example. Can you blame them for hating everyone, though? Look at what happens to all the other tribes due to people "good intentions." Missionaries come in and corrupt their way of life and thinking under the guise of help and assistance. What they're actually doing is assimilating a people to become part of the soulless machine of capitalism. The government comes in, if applicable, and also looks down on them as "other people," "backwards," "uncivilized," etc. And "uncivilized" is basically an automatic term, because "civilization" involves agriculture, politics, religion, cities, etc. and they have none of those. Of course they're uncivilized. Now we have to ask, is that a bad thing? I'd say no, it's not.


All empires, religions, and economies measure their success in terms of converts. The simple fact that you and I alike are benefiting from the legacies of those who won our ancestors over suggests that "cultural corruption", as you so put it, is par the course, and this neologism we've built for ourselves of every culture being something precious fails to take into account how our own have been shaped by assimilative processes as conquered and conqueror alike.


> The Amish are hypocrites, for the most part. They pay English people, as they call us, to drive them around, they own tractors and some of them even use electricity in their shops.


An understandable mistake in assuming that a group is monolithic when in truth it has its own internal schisms over doctrinal disputes.


> I don't plan on approaching obsolescence at all, nor do I believe we should work toward such an end. Or, what do you mean by obsolescence?


Retirement, or otherwise outliving one's usefulness in the workplace.


> Many blue collar workers already are technicians and repairmen, so what do you want them to do, and who are you to tell them what to do anyway? The working class sector already got trashed by automation and overseas competition for various tasks, especially in manufacturing of furniture, electronics, etc. So what is this - the new human condition is people becoming technicians to serve the machines? Aren't the machines supposed to serve us?


The ultimate end of automation is to _end_ human employment altogether. As efficient as automation is however, the cost of automating the maintenance and repair of those same machines, barring the development of advanced self-replication, leads to diminishing returns. And as I said, most blue collar jobs, with the exception of those with the most generalized set of skills, are machine-like anyway.


> You seem to have contradicted yourself here. We should always improve the human condition - is transhumanism the way to do it, or will that level of technological attainment destroy our soul? Personally I believe a society in line with nature is the most healthy. Nature already has a lot of the solutions figured out, we just have to learn how to listen. Sometimes technology beautifully implements with nature. Solar panel and windmill technology are great examples of this.


Remember that transhumanism, like humanism, theism, and animism before it, is not a singular belief but a broad spectrum of many, and some branches happen to be synchretic with your own vision for the future.


> That's where human rights steps in. (The argument that these are abstract concepts is immaterial - we decide what we want to make material in this world. Human rights become quite concrete when we act on them, such as when we stop discriminating against black or LGBT people.)


The day we stop discriminating against token groups is when we reduce them to fashion statements, apparently.


> For instance, we will have a human-wide discussion about what to do about CRISPR gene editing technology. We could conceivably made GMO humans now. Who gets that blessing? Is it a blessing or a curse? Will we be creating genetic super humans? Odds are, some country with appalling human-rights track records like China or Saudi Arabia is already working on that.


Chances are that a nation that develops the capability will have an advantage over its neighbours, regardless of whatever moral objection you have towards the practice. It's no different from any other arms race - if it's not done for the betterment of mankind, then it will be done to ensure that your people or regime isn't so easily conquered by someone else. At that point, the only moral law is that of survival; that which strengthens and improves the survival odds of your people or regime is good and ought to be promoted, whereas that which weakens and undermines the survival odds of your people or regime is evil and ought to be demonized.

To reiterate, morality means fuck all if you can't properly project or enforce it. Defending the high ground is all for nought if the enemy can turn it into a smoking crater with impunity.


> Then the people of the country vote for people that they believe represent their best interests, who coordinate with knowledgeable experts in the various fields, and we enact policy that's in line with what's best for humanity - *under ideal conditions*, of course. Granted this requires populations that aren't composed of ignorant people. But that's why I believe my method is better, because it will allow us to deal with whatever quandaries technology throws at us, which is why it's so important to avoid slipping into a theocratic or other authoritarian government system.


Under ideal conditions indeed. Any system of government can work if the people are wise, industrious, and moral, whether it be democracy, feudalism, or even fascism. We both know the reality however that most people are lazy and pragmatic opportunists - a nod of our heritage as endurance-based pursuit predators - especially when they're not given a vision to follow. Nothing short of changing human nature itself is going to change this.


----------

